Friday, February 28, 2014

"Non Stop" Liam Neeson Movie Portrays Military Guy as Criminal

Hollywood works overtime to imply that those about whom we should worry are our military and former military personnel. Forget any concern for Islamic terrorists or NSA spying; watch out for Americans who talk about protecting the Constitution.

"Glenn Beck saw the movie “Non-Stop” featuring Liam Neeson on Thursday, and he hated it so much that he spoiled the ending for millions of people on his radio show Friday. He said he hopes that by revealing the ending, listeners have no reason to waste their money on the film.

“It is really great, until you find out that the killer is U.S. military and a guy who believes in the Constitution,” Beck said sarcastically. “Oh, darn it. Did I just wreck that movie for everybody? Oh, I didn’t mean to…”

Beck said the movie, in which Neeson is a federal air marshal trying to catch a murderer on a plane, was so terrible that “even in New York City,” the ending was met with “groans.”

“I’m not going to say anymore, except the killer is … a schoolteacher and so you completely dismiss him,” Beck added. “And there’s a little hole in the bathroom where they do a blow-dart, and they kill the pilot.”........"

I am reminded of the 1998 movie The Siege, which started out looking like a plot in which Islamic terrorists go on such a sustained bombing rampage that eventually the order is given to impose martial law in NYC. In time, the viewer finds that the problem is not Islamic terrorists (who are portrayed as dupes and victims of oppression), but the CIA and the military. We are expected to believe that everything would have been OK had it not been for an arrest/seizing/rendition of a mullah in his home country, and that the grabbing of the holy man (shown devoutly praying in a secret prison with his beads) was an act committed with the purpose of inciting the bombings so that martial law could in turn be justified. 

The timing of the movie could not have been more obvious. Made in the Clinton years, when we witnessed what amounted to murders of citizens at the hands of Justice Department agents at  Ruby Ridge and Waco, Americans were growing concerned with the actions of members of (mostly) the FBI and ATF. 

Denzel Washington's character is an FBI agent who finally sees what's going on, exposes the operation as a set-up against equally victimized and oppressed Americans and Muslim immigrants, and stops the conspiracy before it goes too far. During the cordoning-off of NYC, presumably non-Muslim New Yorkers are seen vigorously protesting the imposition of martial law while holding up signs reading such messages as "Allah is God" - a scene which seemed to be made to impart on us the necessity of equating  the Judeo-Christian God with the deity of Islam. 

The message of the movie was clear. People, it's not the President, the Justice Department, nor Islamic terrorists that should be your concern, what you should be worried about is the military and the CIA. The former three are here to protect you from radical military commanders who, in collusion with the CIA, want to turn their troops loose on you.

I find it ironic that the current presidential administration has been so successful in bringing senior military commanders like General Martin Dempsey* and Lt. Col. Robert Bateman** around to their way of thinking. US military personnel tend not only to be staunch supporters of the Constitution, they also enjoy a stellar record (credit to George Washington for establishing that precedent at Newburgh) of refraining from utilizing their power affect political outcomes. Today, we are inching closer to a situation not unlike that of Venezuela, where the military commanders are absolute supporters, not of the nation, but of the regime. 

Progressives and other Leftists have labored for decades to persuade us that the phrase "the people" in the second amendment has no meaning other than in connection with "the militia". When that lie was shattered in District of Columbia v. Heller, Leftists and their allies lost what was left of their minds. Below is a quote from Bateman in which he using what psychologists refer to as "projection" - the affixing of your faults and wrongs onto your opponents. The reality is that the term "the people" was/is treated by Leftists as if it didn't exist - a blatant revision of history, but Bateman would tell us that it was Scalia and the rest of the honest justices who were rewriting history; by the very act of being truthful about it***.  

-Quote from Bateman in Esquire:

"....Five of the nine members of the Supreme Court agreed that the part in the Second Amendment which talks about "A Well Regulated Militia, Being Necessary To The Security Of A Free State..." did not matter. In other words, they flunked basic high school history.

The lengths to which Justice Scalia had to go in his attempt to rewrite American history and the English language are as stunning as they are egregious. In essence, what he said about the words written by the Founding Fathers was, "Yeah, they didn't really mean what they said."...."

When the Left lost in the two key Supreme Court cases of District of Columbia v.Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, both of which affirmed the actual meaning of the second amendment, they promptly went to work to create a generation of Americans who have no idea of what that amendment means.

The idea is of course plainly insidious but effective; ignore both the words of amendment itself and the landmark court cases and pretend that it only says what you want it so say. In time, Americans (committed researchers, historians, and lawyers excepting) will have no knowledge of a crucial right of theirs at all and will react to citations of those two cases as if the speaker is using a different language .

High schools across the United States are issuing textbooks that falsely assert that the second amendment only applies to the state militia. The interpretations of the Supreme Court are treated as if they do not exist.

-From The Blaze but also in Breitbart:

"The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia,” the definition in the book, “United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination,” which acts as a study guide for the Advanced Placement U.S. history test, reads.

I hold the the People cannot run around putting out these fires. We may well need to effect a break between the two versions of the United States. The Left will not stop until they have polluted the hearts and minds of enough of us to provide support for a new Constitutional Convention, one that will have the result of a completely transformed United States

Marl Levin has called for Article V Conventions to try to affect needed changes before our electorate has not been utterly ruined. He makes a lot of sense - if we are not willing to make changes to protect our freedoms and reign in the Left now, our grandchildren will be overwhelmed with an electorate that has been turned into a permanent vegetative and sheeplike state and will support the end of our Republic.

I personally believe that such a convention is our last hope to save the Republic. It must be done before a full split of the nation is needed to avert the scenario that those who come after us will have to face.

-From previous posts on the purposeful misinterpretation of the second amendment:

'".......The Left spent decades telling us that the second amendment, contrary to what is says, provides only for the possession of firearms for State Militias, a term which has come in Newspeak to be restricted to the National Guard.

I still can't believe how easy it is to find old articles with the internet. I recalled an article in Parade magazine* from the 80's in which Chief Justice Warren Burger, knowing fully well what the second amendment meant, instead pimped his influence to tell us that the "people" indicated the militia. Now, this would be partially true as the militia, by the meaning of the word at the time that the amendment was written (The concept is simple yet ignored today- Legislative Intent), meant all able-bodied males. Burger insidiously decided to make a play on words and apply the modern meaning militia to change the meaning of the amendment.

Burger was featured on the front cover of the magazine holding a lever-action rifle that, if my memory serves me correctly, was a Winchester Model 94. (Sorry the above link does not have the photo)

This was a dirty deed. The US Supreme Court and its individual justices have, until fairly recently, refrained from providing their opinion on laws unless a specific case is brought before them. (Sorry, I forget the name of this practice). Burger's snake-like move had the effect that he wanted. As a result of this, many people in the US would, erroneously, claim that the second amendment has been interpreted to mean the Militia (The modern meaning and contrary to the law) and that the Court had effectively ruled that the people had no such right. 

In reality, the Court had never ruled on this issue until District of Columbia v.Heller in 2008. There, faced with a literal mountain* of evidence proving that those who wrote the amendment had the people in mind, the Court had no option but to rule in favor of the right to own firearms. 

Even so, the stage had been set for the collapse of the Court even at that time. Four Justices chose to ignore the evidence. The 5-4 ruling was narrow enough to make one shudder. 

*Here are just two of the Amicus Curiae briefs that provided a Noahesque flood of evidence that the Legislative Intent of the amendment included the people:

With Obama being able to make 1-3 possible appointments in his second term, a reversal ofHeller, though. is not out of the question."

".....A father in Connecticut was shocked to find that the reference material with which his kid was being taught was fraught with somewhat clever twists of the truth and outright lies concerning the right to privately owned firearms.

-Firstly, by now nothing that the Left does, especially when it comes to the malleable and impressionable minds of children, should shock anyone.

“The courts have consistently determined that the Second Amendment does not ensure each individual the right to bear arms,” it purportedly reads. “The courts have never found a law regulating the private ownership of weapons unconstitutional.”

Note that the writer(s) cleverly utilized the fact that in fact some individuals, such as those convicted of crimes, cannot own firearms. They also played with the fact that laws that honestly regulated ownership of firearm's have been upheld. Both of these are examples of lying by employing facts; they are clearly presented in manner that would lead the reader to believe that the courts have not upheld the second amendment (Heller v. District of Columbia, McDonald v. Chicago). They also have lied concerning the facts as most, but not every law, that was made with the purpose of regulating firearms has been upheld.

"The worksheet, published by Instructional Fair, goes on to say that the Second Amendment is not incorporated against the states.

“This means that the rights of this amendment are not extended to the individual citizens of the states,” the worksheet reads. “So a person has no right to complain about a Second Amendment violation by state laws.”

According to the document, the Second Amendment “only provides the right of a state to keep an armed National Guard.' "

These are the more patently false and insidious charges. As Washington DC is not a state, the Left had high hopes that McDonald v. Chicago would be decided in their favor. Their hopes were dashed  as the Court did absolutely apply the second amendment to the states, but this did not stop the writers from falsely claiming that it did not. Heller also put to rest the claim that no honest person ever believed; that the National Guard is the only criteria specified in the second amendment. The people are noted specifically in the amendment, and the literal mountain of evidence that was provided in amicus curiae briefs compelled the honest justices to admit that the writers never intended to restrict gun ownership to an official militia. It must also be noted that, at that time, the militia meant every male 15-16 of years or older, so the National Guard does not apply here, either."

No comments:

Post a Comment