"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Sunday, January 27, 2013

For What War Is DHS Preparing?

Will Malven

At the risk of sounding somewhat reminiscent of Alex Jones--hey, even a conspiracy nut can be right on occasion--and as a consequence of the Obama Administrations new (since being reelected) zeal towards restricting our Second Amendment Rights, I am forced to address the issue which first captured some conservatives notice several months ago.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has placed orders for, in the last year, 1.2 billion (yes that's BILLION) rounds of ammunition to be delivered over the next 5 years.  One way (and admittedly a paranoid way) of looking at that number is to calculate that the number of rounds ordered is equivalent to 4 rounds for every man, woman and child in the United States.

Another way of looking at that number is to understand that throughout an entire year of the Iraq War, U.S. troops used a total of 75 million rounds of ammunition. Now DHS  does run the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center but on their web page they state that they require 20,000,000 rounds each year for training purposes . . . umm that means that the standing order for 1.2 billion rounds is a sixty year supply.

So I must ask again, "For what war is the DHS preparing?"  At a time when local law enforcement officers and agencies are struggling to find sufficient ammunition to train their officers--some are resorting to "dry-fire" exercises to make up the deficit--why does our federal law enforcement need so many rounds?

Business Insider has the source report for this article:

The Department Of Homeland Security Is Hard At Work With One Billion New Bullets

Robert Johnson | Jan. 6, 2013, 9:38 AM

Last March we found 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition slated for delivery to the Department of Homeland Service and its agencies.

Weeks later we found an additional request for 750 million rounds. The news wasn't reported much, though the order forms are still floating around.

It's not as demand for ammunition by the DHS is terribly new. Manufacturer Winchester posted an award to its site in 2009 agreeing to deliver 200 million rounds for the agency over five years. But if that's accurate it's an additional order that's still coming in on top of the others.

Major General Jerry Curry, (Ret) offered up a good point when the 750 million order became public last fall saying that number of bullets was more than 10 times what U.S. troops used in a full year of Iraqi combat.
While I am not generally given to fits of paranoia or belief in conspiracy theories, even the most avid supporter of President Obama and his Administration's policies has to admit, "That's a hell of a lot of ammunition."

Think about those numbers I cited.  Total orders equal sixteen times as much ammunition as our troops consumed in a year of fighting in Iraq.  The order equals sixty times the amount DHS reports they require for training.  

As I've cited in previous posts, our Founding Fathers believed that eternal vigilance was the price of our freedom and liberty and in my "vigilance" is am disturbed at what I am seeing.
  • Repeated and concerted efforts by the President, the Vice-President, and member of Congress to ignore, overrule, or otherwise circumvent our rights as protected in the Second Amendment.
  • Local police agencies fighting shortages of ammunition for practice
  • Federal law enforcement agencies hoarding hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition.
Equally concerning is the growing contempt I see among our elected officials, in the courts, and in the press for our Constitution.  Those on the left appear to see our Constitution as an impediment to their goals rather than a source of our strength.  They view the Constitution, at best, as a quaint, antiquated document of interest solely (if at all) as an historical curiosity, "imperfect," "flaw[ed]", and of doubtful value as a model for other nations to emulate.

Liberals would, I suspect, much prefer that we do away with that old, out-dated, out-moded "charter of negative liberties" and replace it with something granting government the power and relegating citizens to impotence (I have actually had a close liberal friend describe our Constitution as a "dusty old document" that was "dated and irrelevant").

Americans of all ilk had better wake up.  This "charter of negative liberties," this "imperfect" and flawed document of doubtful value is the source of our rights . . . all of our rights, both liberals and conservatives.  It protects us against government intrusions into our beliefs, our speech, our houses, our property, and yes, our guns.

What is it about liberals that they cannot understand the importance of the Second Amendment?  Do they honestly believe that everyone in government is out for their best interests and that they should fear their fellow citizens more than any government intrusion into their lives?  Can they possibly be that naive?

Or is it that they are blinded by their faith in government and their adherence to the demonstrably failed and out-dated ideologies of the communist movements of mid-twentieth century utopians?

Am I afraid?  No, but I am concerned.  I am attentive.  I am cautionary.  Whenever I am confronted by something which makes no sense--such as the DHS purchasing billions of rounds of ammunition, far in excess of any rationally foreseen requirement--I am motivated to ask questions.

In this case, the inescapable question is, "For what war are Janet Napolitan, President Obama, Eric Holder, and the DHS preparing?"

Long Live Our American Republic

Friday, January 25, 2013

The Ruling Elite: Feinstein Exempts Self And Colleagues

Will Malven

To paraphrase the Hindenburg reporter, "OH! The hypocrisy."

The Washing Times reports that Senator Dianne Feinstein, CCL holder, gun owner, and author of the Assault Weapons Ban now being proposed, has EXEMPTED herself and her colleagues from being subject to the restrictions she wishes to place on those for whom she works.

Yes, the "Carrie Nation of Gun-grabbing," that Advocate of Equal Rights, our Doyenne of democracy, doesn't appear to trust you, but she trusts "government officials," which just happens to include her, Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder, Secretary Sebelius (who is joining Vice-president Joe Biden's entourage in Virginia today, promoting the President's anti-gun-rights agenda), and all of her colleagues.

Feinstein: Reinstate assault weapons ban

Proposal stricter than original, faces opposition

By David Sherfinski-The Washington Times

Sen. Dianne Feinstein rolled out sweeping legislation that would ban more than 150 types of military-style semiautomatic rifles on Thursday, kicking off the congressional debate on a new assault-weapons ban that both sides say faces a steep uphill climb on Capitol Hill.


It would prohibit semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature, such as a pistol grip or telescoping. Purchasing the AR-15 Bushmaster rifle, which was used by the shooter in Newtown, would be illegal under the ban. 

Mrs. Feinstein's measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel. 
[emphasis added]
It's just another confirmation of the desire of those in government--particularly (but not confined to) members of the Democrat Party--for a two-tiered society; the "Ruling Class," those in authority (I suppose ordained by divine right to rule) and the rest of us, their serfs, whose existence and freedom of action exists solely at their discretion.  It's just another in a long line of our law-makers echoing Orwell's "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

If you believe my fears of Lady Di-Fi and her belief in oppression are absurd or unrealistic, then ask yourself, "Why?"  Why, exactly, did Ms. Feinstein intentionally exempt herself and her fellow members of our government from having to obey the same law?

If it was merely a matter of protecting our law-enforcement officials, such a carve out could have been made with precise language--it's not as though economy of verbiage is of grave concern among our law-making elite.  There is only one possible answer to that question, gun-grabber Feinstein trusts those in government, but she doesn't trust YOU.

This is further evidence that for liberal law-makers and Democrats in general, contempt for our Founding Documents and the intentions of our Founding Fathers continues to grow.  They chafe at the bit our Constitution places in their mouths.  Their feelings have long echoed what then Illinois State Senator Obama once expressed, in a pique of frustration, that our Constitution is "a charter of negative liberties."
"the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
His comment, far from being a simple statement of fact, as the left-wing chattering class would have us believe, was an expression of his (and their) frustration at the fact that the Constitution, as written (and as was clearly intended by its Framers), places very clear limitations on what law-makers and "government officials" can impose on the liberties and freedoms of citizens.  You can sense the bitterness and resentment he feels at being so restricted.

Feinstein, the President, and his supporters in and out of government are now seeking the means to circumvent those restrictions our Founding Fathers so carefully placed upon their activities and, given the opportunity, never doubt they would negate the Constitution completely in their zeal to control our lives.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

The War On Our Rights Continues Unabated

Will Malven

 . . . and again.

Lautenberg, McCarthy propose high-capacity clip ban

By David Sherfinski - The Washington Times

New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg and New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy said Tuesday that they have introduced companion bills to ban high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The proposal from the two Democrats is part of a broad set of gun controls President Obama has vowed to push for in his second term, following the shooting deaths of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., last month.

"It is clearer than ever that there is no place in our communities for military-style supersized magazines like those used inside Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Aurora, and in Tucson, and I will keep working to reinstate the ban on them," said Mr. Lautenberg.
Sigh . . .

I'll just reprint here what I commented on the thread.

Why do cops need high capacity magazines if citizens don't?
  • Are the criminals cops encounter on the streets any more dangerous than those citizens encounter?  
  • Are the home invaders cops encounter any more dangerous than the home invaders citizens encounter?  
  • Are the bank robbers cops encounter any more dangerous than the those the customers encounter?
Do we really, as a society, want the cops better armed than the citizens? 
  • How many videos do you have to see of police over stepping the bounds and assaulting citizens or violating their rights?
  • How many homeowners have been killed or brutalized by police bursting in on the wrong house? 
  • How many people's dogs have been killed by cops invading the wrong address?
Don't people realize the the most common use of excessive force is not by a citizen against a citizen, but by the police against a citizen, criminal or not?

I don't think that all cops are bad, quite the opposite.  But enough of them are, enough of them don't mind bullying the citizens who pay the taxes which pay their salaries to make any sane person concerned.

I believe most cops are decent, hard-working people who have chosen to perform an tough job, but I also believe they are human beings with the same failings and weaknesses every human has and the temptations they face--drug money, bribery money, illegal stashes of cash--are sometimes to great to pass up.

We have chosen to place our lives in their hands.  Are we to do so blindly, without even the means to protect ourselves if we have made a mistake?

When politicians don't fear their constituents, when  those who owe their positions of power to us no longer respect or fear us, what makes you think that their armed representatives will respect us?

Are you people so stupid that what happened last century in Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Timur and hundred different places doesn't have any meaning to you?

Do you really believe "It can't happen here?"

Are you really that naive?

Are you really so gullible as to believe that Obama, the Democrats, and the Republicans have nothing but your best interests at heart?

Are you really willing to bet your life, the lives of your children, your future and your children's futures on that?

. . . REALLY? 

Ya wanna bet?

By the way:
  • Did you know that Seung-Hui Cho, at Virginia Tech had two guns, one, his Glock 19, held 15 rounds/magazine and the other, a Walther P22, held--you guessed it--10 rounds/magazineDidn't seem to make much difference.
  • Did you know that Eric Harris, at Columbine, used
    • a Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun that he fired 25 times (that's 8 reloads)
    • and a Hi-Point 995 carbine that was 1994 Assault Weapons Ban compliant.  It held only 10 rounds/magazine (he just carried 13 magazines)
    .  Dylan Klebold used
    • an Itratec TEC-9 with 52, 32, and 28 round magazines
    • a Stevens 311D 12-guage double barreled shotgun
    Only the Intratec had high capacity magazines.  They also had 99 IED's.  The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was in full enforcement.  Didn't seem to make much difference.
  • Did you know that Jeffrey Weisse, at Red Lake used a .22 pistol, a Glock 23--13 rounds/magazine, and a Remington Model 870 shotgun which holds 6 round in a columnar magazine.  Didn't seem to make much difference.
When victims are unarmed, it doesn't matter if the magazine holds 30 rounds or 10 rounds, the result is the same.

The one thing all of these events and every other mass killing has had in common, besides the shooter being mentally disturbed, is that they all have occurred at "gun-free zones."

Hey!  Lautenberg, McCarthy, if you want to save lives, pass a law outlawing "gun-free zones."

It's not about saving people's lives, it's about controlling people's lives.

One last thing, will somebody tell these Beltway know-it-all "journalists" that the word is MAGAZINES, NOT CLIPS.  I thought these clowns were supposed to be "smart."

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Monday, January 21, 2013

Anti-gun's Next Tactical Offensive

Will Malven

EDIT:  Folks, I have made a grave error in this article and would like to correct that error right now.  I have made allegations against Clayton Cramer that are patently false and have done so in the most contemptible (to me) manner--by not actually reading the article to which I linked.

Far from purveying the lies that Danny Glover and his ilk have put forward, Mr. Cramer has been asserting the opposite, that gun control legislation has it's roots in racism.  I apologize most profusely to Mr. Cramer and beg his forgiveness for this unacceptable failure on my part.  I also beg the forgiveness of my readers for misstating the facts and leaving a false impression.  I have edited my article to reflect the truth.

It is to my shame that I have done so and my only excuse is no excuse at all, my own intellectual laziness. It has always been my most earnest desire to bring you only factual information and thus when I do make this kind of error, I have broken my contract to you, the reader.  On the very rare occasion that something like this happens and it is brought to my attention--or, as in this case, by self-discovery, I will make it known to you in no uncertain terms. Unlike most MSM news organizations, you will not find my admission buried deep in the article or on some back page, but forthrightly here at the top.,
It will never stop and the lies will never stop.

On the 17th, well known leftist agitator and actor, Danny Glover, was invited to speak at Texas A&M University.  Among the many things he said, was the assertion that the origin of the Second Amendment was to protect citizens from "slave revolts and uprisings by Native Americans."   Yep, the Second Amendment was intended to help keep the black man down.

Go ahead, laugh if you want, I did at first, but I guarantee you that this will soon become one of the narratives being promulgated by those on the left who wish to strip us of our inherent right to keep and bear arms.

This from CampusReform.org:

[WATCH] Actor Danny Glover tells students 2nd Amendment was created to protect slavery

By Timothy Dionisopoulos, on Jan 18, 2013

The Constitution's Second Amendment was created to bolster slavery and capture land from Native Americans, award winning actor Danny Glover told a group of students at a Texas A&M sponsored event on Thursday.  

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he said. “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.”

“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the second amendment is,” he continued.

Folks, this is not new, but the push to promote the lie is.  Thom Hartman wrote an equally pathetic assertion of what Mr. Glover claimed in Truthout. It really is one of the worst pieces of "journalism" I have come across, but it does support my claim that this is the new argument.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

By Thom Hartmann, Truthout | News Analysis Tuesday, 15 January 2013 09:35

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote.  Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

Hartman's arguments a even more pathetic, as the examples he uses actually support the opposite thesis, that as Clayton Cramer asserts, it is gun control that is sourced in racism--the effort to disarm slaves and prevent them from possessing or obtaining arms.

These false allegations are a serious, malevolent threat to our freedoms and our rights.

The Second Amendment is not ambiguous it is, like all the other amendments, an imperative.  The wording ". . . shall not be infringed." is not conditional, it does not imply possibility, it is an absolute and if you read the writings of the Framers, it was never intended to be conditional.

The Second Amendment, like all the others in the Bill Of Rights, is grounded not in some mythical desire on the part of the colonials to protect themselves from slaves rioting or "Native Americans" from uprising, it's roots far precede either of those and indeed the colonies themselves.

Those rights, the rights which Thomas Jefferson described as "endowed by our creator" find their origins in English Common Law and in the belief of the founders that each man had an inherent right to self-protection and to self-determination.  They are self-evident and follow logically from our existence as children of God who are given free will and the right to live as free men.

I am reminded of something I heard Ted Nugent say in an interview with the editor of Texas Monthly, Evan Smith:
"The Second Amendment is so obvious to me, it's insane that there's an argument.
"Let's pretend there is no document.  Let's pretend brave families didn't leave the tyrants and the slave-drivers of Europe so that they could practice the religion of their choice, that they could speak out without being murdered, that they could produce wool without the kings' men coming and taking it from them every season of harvest.  Let's pretend none of that happened.  Let's just pretend this guy named Ted Nugent parachuted onto earth and woke up one morning and saw all these wonderful resources and had dreams of excellence and being the best that [he] could be.
"I don't need the document, and don't need another man to explain to me that I have the right to defend my gift of life.  And that there's an argument in America...from Hillary Clinton, from Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, from a whole gaggle of numb-nuts who would try to tell me they will dictate where, how, and if...I can defend myself.  I find that preposterous. I find it unacceptable, and I will not accept it.
"I am a free man.  Don't tread on me!  A good law-abiding citizen, not convicted of a felony, the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is my concealed weapons permit.  Period!"
As I stated in my previous rant on the Right To Keep And Bear Arms, this right is so inherently obvious that Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argues against having a Bill Of Rights on the premise that to have such an explicit list of rights implies that government has the power to take those rights so protected.
". . . I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government . . ." [my emphasis]
". . . men disposed to usurp . . ."  Sound like anyone you know?  Do you think maybe Mayor Bloomberg is a "man disposed to usurp?"  How about Chuck Schumer, or Andrew Cuomo (who rushed his state's new restrictive gun laws through the legislature as quickly as he could so that his citizens would not be able to run to the gun store before the law was enacted), think maybe they are men "disposed to usurp?"

I think people like Bloomberg, Cuomo, Schumer, Feinstein, Obama and all of the rest of the usual suspects are people who are not simply "disposed to usurp," but who are eager to usurp, eager to insinuate themselves and their authority into every aspect of the lives of the very people they were elected to serve . . . for our own good, of course.

History is clear and the rights self-evident as are the reasons for those rights, but if men like Danny Glover or this Clayton Cramer and our beloved President have their way, those right will be taken away.  Not all at once, but incrementally.

If thirty rounds are too much--or twenty--then who is to say that 10 rounds aren't too much.  Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Legislature (Leftistlature) have already enshrined this very belief into law and instituted a seven-round limit.  Will we see this lowered further still?  Will revolvers soon be reclassified as "assault weapons?"

Will those who scoff at gun owners when they describe these laws as the beginning of "a slippery slope" now stop and look at what occurred in New York and say, "I guess they're not so crazy, it is a slippery slope," or will they blithely (and dishonestly) continue to assert that gun owners are chasing will-o-wisps?

I am certain it will be the latter.  I do not expect those "reasonable Republicans" to reevaluate their initial assertions and now take up our argument.  I expect those, like Joe Scarborough (former Representative and now co-host of MSNBC's Morning Joe), former Secretary of State Colon Powell, and Michael Steel (former RNC Chairman) to continue to sneer at the "extremists" in the NRA who are "destroying" the Republican Party.  I expect them to continue to assert that "hunters have nothing to fear" in their continued fundamental lack of understanding of what the Second Amendment is all about and why it was included in our Bill of Rights.

What is becoming readily apparent is that we have an ever-widening schism developing in our nation. There is a growing division between rural communities and urban communities.  They hold glaringly different visions of what this nation should be.

There is an ever widening chasm between those who desire liberty and freedom and. those who desire the illusion of safety offered by these cosmetic, but ineffectual, changes of law; between those who breathe the free air of liberty and bear responsibility for their own security (as our Founding Fathers intended) and those who cower in fear in their citadels of glass and steel, hoping beyond hope that the police will arrive before the criminals kill or rape them.

Whatever happens over the next few months, one thing is certain; the anti-gun forces will not be satisfied.  They will not give up, they will not relent, they will not tire, and they will not go away. We are now engaged in a battle for the survival of our nation and our culture and it is a battle we dare not lose, for the sake of our children and our children's children.

The urge to dominate, to control, and dictate is as old as mankind and if history tells us anything, it is that government abhors a vacuum and that, as many patriots in the past have said (perhaps even Thomas Jefferson):  "Eternal vigilance is the price for freedom."

The battle for liberty is an eternal battle.  I give you three quotes from three sources, all well after our victory over Britain.
". . . it is an adage, that 'what has happened once, may happen again.'  Someone has justly remarked, that 'eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.'  Let the sentinels in the towers sleep not, and slumber not."
--Virginia Free Press and Farmers Repository, May 2, 1833

 "Decendents of Ethan Alen, prove yourselves worthy of your ancient prowess--gird on the armor of Equal Right and be prepared to vindicate the faith of your revolutionary fathers, the principles of the immortal Jefferson, in the momentous contest which is waging.  'Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.'  Your safety lies in prompt and efficient ACTION, ORGANIZATION AND PERSEVERANCE."
--Vermont Patriot and State Gazette, March 21, 1836

"The world, however, is no better at this late period, than it was in former times when traitors darkened its annals; and, as in the language of Jefferson, 'eternal vigilance is the price of liberty'--we cannot be too careful in guarding and preserving the glorious inheritance left to us."
--Pennsylvania Inquirer and Daily Courier, January 4, 1838
These admonitions stand as relevant today as they were 175 years ago.  Let freedom ring.  Let your elected representatives know how you feel and let them know repeatedly.  Liberals don't just write once and then forget it, they persist, they pester, they agitate and they persevere.  If we are to win this battle, we must do the same.

We must educate our neighbors and friends, we must counter the lies they have been told and that they hear repeated endlessly by the MSM.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Friday, January 18, 2013

President Turns Deaf Ear To Citizens Petitions

Will Malven

It appears that Mr. President isn't terribly happy about how many petitions his fellow citizens are submitting for his review and response.  The White House has AGAIN tightened the restrictions for online petitioning of the President.  This from Tom's Guide (a computer enthusiast website).

Online White House Petitions Now Require 100K Signatures to Receive Response

10:30 AM - January 18, 2013 - By Catherine Cai - Source : Tom's Guide US

Only the most serious of petitioners will be able to get Obama's attention now.

It looks like the White House is tightening down regulations yet again on its online petitions. Now, online petitions need to be able to gather over 100,000 signatures in 30 days' time in order for it to grab President Obama's attention. Previously, the minimum had been set to 25,000 and then 5,000 before that. No doubt the sheer number of user load has made this decision necessary. According to Mashable, the site's been under heavy load with over 2.3 million new users, 73,000 petitions created, and 4.9 million signatures just in the last two months.
Hey all you peons out there, don't you know the President is busy . . . playing golf and attending parties?  He can't be bothered having to respond to your petitions.  He's got important lies to construct and constitutionally protected rights to undermine and usurp.

ON YOUR KNEES, SCUM!  Bow to your superior.

It's historically accurate to point out that despots invariably begin to distance themselves from their people as they start to gather power to themselves.

Just saying . . .

Every time the bar is met, they will continue to raise it.  Once 100,000 becomes routinely achievable, they will raise it to one million, or ten million.  HELLO, PEOPLE!  This President isn't interested in what you have to say.  He doesn't care about you or your plight.  He only cares about his extreme, leftist, anti-American agenda.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Politi"fact" Caught In A Lie

Will Malven

Yeah, I just can't shut up.  I tried to retire from posting, but the left simply will not allow me to do so.  Having won the election, they have chosen to press their agenda . . . on steroids.  So, I will begin posting opinion pieces once more.

Here's a gem from the Weekly Standard . . . another in a long line of revelations that prove beyond any possible doubt that the MSM was not simply biased in it's coverage of the election, but actively lying to promote Obama and destroy Romney.

First it was the dishonest and demonstrably untrue assertion, by Candy Crowley, DURING THE 2ND DEBATE, that Obama had initially called the attack in Benghazi a terrorist attack.  Her active participation in the supposed two-person debate had the desired effect of throwing Mitt Romney off balance and providing significant, critical cover to his opponent in covering up a glaring foreign policy failure of the Obama Administration which resulted in the rape, death and dismemberment of our ambassador and his staff.

Now the Weekly Standard has revealed that the self-appointed adjudicator of what is fact and what is fictions, Politifact, was indeed in error in one of their assertions--once more contradicting something Mitt Romney and his campaign were claiming (Surprise! Not!)--which gave cover to President Obama and (again) threw the Romney Campaign off balance.

Whoops: PolitiFact's 'Lie of the Year' Turns Out to Be True

12:25 PM, Jan 18, 2013 • By MARK HEMINGWAY

Last month, PolitiFact selected its "Lie of the Year." Given PolitiFact's dubious record of singling out Republicans for lying far more often than Democrats, you probably could have guessed the winner of this particular sweepstakes was a Mitt Romney campaign ad:
"It was a lie told in the critical state of Ohio in the final days of a close campaign -- that Jeep was moving its U.S. production to China. It originated with a conservative blogger, who twisted an accurate news story into a falsehood. Then it picked up steam when the Drudge Report ran with it. Even though Jeep's parent company gave a quick and clear denial, Mitt Romney repeated it and his campaign turned it into a TV ad.

And they stood by the claim, even as the media and the public expressed collective outrage against something so obviously false."

"Public expressed collective outrage"? That's essentially wishcasting on the part of PolitiFact, nor are they accurately representing what Mitt Romney said in the ad. In fact, here's PolitiFact's original "fact check" on the matter:
"[Mitt Romney] Says Barack Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China" at the cost of American jobs."
Ok. Now here's what the Reuters reported earlier this week:
"Fiat (FIA.MI) and its U.S. unit Chrysler expect to roll out at least 100,000 Jeeps in China when production starts in 2014 as they seek to catch up with rivals in the world's biggest car market. ...

"We expect production of around 100,000 Jeeps per year which is expandable to 200,000," [Chrysler CEO Sergio] Marchionne, who is also CEO of Chrysler, said on the sidelines of a conference, adding production could start in 18 months."

The article continues by pointing out that up till now, almost all of the Jeeps that are sold world-wide are manufactured here in America. You can read the rest of the article at the link in the title.

"WHOOPS!" is right.

Politifact didn't just make an error, they got it profoundly, absolutely wrong . . . not just the substance of the assertion, but the impact such a move would have on employment in America and on our struggling economy.

Once again, Mr. Romney got it right.  Once again, the press provided cover for disastrous news at a time critical to the election.

Yes, it's too late to do anything about the election and because of this continuous effort on the part of our mainstream media to influence elections rather than simply report the news we have been stuck with this incompetent, dishonest, statist for another four years.

Four years to deepen our indebtedness, four years to undermine our Constitution and curtail citizens' rights, four years to promote the destructive, demonstrably failed policies which Democrats and their useful idiot followers continue to espouse and, remarkably, believe in.

If conservatives don't stand up and begin to take a hand in our communications industry (for example by buying some of these MSM outlets and setting standards of accuracy and impartiality) and our education system (by sacrificing their dreams of wealth for a willingness to work for less so they can become educators), if we continue to ignore what the left has been doing in the 60+ years since the Soviets and their communist "fellow-travellers" set their agenda against our nation of liberty and individual rights and responsibilities, then everything, EVERYTHING our Founding Fathers and subsequent generations fought and died for will dwindle away and our nation will become just another footnote in history.

Another interesting experiment in self-government before the despots finally created their utopian slave states.

If you believe in freedom, if you believe in liberty, if you believe in all the things our Founding Fathers worked so hard to leave us . . . and what that "Greatest Generation" fought so desperately to preserve in defeating Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, then the press is your enemy.

The mainstream media is out to destroy all the rights and freedoms we now take for granted.  Why?  Because liberals know better than you what is right for you and if you don't believe that, then just ask them.  Their so arrogant and ignorant they will probably tell you so.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Liberty versus Tyranny Understanding "Needs" Versus Wants

Will Malven

I keep hearing those who want restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights asking the question, "why does someone need a 30-round magazine?"

The question is based on a false premise.  The exercise of choice in a free society isn't about "needing," it's about wanting.  In a free society, decisions are not always about what each citizen "needs," occasionally--when they can afford it-- citizens are "free" to make choices and decisions based upon their wants, rather than their needs.

We Americans live in just such a free society.  Our nation was founded on the idea that each citizen is endowed with "unalienable rights."  Among those rights, both enumerated and non-enumerated, the right of an individual to own property was considered by our Founding Fathers to be the "first right," the paramount right from which all other rights sprang.  

One right, which logically derives from the ownership of property is the right to protect that property.  Each citizen has the indisputable, logically deduced right to protect himself, his family, and his property from any external threat. 

The First Amendment with its enumerated rights; to exercise our religious beliefs, to speak freely without fear of governmental retaliation, to print criticism of our government, to assemble peaceably, and to petition the government for a "redress of grievances," all are direct, logical derivations of our right to own property.

Each subsequent Amendment in the original Bill or Rights is based upon the preservation of that first right.  The right to refuse the billeting of soldiers in our homes (the Third Amendment) and the right to be free from arbitrary and capricious searches and seizures (the Fourth Amendment) are based upon the individual citizen's freedom to exercise sovereignty over his property.  

Even the right not to self-incriminate (the Fifth Amendment), the right of each citizen to be informed of any and all charges against him (the Sixth Amendment), the right of any citizen to be tried, not by the government, but by a jury of his peers (the Seventh Amendment), and not to be subject to excessive bail (Eighth Amendment); all are direct extensions of our right to property and to protect that property, including our persons.  All derive directly from the concept of the "freedoms" enjoyed by each citizen and his right of ownership.

What we "need," or what other people believe we need, doesn't and was never intended to control our behavior.  Each citizen is free to make his own decisions as to what he "needs" or wants based upon his individual situation.

Why does someone "need" a high capacity magazine?   You might as well ask yourself why anyone "needs" a Rolex rather than a Timex, or a Tissot, Tag-Heuer, or a Movado rather than a Casio? 
Ask any American why he "needs" a Cadillac, or a Bentley, or a Mercedes rather than a Chevy or a Ford and he will look at you as though you are from another planet.  Why a 10,000 square foot mansion rather than a 1500 square foot shack?  Why a $4 million salary rather than a $40,000 salary?
The answer is simple, because we can, because we want to.  

Americans don't "need, we want, we choose.  We have the right do so, because in a free society we can.  If we have enough money, we can buy what we "want" instead of only what we, our neighbor, or the government thinks we "need."  

This is the essence of freedom.  It is the basis upon which our society has been built.  The freedom to do as we wish rather than as someone else believes we should.  As long as our actions and our wants do not threaten the lives or property of other citizens, we are free to do as we wish.

Some may then argue, "yes, but, unlike firearms with high capacity magazines, those other choices don't represent a threat to the existence of others".  This argument based upon another faulty premise.  In America, we don't pass laws based upon what others "might" do we don't pass laws based upon existential threats, we pass laws based upon real dangers, dangers which logically derive from any such behavior.  

When governments begin to pass laws to protect citizens from potential threats, from what might possibly occur, that is the beginnings of tyranny.  

Say you decide to purchase a big pick-up truck--a so-called "dually"--for example, or a large sedan.  You "might" get angry at the world and decide to drive your big pick-up truck into a school bus full of children, or into a crowd of pedestrians at a cross-walk. Such things are not unheard of, on occasion people have done exactly that.  Should government then decide to outlaw buying any large pick-up truck or large sedan?  Surely the only people who "need" such a vehicle are those few individuals who work in construction or other heavy industry, or who chauffeur passengers around cities.

Perhaps you decide to buy a sports car with a big engine, should the government restrict that freedom, because you "might" decide to run it up to 150 mph and drive it into a building filled with people?  What if a heavy equipment operator--a crane operator, for example--suddenly decided to run amok and throw his four ton load onto a crowded bus-stop?  Far-fetched, you say?  No more so that any given gun owner suddenly deciding to walk into a school or mall and begin shooting.  

The person--the average citizen--who chooses to buy a 30-round magazine is no more of a potential threat to his fellow citizens than the individual in these, or any other of a myriad of imaginable scenarios in which wrong conduct or the misuse of an object can lead to an extensive loss of life. 

We were all shocked and horrified by the nightmarish happenings at Newtown, Connecticut, when an unbalanced, isolated, alienated youth walked into Sandy Hook grammar school and did the unthinkable, the unimaginable; murdered 22 innocent children using his mother's legally purchased and owned firearms. 

We were shocked by what occurred at Sandy Hook, not because it is a common occurrence, but because it was rare.  Never before has anyone walked into one of our grade schools and, by his own choice, unleashed death and destruction of innocent children--babies--who have never done anything to deserve such a horrible fate.

The fact is that such occurrences are as rare a lightning strikes.  It's only that they are sensational, that they receive tremendous press coverage--not because they are commonplace--it is because they are so far outside the range of expected behavior that they grab our attention and send us spinning in a search for meaning and solution. 

And it is because they are so unusual that they cannot, must not be allowed to be the basis of formulating laws that restrict our behavior.  Because we are horrified, does not justify a rush to act, indeed acts taken in the heat of the moment very often turn out to have been exactly the wrong action.  If action is to be taken in response to this type of tragic occurrence, it should be measured, rational, careful action.

The proposal to ban high capacity magazines is based on a false premise.  Laws prohibiting the sale of so-called "assault weapons" are based on "potential" behavior, on what someone might possibly do, not upon likely behavior.  Connecticut has the most stringent, most restrictive gun laws in the nation.  What happened at Sandy Hook was already against the law.  Adam Lanza broke a number of existing laws in committing his horrific act.

In a free society, we cannot afford to pass laws based upon what deranged people may do.  We cannot afford to pass laws restricting automobile ownership based on the possibility that someone might, in a sudden fit of depression or rage, decide to drive his car into on-coming traffic.  To do so would restrict the rights and privileges of every citizen.

When governments begin passing laws restricting behavior based upon what their citizens "might" do rather than on what they are "likely" to do, then they have begun travelling down the road of tyranny.  In Britain they outlawed their citizens from owning firearms, except under very stringently constrained circumstances.  Yes, deaths from gun associated crimes plummeted, but overall violent crimes have surged to the point that Britain now has the highest violent crime rate in all of the European Union.  Knives have become a weapon of choice . . . and the government is now considering restrictions on the size, type, and availability of knives.

At what point does this process stop?  Suppose clubs, or cricket bats suddenly become the source of violent assault in growing numbers, should the British government then begin placing restrictions of its citizens' access to cricket bats?  At some point, reality must be taken into consideration and people must understand that it is impossible to ensure absolute safety.  Government can never pass enough laws to ensure that no citizen will be absolutely safe and one doesn't need to follow this logic very far to understand that each step down the path in pursuit of illusory "safety" leads towards enslavement.
People must decide whether they want freedom or slavery.  Neither choice offers absolute security, but only one allows people the right to choose for themselves what they will or will not do.

Another falsehood being perpetrated on the public  is that the Second Amendment has anything to do with protecting the right to "go hunting" or is about "sporting."  The Founding Fathers did not write the Second Amendment so that they and their fellow citizens could hunt deer or go target shooting.  That assertion is laughable and is based on ignorance . . . or (more worrying) an intent to deceive people in order to achieve certain political aims.  

The Second Amendment was never intended as a protection of the rights of citizens to go hunting or target shooting, neither did they include the Second Amendment to insure that citizens would always be able to defend themselves, their families, and their homes, as important and legitimate an imperative as that may be.  They did so to insure that the government would never contemplate usurping our rights and they made the basis of their decision abundantly clear in their writings both before and after our Constitution was written.

Those who wish or choose to own so-called "assault-weapons" do not do so with the intention of fighting the federal government, they do so with the intent of preventing possibility of that eventuality from ever becoming necessary.  

The purpose of the Second Amendment isn't so that the citizen can fight the federal government, it is so that those in government will never even consider tyrannical actions.  It is so that the citizens of our nation are so well armed that it is unthinkable for those in government to attempt to restrict the freedoms and liberties that American citizens enjoy and take for granted.

Most of those who own "assault weapons" do so, because they want to.  They own them because they enjoy shooting them and many citizens do so, because they believe in the same values and ideals that our Founding Fathers believed.  

People own "assault weapons," because they want them, not because they "need" them.  It is out of choice, not out of necessity and to restrict them--to restrict citizens' choices-- because of some potential, but unlikely, threat that someone might misuse them is to take the first step towards tyranny and away from freedom.

We live in a "free" society.  We live in a society in which people are free to behave as they choose, as long as their behavior doesn't threaten the lives and property of their fellow citizens and any attempt to restrict that freedom goes against the intent of the Founding Fathers and against the intent and letter of the Constitution.  

Risk is all around us.  We encounter risks every day.  Risk is a part of life in a free society and only those who live in slavery to the state can have even the illusion of living a risk-free life; the illusion, but never the reality.

Because something represents a potential threat, because someone might, at some time, decide to act badly--to misuse an object in a manner which injures or kills other people--is no excuse for restricting the freedom or right of other people to access that object.  That fact is the very essence of freedom that our Founding Fathers understood so well.

As for restricting magazine capacity, one is faced with the inevitable question, is a police officer facing an armed robber at any greater risk than a citizen on the street?  Is a police officer facing a bank robber with a shotgun at any greater risk than a home-owner facing the same in a home invasion?   

Why, if a homeowner or citizen should not be allowed to possess a magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds (or in New York state 7 rounds), why should a police officer have a higher capacity magazine?  What is the possible justification for the police to be better armed than the individual citizen?

If we want to restrict the amount of ammunition being carried in a handgun or rifle, shouldn't police return to carrying 6-shot revolvers, as they did 40 years ago?  After all, the most common occurrence of the use of excessive force occurs when the police are called upon to use their side-arms, not when a home owner defends his home or an individual on the street defends himself against a mugger.

In spite of what the elitists in the press or in Hollywood try to portray, the average owner of a semi-automatic, high capacity rifle (or "assault rifle") is not some camouflage wearing, wannabe militia man running around in the woods pretending to be "G.I. Joe" (though he may on rare occasions be just that).  He is a banker, a lawyer, a doctor, a carpenter, an electrician or any one of a myriad of professions--just an average "Joe citizen" who enjoys the sport of shooting.  A man or woman who enjoys owning such a weapon or, on occasion, going to a shooting range and cutting loose on a target, or series of targets is not an "extremist."

Is there a little "Walter Mitty" involved?  Occasionally, but . . . so what?  What business is it of anyone, but that individual, what his motivation is, as long as he is obeying the law and not threatening their fellow citizens.  Why is it anybody's business, but his?  Who is harmed by his activity, or even the actions of those wannabe militia men--those "clowns" running around in their fatigues and backpacks that the elites like to laugh at?

We already have laws against sedition and revolution.  We don't need additional laws restricting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.  

The motivation behind the efforts of those who want to restrict the right of an individual to own certain firearms which may appear to be "scary," is fear.  Fear of an unlikely, extremely rare occurrence.  Fear of their fellow citizens.  

It is an irrational fear and it is a dangerous fear, because it is that kind of fear that leads one to tyranny.  It is that fear that leads people to attempt to control the actions of others with whom they disagree.  The inevitable outcome of laws created out of that fear is the oppression of others and the restriction of the rights and freedoms of others.  It is the basis upon which dictatorships are built.

Here's another thought for you liberals who believe the Constitution to be "obsolete," outmoded, and/or that it should no longer be thought of as binding to the actions of our government.

The Constitution wasn't simply a document written and signed by our Founding Fathers as an experiment in republican-style self-government, it is also the binding contract that each state signed under which those sovereign states agreed to surrender a certain amount of their sovereignty.  It is the basis for many of the laws that we take for granted today . . . such as the Voting Rights Act, it is the authority under which the Supreme Court decided that the federal government could enforce integration laws, and it is the over-arching authority which prevents those states from seceding.   
The Constitution is the only authority which preserves the union and without it, there is nothing to prevent the several states from dissolving that union.  It is solely under that "outdated," "irrelevant" document that the federal government derives its authority.  Without the Constitution, there is no United States of America.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!!