Google Custom Search

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Musings After Midnight--A war-less, bloodless coup is still a coup, and we have been seized

Good evening, dear reader, and welcome to another episode of my infamous "Musings After Midnight" during which I ruminate and cogitate over the state of the country, usually on sleepless nights well after midnight.

I invite you to participate in these exercises with me for the purpose of fostering fellowship and goodwill among like minded people who share my alarm over the state and direction of the nation. We are very much in this together, and we need to know that we are not alone in the battle.

I happen to know that there are millions of us out there who are not only deeply alarmed about what we face at this dire hour but who are contemplating what they wish to do about it.

And so, here we are -- a place where we can gather to give deep and careful consideration to these matters of extreme importance.

This is why I invite you to warm yourself by the virtual fire and avail yourself of warming beverages, virtual of course. But in this age of the Internet, virtual reality often closely mirrors real life, and indeed, what we experience online can be ultimate "real life," provided it is grounded in what's real rather than fantasy.

It has been cold here in the mountains and Piedmont of the Carolinas, and many areas have snow on the ground. So it's a good time to gather and ponder.

My subject today may come as no surprise or news to many of you. Those who regularly visit these pages tend to be the most well informed citizens in America. And thus, you know as well as I do that in spite of all of our talk of staving off a coup by forces that neither recognize nor value the final authority of the Constitution as the ultimate rule of law in this land, in a very real sense we have already been seized in a war-less, bloodless coup.

No shots were fired. No one was killed. No army tanks rolled in the streets. No one announced from loud speakers that we were being taken over by a malevolent force. Yet the coup is every bit as real as if these things had happened.

The election of Barack Obama in 2008 and his subsequent reelection in 2012 is the culmination of that coup that has been in the making for nearly 50 years. None of this happened overnight. It wasn't as if suddenly out of the blue over 50 percent of our fellow citizens decided on a whim that they were going to discard the founding principles and put into office a man who represents something our Founders detested. The forces of evil that perpetrated this coup have been working tirelessly, relentlessly behind the scenes for nearly 50 years to get the country to this point.

There is some disagreement as to when the coup actually began. But this is, in the final analysis, irrelevant. Several factors were at play from the beginning, all happening simultaneously. The nitpickers can argue over which occurred first. But the fact remains that all of these circumstances came together at roughly the same time to form the foundation of the coup that would culminate nearly 50 years later.

One of these factors is the disintegration of the American system of education, both at the primary and secondary level, and at the higher level in academia. After World War II, a distinct change began taking place in education that would forever change the thinking of generations of young Americans. No longer was the United States viewed in the classroom as a force for good but as a symbol of evil. Marxism was hailed as the ultimate force of good. Religion was no longer viewed as an essential adjunct in the development of decent, well rounded citizens. Rather, religion was held up to disdain, a force of oppression that must be eradicated through ridicule, dismissal, and neglect. And American exceptionalism was no longer taught but a subtle, sometimes overt, notion that other cultures and nations were somehow superior to our belief that America was the ultimate pinnacle of freedom and prosperity in the world took hold in the classroom that led to an outright hatred for America by the 1960s, a hatred so deep that professors such as Bill Ayers, close friend and financier of Barack Obama, was bombing federal buildings and urging teenagers to kill their parents.

Closely related to this development was the advent of what has become known as America's "collective guilt" regarding racial discrimination in the past. Somehow white people today are supposed to take on the blame for what others did centuries ago, leading to displays of such overreach as to be laughable, such as the feeling that we need to make financial "reparations" to people of minority races for what our ancestors did to their ancestors, although none of us living today had one thing to do with any of it. And I am deeply convinced that the apparent compulsion of many liberal whites to vote for Barack Obama, against their better judgment, stems directly from this "white collective guilt" that has been foisted on them by an educational system that is stacked in favor of minorities and those who hate America.

At the same time these events were occurring, an alarming fact became known to American liberals in the Democratic Party that led to a proactive change in a key area of American life. During the late 50s and into the 60s the powers that be in the liberal/progressive intelligentsia began to notice that Democrats were showing signs of weakness, even as Lyndon Johnson enjoyed skyrocketing approval numbers and Democrats practically owned both houses of Congress with overwhelming majorities. Some cracks were seen developing in the walls. And the harsh truth became clear -- unless the Democratic Party found a way to expand its base in the future it would be relegated to permanent minority party status.

Why? Because whites were abandoning the Party in droves. My own grandfather, for example, had been a lifelong Democrat, a union member. But the 60s forced him to change his thinking. He began to feel as if he no longer recognized the Party to which he had long professed unquestioned loyalty. By 1980 he told me that he was voting for Ronald Reagan. He said, "I did not change. They did. They left me behind."

Such was the thinking of millions of citizens who would come to be known as "Reagan Democrats."

Some within the Democratic Party foresaw what was coming as far back as the 1960s. Lyndon Johnson was one of them. Thus, Johnson made a major, far-reaching change in the immigration policy of the United States.

Liberals were losing whites. The already had 98 percent of the blacks in their pockets. There was no group left from which to draw, unless they could devise a strategy for producing a new minority group that could help propel them to majority status. But such a thing would mean they would have to go outside the country.

This they did. Johnson changed the formula for who was allowed to immigrate to the United States. Until the 1960s immigration and naturalization had favored Europeans. After the Johnson change, the formula would favor Hispanics and limits would be placed on the number of Europeans allowed to immigrate and become naturalized.

I distinctly remember when the change took place even as a school boy. When I came through elementary school the foreign language everyone was required to learn was French. But by the time I reached junior high and high school, the preferred second language had shifted to Spanish.

When I inquired as to the reason for the change, I was told by an educator that students were encouraged to learn Spanish because of "all of the new Hispanic immigrants coming into the country."

Now, I have no problem whatsoever with Hispanics, or Latinos, or others from the Spanish speaking world. But at the time U.S. policy shifted toward them, the reason was purely political. They were being used as pawns for someone's ulterior political motives, namely, liberals and Democrats. At the time, such persons were impoverished, much more so than Europeans. And thus, they were tailor made for American politicians who pandered to such persons, promising them everything from low cost housing, free medical care, free public education for their children, all at taxpayer expense.

In short, the Democrats figured out that they could buy the votes, bribe Hispanics into being Democrats for life.

In time, this proved invaluable. The Democrats put together a coalition of minority groups -- blacks, Hispanics, radical feminists, anti-capitalists, pro-union Marxists, dependents who are addicted to big government programs, etc., enough to beat Republicans who still rely on whites to win elections.

Liberal Democrat demagogue Sam Donaldson, who masquerades as a journalist, told Chris Matthews last week that he got angry over Tea Party assertions that they "wished to take their country back." "Well," he said, "It is not your country any more. It is our country." He then went on to recount how the Democrats put together a coalition of minorities, denoting major "changes" in America over the past 20 years.

Everyone who sat on Matthews' panel at MSNBC that day nodded their heads approvingly of Donaldson's remarks.

Now, to a degree he is right. But not entirely. Things have, indeed, changed to the point to where a politician can demagogue his way to office by pandering to a half dozen or so minority groups--just enough to squeak out a win. But what Donaldson curiously failed to say was that it is only when Democrats succeed in getting all minorities on the same page can they win.

Had only 2 percent or so of the Hispanic vote gone the other way to Romney, for example, then the outcome of the presidential election would have been very different. That is a razor thin margin and points to the fragility of the minority coalition the liberals have managed to put together.

Many pundits have mused that had Romney simply gone directly to the Hispanic community and noted how their values and ours are one and the same, and pointed out the reasons why American taxpayers do not support endless giveaway programs but wish to help the poor become self-sufficient, he could have won enough Hispanic votes to put him over the top. George W. Bush was able to do so, for example. And contrary to conventional wisdom, it is not the immigration issue that turns Hispanics against Republicans and conservatives. Legitimate Hispanic citizens who came here legally and went through the lawful process of being naturalized have just as much resentment toward lawbreakers from Mexico who seek to get ahead of the line illegally as do American taxpayers.

Thus, there are ways to get Hispanics on board with us.

But as it stands now, Hispanic citizens who voted for Obama have been duped by political opportunists who do not care about them at all but see them only as pawns in a political game. And they have inadvertently participated in a coup, a takeover of the American system of government that has rendered our Constitution meaningless.

I do not believe most Hispanics want that kind of society. But in order to change it, they must be made of aware of what has happened and how they played a role. Many whites also played a role.

And now that the coup has been completed, the real agenda of the progressive minions has come to the forefront. It is not gun control they want but gun CONFISCATION. It is not "reasonable restrictions" they want but outright gun BANS. They do not want to leave law abiding citizens alone but wish to fingerprint and register us if we want to own certain types of firearms.

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do they not get? The fact is, they get it, and they are going to violate it. And this is my whole point. These people have a deep, abiding disdain for the Constitution and the rights guaranteed therein. And they WILL disregard our rights.

This is lawless, bloodthirsty tyranny of the worst sort, my friends. Our Founders would not be shooting right now. The shooting would be long over and done. And Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Franklin, and Adams would either have the perpetrators in prison, or they would have them swinging from the nearest trees.

What we are facing right now in America is the proverbial line in the sand. Are we going to let them confiscate firearms as they did in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, or Communist China? Are we going to allow ourselves to be fingerprinted and registered?

I say no.

So what are they doing to do? Arrest us all?

And if they send army tanks down the middle of the streets to quell an uprising of citizens, are they going to blow the heads off of the lone citizens who, as did the courageous anti-Communist Chinese students in Tienanmen Square, stand in front of the tanks and dare them to shoot?

And if you happen to be a anti-gun bigot, a gun control nut, reading this right now, let me be as clear as I can possibly be to you. We will never disarm. You are not getting our guns, period. We will resist. We will fight you to the death. You will have to kill us before you get one single concession of liberty guaranteed to us by our Founders.

Are you willing to do that? Are you ready for the fallout? If you and your jackbooted government hit squads fire on us first, it is "Katy, bar the door." All bets are off, and it will be war in the streets. Are you ready for such blood shed all because you want our guns?

We are not going to start a war. We have vowed that many times. We will never fire first. But if you fire on us, we will finish what you start. You had better be ready before you start down that path.

This is about much more than guns. This is about Constitutional rights as a whole. We will not stop until we take back what you have robbed from us. We WILL restore Constitutional law in this nation one way or another. THAT is a promise.

And woe be unto you who defy our Constitution. You are a traitor and a tyrant. And that Constitution spells out in no uncertain terms the legal recourse that is to be carried out against all of those who defy that Constitution.

You had best think through your position and come to a more reasonable conclusion.

Odd twist to Rochester firefighter murders raises questions

Police in Rochester, N.Y. are reporting today an odd twist to the murders of two firefighters responding to a fire set by William Spengler of Webster, who had set the fires to lure the first responders into an ambush.

Spengler used a semiautomatic weapon and a shotgun to open fire on the firefighters, killing two and wounding three.

But on Friday the Examiner was provided with information showing that Spengler,  who was legally barred from purchasing firearms due to prior crime convictions, received the weapons from a neighbor.

Click here to continue reading at Anthony G. Martin's National Conservative Examiner.

Friday, December 28, 2012

The 2A News Roundup--Top Ten for Fri., Dec. 28, 2012

All guns and politics from the best gun rights and liberty bloggers on the Internet.

David Codrea reports that a writer for the El Paso Times has provided false statistics about the number of guns used in crimes that can be traced back to U.S. sources.

Mike Vanderboegh makes the excellent observation that citizens need high capacity magazines and high powered firearms PRECISELY because the military has them. That was the whole point when the Founders made sure the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. They had to be capable of fighting off armies of tyrannical governments, even our own.

Kurt Hofmann has the story of a local police chief who rejects the notion of gun control as a means of lowering crime.

WRSA provides an excellent read on civilian control of the armed forces.

Karl Denninger declares that both Democrats AND Republicans need to be imprisoned. That may be true, but let's start with the DEMS. Harry Reid in the Senate has defied the Constitution for four straight years in refusing to submit a budget proposal, which is MANDATED by the Constitution. When violations such as these result in prison terms, things will change. But until then, we have a lawless government I call Crime, Inc.

Way Up North says that America was founded by "tough hell raisers." True. And we need them again today. That means us!

Tam blogs on reasoning with the anti-gunners. And while I can fully agree on principle, in terms of practicality I know there are many who cannot be reasoned with due to their limited brains and the brainwashing they have successfully undergone from Day One of their pointless little lives. So, what do we do about them? These imbeciles vote!

Days of our Trailers notes that while the goldbrick Hollywood elites make their money by glorifying firearms and violence, they go on rampages in their private lives against guns. Hypocrisy, anyone?

Alphecca wonders if sugar will be the next tobacco when it comes to the sticky hands and fingers of the nanny state goblins who can't wait to find something else to regulate and prevent us feebleminded numbskulls from getting our ignorant hands on.

Pamela Geller reports that CAIR-HAMAS is protesting the exclusion of a Muslim cleric from entry into the country who called for Christians to have their throats slit and their skulls crushed. Just more normal goodness from the "religion of peace."

Happy New Year, everyone! Sorry if I don't share the optimism of some conservatives about what is ahead. I honestly believe much sorrow, weeping, and gnashing of teeth are ahead in 2013. The truth is the truth, and I refuse to engage in false optimism. The best thing I can tell you to do is pray like you've never prayed before, and make sure you are prepared. It's coming whether you want to think about it or not.

New York Gov. Cuomo supports gun confiscation

Laura Ingraham, who was filling in for the vacationing Bill O'Reilly Thursday on Fox News' The Factor, stated that elected politicians are now openly using the term gun confiscation to describe their intent regarding new gun control, and the Democratic governor of New York is one of them.

Ingraham noted that new proposals for gun control have gone far beyond a mere renewal of the assault weapons ban of the Clinton era during the 1990s...

Click here to continue reading at Anthony G. Martin's National Conservative Examiner.

Thursday, December 27, 2012

The 2A News Roundup--Top Ten for Thurs., Dec. 27, 2012

All guns and politics from the best gun rights and liberty bloggers on the Internet.

Mike McCarville provides some "coffee talk" concerning the hot water NBC's David Gregory is in due to his disregard for Washington, D.C.'s strict gun control laws.

Roberta X alerts us to more tomfoolery on the part of the NRA in claiming a Democrat in Indiana was an A+ gun rights supporter. Uh, make that not so much. Anyone surprised?

Billy Beck makes a VERY important point about the claim that the guns the Second Amendment originally "allowed" were weak. But, as intelligent people know, AT THE TIME they were cutting edge, the most powerful on earth. Take a look!

CLO has an example of "stuck on stupid" defined.

GunRights4US says there are so many ways to hurt and kill people besides using guns.

Traction Control notes that Utah teachers are flocking to get firearms training!

The Wandering Minstrel points to the root cause of mass killings.

Nicki offers commentary on the move to get Piers Morgan deported.

Mike Vanderboegh highlights the fact that, unbelievably, reporters actually appear oblivious to the fact that public information works both ways...even against THEM! Go figure.

David Codrea reports that the D.C. police chief and the ATF head want to know who authorized NBC's David Gregory to violate the D.C. magazine ban.

Feinstein's bill targets handguns, prompts talk of civil war

The Drudge Report headline today in large letters proclaims, "Civil War: Senate to Go for Handguns." Drudge then links to the website of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who has spearheaded the new bill that she plans to introduce in the 2013 session of Congress.

In the proposed law are several sections that refer specifically to handguns, not just the so called assault weapons that shooter used to conduct his massacre in Newtown, Conn. in which 20 children and six adults were killed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Click here to continue reading at Anthony G. Martin's National Conservative Examiner.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

The 2A News Roundup--Top Ten for Wed., Dec. 26, 2012

All guns and politics from the best gun rights and liberty bloggers on the Internet.

Kurt Hofmann says that Feinstein's proposed gun control law is actually the same thing as gun confiscation. Exactly. One day you are legal. The next you will be a criminal if this passes...unless you turn over your prohibited firearm. No weapon will be "grandfathered" in.

Mike Vanderboegh declares it's a slippery slope to allow mental health professionals and politicians decide who is too crazy to own a firearm.

The War on Guns highlights the verbal droppings of a wack-job in Ohio on the subject of guns.

WRSA sends out the warning alarm. The full scale operation to disarm the public has begun. What will YOU do???

Karl Denninger has the inside scoop on what's ahead in the economy, and it's bad. The Christmas shopping season turned out to be a dud. Everything is DOWN.

Way Up North provides a post-Christmas report from way up in Alaska.

John Jacob H posts a tribute upon the death of 2nd Amendment icon Colonel Jim Jeffries.

Tam has some interesting info on gun sales.

Days of our Trailers says that "the hatefest continues" toward gun owners.

Pamela Geller notes how Islam conducts its violence against women unabated by liberals, the United Nations, and other progressives who always insist on "human rights"...EXCEPT when it applies to Muslims.

New York newspaper publishes list of gun owners, depicting trend

A New York newspaper is drawing the ire of its readers in light of what is tantamount to a decision to publish the names of gun owners in its local reading area, according to a report Tuesday at Fox News.

The Journal News published an interactive map that allows readers to find the names and addresses of all gun owners within the geographic area of their residence in Westchester and Rockland counties.

But by Tuesday the decision to publish the information, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, had set off a firestorm of controversy among the newspaper's readers. Letters to the paper blasted the publication of the map. One writer stated that the newspaper had inadvertently announced to criminals which homes had no guns and were therefore the most vulnerable to burglaries and home invasions.

Click here to continue reading at Anthony G. Martin's National Conservative Examiner.

Monday, December 24, 2012

Merry Christmas!

To all of my dear faithful readers, have a very Merry Christmas!

Here is my gift to you for this Christmas. This is what Christmas is all about, beautifully rendered by the late, great Perry Como.  Enjoy...

Gun statistics cast doubt on weapons ban

During the period of what has become known as the Clinton assault weapons ban of the 1990s, mass shootings rose, according to a special report today at the Fox News website.

The ban, enacted in 1994, made illegal what is known as assault weapons, although gun experts say that the name is misleading. The weapons are actually nothing more than rifles that are semiautomatic and fire rounds from large capacity magazines. These guns are not military-style weapons nor machine guns as reporters in the media and anti-gun politicians often erroneously claim.

Click here to continue reading at Anthony G. Martin's National Conservative Examiner.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Treacherous waters ahead for gun control advocates

Writing in an op-ed piece for the Washington Post Saturday, Scott Higham, Sari Horwitz, David S. Fallis, and Joel Achenback stated that treacherous waters lie ahead for gun control advocates. The reason is the history of the movement to limit the Constitutional rights of citizens, which shows that such attempts have usually backfired.

The most recent example of the attempt to enact gun bans and new limitations on the Second Amendment, which is one of the original "Bill of Rights" encompassing the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, is the Clinton assault weapons ban during the 1990s.

The Columbine school massacre was the proof that such a ban failed.

Click here to continue reading at Anthony G. Martin's National Conservative Examiner.