Tyranny #1 – Where Steve Vaillancourt decides to make it about himself…and approves of overt threats of Tyranny

by Skip

They may as well attack me as well.”   OK, battle joined – you asked, we’ll oblige: You’re an arse of a Libertarian for siding with Statists that promote promise threaten Governmental Tyranny against fellow citizens simply for holding opposing political views.

This is the first of a series of posts about Governmental Tyranny (or in this case, the threatening thereof) set this against the current Second Amendment Right battle being waged by those that would willingly disarm law-abiding Citizens.  Sure, they say that they respect “legitimate” uses for hunting and some forms of sport shooting, but lesser respect for the use of firearms for self-defense. And when it comes to the real reason that the second Amendment exists, to be able to credibly fight against a tyrannical government,  it seems that scoffing or demonizing (see our posts on the English wanker Piers Morgan strewn all over the ‘Grok lately) is in order using one of two arguments:

  • Do you really expect to win a fight against the US Military?
  • The US Government will never become tyrannical – it just can’t happen here.

Here’s the back story: this stems back to Grokster Steve’s post on NH State Rep (Democrat) Cynthia Chase’s threat to use the force of the State of New Hampshire Government to screw over a group of people simply because this recent transplant from RI cannot stand that they want less government over their lives and her philosophy / religion demands more. So she threatens:

“What we can do is make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave.  One way is to pass measures that will restrict freedoms that they think they will find here.”

It seems de riguer / all the rage for Democrats lately: “You disagree with me politically – thus, I shall destroy you personally.  I will use Government to take stuff away from you”.  As Grokster Steve put it “Sounds more like tyranny“.  Rush Limbaugh agreed with Steve!  Even the UL recognized the inherent danger in what she said:

A much greater threat lies in the dictatorial impulses of legislators who find it permissible to reshape the electorate in their favor through the selective dismemberment of our liberties.”

Dictatorial.  The simple word for this is tyranny.  And Grokster Susan got the tweet from NH State Rep (Democrat) Peter Sullivan that amplifies the Democrat mantra:

The crackpots from the Free State Project can go pound sand. I stand with my colleague Rep. Cynthia Chase

 He said this even as some of the Free State Project were introducing a petition asking for censure.  Valliancourt has thrown in with her and him – and all the other Progressives that feel the same way.  My immediate email response was this to some questioners:

She has the right to say what she wants.  He has the right to affirm what she says.

The Right to Free Speech does not protect against reactions from those hearing such Free Speech.  Especially when that speech is about using Government itself to restrict the self-same Right (and others).

Toleration goes to the ability, the respecting of that ability, and support of the right to say even politically incorrect things, which Chase, Sullivan, and now Valliancourt have now done.  There should be NO toleration as to the implication that all three have have signed onto – and there are a few:

  • Chase, Sullivan, (and Vaillancourt’s complicitness) no longer believe in a foundation of Rights that should be unmolested
  • They feel completely free to disregard that philosophy – and feel free in the thought that Government grant’s Rights
  • Thus, there are no Natural Rights – and by implication, disagree with the notion these are Rights granted by our Creator.

What do you think of the nature of folks that are willing to use the Force of Government to punish people simply because they will not bow down at the Alter of Big Government and expect that others will meekly say “yes, master”.  A most UnLibertarian view, eh Steve?  Or should we now shift from the first name familiarity to the royal address of “Yes, Your Excellencies” (since this attitude makes us all serfs).

Vaillancourt pontificates:

no true libertarian would join in a witch hunt to deny free speech to a duly elected representative.

The true response would be that no true libertarian would defend the taking away of freedoms by implied threat of Government action by their command. Does this true libertarian believe that an elected official should not suffer a reaction for acting like Sampson in pulling out the foundation underpinnings of our Constitutional Republic?  So Vaillantcourt believes that others should NOT show their disapproval – with a censure vote?  What is censure?

Express severe disapproval of (someone or something), typically in a formal statement.

Now set this in the context of the US Government trying to redefine religious freedom in the First Amendment, trying to rewrite our our right to self-defense and to fight against Tyranny in the Second, allusions to violating the Fourth, and trying to ignore the 10th?  And Vaillancourt, in being complicit, shows a danger in this (whether he admits to it or not).

Consider this the first in the series “And you don’t think that Tyranny exists in the America?

(And of course, I remind you, the Free Staters (the saner ones not related to the militant Keene Kiddies) had a response to Rep. Cynthia Chase here.)

Leave a Comment

  • C. dog e. doG

    Can’t we all just agree that Cyndi is an odious, unctuous skin tag seeking sustenance on the BFA of Nanny Hamster? Where we may differ is on how to best remove her and her host.
    – C. dog

    • granitegrok

      Agreed – but when there are useful idiots not seeing the next few steps behind the free speech, and the absolute willingness to use Government to take away Rights, we need to call out these useful idiots.

      • C. dog e. doG

        Agreed. And by letting this slope-headed, cave-dwelling cretan from Rogue Island speak, and do so often, we have more opportunities to contrast her proposals for a stifling, dominating Super State to something altogether different, a state of freedom wherein those who reside non-mobilely decide for themselves which paths to pursue. She and her fellow court jesters provide ample opportunity for a loyal opposition to hit their lame tosses out of the park in the general court and in the court of public opinion. In fact, their positions are so extreme – so Massachusetts – they afford us easy lay-ups to score, and score often.
        – C. dog mixing metaphors to make points

Previous post:

Next post: