Sundance over at The Conservative Treehouse brought to my attention an effort by some House Republicans to increase private security for members of Congress. The Treehouse links to an article from Politico that describes one budgeting option that would grant as much as $25,000 each month to individual lawmakers so that they may “have access to around-the-clock personal security.” These security guarantees would be in addition to current levels of federal spending for lawmakers’ safety — including those funds that assist Capitol Police in partnering with state and local law enforcement.
Over a haunting still image that shows defenseless Ukrainian immigrant Iryna Zarutska sitting on a North Carolina train just before a black man brutally stabbed her from behind and murdered her last month, Sundance poses this question: “What incentive exists to make sure American society is safe from domestic regional violence, if the representatives of the regions don’t ever have to concern themselves with such matters?”
It is an excellent question. It is astounding to me that Democrats (and squishy RINOs) can get up in front of television cameras and demand gun confiscation while insisting on taxpayer-funded security details for themselves. Ordinary people can’t afford private security. That’s precisely why they have a natural right to defend their lives in the best ways that they can — and why the Second Amendment explicitly protects that right in the Constitution. Lawmakers who walk around with armed guards have no business disarming citizens.
Before Nancy Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez moans, “It’s different because members of Congress are public figures,” allow me to say, “Hogwash!” Most Americans can’t identify federal lawmakers. Even the more famous ones look completely different in real life without an inch of makeup on their faces. But try walking down certain city streets with a red “Make America Great Again” hat for everyone to see! Or try waving an American flag in neighborhoods filled with foreigners who view that flag with contempt!
Regular Americans understand that they are sitting ducks in some parts of the United States. If Kyle Rittenhouse had been unarmed amid the Antifa-BLM riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin five years ago, he would not be alive today. Because of his heroic actions, Democrat politicians have painted a target on Kyle’s back for the rest of his life. Why should members of Congress receive thousands of dollars of taxpayer-funded security each month when Kyle does not?
This brings us to a larger point. Why should members of Congress be insulated from the consequences of their destructive policies? In the Rittenhouse case, the Antifa-BLM riots of 2020 caused billions of dollars in property damage and resulted in numerous deaths across the country. They were the most costly riots in American history. None of the destruction would have occurred had Democrat mayors, governors, and lawmakers not cheered on the arson, violence, and murder.
Vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris and other prominent Democrats in Congress openly promoted leftist fundraising platforms that promised to bail rioters out of jail. It was one of the most brazen examples of elected officials actively inciting violent crimes across the United States — actions that sensible observers would describe as “insurrection” against the U.S. government and the American people — yet no lawmakers were ever held accountable for their crimes.
The same Democrats who fueled that summer of fire and bloodshed simultaneously demanded that regular Americans — including Kyle Rittenhouse — be disarmed. Consider how outrageous those dual policy positions really are. While Democrat lawmakers encouraged Antifa and BLM domestic terrorists to burn down businesses, drag people out of their vehicles, and put Americans in harm’s way, they had the temerity to call for the repeal of the Second Amendment and the confiscation of Americans’ weapons.
Anybody with any appreciation for American history knows that the Founding Fathers included explicit protections for gun ownership within the Second Amendment of the Constitution precisely as a check on government overreach. Their experience with British Redcoats taught them that armed citizens are the ultimate safeguard against government tyranny. Twenty-first-century Americans who have perhaps forgotten why civilian gun ownership is an indispensable component of true human liberty need only look at footage of Minneapolis, Kenosha, or D.C. burning during the summer of 2020 while Democrats denounced armed citizens as “racists.” Lawmakers with security details can survive Democrat-sponsored riots. Ordinary citizens without the “privilege” of self-defense are sacrificial victims.
This Taking another giant step back from the Democrats’ 2020 Antifa-BLM riots, consider all the ways that U.S. lawmakers have made Americans less safe over the last fifty years. Since the ’70s, Americans have consistently highlighted (1) crime and (2) illegal immigration as significant challenges to their way of life. Knowing this, Democrat and Republican politicians have cycled through various promises, lies, and excuses over the last five decades as they pretend to fight crime and illegal immigration while really doing little to address either threat. During the Obama and Biden presidencies, Democrats went so far as to call for open borders, mass amnesty for illegal aliens, the defunding of local police forces, an end to the enforcement of many property crimes, and clemency for violent offenders serving time in prison. Once again, Democrats pushed for these policies while simultaneously demanding that the Second Amendment be repealed and Americans be disarmed.
Lawmakers’ pro-crime policies and “criminal justice” reforms have occurred at exactly the same time that they sense their personal security in jeopardy. Coincidence? Of course not. When you put murderers, rapists, and thieves back on the streets, incidents of murder, rape, and theft rise. When you open up America’s borders to foreign soldiers, narco-terrorists, and America-hating zealots, you get a concomitant rise in industrial sabotage, cartel violence, and acts of terrorism. Members of Congress take one look at the chaos and general threats to their lives and demand around-the-clock personal security. Meanwhile, ordinary Americans living inside Democrat-controlled jurisdictions have to jump through administrative hoops and beg municipal authorities for permission to carry firearms.
To me, it seems only fair that those who intentionally put our country at greater risk should be the first ones to disarm. At the very least, they should not receive the benefits of extra security while dooming regular Americans to lives with less security and greater violence.
Congress’s hypocrisy when it comes to the security of lawmakers versus the security of regular Americans is part of a much broader problem: Lawmakers see themselves as separate from and superior to the rest of society. Adam Schiff and his colleagues apparently believe that they are entitled to commit mortgage fraud with impunity. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar apparently believes that she can commit immigration fraud while putting the interests of Somalia ahead of those of the United States. Nancy Pelosi and the many rags-to-riches members of Congress apparently believe that they should be able to use nonpublic information to make a fortune on the stock market. Lawmakers apparently believe that it is appropriate to flood public schools across the country with illegal aliens who struggle to speak English while sending their own children to well guarded private institutions. In other words, members of Congress insist on one set of rules for the public while exempting themselves from the consequences of the very laws they pass.
America is not a country of kings, queens, and assorted royalty. This is a place in which the people who represent Americans in Congress are meant to have no additional privileges relative to anyone else. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and members of Congress should endure equally the policies they force upon American society. At the very least, they shouldn’t be entitled to armed guards while working to disarm everyone else.
