LittleMargaretNan

From another angle . . .

The Exploitation of Tragedy to Manipulate Americans

Excerpts . . . Why did the president make a special address regarding the events in Aurora? Why is he traveling there to meet with victims? As the previous evidence indicates, it is because Mr. Obama is using the shootings politically. Yes, obviously, he structured his remarks to make them seem a-political, but that is only a ruse, a transparent one. As with the Trayvon Martin case, Mr. Obama’s real motivation lies in increasing his own power as president. . . .

Perhaps some believe President Obama’s using these incidents to further his political agenda is fully justified owing to the number of individuals killed in America by gun-related violence. One could view it through that lens, a Machiavellian lens, through which truth is bent in the service of a desired end. But that does not make the President’s actions moral, in any sense of the word.

Clearly, he and members of his administration grasp at opportunities to distort reality then present it as truth that supports what they want to happen. They encourage a disproportionate attention to shootings that can be dramatized to suit their political agenda, while continually ignoring even greater tragedies unfolding all around. . . .

. . . The behavior of public figures sets the example many people follow, consciously or unconsciously. If leaders are morally bereft, unprincipled, and pragmatic, where does that leave us? . . .

. . . But some times the pushes are hard and blatant. And it is easier to make blatant pushes when the populace is emotional. Hence the value of events such as the shooting in Aurora. As long-time Obama-adviser and fellow Chicago Machine politician Rahm Emanuel is famous for saying, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before.” . . .

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/18490/

. . . If the President of the United States is determined to ignore our rights to property ownership (guns being one type) and “our right to keep and bear arms,” a natural right set forth as CLARIFICATION in the Bill of Rights, so that we should never be violated, what can we do?

As far as I can see, our best defense is simply not falling for the propaganda and then helping others to resist it. We also have to stop hiding our appreciation for gun ownership for fear of being labeled “bitter clingers” (per President Obama’s remarks).

We must assert ourselves and help others understand how essential gun ownership is to a free society. . . .

http://nation.foxnews.com/todd-starnes/2012/02/03/new-book-defends-bitter-clingers-exposes-obama-s-war-christianity

. . . When inept or crazy or evil people kill deliberately with tools such as sledgehammers or axes or hoes or machetes or automobiles, or any other item we consider necessary to life, so necessary we could not dream of banning or strictly limiting it, we never blame the tool. Why? Because we recognize the tool did not inflict the damage on its own. The tool was wielded by an individual, an individual who is responsible for the damage. But guns are seldom viewed this way. Why?

Over time we have been taught to fear guns, as part of a deliberate and incremental move toward greater control over our lives. As recently as the 1930s a young boy could take a rifle on a city bus to ride to the outskirts of town to hunt for food, and no one blinked an eye. Passengers didn’t fear him or the rifle; this was considered a normal, peaceful aspect of life. . . .

. . . Even if there were thousands more gun deaths every year than there are now, outlawing them would not solve the problem. Moreover, it would create additional problems. Thus, we can only improve the situation by addressing the root cause. There would be something else at work. Just as there is today. . . .

. . . Most of the politicians vying for power over our lives today are the moral equivalent of the evil sheriff from Gripes Gulch. We fall for them and follow their orders, along with swallowing the propaganda they promote through a complicit media, because they are charismatic and persuasive opportunists, and expert manipulators.

They prey upon our tendency to feel emotion for others when they are hurt or injured. They prey upon our desire to feel safe and protected and wanted. The feed upon our need for approval.

Ironically, those who want to take our guns, such as they are, are the ones with the greatest, biggest guns, and they will never let them go.

Ironically,  these people who claim to be our protectors are nothing more than our abusers.

It is all part of the big lie.

Don’t fall for it. Spread the word. Resist. Persist. Peacefully. . . .

Revised 7/22/12 – PM

Full Text

The Exploitation of Tragedy to Manipulate Americans

What makes yesterday’s shooting in Aurora, Colorado especially difficult to think about is that the people shot were in what they thought would be a safe place—they weren’t marching into battle or on the front lines of a protest. They weren’t hurtling down the highway in a bus or riding in a jet or on a high speed train. They weren’t on the back of a motorcycle or a horse or traveling at high speed down a highway full of tractor-trailers. They weren’t in an open field in a thunderstorm.

Once safely inside the theater, the victims probably felt there was nothing much that could go wrong to cause them harm—a fire, tornado, or earthquake, perhaps, but these thoughts probably never crossed their minds. That the dead and injured were violated while in such a vulnerable position makes this incident all the more gut wrenching.

Whenever tragedy strikes and the news is conveyed to us, most of us feel empathy for the victims, and perhaps breathe a sigh of relief that we are safe—human nature. After all, the world is full of life and of death. It is a dangerous place. If we knew of every death in detail, in every minute if that were possible, even if it were only those caused by violent force from humankind or of nature, we would quickly become numb and unable to process the information and the resulting feelings and thoughts.

So reports of tragedy are filtered by necessity, by the conscious choices of journalists and others who control the flow of information. They decide where and when our attention will be focused. Of course, we know this, but it is easy to forget when preoccupied by the details of a tragedy. Yes, individual bloggers and those sharing news on social media sites do contribute more and more to the flow of information, but their impact on most of America is still too small, overall, to overtake other media.

It is interesting to pay attention to which events politicians select to remark upon. Of course, they must be selective. Naturally, they will tend to choose events that reinforce a view they encourage or that bolster an image or events that are of a magnitude that cannot be ignored. But when this selectivity verges on dishonesty in service of an agenda, it becomes dangerous; it becomes pure propaganda; it constitutes a lie, a big lie.

When President Obama chose to make special remarks on the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, out of all the tragedies occurring in our country during that time, he had a purpose beyond comforting the family. This case was singled out for political reasons. Evidence of this lies in Mr. Obama’s remarks themselves, the responses Press Secretary Jay Carney gave to questions that same day, and in the political emails sent by one of Mr. Obama’s supporting PACs, Move-On.

http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/23/president-obama-statement-on-trayvon-martin-case/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/23/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-3232012

http://front.moveon.org/president-obamas-powerful-response-to-the-trayvon-martin-murder/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_MoveOn.org

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00341396

Additional evidence that Mr. Obama made his remarks purely for political gain is that the Trayvon Martin shooting case was proceeding through proper legal channels without intervention. It was referred to the Florida State’s attorney for review right away, because of the unusual circumstances of the shooting that made it hard to determine whether George Zimmerman acted in self defense or pursued Martin, and it would have gone before a Grand Jury, with or without the petitions, protests, and president’s interference. This referral also indicates President Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, might have been aware of the case early on. From the March 27, 2012 SunSentinel.com:

Asked to confirm that the police recommended a manslaughter charge, special prosecutor Angela Corey said: “I don’t know about that, but as far as the process I can tell you that the police went to the state attorney with a capias request, meaning: ‘We’re through with our investigation and here it is for you.’ The state attorney impaneled a grand jury, but before anything else could be done, the governor stepped in and asked us to pick it up in mid-stream.”

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-03-27/news/sfl-prosecutor-sanford-police-sought-to-charge-zimmerman-20120327_1_special-prosecutor-manslaughter-charge-arrest-warrant

It is no coincidence that this chosen case resides in Florida, which is one of 24 states with a “Stand Your Ground” law that says an individual need not retreat when confronted by an attacker, even outside the home. Though, ironically, it seems more and more likely the Stand Your Ground law will not apply to George Zimmerman’s defense, because Zimmerman claims he was being physically assaulted by Trayvon Martin when Zimmerman shot him.

The Justice Department, under Eric Holder, would like to see Stand Your Ground laws repealed, in connection with a pro-gun-control agenda Holder has openly pursued beginning in 1995, when he was United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, under President Bill Clinton. It may be that his office seized the political opportunity before having all the facts, or perhaps despite them. NBC famously released a 911 tape of George Zimmerman’s call for assistance that was altered, making it seem George Zimmerman made racist remarks to the dispatcher. NBC later apologized but claimed the alterations were not deliberately biased.

http://youtu.be/9Y_uB6yy3hU

http://youtu.be/RGWhRAccEuE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/defense-%E2%80%98stand-your-ground%E2%80%99-laws

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/03/23-other-states-have-stand-your-ground-laws-too/50226/

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/16/2897263/poll-most-floridians-want-no-changes.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/11/study-says-stand-your-ground-laws-increase-homicides/

http://www.gunsmagazine.com/stan

http://www.examiner.com/article/rush-to-judgment-on-george-zimmerman-reminiscent-of-mob-behavior

http://www.southfloridacriminallawyer-blog.com/2012/03/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-explained.html

It is apparent those involved with the propaganda campaign against George Zimmerman and the Stand Your Ground laws did not do adequate research before they began. First, they assumed that because George Zimmerman was a gun-toting member of a neighborhood watch he would also be white, a Tea Party member, and a racist. These assumptions worked against them in the end, when it was learned that George Zimmerman’s mother is Peruvian, his great-grandfather black, and he was known for his efforts to seek justice for a black homeless man who was a victim of police brutality, not to mention he was a registered Democrat and not in the Tea Party. These revelations may have slowed the campaign against Zimmerman, which, after all, is really against the right to self-defense and an attempt to create racial tension for political advantage, but they have not and will not stop it.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june12/trayvonmartin_04-11.html

http://www.westernjournalism.com/how-george-zimmerman-was-sacrificed-for-another-obama-election/

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/third-news-network-admits-to-false-reporting-on-george-zimmerman-surprising/question-2566877/

http://www.mediaite.com/online/zimmerman-prosecutor-went-on-40-minute-rant-threatened-to-sue-alan-dershowitz/

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/04/zimmerman-demanded-discipline-in-2010-race-related-beating-for-officers-who-investigated-martin-shooting/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017819414_zimmerman23.html

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-11/news/os-george-zimmerman-black-relatives-20120511_1_photo-black-relatives-sanford

As further evidence the Trayvon Martin shooting was used to manipulate, let’s compare President Obama’s response, March 3, 2012, to the 35 individuals killed when tornadoes tore through Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Illinois, to his response to those seeking justice for Trayvon Martin. (No doubt many good, well-intentioned people were misled by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. )

The residents of some areas hit by the March 2, 2012 storms also suffered extensive property damage in addition to deaths and injuries. The entire town of Marysville, Indiana was destroyed. Did the President take time to make special remarks to these families from the Rose Garden? No. Why not? It seems incongruous–thirty five deaths and widespread destruction vs. one shooting death that was being properly investigated. So perhaps Mr. Obama remarked on Trayvon Martin’s death to quell unrest? No, if anything, as his remarks indicate, he validated and encouraged discontent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/marysville-indiana-tornado-destroys-town_n_1317161.html

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/obama-calls-governors-of-storm-ravaged-states/

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/02/us/severe-weather/index.html

Regarding the devastating tornadoes, news stories indicate Mr. Obama did telephone the states’ governors and discuss the matter with the FEMA director. Again, 35 people were killed, numerous more injured, homes and towns destroyed in a horrifying instant. No official remarks. No comforting words. Nothing. Why?

President Obama and the First Lady, according to the White House archives, had plenty of time and energy to speak at campaign events that day. Then Mr. Obama held a long press conference March 6 and had time to mention Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh, yet no mention of the families devastated by the tornadoes?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/03/readout-president-obamas-calls-governors-indiana-kentucky-and-ohio

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-and-remarks?page=28

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/06/press-conference-president

President Obama treated the families suffering from the tornadoes’ destruction with such callousness perhaps because they hardly seemed to make it onto his radar screen; the same appears to be true of the first lady. It seems obvious that the multiple losses suffered by these families were not given the same level of attention, simply because there was no political reason for President or Mrs. Obama to do so. There was no political pressure one way or the other and nothing to gain politically from devoting energy to the matter.

Which brings us to Friday’s tragedy in Aurora that left 12 killed and 59 injured. Once again, as in the Trayvon Martin shooting, President Obama chose to single out this case for remarks, even though the number of individuals affected is far smaller than killed by the March 2 tornadoes; again, at least 35 killed, numerous injuries, and devastating destruction of entire towns.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/03/indiana-tornado-outbreak-2012-death-toll-rises_n_1318210.html

So, why didn’t the President hold a special press conference or issue a statement of condolences to those affected by the tornadoes? Maybe he did, but I can’t find a record of it online. In contrast, his speech on the Trayvon Maritn shooting is readily available, as is his recent speech regarding the Aurora, Colorado shootings.

Since I published the first version of this article in the early hours of this morning, President Obama decided to make a special trip to Aurora, to meet with victims. So far as I know, he made no such effort to visit the victims of the tornadoes. Just as he has made no effort to comfort the families and friends of all those who perished at the hands of Chicago gang members (250 homicides from January to June 2012), in the city run by his cronies, in the city where his former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, is Mayor.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/20/remarks-president-shootings-aurora-colorado

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/colorado-shooter-identified-as-james-holmes-24/2012/07/20/gJQAWkdrxW_story.html

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8744712

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/29/11935475-violent-holiday-weekend-claims-at-least-10-lives-in-chicago?lite

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/escalating-gun-violence-chicago-claims-life-7-year-old-heaven-sutton

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/30/130241630/white-house-chief-of-staff-rahm-emanuel-to-step-down-run-for-mayor-of-chicago

Well, there are the Hollywood-style dramatic circumstances of the Aurora shooting. The media was bound to make a circus of it no matter what. But wouldn’t calling the governor of Colorado and releasing a statement suffice, as Mr. Obama did in the case of the 35 tornado deaths? If that was sufficient for the tornado sufferers, why was it not sufficient regarding the events in Aurora? Again, though the shootings were tragic and horrible, they resulted in far fewer deaths and injuries and far less property damage than the tornadoes, certainly far fewer than the constant violence in Chicago.

Are tornadoes or gang violence really less traumatic to those involved? Not if you ask someone who has lost a loved one. So, why?

Why did the president make a special address regarding the events in Aurora? Why is he traveling there to meet with victims? As the previous evidence indicates, it is because Mr. Obama is using the shootings politically. Yes, obviously, he structured his remarks to make them seem a-political, but that is only a ruse, a transparent one. As with the Trayvon Martin case, Mr. Obama’s real motivation lies in increasing his own power as president.

And he hopes to do this through alliances with others seeking to impose leftist, internationalist rules on American citizens, undermining their individual sovereignty, as well as the sovereignty of the United States. There is that “little matter” of the Small Arms Treaty draft blueprint scheduled for completion July 27, with Hillary Clinton pushing for ratification. Whether or not you believe the goals are admirable in general, this treaty is designed to undermine our right to self-government and private property ownership, especially of guns and ammunition.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-are-our-2nd-amendment-rights-part-of-the-deal/

http://www.therightscoop.com/bolton-small-arms-treaty-has-hidden-agenda-by-gun-control-crowd-that-would-impact-gun-ownership-in-america/

http://www.libertygunrights.com/SmallArmsTreaty9pgs.pdf

Moreover, though trying to appear neutral regarding gun control, President Obama’s administration is anything but. Evidence mounts that Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, the Mexican Government, and Eric Holder used operation Fast and Furious to make it seem that American gun sellers were arranging large numbers of illegal sales, of arms used to commit crimes in Mexico, to create false statistics to convince the public of the necessity for severe restrictions on weapons and weapons sales.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/07/carney-obama-will-not-push-for-new-gun-control-measures-129749.html

Did I mention they are all seeking a huge distraction about now?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/even_before_fast_and_furious_they_had_guns_on_their_minds.html

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/09/formal-complaint-seeks-disbarment-of-eric-holder-in-dc/

http://www.examiner.com/article/atf-damage-control-on-whistleblowers-raising-new-concerns

http://www.examiner.com/article/trial-begins-for-n-m-gun-dealer-family-charged-with-illegal-sales

http://www.examiner.com/article/court-will-be-asked-to-drop-all-charges-against-new-mexico-gun-dealer-family

http://www.examiner.com/article/report-points-to-clinton-era-gunwalking

http://youtu.be/KprRccze0I0

We also see that the propagandists in the major media pounced on the Aurora tragedy, grasping for any indication that the shooter might be allied with the Tea Party, which the left loves to demonize. Also, calls for increased gun control came from all around, as an almost automatic, pre-programmed response to a shooting. Evidence of the politicization of this event is also in an email from MoveOn, sent July 20, 2012:

Sadly, it often takes moments like these to bring politicians to their senses about guns. And while signing a petition seems so inadequate in the face of what happened last night, it’s important to do what we can. Today that means taking a small step toward preventing this kind of tragedy from happening again.

Sign the Mayors Against Illegal Guns petition to our leaders: “Join me in standing with the victims and families of the Aurora, Colorado shooting and pledge to end gun violence

http://littlemargaretnan.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/obamas-move-on-uses-aurora-colorado-shooting-to-manipulate-the-public/

http://www.examiner.com/article/tea-partier-jim-holmes-calls-abc-tie-on-batman-shooting-blatantly-lazy

http://www.examiner.com/article/democrats-double-down-on-demands-for-gun-control

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/moveon_and_obama_exhibit_detachment_syndrome_on_aurora_murders.html

 The media continues the barrage on cue, taking up the President’s gun control agenda and running with it. Look at this list of headlines from my Yahoo homepage this 7/21 morning, five of nine are related to the shooting and to guns.

“Fascist” New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg also seemed well-prepared to weigh-in.

http://www.mikebloomberg.com/index.cfm?objectid=A4D805E9-C29C-7CA2-F352D7ADD1B7E11D

 http://www.examiner.com/article/bloomberg-reeks-of-hypocrisy-on-stand-your-ground-laws

Perhaps some believe President Obama’s using these incidents to further his political agenda is fully justified owing to the number of individuals killed in America by gun-related violence. One could view it through that lens, a Machiavellian lens, through which truth is bent in the service of a desired end. But that does not make the President’s actions moral, in any sense of the word. Clearly, he and members of his administration grasp at opportunities to distort reality then present it as truth that supports what they want to happen. They encourage a disproportionate attention to shootings that can be dramatized to suit their political agenda, while continually ignoring even greater tragedies unfolding all around.

Do a lot of individuals die every year from gun shot wounds?  Yes. And are a lot killed or murdered without guns? Oh, yes! Is it correct to assume that decreasing guns will decrease the amount of violence? Do we ever stop to ask this question?

As scholar John Lott writes in his book More Guns, Less Crime, evidence reveals that as gun ownership increases, crime decreases, thus saving lives. But what about those other countries that have confiscated all weapons and have low crime? Mr. Lott explains that is often untrue and depends upon the culture.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html/

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/116140.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

http://www.mdch.state.mi.us/pha/osr/deaths/Homicdx.asp

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/14/mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2009

http://www.bls.gov/iif/

Were Mr. Obama truly concerned about the lives of innocent Americans, there are policies he could change or promote immediately that would save many more lives than increased gun control ever could, even if the unlikely best-case results flowed from such a power-grab. Ending the War on Drugs is a big one. Look at what happened when they tried it in Portugal, and then see what a former Mexican president has to say about this possibility.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/18/former-mexican-president-legalize-drugs-to-fight-cartels/

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/151635/ten_years_ago_portugal_legalized_all_drugs_–_what_happened_next?page=entire

Pardoning those sentenced to jail for “victimless” crimes is another action President Obama could take to decrease violence. In addition, he could abolish many onerous regulations burdening our economy and adopt a predictable policy of economic liberty that does not tolerate cronyism.

Perhaps thousands of individuals every year could be spared violent deaths and have happier lives because gang violence would be reduced as drugs became legal, and the number of young people schooled in the criminal life by spending time in jail would also be fewer. One in every 32 Americans is under correctional supervision, per a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the prison population has topped 2 million. According to a 2012 CNN report, about 48,000 lives have been lost over the last five years, in the Mexican Drug War. The online publication Narcosphere estimates drug-war-related homicides at 1,100 people per year, minimum, within US borders.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aainjail.htm

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2012/03/drug-war-related-homicides-us-average-least-1100-year

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/the-drug-waraposs-assault-on-liberty/

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/15/world/mexico-drug-war-essay/

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/11510-outrage-grows-after-us-drug-war-kills-more-honduran-women-children

How does the economy come into this, in terms of saving lives? With greater freedom, many more people would prosper because tax burdens and operating costs would once again be predictable and conducive to entrepreneurship. It would be easier to earn an honest living than turn to gangs or crime.

All of the above measures would also improve well-being in general because they lead toward a government that more often defends liberty than tramples it–which is better materially, as well as for moral and spiritual well-being, having nothing to do with religion but with living a principled life and consistently exhibiting good character.

The behavior of public figures sets the example many people follow, consciously or unconsciously. If leaders are morally bereft, unprincipled, and pragmatic, where does that leave us?

But President Obama will take none of these suggestions and act upon them (after all, they are not new ideas), unless it becomes more politically expedient for him to do so. His political goal is to obtain as much control of Americans as possible without causing too much push-back. This requires a constant back and forth and an incremental move forward, no pun intended.

But some times the pushes are hard and blatant. And it is easier to make blatant pushes when the populace is emotional. Hence the value of events such as the shooting in Aurora. As long-time Obama-adviser and fellow Chicago Machine politician Rahm Emanuel is famous for saying, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before.”

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/18490/

In light of what we know about the political philosophy of President Obama and his advisers and appointees, including Hillary Clinton, with the Cloward Piven strategy and Saul Alinsky tactics being standard operating procedures, should we ask: “Was our government involved in instigating Aurora shooter James Holmes, to further a political agenda?” Is this another Fast and Furious? We may never know the truth. I, for one, sincerely hope this scenario does not prove true. On the other hand, the number of verifiable lies issued by President Obama and previous presidents are too numerous to simply ignore the possibility.

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm

http://www.theprogressivemind.info/?p=89806

http://youtu.be/Sr9pdOFCO2c

http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html

http://sgtreport.com/2012/07/cnn-breaks-evidence-of-false-flag-shooter-had-accomplice-colorado-theater-eyewitness-describes-gunman-possible-accomplice/

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/the_clowardpiven_strategy_of_e.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-4145761.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/09/23/barack-obama-bill-ayers-stanley-kurtz-makes-connection

http://www.westernjournalism.com/colorado-shooter-active-with-occupy-wall-street/

http://judymorrisreport.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-aurora-shooting-raises-more.html?spref=tw

If the President of the United States is determined to ignore our rights to property ownership (guns being one type) and “our right to keep and bear arms,” a natural right set forth as CLARIFICATION in the Bill of Rights, so that we should never be violated, what can we do?

As far as I can see, our best defense is simply not falling for the propaganda and then helping others to resist it. We also have to stop hiding our appreciation for gun ownership for fear of being labeled “bitter clingers” (per President Obama’s remarks).

We must assert ourselves and help others understand how essential gun ownership is to a free society.

http://nation.foxnews.com/todd-starnes/2012/02/03/new-book-defends-bitter-clingers-exposes-obama-s-war-christianity

When those whose main purpose is to seek more and more power are aiming to disarm you, consider why? Why will disarming you give them greater power? For one, should a chaotic situation occur, the recent riots in the UK, for example, you will be powerless to defend yourself and reliant upon government to do it for you. You will not have a dependable means of defending yourself and your home, from a safe distance. You will no longer have the ability to hunt wildlife with relative ease, should you need to for food or to defend yourself. Their ability to control you grows in proportion to your willingness to be dependent.

When inept or crazy or evil people kill deliberately with tools such as sledgehammers or axes or hoes or machetes or automobiles, or any other item we consider necessary to life, so necessary we could not dream of banning or strictly limiting it, we never blame the tool. Why? Because we recognize the tool did not inflict the damage on its own. The tool was wielded by an individual, an individual who is responsible for the damage. But guns are seldom viewed this way. Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machete

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/06/gladiator-death-fights-mexico-drug-war/38812/

Over time we have been taught to fear guns, as part of a deliberate and incremental move toward greater control over our lives. As recently as the 1930s a young boy could take a rifle on a city bus to ride to the outskirts of town to hunt for food, and no one blinked an eye. Passengers didn’t fear him or the rifle; this was considered a normal, peaceful aspect of life.

Can you imagine the response should a child try the same thing today? A SWAT team would move in. The entire city would be traumatized, not to mention the bus driver, the boy, and the other passengers. The parents would be prosecuted for neglect, for letting the boy have the gun and leave the house with it. The boy would be placed into foster care and possibly charged with a crime. The child and his parents would be lucky to ever see one another again.

Those in power recognize they cannot fully dominate a society armed with any weapons that are numerous and effective from a distance. Even with drones and infrared technology and brain-freezing Taser pulses and all the other high-tech weapons that could be turned against us, those holding the reins know that more than a certain amount of tyranny would eventually meet with physical resistance. And though well-funded tyrants would likely win any such conflict, it is very messy. And they don’t really want messy. They don’t want too much evidence of their evil for all to see and to feel and to remember; the general population just might stop supporting them.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/socom-scaleable/

So even if you are an advocate of the Philosophy of Liberty, which, stated another way, is the non-coercion principle, and even if you sincerely desire peace and believe peaceful resistance to tyranny is more effective and more moral than armed resistance, you cannot ignore the role that guns play in the power struggle between good and evil—tyranny vs. liberty.

http://youtu.be/Ei0ch-y7r5c

http://youtu.be/WQ3NsLr1al0

http://youtu.be/c6J730PqBik

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G008

Even if there were thousands more gun deaths every year than there are now, outlawing them would not solve the problem. Moreover, it would create additional problems. Thus, we can only improve the situation by addressing the root cause. There would be something else at work. Just as there is today.

For example, imagine a group of people living in an isolated town—say, Gripes Gulch—with a sheriff who has more and bigger weapons than they do, treats them unjustly, abuses them daily, confiscates their property as he wishes, and does not keep his word, so they never know what to expect, even turning them against each other. Might the townspeople not be more prone to irritation and to violence than most? Might they begin to wield their weapons, whatever they might have, let’s say, pitchforks or axes or clubs, against each other, more and more frequently, as an unconscious outlet for the anxiety caused by the poor conditions and the constant strain of not knowing what to expect? Might not the evil sheriff use this coerced chaos to his advantage?

People under such stress are hard-pressed to think creatively to solve problems; they are trapped in a mental world of limited options.  They grow weak and compliant to authority, their energy having been drained by futile striving and petty squabbling.

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/2e.htm

Now imagine another group in a town called—yes, Moral Mesa—(no, no, it’s not as boring as you might think), in which the sheriff models good character. Everyone knows they can depend upon him (or her) to be just, even if he is sometimes appropriately strict. He leads by example and helps the townspeople work out their problems but does not interfere needlessly. All his decisions are rooted in natural law (i.e. the Platinum Rule), so everyone can predict outcomes. Every person living in the Mesa is free to leave at any time, unless he or she has harmed someone else, in which case there is work to be done to compensate the victim appropriately before leaving.

If a resident of Moral Mesa chooses not to follow the sheriff’s advice, there is no consequence, unless someone else is clearly wronged because of the refusal. This leader recognizes he was asked by others to help them organize certain aspects of life and considers it an honor. His desire is to respect those who look to him for guidance and to be respected in turn, because he has earned it. He does not gossip, though he has a sense of humor and likes to tease a little. He can take a joke in return. He stands up for others when they are unjustly criticized. He always has a kind word, even for the town drunk. (Yes, I know, sounds like Andy of Mayberry :-)

How would these people behave when faced with a problem? Would they turn pitchforks and axes against each other? Compare their behavior to the individuals in Gripes Gulch above.

What is the essential difference between Moral Mesa and Gripes Gulch? Liberty, Honesty, Trust, Respect, Individual Responsibility, and Private Property vs.  the lack thereof.

We cannot move from being citizens of Gripes Gulch to the inhabitants of Moral Mesa by removing all access to axes and pitchforks. What good would that do? The Gripes Gulch people would simply resort to using sticks and stones or fists. Not having tools would only make it harder to cut trees and to toss hay. It would also render the people utterly defenseless against hungry wolves or evil sheriffs.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-22/colorado-s-hickenlooper-says-gun-control-won-t-stop-evil.html

Taking away weapons doesn’t work and it only makes life more chaotic. To move from being the people of Gripes Gulch to Moral Mesa, we must simply follow natural law (as described by Bastiat), which is the non-coercion principle, which is the Philosophy of Liberty. When you were a child, you probably thought of this as the Golden Rule. (Also, note the Platinum Rule mentioned above.)

http://bastiat.org/

The people of Moral Mesa could be issued nuclear weapons (not that they would necessarily want or need them) and be trusted with them. Why? Because they follow principle and respect and trust themselves and others who do the same.

Infringing more and more upon the rights of the individual causes great harm not just physically but to the human psyche, resulting in many unintended consequences. No good can ever flow from such coercion.

Most of the politicians vying for power over our lives today are the moral equivalent of the evil sheriff from Gripes Gulch. We fall for them and follow their orders, along with swallowing the propaganda they promote through a complicit media, because they are charismatic and persuasive opportunists, and expert manipulators.

They prey upon our tendency to feel emotion for others when they are hurt or injured. They prey upon our desire to feel safe and protected and wanted. The feed upon our need for approval. They exploit human fear of forces of nature that cannot be harnessed, whether human evil or atmospheric or geologic shifts, to keep us afraid.

Ironically, those who want to take our guns, such as they are, are the ones with the greatest, biggest guns, and they will never let them go.

Ironically,  these people who claim to be our protectors are nothing more than our abusers.

It is all part of the big lie.

Don’t fall for it. Spread the word. Resist. Persist. Peacefully.

-LMN

Single Post Navigation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: