American Conservative Daily (c) 2004-2012 » J.D. Longstreet Your daily dose of conservative offsets to combat annoying liberal global whining. Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:07:29 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Greedy Green Land Grabbers … Ron Arnold /2013/04/greedy-green-land-grabbers-ron-arnold/ /2013/04/greedy-green-land-grabbers-ron-arnold/#comments Sun, 14 Apr 2013 07:20:00 +0000 J.D. Longstreet /?guid=52f1f55f4def1e5a06d744aafd963d66

Greedy Green Land Grabbers

“Clean Development Mechanism” schemes drive out African villagers for “carbon offset” profits

Ron Arnold

On Sunday, February 28, 2010, armed troops evicted villagers in Uganda’s Mubende district, to make way for a tree plantation. The troops were acting on behalf of a British forestry company that claims it fights global warming. The trees will supposedly absorb carbon dioxide, so that carbon-credits can be sold to transnational polluters, to stave off “dangerous manmade climate change and disruption.”

Long-time villagers in thriving communities were beaten by gun-toting soldiers who burned homes, destroyed crops and butchered livestock. Eight-year-old Friday Mukamperezida was sick in bed at home and was burned to death, while his mother was out getting medicine for the boy. Olivia Mukamperezida, the mother, was on her errand when she ran into friends who frantically told her to get home fast. When she got there, the house was sputtering to ashes. “I just cried,” she told a reporter. She buried her son’s bones, but isn’t sure if the grave is still there, now that the forest company planted its trees.

These are among the charges contained in a civil suit filed by 1,489 Mubende claimants in the High Court of Uganda at Nakawa. A report by the British group Oxfam corroborates the claims. The New York Times and other media outlets reported the story.

New Forests Company, the London-based carbon credit seller, denies the claims and says the settlers living in its leased land in the Namwasa and Luwunga Forest Reserves were illegally trespassing transients, who left in a “peaceful” and “voluntary” manner. In 2005, the government of Ugandahad granted NFC a 50-year license to grow pine and eucalyptus forests – non-native, water-hungry, invasive species – in three districts of one of the world’s poorest nations, which desperately needs the fees and taxes.

NFC has attracted investment from international banks and private equity funds since 2008. The European Investment Bank (EIB), the EU’s financing institution, has loaned NFC five million Euros ($6.5 million) to expand one of its Ugandan plantations. Oxfam assessed NFC with puzzlement:

“It has economic power, professional expertise, and close political support. It has a hands-on chief executive with local knowledge and ethical credentials. The company and its investors have clear environmental and social standards they commit to uphold, and corporate social responsibility and accountability principles are embedded at the heart of its operations.

“Given all this, how is it possible that thousands of people in affected communities have alleged that land clearances, which have taken place to make way for NFC’s operations in Uganda, have been accompanied by distress and violence, and have left many in a state of poverty?”

NFC posted its response to Oxfam, arguing that the encroachers are “illegally occupying land leased to an independent third party, NFC.” It relies upon an “extensive and exhaustive government-driven authentication process,” which it says confirmed that only 31 families on the Namwasa Reserve, and none in the Luwunga reserve, had legal rights to remain on the land. It insists that it is respecting the rights of these families and that dealing with “illegal” settlers is solely at the discretion of the NFC, which regards the thousands of others who were living on the land as “illegal encroachers” who do not have a legitimate claim to compensation.

The evictions were legal, within the letter of the law, NFC maintains. However, the villagers had won a temporary injunction in 2009, ordering the evictions stopped, though they were given a deadline to vacate company premises under police surveillance. The deadline was February 28, 2010, and NFC enforced it immediately. The horrifying events of that day became part of court filings seeking compensation.

New Forests operates projects in Uganda, Tanzania, Mozambiqueand Rwanda, where its combined deals total around 222,000 acres. In its defense, it said it runs education, healthand income-generating programs with local communities. In Uganda, it says, it has built school rooms, health clinics, wells and latrines, and runs literacy programs, while out-sourcing some tasks to local businesses.

I asked my young Ugandan friend, Steven Lyasi, to see what he could find out locally. He sent a mountain of news clips showing that New Forests Company enjoys an excellent reputation with the national government, in media and environmental circles, and is backed by deep-pocket investors, including the World Bank. It wants to tap an emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits under the Kyoto Protocol and its successors. Some of Al Gore’s millions came from that Enron-like paper “market.” The company says it could earn up to $1.8 million a year.

The Uganda government issued a rebuttal of the Oxfam report, Clarification by Govt of Uganda Regarding the Case Study by OXFAM.

All this is legal, but is it right? Absolutely not, says a growing body of professionals who blame corrupt climate science, avaricious profit seekers, and a soul-less, pitiless bureaucratic machine.

British geographer David Harvey calls the process “accumulation by dispossession,” the result of a Kyoto Protocol program called the “Clean Development Mechanism.” The CDM provides for emissions reduction projects that generate “Certified Emission Reduction” units (CERs), which may be marketed in government-approved emission trading schemes – based on the increasingly dubious assumption that CO2 causes runaway global warming. The CDM legalizes the purchase of CERSby industrialized countries and allows companies to invest in emission reduction projects that are cheapest globally.

But they are cheapest only for the investors and their operations. For the people who live on the land they covet, the price is everything they own and possess. In the private sector this would be called a Ponzi scheme. In government circles it’s called saving the planet. The new critics call it “Green Grabbing.”

This hideous new imperialism has become a global ignominy that thankfully is now being tracked by professionals, who evaluated it last year in the British peer-reviewed Journal of Peasant Studies.

A special issue, “Green Grabbing: A new appropriation of nature?” revealed some of the forces behind green land grabs like those in Uganda. “Things green have become big business.” They require “the construction and perpetuation of a sense of crisis,” the analysts explain. “There would be no carbon-trading without the science-policy discourses that have discerned global warming.”

As the New York Times reported, “Development experts say there is a dark side to some ostensibly ‘green’ market initiatives: the appropriation of resources for biofuels production, carbon offsets, ecotourism and so on can have devastating consequences for local people.”

Melissa Leach, director of Britain’s Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability Center, is one of the three authors of the special issue. She wrote “Green grabbing: the dark side of a green economy,” posted by the Green Economy Coalition. “We are seeing a new kind of colonization,” said Leach. “Small farms and villages that have thrived alongside nature are being replaced by a landscape of grabbed concessions, while people, if they have any rights at all, are being reduced to laborers in ecosystems in which they no longer have any stake.” Or any rights to justice or due process.

She points out how this vulture environmentalism is victimizing developing countries: “Green grabbing involves novel forms of valuation, commodification and markets for pieces and aspects of nature, and an extraordinary new range of actors and alliances. Pension funds and venture capitalists, commodity traders and consultants, GIS service providers and business entrepreneurs, ecotourism companies and the military, green activists and anxious consumers, among others, find once-unlikely common interests.”

Green grabbing is simple greedrabid, self-righteous green greed. Where’s the justice in that, and why is it immune to the rigid regulation that governments force upon industry and common stock traders? What happened to the environmental credo of making industries pay for all the costs they impose on others?

And yes, Leach said even the military. In Guatemala, she noted, the government has authorized turning the Maya Biosphere Reserve into a “Maya-themed vacationland,” which, she wrote, “will generate ecotourism profits, while conveniently assisting the government's war on drugs and counter-insurgency. In the process, people are being violently excluded.”

I have been to Tikal, where Guatemalan soldiers stopped our expedition bus at the entrance gate, to interrogate each visitor – and sell us little US$10.00 English-language tourist guides, which everyone was prudent enough to purchase.

So not all green grabbing is about “global warming control” – just enough to highlight the perfidy of the whole concept. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels climbed steadily for the past 17 years, but planetary temperatures did not budge. That is sending carbon traders into full panic mode. Billions in paper climate credit fortunes stand to evaporate like Enron stock shares, if the CO2-temperature disconnect continues.

So we get panicky movies, like the current flop “Greedy Lying Bastards,” diverting attention from inconvenient facts and attacking climate change “deniers.” Well, who are the real greedy lying bastards?

I nominate the Greedy Green Land Grabbers.
Examiner columnist Ron Arnold is executive VP of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. Portions of this article originally appeared in the Washington Examiner and are used by permission.]]>
/2013/04/greedy-green-land-grabbers-ron-arnold/feed/ 0
Quack, Quack! Obama is the Lamest Lame Duck … Alan Caruba /2013/04/quack-quack-obama-is-the-lamest-lame-duck-alan-caruba/ /2013/04/quack-quack-obama-is-the-lamest-lame-duck-alan-caruba/#comments Sat, 13 Apr 2013 04:38:00 +0000 J.D. Longstreet /?guid=64c729f32572e01a9d78d0806d97edc5

Quack, Quack! Obama is the Lamest Lame Duck

By Alan Caruba

Usually a President is deemed a lame duck when he is in the final two years of a second term or has lost the support of his party in his first, losing political leverage for his agenda, but Obama has managed to render himself a lame duck barely three months into his second term and functioned as one through much of his first.

Excuse me, but other than Obamacare, can anyone name a single major piece of legislation that the President championed in his first term that got through Congress? And is it not true that Obamacare is falling apart before it goes into force in 2014? Nobody except Obama and Kathleen Sibelius, the Cruella de Ville doppelganger who serves as the Secretary of Health and Human Services, thinks it’s a good idea.

The President’s epic failure to sink more than two basket balls out of twenty-two tries during the Easter Egg Roll celebration at the White House instantly became symbolic of his other failures to date.

The political pundit, Karl Rove, writing in late March, said “The budget drama reveals a more important phenomenon—that Mr. Obama has become a minor actor on Capitol Hill. On a growing array of issues, members of both parties have come to understand that progress is more likely with the president on the sideline.”

“There has been no movement in Congress on the president’s carbon tax,” said Rover. “During Saturday’s budget debate, 79 senators supported repeal of Obamacare’s tax on medical devices and 62 senators back construction of the Keystone XL pipeline (alas non-binding votes). On issue after issue, Mr. Obama is being routinely ignored or rebuffed.”

That’s the good news!

The sequester budget cuts, the result of the inability of Democrats and Republicans to come up with a plan to cut spending as a response to America’s huge national debt, were used by the White House to frighten Americans into accepting more spending, but that quickly fizzled and created a backlash of derision.

Under Obama, the nation’s economy has been a slow motion disaster. His reelection came as a shock to the Republican Party, but the combination of a lackluster candidate, the decision of millions of Republicans to stay home on Election Day, and a well-organized and funded Democrat machine gave Obama a victory. The media began to refer to “low information voters” to describe those who blindly ignored the facts and voted for Obama.

This occurred despite the fact that Obama added more debt than all the previous presidents combined. He is the first President to see America’s top credit rating reduced.

On issue after issue, Obama’s promises did not even begin to solve the problems he was elected to solve. 2012 marked the fourth year that the deficit exceeded one trillion dollars. It is the difference between the money the government takes in and what it spends.

There was little help for homeowners whose mortgages exceeded the value of their homes. By the end of 2012, there were 5.6 million residential mortgages in delinquency or foreclosure. The 2008 financial crisis was precipitated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government sponsored agencies that owned fifty percent of all the mortgages, had bundled them as assets, and sold them to investment firms and banks. It resulted in the failure and forced mergers of the former and a massive taxpayer bailout of the latter. As this is being written Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both seized by the government and bailed out, are urging banks to make the same bad loans that led to the financial crisis.

Obama’s energy policies focused on “green” energy, wind and solar projects, along with electric cars and even high-speed rail. The bankruptcy of one solar firm after another was testimony to how wrong the waste of billions in loans, grants, and subsidies has been. Wind power exists mostly due to government assistance and mandates. The latest to totter on failure is Fisker; the electric car manufacturer that just announced it was laying off seventy percent of its employees. In all of these companies, billions of government “investment”—taxpayer’s money—was lost.

While that was occurring, coal-fired plants were being closed down thanks to the administration’s war on coal, an energy resource the U.S. has in abundance; enough for hundreds of years’ use. With 170,000 miles of pipelines, Obama’s opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline not only made no sense, it ignored the 20,000 jobs it would create. At one point, Obama was recommending algae, pond scum, as an energy source.

In the area of foreign policy, Obama has proved to be a spectacular failure. His 2009 trip to Cairo to deliver a speech he was sure would transform the Middle East did not turn out as planned. The Muslim Brotherhood guys in the front row managed to replace the then-Egyptian president Mubarak with a nut job, Morsi, who it seems much of the population hates even more. Obama’s indifference to the outcome in Libya got his ambassador and three others killed in Benghazi. In early 2013 Obama had to use his first trip to Israel as President as a means to redeem himself from appearing to be too big an idiot regarding the only real ally America has in the Middle East.

Under Obama, there was a failure to negotiate a status of forces with Iraq, requiring our complete withdrawal after a decade in which that war proved to be a failure of planning and of securing the trust and support of the Iraqi people. When the U.S. leaves Afghanistan in 2014, it will likely revert to Taliban control. The overall result in both conflicts has been a big fat zero and, while blame can be assessed to the Bush43 decisions, the failure to maintain any U.S. presence belongs to the Obama administration.

None of Obama’s policies have resulted in any success, but his failures regarding the U.S. economy have been the most dramatic. Unemployment is down from the 8.1% levels, but just barely. Commenting on the latest job report, Robert Luddy, a member of the Job Creators Alliance, said, "Today's jobs report is no surprise to job creators because it reflects the reality we see every day: this economic recovery is rocky at best and Washington policies only make job creation worse. Companies added the fewest jobs in nine months, which is a remarkable retreat from the illusory numbers we saw in February.”

The unemployment rate fell slightly last month only because jobless Americans are losing hope - a half million people dropped out of the workforce in March and aren't even counted into the rate. America must generate 125,000 jobs a month to just keep up with population growth; we added only 88,000. We are at a 63.3 percent participation rate, which is the lowest rate since May of 1979. Welcome to Carter country - an American economy of slow growth and anemic job creation.”

“Why would a small business owner expand when the President is planning more tax increases? Why would a business hire more workers when the new health care law makes new hire costs completely unpredictable? Until Washington cuts taxes, rolls back regulations, and adopts pro-growth policies encouraging job creation, we can expect to see more disappointing unemployment reports."

Even the President’s gun control initiatives have backfired on him as Democrats in Congress look to the 2014 midterm elections with trepidation. He ignored Congress throughout his first term, using executive orders, to advance his agenda, but payback has already made him a lame duck president and, as noted, that’s the good news.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" and shared on dozens of news and opinion websites. His blog recently passed more than 2 million page views. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. For information on his professional skills, Caruba Editorial Services is the place to go! You can find Alan Caruba on both Facebook and Twitter as well.
/2013/04/quack-quack-obama-is-the-lamest-lame-duck-alan-caruba/feed/ 0
Hillary Is Already Running … J. D. Longstreet /2013/04/hillary-is-already-running-j-d-longstreet/ /2013/04/hillary-is-already-running-j-d-longstreet/#comments Fri, 12 Apr 2013 07:09:00 +0000 J.D. Longstreet /?guid=93680c1749e18729ba04b73f73b0af88
Hillary Is Already Running
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


Ladies and gentlemen: The Next President of the United States -- Hillary Clinton!

Nope.  I'm not joking.  I'm deadly serious -- in earnest, even! In my opinion today, Hillary Clinton WILL be the next President of the United States.

Of Course, Hillary has to toss her hat into the ring, but -- that is only a formality.

Look.  I have looked at the GOP prospective candidates and, frankly, I don't see a single one, at this point, I can support or for which I can vote.  

I am not going to compromise.  So I will not vote for a candidate I feel is not worthy, or does not live up to my prospects for a candidate in order to save the country from the socialists.  That is being dishonest.  "First, to thine own self be true!"  (Polonius From Hamlet by Shakespeare)

The plain truth is -- it will take an act of God for the GOP to win the Presidency in 2016. 

OUCH!  I know!  It hurts, doesn't it!?  Of course, that's just MY opinion.

Meanwhile, a “Ready for Hillary” political action committee has formed up.

“It’s a shadow campaign set up at least two years before Clinton will actually decide whether or not to run for president,” reports Slate’s David Wegel. “It’ll raise money, sell merchandise, and build lists until the actual Clinton campaign bursts to life. And then it will change its name to ‘Ready PAC,’ raise money, sell merchandise, and build lists, etc.”

Recent polls, too, have indicated Clinton has never seen a better time to seek the presidency.

According to a Washington Post / ABC NEWS poll from late January, more than 67% of Americans hold a favorable view of Clinton -- her highest approval ratings since pollsters began tracking her popularity.

"Clinton this week also received the endorsement of Democratic strategist James Carville, who pledged his support to the Super PAC that is trying to woo Clinton to run."  SOURCE:

There is method to Hillary's coyness at this date.

Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post said this recently: "See, as long as Clinton says nothing definitive about whether she's running, she effectively "freezes the field." Other Democratic contenders can't start contending. Republican rivals who lack real game have to keep their mouths shut as well. We're not drowning in stories, speculating about when Andrew Cuomo is going to visit Des Moines (though I'm sure Des Moines can't wait), and no one is getting tumescent over the tricksy consultants Martin O'Malley is hiring."   SOURCE:

“Do I think she will run? Yes I do… Has there ever been a male candidate who was the odds-on favorite to be president and backed away? No, and so why should she be any different?” said Professor Chris Arterton, dean of the Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University, in an interview with RIA Novosti.

“The historic nature of a Hillary presidency is kind of a completion of the transformation that began with Obama, the first African-American president, the first woman president, and a lot of people in this country are eager for that to happen,” he added. 

Pay careful attention to the first sentence of the paragraph immediately above: “The historic nature of a Hillary presidency is kind of a completion of the transformation that began with Obama ... "

Now.  Are you sufficiently frightened?  You ought to be.  We All should be!

The Hill newspaper ran a poll recently and found that 51 percent think Hillary is all ready running.  According to the poll results 41 percent believe that she will be the Democratic Party candidate in 2016.   I agree.

Some believe that if Hillary announces early no other democrat will challenge her for the nomination.  That would leave the democrats sitting pretty -- without a primary fight -- while waiting for the republican candidates to eviscerate each other, and their treasury, in a nasty primary campaign.  Then she mops the floor with the GOP candidate left standing. 

While many in the GOP feel they have enough dirt on Hillary to make the difference in a presidential campaign, I don't believe it.  The last two presidential elections have proven the moral fiber of America has not just worn thin, it is practically transparent.  A country that would elect the current occupant of the White House doesn't give a damn about morals, or character, or honor, or even if the candidate is legally qualified, or anything else.  All they care about is the government dole, the redistribution of the nation's former wealth to their pockets.  They know that Hillary will keep it flowing.   The leftist power elite care about one thing -- POWER.  They know that with a Hillary presidency they can control the reins of power in the US for as long as she occupies the Oval Office.

As of this moment, I am one hundred percent sure that Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States -- provided, of course, she really wants it.  There IS that off chance that she really might NOT want it, but that does not fit the character of the Hillary we all know.

Personally, I shudder at the thought of having the Clintons back in the White House.  But I have long since accepted that America has changed  -- and changed for the worse.  This NEW America is not new, it is just a remake of the old empires of ancient history that rose to the apex of power in the known world then fell victim to their own moral decay and crumbled and fell into the dustbin of history leaving hardly a mark on the time continuum of earth.

We Americans are, after all, no better than all the rest that went before us.  Doomed by our avarice, our low moral character, our selfishness, and our surprising ignorance. 

The latter generations of Americans have squandered everything the former generations worked, fought, bled, and died to insure for us.  Instead of a national motto that reads:  "In God we trust"  maybe  a better motto for us would have been: "Eat, drink, and make merry, for tomorrow we die."

Depressing?  Yeah, it is.

© J. D. Longstreet

VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)


/2013/04/hillary-is-already-running-j-d-longstreet/feed/ 0
Undocumented Democrats … J. D. Longstreet /2013/04/undocumented-democrats-j-d-longstreet/ /2013/04/undocumented-democrats-j-d-longstreet/#comments Thu, 11 Apr 2013 06:54:00 +0000 J.D. Longstreet /?guid=3f24310da0f91ec0cd96edc56dff02e7
Undocumented Democrats
They're Just Pawns
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


The GOP is making a huge mistake chasing after the Hispanic vote.  It is a waste of time, a waste of money, and a waste of effort.  In fact, it is a pathetic joke the GOP is playing on itself.  And it will be almost as successful as the Republican Party's wooing of the black vote in America.  I think we all know how THAT turned out.

Look. Latino and Hispanic voter and the Democratic Party are MADE for each other.  The Latinos and Hispanics now in the US , for the most part, hail from countries with strong central governments.  The Democratic Party with its socialist philosophy is nothing if it is not a believer in and an advocate for a strong central government.

The illegal immigrants, otherwise known as "undocumented democrats," are already comfortable with those strong central governments.  They have already learned how to "milk" the system in their native lands and come here, in my opinion, to milk the American system -- because it is much easier. Not to mention, we have a ruling government more than ready to make a deal.  The deal, simply put is this: Vote and support democrats and we will redistribute America's wealth -- TO YOU!  Any attempt by the GOP to influence those Hispanic and Latino voters, at that point, is shot down in flames.

The GOP's plan to take Hispanic and Latino voters for the Democrats is a Quixotic plan doomed to abject failure.  It's not sensible. It is idealistic and unrealistic -- and almost funny.

Part of the deal, we are told, to get Obama's "Shamnesty" passed in Congress is that the border be secured first.  Of course, that is not going to happen. If the democrats wanted the border secured it would already be secured.  Heck, we have US troops securing, and assisting in securing, borders in several nations around the world, at this very moment, while our borders lie wide open -- both north and south -- as well as our seaports and air terminals.  The plain truth is:  The US government does not want US borders secured.

The Obama Administration has already begun their Bovine Scatology campaign about the southern border being more secure than it has ever been.  That's rubbish.

There is a virtual flood of illegal immigrants entering the US across the southern border with Mexico as they attempt to get inside the US BEFORE the new amnesty law is passed by Congress and signed by Obama.

Arrests along the border \are actually up 13 percent compared with the same time last year. The number was 170,223 in 2012, and is 192,298 this year.  SOURCE:,+Current+Events,+Breaking+News,+Politics,+Opinion&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=RFN                     

Sometime in the next few days we should see the proposed new immigration bill from the Senate.  It is expected to include a call for increasing border security, introducing a pathway to citizenship, and increasing visas for high-school workers.  SOURCE:

The House is still working on their bill but it, too, is expected to have that "pathway to citizenship" including. 

Let's be clear:  "Pathway to citizenship" is amnesty, pure and simple.  And it may well be the deal killer for any immigration reform bill Obama tries to push through the Congress.  There is a fairly good chance the bill will pass in the Senate and die in the House.

Congressman Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, says THAT'S the Obama plan.  Cruz says:  "But as long as the president and [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)] insist on a path to citizenship they know full well it will never pass the House of Representatives and then it's just a political football rather than actually trying to fix the problem." SOURCE:

If Cruz is right, then the whole immigration reform effort by the Obama Administration is a "sham" intended to create a political bludgeon to use against the republicans in the elections of 2014 and 2016.

What about those "illegals" swarming across our borders?  Well, they're just pawns used by the democrats to stay in power.

The GOP, in my opinion, ought to recognize it has lost the illegal immigrant bid.  In fact, the GOP never had a a chance at attracting illegals in the first place.  They are MADE for the democratic party.  

The problem with the GOP is not its lack of minority voters, its the party's tacking to the left that has cost it strength at the ballot box.  Many conservative voters will no longer support the GOP as a result.  Making the GOP tent larger just makes the problem larger.

© J. D. Longstreet


VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)

/2013/04/undocumented-democrats-j-d-longstreet/feed/ 0
Am I a Dangerous Extremist? Are You? … Alan Caruba /2013/04/am-i-a-dangerous-extremist-are-you-alan-caruba/ /2013/04/am-i-a-dangerous-extremist-are-you-alan-caruba/#comments Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:57:00 +0000 J.D. Longstreet /?guid=3d30ecd35574cbafb3368f6b656fdf31

Am I a Dangerous Extremist? Are You?

By Alan Caruba

If you should suddenly cease to find my commentaries, I will either have passed away or have been detained by agents of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the Defense Department and taken to an undisclosed location for the crime of having been an “extremist” and a danger to the nation.

In April 2009, the Washington Times published an article reporting that “The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in ‘rightwing extremist activity’, saying that the economic recession, the election of America’s first black president, and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.”

Among those targeted by DHS were “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” Well, that’s only a few tens of millions of Americans. Little wonder why, on April 5th, we learned that a U.S. Army Reserve presentation regarding “extremist threats within the U.S. military included Catholics and evangelicals!

These two groups represent half of all Americans and some forty percent of active duty military personnel are evangelical Christians. The Catholics and evangelicals were lumped in with “white supremacist groups, street gangs, and religious sects.”

If our current leaders consider Christians a greater threat than Muslims, then they are idiots with a very dangerous agenda.
The April 2009 nine-page DHS report was titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” It defined extremism “as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.”

The last time I read the U.S. Constitution, the Tenth Amendment said that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The people—that’s you and me.

In pre-Revolution America, a bunch of people rebelling against British taxes got together and threw a great wealth of imported tea into Boston Bay. About ten other groups in other states did the same thing. Extremists! Those men who signed the Declaration of Independence? Extremists! A few disgruntled war veterans! Extremists!

All across America today, states are passing laws to protect gun owners while others are tightening limitations on abortion. Are all those state legislators extremists, too?

Like a lot of Americans, I have begun to have serious fears about the Department of Homeland Security, particularly since neither the DHS, nor any other government agency is permitted to use words like Islamist, Jihadist, or Muslim when describing groups and individuals dedicated to attacking Americans. The murders at Fort Hood by an Islamic extremist, U.S. Major Nidal Hasan, are still officially described as “workplace violence” and those who survived the attack have been denied Purple Hearts. Apparently no one among his fellow officers noticed when he showed up in the PX wearing Arab-style clothing. 

You can visit the DHS website and read “Countering Violent Extremism” which says that “Groups and individuals inspired by a range of religious, political, or other ideological beliefs have promoted and used violence against the homeland.” Most have been Muslims. I am still trying to find examples of attacks on the homeland by Republicans, veterans, evangelicals, or for that matter the pitiful remnants of the Ku Klux Klan.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano had to issue an apology for the April 2009 slur against veterans returning from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to which they were deployed. She said. “We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not—nor will we ever—monitor ideology or political beliefs.” Thank goodness they were not monitoring meetings of the Veterans of Foreign Wars or the American Legion. Or maybe they are.

Perhaps every meeting of the various Tea Party groups around the nation are monitored for their distinct disagreement with current government policies. They got their start protesting Obamacare. Many of their members oppose any effort to restrict their right to own and bear arms under the Second Amendment. Others oppose abortion. I’m guessing they would be among the first to be swept up as “extremists” and detained somewhere. And I am a regular contributor to a Tea Party Nation website!

In the wake of 9/11 Americans in general and the government in particular were scared to death of the prospect of more violent attacks on the nation. The Department of Homeland Security was cobbled together from a number of agencies to better coordinate information and a response. It’s worth keeping in mind that the enemy then and the enemy now is still al Qaeda. Our concerns then were such that we deployed our military to Afghanistan and Iraq to deter the spread of the Islamist ideology. These days many nations cooperate to identify al Qaeda leaders and dispatch them.

Al Qaeda in America doesn’t hold Wednesday night get-togethers, but I am fairly confident that our law enforcement authorities are doing their best to keep an eye on its recruitment efforts as they seek to stop further attacks.

What worries me is that the DHS definition of who they suspect of being “extremists” is so broad and so vague that there probably isn’t anyone who does not fall under suspicion.

There’s something paranoid and dangerous in the way they interpret their mission. There’s something scary about an agency that buys a billion bullets and equips itself like a small army. We already have an army and we have a vast law enforcement community nationwide who, frankly, I trust far more.

So the question is, are you an extremist? And for exercising my First Amendment rights of free speech, the publication—press—of my views, my religion, and may even join others “to petition the government for a redress of grievances”, am I an extremist, too?

© Alan Caruba, 2013

Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" and shared on dozens of news and opinion websites. His blog recently passed more than 2 million page views. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. For information on his professional skills, Caruba Editorial Services is the place to go! You can find Alan Caruba on both Facebook and Twitter as well.
VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)


/2013/04/am-i-a-dangerous-extremist-are-you-alan-caruba/feed/ 0
A “Mill Hill” Boy’s Reflection … J. D. Longstreet /2013/04/a-mill-hill-boys-reflection-j-d-longstreet/ /2013/04/a-mill-hill-boys-reflection-j-d-longstreet/#comments Tue, 09 Apr 2013 07:01:00 +0000 J.D. Longstreet /?guid=3514fc7041f22b753e960e7e79e6cbda A “Mill Hill” Boy’s Reflection 
Life Lessons Learned  
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet 

I spent my days as a wee lad in a company house on a company lot beside a company street in a company village.  The company furnished the water and electricity … and my dad’s job.

There were four of us in that house:  My mom and dad, my younger brother, and myself.

The house had three rooms and a path … literally.  No bathroom, but there was a toilet (an “outhouse” – a “privy”) down that path.  There was also a small stable for a milk cow.

Later, the company decided to bless its employees with a bathroom in, or on, the house.  In our case the bathroom was built on the back porch so that in order to use it one still had to exit the house and cross the porch to get to it.  It had the all too common porcelain toilet and a shower.  There was no lavatory, or sink, in that bathroom. There was a small push-out window near the ceiling of the room.   It was hot in the summer and absolutely frigid in the winter.

Between the house and the outhouse there was a huge cast iron wash pot in which mom did the laundry every Monday.  Wire clotheslines were strung across the backyard so that making an emergency trip to the outhouse at night was akin to maneuvering an army obstacle course -- blindfolded.  It was here that I learned the importance of having a flashlight readily available at night.  I do – to this day.    

The lighting in each room of the house was a single electric wire, hanging from the middle of the ceiling, with a socket for a single light bulb and -- a string attached to the pull chain -- as the only switch to turn the light on and off.  There were no electric receptacles anywhere in the rooms.  That single socket was the only source of electricity in every room.

As was everything in those latitudes (upstate South Carolina – the Piedmont/

foothills), the house was on the side of a hill. The front porch was at near ground level while a man of average height could walk, unstooped, underneath the back of the house.  In fact, that is where we stored our firewood for the stove and wash pot fires and coal for the fireplaces that had coal grates in them instead of dogs for burning wood.

As I mentioned, a good portion of the wood underneath the house was for mom’s huge cast iron wood range cooking stove.  It was a monster!  The thing would heat a city block when the fire got going. (The best food I have ever had, in my life, was cooked on that wood range.)

To get some relief from the heat in the kitchen in the summer, we had to raise the room’s two windows, one on the south side of the room and the other on the east side, and prop them open with pieces of firewood.

The kitchen table was rectangular and covered with an oilcloth tablecloth. That table was the center of our family universe.

There was an icebox.  I mean a REAL icebox.  It was my job to see that it didn’t run out of ice.  I had to walk a city block, and a bit more, to a community grocery store (every day) and purchase a block of ice (for five cents), which the grocer man placed in my little red Radio Flyer wagon that I used to haul that slippery, heavy, cargo. 

Then there was the drip pan beneath the icebox that had to be emptied at least once a day, or more, depending upon how hot the kitchen got on any given day. 

The kitchen was the family room.  The other two rooms were for sleeping.

The house was set back, ten or twelve feet, from the cement sidewalk.  My earliest memories have the street itself unpaved, but later it WAS paved with the old macadam mixture of round smooth river rock and tar.  It stunk to high heaven when it was hot and would blister the bottoms of your bare feet.

The rent was a dollar a day.

We were poor.  But then, so were all our neighbors -- so nobody seemed to notice.

It was on that block that I learned to fend for myself.  It was on that block that I learned to fight, lie, cheat, steal, curse, and the most wondrous thing of all … that girls are different from boys.  I also learned that I like girls … a lot!  

The block was awash in children, or “younguns,” as they were called in those days.  In my house, my younger brother and I were referred to as “chaps.”

It was on that block that I was cold-cocked, knocked unconscious, when I ran headlong into a China Berry tree while chasing a fly ball.

It was there that I learned, mostly, (I admit) by trial and error, right from wrong.  It was on that block that the basic building blocks of what passes today for my character were forever molded.

When we moved to a four-room house in another mill village across town, I wept. 

I will always be a Mill Hill boy.  It is in my blood and maybe -- in my DNA.

The Mill Hill is where I came to know and understand poor working people … people who live their lives on the very edge of out and out destitution. It is where I learned self-reliance.  It is also where I decided that I would claw my way to a better future through hard work; determination, stubbornness, and perseverance taught me by my father’s example.

It was on that Mill Hill where I learned that you must be ready to take a stand and defend your position from all comers regardless of the clamor of the opposition.

The Mill Hill was tough and it was not fair.  I learned, on that Mill Hill, that life is truly NOT FAIR.  But, most importantly, I learned that life is not supposed to be fair!! I learned that crying out for fairness was only an excuse for a shortcut to one’s goals.

That Mill Hill taught me that if one truly wants to make something of one’s self then you first must forget “fair.”  You play the hand you are dealt.  But you play it with cunning and skill and perseverance.  And you NEVER, EVER, QUIT because you are never beaten ‘til you quit!

And finally, I learned, on that Mill Hill, one should never compromise when one is satisfied that he/she is right.  Compromise neuters one’s self-reliance.  When you believe -- to an absolute certainty -- that you are right, compromise is nothing less than a personal sell-out.

Some will disagree with the life lessons I learned on the Mill Hill, but that’s OK.  They are MY lessons. And they have served me well.  After all, it was the hand I was dealt over 70 years ago, and I am still in the game!

J. D. Longstreet 

VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)

/2013/04/a-mill-hill-boys-reflection-j-d-longstreet/feed/ 0
The Iron Lady Leaves Us … J. D. Longstreet /2013/04/the-iron-lady-leaves-us-j-d-longstreet/ /2013/04/the-iron-lady-leaves-us-j-d-longstreet/#comments Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:42:00 +0000 J.D. Longstreet /?guid=dba81f8487a1ce71df4882f45035298a The Iron Lady Leaves Us

Margaret Thatcher Dies
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


Margaret Thatcher, Former Prime Minister of Great Britain, has passed away leaving a vast void in the ranks of conservatives the world over.

Margaret Thatcher's political career has been one of the most remarkable of modern times. Born in October 1925 at Grantham, a small market town in eastern England, she rose to become the first (and for two decades the only) woman to lead a major Western democracy. She won three successive General Elections and served as British Prime Minister for more than eleven years (1979-90), a record unmatched in the twentieth century. 

During her term of office she reshaped almost every aspect of British politics, reviving the economy, reforming outdated institutions, and reinvigorating the nation's foreign policy. She challenged and did much to overturn the psychology of decline which had become rooted in Britain since the Second World War, pursuing national recovery with striking energy and determination.

In the process, Margaret Thatcher became one of the founders, with Ronald Reagan, of a school of conservative conviction politics, which has had a powerful and enduring impact on politics in Britain and the United States and earned her a higher international profile than any British politician since Winston Churchill.

Had Margaret Thatcher been born American and had she become a candidate for President of the United States, I would have supported her and voted for her.  She was a conservative.

Working closely with President Ronald Reagan,  the Iron Lady welded our two countries together as one. 

Her influence spread around the world.  Her plain spoken opinions made even the mighty squirm at times.  With Thatcher at 10 Downing Street the world never had to wonder where England stood.   

Her influence on US President George H. W. Bush was invaluable at times during his term in office.

Thatcher hated socialism.  She saw it for what it is and she loathed it.  Back in 1976 she said:  "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them." Speech, Feb. 5, 1976

She once said:  "Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State."

She didn't much care for socialized medicine either.  She had her own private health insurance.  When asked about that in a TV interview she said: "I, along with something like 5 million other people, insure to enable me to go into hospital on the day I want; at the time I want, and with a doctor I want. "

On socialism's effect on Great Britain, Baroness Thatcher said this:  "No theory of government was ever given a fairer test or a more prolonged experiment in a democratic country than democratic socialism received in Britain. Yet it was a miserable failure in every respect. Far from reversing the slow relative decline of Britain vis-à-vis its main industrial competitors, it accelerated it. We fell further behind them, until by 1979 we were widely dismissed as 'the sick man of Europe'...To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukemia with leeches."

Here is one of my favorite quotes from Margaret Thatcher:  "I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society — from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain." That was from a speech she made on Feb. 8, 1984.

Compare Thatcher's philosophy against that of the current President of the US and you will quickly see why America is in such deep trouble.  Thatcher had her priorities in the proper order. 

Obama wants to rid the world of Nuclear weapons.  Thatcher understood the need for nuclear arsenals.  She said this: "A world without nuclear weapons may be a dream but you cannot base a sure defense on dreams. Without far greater trust and confidence between East and West than exists at present, a world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us."   She made those remarks in a speech at a Soviet Official banquet, St George's Halls, the Kremlin (30 March 1987).  Thatcher had the courage of her convictions.

In her book  Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World. New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-095912-6,  she laid out a list of guidelines that speak volumes about her and the way she governed.  She wrote:  "I should therefore prefer to restrict my guidelines to the following:

Don't believe that military interventions, no matter how morally justified, can succeed without clear military goals
Don't fall into the trap of imagining that the West can remake societies
Don't take public opinion for granted -- but don't either underrate the degree to which good people will endure sacrifices for a worthwhile cause
Don't allow tyrants and aggressors to get away with it

And when you fight -- fight to win.

(You will find these guidelines on page 39 of the book.)

Can you see why I would have great admiration for this great lady? 

May God grant her eternal rest. 

J. D. Longstreet

VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)


/2013/04/the-iron-lady-leaves-us-j-d-longstreet/feed/ 0
The Bear Is Tromping The Woods Again! … J. D. Longstreet /2013/04/the-bear-is-tromping-the-woods-again-j-d-longstreet/ /2013/04/the-bear-is-tromping-the-woods-again-j-d-longstreet/#comments Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:05:00 +0000 J.D. Longstreet /?guid=dcf2601a4ef6c9f01eaf48da7c33007a
The Bear Is Tromping The Woods Again!
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


The Russian  bear is raging around the globe again.  The "Russkies" are up to their old tricks once more.  Probing, tweaking, testing, aggravating, and in general -- making a complete nuisance of themselves as they strut across the world stage in what they hope is an intimidating posture to strike fear in the hearts of well, EVERYBODY. 

Russia is STILL so far behind the remainder of the world that they are pitiable.

However, if the Russians ever decide to climb out of the Vodka bottle and sober up, they could actually become the great country they SAY they want to be. 

They are a strange people.  Fearful of everything and everybody out side the borders of Russia.  As a country, they are convinced that someone is going to attack them and take their treasures. 

The United States has been the preferred target of their ire since, well, since we bade them leave the North American continent in 1867 with the purchase of Alaska from Russia's Emperor Alexander II.  They've seemed sour toward the US ever since.

OK. OK. So we DID invade Russia -- ONCE -- back during the First World War.   Oh, yes.  We did.

"Although few people know it, in 1918 President Woodrow Wilson sent 5,500 American soldiers — including some from Missouri and Kansas — to northern Russia in the last days of World War I. Thanks to harsh conditions that cut off communications, the troops were left there for eight months after the war ended."

"President Woodrow Wilson was pressured by the British to send American soldiers to Russia to fight a new force called the Bolsheviks, an early name for Communists . Winston Churchill (then Britain's secretary of war) saw that the Bolsheviks were pulling the czar's forces — our allies — out of the war as they were taking over Russia. So Churchill thought that if we could amass forces in northern Russia, we could stop communism at its birth."  Read more here:

The war ended about two months after the Americans got there -- but THEY DIDN'T KNOW IT!  They were left for eight months in sometimes waist deep snow.  Many died of exposure. So, believe me when I tell you --we REALLY don't want to invade Russia -- AGAIN!  Now, if we could only convince the Russians of that!

Lately, though, the Russian military has been probing US defenses around the world -mostly in the Pacific region and down the west coast of the US.

From the Free Beacon we learn:  "A Russian bomber recently carried out simulated cruise missile attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Asia, raising new questions about Moscow’s goal in future U.S.-Russian defense talks.

According to U.S. officials, a Russian Tu-22M Backfire bomber on Feb. 26 simulated firing air-launched cruise missiles at an Aegis ship deployed near Japan as part of U.S. missile defenses.

A second mock attack was conducted Feb. 27 against a ground-based missile defense site in Japan that officials did not identify further."

From the same article in the Free Beacon we also learn: "The bomber targeting of U.S. missile defenses also followed stepped up Russian bomber activities targeting other U.S. missile defense sites, including ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California. A large-scale Russian military exercise in the Arctic in June included flights by two Tu-95 Bear bombers that Russian military officials said had simulated attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Alaska.

Another pair of Tu-95s flew on July 4 the closest to the California coast that a Russian bomber had flown since the days of the Soviet Union, when strategic bomber flights near U.S. coasts were a routine feature of the Cold War." 

This is important.  While the US is cutting back it's military and nuclear arsenal, the Russians are building up their military preparing especially for war with the US. (So is China, but that is for another day, another column.)

Winston Churchill once said that "appeasement is nothing more than feeding the alligator in hopes that he will eat you last."

While the Obama Administration is busy feeding the Russian alligator the gator is growing bigger and meaner with every passing day.

Appeasement does not work with the Russians. They will bleed you dry then eat your bones.

It seems strange that the only US President able to handle the Russians would not appease them and he brought on the collapse of the old Soviet Union.  His name was Ronald Reagan. 

There is no Reagan to deal with the Russians today.  And THEY KNOW IT!  The Russians see Obama as a joke. They are happily running circles around Obama's diplomatic team and going hell bent for leather to build up their military while the US has such a weak administration in power.

Yes, the "Russian Bear" is back prowling and growling in the woods.  This time the US is too weak to contain the bear.  It will be decades until the US has another conservative president to order a huge build-up in America's military force.  Until then, the world cannot count on the US to counter the Russians as it did for the forty-year Cold War.   Besides, the US today more closely resembles the old Soviet Union -- with our current socialist President and government -- than we do the old America. Heck, we might even be invited to join the Russian Federation. 

© J. D. Longstreet 

VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)


/2013/04/the-bear-is-tromping-the-woods-again-j-d-longstreet/feed/ 0
Gun Control is DOA in Congress … Alan Caruba /2013/04/gun-control-is-doa-in-congress-alan-caruba/ /2013/04/gun-control-is-doa-in-congress-alan-caruba/#comments Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:04:00 +0000 J.D. Longstreet /?guid=6d640db4d0a038a50de2fe73474e56d4

Gun Control is DOA in Congress

By Alan Caruba

When I was a teenager I was a magician performing at birthday parties and before local clubs whose adults enjoyed legerdemain as much as the kids. The essence of magic is diversion, distracting the audience to watch the right hand while the left is setting up the illusion. It was a lesson I never forgot as I watch politicians divert attention from their actual agenda and right now President Obama is engaged in that as he goes around the nation asking for more gun control.

The killings in Colorado and at Sandy Hook school were committed by certifiably insane individuals. No background check can determine a person’s sanity. If seeking the advice and care of a psychiatrist and psychologist would disqualify a person from gun ownership than their privacy will have been invaded in ways prohibited by medical ethics and the constitutional right to privacy. Police cannot arrest anyone on the suspicion they’re nuts. The only protection against them is a sane armed gun-owner.

The right to self-defense is as old as mankind. All tyrannical governments seek to disarm their citizens. The Founders of America understood this. Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever been debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

It has become a cliché to say that Barack Obama has become the greatest gun salesman because, as noted in a December 2012 report by, “Compared to the number of background checks completed from January through December of 2011, all but two states saw net increases in gun sales in 2012.” Background checks to ensure that those with criminal records are a good idea, but criminals or crazy people can always get their hands on a gun. The Sandy Hook murders were perpetrated by a lunatic using the legal guns purchased by his mother. She was his first victim.

Washington, D.C. saw the largest year-to-year increase,” reported, “with sales jumping 49.7%. Wisconsin followed with 45.5%, then New Jersey with 42.5%. New Hampshire with 40.9% and Rhode Island with 39.3%.  The largest increases occurred in Georgia, Oregon, New Hampshire, Texas and Montana.

In 2011 gun owners in America outnumbered hunters by 5 to 1. Hunters constitute only 15.9% to 18% of the estimate 70-80 million gun owners. Together they owned an estimated 300 million firearms, about 100 million of which were handguns.

That is one hell of a voting bloc!

The members of Congress know this. Writing in January, Wall Street Journal columnist, Kimberley A. Strassel, castigated “the elites” noting that the “one issue on which Congress still resoundingly agrees” is gun rights. The so-called debate over gun-control is led by the most elitist of all, Obama.

“On the other side,” wrote Strassel, “is the reality that any of these proposals must, in the normal course of things, pass Congress. A few quick facts about that body. (1) More than half of its members have an ‘A’ rating from the National Rifle Association. (2) The few members today calling for gun control are the same few who have always called for gun control. (3) The House is run by Republicans.”

“Even were the Senate to summon 60 votes (unlikely), and even if Mr. Boehner to risk the renewed wrath of his caucus by moving such a bill (crazy unlikely), any legislation would fall to members such as Virginia’s Bob Goodlate (who runs the Judiciary Committee) and Pete Sessions (who runs the Rules Committee). Mr. Goodlate is strong on gun rights. Mr. Sessions is from Texas.”

A new gun control law on top of the 1,100 that already exist is dead on arrival in Congress. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, knows this. Even Obama knows this. So why is he going around the nation giving gun control speeches? It is the old magician’s trick of diversion and distraction. Gun control has no priority in a nation awash in debt, concerned about illegal immigration, and even threatened by the insane leader of North Korea.

“The more sweeping any gun proposals,” observed Ms. Strassel, “the more dead on arrival they will be in Congress. Mr. Obama might know that and be planning to take credit for going big while blaming failure on Congress. If so, he’ll have to beat on his own party.”

There are harsh, irresponsible and irrational gun control laws being passed in heavily liberal states, but they can and will be repealed in time as political control passes to legislators who get elected running against them. The Wall Street Journalreports that “This year, five states have passed seven laws that strengthen gun restrictions, while 10 states have passed 17 laws that weaken them, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which tracks and promotes gun-control-laws.

Nothing can be done to stop the crazies, but the vast numbers of gun owners are not crazy. They are, however, worried about a government showing signs of trying to take their guns away. Elections are a defense against such actions.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" and shared on dozens of news and opinion websites. His blog recently passed more than 2 million page views. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. For information on his professional skills, Caruba Editorial Services is the place to go! You can find Alan Caruba on both Facebook and Twitter as well.
/2013/04/gun-control-is-doa-in-congress-alan-caruba/feed/ 0
Our Rights Shall NOT Be Infringed … JB Williams /2013/04/our-rights-shall-not-be-infringed-jb-williams/ /2013/04/our-rights-shall-not-be-infringed-jb-williams/#comments Sun, 07 Apr 2013 08:17:00 +0000 J.D. Longstreet /?guid=e53de83fe1efcad0f9362319560eb0e6

Our Rights Shall NOT Be Infringed
By JB Williams

Political leftists with global ambitions, who fear the wrath of a
free people, have been trying to disarm American citizens for more than a hundred years now. Although Americans have been quite tolerant of past overreaches of political authority at the federal, state and local level, the silence of the people should not be misinterpreted as their consent. Far from it…
In the end, our rights shall NOT be infringed! PERIOD!
The subject of our inalienablerights, protected by the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and State Constitutions, is simple. – “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Why? – Because, a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State and a free people.
A Free State
A state which is subservient to any supreme central power is not a “free state.” Our Founders created a Constitutional Representative Republic, not a democracy. The thirteen original colonies and the balance of the states by ratification, created a federal government via a compact known as the U.S. Constitution, and further protected states and individual rights via the Bill of (inalienable) Rights.
The people, via their states, assigned certain specific and limited duties to the federal government they created, along with the limited authority to carry out those duties.
The Ninth Amendment states unequivocally – “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The Tenth Amendment states without reservation – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
And the Second Amendment to the Constitution states without any ambiguity – “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Shall NOT Be Infringed
The following inalienablerights shall not be infringed…
·         The free exercise of religion
·         Free speech
·         A Free press
·         The right of the people peaceably to assemble
·         The right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
·         A well-regulated Militia
·         The right of the people to keep and bear Arms
·         The right of the people to be secure in their homes
·         The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures
·         No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury
·         nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb
·         nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
·         nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
·         In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law
·         and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense
·         In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law
·         Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

A condition of passage of the U.S. Constitution was the immediate passage of additional prohibitions to the federal government, known as our Bill of Rights. In addition to countless individual rights as a free people, these rights are specified as inalienablerights. These rights shall not be infringed… PERIOD
The Ninth Amendment exists as absolute affirmation that the people retain all the rights of a free people. The Tenth Amendment exists so that State Governments can and shall protect the rights of the people and their state when the federal government becomes abusive towards the states and the people.
To Infringe
There is not one way to infringeupon the rights of the people or the states. There are two ways in which the federal government can infringe upon the rights of the people or their states. To infringeis – “To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance.”
1.      The federal government can infringe upon the inalienable rights of the people or their state by taking positive action from one of the three federal branches, which directly interferes with these rights.
2.      The federal government can also passively infringe upon these rights by failing to carry out its assigned duties in a manner which results in the interference of the right of the people or the state.

EXAMPLE # 1– When the federal government attempts to interfere in any way with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it is taking an affirmative action which is a direct infringement upon the people’s Second Amendment right.
EXAMPLE # 2– When the federal government fails to enforce existing immigration and naturalization laws, by non-fulfillment and neglect of performance, it is infringing upon the rights of the states and the people to be secure in their home, their country.
A Time for Intolerance
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
So it is… that the American people have indeed tolerated many infringements upon their rights over the years since the passage of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Their silence has been a mark of tolerance, not acceptance.
The moment in history when federal assaults on the people’s rights have become insufferable, has arrived.
Although the many usurpations of power have taken place over an extended period involving numerous administrations, combined, they pale by comparison to the overt assaults on American sovereignty, security, freedom and liberty that have taken place over the last four years.
The rapid decline in America started at the 2006 election in which progressive Democrats seized both houses of congress and sat congressional Republicans on the sidelines. The election of a blatantly unconstitutional White House resident in 2008, left the reigns of our once great nation solely in the hands of progressive Democrats. They have worked around the clock to destroy The United States of America ever since.
The election of Tea Party Republicans in 2010 delivered a net zero gain for the country, as those Republicans were inexperienced and ill-prepared for the battle they would face in the political sewer known as Washington DC.
One Remaining Peaceful Opportunity
“… whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”
The federal government is not The United States of America. The fifty member states and more than three-hundred million “legal” American citizens are The United States of America.
The states created the federal government and the states can alter or abolish the federal government at will. The People are The United States of America.
Freedom and liberty is an American concept and the right of every American. Most Republicans are pro-freedom and liberty. So are most Democrats.
But our federal government has become destructive of that end. Neither the Republican National Committee nor Democrat National Committee is pro-freedom and liberty today.
What should the people do?
The rights of the people shall be protected by the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The people must work with their state governments to erect Tenth Amendment protections at the state level, making it possible for the state to block unconstitutional acts of the federal government via peaceful legislative processes.
For freedom and liberty to exist, there must be a delicate balance of political powers restricting the authorities of government so that those governmental bodies operate in the interest of freedom and liberty. Once the balance of power is lost, it can only be regained at the state level via the people.
Our Constitutional Republic was designed with both a horizontal and vertical separation of power. The federal government is made up of three co-equal branches, executive, legislative and judicial. None of the three has supremacy over the other. That’s the horizontal separation of powers at the federal level, intended to keep all three branches in constitutional check and balance.
The vertical balance of powers is divided between federal, state, county and local powers and the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution defines the separation of state and federal powers as follows – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The powers delegated to the executive branch of the federal government are defined in Article II of the US Constitution.
The powers delegated to the legislative branch of the federal government are defined in Article I of the US Constitution.
The powers delegated to the judicial branch are defined in Article III of the US Constitution.
All other power belongs to the states and the people under the Ninthand Tenth Amendments of the US Constitution.
The rights of the people and the states shall NOT be infringed…. PERIOD
The people must restore the proper balance of powers in order to restore their Constitutional Republic. They can only do this at the state level today and time is running short.
The people must take appropriate actions to regain control of their states in order to regain control over their federal government, or their nation, freedom and liberty will be lost.
Founder John Adams said it best – “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
Fight peacefully, through appropriate state actions, or lose freedom and liberty forever…
Our Rights Shall NOT Be Infringed…

JB Williams

JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a twenty-year span. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, writer and a business owner. He is co-founder of action organizations The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization preparing to take on American's greatest legal battles. Williams receives mail at:
/2013/04/our-rights-shall-not-be-infringed-jb-williams/feed/ 1