Filed under: 2nd Amendment, Abortion, Guns | Tagged: Abortion, AR-15, children, forceps, genocide, Guns, murder, rifle, slaughter, suction, vacuum | Leave a comment »
“Scary” Guns vs. Abortion Tools
More than 100 Million Gun Owners Did NOT Kill Anyone Today, but Abortion Doctors Did ⋆ Constitution.com
Why is it that we correctly see one nut with a gun killing 59 people as horrific, but shrug our shoulders at one “doctor” with a scalpel who kills THOUSANDS of babies? Why aren’t 55 MILLION dead babies since Roe v. Wade making America sick to its collective stomach? What about blacks, who were/are SPECIFICALLY targeted by the eugenicists who brought us abortion? You would think that blacks would be doing everything they could to end abortion since it is being used to eliminate them BECAUSE they are black.
Using the “logic” of the left, shouldn’t we be banning scalpels?
Filed under: Abortion | Tagged: 9. Politics, Abortion, democrats, eugenics, genocide, gun control, Margaret Sanger | Leave a comment »
Looking Down the Wrong End of the Barrel
Do you support gun control? Do you support gun registration? Do you support despot dictators? Do you support ethnic cleansing? Do you support criminals, rapists, and murderers?
If you support gun registration and control, whether you know it or not, you are supporting the ability of evil regimes to confiscate guns leaving you defenseless. You are supporting the ability of those dictators to exterminate people who they don’t like or disagree with them. You are supporting the ability of criminals to steal, rape, and murder at will, with no resistance.
Gun control laws aren’t about controlling guns or crime. They are about controlling the populace. It is documented FACT that EVERYWHERE gun control laws are implemented, crime INCREASES. This is because only law abiding citizens obey these laws leaving themselves defenseless in the face of animals who wish to harm them. It is documented historic fact that every time a despotic government has exterminated millions of its own people, they have been able to do so only because those people were UNARMED. As in the case of the Jews in Germany, gun registrations were used to identify gun owners, and confiscate weapons from those who disagreed with the regime. It can happen here.
Our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is the only thing standing between us and these same outcomes. Our founding fathers knew that an unarmed populace could not resist evil. Gun control advocates attempt to dilute the importance of the 2nd Amendment by twisting its words, by spreading lies and misinformation about gun death statistics, by using only modern context to explain it away (i.e. “militia”), and by using an increasingly liberal court system to try to nullify the 2nd Amendment.
There is nothing less than our freedom and survival at stake in defending our right to keep and bear arms.
http://www.garynorth.com/public/7241.cfm
Jews: Looking Down the Wrong End of the Barrel
Gary North
Nov. 12, 2010
Aaron Zelman’s organization, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, is well known in second amendment circles as an outfit that takes no ideological prisoners. The JPFO has released a video, No Guns for Jews, that states the case as well as anything I have seen.
The video makes it clear that Jews have been at the wrong end of the barrel for longer than there have been barrels. There is a long tradition of disarmed Jews — so long, in fact, that Jews have mentally accepted it. Zelman is trying to change their minds.
The problem he faces is this: the documents that the video offers for support — the Pentateuch, the Talmud, and their medieval commentators — are out of favor in modern Jewish circles. The other document — the United States Constitution — has also been out of favor on this issue in many gentile circles.
The moral issue is self-defense. It is not revolution.
The legal issue is the right to keep and bear arms: a Jewish right and an American right. This right is under fire. The “assault weapon” of those who want to legislate away this right has been excessive trust in the government. The video makes this clear.
I wish every subgroup in the United States would fund and produce a video like this, targeting its own members. The second amendment is under assault. We need to keep and bear digital arms.
This is an almost flawless video from a persuasion standpoint. It targets a specific audience. It presents its case in terms of the concerns of this audience. It offers a specific ethical case, based on the official documents of this audience. It presents evidence of what has happened in the past to members of this audience because of their refusal to honor the ethical principle. It identifies specific members of the group who have openly called for the continuing violation of the original ethical principle. Then there is a call to action: join the organization.
All in all, it could serve as a case study of how to create an effective video.
For years, I have been what you might call a gentile free rider on Zelman’s work. I have decided to stop my free riding. I made a donation. The video persuaded me!
+
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, Opressive Government | Tagged: 2nd Amendment, anti-gun, confiscation, crime, dictators, exterminate, genocide, gun ban, gun control, gun registration, holocaust, Jews, right to keep and bear arms, self-defense, survival | 1 Comment »
Sympathy for the Devil
You can’t bargain with the devil and expect to benefit from it.
Every President’s administration sends signals about its foreign policy intentions by the people the President selects and the various statements they make.
The Obama administration’s intentions are becoming clearer and clearer to discern. The message to the world: America has been arrogant. The message to Muslims: America has been arrogant. The message to Israel: See below.
There is a difference between acknowledging mistakes and communicating weakness. The Obama administration is, unfortunately, repeatedly communicating weakness to those who mean us harm. One could understand pursuing such a policy if there were historical precedent for it actually working. If the goal of the Obama administration is to secure lasting peace in the Middle East that includes safety and security for Israel, and if its goal is to secure peaceful co-existence with radical Islamists, the paths he is following will fail.
Not because any of us wishes they would fail, but because, as George Santayana wrote, “He who does not know history is condemned to repeat it.” We’re reasonably sure most Brits wanted Neville Chamberlain to succeed when he declared after his meeting with Hitler that he had secured “peace in our time.” Why did he fail? Because he refused to acknowledge the reality of the evil he was dealing with and deluded himself into believing such evil could be appeased with accommodations and concessions.
Obama’s Signal to Israel: Submit
By Mona Charen
May 12, 2009 / 18 Iyar 5769
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen051209.php3
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In early April, Vice President Biden was asked if the administration was concerned that Israel might strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I don’t believe Prime Minister Netanyahu would do that,” Mr. Biden replied. “I think he would be ill advised to do that.”
A few weeks later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained the administration’s solution to the threat of an Iranian bomb: “For Israel to get the kind of strong support it’s looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can’t stay on the sideline with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts … they go hand in hand.”
And on May 10, National Security Adviser James Jones spelled it out further: “We understand Israel’s preoccupation with Iran as an existential threat. We agree with that. … By the same token, there are a lot of things that you can do to diminish that existential threat by working hard towards achieving a two-state solution.”
By what reasoning has the administration decided that pushing Israel to permit a new Palestinian state would — in any way — diminish the threat from Iran? Do they believe that Iran’s (or I should say the Iranian leadership’s) genocidal hostility toward Israel is the result of lack of progress toward an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza? Will the Iranian leadership, which has characterized Israel as a “cancerous tumor,” declared that “Israel must we wiped off the map,” and promised that “Israel is destined for destruction and will soon disappear” is going to change its mind if Israel enters into negotiations with the Palestinians?
“Obama will be a great friend to Israel.” So said a Jewish Democrat in a pre-election debate with me. I asked her whether she had any hesitations about someone who had been steeped in academic pieties and Hyde Park leftwing intellectual fashions, and who had tamely absorbed the Rev. Wright’s sermons for 20 years? Her response was to mouth some of the platitudes about support for Israel that were to be found on the Obama campaign’s website. I wonder if she is having doubts now.
Does it give her pause that Rose Gottemoeller, assistant secretary of state and America’s chief nuclear arms negotiator, has called on Israel (along with Pakistan, India, and North Korea) to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? By including Israel on a list of nations known to either have nuclear weapons or be close to acquiring them, the Obama administration is introducing a sinister note of moral equivalence to the problem of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. All previous U.S. governments have implicitly accepted that Israel’s nuclear weapons pose a threat to no nation and are maintained only to deter Israel’s enemies from genocidal attacks.
Like other liberals, my debate opponent probably believes that Obama’s apology tour of global capitals was pitch perfect. Of course, it’s one thing for the United States, still the world’s superpower, to delude itself that winning international popularity contests will make us safer (though it’s a dangerous delusion), but Israel, which always sits inches from the precipice of destruction, cannot afford such fantasies at all.
We have recent history to guide us. In 2000, Israel withdrew from the security corridor it had established in southern Lebanon. The world had long been clamoring for Israel to do this. The Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah movement immediately seized the area — trumpeting its triumph in driving out the enemy. In 2006, southern Lebanon became the launching pad for Hezbollah’s missile campaign against northern Israel.
Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. The Iranian-backed Hamas movement moved quickly and took control there (not without significant internecine bloodshed with Fatah), and again used the territory not to build a peaceful Palestinian enclave but to launch 10,000 missiles against southern Israel.
Fatah (which is called moderate because it wants to destroy Israel on the installment plan rather than all at once) retains tenuous control of the West Bank. But even Mahmoud Abbas admits that if Israel were to withdraw completely from the area, Hamas would gain control in a heartbeat.
Next week, Prime Minister Netanyahu will meet with President Obama in Washington. It is hard to see how this relationship can go well. President Obama has sent abundant signals that his foreign policy is 50 percent wishful thinking and 50 percent leftwing mush. There may not be any easy answers to the problem of a nuclear Iran. But pressuring Israel to take suicidal risks is clearly the worst possible approach. Iran will conclude, as its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas at various times concluded, that force and the threat of force work.
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. … We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. –Sir Karl Popper
Filed under: Iran, Islam, Israel, Muslims, National Defense, Opressive Government, Terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: accommodations, Biden, Clinton, concessions, Fatah, Gaza, genocide, Hamas, Hezbollah, Hitler, Iran, Islam, Islamists, Israel, Lebanon, missile campaign, Muslims, Netanyahu, Neville Chamberlain, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Obama, Palestine, Palestinians, peace, Rose Gottemoeller, threat, two-state solution, weakness | Leave a comment »