Liberal Columnist Whines About Scary Republicans Envisioning Revolution, Thomas Jefferson Posthumously Reminds Him Not To Wet His Pants

Support for 2nd Amendment rights is contingent upon what individuals believe is the true function of the un-infringed right to bear arms granted to American citizens in the Constitution.

Fairleigh Dickinson University released its Public Mind poll on Wednesday, offering some perspective about the partisan divide with regard to gun control and where Americans with opposing political beliefs think firearms fit into American society.

The pollsters offered the following query with the option to “agree,” “disagree,” remain neutral or refuse to answer: “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.”

They found that an overall 29 percent of Americans were in agreement with the statement. Segmented by political belief, people who believed armed revolution will become necessary were: 18 percent Democrat, 27 percent independent and 44 percent Republican.

“The differences in views of gun legislation are really a function of differences in what people believe guns are for,” Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson, said of the results. “If you truly believe an armed revolution is possible in the near future, you need weapons and you’re going to be wary about government efforts to take them away.”

While the poll left the severity of the threats to liberty that might spark such a revolution to the imagination, some on the left have already begun shouting: “See! Conservatives can’t win elections, so their obvious reason for liking guns is to overthrow the government.”

That’s precisely how Salon’s David Sirota addressed the poll results:

Typically, GOP leaders typically say that their opposition to minimal gun regulations has nothing to do with helping arm those who want to commit acts of violence, and everything to do with wanting to make sure people can defend themselves. Based on the poll, of course, it is certainly likely that many are buying such weapons in an effort to defend themselves, both for day-to-day life and in the event of a sudden armed revolution. But here’s the scary part: how many are buying weapons to arm themselves in order to foment an armed revolution? Maybe none, but maybe a lot. I don’t have an answer – but this poll suggests the question should at least be aired…

…According to the Farleigh Dickinson poll, 44 percent of rank-and-file Republicans seem to believe that because they aren’t getting their way through the ballot box, bloodshed may be justified to impose their will on everyone else. Think of it as sore loser-ism juiced by violence.

Sirota goes on to back up his theory of revolutionary fomentation by those on the right in saying that conservatives have used “vitriolic” language in describing “almost everything in the Democratic/liberal agenda — from Obamacare to taxes to environmental regulations to contraception policy” as an assault on liberty. He goes on to accuse conservatives who don’t want to see their Constitutional rights eroded, don’t want to be told what to eat, may have religious objections to contraceptives and don’t agree with Obamacare of “undermining the most basic non-violent democratic ideals that are supposed to define America” in favor of violence.

If there is a bloody American revolution in the cards in coming years, people like Sirota will be just as culpable as those who initially take up arms against perceived Federal tyranny in sparking it. Sirota’s shrieking alarmism that Republicans could at any moment be working to spark revolution perverts the very ideal of democratic civil discourse he claims to worry so much about.

Sirota is simply doing his part to further the cause of big-government gun control by crying wolf, and his shtick is nothing new.

Way back in 1787, Thomas Jefferson, who was in France at the time, wrote a letter to his friend William Smith in which he discussed concerns over  how a rebellion that had just taken place in Massachusetts — which became known as Shay’s Rebellion — was being used by the governing class make the case for more Federal government. And propagandists like Sirota had a part to play.

Jefferson wrote:

The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness.

Jefferson’s point that the real threat is nowhere near as serious as was implied by some agenda-driven individuals applies quite nicely to more contemporary arguments for more firearm controls.

The Founding Father continued:

God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?

So how many Republican-sparked armed revolutions have occurred? Zero. What, then, must be the agenda of people like Sirota? Perhaps it’s removing the threat of violence, which serves nicely to encourage civil discourse, so that liberal agendas can be shoved down the throats of the unwilling. More government without question or threat. More taxes. More regulations. More welfare.

And that brings us to the most famous portion of Jefferson’s letter:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

Sirota should thank those Americans who believe revolution could one day become necessary to preserve liberty, because they are crucial to the preservation of “basic non-violent democratic ideals.” And perhaps if more Americans thought like those 29 percent who can fathom the possibility of armed revolution, government corruption, waste and abuse would be far less rampant that it is in the bureaucratic behemoth that exists today.

Jay Carney: Benghazi Happened A Long Time Ago

Responding to questions about allegations that the Federal government is preventing whistle-blowers from coming forward with new information concerning the terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, in September, White House Press spokesman Jay Carney suggested that the controversy was dated.

“Let’s be clear,” said Carney. “Benghazi happened a long time ago. We are unaware of any agency blocking an employee who would like to appear before Congress to provide information related to Benghazi.”

 

Fed Still Running Money Machines Full Steam

At this point it probably no longer qualifies as news, but for what it’s worth: Federal Reserve officials decided during the central bank’s Federal Open Markets Committee meeting this week to continue keeping interest rates low and making monthly $85 billion bond purchases.

Notable of the most recent FOMC meeting, however, is that, unlike at its last meeting, officials seem to agree that its long-standing low-interest, money-pumping policy should continue for the time being — but with the caveat the Fed ready itself to increase or draw down its economic meddling as conditions evolve.

“The committee is prepared to increase or reduce the pace of its purchases to maintain appropriate policy accommodation as the outlook for the labor market or inflation changes,” the FOMC today in conclusion of its two-day meeting.

Analysts say the announcement could be a sign that the Fed is trying to hedge against widespread economic volatility.

The statement gives them flexibility on the upside and the downside,” John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo Securities LLC, told Bloomberg. “The whole debate had centered on when to taper off. Given some of the latest data, the Fed could be more aggressive in its policy.”

Benghazi Cover-Up Continues

The controversy over the September attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is ongoing. The U.S. government has reportedly identified the mastermind behind the attack, who is said to be walking free in Libya.

The FBI has released the following posters bearing the images of individuals who were at the compound prior to the attacks:

1

2

3

Though the FBI release is presented to the public as a breakthrough, an anonymous source told FOX News that the government is sitting on more information in the case.

“We basically don’t want to upset anybody, and the problem is, if Ambassador Stevens’ family knew that we were sitting on information about the people who killed their son, their brother, on and on, then, and we could look them as a government in the face, then we’re messing up. We’re messing up,” the source said.

The source went on to tell FOX that the government should have already been able to bring the Benghazi terrorists to justice.

“We have all the capability, all the training, all the capacity, to kill and capture not only terrorists involved, with the specific events of 9/11, and Ambassador Stevens’ death, but terrorists that are feeding other regions including Europe that could eventually affect our national security in the short term,” the source said. “And we’re not talking midterm or long-term, this is the short-term.”

In Press Conference, Obama Notes: He’s Right, He’s Helping And He’s Poised For Success

President Barack Obama did something on Tuesday that he rarely does: Benefiting from the fact that Congress is out of town, making it difficult for legislators scattered about the country to retort, the President spoke with reporters.

The Presidential press conference lasted only about 45 minutes and was apparently lacking in any agenda-driven goal, though it did occur on the 100th day of the second term of the Obama Administration. That it was a milestone day for the President’s second term was not lost on reporters in attendance, many of whom focused on Obama’s inability to achieve campaign goals — some of which were set during his first term.

Here are some highlights from the event.

More talk about “red lines.”

The President told assembled reporters that recent reports that the regime of Syrian leader Bashar Assad is using chemical weapons against rebels and civilians could be a game changer because it means the regime has crossed a “red line.” But the President said that he wants to know more before doing anything drastic.

“What we have now is evidence that chemical weapons have been used,” Obama said. He went on to suggest that the next step is U.S. intelligence to determine “how they were used, when they were used [or] who used them.”

If definitive evidence is found that the weapons have been used against civilians in the country, American military intervention could be in the cards.

Federal officials did everything perfectly with regard to Boston bombings.

There has been a great deal of criticism recently about the possible intelligence failings that could have enabled the Boston terrorists as well as how government responded to the attacks. The President refutes any claim that government failed at any level with regard to the tragedy.

“What we saw in Boston was State, local, Federal officials, every agency rallying around a city that had been attacked, identifying the perpetrators just hours after the scene had been examined,” Obama said Tuesday. “We now have one individual deceased one in custody. Charges have been brought.”

In response to claims made by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that intelligence failures enabled the bombers, Obama said: “They not only investigated the older brother, they interviewed the older brother.”

But no red flags were observed, the President contended, so the real question is “was there something that happened that triggered radicalization and an actual decision by the brother to engage in the attack.”

“Rumors of my demise may be a little exaggerated.”

Asked whether the Obama Administration has “any juice” left to accomplish some of the goals he touted during the Presidential campaign, Obama channeled Mark Twain.

“Maybe I should just pack up and go home,” Obama sarcastically responded. “Golly. You know, I think it’s a little, as Mark Twain said, you know, ‘Rumors of my demise may be a little exaggerated’ at this point.”

Conservative media outlets all over the Internet promptly fantasized about the President packing up and calling it quits.

Not surprised Gitmo is a problem and still committed to closing it.

“I don’t want these individuals to die,” Obama said of hunger striking detainees at Guantanamo Bay. “Obviously, the Pentagon is trying to manage the situation as best as they can. But I think all of us should reflect on why exactly are we doing this? Why are we doing this?”

The President said that there is no reason for legislative hurdles to closing the military prison.

“The notion that we’re going to continue to keep over 100 individuals in a no-man’s land in perpetuity — even at a time when we’ve wound down the war in Iraq, we’re winding down the war in Afghanistan, we’re having success defeating al-Qaida, we’ve kept the pressure up on all these transnational terrorist networks, when we’ve transferred detention authority in Afghanistan — the idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried, that’s contrary to who we are. It’s contrary to our interests, and it needs to stop,” he said.

Republicans protecting the wealthy are responsible for sequestration.

The President told reporters that sequestration is “damaging our economy” and “hurting our people” and refuted the idea that his Administration has exaggerated the impact for political purposes.

“You will recall that, you know, even as recently as my campaign, Republicans were saying, ‘Sequester is terrible. This is a disaster. It’s going to ruin our military. It’s going to be disastrous for the economy. We’ve got to do something about it,'” he said. “Then, when it was determined that doing something about it might mean that we close some tax loopholes for the wealthy and the well connected, suddenly, ‘Well, you know what? We’ll take the sequester.’ And the notion was somehow that we had exaggerated the effects of the sequester. Remember? The President’s, you know, ‘crying wolf. He’s Chicken Little. The sequester? No problem.'”

Gang of 8 immigration reform legislation is good.

The proposal is “not the bill I would have written… but it meets the basic criteria that I laid out from the start,” Obama said of the bipartisan immigration plan that has many conservatives questioning the agendas of Republicans involved in creating it.

Obamacare is already helping you.

The President said that, even if they don’t realize it, Americans with health insurance are already benefiting from his healthcare overhaul.

“The Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, has now been with us for three years. It’s gone through Supreme Court tests. It’s gone through efforts to repeal. A huge chunk of it has already been implemented. And for the 85, 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, they’re already experiencing most of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, even if they don’t know it,” he said. “Their insurance is more secure. Insurance companies can’t drop them for bad reasons. Their kids are able to stay on their health insurance until they’re 26 years old. They’re getting free preventive care. There are a whole host of benefits. For the average American out there, the 85, 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, this thing’s already happened. And their only impact is their insurance is stronger, better, more secure than it was before.”

The President didn’t address the widely held notion that further implementation of Obamacare is going to cause major problems at all levels of government and for health insurance providers. He also said nothing of the expected premium hikes that are slated to hit American wallets next year.

American Indians And Gun Control

Two billboards erected in Greeley, Colo., which use the historic mistreatment of Native Americans by the Federal government to make the case against gun control, have drawn fire from some residents who say the images are offensive.

According to the Greeley Tribune, the billboards bearing pictures of Native Americans in traditional dress and the words “Turn in your arms. The government will take care of you” were purchased by a group of anonymous locals.

Jim Rydbom, Greeley Tribune
Jim Rydbom, Greeley Tribune

Some people in the area say that the billboards oversimplify the plight of Native Americans to make a political point. Others, however, point out the historical ties between racism and disarmament.

A paper published last year by Professor Angela Riley, Director of the UCLA American Indian Studies Center, supports the latter view in a study of the relationship between American Indians and guns:

Through a different lens, the history of Indians and guns is a story about becoming American. In colonial America, rights and obligations related to guns were often tied to race, and race, in turn, was tied to citizenship. The sovereign authority to define who was in and who was out was deployed to exclude “undesirables,” including Indians. But the extension of citizenship—for Indians, the moment came officially in 1924—marked the inclusion of Indians into the polity of the United States…

… A final, related viewpoint contemplates the history of Indians and guns as an account of racial hierarchy and social control, deeply pronounced at the point of contact and through the early years of the republic but tenaciously embedded in much of American law. This narrative reveals that the relationship of Indians and guns developed in parallel to African-Americans and guns, with both groups situated at the bottom of a racial hierarchy that facilitated oppression, noncitizen status, and subjugation. Here, as a means of extracting wealth—with African slaves, their labor; with Indians, their lands—the gun served as a tool of white privilege, forever linked to a history of violence and oppression.

There are many historical accounts that would support the legitimacy of the pro-gun argument made on the Greeley billboards, wherein Native Americans were systematically disarmed and murdered by white settlers with the backing of the American government.

Perhaps the most famous example occurred in 1890 — decades before the 1924 guarantee of Constitutional rights for Native Americans — when Federal agents murdered 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Before the Native Americans were killed by the agents of the state, they were notified that the 7th Cavalry had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection.”

Later, when Sioux representatives were invited to tell their side of the story to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, this account — which is wildly different than the government approved story — was given by the Sioux leader Turning Hawk:

These people were coming toward Pine Ridge agency, and when they were almost on the agency they were met by the soldiers and surrounded and finally taken to the Wounded Knee creek, and there at a given time their guns were demanded. When they had delivered them up, the men were separated from their families, from the tipis, and taken to a certain spot. When the guns were thus taken and the men thus separated, there was a crazy man, a young man of very bad influence and in fact a nobody, among that bunch of Indians fired his gun, and of course the firing of a gun must have been the breaking of a military rule of some sort, because immediately the soldiers returned fire and indiscriminate killing followed.

This historical account, it seems, makes two points for those resistant to gun control: 1) Even when government orders disarmament and the majority obey, there is always the possibility that some will not. And 2) When one bad apple stirs the wrath of the state, it is much easier for agents of the government to react by systematically annihilating innocent people, with impunity, when they have first been disarmed.

Bubba Echoes Biden

Former President Bill Clinton discussed how politicians should go about passing more gun-control legislation, his sadness that his assault weapons ban has expired and where public opinion splits on gun control during a recent event at Georgetown University.

Clinton said that politicians should measure the intensity of the opposition when introducing gun-control legislation, intensity that he believes can be overcome in the current debate over guns.

He went on to add that he believes the difference of American opinions on gun control is primarily between urban and rural citizens.

He then channeled Vice President Joe Biden, saying: “If you live in a city and you think you need protection of your home, you’re way better off with a shotgun than an assault weapon. Trust me. It’s not even close.”

 

 

H/T: The Examiner

 

Lawmakers Like Schumer, McCain Promise More Gun Control To Come

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have vowed that the assault on Americans’ 2nd Amendment rights will resume soon.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that a plan to expand background checks for gun purchases created by “pro-gun Senators” will receive support from the “broad middle” among lawmakers in coming months.

“My own little prediction: I think we’re going to bring this bill back before the end of the year, and I think you may find some changes,” Schumer said during a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor last week. “We may change the bill a little bit, but I think you may find some changes out there in the public. Lots of Senators who thought it was safe to vote against it because of the intensity are not so sure anymore.”

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was one of the four Republicans to vote in support of the failed initial background check expansion bill, said it was “common sense” to support such legislation.

 

Alabama Senate: We Won’t Enforce Federal Gun Laws

By a 24-6 margin, the Alabama State Senate just passed a bill that, if approved by the State’s lower chamber, would nullify all Federal gun control measures that are in “violation of the Second Amendment.”

Alabama Senate Bill 93 declares: “All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations regarding firearms are a violation of the Second Amendment” and “are invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”

If the Alabama House passes the bill and it is signed into law, no local official, employee of the State or State asset could be co-opted in in the enforcement (or assistance in the enforcement) of Federal gun-control measures.

The bill also puts measures in place for the State to work out any problems posed by not enforcing Federal laws, stating: “The Legislature shall adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Hero Of The American Left, Professor Noam Chomsky Denounces Obama Administration

Notable left-wing polemicist Professor Noam Chomsky has made a career of writing and speaking out against government abuses of civil liberties in the United States and abroad. In the 2008 Presidential election, the professor endorsed Barack Obama but contended that the youthful Presidential candidate would have little positive or negative impact on civil liberty.

Chomsky now says he is surprised and disgusted by the current President’s inexplicable “attack” on civil liberties, which he said goes beyond anything he could have ever imagined.

In an interview, Chomsky told the liberal blog Alternet

I personally never expected anything of Obama, and wrote about it before the 2008 primaries. I thought it was smoke and mirrors. The one thing that did surprise me is his attack on civil liberties. They go well beyond anything I would have anticipated, and they don’t seem easy to explain. In many ways the worst is what you mention, Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project. That’s an Obama initiative and it’s a very serious attack on civil liberties. He doesn’t gain anything from it — he doesn’t get any political mileage out of it. In fact, most people don’t even know about it, but what it does is extend the concept of “material assistance to terror” to speech.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project that the broad application of a Federal law prohibits human rights and humanitarian aid organizations from communicating with foreign terror organizations (FTOs) or providing aid supplies to areas where they are known to operate in efforts to promote peaceful conflict resolution. Individuals face up to 15 years in prison for providing “material support” to FTOs, even if their work is intended to promote peaceful, lawful objectives. “[M]aterial support” is defined to include any “service,” “training,” “expert advice or assistance” or “personnel.”

“And the wording of the colloquy is broad enough that it could very well mean that if, say, you meet with someone in a terrorist group and advise them to turn to nonviolent means, then that’s material assistance to terrorism.” Chomsky said, “I’ve met with people who are on the list and will continue to do so, and Obama wants to criminalize that, which is a plain attack on freedom of speech. I just don’t understand why he’s doing it.”

The professor has also taken issue with Obama’s continuation of an executive branch power grab that was sparked in reaction to the 9/11 attacks by the Administration of George W. Bush.

“What it is is the same kind of commitment to expanding executive power that Cheney and Rumsfeld had. He kind of puts it in mellifluous terms and there’s a little difference in his tone,” he said. “It’s not as crude and brutal as they were, but it’s pretty hard to see much of a difference.”

Through the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, continuous harsh prosecution of whistle-blowers, the growing surveillance state and extrajudicial execution, the Obama Administration has set the United States on course for tyranny that would make some of history’s most unjust leaders proud, according to the professor.

“It’s interesting to see the way in which due process is being reinterpreted by Obama’s Justice Department in regards to the drone killings. Attorney General Eric Holder was asked why the administration was killing people without due process.” Chomsky continued, “Well, there was due process, he said, because they discuss it within the executive branch. King John in the 13th century would have loved that.”