Who Thinks Petreus Really Resigned Over His Extramarital Affair

The NewsMax story is pretty cut and dried, beginning with:

CIA Director David Petraeus resigned his post as head of the nation’s leading spy agency on Friday, saying he had engaged in an extramarital affair and acknowledging that he “showed extremely poor judgment.”

True, the resignation letter does go on to mention the affair, but doesn’t it strike you as odd that he is making such a public resignation over an affair that no one was talking about, and under an Leftist administration that happily turns a blind eye to sexual misconduct every day? Moreover, is it not also strange that his resignation comes on the heels of his report that no one in the CIA told the Benghazi station agents to stand down?

So far, two upstanding military men have gone down after contradicting Obama on that single incident; the first, General Ham, for arguing with the President and Secretary of Defense as the attack was taking place that forces should be sent in to protect those Americans in the embassy, and now the second, Petraeus, for denying cover to Obama by denying any CIA role in ordering that no help be sent.

So, what does this mean to us? As if his horrific attempt to bolster support for a new Assault Weapons Ban called Fast and Furious was not enough, the Benghazi affair, with all its subsequent fallout, further demonstrates the ruthlessness of this individual, Obama, when it comes to getting what he wants. He cares nothing for loyal supporters, he cares nothing for the rule of law, he cares nothing for the American People. He is a true Saul Alinsky radical and firmly believes that the ends, no matter how trivial or personal, always justify the means, no matter how grave or public. Here is the take-away:

• He wants your guns.
• He wants them all.
• He will do anything to take them from you.

And I mean anything. Any questions?

With Obama’s Reelection, Feinstein Pushes New Assault Weapons Ban

An article in MarketDailyNews caught my attention. Quoting ShootingWire, the article described how Senator Dianne Feinstein’s legal staff has been meeting with FTB/ATF legal staff to discuss a new Assault Weapons Ban. Now that Obama has been reelected, Feinstein sees no impediment to such a ban and has every intention of pushing it through Congress. According to the article, there is “pretty good intelligence” that says her intention is to “ban pistol grips and ‘high-capacity’ magazines, to eliminate any grandfathering, and to ban sales of “weapons in possession”.’

In other words, if you already own such a rifle, and the legislation is passed, your only choice will be to hand it over to the government. There is no doubt she will be able to get this through the leftist-controlled Senate, but it will be a much harder sell in the House. Still, if Obama signs on, there is nothing that will keep him from implementing much of her plan through executive order.

Let us be clear with this: Feinstein is not pushing a bill to make anyone safer. It is a ban on weapons that look like military weapons. pistol grips, box magazines, etc., do not make a rifle any more dangerous than a good lever-action Winchester in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, and at short range, they are far less effective than a shotgun. Further, the AR-platform fires what is essentially a high-power .22; while the 7.62 round in the AK is roughly equivalent to the venerable .30-30 round long used by deer hunters.

What her ban really is, what it can only be, is the thin end of the gun control wedge. Like pot is for other, more dangerous drugs, this is “gateway gun control” that will lead to more bans and restrictions until the American people are all but disarmed. There seems to be little stomach for such a move, at least in those she has approached so far. “In fact, the lack of interest in the idea surprised the California liberal’s legal staffers. Apparently, they believe no logical person could possible disagree with them.”

That does not mean she will stop, and it doesn’t mean we won’t see a new Assault Weapons Ban. Remember, there is no such thing as “reasonable gun control” as the Left would like to sell it, because if there was, they would stop always pushing more. With people like Feinstein, “reasonable gun control” is never reasonable enough, you always need more.

Plain and simple, on the subject of guns, the Left is lying to you. Do not fall for it.

Obama Wastes No Time Trying to Undermine the Second Amendment via the UN

Patriot Outdoor News gave us the bad news that shortly after winning reelection, Obama backed a U.N. committee’s call to renew debate over a draft of the UN Small Arms Treaty. Worried about giving Romney yet another weapon to use against him, Obama had backed-off supporting the treaty last July. He wasn’t alone in this as there was substantial opposition, some of which came from Democrats sweating the November elections. Now, all that is over and as Obama told the Russians, he has “more flexibility” and, as you can see, he is using it.

Stock up on weapons and ammo, boys and girls. Obama will do anything he can, including surrendering US sovereignty to foreign dictators, to end civilian gun ownership in this country. He has to be stopped, and that means lots of pressure on the Senate and being ready to file suit in Federal court.

One more thing: Obama is really only part of the problem. Anyone who voted for Obama voted against YOUR Second Amendment rights (not to mention YOUR prosperity, YOUR healthcare freedoms, and every other right Obama has stepped on over the last four years). Remember that, and deal with them accordingly.

Poor Lost Republicans

Here we are, a couple of days after the 2012 election, and the question that nags at me is this: Given Obama’s absolutely abysmal record, how could Romney lose? Well, there are a lot of reasons. Being originally from Chicago, I know that the Democrats committed voter fraud and so, in many areas, stole the election. How did the Republican Party respond to that? They didn’t, at least not in any meaningful way. This should not be a surprise, since the Republicans have been sitting on their hands for a number of years now. For example:

• The Democrats spent four years blaming Bush and covering Obama on the economy. How did the Republican Party respond to that? They didn’t, at least not in any meaningful way.
• Obama was certified with no real investigation into his eligibility to be President, and he has been fighting any such investigation ever since. How did the Republican Party respond to that? They didn’t, at least not in any meaningful way.
• Obama spent his first term circumventing Congress with one executive order after another, including orders that so cut our oil production that gas prices more than doubled during his first two years. How did the Republican Party respond to that? They didn’t, at least not in any meaningful way.
• Paulson and Bernanke demanded $700 billion in stimulus spending, and Bush went along with it. How did the Republican Party respond to that? They didn’t, at least not in any meaningful way.
• Obama socialized medicine in America. How did the Republican Party respond to that? They didn’t, at least not in any meaningful way.

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made: The so-called right-wing party in America has allowed the Left to run the nation to the edge of disaster, and by allowing Obama another term, they have pushed the nation over that cliff. Just look at the stock market. The Dow is dropping like stone, and who knows when that will stop?

Look at yourself, your friends, and ask yourself this: If someone was consistently doing something that was diametrically opposed to everything you believe in, and their actions affected you and your loved ones, would you do something about it, something more than the strongly worded letter or press statement? If you didn’t, what would people think? They would call you a hypocrite, they would say that you secretly agree with all those things you claim to be so opposed to, and they would be right.

This is the nature of the Republican Party today. It has shifted to left-of-center. How do I know that? Because they do not fight the neo-socialists of the Democrat Party, they do not fight for the individual or for limited government, or for anything that they claim to stand for. They compromise, they hold back, they turn a blind eye, and the Left grabs every more power. The Republicans are just happy to have a seat at the table.

These are the people we, as gun owners, trust to stick up for us? Are you kidding?

That thought should terrify each and every gun owner in this country. With the allure and corruption that go hand-in-hand with governmental power, the Republican Party has become more interested in that power than in the People. As such, they have sold out on nearly every major issue in the name of comity, compromise, good government. I have no reason to believe they will not sell out gun owners if it serves their purposes.

As counter-intuitive as this may sound, it really is time for a real conservative party. This party should be focused on the rights and prosperity of the individual. Why? Because a population of prosperous individuals leads to a prosperous nation; and a population of individuals with their rights respected and protected leads to citizens that are not only happy, but will happily pull together in times of crisis. You see pockets of that here and there, always at the local level, but on the national stage, that attitude died with the rise of the socialist counter-culture in the sixties and the Left’s takeover of American public education.

As far as I am concerned, the Republicans have failed us for the last time. Time to look for a new Party that cares more for the People than for power. Time to anoint a new conservative party.

 

 

What’s In a Name?

Are you a conservative? You may be a radical! Do you believe in guns and god and limited government? You may be a radical! Do you believe that your hard work was how you became a success? Then you may be a radical! With the election of Barack Hussein Obama for a second term, and the continued control of the Senate by the Democrats, we have to accept a couple of basic, and somewhat disturbing, facts.

First, this is no longer a center-right country. With the rise of the number of people who pay no taxes and expect government to take care of them, we saw the country lurch to the Left. Why? Because the Left caters to the dependent. The dependent want stuff, just like the rest of us, but they don’t feel the necessity to work for it. If they can get it from government, without the stress and strain associated with commercial struggle in the private sector, they do. Why break a sweat if you don’t have to, right?

Second, we have raised up at least two generations of spoiled, self-entitled brats who are more than happy to trade rights and freedoms for a cradle-to-grave welfare state. That would be fine, if it were simply their rights and freedoms, their liberty, being traded for the illusory security of the government dole. Unfortunately, as they seek to piss away their liberties, they do the same with yours and mine as well.

Third, racism is alive and well in the United States. We have a brown president and he was supported by 93% of blacks and 66% of hispanics. Why? Because he is not white. Obama’s policies have been economically devastating for both groups, but that means nothing to them. He is not white. He also wants to destroy American culture, which is based on a Northern European Judeo-Christian tradition centered in Great Britain. Hispanics that supported him see him as latinizing America, especially along the Southern border. Neither of these groups care that he is systematically destroying everything that made America great; for them it’s all about race. That is all that counts.

What does it mean that America actually voted for all this? It means that we conservatives are losing ground to a Left that is offering everything to everyone to remain in power. It means that we are becoming the counterculture. That makes us the radicals of the 21^st Century.

That, my fellow radicals, means we have to learn how to be radicals. The Leftists in the 1960s didn’t know how to be radicals, but they figured it out, and one of them wrote a book. Yep, I am talking about Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. He wrote it as an answer to Machiavelli’s The Prince, which taught nobles how to keep power. Alinsky said in his introduction that, “The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.” If the trends continue, we will soon be the Have-Nots, and we will have to take our power back. That means learning from our Community Organizer in Chief, and his great teacher, Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky described an agitation process that tears communities apart before reorganizing them into a mass army that can be used to force change. That process is comprised of fanning the flames of resentment and hostility, seeking and exploiting controversy, attacking apathy and complacency in the community. Here are the rules Alinsky suggests the radical uses to accomplish this reorganization.

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”
Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.
Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
According to Alinsky, the key is to bait your opponent into reacting. “The enemy, properly goaded and guided in his reaction, will be your major strength.” Look back at the last few elections. Does this look familiar? It should.

The Best is Yet to Come…

Last night, Obama won. Well, it strikes me that Obama did not win as much as Romney lost. Like the sadly genteel Republicans that went before him, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Romney conceded in spite of the fact that a) a number of states were still being counted; and b) the Democrats would have demanded recounts and filed lawsuits. They do that because they look at these elections as wars that they are determined to win. I am not sure how the Republicans see these contests, but they do not bring the passion and bloodlust of the Democrats, and that is one important reason why they are routinely beaten by the Left. Last night’s election left us in precisely the same governmental situation that we had before, with Obama in the White House, Harry Reid and his democrats running the Senate, and the Republicans running the House of Representatives. What has changed, however, is the fact that Obama cannot run for another term. As a result, he is free to do as he likes, something that the first term showed over and over that he will do regardless of Congress or the Courts.

So, what does this mean for gun owners? First, it means the likely signing and Senate passage of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty; which contains provisions that will force the country to enact highly restrictive gun control laws that will all but eliminate the private ownership of various types of guns from handguns to semi-auto rifles and shotguns. Because treaties are above domestic law, it will take a repudiation by a subsequent President, or a Supreme Court ruling, to get rid of. Speaking of the High Court, Obama has four years to stack the Court with John Paul Stevens type Leftists, who will be itching to overturn both Heller and McDonald, paving the way for the return of gun bans and confiscatory regulations. It also means the return of the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban,” either through the UN treaty or by executive order. Consider the Second Amendment plank in the Democrat Presidential Platform:

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

The language above is vague enough to encompass anything they might want to foist upon the American People, and when coupled with Obama’s statement that “the best is yet to come,” that ought to give all of us serious moment of pause.

Given that Washington is, essentially, a lost cause, our only real hope now is in the states, exercising their 10th Amendment rights. Not all of them, mind you, but with Republicans now occupying 30 of the 50 Governor Offices, and more and more states passing laws to nullify what they see as outrageous power-grabbing by Washington over the last four years. If the best is yet to come, imagine how much more nullification laws will be passed by the states.

By the way, the last time the nation was this polarized, the last time states were nullifying federal laws at this level and pace, the year was 1860. The following year, 1861, there was a bit of a dust-up between the States that lasted until 1865, killing a total of about 625,000 Americans. I returning the most divisive, most arrogant, most anti-American president ever to power, what has this nation done to its children and grand-children? Whatever it is, it won’t be good.

No National Guard in NYC: Bloomberg Only Trusts NYPD with Guns

In a previous post, I suggested that we all boycott Cook County Illinois over their gun-related Leftist stupidity. Today, I get to add New York City to my list…

When I came upon this story, that the National Guard are being kept out of New York City in spite of the pleas of the Brooklyn Borough President, I thought of the Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, and laughed. I laughed at the fools in NYC that elected him and are now trying to salvage their lives after Hurricane Sandy; and I laughed because this delusional statist actually thinks his position is right. You see, he cannot get past his utter loathing for firearms; a loathing so profound that the only people he trusts with guns in New York City are the officers of the NYPD. In a recent NewsBusters Story, Tom Blumer writes:

Mayor Bloomberg has snubbed Borough President Markowitz’s impassioned plea to bring the National Guard to Hurricane Sandy-scarred Brooklyn — arguing that approving the Beep’s request would be a waste of federal manpower and turn the borough into a police state.

“We don’t need it,” Mayor Bloomberg said on Wednesday during a press update on the city’s ongoing Hurricane Sandy cleanup. “The NYPD is the only people we want on the street with guns.”

What is the mayor expecting from the National Guard? Is he afraid they will run amok, looting and raping through Brooklyn? Is he afraid they will really turn the borough into a police state? This is the same Mayor who regulates how large your drink cup can be; the same mayor who supported the officers who shot and killed a number of innocent bystanders trying to kill the assailant in a shooting; the same mayor who routinely works to undermine the Second Amendment rights for all Americans, not just those unfortunate enough to live in New York. So, what we really have is a would-be totalitarian desperate to keep guns out of the hands of people who do not answer to him.

Sadly, while he is posturing like a tin-pot Mousselini (maybe he’s angling for a cabinet post in a second Obama Administration, who knows?), thousands who need the help and protection that only the National Guard can offer are going without because he does not trust the Guard with guns.

Another Resounding Success for Gun Control

The Brady Campaign, Rahm Emmanuel, Barack Obama, and other left-wing nanny-statists want you to think that gun control actually reduces violence. By that logic, the City of Chicago, proud enforcer of the most draconian gun laws in the nation, should be an island of peace and tranquility reminiscent of the rolling green hills and tidy, bunny-filled lawns of Teletubby Land (what kind of teletubby would Rham Emmanuel be?).

And so, as if to prove the mind-boggling efficacy of Chicago’s gun laws, CBS News reported this:

436th Homicide, Chicago Surpasses Last Year’s Total

Yes! With the strictest, most horrendous gun laws in the nation, Chicago is setting records for murder. In fact, earlier this year, another prominent national newspaper declared the Windy City to be the Murder Capital of the World. It is officially more dangerous to walk around Chicago than it is to walk around, say, Afghanistan. True, you might be able to even things up a bit by wearing a t-shirt with a snarky Muhammad cartoon on the front, but I would wager that Chicago is still more dangerous.

That, alone, should put to bed any thought that gun control is actually about safety. That makes it a fraud.

Gun control is a political tool that allows government to take what it likes from the people and not have to worry that they will resist in any meaningful way. It is practiced by statist politicians who think that all power should reside in the State, and that rights arise from government alone. That makes it unamerican.

Next week, we the people have a chance to contribute the political theater in this country by casting a vote. When we do, we have a choice: Vote for people who support unamerican fraud; or vote against them. Most Democrats will go the unamerican fraud route. How about you?

For Gun Owners, The Choice is Between the Lesser of Two Evils

As a gun owner and Second Amendment advocate, the possible reelection of Barack Hussein Obama and his leftist cohort makes me shiver. This is a man who thought it would be a good idea to arm Mexican drug lords and let them kill people just to make political hay with the gun control issue. Knowing that, is there anything he will stop at, any line he will not cross if he think political gain can be had on the other side? He is a Chicago Democrat, so the answer is no, and he has been demonstrating that each and every day. That said, is the Republican candidate really any better on the gun issue? In his article, “A Turning Point Election,” Bob Livingston explores the real differences between the two candidates, and you really have to wonder why the contrast between the two is not greater than it is. On the topic of guns and gun control, Livingston writes:

Gun laws? Difference by degree. Responding to a nonsensical question about “assault weapons” from an uncommitted nincompoop in the audience during the second debate, Obama said: “We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement. But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets.” Reductio ad absurdum. But it reveals, in living color, Obama’s belief that law-abiding citizens shouldn’t have guns.

For his part, Romney claimed: “I’m not in favor of new pieces of legislation on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal. We, of course, don’t want to have automatic weapons, and that’s already illegal in this country, to have automatic weapons.” So Romney also fails to understand the phrase “shall not be infringed.” As Governor, his record on gun rights was poor. He’s since flipped on the issue so much it’s difficult to anticipate where he will go next.

Romney is a business guy, a money guy, and the gun issue is not very important to him. That should not be a surprise, but it does sadden those of us who are hoping to find within him a true defender of our individual liberties. It strikes me that, at best, he will slow the erosion of personal liberties in this country, but he is not likely to reverse it. George Washington said, that, “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.” He also said, “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” Those in power, the politicians and their parties, have forgotten this simple wisdom. Instead, they would rather see what would make governing, taxing, and regulating easier and safer; and the first step to doing that is to disarm the people. With the Democrats now espousing socialism, and the Republicans weakly sitting to the left of center, it is more important than ever to elect senators and congressmen at both the Federal and State levels who will stand for the people, not for the political elites.
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people can only be sustained by truly free citizens, not by subjects. You know what the difference is between the two? The citizen is armed. We really need more citizens going to Washington D.C.!