“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” — Winston Churchill
Take a long look at the following video. (h/t Tyranny Unleashed) Watch and listen carefully — run through it two or three times. Please realize what is being stated here . . .
At this point I trust you have come to realize that when they deliberately break their own rules, and then brazenly lie and say that they didn’t, that they DO NOT care about the Federal Constitution, your rights, your liberties, your life . . . AT ALL.
Now, combine that with what Harry Reid, the guy who instigated all the rule-breaking, thinks the American people will think about what he “accomplished:”
On the floor before the vote, Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “We’re going to hear an earful, but it’s going to be an earful of wonderment and happiness that people waited for for a long time.”1
In the times before us, others have spoken to this turn of events . . .
§, 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.
§, 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.2 (emphasis mine)
§. 221. There is therefore, secondly, another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them, act contrary to their trust. First, The legislative acts against the trust reposed in them, when they endeavour to invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters, or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people.
§. 222. The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who. have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.3 (emphasis mine)
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.4 (emphasis mine)
It is high time the American people changed the way they think . . . about how, when, and with what they will vote.
Today, September 21, The Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that President Barack Obama ordered the US Defense Department to review the nuclear defense posture of the United States of America with the goal of reducing America’s nuclear arsenal from the current level of thousands of nuclear warheads, to mere hundreds.1 There are two major items of concern here, both of which MUST be answered.
The essence of Barack Obama’s plan follows:
Obama has rejected the Pentagon’s first draft of the “nuclear posture review” as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.
Those options include:
• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.
• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.
• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.
The review is due to be completed by the end of this year, and European officials say the outcome is not yet clear. But one official said: “Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president’s weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role.”
Since Barack Obama made a campaign video declaring that he wanted a world “without nuclear weapons” I will use his own words and his video. The statement is 50 seconds into the video.2
Hence, the following are questions the Mr. Obama, as President of the United States, MUST answer:
A. Since your stated goal is the reduction of AMERICAN nuclear weapons to make the world a safer place, just what means do you have to insure that any other nation follows suit and ACTUALLY reduces their arsenal?
B. Is the strength of your “enforcement” of this provision the empty words and promises of the likes of Kim Jong Il, Vladmir Putin, Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad of Iran, etc, etc?
C. Please explain to all American citizens how it is that human nature has changed in the last 5500+ years of recorded history so that it is possible that no nation would surreptitiously keep and continue developing nuclear weapons so they could blackmail a disarmed world into submission?
D. How is it that we, the American people, can trust the likes of Vladimir Putin who ordered the killing of Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko (not to mention numerous other journalists in Russia) who exposed Putin’s lies?
E. Please explain how the American people can trust a Russian government that thinks nothing of trumping up charges against businessmen so it can steal every asset they have earned?3
F. How can the American people possibly trust Vladimir Putin, who in 1998 and 1999, most certainly ordered the FSB to conduct a series of bombings in and around Moscow and other major cities in Russia (killing their own people in the process), so they could blame “Chechen separatists” and renew the war in Chechnya, thus entrenching Putin in power?
G. Who gave you, as President, the RIGHT to place the lives of millions of men, women and children at risk in this grand experiment of depending upon the “inherent good” in human nature?
H. What will you do President Obama when you are proven to be dead wrong about human nature, and America is disarmed before Russia and China and they DEMAND the immediate capitulation and occupation of the United States or be totally destroyed in a nuclear holocaust?
I. Why should Americans believe your pie in the sky notions about disarmament and a peaceful world when ALL of man’s history proves that man cannot be trusted?
J. Why should Americans believe anything you say about anything regarding the security of America when you have been proven to be a LIAR – and will LIE through your teeth to get what you want?
K. What right do you have, and who gave you this right, to play games and experiment with the life of ANYONE ELSE, let alone the lives of millions?
L. What will you do when you realize, when it is far to late, that the Communists eat their own – and your throat is about to be slit, or a bullet is about to be put in your brain on the orders of whatever leader happens to be in power in Russia – because you mistakenly trusted your Communist “friends?”
M. Finally, knowing that Chicago has gun control laws and everyone is either disarmed or their arms are registered – with the exception of the police; will you, Mr. President, walk through the streets of the south side of Chicago at night, unarmed and without ANY escort whatsoever? Will you take that challenge in Washington DC?
And for the media:
What will you do when you realize the hardcore Communists have no more use for you – and you also are next to be liquidated?
I will let the words of Anna Politkovskaya stand for your final thought concerning Obama’s pipe dream of disarmament. You may substitute “American” and “communism” in the appropriate places
“People often tell me that I am a pessimist, that I don’t believe in the strength of the Russian people, that I am obsessive in my opposition to Putin and see nothing beyond that,” she opens an essay titled Am I Afraid?, finishing it — and the book — with the words: “If anybody thinks they can take comfort from the ‘optimistic’ forecast, let them do so. It is certainly the easier way, but it is the death sentence for our grandchildren.”4
The subtitle of the article says just how far he wishes to go, AFTER stripping the missile defense away: “Pentagon told to map out radical cuts as president prepares to chair UN talks”
This man needs to be impeached and tried for TREASON!
This blog is setup and maintained to keep abreast of issues pertaining to the Militia and Militia related events, including Second Amendment court cases.
