Monday, January 7, 2013

If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

The D.C. Clothesline ^ | 1/3/2013 | Dean Garrison

I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.
About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.
If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.
Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.
Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin
Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.
I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.
Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?
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.
This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.
For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:
The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington
The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams
I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.
We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.
A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.
Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.
It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.
If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.
Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.
I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.
Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.
I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.
If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.
This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.
I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.
What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take shit off of no one, especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left?
I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.
You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.
I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.
For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.
IMPORTANT UPDATE From Dean Garrison!!! When this post originally went viral I was trying to answer every single comment and that lasted for almost 48 hours Then I came to grips with the fact that I am human and I can’t do it. If for no other reason I value my family and I can’t steal time from them to constantly be on the site. I want you all to know that I appreciate your support and good debate whether you agree or disagree. I also want to thank each and every American Patriot who has made the honorable choice to serve their country. Anyone who wants to repost this on their blog or website is also given permission to do so, so long as nothing is changed in the text of the article, and a link is provided back to this site. Again, thank you so much. I am humbled. This free wordpress blog has just gone from averaging 300 visitors per day 40,000-50,000 hits per day and I have no idea when things may return to normal. That was caused by the people that cared and not the author. I am just an average American that cares. Every Facebook share, retweet, and email is helping and please continue to support what you believe in. We make no money from this blog. We may someday, but for now it is our choice to offer the truth as we see it for the good of our country and not for anything material. Keep on sharing and let’s make them pay attention to us! No sane American really wants a Civil War. We want peace but we will not back down from a government that chooses to ignore our founding principles. I am forever in your debt and service. -Dean Garrison

School Shooting in Tennessee That National Media Did Not Report

tnsmartgirl.com ^ | 6 January, 2013 | TN Smart Girl

The following incident happened at a high school only minutes from my home in East Tennessee. I am sure that no one outside of our immediate region has ever heard the story, because the only person who was shot-and killed-was the gunman. 

These types of stories don’t fit the narrative of those who want “gun-free zones” and so are ignored by the national media. In this case an armed Security Resource Officer, Carolyn Gudger, became a local hero and saved an unknown number of lives by holding the gunman at bay until backup arrived. The text below is drawn from a local news website, Tricities.com. The story is not viewable on mobile devices, probably because it is so old. If you wish to view it on your PC, here is the link:

http://tinyurl.com/ckqfcvf Security Resource Officer Carolyn Gudger

“On Monday morning, August 30, 2010, Thomas Richard Cowan loaded 13 bullets into two handguns, left his German shepherd chained to the fence and drove eight miles from his home in Kingsport to Sullivan Central High School. Whatever his mission, it was the 62-year-old Vietnam veteran’s final drive. For about an hour, Cowan’s armed invasion spread panic throughout the school before a burst of officers’ gunfire brought him down. No others were injured.
No one knows why Cowan pointed his Honda in the direction of the Blountville, Tenn., high school, where his brother is a janitor. He is described – in court records and interviews – as a peculiar man with a history of erratic, sometimes criminal, behavior and a deep suspicion of the government. He parked his car Monday morning in a handicapped space just in front of the school’s main entrance. Second period was just getting under way at 9:10 a.m. when Ashley Thacker, a junior, arrived at the main entrance of her high school. Thacker, 16, had been at a doctor’s appointment and was on her way to a music theory class as she approached the locked doors.
She noticed a man standing in the 10-foot waiting area between the two sets of doors, waiting to be buzzed in. His bald crown was framed with brown hair. He had a mustache, she remembered, and he was holding a cane. He told her to go on ahead of him. But she never made it through the doors. Instead, Melanie Riden, principal of Sullivan Central, came striding through the locked doors. “He pulled out his gun and started pointing it at people,” Thacker said. Cowan trained a .380-caliber semi-automatic pistol at Riden’s face, said Sullivan County Sheriff Wayne Anderson.
Carolyn Gudger, the school resource officer, drew her gun, then shielded the principal’s body with her own.
Thacker remembers Cowan shouting something – possibly including the words “10 years” – but she isn’t sure. She turned and ran out the set of public doors to the mulch pile in the front of the school, and hid behind bushes. “He might shoot someone,” Thacker remembered thinking. “I just wanted to get out of there.”
Riden fled and Gudger inched back into the school, leading Cowan through the scattered pastel chairs in the empty cafeteria. It was a tactical move, meant to lure the gunman into a more contained place, Anderson said. Sullivan County dispatch sent out a chilling alert: “Man with a gun at Central High School.”
Gudger told him to drop his weapon; he demanded she drop hers. Once, he tried, unsuccessfully, to lunge for her gun. Cowan repeated one thing only, Anderson said. That he wanted to pull the fire alarms. “I don’t know why, we can only speculate about that and I think everyone will speculate why he wanted to pull a fire alarm,” Anderson said. “Either to get the kids out of class or, I don’t know. We don’t know.”
Flattened against the bushes, Ashley Thacker waited two minutes, she thinks. “I didn’t hear anything else, so I thought Officer Gudger had arrested him.” She was wrong. As she approached the school, two assistant principals opened a window and yelled at her to run away. Crying and shaking, Thacker ran to her car and drove a half-mile to her parents’ business.
The view from the classroom
At about 9:15 a.m., a shaken voice came over the intercom. “Code red. Lockdown.” There was profanity in the background. This was no drill, students realized. With the announcement, teachers sprang into action – locking doors and papering over windows, turning off the lights and closing window blinds. Students huddled in the corners of classrooms, sitting in the darkness and searching for information with a storm of text messages.
Casey Deel, a 17-year-old senior, was on his way to a doctor’s office when his girlfriend, Alicia Edwards, sent him a text at 9:15 a.m. “There’s a code red lock down. im scared,” the 16-year-old junior texted from her government class. “r u serious?” Deel texted back. He skipped his appointment. In Kayla Nichols’ cosmetology class, students squeezed into a storage room the size of a parking space, and locked the door, the 17-year-old said. Ryan Kendrick was in algebra class, just off the main office. The 17-year-old senior thought he heard the gunman making threats – about not leaving the building alive and taking others with him – and Gudger urging him to calm down.
Then he heard a volley of gunshots. Kendrick and his friend, Andrew Ray, began to pray. Landon Sillyman was in his honors biology class, where the teacher had instructed students to put their heads on their desks in the darkened classroom. The 14-year-old freshman estimated the suspense lasted about an hour. But it was all over in minutes, Anderson estimated.
One hundred and twenty seconds after Cowan drew his gun, two deputies, Lt. Steve Williams and Sam Matney, arrived. They entered through separate doors and met Cowan and Gudger – still in a moving standoff – as they reached a science pod behind the cafeteria. Cowan wavered; he jerked his gun from Gudger to the other deputies then back again. The three officers told him, again, to drop his weapon. He wouldn’t. So they opened fire. Some students counted five shots, others counted six. Anderson would not say how many rounds hit the gunman.
Cowan fell to the ground, his shoes just feet from door to the library full of teenagers. The pistol in his hand had seven bullets in the magazine and another in the chamber. He had a second handgun in his back pocket, loaded with five rounds. “That’s how close he was,” Anderson said. “We all know this could have been much more dangerous.”
Yes, it could have been much worse. It could have been another national headline about multiple deaths, sparking a national outcry for stricter gun laws. But it wasn’t. Why? Because the good people of Tennessee have enough sense to place armed officers inside of our schools to protect our children.

NYT: You May Not Have a Job, But at Least Michelle Obama's Dresses are Expensive!

Pundit Press ^ | 1/7/2013 | Matthew

Usually we don't celebrate expensive extravagance of our politicians. The realm of the super-rich and the celebrities should not usually cross into the White House. A Republican that spends any sort of money on such items is immediately derided by the press (Sarah Palin, anyone?).
Unless they're a Democrat.

With the country only $16,000,000,000,000 in debt, you would expect many of the country's top politicians and their families to try and give a little back, even if it's just for show. Mike Bloomberg, for all of this stupid policies, works for a dollar, and the like.

The New York Times, however, celebrates Michelle Obama's expensive fashion sense. While the dresses may look good, they pay little solace to the family that can't make ends meet. They don't pay the bills for someone in the coal industry that lost their job in the last four years.

But at least she can be "First in Fashion."

(Excerpt) Read more at punditpress.com ...

Left convinced Americans will not fight for 2nd Amendment rights

Coach is Right ^ | 1/7/13 | Doug Book

Once cowed at the thought of provoking 2nd Amendment supporters, leftists will soon attempt to ban “assault weapons” (and much more) as legislation offered by Diane Feinstein makes its way to the Senate floor. It seems that DC liberals have finally become convinced that American gun owners are too cowardly, too lazy or too dependent upon the financial "generosity" of Big Brother to fight for their 2nd Amendment rights.
During the past 4 years, the gun banning left have watched as American buyers broke sales records in the purchase of semi-automatic rifles. Opting for these and other powerful, efficient weapons it is estimated that some 100 million private citizens are now in possession of over 300 million firearms. And these numbers continue to grow with each passing month.
Yet it’s against this backdrop of America’s determination to assert the fundamental permanence of 2nd Amendment guarantees that Diane Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, Barack Obama and others will choose to implement gun bans, demand the federal registration of...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

Bank of American to Spirit Arms Gun Dealer: FOAD


 by Robert Farago

You may recall that McMillan Arms had a parting of the way (to put in mildly) with the Bank of America back in April of 2012. Since then we’ve heard other stories of BofA’s anti-firearms machinations. A midwest gun dealer reported that BofA gave them the old heave-ho in July, after 16 years of no-problem banking. Another tipster told TTAG that the bank was requiring telephone authorization for customers in Florida purchasing firearms at gun stores. And now this from American Spirit ArmsFacebook Page. The punctuation is bad but the story is even worse . . .

All,
My name is Joe Sirochman owner of American Spirit Arms and I wanted to share my recent experience with Bank of America .(which we have been doing business with for over 10 years)…. Everyone is familiar with the latest increase in guns sales , dealers selling out of inventory , Manufacturers back logged for months , large revenue all generated in the last two weeks …. American Spirit Arms is no exception to the overwhelming demand . What we have experienced is that our web site orders have jumped 500 % causing our web site E commerce processing larger Deposits to BANK OF AMERICA ..Well, this through up a huge RED Flag with Bank of America . So they decided to hold the deposits for further review , meaning that the orders/payments that were coming in through the web ,( being paid by the customer and that were shipped out by American Spirit Arms ),the BANK was keeping (UNDER REVIEW )..as you could imagine this made me furious…
After countless hours on the phone with BANK OF AMERICA I finally got a Manager in the right department that told me the reason that the deposits were on hold for FURTHER REVIEW …
HER EXACT WORDS WERE …
..” WE BELIEVE YOU SHOULD NOT BE SELLING GUNS and PARTS ON THE INTERNET
…I flipped the F**k Out and told them that they have no right to make up their own new rules and regs..that we are a firearms Manufacturer with all the proper licensing FFL (Federal Firearm license ), SOT and that we follow all Federal and All
States’ rules and regulations on shipping Firearms and parts ..and that we are also Audited by ATF and Homeland
Security on a regular basis … She said that she understands that but that the deposits will be released After they have a
Chance to review and clear them …I told her that This was unacceptable and the those deposits (that were a week old by now ) needed to be released ASAP, that we are a small business and rely on the revenue to run and stay operational.
After that being said another Manager got involved and released one of the deposits (to help out )… So far to date after
Two weeks of sales only 1/3 of collected internet sales have been released ..I am still pissed and looking for another
Bank and options …
I just thought the public should know ..
I will keep everyone posted on new developments ..
Sincerely
Joseph P Sirochman
American Spirit Arms
16001 N Greenway Hayden Loop
Suite B
Scottsdale AZ 85260
480-367-9540 phone
480-367-9541 fax
Share
Robert Farago

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

Obamacare Guarantees Higher Health Insurance Premiums -- $3,000+ Higher

Forbes ^ | 1/7/13 | Sally Pipes

President Obama will deliver a second inaugural address later this month. He’ll no doubt reflect on what he’s done during his first four years in office — and on his signature healthcare law in particular.
Let’s reflect with him. During his first campaign for the presidency in 2008, the president promised that his health reform plan would “bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family” by the end of his first term.

Well, that first term is just about up. And health insurance isn’t any cheaper. In fact, it’s more expensive. Premiums have increased by an average of $3,065. And they’re about to go up even more, as Obamacare takes effect during the president’s second term.

At the end of 2012, Mark Bertolini, the CEO of Aetna, the third-largest health insurer in the country, warned that many consumers would face “premium rate shock” with the advent of Obamacare’s major insurance regulations in 2014. He predicted that unsubsidized premiums would rise 20 to 50 percent, on average.

(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...

Thuggery: Chicago Teachers Union president jokes about murdering wealthy people!

Michelle Malkin ^ | 1/7/13 | Michelle Malkin

Remember Karen Lewis? She’s Chicago thuggery personified. I introduced you to her last September when she spearheaded the abandonment of 350,000 schoolchildren over merit-based pay, teacher evaluations, and a 16 percent pay raise:

Derision is her specialty. Her tirades at teachers’ confabs are infamous. Don’t feel sorry for her when she moans about Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s bully tactics and trash mouth. Lewis has one of her own.
Well, that trash mouth is baaaaack. Intrepid Kyle Olson of EAGNews.com caught Lewis joking about labor leaders who seriously contemplated killing the rich during the “robber baron” era.

When Lewis appeared at the Illinois Labor History Society’s “Salute to Labor’s Historic Heroes from the History Makers of Today,” she didn’t disappoint the crowd. She threw gasoline onto the fire of class warfare, and even mentioned mob killings of wealthy Americans.
“… Do not think for a minute that the wealthy are ever going to allow you to legislate their riches away from them. Please understand that. However, we are in a moment where the wealth disparity in this country is very reminiscent of the robber baron ages. The labor leaders of that time, though, were ready to kill. They were. They were just – off with their heads. They were seriously talking about that.”
Some in the audience laughed and clapped at her remark.
“I don’t think we’re at that point,” Lewis laughingly replied, without specifying when “that point” might arrive. “And that’s scary to most people. But the key is they think nothing of killing us. They think nothing of putting our people in harm’s way. They think nothing of lethal working conditions.”
(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...

'We Don't Have a Spending Problem'

 breitbart ^ | 1/6/13 | Ben Shapiro

In an interview with Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, newly re-elected House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) opened up about President Obama’s utter unwillingness to cut a single dollar from federal spending. In a stunning admission, Obama reportedly told Boehner, “We don’t have a spending problem.”
Boehner added that President Obama continues to maintain that America’s federal deficit is caused not by governmental overspending but by “a health-care problem.” Said Boehner, “They blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system.” Boehner told Obama, “Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with Obamacare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem.” Obama eventually replied, “I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.”
Obama may be tired of hearing Boehner talk about a spending problem, particularly when Obama has been re-elected on the basis of ignoring government spending. Nonetheless, America does have a spending problem, which Obama is steadfastly ignoring. “He’s so ideological himself,” Boehner explained, “and he’s unwilling to take on the left of his own party.” That’s why Obama refused to raise the retirement age for Medicare after agreeing to it. “He admitted in meetings that he couldn’t sell things to his own members,” said Boehner. “But he didn’t even want to try … We could never get him to step up.”
Boehner says that there will be no new tax increases over the debt ceiling. “The tax issue is resolved,” he said. And he said that more closed-door negotiations with Obama would be “futile.” It’s a bit too late to recognize that, but better late than never.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Why?

Why Exceptionalism Matters (and why Obama must reject it)

The American Thinker ^ | Jeffrey Folks

America is exceptional, despite what our current president may think.

Asked whether America was an exceptional country, Mr. Obama famously replied that every country is exceptional. North Korea is exceptional? Castro's Cuba is fine? Zimbabwe is great? Really?
Obama's response accords with the left's theory of universalism, whereby one's general allegiance to mankind outweighs that to any particular nation, including one's own.......
.......From a practical perspective, universalism is a dead end -- quite literally -- because there are always powerful adversaries who do not share one's soft-hearted faith in universal brotherhood. The left's goals of unilateral disarmament and global equality play right into the hands of these powerful adversaries. Only a nation that is incredibly naïve or blatantly suicidal would lower its guard in the presence of rising nation-states like China and fanatical terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda.
There is a second difficulty. Even if a mechanism could be devised to assure universal cooperation -- an absurd hope -- one has to ask whether egalitarianism would be desirable......
....Adherents of cosmopolitanism consider themselves citizens of the world, and Obama is a perfect example of this type. With an ethos based on nothing more than relativism and pragmatism, they scorn all particular traditions. They are not guided by longstanding assumptions and alliances, nor do they embrace any single conception of human nature or any definite idea of culture.
What they do embrace, and this adamantly,is the rejection of moral and cultural distinctions that would lead one to believe that a particular set of values is superior to any other........
.....what is most galling to the left is the sheer excellence of Anglo-American civilization and especially America -- not just its remarkable success in material terms, but its achievement of an extraordinary degree of liberty and general welfare.
That success is hardly accidental...................
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Democrats look for up to $1 trillion in new tax revenues this year!

The Hill ^ | 1/07/13 | Alexander Bolton

Democrats say they want to raise as much as $1 trillion in new revenues through tax reform later this year to balance Republican demands to slash mandatory spending.

Democratic leaders have had little time to craft a new position for their party since passing a tax deal Tuesday that will raise $620 billion in revenue over the next ten years.

The emerging consensus, however, is that the next installment of deficit reduction should reach $2 trillion and about half of it should come from higher taxes.

This sets up tax reform as one of the biggest fights of the 113th Congress, which began on Thursday.

Republicans say tax reform should be revenue neutral. Additional revenues collected by eliminating or curbing tax breaks and deductions should be used to lower rates.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has dismissed the possibility of negotiating additional tax increases.

“I'm in favor of doing tax reform but I think tax reform ought to be revenue neutral as it was back during the Reagan years. We've resolved this issue, look we don't have this problem because we tax too little. We have it because we spend way, way too much,” McConnell said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Liberal and centrist Democrats say revenues collected through tax reform should go to deficit reduction.

“We’ve done about $2 trillion. I thought $4 trillion is the goal we should reach. I think we’re about half way there. We need another $2 trillion,” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax reform.

He said the $917 billion cut under the Budget Control Act passed in the summer of 2011 combined with $620 billion in revenues from Tuesday’s tax deal and interest savings adds up to about $2 trillion.

Cardin said the ratio of spending cuts to higher tax revenues “should be about even” in the next deficit-reduction deal passed by Congress.

Sen. Jon Tester, a centrist Democrat from Montana who won a close re-election in November, set out similar parameters.

He said the broad goal for deficit reduction should be in the $4 trillion to $5 trillion range and “we should strive for [a] one for one” ratio of spending cuts to additional tax revenues.

The White House also supports a 1:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases as Congress seeks to finish the fiscal work left unresolved by the recently completed 112th Congress.

White House officials point to last week’s fiscal-cliff agreement to “buy down” the sequester for two months. The deal delayed the implementation of automatic across-the-board spending cuts to domestic and defense programs and paid for it with $12 billion in revenues and $12 billion in spending cuts — evenly divided between defense and non-defense spending.

Administration officials view that as a template for future deficit-reduction agreements.

But Democrats in Congress are not yet unified on the issue. Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat who won his first term in November’s election, said the spending cut-to-tax increase ratio should be higher.

“Obviously that second half of the fiscal cliff is the tough spending decisions,” he said. “During the course of the campaign I often talked about 2-1 as a total. That would count all the spending reductions that have already been agreed to.”

“I think if you’re looking at a 70-30 ratio, somewhere in between 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 , I think that’s a reasonable position,” said newly-elected Sen. Chris Murphy (D) of Connecticut, who noted he is from a “fiscally responsible” state.

Like Kaine, Murphy said, “you could factor in the cuts already made.”

Congress agreed to cut spending by $917 billion in 2011 and to raise $620 billion in additional tax revenues last week, settling on a ratio of roughly 3 to 2 so far.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Friday the ratio of spending cuts to tax revenues to date has been tilted more heavily toward spending. Counting the 2011 Budget Control Act and the year-end tax deal, he argues the split is closer to $1.1 trillion in spending cuts and $600 billion in revenues — but he appears to be counting interest savings from spending cuts and not from tax increases.

The biggest question for Democrats is how much revenue is realistically available through tax reform.

Former Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a longtime chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, argues the federal government loses $1.2 trillion a year because of various tax breaks, a large pool for lawmakers to draw from to reduce the deficit.

“Through the tax code, we spend more there than we spend through all the appropriated accounts,” he said in his Senate farewell speech.

Conrad displayed a chart on the Senate floor Wednesday showing that people in the top 1 percent of income earners collect over $250,000 in after-tax income from tax expenditures. These expenditures are defined as revenue losses due to special exclusions, exemptions or deductions from gross income.

But policy analysts say the amount Congress can raise by eliminating tax expenditures will be constrained by political realities.

President Obama’s proposal to limit the value of itemized deductions to 28 percent evoked a backlash from the real estate industry and charitable groups. The mortgage interest and charitable tax deductions are two major drains on federal revenue.

Potential future revenue from limiting exemptions and deductions for wealthy taxpayers is also limited by the personal exemption phase-out and Pease — a cap on itemized deductions — provisions of the New Year’s Day tax deal. They account for $152 billion of the projected revenues from the deal.

Jim Kessler, senior vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank, thinks the most Democrats can get from tax reform is about $300 billion to $400 billion. He said negotiators can find an additional $100 billion in revenue by switching the chained-CPI formula for calculating cost-of-living increases for Social Security and other federal programs.

“I think you get $400 or $500 billion in new revenue because stuff [is] taken off the table,” he said.