Quantcast

Republican Hypocrisy Unbound: Sarah Palin Disarmed the Alaska Civil Militia

ProudProgressive 2013/01/19 17:50:01
Every time I think the Right Wing has become as hypocritical as they can be, they prove that their hypocrisy really does not have any limits. Here, for about the 10,000th time, is yet another example of the Right Wing attacking the President of the United States for doing something he hasn't even done, while heaping praises on one of their own who actually DID do what they accuse the President of doing.

Article excerpt follows:

The Right Calls Obama a Dictator, but Sarah Palin Disarmed the Alaska Civil Militia
By: Sarah Jones
Jan. 18th, 2013

In 2008, the Anchorage Daily News ran this deck bellow the headline: "NO MORE GUNS: Alaska State Defense Force stripped of many powers."

Irony knows no bounds when it comes to the Tea Party.

In 2008, Tea Party Queen and Shoot ‘Em Up and Hang ‘Em Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) disarmed brigade members of the Alaska State Defense Force (think volunteer militia) at the recommendation of the state military officials, based on a report by an investigator with the Washington National Guard.

(I)n a major decision proving unpopular with at least some of the force's roughly 280 members, the state is taking away the brigade's guns.

Yes, Sarah Palin, as executive of the state, took away their guns. And no, conservatives, you can't have it both ways. Clearly they gave Sarah Palin the report and she took executive action on it (also known as "tyranny" when a Democrat does it).

"The report does not say Westall was a bad commander," Campbell said. "The report says the state defense force, it's a voluntary organization, it's part time, it's dedicated volunteers serving their state, but they don't have the intensity of training, the skill sets the National Guard has."

As a result, Campbell recommended to Gov. Sarah Palin that brigade members should no longer be armed.


The state also read a report on said militia, and yet the state was not accused of hating Republicans. Do not try this on a national level.

A report ordered by George W. Bush's Department of Homeland Security warned of right wing domestic terrorism, writing that "the economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment." This caused massive right wing hysteria by the usual suspects. Michelle Malkin quickly donned her Republican Poutrage, and the Drudge and Breitbart followed with their angry misunderstandings of reality.

The report was unveiled in April of 2009, during the beginning of the Obama administration, and so naturally Republicans screamed and hollered about how it hurt their feelings to have a federal agency report the facts until the agency decided not to distribute the report to law enforcement. (No such whining when the same agency released a report on left wing terrorism.) This was before the Obama administration figured out that catering to crazy only enables it.

Sarah Palin has a reputation as a great gun freedom fighter of the Right (in spite of her struggles with actually shooting a gun on her reality TV show). The fact that she directed her administration to disarm the militia in 2008 and yet we heard nothing of this during the 2008 election suggests that disarming the militia is equated with "liberty" and "loving the second amendment" when a Republican does it.

When a Republican is in charge, the cult salivates at the use of dictatorial power. It's a form of security for them, resulting in what psychologists describe as an urge to be dominated and controlled, stemming from their deeply shameful suspicion that they can't control themselves.

We must remember Sarah Palin's affectionate relationship with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is sending out his civilian armed posse to patrol for "illegal immigrants" and to "protect" the schools. It's a wonder Palin didn't explain to him that in her own state, they found that "administering a part-time civilian force brings a high liability risk to the state." Yes, really.

Why is that? Because they are not trained as well as the professionals. Go figure. This conclusion comes dangerously close to suggesting that education matters, gravity exists, there is such a thing as expertise and that not everyone should be armed with a gun. But outside of their own actual records, Republican exceptionalism demands that we attribute equal weight to non-exerts and arm chair wannabes, lest we be called "elitists".

All you need to do in order to represent second amendment "freedom" is pose with guns and put cross hairs on your opponents. You can disarm the militia in your state without DESTROYING THE CONSTITUTION so long as you have an "R" after your name. Also, posing while leaning on the flag in short shorts helps (warning: do not try this as a Democrat or you will be branded a hater of the troops and an enemy of freedom).

If you have a "D" after your name, don't you dare even mention enforcing the existing gun safety laws, or else the Tea Party (read: Civil War Resentment Party) will denounce you as a "dictator" and threaten to throw you in jail for violating their imaginary Constitution. You know, the one they would have written if only they had won that awful war of "Northern Aggression".

Remember patriots, image is everything. Substance zero.

Update: This is for the Palin fans. The question is, what would the right's reaction have been if this same scenario had happened under President Obama. With a title reading "NO MORE GUNS" they would have gone insane. They've already jumped the "tyrant Hitler" shark over 23 executive actions that do little more than direct gun safety commissions and enforce existing laws. Only two address limiting the availability of a category of gun or a magazine capacity. If Obama ordered Arpaio's posse to be disarmed because they were a "liability", would the right be defending that as they are Palin's actions?

Read More: http://www.politicususa.com/tea-party-darling-sara...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Mark P. 2013/01/20 13:15:12
    Mark P.
    I wonder if that was the same militia the FBI was investigating after they plotted to kidnap and kill Federal judges? Trying to buy illegal weapons?
  • taitaFalcon23 2013/01/20 01:05:46 (edited)
    taitaFalcon23
    +1
    Think about it; the issue is not about whether the state militia is allowed to have firearms under the federal and state constitutions. It's about the historical pattern restricting guns for 'certain' people who don't look like the right people to have them. This is just shades of the southern reconstruction period when 'certain' people were not allowed to defend themselves and expected to prove their inferiority by being outnumbered via armed authorities. Think who in Alaska does not resemble Sarah and ask yourself, are they the ones she disarmed. Think of who lost their state lands to the country of United States.
  • Cal 2013/01/19 22:24:56 (edited)
    Cal
    The liberals are trying to disarm everyone. I'd say that trumps any little spin you're trying to put out now. Too late in the game. Should have tried this weeks ago if you wanted it to even matter slightly. Now, I'll just laugh and move on.
  • Popeye 2013/01/19 21:35:56
  • 4gotten Israelite 2013/01/19 20:39:04
    4gotten Israelite
    +3
    Yes, Sarah Palin, as executive of the state, took away their guns. And no, conservatives, you can’t have it both ways. Clearly they gave Sarah Palin the report and she took executive action on it (also known as “tyranny” when a Democrat does it).

    Why aren't you conservative gun owners upset about that? Alaska is part of the USA is it alright to take people's gun's away as long as your a right wing republican? Isn't that talking with a fork tongue. Or is it, you hard core gun owners don't have the balls to confront Sarah in what she did? does her face have that much a grip on your nuts? So why are you bitching about Obama just wanting to control who should be allowed to access a gun. He's not even talking about taking your gun's, just controling the crazey and criminals from getting them.
  • News4U 2013/01/19 20:36:08
  • chicago News4U 2013/01/19 21:36:13
    chicago
    +2
    Don't forget Bush Sr.'s resignation letter to the NRA,

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/0...
  • CA Gal 2013/01/19 19:38:11
    CA Gal
    +3
    Excellent post!! I'm not surprised in the least. They are total hypocrites!!
  • Risk 2013/01/19 19:37:58 (edited)
    Risk
    +2
    What the hell does that have to do with the Second Amendment ? ? ?



    amendment

    THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE ! ! !
  • ProudPr... Risk 2013/01/19 20:07:42
    ProudProgressive
    +5
    I guess Sarah Palin decided that since the right to bear arms is contingent on the maintenance of a well regulated militia, that she had the right to disarm the state militia. Funny how the NRA never complained, isn't it?
  • kudabux 2013/01/19 19:31:21
    kudabux
    +2
    Sara is an 'ignoranus'. She is both stupid and constipated.
  • Queen B kudabux 2013/01/20 09:15:05
  • kudabux Queen B 2013/01/20 16:47:12
    kudabux
    +1
    Cute :-)
  • The Electrician 2013/01/19 19:27:32
  • cinbadl 2013/01/19 18:42:43 (edited)
  • Straud1976 cinbadl 2013/01/19 20:06:29
    Straud1976
    +1
    Prove he is wrong
  • ProudPr... Straud1976 2013/01/19 20:09:52
    ProudProgressive
    +3
    Asking a conservative to prove something is like asking a cat to fly.

    cat with wings
  • cinbadl ProudPr... 2013/01/20 17:00:31
  • ProudPr... cinbadl 2013/01/19 20:08:52
    ProudProgressive
    +2
    What am I wrong about? Sarah Palin disarmed the state militia. No conservative complained. President Obama proposes common sense steps that do NOT involve disarming anyone, and you're ready to start impeachment proceedings.

    Why the difference?
  • taitaFa... ProudPr... 2013/01/20 01:08:32
    taitaFalcon23
    absence of logic
  • cinbadl ProudPr... 2013/01/20 16:59:49
  • JwonGalt 2013/01/19 18:25:13
    JwonGalt
    +5
    so. case in point. if a republican uses executive orders to disarm the militia COMPLETELY, it's all good in the hood. but if a democrat uses orders to not COMPLETELY disarm, and only put a limit on the type of weapon and magazine...it's tyranny all around. hood democrat orders completely disarm limit type weapon magazine tyranny
  • JwonGalt Sam 2013/01/19 21:55:10
    JwonGalt
    And few (if any) denounced it so vividly

    Like they are doing now.
  • Jeff Smith 2013/01/19 18:04:29
  • ProudPr... Jeff Smith 2013/01/19 18:30:55
    ProudProgressive
    +5
    Every state has a state militia, Jeff. In fact, New York also has a Naval Militia in addition to a ground force.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    http://dmna.ny.gov/nynm/

    Chicago is not a state, but Illinois has a state militia.

    The District of Columbia is Federal land and is protected by the Federal Government.

    And NO ONE IS TRYING TO DISARM YOU.
  • cinbadl ProudPr... 2013/01/19 18:49:19
  • ProudPr... cinbadl 2013/01/19 20:11:02
    ProudProgressive
    +2
    No one is trying to disarm you, delusional fantasies notwithstanding.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/23 14:35:46

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals