Tripwire

The line may have already been crossed.  - LB

The Tripwire
by
D. van Oort & J.F.A. Davidson
From The Resister

"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive?"-- Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Gulag Archipelago

What would be the tripwire resulting in open rebellion? Examining the Bill of Rights, and considering EXISTING laws only, and not failed attempts, you will find that every clause has been violated to one degree or another.

Documenting those violations would fill volumes, and it is important to remember that only government can violate the exercise of unalienable individual rights and claim immunity from retribution. We omit martial law or public suspension of the Constitution as a tripwire. The overnight installation of dictatorship obviously would qualify as "the tripwire," but is not likely to occur. What has occurred, what is occurring, is the implementation of every aspect of such dictatorship without an overt declaration. The Constitution is being killed by attrition. The Communist Manifesto is being installed by accretion. Any suggestion that martial law is the tripwire leads us to the question: what aspect of martial law justifies the first shot?

For much the same reason, we will leave out mass executions of the Waco variety. For one thing, they are composite abuses of numerous individual rights. Yet, among those abuses, the real tripwire may exist. For another, those events are shrouded in a fog of obfuscation and outright lies. Any rebellion must be based on extremely hard and known facts. Similarly, no rebellion will succeed if its fundamental reasons for occurring are not explicitly identified. Those reasons cannot be explicitly identified if, in place of their identification, we simply point to a composite such as Waco and say, "See, that's why; figure it out." Any suggestion that more Wacos, in and of themselves, would be the tripwire, simply leads us back again to the question: what aspect of them justifies rebellion?

For the same reasons, we leave out a detailed account of Ayn Rand's identification of the four essential characteristics of tyranny. She identified them quite correctly, but together they are just another composite from which we must choose precipitating causes. These characteristics are: one-party rule, executions without trial for political offenses, expropriation or nationalisation of private property, and "above all," censorship.

With regard to the first characteristic of tyranny, what is the real difference between the Fabian socialist Republican Party and the overtly [Bolshevik] socialist Democratic Party? Nothing but time. Regarding the second we have the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team and the ATF's enforcement branch. In action they simply avoid the embarrassment of a trial. Regarding the third, we have asset forfeiture "laws," the IRS, the EPA, the FCC, the FDA, the Federal Reserve, the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, and a myriad of other executive branch agencies, departments, and commissions whose sole function is to regulate business and the economy. Regulating business for the common good (fascism) is no different in principle than outright nationalisation (communism).

However, the fourth characteristic of tyranny, censorship, is the obvious primary tripwire. When ideology and the reporting of facts and how-to instructions are forbidden, there is nothing remaining but to fight. Freedom of speech and persuasion -- the freedom to attempt to rationally convince willing listeners -- is so fundamental an individual right that without it no other rights, not even the existence of rights, can be enforced, claimed, debated, or even queried.

Does this censorship include the regulation of the "public" airwaves by the FCC, as in the censorship which prohibits tobacco companies from advertising -- in their own defense -- on the same medium which is commanded by government decree to carry "public service" propaganda against them? Does it include federal compulsion of broadcasters to air politically-correct twaddle for "The Children"? Does it include the Orwellian "Communications Decency Act"? Does it include any irrationalist "sexual harassment" or tribalist "hate speech" laws which prohibit certain spoken words among co-workers? The answer: unequivocally yes.

Although the above do not pertain to ideological or political speech, yet they are censorship and are designed to intimidate people into the acceptance of de facto censorship. We say that any abrogation of free speech, and any form of censorship, which cannot be rectified by the soap box, the ballot box, or the jury box, must be rectified by the cartridge box -- or lost forever.

Americans have been stumbling over tripwires justifying overt resistance for well over 130 years. On one hand, we submit that gun confiscation is a secondary tripwire only. It is second to censorship because if speech is illegal we cannot even discuss the repeal of gun control, or any other population controls. If only guns are illegal, we may still convince people to repeal those laws. On the other hand, gun confiscation may be a sufficient tripwire because the primary one, censorship, can be fully implemented only after the citizenry has been disarmed.

Resistance, in the context of this article, means those legitimate acts by individuals which compel government to restrict its activities and authority to those powers delegated to the Congress by the people in the Constitution.

The distinction to be drawn here is that the objective of patriotic resistance is to restore original Constitutional government, not change the form of government. To this end we believe: The enforcement of any laws -- local, state, or federal -- that through the action or inaction of the courts makes nugatory the individual means of resisting tyranny, justifies resistance.

The operative terms of the above statement are the parameters that must be defined and understood if resistance to tyranny and despotism is to be honourable, and for the cause of individual liberty, rather than anarchy resulting from a new gang of tyrants. Rebellion can never be justified so long as objective means of redress are available, which are themselves not subverted or rendered impotent by further or parallel subjective legislation.

The goal of patriots throughout the country must be the restoration of objective constitutional law and order. The failure to enforce a subjective law (i.e. the Communications Decency Act) does not justify that law existing, but it also does not justify resistance. This is because non-enforcement leaves avenues of redress, including the forbidden activity itself, still available. Should a lower court uphold or ignore a case that challenges subjective law, peaceable means of redress are still open by higher or lateral courts in another jurisdiction.

However, should the U.S. Supreme Court uphold subjective laws, or refuse to hear the cases challenging them, then the legislative, executive, and judicial branches have all failed to guarantee individual liberty, from the widest principles to the smallest details. A single refusal by the highest court in the land to overturn a whim-based subjective law, or to refuse to hear the case, is sufficient to justify resistance to that law because there is simply nowhere left to turn for further attempts at redress. At such time nobody is morally bound by that law. Tyranny gets one chance per branch.
America is either a constitutional republic or it is not. If we can restore our republic it will ultimately occur through reason, and reason will then lead our representatives to make unconstitutional those laws which, by any objective standard of justice, should have never been considered in the first place. However, we cannot assert our claim to restore our liberty if we but accede to a single socialist construct. Freedom and serfdom cannot coexist. We cannot have it both ways.

Life, and the means to preserve it, cannot coexist with disarmament. Liberty, and its rational exercise, cannot coexist with subjective constraints. Property, and its acquisition, use, and disposal cannot coexist with expropriation. The federal government's first task is to obey the Constitution. It has refused. Our first task as free men is to force the government to obey it again. The Constitution of the United States of America is a constraint on the federal government, not on the individual.
Likewise, the constitutions of the various states are constraints on the state governments, not on the individual. The Constitution contains many provisions allowing the violation of our natural rights as free men by immoral and unethical men in government. The true heroes of the ratification debates were the Anti-federalists, who secured Federalist guarantees that the Bill of Rights would amend the Constitution.

To their undying credit, the Federalists lived up to their promise. Nevertheless, only after constitutional limitations on government have been restored in their original form can we consider amending the Constitution to redress its very few remaining defects (for example, the absence of a separation of state and the economy clause).

Laws that make nugatory the means of resisting tyranny and despotism determine the tripwire. The creeping legislative erosion of the 2nd Amendment is not the only tripwire that justifies resistance. We submit that any gun control is a secondary tripwire. Not only because it can be effortlessly evaded, but also because it strengthens our cause. It is second only to censorship. If speech is illegal we can discuss neither repeal of gun control, or the repeal of any other unconstitutional "law."

Censorship is not a tripwire, it is THE tripwire. Thus, by default, censorship morally justifies rebellion.

Under censorship, no other rights, including the right to be free from censorship, can be advocated, discussed, or queried. It is incorrect to say that after censorship comes utter subjugation. Censorship is utter subjugation. There is no greater usurpation of liberty while remaining alive. After censorship come the death camps, and they are not a prerequisite of censorship, they are merely a symptom of it. Censorship qua censorship is sufficient in itself to justify open rebellion against any government that legislates, enforces, or upholds it.

However, that is not the half of it. Censorship is alone in being the only violation of individual rights that does not require actual enforcement or challenges in court, before rebellion is justified. When the government forbids you to speak or write, or use your own or a supporter's property to address willing listeners or readers, that government has openly and forcibly declared that the art of peaceful persuasion is dead and will not be tolerated. Upon that very instant, all peaceful avenues of redress have been closed and the only possible method of regaining that liberty is force. Whenever we give up that force, we are not only ruined, we deserve to be ruined.

Censorship is already being "legally" imposed through accretion by compromisers, appeasers, and pragmatists within government at all levels. Note the demands by "progressive" organisations and self-appointed "civil rights" groups to ban so-called "hate" speech (they mean thought and debate), or "extreme" language (they mean principled dissent), or "paramilitary" books (they mean the knowledge of how to resist). When our government imposes censorship, it will be because our ability to use force to resist censorship no longer exists. Buying copies of The Resister is not yet prohibited; buying machine guns already is. Unwarranted search for unlicensed books has not yet occurred; unwarranted search for unlicensed weapons has already begun. As your unalienable right of peaceable discussion and dissent is being daily abridged, your right to peaceably assemble and associate in advocacy of your own self-defence, according to your own free will, has already been outlawed (courtesy of ADL's "model" anti-militia legislation).

Unconstitutional federal agencies now arm themselves with weapons that you may not own, and train in tactics that you are prohibited from mastering. Before a government is sure you won't resist, it will make sure you can't resist.

The most irrational, contradictory, short-range, whimsical notion possible to men who claim the unalienable right to resist tyrannical government is the notion that they must first let their ability to resist be stripped from them before they have the right to use it. This is the argument of so-called conservatives who pish-tosh the notion of legislative "slippery-slopes," and sycophantic adherents of a supreme Court that has no constitutionally delegated authority to interpret the Constitution in the first place. We reject the notion of mindless compliance with subjective "laws." Subjective laws must be resisted on metaphysical and epistemological principles, moral and ethical grounds, and on constitutional and historical precedence.

No rational man desires ends without means. No rational man can be faced with his own imminent subjugation and truly believe that, once things are as bad as they can get, "sometime" "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. Any man who counsels another to appeal to those mystical equivalents of "divine intervention" for "deliverance" from tyranny is our enemy by all principles conceivable within the scope of rational human intelligence.

The time to organise resistance is not after censorship, but before it. The time to prepare resistance is when our ability to resist is being threatened. The time to begin resistance is when that threat has been upheld or ignored by the courts. The unalienable rights that safeguard our ability to resist are limited to those which, if not violated, allow us to plan and use all materials necessary for resistance. We submit that only the following meet that criteria: freedom of speech and of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble--so that we may advocate ideas, report and discuss news, and instruct others how to carry out resistance activities (1st Amendment); the right to keep and bear arms -- so that we may have appropriate force in our hands should we need it, and be trained to use such force as necessary (2nd Amendment); the right to be let alone -- so that we may be free of government intrusion in our lives, liberty, and property (3rd Amendment)); the right to be secure in our persons, dwellings, papers, and property from unwarranted, unaffirmed searches and seizures -- so that our records, ideological materials, and weapons will remain in our hands (4th Amendment).

For the purpose of this discussion, we believe that no other rights are relevant because if every individual right other than those four were violated -- although it would be an unspeakably evil act on the part of the government, justifying immediate and unforgiving resistance -- their abridgement would not effect our ability to resist. If any of the first four amendments are infringed by legislation, enforced by executive power, and their abrogation is upheld or ignored by the courts, unremitting, forcible resistance, and aid and comfort to its citizen-soldiers, is a moral imperative for every single person who believes that life, liberty, and property are unalienable and self-existing, and not grants of government privilege.

"The United States should get rid of its militias." -- Josef Stalin, 1933

"The foundation of a free government begins to be undermined when freedom of speech on political subjects is restrained; it is destroyed when freedom of speech is wholly denied." -- William Rawle, LL.D. Philadelphia, 1825

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson (1764) -- Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment

 

On Tyranicide

Socialists are inherently parasitic and thus can't take no for an answer to their demands for obedience and the material goods they need to exist.  If they did so they would wither away and die.  A dictator on the other hand doesn't have to take no for answer.   Thus Socialists are by necessity inclined to favor dictatorships over citizen ruled republics.  When they see a dictator in the dock they see their own hopes and desires go with him.  When they see a dictator doing a dance at the end of a rope they see themselves perishing with him.

Why do Leftists have such a problem with tyrannicide?  We must take into account the fact that The Left's ideal of society is one where the State controls all aspects of human life and where the refusal to submit to the will of the State is a punishable offense.  Punishments which include the penalty of death.  In short The Left seeks to establish a state of tyranny.

WARNING!

Leftist propagandist Sean Penn has openly called for the incarceration of Senator Ted Cruz and the Tea Party in general on the grounds of insanity.  What's next?  Action T4 or Showers and Ovens for us?  Here's a repost of a very important book review originally published in THE RESISTER.  If you haven't read it, you should.  Inside every Leftist is a Totalitarian screaming to get out.

BOOK REVIEW
-----------

The Ominous Parallels--The End of Freedom in America. Leonard Peikoff. New York: NAL Penguin, Inc., 1982. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 83-60247. ix + 316 pages plus references and index.. Soft cover $10.00.


Reviewed by Red Barchetta

This book asks: "What caused Nazi Germany?" Unlike lesser attempts to explain that blood bath, The Ominous Parallels answers: "The same philosophies that are prevalent in the United States of America." Dr. Peikoff argues convincingly that in both countries the intellectual, educational and political leadership share, explicitly or implicitly, the same core ideologies. These ideologies submit that reality is subjective--a malleable illusion; emotions are the proper guide to human action--especially the emotions of race and the tribe, which cannot be understood by outsiders; self-sacrifice for the sake of others should usurp a man's own desires--and the state must take any necessary action to ensure that sacrifice. These ideologies demand that "individual selfishness" does not obstruct the path of "the public interest."

From Part One, Chapter One: " 'To be a socialist,' says Goebbels, 'is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.' By this definition, the Nazis practiced what they preached. They practiced it at home and then abroad. No one can claim that they did not sacrifice enough individuals."

The underlying theme in The Ominous Parallels is how philosophy shapes cultures, and reading this book, it is difficult to escape a feeling of hopeless dread; of being caught in racing floodwaters and swept madly toward a destruction you are helpless to prevent. Given the theme of this nation's descent into fascism, and Dr. Peikoff's uncompromising method of proving it, that is the proper effect.

The conclusion of The Ominous Parallels is not that we are helplessly destined to go to the same lengths down the same road as Germany. The conclusion is that it is time for us to choose whether or not we will; that if we fail to consciously decide, the decision will be made for us. Contrary to the bleating of irrationalists then or now, it is only a coherent philosophy of reason and individual rights which will give us the means to choose not to become our own slaughterhouse.

Dr. Peikoff shows that such a philosophy is not prevalent in the United States because, although this nation was unique in being founded on philosophic ideals (rather than arbitrary land-grabs and tribal warfare), it was ultimately lacking a coherent detailed formulation of those ideals, as well as the Aristotelian philosophers to create one. Independence from Europe was only won physically--not ideologically. "The land of poets and philosophers was brought down by its poets and philosophers," says Peikoff. The resulting bowel movement of docile Nazi sheep who obeyed their Fuhrer because they obeyed their philosophers could indeed be us, for their philosophers--their pragmatists and Kants, their Hegels and Marxes--are ours
by adoption.

We do have one trump card, "...the philosophical breach between the American people and the intellectuals." In Germany, the intellectuals and the people were united in ideology, feeling at home in their country and with each other. This, says Peikoff, is not yet the case in America. Peikoff's book will help to keep it that way.

What are your questions?

UPDATE 2035 CDT:

Another quote from THE RESISTER:
 

Humanity is not merely a physical condition, it is a state of mind. To be human is to be essentially rational and productive. The human mentality (or soul) looks upon the world, the land, the animals and plants, the natural forces, as things to be mastered for the benefit of himself and his posterity. On the other hand, the predator, or savage mentality does not seek to to master the world, but to be the master of men. The savage prefers not to sustain himself by his own effort, but to seize and consume the lives and property of others for material and spiritual sustenance. To the predator, justice consists of "getting away with it" -- those who rightfully resist the predator are to be punished or destroyed.

-- Leslie Bates, The Resister, Vol VI, N. 1, Page 42

 

On Tyranny

The one word that tyrants and those who seek to become tyrants don't want to hear is the word NO.  Even to suggest that a person has the right to say NO is the equivalent of speaking a death sentence to tyrants and wanna-be tyrants.

Opinions

No matter what you believe, the truth is the truth.

A democratically elected Tyrant is still a Tyrant.

Environmentalists, no matter how awful their actions are, always see themselves as good people. 

Those who don't remember the past are not only going to repeat it, but are also a highly valued group of followers.

Of course President Trump is guilty, it's a SHOW TRIAL after all. 

I'm still surrounded by idiots.

Opinion

Islam IS the religion of Tyranny.

Quotes Of The Day

If there's one myth that I'd really like to bury, it's the myth that National Socialism is a right wing ideology.

Quote:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

The false president Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or an ordinary Leftist could repeat the above statement word for word and no one in the usual audience or the Mainstream Media would call them out on it. 

 

Try to understand this elementary principle of collectivist politics: you are not yours. Your life does not belong to you. You are a “resource” to be employed at the discretion of others

- Billy Beck

The engine of tyranny is a blind, indifferent juggernaut, insensible to reason, justice and equity, and so necessarily inimical to them. It matters not the good intentions of the hand that launches it into the affairs of men. Once started, it moves almost of its own volition, corrupting, consuming and destroying everything in its path. It is a fundamentally nihilistic phenomenon. Its power is both centripetal and centrifugal, on one hand drawing its potency from that which it can corrupt; on the other, crushing or flinging aside the incorruptible.

--Edward Cline

 

 

 

On Democracy And Tyranny

Tyrants can be elected.  Adolf Hitler, Justin Trudeau, and the false president Joe Biden being cases in point.

On The Left

Under the Primacy of the State the function of law is to control the productive population for the benefit of the ruling parasites.  The rulers and their immediate servants aren't subject to those laws themselves.  The actual interest of the actual citizens is irrelevant.  What matters is the whims of the rulers and those who willfully serve them.  Under the Rule of Law all real laws must be applied to all citizens equally such as the laws prohibiting homicide and theft.  As our Socialist rulers and their willing servants regard themselves as exempt from compliance with the laws on what grounds can they claim to be protected under them?  Once force is openly used against those who speak out against The Left then the gloves will come off and force WILL be openly used against The Left.  Once The Left openly repudiates the rules for living in a civil society then their victims will no longer see themselves as subject to those same rules.  Or to put it another way to The Left, break the rules of civil society and The Left will leave us no choice but to break The Left. 

(Image by Mark Urbin)

Leftist are essentially tyrants.

Bitching On The Anniversary

On this day in 1776 a bunch of subjects of the British crown declared themselves and their fellow Americans to be the free citizens of a free nation.  Needless to say King George III and the British Aristocracy objected to this revolutionary act with deadly force.  Although the United States Constitution clearly prohibits the establishment of an aristocratic class one has been brought into effect by judicial fiat.  Homosexuals -- a group once commonly identified as depraved or mentally ill -- have been granted a separate and superior status with respect to the citizens of our nation.  Anyone who refuses a demand from a homosexual on any grounds are now subject to civil punishment.  Given this it wouldn't be a surprise when the refusal of a demand by a homosexual will result in a criminal penalty as well.  In reality this is called oppression.  In the last year the Pink Triangle of the Homosexual Collective has changed from a sign of victim status to being a symbol of the oppressors.  It has become a symbol of tyranny like the Red Star of Soviet Communism and the Broken Cross of National Socialism.

 

I'm reposting  a rant on the subject of Gay Rights.


The Myth Of Gay Rights


What is a right?

In Objectivism a right is a moral principle that defines and sanctions an individual’s freedom of action in a social context.  There’s only one basic right, a person’s right to their own life.[1]

So what is a Gay Right?

The so-called Gay Right is a political privilege, a law enacted for the private benefit of homosexuals, which negates the freedom of non-homosexuals.  In most of the cases on record it’s the freedom to not associate with homosexuals.

Why disassociate from homosexuals?

In the cases that have come up for judicial action individuals are being punished for complying with the Christian moral code.  In Christianity homosexuality is identified as a sin and as a result they're to be shunned.  In reality the act of shunning a homosexual does not violate his real rights because in a free society all personal interactions are voluntary.

In a case that came up for judicial action a homosexual couple entering into a marriage sought to buy a wedding cake for their ceremony.  When they were refused on Christian moral grounds they sued the baker for the act of discrimination.  Instead of choosing a different baker to voluntarily provide the cake as is proper in a free society they chose to reject the principle of freedom and to judicially inflict their will upon the baker.[2]

Are there grounds to disassociate from homosexuals and thus a rational basis to do so?

In reality homosexuality is a mental dysfunction.  The homosexual act runs counter to the normal biological functions of human life.  And homosexuals have been disruptive to the normal interactions in civil and military groups. [3]  

Given that there are both religious and rational grounds for disassociating from homosexuals it’s no surprise that the adherents of tyranny, those that seek to establish the Primacy of the State with themselves fully in control, have quickly and firmly moved to exploit the homosexual voting block.  In exchange for the privilege of negating the rights of non-homosexuals this collective is consistently supporting the complete effort of the tyrants to impose their rule upon our nation.  This should result in a negative outcome for the homosexual collective.  When the present cold civil struggle becomes an open war the victims of the homosexual collective will seek an end to their problem.

A permanent end.


Footnotes

1.  Ayn Rand, “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness.

2.  In finding for the homosexual couple the judge acted in the opposite manner of a judicial officer in a free society.  For this he should be taken out and shot.

3.  The ancient Greek city state of Thebes had a dedicated all homosexual military formation.  It was wiped out in action.

 

On Gun Control

A ballot which isn't backed by force has the same value as unbacked currency.  None.  Those who seek to disarm us (and their servants) want us to be ruled without restraint.  A valid ballot has to be backed by an instrument of force.  Otherwise voting is irrelevant.  As far as I'm concerned an advocate of Gun Control is an advocate of Tyranny.

 

Quotes

You don't know everything, live with it.  It's easier to be honest than dishonest.  Everyone has their flaws.  But some people allow their flaws to dominate them.

Isabel Paterson, a friend of Ayn Rand, had something to say about the phenomena of Leader Worship:

“Let it be asked how any person wholly devoid of talent, skill, accomplishment, wit, beauty, charm, or even the practical ability to earn a living by routine labor, can conceivably become an object of flattering, greeted with applause and given a hearing for the feeblest inanities — obviously nothing will serve except political position.”

And.

“When the word leader, or leadership, returns to current use, it connotes a relapse into barbarism. For a civilized people, it is the most ominous word in any language.”

The God of the Machine. (1943)

Censorship is the negation of the human mind.  As rational thought is necessary to living a human life the censor, and those who demand it, are Enemies of Mankind.

Power destroys Humanity. 

Tyrants have their supporters.

Opinion

Reality is real.  Those who call themselves Progressives are in fact Reactionaries.  Those who call themselves Liberals are in fact Tyrants.

Idiotcy In Action

Those who want tyranny are working to be ruled by tyrants.

Opinion

The Tyranny of the mob is still a form of Tyranny.  We have to understand that Democracy is a form of Tyranny.

Opinions

Vladimir Putin has bought himself a one way trip to the gallows.

Being a Peace Activist means that you're on the side of the bad guys.

The Democratic Party is the actual party of Tyranny.

Opinions

We can blame a lot of things on Adolf Hitler.  One of the things Hitler (and his cronies) did was to make Communism look good.  We can blame the Communist death toll after 1945 on Hitler.

One of the functions of language is to serve as the operating system of human thought.  But the function of Newspeak is to prevent correct identification of the facts of reality.  Thus blood soaked tyrants are called liberators and liberators are called oppressors.

Opinion

If the false president Joe Biden wants to behave as a tyrant, let's treat  him as a tyrant, hang him from the neck until dead.

Opinion

 The tyrants appear to be taking over.  Our self proclaimed president Joe Biden appears to be behaving as a tyrant.  Perhaps he should treated as one.  From the neck until dead.

Opinions

Monstrous people will often see themselves as the good guys. 

If you believe you're morally superior you're likely aren't.

Every Socialist is a Dictator in waiting.

The leadership of The Democratic Party should be treated as the Enemies Of Mankind they actually are.  In the Nuremberg fashion, from the neck until dead.  

To Democrats POWER IS LIFE.

I made a prediction about Democrats in the past.

We should expect terror attacks not only from our external enemies, especially after a withdrawal from Iraq, but also a full Leninist reign of terror against anyone that they perceive to be an opponent. Like Lenin, who saw himself and his followers to not be subject to any law or other moral restraint, they will not only violate but may very well openly disavow the Constitution and use any means to cement their power over us. No act will be too heinous to them. We will see mass arrests and imprisonments based on fraudulent grounds. They will command us to disarm ourselves, and when we rightfully refuse they will deliberately commit atrocities against us in order to break our will. They may even perpetrate one or more horrors like the Waco Massacre.