Daily news sites

This may be the most important interview you will have seen within the last year.   I do have a little bit of skepticism associated with it...but not much.

In the video that follows, Gary Franchi of the Next News Network interviews Dr. Jim Garrow about the call he claims to have received from a retired, high-ranking military officer who told him that the Administration is beginning to ask military officers whether or not they will be willing to fire on American citizens if those citizens refuse to surrender their arms when ordered to do so.   One of the more interesting pieces in the interview is when Dr. Garrow talks about China, our debt to them, and how our natural resources are being given away to them as a way of paying off American debt to China.

I have not yet seen any corroborating evidence in regards to this reported "litmus test" of military leadership, so it is something we need to keep an eye on.  I have seen some "hits" on the Chinese being allowed into our nation to exploit our natural resources, but have not yet been able to draw any conclusions from them.

Link to video


Other commentary on this issue:
-- Rick Wiles (TRUNEWS) interview with Dr. Jim Garrow (23 Jan 13)
-- Examiner.com article "Renowned author: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens" (22 Jan 13)

Cross-posted from Against All Enemies

The Combating Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy recently published a paper that would categorize our Founding Fathers as "far-right extremists."  This categorization stems from a lack of understanding of the true ideologies behind "right" and "left," which results from the progressive ("left") control of our schools, government, and the mainstream media, and sets up American patriots to at some point be considered "insurgents" against which America's own Counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine can be applied.

In November 2012, the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at the United States Military Academy published a paper by Arie Perliger (the CTC Director of Terrorism Studies) entitled "Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right," which relies heavily on the generally understood categorizations of "left" and "right" in order to categorize terrorism in "far-right" groups:

"Regarding affinity towards traditional values, a common perception is that liberal/left- wing and conservative worldviews are different in their time orientation. While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo. The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community. In many cases these past-oriented perspectives help to formulate a nostalgic and romantic ideological aura which makes these groups attractive for many who aspire to restore the halcyon days of a clear hierarchy of values and norms." (p. 17)

As you can see, the author (and society) is biased toward defining the "left" as looking toward the future while the "right" looks rearward at an idealized (implied: false, unobtainable) past.  The belief behind making these two categorizations is that there are no eternal truths, so change ("progress") is always desirable in a never ending quest for human perfection.  Therefore members of the "right" who look to the past are only obstacles to this human "advancement."

In reality, progressive (the "left") thought is not anymore forward looking than conservative (the "right") thought looks to the past.  Where their central difference lies is in their concept of "truth" and not necessarily in time orientation.

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!" Romans 1:24-25*

Progressives reject God's Truth (following in the footsteps of Karl Marx, among others), so are actually returning to the thinking of Adam and Eve in Eden, Nimrod in Babylon, and the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, who all rejected God's Truth which ultimately resulted in despair and suffering.

Conservatives (the "right") acknowledge God's Truth and, just like our Founding Fathers, seek to lay that as the foundation on which all else is built.  Progressives deliberately suppress God's Truth in order to formulate their own and become like gods themselves.

America has consistently exchanged the Truth for lies as shown in the following beliefs that are being bolstered by the government:

• The Holy Bible is a collection of sayings and myths, not Truth
• Man was not made in the image of God, but "evolved"
• The universe created itself (the "Big Bang" theory)
• Homosexual behavior is normal and not rebellion against our Creator
• Abortion--what amounts in many cases to a blood sacrifice to cover the sin of fornication--is not murder
• The family unit as defined in the Bible and practiced over many centuries is an arbitrary creation and should be redefined at will
• The Constitution was created as a "living" document open to liberal interpretation
• The Founders intended for Biblical Truths to be completely absent from public discourse 

Prior to making the distinction between "left" and "right" the author paints the conservative ("far right") world view in a negative light:

"In the context of the far-right worldview, nationalism takes an extreme form of full convergence between one polity or territory and one ethnic or national collective. Two elements are required for the fulfillment of this version of the nationalist doctrine. The first is that of internal homogenization, i.e., the aspiration that all residents or citizens of the polity will share the same national origin and ethnic characteristics. The second is the element of external exclusiveness, the aspiration that all individuals belonging to a specific national or ethnic group will reside in the homeland." (p. 15)

"Internal homogenization rejects the incorporation and recognition of those embodying different ethnic and national traits as part of the nation. In addition, nativism adds opposition to external influence, whether on a cultural, religious, or normative basis. Foreign influence is perceived as a threat to the entirety and homogeneity of the nation and, as a result, to its resiliency, its ability to counter external threats and to preserve its essential traits. The concept of nativism explains why in many cases the activities of far-right groups do not only oppose foreigners, but also those citizens who promote what is perceived as non-native norms, practices or values." (p. 16)

Internal homogenization and rejection of foreign influence are both important, but are not based on the shallowness of national origin or ethnicity.  What matters is a person's ideology, world view, and how they define "truth."  This is what must be protected in America because diversity of world views in a society leads to national schizophrenia and requires a strong central government to maintain order.

America's founding was unique among all world governments, before and since, because it was based on the Word of God.  It is not perfect (no human government can be), but it is the most effective form of government to maintain order and security in a religious and moral society while providing its citizens the maximum liberty to direct their own lives. Therefore we should be suspicious of outside "norms" (truths) which seek to encroach on our culture since they will most likely contradict the values of our Founding.  That is why immigrants who come to America should accept our form of government and our values, and not the other way around.

To attempt to rule a nation that contains a multitude of ideologies and world views will require much more power in the central government--just look at places like the former Yugoslavia or Iraq.  But remember--America was not founded for a specific color of people (even though others would like you to believe this narrative), but based on an idea and world view.  It should be expected of all who join us to accept that world view as primary in the nation.

The author also paints "anti-federalism" tendencies in a negative light:

"The anti-federalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government. They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government." (p. 4)

The author fails to acknowledge that many of our forefathers were "anti-federalists" who feared that the Constitution in its original form would give the central government too much power and result in tyranny over the People and States.  That is the very reason why the Bill of Rights was added--to give additional protection to the People and States against the natural tendency of a government to unceasingly increase its power.

More importantly, those who reject ultimate Truth (the progressives) desire to perfect humanity by their own hands.  This will ultimately lead to tyranny as the government, who is expected to perfect life for all, continually fails to do so and therefore must assume more power at the expense of the People's liberties so they have total control over all aspects of life to arrive at their desired Utopia.

Thus we have irreconcilable differences within the United States because of the two competing world views.  One seeks to operate within the framework of the Constitution and the Word of God.  The other rejects both and seeks to rule the nation based on the ability of Man to "evolve" and solve all the world's problems given enough time, technology, and power.  This latter world view requires the commensurate (and necessary) loss of the individual's ability to choose their own ends in exchange for the coercive ends dictated by the government.

This paper,"Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right," coming from one of the nation's military academies tasked with producing our future military leaders who will take an oath to support and defend the Constitution is disturbing to say the very least.

First, the paper demonstrates a lack of understanding of the founding of America and its Constitutional government.

Second, it potentially demonizes those who seek to follow in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers--a group who through study of the past and the Word understand the fallen nature of Man and the necessary limits that must be placed on government by a moral and religious people.

On the opposite side is a group who is vastly different, for they reject the past in the misguided hope that Man in all his Greatness can design a more perfect society this time around.  Those of us who study the Truth know that this will always result in misery.

That group, known as the "left" or "progressives," need to be identified for what they are--collectivists (as described by F.A. Hayek).  At their very core they seek to consolidate all power into the central government to determine the ends of the people as a whole.  They do not lament the loss of individual liberties, and are the anti-thesis of the vision of our Founding Fathers.  They go by many names--communists, Marxists, fascists, socialists, and progressives--and can be found in both parties, Republican and Democrat.  For those of us who love liberty, they must be resisted.  The Constitution and Truth must be defended.

By trusting in the Word of God and the form of government created by our Founding Fathers, this author has painted himself to be a "far-right extremist" according to the Director of West Point's Combating Terrorism Center.  This demonstrates just how far our nation has deviated from our creation, because, by Perliger's definition, our Founding Fathers would be far-right extremists and potential "terrorists" in America today.

If those who defend our Founding today are truly "far-right extremists," then they are in good company alongside our Founding Fathers.

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

--Against All Enemies

*Bible verse from Crossway Bibles (2011-02-09). The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Kindle Locations 44519-44521). Good News Publishers/Crossway Books. Kindle Edition. 

Cross-posted from Against All Enemies

Why the rush when it comes to the current push for gun control legislation (and executive orders)?

It is because those who want to control guns seek to capitalize on the current wave of emotion as a result of the Sandy Hook attack, so that there will be less of a chance that logic and reason will be brought into play.  That is why the power hungry love a crisis ("never let a crisis go to waste") so that they can take advantage of emotion and the absence, or even outright dismissal, of rational thought to achieve their own objectives.

It is therefore healthy for a free people to be skeptical of the actions of their government.  It is even more important that they do so when the government tells us such actions must be taken "quickly" to avert some sort of "tragedy."  We must force them to debate the issue using logic, facts, and reason within the framework of our Constitution to arrive at a solution, if a solution is required at all.

The current issue involves the right to bear arms as codified by the Second Amendment of our Constitution.  When any issue arises that may impact our liberties as citizens of the United States, we must deal with it in an deliberate and thoughtful manner to best safeguard our rights.  To cavalierly charge forward in a quest to solve some perceived problem has a high probability of trampling on our rights.  This may be by design, mind you, which I believe to be the case in the current issue involving our right to bear arms.

We must rationally consider the issue at hand in order to arrive at a sound solution (if a solution is necessary) that protects the freedoms of Americans.  To rush to a solution may throw away our rights in the process.

--Against All Enemies

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal to Virginia Constitution, source) 

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (from Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," source)

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380, source) 

As a result of her actions against the Second Amendment rights of American citizens, Senator Dianne Feinstein has proven herself to be a domestic enemy of the Constitution of the United States.  Threats of this kind to our most basic rights are intolerable and the Constitution must be defended.  Feinstein has demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of our Constitution, which she has sworn to support and defend:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."  (Oath of a Congressman)

Who will now defend the Constitution and the rights of Americans?

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."  -- Adolf Hitler, April 11 1942 (source)

The following list is taken directly from Senator Feinstein's website (Summary of Feinstein Legislation.pdf):

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

• 120 specifically-named firearms

• Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic

• Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test

• Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test

• Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans

Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

• Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment

• Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and

• Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

• Background check of owner and any transferee;

• Type and serial number of the firearm;

• Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;

• Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and

• Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

Feinstein's remarks from an interview in 1995 where she tells the reporter that she would take them all if she could get the votes (unclear whether she means all types of firearms or all types of "assault weapons"):


--Against All Enemies