Two years ago, President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton were separately quoted and condemned for saying “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” I.e., in the government’s view, a crisis (a moment when people are frightened, anxious and overly emotional) is not something to be resolved—it’s an opportunity for politicians to exploit.
This strategy is well-established. Therefore, in the midst of most modern crises, everyone starts “spinning” the facts and implications to show how a particular crisis “proves” that people should support (or reject) a particular political agenda. The actual crisis is often forgotten and supplanted by the “spinning”.
• The recent attack at the Sandy Hook Elementary School caused the deaths of 20 children and 8 adults. It was, and is, a tragedy for the people of Sandy Hook. But, thanks to electronic media and big government, that tragedy has been hyped into a national tragedy. But it’s not really a “national” tragedy. It’s (mostly) local.
Like most people, I’m troubled by the fact that 20 children died violently. I’m sympathetic to the pain of the murdered children’s parents. Nevertheless, I live in the mountains of Oregon—about 2,800 miles from Sandy Hook, Connecticut. So, what do those deaths really have to do with me?
I’m not being cynical. I’m asking—what exactly do those 20 deaths really have to do with me or even you?
Of course, my questions are politically incorrect since we’re all being taught, conditioned or encouraged by government and the mainstream media to believe that Sandy Hook was a national tragedy that I must view as personally relevant. But why?
A: Because, as a national tragedy, Sandy Hook provides a “national crisis” suitable for precipitating “national legislation”.
A: Because “a crisis—even an exaggerated crisis—is a terrible thing to waste”.
• I’m not indifferent to those children’s deaths, but I’m not hysterical, either. I condemn the man or men responsible for killing the children but I also condemn those elected officials who exploit those deaths to advance a political agenda. I don’t doubt (and neither do you) that some politicians in Washington DC are secretly cheering the children’s murders for providing a “crisis/opportunity” to be exploited for political advantage.
I’d bet that when the news reports on Sandy Hook were first heard, at least 80% of the American people almost instantly thought “gun control”. Those who reject gun control thought “Ohh, crap—now the damned government will launch another campaign to eliminating our high-capacity magazines and assault rifles!” Others, who favor gun control, thought “Great! Now we get those damned high-capacity magazines and assault rifles off the market!”
And, sure enough, even before the smell of cordite had left the school, before people even knew for sure how many children had been murdered, the spinning began as various “sides” and “special interests” leaped at the opportunity to exploit (or defend against) the political potential of the children’s deaths.
The resulting “show” was predictable. The kids died. The mainstream news media smelled blood and swarmed into Sandy Hook to report the news (and to increase their circulation). Some politicians feigned grief and shock (and hoped to increase their national recognition levels). The highlight was President Obama shedding a tear (and increasing his approval rating among the American people).
I’m repulsed. I don’t even want to write about this subject. I don’t think I can do so without becoming as big a jackass as our politicians. But I have a few observations that I feel compelled to publish. So here I am cavorting in the same cess pool as the rest of ’em. (C’mon in! The sewage is fine!)
For me, the national “show” is largely a bunch of crap. I’m not disparaging the legitimate grief felt at Sandy Hook. But I am ridiculing and condemning the “crocodile tears” shed by the psychopaths who seem predominant in government today. And I’m advising you folks to recognize that the world’s psychopaths don’t merely shoot children; they also exploit the children’s deaths. I’m suggesting that there are people in Washington DC who have more affinity with Adam Lanza than they do with the parents of the murdered children.
• The Sandy Hook calamity has quickly evolved into a “circus of the spinners” as people forget the children’s deaths and work to exploit and sustain the resulting “crisis”. The politicians and media are rounding up the “usual suspects”:
Gun nuts. Anyone who has a gun (let alone several) is viewed as mentally ill or at least defective.
Asperger nuts. Adam Lanza reportedly suffered from a mental illness called “Asperger’s Syndrome”. A woman suffering from that same illness wrote an article in the Daily Kos in which she pleaded with people to not judge everyone who suffers from Asperger’s by Adam Lanza’s acts. She implied that it was OK to go after the gun nuts, but leave the Asperger nuts alone.
Gun-control nuts—every time they demonstrate against guns, the sale of guns and bullets rises.
School bullies—Studies indicate that about 73% of the perpetrators in school shooting were badly bullied as children.
Drugs and big pharma. Adam Lanza (like many other shooters in similar attacks) took psychotropic drugs to deal with his mental illness. Those drugs and their manufacturers played a part in predisposing Lanza to kill.
Mossad. One report accused the Israeli secret service of causing the shooting. I haven’t heard that the CIA/MK-Ultra (brainwashing) has been blamed—but I’ll be they have. (So far as I know, no one has implicated Muslim radicals, just yet—but the “circus of the spinners” has just begun.)
Government officials who prevented teachers from having guns in the “Gun-free School Zone” are complicit for refusing to allow adequate protection for children. The only people who refuse to carry guns in a “gun free zone” are law-abiding. Does anyone really think Adam Lanza would’ve been deterred if they’d posted more “gun-free zone” signs around the school? Gun-free zones may deter kids from bringing guns to school and prevent the accidental discharge of firearms near schools. But “gun-free zone” signs do not deter mass murderers. Instead, knowing there’ll be no guns in the school provides an incentive for mass murderers to attack the disarmed schools.
Hollywood. Quentin Tarantino was recently grilled over making violent movies that predispose some children to actual acts of violence.
Video games. Adam Lanza reportedly spent hours each day playing “Call of Duty”.
Listing these “usual” (and unusual) “suspects” may seem silly. Still, each of those “suspects” is to some degree complicit in the murders of the Sandy Hook children. Even so, government wants to blame only one “suspect”—guns in general, assault rifles in particular, and high-capacity magazines.
So, why does government insist on blaming just one of the “usual suspects” for the Sandy Hook murders?
• After all, we’ve been through this before.
In A.D. 1994, the Clinton administration restricted the sale of high-capacity magazines and assault rifles. Thankfully, those restrictions ended in 2004. But a big question remained: How many lives were saved during that decade by American gun control laws?
Without having researched the issue, I’ll bet that those ten years of gun control produced no measurable decrease in the US homicide rates. I assume that’s true because, if ten years of gun control had lowered the homicide rate by even a negligible degree, the “gun control nuts” would never let us forget it. Everyone would know that the gun control laws of 1994-2004 reduced the homicide rate by 5%, 10%, 20%—whatever.
Instead, the fact that no one trumpets the number lives saved during the gun control decade is good evidence that those gun control laws had no measurable effect on homicide rates.
Similarly, no one is trumpeting how the homicide rate rose after the “assault rifles” were again legalized in 2004 is evidence that no such rise occurred.
If homicide rates didn’t decrease during the decade of gun control nor increase after that decade ended, that’s good evidence (some would say “proof”) that gun control hasn’t worked in the past. It’s evidence that guns, by themselves, do not cause violence.
If so, why is government advocating another round of gun control?
• In order to properly evaluate the significance of the Sandy Hook murders, we need to view them in the context of other events in American history. For example,
Bath Township. When it comes to counting the number of victims killed in a school shooting, the Sandy Hook killings can’t compare to the 1927 disaster at the Bath Township (Michigan) elementary school. 38 children and 6 adults were killed and 58 people were injured. The carnage was not caused by assault rifles or high-capacity magazines. It was caused by three, homemade bombs.
The Bath disaster illustrates two points:
1) You don’t need firearms, not even assault rifles, to commit mass murder. If you did, Obama would have no use for drones. Thus, removing firearms, even assault rifles will not necessarily save any children’s lives.
2) The Bath disaster took place 85 years ago. Attacks on school children aren’t a new phenomenon. Such attacks took place long before Hollywood, video games or even assault rifles existed to predispose people to such attacks. There will always be a tiny percentage of people who are sufficiently insane (or evil) to attack schools.
School buses. The National Highway Transportation and Safety Board reports that from A.D. 2001 through A.D. 2010, 123 children died in school bus crashes. Slate magazine reports that during the same period, 51 grade school children in died in school shootings.
Implication? Your children are at least twice as likely to die from a school bus crash as from a firearm. If government, mainstream media and all of the hysterical fools screaming for gun control aren’t at least as excited about “school bus control,” their real motivation is not to protect the children—but merely to remove our right to keep and bear arms. Why?
Sanctimonious crap. President Obama weeps. Other politicians express their concern for our “precious children”. Americans may be much impressed.
But, in A.D. 1996, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright offered a more accurate depiction of Washington’s unsympathetic and psychopathic nature. On 60 Minutes, Leslie Stahl asked Secretary Albright about reports that the US embargo on Iraq had stopped the import of food and medicines and thereby caused the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children. Secretary Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.”
That was 16 years ago. I can’t prove that the Obama administration is as callous as the Clinton administration. But I’m convinced that our government is at least as unfeeling and psychopathic today as it was under Clinton (or Bush Jr.). I’m convinced that a government that doesn’t mind causing the deaths of a half million Iraqi children, doesn’t give a damn about the deaths of 20 American children. I regard claims to the contrary as sanctimonious crap. The purpose of this article is to cause people to face up to government’s sanctimonious crap about “protecting children” and see the real reason for the current push for gun control.
• To understand the gun-control issue you must not only understand the Second Amendment, you must also understand the purpose for the Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment declares, “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.” The purpose for that Amendment has been debated, but this much seems certain: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Still, while it may have been necessary for people to have firearms to protect themselves and their “free States” against domestic Indians and British invaders in the late 1700’s, those threats are gone today and the apparent purpose for the Second Amendment seems no longer relevant, right?
After the Constitution was ratified by the people in A.D. 1788, thirteen amendments were proposed by Congress in 1789. Ten of those proposed amendments were approved by State legislatures and became our Bill of Rights.
The Founders’ purpose for the entire Bill of Rights is seen in the “cover letter” that Congress included with the proposed amendments sent to the State legislatures. That cover letter was signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate and came to be known as the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights”.
That “Preamble” declares in part that, “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added . . . .”
Those additional “clauses” were the thirteen proposed Amendments—ten of which became our “Bill of Rights”.
The purpose for all ten of the Bill of Rights was and is “to prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the “powers” of the newly-adopted Constitution.
And who could “misconstrue” or “abuse” the powers of the Constitution? The Indians? The British invaders? No—they had no powers under the Constitution. In fact, the average American had no powers under the Constitution.
The only people who could “misconstrue” or “abuse” the powers of the Constitution were those elected officials, officers, and employees of the federal government who had been entrusted with powers under the Constitution.
The Founders didn’t trust the federal government as far as they could throw it. Every one of the Amendments in our “Bill of Rights” was intended to protect you, me and the States of the Union against the potential but inevitable tyranny of the federal government. Thus, the purpose of the Second Amendment is, when necessary, to shoot presidents, senators, congressmen, federal judges and federal bureaucrats if they “misconstrue or abuse” the powers of the Constitution.
That’s not my opinion. That’s the clear implication of the purpose for the “Bill of Rights” as expressed by the Founding Fathers in the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights”. In light of that Preamble, we have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of shooting officers and employees of the federal government guilty of tyranny or treason.
And that is why government is so determined to spin Sandy Hook into an attack on the Second Amendment. The S.O.B.s know very well that they are guilty of having “misconstrued or abused” the powers of the Constitution; that they have engaged in treason; that imposing the tyranny of a New World Order is high on the federal government’s agenda.
They fear that the public will discover the true purpose of the Second Amendment. They fear being shot and killed, so they advocate the idea that the Second Amendment be repealed and the People be disarmed. That advocacy is not about protecting the lives of grade school children. It’s about protecting the lives of treasonous officers and employees of the federal government who are not “here to help us” but are instead here to subject this nation to global government.
• Hard to believe, isn’t it? Painful to believe. We don’t want to believe that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to shoot officers and employees of the federal government.
But consider the research of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm): They list nine instances of genocide in the 20th century wherein anywhere from 100,000 to 35 million people were exterminated by their own governments. Some of the nations guilty of genocide include: the Ottoman Empire, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China. Estimates of the total number of victims killed by their own governments range from 80 to 170 million.
In every instance, the precursor to genocide was national gun control. Governments do not engage in open, violent genocide against their own people, unless those people have first agreed to be disarmed. Conversely, once a people agree to be disarmed, they invite genocide.
OK, OK—maybe genocide could happen in foreign, communist countries, but never here in the good ol’ USA, right?
We’d all like to think so.
But riddle me this: Why has the federal government recently purchased over 1 billion rounds of military grade ammunition for domestic use? Why is the federal government working to disarm you, while it arms itself? Why does the federal government advocate the same kind of gun control that’s been tried from 1994-2004 and shown to have no effect on homicide or crime rates?
Are warnings of a possible American genocide alarmist and paranoid? Maybe. But I’m reminded a quote attributed to Patrick Henry:
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
Mr. Henry clearly warned us to distrust anyone in government who sought to reduce our right to keep and bear arms. He warned that public disarmament was the first step on the road to “ruin” just as JPFO warns that gun control invites genocide.
When Mr. Henry said “suspect everyone,” he advised us all to forget about being called paranoid. When the government comes after any of your Liberties, understand that approach as an assault and defend yourself accordingly. Do not trust the bastards. Ever.
The feds want one billion rounds of ammunition for themselves, and they want you disarmed. Connect the damn dots.
There are 60 million children in this country. They are depending on you and me to protect them. They are not merely depending on us to protect them in the present, they are depending on us to protect their futures. Just because 20 children died in Sandy Hook is no reason why Americans should play the sympathetic fool, support gun control, agree to be disarmed, and expose this nation to the danger of overt tyranny or even genocide.
Hold your guns, your ammo and your high-capacity magazines. Throw any S.O.B. who votes to deprive you of your Second Amendment rights out of office.