Anytime I hear leftists look for solutions I am skeptical. Speaking in Newtown, Connecticut, Obama stated with absolute resolution, "These tragedies must end, and to end them we must change." We have heard that word "change" before. We must change. OK. How exactly? A madman goes on a rampage and the rest of us must change?
Then Democrat operative, Kirsten Powers goes on Fox News and opines that we should make it easier to forcibly commit people. All Americans should be on alert; we have been warned exactly what is coming. This may be the most critical point in time for Americans to draw a line in defense of our Constitution.
Our publicly educated masses seem to collectively lack the ability to see that we are the frogs and our warm, soothing water is about to boil. We learn a little about our Constitution in school but we do not really understand it or feel it. If you want to see deep appreciation for American liberties, spend five minutes with an immigrant from any country in the Eastern Bloc. We are brainwashed to believe that "it cannot happen here." Even when the enemies of the American Dream tell us that they will dismantle us, and how they will dismantle us, we do not believe them.
We have two big problems.
The first is a public education system that fails to teach a deference for the US Constitution. The next problem is the utter death of the Democratic Party. It is not that the name is gone, or electoral victories are gone, but that the truly centrist, American Democratic party is like a droid or body double. The name is there, but their agenda is increasingly associated with the Communist party, or at least massive, tyrannical government by any name. If this sounds shrill, consider this...
What if Ronald Reagan said we must change? What would he be suggesting in terms of collective policy? Greater church attendance, better armed citizenry, perhaps? One thing is certain, he would never suggest that we break faith with the Constitution permanently in order to deal with a problem that is contemporary.
The Democrats have heightened their unceasing demand for gun control including demand for assault weapon bans. Even a Rahm Emmanuel/Saul Alinsky" never let a crisis go to waste" move, Democrats are floating the idea of easing restrictions on forced mental confinement. Is this the change that Obama envisions? Have we forgotten that we used to do that? Is "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" no longer required viewing? Again, the most hard left, radical President in American history, a Democrat, has warned us that we must change. What does he mean? What do any hard leftists mean when they demand that people change for the sake of their own good? Re-education camps are a central tenet of Marxism and coerced behavior is central to the Socialist ideology. Socialist ideology holds as a sacrosanct that the collective is more important than the individual. When connecting the proverbial dots, the connections become ominous.
No change should contradict the Constitution, but today's socialistic Democrat party will never agree with that. It cannot agree. The Constitution holds the opposite core value to socialism. In America, the liberty of the individual is more important than the will of the collective. Most Republicans will zealously defend the Constitution and forcefully reject any solution that defies the Constitution and curtails individual liberty. No matter how statist Obama's proposal in reaction to Newtown, here will be few, if any Democrats with the courage to break ranks and defend liberty. They will spin and offer Orwellian "new speak" terms to replace the now absurd vision of "gun free schools" with some huge intrusive new package of big government programs offered up "for our own good" because "we must change." The new TSA-style government department can place unionized government gropers at every school entrance. You can bet that right now the union bosses are salivating at all the new potential government workers they could add to their rolls.
As I wrote in an earlier piece, the truth of the solution is simple, if we can handle it. We can make schools safe and not tear another page from the Bill of Rights. Here are three simple facts:
1) Kennesaw, GA has the lowest crime in the country and mandates one gun per household.
2) Switzerland is the least invaded country in the history of the world. They mandate military service, and gun ownership.
3) Israel deals with domestic terror every single day. They also arm school faculty and volunteers who are well trained. They have not had a single massacre like the one at Newtown since 1970 when they put guns in their schools.
While we lock down our schools, install metal detectors and cops, the deranged killers and terrorists will always be one step ahead of us in the cat and mouse folly. While we lock the front door, criminals will prop open the back door out take a single cop out with a shot in the back. No matter what we label "assault weapons," from spoons to cars, the criminals will continue to commit crimes in areas where they feel safe to do so, because they know there are no weapons to stop them. As a parent, am I thrilled with the thought of arming school staff? Honestly, no, but my fear is not based on fact or rationale. The reality is that I can handle answers that prevent dead children, even if they make me emotionally uncomfortable.
The terrible tragedy of children murdered should be taken very seriously. Well-meaning Americans will now be left obliged to defend the Constitution in the face of a Democrat party dominated by a fifth column that sees the Constitution as the problem. We must be willing to forcefully and civilly brace ourselves and prepare to meet their onslaught on our Constitution. The President told us we must change. We will accept changes that are rational, Constitutional, and based on fact. No, Mr. President, we will not accept your plans to fundamentally change us or our Constitution.
What if Ronald Reagan said we must change? What would he be suggesting in terms of collective policy? Greater church attendance, better armed citizenry, perhaps? One thing is certain, he would never suggest that we break faith with the Constitution permanently in order to deal with a problem that is contemporary.
The Democrats have heightened their unceasing demand for gun control including demand for assault weapon bans. Even a Rahm Emmanuel/Saul Alinsky" never let a crisis go to waste" move, Democrats are floating the idea of easing restrictions on forced mental confinement. Is this the change that Obama envisions? Have we forgotten that we used to do that? Is "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" no longer required viewing? Again, the most hard left, radical President in American history, a Democrat, has warned us that we must change. What does he mean? What do any hard leftists mean when they demand that people change for the sake of their own good? Re-education camps are a central tenet of Marxism and coerced behavior is central to the Socialist ideology. Socialist ideology holds as a sacrosanct that the collective is more important than the individual. When connecting the proverbial dots, the connections become ominous.
No change should contradict the Constitution, but today's socialistic Democrat party will never agree with that. It cannot agree. The Constitution holds the opposite core value to socialism. In America, the liberty of the individual is more important than the will of the collective. Most Republicans will zealously defend the Constitution and forcefully reject any solution that defies the Constitution and curtails individual liberty. No matter how statist Obama's proposal in reaction to Newtown, here will be few, if any Democrats with the courage to break ranks and defend liberty. They will spin and offer Orwellian "new speak" terms to replace the now absurd vision of "gun free schools" with some huge intrusive new package of big government programs offered up "for our own good" because "we must change." The new TSA-style government department can place unionized government gropers at every school entrance. You can bet that right now the union bosses are salivating at all the new potential government workers they could add to their rolls.
As I wrote in an earlier piece, the truth of the solution is simple, if we can handle it. We can make schools safe and not tear another page from the Bill of Rights. Here are three simple facts:
1) Kennesaw, GA has the lowest crime in the country and mandates one gun per household.
2) Switzerland is the least invaded country in the history of the world. They mandate military service, and gun ownership.
3) Israel deals with domestic terror every single day. They also arm school faculty and volunteers who are well trained. They have not had a single massacre like the one at Newtown since 1970 when they put guns in their schools.
While we lock down our schools, install metal detectors and cops, the deranged killers and terrorists will always be one step ahead of us in the cat and mouse folly. While we lock the front door, criminals will prop open the back door out take a single cop out with a shot in the back. No matter what we label "assault weapons," from spoons to cars, the criminals will continue to commit crimes in areas where they feel safe to do so, because they know there are no weapons to stop them. As a parent, am I thrilled with the thought of arming school staff? Honestly, no, but my fear is not based on fact or rationale. The reality is that I can handle answers that prevent dead children, even if they make me emotionally uncomfortable.
The terrible tragedy of children murdered should be taken very seriously. Well-meaning Americans will now be left obliged to defend the Constitution in the face of a Democrat party dominated by a fifth column that sees the Constitution as the problem. We must be willing to forcefully and civilly brace ourselves and prepare to meet their onslaught on our Constitution. The President told us we must change. We will accept changes that are rational, Constitutional, and based on fact. No, Mr. President, we will not accept your plans to fundamentally change us or our Constitution.