M.O.W.C.A.

Last week, at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, it was reported that Rep. Ron Paul stated the following:

“In the technical sense, in the economic definition, he is not a socialist,” the Texas Republican said to a smattering of applause at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.”

“He’s a corporatist,” Paul quickly added, meaning the president takes “care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”

However, that ignores one of the communist goals outlined by Cleon Skousen back in 1958:

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

Which has been accomplished.

With willingly ignorant political leaders like Ron Paul, can those opposing the socialist agenda ever expect to win?

Only in their dreams.

At some point the American people had better wake up and realize how effectively they have been made to accept communism and communist methodologies as a part of American life.

As well read as Dr. Paul supposedly is, I can only observe that he is either willingly ignorant of communism’s goals and efforts to achieve those goals, or he is a stooge: a patsy.

Out of Time…

If you have not read “The Naked Communist” by Cleon Skousen or read the list of “Current Communist Goals” contained in this book which was first published in 1958, and have not read Anatoly Golitsyn’s “New Lies for Old” published in 1984 and paid particular attention to the chapter titled “The Final Phase”, and have not read “The Nazi Seizure of Power” by William Sheridan Allen then you will not be versed in understanding how the socialists seize power and what their ultimate goal is.

We are very, very near the end, and have virtually no time left for strategies that carry iffy results.

Mike Vanderboegh’s strategy for being everywhere does not, and will never scare the socialists who are busily seizing absolute control over this nation. They are 99% complete in their task.

If you have not read Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago,” or James Michner’s “The Bridge at Andau” (and any number of other books addressing the same subject) or talked with individuals who fled the communist countries of Eastern Europe, then you will not understand how family members, friends and neighbors can be co-opted, threatened and tricked into turning on each other, all without really intending to harm anyone, especially those they love and care about.

Unlike any other system in the history of the world, the communists who seized power in Russia under the leadership of Lenin, created a system that is so insidiously evil, so very adept at penetrating even the most tight knit groups.

The socialists (communists) cannot be allowed to complete their seizure of power in America. We have no time left. Without question, Barak Obama is their man to accomplish the takeover of America. He is, after all, eminently expendable. After watching a few of his presentations and interviews, it is clear that he is a manipulatable, hollow, shallow man — perfect for the task at hand. Of course, it helps immensely that he is black, that way the charge of racism can be levied at anyone who opposes him. After all, no white man could ever get away with what he has gotten away with. Nevertheless, I digress. Once that seizure of power is complete, human nature and the drive for individual survival will take over, and the strategy Mike Vanderboegh advocates will prove to be totally useless.

Why?

Because in every communist system, everyone is made to spy on everyone else. Those who will not, will be rounded up and taken away. All it will take to be hauled off, will be the slightest of comments, a wrong look, ignoring the wrong person, and heaven help you if you refuse to cooperate.

If you wish to point out the protests and dissidents that exist in those communist systems as your proof of being able to work within the system to overthrow it, then you need to go to “New Lies for Old” and read chapter 20, “The Second Disinformation Operation: The “Evolution” of the Soviet Regime, Part Two: The “Dissident” Movement” and find out how very contrived the dissident movement is and how operatives are used to draw out the true opponents of the regime so they, the true opponents of socialism, can be destroyed.

America stands at the very brink of the abyss of socialism. Golitsyn expressed very plainly that, were America to fall, the entire world will become communist in very short order. There are only two nations with the capacity to withstand the socialist onslaught. There are only two nations in the world that socialists hate with a passion: The United States and Israel, and for very different reasons.

The hate the United States because its constitutional system and ideological basis for that system is the anthesis of socialism. They hate Israel for what Israel is and represents: the LORD’s people, and by extension, the LORD God Himself. So long as Israel exists, and even one Jew exists, there will be, in the minds of the socialists, evidence that God exists. Therefore, they have determined that every Jew must die — even those Jews who are foolish enough to cooperate with them.

Human nature being what it is, when the socialists seize power, the vast majority of people will decide that they will try to “make do” within the system that exists. They will willingly delude themselves into believing they will not be the one hauled off or summarily shot. The Founders of this nation wrote of this aspect of man’s nature:

“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.”

How is it that they (the Founders) went to war over taxation and oppression that is far, far less than what we experience today? Just what have modern Americans become accustomed to? What else will modern Americans become accustomed to?

You really must ask yourself why it was (and still is) that the Russian people put up with such deprivation and abridgment of their rights.

So what did Mike say that was so brilliant?

“So sign up today! Our Dear Leader needs you to enforce the “Health Care” Act! Join. Learn. Lurk in the shadows, and await the right time and place to muck up the works. And you don’t need a Michael Collins to report to. We have the Internet. Study Fourth Generation Warfare and open source insurgency at John Robb’s Global Guerrillas site and others. Begin today. Leave no trace. Shut up about your politics. At the very least, we will cause the IRS to waste vast amounts of time and money trying to ferret out our Ned Broy’s during the selection process. And if you make it through, study, watch and wait.

I can see whole reams of internal documents posted anonymously to the web, raids compromised with no one there when the door lock is blown in by those new 14 inch barrel entry shotguns. I can see an entire agency in a blue funk, eating at its own vitals.”

Meanwhile, weapons are seized, individuals are arrested and hauled off, caches are found and destroyed, while small acts of resistance occur.

Yes, small acts of resistance. Absolutely nothing in comparison to the destruction wreaked by the socialist government. If the seizure of power is complete, U.S. C-5s, C-141s,¹ and C-17s will transport tens of thousand of Russian and Chinese troops and thousands of tons of equipment to America. Don’t believe me? Then look at this gem from Obama: Obama set to reject ‘nuclear posture’ on eve of Start deal with Russia (h/t Legal Insurrection)

With this particular note in the article:

“Now Mr Obama is expected to rule out the development of new weapons systems — despite reservations from the military, which is mindful that Russia and China are modernising and expanding their nuclear forces respectively.”

And:

“In reviewing its nuclear arsenal, the US is considering withdrawing from Europe its last tactical nuclear weapons — 200 B61 gravity bombs — which are based in Belgium, Turkey, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands; all members of Nato. Under a longstanding agreement, the air forces of these countries would be expected to fly their own bombers carrying the American B61 bombs in the event of a conflict in which the US had approved the use of nuclear weapons.”

Of course this dovetails perfectly with certain communist aims:

U. S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war. (accomplished)

U. S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war. (½ accomplished)

Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength. (½ accomplished)

Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the U.S. has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress. (accomplished)

As soon as Obama is certain that the U.S. Military is turned and will not oppose him, he will allow Russian and Chinese troops on American soil to take possession of American bases under the guise of “mutual cooperation.” Once the U.S. military is effectively subjugated, the full brutality of the socialist regime will be unleashed.

Every small act of resistance will be met with the same thing Chechen villages received — overwhelming use of force in response. You will have lost America. You will not win.

Why?

Because they do not care what anyone thinks. The socialists already plan on slaughtering tens of millions of  individuals, and there will be no “world watching” to restrain them — because the rest of the world will be suffering the same thing. There will be no restraint of a deception and disinformation campaign. No, it will be utterly ugly and brutal and entire divisions of government agencies will be called in for “staff meetings” and no one will emerge alive. They won’t worry about administering “health care” because they won’t need to — its not about health care anyway.

They won’t need body bags either. After all, masses of dead bodies do a far better job of intimidating the remaining population in to submission.

We do not have time for cute “cloak and dagger” games. We have about a year, maybe two. We will, at the rate Obama is proceeding, not make it to 2012.

I do not like uphill battles, Mike’s strategy is one that won’t just give us an uphill battle, it will give us sure and certain defeat – like the tepid “window war” which has thus far been a failure for two reasons:

1. The average American does not agree with “civil disobedience” of any sort, but especially disobedience that includes violence. (The reasons for this are multitude, some valid, some not.)

2. Those in Washington really do not care what happens in “flyover country” so long as they enjoy their fun and games in Washington.

There are other weaknesses to the strategy that are technical and also bear on the equation. “We have the internet.” Mike wrote.

For now.

The internet can be shut off and the flow of information can be tightly controlled. The internet does not work by magic. Rather, for any information to go anywhere, it must have physical disk space to reside on, and an IP address and filename to be found at. It is all traceable. You can bet your bottom dollar all the anonymous proxy servers that exist out there now will be shut down and packet sniffers will watch everything, sending automated messages to offices with individuals who relish catching people. Oh, they themselves will be watched to insure they do their jobs, and their PCs will be strictly monitored — and the monitors will be monitored too.

I know. Unfortunately it is one of the tasks I perform in my job. It is utterly distasteful. But I work for a private company and they have a right to insure their employees are actually working when on the clock.

The long and short of it is that everything on the internet is traceable. If that does not stop any insurgency, the government does have its own internal networks that do not reach the outside world (SIPRnet) and they will use that network and simply turn off the internet by shutting off certain key routing servers. They will not care that all other information flow ceases.

While there are many things Mike is correct about, this is not one of them. The strategy Mike advocates is one that has incredible weaknesses, beginning with human nature and includes discounting technical issues and an ignoring of historical fact. It is a fantasy land strategy.

It is to narrowly focused, and far to short-sighted, ignoring the larger picture of global events, of which this is only a part and piece of those events. Socialized medicine is only a part of the overall global socialist strategy for domination.

1. My bad. The C-141 was retired in 2006. Sorry, I cannot keep up with everything. However, my point still stands. [↩]

I read the post by Mike Vanderboegh titled “We are everywhere.” — A call for all Sons of Liberty and Three Percenters who can to join the IRS plus a little task for those who can’t . and something about it struck me as wrong. Oh, the idea sounds nice and valid, but the actual practice will be quite different.

Of course, the idea for this comes from two sources that can be readily discerned. The first, a movie titled “Michael Collins” about the Irish leader who fought for Ireland’s independence from 1916-1922. He was killed in an ambush during the Irish Civil War. However, instead of citing any historical documentation (the movie, like all Hollywood’s stuff, is not accurate – and always carries a socialist message), Mike cites a scene from the movie, and draws inspiration from that directly. More indirectly, it appears that inspiration is drawn from the fictional character John Galt in Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged”, who, like the fictional G-man of the Michael Collins movie, works within the system to oppose it.

All well and good — and totally without historical precedent. Of course, that IS the problem with fiction — it is NOT reality.

No, the real reality here is this is recipe for ACCEPTING the shackles and chains that are swiftly coming upon us. Please remember there is a significant difference between OPPOSING a system, and PREVENTING or OVERTHROWING a system.

You can oppose a system all life long – AND NEVER, NEVER OVERTURN IT! No, what you become is the worst of traitors and hypocrites. Mike talks about the “moral high ground.” Well, this ain’t it. But there again, if fictional characters are your sources, I guess you can do whatever you want — and it works — at least on paper.

However, it will not prevent the coming tyranny. Rather, it will assist its emplacement and entrenchment — guaranteeing slavery for our sons and daughters. Of course, you could convince them to oppose the system from within too — but they would still be slaves living under tyranny.

And you will have compromised everything you said you stood for . . .

You know, the saying “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” doesn’t discriminate.

Our Founding Fathers would shudder:

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” SAMUEL ADAMS, DEBATES OF 1776

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Patrick Henry, 1775

BETTER RED THAN DEAD, MIKE?

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?

Hungary . . .

October, 1956

Are we really any different from them? We have it, they didn’t. I think they valued it more than we do.

A salute to those who fought in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956

After all, they died for it.

“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

. . . and what is our excuse now?

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.

1. http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/Dems_not_worried_about_postvote_backlash_at_home.html?showall [↩]
2. John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, Of the State of War [↩]
3. John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, Of the Dissolution of Government. [↩]
4. The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 [↩]

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 [↩]