I noticed the other day while scouring liberal web sites that one liberal in typical liberal fashion asked, “What happened to the ‘small arms treaty’ conservatives have been so paranoid about? You know, BIG government wants to take your guns! It appears it’s just like all the other paranoia right-wings are attracted to … nothing to it!” Now, that’s paraphrasing, but here is the actual post:
Not so long ago . . . in a land far far away . . . (The land where some “Righties” spend their days in a kind of smug self-satisfied fog of fantasy and delusion) . . . there was a lot of talk about how a proposed United Nations “Small Arms” treaty was going to be used as a mechanism to attack the Second Amendment Rights of American Citizens and which would also lead to confiscation of all privately-owned guns in These United States.
I am still waiting to see any of that paranoia come to pass. What about you?
Anybody from the “Gubmint” come to collect YOUR guns yet?
To me it’s fascinating the way folks, especially liberals have the propensity to think that because something doesn’t happen right away … it isn’t going to.
In response to the above it appears the Small Arms Treaty is alive and well. I suggest folks read what Mr. John Kerry has been up to. Anyone who believes this guy deserves what they get.
The wonderful thing about America is that our founding fathers made it very difficult for anyone to destroy this nation rapidly. They built checks and balances into the Constitution so that no one person could rule. To take away our Constitutional rights is something that would have to be done incrementally: Change the attitude of the people. Make them more afraid of “terrorists” than the government. Convince them to give up liberties so the government will make them feel safe. Convince law abiding people to allow the government to monitor their every move under the guise of “national security”. Allow mass shootings to outrage the public so as to make gun control seem like “common sense”.
Just because something unsavory hasn’t actually happened yet does not mean it isn’t being worked on.
The president is supposed to be a natural born citizen so there would be no possibility of dual affinity. George Washington warned of foreign influence corrupting our republic. In his Farewell Address 1796 he said:
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. (emphasis mine)
Liberalism has been chipping away in contrast to everything that President Washington warned about in his Farewell Address. I read all the time where liberals mock any politician, actually anyone who adheres to their religious beliefs. Especially those of the Christian faith. You know the “holier than thou” kind of mockery if a politician quotes the Bible. I’ve also read many times where folks mock those who claim that morality is important in the character of one who would be president. Morality in a president has given way to having one who’s considered “cool” because he smoked crack and marijuana.
We’ve been inundated with the “separation of church and state” crap for decades now, until it’s reached the point where a child cannot even pass out candy canes to his school friends without some teacher stopping him, saying “Jesus isn’t allowed in this school!”
This is a small example of the decline in America’s greatness, a greatness that George Washington cautioned could be lost when national morality excludes religious principle.
Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
To those who blindly follow those who speak of patriotism and love for America, but in deed weaken the moral values, economic structure and the might of our military, be not deceived. We were warned, now centuries ago that insidious forces from without and from within will attempt to weaken this nation to the point of surrendering the sovereignty of the United States:
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed … (emphasis mine)
And finally folks, we see every day the Constitution being ignored and usurped by the president and the members of Congress do nothing. Yea, they are complicit, and many partakers in the destruction of this nation. We citizens have allowed the government far too much power over us. I think Washington informs us who really should be in charge …
The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
Our established government does not have the power to keep us from establishing another, and we have the right to expel those who violate the Constitution.
Original Post: Cry and Howl