The Next Thing After Climate Change

Van Helsing, over at Moonbattery has an interesting post up entitled Biodiversity, the Left's Next Big Hoax. A hat tip to Bubba of the blog What Bubba Knows for pointing to this site.

According to Van Helsing, Climate Change has now been so debunked, that it is likely to die, though like a snake, whose head remains lethal for several minutes after being lopped off, it still retains the power to kill. The next big thing? Biodiversity.

Climate change had the advantage that the climate never stops changing. Similarly, species never stop going extinct. Only a tiny percentage of the species that have existed are still around today. Meanwhile,

Despite the U.N.'s fear that biodiversity may be at risk, scientists over the past decade have identified new species at an unprecedented rate. The 2008 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) study First Contact in the Greater Mekong reported that 1,068 species were discovered or newly identified by science between 1997 and 2007 — averaging two new species a week. And the Census of Marine Life — an ambitious, 10-year project to catalog the diversity of the world's oceans — recently concluded, having identified more than 6,000 potentially new ocean-going species.

Information like this will soon become scarce, as biologists, like climate scientists, are compelled to become political hacks in exchange for lucrative government grants.

On thing not mentioned about biodiversity in the article is that, as with Climate Change, you must take it on faith that we are destroying species.  Nobody really knows how many species go extinct in a given year, or always what causes it.  They estimate the numbers based on people going out and seeing if they see them.  If they don't, they are assumed extinct, but nobody knows.  Even if the did, as the above indicates, nobody knows how many were here on any given date.  If evolution truly is working, one would have to postulate that some new species also show up to replace those that go extinct.  This is never done.  Finally, both concepts depend on the "fragile environment" theory, the notion that extremely small changes to the environment create a tipping point that will destroy all life.

Faith only works way.  Faith that God created the world for man to live in, with all his foibles, does not enter the picture.

The safety bicycle of the 1890s was a great invention, allowing the common man to travel extended distances to find work, rather than live in squalid ghettos close to his factory. He could shop, work, and enjoy leisure time in the countryside rather than staying within walking distance of home.  Progressives have been railing against this freedom ever since.  The elites naturally feel that letting us unwashed masses out is casting pearls before swine.  What the biodiversity movement will allow them to do is claim ever greater lands as protected habitat for "endangered species."  Once a parcel is named as officially protected habitat, your ability to use your land, land that you paid good money for, becomes very limited, yet you will retain the responsibility of paying taxes.  Of course, like everything else, the rules won't apply to them.  They can have their luxury estates wherever they want, and the price of land will be much cheaper when you can't make any money off of it.

The War on Guns: Outing the Genocide Enablers

David Codrea over at the War On Guns points us to two Examiner articles by Kurt Hoffman. The War on Guns: Outing the Genocide Enablers David says these are excellent, and I agree.  Go read them both, they are not that long, but are hard hitting.  One thing Kurt glides over, probably for lack of space in the article, is the definition of "Progressive" for those who may not still know.  "Progressive" is the latest word used to describe the political movement that has in the past gone by the names of Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Marxist, and most recently, Liberal.  Recently, they have also taken over the Democrat party elite, with 82 members part of the Progressive Caucus.  But even the name, Progressive, is a diversion.  These people do not want to make progress, but to take us back to the time when kings and strongmen ruled over the average person, who was forced to live as a serf, or worse.  As you can see, like criminals, they are always changing their name so as to hide like wolves wearing sheep skins.  The Progressives are the American version of the British Fabian Socialists, whose logo literally contains a wolf wearing a sheep skin.  In their eyes, you are what's for dinner.

With that explanation of what Progressivism is, here is a quote from Josh Horowitz's new book Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea:

Recognize Insurrectionism as a threat to the entire progressive movement. Too many political progressives assume that the gun rights movement can be co-opted or simply ignored. Progressives fail to understand that the Insurrectionist idea is part and parcel of a broader reactionary worldview. Unless progressives recognize that the Insurrectionist premise of the modern gun rights movement is fundamentally hostile to the progressive project and its values, the "conservative" movement will use gun rights as a building block for orgnaizing and propagandizing.

So, finally, after eight decades of this stuff, they finally admit it. Gun control has been framed as a crime control method. When that didn't work, we were told that we needed more of it. When that didn't work, we were told that it was because other States hadn't implemented sufficiently restrictive laws. When some States passed shall issue concealed carry, and crime rates went down, they fought similar laws in other States tooth and nail.  Now the gun grabbers are left with no real arguments, their ideas having been defeated on both principled and practical grounds.  Now, the truth finally comes out-our guns do help us prevent tyranny from taking hold, thus interfering with the Progressive agenda.

Go read the whole thing, and if possible, read Josh Horowitz's book, just don't buy the damn thing.

A Constitional Crisis

In today's American Thinker, T. L. Davis has an excellent article entitled ObamaCare and the Constitutional Crisis. It gives a good overview explanation of the two Constitutional doctrines:

The debate is also a stage-setting for the greater issues of how to read the Constitution. There are two schools of thought on the issue of constitutionality: the Literalist school and the Case Law school. Each one approaches the document from a different point of view. The Literalist reads the words and meanings as they are presented without nuance, whereas the Case Law adherent reads the Constitution as seen through the filters of case law and precedent. The words they see are not the words themselves, but placeholders for an extended file of subsequent cases and rulings.

I am, of course, one of those who is puzzled by some of the decisions rendered by our Supremes. I am disturbed by those who think that the Court is the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional. What that means is that 9 black robed men and women, not We the People, are actually governing this nation.  The idea that my God given and unalienable right to own and carry a weapon, a gun, is somehow dependent on the writings of these 9 men and women is a hideous idea.  The notion that I may exercise my religion only at the sufference of the Court is outrageous.

I have written about this before here. In that post, I made the statement that case law and precedent can not ultimately conflict with the law itself. After all, if it did, then judges would be making law themselves. But that is not a judge's job.  Legislators make law, judges interpret the law in specific cases.  Judges can not interpret the law to mean something the writers of the law never intended.  It is time to reign in activist judges, and Supreme Court Justices.

An unintended consequence of the Supreme Court ruling, should they rule in favor of the Case Law adherent, is that the Literalist majority of Americans might come to feel as if they are no longer free, as if they are unable to understand the rules under which they have given their consent to be governed, as if the conclusion of a long-felt oppression is complete. At this point, social upheaval is not only possible, but likely.

Voters Beware

I would like to think that this sort of thing doesn't happen in our State, but then you hear of stuff like this. A hat tip to Paul Valone of the GRNC for bringing it to my attention.

A Craven County voter says he had a near miss at the polls on Thursday when an electronic voting machine completed his straight-party ticket for the opposite of what he intended.

Sam Laughinghouse of New Bern said he pushed the button to vote Republican in all races, but the voting machine screen displayed a ballot with all Democrats checked. He cleared the screen and tried again with the same result, he said. Then he asked for and received help from election staff.

This sounds hauntingly similar to what occurred in Texas earlier this week. There, a voter noticed that as soon as he voted for Governor Rick Perry, the machine would change the vote to the Green party candidate, then fill in all the Green party candidates down ballot.

He has become suspicious of voter fraud because of news reports he has heard. He would prefer voting machines to display an error message when they need to be calibrated, as opposed to completing ballots for the opposite party, he said.

“I’m all for our country and we know there has been voter fraud before and it continues even today,” Laughinghouse said. “So you get suspicious when something like this happens.”

Update:  More on the incident can be found at Investor's Business Daily. The article also refers to a case in Nevada where a voter who was going to vote for Sharon Angle found the ballot already checked for Harry Reid.

One wonders if all these machines are made by the same firm?

Update 2: The Liberty Sphere has good summation of the various reports of voter fraud around the country. As the Welshman points out, all of these vote machine "glitches" seem to redound to the benefit of...wait for it...Democrats. Does that sound "random" to you? Then we find out that the workers servicing the machines are...wait for it again...SEIU members. Well, golly gee. What can go wrong here. If candidates could be prosecuted for this stuff as well as the perpetrators, such fraud would die down in a hurry.

Beware as you go out to vote. Be alert, and don't cast you ballot until you are sure what you are getting.

Beware Citizens, Beware

The Curmudgeon Emeritus, Francis Porretto's alter-ego, has an unusually thoughtful analysis of where we stand as a nation a week before the elections entitled Terminal Sickness. When I say unusually thougtful, that is saying something, because Mr. Porretto's posts are always worth reading.  So go read it.  I'll have some thoughts on it when you get back.

Done?  Good.

I suspect that Mr. Porretto has been reading some of the same news stories as I have, and knows, perhaps better than I do how underhanded people who subscribe to the Socialist/Facsist/Progressive or whatever they are calling it at the moment, can be.  Outright lying in campaign advertisements is a small thing.  Vandalism, as seen in Houston represent a more desparate approach, but is not out of bounds.  Ensuring that angry constituents can not get into a townhall meeting is small potatos for sure.  I also know that there will be few, if any prosecutions for stealing one or more elections, because they always protect their own. Any means necessary to advance the cause, and the more desparate the situation, the more desparate the actions taken to remain in power.

Pretensions of that character cannot be defeated by real-world consequences. To accept that one has been totally, shatteringly wrong after having laid claim to demigodlike insight, wisdom, and goodness is to accept that one is but mortal after all, and has been badly misled by excessive pride. The protection of social-fascists’ pride has trumped all possibility of admission of error, always and everywhere.

While I do not agree with those who say elections do not matter, I do recognize that the United States is in mortal danger, and that this election will not change that fact, even if conservatives win back both houses of Congress.  But Porretto says it better than I can:

Though America is poised, ten days hence, to recapture one of the halls of power from the social-fascists, the country is nevertheless in danger. Indeed, it wouldn’t take more than one or two more governmental intrusions upon our society and our economy to render them unsalvageable. Already, nearly half the people of the United States draw government checks for some reason. Already, Washington and the states dispose of nearly half of our national income. Already, there are laws and executive orders in place to bring about martial law and the totalitarianization of our country on the pretext of “national emergency.”

We have already seen here in North Carolina how a "state of emergency" can be generated from mere weather events. In one case, a snow fall last winter, and this summer with the hurricanes, states of emergency were declared. Once that happens, it becomes illegal to carry a gun for protection, when one might think one needs it the most.  At the national level, the Democrats have been persuing a Cloward-Piven strategy to overwhelm our economy with so much debt that the dollar collapses.  The media probably already have the stories written of various "experts" and acedemics advising the Government to step in and fix what the Government has deliberately broken.  Polling will show it is a popular move.

Beware fellow citizens, and be prepared.

The War on Guns: Will 'fusion center' accept 'militia enthusiast's' challenge?

The War on Guns: Will 'fusion center' accept 'militia enthusiast's' challenge?

As requested, I am making this known "far and wide." The "enthusiast" cited above is none other than Mike Vanderboegh, and I truly hope they take him up on his offer. Besides being knowledgeable, he is a powerful and entertaining speaker who knows the difference between Constitutional militias and skinhead groups.

One has to wonder though: when our government claims that those who demand that government officials act within the bounds of the Constitution are terrorists, what does it say about our government?

The War on Guns: Will 'fusion center' accept 'militia enthusiast's' challenge?

The War on Guns: Will 'fusion center' accept 'militia enthusiast's' challenge?

As requested, I am making this known "far and wide." The "enthusiast" cited above is none other than Mike Vanderboegh, and I truly hope they take him up on his offer. Besides being knowledgeable, he is a powerful and entertaining speaker who knows the difference between Constitutional militias and skinhead groups.

One has to wonder though: when our government claims that those who demand that government officials act within the bounds of the Constitution are terrorists, what does it say about our government?

A Conflict of Visions

The American Thinker today has a great article by T. L. Davis entitled How the Constitution is Read. In Davis view, there are two ways to read the Constitution. One way, the Tea Party way, is to...well...read the Constitution. It is a relatively straight forward document, easily accessible to the average person. Taken this way, Cristine O'Donnell's question at the debate with the Bearded Marxist is correct. The "separation of Church and State" simply is not in the first amendment.  The Founders didn't write it, and a reading of the writings of the Founders indicates they did not intend it.  So where does it come from?

The other way to read the Constitution is by reading and applying all the opinions that have been made by the Supremes along the way.  In this way of reading it, the Constitution literally changes with each new precedent.  The establishment clause of the First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Over the years, using cases that have come before it, the Supremes have ruled that the second part, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," is to be read only sotto voce if at all. Because of the concept of stare decis these then become precedents in the next case that comes before the Supremes. In this way, over time, the Supremes can totally change the Constitution, all without having to go through the rigorous process of formally amending the document.

Reading and understanding precedents is, of course, a valuable thing, as it prevents each judge in the country from becoming a law unto himself.  At the same time, precedents can not be allowed to be taken more seriously than the underlying law itself.  If a precedent is wrongly decided, because it conflicts with the law, and then that precedent is used to make a case for further wrongly deciding another case, and so on, you can see how this pseudo-law would eventually be so at odds with the Constitution, that anyone who read the original document would have to believe that an amendment had been passed, but not printed in his copy.  It would be as if there were a conflict between what Jesus said, and St. Paul said, and our Judges went with St. Paul, but still called the religion Christianity.  People reading what Jesus actually said would feel justifiably betrayed.

Davis posits that the conflict of visions inherent in the reading of the Constitution will be the basis for most of the conflict in the Congress, if the Tea Partiers take over.  The conflict of visions will be most in play in the Senate, which must confirm not only Supreme Court Justices, but also every signal Federal Judge.  The battle has been raging, largely below the radar, because not enough people are aware of the problem.  We need to become aware. I would note that when Christine O'Donnell asked the question, everyone in the audience laughed.  We have a lot of work to do. 

Juan Williams, can you see reality yet?

I was shocked yesterday to note that Juan Williams was fired from NPR.  It is hard to imagine that good hearted, sincere Williams had done anything to deserve this.  And it turns out, he didn't. What he did was speak the truth, but the truth turns out to be too much for the folks at NPR.

C. Edmund Wright details the comparison between the Juan Williams firing and the Don Imus firing in the American Thinker today, in an article entitled Juan Williams, Welcome to Imusville. The difference, of course is that Imus commented about the Rutgers womens' basketball team in terms that can only be described as insulting. Not that Imus should have been fired, but it was impolite. Williams on the other hand was speaking about his own feelings when a Muslim gets on an airplane.  I have listened to the video, and I did not see anything even resembling a bigoted statement by Williams.  Under the circumstances Williams gave, I get nervous too.  In any case, a quote:

And he gets canned very publicly for saying something we all believe -- that we are a bit nervous when we see men in obviously Muslim dress on our airplane flights. I know I sure as hell do. On my last flight, there was a dead ringer for Zaccharius Massoui. I mean twin material! And he was scowling and acting nervous -- and flying alone. And we were depending on Jamaican security! I was literally in a cold sweat. (There goes my NPR career).

I suspect NPR was already looking for an excuse to get rid of Williams, and found one in these trumped up charges.  You see, Williams also did commentary for FOX News, appearing on Britt Hume's, now Brett Bair's show.  He provided a valuable balance to the conservative opinions offered on that show; opinions often based on wrong facts to be sure, but valuable nonetheless.

Thus the world view on the left comes into focus again. It's not the truth of what you say, but how "sensitive" it is for YOU to be saying it.  A Muslim could make this comment, but not a black person, just as in Imus case a black person could make his comment, but not a white person.  Do you think Williams sees it yet?

A Primer on "Social Justice"

Bruce Walker today has an article on the American Thinker entitled Social Justice and Fair Taxes. It is a good introduction to the entire issue of "social justice," which, as is usual for the Left, turns out to be no justice at all. Go read the whole article.

I have wondered all of my working life how the "progressive" income tax system can be termed fair? I have wondered how taxing one person at a higher rate than another can be justified by the equal protection of the law? Wouldn't equal protection require that everyone be treated...well...equally? Mr. Walker delves into these questions:

The snarling face of social justice lies behind the mask of fair taxes. Why should those who earn more pay higher taxes than the rest of us? Do we have some moral claim upon the wealth they create? It is just the opposite: they who produce more have a claim on the rest of us, who consume more than we produce. The titans of industry a century ago -- Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, and the rest -- turned out cheap and high-quality products which were a principal reason for our rise as a great nation. Their personal wealth represented a miniscule part of the national wealth they created.

Men like Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Jonas Salk, and others lived more to create scientific and technological breakthroughs than to earn money. Indeed, for many of these men, money was simply a tool to allow them to do more good. The same is true today. Microsoft, FedEx, and Wal-Mart created wealth that we consume. These creators, in the equations of economic advantage, owe us nothing at all. We, instead, owe them much. The left's love of social justice does not rest even on the hoary, dull tomes of Marxism. Producers, not consumers, are the exploited in Marxist mythology, and huge chunks of American consumers -- the ones crying for fair taxes -- produce almost nothing.

In these two paragraphs, Walker states both the correct, and the incorrect attitudes towards money. Money is a tool, to be used to create more good. But those who envy others have a perverted sense of the use and value of money, focusing instead on the luxury it may buy, rather than on the use of it to create more good. 

Take a look at this video by Steven Crowder over at Theo Sparks site. It is an interesting look at a typical rich person. Note in the closing lines, where he discusses how his inventory is treated for tax purposes. He has not made a nickel on that inventory, and many things may happen along the way to ensure that he doesn't, yet he has to pay taxes on it in advance. Notice too that he started off making furniture by hand, but discovered that he couldn't feed his family on it. But rather than complain, he looked around and figured out how to do what he loves and feed his family, and the families of 25 other folks as well. This is an excellent film clip that really brings together what it all means.

The idea of a flat tax or now they have reworked into the "Fair Tax" has been around for a long time.  Isn't it time we all took a serious look at it, and applied its principles?

Become a Poll Watcher

In the American Thinker yesterday, Ed Lasky had a piece entitled Democrat Dirty Tricks: The Next Round in which he described things the Democrats are doing, or attempting to do, to reduce voter turn out for TEA Party and Republican candidates, and to pump up votes for Democrat candidates. A quote:

The Democrats have also been peddling xenophobia when spreading conspiracy tales regarding Chamber of Commerce ads -- enough ink has been spilled on this topic to spare you any more exposure except to make a couple of points. The Democrats have their own history of taking foreign money (Google "Gore, Clinton, donations"), and I do find it rather hypocritical for Obama to be slamming foreigners. Maybe he is just a bitter Democratic clinging to agitprop and resorting to xenophobia to salve his wounded pride. In any case, the Democrats have been touting this malarkey in local races around the country -- to little success other than breeding cynicism.

But the tactic had a broader purpose. The idea has been to use it as a wedge to pry into names of donors from the groups spending money on political ads against Democrats and their policies. Once these names are made public, the real "fun" begins as the Democratic "dogs of war" are unleashed. Target had a target on its back when it donated to a group that, in turn, donated a small amount of their total funds to a candidate who had views that offended gay groups. Then the mobocracy went into action, threatening boycotts, protesting, and the like against Target -- all with the help of plenty of newspaper reporting.

Result? Target has pulled its support with its tail between its legs. All corporations are now on notice to obey or get a newspaper whack.

Pretty mild stuff, wouldn't you say? More serious have been ads that outright lie about the oppositions opinions. Case in point:

In one example cited, Washington Democratic Senator Patty Murray ran an ad regarding a tanker competition between foreign-owned Airbus and local employer Boeing, featuring the question "Should Boeing workers have a level playing field?" The ad cut to a clip of Republican challenger Dino Rossi, answering, "No. Not as far as I am concerned."

What was the problem? Rossi was answering a different question, and Murray's machinations led to some creative cutting and pasting that constituted blatant dishonesty.

In the past, I have seen ads that mischaracterize the oppositions' positions. These ads walk the tightrope between out and out lying and just misunderstanding. This year, I have seen the ads become unscrupulous, and I have to seriously wonder about the character of the men and women who claim to stand behind the ads.

Today, in the American Thinker, J. R. Dunn has a article entitled The Democrats Will Steal The Election If We Let Them that is a must read. Dunn takes on a little trip through history, highlighting some of the more egregious examples of Democrat election theft.  He wonders why Republicans always let this theft slide.  I wonder too.  While I understand that they do not wish to engage in the same sort of underhanded tactics employed by the Democrats, they should have pursued election theft and voter fraud at every turn, and loudly and publicly prosecuted as many as they could.  It would be in their own best interest (one would think) and would be in the interests of their voters.

We have a clear picture of how vicious the Dems can be, how thorough their plans, and how far they will go. Stealing elections is no peccadillo, no charming piece of nostalgia from the days when men wore white gloves and top hats to check the mailbox. The Democratic Party is, in a real sense, built on electoral fraud, and not only in Chicago. The Dems have used the vilest criminal elements to carry out their electoral schemes. They have used fraud to control cities, regions, and entire states. Not even the presidency has been immune. Men have been killed for trying to vote in the United States of America, the same as in El Salvador, Lebanon, or Afghanistan. Those days could return at any time if we let them. (None of this is to suggest that Republicans never steal the vote. But the tenor is different. With Republicans, it's kind of an amateur effort, along the lines of a cottage industry. With Democrats, it's big business, like Big Steel or Google.)

The big question is, what to do about it. The Dems are not going to out themselves, and apparently the Repubs aren't going to do anything about it either. So, here is an idea:

Though on second thought, I may be wrong there. Because this year, a third force does exist: the Tea Parties. Protection of the vote is a perfect role for the TPs. Up until now, questions of voting irregularities have been treated as a matter between the candidates, or at best between the parties, with no public participation requested or expected. In truth, intrusion by the public is long overdue. At the least, it would serve to brace up a timid GOP. But there is much more scope for action here, in the traditional form of poll-watchers on one hand and on the other, the intense moral pressure that can exerted by community leaders by their simple presence.

As I understand it, anybody can be a poll watcher. Call the Board of Elections in your county, and register with them.  Inform the precinct Chief Judge when you arrive. He or she will tell you where to sit. Have a pad, and take notes. Observe the people working the polls, and make notes of any irregularities. Poll watchers are not allowed to interfere, but they can report these irregularities to their local TEA Party groups.  Poll watchers are also not allowed to speak to voters.

A Bloodless Revolution-Not

The Curmudgeon Emeritus over at the blog Eternity Road takes the wind out of the sails of some of the Republicans out there with his post Wishful Thinking Department: A Bloodless Revolution. The Curmudgeon throws some cold water on the faces of some who seem all too ebullient, but he is just stating the realities surrounding the November 2 elections.  The elections are anything but a slam-dunk.  ACORN is still out there, under whatever name they are going by today, and they are doing what they have already done.  In one case, in Houston, TEA partiers had to ferret out voter registration fraud themselves. When they did that, and the data was turned over to the DA, the voting machines in Houston were burned. Think there might be a connection?  In the case of the Houston fraud, the SEIU had it's fingerprints on the act, but SEIU and ACORN in many cases shared offices.  Meanwhile, in New York New Mexico, and Nevada, overseas military absentee ballots were not mailed out in time, and so these votes may not count. It is appalling that our men and women fighting on the front lines may be disenfranchised because one party fears they may vote for the other guy.

Yesterday, driving back from Washington, NC (the transmitter site of the Voice of America), I heard on the news that Christine O'Donnell was now only 11 points behind the bearded Marxist.  She had apparently beaten him in a debate, and had cut his lead in half.  I was shocked.  I would have thought it was a no brainer.  Here we have a common sense Christian woman, who has stated that she will read and make a determination of the Constitutionality of every piece of legislation she votes on.  She is for lower taxes and less spending.  Against her is the bearded Marxist.  Which one best represents how you feel?  Because in sending the bearded Marxist to the Senate, you are saying that he best represents the majority of voters in Delaware.  Or put another way, if I want to know what Delawareans are like, I should just look to who they elected to represent them.

Go and read the Curmudgeon's piece and ponder.  We need to redouble our efforts to get these TEA party candidates elected.  Our Republic is rapidly disappearing down the hole, unless we act now. 

Update: From Theo Sparks we the video featuring the bearded Marxist as "The Taxman."

Fortress America

In today's American Thinker, there is an article by Zbigniew Mazurak entitled Why Not a Fortress America. The article is an interesting read, but ultimately long on assertions, and short on actual proofs that these assertions are correct.  Ron Paul has complained that our military has become bloated, with American forces in countries all over the world, defending people who should, quite frankly, take care of their own defense.

In my old age, I begin to think that maybe the best course of action is the traditional one.  Have a relatively small professional force, heavy on officers and senior enlisted, and then revive and reinvigorate the State militias.  One of the duties of the professional force would be to train the State militias.  Every able bodied individual would be required to attend "boot camp" under the professional force, and then would be a member of the State militia in whichever State he chose to reside.  Conscientious objectors could choose to perform duties such as medics, and hospital personnel.  Those determined to be disabled could still perform some duties, depending on their disability and their skills.  To avoid the enslavement argument, anyone can opt out of the system, but would forfeit his or her right to vote or be involved in politics for life.

Once a month, the State militias would have to drill, and practice their militia skills at the County level.  The State Governor would have control over the militias, and would therefore have some say in using them in the event of war.  The States would also have a ready force that could be called out to help in the event of emergencies such as hurricanes.  An interesting aspect of the State militia system is that every member would be issued a rifle and a handgun, which he then must maintain and drill with regularly.  Members would also have to maintain a go-bag that has everything they need so that they are ready to deploy on being called.

Imagine that one of the bogeymen the author of the article brings up invades the United States.  Imagine that that invading army is suddenly confronted with a force of, say 50 million armed people who know the landscape, know tactics that work in their area, and are determined to protect their friends and families.  Why not a "Fortress America?" 

RTC Conflates Nonviolence with Pacifism

As I have mentioned on several occasions, I carry a gun most of the time. I am not a pacifist. More interestingly, I have attended two Restore the Constitution rallies, and I was armed each time. So it was with some sadness that I recently saw a post on the RTC site that seemed to confuse pacifism with nonviolence. That post can be found at Nonviolence is for Civilians. Go read, then come back.

The word "violence" comes from the same root as "violate." To commit violence is to violate another person, to take away their natural rights by force. Self defense is not truly violence, since you are not trying to take away another's natural rights by force, but merely attempting to stop a violation of yourself. It is not, as some put it, "protective violence," but correctly called defense.  We should use the term "defense" and get away from the term "protective violence," for using this terminology allows the gun grabbers to also conflate violence with defense, and then propose a solution to nonexistent problem.

Pacifism is a philosophy which takes the Lord's injunction to turn the other cheek quite literally.  Pacifists believe that you not only must turn the other cheek, but also must let the violator pound upon you, even to death.  Such people believe they will earn points with the Lord, perhaps, or not incur "bad karma."  It gives the person who espouses such a belief an apparently pious stand, while completely ignoring nature and natures God.  What such a belief does is replace a knowledge of human nature with nothing but hope.  When the Lord gave his injunction to turn the other cheek, he was talking about how a higher status person treated a lower status one.  In those days, the higher status person would slap a lower status person across the face.  Since most people use their right hands, the left cheek would be slapped.  Jesus said that rather than feel resentment, offer the other cheek, in other words, shame them.  Make them feel small.  Jesus didn't say to take a beating, or allow them to kill you without a fight.

One way to read Jesus is as a guerrilla who was fighting using unsymmetrical warfare.  You can understand Ghandi and MLK in similar terms.  We know, for instance, that MLK had armed bodyguards around him most of the time.  The Deacons for Defense and Justice guarded not only MLK, but the crowds who came to hear him speak.  I don't know about Ghandi, but I suspect he must have had similar guards to have survived.  There is even an indication that Jesus had armed bodyguards.  When Jesus was taken by the Romans, Peter drew a sword and cut off the ear of one of the high priest's servants.  Did Peter always carry that sword?  Mike Vanderboegh has famously given a command to the Three Percenters, "No Fort Sumters."  What that means is that our side will not fire the first shot-conversely, we will finish the fight.  That is a nonviolent statement, in that our side will not violate their side, but it is certainly not pacifism.

The Cliffs of Insanity: What will you do without Due Process?

The Cliffs of Insanity: What will you do without Due Process?

The Cliffs of Insanity has a great post up asking "what does it mean when you no longer have a right to due process?"

The immediate issue has to do with Cheyenne Irish, who was taken from her parents shortly after birth because her Dad is a member of the Oath Keepers.  But the Avie goes on to list a number of instances where due process has been abrogated.  Each time it happens, it frightens me, and I don't understand it.  The laws, when fairly applied, with proper due process, protects those who now wish to do away with it as well as those they feel may have violated the law.  Without due process, we don't really have law at all, but an arbitrarily applied sense of what may or may not be lawful.  Already, our "laws" are unmoored from basic Biblical morality.  Once a large minority of people become aware that they will get no justice, that the rules are designed to take what is theirs and give it to others, people will begin to avoid, or disobey laws they feel they can get away with, and it will be nearly impossible to bring society back to where most people, most of the time, respect the law.

Western Rifle Shooters Association has a good take on the same post. Go read it. In fact, go read both of them.  Then ponder their meaning.

The Revolutionary as Little Boys Railing Against their Fathers

Last night, Mrs. PolyKahr and I were watching the History Channel.  This being football season, and living as I do in the mid-Atlantic region where college football is a religion, nothing much was on.  We were watching the Tom Brokow piece on the events of 1968.  Now, I am not given to keen insights often, and when I thought about this one, I realize that I had actually gained the insight 40 years ago, but just now realized what it meant.  Enough mystery?  Read on.

In 1968, the anti-Vietnam war groups (for then as now, the Left changed names like you and I change clothing) had finally gathered enough people to bring their incessant demonstrations, street theatre, and rallies to the attention of the government.  I remember watching the events unfolding at the Democrat National Convention that year, and so I saw the news coverage of the riots outside the convention.  Now, the insight that I had at the time was that the members of the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and the other rioting groups were first and foremost, revolutionaries.  What I mean is that these people would be rioting, and causing trouble no matter if a war was going or not-they would find a cause.  If the Kingdom of God suddenly came to the earth, they would be on the other side railing against it.  The anti-war pose,was a cause they could latch onto, but they were revolutionaries first.  Al Capp summed it up best, as he usually did, with the creation of his hippy characters calling themselves SWINE (Students Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything.)  The name said it all.  But for forty years, I had taken their various causes seriously.  Thanks to that insight, provided by Al Capp, I don't any more.  Al Capp, for those too young to remember, wrote the satirical cartoon L'il Abner in the daily newspaper.

Now, rebellion against one's parents is the natural way of things.  As you grow older, you become more independent.  It is how you eventually gain the courage to leave home.  But most of us realize at some point, as we begin to make our way, that our parents actually knew whereof they spoke, and acquire a new found respect for them.  But people like Bill Ayers never quite grew up.  He is still raging against his parent.  It makes me more sad than anything to realize this-though I also realize that people like him are a great danger to the republic.

Tort Reform and the Second Amendment

With a hat tip to Theo Sparks, today we find our selves at Pajamas Media where Howard Nemerov has a post up entitled Hidden Threat to the Second Amendment. It is interesting, and frightening because so few of us are paying attention most of the time.  Why?  I think part is deliberate.  Those "in the know" have little reason to tell the public what is going on in a straight forward fashion, and the press generally have no desire to highlight it either, lest someone gets upset.  Add to that the boring and tedious nature of much of it, and you can see why it doesn't get much play.  But Mr. Nemerov makes it quite readable.  So go read.

A quote here:

History shows why investing in congressional candidates can maintain a favorable legal environment for future high-return litigation. Lawyers received billions of dollars in contingency fees from the tobacco settlement in November 1998, in which manufacturers were held liable for the deliberate actions of consumers. In Texas alone, attorneys were awarded $2.3 billion...

As the article goes on to explain, the tobacco companies don't pay these costs, which amount to an additional tax, but rather pass the costs on to consumers, many of whom do not smoke. The gun industry is just a conveniently small and relatively defenseless industry to go after to get the precedent. Once gotten, they will go after industries where there is real money to be made. The plaintiff's bar will sue, win, and walk away with billions of dollars in fees taken from major industries. Those industries will in turn charge each of their consumers to make that up. It is outrageous and unjust.

I have no problem with all sorts of business that actually perform a useful service, or make an actual product, and sell it to willing buyers. I actually admire Bill Gates (though I don't agree with his politics.) But this system, which I'll call "jackpot justice" wherein the public is fleeced of billions of dollars, which are then transferred to trial lawyers and their lawmaker friends, has to stop. Like Cap and Trade legislation, this system bilks billions of dollars out of the hands of the public, but adds no value whatsoever. It unjustly enriches a few elites, who wouldn't be able to make it in the real world. If Democrats were really looking out for the "little guy," they would have put a stop to jackpot justice long ago. Of course, Republicans want tort reform, but that is only because they aren't getting any of the gravy.

But back to the Second Amendment, for a moment.  Sooner or later the trial lawyers will find a sympathetic judge who is willing to entertain their theory, and allow the suit against a gun maker for the acts of the criminal.  When that happens, it will just be a matter of time before there are no gun manufacturers left in these United States, or if there are, they won't sell to the public.  Similarly, Glock and other foreign manufacturers will shy away from selling to the public.  As they do now, they will be able to show that every weapon they make will be sold to a police or military agency, or to a foreign government.  Of course, criminals will still be able to obtain what they need through theft and black market sources, as they do now.  Microstamping, if it causes them a problem, will be relatively easily defeated.   Only you, the law abiding individual, will be seriously inconvenienced.   

Bruce Montague-Profile in Courage

With a tip of the hat to David Hardy of the blog Of Arms and the Law comes the story of Bruce Montague, a brave Canadian who has been challenging their Firearms Act, and is now in danger of forfeiting his house. Go read the website.

I would note that the Ontario Attorney General is showing all the "compassion" we have come to expect from the gun grabbers. Putting Bruce in jail for flouting the law is, if not justified, at least expected. But to take his house, put his wife on the street, and endanger his children's education is the sort of thing one expects of a Mexican drug cartel, not a Western liberal democracy.   Can it truly be that mere possession of inanimate objects by someone who has no intention of using them to commit an actual crime justifies such harsh punishment of not only the man, but innocent bystanders as well?

A person who fears, say, screw drivers, and who constantly rails that these dangerous objects need to be controlled, their owners licensed, and that anyone who wants one needs to be treated like a criminal would be considered slightly daft.  If the screwdriver-phobe suggested that the police waste their time by registering all the screwdrivers as a crime fighting measure, most people would conclude that he was, to use a technical term, nuts.  Never mind that it is true that screw drivers are used to murder people, and so our screwdriver-phobe does have a point.  But screwdrivers also have benefits to society, enabling the fastening of objects together in such a way that they can subsequently be easily taken apart.  Rational people recognize that the correct use of screwdrivers is vastly more useful to society than their misuse is harmful.  People also recognize that most of their fellow men will use screwdrivers correctly.

So, why then do people take notice of hoplophobes who rail that guns should be controlled?  True, guns can be used to kill, but the presence of guns possessed by people who become targets of criminal attack save vastly more lives.  Read John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime.  Two neighbors might work on a project together, with screwdrivers, hammers, and wrenches within reach of either of them, and nobody thinks for even a second that one of the neighbors might kill the other.  But suddenly when we are talking about a gun, visions of the gun taking over and making one of our neighbors homicidal come to mind.  Why?  Keep in mind too, that the greater power of a gun compared to a screwdriver only means that more precautions should be used when handling them, just as a table saw requires greater awareness and precaution.  Such awareness and precaution are easily within the power of the ordinary man or woman.

What I suspect it is, is that professional politicians are, at best, busy body nannies who view themselves as more knowledgeable about how you should live your life than you.  Of course, they can't control criminals, but they won't take responsibility for what happens to you if you are legally disarmed either.  So why not give free reign to their natural proclivities?  Add to this mix a media that seeks to sensationalize rather than inform, to give vent to the extremes rather than present the normal, and you have the makings of of a witches brew for the average citizen.  If, on the other hand, politicians were truly responsible for their actions, unjust laws like Canada's Firearms Act would never be passed in the first place.

Who They Are

Coming a little late to the party, but I had to, you know, actually earn money yesterday.

The American Thinker has an article up today, entitled Analyse This Sigmund, Your Great Granddaughter Digs Child Sacrifice by Stella Paul. If you haven't seen it yet, there is a copy of the video at the bottom of the page, which was working at the time this was posted.  Go read the article, then watch the disgusting video.  We'll have a little discussion when you are done.

If I was making something to show you a little bit of who these people are, I would make this video.  But I don't have to, because they have done it for me.  This is who they are, and it should shock, horrify, and disgust you if you didn't quite believe it before.  Glenn Beck asks if this is the "push."  What he is referring to is the book "Nudge" by Cass Sunstein.  Sunstein's idea of the human race is that we are a bunch of sheep, to be herded in one direction or another by subtle nudges-a nip at the heels, so to speak.  But if a nudge won't do it, our sheep dogs have to get more aggressive, say a push, or shove.  Of course, for those who are truly recalcitrant, there may be the need for the concentration camps, or to simply be "disappeared."  No pressure, of course, it's your choice.  This is who these people are:

As James Delingpole memorably puts it, "With No Pressure, the environmental movement has revealed the snarling, wicked, homicidal misanthropy beneath its cloak of gentle, bunny-hugging righteousness."

This is also who these people are:

Are you shocked to learn that Emma Freud and Richard Curtis are brazen hypocrites with a corpulent carbon footprint that includes four kids and three homes? But of course, it's your kids they want to sacrifice, not theirs (though someone might want to call Child Services on these two and make sure). Rest assured, the human sacrifice of you and yours will not disturb the compassionate couple as they enjoy their elegant townhouse in London and country estates in Suffolk and Oxfordshire.

One here has to think about Lenin's useful idiots. Do they really believe that they will somehow be spared when the tyrant takes over? Do they really think these people want to share power, or do they just hope that they will be the last ones killed. Our society has been based on valuing people for who they are, not what they can do. But in the society the Left contemplates, the watch words will be "yes, but what have you done for me lately.

Yet despite the yearnings of the ruling class, regular people may not be willing to commit suicide just yet. "No Pressure" could prove to have been a watershed moment, when the mask of faux compassion dropped and the Left let us see their deepest dreams -- and irreversibly revealed the rot in their souls. Within hours of its release, the video was pulled after massive outraged protests. Now its makers are halfheartedly apologizing and making noises that they didn't mean it. But as Emma Freud's great-grandfather once said, "Dreams are often most profound when they seem the most crazy."

We can only hope that this will serve to wake people out of their slumber.

But maybe you still don't believe. Here is a video of the various communist and socialists that were at the "One Nation Rally" held on the Washington DC Mall on 10/2/2010 here. Don't believe the Communists were really behind it? Check here or here.  Unless you actually lived through it, it is hard, sitting here well fed in our comfy homes, to understand the sheer terror of living under such a regime.  Imagine you and a trusted friend go into the bathroom so you can say something that you don't want the regime to hear, then you have to wonder if it will ever come back to haunt you, and this wondering keeps you up at nights.  Perhaps you can survive, but it warps your soul.

Two from the American Thinker

There are two articles up today at the American Thinker that I wanted to highlight to my readers. The first is Political Extremism, Left and Right by Bruce A. Riggs. I am always impressed when I read an article by someone who "gets it." This is such an article.  While the Marxist theory seems to be a beautiful idea on the surface-from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs-it ultimately ignores human nature and can only be sustained by a totalitarian system.  To Alinsky's "make them live by their own rule book" I say "you first," because they always fail to live up to their promises.  Let's look at a quote:

It requires a totalitarian state because it is a delusional quest to return man to an egalitarian herd from which he evolved thousands of years ago. And as the history of the twentieth century shows, humanity rebels against such coerced devolution. Marx's elimination of private property coincidentally strips incentives to produce. The result is social decay to a dismal level of perpetual shortages and shared poverty -- just ask the citizens who stood in the endless bread lines of the former USSR.

The radical Left's denial of human nature carries with it the arrogant assumption that humans are little more than replicated androids content to do whatever government mandates. This is simply elitist wishful thinking which projects sheep-like docility on independent beings which are more feline than bovine in nature -- and you can't herd cats.

The revolutionary socialists' road to its egalitarian fantasy world is less about achieving an altruistic "social justice" than it is about pursuing a self-serving, compulsive quest for personal redemption: The revolutionists denied human nature at work. It is a zealotry which, history shows, has led to the perverse belief that wholesale executions, killing fields, mass starvations, and forced-labor gulags are perfectly legitimate, even necessary, means of creating the perfect socialist world. These slaughters were done solely to extinguish the educated, innovative, entrepreneurial, productive "bourgeoisie" -- the "greedy" middle class whose existence was/is intolerable to the priesthood of this ostensibly egalitarian, if murderous, Collectivist ethos.

You will notice also, in all the discussion, that Marxism is a materialistic theory, as is Capitalism. But here's the difference: Marxism requires you to give up your God, and to view the State as a god. Capitalism leaves that entirely up to you. Soviet Russia was an actively atheistic State. The Communists did not entirely get rid of the Church, but it was suppressed with regulations and spies.  A lot of people who might have been drawn to the Church were kept out by fear.  The Churches were also prevented from satisfying the social needs of their communities, as they do here.  The State didn't want anyone showing it up, least of all the Church.  So, if you were brave, you could "worship" but you couldn't practice your religion.  Practicing Christianity means discipleship, which inevitably leads to providing social services for those in need.  Hitler took a different approach.  He solved the problem by substituting a pagan State wherein the pagan sources from which he cobbled together his "religion" supported the Nazi ideology.  But many pastors and priests were jailed and killed for speaking out. 

Man is more than his physical needs.  Indeed, to see man as only a collection of physical needs is to see him as only an animal.  But then, maybe that's why they see no moral impediment to killing millions of people.  After all, don't we destroy those animals among our stock which don't meet the physical characteristics, and don't have the proper temperament?  Seeing human beings as a collection of physical wants, needs and appetites leads to seeing them as essentially farm animals, and worth about as much when they can no longer perform for you.  We used to call that slavery.

Next up is an article entitled A Clear and Present Danger: Obama, a 'Living Constitution' and 'Positive Rights' by Monte Kuligowski.

We're not talking about the Constitution's enumerated functions of the federal government; we're talking about reading into the Constitution a list of positive rights which satisfy leftist notions of "political and economic justice."

and

Lost on the left, however, is the fact that the Bill of Rights was enacted to protect the states from central control. In spite of history and context, the U.S. Supreme Court has long since turned the amendments passed to protect the states against the states. The Warren Court ran wild in that abuse, telling the states and their localities what they couldn't do -- by overturning timeless speech and religious traditions of the people and effectively nationalizing political correctness.

Go read the whole thing. For myself, I need to go harvest some grass.