Tuesday, April 28, 2009

What's the big deal about background checks?

Gun owners who have no objections to the Lautenberg ‘gun show” bill are operating on the flawed assumption the legislative process is honest. Any background check system can be turned into gun registration, and California and New York have demonstrated that registration is a necessary prelude to confiscation …

Paul F. Valone explains in graphic detail why the gun grabbers want all guns sales run through a background check, and why the NRA, JFPO, GRNC, and others have seemed so "unreasonable" in opposing anything to do with it.

One wag once said, and I paraphrase here, that the way to judge legislation is to imagine it in the hands of your worst enemy. Well, we don't have to imagine. Paul tells us about some home grown examples in New York City and in California.

read more digg story

The Liberty Sphere: A Rank Stench Emanating from the White House

The Liberty Sphere: A Rank Stench Emanating from the White House

Continuing with the "Telling Truth to Power" post, is this piece from the Welshman over at the Liberty Sphere. Go, read, and click on the Columbia Conservative Examiner article, also by the Welshman.

And please do "Digg" the article. It's one way to show support for these guys.

The War on Guns: A Coordinated Effort to Abuse

The War on Guns: A Coordinated Effort to Abuse

The Black Star News is a paper written for, primarily, Blacks. David Codrea does a real fisking of this silly article bemoaning that fact that the consensus seems to be on the side of Americans keeping and bearing arms. Mr. Codrea also points out the racist roots of most gun control. This fact ought to outrage the writers of the Black Star News, but it goes unnoticed by Milton.

Go read, then read Codrea's Gun Rights Examiner article. All I can say is I'm glad Codrea is on our side, and I would hate to be caught in his cross hairs.

Telling Truth to Power

I have always appreciated the power of cartoons to tell us the truth. Such is this one from Michael Ramirez on Townhall.com today. Of course Nancy Pelosi is fibbing at best, but will be allowed to get away with it. Why?

Meanwhile, Thomas Sowell tells us the truth in words in Survival Optional. A quote to whet your appetite:

Those who choose to live outside those laws, whether terrorists or pirates, can be-- and have been-- shot on sight. Squeamishness is neither law nor morality. And moral exhibitionism is beneath contempt, when it sacrifices the safety of those who live within the law for the sake of self-satisfied preening, whether in editorial offices or in the White House.
But those trying to make innocent victims out of wretched terrorists will get away with it. Why?

Oh, here's Sandy Rios to tell us why, in a piece entitled "The American Left Attempts A Bloodless Coup."

Monday, April 27, 2009

Monday's Thoughts

Finally, for today, here is Francis Poretto's Sunday Ruminations. Go read and think about it.

Gratitude is one item I am trying to be better at. I find when I am consciously grateful, that my attitude improves. As an Engineer, I studied Physics in school, and came to the conclusion that the Newtonian physical world operates in a predictable manner, if only we had the computing power to be able to bring all the variables together at any time. Newer discoveries in physics have proven the limitations of that belief, but it still holds true in the Newtonian world. It was some time before the thought occurred to me that I should be grateful for such a world, and that an omnipotent God could have created all kinds of chaos had he chosen to. The fact he did not is another proof of his Love.

Obama Vetoes Religion in the Public Square-If That Religion is Christian

Ken Connor has today's highlighted piece from Townhall.com, entitled Obama Vetoes Religion in the Public Square. The One, in order to speak at Georgetown University, a Catholic Institution, demanded that the religious signs and fixtures be taken down or covered up. The reasoning was:

Apparently, Mr. Obama believes that if you want to present your religious views in the public square, you must remove all statements that contradict or criticize any other religion or belief.

Apparently also, this only applies to religious beliefs. Notice how the Liberal World View is so compartmentalized? There is no guiding principles holding it together. Rather, it is made up of a bunch of hastily and poorly thought out opinions on various topics. The fact is that some religions contain truth and others do not. Is there any "truth" to be had in paganism, animism, voodoo, or devil worship? If you would defend these things as containing "truth" you must do more than say that some people believe it. But the fact of the Risen Christ changing people for the better can not be denied. I say this as a poor sinner who has had doubts, and who still has them at times.

But, the more amazing thing is that Georgetown University would be willing to do such a thing.

Georgetown is a Jesuit University founded in 1789, and yet its administrators were willing to hide the school's religious identity in order to land a popular guest. Patrick Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman Society, understands the situation well: "It is such a sad commentary that Catholic universities are willingly hiding the most visible signs of their Catholic identity when hosting secular leaders. What's next, will Notre Dame cover images of Jesus and Mary and ban rosaries when they honor President Obama next month?"


I am not Roman Catholic, but instead a Lutheran, but Catholics have been a great bulwark in our common struggle teach the gospel to all the lands, but it begins to look like they are crumbling. Perhaps the new Pope can take a corncob and turpentine to the rear ends of the Catholic priests in charge of both Georgetown and Notre Dame. Yes, it's fine to have a speaker like "The One" at your University. Students need to be exposed to all ideas. But what the University holds out as Truth should ever be before the students. And The One should not get away without being challenged. After all, the Catholics have the Lord and 2000 years on their side, while The One has 100 years of failed attempts on his. How easy could this be?

Saturday, April 25, 2009

The Liberty Sphere: More on Controversial Civilian National Service Bill

The Liberty Sphere: More on Controversial Civilian National Service Bill

Clicking on the title will take you to The Liberty Sphere, where you are then directed to the Columbia Conservative Examiner. There, the Welshman highlights some comments some of the many comments he received on his article about the Civilian National Service bill. Most of them say, in essence "it may be bad, but it is not that bad." Time will tell.

Nordyke vs. King Rules in Favor of the 2nd Amendment

I am a little slow getting around to the topic of Nordyke vs. King, a Second Amendment case coming out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Meredith Turney has a article summarizing it here. Attorney David T. Hardy of the blog Of Arms and the Law had a posting early on here. David Codrea's Nation Gun Rights Examiner had a article here. Whether it is a genuinely held belief, an aberrant ruling in which they just happened this time to respect the law, or they looked at the mood of the country and decided this one needed to go to the conservatives, they have actually ruled that the Second Amendment binds States as well as the Federal Government, using the 14th Amendment. This is a win for the good guys. But though we have won this battle, it hardly means the war is over.

I am not a lawyer, or a legal scholar, so I will let others talk about the details. But as I understand it, this is huge. This will likely affect the incorporation case filed in Chicago. If so, more of America may become what one wag has called "American occupied America."

Friday, April 24, 2009

The Liberty Sphere: Bill Quietly Becomes Law That Forbids Opposition!

The Liberty Sphere: Bill Quietly Becomes Law That Forbids Opposition!

You were warned about this during the campaign. I honestly thought, though, that we would have a chance to debate it. Apparently not. In the Examiner article, the Welshman notes that Hitler did something similar. Those children became the Hitler Youth. When Germany had spent all its young men, eventually it threw the old, and the Hitler Youth into the breech. Is that what you want for your children? Do you really want them to be propagandized by the Left? For myself, I hope my grand daughter grows up to be able to think for herself. I hope she hears all sides of any issue, so she can make up her own mind.

Unfortunately, she doesn't have a choice. But wait, doesn't forced servitude violate the Constitution? Well, I am sure the Supreme Court will find some provision of foreign law to serve as precedent to apply to say it really doesn't, even if its Sharia.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

The Liberty Sphere: Napolitano Ignites Yet Another Firestorm

The Liberty Sphere: Napolitano Ignites Yet Another Firestorm

I am appalled at the lunacy of this woman. How could a bunch of sensible Arizonans have voted her into office in the first place?

Oh, yeah. Never mind, I just realized that the same "sensible" Americans voted "The One" into office.

So now this Administration has: insulted the Brits, made nice with Fidel and Hugo Chavez (who returns the favor with an insult to us), bowed to the "King" of Saudi Arabia, made nice to the loons of Tehran and now insults the Canadians. I don't that this 180 degree turn around in our foreign policy was the change people were looking for.

The Welshman is right, Janet Napolitano has to go.

Profiling the Left in America.

The left opposes profiling, except when it comes to the free in this country.
Gee, why the double-standard? John Longenecker's past articles on this [linked
within this article] go a long way in understanding what we are up against

An interesting read. For me, reading this article provided an "aha" moment, in that so many things just fell into place. Of course, it's not just the article itself, but the links to the other articles, written by the same author, that flesh out what he is talking about.

I used to dismiss talk of liberals as being mentally ill as merely showing that by a conservative's principles they were as mentally ill as are we by their principles. However, as I studied issue after issue, I came to see that extreme leftists do not seem to have any inviolable principles that I can discern. They see nothing illogical about coddling murders and terrorists on the one hand, and aborting innocent babies on the other. Animal rights activists see nothing wrong with slaughtering dogs and cats, while doing anything in their power to disrupt the collateral deaths of animals used to ensure our food and drugs are safe. I have had debates, if you could call them that, with liberals during which I tried to show the principles that give me the right to defend my life and that of my loved ones, anywhere and any time I might need to do so, all to no avail.

This article explains that. Now that I think about it, it explains why so many people who reside in certain areas of the country seem to be in therapy. It explains why some people seem to be hair triggered about certain topics, all out of proportion to reality. It explains why for some people, no amount of evidence can change their minds.

Go and read the article. It is worth taking some time, even bookmarking it.
read more digg story

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Obama Sneaks into Socialism, and Nobody Notices

Finally, for today, Dick Morris and Eileen McGann tell us what the Administration of The One is up to in Obama's Stealth Leap to Socialism. Morris and McGann also explain what this means in practical terms. It means that the Government will control a significant part of the economy. What it could mean in the future, for example, might be that some disfavored companies might not be able to get loans to cover short term cash flow problems.

Say, a construction company has won a bid, and now must procure materials toward that job. Normally, they would seek out a loan to cover the cost of those materials pending being paid for their inclusion in the job. But, say the contractor had not supported the correct party in the last election. You can see how this could turn out.

Or, let's say an ammunition manufacturer had the opportunity to acquire large quantities brass at a substantial discount over current world prices. But they need a loan to make the purchase. The purchase would give them a substantial advantage over other manufacturers, but making ammunition is not politically correct. Is it possible that they might not receive a loan because of this?

Needless to say, the possibilities for corruption are endless, and Unconstitutional as well. We need the ACLU to start a new campaign called "Separation of Business and State." If they are half as good at promoting this one as they are at the "Separation of Church and State" we should have the socialists routed in no time. Meanwhile, I continue to weep for my country.

Update: I had the comments section routed through a different mechanism. The result was that comments never showed up here. I have returned the comments to the normal mode, and so they should now show up. I am especially disheartened because 1) the other program seemed to offer a better comment protocol by organizing comments into threads, and 2) MamaLiberty and I had an enlightening series of e-mails which normally would have been posted to comments. I apologize here to MamaLiberty, and hope that she finds other places to comment, for surely her point of view deserves to be heard as much as mine. As for others who may have been frustrated by the other system, hopefully this change will make it easier.

The EPA is Choking Democracy? Really?

Jonah Goldberg has a thought provoking article on Townhall.com entitled The EPA is Choking Democracy. What's that? The EPA?

Well, yes. The EPA has long sought to regulate CO2 emissions as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act (1970). But there was no authority under this act to do such a thing. Then comes Massachusetts vs. EPA I am sure EPA put up a heroic fight here where the Supreme Court ruled, by some magic that only a lawyer could figure out, that indeed, EPA had an obligation to regulate CO2. So, without a vote, or a debate or discussion, the EPA is set to regulate potentially everything. All of this without our representatives having to put their names on a hard choice they so badly want.

As I noted yesterday, Goofball Warming is not really a threat. It is the product of a religion that worships the creation, not the Creator. It assumes, against all evidence to the contrary, that man has to "do" something or we are all doomed to burn up. But the problem is not the pagans who practice this religion, but our Congressmen, who shirk their responsibility by handing over their jobs to the Executive. So here's my proposal: First, any regulation that has not been voted on, is hereby null and void. Then require that Congress vote on, and pass each and every regulation. All of the thousands upon thousands of pages of the Federal Register. And, no, they can not put a bunch together into an omnibus bill. Instead, they must pass each and every one separately with a roll call vote. That way everyone knows where everyone stands on things that are very unpopular. The only job the Executive agencies should have is the job of enforcing those regulations passed by Congress. As a side benefit, this should keep them busy for a while, off the streets and out of trouble. You have to watch those Congressman like you would a 3 year old.

Words Versus Realities

Dr. Thomas Sowell as a great article on the problems associated with Universal Health care entitled Words Versus Realities. He concludes:

No one who compares medical care in this country with medical care in other
countries is likely to want to switch. But those who cannot be bothered with the
facts may help destroy the best medical care in the world by falling for
political rhetoric.

Ain't it always the way.

Pesky Will of the People Interferes with Gun Bans

Daniel White has an Examiner.com article that fisks a statement by Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell here.

Rendell posits that if there was a "secret ballot" cast, his gun control schemes would easily pass congress. The insinuation there is that congress really wants gun control, but is fearful of facing their constituents after voting away their rights. That is exactly what happened after the 1994 AWB was passed when 20 Democrats who voted in favor of the ban were ousted in the next election. Then president Bill Clinton blamed the loss on retribution by constituents for passing a ban they did not want.
The implications for both Rendell, and the members of Congress who he says feel similarly are not good. What he is talking about here is a violation of the oath Congressman take to uphold and defend the Constitution (I would add as it is, not as "Living Document" proponents wish it to be.)

Rendell should be removed from office for violating the oath of office for even
suggesting otherwise.

But of course, he won't be. Only so called "Liberals" go after folks after the fact for their political decisions.

The Liberty Sphere: Leftwing Extremist Makes FBI's Most Wanted List

The Liberty Sphere: Leftwing Extremist Makes FBI's Most Wanted List

Interesting. So, while DHS is moaning about possible right wing extremists, according to the FBI the left wing is doing the actual bombing of buildings. Does the left hand not know what the right hand knows?

Right wing groups, such as the TEA parties, and the Oath Keepers have proven to be very polite. No wild antics accompanied their protests except from left wing loons who were counter protesting. I would note that it is not from a lack of capability either. Rather, it is because these people have principles, embodied in the Constitution.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Goofball Wormening Has Been Cancelled

Tomorrow is "Earth Day," that glorious day when pagans everywhere celebrate and glorify the creation, and not the Creator. The pagans even have a name for their god; they call it "Gaia." How cute.

Meanwhile, Bill Steigerwald has an interview with Anthony Watts, of WattsUpWithThat.com. Anthony is a former television meteorologist who has used actual science to debunk many of the claims of Hollyweird actresses, and even Jim Hanson, about goofball wormening. Go read with Watts has to say, and go to his erudite website and read what is going on there as well.

For myself, I have read much of the scientific data, and I have understood some of it, but not all by any stretch. One thing I did discover is that the earth has been much warmer, and much colder than it is today, and it survived (!!!). Species like the alligator, the cockroach and mosquito survived these times virtually unchanged. In historical times it has been warmer and cooler. During the medieval warming, it got warm enough that Greenland was actually green, and wine grapes grew in the British Isles. (The SUV was invented some hundreds of years later, as a matter of historical record.) During the revolutionary war, snow was common both in Virginia and North Carolina. Today it is a rarity. Who is to say that the climate as it exists today is the ideal climate, and that all the others were not?

But here is the thing. I believe in God, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things seen and unseen. God would not create a fragile system, knowing our propensity to screw things up. The global warming nutcases, and the green wackos on the other hand believe in the earth god, Gaia. Their religion has much in common with that of the ancient Egyptians. In ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh had to wake up before breakfast each day and preform a ritual which would "cause" the sun to rise. If he did not perform this ritual, the sun would not rise, and all would be lost. As we know today, the sun rises whether anyone calls it forth or not. Many other ancient religions had various forms of fertility rites, usually involving ritualized sex, because otherwise the crops would not grow. As we know now, plants will grow anyway.

Think about this, which type of God would you rather worship: a loving God who creates a universe where things happen whether or not the fickle people in charge do something or not, or one where your very existence is dependant on the likes of Al Gore?

Now, for those who say that my attitude means I don't have a responsibility toward the earth and its creatures, I say not so. I, and everyone else, have a responsibility to maintain our environment to the best of our ability, considering our economic wherewithall. We have an obligation not to pollute our waters, or our air. When we mine valuable substances from the earth, we have an obligation to leave the site substantially as we found it. We do not have an obligation to not mine at all. To deliberately not use resources which we have been provided, and which could improve the lives of our fellow man is also a sin. When we burn fossil fuels, including coal, we have an obligation to clean up the soot before it goes into the air. But when we do not utilize resources that have been provided to us and for which we have the knowledge, we also sin. So, for instance, we should be making better use of nuclear power, and where appropriate, wind power. But a realistic reckoning will suggest that wind power is very limited on its own. We have an obligation to utilize animals for food, but not to mistreat them. And we must always understand that the rights granted to man have been granted because we alone of all creatures have a moral sense. It would be wrong to hold a dog guilty of murder, for instance, because the dog was just following instinct. Similarly, we can not allow dogs to run free in human society.

The above paragraph is provided for the obtuse. Everyone else realizes the truth of what I am saying here.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Civil Disobedience-Sort Of

Finally, from Francis Poretto's Eternity Road comes this wise posting by the Curmudgeon Emeritus entitled "Defences." Actually, what it should be entitled is "Civil Disobedience-sort of." What the Curmudgeon is suggesting is disobeying the spirit, not necessarily the letter of the law. The commenters, in some cases go further. In any case, it is an interesting read.

While there, also read Sunday's blog entry, "Barriers, Bridges, and Witnesses: A Sunday Rumination."

Is Genesis Correct After All?

I found this page (don't ask me how) very interesting. Gerald Shroeder has written a book about of all things, the Age of the Universe. It seems that the more physicists ponder Einstein's equation, the more they see in it. It now appears they have discovered that as space expands, time expands with it. So, viewed from our perspective, looking back, the universe is 15 billion years old. But, looking forward from the Big Bang, it is only six days! Could a writer, writing 3000 years ago have simply stumbled upon this by himself, or was he inspired? For me, it is more evidence of the hand of God moving through history, and still today moving through our lives.

Of course, this still doesn't answer the great question I have, namely the question of "original sin." Original sin is central to Christian theology, in that because of Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden, all future people are born sinful. Because we can not extricate ourselves, God has to do it for us. So, he sent his only begotten Son to suffer the fate of every man, woman and child for us, thus saving mankind. Now, when God looks upon His Creation, he looks through the eyes of Christ, and does not see our sins. Grace upon grace.

So far, so good. But then the claim is made that before man's original sin, all of creation was perfect (what is meant by the saying that "it was good" after each day of creation.) We are told that no animal preyed on another, that if Adam planted something somewhere in the Garden, weeds would not grow to choke it out. We are told that everything in Creation was in perfect harmony with everything else. After man's original sin, Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden, and the world was corrupted. Henceforth, they had to slave away all their days to eke out a living in the dust, only to return to the dust themselves. So, the whole of Creation was corrupted by man's sin.

But we also know that long before man as created, there were fishes who preyed on other fish, there were the dinosaurs, some of which preyed on other dinosaurs. There is evidence that man himself was shaped by our meat eating past, and that we would not have had the brain capacity to see the wonders God has created without having preyed on other animals for food. What to make of this?

My quest continues. But I have faith that the question will eventually be answered, and the answer will show once again God acting throughout history, protecting His Creation and ourselves. But will those who have a stake in the idea that there is no Creator be able to see it?

How to protect yourself from the Columbine Shooter

Daniel White has an excellent article at the Examiner.com entitled Ten years after Columbine, we still haven't learned real lessons. With so many anti-gun rights articles marking the occasion, White takes the various arguments apart and shows that they would have made little difference to the outcome. He then offers a counter proposal of his own:

After the Ma'alot school massacre in Israel in 1974, policies were changed and armed individuals, whether administrators, teachers, or parent volunteers, became prepared to ensure future potential murderers were stopped in their tracks. Armed resistance saves lives. Experts say an active shooter can take an average of one life every 15 seconds. Even with a five minute police response time, that's twenty lives lost. An armed guard is better than nothing, but is likely to be taken by surprise as the first casualty. An armed administrator or teacher remains anonymous and can quickly respond to an active shooting and begin to save lives.

What a novel idea. Now that's change we can believe in.

Note: Digg again wouldn't let me link to this article in the normal way. I am trying something new. I wonder if liberal bloggers have the same trouble?

Sunday, April 19, 2009

The Truth About the TEA Parties

Lets start out with Kevin McCullough, writing a piece called Why Liberals Despise American Patriots. First McCullough takes MSNBC to the woodshed for allowing erstwhile actress and commentator, Janeane Garaofalo, to lie about the TEA parties held on April 15th. Then he proceeds to set the record straight. Best estimates now are that there were at least 1 million participants at the 2800 TEA parties sponsored across the country. An incredible turnout. And more are planned for the 4th of July.

Then again some pulled pork on July 4th does sound mighty tasty!

Sounds good to me too!

Kevin also debunks the myths circulating in the MSM circles that the TEA parties were planned and staged by the GOP. What a laugh! The GOP hasn't been able to plan a demonstration since they worked so hard to free the slaves back in 1850s. Here's a prediction: if Micheal Steele remains as Chairman of the RNC, George W. Bush will be the last GOP President. The TEA parties have tapped into a visceral something, and will eventually form a third party which will siphon off both Democrats and Republicans to the consternation of both parties.

Next up is Steve Chapman, with The Truths Behind the TEA Parties. Chapman is a little more circumspect in his analysis, but states the real problem that Obama has caused:
The scale of the federal response to the crises has come as a frightening surprise to many Americans, who suspect the cure will be worse, and less transitory, than the disease.
He could also have said that many people feel that their liberties are slowly draining away as well, that there will be nothing left for their children and grandchildren. Whatever you call it, it is definitely taking us to the left, and most Americans are not, at heart, leftists.

Go and read both.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

The War on Guns: Super "Authorized Journalists"

The War on Guns: Super "Authorized Journalists"

Follow the links to The Liberal Heretic to read about a former "journalist" who now wants newspapers to be bailed out, and journalists to be licensed. What a tool.

The Liberty Sphere: Why We Are Not Governed by Majority Rule

The Liberty Sphere: Why We Are Not Governed by Majority Rule

Another blog post using Walter Williams excellent article this week as a starting point.

The Liberty Sphere: Napolitano 'Clarifies' But the Die is Cast

The Liberty Sphere: Napolitano 'Clarifies' But the Die is Cast

I tried linking to this post from Digg, but again Digg would not allow me to do so. Good Examiner article

The Liberty Sphere: ALERT! National Guard Told to Consider Tea Party Protesters 'Terrorists'

The Liberty Sphere: ALERT! National Guard Told to Consider Tea Party Protesters 'Terrorists'

This, of course, is sickening. To my knowledge, the TEA parties have been the most peaceful protest rallies I have ever seen. This is what the Constitution intended. Unfortunately, the Administration seems to be whipping up violence against them.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Armed self-defense & "The Stopwatch of Death"

20/20’s “If I only had a gun” treated viewers to bias promoting the notion armed
citizens are incapable of stopping mass homicides. Having exposed 20/20’s
fallacy of omnipotent killers, noting traits of such killers actually make them
more vulnerable to armed defense, we discuss advice 20/20 gave viewers
unfortunate enough to face active killers.

A great article debunking the 20/20 hit piece on guns. Unfortunately, digg would not allow me to access the site when part one came out, but you can click on a link to part one in this, part 2.
read more digg story

Homeland Security Bumbles-This Time

Over at Eternity Road, The Beach Girl has a post about the Homeland Security Paper citing essentially anyone on the right side of the aisle as an enemy of the state.


As publicity about the existence of this paper has spread, it has riled up an awful lot of the people. At Tuesday night's pipe club meeting (yes, a bunch of men get together and smoke pipes, discuss tobacco, and generally enjoy the camaraderie, while we are still allowed to) there was much talk of being "on the list." Glenn Beck mentioned it on his program. Townhall has had outraged articles appearing all week. The latest are from Michael Reagan and Debra J. Saunders. George Will, meanwhile, writes that everybody needs to stop wearing blue jeans.

I suspect that the next time the Administration of The One decides to produce such drivel, that the "thugocracy" will be more circumspect in hiding what it is doing. But I fully expect it will not stop. People invested in an idea seldom ask themselves if maybe, just maybe, there may be a better way.

First Principles are also Last Principles

Today we have an article from fellow blogger R.J. Moeller, of Chicago, Illinois entitled First Things First. Mr. Moeller writes of the necessity of knowing from whence came the philosophy that resulted in the Constitution, and the dangers of dismissing them now. Moeller specifically cites the Federalist Papers, Democracy in America, Wealth of Nations, and the Road to Surfdom as touchstones. I would argue that our notions of freedom go back to St. Paul, and that they were slowing and painstaking developed through reasoning based on Christian principles throughout that time period. But, in any case, Moeller is correct.

I'll quote a paragraph or three to whet your appetite for more:

"Liberty”: After establishing where our rights come from, we decided that while equality is a desired outcome, liberty is the necessary catalyst for it to be realized. The French Revolution prized equality over liberty and the people of that once great European nation quickly learned that equality is in the eye of the beholder and in the hand of the executioner. We collectively took a decidedly different and better path.

Liberty must come first, early, and often. One must be free if they are ever to be equal, and even the Creator Himself chose in His infinite wisdom to create a world where uniqueness was more important than strict, enforced equality. Hence, a poor blind black kid from the South can play the piano like Beethoven and sing like a raspy angel, while rich white kids with two working eyes from the North end up being able to play nothing but Ray Charles’ records in their basement.
From the concept of liberty come things like the free market economic system. Voluntary participation, limited government, strong enforcement of previously agreed upon laws, the ability to own private property and “equality of opportunity” (instead of impossible promises for “equality of outcome”). No country can erase the realities of work, death, or even poverty, but the one country that has succeeded in alleviating each of those things more than any other is our own. It is the same one that provides the superior environment within which hundreds of millions of people can work, live, and pursue their own interests without having to cede their basic liberties.

The whole piece is worth reading, if for no other reason than to find out that you, and I are not alone. We do, in fact surround them. It is only be enforcing a politically correct speech codes on us (a Soviet idea, by the way) that they can make their ideas dominant.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

The Liberty Sphere: Confirmed: ACORN Launches Attack on Tea Parties

The Liberty Sphere: Confirmed: ACORN Launches Attack on Tea Parties

I have not been able to share links from Digg all day, but this will do. Go and read the Examiner article by the Welshman today. It will shock you, and maybe bring into clearer perspective the type of people we are up against.

The War on Guns: Why does Homeland Security's Gun Smuggling Report Mislead Law Enforcement?

The War on Guns: Why does Homeland Security's Gun Smuggling Report Mislead Law Enforcement?

David Codrea continues to ask why the government is promoting lies and misdirection unless they have an agenda. The agenda appears to be banning so-called "assault weapons." It a think looks like a duck, and walks like duck and smells like a duck...oh you get the idea.

Two more Constitutional Issues today

Ben Shapiro has an article up on Townhall.com today entitled Whatever Happened to States' Rights. Technically, "States" do not have "rights," but rather have powers granted to them by the people. None the less, as a sound bite way of wrapping up a number of issues into one banner, it has been used in the past to talk about the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Yesterday, Governor Rick Perry made a call for renewing and strengthening the Sovereignty of the States in matters not enumerated as under Federal Control. Other States have tested the waters with various laws and bills intended to take back some control from the Fed. An example is California's medical marijuana law.

Ben Shapiro writes a timely article on just how we got into this mess. Now, I hope more States will respond to Governor Perry call and that we may get back closer to what the Founders envisioned.

Walter Williams writes today about the true nature of our democratic republic in Democracy and Majority Rule. Most of us are familiar with the "democracy" part, as this is celebrated endlessly by teachers, the media, and especially by demagogic politicians. It is what lends some legitimacy to our republic. What is less understood, or appreciated, are the republican aspects of our Constitutional republic that protect all of us, and ensure that each part is fairly heard. The Electoral College is one of these. Without it, 9 states could elect a president, and I dare say that the number could be reduced to perhaps 12 cities. Everyone else need not vote. Go and read it all.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Summit County backs off on employee gun ban proposal

In the face of strong criticism, Summit County backed off on a proposal to
prohibit county employees from being legally armed, even while in personal

I am glad to see that Summit County came to see the light on this issue. Too bad they keep imposing other nanny ordinances on the people living there.

read more digg story

Government equates Constitutionalists with terrorists

Over the weekend, sources sent me a Homeland Security report intended for law enforcement cognizance titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

Of course, this would place Glenn Beck, Joe Sobran, Thomas Sowell, and a whole bunch of others, including me, on the terrorist watch list. I wonder if I can fly these days?

Please take note any who are reading: Wanting our government to return to Constitutional principles, and if you really think the Constitution has been superseded by some aspect of modern life ("well dude, they didn't have the internet back then") going to the trouble of actually seeking an amendment, is not the desire of terrorists, but of patriots.

Every time officials act to marginalize those of us working to return to Constitutional governance, they merely raise suspicions that they are acting to steal the very liberties we believe them to be stealing. When jurist seek foreign precedents when there are none here to support their beliefs, when the government takes over banks by threatening them, when the President fires a CEO of a private company, when Congress first creates the conditions for a recession, then authorizes trillions of dollars we don't have in bailouts for companies that should go bankrupt, and the Federal Reserve monetizes that debt thereby ensuring massive inflation, we have surely abandoned Constitutional governance. To be honest, we have abandoned any notion of good governance or propriety ever proposed.

When the Congress insists, despite the clear wishes of the people, that we must have amnesty for people who are breaking our laws by entering illegally, while we are told that we must obey every jot and tittle, is it any wonder that folks may be getting just a tad touchy? When people see that the Supreme Court tells property owners they have no rights to their property if a city wants to take it to turn it over to someone who will pay more taxes, is it any wonder that folks might be mad? When the Administration argues before the Court that all the existing gun laws should remain in place, do you think we might just be a little bit suspicious of what they may have been planning? When the Administration argues before the Court that books can, in fact, be banned, do you think we might be wondering if they want to shut us up?

If the above sounds like a long list of grievances and abuses, it is.

read more digg story

Communists-Socialists Hate Human Liberty

Socialists talk a good game about wanting 'healthcare for all' and 'high
quality, equal education,' and such, but what they don't tell you is that they
are willing to smash all human liberty to pieces in order to provide those
things. Time for some straight talk about the Communists-Socialists!

Another excellent column by the Welshman. Go read it, and click on it to digg it. This is how Examiners get paid, you know, by the number of people who click on an article. We need to support people like the Welshman in any way we can, to keep their voices before the public.

read more digg story

The PUMA-Our Future?

How about a little comic relief. Well, a little more comic relief, since I did have a funny Saturday too. Tim Slagle mocks the newest GM concept vehicle in The Newest Needless Car. The vehicle, called a PUMA, is a street legal Segway. Some quotes to whet your appetite:

With the assistance of GM, Segway did something everyone thought was
absolutely impossible: They made the Segway even DORKIER.

Or this:

Which was the motivation behind the PUMA: a street-legal version of a Segway. It is being touted as a solution to gridlock, pollution, Iraq, the energy crisis, and just about everything else the Left rails about; a glimpse into the future of transportation.

Great. A new car that is capable of reaching the blinding speed of 35 MPH… for an hour, before you have to plug it in. (It is specifically intended for urban transport, since a cross-country trip would be quicker in a covered wagon.) No trunk or radio, no heat or air conditioning, and when it rains, you get wet. Boy, I can't wait for the future!

Or this:

How many laws have already been passed against cool? Helmet laws, seat belt laws, and smoking bans have limited Americans’ choice to look cool. (How come "choice" doesn't extend beyond the uterus?) The same wallflowers that ran for student council are now in charge of this nation; the ones that told the teachers that the punch was spiked are frantically trying to legislate the fun out of everything American.

It is just another phase in the Dorkification of America. Americans have always had a swagger that set them apart from other citizens of the world, and the ultimate revenge of the nerds would be to turn these United States into Europe. Dorky kids look normal in Europe, where their pale complexions, skinny slumping postures, and bad teeth fit in quite well.

Like any good comedian, he conjures up a more than just the topic he is ostensibly discussing, and he is none to PC while doing it. Go and read the whole thing.

On a more serious note, GM and Segway were clearly working on this concept before Obama fired the CEO of GM (which he had no right to do) and put another CEO in his place (again, where's the Constitutional authority for this?). But having done that, and guaranteed GM warranties, I think Obama now "owns" GM, and all its stupidities. Is "The One" prepared to look as pedestrian as a Chevy?

Monday, April 13, 2009

The Anti-success president

This is Dick Morris writing this? That Dick Morris, the Clinton guy?

Yes, that Dick Morris. A quote:

Sit in on a corporate boardroom struggling to come to grips with the new economic climate Barack Obama has created. Do we expand? Create more jobs? Launch a new product line? Step up our marketing efforts? Ratchet up production?

But, wait a minute. The bigger our company gets, the closer we come to being "too big to fail," a "systemic risk." The nearer we are to intrusive government oversight, limits on executive pay and regulators breathing down our necks. We better watch out. We may even get taken over. Stay small. Forget the new jobs.

Go read the whole thing.

Keeping kids safe involves more than warning about guns

If ABC were really trying to make sure kids are playing in a safe environment, they'd be urging parents to ask if cars, water, stairs, ladders, matches, or household cleaners were present in the home before arranging playdates. All have higher death rates for kids than firearms.

This sort of "advocacy journalism" is often suspicious for what is not said. Often, when folks talk about the media's bias for a given position, they are talking about this very thing, where context is stripped from the topic and it appears that the viewer or reader needs to become alarmed. When context is added, suddenly the story appears ho-hum.

For example, an often cited statistic is that smoking cigarettes doubles your chances of contracting lung cancer. After reading that several times, it is easy to become convinced that if you continue smoking you will definitely die of lung cancer. The facts in context say that everyone has a 7.5% chance of contracting lung cancer, whether you smoke or not. Double that, means a 15% chance. Not good, clearly, but the fact is that you have an 85% chance that something else will eventually kill you. Most smokers, in fact, die some other way. Stated with context, the decision to smoke becomes one of an individual making choices, armed with the best information available.

But at the same time, the second article with context really doesn't grab readers attention so much. "Advocacy journalism" is fine as a way to grab readers, and as long as it is labeled as such. The problem is when such advocacy becomes the basis for public policy. In the case of smoking, laws have been put in place across the country outlawing smoking in the name of protecting people from so called "second hand smoke." It turns out that the second hand smoke argument is even more specious. Both the World Health Organization and the EPA have tried to prove, with some pretty massive studies that second hand smoke increases lung cancer deaths. The truth is they have been unable to do so without compromising their own criteria. Had this been reported truthfully, public policy would probably still be what it was in the 60s.
read more digg story

Adoring Castro: CBC Ignores Severe Religious Persecution

The Congressional Black Caucus went to Cuba to sing the praises of Fidel Castro, a man who for 50 years has engaged in numerous atrocities against human rights, including the persecution and harassment of religious groups. Why?

Well, alright, I'll say it: because these "Congressmen" see Castro as a kindred spirit, that's why.
read more digg story

If we can't trust ATF under oath, when can we trust them?

"Let me say that when we testify in court, we testify that the data base is 100 percent accurate. That's what we testify to, and we will always testify to that. As you probably well know, that may not be 100 percent true."Oops--did we say that? Just a misstatement--our bad.

read more digg story

Sunday, April 12, 2009

He is Risen

On this Easter Sunday, The Passion Reconsidered by Frank Turek brings a reminder of what horrible torture Jesus endured for our sins. In one sense, even that is not enough. Our sins have ruined and polluted the whole world. And by polluted, I do not mean environmentally, but culturally. The Ten Commandments would have been unnecessary, if man was not so sinful towards himself and creation.

I will go to church today more humble than I might have otherwise been.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Notre Dame Betrays the Christ

Finally, for today, from the American Thinker, The Cock Crows at Notre Dame, by Andrew Sumereau. I posted about this before, here. I can agree with Rev. Jenkins that debate is necessary. The Catholics were the first to apply reason to the moral issues facing mankind, and that reasoning led to the writing of our Constitution. If he had asked Obama to share his views, and then invited questions and comments from the audience, or if he had invited Obama to a debate with a noted Catholic espousing the Catholic position on life, these would all make perfect sense. But inviting him to speak at the commencement, and to receive an honorary degree, instead shows support. It is an utter betrayal of Our Lord and all he stood for, during Holy Week no less.

Greenpeace Threatens Polar Bears

Here is a rich little tidbit. Apparently, a NASA report, blogged about here by Notoriously Conservative claims that the poles are melting and threatening the poor polar bears because of pollution controls put in place in the 1970s. So it is the Environmentalists to blame. Shame on them! The solution apparently is not a cap and trade tax on carbon emissions, but a 100% tax on Environmentalists.

Read the Notoriously Conservative post to get the details.

National Disarmament Doesn't Work Either

Just in case you thought that disarming people was bad at the personal level, but disarming whole nations was a good thing, read David Lewis Schaefer's article in the Wall Street Journal,
Naivete Invites Aggression. For those who are familiar with history, there are no surprises here.

Repealing racist gun laws

A dirty little secret gun control advocates avoid mentioning is that many gun
laws have racist origins. In southern states, some date to reconstruction and
ensuing decades of racial unrest as whites passed “Jim Crow” laws. Purchase
permit laws repealed in Missouri but still on the books in North Carolina are
one example …

Paul Valone says what needs to be said here. Too many people are ignorant of this history, and either don't want to hear it, or think you are being "funny" when you tell them. That blacks are so ignorant of this history is disturbing.

The truth is that guns were fairly common in the post revolutionary period. A "gentleman" simply did not go out of the house without putting a gun or two in his pocket. One of the unintended consequences of the Civil War was the making of laws restricting gun ownership. In theory, these restrictions applied to everyone, but in practice, blacks were most affected. In the Northern states, gun control laws were passed to keep immigrants from being armed. In both cases, gun control laws have a nasty and sordid past disguised with the purist of motives. Based on that past, the gun grabbers of today should be society's pariahs.
read more digg story

Pelosi made it official to ABC: "We want registration"

History shows that firearms registration inevitably leads to confiscation.
Knowing this. Pelosi lied when she said "We don't want to take their guns

Expect that Ms. Pelosi will try to slip her registration scheme under the radar disguised in another bill that just HAS to be passed NOW, before it can be read.

If you wonder why the gun rights movement has been so resistant to anything resembling registration, note Germany in the 1930's, England, Australia, New York City, and California. In each case, registering the guns meant the government had list of where to find them when it later banned them. Confiscation was relatively easy. Knowing this history, we can not but think there are sinister motives afoot. But we also know this: stealing peoples rights under cover of law is in itself illegal. Rights exist outside the law. Does anyone have an obligation to obey an illegal law? The lessons of history are pretty clear on this too.

read more digg story

Obama Reaches Out to Moderate Pirate Community

This is just too funny! Sorry for just getting around to linking to this parody of how "The One" might respond to the Somoli pirates currently holding the Captain of the Maersk Alabama hostage.

The sad fact is that I have heard a number of people say something to the effect of "The Navy used to know how to deal with pirates" Folks, the Navy and Marine Corps still know how to deal with pirates. Fortunately, the Navy still believes in the Constitution, and follows it even if their Commander in Chief does not. So, unless and until they get orders, they will not deal with the pirates. Sad to say, but I suspect an announcement like the one linked to at any time. You just can't parody these guys.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Are We a Christian Nation

Here in Raleigh, there is an afternoon radio show on 680 AM with the host, Bill LuMaye starting at 3:00 PM. Yesterday's question was whether we are a Christian nation. Bill was citing "The One's" speech before the Turks. My take is that while the American people are overwhelmingly Christian (80% according to LuMaye) we are a secular nation. England is a Christian nation, though few attend services there on a regular basis. Germany is a Christian nation, though few attend worship services there either. Our First Amendment gives us the ability to be a secular nation. So, unfortunately, I have to agree with the President on this one.

More on "The One's" Bow

For those who think I may have been too hard on "The One" yesterday with his bowing before supposed royalty, here is this from Camille Paglia, writing on Salon.com:

Obama's staffing problems are blatant -- from that bleating boy of a treasury secretary to what appears to be a total vacuum where a chief of protocol should be. There has been one needless gaffe after another -- from the president's tacky appearance on a late-night comedy show to the kitsch gifts given to the British prime minister, followed by the sweater-clad first lady's over-familiarity with the queen and culminating in the jaw-dropping spectacle of a president of the United States bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia. Why was protest about the latter indignity confined to conservatives? The silence of the major media was a disgrace. But I attribute that embarrassing incident not to Obama's sinister or naive appeasement of the Muslim world but to a simple if costly breakdown in basic command of protocol.

The emphasis added are mine.

One of the people I routinely debate with claims I never read anything but conservative, conspiracy theory slinging, ranting far right sites on the internet. I do read widely on the internet, but that is the only true statement in the above. I subscribe to the Drudge Report because that site brings me the best of the articles appearing on the net, as well as opinions by conservatives such as Jonah Goldberg and Mona Charen, Leftists like Camille Paglia, and a host of people in between, and wire services such as AP and Agence France. Salon.com is a left wing journal, and writers there advocate left wing policies. Even the Left was offended by this gesture. Good for Paglia for pointing this out. The MSM was once again missing in action. As for the conspiracy theory part, if something is proven to be true, and I am highly skeptical of most such, then it needs to come out. This story appears to be true, if saddening.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009


So now "The One" has deemed it appropriate for a U.S. President to bow before "royalty." See here. Royalty is nothing more than the strongest strongman, the thugiest of the thugs, who had himself declared king. With the Saudi royalty, this happened after WWI. I do not think an American President, who represents all of "We the People," and thus carries with him our Sovereignty, should bow to anyone. Doesn't he realize wefought a war to overthrow a king with a lot more history than this guy? How disgusting. This guy is trashing us before the world.

Monday, April 6, 2009

The Washington Thugs

I may have to re-evaluate my opinion of George Will. George Will is the affirmative action conservative of the Leftist MSM. Yet, he has written another good article today. You will find it posted at Townhall.com under Car Designer in Chief.

I have wondered for some time, as I drove my Chevy Trailblazer about, what the Left keeps talking about when they say that Americans just don't want to buy the cars the American car companies want to make. The Trailblazer is a very popular vehicle. Each day I see numerous copies on the road, in parking lots, and in driveways. It has four wheel drive when you need it, is built on a truck frame but is small and gets into parking spaces easily. It handles well, though is obviously not a sports car. It is just enough, without being too much. It gets good mileage too. Not as good a Honda Insight, but then it is a more capable vehicle too. I also considered the Chevy Silverado pick up truck. But I decided that a pick up would be too much for my needs. But I would note that these are very popular as well.

But the real problem with the government trying to muscle in and design cars that some Leftists want us to want is that it is blatantly Unconstitutional. It is, in fact, the very definition of Fascist. Hitler and Mussolini acted this way. Now, the auto companies brought some of this on themselves, but a number of banks were forced to take the bailouts or else there would be consequences. This was also how the Fascists operated. The voices saying that the government is acting like the mafia here have been muted, but growing. When even George Will, the liberals tame conservative, starts talking this way, things may be coming to a head.

Perhaps the Washington Nationals should change their name to the Washington Thugs. That would make an excellent George Will column.

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Defending the Constitution

I read an article on the Examiner.com written by the Welshman
here. He also writes a blog, The Liberty Sphere where he has been advocating the cause of following the Constitution for a long time now. But this is not about the blog, but the Examiner article. At the end of the article are comments from readers. Those who agree, of course, can be characterized as "hear, hear, it needs to be said over and over." It is the comments of those who do not agree that both puzzles and dismays me. Keep in mind that the Welshman did not say anything that Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, or Justice William Douglas did not say, as evidenced by the quotes from these famous patriots. But you can read it for yourself.

Now, let's look at a typical comment from someone who obviously disagrees. Liberal Patriot says:

This is article is evil. It's a veiled, cowardly threat intended to incite violence. Bush infringed upon the Constitution more than any President in my lifetime. Where were you then? Obama is actually doing something for those of us who aren't rich and he's not against the 2nd Ammendment. Grow up and take some responsibility for the consequences of threatening editorials like this, that are intended to set the crazies in motion. I don't see any tyranny. If you do, you're paranoid. I have more freedom now, under Obama, than I did under Cheney.
The first two sentences claim this article is a threat. As a matter of fact, the Welshman is just reporting what he is hearing and reading elsewhere. A lot of people are mad, and getting madder with each move this administration makes. As to the charge that the Bush administration infringed Constitutionally protected rights, I think you will find that the Welshman called out Bush as well. The fact is the government has become successively more tyrannical since the administration of Theodore Roosevelt. Whether it is moving toward socialism, or fascism is somewhat irrelevant. The fact is that the government has been taking extra-constitutional powers, at the expense of the individual for a century. Most of these power grabs have been applauded by the press. The myth of the plucky reporter sticking it to the establishment is just that: a myth. The fact is that editors and publishers set editorial policy, and they do not want to get in bad with the establishment. So, only few counter voices are allowed, mostly to show they are "fair and balanced." But it is all a show.

Next he claims for Obama that he is doing something for the not-so-rich, and oh by the way, is not against the 2nd Amendment. I am guessing that Liberal Patriot has been drinking beer and watching the Superbowl and March Madness because he hasn't been paying attention to the news. Obama now owns this economy. While he didn't do it alone, his failure to use the veto pen has placed variously 12-19 Trillion dollars of debt on the American people. See here. I am inclined to think the larger of the figures is more correct because of optimistic assumptions that I do not think are going to happen. But in any case, who does our commenter think will pay this debt? There are only so many Bill Gateses and Warren Buffets to tap. Gates, the last I heard had a wealth of only $400 billion. Great, now we only need to come up with $18.6 Trillion. But, here comes the moral and Constitutional question. Is it right to take Bill Gates' billions in order to help the not-so-rich? The fact is that Bill Gates earned (yes earned) that money. For the government to now take it and hand it over to someone like Liberal Patriot, who didn't have the vision, or the business acumen to earn it himself, is slavery. See Walter Williams here. Slavery, of course is Unconstitutional. We fought a war, and had Constitutional Amendments and everything (See Civil War.) No, the truth is that Obama's policies so far have placed a huge debt on our children, our grandchildren, and their grandchildren. Everything we purchase will become a lot more expensive. Eating Hamburger Helper may seem like a luxury in the future. Is that helping the not so rich?

As to the 2nd Amendment, Obama has never seen a gun control bill he did not like. He has never, in his career in the Illinois Legislature, or the U.S. Senate, either not voted for a gun control bill, nor voted in favor of any Pro-second Amendment initiative. The fact is that merely saying "I support the Second Amendment" and then saying "I want to ban so called 'assault weapons'" is oxymoronic. The Second Amendment guarantees the people can have so called "assault weapons" and a great deal more. The Second Amendment is there because We the People need a credible threat sometimes to make our elected representatives (not leaders) listen to us instead of lobbiests, foreign governments, and whoever they are listening to now.

What so offends people like the Welshman, and me, who believe in Constitutional governance is that Obama as much as said that he thinks the Founders made a mistake writing the Constitution as they did. Newsmax has the story here. It now appears that because of these "deep flaws" Obama feels that following it, even a little, is not really necessary. The Constitution is more of a guideline, rather than the supreme law of the land. He seems to think that while a 2/3 majority of the House and Senate, and 3/4 of the States are required to change it, a simple majority of voters is enough to scrap it. Or, if he can't get enough votes, then 5 men in black robes can also scrap it. Liberal Patriot wants us to do something different, I imply from his language. How about this: we try following the Constitution instead of using it for toilet paper.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

TownHall Columnists

Well, an interesting day on Townhall.com. First up is Walter Williams talking about the real moral and legal problem with the welfare state here. The problem of course is that using taxes, taken by force of arms, to support another is slavery. (Charity, the voluntary giving of one person's property to support another is not slavery, because no force is involved. I add this for some of the more obtuse among the Leftists and "Liberals" who may be reading this.)

Next up is Michelle Malkin who writes about the lack of debate in Congress on a variety of issues. The latest outrage involves parliamentary shenanigans to avoid debating the cap and trade taxes said to be necessary to eliminate the non-existent global warming.

Then there is the always thought provoking Jonah Goldberg asking where's the outrage when the Obama Administration argues that banning politically relevant books is Constitutionally acceptable. I remember the arguments in the 60s over outrageous free speech. I reluctantly supported such free speech precisely because by defending the extremes, I was protecting my own right to free speech. Now that they are in power, the Left seems to be moving to constrain and silence the free speech of conservatives. Jacob Sullum has more here.

Finally, if you are not disheartened enough, there is this this piece by Bobby Schindler on the fourth anniversary of his sister, the Terri Shciavo's case.

What all of these things have in common is that they represent the constant spate of brush fires set by the Left on all fronts to keep the rest of us divided and off guard. While we are fighting one thing, they are over there doing something else. I have been especially concentrated on gun rights, not because I particularly love guns, but because it is the guarantor of all the other rights. But, I cherish all our rights. First Amendment rights are included in the First Amendment for a reason. As a Christian, I have watched for years as religion has been denigrated and life cheapened. I believe that God is life affirming, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. But the government has taken positive action after action to weaken life, often for mere economic reasons. What ever happened to "if it saves just one life?" I have watched Congress curb the right to speak out about our politicians, and now enough precedent has been set to allow them to go after the press. This is especially ironic as so many newspaper editors supported Campaign Finance Reforms when they thought THEIR rights would be protected.

Along the way, there have been losses to property rights (see the Kelo decision). If you think you have rights when innocently arrested, you may want to study a number of recent cases.

As we enter Holy Week, I pray for the country that I no longer recognize.