As Scandals Deepen, Obama, His Party, and Republicans Will Militarily Intervene in Syria by Michael Scheuer
As three administration-wrecking scandals – Benghazi, the IRS, and the AP phone records – continue to unfold, it will become increasingly clear that President Obama is: (a) stupid; (b) unable to control his felonious subordinates; or (c) a liar and a trimmer. And as this clarity evolves, Obama will engineer a U.S.-NATO military intervention in Syria. This week Obama told the press his administration has fairly solid evidence that chemical weapons were used by Damascus against al-Qaeda and its allies. Obama also said he still wants more and better evidence that Asaad used the weapons. This long has been his standard line.
But then, before closing his remarks, Obama lapsed into his patented weeping-for-humanity mode, saying in an almost off-hand manner enough thousands of Syrians had been killed in the civil war to justify intervention by that American-killing and nation-bankrupting fiction of our bipartisan governing elite’s imagination, the “U.S.-led International Community.” In other words, our beleaguered president already is looking to distract Americans from his administration’s rampant felonies, and what better way to quiet the hounds of just retribution than by consigning U.S. soldiers and Marines to death in a useless intervention in Syria, a place where no genuine U.S. national interest is at stake. One straw in the wind: Friday’s news brought word of Obama’s talking-points-changing, intelligence-leaking lickspittle of a CIA Director, John Brennan, sneaking into Israel to “discuss Syria.”
Odds are that we are going to see the same old story: Obama will intervene militarily in Syria, get Americans worried about the safety of their soldier-children, stoke their patriotism and fierce support for the troops, and – voila – the Obama-butt-kissing media will refocus the victims of the Obama-ites’ domestic felonies on an unnecessary war in the Levant.
The saddest part of the foregoing scenario is that it probably will work. Obama artfully masks his casual willingness to get Americans killed – seen in his zeal for abortion; keeping troops in Afghanistan to die (6 more on 16 May 2013) long after conceding defeat there; and refusing to try to save soon-to-be-dead Americans in Benghazi – with a maudlin “deep concern” for people suffering abroad, in this case in Syria. Obama’s faux concern for those suffering overseas is just another indelible sign of his and his party’s absolute disdain for the needs of everyday Americans. Under Obama’s two secretaries of state – Clinton and Kerry – the United States have dispersed more than $500 million to strengthen the “Syrian Resistance”; which is to say, to strengthen al-Qaeda and its allies. Both secretaries and their master have deceitfully described the aid as “humanitarian,” but as always this funding is military in every way because it frees up the Islamists’ other funds to be spent for weapons.
With Democrats ever ready to leave Americans to fend for themselves, Obama’s diversionary campaign – obscure impeachable offenses by launching an unnecessary war – will be abetted by Senators McCain, Graham, Lieberman, and dozens of other U.S. Senators and Congressman intent on war with Syria. Obama will use these useful idiots to convince the American people of three bipartisan lies: that (a) genuine U.S. interests are at risk in Syria; (b) Americans “owe” the Syrian people U.S. dollars and blood to stop their suffering in a war they started; and that (c) Americans “must” expend their dollars and kids to staunch the anarchy spreading in the Levant in order to protect our “loyal and indispensable ally Israel.” Most of the media – left and right – will concur in and support this self-defeating nonsense and, once again, we will all go off intervening in a Muslim country where we have nothing at risk, thereby prolonging our already losing war with Islam and motivating more U.S. Muslims to stage attacks like April’s in Boston.
Will Americans ever see the plain fact that they are being played for fools? If every Syrian dies tomorrow – along with every Palestinian, Israeli, Saudi, etc. – it matters not a lick to the way we live and conduct ourselves in North America. Is it too bad and very sad that they die? You bet, but it is neither our fault they are fighting nor our responsibility to stop their wars; say a prayer for them, but know their deaths are of their own making and no skin of an American’s nose.
And if some self-righteous Americans want to help these folks, let them open their individual wallets and donate; or let them light candles, pile up bouquets, weep, hold hands, and sing for peace; or, better yet, let them renounce their U.S. citizenship and go abroad to fight alongside those in the countries they love better than their own. In fact, it seems only right that some leaders of the anti-U.S., pro-Israel movement – perhaps people like Limbaugh, Lieberman, Levin, McCain, Hannity, and Graham – set the example for others of their ilk. These fearsome tough guys could buy airline tickets to the Levant; turn in their U.S. passport and acquire – at long last – the passport from their country of first allegiance (if they do not have it already); and then go off to the war they have tried so hard to start from their out-of-harm’s-way safety in North America. I would like to be helpful here and would willingly contribute to a fund to buy Rush, Joe, Mark, John, Sean, Lindsey and all others of their interventionist, anti-U.S., and Israel-First orientation an AK-47 and a thousand rounds of ammunition. Each of these folks could claim their arms as soon as they renounce their citizenship and turn in their U.S. passport. America would be far better off without them.
Sound harsh? Well, think for a moment of the cruel and cynical madness of a situation that finds Americans in New Jersey and New York still flat on their backs from Hurricane Sandy while both U.S. political parties are dumping a half-billion dollars into the hands of al-Qaeda-ism in Syria. And think of the billions going to Turkey, Egypt, and Israel, while America’s infrastructure continues to rot; millions of our kids are undernourished; our borders remain undefended; and thousands of wounded and crippled U.S. military veterans must depend on public charity to assist their recovery. And think of all the money and military lives we have and will waste making Muslim enemies overseas by intervening at bayonet point to promote education, women’s rights, irreligion, and the spread of secular democracy.
It seems likely that today’s preeminent Democratic and Republican foreign-policy motto –“Give and pander to foreigners and to hell with the real interests and welfare of America and Americans” – is not one the Founders had in mind when they created America. Indeed, if the Founders could hear it now, they would have yet another reason to thank Providence for their decision to include the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Thursday, March 14, 2013
What If Nanny Is a Thug? by Andrew P. Napolitano
What If Nanny Is a Thug? by Andrew P. Napolitano
What if a dictator in America used the force of law to tell you what to eat? What if the same dictator told you what to drink? What if the dictator told you the sizes of the containers in which you could purchase a lawful beverage? What if the dictator just made up the rules according to his own personal taste? What if the product he regulated was lawful, sold nearly everywhere and consumed by nearly everyone? What if that product came in flavors and degrees of sweetness the dictator didn’t like? What if that product was part of a huge national market that provides choices to consumers and jobs for those who want them? What if that product was simple soda pop?
What if the dictator declared that you could consume all the soda pop you wish to consume, but you need to purchase it in small containers? What if the enforcement of this container-size rule raised the price of soda pop? What if the container size was just something the dictator dreamed up? What if the dictator believed his judgment was superior to yours with respect to deciding what you should drink and how you should drink it?
What if the dictator pretended his container-size restrictions were based on sound science? What if he hired and appointed medical personnel who feared for their jobs if they did not agree with him? What if he ordered those people to support his container-size regulations whether or not they agreed that this is the proper role of government? What if he constituted these medical lackeys into a Board of Health? What if the Board of Health pretended it seriously studied the detrimental effect of sugar-based soda pop on human beings but never did?
What if the rules for container size were written in secret? What if those rules were so complicated that a judge concluded they would be impossible to enforce? What if the rules only applied to certain sugar-based drinks, such as soda pop and coffee, but not to others, such as chocolate milk and alcohol? What if the rules only applied to some stores and shops but not to all? What if the rules were so ridiculous that in order to buy a cup of coffee larger than 16 ounces, they required you to put milk and flavoring and sugar in yourself, and the seller of the coffee could not lawfully help you or do so for you, even at your request?
What if under the fundamental law of the land the dictator was not authorized by law to write laws but only to enforce them? What if the dictator knew that the governing body elected by the people to write laws would never write the laws he wanted because its members like power and fear losing it, which could happen if they try to tell the voters who elected them how to live? What if the dictator never presented his proposals on sugar-based drinks to the elected governing body because he knew they’d be rejected?
What if the dictator was more interested in his own legacy as a reformer than in personal liberty in a free society? What if he believed he could write any law and regulate any event because his knowledge of human behavior and unintended consequences was superior to that of the people he swore to serve?
What if the same dictator once made campaign contributions to members of the governing board so that they would change the fundamental law of the land – which only the people directly can lawfully change – so as to let the dictator stay in office longer than the fundamental law permitted? What if that law could only be changed by the voters themselves, but the dictator persuaded the lawmakers to take his campaign cash and change the fundamental law for him? What if the dictator was very unpopular but continued to impose his will on the people because he desperately wanted a legacy?
What if some people who sell soda pop challenged the dictator in a court he did not control? What if a judge of that court told the people they could buy soda and coffee in whatever sizes it was sold because the dictator did not have the power to regulate their intake of liquids? What if the judge even recognized that there are areas of human behavior immune to regulation by the government?
What if all of this really happened? What if this is not a fable but a fair recounting of life today in America’s biggest city? What is the state of human freedom in New York City when the mayor can tell people what soft drinks to consume and how to consume them and the voters let him do it? What will they let the government do to us next?
What if a dictator in America used the force of law to tell you what to eat? What if the same dictator told you what to drink? What if the dictator told you the sizes of the containers in which you could purchase a lawful beverage? What if the dictator just made up the rules according to his own personal taste? What if the product he regulated was lawful, sold nearly everywhere and consumed by nearly everyone? What if that product came in flavors and degrees of sweetness the dictator didn’t like? What if that product was part of a huge national market that provides choices to consumers and jobs for those who want them? What if that product was simple soda pop?
What if the dictator declared that you could consume all the soda pop you wish to consume, but you need to purchase it in small containers? What if the enforcement of this container-size rule raised the price of soda pop? What if the container size was just something the dictator dreamed up? What if the dictator believed his judgment was superior to yours with respect to deciding what you should drink and how you should drink it?
What if the dictator pretended his container-size restrictions were based on sound science? What if he hired and appointed medical personnel who feared for their jobs if they did not agree with him? What if he ordered those people to support his container-size regulations whether or not they agreed that this is the proper role of government? What if he constituted these medical lackeys into a Board of Health? What if the Board of Health pretended it seriously studied the detrimental effect of sugar-based soda pop on human beings but never did?
What if the rules for container size were written in secret? What if those rules were so complicated that a judge concluded they would be impossible to enforce? What if the rules only applied to certain sugar-based drinks, such as soda pop and coffee, but not to others, such as chocolate milk and alcohol? What if the rules only applied to some stores and shops but not to all? What if the rules were so ridiculous that in order to buy a cup of coffee larger than 16 ounces, they required you to put milk and flavoring and sugar in yourself, and the seller of the coffee could not lawfully help you or do so for you, even at your request?
What if under the fundamental law of the land the dictator was not authorized by law to write laws but only to enforce them? What if the dictator knew that the governing body elected by the people to write laws would never write the laws he wanted because its members like power and fear losing it, which could happen if they try to tell the voters who elected them how to live? What if the dictator never presented his proposals on sugar-based drinks to the elected governing body because he knew they’d be rejected?
What if the dictator was more interested in his own legacy as a reformer than in personal liberty in a free society? What if he believed he could write any law and regulate any event because his knowledge of human behavior and unintended consequences was superior to that of the people he swore to serve?
What if the same dictator once made campaign contributions to members of the governing board so that they would change the fundamental law of the land – which only the people directly can lawfully change – so as to let the dictator stay in office longer than the fundamental law permitted? What if that law could only be changed by the voters themselves, but the dictator persuaded the lawmakers to take his campaign cash and change the fundamental law for him? What if the dictator was very unpopular but continued to impose his will on the people because he desperately wanted a legacy?
What if some people who sell soda pop challenged the dictator in a court he did not control? What if a judge of that court told the people they could buy soda and coffee in whatever sizes it was sold because the dictator did not have the power to regulate their intake of liquids? What if the judge even recognized that there are areas of human behavior immune to regulation by the government?
What if all of this really happened? What if this is not a fable but a fair recounting of life today in America’s biggest city? What is the state of human freedom in New York City when the mayor can tell people what soft drinks to consume and how to consume them and the voters let him do it? What will they let the government do to us next?
Saturday, March 2, 2013
How Stand Your Ground Against Tyranny
How Stand Your Ground Against Tyranny
Checkpoints (some would say illegal checkpoints) have been popping up quite frequently in the USA. As you see in this video, you DO NOT have to comply with their question's or demands. Don't forget, you have rights.
SPREAD THE WORD
Checkpoints (some would say illegal checkpoints) have been popping up quite frequently in the USA. As you see in this video, you DO NOT have to comply with their question's or demands. Don't forget, you have rights.
SPREAD THE WORD
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Your Papers, Citizen by Fred Reed
Your Papers, Citizen by Fred Reed
A staple of American self-esteem is that we Yanks are brave, free, independent, self-reliant, ruggedly individual, and disinclined to accept abuse from anyone. This was largely true in, say, 1930. People lived, a great many of them, on farms where they planted their own crops, built their own barns, repaired their own trucks, and protected their own property. They were literate but not educated, knew little of the world beyond the local, but in their homes and fields they were supreme.
If they wanted to swim buck nekkid in the creek, they swam buck nekkid. If whistle pigs were eating the corn, the family teenager would get his rifle and solve the problem. Government left them alone.
Even in the early Sixties, in rural King George County, Virginia, where I grew up, it was still mostly true. The country people built their own boats to crab in the Potomac, converted junked car engines to marine, made their own crab pots, planted corn and such, and hunted deer. There was very little contact with the government. One state trooper was the law, and he had precious little to do.
I say the following not as an old codger painting his youth in roseate hues that never were, but as serious sociology: We kids could get up on a summer morning, grab the .22 or .410, put it over our shoulder and go into the country store for ammunition, and no one looked twice. We could go by night to the dump to snap-shoot rats, and no one cared. We could get our fishing poles – I preferred a spinning reel and bait-casting tackle – and fish anywhere we pleased on Machodoc Creek or the Potomac. We could drive unwisely but joyously on winding wooded roads late at night and nobody cared.
Call it “freedom.” We were free, and so were the country folk on their farms and with their crabbing rigs. Because we were free, we felt free. It was a distinct psychology, though we didn’t know it.
Things then changed. The country increasingly urbanized. So much for rugged.
It became ever more a nation of employees. As Walmart and shopping centers and factories moved in, the farmers sold their land to real-estate developers at what they thought mind-boggling prices, and went to work as security guards and truck drivers. Employees are not free. They fear the boss, fear dismissal, and become prisoners of the retirement system. So much for Marlboro Man.
Self-reliance went. Few any longer can fix a car or the plumbing, grow food, hunt, bait a hook or install a new roof. Or defend themselves. To overstate barely, everyone depends on someone else, often the government, for everything. Thus we becamethe Hive.
Government came like a dust storm of fine choking powder, making its way into everything. You could no longer build a shed without a half-dozen permits and inspections. You couldn’t swim without a lifeguard, couldn’t use your canoe without Coast-Guard approved flotation devices and a card saying that you had taken an approved course in how to canoe. Cops proliferated with speed traps. The government began spying on email, requiring licenses and permits for everything, and deciding what could and could not be taught to one’s children, who one had to associate with, and what one could think about what or, more usually, whom.
With this came feminization. The schools began to value feelings over learning anything. Dodge ball and freeze tag became violence and heartless competition, giving way to cooperative group activities led by a caring adult. The female preference for security over freedom set in like a hard frost. We became afraid of second-hand smoke and swimming pools with a deep end. As women got in touch with their inner totalitarian, we began to outlaw large soft drinks and any word or expression that might offend anyone.
Thus much of the country morphed into helpless flowers, narcissistic, easily frightened, profoundly ignorant video-game twiddlers and Facebook Argonauts. As every known poll shows, even what purport to be college graduates do not know who fought in World War One, or that there was a Mexican-American war, or where Indochina is.
Serving as little more than cubicle fodder, they could not survive a serious crisis like the first Depression. And they look to the collective, the hive, for protection. The notion of individual self-defense, whether with a fist or a Sig 9, is, you know, like scary, or, well, just wrong or macho or something. I mean, if you find an intruder in your house at night, shouldn’t you, like, call a caring adult?
The echoes of the former America linger in commercials in commercials for pickup trucks with throaty bass voices and footage of Toyotas powering through rough unsettled country that almost no one ever even sees these days. Mostly it’s just marketing to suburban blossoms. The number of vehicles with four-wheel drive that have actually been off a paved road is not high.
Many who grew up in the former America, and a good many today in the South and west, substantially adhere to the old values. They won’t last. We live in the day of the Hive, and in the long run there is no point fighting it.
But for these relics, who like to wind the Harley to a hundred-and-climbing on the big empty roads out west, who throw the deer rifle in the gun rack on the first day of the season, who set out into the High Desert for sheer love of sun and barren rock and sprawling isolation – the terror of guns, of everything, makes no sense.
They – we – grew up with guns. Since nobody ever shot anybody accidentally or otherwise, we accepted as obvious: that people, not guns, committed murder. Did shotguns leap into the air of their own volition, point themselves, and open fire? Or did someone pull the trigger? If a murderer shot his victim, did you put the gun in jail, or the murderer? If remote urban barbarians below the level of civilization shot people, what did that have to do with us?
A different America, a different culture. We really were free. You could come out of the house on a summer morning and let the dogs run loose in the fields, nobody ever having heard of a dog license. You could change the oil in your car or rewire your basement without the county meddling. You could shoot varmints eating your garden and no one cared. The government left you alone. This is not an unimportant part of the dispute over guns – wanting to be left alone. Nobody in America, ever again, is going to be left alone. Not ever.
A staple of American self-esteem is that we Yanks are brave, free, independent, self-reliant, ruggedly individual, and disinclined to accept abuse from anyone. This was largely true in, say, 1930. People lived, a great many of them, on farms where they planted their own crops, built their own barns, repaired their own trucks, and protected their own property. They were literate but not educated, knew little of the world beyond the local, but in their homes and fields they were supreme.
If they wanted to swim buck nekkid in the creek, they swam buck nekkid. If whistle pigs were eating the corn, the family teenager would get his rifle and solve the problem. Government left them alone.
Even in the early Sixties, in rural King George County, Virginia, where I grew up, it was still mostly true. The country people built their own boats to crab in the Potomac, converted junked car engines to marine, made their own crab pots, planted corn and such, and hunted deer. There was very little contact with the government. One state trooper was the law, and he had precious little to do.
I say the following not as an old codger painting his youth in roseate hues that never were, but as serious sociology: We kids could get up on a summer morning, grab the .22 or .410, put it over our shoulder and go into the country store for ammunition, and no one looked twice. We could go by night to the dump to snap-shoot rats, and no one cared. We could get our fishing poles – I preferred a spinning reel and bait-casting tackle – and fish anywhere we pleased on Machodoc Creek or the Potomac. We could drive unwisely but joyously on winding wooded roads late at night and nobody cared.
Call it “freedom.” We were free, and so were the country folk on their farms and with their crabbing rigs. Because we were free, we felt free. It was a distinct psychology, though we didn’t know it.
Things then changed. The country increasingly urbanized. So much for rugged.
It became ever more a nation of employees. As Walmart and shopping centers and factories moved in, the farmers sold their land to real-estate developers at what they thought mind-boggling prices, and went to work as security guards and truck drivers. Employees are not free. They fear the boss, fear dismissal, and become prisoners of the retirement system. So much for Marlboro Man.
Self-reliance went. Few any longer can fix a car or the plumbing, grow food, hunt, bait a hook or install a new roof. Or defend themselves. To overstate barely, everyone depends on someone else, often the government, for everything. Thus we becamethe Hive.
Government came like a dust storm of fine choking powder, making its way into everything. You could no longer build a shed without a half-dozen permits and inspections. You couldn’t swim without a lifeguard, couldn’t use your canoe without Coast-Guard approved flotation devices and a card saying that you had taken an approved course in how to canoe. Cops proliferated with speed traps. The government began spying on email, requiring licenses and permits for everything, and deciding what could and could not be taught to one’s children, who one had to associate with, and what one could think about what or, more usually, whom.
With this came feminization. The schools began to value feelings over learning anything. Dodge ball and freeze tag became violence and heartless competition, giving way to cooperative group activities led by a caring adult. The female preference for security over freedom set in like a hard frost. We became afraid of second-hand smoke and swimming pools with a deep end. As women got in touch with their inner totalitarian, we began to outlaw large soft drinks and any word or expression that might offend anyone.
Thus much of the country morphed into helpless flowers, narcissistic, easily frightened, profoundly ignorant video-game twiddlers and Facebook Argonauts. As every known poll shows, even what purport to be college graduates do not know who fought in World War One, or that there was a Mexican-American war, or where Indochina is.
Serving as little more than cubicle fodder, they could not survive a serious crisis like the first Depression. And they look to the collective, the hive, for protection. The notion of individual self-defense, whether with a fist or a Sig 9, is, you know, like scary, or, well, just wrong or macho or something. I mean, if you find an intruder in your house at night, shouldn’t you, like, call a caring adult?
The echoes of the former America linger in commercials in commercials for pickup trucks with throaty bass voices and footage of Toyotas powering through rough unsettled country that almost no one ever even sees these days. Mostly it’s just marketing to suburban blossoms. The number of vehicles with four-wheel drive that have actually been off a paved road is not high.
Many who grew up in the former America, and a good many today in the South and west, substantially adhere to the old values. They won’t last. We live in the day of the Hive, and in the long run there is no point fighting it.
But for these relics, who like to wind the Harley to a hundred-and-climbing on the big empty roads out west, who throw the deer rifle in the gun rack on the first day of the season, who set out into the High Desert for sheer love of sun and barren rock and sprawling isolation – the terror of guns, of everything, makes no sense.
They – we – grew up with guns. Since nobody ever shot anybody accidentally or otherwise, we accepted as obvious: that people, not guns, committed murder. Did shotguns leap into the air of their own volition, point themselves, and open fire? Or did someone pull the trigger? If a murderer shot his victim, did you put the gun in jail, or the murderer? If remote urban barbarians below the level of civilization shot people, what did that have to do with us?
A different America, a different culture. We really were free. You could come out of the house on a summer morning and let the dogs run loose in the fields, nobody ever having heard of a dog license. You could change the oil in your car or rewire your basement without the county meddling. You could shoot varmints eating your garden and no one cared. The government left you alone. This is not an unimportant part of the dispute over guns – wanting to be left alone. Nobody in America, ever again, is going to be left alone. Not ever.
Progressives Love Guns (and Other Things They Don’t Teach in Government School) by James Ostrowski
Progressives Love Guns (and Other Things They Don’t Teach in Government School) by James Ostrowski
I want to talk today about some things they don’t teach in government school and that the lying progressive politicians won’t tell you.
The right to bear arms is a natural right of the individual. It wasn’t and isn’t granted by the government or the Constitution or some slimy politician any more than your right to breathe comes from the government. If you have the right to life, then you must have the means to defend that life against those who would stop you from breathing or who would turn you into a slave or a laboratory rat, which, judging from current trends, appears to be about where we are headed in this country.
We live under the most powerful government that ever existed and it’s getting bigger and stronger every week as new laws are passed taking over more and more aspects of life that used to be free. There is no literally no aspect of life, no matter how trivial or formerly private that progressive politicians do not have designs on: Little League football, the size of soft drinks, or what you say on Twitter about your government school jailers. These days, there is no aspect of your life, liberty or property or family life that is absolutely secure against this crazed progressive onslaught.
That is why we must resist this current gun grab by all means the Founding Fathers sanctioned in the Declaration of Independence including the right to alter or abolish a government destructive to our liberties. That’s right, Governor, abolishing this government is on the table.
Now, these days, those words in the Declaration are ignored or edited out when politicians quote the document. Rather, the phrase "all men are created equal" is offered up as some sort of Marxist balderdash about the state making us all equal. The meaning of that phrase is clear, however. We are all equal in natural rights such as liberty which precludes any form of progressivism, socialism or Marxism. Sorry Barack!
Consider this. Isn’t the right to bear arms implied in the right of revolution that is proclaimed in the founding document of our nation? Of course it is. Good luck fighting a revolution against a state that can send a drone to your house and make you disappear when all you have to fight back is a squirt gun.
Not only is the right to bear arms implied in our founding document, but the actual start of the revolution was an act of resistance against British gun control at Lexington and Concord. America was born when the Minute Men picked up their privately-owned muskets and formed a line of defense against government troops coming up the road to take their guns away.
They don’t teach this stuff in government school.
It is critical to realize that progressives never address the actual reason for the right to bear arms. Rather, they seek to confuse the issue by answering arguments for the right to bear arms that were never made. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, sport or target shooting, or collecting antiques and its main purpose is not to allow you to protect yourself from criminals although that is a secondary and important purpose. It is an undeniable historical fact that the central purpose of the right to bear arms is to allow the people to protect themselves against the government.
Now, why do progressives ignore or pretend not to know the true purpose behind the Second Amendment even though our side has been explaining it for many, many years? Two reasons. First, they cannot rebut the argument! History and logic show that governments are dangerous to people when they get too much power, get too crazed in their ideologies and when the people are weak, disorganized and unarmed or disarmed. In the 20th century, 170 million people were murdered by their own governments according to historian RJ Rummel. The Soviets, a US ally, killed 62 million; the Communist Chinese killed 35 million. The Nazis killed 21 million. US ally Nationalist China killed 10 million. Japan killed 6 million, Cambodia killed 2 million and Turkey killed 1.8 million.
How can they deny obvious facts? Can they argue that Germans are so different from Americans? After all, they were an advanced Western, Christian nation and German-Americans are the largest ethnic group in America. To say it can’t happen here is a bad argument. They could argue that the US state has never engaged in mass murder against its own citizens but that’s a bad argument because our citizens have always been well-armed, so that proves our point. That’s another bad argument they don’t make.
So, instead of making bad arguments against the true purpose of the Second Amendment, they make good arguments against an imaginary Second Amendment that never existed. It’s extremely effective in a population short on critical thinking skills they never learned in government school. If government schools taught critical thinking skills, the first thing the students would ask is why the hell in a free country does the government have the right to kidnap children for 12 years, send them to daytime juvenile detention centers run by progressive Democratic union members and send their parents the bill, threatening to foreclose on their houses if they don’t pay up?
The second reason why progressives never confront the true reason behind the Second Amendment is even more interesting and more important. The notion that a government with a monopoly of armed force could be an evil thing is abhorrent to them. It goes against the core of their ideology – that government guns pointed at peaceful citizens can create a utopia on earth. That can’t happen if the citizens are pointing guns back.
But progressives don’t want to admit that their ideology contains no room for privately-owned guns since there presently is too much support for the right to bear arms. So, again, they simply ignore the issue and try to confuse people by talking about hunting, target shooting and shotguns for home defense. By narrowing the scope of the purposes of gun ownership, they hope to be able to continually chip away at gun rights until all private guns are banned which is of course their actual goal. The more honest among them will admit, in response to our question – what do I do when a burglar tries to break the door down – "Call the police." Right, so the crime historians can draw a chalk line around your family’s bodies and call the medical examiner.
But that’s what they think. They really believe we would be better off if only the government had guns. That’s why they love to cite phony statistics that Professor Kleck has refuted that allegedly prove that guns in the home are likely to be used, not for defense, but against one of the members of the family. They really think we’d be better off without any guns even though they won’t admit it. That’s why Cuomo’s treasonous gun law is not the end, any more than that weasel George Pataki’s gun law was the end in the 1990’s. Since progressives are utopians who wish to use the power of the state to make life perfect on earth, there is never an end to their efforts to grab power from us.
Here’s another thing you won’t learn in government school or out of the mouths of lying progressive politicians. Most crime in America is caused by failed progressive policies such as welfare, the war on drugs and government schools. By their very nature, progressives are unable to acknowledge the failure of their own ideology. So they use guns as a scapegoat to distract attention away from their failures and avoid having to change their policies. The data is clear. The rise of the welfare state led to the destruction of the family unit in minority communities. Fathers left the home and teenage boys joined criminal gangs as a perverted form of father substitute.
Government schools failed to provide what was missing at home and merely served as a recruiting ground for gangs and a distribution point for drugs. Local high schools in this area compete for the nickname, "heroin high." The progressives’ war on drugs is an abysmal failure which merely sucks poor kids into a criminal and violent lifestyle once they realize that government school gave them no job skills and that progressive policies sucked all the economic vitality out of once bustling inner city neighborhoods.
Now, we don’t really know much about the cause of the latest school shooting – they are suppressing the lab report and other information. But we do know that several school shooters were bullied in government school and went back for revenge. Also, the politicians brag that they have made government schools gun-free zones, assuring mass killers of an easy target.
The state kidnaps kids, bullies them, turns them into bullies of the weaker, gives them dangerous psychotropic drugs, then leaves the students defenseless, and it’s the fault of the shotgun locked in your safe at home? That’s madness. School shootings are a failure of progressive policies. They invented the daytime juvenile detention center in the first place. Beyond school shootings, government schools are bad places for your kids for reasons I explained in a book and you should take them out anyway and soon.
I’m not going to argue statistics today but consider the fact that the folks in suburban and rural areas surrounding Buffalo are armed to the teeth but do not suffer from the decades-old crime wave and reign of terror criminals have imposed on the city of Buffalo. Case closed. Why should guns be confiscated from law-abiding people because progressives have unleashed a crime wave in America?
By the way, if you want people to accept your right to possess private property, guns, you had better consider accepting the right of other people to possess private property, drugs, if they so choose. Liberty is seamless and does not allow for exceptions. Liberty is doing what you wish with what you own. Doing what you wish with what you own. In fact, the war on drugs has proved to be the major driving force behind the war on guns. Same war, different name.
A couple more things they don’t teach in government school. Progressives don’t hate guns; they love guns. They love them so much they want to be the only ones who have any. They want a gun monopoly. Again, a progressive is a person who has this fantastic dream of creating a utopia on earth by threatening people with government guns if they don’t comply with their utopian schemes. The difference between progressives and us is this. They want to use guns aggressively, to make peaceful people do things they don’t want to do. We wish to use them only defensively, to stop a government that gets out of control and engages in mass murder, or systemically tramples the Bill of Rights.
The progressive state uses guns against us on a daily basis to impose their will on us. Yet, to my knowledge, not a single Patriot has fired a gun back. We have exercised remarkable restraint. So, again, the government schools, the politicians and the mainstream media lie. The truly violent gun fanatics and gun lovers are the progressive gun grabbers, not us.
One last point before I close. I have seen very few African-Americans at these rallies. I don’t understand that. No group has suffered more under government tyranny than blacks. The federal government kept them in slavery for 75 years. Slavery is a form of slow motion, mass murder. After slavery, governments took their guns away and failed to provide police protection.
One of the purposes of the 14th Amendment was to allow blacks to own guns for protection. Blacks are more likely to be the victims of violent crime. Finally, if you study the history of the various mass murders perpetrated by governments, they very often are aimed at ethnic, racial or religious minorities as they were in Germany and Turkey. If I was a member of a racial minority in a hostile world, I would be a ferocious defender of the right to bear arms.
So those are a few points about the right to bear arms they don’t teach in government school and that you won’t hear from lying politicians or the state-controlled media.
I want to talk today about some things they don’t teach in government school and that the lying progressive politicians won’t tell you.
The right to bear arms is a natural right of the individual. It wasn’t and isn’t granted by the government or the Constitution or some slimy politician any more than your right to breathe comes from the government. If you have the right to life, then you must have the means to defend that life against those who would stop you from breathing or who would turn you into a slave or a laboratory rat, which, judging from current trends, appears to be about where we are headed in this country.
We live under the most powerful government that ever existed and it’s getting bigger and stronger every week as new laws are passed taking over more and more aspects of life that used to be free. There is no literally no aspect of life, no matter how trivial or formerly private that progressive politicians do not have designs on: Little League football, the size of soft drinks, or what you say on Twitter about your government school jailers. These days, there is no aspect of your life, liberty or property or family life that is absolutely secure against this crazed progressive onslaught.
That is why we must resist this current gun grab by all means the Founding Fathers sanctioned in the Declaration of Independence including the right to alter or abolish a government destructive to our liberties. That’s right, Governor, abolishing this government is on the table.
Now, these days, those words in the Declaration are ignored or edited out when politicians quote the document. Rather, the phrase "all men are created equal" is offered up as some sort of Marxist balderdash about the state making us all equal. The meaning of that phrase is clear, however. We are all equal in natural rights such as liberty which precludes any form of progressivism, socialism or Marxism. Sorry Barack!
Consider this. Isn’t the right to bear arms implied in the right of revolution that is proclaimed in the founding document of our nation? Of course it is. Good luck fighting a revolution against a state that can send a drone to your house and make you disappear when all you have to fight back is a squirt gun.
Not only is the right to bear arms implied in our founding document, but the actual start of the revolution was an act of resistance against British gun control at Lexington and Concord. America was born when the Minute Men picked up their privately-owned muskets and formed a line of defense against government troops coming up the road to take their guns away.
They don’t teach this stuff in government school.
It is critical to realize that progressives never address the actual reason for the right to bear arms. Rather, they seek to confuse the issue by answering arguments for the right to bear arms that were never made. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, sport or target shooting, or collecting antiques and its main purpose is not to allow you to protect yourself from criminals although that is a secondary and important purpose. It is an undeniable historical fact that the central purpose of the right to bear arms is to allow the people to protect themselves against the government.
Now, why do progressives ignore or pretend not to know the true purpose behind the Second Amendment even though our side has been explaining it for many, many years? Two reasons. First, they cannot rebut the argument! History and logic show that governments are dangerous to people when they get too much power, get too crazed in their ideologies and when the people are weak, disorganized and unarmed or disarmed. In the 20th century, 170 million people were murdered by their own governments according to historian RJ Rummel. The Soviets, a US ally, killed 62 million; the Communist Chinese killed 35 million. The Nazis killed 21 million. US ally Nationalist China killed 10 million. Japan killed 6 million, Cambodia killed 2 million and Turkey killed 1.8 million.
How can they deny obvious facts? Can they argue that Germans are so different from Americans? After all, they were an advanced Western, Christian nation and German-Americans are the largest ethnic group in America. To say it can’t happen here is a bad argument. They could argue that the US state has never engaged in mass murder against its own citizens but that’s a bad argument because our citizens have always been well-armed, so that proves our point. That’s another bad argument they don’t make.
So, instead of making bad arguments against the true purpose of the Second Amendment, they make good arguments against an imaginary Second Amendment that never existed. It’s extremely effective in a population short on critical thinking skills they never learned in government school. If government schools taught critical thinking skills, the first thing the students would ask is why the hell in a free country does the government have the right to kidnap children for 12 years, send them to daytime juvenile detention centers run by progressive Democratic union members and send their parents the bill, threatening to foreclose on their houses if they don’t pay up?
The second reason why progressives never confront the true reason behind the Second Amendment is even more interesting and more important. The notion that a government with a monopoly of armed force could be an evil thing is abhorrent to them. It goes against the core of their ideology – that government guns pointed at peaceful citizens can create a utopia on earth. That can’t happen if the citizens are pointing guns back.
But progressives don’t want to admit that their ideology contains no room for privately-owned guns since there presently is too much support for the right to bear arms. So, again, they simply ignore the issue and try to confuse people by talking about hunting, target shooting and shotguns for home defense. By narrowing the scope of the purposes of gun ownership, they hope to be able to continually chip away at gun rights until all private guns are banned which is of course their actual goal. The more honest among them will admit, in response to our question – what do I do when a burglar tries to break the door down – "Call the police." Right, so the crime historians can draw a chalk line around your family’s bodies and call the medical examiner.
But that’s what they think. They really believe we would be better off if only the government had guns. That’s why they love to cite phony statistics that Professor Kleck has refuted that allegedly prove that guns in the home are likely to be used, not for defense, but against one of the members of the family. They really think we’d be better off without any guns even though they won’t admit it. That’s why Cuomo’s treasonous gun law is not the end, any more than that weasel George Pataki’s gun law was the end in the 1990’s. Since progressives are utopians who wish to use the power of the state to make life perfect on earth, there is never an end to their efforts to grab power from us.
Here’s another thing you won’t learn in government school or out of the mouths of lying progressive politicians. Most crime in America is caused by failed progressive policies such as welfare, the war on drugs and government schools. By their very nature, progressives are unable to acknowledge the failure of their own ideology. So they use guns as a scapegoat to distract attention away from their failures and avoid having to change their policies. The data is clear. The rise of the welfare state led to the destruction of the family unit in minority communities. Fathers left the home and teenage boys joined criminal gangs as a perverted form of father substitute.
Government schools failed to provide what was missing at home and merely served as a recruiting ground for gangs and a distribution point for drugs. Local high schools in this area compete for the nickname, "heroin high." The progressives’ war on drugs is an abysmal failure which merely sucks poor kids into a criminal and violent lifestyle once they realize that government school gave them no job skills and that progressive policies sucked all the economic vitality out of once bustling inner city neighborhoods.
Now, we don’t really know much about the cause of the latest school shooting – they are suppressing the lab report and other information. But we do know that several school shooters were bullied in government school and went back for revenge. Also, the politicians brag that they have made government schools gun-free zones, assuring mass killers of an easy target.
The state kidnaps kids, bullies them, turns them into bullies of the weaker, gives them dangerous psychotropic drugs, then leaves the students defenseless, and it’s the fault of the shotgun locked in your safe at home? That’s madness. School shootings are a failure of progressive policies. They invented the daytime juvenile detention center in the first place. Beyond school shootings, government schools are bad places for your kids for reasons I explained in a book and you should take them out anyway and soon.
I’m not going to argue statistics today but consider the fact that the folks in suburban and rural areas surrounding Buffalo are armed to the teeth but do not suffer from the decades-old crime wave and reign of terror criminals have imposed on the city of Buffalo. Case closed. Why should guns be confiscated from law-abiding people because progressives have unleashed a crime wave in America?
By the way, if you want people to accept your right to possess private property, guns, you had better consider accepting the right of other people to possess private property, drugs, if they so choose. Liberty is seamless and does not allow for exceptions. Liberty is doing what you wish with what you own. Doing what you wish with what you own. In fact, the war on drugs has proved to be the major driving force behind the war on guns. Same war, different name.
A couple more things they don’t teach in government school. Progressives don’t hate guns; they love guns. They love them so much they want to be the only ones who have any. They want a gun monopoly. Again, a progressive is a person who has this fantastic dream of creating a utopia on earth by threatening people with government guns if they don’t comply with their utopian schemes. The difference between progressives and us is this. They want to use guns aggressively, to make peaceful people do things they don’t want to do. We wish to use them only defensively, to stop a government that gets out of control and engages in mass murder, or systemically tramples the Bill of Rights.
The progressive state uses guns against us on a daily basis to impose their will on us. Yet, to my knowledge, not a single Patriot has fired a gun back. We have exercised remarkable restraint. So, again, the government schools, the politicians and the mainstream media lie. The truly violent gun fanatics and gun lovers are the progressive gun grabbers, not us.
One last point before I close. I have seen very few African-Americans at these rallies. I don’t understand that. No group has suffered more under government tyranny than blacks. The federal government kept them in slavery for 75 years. Slavery is a form of slow motion, mass murder. After slavery, governments took their guns away and failed to provide police protection.
One of the purposes of the 14th Amendment was to allow blacks to own guns for protection. Blacks are more likely to be the victims of violent crime. Finally, if you study the history of the various mass murders perpetrated by governments, they very often are aimed at ethnic, racial or religious minorities as they were in Germany and Turkey. If I was a member of a racial minority in a hostile world, I would be a ferocious defender of the right to bear arms.
So those are a few points about the right to bear arms they don’t teach in government school and that you won’t hear from lying politicians or the state-controlled media.
Detroit: From Rust to Riches: Is Detroit a Self-Defense Haven?
Detroit: From Rust to Riches: Is Detroit a Self-Defense Haven?: Detroit has been getting a lot of attention for its recent shootings. Not the usual criminal stuff, but the step-up in self-defense shootings as people have come to realize that the police only exist to mark the outlines of bodies with chalk.
- Here is the story of a shootout at a tax preparation business in a suburban Detroit residence. A couple attempted to rob the tax preparer in spite of the fact that a security car was sitting out front. What did the security guard use to defend his clients? One of those demonized AR-15s. But of course, no one could possibly ever have a reason to need a high-capacity magazine.
- Another Detroit senior has shot back at apparent criminals. His story is that two teenagers tried to attack and rob him, a 70-year-old girls' basketball coach of a Detroit high school, as he escorted a couple of his players to their cars after a game. One of the criminals intending violence was killed. All I saw on the news that evening is the family members of the two teenagers talking about what great kids they were, and how they would never do such a thing. Yet one of them had already been expelled from school, according to ABC News. Then it was revealed that the coach is also a Detroit Police Dept reserve officer. While the mother of the dead child claimed her son would never do any such thing, the Wayne County's Prosecutor's Office called this a textbook case of self-defense.
- A candy store owner was almost the victim of a thug who intended to rob his wholesale business. The owner pulled a gun and shot the guy dead.
- Another great defensive measure occurred when two kids (brothers) attempted to rob two utility workers as they came down a pole. One of the utility workers was armed, and he shot the attackers, hitting both. Immediately following the incident, the family once again chimed in with the usual response:
"My 16-year-old, he's a smart kid, intelligent kid. He wasn't no ghetto gangster, no robber, never beat up a person or nothing like that," said Mitchell. "I never heard of my sons carrying no guns. I just don't understand."
Really? Smart, "good" kids who have so little respect for human life that they sling around guns as if they were toys. This man who saved two lives may be punished for carrying a gun while on the job.
Now here are some stats from The Daily:
Justifiable homicide in the city shot up 79 percent in 2011 from the previous year, as citizens in the long-suffering city armed themselves and took matters into their own hands. The local rate of self-defense killings now stands 2,200 percent above the national average. Residents, unable to rely on a dwindling police force to keep them safe, are fighting back against the criminal scourge on their own. And they’re offering no apologies.
Now - before you brand Detroit as being unique in this regard (crime), these desperation crimes are occurring all over, whether it is Memphis, St. Louis, Oakland, or, of course, Chicago. Just try defending yourself in Washington, D.C. or the wonderful city of Chicago, America's gun-free killing field. At least here we can defend ourselves, and without - for the most part - overzealous prosecutors incarcerating victims who choose to serve and protect themselves and their family.
- Here is the story of a shootout at a tax preparation business in a suburban Detroit residence. A couple attempted to rob the tax preparer in spite of the fact that a security car was sitting out front. What did the security guard use to defend his clients? One of those demonized AR-15s. But of course, no one could possibly ever have a reason to need a high-capacity magazine.
- Another Detroit senior has shot back at apparent criminals. His story is that two teenagers tried to attack and rob him, a 70-year-old girls' basketball coach of a Detroit high school, as he escorted a couple of his players to their cars after a game. One of the criminals intending violence was killed. All I saw on the news that evening is the family members of the two teenagers talking about what great kids they were, and how they would never do such a thing. Yet one of them had already been expelled from school, according to ABC News. Then it was revealed that the coach is also a Detroit Police Dept reserve officer. While the mother of the dead child claimed her son would never do any such thing, the Wayne County's Prosecutor's Office called this a textbook case of self-defense.
- A candy store owner was almost the victim of a thug who intended to rob his wholesale business. The owner pulled a gun and shot the guy dead.
- Another great defensive measure occurred when two kids (brothers) attempted to rob two utility workers as they came down a pole. One of the utility workers was armed, and he shot the attackers, hitting both. Immediately following the incident, the family once again chimed in with the usual response:
"My 16-year-old, he's a smart kid, intelligent kid. He wasn't no ghetto gangster, no robber, never beat up a person or nothing like that," said Mitchell. "I never heard of my sons carrying no guns. I just don't understand."
Really? Smart, "good" kids who have so little respect for human life that they sling around guns as if they were toys. This man who saved two lives may be punished for carrying a gun while on the job.
Now here are some stats from The Daily:
Justifiable homicide in the city shot up 79 percent in 2011 from the previous year, as citizens in the long-suffering city armed themselves and took matters into their own hands. The local rate of self-defense killings now stands 2,200 percent above the national average. Residents, unable to rely on a dwindling police force to keep them safe, are fighting back against the criminal scourge on their own. And they’re offering no apologies.
Now - before you brand Detroit as being unique in this regard (crime), these desperation crimes are occurring all over, whether it is Memphis, St. Louis, Oakland, or, of course, Chicago. Just try defending yourself in Washington, D.C. or the wonderful city of Chicago, America's gun-free killing field. At least here we can defend ourselves, and without - for the most part - overzealous prosecutors incarcerating victims who choose to serve and protect themselves and their family.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
