Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: tomkat

When Sarah announces there will be a barrage of legal challenges to her personally and to the Tea Party by government agencies and political action groups. We can also expect to see agitators at rallies generating violence. It will get very, very ugly. Do not expect the MSM to be objective or truthful in all of this. They will be actively promoting chaos and blaming all violence on conservatives. It is vitally important to adopt a nonviolent strategy to counter malicious intent on the left.
We are still a society that respects the truth. We must believe that we can win this struggle by taking the high ground. Should the time come when we are being murdered in the streets by government police action open warfare will be required. Until then we must not engage in acts of violence or retaliate with violence. We can win the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens with reason, truth and justice.
Compromise with leftist dogma is absolutely not acceptable. The destructive force of Marxist doctrine must be understood by all Americans. We must finally bury this evil doctrine. We do this by shining the bright light of truth and reason. We keep the faith with those who love this country and seek its return to greatness.
No compromise, no violence and speak truth into the darkness of deceit. This is our campaign. Now, if we only had a leader who believed these principles and was willing to fight for them. Oh, right, there’s Sarah. Don’t see anyone else.

7 posted on 09/07/2011 3:07:00 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (O assumes the trappings of the presidency, not its mantle. He is not presidential.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Louis Foxwell
LF, thanks for the thought and effort that went into your reply.

My problem with it is perhaps semantic, though to a degree that's problematic to what's left of my mind.

Until then we must not engage in acts of violence or retaliate with violence

The verb retaliate above is, imho, simply loaded with a self-shackling negative connotation in that it implies any resistance to evil to be 'violent', hence unacceptable somehow.
I've lived my life by the rule of not taking the first swing, but said rule does not oblige me to allow that swing to connect !
Should zombie rabble decide to swing up this driveway threatening me/mine, it is absolutely not incumbent upon me to allow them to connect with blows or bullets before responding.
As many as possible of those that attempt harm will be met with lethal force.
Such is my duty both as a man and a responsible citizen.

Said admonition strikes me as a re-wording of the whole 'turn the other cheek' thing with which I'm in firm disagreement, and posted the following to that effect here just awhile ago:

That whole (other cheek) concept always struck me as something disturbingly similar to an unfunded mandate.
Especially from one who supposedly kicked ass and took names amongst the moneychanger set.

If that's blasphemous/heretical/etc then so be it.
If whatever God is has a problem with good people protecting their loved ones and their work, or with defensive martial acts against evil bastards raping our Nation, then please mark me down as firmly in the 'heathen' column.

ymmv .. cheers

10 posted on 09/07/2011 4:56:38 AM PDT by tomkat (si vis pacem, para bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson