Uh - Oh
Mayoral Election in Toronto
Mayoral hopefuls — except Ford — back gun registry
By DON PEAT, Toronto Sun
August 27, 2010
Only one of the five major mayoral candidates supports the federal government taking aim at the gun registry.
With no debate on the issue, Toronto city councillors voted 30 to 4 on Friday to reaffirm their support for the gun registry and thank Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair for his leadership on the issue.
The vote comes as the federal Conservatives seem poised to try to scrap the registry.
After the council meeting, Mayor David Miller told reporters keeping the registry “is the right thing to do” and repeated his call for handgun ownership to be banned except by police officers.
“I think it is very important for this country to end the legal possession of handguns,” Miller said. “Particularly collectors, why should we allow people to collect something that’s designed and built to kill people, not to hunt, to kill people. It’s unbelievable.”
Among the two mayoral candidates on council, Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone voted for the motion while Ford voted against it.
Ford told the Sun the registry takes aim at those using guns for hunting and other legal activities.
“It’s not the hunters that are causing the problems out there, it’s the gun-toting bandits,” he said before the vote on Friday. “The gun registry is hurting hunters ... these guys aren’t murderers and the gun registry is not going to stop criminals, drug dealers and bank robbers from carrying guns.”
When asked if he supports a handgun ban, Ford said he didn’t think there was a need for handguns.
Mayoral candidate George Smitherman said the registry shouldn’t be scrapped and vowed that if elected, he’d keep pushing for a handgun ban.
“I think it is important when a police officer is knocking on a door in the City of Toronto, they have the advantage of a database to know whether there is a prospect of guns behind those doors,” Smitherman said.
Candidate Rocco Rossi said with the recent rash of gun violence he’s worried the city is heading for an “autumn of the gun” at a time when children will be going back and forth to school.
Pantalone said he’s taking his advice on gun control from Chief Blair.
“I think we have an obligation, if we care about the safety of our neighbourhoods, to listen to the experts here (the chiefs of police),” Pantalone said.
Mayoral candidate Sarah Thomson said she agrees with council’s decision to reaffirm support for the registry.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ahh...it turns out that it's the officers's welfare that's driving the anti-gunners. Baloney.
It's worthwhile watching this play out in socialist, freedom-grabbing Canada. We don't fight for individual freedom here in America, it'll happen here too.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
WHAT'S DOIN' IN CANADA?
Friday, August 27, 2010
THEFT BY DECEPTION CONTINUES
Muslims Continue Their Practice of Da'wah(originally posted Nov 29, 2006)
Sub-title: hiding your true intentions.
But, one must assume that he falls for it at least once more, as that is when he passes the pollen packet to the next orchid.Here he is, having a go at the orchid...
during mating and subsequently are transported to the nests of their hosts, where one must assume, the beetle larvae have a meal of tasty bee larvae. Again, the bee world is duped. They are steady, but not too bright, I guess. "The aggressive chemical mimicry by the beetle larvae and their subsequent transport to their hosts' nests by the hosts themselves provide an efficient solution to the problem of locating a critical but scarce resource (meat) in a harsh environment." Aw.. There are many, many more examples of an organism's hiding its true intent by deception. Fish do it, birds, animals do it.
In the U.S. it is against the law to relieve another of their goods or services by deception. The law, appropriately named, is "Theft By Deception". Such a law keeps the honest man, honest. People who practice theft by deception are often fined, or incarcerated. Such is the basis of our common law.
But now we come to another application of the practice of hiding one's intentions to gain profit or power in man's world. Now, the muslims certainly didn't invent this practice. I'm sure it's as old as man himself, extending even back into the insect and animal world. But they've been at it for a long, long time - they even have names for the practice, have codified it in a little book they call the Qur'an. Hey, if the prophet did it, must be ok, right? And boy, he sure did it. His 10-year truce, back in the days of yore, was actually cut short - by 8 years. Just long enough for him to get his troops ready. Exactly like today. All's fair in love and war. And baby, this is war. We better not forget that.
The practice of Taqiyya, or lying, and otherwise deceiving the unsuspecting is done for the purpose of acquiring power over him. Likewise, da'wah is a gentler method of reassuring, calming any doubts, and otherwise insinuating themselves and their power aspirations into our, the lowly infidel, lives.Now we move furthur into murkier waters...
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Obama's Build-A-Mosque-A-Month Plan
INTRODUCING THE CORDOBA (white) HOUSE !
Jewish World Review August 16, 2010/ 6 Elul, 5770
You've Lost America, Mr. President
By Arnold Ahlert 
"Barack Obama's presidency is effectively over. Strong words? Ask yourself this: what other president of the United States would have spent almost three minutes speaking at the Dept. of Interior before getting around to mentioning the fact that twelve soldiers had been killed, and thirty one wounded in a massacre at Fort Hood in Texas?" (quoting himself)
Alas, most Americans let this travesty slide down the memory hole. Thankfully, like he has with so many other unpopular positions, Barack Hussein Obama has "doubled down:" his support of the Ground Zero mosque is game, set, match.
As I wrote in my previous column, the true intentions of the mosque builders were revealed when they turned down NY Governor David Patterson's offer of state land in return for re-locating the mosque away from Ground Zero. They refused. That this "factoid" was seemingly irrelevant to the president speaks volumes.
It is worth remembering this is the same president who belittled ordinary Americans for "clinging" to religion. I guess Muslims "clinging" to a location that infuriates the overwhelming majority of Americans is perfectly fine, even after it's been revealed for the rankly provocative plan it truly is.
Ordinary Americans? They recognize a self-aggrandizing, holier-than-thou phony when they see one. They aren't fooled by a president who says that, "Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground"--only seconds before he reveals the total hollowness of that statement by saying he's fine with a mosque on top of it.
Some one must have told Mr. Obama it wasn't flying. On Saturday, he issued a "clarifying" statement: he wasn't commenting on the "wisdom" of putting a mosque in a particular location, but on the "right people have that dates back to our founding."
Baloney. Reasonable Americans aren't demanding anything remotely resembling a ban on Islam or the ability of its adherents to worship as they please. They're saying show some respect for American sensibilities, and don't build a mosque adjacent to the place where a national tragedy took place--one perpetrated in the name of Islam.
I have tremendous respect for the office of the presidency. That respect has gotten me and doubtless a lot of other Americans through some pretty tough times. And as much as I've disliked some of the people who've occupied that office, I've always taken comfort in the fact that, when push comes to shove, every one of those men, irrespective of political ideology, had America's best interests at heart.
No longer. For the first time in my lifetime, we have an alien in the White House.
And that doesn't mean what some of you might think. For the purposes of this column, the "birther debate" is irrelevant. What I'm talking about is a man completely divorced from the American ethos. A man who is utterly clueless about what most Americans want, think or feel. The first president of the United States on the public record with the idea that American exceptionalism is nothing more than one item on a laundry list of national exceptionalisms--none better or worse than any other.
A man who will take America's side--only after he's concluded that it doesn't conflict with his larger worldview.
Sadly, we've reached a point where most Americans don't expect anything different. And why should they? This is a man up to his neck in meaningful associations with card-carrying members of the Hate America crowd--from boyhood mentor, communist Frank Marshall, and racist preacher, Jeremiah Wright, to Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, and other rabid leftists. This is a man who has stacked his administration with a roster of radicals dedicated to the idea that America is a nation of unrepentant bigots, racists and other low-lifes who must be whipped into "progressive" shape. This is a man who learned--and taught--the "Alinsky Method," a blueprint for the radical re-organization of America by stealth.
Why has the president doggedly kept entire parts of his life, from his early college years straight through law school, away from public view? Bet the farm it's because any paper trail from those years would reveal this president to be the Marxist/socialist radical that occasionally breaches the "teleprompted" facade he has so carefully erected.
Last Friday, the mask slipped once again. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to point a comment directly towards the Cordoba House builders explaining that, while freedom of religion is a sacred American value, their refusal to accept an alternative site on state land offered by the governor is very troubling. He could have called their bluff and said he stands with the overwhelming majority of Americans who find such a refusal appalling. He could have said that "cultural sensitivity" is a two-way street, and that it is about time self-professed "moderate Muslims" demonstrated their moderation.
But he didn't. And he didn't because, for this "citizen of the world," the idea of "putting America first" requires considerable effort. Quite frankly, this is astounding. There is no other position in government where the idea of being "reflexively American" is more important. There is no other man in the country with the unfettered power to put American men and women in harm's way. That fact alone requires unstinting loyalty to our nation, and an unbridled sense of patriotism.
Is that what Americans see when they look at Barack Obama? Or do they see a narcissistic, serial apologizer, a split-the-difference-with-our-enemies appeaser who golfs and parties--while America burns?
This president, along with his lap-dog media supporters, will continue to tell Americans that their anger and disgust has little or nothing to do with the shortcomings of Barack Obama. Everything wrong with the country is "someone else's fault," be it "racist" tea partiers, "fat cat" bankers, "greedy" doctors, "irresponsible" corporations, Republicans, or their favorite whipping boy, George W. Bush.
Sorry, Mr. Obama, no sale. You've done a grand job of alienating the majority of Americans all by yourself. And you know it too, or you wouldn't have "clarified" your position on the Ground Zero mosque twenty four hours after the "real you" revealed itself.
Perhaps someday we'll have someone in the Oval Office with a more jaundiced view of America than yours. I hope I never live to see it. And I fervently hope Americans remember exactly who you are when 2012 rolls around. We can probably muddle through two more years with a charlatan in the White House.
Heaven help America if it's six
Arnold Ahlert is a savvy curmudgeon who has no qualms about kicking your ass. He devours political policy miscreants for breakfast...from the President of the United States on down the hierarchy of government goons. And that's just for breakfast. Mr. Ahlert won't be fooled by insideous Leftist progressivism, nor will he be silenced.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Blind-Siding of America Continues, Town-By-Town
I first posted this in April, 2007. However, because the UN agenda heralded by Maurice Strong (pronounced "Morris") is mostly a hidden (in plain sight) tactic for a Global Government takeover, it seems prudent to simply re-post some of the information I dug up. Maurice Strong and his minions continue to pull the strings and levers at the highest levels of the Leftist, Marxist plan to dominate the world. Sound implausible? Maurice Strong is sitting comfortably out of sight on his "ranch" in New Mexico - try Googling his name.
More of the machinations of the UN. I'll post that tomorrow.
Oh, and this whole business about Health Care Reform (Obamacare), and not protecting our borders as required by our US Constitution? It's just giving us something to rail against, while the unseen takeover insidiously spreads it's tentacles. Why weaken us by deliberately allowing illegals to swarm over our borders? Polarizing America is a crucial step, leading to a demand by the American People for a government and a leader that will give us security. But the promised security has a dreadful, awful price. If you have been paying attention, you will have noticed that our form of government itself is being transformed. OK, what about that?
The power of the President is being incrementally increased, the role of Congress is being diminished, and the Supreme Court has been allowed to stray from it's original mandate, which was NOT to be the final arbiter of the rule of law. That was supposed to have been the role of the two Houses of Congress, but they have deferred to the Supremes. Remember, our government was originally formed to be of the people, by the people and for the people...the Gettysburg Address says it all:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
The Globalists are devilishly clever, always testing the waters, pushing this or that agenda, patiently pushing for more control. But their final goal is to secure our consent to be governed to the extent that we demand a strong leader who can provide security. That security will bear an awful price.
from Freedom 21
Understanding the enemy
"The idea in conflict with American freedom is a concept of governance in which there is no war, no suffering, no struggle for survival. It envisions a world of "equity" in which all people share equally in the earth's bounty - and in the toil required to produce it. It is a compelling idea for many people, especially for those who must constantly struggle for survival, who see it as "unfair" that some people prosper while others suffer in poverty. It is a concept that is particularly appealing to people who have been the innocent victims of war.
To achieve this utopian system of governance, there must be a central regulating authority to decide the quantity of natural resources that may be used without endangering biodiversity. A central authority must decide how much greenhouse gas may be emitted without endangering the global climate. A central authority must have the power to prevent war by disarming all nations, and all people. A central authority must decide how many people the earth can support, and have the power to keep population within safe limits. A central authority must have the financial resources to enforce the "right" of all people to "a full stomach," health care, and decent housing. A central authority must have the power to take "from each according to his ability," and redistribute to "each according to his need."
To get ahead, and ultimately to prevail, it is essential that we understand who and what the enemy actually is. The enemy is not the "liberals," or the UN, or the federal government, or the "green" NGOs. They are simply the instruments through which the real enemy facilitates its system of governance.
The real enemy is much more elusive; the real enemy is an idea. Throughout the 20th century, this idea, or concept of a system of governance, has struggled to gain ascendancy in the world. Throughout this century, this system of governance has appeared, with varying degrees of success, in different places, at different times, and described by a variety of names.
American freedom is at risk because this concept of governance is now emerging around the world, called by a new set of names, but constructed on the same principles that America has so emphatically rejected in the past. The proponents of this system of governance are committed, dedicated, smart, and rich. They are succeeding in America, and around the world, where their predecessors failed.
American freedom is at greater risk than at any time in its short history. To get ahead, and to ultimately prevail, we must understand who and what the enemy is, and how the enemy operates. Then we must develop a new strategy so strong that even the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Here's the 2007 post:
Heavy stuff tonight: First off, this 21 min video on the North American Union.[note: that video isn't available at this time] Go to YouTube for numerous videos on the SPP/NAU. Make time to watch it. You need to know this. The presenter goes chronologically through the steps laying the groundwork for the SPP/NAU, using maps, interviews, etc. It's the most cogent explanation that I've seen for what is taking place in the back halls of Congress. So, make sure you watch it.
And here is another piece of the puzzle...but after you read this article (below) on the Euro, be sure you take a look at the A Modest Proposal To The Trilateral Commission - by Robert Pastor.
Pastor's "Modest Proposal" is short, deadly.
And here's why it's bad for TEXAS, not to mention the rest of America. ARRGgghh. Why is it so bad for America? Our Judicial system is about to be trumped by a Global Judicial system. see here and here.
North American Union
Debut of the 'amero'
Pope John Paul II, Euro
By Judi McLeod
Canada Free Press
Thursday, December 14, 2006
The People's Republic of China, long lauded by America's enemies as the world's next economic power, will be the country that will force the creation of the `North American Union' (NAU).
Kofi Annan's former pointman, Canadian Maurice Strong, has been boasting from Chinese soil that China soon would be replacing America as economic king, using the jingo that's the official language at Turtle Bay.
The billions of dollars China has invested in the flagging American economy will be worthless. They will have to negotiate the exchange rate to the new amero. This will then force the creation of the North American Union.
The cloak of the NAU, fashioned in secrecy, will be thrown over an unsuspecting public, erasing the borders of three countries. Mexico, which already has legions of its citizens living and working inside America, is, in effect already inside the NAU. Their governments will inform the American and Canadian people that there is no option but the bread line.
Unfortunately, the plan, which has been in place for some time, now, has been all but ignored by the mainstream media.
One of the signs that the NAU is on its way is the collapse of the American greenback dollar paving the way for the debut of the 'amero'.
“Two analysts who have reconstructed money supply data after the Fed stopped publishing it argue a coming dollar collapse will set the stage for creating the amero as a North American currency to replace the dollar,” (WorldNetDaily, Dec. 13, 2006).
The euro followed the same blueprint of stealth and surprise. It was already issued as replacement currency before the masses could coalesce to fight it.
Who ever would have dreamed that the euro of a secular bureaucracy one day would be accepted for use at the Vatican? Pope John Paul II, who repeatedly condemned the “moral drift” of secular Brussels, sanctioned an official Euro for the Vatican.
In appearance, the Vatican coin looks very much like other Euro coins. But on the flip side of the coin, the image of Pope John Paul II faces left.
“By permitting his image on this new coin, John Paul II has given another symbolic and powerful stimulus to the European Union, which with the issuance of the Euro, is taking an important step towards the Universal Republic,” said Atila Sinke Guimarnes in Daily Catholic.
Was it all that long ago when people said the formation of the European Union was impossible? Today, the EU European holds 27 nations under its authority with other countries lined up for membership.
In the US, experts are now predicting that the collapse of the dollar is imminent.
“People in the U.S. are going to be hit hard,” says Bob Chapman publisher of The International Forecaster newsletter. “In the severe recession we are entering now, Bush will argue that we have to form a North American Union to compete with the Euro.”
“Creating the amero,” Chapman explained, “will be presented to the American public as the administration's solution for dollar recovery. In the process of creating the amero, the Bush administration just abandons the dollar.”
While the amero is being groomed to enter stage left, another phenomenon has been gathering steam outside of media headlines.
The North American Union, which got its start in secrecy, has been pulled out of the closet by a grass-roots effort, that will force it onto the agenda when Nancy Pelosi and Company open the 100th congress next month.
Pressed on by Conservative Caucus Chairman Howard Phillips; WND columnist and author Jerome Corsi; activist and American icon Phyllis Schlafly, leaders of the 50-member strong coalition are poised to halt any effort by the U.S. to enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.
Members of Schlafly's Eagle Forum have been in training for the past two months to lobby on Capitol Hill when Congress convenes.
The resolution—sponsored by Republican Reps. Virgil Goode Jr. of Virginia, Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Walter Jones of North Carolina, and Ron Paul of Texas—expresses “the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union (NAU) with Mexico or Canada.”
It's no idle boast when Phillips says, “this could be the most important project on which we've ever worked.”
Armed with the Internet release of about 1,000 documents, obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request to the Security ad Prosperity Partnership of North America, the coalition has the potential to embarrass the governments of all three countries.
According to Corsi, “the documents show the White House is engaging in collaborative relations with Mexico and Canada—outside the U.S. Constitution.
Very little about the NAU has been covered by the Canadian media.
The documents can be viewed here, on a special website set up by the Minuteman Project.
The stage has been carefully set and only intervention will stop North America from taking the same stealth route that Europe took in creating the European Union and its legal tender the Euro.
North American Union Isn't Going Away
by Jerome R. Corsi
So, does this mean the Pope is the new Caesar? Actually, that wouldn't be anything new. Popes in the Vatican have always been ruthless. I refer any doubters to:
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Catholic Church by Malachi Martin
Monday, August 02, 2010
President Obama: "Take a flying fuck"
Here we have Mr Obama being very presidential. He responds to a black heckler who believes BHO isn't looking out for the "black community". Mr Obama points out that the polls are the place to express dissatisfaction, "Or, take a flying fuck".
In the end it will be America who tells Obama to "Take a flying fuck".
Sunday, August 01, 2010
A Second American Revolution Looming?
Investors Business Daily - editorial
Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?
By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN AND GARY A ROBBINS
Posted 07/30/2010
The Internet is a large-scale version of the "Committees of Correspondence" that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.
People are asking, "Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?"
Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency.
Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There's no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.
Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.
Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He's diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.
He may soon bankrupt us and replace our big merit-based capitalist economy with a small government-directed one of his own design.
He is undermining our constitutional traditions: The rule of law and our Anglo-Saxon concepts of private property hang in the balance. Obama may be the most "consequential" president ever.
The Wall Street Journal's steadfast Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote that Barack Obama is "an alien in the White House."
His bullying and offenses against the economy and job creation are so outrageous that CEOs in the Business Roundtable finally mustered the courage to call him "anti-business." Veteran Democrat Sen. Max Baucus blurted out that Obama is engineering the biggest government-forced "redistribution of income" in history.
Fear and uncertainty stalk the land. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says America's financial future is "unusually uncertain."
A Wall Street "fear gauge" based on predicted market volatility is flashing long-term panic. New data on the federal budget confirm that record-setting deficits in the $1.4 trillion range are now endemic.
Obama is building an imperium of public debt and crushing taxes, contrary to George Washington's wise farewell admonition: "cherish public credit ... use it as sparingly as possible ... avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt ... bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not ... inconvenient and unpleasant ... ."
Opinion polls suggest that in the November mid-term elections, voters will replace the present Democratic majority in Congress with opposition Republicans — but that will not necessarily stop Obama.
A President Obama intent on achieving his transformative goals despite the disagreement of the American people has powerful weapons within reach. In one hand, he will have a veto pen to stop a new Republican Congress from repealing ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank takeover of banks.
In the other, he will have a fistful of executive orders, regulations and Obama-made fiats that have the force of law.
Under ObamaCare, he can issue new rules and regulations so insidiously powerful in their effect that higher-priced, lower-quality and rationed health care will quickly become ingrained, leaving a permanent stain.
Under Dodd-Frank, he and his agents will control all credit and financial transactions, rewarding friends and punishing opponents, discriminating on the basis of race, gender and political affiliation. Credit and liquidity may be choked by bureaucracy and politics — and the economy will suffer.
He and the EPA may try to impose by "regulatory" fiats many parts of the cap-and-trade and other climate legislation that failed in the Congress.
And by executive orders and the in terrorem effect of an industry-wide "boot on the neck" policy, he can continue to diminish energy production in the United States.
By the trick of letting current-law tax rates "expire," he can impose a $3.5 trillion 10-year tax increase that damages job-creating capital investment in an economy struggling to recover. And by failing to enforce the law and leaving America's borders open, he can continue to repopulate America with unfortunate illegals whose skill and education levels are low and whose political attitudes are often not congenial to American-style democracy.
A wounded rampaging president can do much damage — and, like Caesar, the evil he does will live long after he leaves office, whenever that may be.
The overgrown, un-pruned power of the presidency to reward, punish and intimidate may now be so overwhelming that his re-election in 2012 is already assured — Chicago-style.
• Christian, an attorney, was a deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Ford administration.
• Robbins, an economist, served at the Treasury Department in the Reagan administration.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
"...we are revolutionaries"
A liberal's argument for the necessity of the 2nd Amendment. A a damn fine argument it is.
Daily Kos
Why liberals should love the Second Amendment
by Kaili Joy Gray aka Angry Mouse
Sun Jul 04, 2010
Liberals love the Constitution.
Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."
There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.
And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.
Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.
Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.
When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts." They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.
And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.
Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.
So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.
And this is why:
No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.
If you've read the Bill of Rights -- and who among us hasn't? -- you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them: "the people."
First Amendment:
...the right of the people peaceably to assemble
Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...
Ninth Amendment:
...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Tenth Amendment:
...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.
We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about "separation of church and state," although there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment.
But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for our rights to be interpreted expansively.
We believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.
And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment.
If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the "Fuck Bush" bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment's use of "the people" has the same meaning?
But it's different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to "bear arms," join the National Guard!
Right?
Wrong.
The United States Militia Code:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.
Everyone else. Individuals. The People.
The Founders well understood that the militia is the people, for it was not only the right but the obligation of all citizens to protect and preserve their liberty and to defend themselves from the tyranny of the government.
And fighting against the tyranny of the government is certainly a liberal value.
No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.
All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.
But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that certain restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth.
We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.
But when it comes further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions.
Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable, even though the Supreme Court has now said otherwise.
Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment?
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
What if a member of Congress -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal?
Except that such an argument is ridiculous, of course. Liberals would take to the streets, send angry letters to their representatives in Washington, organize marches, call progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, liberals would be up in arms.
And yet...A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million -- about one third -- are handguns.
Such a narrow interpretation of this particular right is inconsistent with the otherwise broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And just as conservatives weaken their own arguments about protecting the Second Amendment when they will not fight as vigilantly for protecting all the others, so too do liberals weaken their arguments for civil liberties, when they pick and choose which civil liberties they deem worthy of defense.
No. 3: It doesn't matter that it's not 1776 anymore.
When the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.
Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. Or 24-hour cable news networks. Or talk radio. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?
Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment.
Liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment. And one's personal dislike of guns should be no better a reason for fighting against the Second Amendment than should one's personal dislike of Bill O'Reilly justify fighting against the First Amendment.
And yet, when discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals.
Liberals will defend the right of Cindy Sheehan to wear an anti-war T-shirt, even though the First Amendment says nothing about T-shirts.
They will defend the rights of alleged terrorists to a public trial, even though the Founders certainly could not have imagined a world in which terrorists would plot to blow up building with airplanes.
But we do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because methodology is not the point. Red herring arguments about types of ammunition or magazine capacity or handguns versus rifles are just that -- red herrings. They distract us from the underlying purpose of that right -- to ensure a free society that can hold its government accountable. The Second Amendment is no more about guns than the First Amendment is about quill pens.
No. 4: It doesn't matter if you can use it.
Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It's not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete.
Tell that to the Iraqi "insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons.
The Second Amendment is obsolete?
What other rights might be considered obsolete in today's day and age?
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, "I'll be staying with you for the indefinite future"?
It's probably been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you'd dust off your Third Amendment and say, "I don't think so, pal."
And you'd be right.
What about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? How much use does that get?
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
We all know the youth vote is typically pretty abysmal. Those lazy kids can barely get out of bed before noon, let alone get themselves to the voting booth. If they're not going to use their Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights, shouldn't we just delete the damn thing altogether?
Hell no. And this is why liberals work so hard to get out and rock the vote -- to encourage citizens to exercise their rights. That is our obligation as citizens, to protect against the government infringing upon our rights by making full use of them.
And yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals do not fight to protect that right. Instead them demand more laws. Regulate, regulate, regulate -- until the Second Amendment is nearly regulated out of existence because no one needs to have a gun anyway.
And that, sadly, is the biggest mistake of all.
No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.
In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.
It is the right of revolution.
Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.
To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary.
The Founders might never have imagined automatic weapons. But they probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either.
We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters.
And the Second Amendment is no different. It is not about how much ammunition is "excessive" or what types of guns are and are not permissible. Liberals cling to such minutia at the expense of understanding and appreciating the larger concept that underlies this right.
So.
What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive.
No, this is a rallying cry for the Bill of Rights -- for all of our rights.
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns."
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition."
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founders meant."
This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU.
This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)
This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.
This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will not protect their Second Amendment rights.
This is an appeal to liberals, not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.
Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.
Because we are revolutionaries.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Jihad in the West
This post isn't going to be a long analysis on the nature of jihad. And it isn't addressed to those who already know. Rather this is a short wake-up call to all who may be just waking up to the fact that Muslim extremists are at war with the West. It breaks down very, very simply.
For these radical extremists there are only two Houses: Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. Or, the house of Islam, and everybody else. The extremists propose to turn Dar al-Harb (the West) into Dar al-Islam, ruled by thuggish clerics . They don't care who they kill, men, women, and children (even their own children, especially their own children, if it furthers their cause). The more infidels they kill, the better. It is an obsessive ideology which consumes them like fire.
One hears quite a lot about the peaceful Muslims. Peaceful they may be, but one can't help but notice that none of these peaceful Muslims are doing anything to try to rein in their more psychotic brothers. To me that is complicity.
Nor is this addressed to those who hold Leftist views, because they want anarchy, they want war (as long as they don't have to fight in that war). They want war with America, they want to see America burn. And they're happy to see someone else do the job. They, too are suffering from a mental disorder, called Liberalism.
As I stated earlier this is addressed to those who don't know or understand the violent nature of jihad.
When President Obama and his flunkies (ie. Eric Holder, et al) try to redefine jihad and excuse the jihadists, the terrorists - when Obama tries to paint the jihadists as somehow mis-guided individuals, individuals who just happen to be of the Islam faith, watch your wallets, folks. Better watch your backs too.
We are at war, plain and simple. For more information look up the Muslim organization CAIR.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Mexican Smugglers Rule In Southwest Arizona
I began this blog in 2006 mainly because of the situation at the Arizona/Mexico border. Four years later the situation has drastically worsened. In the county of Pinal, the federal government has virtually turned over to the drug smuggling thugs, a major strip of land in the Southwest. A strip of land in the Buenas Aires National Wildlife Refuge has been deemed "off limits" to Americans. This is so shameful. Instead of defending our sovereign border with Mexico, the past and current Administrations have simply ceded it to the smugglers, putting lives of all Americans at great risk. Disgusting.
How long will this continue? Ans: It will continue until we throw out the Democratic thugs in Congress. May it be soon. Once that's done, then we can begin to throw out the Republican thugs in Wash.
My first political act, four years ago, was to write a letter to the Pope, demanding that he issue no apology to the Muslims for telling the truth about Islam. The name, No Apology, became the name (and direction) for a blog I never intended to write. Nowadays, I see the theme, No Apology, appearing everywhere, and I take that as a good sign that Americans like myself are fed up with the leftist PC baloney, and are beginning to stand up to the PC Police in politics, simply by telling the truth.
Viz, "There Will Be No Apology" - period.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Textbook Content Controversy: Tell the TRUTH
from NEW AMERICAN - thanks to DISCOVERY INSTITUTE
A Closer Look at Textbooks
Written by Raven Clabough
Friday, 28 May 2010
In the debate over textbook content, the two major points of contention always seem to be the teaching of evolution, and American history overall. Students are schooled to believe that evolution is a fact, not a theory, and that America is a democracy, when it is in fact a Constitutional Republic, and that the Constitution is a living document that evolves over time.
Perhaps most disturbing is the absolute rewriting of history and blatant falsities that are being presented to the influential young minds in some textbooks, including concepts like “FDR saved America from depression” and “Woodrow Wilson was a progressive hero.”
In light of the recent controversy surrounding the Texas Board of Education, and what may be an improvement on the information taught to America’s youth, I suddenly became curious about the “facts” found in the textbooks in my own state of residence: Florida.
On evolution, Florida’s Holt Science and Technology textbook for eighth graders indicates: “Scientists observe that species have changed over time. They also observe that the inherited characteristics in populations change over time. Scientists think that as populations change over time, new species form. Thus, newer species descend from older species. The process in which populations gradually change over time is called evolution.” When discussing the evidence for evolution, the textbook refers to fossils and fossil records, case studies of whales, and DNA. Of course, there is an entire section dedicated to the greatness that was Charles Darwin, and much of the speculative language disappears. However, the textbook does refer to Darwin’s hypothesis on natural selection as a theory.
The problem with the Holt Science textbook, however, is that even though it was copyrighted as recently as 2006, there is no mention of the alternative discoveries that dispute the theory of evolution. In 2001, the Discovery Institute launched a list of hundreds of scientists who dissent from Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. According to the Institute, “During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, “artificial intelligence” research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism’s central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.” The letter of dissent states, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Of the reasons for the dissent, the Center for Science and Culture indicated that Darwin’s theory of “microevolution,” changes within existing species, is uncontroversial and supported by a plethora of evidence, but that his theory of “macroevolution,” large-scale changes over geological time, was “controversial right from the start.” The Center states, “In the first few decades of the twentieth century, skepticism over this aspect of evolution was so strong that Darwin’s theory went into eclipse.” Dissenting scientists argue that the genetic mutations necessary to account for the theory of “macroevolution” would produce mostly harmful effects, not positive effects like the development of the human eye.
Now, I do not pretend to thoroughly comprehend evolutionary theory, but one thing seems certain. Evidence uncovered after Darwin’s death has created a divide between scientists who do and do not subscribe to the theory of macroevolution, and that it is certainly worth mentioning in the Science textbooks. According to the Center for Science and Culture, “Since the controversy over microevolution and macroevolution is at the heart of Darwin’s theory, and since evolutionary theory is so influential in modern biology, it is a disservice to students for biology curricula to ignore the controversy entirely … it is inaccurate to give students the impression that the controversy has been resolved and that all scientists have reached a consensus on the issue”.
It seems fair to say, unfortunately, that political correctness plays too much of a role in the content of school textbooks. In fact, according to a Rasmussen poll, 55 percent of parents believe that to be the case. If a science textbook even suggests that Darwin’s theory of evolution may be false, the writers are charged with supporting creationism. To avoid that clash, they simply leave out contradictory data.
In the same Rasmussen poll, a mere 31 percent of parents believed history textbooks portray American History accurately. On Glenn Beck’s May 25 episode, he furiously discussed how history is being rewritten to be politically correct. He pointed to a Virginia State McDonald Publishing History textbook that discussed the Declaration of Independence and said, “The declaration expanded these ideas that all men are created equal and they are endowed … with certain unalienable rights.” The words “by their Creator” were removed and replaced by ellipses.
Fortunately, Florida’s McDougal Littell Creating America eight grade textbook does not attempt to remove God’s role from the founding of American independence from British rule.
Where the textbook falls short, unfortunately, is in the discussion of FDR’s presidency. The book accurately asserts that “the New Deal did not end the Depression” and even states that the New Deal did forever change the U.S. government. However, in the half-page mention of the Japanese internment camps, little focus is given to the overall and blatant injustice of the internment program. The program is summed up as follows:
In the days and weeks after Pearl Harbor, several newspapers declared Japanese Americans to be a security threat. President Roosevelt eventually responded to the growing anti-Japanese hysteria. In February 1942, he signed an order that allowed for the removal of Japanese and Japanese Americans from the Pacific Coast. This action came to be known as the Japanese-American internment. More than 110,000 men, women, and children were rounded up. They had to sell their homes and possessions and leave their jobs. These citizens were placed in internment camps, areas where they were kept under guard. In these camps, families lived in single rooms with little privacy. About two-thirds of the people interned were Nisei, Japanese Americans born in the United States.
And that’s it. There is no mention of what happened to the Japanese after the war, no real focus of what life was like in these internment camps, and no discussion of how most of these citizens did not have their properties restored to them upon their release.
Likewise, the textbook does not mention the other prejudiced practices under FDR, including the imposition of restrictions on Italian and Germans living in the United States. According to the German American Internee Coalition, FDR “interned at least 11,000 persons of German ancestry” even though the law stated only “enemy aliens” could be interned. Under FDR, the Department of Justice (DOJ) “instituted very limited due process protections for those arrested.” Also under FDR, “pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, DOJ created a network of prohibited zones and restricted areas. Enemy aliens were forbidden to enter or remain in certain areas and their movements severely restricted in others.... Pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 9066, the military could restrict the liberties of citizens and aliens, as it deemed necessary.”
Yet none of that information appears in the McDougal Littell textbook. Nor does the textbook discuss FDR’s creation of the Office of War Information, which virtually regulated all information in print, inhibiting freedom of press and speech.
The issue with leaving out such pertinent information is that it lulls American students into a false sense of security about their government. To know history is to avoid repeating it. People who accuse governments’ critics of being “conspiracy theorists” are unaware that much of what people say could “never happen in America” already has.
For these reasons, and many more, it is certainly no wonder the Texas Board of Education felt compelled to investigate the content of the textbooks. It should even prompt other states to take similar actions of scrutinizing textbooks to examine what is being left out or glossed over.
