Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Two from the American Thinker

Stella Paul is relatively new to American Thinker, but she is promoting her work and I want to help out by flagging Mission Accomplished: Obama gets Americans killed to Kill the Constitution in yesterday's American Thinker. Of course she is talking about both the Fast and Furious scandal, a scandal which remains unresolved, but we know the outlines of the story. Under the ATF, the regime sent thousands of guns, purchased by straw buyers, into Mexico and to drug lords, where they used them to kill hundreds of Mexicans, as well as Border Agent Brian Terry. The regime had been spouting the lie that 90% of guns in Mexico came from U.S. gun shops. When Darryl Issa's Oversight and Government Reform committee started investigating, and the facts came out, it became clear that Fast and Furious was a program designed to bully Americans into accepting more infringement of their Second Amendment rights. She is also talking about the Benghazi scandal, in which the regime lied to the American people for two weeks that four Americans were killed at our Consulate in Benghazi, Libya because of an unknown film trailer that up to that point had been seen by perhaps a dozen people.  It became clear that the regime also wanted us to give up our First Amendment rights as well, perhaps as a way to stop the lawsuits currently being raised by the Catholic Church on freedom of religion grounds.  Or just to get blogs like this one to shut up.

In fairness to the regime, the Constitution has been dying a slow death of a thousand cuts for a century or more.  As Thomas Wood noted in the book Who Killed the Constitution, we all have in some ways killed the Constitution by not paying attention, and by letting lawyers get away with high sounding phrases that mean very little, but allow them to impose their own meanings on them later.  A "Living Constitution" sounds so grand, and it is if understood in its proper context, its true.  If, after going back to look at the original intent of what was written, we find a truly unique case, then We the People have the right to amend the Constitution to remedy the situation.  But we have allowed nine men in black robes to "interpret" our Constitution into many times saying things the Founders did not intend.  In the process, they have used emanations and penumbras, and the evolving standards of society as excuses, even foreign laws.  But at heart, these are nothing more than a way to achieve the Justices' idea of what should be rather than what is.  Even worse, we have elevated precedents to the status of being greater than the Constitution itself, even wrongly decided precedents.  Worse still, the longer a precedent stands, the more reverently it is held by judges to be true, even though the Constitution itself is the oldest precedent, and had the widest approval.  The Constitution, and each of its amendments were decided by two thirds of each house of Congress, and by three fourths of the States, surely a larger number than nine men and women.

But Stella Paul's title none the less carries a great deal of truth.  This lawless regime knows nothing sacred, except raw power.

Which brings us to Daren Jonescu's piece in yesterday's American Thinker entitled Would Obama Incite Civil Unrest to Win?. It is a question I have been asking myself for months.  You can read Jonescu's article for yourself, and make up your own mind.  I believe Obama is a Marxist of some variety, ether Communist or Fascist, and Marxists have been using unrest, protests, propaganda, and lies since their founding to get their way.  They can not stand on the truth, for if we knew the truth, we would never vote for them.  They can not simply debate the issue, but they must make of their debate opponent who sees things differently the enemy.  Opposing abortion on demand as murder or not wanting to pay for contraception out of tax dollars means you must hate women.  Opposing anything Obama endorses means you are a racist.  Oppose gay marriage and you hate all gays and want to see them dead.  Insisting on having a weapon for your protection, and as a means to defend your family and property in a disaster means you are an insurrectionist.  Enough, I grow weary of this stuff.  Let's have some peace for a change.       

Monday, October 29, 2012

A Voice in the Wilderness, Crying 'Wake Up'

I have to say that I completely agree with Anthony Martin (aka The Welshman) as he wrote this Musings After Midnight-Is This The Last Election of the American Republic?. Go read the whole thing.  The strength of the language used is what I feel, but I often do not express for fear of appearing to you, gentle reader, as if I had gone off the deep end of the pool, never to surface again.  But in Anthony's hands, I think you will understand that in the wee hours of the night, things look particularly dark.

I think maybe Thomas Sowell's timing may have been a little off, as he was predicting that 2008 would be our last election.  I tend to look at all the stories of voter fraud coming out, and I wonder how much of that is taking place.  But more, I wonder that 50 percent of the American people are prepared to vote for a man, and an administration that has not just spun the truth, but actually lied, repeatedly, to the American people.

Are we not awake yet? 

Sunday, October 28, 2012

John Allen Muhammad to be Executed Tuesday

Perhaps it is in an American newspaper, but I read it in the UK Telegraph. The Telegraph has the story, unattributed, that the Washington sniper, John Allen Muhammad is to be executed Tuesday. 

I lived in Northern Virginia at the time the Washington sniper was active, and while I was not terrified, as the paper claims, one can't help but increase one's situational awareness. The FBI had profiled the sniper as a white male, 25-45, and so forth. The profile turned out not to be very helpful in catching this guy. Then there was the search for a white van. Probably the most common color for vans is white, and they are everywhere on the road, so that was no help either.

No doubt there will be a vigil outside of Greensville prison Tuesday, of those who say we never should execute anybody. I don't agree. When you get down to it, the opponents of execution are saying that these men, like an animal, do what they do because society, in some incomprehensible way, made them like they are. But that is to ignore all those brought up in similar circumstances who choose not to murder people. Muhammad could have chosen not to murder as well. He earned his place on death row, and earned his execution Tuesday.

Update:  Well, how embarrassing.  I am red faced.  Muhammad was executed in 2009, as my friend Sean Sorrentino mentioned in the comments.  Why the Telegraph has the story today is a mystery I shall look into.  Meanwhile, my comments about him earning his execution stand.

It is always good to have friends to fact check, it helps to keep one honest, and besides it drives up the traffic:-).  So, thankyou Sean.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Stealing an Election

I have heard rumors of this for years, but there has been very little proof until now. With the advent of tiny video cameras that a person can have in things like a pen or eye glasses, it has become possible to catch people saying things that they wouldn't normally say publicly, but they do say to people they trust. Thus, at the American Thinker today, Selwyn Duke has the story of people plotting to steal elections. Go check out the whole thing, and also the links.

Patrick Moran is right about one thing, the requirement to have a photo ID when you vote is not related to minorities and the poor not being able to get such ID.  Most states offer these forms of identification free of charge.  The expense involves simply getting to a local Department of Motor Vehicles to both register to vote, and to obtain an identification.  No, the resistance on the part of the Democrat party is because voter fraud is harder to accomplish when photo ID is in place.  Harder, but not impossible.

With so many states in play at this point, perhaps the regime feels that they can "count their way to victory," as did "Senator" Al Franken.  "Oh, we just discovered some uncounted ballots in the trunk of a car, and look, they all voted for me!  Who wooda thunk it!"

Here in North Carolina, we seem to have some voting machines that magically switch your vote if you voted for the wrong candidate **cough, cough, Romney, cough, cough**. Apparently the machines know when you do this, and for your convenience, they just change your vote automatically.  Nothing to see here, move along.  In that case, I don't know how anyone can trust the vote, no matter how it turns out.

Selwyn Duke ends his piece on this disturbing note:

I've said for a long time that this election is going to be the dirtiest in US history, mainly because the left moves ever further down the rabbit hole of relativism, which begets an end-justifies-the-means mentality. Moreover, I truly believe that these liberal political operatives can steal enough votes in swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico to turn them in Obama's favor and thus steal the election. Remember, you don't need an October Surprise when you have a November 6 Surprise.
Conservatives had better wise up, load up, and realize that this is a war.
It is a war, and it needs to be fought seriously for the stakes it represents, but it needn't be fought fire with fire. We need to push voter ID, and we need boots on the ground watching the polls alert to any fraud.

Update: Patriot Update has a similar story to the North Carolina case of voting machines automatically checking Obama despite repeatedly voting for Romney. I suspect this may be happening other places as well.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Gutting the EPA

Glenn Beck has recently been hawking the 1791 Supply Co. as a company that makes all its products in America, using American labor, tools, equipment, and raw materials. They also apparently make denim on the original looms used by Levi Stauss, making jeans as rugged as those in the 19th century. One problem: the clothing costs a fortune. The canvas shirts run $90 a piece. Jeans, I recall, were something like $150 a pair. Glenn Beck may be able to afford clothes that cost that much, but I certainly can not. But 1791 Supply Co. is symptomatic of everything "Made in the USA." You will pay luxury prices for simple items. Why?

There are many reasons. Union labor and excess government are often cited by libertarian writers. I think you can begin to unravel some of the problems by reading Environmental Protection: the Enemy of Green by Anthony J. Ciani over at the American Thinker. In Ciani's thinking, the issue is that we have become so good at measuring pollutants with modern spectroscopy, that it is possible to see pollution everywhere. People who discover harmful pollutants in their environment don't seem to ask the next question: is it harmful in the quantities found? Apples contain arsenic, but nobody has ever died as result of eating apples.  But, as long as nobody knows about the arsenic, that is a naturally occurring substance, nobody is the least bit worried about it.  Out of sight, out of mind.

Another issue comes as result of people not thinking through the entire process.  All of the chemicals we commonly use are natural, and in the environment already.  A case in point is cadmium, a toxic metal in high enough doses:
So what has a radical crusade against toxic metals gotten us? One company wrote a proposal to the Department of Energy to investigate a way to make cadmium telluride (CdTe) solar cells more efficient. Many of the reviewers thought it was a good idea, but one reviewer said, "nothing with cadmium is any good." The proposal was not funded, probably beaten out by a shrimp treadmill, but at least that reviewer prevented all of that cadmium getting from our environment back into our environment. You see, whether it is used to make solar cells or not, all of that cadmium comes as a byproduct of zinc smelting. It has to go somewhere.
(The emphasis is mine.  If it is possible to increase the efficiency of solar cells using cadmium telluride, it seems reasonable to at least explore it.  I do not consider fossil fuels to be the great evil that some people do, but like them, I would like to be able to use less of them if I can do so economically.  I am slowly relamping my own home with LED replacements, which cut energy use by a factor of 10.  We'll see if the extra costs of these bulbs is outweighed by the longer life, and lower energy costs.)

The EPA has been run by zealots since it was founded.  It needs to be run by more practical people who understand that a safe environment is only one of our values, not our one and only value.  If our ability to make things and to innovate is crippled, to the point that no one has a job, it is little comfort that the food we can't afford to purchase, the home we can't afford to buy, the car we can't afford to drive is free of all environmental hazards.      

Tuesday, October 23, 2012


Four years ago, I started Standing By. It was just before the Presidential elections, and I could see it coming. Obama would be elected, and impose a Marxist governing system on this nation as fast as he could do so. Some may be curious about the title of the blog. Here is what I wrote on 23 October 2008:
The title of this weblog is a reference to the last line of the poem "On His Blindness" by John Milton. Milton's exact quote is "They also server who only stand and wait." I too often feel blind to the full extent of why this or that is happening. I can't help but believe that much goes by for which I am simply not educated enough to understand. Never the less, I will try to pass on to the reader the best I can find on topics of daily interest from those more educated in these matters than I am, and together we will try to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Of course, I also hope to acquire some knowledge of this "blogger stuff" and to finally find out what the heck an RSS feed is.
I hope in the years since, as I have brought to your attention the thoughts of great thinkers and writers such as Thomas Sowell, Jonah Goldberg, David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh, and newer (to me) authors such as Daren Jonescu, that you and I have learned more about why things are happening, and what we can do about it. I have published 852 posts so far, and written a total of 932. The difference represents ideas either not fully formed, or which on reflection seemed not important enough to bring to a wider audience. I don't have the exact statistics in front of me, but of the posts, probably 40% have dealt in one way or another with guns, or self defense. Another 30% have dealt in some way or another with the Constitution.  I wanted to leave for my grand daughter, and now for my grand son, a record of why I did what I did, thought what I thought, and hopefully leave them with the tools to work their way back.

The United States is, or was, truly exceptional.  No other nation on earth had a Constitution like ours.  I can't help but feel that Constitution was the result of Divine Providence.  The United States was truly the place to which everybody wanted to come.  Unlike Europe, a person could come here and make something of himself, provide for his family, and enjoy freedom and prosperity.  The Constitution set limits on what the Federal government could do.  Because it took a small role in peoples lives, it left a greater scope for them to pursue their dreams.  Because property was respected, people were encouraged to satisfy customers desires by innovation and invention, secure in the knowledge that they would reap the benefits.  The candle thus was replaced by oil lamps, to be in turn replaced by electric incandescent lights, which are now giving way to light emitting diodes.  Despite the population growth, Malthus's predictions have not come true.  We have innovated at each stage to produce more food for more people on less land with fewer hands.  It is said that there is no shortage of actual food.  Instead, there is a shortage of goodwill in some nations, where those in power would rather starve their people than make food aide available to starving minorities.  But the evil is in those people who would deny food and medicine, not in the those who would provide the food and medical aide

Starting around the turn of the last century, with the election of the first "Progressives" to government, the government has grown, and the plain meaning of the Constitution has been subverted and in some cases turned on its head.  Property is no longer respected in America, which in turn has made innovation and invention a riskier prospect.  Hard work and inspiration no longer bring prosperity. Indeed, now children aspire to be rock and roll stars, or Wall Street moguls rather than becoming great scientists or engineers.  Rather than make more pie, people more and more see taking others' pie to be the road to riches.

The GAO  estimated there were approximately 8 million active concealed carry permit holders in the United States as of 31 December 2011, out of approximately 300 million population.  If we also add Constitutional carriers, and those that carry without a permit but are otherwise peaceable people, there may be 8.5 million carrying guns in public, or about 3%.  That is a small number, and yet it is small enough to have brought crime down in every state where "shall issue" concealed carry has been implemented.  Thus, I consider carrying a gun, and being proficient in its use to be a civic duty, on a par with voting.  Now, crime in this country, contrary to what you may hear overseas is not rampant.  I can go most places without being threatened.  But I have found that the responsibilities of carrying a gun daily have made me see the world as it is, not as I want it to be.  I can't help but believe that if more people carried a gun, and felt those responsibilities, the infantilization that I see every day around me would slowly disappear.

That is my great hope.          

Sunday, October 21, 2012

George McGovern Dies

The Blaze has the story of former Senator and Presidential candidate George McGovern's death at age 90 here. The story is written by Madeleine Morganstern.

I have never agreed with George McGovern on political issues.  In fact, I vehemently disagreed.  McGovern was a Socialist and a Progressive, hiding in plain sight as a Democrat.  It was during the Democrat Convention in 1972 that McGovern welcomed the New Left into the party, and began the purge of the old conservative Democrats.  I voted for Nixon, not because he was the best Republican, but because he was the lesser of two evils.  I have always believed that not voting is a vote for whatever the majority chooses.  That is my view, and I understand the thinking of those who choose not to vote as a way of withholding their consent.  But those who do not vote have little right to complain because politicians don't do the right thing.

I met McGovern years later, after he was out of politics.  I had gone to work for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and was tagged to take the coveted Capitol Hill course.  I can't recall now the exact name of the course, but it involved learning about how the government worked.  The number of people in the class was small, and George McGovern taught one of the sessions about how the Senate works, contrasting it with how the House operated.  McGovern was charming, friendly, and personable, something I did not expect.

McGovern was also a pilot during WWII, earning the Distinguished Flying Cross flying 35 missions in a B-24.  He deserved our respect for that service, but as a closet Socialist, he didn't deserve to be President, and I do not regret my vote for Nixon, though he proved to be a flawed candidate as well.  

Friday, October 19, 2012

Origination Clause and ObamaCare

I have said this for months, but of course, I am no Constitutional scholar, or even a lawyer. ObamaCare, originating in the Senate as it did, is not Constitutional as a tax because of the Origination Clause. Daniel Smyth has a more complete analysis at the American Thinker today entitled Origination Clause: Die Harder ObamaCare. I had been waiting for someone to pick up on this fact, and Smyth not only provides a good analysis, but shows you some of the sausage making that went on behind the scene.  It isn't pretty, but it puts on display the utter contempt these arrogant weasels feel for We the People.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

President Calls for New AWB

The President in yesterday's debate called for a new "Assault Weapon Ban (AWB)" because, as he said, "Weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets." Robert Farago has the report at Truth About Guns.

Prefacing his remarks, he said he supported the Second Amendment. Now, anyone who has read that amendment, and knows the history of it, knows that if he really took his support seriously, then fully automatic M16s, M4s and AK weapons would be available to every peaceable citizen, as well as various handguns, shotguns, and other small arms typically used by our armed forces. That is if anyone took the Founders at their word when then wrote the Second Amendment. But those are already effectively banned. Anything of the type built after 1986 is banned, making fully automatic weapons, or NFA weapons, very expensive for the legal buyer. The $200 tax is simply adding insult to injury.  Frankly, I am not so sure of Romney either, but so far he has indicated he wants no new gun laws.

What the President calls "assault weapons" are in fact semiautomatic weapons that look like the military equivalent, and that fire relatively small rounds as the military equivalent does, but that are no more powerful or dangerous than your average deer rifle.  Further:
President Obama did indicate that he understood that “assault weapons” were not the real problem, noting that in his home city “They’re not using AK-47s [to kill each other], they’re using cheap handguns.” But that’s not stopping him from going full speed ahead with the new AWB.
So, why the AWB then?  After all, we have had an AWB from 1994 to 2004, when it expired. It expired in part because nobody could show that it had had any effect whatsoever on crime.  It didn't have any effect on crime because, surprise, surprise, criminals don't obey the law.  In any case, they also don't typically use assault weapons as the President indicates.

First off, I think the President was trying to fire up his Left wing, Marxist/Socialist base.  They have been trying to get rid of guns-all guns-for years.  They know that if they banned them all, all at once, that they would have people up in arms, pun intended.  That would be too much, even for a Supreme Court that found ObamaCare constitutional.  So, Alinski style, they cut off a group of guns, target them, demonize them, and then ban them.  In the process, they hope to cut off some gun owners who don't own that particular style of weapon, and don't yet feel their own ox being gored.  People like Jim Zumbo are examples of the type who would throw assault weapon owners under the bus in hopes of keeping their own guns a while longer.  Of course, when the gun grabbers are done with the so-called assault weapons, they will come for another batch, perhaps teaming up with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or the Humane Society of the United States, both groups wishing to ban hunting, to ban hunting rifles.  The one thing they won't do is leave peaceable armed citizens alone.

Then there is the President's own motives.  Now, I can't look into the President's head and determine what he thinks.  I have no such powers, and neither does anyone else.  So, this is just speculation.  But we do know that he is a Marxist/Socialist.  We also know that free people will only stand for so much, despite the distractions of football and beer.  So, he must project as much power internally as he can, and take as much power away from the people as possible.  The lessons of Syria should not be lost on him: that despite having only small arms against tanks and bombs, the rebel forces are winning.  Bashar Assad is in the fight of his life.   

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Every Blade of Grass: Political Quotations

Every Blade of Grass: Political Quotations

The last quote from Henry Waxman should cause great concern for every patriot.

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Creeping Socialism

For those who don't know what socialism is like in actual practice, I have often suggested you read accounts of it from people who lived through it in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Some people seem to believe a little socialism is perhaps needed in our society.  In fact, we have more than a little socialism.  But of course, a little socialism is never enough, and eventually we have the entire package.  That has been the goal of the Progressives all along.

I have featured a few people lived through socialism and miraculously became refugees here in the United States. Now comes Virginia Prodan with an article at the American Thinker entitled Socialism: Against Gold, Guns, and God. Ms. Prodan lived during the reign of Ceaucescu in Romania, and escaped to the United States. What she sees going on now looks to her like another reign of a failed ideology: socialism. You have all the hallmarks, including a cult like leader, a belief in social justice and "fairness," taxing the "rich" who should pay their "fair share." Given another four years, we will not be able to recognize this country anymore. I recommend you read the whole piece. Meanwhile, I will attend the movie Atlas Shrugged II, written by another refugee from Communism. Update: Also listen to this Hungarian born billionaire talking about the effects of socialism on his native country.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Things You Hope Not to Use, But Aren't You Glad You Have Them?

Some things you probably have, but you hope and pray that you never have to use:

-Seat belts: You don't intend to have an accident. You drive carefully, and defensively. But sometimes an accident finds you. At that moment, when the seat belts in your car prevent you from flying through the windshield, aren't you glad you have them?

-Automobile insurance: Same scenario, but your car has been totaled by an uninsured driver. Aren't you glad you have insurance to replace your only means of transportation?

-Fire extinguishers: You probably have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen. You don't intend to have a fire in your home, or to burn your home down. But aren't you glad you have them to prevent your house burning down?

-Home insurance: Speaking of homes, you wouldn't go without home insurance, would you? This insurance package protects your largest investment from all sorts of physical hazards, as well as lawsuits from people who may slip and fall on your steps.

-Guns: When you are confronted by a person who is threatening to kill you, there likely won't be a policeman around. There won't likely be a national guardsman on hand, and there probably won't be a witness around either. You are on your own. Indeed, you, yourself, are the first responder. Wouldn't it be nice to have a gun on your hip?

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Judges Go Rogue

I was disappointed to read that once again, appellate justices, in this case for the state of New York, are willing to violate both the letter and the spirit of the law to achieve an anti-gun agenda. You can read about it at the Insurance Journal in an article entitled Court Rules New York Shooting Victim can Sue Gun Maker by Daniel Weissner.

What is so upsetting about this is that once again we see government workers, in this case Judges, who feel perfectly comfortable with treating the law as silly putty, to be molded into whatever suits their desired outcome.  We see Judges who don't mind abrogating the law, about which legislators considered, held hearings and committee meetings, various members of the public had comments, and both houses passed before the bill was signed into law.  These judges have no authority to do that.  Their authority goes only to interpreting the law, not dismissing it, unless the law was passed outside the Constitutional authority of the legislative branch, or is Unconstitutional for some other reason.  But that is not the case.  This is lawlessness, and it needs to stop. 

The law I am discussing here is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The act on its face prevents cities and states from suing manufacturers of firearms for the criminal misuse by someone who happened to acquire their product, whether by purchase, or by stealing it. But beyond firearms, it also protects any other manufacturer from being sued for misuse, or criminal use of its products. Can you imagine if Ford were held responsible for every death due to drunk drivers of its automobiles? If this lawsuit is allowed to go forward, and precedent is set, how many things that we now enjoy would simply be unavailable in the future. I doubt that anyone would be building swimming pools, for instance, because the insurance costs would be prohibitive.  And what about knives or baseball bats: can Craftsman be sued because a screw driver that Sears sold in 1960 was used to murder someone last week?

The judges on this panel show an arrogance that seems to take the breath away.   They have substituted its judgement and wisdom for that of 535 members of Congress acting within their Constitutional authority.  I know that I rail against legislators who don't pass things I think they should, but I don't advocate breaking the law.  But if I don't advocate breaking the law for citizens, even more especially, judges and others who work for the government should respect the law, and their duties under the law.  If a law has been passed within the authority granted to the government by the people, whether someone agrees with it or not, it should be respected.  When someone breaks the law, and is seen to by others, and he is not punished, then the rule of law begins to break down, and soon enough we are in a Hobbesian world.  Our society can not function on that basis. 

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Waking Up in a Different Country

I have featured several pieces by Daren Jonescu in the past. He is an excellent writer, and has a grasp of the Leftist mind that I can only think comes from living under Communist rule. I do not know that, but it has seemed to me that he writes with the authority one who has lived it. Such is today's piece entitled Time to Demythologize the Authoritarian Impulse published by the American Thinker. Go and read the whole article, then come back. I will have some comments.

We have been losing our liberties a small piece at a time for over a hundred years.  We have been losing our freedoms, and our abilities to determine our own lives and happiness.  We have also been enslaved.  Oh, not in the classical sense of a slave being owned by another, who can do with him what he wants, but in the strictest sense of being forced to work for an other's benefit.  Care to see just who it is you are being enslaved to? Or how about her. We may laugh at these people, but who is getting something for nothing here?

The excuses for taking away some piece of our liberty have been many and varied. Perhaps it was a crime spree, such as during Prohibition, where gangsters sought to feed the demand for liquor by selling illegal smuggled booze. To protect their illegal goods, however, they couldn't call upon the police, so they were forced to supply their own security.  They ended up killing innocents as well as other gangsters, not being particularly finicky about who got hurt. Perhaps it was a war, or a trumped up environmental hazard. Perhaps people have been stampeded into accepting security checkpoints at airports and along highways because of fear of terrorists. Why doesn't really matter. What matters is they have stampeded people into going along with it because they to be saved from whatever evil is being trumpeted, and they are willing to sacrifice some of their liberty for safety. Unfortunately, the promise of safety is never delivered, but people have lost their liberty none the less.  This is the true evil that is Progressivism.

In recent years, I have become ever more alarmed.  With the majority of my life in the rear view mirror, I can see how our freedoms have been taken from us, and I have tried sounding the alarm.  All too often, as Mrs. PolyKahr points out, I just come across as a crank.  When GM was in trouble, and about to go into bankruptcy, the Left set up a drum beat that bankruptcy would mean the end of GM. I pointed out that some unproductive parts of the company might close, and that a number of contracts would be renegotiated to save other parts, but that the company would emerge from bankruptcy stronger than it was.  Instead, our bankruptcy laws were tossed out, and the President substituted his own ad hoc rules.  In taking this action, the President destroyed the rule of law that has governed this nation since the ratification of the Constitution.  Now, every case potentially becomes a matter of who are the parties involved, who are the victims, how has the press treated the case,  If the victims are part of a protected minority, of course they will get sympathetic press.  On the other hand, of the victims are part of the designated oppressor class, the case will be ignored.

Despite claims to the contrary, ObamaCare really will take over 1/6th of the United States economy.  It really does take what were your, and your family's private decisions about your health care, and put these decisions into the hands of unelected bureaucrats in Washington.  As we have seen with Catholic charities, it destroys the protection of religions freedoms in the First Amendment, unless you are a Muslim.  But more than that, it is an intolerable act of tyranny.  The founding generation would be rolling over in their graves.

The Fast and Furious scandal shows the moral depravity to which tyrants will stoop, and how far they will go to cover it up.  The Leftist press has tried to use the Staling excuse "If Uncle Barry only knew!"  Personally, I believe BHO did know, and has the blood of hundreds of innocent Mexicans on his hands, as does Attorney General Holder, and those lower level persons named in the IG report.  I believe that because in a bureaucracy nobody is going to take on more risk that the potential rewards.  There was a huge risk that the Fast and Furious operation could get out of hand, but where were the rewards for lower level civil servants?

Tyrants are lurking everywhere.  Your homeowners association probably has at least one "grass nazi" who goes about measuring the lawns and playing "gotcha."  Or, perhaps it will have an architectural committee that wants all the houses to have the same color paint on the front doors, or the mailboxes.  You imagine that Hitler was seen in his own day as evil, but the fact is that he was a rock star to the German people.  Many felt that it had been Hitler's policies that had pulled them out of the depression that had impoverished them only a few years earlier, and they were grateful.  Similarly, when the Russian secret police came and took someone, the Russians generally thought they were doing it against Uncle Joe's orders. If only Stalin knew! Saddam Hussein ruled in Iraq despite the fact that Iraq was awash in fully automatic AK 47s.  Tyranny is never really like George Orwell's 1984.  Someone can be likable, and personally popular, and still be a tyrant.  With all that in mind, if you are one of those who keeps saying that it can't happen here, wake up, open your eyes, and look around.  You won't recognize your country anymore.

Sunday, October 7, 2012

This Just In-Nothing Still Happening

Well, alright, I admit this came out on Friday, and it is now Sunday, but the news still needs to get out: after a year with having concealed carry of firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol, nothing much has happened. The Columbus Dispatch has the story by Alan Johnson here. The anti-gun Cleveland Plain Dealer's snarky article entitled Letting Guns into Ohio's Bars would be an outrage was typical of what passed as coverage before the law went into effect.  You can read it for yourself.   The article is long on sarcasm, and short on actual facts.

Like Virginia last year, once again a State has passed carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, and nothing happened.  No shoot outs among the chairs and aisles, no blood on the floors, no wild west scenes, no dead children.  Nothing.

So, you might wonder, what causes the North Carolina legislature to fear concealed carriers having their guns in restaurants while they dine with their families? It seems that Senator Tom Apadoca had the power, in conjunction with Senate Leadership, Phil Berger to kill this common sense law for us again.  But what seems to be scaring them so badly?  Do they believe that those living in our fair state are somehow more violence prone than those living in 42 other states?  Perhaps it is the Fraternal Order of Police, a hypocritical group that seems to believe in guns for themselves, but not for civilians.  It couldn't be newspapers like the Winston Salem Journal that claim that guns and alcohol don't mix could it?  After all, the proposed bill didn't allow alcohol and guns to mix.  Indeed, the the proposed bill actually forbade it.  But setting up strawmen in order to knock them down seems to be a specialty of the Winston Salem Journal.

It remains to be seen whether pro-gun rights forces can increase their numbers in the November elections, and whether North Carolina will join states like Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and of course Ohio in having concealed carry in restaurants that serve alcohol. 

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Interview with a Gun Carrier

Tim Schmidt of U. S. Concealed Carry Association publishes an email with helpful articles about carrying concealed on a daily basis. One, that I thought ought to be highlighted was this: Mindset Interviews: Interview One-JS. JS has the sound of someone who authentically carries on a daily basis. The interview discusses his early work in law enforcement, and his subsequent carry experience as a civilian.

He expresses frustration at the way a civilian can be entrapped by violating one of the many invisible lines that one may cross during the day.  He talks about the passivity that the relative safety we experience causes some people to assume. He discusses the criminal element, and the criminal mindset, and the mindset that the average person needs to avoid becoming a victim. One of the things he said during the interview struck me as being particularly true:
CA – As a civilian, since you got your permit at 21. Have you ever went around, even for a moment, with a vigilante attitude? You know, an attitude that you will take steps to enforce the laws.

JS – Not in the slightest. In fact, carrying a gun has me avoiding places I might have gone to before carrying a gun. The simple fact of being armed in public makes a person more self-aware. That self-awareness helps out with making good decisions to avoid trouble. I had the choice when driving home to either take a shortcut through a bad section of town or drive around. I used to take the shortcut. After I was trained to use a gun, it just made more sense to drive around.

It really is not complicated. People who do not carry a gun should learn this part. They need to understand that I am used to carrying a gun every day. It is part of my mindset in that I refuse to be a victim. I do not go to places being paranoid. I just go places with a tool that could save my life one day. I actually choose to avoid the very hint of trouble. I walk away, drive around or do not go. If there are reports of trouble brewing for a public event I might like to attend, I stay home. The goal is to never have to use the gun. The goal is to not ever be harmed, which is why I carry a gun. It is a last resort type of thing.
I remember shortly after getting my concealed carry permit, I was in a Borders store. A young man was listening to music through earphones, and singing along to the tunes he was hearing. It was loud, and disruptive to the others in the store, myself included. My first instinct was to suggest that he not sing along in the middle of the store. Then I remembered that I was carrying a gun, and that by confronting the young man, I would be creating a situation that could escalate out of hand. I turned and walked out of the store. I have lived by the notion ever since that in any possible confrontation, I know there is at least one gun, mine, and I try to avoid such situations.

The interview sounds to me like the truth. The attitudes of JS toward criminals, and his determiniation that he won't be victimized ring true to me, as well as his attitude about avoiding trouble whenever he can. But in choosing to see the world as it is, rather than as he might want it to be, he has made the overt decision to go armed throughout life. I understand. Go read the whole article. It is a very good interview with a level headed guy.