When the government fears the people

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

That quote seems especially relevant today, when the government has lost the trust of a very large proportion of the people, and the government has expressed a fear of the people.

Recently a commenter on this story called this Examiner's reporting, or rather a response to an earlier comment, into question. At issue is a measure introduced by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) called the "Preserving Records Of TErrorist and Criminal Transactions" Act. To recap the earlier story, the purpose of the PROTECT Act is to:

1. Require the FBI to retain for 10 years all records related to a NICS transaction involving a valid match to federal terrorist watch list records; and
2. Repeal the requirement that other background check records be destroyed after 24 hours, and instead require that the records of all non-terrorist transactions be maintained for 180 days.

The question is: what constitutes a "valid" match? The National Instant-Check System has been cited twice for data-entry errors that have never been repaired. But more to the point is that the context for the introduction of this Act includes a nine-page report issued April 7, 2009, by order of Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, identifying returning US veterans and members of so-called "right-wing groups" as terrorists.

That last designation was issued a scant eight days before Tax Day, the day of the first widespread series of "Tea Parties."

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says.

"Groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority" could include anyone who stands by a literal interpretation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The American Legion protested bitterly against Napolitano's canard against returning veterans. Napolitano at first stood by her statement, though she indicated a willingness to "talk" to the head of the American Legion. Subsequently the Thomas More Law Center sued her over the statement, and that forced her to apologize.

Given that opposition, on Tenth Amendment grounds, to the two health-care reform bills that have passed the House and Senate has already arisen, and also that the retraction of that report was never actually made clear, it follows that certain officials in the federal government might indeed harbor a lingering fear of the people--and might be sorely tempted to respond by manipulating the National Instant Check System to declare its opponents to be terrorists and interfere with their right to keep and bear arms, which the Second Amendment specifies. Janet Napolitano is by no means the only one, or even the most likely one; one need only consider the unabashed radicalism of any of various "czars" with whom this President has surrounded himself. This Examiner would be, frankly, derelict in his duty to "examine" the news, did he fail to mention this possibility, however remote anyone might consider it at present.

Previous article:

• Senator Lautenberg introduces new gun-control measure

Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.