This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Author: Poetrooper

  • The Sword Hunts…Are Dems the 21st Century Samurais?

    This Internet is such a wonderful teaching device. Everyday my knowledge expands thanks to things I uncover on my own but even more so from that small band of military brothers who daily drop tidbits into my mailbox. Such is how I first learned of the history of the Sword Hunts, a series of repeated transgressions in Japanese history that served to keep that nation in a state of feudalism until the 19th Century.

    The what? The Sword Hunts, a despicable series of mass disarmaments of the people in feudal Japan for precisely the purpose of eliminating them as a threat to tyranny. The most powerful of the Japanese lords knew well that an armed peasantry presented a constant threat in a feudal society where order and good discipline were to be the province of the Samurai or warrior class, who roughly equate to a much more savage version of medieval, European knights. While Teutonic knights, Knights Templars and others of the European knights were frequently indiscriminate in their killing, the Samurai possessed a standing warrant to kill any ordinary Japanese citizen at will for the slightest infraction of rules or show of disrespect. Possession of any weapon of defense was an immediate death warrant.

    And kill them they did because, first, they simply could under existing law, and second because it was so easy for that simple reason that the peasants were forbidden to possess arms. To ensure that the people had no means of defense or retaliation, the rulers of Japan conducted periodic Sword Hunts where all weapons were confiscated from all Japanese but those in the nobility and the Samurai classes. The most effective of these Sword Hunts occurred under the dictate of warlord and imperial regent, Toyotomi Hideyoshi in the 16th century. He so thoroughly disarmed the common people of Japan that they remained helpless, kneeling, head-bowing servants of the ruling class until Commodore Matthew Perry sailed into Uraga Harbor near Edo in 1853 and opened up Japanese culture to western democratic concepts.

    So why all this Japanese history, you ask? Substitute Gun Grab for Sword Hunt and consider that the tyrannical threats to humanity never really change. There have always been and there will always be those self-anointed patricians among us who think they know better than we do as to how our lives should be ordered. One thing these elitists know full well is that it is much easier to impose their version of social order on the rest of us if they and their enforcers are heavily armed while the masses are not. Toyotomi Hideyoshi knew just as assuredly as did Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, that you will never break the people to your yoke as long as they possess arms. Each of those leaders disarmed his people and then proceeded to exterminate hundreds of millions of them who refused to submit.

    Two things Americans should take away from this history lesson: Never ever trust a politician who says, “Trust me;” and more importantly, never ever let him talk you into surrendering your guns no matter how slickly persuasive he may be. Unless, that is, you want, like those several centuries of Japanese peasants, to kneel beside the road with your foreheads touching the ground in abject obeisance as Barack’s Homeland Security Forces patrol your streets.

    Molon labe…

    Crossposted at American Thinker

  • Molon Labe, the Code of Those Born Fighting

    If you are a reader of comments here at American Thinker then you have probably noticed an increasing use of the term molon labe. For those of you unfamiliar with the term and too busy (or too lazy) to look it up, I’ve done it for you. It is a Greek expression first attributed to King Leonidas of Sparta when the Persian invader Xerxes I, prior to the Battle of Thermopylae, demanded that the Spartans lay down their arms and submit to him. Its essential meaning was, “Up yours, pal: come do your worst.” In so many words, it is the Greek equivalent of the response of Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe* of the 101st Airborne Division, who when surrounded at Bastogne, Belgium during WWII, reportedly said, “Nuts!” to a German demand for surrender. Screaming Eagle lore has it that the defiant general’s actual response to the German general was in language unreportable in those more discreet days, “Eff you, Kraut!” Whatever, the unflinching meaning of both statements is abundantly clear:

    “Come on, hoss; take your best shot.”

    According to multiple web sources, molon labe now translates to an unwavering, “Come and take it,” as in Charleton Heston’s defiant challenge at the 2000 NRA convention, “From my cold dead hands.” Considering that the expression, in one form or another, has been quite forcefully and purposefully addressed to would-be tyrants by very strong and admirable men, from Leonidas to Heston, many of us find a sense of oneness with men of such resolve, embracing their defiance and applying it to our own determination to defend our constitutional right to keep and bear protective weaponry free from federal constraints.

    As James Webb has documented in his seminal work, Born Fighting, How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, we Americans out here in fly-over country are not a people ever to be persuaded to surrender our arms. As descendants of those highlanders and frontier mountain settlers who kept weapons close to hand to ensure their survival, America’s largest ethnic group feels a deep ancestral imperative to do the same. No wannabee elitist, utopian pol attempting a socialist Sherman’s March through our national heritage is ever going to change that attitude in these millions of Americans. Many citizens of fly-over America may have no clue as to the meaning of the term molon labe, but the essence of the concept is inherently embodied, and embraced in every fiber of their beings. Dismissed by the liberal coastal elites as bitter clingers to their God and their guns, they are in fact that huge segment of America, both comfortable with and accustomed to, the everyday presence of firearms in their homes and their hands, and most importantly, confident in their ability to use them when threatened by criminals or tyrants. Tens of millions of contemporary Americans are descended from those Scots-Irish highlanders and Appalachian frontiersmen, a people renowned as born fighting. Molon labe may be Greek in its origins but it is thoroughly Scots-Irish in its present-day application.

    Molon labe, Mr. President.

    *General McAuliffe was himself of the Irish Clan McAuliffe

    Crossposted at American Thinker

  • Will Our Rights Be Preserved by Our Sheriffs?

    The Land of Enchantment is a physically beautiful land indeed, yet one with the misfortune to be so traditionally misgoverned by our liberal Democrat majority as to be relegated too frequently to the very lowest rankings of the states when it comes to poverty, education, health, etc. Once in a while, however, we do find something besides our majestic landscapes to be proud of. A statement just issued by the New Mexico Sheriffs’ Association and signed by 29 of 33 county sheriffs, declaring that their oaths of office don’t require them to enforce federal laws they consider unconstitutional, provides New Mexicans with just such a moment. While I’ve read and heard similar statements from individual sheriffs and police chiefs in other states, I‘ve not seen anything comparable from a statewide law enforcement association.

    The Sunday, Jan. 27th, Albuquerque Journal published an article written by Mike Bush of the Mountain View Telegraph quoting several county sheriffs from around the state to the effect that they will refuse to support the President’s attempt to restrict constitutionally protected firearms ownership. The ABQ Sunday article is not posted on their website but there is a link to a Jan. 24th article by the same reporter, Mike Bush, published by the Mountain View Telegraph. The ABQ piece appears to be a fleshed out version of the original and reveals that the Sheriff Dan Houston of Bernalillo County (that’s Albuquerque and the state’s largest metro area) is one of the signers. The Sheriffs’ Association website has posted a press release [.pdf] containing this:

    The undersigned sheriffs of the New Mexico Sheriffs’ Association
    On the issues of gun control
    It is the position of the New Mexico Sheriffs’ Association that we will honor our oath of office
    Which states;
    I [………….] Sheriff of [………..] County, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America, the constitution and laws of the State of New Mexico and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of my office to the best of my abilities, SO HELP ME GOD.

    That pledge is followed by thirty names although the ABQ Journal article says there were only 29 signatories. I am quite pleased that my sheriff’s name is among them. Also noteworthy are the names of several sheriffs from northern, heavily Democrat, areas of the state including the über liberal Santa Fe County. Both news reports also point out that support for enforcing existing laws and tightening the background checking process is widespread among these same sheriffs. They do want to reduce gun violence, just not by denying their constituents their 2d Amendment rights.

    Readers should consider using the action of the NMSA as a catalyst to inspire your own law enforcement leaders to follow suit. Sheriffs in Missouri and Utah have also taken concerted actions so this is a movement that is taking hold. Faced with the reality that any new federal gun control laws could encounter widespread nullification by those very public servants needed to enforce them, this overweening administration might well decide to back away from any such constitutional confrontation. But even if Obama proceeds in his arrogant gun grab, we the people will know we’re not alone in our fight. It seems highly unlikely that any sheriff who signed that pledge is going to permit Eric Holder’s BATF or any other federal agents to disarm the citizens of his county. If that proves not to be, then:

    Molon labe…

    Crossposted at American Thinker

  • Just Who Gets to Call the Shots?

    As liberals have so callously exploited the recent school shooting tragedy to further their mission to disarm Americans, one of their most frequent arguments is, “Who needs ten bullets to shoot Bambi, or a burglar in your bedroom for that matter?” Well, in the case of Bambi, they’re a little closer on target, so to speak. As hunters know, if you miss with the first shot, you’ll be lucky to get off a second before Bambi is long gone. But that may very well not be the case with the burglar in your bedroom.

    In the recent 911-recorded home invasion in Georgia, a housewife defending home and children, emptied her five-round .38 revolver into a determined intruder at near point-blank range; it didn’t even drop him. Though wounded repeatedly, he was able to flee the scene where he was later captured. What if he had chosen to press his attack rather than run? She was out of ammunition and therefore helpless, as were her small children. For those of you unfamiliar with firearms, a .38 revolver is very serious weapon and in most instances five close-up hits should prove sufficient to down your usual criminal thug. However, in this case, they weren’t and that is precisely the point of this writing. Who among our government leaders possesses the prescience to make this call for all the rest of us? Who calls the shots?

    Military annals are replete with accounts of combatants, both our own and enemy, sustaining unbelievable wounds from multiple hits and yet still remaining lethally capable of continuing to kill. If you want to better understand just how much a determined human can withstand without succumbing, read this Medal of Honor citation for my former Army roommate. Count how many times he was wounded and then consider that otherwise, Charley was a very ordinary guy. Likewise, law enforcement agencies all across the country have horror stories about violent criminals displaying superhuman abilities to withstand multiple gunshot wounds or taserings before being subdued or killed.

    So the conundrum is just how many rounds of ammunition are enough to stop a criminal intent on doing harm to you or your loved ones or even just another innocent stranger you choose to defend? What if that perp is high on drugs, such as the notorious bath salts which turn their abusers into berserk, would-be cannibals? Is Dianne Feinstein, all-wise and all-knowingly correct when she pronounces definitively that ten rounds are all anyone ever needs? I wonder how comfortable Senator Feinstein would be with just ten rounds if she had someone like this madman battering down her door screaming, “I’m a eat you!” It took several cops, pepper spray, and six taserings to physically overpower this salts-fueled psychopath. Are you certain that ten bullets be sufficient to stop him if he were coming through your door, Senator? Are you so confident in your knowledge that you’d bet your life on it? Or the possibility of having your face chewed off? What if there were two drug-crazed thugs battering down your door, Senator? Suppose they each were armed with handguns with fifteen or seventeen round magazines (they’re outlaws after all, who live outside your silly laws) and you have only ten rounds, Senator? Does your senatorial diktat now seem so certain, even to your own, highly self-esteemed, senatorial person?

    You see, Senator, it’s the very real potential for scenarios like the above to occur that have the rest of us out here wondering:
    Just why should you and your liberal cronies get to call the shots?

    Crossposted at American Thinker.

  • Panetta is Pandora

    Both written and unwritten rules of land warfare in modern times have long provided a demarcation between combatants and innocents. American troops have traditionally been more observant of that line than some of the forces aligned against us. For the most part though, that term, Women and Children, has long been the line in the sand for the warfighters of most nations. Exceptions abound, that’s true, but for most modern, major militaries, the killing stops when there is no one left but the women and the children.

    How then will that stark line continue to be honored when the United States unilaterally introduces armed female infantry into the battle lines? Our enemies, most certainly, will no longer have any moral proscription against killing fully-armed, professionally-trained and thoroughly-lethal, American, female troops. By putting women on the battlefield as infantry, the US will have erased the line that has held throughout modern times. By placing them in firefights, we will have signaled the rest of the world that the United States now approves the killing of women in combat. Our foolish, politically correct government, with deliberate, liberal intent, will have introduced women into the realm of ground combat, where, by necessity, on the part of our mortal foes, they must be killed, wounded or captured to render them no longer a threat.

    Once the United States of America, under the liberal administration of Barack Obama, has removed the universal and historical proscription and stigma of killing women in war, women will become fair game in any conflict around the planet. And that doesn’t just pertain to those few American women who manage to demonstrate the strength and prowess to qualify as infantry, but all women who have the misfortune to find themselves in an area of armed conflict. Who, in our own forces, will be able to know which women among those in the cities, the villages and the farm huts out there are not armed and dangerous? Will the default judgment not be that they are armed and dangerous? Facing the prospect of female American infantry, are not other nations of the world justified in training and arming their own women to fight the American forces?

    As is so often true of liberals’ social reforms, they haven’t begun to consider the negative outcomes of this political success, such as the possibility that it will nullify the long-standing rule of warfare which has guided warriors of most nations for centuries. By putting American women into frontline combat on the ground, the Obama administration will put all women in the world into the crosshairs of ground combat. To satisfy liberal orthodoxy, the gender-neutral fools of the Democrat Party will have rendered uncountable millions of vulnerable sisters around the world as helpless targets. Not inconsequentially, their American sisters will go in harm’s way as well; for what nation or radical cause cannot now justify an attack on any American woman or group of women as an attack on potential combatants?

    A final thought: we already suffer a high incidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. How high will those rates climb when our male troops begin killing female hostiles as a predictable outgrowth of this policy decision by the Obama Administration? For that matter, how many female infantry, who are traditionally and congenitally supposed to be more sensitive than men, will succumb to PTSD after experiencing the blood and guts of engaging enemy combatants?

    Panetta, you have become Pandora.

    Crossposted at American Thinker.

  • What Difference it Makes…

    “What difference does it make?” Someone on that Senate panel should have responded, Madam Secretary, what a foolish question for a lawyer to ask.” And never forget that Hillary Clinton is a lawyer because you can bet the farm she never has. And as such she knows full well that lawyers make their careers and fortunes on the legal minutiae of cause and effect. Were Hillary acting as legal counsel for a family of one of those deceased navy SEAL’s who died in Benghazi, in a wrongful death suit, she certainly wouldn’t accept a defense argument of, “What difference does it make?” It is difficult to believe that as a lawyer she would have asked that question had she not been coached and prepped to do so for dramatic political effect.

    Her question is also an indefensible and inadequate political response. As a caller to the Rush Limbaugh show gave as examples: what if Nixon had responded to the Watergate charges, “What difference does it make? So a bunch of guys out walking around at night decided to break into Democrat headquarters? So what?” Or, even better, “What if George Bush had responded to the issue of no found WMD’s in Iraq with the same dismissive response?” Do you think the media would have swallowed whole such an indifferent comeback as they’ve done with Hillary?

    The difference it makes Hillary is that there most likely exists tort culpability for wrongful death within the government, whether it’s in your state department or the White House, for those four deaths in Benghazi. And you’d best believe there are going to be far more inquisitive and determined lawyers than you appear to be coming after you and your political cronies. Those fellow barristers aren’t likely to be so easily dismissed as that bunch of fawning senators with:
    “What difference does it make?”

    You can hide behind your sovereign immunity, Hillary, but there are personal injury lawyers out there who know how to pull legal flanking movements on that defense. Whether or not they prevail in court, they will keep your name and your political aspirations in the news between now and 2016.

    And not in a good way…

    Crossposted at American Thinker

  • Johnny

    (With apologies to Mr. Kipling and the British Army)

    Johnny went public with ‘is boasts, an’ ‘ero without fear,
    “Til sudden like the Swifties say, “We got a turncoat ‘ere.”
    The Libs they just ignored ’em, sayin’ “Ah, it’s all a lie!”
    Then Johnny’s outted by their ads an’ to myself says I:

    Oh it’s Johnny this an’ Johnny that, ‘e’s the ‘ero of the day.
    But it’s wait now, Mr. Kerry, what’s that record really say?
    The horns are loudly blowin’ boys as our band begins to play,
    An’ it’s goodbye, Mr. Kerry, as they blow your arse away.

    Johnny goes to Cincinnati sober as a man can be,
    An’ they give ol’ George a “Bravo Lad!” but John no sympathy.
    They give ‘im plain their message, sittin’ silent in the ‘alls,
    That when it comes to fightin’ men, they know oo’s got the balls.

    For it’s Johnny this an’ Johnny that, but wait, he might ‘a lied
    From the platform of his campaign train an’ on the Boston tide.
    His ship is on the tide, my boys, his ship is on the tide,
    An’ it’s plain as day she’s sinkin’ boys, because the turncoat lied.

    Yes Johnny mocked our uniforms that guard you while you sleep.
    He cheapened all our medals throwing his upon that heap;
    An’ rustlin’ up his phony troops, he led them for a bit,
    Until his aspirations and theirs no longer fit.

    Now it’s Johnny this an’ Johnny that, an’ Johnny how’s yer soul,
    In that brave front rank of ‘eroes as our drums begin their roll?
    The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
    An’ they’ll keep right on a rollin’ boys, ’til we chuck ‘im in the hole.

    We make no claim as ‘eroes, nor we aren’t no blackguards too,
    But ‘onorable men an’ warriors fightin’ once agin for you.
    An’ if your ‘ero’s record, our charges soundly taint,
    That’s what we’re tryin’ to tell you blokes, your ‘ero ain’t no saint.

    For it’s Johnny this an’ Johnny that, an’ “Check him out, the Loot!”
    Was ‘e the “Savior of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot?
    Now it’s Johnny’s turn to prove us wrong, an’ make us all out liars,
    By signin’ that one eighty form an’ puttin out the fires.

    Oh it’s Johnny this an’ Johnny that, ‘e’s the ‘ero of the day,
    But it’s hold on, Mr. Kerry, what’s that record really say?
    The horns are loudly blowin’ boys, as our band begins to play,
    “Cheerio, Old Man,” to Johnny and blows his arse away.

    Wednesday, September 01, 2004

  • Should the 2d Amendment have been the 1st?

    No honest debate of any issue can be conducted without both parties agreeing to some basic definitions of terms. And that is precisely what is wrong in the currently heated debate on the matter of gun control. Those who wish to limit the gun ownership rights of Americans read and interpret the constitutional guarantee of the right to bear arms in a very limited way. Let’s look at what the constitution actually says:

    A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Look at that provision in the terms of the times in which it was written. The authors of the constitution were men who had just declared their freedom from an abusive sovereign power and then won that freedom through force of arms. What did the authors of the 2d amendment mean by the term militia? From an excellent discussion of the issue written in the 1990’s:

    Many civil libertarians, uncomfortable with the private possession of firearms, have found the militia prefatory clause of the second amendment a convenient exculpatory clause. The Supreme Court has not dealt directly with the constitutional militia, as opposed to the National Guard, but there is nothing to indicate that the militia, under second amendment analysis, is anything other than the “whole people.” [40]

    The whole people indeed! And what did our founding fathers mean by the term keep and bear arms? In their time, it almost certainly had to carry with it significance not readily apparent to much of our current population. In our War of Independence from Great Britain, many if not most of the arms used against the European forces were provided from local sources, even cannon and mortar, those coming from local militia. The arms borne by individual soldiers were, for the most part, self-provided, at least in the early stages of the war.

    So when the founding fathers included language in our constitution guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms, do you not suppose that they most likely meant that guarantee to mean the ability to fight back on terms and weaponry of the times when such conflict occurred? Did they not mean that the people reserved that right in the possibility that future events would necessitate the use of such arms as ongoing weapons development provided to once again overthrow tyranny?

    They granted us, the people, the right to keep and bear arms. Those who wish to constrain that right frequently use the very lame argument that the 2d Amendment allows us this freedom to maintain arms for hunting purposes only. That is the anti-gun lobby’s most frequent argument when attempting to deny American citizens the right to possess semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. The failure of their argument is that the constitutional grant of power to the people says nothing whatsoever about hunting. Further, the very term “bear arms” carries with it a definition that has nothing to do with hunting. Here’s what we find at Dictionary.com. Do you see there any reference to hunting?

    The reason for that is clear: The founding fathers, in the preparation of the principles which would ensure the continuance of the democratic experiment they had put into operation, weren’t concerned with the then everyday practice of provisional hunting, they were determined to preserve their political accomplishments and protect them from future threats of tyranny. They gave us, in the form of the 2d Amendment, the right to defend all those other freedoms they had bestowed on us through that remarkable document spelling out our human rights. They knew, better than most, that the right to keep and bear arms was the bedrock freedom of the rest of those freedoms so clearly set out in that Bill of Rights. Without the implied protection of force of arms, those other rights are just so much wishful thinking, mere ink upon paper.

    Those who would disarm us to meet their feel-good need to eliminate murderous atrocities from society say we have no need of weapons capable of firing thirty rounds. Think for a moment what the founding fathers might think about that should they somehow learn that the people are now facing a standing federal army with weapons of far greater lethality than a simple semi-automatic rifle with a thirty round magazine. Don’t you suppose that the founding fathers were familiar with the concept of parity of arms? Considering what they had just been through in fighting for their independence, don’t you suppose they understood that concept very clearly and that their experiences in opposing the standing army of Great Britain may have very well been the primary reason for the 2d Amendment and its placement in the Bill of Rights as the only right secondary to that of the freedom of speech? Is it too farfetched to believe that those who founded this nation and put in place our guiding documents would not want to see the citizenry, that is, we the people, to at least be so well-armed as to prevent the rise of a tyrannical central government that would negate the rights they, the founding fathers, bestowed upon us? Where I believe those brilliant, inspired founders may have erred though, is in making the 2d Amendment second, rather than first, where their intent would have been crystal clear and unmistakable to posterity. And may I suggest that the primary placement of free speech was likely due to the prevalence of lawyers among them, men more accustomed to fighting with words than arms?

    Whatever, by their placement of the right to bear arms as the 2d article in the Bill of Rights, we can reasonably assume that they were making a clear statement of their strong belief that the democratic republic with which they endowed us can only be preserved through a well-armed militia, a citizenry, a general public, well-armed to sufficient extent as to overthrow a tyrannical, central government.