Fox news correspondent John Roberts recently spent some time with Californian Jason Greenslate to learn about the new reality of food stamp recipients, compliments of our President, Barack Hussein Obama. Check out this video and see if it doesn’t make your blood reaching its boiling point. This is America’s future if we do not interfere [...]
Fox news correspondent John Roberts recently spent some time with Californian Jason Greenslate to learn about the new reality of food stamp recipients, compliments of our President, Barack Hussein Obama. Check out this video and see if it doesn’t make your blood reaching its boiling point. This is America’s future if we do not interfere and demand accountability and change (notice I said accountability and change, not Hope and Change) from our government and our country’s leadership.
Please note that this food stamp recipient is driving a Cadillac Escalade EXT which carries a base price of $63,060 for this year’s model. I don’t know about all of you but I have always worked full time to provide for me and mine and have never owned a Cadillac. Not even one that was up on blocks in the yard!
The following is a guest post from JV:
Assistant Dear Leader Nancy Pelosi has told us explicitly- “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory.” And who better to inventory it, than the compassionate, caring, DMV-like state! And I just can’t wait until we have those Red Guard-like “self-criticism struggle [...]
The following is a guest post from JV:
Assistant Dear Leader Nancy Pelosi has told us explicitly- “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory.” And who better to inventory it, than the compassionate, caring, DMV-like state! And I just can’t wait until we have those Red Guard-like “self-criticism struggle sessions!” I’m sure that will fix things in a jiffy!
“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know,” Google non-Einstein CEO Eric Schmidt said in 2009, “maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” Really, Eric? How’s that prostate health of your’s going along? And tell us what you REALLY think of those Kate Upton pix on the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue. Y’know….what you really think. Anything else about your health or, um….marital and/or sex life you care to let us all know about? If not, “maybe you shouldn’t be doing ‘it’ in the first place,” right? BTW, care to tell us how you ran Novell into the ground, Mr. Schmidt? Full details, please! Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook founder, says the same thing as Herr Schmidt. Just curious though: Does Mr. Zuckerberg mind if the paparazzi join him in bed tonight? Would be great to get some close up photos of him in his PJs clutching his fuzzy yellow teddy bear! Does he close the door when in the washroom, or taking a shower? Care to give us the complete details of your latest spat with your significant other? Or is that others? And DO tell us all about your early dating life, struggles with pimples, and how you felt when you didn’t make the football team when you were 15. Oh yes…can you provide your SSN, Visa card number and cell phone number while you are at it?
And why, exactly, are Obama’s records – like his medical or university ones – sealed? Can we start with this new Pelosi-esque open “inventory” of our lives with our Dear Leader? No? Why not?? And why did Lisa Jackson, EPA czar, feel a need for a fake email account, if Obama appointees are also so on board with this approach? Why is Kathleen Sibelius doing the same thing with her fake email account? Can we get the details on half of Obama’s cabinet that cheated on their taxes, while we are at it?
Of course, when the First Congress enacted the original Crimes Act in 1790, there were only 17 recognized Federal crimes, and it was reasonable to assume that as long as a person was a law-abiding citizen, he was not at risk of arrest. Today there are more than 4,500 Federal crimes and tens of thousands of Federal regulations – and this is JUST at the federal level I’m sure I must be guilty of at least a few of them, so perhaps Nancy Pelosi could just go ahead and sign me up for a few at random ones at one of the government levels (federal, state or municipal)? The Federal Register –comprised of government agencies’ new regulations, proposed rules, and presidential papers – is, according toPolitifact.com and Rep. Randy Forbes (R—4th District of Virginia) 34,000 pages in length. The Government Printing Office stated on June 14, 2011, the actual number of pages was 34,844, but then, as pages are added every day, whose counting! But that was actually just the running tally of the number of pages published in 2011 to date. According to Jim Hemphill, Assistant to the Director of the Federal Register, the 2010 total was actually 81,405 pages, of which “only” 46, 758 were dedicated to rules or proposed rules (Whew! I was worried there for a minute!). The rest were agency hearings, meetings, investigations, etc.
As Tim Carney writes in the Washington Examiner, “Citizens that the federal government wants to indict, the federal government can indict if it monitors them closely enough. That’s why it’s so disturbing to learn that the federal government doesn’t need to obtain a warrant on us in order to get our emails and phone records…. One threat to privacy is Congress expanding the use of these Big Brother tools. Another threat is an administration using it illegally. This happens. President Bush used surveillance powers inappropriately. New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer targeted political opponents with state surveillance. So what’s next? A president targeting hard-core environmentalists or pro-life activists on the suspicion they’ll carry out terrorist attacks? This may not sound likely, but recall scare stories about “ecoterrorists,” and how Obama’s Department of Homeland Security has warned that Tea Partiers are serious threats.You don’t need a new Nixon for this to become reality. You just need a president convinced that his political opponents are not only incorrect, but positively dangerous.” We know the “Yes we can” chanters aren’t on board with this, so what about Bush? Or Nixon? As the Verizon commercial might say to these leftists, “Can you hear me now?!!!”
But the very best response to the utterly absurd contentions of Komrades Schmidt and Zuckerberg – and all their ilk – is found at lawyer Harvey Silverglate’s, Three Felonies a Day website. The website has exactly what you think it does: a rendering of how you, dear average citizen, are literally guilty of three felonies a day. Yes, you!
I did not retain the source for the information below, but let me cite this excerpt: “Legal experts such as retired Louisiana State University law professor John Baker say, “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime… That is not an exaggeration.” It is because more than 4,500 federal laws exist. These laws crisscross 50 titles and roughly 27,000 pages of the U.S. Code. And to complicate matters, at least another 10,000 regulations from dozens of disparate federal offices and agencies carry severe and criminal punishments. Adding to this volatile mix is the established trend that government seeks to “criminalize nearly every aspect of our lives,” says The Heritage Foundation in its ‘You Could Go To Prison for Five Years By Making a Clerical Error’. Here’s how: “The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA), an agency within the Transportation Department, recently proposed a regulation that would make filing duplicate applications to transport fireworks a crime punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.” In other words, if you’re overly cautious and submit more than one application, you could go to federal prison. And we’re not talking here about nuclear material, hazardous waste, or toxic chemicals. We’re talking about firecrackers and bottle rockets used by patriotic Americans to celebrate what’s left of our independence. The report continues: “Why such a severe punishment for merely filing a duplicate application?” To quote PHMSA, “The submission of duplicate applications under both processes may result in confusion, slower processing, and diminished safety.” Ah yes… that old “safety” thing again! Heck, we are so “safe” that 75% of us could be in jail – unless you have a good lawyer like Jon “I lost $1.6 billion” Corzine does, or are a special crony of the elite.
Traditionally, we have a separation between civil and criminal law. The reason is so punishments fit the crime. Also, for a crime to exist, there ought to be criminal intent. None of these factors fit the example above, because common sense and decency by central powers have been thrown out the window. In another example from the report, under current law, if you’re negligent and drop a banana peel on the floor, and a customer slips on it and gets injured, the customer has the right to sue for monetary damages. That’s fair. No one gets locked up in jail; it was just a mistake.But under The Clean Water Act, simple, unintentional accidents are crimes. You can get charged with a felony and sent to prison for three years because your employees accidentally installed the wrong water filter. This happened to Mr. James Hong [United States v. James Ming Hong]. If your employee drives heavy equipment and accidentally punctures a buried petroleum pipe, and the contents spill into a waterway, you’ll have a felony on your personal record for life, and also sit in prison for six months, just as it happened to Edward Hanousek, Jr. [Edward Hanousek v. United States].
Civil forfeiture (as opposed to criminal forfeiture) happens when law enforcement agencies “seize property upon the mere suspicion that it may have some connection to criminal activity,” says president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice, Chip Mellor. “Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets–all without… charging you with a crime… with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with a crime… to lose homes, cars, cash or other property.”
This nightmare is happening now to Mr. Russ Caswell…
In United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts (The Motel Caswell), the Justice Department teamed up with the local police department to strip Caswell’s ownership of his motel. Notice the case title, United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts. The defendant is an actual street address, not a legal entity; the government is suing the property. Caswell and his family are NOT accused much less convicted of any crime. The government’s position: Over the last 20 years, this motel, which has been in the Caswell family for two generations, is the location where some lodgers have been arrested for crimes. (So, apparently that makes the cops entitled to the property.) It’s important to mention that throughout this time “the Caswells themselves have worked closely with law enforcement officials to prevent and report crime on their property,” says the Institute for Justice. The Caswells have been responsible and diligent owners. Their motel is worth at least $1 million and is owned free and clear, making it a juicy prize. For perspective, in 1986, the year after the U.S. Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Fund was created it took in just $93.7 million. According its Annual Financial Statements for the year 2011, the fund increased to $2.85 BILLION in 2011, up from $2.58 BILLION in 2010, nearly an 11% increase in one year.
Does anyone still have questions on why this issue is important?
Thank you to contributor J.V. for submission of this guest post.
Socialism (literally, government) is the great fiction, whereby everybody endeavours to live off of everybody else. ~ Frederic Bastiat, 1801-1850
David Sirota recently penned an article about the Boston Marathon bombing, while the victims were still bleeding one [...]
Thank you to contributor J.V. for submission of this guest post.
Socialism (literally, government) is the great fiction, whereby everybody endeavours to live off of everybody else. ~ Frederic Bastiat, 1801-1850
David Sirota recently penned an article about the Boston Marathon bombing, while the victims were still bleeding one day after the attack, titled Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American.
Of course, Sirota’s reason is simple – he did not want “slander” of Islam, or by extension, any other minorities. Leaving aside the simple question of whether the Qu’ran is violent or not (I have read it twice, and indeed it is – and in fact was founded by violence), Sirota does have an initial valid point that we may perhaps all agree on: We desire all people to have basic human rights and dignity. The question is, how do we get there?
Unfortunately the “logic” of Sirota, and others of his persuasion, breaks down in two areas. The first area is that leftists like Sirota – in their Robespierrian attempt to make everyone equal – have no problems running roughshod over other equally intrinsic rights that are also predicated on basic human rights and dignity, such as the right of free speech, or the right of self-defense, which includes the right to bear arms.
But that is not the concern of this article. Rather, the second, and key concern, of this article is the inhumanity, hypocrisy, hatred and Orwellian control that has historically and intrinsically been part and parcel of the very nature of left. Sirota’s article, written while people were still bleeding in pain, is consistent with the inhumanity of the left. And here is the key point: Is Sirota an aberration? Was this article just a “one-off?” There are certainly people of all persuasions – left, right, center, anarchists, monarchists, etc. – where we can find those who have engaged in violence, so even if there were ten Sirota’s writing in Salon the next day, that would not prove leftists are suspect as a group. And I don’t wish to even hint at the typical Alinsky intellectual fraud of demonizing one person, and then extending that to a full group. It is intellectually bankrupt and – on a different plane – completely irrelevant. I will leave that kind of sophistry to the left. Besides, leftists are much better at it! And, no, I am not being hypocritical here, for my very point is that the left, with few exceptions, always engages in this type of casuistry. That is why they require their campus speech police, a compliant, “lamestream” media, a well-oiled propaganda machine, and hordes of “Yes We Can!” chanters. Rather, my belief is that as the conservative and libertarian views have an intrinsic, explanatory adequacy, we needn’t devolve into the leftist shenanigans of organizations like Moveon.org, etc. to win the day. Rather, people of good will and fair-mindedness will see the reasoning behind the conservative argument, just as even after decades of iron-fisted, propaganda filled Soviet rule, the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of socialism – the emperor with no clothes – could still be seen. Yes, it would be ideal if leftists would grant the same fairness to conservatives, but in my experience with the left, basic logic, evenhandedness and intellectual integrity such as this passes by their reasoning like “two sheep in the night” (pun intended). I learned this lesson the hard way on one of the very first papers I wrote while an undergrad at university, where I was clearly marked down on a paper by a leftist professor who did not agree with a few minor observations made within the writing.
My concern is that the left, in general, is built around a philosophy that treats people as animals, has utilitarianism as its religion, and is at core one of the most blatantly hypocritical and violent movements to ever un-grace the face of the planet. The left is not so much concerned about justice as they are about their own conceit that they alone have the knowledge to control everyone and everything. I recall a cartoon from decades ago, the author now lost to antiquity, which had one rich man stating to another “First I thought it was sex, then money… but now I know it is power.” And importantly, power without humanity equals tyranny. This is exactly what is occurring today.
Where does our humanity – without which everything degrades into utilitarianism and depersonalized “citizens” (here I disparagingly use the term “citizens” as Robespierre did) - derive from? Ultimately, we are left with two choices: God or man. And if the latter, then those rights may also be taken away by the same entity that “granted” them. The most successful country and culture in the history of man, the U.S., adhered to the former, of course. Thomas Jefferson stated that our rights were endowed by our Creator in our founding document. Other writers such as CS Lewis, in his short book The Abolition of Man, have noted that ethics ultimately have no basis without the absolutes from whence they derive. Or as the Russian philosopher Nicolai Berdyaev once put it, “If there is no God, man does not exist either.” But let me not even go down the “religious” path – Albert Camus, who was no Christian – alluded to the same idea, once stating that a finite point, without an infinite reference point, has no meaning.
So, where does the socialist un-vision lead us? As writer and Fabian socialist G.B. Shaw once wrote, “You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught and employed, whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner.” And shouldn’t our dear leaders do as Shaw, suggests, for recall that in the left’s world, your rights are granted by the man created state, and can be revoked that same man created state. Or, as Fyodor Dostoyevski stated, if there is no God, everything is permissible. And what is this “permissible?” This is simply answered, by taking a look at the track record of the left, which has been one consistent record of oppression, lack of compassion, murder and poverty. To wit:
Dr. Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University has written one of the most important books on the topic of leftist faux “compassion,” entitled Who Really Cares. This book is worthy of being a cornerstone in your personal library, with 200 pages of very heavily documented statistics noting, for example, that religious conservatives are more likely than leftists to give money away, volunteer for community concerns, and even give to secular charities. Most strikingly, if leftists gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply for critical, life-saving medical support would increase by 45% (see page 22 in Brooks’ book).
In another must-read book, Do As I Say, Not As I Do, by Peter Schweizer, he profiles the utter hypocrisy of liberal icons such as Nancy Pelosi, who owns - in addition to multiple other properties – a vineyard on Zinfandel Lane in St. Helena, CA, worth $25 million in 2005. What’s the big deal about this? Pelosi, who would like a national holiday commemorating United Farm Workers’ Cesar Chavez, will not let UFW union workers pick the grapes for the Pelosi vineyard’s $100 a bottle wine, says Schweizer. And it’s not that they don’t make a lot of dough off their vineyard – as of the book’s writing, financial disclosures showed $200k to $2 million profits on this vineyard alone in the preceding years. But, as we also see, e.g., with carbon billionaire Al Gore, profit trumps ethics and intellectual integrity. Babs Streisand, another Hollywood Learjet leftist? Schweizer quotes Brad Meltzer worked for her for a year and half, and commented about her treatment of the working staff, stating that she was “… absolutely mean and niggardly about the salaries of the working people she hired,” and referring to some young illegal immigrants she hired for $3.50/hr to do menial work, when they asked for 25 cents/hr more for overtime work, Meltzer says “She told me to fire them and have them replaced. It killed me, but I did it.” And let’s not forget other similar examples, such as Hilary Clinton with her miraculous cattle trades, Whitewater and her host of other get rich quick schemes.
Hatred from the left? Here is security camera footage from the homosexual gun attack on Family Research Council, where the perpetrator intended to kill dozens of innocent people, and then wipe Chik-Fil-A sandwiches all over them in a final insult to those he murdered.
I have personally witnessed similar physical threats of violence by homosexuals in a meeting of parents’ elementary school children, so this comes as no surprise to me.
Violence? PoliticalOutcast.com notes that John Wilkes Booth, a Democrat, shot and killed President Lincoln; Charles Guiteau, who was a member of the communist Oneida Community, shot and killed President Garfield; Leon Czolgosz, a leftist anarchist (similar to the useful idiots in the Occupy movement) killed President McKinley. Meanwhile, some other lefties who had failed assassination attempts (whose politics we know) include Severino Di Giovanni, a leftist anarchist, tried to bomb President-elect Hoover’s train, Giuseppe Zangara, a professed anti-capitalist, tried shooting President-elect Franklin Roosevelt; Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola, two Marxists, tried killing President Truman at the Blair House; Samuel Byck, who tried joining the leftist Black Panther group, attempted to kill President Nixon. As well, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, member of the Manson Family and also a hippie environmentalist, shot at President Ford; Sara Jane Moore tried to kill Pres. Ford as well because, as she said, “the government had declared war on the Left”; Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, a leftist connected to the Occupy movement, tried getting a one-in-a-billion shot at Obama by firing a gun at the White House.
As if the murder and terrors of Robespierre weren’t enough of a clue, the outcome of leftist philosophy reached its nadir a century later, starting in the USSR. When the Russians opened their archives after the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, they admitted that there were 61 – 62 million “excess deaths.” Dr. RJ Rummell of Univ. of Hawaii, in his book Death by Government, has painstakingly detailed that roughly 170 million people were murdered by their own governments in the last century, with about 99% of those deaths coming at the hands of socialist countries. Meanwhile Stephane Courtois, et al, in the highly regarded Black Book of Communism, stated the numbers murdered by the left were around 100 million. You say tomato, I say tomahto….but any way you slice the leftist killings (assuming knives are not yet banned), the left has murdered and oppressed more human beings than any other movement in the history of the world.
Interestingly, there is one key word in the paragraph above that needs special attention: the word “excess” used by the Russians. The significance of this is that even after many decades of socialist propaganda, dehumanization, oppression, there was still a conscience in people, as well as an innate recognition that what was done was simply evil. It almost as if they couldn’t bring themselves to us the word “murdered,” and needed some Cain and Abel type euphemism to attempt to hide the blood of their murdered brothers. And therein lies some hope for us.
While the list could go on for dozens of pages about the hypocrisy and violence of the left, what is the real point of the above? Just to mud sling? Certainly, conservatives have their own failures, and a list could be made of that, too. I, myself, could also have a list made of my own failures and hypocrisies. But this objection proves the very point: All men and women are fallible, and truly absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is why the basis of the American Constitution, with its separation of powers, is utterly central, and why the erosion of Constitutional principles will lead to disaster, totalitarianism, and worse. Generally speaking the core of the conservative and libertarian views is that this very recognition of fallibility is built into their guiding principles, in a way that socialism denies theoretically, or practically. It is also the reason why conservatives and libertarians will not be shut up, as the alternative is a fate worse than if Hitler took over the world… and why this post is written.
In conclusion, returning to the Russians – who know a thing or two about the abject failure of socialism – as one observed “The future kingdom of socialism will be a terrible tyranny of criminals and murderers. It will throw humanity into a true hell of spiritual suffering and poverty.” (Fyodor Dostoyevski). But, of course, the hypocrite elite, the Learjet leftists and limousine liberals, will still be living in splendor, and as Orwell warned us, while we will all be equal in this socialist dystopia, some of us will be “more equal” than the others. Just ask leftists George Clooney with his multiple megamansions (you can Google this for your own verification, and to see actual pictures), Sean Penn and his palatial digs, Mikey Moore with his NY penthouse and multi-million dollar mansion on Torch Lake, MI, Madonna, or a thousand other Hollyweird glitterati – when not even one of them will open up just one room in just one of their zillion square foot mansions. Just think of Obama supporter Tom Hanks, who in 2010 purchased a 14,500-square-foot mega mansion in Pacific Palisades for $26 million, which was the largest transaction for a single-family home in Los Angeles County that year. Any tent people you know of bunking there?
In conclusion, even socialists sometimes have an inkling of the inherent insufficiency of socialism. Leftist French writer Andre Gide wrote, after visiting the socialist workers paradise of Stalin, that “I doubt that in any country of the world, even Hitler’s Germany, is thought less free, more bowed down, more terrorized,” while on the opposite side of the world, Chinese philosopher Lin Yutang wrote of socialism he saw in communist China that included “making 12 year old children subject to capital punishment, sending women to work in underground coal mines, harassing workers during their lunchtime with threats of prison – or worse – if they were late returning to work.”
Friends, we have our work cut out for us. That work is non-violent in nature. But we need to speak, communicate and educate. That is the path forward. The alternative is a fate worse than if Hitler had won.
Last weeks manhunt in Boston for the suspected marathon bombers has America spinning. Freedom loving Americans are upset at the implementation of martial law while the liberal side of the United States (and ironically, those who still do not realize martial law was occurring) want to know why more wasn’t done. This creates the perfect [...]
Last weeks manhunt in Boston for the suspected marathon bombers has America spinning. Freedom loving Americans are upset at the implementation of martial law while the liberal side of the United States (and ironically, those who still do not realize martial law was occurring) want to know why more wasn’t done. This creates the perfect environment to implement peaceful resistance and attempt to create accountability should the government try to oppress the citizens of the greatest nation on the earth again.
Thank you to our guest author for having the intestinal fortitude to put into words, what many of us are thinking.
What I Will Do When The Police State Arrives At My Door
Those of us who value the Constitution, as well as the inalienable freedom that is all of ours as a native birthright, have watched in horror as barely restrained paramilitary-style police squads, complete with light tanks, locked down much of the city of Boston over one – admittedly dangerous – teenager with a gun (and perhaps a few pipe bombs). Many have seen the videos of people being herded out of their homes that – truth be told – is reminiscent of what was seen as Germany descended into chaos in the 1930s. If you missed the video evidence, it is here:
These are just two examples. The truth is that if the blue state Boston populace had been more fully armed (and come to think of it, an AR-15 just might have been the perfect weapon for family defense, had the bombers attempted to perhaps take a family hostage), or if the Boston population had had the same courage as their forebears 200 years ago, the two bombers would not have made it very far at all. And as a matter of fact, ultimately, the fugitive was discovered by a citizen, in any event!
I am not here disparaging the police or military one iota. My nephew is a Marine. I believe in a strong Constitutionally-based national defense. It just so happens that my immediate neighbor is a former Marine and recently retired State Trooper who is a staunch Constitutionalist, and one of the most honorable, upright, common-sensical people I have ever met (as well as a very good friend), and also an exemplar of all that is good and right with the military and police. Rather, my concern is the political culture above them that is forcing many of these individuals to violate what is still the law of the land, as well as violate their consciences. I am not advocating violation of any law or statute – in fact, as you will see below, I am advocating a strict adherence to the law as it is written.
As our absentee father, relative ethics oriented, ends justify the means culture continues to devolve into a coarse parody of what the Founding Fathers envisaged, the Constitution – which is still the law of the land, and which our elected officials, military and police all take an oath to uphold – I think there are things we can do. Things that are creative, intelligent, and effective. Here is one suggestion for your consideration. Of course, consult your local laws to make sure everything you do is legal, non-fattening, and politically correct (e.g., you would not want to attempt the below in NYC, especially while holding an illegal 16 oz. Big Gulp in your hand!)
First, when another Boston situation “goes down”, I am going to make SURE I have deputized neighbors to be filming (as in the first video noted above), or have someone in the house with a cell camera that automatically uploads as it films. This is key, otherwise this process won’t work.
If the military or police come to my door, I will raise my hands high in the air, proving I am not a threat (this is for your safety, as well as the officer’s who also may have a family at home waiting for him), while at the same time informing them that I do not consent to a search, citing my 4th Amendment rights. I will not be confrontational or in-your-face with my attitude, but calmly ask for their name, badge number, and to speak with their leader. I will also let them know that any act of unprovoked violence on their part may possibly constitute a crime – or if the military, a war crime, a la My Lai. I do indeed have a very deep respect for law enforcement – however, the key is that law enforcement must remain within the confines of duly legislated laws, as determined by the democratic process – and of which the 4th Amendment is still a part. Otherwise, they are no better than, say, the badged thugs who harassed the civil rights marchers in the South half a century ago.
I will then – enunciating my words so people videotaping this can lip read, if necessary – turn my back to them, while continuing keeping my arms raised. And – assuming I have the guts, which I pray I will, I would then tell them to “shoot me in the back” if they wish, but I do not consent to a search, based on the 4th Amendment. I will also let them know they are in violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution, and by shooting me in the back, they, themselves, may well be found guilty of murder, and jailed.
I may volunteer to let one of them in, just to out of courtesy, if I am so inclined. That is if they are concerned some “bad guy” may truly be in there, but it will be MY choice. I will let them know I am not trying to be recalcitrant at all, but rather concerned about the erosion of our freedoms, which in fact these terrorist acts are attempting to take from us as one of their primary objectives.
The ACLU – which is a bad organization 95% of the time – does have a smart phone app that uploads video as it is being filmed, but there are other apps out there that do the same thing.
As for using the ACLU app, why not use evil against evil? About time they did one thing of value for the country. I would let the police know this real time video is being conducted, so they are on record. Or to quote the leftists, who have done so much damage to this country, they need to know, “The whole world is watching.” Doing the above would ensure authorities can’t mysteriously “lose” (see “Jon Corzine and $1.6 billion dollars” if you need further clarification for the word “lose”!) the camera, or it is taken from you. In sum, I am being non-violent, co-operative (hey, I truly want the bad guy caught too!), but also protecting my rights and the Constitution.
Look, I am a dual US/Canadian citizen, so I am only half “free and brave” – where are the rest of those who are “full bloods,” who speak about the “land of the free and home of the brave?” But my goal is not even mildly precipitous. Rather, the above allows us to address a looming darkness in the land, yet be in full compliance with the law. Or, as we were advised 2,000 years ago, we need to be wise as a serpent, yet gentle as doves. Here is a way to do exactly that. Think of doing this as “Saul Alinsky anti-matter” or Kryptonite to the left. As the late Christian rock artist Larry Norman once said, “Why should the Devil have all the good music?” Similarly, why should evil get to use all the creative ideas? Here’s one that does just that. And you can amend, mix and match, alter, modify, or whatever else you want, to my suggestions. Just get active, get creative, and communicate with others.
Would your elected officials ever steal from you? Does the United States government have your best interests in mind? Is it possible that, like in many others areas, the U.S. will follow the lead of European Nations and go after your money? I would like to believe that the money I have set aside in the bank [...]
Would your elected officials ever steal from you? Does the United States government have your best interests in mind? Is it possible that, like in many others areas, the U.S. will follow the lead of European Nations and go after your money? I would like to believe that the money I have set aside in the bank for my future would only be touched by me. It seems like that might not be the case however. At least not if our government keeps up the trend of following the trail blazed by their counterparts in Europe. Stealing from the citizens of America could be the government’s perfect solution to the debt crisis, avoiding financial collapse, the sequester, and nearly 1000 other fiduciary nightmares the United States is currently dealing with.
Jay, the political news editor at BeforeItsNews.com let me in on the following news out of Europe that is frightening. Here is an excerpt of the story:
For those who don’t believe the government is prepared to take extreme measures that may include the seizing of retirement accounts, cash savings or even gold, look no further than Cyprus, the latest recipient of bank bailouts.
As of right now, citizens of Cyprus are scrambling to withdraw funds from their bank accounts after the EU, with agreement from the Cypriot government, announced they will decimate funds held in personal bank accounts to the tune of up to 10% of existing deposits.
To read this article in its entirety, click here.
A big thank you to J. Vanne for writing this post.
Selfishness and Preparedness
by J. Vanne
Recently, a small firestorm was ignited by Valerie Lucus-McEwen, a government Emergency Management employee, who had the temerity to accuse preparedness types of “selfishness.” While your immediate reaction may be – as [...]
A big thank you to J. Vanne for writing this post.
Selfishness and Preparedness
by J. Vanne
Recently, a small firestorm was ignited by Valerie Lucus-McEwen, a government Emergency Management employee, who had the temerity to accuse preparedness types of “selfishness.” While your immediate reaction may be – as mine certainly was – “Are people really and truly this thoughtless?” – this question does deserve a proper answer, particularly as those who are easily influenced by the leftist media, or who believe the state really and actually is the omniscient, omnipotent savior of our personal and corporate lives, are actually asking this question. So, let’s examine the issue:
First, many preparedness types have, as part of their goal, the intent of helping neighbors and family who were unable – or unwilling – to prepare. In my own case, part of what I have in mind is assisting a large group of mentally retarded and Down’s syndrome children that my church has taken under its wing. (A group the state would do no more than “warehouse” if it were under their direction!). Not all preppers feel this way, but I would bet my bottom can of stored tuna fish there is an exceedingly large percentage of preparedness types who feel similarly.
One significant point of observation – that has significant ramifications relative to preparedness – is that, in my experience, the non-prepper type is generally of a socialist orientation. Of course, as most of you know, this approach was tried – and found wanting – all the way back in the Pilgrim era. Many of you are aware that when the Pilgrims first arrived, they worked out of a communal system. The result was starvation and death. As this approach did not work, they then “privatized” their system – and of course flourished. You can easily research this history yourself, but if one has any experience with human nature, it is immediately apparent why this didn’t – and has never in history – worked. The issue is that human nature is imperfect and selfish, just as Adam Smith wrote about in the Wealth of Nations. A simple recognition of this basic aspect of human nature – and finding a way to work with this reality, rather than against it, provides the most good for the largest number of people – exactly as Smith wrote, and exactly as history has shown for anyone who has eyes to see. To do otherwise impoverishes people, and in times of crisis, will lead to otherwise avoidable deaths. Working with this reality of human nature, rather than against it, has brought the greatest good for people overall in both good periods of history, as well as difficult. And for those of you with Judeo-Christian worldviews, this issue is why Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn called Communism “a Christian heresy” – viz., the Communist assumptions about human nature were completely off-base. Long story short, the question is: Is man perfectible (particularly with the best and brightest, such as Hilary, George Soros, Al Gore and Obama telling – nay, forcing – us what to do!), or are all men fallible, and the dictum of Lord Acton correct that absolute power corrupts absolutely correct. There is an unbridgeable divide between these two assumptions, and this divide makes itself manifest in the Hamlet-like “to prep or not to prep” debate.
The Fleet Street Letter put this matter perspicaciously a number of years ago, and is worth quoting at length:
There are two major traditions in Western political thought. The first is Aristotelian, logical, rational, centrist, mechanistic. You concentrate power and truth in the centre and apply it outward, shaping the world according to plan. This was the guiding principle of the Roman Empire. It evolved into the Holy Roman Empire and the Church of Rome. Except for Switzerland, it has dominated politics on the continent ever since. Most recently, it has morphed into the European Union. The principle is simple – smart people can figure out how to run things, and should be allowed to do so. This was the idea behind Hillary Clinton’s health care task force (and now ObamaCare), as well as Japan, Inc. and even Adolph Hitler’s National Socialist Germany. It has animated nearly every politician (each one of whom, as Garrison Keilor notes about Lake Woebegone children, are above average) in this century. But there is another tradition that is much less well understood. It is the tradition of the Roman Republic… of English common law… of Adam Smith and Emmanuel Kant… of Austrian School economists such as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek and of pre-Rooseveltian American. It is organic, rather than mechanistic – the tradition of tradition, based on the recognition that people, no matter how smart, cannot replace thousands of years of accumulated experience. Experience is embodied in the evolved systems of values, customs, rules and traditions that people use to order and give meaning to their lives. A free market and a free society allow people to express these preferences, as well as allowing the process of social and civil evolution to continue. This tradition, in other words, is neither liberal nor conservative in the modern sense, but anti-political. Indeed, it is often seen as “anti-intellectual” because it denies the authority of intellectuals to tell the rest of us what to do (through the political process).
Perhaps you, like I do, remember the “best and the brightest” who led the Vietnam war? How did that one work out? Or, if that news is too stale, perhaps you care to visit present day Detroit – which was the first city to adopt the socialist “Model Cities Program” in under Mayor Coleman Young a number of decades ago. Similarly, Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” was a quasi- socialist endeavour, which was intended to end poverty. You can judge for yourself what all those $9 trillion dollars spent on this “war” resulted in (hint: we now have just under 48 million on food stamps, up from 32 million when Obama took office, and with more poverty than ever).
The basic misunderstanding is, as Frederic Bastiat wrote in The Law,
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
There is yet another misunderstanding to clear up for those of Christian persuasion, as exemplified in the Book of Acts, 2:24, in the New Testament, which states about the early believers “And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common.” Dr. Jay Richards addresses this superbly in his book Money, Greed andf God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem by simply noting that the early Christians held things in common privately, voluntarily and without compulsion. This is light years away from the state forcing sharing, and under compulsion.
And one more important observation, that is applicable to the prepping community: When I donate my own money at present, I watch like a hawk where it is going, and what it is doing. When my money goes for taxes to “help” others – for the few dollars that actually make it past the money sucking gauntlet of bureaucrats – how much actually reaches its destination? Some research shows as little as 10% or so. As the saying goes, it is much better to teach someone to fish, rather than just gives them a fish for a day. And I can do a thousand times more, with a million times more love, for 1% of the money, that the government could ever dream of doing, if I were left with my own money to donate as I wish. Similarly, preparedness is most optimally left to the individual, not the state. I am clearly not saying there is no place at all for the state to assist. However, it should be ancillary and very secondary in function. To do otherwise is to set expectations that can only be dashed – exactly as was seen during hurricanes Katrina or Sandy.
So, how does this relate to preparedness with potential future catastrophic disasters? In a collapse – whether it be Argentinian/Greek/Zimbabwe style, or EMP, or a global war, compassion must be personal and voluntary. Not only is it more effective, it is more ethical. And it is more ethical because it is more caring, more direct, and more efficient In a collapse, there should be a voluntary exchange, and for those that are not prepared, there should be some type of assistance rendered by the one who has not prepared (it could be cooking, gardening; perhaps doing guard duty or carpentry). Where this is not possible, simple humanity and compassion should – and undoubtedly will be – the hallmark of many preppers.
In a serious collapse, there may well be a need to choose whom one would help, or not, but that is a decision that will be very personal. For myself – in contrast to the government representatives who so condescendingly accuse preppers such myself of being self-centred, I will indeed (as noted above) look to help the weak and helpless. You may object by saying “A lot of good that will do – we should, as per people like Dr. Peter Singer, just let the weak die.” To which I reply “A society that only values those of utility is not a society worth keeping – and in fact, is precisely the type of society – with its abortions, euthanasia, etc. – that got us into this mess in the first place.”
Another point: I would be remiss not to mention in the context of this article is the very self-apparent fact that for every person who is prepared, that is one less mouth to feed in a real crisis. This needn’t be addressed further, as it is patently obvious, but is yet another reality that the debunkers always seem, somehow, to neglect to address, though it is staring them right in the face. The regular silence by these debunkers is a stark testimony to what is either a lack of critical thinking, or a purposeful lack of honesty is examining the relative merits of preparedness.
God – or for the non-believer, nature herself – has written self-preservation into our very DNA. Certainly, from a Judeo Christian perspective, each individual person has the right to self-preservation. The Bible is replete with laws allowing for self-defense in the Old Testament, and even in the New Testament – while unequivocally admonishing believers to be irenic and forgiving, also quotes Christ telling the disciples, for example in Luke 22:36, in preparation for when He is gone, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” There are historically several approaches to defense in the Bible – complete pacifism, the use of “police” force, and just war, but that is beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice to say, self-defense is well within the historical understanding of options for Christians in a violent world, although admittedly this can be a difficult issue to navigate, and there is a range of conclusions which sensible people can come to within the pale of faith. Similarly, I extend this self-defense conception into that of realm of preparedness. I think the extension is fair and reasonable, about which reasonable people can disagree in some areas.
Also, relative to preparedness and faith, clearly Proverbs 27:12 explicitly states – and which passage many preparedness types are familiar with – “A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions. The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.” In a world where well-regarded individuals like Dr. Lawrence Kotlikoff of Boston University state the total amount of unfunded liabilities – federal, state, municipal and corporate – are now a staggering $222 trillion, where the amount of derivatives (which Warren Buffet famously once called “financial weapons of mass destruction”) world-wide makes that amount look like a molehill, in a nation where people like Jon Corzine can “lose” $1.6 billion and simply walk away without a day in jail, where lives are lost during Fast and Furious and people just shrug their shoulders, or a in nation about which Billy Graham’s wife Ruth once said “If God doesn’t’ judge America, He’ll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah,” is preparedness unwise? Leftists may object, and that is their prerogative. However, if they wish not to prepare, then perhaps they ought to take to their own hearts and written commentary the one thing they forcefully invoke for everyone else in every other situation – tolerance. What business of theirs is it?
With all due respect to them, why is it our non-prepper friends, as exemplified by the written commentary of Ms. Lucus-McEwen noted above, why cannot they practice what they presumably preach about tolerance? Why must people like this actively vilify those with whom they disagree? (But of course, the answer is obvious – just as in the days of Imperial Rome, everyone but everyone must bow to the all-encompassing supremacy of the state. To do otherwise means crucifixion – 2,000 years ago, this was in the arena; today, it is the high tech lynching of a Clarence Thomas, the fashion execution of a Sarah Palin, or the just the “mere” thuggery against those of us who beg to disagree with big government by modern day Kristalnacht Alinsky ruffians.
The whole area of faith and preparedness admittedly needs much further and deeper exegesis – but hopefully this scratches the surface of the subject, and opens up additional conversation.
But even for the non-believer, one’s body is wired for self-preservation. And if nature is all that exists, logically one has no basis to “backtalk against one’s DNA,” which has written self-preservation into the body. From either a biblical or non-biblical perspective, self-preservation is an intrinsic “good.” Why should preppers then be castigated?
One final – and extremely telling – point about “selfish preppers.” The woman who wrote this disparagingly of preppers was a government worker. This means she makes a good living off of private sector people such as myself. As a matter of fact, I cannot currently make adequate preparations for my family and I because I have to provide a “princessly” salary and retirement package for her (the average government worker may make a third more in salary than a private sector worker, and retires much, much earlier). But here is the kicker: If there is a disaster – it will mostly likely brought about by yet another miscalculation by the self-proclaimed “best and brightest,” (think Vietnam, the internet bubble, Long Term Capital Management, Jon Corzine, the housing bust, etc.). Do you know where these “important” people will go? To continuity of government shelters! In other words, if there is a miscalculation, and a nuclear war starts, or an EMP or biological attack starts, they are all set to retreat to specially built giant, lavishly equipped caverns – while you and I fend for ourselves, due to a mess of their creation! Any word from our “preppers are selfish” commentariat on that? Why not?. If nothing else in this article sinks home to you, this should make crystal clear the hypocrisy behind the prepper criticism. The truth is, just as we see with today’s cronyism in high places, as George Orwell so aptly noted, “In the socialist workers’ paradise, we’ll all be equal… only some of us (usually them!) will be ‘more equal’ than the others.” Just ask Nancy Pelosi why her Congress exempted themselves, their cronies and their districts from ObamaCare if you don’t believe that.
In sum, I prepare the same reason my all my forebears did each fall: I don’t know what the winter (of this this case, the future) will bring. While for believers, God has promised to be with us and sustain us, as the old saying goes, we can’t ask God to direct our steps if we are unwilling to move our feet. I trust, and my feet move.
If you would like to write a guest post for The Prepared Ninja,
I recently made the post, ‘Will You Fight?’ that was written by Dean Garrison about the attempt to outlaw firearms in America and whether we have a responsibility to fight if the government comes to take our guns away. The website D.C. Clothesline has Mr. Garrison’s follow up response to his original writing. It is posted [...]
I recently made the post, ‘Will You Fight?’ that was written by Dean Garrison about the attempt to outlaw firearms in America and whether we have a responsibility to fight if the government comes to take our guns away. The website D.C. Clothesline has Mr. Garrison’s follow up response to his original writing. It is posted below. As he states, please spread the message and let our fellow Patriots know that they are not alone!
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” -Patrick Henry
About 45 days ago I wrote an article entitled “If They Come for Your Guns Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?” At the time this article, from an obscure blogger, changed my world. Within days I had become part of something much bigger than I could have ever imagined. The post was featured on literally hundreds of websites, and to date has received millions of readers.
How did it happen? Well on January 3rd, people were still not saying what needed to be said and I suppose I was one of the first to say it. It is not about deer hunting and we are all covered by a second amendment which is about our rights to protect ourselves from tyranny. So I said it. If they come for your guns it is not only your right but your responsibility to fight. Yes, that includes firing upon them. It’s not about hunting deer. The second amendment is about hunting tyrants.
Since pushing the “publish” button, I have had literally hundreds of conversations with people who believe that tyranny is an unchecked virus within our own federal government. I get so many messages every day that I can literally not respond to all of them. So, today I want to talk about where we go from here.
It is a growing conception that we can not wait. While we sit and wait, our government continues an all out assault on our rights as free men and women of the United States of America. Many people believe that there is no peaceful alternative. Many people believe that we must organize and fight. Today I can offer no concrete set of actions but I do want to lay out some thoughts that I think need to be discussed.
First I need to tell you that I sincerely believe that the government is, in a twisted way, hoping that a small group of Patriots will organize and start a half-cocked rebellion. I think they realize that this can happen and also realize that it can strengthen their case for gun control. I would not put it past them to stage such an event.
I believe that a small, poorly planned rebellion will do us more harm than good. It will be easily suppressed and it will give the powers that be even more ammunition for a declaration of martial law. It is my belief that martial law, or a “police state,” is the end goal of this administration. You don’t have to look hard to see that they are preparing for it. As recently as two weeks ago the Reverend Jesse Jackson was even asking for it in his home town of Chicago.
We must understand that there are literally millions of people who have concluded that letters, petitions, peaceful demonstrations and elections are not working. They are in agreement that revolution is the only way to potentially fix this problem. But if a small group of 50 or even 500 people start the revolt, it is likely to go nowhere. We must develop a united front and we must go through proper channels. We can not skirt the law to try to uphold it.
The problem I see, once again, is the same problem that I witnessed 45 days ago. Everyone is waiting for someone to take the lead. So today I am going to offer to do that. With that said, I want to tell you that I am nothing more than a blogger. I don’t have any grand visions of being elected to any office. I am not a skilled military strategist. I am not an advanced “prepper” or survival expert. I am nothing special. I suppose the only thing truly special about me is that I am not afraid to speak my mind. I still understand that this is my God-given right as an American citizen.
I know full well that the first amendment in this country is currently an illusion. I know that writing this could get me arrested or killed. If you were to ask me if I was afraid I would simply answer that yes I am afraid, but I am more afraid of what will happen to our country if people do not begin to speak up.
I understand and follow the methods our current administration and lawmakers are using to take away our most basic rights. They can detain me indefinitely. If they choose to see me as an enemy of the state they can do worse. There will be no due process. It will not matter how many people support me. I can be made to disappear and become a non-factor. So why am I speaking about this?
Once again, it’s because someone has to. Until someone starts to speak of these things we have zero chance to change anything. We can’t fight the destruction of America with splintered cells of people who are afraid to raise their voices. We must be United. This is not negotiable.
I will not endorse an open attack (violent or non-violent) upon the federal government unless and until I feel like we have given them one last chance to represent us.
The first thing that “We the People” must do is set forth a list of our demands. This is our country. We need to pinpoint every change that we wish to see made and we must deliver these to the lawmakers. I am offering today to be that messenger. That is one thing that I can do, but I can not do it alone. I will need massive response. The only way that will happen is if this post goes viral like the post from 45 days ago. I can not guarantee that will happen, but I can guarantee it will happen if millions of people are truly in support of this revolution. Time will tell.
If we get little response then I will assume that my theories are wrong. The people will decide. I’ve been wrong before. It would not be the first time.
Here is what I need. I need people to list executive orders and laws that are in violation of our constitutional rights (list everything in the comments below). We will be demanding that these laws and executive orders be repealed.
I need open discussion of what we need to do with the people currently in office. Do we call for new elections? Can we literally remove them all? We are talking about more than Obama here. We have to understand that many people have been compliant (Republicans and Democrats) with the policies and actions that we too easily credit to Obama. This is not a problem isolated to one person. My thought is that they should keep their jobs if they start to work within the framework of the constitution. But if they do not then we will have to forcibly remove them.
Make no mistake the constitution is the law of this land, not public opinion.
We need to discuss policies (foreign and domestic) and cabinet appointments as well. We need to literally make a list of everything that needs to change. We can’t expect everything to change immediately but we must address the issues that are important to freedom. We must list things that are constitutionally based. In other words, I don’t like everything about my government but my major concerns are the things that blatantly violate the constitution. I have to focus on these things and not merely on my opinions. Unless we can constitutionally support our arguments we have no credibility.
What I would like to do is first gather volumes of ideas and then start putting them into a format that we can use. We can’t just start shooting politicians. That will get us nowhere but dead or in jail.
Let’s get our ideas out in the open. We will then gather again to vote on the constitutional relevancy of certain opinions before we submit them to the White House and both branches of our legislature. If they have our “constitutionally based” demands in print and choose not to respond in a manner that we feel conducive to change, then we will move forward to our only remaining option. It will be time bear arms against our government.
I feel like we have no grounds to call for the revolt until we first present our conditions to our elected officials.
I am simply offering to be the messenger but ultimately the success or failure depends on you. If this post falls dead in the water with 5 or even 50 comments then we are going nowhere.
This is the time for people of America to speak up if they really want to make changes in this government. Once we have all the terms and conditions ironed out we will formally petition our government. If that goes no where then we will look toward full use of our second amendment rights.
For now you must reject any new attempts to try to infringe on your second amendment rights and if you want to be involved in this “Think Tank” you must do three things for me:
- By all means I need to your ideas and comments below. Keep them constitutionally based. If you have no ideas or comments, at least let us know that you support us.
- I need you to join us on Facebook. Why is this important? Well did you notice that this is the first post on a brand new site? We have already been censored once and I need people to gather where we can inform them of developments.
- If you believe in this cause then you need to help us spread the word. Share it on your social networks or however you possibly can.
I will be watching the development of this post in regards to traffic and comments. I’m all in. I have made the offer. But again, if this ends up being a group of 5 or 50 people trying to push a revolution, we have nothing. The only way this works is if people unite right here and now. On an average blog post, it takes about 150-200 readers to generate 1 comment. If people can’t open their mouths this time then they will simply get what they deserve. I am putting myself out on a limb here. I will not fight for people who will not fight for themselves.
If you agree that this is the only way then you have to come out of hiding and get really loud now. You are allowed to disagree as well. This is America and I support your right to free speech. We have to know where we stand before we can make a decision to move forward.
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” -Noah Webster
I put myself out on a limb once before and people responded. Make no mistake, this is a frightening place to be. I have three beautiful girls and twins on the way. I am afraid for my safety and theirs, but my biggest fear is that they will have to live with the results of an American public resolved to cowardice. America must wake up. Apathetic no more! We must do something.
There is a ton of great content on D.C. Clothesline so make sure to check them out and subscribe to get updates on new content via email.
The last few years have brought many questions to the minds of Americans as to where the country is and where we are headed. Glenn Beck and some of the folks over at TheBlaze are taking inside look at “The Project” and how the Muslim Brotherhood may be trying to steer our country away from [...]
The last few years have brought many questions to the minds of Americans as to where the country is and where we are headed. Glenn Beck and some of the folks over at TheBlaze are taking inside look at “The Project” and how the Muslim Brotherhood may be trying to steer our country away from our ideals. How are they doing this? Good old-fashioned infiltration of the United States government. Is this possible? According to U.S. Army Lieutenant General (Ret.) William Jerry Boykin, it has already happened. The two-part video series is very interesting and well worth the time to watch.
“In 2001, an inconspicuous manifesto now known as “The Project” was recovered during a raid in Switzerland: A manifesto that turned out to be a Muslim roadmap for infiltrating and defeating the West. Today, files containing evidence from the largest terror financing trial in U.S. history, which include details about “The Project”, are being withheld by the Department of Justice.
In an explosive two-part mini-series, TheBlaze documentary unit investigates how the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the American government and exposes how our nation’s safety is in jeopardy as a result of this dangerous government cover up.”
‘THE PROJECT’ – PART I
‘THE PROJECT’ – PART II
While the videos are great, make sure to check out these original documents and their English interpretations at the links below:
Today is another inspiration from Patrick Heller of Liberty Coin Service as he addresses the issue of who truly benefits from the actions of federal government of the United States. I cannot hope to say it as good as he does so I will let him do the talking. Here is the link to the audio:
Who do you think the true beneficiaries of the decisions made by United States government are? Let your opinion be known in the comments section!
Nothing teaches a child anything better than teaching them nothing at all, right? That seems to be the latest development out of The Windy City. I just want to make sure that I have a somewhat clear idea of what is going on in Chicago today…based on concerns that many teachers are not getting “fair” treatment, [...]
Nothing teaches a child anything better than teaching them nothing at all, right? That seems to be the latest development out of The Windy City. I just want to make sure that I have a somewhat clear idea of what is going on in Chicago today…based on concerns that many teachers are not getting “fair” treatment, they have gone on strike. This has left over 400,000 students in Chicago to do whatever they feel like while their teachers wander the streets wearing red shirts, holding signs and chanting like the largest group of cheerleaders ever assembled. Someone better call the Guinness Book of World Records!
There is very little to worry about though, the city did activate their school contingency operations plan which opened 144 schools from 8:30 am to 12:30 pm and provided a free breakfast and lunch to the kids that were present at these schools. The contingency plan only provided a place for the students to come and eat and play games and recreate though as no instruction or teaching was allowed as a result of the ongoing strike. In a city that suffers so many violent shootings even though they have some of the strictest gun laws in the entire country, the school districts are now telling those on the fence of dropping out to follow the gang life or a lifestyle of crime that they will make the decision for them by closing the schools.
There were earlier attempts to come to a resolution but the teachers were not willing to agree to the measly 16% pay increase over the next four years. There are people who would commit unspeakable crimes in the current economy to keep their current job, even if it meant taking a pay cut! For being qualified AKA “smart enough” to be teachers, you would think that individuals would realize that the fact that they have jobs is a great thing. I would also be willing to bet that many of them have reached a point in their careers where they are tenured, which in easy to understand terms means that as long as they do not commit too many murders in the commission of a felony, you cannot lose your job.
It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that some of our nation’s educators, those responsible for teaching our youth, are setting the example that when you don’t think something is fair that you just walk off the job and protest until you get your way. That is exactly what today’s youth need to be learning! This is not just a Chicago problem either. My mother was a teacher in the public school systems across the country for over four decades and always complained that no matter where she went she was forced to join the union and pay union dues. She did not have any option. It was a requirement.
I find it so sad that we have let unions creep in and take over the operations of our government. Will we let it get to the point where the fire department will have the option to extinguish the fire that is engulfing your home based on what their future pay and benefit increases may or may not be? Or perhaps the military will be able to choose which states will be defended in the event of a foreign invasion based on greatest federal tax revenues from the individual states? My point is that union activity should not dictate government activity and operations. The government is already too big as it stands, the last thing that is needed is additional help from unions.
The best resolution that I have heard so far is to borrow a page out of the Ronald Reagan playbook and give every teacher in Chicago 48 hours to report back to work or forfeit their job. It is not unreasonable to expect them to teach kids and it is not unreasonable for them to expect anything other than getting fired if they do not do their job! You can’t tell me there are not hundreds of people out there that are qualified to teach that wouldn’t be willing to step up and take those jobs.
At the end of the day it really comes down to the fact that teachers in Chicago don’t want to be held accountable for what they do on their evaluations. Plan and simple. End of story. Everything else is a smokescreen. All the other reasons that have been given are an excuse. Except maybe getting more pay and benefits for less time at work. That is why over 400,000 students in Chicago, Illinois are on fall vacation for the foreseeable future. We will see how many decide to actually go back to school once the union gets things ironed out to make it “fair” for the teachers. I am sure that some students will decide that the $1,000 a day that they now make selling methamphetamine is better than sitting in a classroom with their pissed off teachers.
Rest easy Chicago. With no school tomorrow, there will be plenty of kids out bustin’ caps late into the night!