Progressivism and Islam are not compatible with our republic

 I have felt for a long time that Clarence Thomas is a national treasure, and I hope he continues to be such for many years to come.  He recently gave a lecture at the University of Texas in which he made the case that Progressivism is incompatible with America's founding principles.  It is also incompatible with Islam.  The lecture can be found here, or you can also find it at the bottom of the article by Earick Ward entitled Clarence Thomas on the origins and dangers of progressivism.

Woodrow Wilson named the system "Progressivism," but it really should be called "regressivism." For Wilson was naming something that goes back into the very beginnings of civilization itself, "Tyranny." The Germans had long lived under various rulers, all of whom claimed a natural or divine right to rule over them. Bismark, whom Wilson admired and whose system of rule he wanted for America, was just the latest in a long, long line. Thomas says:

I would like to begin by addressing my first encounter with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. It is perhaps not what you would immediately think. The second paragraph of the Declaration proclaims; We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language defines self-evident as obviously true and requiring no proof, argument, or explanation.

I believe now, as I did then, that the Declaration of 1776 provides us with the principles to guide us as citizens of our republic. Even in this time of questioning and criticism of our Founding, we should not forget that the Declaration established the principles that produced, despite all of our imperfections, our miscues, and our tragic mistakes, it gave us the freest, wealthiest, and most powerful nation in the history of the world.’’

...snip

As we meet today, it is unclear whether these principles will endure. At the beginning of the 20th century, a new set of first principles of government was introduced into the American mainstream. The proponents of this new set of first principles, most prominent among them, the 28th president of our country, Woodrow Wilson, called it progressivism.

Since Wilson’s presidency, progressivism has made many inroads into our system of government and our way of life. It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.

Progressivism was not native to America. Wilson and the progressives candidly admitted that they took it from Otto von Bismarck’s Germany, whose state-centric society they admired. Progressives like Wilson argued that America needed to leave behind the principles of the founding and catch up with the more advanced and sophisticated system of relatively unimpeded state power, nearly perfected.

Liberty no longer preceded the government as a gift from God, but was to be enjoyed at the grace of the government.

...snip...

It will, of course, not be easy. It never is. But if, like me, you need a greater source of strength than yourselves, you will need to rely on your faith to guide and to sustain you through it all.

Most of our Founders were Christian. As such they recognized that while the Kingdom of God was a kingdom after all, here in our fallen world, we could not entrust our government to kings and "divine" rulers. Christian theology has always maintained the concept of original sin.  We are not born good, but each of us is born in sin.  Our experience with George III showed us that we could not trust a king. After much thought, they came up with a republican form of government. But even though they thought this the best form, one can never discount the evil that men do. So, Thomas's closing remarks are very appropriate.

Please read the article, then listen to the lecture.

The Irony...

 The irony is thick in this story.  A gun grabber shoots and kills his wife then himself.

Today at Ammoland David Codrea has an article about the murder-suicide of Justin Fairfax and his wife. But Justin Fairfax was a former Lt. Governor of Virginia and a great proponent of red flag laws and gun control in general.

“Former Democratic Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax killed his wife and then himself in a shocking murder-suicide early Thursday morning, according to the Fairfax County Police Department,” Fox News reports. “Justin Fairfax shot and killed – shot several times – and killed his wife, ran to a different part of the home and then killed himself with the same firearm he just got unseen,’ said police chief Kevin Davis during a press conference on Thursday morning.”

While some may say it’s too soon, it can’t go without mentioning that Fairfax was a big proponent of citizen disarmament edicts, including those ostensibly purporting to be enacted to prevent domestic violence. The Fox News story itself notes, “He supported Virginia’s first red flag preventing individuals who show signs of being a threat to themselves or others from purchasing, possessing or transporting any kind of firearm.”

...snip...

It wasn’t “gun violence” that killed Fairfax and his wife, it was him. Since there are no reports at this writing that the gun he used was illegally owned, it’s fair to presume he went through a background check when he bought it. And he only needed a few rounds.

Time and again, it is shown that those who don’t trust us with guns and demand to control them really can’t trust and control themselves.

Why does it seem that these kinds of events always spring from those who would disarm you and me. Go read Codrea's article.

VA gun grab fight preparing to become nasty

 Virginia, a commonwealth that was fairly free on concealed carry and other firearms issues is facing suddenly becoming California.  According to the Firearms Policy Coalition, Virginia has about to heat up. A donation to the Virginia Citizens Defense League will be appreciated.

Stirring the Pot

 Shall we stir the pot a little?  You all have probably read most of the .45 Auto vs 9mm Parabellum articles, shouting matches and so forth. I have tried to stay out of these debates because I look at them as follows: each person must evaluate their own risks and then decide what to do about it.  My wife carries a .380 Auto, while my daughter carries a .32 Auto.  But I know that most don't carry anything at all. And most die of accident or disease or old age, not gunshot wounds.

So, it was interesting that the American Rifleman had a piece in it today by Bryce M. Towsley entitled The Infinite Argument: 9mm vs. .45 ACP. I recommend that gentle readers take the time to read it, because unlike a lot of the debate, this one is fairly sober.

If you watch TV shows, the good guys always place either one or two rounds such that they stop the bad guy from continuing his attack. But real life is far different. You want your attacker to bleed a little faster to stop his attack, and the .45 Auto has a proven track record of stopping an attack when paired with a M1911 style pistol. The reason the .45 pairs well with the m1911 is because the M1911 is a heavy steel pistol which absorbs much of the recoil.

The pistol and its cartridge resulted from a U.S. Army request for a new pistol:

This is a battle that has been fought before and probably will be again. For example, after the gruesome failures during the Moro Rebellion in the Philippines graphically illustrated the folly of using a smaller cartridge, the Army paid attention. That lead to the Thompson-LaGarde Tests, which proved what most of our salted Soldiers already knew: the Army made a mistake abandoning the .45 Colt in favor of the .38 Long Colt, a cartridge equivalent in power to the .380 ACP.

With that newfangled smokeless powder having been recently invented, ammunition makers were able to more or less duplicate the proven performance of the old .45 Colt in the newer, shorter .45 ACP. They put the cartridge in a semi-automatic handgun, the M1911, which went on to make its bones winning two world wars and in countless lesser conflicts. Yeah, I know. “OK, boomer.”

Well, yes, I am a "boomer, and an old fart one at that. And I shoot and carry an M1911 style pistol. Yes it's a relatively heavy pistol, but with a proper belt and holster it disappears under your cover garment. You see, physics has not changed, nor have bad guys changed. If someone pulls gun on you, it means he thinks whatever you have, that he wants, is more valuable than your life. Such people do not recognize you or anyone else as a fellow image of God. Now, I don't expect to have to use my handgun, most people do not. But it is like a fire extinguisher. You hope not to need it, but you wnat one if you do.

Woke Pope Becomes a Joke

 Yesterday at the American Thinker Monica Showalter had a post entitled Woke pope becomes a joke and gives Babylon Bee a field day. Now, as many of you know, I am a Lutheran because a number of passages in the Bible specifically deny a pope like figure. You can read these many denials in The Book of Concord to which all confessing Lutherans must confess.

You can read the Babylon Bee's many jabs at His Holiness absurdities and laugh along. I cannot make them funnier by quoting them here. But the last one is the funniest of all. Christ came into the world to defeat Satan once and for all. Therefore, Christ and Satan can never put aside their difference. St. Paul acknowledges this in Romans chapter 6 when he points out that we are now slaves of Christ and not slaves of the sinful flesh.

Showalter, by the way, is a member of the Roman Catholic church. We Lutherans (Martin Luther hiself would be appalled at calling his church "Lutheran.") think of our church as "Evangelical Catholic." That we derive all of our doctrine from the Bible, and add nothing to it, is one of the reasons Martin Luther was excommunicated. It was to maintain the power of the pope. However, we recognize that there are many faithful Catholics who will be saved.

Microstamping makes buying guns and ammo more expensive

 I was watching an old re-run of NCIS where Abby mentions that the murder weapon was a gun with microstamping. Case closed, right? Maybe on TV.  But as Mike McDaniel points out at the American Thinker in a post entitled Ammo serialization has nothing to do with solving crime, not so fast:

Microstamping is laser engraving a unique, identifying code on the tips of firing pins which will “stamp” that code—letters, numbers, etc—on the primers of fired cases. Some microstamping schemes also demand a second stamp elsewhere on a fired case.

One can imagine the many ways to get around microstamping. For instance, changing out the firing pin, filing of the microstamped code from the firing pin, not cleaning your gun, or stealing a gun from some innocent victim, or using a revolver. For that matter, merely policing your brass eliminates any signs of microstamping

But wouldn’t microstamping and serialization help catch criminals? No. In all my years in police work, I never solved a crime committed with a gun by finding and analyzing a fired case, nor was I aware of anyone who did. Virtually all such crimes are solved by old-fashioned police work consisting mostly of talking to people. The shining stainless steel and glass crime labs with holographic projectors and quantum computers of TV crime dramas don’t exist.

Microstamping has been enjoined by federal courts, not only because it’s unconstitutional and a blatantly obvious attempt to make guns and ammo too expensive, but because it doesn’t work. Serialization fails for the same reasons.

And here is the whole point. Microstamping, or indeed any serialization of ammo is not going to solve any crime. As McDaniel points out, you still have to place the criminal at the scene with the gun and prove he fired it. So, the only reason for such laws is to make guns and ammo more expensive for the average person to buy. Criminals will always evade the law. That is what makes them criminals. No, this is to make it harder and more expensive for you and me to buy guns thus making it easier to cram their totalitarianism down our throats.

The Image of God

Today, at the American Thinker in a post by Greg Maresca entitled The post-Roe landscape. I won't comment on most of the article. Gentle readers can read the grim statistics for themselves.

What I wish to comment on is another grim statistic, the lack of training in Christianity. Namely, that God created man in his own image. Every time an innocent human being is killed, another image of God is killed. While self-defense is allowed, mere mortals are not authorized to out and out murder our children. Indeed, God destroyed people who worshipped Molech, a "god" that demanded people throw their first born into the idol's fire in its belly.