About time we took these words to heart.

[PLC1]

 

[Gipper]

Not a chance in Hell. Liberalism rejects that statement entirely and completely, but I suspect you are unable to comprehend that.

This column by a law professor has it right...bold type by me....

How convenient for our political overseers: there has been another mass-shooting – this time at a Connecticut grade-school – in which many adults and young children were murdered. Members of the mainstream media, politicians, and other government officials are being turned loose to share their lack of critical thinking with a public conditioned to await their direction. With the kind of frenzy exhibited by a monkey that has been bitten by a scorpion, establishment sock-puppets quickly respond with proposals to further enhance state power while, at the same time, shrinking individual liberty. Taking the advice of the neo-Machiavellian Rahm Emanuel – that "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste" – the victims in Connecticut will join those in the Oregon shopping mall, Columbine and Aurora, Colorado, and elsewhere, to be exploited on behalf of disarming Americans.

The news coverage of this latest atrocity follows a predictable pattern: police officers, armed soldiers, and federal FBI and ATF functionaries, are on the scene as a reminder of the top-down system of order that the shootings have just refuted. The mayor, state governor, and president each holds a press conference to assure their respective herds that all is under control, their control. In a world in which vertically-structured institutions are collapsing into horizontal networks, the established order is desperate to reinforce its authority to control what it is clearly unable to do. The mantra "we will find out what went wrong and fix it so that it doesn’t happen again" becomes less and less persuasive to those who understand that "insanity" is exhibited by those who keep repeating the same actions, expecting different results.

President Obama shed his crocodile tears for the latest group of victims. As he began to speak, and before the president pretended to wipe tears from his eyes, CNN informed us that "Obama Weeps Over School Massacre": sure, just as he continues to weep over the tens of thousands of children and other innocent victims of his wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and any other places he might arbitrarily choose to attack. He then spoke of the need to take "meaningful action" to prevent such murderous acts in the future. Gosh, I wonder what such "actions" might entail? Were he sincere in his professed concern for the killing of children, he might choose to reward – rather than attempt to destroy – Julian Assange who used his WikiLeaks site to show videos of American soldiers, in helicopters, machine-gunning journalists, innocent children, and other civilians in Iraq!

Seeking to limit the private ownership of guns is about as irrational a response to violence as would be a proposal to eliminate the private ownership of cars in order to prevent the deaths of tens of thousands of people who are killed annually in auto accidents. The LA Times informs us that, on the same day as the Connecticut shootings, a man in China attacked twenty-two schoolchildren and an adult with a knife, an occurrence that "was reminiscent of a spate of knife attacks on schoolchildren that took place across China in 2010." The same news story informs us that a young man had been arrested following the box-cutter slashing of a number of young women on a subway. The report ends with a reference to China’s stringent gun-control laws.
Should these events engender restrictions on knife-ownership? And what about those who might resort to golf clubs, baseball bats, or pipe-wrenches to carry out their murderous intentions? Of course, it is a public armed with more powerful weapons – ones that would allow people to defend themselves against state weaponry – that troubles the statists. Dead children are but convenient victims to be exploited by the shedders of faux tears in an effort to further weaken the defenses of ordinary people.

The day following this latest atrocity, media babblers began to inquire: "what could have motivated this young man?" While some reports inform us that this man – like so many previous mass-killers – was on prescribed psychotropic drugs that often produce violent and suicidal responses – little attention was focused on this fact. Such drugs are part of the arsenal with which the institutional order seeks to control its herd, and any mention of their adverse effects is thus to be avoided in seeking explanations. Not to upset the passive mindset of their viewers – something media employers insist upon as a condition of employment – the usual causal suspects will be dragged out for blame. But it is not in guns, motion pictures, video-games, or bumper-stickers that explanations are to be found. All of these things – objects lacking in will – are nothing more than expressions of the purposes and values to be found within our own minds. It is our thinking that generates demands for such things, and it is to our thinking that we must repair if we are truly desirous of ending our participation in the madness of our world.
http://lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer264.html

 

[Openmind]

Not a chance in Hell. Liberalism rejects that statement entirely and completely, but I suspect you are unable to comprehend that.

This column by a law professor has it right...bold type by me....

Wouldn't it be nice if Reagan had been made accountable for his "fast and furious" actions?

 

[PLC1]

Wouldn't it be nice if Reagan had been made accountable for his "fast and furious" actions?

Fast and furious? You mean, Iran Contra?
Yes, it would have been. Reagan, and North as well.

 

[Openmind]

Fast and furious? You mean, Iran Contra?
Yes, it would have been. Reagan, and North as well.

Yes, obviously!
Thanks for the correction.

I was making the parallel between the two and suffered a "Freudian slip."

 

[dogtowner]

WaPo reporting BO arming Syrian rebels

Libyans too

but there is nothing new about backing of sides we feel better suit out interests.

 

[Openmind]

Fast and furious? You mean, Iran Contra?
Yes, it would have been. Reagan, and North as well.

WaPo reporting BO arming Syrian rebels

Well, is that your interpretation of this statement?
"an effort paid for by Persian Gulf nations and coordinated in part by the United States, according to opposition activists and U.S. and foreign officials.
Obama administration officials emphasized that the United States is neither supplying nor funding the lethal material, which includes antitank weaponry. Instead, they said, the administration has expanded contacts with opposition military forces to provide the gulf nations with assessments of rebel credibility and command-and-control infrastructure."

Libyans too

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330
And is this your interpretation of this statement?
"Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to government sources familiar with the matter.
Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.
As is common practice for this and all administrations, I am not going to comment on intelligence matters," White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. "I will reiterate what the president said yesterday -- no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya."

but there is nothing new about backing of sides we feel better suit out interests.

By the way. . .I may have missed something, but I don't recall Congress FORBIDDING involvement in Syria or Lybia. . .so you seem to be comparing apples and oranges!