When I piss off Pascal, he can write like a mother.
Copy/pasted directly from this morning’s missive from him:
UPDATE: P comments to explain that this was from TrueblueNZ and that his email lost the link, so I’ll just link to the original article out of respect’s sake, Redbaiter is by no means a slouch and I will always give creditwhere credit is due.
I wish I could disagree with him. I wish I could find something wrong in what he said. I wish I wasn’t surrounded by those same indoctrinated amoral morons.
I wish.
27 comments Og | Uncategorized
It will be interesting to watch what happens to a nation that prides itself on gun ownership when it goes down the communist path. Will we be like Germany, a nation full of willing accomplices? Or will the secret police enforcers roll out every night fearing for their own lives?
I too, being a student of history, make no bets on the latter.
The thing is, if they just announced tomorrow that they were rounding up all [insert ideology/race/whatever here], there would be violence in the street the likes of which have not been seen for 150 years.
So they’re not going to do it that way.
We’re winning battles in the pro-gun war. They’re looking at the overall picture. We point to advances in concealed carry nationwide. They phase out all mention of firearms in popular culture (i.e. Yosemite Sam no longer carries six shooters).
We point to the AWB fading into oblivion. They laugh as schools are shut down over a single casing.
We note with pride that Ruger is now offering 20+ round magazines as a sign the company is moving beyond the “no honest man needs more than 10 rounds” mentality. They close public land to shooting under environmental reasons.
They’re taking the long view. In a generation or two, shooters will be as rare as smokers – and about as tolerated.
Couple that with another generation or two of public school indoctrination, and gun ownership will plummet. Bill after bill is introduced to raise the age at which one can hunt – what possible reason could there be other than to keep children from developing a basic understanding of the firearm as tool rather than evil deodand?
I see it ending with a whimper, not a bang – we’ll be herded into the cars via fiat, not at riflepoint.
Oh, horseshit. We had wackos on the Right who said that Clinton would declare martial law and try to retain power indefinitely, and we had wackos on the Left who said the same thing about Bush and/or Cheney. If Obama loses the election he’ll leave office on the appointed day, no doubt grumbling and blaming it on everyone but himself, and if he wins we’ll be rid of him in ’16. Just take a deep breath, go for a walk, and enjoy fall. Reading too much political news and blogging skews your perspective.
“Reading too much political news and blogging skews your perspective.”
Sure. Don’t mind that slope, it’s very gradual, and if you slip down it a little, why, you’re still very close to where you were.
I’ll happily put money on it, Og. $100 says there will be no declaration of martial law by Obama or the federal government between now and Inauguration Day 2013, that Obama will leave office peacefully on that day if he is defeated, and that if he is elected to a second term it will not be by Chicago-style corrupt political practices.
Of course, if you’re correct in your assessment bear in mind that I may not survive the Revolution so that you can collect.
I also agree that Obama will leave office when his term expires. And I believe in his final month in office he will loot the treasury like it has never been looted before. He will have every federal agency broadening its reach by fiat and then leaving the next administration to try to pick up the pieces with an empty budget.
But there will definitely be corrupt Chicago-style shannannigans on election day. This is a given since there are always such things. That is why modern Republican have to win by more than the margin of fraud.
I’m not so sure history will repeat exactly like this.
1) The OWS crowd has a lot to lose. They are not as nearly bad off as their rhetoric states. They are not the starving peasants from the country side of Russia or China. They are much more likely to fold and go crying home to mommy and daddy, or back to school when the bell rings than offer any kind of effective, organized resistance. The behavior I observed doesn’t like what I’m seeing in Europe or the ME.
2) The US military, as bad a shape as you might think it is in, has very unique cultural and sociopolitical heritage and historical context which will likely have a different reaction to an attempt at marxist revolution than their counterparts in other countries and eras.
3) The embedded nationalist, survivalist, heavily armed resistance is likely IMAO more prevalent, perpared and hunkered down with longer termed planning than is readily apparent.
Holy Sh+!
This is NOT MY writing. It’s Redbaiter’s “The Killing Fields Of America”
My email dropped the damn link. http://truebluenz.com/2011/10/12/the-killing-fields-of-america/
I should be blessed with the clarity of mind to write as half as clearly and to the point as he does.
I sent it to you cuz I figured you’d like it. Well, at least I got that part right.
Like it? Talk about red meat in a dogs bowl.
I would have to agree with the writer. We are seeing the culmination of years of marxist training.
I only hope it will end well, but I am prepared for the worst.
Robert: i think the piece makes it very clear that this is a dry run, and not the actual event:
“What is happening in America today is a forerunner to the Marxist plan as it has been carried out throughout modern history.”
No. I don’t think this is going to happen in 2012. But I think we’ve shown precisely how it CAN happen,and the left is observing how people react very carefully.
next time, it won’t be a dry run.
Good link and very good synopsis of the situation and possibilities.
“…and that if he is elected to a second term it will not be by Chicago-style corrupt political practices.”
Come now, Robert. There was plenty of evidence of “Chicago-style” politics when he got elected the first time. In fact, “Chicago-style” politics have been present, at every election I’ve monitored (since JFK’s), to help elect Democrats to the White House. What is there to indicate that this baseline practice for the Dems will end in time for our next election?
You’ve already lost the bet, Robert.
Rivrdog,
Didn’t Joe, Sr state that he would buy JFK his election, he just wouldn’t pay for a landslide?
My ex’s family are refugees from the Baltic region. They survived the Nazis and then the Russians, only by fleeing the advance of the Red Army at the end of WWII. Much of their family perished in the camps and gulags.
The rhetoric eminating from the Democrat Party is making them nervous.
They’ve seen this movie before.
Comment of the day, Don. God bless your ex’s folks, and i hope they never have to run again.
@Rivrdog: Obama won in 2008 beyond the margin of cheating. I’m not betting that cheating will or will not be present, but that the margin of victory in 2012 will be such that cheating is not a factor.
“beyond the margin of cheating”
That depends a lot on what you mean by cheating. Do you consider using the whole of the mainstream media as a propaganda tool to carry water for your campaign cheating? if not then, no, he didnt cheat.
Sure, the democrats did not cheat, nor do they continue to cheat.
I have some really nice ground for sale too. There might be a little water problem, but that only happens when it rains, and how often does that really happen?
Bah, all the Democrats need to be run out of town on a rail. They lost the civil war so they just need to sit down and shut up.
Massa does not know best.
@Og: having the media as your bootlicking lackeys isn’t cheating, it’s just the way US politics works. As Ambrose Bierce said, “Endeavor to see things as they are, not as you wish them to be.”
“@Og: having the media as your bootlicking lackeys isn’t cheating, it’s just the way US politics works”
OK. Then I don’t care about the US turning into a socialist shithole, because that’s just the way things are.
NOT.
The entire point of the original post and the discussion is that the way things are is not acceptable
Even if there was not enough “cheating” to be of any major concern in the 2008 election, (and I find that very hard to believe, given the amount of voter fraud even the MSM couldn’t completely cover up) there is more than enough evidence to suggest the current resident in chief was never properly vetted. The media used to have, and take some pride in, informing the people about any given candidate. What was his record, history, stances on any given issue … spots and all. And yes, they would be biased. There were, however, enough media voices on both sides as to allow for any candidate to be vetted by one paper or another.
Where the real “cheating” went on, was back when Obama ran for the Senate seat in Illinois. Once he got that, the machine took over, and it was Katey bar the door. That the race card was able to be played on a national level, allowing for better than 90% of blacks to vote for him, and at the same time getting 100% of the white guilt vote, probably did as much if not more in getting him into office as any major act of cheating would have. (Not that they didn’t cheat, but it perhaps would not have made as big a difference, at the national level, in this case.)
So we’re all agreed, then.
If cheating is defined as subverting integrity in the elections process, Obama won by cheating.
We’re agreed also: no one can name a pol since Eisenhower who DIDN’T win by cheating. Reagan, maybe, just maybe.
Too much cheating. Need Tobacco Road solution: Bring dynamite, bring a crane. Blow it up, start all over again.
and then there was this by Redbaiter only four posts earlier than the one that began this discussion Robert: Massive Obama Electoral Fraud Discovered In Indiana.
And that’s not EVEN in Illinois.
“There were, however, enough media voices on both sides as to allow for any candidate to be vetted by one paper or another. ”
Given that John “Obama is no Marxist damn you” McCain appears to have taken a swan dive that would have gotten a boxer put in prison, what exactly does “media voices on both sides” mean?
Pascal, I was referring to the days when you had 4 or 5 daily papers (in Chicago, for example), of which, any would be on one particular “political side”. One might be Democrat, one Republican, one out and out Socialist, and the other a plain old fashion muck racker.
At the end of the day, you could always count on one to bring up all the dirt on any given candidate. The “job” of the citizen was to pick up a couple of these “dailies”, and get said information. After doing so, you could at least arrive at something close to the truth regarding any one of them.
For example, back in the 60’s if you wanted to read about the “evils” of the (old man, not junior) Daley administration/Chicago political machine, you need go no further than the Chicago Tribune. If you wanted to read about all Daley’s “positive” efforts to improve the city and its peoples lives and livelihood, you would be reading the Chicago Sun (later to be called the Sun-Times).
Now both papers are little more than pablum. The Trib, in its present form and editorial stance, is literally a RINO rag. The Sun-Times, although still the paper to go to for sports, is sounding a bit more libertarian than out and out Democratic Party. But I could be off on that. They did criticize the Daley (junior) administration on occasion, which would never have been done 20 or 30 years ago. And neither one will dish the dirt if it is deemed to be politically incorrect to do so. IKass on the Tribune, may be an exception to some degree, but he won’t be around forever.)
My question “what exactly does media voices on both sides mean?†was rhetorical. :)
I understood you Guy. What I took the opportunity of your comment to do was to focus once again on the lack of a side that represents me (and I presume you).
The “two” political sides are now collectivist slow and collectivist fast. Being given the “right” to choose either the frying pan or the fire is not my idea of satisfactory alternatives. [Insert understatement emoticon here] YMMV. :0
I agree.
‘And I guess it is asking too much to have members of both houses, and ANY administration (regardless of party affiliation), adhiere to the Constitution as written.
*Sigh* … yeah I know, and I still believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy.