taken by Gage Skidmore

Over the weekend, Democratic operative and CNN contributor, Paul Begala penned an opinion piece for CNN on Iowa Senate candidate Joni Ernst, entitled, “Candidate’s Gun Remarks Should Scare Us.”  In the article, he focuses on a statement made by Ernst during a 2012 address to the NRA: “I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family — whether it’s from an intruder, or whether it’s from a government,should they decide that my rights are no longer important.” To which, Mr. Begala’s learned response is . . .

Huh?

Begala says that the notion that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to fire on local, state, or federal officials is popular among right wing nut jobs, but is scary when it comes from a potential Senator. He quotes a question from a blogger who asks, “Exactly what circumstances would justify you shooting a police officer or soldier in the head?”

Setting aside the needless hyperbole (no one mentioned anything about head shots), it is, Begala allows, a good question.  Begala proceeds to postulate a number of scenarios that have already happened and asks if any of them would be just cause for armed insurrection. In the interest of enlightening an obviously confused person, let’s take a crack at answering Begala’s questions.

“[I]f, say, the Supreme Court stops the counting of votes so as to give the presidency to the candidate who got fewer votes?”

He is, of course, referring to the results of the 2000 presidential election in which Begala along with a number of his Democratic compatriots managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and blew the election for Gore. Granted, Gore did win the popular vote, but this country hasn’t chosen its president by direct popular vote since…let me think…oh yeah — never. The Electoral College system exists for a number of reasons, but one of them is so that even if every tree-hugging liberal in California voted Democrat or every horse-riding conservative in Texas voted Republican, the smaller states with smaller populations would still have a say in the matter.

Gore may have won the popular vote, but he lost the Electoral College math, so he lost the election. This had happened three times before in Presidential elections, but not in the recent past.  The incident that Begala specifically refers to is the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the endless recounts in Florida that Democrats demanded and declare a winner a month after the election had been held.  It’s something that Democrats remain sore over to this day. But I digress.

To answer the question, no, Mr. Begala, you don’t start shooting cops “in the head” over this.

“How about Segregation? If ever American citizens were oppressed by their government it was African-Americans under Jim Crow. Thank God we had Dr. King and not Ms. Ernst leading the civil rights movement.”

Good point. However, two things to consider. First, following Reconstruction after the Civil War, some of the earliest gun control laws were put in place by southern states aimed specifically at depriving black Americans of their right to keep and bear arms. This served to keep them under the bootheel of Jim Crow laws longer than they might have been had they been able to defend themselves from racist white southern sheriffs and sheet-wearing lynch mobs. And yes, when the corrupt local law enforcement came around to string up some poor Black person, the correct response might very well have been a bullet.

Dr. King and other advocates of non-violence were ultimately successful, but only because they were able to generate enough outrage from people across the nation that changes happened. If, on the other hand, much of America didn’t demand changing these horrible laws, the non-violent civil rights advocates would probably have had as much success as this guy:

bp1

“Perhaps Ms. Ernst reserves her bloody right to truly egregious government actions, like ensuring affordable health care, even to folks with pre-existing conditions?”

Really? Guess when you are a has-been political operator, you gotta check all the boxes on the Democratic platform list of hot-button issues. But since you asked, Paul, let me try to shed some light of situations where the ability to put up a fight may have been helpful.

Perhaps shooting back might be called for when police round up and arrest protesting college students, handing them over to a cartel who kills them and dumps them in a mass grave. Or maybe it might be called for when a government subverts the democratic process by placing the opposition candidates under house arrest and then brutally suppresses protests. There’s also that little matter in Tienanmen Square that I alluded to above.

Sure, you might say, but all those things happened in countries with totalitarian governments. Yes, that is the case with the latter two, but even with its history of corruption, the Mexican incident shocked people like you won’t believe. During this drug war, many police and federal officials have been relieved of duty for things they have done. So, yes, I think this may be an example of when its fair to take up arms against officials. Lots of Mexican locals seem to be thinking along the same lines.

Besides, for those who think it could never happen here, I suggest you read about the Battle of Athens (Tennessee) which took place in 1946. This was a situation in which local party officials effectively controlled the town and the elections until some WWII vets got their hands on some firearms and changed the course of political history in that town. Granted, this was almost 70 years ago, but I would argue that even today, government will seek to overstep its authority unless challenged.

Consider the much more recent decisions by the Governors of New York, New Jersey, and later Illinois (all Democrat-controlled nanny states – yes, even NJ) to unilaterally decide to imprison American citizens returning from West Africa for a 21 day period to guard against Ebola.  Never mind the fact that there is not a single documented case of person-to-person transmission in the U.S. other than the two nurses who were deeply involved in the care of an Ebola patient for an extended period of time. Not one person who was on either of the flights for taken by Amber Vinson has tested positive nor has anyone else (so far) that had come into contact with her or with Nina Pham, the other nurse infected.

Governor Cuomo in particular has a habit of running his state like a private fiefdom, never letting the rule of law get in the way of implementing his agenda. And Christie isn’t much better in this regard. Both governors “know what’s best for us.”  Granted, the vast majority of the population doesn’t have a problem with any of this in the case of Ebola, largely because they aren’t going to be personally affected by the quarantine and Ebola scares the hell out of most people (me included).  The point, however, is that it’s unclear whether the governors of NY, NJ, or IL have any more authority to quarantine American citizens merely as a precautionary measure than governors Brewer or Perry would have the authority to order the National Guard or their respective state police to secure the Mexican border.

It’s pretty clear that these elected leaders have overstepped their authority, but this didn’t stop the organs of government (police, etc.) from unquestioningly executing those orders. Granted, the politicians in question have already backpedaled on this issue, but the people cannot always rely on pressure being exerted from outside entities to force politicians with Napoleon complexes to rein in their ambitions. Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy really made a mess of things and it took quite a while for true lawfulness to be restored. Some of the things that government agents perpetrated in the name of “security” during those events were highly questionable, if not outright illegal.

Begala runs down the typical anti-2A path of linking firearms ownership to service in the militia. He explains that the whole reason for the Amendment’s existence was to protect the militia as Jefferson and many other founders would not have wanted a standing army. Begala correctly notes that a peacetime standing army such as we have today would have been anathema to the framers of the Constitution. What he fails to say is that the large police forces fielded by many cities including Bloomberg’s “seventh largest army in the world” would also have been anathema to the Framers. It’s probably also safe to say that the founders would be appalled by the nanny/welfare state the U.S. has become.

Essentially, Begala is implying that since we have a standing army, we have no need for the Founders’ “militia” and since firearms ownership is tied to membership in the militia, there is no right of personal gun ownership. Furthermore, the Founders would never have supported the concept of taking up arms against the government. To support this assertion, he cites the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791.

The Whiskey Rebellion came out of the Federal Government’s decision to raise a tax on distilled spirits to pay off the debt incurred during the Revolutionary War.  Western farmers who often distilled excess grain resisted the tax under the guise that it was one more tax without representation as it was imposed by the Federal government, not the local one.  Some minor skirmishes were fought and there were armed protests against tax officials.  Ultimately, George Washington led a force of 13,000 militia soldiers to put down the rebellion.  By the time the force showed up, most of the protesters had gone home, so no real fight occurred and only a few arrests were made.

Begala cites this example of the Framers’ intent that federal laws should never be opposed by the people under force of arms.

Let’s think about that statement for a moment.

I seem to recall a similar situation where colonists, finally tired of government interference decided once and for all to oppose that government by force of arms.  It seems to me that there were certainly a lot of colonists who were “shooting police and soldiers in the head” during that little dust up we call the Revolutionary War. In fact, if memory serves correctly, Washington, himself had some small role in that minor affair.

In fact, I would argue that the incident of Washington’s flip flop in approach between the Revolutionary War and the Whiskey Rebellion demonstrates exactly what can happen even to a “good man.” Washington was all about fighting the power until he became the power and then he would not tolerate dissension.

So, Mr. Begala, am I suggesting that the Second Amendment preserves the right of the people to take up arms against their government when that government stops serving the people and insists that the people serve it? While I hope and pray that it never happens, I think that it’s important to preserve the right and ability to do just that. This county was born out of that very action and it is the implied (although highly unlikely) threat of it happening again that is one more factor to keep self-interested politicians from overstepping their authority. That said, I consider this an implied threat at best. With our current back-and-forth political party system, I don’t see something like that happening – at least not on a large scale. As experience has taught us time and again, there are always bad apples in every bunch and just because they happen to be wearing a badge doesn’t mean that we have to do what they say without protest.

Joni Ernst is a Republican candidate for the Senate in an election year where the Democrats increasingly fear that the American people’s disgust with the actions of the Dear Leader over the past six years is going to cost them their power. As such, they will say and do anything to hold back the flood including mining a sound bite from two years ago in an attempt to disparage their opponent.

I expected nothing less from a Democratic operative, but I hope the people of Iowa are smart enough to see through this kind of election year politicking. There may be many good reasons not to vote for Ernst, but this shouldn’t be one of them. I think the notion of electing someone to Congress who really understands the intent of the Framers and the Second Amendment is not a bad thing.

50 Responses to Paul Begala Demonstrates Profound Ignorance. Again. Still.

  1. Maybe the civil rights movement would have come sooner than later if early gun control (targeted at black people) was shut down by the court system. It’s much easier to participate in peaceful political protest if you know your neighbors can’t lynch you the next night.

    • I don’t suppose the author of this gem mentioned Kings attempts to attain a pistol permit as a critical part of his non violent strategy? The fact that he was denied despite overwhelming evidence of his need. Or the fact that King was surrounded by armed supporters nearly constantly? A peaceful protest works a lot like international politics in that behind the speeches demands and eventual handshakes and photo ops is substantial fire power. The ability to inflict harm is implied in everything from peace talks to trade agreements. Hell! Even buying a used car is dictated by threats! The threat of not buying that unpopular sedan helps you drive the price down while the threat of not selling you that red coupe helps him drive the price up. Credible threats make the world go round 🙂

      • Why, I’m sure if he had applied in New Jersey they would have found MLK to have “proved need” for a pistol permit. That is, if he had some friends in the political hierarchy (which Democrats always seem to have).

      • Nah, mentioning anything about Dr. King doing anything not exprssly non-violent would not have supported Begala’s narrative.

  2. Excellent post. Could have mentioned the internment and expropriation of all property from a 100,000 Japanese citizens.

    • Good point. Since obviously ‘fealty to the homeland’ was not a significant factor triggering Japanese-American aggression (there was little to none of this activity), we darn near invented one for them with the Internment program. I’ve often wondered if it wasn’t in fact a sly way of trying to trigger an armed uprising, in order to justify true genocide, that backfired because those people were too polite about being screwed over (they still had all their stuff stolen, though). As monstrous as the Germans were in their racism, it is important to remember that very similar elements were present in American politics (and government) leading right up to and during the war. American politicians needed boogeymen to justify policy just as badly as the Germans did.

      I suppose one might think it would be overly crass of FDR et. al. to pull off something like this, but this was the same guy who evacuated the cities of young, able bodied men and shuttled them to far off boonies where they wouldn’t be seen in the papers rioting for bread (and practically as forced labor, since it’s not like Uncle Sam would pay for your bus trip back from Hoover Dam if you quit your job). Also the same man who tried to pack the Supreme Court and outlawed freakin’ gold in one of the most brazen national thefts in history.

  3. Great article, less the aside on Ebola quarantines. The whiny nurse from Maine can spend a couple weeks watching Netflix in her apartment without it violating her Constitutional rights.

    • Her complaint is that the measures being taken are not put in place through scientifically sound reasoning. That it is the result of fear rather than reason. And the process of an Ebola infection is rather well understood. Like the flu it can accurately be predicted when an infected person is contagious. The steps being taken now do seem extremely over cautious given what is known about Ebola. Just remember… When some disaster strikes and the over cautious authorities egged on by an angry and ignorant populace come to disarm you it’s ok. Disarming a populace during times of unrest is a well established action from the days of the founders.

      • Although we believe we have a firm grip on how Ebola is transmitted and when it is contagious, it is far from a “settled science.” But even if we do definitively know these issues, logic still supports a temporary quarantine of individuals who are known to have been exposed to Ebola. I think everyone would agree that to prevent the spread of Ebola here or elsewhere, individuals who are known to be infected need to be identified and then quarantined during treatment. Additionally, I think everyone would agree that you must also identify those who were in contact with that person while he was contagious to determine if they are symptomatic and, if not, to subsequently monitor them to ensure they do not become symptomatic. The disagreement is whether those individuals should also be quarantined while they are being monitored for the 21-day period. My take: an individual could become symptomatic and, therefore, contagious before reporting themselves as such and then being quarantined. When that happens, you then have go through the process of identifying the individuals who they were in contact with while they were symptomatic and then monitor them. If you simply had quarantined the individual in the first place, then you can end this process earlier and without jeopardizing the health or civil liberties of additional people.

    • But she wasn’t going to be quarantined at home. Rather, shecwas unceremoniusly dumped in a hospital. The issue I was raising was not whether the decision was medically sound but whether Christie had the right to do it in the first place.

      If you really think that a Governor has the right to implement any measure he thinks is in the best interest of public safety, then you must be a gun control supporter.

      • If you are concerned about controlling an Ebola outbreak you must be a gun control supporter (hmm… such is the “logic” of an NRA supporter)

    • That’s where I pulled over and exited the vehicle, too. On my way down to the comments, I saw mention made of the Whiskey Rebellion, but I’m not going back up to finish after that jarring and uncalled for Ebola quarantine detour.

      • States absolutely have the right to quarantine when there is a perceived public health risk. We quarantined astronauts for 21 days in the early days of the space program. This nurse exhibited a fever upon entering the country. She is of the sme entitled class as the NY Doctor who “self quarantined” while going to the Bowling alley, riding the subway, and jogging. All with a fever and active Ebola infection. If your going to help others in a hot zone, you have to be reasonable on the return.

        Gov. Perry also has the right to defend his border in the absence of Federal presence. Check out the TX Constitution.

  4. Dr. King preached non-violence in the struggle for equal rights. He carried a gun for self defense.

    Quarantine is a long standing public health measure accepted by the founders. There is no certainty about how infectious Ebola is.

    • “Dr. King and other advocates of non-violence were ultimately successful, but only because they were able to generate enough outrage from people across the nation that changes happened.”

      Sorry, I lived through that time period. Dr. King was successful because although he advocated non-violence, he wasn’t the leader of all the protests going on. There was a lot of violence, and that shocked and scared a lot of the white folks in good neighborhoods with no clue of what the blacks were going through. Having the armed Black Panthers patrolling their own neighborhoods in defiance of the police and marching into the CA legislature was a wake up call– even more so were the various race riots around the country. Including a race riot onboard a US Naval aircraft carrier while in port in the US.

      I’m sorry, I don’t believe Dr. King’s non-violent effort would have succeeded on it’s own– or at least it would have taken much longer.

  5. Had me until Ebola.

    “Never mind the fact that there is not a single documented case of person-to-person transmission in the U.S. other than…”

    Yeah, that “other than” keeps popping up. Before the “other than” it was “there won’t be any cases in the US.” Then when that failed it was “Well… there won’t be any cases of it being transmitted here, because we’re ready for it.” Then when that failed it was “Well, the nurse must have made a mistake with the protocols.” Then “Well, the protocols may not be perfect because we don’t know how the second nurse got it either… but we still know it’s not easy to catch!”

    The whole point of a limited quarantine as a safeguard is that some of us don’t accept that the talking heads know everything they say they do and realize humans make mistakes. The idea is not to panic, it’s to head off a panic.Quarantines much more severe than this have been imposed throughout the history of the US. Have them be humane, ideally in-house and with government funding but the limited nature (21 days at most) is enough for me to be okay with it (with court approval, of course).

    • Except all the nurses and docs at Emory, NIH, Nebraska, and Bellevue are symptom free also and walking around their cities. Hundreds of them. Somehow the idea of quarantine for them doesn’t make sense for the next patient right? The healthcare folks best able to treat them would be confined to home or parking lot tent. Why would you ignore this troublesome fact?

      • You do realize that it’s possible to quarantine the entire treatment facility? Right?

        Quarantine of personnel exposed to highly dangerous diseases has been a part of common law for millennia. (Roman empire comes to mind.)

      • Not everyone in those hospitals had direct contact with the Ebola victims in question. The people being quarantined coming over from Africa did… and in conditions that everyone agrees are less sterile than those at the NIH.

        • that is absurd. you obviously know nothing about either the disease or how it is being treated. those treating patients in africa established the protocols. the level of ignorance is off the chart.

          you also fail to understand the 2a connection here. if the state can place you under house arrest for no scienctific reason just fear , then they can detain you for open carrying cause you MIGHT be a danger in the future.

        • What’s absurd is thinking that they even get close to following (sound) CDC protocols in 99% of Africa. The only ones with the money to do that are MSF and US military orgs. The average African health worker is not even close to having adequate PPE to deal with a fraction of the patients they see. Let alone that they seen them before they present symptoms that are 100% diagnosable as Ebola. Let alone that there are not a fraction of the beds to deal with this in Africa, let alone that of those beds, none of them are even close to as adequate as the half-assed-train-wreck-hot-mess in Houston. I remember hearing the moron in charge of that hospital talk about how safe their protocols were, and when seeing them I almost died from perverse laughter. Anyone with the vaguest clue knew their protocols were pathetic. Oh, and if you think we’re 100% on al methods of transmission, you might want to do some reading. We’re in the ballpark, but we haven’t counted the seats yet.

          The State placing you in a short, defined quarantine for relatively good odds (compared you being a spree shooter) of transmitting a deadly contagion with no known cure is actually rather sane. You have voluntarily gone to the Moon. You get quarantined. You have voluntarily gone somewhere to help with an incredibly deadly disease, that could readily wipe out a majority of the US population – thanks for your service, enjoy the hotel for the next 3 weeks. We’ll buy the pizza, and anything else that slides under the door.

          If this little defined hold in public rustles your jimmies, you should learn how easy it is for the gov to bury it’s enemies in the Orwellian system of INS prisons. Nobody will ever find you.

  6. A lot to wade through. I agree with most all of it. Except the Ebola crap. Now the military going to west Africa will have a 21 day quarantine when they return. We really don’t need another Typhoid Mary.

  7. Federal appellate judge Alex Kozinski, dissenting in Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002):

    “All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 578-579. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.”

    “My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

  8. “Gore may have won the popular vote, but he lost the Electoral College math, so he lost the election.”

    To clarify, Gore won the national aggregate vote, but _not_ the vote in Florida.

    After the election, a group of journalists did a hand recount of every last ballot in Florida, a process that took them a few weeks.

    And the result?

    Bush won by 300 something votes.

    As usual, the Democrat / Progressive / Liberals demonstrated their need to work on their coping skills…

  9. “Exactly what circumstances would justify you shooting a police officer or soldier in the head?”

    Easy, ask this question of a German Jew who survived the Holocaust. Pretty sure they could give a few clear examples.

    People like this guy don’t worry about the .gov going bad, cause he’d be first in line for his armband. He’s already chosen a side.

  10. The point, however, is that it’s unclear whether the governors of NY, NJ, or IL have any more authority to quarantine American citizens merely as a precautionary measure than governors Brewer or Perry would have the authority to order the National Guard or their respective state police to secure the Mexican border.

    A few inconvenient facts to rebut this “stuff”:

    – The governors of NY, NJ, or IL have every right to quarantine American citizens as a precautionary measure if a credible potential for epidemic exists on the recommendation of their State Department of Health. Remember SARS? Remember polio? Remember typhoid? The Spanish Flu? Of course, that would offend our customers in West Africa, so our esteemed President used the MSM to browbeat them into reversing their precautions. I stay home a lot now.

    – Governors Brewer or Perry have the authority to order the National Guard or their respective state police to secure their section of the Mexican border. And Governor Perry did just that. And INS turns the people they caught loose. Go figure.

    • Credible potential? Find it for me. What nobody harping on this woman can say with any credibility is that she may be infected. Credible information points to no.

      • If they’re right she loses three weeks of being able to walk around town and has to catch up on Netflix. If they’re wrong- as they have been on several occasions- someone else could very well die. Maybe more than one. Our general health care system is not prepared to deal with Ebola, as evidenced by the cases in Texas. Hopefully it won’t be long before there is a vaccine; until then isolation is the best defense.

  11. The Declaration of Independence:

    …That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…

    • That’s exactly what I was thinking. The answer to the question posed is simply this: “Read the Declaration of Independence.”

    • Very true, but I think people like Ernst need to be more careful with their wording, as they give many the impression that they are saying that if they are arbitrarily decide that the government is being oppressive, they have every right to start shooting government people.

  12. This is why CNN is so popular you can’t even get it on Dish Network. (Nobody has noticed though.)

    • I have dish network…and I actually have never noticed this. Never gone looking for cnn, never have found nor failed to find it.

      That’s kinda sad.

  13. The Second Amendment doesn’t “give” anything, it protects what is a pre-existing right. That said, it does not protect a right to just fire upon government officials unless the circumstances are really warranting it. It is primarily to, as Jefferson points out in the Declaration of Independence, about checking the government if it becomes an “absolute tyranny.” Otherwise, everyday someone could justify shooting a government official somewhere, as every day the government is somewhere infringing on someone’s rights. Which would mean anarchy. If the government turns into a variant of the Assad regime and is slaughtering people, then yes, you can take up arms against the State. Otherwise though, such violence only is a recipe for a tyranny to form as that is usually what happens when a representative system of government breaks down.

  14. Robert farago, you forgot the Danzigger (sorry for spelling) bridge incident after hurricane Katrina. Text book case where lethal force against police was not only justified but would have been moral and just.

  15. The Federal government is fond of telling other countries in the world that it reserves the right to use military force, and it’s not taking any “cards off the table”.

    We, the People, will never give up the right to abolish our current form of government and replace it with one of our choosing, and we aren’t taking any cards off the table either.

  16. “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
    Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

    The winners not only write the history books, they also conduct the trials of the losers for “treason”. The “treason” of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et. al. would have cost them their lives at the hands of those loyal to George III, had the Revolution failed.
    Armed rebellion against an existing government must always be a last resort, to be taken only when all other actions have failed. The stakes cannot be any higher.
    No state that truly represents the people, and protects their Liberty and rights, need fear those people being armed. That properly functioning government should welcome an armed populace as defenders of a just government and enforcers of its just laws. Only a government with evil intent against its people need fear its people with guns at hand.

  17. “It can’t happen here” is the worst attitude to take. Chances are, it won’t. But if it does, it’s nice to be prepared.

  18. As long as we have our guns, we have some degree of safety from government tyranny. Yes, our firearms have a powerful deterrent effect. Which is why the statists want to take them away from us.

    So as to the question “Exactly what circumstances would justify you shooting a police officer or soldier in the head?” The answer is “When they come for our guns.”

  19. Guys, this is really simple. The Left is good with left-wing revolutionaries taking up arms against right-wing governments. This is why you hear so much, “we need to understand their demands” whenever the Left is in the field fighting (see IRA, Cuban communists, Shining Path, FARC, al Qaeda).

    But when right-wing rebels take up arms against a left-wing government? It’s time to scorch the earth (see Sherman’s march to the sea or the Nicaraguan Contras).

    This is also why the Left screeches when a Republican candidate for Senate in a flyover state says something entirely historically correct about the 2A, but 99% of the country has no idea that a Black Panther has been sitting in the US Congress since 1992.

    If you claim to rule in the name of The People, then you can commit no sins. If you claim to rule in the name of Authority, then it’s off to the guillotine with you.

    So showing him the Declaration of Independence will do you no good, for it is plain that the DoI is a left-wing document when put in the context of opposition to George III, and the DoI is a right-wing document when put in the context of a national USG gone amok in the name of The People.

    In sum, I strongly recommend against shooting any representative of USG in the head or anywhere else. As long as our country remains in thrall to the Left, there will be no quarter for right-wing rebels, and if any kind of a rebellion catches on, it’s likely not to go well for any of your friends, children or associates either. Dresden and Hiroshima show us what the Left is capable of when flighting the right, and it’s a lesson we should well learn.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *