Is the left engaging in salami tactics? And what should we do about it?

[Kalyyn]

You know, sometimes I feel rather ashamed that my "side" has(had?) people like Keith Olbermann running an entertainment show parading itself as politics, but I guess I should be thankful I've never had to endure most of my peers loving someone like Limbaugh.

Limbaugh isn't even the worst. I would never want to live in the world that Limbaugh wants to create, but at least his views could still create a functioning and livable (even if miserable) society. Glenn Beck, on the other hand, preaches things that range from impractical to borderline insane. He frustrates me more than any of them. Especially when I find out somebody I know is a politically active conservative, and his name comes up.

"Yeah, I'm big on the Republican party!"
"Wow, that's great! What issues are important to you?"
"Well just the other day, Glenn Beck was talking about..."
"Hold up, I think we need to talk..."

every damn time...

[Nakura Chambers]

And that's why the republican party should just drop the large numbers of people who are anti gay and anti science. My answer wasn't talking about you, it was more a list of things I think the republican party should lose in general.

I know you weren't speaking about me directly, sorry if I made it seem like you were. I actually agree with you too an extent, especially on dropping anti-gay politicians. However, I think the pro-life movement is still much too fresh and interconnected within the party to drop without effectively offing our party. For instance, almost all of the people I know are pro-life, if we dropped the issue of abortion entirely, we would lose a great deal of the base and subsequently, most future elections.

Also, opinion polls show that opposition to abortion is actually on the rise, so it's quite possible that the pro-lifers will win in the foreseeable future.

I also don't think the liberal media would suddenly stop accusing us of "waging a war on women," even if we did drop the pro-life movement entirely.

[Beefhammer]

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh this morning and he brought up a rather interesting conversation. Rush mentioned that after the liberals and RINOs (Republican In Name Only) have finished attacking pro-lifers, they will focus their attention on gun owners. He claimed that the leftist RINOs will give up on defending gun rights and the Constitution, in favor of left-wing gun control. We've already seen some far-left RINOs do this, such as Mitt Romney and Chris Christie.

This brings up another question, however, a question of whether or not this is a left-wing strategy to divide-and-conquer the Republican Party. I'm sure you've all heard the expression that "first they came for X, and I didn't do anything because I'm not X, then they came for me, and nobody was left to stand up for me," well it's the same sort of thing. The liberals and RINOs are systematically attacking various factions of the Republican Party, first they attacked the libertarians when they ousted the Barry Goldwater group, then they attacked the Tea Party group and now they're attacking the pro-lifers. Will they attack gun owners and gun rights supporters next?

Why would are these RINOs doing this, you ask? The answer is simple, the liberal media has been constantly been accusing conservatives and libertarians of "waging a war on women," so the Republican establishment thinks the only way to "appeal to left-wing voters" is to become pro-choice. Now I don't care about the issue of abortion one way or another and I never have, however it's important to recognize what's going on around us. However, I believe that even if every single Republican suddenly became pro-choice, that the liberal media would continue their propaganda campaign to paint anyone who is even remotely right-wing as "waging a war on women," simply because it helps promote the Democratic Party and liberal agenda.

The liberal media also hates gun owners and guns in general. Under the guise of "appealing to left-wing voters" the Republican establishment will no doubt start attacking gun owners and gun rights. We've already seen the Republican establishment push anti-gun candidates on us, such as Mitt Romney, so you can definitely see them moving towards this even more in the future.

I used to be a lot more open to the idea that if we eliminated the social conservative wing of the party, it would help us better appeal to centre-left and undecided voters. However it is possible that this is exactly what the left wants us to do. This is known as "salami tactics" and it is a tactic the left has done before, namely in Europe. As I'm sure you are aware, in the wake of World War II, Europe was divided between the Eastern Bloc (allied with the Soviet Union) and Western Europe (allied with the United States). Many of the Eastern European countries had previously been democratic, so in order to maintain popular support, the communists kept the facade of democracy up. They did this by allowing minor political parties to exist and contest elections, however in reality, these parties were nothing more than puppets to the communists.

Early on the communists experienced problems with this, however, as the puppet parties had considerable public support. In fact, some of these puppet parties were so popular that even with massive electoral fraud, they still managed to form a government, notably in Hungary. The communists realized that they had to stop this from ever happening again, but they also realized that deposing the elected puppet parties would be massively unpopular with the population. So the liberals decided to run massive media attack campaigns (much like the liberal media does today against the Republicans), claiming that members of the Independent Smallholders, Agrarian Workers and Civic Party (the party in power in Hungary) were fascists, racist, sexist and homophobic bigots. This caused the public to view the ISAWCP in a negative light and for the ISAWCP to undergo a process of eliminating various internal factions of their party in order to "look better." Despite their efforts to "look better," the ISAWCP lost the next election and every election to come. The liberals then used the opportunity to ensure that all of the puppet parties would forever be subordinate to the Hungarian Communist Party.

Is this what is happening in America? If we allow the Republican establishment to continue to attack libertarians, the Tea Party and pro-lifers, will we only be hurting ourselves? Will this set the stage for the RINOs to attack other internal factions within the Republican Party? Even if the Republican Party adopted all of the same positions as the Democrats and European socialists, the liberal media would still attack us at every turn.

We have a few different options, do you continue with the establishment's plan to sacrifice our principles and our freedom in the hope that it will help us appeal to centre-left and low-information voters? Do we double down and fix the growing divide within the Republican Party? Or perhaps we come out of left-field with completely different plan entirely? What do you believe we should do in this dire situation?

Putting bans and certain controls on certain types of gun and people that should not have them do not interfere with the constitution. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the right. Notice well regulated militia part? That is always left out. Why? Because the intent was for the US to not have a standing army. The arms were for people to have for when the government needed its citizens to defend the country. It was not to overthrow a corrupt government as you will hear on Rush and others similar to him.

[kivipää]

There is little difference between the two. Welcome to USA's politics.

Fixed for you. Granted, USA isn't the only place on earth with a clown circus for a government, but it damn well isn't the global standard either, especially in the group of developed western nations.

[Nakura Chambers]

Putting bans and certain controls on certain types of gun and people that should not have them do not interfere with the constitution. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the right. Notice well regulated militia part? That is always left out. Why? Because the intent was for the US to not have a standing army. The arms were for people to have for when the government needed its citizens to defend the country. It was not to overthrow a corrupt government as you will hear on Rush and others similar to him.

That is all incorrect. Below is a small portion of an essay I wrote on the subject:
Now lets look at the fundamental human right to concealed carry, shall we? Currently every state except Illinois and the District of Columbia have concealed carry and both of those states are currently in the process of allowing concealed carry, seeing as how not allowing concealed carry violates the United States Constitution (and Illinois Constitution). Concealed carry has been hailed as a massive success, not only for those who love freedom, but also for lowering violent crime (including homicide) rates. Concealed carry has drastically lowered homicide rates everywhere that it has been implemented. Every study conducted shows that the right to concealed carry has saved many lives and has taken virtually zero. In fact, concealed carry has even begun to spread to other countries, such as Canada, the Czech Republic and Israel.

Lets look at what gun control advocates mean when they talk about "big scary assault weapons;" the first thing that pops into your head is probably that they are talking about fully automatic rifles, however, this is not the case. These so-called "assault weapons" that gun control advocates always talk about banning are nothing more than so-called "assault" modifications to guns, such as bayonets and pistol grips. It doesn't cover fully automatic firearms at all, which were previously banned under the Hughes Amendment. All of the evidence shows that fully automatic weapons are used in virtually no crimes. Statistics show that prior to the Hughes Amendment there was not a single instance of a fully automatic gun being used in the commission of a crime. It wasn't until AFTER fully automatic weapons were banned that a crime was committed with one, and in that incident, nobody was killed (other than the two bank robbers). The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004 and absolutely nothing bad happened like gun control advocates claimed.

Gun control advocates try to mistakenly say that Barack Obama "supports gun rights" and/or that he "isn't anti-gun rights," even though all of the evidence shows that he is perhaps our most anti-gun rights president in American history. Gun control advocates only claim that he is "pro-gun rights," because they want to trick ignorant people into thinking he isn't a horrible person who hates guns and freedom. Throughout Obama's political career, he has made various anti-gun rights statements and support anti-gun rights bills. Barack Obama said that he supports banning semi-automatic guns and increase firearm restrictions. He also said that he supported banning handguns and concealed carry. Obama voted in favor of holding firearm manufacturers responsible for murders. Obama also said he would renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and immediately upon being re-elected, he had his congressional Democrat friends introduce a bill to renew it. Obama also said he believes people living in "inner cities" shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Obama cosponsored a bill that only allowed citizens to buy one gun a month. Obama also said he supports requiring guns be registered and licensed. Obama said that he believes that local gun bans do not violate the Second Amendment. Obama also said that he would consider supporting a ban on buying ammunition online. This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of all of the anti-gun rights statements Obama has made and the anti-gun rights bills he has supported.

Gun control advocates try to claim that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not refer to an individual right, but instead refers to the right of individual states to form militias (such as National Guards). This claim is completely false and has been disproved many times. First off the rights of the states to form militias is already protected under Article I of the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As you can see, the Second Amendment does allow for the creation of a military force, which makes sense, since you need a national military to defend your country. However, the Founding Fathers separated the right to form a militia from the right of the people to bear arms. Note the grammatical separation and note how it says the right of the people, as opposed to the "right of the militia."

Every legal reference in history to the right to keep and bear arms has referred to it as an individual right. The first recorded use of the 'right to keep and bear arms' comes from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which referred explicitly to an individual right. Fourty-four of the fifty states protect the right to keep in their state constitutions and this right refers to an individual right in all fourty-four of them. The right to keep and bear arms has always referred to an individual right in other countries constitutions as well. Islamic law also calls for governments to respect for the individual right of the people to bear arms, though this right is not generally respected by Muslim countries in practice. The Second Amendment does not create any new rights, it only protects a pre-existing natural right that all sapient beings have. This has been proven time and time again by the Founding Fathers, the United States Supreme Court, John Locke and countless classical liberal philosophers.

Now lets look at United States case law and legal precedent for the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms in general. As previously mentioned, the first recorded legal usage of the right to keep and bear arms comes from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Prior to the formation of the United States, the Thirteen Colonies also had a long-standing history of having a right to bear arms, which included the right to self-defense. Prior to the United States Constitution being formed, states that had declared their independence from Great Britain had protected the right to bear arms in their state constitutions and it included the right to self-defense. For instance, the 1776 Constitution of Pennsylvania states that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state." When the United States Constitution was being drafted and ratified, the Founding Fathers stated explicitly that the right to bear arms was a right of the people, not a "right of the militia" as some gun control advocates claim. In fact, many of the Founding Fathers wanted to require every free citizen to own a gun, viewing it as a civic duty. I will provide a list of these quotes from the Founding Fathers towards the end of this post.

Interpretation of the Second Amendment has always been that of recognizing it as an individual right. In fact, it was most commonly interpreted as a right that cannot under any circumstances be restricted or limited. Even foreigners held this view, including William Blackstone, who wrote about it in his Commentaries on the Laws of England. The Second Amendment uses the term "shall not be infringed," which not only states that the right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing natural right, but also that it shall not be infringed upon. In fact, the only real criticism levied against the Second Amendment, was by those who thought it didn't provide enough protection to the right to bear arms. St. George Tucker and William Rawle, two lawyers and abolitionists (and in the case of Tucker, a Virginia Supreme Court justice) were among those who criticized the Second Amendment for not protecting the rights of gun owners enough. Tucker and Rawle argued that the Second Amendment needed to have provisions in order to help the poor be able to exercise their right to bear arms; they viewed this as difficult under the current laws, seeing as how many poor people couldn't afford firearms. Joseph Story, an early federal Supreme Court justice wrote in his work, Commentaries on the Constitution, that: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." Story also wrote that the right to bear arms is a natural right. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that all restrictions placed on the federal government also apply to state and local governments. One of the main reasons this amendment was added to the Constitution was because former slave states would often times refuse to allow freed slaves to bear arms, which violated their rights as protected under the Second Amendment.

It wasn't until the late 20th and early 19th century that socialists and so-called "progressives" tried to re-interpret the Second Amendment to mean a collective right to form state militias. Dred Scott v. Sandford ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right, however it also ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to slaves. United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois and Miller v. Texas ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right, however, it also ruled that the First and Second Amendments only limit the federal government. United States v. Miller ruled that that: "These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," which is to say that the people consist of the militia. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez ruled that the Second Amendment (and the Bill of Rights in general) was an individual right that also applied to non-citizen aliens. United States v. Lopez ruled that the so-called "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990" violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutional. United States v. Emerson, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago reaffirmed that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right that applies to state and local governments, as well as the federal government. Moore v. Madigan ruled that the ban on concealed carry in Illinois violated the Second Amendment and was thus unconstitutional, requiring Illinois to adopt concealed carry.

Lets also take a look at what the Founding Fathers had to say about the Second Amendment and right to bear arms:
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." -Thomas Jefferson

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." -Thomas Jefferson

"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;" -Thomas Jefferson

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character." -Alexander Hamilton

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -John Adams

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. " -Noah Webster

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -Tenche Coxe

"[The new government] shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection." -William Symmes

"[A standing army] if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" -Theodore Sedwick

"[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it." -Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." -Patrick Henry

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?" -Patrick Henry

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..." -George Mason

"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -Zacharia Johnson

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." -Virginia delegation to the constitutional convention

"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." -Albert Gallatin

"[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded." -Roger Sherman

[Flatspriest]

I think you forgot several non-biased options for your poll. I am neither conservative nor liberal. I choose to vote for whoever I think is going to do the least amount of damage, even if they are not part of the republicrat or democan parties.

[Nakura Chambers]

I think you forgot several non-biased options for your poll. I am neither conservative nor liberal. I choose to vote for whoever I think is going to do the least amount of damage, even if they are not part of the republicrat or democan parties.

Almost everyone leans a certain direction, even if just a little bit.

Do you value freedom and the Constitution? Then you're probably a conservative.

Do you value big government and the welfare state? Then you're probably a liberal.

[Ofmanv]

How is questioning pro-life as a conservative principle feasible? It disregards acknowledging life for perceived practical purposes. On the 168th day in the womb the life is worthless, on 169th day the life suddenly valid regardless of the fact nothing inherant to defining life is happening in this time period. Does that sound grounded in values or principle to you?

I especially take exception to the notion being libertarian definitively means being pro choice. A humans own right to life is the most basic freedom there is.

[Deleted]

Salami Tactics?

Bastard stole that joke from Yes Minister.

Edit:

Almost everyone leans a certain direction, even if just a little bit.

Do you value freedom and the Constitution? Then you're probably a conservative.

Do you value big government and the welfare state? Then you're probably a liberal.

Stop being a simplistic fool. Your definition is nothing short of looking through tinted goggles.

[Shiny212]

so you..listened to Rush Limbaugh... that's really all I needed to know to leave this thread and forget it exists.

[cutterx2202]

Wow, all of this hate for Rush by people that have most likely never heard his show. The sheepism levels are astounding.

[Deadvolcanoes]

You're giving the left far too much credit. There isn't some divide and conquer strategy being played out by the liberals and progressives. The religious conservative ideology is disappearing because it is no longer popular.

It's just a bunch of dinosaurs wishing things could be like "the old days." You don't have to change, in fact I encourage you not to. Just don't expect to win an election any time soon.

[Wells]

You know, sometimes I feel rather ashamed that my "side" has(had?) people like Keith Olbermann running an entertainment show parading itself as politics, but I guess I should be thankful I've never had to endure most of my peers loving someone like Limbaugh.

Well that and Olbermann is pretty much a nonentity now.

---------- Post added 2013-01-11 at 01:15 AM ----------

I see Swazi managed to make another thread to spam his essay that he completely ignores every response too.

[Porimlys]

We've already seen some far-left RINOs do this, such as Mitt Romney and Chris Christie.

Uhhuhhhh....

[Deleted]

Wow, all of this hate for Rush by people that have most likely never heard his show. The sheepism levels are astounding.

Pot. Meet kettle.

[Rukentuts]

Uhhuhhhh....

Little does Swazi know, Christie is probably the GOP's best shot at a White House win in 2016.

[Wells]

Almost everyone leans a certain direction, even if just a little bit.

Do you value freedom and the Constitution? Then you're probably a conservative.

Do you value big government and the welfare state? Then you're probably a liberal.

I value freedom, find the Constitution to be a good governmental structure, and think government is a useful tool for addressing a variety of societal ills.

What does that make me?

[Pachycrocuta]

should start a drinking game: any time in one of swazi's posts he uses the words "liberal" or "left wing" take a drink. if either of those is followed immediately by the word "media" take 2 drinks. but call an ambulance before attempting to play this game.

I knew this was a swazi spring thread just by reading the title.

As for being more on-topic: lol Rush Limbaugh. He's as bad as Bill Mahr (or however you spell the last name), except Bill has the added benefit of being funny sometimes on purpose. Rush is just plain mental.

[Rocko9]

I value freedom, find the Constitution to be a good governmental structure, and think government is a useful tool for addressing a variety of societal ills.

What does that make me?

Mid-left to left

[Nakura Chambers]

Pot. Meet kettle.

How many liberals here do you think have listened to Rush Limbaugh's show a few times before judging him? How many of them even listened to his show once?

---------- Post added 2013-01-10 at 07:29 PM ----------

Little does Swazi know, Christie is probably the GOP's best shot at a White House win in 2016.

I would have voted for him too, right up until he betrayed America by saying that he supports banning semi-automatic rifles.