Continuing his campaign to silence dissent against the laws passed by our government the President made a quite impassioned speech citing the liberties of the militias and asking "How dare they" say their rights are being taken away. Now that he has planted his foot firmly in his mouth lets see if his toes can wiggle and tickle his throat.
One of those liberties he cited was the right to keep all the weapons they wanted and how dare they say they are not free. Quite a short memory this one. Just a year ago with the passage of the Brady Bill he was encouraging the submission of what was called Brady II in this session of Congress. The proposed provisions of Brady II included one to strictly limit the number of guns a person could own without paying a huge fee and submit to random inspections.
Right on, Billie Jeff, how dare they say what they objected to what YOU supported and said you would sign. I presume you feel a tickle in your throat about this time.
Were they paranoid in saying they were being infiltrated by government spies? Certainly they were. Is that now being proposed by the President? Yes. Perhaps they were just a bit ahead of their time. And what did they do? No more than the Soviet Union did for Lee Harvey Oswald.
Is not this very same President on record as saying he has no problem with hunting weapons but all the rest are questionable? Were they ahead of their time again?
Right. How dare these militias say they are not free to own all the guns they wish when the same president making the accusation has supported every form of gun restriction proposed -- except for hunting guns of course. He even shot a duck, risking the wrath of PETA, to prove it.
Should he be more honest and ask "How dare they accuse me of supporting every thing they say they are against?" Honesty was never his long suit. He has literally supported every thing he denounced them for.
Does this man really think no one pays attention? This is what he has said he supports. Just last year two sets of provisions were passed into law that no one who understands what they mean supports. He completely supported them. And he asks, "how dare you" about their concern for exactly what he supports.
Those laws were passed by the means of a rigged poll that convinced many congressmen to vote for those laws and, as Clinton acknowledged in the State of the Union address, many of them lost their seats solely because they paid attention to that faked poll rather than their constituency.
And there is the rub again, the laws were passed regardless of the constituency. They were not passed out of any great noble purpose of the good of the country. They were passed based upon a faked poll and then people are supposed to obey such laws? They are not the will of the people and have no moral standing with the people. They do not contain the element of justice that must be in any law for it to be obeyed.
A faked poll has no more standing in justice -- not law -- than than bribing or intimidating the legislators. It has no more standing than rigging the computer that tallies the votes of congressmen. Yet the government enforces this law. It is a government like this that has lost its moral authority to govern.
Why should there be any question as to why 38% of the people consider the federal government a threat? Guns and militias are not the only example, only the example in the news.
How dare people say the government is the enemy when it threatens people with jail for killing rats? fines them for saving their own lives and those of their children from bears and alligators? How about a traditional one? The threat of fines and prison for not being able to understand the income forms?
How dare they dissent? Very easily. They are Americans.
How dare Bill Clinton challenge them for expecting exactly what he supports?