The War on Guns: Chicago Gun Case Brief Shows Prohibitionists Unreasonable

The War on Guns: Chicago Gun Case Brief Shows Prohibitionists Unreasonable

The Brady Bunch is at it again in the Chicago case, claiming there is no difference between "shall not be infringed" and a total ban. At least the Joyce Foundation recognized defeat and withdrew funding for Saul Cornell's OSU 2nd Amendment Center. But of course, the Bradys are dedicated to subverting our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, and will never stop trying.

The Global Warming Fraud Destroys Science

J. R. Dunn has an excellent think piece on what the ramifications of the Global Warming Fraud and the Future of Science in today's American Thinker. It is long, but well worth the read, and then contemplate for yourself what you think this will mean for future scientific endeavors. A quote to give you a flavor of the article:

As Paul Johnson has pointed out, a technological breakout appeared imminent at a number of points in the past millennium. Consider the anonymous Hussite engineer of the 15th century who left a notebook even more breathtaking than that of Leonardo, or the revolutionary English Levelers of the 17th century who dreamed of flying machines and factories. If a breakout had occurred at those times, the consequences would have been unimaginable. But the Hussites were destroyed by the German princes, the Levelers by the reestablishment of the English crown. It required the birth of a true democratic republic in the late 18th century to provide the setting for a serious scientific-technical takeoff, one that after 200 years has brought us to where we stand today, gazing out at the galaxies beyond the galaxies with the secret of life itself within reach.


It is this, and no less, that scientific fraud threatens. This is no trivial matter; it involves one of the basic elements of modern Western life. When scientific figures lie, they lie to all of us. If they foment serious distrust of the scientific endeavor -- as they are doing -- they are creating a schism in the heart of our culture, a wound that in the long run could prove even more deadly than the Jihadi terrorists.

J. R. Dunn asserts in the article that our democratic republic, and free scientific inquiry go hand in hand, and that to destroy one of these pillars is to seriously weaken the other. When stated explicitly, one recognizes that what he is saying must be true. Our democratic republic was designed to give men the maximum freedom to make of their lives what they would. Some of these men had a talent for, and chose to become great captains of industry. But other men had a talent for, and chose to delve into science and technology, from which we all have benefited. If we lose that, who knows what great improvements to our lives will be lost to this generation?

Dunn also points to the real problem, which is not scientific inquiry, but government funding of scientific research for ideological reasons. It seems so benevolent: government gives grants for scientific research to scientists and all they expect in return is results. Except, of course, that if the results matched up with their own preconceived notions, wouldn't that be truly nifty? It is only a short distance from that attitude to attempting to control the outcome by giving research grants if the results match preconceived notions, and withholding those grants if they do not. Like so many areas in which government gets involved, it soon corrupts the process, and if it continues, eventually will kill the victim. Like everything else, the answer lies in returning to Constitutional principles, and concentrate on those specific areas granted by the people as government functions.

RNC Proposes Conservative Litmus Test

Jillian Bandes reports on a proposal that represents a pretty good start in today's Townhall.com. The start? The GOP is proposing a conservative litmus test for candidates to receive party funding.

The right to keep and bear arms is number 10 on the list. That is fine as far as it goes, but as David Codrea has pointed out, even Obama supports the "right to keep and bear arms" while his policies would deny arms to almost every American. What is needed is further probing to determine such things as what Unconstitutional laws would a candidate be willing to work to repeal? Still, I am happy to see at last that the RNC has decided it wants our votes after all, even if we are an embarrassment.

The True Agenda of the Green Movement

Time for one more, again from today's American Thinker. J.R. Dunn takes a look at
Climate Fraud and the Environmental Agenda. In the process, he says explicitly what few others have been willing to point out so boldly. Namely that the real goals of the Environmental Agenda are a lot fewer human beings on the planet. But let Dunn tell it:

Environmentalism is a revolutionary ideology, deriving much of its thinking, rhetoric, and practice from the left. Like other left-wing cults, it is explicitly anti-capitalist. But environmentalism goes one step further -- while the left wishes to remake industrial society according to the Marxist model, the Greens wish to simply abolish it and return to a mythical "natural" state. What easier way to accomplish that then to cut the West's energy lifeline?

Or this juicy bit:

The Greens like to reverse the formula, speaking instead of what the optimal human population of earth might be. The numbers vary -- a billion, half a billion, a 100 million, or a little over 1% of the current world population. There's even a Voluntary Human Extinction movement, which holds that the human race is an evolutionary failure that would be better off extinct.

But the impulse is the same. The question remains on how to reach the goal. In the past, Greens have spoken of outside forces doing the job for them, of population crashes caused by overpopulation, pollution, resource depletion, or lately, by global warming. But there has always been a more typical leftist undercurrent as well, common among Earth First! and ecofascist groups, that if nature fails, the Greens should step in. Such concepts as tailored viruses designed to cut the population through sterilization or more final effects have been discussed in Green circles with considerable seriousness.

Classy guys, those Greens. As we get together with our families and friends this Thanksgiving, let us pray that this nihilistic philosophy be finally shown to people for what it is, and that there is a spiritual reawakening as a result.

Goofball Wormening Fraud Gets No Coverage

Brent Bozell makes a very good point in Townhall.com today in an article entitled When the Press Favors Secrecy. Bozell is asking where are all the press reports about the documents released from the Hadley Climate Research Unit, since these are so damaging to the Goofball Wormening crowd. A quote:

The e-mails prove just how dishonest this left-wing global warming agenda truly is. And now suddenly, The New York Times has found religion and won't publish these private e-mails. Environmental reporter Andrew Revkin, who's more global warming lobbyist than reporter, quoted -- sparsely -- from the e-mails, but declared he would not post these texts on his "Dot Earth" blog on the Times website: "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here."

That rule didn't apply to things like the disclosure of the SWIFT global bank monitoring program against terrorists.

The hypocrisy of the New York Times here is breathtaking. Who doesn't think that if a bunch of secret e-mails revealing fraud and deception were to be hacked from a anti-global warming group, that these would be trumpeted far and wide. Yet, there have been no stories out of any of the networks. Only Fox has covered this stuff. But this is an important story. Oh, not the fact that the pushers of goofball wormening are petty and small. No, what is important is that goofball wormening now has been shown to be a fraud, perpetrated on the world by leftists Gaia worshipers for money. They really should be prosecuted and spend many years behind bars! The NYT can not hide behind its editorial sense of what is and is not news here. Neither can the networks or the cable "news" channels.

Here's the other thing that goes down with this story. The illusion of scientific integrity. Science was, at one time, pretty much nonpartisan. Scientists used to report their findings. Others try to replicate those findings, and if they can, help prove a theory, or if they can't, cast doubt on it. Scientific data was freely exchanged to help this process along. Science didn't care who's ox got gored, and scientists were supposedly searching for the Truth. All that goes away. Most of the things the movement environmentalists have been pushing also goes away. After all, who knows what other lies they have been perpetrating on us?

Update: Marc Sheppard, in today's American Thinker gives us some technical information on
CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered. Sheppard points to specific fraudulent data manipulations in the Climate Research Unit's released papers. Gotcha!

Cloward-Piven and the Governmental "Crises"

James Simpson has an excellent expose of the Cloward-Piven strategy in action as wielded by the Obama administration and current Congress, at the American Thinker today. You wonder why you feel you are not being represented anywhere in government? Read the article. A quote:

It should be clear to anyone with a mind and two eyes that this president and this Congress do not have our interests at heart. They are implementing this strategy on an unprecedented scale by flooding America with a tidal wave of poisonous initiatives, orders, regulations, and laws. As Rahm Emmanuel said, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste."

The real goal of "health care" legislation, the real goal of "cap-and-trade," and the real goal of the "stimulus" is to rip the guts out of our private economy and transfer wide swaths of it over to the government to control. Do not be deluded by the propaganda. These initiatives are vehicles for change. They are not goals in and of themselves except in their ability to deliver power. They and will make matters much worse, for that is their design.

This time, in addition to overwhelming the government with demands for services, Obama and the Democrats are overwhelming political opposition to their plans with a flood of apocalyptic legislation. Their ultimate goal is to leave us so discouraged, demoralized, and exhausted that we throw our hands up in defeat. As Barney Frank said, "the middle class will be too distracted to fight."

We must regain the political power to stop this, or to repeal it if it passes. Otherwise, our children, and grandchildren will be slaves. Do you really want to be known as the generation that gave up freedom in America? I don't advocate abandoning principles, but sometimes fire has to be fought with fire. We need to learn, and fast, to turn leftists methods against them. Polls show we are in the majority, and if we all work together, we can make this happen, before it is too late.

Universal Helathcare as Good as a Done Deal

Jillian Bandes has the scoop on last night's vote to for cloture in the Senate at Townhall.com today.

Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's vote in favor of Obamacare was purchased for $300 million on Saturday, giving Democrats the 60-vote supermajority that will, barring a miracle, pass health care reform that will possibly include a public option and abortion coverage.

The emphasis is mine. I would note that passage will be over the objections of the majority of Americans. We have no representation in Congress any more. None. Instead, those being represented are Big Labor like SEIU. Those bought off include Big Pharma, and evidently Mary Landrieu. I would note that inflation has firmly taken hold. At one time such betrayal only cost 30 pieces of silver.

Judging by this administrations incompetence in such things, Mary Landrieu will be lucky to get a pittance of what was promised. Big Pharma will find that sooner or later, they will be eaten too. Only Big Labor will get what they paid for.

Goofball Wormening going down (I hope)

This post will conclude my Sunday blogging. The Curmudgeon Emeritus over at Eternity Road has a great post on The Leak.

The Goofball Wormening crowd has been dealt a disastrous blow by the leaking of internal documents from England's Hadley Research Unit. Go take a peak. I've got to get ready for Church.

The War on Guns: Holder Tells Senate Committee Justice Department Supports More 'Gun Control'

The War on Guns: Holder Tells Senate Committee Justice Department Supports More 'Gun Control'

Go and check out this story. This is scary stuff. The NRA, for all their compromising and playing games, has long opposed this sort of thing, and for good reason. Wherever gun registration has occurred, gun confiscation has followed within a few years.

When you realise that few criminals obtain their guns through legal channels, then you have to wonder just who the gun registration is supposed to catch? If you concluded it is law abiding gun owners, you are correct. That means that the future confiscation will be of guns owned by law abiding gun owners, the real target, and not those using weapons illegally.

Now do you see why there has been a huge run on guns since Obama took office?

Light Blogging Ahead

I apologize for the light blogging in advance. The Holiday season is rapidly upon us. We will be having family in this week. My daughter is expecting her second child this week, and there will be many other demands on my time during the next 4-6 weeks or so. I will try to keep in touch in any case, but if I don't, you'll understand.

Judge David Hamilton

One of my Senators, Sen. Kay Hagan, has already e-mailed me that she intends to vote for the confirmation to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge David Hamilton. I haven't figured out how to put the entire e-mail up, so I will quote the relevant part:

Judge Hamilton was appointed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in 1994, and he was named Chief Judge of the court in 2008. He has served with distinction, leading the American Bar Association to unanimously rate him as well-qualified, which is the highest rating given by this non-partisan group. Given Judge Hamilton's extensive legal experience, impressive background, and reputation as a moderate, I expect to support his nomination once it reaches the Senate floor. He has already been enthusiastically endorsed by both Senators from his home state of Indiana, Senators Richard Lugar (R) and Evan Bayh (D), and I expect his nomination to be further supported by a bipartisan majority of Senators.

I do not wish to fisk that little paragraph of...um...nuanced viewpoints. So, I'll just say that I am sure that Hagan is aware of the issues surrounding Judge Hamilton, but in case she isn't, some of them are outlined in Mario Diaz piece on Townhall.com today entitled Like a Blind Man in the Watch Tower. A quote from Diaz article:

Hamilton also issued a series of rulings for over seven years that prevented the state of Indiana from enforcing its informed-consent law. Yet, while that law was virtually identical to a Pennsylvania statute the Supreme Court had already upheld in an earlier case, Judge Hamilton ignored the precedent in order to advance his biased personal views. But that’s not news.

Even before being a judge, Hamilton had shown his true activist colors as a board member of the Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and as a fundraiser for the discredited liberal activist group ACORN.

So, Obama wants to turn the Seventh District into something of a Ninth District. The Ninth has the reputation for being the most overturned District Court. Nice.

Then there is this warning from the Gun Owners of America:

Of course, we have seen this pattern time and time again. Judges ignore the clear wording of the Constitution -- in essence, amending the Constitution through each new case they decide.

The courts then become the vehicle for rewriting the Second Amendment!

Not surprisingly, Judge Hamilton's politics are to the extreme, far left. He spent a brief stint as a fundraiser for ACORN, the organization that was an aggressive supporter of Barack Obama in the presidential election. In addition to all the evils surrounding ACORN is the fact that the organization has lobbied against Second Amendment rights -- as seen by the New Jersey chapter supporting a one-gun-a-month ordinance in Jersey City.

I would add that this year, the NC ACORN chapter (see here) supported a bill to require people to get a permit from the Sheriff each and every time they wanted to purchase ammunition.

I would have expected a lively debate, on the order of, oh...say...Robert Bork, to ensue. There is that much smoke and flame around this candidate. This man is not even in the, what is euphemistically called the "mainstream" of legal thinking. That it doesn't appear to be in the cards is appalling.

Once again, dear reader, into the breech! If you haven't contacted your Senator, do so now. Make sure they know you are watching.

The Narrative vs. The Facts

George Will has an interesting article today at Townhall.com entitled A Picture Can Lie, that takes a look at a photo taken in during the Spanish Civil War. The photo in question was taken by famed photojournalist Robert Capa, and appeared in the September 23, 1936 issue of the French publication "Vu," entitled "Falling Soldier."

The photo purports to show an anti-fascist soldier at the moment he was struck down by a shot from a Franco soldier in fighting near Cerro Muriano. But controversy has raged for decades as to whether the photo is indeed genuine, or was staged at some later time. Certainly at the time, the photo stirred up much anti-fascist sentiment in Europe. But let Will tell it:

It supposedly shows a single figure, a loyalist -- that is, anti-fascist -- soldier, at the instant of death from a bullet fired by one of Franco's soldiers. The soldier is falling backward on a hillside, arms outstretched, his rifle being flung from his right hand. This was, surely, stunning testimony to photography's consciousness-raising and history-shaping truth-telling, the camera's indisputable accuracy, its irreducibly factual rendering of reality, its refutation of epistemological pessimism about achieving certainty based on what our eyes tell us.

Probably not. A dispute that has flared intermittently for more than 30 years has been fueled afresh, and perhaps settled, by a Spanish professor who has established that the photo could not have been taken when and where it reportedly was -- Sept. 5, 1936, near Cerro Muriano.

The photo was taken about 35 miles from there. The precise place has been determined by identifying the mountain range in the photo's background. The professor says there was no fighting near there at that time, and concludes that Capa staged the photo.

But, of course, there are people who say that even if the photo was faked, the story it tells is still true.

Capa was a man of the left and "Falling Soldier" helped to alarm the world about fascism rampant. But noble purposes do not validate misrepresentations. Richard Whelan, Capa's biographer, calls it "trivializing" to insist on knowing whether this photo actually shows a soldier mortally wounded. Whelan says "the picture's greatness actually lies in its symbolic implications, not in its literal accuracy."

There it is. The old narrative vs. facts argument. The thing that got Dan Rather into trouble was believing the narrative to be true, the facts be damned. The whole Left vs. Right, Gun Control vs. Gun Rights, Goofball Wormening vs. those who do not believe it controversy can be boiled down to this one thing: Do you believe the narrative or are do you use facts to inform your narrative.

Those of us on the Right often use facts in our arguments to the Left, and are just as often rebuffed by people who don't want to hear facts. Their minds appear to be made up, and no facts will be allowed to shatter the narrative already woven in their heads. I have read literally hundreds of debates on gun control in which the gun rights advocates cite statistics and facts, only to be rebuffed by the gun grabbers. They simply feel that the solution to crime is to take away all the guns. The experience in England and Australia with gun grabbing seems to have no effect. The obvious fact that if they magically achieved their goals, that knives, baseball bats, or as recently seen in Chicago, a handy piece of 2x4 make excellent weapons, also fall on deaf ears. Citing the massive statistical analysis done by John Lott in "More Guns, Less Crime" is dismissed out of hand. Their minds are made up, and so the debate soon runs its course, nobody involved in the debate has a "eureka" moment, and the whole debate slides to another board or blog where it is taken up again. It is very unsatisfying.

More curious still is the way that many on the Left live their personal lives very conservatively, yet publicly espouse Leftist views at odds with how they live. I can't tell you how many global warming fanatics I have encountered who drive SUVs or pickup trucks. When confronted, they give excuses like they need the extra protection because they have a family, or they drive a pickup because they haul stuff all the time. So I ask them "Don't you think other families have the same needs?" or "Don't you think others make similar decisions for the same purposes?" But they usually do not have a good answer to these questions. So what explains the disconnect?

I think it is the narrative. Leftists have been taught a certain narrative, often at an early age, and they have believed it. Subsequently, everything they see that seems to fit the narrative, confirms it, while everything they see that seems to defy the narrative is dismissed. By the time I encounter them in debates, the belief in the narrative is so hardened, they are unlikely to change it. Indeed, unless something powerfully personal happens in their lives, they are likely to carry the narrative to the grave.

Those on the right believe that the narrative you carry in your head derives from facts, and it is changeable over time as new facts come to light. There is an old saying the photographs don't lie, but they also don't tell the whole truth either. One must always be open to new facts, and going with the evidence, wherever it leads.

Another Loss of Freedom to Satisfy Socialists

Thanks to Western Rifle Shooters Association for this post.


Ace of Spaces has a great post taking apart Pelosi's claim that it is indeed fair to jail people who do not buy health insurance. A quote or two to whet your appetite:

The left continues pounding the table, insisting that right-wingers are "paranoid" and "extremist" to call Obama a socialist, or to use totalitarian imagery in posters to protest his agenda. Why, it's just so not true! they bleat. You'd have to be a maniac like Sarah Palin to make these delusional claims! Why, it's like bad science-fiction!

Really?

Socialism never attends a party without an escort of coercive state behavior. It is a historic fact -- indeed, an economic fact -- that as the state seeks to regulate and control more and more economic activity, they must, of course, control more and more human activity.

And this:

Back to this leftist insistence that we're all paranoid to even think this way, to even define "freedom" in an antique, right-wing fashion, meaning "stuff you are permitted to do or not do without penalty and coercion from the state:" It is especially risible to me, in gallows-humor way, that the left continues to call us lunatics for fretting about increasing state control and increasing state coercion and increasing state outlawing of previously-legal behavior and freedoms even as, in their very first bill out of the socialist box, they propose jailing Americans for engaging in unobjectionable behavior which no one ever before dreamt of being a crime.

Think about this.

The left says: You are crazy to claim your so-called freedoms are being taken away, and you are a lunatic to scream about an overly powerful state which will use violent coercion (no one goes to jail without the threat of violence if he doesn't, after all) to enforce its notions of the "economic good."

And with the next breath the left says: By the way, you shall either buy health care insurance or we will throw you in prison for two or three years.

Of course, this has been going on for decades. For a long list of all the ways we have been losing freedom by making previously legal behaviors crimes, see James Bovard's "Lost Rights." But in the past most of these lost freedoms were only practiced by a minority of people in the first place. Think smoking bans, for instance. It is easy for people to make something a crime when they don't see their own ox being gored, and when the minority isn't particularly liked. But the story changes when everyone is under threat. The one time they tried to outlaw a previously legal activity that was practiced by the majority was when Prohibition was passed. Ten years later it was repealed because it was so widely flouted. In that case, people could see the failure of the law. In this case though, they are building in such a constituency of people (111 new bureaucracies!) to continue agitating for it, that Obamacare will never be repealed.

But I'm a paranoid and extremist to take notice of the fact that what was once my freedom in 2009 shall become a cause for imprisonment in 2010.

Life After Death

Dinesh D'Souza has an article on Townhall.com today entitled Life After Death: The Message of Evolution that provides and entirely different analysis of the message of evolution.

I had read D'Souza's two other books, "What's So Great About America" and "What's So Great About Christianity." The first was a rousing read, but the second gave me a number of new ways to think about my faith. So, I am anxious to read his latest "Life After Death: The Evidence." D'Souza has a way of making complex philosophical and scientific concepts accessible to the average person, and thus is a treasure to the busy reader who nevertheless wants to join in following the debates. To show you his style, here's a sample quote from the article:

Strikingly Duve speaks of an “arrow of evolution” that makes this progression virtually inevitable. Duve speaks of biological history as proceeding through successive ages, from the “age of chemistry” to the “age of information” to the “age of the single cell” to the “age of multicellular organisms” and finally to the “age of the mind.”

The age of the mind: an arresting concept. It reveals that evolution has gone beyond increasing complexity; it has provided the catalyst for a new order of being in the world. Through the human mind, the cosmic code has finally produced a mechanism for its own detection. Surely this is a fact of fundamental significance. Not only has matter somehow generated life, it has also generated awareness and understanding.

It is certainly not the first time that someone has argued that the very fact that we can discover and appreciate God's creation is, at the very least a marvel, and indeed is key evidence in proving the existence of the Creator. But in my limited reading, I have not encountered an argument (though I'm sure they are out there) that attempts to use this fact as evidence of our continuation after death.

Go read the whole thing. It is well worth it.

Ft, Hood: Gun Free Zone

A great read from Jacob Sullum on Townhall.com today entitled The Folly of Unilateral Disarmament brings to light the stupidity of "Gun Free Zones."

If you have not served in the military, or like me, worked as a civilian employee of a military department, you may not realize that Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen are not allowed to carry guns on base, except for specific training purposes. When they do, they are unloaded, and ammunition is allotted very sparingly for the purpose at hand. Otherwise, guns are kept locked up in armories. Further, while I have never been to Ft. Hood, I have been to a number of military installations, and none are what you would think of as "heavily fortified." I doubt Ft. Hood is any different. A quote:

Neither Smith nor the other victims of Hasan's assault had guns because soldiers on military bases within the United States generally are not allowed to carry them. Last week's shootings, which killed 13 people and wounded more than 30, demonstrated once again the folly of "gun-free zones," which attract and assist people bent on mass murder instead of deterring them.

Judging from the comments of those who support this policy of victim disarmament, Smith's desire for a gun was irrational. According to Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, "This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified Army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places."

Except that is exactly the thing shown by John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime," and it is easy to see why more guns in the hands of responsible citizens equals less crime. Criminals may be amoral, and often not the sharpest specimens of humankind, but they are generally not deliberately suicidal. When shall issue concealed carry is allowed, the criminal planning on mayhem must calculate the unknown; "which of these people might be armed and stop me, or kill me outright?" So, if a criminal had to choose weather to hold up a convenience store with no posting of "no guns" and a liquor store with such a posting, all things being equal, which one do you think he is going to pick for a robbery? If you guess the liquor store, you would be right. Back to the Ft. Hood shooting:

The first people with guns to confront Hasan, two local police officers, were the ones who put a stop to his rampage. And while Sgt. Kim Munley and Sgt. Mark Todd acted heroically, they did not arrive on the scene until a crucial 10 minutes or so had elapsed and Hasan had fired more than 100 rounds.

If someone else at the processing center had a gun when Hasan started shooting, it seems likely that fewer people would have been killed or injured. Furthermore, the knowledge that some of his victims would be armed might have led him to choose a different, softer target in order to maximize the impact of his attack.

Exactly right. But this lesson will be another that will be ignored by those who will shortly be performing a "Lessons Learned" drill.

The Unconstitutionality of Obamacare

The American Thinker has a great article today entitled To Hell With the Constitution by Jon N. Hall. Another writer seems to be getting it. The Obamacare bill that passed the House last Saturday night is not Constitutional. The bill violates the 9th and 10th Amendments. The Commerce Clause can not be used to provide a fig leaf with which Congress may cover itself. The General Welfare never meant what Steny Hoyer implied in his news conference.

But now Congress is ramming through their abortion of a bill by the thinnest of majorities. The House just passed its version 220 to 215 -- a 3-vote margin to pass the "mother of all entitlements." The Senate is considering its options, among them the "nuclear option" (called "reconciliation"), which would allow them to get around a filibuster.


If Congress were to do the right thing and initiate an amendment to enshrine the "individual mandate" in the Constitution...it would fail miserably. If America is still America, Americans will not tolerate being told they have to buy something, especially if it's for no other reason than that they exist. If ObamaCare becomes law, folks will drop their insurance out of principle. They'll file suits against the feds. The states will resist, perhaps rebel. And great will be the tumult thereof.


I'm afraid Congress has not only misread the Constitution, but they've also misjudged the American people. Or maybe they just don't know what country they live in.

Or, they are trying to change the country into one they would rather live in, just so long as they are in charge.

Dedicated_Dad: Open Mouth, Insert,..?

Dedicated_Dad: Open Mouth, Insert,..?

Thanks to David Codrea of the War on Guns, and to Western Rifle Shooters Association. A must read.

AINOs

The Sipsey Street Irregulars (see here) has coined a great name for the people who passed the Obamacare in the House. There henceforth to be called A.I.N.Os, for Americans In Name Only. I like it. As an interesting coincidence, one of the commenters notes that ainos is Spanish for anus. Fitting.

Another Note From the Former USA

Matt Patterson has a great article today in the American Thinker entitled Losing Our Republic. In particular, the article asks if the TEA parties were too tame?

It left me wondering about the tea party movement, and how much effect they have really had in this whole affair. There was much chest-thumping in conservative circles after the August town hall uprisings, much talk that the demonstrations had put the fear of God into congressional Democrats. Maybe. And yet since then, liberal health care bills and plans have continued to coalesce on Capitol Hill, and now one has passed the House. The momentum it seems, is with the President and his party.

For two reasons, I think. One, as I was coming to work in downtown Washington D.C. on Thursday morning, the day of the "House call" protests, I emerged from my train and into Union Station and beheld the protesters, who were then gathering and preparing for their march on Capitol Hill just a few blocks a away.

I spoke to a number of them. They were uniformly middle-class, middle-American folks, whole families, whole neighborhoods of them. They looked, and acted, so nice. The kind of people who would bake you a tray of brownies if you weren't feeling very well. In other words, not intimidating in the slightest.

Apparently, to hardened Democrat Congressmen, we needed to "act out" more. We need to do something dramatic to get their attention. They do not fear us, and fear is the only thing that will, evidently, get them to back off.

So, what's the solution?

Interestingly, another article, by James Lewis, also in today's American Thinker seems to have the answer.

Conservatives are individualists, so we have to do something unusual: organize, organize, organize. Local and national. Even international. Some of our friends are in the British media, where they are looking for us to stand up and defend civilization, just as they stood up against Hitler when we were still dithering. Some of our friends are in Australia, in Canada, and yes, in France. Around the world there are millions of people who get it. We can be American patriots with allies all around the world. They need leaders and vocal support just as much as we do.


And we must militantly defend the freedom of the web. The Stalinoids will attack it viciously, just as they will attack talk radio and Fox News. We are fighting the same enemy Ronald Reagan fought. We have to do it just as intelligently and vigorously as he did.


The word "activist" used to be a media word for the Left. It's high time to make it work for American conservatives.

Organizing is indeed necessary, but we must also be perceived as dangerous to cross, just like the Left. What a sad world this is coming to.

Dark Angel: Tim Hawkins Sings the Truth#links

Dark Angel: Tim Hawkins Sings the Truth#links

Check out this video over at Dark Angel. Tim Hawkins sings the utter truth.

The Worst Bill Ever

The Wall Street Journal has the scoop on the Worst Bill Ever passed by the House since the New Deal. A quote:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.

In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.

Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.

Read the whole thing, then realize that the costs of this monstrosity will eventually hit middle class Americans. By one estimate, we will be paying 199%, through premiums and tax increases, what we are paying now for health care. How's that hope 'n change working out for you?

I know that Ms. Pelosi wanted to get this through. But I would have hoped there were more adults in our House of Representatives than there turned out to be. How sad.

Does this qualify as an Intolerable Act?

A Scholar Looks at Islam and the Practical Effects

Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?,by Robert Ibrahim in the Middle East Quarterly is a scholarly look at the Koran, the teachings of Muhammad, and how these have been interpreted and carried out by Muslims over the years. It is long, but go check it out.

Then ask this question: How can this "religion" and the Constitution possibly be made compatible. The Constitution recognizes individual rights, individual freedom and liberty. Islam, on the other hand, requires submission. The two philosophies run counter to each other. But, if you need more proof, please read
Tolerance and the Other American Muslim Tragedy in today's Townhall.com by Austin Hill. A quote:

By now, the horrific profile of Army Major Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is widely known. And despite President Obama insisting that we must not “jump to conclusions” about this American Muslim man, the picture is still horrifying: an American soldier who openly disagreed with the policies of two American Presidents (the “Hawk” George W. Bush and the “Dove” Barack Obama), who complained about deployments, and made “outlandish statements” against his nation and its government, was nonetheless allowed to rise through the ranks of the U.S. Army.

The obvious question – the “elephant in the living room,” to use a term from the world of family psychology – is “why was this kind of behavior tolerated and apparently overlooked?” And the only obvious answer, at least at this point, is simply “because he is a Muslim.”

Muslims, of course, are notoriously sensitive about anything that smells of a criticism. Why would that be? Why the defensiveness? This is just a theory, but I think it's because they know their actions will not stand up to scrutiny. Outside of the hermetically sealed Muslim world, where Sharia is recognized, they have no way to justify their actions. And they know that. Another quote:

Before dying, Noor was hospitalized and remained in a coma for several days. And just like the Muslim men we have seen on video recordings who hide their identities with masks when beheading “infidels,” Faleh Hassan Almaleki sought to “hide” by fleeing the country after he ran over his daughter.

One who is forced to change his opinion on the outside, will still hold to that opinion in his heart. This is true for Christians, Muslims and anyone else. A person must see the light for himself. So, while Obama can make all the nice speeches he wants, I don't think Muslims should be allowed to immigrate to the United States unless, and until, the "moderate" Muslims renounce Jihad. They can not be allowed to continue to spread their teachings by the sword.

First Frost

For those of you keeping track of the weather, today was the first hard frost in our neighborhood. The sun came up to white stuff on the ground.

I had just mowed the yard yesterday.

Are there any Americans Left

Bill Murchison has an article in today's Townhall.com entitled simply
The Fort Hood Massacre that questions whether the things being said about the murderer are in fact true. He points out that claims of "harassment" are unlikely, since he is an officer, and soldiers don't harass officers. He also points to the gunman yelling "Allahu Ackbar" just before beginning to fire. This is the cry of all Islamic terrorists before they begin their bloody work. Murchison's point is that we should look closely at whether this treasonous SOB's "religion" should be taken into account when trying to figure out what went wrong.

But right now, we are not. We are being told that this was not an act of terrorism; in essence to "move along, there's nothing to see here."

So Francis W. Porretto's post entitled Where Are the Americans over at Eternity Road came as a relief. It's a relief because I had begun to believe that everyone was crazy. The government and the media would rather not offend Muslim's delicate sensibilities by telling the truth, straight up, American style. Of course, the government has been trying to convince us that Islam is a "religion of peace." Rather than call the current war by it's real name, the Bush administration coined the term "War on Terror." More apt might have been "War on Terrorists," but only slightly. Then came the Obama administration to downgrade even that tepid statement of purpose to simply dealing with "man caused disasters," as if having 3000 Americans killed on 9/11 was merely some accident. A couple of planes simply got their wires crossed, and suddenly there was a "man caused disaster."

Look, Islam is not the "religion of peace." Indeed, it is not a religion at all, unless one counts the Thugee of India, who reputedly worshipped Kali as a "religion." Porretto concludes with:

Time was, the slogan: "America: Love It Or Leave It!" was on many lips. Those who used it probably meant it sincerely. Who could use it sincerely today?

Not our president, who thinks abasing our country before foreign tyrants is the right way to conduct American foreign policy.
Not our news media, who routinely slant their offerings, both reportage and commentary, to conduce to the greatest possible harm to the United States.
Not the spokesmen for the FBI, who repeatedly issue proclamations designed to deflect attention from the near-perfect correlation of Islam and terrorism.
Not Nidal Malik Hasan's superiors at Fort Hood, who permitted him to remain there, a place bristling with weapons and men intended to wield them, despite his long-obvious animosity toward the United States.
Not the Quislings and spineless ones of the Left, to whom this is more of an indictment of the United States -- in the person of the Bush Administration, of course -- than a fresh new data point about the dangers of having Muslims among us.

Where are the Americans?

Where, indeed.

Obamacare Unconstitutional

Another article on Obamacare that brings up the point that the Constitution does not grant power to Congress to force that upon us. Larrey Anderson has No Health Care in the Constitution up today at the American Thinker. Go read the whole thing.

Also, check this post from last week.

If Obamacare passes, it will likely by appealed to the Supreme Court almost immediately. Will the Supremes side with Big Government, or with the true meaning of the Constitution? The fact that I ask that question is sad commentary on the legal profession today.

Scozzafava Shows True Colors

Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs has an article today on the American Thinker entitled Bye Bye RINO. Apparently, Ms. Scozzafava pulled out of the NY-23 race Saturday, leaving Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate in good shape. Then, Sunday, she endorsed the Democrat candidate. So much for party loyalty. It one wonder if my scenario might truly have happened?

I also heard that Michael Steele, RNC Chair, had endorsed Hoffman. Better late than never. But it would have been better for Steele to show some guts and have endorsed Hoffman from the start, thus setting up the notion it won't be business as usual for the Republican party.

Incidentally, Palin is beginning to look like a master politician, and this incident only feeds that image. Newt, on the other hand, looks more and more like a tool.

And go check out War On Guns for David Codrea's take on the NRA's shameful performance in this affair.

Stop Climate Change Treaty

Jed Gladstein explains today in the American Thinker that Power Derives from Lawful Authority, and not one supposes simply from the barrel of a gun. So, will the President's signature on the climate treaty therefore make that a legitimate treaty? One wonders.

On the one hand, the Supreme Court has acted as if the fact of Constitutionality is whatever they say it is. If that is the case, though, then the rule of law becomes a joke, and everything the rest of us do is at the sufferance of 9 unelected people wearing black robes. One thinks the founders could not have meant to play such a prank on posterity. So, looking the other way, the Constitution itself can not be violated by a treaty, since to change the Constitution requires approval of 2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of the States, whereas a treaty only requires 2/3 of the Senate alone.

Except it can.

Article VI of the Constitution makes it clear that treaties are to be the higher law, notwithstanding whether or not they conflict with the Constitution.

Tilt.

Here is how Gladstein see it:

The President of the United States has no more legal right to sign a treaty that turns legislative, executive, and judicial functions of our national government over to the United Nations than he has to declare the United States an Islamic Republic and its people henceforward subject to Sharia. Nevertheless, that would be the effect of the proposed United Nations Climate Change Treaty awaiting Mr. Obama's signature in Copenhagen this coming December.

The proposed treaty authorizes the establishment of a "government" to transfer wealth from industrial nations to non-industrial nations in payment of a "climate debt" which, the treaty declares, the industrial nations owe on account of burning carbon-based fuels. The newly created international government is to have the authority to decide issues relating to carbon emissions in signatory nations, the power to levy what amounts to carbon taxes on signatory nations, and the power to enforce its levies without reference to the will of the people who live in the signatory nations.

I think Mr. Gladstein should change his statement to say that the President has no moral right to sign the treaty, but he has every legal right. I am surprised no one has ever tried it before. Just sign a treaty with a foreign power ceding sovereignty to them, resign as President, then take your rightful place in the foreign power as Dictator. Sounds simple. Look, the reasons this country revolted from England were many, but taxation without representation was certainly one of them. Obamacare simply won't die, despite a very public demonstration of its unpopularity. Cap and Tax remains on the agenda, and Democrats will no doubt try to sneak that one through by hook or crook as well. Out here, the public is at a boiling point. Could this be the last straw?

You have probably seen Christopher Monckton's impassioned plea that we stop this treaty from going through, but if you haven't, it is here. Go read the article, then watch Monckton's video. We must get on the phone to our Senators and be sure they understand that we will not allow this President to sign away our Sovereignty.