A Response To A Nameless Coward

A couple of weeks ago I downloaded the following image from No Moss Here the Tumbr site of Mark Urbin:

Quite frankly I would have to hold this individual (I was tempted to deliberately misspell the word) who wrote the note in absolute contempt.

Would this nameless coward actually be bothered to leave a similar note for an open National Socialist, a Soviet Communist, or a member of the Islamic State?  There is no question that these organizations and their ideologies are deadly to Human Life and have no place in a Human Society.  But this (I was tempted to say moron, but that’s an insult to actual morons) has to whine about a Life Member of the National Rifle Association.  The NRA are in fact are the absolutely the last people on Earth with the desire to cause harm to another Human life.

Of course not.

The fact is that in a free nation such as the United States of America the ownership and safe usage of the personal firearm is a moral and political obligation.  The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 for the very purpose of transmitting this knowledge to the newly liberated slaves and their children in the former states of The Confederacy.  The purpose of the individual ownership of firearms in a free society is to uphold and defend the Individual Rights of Life and Liberty.  In no way can such actions be rationally identified as insane.

The nameless coward also claims to be speaking for God and the Children.

Really?

No.

An attribute of God is that he can speak for himself so anyone who claims to be speaking for him is simply generating noise.  Furthermore the Christians I do know are proper citizens of this nation are properly armed as such.   And the claim that this individual is acting to protect the children is pure nonsense.  A Life Member of the NRA is in fact setting a positive example for all children.

The nameless coward is nothing but a source of noise.

A Suggestion

This was a piece submitted the the original dead tree version of The Resister.

LET'S MAKE A DEAL?

After months (or more likely years) of fighting, the beltway brigands declare that they are seeking a negotiated settlement to the Second Civil War.  After they make the usual noises about "power sharing" arrangements, etc., etc., the head of our delegation answers thus:
       

What we want from you Bill is this; You and your underlings will formally resign from office , you will surrender all claims of authority over the citizens and territory of the United States,   you will go into exile, and under no circumstances will you establish or support the establishment of a quote, government in exile, close quote.
        

You and your followers will take your offshore bank ATM cards and go. And please take the First Bitch with you.

In effect, the enemy is offered conditional amnesty.

The point in favor of such a deal is that we cut our own losses in blood
and treasure.

 The points against are, firstly, while the deal is expedient, it is fundamentally unjust. The individuals responsible for the subjugation and slaughter of American citizens (the Waco massacre, etc.) are basically getting away scot-free.

The second point against it is that it is contrary to the nature of the beast we are facing. Although the deal allows the enemy to take their loot with them, plunder (on the part of the leadership) was not their primary goal, unrestrained power over us is. The apparent governing principle of (to name an example) Clinton's behavior in public office is L'Etat cest Moi, literally; "The State, that's Me". The leader is held to be synonymous with the state, opposition to malfeasance on the part of the leader is treated as anti-government hatred, in effect as nothing less than treason. Clinton's consistent answer to criticism of his actions has been to defame his victim's and his critics, and to demand silence and obedience regardless of the consequences to his subjects.  

The statist leader refuses to be subject to any legal restraints, nor does he pay heed to any superior authority. His victims, those persons who are to be subjected to his whims must be silenced and disarmed. This is nothing new, the military arm, be it a sword, a pike or a firearm, is the symbol and instrument of political authority. The citizens of a free nation, armed and
ready to defend their lives and liberties, have a commanding voice, which a politician may ignore only at his peril. Augustus Caesar understood this when he depoliticized the citizen body of the Roman Republic by replacing the citizen militia based army of the republic with a mercenary force loyal to himself.

 If presented with a "take the money and run" deal, a power addict would very likely refuse to accept. I would not be surprised if Bill Clinton, following the example of such statist trash as Adolf Hitler and Salvador Allende, ultimately ends up taking the final exit while cowering in a final redoubt.

 As much as each of us may prefer otherwise, the coming struggle is certain to be a long, bloody, fight to the death.

R. Hemmerding

This still applies to the current occupant of the White House.