January 31, 2010
Those who will not learn from the past are destined to repeat it.
The cornerstone of National Socialism was the assumption that some classes of people are more worthy of life than others. Their goal was to bring about a socialist utopia by eliminating non-productive, non-participatory groups such as Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and those with deformities. Near the pinnacle of their power, anyone who could not demonstrate Aryan ancestory was considered suspect.
Anyone who builds their life on the assumption that their individual tastes, talents, and ideals are inherently superior to everyone else's is a philosophical descendent of the Nazis. If you draw distinctions between "good people" and "the masses", you are close enough it would take Occam's Razor to split the difference.
When Nancy Pelosi uses military transport to shuttle her family between coasts, when Orin Hatch uses the authority of Congress to dictate college football qualifications, when Barrack Obama demands a tax on anyone unwilling to conform to his healthcare "reform", they are acting from exactly the same frame of reference as Hilter and his allies. They might call themselves "progressives", but they are still attempting to force their personal concept of utopia down the throats of the rest of us, and that makes them philosophically identical to the National Socialist Party and its dream of an Aryan nation.
This is exactly the kind of administration the Constitution was designed to protect us from. Bush was bad, very bad, especially with the Patriot Act. But then, in a very real sense, there is little philosophical difference between Bush and Obama, and this is the real tragedy of modern American politics.
Where are the candidates whose first priority is protecting the Republic? Have we come so far down the final road that there is no saving us?
I read Faye Porter-Arenzon's life story and it brought tears to my eyes. I read the headlines of today's paper and saw far too many parallels between the decade prior to the loss of her family and the decade we are in now for my liking. Far too many indeed.
January 22, 2010
The Acronym Institute: "Will President Obama Meet the Challenge to Control Conventional Arms"
Oct. 15, 2009
ConflictVoice.org: "Watch our picture exhibition about the principles a global Arms Treaty must have"
Nov. 9, 2009
UNDispatch.com: "NRA Push Polling on UN Arms Trade Treaty"
Jan. 11, 2010
ResistNet.com: "Hillary and UN Moving Forward on Arms Trade Treaty"
Jan. 13, 2010
JBS.org: "U.S. Gun Ban as Supported by Hillary Clinton"
Jan. 21, 2010
ESPN Outdoors: "Ban by Baby Steps"
This is not just about guns. This is about George Soros trying to transform the world into a global Marxist utopia. If this treaty passes it will be the first step in the complete and total dismantling of the United States of America.
Your decision is simple: do you support the creation of a global dictatorship based on Marxist ideas of a socialist paradise?
I, for one, do not. If this treaty is signed by a representative of the United States Federal government there will be a revolution. Remember, the revolution of 1776 was sparked not by taxes, but by the attempt of General Gage to confiscate the personal firearms of Boston residents, the militia arsenal at Concord, and the field guns at Lexington.
President Obama and Hillary Clinton are preparing to give away your country. Are you really going to let them get away with it?
Many people will tell you that this treaty will only affect "military weapons". Well, it so happens that according to recent market studies available in any of a dozen magazines dedicated to the firearms market, the most popular hunting rifle in America right now is just about any brand of AR-15 clone. And the most popular pistol for home defense? The tried and true Colt 1911 (or a clone thereof).
It is very interesting to me that although the Colt 1911 is far and away the most popular handgun for home defense, it seldom appears in reports of home invasions thwarted by armed homeowners. In other words, the people in America who own, collect, use, and depend on these weapons are not the people shooting up our streets.
If this treaty stood any chance at all of helping to quiet the numerous civil wars ranging in Asia, South America, and Africa, then I would say we should support it. The problem is, those terrorists, revolutionaries, rebels, and thugs who are doing the most violence do not obtain their weapons on the open market. Instead, they buy stolen military caches, or steal military caches on their own. You could formulate a million treaties and it would not make one bit of difference to the black market trade in AK-47s, RPGs, and hand grenades. If anything it will actually make the lives of these criminals easier because if a civillian stumbles into their deal-making they can be 100% certain the civillian will be unarmed and unable to defend themselves.
Mexico has gun laws that are infinitely more restrictive than American gun laws. There is no legal right to self-defense in Mexico, which is one of the reasons drug gangs find it so easy to arm themselves and intimidate the non-gang population, including police and soldiers! Many of the weapons these gangs use are bought on the black market from Mexican officials looking to make a quick fortune so they can retire to Florida or Texas. Mexican gangs do not buy their weapons at American gun shows! They cannot, because most of the tables with the weapons they want are controlled by licensed dealers who are legally prohibited from selling to out of state buyers, and yes, that includes international buyers. Granted, a few "straw purchases" are made by Americans who then sell the guns to Mexican gangs. There are already laws on the books that would allow these people to be prosecuted. We certainly do not need a treaty to help law enforcement locate and arrest these people! Especially not a treaty that would make it virtually impossible for you to give your son or daughter a firearm as a birthday present, or leave your collection of firearms to them in your will.
You have an unalienable right to self-defense. Countries like Saudi Arabia, China, Myanmar, and even our "allies" like France, Britain, and Australia, are not willing to recognize that right. They would rather see you be a victim of a home invasion, a rapist, or a crazed drug addict, then see you shoot down in self-defense one of these "misguided souls". They are willing to, no, they crave beyond any sense or reason the freedom to sacrifice you and your family on the delusional hope that the poor, misguided miscreant that attacks you can be reformed and made into a copy of themselves. Or, if not a copy, at least a really good house servant.
January 21, 2010
Politics is a dirty business and American politics is no exception. On a hot summer morning in 1804, Vice President Aaron Burr mortally wounded former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton in a duel. The animosity between them had been growing since the earliest days of the Republic and in many ways, typifies the entire political history of our nation. Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist. The Federalist party believed that in order for the United States to survive it would have to have a strong central government. Key figures in the Federalist party were behind the drive to name George Washington our first king, an offer Washington declined.
Now, here we are some two hundred and thirty years later. After a concentrated attempt by President George Washington Bush and his Federalist-inclined Vice President Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney to bring about a consolidation of power that would have made the Presidency a virtual kingship if not an actual one, a relatively unknown Senator named Barack Hussein Obama sweeps into office on a promise of "hope and change". The first thing he sets about doing is adding to the consolidation of executive powers initiated by his predecessor. Then he appoints a few cabinet members, gets bored with the whole Congressional approval process required for cabinet appointees, and hires three dozen "Special Advisers" instead, completely bypassing Constitutional processes specifically set in place to prevent the consolidation of power in the hands of a single man.
Not that it has done him much good. He lobbied for Chicago to become the next Olympic venue and was laughed out of town. The Nobel Prize committee awarded him their highly coveted Peace Prize, even though his only real accomplishment was becoming president. He campaigns on behalf of a couple governors only to watch them go down in flames, and tries to prove his personal political correctness by appointing a Latina to the Supreme Court only to have the country up in arms and charging her with racism, or if not racism, race-based narcissism. Fortunately for Pres. Obama, she explained herself well enough that congress reluctantly approved her.
Then he brings out his crown jewel, the one accomplishment he hoped would define his first year and put him down in the history books alongside such luminaries as Lincoln and FDR, universal health care for all!
To his great surprise the American people rejected it outright. Somewhere around 38% of the people support it, but well over half are horrified at the very idea. Pres. Obama's determination to allow the federal government to take command of one-sixth of the American economy is a grand dream worthy of Alexander Hamilton himself. However, the American people, who are supposed to retain all sovereign rights, have made themselves heard in Tea Party rallies, in millions of tea bags and tea bag labels mailed into Congressional Representatives, Senators, and even the Whitehouse. In blazing newspaper editorials all across the nation, in countless acidic blog posts, and in coffee shops throughout every major city. And health care reform supporters, though declining in the polls, are just as vocal and just as caustic.
And I am reminded of Aaron Burr drawing down on Alexander Hamilton. Their duel destroyed one life and ruined another. Neither man can honestly be considered the victor, even though one did survive. How far will Pres. Obama and his czars push this agenda the people have so thoroughly rejected? How much more anger and vitriol can be injected into the riotous American political spectrum?
For over two hundred and thirty years our nation has been torn between those who dream of emulating the pomp and circumstance of European nobility and those who came here with the express intent of avoiding pomp and circumstance, a desire so strong we have now fought two wars over the very same issue. Both the Revolution and the Civil War had at their heart the same conflict: government decree vs. individual rights. Much of the political vitriol we see in the campaigns for and against healthcare reform stem from this very same conflict tearing through the American psyche.
So here we are, a year after Pres. Obama's celebrated and joyous Inauguration. A defining moment in American history that Pres. Obama and his supporters had hoped would usher in a utopian age of social reform, social justice, prosperity, and content. Instead we have 10% unemployment, a divided citizenry, an overbearing Congress, radical pundits on both extreme ends of the spectrum declaring their own righteousness, and a President who has become, quite frankly, a laughingstock of epic proportions both at home and abroad.
This may be the lowest day in American history since the founding of the Confederate States of America. Although it lacks the violence of either the Attack on Pearl Harbor or 9/11, let alone Fort Sumter or Manassas, make no mistake, the election of Senator Scott Brown this past week is a watershed moment in American history at least as significant as the success of Pres. Obama himself. The same divisive and potential destructive impulses that led to both election results echo through the healthcare debate and are right now being settled once and for all in hearts and minds all across America. Battle lines are being drawn, contingency plans are being made, and the past 24 months have seen record sales of firearms and ammunition.
Once again the American nation stands at the precipice of self-destruction. The political culture in Washington is so disconnected with the American people that they are ignoring a full year of Tea Parties, declining poll numbers, shifting attitudes of political commentators, and three lost elections. If there was ever a time for Pres. Obama to prove his mettle as a man, as a lawyer, and as a leader, that time is now. To continue pressing forward with his Marx-inspired utopian dreams of "redistribution" through healthcare reform, carbon taxes, and nationalization of key industries will have only one possible result: the complete destruction of the Democratic party in the 2010 elections.
The saddest part, and the part that scares me half to death, is that like Aaron Burr surviving his duel with Alexander Hamilton, a sweeping victory in November by the Republican party as a result of kindling the flames of nobility versus commoner will bring the seeds of its own destruction. The United States of America cannot survive as a one-party nation, regardless of which party it happens to be. This is a nation that draws its strengths from the empowerment of the individual. Partisan politics such as we have seen for the past twenty years can have only one result, civil war. We are too stubborn, too violent, and too arrogant for it to be otherwise.
Pres. Obama and his staff must give up their utopian dreams and look for some kind of livable compromise that will meet the demands of the American people for fairness and economic reliability. He has had a full year in office now. He can no longer blame the excesses of the previous administration. If the climate is rife with potential violence it is because his administration has made it such.
Man up, Barack. Recognize that your dream has failed. Set aside healthcare. Set aside cap and trade. Set aside a social agenda that never belonged in the sphere of politics to begin with. Reduce the size and cost of the federal government. Hold the states accountable for the money poured into them.
The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
January 20, 2010
CNN Video: Brown wins in Massachusetts
This is not a great victory for the Republican Party, although the press and many people will certainly claim it is. This is a great victory for the people of Massachusetts, and potentially a great victory for all Americans, even those who feel horrified at the thought of a Republican respresenting Massachusetts.
In cultural terms, the Kennedy Dynasty was a continuation of the Roosevelt Dynasty. It drew its strength from the remnants of the Whigs, that aristocratic and elitist segment of American culture which disagreed with the Revolution of 1776 and has longed ever since to give America a king so that their families could become honored internationally in the same manner as minor princes in the ancient noble houses of Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Monacco, and Great Britain.
This is not a victory of Republican vs. Democrat. This is a victory of individualism over elitism, a victory of the common people over those who seek to dictate every facet of their lives.
January 08, 2010
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." - Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931
I haven't read Dr. Adrian Rogers. I found this quote on another site I often read. Nonetheless, it is a concise presentation of the basic flaw in the liberal progressive agenda which believes beyond any realistic assessment of facts that somehow the wealthiest 5% of Americans is morally responsible to take care of the rest of us. This logic reflects a profound misunderstanding of the difference between free market capitalism and hereditary aristocracy.
In a hereditary aristocracy, a noble class holds control of the resources a society produces by virtue of their superior birth. This superior birth carries with it the assumption that the aristocracy is superior in intellect, in wisdom, and in virtue, therefore, they and they alone have the ability to fairly manage the resources a society produces. This system brings with it an inherent corruption. Because of their birthright, the aristocratic class has no moral obligation to take care of the peasantry. One of the defining philolosphies behind the enlightenment was the assumption of "noblesse oblige" by the ruling class. When the French aristocracy began assuming they had some kind of responsibility for the peasants while the much larger, and much richer, merchant class denied any such responsibility existed, the stage was set for the merchantile class to provoke the peasantry into a state of rebellion. As a result the merchants were able to remove the aristocracy and eliminate their tax burden while leaving the peasants in their poverty.
This is the same logic the current administration is attempting to apply to modern America. By convincing our more impoverished citizens that the government is responsible for taking care of them but is unable to because they have not taxed the wealthy elite heavily enough, they are shifting blame for their managerial incompetence and parasitic acquisition of wealth onto the shoulders of people who have actually made the sacrifices and taken the risks necessary to produce true wealth. The hope of the administration is that they will be able to expand the most parasitic and destructive wealth-holders by eliminating the wealth producers. If you can force the self-made millionaires into poverty or out of the nation, then you open the way for the creation of a permanent parasitic bureaucracy that can draw upon the labor and meager resources of an entrenched and permant peasantry to sustain itself while justifying this relationship on the basis of "providing for the needs of the common people".
If the liberal progressive agenda, including healthcare, is allowed to succeed, it will create in the United States a permanent two-class society: bureaucrats and peasants. Every single one of us will either be a government employee or an impoverished taxpayer. This dystopian vision is considered utopian by those in government service (teachers, law enforcement, SEIU, etc.) because it puts them both in control of the resources and in full control of the body politic.
If Pres. Obama and his "Special Advisors" are allowed to succeed, what little remains of our personal freedoms will have to die because a two-class society cannot survive in a climate of dissent. The only possible real-world consequence of continual "bailing out" of failed companies, imposition of impossible environmental regulations, and a government takeover of healthcare is the creation of a two-class society. So either this is their plan or they are totally incompetent. Either way, those of us who are not government employees, both rich and poor, are the ones who wind up losing everything in order to perpetuate and expand a parasitic government bureaucracy.
January 03, 2010
This cartoon was made in 1948. In 1948, and all through the next two decades, America dominated the world economy. It took hard work and cooperation at all levels of society. There was no magic involved. In 1948, fresh out of World War Two, the American public was deeply involved in politics. It dominated their daily discussions around the dinner table and while hanging out downtown. In 1968 the most privileged generation in the entire history of world came of age and the very first thing they did was decide the homeland that had given them their life of privilege was evil, corrupt, and unredeemable. Instead of joining ranks with their fathers and mothers, they rebelled against everything our nation had stood for. They embraced the works of Marx and Engels, they threw themselves into self-indulgent lives filled with sex, drugs, and rock and roll. They demanded to be freed from the responsibilities of adulthood in order to enjoy an endless childhood of egocentric self-aggrandizement without work, without sacrifice, and without social obligations of any kind.
This most privileged generation is now in charge of our country. They are promising us a utopian society if we only sacrifice the one thing they themselves were never willing to give up, our individual liberty.
The time has come to fire every politician high and low. Every single one from the local attorney general to the President himself. It is time to take back America. This is your country. This is my country. This country does not belong to the "global consciousness". The "new age" they are promising is based on oppressive models of absolute dictatorships, multigenerational monarchies, and entrenched aristocracies "devoted to the little people".
In the United States of America there have never been "little people"! This was true in 1776 and it is still true today. The only way it will continue to be true is if you and I remind the political and economic elite that they serve us, we do not serve them. Vote them out of office. Stop buying their products. Take back your life.
The future depends on the choices you make. For your own sake, choose wisely.
January 01, 2010
Well, Happy New Year everyone.
There are two prevailing traditions for New Year's posts. Most people either review the past year or predicate what they believe the coming year will bring. A few list up their resolutions as if making a blog post will help insure they are followed. Back in my mid-thirties I made a New Year's Resolution to never again make New Year's Resolutions and wouldn't you know it, that is the only New Year's Resolution I have ever managed to keep!
I might not have resolutions, but I do have some plans. For starters, I plan to get moved into our new house next week. Everything else is predicated on getting moved in and getting everything set up. I have to arrange to have the furniture delivered, and then get some appliances. Once that's all taken care of I can get down to working on a book or two.
It's going to be a busy year, that's for sure.