Learning To Think Like A Progressive

Progressives feel threatened by a civilian holding a semi-automatic rifle to defend First, Second and Fourth Amendment rights.

Progressives feel comforted by the idea of a government operative with an automatic rifle or heavy artillery gunning down women and children who are defending First, Second and Fourth Amendment rights.

ScreenHunter_307 Apr. 19 18.02

A rancher’s armed battle against the US government is standard libertarian fare | Kieran Suckling | Comment is free | theguardian.com


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Learning To Think Like A Progressive

    • tom0mason says:

      The subject of a lobotomy must have two halves to their brain, sadly this is not the case with progressives, and why they are so easily controlled with simple gifts.
      The slang of ‘sheeple’ adequately describes these lefties – devoid of high brain function, poor assimilation of costs and benefits, and must flock together.

      • gator69 says:

        Correct. The difference between leftists and us is which half of the brain dominates. Leftists are right brain dominant, the side that more emotional and artistic, the dreamer. We are left brain dominant, the half that is the logic center of the brain.

        I once saw a story about a woman (surgeon) who was a staunch conservative, due to an accident she later lost the left side of her brain, and became a leftist. She gushed about how liberating it was to be free of that pesky logical side.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Maybe if she lost the remaining side she could get a job as a community organizer in Chicago.

  1. Jimbo says:

    Since the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow militias to defend themselves against a tyrannical, unrestrained government, the logical conclusion is that private citizens should have “equal armament” rights with the military, including automatic weapons, RPGs, cruise missiles and JDAMs…

    • Andy DC says:

      Wish you a lot of luck taking on the Government! We are long overdue another Waco or far worse. If someone formed a militia to fight the Government, the would be labeled as right wing kooks and then obliterated. No one in the MSM would shed one tear and life for the sheeple would go on as usual.

      • The military would not engage in warfare against US citizens, and Obama’s small para-military units like BLM would be very foolish to start murdering US citizens.

      • Mike D says:

        Steve is right. The military is not a bunch of automatons blindly following orders, like the left likes to believe. Their oath is not to protect and defend the government.

        All the toppled governments (internally toppled) in recent history went down because at least a portion of the military changed sides. Egypt, Libya, Thailand a couple times, probably some countries in Africa. It would not be some unrelenting slaughter. Defense if attacked is one thing. Offense is another entirely.

  2. Chip Bennett says:

    All the greatest mass murderers throughout history were extreme-left progressives.

    What a strange coincidence.

  3. gofer says:

    I have a friend who is a flaming lib with the exceptions of firearms. He is typical of many southern libs that break from libs when it comes to firearms. Gun rights aren’t just a right-wing issue. If the govt. started another Waco, in the present environment, they would be faced with enormous uprising that could tear the country apart. Look at Alfganistan, the world’s greatest military is being stymied by “citizens” while being constrained by absurd rules of engagement. The military commanders would be self-restrained for confronting fellow Amerians over some idiotic situation like cattle grazing.

  4. bobmaginnis says:

    The author is ignorant of what a progressive is threatened or comforted by, but this progressive will be happy to see Bundy pay his very reasonable grazing fees of the last 20 years, and not graze more cattle than the marginal land can sustain.

    • methylamine says:

      1) Fees imposed post-facto. So would it be OK if FedGov sent you a bill for $5,127 tomorrow for your use of the highways…which you already pay for through gas taxes etc? Because it’s a “fee”. And they say so. The “progressives”–who’ve shown themselves recently to be authoritarians–don’t seem to understand that the FedGov has been steadily ratcheting up the pressure on these ranchers. New grazing fees. New restrictions on their “allotments”. New restrictions on fencing and water rights. They drove the other 51 ranching families around the Bundys out of business.

      2) Reasonable has nothing to do with it; it’s the principle at stake. Who owns the grazing rights? By all measures and common law, he does. What gives them the right to revoke that arbitrarily?

      3) If it’s marginal, why’s he still able to raise cattle after 140 years?

      4) The FedGov can’t own that land legally: Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

      5) Read the Hage case; a federal judge reprimanded and enjoined the BLM for a criminal conspiracy to drive ranchers off their land.

  5. bobmaginnis says:

    Cliven Bundy’s anti-government act has inspired a counter-event from one of the guys involved in Burning Man (who are known as burners). Welcome to Bundy Fest!

    • Jason Calley says:

      If your local police force went rogue and started to assault, rape and rob, wouldn’t you have a duty to be anti-police?

      If our government refuses to obey the Constitution, isn’t it our patriotic duty to be anti-government?

      • Gail Combs says:

        What you are talking about is called “Color of the Law”

        Color of Law
        Law & Legal Definition

        Color of law refers to an act done under the appearance of legal authorization, when in fact, no such right existed. It applies when a person is acting under real or apparent government authority. The term is used in the federal Civil Rights Act, which gives citizens the right to sue government officials and their agents who use their authority to violate rights guaranteed by federal law.….

        Acting under color of [state] law is misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law Thompson v. Zirkle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77654 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2007)

        {CASE} Filbin Corporation vs. United States, D.C.S.C., 266 F. 911, 914:
        “The “sovereignty” of the United States consists of the powers existing in the people as a whole and the persons to whom they have delegated it, and not as a separate personal entity, and as such it does not possess the personal privileges of the sovereign of England; and the government, being restrained by a written Constitution, cannot take property without compensation, as can the English government by act of king, lords, and Parliament.”


        Unconstitutional Official Acts
        16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
            The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

            The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

            Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

            A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

            No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it….

        The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it:

        ·  “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”   Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

        ·   “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”   Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

        ·   “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”   Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

        “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it” 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d. Sec 256
        ·  “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”   16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

        Other REFERENCES:

  6. Gail Combs says:

    Also of interest in the BLM vs Ranchers saga:

    “Federal” Land, Mortgage Guarantees, etc.
    May the Federal Government own, or exercise direct authority over, land or real property not listed nor directly referenced in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 7 and 17?

    The federal government asserts that it owns or holds in trust vast amounts of numerous types of land within the states. We contend that this is false in almost every case. The US Constitution lists the few and specific purposes for which the federal government may own land:

    ….forclosure land title being deeded to a quasi-federal agency (Freddie Mac), pursuant to Freddie Mac paying off a bank on an also-questionable mortgage loan guarantee, which allows us to prosecute a correction to the “federal land” argument. A determination in our favor will have impacts far beyond housing…..


    Interesting legal premise.

  7. inMAGICn says:

    I have worked all over the west in the field. I have often found the BLM to be hated even by those who use the lands for various purposes. Common complaint? Mismanagement and cronyism. In places you could see the difference in ownership across a fence-line. On one side would be overgrazed stubble, on the other, adequate plant growth for range cattle. Guess which one was BLM? Guess why it was overgrazed?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s