Archive for the ‘Tea Party movement’ Category

From UK Daily Mail:

Responding to an angry constituent’s letter about the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama allegedly used a sexually charged derogatory term referring to members of the Tea Party movement.

Thomas Ritter, a fifth-grade school teacher from Irving, Texas, has sent the president a note criticizing Obamacare – the controversial law offering health care to the uninsured, which has become the butt of jokes following a disastrous launch last month.

‘This bill has caused such a ­divisive, derisive and toxic environment… The reality is that any citizen that disagrees with your ­administration is targeted and ridiculed,’ the Texas man wrote to the commander-in-chief.

“Allegedly”… in his own handwriting:

obama teabagger letter 1obama teabagger letter 2

There are a couple things here to really look at.

The first is that he casually tosses around the term “teabagger”, because as Mary Katherine Ham at HotAir notes – he’s either using it to annoy the guy who wrote the letter further, or Obama’s in a bubble where everyone uses it, so it means nothing to him.

The second is that he equates “teabagger” as being on the same level as socialist as name-calling.  “Teabagger” is a pejorative description given by leftists to Tea Partiers, referencing “teabagging”, which if you don’t know what it is, well, here’s a hint:

dog tennis balls

Because people who want limitations on government, less government spending on wasteful programs, reduction of regulation and government interference in business and private life, and in general prefer a government that respects the individual and leaves them alone are of course synonymous with this:

dog tennis balls 2

Socialist isn’t an insult, yet the president puts it in quotes to imply that it is.  It’s a description of an ideology and political philosophy.  It’s what someone who favors more government and more government interference in private life believes in.  Things like government controlling certain aspects of the market for “the greater good”, and government “spreading the wealth around” are all socialist ideals.

Of course the president knows this, but much like Hillary saying in 2007 or so that she didn’t thing of herself as a liberal but as a “modern progressive”, it’s because the American people understand on an intrinsic level that socialism is bad – it’s anathema to the American way of life, and people who live under socialist rule quickly find out it’s not something they like.  (The same is very true of Progressives, but most folks don’t think of Progressives as the vile war-mongering alcohol-prohibitionist eugenicists they were – it’s a name game.)  People who on the surface are socially lefty and like the idea of government doing one thing or another rapidly get sick of it when they find out they can’t buy raw milk, or can’t order foie gras, or find out there are regulations on their own behaviors that they object to.  There are those who really are socialists and believe that “the greater good” means restricting people from 20 oz sodas, but even the brainwashed modern liberal begins to see that this stuff is tyranny.  And the casual modern liberal suddenly sees that socialism isn’t liberal at all.

Which all goes to why Obama is mocking the term socialist.  He puts it in quotes and equates it to “teabagger” because he’s trying to maximize criticisms of his critics while walking himself towards the middle by saying his own socialist policies aren’t “socialist” and those are just names thrown around by partisans.  Saying he’s a socialist isn’t namecalling – it’s looking at his history, statements, policies and deeds and saying he is what he is.

That’s why to him, it’s okay to force people to buy health insurance, and for government to create winners and losers – because socialists believe that some people shouldn’t win and other people shouldn’t lose – so they’ll use the government’s gun to the heads of the successful to pay for the mistakes of the unsuccessful – thereby harming both parties by subsidizing failure and disincentivizing success.

Everyone loses except the socialist, who is the fair redistributor.  If you’re a socialist, it’s much more convenient to use Alinksy’s rule of mockery to make fun of people for calling you a socialist – so they won’t recognize you for what you are.

The letter here:

http://www.independentsector.org/uploads/Policy_PDFs/LettertoIRS501c4s_021612.pdf

Dated Feb 16, 2012.

IRS dem senator letter 1IRS dem senator letter 2IRS dem senator letter 3

Looks interesting.

Update: Took down the question mark at the end of the title.  We can pretty well see this for what it is in light of the IRS data from the last few days.

Like the saying goes: “once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action”.

Update 2: From nonprofit group Independent Sector, their context for the letter:

    • Democratic Senators letters to the IRS
      • On March 12, 2012 a group of seven Democratic senators sent a letter to the IRS calling on the agency to adopt a bright line test to define a purpose “primarily” related to social welfare activities, as well as require 501(c)(4) organizations to document social welfare activity on Form 990s. The letter was a follow up to their February 16 letter to the IRS, which urged the agency to investigate abuse of the tax code by 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations.

That first part is this letter.

These two parts are the lead-up events to it, as Republicans asked about selective enforcement, and Democrats complained about the Citizens United decision in order to target conservative groups – which we’ve had verified over and over for the last few days.

    • Senate Democrats convene task force to craft response to impact of Citizens United
      • A group of seven Democratic senators, led by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), announced on March 13, 2012 that they are convening a taskforce to craft a new legislative response to what they see as the harmful impact of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The taskforce said it intends to pursue all available legislative and administrative means to disclose to the public who is influencing American elections.
  • Senate Republican letter to the IRS
    • On March 14, 2012 a group of Senate Republicans sent a letter to the IRS questioning recent allegations of selective enforcement on tax-exempt organizations and requested a detailed analysis of the agency’s process for the approval and renewal of a tax-exempt designation under tax code Section 501(c)(4). The group is led by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee and Senator Rob Portman (R-OH).

Smoke, fire, all that.

Wonder if any of these fine senators were leaning on the IRS?

Boehner’s now wondering who should go to jail.  He’s got a whole new group of people to look at.

From “moderately libertarian” Megan McArdle at the otherwise lefty Daily Beast:

the IRS method for dealing with the volume was to take an unrandom sample. And how did they decide that you deserved extra scrutiny? Because you had “tea party” or “patriot” in your name. Since the Tea Party was a brand-new movement in 2010, they couldn’t possibly have had any data indicating that such groups were more likely to be doing something improper. So how exactly did they come up with this filter?

Yet she comes up with the answer:

There is no answer that does not ultimately resolve to “political bias.”

Pretty much.

Ed Morrissey at HotAir notes today’s revelations, that the IRS had been doing this for a while (at least since 2010) – and it was known for a long time:

The current commissioner knew for a full year that the agency was targeting Tea Party groups  and other opposition organization for aggressive auditing? And in the middle of an election year, no less?  And yet, today Barack Obama insists that he knew nothing of this practice until last Friday.

This is either the most incompetent administration ever, or one of the least honest.

Ed, remember this is the same administration that sent guns to Mexican narcoterrorist cartels, murdering hundreds of Mexicans and two US federal agents, and then exerted executive privilege to hush it all up.  I’d hate to see a poll between Putin and Obama on who people would trust more.

-

Rumsfeld’s book released this week stated that businessmen don’t speak up against the government because the IRS is used as a weapon against them.  This isn’t really news, it’s just confirmation of what we already know.

“Having been in the position of a chief executive officer, I can understand why a businessman might be reluctant to speak out against the actions of federal agencies that have the power to harm their enterprises,” he wrote in Rumsfeld’s Rules, which goes on sale Tuesday.

“By doing so, corporate leaders could expose themselves and their companies to government retaliation–from the IRS, the SEC, congressional committees, or the many other agencies of the federal government that regulate and oversee their operations,” he added.

But Obama thinks it’s funny.

“President [Michael] Crow and the board of regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS,” he joked.

Audio, for those who’d rather believe their ears.

-

Mary Katherine Ham at HotAir has a good roundup of what the IRS has been leaking about conservative groups.

The thing to remember is the enemy was elected.  A street-level Chicago agitator is who we have as president, someone who was raised by communists in the Alinsky and Ayers mold, someone who views political power as the only end, and someone whose administration and subordinates are of like mindset.

The only question I’d like answered is why did the IRS come out and apologize last Friday?

Who was going to break this story if the IRS didn’t apologize?

Or is this all to deflect from Benghazi?

Drudge’s headline all day, from AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was “inappropriate” targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their exemption applications, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.

Spin begins on the next paragraph:

The agency — led at the time by a Bush administration appointee — blamed low-level employees, saying no high-level officials were aware. But that wasn’t good enough for Republicans in Congress, who are conducting several investigations and asked for more.

Blame Bush, and blame the low-level people, who apparently just off and do this stuff on their own.  Just like how Fast and Furious was really just done by a couple guys in the field and totally wasn’t so connected to the White House so Obama had to invoke executive privilege to cover his own corrupt ass.  Oh, wait… that’s right.

White House spokesman Jay Carney declared it was indeed inappropriate for the IRS to target tea party groups. But he brushed aside questions about whether the White House itself would investigate.

Why investigate it?  They agree with it.

The big question is: why is the IRS apologizing?

They must’ve gotten caught, and there must’ve been something about to break.  They also timed this release on a Friday – when the White House does its traditional document dumps, because normal folks who go and do normal things on the weekends aren’t around to pay attention to this stuff.  They don’t listen to Rush in the afternoon on weekends, they don’t sit down to Hannity on Saturday evening – they’ve got better things to do like go to the lake and go fishing or go out clubbing or hang out with their kids.

This is an apology sent out for something that’s horribly, offensively partisan – the IRS targeted enemies of the White House – and this was released on a day when the news from it can’t gather steam.  It’s also released as the mainstream media is actually beginning to wonder what’s going on with Benghazi (which they hushed up last year so Obama could be reelected).

HotAir is all over this.

They’ve even got some of the questions that were asked by the IRS:

irs questions 30The full IRS questionnaire is here at the link.

 

From Newsbusters:

I heard a statistic the other day that even if we were to cut all discretionary spending – that is if we ditched the “discretionary” spending outlined in the Constitution and had no defense, no post roads, etc. – and we only spent “mandatory” things like welfare, social security, and handouts, we’d still be running deficits.

Heritage shows our mandatory spending at a little over $2 trillion.  More than 70% goes to handouts – and because there are both mandatory and discretionary handouts.

Just digging up a couple of quick charts off the internet (from Congressman Thornberry):

mandatory federal spending 2011

eliminating defense completely wouldnt balance budget

But don’t you worry!  The OMB is out there working tirelessly to ensure that there is “An Economy Built to Last and Security for the LGBT Community“.  They didn’t forget the administration’s pet serf Julia, either.

“I don’t think the federal government has any responsibility creating a national registry of people who choose to lawfully keep and bear arms.”

When military units do exercises, somebody has to be the good guy, somebody has to be the bad guy.  The bad guys are the opposition force, or OPFOR.  A Red Cell functions much the same, acting as a dedicated enemy element for purposes of exercises.  Going up from the tactical level to the strategic,  you have Red Teams.  Basically, people who come up with scenarios for enemy forces.

Unfortunately, sometimes you have ignorant leftist political ignoramuses put in a position to do some of that Red Team work.

I’m not sure there is a strategic facepalm yet.

Sipsey Street Irregulars has a long, very informative piece here, about the scenario some idiots came up with, proving once again that military intelligence is quite often an oxymoron.  Here’s the crux of the scenario, from some idiots (Retired Col. Kevin Benson and Associate Professor Jennifer Weber) at the Small Wars Journal:

The Scenario (2016)

The Great Recession of the early twenty-first century lasts far longer than anyone anticipated. After a change in control of the White House and Congress in 2012, the governing party cuts off all funding that had been dedicated to boosting the economy or toward relief. The United States economy has flatlined, much like Japan’s in the 1990s, for the better part of a decade. By 2016, the economy shows signs of reawakening, but the middle and lower-middle classes have yet to experience much in the way of job growth or pay raises. Unemployment continues to hover perilously close to double digits, small businesses cannot meet bankers’ terms to borrow money, and taxes on the middle class remain relatively high. A high-profile and vocal minority has directed the public’s fear and frustration at nonwhites and immigrants. After almost ten years of race-baiting and immigrant-bashing by right-wing demagogues, nearly one in five Americans reports being vehemently opposed to immigration, legal or illegal, and even U.S.-born nonwhites have become occasional targets for mobs of angry whites.

In May 2016 an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the “tea party” movement takes over the government of Darlington, South Carolina, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council, and placing the mayor under house arrest. Activists remove the chief of police and either disarm local police and county sheriff departments or discourage them from interfering. In truth, this is hardly necessary. Many law enforcement officials already are sympathetic to the tea party’s agenda, know many of the people involved, and have made clear they will not challenge the takeover. The militia members are organized and have a relatively well thought-out plan of action.

With Darlington under their control, militia members quickly move beyond the city limits to establish “check points” – in reality, something more like choke points — on major transportation lines. Traffic on I-95, the East Coast’s main north-south artery; I-20; and commercial and passenger rail lines are stopped and searched, allegedly for “illegal aliens.” Citizens who complain are immediately detained. Activists also collect “tolls” from drivers, ostensibly to maintain public schools and various city and county programs, but evidence suggests the money is actually going toward quickly increasing stores of heavy weapons and ammunition. They also take over the town web site and use social media sites to get their message out unrestricted.

When the leaders of the group hold a press conference to announce their goals, they invoke the Declaration of Independence and argue that the current form of the federal government is not deriving its “just powers from the consent of the governed” but is actually “destructive to these ends.” Therefore, they say, the people can alter or abolish the existing government and replace it with another that, in the words of the Declaration, “shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” While mainstream politicians and citizens react with alarm, the “tea party” insurrectionists in South Carolina enjoy a groundswell of support from other tea party groups, militias, racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, anti-immigrant associations such as the Minutemen, and other right-wing groups. At the press conference the masked militia members’ uniforms sport a unit seal with a man wearing a tricorn hat and carrying a musket over the motto “Today’s Minutemen.” When a reporter asked the leaders who are the “red coats” the spokesman answered, “I don’t know who the redcoats are…it could be federal troops.” Experts warn that while these groups heretofore have been considered weak and marginal, the rapid coalescence among them poses a genuine national threat.

The mayor of Darlington calls the governor and his congressman. He cannot act to counter the efforts of the local tea party because he is confined to his home and under guard. The governor, who ran on a platform that professed sympathy with tea party goals, is reluctant to confront the militia directly. He refuses to call out the National Guard. He has the State Police monitor the roadblocks and checkpoints on the interstate and state roads but does not order the authorities to take further action. In public the governor calls for calm and proposes talks with the local tea party to resolve issues. Privately, he sends word through aides asking the federal government to act to restore order. Due to his previous stance and the appearance of being “pro” tea party goals the governor has little political room to maneuver.

Yup.  That’s what they came up with.  Tea Party are terrorists.  Anyone quoting the Constitution must be destroyed, because the regime and order must reign, and the Constitution is just a piece of paper.  When they quote it, it’s because they’re terrorists.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Mike at Sipsey Street notes that the comments are almost all in stark contrast to the article.  The responses, from the kind of intelligent thinkers who read things like the Small Wars Journal, are by a great majority articulate, eloquent, and offended.

One of the sharpest is this one, by “Obvious Moniker” that criticizes the failed methodology of the scenario.  He starts off by pointing out that not only is it as offensive to Constitutionalist Tea Party folks as it seems, it also fails from the start as a utility to develop strategies.

by Obvious Moniker| August 5, 2012 – 11:48am

I’ll admit to being one of the many offended by the choice of parameters; however, for the sake of discussion, I’ll try to minimize repeating what previous commenters have said.

First, it has been claimed that any group could be substituted for the Tea Party types in the scenario.  While this claim is undoubtably true on its face, from the detail in the scenario given and the current political climate, I cannot help but wonder if said claim has not been made disengenuously.  Several other commenters have wondered how many axes are being ground with the setup used, and I must echo that feeling.

Having been stationed at a 3-star level staff command for 5 years, there’s a reason why our J5/J7 guys had all the local powers in each scenario represented by Pineland, Treeland, et.al.   That methodology avoids accusations that the setup may be politically tainted or skewed along ideological lines that would otherwise be unnecessarily detract from the training and potentially make sharing said scenario with our allies unwise.

One untrained in military planning might get the impression from the universal application of said naming obfuscation by such a wide variety of planners whose scenarios truly did not depend on taking place in a location that such a principle was something those planners were taught in their training.  In that light, I hope you can understand my skepticism of your claim to being unbiased, as it seems so woefully poor form as to stretch credibility with such denials.  (ST: Much more to this comment, worth reading through them at the link.)

For those who don’t follow the Moniker’s jive, he’s saying you train for scenarios, not for specific enemies.  You can’t share your playbook if you have one place you’re planning on fighting; and you can’t reapply the scenario when it’s too specific.  If you get it in your head that you’re going to fight X and you end up fighting Y, then you’ve set yourself up for failure.

Another:

by Antylyzyk| August 6, 2012 – 7:44am

This is a chilling article—it has shocked me to the core.

The Army has been perfecting its counter-insurgency for decades in foreign lands. Terrorism has now become the function of the Department of Homeland Security—only Europeans had this type of machinery, we have always relied on being a people numerous and armed. Our police forces have become para-military forces in a perpetual War on Drugs. Recently, General Ralph E Eberhart expressed the view “that Posse Comitatus will constantly be under review as we mature this command, as we do our exercises, as we interact with FEMA, F.B.I., and those lead federal agencies out there”. Now Col Benson and Ms Weber posture the “Tea Party”, a movement that has never advocated violence, as the culprits in a future insurrection? Connecting the dots leads to a coordinated intelligence, police, and military system directed at controlling American citizens.

It is little wonder our Founding Fathers feared a standing Army. If this is the line of thinking that is emanating from Leavenworth and our generals, then the inevitable result will be the dissolution of the Republic and the establishment of a military dictatorship.

Another:

by RobJohnson| August 7, 2012 – 1:57am

Interesting choice of descriptors by the authors of this article. The Tea Party has proven to be one of the most peaceful and civilized of any political party in the country, proclaiming only a desire to unify the country around the Constitution and the rule of law. Why did they authors choose an actual, existing party to use in their “Wargames” article? Have they been to a Tea Party meeting? Where most of the members are middle class, middle aged working people? Did they really wish to spit in the face of tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of their fellow citizens? Their neighbors, friends, countrymen? Are they that full of hatred, ready to slap the face of fellow Americans they disagree politically with? Is this how Goebbels and Saddams and Stalins are created? What breath taking arrogance on the part of the authors. Have they been sitting too long behind their desks? If the “Tea Party”, made up of their fellow citizens, deserve to be mass murdered by American troops, what does that say about the authors state of mind? Are they so naive of history? Are they so ignorant and arrogant they think such an event will be a fun little bloody cake walk? Do they look forward to hearing about the hundreds, perhaps thousands killed in the streets, in front of their own homes? Why the Tea Party? Why not about a Marxist stealth coup by a Manchurian candidate president and the military coup to retake the republic? They are so sure of their own rightness? What if the US Army crushes the revolt in the little town but then finds out that it faces not one town but 150,000 across the country? What will they do when they, like the Redcoats marching for Lexington, find themselves surrounded on all sides, their supplies cut off, water cut off, electricity cut off, sabotage every where, even by their own troops and officers, who refuse to fire on their own people, even as many Chinese soldiers did during Tianamen Square? The average rural, heavily wooded county in America has tens of thousands of hunters of all ages. Hunters. Men with scoped rifles, camo gear, who know how to disappear into the forests and hunt things down. Imagine that multiplied across the entire United States. An irregular guerrilla force of millions of snipers. Millions. Blood would run in rivers. Is this what these Armchair Army officers want? Is this how they spend tax payer money? To sit at their computers and type out hate screeds against peaceful citizens? Despicable. Sickening. Twisted.

Another:

by MAJ_John_Pitcairn| August 5, 2012 – 6:04pm

A solid plan for unrivaled Success! However, if the rebels are to be suppressed sufficiently, I have it on good word that to their powder and rifle stores at Lexington and Concord you must go. Rest assured! Vigorous measures at present would soon put an end to this paltry rebellion. The deluded subjects are made to believe that they are invincible. When this glorious Fifth Army is ordered to act against them, they will soon be convinced that they are very insignificant indeed when opposed to regular troops. Once these rebels have been dealt a smart blow, they will fall to their knees and submit. Once disarmament is complete, effective resistance to the Crown will cease and policies of reestablishing order will proceed. God save his excellency King George.

Another:

by nfzgrld| August 5, 2012 – 5:17pm

This article is based almost entirely on false premises. The idea that the tea party would do what is described in the way and for the reasons described is laughable. If the American people act on behalf of their own constitutionally protected freedom then they are within their right. For the military to act in opposition to any effort to protect, defend or restore the veracity and force of the constitution would be, by definition, treason.

In addition, the idea that The Klu Klus Klan and other racist and Democratic party developed organizations would side with the tea party, or that the tea party would even associate with them, indicates either a complete lack of understanding of who and what the tea party is, or is purposeful disinformation disseminated in an effort to further deflect the left’s own goal to the right. Progressives, Marxists, fascists, and other government centered and racist organizations and ideologies are all LEFT. This is America, not Europe. Left and right mean something different here. Left is govt, right is freedom. The more you have of one, the less you will have of the other.

This is OUR country. It is OUR constitution. The govt, including the military, works for US. Aside from the LIMITED powers given the federal government in article one section eight of the constitution, We The People, and the States, have and are the authority. The authors of this article are fomenting an environment of discord and distrust between the people and our military. That needs to stop right now, because WE are the military. I don’t think it’s going to work the way they think it will.

Another:

by Carlos Perera| August 5, 2012 – 2:11pm

I must join the many other commenters who have taken exception to this article’s depiction of the Tea Party as a sort of neo-Klan, a band of lilly-white racists who can barely wait to wrap their ax handles around the heads of people of color. I myself–and, yes, I post under my real name–am a Hispanic Tea Partier, one of many in my area (Jacksonville, Florida). I have _never_ been made to feel unwelcome at any Tea Party event, nor have I ever heard the use of racist/xenophobic invective or seen any literature of that ilk at any Tea Party meeting or demonstration (except in signs wielded by outside _agents provocateurs_ trying to discredit the organization: they are quickly surrounded by Tea Partiers holding signs saying, “not with us). Do many Tea Partiers object to the near non-enforcement of U. S. immigration laws? Yes–I do!–but we simply ask that the federal government enforce those laws (as it is Constitutionally obligated to do), and seek electoral, not insurrectional, solutions to the problem on non-enforcement.

As other have already noted, Tea Party demonstrations are models of civil, orderly behavior. Not only do we not indulge in violence–though on some occasions counter-demonstrators have physically attacked Tea Partiers–we usually leave the public areas we use cleaner than before we arrived. Compare and contrast with left-wing groups’ violence, vandalism, and utter disregard for the public order when they demonstrate: think OWS!

In using the Tea Party as the fictional bad guys of their scenario, the authors of this article have truly–and unjustifiably–derogated a model group of citizen-activists, using their Constitutionally protected right of free assembly, by innuendo. Isn’t there a Commandment against bearing false witness against your neighbor?

I’d add some more commentary, but these folks have pretty much nailed it.

It’s worth it to revisit the history of the infamous 29 Palms Survey of 1994.

Firing on U.S. Citizens?

While all of the questions in this survey should have stimulated concern, the survey’s final question has generated an enormous amount of attention:

The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

The survey results: 42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion. In one of the footnotes appearing in his thesis, Cunningham quotes comments placed by some of the Marines next to their answers to this question: “What about the damn Second Amendment? … I feel this is a first in communism! … Read the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen.” “I would not even consider it. The reason we have guns is so that the people can overthrow the gov’t when or if the people think the gov’t is too powerful.” “Freedom to bear arms is our Second Amendment. If you take our Amendments away then you can take this job and stick it where the sun don’t shine! … It is a right to own firearms for defense (2nd Amendment); I would fight for that right!”

Based on the disagreement expressed by 61 percent of the Marines, Cunningham concluded that “a complete unit breakdown would occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission.”