my random thoughts....

 
from The Federalist:

The President repeated, "Our enemies in Iraq are good at filling hospitals, but they do not build any. They can incite men to murder and suicide, but they cannot inspire men to live, and hope, and add to the progress of their country. The terrorists' only influence is violence, and their only agenda is death. Our agenda, in contrast, is freedom and independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people. And by removing a source of terrorist violence and instability in the Middle East, we also make our own country more secure."

"We are less safe because of his policies," Gore said of President Bush's choice to make war rather than serve subpoenas. Albert then took exception with the characterization of Iraq as "the central front in the war on terror," claiming instead that "it has unfortunately become the central recruiting office for terrorists." But Gore wasn't finished maligning our military: "As many as 37 prisoners may have been murdered while in captivity," Gore wildly charged. "Murdered"! Gore referred to the prisons holding suspected Jihadi terrorists as "Bush's Gulag," and he made the outrageous comment that "we need not reassure ourselves and should not congratulate ourselves that our society is less cruel than some others, although it is worth noting that there are many that are less cruel than ours."

Shame on you, Albert Gore ... shame on you.

Republican National Committee Communications Director Jim Dyke delivered an appropriately astringent reply: "Albert Gore served as Vice President of this country for eight years. During that time, Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States five times and terrorists killed U.S. citizens on at least four different occasions including the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the attacks on Khobar Towers, our embassies in East Africa, and the USS Cole. Al Gore's attacks on the President today demonstrate that he either does not understand the threat of global terror, or he has amnesia."

posted by Greg at 11:46 AM

 
"Let's be clear. Any constitutional amendment denying the right of elected representation would accomplish what no terrorist could, namely striking a fatal blow to what has otherwise always been 'The People's House.'"
--House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, May 5, 2004

http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/cog.htm

posted by Greg at 9:51 AM

 
"He [Brian R. Chontosh, USMC] fought with the M16 until it was out of ammo. Then he fought with the Beretta until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up a dead man's AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up another dead man's AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/chontosh.asp


posted by Greg at 9:42 AM

 
"If we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War."
--George Washington
posted by Greg at 9:31 AM

 
"Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purpose is beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
--Supreme Court Justice Brandeis

posted by Greg at 9:10 AM

 
I recently bought a copy of Herb Meyer's video "The Siege of Western Civilization" (http://www.siegeofwesternciv.com/). Among other things, he talks about how Judaism and Christianity reconciled themselves with the modern world several hundred years ago and as a result, they have been the source of very little trouble since.

Islam has yet to do so, and as a result it is the source of a great deal of trouble, especially as Muslims emigrate throughout the world.

Along these same lines, the January/February 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine has an article called "The Saudi Paradox" by Michael Scott Doran that describes a schism among the rulers of Saudi Arabia. On one side is Crown Prince Abdullah, and on the other side is his half-brother Prince Nayef, the Interior Minister (who controls the secret police). Neither is yet powerful enough to capture the throne.

Abdullah is a proponent of Taqarub, or rapprochement between Muslims and non-Muslims. Nayef, on the other hand, supports Tawhid, which is closely related to jihad, and is very anti-American.

A Saudi journalist recently wrote that "we need an Islam reconciled with the other, an Islam that does not know hatred for others because of their beliefs or their inclinations. We need a new Reformation, a bold reinterpretation of the religious text so that we can reconcile ourselves with the world."

Of course this journalist was accused of apostasy by the hard-line clerics and sentenced to death.

What does this mean for us? It demonstrates that there are those who understand very well what is going on--Herb Meyer is one of them. It also indicates (to me, at least) that this fight is far from over, and it is going to get worse before it gets better.

I highly recommend that you order a copy of Herb Meyer's DVD. Watch it. Loan it to your friends and let them watch it.

posted by Greg at 2:15 PM

 
The Second Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Of course, the Constitution only applies to the Congress, not to the States; or does it?

William Rawle, who was offered the position of first US Attorney General by George Washington, made the following statement:

"In the second [amendment] it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. . . .

"The corollary, from the first position, is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

This clearly indicates that the Second Amendment was intended to restrict both the federal Congress and the State legislatures from infringing the right to keep and bear arms, which can only be an individual right.

However, that is not the whole story. Following the Civil War, several debates took place concerning the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, the Civil Rights Bill of 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Both the Freedmen's Bureau Bill and the Civil Rights Bill specifically mentioned the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, and even those legislators who were opposed to these bills recognized the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. But the stated purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment is to put the same prohibition on the State legislatures as already existed on the Congress--a prohibition against violating the rights stated in the Bill of Rights.

That is worth repeating. The State legislatures do not have the power to infringe the right to keep and bear arms any more than does the Congress, thanks to both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

Writes Stephen Halbrook:

"Among other freedoms in the Bill of Rights, keeping and bearing arms was considered part of the definition of a citizen. Depicted as a civil right and a privilege and immunity in Dred Scott, the debates on the Fourteenth Amendment, and on related civil rights legislation, this liberty interest effectuated the defense and practical realization of the guarantees of 'life, liberty, or property.' This fundamental right under 'the laws' (that is, the Bill of Rights) also qualified for 'equal protection,' but never for deprivation, whether equal or unequal. To the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, these universally recognized rights, too numerous to list individually, were to be protected by the all-inclusive language that they proposed.

"The Freedmen's Bureau Act declared that 'the constitutional right to bear arms' is included among the 'laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security,' and property, and that 'the free enjoyment of such immunities and rights' is to be protected. This again suggests that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to incorporate the Second Amendment, so as to invalidate state infringements of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Fourteenth Amendment protects the rights to personal security and personal liberty, which its authors declared in the Freedmen's Bureau Act to include 'the constitutional right to bear arms.' To the members of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, possession of arms was a fundamental, individual right worthy of protection from both federal and state
violation.

"The arms that the Fourteenth Amendment's framers believed to be constitutionally protected included the latest firearms of all kinds, from military muskets (which were fitted with bayonets) and repeating rifles to shotguns, pistols, and revolvers. The right of the people to keep arms meant the right of an individual to possess arms in the home and elsewhere; the right to bear arms meant to carry arms on one's person. The right to have arms implied the right to use them for protection of one's life, family, and home against criminals and terrorist groups of all kinds, whether attacking Klansmen or lawless law enforcement. Far from being restricted to official militia activity, the right to keep and bear arms could be exercised by persons against the state's official militia when it plundered and killed the innocent.

"In the above sense, 'the constitutional right to bear arms' was perhaps considered as the most fundamental protection for the rights of personal liberty and personal security, which may explain its unique mention in the Freedmen's Bureau Act. To the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, human emancipation meant the protection of this great human right from all sources of infringement, whether federal or state."

All quotes taken from Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876, by Stephen P. Halbrook, 1998.

This is not some academic political theory to be debated; this is history. Our history, our Constitution, our heritage, our liberty--all paid for by the blood of our forebears.


posted by Greg at 2:08 PM

 
"There is but one answer to be made to the dynamite bomb, and that can best be made by the Winchester rifle."
--Teddy Roosevelt, 1887

posted by Greg at 9:52 AM

 
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is
worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important that his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill(1806-1873)

posted by Greg at 9:48 AM