Press "Enter" to skip to content

Monday links

This won’t mean much to you unless you’ve been following the collapsing Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case. But if you caught the testimony of the prosecution’s (ahem) “star” witness, this explains a lot …

ObamaDoesntReadCursive

Source.

9 Comments

  1. Pat
    Pat July 1, 2013 5:46 am

    Very interesting interview with Mike Vanderboegh, and somewhat disconcerting – depressing, really. It seems so hopeless if we must always _react_ to the opposition. And yet… I realize that is the nature of defense.

    If only _after_ they have done their dirty work… only _after_ laws or actions have been put into place (and so, won’t be rescinded and can’t be undone), do we get to answer. That will always keep us one step behind.

    Vanderboegh seems to be saying there is _NO positive action_ to take – apart from education and protest (and protest is a negative response). Is this true?

  2. MamaLiberty
    MamaLiberty July 1, 2013 6:35 am

    “Star witness…” Yeah, I’ve heard of people who claim they can’t read their own writing… but this was special. LOL

  3. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau July 1, 2013 11:53 am

    [If only _after_ they have done their dirty work… only _after_ laws or actions have been put into place (and so, won’t be rescinded and can’t be undone), do we get to answer. That will always keep us one step behind.]

    Um, I don’t think that is the message to take from it. Mike is all about warning the ruling class about unintended consequences, after all. That is not reactive.

    Anyway the reactive part is only about the initial actions – “no Fort Sumters”. Once the war is well and truly on there will be plenty of opportunity for initiative.

  4. Pat
    Pat July 1, 2013 5:53 pm

    “Mike is all about warning the ruling class about unintended consequences, after all. That is not reactive.”

    I understand that, if that’s his intent. But it still leaves us with little to take home because as you say, “Once the war is well and truly on there will be plenty of opportunity for initiative.” – and that will be too late.

    My point is, isn’t there any “initiative” available to us, short of starting the war ourselves? Put another way: how can a defensive philosophy fend off an offense?

  5. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau July 1, 2013 6:42 pm

    I guess I’m having trouble understanding your questions. What do you mean “take home”? And why is war “too late”?

    To me, war (along with other related things like threats and maneuver) is endemic to humanity. It’s hardly too late for anything. Yeah, better to convince the aggressors to back off, but if that doesn’t work (as it often does not), it’s not the end of the world.

    As to your generic question at the end, typically defenders have the advantage over aggressors. Not always (Guderian figured out how to beat it) but then defenses evolve to match.

  6. Pat
    Pat July 2, 2013 12:43 am

    I’m talking about what we’re dealing with before the war starts. I’m talking about what, IF ANYTHING, can be done to take the fight to them, without actually fighting. That’s all I was asking about…

    Yes, I know they’re nasty people and we should be ready and willing to fight when the time comes – and I am, and I will – but I’m not foolish enough to WANT war! In the meantime, we are the frog, and they are turning up the heat. How much do we put up with, how many laws and tyrannical actions do you think this country can take before we hear the jackboots for sure?

    As I listened to Vanderboegh, I wasn’t sure what he was saying and was just trying to get a handle on what he meant or – if I understood him correctly – if what he was saying would be effective. Apparently (according to you) I didn’t understand him correctly. Now I do.

    (As for war not being the end of the world – you don’t know that, and now in the 21st Century, I don’t think we should assume that. We certainly get into everyone else’s wars; why shouldn’t other countries – Russia… China… Latin America… the Arab world… or the U.N. – poke their noses into ours? That could lead to three possible scenarios:

    1) The country/world could be blown apart, and somebody gets a chance to start over. But WE, libertarians, won’t be here to guide America in the right direction;

    2) The fed/gov could lose America to a foreign country; or

    3) If the fed/gov happened to win BECAUSE THE ENTIRE COUNTRY FOUGHT AGAINST A COMMON ENEMY, it would bring America together again and back into patriotic line.

    And what would libertarians have gained by that?)

  7. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau July 2, 2013 7:14 am

    Well, outside of widespread use of nukes (which would be the end of the world as far as humans are concerned), I don’t see the dire scenarios you mention as a concern at all. The most likely war by far is between Americans and the federal government, or a replay of the War of Northern Aggression. Nobody is going to invade us. Invasions happen when the rulers in one country figure they can grab the resources of a neighboring country without too much risk to themselves. America is in a strategic position making this highly unlikely. I don’t think Mexico or Canada are much of a threat; and how long do you think a troop carrier from China would last?

    I don’t like the boiling frog analogy. I think it’s more like the federal government poking at a hornet’s nest. Or teasing a badger with a stick.

  8. Logan Fyfe
    Logan Fyfe July 2, 2013 2:25 pm

    Over the Years, since 1776, The 4th of July, the original day of national protest against tyranny, lost its meaning through

    the haze of barbecue and fireworks smoke. With the popular revelation by Snowden of Orwell’s dystopia made manifest, perhaps a renewal of the day’s true meaning will be realized with the numerous protests throughout the nation on the 4th to support the 4th (Amendment).

    An upside down flag American flag is a recognized signal of distress but is better reserved for boating.
    I suggest a new way of expressing a country going the wrong way, or needs turning around would be to fly the flag reversed, not upside down, but switched horizontally attached to the pole along the stripes side with the star field hanging free.

    Only when the republic has been restored, will the flag be reversed.

    One way to wave the flag and lodge a protest at the same time this 4th.

    Let the spirit of ’76 be revived to displace the current dispirit of ’84.

    LF – The Second Founding Society

  9. LarryA
    LarryA July 2, 2013 4:08 pm

    [It seems so hopeless if we must always _react_ to the opposition. And yet… I realize that is the nature of defense.]

    Except that’s not all that’s happening. Yes, a handful of already-anti-gun states have added new insults. But for the first time there’s real pushback, particularly from law enforcement. Colorado was somewhat unexpected, but here again, nearly ALL the sheriffs joining the gun-rights lawsuit?

    Meanwhile, three times as many states (like Texas, where I live) are busy passing gun-rights laws. 86 thousand NRA members (many of them new) showed up for the annual meeting in Houston, a blue city, and the other side couldn’t find more than half-a-dozen protestors. The folks running the Bloomberg Bus are blowing their feet off.

    Next Thursday our local TV News station is hosting an open house on arming teachers, and I’ll be on the panel, representing the Texas Concealed Handgun Association. (Imagine that, even a year ago.) One of the rural school districts near where I live has already authorized teacher carry, and it isn’t the only one in the state.

    I’m getting lots of new shooter students, and they’re coming from demographics we haven’t seen before. (Like the young folks who wear big rings in their ears.) We’re seeing tree-huggers in our Hunter Education classes, since they’ve discovered hunting is green. And women? My CHL classes, through 2011, were about 20% female. In 2012-2013 it’s been over 50%. My last class was 7 women-1 man. My next one is 3-1.

    The times they are a-changin’.

Leave a Reply