A Pox on Both Their Houses

 Today is the first day of voting in North Carolina in the 2024 voting season.  Democrats of course are expected to set records for first day voting, if other states are any example.  For myself, I cannot wait for the voting season to be over.  This has been the nastiest, most lie filled election at all levels in my lifetime.  I am thoroughly disgusted with it.  Most of the lies, of course, come from the Democrats, though there are some from Republicans as well.  I will vote, of course, but a pox on both their houses. 

I am especially disgusted with the Democrat obsession with abortion.  Here in Raleigh, we get television ads for many district races as well as statewide races because WRAL covers a huge area.  We get ads for races from the coast to as far as the Greenborough area.  In every case, the Democrat candidate has touted their support for essentially unlimited abortion, while castigating their Republican opponent as taking away a woman's "right" to choose.

I have to ask, do these people who support abortion not hear themselves?  Do they not realize that a  "woman's right to choose abortion" is actually legalizing a woman's ability to murder her unborn child?  Do they not hear what they are saying, do not realize the horror of what they are proposing?  In ancient times, people threw their first born sons and daughters into the firey belly of Molock as a sacrifice to the anciet gods.  This is usually referred to as "passing through the fire."  But such language doesn't cover the horror of such behavior, as the child would scream as it burn up.  The LORD God punished Israel for that as well as other offences against Him.  And we are doing the same thing.

Democrats claim that their Republican opponents would disallow all abortions.  While that would be the ideal, just as divorce is allowed because of the hardness of our hearts, no states are going to absolutely oulaw all abortions.  There will be exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother.  While some Republicans may talk about the ideal, the facts are that they will not be able to get the votes for it.  So, in the end, the Democrats are just trying to scare their voters.  Is that what we want as voters, or do we want them to represent us?

Another big lie is that the Republicans, particularly Trump, will implement the horrible, no good, abominable Project 2025.  This has been thoroughly debunked, and I don't see many candidates advertising about it, but some outside groups do.  First of all, Project 2025 is a production of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.  I don't think any conservative, however, agrees with all of the wish list contained in the 920 page document.  Again, even if Trump were attempting to put some of these proposals, he wouldn't have the votes in Congress.  Let us remember that the use of executive orders can not be used to implement laws, nor can executive agencies interpret the law to favor administrative priorities.

I hope future elections can focus more on the issues and less on tearing each other down.

Anti-Gunners Surprised Criminals Break Laws

 One has to wonder what kind of people believe that by making a law, they will stop criminals from being...well, you know...criminals.  It reminds me of those public service ads that used to show up on the television when I was young telling people lock their cars because they didn't want a good boy to go bad.  But of course, a good boy wouldn't be tempted to steal a car even if the keys were in it.

Yet, it seems that The Trace wants us to believe that criminality is because some states have something like Constitutional laws. The report comes from Townhall.com by Tom Knighton entitled Anti=Gun Organization Shocked To Learn That Criminals Break Laws

Being a criminal isn't a very difficult field to get into. You just have to break the law.

Sure, being good at being a criminal is a different matter--most suck at it, really--but it doesn't take a whole lot to be a criminal. Yet despite this simple tautology, some people are absolutely shocked to learn that criminals don't obey the law. They even write about it like it's news.

The latest example of this phenomenon is from the anti-gun "journalist" organization The Trace.

Please go and read the article at The Trace to find out the details. To make a long story a bit shorter, one Dylan Russell bought a number of guns over a two year period, which he was allowed to do because he had no convictions. Unfortunately, Russell wasn't entirely truthful, as he was using heroin at the time. Indeed, Russell bought the guns and them traded them for heroin. So he broke several laws as you may not purchase a gun while using illgal drugs, and you certainly may not buy a gun for another party.

In January 2024, Russell was charged in U.S. District Court in Burlington for his role as a straw purchaser in what prosecutors allege was a drugs-for-guns operation orchestrated by gang members based in cities including Springfield, Massachusetts, and Hartford, Connecticut. Russell, who has pleaded guilty in the case and is set to be sentenced in November, bought guns on behalf of drug traffickers; he got drugs from them in return.

Here's the question though, exactly what law would have prevented Russell from committing these crimes while still allowing honest citizens to purchase guns for self defense and other legal purposes? Perhaps making the use of illegal drugs more illegaler?

So what laws would have stopped Russell that wouldn't have infringed on the rights of ordinary, law-abiding citizens?

Of course, the answer is that there are no such laws. They don't care about you and me and our ability to exercise our right to keep and bear arms. People like Russell aren't even the problem for them. The problem is us. We don't want to give up our guns, so they try to use the people like Russell to justify their need for more and more laws, none of which would do a blasted thing to stop people putting guns in criminal hands.

Mob of Street Thugs Blocks the Freeway

 At Ammoland John Farnum warns us that When Stalled By A Violent Riot, Stationary Vehicles Are Death Traps. Farnum suggests crossing the median if necessary to turn around and get out of there. As long as you are moving, you have a chance. We can expect more of these as the election draws near and after the election. Keep your powder dry but stay armed.

Happy Columbus Day

 Happy Columbus day.

This is what indiginous people were doing before the Europeans arrived.  I would think all would be greatful.

Someone had to say it:

Hat tip to Theo Sparks.

Judge Tears Out Another Brick in the Wall That Is Election Fraud

 In order to be believed by all parties, elections must be honest.  But the Left and some on the Right have fought tooth and nail to keep the tactics that make our elections insecure and cause the losing side to cry foul.  Too many courts have failed in their duty to acknowledge the evidence of voter fraud brought to them.  Building election integrity has thus been slow, and I doubt that we can restore it in time for a vote to make a difference.  While the 2024 election is not likely to be our last, it is probably the last one before the Communists take over completely.  Still, miracles do happen.

Today at the American Thinker Jerome R. Corsi has an article explaining that one of the ways elections can be stolen has been cut off: How a Federal District Court Judge Weaponized Secret Algorithms to Stop Election Fraud Hidden in State Voter Rolls. Actually, while Corsi speaks of databases themselves, the actual problem is not the database per se, but the software used to manipulate the database.

On September 27, 2024, Federal District Court Judge Michael T. Liburdi rendered a decision in American Encore v. Adrian Fontes that weaponized algorithms surreptitiously embedded in various state boards of elections official voter registration database, turning them into a tool to block elections that bear the modus operandi of mail-in ballot election fraud from being certified.

In his decision, Judge Liburdi referenced a provision in the Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, had issued. That provision required the Secretary of State to certify an election by excluding the votes of any county that refused to certify an election. Justice Liburdi quoted the EPM language that became known in Arizona as the “Canvass Provision.” The quoted EPM language, including the parenthetical remark included in the original EPM document, reads as follows:

"If the official canvass of any county has not been received by this deadline, the Secretary of State may proceed with the state canvass without including the votes of the missing county (i.e., the Secretary of State is not permitted to use an unofficial vote count in lieu of the county’s official canvass)."

Judge Liburdi characterized the rule as “probably unprecedented in the history of the United States” because it “gives the Secretary of State nearly carte blanche authority to disenfranchise the ballots of potentially millions of Americans.”

Judge Liburdi’s ruling is a bulwark against secret algorithms in the state voter databases that create a pool of hidden “non-existent voters.” Beyond just creating “non-existent voters,” the cryptographic algorithms assign legitimate state voter IDs to the “non-existent voters.” This last step enables the criminal perpetrators to vote these “non-existent voters” as apparently “legal” mail-in votes in what could be sufficient quantities to steal otherwise losing elections.

To get a better feel for exactly how these secret algorithms are used to create non-existent voters that nonetheless appear as legitimate voters, I suggest you go to God's Five Stones, a website created by Corsi to report the group's findings.

The Democrat (read Socialist and Communists) have several built in advantages in any election. One is a belief that government is their highest priority, therefore they have a strong get-out-the-vote organization everywhere. But their real advantage is their belief in "by any means necessary." Therefore there is little to no qualms about lying, cheating and other skullduggery to win an election. The only way to discourage such actions is to provide sufficient consequences to discourage them. But if the one encouraging such shenanagans is also the one who benefits from them and who enforces laws against them, consequences mean little. That is why it is important to have to competing parties always watching the other.

We Walk By Faith, and Not By Sight

 I have been fasinated by the Shroud of Turin for many years.  Now, I am not a relic seeker, and I do not base my faith on the existence of relics from 2000 years ago.  Even less do I adore these supposed relics.  Oh, it is interesting to visit the supposed tomb of Jesus, or the skull of St. Paul.  These are material remains which Jesus warns us not to focus on, but on heaven itself.  But when archeologists turn up evidence for events and people in the Bible, it is satisfying nonetheless.  On the other hand, it is no surprise that relics are not abundant, for God wants us to believe in HIM completely without proofs. Faith is the key. If you know because you have seen, where is room for faith? Did not Jesus say: Those who believe and are baptized shall be saved?

Kevin Mooney today at the American Thinker has an article entitled The Shroud of Turin - Can It Be Found in the Bible?. Having read all four Gospels, I can assure you that the burial cloth of Jesus is mentioned in the Bible. The real question is, is the Shroud of Turin the same as the burial cloth mentioned in the Gospels? We may never know for sure, but that is not for a lack of research on the Shroud. As Mooney notes, we can say with certainty that the Shroud is NOT a painting, nor a reenactment. But we cannot say what it IS. Do I believe it is the burial cloth is Jesus? Yes, yes I do. But that is faith, not objective science. In the end, everyone walks by faith, not by sight. The question for each of us is, in what are we going to put our faith? I know where I put mine, do you?

Please read the whole article, and consider getting Robert Orlando's book The Shroud: Face to Face. My backlog of reading material keeps growing it seems.

In time for Halloween, the Ghost in the Machine

 Mike McDaniel has a post today at the American Thinker entitled Ghost guns and liberty in which he reports on the Van Der Stock case before the Supreme Court. Based on court watchers reading the tea leaves, it could go either way. The term "ghost guns" is like the term "assault weapon" in that neither appears in the lexicography of guns. They are made-up terms by gun grabbers to scare the public.

McDaniel points out that Americans have been making their own guns for...well...centuries. Indeed, a serial number on a gun was not a requirement until the 1968 Gun Control Act. Serial numbers are really just a convenience for the manufacturer and in the case of the government to keep tabs on to whom they have issued the weapon and ensure they get it back. As McDaniel points out, no crime has ever been solved by knowing the serial number of the weapon used. What this is really about is power.

It's perfectly within America’s Second Amendment rights to make their own guns, and a number of manufacturers make parts kits, including unfinished lower receivers—the portion of a gun housing the trigger and hammer/striker mechanisms—“80%” complete, that require some drilling and/or other machining/filing to finish. Because these are not complete firearms—they’re parts--they are not required to have serial numbers, and that, to federal and state bureaucrats, presents two problems: (1) That’s too much freedom for Deplorables, and (2) they need the power to write their own laws to keep Deplorables from having too much freedom.

That’s why the ATF has unilaterally declared such parts kits, and particularly non-serialized lower receivers (in the case of AR-15 pattern rifles) and frames (in the case of pistols) illegal, though the relevant laws say nothing about them. Revolvers aren’t really involved as they take far more work, specialized machinery and knowledge to make. It’s another case of the administrative state writing law through rule making. Congress, for many years, hasn’t cared enough about its own legislative prerogatives to reign in federal agencies, and the agencies just love having that kind of unaccountable power. The best part for the agencies is they get to be all three branches of government. They write the laws, enforce the laws and are the judges and juries as well. If they’re accused of violating citizen’s rights, they investigate themselves and find themselves blameless.

Gentle readers should go and read the whole of McDaniel's article. Like so much about the Second Amendment, the government keeps overstepping its bounds because it desparately wants to limit the citizen so as to allow it to tyranize us without the messy consequences. We can not let that happen.