January 18, 2013
Obama Playing Chicken with American Men
By Daren Jonescu

The Obama administration's current warpath against so-called "gun violence" -- which is Newspeak for non-violence committed by non-criminals with their non-illegal private property -- is a brazen challenge to America's manhood. The progressives have apparently decided that this is the moment when they can play their ultimate authoritarian hand, and let the chips fall where they may. They believe, in other words, that this is the moment when they may be able to break America at last, one way or another.

Through Obama's forceful, smug insistence on taking action in defiance of Congress, along with the aggressive urging to do so from his sycophants in the progressive elite -- from the vice president and the senate majority leader on down -- the leftists are engaging in a game of chicken with the American spirit that is disturbing both for its immediate intentions and for its revelation of their thought process and game plan.

In light of the well-known fact that their proposals and trial balloons will be judged by millions of Americans to be an outright violation of constitutionally protected liberties -- and liberties of the most emotionally trenchant nature, namely those related to the very foundations of limited government -- the progressives' deliberate projection of haste and intransigence on gun control must not merely be taken at face value, and judged on its "merits." It must also be interpreted -- in other words, one must ask precisely what they are hoping to achieve by attacking the most deeply held principles of so many Americans in such a heavy-handed fashion.

It seems to me that there are two plausible interpretations of their open chastisement of "all this debate" over Second Amendment concerns, i.e., their boisterous spitting upon the U.S. Constitution.

The first option is that they believe the citizenry of the once-freest nation on earth will ultimately be first to flinch in this game of chicken, and back down. This is the simplest explanation. Having tested the waters on so many fronts, and prepared the population with generations of propaganda about the evils of guns (and so little clarity about the meaning of limited government) from the educational establishment and the media, the left may have determined that, for all the tough talk, American gun owners will not, in the end, have the nerve to stand firm against a federal order to produce their weapons for registration, to submit their guns and themselves to a federal tracking system, or even, eventually, to relinquish legally-purchased property that has newly been ruled illegal.

The second possibility is that they know the public has not been sufficiently softened up to begin the "peaceful" disarming of America suggested by option one, and are therefore hoping to precipitate the kind of "serious crisis" the Obama administration has vowed never to let go to waste. This second possibility is appearing more likely to be the administration's real intention each day.

Consider the extent to which the federal government has gone, during the past four years, to brand conservatives, Christians, defenders of the Constitution, gun owners, and in general believers in property rights, as not merely racist and stupid (the usual mantra), but rather as angry, "bitter," and positively unhinged. These are not mere insinuations; government representatives, spokesmen, and apologists have been saying such things with increasing directness and frequency since 2008. A "study" funded by DHS expressly lists people who are "reverent of individual liberty" or "suspicious of centralized federal authority," among the common potential terror threats (p. 9). Obama himself, during his 2008 campaign, suggested in no uncertain terms that "clinging" to a Bible and/or a gun -- i.e., believing in God or the right to bear arms -- is a clear symptom of serious psychological problems, and equivalent to racism. And of course almost every mass killing over the past couple of years has been blamed on the Tea Party by someone in the media (see here) -- until, inevitably, the facts prove otherwise -- thereby creating the general impression that the Tea Party is a natural repository of "people on the edge," regardless of whether they turn out to have committed any crimes.

The Obama team knows full well that its words and actions are causing fear, anger, and heightened vigilance among conservatives. The spikes in gun sales, NRA memberships, and harsh anti-government talk all over the internet are an unmistakable sign of a population preparing for -- for something ugly. And yet they push forward, threatening specific action and escalating the anti-gun rhetoric with each passing day.

And the prodding is clever. Prior to this direct assault on the right to bear arms, the single Obama program most hated by constitutionalists was the Affordable Care Act. Now, ingeniously, the left has found a way to bring these two great affronts to individual liberty together under one umbrella. A major focus of Obama's executive actions on gun violence is the promotion of ObamaCare's mental health provisions as a suitable mechanism for dealing with preemptive psychiatry, i.e., drugging wayward children, labeling people in their federal government records as mentally ill, and using doctors as informants to track guns in private homes.

In sum, they could not be stoking pre-revolutionary fever any more effectively among that minority of America's citizenry that still stands by the nation as an idea, rather than merely as a piece of geography, if they had planned to stoke it. The only question remaining, it seems, is where all of this will lead.

Consider the following possibility -- common sense dictates that the progressives have already considered it. Someday, federal officers are going to visit the home of a man who owns a so-called "assault-style weapon." He has a family and a job. He pays his taxes. He has no criminal record. Not even a parking ticket. He purchased his gun legally. He uses it for target shooting. He thinks of it as an investment in the protection of his family and his nation, and his personal stand for constitutional liberty.

The federal officers are going to tell him that his weapon has been banned, that the deadline has passed for him to turn it in at the local police station, and that he must turn it over immediately. He is going to refuse, on the reasonable principle that a man is not obliged to obey a law that fundamentally violates his constitutionally protected rights. The officers, who will have been trained to regard such "resisters" as hostile and as mentally unstable, will call in for back-up and then give this law-abiding patriot an ultimatum: produce your banned weapon peacefully at once, or be taken into custody on charges of illegal possession of a firearm, and possibly subjected to psychiatric assessment.

If this man gives in and hands the officers his weapon, he will feel for the rest of his life that he has been broken -- that when push came to shove, he did not have the courage to stand up for his children's future. This, in short, is how the federal officials who sent the officers to his door want him to feel, and how they want everyone to feel: weak, ineffectual, emasculated, and submissive. It is how they want you to feel when federal agents molest your wife at the airport, and photograph your pubescent daughter in a naked scanner. It is how they want you to feel about your "private" health records being permanently on file with a half dozen federal agencies, to be opened at their discretion. It is how they want you to feel about the thousand bank-breaking regulations you are obliged to comb through and comply with in the names of "sustainability," "social justice," "anti-discrimination," and a dozen other fronts in the war on self-governance.

These indignities are meant to ease you through the process of acceptance, of acquiescence, of relinquishing all pretences of inviolable principle in the name of getting along.

This scenario -- this Conrad-style moment of reckoning for a man, before himself, his wife, and his children -- will in fact likely be played out in many variations. Those officers might be coming for high-capacity magazines, for guns reported by a child's playmate as unsafely stored, guns reported as unregistered, guns owned by people with relatives who have been diagnosed as "depressed" by a doctor, and so on. Most of the property owners in question will likely give in to the government's demands, and many of them will do so willingly, believing it their duty to obey the law above all else.

Those who do not comply, on the other hand, will be a test case, at the very least. When the government is challenging a proud man's dignity, his natural rights, and his courage in the face of a tyrannical demand, they are daring him to become a martyr to his cause. (See Mark Alexander's declaration at The Patriot Post.) In the authoritarian's mind, government wins either way. If the man gives in, subservience is reinforced. If he does not, then he can be made an example of, to serve as a stern warning to others.

This is not a moment to be taken lightly. Nor is it one to be welcomed with excessive "bring it on" bravado. America, which is emulating the rest of the West's decline, but at double-speed in these final stages, has reached the saddest impasse. Unlike other nations, which have passively sold off their freedom for the false security of a smiling, cradle to grave despotism, America has seen it coming, has resisted it with force, and is now about to be dragged off the cliff kicking and screaming.

The challenge facing the men of America -- not the mere "males," but the men -- is becoming clearer, starker, and more essential every day. That minority of us in the rest of the world who still care about freedom and modern civilization can only watch, with concern, sadness and hope, as the U.S. federal government, having reached its moment of final metamorphosis -- its "fundamental transformation" -- stares its patriotic citizens in the eye and says, "I dare you."

From the land of rebellious individualism of intellect - the land of Madison, Jefferson, Emerson and Melville; to the land of an almost careless abandonment to joy -- the land of Astaire, Ellington, Gershwin and Singin' In the Rain; to the brink of sorrow and downtroddenness, in such a short time, historically speaking. Surely it's too soon for this glorious run to end.

That's interesting because from my point of view, I'm the one saying, "I dare you."

As a sovereign living soul upon the land, confrontation of tyranny is a daily battle.

One thing they need to clearly understand.

This is not the 90's.

There will be no more free Waco's.

I double dog dare em! They attempt to pull another Waco, we need to respond and without hesitation.

The militia movement flubbed it with both Ruby Ridge and Waco. No more!

Talked all the talk, now its time to walk the walk!

A disarmed population is a police state.

One thing they didn't count on with Ruby Ridge and Waco. Their show of force backfired in their face.

Until that time, the militia movement had been a tiny unknown entity. After the fed assaults the movement grew exponentially and people all over the country were arming and forming up in massive numbers. The publicly organized groups sent every atf office in the country a statement that another Waco style incident would be considered an intolerable act and would necessitate a response from the patriot movement.

The first AWB was their response to the militia. But, that had the effect of strengthening our resolve even more.

I have to admit, It is an interesting article...I am sure there will be a few situations like that... But Waco and Ruby Ridge, scared them, for a while..Remember they didn't try that again..They were afraid after Waco and Ruby Ridge, that the next time people would come and help the folks who were surrounded..Remember the Freeman stand off..


http://www.cnn.com/US/9603/montana_freemen/28/index.html

Remember this link is from CNN and was written in 96, they were in the height of vilifying the militia back then..

LeRoy M. Schweitzer the Freeman leader Died in Federal Prison in Sept 2011

Greywolf

1996 was a long time ago. I don't think they're scared anymore. If anything they would probably welcome the scenario of units from across the country coming to help.

You have to wonder what would've happened if others had shown up at Waco or RR. We may not be in the desperate position we are now or maybe things would be worse

Their arrogance will do them in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wto6A4-gIEw

The Nutnfancy speech

A quote from Braveheart..."Well I didn't get all dressed up for nothing" I will no go quietly into the dark. I am a honest, tax paying, church going, constitution loving American. I will support my fellow Patriots.

It is not your duty to die valiantly in some blaze of glory as the feds kick in your door or assault you a la Ruby Ridge. Those were the lessons of prior Patriots. Who came to their aid? No one. There is still a man out there who shot an innocent woman with a baby in her arms through a door with a high powered rifle. Defence in position does not work. Chaos is the game maker. Gunny knew best. Organize, adapt, improvise, overcome.

Actually there were a lot of angry protesters at RR. That's why they let Bo Gritz and Jack McLamb go in to try and diffuse the situation before it turned ugly.

Next round at Waco...they didn't let anyone near the place...not even local leo's or fire fighters who recognized BS when they smelt it.

There were also several groups preparing to go to Tex. But, everyone kept saying to stand down and not make matters worse for the people inside.

We all know how that turned out don't we.

Numbers grew and shrank but the peak protest numbers were 2500 at RubyRidge , Men on the ground stopped the Fire-bombing with their video recorders, the pilot of the helicopter with a large bladder of incendiary slung under the chopper saw the camera men and aborted the mission, the three men bomb-shelled out, one escaping apprehension.

Bill Cooper tried to get a chopper pilot to drop him inside the WACO perimeter but could not find a single one for hire that would take the risk.

Bill warned everyone they would burn the Davidians as a human sacrifice, they tried at Ruby Ridge but were frustrated by the camera men.

They taunted Weaver , as his wife lay dead under the kitchen table they blared over the APC loud-speaker, "we had pancakes for breakfast Vicky what di you have for breakfast"

I can not forget , I will not forget, judgement is coming !

I think they are hoping time has faded and the Waco and Ruby Ridge events will be in the backs of the people's minds. They will forget what they saw and "kids" will go by the Offical Story.

Thanks for setting me straight about those that had the cajones to show up at Ruby Ridge and Waco. We will need that strength again. Anyone have an after action or You Tube link as to what transpired when these individuals showed up? With cell phone cameras and video it will be a little harder to hide the truth from people. But the past can quickly tell us what didn't work and what may work in the future should there be a need.

I think they learned a lot of valuable intel at RR and Waco...They will not make the same mistake during peace time..But under Martial law, they will come full force...

Ruby Ridge was more a more isolated area but was more accessible to protesters..They learn as CSC said to keep the media and protester miles away.

With Waco, they had to scramble to destroy valuable evidence..After that they turn to the courts to do their dirty work on the FREEMAN...

Not saying they wouldn't attack like they did at Waco again now after 20 years, but for the last twenty they have been a little shy about those kinds of standoffs..

Why?

Because Waco was not a high priority target..What it was in their minds was an easy target..

Hence the name OPERATION SHOWTIME...

The BATF thought that Waco, was a bunch of loners and not supported by the community, which in their eyes made them a golden Media event...

It backfired...


Whether the BATF fired first or the Church folks made little difference, once the first agent was killed they had to get control of the Church property and destroy any evidence of their own mistakes..

In the heat of the mess they made many...


After Waco, when the government did it's review, They decided never to pull a media event of this size again...At least not without being absolutely sure they could pull it off...

So that is why, all you have seen since, other then a couple peacefully settled standoffs in the immediate years..Has been attacks on lone holdouts and small groups, something they can control..

Such as Dyer and a few small militia groups...


They haven't hit a group of 30 or more armed militia men, during a FTX...

Always smaller groups, and After they learned they could have arrested David Koresh on his morning jog, they now take that opportunity when available..

These showtimes are never during the arrest anymore, now they keep the media back till it is over and then show the spoils of victory..

If those spoils don't add up to a large enough haul, they bring in more weapons or claim more then that captured...

Yes they learned some valuable intel from Waco...

They learned, they needed to spend many years vilifying the militia, and gun owners, till no one would stand with them...

I think they thought they were there, after years of calling militia men terrorist and Sandy Hook happened, fulfilling their dream of disarming folks ...

backfired again....

But the biggest lesson they learned was...

They learned, you have to pick on folks who can't fight back, and you better make damn sure they can't before you stick you head in the door..

greywolf

Good point. I see the stink of that on this new tactic of "free speech zones" Who came up with that one? I'm surprised that the North Carolina protestors complied with that. It just gave the guberment a win when the NC protestors should have stood their ground in front of the capital.

Yeah well, its going to interesting when when the next "event" happens. We see it a lot with the criminals targeting cops and you can easily see it in the Ceres Police Shoot Out;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=864LC3qYgjQ

They will go after people who cannot or will not counter attack. If the Dividians would have been able to, trained to counter attack & done so against the feds the story would have been very different. With coming door to door you have to fight; the fact remains it you want to survive you have to risk dying to do it.