Category Archives: The Liberal Threat

The Nine Steps in the Life of a Great Nation

Occupying our minds at the moment is who is going to be our next president.   Will we have Madam President, criminal extraordinaire?  Trump, the abrasive business man?  Cruz, Kasich, Ryan or even The Burn?

Will Obama’s transformation (termination) of America continue unabated with another democrat or can a republican get elected who might at least delay the process?   What should have been a republican shoo-in despite the current electoral makeup of our nation for now appears up in the air.   The republican must always face a culture becoming much more liberalized by the year.   The continual flood of import democrat voters as well as the creation of dumbed down new ones as our young people who go through our liberal public education system come of age has now reached critical mass.   That Barry O was elected twice and Hillary is viable is proof enough of that assertion.

If the republicans manage to hold firm and not consent to the nomination of Obama’s liberal appointee to the supreme court, the next president certainly will and likely more beyond that.   If Americans, who are fast asleep, only could grasp the significance of that, then any republican should enjoy a 30 point lead over Hillary or the Burn in the various polls, instead, they show it is basically about even at this point.

A radically left Court will likely do irreparable damage to the nation, the termination may well be finally at hand.   America the Great is fallen!!   Let that run through your minds.   As difficult as it is for us to realize, America’s fall is inevitable.  Whether we are witnessing this currently in this age of Obama and democrat ascendency, or even if we have a temporary reprieve through a brief conservative resurgence, our doom is certain.   America began with the brightest of hopes, but has relatively quickly, progressed through a perceivable cycle that great nations and empires of the past have gone through.

This multi-stage cycle for a nation that perhaps you have heard or read goes like this –

From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to selfishness;

From selfishness to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage.

The author is believed to be Scottish historian Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813).

We can see America in the above.   Colonial America, pre-revolution, was not only under bondage to the English throne, it was also in bondage spiritually to the English Anglican church as well as somewhat corrupted other Christian sects.   A few years ago I was interested in the First Great Awakening that swept through the colonies in the 1730’s and 40’s and its impact on motivating our Revolution against England.   Naturally liberals deny any such claim in its attempt to stamp out our Christian roots, but the awakening was certainly a major factor.   To my surprise, I learned that the colonists had some very warped views of what we consider to be biblical Christianity.

They did not preach or teach a personal salvation that bible believing Christians (the real kind) hold with.   The colonists were enslaved to a radical form of Calvanism where they simply believed that God would save who he would save and consign who he willed to hell.   Their “religion” was essentially a religion of “works”.   There was no “believer’s” baptism, but merely infant baptism.   While many of the great preachers of the Great Awakening were themselves Calvanists, they rejected the passive nature of “faith” in God and did preach that man must respond to the gospel and take the active step of repenting and asking God for salvation through faith in the work of Christ.

The Anglican Church was the dominant church in the colonies with its Roman Catholic style of church hierarchy.   The “religion” was rigid and demanded loyalty to church and crown.   The spiritual revival that swept at least the east and northeast led to a “revolt” against the organized churches, particularly the Puritans and the Anglicans, and with this new sense of freedom, the thinking of the colonists also turned to political freedom to match their religious freedom.

According to great-awakening.com,

“Revivalism in the colonies did not form around a complex theology of religious freedom, but nevertheless the ideas it produced opposed the notion of a single truth or a single church. As preachers visited town after town, sects began to break off larger churches and a multitude of Protestant denominations sprouted.  The older groups that dominated the early colonies – the Puritans and the Anglicans – eventually began a drastic downward trend in popularity.   Although they accounted for about 40% of American congregations as late as 1760, that number eventually dropped to under 2.5% by 1790.

The social effect of multitudes of new denominations was not, however, a fracturing of communities, but a unifying drive which helped to create a “national consciousness”.

The British and their loyalists in America often referred to the revolution as the “Presbyterian rebellion”.   The Great Awakening – Revolution era carried America through the first three stages above, Bondage, Courage and Liberty.

For nearly two centuries following these primal founding events America enjoyed her age of prosperity and abundance.   During the early to mid 19th century America saw great expansion, the construction of large cities as the nation spread westward.  Railroads and canals were built, industrialization began and a vast agricultural empire was built in the south, and yes, southern agriculture was powered by slavery.   Coal began making its impact felt in the country by mid-century and virtually displaced wood by the century’s end.

As the iron and manufacturing industries came into their own, America indeed had its place at the table in the world.   It may be interesting to note that the 4 million black slaves of the south were worth about 750 dollars per head and had a significantly higher relative standard of living than free whites in the north, on the order of 15 percent higher.   It’s impossible, by our modern sensibilities, to in any way approve of slavery, but if we looked at the issue as dispassionately and logically as possible, were American black slaves of the 1850’s worse or better off than their cousins in Africa?

There’s no question that evil “masters” abused their slaves, and slavery represents the exact opposite vision of America’s founding.  However, if given a choice between freedom to live in barbaric lands, to be hunted by muslims (Obama’s ancestors) to be slaves under much worse circumstances, hunted by neighboring tribes to be slaughtered, existing in a state of grinding poverty and hunger or living a somewhat tranquil life with abundant food, clothing and shelter, exposed to civilization and Christianity AND ultimately given your freedom in this new land of opportunity and abundance, which would you choose?

I quote Robert H. Jackson in the first article of this site, “Do we need a Revolution”, where he said –

“whenever we reproach our own imperfections, as we ought often to do, we must not forget that our shortcomings are visible only when measured against our ideals, never when put beside the practical living conditions of the rest of the world. We have by Constitution, by legislation, and by judicial decision translated the Declaration out of the language of abstract philosophy into the idiom of everyday living.   We have validated democratic principles by our success.”

When we consider America’s past, we don’t see perfection, but we see a pursuit of it.   As we consider America’s age of abundance and reflect on the fact that America once imported and enslaved a race of people, we must temper our judgment with the acknowledgment that America disciplined itself, sacrificing 600 thousand American lives in the effort.   It was largely the Christian ethos of America that led to its condemnation and elimination.

As we consider our “imperfections”, our conclusion must not be that what was America must be transformed, as Obama put it, terminated in practice, but rather our imperfections must be judged “when measured against our ideals, never when put beside the practical living conditions of the rest of the world”.   That standard must be applied today, a century ago, in 1860 and 1776.   An honest reflection of America and its past sees a nation that in spasms and spurts lurched ever upward to surpass all other nations on the ladder of rightness and goodness.

To believe that man and society is perfectible in this world by man’s own philosophies, schemes and designs as liberals are convinced of, experience shows they always lead to failure and disappointment.  Malcolm Muggeridge, in his book, “The End of Christendom”, wrote,

“It’s in the nature of man and of all that he constructs to perish, and it must ever be so…the realization [of lasting perfection] is impossible for the simple reason that a fallen creature like man, though capable of conceiving perfection and aspiring after it, is in himself and in his works forever imperfect.  Thus he is fated to exist in the no man’s land between the perfection he can conceive and the imperfection that characterizes his own nature and everything he does.”

Thus as America entered the 1960’s, cracks were already visible in the foundation of the nation and for the past half century our nation’s acceleration into oblivion has steadily increased and is now at “warp” speed.

“Abundance” gave way to “selfishness”.

The Wikipedia article on the subject of the “Me Generation” reads in part –

“The “Me” generation in the United States is a term referring to the baby boomer generation and the self-involved qualities that some people associated with it.  The baby boomers (Americans born during the 1946 to 1964 baby boom) were dubbed the “Me” generation by writer Tom Wolfe during the 1970s; Christopher Lasch was another writer who commented on the rise of a culture of narcissism among the younger generation. The phrase caught on with the general public, at a time when “self-realization” and “self-fulfillment” were becoming cultural aspirations among young people, who considered them far more important than social responsibility.”

“The cultural change in the United States during the 1970s that was experienced by the baby boomers is complex.  The 1960s are remembered as a time of political protests, radical experimentation with new cultural experiences (the Sexual Revolution, happenings, mainstream awareness of Eastern religions). The Civil Rights Movement gave rebellious young people serious goals to work towards.  Cultural experimentation was justified as being directed toward spiritual or intellectual enlightenment.  The 1970s, in contrast, were a time of disillusionment with idealistic politics among the young, particularly after the resignation of Richard Nixon, the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the end of the Vietnam War.  Unapologetic hedonism became acceptable among the young, expressed in the Disco music popular at the time…

“Health and exercise fads, New Age spirituality, discos and hot tub parties, self-help programs such as EST (Erhard Seminars Training), and the growth of the self-help book industry became identified with the baby boomers during the 1970s.  The marketing of lifestyle products, eagerly consumed by baby boomers with disposable income during the 1970s, became an inescapable part of the culture.   Revlon’s marketing staff did research into young women’s cultural values during the 1970s, and the research revealed that young women were striving to compete with men in the workplace and to express themselves as independent individuals.  Revlon launched the “lifestyle” perfume Charlie, with marketing aimed at glamorizing the values of the new 1970s woman, and it became the world’s best-selling perfume.

“The introspection of baby boomers and their focus on self-fulfillment has been examined in a serious light in pop culture. Films such as An Unmarried Woman (1978), Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), Ordinary People (1980) and The Big Chill (1983) brought the inner struggles of baby boomers to a wide audience.  The self-absorbed side of 1970s life was given a sharp and sometimes poignant satirization in Manhattan (1979). More acerbic lampooning came in Shampoo (1975) and Private Benjamin (1980).  The Me generation has also been satirized in retrospect, as the generation called “Generation X” reached adulthood, for example, in Parenthood (1989).  Forrest Gump (1994) summed up the decade with Gump’s cross-country jogging quest for meaning during the 1970s, complete with a tracksuit, which was worn as much as a fashion statement as an athletic necessity during the era.

“The satirization of the Me generation’s me-first attitude perhaps reached its peak with the television sitcom Seinfeld, which did not include conscious moral development for its baby boomer characters, rather the opposite.  Nor did it have plots with lessons to teach its audience. It was a “show about nothing”, and its creators held this position deliberately….”

These “baby boomers” represented a new type of generation not seen up to that point. The hardship of the Great Depression of the 30’s followed by the massive undertaking to prosecute WWII led to a post war boom that saw new inventions that radically changed how American’s participate in and see reality and the world.  Two things ran concurrently post war that changed America – an accelerated spiritual decline that allowed liberalism to conquer the press and the education system and a rapid development of technology with its attendant material accumulation.  Television, probably the most important propaganda tool imaginable made its debut.

The parents, remembering privation eased up on their children and did all they could to ensure that their children would never face what they faced.  While they made great efforts to provide for the material needs of their children they forgot the moral and spiritual training and left that to the education system.  Traditional American parents created a void that liberals were eager to fill.

The boomers embraced the sex, drugs and rock and roll philosophies of the time.  The girls bought into women’s liberation movement of the late sixties.  As a result, traditional American values regarding sex which reflected Judeo-Christian ethics gave way to “free love”, which Wiki describes as “a social movement that rejects marriage, which is seen as a form of social and financial bondage.  The Free Love movement’s initial goal was to separate the state from sexual matters such as marriage, birth control, and adultery.  It claimed that such issues were the concern of the people involved, and no one else.”

(We see where this has led as one thing leads to another. The revolt against biblical morals created waves of children born out of wedlock, children with only one parent.  This loss of morality led to the advance of the homosexual agenda of the 1990’s and the 2000’s. Now following their recent shocking success at turning society upside down, we’ve now hit the bottom with the rise of the gender confused.  Did you ever think you would see the day when a demented male pervert could legally go into a girl’s bathroom?  Now corporations, state and local governments and other entities are threatening to boycott the three states that passed laws to prevent that. Our nation has clearly descended into madness.)

Now, the Me generation created the next generation, known as Generation X, those born from the early 1960’s through the early 80’s.  Some use these names interchangeably as they actually exhibit many or most of the same characteristics.  Regardless, those born after the war and later have given us our current crop of young people, the “Millennials”, also dubbed the Me, Me, Me Generation by journalist Joel Stein in an article published in Time magazine on May 20, 2013.  While Stein drew a terribly wrong conclusion as he is a 41 year old liberal wacko himself, he did accurately describe the youth of today, these millennials, writing –

“The incidence of narcissistic personality disorder is nearly three times as high for people in their 20s as for the generation that’s now 65 or older, according to the National Institutes of Health; 58% more college students scored higher on a narcissism scale in 2009 than in 1982.  Millennials got so many participation trophies growing up that a recent study showed that 40% believe they should be promoted every two years, regardless of performance.

“They are fame-obsessed: three times as many middle school girls want to grow up to be a personal assistant to a famous person as want to be a Senator, according to a 2007 survey; four times as many would pick the assistant job over CEO of a major corporation.  They’re so convinced of their own greatness that the National Study of Youth and Religion found the guiding morality of 60% of millennials in any situation is that they’ll just be able to feel what’s right.

“Their development is stunted: more people ages 18 to 29 live with their parents than with a spouse, according to the 2012 Clark University Poll of Emerging Adults. And they are lazy.  In 1992, the nonprofit Families and Work Institute reported that 80% of people under 23 wanted to one day have a job with greater responsibility; 10 years later, only 60% did… these aren’t just rich-kid problems: poor millennials have even higher rates of narcissism, materialism and technology addiction in their ghetto-fabulous lives…

“Whereas in the 1950s families displayed a wedding photo, a school photo and maybe a military photo in their homes, the average middle-class American family today walks amid 85 pictures of themselves and their pets.  Millennials have come of age in the era of the quantified self, recording their daily steps on FitBit, their whereabouts every hour of every day on PlaceMe and their genetic data on 23 and Me.  They have less civic engagement and lower political participation than any previous group…

“They got this way partly because, in the 1970s, people wanted to improve kids’ chances of success by instilling self-esteem.  It turns out that self-esteem is great for getting a job or hooking up at a bar but not so great for keeping a job or a relationship.  “It was an honest mistake,” says Roy Baumeister, a psychology professor at Florida State University and the editor of Self-Esteem: The Puzzle of Low Self-Regard.  “The early findings showed that, indeed, kids with high self-esteem did better in school and were less likely to be in various kinds of trouble.  It’s just that we’ve learned later that self-esteem is a result, not a cause.”

“The problem is that when people try to boost self-esteem, they accidentally boost narcissism instead. “Just tell your kids you love them. It’s a better message,” says Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University, who wrote Generation Me and The Narcissism Epidemic.  “When they’re little it seems cute to tell them they’re special or a princess or a rock star or whatever their T-shirt says. When they’re 14 it’s no longer cute.” All that self-esteem leads them to be disappointed when the world refuses to affirm how great they know they are.

“This generation has the highest likelihood of having unmet expectations with respect to their careers and the lowest levels of satisfaction with their careers at the stage that they’re at,” says Sean Lyons, co-editor of Managing the New Workforce: International Perspectives on the Millennial Generation. “It is sort of a crisis of unmet expectations.”

“What millennials are most famous for besides narcissism is its effect: entitlement.  If you want to sell seminars to middle managers, make them about how to deal with young employees who e-mail the CEO directly and beg off projects they find boring.  English teacher David McCullough Jr.’s address last year to Wellesley High School’s graduating class, a 12-minute reality check titled “You Are Not Special,” has nearly 2 million hits on YouTube.  “Climb the mountain so you can see the world, not so the world can see you,” McCullough told the graduates. He says nearly all the response to the video has been positive, especially from millennials themselves; the video has 57 likes for every dislike…

“Millennials are interacting all day but almost entirely through a screen.  You’ve seen them at bars, sitting next to one another and texting.  They might look calm, but they’re deeply anxious about missing out on something better.  Seventy percent of them check their phones every hour, and many experience phantom pocket-vibration syndrome.  “They’re doing a behavior to reduce their anxiety,” says Larry Rosen, a psychology professor at California State University at Dominguez Hills and the author of iDisorder.  That constant search for a hit of dopamine (“Someone liked my status update!”) reduces creativity.

“From 1966, when the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking were first administered, through the mid-1980s, creativity scores in children increased. Then they dropped, falling sharply in 1998. Scores on tests of empathy similarly fell sharply, starting in 2000, likely because of both a lack of face-to-face time and higher degrees of narcissism.  Not only do millennials lack the kind of empathy that allows them to feel concerned for others, but they also have trouble even intellectually understanding others’ points of view…”

The selfishness had given way to complacency. The definition of complacent is – “marked by self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies.” (Merriam-Webster).  The revolution of the 60’s marked this age. To do anything and everything that “felt right” to the individual, a casting aside of all the old cultural norms.  There was a self-satisfaction, it still exists today of course and as the world and especially our nation is crumbling before our very eyes, there is no comprehension whatsoever in at least half our citizens of the “actual dangers” and “deficiencies” of the society they have created.

“Complacency” has now mutated or given way to “apathy”. The definition of Apathy is – “lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern.”

Joel Stein continues –

“Because millennials don’t respect authority, they also don’t resent it. That’s why they’re the first teens who aren’t rebelling. They’re not even sullen. “I grew up watching Peanuts, where you didn’t even see the parents.  They were that ‘Wah-wah’ voice. And MTV was always a parent-free zone,” says MTV president Stephen Friedman, 43, who now includes parents in nearly all the channel’s reality shows. “One of our research studies early on said that a lot of this audience outsources their superego to their parents.  The most simple decision of should I do this or should I do that–our audience will check in with their parents.”

Stein finished his piece by writing –

“So, yes, we have all that data about narcissism and laziness and entitlement. But a generation’s greatness isn’t determined by data; it’s determined by how they react to the challenges that befall them.  And, just as important, by how we react to them. Whether you think millennials are the new greatest generation of optimistic entrepreneurs or a group of 80 million people about to implode in a dwarf star of tears when their expectations are unmet depends largely on how you view change. Me, I choose to believe in the children. God knows they do.”

I would describe our millennial youth as completely brainwashed and dumbed down by the liberal education system, big entertainment and the media.  These current youths were birthed by the generation who themselves were immersed in the modern revolution against American tradition and our Christian culture. While I shouldn’t have to, let me throw in the usual caveat, certainly there are fine, moral and conservative young people, products of fine parenting by those who hold those values. It’s just that they’re grossly out-numbered.

Clearly we see large swaths or our population at the apathy stage. It might not be fair to say that our 80 million youth totally lack interest, enthusiasm, or concern, it’s just that they don’t aim them at the right things.  They have no understanding of the real world, as they’ve been brought up in a fantasy world created by liberalism.

Their interest and enthusiasm may be for who’s going to win on the Bachelor, or when will the next computer game come out, or where is the next rock concert, or what movie is playing at the theatre this week, or concerned that no one has texted them in the past 15 minutes.  They have no knowledge of America’s past, no comprehension of its values. It takes someone rather unusual to peak their interest or enthusiasm for politics.

Why does Hillary not energize the youth?  Besides being an old hag with a black heart, they clearly see she’s not “genuine” or “real”, nothing more than a power crazed opportunist. Obama appealed to them because he was not conventional, because he was not “establishment”, because he was cool and hip, because he pretended to be one of them.  The Burn, while not exactly one of them, he at least to them offers a number of things that appeals to them.

It’s critical to understand that the democrat assault on America consists of demonizing conservatives/republicans.  They must portray us as enemies of the state. If you don’t understand that, then you will never understand what is going on in the country today. Liberals aren’t just misguided souls who love our nation as we do. They hate everything about our country and they hate us. The young people have bought into this.  In their isolated, ego-centric, selfish and complacent lives, they view any source of discord as something painful.  Liberals have convinced them though, that conservatives are the only source of discord.  Hence, conservatives war on minorities, women and the gender confused. Conservatives are racists, patriarchal and anti-science.

Obama now is thinning out our prisons because the black drug dealers are there simply because they’re black. The ruined lives, the murdered lives, left in the wake of the drug scourge, mean nothing to liberals. Since there’s an imbalance in the prisons in terms of racial make-up, then clearly this is a result of racism, not because blacks and hispanics have multiple higher rates of committing violent and drug related crimes.

Young people (and nearly all democrats for that matter) can’t tolerate confrontation unless it is directed against the “real enemy”, the conservative, then of course, it’s OK. Because democrats are apathetic about the real world they exist in, they resent anything that makes them feel threatened or uncomfortable and this deep sentiment has led to an extreme form of rationalization.  These democrats are so programmed as to blame virtually every ill they consider to be the result of either conservative action or intransigence.  Democrats and especially their young people believe they are on the cusp of ushering in their perfect world, their utopia. All that is preventing them is the evil American conservative.

The radical-leftist magazine “In These Times”, has an interesting article on line from December 15, 2014, entitled, “We Can’t All Just Get Along”, written by Susan J. Douglas. Before we consider her propaganda we must note that she is “a professor of communications at the University of Michigan”, she and her ilk are the ones constantly drumming subversive Anti-Americanism into the brains of our children.  This was written just after the Republican electoral victory of 2014, below are some excerpts, as you read them just imagine the young people you know passing through our education mills being constantly exposed to the sentiments expressed –

“I hate Republicans. I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal “personhood”…

“A brief review of Republican rhetoric and strategies since the 1980s shows an escalation of determined vilification (which has been amplified relentlessly on Fox News since 1996).  From Spiro Agnew’s attack on intellectuals as an “effete corps of impudent snobs”;  to Rush Limbaugh’s hate speech;  to the GOP’s endless campaign
to smear the Clintons over Whitewater, then bludgeon Bill over Monica Lewinsky; to the ceaseless denigration of President Obama (“socialist,” “Muslim”), the Republicans have crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all…

“Why does this work? A series of studies has found that political conservatives tend toward certain psychological characteristics.  What are they?  Dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity;  a need to avoid uncertainty;  support for authoritarianism;  a heightened sense of threat from others; and a personal need for structure.  How do these qualities influence political thinking?

“According to researchers, the two core dimensions of conservative thought are resistance to change and support for inequality.  These, in turn, are core elements of social intolerance.  The need for certainty, the need to manage fear of social change, lead to black-and-white thinking and an embrace of stereotypes.  Which could certainly lead to a desire to deride those not like you—whether people of color, LGBT people or Democrats.  And, especially since the early 1990s, Republican politicians and pundits have been feeding these needs with a single-minded, uncomplicated, good-vs.-evil worldview that vilifies Democrats.

“So now we hate them back.  And for good reason…”

To be fair, she did note in her diatribe that it was OK for us to “hate” her back but it was never OK for us to “use the word ‘hate’ when referring to people of color, or women, or gays and lesbians”.  I suppose the fact that conservatives don’t use that word for them, or even feel that emotion, is beside the point.  Needless to say, I suspect that no conservative would view themselves as described by the above, but sadly, our children swim in these nonsensical characterizations.

Our nation has now certainly reached the “dependence” stage. This is another message of the democrat party and liberalism. Dependence on government.  I don’t have to tell you that nearly half our citizens get some sort of government check.  This statement is in some ways misleading, since retirees who draw social security is counted in this number.  The actual percentage of American “drones”, (a person who lives on the labor of others; parasitic loafer- dictionary.com) is more like 35 percent and growing year by year as liberal domestic policies continue to bear fruit.

When considering democrat economic policy one must conclude that either democrats are incredibly stupid OR that they know exactly what they’re doing.  We’ve witnessed nothing but a steady march to oblivion by the western nations that have embraced big government economics for the past half century or more. Democrats today constantly berate capitalism, when in truth, we haven’t been much of a capitalistic nation for some time now. Liberalism has created the economic issues that our nation faces today, yet they blame it on the one thing that actually could return our nation to the right path, at least economically, if we would only embrace it.

Please feel free to read a previous post here on this site entitled, “America Becoming a Totalitarian State”.  The article explains why democrat liberalism will inevitably lead to a totalitarian state. Liberal government will be forced (actually its quite eager to) to impose a “norm” on a fractured society.  American’s final stage will be reached, “bondage”.

If we consider the nine steps or phases, bondage, faith, courage, liberty, abundance, selfishness, complacency, apathy, dependence and back to bondage, we could divide these into two groups, faith, courage, liberty and abundance that marked America for nearly two centuries after its inception, and selfishness, complacency, apathy, dependence and bondage which defines our nation of the past half century.

Currently there are no trends that are working in favor of America. Can you name one?  The solution isn’t the application of more and more liberalism, but rather a return to the things that made our nation great, faith in God, courage of convictions, liberty for all, allow men and women to be all they can be as they play or interact on a level playing field and our nation will see abundance again. Rejection of these conservative truths will most certainly lead to the negative results.  Liberals are terminating America and when it’s gone it will never come back.  The demographic transformation will see to that.

When America turns into a third world hell hole, it will be just that. It will be just another nation that forgot God and was “turned into hell”, just another past great but now failed nation littering the junkyard of history.

The Radical Left

Blitzkrieg was the revolutionary military tactic that called for quick penetration of the enemy lines with armor and other motor vehicles with overwhelming air support to disrupt the enemy line, encircle and isolate pockets of enemy resistance and then destroy them. We know how well the concept worked as Germany conquered western Europe. Only the shear distances involved, over-confidence on Hitler’s part and likely divine intervention with a severe winter prevented the conquest of the Soviet Union.

Following WWII the Soviets embraced blitzkrieg in the military planning for taking western Europe if it came to it. Massive tank forces were to penetrate as far and as fast into Germany followed by mechanized infantry units to accomplish the same thing. Now, of course, it is the model for any advanced military.

Likewise, our liberals are using the exact same tactic in a political/cultural way. Push the envelope, advance far into a solid wall of American Traditionalism and break it apart. They have done this piecemeal with each area of “traditionalism”, yet there is unity of purpose, a desired end result and their tactics are winning, perhaps they have already won and we are merely the victims of the “infantry” mop-up operations.

Theological liberalism came first in the late 1800’s early 1900’s. By 1930 virtually every protestant denomination had either been conquered or seriously compromised. This led to political and cultural liberalism, the loss of absolutes, the rise of relativism, the embrace of godlessness and the era of big government to solve problems.

At the beginning of our downfall, the large picture may have been obscured. Many could not connect the dots as churches fell, a major political party turning leftward, entertainment and the arts becoming decadent and hedonistic. The amendments for taxation and the senators elected by popular vote under Wilson was the beginning. Liberal courts then began their remake of America beginning with FDR’s court, the expansion of the “commerce clause”, the Brown decision of 1954, removing God from the public square, abortion and on up to legalizing and promoting depravity with the perverts’ victories in the court in 2003 and 2015.

Toppling the education system to mold it to their will, to corrupt the young minds that had to pass through it was another master stroke, next to the corruption of the churches, the most important of all. All of our institutions that shape opinion, the churches, the arts and entertainment, the media and our schools once contributed to a common culture, Judeo-Christian. The enemy shattered their common base of how they portrayed America, individually conquering them and turning them against the nation as a whole.

Liberals behave now as if they’ve won because in many ways they have. We still put up stiff resistance. Our victories in retaking congress is proof of our viability, but the hour is late. Our congress, mostly staffed by weak ineffective leaders and members are clearly cowed by the enemy forces. Perhaps rightly so, if their only goal is to hold on to power. However, positions of power and the exercise of it are two different things. The fact that our leaders in congress cannot get in front of a camera and actually explain conservatism leads to only one of two possibilities, either they themselves don’t know what it is, or they are afraid to speak it.

Many people on our side hate Donald Trump, fearing he is nothing more than an opportunist, a charlatan, a New York moderate or even liberal tapping into anger to advance politically, conning tens of millions of concerned citizens. I fail to see the real proof that this is true. That he’s flawed, that he changed some positions over time is certainly true. He’s not my first choice, Cruz is, but I’ve resigned myself to the fact that Donald is going to be our standard bearer. I believe two things will motivate Trump, his own inner core and what the masses of patriotic Americans clamor for.

It has taken just about exactly a century for America to decline to the sad condition we witness today. I don’t expect our next president to bring in a new age of Aquarius in four years. It is not even necessary. All Trump has to do is stop the conquest by foreign invaders and appoint conservative judges. The former gives the democrat party its power and the latter advances the democrat agenda by judicial diktat.

I commented last week that Trump should announce his cabinet this summer, allow these men and women to have skin in the game and blanket the country be spokesmen for the cabinet. Show people who they are voting for. It was interesting that Hannity on the radio a couple days ago said the same thing. Was Trump’s statement last night about Ben Carson and education a preview of this?

The plain truth is that our nation’s main problem is not a political problem, that is merely a symptom. At the root of all of our problems is a spiritual problem and from that flows the immorality, the materialism, the relativism the decadence, the embrace of foolish politicians, that stains our nation. The oft quoted statement by Alexis De Tocqueville is still operative, “America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great”. This is where we are at today, his observation and his warning has proven to be true.

Last night, America was allowed to observe something quite common at our universities, a democrat brown shirt rent-a-mob comprised of Black Lives Matter (BLM, aka BoweL Movement), La Raza,  Bernie Sanders supporters, all instigated by Moveon.org (George Soros bunch) violently stopped a Donald Trump rally in Chicago.  Conservative speakers are routinely shut down at our universities by radical leftists.  Their tactics right out of the NAZI playbook.  Due to media black out, the average ignorant American citizen has no clue how oppressive the atmosphere at our universities are.  There is no dissent, it won’t be tolerated.  Last night they had a ring side seat in front of the television sets.  My prediction is that Trump will be the winner of this exchange.

America Becoming a Totalitarian State

Let’s create a scale as shown below

Total Personal Freedom  ___I___I___I___Total Government Control

The scale above reflects the autonomy of the individual versus some form of government that will inevitably exist in any group of interacting human beings.  An interesting exception to what would normally develop in any group of people is the dynamics that emerge on the television show, “Survivor”.  As you may have noticed over the years, being a “leader” of the team is ultimately a death sentence as eventually a leader will be voted out after the team has been reduced considerably.  A natural leader always emerges due to his or her athletic prowess or intelligence that helps the team win various competitions.

Eventually though, a counter conspiracy develops as part of the group realizes that the leader, the one who has helped them win victories is too popular and must be knocked off in order for at least one of the conspirators to win.  While interesting to observe, it is not real life.  The competition has a scheduled ending with only one victor, whereas in real life, a society does all it can do to survive in perpetuity.  In real life, a valuable leader who is just and under whose leadership the society prospers is valued by the society.  Of course, there are always those with dark ambition who may attempt and succeed in overthrowing even a good leader, but that merely to replace the person, not the office itself.

A family, led by a parent living in an isolated area has a government, the parent is king, the leader of the clan.  A group of say, half a dozen friends, will have a leader or even more than one, the dominant person that the others look to whether they admit it or not.  The reason is simple, while most people really don’t care about being a leader, they understand the need for one and prefer the order that a leader brings to the group.

Read any history book, all of human history is always understood and memorized by milestone occurrences or watershed moments caused by nations and events which are created by actions of the leaders of nations.  The great world powers of antiquity were led by men and their governments.  The Egyptians had their Pharaohs, the Persians and Greeks, their Kings, the Romans, their senate, then their Emperors.  The subsequent medieval and middle ages saw various kingdoms arise in Europe led by kings and nobles that over time became more organized and complex.  However, regardless of the government and rulers, two things provided a basis for a general commonality of European culture, Christianity and the preservation of many Roman institutions themselves.  What we call “The West” can be (or once was) defined as Roman and Christian.  Specifically, America was further fine-tuned as English and Protestant.

Considering our scale of human freedom at the beginning, all humans of all ages can find themselves between the two extremes of total human freedom and total government control.  The ability of governments to intensify control over the actions, and now the very thoughts of their subjects, has greatly increased due largely to tremendous advancements in the psychological sciences and technology, as well as the abandonment of the societal institutions and philosophies that fed and encouraged human freedoms.

What we think of as human freedom, guaranteed or actually safeguarded by government itself, is a very new concept.  The vast majority of humans throughout history lived their lives essentially by the whims of their political leaders.  The power of kings or similar was limited only by their own sense of goodness and morality and fear of possible rebellion and overthrow.  Only in the West did a system of law come into being that guaranteed personal liberty, that constrained those that govern for the benefit of the governed.   Government was constrained by law from trampling on the rights of the governed, these rights given by God.  We hear often, “we’re a nation of laws, not men”.  That was true, but rare, and we cast that aside at our peril.

In our modern times, three major events occurred that defines human relationship with government.  Our American revolution and our subsequent formation of a constitutional republic.  The French revolution that was short lived and did not itself lead directly to a permanent government incorporating the tenets of that revolution, lives on in the hearts of our modern day western liberals. Lastly, the rise of communist and fascist totalitarianism.

The consequences of the French Revolution best epitomizes the “Total Personal Freedom” end of the scale, communism best epitomizes the “Total Government Control” opposite end of the scale, with our American Constitutional Republic epitomizing the perfect location on the scale.  We witness that both ends of the scale are destructive to true personal liberty and to life itself.  While the idea of “total personal freedom” actually brings bondage and destruction may seem totally contradictory we will see that it does exactly that.

The French Revolution was a revolt against traditional authority.  Its primary targets were feudalism, the monarchy, the legal system it provided and the Church which provided the glue that held society together.  While there may have been many legitimate reasons that prompted the revolution, its practical effect led to anarchy as the revolutionists butchered those of the old guard in power, one faction replaced another as they attempted to replace these systems with those that elevated man and his “reasoning” over those higher institutions.  It was a rejection of previously viewed absolute truth to be replaced with what has been called “autonomous” man.  We often hear and use the term secular humanism or Humanism.  The contradictory message was that man was to be free, but only free as he best conformed to the image of the State.

The French Revolutionists adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789.  While in many ways a remarkable document with many influential and positive aspects, there were certain things it advocated that liberals today have almost exclusively latched onto.  “Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good” (Article I).  Liberals run with this philosophy in advancing the notion that all outcomes should be equal (for everybody else, not them).  This sort of nonsense gives rise to such notions of not teaching children that there are winners and losers but rather everyone is a “winner” and everyone gets a trophy, redistribute wealth from those that work and innovate to give to those who won’t, etc.  From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need.  “Income inequality”, “the one percent” they cry.

“The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression” (Article II).  Now some of this is good and there was an original good intent.  However, just as liberals pervert our constitution, there is something in this article that has grabbed the liberals’ attention, the right to Property.  In America, our citizens were not promised property, we have to earn it, to buy it, then our property rights are supposed to be protected.  Liberals, wanting these “positive” rights maintain that property is a right and that government should give property to its citizens, i.e. government housing, Obama phones, EBT cards, in other words it is government that is obligated to provide food, clothing and shelter to the citizens. 

“The principle of any sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation. No body, no individual can exert authority which does not emanate expressly from it (Article III).  Its original intent here was to defang or destroy the feudal system of Lords and Serfs, liberals have now embraced and advanced the idea that all power in America must reside in the Federal Government.  Our Republican system would see the individual states as having their own sphere of authority, as contrasted against the 18 enumerated powers as intended by the authors of our constitution that would limit the power of the federal government.  Thus our liberals have worked tirelessly to construct an all-powerful central government to ensure that none of our states can exert authority which does not “emanate expressly from it” (the federal government) and in the process strips all of the power from the people.

The French Revolutionists were what we would call today, Secular Humanists.  Modern day western liberals are Secular Humanists.  The French saw no higher authority than the state itself as does our liberals, whereas our founders considered God himself to be the highest authority.

Wikipedia defines Secular Humanism as

The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism (alternatively known by some adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.

Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy 

We should immediately see the dangers of secularism or Humanism as it clearly rejects the Biblical God and His scriptures as the source of ultimate truth embraced by western civilization throughout its history.  Humanism can trace its roots to ancient Greek philosophers, but generally exploded onto the European scene as the “Enlightenment”.  The Stanford (University) Encyclopedia of Philosophy thus defines the Enlightenment generally as

The Enlightenment is the period in the history of western thought and culture, stretching roughly from the mid-decades of the seventeenth century through the eighteenth century, characterized by dramatic revolutions in science, philosophy, society and politics; these revolutions swept away the medieval world-view and ushered in our modern western world. Enlightenment thought culminates historically in the political upheaval of the French Revolution, in which the traditional hierarchical political and social orders (the French monarchy, the privileges of the French nobility, the political power and authority of the Catholic Church) were violently destroyed and replaced by a political and social order informed by the Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality for all, founded, ostensibly, upon principles of human reason. 

The Enlightenment had two wings, the Scottish wing inspired our founding fathers to value the individual over the government and understood the importance of religion while mainland European philosophers advanced the notion of the state over the individual.  Many of the latter were comprised of deists at best and atheists at worst.  The French revolutionists, inspired by Rousseau and similar, sought to destroy organized religion.  It viewed Christianity as the enemy of the state, that the state must set all standards of conduct and behavior that the people must conform to.  Later, Marxism and Fascism would follow the bread crumbs left by these godless philosophies and carry the degradation of humanity and societies to the lower levels we have witnessed over the past century.

Regarding the French revolutionists’ assault on Christianity, from Wikipedia on the subject we read,

During the Reign of Terror, extreme efforts of de-Christianization ensued, including the imprisonment and massacre of priests and destruction of churches and religious images throughout France. An effort was made to replace the Catholic Church altogether, with civic festivals replacing religious ones. The establishment of the Cult of Reason was the final step of radical de-Christianization.  

These events led to a widespread disillusionment with the Revolution and to counter-rebellions across France. Locals often resisted de-Christianization by attacking revolutionary agents and hiding members of the clergy who were being hunted. Eventually, Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety were forced to denounce the campaign, replacing the Cult of Reason with the deist but still non-Christian Cult of the Supreme Being 

The Concordat of 1801 between Napoleon and the Church ended the de-Christianization period and established the rules for a relationship between the Catholic Church and the French State that lasted until it was abrogated by the Third Republic via the separation of church and state on 11 December 1905. The persecution of the Church led to a counter-revolution known as the Revolt in the Vendée.

The great lie of liberalism, socialism and communism is that those that hawk it capture followers by promising them that they are free to do as they wish.  They promise “power to the people” when it truth it drains all power from the people.  They say, in essence, you can do anything you want to do, just leave the governing to us, the enlightened elite, we have your back.  How does Total Personal Freedom or Autonomy actually harm a person and how does it lead to bondage?

There must be some sort of “norm” in any society.  If “the people” do not establish a “norm”, then ultimately government will by force, establish it.  Our culture war has two sides, two America’s occupying the same space.  One side is traditional America, established on Judeo-Christian faith, ethics and principles.  The other side, Liberals, deny our founding principles simply as a tactic, for the benefit of the souls they seek to enlist on their side.  History is history and despite the modern revisions and scrubbing, our Christian roots are undeniable. Their norm is not a norm, but a large collection of “norms”.  Liberalism keeps grinding the population into smaller and smaller groups, each with a “norm” as they shatter the large homogenous structure that was once traditional America by advancing multi-culturalism and relativism.

The larger of these groups are easy to see, the racial minorities, especially the blacks and hispanics.  They can be convinced the deck is stacked against them.  They can be convinced that everything that springs from the dominant traditional culture is steeped in “racism” and “hatred”.  To them, we can add the silly women who have become convinced there is a war on women, homosexuals and other deviants who have been encouraged to claim to be “normal”.  We can add the youth, products of the liberal education system that has for the past half century at least been undermining the traditions of our nation.  We can add the atheists and agnostics who militantly reject Christianity and the “norm” it had formed and maintained in the culture.  Science and virtually all institutions, the media, the arts, big entertainment and of course, the education system, that shape opinion have been swept into this godless group.

Do the elite white liberals live near black or hispanic communities?  Of course not, they live in white suburbs if not gated communities.  Do the blacks and hispanics live harmoniously in common communities?  Of course not, “their” territories are controlled by their gangs who war against one another.  There is only one glue that holds this coalition together and focuses it, its outright hatred for the traditional culture.

There is a reason why where every major city controlled by LSDs (nearly all of them) is filled with violence, failing schools, illiteracy, deteriorated buildings and factories that once housed bustling businesses for the middle class workers, crime, rape, despair and no hope.  Detroit reached “Detroit” status and our other major cities are going as fast as they can to catch up.  The result isn’t freedom, at least not in any beneficial or rational sense, the denizens of these LSD wastelands are little more than programmed zombies marching to the tunes played by their LSD overlords.

Their “freedom” doesn’t allow them to be all they can be, doesn’t facilitate life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but forces them to live purposeless lives, making no positive contribution to the larger society, life is dark and brutal and most of their own citizens live in fear as they are preyed upon by their very children.  These groups find their “freedom” through the heavy hand of government as all other institutions that safeguard freedom and advance the culture has been shattered.

Of course there are exceptions, millions of exceptions, but in a nation of hundreds of millions, the LSDs don’t care about the exceptions, they care about the majorities of the groups that make up their coalition.  They care about the 95 percent of blacks who voted for Obama, the 70 percent of hispanics and muslims, the 86 percent of homosexuals, the 56 percent of women and even the 44 percent of girly-men who act as if they’re afraid of their own shadows or perhaps suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

It is impossible for these groups who comprise the current democrat party to ever live in peace, they will never create their utopia.  There is only so much room at the trough.  Democrats gain by instilling hatred of traditional America (whites) and confusion.  Sexual deviants are at least confused (actually depraved), girly men are confused and many women are confused. Girly men and man-hating confused women belong almost exclusively to the democrat party. They appear to be comfortable there because that party helps create their grievances and provides “solutions” through legislation and rogue leftist judges.

It’s all part of the democrat coalition which I list as –

1) Homosexuals (valuable for money, Hollywood influence, destroying Christianity)

2) Muslims (Valuable for destroy Christianity)

3) Women (Valuable for their large numbers of silly man-hating women)

4) Blacks (perfect stoolies for instilling “white guilt” in gullible whites. Also their violent tendencies get to keep gun control on the front burner as well as our tax dollars flowing as bribe money)

5) Asians (Vote 75 percent democrat, don’t know why, but democrats are milking them for votes while they can)

6) Union drones (their thug leaders are part of the world-wide socialist movement)

7) Hispanics (Don’t know why here either, but most vote democrat so democrats pretend like they care about them)

8) girly white men. (deluded and tortured souls, possibly suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, afraid of their own shadows)

9)  Environmental wackos (deluded socialists/Marxists intent on destroying capitalism or actual worshippers of Gaia who favor nature and world over humanity itself.)

The democrat party is led by its “intelligentsia” – their politicians and members of their media, entertainment and the education (propaganda) mills, all who view themselves as the enlightened elite.  If conservative patriotic Americans of all stripes and colors ceased to exist, how could this coalition possibly maintain peace and order?  Most normal people are repulsed by the various sexual deviancies, blacks and muslims hate just about everybody else, Hispanics are more interested in protecting their family members who have come here illegally or protecting themselves if they are here illegally from deportation.  Union and non-union never get along because unionized workers get more pay and benefits for less expended effort than their counterparts.

Radicalized women are fighting for their “rights” they actually “won” years ago.  Females now make up 57 percent of all college students and depending on which study you read, women control anywhere from 60 to 75 percent of the nation’s wealth!  Women are responsible for 83 percent of all consumer purchases.  The silly element of women in America, reliable man-hating democrats “defend” themselves in a “war on women” that simply does not exist.  In truth, republicans should fight back with their own “war on men” mantra.

Remove the hatred of America ginned up by democrats and this coalition will fall apart, all seeking their own place at the table and the table is only so big.  Do away with productive America, do away with our reliable energy and manufacturing industries and the high paying jobs they provide and who is going to keep the slop flowing into the democrat hog trough?  Once the wealth of America has been totally commandeered to advance the liberal agenda, will those that “have” really want to keep providing for the “have nots”?

Every study reveals that liberals are stingy with their own wealth while conservatives are much more prone to altruism and charity.  Bill Clinton donates his used underwear for a tax write-off while true conservatives give their time, money and resources to truly help the down trodden.  Liberals want to do it with our money, our tax dollars to prove their “compassion”, conservatives do with their own resources and have desire to steal them from somebody else.

Liberals engage in “divide and conquer”.  Identify differences then start gouging, start fanning the flames of envy and covetousness.  Obama is a master at flame fanning.  Last November in Malaysia he, as he is wont to do, blasted America.  Dave Boyer of the Washington Times reported on November 20th that

“President Obama discussed America’s faults Friday with young Asian leaders, saying the U.S. suffers from “pitfalls” such as income inequality, a political system controlled by the wealthy and political parties divided along racial lines…

“Speaking at a town-hall event in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Mr. Obama said…”I really hope that all of you are fighting against the kinds of attitudes where you organize political parties or you organize interest groups just around ethnic or racial or tribal lines, because when you start doing that, it’s very easy for people to start thinking that whoever is not part of my group is somehow less than me.  And once that mindset comes in, that’s how violence happens.  That’s how discrimination happens.  And Societies that are divided ethnically and racially are almost never successful over the long term.”

Obama should know, he’s an expert at dividing people as he’s set race relations back a generation.  Income inequality is always going to exist in any society, especially in a capitalist society where ability and achievement are rewarded.  The democrat party is organized around ethnic, racial, religious and sexual lines and he and the democrat party have inculcated views in their plantation members that those outside their cult are “somehow less than” them.  Violence does happen as we’ve witnessed over the past year in places like Ferguson, Baltimore and several college campuses.  Of violence in America, virtually none can be blamed on the conservative camp.

The liberal path will always end with total Government control.   Government will drain the nation of its capital resources, will penalize or even criminalize the producers.  Those that have been rewarded for their work and talents will be portrayed as the enemy and as Obama says, “we must punish our enemies”.  As liberals keep draining America of its vast storehouse of wealth it will become more and more desperate.  It will devalue the currency, cause inflation to keep their various groups bought off and satisfied.

Government grows by promising more and more people that it will use the force of law to curtain the freedom of others.  It promises the indolent it will tax those willing to work to give them a handout.  It promises sexual deviants that it will force the greater society to accept their behavior as normal.  It promises minorities and women that it will restrict the opportunities of whites and males to open up positions they are not prepared for.  It promises alien invaders that they will make the nation’s indigenous citizens accept and accommodate them.  It promises certain groups that they will not be prosecuted for crimes while prosecuting their enemies who committed no crimes.

What indications are there that we well down this path?  Our colleges and universities today have a virtual lock down on free speech.  Conservative speech is not tolerated, there is no diversity of opinion, no free exchange of ideas.  This final stage of education (propaganda) is near totally corrupted.  The only way for a rational young person to survive if he or she has traditional American values is to keep their head down, keep quiet and play the game.

Democrats over the past couple of decades use the legal system to punish their ideological enemies as we’ve seen them take out Tom Delay, Scooter Libby, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and currently an attempt to take former Texas governor Rick Perry.  We’ve witnessed the IRS prevent conservative groups from organizing.  The activities of the partisan hack Lois Learner now going down the old memory hole.  Government certainly isn’t the solution, it isn’t simply the problem, it is now much more than that, it is the enemy of America.

When liberals are finished with this de-construction of America all that will be left will be angry groups who will turn on each other out of desperation.  Their envy and hatred of the prevailing culture will be replaced with envy and hatred of their competing groups, of each other.  All of the old cultural norms will be gone, there will be no guidance or light to show the way back.  Government will be all there is, and the liberal siren song of total personal freedom will be replaced with total government control over every aspect of life.

Was Obama really a “Law Professor”?

“A former constitutional law professor”, so Obama and his sycophants claim.  Obama was not a professor, but a lecturer.  What did he really teach?  While there’s any number of sources to understand Obama’s “teaching” record, the following from Doug Ross’s blog is as good as any –

“Is the President’s resume accurate when it comes to his career and qualifications? I can corroborate that Obama’s “teaching career” at Chicago was, to put it kindly, a sham.

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

Consider this:

1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a “lawyer”. He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he “fibbed” on his bar application.

2. Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993.

3. So, we have the President and First Lady – who don’t actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.

4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, “Obama did NOT ‘hold the title’ of a University of Chicago law school professor”. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.

5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

6. “He did not hold the title of professor of law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.” ( End quote)

As with just about everything else with Obama, he is an empty suit, stewed in hatred of America his entire life.  Its no wonder he governs that way, he is incapable of any other forms of thinking.  He is a creation of his radical upbringing and his exposure to radical academia.  His past has been carefully concealed and recreated to present him as the “one we’ve been waiting for” to a gullible and dumbed down electorate.

The Democrats Advance by Hate

The root of the liberal belief system appears to be nurtured by hate and rationalization. Once a person is convinced to hate something or someone, there is the real tendency to believe everything bad about that thing or person and rationalize away anything good about it or him and further rationalize away the deleterious results of liberal polices and its belief system.

We see this played out continually in politics and how democrat voters react. We know the collapse of 2008 can be traced directly to democrat policy, we know that the Bush administration made several attempts to rein in the banks but couldn’t get past the democrat/Rino firewall. We know that Obama wasted a trillion dollars worth of goodies in TARP that he inherited from Bush. Yet, we still hear all the time that its “Bush’s fault”. Bush has been a great scapegoat for Obama and a convenient base for rationalization by the dolt democrats/liberals.

While we intellectually grasp and bemoan the state of our education system, I think we underestimate its effects. It churns out continually, graduates who are programmed to hate conservatism, hate traditional America and embrace liberalism and the democrat party. Allowing such a system to shape the minds of our young is arguably the greatest systemic problem we have. Or perhaps more correctly, it is the most open and visible result of the spiritual collapse of the nation. Liberal theology came first and paved the way for political and social liberalism. They all go hand in hand.

A child from an ungrounded godless home, bombarded for 12 to 20 years in an education system that continually inculcates the thoughts that America is an unfair, greedy and racist nation, that there is no real standard of morality, rather the individual can do what is right in his own eyes and have the right to do it will always have a default position to rationalize away reality, embrace the liberal solution and reject truth, conservatives and conservatism.

Add to this, the media, Hollywood, television, nearly all newsprint and just social peer pressure and there we have it, the perfect liberalized drones, incapable of rational thought, incapable of logically evaluating the world around him. All that’s necessary to keep these proles on the plantation is to offer views that at least sound half way plausible and attack, attack and attack conservatives and truth. Democrats are very good at this, there is no difference really than what they do and cult programming. That’s why the democrat party is a cult, a large one, but one just the same.

Only an Armed People can be the real Bulwark of Popular Liberty

The title of this piece is a quote from a famous person, bet you can’t guess who said it.  Vladimir Lenin, ruthless first leader of the Soviet Union who disarmed the people because he understood what arms in the hands of a nation’s citizens meant.

“Obama Defends Forthcoming Gun Restrictions as Constitutional”

Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Gearing up for a certain confrontation with Congress, President Barack Obama defended his plans to tighten the nation’s gun-control restrictions on his own, insisting Monday that the steps he’ll announce fall within his legal authority and uphold the constitutional right to own a gun

“This is not going to solve every violent crime in this country,” Obama said, tempering expectations for gun control advocates calling for far-reaching executive action. “It’s not going to prevent every mass shooting; it’s not going to keep every gun out of the hands of a criminal. It will potentially save lives and spare families the pain of these extraordinary losses.”…

Mindful of inevitable challenges, the White House carefully crafted the steps to bolster their prospects of surviving in court, and Obama said he was acting “well within my legal authority.”

“I’m also confident that the recommendations that are being made by our team here are ones that are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment and people’s lawful right to bear arms,” Obama said…

Democrat Hillary Clinton, who has already proposed closing the gun show loophole, cheered Obama’s plans, and her chief primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, called it the “right thing to do.”  But on the GOP side, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called Obama a “petulant child” peddling illegal executive actions, while Donald Trump said he saw no need for changes.   (End Quote)

From the Chicago Tribune, “Obama says he’ll act on his own in coming days to strengthen gun safety”, 01/04/2015-

Aides to Obama say he’s acting precisely because Congress will not.

“We’re not going to be able to pass a law or take an executive action that would prevent every single incident of gun violence,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. “But if there’s something that we can do that would prevent even one, why wouldn’t we?”  (end quote)

OBAMA ISSUES UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS

To address Obama’s use of Executive Orders to usurp the role of the legislative branch and create law, you do realize that these “executive orders” that affect anyone other than federal employees are way outside the constitution don’t you?  Executive orders should be just that, the Executive, or the boss, of the executive branch (99 percent of all federal employees) gives his employees “orders”.   Up until Clinton, there were few if any contentious EO’s.  Clinton opened the floodgate with unconstitutional orders because they could, no one stopped them, and as one Clinton staffer said, “it was cool” to be king.

The real lesson Obama is teaching the republicans is “see what you get when you refuse to impeach me, stop me if you can!!!”  The lesson America should be learning is to quit electing democrats.

The second Amendment states, “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

The United States Supreme Court has only heard a handful of cases involving the 2nd Amendment rights.

In the 1875 case, United States v. Cruikshank, the court stated that “the second amendment means no more than that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.”   In other words, the Amendment limited Federal powers but not states.  (This was well before the Supreme Court took it upon itself to attack state sovereignty and the tenth Amendment.)

In 1886, in Presser v. Illinois, the Supreme Court ruled that a state itself could limit or prohibit the formation of a militia.   However, the court did confirm that absolute right of an individual saying, “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States,” and “states cannot … prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.”

The oft cited 1939 case, United States v. Miller, involved two men who had been indicted for transporting a shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches long in violation of the federal 1934 National Firearms Act.   The court sided with the Federal Government in the case, the defendants didn’t even show up for the hearing so the Court only heard one side of the argument.  The court concluded that –

“The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” 

The 2nd Amendment as a whole and what it meant was not directly addressed by the Court until the recent 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case.  The court stated concerning the 1939 Miller case, “Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment”. 

This landmark 2008 Heller case was the first time the Supreme Court has ever addressed the right of the individual to keep arms for self-defense.  The court concluded that it did, that handguns were included and that a D.C. requirement that guns must be unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked was unconstitutional.   This was a 5-4 decision.

The 2010 case, McDonald v. Chicago, applied the above to states.  Once again by a 5-4 decision.   The frightening thing to any liberty loving American is that this right, originally intended to never be infringed upon by the federal government hangs by one vote, one judge.   Purely from a constitutional point of view, the court should have ruled in the state’s (or in this case, the city’s as long as it was not afoul of Illinois state law) favor.   However, after decades of endless liberal trashing of the constitution, I don’t mind a bit of conservative activism.   Whether the Supreme Court could even address state laws is an argument long past…for now.  Conservative activism is a drop of water compared to an ocean of liberal activism.

WHEN DID WE GET THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

Let us consider the development of the 2nd Amendment.  James Madison originally propose 12 Amendments, ten of which in some form were ultimately approved by congress and ratified by the states.  Madison’s original wording for the 2nd Amendment was –

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” 

The House of Representatives approved the Amendment on August 24, 1789 worded as –

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” 

The Senate approved the Amendment worded as we see it in its ratified form thusly on September 9th

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

The Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791.

What does “infringe” mean?  Infringe is a very precise word.   Do you think our founders just pulled it out of thin air without any thought?  Or, did they mean exactly what was written?

Infringe –  to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Encroach – to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another

The U.S. Constitution went into effect on March 4, 1789 and the first Ten Amendments (The Bill of Rights) were added and effective in December, 1791.  As you no doubt know, the U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation which had proven wholly inadequate to the task at hand, at forming a central government with litte power and influence.   What did the Articles of Confederation have to say about armaments?

WHY DID WE GET THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states in part, following a prohibition on a state maintaining a standing army (land forces) in time of peace except to man forts necessary for the defense of the state-

“…but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 (Powers of Congress), states as applicable to sea and land forces and the militias-

“Congress may raise and support armies for a period of no longer than two years.”

“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;” 

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;” 

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

Now we see in both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution a distinction between “land forces”, which clearly means a standing army, and state militias.

When we consider then the 2nd Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”   Why would this Amendment be added, considering the great debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists that raged at the time, to prohibit the new federal government from infringing on the right for a state to have and arm militias when Article 1, Section 8 already practically required them?

Not only would the militias clearly exist and always be prepared to “suppress insurrections and repel invasion”, but the federal government was actually required to pay for them!   Congress was empowered to only form a standing army for a period of only two years, therefore, the federal government, the newly formed, United States would rely on state militias for general defense of the nation.   It would be a silly argument, one of many nonsensical theories advanced by liberals, that the 2nd Amendment was added solely to protect the states’ right of forming militias.

To “provide for” as we read in the Section 8 paragraph above, meant, “If you provide for someone, you support them financially and make sure that they have the things that they need”.   It does not say it is a power of congress to decide which state, if any, should have a militia, but rather congress would support them financially and ensure they have the things they need when they do!

Why would it be important for the federal government to ensure that the various state militias were “organized”, “armed” “disciplined” and “trained”?  The answer is simple, homogeneity and guarantee that militias were actually available.   In the event it was necessary for the militias to be called to active duty in time of war, everyone would be humming the same tune (or reading from the same page, or whatever idiom you prefer to use).   A militia unit from South Carolina should have the same organization, similar weapons, discipline and training as one from Vermont.

The militias were to be available on a moment’s notice.  How could the federal government “call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” if none existed?   Not only were militias assumed, they were, for all practical purposes mandated.

Which gets us to the point of the 2nd Amendment.  Clearly that right to “keep and bear arms” was protected so that “the people” would be armed and prepared for service in a militia.   The actual “right” was -no infringement on the people keeping and bearing arms.  Forming a militia was merely an effect or one result from an armed citizenry.   There was no need to specify a “right” to form militias as militias were already provided for in Article I.

THE SUPREME COURT’S CURRENT POSITION ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT

In the 2008 D.C. vs Heller case heard by the Supreme Court.  The court framed the issue to be settled as –

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

From Wikipedia, below are the conclusions drawn by the five member majority –

The Supreme Court held:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.  The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.   The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.  The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.  The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster.

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.  Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.  Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

________________________________End Quote

Naturally, the four flaming liberals on the court disagreed.

Two years later, in the McDonald vs. Chicago case, the Supreme Court applied the above to the states, through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, reiterating that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense”.

ADDITIONAL HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT

This right was not particularly recognized in the Articles of Confederation which a simple reading only required that the state have a “public store” of armaments and Article I of the constitution only required that the militias be armed, which could have simply meant that arms be stored and available in case the need arose for militia action, identical to the minimal meaning of the Articles of Confederation.   We could reason also as an advantageous thing since the arms were to be the weapons of use by a government force, that these arms be state of the art, or at least the best available.

There is not a single word that can be found to suggest a single politician in America advocated the disarming of American citizens at the time of the writing and ratification of our constitution.   To even mention such a thing would have been a very quick way of receiving a good dose of tar and feathers, as well as end any political career.   Our founders absolutely abhorred the actions of some European nations that had disarmed its citizenry.

Why was the Bill of Rights added to the constitution?   James Madison, despite the fact that he was the one who ultimately introduced the Bill of Rights to congress, was a Federalist and was against the addition of the amendments and in his convention notes of September 12, 1787 when the addition of the Bill of Rights was discussed, wrote-

“Mr. SHERMAN, was for securing the rights of the people where requisite. The State Declarations of Rights are not repealed by this Constitution; and being in force are sufficient…”  Roger Sherman, Federalist, Delegate from Connecticut, felt the Constitution was good as written.

Madison did note just the opposite views of George Mason –

“Col: MASON perceived the difficulty mentioned by Mr. Gorham. The jury cases can not be specified. A general principle laid down on this and some other points would be sufficient. He wished the plan had been prefaced with a Bill of Rights, & would second a Motion if made for the purpose. It would give great quiet to the people; and with the aid of the State declarations, a bill might be prepared in a few hours.”

And

“Col: MASON. The Laws of the U. S. are to be paramount to State Bills of Rights.  On the question for a Come (to move forward favorably) to prepare a Bill of Rights”

Obviously, Anti-Federalist George Mason did not believe the constitution was adequate without additional protections.  Mason believed the Bill of Rights could “be prepared in a few hours” largely by copying protections afforded by various “state declarations”.  Mason also believed that the Constitution would be “paramount (superior to all others) to State Bills of Rights”.

James Wilson, Delegate from Pennsylvania and a strong Federalist believed that the powers of the Federal government were so well defined in the constitution as written that no amendments were necessary.  He believed that the listing of various rights held by the people should be contained in state constitutions.  As he put it, “everything that is not reserved (by the states) is given” to the new government.

George Mason, one of the leading Anti-Federalists wrote –

There is no declaration of rights; and, the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitutions of the several states, the declarations of rights in the separate states are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law, which stands here upon no other foundation than its having been adopted by the respective acts forming the constitutions of the several states…

Under their own construction of the general clause at the end of the enumerated powers, the Congress may grant monopolies in trade and commerce, constitute new crimes, inflict unusual and severe punishments, and extend their power as far as they shall think proper; so that the state legislatures have no security for the powers now presumed to remain to them, or the people for their rights. There is no declaration of any kind for preserving the liberty of the press, the trial by jury in civil cases, nor against the danger of standing armies in time of peace…

This government will commence in a moderate aristocracy: it is at present impossible to foresee whether it will, in its operation, produce a monarchy or a corrupt oppressive aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in the one or the other.”

Sadly, even with the addition of the Amendments, our government has become what Mason feared, “a corrupt oppressive aristocracy”.

The Preamble of the Bill of Rights stated its purpose –

“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”    The amendments do NOT grant rights, but rather safeguard the existing inherent rights of free men, rights the founders viewed as given by God.

Enough states refused to ratify the constitution as originally written without an agreement that when congress first met under the constitution it would develop a Bill of Rights.   The Anti-Federalists feared a central government that would trample on the rights of the people, Thomas Jefferson being among them, saying, “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”

THE COLONIES’ VIEW OF ARMED CITIZENS

In ratifying the original Constitution on June 21, 1788, New Hampshire offered its recommendations for Amendments which included – Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.”

Virginia on June 6, 1788 – “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State…”

New York on September 17, 1788 – “That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;”

(the Supreme Court in the Heller case mentioned these three states’ recommendations)

————————————————————

Despite modern day liberal attempts to rewrite history, gun ownership was the norm in colonial America.   Not only were guns indispensable as the colonists dealt with Indians and hunting game was a major source of food, the British government saved a lot of money by allowing the colonists to be armed, they didn’t have to garrison as many regular army troops in the colonies.  The armed colonists would, by and large, provide their own defense.  Nearly every colony listed gun ownership as a right and most actually insisted on it, as these armed citizens comprised the militias.

According to the website saf.org, an interesting article by Clayton Cramer entitled, Colonial Firearm Regulation reveals the following which contains numerous quotes from colonial documents –

Connecticut – “That all persons that are above the age of sixteen years, except magistrates and church officers, shall bear arms…; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continual readines, a good musket or other gun, fit for service, and allowed by the clark of the band.”  They were fined if they showed up for militia training without a firearm.

Virginia – every freeman was to arm himself with musket, powder and lead.  If he was unable to afford one for himself, one would be provided.

New York – Every male 16 to 60 were to be armed or fined.

Maryland- All freemen 16-50 were required to be armed.  In 1775 the Colony threatened a fine of five shillings if a man showed up for militia training without his musket.

Massachusetts – all able bodied men were required to be armed and even those excempt from militia duty were required to maintain a gun in the home.  Additionally it was required that boys at age ten were be trained in firearms.

New Hampshire – All males sixteen to sixty were to be armed or pay a six shilling fine.

New Jersey – All males 16 to 60 with exemptions were to be armed and show up twice per year to “appear in the field”.

Delaware – “All freeholder and taxable persons” were to be armed, although only those 17 to 50 had to belong to the militia.

Rhode Island – No specific requirement to be armed, but no person could go two miles outside of town with packing a gun.

South Carolina- No specific requirement but men were required to bring their guns to church!

North Carolina – All free men and servants were required to be in the militia and show up armed when called or be fined.

Georgia – All males 16 to 60 were required to keep a gun, powder, lead, etc and show up with them when militia training was called.

Only Pennsylvania had no such gun requirements due to Quaker pacifism.

IS IT TIME TO UPDATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

As it stands at the moment, our supreme court oligarchs have affirmed the right of the individual to own firearms with some restrictions permitted.   This right given to us by our Creator hangs by a 5-4 vote of the court.   This is one of the most important reasons to never allow a liberal to infest the Whitehouse, they appoint federal judges and these, our oligarchs, control our lives and liberties.   Liberals always empower government and conservatives empowers the individual.

I think now would be the perfect time to update the 2nd Amendment.  Currently some 60 percent of Americans believe that no new gun regulations should be imposed on the people.  Members of all races understand the grave danger than liberal social policies have put us in.   The large dysfunctional segment of the black community, lawless hordes of hispanics, muslim immigrants and deranged white liberals all contribute to the angst of the population.  I call these that prey on society democrat foot soldiers as they serve their master’s purpose of destabilizing society “requiring government action” to deal with the problems.

The last time congress made an attempt to impose further regulations was in 2013 by Senators Joe Manchin (D)-WV and Pat Toomey (R) – PA.  Actually, although I would never admit it (oops, I am doing just that), the bill really wasn’t all that bad.  In fact, it was actually a pretty good bill.   I think we all know the truth of “gun running” into cities and states where they’re prohibited or sold illegally.  In normal America, individuals advertise their guns for sale in newspapers, local “trader” publications and internet local forums.   The druggies and other criminals have their local stoolies respond to the ads and buy up a quantity of guns.   The criminals bring drugs into normal America from whatever large city democrat hell-hole they venture out of and return with a trunk load of guns with no paper trail.

The Manchin-Toomey bill was designed to tighten up private gun sales, allowing only gifts or sales between family members and close associates.   It could have curtailed the current flow of guns into the democrat strongholds.   The bill crashed and burned in the senate.  It never made it past the threat of a filibuster and after several attempts to get some traction on it, only this past fall the senators gave up.   A majority of Americans do not believe that additional gun regulation will keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals, 56 and 58 percent, respectively.   The greatest reason Americans do not favor additional gun restrictions is that most simply do not trust government and many Americans apparently understand what the word infringe means and even if their proposed bill was to the good, it was still, nevertheless, an infringement on our rights of gun ownership and therefore, truly unconstitutional.

So, rather than infringing on gun rights because it may be desirable to do so, why not revise the 2nd Amendment to prevent government, especially including the courts, from trampling on the rights of sound citizens and at the same time address some of the supposed concerns of liberals.  I say, “supposed” because there’s no doubt that the liberal “intelligentsia” want America disarmed.  I would propose the following as a replacement for the current 2nd Amendment.

1)  Gun ownership is a right endowed by the Creator, not given by the state.  (conservative)

2)  Citizens and legal immigrants have these gun rights. (conservative)

3)  Fully automatic firearms firing a projectile equal to or less than a .308 caliber, defined as a firearm capable of firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger or actuator, may be owned.  A permit SHALL be issued to any qualified person for a one- time reasonable fee, good for any number of these weapons.  The ATF may inspect these firearms following a minimum 7 day notification to the owner.  (conservative, although this bans larger caliber weapons)

4)  No government, Federal, State or local, may impose additional taxes or any sort of monetary requirement on the purchase of weapons or ammunition above the rate of a state and or local general sales tax.  No additional tax or any other monetary requirement may be imposed for the possession of weapons or ammunition. (conservative)

5)  The ATF shall maintain a database or gun registry of ownership, exempt from FOIA requests and data shared only on a need-to-know basis. (liberal)

6)  There shall be no restrictions on ammunition as to quantity and type.  (neutral to conservative, allows all ammunition types)

7) “Gun dealer” shall be defined as a person or corporation who engages in a commercial enterprise of selling guns.  A gun dealer will go through a process to obtain an ATF license. (neutral)

8)  Any gun that is stolen or lost must be reported to the local county or parish sheriff’s department within 24 hours upon discovery that a gun is stolen.   Failure to report stolen firearms when the owner knew or should have known is a federal crime.   Failure to report also makes the owner responsible for any post-theft or loss damages caused by the use of the gun.   It is the responsibility of the owner to register guns in his or her possession prior to the effective date of this Amendment in order to be protected by this clause. (both)

9)  No firearm manufacturer, gun dealer or seller shall be held liable either civilly or criminally for misuse of a firearm it manufactured, rebuilt or sold. (conservative)

10)  No ammunition manufacturer or seller shall be held liable either civilly or criminally for misuse or criminal use of any ammunition it manufactured. (conservative)

11)  No individual or group shall be held civilly or criminally liable for accidental death, injury or damage resulting from the use of a firearm for self-defense or defense of others that is reasonable*. (conservative)

12)  A background check must be made by the FBI before any firearm is sold, traded or given away.   Exchanges of firearms between individuals or other entities must have a background check made on the person or entity receiving the firearm.   The gun may be taken to a firearms dealer for a fee to do the paper work and perform the background check up to a maximum of twenty five dollars per firearm. (liberal)

13)  No limitations of magazine or “clip” capacities. (conservative)

14)  The provisions of this Amendment would be immune or exempt from any declaration of a State of Emergency or  Martial Law. (conservative)

These are my ideas for the new Amendment.   I realize my fellow gun enthusiasts will immediately attack me for the gun registry and the requirement for a background check for all gun sales or transfers.   However, realize this is an amendment to the constitution.  Lawyers using language that would make it as “liberal-proof” as possible to prevent twisting of the meanings would be deployed.   If we reach a point that the government “infringes” on these rights defined above, then we have much bigger fish to fry, like a total collapse of the government in progress or the government going totally rogue.

Most liberals, would get exactly what they claim they want.   The pipeline of guns to inner city democrat foot soldiers would eventually dry up, other than the truck loads brought in from Mexico along with drug shipments, but that can be dealt with by sealing the border.

There are an estimated 100 million gun owners in America possessing somewhere around 300 million firearms and billions of rounds of ammunition.   There are about 1 million law enforcement officers total, federal, state and local.  Since roughly a third of Americans (that admit it) actually own firearms, then that means there is only around one law enforcement officer of any type per 100 gun owners.

Obama and his merry band of America hating democrats have done a masterful job of totally alienating virtually all levels of law enforcement.   Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that even most federal law enforcement agents are America loving conservatives.   My point is that there could not be a lawful basis for inspecting (except for the exception of fully automatic weapons) or confiscating guns owned in accordance with this 2nd Amendment and any law enforcement officer attempting to do so would be in direct violation of his oath.  Few would have any actual incentive for doing so and all would have absolutely no basis in law for doing so.

There would need to be some sort of addition my recommendations to address “mental stability” in order to pass the background check and to attempt to qualify what constitutes “reasonable” use of firearms in self-defense of self and others.  Since the current thugs infesting the Whitehouse consider Christians who believe in the bible, conservatives, libertarians, nationalists and gun owners, as already having one foot in the “terrorist” camp, then obviously some thought and safeguards would have to go into the background check in order to prevent liberals from deliberately declaring rational and sane people too mentally incompetent to own firearms.

LIBERALS MOST DEFINITELY WANT A NATION OF SHEEP

If Hillary gets elected next fall, assuming she’s the democrat nominee and not up on federal charges as she should be (Loretta Lynch under Obama’s orders likely won’t attempt to convene a federal grand jury and present charges), she may replace one or more of the “conservative” judges on the supreme court; Ginsberg, a liberal almost certainly to go and Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy are in the 80’s.  One more flaming liberal on the court replacing one of the three conservatives or Roberts or Kennedy will end our second amendment as we know it.   Why not roll the dice and “fix” it while the nation will well support it?  Public sentiment changes quickly, remember it was just 15 years ago that sodomy was a crime in all fifty states, now recent polling suggests that nearly half our people are now on board with their queer neighbor drilling a hairy —hole and foisting this depravity upon a nation as good and wholesome.

The democrats only need four things to happen and ALL of our gun rights could be stripped away.  1)  The supreme court tipped in their favor, almost certain to happen if a democrat is elected this fall.  2)  A democrat president, 3)  A democrat senate (willing to finally scrap the filibuster, simply a matter of time) and 4)  a democrat House.  At the rate we’re going with the continual ongoing process of dumbing down young Americans and the importation of millions of democrat voters, that alignment is almost a certainty to occur within the next decade or two.   By having our rights so well defined and enshrined in the constitution as shown above, our rights could be protected for many more decades as it would take that long for the liberals to conquer enough republican (red) states to do away with the amendment.

Both Hillary and Obama have stated multiple times that they approve of the Australian style of gun confiscation, the disarmament of the people and most lap-dog democrats will easily fall in line.

“Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not doing, we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since. 

Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country that would put up with this.”  Obama, 2014.

In defense of the D.C. gun ban, Obama stated, “just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right”!!! Can he be any clearer as to his intentions than that??????

“I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged.”  Hillary discussing the Australian gun buy back and confiscation program that disarmed the nation, last fall, 2015.

A 2013 Obama Department of Justice memo stated that –

“A gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation.” 

Obama as state senator voted twice against a bill decriminalizing the use of a handgun in self-defense in the event of a home invasion.  (In Chicago, since it was illegal to have a handgun and its use was also criminal, the bill ultimately passed over the Veto of the Governor, although it was still illegal to have on in possession in that city.) Obama is on record in favor of outlawing all handguns and semi-automatic weapons. 

What did the Australian gun ban actually accomplish?  From the website freerepublic.com, posted on January 3, 2013 we read –

“It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. 

The statistics for the years following the ban are now in: 

Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate 

The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban. 

Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate. 

From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.

 In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent” 

And the democrats want to imitate this in America!!??

The plain truth is that liberal judges will do exactly what they WANT to do.  Liberals create “rights” or strip out real ones at their leisure.  Liberals find or deny rights in the constitution after examining their crystal balls, such as murdering babies in the womb, banning God from schools and the public square, healthcare or legalizing depravity by foisting the homosexual agenda on a nation that is repulsed by it.   To liberals it doesn’t matter what the constitution says or means.  It doesn’t matter what the founders intended or what the historical context was when the laws were written.  Parsing words is their specialty.

Liberals believe the constitution to be a “living document”, meaning that the laws and liberties it guarantees vary depending on what is “good for society” at any given time, in their opinion.   The Supreme Court is far too often merely an instrument to dictate liberal preferred policy instead of dispassionately determining the constitutionality of a law or government action, based on original intent.

Our guns are safe from government restriction up to confiscation based solely on the tolerance of 5 non-elected, de facto unaccountable lawyers immersed in legal theories, on “Judges” who want to shape America to conform to their own philosophical vision, who relish the favorable praises heaped upon them by a liberal media, who believe that they are a significant part of a ruling elite that must force the nation down a liberal path to attain perfection.

The Low Information Voter

The Low Information Voter

A typical assessment of rank and file democrat voters.  I make a distinction here between the liberal “intelligentsia” who really do know what they’re doing and the common democrat who is clueless as to the true agenda of the party they are loyal to.  LIV traits appear to NOT be a function of education level or even raw intelligence, as LIVs are common among the very highly educated to the very uneducated among us, as well as penetrate all racial and religious boundaries.  An individual’s mental attitudes appears to be the main factor.  Two of these that create LIVs are as follows:

-Mental laziness of not investigating the pressing political and social issues and evaluating all sides of the debates on them.  There are a number of sources where information of all sorts can be gathered.  Television, talk radio, newspapers and other various print publications, the internet especially and the education system would be the five major sources.

-Blind loyalty to the democrat party.  The democrats are very good at inculcating brand loyalty.  They do this primarily by fear, probably the most powerful of the emotions.  This mental manipulation creates most of the LIVs, somewhere around 75 percent of them alone.  After fear is properly instilled and maintained, the LIV will tune out any other input.  The Party creates the unfounded or even real fear due to their policies, then convinces the poor LIV that only they have the answer.

Environmentalism is a potent weapon in the liberal arsenal to keep LIVs on the plantation.  Liberals hate America, they hate capitalism as a system because they can’t control it and decrying the impact on the environment by industry has proven to be a great horse for them to ride over the past few decades.  There is probably no better explanation of the radical environmental movement and its strangle hold on political leftism than one offered by Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace co-founder.  Turning away from the radicalism, though still an environmentalist, Moore has written:

“A lot of environmentalists are stuck in the 1970s and continue to promote a strain of leftish romanticism about idyllic rural village life powered by windmills and solar panels. They idealize poverty, seeing it as a noble way of life, and oppose all large developments.”

“The collapse of world communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall . . . added to the trend toward extremism. The Cold War was over and the peace movement was largely disbanded. The peace movement had been mainly Western-based and anti-American in its leanings. Many of its members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their neo-Marxist, far-left agendas.

To a considerable extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than with science or ecology. I remember visiting our Toronto office in 1985 and being surprised at how many of the new recruits were sporting army fatigues and red berets in support of the Sandinistas.”

“Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance. 

Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments. 

These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. “ 

I would refine Moore’s closing comment, that the warmist/liberal agenda is one of the greatest threats to our liberty and prosperity we face today.  As Moore also correctly observed, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the “peace movement” really didn’t have anything to do.  As America enjoyed the “peace dividend” under Clinton, as well as eight years of his democrat administration (peace-niks hardly ever take on democrats for some “odd” reason), there were simply no American military exercises (other than bombing the wrong side in Bosnia) or nuclear weapons systems for the peace-niks to attempt to undermine, as America was always its prime target.  What LIVs don’t know is that the “peace movement” which came into being during the Vietnam war was hugely financed by the Soviet Union in order to undermine the United States military.

Stanislav Lunev, was a GRU (Soviet foreign military intelligence) officer and the highest ranking GRU officer to ever defect to the United States.  In 1992 he defected to the United States, then served as a consultant to the FBI and the CIA and is now in the Witness Protection Program.  He describes in his book, “Through the Eyes of the Enemy”, GRU and KGB efforts and success at instigating and financing the peace movement that strongly and adversely affected American war efforts in Vietnam and American efforts against the Soviet Union itself.

“While the GRU instructors would not state it directly, they strongly implied that the GRU was responsible for the Vietnamese success. The GRU had a massive presence in both North and South Vietnam; their operatives worked under cover of the North Vietnamese Special Services. Our instructors also told us about how the GRU influenced the American public. The GRU and the KGB helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad. Funding was provided via undercover operatives or front organizations. These would fund another group that in turn would fund student organizations. The GRU also helped Vietnam fund its propaganda campaign as a whole.

What will be a great surprise to the American people is that the GRU and KGB had a larger budget for antiwar propaganda in the United States that it did for economic and military support of the Vietnamese. The antiwar propaganda cost the GRU more than $1 billion, but as history shows, it was a hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost. The antiwar sentiment created an incredible momentum that greatly weakened the U.S. military.” 

KGB General Oleg Kalugin has testified of his overseeing the operations to create “all sorts of congresses, peace congresses, youth congresses, festivals, womens movements, trade union movements and campaigns against U.S. Missiles in Europe, campaigns against neutron weapons and much more”. 

The “peace movement” is a generic name for liberals’ actions against the United States as it stood as the beacon of hope and light against godless communist Soviet Union aggression.  The Soviets viewed American liberals as “useful idiots”.  Many liberals would deny that their goal was to destroy the United States and favor the USSR in the cold war that existed for nearly half a century.  These liberals would simply maintain they wanted a world at peace, but primarily blamed the United States for the tension in the world.  Liberals almost always turned a blind eye to the abuses of Soviet Russia and its stated goal of conquest because liberals favored socialism or even communism over capitalism.

The Soviets saw things much differently.  They viewed the millions of liberalized young people that sprang up in America as fertile ground for recruitment into organizations that served to weaken American resolve.  The liberals of the 60’s now completely dominate the democrat party and control nearly all organs that shape opinion in America.

The communists succeeded beyond their wildest expectations as America is at, if not beyond, the tipping point predicted nearly 60 years ago by Nikita Khrushchev,

You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

Well, as it turned out the United States outlived communist Russia, and it was not solely the actions of Soviet infiltration and money that has brought us to the dark point we see today in America, but it was significant and meshed well with the other forces at work in our nation.  It would be accurate to say that the United States was assaulted by a “perfect storm”.  The religious and moral rot had already set in several decades in advance of the Soviets, which actually made the ground fertile for the seeds the Soviets ended up planting.

A nation that was in the process of rejecting God and its founding principles, a nation where progressives were attempting to lead the nation in new and radical directions had millions of citizens ready to “fall like overripe fruit” for just about any cause or “ism”, as long as it was opposed to the current structure of America and there has been no ideology so diametrically opposed to America than communism.  Today, perhaps, we could add islam to that short list which partially explains the democrat love affair with that war cult.

What America fought against nearly half a century has now coopted our largest political party.  It has elected twice a president who in his younger years was a Marxist.  Obama was clearly a Marxist, when did he ever change his mind?

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”  B.H. Obama

It’s the “cool” thing today for liberals to be not so undercover commie sympathizers, in fact they’re often very brazen about it.  How many wear Che Guevara t-shirts or hang his poster.  Che was nothing but a racist, cold blooded murdering thug who would have fit right in as commandant of a Nazi concentration camp.  A flag with Che’s face on it was photographed hanging in an Obama campaign office in Houston, TX in 2008.  Castro himself is a darling of the left, including some U.S. Congressmen.

Obama’s former White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn stated that Mao Zedong, mass murderer of 50 to 80 million of his countrymen, was one of her “favorite political philosophers”.  A little round picture of Mao was hung on Obama’s first Christmas tree in the Whitehouse.  Of course, when pressed, Obama claimed he didn’t know about it and even if we assume that’s true, what must the atmosphere of the Obama White House be like that underlings would feel quite comfortable in hanging the Mao decoration?  Jay Carney, Obama’s former White House Press Secretary has his kitchen decorated with Soviet Union propaganda posters.

Love for communism abounds in our modern liberal intelligentsia class and it doesn’t appear to be the “good” things that communism promised in theory but rather the power that the ruling elite accumulated and the means of that accumulation that interests them.  The global warming scam has proven to be their ticket to this accumulation of power. 

Western liberals have embraced this new environmental radicalism not to improve the environment, but to “cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism”.  Since 1992 with the election of Slick Willie with his side-kick Algore especially, the democrat party as a whole has almost single-mindedly pushed the global warming agenda.  This environmental religion was tailor made for their purposes.  The liberal education mills would indoctrinate the nation’s youth with the fantasy of mankind catastrophically warming the planet, the media would print or discuss the warming “scare of the day” as nearly every conceivable weather event would be portrayed as caused by the warming.

More tornados-less tornados, more hurricanes-less hurricanes, more-snow, less snow, more rain-less rain, melting ice, rising sea levels, etc, you name it, the warmists have a tall tale in their repertoire to cover every base.  With most of the science community, at least at the universities, corrupted by tax dollars to support research, in competition to see who can create the scariest scenarios of adverse climate caused by man of course, in order to grab headlines, acclaim and more of our money.  Their prophecies often contradict and there are as many “computer programs” to predict climate change as there are universities.  All of this, because there MAY have been some very slight warming for about 15 years, sandwiched in between the cooling of the ‘70’s and static global temps since the late ‘90’s.

The liberal solution to the “dangers” of “climate change” always increases government control over our lives.  All the warming movement is, is just that, a political movement and behaves much like a religion or a cult.  All of the disaffected hippies, socialists, communists and power crazed lunatics of the 1960’s and their ideological children have glommed onto the scam to advance their anti-American and anti-West agendas.

Poor LIVs just simply don’t know that

–  The “97 Percent consensus” is nothing but a fabrication.  That lie was concocted by warming cult member John Cook, researcher at the Global Change Institute, who after evaluating 12,000 peer reviewed science papers dealing with climate change published over a 20 year period from 1991 to 2011, claimed a conclusion that 97 percent of these scientists agreed that man was responsible for heating the planet.  The real truth was that only 65 papers “explicitly endorsed” the Kyoto proposition that “climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”  Instead of 97 percent, the real percentage is actually only 0.54 Percent!!!  The LIV only hears the 97 percent from democrat mouthpieces and never bother to learn the truth.

-A recent peer-reviewed paper reveals that only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers agree with the man-made global warming crisis proposition.  They join the 50 percent of meteorologists.

-There is a revolt within the community of physicists.  If there was any group of scientists I would tend to trust it would be the physicists, as “physics” underlays any scientific endeavor.  Sadly, however, the APS, the American Physical Society, like most science organizations, has been coopted by the warmers.  Noted physicist Hal Lewis had this to say about the climate scam and its effect on science and the APS,

“I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff (climategate) without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.  

In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.” 

In his letter of resignation from the APS, Dr. Lewis went on to say,

“The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’etre of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs…

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare… So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.” 

Dr. Lewis has also written-

“I think it behooves us to be careful about how we state the science. I know of nobody who denies that the Earth has been warming for thousands of years without our help (and specifically since the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago), and is most likely to continue to do so in its own sweet time. The important question is how much warming does the future hold, is it good or bad, and if bad is it too much for normal adaptation to handle. The real answer to the first is that no one knows, the real answer to the second is more likely good than bad (people and plants die from cold, not warmth), and the answer to the third is almost certainly not. And nobody doubts that CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the better part of a century, but the disobedient temperature seems not to care very much. And nobody denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with other gases like water vapor, but despite the claims of those who are profiting by this craze, no one knows whether the temperature affects the CO2 or vice versa. The weight of the evidence is the former.  

So the tragedy is that the serious questions are quantitative, and it’s easy to fool people with slogans. If you say that the Earth is warming you are telling the truth, but not the whole truth, and if you say it is due to the burning of fossil fuels you are on thin ice. If you say that the Earth is warming and therefore catastrophe lies ahead, you are pulling an ordinary bait and switch scam. If you are a demagogue, of course, these distinctions don’t bother you—you have little interest in that quaint concept called truth.

So it isn’t simple, and the catastrophe mongers are playing a very lucrative game.” 

Dr. Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, of MIT calls the global warming “crisis” a religion saying, “Global Warming has become a religion.  A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.”

In 2009, 67 prominent German scientists and 189 interested experts submitted a letter to Angela Merkel asking her to reconsider her beliefs in the man-made global warming scam and turn from her present course that was endangering German survival as a prosperous industrialized nation writing in part –

“…Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.  

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. 

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.

More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility… 

In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately, in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.” 

The above is just a tiny fraction of all the news and information you’ll never hear from the sources used by LIVs, that’s why they’re LIVs.

Yet liberals, intent on keeping their sheep in the fold use the warming religion to advance their agenda.“I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing,” Obama said. “And that’s why, today, I’m announcing a new national climate action plan, and I’m here to enlist your generation’s help in keeping the United States of America a leader – a global leader – in the fight against climate change.”  Obama, 2013.

“This is not just a problem for countries on the coast or for certain regions of the world. Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune.  So I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.” Obama, May, 2015.

“When it comes to climate change that hour is almost upon us…In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity.”  Obama, December, 2015 at the global warming confab in Paris, France.

The data is unforgiving…No matter what the deniers try to assert. Sea levels are rising. Ice caps are melting. Storms, droughts and wildfires are wreaking havoc…The threat is real but so is the opportunity,” Hillary, 2014.

Global warming is “the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world.”  Clinton, 2015.

Whether by the warming scam, income inequality (the abnormal and dangerous inequality caused primarily by them), moral issues or any of the other many liberal caused problems, our domestic enemies never sleep.  While productive patriotic Americans go about their busy lives working, rearing children and minding their own business, liberals work 24/7 to undermine our nation.

If liberals could, they would just get all of this “nonsense of democratic voting” over with and with a putsch, assume dictatorial control over our lives.  But they know they can’t get away with that, so they just keep chipping away by dumbing down and frightening the indigenous and importing more and more voters.  Keeping their Low Information Voters on the plantation and having their education mills and media create even more is critical to their success of undermining and conquering our nation.

Liberals Always After our Guns 15 December 2015

One of the ultimate and pressing goals of our domestic enemies, liberals (democrats) is to disarm the American people.  As is virtually always the case, liberals create the problem, then the first thing they do is attack conservatism, attack our fundamental God-given rights, then demand more power and control over our lives.

Let’s look at some recent headlines of the liberals’ call for our disarmament.

“Obama Uses Facebook to Push Gun Control”

“Obama Criticizes Congress on Gun Control Failings”

“Obama Renews Gun Control Push”

Ok, enough about Obama, we all know he’s the NRA’s number one gun saleman.

Let’s look at Obama’s mini-me, Hillary Clinton

“Hillary Clinton Says Opponents of Gun control laws Terrorize Americans”

One is enough from this criminal who’s been running to stay one step ahead of the law for decades.

We’ll list one last headline, a real laugher,

“Top Constitutional Lawyers Explain What the Second Amendment Really Says About Gun Control”  (naturally that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say what it says)

For liberal lawyers and judges today to claim that the 2nd Amendment was not intended to protect our rights (uninfringed) to own firearms is laughable for those of us who can read. The Supreme Court is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and given the following jurisdiction: Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;

-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;

-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;

-to Controversies between two or more States;

-between a State and Citizens of another State;

-between Citizens of different States;

-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Hmmmm, you scratch your head looking for the vast powers it exercises today. “So, this goof, left out that part”, you say to yourself. No, my friends, that’s all there is.  Our founders never intended for an oligarchy of moron judges to control our nation, especially our social policies.  Sadly, it jumped off the tracks quickly, as the court usurped its right of “judicial review” of federal law rather quickly, in 1794, then the most famous case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. Then they never stopped because no one stopped them, much to our everlasting regret today.

Thomas Jefferson observed in 1823, “At the establishment of our constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.”

Interestingly it was only in modern times that the floodgate opened for the Supreme Court to rule on state law, with the 1954 Brown vs. board of education.  Only a couple and more minor trampling of states rights and law had occurred prior to that point.  Now, it seems so natural that we don’t even give it a second thought, but our “supreme court” today is nothing but an extra-constitutional totalitarian institution that controls so much of our lives.

As far as what the second amendment truly means, once again if you can read, its meaning is readily apparent.  Liberals belong to what they believe is an exclusive upper caste of intellectuals who we commoners must rely on.  Our founders wrote a very simple to understand founding document (ok, at the time, I realize late 18th century English can be a bit laborious).

What would liberals think of their beloved first Amendment if it read thusly: “Freedom of speech, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed.”

Their only argument in the 2nd amendment as written is the militia means a state sanctioned military organization.  Did the authors of the amendment mean that?  Prior to the constitution and the addition of the bill of rights, the colonists viewed the God-given right of private gun ownership, among other reasons, as providing a “natural right of self defense”.

All of the early state constitutions had nearly identical wording as “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state”.  When the bill of rights was ratified, that was the background and intent of our 2nd Amendment.

As Alexander Hamilton explained, “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

As Noah Webster observed, “Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in 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 band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”

As George Mason observed, “to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them …Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”

James Monroe said is was a basic “human right” for the people to “keep and bear arms”.

Samuel Adams, “Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…”

I could go on forever. Only a complete liar claims contrary to what those who fashioned our country meant.  Not a single one of our founders envisioned the people being disarmed, they all held the European powers in derision for disarming their citizens.  So, I can take the word of our modern day scoundrels masquerading as constitutional scholars or I can side with those that actually wrote and ratified our constitution.

These modern day preening fools act as if only after consulting horse livers or digging up ancient runes from the desert can we understand our constitution.  And we wonder why our country is going to hell in a hand basket as liberals slowly squeeze the life out of us.

DO WE NEED A REVOLUTION?

Revolution – a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system – conjures up images of a banana republic where the “strongman” overthrows the existing government at the end of a gun and institutes totalitarian control over the hapless nation.  Revolution in the United States brings to our remembrance our own “Revolutionary War” where we did, indeed forcibly overthrow the British government and instituted ultimately our constitutional republic that served our nation very well for nearly two centuries, with a hiccup or two along the way.

So, why do we need a revolution now?  Are we at the critical crossroad that a forcible overthrow of our government is required?  Aren’t we still the United States of America, still a constitutional republic?  Well, are we?  Is our government as currently constituted the government our founders envisioned and put in place?  Is our social order of the kind that served our nation very well for most of its history?  If your answer is NO to both of those questions, then what options do we have to return to what we once were?  We have only two choices, we can either change through the ballot box or through a forced change by unconventional political means.

There is a battle that has raged for some time in our nation, a battle that traditional Americans at first scoffed at, then gradually began to understand as all that made this nation great has been witnessed to have been stripped away, one plank at a time.

Pat Buchanan warned of the war that has been thrust upon us by those who want to transform America during his 1992 Republican National Convention speech when he said,

“Friends, this election is about more than who gets what.  It is about who we are.  It is about what we believe and what we stand for as Americans.  There is a religious war going on in this country.  It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as the Cold War itself.  For this is war is for the soul of America.”

As you may recall if you’re old enough, Mr. Buchanan was roundly scoffed at by democrats, their media and the republican establishment types.  They viewed as foolishness, Mr. Buchanan’s assertion that a “war” of this sort raged within our borders.  Now, nearly a quarter century later, recreational drug use is legal in two states, sodomy has been legalized and of course recently the “right” to marry has been granted to homosexuals by Supreme Court diktat, while Christianity, the founding ethos of our nation is increasingly being criminalized.

This and subsequent writings really aren’t intended to address silly liberal arguments intended to appeal to their cult followers.  This site is not a racist sight.  Great Americans of all races and persuasions do participate in what I call traditional America and are as offended as I am at what our nation is quickly becoming.  Yes, many of our founding fathers were slave owners.  Slavery was a very common practice in all corners of the world.  The serious minded knows that it was almost exclusively British and American Christians that led the battle against the scourge of slavery which finally ended it in the civilized west.

Yes, we concede that our United States Constitution allowed for slavery and yes, African slaves were only counted as 3/5ths of a person which liberals would deceptively claim meant that they were something less than human.  However, the serious and truthful mind knows that fraction was intended to limit the total population of the slave holding states and thus reduce their number of congressmen.  It was intended NOT to allow more political power to reside in the slave states unfairly, simply off the backs of their slaves.  Yes, we concede that the democrat party was the party of slavery and the lighter but still ugly subjugation of the African population following the Civil War for nearly a century until various infringements on their rights as citizens were finally abolished a half century ago.

The United States is not heaven, it has always been populated by fallible men, but men like the world has never known before in such a concentration in one place.  Men that had a vision to create something very unique, something very powerful as it unleased the unlimited potential of humanity in an environment of freedom and peace under the morally straight structure of Christianity.  For all of its real and imagined flaws, nothing has ever existed in the annals of history like the United States of America.  Liberals destroy it at their peril and the peril of the whole world itself.

It was Robert H. Jackson who said,

“whenever we reproach our own imperfections, as we ought often to do, we must not forget that our shortcomings are visible only when measured against our ideals, never when put beside the practical living conditions of the rest of the world. We have by Constitution, by legislation, and by judicial decision translated the Declaration out of the language of abstract philosophy into the idiom of everyday living. We have validated democratic principles by our success.”

Is there a need at this moment in time to radically alter the present course of our nation?  Those who have their eyes open, I believe, will say yes.  Following chapters will present the case that drastic measures are now needed before the grand experiment known as the United States of America comes to an end.  The clock is striking midnight and the bell has pealed out 11 tolls of the 12 already.