I am not even close to suggesting that my article was as inclusive as his…..but he certainly lays it out from beginning to end.
In yesterday’s article on Benghazi I expressed my opinion that nothing of any real import will change for the better as a result of the events in Benghazi or any of the relevant Congressional Hearings which are currently in session. This was not meant to suggest that the lessons to be learned or the knowledge to be gained will not reveal in even greater detail the almost insurmountable conflict between those on the Left who wish to destroy what is left of America and those who oppose them with every fiber of their being and yet continue to search for a viable strategy with which they might successfully counter its effects.
One of the primary mistakes which grass root conservatives, as well as others, make in attempting to formulate an effective response to the actions of those on the Left is to assume that the lower level supporters are unaware of the facts and/or the consequences pertaining to any particular issue. This is somewhat akin to the infamous response of British Prime Minister to Adolph Hitler’s increasingly aggressive actions in Europe prior to the outbreak of hostilities which became know as WWII. The response being referenced is Mr. Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement which he pursued as his basic strategy rather than taking an aggressive position against the German Chancellor’s policy of confrontation under the rubric that he had ensured “peace in our time”.
The fundamental question at issue in the Benghazi Affair is whether enough Americans care about saving the United States of America. As I pointed out in my previous article there are very few, if any, actual facts in dispute. In effect we are in the sentencing phase of the trial and the question is whether or not enough Americans believe that the actions of those in the Obama Administration are worthy of significant censure. I am afraid that I am not optimistic as to what the answer will be to either of those two questions.
In the first place, as has been pointed out on more than one occasion, today’s “main stream” media outlets have lost any claim to being members of what was at one time characterized as being the “watchdog media”. Instead, and with few exceptions, they have apparently all elected to become card carrying members of the newly constructed “lapdog media”. Take a look at virtually every article written on the subject of Benghazi and make an attempt to find a single article in which the primary focus is on what constitutes the national interest rather than evidencing an almost obsessive need to score the action based on baser political considerations. In an even greater display of hubris many members of the “lapdog media” actually attempt to take the position that it is the Republicans and conservatives who are attempting to take political advantage of what might better be viewed as a national catastrophe. Ironically, those who take this position are unaware that in recognizing the seriousness of the event and the Obama Administration’s responses they are themselves pointing the finger at those responsible.
A particularly ignorant analysis of the Benghazi disaster may be found, once again, at the Washington Post in which Eugene Robinson really embarrasses himself…..
Those who are trying to make the Benghazi tragedy into a scandal for the Obama administration really ought to decide what story line they want to sell.
There is no need to “try to make the Benghazi tragedy into a scandal”, nor is there any confusion as to what the story line is, nor is there any real need to “sell” the truth. In sum, it is a scandal based on the facts of the case which seems to be an almost impossible concept for liberals to understand or accept. This is not a manufactured crisis or scandal the importance of which is confined to the effects the fallout might have on the political fortunes of a particular individual or party. This is not “just a story” on which talking heads and opinion writers can feed for their personal career advancement until such time as another story breaks to which they choose to divert their attention. And Mr. Robinson goes on to say…….
Actually, by “those” I mean Republicans, and by “the Obama administration” I mean Hillary Clinton. The only coherent purpose I can discern in all of this is to sully Clinton’s record as secretary of state in case she runs for president in 2016.
If the only “coherent purpose (you) can discern” is reflected in your above statement one has to wonder how in the world anyone even cares about your opinion. While it is certainly true that Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State should be enough to preclude her even considering a run for the nation’s highest office, the implication that those actions should not have such an effect is even more mind-boggling. Mr. Johnson must be confusing the propensity of Democrats to smear their opponents with lies and innuendos which often have little relationship to the facts with the necessity of holding politicians of both parties responsible for their previous actions and decisions. If Ms. Clinton’s actions “sully” her record than the only reasonable response is to suggest that such “sullying” is appropriate and necessary.
That’s not a particularly noble way to use the deaths of four American public servants, but at least it’s understandable. Attempts to concoct some kind of sinister Whitewater-style conspiracy, however, don’t even begin to make sense.
Is Mr. Robinson truly attempting to excuse the behavior of the relevant members of the Obama Administration which resulted in the unnecessary deaths of four Americans and instead place the blame on those who wish to hold those same individuals responsible? Well, yes he is, but we will get to that in a moment.
Mr. Robinson than presumes to ask some “rhetorical questions” for which he apparently feels he can provide reasonable answers.
Did Clinton’s State Department fail to provide adequate security for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi? In retrospect, obviously so. But the three diplomats who testified at the hearing gave no evidence that this failure sprang from anything other than the need to use limited resources as efficiently as possible.
There is no “in retrospect” about it, and suggesting otherwise barely merits a response. The fact that “three diplomats who testified at the hearing gave no evidence…….” is both irrelevant and meaningless. Those same three diplomats gave no evidence that Melbourne is in Australia, but it doesn’t follow that the lack of testimony provides sufficient proof that Melbourne is not in Australia.
House Republicans who voted to cut funding for State Department security should understand that their philosophy — small government is always better — has consequences. Bureaucrats have to make judgment calls. Sometimes they will be wrong.
Once again, a conclusion which does not fit the facts while at the same time being both irrelevant and meaningless. I realize the orgasmic potential of Mr. Robinson’s falsely held belief that all the blame can be laid at the feet of House Republicans, but only dyed in the wool partisans will abandon all pretense of employing logical thought and share Mr. Robinson’s obvious glee in finding a way to use the Benghazi Tragedy for partisan political purposes. In addition, memo to Mr. Robinson, in the real world when individuals, bureaucrats included, make judgment calls which have such catastrophic consequences those individuals generally quit one step ahead of being fired.
Is the scandal supposed to be that a four-man Special Forces team was not sent from Tripoli to help defend the Benghazi compound? This is a decision that clearly still haunts and enrages Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, who sat helplessly in the capital while Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were being killed at the consulate 650 miles away.
Well, yes, that is certainly a part of it, particularly when the man on the ground clearly believes that dispatching the Special Forces team would have made a difference.
But the decision not to dispatch troops was made by the military chain of command, not by Clinton or anyone who reported to her. Superior officers decided this team was needed to help evacuate the embassy in Tripoli, which was seen as a potential target for a Benghazi-style attack.
And Mr. Robinson knows this how?
The Pentagon has concluded that the team, in any event, could not have arrived in Benghazi in time to make a difference. Hicks testified that he disagrees. It is difficult not to feel his pain. But it is also difficult, frankly, to believe that he knows more about deploying troops than do the professionals.
I don’t know if it is really that difficult to believe, particularly when one has to wonder how much pressure was put on the “professionals” by the Obama Administration. Certainly other reports and time lines suggest otherwise.
Well, then, maybe the transgression is that administration officials, for some unfathomable reason, willfully lied when they said the attack was in reaction to an anti-Islam video produced in the United States and disseminated on the Internet.
Yes, indeedy. As has been proved by the release of the talking points disseminated by those in the Obama Administration, they lied.
The problem is that there were, in fact, tumultuous anti-American demonstrations taking place in cities throughout the Muslim world because of the video. President Obama labeled the Benghazi assault an act of terror almost immediately — as Mitt Romney learned in the second presidential debate — but it was hard to imagine that the attack was completely unrelated to what was happening in Cairo, Tunis, Khartoum and Jakarta.
Embarrassing in the fact that Mr. Robinson actually believes that people will accept what he asserts here as having any validity.
The Obama administration was eager to make clear, as George W. Bush tried to do many times, that the United States is not fighting a war against Islam. The administration was slow to recognize that the uproar over the video, at most, provided the opportune moment for a well-planned, highly organized terrorist attack involving heavy weapons. This was an error, but it makes no sense as a deliberate attempt to deceive. What would be the motive? To cover up the facts and maximize the administration’s embarrassment once the truth finally came out?
And yet we know that it was, in fact, “a deliberate attempt to deceive”. How much more Kool-Aid can this man drink?
Maybe that’s it: a cover-up. Perhaps the administration conspired to hide Clinton’s failure to protect our diplomats overseas. But she commissioned an independent report by former ambassador Thomas Pickering that said — well, I’ll just quote Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee: “The Pickering Report appears to make clear what we already knew: that there was strategic warning from the intelligence community of a dangerous security environment in Benghazi and that our diplomats were failed by the bureaucracy at the State Department.”
Sigh….
Seriously, this is what the Left considers to be journalism…….
Some readers may be wondering why I took the time to respond to such tripe when clearly the article is filled with erroneous assumptions, faulty thinking, and more than one questionable fact. The real point is that it does not matter. The conflict between America’s haters and those who remain steadfast in their support of American Values will not be decided by who is right or wrong or what the truth is. We are in the phase which will determine who wins and who loses and the outcome of the Benghazi Hearings and subsequent findings will go a long way towards showing which side that will be.
After numerous false starts and dress rehearsals the off Broadway presentation to be known as the House Oversight Committee’s Hearings into the Benghazi Affair has now opened for what promises to be a limited engagement. Although it is true that the subject matter is truly of import the problem for most of us is that we not only already know the story line, but we also know the ending. Ask yourself these questions:
- 1. Are any of the facts pertaining to the affair seriously in dispute?
- 2. Does anyone doubt that those in the Obama Administration were fully aware of what was happening?
- 3. Does anyone doubt that those in the Obama Administration failed to defend their representatives on the ground in Benghazi?
- 4. Does anyone doubt that those in the Obama Administration lied to the American People?
- 5. Does anyone doubt that the “Main-Stream Media”* was fully complicit in the campaign of disseminating false information?
- 6. Does anyone doubt that every Democrat will put their party’s objectives above national interest?
- 7. Does anyone seriously believe that the Republicans are anything more than paper tigers?
- 8. Does anyone seriously believe that these hearings represent anything more than political theater with both sides playing their parts as prescribed prior to attending the bi-partisan reception after the curtain comes down on the final act?
- 9. Will those responsible be affected in any serious way?
- 10. Not really a question, but……who wants to argue against the suggestion that the final outcome will be to require that “serious efforts be made to ensure that such a scenario doesn’t happen again”?
————————————
Note how prescient George Washington was when he spoke about parties when one considers that those in Congress are more loyal to their party than the institution of which they are members.
————————————
* The Benghazi hearings: what’s new and what’s not
And the Washington Post has the audacity to publish the article linked above…..!
Readers who are just tuning into the Benghazi story may be a little confused about what is new — and what is not. As a reader service, here’s an effort to help readers through some of the fog of charges and countercharges that emerged at the House hearings on Wednesday.
As I read the article I really had to make an effort not to begin laughing hysterically….No confusion….Nothing really new…..Nope…..not really any “fog of charges and countercharges”….I’ve noticed that liberals seem to equate false statements with truthful ones as if they should both be given equal weight and thus they always seem to “be confused”.
But the attack occurred shortly after violent protests outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, which muddied the news reporting and may have shaped official perceptions.
I see the Obama Administration is not the only entity attempting to cover their behind, much less attempting to continue the cover-up and “muddy the waters” on why their statements and reports were without foundation and, in fact, were lies.
This was the account in The Washington Post on Sept. 12, the day after the attack: “U.S. diplomatic compounds came under attack in two Muslim countries on Tuesday, with a State Department employee killed in the assault on a consulate in Libya…. In both Cairo and Benghazi, protesters said they were demonstrating against a U.S.-released film that insulted the prophet Muhammad.”
Really? Care to provide a bone fide source for that claim? As those who have been paying attention from the very beginning already know, this claim was debunked at that time and numerous times subsequently.
But it turns out there were no demonstrations in Benghazi; it was a terrorist attack, pure and simple. This has been well established in various official documents, including the Accountability Review Board, which declared: “The Board concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.”
Whoops, major egg on the face here when those readers that the Washington Post has left realize that the WaPo’s reporting was completely false and, further, apparently made up out of whole cloth.
The report cited “two emails from the State Department Diplomatic Security Operations Center on the day of the attack, September 11, and the day after, September 12, 2012, characterized the attack as an ‘initial terrorism incident’ and as a ‘terrorist event.’” Moreover, as early as Sept. 15, the team that had been in Benghazi reported there has been no protest; the FBI also conducted face-to-face interviews with people who were in the compound during the attack and they reported there was no protest. So it is not new that there was no protest. That’s been officially well established. It is also not new that many officials knew it was a terrorist attack.
If this were pre-war Japan it would seem to me that those at the Washington Post would be seriously be considering hari kari….and yet they continue as if nothing has happened….somehow believing that their reputation and credibility remains unblemished. How truly embarrassing for what once was considered a reputable newspaper! In any event, if you really wish to subject yourself to more poor reporting and partisan reasoning feel free to read the rest of the article….as for me? I’ve had enough and am reminded as to why I quit reading the Post quite some time ago…… An article that continues to spin a report on why the truth was spun in the first place. Sad.
What women don’t understand about marriage.
Over on Alpha Game Vox Day often addresses the subject of marriage in conjunction with his comments on a variety of related gender issues. I mention this here primarily because it was as a result of going to his site that I ended up following a link to Dr. Helen’s short piece entitled Men Thirty to Fifty Less Likely to Want to Marry. In terms of the article, I might just mention that age related surveys can sometimes be a bit misleading in that the individuals who constitute a particular age group obviously do not remain static. In any event, what motivated me to write this article was a need to respond to those who seemed to have no clue as to how successful they have been in changing the world around them, particularly as to how those changes have affected their personal status as marriage eligible women.
I’m married, but it would seem that there is still a significant group of women who continue to feel that they are God’s gift to men. I say this not in the sense that they represent objects which can be given as gifts, but rather as superior beings for whom men will do absolutely anything in an effort to gain their favor. Apparently they still have the “princess” mentality while having long ago dispensed with the aura. In short, they still consider themselves to be the prizes in the game of love simply by virtue of their gender, rather than understanding that they have now relegated themselves to the more mundane status of often less than worthy contenders.
It seems that in the course of writing articles such as this one it is almost obligatory on the part of the author to point out that he/she does not hate women so let me reiterate it here and now, but a major problem for women who are in the market for a suitable mate is that they have completely misunderstood the reason most men end up getting married. Times may have changed since dating was one of my top priorities, but very few men or boys of my acquaintance seriously consider their prospective mate’s earning potential as a make or break consideration. Frankly, as I wrote this article, I was surprised to realize how many males I know of various ages and levels of income who have essentially written off women as possible candidates for any kind of long term relationship. Perhaps most surprising of all is the number of males who have confided that they wouldn’t mind having a couple of kids, just not the wife who would come along with them. The real truth, by and large, is that most men seem to want a “traditional” relationship along with the sex that comes with it. The reasons men give do not seem to sit well with today’s modern woman who generally have different reasons for getting married than do the men. In keeping with their prior status as objects for which men were willing to compete, women feel perfectly comfortable in labeling the characteristics men find alluring as “superficial” at best.
Essentially what women seem unable to grasp is that when you eliminate the need for a commitment as a prerequisite for sexual contact and at the same time you eliminate the understanding that your spouse is your partner for life many men find that having a few close male friends can be just as fulfilling with a great deal less drama. It is for this reason that I would suggest that those who incessantly attempt to point out that men are just as hard to live with as are women are missing the point. The real point is, as the figures show, that the wants and needs of the men concerned are not up for negotiation. This is no longer a situation where the men will “just have to change” if they wish to get married, as increasing numbers of men are opting out of the marriage trap and simply don’t see the prize of marriage as being valuable enough to undertake much of a personal sacrifice. In other words, the argument put forth by so many women that men are just as culpable as women when it comes to the shaky status of marriage inherently assumes that men are interested in marrying them in the first place and thus are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that it happens.
Good luck….as it is my sincere feeling that with the demise of marriage comes the demise of the country.
As of 4/30/2013 the “older brother’s” body remains under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Medical Examiner’s Office pending official notification by his widow that she wishes to “relinquish her rights as next of kin“. Further information and possible outcomes related to the disposal of the body can be found at the previously linked article. This article is not meant as a primary source of news but instead wishes to ask the question of what would “you” do if you were in a similar situation.
In other words, assuming someone close to you committed a heinous act and was killed shortly thereafter, what would you suggest should be the appropriate response? Likewise, if someone close to you committed a heinous act which was anathema to the religious practices which you both professed should that person be given a religious funeral? Catholic religious tradition, for example, suggests that the erring person should neither be mourned nor given a Catholic funeral. According to many Muslim religious figures the tenets of Islam provide for similar restrictions.
For many Muslims these questions are not just theoretical. As reported in this article on the CNN Belief Blog there are some who have already suggested they would not be interested in becoming involved in any funeral arrangements for the dead Chechen. I believe they have made the right decision and yet I do have some additional comments and questions regarding some of the reported responses…
Many Muslim community leaders have sought to distance themselves from the Tsarnaevs in light of reports that Tamerlan Tsarnaev might have been influenced by radical Islam.
I’m afraid I don’t get it. Under what set of circumstances, assuming all else remained the same, would those leaders not have sought to distance themselves from the Tsarnevs or not condemned their actions?
Fearing retaliation, Muslim leaders have strongly condemned the bombings and made it clear that Islam does not condone violence.
Again. I’m a bit confused. The Muslim leaders have “strongly condemned the bombings and made clear that Islam does not condone violence” because they “fear retaliation”, as opposed to simply doing so as a matter of principle?
At least one Boston cleric said he would refuse to perform funeral rites for a man accused of committing so much violence. The Quran, said Imam Talal Eid, says that anyone who has killed another human being is going to hell.
How much more principled and appropriate does the quote by Talal Eid sound in comparison?
Perhaps the good news is that, according to a recently published Pew study, American Muslims do seem to differ significantly on at least some issues from their foreign brethren. In addition, and I will close with an interesting quote from the same article, which seems to suggest that Muslims are a bit less politically correct than many Western citizens….
Despite most country’s disapproval of violence in the name of Islam, religious extremism – and in particular Muslim extremism – is a concern for a majority of Muslims in the world, according to the survey.
“At least half of Muslims in 22 of the 36 countries where the question was asked say they are at least somewhat concerned about religious extremist groups in their country,” the report reads. “In most countries, Muslims are much more worried about Islamic extremists than Christian extremists.”
The sabre rattling continues. The red-line has been crossed, or has it? The President wants more information. The Israelis will/won’t act on their own. The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming! Actually, they are already there.
Syria hosts the only Russia naval base in the Mediterranean at Latakia
Unlike Obama’s American foreign policy in the Middle East, which seems designed to weaken the position of the United States whenever possible, Putin’s Russian foreign policy seems to have a very clear understanding of what it wants to accomplish and what it is willing to do further its goals. Although an article published by the BBC in June, 2012 questioned the level of importance of the last remaining “Soviet” navel base on the Mediterranean to present day Russia’s defense posture, common sense would suggest that the Russian military establishment would be very unhappy should its existence be jeopardized in some way. This does not even take into account that unlike Obama’s Team of Foreign Policy Experts, the Russian Team understands the importance of defending what is arguably its staunchest Middle Eastern Ally. In light of the outcome of its Afghani adventure prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the loss of influence in Syria could well be seen as completely unacceptable by both its military and political leaders.
The policy presently being pursued by the Obama Administration related to Syria hardly seems worthy of the name. Apparently the President continues to believe that respect for his office and the country he serves will somehow be enough to ensure that no matter how much he bumbles around everything will turn out ok in the end. Unfortunately for the future status of the United States of America as a world power it is becoming increasingly obvious that his ability to squander the power and resources of this country far surpass what even the most virulent critic of President Obama might have predicted at the time of his first inauguration. Russia will not back down, and frankly, unless the President’s goal is the formation of a new Caliphate, Americans are going to have to swallow their pride and hope that it doesn’t.
It is a very sad day when Americans are put in the position of hoping that the Russians will save what’s left of a somewhat stable Middle East which existed prior to President Obama taking office. One can only wonder what the President will do to destabilize Jordan in the very near future.
Stay out of Syria.
Thank you.
————————————
The map above was linked to the following article…..
http://robertjprince.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/more-and-more-the-specter-of-war-ground-intervention-in-the-fall-in-libya-and-syria/
Although it was published almost two years ago it made a number of interesting points which make it well worth a read….
I found Section Two particularly interesting.
Thanks again.
—————-
Updated related article….
Scarcely four months ago, December 14, 2012 to be precise, twenty year old Adam Lanza put Sandy Hook Elementary School on the map as the site of the “second deadliest mass shooting by a single person in American history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.” (Read more at Wikipedia).
Monday, April 15, 2013, and less then two hundred miles away from Sandy Hook Elementary School, it was Boston’s turn to experience its own brand of mass carnage as the sound of two bombs exploding rent the air resulting in extensive property and personal damage. With his brother, and alleged co-conspirator dead, “Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, was charged on Monday with using a weapon of mass destruction and malicious destruction of property resulting in death.” Speculation as to what the future course of events may be can be found at the previously linked article.
The differences in the way the various American political factions chose to react to each event are extremely instructive, particularly in terms of what they say about how each faction views what it means to be an American. Within days of the horrific events which took place at Sandy Hook those on the Left, including many elected officials, began to campaign for new and more restrictive legislation pertaining to gun ownership. Barely one month later New York became the first state to enact such legislation. Fortunately, for those who still support the rule of law and the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, Federal legislation designed to enact similar legislation failed to receive the necessary votes.
Interestingly, there were few on the Left who complained about the issue becoming “politicized” and most expressed great annoyance that the rights of the people had not been ignored. President Obama was, of course, particularly peeved that this assault on the rights of ordinary Americans failed to gain enough support.
“It came down to politics,” Obama said, adding too many senators had worried a vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in the next election.
The underlying humor in this President complaining about a vote “…(coming) down to politics” apparently went over his head and if he truly wanted to rise above politics he might have been honest enough to have mentioned that it came down to the (un)constitutionality of the legislation, but that particular concern seems to be becoming increasingly irrelevant. In any event, what we have here is the same knee-jerk reaction against Americans and American values that is the defining characteristic of those from the Left.
It is by comparing the reaction of those same people to the events in Boston that proves how anti-American those on the American Left have really become. Perhaps the most infamous plea of all is the one which includes the words, “Please don’t let it be a Muslim”. I suggest that Muslims would be better served by ensuring that in the future it is not a Muslim involved in tragic events such as the one Boston just experienced and it is they who are in the best position to do so. It would seem that those who constantly pray that white males with ties to (non-existent) nefarious groups be found to be the perpetrators of these crimes are doomed to be disappointed more often than not. There is a reason that most white male purveyors of this type of violence are found to be “lone wolf” types, while others, such as Islamic Jihadists are not afforded the same type of luxury.
The victim told police the two men said they “would not kill him because he wasn’t American,” according to a police report obtained by NBC News.
In a Salon article Wajahat Ali suggests the following:
The critical difference, however, is the powerful privilege of whiteness: when a white individual is accused of committing an act of terror he alone bears the brunt of responsibility for his crime, and the collective burden is not assigned on those who share his features. This privilege should belong to all citizens, regardless of ethnicity and religious identification, instead of being earned by surviving an unending gauntlet of pre-emptive and reactive questions, assumptions and apologies.
White people wear a Teflon cloak whereas minorities wear a flimsy, moth-eaten cape of kryptonite and a “Kick Me” sign. In other words, white people are like Bugs Bunny allowed to observe the chaos at a distance, eat a carrot and make witty quips — but never asked to prove their loyalty or investigate and defend their own whiteness. Minorities are like Daffy Duck, forever doomed to have the anvil fall on our heads regardless of our individual guilt or innocence.
Unfortunately, this is just not reality and, as someone with roots in Pakistan, he should know it very well. As far as the United States is concerned the fact that he mentions white privilege should be enough for him to recognize the foolishness of his admonitions. If in fact whites, as a group, are privileged what would be the reason for whites to attack their “own people”? There is no point in denying that some horrific event may occur tomorrow perpetrated by some far out white group, but the chances are extremely slim that such an event would target civilians in any particular way due to the fact that “they are them”. The problem in constantly “hoping” that the perpetrator will finally be a white American male is that the person entertaining such a hope is completely ignoring the various motives which underpin particular (re)actions.
The actual premise of “white privilege” is that the values expressed, although not always observed, are essentially American values. I agree that all those who share those values, regardless of other characteristics, are, and should be considered, “real Americans”. The interesting thing is that those on the Left seem to believe that it is those values which should be attacked. Isn’t it interesting that those on the Left are making excuses and continuing to support open immigration in the face of events such as this. The reality is that those in the minority should pray that the perpetrators of terrorist type actions are not white Americans as if they were it would no bode well for the country. The fact that those on the Left are always so hopeful that this will be the time they will strike the final blow against American Values shows exactly whose side they are on.
Thank you.
The Text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
The people
The wording is clear, the history is clear, and the intent is clear. The “controversy” over its “meaning” exposes the shabbiness of the entire tradition of leftwing intellectual discourse. Rather than opting for an honest discussion on the merits of the Second Amendment those on the Left choose to argue against its meaning by either claiming that it doesn’t say what it says or by suggesting that the rights enumerated in the US Constitution are not inviolate. It may come as a surprise to some, but there was a time when those on the Left constantly referenced the various rights guaranteed by the Constitution, per their interpretation, and claimed to be their most ardent defenders. Of course that time is long past and they are increasingly being exposed as the statists and advocates of totalitarianism they have always been.
Arguably their largest setback, in terms of the Second Amendment, came in 2008 when the Supreme Court struck down a Washington, D.C. law, saying:
It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory.1 Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller2 confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars – that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment,3 an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms” often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts.4 Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription.5 Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.
(link here)
Frankly, aside from those with a slave like agenda, the decision and basis on which the case was decided couldn’t have been less controversial. Unfortunately, due to the Left’s obsession with destroying the concept of individual rights, a guaranteed right in the Constitution continues to be a matter of discussion. Although it is true that an article by Tom Head I am about to reference was published prior to the aforementioned decision (District of Columbia v. Heller2), I would suggest that there is still something of value to be gained by taking another look. In the article he suggests that there are three different interpretations vying for supremacy. Obviously only one of them has now been recognized as relevant by the Supreme Court, but as recent events have shown, even the opinion of the Supreme Court seems to have made no difference to those who continue to assault the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. In all honesty I am far from the most vocal defender of the various rulings of the Supreme Court, but it strikes me as rather dishonest for those on the Left to use the Supreme Court only when they so choose. In any event, the three competing interpretations according to Mr. Head are as follows:
- The civilian militia interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment is no longer valid, having been intended to protect a militia system that is no longer in place.
The Supreme Court made it clear that it did not agree with this interpretation. The real point is not that the Supreme Court was able to actually read the Constitution and accept what it found, which is important enough in this day and age, but that the “interpretation” has absolutely nothing to support it. A review of the Second Amendment proves this conclusively.
In the first place, if we assume for the sake of an argument that the reason “,,,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (with or without the comma)” was because the people of the time needed to protect themselves against wild animals, the absence of wild animals would still not negate the right as clearly enumerated in the Second Amendment. The right to “keep and bear arms shall not be infringed“….period.
Might want to think twice…huh…bucko?
In the second place, what seems to have been completely forgotten is that the existence of a “well regulated militia” was an integral part of the Founding Father’s world view. The argument which asserts that the right to “keep and bear arms” has been rendered invalid because we no longer have a militia somehow fails to ask the more important question of what ever happened to the militia in the first place. The “well regulated militia” was an integral part of ensuring that the “Land of the Free” stayed that way. If “we, the people” are the government then on what basis do some of us have the right to keep and bear arms while others do not? Are we afraid of ourselves? As the Founding Fathers were certainly aware, there is a major difference between a “standing army” and a force made up of otherwise normal citizens. I would suggest that the real question we should be asking ourselves is at what point did it become necessary for the government to divorce itself from the very people who ostensibly are the government.
National Guard
Thirdly, there are numerous practical reasons that we might wish to consider returning to a real “citizen’s army” which would not only make the present discussion moot, but also provoke a discussion as to what kind of country we truly wish to pass on to our children. Every one of our rights is dependent on the ability to ensure that those rights are respected. A more complete treatment of what these reasons are requires more than a couple of sentences in this particular article, but suffice it to say that they include a more responsive government and a much less expensive price tag attached to the country’s defense.
House of Terror……
- The individual rights interpretation, which holds that the individual right to bear arms is a basic right on the same order as the right to free speech.
The Supreme Court chose to recognize this interpretation and thus the writings in favor of the decision are more than enough to support it. There is, however, one rather ironic point which I would like to provide a response to those who ask if the Second Amendment applies to the States, as well as the Federal Government. The irony lies in the fact that whether or not the right to keep and bear arms was originally an individual right, which I believe it was, the so-called “Incorporation Doctrine” certainly makes it one now.
- The median interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms but is restricted by the militia language in some way.
The median interpretation? Here we have the famous attempt to suggest that taking away a right “just a little bit” is a moderate and reasonable position. As previously stated, there is no support for this position in the wording of the Second Amendment. Let’s take another look:
Once again, read the wording and ask yourself what happened to the well regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state.
—————————————-
Some other thoughts by Tom Head which I have found to reflect the views of quite a few others and I don’t mean to pick on Mr. Head…
(2006)
In my opinion, it would not be at all inconsistent with the letter or spirit of the Second Amendment to regulate the circumstances under which one can own firearms. And a basic part of any firearm regulation standard that acknowledges the “well-regulated militia” clause should be safety training.
I continue to wonder at the ability of some to read the words “shall not be infringed” and claim that “…(regulation would not be) inconsistent with the letter or the spirit of the Second Amendment”.
The well-regulated militia referred to in the Second Amendment was, in fact, the 18th-century equivalent to the U.S. Armed Forces. Other than a small force of paid officers (primarily responsible for supervising civilian conscripts), the United States that existed at the time the Second Amendment was proposed had no professional, trained army. Instead it relied almost exclusively on civilian militias for self-defense–in other words, the rounding up of all available men between the ages of 18 and 50
Very true, but then he moves on to what he sees as “self-evident” without ever really taking a look at the issue…
Clearly, a well-regulated civilian militia is no longer a military necessity. Does the second clause of the Second Amendment still apply even if the first clause, providing its rationale, is no longer meaningful?
I question the first assertion, and certainly answer the question in the affirmative.
—————————————
A final revealing article should I not return to the subject in the near future…..
No, really, Americans support gun control
Another day, another poll showing a majority of Americans favor many of the proposed gun control measures being discussed in Congress right now. Today’s poll comes from the University of Connecticut and the Hartford Courant, which found that majorities of American nationally favor requiring background checks on all firearm purchases, thus closing the so-called gun show loophole (84 percent); support reinstating the ban on assault weapons (57 percent); and back banning the sale of high-capacity magazines (53 percent).
It does not matter! We are talking about a right guaranteed by the Constitution enumerated in plain English to ensure that the right could not be infringed upon simply by enacting legislation.
Thank you.
————————–
Updated….
Just an interesting article on the same subject….and yet you saw it here first…..:)
http://www.rightwingnews.com/constitution/what-is-this-well-regulated-militia-business-anyway/
We are America…..
Boston….
A thought…
A moment of silence…
Best prices in town……?
