Archive for October 18th, 2010

The Ruling Class — Past and Present

October 18, 2010

Defenders of the idea that only the ruling class should be able to make decisions for everybody else desperately try to put lipstick on the tyrannical pigs of history and today.

One common argument – in both Russia and in the West – is the defense of Lenin as a well-intentioned guy whose good work was cut short by his premature death. Then that bad old Stalin took over and tyranny sprang up like flowers after a rain in the desert.

Robert Gellately in Lenin, Stalin and Hitler has examined this notion and has totally destroyed its claim to veracity from first-hand accounts. His conclusion is that Lenin was “a heartless and ambitious individual who was self-righteous in claiming to know what was good for humanity, brutal in his attempt to subject his own people to radical social transformation, and convinced he held the key to the eventual overthrow of global capitalism and the establishment of world Communism.”

The picture Gellately paints of Stalin and Hitler shows that Lenin’s character flaws were shared by them as well.

Gellately describes Lenin in terms that disturbingly fit Saul Alinsky, President Obama’s intellectual inspiration. Both men wrote that the current system needs to be collapsed. While Alinsky argued that it should be collapsed from within, Lenin sought the same goal by deliberately provoking a civil war which would then be followed with murder and terror as an official regime policy. Lenin was successful, and as a result of the war, he emerged in total control of the country at a cost of two million dead. Of course, he and his disciple Stalin killed many tens of millions more in the years following.

Larry Grathwol was the FBI agent who infiltrated close-Obama-friend Bill Ayers’ terrorist Weather Underground. He testified that he had a conversation with Ayers in which the terrorist said that after taking power it would probably be necessary to kill 25,000,000 Americans who could not be reeducated to accept the new communist system.

Grathwol reported that Ayers made that statement in a room of some twenty-five people, most of whom had graduate degrees. Gellately found that the leaders of the death squads in Hitler’s Nazi regime were also similarly well-educated. This information certainly adds perspective to the detrimental value afforded by a liberal arts education in most universities of the United States.

All three of these mass murderers followed the Alinsky prescription faithfully, namely, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” When we look at President Obama’s method of operation, we can see that he learned this lesson well. (Indeed, Obama taught Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals for two years at the University of Chicago School of Law).

He picks targets for smearing (banks, insurance companies, Republicans, etc.). He then goes on to freeze his target, to personalize it (greedy executives, House Minority Leader John Boehner) and then to polarize. Polarizing is part of the acid used by the 20th Century’s tyrants as well as Saul Alinsky and his followers.

While we are not yet where Germany and Russia ended up,, the end game of polarizing the population against a personalized enemy led to the destruction of Jews and foreigners under the Nazis. And in the Soviet Union, it led to the destruction of the nobility, the educated, and the clergy, as well as businesses and farm owners. As Rahm Emmanuel, the president’s close friend and former White House Chief of Staff has put it, you never let a good crisis go to waste. The crisis allows the implementation of the Alinsky formula, creating an enemy that must be fought. In order to fight the enemy, the tyrant demands that all power be handed over to him.

According to Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Obama now controls seventy percent of the private sector in the United States. This takeover has been carried off by a constant rush from one crisis to another. “The time for talking is over. The time for action is now.”

Well, Mr. Obama, the time for voting is coming. The time for the arrogance of power is over.

SOURCE

President Obama’s voting puppets: GOA strikes back

October 18, 2010

On the Campaign Trail in Arkansas

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund endorsed three candidates in Arkansas for the November elections: Richard Crawford in the First Congressional District, Tim Griffin in the Second, and John Boozman for Senate. 

All three are campaigning vigorously, and their hard work is paying off in recent polls.

Arkansas First Congressional

According to a poll released this week by The Hill, a Washington, D.C. political news organization, Rick Crawford is leading his Democrat opponent in the First Congressional District.

Crawford, a small business owner and constitutional conservative, is forthright in his support for the Second Amendment.  His commitment to protecting the right to keep and bear arms earned him an “A” rating from GOA. 

Tim Macy, Roger HedgecockGOA Vice-Chariman Tim Macy (left) with nationally syndicated talk show host Roger Hedgecock on the campaign trail in Arkansas 

His rival, a staffer for the retiring Congressman in the district, did not return a GOA survey even though he was given two opportunities to do so in the past few months.  This is usually a sign that the candidate is hiding anti-gun views.

Learn more about Rick http://www.meetrickcrawford.com.

Arkansas Second Congressional

In the Second District, Tim Griffin leads his opponent by 17 points.

A fifth generation Arkansan, Tim is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and is committed not only to opposing the anti-gun schemes of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but he will also work to roll back the unconstitutional gun laws already on the books.

His opponent, “F” rated by GOA, will be just another vote for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her radical, anti-gun agenda.

Tim’s website is http://www.timgriffinforcongress.com.

Arkansas Senate

In the race for one of Arkansas’ U.S. Senate seat, Rep. John Boozman holds a double-digit lead over incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

In the U.S. House, Rep. Boozman has been a champion for the Second Amendment, one of only six House members to earn an “A+” from GOA.  In addition to holding a perfect voting record, Rep. Boozman is the author of the “Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act,” a bill which would allow concealed carry licenses to be recognized while traveling across state lines.

He also recently took the lead in opposing President Obama’s efforts to block the importation of—or even destroy—nearly one million M1 Garand rifles from South Korea.  The firearms are lawful for Americans to own, and Rep. Boozman continues to work on this issue even as the congressional session winds down.

His opponent has proven to be one of President Obama’s voting puppets.  Sen. Lincoln voted for a slew of anti-gun nominees put forward by the President, including two anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court Justices and a U.S. Attorney General who would like to reinstate the semi-auto ban of 1994.

The polls indicate that voters have had enough of Sen. Lincoln marching in lockstep with the President and his anti-gun agenda.  Rep. John Boozman is a proven leader and a consistent friend of gun owners both across the state of Arkansas and across the country.

Visit John Boozman on the web at http://www.boozmanforarkansas.com.

The elections in Arkansas are crucial for the makeup of the new Congress.  Not only are pro-gunners leading in Districts 1 and 2, but both seats also stand to flip from Pelosi-supporting anti-gun puppets to strong Constitutional leaders.

And in the Senate, John Boozman will be one less vote for anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid, and one less vote for the devastating Obama agenda.

Although their hard work is paying off with great polling numbers, none of these candidates are taking anything for granted. They are campaigning hard right up to Election Day, so if you can help out any of these campaigns with volunteer efforts or a financial contribution, please visit their websites.

SOURCE

New York: Imitating California, as in going full blown stupid..?

October 18, 2010

 

Andrew Cuomo and the Gunmaker Litigation

Posted by Walter Olson

There are many reasons to be glum about the impending coronation of dynastic heir Andrew Cuomo, now leading in the New York governor’s race against a GOP opponent (Carl Paladino) who at first polled decently but has since stumbled. Some fret about the Democrat’s reputation for political hardball: former governor Eliot Spitzer (Eliot Spitzer!) last month called Cuomo the “dirtiest, nastiest political player out there,” which is like being called overdressed by Lady Gaga. Others find Cuomo too much of a camera-chaser as attorney general in Albany, and almost everyone is queasy over his role (as Clinton-era housing secretary) in encouraging risk-taking by federally backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, leading by direct steps to today’s ongoing mortgage crisis. (For background, see Wayne Barrett’s famous 2008 Village Voice article.)

I have a different reason for cringing at the idea that voters would ever elevate Andrew Cuomo to higher office, and it’s also based on memories of his tenure as housing secretary. Not the Fannie-Freddie-subprime end of it, although I concede that in a strictly economic sense those were the most damaging things he did. No, what I find permanently hard to forgive is the way Cuomo threw himself into the role of chief national cheerleader for the municipal anti-gun litigation of the 1990s and early 2000s.

Because that litigation mostly fizzled out, it is now only half remembered and doesn’t much feature in Cuomo profiles. At the time, though, it was a close-fought battle and a big story. More than 30 cities and counties sued firearms makers, alleging that courts should hold them financially responsible for the costs of urban shootings. The cry was to make guns the “next tobacco,” following the successful litigation campaign against tobacco companies that extracted hundreds of billions of dollars for the benefit of state coffers (and private lawyers).

Of course there are enormous differences between the tobacco and gun businesses. One is that while major tobacco makers had billion-dollar revenue streams to share as part of a settlement, most gunmakers are smallish enterprises, often family-owned. And this in fact was a conscious element of the strategy for the lawyers who promoted the suits: because gunmakers were too thinly capitalized to withstand the costs of years of legal defense, it was thought they’d fold their hands and yield to “gun control through litigation” (explicitly couched as an end run against a then-Republican Congress resistant to gun control proposals). Smith and Wesson actually did yield to a settlement on this rationale, which soon collapsed following a public outcry from gun owners and others outraged by the use of extortive litigation to achieve gun control objectives. The gamble having failed, the suits eventually reached judges and were generally thrown out, but not before imposing huge and uncompensated costs on many small companies that had violated no laws. Some were bankrupted.

Mindful of traditional tenets of legal ethics that forbid lawyers from using the cost of legal process as a bludgeon, most backers of the suits prudently refrained from any hint that imposing unsustainable legal costs was part of the plan. One exception was Cuomo, who warned gunmakers that unless they cooperated, they’d suffer “death by a thousand cuts.” And another was then-New-York-AG Spitzer, who reportedly warned an executive of holdout Glock: “If you do not sign, your bankruptcy lawyers will be knocking at your door.”

I think Spitzer and Cuomo deserve each other, really. What I can’t figure out is why the good citizens of New York would want either of them.

SOURCE


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 168 other followers

%d bloggers like this: