Obama's status as a Christian

David Limbaugh wrote an article in the Washington Examiner Friday that attempts to answer the question Is Obama a Christian?. You'll have to read the whole thing to find out what Limbaugh believes. But you can be sure, if you are familiar with his work, that he is, shall we say, skeptical.

In some ways, Obama exhibits a worldview that more closely resembles a secularist than it does either a Muslim or a Christian, especially in his views on social issues. Also, he seems to place a great deal of confidence in himself and in government to bring about transformational change.

That fits with what I said about his religion:

Personally, I don't really think he is a Muslim, but I surely don't think he is a Christian either. I think that his god is himself, and that he is trying his best to make our god (is) the State. I say he is not Christian because too many of the policies favored by him do not line up with what the Bible teaches.

FWIW, I don't think the guy recognizes a power higher than himself.

Sunday Morning Thoughts

James Lewis has an interesting think piece today on Fascism as Sadism at the American Thinker. A quote or two to give you a feel for the piece:

In his book Liberal Fascism Jonah Goldberg defines "fascism" as an economic and political system. There's nothing wrong with that, but it misses a vital truth about Mussolini, Hitler and Tojo, Saddam Hussein and Ahmadinejad: The political use of sadism to recruit millions of followers in a campaign of pleasurable punishment against a scapegoated person or group. Read about the Japanese rape of Nanking, if you can stand it, and you'll see thousands of literal rapes as well as sadistic torture and killing of Chinese people by Japanese soldiers as a matter of policy and for psychological satisfaction.

Goldberg is under no illusion that such regimes always turn on their own people, and that mass murder always follows. But in writing his book, he had to take a scholarly approach to the subject to simply be taken seriously. There is something deep in human nature that wants to believe in the existence of philosopher kings. They want to believe it so badly, that when told that such people do not exist, the react like children when told that Santa Claus is a myth.

Huge chunks of our history have been lost, glossed over, or outright revised.  The history channel, for instance, concentrates on the war, the tactics and strategy, the soldiers and generals, but doesn't pay much attention to the politics at home leading up to WWII.  In the 1930s, Mussolini in particular, and Hitler to a lesser extent were lionized by our media.  Just as today, Thomas Friedman wishes to have a government more like China's, so too our media then longed for a strong dictator who would make the trains run on time.  Mussolini had the reputation of making the trains run on time, but press at the time glossed over his treatment of dissidents.  Because Mussolini's victims were not an identifiably "different" group of people as were the Jews, he seems to get a pass.  But Mussolini was a ruthless dictator, and the Italian people were glad to get rid of him.

Many see something of the same pattern happening today, when criticism of the policies of The One are shouted down or dismissed as racism or hatred.  But when, for instance, polls show that 80% of people are happy with their health insurance plan, calling opposition to ObamaCare racism defies logic and reason.  Remember that the same health care plan was shot down when it was billed as HilaryCare.  Oh that's right, then it was sexism.

Today the Marxist, Communists, Fascists, Socialists, collectivists bill themselves as "Progressives."  But what the Progressives want is not progress, and if they named themselves truthfully, it would be "Regressive."  They want to regress us back to the time when we were ruled by the strongest thug.  Such men always sold the people a mess of pottage in return for their liberties.  As the ancient Hebrews asked God for a king to lead them, so today some would place their trust in mere men.  As the Hebrews discovered to their horror, men can not deliver on their promises.  We must rely on God alone.

Which brings us to our own self defense, both individually and as a nation:

In civilized societies armed force is always used with the greatest self-discipline possible. That is a defining feature of civilized societies compared to all the others. Self-discipline in the use of force is not a reflection of cowardice, like so much of the left's vaunted pacifism. Self-discipline is an aspect of courage and civilized purpose.

A Federal Constitutional Republic like ours, founded on the providence of God, will always be seen as the enemy to the dictators of other lands that rely on men. We need to be ready to defend it at all times, just as the modern Israelites need to be ready to defend Israel at all times.  We must never be ashamed of our defense, but must constantly guard against using our arms to wage aggressive wars.  "With malice toward none, and charity for all" must be our byword.  As such, we must consciously maintain our arms, and our facility with arms, not for war, but to avoid war.  Even a Progressive occasionally gets it right.  Teddy Roosevelt famously said "Walk softly, and carry a big stick."

I carry a gun most places I go.  I carry it for defense of myself and my family.  I carry a gun because I can.  I carry a gun as a citizen performing civic duty.  Do I expect trouble?  No, and if I did, I would avoid going to that place.  I pray to God that I will never have to use it.  I also pray that I will never have to use my automobile insurance.  Mike Vanderboegh has a post over at  Sipsey Street Irregulars that provides a history lesson for those who want to initiate a civil war.  Mr. V calls such people simpletons.  Perhaps.  But I think they are Leftist agents, attempting to get the three percent riled up.  Remember what I said earlier?  I pray to God that we don't have to go to war.  Mike's response was excellent, but Mike did not begin to touch on what is available to us.  In addition to acts of resistance, which can be performed by individuals, the States themselves are moving to reassert their sovereignty over that of the Fed.  But mostly what each of us has to do is recognize that we are moral actors, responsible to our Creator for our actions.    

May the peace of God be with you.

You might be a liberal if....

Stormbringer has this bit of humor. Thanks to Theo Sparks for highlighting it. As the commenter says, it spot on describes the what we on the right see every day. If we appear to them as racist, jingoistic, war mongering, knuckle dragging haters, they appear to us to be raging children who refuse to grow up and use logic.  Still, for a little chuckle, read the whole thing.

The god of Obama

C. Edmund Wright had an article several days ago at the American Thinker that is both funny, and tragic at the same time, entitled He's Not a Muslim ("Not That There's Anything Wrong with That")!. Go read the whole thing. The piece starts like this:

With two major polls out this week showing that many millions of Americans think the president is Muslim, the Jurassic media's panicked reaction can be characterized only as hilariously Seinfeld-esque. And by Seinfeld-esque, I refer to the famous episode where Jerry and George are mistaken for a gay couple -- a charge they recoil from in horror while repeating the line, "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

I think we all get the implication. And we have all heard the media shouting this week that Obama is not a Muslim -- not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

Pamella Geller made the case that he himself claimed to be a Muslim in hiding here. She then proceeded to make the case that on a number of issues, Obama has taken stances consistent with being a Muslim. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and all that, what should a rational person conclude?

Personally, I don't really think he is a Muslim, but I surely don't think he is a Christian either.  I think that his god is himself, and that he is trying his best to make our god the State.  I say he is not Christian because too many of the policies favored by him do not line up with what the Bible teaches.

Take for example, his many attempts to "redistribute the wealth."  It all sounds good, doesn't it?  After all, Jesus said that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.  Therefore, if we take (steal really) that rich man's money, we will be saving his soul, right?  That's how it is justified, or if not, then its that the rich man stole the wealth from the common man.  Except he didn't.  Not without the help and the collusion of the very government that voters now expect to make things right.  The fact that Bill Gates is worth a kings ransom doesn't hurt me in any way, and if I get the government to take away his money, it will not make me one cent richer.  People usually stop quoting right there, where the rich man can not enter heaven, because they want to get those who have to share.  They imply that a poor man is somehow more noble.  But Jesus doesn't say that.  Having money, and therefor having the means is what enabled the good Samaritan to be the good Samaritan.  Ponder on that!

Take as another example his attitude toward abortion.  He has advocated, while a State Senator for killing, by neglect those children who might be born alive despite the efforts to kill them in the womb.  Most of us would call such a child a miracle, and suspect that God had great things planned for him.  Abortion is always homicide.  Rarely it can be seen as self defense, when carrying the child to term is literally killing the mother.  A case could also be made for women who were raped.  Beyond that, abortion is murder.  All three Abrahamic faiths enjoin us not to murder.  So how could The One advocate for murder?

Recall that during his campaign, he uttered the line "We are the ones we've been waiting for."  The line doesn't make logical sense.  Why in the world would you be waiting on yourself?  But if the god of Obama is himself, and if the god of his followers is the State, then the line at least has a little more coherence.

Update:  Today Mr. Wright has yet another great article at the American Thinker entitled Let Me Translate: We Don't Believe Him-Or You. A little taste:

We know Jeremiah Wright rejects America's Founding principles -- which are consistent with what we call Christianity -- and many of us believe our founding principles were Divinely inspired. Moreover, we know that Obama is on board with Wright on this -- at least to the point of claiming that our Constitution is flawed in how it grants individual rights and liberty. We happen to think that rights Obama wants to curtail come from our Creator.

We know Obama has appointed proud and unabashed Marxists into his government. We happen to know that Marxism is by definition anti-Christian. We know he has confiscated wealth of others to redistribute to his union thug friends under false pretenses. We know he turned his back on Iranian protestors in lieu of an Islamic regime. We know he publicly defers to folks like Chavez and Saudi royalty more than he does Texas and Arkansas governors. On and on we could go here.

So what is so blamed obvious?

What is left unsaid in Wright's article is that the media has a "social justice" understanding of Christianity. But "social justice" is nowhere in the gospels. What the gospels do talk about, quite a lot, is God's infinite loving grace, and our proper response to that. Remember the first commandment-Love God, and if you love God, you will also love your neighbor and do right by him. That is the justice of the gospels.

Something Different

How about something different?  Something totally out of the character of this blog?

Today and tomorrow I will be making bread.  And not just any bread, but sourdough bread.  Bread is a staple, but home made bread is also a comfort food for both Mrs. PolyKahr and myself.  She loves it hot out of the oven, as do I.  Of course, I can't indulge my fondness of bread too often or I'll get fatter than I already am.  But my grand daughter likes it, and likes helping me make it, so I do so maybe once a month.  I like baking bread, I like kneading the dough, the miracle of it rising, getting a real oven lift, and watching as people enjoy it.

I got the sourdough starter here (note to Internet spies, I have not benefited in any way from King Arthur Flour. The only relationship we have ever had was as a customer and vendor.) It is advertised to have been descended from a starter at least 200 years old. In any case, it works very well in my kitchen.  If you have ever made beer, you know how clean and sanitized everything needs to be, and if you have made enough, you know that even that doesn't always keep your product from becoming infected.  Sourdough, on the other hand, is fairly bulletproof.  Sourdough consists of a culture of wild yeasts and lactobacillus that in tandem pretty much excludes anything else getting into it.  I have kept mine, which I call Fred, going for two years now.

This time of year, when it is really hot outside, sourdough bread tends to rise quickly.  I have air conditioning, but naturally we keep it on the warm side to save money.  Even so, what takes several hours at 65 degrees in the winter can take as little as 45 minutes in the summer at 80 degrees.  Indeed, since the flavor of the bread is affected by how much time it spends in the various risings, it becomes a challenge to slow it down, or speed it up according to the temperature and humidity on any given day.  The net result is that no two sourdough breads are the same, even if made in the same kitchen, by the same person using the same starter.  It's like wine that way.

I have been working on my classic sourdough bread for two years now, and I am getting pretty good at making a reliable loaf.  My first loaves were misshapen, and cutting the slit down the top was a hit or miss thing.  Getting the crust to have that nice brown look also took some figuring out.  But, I have mastered these skills, to an extent.  My next challenge is to make ciabatta.  In order to make it, I want to acquire a sturdy stand mixer with a bread hook attachment, like this from Kitchenaid (note: I haven't had any relationship with Kitchenaid whatsoever.) Ciabatta dough is a sticky dough, to which one's first instinct is to add too much flour. The mixer with the bread hook on it allows kneading without adding additional flour, this making a nice, soft, slack dough.  One feature of ciabatta is that it has really large holes in the crumb.  Too much flour inhibits the making of those holes.  

Did Obama Tell Egyptian Foreign Minister "I am a Muslim"?

Pamella Geller over at Atlas Shrugs has a post up entitled "I Am a Muslim" Obama tells Egyptian Foreign Minister Gheit Islamic Coup on the White House making the case that Obama is in fact a crypto-Muslim. Go read the whole thing; it will take a while. I'll wait.

Surprise, surprise! In addition to being a Progressive/Marxist/Fascist/Socialist he is also a Muslim.  Well, well... One wonders if Obama thinks of himself as the next Calif?  In all seriousness, I think Ammadinnerjacket has the same idea.

The god of Islam-this so called Allah, is not the God that we Christians worship, and that we still hope our Jewish friends will one day come to know.  It is also not the God in whom we place our trust.  Our God desires that men and women come to have a relationship with him of our own free will.  He is the God who sent is Son, who was called Jesus, to us out of love for us, and we killed his Son.  Still, the Son of God had mercy on us, and still asks us to have a close relationship with him.  The Allah worshipers believe this makes Christians pagans.  They don't understand that God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is just one God, manifesting himself to us differently in different situations.  We pray to God, in the name of his Son.  They do not understand that our God can truly do anything, be everywhere at all times, is omnipotent.  To say that God is great is to sell Him short.  But to know God, one must know the Son.

On the other hand, this so called Allah partakes of none of that.  He demands submission, and like all tyrants, a failure to submit is punishable by death, preferably a horrible death.  Still, Muslims have a right to worship and pray to whom, and as they wish-so long as they obey our laws that are written in accordance with our Constitution.  They have not.  They have murdered 3,000 or our citizens on 9/11/2001, and many of their own in so called "honor killings."  These things, and others, make those who subscribe to the Muslim faith suspect.  We have a right to self defense, and our right to free association says we have the right to not allow more of these people to enter our country.  We shouldn't.

Now they want to build a Mosque 60 steps away from, and overlooking ground zero.  New York planners, and Councilmen have moved heaven and earth to make this Mosque happen.  They have ignored the name of the Mosque, the Cordoba House.  Meanwhile, the Greek Orthodox church, which was destroyed in the 9/11 attack, St. Nicholas, can't seem to be rebuilt.  You think there might be some hypocrisy going on there?  This is not about rights.  If this was about "rights" then the Anthony Martin's piece in the Conservative Examiner would all be a sad joke. But it is not. This Mosque is a trophy for Islam and its god Allah.  At the same time, Progressives/Marxist?Fascists attack Christianity at all levels. Why, if the Mosque about religious liberty? Do not Christians deserve similar consideration?  Christian Americans can not let this stand.

Meanwhile, the mask keeps coming off.  It turns out our President, who assured us he was a Christian, may actually be a Muslim, by his own words.  What other lies did he tell us during the campaign.  For those of you who are Obama supporters, when will enough be enough?  Or is there nothing that will turn you away from him?

Update:  If you've stayed with me this long, take a look at Eternity Road in this post by Mark Alger. No wonder the Left and Islam seem to get along so well.

The Restore the Constitution Rally at Greensboro

The Restore the Constitution (RTC) rally in Greensboro went off without a hitch.  The Leftist counter protesters never showed up.  I had anticipated them trying to provoke trouble.  Also largely absent were the news media, though Channel 14 had a guy scouting out the scene.  The lack of media was in contrast to the Washington (really Virginia) RTC where there were at least as many media as there were attendees.  This rally seemed to be larger than the Washington rally, and I would estimate the crowd at around 200-250 persons.  About three fourths of the attendees were carrying rifles, mostly of the AR-15 and clones variety, though I saw several guys carrying M1 Garands and at least one K98 Mauser (or that is what it looked like from a distance.)

I set up early under some shade along the brick walkway, and this proved to be fortuitous, because most speakers entered and left along the walkway.  One of the speakers was Bubba of the blogWhat Bubba Knows. And what Bubba knows about the BATFE is apparently quite devastating to their egos.  He suggested that they should get real jobs as law enforcement officers.  As it is, they are really just tax collectors, who shouldn't be allowed to carry guns, raid the property of innocent citizens, and generally terrorize the citizenry for exercising rights that "shall not be infringed."  Bubba didn't say this, but the idea of taxing a right is Constitutionally suspect.  After all, weren't poll taxes struck down?  On what basis?  If governments can not impose a poll tax, how can they impose a tax on guns?

B. J. Lawson, running against the infamous David E. Price for Congress from the 4th District, spoke, as did Bill Randall running in the 13th District.  Of the two, I felt Randall to be the more conservative.  But both candidates indicated support for all of our rights, including gun rights.  Bill Randall, however, again stressed the theme that we should all be getting right with God, for without God on our side, our cause is ultimately lost.  With God, all things are possible, without God, nothing is.  November will be interesting.

Mike Vanderboegh and your host, PolyKahr at the Washington RTC Rally

You can see the other speakers at the Restore the Constitution website. Due to time constraints, Daniel Almond's talk was quite limited, and Mike Vanderboegh had to cut his talk altogether. But you can find his talk here. Mike did give a history lesson on the battle of Guilford Court House after the rally was over, but I need to get home, so did not stay for it.

By the way, Mike indicated his feet are healing nicely, and he did seem to be getting around better without a cane.  I will keep praying for him, as I hope others will too.

Update:  Randy Dye has a video of the talk given by Bubba McDowell.  Take a listen.
Sipsey Street Irregulars has a report on the rally from David Codrea and Western Rifle Shooters Association.

Oh Baby Baby!

Ann Coulter has an article dated August 4, 2010 (here linked to the Universal Uclick site) entitled Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies Ann Coulter is a lawyer, who worked in the Reagan administration, and does a solid job of research. Of course, Ms. Coulter also makes a dry subject entertaining, and this article is no different.  Her point, in writing this article is...well...let Ms. Coulter tell it:

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you're 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

One question I have is how are the children of legal aliens treated?  Would a woman staying here on a visa, who had a child while here, suddenly be able to stay because she was the mother of a United States citizen?  I don't think so.  Clearly, at the end of the woman's visa, she would be sent back to her country, baby in her arms, no doubt with good wishes and a hearty bon voyage.

I have spoken about the motivations of politicians on both sides of the aisle here. Neither party is to be trusted on this question.  But it is in their best interests to throw up as much flack as possible in order to get something called "comprehensive immigration reform." But as pointed out in an article in today's American Thinker by Cindy Simpson entitled What A Difference Five Years Makes, Congress held hearings 5 years ago and concluded that:

No Constitutional amendment or new statute is necessary, since "the existing one tracks the language of the Fourteenth Amendment precisely," requiring only a "resolution," "Executive Order," "Solicitor General Opinion," "or other alternatives to underline what Congress' intent is." A review of the transcript of the hearing shows that all present agreed (some reluctantly) that the Constitution did not authorize the present anchor baby practice.

Simply clarifying the original intent of the 14th Amendment here would go far toward eliminating the magnate that currently draws thousands of illegal immigrants across the border, along with countless gang members and other criminals. 

But I guess such little acts are not bold enough for this Congress or this Regime.

Way Up North: Running Out of Boxes

Way Up North: Running Out of Boxes

Go read the whole thing, it is very good. I would only add that in addition, we must all make renewed effort to hold on to our faith that God will not abandon us. As Glenn Beck says, expect miracles. Look for the hand of God in everything, and pray.

The War on Guns: Funny How That Works

The War on Guns: Funny How That Works

The article linked to by David Codrea is excellent. In addition to noting that the introduction of flintlock firearms in the 1600s brought about the largest reduction in the homicide rate in English history, the survey of the relative freedom to own guns in other countries of Europe is stunning. Go and read the whole thing. You may learn a thing or two, as I did.

Fool Me Once, Shame on You, Fool Me Twice...

Lee Cary has an article up at the American Thinker today entitled How A GOP November Victory Could Bring Its Death. The piece says what many Conservatives and Constitutionalists are feeling right now:

Still feeling betrayed by the GOP's failure to live up to its promises going back to soon after the Contract with America, conservative voters are preparing to march to the polls in decisive numbers, but not with wild-eyed enthusiasm for the GOP. As they vote to oust the current Democrat Congress, under their breath, they'll be muttering the warning, "This is your last chance, Republicans."

I am already thinking that if the Republican running for State Representative doesn't look sufficiently conservative, rather than vote for the lesser evil, I will not vote at all in that race. I am tired beyond tears at so called "conservatives" who want to get along with the left. Note to Conservatives and Constitutionalists: you can not get along with Leftists. It's not that these people are bad people in the traditional sense. But as Reagan said, "it's that they know so much that ain't so," and feel a huge need to impose it on the rest of us. While Leftists may be charming and personable, their policies can not be reconciled with ours. It is like oil and water. To continue the analogy, there is no emulsifier to bring them together. Either you are for big government, or for limited government. Either you believe in a fixed Constitution, whose meaning can be changed only through the amendment process, or you believe in a "living document." Either you believe in individual rights, or you believe in positive rights. There is no middle ground.

The other thing that the Republicans will have to realize going in, and steel themselves against.  The Left will whine and cry, and call them the vilest names over even the most innocuous proposals.  They will accuse you of hating children, of being racist, of hating poor people, or whatever.  It isn't true, so just get used to it.

I just hope the Republicans I am supporting get it.

Why We Keep Guns

Courtesy of Keep and Bear Arms, an incredibly useful website with news from all over the place comes Gun Rights from a Different Angle. Naturally you need to read the whole thing, with clenched teeth if need be. The author, who styles himself as a cartoon version of a country hillbilly, includes all the cliches in his "satire" including the "bible and guns" bit and the ever popular sexual innuendo.  But this guy is serious.  He really doesn't see a use for guns, and therefore can't imagine someone else coming to a different conclusion.

Now, read the comments provided by Ryan.  Other than a post I ran in 2008 on Why the Gun is Civilisation, this is one of the best explications of the question "why?"  With due credit to Ryan, and hoping that he would give his permission if I were to ask, I will quote his entire comment here:

Bob,

Overall, not funny or accurate and a bit offensive. I own a few guns, each tailored for a specific purpose, but I'm not an NRA member, nor a member of any other gun rights/gun control organization. I feel that your understanding of those who vigorously support the 2nd Amendment is woefully lacking, and you approach it as a "I see no use for guns, therefore no one else has any use for them" issue. If you haven't been given a "reason," then it's either because you don't accept their reason as being valid or you simply aren't really trying to find an answer--because you already have 'your' answer. Regardless, I'll give you some reasons, since you feel that simply having the right to do something isn't good enough.

As a human, I know better than to place full trust in other humans. When the going gets tough, there are very few people that you can trust not to look out for themselves first, at the expense of those around them. This applies to any situation, be it political or a real survival scenario. Even in the best of times, we still have humans preying on other humans, either for profit or for pleasure. In the worst of times, such as after a natural disaster or in lawless regions, this human behavior of looking out for yourself and "to hell with everyone else" is amplified. In either of these times, those charged with keeping order (law enforcement) are rarely, if ever, there when the chaos starts, and the first minute/hour/day is left solely up to the victims and the perpetrators. In that short window, you can have everything taken from you by people who don't care about you, but for themselves. Your family, your home, your life, gone to satisfy the desires of someone else.

But what if you could do something about it? What if simply by making it known that you will not be a victim, you could avoid all that heartache, pain, and loss? Doesn't your family look to you for protection? Are you not their provider, their caretaker? Isn't it your responsibility, your duty, to protect those that you love and those that depend on you to live? If you don't think so, then you should probably tell you wife and children that you won't try to help them, and that they should just wait for 911 to show up. At least that way, they won't be under the disillusion that their father actually cares enough to protect them, and they should have a backup plan.

If you do want to protect them, then how best to do it? Naturally, you avoid dangerous situations as much as possible, do everything you can to not make yourself a target, but what if it does happen? Do you call the police, hide, and hope for the best? Or will you be a parent and defend that which you hold most precious? Most importantly, HOW will you defend? What could possibly put you on the same level as one, two, three large male attackers, possibly armed? If only you had something that was easily accessible, could be held in the palm of your hand, and could be pointed at the threat to make it go away. You might not even have to use it--just letting the threat know it may sustain significant injury or loss of life by attempting to victimize you could deter it.

Luckily, such things do exist. Handguns level the playing field. It doesn't matter if your young, old, male, female, built, or scrawny, you will still be able to defend yourself with a handgun at a second's notice, so long as you know how to use your firearm and you practice. Simply displaying a handgun often makes would-be attacks decide to find a softer target. It's called a Show of Force, and it's a principle that's used world-wide by every civilization. And if the threat persists, then it does so at its own peril. This isn't to say that handguns aren't abused and used improperly. When people willing to break the law are banned from having them, they will frequently find ways of obtaining them and they will use them as tools to aid their criminal ways. When people who want to stay right with the law are banned, they remain defenseless and become victims. We've seen this everywhere such a ban has been enacted.

It doesn't have to be guns, Bob. The guns are just a means to an end. It could be a device that lets you set people on fire with your mind, or pill that you could take that let you fling people across the room with telekinesis, or a damn board with a nail in it. It doesn't matter, so long as it's the most effective means for me to defend myself and my family, and ensure that they are given the best shot at life that I can provide for them. As it happens, guns are the most effective means ("expressly designed to kill humans as efficiently as possible") that we have today. You know it, I know it, and all of our politicians, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who are packing heat know it. Maybe in 100 years someone will be having this argument over the right to keep and bear photon cannons, but it will still be the same exact principle.

I'm loathe to get into "assault rifles," because first I have to explain to you the difference between that term and the "assault weapons" term that you're confusing it with. Civilian ownership of "assault rifles" is prohibited, unless you get permission and a permit from the federal government, which you have to renew regularly. It's not easy. "Assault weapons," on the other hand, such as the AR-15's most people are familiar with and even the civilian model of the AK-47 are not the same as assault rifles, as they are not "select fire weapons." They fire in semi-automatic, one shot per pull of the trigger, only. Real AK-47's fire in single shot/fully automatic, and M-16's (the military equivalent of the AR-15) can fire in single shot, 3-round burst, or full auto. You can't go down to the gun store and buy any weapon that functions like that. The Assault Weapons category also includes modern handguns that hold over 10 rounds and shotguns that can adjust their butt-stocks to properly fit your arm length. For reference, I own a rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol that, for one reason or another, all classify as an "assault weapon." Now that that's out of the way, we can move on to the reason.

The rifles in question are the most technologically advanced firearms that fulfill nearly every role conceivable. A semi-automatic rifle can be used to do everything a hunting rifle can, plus be useful for any form of tactical situation at any time of day against any type of target, with the correct ammo. With my semi-auto chambered in .308 I can take down a buck to feed my family or protect my land/house/country from any human threat short of an armored vehicle. The semi-automatic rifle such as the AR-10/15 is a versatile firearm that can generally be outfitted with any number of attachments, making it useful in daylight, darkness, poor weather, or harsh terrain. A magazine capacity of 20 or more rounds ensures proper redundancy for any situation, regardless if you need one round to drop a deer at 500 yards, three rounds to drop an intruder at 2.5 yards (ideally I'd be using my shotgun or handgun, however, for my neighbor's sake), or 20 rounds to keep the mob from looting your house and burning it to the ground. Bottom line: it is efficient and useful in any situation. It's BETTER than a handgun, because it's more accurate, holds more ammo, and generally has more power. The only drawback is that it isn't easily accessible like a handgun.

Those are my direct, honest, human answers, Bob. Not nearly as succinct as "because I can," but I also had more time to answer than the people you may have asked. I own these weapons, not because I want to use them, but because I'm prepared use them protect my family, myself, and my fellow man against the realities of this world using the most effective means possible. End of story.

I'm not going to go into all of the reasons our fore fathers felt we needed firearms, most notably of which was to keep our government in check, because that would be my 'political' reasons for owning such weapons, not my "human" reasons. Needless to say, they are just as lengthy.

Ryan

Militia in Action

This is the last one...promise. A great example of militia in action. In this case, it appears a civilian posse helped a sheriff track down a bad guy in Ashtebula Ohio.

The People's Right to Self Defense

J. Robert Smith has an article today at the American Thinker entitled Washington, Arizonans, and the Primal Right to Self Defense that makes the case that the DoJ's lawsuit against Arizona is not just wrong headed, but fundamentally flawed; what he calls "moral abandonment." A quote to give you a feel for the article:

The Obama administration asserts the de jure paramountcy of the national government in the enforcement of immigration laws and border defense, yet de facto, the national government has been wholly inadequate in executing the aforementioned duties. Its inadequacy flows chiefly from political reasons, rather than reasons of resource or competence. The national government stands accused of a failure of will. Thereby, the Obama administration and the national government are defaulting in a basic duty to the people: to attend to their defense.

The Democrats in Washington look on illegals as future Democrat voters. The more that they can be kept poor, uneducated, and on various welfare programs and "free" handouts, the more they can be exploited for political gain. The Republicans are afraid of angering Hispanic voters. Both parties are lobbied by businesses that exploit illegals for cheap labor. In all this, ruthless drug gangs and petty criminals wreaking havoc on citizens is considered just the price of doing business by these feckless opportunists.

Meanwhile, if anyone notices the illegals in our midst and says anything about them, we are called racist and xenophobe and told to sit down. Now, conservatives and Constitutionalists have made it pretty clear that we welcome legal immigration. The analogy to a home is a pretty good one. Ring the bell, tell us your name. If you are selling something, and we are interested, we may invite you in. But don't break in in the night, raid the refrigerator, and help yourself to the silver. That sort of behavior is likely to get you shot around these parts.

If the Federal Government will not defend the borders, Arizonans have a right to defend it themselves. Indeed, as J. Robert Smith points out, the right to self defense exists prior to any government that may be established. I would argue that securing the peoples right to life and property is the first, and greatest care of a government. If the government in question won't perform that duty, but instead goes about trying to do what the people can and should do for themselves, the people may be forgiven for thinking they may not need that government. Congress has made itself irrelevant by handing over so much power to the executive branch. If it wasn't explicit before, the President made it so when he noted that if Congress wouldn't pass a Cap and Trade law, he would have the EPA write regulations to that effect. Now, with this lawsuit against Arizona, the Executive is making himself irrelevant as well.

At the Gun Show

This last Sunday afternoon, I manned the Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC) table at the Dixie Gun Show at the Fairgrounds in Raleigh, NC. Each show is different. Since the elections of 2008, and with the Great Ammunition Shortage scare, the emphasis has been on buying a gun, or on securing a few cases of ammunition. While all that was still at the heart of the show, this time there were a number of political candidates with booths at the show, or they were circulating the show and asking folks to vote for them. Senator Richard Burr had a booth at the show, as did the Republican Women. B. J. Lawson came around, reportedly, on Saturday, so I did not see him. When candidates would ask for our support, we usually handed them a candidate survey and asked them to fill it out if they had not done so already. GRNC has a very active "Remember in November" program to identify candidates friendly to gun rights at the State level.

The "Restore the Constitution" folks had a booth at the gun show. I carried some fliers for their upcoming event at Guilford CH Battlefield National Park to our table to hand out. Their website, in case you want to go this Saturday is here. I am planning to be there. Hope you can make it too.

The Gun Owners of American had a booth at the show, as did the NRA. I mentioned to the man manning the GOA booth that I had seen Larry Pratt on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano the day before. He seemed pleased. I feel it is important to let people know that they are not lone voices talking to a brick wall; that the message is getting through. Over at our table, there was some discussion to the effect that while many of our members are Life members of NRA, that NRA is going down the wrong track. Many are worried that NRA may come out endorsing Harry Reid because of his support of the shooting range in Las Vegas, never mind that his votes for Sotomayor and Kagan should permanently brand him as 'F' on gun rights. Were Mr. LaPierre listening, and he is not, I would ask him what part of "shall not be infringed" does he think allows the constant compromising of our rights with those who want to take away my rights? I would advise him to stand on principle, no matter the consequences. But that is just me.

All in all, a good show. I bought a few things, mostly maintenance items for firearms already owned. It was good to see the guys, and to talk to the public. We signed up a goodly number of new members, and quite a few more went home to think about it. To them, I say "Even if you don't join, thanks stopping by for a chat and for letting us tell you about GRNC."

No Reason to Apologize for Hiroshima

The anniversary date of the bombing of Hiroshima is a day to remember history as it actually was, not as the Left would have us believe it was. Today's understanding of Hiroshima can only happen because the Left has distorted history. The Left is always pointing out that America was the only nation to use nuclear weapons in a war. True, but beside the point. The Left's arguments about nuclear weapons often seem to mirror those about guns: it is more noble for a good man to die rather than use the most effective weapon available to stop the bad guy. Such arguments are, of course, total nonsense.

So let's look at a few facts. Japan bombed the United States Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. They had, before that time, been waging a war of aggression against China, and clearly had their eyes on achieving hegemony over the Pacific rim. The United States declared war in self defence. That the United States would eventually prevail was anything but assured. Japan had a powerful Navy, and a ruthless Army, with a warrior culture and plenty of recent combat experience to shake out its weapons. At roughly the same time, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States, forcing us into a two front war. Frankly, I would have to have bet on Japan, were I a neutral party.

By the time the United States had battled its way to Okinawa, it was obvious that Japan had lost. Why didn't the Japanese sue for peace then? No one who advocates for the "America should apologize" crowd ever seems to ask this question. After the battle of Midway, things went down hill for the Japanese. They could have surrendered at any point. Why didn't they? Certainly, once they began throwing Kamikaze pilots into the fight, they had to know their cause was lost. Why not surrender then, and not lose a generation of young people too? The Left never asks, because to ask is to point out that the Japanese may have been at fault for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Had they surrendered earlier, when it became apparent that the war was lost, they would not have suffered nuclear attack.

Bruce Walker has an article up today at American Thinker entitled The Hiroshima Question. I am glad that so far Obama has not apologized to the Japanese, though I'm sure he wanted to. He also hasn't bowed to the Emperor; that he seems to reserve for Muslim thugs. A quote from the piece though, may get you to read the whole thing:

Representatives of the American government yesterday attended, for the first time, the Hiroshima Ceremony, which this year marked the 65th anniversary of the use of fission weapons on Japanese cities. Democrat and Republican administrations alike have consistently refused to participate in this ceremony, which implies American guilt. Some Japanese are now saying that attending without a formal apology (which Obama will not give) is inadequate. There is no reason for America to apologize at all for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

No reason indeed.

Update: This piece by J. R. Dunn in yesterday's American Thinker is worth reading and contemplating as well.

Update 2: Per John, I stand corrected.

Way Up North: Why Women Should Vote

Way Up North: Why Women Should Vote

I had no idea this happened. Yet more history that has been erased. But it doesn't surprise me to learn that Woodrow Wilson had a hand in it either.

Go and read the whole post, and then encourage your wife, mother, daughter, or other significant woman in your life to go and vote-after they have researched the facts, of course.

The Volt is a Joke

I had a difficult time today deciding what to write about. The world seems at times to be spinning out of control and off its axis. Racism, both real and imaginary, the continuing tale of the JournoList 400, Climategate, and the incredible ability of Gaia worshipers to say, in essence that even if we got the facts wrong, goofball warmening is still true, all tug at me to make a comment. But then I stumbled upon an article by Doctor Zero entitled The Value of a Volt. I have noted before that the good Doctor has a way with words. It's a rare enough gift, and I appreciate how he says things as much as what he says. Here's a quote:

But wait, there’s more. Almost four hundred million dollars in federal subsidies were pumped directly into the design and production of the Volt. The initial production run consists of just ten thousand units, with 45,000 more planned for 2012 if sales are good. This would add just over $7200 more in taxpayer subsidies to each Volt produced over the next two years. Since 2012 production will be scaled back if early sales are disappointing, it might be more logical to add the subsidies to the first 10,000 units only, which would leave early adopters outside of California paying $33,500 for a car which actually costs $81,000 per unit, with taxpayers picking up the remainder. It’s actually even worse than that, because GM expects to lose money on every Volt sale. Those losses will be spread among other GM products, or perhaps wiped out with further taxpayer subsidies.

The Chevrolet Volt is, of course, a complete joke. And having the President of the United States hawking the product is down right embarrassing. I would imagine that many inside GM feel diminished realizing what has become of a once great company.

Besides the costs, which this article emphasizes, there are the environmental costs, which causes one to wonder what problem the Volt is supposed to solve? For instance, although the Volt runs on electricity stored in batteries, how is that electricity generated? A coal or natural gas fired plant perhaps? How much cleaner is the generating plant than your car? It must be substantially cleaner to overcome the losses in energy that occur that occur from converting one source of energy into another, only to have it reconverted back again. These losses are physical facts that can not be overcome. They are the price for utilizing any form of energy, including muscle power. For example, a potential energy source such as natural gas is burned to spin an engine (losses) which spins a generator (losses) to make electricity which goes out over the wires (losses) to a transformer to be stepped down to 120 volt AC (losses) to go to your home (losses) to charge a battery (losses) to spin a motor (losses) to power your car all of 40 miles. You can eliminate some of those losses by putting the potential energy source closer to the final conversion point, which is what gasoline powered vehicles do. But it gets worse. At some point, you will have to recycle the batteries. Modern batteries contain exotic heavy metals which are extremely toxic, and expensive, and can not be simply thrown out. So in the end, an electric car is no more environmentally friendly than a fossil fueled automobile.

The problem has been a confusion of goals. We have three potential goals, none of which are improved by the Volt. One goal is to become more eco-friendly. As shown above, the Volt is not really all that eco-friendly when to take into account the lifetime costs of the vehicle. Another is to achieve energy independence. To improve our energy independence, a simpler way would be to convert the truck fleet over to natural gas. We have an abundance of natural gas, and it is pretty clean relative to coal and petroleum. The third possible goal is to get us off fossil fuel altogether. That goal, unfortunately, is not possible, and only exists among people who hold to an ideology that believes people are a cancer on this planet: the Gaia worshipers. Is that who this administration is pandering to?

Civil Disobedience in the City Where the Criminals Do Not Fear the Police

Via David Hardy of the blog Of Arms and the Law comes this piece in PajamasMedia by Jack Dunphy entitled Chicago: Where Criminals No Longer Fear the Police. Jack Dunphy formerly wrote for the National Review, which is where I first became aware of him, or her. "Jack Dunphy" isn't his real name. He chooses to write under a pseudonym because he is in fact a member of the LAPD. The title says it all. Criminals do not fear the police, so that the murder rate in that city is one of the highest in the country.

A quote to give you a taste of what the article is about:

And it gets worse. Three Chicago police officers have been murdered in the last two months, the most recent of whom was Michael Bailey, who at age 62 was only weeks away from retirement. On the morning of July 18, Bailey had finished an overnight shift guarding the home of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and was in front of his own home cleaning his new car, which he had bought as an early retirement gift to himself. He was still dressed in his police uniform when someone tried to rob him. Police officers everywhere accept the risks to life and limb attendant to the job, but it’s generally taken for granted among cops that the uniform will serve as a deterrent against being robbed on the street. What level of depravity has a city reached when a uniformed police officer is no safer from a street robbery than anyone else? More important, what is to be done about it?

I can't think of a better way to illustrate the ineffectiveness of the Chicago police than that. In the midst if this, Mayor Daley wants to make it as difficult for the law abiding citizen to have a gun to defend himself as possible. But the normally law abiding apparently have a solution for that: it is called civil disobedience. Confronted with the fact that the City can't even defend its own on the one hand, and the criminal element on the other, the citizens of Chicago make the only rational decision possible: to arm themselves.

Talking Guns in Polite Society

Over at American Thinker today is this short piece by Rosslyn Smith entitled "The Changing Face of Gun Ownership." Ms. Smith purports to show that the demographics of people who own guns is changing. Suddenly the more respectable people now own guns too.

Hmmmm.

I think what is happening is not so much that folks are now all of a sudden buying guns as that people now feel more free to talk about guns and shooting. There are, of course, some, like the isolated family mentioned, that never before considered owning a gun, but now realize it may be useful. But for a huge number of gun owners, talking about their guns was akin to passing gas at the dinner table. It simply wasn't done. Besides, one doesn't want to scare the faint of heart among us. But with the Heller and now McDonald rulings coming down firmly on the side of the Second Amendment, many more people are willing to admit that they own guns. More people are willing to admit that they enjoy using their guns. It has now become a topic of discussion in polite society again.

Of course, I am mindful that Mr. Obama has been the gun salesman of the year for going on two years in a row. But a lot of that has been fueled by sales of semi-automatic rifles to people who already have at least a handgun, and maybe a traditional bolt action rifle as well. These people just want to get an AR pattern rifle while the getting is good.

Recently I was talking to an outspoken liberal at work who mentioned that he too had guns. I would have expected him to espouse the gun control mantra, so it was good to hear that my friend had not totally lost his mind. Now if I can convince him that all our troubles were not caused by just Bush...