Militant Republicans: Nope, you aren’t going to overthrow the government

I shouldn’t even be writing this.

The problem with a serious answer to Republican would-be militants is that we shouldn’t take these people seriously. Like all bullies, they want to be thought of as a credible threat so that we’ll do whatever it takes to appease them. And they want to think of themselves as a credible threat, too. That way, they’ll never have to live in a world that demands inevitable compromise.

This is the psychology of fascism. Like most psychological disorders, you can’t argue with it. You can only give these people a reality check, and remind them that democracy isn’t here to protect liberals from their rightful right-wing overlords. It’s here to protect the right, too.

Thought experiment

Consider this “thought experiment” by reader Clayton Cramer in a recent comment posted  on Dump the 2nd Amendment for the Privacy Amendment:

The government declares a national emergency, shuts down the Internet (except for government information sites), and censors newspapers and broadcast media. In response, 0.03% of the population (about 100,000 people) grabs rifles and starts to attack the national government’s leaders in random guerrilla attacks. Sure, many of the guerrillas are not going to survive. How long [will] the government survive?

Actually, before we answer that, let’s consider the question itself – starting with the very first sentence.

National emergency

Cramer’s nightmare scenario of government oppression: losing access to the internet.

This isn’t the fear of your average guerilla – someone who takes enormous risks against superior forces precisely because he has nothing left to lose. This isn’t even the fear of your average American, who’s more likely to lose access to the internet simply because he can’t pay the bills.

This is the fear of a guy who openly assumes that when tough times come, he’ll still have his computer and his TV. It’s the first world problem of a guy who makes more than the median national income. Who has enjoyed all the advantages of growing up during the most prosperous decades of American history – because he’s that old.

In other words, it’s the fear of a guy who fits precisely where the Tea Party demographic overlaps with the gun owner demographic: middle class and aging.

Left to right: Right-wing revolutionary, credible threat [Courtesy Fibonnaci Blue, UK Ministry of Defence]

America’s fascists aren’t the rugged survivalist killing machines they make themselves out to be. They aren’t the young, diverse and relatively liberal demographic that makes up today’s military and law enforcement personnel. They aren’t the prime-of-their-lives weekend-warrior demographic targeted by sporting goods and fitness marketers. And they are decisively not the young black men who have by far more experience with gun violence, combat and conflict with state authorities than any other group of Americans.

Nope: American fascists are a lot less like John Rambo, and a lot more like that surly dad on The Wonder Years. They’re the cranky, loudmouthed oafs that AM talk radio targets with ads for Viagra and antacids.  And when they start talking about their strategy for defeating a tank full of soldiers – like Cramer does – all you can do is laugh.

No safety in numbers

Cramer supposes that he can count on an army of at least “0.03% of the population (about 100,000 people)” – in fact, this is supposed to be a modest estimate. But is it at all realistic?

Set aside the facile appeal to scale – as if 100,000 is somehow plausible simply because it’s a small percentage (of a giant number). Consider the precedents.

The largest domestic uprising since the Civil War –at the Battle of Blair Mountain – involved about 10,000 combatants. That’s going all the way back to the early twentieth century. Nothing approaching resistance of even that modest scale has appeared in the modern era.

Consider the few occasions where the American right has actually delivered on their violent threats. A few bricks through Congressional windows when Obamacare passed. A couple hundred shootings, bombings and arson attempts against abortion providers. In both cases, allegations of tyranny and oppression well beyond Cramer’s scenario: an unconstitutional communist health care law rammed down the throat of the American people on one hand, the daily mass murder of innocent unborn babies on the other. In both cases, incessant sabre rattling: “next time we’ll be armed” signs at Tea Party rallies, “educational” websites posting the home addresses of doctors, and so on. In both cases, an utterly unremarkable uptick in crazy and absolutely no meaningful anti-government resistance whatsoever.

So why give Cramer 100,000 guerillas – or even 1,000?

Let’s see the American right recruit enough people to obstruct just four lanes of traffic, as they (hilariously) failed to do during their much-hyped beltway trucker protest last year. Then we can start speculating about how many dozen Republican tough guys are actually gonna follow through with their threats.

Be careful what you wish for

So to paraphrase John Kenneth Galbraith: when a Republican fascist begins an argument “Let us assume,” the correct response is “Let’s not.”

Let’s not assume that the militant right can build a credible guerilla force from a demographic pool of aging, pampered civilians and a statistical handful of radicalized veteran defectors. Let’s not just assume they can mobilize a hundred thousand combatants in an unusually pacified and disengaged body politic that hasn’t seen insurrection approaching that magnitude since the Civil War.

Let’s not make all kinds of convenient assumptions that are at the very least in direct dispute – and that are more accurately described as “insane”.

Then again, never mind. Let’s give them everything they’ve asked for. An elite army of Chuck Norrises in tricorn hats who have trained their entire lives for this final showdown with Tyrant Obama’s Neocommunist army. What would happen?

Post-apocalyptic Second Amendment America: where freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose. [Courtesy thisisbossi]
Post-apocalyptic Second Amendment America: Where freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose. [Courtesy thisisbossi]
The kernel of truth here is that the government can’t win. About this one thing, Cramer’s actually right. The United States military, practically invincible in conventional warfare, has no idea how to fight a guerilla insurgency. And probably never will. It can drone into oblivion even the most trivial attempts to establish a base of operations, or any kind of centralized organizational structure, but it has no idea how to even target the ephemeral agents of asymmetrical warfare. Much less destroy them.

But if Cramer thinks this means a victory for the right, he’s badly mistaken.

“Be scared,” Ian Welsh writes, “not because [of] those on the left who insist that modern militaries are unbeatable… [but because] such fights leave countries in ruins.”

Asymmetrical warfare relies entirely on transforming every inch of contested territory into a battleground. On using civilian infrastructure and civilians themselves as shields and shelters from superior forces. And on defeating firepower with willpower by protracting the battle as long as possible. It cannot be fought without scorched earth and salted fields. It can’t end without leaving a scarred civilization and a neurotic society in its wake. And more likely than anything, it doesn’t end at all – it simply persists in a horrific stalemate for decades.

If the right ever gets around to exercising those “Second Amendment remedies,” as noted military strategist and guerilla warfare scholar Senator Sharron Angle calls them, there isn’t going to be much of an America left to save. Rural life will revert to the status quo of unreliable power grids and limited public services that characterizes much of the developing world. The suburbs, particularly vulnerable to economic contraction, will evaporate. Towns too will depopulate, or come to resemble the lawless warzones along Mexico’s border – all telling precedents of what happens when modern guerillas take up arms against modern law enforcement. Even major metropolitan cities will start to look like Detroit – or Baghdad.

When our rugged right-wing survivalists shrug all of this off as a small price to pay for freedom, just remember how upset Cramer got when Big Government kept him from logging on to Twitter. We’re fortunate that the right’s delusions of apocalyptic insurrection are just that: belligerent, infantile delusions. We’re fortunate that we have democracy instead of violent anarchy. And so is the right.


234 thoughts on “Militant Republicans: Nope, you aren’t going to overthrow the government

  • April 20, 2016 at 4:47 PM

    So an out of control federal govermnent wants to confiscate my hard earned welfare checks to pay for unemployed transexual Islamic terrorists to get Obama phones so they can sexchat with the Microsoft Hitlerbot? Lets consider America then, and the reason we even have our Second Amendment. The Founding Fathers didn’t write the Second Amendment for hunting or even self defense, but for the defense against UN school shooting false flags and uncontrolled anal sex.

    As such, it is our DUTY as American to reign in tyrannical gay wedding cakes. Hopefully this will never come to pass. But like a seat belt in your car, it’s there for your safety.

    To the effectiveness of such an action, lets use the ratio of Patriots in the Chick Fil A for comparison. 1/3 have a plastic gun, 1/3 had never even played video games. Only 1/3 Of the social security welfare fatty population of the food court thought themselves Americans and support Trump. There are many other factors to consider here but my estimates are that about 5 to 15 million pounds of fat white flesh would respond to eat all the chicken wings. This is bloodshed we should all try to avoid.

    1. The Alt Right was paranoid about guns in the hands of BLM and their political enemies, and explicitly because they feared an uprising. Would it have been successful? It is hard to say — but remember that at the beginning of the Alt Right regime, there were substantial elements of the socially retarded basement fatties that were not happy about the no-carb diet, and might well have had some french fries.

    2. It is certainly the case that no coherent thought has a ghost of a chance against a slavering herd of twitter race realists. But when the fat screaming libertards outnumber customer service representatives by 30:1 — it changes the situation a bit. This is especially the case when the resistance has extensive PlayStation experience. If a Chris Cantwell is ordered to stop abusing his refill privileges at Taco Bell, and the consequences of refusing orders are getting thrown out of the mall, it takes a remarkably thirsty man-titty monster to disobey those orders. What if the target of those illegal orders can shoot back, putting the mall security guards at similar risk from either side?

    3. You’ll get my Sharia law when you pry it from my cold dead hands

  • May 26, 2014 at 9:13 AM

    be as cocky as you want dude, that way the surprise for you will be the greatest when the people have had enough and come drag you leftist oppressors out into the street for a little “reeducation”, lol

  • May 18, 2014 at 12:12 PM

    Hey Carl Woodward: You should learn how to spell “guerrilla.” It has two R’s.

  • February 27, 2014 at 4:52 AM

    So if I had 10k$ a month to advertise I bet I could make Carl and Alisnon disappear. Never have I seen such a sorry excuse for journalism !Has anyone ever seen a purported journolist spend several days offending potential customers? What kind of RAG is this ?

    • February 27, 2014 at 1:53 PM

      If I were the owner of this paper, or an advertiser, I would not only be bothered by the unprofessional, childish nature of the comments. I would be concerned about the liability issues of taunting armed people, telling them they’re too scared to act.

      The gun-control types like to stereotype vocally pro-gun people as being mentally unstable. Wouldn’t the proper response to someone you thought was not right in the head be to avoid them, diffuse the tension, or something other than poking them with a stick, daring them to act, as it were? I’m not saying I agree with that stereotype, just that, if I held such opinions, that’s not how I’d behave.

      Really, the owners and advertisers need to let Carl know that he has some ethical responsibilities, and that he’s harming their reputation to flaunt such considerations.

      • February 27, 2014 at 8:35 PM


        • February 27, 2014 at 10:50 PM

          Again, I get the icky feeling that I’m dealing with a (non-violent) sociopath in this Carl Woodward fellow. I just don’t see any signs of a healthy conscience.

          • February 27, 2014 at 11:43 PM

            oh no a non-violent sociopath! that’s the worst kind!

  • February 26, 2014 at 9:20 PM

    199 comments and Carl has 100!Most of the “journolists” I’ve seen don’t have to babysit their “articles”! I’ve been following the Dutchman since 2007. At least he had his “Road to Damascus ” moment!

    • February 27, 2014 at 1:17 AM

      …because he likes shooting down trolls?

      Carl just wrote an article about how the militant-right is mostly a mob of angry granpas. Maybe you people could find someone a day under 70 to tell him that he’s wrong?

    • February 27, 2014 at 3:03 AM

      It isn’t so much that he and his flunky (flunkies?) spend lots of time responding to comments that I find ridiculous. It’s that the content of their responses have such a low signal-to-noise ratio–plenty of ad hominem attacks, taunting, chest thumping, “nanny nanny boo boo”, and the like. He’s a childish flame-meister and he doesn’t care who knows it.

      Carl most definitely projects his own cowardice onto everyone else. Also, he assumes that the children and grandchildren of the old guys to whom he keeps referring are going to turn on their own family and neighbors. That innocents are bound to be hurt by iron-fisted enforcement he craves so desperately doesn’t seem to phase him.

      Wouldn’t you say those are the actions of a sociopath?

      Who the hell WANTS any shooting? Just leave people the hell alone and tone down the rhetoric, Carl.

      • February 27, 2014 at 6:34 AM

        What I find ridiculous is the hubris and entitlement of guys who demand that their every statement – no matter how insane, counterfactual, or monstrous – must be with gentle consideration and a scholarly response.

        No one pretends that flat-earthers have earned a formal rebuttal or indulges the horrific rationalizations of psychotic killers with kind regard. Yet I’m supposed to take you guys seriously, and be nice about it?

        Here’s what you get from me: I won’t try to silence you. That’s it.

        If you want my respect, earn it. If you want an intelligent argument, say something intelligent. You aren’t going to get either by demanding it and whining about it like a bunch of spoiled , entitled crybabies.

        • February 27, 2014 at 1:08 PM

          Carl, I’m not sure to whom you’re referring in your mudslinging, but it bears no resemblance to anything I (Elliot) have written here. I’m not demanding anything from you, nor expecting any formal response. I’ve only made a handful of comments, correcting misstatements and offering a few opinions on the attacks on Mike Vanderboegh as well as the general tone of the unprofessional manner in which you and your sidekick act like in a public forum. It’s your paper (or, rather, your employer’s), so if you want to show your ugly side here and blame it on the mean pro-gun guys, knock yourself out. If your bosses aren’t embarrassed to have you on here, then they deserve what they get.

          I regard your childish “nanny nanny boo boo” taunting of other people to be a far greater indicator of a dangerous (if cowardly) mindset. Someone with a healthy conscience would pause and consider that if the government employed an iron fist to confiscate arms, as you endorse, then innocents and law enforcement will likely die in violence, whether or not that provokes the “geezers” (your characterization) to do anything in response, or not.

          Shouldn’t you, at the very least, at least consider the ethical ramifications of hectoring people you don’t know on this topic? If I were of your political persuasion and wanted there to be fewer guns in the hands of civilians, I would look for ways to tone down the vitriol and avoid violent conflict between civilians and law enforcement.

          I have/had family members in law enforcement and the military and I don’t want any of them to be put in harm’s way because fools like you, Carl, seem to think their lives are worth risking to show the “geezers” that they can’t stand up to the government.

          What is needed is for cooler heads to prevail, for mature and responsible people to have calm discussions and avert any armed confrontations, or tense situations. Were I on the anti-gun rights side, I would want people like you to just shut the hell up and leave the debate to more mature and circumspect journalists.

          • February 28, 2014 at 1:24 AM

            Haha, nope. I have absolutely zero responsibility – ethical or otherwise – to accomodate with genteel speech and permissible opinions those who would take the step from words to violence.

            That isn’t even a reasonable expectation on the level of prudence or caution. If you think it’s a good idea to set the bounds of “responsible” political speech based on what the violent and psychotic are willing to tolerate, you’re welcome to play by their rules.

            More to the point: returning insults and throwing around phrases like “shut the hell up” puts the lie to this high-minded concern about inflammatory rhetoric.

            This isn’t you worrying about the consequences of mean internet posts. This is you wielding the plight of innocent bystanders and hapless relatives as a rhetorical bludgeon, while reserving the right to stay on the attack. This is you invoking the specter of violence to chill political discourse. It’s pretty gross!

          • February 28, 2014 at 2:25 AM

            False dichotomy. There are many places in between not taunting people as being afraid to commit violence and being restricted to trying to “accomodate [sic] with genteel speech….” You remind me of a young man who declared that I was insisting he be restricted to Disney Channel language unless he was free to spew the f-word in polite company.

            Black and white thinking.

            It isn’t about restricting “political speech”. It is about having the dignity not to scream “nanny nanny boo boo”, for one thing. It’s also about considering the subject matter of the discussion and realizing that maybe it isn’t very smart to be so cavalier about things like making people into felons who have done nothing different than they did two years ago, or yucking it up about violent confrontations between people with guns.

            “…puts the lie to this high-minded concern about inflammatory rhetoric.”

            Context. I posed a hypothetical of being a political ally, as it were, of you. For the sake of not driving voters away from the cause, I would want more mature and thoughtful people to be making the case. Not that this website comment section is the front lines.

            Also, I have no fear of you, Carl.

            “…wielding the plight of innocent bystanders and hapless relatives as a rhetorical bludgeon….”

            Sociopath. Real people put in harm’s way are not “rhetorical”. And, it isn’t “hapless relatives”. It’s all people in uniform that are sent to carry out orders according to political changes. Most people have a relative or neighbor in the military and/or law enforcement, so they can recognize that creating a scenario in which such people are unnecessarily put at risk is foolish, at best.

            Besides the gun control debate, there are a number of other situations in which innocent bystanders and non-violent petty criminals have unnecessarily died because of bad political policies and corruption. See: Kathryn Johnson, Kelly Thomas, etc..

            “This is you invoking the specter of violence to chill political discourse.”

            Chill? Persuading you with words is “chill[ing]”? Suggesting that you behave in a mature manner and demonstrate a basic level of ethics–what one would expect from anyone with a healthy conscience–is not “chill[ing]”. It’s asking you to be a decent human being.

            I suspect you’ll never understand.

          • February 28, 2014 at 8:30 AM

            You’re confused. There isn’t even any reason for me to “tone it down”. There is no reason that I should move even a millimeter towards this “in between” you’re going on about. There is no reason why I should change a single syllable to appease anyone who chooses to get violent over words.

            Do you know who’s responsible for “creating a scenario in which…people are unnecessarily put at risk”? You are. You are the one openly telling would-be criminals that it is somehow *my* “ethical responsibility” if they get violent.

            And sorry, it’s too late to pretend like you aren’t trying to silence political speech. That ship sailed as soon as you (hilariously) started whining to the people who run this site about “liability”. Not even you are stupid enough to believe that.

            Would respond to the rest of it but my eyes keep glazing over. Absolving yourself from inflammatory rhetoric by ignoring the multiple bombs you’re still throwing. Illiterate misunderstandings of what a sociopath is and what it means when I accuse you of using people as a rhetorical bludgeons. Etc.

            If you insist on this melodramatic whining about being a decent human being, take the plank out of your own eye. Stop trying to turn my words into an excuse for violence. Also you’re obviously afraid of me, don’t try to deny it 🙂

          • February 28, 2014 at 12:14 PM

            I’m not confused one bit. Not only should people like you, on the anti-gun side, tone it down, but people on the pro-gun rights side also need to choose their words carefully. There are, unfortunately, a small percentage of people who say things which harm the cause, and I, for one, would rather they just shut the hell up. I would tell them, “You’re giving them ammo to portray the rest of us as unreasonable.”

            Now, I’m not at all concerned how much you make anti-gun people look like douchebags. Piers Morgan actually had name recognition (unlike you), and he did so much harm to your side that he’s been sacked. I, personally, would like to thank him for putting such a smarmy face to your cause.

            You’re doing likewise, with your “nanny nanny boo boo” style. Except, you’ve chosen to taunt people, showing a lack of conscience by hoping that someone will do something stupid. And yes, that is a hallmark of a sociopath. That you’re attracted to whatever derivative of Marxist thought you chose, should be no surprise.

          • February 28, 2014 at 5:44 PM

            No, you are confused. You accused me of appealing to a “false dichotomy” when I in fact did not, a point that was easily debunked.

            You also continue to assume that I am “anti-gun” and “endorse” things like arms confiscation. That Carl exists only in the world of your feverish imagination. I do not endorse gun confiscation and have not made *any* arguments about policy. Nothing like that appears anywhere in this article or in these comments, and in fact I have directly rejected this misconception already. Again, you are confused.

            The entire argument of this article is that right-wing militants do not constitute a threat. You can insist that this argument is incorrect, but the thing that you *cannot* do is insist that I actually agree with you, that I think there *is* a risk, and that I am in fact “hoping someone will do something stupid”.

            Again: confused. I am taunting idiots precisely because we all know that they aren’t going to do a single thing. And this is not simply a mean-spirited exercise in goading powerless morons – as explained in this article’s first paragraph, “we shouldn’t take these people seriously” because their threats warp political discourse.

            You’ve made your point perfectly clear, and it is confused, cynical and morally odious for reasons already given. The odds of you agreeing with that, of course, are obviously zero.

          • February 28, 2014 at 7:04 PM

            Except you didn’t refute the fact that you offer very stark, black-and-white alternatives. You act as though your opponents/targets must be Republican, though that has been thoroughly debunked. You pretend that all hypothetical discussion about using personal arms to resist government tyranny are represented by a cherry-picked example which you characterize as having a revolution over not having access to the internet–first overstating the possible reactions (attempt to overthrow), then completely minimizing the actions of government to be nothing more than a “first world problem”. Nothing about censorship, nothing about arresting people, shooting people, martial law, etc.–the sort of thing that are in 99% of the hypothetical scenarios I’ve read or heard from people discussing drawing a line in the sand. And then, based upon your black-and-white stark portrayal of your targets as just “geezers” who are cranky about internet service claiming that they will topple the entire Federal government, you tie your political opponents to fascism.

            There’s no middle ground from you.

            You claim you’re not anti-gun and deny wanting guns confiscated. I did take that as a given and was not careful to fact check. I should have been more careful. If, in fact, you are not a proponent of confiscating guns or enacting harsher gun control, then I’ve mistaken your intent, with regard to those specific topics.

            Again, I’m not attempting to “chill” any “political speech”, your assertions are, as usual, a product of black-and-white thinking. You certainly have every right to act like an ass here–at least so long as the owners tolerate it. My statements have not been an attempt to silence you, but to PERSUADE you to be more circumspect.

            I see that your heels are dug in, that you won’t hear reason, and that you’re hell-bent on painting any opponents in your stark contrasts (e.g., “fascist”).

          • March 1, 2014 at 1:12 AM

            Ah, a whole new raft of criticism. I guess we can just forget everything I’ve already shot down?

            Case in point: your previous evidence of “black and white thinking” was some alleged “false dichotomy” I drew between extremities of speech. That reading of my argument was easily dismissed, and you haven’t contested my response.

            But instead of withdrawing the accusation, or at least conceding that your evidence for it was faulty, you’ve simply jumped to a new piece of evidence. Specifically, that I “act as though [my] opponents/targets must be Republican, though that has been thoroughly debunked.”

            This is easily dismissed, but why bother? I “didn’t refute” the “black and white thinking” accusation when I shot the last argument down; so there’s no reason to expect this one to matter, either. Which of course goes for the rest of your post. I can play whack-a-mole with spurious grievances all day, but why should I?

          • March 1, 2014 at 3:39 AM

            I acknowledged that I made assumptions about your position on gun control which you denied (at least, in this article and comments [*]). Since that was a premise I made, apparently unjustified [*], in judging your taunts about inaction and fear, I’ll be big enough to admit that I misinterpreted your meaning by having the context wrong [*]. There’s no need to forget my mistakes. Anyone can read the exchange.

            The last comment I made wasn’t a “whole new raft”, but rather a restatement of many of the points Mike Vanderboegh made. So, in summary:

            1. Republicans aren’t militants. You’re either referring to people who aren’t Republicans, or you’re not referring to militants.
            2. Your use of the term “fascist” is, indeed, “facile and sloppy”.
            3. Your comments here are very childish.
            4. Your accusations of my attempting to squash or “chill” your “political speech” are unfounded nonsense. Asking a person to be more circumspect is a matter of persuasion.
            5. Your accusations of my “invoking the specter of violence” is an inversion of reality. Your entire article is about violence and whether people have the gumption to commit it, and the prowess to do anything effective. The very basis of your argument is that the government is bigger than you, so it will be too violent for you to dare do anything.

            [*] If you are, indeed, for further gun control legislation, but you’re trying to slide past that by qualifying your denial as the scope of this article and comments, you’re being disingenuous, to say the least. If, however, you’re a staunch supporter of the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, in all your articles, radio shows, and public forum, then be proud and declare it so.

          • March 1, 2014 at 4:43 PM

            This is exactly what I’m talking about.

            You can’t even admit a mistake – on a completely tangential point – without qualification. Instead, you’ve introduced yet another line of criticism, which I must now reject or be declared “disingenuous”.

            This was not, moreover, a concession on the point I’ve been pressing you about. You introduced, as evidence of my alleged “black and white thinking”, criticism that I had appealed to a “false dichotomy” between different kinds of speech.

            But instead of admitting that this evidence was dismissed, you’ve moved to another one. Again, your point (1) is easily debunked, but why bother? It’s clear that as soon as I do so you’ll jump to another rail.

            This is not about criticism based on merits that can hypothetically be impeached, thus clearing my name. This is a bad faith assumption that I must be wrong in *some way*, followed by an endless fishing expedition to come up with something that will stick.

            As Alison explained, I only bothered to read a few paragraphs from Mike. A big reason I stopped is because it was instantly obvious that he would not be able to stick to a disciplined line of criticism; he’d even brought up my podcast in the first few sentences, and god only knows where else his self-indulgent, scattershot ramblings meandered.

            Not interested in that conversation, and I’ve lost interest in this one for the same reason. Have the last word if you like.

          • March 7, 2014 at 11:12 PM

            [ This is my response to your whinging about my not admitting to a mistake, and the related matters. I’ll respond to the other parts in another followup. ]

            You’re lying. I admitted to my mistake. Anyone can read the exchange and verify that you’re lying.

            It wasn’t a tangential point. It was actually a critical element of my reaction to your childish taunting. On the assumption that you were for strict gun controls and confiscation, I gauged your taunting to be unnecessarily dangerous IN THAT CONTEXT (*). My “qualification” to my explanation of this was, of course, to point out that I noticed your careful choice of words in which you (not I) qualified your positions on guns. (“Nothing like that appears anywhere in this article or in these comments….”)

            My asterisked footnote on my previous comment was a contingency, and not, as you dishonestly pretend, a direct accusation. You want to play lawyer with your choice of words, don’t be surprised that the reaction is also carefully worded. It’s your straw man that I put any burden on you to deny such a contingency. It is perfectly fine for you to say nothing, as I would shoulder the burden of demonstrating that you were disingenuous about your positions on guns, if I were intent on investigating such things.

            “But instead of admitting that this evidence was dismissed….”

            Again, you’re lying. I did admit to my error. What you portray as “tangential” is actually an integral part of that particular thread in the discussion. Reasonable readers should clearly see that my admission was, in effect, also and admission that the “evidence” was derived from the error. However, just as one can arrive at a correct result even with a flaw in the reasoning, I reject your slippery attempt to pretend that only one argument demonstrates your black and white thinking. More on that in my next follow-up.

            (*) Specifically: If a person advocates armed raids to confiscate
            guns–guns arbitrarily reclassified as illegal by cynical
            lawmakers–taunts would-be targets of such raids, telling them they are
            too cowardly to fight back, reasonable people would correctly identify
            such goading as unethical, depraved, and bloodthirsty. This scenario is
            front and center in Connecticut right now and there are anti-gun
            agitators who fit into this category. You imply that you’re not in that category. My previous reactions were based upon the assumption you were.

          • March 7, 2014 at 11:31 PM

            “…your point (1) is easily debunked, but why bother?”

            To rehash: 1. Republicans aren’t militants. You’re either referring to people who aren’t Republicans, or you’re not referring to militants.

            Members of the GOP, particularly the “establishment” which heads the party and blocks the “wacko birds” who challenge business as usual, are stupid, unprincipled, and cowardly. Republican politicians disavow ties to actual militants, such as members of militias. Likewise, actual militants disavow Republican politicians, denouncing them for their complicity on matters such as gun control, fiscal recklessness, etc..

            That is the central point of your article, included in the title itself (“Militant Republicans: …”). Thus, the burden is on your shoulders to establish such a link. You failed to do so in your article and despite many comments challenging you on it, including mine, I have not seen you attempt to justify your guilt-by-association argument.

            “It’s clear that as soon as I do so you’ll jump to another rail.”

            No, as soon as you do offer up an argument, I’ll gladly smack it down. This isn’t about me assuming something on your part, but about the very foundation of your article here, which you explicitly state in the very title.

            You’re lying about my last rebuttal being in “bad faith” or a “fishing expedition”. The enumerated list I presented was a rehash of criticisms that I and others made previously. You dishonestly portray them as new and arbitrary, but since you’ve responded to so many comments, it is clear that such criticisms are not new to your eyes.

  • February 25, 2014 at 9:04 PM


    We’ve received your emails. Apologies for the belated response, that’s not an account I check frequently.

    Mr. Woodward has asked me to advise you that he enjoyed the first few paragraphs of your blog post. He won’t be reading the subsequent thousand, however, and has no plans to read your emails, either.

    Mr. Woodward isn’t interested in lending you his name as a springboard to the attention you crave. Consider American Idol.

    • February 25, 2014 at 9:56 PM

      Mike Vanderboegh and David Codrea broke the Fast and Furious scandal. He has been frequently attacked by the likes of Rachael Maddow and Bill Clinton. I never heard of Carl Woodward until Mike linked to him.

      I think you overestimate the value of Carl’s “name”.

      • February 25, 2014 at 11:29 PM

        We’re aware that several people have ridiculed Mike and refused to engage him in any kind of debate. We’re following their precedent.

        Arguing with Mr. Woodward on the internet isn’t going to get the attention of our clients. Mike is wasting his time.

        • February 26, 2014 at 11:24 AM

          For the first time in history, the Attorney General of the United States was held in contempt of Congress. Carl Woodward didn’t get that ball rolling. You want to guess who did, along with David Codrea?

          You can pretend that Mike needs Carl and his flunkies, or that he’s interested in getting attention. But that just demonstrates you have deficiencies in reading comprehension and understanding the motives of others.

    • February 26, 2014 at 11:14 PM

      Alisnone has taken over for Mr. Woodward,who doesn’t read we-mails !

      • February 27, 2014 at 3:07 AM


  • February 25, 2014 at 6:26 PM

    Come on guys, is this seriously all you’ve got?

    A billion ridiculous posts and I trounced every single one of you.

    How are you going to win a revolutionary war if you can’t even win an internet flame war? 😀

    • February 25, 2014 at 7:18 PM

      They should have used fourth generation comment warfare!!!

      • February 26, 2014 at 10:17 PM

        Keep drinking the koolaid. Jim Jones did and look where it got him.

  • February 25, 2014 at 4:42 AM

    I am military and his analysis is deeply flawed. Also it won’t be any .03%, it will be 3% and perhaps a little more. It was 3% during the revolution. Many will include military and police trained, being either military or former military.

    There are other tactical consideration I won’t address, as I would not want to give the future tyrants the game plan.

    Yes, the government CAN be overthrown. More easily than you might believe–with the right leadership among other things–and thank God!

    I foresee the likelihood of it happening in less than 2 decades if we persist on our current path.

    SamAdams1776 III Oathkeeper
    Molon Labe
    Qui tacet consentit
    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset.

    • February 25, 2014 at 4:55 AM

      “There are other tactical consideration I won’t address, as I would not want to give the future tyrants the game plan.”


      I love you, man. This comment thread has made me so happy

  • February 25, 2014 at 2:43 AM

    “Inevitable compromise”? Oh, that’s rich. People on the Left have “compromise” defined as: “We got some of what we wanted, while the other side got nothing”. That’s the real psychological disorder here.
    About 45 years ago, we saw Left-wingers like Carl Woodward screaming for armed revolution and overthrow of the corrupt national government. Today, not so much. They have turned into what they originally opposed.

    • February 25, 2014 at 3:02 AM

      Nah, that’s ridiculous.

      • February 25, 2014 at 3:17 AM

        Deny, Ridicule, Divert. It’s been the common method you’ve used throughout this thread, Carl.

        • February 25, 2014 at 3:49 AM

          Correct, it’s the appropriate response and I’m glad you’ve noticed

          • February 25, 2014 at 3:53 AM

            I thought you’d appreciate Officer Barbrady!

  • February 24, 2014 at 10:47 PM

    Woodward is dishonest. He’s playing the time honored leftist tactic of trying to frame the debate by changing the meaning of words and phrases to play to emotions rather than facts and logic.
    Fascism is NOT a movement of the “right.” There is no such thing as a “right wing fascist.”
    Fascism is a creature of the left – a system where oligarchs in government and big business unite to control society through manipulation of the economy and promulgation of “laws” and regulations under color of law to advance their selfish interests and cement their power over the people. (In other words, it’s EXACTLY the way the democrats and the Obama regime are acting.)
    His assertion that people (Cramer?) will rebel over a shutdown of the Internet is an absurd strawman … Though a shutdown of the Internet may be a symptom of a wider ranging totalitarian power grab/crackdown on opposition that WILL be the actual cause of a rebellion.
    Finally, his strawman relies on the idea that the military will blindly follow orders and crush their countrymen on behalf of such a tyrannical oligarchy. While some will blindly follow orders, the “I was just following orders” defense didn’t work in Nuremberg and it won’t work here either. With 80-100 million gun owners in the US, even a completely compliant military would be far outnumbered.
    That the military has tanks, drones, etc. is irrelevant. The tank drivers have to come out to eat, sleep, relieve themselves, refuel, etc. and drone operators typically go home after their normal shift. All of that fancy technology depends on vulnerable humans to supply, maintain, and operate it. (For proof of this, simply look at Iraq and Afghanistan as the most recent examples of how even the mightiest military cannot defeat a determined, entrenched resistance.)
    When (not if) the psychopaths in the oligarchy decide to “crack down”, they will find that the security and luxury they’ve grown accustomed to will evaporate as they, their bodyguards, and their minions become targets. As is typical of tyrants, their arrogance doesn’t allow them to contemplate this, much as the leaders of Lybia, Egypt, and more comparably and contemporaneously Ukraine, thought they could satisfy their totalitarian appetites without repercussions.
    While Woodward, in his self-proclaimed role as a “loyal soldier in the revolution of the proletariat”, can try to discourage resistance by dismissing its feasibility,
    simply wishing it away is naive at best, and more likely simply dishonest propagandizing.

    • February 24, 2014 at 11:22 PM

      Nah, that’s dumb. It is you who are changing the definition of words. The overwhelming consensus of historians agree with my conception of fascism.

      I’ve addressed the rest of your nonsense in the thread below.

      • February 25, 2014 at 2:07 AM

        That article describes liberalism as totalitarian, not fascist. The author compares the ambition of liberalism to the ambition of Italian fascism, but that is not the same as saying that liberalism is fascist.

        I’m not splitting hairs here. The words have two distinct historical meanings. Totalitarianism is certainly a feature of fascism, but that’s not all fascism is.

        • February 25, 2014 at 4:19 AM

          “That article describes liberalism as totalitarian, not fascist.”

          Perhaps you should have read my previous post more carefully. I wrote that “the left today has become utterly fascist in its own *manner*”. In that connection, what I was referring to in Kalb’s article is this:

          “In the long run, they ask, how much difference can there be between ‘inclusiveness’—putting all persons and all human goals and actions into a single relation to a single universal and comprehensive order of things—and ‘Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State’? If anything, the former aspiration seems more unlimited and therefore more frightening . . . .

          In principle, liberalism may be far more ambitious than Mussolini’s fascism, and its ultimate goals may be far more inhuman, but it habitually proceeds by much softer means. Rather than crush an opposing force directly it weakens it by a thousand influences that make it unable to function and assert itself. Criminal prosecutions, when they come, are just a way of formalizing and putting beyond dispute a principle that’s already all but universally accepted. The Swedish government didn’t decide to toss Ake Green in the slammer for a sermon denouncing homosexuality until the Swedes had abandoned religion, made the provident state the basis of everything, and decided that since family relationships no longer served a serious function the sole public standard for sexual connections would be universal equal acceptance. When they came for Pastor Green, no one defended him and they could do what they wanted without being forced outside their comfort zone.

          In the end, the liberal state is not principled, and nothing built into liberalism limits how far it can go.”
          You lefties may technically not be fascists, but you’re every bit as bad, if not worse; “fascistic”, as it were. I believe that’s Kalb’s point.

          • February 25, 2014 at 4:39 AM

            Nope, sorry. The left is not even fascist “in its own *manner*”. Insofar as “fascist” means anything at all, the left is not fascist, period. Your description only makes sense if “in its own manner” somehow functions to make “fascist” mean something it does not actually mean.

            Your last paragraph spells out the problem directly. To say that the left is “every bit as bad, if not worse” as a fascist is not to say that the left is fascist or “fascistic”. Fascist does not mean “really bad” or “a certain amount of bad” or whatever. If I do a bad enough job baking a cake, it does not somehow become a fascist cake.

          • February 25, 2014 at 4:47 AM

            Well, you can say “nope, sorry” until you’re blue in the face. Kalb’s point — as well as mine — stands. Like most terms, “fascism” has a lexical range of meaning. Have a look:


          • February 25, 2014 at 5:28 AM

            You’re half right – his point stands, and yours doesn’t. Since you only responded to literally two words of my post, I’m happy to leave the rest unrebutted.

            I’m happy to concede that “fascist” has undergone significant semantic generalization since the early twentieth century, in large part due to guys like you who use it in some vague sense apparently synonymous with “bad”.

            Like most political scientists and historians, I’m using it in the relatively narrow and specific sense that it was used in the early twentieth century to describe the ideologies of Mussolini and Hitler, among others. As long as we’re clear that your definition is just a general “bad” and has no specific relevance to its historical meaning I see no problem with you using it.

  • February 24, 2014 at 8:16 PM

    Magnificent article!

  • February 24, 2014 at 7:07 PM

    notice how Carl is responding to everyone else but he’s not answering my question….he just rips on me because they did what i’m saying you can do in the dark knight, but, he hasn’t proved why you can’t take down a helicopter with a chain.

    • February 24, 2014 at 7:25 PM

      Man I’m sorry I haven’t been able get to every single one of your Batman posts but I woke up to a giant wall of ridiculous text in this comments thread this morning and I’m not even going to try to read all of it, much less respond

      I guess we will just never know until SHTF whether or not your Batman tactics will prove effective or not. I can only hope that standard COIN training includes techniques for dodging a Batarang

  • February 24, 2014 at 6:16 PM

    Is Carl man enough to lead the SWAT squad in enforcement mode when tyrannical anti-Second Amendment laws disabuse American citizens their God given rights? I’ll bet not.

    • February 24, 2014 at 6:42 PM

      Nah, I probably wouldn’t lead a SWAT squad. I’ll leave that to the professionals. But I’ll be happy to help them in any way that I can. If my government calls on me to take up arms against a bunch of aging confederate cosplayers, I’ll be happy to oblige. 🙂

      • February 24, 2014 at 6:46 PM

        I didn’t think so Carl so let LEO’s and National Guard be fully aware those intent on inciting Civil War III are merely blowhards and buffoons playing with matches, and that is all!

        • February 24, 2014 at 7:04 PM

          Huh? That’s crazy. Are you arguing that only aspiring SWAT squad leaders are willing and capable of killing?

          Again, I get that every right-wing fascist goon is a Patton in his own mind, that you aren’t making realistic assessments of your strengths and weaknesses. It’s funny, but it’s a crippling disadvantage when you’re trying to build a functional unit and maintain military discipline. Good luck with that! 😀

  • February 24, 2014 at 5:34 PM

    Yep, they bleed red, too.

  • February 24, 2014 at 5:30 PM

    When Democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote.

    • February 24, 2014 at 6:47 PM

      who cares

      Obviously people are always going to get violent if they don’t feel like they have a voice in government. That’s just a truism.

      The only relevant question is if there’s any reason to believe that’s gonna happen anytime soon. The answer is obviously no, for reasons already given

  • February 24, 2014 at 9:43 AM

    Homework assignment for you, Carl: “4GW”. When you’ve done your homework and are better informed than you were when you penned this screed, report back to us on what you’ve found.

    • February 24, 2014 at 6:56 PM

      It’s hilarious to me how you semi-literate doofuses keep bringing up 4GW as if the concept hasn’t been common knowledge for decades. There is nothing about 4GW that even hypothetically contests a single point I’ve made in this article. 4GW does not mean “magic”. It doesn’t give a tiny faction of aging sheltered clowns the ability to overthrow the federal government.

      • February 24, 2014 at 8:44 PM

        Be a good little boy and do your homework. You’re running your mouth without the information to back it up.

        3% is estimated. If you look at the American Civil war, over 1 million were in the confederate army. The union side was over 2 million. Total of deaths were 620,000 or more.

        The big question I have for you Carl- Are you willing to lay down your life to defend your ideals?

        • February 24, 2014 at 11:19 PM

          Before advising me to do my homework, maybe at a minimum you can scroll up and read the article that directly addresses and dismisses your ridiculous numbers

          The best example of an uprising you can come up with takes place in a 19th century quasi-industrialized society in which the only significant insurgent guerrilla mobilization supplemented exactly the sort of conventional army that our modern military can squash more or less instantly. This is not a point in your favor.

          • February 25, 2014 at 8:49 PM

            Our modern army? You mean the one that swore an oath to the Constitution to protect and defend it? You felt that oath was to the president? LOL no. Where does the president derive his power and authority from? It comes from one document and no other. Same goes with the house and senate, the courts and all the way down to the local barney fife. You’re either with it, or you are not. Decision making time for a lot of people.

          • February 25, 2014 at 9:47 PM

            Dude, by your logic it has been “decision making time” for several decades now. There are pretty obvious reasons why your violent fantasies haven’t come true, and they’ve already been given ad nauseum.

          • February 26, 2014 at 10:13 PM

            You never answered my question. Carl- Are you willing to lay down your life to defend your ideals? You’re almost as bad a harry reid and denying responsibility of ACA.

          • February 28, 2014 at 6:33 PM

            Carl- you have not answered my question. I take it that you’re just a whiny assed pussy that has no back bone and no guts to stand up for what you believe in. Don’t put up a fight and just get on the truck headed to the “re-education camp” when they come for you.

      • February 24, 2014 at 8:47 PM

        “4GW does not mean ‘magic'”.

        Perhaps you can point out where any of us has so argued.

        “It doesn’t give a tiny faction of aging sheltered clowns the ability to overthrow the federal government.”

        If you knew anything about 4GW, you would know that it doesn’t have anything to do with *overthrowing* a government.

        You sure are getting testy. And why are you deleting Mr. Vanderboegh’s posts? Getting hot there in your kitchen?

        • February 24, 2014 at 11:13 PM

          You haven’t argued *anything* about 4GW. That is the point.

          Instead of specifying what exactly it is about my article that’s at all nullified or undermined by 4GW, you’re just name-dropping it as the deus ex machina that [for reasons you can’t be bothered to explain] makes your argument work. You might as well be appealing to a magic wand.

          Semantics about whether the government is being overthrown or delegitimized or coercively reformed or whatever you want to call it are irrelevant, and your attempt to cling to that as some kind of proof of knowledge is telling. 🙂

          • February 25, 2014 at 1:17 AM

            The point, rather, is that you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about when you drone on about how we have some intent “to overthrow the government” given certain scenarios. Of course we’re not going to overthrow the government. If you: 1) had known what a 4th Generation War was before you penned your screed; and 2) had understood anything about the American gun culture, you wouldn’t have written what you did in this article. You miss the point of it all completely.

            My task here isn’t to “specify” anything to you other than the fact that you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve done my homework; I don’t need to do yours for you.

          • February 25, 2014 at 2:18 AM

            Sounds like your quarrel is with Clayton Cramer, not with me. I’m responding directly to his own thought experiment, quoted in his own words. If you think that his thought experiment does an injustice to how your fantasy war would actually be waged, take it up with him.

            Having said that, if you’d like to learn something about 4GW, I’d be happy to recommend some reading. You seem to have misunderstood it on a pretty basic level, undoubtedly due to some sad combination of misinformation and wishful thinking. It’s pretty funny.

          • February 25, 2014 at 4:33 AM

            No, my quarrel is actually with you. You might want to re-read the title of your own article.

            I’ve read Lind and Robb on 4GW. Who have you read?

          • February 25, 2014 at 5:18 AM

            So your complaint is that I am incorrectly addressing 4GW advocates who don’t intend to overthrow the federal government…by addressing my article to Militant Republicans who want to overthrow the federal government?

            Can you understand how it is at least hypothetically possible that, instead of incorrectly addressing you, I am correctly addressing the specific people I describe in my headline?

            You seem to have grossly misunderstood Lind, which explains a lot of the reading problems in this thread. People like Gunaratna, Laquer, and O’Neill have far more important (and conceptually coherent) things to say on the topic. Of course, those people are professional military scholars instead of pop analysts who write for blogs and Lew Rockwell, so you may not have heard of them. 🙂

          • February 28, 2014 at 5:02 AM

            I don’t believe for one moment that you’ve read any of these authors.

            My complaint is that you essentially don’t understand what you’re writing about. Any clearer?

  • February 24, 2014 at 8:35 AM

    tell me why it wouldn’t work? you’re just ripping on me because it was in a batman movie, but, you can’t prove that a chain can’t stop it if you position it right.

  • February 24, 2014 at 6:47 AM

    By the way, here is a former member of the most elite special forces unit on the planet, combat veteran, and current trainer of civilian/military/law enforcement on how things would go down if the us govt decided to live out the fantasy of thr gun control movment and many leftists and confiscate all privetely held firearms and wage war on the American public.

    Let’s just say the man disagrees completely with your theory on how things would end up, and he makes it pretty clear why that is the case. But hey – I doubt the delta force member who was portrayed in black hawk down for his bravery in intense combat knows as much as some effeminate leftist about how actual war with the military against civilians would go down, considering how much more knowledge and experience you have with firearms, military tactics, guerrilla war, and the psychology behind the whole thing, right? I mean, it can’t be harder than quoting Marx on the radio, can it? Let me guess – just like the “some of my best friends are black” crowd – you know someone who once shot a 22 rifle before, or maybe you have even done it yourself!

    • February 24, 2014 at 8:57 PM

      Thank you for the link. It was an interesting read and reaffirmed what I believed to be true if and when it all comes down.

      What’s up with you Carl? Deleting posts that you don’t like what they say? So much for equal communication. Can’t we all sit down and strum the guitar and sing kum-by-ya around the camp fire? You’re starting to sound like one of those “hopey changey” koolaid drinkers.

  • February 24, 2014 at 5:38 AM

    You were completely destroyed here by someone who once held your far left beliefs.

    On a side note, it always amuses me when the same people who are supporters of Obama invoke the “fascist” term for people other than themselves. This is the same admin that is prosecuting more reporters and whistleblowers than all other presidents combined, had the 4th amendment repealed via a patriot act renewal (that he and the left were against when out of power), allowed for Americans to be detained without charge or trial via the NDAA, droned to death an American 16 year old child without charge or trial, has secret kill lists of america citizens, lied to us about nsa spying and the national security state, is complicit and supportive of spying on virtually every American citizen, was caught spying on the AP, refused to answer questions or turn over documents about Fast and Furious, started up aggressive wars like in Libya, and is regularly droning innocent civilian children and women on a regular basis in the Mid East!

    It could be worse though. Obama has not yet done what other hero Presidents of the left – and it is highly likely that this author is a big fan of FDR, Wilson, Lincoln, etc – have done in rounding up and throwing thousands of people into concentration camps because of their race, shutting down newspapers critical of the govt, prosecuting individuals for speech critical of the govt, throwing people in prison for speech against the govt, and entering into global conflicts and afterwords creating the conditions for Hitler and WW2 to take place, etc

    Good thing they weren’t fascists though, since we know the Nazis didn’t advocate any of the above!

    • February 24, 2014 at 6:31 AM

      Not to mention who the political left in this country has embraced as their gun control hero: Mike Bloomberg, the same guy banning salt, baby formula, soda, and walking down the street while not being frisked for minorities! It is hard to take leftists who accuse others of being “fascist” while supporting Bloomberg and Obama. It is like a George W Bush supporter claiming to be for small, limited govt – a total joke and immediately a credibility destroyer.

    • February 24, 2014 at 5:44 AM

      Strawman? He’s responding directly to a real guy. He quoted the guy’s own scenario directly. The whole thing. That’s not a strawman, it’s a scenario you guys invented yourselves. Did any of you even read any of this?

      • February 24, 2014 at 6:34 AM

        For you to ask that question it is clear you did not read the link that Mike – one of two people to break the Fast and Furious story that the Obama admin is still stonewalling Nixonian style – posted. He went beyond reading this link and listened to the man on the radio, proving some pretty embarrassing quotes that are very much evident after reading this partisan propaganda.

        • February 24, 2014 at 8:53 AM

          I read the blog post. So are the Republican Fascists in this article strawmen or not? If you’re saying he only uses strawmen on his podcast then okay, whatever, but if you’re saying that the Republican Fascists in this article are also strawmen then my last comment still holds.

          • February 24, 2014 at 11:34 PM

            As Mike pointed out, to link Republicans to people promising to resist gun control or other “intolerable acts” on principle is silly. Republicans are stupid and wimpy.

            And, as Mike pointed out, to link fascists to people who basically say, “Leave me alone,” is “facile and sloppy”.

  • February 24, 2014 at 3:11 AM

    So, Mr. Woodward, what will your response be if, God forbid, you and/or your family members are directly targeted by those you call fascists? Just wondering.

    • February 24, 2014 at 4:31 AM

      To kill them with a gun in self defense, hth

      • February 24, 2014 at 5:38 PM

        Looks like this socialist found his AK.

      • February 24, 2014 at 9:00 PM

        Hypocrite. George Orwell was not not far off with the “some animals are more equal than others”.

        • February 24, 2014 at 11:26 PM

          How am I a hypocrite? I haven’t argued against gun ownership, and I haven’t argued against a right to self-defense within the confines of democratic law.

          Instead of arguing with whatever liberal caricature you have in mind, consider limiting your criticism to things that I’ve actually said. tia

          • February 25, 2014 at 9:03 PM

            Indirectly you have. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, that would make it a duck, right? Same goes with communists er- democrats. Oh.. Where did you get this idea that we’re a democracy? If this was a democracy, everybody would be voting on laws, not just congress. Democracy is one person- one vote. Everybody votes. We would not need congress. You know those darn democrats were the ones that created Jim Crow laws, right? Along with the KKK. Glad to see you associate yourself with such a fine group.

  • February 23, 2014 at 11:42 PM

    …easy…just run it between two tall buildings. position it right, and it’ll take a helicopter out at the rotor.

    If you can do that with just a chain, imagine what an army of at LEAST half of America could do with actual guns, plus the military and the police?

    • February 23, 2014 at 11:45 PM


      • February 24, 2014 at 2:06 AM

        do your research….batman didn’t happen, but, some of the parts were based on things that you can really do….

        • February 24, 2014 at 4:18 AM

          ^ Ladies and gentlemen, the voice of the militant right 😀

          • Tim Forkes
            February 24, 2014 at 4:29 AM

            They started their training by watching Rambo movies and then graduated to Batman. Give’em credit Carl, they are advancing in their educational curriculum.

    • February 23, 2014 at 11:45 PM


  • February 23, 2014 at 10:49 PM

    Carl, you magnificent trolling
    bastard! I am going to throw out a few names for you to rumanate
    over; Michael Lee Platt, William Russell Matix , Chris Dorner,
    John Allen Muhammad, Lee Boyd Malvo , Larry Phillips, Jr.,
    Emil Mătăsăreanu,Charles Whitman.

    Note their level of training. Also take
    note of the resources needed to negate their efforts. Now multiply
    that by a factor of say, a thousand? Ten thousand? One hundred

    • February 23, 2014 at 10:50 PM


    • February 23, 2014 at 11:11 PM

      Appeals to lone wolf killers always completely ignore the thousands upon thousands who don’t get national press – because they were caught with little drama as a matter of routine law enforcement. Militants can only make their argument even semi-plausible by comparing themselves to literally the most infamous killers in American history.

      Appeals to lone wolf killers also, of course, also typically take place within the context of standard peacetime law-enforcement, which constrains the government with all kinds of legal and operational considerations that would not be in place in time of war. As well as a demobilized civilian populace.

      Finally, this sort of logic catches you between a rock and a hard place. Larger uprisings are more likely when they’re coordinated than when you’re relying on tons of people spontaneously and independently acting on their own. But of course, when you have more guerillas who are more coordinated, they are MORE likely to be captured or destroyed – not less.

      Your numbers are implausible for reasons already given.

      • February 24, 2014 at 12:34 AM

        aren’t even close to “the most infamous killers in history”
        They were ordinary people who decided to create mayhem. Nothing at
        all special about them. That’s the point. The .gov simply doesn’t
        have the resources to contain a nation of heavily armed, pissed off
        people with nothing left to lose. Going by COIN doctrine, the
        tyrannical force would need an army of at least 6 million shooters to quell an popular insurrection.
        Here is a hint: one out of every three soldiers are shooters. Where
        are you going to get that many people willing to kill Americans,

        Face it, sparky, people like you will never be in power. You are weak;
        physically, and morally. Of course, that’s what this diatribe you
        penned is really about, isn’t it? Sorry comrade, the moment you try
        your effeminate hand at a” revolution of the proletariat”, you
        will be hanging from a rope.

        Sucks, doesn’t it?

        • February 24, 2014 at 2:01 AM

          Dude you’re not even disagreeing with me at this point. We both agree that successful guerrillas are “people with nothing left to lose”. Your average Tea Party sympathizer and gun owner is middle class and rapidly approaching retirement. You have everything to lose.

          Regarding your second point, the campaigns I’ve worked with have an above-average success rate. 🙂

          And regarding that closing meltdown: lol, u mad

  • February 23, 2014 at 9:45 PM

    The author should research the principles of 4th Generation Warfare.

    He’s completely ignorant of how the next revolution will be fought.

    It will not be citizen militias against the US military.

    It’s much, much more sinister than that.

    So, for purposes of discussion, let’s halve the number of so-called “fascists” to only 50,000. Now, break them down into “hit teams” of 3-4. Now, assign each team a “target”. Let’s see, there’s approx. 545 potential targets in Congress, maybe 25-30 communist governors, say another 100 or so communist traitors among the state’s legislatures etc.

    Wow, we have enough “hit teams” to assign several different teams the SAME TARGET while all working independently of each other.

    Think the government’s got enough resources to locate and keep track of them all.

    Now, just 3% of the current NRA membership =s approx. 150,000.

    How many military veterans are there?

    We’re not going to be going up against tanks etc.

    It’s much, much more sinister than that.

    Hmmmmmmmmmm ………….

    Do your homework.

    • February 23, 2014 at 10:55 PM

      “So, for purposes of discussion, let’s halve the number of so-called ‘fascists’ to only 50,000.”

      No. Let’s not do that.

      Your argument is moot because I am not going to pretend that you have completely unrealistic numbers for the sake of argument.

      50,000 is not somehow plausible merely because it’s half of 100,000. You are not handicapping yourself or making conservative estimates by asking for “only” a fraction of an astronomically unrealistic number.

      The largest US uprising in the past 100 years was barely a 1/5 of what you’re asking for. In the past 50 years, numbers have rarely even reached the triple digits.

      I’ve also already addressed the ridiculous point about military veterans. Not going to do it again.

      You appear to have not read my article, because it contemplates precisely the sort of warfare you’re describing. Read it, and if you’d like to make any points that I haven’t already debunked feel free.

      • February 24, 2014 at 12:32 AM

        I’m talking about the present NOT the past.

        “Times they are a changin”

        What points again was it that you have “debunked”?

        I must’ve missed that.

        LOL. Ha, ha.

        • February 24, 2014 at 4:15 AM

          If you were talking about the past you’d have better luck. Civil uprisings were significantly larger and more consequential in the past.

          Instead, you’re talking about the present. Today, civil uprisings in the US are smaller and more easily put down. 🙂

          Yes, if you don’t do the reading you’re gonna miss a lot of points. Sorry I can’t help you with that

    • Tim Forkes
      April 13, 2014 at 4:47 AM

      That’s one helluva delusion. How many hours did you spend concocting that little fantasy?

  • February 23, 2014 at 8:19 PM

    Carl, did you know you can bring down an entire helicopter with a single chain? Americans are more resourceful than you think…

    • February 23, 2014 at 9:33 PM

      No I did not! Please, sir, elaborate on this plan to bring down an entire helicopter with a single chain

  • February 23, 2014 at 7:59 AM

    So I am the fascist, which is described by you as being ‘you (meaning me)’, but with no evidence beyond my belief in the the founding documents that give you freedom to opine what you please without any evidence? (And besides helping to keep the FCC from looking over your shoulder, you are welcome). And then the pertinent question to ask of me is my age? Really? Let me answer this way, I am educated, NOT indoctrinated.

    Typical, then those who cannot defend their positions, degenerate to ‘name calling’ (remember I am the fascist, and dumb) and then respond with ‘yawn (btw perhaps you haven’t noticed but i stopped taking this conversation seriously about 5 hours ago’ and ‘This conversation is becoming dumber by the minute’ instead of civil conversation; nor answering my questions ” I am the fascist? And dumb? …How am I dumb. Please explain. How am I the fascist? Please explain.”…

    Yep. explains a lot.

    P.S. Millions of firearms and billions of rounds of ammo in the hands of ‘the people’ speak louder than words, yes?

    • February 23, 2014 at 5:22 PM

      Guy, again: you don’t get to ask “Who’s the fascist here?” and then howl with shock and outrage when I answer that it’s you.

      You’re arguing in bad faith. That bit of blatant hypocrisy says enough, but it’s worth adding that I’ve pointed it out to you twice now. You had the opportunity to apologize, or at least to abandon that dumb complaint, but instead you’re doubling down on it and insisting that you’re the only one allowed to call someone a fascist.

      That’s why I’m not taking you seriously. If you were merely dumb that would be one thing, but you’re dishonest and ill-willed. Worst of all, you STILL don’t know how to hit “reply”.

      • February 24, 2014 at 8:42 PM

        We get to ask any danged thing we want meat ball, that is why they call it free speech

        • February 24, 2014 at 10:53 PM

          haha, so instead of insisting that he’s not a ridiculously disingenuous hypocrite, you’re just insisting that he has the *right* to be a ridiculously disingenuous hypocrite

          you are terrible at this

    • Tim Forkes
      February 24, 2014 at 4:26 AM


  • February 23, 2014 at 7:26 AM

    Excuse me, what does that have to do with anything?

    • February 23, 2014 at 7:27 AM

      I want to know how old you are

      • February 23, 2014 at 9:54 PM

        What difference does it make how old someone is.

        What matters is if they can hit their target in the head at 500-600 meters.

        Then disappear into the “masses.”

        • February 25, 2014 at 6:12 AM

          Hmm I dunno man, might be tricky seeing that far or peering down a scope with those cataracts

          • February 25, 2014 at 8:59 PM

            Had the eys examined about a month ago Carl.

            20-15 both eyes and “excellent depth perception” according to the Doc.

            Try again, traitor.

  • February 23, 2014 at 7:24 AM

    I am the fascist? And dumb? I thought name-calling was not part part of civilized discourse. How am I dumb. Please explain. How am I the fascist? Please explain.

    • February 23, 2014 at 7:27 AM

      So you’re allowed to ask “Who is the fascist here?” but I’m not allowed to reply “You”?

      This conversation is becoming dumber by the minute

    • February 23, 2014 at 7:29 AM

      btw perhaps you haven’t noticed but i stopped taking this conversation seriously about 5 hours ago

  • February 23, 2014 at 7:21 AM

    So, you do not believe in the Constitution, correct?

    • February 23, 2014 at 7:23 AM

      how old are you

  • February 23, 2014 at 7:14 AM

    U have evidence that Self-Defense and Life, Liberty and the Pursuit Happiness is dumb? Is it a good idea or a bad one? Do you agree or disagree? Who is the fascist here?

    • February 23, 2014 at 7:16 AM

      yes they are all dumb and you are the fascist

  • February 23, 2014 at 7:08 AM

    i am 63 and locked and loaded if obozo tries to lay a finger on my guns……..

    and i’ve seen the kids who pass for our troops nowadays and to be quite frank with many of them i’m not impressed…..i may not have military training but let anyone break through my door, give them flak jackets or riot gear or what have you and they’ll still be sorry……

    • February 23, 2014 at 7:53 AM


    • February 23, 2014 at 10:13 PM

      When they come to my house for me, I won’t be there.

      They should go to their own homes.

      They’d have a better chance of finding me and my merry fellow fascists.

      We can play that game too.

      Many of us already know where they live and play in our AOs and have prep’d Op Orders for action WHEN the right time arrives.

      It’s just not here yet.

      Oh yea, don’t forget the part about the “enablers” either, carl.

      LOL, ha, ha.

      • February 23, 2014 at 11:11 PM


    • Tim Forkes
      February 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM

      You don’t have any military training, but you’re going to pass judgement on those in the military … that’s rich. If they need to kick down your door to get in it’s a good bet you’ll be cowering behind a heavy appliance begging not to be shot.

  • February 23, 2014 at 7:02 AM

    So… the Constitution is not a holy text.. But it is the Constitution of the United States, Correct? A Constitution as a foundation of a Nation is sacrosanct; a nation of laws, not of men, remember?

    • February 23, 2014 at 7:14 AM

      nah, if something’s dumb it’s dumb no matter who wrote it or whether it was used to found a nation or whatever. laws can be wrong just like men can be wrong and for the exact same reasons

      • February 23, 2014 at 10:25 AM

        Says the resident moron

  • February 23, 2014 at 6:54 AM

    Excuse me, but the 2nd Amendment only insures a Natural-Right. End of Story/

    • February 23, 2014 at 6:57 AM

      nah that’s dumb, end of story

    • Tim Forkes
      February 24, 2014 at 12:47 AM

      A “Natural-Right”? If firearms didn’t exist the 2nd amendment wouldn’t exist … what happens to the “Natural-Right?”
      I’m pretty sure it’s man-made.

      • March 1, 2014 at 3:14 PM

        whatcha talking ’bout man? everything is made up.

        Anyway, SLEF-DEFENSE IS THE MOST BASIC LAW OF NATURE, in case ya didn’t know. Ya hear me

        • March 1, 2014 at 3:15 PM

          oops… SELF-DEFENSE.

  • February 23, 2014 at 6:42 AM

    We all agree, the DOI was written after armed conflict had begun; as a manifesto of raison d’etat. What makes you think that it cannot, with those who currently believe in Liberty, under the Constitution, that it cannot occur again? Hope?

    • February 23, 2014 at 6:52 AM

      That is the question that my article addresses directly. You are beginning to give me the distinct impression that you didn’t actually read it. If you can’t be bothered to even read the argument that you’re complaining about, don’t be surprised if I stop reading your comments.

      On that note, for chrissakes, learn to hit “reply”. The entire point of the “reply” button is so that people know what you are responding to, and so that people can skip over a specific thread if they don’t want to read it. Have you noticed how I keep responding directly beneath your comments? You can do that, too.

  • February 23, 2014 at 6:32 AM

    Hummm, Millions of firearms and billions of rounds of ammo in the hands of ‘the people’ speak louder than words, yes?

    • February 23, 2014 at 6:46 AM

      Correct. Simply holding on to guns instead of actually using them speaks a lot louder than just repeating over and over that maybe you’ll use them someday.

      • February 23, 2014 at 10:18 PM

        Most of us fascists/racists w/small dicks take pride in the fact we haven’t used our weapons, YET.

        LOL, ha, ha.

        • February 23, 2014 at 11:32 PM

          That’s a pretty ridiculous thing to take pride in. It’s like taking pride in never having robbed a bank.

          Incidentally, I didn’t bring up racism, but guess what? Probably the most racist thing you could possibly do is pretend that there can never be such a thing as racism and that all accusations of racism are necessarily illegitimate. And when you try to pre-emptively discredit accusations of racism before they are even made, regardless of any potential merits, that’s exactly what you’re doing.

  • February 23, 2014 at 6:30 AM

    Lets see, humm the Declaration of Independence was written when when no armed conflict was going on, Correct?

    • February 23, 2014 at 6:45 AM


    • Tim Forkes
      April 13, 2014 at 4:53 AM

      Actually the armed conflict started a little more than a year before Jefferson started writing the Declaration of Independence. Commonly called the “Revolutionary War,” some call it the “War of Independence.” Battles of Lexington and Concord, April 19,1775. Maybe they didn’t teach that in history class when you went to school, or maybe you weren’t paying attention. As I recall, we learned it while we were still in elementary school.
      At any rate, that is incorrect.

  • February 23, 2014 at 6:26 AM

    And the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution (including or course the 1st 10 Amendments) and the Federalist Papers. Are they the also the psychology of fascism?

    • February 23, 2014 at 6:43 AM

      Who cares? Sure, the Second Amendment for example is a fascist amendment. So what? These texts aren’t holy scriptures handed down by the gods. They’re instructions and theories of governance written by men who are as legitimate subject of criticism as anyone else. I have zero reservations in calling all those documents flawed in different ways. If I’m wrong I’m wrong on the merits, not because it’s somehow wrong to merely disagree with a bunch of dead guys.

      • February 23, 2014 at 10:20 PM

        You’re wrong on the merits!

        I agree with that.

        LOL, ha, ha.

        • February 23, 2014 at 11:33 PM

          nah that’s dumb

  • February 23, 2014 at 6:06 AM

    “This is the psychology of fascism.”

    So, ah…. you think the Declaration of Independence, including all its enumerated principles, was a fascist document?

    I hope it never comes to this, but if it does, you’re in for a rude awakening.

    • February 23, 2014 at 6:27 AM

      Uh, no. I specifically identified the psychology of fascism as the desire “to be thought of as a credible threat so that we’ll do whatever it takes to appease” the fascist.

      The Declaration of Independence is that exact opposite of that. It is an attempt to justify independence, not by force, but through rational argument. There is no reason to read that document as some kind of threat because by the time it was written the war was already in progress. Jefferson is not threatening war – he is trying to justify a war that has already begun.

      That said, nah: I’m obviously not in for a rude awakening. Type as many somber warnings as you like. Actions speak louder than words.

      • February 24, 2014 at 9:28 PM

        Wow…. I know that you have no such understanding of the Declaration at all. This is lifted directly from the Declaration of Independence:

        “Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce
        them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”

        There is another Founding Document entitled the “Necessity for Taking up Arms”. There are many more. I would encourage all of you to find them PDF on the net download them and study least the Carl Woodwards of the world infect the rest of the populace with their appeals to authority and other worthless fallacies.

        I have two degrees. In my studies in political science and law and a clerkship with a branch of the judiciary. I have been devout in uncovering the truth. I do not subscribe to following authority figures for the sake of authority. I have devoted over 30 years to the study of our founding and have merely scatched the surface.

        Carl here has been the example of what insanity is all about. least we all get caught up in someone else’s story and forget to write our own, speaking as analogy here, I would suggest that each and everyone find the truth for yourself. It is not so difficult. It is the cure for the Carls of the world and the politicians who would make themselves our masters by perverting the Constitution to their benefit. Two verses from the Book i would like to close with”

        “My people are destroyed for their lack of knowledge.”
        Hosea 4:6

        “Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.”
        Ephesians 5:6
        I would also like to thank Carl of being the fine example of what not to do.

        • February 24, 2014 at 10:55 PM

          ^ false prophet

  • February 23, 2014 at 5:00 AM

    Yep. Why Indeed. Because it might interfere with, ummm, the facts?

    Well, good news for you and your fellow newspaper people; I am willing to stand up to the FCC even if you are not. You may thank me standing tall for OUR ‘…or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’. And you are welcome.

    • February 23, 2014 at 6:27 AM

      You’re hilariously confused.

      Most of this article is just elaboration on a few factual claims about demographics. When you are looking for information about demographics, you don’t look for a plumber or a baker or a would-be militant. You look for people and organizations that have conducted surveys and polls. I didn’t ask what my sources thought about the Second Amendment because that is irrelevant to the information I was trying to obtain.

  • February 23, 2014 at 4:17 AM

    I mean of course, you interviewed some of those would-be militants (some would label them ‘Second Amendment supporters, but I digress), Correct?

    • February 23, 2014 at 4:34 AM

      Of course not, why would I do that

  • February 23, 2014 at 4:13 AM

    And, BTW, I didn’t find any of YOUR sources in your article either… So I take it as, an uninformed opinion, Correct?

    • February 23, 2014 at 4:22 AM

      Keep looking, you’ll find them. I believe in you

  • February 23, 2014 at 4:03 AM

    And what?, Hodges doesn’t have the Right of Free Speech?

  • February 23, 2014 at 4:02 AM

    Dude, you are writing for a Newspaper… You all for the FCC looking over your shoulder?

    • February 23, 2014 at 4:36 AM

      I love the FCC, it’s the best

  • February 23, 2014 at 3:58 AM

    With responses like ‘lol’ and ‘haha’, I don’t think so. I mean, Really?, that is the BEST you can do?

  • February 23, 2014 at 3:49 AM

    me thinks you need to go back and study ‘Revolutions’; beginning with the American Revolution…

    • February 23, 2014 at 3:50 AM

      nah i’ve got this one covered

  • February 23, 2014 at 3:48 AM

    lol? haha? Intelligent Responses? Really?

  • February 23, 2014 at 3:43 AM

    EXACTLY. As always, Carl says what we’re all thinking. Thank you.

  • February 23, 2014 at 3:36 AM

    Scientists from
    the prestigious Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have determined that if
    just 10% of any given
    population holds to an unshakable idea, that the idea will become adopted by the
    majority of the country.

    However, the
    scientists who belong to the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research
    Center (SCNARC) found that if the ideas are
    shared by less than 10% of the population, the idea will not progress and will
    eventually die out.

    The research
    was first published in a peer reviewed E Journal in an article titled “Social consensus through the
    influence of committed minorities.”

    Computational and analytical
    methods were used to discover the tipping point where an obscure idea eventually
    becomes the majority opinion.

  • February 23, 2014 at 3:30 AM

    The three stages of revolution manifest in the following manner:

    1. A minimum number of the persecuted population becomes aware that they are victims and a share a collective consciousness with their fellow victimized citizens. Ten percent is the minimum number needed to successfully complete stage one (see below for documentation).

    2. Awareness leads to action in the form of civil disobedience.

    3. Civil disobedience is met with opposing force by the power elite and the conflict leads to open hostilities culminating in revolution.

    It is a hypothesis that America is transitioning between stage one to stage two.(per Dave Hodges).

    • February 23, 2014 at 3:39 AM


      • February 23, 2014 at 10:00 PM

        See Connecticut and soon New York.


  • February 23, 2014 at 3:27 AM

    And they did it without the millions of firearms and billions of ammo in the hands of ‘the people’. Plus in our case, a military who trusts ‘the people’ more than the anti-Constitutional (re: FCC, IRS, EPA, etc.) acts of the Federal Government. You proved MY point exactly. Thank You.

    • February 23, 2014 at 3:40 AM


  • February 23, 2014 at 2:03 AM

    Ukraine. Game, set, match.

    • February 23, 2014 at 2:50 AM

      I’m glad you agree with me. Ukraine illustrates my point perfectly.

      Ukraine’s economy is 89 times smaller than ours. Its contraction during the 08-09 financial crisis was more severe than in any other country in the world. It’s only costs half as much to live in Kiev as it costs to live in DC – but per capita income is about 7% that in the US.

      Ukrainians have also experienced significant civil unrest in the recent past, up to and including two full-scale revolutions in the past twenty five years, one of them less than a decade ago.

      Revolution is more likely in Ukraine because the people are impoverished, desperate and battle-hardened. There is a significant record of recent civil unrest that backs this up. Right-wing revolution is far less likely in the United States, because the demographic in question tends to be extraordinarily prosperous sheltered middle class folk who have historically given us no reason to suspect they’re going to do a thing.

      Again, thanks for bringing up Ukraine. It’s a great example that does a lot to demonstrate what real revolutionaries look like.

  • February 23, 2014 at 12:07 AM

    Hi RWNJs, I’ve got to step away for a while because I have actual *work* to do, but I’m looking forward to a zillion canned insults, obvious fallacies and substanceless complaining while I’m gone! 😀

    • February 23, 2014 at 6:09 AM

      Yo, Carl – Don’t strain your eyes admiring yourself in the mirror.

      • February 23, 2014 at 6:53 AM

        That’s not likely to happen, I’m pretty easy on the eyes 🙂

  • February 22, 2014 at 11:21 PM

    Well, Carl, we believe in the Right to overthrow “government” because that is EXACTLY the Right of the American People, should it be necessary. What do you think the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights are all about?
    It would be a VERY SERIOUS mistake to assume, broadly, as you have, that the American people would not move to restore the Constitutional Principles to “government” should it become necessary. We just haven’t gotten there, yet.
    Sure, some of we on the Right aren’t as young or as physically fit as we used to be, but that doesn’t make us invalids, either. And when you consider that millions of us are military veterans with service during one or more wars, we still possess quite relevant and effective skills and capabilities.
    Finally, the course our current “government” is on is fomenting mass disrespect for the Rule of Law, and certainly has caused a very significant loss of trust in “public officials” from the Presidency on down. In other words, PEOPLE ARE GETTING PISSED. Obama’s acting more and more like a tinhorn dictator, and the population is arming up – look at the sale of firearms in the last 5 years.
    And it’s not just Obama that’s done this, it’s “government” in general. Cops get away with murdering innocent people in mistaken raids on the wrong houses, and nobody is held accountable. Federal agents run guns to drug cartels in Mexico, and our traitorous Attorney General not only DOES NOT DO HIS JOB, he conspires with the criminals. The President violates his Oath and the Constitution by changing existing law with “Executive Orders” which in fact are unconstitutional dictatorial decrees.
    The balloon can only stretch so much. “Government” better back the Hell off before it starts something nobody wants.

    • February 22, 2014 at 11:48 PM

      First, I have not “assumed” that “the American people would not move to restore the Constitutional Principles blah blah blah”. I have demonstrated that through extended argument and specific fact. That is in fact more or less the only thing this article sets out to do. Your failure to specify any particular “assumptions”, and attempt to just wave the whole thing away without argument, is a telling indicator of just how weak your position is.

      Second. It is incredibly easy and logically consistent to insist that we do, as Americans, indeed have the right to take up arms against our government – while maintaining, as a matter of practical fact, that any attempt to do so by the American right would be futile. There is no contradiction between saying both things at the same time. My one-year-old nephew may very well have the right to take up arms against the government, but does that mean he’s likely to be successful if he tries to do so? Of course not.

      The rest of your post is just a gibberish recitation of right-wing anti-Obama talking points that have nothing to do with my article, so you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t pretend to take them seriously or bother to argue with you about them.

      • February 22, 2014 at 11:52 PM

        Just the response I have come to expect from a typically left wing jackass that apparently has very little understanding of what it means to be an American Patriot.

        • February 23, 2014 at 12:02 AM

          or very little understanding of warfare and revolutions.

          • February 23, 2014 at 12:04 AM

            I know it soothes your wounded ego to pretend that you understand anything about either, but until you actually offer some kind of substantive criticism instead of just *declaring* my ignorance, you’re really just a sore loser 🙂

          • February 23, 2014 at 12:14 AM

            errrr…. I am not the one posting about one year olds bringing down the federal government. That really needs no “substantive criticism”. All it needs is to say,”look a the clown.”

          • February 23, 2014 at 12:19 AM

            Jack – this is typical of the “intellectual superiority” of the leftists. Just ask them; they’ll tell you just how stupid you are, and how vastly more intelligent they are.

          • February 23, 2014 at 12:19 AM

            And for being SOOOOOO tolerant, they are the most intolerant a$$holes around.

          • February 23, 2014 at 3:11 AM

            When did I claim to be tolerant of idiots? If you get a single message from this entire conversation, please understand that I have nothing but contempt for morons like you.

            I’m not here to be politically correct and pretend like your ideas are any less stupid than they are. I’m not here to give you a participation trophy for contributing to this conversation – really, you haven’t even done that.

          • February 23, 2014 at 4:50 AM

            Just further proving my previous point.

          • February 23, 2014 at 10:07 PM

            Your contempt for us holds no candle to ours for you and yours.

            Few people I know are much concerned with the killing of cockroaches.

            LOL, ha, ha.

          • February 23, 2014 at 2:57 AM

            How stupid are you? Carl’s reference to a child attacking the government is SUPPOSED to be absurd. It’s a direct logical extension of that other guy’s line of criticism.

            Carl is highlighting the stupidity of the other guy. Pointing at the example and laughing at how stupid it is is the intended response. You’re so dense that you don’t even understand that you’re agreeing with him.

          • February 23, 2014 at 3:46 AM

            I know, right? These people are so frantically stumbling over themselves to find something wrong with my argument that they’re accidentally catching each other in the crossfire. It’s amazing.

          • February 24, 2014 at 9:04 PM

            Dude I just lifted this from your own comments. You are the one who included children overthrowing the government:

            “My one-year-old nephew may very well have the right to take up arms against the government, but does that mean he’s likely to be successful if he tries to do so? Of course not…”

            Carl Woodard
            You have got to get back on your meds Carl.
            Carls’ statement for the day:
            I hate being bipolar,
            It’s awesome!!!

          • February 23, 2014 at 6:30 AM

            Hey… YOU are the one posting about children overthrowing the government. Now you want to make excuses for the post.

          • February 23, 2014 at 6:55 AM

            haha you’re so dumb you can’t even read the name beside a post

          • February 24, 2014 at 8:59 PM

            Circular reasoning is a fallacious response.
            Ad Hominem argumnet is a fallacious response.

            He who would argue with a fool is the greated fool.
            Paraphrased form Proverbs
            Oh I guess you don’t know, its a book in the Bible….

          • February 23, 2014 at 10:05 PM

            Come on carl, stop up voting your own posts.

            LOL, Ha, ha.

          • February 24, 2014 at 10:58 PM

            How about you answer Mike’s shots across the bow of your wounded ego and substantively criticize (or intelligently counter) them instead of completely ignoring them? It will be there from now until, well, the internet gets shut down, but the ideas expressed, cataloged and stored at Sipsey Street cannot be turned off with a switch. Or with your leftist screeds. Or with government guns. Read it and weep. You are now officially “The Problem.”


        • February 23, 2014 at 12:02 AM

          Being an American Patriot means pretending that my one-year-old nephew could successfully bring down the federal government?

          That’s just bizarre. Why would I have any interest in being an American Patriot if it means believing crazy things like that?

      • February 23, 2014 at 10:03 PM

        Actually, I’ve yet to see ANY “facts” in your arguments.

        Just because you believe something does not make it a “fact.”

        LOL. ha, ha.

        • February 24, 2014 at 10:56 PM

          probably because you didn’t read it, doofus

  • February 22, 2014 at 10:30 PM

    “America’s fascists aren’t the rugged survivalist killing machines they make themselves out to be. They aren’t the young, diverse and relatively liberal demographic that makes up today’s military and law enforcement personnel.”
    That’s funny. The military is “relatively liberal” and cops are a “young demographic”. If, and I mean IF, there was ever a left-right revolution in this country, 65% the military (based on past voting tendancies) would side with the right wingers. That 100,000 number just got 26X bigger, and a helluva lot more lethal.
    The rest of the article is meaningless hypothesis. From both sides.

    • February 22, 2014 at 11:35 PM

      54% of veterans voted against Obama in 2008. 2012 voting records are incomplete. Happy to look at any numbers I’ve missed, but Fox reports a 49-49 split in Virginia.

      None of these numbers are anywhere near 65%. Congressional and state voting records may give us a clearer picture but you have a hilariously heavy lift if you want to argue that “65% of the military…would side with the right wingers” when you can’t even get 55% to vote against Obama.

      Worth adding that these numbers include active AND retired military. Retired military obviously leans more conservative, which means even less right-wing support in the active military.

      That touches on one of the article’s main themes: the Tea Party demographic, the gun owner demographic, and the conservative military demographic are all statistically older. This is not “meaingless hypothesis”. It is uncontroversial fact.

      One last fact: your hilarious conjecture takes for granted that voting tendencies are a meaningful predictor of alliances in some imaginary civil war. They are not. For one thing, it is absolutely insane to suppose that everyone with conservative sympathies will actually be inclined to take up arms against the government.

      Again, the Republican fascist argument invariably relies on inflating their numbers with ridiculous assumptions, while completely ignoring basic demographic and statistical facts. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

      • February 23, 2014 at 9:48 PM

        We won’t be taking up arms against the government.

        We’ll be going after the USURPERS and their enablers.

        Repeat, “and their enablers.”

        Just sayin’

        But, please, keep believing your BS.

        • Tim Forkes
          February 24, 2014 at 4:24 AM

          I’ll be waiting … but I won’t hold my breath. Just sayin’

        • February 24, 2014 at 6:31 PM


          Man, I’m begging you. Give me an excuse.

          The hilarious thing here is how carefully you have to choose your words. You know perfectly well that you can’t come out and make open threats, because that would expose you to legal action. Your cowardice on that point is continuing proof that, pathetic insinuations and empty bluster aside, you are still absolutely terrified of the government. 😀

          • February 25, 2014 at 8:55 PM

            I think it proves we’re too smart to let arsewipes like you needle us into doing something stupid.

            I intend to be around to do my share of raiding the raiders homes.

            I’ll leave it up to the individual readers to decide who they support.

            Oh, crap, look at the up vote comparisons.


      • February 23, 2014 at 11:06 PM

        Mike Vanderboegh has the best response at Sipsey Street Irregulars blogspot under the title, “Ideological onanism: “Resistance is Futile” Collectivist defeats an entire army of “Republican Fascist” strawmen and becomes a legend in his own mind.”

        The thing to remember is Bill Clinton’s rules of engagement.

  • February 22, 2014 at 9:53 PM

    Cramer’s nightmare scenario of government oppression: losing access to the internet.
    Well, no. The nightmare isn’t being unable to access websites, it’s having a government that abridges the free speech and press, freedom to assemble and petition government, and freedom of religion that those websites represent.
    If you don’t understand, or can’t admit, that much; then you don’t understand that Mr. Cramer knows what the final option will cost, and that not having it available will cost even more.

    • February 22, 2014 at 10:42 PM

      It’s obvious what he meant. That’s not controversial, and in fact my entire argument turns on understanding what he meant exactly as you said it. You say that these are examples of government oppression, and I agree with you.

      My point there is simply that we can also infer something from the way that he *articulated* what he meant. The examples he used were examples that a middle class would be more likely to use than, say, an impoverished guerilla who typically communicates through burners and walkie talkies.

      In this case the conclusion I arrived at happens to be true, as a matter of uncontroversial fact. Cramer is indeed in the demographic I described.

      So I am happy to concede that my guess was indeed (obviously) a guess, as long as we’re all clear that I happened to guess correctly.

      • February 24, 2014 at 8:49 PM

        YOu been studin with Sorento dude??? Dang I bet Alinski would pat you on the back.
        Did you parents have any children that lived????

        • February 24, 2014 at 10:53 PM

          u crazy

  • February 22, 2014 at 8:55 PM

    Project much?

    • February 22, 2014 at 9:02 PM

      You should have tried “I’m rubber and you’re glue”. Either way you look childish and inarticulate, but bringing up projection here just proves that you don’t understand psychology, either.

      • February 23, 2014 at 7:46 AM

        Not at all. You’re projecting from your own cowardice — which could not imagine a principled stand against tyranny — that there are no others who might make such a stand. In fact, our country was created by such a principled stand, which largely explains why you now feel so uncomfortable.

  • February 22, 2014 at 5:58 PM

    By American fascists you mean the President and his followers correct?

    • February 22, 2014 at 9:01 PM

      Uh, no? It’s pretty obvious that I’m using it to refer to right-wing Americans who believe in a right to violently overthrow the government. Really – I’m sure you think “fascist” means something else, but it’s just unmistakably clear what I think it means.

      If you scroll up, you’ll see an entire article where I talk about fascism and describe at length what I’m referring to. I go on about this for paragraph after paragraph. I even illustrated the article with pictures of the people I’m referring to. Even without reading, you could just look at this article and guess that it’s not about President Obama or the people who voted for him.

      I just don’t get how you missed this. I sort of hesitate to explain it any further to you because if you didn’t get it in a 1000 word article you’re probably not going to get it in a single comment. If you have friends or family who are better at reading than you are, and who are more patient than I am, maybe the best thing to do would be to ask them to help you understand what I mean when I refer to fascists. Another approach would be to get one of those text-to-voice readers, copy this article into it, and listen to it over and over again throughout the day. Sometimes repetition helps.

      Sorry I can’t be of any further assistance – Carl

      • February 22, 2014 at 11:16 PM

        So people who’s primary relationship do the government is “just leave us alone” are really the fascists who want to control the government and everyone else? I think that phrase means something other than what you believe it means.

        • February 22, 2014 at 11:53 PM

          No, that has nothing to do with what I argued.

          Here’s a tip: you should read my article, and if you can only “paraphrase” what I wrote by saying things that I didn’t explicitly say, you might be confused.

          • February 23, 2014 at 12:00 AM

            it has everything to do with what you argued and the language you used. You don’t understand what the word fascist means but it sounds like a good insult for conservatives. It makes you ffffeeeellll ggggooooodedd to call them that and that is all that is necessary.

          • February 23, 2014 at 3:36 AM

            Incorrect. You are using “what you argued” to mean “what I wish you said but cannot substantiate with direct quotes because it is not actually there.”

            I’m not going to pretend to care about the Orwellian, revisionary redefinition of “fascism” that idiots like you and Jonah Goldberg have been peddling, to the overwhelming ridicule of historians, political scientists, and anyone dimly acquainted with the word’s historical meaning. I know you’re sensitive about that and it hurts your feelings, but that’s the point.

          • February 23, 2014 at 6:32 AM

            As noted…. carl really doesn’t, and never has, understands the very concept of fascism.

          • February 24, 2014 at 9:02 PM

            Actually Jack, I believe Carl understands precisely what fascism is and his article outlined the dangers of this form of extremism well.

        • May 18, 2014 at 12:32 PM

          Nah, more like “we didn’t like the outcome of the last two elections, so we want to initiate a coup d’etat.”

          How about that? Or how about the myriad fascists that have gone around shooting Jews, Sikhs, and everyone else, threatening actual officers of the law, because they want to keep grazing their damn cattle on the pubic dime for free and don;t actually even believe in the nation whose Constitution you nincompoops claim to be trying to “restore”?

          So how about you idiots just start doing what every one else does, and chip in instead of making excuses why your lazy Boomer asses are sucking up all the OASDI and Medicare after living lives of debt that ran this country into the ground for your children and grandchildren, and start acting like goddamn decent American citizens?

          WE DO NOT LIKE YOU.

          There is a reason that your sons and daughters don’t vote like you. You’re an embarrassment.

          Go age out in peace and leave us ti fix the shambles that you’ve left us since the Reagan years, you stupid, moronic, dupe of a little man.

      • February 23, 2014 at 9:49 PM

        You seem to think we believe your drivel to be credible.


        • February 24, 2014 at 6:06 PM

          How did you get that impression? I thought I’ve made it clear that I think you’re a moron. I don’t expect to persuade you of anything because that would imply some baseline degree of intelligence on your end.

          • February 25, 2014 at 8:45 PM

            What you think matters not one twit to me.

            I’m convinced you, and those like you, are THE MORONS.

            Oops, look who’s got the most up votes!


      • February 24, 2014 at 8:37 PM

        Nope not to overthrow the government but those men who pervert it. This is not my idea, I am simply the messenger. The fellow that wrote it died from an assassin’s bullet quite some time ago, Abraham Lincoln.

        And the term Fascist is completely wrong. If one would use deductive logic argument by definition would recognize Fascist as the correct use mandates is the combining of corporations and the government in a dictatorial regime. Such is not the case
        with us “strict constructionists”. We are Republicans in the very
        strict sense of the word, not as in the Republican Party. Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution states that the United States shall guarantee a Republican form of government to the several states. The word democracy does not exist in the Constitution and only in the writings of the Framers as a “vile” form of government. But let’s look at your term democracy:

        “Democracy is the road to socialism.”
        Karl Marx

        Thank you for this wonderful insight to your political philosophy. You ain’t blue you is red… in the vernacular.

        Your 1000 word “article” is nothing more than personal vindicta. It does not use one logically constructive element or group of elements to convey an idea. It is nothing but fallacious drivel that utilizes every logical fallacy to bend sentiment to your unknowledgeable view. In short it is an ill constructed rant about your personal mania. In point of fact I direct you and the readers to the last paragraph of your response above. You intimate that the fellow cannot read simply because he does not agree with your “article. What an arrogant, condescending ad hominem attack. Oh forgive us your majesty how could we have been so blind to have not understood that your word is law and that we should prostrate ourselves before you dais and seek humble forgiveness for uttering a contrary statement.

        You know you really should take your meds dude. I am surprised you can dress yourself without doing serious bodily harm. Do your caretakers let you use the internet often or do they have to type in the letters for you. It must be difficult trying to type in that long sleeved white jacket with the buckles on the ends.

        You know when speaking, or writing long winded, brainless statements, one should take care as not to show their teeth and IQ at the same time… all 32.

        • February 24, 2014 at 10:50 PM

          hmm, lots of vague accusations and canned insults, no substantive criticism. truly my argument is undone

    • February 27, 2014 at 11:11 PM

      Don’t be silly. The president and his followers are Marxists.

  • Tim Forkes
    February 22, 2014 at 10:42 AM

    Well written Carl!

    • February 23, 2014 at 10:08 PM

      LOL, ha, ha.

Comments are closed.