Amen. My God bless and keep all of you who serve. May He guide and comfort all of your families in times of separation and loss. Thanks to all of you.
by Erin Whitehead, Marine Corps spouse
Yesterday, many Americans paused to honor those who have served and continue serving in our nation’s military. Flags were flown and prayers were said in civilian homes and backyards around the country.
But because of the nature of our lives, the military spouse community has a special understanding of the meaning behind Memorial Day. For us, it is not simply another day off work, a chance to BBQ, or the opportunity to save big bucks on a mattress or new car. It is about honoring those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country… a sacrifice that can keep us awake at night with worry.
Sometimes, it feels as though the “civilian” community just does not get what the holiday is really about, which can feel frustrating and make us feel like we are in this alone. But the reality is that many Americans do understand the true meaning of Memorial Day. They do want to support our troops and understand, on some level, the hardships that they and their families have endured over the past 10 years of war.
But unless they’ve actually served or been a member of a military family, it’s really hard to truly “get it.” They want to do something to make sure our troops and families know how much they are appreciated… but how do they help when they don’t know what is needed?
It’s a two-way street. We have to be willing to share in what areas we can use support. We asked our social media community to share what things they think Americans could do to help out or simply show their appreciation for the sacrifices of service members and their families. We hope you will share this list with those civilians who want to show their support…because there really are a lot of them out there.
10 Ways Americans Can Support the Military Family
10) Take the time to learn what our life is really like.
There are many misconceptions about our lifestyle. The list is a mile long. Some of the most frustrating are that our spouses can return home for important events (holidays, births, all family emergencies), that once they return from deployment everything goes back to normal, and that we make a lot of money. But unless you know a family and can ask for their perspective, how do you learn more? There is no shortage of blogs written by military spouses, and they’re easy to find with a simple Google search. There are also many organizations that service military families—again, very easy to find online. And of course, you can visit www.baseguide.com to read our articles, follow us on social media, or subscribe to the magazine.
9) Leave politics out of it.
Our troops serve and put their lives on the line, despite their own personal political beliefs. Support for them should be the same. And please, when you learn that someone is military, or married to a service man or woman… don’t ask us what we think of the war. Don’t ask us who we’re voting for in the upcoming election. And please don’t give us your personal opinion on either topic. Please remember that the President, like him or not, is our spouses’ boss. Hearing an opinion that the wars have been a huge waste of money and lives can really anger a spouse. I’m not saying you shouldn’t have your own personal beliefs on these topics, but unless we are already very close friends or family, we would just rather not talk about it with you.
8) Hire Us
According to The Department of Labor, military spouse unemployment rates are 26%, way above the national average. Many times spouses follow their service member to a duty station where they are either over or under qualified for most available employment. They often do not have the same network of contacts that may help a native of the area find a job, and often times when an employer finds out someone is a military spouse, they are reluctant to hire them. We get it. Who wants to hire someone who will only be here for 2 or 3 years? The thing is, you may only have a military spouse working at your business for a few years… but the skills and life experience we bring to the table are often times outstanding. We have learned to be flexible and make the best of complicated situations, we can handle tasks on our own, and we are used to working with people from all walks of life… just to name a few. Employing the spouse of a service member isn’t just for the benefit of the spouse. Easing the financial burden for a military family reduces the stress for the person serving… making it easier for them to focus on their job. And when our service member retires, or transitions out of the military, hire them too. Military service instills a sense of loyalty, a hard work ethic, and strength of character. Veterans have proven time and time again to be very valuable employees.
7) Offer a military discount.
Sure, a small discount helps out a military family. But it is about more than that. When a business offers that discount, they are saying “thank you” on a daily basis to their military customers, and it makes us feel appreciated. Many times, the entire reason some businesses are able to thrive in a town is because a neighboring military installation brings in thousands of patrons. Besides, it has been my experience that military families are very loyal. I will drive to the other side of town to use a business that offers even a 5% discount to military… because I appreciate them for showing their support, not because I think I am entitled in any way.
6) Don't Forget our Gold Star Families.
A Gold Star Family is a family who has lost a service member. Many times when someone is killed, there is an outpouring of support for the family… at first. But it seems to wane after a while as life moves on for the rest of us. For that Gold Star family, they live with the sacrifice their loved one made every single day. Their kids grow up without either mom or dad. Young widows/widowers try to put the pieces of their lives together again. Mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters are changed forever. They need, and deserve, ongoing support from the very people their husband, daughter, father, or sister made that sacrifice for. There are many great charities that would welcome your help in making sure these families always have the support they need. I will share with you my favorite. Military Spouse Magazines 2010 Army Spouse, Nicki Bunting, started an amazing charity called “Bubba’s Belly Run”. It is in honor of her husband, Capt. Brian “Bubba” Bunting who was killed in Afghanistan shortly after returning from his two-week R&R at home. Not long after receiving his death notification, Nicki learned she was pregnant with their second son. The couple had always wanted a large family. While pregnant with her deceased husband’s child, she started this annual run to raise money for Gold Star families. In the past three years, they have raised over $100,000. To find out more information about how to donate, or to bring Bubba’s Belly Run to a town near you, please visit www.bubbasbellyrun.com. On this site, you can also inquire about sending a note of support to a family who may have lost a loved one several years ago. A note from a grateful American who just wants to offer continued condolences, thoughts or prayers can be of great comfort. Nicki saves every letter she has ever received so that her boys can one day read them and know how much people appreciate the sacrifice their dad made.
5) Admitting you don't know what to say is better than saying the wrong thing.
There are a ton of “Top 10 Things NOT to Say to A Military Spouse” lists floating out there on the Internet. I won’t rehash them all here. I truly believe most civilians mean no ill will when they say things that we may perceive as insensitive. Again, it goes back to simply not understanding because you haven’t had the same experiences that we have. As spouses, we need to learn to be less sensitive and help people understand how we feel. Instead of just getting mad, we can say “I know you didn’t mean that to offend me, but saying that you understand how I feel during deployment because your husband went to a conference in DC last week, minimizes what I am going through,” is perfectly acceptable. And for civilians, it is perfectly fine to say, “I wish I knew the words to say, but I don’t. I am willing to listen though, and try to understand.”
4) Don't offer to help, just help.
Most military members and their families are very proud. We may face some unique challenges, but we like to believe we can tackle any and every thing that comes our way. The reality is that sometimes we could use a helping hand… but you won’t find us asking often. So if you say, “Please let me know what I can do to help” to a spouse who is holding down the home front alone for a year, they will graciously respond with, “Okay. Thank you!” But they will probably never ask for help. If you know a military family living in your neighborhood, there are simple things you can do. If you are mowing your lawn on a Saturday, just pop over next door and mow theirs, too. If you notice the trashcan is still at the curb two days after pick-up, pulling it to the side of the house is a nice gesture. Have enough pizza points for a free pie? Order a pizza to be delivered one night and stick a note on the door saying “Please don’t cook tonight, pizza will be delivered at 6pm.” Know a new mom who is about to come home after delivering her baby while dad is deployed? Leave a bag of essential grocery items at her front door, so she doesn’t have to navigate the store with a brand new baby. If you are friends with the next-door neighbor whose wife is at six weeks of training in the summer, ask “Can Susie please come have a sleepover with our daughter”? If you don’t know a family, Blue Star Families is a national organization that can help you find a way to help military and their families in your area. www.bluestarfam.org
3) Let Congress know that you support our troops.
There is always legislation affecting our military being discussed in our nation’s capitol. It doesn’t matter what your politics are: Making sure that our service members and veterans are fairly compensated and have services and programs available to them should be a bi-partisan issue. Let your elected officials know that while we all know tough decisions sometimes have to be made in government, Americans are committed to making sure that those who volunteer to defend our freedoms are taken care of if those sacrifices leave them with a lifetime of physical and emotional scars. Our troops are not asking for more than what they have earned, but one of the biggest ways you can support them is to make sure our country keeps good faith with the military. Call your congressional representatives and say, “I support our troops, and it will be reflected in the way I cast my ballot”.
2) Teach your children what a real hero looks like.
The number one way to make sure our troops are appreciated and supported in the future is to teach our kids what it means to serve in the U.S. Military. There are many different kinds of people that kids seem to look up to these days. Some of them are great role models, and some of them are less than perfect examples of what it means to be a responsible, productive citizen. If you are looking for a true hero for your kids to look up to, there is no shortage of them in our Armed Forces. For example, take Sergeant Dakota Meyer, veteran of The U.S. Marine Corps and a Medal of Honor recipient. The story of his bravery in combat is impressive, but so is the way he currently lives his life as a hardworking, upstanding citizen and role model. His twitter feed features a #morningmotivation every day that I enjoy reading. A recent post read “The keys to success: Sincerity, personal integrity, humility, courtesy, wisdom and charity.” You (and your teenagers) can follow him @Dakota_Meyer at www.twitter.com. Another hero to learn more about is Army Staff Sergeant Travis Mills, who during his third tour to Afghanistan was critically injured by an IED. During that explosion he lost portions of both arms and legs and is currently only one of four living quadruple amputees from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His strength and courage as he recovers from his injuries is inspiring, and his attitude will make you believe that you too can tackle any challenge you face. To learn more about his story and to get links to his You Tube clips, visit his website at www.travismills.org. Your children may not end up one day serving in the military. But by teaching them about the sacrifices made and about some of our nation’s finest, hopefully they will grow up to be appreciative of those who do serve, and will find some way to be in service to their country as well.
1) Say "Thank You", and say it often.
Some of the most touching moments we experience happen when complete strangers stop my husband to say a heartfelt “thank you.” This is perhaps the simplest thing on the list, and one that cannot be overdone. When you see someone in uniform, extend a handshake and a “thank you for your service.” When you see an older gentlemen wearing a VFW hat, ask him when he served and tell him how much you appreciate him. This may seem like a small thing, but many of our service members and vets don’t expect much. To know they are appreciated is validation enough.
When polled, members of our military will tell you over and over again: The reason they signed up was not simply for the GI Bill, health benefits or to see the world. I believe the majority of them say that it was a desire to serve their country. Their families support them unconditionally because they love them, and believe their job is important. Many military families will tell you that they do not need help, and that the only thing they want is to make sure their service member is taken care of. It is true… military families are often times strong, resilient and capable of handling things on their own. To be honest, they really don’t need the help of their fellow Americans.
But that isn’t the point. The fact is that a small percentage of our population has volunteered to serve our nation. When called upon to do so, they will lay down their lives in defense of every single one of us, and sadly too many of them have done just that. Isn’t it the responsibility of all Americans to recognize these brave men and women for their service and to do whatever we can to show our appreciation? Lending a helping hand to a military family isn’t about charity—it is a way to let our service members know that while they are serving, America will take care of their loved ones in their absence. Helping our Gold Star families is a way to say, “We can never understand your loss, but are humbly grateful for the sacrifice your loved one made.”
As a military spouse, I can tell you that I am just as proud and independent as the next person. I choose to continue to support my husband’s career, despite the hardship because I believe in what he does and I love him dearly. I do not feel entitled to any special perks because of my husband’s service, and I don’t expect a handout.
But I will tell you that when civilians take the time to show their appreciation, it makes those lonely nights, the frequent moves, the stress of yet another looming deployment… a little easier to handle. And when my husband, a Marine who has served for 16 years, gets a tear in his eye because of the kindness of a stranger who genuinely appreciates what he does… it gives me a bit of understanding into why he wanted to serve this amazing country in the first place.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Saturday, February 23, 2013
New Jersey - Land of Liberal Fucktards
Are you fucking kidding me?
New Jersey: Assembly Passes Over 20 Anti-Gun Bills
Posted on February 22, 2013
Yesterday, the New Jersey State Assembly passed over 20 pieces of anti-gun legislation that we previously reported on here. These bills now go to the state Senate and can be heard at any time, so please begin contacting your state Senator. We have been told that action on these bills is likely to happen in March or April, however, continue to follow NRA-ILA alerts. When these bills do start to move in the Senate, New Jersey Second Amendment supporters will need to protest in record numbers against them.
Below are brief descriptions of the anti-gun bills passed in the Assembly yesterday:
Assembly Bill 588 (Spencer / Coutinho / Deignan) – Could prohibit possession of commonly owned ammunition.
Assembly Bill 1116 (Fuentes / Spencer) – Establishes 180-day prohibition on purchase of handgun for certain individuals who fail to report loss or theft of firearm.
Assembly Bill 1329 (Greenwald / Quijano / Coutinho) – Reduces maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to ten rounds.
Assembly Bill 1387 (Wilson / Johnson) – Permits municipalities to establish “weapons free zones” around schools and public facilities.
Assembly Bill 1613 (Bramnick / Johnson) – Establishes Educational Security Task Force.
Assembly Bill 3510 (Johnson / Vainieri Huttle) – Requires proof of firearms safety training as a condition for issuance of firearms purchaser identification cards and permits to purchase handguns.
Assembly Bill 3583 (Wilson) – Creates task force to explore areas to improve school safety.
Assembly Bill 3645 (Greenwald / Eustace / Mosquera) - Requires ammunition sales and transfers be conducted as face-to-face transactions.
Assembly Bill 3646 (Greenwald) - Establishes a regulatory system to govern the sale and transfer of ammunition.
Assembly Bill 3659 (Barnes, III / Johnson) - Revises definition of destructive device to include certain firearms of 50 caliber or greater.
Assembly Bill 3666 (Cryan / O’Donnell / Jasey) - Prohibits mail order, internet, telephone and any other anonymous method of ammunition sale or transfer in New Jersey.
Assembly Bill 3668 (Jasey / McKeon / Cryan) - Prohibits investment by state pension and annuity funds in companies manufacturing, importing and selling “assault firearms” for civilian use.
Assembly Bill 3687 (Stender / Fuentes) - Disqualifies persons named on federal Terrorist Watchlist from obtaining a state firearms identification card or permit to purchase handgun.
Assembly Bill 3717 (Lampitt / Singleton) - Requires submission of certain mental health records to National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
Assembly Bill 3748 (O’Donnell / Mainor / McKeon) – Criminalizes the private sale or transfer of firearms.
Assembly Bill 3750 (Cryan / O’Donnell / Quijano) - Establishes regulatory and reporting program for all ammunition sales.
Assembly Bill 3754 (Cryan / O’Donnell / Quijano) - Requires firearms seizure when mental health professional determines patient poses threat of harm to self or others.
Assembly Bill 3772 (Eustace / Wagner / Vanieri Huttle) - Requires that firearms purchaser identification cards display picture and mandates that firearms purchaser identification cards be renewed every five years.
Assembly Bill 3796 (Mainor) – Provides ninety-day window for persons to dispose of certain unlawfully possessed firearms.
Assembly Bill 3797 (Mainor) – Requires law enforcement to report certain firearms information to inter-jurisdictional electronic databases including the national Integrated Ballistics Identification Network.
Assembly Committee Resolution 180 (Greenwald) – Urges President and Congress of United States to enact legislation enforcing stricter firearms control measures.
Assembly Bill R143 (Quijano / Cryan / O’Donnell) - Expresses support for Attorney General's gun “buyback” program.
Assembly Bill R144 (Oliver) – Urges Governor Christie’s Administration not to apply for annual exemption from requirements of federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.
New Jersey: Assembly Passes Over 20 Anti-Gun Bills
Posted on February 22, 2013
Yesterday, the New Jersey State Assembly passed over 20 pieces of anti-gun legislation that we previously reported on here. These bills now go to the state Senate and can be heard at any time, so please begin contacting your state Senator. We have been told that action on these bills is likely to happen in March or April, however, continue to follow NRA-ILA alerts. When these bills do start to move in the Senate, New Jersey Second Amendment supporters will need to protest in record numbers against them.
Below are brief descriptions of the anti-gun bills passed in the Assembly yesterday:
Assembly Bill 588 (Spencer / Coutinho / Deignan) – Could prohibit possession of commonly owned ammunition.
Assembly Bill 1116 (Fuentes / Spencer) – Establishes 180-day prohibition on purchase of handgun for certain individuals who fail to report loss or theft of firearm.
Assembly Bill 1329 (Greenwald / Quijano / Coutinho) – Reduces maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to ten rounds.
Assembly Bill 1387 (Wilson / Johnson) – Permits municipalities to establish “weapons free zones” around schools and public facilities.
Assembly Bill 1613 (Bramnick / Johnson) – Establishes Educational Security Task Force.
Assembly Bill 3510 (Johnson / Vainieri Huttle) – Requires proof of firearms safety training as a condition for issuance of firearms purchaser identification cards and permits to purchase handguns.
Assembly Bill 3583 (Wilson) – Creates task force to explore areas to improve school safety.
Assembly Bill 3645 (Greenwald / Eustace / Mosquera) - Requires ammunition sales and transfers be conducted as face-to-face transactions.
Assembly Bill 3646 (Greenwald) - Establishes a regulatory system to govern the sale and transfer of ammunition.
Assembly Bill 3659 (Barnes, III / Johnson) - Revises definition of destructive device to include certain firearms of 50 caliber or greater.
Assembly Bill 3666 (Cryan / O’Donnell / Jasey) - Prohibits mail order, internet, telephone and any other anonymous method of ammunition sale or transfer in New Jersey.
Assembly Bill 3668 (Jasey / McKeon / Cryan) - Prohibits investment by state pension and annuity funds in companies manufacturing, importing and selling “assault firearms” for civilian use.
Assembly Bill 3687 (Stender / Fuentes) - Disqualifies persons named on federal Terrorist Watchlist from obtaining a state firearms identification card or permit to purchase handgun.
Assembly Bill 3717 (Lampitt / Singleton) - Requires submission of certain mental health records to National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
Assembly Bill 3748 (O’Donnell / Mainor / McKeon) – Criminalizes the private sale or transfer of firearms.
Assembly Bill 3750 (Cryan / O’Donnell / Quijano) - Establishes regulatory and reporting program for all ammunition sales.
Assembly Bill 3754 (Cryan / O’Donnell / Quijano) - Requires firearms seizure when mental health professional determines patient poses threat of harm to self or others.
Assembly Bill 3772 (Eustace / Wagner / Vanieri Huttle) - Requires that firearms purchaser identification cards display picture and mandates that firearms purchaser identification cards be renewed every five years.
Assembly Bill 3796 (Mainor) – Provides ninety-day window for persons to dispose of certain unlawfully possessed firearms.
Assembly Bill 3797 (Mainor) – Requires law enforcement to report certain firearms information to inter-jurisdictional electronic databases including the national Integrated Ballistics Identification Network.
Assembly Committee Resolution 180 (Greenwald) – Urges President and Congress of United States to enact legislation enforcing stricter firearms control measures.
Assembly Bill R143 (Quijano / Cryan / O’Donnell) - Expresses support for Attorney General's gun “buyback” program.
Assembly Bill R144 (Oliver) – Urges Governor Christie’s Administration not to apply for annual exemption from requirements of federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Why Does the Anti-Gun Camp Need to Lie?
Lying sacks of dog crap. Nothing but a duplicitous den of theives. Friggin left.
By William A. Levinson
Human beings are almost universally receptive to impartial facts, and people will therefore support any course of action that is inherently right and effective. If the truth were on the side of the enemies of the Second Amendment, they would not need to lie to the public along with fellow members of Congress.
The Brady Campaign Speaks with Forked Tongue
The Brady Campaign has a long track record of using distorted statistics to deceive the American people, including well-meaning donors of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt money. Consider, for example, the Brady Campaign's statement that a firearm in the home is 43 times as likely to kill a family member as a violent criminal. The Brady Campaign, therefore, wants us to believe that gun owners shoot family members in fits of rage, when the truth is very different.
Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.
... Putting aside the suicides, the Kellermann/Reay figures show 2.39 accidental or criminal deaths by firearm (in the home) for every justifiable fatal shooting.
Some of the "accidents" may, in fact, be suicides, because police and newspapers sometimes preserve the decedent's reputation by saying that he shot himself while cleaning his gun. This is a physical impossibility, because you have to disassemble a gun to clean it. Even if we accept the 2.39-to-1 ratio, however, note the phrase "every justifiable fatal shooting." From police instructor Massad Ayoob's The Truth About Self Protection:
For every one shooting thirteen to fifteen criminals are deterred or driven off just by the sight of the gun, and this fully accomplishes what the homeowner bought the gun for in the first place. When you also consider the fact that only about one out of four people who are shot actually dies, you realize that for every home intruder shot dead by the resident, there are ninety-nine others who don't get killed, but who give up their assaults.
The Brady Campaign must therefore admit that, for every 43 misuses of a firearm in the home (including suicide), 100 violent felonies are prevented. For every genuinely accidental or criminal firearm-related death in the home, more than 40 violent felonies are prevented. Property theft, by the way, is not a violent felony; we are talking about rapes, aggravated assaults, and murders.
The Brady Campaign adds:
What's more, a more sobering study conducted by the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis found that suicide is the leading cause of death among gun buyers, especially women, in the first year after the weapon was purchased. In fact, the study -- which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine -- found that a person who purchases a handgun is 57 times more likely to commit suicide within a week of buying the weapon than the general population as a whole.
This statement confuses cause and effect and is an insult to the intelligence of anybody who has studied basic statistics. If somebody kills himself with a handgun within a week of buying it, he almost certainly bought it for the express purpose of suicide. Similar "facts" could doubtless be quoted for first-time purchases of sleeping pills (especially with alcoholic beverages) and ropes.
The Brady Campaign has also played fast and loose with campaign finance laws, as shown by the fine that the Federal Election Commission levied against it for misconduct.
In 2003, the Brady Campaign's PAC was fined $26,000 by the Federal Election Commission for failing to properly disclose $200,000 it spent on mailings in 2000 opposing two Republican House candidates, Reps. Ernest Fletcher (R-Ky.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)
This brings us to the Million Mom March, a true poster child for the ethics, character, and integrity of the entire anti-Second Amendment movement.
The Million Mom March
The Million Mom March, with which Senators Feinstein (CA), Levin (MI), and Mikulski (MD); Hillary Clinton; Tipper Gore; and numerous members of Congress were closely associated, underscored the anti-gun movement's total lack of character and integrity as follows.
(1) Misuse of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt money to influence an election
(2) Solicitation of money, volunteer time, and corporate contributions under the fraudulent premise that firearm misuse kills 12 or 13 children a day. Dianne Feinstein, Jerrold Nadler, and many of their associates signed their names to this falsehood.
(3) A Form 990 tax return that told the IRS that the group had not tried to influence legislation even though its express purpose was to demand so-called commonsense gun laws.
A group that tells its own donors and volunteers that its mission is to promote public safety, turns around and uses the donations for lobbying and electioneering, and then tells the IRS that it spent no money on the latter activities is simply not credible. The Violence Policy Center also is on record as planning openly to lie to the public.
Assault weapons, just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms, are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
The VPC therefore seems to admit that that it is using money that is 501(c)(3) tax-exempt for educational purposes to confuse the public over the relationship between a semiautomatic rifle and a machine gun. "Plastic firearms" is yet another deliberately deceptive phrase. Many firearms have polymer frames, but their steel barrels cannot possibly get past an airport metal detector.
Dishonest Lawsuits Against the Gun Industry
The dishonesty of NY Governor Andrew Cuomo and his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, is well-known. As argued by Spitzer before he was caught with expensive prostitutes:
It is now clear that most manufacturers and wholesalers are unwilling to give up the profits they reap from selling guns into the criminal market.
...[HUD] Secretary Cuomo said, "The gun industry should follow the lead of Smith & Wesson and accept common sense-safety [sic] standards to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals.
Gun manufacturers already followed these standards meticulously by selling firearms to the public only through federally licensed gun dealers, who, of course, do not sell to criminals or minors. The ethics of Cuomo and Spitzer, therefore, differ little from those of common criminals -- a line that their fellow travelers Governor Rod Blagojevich (IL), Rep. Mario Biaggi (NY), and Rep. Bobby Rush (IL) crossed to become convicted felons. Rush was a member of the Black Panthers, who, at the time, called for the murder of police officers: "The Revolution has come, it's time to pick up the gun. Off the pigs!" Cop-killers and their supporters have nothing to say about gun control in which anybody should take the slightest interest.
This leaves the anti-Second Amendment camp with serious questions that are simply not going to go away. If they are right, why do they need to lie?
William A. Levinson, P.E. is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.
By William A. Levinson
Human beings are almost universally receptive to impartial facts, and people will therefore support any course of action that is inherently right and effective. If the truth were on the side of the enemies of the Second Amendment, they would not need to lie to the public along with fellow members of Congress.
The Brady Campaign Speaks with Forked Tongue
The Brady Campaign has a long track record of using distorted statistics to deceive the American people, including well-meaning donors of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt money. Consider, for example, the Brady Campaign's statement that a firearm in the home is 43 times as likely to kill a family member as a violent criminal. The Brady Campaign, therefore, wants us to believe that gun owners shoot family members in fits of rage, when the truth is very different.
Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.
... Putting aside the suicides, the Kellermann/Reay figures show 2.39 accidental or criminal deaths by firearm (in the home) for every justifiable fatal shooting.
Some of the "accidents" may, in fact, be suicides, because police and newspapers sometimes preserve the decedent's reputation by saying that he shot himself while cleaning his gun. This is a physical impossibility, because you have to disassemble a gun to clean it. Even if we accept the 2.39-to-1 ratio, however, note the phrase "every justifiable fatal shooting." From police instructor Massad Ayoob's The Truth About Self Protection:
For every one shooting thirteen to fifteen criminals are deterred or driven off just by the sight of the gun, and this fully accomplishes what the homeowner bought the gun for in the first place. When you also consider the fact that only about one out of four people who are shot actually dies, you realize that for every home intruder shot dead by the resident, there are ninety-nine others who don't get killed, but who give up their assaults.
The Brady Campaign must therefore admit that, for every 43 misuses of a firearm in the home (including suicide), 100 violent felonies are prevented. For every genuinely accidental or criminal firearm-related death in the home, more than 40 violent felonies are prevented. Property theft, by the way, is not a violent felony; we are talking about rapes, aggravated assaults, and murders.
The Brady Campaign adds:
What's more, a more sobering study conducted by the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis found that suicide is the leading cause of death among gun buyers, especially women, in the first year after the weapon was purchased. In fact, the study -- which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine -- found that a person who purchases a handgun is 57 times more likely to commit suicide within a week of buying the weapon than the general population as a whole.
This statement confuses cause and effect and is an insult to the intelligence of anybody who has studied basic statistics. If somebody kills himself with a handgun within a week of buying it, he almost certainly bought it for the express purpose of suicide. Similar "facts" could doubtless be quoted for first-time purchases of sleeping pills (especially with alcoholic beverages) and ropes.
The Brady Campaign has also played fast and loose with campaign finance laws, as shown by the fine that the Federal Election Commission levied against it for misconduct.
In 2003, the Brady Campaign's PAC was fined $26,000 by the Federal Election Commission for failing to properly disclose $200,000 it spent on mailings in 2000 opposing two Republican House candidates, Reps. Ernest Fletcher (R-Ky.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)
This brings us to the Million Mom March, a true poster child for the ethics, character, and integrity of the entire anti-Second Amendment movement.
The Million Mom March
The Million Mom March, with which Senators Feinstein (CA), Levin (MI), and Mikulski (MD); Hillary Clinton; Tipper Gore; and numerous members of Congress were closely associated, underscored the anti-gun movement's total lack of character and integrity as follows.
(1) Misuse of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt money to influence an election
(2) Solicitation of money, volunteer time, and corporate contributions under the fraudulent premise that firearm misuse kills 12 or 13 children a day. Dianne Feinstein, Jerrold Nadler, and many of their associates signed their names to this falsehood.
(3) A Form 990 tax return that told the IRS that the group had not tried to influence legislation even though its express purpose was to demand so-called commonsense gun laws.
A group that tells its own donors and volunteers that its mission is to promote public safety, turns around and uses the donations for lobbying and electioneering, and then tells the IRS that it spent no money on the latter activities is simply not credible. The Violence Policy Center also is on record as planning openly to lie to the public.
Assault weapons, just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms, are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
The VPC therefore seems to admit that that it is using money that is 501(c)(3) tax-exempt for educational purposes to confuse the public over the relationship between a semiautomatic rifle and a machine gun. "Plastic firearms" is yet another deliberately deceptive phrase. Many firearms have polymer frames, but their steel barrels cannot possibly get past an airport metal detector.
Dishonest Lawsuits Against the Gun Industry
The dishonesty of NY Governor Andrew Cuomo and his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, is well-known. As argued by Spitzer before he was caught with expensive prostitutes:
It is now clear that most manufacturers and wholesalers are unwilling to give up the profits they reap from selling guns into the criminal market.
...[HUD] Secretary Cuomo said, "The gun industry should follow the lead of Smith & Wesson and accept common sense-safety [sic] standards to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals.
Gun manufacturers already followed these standards meticulously by selling firearms to the public only through federally licensed gun dealers, who, of course, do not sell to criminals or minors. The ethics of Cuomo and Spitzer, therefore, differ little from those of common criminals -- a line that their fellow travelers Governor Rod Blagojevich (IL), Rep. Mario Biaggi (NY), and Rep. Bobby Rush (IL) crossed to become convicted felons. Rush was a member of the Black Panthers, who, at the time, called for the murder of police officers: "The Revolution has come, it's time to pick up the gun. Off the pigs!" Cop-killers and their supporters have nothing to say about gun control in which anybody should take the slightest interest.
This leaves the anti-Second Amendment camp with serious questions that are simply not going to go away. If they are right, why do they need to lie?
William A. Levinson, P.E. is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
'Gun Violence in America Is Off the Chart'
Keeping with the theme of lies from the left...
By Henry Percy
In August 2012, Fareed Zakaria wrote a piece for Time magazine in which he asserted that "gun violence in America is off the chart compared with every other country on the planet. The gun homicide rate per capita in the U.S. is 30 times that of Britain and Australia."
Because the arguments he made then are being parroted anew in the drive for gun control, his assertions cry out for examination in light of the facts. To start, why would he single out the "gun homicide" rate rather than the total homicide rate? I know a couple whose son was beaten on the back of the head with a tire iron. While his parents are bitter that neither offender was charged, I never heard them say, "Well, at least Tom was murdered with a blunt instrument rather than a gun."
Unfortunately, Mr. Zakaria neglects to document the sources for his facts, if indeed they are facts. Though holding a PhD from Yale and serving as a trustee for that institution, he does not recognize plagiarism when he commits it -- he issued an "unapologetic apology" for stealing much of his article and was suspended from publishing in Time for a month. Well, he did not call it stealing, merely a "terrible mistake ... a serious lapse." But he will be happy to talk to your Rotary Club -- his fee is only $75,000.
Let's look at homicide rates as reported in the 2011 Global Study on Homicide, conducted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The latest year with the most complete data is 2008, used here. The total homicide rate for the US was 4.1 times that of the UK and 4.5 times that for Australia. Still not good, but nowhere close to the "30 times" Mr. Zakaria laments.
The UN Global Study has data on 187 countries, ranging from a high of 61.3 per 100,000 in Honduras to 0 in Palau. Where was the United States? Number 99, with 5.4 homicides per 100,000. Over half the countries in the world had a homicide rate higher than ours.
Homicide in Developed Countries
Because admitting that the US homicide rate is low compared to over half the world's countries would undercut their arguments, gun-controllers instead compare us to "rich" or "developed" nations -- carefully cherry picked, of course. I cannot count how many articles I have read about the rapid expansion of the middle-class in Mexico, about Brazil's status amongst the rapidly rising BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China), etc. Mexico's homicide rate in 2008 was 2.4 times greater than that of the US, Brazil's 4.2 times greater. Somehow these countries are ignored when someone like Mr. Zakaria wants to make a point.
Of course, statistics always need qualification. For instance, the murder rate in the US would be higher were it not for the improvement in emergency room procedures in the past 10 years alone. On the other hand, homicides for many Third World countries are understated for a variety of reasons: they lack reliable, centralized databases, people are hesitant to report crimes to a corrupt police force, and so on. In addition, governments have plenty of incentive to understate their homicide rates, such as encouraging investment or not scaring away tourists. In short, many of the figures contained in the UN Global Study are probably too low.
Small versus Large Countries
There is another problem with comparing every country on the globe head to head: the vast differences in population size and makeup. For instance, Palau, an island nation in Micronesia, has a population of 21,000 and a homicide rate of zero. They could have two murders next year and suddenly move up to position 68. Comparing a country the size of the US, with 315 million people, to a country the size of Palau makes no sense. I am fairly confident there are many American cities with populations of 20,000 with a homicide rate of zero.
Homicide rates within the US vary tremendously by locality, as data from the US Census Bureau shows. For 2009, the high was 24.2 per 100,000 (District of Columbia) and the low 0.9 (New Hampshire). Moreover, New Hampshire is only half as murderous as Belgium, one of the "rich" or "developed" nations writers like Mr. Zakaria are so fond of comparing us to. In fact, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Utah, and Vermont all have rates lower than Belgium's.
Mr. Zakaria finds a "blindingly obvious causal connection" between "easier access to guns" and homicide rates. If that is so, why does the nation's capital, with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, have a homicide rate nearly 27 times higher than that of New Hampshire ("Live Free or Die"), which has some of the most permissive gun laws (open carry without license, concealed carry licenses for $10)? Why does Illinois, likewise boasting extremely restrictive gun laws, have a rate over 9 times higher than New Hampshire's? If there is a "blindingly obvious causal connection," could it be that high homicide rates go hand in hand with restrictive gun laws? Or could the problem be with people, human beings, rather than inanimate objects?
Race
Shortly after being sworn in as Attorney General, Eric Holder told an interviewer that the US is "essentially a nation of cowards ... we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about things racial." I don't know if Mr. Holder is an "average American," but here's a small contribution to the national dialogue on "things racial" from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
In 2008, the homicide victimization rate for blacks (19.6 homicides per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (3.3 homicides per 100,000) ... the offending rate for blacks (24.7 offenders per 100,000) was 7 times higher than the rate for whites (3.4 offenders per 100,000).
Guns from Mexico?
Just before New Years I was channel surfing and paused upon seeing the stern visage of the Rev. Jesse Jackson opining on the 500 murders in Chicago in 2012. He said he was not going to accept that, and added, "These guns come from the suburbs and from Mexico." Mexico? The advocates of gun control have been telling us for years that guns flow from the US to Mexico. While it has always been debatable how many of Mexico's weapons come from America, we do know that well over 2,000 were delivered to the drug cartels courtesy of our own federal government through Operation Fast & Furious. Now we are to believe that the bad guys in Chicago transport weapons across an international border and over 1,300 miles north?
Gun-Free Households
Then there is Amitai Etzioni, University Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University, writing on the Huffington Post. He urges everyone to put up a "gun free" sign in their home, apartment or condo and counsels parents not to allow their children to play in homes without the signs. Can't we just declare the whole world "gun free" and eliminate murder?
David Gregory, in a recent interview on NBC with Wayne LaPierre, head of the National Rifle Association, mocked the notion of posting armed guards in schools. As it happens, Mr. Gregory sends his children to Sidwell Friends School, where the children of presidents traditionally go (Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton studied there, as do Sasha and Malia Obama). With tuition at $34,000, Sidwell caters to millionaires and billionaires.
The "Friends" in the school's name refers to the Society of Friends (Quakers) who run it. Sidwell has an 11-member security department, many of them police officers (presumably armed, though it is difficult to know). These are in addition to the Secret Service detail that protects the Obamas' two daughters. It is a delicious irony that Quakers, dedicated pacifists, might welcome so many guns in their midst.
Here's a question for Professor Etzioni: Should David Gregory refuse to let his children play with Sasha or Malia because the White House is not gun free? If signs are so effective, here's an opportunity for the president to lead from the front by disarming the Secret Service and hanging "Gun-Free Zone" signs on the railings around the presidential mansion.
The Mentally Ill
What can be done? How about legislation making it easier to commit the mentally ill. Most were deinstitutionalized in the 60s and 70s? Between 1955 and 2000, the number of state psychiatric hospital beds was reduced by 93%. The campaign to release inmates was largely driven by: 1) the belief that the unstable could simply take medications and live in the community; and 2) cases of wrongful committal (yeah, man, the people that are locked up are the only sane ones, man, just watch One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest). Were people wrongfully committed to mental hospitals? No doubt. Are people wrongfully imprisoned? Of course. Is that sufficient reason to dismantle our criminal justice system? Are schizophrenics better off pushing a shopping cart, jibbering to themselves, and sleeping under overpasses? But, someone says, most of the disturbed are harmless. True. But how many Jared Loughners, James Holmeses, and Adam Lanzas can we tolerate wandering around among us?
Getting someone committed in Connecticut is nearly impossible:
Police said they had no evidence Lanza had been medicated when the killings occurred. But even if Lanza had a proven history of mental illness, having him forcibly committed would have been nearly impossible.
Connecticut is one of a handful of states in America that does not have an "assisted outpatient treatment" law. Under AOT laws -- the kind proposed and ignored earlier this year in Connecticut -- states can force a mentally ill person into treatment if there is a risk of harm to others. Without them, states typically cannot institutionalize someone unless they've already done harm to themselves or others.
What organization was largely responsible for defeating the bill to make involuntary commitment easier? The ACLU.
The suggestion that we make involuntary commitment easier raises outcries from advocates of personal freedom on both the right and left. But the sad truth is that the treatment mental professionals offer the severely disturbed is to: 1) prescribe psychotropics and hope they take them; or 2) prescribe psychotropics and institutionalize them, where they are forced to take their meds. The second option is usually impossible due to both the law and the lack of beds.
I know a woman whose highly intelligent son became schizophrenic in college and, without going into specifics, became a serious threat to himself and others. The court ordered him to stay on his medications, which he has -- so far. Will he do so for the rest of his life? Who knows, because the price the drugs exact is greatly diminished mental capacity. He is employed by a large retail chain as a box boy with no hope of advancement. The heartbreaking part is that he knows he has diminished capacity: not long ago he said, "Mom, remember when I used to be smart?" But distressing as his story is, far more tragic is a Jared Loughner or Adam Lanza living freely among us.
Henry Percy is the nom de guerre for a technical writer living in Arizona. He may be reached at saler.50d [at] gmail.com.
By Henry Percy
In August 2012, Fareed Zakaria wrote a piece for Time magazine in which he asserted that "gun violence in America is off the chart compared with every other country on the planet. The gun homicide rate per capita in the U.S. is 30 times that of Britain and Australia."
Because the arguments he made then are being parroted anew in the drive for gun control, his assertions cry out for examination in light of the facts. To start, why would he single out the "gun homicide" rate rather than the total homicide rate? I know a couple whose son was beaten on the back of the head with a tire iron. While his parents are bitter that neither offender was charged, I never heard them say, "Well, at least Tom was murdered with a blunt instrument rather than a gun."
Unfortunately, Mr. Zakaria neglects to document the sources for his facts, if indeed they are facts. Though holding a PhD from Yale and serving as a trustee for that institution, he does not recognize plagiarism when he commits it -- he issued an "unapologetic apology" for stealing much of his article and was suspended from publishing in Time for a month. Well, he did not call it stealing, merely a "terrible mistake ... a serious lapse." But he will be happy to talk to your Rotary Club -- his fee is only $75,000.
Let's look at homicide rates as reported in the 2011 Global Study on Homicide, conducted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The latest year with the most complete data is 2008, used here. The total homicide rate for the US was 4.1 times that of the UK and 4.5 times that for Australia. Still not good, but nowhere close to the "30 times" Mr. Zakaria laments.
The UN Global Study has data on 187 countries, ranging from a high of 61.3 per 100,000 in Honduras to 0 in Palau. Where was the United States? Number 99, with 5.4 homicides per 100,000. Over half the countries in the world had a homicide rate higher than ours.
Homicide in Developed Countries
Because admitting that the US homicide rate is low compared to over half the world's countries would undercut their arguments, gun-controllers instead compare us to "rich" or "developed" nations -- carefully cherry picked, of course. I cannot count how many articles I have read about the rapid expansion of the middle-class in Mexico, about Brazil's status amongst the rapidly rising BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China), etc. Mexico's homicide rate in 2008 was 2.4 times greater than that of the US, Brazil's 4.2 times greater. Somehow these countries are ignored when someone like Mr. Zakaria wants to make a point.
Of course, statistics always need qualification. For instance, the murder rate in the US would be higher were it not for the improvement in emergency room procedures in the past 10 years alone. On the other hand, homicides for many Third World countries are understated for a variety of reasons: they lack reliable, centralized databases, people are hesitant to report crimes to a corrupt police force, and so on. In addition, governments have plenty of incentive to understate their homicide rates, such as encouraging investment or not scaring away tourists. In short, many of the figures contained in the UN Global Study are probably too low.
Small versus Large Countries
There is another problem with comparing every country on the globe head to head: the vast differences in population size and makeup. For instance, Palau, an island nation in Micronesia, has a population of 21,000 and a homicide rate of zero. They could have two murders next year and suddenly move up to position 68. Comparing a country the size of the US, with 315 million people, to a country the size of Palau makes no sense. I am fairly confident there are many American cities with populations of 20,000 with a homicide rate of zero.
Homicide rates within the US vary tremendously by locality, as data from the US Census Bureau shows. For 2009, the high was 24.2 per 100,000 (District of Columbia) and the low 0.9 (New Hampshire). Moreover, New Hampshire is only half as murderous as Belgium, one of the "rich" or "developed" nations writers like Mr. Zakaria are so fond of comparing us to. In fact, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Utah, and Vermont all have rates lower than Belgium's.
Mr. Zakaria finds a "blindingly obvious causal connection" between "easier access to guns" and homicide rates. If that is so, why does the nation's capital, with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, have a homicide rate nearly 27 times higher than that of New Hampshire ("Live Free or Die"), which has some of the most permissive gun laws (open carry without license, concealed carry licenses for $10)? Why does Illinois, likewise boasting extremely restrictive gun laws, have a rate over 9 times higher than New Hampshire's? If there is a "blindingly obvious causal connection," could it be that high homicide rates go hand in hand with restrictive gun laws? Or could the problem be with people, human beings, rather than inanimate objects?
Race
Shortly after being sworn in as Attorney General, Eric Holder told an interviewer that the US is "essentially a nation of cowards ... we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about things racial." I don't know if Mr. Holder is an "average American," but here's a small contribution to the national dialogue on "things racial" from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
In 2008, the homicide victimization rate for blacks (19.6 homicides per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (3.3 homicides per 100,000) ... the offending rate for blacks (24.7 offenders per 100,000) was 7 times higher than the rate for whites (3.4 offenders per 100,000).
Guns from Mexico?
Just before New Years I was channel surfing and paused upon seeing the stern visage of the Rev. Jesse Jackson opining on the 500 murders in Chicago in 2012. He said he was not going to accept that, and added, "These guns come from the suburbs and from Mexico." Mexico? The advocates of gun control have been telling us for years that guns flow from the US to Mexico. While it has always been debatable how many of Mexico's weapons come from America, we do know that well over 2,000 were delivered to the drug cartels courtesy of our own federal government through Operation Fast & Furious. Now we are to believe that the bad guys in Chicago transport weapons across an international border and over 1,300 miles north?
Gun-Free Households
Then there is Amitai Etzioni, University Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University, writing on the Huffington Post. He urges everyone to put up a "gun free" sign in their home, apartment or condo and counsels parents not to allow their children to play in homes without the signs. Can't we just declare the whole world "gun free" and eliminate murder?
David Gregory, in a recent interview on NBC with Wayne LaPierre, head of the National Rifle Association, mocked the notion of posting armed guards in schools. As it happens, Mr. Gregory sends his children to Sidwell Friends School, where the children of presidents traditionally go (Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton studied there, as do Sasha and Malia Obama). With tuition at $34,000, Sidwell caters to millionaires and billionaires.
The "Friends" in the school's name refers to the Society of Friends (Quakers) who run it. Sidwell has an 11-member security department, many of them police officers (presumably armed, though it is difficult to know). These are in addition to the Secret Service detail that protects the Obamas' two daughters. It is a delicious irony that Quakers, dedicated pacifists, might welcome so many guns in their midst.
Here's a question for Professor Etzioni: Should David Gregory refuse to let his children play with Sasha or Malia because the White House is not gun free? If signs are so effective, here's an opportunity for the president to lead from the front by disarming the Secret Service and hanging "Gun-Free Zone" signs on the railings around the presidential mansion.
The Mentally Ill
What can be done? How about legislation making it easier to commit the mentally ill. Most were deinstitutionalized in the 60s and 70s? Between 1955 and 2000, the number of state psychiatric hospital beds was reduced by 93%. The campaign to release inmates was largely driven by: 1) the belief that the unstable could simply take medications and live in the community; and 2) cases of wrongful committal (yeah, man, the people that are locked up are the only sane ones, man, just watch One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest). Were people wrongfully committed to mental hospitals? No doubt. Are people wrongfully imprisoned? Of course. Is that sufficient reason to dismantle our criminal justice system? Are schizophrenics better off pushing a shopping cart, jibbering to themselves, and sleeping under overpasses? But, someone says, most of the disturbed are harmless. True. But how many Jared Loughners, James Holmeses, and Adam Lanzas can we tolerate wandering around among us?
Getting someone committed in Connecticut is nearly impossible:
Police said they had no evidence Lanza had been medicated when the killings occurred. But even if Lanza had a proven history of mental illness, having him forcibly committed would have been nearly impossible.
Connecticut is one of a handful of states in America that does not have an "assisted outpatient treatment" law. Under AOT laws -- the kind proposed and ignored earlier this year in Connecticut -- states can force a mentally ill person into treatment if there is a risk of harm to others. Without them, states typically cannot institutionalize someone unless they've already done harm to themselves or others.
What organization was largely responsible for defeating the bill to make involuntary commitment easier? The ACLU.
The suggestion that we make involuntary commitment easier raises outcries from advocates of personal freedom on both the right and left. But the sad truth is that the treatment mental professionals offer the severely disturbed is to: 1) prescribe psychotropics and hope they take them; or 2) prescribe psychotropics and institutionalize them, where they are forced to take their meds. The second option is usually impossible due to both the law and the lack of beds.
I know a woman whose highly intelligent son became schizophrenic in college and, without going into specifics, became a serious threat to himself and others. The court ordered him to stay on his medications, which he has -- so far. Will he do so for the rest of his life? Who knows, because the price the drugs exact is greatly diminished mental capacity. He is employed by a large retail chain as a box boy with no hope of advancement. The heartbreaking part is that he knows he has diminished capacity: not long ago he said, "Mom, remember when I used to be smart?" But distressing as his story is, far more tragic is a Jared Loughner or Adam Lanza living freely among us.
Henry Percy is the nom de guerre for a technical writer living in Arizona. He may be reached at saler.50d [at] gmail.com.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Governor Cuomo: Dishonesty is not Enough
All of us here are fully aware of the level of scumbag that highly visible liberals will sink to and we all know what a leftist, reactionary sack of crap Mario jr. is. Wait until the end for the really offensive, in so many ways, comments of "Fast Eddie" Rendell. They must be stopped and we have to use their own rules against them. From this article I see their method as "By any means necessary." OK sounds goos to me.
By William A. Levinson
New York's Governor, Andrew Cuomo, and his predecessor Eliot Spitzer (aka Emperor's Club VIP Client 9), are well known for their dishonesty and lack of integrity. As shown by their own state government's Web site, both fomented malicious, groundless, and frivolous lawsuits whose sole purpose was to harass law-abiding gun manufacturers. The failure of Cuomo's latest anti-gun legislation to exempt police officers proves him incompetent, and amendment of the law to exempt police officers reinforces his dishonesty even further.
Malicious Lawsuits Against the Gun Industry
Client 9, along with then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, are on record as orchestrating frivolous and malicious lawsuits whose sole purpose was to harass firearm manufacturers into bankruptcy. This is from Client 9's own Web site (emphasis is mine):
With the action, New York becomes the first state in the nation to sue gun manufacturers.
"For more than a year, we sought to achieve reasonable reforms through negotiations with the gun industry. It is now clear that most manufacturers and wholesalers are unwilling to give up the profits they reap from selling guns into the criminal market. So we must now seek a court to order to do what any good corporate citizen would have done voluntarily, and make our homes, streets and schools safer," said Spitzer, who was joined at a New York City news conference by U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo, anti-gun violence advocates and law enforcement officials.
Spitzer's lawsuit charges nine gun manufacturers, three importers and twelve wholesalers with contributing to and maintaining a public nuisance through ongoing production and distribution practices. Among the manufacturers named are: Glock; Sturm-Ruger; Colt's; Beretta; Taurus; Bryco; and Intratec.
...Secretary Cuomo said, "The gun industry should follow the lead of Smith & Wesson and accept common sense-safety standards to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals.
...Unlike lawsuits filed by more than 30 cities and counties during the last two years, the Attorney General's case focuses on a statutory provision of New York law that explicitly defines unlawfully-possessed handguns as a public nuisance.
...Specifically, the manufacturers and wholesalers are accused of contributing to and maintaining the public nuisance by engaging in design and distribution practices that place guns in the hands of criminals in New York State.
We agree that an unlawfully-possessed firearm is a public nuisance and even worse, just as an unlawfully-possessed narcotic (controlled substance) is a public nuisance. These items do not, however, fall into the wrong hands through the fault of their manufacturers. Gun manufacturers sell their products to the public only through Federally licensed dealers. FFL dealers who value their licenses do not sell to minors, and they must run background checks to make sure they don't sell to criminals. Pharmaceutical companies sell controlled substances via licensed pharmacists, who in turn require a doctor's prescription before they will hand such items over to a patient. The handful of doctors and pharmacists who engage in drug diversion are held professionally and, in some cases criminally, responsible, but nobody would even think of blaming the manufacturers.
Client 9's and Andrew Cuomo's attempt to sue gun manufacturers, therefore, illustrates their lack of ethics, character, and integrity. Their malicious lawsuit was, by the way, dismissed by a court of law. This fact is particularly telling, and damning as well:
In its suit, New York City contended that the gun makers had made themselves liable under that narrow exception, by failing to monitor firearms retailers closely enough and thus allowing guns to end up in the hands of criminals.
This takes us back to the simple fact that firearms retailers are licensed as such by the Federal Government and, in the absence of disciplinary action such as revocation of an FFL, the manufacturer can reasonably assume the retailer to be in compliance with the law. Cuomo's latest anti-gun legislation has meanwhile proven him incompetent as well as a declared enemy of the entire Second Amendment.
New York Bans Target Pistols and Police Sidearms
We showed previously that New York, under Andrew Cuomo's leadership, has declared war on the entire Second Amendment by banning .22 caliber target pistols that, while theoretically usable for self-defense, are best suited for making inexpensive holes in pieces of paper. Most of these pistols take 10-round or even larger magazines, and are therefore now illegal in New York. Now there is concern that the reckless, slipshod, and irresponsible haste with which New York's legislature enacted its new gun law also outlaws police sidearms that accept more than 7 rounds. Governor Cuomo must now scramble to "clarify" what the law means, and possibly amend his law to exempt the police. This exemption underscores his dishonesty even further.
Cuomo Opposes the Natural Human Right of Self-Defense
When Governor Cuomo argues that only the police should have magazines larger than 7 rounds, he is saying openly that private citizens do not have the natural human right of self-defense. If a private citizen needs to use a handgun for anything other than sporting purposes, he needs it for exactly the same reason a police officer needs it: self-protection against one or more violent aggressors. The only difference between the private citizen and the officer is that the latter has both the duty and the authority to intervene in situations in which it would be ill-advised or even illegal for the citizen to involve himself.
A police officer might have to defend himself from somebody he has challenged for breaking into an unoccupied building, or even from somebody who turns a non-criminal traffic stop into a lethal confrontation. You and I don't even have the authority to compel another driver to pull off the road and stop his vehicle, although we can call 911 to report a drunk or reckless driver. We might, however, have to defend ourselves from one or more violent home invaders. Once the perpetrator(s) initiates deadly violence against either a police officer or a private citizen, the defender has a legitimate need for a weapon that can end the violence. This could be a 9 mm pistol with a 17-round magazine, or a .45 Automatic with one-shot stopping capability. In either situation, the defender should have at least one extra magazine, and should know how to change magazines quickly.
Former PA Governor Rendell Adds Another Layer of Outrage
If Andrew Cuomo's outright dishonesty is not enough, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, who also supported frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry, added still more outrage. These words should mobilize all supporters of the Bill of Rights, and alienate his own side in the bargain:
"...the good thing about Newtown is, it was so horrific that I think it galvanized Americans to a point where the intensity on our side is going to match the intensity on their side."
The only "good thing" about the Sandy Hook shooting was the perpetrator's decision to finally rid the human species of himself. The fact that Mr. Rendell finds this brutal crime politically convenient, along with Rahm Emanuel's "Never let a good crisis go to waste," tells us everything we need to know about the other side's ethics, character, and indeed basic humanity.
William A. Levinson, P.E. is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.
By William A. Levinson
New York's Governor, Andrew Cuomo, and his predecessor Eliot Spitzer (aka Emperor's Club VIP Client 9), are well known for their dishonesty and lack of integrity. As shown by their own state government's Web site, both fomented malicious, groundless, and frivolous lawsuits whose sole purpose was to harass law-abiding gun manufacturers. The failure of Cuomo's latest anti-gun legislation to exempt police officers proves him incompetent, and amendment of the law to exempt police officers reinforces his dishonesty even further.
Malicious Lawsuits Against the Gun Industry
Client 9, along with then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, are on record as orchestrating frivolous and malicious lawsuits whose sole purpose was to harass firearm manufacturers into bankruptcy. This is from Client 9's own Web site (emphasis is mine):
With the action, New York becomes the first state in the nation to sue gun manufacturers.
"For more than a year, we sought to achieve reasonable reforms through negotiations with the gun industry. It is now clear that most manufacturers and wholesalers are unwilling to give up the profits they reap from selling guns into the criminal market. So we must now seek a court to order to do what any good corporate citizen would have done voluntarily, and make our homes, streets and schools safer," said Spitzer, who was joined at a New York City news conference by U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo, anti-gun violence advocates and law enforcement officials.
Spitzer's lawsuit charges nine gun manufacturers, three importers and twelve wholesalers with contributing to and maintaining a public nuisance through ongoing production and distribution practices. Among the manufacturers named are: Glock; Sturm-Ruger; Colt's; Beretta; Taurus; Bryco; and Intratec.
...Secretary Cuomo said, "The gun industry should follow the lead of Smith & Wesson and accept common sense-safety standards to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals.
...Unlike lawsuits filed by more than 30 cities and counties during the last two years, the Attorney General's case focuses on a statutory provision of New York law that explicitly defines unlawfully-possessed handguns as a public nuisance.
...Specifically, the manufacturers and wholesalers are accused of contributing to and maintaining the public nuisance by engaging in design and distribution practices that place guns in the hands of criminals in New York State.
We agree that an unlawfully-possessed firearm is a public nuisance and even worse, just as an unlawfully-possessed narcotic (controlled substance) is a public nuisance. These items do not, however, fall into the wrong hands through the fault of their manufacturers. Gun manufacturers sell their products to the public only through Federally licensed dealers. FFL dealers who value their licenses do not sell to minors, and they must run background checks to make sure they don't sell to criminals. Pharmaceutical companies sell controlled substances via licensed pharmacists, who in turn require a doctor's prescription before they will hand such items over to a patient. The handful of doctors and pharmacists who engage in drug diversion are held professionally and, in some cases criminally, responsible, but nobody would even think of blaming the manufacturers.
Client 9's and Andrew Cuomo's attempt to sue gun manufacturers, therefore, illustrates their lack of ethics, character, and integrity. Their malicious lawsuit was, by the way, dismissed by a court of law. This fact is particularly telling, and damning as well:
In its suit, New York City contended that the gun makers had made themselves liable under that narrow exception, by failing to monitor firearms retailers closely enough and thus allowing guns to end up in the hands of criminals.
This takes us back to the simple fact that firearms retailers are licensed as such by the Federal Government and, in the absence of disciplinary action such as revocation of an FFL, the manufacturer can reasonably assume the retailer to be in compliance with the law. Cuomo's latest anti-gun legislation has meanwhile proven him incompetent as well as a declared enemy of the entire Second Amendment.
New York Bans Target Pistols and Police Sidearms
We showed previously that New York, under Andrew Cuomo's leadership, has declared war on the entire Second Amendment by banning .22 caliber target pistols that, while theoretically usable for self-defense, are best suited for making inexpensive holes in pieces of paper. Most of these pistols take 10-round or even larger magazines, and are therefore now illegal in New York. Now there is concern that the reckless, slipshod, and irresponsible haste with which New York's legislature enacted its new gun law also outlaws police sidearms that accept more than 7 rounds. Governor Cuomo must now scramble to "clarify" what the law means, and possibly amend his law to exempt the police. This exemption underscores his dishonesty even further.
Cuomo Opposes the Natural Human Right of Self-Defense
When Governor Cuomo argues that only the police should have magazines larger than 7 rounds, he is saying openly that private citizens do not have the natural human right of self-defense. If a private citizen needs to use a handgun for anything other than sporting purposes, he needs it for exactly the same reason a police officer needs it: self-protection against one or more violent aggressors. The only difference between the private citizen and the officer is that the latter has both the duty and the authority to intervene in situations in which it would be ill-advised or even illegal for the citizen to involve himself.
A police officer might have to defend himself from somebody he has challenged for breaking into an unoccupied building, or even from somebody who turns a non-criminal traffic stop into a lethal confrontation. You and I don't even have the authority to compel another driver to pull off the road and stop his vehicle, although we can call 911 to report a drunk or reckless driver. We might, however, have to defend ourselves from one or more violent home invaders. Once the perpetrator(s) initiates deadly violence against either a police officer or a private citizen, the defender has a legitimate need for a weapon that can end the violence. This could be a 9 mm pistol with a 17-round magazine, or a .45 Automatic with one-shot stopping capability. In either situation, the defender should have at least one extra magazine, and should know how to change magazines quickly.
Former PA Governor Rendell Adds Another Layer of Outrage
If Andrew Cuomo's outright dishonesty is not enough, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, who also supported frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry, added still more outrage. These words should mobilize all supporters of the Bill of Rights, and alienate his own side in the bargain:
"...the good thing about Newtown is, it was so horrific that I think it galvanized Americans to a point where the intensity on our side is going to match the intensity on their side."
The only "good thing" about the Sandy Hook shooting was the perpetrator's decision to finally rid the human species of himself. The fact that Mr. Rendell finds this brutal crime politically convenient, along with Rahm Emanuel's "Never let a good crisis go to waste," tells us everything we need to know about the other side's ethics, character, and indeed basic humanity.
William A. Levinson, P.E. is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
They're Coming to Take Our Guns Away, Ha-Haaa!
Wake up America. Here come Diane and Barack and Mario jr. Keep your focus down-range.
By Chad Stafko
You may recall the 1966 cult-classic by Napoleon XIV titled, "They're Coming to Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa." The lyrics of that song describe an individual who is out of his mind and who is being taken "to the funny farm" and to "the loony bin" so he can be attended to by "those nice young men in their clean white coats."
The subject of the song is simply considered a danger to society, a menace if you will, crazy, and unable to make rational decisions on his own. He's unreasonable and refuses to conform to the society around him.
Enter today's debate over guns. Obama, Biden, and the rest of the political left are using similar language and characterizations in their description of gun owners. Theirs is a coordinated effort to paint American gun owners as crazed, government-hating lunatics, whose guns, used for sport, recreation, and defense are somehow a great danger to our society, potential Adam Lanzas or Jared Loughners.
Of course, this should come as no surprise. Recall Barack Obama's description of middle-class voters and the challenge he faced in getting their votes way back in 2008, "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Today's push by the leftist media has managed to raise the insult level even higher recently. Take Carol Costello of CNN for example. On December 27th, in questioning NRA President David Keene, she shared this comment from her Facebook page, "Why is the NRA crazy? Why are they, like, out of touch with reality?"
Costello paints a picture of gun owners as out of step with society, yet recent polling is hardly indicative of such. A Gallup poll conducted earlier this month found that only 38% of Americans are dissatisfied with current gun laws, while 43% are either satisfied or believe the laws should be loosened.
Other polls have found only a slight majority of Americans believe there should be any increase in gun control legislation. Yet, we the legal gun owners of America are somehow considered out of touch and crazy? According to the liberals, legal gun owners who want to sustain their ability to defend themselves against those who wish to do them harm is some type of right-wing, extremist idea...an idea that they lament is found in our Constitution in the Second Amendment.
Oh, but there is plenty more insulting characterizations of legal gun owners from other prominent liberals and the White House.
Take former Pennsylvania Governor, Ed Rendell. Appearing on that bastion of balanced reporting, MSNBC, Rendell characterized gun owners as "looney, nuts, off their rocker."
Note that Rendell isn't just saying we legal gun owners of America are wrong, but that we're lunatics and far out of the norm of society. Don't you think if Rendell had the power to somehow confiscate every gun in America he would jump at the chance?
Also, consider President Obama's comments Monday regarding those who oppose the heavy gun control proposals he's to announce Wednesday, "As far as people lining up and purchasing more guns, I think that we've seen for some time now that those who oppose any common sense gun control or gun safety measures have a pretty effective way of ginning up fear on the part of gun owners that somehow, the federal government's about to take all your guns away."
So, it's the 2nd Amendment crowd, the National Rifle Association, and conservative talkers and writers who are, in the words of Obama, "ginning up fear." Really? This is the man, remember, who characterized middle-class voters as people who "cling to their guns."
Obama also, back in 1996 when he was running for the Illinois Senate, filled out a questionnaire for a community group in Chicago in which he answered "yes" to a question that included whether the State should ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns.
And yesterday, President Obama took advantage of all the spadework, using his signing session for 23 executive actions to medicalize gun ownership under Obamacare, making it "clear that his health law, known as the Affordable Care Act, allows doctors to ask patients whether they have guns in their homes, and will tell them they are able to report any threats of violence they hear to police"
Indeed, how silly of us, legal gun owners to think that our President would ever seek to take away our guns. Just ignore the fact that he's from Chicago, which has some of the most stringent gun controls in America, and that he mocks those who cling to their guns, and that he filled out a questionnaire for a liberal community group in which he agreed that guns need to be out of the possession of Illinoisans.
And, we're the crazy ones?
Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest. He can be reached at stafko@msn.com
By Chad Stafko
You may recall the 1966 cult-classic by Napoleon XIV titled, "They're Coming to Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa." The lyrics of that song describe an individual who is out of his mind and who is being taken "to the funny farm" and to "the loony bin" so he can be attended to by "those nice young men in their clean white coats."
The subject of the song is simply considered a danger to society, a menace if you will, crazy, and unable to make rational decisions on his own. He's unreasonable and refuses to conform to the society around him.
Enter today's debate over guns. Obama, Biden, and the rest of the political left are using similar language and characterizations in their description of gun owners. Theirs is a coordinated effort to paint American gun owners as crazed, government-hating lunatics, whose guns, used for sport, recreation, and defense are somehow a great danger to our society, potential Adam Lanzas or Jared Loughners.
Of course, this should come as no surprise. Recall Barack Obama's description of middle-class voters and the challenge he faced in getting their votes way back in 2008, "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Today's push by the leftist media has managed to raise the insult level even higher recently. Take Carol Costello of CNN for example. On December 27th, in questioning NRA President David Keene, she shared this comment from her Facebook page, "Why is the NRA crazy? Why are they, like, out of touch with reality?"
Costello paints a picture of gun owners as out of step with society, yet recent polling is hardly indicative of such. A Gallup poll conducted earlier this month found that only 38% of Americans are dissatisfied with current gun laws, while 43% are either satisfied or believe the laws should be loosened.
Other polls have found only a slight majority of Americans believe there should be any increase in gun control legislation. Yet, we the legal gun owners of America are somehow considered out of touch and crazy? According to the liberals, legal gun owners who want to sustain their ability to defend themselves against those who wish to do them harm is some type of right-wing, extremist idea...an idea that they lament is found in our Constitution in the Second Amendment.
Oh, but there is plenty more insulting characterizations of legal gun owners from other prominent liberals and the White House.
Take former Pennsylvania Governor, Ed Rendell. Appearing on that bastion of balanced reporting, MSNBC, Rendell characterized gun owners as "looney, nuts, off their rocker."
Note that Rendell isn't just saying we legal gun owners of America are wrong, but that we're lunatics and far out of the norm of society. Don't you think if Rendell had the power to somehow confiscate every gun in America he would jump at the chance?
Also, consider President Obama's comments Monday regarding those who oppose the heavy gun control proposals he's to announce Wednesday, "As far as people lining up and purchasing more guns, I think that we've seen for some time now that those who oppose any common sense gun control or gun safety measures have a pretty effective way of ginning up fear on the part of gun owners that somehow, the federal government's about to take all your guns away."
So, it's the 2nd Amendment crowd, the National Rifle Association, and conservative talkers and writers who are, in the words of Obama, "ginning up fear." Really? This is the man, remember, who characterized middle-class voters as people who "cling to their guns."
Obama also, back in 1996 when he was running for the Illinois Senate, filled out a questionnaire for a community group in Chicago in which he answered "yes" to a question that included whether the State should ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns.
And yesterday, President Obama took advantage of all the spadework, using his signing session for 23 executive actions to medicalize gun ownership under Obamacare, making it "clear that his health law, known as the Affordable Care Act, allows doctors to ask patients whether they have guns in their homes, and will tell them they are able to report any threats of violence they hear to police"
Indeed, how silly of us, legal gun owners to think that our President would ever seek to take away our guns. Just ignore the fact that he's from Chicago, which has some of the most stringent gun controls in America, and that he mocks those who cling to their guns, and that he filled out a questionnaire for a liberal community group in which he agreed that guns need to be out of the possession of Illinoisans.
And, we're the crazy ones?
Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest. He can be reached at stafko@msn.com
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Obama Supporters Are Shocked, Shocked, I Tell You....
Dumb and getting dumber. There is no coming back for America. Period. Only preserving what you got. Taxes are far too high; all of them income, property, sales, capital gains, death. We get far too little for them. Dumbass liberals (oxymoron, I know) this fucker and his minions lied to you just like the rest of us the only difference is people with brains knew he was coming after all of our money. The more money they have the more control they have, same goes for guns. Wake up and start fighting back you people are like fuckin zombies went it comes to this guy. Seriously.
January 7, 2013
Selwyn Duke
My mother always used to say, "Life is the best teacher." Sure is -- and sometimes it smacks you right upside the head. It appears that this has happened with Barack Obama supporters now witnessing their paychecks shrink in the wake of tax increases. And they're none too happy. In fact, they're shocked.
Shocked, I tell you.
Providing examples of this liberal anger and angst, Joseph Curl writes:
"What happened that my Social Security withholding's in my paycheck just went up?" a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. "My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don't feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna' hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?"
Well, pal, I'll explain it. George Bush has found a way to control Obama's mind, sort of like a zombie. I mean, you don't think the great orator's mouth makes all the mistakes it does (off-Teleprompter) because it's actually controlled by the great orator's brain, now, do you?
Curl continues:
The Twittersphere was even funnier.
"Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama," wrote "Meet Virginia." "Nancy Thongkham" was much more furious. "F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!"
How can you pay off loans with smaller paychecks, Virginia? Ask Nancy; she sounds like a real intellectual.
Curl again:
"_AlexTM" sounded bummed. "Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away alot of money from my checks." Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. "I'm starting to regret voting for Obama." But "Dave" got his dander up over the tax hike: "Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him"?
I could explain why, Dave -- very clearly. But I don't use the kind of language you do. So I'll just say, my good man, that you're what they now call a "low-information voter." And you and your comrades have given us a low-information president.
Curl mentions that more is yet to come, when other Obamabots get their first paychecks on the 15th. I'll add that even this is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait 'til they feel the full bite of ObamaCare and whatever else is coming down the pike.
Well, as the old Dutch proverb goes, "We grow too soon old and too late smart."
Then again, sometimes the age shows up without the smarts.
Curl tells us that many liberal posters are blaming these tax hikes on Bush. This is no surprise. I'm telling you, some of these people's epitaph will read, "It's Bush's fault."
January 7, 2013
Selwyn Duke
My mother always used to say, "Life is the best teacher." Sure is -- and sometimes it smacks you right upside the head. It appears that this has happened with Barack Obama supporters now witnessing their paychecks shrink in the wake of tax increases. And they're none too happy. In fact, they're shocked.
Shocked, I tell you.
Providing examples of this liberal anger and angst, Joseph Curl writes:
"What happened that my Social Security withholding's in my paycheck just went up?" a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. "My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don't feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna' hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?"
Well, pal, I'll explain it. George Bush has found a way to control Obama's mind, sort of like a zombie. I mean, you don't think the great orator's mouth makes all the mistakes it does (off-Teleprompter) because it's actually controlled by the great orator's brain, now, do you?
Curl continues:
The Twittersphere was even funnier.
"Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama," wrote "Meet Virginia." "Nancy Thongkham" was much more furious. "F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!"
How can you pay off loans with smaller paychecks, Virginia? Ask Nancy; she sounds like a real intellectual.
Curl again:
"_AlexTM" sounded bummed. "Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away alot of money from my checks." Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. "I'm starting to regret voting for Obama." But "Dave" got his dander up over the tax hike: "Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him"?
I could explain why, Dave -- very clearly. But I don't use the kind of language you do. So I'll just say, my good man, that you're what they now call a "low-information voter." And you and your comrades have given us a low-information president.
Curl mentions that more is yet to come, when other Obamabots get their first paychecks on the 15th. I'll add that even this is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait 'til they feel the full bite of ObamaCare and whatever else is coming down the pike.
Well, as the old Dutch proverb goes, "We grow too soon old and too late smart."
Then again, sometimes the age shows up without the smarts.
Curl tells us that many liberal posters are blaming these tax hikes on Bush. This is no surprise. I'm telling you, some of these people's epitaph will read, "It's Bush's fault."
Monday, January 21, 2013
"The Gun Is Civilization"
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat— it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat— it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Who might be domestic enemies of our Constitution?
I have been saying this since I started this little blog.
January 11, 2013
K.E. Campbell
Article VI, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution reads
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned...shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...
Accordingly, on January 3rd, members of the 113th U.S. Congress took the following oath
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
Who might be domestic enemies of our Constitution?
In previous American Thinker posts, I have written about the wisdom of the late Henry Hazlitt. As to the question posed above, Hazlitt articulated well the answer in a 1956 article and other writings.
"The greatest threat to American liberty today," he wrote, "comes from within." Specifically, Hazlitt was referring to "a growing and spreading totalitarian ideology." Uncomfortable though it may be to say or express it, proponents of that ideology were then and are now the enemy referenced in the congressional oath. They are those who are hostile to our heritage.
"[It] isn't too difficult to recognize the totalitarian mind," and by implication the devotees of the doctrine of government control over the individual, "when we meet one." In short "Its outstanding mark is a contempt for liberty." Acknowledging the difficulty in precisely defining liberty, Hazlitt contrasted it with its antithesis, slavery.
The roots of totalitarianism lie in the "contemporary faith in the necessity and benevolence of a continually expanding government intervention." Totalitarians, according to Hazlitt, want total control, but not necessarily total suppression. They "suppress merely the ideas which they don't agree with, or of which they are suspicious, or of which they have never heard before; and they suppress only the actions that they don't like, or of which they cannot see the necessity. They leave the individual perfectly free to agree with them, and perfectly free to act in any way that serves their purposes..."
Hazlitt prophetically described "three main tendencies or tenets" toward the "road to totalitarianism" that we find ourselves on. First among them is "the tendency of the government to attempt more and more to intervene, and to control economic life," that is, the
...pressure for a constant increase in governmental powers, for a constant widening of the governmental sphere of intervention. It is the tendency toward more and more regulation of every sphere of economic life, toward more and more restriction of the liberties of the individual. The tendency toward more and more governmental spending is a part of this trend. It means in effect that the individual is able to spend less and less of the income he earns on the things he himself wants, while the government takes more and more of his income from him to spend it in the ways that it thinks wise. One of the basic assumptions of totalitarianism, in brief (and of such steps toward it as socialism, state paternalism, and Keynesianism), is that the citizen cannot be trusted to spend his own money. As government control becomes wider and wider, individual discretion, the individual's control of his own affairs in all directions, necessarily becomes narrower and narrower. In sum, liberty is constantly diminished.
The second main step to totalitarianism is, according to Hazlitt, "the tendency toward greater and greater concentration of power in the central government at the expense of local governments," that is,
...the growth of power in Washington at the expense of the states.
The concentration of power and the centralization of power...are merely two names for the same thing. This second tendency is a necessary consequence of the first. If the central government is to control more and more of our economic life, it cannot permit this to be done by the individual states. The pressure for uniformity, and the pressure for centralization of power, are two aspects of the same pressure.
...Planning from the center is possible only with centralization of governmental power...[The] federal government assumes more and more of the powers previously exercised by the states, or powers never exercised by any state; and the Supreme Court keeps steadily stretching the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to authorize powers and federal interventions never dreamed of by the Founding Fathers. At the same time recent Supreme Court decisions treat the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution practically as if it did not exist.
The third step is "the tendency toward more and more concentration of power in the hands of the executive at the expense of the legislative and judiciary." According to Hazlitt,
In the United States this tendency is very marked today. To listen to our pro-totalitarians, the main duty of Congress is to follow the president's "leadership" in all things; to be a set of yes-men; to act as a mere rubber-stamp.
The dangers of one-man rule have been so emphasized and dramatized in recent years...that any warning of this danger to Americans may seem needless. Yet most Americans, like the citizens of the countries already victimized by their native [totalitarians], may prove incapable of recognizing this evil until it has grown beyond the point of control. One invariable accompaniment of the growth of Caesarism is the growing contempt expressed for legislative bodies, and impatience with their "dilatoriness" in enacting the "Leader's" program, or their actual "obstructionist tactics" or "crippling amendments." Yet in recent years derision of Congress has become in America almost a national pastime. And a substantial part of the press never tires of reviling Congress for "doing nothing" - that is, for not piling more mountains of legislation on the existing mountains of legislation - or for failing to enact in full "the President's program.
What invariably results is capitulation and an ambiguous law "setting forth a number of vague but high-sounding goals and [creation of another] agency or commission" that "proceeds to become a prosecutor, court, and legislative body all rolled into one" and "starts laying down a series of rulings and handing down a series of decisions, many of which surprise no one more than the congressional members who created the agency in the first place."
Hazlitt had much more to convey about the dictatorial trend, the enemy within, and their tactics and techniques. I recommend reading the entire article and other of his books and publications. We are far down the road Hazlitt warned us about -- due in large part to U.S. Senators' and Representatives' forsaking of their sworn duty to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
January 11, 2013
K.E. Campbell
Article VI, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution reads
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned...shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...
Accordingly, on January 3rd, members of the 113th U.S. Congress took the following oath
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
Who might be domestic enemies of our Constitution?
In previous American Thinker posts, I have written about the wisdom of the late Henry Hazlitt. As to the question posed above, Hazlitt articulated well the answer in a 1956 article and other writings.
"The greatest threat to American liberty today," he wrote, "comes from within." Specifically, Hazlitt was referring to "a growing and spreading totalitarian ideology." Uncomfortable though it may be to say or express it, proponents of that ideology were then and are now the enemy referenced in the congressional oath. They are those who are hostile to our heritage.
"[It] isn't too difficult to recognize the totalitarian mind," and by implication the devotees of the doctrine of government control over the individual, "when we meet one." In short "Its outstanding mark is a contempt for liberty." Acknowledging the difficulty in precisely defining liberty, Hazlitt contrasted it with its antithesis, slavery.
The roots of totalitarianism lie in the "contemporary faith in the necessity and benevolence of a continually expanding government intervention." Totalitarians, according to Hazlitt, want total control, but not necessarily total suppression. They "suppress merely the ideas which they don't agree with, or of which they are suspicious, or of which they have never heard before; and they suppress only the actions that they don't like, or of which they cannot see the necessity. They leave the individual perfectly free to agree with them, and perfectly free to act in any way that serves their purposes..."
Hazlitt prophetically described "three main tendencies or tenets" toward the "road to totalitarianism" that we find ourselves on. First among them is "the tendency of the government to attempt more and more to intervene, and to control economic life," that is, the
...pressure for a constant increase in governmental powers, for a constant widening of the governmental sphere of intervention. It is the tendency toward more and more regulation of every sphere of economic life, toward more and more restriction of the liberties of the individual. The tendency toward more and more governmental spending is a part of this trend. It means in effect that the individual is able to spend less and less of the income he earns on the things he himself wants, while the government takes more and more of his income from him to spend it in the ways that it thinks wise. One of the basic assumptions of totalitarianism, in brief (and of such steps toward it as socialism, state paternalism, and Keynesianism), is that the citizen cannot be trusted to spend his own money. As government control becomes wider and wider, individual discretion, the individual's control of his own affairs in all directions, necessarily becomes narrower and narrower. In sum, liberty is constantly diminished.
The second main step to totalitarianism is, according to Hazlitt, "the tendency toward greater and greater concentration of power in the central government at the expense of local governments," that is,
...the growth of power in Washington at the expense of the states.
The concentration of power and the centralization of power...are merely two names for the same thing. This second tendency is a necessary consequence of the first. If the central government is to control more and more of our economic life, it cannot permit this to be done by the individual states. The pressure for uniformity, and the pressure for centralization of power, are two aspects of the same pressure.
...Planning from the center is possible only with centralization of governmental power...[The] federal government assumes more and more of the powers previously exercised by the states, or powers never exercised by any state; and the Supreme Court keeps steadily stretching the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to authorize powers and federal interventions never dreamed of by the Founding Fathers. At the same time recent Supreme Court decisions treat the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution practically as if it did not exist.
The third step is "the tendency toward more and more concentration of power in the hands of the executive at the expense of the legislative and judiciary." According to Hazlitt,
In the United States this tendency is very marked today. To listen to our pro-totalitarians, the main duty of Congress is to follow the president's "leadership" in all things; to be a set of yes-men; to act as a mere rubber-stamp.
The dangers of one-man rule have been so emphasized and dramatized in recent years...that any warning of this danger to Americans may seem needless. Yet most Americans, like the citizens of the countries already victimized by their native [totalitarians], may prove incapable of recognizing this evil until it has grown beyond the point of control. One invariable accompaniment of the growth of Caesarism is the growing contempt expressed for legislative bodies, and impatience with their "dilatoriness" in enacting the "Leader's" program, or their actual "obstructionist tactics" or "crippling amendments." Yet in recent years derision of Congress has become in America almost a national pastime. And a substantial part of the press never tires of reviling Congress for "doing nothing" - that is, for not piling more mountains of legislation on the existing mountains of legislation - or for failing to enact in full "the President's program.
What invariably results is capitulation and an ambiguous law "setting forth a number of vague but high-sounding goals and [creation of another] agency or commission" that "proceeds to become a prosecutor, court, and legislative body all rolled into one" and "starts laying down a series of rulings and handing down a series of decisions, many of which surprise no one more than the congressional members who created the agency in the first place."
Hazlitt had much more to convey about the dictatorial trend, the enemy within, and their tactics and techniques. I recommend reading the entire article and other of his books and publications. We are far down the road Hazlitt warned us about -- due in large part to U.S. Senators' and Representatives' forsaking of their sworn duty to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Saturday, January 19, 2013
When Kids and Guns Mix
Teach your children well...
January 11, 2013
By Selwyn Duke
We all know what can happen when kids and guns mix. And today I will tell you some stories about that very thing. The kids' names were Kendra and Alyssa, and then there was the 11-year-old boy whose name we just don't know. What we do know is that they lived in places called Bryan County, Albuquerque, and Palmview. We know that guns were in their homes -- and that something horrible befell them.
Last year, 12-year-old Oklahoman Kendra St. Clair was home alone, unsupervised. At some point she accessed her mother's handgun -- a .40-caliber Glock. Then Kendra pulled the trigger.
And that bullet tore into flesh.
You probably know the rest of the story.
Or maybe not.
The bullet tore into the flesh of a 32-year-old home invader, causing him to flee. Kendra was left scared and crying, but unscathed.
The story of Albuquerque 11-year-old Alyssa Gutierrez turned out differently. Three teenage burglars broke into her home, but they fled after she merely grabbed her mother's rifle. No one was hurt, but the criminals were caught.
But sometimes innocents do get shot. Such was the case with an 11-year-old Palmview boy in 2010. At home with his mother, he got his hands on a .22-caliber rifle. And after the two armed and masked illegal aliens who had broken into their home shot through their bedroom door after the mother refused to open it, hitting the son in the hip, the boy returned fire. He struck one of the criminals in the neck, causing them both to flee. They were apprehended when the wounded miscreant showed up at a local hospital.
These were children who lived in places called Bryan County, Albuquerque, and Palmview. Thank God, they still live in those places. And that's what can happen when kids and guns mix.
If you're unacquainted with my work, you perhaps didn't expect this piece to take the turn it did. You perhaps didn't hear these stories; the mainstream media doesn't report such things much. But now that you have, ponder this question: do you wish these children hadn't had access to firearms? Because they won't if the gun grabbers of the world have their way.
Of course, the above real-life stories are just that: anecdotes. Some will say they're rare and not statistically significant. And I suppose they are rare; most people will never face such evil and have the ability to thwart it. Yet they're not nearly as rare as a Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech: your chance of dying in a school shooting approximates that of being struck by lightning. In contrast, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans each year use guns for self-defense and that 400,000 of them say they would have been killed if they hadn't been armed. That's 400,000 a year.
Do I believe they all would have been murdered? No. People have a penchant for the dramatic, and fear and stress can corrupt judgment. But even if only one half of one percent of them are correct, that's 2000 innocent lives saved with guns every year. This is approximately 76 times as many as were killed at Sandy Hook and considerably more than were lost in all American gun massacres during the last 40 years. And if five percent of them are right, it amounts to 20,000 innocent lives saved -- far more than the number murdered with guns in America every year.
Ah, "that big 'if,'" some will say. Woulda', coulda', maybe, perhaps, I suppose. Of course, we should also consider that those 2.5 million annual defensive gun uses represent rapes, robberies, and assaults thwarted -- usually without firing a shot. And that's part of the problem. It's a headline when a gun goes off; it can be head to the next story when a criminal is merely scared off. As for hypotheticals, they aren't as emotionally compelling as a school shooting, where you see victims' pictures, grieving relatives, and emergency vehicles dominating your TV.
Perhaps it would be different if we, as in a science-fiction movie, could somehow get a glimpse into alternate gun-free futures, where the world's Kendras and Alyssas and millions of other good citizens couldn't defend themselves. Maybe if the citizenry saw in living color how many of these people, while now safe, would have been left brutalized, killed, and lying in a pool of their own blood, we could compete for emotional impact. Thus we should remember, to use a play on a Frederic Bastiat saying, that a bad policy-maker observes only what can be seen; a good policy-maker observes what can be seen -- and what must be foreseen. Dead innocents killed with guns can be seen; the innocents who would be killed were it not for guns must be foreseen.
Yet even what can be seen, such as the stories I opened with, won't usually be because they don't fit the anti-gun mainstream-media narrative. Instead we hear about how 13 children a day are killed with firearms, with no mention that this "'statistic' includes 'children' up to age 19 or 24, depending on the source [most of these incidents involve teenage gang members shooting each other]," writes Guy Smith at Gun Facts. Or we're asked questions such as "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" Perhaps we should ask the then 15-year-old Houston boy who used that very weapon to defend himself and his younger sister against two burglars in 2010.
Here's what you might learn: being a light gun (seven pounds) with little recoil, it's an ideal firearm for youngsters and women. A lady I knew once fired a shouldered shotgun when she was a girl, and the kick knocked her on her backside; an AR won't do this. This is partially because its high-tech mechanism absorbs much of the recoil energy, but also because it is not nearly as powerful as even many hunting rifles.
How can this be? Isn't this "scary black gun" a "killing machine," as Piers Morgan put it? As explained and illustrated in this video, this class of weapons is designed to wound a 170-lb. man, while a high-powered hunting rifle's purpose is to kill a 300 to 800-lb. deer or moose. In fact, in some states and countries it is illegal to hunt large game with an AR-caliber round (.223) for fear that its relative ineffectiveness will leave a wounded and suffering animal wandering the forest. As to this, note that the AR-wielding 15-year-old Houston boy shot one of the intruders at least 3 times - and the man lived. It might have been a different story had the teen used a 30.06 deer rifle, and a very different one with a buckshot-loaded shotgun.
So do kids and guns mix? Well, kids and their guns have sometimes been mixing it up with criminals -- and coming out on top. But neither kids nor anyone else mixes well with guns when ending up on the wrong end of one. This happened at Sandy Hook. It happened in Aurora, CO. It happens during many other garden-variety crimes. And it could conceivably happen scores of thousands of times more every year. The only way to find out precisely how many more times is to disarm the American people.
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com
January 11, 2013
By Selwyn Duke
We all know what can happen when kids and guns mix. And today I will tell you some stories about that very thing. The kids' names were Kendra and Alyssa, and then there was the 11-year-old boy whose name we just don't know. What we do know is that they lived in places called Bryan County, Albuquerque, and Palmview. We know that guns were in their homes -- and that something horrible befell them.
Last year, 12-year-old Oklahoman Kendra St. Clair was home alone, unsupervised. At some point she accessed her mother's handgun -- a .40-caliber Glock. Then Kendra pulled the trigger.
And that bullet tore into flesh.
You probably know the rest of the story.
Or maybe not.
The bullet tore into the flesh of a 32-year-old home invader, causing him to flee. Kendra was left scared and crying, but unscathed.
The story of Albuquerque 11-year-old Alyssa Gutierrez turned out differently. Three teenage burglars broke into her home, but they fled after she merely grabbed her mother's rifle. No one was hurt, but the criminals were caught.
But sometimes innocents do get shot. Such was the case with an 11-year-old Palmview boy in 2010. At home with his mother, he got his hands on a .22-caliber rifle. And after the two armed and masked illegal aliens who had broken into their home shot through their bedroom door after the mother refused to open it, hitting the son in the hip, the boy returned fire. He struck one of the criminals in the neck, causing them both to flee. They were apprehended when the wounded miscreant showed up at a local hospital.
These were children who lived in places called Bryan County, Albuquerque, and Palmview. Thank God, they still live in those places. And that's what can happen when kids and guns mix.
If you're unacquainted with my work, you perhaps didn't expect this piece to take the turn it did. You perhaps didn't hear these stories; the mainstream media doesn't report such things much. But now that you have, ponder this question: do you wish these children hadn't had access to firearms? Because they won't if the gun grabbers of the world have their way.
Of course, the above real-life stories are just that: anecdotes. Some will say they're rare and not statistically significant. And I suppose they are rare; most people will never face such evil and have the ability to thwart it. Yet they're not nearly as rare as a Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech: your chance of dying in a school shooting approximates that of being struck by lightning. In contrast, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans each year use guns for self-defense and that 400,000 of them say they would have been killed if they hadn't been armed. That's 400,000 a year.
Do I believe they all would have been murdered? No. People have a penchant for the dramatic, and fear and stress can corrupt judgment. But even if only one half of one percent of them are correct, that's 2000 innocent lives saved with guns every year. This is approximately 76 times as many as were killed at Sandy Hook and considerably more than were lost in all American gun massacres during the last 40 years. And if five percent of them are right, it amounts to 20,000 innocent lives saved -- far more than the number murdered with guns in America every year.
Ah, "that big 'if,'" some will say. Woulda', coulda', maybe, perhaps, I suppose. Of course, we should also consider that those 2.5 million annual defensive gun uses represent rapes, robberies, and assaults thwarted -- usually without firing a shot. And that's part of the problem. It's a headline when a gun goes off; it can be head to the next story when a criminal is merely scared off. As for hypotheticals, they aren't as emotionally compelling as a school shooting, where you see victims' pictures, grieving relatives, and emergency vehicles dominating your TV.
Perhaps it would be different if we, as in a science-fiction movie, could somehow get a glimpse into alternate gun-free futures, where the world's Kendras and Alyssas and millions of other good citizens couldn't defend themselves. Maybe if the citizenry saw in living color how many of these people, while now safe, would have been left brutalized, killed, and lying in a pool of their own blood, we could compete for emotional impact. Thus we should remember, to use a play on a Frederic Bastiat saying, that a bad policy-maker observes only what can be seen; a good policy-maker observes what can be seen -- and what must be foreseen. Dead innocents killed with guns can be seen; the innocents who would be killed were it not for guns must be foreseen.
Yet even what can be seen, such as the stories I opened with, won't usually be because they don't fit the anti-gun mainstream-media narrative. Instead we hear about how 13 children a day are killed with firearms, with no mention that this "'statistic' includes 'children' up to age 19 or 24, depending on the source [most of these incidents involve teenage gang members shooting each other]," writes Guy Smith at Gun Facts. Or we're asked questions such as "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" Perhaps we should ask the then 15-year-old Houston boy who used that very weapon to defend himself and his younger sister against two burglars in 2010.
Here's what you might learn: being a light gun (seven pounds) with little recoil, it's an ideal firearm for youngsters and women. A lady I knew once fired a shouldered shotgun when she was a girl, and the kick knocked her on her backside; an AR won't do this. This is partially because its high-tech mechanism absorbs much of the recoil energy, but also because it is not nearly as powerful as even many hunting rifles.
How can this be? Isn't this "scary black gun" a "killing machine," as Piers Morgan put it? As explained and illustrated in this video, this class of weapons is designed to wound a 170-lb. man, while a high-powered hunting rifle's purpose is to kill a 300 to 800-lb. deer or moose. In fact, in some states and countries it is illegal to hunt large game with an AR-caliber round (.223) for fear that its relative ineffectiveness will leave a wounded and suffering animal wandering the forest. As to this, note that the AR-wielding 15-year-old Houston boy shot one of the intruders at least 3 times - and the man lived. It might have been a different story had the teen used a 30.06 deer rifle, and a very different one with a buckshot-loaded shotgun.
So do kids and guns mix? Well, kids and their guns have sometimes been mixing it up with criminals -- and coming out on top. But neither kids nor anyone else mixes well with guns when ending up on the wrong end of one. This happened at Sandy Hook. It happened in Aurora, CO. It happens during many other garden-variety crimes. And it could conceivably happen scores of thousands of times more every year. The only way to find out precisely how many more times is to disarm the American people.
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com
Thursday, January 17, 2013
The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting
Fuck Obama's gun regulations. We all know the reason he is doing this. Hell James Madison knew this over 200 years ago. Fuck you Mr. D-Bag president.
January 11, 2013
Michael Geer
You know it. I know it. The unspoken truth is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is about citizens resisting and overcoming tyranny. A common law and natural law right considered for 200+ years as an inalienable right. Speaking plainly, the 2nd is our bulwark against government which becomes despotic.
Armed free citizens are the final bulwark against tyranny by local, state or federal government.
When the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights committed our people to founding a new Nation guns were natural and necessary. For putting food on the table and, wait for it, personal defense against hostilities.
Armed citizens have a long history of taking action to correct despotic governments. Feudal economies faded away due in no small part to enough peasants acquiring arms. And the will to use them.
Federalist 46. James Madison, known as the author of most of the Bill of Rights said of arms and the common man ...
(excerpt) The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. (end excerpt)
Note Madison addressed Federalist 46 to the citizens of the state of New York. Whose Governor even now is posturing to further reduce citizen rights clearly illumined by the author of the Second Amendment, James Madison.
The Second Amendment exists for the citizen. For whatever lawful purpose the citizen deems. Personal safety, hunting, and even unto "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation..."
Our Founders secured for us this Right at the risk of their lives, and most certainly their comforts, property, honor and families.
The Second Amendment stands as the final say against government grown unbearably despotic. It is not about hunting.
Go here for perhaps the best exposition on the Second you will read.
Michael Geer welcomes comments at geer.michael@gmail.com. He is an author and publisher www.priceriverpublishing.weebly.comhttp://www.aintnotruthlikeit.com/index.html
January 11, 2013
Michael Geer
You know it. I know it. The unspoken truth is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is about citizens resisting and overcoming tyranny. A common law and natural law right considered for 200+ years as an inalienable right. Speaking plainly, the 2nd is our bulwark against government which becomes despotic.
Armed free citizens are the final bulwark against tyranny by local, state or federal government.
When the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights committed our people to founding a new Nation guns were natural and necessary. For putting food on the table and, wait for it, personal defense against hostilities.
Armed citizens have a long history of taking action to correct despotic governments. Feudal economies faded away due in no small part to enough peasants acquiring arms. And the will to use them.
Federalist 46. James Madison, known as the author of most of the Bill of Rights said of arms and the common man ...
(excerpt) The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. (end excerpt)
Note Madison addressed Federalist 46 to the citizens of the state of New York. Whose Governor even now is posturing to further reduce citizen rights clearly illumined by the author of the Second Amendment, James Madison.
The Second Amendment exists for the citizen. For whatever lawful purpose the citizen deems. Personal safety, hunting, and even unto "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation..."
Our Founders secured for us this Right at the risk of their lives, and most certainly their comforts, property, honor and families.
The Second Amendment stands as the final say against government grown unbearably despotic. It is not about hunting.
Go here for perhaps the best exposition on the Second you will read.
Michael Geer welcomes comments at geer.michael@gmail.com. He is an author and publisher www.priceriverpublishing.weebly.comhttp://www.aintnotruthlikeit.com/index.html
Self Governance is Under Attack, not just the Second Amendment
Will YOU let them?
January 11, 2013
Neil Snyder
On Wednesday, Rasmussen Reports released the results of a poll revealing that only "74% of American Adults continue to believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun." This finding is perplexing because the Constitution hasn't changed. You can actually see it in the National Archives, and right there in the Bill of Rights you will find the Second Amendment. It reads as follows:
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.
The language in the Second Amendment isn't vague or confusing. Since only 74% of our fellow citizens believe that we have a constitutional right to own guns, it's safe to conclude that roughly a quarter of our population isn't familiar with our founding document and the principles that it sets forth. That's disheartening because our forefathers fought and died to secure those rights for us, and we're in the process of frittering them away.
The Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution because the people demanded it. They were fearful that the United States of America would become something altogether different from the nation that they fought to create unless those rights were specifically enumerated in the Constitution itself.
As it turns out, their fears were justified. One-by-one, our founding principles are coming under attack, and one-by-one, they are being abrogated. For example, something as seemingly innocuous as healthcare has pitted the United States government against Christians throughout the nation thanks to Obamacare, and our First Amendment rights have been trampled upon.
The Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 essays that were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to convince the people of our fledgling country to support the Constitution. They lay out the arguments for the creation of a form of government that Abraham Lincoln referred to as "of the people, by the people, and for the people" in his Gettysburg Address.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...
The constitutional issues being decided upon today threaten to remake this nation into something that our Founding Fathers would not have tolerated, much less supported. It's time for us to decide if we still believe in self governance. If we do, are we willing to defend that governing principle? Stated another way, is our country's government still of the people, by the people, and for the people, or is it a dictatorship? The answer to those questions will determine the kind of nation that we leave to future generations.
History teaches that the world is full of tyrants who would like to control us.
Will we let them?
Neil Snyder is the Ralph A. Beeton Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia. His blog, SnyderTalk.com, is posted daily.
January 11, 2013
Neil Snyder
On Wednesday, Rasmussen Reports released the results of a poll revealing that only "74% of American Adults continue to believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun." This finding is perplexing because the Constitution hasn't changed. You can actually see it in the National Archives, and right there in the Bill of Rights you will find the Second Amendment. It reads as follows:
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.
The language in the Second Amendment isn't vague or confusing. Since only 74% of our fellow citizens believe that we have a constitutional right to own guns, it's safe to conclude that roughly a quarter of our population isn't familiar with our founding document and the principles that it sets forth. That's disheartening because our forefathers fought and died to secure those rights for us, and we're in the process of frittering them away.
The Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution because the people demanded it. They were fearful that the United States of America would become something altogether different from the nation that they fought to create unless those rights were specifically enumerated in the Constitution itself.
As it turns out, their fears were justified. One-by-one, our founding principles are coming under attack, and one-by-one, they are being abrogated. For example, something as seemingly innocuous as healthcare has pitted the United States government against Christians throughout the nation thanks to Obamacare, and our First Amendment rights have been trampled upon.
The Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 essays that were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to convince the people of our fledgling country to support the Constitution. They lay out the arguments for the creation of a form of government that Abraham Lincoln referred to as "of the people, by the people, and for the people" in his Gettysburg Address.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...
The constitutional issues being decided upon today threaten to remake this nation into something that our Founding Fathers would not have tolerated, much less supported. It's time for us to decide if we still believe in self governance. If we do, are we willing to defend that governing principle? Stated another way, is our country's government still of the people, by the people, and for the people, or is it a dictatorship? The answer to those questions will determine the kind of nation that we leave to future generations.
History teaches that the world is full of tyrants who would like to control us.
Will we let them?
Neil Snyder is the Ralph A. Beeton Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia. His blog, SnyderTalk.com, is posted daily.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Hitler vs Obama - 25 Signs That America Is Rapidly Becoming More Like Nazi Germany
From the Worth-Reading-Blog. Dead-on-Balls accurate. Enuff said.
Monday, May 14, 2012
The United States of America is becoming more like Nazi Germany every single day. In fact, the Nazification of America is almost complete. The parallels between Nazi Germany and the United States of today are going to absolutely shock many of you. Most Americans simply have never learned what life was really like back in Nazi Germany. Under Adolf Hitler, Germany was a Big Brother totalitarian police state that ruthlessly repressed freedom and individual liberty. Under Adolf Hitler, Germany adopted socialism, dramatically increased government spending and raised taxes to astronomical levels. Under Adolf Hitler, abortion became legal in Germany, the government took over health care and Christianity was pushed out of the public schools and out of public life. To prove all of these points, I am going to use extensive quotes from two sources. Kitty Werthmann was a child living a peaceful life in Austria when Hitler took over her nation. Her eyewitness accounts about what life was like under Nazi Germany are invaluable. In addition, I will also be quoting extensively from author Bruce Walker. He is the author of a book entitled "The Swastika Against The Cross: The Nazi War On Christianity", and during his years of research he has uncovered some absolutely jaw dropping stuff. After reading the information in the rest of this article, there should be no doubt that the United States is becoming just like Nazi Germany.
Nazi Germany shows us what happens when the state becomes god. Adolf Hitler was certainly more racist than the leaders of America are today, but other than that there are very few differences between the road that Adolf Hitler led Germany down and the path that the United States is being led down.
The following are 25 signs that America is rapidly becoming more like Nazi Germany....
#1 Nazi Germany was a totalitarian Big Brother police state that constantly monitored everything that German citizens did.
Today, the bureaucrats that run things in the United States are also absolutely obsessed with constantly trying to monitor us. For example, there are now control freaks that inspect the lunches of preschool students in certain areas of the country in order to make sure that they contain the "right" foods....
A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because the school told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.
The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the person who was inspecting all lunch boxes in the More at Four classroom that day.
The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs - including in-home day care centers - to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.#2 Nazi officials often used their positions of power to force others to do dehumanizing things.
This is exactly what the TSA is doing today. It would be really easy to imagine some Nazi military officers forcing a young woman to walk back and forth in front of them several times so that they could admire her form. Well, that is what TSA agents are doing to American women today. The following comes from a recent Wired article....
TSA agents in Dallas singled out female passengers to undergo screening in a body scanner, according to complaints filed by several women who said they felt the screeners intentionally targeted them to view their bodies.
One woman who flew out of Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport several months ago said a female agent sent her through a body scanner three times after the agent commented on her “cute” body.#3 In Nazi Germany, even women and children were treated like dehumanized cattle.
Well, today schoolchildren are being strip-searched all over the United States. Down in Georgia, one student was recently strip-searched by public school officials after another student falsely accused him of having marijuana.
Another student down in Albuquerque was recently forced to strip down to his underwear while five adults watched because he had $200 in his pocket. The student was never formally charged with doing anything wrong.
#4 In Nazi Germany, authorities could stop you and search you at any time and for any reason.
In America that is not supposed to happen, but it is happening. Last year, TSA "VIPR teams" conducted approximately 8,000 "unannounced security screenings" at subway stations, bus terminals, seaports and highway rest stops.
If you are not able to produce "your papers", there is a good chance that you will get thrown into prison in America. For example, a 21-year-old college student named Samantha Zucker was recently arrested and put in a New York City jail for 36 hours just because she could not produce any identification for police.
#5 Under Adolf Hitler, there were massive increases in government spending.
According to eyewitness Kitty Werthmann, just about everyone was getting some sort of a handout from the German government....
Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.Of course, as I have written about so many times before, this is the exact same thing that we are seeing in the United States today.
#6 Under Hitler, taxes were raised dramatically in order to pay for all of these social programs.
Kitty Werthmann says that "our tax rates went up to 80% of our income."
In the United States our tax rates have not gotten that bad yet, but when you total up all federal taxes, all state taxes, all local taxes, all property taxes and all sales taxes, there are a significant number of Americans that do pay more than 50% of their incomes in taxes.
#7 The economy of Nazi Germany was very highly socialized.
As Ludwig Von Mises once correctly observed, the German economy under Hitler was not capitalist at all....
What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.The United States has not gotten to the level of Nazi Germany yet, but we do have a socialist president and back in 2009 the cover of Newsweek boldly proclaimed that "We Are All Socialists Now".
#8 In Nazi Germany, if you conducted business outside of the socialist paradigm you were heavily punished.
Well, the same thing is happening in the United States today. For example, the FDA has been runningelaborate entrapment schemes that are designed to entrap producers of raw milk. Any "unauthorized commerce" is dealt with very strictly by the U.S. government these days.
#9 In Nazi Germany, government regulation of business got wildly out of control.
The following is eyewitness testimony from Kitty Werthmann....
My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables. Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn't meet all the demands. Soon, he went out of business.
If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.
We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.Of course we all know about all of the ridiculous regulations that the U.S. government is burdening businesses with today. In every day and age control freaks love to stick it to business people that are just trying to make a living.
#10 Under Hitler, free market capitalism was absolutely hated.
National Socialist theologian Gregor Strasser once stated the following....
We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.And as I have written about previously, a lot of Barack Obama's strongest supporters are socialists and communists, and an increasing number of Americans are showing disdain for capitalism. In fact, some recent polls show that young adults in America actually have a more favorable view of socialism than they do of capitalism.
#11 In Nazi Germany, the health care system was taken over by the government.
The following is more eyewitness testimony from Kitty Werthmann....
Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna . After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.Of course we all know what is going on in America today. The government spends nearly half of all health care dollars and Obamacare is going to mean more government control over the health care system than ever before.
#12 Under Adolf Hitler, abortion was made "safe and legal" in Germany.
It turns out that Hitler was a huge fan of the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. And as I wrote about recently, it was Sanger that once said the following....
"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."Hitler echoed this sentiment when he wrote the following in Mein Kampf....
"The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring. . . represents the most humane act of mankind."After the Nazis came to power in 1933, abortion was very quickly legalized. By 1935 there were approximately 500,000 abortions being performed in Germany every single year.
Yes, Hitler very much encouraged Aryan women to have as many children as possible. But he also very much viewed abortion as a way to reduce "undesirable" populations.
Unfortunately, something very similar is happening today. Abortion clinics are often located in the "poor" part of town, and a staggering 72 percent of Planned Parenthood's "customers" have incomes that are either equal to or beneath 150 percent of the federal poverty level.
#13 In Nazi Germany, killing the "defective", the "weak" and the "disabled" was considered to be a good thing because it made the German people "stronger".
Unfortunately, many in America today have fully embraced the eugenics principles which were so dominant in Nazi Germany.
A 3 year old girl named Amelia was recently denied a kidney transplant because she is considered to be "mentally retarded", and we all remember what happened to Terri Schiavo.
Not only that, the editorial page editor of the Detroit News recently proposed putting contraceptives into the drinking water in Michigan because the state has become a "breeding ground for poverty".
This kind of sick thinking is rapidly spreading in America, and that is a very frightening thing.
#14 In Nazi Germany, education was nationalized and God was kicked out of the schools.
The following is more eyewitness testimony from Kitty Werthmann....
Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler's picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn't pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles, and had physical education.Unfortunately, the exact same thing is happening to U.S. public schools.
#15 Under Adolf Hitler, God was mocked and religion was pushed out of every corner of public life.
Just check out the following information uncovered by author Bruce Walker....
The Nazi tract Gott und Volk was distributed in 1941, and it describes the life cycle of German youth in the future, who would: “With parties and gifts the youth will be led painlessly from one faith to the other and will grow up without ever having heard of the Sermon on the Mount or the Golden Rule, to say nothing of the Ten Commandments… The education of the youth is to be confined primarily by the teacher, the officer, and the leaders of the party. The priests will die out. They have estranged the youth from the Volk. Into their places will step the leaders. Not deputies of God. But anyway the best Germans. And how shall we train our children? Thus, as though they had never heard of Christianity!”Once again, this parallels what we are seeing happen in America today. Last year, a high school student in Southern California was suspended for two days because he had private conversations with his classmates during which he discussed Christianity. He was also banned from bringing his Bible to school ever again.
For many more examples of this phenomenon, please see this article: "18 Examples Of How Christians Are Being Specifically Targeted By Big Brother".
#16 Adolf Hitler fully embraced the theory of evolution, and Darwinism provided the intellectual foundation for much of Nazism.
At a Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg in 1933, Hitler declared that "higher race subjects to itself a lower race . . .a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right".
Hitler was obsessed with the "survival of the fittest" and he took this theory to its logical extremes. The following is how one author put it....
"Hitler was influenced above all by the theories of the nineteenth-century social Darwinist school, whose conception of man as biological material was bound up with impulses towards a planned society. He was convinced that the race was disintegrating, deteriorating through faulty breeding as a result of a liberally tinged promiscuity that was vitiating the nation’s blood. And this led to the establishment of a catalogue of ‘positive’ curative measures: racial hygiene, eugenic choice of marriage partners, the breeding of human beings by the methods of selection on the one hand and extirpation on the other"But of course we have no problem with teaching this flawed theory to our children in the public schools of America today.
Haven't we learned anything from history?
#17 Under Adolf Hitler, the state started taking over the job of child care.
The following is more eyewitness testimony from Kitty Werthmann....
When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology.Of course this is exactly what is happening in America today. Children are raised by day care centers and public schools, and most parents spend very little time with their own children.
#18 In Nazi Germany, it became fashionable to mock Christians and the Christian faith.
The following is more from author Bruce Walker....
By 1935, the virulently anti-Christian leader of the Hitler Youth, Baldur von Shirach issued a regulation that prohibited any child from belonging simultaneously to a church youth group and the Hitler Youth, and gradually membership in the Hitler Youth became almost obligatory – parents were told that their children would not get jobs in the civil service unless they belonged to the Hitler Youth and employers were told not to hire children who did not belong to the Hitler Youth. Christian schoolchildren who did not belong to the Hitler Youth or its female counterpart were routinely beaten up by young Nazi thugs.
Boys inducted into the Hitler Youth were required to explicitly reject Christianity by oaths like this: “German blood and Christian baptismal water are completely incompatible.” At Hitler Youth center at Halle, was the following prominent statement: “The Faith fanatics, who still to-day slide down on their knees with faces uplifted to heaven, waste their time in churchgoing and prayers, and have not yet understood that they are living on the earth and that therefore their task is of a thoroughly earthly kind. All we Hitler people can still only look with the greatest contempt on those young people who still run to their silly Evangelical or Catholic Churches in order to vent their quite superstitious religious feelings.” Those that believe that the Nazis embraced Christianity are delusional. The following are direct quotes out of Hitler Youth training manuals....
“Christianity is a religion of slaves and fools.”
“How did Christ die? Whining at the Cross!”
“The Ten Commandments represent the lowest instincts of man.”
“Christianity is merely a cloak for Judaism.”
This is definitely where things are going in America today. Our television shows and our movies regularly mock Christians and they are always portrayed as the "bad guys".
In addition, the name of Jesus is rapidly becoming a forbidden word. Some U.S. courts have even ruled that it is unconstitutional to use the name of "Jesus Christ" during any official government meeting. The following comes from a recent WorldNetDaily article....
But the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are standing by their victory in a U.S. circuit court decision that states even "a solitary reference to Jesus Christ" in invocations before the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners' meetings could do "violence to the pluralistic and inclusive values that are a defining feature of American public life."#19 Under Adolf Hitler, sexual promiscuity was actually encouraged.
The following is more eyewitness testimony from Kitty Werthmann....
My mother was very unhappy. When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn't do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun no sports, and no political indoctrination. I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing. Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler. It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn't exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.Of course the exact same thing is happening in America today. If you doubt that your tax dollars are going to promote sexual promiscuity, then I have a video for you to watch. It is a video from the American Life League, and you can view it right here. DO NOT let any children watch this video. It is done by a pro-life organization but it is very graphic. I have posted a link to it because it is imperative that parents understand what is really going on out there. But please be warned that it is very, very graphic.
#20 Once the Nazis took power, they rapidly implemented gun control legislation and later on they took all of the guns away from the populace.
Kitty Werthmann remembers very well what happened in Austria under the Nazis....
Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.Last year, more than 10 million guns were sold in the United States, but gun control legislation continues to become even more strict, and it is only a matter of time before the federal government tries to disarm the U.S. population completely.
#21 Under the Nazis, large numbers of children were taken away from good families.
The following is more from author Bruce Walker....
Parents who resisted Nazi anti-Christian indoctrination too strongly simply had their children taken away from them. The Nazis even forbade parents to give their children Christian names and ordered babies instead to be given names like Dietrich, Otto or Siegfried. The home teaching of Christianity by parents in the home was forbidden. Not content with simply driving Christianity out of public schools, Himmler banned all Confessing Church seminaries and instruction in 1937 and he closed all private religious schools two years later.Doesn't this sound exactly like where America is headed?
In many states, CPS ("child protective services") has become one of the most feared government agencies. All over the nation, thousands upon thousands of children have been removed from good homes because the parents were not raising them "correctly".
You can read about one particularly bad CPS horror story right here.
#22 Under Adolf Hitler, society became very highly militarized.
Of course we are seeing the same thing in the U.S. right now.
Sadly, this is even happening to our public schools. According to blogger Alexander Higgins, students in kindergarten and the 1st grade in the state of New Jersey are now required by law to participate "in monthly anti-terrorism drills". The following is an excerpt from a letter that he recently received from the school where his child attends....
Each month a school must conduct one fire drill and one security drill which may be a lockdown, bomb threat, evacuation, active shooter, or shelter-in place drill. All schools are now required by law to implement this procedure.This is the kind of thing that a sicko like Adolf Hitler would try to do, and it is not good for our children.
#23 In Nazi Germany, the prisons were absolutely packed.
Right now, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world by far and the largest total prison population on the entire globe by far.
Even children are being arrested in alarming numbers. In a previous article, I described how one 12-year-old girl down in Texas was recently arrested for spraying herself with perfume and how police were recently sent out to collect an overdue library book from a 5-year-old girl in Massachusetts.
#24 Under Adolf Hitler, there was basically no freedom of speech.
In the United States today we are told that we still have freedom of speech, but that freedom is being "chilled" in thousands of different ways.
For example, the FBI is now admittedly recording Internet talk radio programs all over the United States. The following comes from a recent article by Mark Weaver of WMAL.com....
If you call a radio talk show and get on the air, you might be recorded by the FBI.
The FBI has awarded a $524,927 contract to a Virginia company to record as much radio news and talk programming as it can find on the Internet.
The FBI says it is not playing big brother by policing the airwaves, but rather seeking access to what airs as potential evidence.So please speak freely on talk radio. Just realize that the feds will be recording every single word.
#25 Under Adolf Hitler, paranoia was standard operating procedure.
In Nazi Germany, every citizen was a potential threat and everyone had to be constantly watched for suspicious activity.
Of course the exact same thing is happening in America today. Just about anything you do can get you labeled as a "potential terrorist" by the government.
According to a new DHS report, the following are some of the beliefs and ideologies of potential terrorists....
-"fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)"
-"anti-global"
-"suspicious of centralized federal authority"
-"reverent of individual liberty"
-"believe in conspiracy theories"
-"a belief that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack"
-"a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism"
-"impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)"
-"insert religion into the political sphere"
-"those who seek to politicize religion"
-"supported political movements for autonomy"
-"anti-abortion"
-"anti-Catholic"
-"anti-nuclear"
And the definition of "suspicious activity" has become so broad in America that it pretty much covers 100% of us. In 2012, the following activities are considered to be "suspicious" by the FBI....
-shielding your computer screen from others
-paying with cash
-acting "nervous"
-using multiple cell phones
-requesting a specific room at a hotel
-traveling with a large amount of luggage
-refusing maid service at a hotel
-staying in your room for too long
-changing your appearance
In addition, the U.S. government has decided that it would be a really good idea for all of us to spy on one another. The "If You See Something, Say Something" campaign looks like it could have been pulled right out of a Gestapo security handbook.
But America is not supposed to be about spying on one another and reporting each other to the secret police.
America is supposed to be about liberty and freedom.
Monday, May 14, 2012
The United States of America is becoming more like Nazi Germany every single day. In fact, the Nazification of America is almost complete. The parallels between Nazi Germany and the United States of today are going to absolutely shock many of you. Most Americans simply have never learned what life was really like back in Nazi Germany. Under Adolf Hitler, Germany was a Big Brother totalitarian police state that ruthlessly repressed freedom and individual liberty. Under Adolf Hitler, Germany adopted socialism, dramatically increased government spending and raised taxes to astronomical levels. Under Adolf Hitler, abortion became legal in Germany, the government took over health care and Christianity was pushed out of the public schools and out of public life. To prove all of these points, I am going to use extensive quotes from two sources. Kitty Werthmann was a child living a peaceful life in Austria when Hitler took over her nation. Her eyewitness accounts about what life was like under Nazi Germany are invaluable. In addition, I will also be quoting extensively from author Bruce Walker. He is the author of a book entitled "The Swastika Against The Cross: The Nazi War On Christianity", and during his years of research he has uncovered some absolutely jaw dropping stuff. After reading the information in the rest of this article, there should be no doubt that the United States is becoming just like Nazi Germany.
Nazi Germany shows us what happens when the state becomes god. Adolf Hitler was certainly more racist than the leaders of America are today, but other than that there are very few differences between the road that Adolf Hitler led Germany down and the path that the United States is being led down.
The following are 25 signs that America is rapidly becoming more like Nazi Germany....
#1 Nazi Germany was a totalitarian Big Brother police state that constantly monitored everything that German citizens did.
Today, the bureaucrats that run things in the United States are also absolutely obsessed with constantly trying to monitor us. For example, there are now control freaks that inspect the lunches of preschool students in certain areas of the country in order to make sure that they contain the "right" foods....
A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because the school told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.
The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the person who was inspecting all lunch boxes in the More at Four classroom that day.
The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs - including in-home day care centers - to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.#2 Nazi officials often used their positions of power to force others to do dehumanizing things.
This is exactly what the TSA is doing today. It would be really easy to imagine some Nazi military officers forcing a young woman to walk back and forth in front of them several times so that they could admire her form. Well, that is what TSA agents are doing to American women today. The following comes from a recent Wired article....
TSA agents in Dallas singled out female passengers to undergo screening in a body scanner, according to complaints filed by several women who said they felt the screeners intentionally targeted them to view their bodies.
One woman who flew out of Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport several months ago said a female agent sent her through a body scanner three times after the agent commented on her “cute” body.#3 In Nazi Germany, even women and children were treated like dehumanized cattle.
Well, today schoolchildren are being strip-searched all over the United States. Down in Georgia, one student was recently strip-searched by public school officials after another student falsely accused him of having marijuana.
Another student down in Albuquerque was recently forced to strip down to his underwear while five adults watched because he had $200 in his pocket. The student was never formally charged with doing anything wrong.
#4 In Nazi Germany, authorities could stop you and search you at any time and for any reason.
In America that is not supposed to happen, but it is happening. Last year, TSA "VIPR teams" conducted approximately 8,000 "unannounced security screenings" at subway stations, bus terminals, seaports and highway rest stops.
If you are not able to produce "your papers", there is a good chance that you will get thrown into prison in America. For example, a 21-year-old college student named Samantha Zucker was recently arrested and put in a New York City jail for 36 hours just because she could not produce any identification for police.
#5 Under Adolf Hitler, there were massive increases in government spending.
According to eyewitness Kitty Werthmann, just about everyone was getting some sort of a handout from the German government....
Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.Of course, as I have written about so many times before, this is the exact same thing that we are seeing in the United States today.
#6 Under Hitler, taxes were raised dramatically in order to pay for all of these social programs.
Kitty Werthmann says that "our tax rates went up to 80% of our income."
In the United States our tax rates have not gotten that bad yet, but when you total up all federal taxes, all state taxes, all local taxes, all property taxes and all sales taxes, there are a significant number of Americans that do pay more than 50% of their incomes in taxes.
#7 The economy of Nazi Germany was very highly socialized.
As Ludwig Von Mises once correctly observed, the German economy under Hitler was not capitalist at all....
What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.The United States has not gotten to the level of Nazi Germany yet, but we do have a socialist president and back in 2009 the cover of Newsweek boldly proclaimed that "We Are All Socialists Now".
#8 In Nazi Germany, if you conducted business outside of the socialist paradigm you were heavily punished.
Well, the same thing is happening in the United States today. For example, the FDA has been runningelaborate entrapment schemes that are designed to entrap producers of raw milk. Any "unauthorized commerce" is dealt with very strictly by the U.S. government these days.
#9 In Nazi Germany, government regulation of business got wildly out of control.
The following is eyewitness testimony from Kitty Werthmann....
My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables. Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn't meet all the demands. Soon, he went out of business.
If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.
We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.Of course we all know about all of the ridiculous regulations that the U.S. government is burdening businesses with today. In every day and age control freaks love to stick it to business people that are just trying to make a living.
#10 Under Hitler, free market capitalism was absolutely hated.
National Socialist theologian Gregor Strasser once stated the following....
We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.And as I have written about previously, a lot of Barack Obama's strongest supporters are socialists and communists, and an increasing number of Americans are showing disdain for capitalism. In fact, some recent polls show that young adults in America actually have a more favorable view of socialism than they do of capitalism.
#11 In Nazi Germany, the health care system was taken over by the government.
The following is more eyewitness testimony from Kitty Werthmann....
Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna . After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.Of course we all know what is going on in America today. The government spends nearly half of all health care dollars and Obamacare is going to mean more government control over the health care system than ever before.
#12 Under Adolf Hitler, abortion was made "safe and legal" in Germany.
It turns out that Hitler was a huge fan of the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. And as I wrote about recently, it was Sanger that once said the following....
"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."Hitler echoed this sentiment when he wrote the following in Mein Kampf....
"The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring. . . represents the most humane act of mankind."After the Nazis came to power in 1933, abortion was very quickly legalized. By 1935 there were approximately 500,000 abortions being performed in Germany every single year.
Yes, Hitler very much encouraged Aryan women to have as many children as possible. But he also very much viewed abortion as a way to reduce "undesirable" populations.
Unfortunately, something very similar is happening today. Abortion clinics are often located in the "poor" part of town, and a staggering 72 percent of Planned Parenthood's "customers" have incomes that are either equal to or beneath 150 percent of the federal poverty level.
#13 In Nazi Germany, killing the "defective", the "weak" and the "disabled" was considered to be a good thing because it made the German people "stronger".
Unfortunately, many in America today have fully embraced the eugenics principles which were so dominant in Nazi Germany.
A 3 year old girl named Amelia was recently denied a kidney transplant because she is considered to be "mentally retarded", and we all remember what happened to Terri Schiavo.
Not only that, the editorial page editor of the Detroit News recently proposed putting contraceptives into the drinking water in Michigan because the state has become a "breeding ground for poverty".
This kind of sick thinking is rapidly spreading in America, and that is a very frightening thing.
#14 In Nazi Germany, education was nationalized and God was kicked out of the schools.
The following is more eyewitness testimony from Kitty Werthmann....
Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler's picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn't pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles, and had physical education.Unfortunately, the exact same thing is happening to U.S. public schools.
#15 Under Adolf Hitler, God was mocked and religion was pushed out of every corner of public life.
Just check out the following information uncovered by author Bruce Walker....
The Nazi tract Gott und Volk was distributed in 1941, and it describes the life cycle of German youth in the future, who would: “With parties and gifts the youth will be led painlessly from one faith to the other and will grow up without ever having heard of the Sermon on the Mount or the Golden Rule, to say nothing of the Ten Commandments… The education of the youth is to be confined primarily by the teacher, the officer, and the leaders of the party. The priests will die out. They have estranged the youth from the Volk. Into their places will step the leaders. Not deputies of God. But anyway the best Germans. And how shall we train our children? Thus, as though they had never heard of Christianity!”Once again, this parallels what we are seeing happen in America today. Last year, a high school student in Southern California was suspended for two days because he had private conversations with his classmates during which he discussed Christianity. He was also banned from bringing his Bible to school ever again.
For many more examples of this phenomenon, please see this article: "18 Examples Of How Christians Are Being Specifically Targeted By Big Brother".
#16 Adolf Hitler fully embraced the theory of evolution, and Darwinism provided the intellectual foundation for much of Nazism.
At a Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg in 1933, Hitler declared that "higher race subjects to itself a lower race . . .a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right".
Hitler was obsessed with the "survival of the fittest" and he took this theory to its logical extremes. The following is how one author put it....
"Hitler was influenced above all by the theories of the nineteenth-century social Darwinist school, whose conception of man as biological material was bound up with impulses towards a planned society. He was convinced that the race was disintegrating, deteriorating through faulty breeding as a result of a liberally tinged promiscuity that was vitiating the nation’s blood. And this led to the establishment of a catalogue of ‘positive’ curative measures: racial hygiene, eugenic choice of marriage partners, the breeding of human beings by the methods of selection on the one hand and extirpation on the other"But of course we have no problem with teaching this flawed theory to our children in the public schools of America today.
Haven't we learned anything from history?
#17 Under Adolf Hitler, the state started taking over the job of child care.
The following is more eyewitness testimony from Kitty Werthmann....
When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology.Of course this is exactly what is happening in America today. Children are raised by day care centers and public schools, and most parents spend very little time with their own children.
#18 In Nazi Germany, it became fashionable to mock Christians and the Christian faith.
The following is more from author Bruce Walker....
By 1935, the virulently anti-Christian leader of the Hitler Youth, Baldur von Shirach issued a regulation that prohibited any child from belonging simultaneously to a church youth group and the Hitler Youth, and gradually membership in the Hitler Youth became almost obligatory – parents were told that their children would not get jobs in the civil service unless they belonged to the Hitler Youth and employers were told not to hire children who did not belong to the Hitler Youth. Christian schoolchildren who did not belong to the Hitler Youth or its female counterpart were routinely beaten up by young Nazi thugs.
Boys inducted into the Hitler Youth were required to explicitly reject Christianity by oaths like this: “German blood and Christian baptismal water are completely incompatible.” At Hitler Youth center at Halle, was the following prominent statement: “The Faith fanatics, who still to-day slide down on their knees with faces uplifted to heaven, waste their time in churchgoing and prayers, and have not yet understood that they are living on the earth and that therefore their task is of a thoroughly earthly kind. All we Hitler people can still only look with the greatest contempt on those young people who still run to their silly Evangelical or Catholic Churches in order to vent their quite superstitious religious feelings.” Those that believe that the Nazis embraced Christianity are delusional. The following are direct quotes out of Hitler Youth training manuals....
“Christianity is a religion of slaves and fools.”
“How did Christ die? Whining at the Cross!”
“The Ten Commandments represent the lowest instincts of man.”
“Christianity is merely a cloak for Judaism.”
This is definitely where things are going in America today. Our television shows and our movies regularly mock Christians and they are always portrayed as the "bad guys".
In addition, the name of Jesus is rapidly becoming a forbidden word. Some U.S. courts have even ruled that it is unconstitutional to use the name of "Jesus Christ" during any official government meeting. The following comes from a recent WorldNetDaily article....
But the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are standing by their victory in a U.S. circuit court decision that states even "a solitary reference to Jesus Christ" in invocations before the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners' meetings could do "violence to the pluralistic and inclusive values that are a defining feature of American public life."#19 Under Adolf Hitler, sexual promiscuity was actually encouraged.
The following is more eyewitness testimony from Kitty Werthmann....
My mother was very unhappy. When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn't do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun no sports, and no political indoctrination. I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing. Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler. It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn't exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.Of course the exact same thing is happening in America today. If you doubt that your tax dollars are going to promote sexual promiscuity, then I have a video for you to watch. It is a video from the American Life League, and you can view it right here. DO NOT let any children watch this video. It is done by a pro-life organization but it is very graphic. I have posted a link to it because it is imperative that parents understand what is really going on out there. But please be warned that it is very, very graphic.
#20 Once the Nazis took power, they rapidly implemented gun control legislation and later on they took all of the guns away from the populace.
Kitty Werthmann remembers very well what happened in Austria under the Nazis....
Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.Last year, more than 10 million guns were sold in the United States, but gun control legislation continues to become even more strict, and it is only a matter of time before the federal government tries to disarm the U.S. population completely.
#21 Under the Nazis, large numbers of children were taken away from good families.
The following is more from author Bruce Walker....
Parents who resisted Nazi anti-Christian indoctrination too strongly simply had their children taken away from them. The Nazis even forbade parents to give their children Christian names and ordered babies instead to be given names like Dietrich, Otto or Siegfried. The home teaching of Christianity by parents in the home was forbidden. Not content with simply driving Christianity out of public schools, Himmler banned all Confessing Church seminaries and instruction in 1937 and he closed all private religious schools two years later.Doesn't this sound exactly like where America is headed?
In many states, CPS ("child protective services") has become one of the most feared government agencies. All over the nation, thousands upon thousands of children have been removed from good homes because the parents were not raising them "correctly".
You can read about one particularly bad CPS horror story right here.
#22 Under Adolf Hitler, society became very highly militarized.
Of course we are seeing the same thing in the U.S. right now.
Sadly, this is even happening to our public schools. According to blogger Alexander Higgins, students in kindergarten and the 1st grade in the state of New Jersey are now required by law to participate "in monthly anti-terrorism drills". The following is an excerpt from a letter that he recently received from the school where his child attends....
Each month a school must conduct one fire drill and one security drill which may be a lockdown, bomb threat, evacuation, active shooter, or shelter-in place drill. All schools are now required by law to implement this procedure.This is the kind of thing that a sicko like Adolf Hitler would try to do, and it is not good for our children.
#23 In Nazi Germany, the prisons were absolutely packed.
Right now, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world by far and the largest total prison population on the entire globe by far.
Even children are being arrested in alarming numbers. In a previous article, I described how one 12-year-old girl down in Texas was recently arrested for spraying herself with perfume and how police were recently sent out to collect an overdue library book from a 5-year-old girl in Massachusetts.
#24 Under Adolf Hitler, there was basically no freedom of speech.
In the United States today we are told that we still have freedom of speech, but that freedom is being "chilled" in thousands of different ways.
For example, the FBI is now admittedly recording Internet talk radio programs all over the United States. The following comes from a recent article by Mark Weaver of WMAL.com....
If you call a radio talk show and get on the air, you might be recorded by the FBI.
The FBI has awarded a $524,927 contract to a Virginia company to record as much radio news and talk programming as it can find on the Internet.
The FBI says it is not playing big brother by policing the airwaves, but rather seeking access to what airs as potential evidence.So please speak freely on talk radio. Just realize that the feds will be recording every single word.
#25 Under Adolf Hitler, paranoia was standard operating procedure.
In Nazi Germany, every citizen was a potential threat and everyone had to be constantly watched for suspicious activity.
Of course the exact same thing is happening in America today. Just about anything you do can get you labeled as a "potential terrorist" by the government.
According to a new DHS report, the following are some of the beliefs and ideologies of potential terrorists....
-"fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)"
-"anti-global"
-"suspicious of centralized federal authority"
-"reverent of individual liberty"
-"believe in conspiracy theories"
-"a belief that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack"
-"a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism"
-"impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)"
-"insert religion into the political sphere"
-"those who seek to politicize religion"
-"supported political movements for autonomy"
-"anti-abortion"
-"anti-Catholic"
-"anti-nuclear"
And the definition of "suspicious activity" has become so broad in America that it pretty much covers 100% of us. In 2012, the following activities are considered to be "suspicious" by the FBI....
-shielding your computer screen from others
-paying with cash
-acting "nervous"
-using multiple cell phones
-requesting a specific room at a hotel
-traveling with a large amount of luggage
-refusing maid service at a hotel
-staying in your room for too long
-changing your appearance
In addition, the U.S. government has decided that it would be a really good idea for all of us to spy on one another. The "If You See Something, Say Something" campaign looks like it could have been pulled right out of a Gestapo security handbook.
But America is not supposed to be about spying on one another and reporting each other to the secret police.
America is supposed to be about liberty and freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
