Saturday, October 20, 2007

"Every Man for Himself"

(From August, 2005)

************************
Militia Units and a Liberal President

*********************

A few days ago, I was reading a liberal lady columnist who writes for the NYT. Besides the bitterness dripping, like hydrochloric acid, from the paragraphs of her tome, I saw something I had thought of before and stuffed back into the darken recesses of my mind only to bring out when a situation warranted it.

One can only be stricken with the huge, the gigantic, and the monstrous proportion of the naiveté of the left. They do not live in the same world, or on the same plain, as the remainder of us humans. I think it is genetic. Maybe someday science can isolate the “liberal gene”

For instance, this writer was droning on about the war and how ridiculous is was to go to war and if we’d behave ourselves and try to understand those who dislike us so much there would be less hate in the world, etc, etc, etc. The usual drivel from the Left.

As I was reading this woman’s rantings, and stifling a belly laugh, I remembered a telling situation, which arose during the reign of the last liberal in the White House. I’ll bet you remember it, too.

During the Clinton Administration (I use the term “administration” loosely) remember the sudden increase in the number of Militia units all over the US? Remember? Men who banded together to train as paramilitary units? Remember the attacks upon them by the MSM as a bunch of right-wing nut cases? Sure you do. It was all over TV… every evening.

Now, ask yourselves… where are all those militia units now that we have a ”moderate” President in the Whitehouse? Huh?

My state had three armed militia units operating here during the Clinton Administration (Again, I use the term “administration”, loosely). One of our State Militia Units is controlled by the Governor and has no connection to the National Guard. None.

Do you wonder why they only seem to appear when there is a liberal President in the White House and liberals control the Congress? Well, you should. The reason they exist is tied directly to the expectations the people of this country have about a Liberal Administration.

You see, common folk are savvy. They understand that Liberals have neither the concept of military force nor how to apply that military force. Therefore, they have no concept of national defense… in so far as the use of military force to protect this nation’s citizens is concerned.

Look, when a liberal President is in office, the common US citizen understands it is “everyman for himself”. We know the government cannot be relied upon to protect the nation so, US citizens take it upon themselves to do the government’s job.

And that, Dear Reader, is where the Second Amendment to the US Constitution comes in! That is one of the reasons "The Founders" put it in the constitution in the first place. The US citizenry is the best-armed citizenry in the world. Any outside attacking force will be met with a standing army of citizen soldiers the likes of which the world has never seen.

Of course, the other reason, "The Founders" put the Second Amendment in the Constitution, was so the citizens could protect themselves from the federal government! Actually, that was the primary reason.

So, with the next Presidential election campaign already underway, we should consider this as we peruse the list of liberal candidates for that office. If the US elects another liberal President, militia units will pop up, seemingly overnight, sort of like mushrooms after a long wet spell. Adding urgency to their appearance is the fact that the US is already in a struggle with Islamic terrorists for its freedom even now.

I don’t believe this will come as the blinding light of epiphany to any of my readers, but I thought it was worthy of consideration, anyway!

Longstreet



Filed under:





PLUS:




3 comments:

eewestcoaster said...

This was a great post, and you make a very good point with the militias. I noticed it immediately when you pointed it out, but never made the connection to a Liberal in the White House.

Good call. It will be interesting to see what happens after the next election.

-eewestcoaster
http://logicaficianado.blogspot.com/

Frank said...

Do you wonder why they only seem to appear when there is a liberal President in the White House and liberals control the Congress? Well, you should. The reason they exist is tied directly to the expectations the people of this country have about a Liberal Administration.
*********************************
the media only reports on such stuff when a Democrat, and I urge you not to call Clinton a Liberal, he was at best a mderate and Bush is no moderate, his whole regime is racked with inbred ne-conservative biggots and hate mongers. The MSM is owned by right wingers and only reports this stuff to damage Democrats. You don't think anyone who, like myself holds the constitution of this nation higher than the old testament has to be upset (Mad as Hell) with this "guys" intrusion on privacy and rights to due processes and other steps to eliminate the checks and balances ste forth in the constitution.

Longstreet said...

Frank, neither Bush one or Bush two were/are conservatives.

Ronald Reagan has been the only republican conservative President to serve in my lifetime. John Kennedy came close, as a democrat, to being a conservative... as did Harry Truman.

Ike was a moderate, also, as was Ford and Nixon.

Best regards!

Longstreet