Wesley Clark Calls for Internment Camps for “Radical” Americans

In the below video former General Wesley Clark calls for the creation of internment camps to segregate “radicalized” Americans from the rest of the population as we did in World War 2 with Japanese Americans. This is an interesting position from a man who had no shortage of criticisms for George W. Bush’s violations of civil liberties. Apparently protecting civil liberties is not really the mission here. Violating civil liberties is fine so long as it is your team doing the violating. Watch the video for yourself…

There are a few issues with his “ideas” of how to protect Americans. First, exactly who gets to decide who is “radical?” Today we might say it is radical Islamic terrorists, but as we have seen before people that believe in strong 2nd Amendment rights have been labeled “terrorists” on more than one occasion. Does that group get put into one of these camps? How about people that believe in any of the other Bill of Rights and is willing to fight for them. Are those individuals now “radicalized” and need to be put into a camp?

We actually have people out there that instead of having freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment that we should create categories of “hate” speech that is illegal and should be a crime. Wow. Who gets to decide what “hate” speech is? Is that just speech you disagree with?

So if someone says they don’t believe in LGBT lifestyle is that now hate speech and said person needs to be put into a camp for being “radicalized”. When we start deciding what speech is protected and what isn’t and are constantly pointing fingers at each other and saying this person or what they said is offending me and they are a “hate” speech person or “radical” for their idea we are in VERY dangerous waters. Add to that the idea that we should start shoving these people into camps and you have the all the makings of another holocaust.

Maybe those people that believe in a strong 4th Amendment and believe that having a warrant before being able to indiscriminately search someone’s house, computer, library records, phone, business records, car is a good idea. Are those people now “wrong thinking” people that are “radicalized?” Maybe they are hiding something, if they didn’t have something to hide they would just agree to the search, right? They must be a radical, maybe we should lock them up in a camp?

The issue is who gets to decide who is radicalized and a threat and needs to go into one of these camps? What is the process for deciding they have to go? Is it just their position on an issue? Will they have to show they are a danger to society? If so, how exactly does this new Minority Report commission convict someone of a crime they haven’t actually done yet, but may in the future?

If we decide to start shoving people into these camps do they have a trial? appeals? Is there a sentencing system or are they simply put in there until they are no longer “radicalized?” Who gets to decide when that has been achieved? What happens to them in this camp? Do they get re-educated or tortured until they have seen the light? What happens to their property they owned before they got shoved in this camp, doe we just divvy it up among the “non-radicalized” people living outside these camps?

See you start getting a lot of sticky questions when you decide it is a good idea to start labeling various people you disagree with as “radicalized” and “terrorist” and decide to start stripping them of civil liberties and locking them up for crimes they *might* do someday, but haven’t done today and quite frankly may never do.

Depending on exactly what “radicalized” group we are discussing here doing a crime isn’t what is happening so much as standing up for freedom. If their only crime is being “radicalized” according to some person’s definition of the word is then some star chamber of people somewhere get to determine that and shove them in a camp until this group starts thinking the right way? Wow. Just Wow, what else can you say about something like this.

The really scary thing is this clown is actually brought on to discuss this on news shows as it should actually be considered a real policy idea. This maniac should not be given a platform anywhere where his ideas are actually elevated to the level of serious discussion.

In addition, this moron was and may be again a presidential candidate. Finally, at one time he was actually a general in the military, you know, one of only two groups, police being the other one, that should have all the guns according to liberals. Now that should scare every single person.

Support for more Gun Control Shifts Down in Polls

According to a column by Emily Miller of the Washington Times the polls are shifting away from the gun grabbers who want to steal our rights as freeborn Americans.  The political reality is this is a good thing, but it shouldn’t have to be this way.

We all know that most opportunistic politicians watch the polls closer than they do their own children looking for the slightest support to ram their agenda’s through.  This happens on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

On this issue with enacting more gun control it is particularly vexing to me.  Not because I want to see more gun control, all you have to do is spend 2 minutes reading some of my past entries to see where I stand on gun control, but because we shouldn’t have to watch polls to see where the public stands on this issue.

The reality is it SHOULD NOT MATTER!

The 2nd Amendment is a civil right that is given to us by God and protected by the U.S. Constitution.  It clearly states that it is a right that shall not be infringed! What the public thinks or doesn’t think about it is totally irrelevant.  We don’t grant or keep rights for people because of what the people think of them at any given time.  We are born with them and they are NOT subject to debate, infringement, discussion or any type of “common sense” compromise on them, period.

While I recognize the polls do actually have a practical application to stopping government from ramming through freedom robbing laws this just illustrates how far we have strayed from our founding principles.  Our forefathers could never have imagined that polls would determine if we should infringe or not infringe on someone’s God given liberties.

Rights vs. Needs

With all the anti 2nd Amendment rhetoric going on both at the Federal and State levels there is a lot of talk about “need” as it applies to the 2nd Amendment. For example…

  • Nobody needs a 30 round magazine
  • Nobody needs an “assault” rifle
  • Nobody needs to be able to buy more than one gun per month
  • Unless you are criminal nobody needs privacy in gun ownership; there should be a registry of all gun owners.

The problem with all of these statements is that gun ownership in our country under the 2nd Amendment is a right.  Rights are rights and apply equally to all people at all times regardless of what some politician’s perceived need of my right should be.  It doesn’t matter “what the people” say in some poll.  It doesn’t matter if you have enough votes to pass it or not.  We are born with these rights and the only roll government plays is protecting anyone from infringing on those rights, especially the government itself!

On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery Alabama, Rosa Parks, Civil Rights Activist defied the order of a city bus driver to move to the back of the bus as was the practice for blacks by law at that time.  Why did she do this?  Was it simply about transportation?  No, the back of the bus was going the same place the front of the bus was going.  She also wasn’t going to get there any faster by riding in the back of the bus.  The whole bus got to its location at the same time.

So people could have argued she did not need to defy this order.  It didn’t actually accomplish anything in a utilitarian sense of simple transportation from point A to point B.  She did it because it was her right to do it!  She was born with that right and the government, majority of the people, politicians, judges, law, tradition, etc. had no right to remove that right from her with any type of law!

So it is with gun owners.  It doesn’t matter what gun banners think, what polls say, what politicians who hate guns want.  It is our right as free, law abiding Americans to own any gun we want and any size magazine and own them in privacy and not tell anyone what we own unless we break a law.  We aren’t required to wait to purchase guns or ammunition, pay a tax to own them and shouldn’t have what we want to purchase arbitrarily limited because of someone’s opinion of my need.  Is is not about needs it is about rights!

When we start letting polls, people’s opinions and politicians decide what we need as opposed to simply respecting our rights as free born Americans than the whole concept of freedom and liberty falls apart for everyone.  We spiral down until we live in a dictatorship.  Maybe not today with this law, but someday.

You see, political fortunes often change.  So the gun banners believe they have the upper hand right now and therefore can impose their arbitrary opinion of what they believe my need is on me with some law.  However someday those political fortunes are going to change and another group will be in power.  What if the next group in power decides you don’t need free speech all 7 days in week or all year.  Instead having free speech one month per year to speak your grievances to the government should be all you need.

Take the 4th Amendment of unreasonable search and seizure.  What if we decide to pass a law that says nobody needs to have this protection.  After all only criminals have something to hide.  If you are truly the law abiding person you claim you are than you have no need to resist a warrantless searches of your home and car anytime the police desire.

What about the 5th Amendment that says you can’t be forced to testify against yourself in a court of law.  Why does anyone need this protection.  If you actually broke a law shouldn’t you be required to do everything the police want to prove you did it and be subjected to the punishment that goes with it?  After all you broke the law.  Most people would agree in a poll that criminals should be punished.  Most politicians can argue this is the “will of the people” and that the “majority” of people agree.

You see the problem is when we start letting polls, politicians, and someone else’s opinion of what we need to be the deciding factor in what rights we get and how we get to exercise them eventually everyone’s freedom is lost.  Not just the people who have rights you don’t like or agree with.  Eventually someone will come for your most cherished rights.

Rights work and grant freedom and liberty because we have all agreed we are born with these rights and we cherish them enough to write them down in a Bill of Rights.  We agreed to create a government that was limited in its power and had an obligation to protect those rights.

My rights are just as important as yours are.  They are as important to me as yours are to you. It doesn’t matter if you like my rights.  It doesn’t matter if you personally don’t want to practice my rights for yourself.

I was born with my rights just as you were with yours.  If you decide my rights can be sacrificed for what you believe is the “correct” way to live than we have no freedom and no liberty that can’t be taken away by a simple majority of people who happen to agree that this is the way things ought to be.  Hopefully everyone sees the danger in that.

Whoever has the most votes in Congress, the best lobbyists, or the best PR people to create and dictate public opinion gets to decide what rights we have and what we need when it comes to exercising those rights.  That is wrong and that is the end of freedom and liberty for everyone.

LaRue Tactical Stands up for Private Citizens 2nd Amendment Rights!

LaRue Tactical issued a press release that states it will only sell its products to the police IF private citizens are also allowed to own the same guns and equipment!  Kudos to LaRue for this one!  This company has just topped my list of places to buy from and I hope everyone who reads this will support them.  Here is the link to their site…

LaRue Tactical

We need ALL the gun companies to step up and make the same commitment.  If every company that sells firearms and related equipment cut off the government until they recognized our rights then it would send a very strong message that we are united on this issue and to back off!

The 2nd Amendment is about the fundamental right to self defense and that self defense may be from a tyrannical government.  THIS is what our Founders intended for the 2nd Amendment!  Not a right to hunt, but I right to keep the government from encroaching on the liberties of the people.  Guns are the teeth of liberty!

To defend our liberties from an ever encroaching government private citizens need the SAME firearms and equipment that said tyrannical government will use AGAINST us.  We private citizens are getting fed up with this elitest attitude of government that they are not subject to the same restrictions and laws the citizens who employ them are!  Enough!  You work for us!  You serve us!  Not the other way around.

We can’t defend ourselves if the government gets better guns than we own.  The Founders understood this.  Now LaRue is showing they understand it as well.  Where are the rest of you gun manufacturers on this?

While I applaud LaRue Tactical for taking this step I hope they go even farther and say they will not sell to the Federal Government, who is pushing to limit our rights.  We also need EVERY gun manufacturer to step up and make the same commitment.

As John Adams said about the signing of the Declaration of Independence… “We need all the clocks to strike at the same time!” meaning they all had to be united in the cause.  We couldn’t have any that didn’t agree.  That is what we need here.  One voice against Obama’s tyranny!

Justice John Roberts – Traitor!

With one vote Justice John Roberts has just betrayed the Constitution, the American people and has permanently altered the power of the Federal Government by siding with the socialist in this country and saying it was OK to allow the Federal government to force people to buy health insurance!  That’s right folks this traitor just said there are NO LIMITS on Federal power now because the individual mandate in Obama Care is OK!

Our Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves right now.  They never envisioned a country where the Federal government could come along and force people to buy something simply for the privilege of being a citizen, but Justice Roberts has changed all of that with one vote.  He has said the mandate “is like a tax” which means the government can regulate it.  That is total B.S.!  It is a mandate forcing people to buy health insurance!  Anyone who thought this guy was a conservative that believed in limited government has been proven TOTALLY wrong and has ended that debate once and for all.  He has given the Federal thugs the green light to do ANYTHING they want now.  The future laws of this country will be forever altered just as they were in 1942 with the Wickard v. Filburn decision because of his betrayal!

Leading up to this decision everyone in the media kept talking about which “Conservative” Justice would side with the liberals and socialist to give them a win.  Most thought it would be Kennedy, but it wasn’t.  It was that stalwart of conservative belief that titan of the Constitution and now traitor Justice John Roberts.

Today is a dark day for freedom, liberty, and the Constitution and it was all made possible by a traitor.  I hope all remember that.

Media Matters and gun control hypocrisy of David Brock

According to a story on Fox News notorious gun grabber David Brock had his assistant illegally carry a concealed handgun in Washington D.C.  David Brock has been very vocal over the years about gun control and working to keep law abiding people from carrying or even owning a gun for self defense, yet when it is his own skin on the line he doesn’t hesitate to have gun for personal protection.  Ditto for people like Rosie O’Donnell, ex-Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago and gun hater Diane Feinstein.  At one point or another all of these people either owned a gun for personal protection or had armed body guards who did, all the while they advocate for stripping away the rights of others to do the same thing.

This article at Fox News discusses what a hypocrite David Brock is for this latest stunt.  However I am taking a different angle.  The issue is not that he and others don’t believe in guns for personal protection when they are the ones being protected as their own actions have proved that claim to be false.  The real issue is much more sinister.

All the people mentioned above as well as many others too numerous to mention are hard left leaning statist, socialists, and collectivists.  All of them would love to see a nation built into a socialist utopia where things like private property and personal liberty no longer exists for the individual.  Rather all property and freedom is granted by the state.

The problem with finally being able to realize their vision is that pesky 2nd Amendment, which grants us the right to keep and bear arms…

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Contrary to what many on the left argue, this was not put in the Bill of Rights for the Militia and it was not put in there for “sporting purposes” in fact, as you can see the word “sports” or “sporting” doesn’t appear anywhere in there.

It was put there because the Founders realized that if the citizens were armed and could fight back they were less likely to ever have a tyraniccal government come into existence.  They understood that Americans needed the government to fear the people not the other way around for true freedom to exist.  Nobody on the left wants to discuss this reason for the 2nd Amendment because the thought of a bloody civil war is more than they can handle.  So instead they spend their time arguing about guns for sporting purposes only and no concealed carry because it presents a “health risk” to society and other meaningless gibberish.

Armed citizens are a road block to people like David Brock and other socialists from creating his beloved socialist utopia and seizing all private property and freedom from the people.  They know down deep that the people are armed and would fight back.  Therefore, they follow this ridicoulous notion of gun banning in an attempt to remove guns from citizens so they can step on them and take away their rights and property without the citizens being able to fight back.

The issue was never about guns for personal protection for these people although that is what they will tell you because they can’t tell you their real reason for wanting to take away guns and abolish the 2nd Amendment.  Never forget that.