Sunday, October 26, 2008

Militia Units and a Liberal President

(Note from the editor: This piece was written and published just over a year ago. With the elction only days away, I thought it might serve as food for thought as we take longer and deeper looks at the two candidates for the hightes office in the land. Enjoy.)

Militia Units and a Liberal President
By J. D. Longstreet


Some time ago, I read an article by 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 it 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. It was 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 a number of armed militia units operating here during the Clinton Administration.

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.

Common folk, you see, are savvy. They understand that Liberals have neither a real concept of military force nor do they understand the application of 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 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 to insure the citizens could protect themselves from the federal government! Actually, that was the primary reason.

So, with the next Presidential election just days away, we should consider this as we study the 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 a blinding light of epiphany to any of my readers, but I thought it was worthy of consideration, anyway!

J. D. Longstreet



Flick said...

You speak of liberals as not being realistic. And the Republican Party isn't way off its original course? You mean to tell me that you don't recognize the socialism rampant in the Bush/Cheney administration? This administration has done more to advance the socialist globalist agenda than Clinton could have dreamed of achieving. Why? Because Clinton wore a D and Bush wears a big red R on his chest, so stupid people trust him. You appear to still be under the delusion that we have a two-party system in America. Hint: Take a look at McCain's and Obama's top 10 campaign contributors. You're so worried about the communist for of socialism that you don't recognize the national form of socialism gripping this country.

You speak of war as necessary to protect American citizens. When was the last time the U.S. government sent U.S. troops into combat to protect American citizens?
- The Iraq war was started on a pack of lies--Saddam was no threat to us, he didn't have WMD, and he had nothing to do with 9/11.
- The invasion of Afghanistan was feel-good "payback" for 9/11, even though the ones committing troops are the ones responsible for 9/11, but hey, emotions were running high and we just wanted to make someone bleed--we wanted to see dead bodies and carnage.
- Not long befoer Gulf War I, Rumsfeld told Saddam that his issue with Kuwait did not concern America; and he had started selling oil in currencies other than the dollar...hmmm.
- Vietnam was no threat to America. In fact, before that war, the U.S. government was working with Ho Chi Minh and promised him that we would ensure a free election...which we didn't deliver on and stabbed him in the back.
- Korea was a United Nations fiasco that culminated in a decades-long stalemate--just what the UN wants to justify its continued military existence.
- We got into WWII because Roosevelt, contrary to his campaign promises, really wanted America in the war in Europe. He had a 10-point plan to force Japan to attack us and had advance knowledge of the attack, which he deliberately withheld from ADM Kimmel in Hawaii. Why? Because he needed somethign to whip up an emotion frenzy for blood and dead bodies to get America into the war in Europe. 9/11 was no different. This is the second-oldest tactic in war, the first being divide and conquer.
- WWI was no different, except that it was Wilson this time who got elected on campaign promises of no intervention in Europe's wars but secretly wanted to get America involved. Wilson worked with British leaders to maneuver America into the war by provoking Germany to fire the first shot.
- Between the Civil War and Korea, the U.S. government sent troops to every corner of the globe to make those countries safe for American businesses to reap hefty profits. USMC Gen. Smedly Butler, who fought in many of those places, later proclaimed that war is a racket.
- Honest Abe was maneuvering the country into war between north and south even before his inauguration. The south was going to leave the union and take their tax revenues with them, which were being spent to prop up the economy in the north. This war should rightly be called the War of Northern Agression.
- The Spanish-American War was started on a lie or a mistake, but conveniently blamed on the Spanish. This war began America's expansion into empire building.

The last constitutionally justified war this country fought may have been Jefferson's naval attacks on the Barbary pirates, and there's even some question about that.

Now, with all that being said, here's a little bit about me. I grew up a liberal, became a born-again Christian in 1992 and registered as a republican. A few years ago, I prayerfully sought to understand war, particularly how wars get started--the real reasons, not what public school textbooks say. I also began to see how government is slowly and methodically abusing its powers to separate We the People from our rights, so I joined my local militia unit. I can tell you that most in today's militia unit are neither democrat nor republican and see the two parties as working hand in glove, much like a couple of tag-team wrestlers taking turns beating up on taxpayers while other taxpayers cheer and the Fed referees. After seeing the republican party for what it really is--and how could you not after the Bush administration and the party's annointed for this election--I went to the Constitution Party, and later to the Libertarian Party.


Longstreet said...

"Honest Abe was maneuvering the country into war between north and south even before his inauguration. The south was going to leave the union and take their tax revenues with them, which were being spent to prop up the economy in the north. This war should rightly be called the War of Northern Agression."
At least we agree on something! There is much besides the above i agree with you on and much above that I do not.

Thanks for stopping by!