Interesting Corollary

I originally saw the reference to this article at the View from the Porch blog.

After reading the tripe that Harvey Wasserman & Bob Fitrakis are spouting in the article "Will Bush cancel the 2008 election?" . I started looking around to see who would believe something this disingenuous.
At 911truth.org they say

There. Someone finally said this, in print. Their conclusion?

"From the public side, the only conceivable counter-force might be a national strike or an effective long-term campaign of general non-cooperation... For only one thing is certain: denial will do nothing."

Bravo, gentlemen.

Well Now I see who would believe stuff like that, the same people who believe that our own government planted explosives and faked 9/11.

I thought I'd point out that the very people who are worried that the president will call off the election and seize control of the government are the same people pushing for absolute gun control.

I'll phrase it another way, The people who want to take away the 2nd Amendment are the same people now worried about someone doing the exact thing that the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect against.

If for some reason the president did call off the elections and by some weird dimensional warp he had the support of the military and law enforcement to put down the protests and even riots that would follow what would happen?
Why the very people that the liberals think they are superior to, using the very tools that the liberals vilify, would likely put forth a grand argument for the use of arms by individuals.

Does this fall under the definition of Irony?


I've put alot of thought into the possible need for the use of force towards the government after all legal and constitution avenues of redress have failed. Not every person would stand up at once to throw down the government, at least not at first. At first it would be individuals and small groups sabotaging operations and assassinating government officials. Some would be caught and others would not, but the government would start to crack down on everyone. The more arrests in the middle of the night, kangaroo courts, and people shot "Escaping" and the more people will be willing to act. With the internet and modern communications there is nothing to stop people from sharing intelligence and coordinating actions.

The hardware and software sides of the issue are easy, Firearms are plentiful, explosives are easy to make, and unbreakable encryption is easy. The hard part is personnel , as the ATF and FBI have shown. Every potential recruit is also a potential informer, the Resistance would not be one large force, but hundreds and thousands of unconnected cells formed of close friends and family members hiding among the population. Perhaps larger units could be formed but only when every single person knows that everyone else is trustworthy.

Why I like Fred Thompson.

As I posted previously prior to the VT shootings I wasn't interested in the political process. The period that I was doing my research was around the time that some moron decided to start the whole presidential campaign early. From the start it was obvious that I wanted nothing to do with Commie Clinton or Ban Everything Obama.
While I do not feel that the 2nd Amendment is the only issue that is important, and that other things like Taxes, the military and even how we prosecute the War on Terror are also important issues. I strongly feel that the 2nd Amendemnt is the most important of the Bill of Rights. Without the 2nd Amendment none of the Amendments have a very long shelf life, Why should I as the government let some guy talk bad about be in the news? Whats to stop me from just shutting him up?

After researching the Republican Candidates I found some of the following information

When Romney ran for Senate in 1994, he told the Boston Herald that he supported the Brady gun-control law and a ban on scores of semi-automatic firearms. Romney did not back off his support for gun control during his run for governor in 2002. “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”

Rudy Giuliani on the other hand has a long history of gun control, In 1993, before even being sworn in as mayor, Giuliani met with then-President Clinton at the White House to discuss national gun registration. Giuliani supported the Brady bill, which had recently passed, but argued that it didn't go far enough. He said in an interview with the Boston Globe "I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we’re talking about all dangerous weapons"

While Hunter and Paul are both Pro-2nd Amendment I honestly do not believe either of them are electable.

Fred Thompson on the other hand is truly electable. He has a dignified and strong demeanor, He looks presidential ( he should he's played a few in the movies). When he speaks he is eloquent and you feel he is addressing you personally, even over the internet. But Fred's looks and the way he acts and talks are not the reason to vote for him. How he believes our government should act is.

Fred Thompson has been posting his views online in various blogs for several months. He addresses issues on subects as varying as eminent domain, Gun Contol, federalism, and the NFL draft. While I don't agree with everything he has to say, I don't disagree with him on as much as I do other candidates.
I laughed my ass off on his video response to Micheal more, and I find myself wondering what his position is on some things I feel strongly about. I can think of a few questions I'd love to have him answer.

1. How do you feel about the actions the of ATF in regards to Reds Trading Post and other gun stores and what would you do to correct this gross abuse of power?
2. What is your response to those who claim that as a member of the CFR you intend to expand NAFTA into a North American Union with the United States as a weaker member?
3. How do you feel about the whole "Separation of Church and State" by way of the ACLU?
4. How do you feel about taxing the importation of products by countries that have outsourced their production to outside of the US to save money over paying US workers?

Of course I very much doubt that Mr. Thompson would take the time to answer my questions. There are more popular and larger blogs he would get to first.