So, "Libertarians" who've asserted federal supremacy on the issue of gun rights, for my entire life, are now siding with Communist revolutionaries against the federal government. Despite the fact the state/local governments where these riots are taking place, are Democrat run Socialist enclaves that have systematically disarmed their citizens, and which support far worse gun control than the fed under the current administration.
The Democrats in the state/local governments have disarmed the people, leaving them unable to defend themselves from the Communist terrorists roaming the streets, destroying property at will. The Democrats in the state/local governments, which by disarming them have necessarily assumed the responsibility of their defense, are refusing to defend them because those Communist terrorists are operating under the auspices of the Democrat Party. And despite all this droves of self-professed "Libertarians" and pro-2A activists, are imbibing the specious Marxist rhetoric and siding with the Communists against the Fed; the only branch of government currently doing anything to protect these people's property rights. The notion that "the militia" would side with the commies is farcical. The militia, if it existed in these cities in any form comparable to that which existed at the Founding, would be assisting the Fed against the Communists. Because it would almost certainly be "employed in the Service of the United States," given the dereliction of the state/local governments and the ostentatious Communist insurrection that's transpiring, to "suppress Insurrections." And because its members would be motivated in no small part to take that side by personal interest, as Communist revolutionaries would be destroying the property of the very people, e.g., local citizens and business owners, that comprised the militia.
Is it supposed to mean something to me when a "veteran" sides with Communists? As if veterans never get it wrong? As if the most notorious traitors in human history, e.g., Caeser, Napoleon, Benedict Arnold, Hitler, et al., didn't wear the uniforms of their country. As if the nascent Nazi Party in Germany wasn't thronged with World War 1 veterans? As if Bowe Bergdahl didn't side with Al Qaeda? As if you're a "good" commie, cause you wore the uniform of your country, unlike that "bad" commie Stalin? Since when have leftists cared about soldiers or veterans? Am I the only one who remembers the left calling them evil, colonial, baby-killers fighting "racist" wars for oil just a couple of decades ago? Am I the only one who remembers them portraying soldiers as "racist" monsters for taking pictures of terrorists with bags on their heads? Vietnam anyone? There's simply no excuse for this level of amnesiac stupidity.
"The Bush administration strips the people of the Middle East of their humanity and removes the ground for diplomacy, negotiation, and peaceful resolution of outstanding conflicts. It also gives itself a cover to pursue its policy of unrivaled world domination, and gives the green light to its strategic allies, like Israel, to recklessly wield their own military might in the Middle East not to mention reinforces to the extreme racist stereotypes and racial profiling and the curtailment of democracy in our land. Given the awesome power of new military technologies and weapons conventional and nuclear humankind must reject this invented and false vision of the world and impose a new logic of peace, justice, and respect for national sovereignty on the Bush administration and, for that matter, all states and movements in the world." - Communist Party, The Middle East in Crisis, July 28, 2006.
They vilified soldiers then, to advance their agenda, and vilify cops now to the same end. They used every specious argument imaginable to handicap our troops against foreign enemies then, and they use every specious argument imaginable to handicap our police against domestic enemies now. The left cares about soldiers, or cops, or babies to the extent they're useful as propaganda fodder or bullet fodder. (Mother doesn't want you? You're not a person, and your death is celebrated. Killed in a "school shooting?" Your death as bullet fodder is now useful for banning guns, so they pretend to mourn you for weeks on end.) To any soldier willing to serve in either capacity, I say you are no patriot or friend of my liberties. Serving your country yesterday doesn't excuse selling it out today. That mentality is why the perennially treacherous John McCain was reelected for years and years before dying in office with an F rating.
Do I have concerns? Yes. But an uncertain future under a president who's not openly endorsing Communist terrorist organizations on Twitter, is preferable to serving the interests of a (Democrat) party willing to burn cities to win an election, and the certain tyranny that will result from helping Communists overthrow our current government.
So recently I've begun seeing this sentiment dispensed by Democrats and Libertarians all over the internet.
I'm not sure how they're "secret," exactly, when half of the articles and memes I see on the internet are about them. But for the record I'm not going to help Communists overthrow my government and establish a totalitarian Communist state. I'm not going to supplant a lesser tyranny with a greater one. And make no mistake, that's what this nonsense is. A laughably transparent attempt by Communists to manipulate those on the right into defending them, and aiding and abetting their Communist "revolution."
I wish I could say these specious appeals were immediately recognized and dismissed as such. But to the contrary they've been highly effective, not only on Democrats, but also the ignoramuses that call themselves "Libertarians." I see them parroting this drivel all over the internet. The Marxist left knows Libertarians are largely comprised of mindless, drug using, and therefore cop-hating reprobates. And all it took for them to exploit that prejudice, and manipulate droves of them into defending an unequivocally tyrannical movement, was expressing superficial opposition to government/tyranny and aversion to law enforcement. Many of them never questioned it and immediately flocked to the defense of leftists feigning a shared antipathy.
Anyone can peruse this blog and see my numerous and protracted critiques of President Trump. But I've also defended him when I think he's right. And in this instance, he's right, or the least wrong anyway. Why? Because everything we see is being orchestrated by the Democratic left to affect the outcome of the next election. Democrats are intentionally allowing and outright fomenting lawlessness at the state and local level, so they can portray Trump as a tyrant for intervening in response to their dereliction. (Likewise, the reason Democrats want another lock down is to cripple the economy, so Trump can't campaign on it in his reelection bid. They had zero chance of beating him with the economy booming. But I digress.)
The purpose of American governance, at every level, is to protect liberty. State and local governments run by Democrats are refusing to do that, and allowing Communist revolutionaries with no regard for property rights, to run amok with impunity. When the state/local government refuse to enforce the law and protect the rights of their citizens that responsibility necessarily falls to the Fed. In fact, the inability of the federal government to do this under the previous compact, is specifically cited as one of its flaws.
"Without a guaranty the assistance to be derived from the Union in repelling those domestic dangers which may sometimes threaten the existence of the State constitutions, must be renounced. Usurpation may rear its crest in each State, and trample upon the liberties of the people, while the national government could legally do nothing more than behold its encroachments with indignation and regret. A successful faction may erect a tyranny on the ruins of order and law, while no succor could constitutionally be afforded by the Union to the friends and supporters of the government. The tempestuous situation from which Massachusetts has scarcely emerged (Shays' Rebellion), evinces that dangers of this kind are not merely speculative. Who can determine what might have been the issue of her late convulsions, if the malcontents had been headed by a Caesar or by a Cromwell? Who can predict what effect a despotism, established in Massachusetts, would have upon the liberties of New Hampshire or Rhode Island, of Connecticut or New York?"- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #21. (Parenthesis mine.)
"If any of the States were to be at liberty to adopt any other form of Government, than a republican form,it would necessarily endanger, and might destroy, the safety of the Union. Suppose, for instance, a great State, like New York, should adopt a monarchical form of government, it might, under an enterprising and ambitious king, become formidable to, if not destructive of, the Constitution. And the people of each state have a right to protection against the tyranny of a domestic faction, and to have a firm guarantee, that their political liberties shall not be overturned by a successful demagogue, who shall arrive at power by corrupt arts, and then plan a scheme for permanent possession of it. [....] They shall not exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions." - Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, Guarantee of Republican Government, 1840.
Story's admonition regarding monarchy is equally applicable to "Democratic Socialism," "Socialism," "Communism," or any other form of government. And what are Antifa and BLM, if not "tyrannical domestic factions" who seek to "arrive at power by corrupt arts," e.g., demagoguery, and who's unambiguous objective is to "exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions" in order to retain "permanent possession" of their racial and ideological oligarchies? Antifa and BLM are openly Communist organizations. You'd think that would be obvious, even if BLM's logo wasn't the Communist fist, and Antifa weren't spray painting the sickle and hammer on things.
Obvious, because anyone not completely estranged to our political reality would immediately recognize that the two memes shared at the beginning of this contribution, are nigh verbatim regurgitation of Communist rhetoric being dispensed by Communists.
What these Communist Revolutionaries are receiving is mild compared to what they'll do to all of us if they're successful in their efforts to overthrow our government. These people are actively seeking out confrontation with and goading police, so they can posture themselves as victims and virtue signal all over the internet, and basically serve as Communist propaganda fodder in general. What they're doing is the opposite of legitimate police brutality. In fact they've openly adopted the tactics of Islamic terrorists by using women and children as human shields.
As I said previously this is all being orchestrated for the purpose of procuring a Democrat victory in the next presidential election. Hence Sharon's statement, "We can't wait for Nov(ember) to drive secret police from Pdx?" What happens in November, folks?
They're not even really anti-cop. These are the same people that ardently vote for Democrat politicians, openly stating their intention to send federal agents, like the ATF, door to door disarming gun owners just a few months ago.
Their newfound aversion to federal law enforcement is ephemeral and purely a product of circumstance; i.e., because they don't currently control it and it is therefore not in service to their agenda. This opposition will evaporate as soon as Democrats regain the White House. The notion that people that have been supporting the augmentation of federal power in virtually every way for generations, are now "anti-government" because they purport to be against it the one time it's not serving their interests is farcical, and a spectacle of abject naivete.
As I've said previously we are unofficially in a civil war right now, the average American simply doesn't know it because the leftist media refers to these violent insurrections as "protests," and glorifies the Communist revolutionaries that it calls "protesters."
It isn't showing what these people are actually doing in places like Portland, where events more resemble third world war zones, than anything the average American would recognize. Where the federal courthouse has been defaced by "peaceful protesters" who are supposedly fighting "racism," with all manner of Marxist rhetoric.
"FUCK YOUR PEACE"
"EAT THE RITCH"
"ACAB"
"PIG"
"THE ONLY GOOD COP IS A DEAD ONE"
"MAKE PIGS GO INSANE"
"BLM"
"Be gay"
"Do crime"
"CRIME PAYS"
As a Constitutional Conservative I have nothing in common with these people. They're not patriots, they're not for smaller government, and they're not freedom fighters. They're Communists. And only Communists or collaborators, as such, would have anything to do with this Fascist/Communist movement and the groups (Antifa, BLM, etc.) that serve as its spearhead.
The Democrat Party is the face of Communism in the U.S., and Antifa, BLM, the Portland protesters, etc., are its fist. Obtuse, mindless cattle, who stampede on the Democratic Party's command, and trample anyone not moving in the same direction as the Communist collective they serve and of which they are a part. They are weaponized morons, that exist to terrorize political opponents of the Democratic Party, not unlike the Ku Klux Klan. And now apparently the Libertarian Party too, has been subsumed by it, and is espousing its specious credo.
Communist revolutionaries with no respect for property, empowered by deliberate Democrat apathy, are rampaging through U.S. cities and terrorizing anyone who fails to submit (and even some that do). And what's the Libertarian response? To side with the Communists, against a Fed trying to preserve law and order, because "ACAB."
Once again we have Democrat terrorist organizations operating with impunity under Democrat controlled state and local governments. Once again the Democrats portray the Fed as the tyrants for obstructing the systematic violation of the rights of those they deem political/racial enemies. Once again Democrats are laying siege to federal facilities just as they did in 1861. We all know how this turned out the last time. But they don't. Democrats, and leftists in general, know nothing about history. (Because, as seen above, they erase any acknowledgment of history they deem unpleasant.) So one can't help marvel at the abject stupidity of Democrats, and Libertarians, operating under the delusional belief that giving Republicans a justification to put down an insurrection will result in less government. The last Democrat insurrection is how we got the unconstitutional federal monster we have today.
