Insurgency

 I borrowed this from http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/   He is a very good blogger and a favorite bookmark of mine.



We are already in an American Insurgency.  The difference between a dissident and an insurgent is a fine one.  I will say that the difference is the response of the government in question.  If the government tries to crack down on it, it is an insurgency.  If the government allows it, it is dissent. 

Now as far as an American Insurgency I'm not talking about Loughner and his insanity but the government response to it.  Government taking the actions of a crazy person to legally limit the speech of citizens.  I'm talking about the insurgency against big media and for government reform.  I will use Martial Language here because it is only appropriate, and quite frankly the situation demands accurate descriptions.

But first, let us take a look at some history.

The Assault Weapons Ban turned a rather mild mannered engineer into a competitive pistol shooter and Boomershoot Guy.  That is a private citizens response to government oppression.  So far Joe has been such a stickler for playing by the governments rules that he has avoided the heavy boot of oppression.

The bottom line is this, if the FedGov wants you in jail, you have already done something to get put in jail.  Whenever the FedGov can spin the media to point out the citizen as a bad guy and then go through his/her life with the limitless resources of the State, they will find something and use it.

So I admire Joe for his courage, he has put himself at a position of risk that I personally haven't done.  I blog rather anonymously because of my position as a Soldier.  I have quite frankly given up some of the first amendment protections that private citizens have.

At the fall of the Soviet Union there was not an armed uprising, but there was a low level media insurgency for decades in the form of Samizdat where the Powers That Be tried to completely control media.  Not just mass media, but all forms from poetry, novels, and political tracts.

If you don't think that the FedGov tries to silence dissent, look at what has happened to Len Savage in the form of bureaucratic sluggishness from the ATF.  Evidently acting as an expert witness in a few cases that the ATF loses will cause you to get put on their crap list.

So we have a nearly monolithic media owned by the left.  You can tell if someone is a leftist because they will argue this point until they are blue in the face.  Unfortunately for them both Harvard and UCLA have done studies on journalism bias in the US, and each university found a leftist bias.  Both Harvard and UCLA are very liberal schools, so it is only rare intellectual honest that allows them to report their findings accurately.  It is intellectual dishonesty on the part of Big Media to not clean house and get back to the true purpose of reporting.  To tell, not to advocate.

The reason for freedom of the press in the US is not to advocate on behalf of government.  However throughout the history of the US those in power found that controlling public opinion was a drug too addictive to give up.  The hate and spite directed against FoxNews are simply the rantings of a drug addict as he vigorously defends his belief that he doesn't have a problem.

Remember the problem with Talk Radio in the early 90's?  Here is a snippet from The Center for American Progress about talk radio: Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.

The solution to losing control of that media source is of course: MORE GOVERNMENT.  AM radio was dead prior to the repeal of the "fairness doctrine" in 1987.  As restrictive regulations were done away with, that particular media source was allowed to meet market demands and we ended up with Rush Limbaugh spouting his politics on a national level.  I have no doubt about the impact of Rush Limbaugh on the 1994 Republican Revolution.  This is why the Left is still intent on the "fairness doctrine" instead of allowing the market to decide who is on the air, and now on the internet.

Without control of the media the Left cannot control the public, and it scares the crap out of them.  They still control the schools.  However when a teachers preaches one thing but alternative sources of information are available we begin to see people using their brains.  Without the ability of people like Rush Limbaugh, and even Billy Beck, to put their words into a medium that is accessible to anyone with a radio or internet access, the Left would completely dominate schools and media to effectively indoctrinate the youth of the nation.

The most worrisome legislation, and backdoor regulation of the internet, is the idea of "Net Neutrality".  So far there has been no significant need for any net neutrality because of any censorship.  The net automatically routes around censorship as if it were damage to the network.

If you are reading this, and you agree with these words, welcome to the insurgency.  I may not be asking you to smash windows like Dutchman6, or take the Oath Keeper pledge, but I am asking you to fight to keep the flow of information in the power of the people.  Because right now members of Congress are considering whether or not to further limit speech by outlawing "martial rhetoric".  This is just further proof that we are in an insurgency, because when the government seeks to limit the ability of the insurgent they have openly declared war.

This is not a Dem/Repub issue, this is a freedom issue.  And one mans insurgent is another's Freedom Fighter.  Now I'm not saying that this will end up in a shooting war, with IED's blowing up UN tanks and anything like that.  I am saying that like the USSR, things can turn around in the blink of an eye and we need to be prepared to capitalize on that the same way the Left is trying to capitalize on the attempted murder of Rep. Gifford.