It Would Seem That the Email Address of Sean Spicer, the so-called RNC “Communications Director”, is a National Secret

There’s a rumor circulating that the Republican Party has a Communications Director by the name of “Sean Spicer”.

Sean Spicer, the communications director for the Republican National Committee (RNC), said conservative talk radio host Mark Levin should ask 2016 Republican presidential candidates questions in debates during the next election cycle… [he said,] “the people who are out there talking to grassroots” should be asking Republican presidential candidates questions in the debates…

“Mark Levin should ask the questions,” Spicer declared…

…He urged listeners to follow him and send him feedback and ideas on twitter to him (@SeanSpicer) and Priebus (@Reince).
Spicer said he could not emphasize how even the simplest suggestion can be adopted and help make the RNC better and more receptive to the concerns that grassroots conservatives, bloggers, and activists have…

I had the idea of interviewing Mr. Spicer concerning his offer to Levin — which the famed author, attorney and radio host has formally accepted — but contacting the “Communications” director has proven more difficult than interviewing Jimmy Hoffa.

Tweeting @SeanSpicer hasn’t worked thus far.

Nor has emailing every permutation of email address I can think of, including — but not limited to:

• sean.spicer@rnc.org; sean@rnc.org; seans@rnc.org; spicer@rnc.org; ssspicer@rnc.org;

• sean.spicer@gop.com; sean@gop.com; seans@gop.com; spicer@gop.com; ssspicer@gop.com;

All of which were returned as undeliverable.

It would seem that the Republican Party’s “Communications Director” is in the Witness Protection Program.

He’s harder to get a hold of than Howard Hughes.

All of which seems appropriate for a GOP that is more out of touch with its conservative base than Michael Moore with his toes.

Hat tip: Mark Levin.

Doug Ross @ Journal

It would seem that the Second Amendment has “too much wiggle room”

It appears that Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is unfamiliar with a little-known document called “The United States Constitution”:

A leaked internal memo from the National Institute of Justice –the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice– shows that none of Obama’s gun proposals will work without registration and forced buybacks amounting to confiscation of Americans’ guns.

The memo illustrates this by showing why high capacity magazine bans, gun buybacks, and “assault weapons” bans have failed to work in the past.

For example, according to the memo, the high capacity magazine bans that were in place from 1994-2004 had little impact because the bans contained too many exemptions. The memo says one of the key errors was that “the 1994 ban exempted magazines made before 1994 so that the importation of large capacity magazines manufactured before 1994 continued [throughout] the ban.”

Moreover, the memo points out that while the price of the magazines rose sharply, it was not driven up far enough to make them “unaffordable.” … According to the memo, for a high capacity magazine ban to succeed Obama needs to ban not only the manufacture and sale of said magazines, but also the importation and possession. There also must be a federal buyback of all high capacity magazines already in circulation to ensure private owners haven’t held on to any covered by the ban.

….the memo says the first “assault weapons” ban failed to work for many of the same reasons magazine bans and gun buybacks failed to work–there was simply too much wiggle room for gun owners. Moreover, the memo says that because “assault weapons” are used in such a low percentage of crimes, the only way a ban can be effective is if it eliminates every “assault weapon” in the country.

According to the memo, the only way to fix it is to couple a ban with “a gun buyback and no exemptions.”

In my readings of America’s founding — including the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers — I don’t recall coming across the term “wiggle room”. I’ll have to review the Bill of Rights and see if I missed it.

The painting (above) depicts Patrick Henry.

Doug Ross @ Journal