Poretto Posts Powerful Series

Francis Porretto has a post up, one of three so far entitled The Professionals Part 2: Do Not Feed or Annoy. Go read, in order, of course. Part 1 is here, and part 3 is here. What the host of Eternity Road is talking about is the nature of Professional Politicians. Part 1 describes the general the nature of such people to seek positions where they have power over others. It is an unfortunate truth. Many people are capable of serving in the House of Representatives. It isn't rocket science, and we have seen in the past just how dumb these people can be and still get themselves elected. I leave you with this example. You can find many others.  No, the thing that keeps ordinary folks from seeking office is that they don't really want to control others.

Now go read part 1.  Done?  Porretto paints a none to flattering picture of our Professional Pols, but it is accurate.  It is the reason that when I vote, and if the guy I vote for wins, I plan to continue to watch him like a hawk.  He seems like a nice enough guy, but there is that nagging doubt about anybody who seeks high office.

With that out of the way, check out part 2.  Done?  Porretto takes us on a slight detour, but correct again.  A quote:

Before I proceed, allow me a word of caution, which I hope will also serve to energize. In a political struggle such as the one we face today, the side that first reaches for violence will lose. That's as true of the suggestion of violence as of overt violent acts. For example, if any prominent Democrat -- Obama, Reid, Pelosi, or any of the better known Cabinet secretaries -- were to hint that the Administration had made provisions for imposing martial law should the elections result in "disorder," public sentiment would turn so completely against the Democrats that they would be guaranteed to be swept from office.

This is why Mike Vanderboegh keeps insisting "No Fort Sumters." No matter the provocation, we can not be seen to throw the first punch, or fire the first shot. During the riots on the campus of Kent State University, the SDS and Weather Underground provocateurs had stirred up the anti-war students who were throwing rocks and taunts at the National Guardsmen. They had already burned the ROTC building, and cut the fire hoses of the firemen with machettes. They were clearly armed, and meant to cause harm.  Had this been a self defense situation, a jury would have seen that the Guard had ample reason to fear for their lives. No one can ever resolve to every one's satisfaction what happened next, but in any case, the Guard did fire, a teenage girl was killed, and the establishment lost the hearts and minds of the American people for the war in Vietnam.   In this war, and it is a war, our side must be seen as the victim of aggression, not as the aggressor.

Porretto is also correct about trolls to Internet sites.  I have wasted tons of time at the Smallest Minority watching Unix, JD and others take apart the laughable arguments of their pet troll Markadelphia.  Kevin Baker, the proprietor of the Smallest Minority presides over this because he thinks it is instructive to bring out arguments for our side to convince those who may be sitting on the fence.  Kevin pulls it off with aplomb, but everyone can not be a Kevin Baker.  In general, Porretto is correct-don't feed the trolls.  I was reminded of this when someone asked me what I thought Glenn Beck meant by "restoring honor."  The question surprised me, in that the gentleman was older than I was, and should have known.  But when I tried to explain what I thought it was, someone who styles himself a "liberal" kept interrupting.  This is the way trolls work.  I finally just ignored him and went on with my explanation.

In part 3, Porretto takes us back on track and uses Shakespeare to illustrate how Professional Politicians try to divide and conquer us, magnifying our petty differences, and spreading fear and suspicion.  Don't let them.  We have, in what I call the Liberty Brigade, a collection of Classical Liberals, Fiscal Conservatives, Religious Conservatives, Libertarians of all stripes, and probably some I can not think of right now.  What we all have in common is our desire to restore the Republic to its proper foundations working the way the Constitution originally intended.  We can argue later about specifics; now is not the time.  Don't let them divide and conquer the TEA parties.

I can't wait for part 4.

Update: Mr. Porretto informs me that part 4 is up here. Part 4 is a very good illustration of the "divide and conquer" idea in actual practice. Go read it, and see if you don't perhaps see yourself in there somewhere.

The Alinskyites Try It Again

The American Thinker has a short piece up by Mark J. Fitzgibbons entitled Those dumb, dangerous "fundamentalist Constitutionalists", which is worth a read.

Constitutionalists are viewed on the other side as people not quite right in the head; as addled, Luddite, crazy, even as terrorists.  Such a view betrays a Leftist conceit that things are different today. "Why," they say, "they didn't have cell phones or the Internet back then. You need new laws and the Constitution is outmoded." What the Left is overlooking is that all the new technologies we have ever developed from the alphabet to the Internet simply allow us to do what we have always done more efficiently.  The telephone, the Internet, jet planes, modern medicine, heating and air conditioning, the M1911 pistol, whatever it is, only help us to do the things we have always done faster, or cheaper, or more efficiently.  What the founders knew, from reading the Bible and history, is that man and his motives have not changed, and barring a miracle, will never change.  So, they didn't write the Constitution for simply the era in which they lived.  They wrote it to be timeless.

Go and read it, if you don't believe me.  It's a short document.  I'll wait...

Impressed?  I was.  The language is plain, simple, free of legalisms and jargon.  Notice that it describes the branches of the Federal Government and the duties of each.  It describes how to decide when laws conflict at the Federal/State level, and at the Treaty/Federal level.  Notice too that a lot of the powers are left to the States and the People.  If we were following the Constitution, Massachusetts would be free to have a healthcare system, but the Federal Government would not.  The States would be free to set up welfare systems, while the Federal Government would not.  In the sense that it tells you how to decide, but it doesn't specify results, the Constitution is a process document, not a political one.  It only becomes political when people wish to reinterpret it to say what it does not say because they can't persuade the people.  Notice too that it even has a way to amend it.  Those who say the amendment process is too hard should take note that it has been amended 27 times.  Every member of Congress and the Executive is sworn to uphold it, not the latest interpretation of it by the Supreme Court.  So, Christine O'Donnell's "litmus test" sounds like a good one for a Senator to keep in mind as she looks at new legislation, and performs her duties under the Constitution.

Finally, do not be dissuaded by articles like the one's in Politico and Slate.  What they are doing is nothing more than an old Alinskyite trick.  They used to do this to conservatives.  Isolate the enemy, freeze him, ridicule him.  Don't let them get away with it.  Proudly fight back.  The moral high ground is with the Constitutionalists.  We are the true patriots.   

The Daily Bayonet Skewers Treehuggers

Theo Sparks, "the last of the few", points to The Daily Bayonet post entitled Treehugger Buys a Clue, or Two. The post is generally about how the Cancun Climate Summit is turning out to be a bust, after the blowup at Copenhagen last year. It is worth the read. An interesting quote:

This year’s Cancun climate talks are going nowhere fast after the Copenhagen Hopenchangen blowout of last year, in fact no political leaders are even expected to attend. In the US, the GOP has skewed skeptic and is thriving as the Democrat party hides the fact that their candidates are Democrats. In typical leftist fashion, now the battle is lost, Treehugger wants to change the terms of engagement and depoliticize global warming. Good luck with that.

The Daily Bayonet, in turn, points us to another posting, this time on Hot Air entitled Exclusive EPW Report Shows NEW EPA Rules Will Cost More Than 800,000 Jobs. The post was by Ed Morrissey. A quote:

Actually, it’s not just the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s minority contingent that fears the loss of nearly a million jobs from new EPA rules on greenhouse gases and other emissions issues. It’s also groups like the United Steel Workers, Unions for Jobs and the Environment, and experts like King’s College Professor Ragnar Lofstedt. Hot Air got an exclusive look at a report that the EPW minority staff will release later this morning detailing the economic damage that an activist EPA will do to the American economy, and which will come at perhaps the worst possible time, both economically and politically.

But don't let all the bad news for the warmistas fool you. They will do their best to get a Cap and Tax bill, or similar EPA Regulations in place. If the Democrats lose the majority in the House and possibly the Senate, look for it to be a bill in the lame duck session. This will be the final noose around the necks of Americans. The Government will then have taken all our rights without firing a shot, just as Jeff Snyder predicted in Walter Mitty's Second Amendment

Big Brother is Watching You

Go over to The Blaze to see Jonathon M. Seidl's report US Would Make Internet Wiretaps Easier. Read the whole report.

Scary part: because of the Patriot Act, as I understand it, these "lawfully authorized" wiretap warrants can be issued by a federal agent, without needing to go before a judge. If that isn't true, I hope someone corrects me.  Interesting too, that Mr. Obama can simply write himself some more authority by writing more regulations.  Congress has truly become irrelevant.

The really scary part: how easily the regime tags dissenters as terrorists. Constitutionalists have been listed in Homeland Security documents as terrorists. Now, Constitutionalists believe that the government should act within the limits of the original meaning of the Constitution, or amend it. If these people are terrorists (and I am one of them,) what would they have said about our Founding Fathers?

The interesting part comes in the comment section. Flamingliberal writes:

And if Obama and the DEMs blocked this type action, you would accuse him & them of treason and not protecting America.

With the exception of RIM, encrypted services, or secure satellite communications, you can already be EASILY tracked on the internet with existing tools.
For example, on this page, I could track any user who has accessed content(read or write) or posted a reply. Using existing tools, I could then track that user to his physical location anywhere in the US.
IF you happen to be on a DSL or other similar technology (FIBER, Leased Line T-1 etc), actually getting your home location is simple using existing web sites or tools(If you used a mobile phone, a GPS tag could locate you to within 3 meters). Cable is a bit trickier due to the ‘shared’ aspect of the connection, but not much more difficult.

I suspect that the Obama administration (As well as Bush) have already been monitoring internet traffic all along, and they just want to clean up some of the ‘legal’ issues it would cause should they need to prosecute someone in the US.
Do you really think that it is a coincidence that less than a week after news outlets are reporting that homegrown terrorists now pose as great or greater threat to US security, that they move to close that legal loose end?
In any case, anyone who EVER thought they were anonymous or untraceable on the internet is a dope…

Beware, big brother is watching you!

Wind Power Costs More-A Lot More

Following on the heels of yesterday's post is David Derbyshire's article in the Daily Mail entitled Revealed: Wind Farm Power Twice as Costly as Gas, Coal. You will notice another trend.  This article is from another paper in the UK. We don't seem to be reporting these facts, because if we did, the public would see what a fraud the so called "green economy" really is.

Because wind is intermittent, the National Grid is forced to rely on a fleet of gas and coal power stations to back up the supply when the wind fails.

As the quote above indicates, you need to have standby generators for when the wind doesn't blow, or doesn't blow hard enough, and when the wind blows too hard.  Where I live, for example, there is very little wind for as much as 8 months out of the year.  Detecting when that is about to happen, and powering up those generators adds additional expense. Indeed, the windmills seemed to be idling when the picture used in the story was taken. Then there are the maintenance costs, which of course become much larger when the windmills are located off shore.

The enviro-whackos who brought you goofball wormening realized that in order to get the public off fossil fuel, they had to show you something.  Windmills are it.  But it doesn't work.  It has already been tried in Denmark, and now in UK.  What is needed is a steady supply of electricity to run factories, power houses, and even run your computer.  Wind gives you a very unsteady supply.  In the end, windmills are little more than very expensive toys.  We should not emulate another fail idea from the old country. 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315711/Wind-farm-power-twice-costly-gas-coal.html#ixzz10oP36Yrv

New World Order Fears Global Cooling

In the London Telegraph, we have Global Cooling and the New World Order by James Delingpole. Go read the whole thing. I don't think the Bilderbergers meeting is a particularly new story, as I remember it from some months ago.  What is new is the spin on the story in this article.

The next few years are going to be very interesting. Watch the global power elite squirming to reposition itself as it slowly distances itself from Anthropogenic Global Warming (”Who? Us? No. We never thought of it as more than a quaint theory…”), and tries to find new ways of justifying green taxation and control. (Ocean acidification; biodiversity; et al). You’ll notice sly shifts in policy spin. In Britain, for example, Chris “Chicken Little” Huhne’s suicidal “dash for wind” will be re-invented as a vital step towards “energy security.” There will be less talk of “combatting climate change” and more talk of “mitigation”. You’ll hear enviro-Nazis like Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren avoid reference to “global warming” like the plague, preferring the more reliably vague phrase “global climate disruption.”

And you know what the worst thing is? If we allow them to, they’re going to get away with it.

Our duty as free citizens over the next few years is to make sure that they don’t.

At the very end, Delingpole mentions a "Global Warming" Nuremberg. While I don't think a Nuremberg style trial of folks who have pushed the theory would be appropriate, certainly Congressional hearings are in order, and those who can be shown to have committed fraud should be prosecuted. Al Gore, are you listening?

Meanwhile, for those still watching, very soon we will see that the solutions to global cooling are, surprise, the same as the solutions to goofball wormening. 

Couple with CCW Save Woman's Life

This heart warming story comes via Philip Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League:

WADSWORTH, Ohio - Wadsworth police say a gun-carrying couple helped them catch a man who was allegedly beating his girlfriend in a parking lot in front of her two small children.

Officers said the couple pulled into the Wadsworth McDonald's on High Street Sunday and saw a man hitting a woman in another vehicle.

Police said the couple, who each have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, called 911 then pulled out their guns and ordered the man to the ground.

"My husband and I both have CCW licenses and we were in fear of her life, and we drew our weapons on him," Heather Evans told the 911 dispatcher.

Police said the man, 18-year-old Anthony Konopinski, then ran off. A third witness then ran after Konopinski, calling police to tell them where they were headed.

The suspect was caught a half a mile away. Police said they had to use a taser to subdue Konopinski.

Konopinski is now facing domestic violence, child endangerment, resisting arrest and drug paraphernalia charges.

You can find other stories where guns save lives over at Keep and Bear Arms. Today's story is the headliner, but if you troll the newslinks, you will find many others. Reading between the lines, the police can not be everywhere. Rather, you need to be able to defend yourself, and then to offer assistance where needed. No, CCW holders not the police, and it is unusual for a concealed weapons carrier to get involved in these things, but I probably would have acted too in their situation.  Let us pray for this couple, because, frankly, a boatload of legal trouble is probably coming their way, in the form of lawsuits.  I am just pleased that they won't be charged themselves.

The Liberty Sphere: 10 Key Conservative Principles#links

The Liberty Sphere: 10 Key Conservative Principles#links

I have tried, several times, to put down in an organized way what I think are the key principles of conservatism that everyone who claims to be conservative must follow. I have failed. But Anthony Martin over at the Columbia Conservative Examiner has done a good job. Go check it out.

In my formulation, the Constitution takes a starring role.  But if you had Constitutional governance, all ten items would be fulfilled.

A Bad Penny Comes Back

The Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms had a press release in my "in" basket today, which I will repeat in full below:

BELLEVUE, WA – The appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate representative to the United Nations has removed any doubt about the Obama administration’s intentions regarding global gun control initiatives, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Nickels, a founding member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the author of Seattle’s failed attempt to override Washington’s state firearms preemption statute, was sworn in Wednesday to “help represent the United States in the UN assembly,” according to the Seattle Times.

“Putting an extremist gun banner in any position to represent this country at the United Nations amounts to renting a billboard for advertising against the Second Amendment,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “While he was Seattle’s mayor, Greg Nickels supported every anti-gun scheme put forth by Washington CeaseFire, the Northwest’s most active gun prohibition lobby.

“Nickels is a gun ban proponent,” he continued, “so his appointment as an alternate to the UN is a clear signal of Barack Obama’s intention to rubber stamp the UN’s global gun ban agenda. We had to sue Nickels while he was still Seattle’s mayor to overturn his illegal city parks gun ban. Now he gets to push his anti-gun philosophy on a world scale. It hardly seems a coincidence that Nickels has been appointed by the Obama administration at a time when the UN is considering treaties and initiatives that pose a serious threat to the Second Amendment.”

Nickels was turned out of office in 2009, which was something of a feat in a liberal enclave like Seattle, Gottlieb recalled. His defeat in the primary demonstrated the degree of alienation voters felt from a politician who once epitomized the Seattle liberal establishment.

“By naming Greg Nickels as an alternate representative at the UN,” Gottlieb stated, “President Obama has essentially told America’s 85 million gun owners that their firearm civil rights are in jeopardy. Nickels cannot be counted on to defend the Second Amendment because he would like to see it erased from the Constitution.”

The UN Small Arms Treaty continues to move forward. Hillary Clinton has indicated support for this treaty, which former UN Ambassador John Bolton fought as not within the US Constitution. But then we have seen that the Constitution means little to this regime.  If you click the above link, the treaty may look sort of innocuous, but among the provisions are setting up an international gun registry, and banning semiautomatic weapons.

Now, everywhere it has been tried, gun registries have failed in their stated purpose: controlling crime.  What they do is create more red tape for the law abiding, while allowing the criminal to freely acquire whatever weapons he desires.  The same thing is true of nations, by the way.  The law abiding nation will be put through all kinds of efforts to weed out a few guns, while rogue states will be able to get all the weapons they wish to pay for.  n sources, but how many arrests and convictions has that resulted in?  I could find none.  A big, fat zero.  And what sanctions will be placed on rogue nations for not complying with the treaty?  If past is prologue, nothing they can't get around if they are so inclined.  Having a gun registry would not stop what is happening on our Southern border, nor any other gun violence around the world.

The Canadian gun registry stands as a cautionary tale. Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America reports that the Canadian Gun Registry has been in place for handguns since 1934, and has not been used one time to solve a crime. Not once.  But it gets better:

Breitkreuz cited the Toronto Police Chief, Julian Fantino, who has called gun registration a waste of cash. This is partly due to the fact that about 75 percent of the handguns used in crime in Toronto were never registered. The money would be better spent on real cops doing real police work according to the chief. Many other Canadian police officials have publicly decried the waste of resources poured down the gun registration drain.

One of the concerns of gun registration everywhere is the potential for abuse. Breitkruez reports that there have been some suspicious break-ins of the homes of gun owners. It may be that the break-ins occurred with the help of information obtained illegally from the registry.

Another downside of the gun registry has been the deterioration of relations between police and other citizens. The registry treats people as suspects, and many Canadians have simply refused to register their guns. Nobody knows how many, but the number is generally put at several hundred thousand.

For most Canadians, the biggest scandal of the gun registry is the enormous cost overrun and the subsequent cover-up. The registry was supposed to cost a net of $2 million (Canadian dollars) after fees were collected. To date, the registry has cost over $1 billion and counting. A computer crash has compromised the integrity of the system as well.

Many Canadians are now openly rebelling, refusing to register their guns, and provoking arrest. Canadian officials who can not bring themselves to admit the failure of the program, risk the all important traditional respect for the law.

The gun grabbers think that our rights come from government, and that they'll be able to nullify the Second Amendment by ratifying this treaty.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Our rights come not from the governments of man but from our Creator.  They can not be taken away.  All that they will accomplish in the end is further eroding respect for the law.  They are like the cartoon character, busily sawing on a limb, not realizing that if he succeeds, the limb will fall and carry him with it.

Cold Fury at the Imposition of Shariah

Cold Fury has a post up entitled "When rage and hatred blaze in the dark corners of the earth, the symbol of American freedom is usually the first to catch fire." A quote to give you a taste:

If Muslims the world over must rise up in blind hatred and rage at modernity, why do we act as if the fault were with us, and the blame for this odious backwardness ours? The usual rioting, violence, burning, and murder that these animals unleash at the slightest provocation — and threaten us with as a preemption, without any real provocation at all, as the phony “healer” Rauf did last week — is not something that should be kowtowed to. It is certainly not something that America should apologize for. Rather, it is THEIR fault, THEIR problem, and the obligation for apology, contrition, and shame belongs to THEM, not us.

We owe these deviant, yodeling freaks nothing. NOTHING. Well, nothing beyond swift, crippling vengeance for each successive trespass against decency and humanity the bolder of them commit, the more powerful of them clandestinely enable, and the lesser of them applaud from their filthy, perpetually-impoverished village squares.

Editor Mike Hendrix has named his blog well. Go read the whole thing. A tip of the hat to Bubba of the blog What Bubba Knows for pointing out the site to me.

Having gotten that out of the way, let's move on to more sobering reading, shall we? A number of sources point toward a recently released report indicating the dangers to the United States of Sharia law. I selected The Shariah Threat to America by David Yerushalmi from today's American Thinker. But Frank Gaffney has long beat the drum (see here) and Andrew McCarthy has joined in from the terrorism angle (see here.) Gaffney and McCarthy are two of the panel who wrote the report, entitled The Shariah Threat to America. Go read the whole thing. You can access the report through the article at American Thinker.

For many people, accustomed as they are to Christianity, the idea that Islam is fundamentally different comes as a surprise. In Christianity, God wants each man and woman to come to have a relationship with him out of his own free will. In Islam, you MUST have a relationship with Allah, whether you want to or not. Every jot and tittle of Shariah MUST be obeyed, theoretically. I say "theoretically" because the Jews tried for a millennium to obey all the law, and were unsuccessful. How the Arabs were going to accomplish what the Jews could not is something a thoughtful Christian might like to as the so-called "prophet," but I digress. Shariah is not compatible with man-made law, nor democracy, nor a Constitution. You have no rights under Shariah.

We can not, and must not, allow Shariah to gain a foothold in this country.  I would suggest that maybe the wall of separation they are always yacking about might help us here, but our Supremes have already shown a willingness to throw First Amendment free speech rights under the bus when confronted with the burning of the Koran, so don't expect help from that quarter.  It is unfortunate that we have allowed Muslims to immigrate into this country, but now that they are here, they are welcome to stay so long as they obey OUR laws.  Muslims who are not satisfied with our laws, and would prefer Shariah are welcome to leave.

Don't let the door hit you in the a** on the way out either.

You're not Paranoid if they're Really Trying to Get you

What to post about?  What seems most important today? So many things are happening, it seems like we are being pushed on all sides.  Dinesh D'Sousa has an article at Forbes entitled How Obama Thinks that is very intiguing. In Mr. D'Souza's formulation, Obama is an anticolonialist. Now you may be thinking "Huh?" But read on, D'Souza has a point, and it is a good one:

An odd choice, certainly, as an inspirational hero. But to his son, the elder Obama represented a great and noble cause, the cause of anticolonialism. Obama Sr. grew up during Africa's struggle to be free of European rule, and he was one of the early generation of Africans chosen to study in America and then to shape his country's future.

and:

Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America. As one of Obama's acknowledged intellectual influences, Frantz Fanon, wrote in The Wretched of the Earth, "The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races."

Where I think D'Souza goes astray is that when you pare anticolonialism down, at its core it is still Marxism.

Then there is this article in the American Thinker by Michael Zebulon entitled General Petraeus' Mistake which asserts that when Petraeus made his remarks about the Florida Koran Roast, that he telegraphed the following to the enemy:

The net effect of his going public with it early in the game was tantamount to giving an engraved invitation to the enemy to "up-the-ante." (And eventually they will, rest assured, now that everybody and their Aunt Mathilda has piled on, and made the thing exponentially bigger than it had to be.) Effectively he told the bad guys

- that we are generally afraid of Muslims;
- that, more specifically, our men-at-arms and their commanders can be intimidated; and

These are the reasons why I said I would have done it. It shows weakness to an enemy for whom any sign of weakness is a reason to attack.

Michael Barone points out how Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare in an article today at Townhall.com. Go read the whole thing. It will make your blood boil.

Finally, for today, the American Thinker has an article by Lance Fairchok entitled Reaping the Whirlwind. It describes the reasons for the general anxiety being expressed by the Tea Parties, the 9/12 Project the Three Percent and others. You aren't paranoid if they're really trying to get you, and it appears they are. Go have a look.

On American Conservatism

Over at the American Thinker today is an excellent piece on the nature of American Conservatism and its counterpoint, that goes by many names including "liberalism," progressivism, Marxism, Fascism, Socialism, Communism, and whatever they are dreaming up at the moment to try to hoodwink us. The piece, by Joel F. Wade is entitled Yes, in Fact, We Are Radical. It's a theme I have brought up occasionally several times, but I haven't seen an extended article before that makes the point. Conservatives in America are not the same as conservatives in the old world. Old world conservatives are trying to conserve the ancient regime, whether it be the monarchy, or some other autocratic thugocracy. In America, on the other hand, we are trying to conserve a radically new method of governing ourselves.  Yes, the Constitution represents the latest thing in government.  It was such a radical idea, that it was born only because of a fortuitous confluence of men and events, that was never seen before, or will be again.  Indeed, the founders thought of it as Divine Providence.  Almost on its heels, the French revolution fought to replace a monarch with a dictator.  They placed their trust in a man, we placed our trust in God.  But, in Mr. Wade's words:

As conservatives in America today, we seek to conserve our founding principles. This is fundamentally different from, say, a Russian conservative who seeks to conserve the traditional state power of mother Russia, or an Iranian conservative who seeks to conserve his theocracy, or a North Korean conservative who seeks to conserve his communist dictatorship.

In this sense, to be a conservative in America is to be misunderstood. Seeking to conserve our radical founding principles is linguistically confusing. In the same way, to be liberal in America today is philosophically tangled -- they seek to liberalize America by imposing more stringent controls and regulations upon her citizens?

Which gets us to why so-called "liberals" can never say what they are thinking or planning in plain, straight forward language. Because if they did, they know we would react in horror. When Glenn Beck exposed Anita Dunn saying that one of her greatest philosophers was Mao, and knowing what Mao did and stood for, did you not react in horror? When Hilary Clinton says she admires Margaret Sanger, (if you don't know who Sanger was, see here and here.) do you not react in horror. Such people were evil, and anyone who admires them is either terribly misguided, which means they should not be near the reigns of power, or they are evil themselves.

Again, in Mr. Wade's words:

So it's true: we are radicals. Our founding principles -- the vision of our Declaration of Independence and the structure of law based on practical idealism contained in our Constitution, ideals which are consistent with human nature and which transformed the ancient principles of human government at the root -- are the most radical political principles in existence today.

Those who have worked for the past hundred-plus years through progressive policies to undermine and replace our radical vision and structure of human governance are not radicals. They are conservatives of the worst sort. In common parlance, they are control freaks. They have brought political ideals from nineteenth-century autocratic Germany to America and fashioned them as some kind of visionary blueprint for bringing out the best in people.

So the next time someone calls you a radical, you now know what to say. Oh, and by the way, if you are a young man looking to become involved in a radical cause, here ya go.  There is none better.

Update:  On the other side of the coin is the Marxist/Progressive/Fascist/Socialist/Communist or liberal ideal of life, Life under communism by Charlotte Cushman. Go read the whole thing. It made my blood run cold.  This is what you get if you go down the "liberal" route.

Thoughts on the Anniversary of 9/11

Many of us have been trading stories of 9/11/2001.  I always ask people if they remember where they were, and what they were doing.  I talked to one guy who was on the 35th floor of the Trade Center when the first plane hit.  He said it wasn't immediately obvious.  At first he thought it might be an earthquake or something.  But in any case, he ordered his crew to leave the building, and he said everyone packed up and left.  He was the last of his crew out the building, and he just started running.  He is lucky to be alive.  I have talked to many who knew people, and some who witnessed the event from further uptown.

Me?  It was a surprising nice fall day after a hot summer.  I was in my office at the Navy Yard in Washington, DC, when a woman came running by saying the Twin Towers were hit.  I ran down to where there was a television, and saw the horror of the first plane's damage.  I watched for a while, and suddenly a second plane struck the the towers.  I said then we were at war.  Some folks looked at me.  I pointed out that one plane hitting the towers could be a freak accident.  But two planes mean someone has deliberately done this.  An hour later, this fact was confirmed when the plane hit the Pentagon, just across the Potomac from where I was sitting.  I did not find out about the fourth plane until the next day.  I crossed the road, and went up on top of a parking garage to see the smoke billowing from the Pentagon, and knowing folks who were in there and might be hurt or killed.  Communications, were of course, totally jammed, though one Amateur Radio repeater site quickly set up and began relaying from the Pentagon to get word out.  Still, news was scarce, which added to the feeling that things had changed forever.

Of course it was only later that I found out who had planned and carried out this heinous deed.  It took more time to realize who our enemy truly is.  We are not at war with terror, for terror is a technique, not an enemy.  The people we are at war with are radical Islamist, from outside, and Marxist/Fascist/Socialist/Communist/Collectivist/Statists from the inside.  The radical Islamists are supported, in this country and abroad, by millions of so-called "moderate Muslims."  They will not take up arms against us, but at the same time, they would gladly see this country become part of the Caliphate.  In this country, the active Leftist community is fairly small, but again the sympathisers represent perhaps 25% of the voting population.  Taken all together, the odds are not good. Still, you must decide which side you are going to be on.  There soon will be no room for folks in the middle.

Bon fire of the Korans

The Curmudgeon Emeritus has an excellent post up over at Eternity Road entitled The War with Islam, "Moderate Muslims," and the Florida Koran Roast. The Curmudgeon Emeritus is Francis W. Porretto's alter ego. It is a thoughtful post on all counts, and deserves to be read. One thing that the Curmudgeon says is:

But Islam is not a religion. It's a totalitarian ideology with a few theological trimmings. If you're aware of its prescriptions, its proscriptions, and its record when in the saddle, you cannot sincerely disagree. If not, you need to complete your education before allowing yourself an opinion on the subject.

I can not emphasize this enough. Islam is not a true religion, but a totalitarian ideology with some whiff of religion to give it legitimacy and cause the people to be more docile. It partakes of the "divine right of kings," of the old religion of the Pharaohs, or of the notion of Caesar as a god.  All such ideologies are bunk and hokum.  But, it goes far in explaining why Mayor Bloomberg favors the Ground Zero Mosque while making no effort to get St. Nicholas Church rebuilt after it was destroyed by the toppling of the Twin Towers.  It explains why the Hartford City Council apparently voted to ask Muslim Imams to conduct prayers at the start of Council meetings, even though Christian prayers at the same meetings  would be unwelcome.  Such people look at us as children who must be controlled-for our own good, of course.  A totalitarian ideology fits right in, and they instinctively know it.

Another point the Curmudgeon makes is that we are at war with the people who believe Islam.  We have been at war with these people since the day Mohammad founded his crazy "faith."  We are at war whether we want to be or not, whether we recognize it or not, whether we are prepared or not.  There can be no peace with these people.  Islam is an implacable enemy, who will not stop.  That being the case, I think burning some Korans is not a bad idea.  Not a bad idea at all.  Throw in some copies of Mein Kampf while you're at it.

Toward a Lighter, More Airy Bread

I did a little baking over this Labor Day weekend, while Mrs. PolyKahr was away, and the grand kids were out camping with their parents.  I discovered something, and did a little experimenting.  I told you about my bread baking passion here.

The recipe I use for my sourdough bread was developed using King Arthur bread flour.  It calls for 6 cups of flour and 2 cups of water total.  The numbers above include the starter and the flour and water added to the recipe to obtain total hydration.  The starter itself is a 100% hydration starter.

So, 6 cups flour x 4.25 oz/cup = 25.5 oz flour.  2 cups water x 8 oz/cup gives 16 oz water.  Hydration, therefore is 62.75%  That is in line with most recipes which call for around 63% hydration.  I however, was using Gold Medal bread flour.  I find Gold Medal to be consistent, and at nearly half the price of King Arthur, it is hard to justify spending the extra dough (pun intended.)  How good can flour be, after all?Anyway, I discovered that Gold Medal has a density of 5.25 oz/cup, a full oz more per cup than King Arthur.  Could this difference make a huge difference in the bread?  Read on.

Using the same calculations as above, I find that I have been baking the bread with a hydration of 50.80%.  In order to have the same hydration as called for in the recipe, I would have to put in a total of 19.75 oz of water.  When I take away the 4 oz used in the starter, that leaves 15.75 oz or 1.97 cups.  Let's just call it 2 cups (as opposed to 1 1/2 cups in the recipe.  Remember that 1/2 cup is already in the starter.)

Well, I wasn't willing to go for broke, but I did add 2 oz water to the recipe.  The results were amazing.  The crumb is much lighter, with bigger holes.  The crust is much crustier.  All together, the bread is better.

And of course, I have learned a lot about flour that I did not know before.  So, for example, in my grand mother's (may she rest in peace) recipe for fruit cake, knowing what kind of flour she actually used becomes critical if I am to reproduce the flavor and the feel for my Dad.  Last year I used Gold Medal all purpose, but I have a feeling that she might have used Martha White.  I need to investigate the density of Martha White flour next.

Why Aren't Feminazies Defending These Women?

Disgusting.

Eileen F. Toplansky has a short piece over at the American Thinker this day entitled Sharia-Women at Risk. Go read the whole thing, and be sure to check out the video. A quote will tell you what you will see:

Besides the viciousness and cruelty inflicted upon women in the Muslim world, besides the perverted "law" that sanctions such hideous acts, the most telling part of this illuminating video is the laughter by those in attendance each time that Rauf says that the "U.S. is a sharia compliant state."

Wake up America!

If the Marxist/Socialist/Fascist/Communist/collectivists are like burglars already in the home and stealing whatever they can, the jihadis are beating down the front door trying to get in and steal whatever is left.  The clueless audience laughing at this guy really has no idea what they would be unleashing in this country.  Some of them, I imagine, are Alinskyites, and figure that the more chaos, the better for them.  Meanwhile feminists, who should be the first to stridently denounce such treatment of women, remain silent.  Why?  Women are not property, and should not be so abused.  If women will get up and leave when Larry Summers makes remarks about the relative ability of men and women in mathematics and the sciences, why wouldn't they be out picketing every time a Muslim gets up to talk lovingly about Sharia?  Where do feminist loyalties actually lie-with women or with their Leftist allies. 

Al Gore Should be Censured for Dishonesty, Not for Discovery Channel Seige

From the Drudge Report, this article by Matt Patterson appeared in the New Your Post for September 2, 2010: Meltdown of the Climate Consensus. The story discusses a report by the prestigious InterAcademy Council that thoroughly debunks and discredits the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The report comes one day after a man, crazed with global warming hysteria apparently strapped a bomb to himself and took hostages at the Discovery Channel building in Silver Springs, MD.  I say crazed because looking at his Manifesto I find that on the one hand he wants people to stop breeding, and a decrease in the population, and on the other hand, he wants to end war. Just thinking out loud here, but wouldn't a great big war help to solve his perceived problem with population? Here is a part of the manifesto to give you an idea of what was written there:

5. Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more
unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)

6. Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don't build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!

It goes on...but notice how it ends.  The familiar ring to it is the sound of someone who believes he has found the answers and has a calling to deliver them to the uninformed, unwashed masses; a prophet if you will.  He has drunk the koolaid, and now must go out and force everyone to obey, or Gaia will punish us all.

He seems to see people as a disease, like we do not belong here. While he has been to California, he seems not to have looked out of the window to note the huge expanses of land that are absent a single soul. He seems not to have asked himself just how many people are too many, and how to tell that it is true or not.  In the same manner, having taken in Al Gore's gloom and doom, he doesn't seem to have noticed that the whole scam is based on carefully constructed lies, bolstered by circular arguments.  He hasn't asked himself a single relevant question, such as what caused earlier periods of global warming when man did not yet drive automobiles or use fossil fuels.  Instead he's swallowed the whole malarkey sandwich.

So, should we blame Al Gore for the siege at Discovery Channel, and for this man's death?  Interestingly, I say no.  Al Gore will have his own sins to carry to his judgement day, as will we all.  He doesn't have to carry the burden for this crazy freak as well.  What Al Gore hopes to do is raise the cost of energy to exorbitantly high levels, and then rake off a share for doing nothing and adding no value whatsoever.  Frankly, this is despicable and dishonest.  A little more honesty, Mr. Gore, would be appreciated. 

Oh Noes! People on No-Fly List Can BUY GUNS!

Terry Jeffrey has a pantie wetting piece over at Townhall.com in which he hysterically reports that The U.S Allowed Terrorists on the No-Fly List to Buy Guns! A quote should get your blood boiling:

As the GAO's Larence told the Homeland Security Committee, "being on the watch list does not automatically disqualify someone from possessing or receiving firearms or explosives. Rather, there must be a disqualifying factor such as a felony or immigration violation."

and

Surely, the foreign nationals on the terror watch list, not to mention those on the no-fly list, can be instantly denied any opportunity to buy a gun in the United States without violating either the letter or spirit of the Second Amendment.

For what it's worth, Jeffrey is railing against foreigners only, who are on the no-fly list being allowed by buy guns. He makes clear that United States citizens should not be included on the list of prohibited persons. But he seems to forget some facts in all this, that would seem to override his complaint.

First of all, as a matter of law, just because some bureaucrat has inserted a name on a Federally held data base does not mean that there is credible evidence that that named person has committed a crime.  People outside a fairly restricted circle have no idea how one's name gets added to the list, or how to clear oneself of the stigma that obtains from being on "the list."  People are supposed to have the right to confront and question their accuser.  If our government were still following the Constitution, the bureaucrat who flagged your name would have to be part of the record.  There would be a formal appeals process where you could hear the evidence against you, and dispute it. If there were evidence of a crime having been committed, presumably the FBI would charge you with that crime, which then must be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. Absent that, if a person is here legally, he is entitled to self defense the same as a citizen is. Of course, were he not here legally, I hope he would be charged and deported, but in any case that would be a disqualifying crime.

Second, practically, terrorists do not usually purchase their firearms and explosives from legal dealers.  If they did, and if they were denied through legal means, they would just go on the black market and purchase what they need.  At least if they purchase it legally, we can later track it back to them.  Also, if they were denied based on the secret "list," they would have a way to know whether or not the government was on to them.  All they have to do is go into a gun dealer periodically and go through the motions of purchasing a firearm.  If they come back clean, they tell the dealer they have decided not to buy at this time.  If they come back denied, they know someone is watching them.

Finally, morally, gun control has never worked as advertised; indeed, it has worked in exactly the opposite way it has been sold to people.  It was sold to people as a way to stop crime.  Certainly, crime has many causes, but one thing we know is that the less risky committing a crime is, the more likely it will be done.  The more risky, the less likely.  Guns in the hands of the average citizen make committing a crime more risky for the criminal, and less risky for the law abiding.

Today you want to take away the rights of a few legal foreigners.  Having set that precedent though, next it will be United States citizens whose rights will be denied.  Then all the government has to do to deny anybody his or her rights recognized by the Second Amendment is to put their name on the no-fly list.  Nothing needs ever be legally proved, they don't even need to be charged with a crime.  They can never get their name off the list.  It's perfect from the perspective of an administration that believes in gun control. Rebecca Peters would be proud.

The US as Human Rights Abuser

As if more proof were needed that The One is part of the Marxist/Progressive/Fascist/Socialist/Communist One-Worlder moonbat fringe, he has now reported that the United States is a human rights abuser to a rank set of human rights abusing dictators. [Sarcasm on]Swell[/Sarcasm] The story can be found at the American Thinker today here. Carol A. Taber comments.

Only one truly disdains America. His name is Barack Obama.

How else to explain his latest outrage against the country that elevated him to the ranks of world leadership? Last week, the Obama State Department submitted a report to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights on the supposed human rights violations taking place in the United States. According to the Washington Times, the report

describes how the United States discriminates against the disabled, homosexuals, women, Native Americans, blacks, Hispanics and those who don't speak English. There is the expected pandering to Muslims...the report notes that until recently, the U.S. engaged in torture, unlawfully detained terrorist suspects and illegally spied on Americans communicating with terrorists ... but the report assures readers that Mr. Obama has been putting a stop to all that.

The heat of the boil just went up a notch.

It is long past time to impeach this guy. How much worse could Biden be?  It is only in the fantasy land that the Collectivists occupy that the United States is called a human rights abuser.  Look at China, at Cuba, at Iran...look at Mexico!  You think all those people cross our border because we are abusing human rights?  Do you think it is easier to come to the U. S. where they don't know the language that to stay in Mexico, where they have family, friends, and do know the language?  The truth is that Mr. Obama could have thrown a dart at a map of the world while blindfolded and come up with a more suitable candidate for human rights abuser than the United States.

Baking Your Own from Scratch-Literally

If you have been following my blog, you know that I bake bread. I have previously posted about it here. Now I find that there are others.

Who knew?

Gardenserf has a post up that asks the question if baking bread will become a revolutionary act?. I would note that there is currently a bill in the Senate, S510 that could potentially make it much more difficult for the small producers of food to remain in business. Senator Burr, whom I have supported in the past is a sponsor. Grrr.

I have not actually ground my own wheat, and at my age I probably never will. In any case, this area is not known for growing wheat, so I buy Gold Medal Bread flour.  King Arthur and Pillsbury Bread Flour are also good, but I find Gold Medal to be an excellent value that makes a very tasty loaf.  I substitute part of that for rye flour if I want to make rye.  I would also substitute a part if I wanted to make a bread with a more wheaty character.  I substitute only a portion of the bread flour for whole wheat because it is difficult to make a decent loaf out of pure whole wheat, and what you are likely to get looks a lot like the loaf Gardenserf made.  Such bread tastes good, but it is a very heavy.  Rye, barley, millet, and other grains do not produce gluten, so are not suitable for bread making, except as additives for flavor.  I substitute part of the bread flour with all purpose flour if I want a softer loaf.  The only difference between all purpose and bread flour is the mix of wheats used in them, with the bread flour having a higher portion of high gluten wheats.

Now there, you probably know more about flour than you ever wanted to know.