Fisking Obama Speech — Times Have Changed And So Must Americans

“Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise, our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, these are constants in our character.

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias.”

Obama Inauguration Speech — 2013

1.) Times have changed and as such we have to finally relinquish our skepticism of central authority and now embrace the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.

2.) Collective action can only be achieved through the State. So the State, accruing increasing power to itself, will make sure that individual freedoms will be preserved. Yeah, and fire can only be provide warmth as water is poured all over it.

3.) The ideas of individual freedom, initiative, and personal responsibility in today’s world is as old fashioned as fighting the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militia.

Note the irony of the appeal to give up individual freedom in order to organize collectively in the context of fighting against collectivism. We must become collectivist just like those evil collectivist that we defeated long ago.

Ask Dan Brannan — A Christian Response To a Christian Gun Control Enthusiast


So where do you draw the line? Should I have the right to own a shoulder mounted surface to air missile? A jet bomber? a nuclear warhead? Do you think if Thomas Jefferson could have seen the damage a fully automatic UZI could inflict on a crowded cafe that he would have still supported the 2nd amendment in its present form? Or better yet been in favor to modify it. These are the argument that are going to come up not stupidity like this flyer.

Dear Jack,

First, that entire line of reasoning assumes that certain classes of weapons are for the the government alone and that the gov’t is inherently more responsible than the freeholder, or citizen. This would, by definition, be Statism – the bedrock of tyranny – precisely the sort of delusions the founders sought to restrain at all costs. As it turns out, the history of the 20th century fully vindicated the founders’ conviction by the fact that governments have proven far more lethally erratic than the average man. Those who allocate, amass, or support inordinate concentrations of power in Government hands are the danger, not the weapons. Government and the state-worshiping mindset are simply too dangerous to allow them a monopoly on force and violence. That is the entire ethic behind the Lord of The Rings: no one can safely wield that concentration of power – least of all they who in their pride, believe otherwise. All men need checks on their power, and the government more than anyone. And that is precisely the intent behind the 2nd amendment – an authority inherent in the people to restrain or overthrow a runaway government for their own defense.

So the limiting principle for the average man’s armament is packed into the the rationale of 2nd amendment itself – while citizens’ right of self-defense may not be infringed, it is apparent that indiscriminate weapons such as nuclear bombs are safe for men neither in nor out of government. In order not to infringe upon people’s right of self-defense non-discriminant weapons like weaponized viruses and nukes are illegal to all, citizens and congressmen. There is no practical use for such items in anyone’s possession; they protect no one and merely endanger everyone.

But yes, tanks, RPGs, and uzis are rightful parts of an American’s armory precisely because they are the weapons needed to suppress state tyranny. And anyone who says otherwise is promoting an ideology far more dangerous than any uzi.

As Christians, we live by Christ law, not the whim of men.

Communist Manifesto Plank # 4 & Amerika.

“Relax, ” said the night man,
“We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! ”

Hotel California

Communist Manifesto

Plank #4 — Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Let’s assume that you live in a State with a onerous tax burden. Further let’s assume that the legislators of the State that you live in don’t want to see you leave without paying your “fair” share of the said State’s tax burden? I mean, after all, you can’t escape any other debt just by moving across state lines. Why should you be able to escape what you owe to the state in terms of your share for the State debt simply by moving to another state?

States are in a desperate straight for for revenue and it just doesn’t make any sense for states to allow their producers and taxpayers to leave the state (California — a particularly troubled death spiral state — averages 200,000 citizen departures annually) with the consequence that only the takers remain? After all, where do citizens get off thinking that they have the liberty to protect their money by moving to States where the tax bite is less painful?

The idea to tax departing citizens is not new but is merely an application of the 4th plank of the Communist manifesto. Both Stalin and Hitler didn’t allow people to leave their friendly boundaries without first fleecing them of most of their money. I mean, it is reasonable that if the State has cared for you, educated you, and made you the person you are, that you owe them a significant amount of your property should they decide to allow you to leave their gentle ministrations, right? Is it really so onerous to pony up a exit fee for moving across State borders when one already has to pony up a exit fee to the state when one moves across the borders from life to death. I mean if we are going to pay estate and inheritance taxes what is the big deal about paying moving taxes?

Of course another way to make sure that States don’t lose valued cash cows is to go all East Germany and place a barbed wire fence around the borders. The only problem with that is if states like California placed a barbed wire fence around their borders to keep tax-payers in, how could illegal aliens ever creep in order to profit as recipients of tax payer largess? Don’t you just hate the conundrum that progressive State legislators have to resolve? I guess that is why they get paid the big money.

Keep in mind as we advance the idea that States need to implement a expatriate shake down er, I mean, tax, that states would merely be following the example of the FEDS who already practice such a shake down. Currently the FEDS seize the monies of emigrants through the means of capital gains tax that includes taxation on unrealized gains, across all their holdings marked to market as of the day of their departure. However, we mustn’t stop there. Currently expatriates are responsible for gift taxes on amounts above $12,000 a year given to anyone in the U.S., for the rest of their lives, even though they are no longer citizens themselves. SCOTUS has no problem with this.

Somewhere Marx is gloating.

Look, those few of us who are awake need to start admitting some hard truths to ourselves if we haven’t already.

1.) This is not your Founding Father’s America
2.) If we are not a Marxist nation we at least have a Marxist Government
3.) Protesting against this Marxist treatment will eventually find the protester receiving Marxist Gulag treatment
4.) Both Democrats and Republicans alike are all Jacobins. The difference is merely one of degree
5.) There is no sense in trying to wrap this social order in any kind of Christian garb. We are a anti-Christ State.

Of course, one could always just embrace R2K theology and just completely ignore this anti-Christ social order.

Hat Tip — Bill Frezza

Small Thoughts On The Second 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.”

Often people will talk about the original intent of those who assembled and approved of the US Constitution. There is value in doing that to be sure, but the real place we should look as to original intent is to the ratifying State Constitutional conventions. It was those who ratified the Constitution, state by state, who need to be consulted as to what they understood the intent of the Constitution was as they voted for ratification.

On the issue of the 2nd amendment we have some insight into the original intent of those who ratified the US Constitution. This is important to note because there remains yet a species of thought that suggests that the 2nd amendment only refers to the state militias as state militias. Upon this reading the 2nd amendment insures that state militias have the right to keep and bear arms. This understanding insists that the 2nd amendment was never intended to speak to whether or not individual citizens, unattached from state militias, had a right to keep and bear arms.

However, that such a reading is specious can be seen by the ratifying State conventions. To summarize the state ratification process, three states, New York, New Hampshire, and Virginia, ratified the Constitution while expressing their understanding that the people had a right to bear arms and that Congress would never disarm law abiding citizens. Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, refused to ratify until individual rights, including the people’s right to keep and bear arms, were recognized by amendments. In Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, an effort was made to amend or condition ratification on amendment to include, among others, the right to keep and bear arms. Efforts to amend were defeated but not on the merits. There is no evidence from any state convention that any speaker suggested that the proposed Constitution would permit disarming the public.

Eventually, the Federalists agreed to pacify Anti-federalists concerns regarding the Constitution by agreeing to add a “Bill of Rights” immediate upon ratification of the US Constitution. What is interesting to note is that there was some concern regarding adding a “Bill of Rights.” Some of the ratifiers were concerned that as there were many more God given rights then could possibly be enumerated in a document, what could be implied is that those Rights which were not enumerated would not be seen as Rights. This concern was satisfied with the 9th amendment. Second, there was concern that such a Bill of Rights would be redundant since the Constitution was already a negative document that gave very prescribed and limited powers to the Federal Government. Why say again what the Federal Government could not do when it has already been detailed as to what alone the Government could do? Also, there was concern articulated that in passing a Bill of Rights it could be perceived that the Government was the one giving these Rights as opposed to merely affirming that the Rights were God given (inalienable) and could not be touched by any Government.

And this brings us back to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is a reflection of a long history of the rights of Englishmen and at the time was but the latest instantiation of a equally long history of English law and tradition on the matter. Englishmen had, for centuries, the God given Right to armed self defense. The idea that the original intent of the ratifiers of the Bill of Rights was only to protect State militias as State militias is laughable.

The Federal Government can do all they like to eviscerate the 2nd amendment but whatever they do in that regard is meaningless and would, at best, yield up a illegal legality. The Federal Government did not create the inalienable Right to keep and bear arms and so the Federal Government can not take away, diminish, or void, the inalienable Right for individual citizens to keep and bear arms.

It should be a sobering fact that throughout history the prelude to the successful usurpations of Dictators and Tyrants has often been the seizing from the citizenry of their only hope of successful defense against eventual enslavement. Wise people have always known that the confiscation of their arms is the confiscation of their liberty.

God created all men equal. Sam Colt kept them that way.

You Can Run Out Of Money For People, Or, You Can Run Out Of People For Money

“Speaking to USA Today about deficits, Horney explained why Social Security should not be counted as part of the U.S. budget deficit. It shouldn’t because Congress can alter its liabilities by reducing benefits or raising taxes. Or, as Horney more bluntly put it, ‘Retirement programs are not legal obligations.’”

Ever since I was a boy I’ve heard people say that, “you’ll never get out of Social Security what you put into it,” and, “Social Security will go bankrupt before you’re old enough to collect it.” Now, every so often the FEDS will assure us that, “Social Security will be there for us when we retire,” thus trying to alleviate concern among people that eventually the FEDS will act on the fact that it really is the case that “Retirement programs are not legal obligations.” However, there is another way for the FEDS to live up to their Social Security obligations. The FEDS can either reduce the money going out to the people, or they can reduce the people receiving the money.

And here is where the Death Panels in Obama-care come into play in my estimation. The Death Panels (call them what you will, but I believe they are death panels regardless of the euphemism that anyone applies) could work to take the pressure off the of Federal Social Security responsibility by making sure that people don’t live long enough to milk the Social Security pay out.

Already apparatchiks are calling for Death Panels as seen in a recent New York Times Editorial,

“We need Death Panels.

Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.

You see, one way to get a handle on the fallout from the Ponzi Scheme that is both Social Security and Medicare is for the FEDS to pull a “Logan’s Run.”

Of course we can’t fault the FEDS completely. We’ve brought this time of reckoning upon ourselves by allowing these Socialist redistributionists programs to ever see the light of day. Our Grandparents and Parents sowed the wind by allowing this Socialism to go forward and now we are reaping the whirlwind of their bad decisions.