The War on Guns: Daley's hatred for right to keep and bear arms takes dangerous globalist turn

The War on Guns: Daley's hatred for right to keep and bear arms takes dangerous globalist turn

Go. Read. I've got to run.

Light Blogging Ahead

I have taken a temporary position which pays pretty well. Unfortunately, it doesn't leave a lot of time for blogging, or anything else. Therefore, blogging will be light, and on a catch as catch can basis.

Meanwhile, I encourage you to continue to visit the Blogroll pages. There is a lot of good information there, and most of these bloggers do it for love, not money. So, support them, please?

Liberty and the Death of God

I will freely "borrow" today, because, quite frankly, there is nothing I can add to this discussion. Smarter men have pondered the subject for more time than I will ever have. So here is Liberty and the Death of God by Daniel H. Fernald in the American Thinker today. Go read the whole thing. Of course, you and I know that God is not "dead," but He is currently being ignored by our friends on the Left. They have another "god."

Alright then. Did you spot the missing piece? There is a puzzle piece missing, without which you are left unable to sort out the good philosophy from the bad.

OK, if you haven't noodled it out yet, here it is. The liberty, which you posses as a gift from God, is not yours, but God's. God gives us free will, life, liberty, and property, not to aggrandize ourselves, but to make of this world a better place. By this reasoning, then, the Left is not our enemy, but God's enemy, and God's enemies can not stand. For our part, we are to have Faith in God and His ability to make all things right, Hope and most of all, Charity for all men as we can.

So, I ask you to pray with me today that President Obama, the Congress, the Courts, the Governors and Legislatures of the States will be shown the right things to do, and will have courage to do them.

Amen.

Thank a Hunter

Hunting is a remarkably expensive sport, which has gotten only more expensive over the years. So I have not typically engaged in it, but I have huge respect for those that do. Interestingly, a large part of the expense of hunting comes because hunters pay their own way, and then some. Huberto Fontova details just how much a hunter pays, and to whom, in a column today on Townhall.com entitled On Earth Day, Did You Thank a Hunter?. A quote to give you a taste:

So please note: to "preserve nature," they don’t tax Birkenstock hiking boots and ying-yang pendants – but do tax my shotgun. They don’t tax yoga manuals and tofu tid-bits wrapped in recycled paper – but do tax my 30.06 deer rifle. They don’t tax binoculars or birding Field Guides with cutesy photos of the red-cockaded woodpecker and spotted Owl – but do tax the shotgun shells I blast at Mallards before arraying on my grill as Duck-K-Bobs (cooked rare and lovingly basted with plenty of butter, Cajun seasoning and teriyaki sauce).

Do you get a sense that he may be just a little bit miffed? And rightly so, by the way. Hunting is not a "sin," and should not be taxed like one. One of the things that has always struck me is the way that so many "environmentalists" seem to want the moon when other people are paying, when it's other peoples land being taken for protected habitat or for protected wetlands. They might be more sparing if they had to actually pay for property. To bring them back to reality, we need to spread the costs around to the "stakeholders" as they are called, who make claims to which they are not entitled. But, until that bright day when we have true "social justice," perhaps just a little "thanks" would be in order.

The Media Still Doesn't Get It

So, ok, there's a reason why Ann Coulter is a best selling author and commentator, and I am not. But she makes the same point I did in my report on the RTC rally: that the media just didn't get it. In her column today at Townhall.com entitled Wouldn't a Miniseries on Attila the Hun Explain Nancy Pelosi, Coulter captures the media's take on the both the Second Amendment March and the RTC rallies with her usual dry wit:

On her April 14 show, Maddow gave a "War of the Worlds" report on gun rights activists whom she claimed were planning tributes to Timothy McVeigh's bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City. "On the anniversary of the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh," she said, "there will be two marches on Washington."

After reminding viewers that McVeigh was "an anti-government extremist with ties to the militia movement" (his only "ties" being that he tried to join the Michigan Militia, but was rejected Maddow said one of the groups, the Second Amendment March, had "been holding armed rallies at state capitols from Kentucky to Montana to Virginia -- anti-government marches and rallies at which participants are encouraged to wear and display their guns."

So if I have this straight, the pro-Second Amendment marchers were both armed ... AND displaying guns!

Coulter goes on to explain that April 19 is also the anniversary of Lexington and Concord, the "shots heard 'round the world." She then makes a point of the fact that pretty much any day of the year can be the anniversary of something. And just to prove it, she points out that Rachel Maddow made the broadcast on April 14, the anniversary of the Lincoln assassination. What implications might that have? Hmmm.

What's curious about the left's current obsession with Timothy McVeigh is that it proves that -- despite a frantic search for 15 years -- liberals have come across no better evidence of burgeoning "right-wing extremist" violence than a drug-taking, self-described "agnostic" who was thrown out of the Michigan Militia and who proclaimed, "Science is my religion."

Go read the whole thing, if for no other reason than the entertainment value.

What Tea Partiers Want

In yesterday's Townhall.com, Jonah Goldberg had a good piece on the feelings that animate the Tea Parties in Tea Partiers A Delayed Bush Backlash. As Goldberg points out, with both Gore and Kerry, conservatives had no where else to go, so reluctantly voted for Bush. With McCain, they were again in a corner, with nowhere else to go. But neither Bush, nor McCain was, or is a conservative (except in the minds of far left radicals, that is.) Indeed, I often wondered about, and was amazed by, the evident Bush hatred on the left. Wasn't Bush accomplishing much of the Progressive/Marxist agenda? That it was a so-called Republican doing it would, I thought, make it that much more delicious.

According to last week's NYT/CBS poll of tea party supporters, 57 percent have a favorable view of Bush, but that hardly captures the nuance of tea party feelings. For instance, when Bush's face appeared on the Jumbotron in the arena, the Cincinnati audience applauded. When speakers criticized Bush and the GOP for "losing their way," the audience applauded even louder.

Going by what I saw in Cincinnati, second to a profound desire to rein in government, the chief attitude driving the 39 percent of tea partiers who describe themselves as "very conservative" isn't partisanship, racism or seizing the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. It's "we won't be fooled again." In the near term, that spells trouble for Obama and Democrats. In the long term, that lays down a serious gauntlet for Republicans.

We won't be fooled again. In my case, no more RINOs. If I don't have a good conservative candidate, who is solid on gun rights, I simply won't vote for that office. I will not acquiesce in the slow destruction of the Constitution that the last 100 years represents. No more.

They Didn't Get It

I attended the Restore the Constitution (RTC) rally yesterday. Mrs. PolyKahr and I arrived at Ft. Hunt Park, only to encounter everyone leaving for Gravelly Point, so we followed. After arriving at Gravelly Point, she dropped me off and went shopping. I will have more on the rally as I get settled again here at home. I took some pictures, and will post them as soon as I can figure out how to get them out of her camera, and into blogger.

The RTC rally was held on the banks of the Potomac, at the nearest point to the District of Columbia because there the participants would be allowed to have guns, and most did. Indeed, the press seemed more interested in the guns, which weren't that impressive, than they were in what the speakers had to say. Every speaker spoke about some aspect of the loss of our Constitution, and with it the loss of our freedoms and our representative Republic, through Unconstitutional legislation, through Supreme Court rulings that have not followed what are the fairly clear words and intentions of the Founders, or through power grabs by the Executive. But the press didn't get that. I listened to, or watched three broadcasts that showed the rally. Each of them insisted on calling it a "gun rally" and insisted on making everyone there out to be some kind of yahoo. They also insisted on pointing out that April 19 was the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. They didn't point out that it is also Patriots' Day, and the commemoration of the Ride of Paul Revere.

Fearing that the media would already have a template for the story, I avoided interviews. But one "journalist" did catch me. As I was waiting for Mrs. PolyKahr to pick me up, a "journalist" came up and asked if the demonstration was over. I said yes. He seemed disappointed. "I wanted to get some pictures..." "Of guys with guns?" I asked. He looked sheepish, but replied in the affirmative. I said the rally had not been about the guns. The guns had been to show the seriousness of our intentions. It had been about restoring Constitution governance to the Republic. His eyes seemed to glaze over, and he went on.

There were two protesters there! But they were certainly loud, and the press was eating them up. I wanted to tell them that they were probably in the safest place on earth at that moment, but the glower from the two women kept me from it. Apparently they seemed to think we were threatening them in some way, but were putting up a "brave" front to be there. Sheez.

Mike Vanderboegh gave a rousing speech, as you might expect. He wanted to impress on anyone listening that the last thing in the world they wanted, or we wanted, was a civil war. He was concerned that their side would keep pushing, and inadvertently start one. He was also at pains to state, for anyone who might be listening, that our side is through backing up. Mike V. had a lot of questions from the press as the guy who started the Window War. Ain't it funny how when they were bombing buildings, and shooting police officers, it was all good, but when someone breaks a few windows, suddenly they are scandalized.

Of course I also couldn't help being a bit of a fan boy. I met David Codrea, and got his picture. He estimated the crowd at the Second Amendment March to be a few thousand. By contrast, the RTC sported only 200 or so, with as many "journalists" as participants. Mike V graciously agreed to pose with me as well, and announced that he had completed Absolved, and will be sending it to the publisher soon.

Eye Witness to History

Stormbringer has a truly excellent eye witness account of how the Nazi Regime took over Austria and turned it slowly into a hell hole here.

I know it seems fantastic, and I must sound like a crazy person. People say "Oh, that'll never happen here. Your just being crazy as usual." But I believe we are heading down this road right now. We have been heading down this road for a very long time, but it is accelerating. It is time to wake up, and turn around now, while we still can.

Hitler didn't take Austria by force. Instead, he was invited in by a 98% vote of the people. He promised to put them back to work, and return the country to prosperity. Like every politician, he did give them some of that, but his price was the soul of the Austrian people. Wake up now.

Remember, if freedom is lost here, there is nowhere else on earth to run.

Progressives are Really Children

Robin of Berkeley has an invaluable post up at the American Thinker today entitledA funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Revolution. It is invaluable if you want to know how the other side sees things. A quote:

But a funny thing happened on my way to the revolution. That lightning bolt hit, and I changed forever.


And now I see that that progressivism is simply children acting out, thumbing their noses at Mommy and Daddy and God Himself. This explains the perpetual temper tantrums and the lost, vacant looks.


While kids are naturally self-centered, when adults behave this way, they're narcissists. Growing up means no longer placing oneself at the center of the universe.


It requires facing the facts: This existence is unfair and imperfect. No human being, no matter how charismatic, can change the nature of reality.

So, the other side sees things much as your 13 year old child does. Nice. They are about as mature as that too. But don't kid yourself, these people are still dangerous, and will likely become more so as their agenda unravels. Be watchful at TEA Party rallies, and at the RTC Rally at Fort Hunt Monday. When infiltrators start to act up, be sure to surround them and start yelling "Marxists!" to attract attention. Mostly though, be careful out there, and hope to see some of you around this week.

Restaurant Carry Bill Signed Into Law!

The Restaurant Carry Bill has been signed into law in Virginia. Great News. It takes effect on July 1, 2010. Too bad it won't be in effect while I am in Virginia this weekend, but I plan on taking advantage numerous times over the coming years.

Once again, congratulations to Philip Van Cleve and the members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League for making this happen. Enjoy the fruits of your labor.

"The Little Guy" v. The Constitution

Jonah Goldberg has a good article today at Townhall.com entitled Empathy and the Supreme Court in which he exposes the myth of the Progressives/Marxists take on the purposes of the Supreme Court. A quote:

For instance, liberals who like Stevens' rulings insist he understands the plight of the downtrodden, despite the fact that the nearly 90-year-old justice was born rich and has served on the court for almost 35 years, becoming more liberal as he has become more distant from life as lived by the little guys.

Meanwhile, Clarence Thomas was born dirt poor and black in rural Georgia and spends his vacations exploring America in an RV. But those same liberals insist he doesn't understand poverty and race the way Stevens does. How do they know? Because they don't like his rulings.

In other words, the empathy-for-the-little-guy standard is simply a Trojan horse for an approach just as abstract as any endorsed by the right. In fact, I would say it's more abstract because at least there's a text conservatives invoke -- the Constitution -- rather than the indefinable feeling of "empathy."

Meanwhile, David Harsanyi has even more sharp words for the Democratic majority in the Senate in today's Townhall.com entitled Senate v. The Constitution. Harsanyi says that the Progressive/Marxist Democrats plan to turn the confirmation hearings into a plan to turn Senate hearings into a referendum on "corporations vs. the common man."

To further quote:

But I wonder whether the average American believes, like Justice Stevens, that an unelected federal agency, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, should bypass Congress and, by fiat, regulate carbon dioxide, a chemical compound that permeates everything, without any consideration for cost or imposition or the electorate?

Do most average Americans, like Justice Stevens -- who dissented on the landmark Second Amendment case of District of Columbia v. Heller -- believe that once a judge deems something dangerous enough, that judge should empower government to ban it, even though that something happens to be explicitly protected by a constitutional amendment?...


Do they believe, like Justice Stevens, that local government should be permitted to throw American citizens off their own property and out of their homes? Do they concur that government should then be able to hand that property over to other private citizens simply because they can pay more taxes? Because, in Kelo v. City of New London, Stevens, writing for the majority, radically expanded the idea of property as "public use."

As usual, Republicans do not have the votes to stop the Progressives/Marxists from putting their man or woman on the Supreme Court. But they can derail more of Obama's agenda, and they can force a debate on the merits of sticking to the original meaning of the Constitution as best it can be determined. That would be a worthwhile endeavor. Are the Republicrats up for it? Interestingly enough, I think the Constitution was written with "The Little Guy" in mind, to protect his rights against powerful interests. Too bad the Progressives/Marxists don't see that, or do they?

A Foreign Philosophy

Vin Suprynowicz has an unusually good rant on, called Please don't call it 'State Socialism' that points out that most of what we have come to think of as American innovations were actually German innovations from a century earlier.

The modern Prussian police state was built by Bismarck and others in the 19th century on a Spartan model, giving the central government vastly greater control over the individual than had ever been considered possible before.

From government control of the schools to health care, the whole idea was to create an obedient populace that would man the factories and produce large and obedient broods for the armies without every questioning the orders of the central authority.

Bismarck’s program centered squarely on insurance programs designed to increase support for the ever larger and more powerful government. The program included health insurance, Workman’s Compensation, disability insurance, and old-age retirement pensions, all innovations at the time.

Starting with the model of Prussian compulsion schooling, American “educators” starting with John Dewey and Edward Thorndike eagerly imported this Prussian model to America.


Trained to accept such state control (and now the new “Green” religion) in the schools for most of the last century, then made dependent on government insurance programs (Social Security, Medicare) as surely as the pimp makes sure his young ladies are dependent on the needle and the fix only he can provide, slavery to the state soon appears inescapable, even ordained by God and nature.

Why, it’s a good thing! In exchange for the possibility of ever becoming truly exceptional, of growing rich based on our own efforts, it rewards us with … “security.”

And so we come to love our chains.

All very good for the Germans. But ours was to be a Constitutional Republic, and we were supposed to be citizens, not subjects. We, the people, do not work for the state, but for ourselves. I have met people, who say to me when I talk about the need to reduce spending "well, just don't touch my social security," then give a little giggle, as if they know their attitude is wrong. When I ask, "But even if it means your children and grand children will be in debt?" they just change the subject. And so we come to love our chains.

Way Up North: Righting the Wrongs

Way Up North: Righting the Wrongs

Let me just say "Hear, hear." Rev. Paul has hit one out of the park. Just read the whole thing. I've got nothing to add.

Nationalizing Businesses to Save Profits

Dan Kennedy has an interesting article today on Townhall.com entitledLet's Outlaw YOUR Business Next. If the "reasoning" that has been publicly expressed for the Government to take over student loans is correct, then the title question is a valid one. The "reasoning" goes like this:

-At each stage of the process that brings consumer goods to the public, there are middlemen who create a market.

-Each middleman siphons a small profit off the transaction.

-If each such middleman could be cut out, why huge amounts of money could be saved by the average consumer.

-We could all hold hands and sing Kumbaya around the camp fire.

Such "reasoning" is actually sophomoric, and one soon learns when one starts into business that so called "middlemen" are the indispensable men in bringing any commodity to market.

Imagine, for a moment, that there are no commodities markets, no packagers, or wholesalers, and that each farmer has to do all of these things himself, and retail his product himself. Let's take a farmer who grows corn. In the real world, he sells his crop before it is planted to a trader on the commodities market, or to a packager as the case may be. The farmer is assured of getting something for his crop, and the buyer ties up the crop at a know price. The farmer could theoretically sell his crop for a higher price if he sold directly to the consumer, but there are risks to doing so that are borne instead by the traders in the commodities market. But in our tale, our farmer instead has to sell directly to the consumer. But what if he doesn't get it all sold before it spoils? Well, so now the farmer has to set up a canning factory to can his corn. Of course, his canning factory will only operate for a month or so out of the year, and sit idle the rest of the year. Does having a little canning factory at each corn farm sound like a good use of funds to you? I could go on, but by now you probably get my point. Each grower of corn would need to have canning factories, warehouses, put up with inspectors from the health department and the agriculture department, and on and on. His invested capital would be enormous.

Middlemen in the system actually make the system more efficient. And profits? Profits are a way of accounting for, or monetizing, the risks each takes even if he performs everything correctly. The bigger the risks, the bigger the profit. But, The One knows better. He is smarter than all the folks who have worked the system out over the centuries. He is smarter than even history, as Kennedy says:

So to the news media, if you get around to noticing this latest nationalization, here’s an obvious for you to pose. (And you should refuse to have it laughed off or shrugged off or dodged by Robert Gibbs or an administration economic advisor or even by The One Himself): If it makes sense to cut out the middlemen by government takeover of one industry, (a) why not do it with every industry? And (b) why is this such an unmitigated disaster everywhere it’s tried, here or abroad, in history or at present?

Obama Not In Touch with Reality?

If this analysis of our "Dear Leader" is anywhere near correct, America is in big trouble. Floyd and MaryBeth Brown have penned a piece today at Townhall.com that paints a disturbing picture of Obama Off the Deep End. In it, the Browns point out with specific instances where Obama has shown signs of extreme narcisism (not a new observation), being out of touch with people, not being vary empathetic with people who are suffering. A quote:

In March of last year Obama was on "60 Minutes" with Steve Kroft. Throughout the interview as Kroft questioned about the economic downturn and people losing their life savings, Obama just kept laughing. A one point CBS's Kroft stopped him and asked, "Are you punch drunk?" How will the American people react to seeing their president laugh off their predicament? Obama's inappropriate laughter clearly demonstrated he has lost touch with the pain that people are feeling.

I was surprised that Obama was having $100 per pound steak at a state dinner, but it was early then, and I shrugged it off. I was also surprised when he went to New York with Michelle on that "date night." The extravagence of both items, in light of the recession, seemed to send a "Let them eat cake!" message to the "commoners." Another quote:

Obama is, according to Newt Gingrich, "potentially the most dangerous (president), because he so completely misunderstands reality." Gingrich was referring to Obama's inept and weak stance on missile defense amongst other things. Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that Obama is an amateur; so much for wowing the world. Obama lives in an alternate universe where he treats our friends poorly and expects our enemies to change and become our friends. Here's hoping that the voters help to connect this president back to reality in November.

Obama's approval rating was recently at an all time low of 43%. More and more people are seeing Obama for who he really is, instead of who he portrayed himself to be during the campaign. But truthfully, even a committed Marxists should not be comfortable with an individual the flawed sitting in the White House.

Parting Company

Walter Williams asks today at Townhall.com whether we have reached the time for Parting Company. Professor Williams points out that there have been several peaceable secessions in history. I agree that it is theoretically possible. But I also have a question. What is to prevent those who are now abrogating the Constitution from infiltrating the Constitutionally governed lands and taking over again? We know going in that these people have an unquenchable thirst to impose their ideas on everyone else, whereas we just want to be left alone. So how do we protect ourselves once we, as Williams puts it, part company?

What ObamaCare was Really About

Byron York, writing in Townhall.com today tells us What Was ObamaCare Really About. It turns out it was really about redistribution of wealth, but then I don't think anyone is too surprised to find that out. York, quoting Sen. Max Baucus:

Health reform is "an income shift," Democratic Sen. Max Baucus said on March 25. "It is a shift, a leveling, to help lower-income, middle-income Americans."

In his halting, jumbled style, Baucus explained that in recent years, "the maldistribution of income in America has gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle-income class is left behind." The new healthcare legislation, Baucus promised, "will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America."

And why is that Senator? So what if a CEO makes $84 million and I only make $75 thousand. How am I hurt by that? If they earned it legitimately, then I presume that everybody won, and since I have no stake in their game, how am I hurt? And how am I helped by you taking them down a notch or two for me? Will I get more money as a result? No? Didn't think so. So, what's really going on here is a cynical game in which you get enough people envious of what others have, then steal their money and proclaim yourself a hero. I call that crooked and corrupt.

On the other hand, when you and other members of your party bailed out some Wall Street bankers, who then turned around and granted themselves bonuses, now that did hurt me. You see, you took the money I pay in taxes, and you gave it to them. Now, I could have used that money to help my own family. Instead, it was stolen from me at the point of a gun. Now that really riles me up. If the Wall Street bankers needed a bailout to stay afloat, they should have been allowed to fail. In bankruptcy court, many of their burdens could have been reduced or lifted, and some day they might emerge again as healthy companies. But no, you had to bail them out, and hurt all us "lower-income and middle-income Americans" you claim to be helping.

What humbug.

Tea Partiers vs. Progressives

Micheal Barone has an excellent article today at Townhall.com explaining the difference between the TEA Partiers and the Progressives entitled Tea Partiers Embrace Liberty, not Big Government. Precisely. Here's a quote:

The first mention of tea parties came in February 2009 from CNBC's Rick Santelli on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, when he asked "if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages. How many of you people want to pay your neighbor's mortgage, that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" Then he called for a Chicago tea party.

This struck a chord. Tea partiers began to dress in 18th century costumes -- political re-enactors -- and brandished the "Don't tread on me" flag. They declared their independence by opposing Progressive policies that encourage dependence on government.

The Progressives have always assumed that people needed safety nets and would welcome dependence on government. The public's clear rejection of the Democratic health care bills has shown that this assumption was unwarranted. Americans today prefer independence to dependence on government, just as they did 200 years ago.

Amazingly, we would rather do it ourselves. Who would have thunk it? It's fun to observe a child growing up. I am amazed when watching my grand daughter, that she wants to do everything herself. That streak of independence never goes away. We'll do it ourselves. If we need help, we'll ask an expert, whom we are more than happy to pay for his services on an as needed basis. But in general, we would rather see to most things ourselves.

TEA Partiers have also read the Constitution, a document that seems much easier to read and more straight forward than the lawyers would like us to believe. In it, We the People granted to the Federal Government a few, defined powers. Note that the Sovereign and independent States created the Federal Government, not the other way around. We remain, not one nation, but a federation of 50 (not 57) Sovereign States. Draw your own conclusions.