Top Website Labels Truth As 'Dangerous'
by Susan Duclos - All News PipeLine
When tyranny is acceptable but those exposing the truth of that tyranny are deemed dangerous, we have a recipe for the total destruction of the American Republic.
What is more dangerous.... tyranny or showing the people the truth of a government bordering on full tyranny?
I guess it depends on how you look at it because tyranny itself is dangerous to the people that must live under a tyrannical government, more so when a country like America has certain rights guaranteed to them by the U.S. constitution and the Bill of Rights, that are violated as the U.S. goverment becomes more and more tyrannical.
On the flip side it is dangerous to expose the tyranny because attacks come at those that do from multiple directions, from government trolls, to "coincidental" outages, to DNS attacks, to accidental "false positives" by anti-virus services, and to being targeted by a government that doesn't want the truth to be told, shown and proven. Is the truth itself dangerous though?
According to one popular far left ultra liberal writer, it is.... in fact, the truth to Ed Kilgore over at Washington Monthly, is more dangerous that watching our constututional rights be stripped away from us, one at a time. We are going to show why Mr. Kilgore thinks there is "danger" in the statements made by Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, then we will provide examples, even acknowledged by the MSM, of why Cruz is being truthful, yet labeled as "dangerous."
The first statement Kilgore highlights is Cruz's point of view on the first Democratic debate, where he said: “It was more socialism, more pacifism, more weakness & less Constitution,” he told about 100 people crammed into a motel lobby in Kalona, a small town in southeastern Iowa. “It was a recipe to destroy a country.” [...]
“We’re seeing our freedoms taken away every day and last night was an audition for who would wear the jackboot most vigorously. Last night was an audition for who would embrace government power for who would strip your and my individual liberties."
Kilgore then points out a Cruz fundraising letter:
“The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty,” Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line “2nd Amendment against tyranny.”
Kilgore's take on the "danger":
But I’m sorry, I think this sort of rhetoric is a serious matter. Why? Because Cruz is one of those presidential candidates (along with Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee for sure; the exact position of several others is unclear) who claim the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to revolutionary violence against their own government if it engages in “tyranny” or doesn’t respect our rights.
So when a guy like Cruz starts tossing around words like “tyrant” and “jackboot” and “destroy the country” and “strip your and my individual liberties,” isn’t it possible, perhaps even likely, that at least a few of his supporters might think he’s signaling that the time is near to get out the shooting irons and start executing the Tyrant’s agents? I really think Cruz, Carson and Huckabee need to be asked very specifically on the campaign trail and in debates exactly which circumstances would justify the armed insurrection they defend, and make it clear that Obamacare or a potential repeal of the gunshow loophole or an executive action on immigration don’t qualify.
First we need to understand Washington Monthly isn't just a politically liberal website, this is a site that is ranked in the top 15,000 in the United States by Alexa, a site that liberal politicians use to gauge what is acceptable to to their liberal supporters, in some cases using that to determine their own policies.
It is sites like Washington Monthly that encourage rhetoric such as we have recently seen by Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, suggesting "mandatory" gun buybacks, and pledging more gun control by executive actions, and a further eroding of the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the Constitution.
While researching this article I was reminded of an excellent statement made by a war veteran back in January 2013, where he explained at a meeting with a group that dared ask if the Second Amendment was still as important now as it was when it was created.... this veteran's statement was calm, cool, collected and epic and ended to a standing ovation by the audience.
The veterans name is Kevin Tully and he schooled that lecturer, with the final conclusion that "The threat of tyranny today is no less than the turn of the century in the 1900s, the 1800s or the 1700s. "
Many would be amazed by the amount of people that continually refer to America as a "democracy," when in fact, America is a Constutional Republic that holds Democratic elections. The distinction is very important.
Why did we need a constitution? Why are popular elections not a sufficient means of preserving liberty?
A pure unbridled democracy is a political system in which the majority enjoys absolute power by means of democratic elections. In an unvarnished democracy, unrestrained by a constitution, the majority can vote to impose tyranny on themselves and the minority opposition. They can vote to elect those who will infringe upon our inalienable God-given rights. Thomas Jefferson referred to this as elected despotism in Notes on the State of Virginia (also cited in Federalist 48 by Madison):
An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.
Thus, a constitution that limited and divided the power of government was necessary to preclude elected officials from imposing tyranny on the people. This is why they adopted a constitution with limited enumerated power, divided and checked across several branches and levels.
That system is referred to as Checks and Balances, shown as a visual below.
BYPASSING CONGRESS & UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS BY BABARACK OBAMA
Keep that definition in mind as we point out the multiple instances that Barack Obama has bypassed Congress, has tossed the Checks and Balances right out the window, on Gun Control, Immigration, Climate Change, Minimum Wage, Taxes, and more. - ALSO SEE - 10 Ways Obama Bypassed Congress in 2014
Actions taken by Barack Obama have also been deemed "unconstitutional" by the court system, two examples are Amnesty by fiat which was called a direct "power grab,"and earlier in his term, his recess appontments which were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court.
Barack Obama has practiced an "arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power" and a "despotic abuse of authority," which by the very definition is Tyranny!
By labeling those exposing the truth as "dangerous," and those holding the government accountable for violating the U.S. constitution and the rights guaranteed within as "extremsist," they are attempting to silence all of us that are seeing what is happening to America and those that are warning others.
George Washington once warned "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."