Dr. Steyko Aleythos
Ron Bloom, viagra sale Obama’s former Manufacturing Czar, at the Investors’ Conference said, “. . . we kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.” You can hear his words 1 minute and 11 seconds into the video. He also calls “the free market nonsense” at 53 seconds into the video.
See for yourself below.
It is not certain to what country Ron Bloom referred in making this comment, but it is certainly not the United States of America! No one in the history of this nation acquired political power “from the barrel of a gun” after the founding of our country. Whatever political power anyone has ever attained has been and continues to be by “the consent of the governed” via free and open elections.
Perhaps Mr. Bloom was referring to some other country.
What do we learn from Ron Bloom’s assertion?
First, by using the word “we”, did he mean the President of the United States Barack Obama who employed him as the Car Czar and Assistant to the President for Manufacturing Policy? If that is so, then what are we to think? Why would the President employ a person who made such a statement?
Let us think about this. Imagine that a group of people comes into power whose goal it is to change the very fabric and foundation of America. If they believe that “. . . political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun”, and if the people have the right to own as well as to bear firearms or “guns”, then that right gives the people political power according to Ron Bloom’s statement, right? As a result, the country which guarantees its citizens the “right to keep and bear arms” cannot be easily overthrown. Is this correct logic? Then according to this philosophy, for the people to “keep and bear arms” means that the people have political power. This presents a problem for them, does it not? Is it safe to say that some politicians think they are the only ones who ought to hold “political power”? Would it be logical to conclude that some of them cannot tolerate anyone else having political power. Then, would not their goal be to take the guns away from the people?
Does it not follow that in order for a country such as ours to be overthrown, a people’s “right to keep and bear arms” must be undermined and over turned first? Does that make sense?
Must it follow that the “we” to whom Ron Bloom refers must also believe that to change America, they would first have to abolish, alter or weaken the Second Amendment so that the people could no longer defend their freedoms, or resist an external or an internal tyranny?
Does it not follow that those in power who believe that would use “the barrel of a gun”, if necessary, to attain the level of political power they wish in order to set up a totalitarian dictatorship?
The thesis of this article, therefore, is that the Administration does not want additional gun controls only to “protect children”, although they have used this as a rallying point to do what they planned to do all along. By so doing, they will acquire the support of many, and why not? We all are in favor of protecting our children. Do they ultimately wish to abolish gun ownership or undermine it to such an extent that the citizens’ self-defense becomes a non-issue? Then,might they terrorize us to comply with all their edicts?
They could herd those who resist into “box cars or cattle cars” the way that Adolph Hitler herded Jews and others in Nazi Germany during World War II to transport them to concentration camps.
By the way, the police officers who showed up too late in Newtown, CT carried similar “assault weapons” as the perpetrator. The weapons being neither good nor evil in and of themselves are simply tools which the law already defines how they are not to be used, i.e., to hurt others and or to commit robbery, kidnapping and a host of other crimes. The perpetrator is the evil person who used a certain type of firearm; the firearm is not evil, else they would also be evil in the hands of the police, right? The SWAT teams and police brought similar weapons with them to be used to stop the perpetrator. It is not the firearms or magazines that need to be banned.
Since, ordinarily, the police arrive late, there must be an effective first line of defense in the schools to stop such evil. If each locale used, in part, some of its regular police force, then perhaps a single police officer could be present inside of one school for two to three hours after which another officer while on regular duty would relieve him. The officer could be dropped off at the school so that no one would know if an officer were present.
Additional lines of defense could be volunteer teachers and other staff who were trained for such service. Firearms could remain on the teachers’ persons so that the firearms would not be accessible by any unauthorized persons.
The prohibition of “assault weapons” and large magazines would not be enough, however. If the administration can accomplish this, then is it not a matter of time before they include other types of firearms as proposed by Dianne Feinstein? See below.
See the following video as well.
Here is an earlier article titled “Carolyn McCarthy readies gun control bill” By SHIRA TOEPLITZ | 1/9/11 5:57 PM EDT from the POLITICO.
Is it not their goal to undermine our Second Amendment rights by slowly chipping away until it is even against the law to own a firearm? Would it not follow that a takeover of the country would be met with less resistance?
Might the following steps be taken in order to overthrow the United States of America? Perhaps you can think of others. If so, please comment at the end of this article.
1. Mobilize public support to vilify certain firearms, i.e. “assault rifles”. Call for demonstrations by well meaning citizens.
2. Pose the question, “Why does anyone ‘need’ magazines for twenty or thirty rounds?”
3. Allow the government to acquire a “data base” of gun owners.
Regarding point one above, any tool including baseball bats, or knives could be used to assault if not kill people. No one would ban baseball bats because a number of people used bats to murder others. The word “assault”, however, is a negative word designed to elicit from the public a negative reaction.
Regarding point two above, the number of rounds allowed in a magazine is arbitrary. The administration and others are saying that it is okay to have ten round magazines, but any more than that is much too dangerous. They will attempt to rally public support for this ban as well.
Regarding point three above, why would the government desire a database of gun owners? It would not be because they want to know who the gun owners are, would it? Then, one must ask, “Why?” It would not be because they wish to impose other sanctions, would it? Let’s see. Perhaps, they wish to impose an annual “tax” or fee, for example, on each gun. Perhaps, they wish to mandate psychiatric examinations for all gun owners and all at the owners’ expense. In other words, everyone would be considered mentally unfit until proven otherwise. Perhaps, they might wish to inspect gun owners’ homes for safety and mandate that all firearems be locked up at all times with the unloaded guns in a safe and the ammunition in another safe at the opposite end of the home and the keys to the safes at a government facility where a citizen would have to “prove” why he needed the keys to his gun safes. The government might require all firearms to have GPS chips, similar to those placed in pets, in order to track the firearms and their owners. See below.
The government could use X-ray vans to scan automobiles, pedestrians and residences for firearms. See below.
See the next article titled “X-RAY VANS: Security Measure, or Invasion of Privacy?”
Perhaps, you can come up with other reasons. If the people are no longer able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, then the government can do whatever it wants when it loads the Supreme Court with judges who do not support the Constitution. They will then be able to write their own Constitution as proposed by Cass Sunstein, the President’s former Regulatory Czar. The government will be able to CONFISCATE all firearms and arrest all those who refuse to cooperate and round them up to be placed in cattle cars or “boxcars”, so to speak to transport them for “doctrination” in undisclosed locations.
By reading that President Obama intimates that the Constitution is flawed, can we pose this question? Does he, therefore, want to change the Constitution?
He further states this:
“First: ‘We still suffer from not having a Constitution that guarantees its citizens economic rights.’ By positive economic rights, Obama means government protection against individual economic failures, such as low incomes, unemployment, poverty, lack of health care, and the like. Obama characterizes the Constitution as ‘a charter of negative liberties,’ which ‘says what the states can’t do to you (and) what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.”
Van Jones, Barack Obama’s former Green Jobs Czar said this: “…we gonna change the whole system, we gonna change the whole thing….” Did he mean the Constitution and The Bill of Rights?
How can they “change the whole system” unless they first disarm the people?
The fact that Cass Sunstein, the President’s former Regulatory Czar, proposed and continues to propose to change the Constitution by 2020. Such should be on the front pages of every newspaper in the United States as well as the leading story on all the networks!
Below Cass Sunstein challenges the Second Amendment.
See more on his plans below titled “Cass Sunstein On The Right To Bear Arms”.
“Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal”
Cass Sunstein wants the government to “cognitively infiltrate” anti-government groups
By Glenn Greenwald
“Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for ‘overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.’ In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-‘independent’ advocates to ‘cognitively infiltrate’ online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems ‘false conspiracy theories’ about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper’s abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.
Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into ‘chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.’ He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called ‘independent’ credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false ‘conspiracy theories,’ which they define to mean: ‘an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.’ Sunstein’s 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger, and then amplified in an excellent report by “Raw Story‘s” Daniel Tencer.”
Is Judge Sotomayor also against the Second Amendment?
President Obama’s views on Gun Control
Will they then be able to set up a “New World Order” or planetary regime as proposed by John P. Holdren the President’s Science Czar?
This is NOT farfetched!
If, according to President Obama’s former Manufacturing Czar, Ron Bloom, “. . . political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun”, then can one conclude that without our Second Amendment guaranteeing our “right to keep and bear arms”, the American people’s “political power” would be greatly diminished?
Then, not unlike the Jews in Hitler’s Nazi Germany, those who refuse to “conform” to the new laws could be more easily herded aboard cattle trains or “boxcars”, if you will, similar to what Hitler did during World War II.
“The Hess family was allowed to board a train in April 1945 as the allied forces were routing the Germans and the Nazis tried to hide the evidence of Bergen-Belsen. The Hess family was jammed onto a cattle train with 2,500 Jews, and the “lost transport” meandered around Germany. More than 600 perished on the train ride until the survivors were finally set free after Russian soldiers killed the Germans operating the train.” See below.
If our Second Amendment rights are extinguished, can we kiss our beloved America goodbye?
Is there any greater reason for an alarm to be sounded than this?
A quote from Gandhi, “The worst thing that the British ever did to us (the people of India) was to take away our guns.”
According to George Washington, “firearms . . . are the people’s liberty’s teeth.”
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty teeth.”—George Washington
Let us keep our “teeth”. The defense of our fundamental rights endowed to us by our Creator is non- negotiable.
Dr. Steyko Aleythos
Approved by & Posted by
“If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, pharmacy
and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works? (Proverbs 24:11-12).
The following is an excerpt from . . .
“The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 14, 2012
Statement by the President on the School Shooting in Newtown, CT” James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 3:15 P.M. EST:
“I know there’s not a parent in America who doesn’t feel the same overwhelming grief that I do.”
“The majority of those who died today were children — beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. They had their entire lives ahead of them — birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own.”—President Barack Obama
See the full statement below.
Can the President’s description of these “. . . beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old” be applied to the unborn?
Is the following statement applicable?
“The majority, no, all of those who died since 1973, were children — beautiful little kids under the age of nine months old. They had their entire lives ahead of them — birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own.”
However, we purposefully as a society have tolerated and continue to tolerate the wholesale slaughter of God’s gift to us, His heritage. Over 54,000,000 have been murdered. There is no sign that this will stop. What will the LORD do to execute His righteous justice upon the United States of American?
In addition, let us remember that the President does not consider unborn children human beings according to his vote against Illinois State Senate Bill 1082. In addition, John P. Holdren in his book “Human Ecology” stated, “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,”—John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, written in ‘Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions’
Is it okay to wonder if the four children and their parents who accompanied the President when he proposed changes for “gun control” knew about his vote on Illinois State Senate Bill 1082? He voted NOT to protect unborn “beautiful children” who were born alive during an abortion.
Where is the outcry?
Below is the following verbatim Illinois State Senate Bill 1082 titled “Born-alive infant” in which the Bill also declared the child to be a “human person and accorded immediate
protection under the law.”The President who chaired the Committee voted “no”. The Bill failed by a 6 to 4 vote.
“A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies” (Proverbs 14:25).
See lines 24 through 26 below.
“24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law. “
“093 SB1082 LRB093 10540 MKM 10794 b
1 AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.
2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:
4 Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding
5 Section 1.36 as follows:
6 (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)
7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
10 administrative agencies of this State, the words “person”,
11 “human being”, “child”, and “individual” include every infant
12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13 stage of development.
14 (b) As used in this Section, the term “born alive”, with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.
27 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
28 becoming law.”
See below for further information:
See below “The Exact Bill That Chairman Obama Killed At the Meeting He Chaired on March 13, 2003.”
See the following video for a brief history of Obama’s activities concerning unborn human beings, etc.:
“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17).
“There is no fear of God before their eyes” (Romans 3:18).