Pacific Free Press was launched in March 2007 by Dutch-Canadian Richard
Kastelein of V.O.F. Expathos, in the Netherlands along with Chris Cook- CFUV radio journalist and Editor in Chief of Pacific Free Press. Cook is based in , Victoria, British Columbia.
The mission of Pacific Free Press is simple: to dig out nuggets of truth from
the slag-heap of lies, ignorance and witless diversion that has buried
public discourse today. Pacific Free Press provides a new venue for
disseminating hard news and insightful, fact-based analysis of the
harsh realities too often ignored or distorted by the mainstream press.
If the world will be gulled, let it be gulled. -Robert Burton
Americans refuse to end the reign of the National Rifle Association's (NRA) gun control lobby. The lobby has insisted for 125 years that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right of every American to own a gun.
Buy the hype in that position and then listen to the same NRA Americans and supporters calling for Hezbollah to give up their weapons. The Lebanese Hezbollah used their guns in the way that Americans never had to--to defend against an invasion.
The American position on gun control hasn't changed. Yet they want Lebanese citizens controlled, meaning no private ownership of guns for defense.
If that's not perfidy, duplicity and deceit, what is?
Either give up guns in America or stop clamoring for Hezbollah to give up theirs.
George W. Bush, spoke of confronting "the great challenge of this
century, and it's this: as young democracies flourish, terrorists try
to stop their progress. And it's the great challenge of the United
States and others who are blessed with living in free countries.”
Included among Bush's "flourishing democracies" and "free countries" is
the apartheid regime of Israel which grew out of the afterburner of
Irgun and the Strern Gang--two of history's worst terrorist
organizations, one of which was led by Menachem Begin, who later became
Israel's prime minister.
If that's not perfidy, duplicity and deceit, what is?
Further expanding on his reference to terrorists," Bush added: "They
try to spread their jihadist message, a message I call--it's
totalitarian in nature--Islamic radicalism, Islamic Fascism; they try
to spread it as well by taking the attack to those of us who love
freedom."
If the labeling of the "jihadist message" as "Islamic Fascism" was
Bush's idea of shifting the Nazi-like superior race image from an
apartheid regime's treatment of Palestinians, he compounds the
foolishness with his reference to "those of us who love freedom."
On October 17, George W. Bush signed into law the Military Commissions
Act of 2006. This new law gives Bush power similar to that of Stalin or
Hitler, and grants agencies within the executive branch powers similar
to those of the KGB or Gestapo. This is supposed to represent "those of
us who love freedom."
If that's not perfidy, duplicity and deceit, what is?
Mike Whitney writes of the Russian president: "Putin has been
criticized for using oil and natural gas to send a message to rivals in
Georgia and Ukraine. Vice President Cheney has called this 'blackmail'.
In reality, it is an effective and peaceful way to send a message to
provocateurs that there are limits to one’s patience. It is unwise to
tweak the nose of the man who is heating your house and powering your
vehicle.
"Besides, Cheney is the last one who should be talking about 'energy
blackmail'. Can anyone forget the extortion-racket that Enron conducted
against the American people; bilking them of tens of billions of
dollars while the Federal Energy Commission (FEC) breezily looked the
other way? Or the skyrocketing gas prices (which created unprecedented
profits for the oil giants) which have mysteriously plummeted at the
pump just weeks before the mid-term elections?"
If that's not perfidy, duplicity and deceit, what is?
The only country to ever use nuclear bombs is readying itself to bomb a
country that defiantly works on developing nuclear power. The only
Middle Eastern country possessing nuclear bombs is Israel, and Israel
hasn't signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Nobody ever talks
or writes about the dangers of Israel's nuclear capacity.
Don't forget that this one Middle Eastern country with weapons of mass
destruction just finished a bloodbath in Lebanon along with the insane
destruction of the country's infrastructure--bridges, roads, airports,
power plants--with no regard for human life; and their WMDs are simply
accepted without question.
If that's not perfidy, duplicity and deceit, what is?
I could go on for pages and pages with examples of perfidy, duplicity
and deceit by the world’s worst snake-oil peddlers. The administration,
its shills in Congress and the judiciary have all either taken part in
the deceptions or they've turned another cheek--and that’s not a
reference to the one next to the nose.
As one commentator said, "I don't know how many of these logical
inconsistencies you can hold in your mind at one time, but I guess
they're counting on you holding a bunch of them.”
I don't know about you? I've had enough! They’re making me ill.
perfidy, duplicity and SELF-deceit written by Jimmy Montague,
October 26, 2006
I've watched for years while the NRA advocates unrestricted gun ownership for SOME Americans and insists that others be disarmed. I've watched for years while liberals advocate repeal of the Second Amendment but insist that the other nine are sacred.
I have a lot in common with the NRA in as much as I own several guns and believe that the Second Amendment guarantees every American the right to own guns. Where I differ with the NRA is that I see nothing in the Second Amendment which says that convicted criminals ought to be disarmed. Unlike the NRA, I think that when you grant government's authority to take rights away from anyone for any reason, then you place the rights of everyone in jeopardy.
For example: If government can take away my right to own guns because I'm a convicted drug dealer, then government can take away your right to free speech because you're a convicted spouse abuser -- or maybe you have unpaid parking tickets -- or maybe you got drunk and beat up the mayor -- or maybe George W. Bush thinks you look like an unlawful enemy combatant.
Of course I'm not a convicted drug dealer and you're probably not convicted of anything either, but my point should be obvious: If my rights are not inviolable, then neither are yours. If you want to repeal the Second Amendment, who are you to object if I want to repeal the First or the Third or the Fifth?
Another point where I differ with both the NRA and liberals is that both groups are pro-law enforcement. The NRA can't cheer loud enough when cops are granted power to break down doors without warning, power to conduct warrentless searches, the right to use "coerced testimony," etc. But who does the NRA suppose will go door to door impounding weapons if and when the anti-gun lobby gets its wish and the Second Amendment is repealed? And liberals can't cheer loud enough when cops set up some poor slob like Randy Weaver and then bust him for selling an illegal weapon? But who do liberals suppose will go door-to-door arresting "unlawful enemy combatants" if and when George W. Bush decides to use his newly granted "decider" powers to lock up people he doesn't like? Hint: Some of the goofballs over on HuffPo have recently posted their expectation that, if push comes to shove, cops will refuse to do Dubya's bidding and may actually stage a revolt.
Cops are agents of Authority, and Authority doesn't like people who have either the will (liberals) or the means (gun owners) to resist Authority. People who rely on the police to protect them are deluded. The time will come when both the NRA and the liberals will rue the day that they placed their trust in police.
Every street-wise person knows that cops cannot be trusted. Every street-wise person knows that cops cannot and will not protect them. Liberals who want Democrats to win and hold a congressional majority will be smart to keep their anti-gun sentiments out of sight and their anti-gun lips buttoned tight. Street-wise Americans want to keep their weapons.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Constitutional Freedoms written by Frank Borelli,
October 26, 2006
Hmmm... it seems to me that the article is about how America views, and wants to treat, American citizens differently than warring and violent terrorist organizations in the middle east. While I don't agree with most of what is expressed in the article, I have to admit that it's well written; well thought out; and at least makes the reader think. Whether I ultimately decide to agree or disagree is a personal decision based on my own beliefs and values - and, in this case, not because the article was hobbled together with a 1st-grade vocabulary (which it wasn't) and constructed poorly (which it wasn't). So the article in and of itself was enough to make me at least think about the author's point of view.
However, the first comment posted above doesn't appear to be about the apparent conflict that exists between America's beliefs and America's actions (as delineated in the article). That comment is nothing more than an attack on the National Rifle Association and makes several mistakes in supporting that attack.
First, and most glaring to me, the NRA does not "The NRA can't cheer loud enough when cops are granted the power to break down doors without warning..." The reader/writer seems to feel that the NRA just loves the police and uses them as agents of authority. Here's a hint: the NRA has no control over the police AT ALL. The NRA has often called attention to the wrongness of police misusing their authority. The NRA fought against the police confiscating weapons in New Orleans. The NRA stood up against federal agents misusing their authority at Ruby Ridge. The NRA has never called for a reduction of any other Constitutionally protected right and indeed promotes the opinion that our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was specifically designed by our fore fathers to insure the government can never become a tyranny or dictatorship.
What I think scares me most is that the reader/writer seems to feel that we, as a society, are wrong for keeping weapons out of the hands of people who have proven themselves violent. Drug dealers, murderers, robbers, rapists... if the reader/writer believes that those convicted criminals should keep their 2nd Amendment rights, then he should also believe that every citizen has a right to carry a gun to defend themselves against those crimes. And if that were the case, there simply wouldn't be as many criminals in prison. They'd have been shot by law abiding citizens - those the criminals try to victimize.
Stay on point. If you're upset with the U.S. for foreign policy, then so be it. No one can make everyone happy all of the time. If you're a reader who somehow thinks that the NRA is responsible for Israel having nuclear weapons... get a grip.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Not anti-NRA but anti-inconsistency written by Jimmy Montague,
October 27, 2006
I don't mind the NRA and never said I was against them. I only point out that the NRA is logically inconsistent in its position that convicted criminals should lose their Second Amendment rights. I say that's inconsistent because either our rights are "inalienable" ("inviolable" was the wrong word, sorry) or they are not. If our rights are NOT inalienable, then we never get through arguing over whose rights will be forfeit and who gets to keep theirs. In that argument, our "rights" are no longer rights but privileges and are therefore reduced to political footballs.
Yes. I do believe that every citizen has a right to carry a gun. Yes. I understand the consequences of that position. And I stand by it regardless. That's because of my point about how supposedly "inalienable" rights become mere privileges, which can be revoked at will by whoever has the authority.
I also attacked liberals for being logically inconsistent. On the one hand they believe we don't need guns because the police will protect us from criminals or from authority run amok. On the other hand they fear that authority (George Bush) will use the authority Congress recently granted him and send police (whom liberals suppose will protect us) to round up political dissidents (oops! I mean terrorist suspects). If we don't need guns because police will protect us, who or what will protect us from police?
Comprende?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
NOT anti-NRA but anti-inconsistency written by Jimmy Montague,
October 27, 2006
Mr. Borelli: I have nothing against the NRA, never said I did and never accused them of using the police as agents of authority. Maybe you'd better read my post again.
What I did say about the NRA (in different words) is that the NRA favors tough law-enforcement. They approve of no-knock searches and other tough police tactics when those tactics are used against "real criminals" like drug dealers. The NRA believes that "real criminals" ought to lose their Second Amendment rights.
I said that the NRA's position there is not only a mistake, it's logically inconsistent. I said so because, once you concede that government has the authority to deny the constitutional right of ANY ONE PERSON, then the rights of EVERYONE are in jeopardy. In fact, by conceding that the rights of some are NOT inalienable, you admit that our "rights" are not rights at all but mere privileges which can be granted or revoked by whoever has the authority to do so. Our so-called rights are thus become political footballs adrift in the political wind.
That's why I say it's both a mistake and a logical inconsistency to insist that convicted criminals be disarmed. It's also a mistake to insist that convicted criminals be disenfranchised, and for the same reasons. If anyone's rights can be taken from them, then neither your rights nor mine are secure.
The NRA now fears liberals because liberals typically favor gun-control and SOME liberals want to repeal the Second Amendment. So the NRA spends lots of time and mega-millions of dollars to keep liberals from despoiling the Second Amendment.
How much easier and cheaper it would be for the NRA (and for the rest of us) if we held everyone's rights inalienable, as the Founders did in their famous Declaration of Independence. We could quit arguing over who has what rights and get to work on fixing some of our other problems.
My post also attacked liberals for their logical inconsistency. On the one hand, they want you and me to give up our guns because, they say, the police will protect us from crime and from tyrants. On the other hand, liberals fear that George Bush will soon use the authority granted him by Congress to round up political dissidents. But if the police will protect us from tyrants, as liberals hope and claim, who will George Bush send to round up the dissidents? Spanky and Our Gang? The Keystone Cops?
You know and I know who the government will send. Liberals know, too, else what are they worried about? In their hearts they know the police will not protect them, which is why I used the word "self-deceit" in the title of my original post.
Finally, for what it's worth: The argument I've made here bears on Dr. Balles' article because Dr. Balles is right: Uncle Sam's insistence that Hezbollah be disarmed is hypocritical in light of the fact that Uncle Sam doesn't (yet) disarm political dissidents here at home. My post argues that Uncle Sam's inconsistency in Lebanon reflects similar inconsistencies in the thinking of Americans generally.
Let me close by expressing my sincerest hope that America will find a way to resolve such inconsistencies without making a mockery of our Constitution by trammeling the rights of anyone.
Writings 
If the world will be gulled, let it be gulled. 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
I have a lot in common with the NRA in as much as I own several guns and believe that the Second Amendment guarantees every American the right to own guns. Where I differ with the NRA is that I see nothing in the Second Amendment which says that convicted criminals ought to be disarmed. Unlike the NRA, I think that when you grant government's authority to take rights away from anyone for any reason, then you place the rights of everyone in jeopardy.
For example: If government can take away my right to own guns because I'm a convicted drug dealer, then government can take away your right to free speech because you're a convicted spouse abuser -- or maybe you have unpaid parking tickets -- or maybe you got drunk and beat up the mayor -- or maybe George W. Bush thinks you look like an unlawful enemy combatant.
Of course I'm not a convicted drug dealer and you're probably not convicted of anything either, but my point should be obvious: If my rights are not inviolable, then neither are yours. If you want to repeal the Second Amendment, who are you to object if I want to repeal the First or the Third or the Fifth?
Another point where I differ with both the NRA and liberals is that both groups are pro-law enforcement. The NRA can't cheer loud enough when cops are granted power to break down doors without warning, power to conduct warrentless searches, the right to use "coerced testimony," etc. But who does the NRA suppose will go door to door impounding weapons if and when the anti-gun lobby gets its wish and the Second Amendment is repealed? And liberals can't cheer loud enough when cops set up some poor slob like Randy Weaver and then bust him for selling an illegal weapon? But who do liberals suppose will go door-to-door arresting "unlawful enemy combatants" if and when George W. Bush decides to use his newly granted "decider" powers to lock up people he doesn't like? Hint: Some of the goofballs over on HuffPo have recently posted their expectation that, if push comes to shove, cops will refuse to do Dubya's bidding and may actually stage a revolt.
Cops are agents of Authority, and Authority doesn't like people who have either the will (liberals) or the means (gun owners) to resist Authority. People who rely on the police to protect them are deluded. The time will come when both the NRA and the liberals will rue the day that they placed their trust in police.
Every street-wise person knows that cops cannot be trusted. Every street-wise person knows that cops cannot and will not protect them. Liberals who want Democrats to win and hold a congressional majority will be smart to keep their anti-gun sentiments out of sight and their anti-gun lips buttoned tight. Street-wise Americans want to keep their weapons.