By Thomas DiLorenzo
The radical leftist cultural Marxists who organized the
Trash-the-Constitution rally in D.C. and elsewhere last week picked out a
few kids as their leading political pawns/mascots. One of them has the
unfortunate name of David Hogg. They stood him up at a podium with arm
raised in a Hitler-like salute to repeat F-bomb after F-bomb while
arguing for the abolition of the Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution (without which the First Amendment would also become a dead
letter). The lying media scum made the little Hitler youth out to be
some kind of hero, naturally. The totalitarian Left has now resorted to
the tactic of getting mentally-challenged children to publicly spout
their crazed leftism, and when they are criticized they don’t answer the
criticisms but accuse their critics of being cold-hearted child
haters. (The same people who champion the cause of murdering millions
of children with abortions).
FOX News commentator Laura Ingraham decided to have a little fun with
little Adolf Hogg by tweeting about how he had complained online that a
lot of California colleges had rejected his applications despite the
fact that he is “changing the world.” Perhaps they got wind of his
unhinged, psychotic F-bomb tirades.
Well. Little Hitler invited his fellow brainwashed children on the
twitterverse to bombard Ingraham’s advertisers and complain about how
insensitive she is toward “children.” They did, and a number of
cowardly and traitorous corporations have said that they are pulling
their advertising, thereby lending their official corporate support to
the totalitarian movement to abolish the Second Amendment.
Here’s a short list of what companies have so far climbed on the
anti-Constitution bandwagon and which should be boycotted, criticized,
and belittled by all freedom-loving Americans (and non-Americans as
well):
Hulu
Expedia
Nestle
Rachel Ray’s Nutish Pet Food
Wayfair
Tripadvisor
Expedia
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Saturday, March 31, 2018
Thursday, March 29, 2018
Stevens’ Call to Repeal Second Amendment Caps a Career of Judicial Subversion
By David Codrea via Ammo Land
“Repeal the Second Amendment,” retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens declared in a Tuesday “op-ed” in The New York Times. It’s actually the third time “the newspaper of record” has hosted such sentiments in recent months, and they’re hardly alone.But no one’s talking about taking your guns, the gun-grabbers scoff. Honest.
Citing the “dark money”-funded #MarxForOurLives media events we’re told were “organized” by children, Stevens cites ginned-up “demand” as justification for gun bans and for the eradication of a right the Founders deemed “necessary to the security of a free State.”
Recognizing the dangers of “pure democracy” mob rule, our Bill of Rights defined some of the areas where the individual would be immune to the will of the collective. Stevens knows that. His ignoring it is a motivated choice.
What this means is, no matter how many of us disagree with you, we cannot lawfully use force to shut you up, to suppress your political views, or to make you worship in the way we see fit. We cannot break into your house and search your property without probable cause and a legal warrant. We can’t torture you into confessing to a crime. Barring behaviors on your part to disqualify yourself from incarceration after being afforded full due process protections, we cannot strip you of your right to keep and bear arms.
The safeguard against tyranny provided by an armed populace from which a citizen militia can be formed is “a relic of the past,” Stevens counters, providing no additional corroboration beyond his say-so.
Now there’s a neat trick—because the government has ignored its duty it can now declare it obsolete. Try that with your employer. Stevens is offering a personal opinion here, not a legal one. And note he doesn’t say what about human nature has changed.
In the previous century that saw two world wars, continual violent political upheaval, genocide and systemic, brutal tyranny and repression, and noting the continuation into this century, has humanity truly demonstrated a benevolence and maturity that distinguishes our era from those that preceded us? In a culture that breeds gang warfare, rampant violence, city-crippling riots and a national murder rate measured in the tens of thousands, how can anyone credibly claim that the need for individual and collective defense is a relic of the past? And ultimately, what is this “outdated” Second Amendment really about, if not the preservation of a free people when all other options to defend life and liberty have been exhausted? Against all enemies, individual and aggregated, foreign and domestic…?
Don't look for Stevens to address that.
While it’s true Congress has been allowed to abandon its Constitutional duty “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,” former diplomat Alan Keyes correctly notes that’s something a free people ought to revive. The question now becomes how to convey that to lawmakers as an expectation with credible consequences should they continue to shirk an enumerated job requirement.
The Miller court specifically acknowledged “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense … [who] were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time [and] “the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense.”
The “well regulated” part began after they reported for duty.
“Chief Justice [Warren] Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating ‘one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime,’” Stevens continues, conveniently not mentioning that the opinion was not issued in any legal case, but rather in Parade Magazine of all places.
Attorney Dave Kopel pointed out Burger’s many errors and false assumptions. As an aside, Burger was appointed by Richard Nixon, a president who wanted to ban handguns.
“I was among the four dissenters,” Stevens says of the Heller decision, meaning if he had the power, he would order that you do not have a right to keep and bear arms and that the government should destroy you if you defied him.
Calling for repeal is a Hail Mary of sorts on Steven’s part. A few years back he wanted to amend things to read:
The only appropriate response to that (despite the impulse of some who fancy themselves our “gun rights leaders” to offer “compromise”) is one word:
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
“Repeal the Second Amendment,” retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens declared in a Tuesday “op-ed” in The New York Times. It’s actually the third time “the newspaper of record” has hosted such sentiments in recent months, and they’re hardly alone.But no one’s talking about taking your guns, the gun-grabbers scoff. Honest.
Citing the “dark money”-funded #MarxForOurLives media events we’re told were “organized” by children, Stevens cites ginned-up “demand” as justification for gun bans and for the eradication of a right the Founders deemed “necessary to the security of a free State.”
Recognizing the dangers of “pure democracy” mob rule, our Bill of Rights defined some of the areas where the individual would be immune to the will of the collective. Stevens knows that. His ignoring it is a motivated choice.
What this means is, no matter how many of us disagree with you, we cannot lawfully use force to shut you up, to suppress your political views, or to make you worship in the way we see fit. We cannot break into your house and search your property without probable cause and a legal warrant. We can’t torture you into confessing to a crime. Barring behaviors on your part to disqualify yourself from incarceration after being afforded full due process protections, we cannot strip you of your right to keep and bear arms.
The safeguard against tyranny provided by an armed populace from which a citizen militia can be formed is “a relic of the past,” Stevens counters, providing no additional corroboration beyond his say-so.
Now there’s a neat trick—because the government has ignored its duty it can now declare it obsolete. Try that with your employer. Stevens is offering a personal opinion here, not a legal one. And note he doesn’t say what about human nature has changed.
In the previous century that saw two world wars, continual violent political upheaval, genocide and systemic, brutal tyranny and repression, and noting the continuation into this century, has humanity truly demonstrated a benevolence and maturity that distinguishes our era from those that preceded us? In a culture that breeds gang warfare, rampant violence, city-crippling riots and a national murder rate measured in the tens of thousands, how can anyone credibly claim that the need for individual and collective defense is a relic of the past? And ultimately, what is this “outdated” Second Amendment really about, if not the preservation of a free people when all other options to defend life and liberty have been exhausted? Against all enemies, individual and aggregated, foreign and domestic…?
Don't look for Stevens to address that.
While it’s true Congress has been allowed to abandon its Constitutional duty “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,” former diplomat Alan Keyes correctly notes that’s something a free people ought to revive. The question now becomes how to convey that to lawmakers as an expectation with credible consequences should they continue to shirk an enumerated job requirement.
“For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation,” Stevens claims.
“Any limit”? What a liar.
And that would come as a surprise to William Rawle, whose ”View of the Constitution” was the standard Constitutional law text at leading universities in the early 19th Century. Here’s what he had to say:“No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”“In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a ‘well regulated militia,” Stevens follows up, deliberately obscuring the most crucial point.
The Miller court specifically acknowledged “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense … [who] were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time [and] “the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense.”
The “well regulated” part began after they reported for duty.
“Chief Justice [Warren] Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating ‘one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime,’” Stevens continues, conveniently not mentioning that the opinion was not issued in any legal case, but rather in Parade Magazine of all places.
Attorney Dave Kopel pointed out Burger’s many errors and false assumptions. As an aside, Burger was appointed by Richard Nixon, a president who wanted to ban handguns.
“I was among the four dissenters,” Stevens says of the Heller decision, meaning if he had the power, he would order that you do not have a right to keep and bear arms and that the government should destroy you if you defied him.
“Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option,” Stevens declares.First of all, a Constitutional amendment is anything but simple. The Founders that Stevens disregards so cavalierly purposely designed things that way. And this also shows Stevens hasn’t let either reality or existing precedent influence his biases, as the Heller majority noted when citing an earlier decision:
“The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’ As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…’”If a tyrannical government does repeal the Second Amendment it will not take away our right to keep and bear arms. Only we can give that up.
Calling for repeal is a Hail Mary of sorts on Steven’s part. A few years back he wanted to amend things to read:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms — when serving in the militia — shall not be infringed.”It’s tempting to dismiss this latest attack as the ramblings of a subversive dotard and conclude there’s no fool like an old fool. But Stevens has been doing this for years and is voicing the very real goals of those intent on establishing that old standby of totalitarian regimes everywhere, a monopoly of violence.
The only appropriate response to that (despite the impulse of some who fancy themselves our “gun rights leaders” to offer “compromise”) is one word:
No.It’s three words if you add “Your move.”
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
The Mask Slips
Totalitarian hell, with state control of all aspects of your life, from what you can eat and drink, how many children you may have, what you may say in public, who you must genuflect before (i.e., the “transgendered” and other mascots of the totalitarian Left), who you must employ in your business, where you can live, how many months of the year you must work as a taxpaying slave in support of strangers, ad infinitum. This is being revealed before our eyes with the frenetic and frenzied push to “do away with guns,” including a retired supreme court judge who writes in the NY Times that we should abolish the Second Amendment. You know they have nothing but totalitarian hell in store for us (in their dreams for now) if they think that: 1) their schemes would motivate millions to join an armed rebellion; and 2) therefore, the public must be disarmed.
If this sounds familiar, then you must have learned a little about Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, and Stalin’s Russia at some point. Or perhaps you are familiar with James Madison’s rationale for the Second Amendment in the first place–that an armed populace is a defense against tyranny.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
A Prescient "Kook"
"Ron Paul is a kook," said fashionable opinion in 2007.
Oddly enough, this "kook's" views of monetary policy, foreign policy, and domestic policy were pretty close to Thomas Jefferson's, from what this historian can see.
In September 2008, Herman Cain declared the U.S. economy absolutely fine, even though one week later Fannie and Freddie would be nationalized. The Tea Party didn't seem to mind.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul, speaking on the House floor in 2001, warned that the Federal Reserve was replacing the dot-com bubble with a housing bubble, and described to a T what was surely going to happen.
And it did.
Yet the number of people listening to right-wing radio who found this impressive was shockingly low.
Practically no one saw the 2008 crash coming, Republicans included. They were too busy repeating talking points from 1983.
This one man tells you precisely what's going to happen, and has actually read the relevant sources, and yet most people yawned. "Ah, who cares -- I don't like his foreign policy."
That's extremely strange.
The Federal Reserve isn't supposed to be mentioned in American politics. The more in the dark we are about it, the better our political class likes it.
But if you don't mention the Fed, you can't give a good free-market explanation of the crisis. There is no plausible story about what went wrong without the Fed.
So it turns out that in politics, quite literally the only person who could give a compelling account of the crisis from a free-market perspective was Ron Paul.
Ron Paul -- that weirdo, remember -- explained to Americans that it wasn't "capitalism" that caused financial crises. It was the Fed and its interference with interest rates that sowed the seeds of the bust.
Nobody else on the debate stage knew anything about this.
They should have, of course. What conservative worth his salt is unfamiliar with Ludwig von Mises, whom Ronald Reagan admired?
Had they read Mises, they would have known the cause of the financial crisis.
Meanwhile, check this out:
There are people complaining that John Williams might be chosen to head the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Is that because Williams reflects the same old thinking that caused the crisis? Is it because he thinks monetary "stimulus" is what a depressed economy needs -- as if the problems caused by artificially low interest rates could be solved by still lower interest rates?
Nope.
It's because he's white.
A group called Fed Up wants more "diversity" at the Fed.
Not intellectual diversity, of course. We just want black, Hispanic, and female supporters of stimulus.
Heaven help us.
And Senator Cory Booker wrote, "The New York Fed has never had a woman or a person of color at its helm, and the Federal Reserve Bank only just last year added its first black regional bank president. If we’re serious about creating an inclusive and sustainable economy, no one should be left on the sidelines."
Zero curiosity about how Fed policies and the economic instability they fuel might hurt people "on the sidelines." Booker thinks racial bean-counting is what matters.
All the way back in 2009 I brought the pro-market, anti-Fed message to a packed house at the notoriously left-wing University of Colorado at Boulder.
Check out what happened:
Posted byΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Oddly enough, this "kook's" views of monetary policy, foreign policy, and domestic policy were pretty close to Thomas Jefferson's, from what this historian can see.
In September 2008, Herman Cain declared the U.S. economy absolutely fine, even though one week later Fannie and Freddie would be nationalized. The Tea Party didn't seem to mind.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul, speaking on the House floor in 2001, warned that the Federal Reserve was replacing the dot-com bubble with a housing bubble, and described to a T what was surely going to happen.
And it did.
Yet the number of people listening to right-wing radio who found this impressive was shockingly low.
Practically no one saw the 2008 crash coming, Republicans included. They were too busy repeating talking points from 1983.
This one man tells you precisely what's going to happen, and has actually read the relevant sources, and yet most people yawned. "Ah, who cares -- I don't like his foreign policy."
That's extremely strange.
The Federal Reserve isn't supposed to be mentioned in American politics. The more in the dark we are about it, the better our political class likes it.
But if you don't mention the Fed, you can't give a good free-market explanation of the crisis. There is no plausible story about what went wrong without the Fed.
So it turns out that in politics, quite literally the only person who could give a compelling account of the crisis from a free-market perspective was Ron Paul.
Ron Paul -- that weirdo, remember -- explained to Americans that it wasn't "capitalism" that caused financial crises. It was the Fed and its interference with interest rates that sowed the seeds of the bust.
Nobody else on the debate stage knew anything about this.
They should have, of course. What conservative worth his salt is unfamiliar with Ludwig von Mises, whom Ronald Reagan admired?
Had they read Mises, they would have known the cause of the financial crisis.
Meanwhile, check this out:
There are people complaining that John Williams might be chosen to head the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Is that because Williams reflects the same old thinking that caused the crisis? Is it because he thinks monetary "stimulus" is what a depressed economy needs -- as if the problems caused by artificially low interest rates could be solved by still lower interest rates?
Nope.
It's because he's white.
A group called Fed Up wants more "diversity" at the Fed.
Not intellectual diversity, of course. We just want black, Hispanic, and female supporters of stimulus.
Heaven help us.
And Senator Cory Booker wrote, "The New York Fed has never had a woman or a person of color at its helm, and the Federal Reserve Bank only just last year added its first black regional bank president. If we’re serious about creating an inclusive and sustainable economy, no one should be left on the sidelines."
Zero curiosity about how Fed policies and the economic instability they fuel might hurt people "on the sidelines." Booker thinks racial bean-counting is what matters.
All the way back in 2009 I brought the pro-market, anti-Fed message to a packed house at the notoriously left-wing University of Colorado at Boulder.
Check out what happened:
Posted byΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Friday, March 23, 2018
Liberty: Going Going Gone!
By Michael Rozeff
American politicians are fond of rallying Americans around Great Britain as an ally and a prime exponent of freedom and the free world. More and more, the “free” part is a lie.
Laws against hate speech in England and Wales deny free speech. They attempt to delete free speech. Hate speech is criminal in England.
If a person says or writes the words “I hate England” or “I hate the prime minister” or “I hate England’s participation in the Syrian War” or “I hate immigrants” or “I hate you” or “I hate Protestants” or perhaps even “I hate tigers”, they risk being arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to prison for as long as 7 years.
Expressing hatred is a moral bad in some systems of morality. It’s a social bad in some systems. It does not follow that a society should turn it into a crime. That’s the same kind of step as when the possessors of legal force use that force to stamp out a practice, like drinking alcohol, smoking, homosexuality, swearing or smoking marijuana. The government force turns non-criminal acts of citizens into criminal acts; but hate speech, being speech, is in and of itself a non-criminal act. It’s an expression of thought and feeling that doesn’t necessarily damage a person’s rights or property as public slander or libel might.
Speech should not be confused with an imminent threat to do bodily harm or commit an actual violent crime, like assault or beating someone up. It shouldn’t be confused with a crime like damaging property by painting hateful slogans or symbols. Having one’s feelings hurt because someone has insulted you doesn’t mean necessarily that you have been the victim of a crime. Expressing hateful opinions, making racial slurs and publishing anti-religious tracts are not crimes.
The next totalitarian step is to make it a crime not to express hatred. Both John McCain and John Brennan want Trump to express more hatred toward Putin; and they’ll support laws forcing Trump to be more belligerent if they can devise them and get them passed.
If that sounds far-fetched, then consider that one already risks being a social outcast by not endorsing some politically correct point of view or using the politically-correct and approved pronouns. The movement toward the totalitarian begins, not necessarily with a government law, but with political and social correctness exerted on people by social forces and at social levels short of the direct presence of government. Yet government is there behind the scenes via regulations and broad laws that have a totalitarian impact. Laws aimed at equality often have this effect when fleshed out with agency and department directives.
The presence of hate speech laws shows that the incisions into social behavior made by political correctness have graduated into deeper wounds made by government laws exerting the power that it only possesses. In ways like this, political correctness becomes more powerful.
On American campuses, political correctness in the form of anti-hate speech can no longer hide its totalitarian face. Universities show their totalitarian face by imposing language practices and codes upon students. Long lists of microaggressions accompanied by demands to punish them are totalitarian in nature.
The totalitarianism is defined at the university level by their attempts to impose one view on everyone by force and sanction. Universities are in a position to do this because they can sanction students in many ways.
Furthermore, being recipients of federal aid, they are subject to federal sanctions themselves if they do not adhere strictly to various totalitarian federal regulations. In this way, the force of government regulations permeates universities.
Posted bi ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
American politicians are fond of rallying Americans around Great Britain as an ally and a prime exponent of freedom and the free world. More and more, the “free” part is a lie.
Laws against hate speech in England and Wales deny free speech. They attempt to delete free speech. Hate speech is criminal in England.
If a person says or writes the words “I hate England” or “I hate the prime minister” or “I hate England’s participation in the Syrian War” or “I hate immigrants” or “I hate you” or “I hate Protestants” or perhaps even “I hate tigers”, they risk being arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to prison for as long as 7 years.
Expressing hatred is a moral bad in some systems of morality. It’s a social bad in some systems. It does not follow that a society should turn it into a crime. That’s the same kind of step as when the possessors of legal force use that force to stamp out a practice, like drinking alcohol, smoking, homosexuality, swearing or smoking marijuana. The government force turns non-criminal acts of citizens into criminal acts; but hate speech, being speech, is in and of itself a non-criminal act. It’s an expression of thought and feeling that doesn’t necessarily damage a person’s rights or property as public slander or libel might.
Speech should not be confused with an imminent threat to do bodily harm or commit an actual violent crime, like assault or beating someone up. It shouldn’t be confused with a crime like damaging property by painting hateful slogans or symbols. Having one’s feelings hurt because someone has insulted you doesn’t mean necessarily that you have been the victim of a crime. Expressing hateful opinions, making racial slurs and publishing anti-religious tracts are not crimes.
The next totalitarian step is to make it a crime not to express hatred. Both John McCain and John Brennan want Trump to express more hatred toward Putin; and they’ll support laws forcing Trump to be more belligerent if they can devise them and get them passed.
If that sounds far-fetched, then consider that one already risks being a social outcast by not endorsing some politically correct point of view or using the politically-correct and approved pronouns. The movement toward the totalitarian begins, not necessarily with a government law, but with political and social correctness exerted on people by social forces and at social levels short of the direct presence of government. Yet government is there behind the scenes via regulations and broad laws that have a totalitarian impact. Laws aimed at equality often have this effect when fleshed out with agency and department directives.
The presence of hate speech laws shows that the incisions into social behavior made by political correctness have graduated into deeper wounds made by government laws exerting the power that it only possesses. In ways like this, political correctness becomes more powerful.
On American campuses, political correctness in the form of anti-hate speech can no longer hide its totalitarian face. Universities show their totalitarian face by imposing language practices and codes upon students. Long lists of microaggressions accompanied by demands to punish them are totalitarian in nature.
The totalitarianism is defined at the university level by their attempts to impose one view on everyone by force and sanction. Universities are in a position to do this because they can sanction students in many ways.
Furthermore, being recipients of federal aid, they are subject to federal sanctions themselves if they do not adhere strictly to various totalitarian federal regulations. In this way, the force of government regulations permeates universities.
Posted bi ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
The Panopticon State; The Up Side?
By Thomas Lifson
A 24 year old “white male” suspect in the bombing spree afflicting Austin, Texas is dead
after blowing himself up in his car while being fired upon by police.
Information is still very fragmentary, but according to reports on Fox
News this morning, police were led to him through the blanket
surveillance capabilities that have come characterize American society
in the wake of the “war on terror.”
Specifically (and keep in mind that early information in huge media events often is subject to change), the suspect was photographed dropping off two packages at a Fedex office in Austin. He was wearing a hat and wig, reportedly, so no facial identification was possible, but police were able to use cell phone tower data to identify everyone who was in the area with a cell phone turned on. Evidently, the individual in question was already on some sort of police lists, and that identified him as a strong suspect. From that point, getting to his location was inevitable. Some reports indicate police were able to trace his Google searches and identify the hotel where he was staying. But if he had the same cell phone on his person, tha coiudl ave led police to him, also.
No doubt some of this information will prove mistaken, but the underlying point remains sound. If you have a cell phone on your body with the battery in it, the police probably can know everywhere you have been and where you are now. And with the proliferation of security cameras, they can see you, and what you are wearing.
This is called the “panopticon” state that can see you everywhere. China is spending a lot of money and devoting intellectual resources to becoming the most thoroughgoing panopticon state in human history. But, if you think you are not subject to constant surveillance and keep a cell phone with you, the police can find out where you’ve been and where you are now, in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The demise of the presumptive perp in Austin is an upside of this situation. The downside has yet to be fully plumbed here, but in China it is clear that it is a foundational element of twenty-first century tyranny.
Prepare yourself for further information on the suspect’s motivation. Leftists are hoping he is some sort of rightist or racist, giving them moral bragging rights. Conservatives are hoping he is a leftist, for similar reasons. If the leftist hopes are realized, expect a huge wave of accusation leveled at everyone to the right of Lindsey Graham dominating the mainstream media. If he was a lefty, expect the mainstream media to change the subject.
Meanwhile, people in Central Texas have to still worry about other packages that may be somewhere in the delivery systems of any provider of such services.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Specifically (and keep in mind that early information in huge media events often is subject to change), the suspect was photographed dropping off two packages at a Fedex office in Austin. He was wearing a hat and wig, reportedly, so no facial identification was possible, but police were able to use cell phone tower data to identify everyone who was in the area with a cell phone turned on. Evidently, the individual in question was already on some sort of police lists, and that identified him as a strong suspect. From that point, getting to his location was inevitable. Some reports indicate police were able to trace his Google searches and identify the hotel where he was staying. But if he had the same cell phone on his person, tha coiudl ave led police to him, also.
No doubt some of this information will prove mistaken, but the underlying point remains sound. If you have a cell phone on your body with the battery in it, the police probably can know everywhere you have been and where you are now. And with the proliferation of security cameras, they can see you, and what you are wearing.
This is called the “panopticon” state that can see you everywhere. China is spending a lot of money and devoting intellectual resources to becoming the most thoroughgoing panopticon state in human history. But, if you think you are not subject to constant surveillance and keep a cell phone with you, the police can find out where you’ve been and where you are now, in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The demise of the presumptive perp in Austin is an upside of this situation. The downside has yet to be fully plumbed here, but in China it is clear that it is a foundational element of twenty-first century tyranny.
Prepare yourself for further information on the suspect’s motivation. Leftists are hoping he is some sort of rightist or racist, giving them moral bragging rights. Conservatives are hoping he is a leftist, for similar reasons. If the leftist hopes are realized, expect a huge wave of accusation leveled at everyone to the right of Lindsey Graham dominating the mainstream media. If he was a lefty, expect the mainstream media to change the subject.
Meanwhile, people in Central Texas have to still worry about other packages that may be somewhere in the delivery systems of any provider of such services.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Frameup Debunked
By Paul Craig Roberts
[Former] British Ambassador [to Uzbekistan] Craig Murray has successfully exposed the deception practiced by the utter corrupt British government in its false allegation that the Russian government used a nerve agent to poison two people on a bench in England. The British government’s scientists have far more integrity than the British government and flatly refused to sanction the government’s claim about the nerve agent. This forced the corrupt May government to use the wording “of a type developed by Russia.”
Amb. Murray goes on to establish that there is no evidence that Russia ever developed such a nerve agent and that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) found no such agent when it oversaw and verified Russia’s destruction of Russian chemical weapons.
Amb. Murray reports that the only known synthesis of what is being called “Novichok” occurred in 2016 by Iran in cooperation with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in order to test whether formulas published in a book many years ago could actually produce such an agent.
Amb. Murray exposes the utterly corrupt presstitutes that comprise the Western media for never once asking the corrupt UK government about its hedge words, “of a type developed by Russia” and for their efforts to silence him with libel and slander.
As important as Amb. Murray’s factually uncontested findings are, the main point is that no laboratory has reported any finding that such a nerve agent was used on Skirpal and his daughter. We don’t even know if any attack occurred on Skirpal. The corrupt British government has provided no evidence of any attack and no evidence of any nerve agent.
What is the real reason for the British government’s completely obvious blatant lies?
What is the real reason for the complete failure of the media to investigate and report an alleged event?
How much more evidence does the world need that the Western media is nothing but a collection of liars devoid of all integrity who serve as a Propaganda Ministry for undeclared government agendas? The Skirpal Affair is the final nail in the coffin of the Western media.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
[Former] British Ambassador [to Uzbekistan] Craig Murray has successfully exposed the deception practiced by the utter corrupt British government in its false allegation that the Russian government used a nerve agent to poison two people on a bench in England. The British government’s scientists have far more integrity than the British government and flatly refused to sanction the government’s claim about the nerve agent. This forced the corrupt May government to use the wording “of a type developed by Russia.”
Amb. Murray goes on to establish that there is no evidence that Russia ever developed such a nerve agent and that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) found no such agent when it oversaw and verified Russia’s destruction of Russian chemical weapons.
Amb. Murray reports that the only known synthesis of what is being called “Novichok” occurred in 2016 by Iran in cooperation with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in order to test whether formulas published in a book many years ago could actually produce such an agent.
Amb. Murray exposes the utterly corrupt presstitutes that comprise the Western media for never once asking the corrupt UK government about its hedge words, “of a type developed by Russia” and for their efforts to silence him with libel and slander.
As important as Amb. Murray’s factually uncontested findings are, the main point is that no laboratory has reported any finding that such a nerve agent was used on Skirpal and his daughter. We don’t even know if any attack occurred on Skirpal. The corrupt British government has provided no evidence of any attack and no evidence of any nerve agent.
What is the real reason for the British government’s completely obvious blatant lies?
What is the real reason for the complete failure of the media to investigate and report an alleged event?
How much more evidence does the world need that the Western media is nothing but a collection of liars devoid of all integrity who serve as a Propaganda Ministry for undeclared government agendas? The Skirpal Affair is the final nail in the coffin of the Western media.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Sunday, March 18, 2018
Worthless Notes: Comey, Rice and McCabe
By Michael S. Rozeff
Comey writes up notes of meetings with Trump. It’s a blatant attempt to get Trump on a charge of obstructing justice. Comey’s behavior has been despicable during the entire election and afterward, start to finish. James Comey is a worm. His notes of meetings have no value.
Susan Rice sends herself an e-mail about a meeting with Obama and others. One reason for the meeting appears to be to keep information out of the hands of the Trump team. “The meeting, which also included then Vice President Joe Biden as well as former FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, reportedly covered the topic of what information about the Russia investigation could be shared with Trump’s transition team.”
The whole scenario smells. They all know what they say and do may come back to haunt them, being recorded or recollected in some fashion, so they all bend over backwards to speak and write in ways to cover themselves. Susan Rice is a liar. She cannot clear her record and protect Obama by sending herself an e-mail.
Andrew McCabe writes notes of meetings with Trump and hands them over to Mueller. When did McCabe provide Mueller with his notes? If it is after being fired, which is apparently the case, this reflects badly upon their objectivity and his ethics. McCabe lied under oath, according to Sessions, relying on the FBI’s own Office of Professional Responsibility: “The FBI expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and accountability. As the OPR proposal stated, ‘all FBI employees know that lacking candor [i.e. lying] under oath results in dismissal [or jail time for ordinary citizens] and that our integrity is our brand.'”
All these kinds of communications are worthless unless they can be verified by recordings or perhaps other witnesses. The word of a single witness is subject to too much subjectivity, error and bias to be taken at face value. In these cases, there is already evidence of anti-Trump animus and efforts, which make any such documents subject to suspicion of being self-serving and slanted.
If in any of these cases, the writer thought that other people at a meeting were doing something criminal, why would they not have taken action right away? Why write down an account and store it away? All these kinds of documents are worthless.
Mueller is out to get Trump. He’s collecting this kind of trash, the aim being to make out a case for high crimes and misdemeanors of Trump. He already has enough material to construct a persuasive-sounding brief (“a written legal document used in various legal adversarial systems that is presented to a court arguing why one party to a particular case should prevail.”) He has plenty of skilled lawyers who can pull together all the many charges and criticisms made against Trump and present a case that sounds absolutely impregnable and devastating. He can surely find some further ones having to do with Trump’s business dealings. This “case” will be a house of straw, however, lacking firm foundations, but built nonetheless for its political value in persuading voters to back the Trump opposition.
The whole Mueller product is and will be an exercise in self-reference developed by the members of the anti-Trump team. People like Joseph Brennan, who now has called Trump a “demagogue” will be cited as if they provided independent and objective evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing, when all they have is their own personal hatred of the man. Hatred and vilification expressed by any number of people unhappy with Trump is a “case” that’s going to fall apart and ensnare its perpetrators in their own web. Brennan, for example, may face the prospect of perjury charges.
Mueller will buttress his “case” with testimony of smaller fry whom he has turned by threats of jail terms for various infractions. As in the cases of Comey, Rice and McCabe, what they suggest is hardly likely to be believable.
The entire anti-Trump apparatus, the coup against him in all its aspects including its extreme left-wing vituperation, is one big Echo Chamber in which accusations are repeated endlessly that have no bearing on Trump’s actual policies and actions. Trump’s personal life is as irrelevant to his administration as were those of JFK and LBJ. The adjectives applied to him like xenophobic, misogynist, racist, unstable, narcissist, senile, moronic, and on and on count only for being dirty and low attacks, bile and political low-blows, the result of having lost an election (Democrats), having lost control over a political party (Republicans), and facing prospects of disliked changes in policies (Deep State).
Trump is quite likely to win this game for two reasons. His opponents have no substance to their charges against him, and many of them have themselves abused their offices and worse. The inspector general at the Department of Justice is investigating further: “We’re now waiting for the inspector general’s report, Michael Horowitz report. It’s not just going to be one. It’s going to be multiple series of reports. The 1.2 million documents that he’s obtained. We’re going to learn a lot more than just what happened here with Andrew McCabe. We’re going to learn about Comey and that investigation. It’s going to be absolutely explosive according to the sources that I’ve spoken with.”
There are links among several scandals that remain to be fully investigated and brought out into the open: the DNC e-mails, the Clinton Foundation, the Russia-gate dossier, the FISA warrants, the death of Seth Rich, Obama’s treatment of intelligence, and Comey’s and McCabe’s decisions on Hillary Clinton.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Comey writes up notes of meetings with Trump. It’s a blatant attempt to get Trump on a charge of obstructing justice. Comey’s behavior has been despicable during the entire election and afterward, start to finish. James Comey is a worm. His notes of meetings have no value.
Susan Rice sends herself an e-mail about a meeting with Obama and others. One reason for the meeting appears to be to keep information out of the hands of the Trump team. “The meeting, which also included then Vice President Joe Biden as well as former FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, reportedly covered the topic of what information about the Russia investigation could be shared with Trump’s transition team.”
The whole scenario smells. They all know what they say and do may come back to haunt them, being recorded or recollected in some fashion, so they all bend over backwards to speak and write in ways to cover themselves. Susan Rice is a liar. She cannot clear her record and protect Obama by sending herself an e-mail.
Andrew McCabe writes notes of meetings with Trump and hands them over to Mueller. When did McCabe provide Mueller with his notes? If it is after being fired, which is apparently the case, this reflects badly upon their objectivity and his ethics. McCabe lied under oath, according to Sessions, relying on the FBI’s own Office of Professional Responsibility: “The FBI expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and accountability. As the OPR proposal stated, ‘all FBI employees know that lacking candor [i.e. lying] under oath results in dismissal [or jail time for ordinary citizens] and that our integrity is our brand.'”
All these kinds of communications are worthless unless they can be verified by recordings or perhaps other witnesses. The word of a single witness is subject to too much subjectivity, error and bias to be taken at face value. In these cases, there is already evidence of anti-Trump animus and efforts, which make any such documents subject to suspicion of being self-serving and slanted.
If in any of these cases, the writer thought that other people at a meeting were doing something criminal, why would they not have taken action right away? Why write down an account and store it away? All these kinds of documents are worthless.
Mueller is out to get Trump. He’s collecting this kind of trash, the aim being to make out a case for high crimes and misdemeanors of Trump. He already has enough material to construct a persuasive-sounding brief (“a written legal document used in various legal adversarial systems that is presented to a court arguing why one party to a particular case should prevail.”) He has plenty of skilled lawyers who can pull together all the many charges and criticisms made against Trump and present a case that sounds absolutely impregnable and devastating. He can surely find some further ones having to do with Trump’s business dealings. This “case” will be a house of straw, however, lacking firm foundations, but built nonetheless for its political value in persuading voters to back the Trump opposition.
The whole Mueller product is and will be an exercise in self-reference developed by the members of the anti-Trump team. People like Joseph Brennan, who now has called Trump a “demagogue” will be cited as if they provided independent and objective evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing, when all they have is their own personal hatred of the man. Hatred and vilification expressed by any number of people unhappy with Trump is a “case” that’s going to fall apart and ensnare its perpetrators in their own web. Brennan, for example, may face the prospect of perjury charges.
Mueller will buttress his “case” with testimony of smaller fry whom he has turned by threats of jail terms for various infractions. As in the cases of Comey, Rice and McCabe, what they suggest is hardly likely to be believable.
The entire anti-Trump apparatus, the coup against him in all its aspects including its extreme left-wing vituperation, is one big Echo Chamber in which accusations are repeated endlessly that have no bearing on Trump’s actual policies and actions. Trump’s personal life is as irrelevant to his administration as were those of JFK and LBJ. The adjectives applied to him like xenophobic, misogynist, racist, unstable, narcissist, senile, moronic, and on and on count only for being dirty and low attacks, bile and political low-blows, the result of having lost an election (Democrats), having lost control over a political party (Republicans), and facing prospects of disliked changes in policies (Deep State).
Trump is quite likely to win this game for two reasons. His opponents have no substance to their charges against him, and many of them have themselves abused their offices and worse. The inspector general at the Department of Justice is investigating further: “We’re now waiting for the inspector general’s report, Michael Horowitz report. It’s not just going to be one. It’s going to be multiple series of reports. The 1.2 million documents that he’s obtained. We’re going to learn a lot more than just what happened here with Andrew McCabe. We’re going to learn about Comey and that investigation. It’s going to be absolutely explosive according to the sources that I’ve spoken with.”
There are links among several scandals that remain to be fully investigated and brought out into the open: the DNC e-mails, the Clinton Foundation, the Russia-gate dossier, the FISA warrants, the death of Seth Rich, Obama’s treatment of intelligence, and Comey’s and McCabe’s decisions on Hillary Clinton.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Saturday, March 17, 2018
Ongoing Middle Eastern Clusterf#*k
Syria By Senator Rand Paul (R KY)
The neocons loudly announced [in 2016] that regime change in Syria was their goal. Yet, even Hillary Clinton realized the problem when our arms, as well as Saudi and Qatari arms, were getting delivered in the hands of ISIS. In one of the Wikileaks emails, Hillary warned Podesta: “the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia . . . are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIS and other radical groups in the region.”
And yet, the deliveries of Western arms to jihadists went on and on for years.
Despite the evidence that many of the fighters opposing Assad were jihadists with an equal hatred for Israel and the United States, the weapons kept flowing.
Remember their call to arm the “moderate fighters?” Who can forget the $260 million spent to train [count 'em] sixty fighters, ten of whom were captured only minutes after they were sent into battle.
The neocons vociferously argued that Assad must go. Senators McCain and Graham argued that you couldn’t defeat ISIS without also defeating Assad. John Bolton went so far as to pontificate that "defeating the Islamic State" is "neither feasible nor desirable" if Assad remains in power. Actually, the opposite was true. Only when the mission changed from removing Assad to attacking ISIS did the tide finally turn. [With most of the heavy lifting courtesy of the Russians]
Max Abrahms and John Glaser wrote in the LA Times late last year that contrary to neocon dogma, ISIS “imploded right after external support for the ‘moderate’ rebels dried up.”
So, the neocons who argued that ISIS couldn’t or shouldn’t be defeated without first defeating Assad were wrong again.
In the 2016 presidential primary two candidates — myself and Donald Trump — declared that the Iraq War was a mistake, that we should not arm our enemies and that America didn’t have a dog in every fight.
I campaigned against the folly of recent neocon wars, the futility of nation building, and the bankruptcy, moral and literal, of the idea of policing the world. So did Donald Trump — for the most part.
So where do we go from here? Congress is still dominated by neocons. The Trump administration shows no sign of ending the Afghan war. If anything, President Trump has doubled down on our support for Saudi Arabia in the Yemeni civil war. Candidate Trump, who consistently voiced his displeasure with the Iraq War, has surrounded himself with generals still intent on finding military solutions where none exist.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
The neocons loudly announced [in 2016] that regime change in Syria was their goal. Yet, even Hillary Clinton realized the problem when our arms, as well as Saudi and Qatari arms, were getting delivered in the hands of ISIS. In one of the Wikileaks emails, Hillary warned Podesta: “the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia . . . are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIS and other radical groups in the region.”
And yet, the deliveries of Western arms to jihadists went on and on for years.
Despite the evidence that many of the fighters opposing Assad were jihadists with an equal hatred for Israel and the United States, the weapons kept flowing.
Remember their call to arm the “moderate fighters?” Who can forget the $260 million spent to train [count 'em] sixty fighters, ten of whom were captured only minutes after they were sent into battle.
The neocons vociferously argued that Assad must go. Senators McCain and Graham argued that you couldn’t defeat ISIS without also defeating Assad. John Bolton went so far as to pontificate that "defeating the Islamic State" is "neither feasible nor desirable" if Assad remains in power. Actually, the opposite was true. Only when the mission changed from removing Assad to attacking ISIS did the tide finally turn. [With most of the heavy lifting courtesy of the Russians]
Max Abrahms and John Glaser wrote in the LA Times late last year that contrary to neocon dogma, ISIS “imploded right after external support for the ‘moderate’ rebels dried up.”
So, the neocons who argued that ISIS couldn’t or shouldn’t be defeated without first defeating Assad were wrong again.
In the 2016 presidential primary two candidates — myself and Donald Trump — declared that the Iraq War was a mistake, that we should not arm our enemies and that America didn’t have a dog in every fight.
I campaigned against the folly of recent neocon wars, the futility of nation building, and the bankruptcy, moral and literal, of the idea of policing the world. So did Donald Trump — for the most part.
So where do we go from here? Congress is still dominated by neocons. The Trump administration shows no sign of ending the Afghan war. If anything, President Trump has doubled down on our support for Saudi Arabia in the Yemeni civil war. Candidate Trump, who consistently voiced his displeasure with the Iraq War, has surrounded himself with generals still intent on finding military solutions where none exist.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Friday, March 16, 2018
Thunder Mug Tempest
By Tom Woods Phd
Ever since the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, on February 14, 2018, social media has been even more toxic than usual.
The gun-control side has in general been content to attribute vile motives to their opponents, and to contend that people arguing for gun rights prefer guns over their own children.
Their reaction has made the debate over the 73 genders seem downright civil.
Obviously, no progress can be made in our understanding when one side is so hysterical. Their side seems incapable even of conceiving of a rational argument we might make.
This is standard fare for progressives, in my experience. We know their positions inside and out, but they seem genuinely baffled by and altogether ignorant of what libertarians and conservatives believe. (In fact, Jonathan Haidt ran studies on this very question, and found progressives consistently do a much worse job explaining their opponents' views than vice versa.)
It is especially rich that progressives should posture and preen as though they hold the moral high ground, when in fact they consistently reject all practical responses to school shootings, including improvements in school security, in favor of pie-in-the-sky political solutions that have no chance of passage much less implementation. The best way to respond?
[With the extended middle digit.]
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Ever since the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, on February 14, 2018, social media has been even more toxic than usual.
The gun-control side has in general been content to attribute vile motives to their opponents, and to contend that people arguing for gun rights prefer guns over their own children.
Their reaction has made the debate over the 73 genders seem downright civil.
Obviously, no progress can be made in our understanding when one side is so hysterical. Their side seems incapable even of conceiving of a rational argument we might make.
This is standard fare for progressives, in my experience. We know their positions inside and out, but they seem genuinely baffled by and altogether ignorant of what libertarians and conservatives believe. (In fact, Jonathan Haidt ran studies on this very question, and found progressives consistently do a much worse job explaining their opponents' views than vice versa.)
It is especially rich that progressives should posture and preen as though they hold the moral high ground, when in fact they consistently reject all practical responses to school shootings, including improvements in school security, in favor of pie-in-the-sky political solutions that have no chance of passage much less implementation. The best way to respond?
[With the extended middle digit.]
The Lynch Mob Cometh
By Karen DeCoster
Watching a bunch of screeching, emoting, Oprahfied women argue for gun control on Facebook and take on dissenters is like watching a 16-year-old driver’s training student drive the wrong way on a freeway and take on oncoming traffic. The predictability of their uninformed, meaningless arguments (“no one needs an assault weapon to defend their home!”; “we have to make guns harder to get!”; “the 2nd Amendment needs to evolve!”; “it’s for the children!”) is frightening because we know that such behavior serves to advance that mentality amongst the ignorant female collective as they infiltrate and inspire the minds of other women with their factless fluff and emotional outpourings.
A collective circle of ignorance regurgitating and spreading folly in a shared pool leads to a tyranny of the masses.
The individual tyrant mindsets that make up the collective mass are necessarily the result of democracy. Weaned on the teats of the State, these individuals are imbued with the “democratic” philosophy that government is there to provide for their endeavors, even if it means having the State aggress against others to relieve them of life’s little uncertainties and risks. Democracy gives them a say-so in the political process, a process where coercive powers are exercised at will via majority rule. Once the nipples of democracy have been exposed to the piglets gathering round the hub of majority rule, we engender a perpetual breeding process of decadent usurpation by the masses over the few.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Watching a bunch of screeching, emoting, Oprahfied women argue for gun control on Facebook and take on dissenters is like watching a 16-year-old driver’s training student drive the wrong way on a freeway and take on oncoming traffic. The predictability of their uninformed, meaningless arguments (“no one needs an assault weapon to defend their home!”; “we have to make guns harder to get!”; “the 2nd Amendment needs to evolve!”; “it’s for the children!”) is frightening because we know that such behavior serves to advance that mentality amongst the ignorant female collective as they infiltrate and inspire the minds of other women with their factless fluff and emotional outpourings.
A collective circle of ignorance regurgitating and spreading folly in a shared pool leads to a tyranny of the masses.
The individual tyrant mindsets that make up the collective mass are necessarily the result of democracy. Weaned on the teats of the State, these individuals are imbued with the “democratic” philosophy that government is there to provide for their endeavors, even if it means having the State aggress against others to relieve them of life’s little uncertainties and risks. Democracy gives them a say-so in the political process, a process where coercive powers are exercised at will via majority rule. Once the nipples of democracy have been exposed to the piglets gathering round the hub of majority rule, we engender a perpetual breeding process of decadent usurpation by the masses over the few.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
Latest Horror in South Africa Should Prompt WHITE Refugee Admissions
By Hugh McInnish
I have read, as I’m sure you have, of the tyranny in South Africa. Pushing hard the limits of credulity, the black government is moving to confiscate the land owned by every white owner—and redistribute it to the black people of the country.
As Zimbabwe is our model, we know what will happen. Chaos will follow, whites will be terrorized, and some even murdered. Further, the many white farmers who have made their country a super-productive agricultural gem shining brightly in darkest Africa, will likely look for a new, more free country to which they may immigrate.
I suggest that we provide a haven for these poor souls. Indeed, I hope we will do more than just say, “you may come here if you wish.” We should vigorously urge them to come. We should pursue them with the dedication we show when we are trying to land a lucrative new manufacturing facility. Why am I saying this? Let me tell you–the white South Africans are a fine folk.
Do you remember Dr. Christiaan Barnard? He was the South African doctor who performed the first heart transplant. I have met in this country others from that country. I can recall a female oncologist who had fled her country under a pall of fear, and was practicing her profession here: also, a sky-diving instructor; a young male golfer whom my wife and I housed during a visit. All were exemplary people.
There are still others that I might add: The wife of a writer for the New York Times is one, and a whole family that a former teacher tells about. She had one of the children in this family in one of her cases, and she speaks highly of them.
In my judgement, people such as these, in stark contrast to the bulk of our recent emigres, would enrich our country. They speak English, they are industrious and intelligent, and they, as we, value the Judeo-Christian Western tradition.
Finally, they have suffered under hyper-political correctness, and should be virtually immune to its false maxims. They would partially offset the flood of less desirable others flooding our shores. They might be the transfusion of new blood that we need, and that would help to Make America Great Again.
Let’s go for them!
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
I have read, as I’m sure you have, of the tyranny in South Africa. Pushing hard the limits of credulity, the black government is moving to confiscate the land owned by every white owner—and redistribute it to the black people of the country.
As Zimbabwe is our model, we know what will happen. Chaos will follow, whites will be terrorized, and some even murdered. Further, the many white farmers who have made their country a super-productive agricultural gem shining brightly in darkest Africa, will likely look for a new, more free country to which they may immigrate.
I suggest that we provide a haven for these poor souls. Indeed, I hope we will do more than just say, “you may come here if you wish.” We should vigorously urge them to come. We should pursue them with the dedication we show when we are trying to land a lucrative new manufacturing facility. Why am I saying this? Let me tell you–the white South Africans are a fine folk.
Do you remember Dr. Christiaan Barnard? He was the South African doctor who performed the first heart transplant. I have met in this country others from that country. I can recall a female oncologist who had fled her country under a pall of fear, and was practicing her profession here: also, a sky-diving instructor; a young male golfer whom my wife and I housed during a visit. All were exemplary people.
There are still others that I might add: The wife of a writer for the New York Times is one, and a whole family that a former teacher tells about. She had one of the children in this family in one of her cases, and she speaks highly of them.
In my judgement, people such as these, in stark contrast to the bulk of our recent emigres, would enrich our country. They speak English, they are industrious and intelligent, and they, as we, value the Judeo-Christian Western tradition.
Finally, they have suffered under hyper-political correctness, and should be virtually immune to its false maxims. They would partially offset the flood of less desirable others flooding our shores. They might be the transfusion of new blood that we need, and that would help to Make America Great Again.
Let’s go for them!
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Friday, March 09, 2018
Justice Delayed
By Bob Unruh
A former U.S. Navy sailor who was sentenced to prison for taking pictures inside a submarine – an offense likened to “nothing” compared to the scandal of Hillary Clinton sending classified material over an unsecure email network, has been pardoned.
According to a report in the Washington Examiner, President Donald Trump issued the pardon Friday for Kristian Saucier.
The report said Saucier was driving a garbage truck at the time he learned of the pardon, the “only job he could find with a felony conviction.”
Trump had cited Saucier’s predicament several times while he was running for president, saying the sailor was “ruined” for doing “nothing” compared to Hillary Clinton.
Saucier was released from his one-year term in September and was living with his family, wife Sadie and a 2-year-old daughter, in Vermont.
He was 22 when he took cellphone photos in 2009, and he pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized possession and retention of national defense information. His lawyers argued to the court he should get the same deal that Hillary Clinton got for being “extremely careless” with national security secrets, which essentially was nothing.
The images he had were “confidential,” which is the lowest level of classification.
His wife told the Examiner, “When Kris gets home from work, when he gets to the door, I’m going to be a little emotional. I can’t believe it happened, I don’t think it’s set in yet.”
In an interview that came when he got out of prison, Saucier expressed frustration at the two levels of justice, one for Hillary Clinton and one for common people.
“I was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for what’s called unlawful retention of national defense information. Basically, I possessed classified documents or images on an unsecured device, so exactly what Hillary Clinton did, but she didn’t get prosecuted because they said she didn’t have intent to cause national harm,” said Saucier.
“That’s not a prerequisite for the charge. So I was prosecuted with no intent to cause national harm. It was very clear to them that I had no intent. I was just taking these pictures as mementos, and it didn’t matter. They still prosecuted me, and I was facing possibly 10 years in prison,” said Saucier.
He says the takeaway for him and his family is obvious. The powerful are held to a different standard.
“They protect their own, so higher ups in our government are protecting each other. It’s the same with Gen. (David) Petraeus, who lied to the FBI and tried to spread disinformation. He was head of the CIA,” said Saucier.
“They’re protecting him. They’re protecting Hillary Clinton, and they’re protecting all the people that are in their little clique right there. Whenever it comes to an honest American citizen, they just go right after you,” said Saucier.
“If they can do this to somebody like me, who is a patriotic, honest American citizen who wanted nothing but to serve his country, and then looked the other way when people like Huma Abedin, John Podesta and Hillary Clinton break the same exact law to a far more egregious standpoint and nothing happens to them, it’s very upsetting,” he said.
During his campaign Trump suggested prosecuting Hillary Clinton, but later dropped the topic.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
A former U.S. Navy sailor who was sentenced to prison for taking pictures inside a submarine – an offense likened to “nothing” compared to the scandal of Hillary Clinton sending classified material over an unsecure email network, has been pardoned.
According to a report in the Washington Examiner, President Donald Trump issued the pardon Friday for Kristian Saucier.
The report said Saucier was driving a garbage truck at the time he learned of the pardon, the “only job he could find with a felony conviction.”
Trump had cited Saucier’s predicament several times while he was running for president, saying the sailor was “ruined” for doing “nothing” compared to Hillary Clinton.
Saucier was released from his one-year term in September and was living with his family, wife Sadie and a 2-year-old daughter, in Vermont.
He was 22 when he took cellphone photos in 2009, and he pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized possession and retention of national defense information. His lawyers argued to the court he should get the same deal that Hillary Clinton got for being “extremely careless” with national security secrets, which essentially was nothing.
The images he had were “confidential,” which is the lowest level of classification.
His wife told the Examiner, “When Kris gets home from work, when he gets to the door, I’m going to be a little emotional. I can’t believe it happened, I don’t think it’s set in yet.”
In an interview that came when he got out of prison, Saucier expressed frustration at the two levels of justice, one for Hillary Clinton and one for common people.
“I was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for what’s called unlawful retention of national defense information. Basically, I possessed classified documents or images on an unsecured device, so exactly what Hillary Clinton did, but she didn’t get prosecuted because they said she didn’t have intent to cause national harm,” said Saucier.
“That’s not a prerequisite for the charge. So I was prosecuted with no intent to cause national harm. It was very clear to them that I had no intent. I was just taking these pictures as mementos, and it didn’t matter. They still prosecuted me, and I was facing possibly 10 years in prison,” said Saucier.
He says the takeaway for him and his family is obvious. The powerful are held to a different standard.
“They protect their own, so higher ups in our government are protecting each other. It’s the same with Gen. (David) Petraeus, who lied to the FBI and tried to spread disinformation. He was head of the CIA,” said Saucier.
“They’re protecting him. They’re protecting Hillary Clinton, and they’re protecting all the people that are in their little clique right there. Whenever it comes to an honest American citizen, they just go right after you,” said Saucier.
“If they can do this to somebody like me, who is a patriotic, honest American citizen who wanted nothing but to serve his country, and then looked the other way when people like Huma Abedin, John Podesta and Hillary Clinton break the same exact law to a far more egregious standpoint and nothing happens to them, it’s very upsetting,” he said.
During his campaign Trump suggested prosecuting Hillary Clinton, but later dropped the topic.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Lying Gun Grabbers
By Benjamin Arie
It happens every time there’s talk of gun control laws: The left predictably scoffs at gun owners, calling them paranoid for not trusting the state.
“Nobody wants to confiscate your guns,” liberals assure the rest of America. “Stop exaggerating.”
Flash forward to Thursday. Lawmakers in Democrat-controlled Illinois have passed a bill to — you guessed it — confiscate currently legal firearms from gun owners. So much for being paranoid.
According to Breitbart News, HB 1465 has moved to the state Senate after being passed in the House a week ago. The measure would require citizens between the ages of 18 and 20 to give up ownership of certain guns that they bought legally, or risk becoming seen as criminals.
“The guns and magazines remain legal for persons 21 and up, but persons under 21 would have 90 days to give up ownership,” Breitbart explained.
“The NRA-ILA described the weapons covered by HB 1465 as ‘commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms,'” continued that news outlet. “The bill also requires 18-20-year-olds to forfeit ownership of any magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.”
Semi-automatic rifles, contrary to the portrait painted by the mainstream media, are neither especially exotic or rare. They are actually the most common type of modern firearm owned by law-abiding citizens today, used for sport, hunting and personal defense. At the same time, rifles are used incredibly rarely in actual crimes.
The wording of the bill also made it possible for the government to confiscate handguns, depending on how the definitions are interpreted. Lawmakers outlawed semi-auto pistols for residents under age 21 if the handgun has a “shroud that partially encircles the barrel.” The slide of every modern handgun could meet this definition.
Of course, lawmakers who voted for the legislation offered empty promises that law enforcement would not visit homes to collect the guns. Instead, people who are found with the prohibited firearms would be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor on the first offense.
Penalties would increase for citizens who continue refusing to comply with the law. Those promises are no doubt being taken with a grain of salt by Illinois residents, considering that the same legislators promised that nobody would be confiscating legal firearms to begin with.
The bill must still pass the state Senate to become a law, but it has already picked up support in that chamber. There are currently 37 Democrats in the Illinois Senate, versus 22 Republicans. The state’s governor is a Republican, but his willingness to veto the bill is unclear.
There are a few key points to take away from this development. First, the assurances of liberals that “nobody wants to confiscate your guns” should be dismissed immediately. The evidence doesn’t lie. One look at both the state and federal level shows Democrats lining up to do exactly that, yet the left seems to think that nobody has noticed.
Second, these types of “backdoor bans” are exactly the tactics that Second Amendment supporters need to watch. Gun grabbers know that even on their best day, they cannot pass a blanket ban on firearms in the United States.
Like a ratchet that is tightened one click at a time, Democrats are trying to dismantle gun ownership gradually. It will start with 20-year-old citizens. “Nobody under 21 needs a gun,” they’ll insist, essentially saying that young women, new families, and people old enough to fight in Iraq don’t have a right to self defense.
The line will slowly be moved. One category of citizen at a time, gun rights will be eroded… not in one major sweep, but in a series of “reasonable” laws that happen to be tearing up the Constitution one shred at a time.
Anyone who supports the right to self defense and the Second Amendment needs to speak out. The left may think that they are finally winning, but have a long track record of underestimating actual Americans.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
It happens every time there’s talk of gun control laws: The left predictably scoffs at gun owners, calling them paranoid for not trusting the state.
“Nobody wants to confiscate your guns,” liberals assure the rest of America. “Stop exaggerating.”
Flash forward to Thursday. Lawmakers in Democrat-controlled Illinois have passed a bill to — you guessed it — confiscate currently legal firearms from gun owners. So much for being paranoid.
According to Breitbart News, HB 1465 has moved to the state Senate after being passed in the House a week ago. The measure would require citizens between the ages of 18 and 20 to give up ownership of certain guns that they bought legally, or risk becoming seen as criminals.
“The guns and magazines remain legal for persons 21 and up, but persons under 21 would have 90 days to give up ownership,” Breitbart explained.
“The NRA-ILA described the weapons covered by HB 1465 as ‘commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms,'” continued that news outlet. “The bill also requires 18-20-year-olds to forfeit ownership of any magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.”
Semi-automatic rifles, contrary to the portrait painted by the mainstream media, are neither especially exotic or rare. They are actually the most common type of modern firearm owned by law-abiding citizens today, used for sport, hunting and personal defense. At the same time, rifles are used incredibly rarely in actual crimes.
The wording of the bill also made it possible for the government to confiscate handguns, depending on how the definitions are interpreted. Lawmakers outlawed semi-auto pistols for residents under age 21 if the handgun has a “shroud that partially encircles the barrel.” The slide of every modern handgun could meet this definition.
Of course, lawmakers who voted for the legislation offered empty promises that law enforcement would not visit homes to collect the guns. Instead, people who are found with the prohibited firearms would be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor on the first offense.
Penalties would increase for citizens who continue refusing to comply with the law. Those promises are no doubt being taken with a grain of salt by Illinois residents, considering that the same legislators promised that nobody would be confiscating legal firearms to begin with.
The bill must still pass the state Senate to become a law, but it has already picked up support in that chamber. There are currently 37 Democrats in the Illinois Senate, versus 22 Republicans. The state’s governor is a Republican, but his willingness to veto the bill is unclear.
There are a few key points to take away from this development. First, the assurances of liberals that “nobody wants to confiscate your guns” should be dismissed immediately. The evidence doesn’t lie. One look at both the state and federal level shows Democrats lining up to do exactly that, yet the left seems to think that nobody has noticed.
Second, these types of “backdoor bans” are exactly the tactics that Second Amendment supporters need to watch. Gun grabbers know that even on their best day, they cannot pass a blanket ban on firearms in the United States.
Like a ratchet that is tightened one click at a time, Democrats are trying to dismantle gun ownership gradually. It will start with 20-year-old citizens. “Nobody under 21 needs a gun,” they’ll insist, essentially saying that young women, new families, and people old enough to fight in Iraq don’t have a right to self defense.
The line will slowly be moved. One category of citizen at a time, gun rights will be eroded… not in one major sweep, but in a series of “reasonable” laws that happen to be tearing up the Constitution one shred at a time.
Anyone who supports the right to self defense and the Second Amendment needs to speak out. The left may think that they are finally winning, but have a long track record of underestimating actual Americans.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Thursday, March 08, 2018
Re: Nullification
I've been spending this week in New York City with my daughter Veronica, so I've taken time off from writing.
But man, that Jeff Sessions.
Just the other day, he said:
There is no nullification. There is no secession. Federal law is "the supreme law of the land." I would invite any doubters to go to Gettysburg, to the tombstones of John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln. This matter has been settled.
As the author of Nullification, I am driven insane by fact-free platitudes like this.
(Nullification is the idea that the states have the right to prevent the enforcement of unconstitutional federal laws.)
Let's be clear: Sessions is making precisely the argument that every left-liberal outfit on earth, from ThinkProgress to the Southern Poverty Law Center, was making not ten years ago, when the modern nullification movement was getting started.
All we heard was: Supremacy Clause! John C. Calhoun! Civil War!
Regarding Calhoun, I'm convinced the reason they mention him is (1) most Americans have no idea who he is, and (2) he's been sufficiently demonized in the minds of those who have, that anything he's associated with becomes automatically suspect.
They never used Thomas Jefferson's name, even though the first full-fledged articulation of the idea of nullification, including the very word itself, came from his pen. (Why they wouldn't want to associate Thomas Jefferson's name with an idea they seek to demonize is an exercise I leave to the student.)
On the Civil War: the Civil War was not fought over nullification, and in fact at the time of the war it was the northern states that had much more recently been engaged in nullification. The legitimacy of nullification involves a philosophical argument, and philosophical arguments are not – at least to reasonable people – decided one way or the other by violence. No one would say, when confronted with the plight of the Plains Indians, “Didn’t the U.S. Army settle that?”
As for the Supremacy Clause, that and a lot more are covered in my nullification FAQ (where you'll also find a link to get a free audiobook version of Nullification, which made the thought controllers go even crazier than they already were):
But man, that Jeff Sessions.
Just the other day, he said:
There is no nullification. There is no secession. Federal law is "the supreme law of the land." I would invite any doubters to go to Gettysburg, to the tombstones of John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln. This matter has been settled.
As the author of Nullification, I am driven insane by fact-free platitudes like this.
(Nullification is the idea that the states have the right to prevent the enforcement of unconstitutional federal laws.)
Let's be clear: Sessions is making precisely the argument that every left-liberal outfit on earth, from ThinkProgress to the Southern Poverty Law Center, was making not ten years ago, when the modern nullification movement was getting started.
All we heard was: Supremacy Clause! John C. Calhoun! Civil War!
Regarding Calhoun, I'm convinced the reason they mention him is (1) most Americans have no idea who he is, and (2) he's been sufficiently demonized in the minds of those who have, that anything he's associated with becomes automatically suspect.
They never used Thomas Jefferson's name, even though the first full-fledged articulation of the idea of nullification, including the very word itself, came from his pen. (Why they wouldn't want to associate Thomas Jefferson's name with an idea they seek to demonize is an exercise I leave to the student.)
On the Civil War: the Civil War was not fought over nullification, and in fact at the time of the war it was the northern states that had much more recently been engaged in nullification. The legitimacy of nullification involves a philosophical argument, and philosophical arguments are not – at least to reasonable people – decided one way or the other by violence. No one would say, when confronted with the plight of the Plains Indians, “Didn’t the U.S. Army settle that?”
As for the Supremacy Clause, that and a lot more are covered in my nullification FAQ (where you'll also find a link to get a free audiobook version of Nullification, which made the thought controllers go even crazier than they already were):
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Sunday, March 04, 2018
Moron Gun Control: Women and Children First
By Doug Lynn
In the aftermath of the Sandyhook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama issued 23 executive actions and proposed 19 legislative actions. After the Virginia Tech shooting new rules were passed that allowed the Social Security Administration to provide information to the gun background check system of people with “mental disabilities”. After Vegas and Parkland, it was bump-stocks. Now, most recently at the time of this writing, it appears that even President Trump has “stunned lawmakers” with his “seeming embrace of gun control measures”.
Do you see a pattern?
To understand the borg mind, you must first understand the politicians and powerbrokers are fully aware of what they are doing. But, as far as the liberal snowflakes are concerned, they ALWAYS believe what they WISH to be true; facts be damned. Worse than that, they will not let go of what they wish were true even after they long cross the rubicon into devastating lunacy. By then, it becomes like a Chinese finger trap; the more you challenge their beliefs, the more they hold on.
Here are 10 truths the gun control morons hold to be self-evident:
1.) The Gun is Guilty
How can some people assign culpability to a mere tool you ask? It’s a fair question. Those who hate guns believe evil should be confronted through the elimination of its occasional means; a device, or gadget. This is not overly unlike someone dieting to lose weight by removing the silverware from their kitchen.
Actually, it is in fact worse. To protect the children from bodily harm, Big Mother desires to remove the allegorical silverware from the homes of metaphorical healthy eaters.
That’s insane.
From an ideological perspective, could that faulty logic eliminate profanity by stealing the adult books from those who don’t curse? Or prevent procrastination by purloining people’s calendars and clocks? Indeed, just as instruments to measure time illustrate the denotation and solution for procrastination and tardiness, so do guns, simultaneously, demonstrate the denotation and solution for evil.
Some women, some children, and most liberals, can’t seem to identify evil through the fog of their good intentions. This explains why they fail to see the irony when they call for people with guns to come save them from people with guns. Except, for whatever reason, they profess to favor those traveling from a distance away to save them as opposed to someone in their immediate proximity.
Indeed, why do gun control advocates prefer those with badges, 20 minutes away, over those with a permit who could save their lives, and the lives of others, in that very moment?
Perhaps, because logic is not a strong suit in the minds of some women, some children, and most liberals.
2.) Criminals Obey Laws
Wrong. In every mass shooting event in recent years, there were laws on the books designed to prevent the murder and mayhem. Think about that. Criminals care nothing for laws; neither will they be inhibited by them. If laws eliminated all access to acquiring guns legally, it would not stop criminals from getting them any more than the war on drugs terminated illegal drug use in America. Naturally, laws are only as effective as their enforcement; which, in the case of the Parkland shooting and all others, was far less than stellar to say the least; let alone prohibitive. Sure, seat belt laws may save the lives of compliant citizens in car accidents, but no law can prevent deliberate, calculated murder. Evil finds a way.
3.) Citizens and Criminals are Synonymous
You’ve likely heard the saying: “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Yet, in the eyes of the gun control advocates, there is no difference between the two. This explains why an effort has been undertaken nationwide to criminalize the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its members, for the crimes of one crazy child from Parkland, Florida. For now, though, this profound miscalculation by the Political Left has backfired. Pardon the pun.
4.) Rights Derive from Emotions
Actually, they don’t. Why must law-abiding citizens yield to the emotionalism of traumatized children, politicized law enforcement officers, and liberal snowflakes? It seems they expect upright citizens to obey new rules designed to infringe upon the unalienable rights of others. Why not just say “no” and ignore them?
Pure, unbridled emotionalism, like what was witnessed during the CNN Townhall rally after the Parkland shooting, was entirely unrelated to the fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.
Notwithstanding, the First Amendment allowed the CNN rally to occur.
5.) Consequential Correlating Factors are Irrelevant
Some women, certain children, corrupt Broward county sheriffs, and most liberal snowflakes today willfully employ convenient tunnel-vision in order to unjustifiably convict firearms for murder. In so doing, they maliciously downplay any other contributing factors behind every mass shooting. These would include mental illness, the side-effects of psychotropic drugs, law enforcement failures, bullying, and family neglect.
But more than that, what about the supplemental influences from violent Hollywood movies and video games? Think about that. Why do companies pay millions of dollars to entertainers and athletes to endorse their products? Because advertising works. But now we are expected to believe that violence in movies and video games cause no adverse effects on children?
Why are all of these considerations summarily dismissed by the Political Left in the national conversation on guns? Why is the blame always solely placed onto the gadget by those favoring gun control? Why do they push for more laws when the FBI and local law enforcement agencies appear completely helpless to prevent the mass shootings from occurring in the first place?
Good questions.
6.) Gun Free Zones are Safe
The Political Left believes in the infallibility of gun free zones so much, they now hope to take the program national. Unsurprisingly, the facts show gun free zones not safe. Quite the contrary. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, gun free zones have been targeted in 98% of all mass shootings since 1950.
This, in spite of politicians legislating to keep the children safe:
Former Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, introduced the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) to the U.S. Senate in 1990, and it was signed into law by then-President George H.W. Bush, a Republican. The act was clearly proposed with the intent to prevent mass shootings at such precious areas as schools. But the act, as the statistic proves, did not result in the desired outcome.
Thanks for nothing, Joe and George. Again, I want my money back.
Evidently gun control doesn’t work but now the politicians have it all figured out? No thanks. I’ll pass. I’d rather put my faith in Santa Claus to bring me presents this Christmas, Robert Mueller to deliver justice to the highest offices of American Government, or Bill Clinton and his best friend, Jeffrey Epstein, to take our local girl scout troupe on a field trip to the Virgin Islands.
7.) Defense is Never a Good Offense
Those advocating for escalating gun control measures first mandate gun free zones, then, after the carnage, they double-down by fighting against the rights of trained teachers protecting themselves, and their students, from being sitting ducks.
Really?
Again, as stated heretofore, why do the gun control advocates favor those with badges 20 minutes away over someone with a permit who could save their lives, and the lives of others, in the moment?
Paradoxically, gun control advocates, gush over new laws to screen out potential shooters, yet they overwhelmingly distrust the laws designed to screen law-abiding concealed-carry permit holders?
Unbelievable.
Yet we are to believe it is the NRA who has blood on their hands? PUH-leese. Do these people think law-abiding citizens who value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are stupid?
Evidently.
8.) First Responders Are Never Late and Always Competent
See # 7 above. How many lives were lost in accordance to these false premises by so many “well-intentioned” women, children, liberal snowflakes, and bumbling law enforcement cowards?
Before answering, you may need to grab your calculator.
It seems, within the insane hive-mind of the Collective Left, only some lives matter.
9.) Victimized Teenagers are Superb Societal Strategists
In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting, the Clinton News Network (CNN) Devolved Into A North Korean Kangaroo Court Peddling Gun Confiscation. During that embarrassing event, the children, and their handlers, shouted down anyone who sought to challenge their faulty premises. They did so because the handlers, like overbearing and manipulative mothers, told the children not to tolerate dissent because they were the survivors of a terrible massacre and their “March for Our Lives” movement was not political. No, this movement is not political even though they held a February rally at the Florida Statehouse in Tallahassee on their way to march on Washington DC later this month.
It really is amazing. Just a few short weeks ago, America’s teens were suffering from purposely consuming laundry detergent. Now, within a matter of days, they are politically organized in ways that make Martin Luther King, Jr. look like a piker in comparison.
Regarding the CNN Townhall rally, I read a blog comment that said “CNN treated those kids the way Bill Clinton treated Monica Lewinsky.” Someday, these children might realize how they were played like an aspiring Hollywood starlet in Harvey Weinstein’s hotel suite.
10.) Government is Good
And now, the grandest, most astonishing, erroneous, supposition of all: Militias are so yesteryear.
In the days following the Parkland Florida shooting, Jim Quinn, the administrator of TheBurningPlatform.com, commented on a correlating thread there:
This week’s gun control argument in a nutshell: because government failed at every level, you need to have your rights curtailed…by the government that just failed at every level.
Indeed, what a great summary. One of the lies ceaselessly promulgated by the Radical Left is that governments are always good. Unfortunately, federal employees, welfare recipients, some survivors of mass casualty events, certain women and children, as well as politicians, pundits, and voters on both sides of the political aisle, appear to have zero immunity against that false assumption.
What short memories they have.
Read the entire article
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
In the aftermath of the Sandyhook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama issued 23 executive actions and proposed 19 legislative actions. After the Virginia Tech shooting new rules were passed that allowed the Social Security Administration to provide information to the gun background check system of people with “mental disabilities”. After Vegas and Parkland, it was bump-stocks. Now, most recently at the time of this writing, it appears that even President Trump has “stunned lawmakers” with his “seeming embrace of gun control measures”.
Do you see a pattern?
To understand the borg mind, you must first understand the politicians and powerbrokers are fully aware of what they are doing. But, as far as the liberal snowflakes are concerned, they ALWAYS believe what they WISH to be true; facts be damned. Worse than that, they will not let go of what they wish were true even after they long cross the rubicon into devastating lunacy. By then, it becomes like a Chinese finger trap; the more you challenge their beliefs, the more they hold on.
Here are 10 truths the gun control morons hold to be self-evident:
1.) The Gun is Guilty
How can some people assign culpability to a mere tool you ask? It’s a fair question. Those who hate guns believe evil should be confronted through the elimination of its occasional means; a device, or gadget. This is not overly unlike someone dieting to lose weight by removing the silverware from their kitchen.
Actually, it is in fact worse. To protect the children from bodily harm, Big Mother desires to remove the allegorical silverware from the homes of metaphorical healthy eaters.
That’s insane.
From an ideological perspective, could that faulty logic eliminate profanity by stealing the adult books from those who don’t curse? Or prevent procrastination by purloining people’s calendars and clocks? Indeed, just as instruments to measure time illustrate the denotation and solution for procrastination and tardiness, so do guns, simultaneously, demonstrate the denotation and solution for evil.
Some women, some children, and most liberals, can’t seem to identify evil through the fog of their good intentions. This explains why they fail to see the irony when they call for people with guns to come save them from people with guns. Except, for whatever reason, they profess to favor those traveling from a distance away to save them as opposed to someone in their immediate proximity.
Indeed, why do gun control advocates prefer those with badges, 20 minutes away, over those with a permit who could save their lives, and the lives of others, in that very moment?
Perhaps, because logic is not a strong suit in the minds of some women, some children, and most liberals.
2.) Criminals Obey Laws
Wrong. In every mass shooting event in recent years, there were laws on the books designed to prevent the murder and mayhem. Think about that. Criminals care nothing for laws; neither will they be inhibited by them. If laws eliminated all access to acquiring guns legally, it would not stop criminals from getting them any more than the war on drugs terminated illegal drug use in America. Naturally, laws are only as effective as their enforcement; which, in the case of the Parkland shooting and all others, was far less than stellar to say the least; let alone prohibitive. Sure, seat belt laws may save the lives of compliant citizens in car accidents, but no law can prevent deliberate, calculated murder. Evil finds a way.
3.) Citizens and Criminals are Synonymous
You’ve likely heard the saying: “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Yet, in the eyes of the gun control advocates, there is no difference between the two. This explains why an effort has been undertaken nationwide to criminalize the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its members, for the crimes of one crazy child from Parkland, Florida. For now, though, this profound miscalculation by the Political Left has backfired. Pardon the pun.
4.) Rights Derive from Emotions
Actually, they don’t. Why must law-abiding citizens yield to the emotionalism of traumatized children, politicized law enforcement officers, and liberal snowflakes? It seems they expect upright citizens to obey new rules designed to infringe upon the unalienable rights of others. Why not just say “no” and ignore them?
Pure, unbridled emotionalism, like what was witnessed during the CNN Townhall rally after the Parkland shooting, was entirely unrelated to the fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.
Notwithstanding, the First Amendment allowed the CNN rally to occur.
5.) Consequential Correlating Factors are Irrelevant
Some women, certain children, corrupt Broward county sheriffs, and most liberal snowflakes today willfully employ convenient tunnel-vision in order to unjustifiably convict firearms for murder. In so doing, they maliciously downplay any other contributing factors behind every mass shooting. These would include mental illness, the side-effects of psychotropic drugs, law enforcement failures, bullying, and family neglect.
But more than that, what about the supplemental influences from violent Hollywood movies and video games? Think about that. Why do companies pay millions of dollars to entertainers and athletes to endorse their products? Because advertising works. But now we are expected to believe that violence in movies and video games cause no adverse effects on children?
Why are all of these considerations summarily dismissed by the Political Left in the national conversation on guns? Why is the blame always solely placed onto the gadget by those favoring gun control? Why do they push for more laws when the FBI and local law enforcement agencies appear completely helpless to prevent the mass shootings from occurring in the first place?
Good questions.
6.) Gun Free Zones are Safe
The Political Left believes in the infallibility of gun free zones so much, they now hope to take the program national. Unsurprisingly, the facts show gun free zones not safe. Quite the contrary. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, gun free zones have been targeted in 98% of all mass shootings since 1950.
This, in spite of politicians legislating to keep the children safe:
Former Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, introduced the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) to the U.S. Senate in 1990, and it was signed into law by then-President George H.W. Bush, a Republican. The act was clearly proposed with the intent to prevent mass shootings at such precious areas as schools. But the act, as the statistic proves, did not result in the desired outcome.
Thanks for nothing, Joe and George. Again, I want my money back.
Evidently gun control doesn’t work but now the politicians have it all figured out? No thanks. I’ll pass. I’d rather put my faith in Santa Claus to bring me presents this Christmas, Robert Mueller to deliver justice to the highest offices of American Government, or Bill Clinton and his best friend, Jeffrey Epstein, to take our local girl scout troupe on a field trip to the Virgin Islands.
7.) Defense is Never a Good Offense
Those advocating for escalating gun control measures first mandate gun free zones, then, after the carnage, they double-down by fighting against the rights of trained teachers protecting themselves, and their students, from being sitting ducks.
Really?
Again, as stated heretofore, why do the gun control advocates favor those with badges 20 minutes away over someone with a permit who could save their lives, and the lives of others, in the moment?
Paradoxically, gun control advocates, gush over new laws to screen out potential shooters, yet they overwhelmingly distrust the laws designed to screen law-abiding concealed-carry permit holders?
Unbelievable.
Yet we are to believe it is the NRA who has blood on their hands? PUH-leese. Do these people think law-abiding citizens who value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are stupid?
Evidently.
8.) First Responders Are Never Late and Always Competent
See # 7 above. How many lives were lost in accordance to these false premises by so many “well-intentioned” women, children, liberal snowflakes, and bumbling law enforcement cowards?
Before answering, you may need to grab your calculator.
It seems, within the insane hive-mind of the Collective Left, only some lives matter.
9.) Victimized Teenagers are Superb Societal Strategists
In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting, the Clinton News Network (CNN) Devolved Into A North Korean Kangaroo Court Peddling Gun Confiscation. During that embarrassing event, the children, and their handlers, shouted down anyone who sought to challenge their faulty premises. They did so because the handlers, like overbearing and manipulative mothers, told the children not to tolerate dissent because they were the survivors of a terrible massacre and their “March for Our Lives” movement was not political. No, this movement is not political even though they held a February rally at the Florida Statehouse in Tallahassee on their way to march on Washington DC later this month.
It really is amazing. Just a few short weeks ago, America’s teens were suffering from purposely consuming laundry detergent. Now, within a matter of days, they are politically organized in ways that make Martin Luther King, Jr. look like a piker in comparison.
Regarding the CNN Townhall rally, I read a blog comment that said “CNN treated those kids the way Bill Clinton treated Monica Lewinsky.” Someday, these children might realize how they were played like an aspiring Hollywood starlet in Harvey Weinstein’s hotel suite.
10.) Government is Good
And now, the grandest, most astonishing, erroneous, supposition of all: Militias are so yesteryear.
In the days following the Parkland Florida shooting, Jim Quinn, the administrator of TheBurningPlatform.com, commented on a correlating thread there:
This week’s gun control argument in a nutshell: because government failed at every level, you need to have your rights curtailed…by the government that just failed at every level.
Indeed, what a great summary. One of the lies ceaselessly promulgated by the Radical Left is that governments are always good. Unfortunately, federal employees, welfare recipients, some survivors of mass casualty events, certain women and children, as well as politicians, pundits, and voters on both sides of the political aisle, appear to have zero immunity against that false assumption.
What short memories they have.
Read the entire article
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Saturday, March 03, 2018
The "Blood Dance" of the "Progressives"
By Brent Bozell
The school shooting in Parkland, Florida, shows how quickly our media elites move horrors from tragedy to political opportunity. They amplified the loudest voices of the shooting aftermath: teenage survivors who demanded gun control "solutions" like banning all semi-automatic assault weapons. These teenagers might accomplish in one week what the anti-Second Amendment crowd, led by these same media elites, has failed to do for decades.
Survivors of failed abortions (like Gianna Jessen or Melissa Ohden) have never held their attention for five seconds. That conflicts with the narrative.
Liberal journalists have openly discussed how these teenage advocates could be a crucial factor in defeating the gun-rights lobby. They could become the key to the kind of turnout necessary for putting Democrats in the majority in Congress. So they gave them every opportunity to push for liberal victory without any need to be civil.
David Hogg, the most prominent student survivor, went on CNN and proclaimed politicians shouldn't take money from the National Rifle Association because they are "child murderers." CNN morning anchor Alisyn Camerota didn't correct him -- or condemn his statement, regardless of the fact that he'd just stained the reputations of millions of NRA members by labeling them killers. She said nothing. She was satisfied -- pleased, in fact. CNN.com happily posted the clip with the headline "Shooting Survivor Calls NRA 'Child Murderers.'"
CNN's motto is "Facts First."
CNN hosted a "town hall" full of leftist rage against anyone who believes in Second Amendment rights. Their agenda was obvious from the program's title: "Stand Up: The Students of Stoneman Douglas Demand Action." They used the hashtag #StudentsStandUp to promote it. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch were verbally slashed by the students without mercy.
Survivor Cameron Kasky stood a few feet from Rubio and smeared him on national television: "it's hard to look at you and not look down the barrel of an AR-15 and not look at [the Parkland shooter], but the point is you're here, and there are some people who are not." Kasky also said he wished he could have questioned "the NRA lady" (Loesch), since he "would ask her how she can look in the mirror, considering the fact she has children, but, you know, maybe she avoids those."
In the next hour, when Loesch was on, people in the audience shouted "murderer," and "burn her," and student survivor Emma Gonzalez lectured her that she would be a better mother: "Dana Loesch, I want you to know that we will support your two children in the way that ... you will not."
Moderator Jake Tapper allowed the audience to be as immoderate as it wanted. He tweeted afterward: "People freestyled a bit" -- a bit? -- "and I wasn't inclined to reprimand a school shooting survivor or parent who lost a child for expressing him or herself in a question -- even if aggressively."
But this is the most amazing part. In the aftermath, no one in television "news" replayed the students' rudeness as a storyline worthy of condemnation, or even comment. It matched their own political agenda and emotional temperature. When Rep. Joe Wilson yelled, "You lie!" at then-President Obama in 2009, these networks all angrily replayed it ad infinitum as a national disgrace. They called it "infamous." CNN's headline on the video clip read "The Heckling Heard 'Round the World."
Even Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito shaking his head at the 2010 State of the Union was projected as inappropriate.
Remember these student hecklers when CNN and their colleagues decry how President Donald Trump has single-handedly ruined civil discourse. Trump mocking CNN as "fake news" caused far more media outrage than Hogg calling the NRA "child murderers."
It will happen again and again. They are hell-bent on ridding this country of the Second Amendment, one tragedy at a time.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
The school shooting in Parkland, Florida, shows how quickly our media elites move horrors from tragedy to political opportunity. They amplified the loudest voices of the shooting aftermath: teenage survivors who demanded gun control "solutions" like banning all semi-automatic assault weapons. These teenagers might accomplish in one week what the anti-Second Amendment crowd, led by these same media elites, has failed to do for decades.
Survivors of failed abortions (like Gianna Jessen or Melissa Ohden) have never held their attention for five seconds. That conflicts with the narrative.
Liberal journalists have openly discussed how these teenage advocates could be a crucial factor in defeating the gun-rights lobby. They could become the key to the kind of turnout necessary for putting Democrats in the majority in Congress. So they gave them every opportunity to push for liberal victory without any need to be civil.
David Hogg, the most prominent student survivor, went on CNN and proclaimed politicians shouldn't take money from the National Rifle Association because they are "child murderers." CNN morning anchor Alisyn Camerota didn't correct him -- or condemn his statement, regardless of the fact that he'd just stained the reputations of millions of NRA members by labeling them killers. She said nothing. She was satisfied -- pleased, in fact. CNN.com happily posted the clip with the headline "Shooting Survivor Calls NRA 'Child Murderers.'"
CNN's motto is "Facts First."
CNN hosted a "town hall" full of leftist rage against anyone who believes in Second Amendment rights. Their agenda was obvious from the program's title: "Stand Up: The Students of Stoneman Douglas Demand Action." They used the hashtag #StudentsStandUp to promote it. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch were verbally slashed by the students without mercy.
Survivor Cameron Kasky stood a few feet from Rubio and smeared him on national television: "it's hard to look at you and not look down the barrel of an AR-15 and not look at [the Parkland shooter], but the point is you're here, and there are some people who are not." Kasky also said he wished he could have questioned "the NRA lady" (Loesch), since he "would ask her how she can look in the mirror, considering the fact she has children, but, you know, maybe she avoids those."
In the next hour, when Loesch was on, people in the audience shouted "murderer," and "burn her," and student survivor Emma Gonzalez lectured her that she would be a better mother: "Dana Loesch, I want you to know that we will support your two children in the way that ... you will not."
Moderator Jake Tapper allowed the audience to be as immoderate as it wanted. He tweeted afterward: "People freestyled a bit" -- a bit? -- "and I wasn't inclined to reprimand a school shooting survivor or parent who lost a child for expressing him or herself in a question -- even if aggressively."
But this is the most amazing part. In the aftermath, no one in television "news" replayed the students' rudeness as a storyline worthy of condemnation, or even comment. It matched their own political agenda and emotional temperature. When Rep. Joe Wilson yelled, "You lie!" at then-President Obama in 2009, these networks all angrily replayed it ad infinitum as a national disgrace. They called it "infamous." CNN's headline on the video clip read "The Heckling Heard 'Round the World."
Even Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito shaking his head at the 2010 State of the Union was projected as inappropriate.
Remember these student hecklers when CNN and their colleagues decry how President Donald Trump has single-handedly ruined civil discourse. Trump mocking CNN as "fake news" caused far more media outrage than Hogg calling the NRA "child murderers."
It will happen again and again. They are hell-bent on ridding this country of the Second Amendment, one tragedy at a time.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
Thursday, March 01, 2018
In Defense of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
By Judge Andrew Napolitano
The Ash Wednesday massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, seems to have broken more hearts than similar tragedies that preceded it. It was no more senseless than other American school shootings, but there is something about the innocence and bravery and eloquence of the youthful survivors that has touched the souls of Americans deeply.
After burying their dead, the survivors have mobilized into a mighty political force that loosely seeks more laws to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. The young people, traumatized and terrified with memories of unspeakable horror that will not fade, somehow think that a person bent on murder will obey gun laws.
Every time I watch these beautiful young people, I wince, because in their understandable sadness is the potential for madness — “madness” being defined as the passionate and stubborn refusal to accept reason. This often happens after tragedy. After watching the government railroad Abraham Lincoln’s killer’s conspirators — and even some folks who had nothing to do with the assassination — the poet Herman Melville wrote: “Beware the People weeping. When they bare the iron hand.”
It is nearly impossible to argue rationally with tears and pain, which is why we all need to take a step back from this tragedy before legally addressing its causes.
If you believe in an all-knowing, all-loving God as I do, then you accept the concept of natural rights. These are the claims and privileges that are attached to humanity as God’s gifts. If you do not accept the existence of a Supreme Being, you can still accept the concept of natural rights, as it is obvious that humans are the superior rational beings on earth. Our exercise of reason draws us all to the exercise of freedoms, and we can do this independent of the government. Stated differently, both the theist and the atheist can accept the concept of natural human rights.
Thomas Jefferson, who claimed to be neither theist nor atheist, wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Such rights cannot be separated from us, as they are integral to our humanity. Foremost among our unalienable rights is the right to life — the right to be and to remain alive.
And that right implies the right to defend life — the right to self-defense. If I am about to assault you in the nose, you can duck, run away or punch me first. If I am about to strike your children, you can strike me first. If I am about to do either of those things with a gun, you can shoot me first, and no reasonable jury will convict you. In fact, no reasonable prosecutor will charge you.
The reason for all this is natural. It is natural to defend yourself — your life — and your children. The Framers recognized this right when they ratified the Second Amendment. They wrote it to ensure that all governments would respect the right to keep and bear arms as a natural extension of the right to self-defense.
In its two most recent interpretations of the right to self-defense, the Supreme Court characterized that right as “pre-political.” That means the right pre-existed the government. If it pre-existed the government, it must come from our human nature. I once asked Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the majority’s opinion in the first of those cases, called the District of Columbia v. Heller, why he used the term “pre-political” instead of “natural.” He replied, “You and I know they mean the same thing, but ‘natural’ sounds too Catholic, and I am interpreting the Constitution, not Aquinas.”
With the Heller case, the court went on to characterize this pre-political right as an individual and personal one. It also recognized that the people who wrote the Second Amendment had just fought a war against a king and his army — a war that they surely would have lost had they not kept and carried arms that were equal to or better than what the British army had.
They didn’t write the Second Amendment to protect the right to shoot deer; they wrote it to protect the right to self-defense — whether against bad guys, crazy people or a tyrannical government bent on destroying personal liberty.
In Heller, the court also articulated that the right to use guns means the right to use guns that are at the same level of sophistication as the guns your potential adversary might have, whether that adversary be a bad guy, a crazy person or a soldier of a tyrannical government.
But even after Heller, governments have found ways to infringe on the right to self-defense. Government does not like competition. Essentially, government is the entity among us that monopolizes force. The more force it monopolizes the more power it has. So it has enacted, in the name of safety, the least safe places on earth — gun-free zones. The nightclub in Orlando, the government offices in San Bernardino, the schools in Columbine, Newtown and Parkland were all killing zones because the government prohibited guns there and the killers knew this.
We all need to face a painful fact of life: The police make mistakes like the rest of us and simply cannot be everywhere when we need them. When government fails to recognize this and it disarms us in selected zones, we become helpless before our enemies.
But it could be worse. One of my Fox News colleagues asked me on-air the other day: Suppose we confiscated all guns; wouldn’t that keep us safe? I replied that we’d need to start with the government’s guns. Oh, no, he said. He just meant confiscation among the civilian population. I replied that then we wouldn’t be a civilian population any longer. We’d be a nation of sheep.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.
Posted with emphasis added by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
ht Lew Rockwell
The Ash Wednesday massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, seems to have broken more hearts than similar tragedies that preceded it. It was no more senseless than other American school shootings, but there is something about the innocence and bravery and eloquence of the youthful survivors that has touched the souls of Americans deeply.
After burying their dead, the survivors have mobilized into a mighty political force that loosely seeks more laws to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. The young people, traumatized and terrified with memories of unspeakable horror that will not fade, somehow think that a person bent on murder will obey gun laws.
Every time I watch these beautiful young people, I wince, because in their understandable sadness is the potential for madness — “madness” being defined as the passionate and stubborn refusal to accept reason. This often happens after tragedy. After watching the government railroad Abraham Lincoln’s killer’s conspirators — and even some folks who had nothing to do with the assassination — the poet Herman Melville wrote: “Beware the People weeping. When they bare the iron hand.”
It is nearly impossible to argue rationally with tears and pain, which is why we all need to take a step back from this tragedy before legally addressing its causes.
If you believe in an all-knowing, all-loving God as I do, then you accept the concept of natural rights. These are the claims and privileges that are attached to humanity as God’s gifts. If you do not accept the existence of a Supreme Being, you can still accept the concept of natural rights, as it is obvious that humans are the superior rational beings on earth. Our exercise of reason draws us all to the exercise of freedoms, and we can do this independent of the government. Stated differently, both the theist and the atheist can accept the concept of natural human rights.
Thomas Jefferson, who claimed to be neither theist nor atheist, wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Such rights cannot be separated from us, as they are integral to our humanity. Foremost among our unalienable rights is the right to life — the right to be and to remain alive.
And that right implies the right to defend life — the right to self-defense. If I am about to assault you in the nose, you can duck, run away or punch me first. If I am about to strike your children, you can strike me first. If I am about to do either of those things with a gun, you can shoot me first, and no reasonable jury will convict you. In fact, no reasonable prosecutor will charge you.
The reason for all this is natural. It is natural to defend yourself — your life — and your children. The Framers recognized this right when they ratified the Second Amendment. They wrote it to ensure that all governments would respect the right to keep and bear arms as a natural extension of the right to self-defense.
In its two most recent interpretations of the right to self-defense, the Supreme Court characterized that right as “pre-political.” That means the right pre-existed the government. If it pre-existed the government, it must come from our human nature. I once asked Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the majority’s opinion in the first of those cases, called the District of Columbia v. Heller, why he used the term “pre-political” instead of “natural.” He replied, “You and I know they mean the same thing, but ‘natural’ sounds too Catholic, and I am interpreting the Constitution, not Aquinas.”
With the Heller case, the court went on to characterize this pre-political right as an individual and personal one. It also recognized that the people who wrote the Second Amendment had just fought a war against a king and his army — a war that they surely would have lost had they not kept and carried arms that were equal to or better than what the British army had.
They didn’t write the Second Amendment to protect the right to shoot deer; they wrote it to protect the right to self-defense — whether against bad guys, crazy people or a tyrannical government bent on destroying personal liberty.
In Heller, the court also articulated that the right to use guns means the right to use guns that are at the same level of sophistication as the guns your potential adversary might have, whether that adversary be a bad guy, a crazy person or a soldier of a tyrannical government.
But even after Heller, governments have found ways to infringe on the right to self-defense. Government does not like competition. Essentially, government is the entity among us that monopolizes force. The more force it monopolizes the more power it has. So it has enacted, in the name of safety, the least safe places on earth — gun-free zones. The nightclub in Orlando, the government offices in San Bernardino, the schools in Columbine, Newtown and Parkland were all killing zones because the government prohibited guns there and the killers knew this.
We all need to face a painful fact of life: The police make mistakes like the rest of us and simply cannot be everywhere when we need them. When government fails to recognize this and it disarms us in selected zones, we become helpless before our enemies.
But it could be worse. One of my Fox News colleagues asked me on-air the other day: Suppose we confiscated all guns; wouldn’t that keep us safe? I replied that we’d need to start with the government’s guns. Oh, no, he said. He just meant confiscation among the civilian population. I replied that then we wouldn’t be a civilian population any longer. We’d be a nation of sheep.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.
Posted with emphasis added by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
ht Lew Rockwell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)