Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Defeating the Left

WRSA has collected two posts together into one place by the "Curmudgeon Emeritus" over at Eternity Road. I just noticed that Eternity Road now has a part III here. The key to the entire effort, which may go on for some time is contained in the following paragraphs:

If things turn out too badly, we might have to lock and load.
The protection of our right to our weapons is the most important of all our near-term undertakings. Fortunately, recent Supreme Court decisions appear to have reinforced this control on the actions of the State, but the right must be exercised to be meaningful. Just as one must know whence the threat approaches, one must be prepared to meet it with all the force one can command. If our political masters are so desirous of retaining their power and prestige that they invalidate our elections, whether by fraud or by decree, we must be prepared to march, and bleed, and die.
Then there is this depressing thought:

If confronted by that requirement, many vocally ardent freedom advocates will accept fetters and subjugation in preference.

So, where does the enemy appear to be weakest? How can we defeat them without having to confront or overly test our fair weather patriots, who, none the less are still on our side? Well that's what Part III is about.

Yet, of the several bastions held by the techno-fascists, their media megaphone is the only one that's seriously threatened at this time. It constitutes a weak point in their battle array. Because of the abovementioned alternatives and their expanding reach, the Old Media are losing "mindshare," and are growing ever less relevant to journalism in our time. Our batteries are penetrating this bastion; therefore, we must rush more forces into the breach.

Unfortunately, our current positions require adjustment. There's too much emphasis on interpretation -- opinion-editorial pieces -- which is essentially counter-battery fire. Though worthwhile, it has a defensive cast, and no war has ever been won on defense. To seize the offensive, we must take up the tasks the Old Media have relegated to secondary importance: the gathering of facts and their objective presentation to interested readers.

I have to admit that I myself have largely taken the easy road here. Having no special knowledge, or contacts with those who do, I have been left to read the papers, gather what seem to be relevant stories, and highlight those coupled with my own insights. But in the end, mine is an opinion site. This site started out essentially to justify my carrying of a gun, which seemed to need justifying, but I quickly learned that it didn't really. How that came about is a story for another day. Meanwhile my blog quickly expanded its as I saw the coming disaster that was to be the Obama administration. I tried to warn people, only to be called a racist and worse. I firmly felt that while second amendment rights were certainly important, I wanted all my rights to be recognized, and respect in the breech. So that is where we are.

I will have to consider how to become a reporter of objective news.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

The Productives vs the Aristocracy

This is truly interesting, at least to me. S. T. Karnick has yet another piece analysing Angelo Codevilla's article "America's Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution" over at the American Thinker today entitled The Productive Class and the American Aristocracy. For sure, he comes up with better names for these two groups. For the "country class" he substitutes "productive class" and for the "ruling class" he substitutes "aristocracy." The new names for each group do seem to tell us more about each. Moreover, the number of articles analysing, and criticizing Codevilla's piece tends to indicate that Codevilla was on to something profound.

Karnick uses not only quotes from the original Codevilla article, but also quotes from Rush Limbaugh, who spent a good portion of his time on Tuesday analysing and commenting on the piece on his radio program. An example:

The real motive for progressive politics is by no means any sense of altruism, as the aristocracy would have us believe. It is all of the usual selfish stuff: money, power, and ego. Limbaugh observes:
When you get down to it, folks, it's all about money. Always follow the money. The left and the ruling class love to say that they do things out of altruism, out of compassion, big hearts, and these people are a bunch of lazy SOBs who have no business in the private sector 'cause they can't succeed there. The only way they can succeed is to be a bunch of brownnosers in the ruling class and try to move their way up that ladder and get whatever they can out of the public trough. The ruling class has gotten rich off of government.
As Dr. Ray Stantz (Dan Ackroyd) noted in Ghostbusters, "You don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector. They expect results!"
An excellent example of how the aristocracy rules the realm is the global warming issue. All the money, profit, power, and prestige are on the side of the alarmists, and they wield their power ruthlessly, blatantly throwing their weight around in silencing those who try to tell the truth about the science of climate change. Al Gore is a multimillionaire who knows nothing about science, whereas S. Fred Singer is a brilliant scientist who continually endures a firestorm of slanders and harassment for trying to uphold scientific standards. These two men encapsulate the opposing forces of the aristocracy and the productive class.
Thus at the same time they are taking away our liberties, they keep telling us it is for our own good. When we notice, and essentially call BS on some scheme or another, rather than confront the argument and show us why we are mistaken, they instead call us names. The whole thing is breathtaking in it arrogance.

Go read the whole thing. Karnick highlights some important points and furthers the analysis.

Friday, July 23, 2010

The Collusion of the Journolist

The existence of a group like Journolist, who can shape the news to the degree that they can is an indication of just how uncompetitive the news media has become. The Daily Caller first broke the story with emails taken directly from the list citing a concerted effort by reporters at several influential media outlets to spike the story of Jeremiah Wright lest it detract from the Obama campaign. The story continued yesterday and today. Go read some of what they have to say.

Then contemplate what would happen to a secretive group of businessmen who did the same thing. The businessmen would be accused of colluding with each other to fix the market. They would be brought up on anti-trust charges. How is what these "journalists" did any different? These guys sought to fix the election so that their chosen candidate would win. They sought to spike stories that hurt Obama, and publicize stories that would hurt his opponents. One wonders what other stories they have colluded to spike. The facts about global warming? The facts concerning gun control?

In a truly competitive media market, a reader would have a variety of voices. One editor might be a rabid Progressive. Another though would carry the torch for conservative values. One might believe in global warming, while another would highlight the conflicting evidence. A reader could then view these various news pieces and decide for himself. The arrogant part is that these "journalists" felt the need to decide in advance for us. The average reader was viewed as just too stupid to figure it out on his own. They had to get together in secret and decide what will be the news.

But what is it about having a degree from journalism school that makes a person expert on all things political, cultural, and religious? What makes these people think that they can decide for everyone else? It is because journalists presumptively believe they are part of the "ruling class" as outlined in Angelo Codevilla's excellent essay at the American Spectator entitled
America's Ruling Class-And the Perils of Revolution. The sad part is that they are actually expendable. Only so long as the serve master will they be tolerated.

Update: For another take on the Journolist scandal, see Jonah Goldberg's piece over at the
National Review Online. To tell the truth, I think Goldberg minimizes what Journolist attempted to do. He also glosses over the "by any means necessary" attitude reflected in these guys candid writings.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

The War on Guns: 'Bouquet Bandit' demonstrates conditioned sheeplike compliance of victims

The War on Guns: 'Bouquet Bandit' demonstrates conditioned sheeplike compliance of victims

Once again, Mr. Codrea asks "What if what he (the guy threatening you) wants is to kill you?" Do you still "give him what he wants?" Or do you fight back? And how do you fight back if you do not have the means to do so?

Yes, it is possible that you will be killed anyway. Having a gun is no guarantee that you will come out on top of any confrontation. But if the other guy is determined to kill you anyway, what have you lost? The best thing you can do is train to the best of your ability, then leave the rest in God's hands.

Priviledges or Immunities

David Hardy, over at Of Arms and the Law points to an essay by Marcus Cole. In the essay, Cole pays tribute to 4 black Americans who made the McDonald case possible: Frederick Douglas, his father, Clarence Thomas, and Otis McDonald. It's a powerful, and moving essay. Go and read it.

Note that only Clarence Thomas took Gura's arguments seriously, and points the way to overturning the Slaughterhouse Cases decision. It needs to be done. Right now, the doctrine of stare decis means that even if a decision is made wrongly, the longer it stands the more it becomes untouchable. The Slaughterhouse cases are just such decisions. The only way to correct them is for the Justices to go back and look at what the Constitution actually says. Until that happens, our Constitution will be subject to being interpreted out of existence.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

The First American Dictator

Robert Miller has an interesting piece up at the American Thinker today entitled Government by Diktat that argues we are no longer a nation of laws, but of men. Faceless men to be exact.

When do we count ourselves among those ruled by a dictator? Personally, the day Obama took over the auto industry, I decided then that we were living under dictatorship. It has apparently taken more evidence for others. But one person I spoke to did not feel that even now we were living under a dictatorship.

Some people have their heads in the sand. To those people, I say wake up! Look at what is happening around you. Look at what is being withheld from you by the media here. And if it is happening with the Jeremiah Wright story, what else are they not telling you. We are now living under a [Progressive/Marxist/Communist/Fascist/Latest Name By Which They Go] dictatorship. It happened while you were sleeping.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

The Real Reason for Gun Control

Kevin Williamson has an excellent article over at the National Review Online entitled Coyotes In the State of Nature. No, it really isn't about Coyotes. A quote:

People have a visceral reaction to guns, which is why the reactions to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago have been so emotional. One extraordinarily telling reaction came from David Ignatius of the Washington Post, whose response was headlined: “The Supreme Court Gun Decision Moves Us Toward Anarchy.” Mr. Ignatius wrote: “My biggest worry with Monday’s Supreme Court decision is that by ruling, in effect, that every American can apply for a gun license, the justices will make gun ownership much more pervasive in a society that already has too many guns. After all, if I know that my neighbor is armed and preparing for Armageddon situations where law and order break down (as so many are — just read the right-wing blogs) then I have to think about protecting my family, too. That’s the state-of-nature, everyone for himself logic that prevails in places such as Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Mr. Ignatius here is remarkably forthcoming: He is not worried about guns in the hands of criminals, but about guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, people who are willing to apply for a permit and jump through the bureaucratic hoops re­quired of gun buyers. His nightmare is not an America in which criminals run amok with Glocks, or even an America in which gun permits are handed out liberally, but an America in which “every American can apply for a gun license.” Never mind the approval of licenses, the mere application gives Mr. Ignatius the howling fantods. It is wonderfully apt that he references the “state of nature” in his criticism, imagining a Hobbesian version of life in these United States: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, permeated by the aroma of cordite. Mr. Ignatius, like Thomas Hobbes, is casting his lot with Leviathan and makes no apology for it.
I won't spoil the ending for you. You'll just have to go and read it. It's short. But I will tell you that the masks are coming off. What was once hidden is now spoken of quite openly. Let those who have eyes, see.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Rant: Idiotic Bumper Stickers

Below is a rant. I freely admit it, and if you, dear reader, are averse to such things, then turn away now.

I saw a bumper sticker while out driving that had the word "tolerance" written with a variety of symbols from different religions. My blood started to boil, but then I thought about it. What is it about such advertisements of others complete ignorance that makes me mad? Does it affect me that this nitwit wants to drive around with "tolerance" on his rear end?

Frankly, such bumper stickers make me angry because of the implied superiority of such people. I have talked to people who smugly say things like "all religions teach essentially the same truths." No. They don't. Buddhism, for example, teaches that man becomes god, while Judeaism teaches that God created the universe and each creature in it, including man. They both can not be right. Then there are the Gaia worshipers, who anthropomorphize animals, while denying that man belongs here at all. Such a belief system is so at odds with Christianity, that again the both can not be correct. The truth is that the "tolerance" sticker types don't truly believe in anything except themselves. If they want to feel all warm and fuzzy because they have a corner on tolerance, fine. But when they interfere with my free exercise of religion by law, they are showing their own hypocrisy.

And they have, and do interfere with my free exercise, and that of millions of others as well. Children are not allowed to pray in school today because some intolerant SOB filed a lawsuit that finally reached the Supremes and allowed them to stand the Constitution on its head and declare that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means just the opposite. Children, and adults had been previously allowed to freely exercise their religion in schools, but were now denied. Since that case, the ACLU has continued with a vengeance to take down each and every symbol of Judeo-Christian religion that occurs outside of a church building, including monuments to the 10 Commandments and even the crosses that appear on the seal of Los Angeles. If the ACLU ever figure out that Los Angeles means "The Angels" then I suppose the city council will have to change the name of the city.

Each Christmas, a uniquely Christian holiday, I am reminded constantly that because everybody is not a believer, my exercise of the holiday must be muted. Where's the tolerance there? Why is it that my holiday has to be hijacked by a bunch of non-believers and turned into the "Winter Holiday?" If they don't like it, they don't have to participate. Why is it that I have to tolerate their non belief, but they don't have to tolerate my belief?

Now the President is going around yakking about the "freedom to worship." Of course, he is trying to change the language and get us all talking on his terms, as leftists always do. But worship is only one part of living a Christian life. We also must testify to others, and lead by example. A disciple of Christ must daily walk in His footsteps. The Constitutional language is the correct one: exercise. Don't be fooled by the President's "freedom to worship" language bender.

So what does it mean, to "tolerate?" Tolerance means that I may not jail you, or kill you, or otherwise act in a way to legally harm you or your property. I don't have to agree with you, nor do I have to find your beliefs acceptable. I don't even have to let my children play with yours. All that is required is that I don't interfere with your life, liberty, and property. So how did we get from "tolerate" 50 years ago, to "non-judgementalism" today? Doesn't everyone make judgements? Even the decision to be non-judgemental is itself a judgement. And since the basis of such a decision is that all judgements are equal, the why doesn't the "tolerance" crowd try tolerating my Christianity for a change.

End of rant.

What's ACORN Up To?

A recent FOX Opinion piece puts the blame on felons for the election of Al Franken to the Senate. Part of the problem is that Minnesota refuses to purge the voter roles of the felons. The FOX piece implies that since felons vote Democrat, the Democrats in power are loathe to take them off the list. True or not, the facts seem incontrovertible that had they not voted, Norm Coleman would be in the Senate instead. I will also leave aside, for the moment, what the association of Democrat politicians with felons says about Democrat politicians.

Now, having dead people show up at the polls, or felons, or any number of other dirty tricks is old time stuff. The Democrats have been at it for years, but to be fair, some Republicans have engaged in such shenanigans as well. The Republic has survived. What ACORN was up to, however, enrolling vast numbers of people who couldn't otherwise be bothered to become registered to vote, and who wouldn't have a clue who or what to vote for had not ACORN told them, seems a magnitude greater form of electioneering. And while ACORN disbanded, I don't for a minute believe that they have gone away, or changed their tactics. They have just buried themselves deeper, in some other false flag operation, and are setting up shop to do it all again.

Who is watching ACORN, or whatever name it goes by today?

Because here's the thing: the moment that the average American voter thinks that his vote doesn't count; that, like the Minnesota voters, someone has come in illegitimately and cancelled out his or her vote, the likelihood of civil war goes way up. Some people already believe that elections are rigged and refuse to participate. What do you think happens when the Tea Parties become convinced of the same thing? In rigged Iranian elections, the people rioted. It was unfocused, and so eventually put down. After all, the government had guns and the rioters only had rocks. Here, I think it may be a different story.

So, who is watching ACORN?

Update: Also check Western Rifle Shooters Association for a look at this topic of just how much we can expect to do with electoral politics.

Friday, July 16, 2010

Could Kagan Nomination fail?

Probably not, but passing it would be another sign that the people in power just don't care what you and I think. Rosslyn Smith has a short analysis of the situation in the Senate over at the American Thinker here

40% of people oppose confirming Kagan, and 39% approve, while 20% just don't know according to a Rasmussen poll. But the interesting part comes in the form of gun owners, who according to Smith, are not being fooled a second time. Actually, Ms. Smith, a number of us weren't fooled for a minute the first time, but I digress. Gun owners are riled, and a number of Senators running in tough elections are supposedly scared.

We'll see whether they're more scared of us, or Obama.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

"Void of Desire"

Finally, there is this piece from Doctor Zero: Green Economics and Void of Desire. The Doctor has a way with words:
Of course, that’s not how the “Green Economy” works. Consumer decisions are driven by false information, batted into their faces with rotting hockey sticks by con artists and fanatics. Most of the decisions aren’t made by consumers at all. The government created the Green Economy through propaganda, regulations, and subsidies. Many on the Left, including the President, have openly stated their desire to push gas prices higher, so Americans will behave according to the designs of the environmentalist movement.
Go read the whole thing.

Sex and the Left

Have you ever wondered what the Left's obsession is with sex? Have you ever noodled over what the Left and Islam have in common that makes them apparent allies? Well, I have. I have pondered especially over why the people who brought us "if it feels good, do it" would be rooting for the jihadis who want to kill them (and you and me.) Here's an answer, and it makes complete sense. Bookworm has an article over at American Thinker today entitled Sex and State Power that explains everything:

For many years, physicists have tried to find a unified theory of everything. They have faith that somewhere out there, there is a theory that will explain the physical properties of all things, without any exceptions. I'm not sure that dream will be realized in the scientific arena, but I think I might have stumbled across a unified theory that underlies statist philosophies, whether they are socialist or theocratic: sex.
Go and read it. It really does explain everything.

Anticipating the October Surprise

Pamela Geller has a piece today at the American Thinker entitled The October Surprise is Coming. Ms. Geller doesn't pull any punches in calling the "democratic" leadership exactly what it is. Interestingly, Geller speculates that our October Surprise this time will probably be a full scale depression. The reasoning goes that a mere "economic emergency" worked the last time, but this time they are likely to be thrown out of office unless it's a bigger and better October Surprise.

Also, interestingly, Ms. Geller has a candidate for President that we had not considered before:

Yes. And there is some comfort to be found in the fact that decent, rational men, statesmen, exist and speak the truth. They represent our last hope, a vestige of reason and sanity in this era of the modern barbarian. These are the men who need to take the reins of their respective nations. Bolton 2012: The stakes couldn't be higher.
It does have a certain ring to it, no?

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Alcohol Serving Restaurant Carry Becomes Legal in Virginia

Mike Stollenwerk has a great Washington Examiner article today entitled 43 States Now Allow Gun Carry where Alcohol is Served. The map shows how isolated North and South Carolina are. Yet each time the bill comes up, Deborah Ross (D-Wake) manages to bottle it up in "her" committee, where the bill languishes until it finally dies.

Apparently, North Carolina feels strongly that if a person goes into restaurants that serve (gasp!) alcohol, she shouldn't expect to be able to defend herself if needed. Such places are filled with drunken men who, you know, will sense that our heroine has a concealed weapon and try to take if from her and shoot her with it....or something. North Carolina also feels that if a woman takes her children to the park, or the movies, that she should be similarly defenseless. That's how strongly North Carolina believes in defenselessness as a defense...or whatever. Of course, in North Carolina, you can always depend on the police to be there in time of need...or not.

But, congratulations to Virginia, and to the Virginia Citizens Defense League! North Carolinians will keep trying, as you have done. It's just that it will take longer here, evidently.

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Happy 4th of July

On this July 4th, let us celebrate the McDonald ruling by checking out this article from the American Thinker entitled Thanks to Otis McDonald and the Supremes by Bob Weir. The article begins with:
The most important job of the government is the protection of its people. That protection involves their physical safety and the security of their property. It means providing police presence to deter criminals before they commit crimes and harsh penalties for offenders whose crimes were not deterred. The fact is that most crimes cannot be deterred because the bad guys don't generally mug people in front of the officer on patrol. Since the police can't be everywhere, people need a way to protect themselves.

That was how Otis McDonald felt when he walked into a Chicago police station and applied for a .22-caliber pistol two years ago. The 76-year-old retired maintenance engineer became the public face of one of the most important Second Amendment cases in U.S. history. As the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging Chicago's 28-year handgun ban, McDonald was a sympathetic figure: an elderly man trying to protect himself from violent hoodlums preying upon his neighborhood.
The article makes the obvious point, which we have all known since...well...time immemorial, that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Gun control laws only affect the law abiding. These fundamental truths are so self evident, that one is hard pressed to ascribe to gun control advocates pure motives.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court behaved sanely when they recently ruled that the Second Amendment to the Constitution gives an individual the right to keep and bear arms. Nevertheless, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, presiding over his personal thugocracy, declared that the Supremes are divorced from reality. "They don't seem to appreciate the full scope of gun violence in America," said the man who doesn't set foot outside his office without a police escort. "
I am often struck by just how many people who can afford armed protection, and take advantage of it, none the less do not want other Americans to enjoy whatever level of protection they can afford for themselves. Remember Rosie O'Donnell, who travels with an armed guard, yet advocates for gun control? How about Mayor Bloomberg. It does seem disingenuous, no?
We all owe Mr. McDonald our gratitude because his courage in taking on Chicago's gun ban has resulted in a ruling that reinforces what the champions of liberty meant when they wrote about not infringing on the people's right to bear arms. We're also indebted to five of the nine justices, who decided that the Second Amendment is the law of the land, superseding local gun control laws. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito made it clear that "self-defense is a basic right ... individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment." Can I have an "amen"?
Go read the whole thing. Also note that Bob Weir is a former Detective Sargent with the NYPD. Many, many rank and file police, military, and others believe as we do. Remember that too.

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Wisconsin DA Gets It

The Jackson County DA, Gerald Fox seems to get the gist of the recent McDonald ruling, according to Mike Stollenwerk at the DC Gun Rights column entitled District Attorney Declares Most State Gun Laws Unconstitutional. Too bad Chicago's Mayor Daley doesn't seem to understand.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

The Anger of the Public

Concerned Citizen over at the Western Rifle Shooters Association has a great piece up that highlights an article in Pajamas Media by Victor Davis Hanson which explores why Americans are so angry. A quote:

There is a growing sense that government is what I would call a new sort of Versailles — a vast cadre of royal state and federal workers that apparently assumes immunity from the laws of economics that affect everyone else.

In the olden days, we the public sort of expected that the L.A. Unified School District paid the best and got the worst results. We knew that you didn’t show up at the DMV if you could help it. A trip to the emergency room was to descend into Dante’s Inferno. We accepted all that in other words, and went on with our business.

But at some point — perhaps triggered by the radical increase in the public sector under Obama, the militancy of the SEIU, or the staggering debts — the public snapped and has had it with whining union officials and their political enablers who always threaten to cut off police and fire protection if we object that there are too many unproductive, unnecessary, but too highly paid employees at the Social Service office. In short, sometime in the last ten years public employees were directly identified with most of what is now unsustainable in the U.S. The old idea that a public servant gave up a competitive salary for job security was redefined as hitting the jackpot.
That anger extends to State governments as well. When NC had a budget shortfall, the first response was to raise taxes. (For anyone who drives through our fair State, take warning, do not violate by a jot or tittle any of the traffic laws. The police, in an effort to get more money out of us, have turned law enforcement into tax collection.) I heard over and over again that if we had to shrink our lifestyle because of the economy, why so should the State-and not through reduction of legitimate services, but through reduction of benefits.

Read the whole thing. It is worth it.

The Liberty Sphere-RINOs

Anthony Martin, over at the Liberty Sphere, has a post up to day naming the RINOs in the Senate who will not support a filibuster of Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court.

Elena Kagan is one of the worst threats to liberty to come along in many years. If the Progressive/Marxist MSM had an ounce of integrity, they would recognize that Kagan should be given the Palin treatment. While Palin at least had been a mayor and a State governor, palin has not even been a trial lawyer, let alone a judge. While I do not think such experience is necessary to high office, I would like to point out that much of the criticism of Palin was on just that point.

The Senate now has 41 people with an 'R' after their name. They could mount a successful filibuster of Elena Kagan, forcing the Administration to choose another candidate. Why don't they? What are they waiting for? The ability to filibuster is an important tool and the right should use it as much as the left does. Kagan should be Borked. But we have Progressives in the Republican party who are, frankly, sympathetic to the collectivist idea. We must get rid of these RINOs at the nearest opportunity, starting with McCain.