In hopes that President Clinton will name me for my bad language and give me my 15 minutes of fame I herewith intend to give the same "divisive" advice as did G. Gordon Liddy. Read carefully folks, here is comes. If you are are faint of heart you might wish to read something else instead.
If the BATF or any branch of the government or law enforcement officer knocks on your door with a warrant to search your home or office, stand aside and let them do so.
Real subversion isn't it. I feel unamerican already.
If the BATF or any branch of the government or law enforcement officer breaks down your door unannounced and starts shooting at you, return fire with the intent to kill. The intent to kill, as they are shooting and thus trying to kill you, means you do not shoot at a bullet proof vest. It means you shoot at something that will kill, like the head.
I feel so subversive.
There you have it. The advice for which Liddy was singled out by the President. Just what is wrong with this advice? What have I missed in my life that says the government has the right to break down your door and try to kill you? Is there some reason the government would object to people being advised to shoot back?
Where is it written it is the right of the government to act without identifying themselves or announcing the possession of a warrant? That does seem to be the lesson of Waco; the government truly believes it has that power and that power should not be opposed. That is, there should be no resistance to any home break-in by armed and shooting people.
This power is something I missed in Civics 101. I remember always hearing something very different.
Hey! President Clinton! Denounce me!
This is a ridiculous situation finding the government being upset when there is advice to citizens to preserve their lives by actively responding to a life threatening situation with deadly force. What is wrong with that? How many would not chose to be tried by 12 than be carried by 6? Even if condemned to death one has 20 more years of life while appealing. It is only those coming in shooting that lose everything on the spot.
And of course the mindless liberal media thinks it has a bludgeon in this new inclusion into the "hate speech" lexicon at the same time the Supreme Court is finding all other speech codes unconstitutional.
Something from 1969 seems to have been forgotten. That was the case of Brandenberg v Ohio. The Supreme Court held that even the usual spoken, written or other media advocacy of the violent overthrow of the United States government was protected by the 1st amendment's free speech clause.
As news to the government hating, war protesting Bill Clinton, advocating in speech and in writing blowing up federal buildings including the White House is protected by the first amendment. But if that is what we were talking about his political position on this bombing would deserve a public hearing. But he is not talking about that.
He is talking about people, as least by the Liddy example, who are giving advice to 1) obey the law and 2) shoot to kill when confronted by illegal deadly force and 2a) the way to be deadly in a kevlar age.
That is also the only thing the liberals can be nailed down to condemning. There is not one other allegation that holds water even the ones where liberals have done as much or more with words. The strange thing about the media is that it persists in the very kind of words it condemns.
This is becoming one more attempt to prohibit words from the language. Words that do not fit some political ideal are what they are trying to cast into an anti-social image. Certainly no different from parents prohibiting their children from using "bad" language.
We have discovered over the years that, unlike money, good speech drives out bad. That is why all speech is free. In a more practical sense, prohibiting speech lends credibility to it while permitting all speech drowns out all in the cacophony. The government conspiracy to cover up the use of black helicopters has exactly the credibility of the 50 years of talk about the government covering up UFOs.
Free speech works. Admonitions against bad language do not. Recognize speech for what it is and look to actions.