Wednesday, September 9, 2009

V for Vendetta: Scary Parallels to America Today

Lately I have been desiring to re-watch V for Vendetta. I remembered it having some parallels to what is happening in America. After just finishing it, it has become scary. There are many more things in common between the movie and our country than I could have remembered from the first time watching it. Let's look at some of them.

First, the movie starts with a scene during which people are going into their homes as the speakers in the streets proclaim the curfew that is now in effect "for their own good". Our government seems to think we need them to take care of us, and are trying to make laws "for our own good". This is tyranny.

Second, the media is controlled by the government (much like the Obama Administration would like to drown out dissenting views by force of law). At one point, in the television station, Evey asks a question of her co-worker, who replies, "our job is to report the news, not fabricate it; that's the government's job." Sound familiar when compared with the mainstream media?

Third, there is extreme government surveillance of citizens. Dissenters are found and dealt with (killed). Our government already has the means for this, and Obama is pushing for more power to control communication and spy on citizens.

The plot also brings to light the means by which the "chancellor" (read "dictator") came to power. Initially He was an extremist politician who gained support, won battles, gained more support, gained a militaristic following, and grew more power-hungry. In order for the people to see the need for a singular position of power, a crisis is needed. Enter the viral infections spawned by the government (swine flu, anyone). As 100,000 die, said politician "discovers" the antidote, which he really had all along, and the people elevate him to power.

The main character, V, echoes a thought of our founding fathers. The people should not be afraid of the government; the government should be afraid of the people. However, the people in this scenario have already been disarmed (it is Britain, after all). When the rioting for freedom and real change begin, and the people prepare to march on Parliament, an investigator asks the chief what he thinks will happen, to which the chief replies, "The same thing that happens any time people without guns try to take on people with guns."

Folks, this is a very real scenario. With Obama and his agenda, it becomes all the more real. The previous paragraph explains the necessity of the people maintaining firearms. We the people must call the government what it is before it is too late. We must make the media accoutable for bias instead of reporting. We must take responsibility for our own lives and our own freedom. W must make sure the government leaders know that WE THE PEOPLE are the United States, and that we wish for freedom to reign, and that we will not tolerate more encroachment on our lives "for our own good".

Now is the time. Tomorrow may be too late.

Update: If you enjoyed this post, read the new one - V for Vendetta Revisited

Monday, September 7, 2009

The Truth About Current Outrage and Exercise of 2nd Amendment Rights

Mike replies superbly to a closed-minded person. Said person thinks that outrage about the health bill is manufactured, and that people who exercise open carry rights are morons. He speaks with ignorance, and it shows. Mike takes him to task.

It's long, but worth it to read every word. You will not be disappointed if you're a freedom-loving American.

Friday, September 4, 2009

Since when. . . .

. . . do judges get to decide on religious grounds whether or not we can home school our children? The judge even said this kid was getting a good education at home.

I wonder what Constitution this judge took a pledge to uphold.

On The Green: State Sponsored Kidnapping

Sadly, I think this is indicative of how rulings are going to be made even up to SCOTUS, especially since the confirmation of Sotomayor. Bad news indeed.

What Obama Won't Tell You About Socialized Healthcare

The story from a Brit about govt run healthcare. Scary. Don't tell a liberal. They might wet themselves at the sound of facts born out through history.

Dustin's Gun Blog: Tim Evans (London, UK) Discusses Government Run Healthcare

Hat tip The Liberty Sphere

The slippery slopes

Here is an excellent post about how the government chips away at our rights and ability to make decisions for ourselves. They normally don't try to do it all at once, because people would notice.

For some reason, people call us crazy and fear-mongers when we say we don't want a specific law because it will lead to another, and another, and . . . . These people are either ignorant or stupid, because they can't look at how the government has done that with every issue. Why don't we want particular speech to be stifled? It will lead to all speech being stifled. Why don't we want a particular model firearm to be banned? It will lead to all being banned.

Check out the story for yourself. Worth the read.

Cows, the Constitution, and The Ten Commandments

A while back, I got this e-mail, and just stumbled across my printed copy of it. Don't know who wrote it to give them credit, but I'll tell you it wasn't me. And yes, I know it's a little outdated.

Three Things To Ponder:

1. Cows
2. The Constitution
3. The Ten Commandments

Cows - Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our government can track a single cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington? And they track her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million (number now higher) illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give them each a cow.

The Constitution - They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.

The Ten Commandments - The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse is this: You cannot post "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not commit adultery", and "Thou shalt not lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges, and politicians. It creates a hostil work environment.

That's all. I don't like to ponder too long. It makes me nervous.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Entertainment of the day

Awesome video.

Scary at the same time.

Presidential Tracking

So, Obama's plan to have people rat out their neighbors failed, and now he is trying to instead collect data on networking sites such as facebook and myspace.

Of course, he and his staff relate it back to the Presidential Records Act, but that's a load of bull. That act says that records have to be kept of comments made by the president and his staff, not comments made by citizens.

No doubt this will be used to pick out people who speak out against Obama. I believe that they will be collecting information that is anywhere on said sites, not just on the WH pages. That is most likely the reason for the confidentiality clause in the contract. The WH intends to collect more information that it says it will (even the info it says it wants to collect is unconstitutional), and they don't want people to look at records and discover just what has been collected. It's the only thing that makes sense.

Things are about to get very ugly.

Hat tip The Liberty Sphere

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Carry on Campus

So, I've been thinking for a while about the issue of guns on college campuses. The thought strikes me again recently with my wife starting back to school, which means I am sometimes in the car with her on campus.

Now, according to TN law, I can legally have my gun on campus as long as:
a) I do not leave the car with my gun, or
b) I do not leave my gun in the car without my attendance, and
c) I do not handle my gun while on the campus.

So, a few thoughts about this. First, why is it that I can be trusted almost everywhere in the state, including restaurants that serve alcohol (as long as I don't consume any), but I suddenly become a criminal for wanting to protect myself and my wife on a college campus. That line of thought really goes for anywhere that I am prohibited from carrying, such as the post office. If I walk into a post office with my concealed firearm, go to the counter and be cordial as I always am to the worker, make my purchase and leave peacefully, I am considered a felon. Who did I threaten? Who did I harm that I became (theoretically) a felon? Why do I suddenly become an untrusted individual because I cross a property line.

Along that same line of thought, why am I trusted with the gun inside my car, but I suddenly become a threat if I step out of my car. Ever heard of a drive-by? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the people in those cars are more dangerous than me. You see, I work at a gas station. I see hundreds of idiots daily, and others who cause me great offense, particularly people who are racist or view the government as a savior. Yet for some reason, I don't shoot anyone. Come to think of it, I don't even get the urge to show or draw my weapon. You know why? It's because I carry to deal with threats, nothing else. The only reason I have to draw my weapon is as a deterrence to further violence. Most criminals don't like resistance or a fight, and will run if they see a gun. I pray that if I ever have to draw, I won't have to pull the trigger.

You see, those of us who carry don't have the supposedly itchy trigger-fingers that anti-gunners like to portray us as having. We are the people who would much rather avoid confrontation if at all possible. However, we are not so naive as to believe that the world only has honest, peaceful individuals. We are men and women who stand up to the task of defending ourselves and those we love. It is our responsibility to avoid confrontation where possible, but our right and duty to end violent force through the use of force where avoidance is not possible.

We are not dangerous to those who are peaceful; only to those who are dangerous. That does not change because we step out of our car or step off the sidewalk onto a different property. Disarming us makes the world a more dangerous place for honest, peace-loving people. Gun free zones make the world a safer place for criminals. Wouldn't you rather it be safer for honest peace-lovers and more dangerous for criminals? Or would you rather just roll over onto your back and pee yourself in helplessness against a criminal?

Your call on whether you carry or not, or even support it or not.
Me, I have a family to take care of. That's why I carry.