Standing Firm in the Face of Tyranny


Consider this quote from Justin Smith:

 

Some poor law enforcement agent will be placed between a rock and a hard spot, if he truly understands the Constitution, whenever he is serving under some Democratic majority government and has orders to confiscate the firearms of the people in his area — those who have not relinquished them and sold them “back” to the government. Those men who go against their oaths to uphold the Constitution, in favor of illegitimate and illegal orders from the new rising despots and tyrants will create a collision juncture between the forces of tyranny and the immovable forces of freedom and liberty. And for those in law enforcement who do understand the full import of their oaths, they will stand with liberty and freedom first.  

 

The United States probably hasn’t faced such political division among Americans since the Civil War when the first Republican President would not allow a divided union over the issue of slavery. Today’s divide is between Americans who actually understand the principles of our Founding was primarily to resist the tyranny of a powerful government (the Conservative Right) and Americans brainwashed an all powerful government will take care of all life’s needs – OR ELSE (the Left-Wing).

 

Such a division will force law enforcement at all levels and military members to make a choice if a Left-Wing government asserts control over people’s lives: Namely whether or not to support the edicts of an all-powerful government or their oath to the U.S. Constitution that resulted after our Founders forced out a tyrannical government.

 

JRH 9/20/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

**********************

Standing Firm in the Face of Tyranny

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 9/18/2019 4:19 PM

 

Live Free or Die. Some of us mean those words when we say them.

 

Americans may mouth the words, but when push comes to shove, too many either really don’t care or they are cowards deep down, who will allow the status quo to carry on, no matter how sorry a state of affairs has grown around it; or, their own ignorance is so deep that the God Given nature of our individual rights is beyond their grasp and understanding, and those words in the mouths of the timid, the weak and unsure become mere noises like the squeaking of a mouse eking out an advertising catch-phrase. Their words are empty and void of any sense of duty and obligation to themselves, their families and their country and what one must do to actually maintain a free society.

 

Today, in astounding fashion, we see a majority of the Democrats and even quite a large number of Republicans bowing to their feelings and the communists and statists within the House and the Senate, as the whine over the scourge of “gun violence” reaches a fever pitch. These gun-grabbers personify firearms, as if these inanimate firearms are chaotically running about America slaughtering innocent citizens. And we now hear many Democrats and television network hosts and pundits asserting “assault weapons ownership is not synonymous with gun ownership.”

 

A brick or a hammer is an “assault weapon”, and if anything, the AR-15 is simply a tool for the defense of home and person. It is no different than the 1905 Remington .308 semi-automatic, from the days when mass shootings were unheard of and an unthinkable and evil act, and the good morals of society prevented such things, through the people’s own self-restraint and will to only act for each other’s well-being.  Firearms are harmless left at rest, and the damage they do, the good or evil, lies with the intent of the man holding it.

 

It makes no difference to the weak of America that the Second Amendment was enacted after America had just come off the bloody battlefields from a terrible war against the tyranny imposed by the British. Memories of what happens when citizens are disarmed have long faded, and the Founding principles have seemingly been very nearly eradicated by the flood of revisionism history and the constant asinine assertions that the “right to keep and bear arms” is somehow only for hunting, as they completely ignore the part that says, “shall not be infringed”. This plain language has not been enough to secure our freedom, even today, because those fine words in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution cannot help us, if the ideas they express are not engraved deep within the hearts of all Americans.

 

Despite the clear negative right telling government that it cannot “infringe” on our right to carry firearms for the lawful purpose of self-defense, it has long been more than obvious that Democrats want to take our firearms. The Democrat communists and statists continue to politicize mass shootings, as they rally and advocate for the further infringement and the outright abrogation of the Second Amendment.

 

During the Democratic Party presidential candidates’ debate, on September 12th 2019, the Far Left radical Beto O’Rourke gave the firearm debate a hard electric jolt, when he flatly stated:  “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow them to be used against fellow Americans anymore.”

 

Shortly after Beto’s revelation, Cheryl Chumley, journalist at the Washington Times wrote: “All the Democrats who’ve tried for years to deny the gun confiscation motives behind their gun control pushes went — nooooooo. There’s the golden ticket the NRA, the Republican Party, the patriotic Second Amendment supporters of this country needed to prove their argument. … Democrats want to confiscate guns, pure and simple.”

 

Recently on the Jimmy Fallon Show (Sept. 16th), Kamala Harris, Democrat candidate for president, advocated for mandatory buyback programs the “right” way, by giving “people their value, the financial value of what they have and not just taking things from people that have value without compensating them”.

 

A recent poll from the Washington Post suggests, however accurate or inaccurate, that thirty-one percent of Republicans and fifty-five percent of independents would support mandatory buybacks. If true, this should be more than troubling to America’s freedom loving patriots, as it suggests a certain willingness by many to subvert the nation’s founding and erode liberty.

 

But I did not buy my firearms from the government, and so, the government cannot legitimately enact a mandatory buyback program that is flagrantly unconstitutional and strips U.S. citizens of their rights, while the criminals are still largely untouched by any laws it may pass. I don’t want to sell my firearms “back” to the government. What now?

 

Some poor law enforcement agent will be placed between a rock and a hard spot, if he truly understands the Constitution, whenever he is serving under some Democratic majority government and has orders to confiscate the firearms of the people in his area — those who have not relinquished them and sold them “back” to the government. Those men who go against their oaths to uphold the Constitution, in favor of illegitimate and illegal orders from the new rising despots and tyrants will create a collision juncture between the forces of tyranny and the immovable forces of freedom and liberty. And for those in law enforcement who do understand the full import of their oaths, they will stand with liberty and freedom first.

 

Our right to keep and bear arms shouldn’t even be up for debate, that time having long passed. However, no deluge of facts and statistics will change the minds of the Democratic communists and their radical brown shirts, since their true desire is to render the law abiding Americans defenseless and unable to defend our families, our property, our communities and ourselves and stand in the breach in defiance of their numerous depredations and treason, while they reduce everything and everyone to the common denominator of poverty and misery and nothing more than serfs, who are forced to surrender to their socialist super-state, the Leviathan. These radicals absolutely will try to take our weapons.

 

Thirty-two years after the Battle of Bennington (August 16th 1777), in a letter to Veterans of the War for Independence, General Stark wrote: “They were men who had not learned the art of submission, nor had they been trained to the art of war. But our astonishing success taught the enemies of liberty that undisciplined freemen are superior to veteran slaves”.

 

For any knowledgeable patriot, it is an easy choice. Any move to disarm America must be met with swift action and massive force, since no mystery is found in the progression of what follows the disarming of any people, revealed time and again in the annals of history and a trail of death, genocides and tyranny. Standing firm in the face of rapidly advancing tyranny is not a hard choice.

 

Free men understand that slavery begins with the end of the government’s acknowledgement of our right to keep and bear arms and its role as a supposed defender of the Bill of Rights, and as such, anyone supporting the suppression of our right to bear arms, through their mistaken belief that only the State should possess the tools of violence, is fit only for the cattle cars; whether malicious in their intent or just plain ignorant, it is of little importance at this point, since they hold a statist vision that seeks to shame and browbeat good and decent Americans into submitting to totalitarianism. There isn’t any prescription or solution to any problem that can start by signing away a God given right that will always exist despite such a foolish act, a right that preexists government. And Free Men with liberty engraved and blazing upon their hearts, who are forced to meet the forces of tyranny, repression and subjugation with steely grips on their weapons, can only answer with a blistering inferno of bullets and intensely wielded hot, blurring blades, that are, in fact, the final arbiter of freedom.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links are by are Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Iran Nuke Deal Hubris will Eventually Succumb to True American Spirit


John R. Houk

© September 4, 2015

Yesterday I posted “Get on Board with Anti-Iran Nuke Deal Rally in DC”. I posted about the rally not realizing that on Wednesday it was reported that Maryland’s Sen. Barbara Mikulski became the 34th senator to support Obama’s nuclear deal. Not a few pointed out that out to me yesterday after I had posted. One detractor of whom I have immense respect for his analytical acumen conversed with me via a comment interaction over some Facebook groups.

All that my detractor share was categorically accurate. I was left only refuting him with a football analogy to wit: The game is never over until the clock hits zeros. I alluded in hope that a massive public outcry to the Senators selling America and Israel out to a nuclear armed Iran could change enough Senators or Congressmen to override Obama’s veto just as the clock ran out.

I called this thinking “hope”. My learned detractor probably correctly called the thinking a fantasy. Even if “fantasy” is a more apt description than “hope,” I was disturbed with the futility that hope was useless. I still finding hopeless futility disturbing.

Just think how futile many American colonialists and British lawmakers believed an American rebellion would work to change the oppression slowly overshadowing colonial British citizens. Indeed, I wonder how many signers of the Declaration of Independence felt they signed their own death warrant gloomily expecting the British military to brutally hunt down the minority rebellious colonialists and execute them for treason via the noose or firing squad. The last sentence of the Declaration of Independence:

“And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” (The Declaration of Independence; The Heritage Foundation (analysis on First Principles Series)

The 56 signers knew that death was probable but signed anyway.

Mark Folkertsma writes about how many of the signers and family members indeed met nefarious ends at the hands of the British during the fight for independence:

… Pretty heady stuff for a group of heroes who knew that their actions exposed them all to charges of treason, for which the penalty was swift and sure execution at the hands of the colonial masters whose authority they defied.

Indeed, during the revolutionary war that followed this event, almost all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence lost their property; many lost their families or saw them waste away in imperial prisons. More than a few died in infamy, penniless, and forgotten. All for the sake of the Declaration; all for the sake of their “sacred honor.”

Is there a way out? Yes, and that way is the Declaration of Independence. After all, a decent respect for its moral principles – God-authored rights, equality before the law, contract theory of government – demands our attention, claims our reverence. And, in the final analysis, our sacred honor. This truly is the Spirit of ’76. (A Decent Respect: Renewing the Spirit of ’76; By Marvin Folkertsma; The Patriot Post; 7/1/14)

It is my belief that the American Spirit birthed in 1776 is a part of our mental DNA. If that DNA fails to act in one of those Dem Senators and Congressmen that have committed themselves to the delusions (or worse – the nefarious intentions) of President Barack Hussein Obama pertaining to Iran. AND follows through with an idiotic commitment that will end in the nuclear warhead arming of Iran, then Americans who love their Liberty more than a Left Wing utopian illusions will again arise to a decent respect for moral principles willing to pledge their sacred honor even in war to correct the wrongs of America’s most Leftist President, then:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. (1st paragraph of Declaration of Independence 1776)

It is in light of this indomitable American spirit that I share the words of an Israeli citizen born in the USA – Caroline Glick.

JRH 9/4/15

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

Column One: A glorious defeat

By CAROLINE B. GLICK

July 3, 2015

Jerusalem Post

Over the past seven years Washington has sent a steady stream of senior officials to “oversee joint Israeli-American efforts” regarding Iran.

Sometimes you have to fight battles you cannot win because fighting – regardless of the outcome – advances a larger cause.

Israel’s fight against the nuclear deal the major powers, led by US President Barack Obama concluded with Iran was such a battle.

The battle’s futility became clear on July 20, just six days after it was concluded in Vienna.

On July 20, the US administration anchored the deal – which paves the way for Iran to become a nuclear power and enriches the terrorism-sponsoring ayatollahs to the tune of $150 billion – in a binding UN Security Council resolution. Once the resolution passed, the deal became unstoppable.

Most of the frozen funds that comprise the $150 [billion] would have been released regardless of congressional action. And the nonproliferation regime the US developed over the past 70 years was upended the moment the deal was concluded in Vienna.

The fight in Congress itself probably couldn’t have succeeded even if the administration hadn’t made an end run around the lawmakers at the Security Council.

After Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, passed the law obligating Obama to secure the support of a mere third of the members of either House to implement his nuclear deal, its implementation was a foregone conclusion. The US Constitution gives sole power to approve international treaties to the Senate and requires a minimum of two-thirds approval for passage. Corker turned the Constitution on its head when he went forward with his bill. Far from curbing Obama’s executive overreach, Corker gave Obama unprecedented power to enact his radical, reckless nuclear agenda.

So if the fight against the deal was doomed to fail, why did the Israeli government decide to fight it for all it was worth? And why is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu still fighting it even though there is no longer any way to stop Obama from enabling Iran to sprint across the nuclear finish line? By fighting Obama’s nuclear deal, Israel seeks to advance two larger efforts. First, it uses the battle to expand its capacity to act without the US to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Second, it is shaping its relations with the US both for the duration of Obama’s presidency and for the day after he leaves office.

As far as Iran’s nuclear program is concerned, Obama’s deal has not impacted Israel’s options for preventing the mullahs from getting the bomb.

Even before the US betrayed Israel, its Arab allies and its own national security interests and closed a deal that will transform Iran into a nuclear power and a regional hegemon, there was no chance that the Americans would take action to prevent Iran from developing atomic warheads.

That prospect was taken off the table in November 2007. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program published that month falsely – and scandalously – asserted that Tehran abandoned its nuclear weapons program at the end of 2003.

The NIE was a bureaucratic coup. CIA analysts, notorious since the 1970s for their biased and politicized analyses, used the falsified NIE to block then-president George W. Bush from dealing with Iran. After losing the public’s support for the war in Iraq, and after failing to find Saddam’s WMD (which magically fell into the hands of Islamic State 11 years after the US invasion), Bush was powerless to oppose an official assessment of the intelligence community that claimed Iran was not a nuclear proliferator.

As for Obama, in early 2008, even before he secured the Democratic presidential nomination, he announced that he wanted to negotiate with then-Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

At no time since was there any evidence supporting the notion that Obama would lift a finger to prevent Iran from going nuclear.

In other words, for the past eight years it has been apparent to everyone willing to see that Israel has but option for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

By fighting so strenuously against Obama’s nuclear deal, Israel improved its ability to carry out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations in two ways.

First, it removed the most serious domestic obstacle to carrying out such a strike.

Last week’s publication of audio recordings of former defense minister Ehud Barak discussing of Iran’s nuclear program revealed that for the past several years, Israel’s military and intelligence brass have blocked operations against Iran’s nuclear installations three times. In 2010, 2011 and 2012 the IDF chief of General Staff and senior generals supported by hesitant cabinet members refused to carry out instructions they received from Netanyahu and Barak to prepare to carry out such a strike.

There is no doubt that one of the main reasons they opposed lawful instructions was their faith in Obama’s security pledges.

For their part, the Americans did their best to subvert the authority of Israel’s elected leadership.

Over the past seven years Washington has sent a steady stream of senior officials to “oversee joint Israeli-American efforts” regarding Iran. It is now obvious that this “unprecedented cooperation” was never aimed at strengthening Israel against Iran. Rather, its aim has been to erode the government’s power to make independent decisions regarding Iran’s nuclear installations.

Had Netanyahu kept his criticism of Obama’s decision to give Iran a free hand to develop nuclear weapons quiet, the generals might have shrugged their shoulders and expressed gratitude for the shiny new weapons Obama will throw at them to “compensate” for giving nukes to a regime sworn to annihilate the country.

By making his opposition public, Netanyahu alerted the nation to the dangers. The top commanders can no longer pretend that US security guarantees are credible. Now they will be forced to kick their psychological addiction to worthless American security guarantees, accept reality and act accordingly.

Better eight years late than never.

The Americans weren’t the only ones paying attention to Israel’s fight. Israel’s Arab neighbors also saw how Netanyahu and Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer left no stone unturned in their efforts to convince Democratic lawmakers to oppose it. And the regional implications are already becoming clear.

As the Saudis’ willingness to stand with Israel in public to oppose this deal has shown, our neighbors have been deeply impressed by the diplomatic courage Israel has shown. If and when Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear installations, our willingness to openly oppose the administration will weigh in our favor. It will impact our neighbors’ willingness to cooperate in action aimed at removing Iran’s nuclear sword from their necks and ours.

By fighting the deal, Israel has also worked to shape our relations with the US in a favorable way both in the short and long term.

Obama has another year and four months in office. (503 days, but who’s counting?) Even before the fight over his nuclear deal began in earnest, Obama made clear that he intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the US-Israel alliance and to weaken Israel internationally.

In the first instance, his Democratic and progressive surrogates’ anti-Semitic assaults against New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, and the Justice Department’s coincidental indictment of pro-Israel New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez communicated a clear message to Democratic lawmakers: Any Democrat who supports Israel against Obama will be targeted.

By acting in this way, Obama has communicated the clear goal of transforming support for Israel into the foreign policy equivalent of opposing abortion: a Republicans-only position.

Internationally, there can be little doubt that until Obama leaves office, he will seek to harm Israel and the UN. He may as well seek to harm our economy by quietly instituting administrative trade barriers with the US and Europe.

Israel’s fight against Obama’s nuclear deal has diminished Obama’s ability to use his full power to harm it while preparing the ground for relations to be repaired under his successor.

Until Netanyahu spoke before the joint houses of Congress in March, Obama’s nuclear deal was largely outside the American discourse. The fierce public debate began only after Netanyahu’s address. True, on Wednesday Obama got the support of his 34th Democratic senator and so blocked Israel’s efforts to convince Congress to vote down the deal. But his victory will be Pyrrhic.

Obama’s success will backfire first and foremost because thanks to Netanyahu’s move to spearhead the public debate in the US, today two-thirds of Americans oppose the deal. Since Iran will waste no time proving just how devastating a mistake Obama and his fellow Democrats have just made, Obama’s success makes him far less free to enact further steps against Israel than he was before the deal was concluded. The public no longer will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Moreover, since the deal is as bad as its opponents say it is, and given that most Americans oppose it, Obama’s successor will face no impediments in canceling the deal and adopting a new policy towards Israel and Iran.

Then there are Obama’s Democratic followers in Congress.

Today some commentators argue that Obama’s victory over opponents of his nuclear deal – first and foremost AIPAC – spells the demise of the pro-Israel lobby in the US.

Thankfully, they are mistaken.

Just as it failed to prevent then-president Ronald Reagan from selling AWACs to Saudi Arabia in 1981, so AIPAC had no chance of preventing Obama from moving ahead with his Iran deal.

AIPAC has never had the power to defeat a president intent on advancing an anti-Israel policy.

We will only be able to measure AIPAC’s power after the 2016 elections.

Given that the nuclear pact will fail, there will be plenty of Democrats challengers who will be eager to use their Democratic incumbent opponents’ support for Obama’s nuclear madness against them. AIPAC’s public fight against the deal has set the conditions for it to extract a political price from its supporters who preferred Obama to US national security.

If AIPAC extracts a price from key Democratic lawmakers who played crucial roles in approving the nuclear deal with Iran, it will prevent Obama from turning support for Israel into a partisan issue and emerge strengthened from the fight.

On Wednesday, after Maryland’s Sen. Barbara Mikulski became the 34th senator to support Obama’s nuclear deal, PBS’s senior anchorwoman Gwen Ifill tweeted, “Take that, Bibi.”

Obama’s win is Bibi’s loss. Bibi failed to convince 12 Democratic senators and 44 Democratic congressmen to vote against the head of their party. But by fighting against this deal, Netanyahu removed the main obstacle that kept Israel from taking action that will prevent Iran from going nuclear. He reduced Obama’s power to harm Israel.

The fight strengthened American and American- Jewish opposition to the nuclear deal, paving the way for a Democratic renewal after Obama leaves office. And finally, Israel’s public battle against Obama’s deal paved the way its abrogation by his successor.

All in all, a rather glorious defeat.

_____________________

Iran Nuke Deal Hubris will Eventually Succumb to True American Spirit

John R. Houk

© September 4, 2015

____________________

Column One: A glorious defeat

Copyright © Jpost Inc. All rights reserved

Caroline’s website: http://carolineglick.com/

About Caroline B. Glick

I grew up in Chicago’s ultra-liberal Hyde Park neighborhood. Hyde Park’s most famous resident is Barack Obama.

I made aliyah to Israel in 1991, two weeks after receiving my BA in Political Science from another radical liberal stronghold — Columbia University in New York, otherwise known as Beir Zeit on the Hudson.

I joined the Israel Defense Forces that summer and served as an officer for five and a half years.

From 1994-1996, as an IDF captain, I served as Coordinator of Negotiations with the PLO in the office of the Coordinator of Government Activities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. In this capacity I was a core member of Israel’s negotiating team with the Palestinians.

In 1997 and 1998 I served as assistant foreign policy advisor Binyamin Netanyahu during his first stint as Prime Minister.

From 1998-2000 I returned to the US for graduate school. I received a Master’s in Public Policy from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. Although I spent most of my free time hiking in New England, it did not escape my attention that much of the faculty at the Kennedy School was not particularly fond of America, (Alinsky’s organizing methods were taught in a required first year course for MPP candidates) — or of Israel.

The latter truth was exposed for all the world to see when my former professor Steve Walt co-wrote the updated version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion with his friend from my childhood hometown – University of Chicago’s John Mearshimer.

After I finished graduate school I returned to Israel and began writing at Makor Rishon newspaper, (Hebrew). I served as READ THE REST