Skip to content

The Bureaucrats’ Emotional Reaction to Shootings: Stifle Dissent and Suppress Liberty

As usual, the hysterical nudniks are coming out of the woodwork, in their solely emotional reactions to the recent Arizona shootings, with their calls to censor more speech, and disarm the population. Washington, DC is the center of irrationality and legislative, violent tirades against our Liberty.

According to The Hill, Rep.Robert Brady is going to submit legislation that would “make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.” On the Activist Post blog, Milo Nickels points out that

The language (or symbols) doesn’t have to be threatening or actually incite violence.  It doesn’t even have to be perceived that way.  If it could be perceived that way–through the widest, loosest, and irrational interpretations imaginable–that is sufficient to charge someone with a federal crime.  This kind of broad, widely subjective legislation would make it potentially illegal to disagree with the government about anything.

However, there are many laws, policies, ordinances and so on that are so broad that just about any speech could be taken as a threat to someone. But it’s never enough to these imbeciles in Washington, who really don’t understand the idea that we all have an inherent right to freedom of speech and the right to criticize government officials using whatever language we choose, and they don’t understand the idea that individuals should be responsible for the consequences of their actions. (i.e. the shooter, and not something he read or heard, is responsible for his own choosing to shoot people, by his own free will.) It seems that these politicians in Washington (and elsewhere) are so insecure, so in need of the public’s adulation and state-worship, that the littlest thing is perceived as a threat — not to their lives or their persons, but to their egos, so fragile, so easily shattered. That is why they want to censor the Internet, and that is why they want to prosecute people for criticizing them.

Take Joe Lieberman and Elena Kagan.* Now, I’ve mentioned those two here in this space several times, and some people think that I have expressed “vitriolic rhetoric” toward them (as well as Nancy Smelgrosi and Harry Reek). And they are correct, I have done that. But I certainly haven’t threatened them, nor would I do that. On the contrary, it is they who actually threaten me and each and every one of us non-government “mundanes” (as William Grigg would say).

For example, Joe Lieberman has submitted legislation to be able to remove citizenship and have deported (to where?) Americans who are suspected by the government to be “terrorists,” or terrorist supporters, but not convicted of anything, not even tried or charged, so he wants to do that to someone without a trial, without Due Process. Lieberman does not seem to understand the idea of presumption of innocence and Due Process. The right to presumption of innocence and the right to Due Process are basic, inherent, inalienable rights that all human beings have. Joe Lieberman needs to understand what the Founding Fathers understood, that if you give any agent of the State the power to just make a determination out of thin air, based on nothing but his own whim or his own personal judgment, that power will be abused, as it has already been in these years of the “War on Terror,” in which the Bush Administration knowingly apprehended and detained totally innocent individuals. That is a disgusting abuse of government power, and Joe Lieberman supports all those anti-Liberty policies, and he wants to expand them. I have addressed this in my “Tea Partiers May Need the ACLU Soon.”

And most informed, rational people know that the real reason that Joe Lieberman wants to shut down the Internet with his “Kill Switch” is to stifle political dissent. Totalitarians do not like dissent, and that is what they do to it: crush anyone who not only disagrees with them, but who even questions them, questions their authority. (Remember “Question Authority” from the 1960s and 1970s? Those same leftists got themselves into power, into positions of authority, and here they are now, they don’t like their authority being questioned, Obama, Cass Sunstein, Dianne Larryfinestein, etc.)

In her devotion to authoritarian executive power, Elena Caveman Kagan has supported and defended the aforementioned Obama policies of indefinite detention, giving the president the power to assassinate anyone he pleases and label anyone as an “enemy combatant” at his own whim, without any Due Process, and she clearly opposes the idea of natural rights, that we as human beings have inalienable, natural rights, and she opposes the idea that individuals have a natural right of self-defense. “Arm the State – disarm the citizenry,” she might as well say.

In other words, what we have been seeing now has been, in their emotional reaction to events such as 9/11 or the recent Arizona shootings, these government reactionaries would have ME arrested for simply pointing out how dangerous these officials are to our Liberty. THEY are the ones who are the threat, literally. That’s why I’m bringing all this up again. And, speaking of our God-given right to bear arms, and right to self-defense, now Rep. Peter King (R-Nutsville), who at one time was apparently on the side of actual terrorists in Northern Ireland but who seems to want to persecute Muslims, wants to make it a federal crime if one happens to be armed within 1,000 feet of any federal official. That’s absurd. What if some federal official, a congressman or judge or some State Department flunky, happens to be out walking along some street and some guy who happens to be armed is nearby, right there he is committing a federal crime, according to King. And Nazi New York Mayor Michael Bloomjerk agrees with King:

Yesterday everyone here joined in observing a moment of silence on behalf of the victims of the shooting, and today we come together to speak up for ways to prevent tragedies like this from occurring in the future, by adopting commonsense fixes to some of our broken gun laws.

By “commonsense,” Nazi Bloomjerk means “disarm honest, law-abiding citizens, and keep the criminals and the agents of the State armed.” Obviously, Bloomjerk hasn’t read John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime. In the cities with more gun control, there is more crime, and where there is more gun freedom, there is less crime. That is because actual criminals don’t obey laws, duh, and so obviously they’re not going to obey gun laws, either. But when they know that there’s a good chance that their potential victim may be armed, the criminals will more likely choose to not commit their criminal acts. Now, that’s the real common sense. And if someone in that crowd at the Giffords event was armed, as soon as it was clear that some lunatic was shooting, the armed citizen could have immediately shot the shooter, and there would only have been one or two dead or injured people, rather than six dead people and 14 wounded. Unfortunately, some people just don’t like the idea of the individual’s right to be armed, in self defense, and in the defense of others. The authoritarians and totalitarians believe strongly in arming the State and disarming the citizenry.

Published inUncategorized