Is there something in the air that might be causing a shift in how many “peaceful” American citizens view their constitutional rights? I know, and a few other people know, that there are continuous psychological warfare operations designed to influence the way people think and react to specific issues. The media plays the biggest role in this effort.
I believe that people who seriously cherish their liberty are the true liberals, not the Leftists who co opted the label for political gain. True liberals and most libertarians want and enjoy their rights and want to be left alone in doing so. They also do not attempt to force their ideals onto others.
The Left understands this and so, often turn to violence to push their agendas, knowing any push back will be only verbal.
Readers should understand I’m not supporting one side over the other necessarily, instead pointing out the differences and to say that these differences exist for reasons very few people understand. As the Left/Right paradigm is a contrived hoax, I’m sure leftist violence and libertarian passivity are also man-created for political purposes.
I’ve been watching the goings on in Oregon after the shooting and see some things that I find a bit troubling and also is causing me to ask myself a few questions.
We know that President Obama immediately politicized the shootings, pretending to be angry at a press conference and saying he was going to politicize the event for personal gain…sorry, I think he said to protect the American people. How noble. I guess that’s why he won the Noble Peace Prize.
We are in the throes of a presidential campaign – throes because it is a painful beginning to coming change. We heard candidate Ben Carson tell the world that if he were in a situation where someone put a gun to his head and asked him if he was a Christian, he wouldn’t give them an answer and instead would confront the shooter and fight back, all the while calling upon others present to join him in that attack.
Immediately much of the media jumped all over that comment accusing Carson of promoting violence while at the same time blaming the victims for being dead or wounded because they didn’t fight back. On the other side, even from law enforcement, we began to hear support for Carson’s point of confronting and imminent shooter.
What’s ironic here – if that’s actually the word I want to use – is the “left” pretended or ignorantly stood in opposition to Carson’s call for fighting back, i.e. violence, and yet the left is notorious for violence and killing to promote agendas. The “right,” historically passive in such matters, is supporting the action to stand up to mass shooters and fight back, i.e. violence.
But this debate is limited to gun issues…isn’t it? Do these same people react the same way when it comes to other issues?
First we must understand that anytime that there is a killing, with a gun, it’s a Second Amendment issue, nothing else, except of late there seems to be a movement of some kind to place the blame on mental illness. More than likely just another psychological warfare operation. Is there the same outward, emotional debate, when you or your neighbor are victims of Fourth Amendment violations? What about First Amendment, etc.?
This morning I was reading an Andrew McCarthy article published at Pajamas Media. In addressing the Oregon school shooting, he places the present time as a “post-constitutional republic.” He does a good job of explaining how people see things, but comes up a bit short as to why people see things the way they do. However, I don’t want to miss the point.
The author questions why there is debate over a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and yet states:
“Why are we debating policy? After all, gun rights are explicit in the Second Amendment. In general, there is not supposed to be much policy debate where our fundamental rights are concerned. We would not, for example, abide a suggestion that we reconsider whether the government may break into your home and poke around for evidence without a warrant. That is not to say there may not be logical reasons to allow a police officer to act unilaterally on a strong hunch; it is to say that a constitutional right is supposed to be a guarantee – something the government has to respect, not something the citizen has to justify.
Reading that I was reminded of the events surrounding the Boston Marathon bombing. I sat in front of my television in utter disbelief as I watched law enforcement march down a street, with armored vehicles, pointing weapons of all sizes into the faces of anybody inside a house daring to look outside. While this was going on, police went door to door, busting down doors if necessary, intruding into the homes of innocent people looking for someone they had labeled a terrorist bomber. But what totally disgusted me was later in the evening, after the police claimed to have captured one of the alleged bombers, as they drove out the street, hoards of onlookers stood and applauded the efforts to the police. Why? They trampled all over the Fourth Amendment. But, as the writer above says, “we would not abide a suggest that we reconsider whether the government may break into you home…” We would NOT reconsider that but only because we have been brainwashed to think under circumstances, even fake ones, it’s for our safety that government suspends the constitution.
I guess McCarthy was right when he said there isn’t “supposed to be much policy debate.” As he also points out later, Americans tend to lack conviction in their belief of constitutional rights. And that, my friends, is all about design. Something this magnanimous could not happen by chance.
Not to get lost from my point, the author doesn’t come right out and say it, but he is suggesting that those who do believe in the constitutional rights, should be willing to be more assertive and proud and stand up for those rights and not apologize for them. Is the author also suggesting that perhaps it might even become necessary to resort to violent push backs, only if necessary (wink, wink) against those wishing to destroy those rights? And if someone, the government, the media, a friend, a candidate tells you your rights are being taken away and you need to fight back, will you? Blindly?
Consider again what Ben Carson said about the Oregon shooting. He said he wouldn’t just stand or sit there and let some person blow his brains out without fighting back. And then consider the aftermath while keeping in perspective my assertion above that historically liberty-loving people seldom resort to violence, at least not in what might be deemed illegal ways.
The actions in the aftermath are the fruit of the gun control PSYOP. There may actually be overlapping PSYOPs taking place. The gun control actions are about stealing rights and instilling fear in people that guns kill people. It’s always the gun that kills, never the person pulling the trigger. Attack the guns. People are programmed to attack the gun and take away the right.
In Boston the people have been programmed to believe that suspending the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment, was necessary for their safety. They welcomed it. After all, this has been drummed into the heads for how long? The Patriot Act is necessary for our safety – the Government said so and we believe it.
As Andrew McCarthy pointed out the reason the Founders wrote the Second Amendment was to ensure that government would not become too powerful and resort to tyranny. And today, the people cry out for government. They cry out for government to take away the guns that were meant to protect them FROM government. None of this makes sense. The more we give government power the less liberty we have. Why don’t we understand that?
Is the current presidential campaign becoming another means of shifting the way the peaceful right goes about their business? Enter Donald Trump. Trump, the master salesman, television personality, and fake regular guy, says what pissed off people want to hear. Understand that people have become pissed off because the plan was crafted to make all those people angry. It is all mostly fake, sold to America through the media. Years and years of manipulation of the minds of people and the world is full of hatred, distrust and anger. People like Trump come along and feed on that. They empower the angry. Finally there is hope, some exclaim. And yet, with no lessons learned, voters have forgotten Trump is corporate America, Trump is Wall Street, Trump is banking.
Newly empowered, some are standing up for what they believe are their rights where they wouldn’t have before. With somebody who will say what angry people want to hear, even if he doesn’t believe any of it for himself, how far will they go? Are these people actually being programmed to rise up against each other.
If Ben Carson and others believe that the right thing to do when you believe you are going to be shot anyway is to fight back, does that mean that same approach should be taken to issues where your life might be at stake? What if you believe that the actions of someone or something, maybe the government, is going to ultimately threaten your life? Do you go down fighting?
Again I ask, are we being programmed further and further toward violence? What is the end game?
Consider a comment left at the above article. This type of comment is commonly found by leftists who hate rightist’s ideology. They always attack with violence or the threat of violence. It’s what they know. It’s what they have been taught. Not necessarily by the right.
“I’m not going to shoot at the Army or LEO’s if the liberals are able to order gun seizures.
No, if we get to a point where there are gun seizures, I’m plan to target liberal pundits, liberal politicians, their wives, their children, their campaign donors, etc. These are all nice soft targets that won’t shoot back. This is the logical action to take, since these are the people people who are really at fault for the encroachment upon my civil liberties.”
Before we act and react, especially to the lies we are fed continuously by the media, we should all take a moment to really think about from what source is all the hatred coming from. It isn’t what you think.