Tag Archive: tyranny
This item brought to my attention by Cry and Howl
January 31, 2013
Trusting Your Own Government (or Not)
By John Harvey
Earlier this month, Geraldo Rivera asked a caller: “How could you not trust your own government?”
Putting aside big and little episodes of untrustworthy government in the history of this country like the Trail of Tears, the internment of Americans of Japanese descent, Kent State, Waco, Fast and Furious, and the Benghazi Coverup, Rivera implies the burden of proof lies with the skeptical citizen when it comes to trust. But his question only diverts our attention. The issue isn’t the relative peace in the body politic at this instant. The question Geraldo asks really goes to the heart of the very nature of our government.
History is full of governments that ran sufficiently amok that they become a mortal danger to their own citizens. Such governments did not last. Indeed, the last century was so full of episodes of different governments murdering their own citizens by deliberate official policy that it spawned a new word: democide.
Many in the media and academia who largely reject American Exceptionalism want us to believe instead that our government is exceptional in light of the history of governments. In how easily they dismiss the Second Amendment as being obsolete, they are telling us that there are no circumstances whatsoever in which some future American government would ever turn feral. They are willing to stake the lives of their children and grandchildren on that assertion.
Certainly people want a trustworthy and competent government. But it concerns me that more than one member of the president’s inner circle has publicly praised China’s Mao, a man responsible for the brutal deaths of over 40 million Chinese citizens. I am shocked that a close advisor to the president has favorably quoted Mao’s warning that [political] power comes from the barrel of a gun. It is chilling to see a Mao-themed ornament on a White House Christmas tree, or the number of supporters of this administration who also voice approval of the murderous Che Guevara. It is incongruous that a man who was a leader of a group of radical socialists who contemplated murdering 25 million Americans should they reject postrevolutionary ideological reeducation is now a frequent visitor to the White House.
Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security is busy stockpiling two billion rounds of hollow point pistol ammunition. The very government that Geraldo implies we must trust is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a contingency plan that cannot be explained by any current trends. The shocking implied question is not only who does DHS intent to shoot, but under what circumstances? Even if this plan devoted 100 rounds to each anticipated target, two billion rounds implies violent action by government against 20 million of its 310 million citizens. Is this the same 20 or so million the Weather Underground leader who now visits the White House anticipated needing to eliminate?
How should we rationally evaluate these facts? As disconnected random coincidences or as a glimpse of the plans of those in power and those who cheer them on? As long as the relationship between public servants and the public they serve is healthy, then we all can enjoy the blessings of liberty, which was the core reason the federal government was formed over 200 years ago.
But what happens when the public servant starts to think he is the public master instead?
Nobody can predict how a future government might endanger our own descendants by running amok. For example, what social, political, or legal forces exist today that would stop another Trail of Tears that were not sufficient to stop it the first time? Certainly firearms aren’t the answer to every outrage, or even most. Even though we are all civilized and strive to be peaceful and polite to everyone, we cannot allow the precious right to keep and bear arms to be crippled with my generation, any more than we could allow the right of free speech to be crippled. Our future grandchildren might curse us for neglecting to preserve the very tools they might need most during some urgent crisis in their lives, even though no learned member of the news media could possibly envision such a thing at this moment.
The philosopher Karl Popper offers us some guidance. In Volume 2 of his The Open Society and Its Enemies, he wrote:
“…the use of violence is justified only under a tyranny which makes reforms without violence impossible, and it should have only one aim, that is, to bring about a state of affairs which make reforms without violence possible.”
Can a government whose bureaucracy carefully hoards 2 billion rounds of ammunition in a country of some 310 million citizens be trusted to plan to implement “reforms” without violence? Only oppressive socialist governments attempt such agendas. It is more commonly called “reeducation.” How does Geraldo’s question relate to such a plan, indeed to a government potentially with this manner of plan? Because it is not the duty of any democratic government to reform citizens, is the rational “contingency” being planned for that too many citizens will refuse to comply with government edicts that are yet to be made public?
Americans reached this point at one time in the history of the land they settled when the edicts of the government of England became too injurious and offensive at too many levels. Are we, who always put on our seat belts lest we have a crash, and avoid trans-fats lest we get clogged arteries, who always brush and floss, and who always do so many other things to avoid all the little and rare risks of life, are we not going to think for one moment that the government we depend upon to do its job competently, will never acquire a different attitude about what its job is and who is in charge? That government could never have an authoritarian seizure, or tell us one thing when its leaders intend on something entirely different, or even decide that it had the power to sterilize or assassinate its own citizens, or just take their children away for flimsy reasons or think it actually needed to use some of those rounds it is stockpiling — that this could never, ever happen in all history to come?
I find it ironic that a British subject, in the form of a smug CNN anchor, is artfully scolding and lecturing American guests on his show about their support for the right to keep and bear arms. I recall a time when the finest award-winning journalists of their time, like the New York Time’s own Walter Duranty, could not bring themselves to report that Stalin was deliberately starving millions of Ukrainian farmers to death as an act of government policy. Did Duranty and the Times choose to dissemble because they believed they were serving a higher cause at the time? Do members of the media lie about firearms because they are serving a higher cause today? And when some future government they support runs wild and thousands (or millions) die, how will the media report it? The same way they glowingly talk about the exploits of Che Guevara or Bill Ayers, whom they tell us is just a neighbor of the current president?
In related news, the UK Telegraph carried a story on January 25, 2013 concenring Google Earth satellite photos of North Korea’s vast system of political prison camps and prison cities. The paper reports, “Inmates — who can be imprisoned for life, along with three generations of their families, for anything deemed to be critical of the regime — are forced to survive by eating rats and picking corn kernels out of animal waste…”
And Israel National News reports that a new exhibit opened at Yad Vashem to mark 2013 Holocaust Memorial Day: “…the exhibit represents only an example of more than 71,000 items donated by thousands of people over the last two years as a way of perpetuating the memory of relatives who perished during the Holocaust….”
Photo credit: Creative Commons
Posted by a PAN member on 1-10-13
Teacher throws flag on floor and stomps it
PAN Member’s comment:
Comment by Mike Rios on January 13, 2013 at 6:34pm
This teacher is undoubtedly a product of the same leftist philosophy that Obama learned and taught. This incident brings to mind the indoctrination that the South Vietnamese people received once the Communists over took the land. They would take the flags and other symbols of the Republic of South Vietnam and throw them down and stomp them. They would then teach the children to do the same and then the children would challenge the parents to desecrate the symbols of their nation. If the parents refused the children told the Angkor guards and their parents were usually executed or tortured or both.
America, let me introduce you to the political ideals of Barak Hussein Obama.
Courtesy of swissdefenceleague, who posted this from:
Analysis of national and state news, politics, opinion, history
Why the Founding Fathers Matter
By Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Center
It has become typical in school text books, in public discussions, and in the smug wisdom of Progressives, to diminish the words and actions of those who led the founding of the United States. However, now that the nation has gone through what Al Gore called a “wrenching transformation” away from limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty (all major ingredients to making the US the freest and most prosperous nation in history) it’s time to listen again to their wisdom.
Thomas Jefferson warned us to …
Avoid Sustainable Development: “When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.”
Avoid the Welfare State: “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
Avoid Massive Government Debt: “It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.”
Avoid Government Over-regulation: “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
Avoid Control of Individual Gun Ownership: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Avoid Compulsive Taxation of Income: “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Avoid the Federal Reserve: “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property – until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
Keep the Founding Documents Intact: “May (the Declaration of Independence) be to the world, what I believe it will be, to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all, the signal to assume the blessings and security of self-government.” His last written words June 24, 1826
The Founding Fathers are irrelevant? Every one of these issues is in the forefront of today’s political debates. Our Founders understood government and its dangers to our liberty. They feared it above all other threats and tried to create a system of self government through which we could protect ourselves from its tyranny. When their warnings are ignored we get Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a government of lies, oppression and national bankruptcy.
Posted on January 5, 2013 byConservative Byte
Given all the gun talk lately, Mark Levin opened his show tonight clarifying the purpose of the 2nd amendment saying that it wasn’t for target shooting or hunting or anything else in that realm. He said that whether you like it or not or whether you agree with it or not, the reason why 2nd amendment exists is to arm the population in order to overthrow a tyrannical government. That’s it.
The unconstitutional acts by the Executive branch, with Congress sitting mute in response, -making them complicit and as guilty-, are clearly stated here. Enlarged font my emphasis “X”
Retroactive from 1862, not until 1907 were Executive Orders (EO’s) published in the Federal Register. And today, over 15,000 EO’s have been issued and published.
But, just what are they, and, more importantly, are they constitutional?
The short of it is that EO’s, aka signing statements, presidential determinations, presidential orders, have inexorably led to legally binding presidential directives substantially affecting not only executive administrative matters, but both national and foreign policy matters quite outside the enumerated constitutional powers of the Executive Branch.
Art I, Sec 1 of the US Constitution concisely and unambiguously provides that “all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress…” In sharp contrast, Art II specifically outlines Executive powers and duties, none of which include legislating in any form. And to checkmate an overreaching Chief Executive, Art II also provides for the impeachment and removal of not only the Chief Executive, but of any and all officers comprising the Executive Branch.
So, how can Congress, the People’s House, void an EO, assuming Congress were so inclined?
First, Congress must have the political will, rectitude and the numbers to effectively countermand EO’s. That said, as it plays out now if Congress disapproves an EO, it can withhold funds. But, to do so requires enactment of a law which must pass muster both in the House and the Senate. The rub: if the law intended to countermand an EO is vetoed by the President, to override that veto requires a 2/3 vote, a super majority, in both chambers of Congress, clearly a politically daunting task indeed. Of course, there is the laborious process of impeachment and removal of the offending President to remedy the executive overreach. But, again, removal would require a 2/3 majority in the Senate, a very unlikely scenario.
The alternative means of voiding an EO is if a suit is brought against the President before the Supreme Court and the court invalidates the EO, again a highly unlikely scenario. As we all know, the Supreme Court, which has proven to be far less than faithful to the meaning and intent of the Constitution, is often on the wrong side of constitutional questions. Seemingly guided by Chief Justice Hughes’s arrogant and insidious assertion in 1941 that “we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is”,the court’s unelected judicial oligarchs–and, yes, judicial legislators–have, over the years, proven to be unreliable defenders of the Constitution.
Similarly, another principal framer, James Wilson, asserted that “the only powers strictly executive were those of executing laws, appointing officers, not appertaining to, and appointed by, the legislature.”
In effect, the framers insisted that the Chief Executive could not propose or make legislation under any guise, but, with respect to legislation, was absolutely restricted to executing those laws passed by Congress. Crystal clear, but grossly ignored by today’s power elite.
So, in the absence of a President who might happen to be personally inclined to faithfully adhere to the Constitution, we have little defense against a tyrannical Chief Executive. Thus, if the Supreme Court and Congress are unwilling to restore constitutional order by affirmatively re-establishing the doctrine of separation of powers at the federal level, then, ultimately, and in accordance with the 10thAmendment, it falls to the States and/or the People to take appropriate action to remedy the breach. As James Madison asserted, “…the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purpose of its institution.”
In truth, our now tattered and barely recognizable republic which was originally held securely in place by a carefully crafted system of checks and balances and separation of powers is no more. To believe otherwise is wishftyranny,ul thinking, or, worse, delusional. Since TR, with his 1006 unchallenged EO’s, Woodrow Wilson’s 3,723 EO’s and Obama’s in excess of 130 frighteningly Orwellian EO’s, the imperial presidency has clearly taken on a life of its own, unchecked and tyrannical, effectively scuttling any similarity to genuine republicanism. In reality, all that holds this sham of a republic in place is the President’s appearance of faithfulness to the constitution and a pervading hope that the President, whomever he or she might be, will kindly opt not to overstep his or her constitutional authority. But, if history is any authoritative guide, such self-inflicted delusion and misplaced confidence can only lead to national disaster.
Going forward, patriots everywhere had best pull out all stops to usher in a Constitution-first conservative takeover in DC. But, that’s only half the battle. Once elected, we must hold their corruptible feet to the fire to ensure a full restoration of our now mortally wounded constitutional republic, failing which only the dissolution of these united States by whatever means, violent or peaceful, is most certainly inevitable.
To be clear, EO’s aren’t a Progressive or Republican problem. EO’s are an equal opportunity contagion. Both parties, all modern presidents, Congress, the Supreme Court, and, yes, We the People are culpable. If we deserve better, we will beget better.
Here’s your “peaceful” Islamists…
Courtesy of Boudica BPI Weblog