Following the highly divisive midterm elections, which saw the Democrats and
Republicans split Congress between themselves, the American people have
barricaded themselves behind their chosen political echo chambers, while firing
off the occasional rhetorical fusillade in the dark.
On Friday, for example, social media erupted when John Cardillo, 'America Talks
Live' host, commented over the electronic mosh pit known as Twitter that
"Democrats want to eradicate the Second Amendment, ban and seize all guns, and
have all power rest with the state. These people are dangerously obsessed with
power."
Cardillo provided a link to an opinion piece by California Democrat Eric
Swalwell, who argued back in May that the US government "should ban possession
of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons
from all who choose to abide by the law, and… criminally prosecute any who
choose" to keep their weapons.
Naturally, this tweet caught fire like a pile of dry leaves in July. Joe Biggs,
a combat veteran, joined in the level-headed conversation with an
obscenity-laced tirade: "So basically RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that's
what you would get. You're outta your f--king mind if you think I'll give up my
rights and give the gov all the power."
Anyone who may have been expecting some self-restraint and perhaps an ounce of
diplomacy from the high-ranking Democratic legislator were to be sadly
disappointed. What they got instead was a rebuttal in the shape of a mushroom
cloud looming over the American heartland.This anti-Second Amendment congressman
actually tweeted this. He’s pushed for firearm confiscation too
"And it would be a short war my friend," Swalwell fired back, before pressing
the nuclear button. "The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they're
legit. I'm sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families
and communities."
Would it shock anyone to know that this unhinged Democrat has got his sights
fixed on the 2020 presidential election?
It's very difficult to read Swalwell's comment without feeling that you've just
been kicked in the solar plexus by a jackboot. Here we have a high-ranking
congressman and potential White House contender suggesting that the government
could resort to "nukes" to neutralize millions of American gun owners. And then
in the very next sentence Swalwell talks about finding common ground – assuming
that it hasn't been reduced to radioactive wasteland – to "protect our families
and communities." Irrespective of the literary tools the politician was
attempting to employ – he called it "sarcasm" – the end result comes off as
either not-so-subtle blackmail, or the worst non sequitur I have ever read.
Lastly, threatening (either seriously or even facetiously, progressives tell me
nuance and euphemisms are dead and everything is literal in meaning) voters with
nukes because you, not they, don’t understand the argument is both bad lawmaking
and advocacy.
Swalwell goes on to say that his country's nuclear stockpile is "legit." If he
somehow meant to suggest by that comment that America's gun collection is not
legitimate, he need only consult the Second Amendment of the US Constitution to
update his misguided opinions on the matter.
Democrats like Swalwell may wish to check their hypocrisy, as well as their
weapons of mass destruction, at the door before entering into any debate on
violence. Indeed, how does one square the circle of this legislator advocating
against gun ownership on the one hand, while threatening to obliterate
dissenting voices with nukes on the other hand?
Judging by the Democratic Party's penchant for aggressive behavior while in
power, such 'jokes' should surprise no one, and only reaffirms why the Founding
Fathers understood the importance of allowing the American people "to keep and
bear arms" in the first place. For that timely wake-up call, courtesy of the
Democratic congressman from California, Americans should be grateful.
Swalwell's explosive comment, which should have him banned from Twitter, if not
the halls of power altogether, is symptomatic of the Democratic Party's
predilection for resorting to ultra-violence when presented with a problem. If
there's a fly on the wall, best to call in a drone strike and take out the
entire street block. Swalwell's comment proves what has been obvious for a long
time. The Democratic Party, which at one time had the reputation as the anti-war
party, forfeited that claim many years ago, starting with the 78-day bombing
campaign (March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999) against Yugoslavia by US-led NATO
forces – without the consent of the UN – under the Democratic leadership of
then-president Bill Clinton.
Yes, one could equally condemn the Republican Party for their own rabid
behavior, which began in earnest under George W. Bush (2000-2008) and his
disastrous 'war on terror.' Yet the Republicans, who are known for being more
concerned with military security and preparedness, never pretended to be peace
activists like the Democrats were once upon a time.
The Liberal left got its reputation for being pro-peace/anti-war during the
Vietnam War – a decade-long conflict that actually began under the Democrats –
when university campuses across the country shut down and students took to the
street in protest. That gallant historical moment, when an entire
counter-culture movement took root, and musical artists actually performed
anti-war ballads, hit a tragic note on May 4, 1970 when the National Guard
opened fire on protesters at Kent State University, killing four students and
injuring nine.
Much later, in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War, the world experienced one of the
largest anti-war protests in history. However, it lacked the core
counter-cultural support to transcend the movement to its next critical level of
resistance.
Moreover, observers have noticed a distinct bias among liberals when it comes to
their anti-war rhetoric, which has a marked tendency for becoming more vocal
when it is the Republicans dropping the bombs on innocents.
Although left-wing groups made a relatively strong effort to put the brakes on
George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, when the Democratic President Barack Obama
ratcheted up military tensions in Afghanistan, followed by a NATO assault on the
sovereign state of Libya, the reaction from the Democratic camp was noticeably
different.
Except for a few hard-left organizations, such as Code Pink, the sounds coming
from the usual supposed anti-war liberal quarters were those of crickets,"wrote
Ted Carpenter from the Cato Institute. "Likewise, there has been little
push-back to Obama's gradual return of the US military presence in Iraq or the
entanglement of the US military in Syria."
Indeed, Swalwell's nuclear comment carried echoes of Hillary Clinton's cackle
followed by a borrowed expression from Julius Caesar when she said of fallen
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who was executed by a street mob as NATO fighter
jets streaked overhead, "We came, we saw, he died."
I guess that's just another example of harmless Democratic sarcasm?
This sort of dark humor on the part of Swalwell and Clinton proves that the
Democratic mask of innocence has slipped, and in reality America no longer has
an anti-war party. What it has come to inherit instead is a one-party,
two-headed colossus, which bends over backwards to feed and please the military
industrial complex, that will not hesitate to crack down on Americans at home
and foreigners abroad.
Whether Donald Trump was sincere about 'draining the swamp' while on the
campaign trail, I can't say. But it is beyond clear that "We the People"
desperately need such a house cleaning.
Source:RT