Share This Article with a Friend!

Eric Swalwell Nukes His Campaign For President

Eric Swalwell
Rep. Eric Swalwell, the Far-Left California Democrat Congressman who famously reminded gun owners that the government has nuclear weapons should they choose to resist his gun confiscation schemes, is abandoning his nascent presidential campaign.

Swalwell regularly tangled with gun-rights supporters on social media over limits on firearms access. In May, he proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic weapons” and requiring owners to sell them to the government or face prosecution.

After the now-suspended Twitter account of conservative internet personality Joe Biggs tweeted that Rep. Swalwell “wants a war” over the Second Amendment, Swalwell responded, “And it would be a short war my friend.”

“The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit,” the Lefty congressman tweeted, sparking a huge social media blowback.

Julia Manchester and Scott Wong of The Hill broke the story of his departure from the presidential race in advance of Swalwell’s Monday afternoon announcement. This would make Swalwell the first in the crowded Democratic Primary field of 20-plus contenders to drop out.

Although he qualified to take part in the first series of debates late last month, Swalwell has lagged in the polls - never breaking 1 percent in any poll we could find. A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted June 29 to July 1, and reported by The Hill, showed Swalwell polling at zero percent among Democratic primary and caucus voters.

Swalwell is a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a member of the House Intelligence Committee. He was viewed by some commentators as merely a stalking horse for fellow California Democrat Senator Kamala Harris – a role he executed rather clumsily during the first debate by hectoring Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders with calls to “pass the torch” to the Democratic Party’s younger generation of Far Left social justice warriors.

During the debate Swalwell, brought up the fact that he was 6 years old when Biden came to the California state Democratic Party convention and called for the passing of the torch. However, Biden, 76, was not the oldest person on the Miami stage for the Democratic debate. Sen. Bernie Sanders is 77.

Although gun confiscation was his signature issue, Swalwell also competed with Beto O’Rourke for the white self-loathing segment of the Democratic Party base.

"A white guy who doesn't see other identities or understand other experiences should not be president," Swalwell said in an interview with Vice reported by The Hill’s John Bowden.

"I do," Swalwell continued. "And where there would be gaps in my knowledge or my experience, I will pass the mic to people who do have that experience."

Swalwell echoed those comments on Twitter, writing, "I may be 'another white guy,' but I know where there are gaps in my knowledge or my experience and I know when to pass the mic."

The comments were widely mocked by conservatives and other supporters of President Trump, including Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., who retweeted Swalwell's message while adding, "Hard to believe that this isn’t a parody account."

According to The Missoula Current, 21 candidates, including Swalwell and Montana’s Democratic Governor Steve Bullock, have passed the threshold of hitting 1 percent in three qualifying polls or having 65,000 donors. That’s one more than the Democratic National Committee will allow at the debate, so someone would have to be cut, based on the DNC’s complicated system of tiebreakers.

Bullock and Swalwell are among four candidates who are on the edge, Politico reported, although Bullock currently was ahead of Swalwell who had hit the polling threshold in only three polls, compared to Bullock’s five.

As the deadlines for qualifying for the next Democratic debate loom Swalwell was in danger of suffering the humiliation of being bumped from the stage by Governor Bullock, so dropping out was a politically expedient thing for him to do.

Conservatives and Second Amendment rights advocates can rejoice that Rep. Eric Swalwell’s gun confiscation message was not enough to push him to the top of the Democratic primary field or distinguish him from other candidates, such as Harris and Sen. Cory Booker, who have similar plans to try to undo the Second Amendment.  But make no mistake, just because Swalwell is gone from the Democratic debate stage doesn’t mean Democrats will abandon their anti-gun rhetoric or their plans to try to confiscate your guns should they ever obtain the power to do so.

Share this

I'd suggest we remember

I'd suggest we remember Swalwell this way. He proposed the use of military force and even nukes to enforce his will. This "lawmaker" apparently is not sufficiently educated to have heard of the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law of 1878 (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152). It forbids the use of military forces to enforce domestic policies within the United States. If he had ever served his country, he’d understand that nobody in the military would ever fire on peaceable Americans.

That aside, this left coast boy doesn't have the guts to personally confiscate anyone's firearm. Here's my message for the big shot who never served his country and obviously doesn't respect it. He believes he personally has powers specifically forbidden by the Constitution to the whole federal government. As America's supreme law, the Constitution limits federal government authority over citizens.

The term "militia" refers to peaceable, lawfully armed people. They aren't reservists, national or state guardsmen, inactive military or any other organized group. They're civilians. How do we know? The founders would have had no reason to affirm this natural human right to military people because the military already was under complete control of the government. The government owned and controlled the arsenals, ammunition stockpiles and most of the arms. The government also directed their use. To think our founders would feel a need to affirm, to its own military the right to keep bear arms, is as absurd as Swalwell himself.

In this context, the term "infringed" clearly means even the slightest meddling by the federal government is strictly forbidden. Additionally, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The term "incorporated" means even the states are forbidden from meddling in any way with a civilian's right to keep and bear arms.

Therefore, the only option to implement what this big mouthed small fry would do is to declare war on America's firearms owners, all 140 million of them. So, as they say in New York and Connecticut, molon labe. We caught on early to this ninny's little flimflam. He wants no interference with his party's goal of using taxpayer money to fund entitlements. The democrat party needs entitlements to exchange for votes. They fear any discussion of resistance to their will.

Swalwell abandoned compromise but he still needed universal background checks that are impossible to regulate without universal registration. What he needed first was background checks on transfers between mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, and neighbors. He needed inheritances, bequeathals, gifts and sales of inherited collections, however small they were.

A transfer includes sale, giving, lending, returning, renting, or simply handing a firearm to another person or any action that causes a firearm to be transferred from one law-abiding person to another law-abiding person. Those are the voters he hopes to transform into dependents of the government. Once he knows who they are, he'll choose which are allowed to have firearms.

Citizens just becoming aware should open their minds to the fact that the U.S. is very lucky to have more than a hundred million legally armed citizens with half a billion firearms in private hands. They should recognize that these are the most peaceable, lawful people in our nation. Democrats need to look at our open borders, colossal drug trade, scarce law enforcement, timid prosecution, limited incarcerations, gang strength, mental defectives living at home and terrorists roaming the streets. Can anyone even imagine the unbridled carnage if this twerp's goal of total confiscation were to be achieved?

Clearly Swalwell irrationally fears his neighbors and even other citizens who are armed. So every time you vote, think about this. Those who carry out mass murders fear armed citizens and it’s precisely why governments always disarm the governed before they purge the disobedient. Taken together, all the mass shooting deaths from nuts, felons, terrorists and illegal aliens, throughout history for the entire planet, is infinitesimal compared to the total number of civilian citizens murdered by governments. It’s the reason for our 2nd Amendment and throughout human history, it has been a very bad idea to allow any government to disarm its people. And think about the consequences of not voting.