SCOPE NY

Briefings  from SCOPE President, Tom Reynolds

  • 01/11/2021 12:22 PM | Anonymous

    The 25th and Impeachment  by Tom Reynolds

    SCOPE’s purpose is to defend the Constitution with an emphasis on the 2nd Amendment.  There is a lot going on with the Constitution that will eventually affect the 2nd Amendment. 

    Perspective is often lacking in political debates.  The media is running on amped up emotion with calls to end Trump’s presidency, prematurely.  Let’s take a moment and add some perspective.

    Pelosi and Schumer are leading the charge to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the President. There are several problems with this;

    As currently constituted, the Vice President, Mike Pence, must lead this effort.  Pence says he will not do it.  End of conversation?

    If Pence did do this, Trump would only have to officially say he is able to do his duty and he resumes the Presidency.  The VP and Cabinet could try again and then it goes to Congress to decide, meeting within 48 hours.  It then takes a two-thirds vote of Congress to find the President disabled.  Even if successful, Pence would only be the Acting President for the remainder of the term.  (That’s what the Constitution says, not what you’re hearing from the media.)

    The Constitution says the President must be unable to perform the duties of the office.  The 25th as well as Article II Section 1 of the Constitution clearly state “inability”.  There is no doubt that this term meant disability and not dislike of his actions. It would be an unconstitutional “coup” to do this over dislike of a Presidents’ actions.  (That’s called a Banana Republic, which is definitely not in the United States Constitution.)  

    If Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were familiar with the Constitution, and there is grave doubt that they have ever read it, they would know that calling for the 25th is, in this instance, only political posturing.  Political posturing with the United States at stake?  Say it aint so, Nancy, say it aint so!

    Lacking the 25th, now Pelosi and Schumer aim at Impeachment (again).  And again, there are some issues worth exploring.  Primarily, the process takes time and there is only a week and a half left in Trump’s term. 

    Why try it with such little time remaining?

    Some Democrats scream that Trump might start a nuclear war.  Yeah, right!  It’s more likely Nancy Pelosi will resign from office, give all her hundreds of millions of dollars to the poor and become a Nun. 

    Do they want to tar Trump as the only President to be impeached twice?  Which also means he could be the only President to be acquitted twice.  (Remember, it takes two thirds of the Senate to convict.)

    With the short time available, there likely is not enough time to hold the trial before January 20th.  But there is one precedent for holding an impeachment trial after leaving office: In 1876 the Secretary of War’s impeachment trial happened after he left office.  (He was acquitted.)

    Would they hold an impeachment trial after January 20th?  Why?  Trump is already out of office and the purpose of impeachment is remove him from office.  Well, not quite.  There is another aspect to impeachment.

    Trump has threatened to run in 2024 and 74 million people voted for him this time around.  But if convicted of impeachment, the Constitution says that he would be disqualified, “… to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States…”  He couldn’t run in 2024.  If Trump fraudulently lost the 2020 election, are the Democrats afraid that he would be elected in an honest election?  (Grover Cleveland did this split term presidencies and Trump would be Biden’s current age in 2024.)  Is Pelosi’s and Schumer’s real purpose to deny the American people the opportunity to choose their own President?  The Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court decisions come down hard to preserve the right of the people to choose their elected officials.

    Let’s speculate on other possible motives.  The Democrats control all the levers of federal power.  Their Socialist policies have never worked while Trump’s were successful.  If the economy is bad in 2024, do Democrats fear that people might long for the good old Trump days? 

    In politics and life, what goes around comes around.  The charges against Trump would be some version of “Inciting riot”.  In 2022, the Democrats could easily lose control of both the House and the Senate.  Kamala Harris would still be the Vice President. Last year, during the height of riots that caused a dozen deaths and billions in damages, she said those riots should “…not end.”  (This is not taking her words out of context, she really said and meant that.)  Sounds a lot like “Inciting riot”.  If it applies to Republican Presidents it surely applies to Democrat Vice Presidents.

    But most importantly, and something which is being completely overlooked, the Constitution is based on the Separation of Powers.  Each branch of government has its own powers and the other branches are not allowed to intrude on those powers.  One branch may not like what the other branch says and does but they are bound, under their oath to uphold the Constitution, not to intrude on those powers.  The Democrats have already tried to break down this constitutional barrier with the first Trump impeachment, which was a trial without a crime. 

    First of all, they shouldn’t attack one of the centerpieces of our Constitution, Separation of Powers.  Second, what goes around comes around.  A Republican House and Senate with Joe Biden as President in 2022 might like the precedent set by the Democrats, and even expand upon it.  That of course would not be good for the United States but if politicians always did what was good for the United States we would not be in this situation.

    Pelosi and Schumer don’t seem to realize that the United States is not a parliamentary republic and impeachment is not a parliamentary “vote of confidence” but they seem to want to treat it as a “vote of confidence”.

    With an epidemic, a recession and a change in administrations happening, don’t Pelosi and Schumer have something better to do with their time?

  • 01/07/2021 7:12 PM | Anonymous

    Thoughts on Yesterday  by Tom Reynolds

    Yesterday, I heard that the DC protesters had invaded the Capitol Building so I turned on TV.  There were videos of looting, burning, graffiti, people screaming in police officers’ faces, Molotov Cocktails, cars and dumpsters being burned…oh wait…that was a rerun of a Black Lives Matter / Antifa riot from this past summer.  Yesterday was nothing like that although equally inexcusable.

    To many of us, the history, values and traditions of the United States are sacred.  It was saddening to see videos of the Capitol Building being treated with such disrespect.  It was especially saddening if it was being done by people who believe strongly in those same values and traditions that the Capitol represents. We can hope that, if there is a real investigation, we will find out that it was outside agitators - whose only purpose was to create the chaos - that sparked this.  We have come to expect – but not excuse - yesterday’s events from the radical left but it should never come from those on the right.

    Earlier this week, A pro-Second Amendment Congresswoman was widely criticized in the media for wanting to exercise her right to bear arms in the capitol.  We were told that she didn’t need a handgun for protection because the building was secure.  Yet, thousands of protesters stormed the building and overran security.  Thankfully, she did not need to use her firearm.  These events demonstrate that none of us can be sure we can count on the police as our exclusive means of protection.  

    A Congressman commented about the anger and said that, by contrast, House members can disagree but, in the end, they are friends.  He doesn’t understand that his left-wing radical “friends” are trying to destroy the United States Constitution and our 2A rights.  “We the people” obviously take that a lot more personally than some Congressmen do. 

    One message the protesters were sending  – that those inside the D.C. beltway need to understand - is that the left can’t keep pushing and pushing and expect there will never be a reaction.  If they would start to understand that and react accordingly, the tensions would begin to drop.  Yesterday was a warning against unintended consequences.

  • 12/23/2020 11:00 AM | Anonymous

    A Christmas To Remember by Tom Reynolds

    After a devastating defeat in New York City, where surrendering Continental soldiers were bayoneted to death by Hessians, George Washington led his army in a retreat through New Jersey and into Pennsylvania.  At Valley Forge, Washington set up a winter camp and pondered his next move.  The enlistments of the bulk of his army were due to expire in a few weeks and there was little hope of many reenlistments; not just because of the devastating defeat in New York but the army was undersupplied in almost every area.  Many soldiers had no shoes and had been wearing the same clothes – now rags - for months.  Food was scarce.  Defeatism ran through the army.

    There is no record of Washington contemplating giving up but, certainly, some of his top generals must have contemplated getting the best possible terms from the British and surrendering.

    Instead, Washington gained control over whatever negative emotions he had and formulated a plan, which led to the most important Christmas in American history.

    In the early evening of December 25, 1776, the Continental Army loaded onto boats, in a freezing rain storm that lasted all night.  They crossed the ice clogged Delaware River in three groups; one group did not make it across and while a second group did make it across, it turned around and went back.  Only Washington’s group was able to march to the attack.

    Hours behind schedule, with one-third strength, they arrived at their target, Trenton New Jersey.  Officers reported that the ice storm had soaked the muskets and many could not fire because of wet powder.  These officers suggested that the attack be abandoned.  Washington’s reply was the equivalent of “fix bayonets”.

    While the enemy was yawning and waking up, they were suddenly attacked.  The Continental Army, in rags with long hair and matted beards all coated in rain and mud, came screaming down on the Hessians; it must have looked to the Hessians like the army-from-hell had come from the depths to kill them.  The battle was brief and the Hessians surrendered. 

    There would be another winter of deprivation at Valley Forge and a worse winter at Morristown in 1779-80; that was the coldest winter in 400 years.  But in 1776, in what was the potential breaking point of the Revolutionary war, when all hope seemed to be lost, Washington did not lose hope.  He and his army persevered and they eventually won.  They set an example that should live today: we’re Americans; beware; we’d cross a frozen river on Christmas to kill our enemies. 

    Today, many are dejected and in a funk over the results of this past November’s election.  Morale is cratering.  Summoning the energy to continue the fight to preserve the Constitution seems beyond some people’s wills.  To them it would be easier to surrender to the likes of Alexandria Octavio-Cortez and tell her, “You win.  We give up.  Do with the USA what you will.”   

    We need to remember that many of us took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  That oath had no expiration date!  If you didn’t take that oath, it’s no too late to commit yourself to that principle. 

    Thomas Paine wrote, “These are the times that try men’s souls.  The sunshine soldier and the summer patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman”.

    Are you a sunshine soldier and summer patriot that will find other excuses to occupy your time, in this modern crisis, and let the Constitution be shredded by the forces of Socialism?  Do you believe our current situation is less winnable than it appeared on Christmas morning, 1776? 

    Paine also wrote, “Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered, but…the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph”.  Did anyone believe that the Socialist lust for power would just go away and die when confronted?  Did people believe that Donald Trump could take on the entire Washington swamp by himself?

                When we were born in the USA, we won the lottery!  It’s time to pay the price of that lottery ticket.

    Enjoy the holidays.  Reenergize and decide whether or not you are a “sunshine soldier” and will surrender to A O-C or if you are willing to stand up and fight for the USA: its Constitution; its traditions; its future; and your family.  The choice is clear - get engaged or surrender.

    Merry Christmas from SCOPE.  Stay safe.  Enjoy your family and friends.     


  • 12/22/2020 1:01 PM | Anonymous

    Gun Violence As A Health Crisis by Tom Reynolds

    We know that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, as well as their administration and the Democrat leadership, are all anti 2nd Amendment.  We tend to focus on ways they can directly attack 2A but their indirect actions are just as dangerous to constitutional rights -and perhaps more deadly since they go unnoticed until too late.

    In the name of a national health emergency, Democrat governors and mayors have attacked several rights safeguarded under the Constitution and Biden has pledged to do likewise in the name of “Listening to the medical experts”.  They experimented to see if there would be any limits to their power if they told Americans their health was at stake and the government knew best how to protect them.  They found out that their power has few limits when they make it a health issue. 

    If it works against other rights, why not attack 2A as a health crisis?

    Start with Biden’s nominee for Surgeon General.  Surgeon Generals are supposed to be dedicated doctors and not political hacks in search of power.  Right?  Biden nominated Dr. Vivek Murthy to reprise the role he filled as U.S. Surgeon General during the Obama administration.  (When you hear that someone was an Obama appointee, the hairs on the back of your neck should be standing on end.)  During the Obama administration, Murthy tried to have gun violence treated as a public health issue.

    Then add an anti-2A Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Enter California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra as Biden’s pick to lead HHS.  (Becerra’s predecessor as Attorney General in California was…Kamala Harris.) Trump appointed a leading pediatric surgeon, Dr. Ben Carson, as his HHS Secretary.  Becerra’s health care experience is limited to being in favor of abortion.  (But he can always seek advice from Dr. Jill Biden.  Sarcasm intended.)

    Becerra spent the past few years defending his far-left state’s strict gun laws, such as California’s ban on military-style “assault” weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.  Oh yeah, before becoming California’s Attorney General, he represented uber left-wing Los Angeles in Congress, where the NRA rated him “F”.

    With the resources of a trillion dollar agency to pick from, Becerra will have little trouble finding money to research gun violence as a public health issue.  Since researchers know that results favorable to those funding the research is the way to keep money flowing, it is certain that the “experts” will find that increased gun control is the answer to gun violence.

    Becerra does have one obstacle, the 1996 “Dickey Amendment” that reads, “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”  But if Democrats win both Georgia Senate elections, expect “Dickey” to be a dead duck.

    Given the opportunity, Biden and his minions will talk about gun violence as a national health crisis. Remember, Biden has pledged to listen to the medical experts on Covid, so it would be easy for him say he is listening to the medical “experts” on gun violence as the rationale for fulfilling his campaign promises to attack 2A.   

    Attacking 2A through health and medical channels is being tried by others, too.  Bills were introduced in 2020 in both the New York Assembly and Senate to require a mental health exam in order to buy a firearm.

    The entrance to Hitler’s concentration camp at Dachau had the sign, “Arbeit macht frei” (Work sets you free.)  Biden’s concentration camp for the Bill of Rights will say “Listen to the medical experts”.


  • 12/22/2020 12:59 PM | Anonymous

    Sunday’s Paper by Tom Reynolds

    Censoring news stories, for political purposes, has been in the news. (And should be!)  SCOPE sends out these emails to alert you about things that are censored, minimized, buried or ignored in news stories.  We try to inform you, on a timely basis, so you don’t have to wait for monthly magazines.  The following highlights are from Sunday’s Gannett newspapers.  Although not all about 2A, these stories demonstrate that media censorship isn’t confined just to 2A; they will censor anything contrary to their agenda.

    A frontpage headline dealt with the rollout of the Covid vaccine and what a huge project it is.  Completely omitted is any mention of President Trump and his administration’s role in developing and distributing the vaccine in unprecedented time.  And absolutely nothing about Trump fulfilling his promise to have it available this year.  (A promise that met with great derision for the media.)

     An Op-Ed lavishly praised the Biden -Harris administration with the headline “Honesty and integrity return to presidency”.  But nowhere in the entire paper was there a mention of the Hunter Biden story which involves Joe Biden in business schemes with the Chinese that would compromise his integrity.  (Isn’t that what the same media talked of – without proof – about Russians and Trump?)

    The liberal media now refers to it as the Biden-Harris administration and not the Biden Administration.  Do they now believe that Biden will not finish his term?  A topic they avoided prior to the election – and they still don’t openly discuss.

    The Elmira version of Gannett featured a story about how corrupt the local voting practices were in 1905 and, in response, how the leaders of the Democrat and Republican parties reached a bipartisan agreement to clean it up.  It’s only in the last paragraph that it’s mentioned that the agreement lasted only one year because it didn’t work.  (But praise be to political bipartisanship.  Luckily, we don’t have voter fraud in 2020 – it all magically disappeared after 2016!)   

    Another article stated that Biden intends to reenter the Paris Climate Accord (Trump pulled us out).  It stressed the urgency of action.  Not mentioned is that China, the world’s largest carbon emitter, will be increasing its emissions until 2030 under the accord.  (So much for urgency.) 

    The previous Sunday had an article titled “EU greenhouse gas emissions down 24% since 1990”.  The “European Green New Deal” and the “Paris Climate Accord” got significant space, hoping that the credit for the reduced emissions would reflect on those projects. There was no mention of what actually caused the reductions until the very last sentence of this very last paragraph.  “This drop was driven mainly by…gas”.  Whether you like hydrofracking or not, and the left-wing media does not, it’s the primary driver of reductions.  But let’s bury that fact since it is contrary to the left’s narrative.

    What’s not on the paper, besides Hunter Biden? 

    Kim Gardener, the George Soros funded, St Louis Circuit Attorney who was prosecuting the McCloskeys for defending their property, with guns, against an Antifa / Black Lives Matter mob, has been removed from the case by a judge.  In fact, her entire office has been removed.  The judge said she violated statutory law and prosecutorial rules of conduct.  (Now, if only a judge would also help Kyle Rittenhouse...)

    Portland Oregon now has an “autonomous zone”, much like the one in Seattle (CHOP), last summer.  Apparently, Portland’s protesters learned from Seattle and they have set up multiple barriers, are stockpiling shields and defensive gear and have laid down homemade spike strips to puncture car tires.

    Congressman Eric Swalwell was heavily involved – perhaps sexually - with a Chinese spy (who has since fled back to China). Swalwell sits on the house Intelligence Committee and has access to the highest levels of secret intelligence.  Nancy Pelosi refused to remove him from that committee.  (I wonder if American spies in China are nervous, knowing that they might have been pillow talk for Swalwell?)

    Biden intends to reenter the Iran nuclear deal but Iran’s President says their nuclear weapons program is non-negotiable and Iran also wants reparations from the USA for Trump’s withdrawal from the deal.  (I wonder where he got the idea for reparations!) 

    Raphael Warnock (one of the Democrat candidates in the Georgia Senate election) is accused of anti-Semitism.  In a stunning example of in-your-face, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have been invited by the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] to a virtual “vote-a-thon” aimed at encouraging Georgia Muslims to vote for Warnock in the Jan. 5 run-off elections.  (Omar, Tlaib and CAIR have been embroiled in anti-Semitism controversies.)


  • 12/22/2020 12:57 PM | Anonymous

    If We lose Georgia by Tom Reynolds

    On Friday, Curtis Cappellano wrote about the ever changing and more inclusive definition of an “Assault Weapon” (the definition is evolving, to use far-left terms).  This continued “evolving” has some very threatening consequences for the 2nd Amendment and highlights why the January election of Georgia’s Senators is so important. If Georgia sends two Democrats to the Senate, the Democrats will have 50 Senate seats and control both houses of Congress and the presidency, so they can run wild with anti 2A legislation. 

    The Democrats legislative agenda would probably include a wide variety of proposed laws against our 2nd Amendment rights.  Certainly, bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines as well as “mandatory buy-backs / confiscation” are being widely pushed by Democrats.    

    NY’s very own Senator Chuck Schumer has threatened that, under Democrat control, the Senate would do away with its Filibuster Rule.  Democrats only need 50 votes to get rid of the Filibuster rule, which requires 60 votes to end a Filibuster.  (Hey, I’m only reporting the rules I didn’t make them up.)   With no ability to filibuster, there would be no way for Republicans to stop anti 2A legislation from passing.

     

    If Democrats control both houses of Congress, that frees “The Swamp” to take action against 2A without the threat on Congress stopping them - especially action by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE).   One such possible action: what if the BATFE changed technical descriptions under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and reclassified most semi-automatic weapons as “machine guns.”  Virtually every semi-auto rifle – and many pistols – would then be required to be registered under the NFA.  What’s interesting – and threatening – is that those weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986 would technically become illegal because no “machine gun” manufactured after that date can legally be registered.  Tens of millions of semi-automatic guns would suddenly be illegal and millions of gun owners would become criminals if they did not turn in their weapons.  (Rest assured, the government would have buybacks to help ease the pain of having your gun confiscated.  But don’t complain of being depressed over it or New York will confiscate your other guns under Red Flag laws.)

    We can probably expect other executive actions of a President Biden. One of many probabilities would be reentering UN Arms Trade treaty.  President Obama signed this but Congress never approved it, as it takes a two-thirds congressional vote to approve treaties.  (Trump withdrew the president’s signature.)  Even with Biden’s signature, it would still lack the two-thirds necessary for approval of a treaty, but would create interesting legal issues.  Would Biden try to use his executive powers to enforce it anyway?  Would individuals and countries sue the USA over alleged violations?  Would the UN attempt to enforce it?

    Without a gun rights majority in the US Senate, (if Republicans lost both Georgia elections), there would be little that Congress could do to prevent such executive actions. 

    Of course, we could turn to the courts to stop this blatantly unconstitutional gun grab.  That is, you could sue if you have a million bucks to finance the lawsuit.  Who’s got a million bucks?  Mostly, just the NRA – and now you know why NY State’s Attorney General is trying to dissolve the NRA; take away the money to fund lawsuits and the only options left are compliance or insurrection.

    And besides, under a Biden-Harris administration and with Democrat control of both houses of Congress, the left would eventually fill the courts with left leaning, anti-gun judges who believe the Constitution says what the left wants it to say, not what the Founding Fathers intended.  In other words, the BATFE would succeed in making gun owners into criminals and the 2nd Amendment would become obsolete.

    There are over 677 federal district court judgeships, 179 federal Appeals Court judgeships and 9 federal Supreme Court judgeships that are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate.  President Trump appointed about 300 of these in the past four years.  If Republicans control the Senate, they can veto any far-left, anti 2A nominees for judgeships.  If both Democrats win in Georgia and Democrats control the Senate, nothing will stop the appointment of judges who do not believe in the Constitution. 

    All of this increases the possibility of widespread non-compliance with gun laws and heads us into the area of insurrection.  It’s easier to vote than shoot!  Many NY gun owners missed that voting opportunity in November and we need to motivate them in preparation for two years from now.  In addition, anything we can do to help motivate Georgians to vote against the gun grabbers would be wise.


  • 12/22/2020 12:54 PM | Anonymous

    The History of Assault Weapons by Curtis Cappellano

    The definition of a so-called “assault rifle” or “assault weapon” changes as needed – or more specifically, as leftists redefine words to fit their agenda.

    Originally the term assault rifle was a term Germans used in World War II for their lightweight, select fire, box magazine fed machine gun – the Sturmgewehr. It was a propaganda term attributed to Hitler that was meant to instill fear.

    The term assault rifle was changed to assault weapon around 1989. Prior to 1989, the term “‘assault weapon” did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. “Assault weapon” is a political term developed by anti-gun advocates to convince people that some guns are too scary, effective, ergonomic (or something), for U.S. citizens to own and the term was used for the advancement of gun control legislation.

    In 1994 the federal assault weapons ban was enacted which defined an assault weapon as a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine (that had the appearance of a machine gun) and had TWO “scary evil features” such as a foldable stock or a bayonet lug. Some other guns were thrown in, as well, such as shotgun with a revolving cylinder.  (The law was repealed in 2004 as even the left recognized it was ineffective.)

    Then came the 2013 NYS “un”SAFE ACT, which defined an assault weapon as a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine that had ONE “scary evil feature”, such as a foldable stock or bayonet lug. Do you see how the assault weapon definition is changing?  Don’t stop reading.

    Now the NY State Bar Association is pushing the trend further by their definition of an assault weapon as “high-powered semi-automatic firearms that are capable of autoloading a new cartridge into the chamber after the gun is discharged,” with NO evil features specified! (November 2020). As it is written, it includes handguns too. (https://nysba.org/nysba-recommends-new-laws-to-reduce-mass-shootings)

    This interpretation is also being used by Maura Healey, the Attorney General of Massachusetts, who interprets “copies” of the AR-15 or AK-47 to be assault weapons, even if they have NO evil features.  But she says she won’t enforce a confiscation for grandfathered rifles at this time.  (And the time is 11:40.)

    So now you see the “assault weapon” definition evolving (creeping) as the leftists change it to meet their agenda. Next the attempt will be made to include all semi-automatic rifles (we are seeing this trend now), even currently compliant ones, as well as semi-automatic shotguns and semi-automatic pistols.

    The next time someone says the term “assault weapon”, tell them that term is a garbage term. It’s made up and manipulated by politicians and gun-grabbers so that they keep changing it to suit their agenda.


  • 12/10/2020 1:42 PM | Anonymous

    The Problem of Self-Interest in Congress by Harold Moskowitz

    There is a long standing but growing problem facing our legislative process; self-interest of the legislators.  When the Founders set up a government based upon virtue, it was expected that legislators would represent the interests of the district which elected them.  The assumption was that after one or two terms these representatives would return to private life where they could pursue self-interest.

    Today, it would be hard to find virtue in the Washington “Swamp.”  Many in Congress have become “career politicians.”  Personal interests are often represented, not those of the People.  Many legislators - of both political parties - often enter Congress as “middle class” but after decades in office they and close family members often become multi-millionaires.  During their time in office, their allegiance is often to the industries which funded their campaigns or contributed to their personal wealth. Financial connections to foreign-owned corporations also can affect their legislative functioning while in office.  In addition, promises made before an election are often broken after the election.

    After attaining retirement, with a large taxpayer funded pension, many become highly paid “lobbyists” representing the interests of the same industries which helped to fund their campaigns.  The problem of allegiance to corporate interests is widespread and needs to be addressed through meaningful reforms.

    There needs to be term limits added to the Constitution.  In addition, there needs to be a stronger post-retirement “lobbying” law which would place restrictions on post-retirement “lobbying.”  For instance, the law could prevent “lobbying” for ten years after the retirement date. 

    Those who claim that elections already serve the term-limiting function fail to realize the power of “name/face recognition” and, especially, the greater access to campaign funding for incumbents to aid in their reelection.  There is already a two-term limit for Presidents.  Why not for legislators?

    Members of Congress will neither propose a term-limiting amendment nor pass one on to the states for ratification.  When a new amendment is needed, the Framers gave us an alternative method for overcoming this type of resistance from Congress.  Article V of the Constitution allows for the states, in lieu of Congress, to propose necessary amendments.

     If important reforms are not made in our legislative process to deal with the growing threat of using public office for personal gain, then fewer citizens will think it necessary or worthwhile to be involved in the election process.  Yet, now more than ever, the survival of our constitutional republic requires their involvement and participation.


  • 12/10/2020 12:59 PM | Anonymous

    The New Socialism (Part 2) by Tom Reynolds

    On Monday, I wrote about the new “Democratic Socialism” differing (or not) from the “Old Socialism” of Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Kim Jong-un.  It pointed out how the “new Socialism” still believes in using the government’s power to punish those who have a difference of opinion (in spite of the 1st Amendment protecting quaint ideas like “Freedom of Speech and Religion”.  The “Old Socialism” leaders practiced another standard, that the rules didn’t apply to them.  Will the new “Democratic Socialism” do away with this inequality? 

    Under the new Democratic Socialism:

    • California’s Governor Newsome dined indoors at an exclusive restaurant (the “French Laundry”) after telling Californians not to dine indoors;
    • San Francisco Mayor London Breed gathered with friends to dine (at the same “French Laundry”), after telling San Franciscans to not gather to dine;
    • San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo attended a big gathering after telling people to cancel big gatherings; 
    • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went without a mask in a beauty parlor after chiding the American people to wear masks; 
    • Senator Diane Feinstein went without a mask at an airport after calling on the Federal Aviation Administration to adopt "mandatory" mask mandates at airports.

    In case anyone believes I am intentionally picking on California, there are others worth mentioning.  Under the new Democratic Socialism:

    • D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser traveled to an election celebration in Delaware after it was put on a high risk travel advisory;
    • Austin Texas Mayor Steve Adler told people in Austin not to travel in a message he sent from Cabo San Lucas Mexico; 
    • Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot got a haircut after ordering Chicago’s salons and barbershops to close down;
    • Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s husband sought to use his wife’s position to circumvent restrictions to get the family boat in the water.
    • Our own “Dear Leader” Andrew Cuomo traveled to a mandatory quarantine state (Georgia) and then did not quarantine himself. 

    The new “Democratic Socialism” political leaders want to save us and the way to do that – in their minds – is to put them in charge.  Shouldn’t we expect them to obey the rules they set for us and operate within legal constraints?  They seem to believe in legal constraints similar to those in Russia in the late 1930’s, where Stalin’s opponents were all legally tried before being executed; it’s not important that the trials only lasted ten minutes.

    But we have the Constitution to protect us, right?  Except for left wing judges who believe the Constitution says what the left wants it to say, not what the Constitution’s authors meant when they wrote it. 

    New Democratic Socialist leaders would give more power to the government - and the UN - to act in our best interests and protect us.  What better demonstrates the hypocrisy of Democratic Socialism than putting John Kerry in charge of Climate Change policies.  You remember Kerry - he’s the guy who shuttles between his wife’s several mansions in her private plane and commutes around in SUV’s.  First stopfor Kerry will probably be a visit with Governor Newsom to discuss climate change - over dinner at the “French Laundry”. 

    Georgia is on the 14 day quarantine list.  Let’s see how many politicians and celebrities quarantine themselves after visiting Georgia before the January congressional elections.  Oh, I forgot – they’re essential.

    If there is a motto for the new Democratic Socialism it is, “Do as I say, not as I do”.  They don’t seem to be aware of, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. 

    Do these socialists ignore their own rules simply because they can or because the rules are just an excuse for control and have no valid purpose?

    One thing for certain is that we can never trust what the new Democratic Socialist’s tell us.  So, when they say we don’t need a gun, we need a gun!


  • 12/10/2020 12:58 PM | Anonymous

    The New Socialism by Tom Reynolds

    One of the first acts of Socialist tyrants is to get rid of their political foes – or anyone they believe might potentially become a political foe.  Imprison or execute your foes; Stalin did it; Mao did it; Hitler did it; Kim Jong-un does it.  Socialist sociopaths didn’t invent that strategy, it goes back through the ages.  Roman emperors did it.  European kings did it.  France’s Robespierre did it.  Russia’s Ivan the Terrible did it.

    But that was Stalin’s, Mao’s, Hitler’s and Kim’s “Old Socialism”.  We now have the benefit of “Democratic Socialism”, which is new and different from its predecessors – or so its proponents would have us believe.  But is it?

    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for the archiving of the public statements of Trump supporters, tweeting, “Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future”?  (An elected representative in a democratic republic is setting the stage for retribution against fellow citizens for the crime of holding a different opinion.)

    Evan McMullin ran for president in 2016 (remember him?).  He recently said, “We should keep and publish a list of everyone who assists Trump’s frivolous and dangerous attacks on the election”. (This came from a guy who spent the last four years calling Trump a Fascist.)

    Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin wrote, “Any R now promoting rejection of an election or calling to not…follow the will of voters or making baseless allegations of fraud should never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into polite society. We have a list”.  (Senator Joseph McCarthy is vilified by the left for saying, “I have a list…”  Of course, he referring to a list of Communists.

    Others vow to make sure we, “Remember What They Did…we’re launching the Trump Accountability Project to make sure anyone who took a paycheck…is held responsible for what they did.”  A project leader tweeted, “WH staff are starting to look for jobs. Employers considering them should know there are consequences for hiring anyone who helped Trump.”  The project’s website defined, at one time or another, those that should be held accountable: anyone who voted for Trump (all 70 million?); anyone who worked for the Trump for President campaign, Republican National Committee and affiliated PACs; anyone who worked for President Trump in any role as a political appointee or who donated to his campaigns; any Administration staffer, campaign staffer, bundler or lawyer who represented the Trump administration. Their list even includes nonpolitical staff in the Trump White house such as secretaries, calligraphers, and stenographers.  The goal is to prevent anyone associated with Trump from ever being gainfully employed again.

    Will Trump supporters have to wear a MAGA patch as the new equivalent of the star of David that Jews wore under Hitler?

    This movement should not come as a surprise to anyone.  From the very start of Trump’s presidency, the “Deep State” has gone after anyone associated with Trump.  The message was clear, if you work for Trump – or are Trump - the “Deep State” will destroy you.  (Does the Deep State sound like a form of the Old Socialism where the government elite have complete control over every other citizen’s life, rights and actions.  After all, they know best and would never work in their own self-interest.  Note: sarcasm intended.)

    The effort was not limited to Trump supporters but included the President and his family.  Remember the investigations into Trump’s tax returns for years past by Socialist officials from deep blue states (where they will not suffer any retribution).  Not to mention, the entire Russia hoax.  And do not believe that it will stop when Trump leaves office; the “Deep State” needs to send a message that anyone who challenges their power, even a legally elected President of the United States, will pay, sooner or later.  

    Our Founding Fathers recognized that government, especially big government, is the most dangerous foe to individual rights.  Only government can legally imprison you and execute you.  The founders set up a system of government to protect us from that government, but those protections will not survive a Socialist government that is allowed to ignore the Constitution and laws. 

    The Socialists are making a list and checking it twice, they’re going to find out who they believe are naughty or nice – and the former will pay! 

    Which, by-the-way, is why we have a 2nd Amendment. 


A 2nd Amendment Defense Organization, defending the rights of New York State gun owners to keep and bear arms!

PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

SCOPE is a 501(c)4 non-profit organization.

{ Site Design & Development By Motorhead Digital }

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software