Tiller Murder Requires Proportionate Response in Perspective

On my blog at sntjohnny.com, I issued a series of posts trying to establish some sense of proportion and perspective about the Tiller murder, the question has been raised as to why the emphasis.

I had my reasons.

Here are links to those entries:

Tiller’s Death and the Internet and Right Wing Extremists

gun control needed to stem abortionist killings in churches

BREAKING NEWS: Today 150,000,000 pro-lifers woke up and DID NOT kill an abortionist.

And this present essay that you are reading was posted already at:

Why Proportion and Perspective is Needed Regarding the Tiller Murder

The reasons for this emphasis go beyond the recent murder of Tiller, however.  We can go back to a post that I made not too long ago that suggested that a ‘right-wing extremist’ attack was not merely inevitable, but something that the current administration actually wants to happen.

Here is a little quote:

Here is what I think. I think that the recently admitted NSA over-collection of American domestic communications revealed that people- even decent people- are really, really, really, really, really, POed about the way things are and the way they are going. I think that material helped drive the DHS report, but I think the DHS was just looking for an excuse.

This report is likely to produce the very thing it is warning about. With this report, every conservative American became subject to the Thought Police and a target of scrutiny by the Federal government. I believe it will put some people over the edge. I believe the intent was to put them over the edge. Continue reading

One Liberty Guarantees the Rest: Original Sin, the Government, and the Right to Bear Arms

By Anthony Horvath

(For a spirited discussion of issues related to this topic, see this forum entry at sntjohnny.com)

With yet another school shooting, this time in NIU, along with the so-called ‘meat cleaver’ killer in New York, we can take a few minutes again to revisit the question of the nature of man. Those who read my blog or my forum know that I firmly believe that the right to bear arms is extremely important. Incidents like the NIU event don’t even surprise us anymore. However, it hit a little close to home for me because I have former students who attend there and have friends who know people there.

Naturally, pundits and candidates moved quickly to capitalize on the event. Hillary Clinton informed the nation that she once shot a duck while hunting and so “she is a supporter of the second amendment.” As if the right to bear arms meant only the right to hunt! Democrats tend to think of the 2nd Amendment in those terms while conservatives tend to think of the 2nd Amendment in terms of a right to self-defense.

In this article I wish to point out that the 2nd Amendment encompasses both of those emphases but is really concerned with something else. It is not about a right to defend ourselves against criminals but rather a right to defend ourselves if it is the government itself that is criminal.

Many states with conceal and carry laws still forbid the carrying of weapons at schools and churches and government buildings. With shootings at schools, churches, and government buildings continuing, one begins to suspect that laws do not stop madmen but only keep honest men and women from fighting back.

I didn’t use to think this way. I have come to this perspective through two twin routes that I believe that Christians in particular should reflect but should be considered by any thinking individual. Gun legislation is not the only thing affected by these twin strands.

In the first place, we need not go far to understand that the root problem is that people themselves are dangerous. Christians call this the doctrine of ‘original sin’ and it is the only doctrine that can be empirically demonstrated. If you understand that people are not intrinsically good but rather incline bad, then you will construct policies that reflect that reality. For most legislators, however, the idea that people might want to do something just because they are evil doesn’t seem to occur.

As I came to grips with the reality of ‘original sin’ I realized that many of my liberal ideas just had to go. It isn’t even that the ideas were bad or immoral. Simply put, if they had been carried out it would be a recipe for disaster. Abuse is inevitable. My ideas presume the best intentions all the time mixed with sincere, honest, and intelligent people carrying them out. This assumption is not justified.

Let us take a minute to tend to the second strand which might not be as objectionable because of its religious implications but still takes us to the same place.

One of the first things I discovered as I began grappling with the facts of history is that the biggest killer of all is not the mugger or rapist or even the serial killer. The biggest killer, hands down, is government. There is a terrific website which helps lay this out and I thoroughly recommend it: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

At that web page you will see documented the atrocities of the last century as well as back into recorded history. Naïve atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins worry their little heads about the dangers of religion, but it is clear as you look at the facts that religion is just one of many pretexts by which power hungry men assert themselves over other men. For example, in the Crusades, over three centuries the site says that 1,000,000 died. That figure isn’t just wholesale slaughter, but includes famine and disease, and includes also the deaths of the Crusaders themselves at the hands of their foes. By contrast, in the 20th century… so just one century, not three, China created 75,000,000 dead bodies. The USSR created 61,000,000.

That is the last century, friends. According to the Democide site, there were 262,000,000 people who died either directly or indirectly but still as the result of Government. Rwanda’s genocide occurred in recent memory and within reach of the International community to have done something about it, but it was tribal concerns that drove the slaughter, not ‘religion.’

No, we must come to grips with the fact that throughout history throughout the whole world, the biggest threat to man is not merely Man but Man in Charge.

The need for checks and balances is obvious. However, if you can’t count on the men and women in government to always act in the interest of the people and that even in many cases they will pursue their own interests, even resorting to murder if necessary, what kind of ‘check’ might possibly exist on people of power?

An armed populace is the only thing an armed government could possibly fear when ‘best intentions’ and ‘sincerity’ is lacking. We talk about having the right to defend ourselves when confronted with gunmen in our schools, malls, and councils, and certainly there is a place for that. However, no gunman is as dangerous as the institution of Government itself.

Here a common protest is that it simply is not realistic to presume that in our day and age, in our civilization, the calamities we bore witness to throughout the world could ever possibly happen here in the United States. Perhaps not today. However, the right to bear arms is the right that ensures we keep all of our other rights. It is the liberty that actualizes all other liberties. If this liberty is diminished, and the country changes in twenty years, it will be too late to reclaim it. At least, too late without first paying our own price of tens of millions dead.

We operate on the assumption that all will continue on as it has been continuing on. However, as the riots in LA show – or even as riots after the win of a professional sports team! – civilization is only skin deep. What’s more, the influx of illegal immigrants to the south is not coming ideologically neutral. Many are coming with the ideologies that expressly led to some of the atrocities of the last century. In forty years, it won’t just be the ethnic make-up of the country at risk, but potentially also the ideological one.

It is an uncomfortable thought to consider that we might want our government to be worried about its own citizens. We might think to ourselves that we don’t want our police officers, for example, to be concerned that someone might fight back. After all, we have courts, right? History shows us that there exists a thing called a mock trial. Granted, we are far off from such things in our country right now. To keep them far off for the foreseeable future, it is important that our government has a healthy fear of those it rules.

That brings us full circle. Why should power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely? What is it about Man that makes this so? What is the best explanation? If it is, as I have said because man is inclined towards wickedness, then we might wonder if there is something to the claim that we need a savior. Jesus does not promise utopia. He doesn’t even encourage the pursuit of one. However, perhaps when we grapple with utopian ideals we’ll come to see that man is hopelessly sick and needs a Doctor and that Doctor cannot be Government.

Anthony Horvath is the author of Fidelis and the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries.  (For a spirited discussion of issues related to this topic, see this forum entry at sntjohnny.com)

Mexican Government vs Those “Absurd” American Gun Rights

Below is a link to a great site for insight into events in Mexico that relate to Americans and their sovereignty. Rerun with permission from Allan Wall.
To Laigle’s Forum readers:
For many it may seem exaggerated to speak of a North American Union of the EU type. But I recall when the EU was called the EEC, European Economic Community. A few years later it was called the European Union and it had its own constitution, its own legislative body and its own court. The influence of the native courts of the individual nations is rapidly dwindling, and in fact, the legislators there are required to “harmonize” their laws to the EU laws. In other words, a centralized system has overwhelmed the nations, which are little more than puppet governments.
Now extrapolate all of that the our nation and imagine Mexico had as much power over our legislation as we did.
The open border policies of this administration and the attempts to pass an amnesty bill against the opposition of the overwhelming majority of grassroots Americans are the first steps. So far, we have managed to hold a runaway Senate at bay. If these same concerned citizens extend their efforts to the rest of this treachery on the part of their elected officials, perhaps we can remain a sovereign nation a little longer.
We must try.


Memo From Mexico, By Allan Wall
Mexican Government Vs. Those “Absurd” American Gun Rights
Nature abhors a vacuum. When the U.S. government ceased to care about controlling the U.S.-Mexican border, the region descended into anarchy.

We now have illegal aliens and drugs moving north and Mexican drug smugglers even setting up listening and observation posts north of the border. There is an intrinsic relation between drug and alien smuggling, with drug smugglers using illegal aliens, sometimes as drug runners, sometimes as decoys.

But open borders work both ways. Recently, the Mexican government has been getting upset because of south-bound smuggling: of guns. Its preferred solution: the U.S. should abolish the right to keep and bear arms.

Don’t laugh—if the Bush-backed drive to marry Mexico prevails, gun control will happen.

In Mexico, the drug cartel wars go on and on. The last report I saw put it at 1263 slain in drug killings so far in calendar year 2007.

President Calderon, inaugurated in December, has made smashing the cartels one of his main priorities. Calderon has shown a lot of resolve and determination, in contrast to the passive response of Vicente Fox at the end of his presidential term. The Mexican public seems to support Calderon. A poll taken in May indicated a more optimistic Mexican public than the same poll taken 10 months earlier (July of 2006), despite the fact that killings have increased since then. In addition, 67% of Mexicans polled agreed that national security was at risk.

Nevertheless, crushing the cartels is an enormous challenge.

Jailing cartel chiefs doesn’t solve the problem, since they can continue to run their cartels from jail, or they’re just taken over by a relative, or a struggle for supremacy breaks out within the cartel.

Really eradicating the cartels would involve going after their funds, which are laundered to utilize a legitimate business as a cover. It also involves going after crooked cops, of which Mexico has no dearth. It’s been estimated that half the cops in the country are paid off by a drug cartel. [Police corruption undermines Mexico’s war on drugs, By Robin Emmott, Reuters, May 22, 2007] Some cops actually function as drug runners and hitmen.

Calderon has chosen the army as his principal weapon against the cartels because the Mexican army is one of the most respected institutions in the country and the president has more control over it than over the police. Nevertheless, the military route poses problems as well. The Mexican army has a high desertion rate. Some ex-soldiers find their way into the cartels, where the pay is much higher.

And, let’s face it, part of the problem is the enormous demand for drugs in the United States. It’s not a simple question of evil Mexican drug dealers and innocent Americans. There is a significant population of Americans who are voluntarily buying drugs. Americans are thus the principal financiers of Mexican drug cartels.

Our own “War on Drugs” has been an abject failure. So now that our own government is more and more integrated with that of Mexico, we pressure Mexico to go after the cartels—although we can’t even reduce demand.

The late Milton Friedman was a critic of the war on drugs, and the deleterious effects it has on other countries. In 1998, Friedman described it thusly:

“Our drug policy has led to thousands of deaths and enormous loss of wealth in countries like Colombia, Peru and Mexico, and has undermined the stability of their governments. All because we cannot enforce our laws at home. If we did, there would be no market for imported drugs. There would be no Cali cartel. The foreign countries would not have to suffer the loss of sovereignty involved in letting our advisers and troops operate on their soil, search their vessels and encourage local militaries to shoot down their planes. They could run their own affairs, and we, in turn, could avoid the diversion of military forces from their proper function.”  It’s Time to End the War on Drugs, Hoover Digest, 1998, #2

That was in 1998. Now the Colombian cartels have been replaced with Mexican cartels, but the basic analysis is the same.

(Of course, Milton Friedman also said that “It’s just obvious that you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.” They didn’t listen to Friedman on that topic either!)

As for weapons smuggling, that goes the other way. Mexican drug cartels send people to the U.S. to buy weapons, then they bring them back into Mexico.

Mexico has much stricter gun laws than the U.S. There are big signs on the border warning people about this. So how do they get them in?

According to members of the Mexican congress, it’s because of corruption in the Mexican Customs Department. The cartels have infiltrated their people into customs, and so they help their cartel companions get the guns into Mexico. In fact, about 2,000 illegal weapons enter the country daily.

And according to our own ATF, 60% of the illegal arms in Mexico come from the U.S. (which would also mean that 40% of them come from elsewhere).

The Mexican government is unhappy with the U.S. because of all these weapons entering its territory. Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora recently had this to say:

“American law seems absurd to me, because ….the citizens can easily acquire arms. American society lives the consequences of this on a daily basis, and it has begun to be reflected upon as a result of that Korean  not long ago.” [VDARE.COM note: If an American Attorney General referred to a mass murderer by race, he’d be looking at early retirement. You are invited to imagine what would happen if John Ashcroft referred to the Washington Snipers as “Those black guys,” or even “Those Muslims,” to get some idea of how much more insensitive Mexicans are about these things.] [“Cínica”, la política antidrogas de EU; su ley es “absurda”: Medina Mora, Alfredo Mendez, La Jornada, June 15, 2007]

So the Mexican government doesn’t like our gun laws, eh? Well, just as American drug buyers feed the Mexican cartels, so Mexican demand for guns feeds that market.

And although Mexican gun laws are stricter than ours, that hasn’t stopped plenty of Mexicans from getting their hands on automatic weapons, grenades and rocket launchers—all of which are utilized by drug cartels.

Mexican officials want to have their cake and eat it too. They want an open border for Mexicans to go into the U.S. whenever they want. But they don’t want Mexicans in the U.S. to buy weapons and bring them back into Mexico!

If you really want open borders, you’d better be prepared for who and what comes across them, and for whatever reason.

In fact, the increasing integration of the two countries exacerbates the problems.

After all, if one country doesn’t like the drug or gun laws of its neighbors, that wouldn’t be a problem if each were a sovereign nation minding its own business, would it?

And, consider this. If all these Council on Foreign Relations-inspired Security And Prosperity Partnership and North American Union developments continue apace, these border problems will be “solved” by eliminating the border.

The CFR 2005 report Building a North American Community called for the “establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community” that has a common “outer security perimeter”. It proposes that the North American Community’s “boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe.”

What our elites are moving toward is the elimination of the U.S.-Mexican and U.S.-Canadian borders and their replacement by the “outer security perimeter” around North America.

(And eventually, even that border would no doubt be subsumed into an even larger globalist entity).

So what would happen to the guns, drugs and illegal aliens now crossing the border?

In the case of the illegal aliens, they would be allowed to continue crossing because they wouldn’t be aliens anymore.

In the case of drugs and guns, their legality would be determined on the basis of the new legal system of the globalized entity…not by the old-fashioned U.S. constitution.

We are unmistakably headed for the loss of U.S. sovereignty, and the sovereignty of neighboring countries, to be replaced by rule by a transnational globalized bureaucratic elite.

That’s what the future looks like—if we don’t stop it now.

American citizen Allan Wall (email him) resides in Mexico, with a legal permit issued him by the Mexican government. Allan recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his FRONTPAGEMAG.COM articles

Arizona Lawmaker Working with Mexican Drug Dealers and Coyotes

by Sher Zieve


Arizona Congressional Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), a former Green Party member, has proposed a law that would stop US citizens from protecting their property and lives from illegal aliens who cross the US-Mexico border. Although directed at the citizen organization The Minutemen Civil Defense Corps, Sinema’s proposed HB2286 states that “domestic terrorism” shall include: “An individual or group of individuals commits domestic terrorism if the individual or group of individuals are not affiliated
with a local, state or federal law enforcement entity and associate with another individual or group of individuals as an organization, group, corporation or company for the purpose of patrolling to detect alleged illegal activity or to individually patrol for the purpose of detecting alleged illegal activity and if the individual or group of individuals is armed with a firearm or other weapon.”

As her proposal includes all “individuals”, those US citizens attempting to protect their properties and families from the illegal hordes (which comprise both drug dealers and other illegal aliens) would be tried in a court of law and sentenced to jail time. The legislation further states: “If the court sentences the defendant [US citizen] to a term of probation, the court shall order that as an initial condition of probation the defendant be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of not
less than six months. This jail term of incarceration shall not be deferred, deleted or otherwise suspended and shall commence on the date of sentencing. This subsection does not apply to persons who are sentenced to serve a period of incarceration in the state department of corrections.” If passed, this will be a Class 5 felony. No statutes against the drug dealers and illegals have been proposed by Sinema. With the recent decision by our liberal courts against US Border Patrol Agents Jose
Compean and Ignacio Ramos, and the granting of immunity to Mexican drug dealer Osvaldo Aldrete Davila for his testimony against the agents, common sense and the law have finally and perhaps inexorably been turned upside-down. The US Border Patrol Agents are in jail for doing their jobs and a drug dealer is still free to practice his trade. Does this make any sense, common or otherwise, at all?

What Sinema is effectively saying is that she supports illegal immigrants over legal US citizens. And what she has effectively done is sided with Mexican drug dealers and illegals (including terrorists) crossing our border. For some time, Sinema has been trying to shut down the Minutemen citizens’ organization and calls them “scary.” Apparently, however, she doesn’t view either drug smugglers or those crossing illegally in the millions across our border that way. And, should this bill be
passed, US citizens will no longer be allowed to advise the US Border Patrol of illegal border crossings-leaving the border less protected than it already is. The Minutemen have helped-not hindered. With the New Leftist Democrat Congress in control, I have no doubt that this new suppression of rights will spread to other states-and soon.

Responding to Sinema’s proposed bill, Minutemen leader Chris Simcox said: “Her bill would render all neighborhood watch groups illegal, as well as the Guardian Angels. And anyone who is not sponsored or sanctioned by a law enforcement agency would be deemed to be illegal.” Note: This, of course, includes ALL US citizens.

With the plethora of new anti-free speech legislations proposed by Democrats, we have been sternly warned. Chillingly, Stalinism has been resurrected and is alive and well in the United States of America.




Sher Zieve is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets