Israel Holds Firm, Iran Decides Not to Run Blockade

This is an example of what Carter should have done to Iran, what Reagan did, and what G. H. W. Bush, Clinton, G .W. Bush, and Obama did not. Only one out of six U. S. presidents stood up to Iran and called their bluff.

Tiny Israel, faced with genocide and extinction by Iran and its allies, bullied by Europe, the United Nations, Hillary, and Obama was alone and threatened. The Israelis took the only stand they could and survive. America should cheer Israel, thank them for standing for freedom and justice, and learn from them. However, with socialist leaders and an Islamic, socialist president, we will not.

Obama and the radical leftists will give further aid and comfort to our enemies. Make no mistake about it; Israel's enemies are our enemies. In addition, we are wrong to appease those enemies. Appeasement never works with bullies and tyrants. It was wrong for Europe to appease Hitler, it is wrong for the civilized world to appease North Korea, Iran, and the terrorists in Gaza.

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran will not be sending a blockade-busting ship to Gaza in defiance of Israeli warnings, an Iranian lawmaker said Saturday, citing Israeli "restrictions."

Mahmoud Ahmadi Bighash told the semiofficial ISNA news agency that instead of sending a ship, an Iranian delegation of lawmakers would travel to Lebanon and sail on one of the aid ships expected to head to Gaza from there.

The Iranian ship called "Infants of Gaza" had been expected to sail Sunday for Gaza carrying 1,100 tons of relief supplies and 10 pro-Palestinian activists but plans were canceled "due to restrictions imposed by the occupying Zionist regime," Bighash said. source.

If we know anything, we know this is not the end of Iran's treachery. They will continue to threaten Israel, the Middle East, Europe and the United States. We know how to stop these tyrants, but we have chosen the wrong side, the side of evil and tyranny, not the side of right, peace, and democratic solutions. More trouble, terrorism, and wars are sure to follow because of the decisions the West has taken to support terrorism and tyrants.

The NRA Has Sold Out to Congressional Democrats

***** UPDATE *****
You can reach some of these leaders at the NRA directly:

Ronald L. Schmeits, NRA President:
18 Private Road #2001ST
Raton NM 87740
575-445-5836, 575-445-2080 fax

Charles L. Cunningham, Director, NRA-ILA Federal Affairs:
4864 Oakcrest Drive
Fairfax VA 22030
703-352-3245, 202-651-2570 fax

David A. Keene, NRA 1st Vice President:
5602 Dawes Avenue
Alexandria VA 22311-1102
703-671-5602

James W. Porter II, NRA 2nd Vice President:
215 21st Street N #1000
Birmingham AL 35203-3710
205-322-1744
***** END UPDATE *****


What a shame. NRA has abandoned its members and the rest of America to cut a deal with the radical leftists to grant NRA, and unspecified other organizations, "exemptions" from the free speech limitations contained in the DISCLOSE Act.

I have been in a battle with NRA for the past few days. They keep saying that they will oppose the DISCLOSE Act if it applies to them, but not if they get an exemption. Does this remind you of AARP and other organizations that sought and received special treatment in Obama's health care nationalization?

I resigned my NRA membership and sent a letter to the president of NRA (no email available, sent it by US Mail). Incidentally, NRA will only accept your resignation if you send them a letter in hard copy with an original signature, via US mail. This alone should make one suspicious of their motives. They do this to keep their members list big even if you resign or quit paying dues.

Here is a copy of my latest email to ccox@nrhhq.org the director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). I did not include a copy of their letter to me because my response summarized what they said and I would only publish their letter if I had their permission. After finding out how difficult it was to resign from NRA, I did not believe I could get their permission to publish their letter in a timely manner, if ever.

Anyway, here is a copy of my email to NRA-ILA.

Thank you for your prompt response. It is well crafted, but does not answer the question. From the email I received from NRA and from the statement on you web site I got the following:

"On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill."

And this from your web site today:

"We didn't "sell out" to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If it doesn't, we will continue to strongly oppose the bill."

From both statements we have this critical phrase:

... congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in the final House debate.

I read both statements as clearly stating that you have collaborated with Congressional leaders to get an exception for NRA, and if that happens you will not be involved in the final House debate. So, if you get your exemption from the "onerous restrictions on political speech" then you will cease opposition to the onerous restrictions being applied to everyone else.

Your reply to me was disingenuous. NRA if not fighting the onerous restrictions if you get your exemption. And everyone at NRA knows as well as I do that you cannot defend the Second Amendment if you collaborate with would-be tyrants restricting First Amendment rights. You understand that you cannot, you can never, stand by and watch the First Amendment fall and have any chance whatsoever of subsequently defending the Second Amendment.

You are putting your trust in radical left wing politicians to keep their word to an organization they hate and have vowed to eliminate--NRA.

Because you do these things knowing they are wrong and then wrap yourself in the statements that your sole purpose is to defend the Second Amendment, is disingenuous and a betrayal of your members and of America. The Second Amendment cannot, will not, stand if the First Amendment falls. You know this.

You cannot be so ignorant nor so naive to believe that if you cut a deal to protect your First Amendment rights, while watching others lose their rights, that your stand in retreating behind the single purpose organization claim is at all credible.

When it comes to politics and treachery you cannot match the radical leftists in their abilities to promise one thing to you today and then attack you again tomorrow.

The cover up always hurts an organization more than the original crime or mistake. NRA made a bad mistake in carving out an exemption for themselves and abandoning all others' First Amendment rights. You have no right to put yourself above your members or anyone else by collaborating with those opposed to the Second Amendment as well as the First Amendment.

The sooner you admit your mistake, apologize, ask forgiveness, and vow not to act that way again, the sooner NRA can regain its high ground.

Until then, Americans who value all of our freedoms will see you as crass opportunists protecting you jobs and income at the expense of your members and your country.

Correct your mistake now before more and more members justly leave you and your enemies see your weakness. Then, sadly, it will be too late.

How many people and organizations think they can outsmart the crooked,leftist politicians in congress? They cannot for a variety of reasons including 1) the leftist politicians are corrupt to the core and never will keep their word,2) most of them are tricky lawyers and have years and years of practice in lying and cheating and bribing their opponents, and 3) appeasement of tyrants or would-be tyrants never works. History is full of millions of people who were cheated, imprisoned, or murdered trying to appease tyrants.

Health Care Propaganda Campaign Well Underway in the State Media

Confidence men know a good con requires an element of truth to make the bigger lie believable.

The government campaign for rationing health care is well underway. The AP is delivering a series of articles to your local newspaper (and expect a barrage of similar propaganda in other forms of the state media).

The first major release in the series said women should wait a decade longer to begin having mammograms.
The second said that elderly men should usually receive little or no treatment for prostate cancer.
And the third in the series, out today, blames medical radiation for increasing our rates of cancer.

The Con Preparing for the Big Lie

The con goes like this. Americans are receiving too much medical treatment and it is making them sick or sicker than there were. Therefore, you need less medical care.

Here is the element of truth. Some people have illnesses very hard to diagnose and a battery of tests is needed to determine the proper diagnosis and treatment. Thus, it may appear they are getting unnecessary tests. And, no doubt, some patients are hypochondriacs.

Since tort lawyers in America lined up as an appendage of the Democrat party, all doctors are practicing some sort of defensive medicine to avoid devastating lawsuits and to reduce their insurance premiums. No doubt, some physicians may order too many tests out of a fear of missing something and failing their patients or out of fear of the lawyers lurking and advertizing everywhere.

All ionizing radiation can be harmful if we receive too much of it. But good doctors and their patients balance the risks of using medical radiation diagnostic tools against letting symptoms of serious illness go undiagnosed. In other cases, for example, for some broken bones, there is simply no other non-invasive way to direct the treatment.

Here is the propaganda buildup to the "Big Lie" needed to ration Americans' health care. It starts as a media campaign to condition the public to the belief that their doctors are their enemies, that they are greedy and order too many tests and procedures just to make money, and that more government intervention is better than decisions made by people and their doctors.

The Big Lie

Medical doctors are evil, greedy, and are not taking good care of you. Therefore, it is necessary for the government to decide which patient needs what treatment and which patient cannot have the treatments their doctors recommend. Government, as part of our nationalized health care, is preparing to insert politicians and bureaucrats between you and your doctor because that is what is best for you.

The Truth

Big government does very few things well. Big government run by radical leftists cannot do anything well. Examples? Consider Amtrak to mortgages to reforms of any kind.

Nothing can replace free enterprise and the freedom it brings. Nothing can replace the well tested doctor-patient relationship that, prior to government interference and takeover, brought Americans the miracles of modern medicine and the best health care possible.

Brief Sketch of Origins & Evils of Socialism and Communism--What is America's Future?

Socialism and Communism

The first modern socialists were early 19th century Western European social critics. In this period, socialism emerged from a diverse array of doctrines and social experiments associated primarily with British and French thinkers—especially Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louis Blanc, and Saint-Simon. These social critics criticised the excesses of poverty and inequality of the Industrial Revolution, and advocated reforms such as the egalitarian distribution of wealth and the transformation of society into small communities in which private property was to be abolished. Outlining principles for the reorganization of society along collectivist lines, Saint-Simon and Owen sought to build socialism on the foundations of planned, utopian communities.

According to some accounts, the use of the words "socialism" or "communism" was related to the perceived attitude toward religion in a given culture. In Europe, "communism" was considered to be the more atheistic of the two. In England, however, that sounded too close to communion with Catholic overtones; hence atheists preferred to call themselves socialists. source.

More on Communism

"Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life. In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of the various communist states, which were authoritarian governments that had centrally planned economies and ownership of all the means of production. Most communist governments based their ideology on Marxism-Leninism.
SNIP
Like other socialists, Marx and Engels sought an end to capitalism and the systems which they perceived to be responsible for the exploitation of workers. But whereas earlier socialists often favored longer-term social reform, Marx and Engels believed that popular revolution was all but inevitable, and the only path to socialism and communism. source.

How do They Work in Real Life?

In short, they don't. All socialist states have failed, bringing misery and tyranny of ever growing and intrusive government and ultimate power to a tyrannical elite. The final stages are often unemployment, starvation, breakdown of the society and civility, and brutal government repression.

Communist states are even worse. They are usually born in brutal revolutions followed by installation of a corrupt dictatorship. Power is maintained by propaganda, censorship, repression, and murder of millions. Like socialist states, the economy and society break down, but government repression and mass murders prolong the peoples' agony.

Why Do Communists Kill So Many Millions of their Own People?

One answer is absolute power corrupts absolutely. But this misses the mark. It is a big factor, but no other ideology or dictatorships even come close to communism. The answer is that killing the bourgeois, the middle class property owners, is a basic tenet of communism and that dictatorial power corrupts. Communist goals always including eliminating freedom and religion and I believe that the lack of freedom and religion release the beast in man.

Much of this is explained in a brilliant essay by Dr. Fred Schwarz as follows. Please read the entire article here.

Why Communism Kills

The Record of Communist Killing

Communism kills! This is not debatable. The record is crystal clear. The U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee conducted investigations into the number killed in the Soviet Union and China. Their report stated that 35 million to 45 million had been killed in the Soviet Union and 34 million to 62.5 million in Communist China.

Even these figures are considered inadequate by authorities on the Soviet Union such as Solzhenitsyn and Antonov Ovesyenko. The latter, whose father led the Bolshevik storming of the Winter Palace in 1917, has recently published the book entitled The Time of Stalin-Portrait of a Tyranny. He calculates those killed as a result of the Communist conquest of Russia at 100 million.

Some apologists for Communism acknowledge that Communism has killed in the past, but they blame this on incidental factors such as the traditions of cruelty and violence which existed in the countries conquered by the Communists, and they do not believe that killing is an essential ingredient of communism itself. They believe that the triumph of Communism in the United States, England, or Western Europe would not lead to mass slaughter. Are they right or are they suffering from a dangerous delusion? To answer this question, it is necessary to know why Communism kills.

Why

A simple, direct answer to the question, "Why does communism kill?" is-because the founder of Communism, Karl Marx, told them it was necessary to kill a large segment of the population in order to attain the basic objective of Communism.

Marx states in the Manifesto of the Communist Party:

You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. (Published by Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973 edition, page 66)

The Two Worst Examples

Communist Russia and Communist China together account for about 165,000,000 murders of their own people. This is more than all the wars of the 20th Century and all other tyrants combined. The magnitude of this number of murders is mind boggling. This is half the current U. S. population.

Where are Obama and the Radical Leftists Taking America?

Guess. The federal government has nationalized health care, 2 of the 3 major U. S. auto makers, and much of our insurance, mortgage, and banking industries. It is now trying to nationalize education and energy. We are well down the road to socialism. Redistribution of wealth is designed to rob the working middle class and give it to those in the lower classes, many of whom do not work. "Tax the rich philosophy" is intended to, and does, cripple private industry and entrepreneurship. Defeatist and anti-American foreign policies and defense policies are rapidly decreasing America's ability to defend itself and remain a reliable ally.

Where are they taking us? It looks like socialism, but I believe Obama and his radical leftists supporters (most Democrats, labor leaders, activist judges, print and broadcast media, academia, and racist ideologues; note--all of these groups overlap) are communist at heart.

The transformation from socialism to communism will require a one party system and tyranny. What's needed for them is to get another 10 to 20 million voters to irreversibly capture the federal government. I also believe that this is the purpose of community organizers and amnesty for illegal aliens.

Am I close in my thinking? If the Republic is in grave danger, can we rescue it?

Redistribution of Wealth

Redistribution of Wealth Long Recognized as Wrong

Redistribution of wealth in current day America is the forced taking of income, and thus any or all property that can be purchased with one's income depending upon how much income is seized, by government, but particularly by the federal government. This means that one citizen who works for money to support himself and family can have a portion, entirely at the government's discretion, forcefully taken from him to support other citizens who do not work.*

This has been recognized as wrong throughout recorded history of the civilized world and in the faiths of those people it has always been a sin. "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Genesis:3-19

This was also specified in the Ten Commandments:
“Thou shalt not steal” ( Exodus 20:15).
“Thou shalt not covet” ( Exodus 20:17).
Redistribution of wealth is coveting and stealing.

Property rights are also well recognized in our Constitution

The 5th Amendment
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The 14th Amendment
"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."...

Practical Meaning in Today's Situation

Socialists and communists who believe neither in the Bible nor the Constitution believe that a government, run by themselves, can and should take the rewards of one man's work and give to another man who has not worked for it based on such things as race, political affiliation, and self preservation of the elite running the government.

The greatest negative impact of redistribution is the economic, physical, and spiritual decline of those who receive rewards stolen from their fellow citizens. First, this receipt of money and goods without earning them makes the recipients dependent upon the government. Second, personal initiative and the blessings of work are lost to these dependents. Third, through the loss of personal initiative. responsibility, and not learning to save and resist the temptations of "something for nothing" the family structure of dependents is destroyed. Once the family unit is destroyed, then children are not raised with the love, discipline, faith, and moral guidance required for their proper growth and development morally, mentally, physically, or spiritually.

Thus, dependency causes breakdown in the families and individuals receiving unearned rewards. Civility, patriotism, education, and health and well being are lost.

Next to outright murder and torture, redistribution of wealth is the greatest evil government can foist onto those dependent on it. Look across our country from the smallest towns to the largest cities and the ills and evils of those dependent on government redistribution of wealth are inescapable. No other form of government, and no single action of government, has led to such widespread misery, destruction, and wasting of human lives, as has redistribution of wealth. Any who deny it, should go and live like, and among, the desperate governments dependents.

In The Long Run

A country who lets its dependency class approach 50% of the population is teetering on the brink of destruction. The elections in 2010 and 2012 provide us with the opportunity to roll back socialism and restore the blessings of freedom to America.

-------------
* There has always been and there always will be the poor among us. Those mentally and physically unable to work and support themselves, and uncared for children, must be supported by the working citizens of our country. This is best done through genuine private charity and through minimal government charity programs without the appearance or actuality of entitlements. Government dependency must be avoided and unavailable to any who can work for their own support.

A free and market-based society has proven to be the only kind that can secure liberty and work opportunities for all of its people.