Never Let a Severe Crisis Go to Waste

Recently we have noted a surfeit of discussions of various scenarios involving self defense and "protection". It has also been observed that one of the consequences of the recent national plebiscite has been a boost in the sale of firearms and related paraphernalia whilst private enterprise along with the remainder of our liberties seem to be in free fall. To what extent however, is the private acquisition of the means of self defense merely an exercise in "talking the talk" rather than "walking the walk"?

This writer is of the opinion that the most important factor when considering taking individual responsibility for defending ones self, family and property is mindset; and for the last two generations government education has systematically attempted to quash the traditional view that self defense is a natural right. All the defensive armament available is useless unless one is prepared to utilize it in extremis.

The conventional wisdom permeating our society that it is the responsibility of the state through one of its agencies to protect us from violent criminal threats to life and limb could not be further from the reality. The truth of the concept can be read here and here that the government has no obligation to defend an individual from the threat to life or limb. Also to be considered is the fact that the greatest threat to liberty since 1865 has been the Federal Government itself. In spite of these facts :

...[T]he state and its myriad civilian supporters persist in the belief the individual in society should be disarmed, stating the police are there, should anyone need protection.

Today’s economic problems have revealed the true purpose of most law enforcement personnel in our country: revenue collection . Apprehending killers, rapists and robbers does not contribute to the coffers of law enforcement and their governing bodies; they are, in fact, costly to the agency involved. Unconstitutional law enforcement checkpoints, where a great majority of DUI citations, license, registration, and insurance violations are issued, are vital to the state in the collection of revenue. In today’s economic times, many departments have detailed officers from personal crime assignments to activities that are revenue producing. This takes the law enforcement emphasis away from protecting citizens. To the police, manning checkpoints or speed traps is much more important than answering a prowler call or a call concerning a restraining order’s enforcement.

During times of severe economic collapse and the concomitant likelihood of brigandage, it is logical to conceive of relying on individual self defense. On the other hand, what is the appropriate response to the scenario where agents of governmental authority are sent out to collect the means of self defense from the citizenry during times of emergency and martial law as was the case in New Orleans during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina? If, dear reader, you are prepared to dismiss such a possibility by citing articles and clauses in the Constitution and provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 I suggest that you consider returning to the real world of the 21st century.

The issue of whether U.S. troops would be prepared to round-up, disarm and if necessary shoot Americans who disobeyed orders during a state of martial law is a question that military chiefs have been attempting to answer for at least 15 years.

There is, however at least one ray of hope, and you will not be made aware of it in the traditional media. If any of you dear readers are members of the military or law enforcement, I urge you to become acquainted with the web site of the Oath Keepers who present a list of "orders" which they will not obey.

Officers in the service of the United States are bound by the following oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

The usual governmental dodge of course will be applied to your demurrer regarding the demand (following a knock on your door) ordering the surrender of your weapons; you will be declared a "terrorist" and dealt with accordingly.


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

cross posted at: Eternity Road

Omnipotent Government?

We now learn that the genocide committed by Muslims against the Christian tribes in the Darfur region of Sudan is really caused by (are you ready for this?) "man made global climate change". Now aren't you ashamed of your last fuelup at the local Citgo gas station? Some time ago a wag averred that the environazis would soon be blaming any unpleasantness in the world on man made global warming. Our chuckles indulged in at that time seem now to ring eerily hollow. The United Nation's CEO has signed on board the new religion which insists that the omnipotent government (preferably one with global reach) be assigned to solve this vexing problem by devising new taxing and freedom limiting schemes but without the application of military power. How novel!

But here in the U.S. one is shocked to learn that the government may not be omnipotent:

The illegal immigration question is an interesting test of government in action, at least when it comes to core responsibilities like defense of the nation. When critics of this "comprehensive" immigration bill demand enforcement of the borders, the administration says: Boy, you're right there! We're with you on that! We want enforcement, too. But we can't get it as long as you're holding up this "comprehensive reform."

Why not? There are immigration laws on the books right now, aren't there? Why not try enforcing them? The same people who say that government is a mighty power for good that can extinguish every cigarette butt and detoxify every cheeseburger and even change the very climate of the planet back to some Edenic state so that the water that falleth from heaven will land as ice and snow, and polar bears on distant continents will frolic as they did in days of yore, the very same people say: Building a border fence? Enforcing deportation orders? Can't be done, old boy. Pie-in-the-sky.

How are we to resolve this seeming paradox when we are also assured by our "leaders" that although we are at war with "terrorism", retaliatory attacks on those who routinely act on their wish to kill us result only in "innocent civilian" casualties? It would appear that our "leaders" are really only interested in two things; more power over us and continued enjoyment of the concomitant perquisites associated with the exercise of that power . Only an idiot or a politician would argue for granting the government more power over us, but then again, these are truly strange times.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ