When faced with the realization that one's lies are starting to unravel, the the liar will give himself away.
"Obama also urged the students to “reject these voices” that warn of the evils of government,saying:
Still, you’ll hear voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s the root of all our problems, even as they do their best to gum up the works; or that tyranny always lurks just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule is just a sham with which we can’t be trusted......
A family member likes to tell the story about an evening many years back in which her usually rambunctious young son's silence had become quite conspicuous. Deciding to check on his actions, she called out " So-and -so, what are you doing?".
Her son's immediate reply from another room- "I'm not pouring salt on the windowsill!".
In his speech at Ohio State, Obama went out of his way to tell us that he is not pouring salt on the windowsill. Such behavior is consistent with an individual who is beginning to realize that his "moderate" label which was so carefully protected by the Media has peeled off.
With the timing of a well-executed military operation, Bill Maher took the opportunity to throw the right cross following Obama's left jab with his own claim - That the era of ever having to do battle against a tyrannical government is over, and that even if such an event occurred, nothing would help you stop it:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/04/bill-maher-its-ridiculous-quaint-nonsensical-to-think-2nd-amendment-can-prevent-tyranny/
“Can we get to, first of all, how ridiculous it is for people to think that the Second Amendment protects them from tyranny. Didn’t Waco solve that? We just had the anniversary a couple of weeks ago. Remember Waco? You know what they had in Waco? They had like 1.9 million rounds of ammunition; they had .50 caliber machine guns; they had grenades…What did the government have? Everything else. The winner and still champion – the United States government. Thinking the Second Amendment protects you from tyranny is like thinking the First Amendment protects you from Thor. It’s quaint. It’s ridiculous. It’s nonsensical. And they never get called [on] it!
After Pete Hegseth, a veteran, asked whether Maher could imagine a scenario even in the abstract where liberty might need to be preserved with a weapon, O’Donnell said to audience applause: [ Not shocking concerning the source] “Zero. We’re past it. We’re past it!…This country [is] long past the point where you would ever have to rise in arms against this government.”
The Left revels in dealing with absolutes which make intellectual debate with them an impossible task. To pretend to be under the impression that Waco either exemplifies what many Americans think could happen, or that the result of an event or two proves anything right or wrong, only serves to illustrate that they know that their position has no credibility.
Note that Maher, in his usual manner, cites one single event (Waco) that had nothing at all to do with the rest of the nation. Most of us believe that there may well have been criminal activity going on in the Branch Davidian compound. While this in no way justifies the actions of the operation/siege that ended in the burning to death of I don't know how many of the cult's members, only those who frequent Maher's show would be shameless enough to affect the believe that we can compare the actions of a cult to a possibly widespread resistance across the nation.
Maher's main Leftist-style argument was that possessing privately owned firearms would do not good in the event of a tyrannical government asserting full control. "Better Red than dead" does not mean that people would be better off alive, but that certain things, in that case Marxism, are inevitable that that resistance is futile and at best foolish. There is nothing you can do, so just sit in your homes and hope for the best
Liberals like to pretend that armed citizens cannot help themselves from being subjugated. What they leave out is that only in nations in which the people were either never armed, or disarmed prior to the big push (Germany, USSR for two), were any truly tyrannical governments able to do what they wanted. They also fail to note that no tyrannical movement was ever able to fully subjugate an entire people that had taken up arms. Napoleon's "Bleeding Spanish Ulcer" is only one example of what a people can do to grind down a force of vastly superior strength in arms and troops. In recent decades, we watched the Afghans make things more than difficult for the Soviets, and they have no intention of giving up to our coalition forces either.
Leftists often try to employ negative arguments to prove their point, such as stating that nothing can be done against the US or any other national military, but they ignore that no non-tyrannical Western nation has ever even made an attempt to crush the people. If no Western people in the modern era has had to use their own weapons to protect their liberties, then you can't say that it won't work.
The American colonies never had more than roughly 25% of the population fully committed to the cause of Independence., yet the most powerful nation of its time - one that had an incredible force projection capability, could not do much more than hold major cities and occasionally chase the Continental Army around the place.
The American colonies never had more than roughly 25% of the population fully committed to the cause of Independence., yet the most powerful nation of its time - one that had an incredible force projection capability, could not do much more than hold major cities and occasionally chase the Continental Army around the place.
A Western power trying to subjugate almost half of a people? ( The number in the second article suggest 44% of Republicans fearing that this may happen*) That is a horse of a different color. Perhaps Mr. Maher can envision literally thousands of Wacos or Ruby Ridges, except in this hypothetical scenario time we are not dealing with isolated pockets of a few families but entire communities that would have to be mopped up one by one. Let's not forget that urban and suburban areas, as they are less vulnerable to drone surveillance, would make the job even harder. Mr. Maher also seems to think that most of the troops will follow orders to attack, say, a region such as Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas. Desertions would be rampant, casualties would be astronomical, and Cindy Sheehans who cared about their kids before they got hurt would be petitioning the national government to back off and let the states/regions be left alone.
No Billy - as usual, you are dead wrong.
* I don't think that this will or should happen. I do think, though, that a political break will occur.
No comments:
Post a Comment