Thursday, November 17, 2011

Soft despotism. Two years old but truer now than when it was filmed.



WarriorClass said...

Tyranny is tyranny and theft by government is still theft. There's nothing soft about it.

Anonymous said...

If you can remember that Federal agent, with his MP-5 pointed at that little Cuba boy in Miami under Clinton, and the medals given out to the personnel involved afterwards, you know all you need to know about tyranny.

This government now rewards it's trigger pullers, for doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing, because the government now wants to do, things it was never supposed to do and it is important, that their trigger pullers remain committed to them, or they can't do, what they want to do.

Understand, they don't hate you. You and your rights and your constitution are in their way and so they have decided to shove you and those things out of their way.

They do not have the right to do these things but have given themselves the right to do these things. The federal judges they have appointed agree with them, that they can do these things. Because they wear black robes, we are expected to allow this to continue. Because people dressed in black robes assure us that all of the actions taken are constitutional we are supposed to allow the government to completely dismantle and remake the systems and laws into things they were never meant to be, to turn our history upon it's head so that a Marxist government of some sort can take it's place.

It is up to you to stop it.

They have declared war on your country, your rights, your freedoms, your traditions, your constitution, your prosperity and your privacy, not to mention God. This is the rebirth of the Soviet state in America, nothing less. The question is, how long will you put up with it?

Paul X said...

Excellent interview, and I may have to get that book. All the more true now that OWS has joined the Tea Parties, and government bankruptcy is coming right up.

Ashrak said...

So then, is it soft tyranny or hard tyranny when one branch of government, the judiciary, says, finally and with the biggest hedges possible, that yes, indeed, the Second Amendment (the right to keep and the right to bear which mean the right to own- which involves buying and selling- and the right to carry) is held as enforceable against all state and local governments, in addition to the federal government, YET, another branch of government, the Congress, passes "reciprocity legislation" that encompasses only 49 states, instead of all 50 (Barry's other 7 notwithstanding, I guess).

It takes the biggest corrupt balls in the world to say a federal law applies to every state except for one, most especially when that law, that code, is regarding the atrocity that is heavily permission slipping the exercise of inalienable, individual, enumerated, civil, preexisting, fundamental, Supreme Court defined and incorporated ( I despise that bit of foolishness there) RIGHTs.

Whether "hard" or "soft", it is tall bovine excrement either way. It is quite ridiculous and, in the wake of the GunWalker Scandal, it shows just how willing so many in government are today to just act as if the Constitution is a meaningless bit of ink on parchment.

A federal law that applies to 49 states.......there is no better display of the IDIOCY that goes on in Washington D.C. these days. None whatsoever.

Female III said...

This then is a timely link.:

It was just sent to me. I am not familiar with the website. Maybe somebody here can verify/add to these reports.

Anonymous said...

Look at this new bill.

Greatly worth keeping track of and opposing openly. Just FYI in case anyone is unaware of this.

Bad Cyborg said...

I just read the full text of HR 822 and can not see what you are talking about with it only covering 49 of BHO's 56 states. Where are you getting that?

I have read in multiple places that it has a snowball's chance at ground zero of a 100 megaton thermonuclear device detonation of even being TAKEN UP by Reid's Senate - much less actually passed. Of course if by some extraordinary circumstance the bill actually WAS considered and actually PASSED, then His Most August and Divine Majesty Barak the First would most certainly veto it.

I figure the chance of the thing actually becoming law ranks right up there with the Pope converting to Islam. AIN'T HAPPENING, FOLKS!!

Ashrak said...

Bad Cyborg, Carrying firearms is criminalized in Illinois altogether, 100%.

How would you like "reciprocity" of that? Ugh. Watching committee on this right before the vote, it was sickening watching the "Illinois representation" simply say something to the effect of "because we have no law".

Illinois and D.C. are "exempted"
from this legislation. That preempts an equal protection suit from an AG. (Not that Lisa would file one to begin with anyway.)

Tell me, how can the federal government require all states to recognize the right to carry when that right doesn't exist here in Illinois whatsoever? Why didn't that legislation deal with that stand alone disparity directly? Cuz it is about MORE control over the Second Amendment, not about freeing it from the grip of government - that's why.

The NRA just loves Harry Reid and all his "support" for gun rights. This is going to get play in the Senate, and here is why. Any time the federal government can garner more power and authority over a individual inalienable right, it grabs it up.

Now that incorporation has taken place, especially based on DP instead of P or I, legislation putting stops in place to stifle federal court challenges that would lead to the right actually being as it is supposed to be is priority number one.

Barry won't veto this, he will sign it and champion this gun control measure, which is exactly what it is, as evidence of how he isn't "anti gun" as charged. Watch, you will see exactly that happen and you will see his bots come out touting how gun friendly he is "allowing" exercise of a right in a way no President ever has. You know, as a "Historical" President would.

Notice please, Democrats are scared of the coming election and they are all going to be looking for ways to look "good" to restless constituents. Many will latch onto this trying to establish some Second Amendment credibility. Worse yet, some voters will buy into it.

Arguing for permission slips regarding inalienable rights is, in fact, arguing against Freedom. That is exactly what support for this GodAwful legislation amounts to. It is CEMENTING "permission slips" for the Second Amendment exercise and it is a huge MISTAKE.

Now that SCOTUS has said "The Second Amendment is no different [than the First Amendment]." You can expect a requirement, eventually, for a fee and qualification based permission slip so you can "legally" carry a Bible at the time, place and manner of government's choosing.

Remember, the power to give is also the power to take away. Either there is Constitutional Carry (and ownership) or there is Infringement. It saddens me to see so many Second Amendment Advocates support infringement, calling it "advancing" the right to carry. All that is being advanced, in reality, is government control over a right that belongs to each individual.