If you are reading this, you ARE the resistance

Mike Vanderboeg has an excellent post (actually, all of Mikes posts are pretty good) over at the Sipsey Street Irregulars entitled: "This is Bill Rupert: If you are reading this, you ARE the resistance." A surprising quote:

So what does WWII occupied France have to do with modern America? I would suggest we have labored under a Vichy-style occupation since 1865 when a virulent form of government supremacism extinguished states rights in the original Federal system and then the Progressivist virus metastasized under Theodore Roosevelt and the rest is history as the republican vision of a decentralized, localized and minimal government became as anachronistic as the notion of natural rights.

This is how I see it too, looking back now, and learning a little history late in life. Linclon, with the best of intentions, sought to save the union. But in saving it, he had to obliterate certain Constitutionally guaranteed rights. After the war, the rebellious Southern States had to be suppressed, again for the sake of preserving the Union. But things took a turn for the worse under the "progressive" notions of "good government" under Theodore Roosevelt. Of course, by then the Marxists were beginning the "Long March through our Institutions." And now here we are, living under Obamunism, with Statists throwing every hare-brained and gushy ill thought idea they have ever had at us, and taking away our liberties in huge gulps.

Actor Craig T. Nelson said on the Glenn Beck show on Fox News Friday, see here that he was going to stop paying his taxes. Nelson has a point. If the Federal Government bails out California, then the voters of every State should have a say in how California spends it money, and the policies California imposes on its citizens. But we haven't, and we won't. It is indeed, taxation without representation. But even when you do have formal representation, do you really? I get pablum responses from my so-called "Representative." You know the kind..."Thank you for letting us know your opinion on this issue." Am I being represented?

The point is, Craig T. Nelson has found his form of resistance. Each of us who desire liberty must find our own way to throw sand in the machinery. We can not let this stand. "This is Bill Rupert: If you are reading this, you ARE the resistance."

The Liberty Sphere: ******SPECIAL LIBERTY ALERT!!*******

The Liberty Sphere: ******SPECIAL LIBERTY ALERT!!*******

The Welshman alerts us to The One's restrictions on free speech...you know just in this special case. Except of course, if they get away with it, there will be more and more special cases.

Now what nasty things can I say about the Pokulus Bill.

You have an individual right to guns, but nobody said anything about ammunition.

The Liberty Belles have a post up reporting that there are bills in both California and New York to require more state scrutiny of ammunition sales. In New York, dealers would be required to take note of the amount and caliber of ammunition purchased. I assume that if a person purchases a caliber for a gun he has not registered, he can expect a knock on the door. In California, quoting the Belles:

In California, AB962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a "handgun ammunition vendor" in the Department of Justice's database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice. Mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.

I have been to classes and matches that required at least 100 rounds of ammunition to complete. Classes in advanced technique require much more. Don't these people ever think, or ask questions of those they hope to regulate? But all that is beside the point. The truth is that a criminal will not generally be bound by laws which limit you and me. What is to prevent someone from stealing someone else's identity and buying 50 rounds from several stores, or simply stealing the ammunition? After all, if someone is bent on a crime which may involve murder, what's an additional charge? Clearly this is not about preventing crime, as if the State really cares about the safety and peace of mind of ordinary citizens. Instead, this is about controlling the ordinary citizen, so the State can continue to rape and pillage the property of ordinary citizens. The theory the gun grabbers are now working under is that you may have an individual right to guns, but nobody said anything about ammunition. At the rate the Supremes have moved, it will be another 100 years before they deign to pronounce on the obvious.

The Liberty Sphere: If You Want to Know What's Wrong with the GOP...

The Liberty Sphere: If You Want to Know What&'s Wrong with the GOP...

The Welshman nails it. Go read

And If A "Consensus of "Experts" Told You to Jump off a Cliff?

Goofball Warming or Climate Change as proponents of the former like to style it now, has been a cause of mine since the first Kyoto Treaty was signed. Mark Hendrickson has a good explanation of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and how it works (or doesn't) in this piece titled A Closer Look at Climate Change.

The IPCC’s Feb. 2007 report stated: It is “very likely” that human activity is causing global warming. Why then, just two months later, did the Vice Chair of the IPCC, Yuri Izrael, write, “the panic over global warming is totally unjustified;” “there is no serious threat to the climate;” and humanity is “hypothetically … more threatened by cold than by global warming?”

So what explains how an individual sitting on the IPCC, a Vice Chair, say just the opposite?

The policymakers’ summaries are presented as the “consensus” of 2,500 scientists who have contributed input to the IPCC’s scientific reports. “Consensus” does NOT mean that all of the scientists endorse the policymakers’ summaries. In fact, some of the 2,500 scientists have resigned in protest against those summaries. Other contributing scientists, such as the individuals quoted above, publicly contradict the assertions of the policymakers’ summaries.

Just so we are clear, "consensus" has no place in determining scientific truth. Newton did not seek consensus when he published his laws of motion. Instead these were the result of individual effort, that was confirmed by other scientists who saw that his laws worked by putting them to the test. Today, we know that Newtons "laws" only hold for a spectrum of reality, and that Einstein's laws become more descriptive as thing speed up. Einstein's theories were initially rejected. Scientists devised experiments which would prove him wrong, only to discover he had been right. But few people think of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity as a "law."

From Anthony Watt's site "WattsUpWithThat" there is this quote. go read the whole thing. Indeed, bookmark the site and refer to it often.

In order to support a theory, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the theory, and the predictions then need to happen.
While the occurrence of the predicted events is not proof positive of a theory, they increase the believability of the claims. However, if the predictions are not observed, this tends to indicate the theory is flawed or even wrong. Some predictions are absolute in nature. Einstein’s prediction of the bending of light by the Sun is such a case. It either would or would not bend, and this was considered a critical test of the validity of his theory of general relativity. It did bend the predicted amount, and supported his theory.

So what then is the reason for claiming a "consensus" of scientists agree to this if a "consensus" has no meaning here? Well, of course it is to bully the public, with the help of the MSM into believing we must act now. It is, in other words, another made up "crisis." Mark Hendrikson again:

The sponsors of the IPCC, the United Nations, and liberal American politicians all share the goal of reducing Americans’ wealth by capping our consumption of energy with a binding international climate change treaty. They are willing to resort to scientific fraud to further their goal. In the words of Al Gore’s ally, former Under-Secretary of State Tim Wirth, “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing” by reducing Americans’ consumption of fossil fuels. Keep that in mind whenever the IPCC is cited in support of a climate treaty.

When I was receiving my first indoctrination training on goofball warmening, I asked a buddy, an "expert" from one of our field offices, "If the theory is correct how does it explain the dramatically warmer and cooler temperatures that existed in prehistoric times? Where were the SUVs then?" That question has never been answered.

For the true believers, those who buy into the myth of Gaia, the "ecology" is on a knife edge. Cut down a single tree that happens to be the only habitat for some rare butterfly, and the whole thing unravels. In this myth, man must not do anything which might disturb the delicate balance lest we destroy everything. However, for those of us who believe that God created the universe, and this planet specifically for us, and knowing who and what we are before he created us, the earth is probably immune to man's undoing. Einstein said it best: "God does not play dice with the universe."

For more information, please read: Richard Lindzen's The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus and bookmark this site: Science and Environmental Policy Project.

The Breda Fallacy: TSA, pt. III

The Breda Fallacy: TSA, pt. III

Breda went to the NRA Convention in Phoenix this year. Naturally, she flew. Her travails with the TSA are recorded on her blog. Breda, unfortunately, has one prosthetic leg. Fortunately, she doesn't let it interfere with living a full life.

Here's the thing though. The TSA didn't have to be created, and most of the things critics said would happen have in fact happened as a result. The airlines are private companies, who supplied their own security for their own airplanes before 9/11. Why wasn't that good enough? The airlines could have competed based on the level of security provided. Say you are squeamish. Airline A could advertise that they strip search every passenger, Airline B might require reservations in advance, and advertise no searches, but does a complete criminal and credit check. Airline C might have a list of business people and frequent fliers that go on with no check, but any walk-ins get the strip search routine. Everyone then weighs costs, supposed benefits, time and routing in making their decisions of which airline to fly. The costs are readily apparent in your ticket price. But instead we get the enormous costs ($5.3 Billion in FY 02) and incompetence of the TSA.

I'm Not Saying Obama is Hitler...Just sayin'

Oh good, because then the debate is over. But Rachel Marsden has a point in her latest article on Townhall.com entitled Obama Not the First Head of State to Design Cars. A quote:

“Sitting at a restaurant table in Munich in the summer of 1932, Hitler designed the prototype for what would become the immensely successful Beetle design for Volkswagen (literally, the "car of the people"),” says the Hitler Historical Museum’s website. He then said to the head of Daimler-Benz: “Take it with you and speak with people who understand more about it than I do. But don't forget it. I want to hear from you soon, about the technical details."

Ms. Marsden points out that people around the world are jealous of American cars:

“Americans just have to get out of their big cars,” a French friend sighed to me recently.

“Yeah, I’m sure your girlfriends find it really sexy that you can ‘lift’ your scooter into its parking spot and that they have to take the subway to meet up with you on your dates,” I replied.

So, to keep everyone from being so jealous, we'll just have to drive smaller rollerskates like everyone else. I wonder if the smaller bit applies to Beverly Hills mansions? Nah...

That’s environmental paranoia in a nutshell for you. It isn’t really about the environment, it’s about control. You, too, are going to be forced to look as stupid as the guy pulling ten canvas bags out of his faux leather man-purse. If you dare show up at any grocery store in Toronto, Canada, without your own ratty, reused bags, you’ll be charged five cents for each one – a tax on your audacity, collected by the City.

So, in Rachel Marsden's formulation, the nerds (you know, the guys who play Dungeons and Dragons instead of doing something useful) are now in charge, and they are going to force you, with a gun to your head, to look as nerdy as they do.

Oh, and that bit about Hitler? She isn't saying Obama is Hitler or anything-just noting a similarity, that's all.

More "gun control" won't stop drug war corruption & violence

Do any beside the willfully deluded really believe the proposed "solution" of more "gun control" targeted at peaceable gun owners is anything other than a shameless and agenda-driven fraud?

David Codrea has the goods on the Mexican guards who stood by and let prisoners escape. Sorry to be late, but Digg was acting up again yesterday.

read more digg story

Mother Gaia strikes again

First up, how about a little cartoon here. Liked that? How about another here. Ok, now for some text to go along with that. Steve Milloy has an article over at the Financial Post entitled Mileage Standards Deadlier Than Iraq. A quote:

Obama’s standards will require automakers to meet a 35 miles-per-gallon standard by 2016 — four years earlier than the same standard imposed by the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007. The only way for carmakers to meet these standard is to make smaller, lighter and deadlier cars.

The National Academy of Sciences has linked mileage standards with about 2,000 deaths per year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that every 100-pound reduction in the weight of small cars increases annual traffic fatalities by as much as 715. In contrast in the more than six years since the Iraq war began, there have been 4,296 deaths among American military personnel...

So, "The One" must have in mind that Americans will get something in exchange for taking bigger and bigger risks while on the road. Something? Anything?

Well, no, at least as you or I would calculate such things.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — for the purposes of risk assessment — values a single human life at $6.9-million. So under the new mileage standards, it would cost about $35-million per day in human lives (not including non-fatal injuries) to save $5-million in gas.

But you have the joy of knowing that you are saving Gaia by your sacrifices to her. And if she demands a child? Well you can just think how special you are. But don't expect "The One" to sacrifice one of his, or AlGore, or any of the other bigwigs who tell you or I that we have to. They are "too big to fail." Warms to cockles of your heart doesn't it.

Update: Dan Gainor has an article over at Townhall.com entitled
If It's A Smart Car, Why Does It Look So Stupid. He discusses the "Smart Car's" minuses:

You would think it would. The Smart car is the kind of vehicle only a liberal or a guy who parks his car in a closet could love – because it gets decent gas mileage, is half the size of real car, has none of the space of a popular but evil SUV and won’t let you drive over 90 mph. (In the car’s defense, you’d probably have to fall off a cliff to hit 90 with two people inside – though if you are forced to drive one of these, you might wish that result.)

The Smart Car and its equally ridiculous hybrid friends matter because they might be all that’s left on the roads after Democrats destroy what remains of the American automotive industry.

So now let's look at some unintended consequences. The market for these rollerskates is incredibly small, certainly not enough to sustain a giant company like General Motors. People will do all sorts of things to avoid them, like keeping their current cars operating long past their economic prime. Once parts are no longer available, I suspect manufacturers will develop an after market of parts to keep the old war horses running. The J. C. Whitney catalog will expand exponentially. Mechanically gifted individuals will start thriving shops repairing older cars, and possibly putting what once were treated as "Project cars" together from the wrecking yards to sell to people who want a real car.

Of course, all this will enrage the Saviors of Gaia. They will want new laws with more teeth. For example, making everyone document their need for larger vehicles. If you don't need it, they will argue, you will have to buy one of the "Smart Cars" or go to jail on Federal Felony charges. The paper work to get one of these rollerskates will be so long, and tedious that it will make buying a car the traditional way seem like a walk in the park. This is always what happens. First the soft tyranny, which never works because it goes against the natural grain. "But it's for your own good" they will cajole. Then comes ever more tyrannical and intrusive laws to MAKE you do it. "Well, if the public won't do it for altruistic reasons, then we will force you to do it."

Then again, maybe Honda or Toyota will still be allowed to make real cars, since they haven't taken any of the government's money (yet.) Could be that as long as it isn't an American company making a profit, it will be alright.

Armed and Safe: Due process: it's for veterans, too#links

Armed and Safe: Due process: it's for veterans, too#links

Go and read what he has to say. Richard Burr has been pushing this proposal,which would give Veterans a way to get their 2nd Amendment rights back. Unfortunately, the NRA pushed a bill, which GOA called the Veterans' Disarmament Act, which makes this necessary. How this trampling of Veterans' rights (veterans mind you!) can be called not infringing is beyond me.

Yes, I hope this passes if the law stands. But the truth is the GOA was right, the NRA proved once again to be quislings compromising gun owners rights away. What is it they say? Oh yes, "those who would compromise liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

The Liberty Sphere: CITIZEN REVOLT KICKS INTO HIGH GEAR

The Liberty Sphere: CITIZEN REVOLT KICKS INTO HIGH GEAR

And woe be unto Obama if he takes the hard-earned tax dollars of citizens
across the nation to bail out the bumbling buffoons in the California
legislature by giving them 'stimulus money.' I should not have to pay for
California's mistakes. While I am happy they have finally seen the light
on taxes and government spending, they got themselves into this mess with their
votes over the past 20 years and they must get themselves out of it without
expecting the rest of the country to pay for their mistakes.

The voters in California and California alone must correct this dire
situation, both by demanding budget cuts and balancing the state's budget, and
by throwing out every liberal politician who is responsible for their current
woes.

If Obama bails them out with our money, we can expect the bubbas in the
heartland to take to the streets.

So more and more people are waking up to find that an anti-liberty regime has sneaked into office, and that wasn't the change they were hoping for. Good.

Go read the whole thing.

21 Guns, Salute: Pride

21 Guns, Salute: Pride#links

21 Gun Salute has a link up on pride. Go and read.

Armed and Safe: 'Gun violence': why are other forms of violence preferable?#links

Armed and Safe: 'Gun violence': why are other forms of violence preferable?#links

I have often wondered this as I read a carefully worded press release by the Brady Bunch or the VPC. Why do they spend so much hand wringing on "gun violence" as if other forms of violence are more acceptable. Why do the wax melodramatic about the risks of guns, as if other risks were not far greater.

Perhaps it has to do with the "Liberal" World View in which facts that are plainly there are to be ignored if inconvenient, or new "facts" are to be manufactured if an agenda needs supporting.

Go and read the article, and click that you digg it.

Driving Rollerskates

David Harsanyi has a marvelous article, dripping with sarcasm up entitled Coming to Your Garage: Le Car over at Townhall.com. Take a peek.

The United States government, if you haven't noticed, owns the auto manufacturing industry, props up the last vestiges of "labor" and soon will bail out the failed state of California. So this harmonizing of disparate interests is what a gracious person might call a "conflict of interest" and an honest person refers to as "racketeering."

Let's, for a moment, stretch the limits of our imaginations and make believe that a Republican candidate won the most recent presidential election. Let's pretend he or she continued the Bush administration's policy of bailing out Detroit, as Obama has done. Imagine, then, that all of these state-backed parties came together to "support" legislation mandating the increased production of SUVs.

I object, in the most strenuous of terms to being forced, by government dictate, to drive a rollerskate because some people, of whose opinion I do not think much, believe that I need to change my way of life, while they fly around in private jets and live in mansions that emit more goofball warmening gases in a week than my place does in a couple of months. So yes, "racketeering" is the word for it. Perhaps they need to be prosecuted under the RICO act? Is it too early to talk about impeachment?

The New Prohibition

I hope this works. I am having problems with Digg again today.

The Denver Gun Rights Examiner, Dan Bidstrup has a great article up entitled The New Prohibition. Go read. He has a poignant tale about his daughter:

My oldest daughter patted my hand indulgently and said "Dad, I can assure you that nobody is going to come take your guns." We were again discussing gun rights and she cannot fathom my trepidation about the current trend in our federal government.

I feel somewhat the same way. My own daughter became scared when she read about a woman killed in a public parking garage where she has to park to conduct business on a regular basis. So, she and her mother went down to get a Concealed Handgun Permit. She went through the hoops, got her permit, and a gun. Now, though, she is back to accusing me of being paranoid for carrying. Nothing I can say changes her mind. She believes in the myth that she doesn't go anywhere that crime happens. What is it about "liberals" and magical thinking?

Corruption in NC? I'm shocked...Shocked!

It isn't often my adopted home State makes national news. But here it is with a David Bass piece entitled Tar Heel Boys. Edwards, the "Breck Girl" according to Rush Limbaugh, was a transparent phony right from the start. Easley (often called Sleazley by some) was typically protected by our MSM franchise, the News and Observer until out of office, and of no further use to anybody. Now, they put it all out there. What did the N&O know, and when did they know it?

North Carolina should be known for its basketball champions, barbeque, and rich natural diversity. Instead, it’s becoming known as the Chicago of the South.

No, North Carolina has become the Illinois of the South. Anti-gunners and gun grabbers everywhere in the legislature, a power structure that is about as clear as mud. Chapel Hill and Durham have become like little Californias with all the crime problems you would expect. Tax wise, we are becoming like Massachusetts. Republicans need not apply in a legislature that is run by the Commiecrats like the old Politburo. Bahh.

How "Liberals" View the World

John Hawkins has another of his number articles up on Townhall.com entitled The Six Problems with Modern Liberalism. I think he hits the nail on the head with this article. The fact is that "liberals," who should be called Statists, are often case studies for arrested development. They have sensibilities that did not develop much after the 6th grade. Their typical responses to many realities of life is to employ magical thinking, wishing away the bad things they don't want to hear. But go ahead and read the whole piece. It's not long. To give you a taste, though:

1) You really didn't learn everything you needed to know in kindergarten: Liberals love to think of themselves as sophisticated, nuanced intellectuals, but the truth is they have a kindergartner’s view of the world. If it has been defined as "nice" to people they like, they're for it. If it has been defined as "mean" to people they like, they’re against it -- and that is about as deep as it gets. Unfortunately, that lack of adult perspective isn't so cute in political leaders who are making life and death decisions that may still have ramifications fifty years from now.

Then there is this from the American Thinker, by Nancy Morgan entitled I wish I were a liberal. It's a tongue-in-cheek trashing of just how a liberal doesn't think clearly. The trouble is, she's correct. They are often rewarded handsomely for being complete idiots. Sigh...

More on the Ammo Shortage

Mr. Completely has a blog post about the ammo shortage not adding up. I admit that I have had similar doubts as well here. An interesting comment talks about calling up a supplier only to be told that another had bought all the cases of .223 for $140,000. Who has $140,000 to shell out for ammunition? The commenter estimates that as 500,000 rounds. There could be all kinds of reasonable explanations, I suppose, but doesn't it sound fishy?

However, knowing how hard it is to keep secrets, I don't really believe it's a conspiracy. Rather, cartrigdges are now made out of Unobtainium.

Armed self-defense: Getting essential training

Thanks to the Obama administration and economic uncertainty, thousands of
Americans have recently decided to buy firearms to defend themselves and their
families. If that sounds like someone you know, training is essential. In five
parts, the “Armed Self-Defense” series will guide neophytes and longtime gun
owners alike …

This is the second in Paul Valone's series on armed self defense. By now you are getting a taste of all the things a gun owner has to keep in the back of his mind. Perhaps you are thinking "I could never remember all that. Maybe I should just not have a gun around." Relax. It isn't all presented at one time. Rather, like so many things, owning a gun responsibly is a life long commitment to constantly educate yourself, train yourself, and share your experience with others. It just takes common sense and thinking about what you are doing at all times. But then, that is the meaning of being aware as well. One of my instructors once told me that the greatest tool you have is between your ears.
read more digg story

Armed and Safe: Montana throws down the federal gun-control gauntlet#links

Armed and Safe: Montana throws down the federal gun-control gauntlet#links

Kurt Hoffman has more on the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. As Kurt says, though, this is not really about guns. It's about freedom, and the 10th Amendment. Go read the whole thing.

Advise for Armed Self Defense

Paul Valone has the first in a series which gives advise on Armed Self Defense for Gun Owners New and Old. I like this type of article because I always come away with a nugget or two I did not know, or reinforced something I did know. For example, revolvers are for the most part dead reliable, even if you don't clean them regularly or oil them, or change the springs etc. They can sit dry in a drawer for decades and still go bang. But the truth is that my marksmanship with revolvers is not as good as I would like. Therefore I have migrated to the 1911 platform in .45ACP. It's what I shoot best. There are those times, however, when a tiny little 9mm is the way to go, or like Paul, a little .32.

Go and read the whole thing.

Why Liberals Never Lie...or at least think they don't

Kevin McCullough has a good article expanding on the "liberal world view" entitled Why Liberals Never Lie over at Townhall.com.

A little taste:

Abortion is not taking the life of an innocent human being. Adultery is not engaging in oral sex with someone who is not your spouse. Marriage is not the sanctified union of a man and woman. Tax cuts can be given to people who do not pay taxes. Water-boarding is torture though it leaves no scars nor permanent damage. Nationalizing the banks, car companies, and mortgage industries is not socialism. Increasing gun control is not taking away second amendment rights of citizens. Closing Gitmo doesn't mean shutting it down. And for this president especially, letting born children starve to death in soiled hospital utility closets is just allowing a woman the right to choose.

The Nature of Conservatism

Mike Adams has a great read up today entitled TheNature of Conservatism. It's a typical "compare and contrast" piece in which he compares conservatism to "liberalism" (note, Adams is still not using the correct language, as these people should be called "statists.") A quote to whet your appetite:

If there is one thing that separates the conservative from the liberal it is his view of human nature. The conservative sees man as born in a broken state. This tragic view of human nature sees man as selfish and hedonistic by design. Given his nature, it is no wonder a man chooses crime. It is a wonder he ever chooses conformity. This tragic view of human nature also explains why conservatives often speak of religion and family values. Given his selfish nature, man must internalize some reason to behave in pro-social ways. That fact that he falls short of these values does not mean he is a hypocrite. The one who does not even believe what he says is the hypocrite. The one who believes what he says and falls short is merely human...

...But the liberal sees things differently. Everyone is born “good” with a blank slate. To the extent that people become “bad” it is because “society” corrupted them. Nowhere does the liberal explain how combining many good people makes a bad society.

The fallen nature of mankind, carry around with him his original sin, explains the conservative nature of the Catholic Church (and the Lutherans for that matter.) What I can't understand is how so many "liberal" writers in Hollywood can write so convincingly about this nature and without understanding it?

The Liberty Sphere: The Right to Speak and the Right to Protest

The Liberty Sphere: The Right to Speak and the Right to Protest

President Obama's commencement address at Notre Dame was accompanied by peaceful protest. Both are American rights, long cherished. But let the Welshman say it for himself:

In short, Obama's actions portray a very different history on the abortion/infanticide issue than his words indicated on Sunday during his address to the graduating class at Notre Dame.

If, indeed, we are to reach a new level of 'understanding' that Obama called for in his address, then he is going to have to offer more than mere words. And he is going to have to prove that his thinking is now entirely different than his past would indicate.

And make no mistake, to suggest that we who are pro-life can merely live with the fact that we can 'create a scenario where there are fewer abortions,' is like suggesting that Holocaust survivors after WWII should merely try to live with the fact that Germany would 'create a scenario' where there would be fewer Jew-burning ovens.

Indeed.

Why your job went overseas

In yesterday's post about the thugocracy, I mentioned that the Fed had been "taking" for years using various environmental laws. Geek with a .45 has a post up here that expresses it vary well.

"Beneath your feet is a world class waste treatment facility. Though it was once used in operation, we put in this particular place in case any of this " he nodded over his shoulder at the collection of tanks and towers "ruptured. There is enough volume of space down there to hold the contents of that entire chemical plant, on the assumption that all vessels ruptured simultaneously. In that event, the output of that treatment facility would be clean water that you could drink, separated from several hundred gallons of highly concentrated toxic nastiness. It cost us millions to build that hole in the ground, and now we use it to process lavatory waste." The president held his tones in neutral businesese, but there was no mistaking the bitterness he kept in check. "The structure behind me also cost us millions, it was once the heart of our operation. At one time, we made our own circuit boards and some electronic components, which as you know, is less of a mechanical and more of a chemical operation. While it would have been reasonably cost effective for us, it's no longer feasible for us to do this."

Now that was a very unusual statement that caught my interest. I'm fairly used to hearing how vendors find it cost effective to farm out components whose fabrication was outside of their expertise and only tangential to their mojo, but this was a new one on me.

I have highlighted the words in bold.

What follows is a tale, all too frequent, of what happens as a result of over zealous regulators "on a mission from gaia" who do not know, nor care what they do to their fellow citizens. Nor do they care that where the work is sent overseas is probably less environmentally clean than the place shut down. It just proves the need for more UN regulations that will be ignored everywhere else. Meanwhile, the MSM will decry the "corporations" that cruelly make the decision to send jobs overseas to reap cheaper labor, never realizing, or in many cases caring, that the real reason is our own government.

What is needed is for Congress to have to write, defend, and pass every law, rule, and regulation that the Fed enforces on people and companies. Every one. There can be no exceptions.

If I can find it, I will post the hair raising tale of Hooker Chemical, which company has been forever vilified as the antagonist in the myth of Love Canal. Except that they were the innocent party.

Update: From Reason Magazine, Februrary 1981, Eric Zuesse writes Love Canal: The Truth Seeps Out. Hooker Chemical may not have been so forward thinking in all cases, but ironically, in this case, they were the victims. For one thing, they buried these chemicals in a landfill designed in the 1940s that would become standard practice only in the 1980s. They held onto them, and only sold the landfill when forced by the School Board under threat of eminent domain. Even then, there were dire warnings about digging into the site on multiple documented occasions. That they, and not the School Board would be held responsible for the subsequent disaster was a miscarriage of justice. That the EPA would lie about it unconscionable. That the MSM would buy into the lies without really investigating just goes to show how untrustworthy the MSM is. The MSM had a template: evil big corporations ruin the lives of the little guy then try to skate on paying him off. Unfortunately, in this case the template was wrong. Now, I am not saying that the template is never correct, but rather that there shouldn't be templates at all. Uncovering the truth of who did what to whom when should be the goal of every story the MSM tells. If they did this ruthlessly, the obvious bias of the press would largely disappear.

Finally, this case showcases the unjustness of the Superfund act. Hooker here was trying to do the right thing. To be subjected years later for things that were perfectly legal at the time, and for things done by government entities after they were forced to give up control of the chemicals seems to me to be grossly unjust.

More on the Thugocracy

As if you didn't have enough on your plate, take a look at this post by Concerned American at Western Rifle Shooters Association. This will make your blood boil.

It has been coming out in dribs and drabs that the banks were forced, much like gangsters to it, to "accept" the government as a partner. Here Concerned American links to yet another report.

These documents show that the banks in question were literally forced to accept the interference of the government in the form of equity investment under the direct threat that their primary regulator (the OTS or OCC, as the case may be) would force them to do so if they refused. Both OTS and OCC are run by Treasury.

The outrage here is not just that these CEOs were forced (literally) to take the money. It is also that they were forced to, at the same time, accept whatever FUTURE restrictions on activity, including compensation, Treasury or Congress desired to impose.

In short the banks were forcibly nationalized without a prior finding of insolvency; this is blatantly unconstitutional as a "taking" without compensation.

I would enjoy the outrage more, but the government has been "taking" under color of various environmental laws for years. Of course, they don't call it a taking, and the courts have backed them up. Still, this outrages me as well.

Is it time to raise the specter of impeachment?

Montana to Fed: Give Me Freedom

In keeping with the previous posting, I bring you this from Doctor Bulldog, about the Montana Firearms Freedom Act recently signed into law by Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. A quote:

Undoubtedly this story is far from over, the last time a group of States
got together and decided to use their Constitutional rights the power hungry
Federal Government decided ignore the Constitution, murdering men women and
children in the process. (You think it was different in the 1860’s? Check
your history.)

Glenn Beck has been carrying this story also. He has had experts on his program that applaud the new law, but point out that whether or not the Supremes find it Constitutional or not is a crap shoot. On the other hand, as Judge Andrew Napolitano pointed out, the more States that are asserting their 10th Amendment rights, the more the courts are going to get the message and listen. Who knew the courts ruled based on the popularity of an idea?
Sevaral other States are looking to enact similar laws including Texas, Tennessee, and Utah. We can only hope the Judge is correct.

But, and this is important: this law, and others like it, are not about guns. Not really. And likely some gun owner, or dealer, or manufacturere are going to "take the bullet" for rest of us. What it is about is reasserting control over an out of control thugocracy that has grown up in Washinton, DC. The States were, and theoretically still are sovereign. This is about that sovereignty.

60 Votes May not be Enough

Mike Vanderboeg has some interesting speculation on where the gangster government will go next when the see their agenda frustrated in the legislature. Sipsey Street Irregulars has the details.

It must be stressed again. No Fort Sumters. The North had blockaded Charleston harbor, an act of war that had the Southerners justifiably outraged. But when the South fired on those war ships, the perceptions changed. The North was perceived as defending itself. Instead, we must keep up the pressure, pointing out every every Unconstitutional act, every instance of lying and misdirection, every instance of incivility. In other words, we must delegitimize this gangster government and return to Constitutional government.

Armed and Safe: NRA sabotaging grassroots effort for defensive handgun carry in Illinois?#links

Armed and Safe: NRA sabotaging grassroots effort for defensive handgun carry in Illinois?#links

I too am a member of the NRA. We in North Carolina have also had our share of being at cross purposes with NRA lobbyists at the state level. It looks like the good in this case is the enemy of the perfect.

But the fact of the matter is in politics you do what you can, when you can. Even if the Governor vetoes the bill, you still show everyone your strength. That may get even more people on board next year, so you might have a veto proof majority behind you. And who knows? The Governor may make the calculation that with gun laws being challenged in Chicago, and something else demanding his political capital, this is not a fight worth having at this time. Governors also can only do what they can do too.

Ashton Lundeby: Did the perpetrators comment online?

The Ashton Lundeby case continues to get curiouser and curiouser. Paul Valone has an article with the perpetrators apparently commenting on his previous article in the Charlotte Examiner.

As Paul says:

I can’t tell you with certainty whether Ashton Lundeby made bomb threats. I can say that if the comments left were by the other players, it sounds as though he was “lulzed” for refusing to make bomb threats, just as players in this group of online pranksters had “vanned” one of their own earlier.

Nor can I Say with certainty whether the DOJ is holding Ashton under an abuse of the Patriot Act. I can say that if they aren’t, they had better be far more forthcoming than they have been, and I can say that repeal of the Patriot Act should be the priority of liberals and conservatives alike.

As we focus the telescope, saga of Ashton Lundeby continues to get “curiouser and curiouser …”

Teach Your Children Well

David Codrea has some good advice for parents on teaching your children about guns. After all, many think that at the appropriate age, you should teach your children about sex. Why is that? After all, this is one thing they will soon figure out on their own if you don't teach them. I know, from personal experience. Well, you teach them so they won't get in trouble. You probably also taught your child to swim. Why was that? Well, it was in part to keep them from drowning if they encountered a pool away from home.

It's the same thing with guns. You may not want them becoming gun enthusiasts. But that is a decision they will make on their own when they are adults. In the meantime, you need to teach them to be safe around guns, but not panic over them. They are tools, nothing more. If your child encountered a table at a friends house, would they know what to do? How about a chain saw? These can kill and maim too.

The world is filled with tools that can, if misused, become death machines. The trick is to teach our children, at the appropriate age, how to deal with these death machines appropriately.

Lundeby 'Patriot' Detention or hoax?

Reports appearing on Lew Rockwell.com and elsewhere indicate public press has
induced US attorney David Capp to issue a release saying the alleged Patriot Act
detention of 16-year-old Ashton Lundeby is, in fact, unrelated to the Patriot
Act. His mother says otherwise. Which is it?

Either way, his civil rights should be respected.
read more digg story

Lew Rockewell Article on 16 Yr Old Ashton Lundeby

William Norman Griggs, of the blog Pro Libertate has more details on the case of Ashton Lundeby, who was taken from his home on March 5 by FBI and charged with "terrorism" under the Patriot Act, on the Lew Rockwell forum.

I think we need to repeal the Patriot Act. But our first order of business is the free Ashton Lundeby.

Won't you write your Senator and demand an investigation?

Treaty Would Take Away Gun Rights

I have mentioned before that the Left seems to be setting so many brush fires that it seems impossible to keep up with them all. Here is one. The Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Related Materials is coming soon to the Senate for ratification. Lou Dobbs has the story here. The treaty can be downloaded here.

Gun Owners of America had this to say about the treaty on April 21,2009:

...the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really nasty piece of work.

First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the “illicit” manufacture of firearms, what does that mean?

1. “Illicit manufacturing” of firearms is defined as “assembly of firearms [or] ammunition ... without a license....”

Hence, reloading ammunition -- or putting together a lawful firearm from a kit -- is clearly “illicit manufacturing.”

Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be “illicit manufacturing.” And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy definition of “illicit manufacturing.”

2. “Firearm” has a similarly questionable definition.

“[A]ny other weapon” is a “firearm,” according to the treaty -- and the term “weapon” is nowhere defined.

So, is a BB gun a “firearm”? Probably.

A toy gun? Possibly.

A pistol grip or firing pin? Probably. And who knows what else.

If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama administration could have a heyday in enforcing them. Consider some of the other provisions in the treaty:

* Banning reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to adopting “necessary legislative or other measures” to criminalize illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms.

Remember that “illicit manufacturing” includes reloading and modifying or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the basis of this treaty -- just as it is currently circumventing Congress to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.

* Banning gun clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized acts should include “association or conspiracy” in connection with said offenses -- which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.

* Extraditing US gun dealers. Article V requires each party to “adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention” under a variety of circumstances.

We know that Mexico is blaming U.S. gun dealers for the fact that its streets are flowing with blood. And we know it is possible for Mexico to define offenses “committed in its territory” in a very broad way. And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of the proposed treaty. So we know that Mexico could try to use the treaty to demand to extradition of American gun dealers.

Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute through “other means of peaceful settlement.”

Does anyone want to risk twenty years in a sweltering Mexican jail on the proposition that the Obama administration would apply this provision in a pro-gun manner?

* Microstamping. Article VI requires “appropriate markings” on firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition -- a requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are not technologically possible or which are possible only at a prohibitively expensive cost.

* Gun registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records, for a “reasonable time,” that the government determines to be necessary to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a national registry or database.
A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn’t have the political power to take away our semi-automatics. Nevertheless, that didn’t keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun owners.

In reading the provision of the treaty, and then reading Larry Pratt's analysis of it, I have found that if Larry's extreme position is possible, it is not too big a stretch to imagine it done sooner or later. In fact the way to look at legislation is to imagine it in the hands of your worst enemy. And yes, Larry Pratt does make a buck from being alarmists, but that alone does not make him wrong. It is always dangerous to ratify a treaty to imposes limits on any of the Bill of Rights, since treatise take precedence over the Constitution as the nations highest law.

This, coupled with the previous post from David Codrea tells you why they keep dissembling. The MSM knows what's going on, and they hope you don't. They tried to do it with a UN treaty, but Ambassador Bolton said he would play ball. Now, they're trying again with another treaty.

I'm afraid I am going to have to ask all of you to call or write your Senators again. This treaty has to be stopped.

The War on Guns: Mexican Warehouse Exposes Gun Grabber Cartel Lies

The War on Guns: Mexican Warehouse Exposes Gun Grabber Cartel Lies

David Codrea has an Examiner article which the AP seems to inadvertently speaks the truth. But even the author doesn't seem to realize it.

Go read.

Armed and Safe: H.R. 2202: bribing gun owners into defenselessness at home#links

Armed and Safe: H.R. 2202: bribing gun owners into defenselessness at home#links

I have had constant trouble with Kurt Hoffman's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner page. I don't know if it involves a script in the coding of his page, or it may be something in my server. However, I am trying this work around, and hoping you do not encounter the problems I am having.

Go read, as Mr. Hoffman is both articulate and insightful.

Dr. Sowell on the Supremes

I haven't highlighted an article by Thomas Sowell in a while. This seems like a good time to do it. He has a 3 part series called Emapthy Versus Law on Townhall.com. I have particularly highlighted Part III because it is the culmination, but you will want to read all 3 parts.

A quote, if I may:

Replacing Supreme Court justices is something that can only be done one at a time and at unpredictable intervals. What this means is that Senators who do not have enough votes to stop an Obama nominee for the High Court from being confirmed nevertheless have an opportunity- and a duty-- to alert the public to the dangers of what is being done.

This does not mean turning confirmation hearings into a circus or a kangaroo court with mud-slinging at judicial nominees, the way Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were smeared. But it also does not mean taking the path of least resistance by quietly voting for people like Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, who treat the Constitution as a grant of arbitrary power to themselves, rather than a restriction of power on the government as a whole

You need to be watching who is being thought about, and nominated. Of Arms and the Law is a good place to find out, David T. Hardy will in turn often cite the Volokh Conspiracy, Steve Halbrook, Dave Kopel, or other scholarly blog to bring you the news. Once you have formed your opinion, write your Senators. Make a pest of yourself, politely and civilly. They may have made up their minds, but you can let them know, politely and civilly, that there may be consequences to their actions.

More on 16 Year Old Ashton Lundeby

Paul Valone, Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner and President of Grass Roots North Carolina has more on the Ashton Lundeby case.

Some interesting facts:

-The boy and has family were at church, with witnesses, at the time the bomb threats were supposedly made by him.

-There is a previous history of some other teens hacking into his Skype account.

-The boy was denied his rights to an attorney of his choice, and forced to take a court appointed attorney. That attorney has not been extremely energetic in the boys defense as far as the mother can see.

Now, I do not know whether 16 year old Ashton Lundeby is innocent or not. But that is not the point. At the moment this home schooled, all American boy is being railroaded, and made an example for whatever reason. In the process, he is not receiving the benefits of his due process rights under the Constitution. He is being held incommunicado, without an attorney.

As Paul Valone writes:

Given governmental stonewalling, political pressure must be applied to the Department of Justice. Mrs. Lundeby has contact her Congressman – Brad Miller – and found him to be, at best, unresponsive. Not just North Carolinians, but anyone and everyone should contact members of the North Carolina delegation to Congress and demand an immediate investigation as to why a teenager without apparent connections to terrorism is being held under a law which gives the government sweeping powers of arrest and detention.

This is not an issue of conservatism or liberalism; it is a matter of fundamental human rights. Citizens should form a united front and immediately contact these United States Senators:

Senator Richard Burr http://burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
202) 224-3154

Senator Kay Hagan http://hagan.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
(202) 224-6342

Remember, we were promised when this Act was passed that this would not be used against United States citizens, and especially not on U.S. soil. Maybe it's time to sunset the Patriot Act.

No More Wacos

Mike Vanderboeg has an open letter to the Attorney General, Eric Holder. Go read it.

I'll give you a little taste, however, with this quote:

Wake up and smell what your administration is shoveling from downwind,
where we are forced to stand. And please understand the predicament you've put
yourselves in by your present and former bad behavior.

There will be no more free Wacos.

Please, for all our sakes, counsel your employees, who apparently seek to curry your favor by misquoting you, that replicating 1993 is neither good policy nor is it your intention. We don't need any more itchy trigger fingers in this country.

And Eric, not to put too fine a point on it, but you and I both can make an educated guess about what mischief will likely ensue if ANY high-profile Second Amendment activist "has an accident". Best to tell your lads and lasses to stick to those nice safe paper cases (you know, the ones with the 4473s completed with a "Y", rather than "yes") and confine their wet-work fantasies to their off-duty reading. There's still lots of vicious drug gangs, murderous career criminals and real terrorists out there to keep them busy without picking a fight with honest American gunowners who merely want to be left alone.

There he goes again, scaring the white folk. Frankly, I think they need to be scared.

Futile gestures solve no violence

All too often ineffective policies and laws are put into place in an attempt to "do something" about violence.

I especially liked the idea of putting up a "no robberies" sign.

read more digg story

A new way to ban guns--brand everyone as 'terrorists'

With H.R. 2159, Congressman Peter King (R-NY) once again tries to give the
Attorney General the power to unilaterally deny gun rights based on the mere
suspicion of "terrorism."

Coming on the heels of the previous story about Ashton Lundeby, this news is chilling. The so-called "Terrorist Watch List" to which the article refers is a list held very close to the vest by Homeland Security. People such as Senator Ted Kennedy have been refused flights because of the list. Nobody seems to know how a name gets on the list, or how to get your name cleared from it. There is no due process for getting on the list.

Now, travel by airplane is not a civil or natural right. While I have grave reservations about denying someone the ability to travel by airplane, I have not said much about this before. I, myself, fly as little as I can because I do not want to be herded like cattle to a station where everything I have is searched (without a warrant) and if something doesn't meet the current criteria, may be confiscated by government agents. It's undignified. However, we are not talking now about a matter of convenience, but a Constitutionally protected natural right. Representative Peter Kings bill should not be allowed to pass.

read more digg story

16 Year Old Ashton Lundeby Declared an Enemy Combatant

WRAL-TV reported on April 29 that a 16 year old boy had been snatched from his home by the FBI under provisions of the Patriot Act. Paul Valone has a few more details in his article 'Patriot' games: FBI detains North Carolina teen. The trouble is, there are few details to be had. Apparently, he is being held incommunicado as an enemy combatant. As Valone says:

In what appears to be an abuse reflecting Patriot Act opponents’ fears, mother Annette Lundeby says her son has been stripped of due process...

We were assured that this would never be used to suspend the Constitutionally protected due process rights of United States citizens. Now it looks like anyone, anywhere, anytime can simply be called an enemy combatant and detained indefinitely.

Shout this abuse far and wide.

Ammunition Shortage Continues

Some of the boards I sometimes frequent have been reporting continued shortages of various calibers of ammunition. .380ACP seems to be one. People are having trouble getting .45ACP, or it has been very expensive to purchase. .223 has become extremely pricey as well. Primers now seem to be unavailable, which was born out by my trip to the gun show last weekend. I have heard that Wolf primers are available in some markets, and that these are as reliable as Winchester.

The cooler heads seem to think the shortage is related to:

1. Military contracts, which come first before civilian usage. Frankly, I do not know the state of the military's ammunition stock, but unless they are replenishing after letting it fall, their usage shouldn't be above what it has been since the Iraq War started.
2. An abundance of new shooters, or previously asleep gun owners who suddenly woke up November 4 of last year and discovered they needed ammunition...you know, just in case.
3. Hoarders and "scalpers." The former represent panic buyers, see 2 above. I really don't think there are too many such folks, but I could be wrong. The latter are the usual entrepreneurs taking advantage of the hoarders, hoping to make a killing. I don't condone such behavior, but there is no law against it either. Sigh.

In some markets, Wal Mart has put a limit of 6 boxes per customer, to help eliminate the scalpers, and save some for the rest of us. Good for Wal Mart, the more so because they have resisted the urge to raise their prices during this shortage.

The War on Guns: 'Broken Gun' Conviction Upheld by Court

The War on Guns: 'Broken Gun' Conviction Upheld by Court

David is right, of course. I, and others have failed Mr. Olofson in his case. Well, no more.

Olofson was railroaded. He was made an example by the BATFE in order to scare others into silence...and it worked. This is the same as the British hanging pirates and leaving the corpses to rot, hanging there. This is political terrorism, and Mr. Olofson is a political prisoner. David Olofson in fact is a family man, a weapons trainer for the National Guard, and an all around good guy. He is much like you and me. He did not skirt the law, or try to push the envelope. This was a pretty clear cut case of an innocent man being railroaded because that they could. It was an arrogant abuse of power by an arrogant and Unconstitutional agency.

But don't take my word for it. You can read the back story for yourself
here and here and here. There's more on David Codrea's War On Guns blog spot. Then, to make it even easier, David Codrea has a convenient list of sites related the case at the bottom of his Gun Rights Examiner article here. Please be sure to check out the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership to see just how abusive the ATF is.

I am reminded of what is said in the confession of sins in Church "we have sinned against you... both by what we have done, and what we have left undone."

More Confessions of a Former Communist

Following on to my post yesterday, "Confessions of a Former Communist" the article by David Horowitz entitled The Threat At Home. Horowitz is the "red diaper baby" who came in from the cold and has been a tireless voice for conservatism in general, and for campus free speech in particular, ever since. He writes for and edits the ezine, FrontPage, speaks at college campuses around the country, and is the author of The Politics of Bad Faith, which first clued me into the ways the left uses language to deceive us. His own confessions can be found in the book Radical Son.

It doesn't take long to see that everything The One does is a misdirection, rather like a fine illusionist. Obama will send the newshounds baying after one issue, then quietly do something else while no one else is looking. As Rush said on his radio program, (paraphrasing) the way to interpret anything he says is to take it to mean the opposite of the plain language.

Go read Horowitz's article, then go to FrontPage and check out the site. I know you have much on your plate, but just be aware that conservatives must fight on many fronts to retrieve our culture and our country from these snakes.

TSA Agent Steals Police Gun From Luggage

See, this is why I try not to have to fly any more. Sure, cops are as honest, or as dishonest, as the next guy. Fortunately, this gun belonged to a policeman, so I would imagine all the liability that you or I would face if it happened to us will be overlooked...

Confessions of a former Communist

No, not me. Mike Vanderboeg.

Over at the Sipsey Street Irregulars, Mike Vanderboeg posts a confession in a post entitled "Missed Anniversary: "Vous les Americains Sot Pires que les Francais." The confession? Mike, in his younger days, was a Communist. More than merely writing for underground publications (very risque) Mike was the head of a cell collecting weapons and getting ready for the "peoples rebellion." He describes how a German Doctor persuaded him to see the light, and how he renounced his former life. He has spent his life since trying, not to undo the damage done, but to see it doesn't happen again, a laudable goal. Go and read Mikes moving post. I had to avert my eyes several times.

You and I, Mike, were on different sides then, and we sure could have used you. But we welcome your efforts now. Keep on punchin' Mike.

A Marixst Takeover by Leftist Slobs

I am feeling grumpy today, as befits my status as a grumpy old man. So, when I read this
piece from The New Paltz Journal by someone named Malone Vandam, I had to post about it here.

Some interesting quotes:

Obama is a card table huckster who has drawn in the media as his crowd of intellectually vain, and null, marks. He gives phoniness a bad name. He’s a white man from Hawaii with black skin who took up being black at college and has American blacks suckered with a “be like me” romance that will do them less good
than the last time white liberals helped them into social disintegration. Free cash and prizes will not put the black family together again, not with 70% of black kids now being born outside of marriage.

Or this:

Identity politics is the prison of the infantilized. Obama is himself an infantilized brahmin, with all the characteristic narcissism required to see all his works as spun gold. But that’s the characteristic of everyday liberalism, and this is no everyday liberalism. This is liberalism with mask off, with lies flowing too cheap to meter, with its homicidal heart beating out of its chest, with creepiness the air it breathes and marked cards in every deal.

Go read the whole thing.

I am again contemplating taking down my U.S flag that flies outside my home. I really believe that we are no longer in the United States of America, but are instead in the Former USA, the original having been taken over by an institutional version of the body snatchers. I often feel like Winston Smith when I tell folks that this or that policy is a bad idea-no a really bad idea. I feel like I went to sleep one night in the USA, and awoke the next morning in the FUSA. People around me have no sense that all this has been done before, in other countries, with universally bad results (I assume I will have no argument that 100 million killed by their own government constitutes a "bad result"). Why do they think it will be any different this time?

Obviously, all this bodes no good. I must return to positive attitudes and actions. This sense of hopelessness serves nobody.

Update: Nicki Fellzener has a great post up over at The Liberty Zone entitled
Restrict...Collect...Humble that is a good mate to that posted above. Nicki links to a post by Cara Ellison that points out that there has been in fact very little factual data, but a lot of scare mongering to justify The One's actions. None of it has been random either, but all pointed in one direction. Nicki closes with this:

Is this what you all wanted? All of you who elected him to change the very nature of this country? Did you intend for politicians to take control of the means of production in this country? Did you want those who seek power over you to gain it this easily - with just promises of "hope and change?" Did you intend to allow your work, your achievement, your earnings, your sweat to be appropriated by those who think they know better than you how you should live your life, how much of your earnings you should keep and how much of your property is really yours?

Is this what you consider moral and just?

If it is, you're getting exactly what you deserve. And you will be damned for it.

What is the difference between a homeowner defending his life, and a vigilante?

Geek With A .45 has an excellent post up in which he sets us straight regarding defensive use of a gun versus the notion that a legal gun owner is a vigilante. I first encountered this argument 35 years ago. I was having a lunchtime meeting with a lawyer, who happened at the time to work for the prosecutors office. I don't remember how it came up, perhaps discussing current events. I remember what he said to me, though. He said that if I happened to shoot an armed burglar in my house, that he would have to prosecute me for murder. His reason? Because burglary is not a capital offence.

Tilt.

Being in my early 20s then, I was less sure of myself, and of my arguments as I am now. Now I would point out, as the Geek does, that if that were to happen, I would be defending myself, not executing societies judgement on this man. Society may well deem that armed burglary is not a capital offence. But I as an individual do not have the option of waiting to see when my life is being threatened. But as usual, the Geek says it best:

If I should ever wind up shooting someone, it will be because it was necessary to stop them from doing something heinous to me or mine, and not for the purposes of performing summary capital punishment. While the result may be the same, the basis is different.

I am not judge, jury, and executioner. I'm the guy who chooses not to meekly submit his life and well being to the mercy of an aggressor, and the gun in my pocket is a tool with which I can make that stick.

I would also point out that carrying an armament into a place where one has no right to be entails risks, or so the gun grabbers are always saying about legal gun owners. That being the case, one has to assume that anyone engaging in such practices will sooner or later face such risks.

Mike Gallagher Insults Bees!

Mike Gallagher has an article today entitled Why Bother? that takes apart the argument made by Vice President Biden that we needn't close the Southern border now, since the swine flu has already entered the country. Trouble is, he insults bees in the process.

Yes, bees! Those harmless creatures who go from flower to flower pollinating our crops and making honey.

You see, the trouble is, in searching for a metaphor that expresses just why it might be a good idea to close the border anyway, he alights (no pun intended) on a not so great analogy:

It's awfully hard to get into the head of a liberal. Instead of logic and reason, they are drawn to emotions and feelings. That's not to say we conservatives don't emote or feel. It's just that we like to apply a healthy application of common sense to things. If there's a swarm of bees outside an open window, it might be a good idea to close the window, even if a few bees have already flown into the house...

I guess he'd be the one dope who stared open-mouthed at that proverbial swarm of bees and just watched as they all flew into the house, stinging everybody in sight.

Bee swarms typically are not aggressive, because they are well fed before swarming. But I digress. Mr. Gallaher is correct, of course. But choosing policies that will have the exact opposite effect of what is desired seems to be the modus operandi of this Administration and Congress.

Meanwhile, I need to go out and check my three hives. Honeyflow should start any day now. And yes, I will be wearing a veil.