The United States Was Founded With The Help Of Divine Providence

I have to run today, but I want to leave you with a post by Eric Utter at the American Thinker entitled Evil Ascendant in which Mr. Utter points out what is wrong in our culture today:

If politics is indeed downstream from culture, when the culture is polluted, politics will be as well. The Founders would not have put up with the wide-scale poisoning of our culture and the internal annexation of the country they begat us. They would not have tolerated an attempted coup. Deep down, progressives know this. It is largely why they are bashing the Founders now.

Progressives try to skirt these facts by equivocating and asserting that everything is relative. There is no objective truth, they aver, only “my truth” and “your truth.” Take abortion, for instance. Some see it as a “woman’s fundamental right,” others as outright murder. Que sera, sera. Whatever will be, will be. In reality, “My truth” is merely code for: “You must tolerate anything I do, no matter how bizarre, sinful, or damaging, without questioning it or shaming me. I, however, don’t have to reciprocate, because you are an intolerant, Hitleresque ass.”

I’ll be blunt. There is an elephant in the room. A big one that no one is talking about: Evil will always win if good doesn’t fight back. Always. Always. Too many good and decent people do not truthfully understand this. They want nothing so much as to be seen as tolerant, caring, open-minded. These attributes, of course, are precisely what evil uses to advance its agenda and secure ever more power and control over others. Using others’ kindness, tolerance and ignorance against them is…the very essence of evil. It never rests, never takes a day or a moment off, doesn’t worry about being labeled evil. It does not care if its actions are bigoted, racist, shameless or harmful. Nor does it fret about whether or not it will be seen as kind, tolerant, inclusive, or open-minded. Evil always advances when allowed to do so. Always. It never stops, is omnipresent, pushes, prods, changes shape and appearance. It cares not of decency, logic, whim, niceties, demeanor, manners, feelings, justice or fairness. Especially fairness.

Utter goes on to say that more people need to join the fight. I agree with him on this, though I am as lost as the next guy as to how we can be more effective. There is a saying that when you get in the mud with a pig, you just get muddy yourself and the pig enjoys it. But another problem is that you and I can never "out muddy" the pigs of the world. At some point, there is a line you and I will not cross, that the "pigs" will do. So what is to be done? I suspect we must fight as hard as we can, but rely on Divine help to take the fight to victory. In other words, we must fight till all hope is gone, but continue to pray, and have faith.  The United States was founded with the help of Divine Providence and it may be that God is waiting for His people to show they remember that fact.

Islam is Not A Religion, But An Affirmation Of Tribal Cultures

Raymond Ibrahim has a post describing the problem with the Islamic concept of jihad as that it is hard to tell the difference between the jihadi and the murderous, psycopathic killer. Ibrahim's piece can be found at Jihad and Criminality: Inseparable Bedfellows at the American Thinker today. Indeed, what he points out is that there is no real difference. Islam does not require a change of heart, as does Christianity. It merely requires one to do what one always wants to do anyway. And since people are, as described in the Bible, fallen, people naturally turn toward criminal enterprises because these often give them what they want.

...As the director of the study himself explained, criminals “are the perfect fit” because the “Islamic State doesn’t require any intellectual sophistication. It doesn’t ask you to study religion. It makes it all like a computer game.” In other words, criminals are ideal recruits because they don’t know -- nor do they care to learn -- the first thing about “true” Islam.

Or, as John Brennan memorably asserted of ISIS members when he was head of the CIA, “they’re criminals. Most -- many -- of them are psychopathic thugs, murderers who use a religious concept and masquerade and mask themselves in that religious construct.”

Here, again, we see how ignorance of history -- willful or otherwise -- undermines Western security. The fact is, from the very beginnings of Islam and throughout the centuries, the overwhelming majority of Muslims who participated in jihads had no “intellectual sophistication,” did not “study religion,” and generally behaved like “psychopathic thugs, murderers.” That’s because Islam’s “religious construct” was always designed to entice and mobilize such men.

You must understand that Islam is not a true religion, as understood by the Jews and Christians. It is rather an attempt to affirm Arabs, and as it expanded, other peoples, in their tribal ways. It was not meant to tame the human heart and make us better people. As long as the West continues to look at Islam is a religion, we will be at a disadvantage. Note too, that Allah is not the God of the Bible, the God who created the universe and the creatures who occupy the Earth, including mankind:

Then and now, those who undertook jihad were never obligated to have sincere or pious intentions. That’s because -- and despite all Western projectionism and relativism -- Allah is not God; he is not interested in the “condition” of the jihadist’s “heart,” but rather his sword. The cold, businesslike language of the Koran makes this clear. Whoever commits to the jihad makes a “fine loan to Allah,” which the latter guarantees to pay back “many times over,” always commensurate with the jihadist’s efforts (Koran 2:245, 4:95).

...snip...

“[I]f taking lives and ravaging the lands of the infidel were the means by which the ends of expanding Islam were served, then the new converts’ traditional pleasures were now happily endowed with a pious rationale,” writes one historian on the Turks’ conversion to Islam. Similarly, “the Tartars had adopted Islam because it was the easy religion, as Christianity was the hard one,” observed a fourteenth-century European. Whereas Islam complemented the tribal way of life, Christianity only challenged it.

Please go read Ibrahim's article at the link, and ponder what he writes here.

Mass Killings Are A Human Problem Not a Gun Problem

While we await more news about how and why there was a mass shooting at the Navy Shipyard in Hawaii, it may be worthwhile to ponder a shooting that occurred in India, a country that makes the gun grabbers really proud.  India's gun restrictions make California look like the Wild Wild West.

Tom Knighton, in a post at Bearing Arms notes that an Indian Border Patrol Officer Kills Five Co-Workers In A Mass Shooting. But Knighton's point in writing this article is not so much to look into the motives of the killer, but rather to point out that contrary to the meme that mass shootings only happen in the United States, in fact they occur all over the world. The problem, as always, is people, not the tools they use to kill their fellow man:

The country of India has some very strict gun control laws. In fact, they recently passed a law that states you can only have one gun total. That’s a hell of a lot worse than the gun rationing schemes some of our own lawmakers are pushing, though I don’t doubt they’d love to pass a measure like that.

The United States, on the other hand, is supposedly the only country where mass shootings happen. They simply don’t occur in countries with strict gun control, or so we’re told.

I, for one, have been arguing that the issue is a human issue, not a gun issue. Something is very wrong with people and our society that we produce people who would do such a thing. However, I’ll also note that we’re not the only ones who do this. Christchurch, New Zealand, for example, wasn’t American.

David Hardy, in his new book, Mass Killings: Myths, Realities, and Solutions makes the same point:

Actually, it does. The record death toll from a mass shooting came in Norway, in 2011: 67 deaths. The record death toll from a mass killing of any type came in China, in 2001; the killer used bombs to take 108 lives.[2]  In 1982 a berserk South Korean policeman killed 56 (the same number that died in our worst shooting, in Las Vegas), in 2007 two Ukrainians killed 25 with a hammer and a pipe, in 1986 a Columbian used a six-shot revolver to kill 29 in a Bogota restaurant. This “just doesn’t happen in other countries”?

Hardy, David. Mass Killings: Myth, Reality, and Solutions (pp. 4-5). Kindle Edition.

Note that Hardy has done a great service to the gun rights cause by pointing out that these killings occur Worldwide, and that the tools vary, depending on what the killers can get their hands on.  There are homemade bombs, cars, knives as well as guns.  The solution then, is not in restricting guns, because mass killers will just find another tool.  The first recorded murder in history is that of Cain killing Abel with a rock.  Are we going to ban rocks?

It is unfortunate that news of these killings in other countries does not feature in U.S. news reports.  But that doesn't mean they don't happen with regularity.  Even in counties like India, where guns are heavily restricted, as Knighton's post points out.

Here are the facts:  The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights, in part to provide a balance of power in favor of the citizens as opposed to government power.  The only reason why politicians want to restrict the arms the people have is because they fear if the people have the balance of power on their side.  One has to wonder why?  In any case, restricting firearms is illegal, no matter what either the politicians or the Supreme Court says.  The black letter law says our right to arms "shall not be infringed."

Go read knighton's post.  While your at it, why don't you download Dave Hardy's book at Amazon.  It is only $2.99 for heaven's sake, and I read the whole book in one sitting.  In other words, it is short and concise. 

Don't Enforce Federal Gun Laws - Repeal Them

Another long piece to read is David Codrea's article at Firearm News entitled Who Will Guard Against 'Guardians' When Trump Admin Enforces More Gun Laws. Codrea makes a number of excellent points about how gun laws supposedly designed to entrap criminals can also be used to ensnare those with no criminal intent. And in the case of "red flag" laws, these can entrap totally innocent individuals. But he also points out how other laws, through a series of possible events, can be used to put gun owners behind bars and deny them their Constitutional rights.

Codrea is writing about the recently announced project of the DOJ called "Guardian."  As Codrea notes, though, DOJ has a lousy record when it comes to getting guns out of the hands of criminals.  Speaking of DOJ failures, let us not forget that during operation Fast and Furious the DOJ actually gave guns to drug cartels in what has been called a "botched sting" operation. But as Codrea has noted, it was no such thing.  But Codrea points out other instances where the Federal government's pursuit of a monopoly of power proved destructive of individual citizens.

But Codrea's point, as always, is that all of these laws are Unconstitutional:

Many in the industry have yet to learn they can’t protect their businesses by throwing customers under the bus. And many in the rice bowl gun groups have yet to learn their first duty is to their members, not to their advertisers and sponsors.

When the emphasis is on law enforcement rather than rights enforcement, it’s a one-way street leading to tyranny. Without going too far afield, a project I worked on years ago to petition DOJ to enforce the Second Amendment in the states the same way it would were civil rights laws being violated went nowhere – despite a supposedly “pro-gun” administration. And don’t get me started on NRA’s deliberate indifference and outright hostility by some prominent apologists.

As for embracing this latest scheme by our “Guardians” to somehow protect us through infringements, there’s really only one principled response: “Enforce existing gun laws?” The hell with that. Repeal the damn things.

These laws are also remarkably ineffective. After all, a felon who is already prohibited is hardly likely submit to a background check. Dr. John Lott has a piece at Townhall.com entitled The Futility Of Gun Regulations From Ghost Guns To Background Checks that makes this point. Lott notes that those with criminal intent will get guns, whether they be so called "ghost guns" or they smuggle guns in with the drugs they also smuggle. And those without criminal intent are no danger in the first place.

Gun laws and gun regulations only serve to restrict guns from the hands of the law abiding. As such, they represent not crime control but citizen control. But the Second Amendment was written to provide an overwhelming balance of power on the side of the citizen against the government.

David Codrea is correct, that all Federal firearms laws a regulations should be repealed.

African Americans Aren't The Only People Democrats Want To Disarm

Mark Overstreet, today, at The Federalist gives a succinct history of Democrat disarmament in a piece entitled African Americans Aren't The Only Ones Democrats Want To Disarm. Overstreet starts with the post Civil War, during which Democrats came up with laws that either banned blacks outright from possessing guns, or were selectively enforced against blacks, not whites. He then goes through the history of gun control ever since. If you have been in the gun rights arena for any time, you've heard most of this history. But it is not often enough told such that you always come across people who, in their naivety will ask "But why can't we have a discussion about common sense gun reform?" They don't realize that there is all this history pointing to the fact that Democrats (and not a few Republicans for that matter) do not trust you. And the reason they don't trust you is that they plan to impose something they suspect you will not like. At the same time, they don't want to end up like so many tyrants in history.

Please carve out some time and go read Overstreet's article.  Even if you know this stuff, it is useful to be reminded.  If you are an old fart, like me, you no doubt remember being able to buy a rifle from the Sears Catalog, and have it delivered to your door by the U.S Postal Service.  How far down the sewage pit we have gone.

As I noted here, Feinstein’s “ban” allowed owners of “banned” guns and magazines to keep them and allowed the continued manufacture of the same guns in slightly modified form and the importation of the magazines in their original form. The anti-gun Washington Post admitted “no one should have any illusions about what was accomplished. . . . The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.” This year, several Democrats running for president have explained what “broader gun control” means, saying they support confiscating semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines. And nowadays when Democrats talk about confiscating guns, they don’t mean “only from blacks.”

Update: I also have a post, here that speaks to the history of the Second Amendment, and why it is still relevant today. Hint: because mankind has not changed one bit.

Demographics Is Destiny-And Why It Matters

David Codrea, author of the website The War On Guns as well as a featured columnist at Ammoland and Guns magazine has pounded on the issue of immigration for years now. His point, and it is the same point that has been made by Ann Coulter and many others, is that unlimited immigration from failed states to our south will inevitably change the voting patterns we traditionally see. Democrats and Leftists see this a feature, not a bug. David Codrea notes that our gun rights will naturally be eroded when people with no experience of a right to arms are presented with a chance to vote them away.  Moreover, people with no history of the American Revolution will hardly understand why the Second Amendment was put in the Constitution in the first place.

In the great push of "other stuff" that typically crowds my days, I have often placed Codrea's concerns in this area at a lower priority.  But he is exactly correct about demographics being destiny.  Our system of government evolved out of the Anglo-Saxon tradition.  To those born to it, it seems as if it is coded in our DNA.  Latin Americans come from a different tradition, a tradition of Roman law, that is utterly foreign to the Anglo-Saxon tradition.

To David Codrea, let me just say that I am sorry I have not made immigration a priority.  But let me remedy that by featuring, today, at Townhall.com Scott Morefield's piece entitled The Most Important Issues For Conservatives, And Why None Of Them May Matter In The End. After Morefield goes through naming and analyzing the issues most conservatives care about, including abortion, taxes and regulations, judicial activism, and gun rights, he presents immigration as what should top the list for us. Why? Again, because demographics is destiny.

Finally, there’s immigration, and I’m going to go ahead and brush aside all the arguments above - at least insofar as they serve to place those issues at the number one slot - and slide this issue right up there at the top, heads and shoulders above the rest. Abortion, tax policy, deregulation, gun rights, judicial activism … all are critical to maintaining the United States as the type of place where the most people can have the highest quality of life. But if we allow Democrats to succeed in filling our country with people predisposed to vote for big government, over time and election cycles it simply won’t be possible to win on any other issue. In other words - if we lose the immigration battle, we lose the war, for good.

Please go read Morefield's article, and check out the internal links as well. Clearly, Morefield has been on this issue a long time as well.

First they came for gun owners...

Often enough we find ourselves preaching to the choir.  I, frankly, would never have thought of using the comparison made by Paul Curry in his article at Townhall.com today entitled Let's Give Red Flag Laws A Try With Abortion. That's because I don't consider abortion to be a moral choice, let alone being a Constitutional right. Nevertheless, by assuming that abortion is a Constitutional right, he gives himself a chance to speak to those who might be liberal gun grabbers and might not have thought that their favored "Constitutional right" might be similarly restricted.

This past October, Stephen Nichols, an 84-year-old Korean War veteran, former police officer, and current school crossing guard, was the victim of the flawed fed flag law mentality. Mr. Nichols’ offense? He was overheard, and misquoted, by a waitress in an Oak Bluff, MA, diner. Mr. Nichols, speaking with a friend, complained of the local school’s security officers leaving for coffee while the school children were unattended. Mr. Nichols complained that anybody could “shoot up the school” while security officers took breaks. Subsequently, and on the word of the waitress who overheard his statement, Mr. Nichols had his licensed and registered firearms seized and was immediately fired from his position as a crossing guard. Mr. Nichols had his 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights essentially revoked.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Nichols’ accuser acted in good faith, what does his predicament say about the potential for people acting in bad faith? How many ex-boyfriends, ex-girlfriends, ex-husbands, or ex-wives can easily abuse red flag laws? How many constitutional rights are red flag law proponents willing to submit to arbitrary review by judges? What if red flag laws were applied to other situations of life or death, say abortion? Proponents of red flags laws regarding 2nd Amendment rights argue, absent evidence, that without them someone may die. If we applied the same reasoning to abortion rights, absent red flag laws for abortion, someone will die.

Note that the emphasis is mine. But the question is a reasonable one. You may not agree with my Second Amendment rights, but then, how will you feel if your so-called abortion rights are similarly restricted by a judge on the say so of some member of the public who doesn't know you, or your situation.  How about an eaves dropping waiter who overhears a portion of what you say and then filters it through his own prejudices and then reports it to a judge, who then issues an ex parte order against your abortion. Suddenly, at 5 am you are awakened to a SWAT team delivering a  judicial order with deadly force.

It is also not too far to think that perhaps the purpose of red flag laws against firearm owners are intended to set a precedent that may be used later to eliminate  or negate the rest of the Bill of Rights.  Firearm owners are a minority.  But then, so are all the other people for whom the Constitution protects their rights.  The smallest minority is one, but even that one has certain unalienable rights.  Even if you do not particularly agree with firearm owners, you should understand that if we do not all hang together, surely we will all hang apart.

Martin Neimoller (read about him here) was a Lutheran Pastor who came to understand the Nazi regime as a dictatorship. He is credited with the famous quote "First they came for the communists, but I wasn't a communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Jews ...then they came for me" In the United States, Neimoller might have made his quotation read "First they came for gun owners, but I wasn't a gun owner, so said nothing."

Think about it.