Friday, January 18, 2013

Sometimes I'm Just Not Cynical Enough

Just two days ago, I said this:
     4.  Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

You know, someone more cynical than me might point out that the AG would now have the power, at least arguably, to put any member of one of the groups designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as being a "dangerous person."  So, congratulations, military vets, religious conservatives, and members of gun clubs.  You may no longer be able to purchase firearms.

Yesterday (I just found it today), the Washington Times had this:
The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence.

But its latest study turns inward and paints a broad brush of people it considers “far right.”

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

So there you have it.  Now, simply believing in the Federalist (I love how they have Newspeak-ized the term "anti-Federalist" to mean "anti-Nationalist") system, and that the Federal Government might maybe be overstepping its bounds a little bit makes you a dangerous and violent criminal.

Yay us.

Now, I could go on and on about how there have been no- repeat that: no- violence from "far right groups" in America that I can recall in my life time.  In fact, all of the politically motivated violence I can recall has been from the Left side of the aisle.  Jared Laughner, anyone?  How about that Marx quoting maniac who flew his plane into a building in Austin?

I could, but I won't, because it doesn't matter.  What does matter is that a branch of the US Department of Defense just called everyone who believes in the Federalist system, individual liberty, and self-governance a potential terrorist.  In light of the SCOAMT's Imperial Proclamation above, that seems pretty scary to this "anti-Federalist."

(And, no, the irony of Tenthers being called "anti-Federalist" is not lost on me).

Let it Burn.


  1. Great article. Terrible ending.
    Let it Burn is a childish attitude.
    Anyone who has seen chaos knows better.

  2. Let it burn is Barack's mission statement if you are speaking of a Constitutional Republic, and frankly I'd rather our nation burn that be an instrument of tyranny.

    AllenG there'd have not been a United States had there not been a Xth Amendment.

    Silky Pony was right there are two Americas, and we on the right are 2d class citizens in this one perhaps we should focus on making him more right than he meant.

  3. Never seen this blog before, I may have to come back.

    I view much of this as a result of the theft of the language by the left, a non-trivial feat, that we have allowed them to succeed at.

    IIRC, the Founders could have been called terrorists by the Crown. When they wrote the 2nd Amendment, they had just gotten through "hunting" Redcoats, and knew full well why they considered this fundamental right existing outside of government of, by, and for consenting citizens (not subjects who should have this right but are denied it by their acceptance of subject status).