Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 16 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 6/17/10

Progressives want "direct action" and a disarmed public

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   23 comments
Message Paul Craig Roberts
Become a Fan
  (402 fans)
Progressive William Rivers Pitt has lost patience with the Obama
regime and with British Petroleum ("Enough of This Crap," June 15, Truthout). To
break through the news blackout that BP maintains over the ongoing Gulf of
Mexico oil spill, he wants a hundred thousand Americans to "just show the hell
up down there and demand access."

Pitt is correct that this "is the kind
of direct action that has been missing from our national narrative, not just in
the Gulf but all over." Obama, he says correctly, is a "narcotic" for
progressives. Apparently, for many progressives having a black man, or a 50%
black man, in the White House is what is important, not the fact that he is a
continuation of Bush/Cheney.

If a hundred thousand people marched on the
Gulf Coast, "big things would happen."

Pitt writes that "either the people
would break through those unconscionable corporate barriers and show the world
what is really going on in the Gulf, or the forces BP has arrayed against the
truth would react with violence, which would tell us everything we need to know
about what is happening, and would be enough to break that God damned criminal
corporation finally and forever."

It was, of course, the
Bush-Cheney-Obama administration that permitted the drilling. BP didn't go about
it on its own. This aside, and also putting aside my sympathy with Pitt's
outrage, here we have a progressive advocating direct action that likely would
end in violence, not merely from BP mercenaries but from local, state, and
federal government forces.

The anomaly in the picture is that it is progressives
who have been most determined to disarm the American people. What would the one
hundred thousand do when withering fire is directed at them? Amerika's forces of
"law and order" and conquest enjoy killing people. It doesn't matter if they are
women and children. In fact, killing women and children is the way to win
30-year wars like the one we are one-third through in Afghanistan.

don't think the government wouldn't kill Americans. Remember the 100 murdered
Branch Davidians that Bill Clinton and Janet Reno dispatched? The US government
has never regretted the million dead Iraqi civilians and the unknown multitude
of dead Afghan civilians. Have you forgotten Kent State where college kids were
gunned down by the US National Guard? YouTube has tens of thousands of videos of
cops getting their jollies by body slamming 90-year-old grandmothers and
tasering 10-year-old kids. Just the other day Obama official Dennis Blair
announced that he had a list of Americans to assassinate. In every society the
worst people always get into unaccountable positions of power. It is these
people who are the threat to Americans' lives and liberty, not the Taliban and

Ever since it became apparent to progressives, despite their faith
in government, that the Bush-Cheney regime was an enormous threat to American
liberty, to the environment, to truth, and to world peace, progressives have
continued their campaigns to disarm the American people and to reduce them to
grist for the Bush-Cheney-Obama Police State's mill. The obvious question is:
How can we trust progressives when they are such reliable agents of the Police

Perhaps William Rivers Pitt thinks that a massacre of a hundred
thousand Americans would send a moral message that would overthrow the gestapo
government in DC. The more likely effect would be to intimidate the sheeple.
Don't confuse Americans with Afghans who, despite their disunity, have thrown
off every attempted conquest. Unless the US buys them off with money, they will
throw off the "superpower" as well.

Even if progressives could realize
that the Bush-Cheney-Obama Police State was a far more dangerous entity than
Americans permitted to own pistols and semi-automatic rifles, no American is
permitted to own the weapons that the oppressive government has. Perhaps if the
sheeple could become aroused, we would have a replay of Joseph Stalin's dictum
that quantity overrides quality of weapons, and the American people, by sheer
numbers, would prevail.

If progressives really desire direct
confrontation with the evildoers who control our country, they will have to
accept that the people must be armed, trained, and have an understanding of who
their enemy is. As the Founding Fathers tried to beat into our heads, the enemy
is always the government.

Somehow I just can't see progressives getting
this far. They would rather Americans be slaves of the state than armed.

I am not advocating armed rebellion, just pointing out an inconsistency
in the progressives' position.

Every civil liberty is reduced to the
Second Amendment. This was recognized by our Founding Fathers, especially by
Thomas Jefferson, and it was completely understood by William Blackstone,
England's greatest jurist. Blackstone wrote that whenever government broke free
of the constraints placed on it by civil liberty, the "last right of the subject
is having arms for their defense."

Blackstone wrote in the 18th century
that when legal constraints on government fail, physical checks remain: The
right to bear arms expresses the "natural right of resistance and
self-preservation when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient
to restrain the violence of oppression."

There can be no doubt that if
Thomas Jefferson and William Blackstone were alive today, they would be on the
no-fly list, if not kidnapped, renditioned and tortured to death in the Amerikan
puppet state of Egypt.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Must Read 5   Valuable 3   Well Said 2  
Rate It | View Ratings

Paul Craig Roberts Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan Administration. He was associate editor and columnist with the Wall Street Journal, columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service. He is a contributing editor to Gerald Celente's Trends Journal. He has had numerous university appointments. His books, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is available (more...)

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Libya - The DC/NATO Agenda And The Next Great War

A Story...The Last Whistleblower

Pakistan TV Report Contradicts US Claim of Bin Laden's Death

The Road to Armageddon

American Job Loss Is Permanent

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend