We're Gonna Brainwash Those 2nd Amendment Rights Right Outta Your Head

My apologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein.

Isn't brainwashing prohibited by the Geneva Conventions as a form of torture? I thought that Progs were AGAINST torture???


Oh, that's riiight. You have to break a few eggs to make a good omelet. 

 

Breitbart.com has uncovered video from 1995 of then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder announcing a public campaign to "really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way." 

 

 

"We want to have as part of the anti-gun initiative bill an informational campaign to really change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC., and in particular our young people.  They are saturated in the media and in entertainment or by the entertainment industry with violence and I think that too many of our young people, particularly our young men, are fascinated with violence and, in particular, fascinated with guns.

What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we’ve changed our attitudes about cigarettes.   When I was growing up, people smoked all of the time -- both my parents did -- but over time, we changed the way people thought about smoking and now we have people, who cower outside of buildings, smoke in private and don't want to admit it.  Um, and that's what I think that we need to with guns...really change the way people think about guns.

Now, this is not something that's going to be very easy to do because we are fighting something, quite frankly, that appears everyday on the television, on the radio, in our popular music, in movies that these kids are exposed to.  It will be an effort that will entail this that I am not familiar with.  I think that I am a pretty good lawyer, but I, we need to get innovative, creative things that are going to grab the attention of these kids and really change the way, as I said, that they think about guns.  So, what I've asked is that the creative community in Washington, the ad agencies that create these snappy ads that make me buy things that I don't really need to devote that talent in a more constructive way so that we can get at the minds of these young people.

In this informational campaign, I've also called upon newspapers and the television stations to devote to us time and space so that we can get these ads and so that we can use these spots and not to give us 1, 2 o'clock in the morning when no one is watching, but to give us time when people, particularly young people, are watching television so that when they are watching The Fresh Prince of Bel Air or Martin or whatever else they watch...and, yeah, I watch them every once in a while...so that they will see these ads and be grabbed by these ads.

I've also asked people, who have influence over youngsters, entertainers, athletes, to be involved in this programme, as well, nut not only them, community leaders, Jesse Jackson, Mayor Marion Barry, people with credibility with young people should be on the television, on the radio, and telling these youngsters that it is wrong to carry a gun and that if you have information about people who are carrying guns that you need to share that with Chief Thomas and his people, as well.

I've also asked the school board to make a anti-gun message a part of  every day some kind of anti-violence, anti-gun message.  Every day, every school, and every level.    One thing that I think is clear with young people, and with adults as well, is that we have to be repetitive about this.  It is not enough to simply have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday.  We need to do it everyday of the week and brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.

We also want to have a hotline that we will set up and have the number of that hotline emblazoned in their minds so that when they see a gun or become familiar with the facts of a gun crime, they would call that hotline and pass that information on."

- Eric Holder, Women's National Democratic Club, 1995

In his remarks, broadcast by CSPAN 2, Holder - then US Attorney for the District of Columbia -  explained that he intended to use anti-smoking campaigns as his model to "change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC" about guns. Holder went on to become Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, and currently serves as Attorney General in the Obama Administration. 

The revelation that Holder wanted to “brainwash” people into being “anti-gun” appears to be supported by what Congress and the American people have learned about Operation Fast and Furious.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

 
- Adolf Hitler, 1935

Now, a word from our Founders:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment

During Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." - Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.

"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -  Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" - Richard Henry Lee, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them." - Zachariah Johnson, Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -  James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government." - John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." -  Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

THE SECOND MILITIA ACT OF 1792

"That EACH AND EVERY FREE ABLE-BODIED WHITE MALE CITIZEN of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, and under the age of forty-five years"

Reichskristallnacht was 74 years ago. Stephen Halbrook’s 2009 article in the St Thomas Law Review details the close connection between the disarmament of the German Jews and what came next. From the conclusion:

Over a period of several weeks in October and November 1938, the Nazi government disarmed the German Jewish population. The process was carried out both by following a combination of legal forms enacted by the Weimar Republic and by sheer lawless violence. The Nazi hierarchy could now more comfortably deal with "The Jewish Question" without fear of armed resistance by the victims.

It may be tempting to argue that the possession of firearms by the German Jews would have made no difference, either in the 1938 pogrom or later in the Holocaust, when the majority were deported and then eradicated in death camps. Yet. this fatalistic view ignores that the Nazis themselves viewed armed Jews as sufficiently dangerous to their policies to place great emphasis on the need to disarm all Jews. In 1938, it was by no means certain that Jewish armed resistance movements could not develop, and even less certain that individual Jews would not use arms to resist arrest, deportation, or attacks by the Nazis.

Consistent adherents of a “Never Again!” policy – which assumes that what has happened in history, could again happen – would seek policies to help ensure that it does not indeed occur again.

That brings us back to Alfred Flatow. [The article provides a case study of Flatow, a Jewish veteran of the German army, who competed for Germany in the 1896 Olympics.]

What if he – and an unknown number of other Germans, Jews and non-Jews alike – had not registered his firearms in 1932? Or if the Weimar Republic had not decreed firearm registration at all? What if the Nazis, when they took power in 1933 and disarmed social democrats and other political enemies, or when they decided to repress the entire Jewish population in 1938, did not have police records of registered firearm owners? Can it be said with certainty that no one, either individually or in groups small or large, would have resisted Nazi depredations?

One wonders what thoughts may have occurred to Alfred Flatow in 1942 when he was dying of starvation at the Theresienstadt concentration camp. Perhaps memories of the 1896 Olympics and of a better Germany flashed before his eyes. Did he have second thoughts, maybe repeated many times before, on whether he should have registered his revolver and two pocket pistols in 1932 as decreed by the Weimar Republic? Or whether he should have obediently surrendered them at a Berlin police station in 1938 as ordered by Nazi decree, only to be taken into Gestapo custody?

We will never know, but it is difficult to imagine that he had no regrets.

Here's some data that I've accumulated on foreign gun laws over the years.  If anyone has anything to add or change, leave a comment.  I am sure all of us would like to know what is going on elsewhere.

Switzerland has the second highest gun ownership rate of all industrialised countries behind the US. 22% of all households have fully automatic weapons. The gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept. The country has a population of 6 million, but there are estimated to be at least 2 million firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

In the US, 60 million (or less than 20%) of the population own 200 million guns.  In Switzerland, there are less guns per capita, but VIRTUALLY EVERY HOME HAS AT LEAST ONE WEAPON.

Now, get this:

The army sells a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons. Purchasers of these weapons require an easily obtained cantonal licence, and the weapons are registered.

Besides subsidised military surplus, the Swiss can buy other firearms easily too. While long guns require no special purchase procedures, handguns are sold only to those with a Waffenerwerbsschien (purchase certificate) issued by a cantonal authority. A certificate is issued to every applicant over 18, who is not a criminal or mentally infirm.

There are no restrictions on the carrying of long guns. About half the cantons have strict permit procedures for carrying handguns, and the other half have no rules at all There is no discernible difference in the crime rate between the cantons as a result of the different policies.

Thanks to a lawsuit brought by the Swiss gun lobby, semi-automatic rifles require no purchase permit and are not registered by the government. Thus, the only long guns registered by the government are full automatics.   Three cantons do require collectors of more than 10 guns to register.

While there are around 200 million guns in the United States, only about 20% of Americans own guns.   There may only be 2 million guns in Switzerland, a country of 6 million people, but nearly EVERY household is armed.

Look at school shootings:

#1. Erfurt, Germany, 2002, 18 were killed.

#2. Dunblane, Scotland, 1996, 16 kindergarteners and their teacher were shot.

#3. Winnenden, Germany, 2009, 15 murdered.

#4. Columbine, 1999, leaving 13 killed.

#5. Emsdetten, Germany, 2006, 11 murdered.

Germany has very strict gun laws. In fact, the German laws are far stricter than existing gun control in the US, or the restrictions that are routinely discussed here. Germany has strict licencing and registration requirements. Valid licences expire after 3 years. To even get a licence, people must past background cheques that include a demonstration of characteristics such as the subjective "trustworthiness" and convince the authorities that they have an urgent necessity for a gun. Of course, Germany also has requirements against licencing alcohol or drug addicts, those with mental disorders, people with violent or aggressive tendencies, and felony convictions.

The UK has the strictest gun laws in the world and we still have gun crimes. Primarily, they are spree killings like that occurred in Cumbria.  Of course, since the UK is the most violent country in the EU, those meanies are redesigning the pint. Why?  Because pint glasses lead to 5,500 stabbings in pubs every year. Have pint glass, will kill!
MORAL OF THE STORY:
MORE GUNS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO MORE GUN CRIMES

This was from an Australian writer:

America, don’t repeat Australia’s gun control mistake

After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, media hysteria and bipartisan political support for punishing gun owners increased. As a consequence, our gun laws were tightened.

We could have all responded like rational human beings and grieved for the deceased (35 in all). Instead, militant anti-gun activists viewed the massacre as an opportunity, and set out to punish freedom.

Hitler supported gun control. So did Stalin. Still, our activists were bent on portraying the gun-tolerant United States as the real menace. “Australia doesn’t want to end up like the Wild West,” went one common argument.

Yet, in 2011, I’m compelled to ask: When will we learn from our mistakes and admit we were wrong? And I ask this question because many Australians are victims of violence. In contrast, for criminals and their enablers, “gun control” is the gift that keeps on giving.

Take Melbourne, Australia’s second most populous city. Between January 16, 1998 and April 19, 2010, 36 criminal figures or partners were murdered during the Melbourne Gangland Killings.

Alas, family environments, from businesses to parks, were drawn into the mess.

The passage of gun control laws fueled our illegal arms market, and gun-hungry gangs multiplied. The significance: many gangland deaths/wars involved bullets. The tribal fights exploded after the Port Arthur massacre-inspired gun laws, against mainstream media predictions.

Continue reading:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/19/america-dont-repeat-australias-gun-control-mistake/

What If The Left Is Just One Potemkin Village After Another?

When you see a tree with a bunch of apples on it, the logical conclusion is that you are looking at an apple tree, right?

But what if you are looking at a political movement that claims to represent “the people,” yet constantly gets caught manufacturing the appearance of popular support?

That’s called an Astro-Turf tree and it’s found mainly - though not entirely -  on the Left, from the grassroots all the way to the nation’s capital. If you doubt me here, consider these recent stories:

• A headline in the feisty New Hampshire Journal proclaims: “Dems caught staffing group posing as GOP-friendly gay marriage organization.”

Standing Up for Families, an activist group touted as Republican by the pro-gay marriage forces in the Granite State, is being staffed by folks from local and state Democratic committees.

Trevor Chandler, the guy orchestrating it all, including the fake group’s red, white and blue elephant logo, just happens to be “a Democratic political operative who once worked for Rep. Paul Hodes, D-NH, whose Senate candidacy was rejected by Granite State voters in 2010,” according to the NHJ.

• Then there’s the national outcry against conservative Talk Radio meister Rush Limbaugh in response to his crude remarks about Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University Law student at the center of the HHS contraception coverage mandate flap.

Every major mainstream media outlet in the country has made hay reporting demands for Limbaugh’s sacking and the parade of advertisers allegedly leaving his program.

Then we learn from Legal Insurrection blogger William Jacobson that a left-wing political activist employed by Media Matters for America was the parade master waiting for Limbaugh to stumble so he could implement a program he created in 2009 for just such a purpose.

“While much of the public outcry against Limbaugh was genuine, the advertiser secondary boycott was astro-turfed by Media Matters, which initiated a pre-existing ‘Stop Limbaugh’ campaign, executed it over the first weekend of the controversy, and then hyped it and spoon fed it to the mainstream media without disclosing that a Media Matters employee was behind it all,” Jacobson reported.

But wait, there’s more.

• Remember all those “citizen protests” against the Keystone XL Pipeline that would bring oil to the U.S. Gulf Coast from Canada and create thousands of new jobs in the process? It was all planned and funded by a bunch of rich foundations and environmental activists, coordinated by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

They put it all on paper, too, according to the Heritage Foundation’s Lachlan Markay: “The presentation, written in 2008, describes the allocation of $7 million to environmental non-profits for tactics that include the use of the legislative and legal systems to delay or derail energy production in the United States and Canada, and to ‘raise the costs’ of energy in both nations.”

(By the way, I wonder what John D. Rockefeller would think if he knew his heirs were spending the proceeds from his work in the oil industry to destroy his work in the oil industry.)

• But the granddaddy of all modern leftist astro-turfing efforts is probably the $140 million creation of the Ford Foundation, the George Soros-funded Open Society Institute, Pew Trusts and five other big liberal philanthropic groups.

Their goal was to gain passage of McCain-Feingold, the landmark campaign finance reform. I did a good bit of reporting on this flap back in my Tapscott's Copy Desk days.

But Ryan Sager was the guy who broke the story big-time. As Sager described it in 2004:

"All of the major reform groups - Common Cause, the Alliance for Better Campaigns, the Campaign Finance Institute, the Center for Public Integrity, the Center for Responsive Politics, Democracy 21 and the William J. Brennan Jr. Center for Justice - are funded by the same eight liberal foundations, and have received millions upon millions of dollars each.

"Yet, by maintaining the fiction of independence from one and other, they appear to much of the press to be a pack of scrappy underdogs sinking their teeth into the ankles of the big-money men."

The campaign inadvertently became public when video of a presentation by Pew vice president Sean Treglia to a group of journalists at the Annenberg Center let the cat out of the bag:

"The target was 535 Members of Congress and the idea was to create the impression that a mass movement was afoot, that everywhere they looked people were talking about campaign finance reform," Treglia explained on the video.

Not one of the journalists listening to Treglia challenged him on the fact he was, in effect, admitting a massive, systematic pack of lies.

Nor did any of them do what was minimally required of them as journalists, which was to write a story about Treglia's admission.

And that's why we shouldn’t credit too much genius to the lefties who create these astro-turfed wonders of public opinion manipulation.

After all, it helps when so many journalists covering American politics desperately want to believe these Potemkin villages are reality.

Mark Tapscott is editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner.