How do Democrats propose to end violence? Threaten to 'nuke' US gun owners!
Following the highly divisive midterm elections, which saw the Democrats and Republicans split Congress between themselves, the American people have barricaded themselves behind their chosen political echo chambers, while firing off the occasional rhetorical fusillade in the dark.
On Friday, for example, social media erupted when John Cardillo, 'America Talks Live' host, commented over the electronic mosh pit known as Twitter that "Democrats want to eradicate the Second Amendment, ban and seize all guns, and have all power rest with the state. These people are dangerously obsessed with power."
Cardillo provided a link to an opinion piece by California Democrat Eric Swalwell, who argued back in May that the US government "should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and… criminally prosecute any who choose" to keep their weapons.
Naturally, this tweet caught fire like a pile of dry leaves in July. Joe Biggs, a combat veteran, joined in the level-headed conversation with an obscenity-laced tirade: "So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that's what you would get. You're outta your f--king mind if you think I'll give up my rights and give the gov all the power."
Anyone who may have been expecting some self-restraint and perhaps an ounce of diplomacy from the high-ranking Democratic legislator were to be sadly disappointed. What they got instead was a rebuttal in the shape of a mushroom cloud looming over the American heartland.
"And it would be a short war my friend," Swalwell fired back, before pressing the nuclear button. "The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they're legit. I'm sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities."
Would it shock anyone to know that this unhinged Democrat has got his sights fixed on the 2020 presidential election?
It's very difficult to read Swalwell's comment without feeling that you've just been kicked in the solar plexus by a jackboot. Here we have a high-ranking congressman and potential White House contender suggesting that the government could resort to "nukes" to neutralize millions of American gun owners. And then in the very next sentence Swalwell talks about finding common ground – assuming that it hasn't been reduced to radioactive wasteland – to "protect our families and communities." Irrespective of the literary tools the politician was attempting to employ – he called it "sarcasm" – the end result comes off as either not-so-subtle blackmail, or the worst non sequitur I have ever read.
Lastly, threatening (either seriously or even facetiously, progressives tell me nuance and euphemisms are dead and everything is literal in meaning) voters with nukes because you, not they, don’t understand the argument is both bad lawmaking and advocacy.— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018
Swalwell goes on to say that his country's nuclear stockpile is "legit." If he somehow meant to suggest by that comment that America's gun collection is not legitimate, he need only consult the Second Amendment of the US Constitution to update his misguided opinions on the matter.
Democrats like Swalwell may wish to check their hypocrisy, as well as their weapons of mass destruction, at the door before entering into any debate on violence. Indeed, how does one square the circle of this legislator advocating against gun ownership on the one hand, while threatening to obliterate dissenting voices with nukes on the other hand?
Judging by the Democratic Party's penchant for aggressive behavior while in power, such 'jokes' should surprise no one, and only reaffirms why the Founding Fathers understood the importance of allowing the American people "to keep and bear arms" in the first place. For that timely wake-up call, courtesy of the Democratic congressman from California, Americans should be grateful.
Swalwell's explosive comment, which should have him banned from Twitter, if not the halls of power altogether, is symptomatic of the Democratic Party's predilection for resorting to ultra-violence when presented with a problem. If there's a fly on the wall, best to call in a drone strike and take out the entire street block. Swalwell's comment proves what has been obvious for a long time. The Democratic Party, which at one time had the reputation as the anti-war party, forfeited that claim many years ago, starting with the 78-day bombing campaign (March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999) against Yugoslavia by US-led NATO forces – without the consent of the UN – under the Democratic leadership of then-president Bill Clinton.
Yes, one could equally condemn the Republican Party for their own rabid behavior, which began in earnest under George W. Bush (2000-2008) and his disastrous 'war on terror.' Yet the Republicans, who are known for being more concerned with military security and preparedness, never pretended to be peace activists like the Democrats were once upon a time.
The Liberal left got its reputation for being pro-peace/anti-war during the Vietnam War – a decade-long conflict that actually began under the Democrats – when university campuses across the country shut down and students took to the street in protest. That gallant historical moment, when an entire counter-culture movement took root, and musical artists actually performed anti-war ballads, hit a tragic note on May 4, 1970 when the National Guard opened fire on protesters at Kent State University, killing four students and injuring nine.
Much later, in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War, the world experienced one of the largest anti-war protests in history. However, it lacked the core counter-cultural support to transcend the movement to its next critical level of resistance.
Moreover, observers have noticed a distinct bias among liberals when it comes to their anti-war rhetoric, which has a marked tendency for becoming more vocal when it is the Republicans dropping the bombs on innocents.
Although left-wing groups made a relatively strong effort to put the brakes on George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, when the Democratic President Barack Obama ratcheted up military tensions in Afghanistan, followed by a NATO assault on the sovereign state of Libya, the reaction from the Democratic camp was noticeably different.
"Except for a few hard-left organizations, such as Code Pink, the sounds coming from the usual supposed anti-war liberal quarters were those of crickets,"wrote Ted Carpenter from the Cato Institute. "Likewise, there has been little push-back to Obama's gradual return of the US military presence in Iraq or the entanglement of the US military in Syria."
Indeed, Swalwell's nuclear comment carried echoes of Hillary Clinton's cackle followed by a borrowed expression from Julius Caesar when she said of fallen Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who was executed by a street mob as NATO fighter jets streaked overhead, "We came, we saw, he died."
I guess that's just another example of harmless Democratic sarcasm?
This sort of dark humor on the part of Swalwell and Clinton proves that the Democratic mask of innocence has slipped, and in reality America no longer has an anti-war party. What it has come to inherit instead is a one-party, two-headed colossus, which bends over backwards to feed and please the military industrial complex, that will not hesitate to crack down on Americans at home and foreigners abroad.
Whether Donald Trump was sincere about 'draining the swamp' while on the campaign trail, I can't say. But it is beyond clear that "We the People" desperately need such a house cleaning.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.