Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    A Dangerous Pivot Happening In White House Narrative Re: 2nd Amendment

    A Dangerous Pivot Happening In White House Narrative Re: 2nd Amendment

    Posted by Darla Dawald, National Director on January 23, 2013 at 11:19pm in Patriot Action Alerts

    From Our Liberty News Network:

    By Eric Odom
    Published: January 23, 2013

    If there is one thing we’ve learned over the past few years, it’s that the Chicago machine that now rules Washington will go to any lengths to get what it wants. It will bully you, push you around and ultimately demonize you in to destruction if that is a requirement for continued power.

    We’ve seen this for five years now. They knew a rich Capitalist who supported the core of Obamacare could be pinned down and kicked in the head until destruction was present. They wanted Romney the whole time, and they got him. Then, they destroyed him.

    Post election we now see Obama’s Chicago machine setting its eyes on conservatism as a whole. It’s no longer about influential individuals who stand in his way. It’s now about half of the nation who stands in his way. And he’s going to demonize us and work towards our ultimate destruction.

    The key here, and the part that most Republicans and conservative “leaders” will miss, is that Obama will accomplish this through crafty use of our language and message marketing 101. You see, their team has already successfully beaten us down with words that project an image we cannot safely oppose (yet).

    Words like progress, forward, fairness, equality, change for instance. The use of these words alone insinuate those who do not embrace them are opposed to them. Are conservatives genuinely trying to create an unfair world? Are we seriously trying to make America unequal? According to half the country, we are. And this is all thanks to the most divisive President in the history of our nation.

    Be warned, friends. Obama’s Chicago machine is about to take it to a whole new level. In his inaugural speech Barack Obama used a plethora of code words. Perhaps our crew will analyze and report on them in the coming days. But until we can, let’s look at one of the most profound words to come out of the day.

    Absolutism: An absolute doctrine, principle, or standard

    The NRA boss picked up on this and had quite a bit to say about it. Wayne LaPierre knows full well this is leading to an epic war surrounding the 2nd Amendment. Those who think Obama’s soft announcement on his “Executive Actions” last week will be the end of it are badly mistaken. Obama has been plans, and they don’t involve him giving up on his effort to weaken, if not completely dismantle the 2nd Amendment.
    Keep in mind that while many of Obama’s actions seem abrupt and surprising for us, he actually performs them in a very methodical manner. Every move is calculated. Every move is carefully crafted as part of a grander scheme. We won’t ever see a press conference with Obama saying he will sign something that destroys the 2nd Amendment in one stroke. He’ll carefully deconstruct it piece by piece over the next four years.

    Obama’s use of the word absolute is telling of his upcoming war of narratives. He’s pivoting to back us into a corner where we are seen as irrational and unable to be fluid in our views. He’s painting himself as a guy who feels pain for victims of violent crime, while we allegedly ignore that pain and immediately raise our firearms in the air with pro-2nd amendment signs in our hands.

    In Obama’s eyes, and the eyes of the loyalists who blindly follow him, Obama is the healer and the rest of us are unfair, regressive, uncaring absolutists.

    In a post-speech press conference White House thug Jay Carney was asked about Obama’s liberalism clearly present in his speech. Carney answered with this.
    CARNEY: I would reject the idea that this was an “ism” speech. This was in fact the opposite of that . . .

    And I hardly think that pursuit of equal rights, pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform, pursuit of sensible policies that deal with climate change and enhance our energy independence are ideological. The only “ism” that was a part of that speech was his rejection of absolutism . . .

    Q Not on behalf of liberalism or progressivism?

    CARNEY: Of course not. It’s on behalf of ideas that represent who we are as Americans. I mean, if you’re suggesting that it’s — I would reject the idea that pursuit of equal rights is a Democratic-only pursuit. Or pursuit of energy legislation that enhances our independence, increases our production of domestic forms of energy and addresses climate change is only a province of liberalism or the Democratic Party. I think — I would hope — I know that Republicans would reject that, too.

    So this is his vision for how we can move together forward.

    Catch that? Obama’s rejection of absolutism? In essence, this is a confession that Obama outright rejects the position of tens of millions, if not over a hundred million Americans that he is bound by oath to represent. So is this President actually “rejecting” potentially half of all American citizens? Is he truly that divisive?

    Obama’s effort to paint the position of rights guaranteed by the Constitution as unacceptable absolutism puts the entire structure of government and the entire conservative movement on notice. The Supreme Court will now think twice before becoming labeled “absolutists.” The House and Senate will cower at TV ads pinning them to the absolutists movement.

    Conservatives need to be thinking of this preemptively. We need to be fully aware this is what lies ahead and have a strategy in place to help side-step the attack and be ready with a counter move. Otherwise we’re going to find ourselves in a dark corner wondering what happened and how we lost it all.

    Read More at Liberty News
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Obama’s Inaugural Address: Second Amendment Obsolete

    President Obama derided the Second Amendment as obsolete in his second inaugural address, claiming that “when times change, so must we” on issues like citizen gun ownership.

    We have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our indivi...dual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias.

    Obama added an explicit reference to the Newtown, Connecticut, massacre. “Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.”

    Obama’s second inaugural address was otherwise designed as largely a Rorschach test of sorts for its listeners; most will hear what they want to hear. In recent years, inaugural speeches have featured only glittering generalities, and Obama’s speech was little different. Obama even threw one sop to the political Right, claiming, “Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.”

    But on both sides of Obama’s perfunctory invocation that — as Bill Clinton once more succinctly stated that “the era of big government is over” — Obama advocated an ever-larger series of broad and vaguely defined government initiatives.

    More Federal Education Spending: “No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.”

    More Federal Infrastructure Spending: “Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.”

    More Federal Social Welfare Spending: “Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.”

    On foreign policy, an area where presidents have greater constitutional flexibility than on fiscal issues, Obama pledged that “a decade of war is now ending” even while he pledged perpetual U.S. military engagement on every corner of the planet. “America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe,” Obama stated while at the same time claiming “enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.”

    Part of America’s engagement means regime change in the furthest reaches of the globe, meddling in those nations’ internal affairs and giving potentially massive transfers of foreign aid. “We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice — not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes.”

    Obama’s second inaugural address included an explicit reference to climate change: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” But, interestingly, his speech omitted reference to the greatest threat to America’s children and future generations: the structural budget deficit and growing national debt. The inaugural address did not contain the words spending, deficit, debt, or budget, and contained no reference to them. The closest reference Obama made to spending was a remark that “we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future,” which implied endless deficit spending.

    Obama's Inaugural Address: Second Amendment Obsolete

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •