Scary.
The point is clear, of course. The founding fathers did engage in violence. What’s scary is the energy with which this trainer implicates them, and what I consider the larger message: resisting tyranny is terrorism.
". . . a republic, if you can keep it."
Scary.
The point is clear, of course. The founding fathers did engage in violence. What’s scary is the energy with which this trainer implicates them, and what I consider the larger message: resisting tyranny is terrorism.
Isn’t terrorism as a concept completely subjective? Kind of depends on what side your on, doesn’t it? The red coats undoubtedly viewed the founding fathers as terrorists, while on the other side of the battle they were considered patriots and heros. I have to assume that there are also two sides to the story of modern day “terrorists” as well.
No doubt. But why are the founding fathers on the wrong side of Fema’s definition?