Ezekiel Saw The Wheel…

… And Wished It Would Die

In his opinion piece at the progressive groupthink foundry The Atlantic, Ezekiel Emanuel espouses his personal desire to “die at 75”. I guess the good news is, if gets his wish, we only have 18 more years of this ageistic, Hitler-of-Healthcare’s policy recommendations to contend with. If that sounds glibly morbid and heavy-handed, you should read his work.

As Health-Policy Adviser to President Obama (and having secured that position while his younger brother, Rahm, served as White House Chief of Staff), it would be very unwise to dismiss or downplay his connections, input, and influence in all things “health” that emanate from the District of Criminals.

To anyone who bothers reading and keeping up with such things, it’s unfortunately the rule, and not the exception, that we always hear such fatalistic diatribes from those who don the mantle of professional “bioethicists”. An Orwellian title indeed, the fact that so many of these academically-minded men and women, having the audacity to instruct the masses on what’s ethically right, wrong, or appropriate in life/death decisions, are themselves die-hard adherents of the “the world would be better off if more people would just die” school of thought, is beyond disturbing. Here’s a smattering of examples:

Death Cult As Healthcare

Since ‘Day 1’ of the rollout of the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) legislation, with all of its chicanery, obfuscation, hidden tax funding mechanisms, and the push to “pass it so you can read what’s in it”, “alarmists” and naysayers alike have consistently had their fears allayed by The Powers That Be that there are no “death panels”, nor need we be worried about the elderly possibly being denied necessary, life-saving procedures, based on cost-benefit calculations involving their age and the expense of said procedures. It’s quite difficult to accept such assurances about a law whose chief progenitor and drafter is a man who actively wishes everyone of the species to expire at a prescribed age. Why would we consider that anything this man fights for in the realm of so-called healthcare would be in our best interest? To the extent that any of us do believe that, perhaps we have the same death wish as Mr. Emanuel himself.

What I’m Saying Is Not What I’m Saying

After spouting one communitarian, “greater good” argument after another, extolling the societal virtues of a tightly-controlled and tidily-timed prescribed death, Mr. Emanuel gives the less than sincere-sounding qualification that he’s not recommending his point of view for the rest of us and certainly not supporting that such an age-restrictive proscription be instituted as a matter of policy or law. One can hardly read the piece in its entirety, however, and not seriously doubt this as being the case. Again, the man’s career is as a bioethicist; he is absolutely concerning himself with prescribing what healthcare providers and we, the commoners, ought to do – all in the interest of society, of course. No discussion of individual rights here; only efficiency and expediency with regard to our collective obligations to the social contract (which we never signed). Don’t let his soft-peddling academic voice, hiding his agenda under the cover of value-free, detached scientist, fool you. This man is a social engineer by trade, and this light-hearted romp of reflections on age, usefulness, and death-by-choice are both meant to put these ideas into the mainstream conversation, and to inoculate you against any survival instinct-driven bristling you might be prone to in the face of such philosophical investigation.

This isn’t an isolated sentiment from this man, either. This WSJ article provides a decent rundown of good ol’ Zeke’s many quotes over the years, and affords us some valuable insight into his eugenic ideations.

Yaaaay – Let’s Die!

What’s worse to me than even this weasel’s professional opinions, is that I see people sharing links to his Atlantic article on Facebook – and liking it. You’ve got to be kidding me. As a culture – especially among the now aging Gen-Xers (which includes me, age 40) and younger – we’ve allowed ourselves to be seduced by this fatalistic nonsense. We think prescriptions of death are as mother’s milk, and we’re just fine letting health legislation be penned by people who actively prefer and promote death over life. We’re insane. We may as well register our elderly loved ones at a nursing facility run by Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Or, enroll our children in a private boarding school where Jerry Sandusky is the Headmaster. We’re committing cultural and literal suicide, and smiling with two Facebook thumbs up as we do it. It’s as if Hannibal Lecter is feeding us a sauteed slice of our own brain, and we’re praising how savory it is. This is what the human race has come to: cheering on the culture of death as we label it “sensible”.

Let’s Not Reform Anything – Let’s Abandon It!

I’m already of the mind that, as Dr. Peter Glidden, ND frequently says, “We don’t need to up-regulate, down-regulate, massage, manage, or tweak the healthcare system – we need to abandon it!” No, this isn’t lunacy or some shtick, intended simply to shock people’s sensibilities; it’s a reality-check. What we’re essentially arguing about when we’re talking all things “healthcare” in the modern age, is a matter of access to the same old broken system – a system misnamed “healthcare”, instead of its more accurate moniker, “disease management”. All the clamoring is aimed at gaining more access to a system that sees things through a reductionistic lens, and whose only therapeutics and interventions involve toxic drugs and surgery. If they can’t drug it into submission, they cut and/or burn it out. Unless you’re receiving trauma care, treatment for an acute illness, or a handful of infectious diseases, what passes for the very best in modern M.D. medicine is, quite frankly, embarrassing and barbaric – and, ultimately works against the natural functioning of our bodies.

Is it any wonder Mr. Emanuel wants to die at 75?! Our understanding, prevention, and treatment of chronic disease – the thing that most people go to the doctor for, most of the time – is so unbelievably poor and ineffective, that if we’re lucky enough to make it to 75, our quality of life is in the toilet. This being the case, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who didn’t want to be put out of their misery before becoming an octogenarian. Notice, however, that the answer is never to change course with regard to conventional health strategies and interventions… No, no. The answer is to simply accept the abysmal state of “aging” and hope to die! This is the man (and thought process) we appoint to inform our already-bloated government’s “health” policies? Again, you’ve got to me kidding me.

World of Idiocy

Think about it: We’re told by “smart” doctors that nutrition is kind of an afterthought, and taking vitamin and mineral supplements is a waste of time and just gives you expensive urine – as they convince you that your disease state is only remedied with a toxic drug, sold at an obscene profit. When the drugs fail to “fix” the condition (which was never the intent anyway), they march in with surgery. They “treat” an arthritic knee, for example, by replacing it with an artificial one made from titanium – but, never address the severe nutrient deficiencies that spurred the biophysical processes that caused the arthritis in the first place, and which are still at work in the remaining bones to which the fake knee is yet attached. Just face it: You’ve been sold a bill of goods, and you keep buying. And, after your physically, emotionally, and financially broke from the sad and sorry “normalcy” that results from this failed system, you joyously accept, in your weakened state, the ultimate amelioration of your pain: a man who says, “Just die already!”

Let’s all tell Ezekiel Emanuel that if he wishes to depart this physical coil at the magic age of 75, go for it. In the meantime, let’s stop listening to his nonsense, and to people like him, and let’s make it a priority to get lunatics like him out of positions of power. If he’s so impressed with Darwin’s survival of the fittest, and of letting “nature [take] its course swiftly and promptly”, then let’s give him what he wants by all agreeing to try and live to 85, just so we can out-survive his idiotic policies and tell him to (posthumously) go to hell.

 

Advertisements

Pleading the Second

It’s been two weeks now since the psychotic madman, known as Adam Lanza, perpetrated his sick and evil intent upon the innocent children and adults of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.  In that time, I’ve sat silently, watching the news reports, social media exchanges, and political scrambling for legislative “answers” that have followed.  My third party grief for the victims is only matched, however, by my outrage at the predictable and perfectly-scheduled response from the Powers that Be.

Attack!!!

Before the bodies of the 20 victims even had time to cool, the usual suspects were already at it.  The media was set like a primed pump, and the incident was simply the switch, whereby the fountain of gun control diatribe was permitted to flow.  Every gun-grabbing liberal – and select sympathetic (emphasis on the “pathetic”) conservative – was flooding the media with attacks on the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership, using the collective exhale of our initial reaction to this tragedy the way a python handles its prey, exploiting the moment to constrict ever more tightly around their disabled victim, calling for the gun control (victim disarmament) they salivate for.  In the words of Rahm Emanuel (ballet dancer and long time associate of the infamous former Mayor Daley and his Chicago crime family/syndicate), acting as Chief of Staff for President Obama, “Don’t let a good crisis go to waste.”  The pro-gun response to this was obvious and predictable, pointing out that the tragedy was carried out in a state which already ranks 4th among the most restrictive in terms of firearm purchase/permitting/ownership, and that the “gun-free school zone” simply made for an easy, ready-made, neon sign-advertised target for a would-be assailant.  The anti-gunners, of course, given to a thought process and world view that simply denies reality as much as it does the basic right to self-defense and bearing arms, find this reasoning obscene.  And, so, we’re locked in this spiral of echo chamber bullsh*t, where the media pounds us with non-stop, sensational coverage, while the politicos act out their self-righteous proclamations, demands, and commentary to the backdrop of it all, like opportunistic silhouettes of Joel, Tom Servo, and Crow T. Robot.  Political Grandstanding Theater 2012.

The Liberal Perspective:  The only factor in a crime is the weapon used, of course!

One barely needs a warm body temperature to notice that the authoritarian, fake-left reduces the whole issue of gun violence and of crimes committed with a gun to the existence of the gun itself.  None of these phonies, for all of their bleeding heart diatribe, actually believe that guns are the sole cause of the problem, but they’re happy to pose and grandstand as such in order to limit the debate and steer each tragic cause celeb toward this rationale, in pursuit of their agenda of disarmament.  We should also dismiss the hair-splitting debates over the degree of gun control they advocate – a red herring, at best – since we know, even though there may be some “reasonable” folks among them who don’t want to entirely dismantle the 2nd Amendment, that the globalist, U.N. policies that inform the legislation they call for certainly do seek these ends.  And any attempt to disarm the people is treason.  Call it what it is.  Make no mistake:  Even the most well-intentioned push for “sensible gun control legislation”, however ignorant and misguided, always just plays into the hands of the global agenda to disarm the populace, just as has been the fate of nearly every other nation on this earth, Switzerland excepted (whose culture of weapons of defense in the hands of the people was the model for this country’s insurance policy known as the 2nd Amendment).  This is not a fight in which compromise is acceptable.

First Person Shooter Games, the Second Amendment, and the Blinded Third Eye

I find it amusing when I see incensed, righteous-sounding posts by friends about “gun violence”, the backward idiocy of the gun culture, and the measures which must be undertaken to stamp it out…  when, two weeks prior, they were dishing out accolades for the latest Call of Duty: Black Ops II, first person shooter (FPS), role playing game (RPG) for their XBox and Playstation.  Wow, really??  As entertainment, it’s entirely socially acceptable to have fun playing out a Machiavellian, ends-justified, Pentagon-propagandist narrative of clandestine, future warfare, mass death and destruction (for “Kill Streak” rewards!), celebration of global military empire.  For that, we clap, dole out awards, and recommend the game to friends.  For the right to actually bear arms responsibly for our own defense and protection, hoping to never need to use such force, we reserve contempt and political action.  God bless Amerika!

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not among those who constantly decry “violent games” and blame them for all of society’s ills.  In college and the years immediately thereafter, I played the entire Tomb Raider series for untold hours, and enjoyed the exploration of a virtual world and the mental gymnastics of unlocking logical puzzles as much as I did the ever-sexy, Laura Croft’s, unlimited weapons and firepower, compliments of available cheat codes.  Even today, I occasionally play such games at friends’ houses.  No doubt, were I to play Call of Duty, and despite my view of it as total war propaganda and imperial acclimatization, I would likely find the gameplay “fun”, at face value.  Not to mention, I grew up in the 80’s playing with G.I. Joe action figures, Transformers, as well as toy guns, pitting the “good guys” against the “bad guys”, as many boys do, innocently modelling, in my backyard, a simplistic understanding of “cops and robbers” and “war”.  I don’t necessarily see this behavior as destructive, by default – I see it as learning through role playing, no different than pretending you’re a firefighter, chef, or doctor.  Kids learn about the real world through these abstracted representations of actual concepts and ideas, often with the harsh edges removed, including “awful” things presented in harmless ways.  Add to that the ability to release natural aggression in a “safe” way.  That’s why it’s called “play”.

In contrast, and as a son of a police officer, I was also exposed to real guns in a very specific context and adult-controlled environment, and the respect for their purpose, usefulness, and safe handling was taught to me at an early age.  Fantasy, reality, and personal responsibility each occupied clear and distinct places.  For all of my childhood “war play”, I never once had the notion in my head to harm anyone or act as an aggressor.  Guns were a tool, just like a kitchen knife or a hammer, and it was the responsibility of the individual to use them in the right manner.  Interaction with this tool did nothing to promote its ill use.

Without calling for censorship or a ban on such violent games – my libertarian ethos precludes ham-fisted control measures of this sort – we should, nonetheless, at least consider the unique combination of inputs, inherent to most of the FPS games, where increasingly graphic and realistic simulation of vicious atrocities, gore and death are wrapped around a core of repetitive, reflexive, and instinctual acts of violence and killing.  Despite their interesting and cinema-worthy plots, such games can act as a Skinnerian, operant conditioning, training program for young minds to run through a virtual world as a killing wraith, with the most extreme actions receiving positive reinforcement via point rewards, all while coolly detached from consequence, even as the pixelated representations desensitize the normal reactions to such behaviors.  Think of the mixed signals we send our children and young adults.  Every parent wants their child to be respectful, loving, and kind.  They want to raise boys and girls who will become men and women who, regardless of their vocations and avocations, will influence humanity in a positive direction.  Then, we shrug and watch blankly as they sit down and play Grand Theft Auto, where they can, by interactive choice, in combination with a pre-programmed narrative, pay a hooker for sex in the back seat of a car, then shoot her dead, when “finished” with her.  We’ll tolerate this – hell, even laugh at it – but, boy, my gun rights just have to go!

I’m not simply scapegoating this industry, either, the way many right-wing folks did with so-called “satanic” rock bands like Marylin Manson, following the Columbine incident.  However, and quite simply, an argument can clearly be made that exposure to these games might very well be contributory to a conditioning to violence and hypnotic detachment from reality, and a possible setup for violent choices – including the instinct to kill – far more than simply owning a gun represents.  Yet, we don’t see the “anti-violence” politicos moving to restrict them with the same voracity, banning “certain types of games” from sale or ownership.  But, what would one expect from a society that now calls upon its young people to enlist and become “warriors” in the Armed Forces, as zit-faced 18 yr. olds, sitting in climate-controlled computer rooms in the New Mexico desert, operating drones on the other side of the globe, killing thousands of innocent people with the movement of a joystick and push of a button – people they only ever see as faceless infrared pixels on a computer screen, much like the very video games they play when off duty.  When the physical act of killing in a war environ exactly resembles our culture’s recreational games, a sick merger of the two would-be opposites, what distinctions are to be made between the mental state of either actor?  Again, the gun isn’t the villain, the individual robotically using it is.

Psychotropical Thunder

If a culture of gratuitous violence-as-entertainment, as a source of negative programming, doesn’t strike your fancy as a logical one-size-fits-all cause or co-factor for the violent behaviors we seem to increasingly witness, perhaps the pharmaceutical culture can fill in the remaining gaps.  Consider the obscenely well-established, studied, and documented facts surrounding the psychotic, suicidal, and homicidal thought-inducing effects of basically every psychotropic SSRI drug, including Prozac, Luvox, Paxil, Celexa, Effexor, Zoloft, and Wellbutrin, to name a few.  Peter Breggin is an authority in this field of research – see his article here, and his Congressional testimony here.  Consider also that nearly every mass shooter in recent history has been variously on one or more of these drugs, often in combination with other medications, the chemical cocktails of which arguably turn a person’s reasoning and mental faculties into nothing short of brain pudding.  With mass shootings of this nature essentially being a phenomenon of very recent history, despite the fact that we’ve always had guns – and when this occurrence somewhat parallels the development and increasingly widespread use of the aforementioned drugs – we have to ask ourselves if this development is related?  If we suddenly observe something we’ve never encountered before, we have to ask ourselves, “What changed?”.  Isn’t it criminally negligent, or at the very least willfully ignorant, not to focus on this available data, seeing the obvious connections?  Rather than fixate and obsess on the weapon alone, a material object with neither cause nor intent, as the prima facie source of the crime, isn’t it far more sensible to dial in the real trigger – the thing that causes a person to pick up a gun and use it to go on an incomprehensible killing rampage, with many of the shooters often described by witnesses as “detached from reality” during the commission of these acts?  Why does the system continue to give logic the finger, while jamming the gas pedal to the damn floor when it comes to taking away your right to defend yourself?  The answer to that is that all the political grandstanding has nothing to do with violence.  It has everything to do with a predetermined agenda to disarm the public.  With each tragedy comes a marketable excuse to go after American gun ownership, with pushes ranging from limited restrictions on types of firearms all the way to the full repeal of the 2nd Amendment.  Yes, there are camp followers who truly care about ending violence and murder, but these folks, in addition to being shamefully undereducated on the Founders’ meaning and purpose of the 2nd Amendment, have also allowed themselves to be used to foolishly carry the water for collectivist, social change agents, whose primary desire is to stomp out self-sufficiency and self-determination, and force you to rely on the state as your only source of protection from all threats.  Hand over your liberty, and they’ll give you security.  Read your history books, people.  That plan has never worked.  It’s time for decent people to stand up to the authoritarian demons of government who would rather make us all guilty and dismantle our right to defense, instead of addressing the root causes of problems while promoting individual liberty.  A good place to start might be by exposing the suppressed data from these psychotropic drugs’ trials and other independent research, and by holding the major pharmaceutical companies criminally responsible for their dangerous drugging of the public.

Right to Choose

Choice.  Or, as Henry Ford put it, “You can have any color, as long as it’s black.”  Exactly what are my rights as a human being, again – and when do they begin?  The so-called liberal answer is dodgy and amoebic.  Under the guise of one-dimensional, reproductive-oriented “choice” for women, I have no rights as an unborn fetus.  I can be violently killed, in utero, by doctors who have violated their Hippocratic oath to “first, do no harm”, and none of the enlightened left will so much as shed a tear for my tiny, scorched and dismembered corpse as it rots like last week’s leftovers in a medical waste bin.  Twenty innocents get gunned down by a lunatic – a tragedy, indeed – and, the end of the world ensues and I must be disarmed.  Meanwhile, the 53 million dead and aborted babies since Roe v. Wade in 1974 (2,000+ each day, currently), having been fully dehumanized, are not only a non-issue, but a stripe on the sleeve of “women’s rights” and “equality”.  Who needs Satan when we have people of this mentality running around, vying for control?

Should I be lucky enough to get born, however…  can I protect myself from harm, now?  Certainly not!  My right to meet unprovoked bodily harm or deadly force with equally deadly force (via a firearm) is just too dangerous to leave in my hands – and might infringe on others’ pipe dreams of a Utopian, non-violent society – so, it must be taken from me.  What?!  Liberals love choice when it’s variously aimed at sexual and reproductive behavior and speech (as long as it’s confined to the low hanging fruit of profanity and obscenity in art), but they recoil at the idea of an individual (gasp!) choosing to protect their life and property.  They completely throw the idea of natural rights out the window, considering them as unsophisticated and quaint, instead promoting the idea that only the state should posses the monopoly of force.  And when the state can’t and won’t protect you from whatever threat is upon you (which is the rule, not the exception), too bad for you.

Tears for Fears:  The Weeper-in-Chief

Ah, yes.  The healing tears from our Dear Leader.  Thank God for such genuine and unscripted displays of emotional vulnerability from our Lord and Savior, Obama.  Hand me the barf bag, Bob.  Anyone who believes that Obama isn’t a phony needs to ask themselves if they think he, likewise, sheds such tears of sorrow for the thousands of innocent men, women, and children in the eight different countries, such as Pakistan, who have been and are ongoing victims of U.S. drone strikes which he has personally ordered (Obama’s expansion of said activity doubling even the criminal escapades of George W. Bush)?  Or, perhaps, he cuddles with his Nobel Peace Prize as he ruminates about the 14 countries where we currently have Special Forces commanding and assisting various malevolent groups of “rebels” (read Al Qaeda), terrorizing, murdering, and ethnically cleansing local populations, while overthrowing regimes in the specious name of “humanitarianism”?  War is peace, Winston.  War is peace.  Do you think he cries himself to sleep at night over all the human collateral damage which has resulted from his obscene love-bombing and illegal, undeclared wars of aggression (the full details of which see scant coverage in most mainstream U.S. news sources)?  What a joke.  Ladies and gentlemen, there are Vegas strippers with more “real” qualities than this fecal-filled gas bag.  When a liar of such magnitude speaks, it’s like sand paper to my ear canals.  When he acts, it’s like a knife through my heart – and that of the Republic.  It ought to make you physically sick to see his obnoxious face and hear his phony, metered, preacher voice lecturing the rest of us on “gun violence”, while wiping poignant tears from the corner of his teleprompter-reading eyes.  He wants you to believe you’re bad for asserting your right to be armed, as if we’re all collectively responsible for the actions of every last deranged or degenerate person, yet he’s the one with more blood on his murderous hands than any advocate of the 2nd Amendment.  Get off my television, you lying, duplicitous bastard.

Despicable Thee: The Minions

All that said, Obama is just the front man.  The puppet.  There are plenty of other equally dangerous operatives, whose lead feet are on the gas pedal, driving the tyrannical authoritarianism bus, but selling it as sexy, ‘New Socialism’.  Through their clever use and manipulation of phraseology of sensitive subjects like social justice and gender/race equality, slimy creatures like soda-banning NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, Senator (D-CA) Dianne “not so” Feinstein, Senator (D-NY) Chuck Schumer, and White House Science Czar, Cass Sunstein (whose comprehension and interpretation of the Constitution – the 1st and 2nd Amendments, especially – has receded more quickly than his own hairline), to name a few, are the “boots on the ground” in the effort to relieve you, the little people, of your insipid and arcane “rights”.  They are the ubiquitous, gender and race-baiting tools in the well-coordinated attack apparatus against the right to bear arms.  Control freaks extraordinaire who want to lord over everything in your life, from the guns they won’t let you own to the sodas you’re not allowed to drink.  Using their 1st Amendment right to eviscerate my 2nd Amendment, they’d like you to believe that “normal” people shouldn’t want to protect themselves with firearms, and only a paranoid weirdo would own a gun.  Get wise to the collectivist scam, people.  Hear the doublespeak.  Normal people don’t get out of bed each morning, looking for ways to limit and control you.  While telling you that it’s your glorious right to decide to kill the unborn child within you, they simultaneously proclaim that you’re otherwise too stupid and unworthy to manage your own healthcare, make your own dietary and beverage choices, and – above all – protect yourself.  Why do so few people bat an eyelash at the hypocrisy, let alone the blatant, in-your-face, control freakism?  I used to see feminists protesting what they regarded as invasive legislation proposed by the pro-life crowd with variations of the phrase, “GOP, stay out of my vagina!”  What we need is for the vocal majority of patriots to resist the invasive tactics of the social engineers and say, “Globalist control freaks, stay out of my Bill of Rights!”

Guilt by Association?

One of the liberal memes tumbling, on repeat, through Facebookdom, is the one that equates pro-gun folks with being racists – namely, the indictment of saying that when the KKK throws support for your cause (i.e. gun rights), it should give you pause to reconsider your position on the topic.  There are two great ironies here:

First, one of the little historical tidbits that generally goes untouched by the born-to-lie media is that the KKK was founded, not just as a terrorist organization, but as a gun control organization (see here, too), successfully lobbying for this nation’s first gun control laws:  those prohibiting blacks (freed slaves with new found autonomy and a long term memory) from owning firearms.  The KKK was never in the freedom business, were never patriots, and certainly did not support the notion that all people should be empowered to defend themselves or take up arms against their oppressors.  That they’re now aligning themselves with Patriots, only insofar as their current fervor for “gun rights”, means nothing – other than the fact that, as a racist group, they’re still in the business of protecting their own interests.  The Klan’s opportunistic stance on this issue that they once lobbied in favor of, only underscores the fact that any of their political ideologies reflect zero on rank and file Patriots’ defense of gun rights and 2nd Amendment issues.

Second, if we’re really going to play this guilt by association game, then we may as well point out who is aligning themselves with the oh-so-prescient liberal push for Draconian gun control measures:  Communist China.  That’s right.  State-run, Communist Chinese media outlet, Xinhua, has been enthusiastically advocating not just for American lawmakers to institute stricter gun control legislation, but has gone so far as to call for President Obama to literally “make preparation for a protracted war” [emphasis added] with the American people.  This kind of talk about “innocent blood” from a country whose human rights violations couldn’t be fully written down, given the limited amount of available wood pulp in existence to make the required paper.  Mao, alone, was responsible for an estimated 40-80+ million deaths of his own people (and, while the exact numbers are debated, it’s relevant to note that the higher estimates come from the Chinese government themselves).  As Mao himself said, “Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.”  Which is why he had to disarm the people.  And the horrors of institutionalized abuses continue to this day, even as they hypocritically lecture us on our right to bear arms:

  • Working conditions at the FoxConn plant, which manufactures Apple iPhones, iPods, and iPads, were so bad that they were forced to erect suicide nets around the factory building to stop workers from throwing themselves out of windows.
  • These same FoxConn plants instituted mandatory monthly pregnancy testing, thereby facilitating the conduit whereby forced abortions, pursuant to China’s evil one-child policy, may be carried out.
  • Only a few short months ago, a man was crushed by a steamroller, per government orders, when he resisted a forced relocation.

If the Communist Chinese government, in all its totalitarian glory, is calling for gun control in our country, then the “liberal” way of thinking dictates that I should truly reconsider what gun restrictions are all about.  Authoritarian governments, like the one which squats over the Chinese people, are the exact reason why we have a 2nd Amendment.  A disarmed populace is quite easy to run down with steamrollers.  But, I guess we’ll just re-brand that as “liberal”, just as we have the loving, undeclared, “humanitarian” un-wars of our Nobel Laureate, El Presidente, Obama.  Give evil a little bit of good ol’ left cover, and all the useful idiots, eager to appear so “progressive”, will call it mother’s milk.

The Might of Rights

The time for playing patty-cake with treasonous and seditious scum has come to an end.  Our Bill of Rights is not a negotiable contract, alterable at the whim of public passion.  Neither are the rights, contained therein, granted by the government, nor susceptible to revocation.  They are unalienable rights, held by free people, and are merely recognized, enumerated, and guaranteed by the Constitution.  We stand upon them with our very lives, as they remain immutable from outside incursion.  Unlike our current legislators – and those throughout all of world history – these rights, when maintained by the people, protect all people.  They do not sniff out gender, race, or creed, engineering us into domesticated protectorates of the state.  They guarantee each of us, as individuals, the basic, God-given precepts by which we may guide our own destiny.  To infringe, even slightly, on any of these rights, is the highest form of treason against the American ideal and We, the People.