M.O.W.C.A.

There is a reason why we are losing our liberty in this nation: The willful ignorance of its people.

I would like to say it is confined to the Left and the youth, but I cannot honestly so state. Rather, I find that ignorance also on the Right at every age, social status, and profession. A prime example of this is the deliberate ignoring of history and the lessons of history. It is so very bad it is sickening.

Take the case of so-called “fourth generation” warfare, which is nothing more than guerrilla warfare adapted to modern technology. Now, how can I say that? How about reading numerous volumes specifically written about guerrilla warfare and its history, along with every article I can find — which covers the last 27 years of my life. I have been reading and studying military affairs (weapons, weapons systems, tactics, strategy and history) since about 8 or 9 years old (I am older than 45, so its been a while that I have been doing this). I have decided preference for guerrilla warfare, as difficult as it is to prosecute. So-called “fourth generation” warfare is guerrilla warfare, nothing more. However, leave it to the U.S. military to justify itself and call it something new so they can cover up failing to be prepared for guerrilla warfare.

As a lesson of history, you do not have to be a soldier to recognize what guerrilla warfare is, and is not. All you have to do is be willing to read and heed — something Americans don’t seem to do very well (if at all) these days.

Now, why am I not pleased, and why is this called “Pearls Before Swine . . .”?

Because I finally received a response to the previous post “Incongruence” that was nothing short of willful ignorance. There is no excuse for any American citizen to be ignorant of the foundations of this nation’s form of government. The books and documents are simply far too easy to access and (horror of horrors) READ!

To quote the response from Paladin:

“Thanks for trying but I still stand by my original position that from the beginning the founders intended and the States understood they were bound by the restrictions outlined in the Constitution and BoRs.
“The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States” and “This Constitution, and …, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” and “… the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; …”
Like you said, you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand the plain language of the Constitution.  I will not argue that corrupt courts/judges and legislatures both nationally and in most of the States have perverted and twisted the interpretations of this hallowed document.  I personally think they should be hung for violating both their duty as specified in the Constitution and their oaths to “support, uphold and defend’ the Constitution “as the supreme law of the land.”
I have no confidence or trust in any level or branch of government.  I’m not normally an anarchist but I’d prefer anarchy over what we have today at the federal, state and local levels.
We need to clean house and start over with freedom loving Americans from the heartland who will faithfully uphold, support and defend the U.S. Constitution and actually honor their Oaths of Office!”

“Thanks for trying . . .”? Perhaps then I shouldn’t have since Paladin’s mind was already made up, and any explanation of the foundations and principles of our Constitution was wasted effort. I am reminded of a discussion I had with Wayne Fincher several years ago concerning returning the government of this country back to its proper constitutional role. Wayne couldn’t seem to get the fact that modern Americans, by and large, do not exercise the same self-control and self-governance as the Americans of the 1700s. The Americans of those days were not ignorant country louts that just wanted to be free. Rather, they were well studied in the Classics, most knew history very well, with virtually all the Founders knowing at least one foreign language. Being largely home-schooled and believing the Bible did not make them ignorant, unlearned, or lacking understanding in any way. Rather, it provided a far better education and “rounding” of the individual than the government schools of modern America.

“So Wayne, what would happen if we won the country back tomorrow? Just suppose we did and removed all those laws and government agencies that infringe on our liberties, but are in place to control individuals who will not control themselves, just what do you think will happen?”

After all, during one radio show, we had a caller who complained that DHS had taken some children out of a home, and as the militia, what would we do about it? Now, I despise DHS, having had a couple of run-ins with them. But in questioning the caller, it turned out that both parents in the home would not control themselves and would not take care of their children. Both parents were involved in drug use.

You know, when you abdicate your personal responsibilities, expect someone else to take them over — and then run your life for you. In this case (as so often is) the government took over the personal responsibilities of the parents.

Somebody has to take care of the children, because children cannot take care of themselves. I responded to the caller, and told them that very thing. Need I say they were not happy? If you abdicate your personal responsibilities (which MANY Americans have), expect to lose them — expect the government to step in at every opportunity and seize more responsibility. If you cede your responsibilities to the government — you are the fool. Kindly do not complain when the government does something with your life you do not like.

As for Paladin’s preference for anarchy to our current situation — it is a preference that is telling of the ignorance.

I think Paladin, you have misunderstood some very fundamental things. First, you have never lived in a state of anarchy (unless you hail from certain parts of Africa). Neither could have you read much history of what happens when there is no law, no government. If you did, you certainly did not retain any lessons from such reading. Perhaps you should read John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and also study what happened in the Scottish lowlands for 700 years. That area was contested ground and had virtually no government during that entire time. It was the very definition of anarchy — and life was utter misery. Only an absolute fool prefers anarchy over what we have today. What we have today is a FAR cry from life in Soviet Russia (or Red China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.). It is not even as bad as Russia is today. Perhaps Paladin, you ought to read more Solzhenitsyn . . .

Why should I go on . . .?

Why waste the effort?

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

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/20/barack-obama-us-nuclear-weapons [↩]
2. ibid [↩]
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky [↩]
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya [↩]