Friday, April 26, 2013

What Would You Do?

The American Thinker today has a piece asking the question: Does there yet remain some bit of American occupied America? Robert T. Smith has the article at The Sheep of Watertown. The Boston area was the cradle of American freedom and liberty, yet what we saw on display in Watertown last week was a tyrannical police state run amok. As you read Smith's article, please click on the links he provides to videos that show uniformed and fully armored thugs going door to door and pulling people out of their homes at gun point, without warrant, and treating them as common criminals. This should be very disturbing.  Smith:

Most disturbing was to watch the nameless and faceless domestic paramilitary forces all "ninjaed up," going house-to-house, conducting warrantless searches. So much for the Constitution's 4th Amendment protections. Residents were aggressively forced from their homes at gunpoint, physically pushed from their properties, ordered to put their hands over their heads, and personally searched on the streets, while their homes were subject to search without consent. The footage found here, as an example, should disturb any American in the alleged land of the free.
This is what happens when you so severely restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of people that they virtually can not own a gun.  The Boston area has some of the lowest gun ownership rates in the nation, and as a result, their other Constitutionally protected rights are not respected either.  This is what comes of giving up freedom for the illusion of security.

I would also note that no less than the New York Times described the Boston bombers has having "a small arsenal" of weapons. Yet there is no curiosity from the lamestream press about where they might have obtained those weapons. Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet these men were able to obtain them apparently quite easily. Isn't anyone curious about how and where they obtained them? Senator Feinstein? Senator Reid?

People used to understand that the police were merely citizens who had been specially trained in criminal procedure, detecting crime, forensics, as well as crowd control and beat patrols.  Your local policeman was a resource in time of trouble.  In cities, the officers often walked the beats and got to know the people who lived and worked on their beat.  In smaller towns...well...everyone knew everyone else anyway.  Then, in 1967, Los Angeles formed the first Special Weapons and Tactics squads, called SWAT.  They trained in military style tactics, to root out the worst of the worst of criminals.  But something else happened as well.  As this style of policing spread across the country, the police began to not only employ military style tactics, but to think of themselves as warriors on a battlefield in which the "thin blue line" stood against society itself.  It was an "us versus them."  We the People have become the enemy.

Smith again: 
It is hard to justify or condone the sudden transition of your fellow citizens -- the local smile-and-wave, protect-and-serve police force -- to the enthusiastic thuggery depicted in this type of video. As Harry Reid admonished us in the recent gun rights debates, "I'll vote for the ["assault weapons"] ban because maintaining the law and order is more important than satisfying conspiracy theories who [believe in] black helicopters and false flags."

Perhaps Senator Reid and his Democrat cohorts didn't observe the black armored personnel carriers on the streets of America, or the excessive magazine capacity in use by the domestic paramilitary. Perhaps Senator Reid and his cohorts didn't see that the domestic paramilitary possessed truly automatic assault weapons of war, which they pointed at We the People as they went door-to-door during these forced evictions and searches. Perhaps the number of rounds fired well beyond the 10-round magazine capacity determined to be enough by Senator Feinstein during the shootout with the bad guys didn't register with these progressive senators.
The fact of the matter is that jihadis can strike anywhere there is a large gathering of people. The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize the people into acquiescing to the political demands of the terrorists. Thus random, unexpected acts of terrorism will continue to happen wherever there is perceived to be a soft target with plenty of people around in condition white, as were the spectators at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Thus this aggressive, jackbooted, police state can be expected to descend on anyone. What will you do when it happens to you?

1 comment:

  1. "What will you do when it happens to you?"

    I will not disarm, and won't comply with unconstitutional ahem orders from a ninja. We'll see what happens then.