This is to anyone who has ever believed the lies advanced by those who advocate for gun control. And the claim that giving up our weapons makes us safer is a lie. Statistics, anecdotal evidence and history all speak to this fact. So I do not wish to debate this point: it has already been settled as a universal truth. Rather, I wish to point to what is happening in Ukraine to hammer home this truth. Ukraine is in this position because it accepted the promise of protection from both Russia and the United States. In return for giving up its nuclear weapons, Russia and the U.S. promised to protect Ukraine from exactly what is happening to it now. See what trusting liars got them? Now, and be honest with yourself, do you really think Ukraine would be in this position if they still had control of their nuclear arsenal? Or do you think that would be enough to make Putin think many times before invading his neighbor?
So, on the exact same line, why would you accept the promise of protection from our government when it has clearly, repeatedly and consistently proven it lies for its own purposes? Or do you still believe that Obamacare is going to let you keep your insurance plan and your doctor and save you money and reduce the national debt – all at the same time? Because, if you still believe this sort of shuck-and-jive, I want to talk to you about some prime, beach-front property I have to sell you in the Sahara Desert – because anyone who still believes a word our government tells them is more than foolish enough to buy it.
Here’s the point: anyone who tells you they will protect you if you agree to disarm is a liar who wants to rule over you. The simple truth is, the moment you surrender your will and ability to defend yourself, you have surrendered your life to those who possess the will and ability to rule you. This is a self-evident truth. It is beyond rational debate. And anyone who thinks they can change or alter this fact has lost touch with reality. It is that simple.
The Oil for Your Lamp 
Good, a new post! I been waiting….because I wanted to ask you a question about a certain “trend” in the conservative community right now; have you, by chance, heard anything about a so-called “anonymous conservative”?
Likewise, the Ukraine crisis was inevitable; as with all things people related, a promise for security is a promise for control.
The Invasion of Ukraine was inevitable also because of the Collusion between Putin and Obama as evidenced by Obama’s remarks to Medvedev right before the election.
Putin just jumped quicker then Obama and he agreed to…..probably because Putin sees some of Obam’s power shifting in the upcoming November elections.
The world is closer to 1937-39 now ….. this was the first stage of WWIII…. brought to us as planned through a Divisive Socialist Plant in the WH. Old Habits do not only “Die Hard”….they in fact never die, but morph slightly after newer generations forget the lessons of their Grandfathers….that they were never taught to begin with.
Don,
Are you saying that the “independence’ of crimea is a product of an Obama administraition, rather than a power-monger Putin? If there was, say, a Reagan in office, the events we see now would have never happened?
Lara,
The way you pose the question seems to posit an either / or answer as being the only correct response. However I’m going to assume you DIDN’T mean it that way. Do correct me if I assume too much.
So BOTH a weak and collusive Obama Administration AND a power-hungry Putin are responsible for the invasion of the Ukraine by the new “Soviet Russia”. They are Book-ends of the same ( or very similar) Socialist/Communist agenda IMO.
Yes I believe if there was a “Reagan” in office we wouldn’t have the Crimea “event”….. nor would we have had the Obama open-Microphone “moment” were he was telling Medvedev….He (Obama) would work with Putin on Putin’s goals after the Nov 2012 election.
What is the saying….Elections have consequences… anyway…
No, That was not intended to be an either/or question…I too believe that there is no “black or white” (so to speak) reason for the uprisings in Ukraine. Both Obama and Putin have brought this on the world, and therefore, both are responsible. Until WE as a country can push prejudice aside, and see that our President perpetuated the issue, there will be no lasting resolution.
Lara,
Sorry, I have been busy. Still, I will try to make time to write regular posts.
As for the “anonymous conservative” you mentioned, I am afraid I am ignorant of this term. Your comment was the first I’ve heard of it. I’ll have to see if I can find time to look into it for you. Thanks for the tip 🙂
There are Blogs and websites with the Rem.
withe term even…sheesh.
Okay, I am eagarly awaiting your responce! I have not read the book [published by anonymous conservative] myself, just what the author has said about his values and theory.
There are a number of Sites and Blogs with this moniker…”anonymous Conservative”….are they all the same Hombre ??
No, I am referencing the author. This person (I do not know if they are a man or a woman, hence the “anonymous”), also has a blog in which they post regular articles pertaining to the scientific theories behind politics.
Here is the link:
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/
And the link to the blog:
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/
Write back and tell me your first impression
Lara,
I read through the first link and, to be honest, I think it misses the point. What I am about to tell you will not be received very well by those who accept the type of thinking in that link, but no matter. I believe I have a better explanation for you.
What this link explains as r/k theory and then tries to ascribe to left/right political thinking is nothing more than an effort to explain — in ‘scientific’ terms — what can only be explained in Spiritual terms. Thus, the r/k theory limits itself to strictly material explanations, which, though complicated in its approach, will necessarily miss many exceptions to the theory. In short: because it explains things in material terms, it is overly complicated and still falls short of being all inclusive.
On the other hand, if one accepts that there are people who accept God and His rule over their lives and those who do not, it is not only a simpler explanation, it is also all inclusive. And this is what I think the more accurate explanation really is. Those who reject God do not think to the future, so they can exhibit many of the r-rabbit traits. But they can still seek to control others, thus, they will tend to exhibit k-wolf traits. But the r/k theory fails to explain why — in reality — most people tend to exhibit BOTH r and k traits. My explanation does not. Furthermore, my explanation also explains why there are people who exhibit the BETTER k traits as well as the BETTER r traits.
Now, if we look to the historic cycles, what we will find is NOT the rise and decline of “conservationism” as it is over taken by “liberalism,” but the rise of cultures that try to obey God and are then undermined by Satan. This has the added benefit of explaining why this progression has moved Westward in history. Paul tried to go to the East, but he was stopped. So the progression of the things this link tries to explain in ‘scientific’ terms can just as easily be explained as the progression of Christ’s Gospel from the east to the West. And, since the free market and the notion of individual rights — a necessity for advanced economies — are firmly based in Biblical teachings and in no other ‘Western’ philosophy, in naturally follows that the Spiritual explanation is the better choice as it accounts for this as well, whereas the r/k theory does not.
Anyway, this is just off the top of my head. I’ll try to find more time for the other link, but — personally — I do not see a great deal of value in it as it seeks to use the very source of our downfall: man’s reason over God’s.
Joe,
I agree. I first heard about anonymous conservative through a conservative political commentator (Bill Whittle), who raved about the simplicity and accuracy of the r/K theory. I decided to check the website out for myself, and I found myself surprised that the theory is considered conservative because a) it uses science to explain deeply moral subjects, and perhaps most importantly, b) (when you research this theory a bit more) the emergance of of a deep-rooted disgust for “r type” individuals. I was shocked to see a “conservative” endorsing, if I am not mistaken, eugenics, only that they are attempting to justify that “r” individuals are a burden on society (leaving out, as you mentioned, the fact the every person has pieces of r and k in them). No doubt, a society that is totally “r” would be unsistainable — but so would a totally “k” society. Furthermore, the theory degrades the moral principles of people into the reproduction trends observed in animals, but we are not animals; we are individual people with free will, and we cannot, despite anonymous conservative’s scientific intent, be debased to the simple standards of animals.
I asked you to look into this theory because I knew you wouldn’t like it, but I also asked you because I wanted to point out a growing trend among some conservatives: Given the lack of unity within the conservative base, I think people are desperate for all encompassing, black-and-white answers to societal problems today. Answers, however, that do not include God, nor the true and tested correctness of human experience. It is as if they are trying to “satisfy” both their worldly convictions while still meeting God half-way. I fear that for the sake of acceptance and tolerance, principle is being tossed away for the convenience of fleeting solutions.
Lara,
You were correct: I do not like it. You are also correct in noticing the hypocrisy of someone calling themselves ‘conservative’ while espousing a decidedly Progressive opinion of the ‘r’s.’ But then, ‘conservative’ does not mean what so many think it means — as I have been trying to explain to my ‘conservative’ friends. I think Don will willingly attest to my trials and tribulations in this area 🙂