Saturday, August 11, 2012

Under the radar no longer. Not that we had any doubts all along, but it is nice of Obama to make it official (again). "The first War Between the States was precipitated by the election of Lincoln and the second one will be kicked off by the re-election of Obama"

During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.
“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” -- Washington Post, 11 April 2011.
White House: Obama Supports Renewing Assault Weapons Ban.
President Obama supports reinstating the assault weapons ban, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Monday, on the heels of back-to-back shooting rampages in the United States.
As a presidential candidate, Obama supported renewal of the 1994-2004 federal ban on manufacturing some semi-automatic weapons for civilian use. But he hasn’t pushed for it as president, largely steering clear of the issue.
“He does support renewing the assault weapons ban,” Carney said at his press briefing.
I was in a local gun store the other day, just cruising to "take the temperature". I ran into a fellow who I knew from the 90s. He observed that "the first War Between the States was precipitated by the election of Lincoln and the second one will be kicked off by the re-election of Obama" and what follows it. I could not argue with his premise.
Just now I was chatting with Bob Wright (he always calls to check up on how I'm doing) and he brought up something similar. Bob's First Sergeant in the 1st New Mexico had commented that he believed that the War Between the States was certain after the Dred Scott decision. The Yankees, he posited, were disposed to tolerate slavery while they could plausibly deny responsibility for it. But Dred Scott made them responsible for the "peculiar institution" in a way that they could no longer ignore. "Kind of like Obamacare and the mandate," I observed. The Obama administration is now pushing us similarly, Bob agreed.
(I am not interested in refighting the whole "the WBTS was not over slavery" issue. There were many other issues, tariffs, economic competition, to be sure, but I believe that all of that was wrapped around what Bruce Catton once called, "the indigestible lump.")
I am not pimping for Romney here, not at all. I despise the GOP leadership and their unprincipled and Constitutionally worthless candidate. I will not vote for him. The election of Romney will provide even more challenges to liberty, made harder to fight by the fact that the GOP -- if they retain the House and recapture the Senate -- will circle the wagons around "their" president.
I am merely warning here that civil war is probable with the re-election of an Obama administration "liberated" from any political constraints that have heretofore applied.
Got militia?

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/secret-history-the-gulag-archipelago/u8LgZxdriv5U0f5gcCZeuw

Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight.

If Romney gets in, we get 4 more years of the same overbroad federal govt. that has plagued us since wheelchair Roosevelt?

But if Obama gets re-elected we get to start over fresh like in 1783?

I'm voting Obama!

Your on my prayer list brother, keep on keeping on.

Anonymous said...

the only problem in this is that Romney has expressed the same antipathy to gun owners, and I would expect he would seek to protect the landed classes against armed unrest.


then what?

Anonymous said...

I'm sometimes of the opinion, considering the general age and temperament of our "member" majority, that we should all vote for the Traitor Obama and get things started while we still hold a majority over them.. some might disagree but Romney will only delay he same result IMO.

Yank lll

juvat said...

Not to quibble (much), but I think the date of that Brady quote is off by 10 years or so. April 2001 was a millenia ago.

Mattexian said...

Can't argue with the majority of your post, seems spot-on, looks like it's an inevitable course at this point. Of course the GOP is gonna "circle the wagons," as the Dems/Commies/OWS agitators will be in full screeching hysterics for the next four years, crying that the election was stolen from their rightful savior, and doing everything they can to resist and sabotage the Repubs. (Nevermind the psychological "projection", where they can't imagine anyone winning fairly, because they *would* cheat to win, they see anyone else as doing it too.)

the major said...

Anon...has it right.

"But if Obama gets re-elected we get to start over fresh like in 1783"?

My problem is who fights whom: at least it was revolutionaries vs King G. Now we just have tyranny at all levels and I may run out of ammo before I get out of this town.

Anonymous said...

Delay is good. Buys more time. Not a lot but some.

Every media type, lawyer and politician should be on notice but they're not. They still think they can win this as long as everyone else does the dying. They really believe it. They really think that when the smoke clears, that they will still be alive and in charge. Because there are laws that protect conspiring traitors from retribution and
permanent removal.

Disciple of Night said...

The only difference between 1860 and 2012 is that Lincoln was running for a first term.

Anonymous said...

"I am not pimping for Romney here, not at all. I despise the GOP leadership and their unprincipled and Constitutionally worthless candidate. I will not vote for him. The election of Romney will provide even more challenges to liberty, made harder to fight by the fact that the GOP -- if they retain the House and recapture the Senate -- will circle the wagons around "their" president."

Jesus Aitch Christ! Whose fault is it that we're in this spot? It's OUR FAULT for allowing politicians to run amok!
We have to demand Limited, Constitutional federal government, fiscal responsibility (BBA), and accountability to the PEOPLE.

These pols are our employees, it's up to us to set our expectation level and train them, or vote them out in the next election.

I like your stuff here but don't waste your vote, or encourage others to do so. I thought that "Absolved" was aimed at preventing a civil war.

Jimmy the Saint said...

@anonymous: "e only problem in this is that Romney has expressed the same antipathy to gun owners, and I would expect he would seek to protect the landed classes against armed unrest."


Maybe, but he's a political whore and salesman, not an ideologue. Thus, there's at least a chance he could be pulled into a more favorable position.

Anonymous said...

Other than the political problem with this suggestion: (Civil War); here’s the practical aspect. Obviously Dr. Clawson never read the Constitution. Or if he has, he neglected Article 5 describing the amendment process. So I’ll describe it for him. Briefly: Amendments require a TWO THIRDS vote of the Legislators of THREE FOURTHS of the States. 38 States are therefore required for approval. So; from which states are we likely to get 2/3 of the Assembly to vote for repeal the 2nd Amd? Definites = MA, RI, CT, NJ, NY, MD, DL, IL, CA & HI. “Possibles” = OR, & WA. “Wobblers” = WI & MN. So, for sake of argument, I’ll concede all 14, leaving 24 States needed. So how do you propose convincing TWO THIRDS of the Legislators of ANY of the remaining States, ex, ( NV, KS, ID, MO), or any of 24 Very Pro gun / Pro 2nd Amd. states to vote for this proposal? And remember, you need ALL 24.
Dr. Clawson needs to sharpen his reading & math skills. The only way this will happen is in his Delusional Wet Dreams or those of his fellow Gun Phobic Liberals. Once you overcome this obstacle, please let us know. Till then …. LOTSA luck, “doctor”. LMAO

Leonard M. Urban said...

So, how many states voted to add the 16th Amendment?

Dedicated_Dad said...

Anonymous (August 11, 2012 3:52 PM) said...

"Let me get this straight.

If Romney gets in, we get 4 more years of the same overbroad federal govt. that has plagued us since wheelchair Roosevelt?

But if Obama gets re-elected we get to start over fresh like in 1783?

I'm voting Obama!..."

I'm having this same battle myself...

My bigger problem with mitt-for-brains is that the fed.gov tyranny will *NOT* just mark time in place for his 4-8 years - the technology of tyranny will continue to progress and the BUREAUCRACY of tyranny will continue to become more and more entrenched!

We're rapidly approaching a point where the technology alone may make effective resistance impossible - just *TRY* to imagine what Adolph Joe or Mao might have done with all the surveillance tech we have today!

Most of the time I feel like our time may literally be running out! There's simply no way we'll be in a better place 4 or more years from now than we are today!

OTOH, I live behind enemy lines, and O'Vomit's going to get all our electoral votes anyway, so in reality my vote will not matter one bit.

For this reason I'll probably write in Ron Paul unless someone convinces me to do otherwise...

Anonymous said...

to Anon @ August 12, 2012 1:12 PM

md actually couldn't get a 2/3 majority to vote for 2a repeal. we actually have enough votes to pass shall-issue, but one committee chairman does a desk-drawer-veto on it every year.

if he let the committee vote it would pass and then the legislature would pass it too but instead he's able to keep the whole state hostage just because he doesn't like the bill.

Paul X said...

"These pols are our employees..." A fanciful reading of reality.

Election of Romney would put gun owners to sleep. Re-election of Obama would bring gun owners to a maximum level of vigilance and readiness. Possibly also a 2nd Revolution due to a gun confiscation attempt or to economic crash. The time for delay, for putting up with baloney-slicing our liberty, is over.

I see three reasonable courses: 1) vote for Gary Johnson for obvious reasons, 2) vote for Obama to bring the issue to a head, or 3) Don't vote at all, refusing any mandate. I'm taking the third course. I think turnout will be very low, and that is a good thing.

Toastrider said...

"The only difference between 1860 and 2012 is that Lincoln was running for a first term."

Well, that and we could've probably reasoned with Lincoln.