His tactics do not seem to be working.
Even the Quinnipiac poll quoted by CNN, shows Joni Ernst ahead of her Democrat opponent by 4 percent.
Although stated in typical inflammatory tone, it's a legitimate question.
For me, it's when I determine that the officer or soldier has become my enemy instead of my guardian. When they knowingly violate their oaths to protect and defend, and instead become something against which I must be protected and defended, they are legitimate targets.
I yield certain of my liberties in favor of the collective, in return for which I am given certain guarantees and provided certain services. That is the definition of social contract. When the other party abrogates the contract, it is no longer binding on me either.
This administration has violated that contract on any number of occasions, and for the paltriest of reasons. It has lost its legitimacy.
It was just fine in the liberal mind when Che protected himself against an oppressive and corrupt government. But when the Founding Fathers put a clause in the Declaration of Independence that it when the government becomes a tangible and urgent threat against life and property, that it is not only the right but the obligation of a free people to throw off that government, well that is right wing hate speech. Nobody in their right mind would think that to be rational, except people like our hero Che. And Mao-bama.
She should turn the question around to Begala: “Do you believe that there is EVER a time to protect your life against the government?”
Do you believe that the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto had that right?
Do you believe the people of the Soviet Union, and all the other countries under Marxist enslavement, had that right against the Communist government?
Do you believe that America’s founders had that right when they picked up arms in defense of their liberties?
Do you believe that slaves in America had that right when the government made their enslavement a matter of law?
If you want debate exactly when the line is crossed where people are justified in resorting to force against an out-of-control government determined to crush their liberties and steal their property, Mr. Begala, that is certainly a debate worth having.
People can disagree on when that line is crossed.
But that doesn’t justify your own apparent position that people are the government’s property and must bow down in slavish obedience to whatever outrages the lawless perpetrators of government-imposed tyranny cram down our throats.
Or maybe you agree with your buddy Bill Clinton, who famously said: “The purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people.”
Well, Mr. Begala, the people await your answer.
What kind of government have you given us?
A republic, if YOU can keep it.
emphasis added.
Double standard and hypocrisy exist for most of us on this question.
Prior to Ruby Ridge,the most infamous assassination was of my neighbor Fred Hampton of the Black Panthers. He wasn’t the only one, just the one who got the headlines. The 31st ward Republican committeeman Gross and his expected successor Barretto were both murdered on orders from the #2 power in Chicago’s political machine. Then there were the 2 guys who left my house about 4:30 pm and were shot in the back with no warning by Chicago police 2 blocks from my house in full daylight with dozens of people on the hot afternoon watching the whole thing and unable to do anything about it.
Are local police abuses in the inner city justification for self-defense against the police? I just mention those politically ordered that touch me directly. There were dozens, maybe hundreds throughout Chicago during the same period.
When they threaten my life or the lives of others without just cause.
I have an unalienable right to life. The government has authority temporarily ceded to it by The People.
If you get caught between two deputies in a hotel?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3220701/posts
Texas
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
Sec 9.31(c), 9.31(d)
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
When the government is trying to take it.