PRESIDENT TRUMP!

[cstone]

Mine did, when they realized that I was serious. You don't work, you don't eat.

No soup kitchens in your neck of the prairie?

[CS1983]

No, I served and fought so that people can have free and open thoughts and the ability to express their thoughts without having to worry about being jailed or killed for having ideas different from those in power. One thing I'd hate to see is a university campus become our Tiananmen Square complete with pics of an Abrams tank is about to roll over a protester.

Well, that's not very historically or etymologically accurate of you.

I've posted this before, and I guess I'll have to post it again, on True Freedom:

...

True freedom, the freedom that liberates, is grounded in truth and ordered to truth and, therefore, to virtue. A free person is enslaved neither to the sheer will of another nor to his own appetites and passions. A free person lives uprightly, fulfilling his obligations to family, community, nation and God. By contrast, a person given over to his appetites and passions, a person who scoffs at truth and chooses to live, whether openly or secretly, in defiance of the moral law is not free. He is simply a different kind of slave.

The counterfeit of freedom consists in the idea of personal and communal liberation from morality, responsibility and truth. It is what our nation’s founders expressly distinguished from liberty and condemned as “license.” The so-called freedom celebrated today by so many of our opinion-shaping elites in education, entertainment and the media is simply the license to do whatever one pleases. This false conception of freedom – false because disordered, disordered because detached from moral truth and civic responsibility – shackles those in its grip no less powerfully than did the chattel slavery of old. Enslavement to one’s own appetites and passions is no less brutal a form of bondage for being a slavery of the soul. It is no less tragic, indeed, it is in certain respects immeasurably more tragic, for being self-imposed. It is ironic, is it not, that people who celebrate slavery to appetite and passion call this bondage “freedom”?

Counterfeit freedom is worse than fraudulent. It is the mortal enemy of the real thing. Counterfeit freedom can provide no rational account or defense of its own normative claims. It speaks the language of rights, but in abandoning the ground of moral duty it provides no rational basis for anyone to respect the rights of others or to demand of others respect for one’s own rights. Rights without duties are meaningless. Where moral truth as the ground of duties is thrown overboard, the language of rights is so much idle chatter fit only for Hollywood cocktail parties and faculty lounges. Hadley Arkes, the great contemporary theorist of natural rights, has observed in relation to the movement for unfettered abortion that those who demand liberation from the moral law have talked themselves out of the moral premises of their own rights and liberties. If freedom is to be honored and respected, it must be because human freedom is what is required by the laws of nature and nature’s God; it cannot be because there are no laws of nature and there is no God.

The Danger of License

But counterfeit freedom poses greater dangers still. As our founders warned, a people given over to license will be incapable of sustaining republican government. For republican government – government by the people – requires a people who are prepared to take responsibility for the common good, including the preservation of the conditions of liberty.

Listen again to President Fairfield, speaking words at that ceremony on July 4, 1853, that are, if anything, still more urgent today:

Unrestrained freedom is anarchy. Restrained only by force and arms, is despotism; self-restrained is Republicanism. Wherever there is wanted the intelligence and virtue requisite for [self-restraint], Republicanism expires.

Slaves to appetite and passion, wanting in the understanding and virtue requisite for self-government, will surely lose it. They will look not to themselves but to government to provide for the satisfaction of their desires. Where counterfeit freedom prevails, the republican principle of limited government is inevitably sacrificed as people surrender personal and, ultimately, political liberty to whatever power promises to protect them from predation and supply the appeasement of their appetites. People are reduced from citizens to subjects to slaves. They trade their birthright of freedom for a mess of pottage. Yet, so long as the big-government-provided pottage functions as a suitable narcotic, they imagine themselves free.
...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ne...3/posts?page=6

That you would then define freedom as its counterfeit, license, shows that you have an ill-conceived notion of freedom. To be frank, that's not a black mark on you personally as we have been socially conditioned to such a notion. As Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote, "The problem isn't that Johnny doesn't know how to read, the problem is that Johnny doesn't know how to think."

You can be sure that Chesty Puller didn't do what he did so snot-nosed little brats on some college campus could echo the propaganda he lost good Marines in fighting. You can also be very sure didn't do what he did so they could get into positions of power and bring the red tide to American shores as if a spring welling when struck with the Little Red Book. And you can be very, very sure he did not do what he did so that once in positions of power, they could eviscerate the Constitution and force Americans to submit to the same tyranny he and his Marines fought.

As per the moral issues, leaving aside the mere socio-political ones, is Oleg Atbashian crazy when he outlines in his book "Shakedown Socialism" how the Unions here do exactly what they did in his then native USSR both prior to the its formation and after? Is former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov crazy when he specifically says that the KGB waged a war on morality through Hollywood and other means in order to rip apart American society? What about Bella Dodd who testified before Congress that she was personally responsible for recruiting 1000 communists and homosexuals to enter Catholic seminaries in order to destroy the Church in America? There's a reason Vladimir Putin wields a heavy whip on groups like "Pussy Riot" -- as a former KGB agent he understands the detriment such moral laxity and free reign of all precious thoughts do to a society.

Col. Mike Mullane, former NASA astronaut, has a presentation titled "The Normalization of Deviance". In it, he discusses the process of deviance from a baseline standard of success becoming normalized. The example he uses to outline the titular concept revolves around the Challenger Disaster. First, the engineers told NASA if they EVER see anything wrong with the o-rings on the solid rocket boosters to IMMEDIATELY ground all flights until they can fix the issue because it would result in a catastrophic event. Second, pressure to perform as a program saw them ignore some small problems with booster o-rings after recovery. NASA did not ground all flights immediately, because hey, no catastrophe right? So this kept occuring until 7 lives, trusting in the authority of the entire NASA history of success, got blown the hell up thousands of feet above Cape Canaveral. All they had to do was return to the baseline as demanded by the engineers, and 7 people would have retained life.

As a nation, we had a baseline of morality founded in Natural Law. We even had a social baseline founded largely on Divine, Revealed Law for most of our history -- even if not at the organizational level and not totally as revealed. Simple things like "don't murder children in utero", "two people of the same sex engaging in physical relations are wrong", "enemies of the people are to be dealt with", etc. When we moved from the baseline, we moved towards disaster. Now, imagine if after a bunch of successful flights with o-ring malfunction/cracking/etc., we suddenly said, "Wait, ground all flights, this is deviating from baseline." It would have been hard to explain. Astronauts might have lost trust in NASA for not following the rules all those other flights, the people of the nation would have struggled to understand, Reagan's great idea about really showing up those commie bastards in Russia would have been imperiled, etc. So we normalized deviance and killed 7 people.

Suggesting we return to a baseline is indeed hard. Especially after we have not only normalized deviance, but have experienced catastrophe after catastrophe in the moral and social sphere. We've not only normalized deviance, we have enshrined it and raised it up on high.

We go from letting "their private business" be "their" business in plain public sight, i.e., gay bars, to men in chaps, glitter, and not much else parade around the streets. Our DOD even celebrates that crap in the month of June. God help you if you live in some place like San Francisco or Portland and express disgust at their unnatural behaviors.

We go from the idea of a woman being allowed to murder her child in utero under the mask of language conveying it as a blob of tissue (something no self-respecting medical professional would claim these days), in the context of her own mortality, rape or incest, to over 50 million children slaughtered out of mere convenience -- now THAT is something Chairman Mao, Hitler, and Stalin would have wet themselves over -- that the very people they wished to exterminate would do it to their own progeny.

We go from the idea of "well, we can't just lock up people with different ideas" to almost letting a student of Saul Alinsky, who dedicated a work to the Devil (Lucifer), enter the White House for the 2nd time (Obama being the first).

We go from "well, who really NEEDS machine guns or silencers anyway? Let them pay a tax so it can be investigated" to wondering if we'll even be allowed to own guns in a few years. And friend, make no mistake, we here are all on a list -- some of us, myself included, no doubt reside on multiple lists.

In my list I noted the repeal of NFA, etc. Doesn't it strike you as a little incongruous that if I wished for a simple majority rule that I would allow the enemy the ability to have such arms, with which to defend themselves against such a potential as becoming the Made in America version of Tank Man? However, when someone puts a gun to your head and says they're going to kill you, "Well, let's hear em out!" is a bit moronic. Should NAMBLA be allowed to express its point of view on pedophilia? Should Islam be allowed to set up shop to form its own "ISUS" movement, and nothing done until they actually do the things they say they will do? It's too late at that point. You can't un-blow up the Challenger.

So, if you served in the military in order to allow the licensing of vice, the destruction of America, and the dignity of your fellow citizens to be imperiled, I dare say great Americans like Chesty Puller would be unimpressed. I know the Founding Fathers sure would be.

[Joe_K]

Excellent points CavSct 83'.

My only fear with your perspective is that the .gov may not only view Communism, Islam, Moral Deviance, and Nazism to be labeled as Sedition and enemies of the State, but also other perspectives that even you might view as different but not dangerous. Man as a species is weak willed, hypocritical, and easily bought off.

Someone, not sure if it was you, brought up Senator Joe McCarthy who was a braggard and a liar that used the fear of the people of Communism to attempt to propel his own political career.

The government has undoubtedly gone off the deep left end of things and will take drastic steps to bring out of that abyss, but I would not want to see the United States go to the other extreme and become a Christian version of ISIS, not that I believe thats what you are advocating for.



Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi

[roberth]

Excellent points CavSct 83'.

My only fear with your perspective is that the .gov may not only view Communism, Islam, Moral Deviance, and Nazism to be labeled as Sedition and enemies of the State, but also other perspectives that even you might view as different but not dangerous. Man as a species is weak willed, hypocritical, and easily bought off.

Someone, not sure if it was you, brought up Senator Joe McCarthy who was a braggard and a liar that used the fear of the people of Communism to attempt to propel his own political career.

The government has undoubtedly gone off the deep left end of things and will take drastic steps to bring out of that abyss, but I would not want to see the United States go to the other extreme and become a Christian version of ISIS, not that I believe thats what you are advocating for.



Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi

Yes, there some good points in there but they are overshadowed by the authoritarian statism from the right which is no better than the statism offered by obama and the clintons.

[Bailey Guns]

I agree with a lot of what CavSct wrote. I've felt that way for most of my adult life, as far back as I can remember. I've just never been able to articulate it. I think this is what I've always meant by saying we're losing our traditional, American values.

[buffalobo]

No soup kitchens in your neck of the prairie?

Only the one run by Mrs bo and she won't work for free.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Skip]

I agree with a lot of what CavSct wrote. I've felt that way for most of my adult life, as far back as I can remember. I've just never been able to articulate it. I think this is what I've always meant by saying we're losing our traditional, American values.

Yes.

And that what I've tried to articulate as well. As brilliant as our model was, and the Constitution which defined it, it only genuinely works with some level of shared values. We can always bicker over the details but there has to be agreement on the fundamental issues for experiment to work.

[DireWolf]

It would be framed as McCarthyism (even Soros a US citizen?) and then worse. Look at the uproar over Clinton losing (she's a traitor).

A better solution...

Black Dallas Cop Sues Black Lives Matter, Soros for Inciting Race War

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/09/16/black-dallas-cop-sues-black-lives-matter-soros-inciting-race-war/



This could have some teeth.

Absent that I think any other solutions involve much nastiness.

That perception (fully assisted by corrupt MSM) would undoubtedly be presented, but I say so what?

The way I figure, a large percentage of those who would perceive that in the most negative way are already lost causes for the most part and will remain as either active seditionists or passive commie supporters until they're no longer inflicting us with their existence (the latter could just wake up or GTFO and there would be no issue), are fully irrelevant except for consideration as traitors, seditionists, and potential enemy combatants, and in some cases very likely deserve their own personal appointment with the hangman...(there will also be some more rational disagreement, but that's just the way things are, and not a bad thing).

Also, for someone like Soros, I can't imaging a $500M fine being a critical setback, not when these people are up or down a billion dollars on any given day based on the market...

So, Prepare the case and full list of charges, live press conference to present to the world, and after reading the charges/condemnation, add in a live sat/bomber feed and incinerate their mansions/compounds/aircraft/etc. on live global TV. Wherever they are...period. and a follow-up message that we're done fucking around and that actively working to destroy our nation and incite global wars will carry the ultimate penalty, regardless of where or who they are.

Remember, it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

Well, that's not very historically or etymologically accurate of you.

I've posted this before, and I guess I'll have to post it again, on True Freedom:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ne...3/posts?page=6

That you would then define freedom as its counterfeit, license, shows that you have an ill-conceived notion of freedom. To be frank, that's not a black mark on you personally as we have been socially conditioned to such a notion. As Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote, "The problem isn't that Johnny doesn't know how to read, the problem is that Johnny doesn't know how to think."

You can be sure that Chesty Puller didn't do what he did so snot-nosed little brats on some college campus could echo the propaganda he lost good Marines in fighting. You can also be very sure didn't do what he did so they could get into positions of power and bring the red tide to American shores as if a spring welling when struck with the Little Red Book. And you can be very, very sure he did not do what he did so that once in positions of power, they could eviscerate the Constitution and force Americans to submit to the same tyranny he and his Marines fought.

As per the moral issues, leaving aside the mere socio-political ones, is Oleg Atbashian crazy when he outlines in his book "Shakedown Socialism" how the Unions here do exactly what they did in his then native USSR both prior to the its formation and after? Is former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov crazy when he specifically says that the KGB waged a war on morality through Hollywood and other means in order to rip apart American society? What about Bella Dodd who testified before Congress that she was personally responsible for recruiting 1000 communists and homosexuals to enter Catholic seminaries in order to destroy the Church in America? There's a reason Vladimir Putin wields a heavy whip on groups like "Pussy Riot" -- as a former KGB agent he understands the detriment such moral laxity and free reign of all precious thoughts do to a society.

Col. Mike Mullane, former NASA astronaut, has a presentation titled "The Normalization of Deviance". In it, he discusses the process of deviance from a baseline standard of success becoming normalized. The example he uses to outline the titular concept revolves around the Challenger Disaster. First, the engineers told NASA if they EVER see anything wrong with the o-rings on the solid rocket boosters to IMMEDIATELY ground all flights until they can fix the issue because it would result in a catastrophic event. Second, pressure to perform as a program saw them ignore some small problems with booster o-rings after recovery. NASA did not ground all flights immediately, because hey, no catastrophe right? So this kept occuring until 7 lives, trusting in the authority of the entire NASA history of success, got blown the hell up thousands of feet above Cape Canaveral. All they had to do was return to the baseline as demanded by the engineers, and 7 people would have retained life.

As a nation, we had a baseline of morality founded in Natural Law. We even had a social baseline founded largely on Divine, Revealed Law for most of our history -- even if not at the organizational level and not totally as revealed. Simple things like "don't murder children in utero", "two people of the same sex engaging in physical relations are wrong", "enemies of the people are to be dealt with", etc. When we moved from the baseline, we moved towards disaster. Now, imagine if after a bunch of successful flights with o-ring malfunction/cracking/etc., we suddenly said, "Wait, ground all flights, this is deviating from baseline." It would have been hard to explain. Astronauts might have lost trust in NASA for not following the rules all those other flights, the people of the nation would have struggled to understand, Reagan's great idea about really showing up those commie bastards in Russia would have been imperiled, etc. So we normalized deviance and killed 7 people.

Suggesting we return to a baseline is indeed hard. Especially after we have not only normalized deviance, but have experienced catastrophe after catastrophe in the moral and social sphere. We've not only normalized deviance, we have enshrined it and raised it up on high.

We go from letting "their private business" be "their" business in plain public sight, i.e., gay bars, to men in chaps, glitter, and not much else parade around the streets. Our DOD even celebrates that crap in the month of June. God help you if you live in some place like San Francisco or Portland and express disgust at their unnatural behaviors.

We go from the idea of a woman being allowed to murder her child in utero under the mask of language conveying it as a blob of tissue (something no self-respecting medical professional would claim these days), in the context of her own mortality, rape or incest, to over 50 million children slaughtered out of mere convenience -- now THAT is something Chairman Mao, Hitler, and Stalin would have wet themselves over -- that the very people they wished to exterminate would do it to their own progeny.

We go from the idea of "well, we can't just lock up people with different ideas" to almost letting a student of Saul Alinsky, who dedicated a work to the Devil (Lucifer), enter the White House for the 2nd time (Obama being the first).

We go from "well, who really NEEDS machine guns or silencers anyway? Let them pay a tax so it can be investigated" to wondering if we'll even be allowed to own guns in a few years. And friend, make no mistake, we here are all on a list -- some of us, myself included, no doubt reside on multiple lists.

In my list I noted the repeal of NFA, etc. Doesn't it strike you as a little incongruous that if I wished for a simple majority rule that I would allow the enemy the ability to have such arms, with which to defend themselves against such a potential as becoming the Made in America version of Tank Man? However, when someone puts a gun to your head and says they're going to kill you, "Well, let's hear em out!" is a bit moronic. Should NAMBLA be allowed to express its point of view on pedophilia? Should Islam be allowed to set up shop to form its own "ISUS" movement, and nothing done until they actually do the things they say they will do? It's too late at that point. You can't un-blow up the Challenger.

So, if you served in the military in order to allow the licensing of vice, the destruction of America, and the dignity of your fellow citizens to be imperiled, I dare say great Americans like Chesty Puller would be unimpressed. I know the Founding Fathers sure would be.

I agree with the vast majority of this and your previous posts in-thread, and look at these aspects as the primary considerations for drastic corrective actions which in another time/place may be considered excessive and unpalatable.

These people have attempted (and are still actively working) to destroy us. Success on their part equals misery, death, subjugation, etc. for everyone we know and hold dear. They have acted outside and above the legal system while engaged in these efforts (not to mention twisting and manipulating it from within), and have even used psychological manipulation to poison and co-opt the weak minded and/or overly impressionable (e.g. children, elderly, etc.) within our society to their evil ends. As has been previously stated, this has been going on for a while and the rot (poison) runs deep...

Also, this is not nation-level aggresion/defence which has been common throughout history (for which valid rationals can be presented in some cases). These are truly evil individuals and groups who have placed themselves at odds with the rest of civilized humanity (including their weak minded minions/lemmings who just aren't smart or perceptive enought to realize it).

As such, the responsible principals need to be destroyed without mercy, just like a malignant virus, wherver they are and however it needs to happen (withon reason - the diseased tissue must be excised without killing the body). Just as with many horrible and potentially terminal illnesses, sometimes the remedy isn't something you would ever willingly choose to undertake or accept under any other circumstances - but if the decision is to live and not go quietly into the night, then what was out of the question becomes merely distateful and unpleasant - But, with with it comes the potential promise of continued life....

Finally, I'll just clarify one small point - as has been stated, this is America and that means freedom to express thoughts and opinions without fear of imprisonment, etc., and people have the right to individual thought and to speak their mind, freely associate, etc. Where that crosses the line is when thoughts & words become actions and...when they directly inhibit someone elses natural or legal rights (valid legal rights should be derived/inferred from natural rights), when presented with obvious intent to harm/corrupt at either the individual or society level, or when they are presented by those in power with the full intent to initiate action/sedition (e.g. funding protests, buying off politicians, MSM deliberate misinformation/information warefare, etc). In these cases, corrective action should be decisively applied.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

[Joe_K]

Realistically, how is all of this applied. Supreme court nomination(s) go through, then pass a Bill via congress that declares;
Communist ideaoligy, labor unions, the Democrat party, open homosexual behavior, the religion of islam, and all political campaigning and monetary contributions aside from public donations from individuals as illegal?

I feel like what is being currently discussed deserves its own thread.

Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi

[Gman]

Yes.

And that what I've tried to articulate as well. As brilliant as our model was, and the Constitution which defined it, it only genuinely works with some level of shared values. We can always bicker over the details but there has to be agreement on the fundamental issues for experiment to work.

How critical religion is to the function of democracy (Professor Clay Christensen of the Harvard Business School);