Credo
"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." -- John Paul Jones
"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra"
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friedrich Nietzsche
"A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate."--Edmund Burke
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”--General Sir Charles Napier
"Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas
"Blogito Ergo Sum" -- Neptunus Lex
As usual a sobering piece. Of course these warnings have been sounded before and many who sounded them portrayed as wild-eyed extermists intent on taking us backwards instead of forward into the promised redistributed-welath drive land.
The sad fact is that most people are lazy and I include myself in that sad camp. My intelect and what limited reading of histroy and human nature tell me informs this to be a radical rejection of the enlightened principles this country was founded on. In short it is the leadership of the people by the chosen instead of the service of the chosen to the people enabled by the apathy of those who fear losing what station they have unaware of the folly such clinging desperation assures jsut taht result.
I saw the movie Invictus this weekend. I cannot testify to the accuracy of its portrayal of events but the entire time I kept thinking of the lessons in leadership our Presient could learn from Nelson Mandella. But that supposes he actually cares for the people or even the nation. In the face of overshelming evidence we still shallow the canned lines wishing against hope that he does. I was given a short book on our revolution for Christmas and am amazed anew at the miracle our nation’s founding represented while being morose as we so freely give it away.
But that supposes he actually cares for the people or even the nation.
Sadly T6, I don’t believe Obama cares for anything but himself and his own self-perceived glory. He’s in this for his future, not the future of this country.
I second your motion. The words say one thing, the actions, of which we must live with…align with your perception. Sad, but a man who does not even know the history of our great 57 States, let alone that of the world and geo-political affairs, past, very past, and present (which is most strongly implied in the PD) cannot be bothered with with taking council of them.
His one bit of explanation of his acts: “IT’S BUSH’s FAULT!” shall not read well in any history books. he is so focused on building a legacy, he fails to notice he will not be the only one penning the story.
I can see him as a bitter old man, with a Robert Gibbs figure trotting out to daily to spew venom at those who would dare question his greatness, foresight and just plain grandiosity, that he is due…because, after all, he is HISTORIC!
All the while he is blessed with no worries about how ObamaCare has decimated the current and future generations, as he and his will forever receive the best care this nation can provide…most likely by Navy and Army doctors and medical specialists. How ironic will that become as it all plays out?
60 states, Xformed, 60. People keep misunderstanding the former jr. senator from IL on that point. He said he had been to 57 with one to go, that makes 58, then he wasn’t allowed to go to HI or AK, so, add 2 to 58 for a total of 60 states. I think he was using Chicago-style counting.
Virg, you wrote:
I think there are enough moderates, conservatives, and blue dog Dems in the electorate that would rise in righteous anger that the hard core leftists would not mention it. And if it were somehow to be ratified by the Senate, it would be invalidated by SCOTUS. And may be the spark at least get the fuse to the powder keg lit. We already have people rediscovering the 9th & 10th Amendments, so we just may have the right conditions to throw off the Hamiltonian federalism foisted on us by ‘Honest’ Abe about 145 years ago. Time to bring back Jeffersonian/Madisonian federalism. Well past it, in fact.
Dr. K chimes in on the year that was….
It gets even worse.
“On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control,the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.
The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth?
What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.
This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary,so will gun control.
Read the Article. U.S. reverses stance on treaty to
regulate arms trade.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
While not for one minute arguing that ultimate control and removal of guns from the public is not the left’s ultimate dream and an objective of the Obama administration which it follows by every sub-rosa technique out of sight of the public which it can muster, ultimately any treaty–especially one which has such high profile ramifications (however secretly arrived at) would, like the Kyoto climate treaty signed by Clinton, be a dead letter–DOA–in the US Senate.
What such a treaty WOULD do, imho, is serve as a rallying cry to the left as something that “must be lived up to” “to uphold the good name of the US” in Intl. relations exactly as the left used the signed-but-not-ratified Kyoto treaty for the same purposes. IOW, as a an emotional, psychological tool with which to try to browbeat/cow public opinion by referring to our
“ethical” “principled” need to “meet our international obligations,” etc., and that it would be “immoral” not to do so. In short, such a treaty would serve as the basis for a morality play–to be used as the camel’s nose under the gun-control tent if nothing more…Again, in EXACTLY the same way the Kyoto treaty has been used.
Now, do you people see why I drink so much? I want to be numb when they come for me! Numb, I tell you!