When Do Americans Stand Up?
A proposal to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States has ignited a bitter debate in Washington, but more than 10 times that number of people from the embattled country have quietly come to America since 2012, according to figures obtained by FoxNews.com.
Some 102,313 Syrians were granted admission to the U.S. as legal permanent residents or through programs including work, study and tourist visas from 2012 through August of this year, a period which roughly coincides with the devastating civil war that still engulfs the Middle Eastern country. Experts say any fears that terrorists might infiltrate the proposed wave of refugees from United Nations-run camps should be dwarfed by the potential danger already here.
Further, Jeh Johnson has admitted that infiltration may well has taken place and exploited Jeh Johnson’s own directives to not look at social media postings, never mind that the Feds admit they have no idea where thousands of foreigners who had their visas revoked as a result of terrorism (and other) concerns are.
Then you have the people such as these, claiming we should gut the First Amendment and this piece over on New Republic (among others) calling for a complete destruction of the Second Amendment.
Given what happened in California we now know that:
1. The government refuses to look at public social media postings by people coming here in an attempt to determine if they’re dangerous because they claim there’s a “civil liberties” and “optics” problem with doing so (despite the fact that by definition what you say in public is public)
2. We know that had they done so it would have been evident that there was a problem with Malik (at best) and probably her “husband” as well, given his travel and her affiliations.
3. We now know that not only was the visa issued for Malik almost certainly not vetted at all to determine whether there was a legitimate marriage involved the same appears to have been true with his “buddy” who is now charged with providing material aid to terrorists, which means we’re 0-for-2 in giving a damn about letting jihadists into the country under this pretense.
4. We know that the majority of so-called “refugees” are not women and children (not that being a woman is in some way protective, as we just saw) but rather fighting-age men.
If just 1 in 100 of the “refugees” is a terrorist-in-hiding we have 1,000 California incidents that will happen at a time of their choosing in this country right now.
It is impossible to take in this many people from “nations” that have corrupt processes (or none at all) to “vet” those departing, or those who won’t cooperate effectively and fully (why should they under the circumstances?) We therefore have utterly no way to be reasonably certain that we’re aware of someone’s past and present intentions, as we just discovered the hard way despite Obama’s and the rest of the Administration’s protests to the contrary.
Further, we also know factually that neither house of Congress cares either or there would already be articles of impeachment pending, if not scheduled for trial in The Senate by now!
The simple fact, whether you like it or not, is that while the odds of you being victimized by a terrorist incident in this country are small, if it happens there is only one person who you can rely on to do anything about it at the time.
Then you have this sort of proposed law coming from, believe it or not, South Carolina!
- “Assault weapons” bans.
- Mandatory registration of all firearms.
- Mandatory fees and permits to purchase any weapon.
- Mandatory “background checks” (which, I remind you, can make it unlawful for you to let someone fire your gun at a range, for example, even if you both own other guns, without a fee being paid and a check being run in each instance.)
- Criminalizing you if your weapon is lost or stolen and you don’t report it, which means if you’re unaware of the theft you could be charged.
So if you want to bleat about terrorism here in America, given the sort of outrageously-unconstitutional response that these incidents generate, this is what I believe should be the proper citizen response, given that our government has demonstrated that it is far more interested in political correctness and “not offending anyone” than security.
If the people of this nation tire of this crap then they will form mutual defense pacts with others in their area which state that they will rely on and enforce the Second Amendment such that each and every one of said individuals will provide for the common defense of the others personally should the need arise and no attempt to require any damned permits, nor to arrest any of the citizens so doing for providing said mutual defense through the keeping and bearing of arms without asking permission from some government nanny will be tolerated or permitted to occur.
That does not mean that someone misusing a weapon (e.g. to rob, rape, murder, etc) will be protected; to the contrary, the very presence of a lot of guns among the citizens will likely nearly extinguish such crimes.
It does mean, however, that harassment or worse of those who are merely carrying effective defensive weaponry as a deterrent and, should the need arise, as a means of protection of oneself and those one loves will not be tolerated by the people and those attempting said harassment or worse, no matter who they are, will be treated as common weapon-bearing criminals by the rest of the citizens of the nation.
That is, the people of this nation will finally demand that their fundamental rights be respected.
If and only if this begins to occur on a widespread basis will I believe that the people of this nation have had enough with the namby-pamby nonsense peddled by politicians and other officials onboth sides of the aisle and are willing to return to their roots in terms of Constitutional and unalienable rights, most-specifically the right to life and to protect both their own lives and those they love.
And if and when this occurs it will be the only admissible evidence I will consider that as a nation, not as a few individuals, America will not tolerate the acts of any so-called “officials” who intentionally, wantonly and willingly commit violence against both The Constitution and our rights in that regard irrespective of their titles, badges or political affiliation, whether that assault is on the Second Amendment, the First Amendment or both.
And no, this is not an endorsement or solicitation for individuals to start walking around with slung rifles on a singular basis or worse, start doing very unlawful things with them. Indeed it is quite the opposite for only when the position of a plurality if not a majority of the public’s views align in this fashion will deterrence against both thugs like the two clowns in California, along with those such as the nutball who shot up the Planned Parenthood office, be effective.
In short this is my declaration that if you want to argue about “homeland security” and “which candidate will do it best” you need to shut up until we all see large swaths of the population, effectively a supermajority that cannot be stopped, decide that they’re done with the so-called “hero worship” of people who demand that when faced with a jackass that intends to kill them they accept waiting from 2-5 minutes or more for the cops to show up and that the response to any such demand is that the middle finger is erected not by one, not by a few, but by nearly all.
Simply put until and unless we, the people, are willing to declare that our natural right to life is meaningless without the ability to defend it and we assert both that right and are willing to defend it as we choose, exactly as the founders of this nation recognized, then the rest of the debate on so-called “terrorism” is a waste of time that I will expend no more effort upon.