Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, is wasting no time trying to destroy the US intelligence network. He has appointed a veteran prosecutor to "review" CIA actions to gain important information from terrorists wanting to destroy the US. This is in contrast (or in conjunction with) Holder's past actions regarding terrorists. As Deputy Attorney General he recommended pardoning Weather Underground terrorists Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg who were serving life sentences for the murders of two police officers and a Brinks armoured guard in 1981. Remember the Weather Underground? Obama's mentor, William Ayers, was a founder and leader of the communist Weather Underground. Terrorists of FALN and Clinton donor and fugitive tax evader,Mark Rich, also received pardons due to Holder's efforts. Additionally, Holder does not believe in the Second Amendment and has worked hard against it. He supported the unconstitutional ban on handguns in Washington, DC and has repeatedly spoken out in favor of the so called "assault weapons ban". He has gone so far as to blame honest US citizens and our rights for the violence caused by drug criminals in Mexico. Both the criminals in the Mexican government and their rivals outside the government.
I hate to be trite, but the handwriting is on the wall.If you can't see that the Obama administration is trying to destroy America as we know it and as it was meant to be, you are blind or you simply can't read.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Very Interesting!
I found this and thought it would be of interest.
The Liberal Fear of Guns
Jacob Hornberger
Campaign For Liberty
Friday, August 28, 2009
Liberal columnist David Sirota is scared, and he believes that the First Amendment is intended to eliminate his fear. In a column entitled "Freedom from Fear -- and the Second Amendment," Sirota argues that because some people get scared when they see guns and think that the gun owner is going to shoot them if they say the wrong thing, the Second Amendment is a threat to the First Amendment.
The purpose of the Constitution was to call into existence the federal government and, at the same time, to protect us from that government through the grant of very limited powers to the government.
The original Constitution wasn't good enough for the American people, however, who had severe reservations about calling into existence a federal government, one that they were sure would threaten their rights and liberties. Thus, they demanded passage of the Bill of Rights, which was intended to be another express safeguard, on top of the Constitution, against the federal government.
Take a look at the First Amendment. Read it carefully. Does it say anything about gun owners' threat to free speech? About freedom from fear?
No. It says that Congress shall be prohibited from infringing free speech. Now, that's quite clear, isn't it? It's Congress that the First Amendment protects us from. Our American ancestors understood that the federal government, especially Congress, was the threat to people's right to exercise free speech.
And why Congress? Because our ancestors understood that historically government officials don't like people criticizing what they're doing. So, they enact laws to punish people for criticizing government officials.
Why did our American ancestors enact the Second Amendment? Because they understood that without the right to keep and bear arms, the First Amendment becomes worthless. Why? Because if government officials realize that people lack the means to resist tyranny with force, those government officials will simply ignore the constitutional prohibition against freedom of speech by enacting laws that criminalize the criticism of government.
Don't believe me? Take a look at what's happening in Iran and China. Government officials are jailing people for criticizing the government knowing that the risk of violent revolution is virtually nonexistent.
But when the citizenry is armed, government officials have to factor that in to their deliberations when deciding whether to violate the restrictions in the First Amendment.
This is what liberals hate. They place their total trust in democracy. They won't say so expressly but they absolutely hate the idea that people have the right of revolution, which is why they continue to pooh-pooh Jefferson's quotation about watering the tree of liberty. If they were honest, they would just come out and denounce that part of the Declaration of Independence in which Jefferson stated that whenever any government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was formed, it is the right to the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government.
What about Sirota's belief that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were intended to protect him from being scared. It's just plain nonsense. The notion originated during the Great Depression, when liberal icon President Franklin Roosevelt used it to implement his socialist and facist program known as the New Deal. Running roughshod over the federal judiciary, which was declaring much of his program unconstitutional, FDR argued that he was just protecting people's "freedom from fear."
But the Constitution doesn't say anything about protecting people from their own internal fears, anxieties, depressions, or other psychological ailments. Those are things that people must conquer on their own. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect us from the federal government.
Finally, Sirota makes a false and fallacious assumption about gun control that is common to liberals. He assumes that because a law is passed prohibiting people from carrying guns, prospective murderers will respect it and obey it.
But as libertarians have long pointed out, that's just wishful nonsense. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, if a murderer isn't going to obey a law against murder, then he isn't going to obey a law against possessing a gun.
There is no better place for a murderer to do his dirty deed than in a place that he is sure is a gun-free zone. After all, compare the number of murders in public schools to those that are committed at gun shows.
The right to keep and bear arms protects us from both the federal government and private criminals. For the sake of our safety and our freedom, we can never permit those who live in fear to eviscerate this vitally important fundamental right.
The Liberal Fear of Guns
Jacob Hornberger
Campaign For Liberty
Friday, August 28, 2009
Liberal columnist David Sirota is scared, and he believes that the First Amendment is intended to eliminate his fear. In a column entitled "Freedom from Fear -- and the Second Amendment," Sirota argues that because some people get scared when they see guns and think that the gun owner is going to shoot them if they say the wrong thing, the Second Amendment is a threat to the First Amendment.
The purpose of the Constitution was to call into existence the federal government and, at the same time, to protect us from that government through the grant of very limited powers to the government.
The original Constitution wasn't good enough for the American people, however, who had severe reservations about calling into existence a federal government, one that they were sure would threaten their rights and liberties. Thus, they demanded passage of the Bill of Rights, which was intended to be another express safeguard, on top of the Constitution, against the federal government.
Take a look at the First Amendment. Read it carefully. Does it say anything about gun owners' threat to free speech? About freedom from fear?
No. It says that Congress shall be prohibited from infringing free speech. Now, that's quite clear, isn't it? It's Congress that the First Amendment protects us from. Our American ancestors understood that the federal government, especially Congress, was the threat to people's right to exercise free speech.
And why Congress? Because our ancestors understood that historically government officials don't like people criticizing what they're doing. So, they enact laws to punish people for criticizing government officials.
Why did our American ancestors enact the Second Amendment? Because they understood that without the right to keep and bear arms, the First Amendment becomes worthless. Why? Because if government officials realize that people lack the means to resist tyranny with force, those government officials will simply ignore the constitutional prohibition against freedom of speech by enacting laws that criminalize the criticism of government.
Don't believe me? Take a look at what's happening in Iran and China. Government officials are jailing people for criticizing the government knowing that the risk of violent revolution is virtually nonexistent.
But when the citizenry is armed, government officials have to factor that in to their deliberations when deciding whether to violate the restrictions in the First Amendment.
This is what liberals hate. They place their total trust in democracy. They won't say so expressly but they absolutely hate the idea that people have the right of revolution, which is why they continue to pooh-pooh Jefferson's quotation about watering the tree of liberty. If they were honest, they would just come out and denounce that part of the Declaration of Independence in which Jefferson stated that whenever any government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was formed, it is the right to the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government.
What about Sirota's belief that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were intended to protect him from being scared. It's just plain nonsense. The notion originated during the Great Depression, when liberal icon President Franklin Roosevelt used it to implement his socialist and facist program known as the New Deal. Running roughshod over the federal judiciary, which was declaring much of his program unconstitutional, FDR argued that he was just protecting people's "freedom from fear."
But the Constitution doesn't say anything about protecting people from their own internal fears, anxieties, depressions, or other psychological ailments. Those are things that people must conquer on their own. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect us from the federal government.
Finally, Sirota makes a false and fallacious assumption about gun control that is common to liberals. He assumes that because a law is passed prohibiting people from carrying guns, prospective murderers will respect it and obey it.
But as libertarians have long pointed out, that's just wishful nonsense. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, if a murderer isn't going to obey a law against murder, then he isn't going to obey a law against possessing a gun.
There is no better place for a murderer to do his dirty deed than in a place that he is sure is a gun-free zone. After all, compare the number of murders in public schools to those that are committed at gun shows.
The right to keep and bear arms protects us from both the federal government and private criminals. For the sake of our safety and our freedom, we can never permit those who live in fear to eviscerate this vitally important fundamental right.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Is The Alarm Sounding?
Once again the commentators are not quite hitting the mark. I am not even sure they are seeing the right target. One radio host states that the Obama administration and its supporters see government as the source of America's greatness and that to make America great requires more government. That is not the case. They do not care about America, other than to tear it down to third world status. This is nothing new, there have been "politicians" who have been working on this for decades. If you research The Congressional Record, Senators Strom Thurmond, Barry Goldwater, and others back in 1960 recognized the threat of subversive activity in the US. Remember, communism was advancing rapidly, with very little opposition because everyone was concentrating on, and fearful of, nuclear confrontation. While we were rightly building bomb shelters, we were ignoring the subversive elements in American society, who were working to unravel and bankrupt our free republic. These subversives began infiltrating every level of government and began to tie down our productivity and dismantle our security by legislation. We are now so overburdened that industry, jobs, and wealth have been driven out of the country. Sounds like a successful campaign according to Sun Tzu's Art of War, which is what Marx advocated. And the productive people in America did what we do, buckled down,adjusted, and worked that much harder. In having to increasingly work harder, we lost the time to pay attention to what was going on behind the scenes, and our country was disfigured and our Constitution mutilated. Our work ethic and our desire to be left alone in peace to pursue our work and lives is both an asset and a liability. We are now faced with a dilemma of freedom versus tyranny. July 4, 1776 is day of the Declaration of Independence, but the fight for independence began April 19,1775 and it took fifteen months of armed conflict to bring the American people to the realization that a fight was being thrust upon them. That has been the case with each conflict we have been drawn into. What is going to draw us next? Is the alarm sounding?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
