Tuesday, November 30, 2010

This Just In: Corn Doesn't Make Good Fuel for Cars

Debra Saunders has an article up today at the Patriot Post entitled You Can Stop Paying for Al Gore's Mistake. The article says that Al Gore has finally realized that ethanol isn't a very good fuel, and because it uses tons of fossil fuel to make, hasn't helped the environment either.

In Greece earlier this month, Al Gore made a startling admission: "First-generation ethanol, I think, was a mistake." Unfortunately, Americans have Gore to thank for ethanol subsidies. In 1994, then-Vice President Gore ended a 50-50 tie in the Senate by voting in favor of an ethanol tax credit that added almost $5 billion to the federal deficit last year. And that number doesn't factor the many ways in which corn-based ethanol mandates drive up the price of food and livestock feed.
These politicians remind me of children who have to stick their fingers in lamp sockets to prove that it's a bad idea, and the "environmentalists" aren't much better. Any first year physics student could have told them, if they cared to listen at the time, that making ethanol would use more energy than would be generated by the ethanol. In physics, there is never a free lunch. Everyone must pay the entropy piper.  Now, perhaps, we can get rid of yet another subsidy for yet another useless idea.

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Bruce Walker "Gets It"

Bruce Walker is another person who "gets it." His article today, in the American Thinker entitled Bombs Don't Kill People, Terrorist Do is a classic argument against the instrumentality theory of crime. The Left, in an attempt to absolve the perpetrator of the crime, wants us instead to get rid of the tools that he uses.  In this case, he is arguing against searching every airline passenger, in the benighted belief that all are guilty until proven innocent.  He also notes that the criminal himself never cooperates. If a gun isn't handy, a knife will do. If neither a gun nor a knife is handy, a baseball bat, a chain saw, even a rock will do.  As Walker says:

This is precisely the disconnect which the Left faces with airport security and passenger examinations. The danger is not that someone will bring a handgun, a knife, or even an explosive on an airliner. Properly stored and maintained, none of these will do the slightest harm to anyone. In fact, if every passenger on September 11, 2001 had been armed, the terrorists would almost certainly have been stopped. Disarming the innocent never stops violence.

Moreover, the "things" which can be used to cause injury are as endless as human imagination, and in the hands of terrorists, almost anything can be used to murder large numbers of people. The variety of methods and tools of destruction are as broad as the bored minds of evil men. Anyone who has toured a prison can hear from guards about the remarkable ingenuity with which inmates can make real-looking "guns" or very real knives and other weapons.
With the new Tea Party driven Republican majority coming into both houses of the State legislature, I can only hope for more sanity and common sense to follow. We have had in recent years, laws proposed to keep concealed handgun licensees from carrying their handguns in a McDonald's, for heaven sake-for the children, of course. Once again, the emphasis is on the instrumentality - handguns - and not on the type of persons wielding them. People who have gone to the trouble (and it is considerable expense and trouble) are not likely to be the ones threatening their children. Rather it is those who don't obey the law in the first place who are most likely to be the ones who shoot up a McDonald's.  Yet somehow these soccer moms believe that if they can keep their children from a knowledge of violence, they will be able to inoculate them for life against any violation of their persons.  Using that logic, they should also be against sex education in schools.

As it is, the law current excludes concealed carriers from most anyplace where one might have a need for a gun:  banks, movie theatres, restaurants, riots, parks, schools, including college campuses, and on, and on, and on.  If a man can be trusted with a gun, he can be trusted almost anywhere with it.  If he can't be trusted, he can't be trusted anywhere.  We need to get rid of the "criminal free fire zones" the State has set up.  But more importantly, we need to stop looking for the instruments of killing, and instead do the real police work of looking for criminals.  

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Americans Learning How To Be Serfs

Following up on yesterday's post here is an article in the American Thinker entitled Americans Learning to Submit by Anthony W. Hager. Hager makes many of the same points I did yesterday, so it is worth a read. I say this because I am often accused of exaggerating; of being a wild eyed radical. "They would never do THAT" I am told.  To further queries of what, pray tell, would stop them, I get just vague notions of human decency and the fact that the public wouldn't go along with it.  If you are one of those people, and you have been paying attention the last two years, I submit that there is no bridge too far.  Our "ruling class" is determined to "rule."

Some quotes to stimulate a quick trip to the American Thinker:
On Animal Farm, appeals to necessity, subtle changes to established rules, and revisionist history were the tools used to control Boxer and his comrades. Boxer willingly accepted his marching orders until his fate was sealed. The tactics that led to his demise and the enslavement of his friends are now deployed at airport security checkpoints across America. I can't help but wonder if we've become a nation of "Boxers."

The TSA has released images from both the millimeter wave and backscatter imagers currently in use. The fact is that the TSA images aren't exactly fodder for next month's Playboy centerfold. Other images are circulating that depict an inverted scan that reveals both nudity and identity. But such photos are easily faked, and there appears to be no proof that they are authentic. That's little comfort to air travelers who are exposed to humiliating body scans and invasive pat-down searches. Even the stance assumed for the scans -- feet apart and hands held above the head -- portrays a submissiveness that belies a free people. Fellow Americans, our government has declared us guilty until we prove our innocence.
Emphasis mine.

It has been said that our Constitution is not a suicide pact.  Perhaps not, but any official who violates Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights should have to answer for it, and defend his actions.  Until then, it would be wise for everyone to remember that our Constitution was written for both good times and bad.  There are ways to increase airport security that do not violate peoples civil rights, their dignity, and do not assume citizens are guilty until they can prove their innocence.  There are also laws against officials violating civil rights under color of law.  It may be hard to find a prosecutor to do it, but if you do, the "I was just following orders" defense will not stand.

Update:  Yet another outrage from The Sexual Assault agency can be found here courtesty of the Drudge Report.

Friday, November 26, 2010

The National Opt Out Day that Wasn't

I was mildly surprised when the National Opt Out Day campaign appeared to fizzle the Wednesday before Thanksgiving.  I had thought that most people understood that these nude scans and intrusive gropes were unwarranted intrusions upon peoples rights to be secure in their persons.  Perhaps I was wrong, or I was wrong about how much liberty people were willing to give up for the illusion of safety.

Then today, I found Newark airport controversial scanners barely used on busiest travel day over at NJ.com. So, if I am reading between the lines here, TSA chose not to use its ham handed techniques to blunt the effects of National Opt Out Day. Hmmmm. And nothing happened. No planes were hijacked. Hmmmm.

Apparently others have the same suspicion, based on this site. So if most people experienced only the normal metal detectors (bad enough) I suppose that would have indeed blunted the effects of a National Opt Out Day. In so doing, TSA has avoided, for today, a confrontation with the American people, but it has not backed down one little bit. That's a problem.

The 4th Amendment to the Constitution says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I would also remind you that we are all supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, and under the 5th Amendment, we can not be forced to incriminate ourselves.  These nude scanners and gropes grossly violate these provisions and strip people of their dignity and modesty.  They are made to feel like slaves.  They are treated as terrorists until they prove they are not.  That is standing the Constitution on its head.  But maybe you're one of those who say "I haven't anything to hide, therefore let them search me if it makes us safer."  But does it?  Note that nothing happened on the day before Thanksgiving, despite the TSA backing off from scanning and groping every passenger.  Of course, Homeland Security officials say that there are hundreds of terrorist plots foiled, but what evidence do they provide?  Somehow, their methods are always so secret that they can not be revealed, but trust them.  Stalin would be so proud.

If the American people are willing to accept being groped and scanned at airports, I guarantee that eventually TSA will show up at football games, malls, trains and bus stations.  If we accept that, they will eventually show up at check points on the highway.  There is nothing that will satisfy these insatiable bureaucrats.  At each intrusion upon peoples rights will be the claim of necessity, and you will never be able to prove them wrong.  It's time we realize that the fear of terrorists, real as it may be, should be far less than our fear of letting Government abrogate our civil rights to relieve it.  "Those who would trade essential liberty to achieve purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Hat tip to The Blaze.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Gun Control Bad for Blacks

Marc Lamont Hill has a pretty even piece in the NY Daily News Wednesday entitled Strict Gun Laws are Bad for Blacks: Why African-Americans Should Value Second Amendment Protections. Of course, along the way Hill displays the usual Liberal's disdain for people disposing of their own property as they please, and doesn't seem to know that "straw purchases" are already illegal. But on the whole, it is a pretty insightful piece for a liberal newspaper.

As a black progressive, I am tempted to echo the sentiments of most liberals, who regard this pro-gun turn as a full-fledged civic crisis. For most of them, gun ownership is an expendable rather than inalienable right, one worth ceding in exchange for a more peaceful society.

While I understand this position, the price of the ticket, at least for black people, is simply too high.
The price for anyone should be viewed as too high. But I understand if Hill thinks that a minority might be especially targeted by bigots. It has happened before all too regularly both here and abroad.  Indeed, all of the Constitutionally protected rights should be upheld by everyone to protect everyone.  That is why they were put into the Constitution.  But I am happy to see a black writer in a liberal newspaper awakening to the dangers and starting to speak out.  I welcome Marc Lamont Hill to the fold.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

The War on Guns: Should those who oppose TSA excesses be ‘prohibited persons’ for gun ownership?

The War on Guns: Should those who oppose TSA excesses be ‘prohibited persons’ for gun ownership?

As requested by David, I'll pass this along to my reader, and stand proudly with him as a "domestic extremist." If David or I meet the definition of "domestic extremist," who, I wonder, does not?

Hagmann’s information, if confirmed, presents a new danger in light of the government‘s predilection for blacklists, and the stated goal of the anti-freedom camp to use those lists to prohibit gun purchases.

I say “if confirmed.” While the existence of such a memo would not surprise me because it is consistent with an observable pattern of freedom erosion, I would need to see it. I don’t say that to challenge Hagmann’s report, merely to acknowledge a standard I impose on myself before presenting something as validated.
We need to be cautious here, but if this turns out to be true, it would seem to confirm the TSA, and Homeland Insecurity not as a bumbling agency that just does not understand, but as a malevolent force trying to provoke the American people.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Squeezing the Average American from the Top and the Bottom

Joe Herring had an article at the American Thinker yesterday that I wanted to highlight for two reasons. The first is that, although critics of the Tea Parties and the Constitutionalists keep saying that we are violent, the fact is that it is the Left that is fomenting violence. The second is a more subtle point. While many on the right have indicated that they will defend their families and the republic if necessary, these people do not want to overthrow the government. Rather, they want to restore it. It is the Left who wants to overthrow the government and replace it with a foreign system of government called Marxism. Please read the entire article at the American Thinker entitled The Threat of Leftist Violence. A quote:

To conservatives, the idea of armed overthrow of the government is nigh on unthinkable. To foment a revolution seeking to invalidate the Constitution in favor of some form of beneficent utopian dictatorship seems as lunatic as to be dismissed without thought. Yet this is precisely the stated aim of hundreds of left-wing groups in America and abroad. Where conservatives can envision resistance to only a government that has destroyed the Constitution, progressives now advocate armed rebellion against a government that won't destroy the Constitution.
The fact of the matter is that many on the lunatic Left view the window closing, at least for another generation. While they have pursued their lives, somehow the experiences have not disabused them of the false notions of their youth, and they remain committed to the project to radically transform our Constitutional republic into a Marxist dictatorship. This is treason, though they will try to blur treasonous acts with defense of the republic.  They are convinced that success is just a matter of having the "right" people in charge.  They are getting desperate.  The One has failed them.  They have not been able to sell their ideas to the public.  Many on the Left are calling the voters stupid and ignorant.  But others have already gone on to the notion violent revolution is the only way.

Once you understand the article above, making sense of this next one is far easier.  At the American Thinker today is an article by Richard Kantro entitled TSA 2, America 0. His point is that the TSA is deliberately trampling upon our Constitutionally protected liberties for the purpose of softening us up, and as usual, claiming necessity.

There are still some to whom it seems alarmist to assert that the execrable Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is in a purposeful confrontation with the American people. A blue-uniformed, official, we-always-win confrontation. No, they're just trying to do the right thing and keep the skies safe.

So what if the TSA's attitude seems quickly to have come up to speed with and fallen in behind that of a rather famous frequent flier whom nobody pats, and who has advised, "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother"?

And who cares if no less an authority than the former director of TSA security operations, Mo McGowan, said last Tuesday that "[n]obody likes havin' their fourth amendment violated goin' through a security line, but the truth of the matter is, we're goin' to have to do it." 'Course, he could have been just kiddin'.
Again, read the entire article.

There is a solution to this, you know. What has happened is the government has interposed itself into a private transaction. You pay the airline company for your ticket, and you board that company's aircraft, but between the purchase of the ticket and boarding the aircraft, some government goons feel you up, or look at your naked body. If you resist, they arrest you.  Now, while the government can not (theoretically) violate your rights without probable cause and a warrant, the airline certainly can. We need to return security of the airlines to the airlines themselves. Let the airlines innovate, such as pre-screening frequent fliers and those who submit to it. That would eliminate perhaps 90% of the airport screenings.  Let the airline take responsibility for getting you safely to your destination.  Ticket prices will necessarily go up, as they will have more liability, but the cost would be far less that what we are paying for TSA.  Better still, our liberties will remain intact.

The security theatre now being played out across the land is just that.  We are not made safer, but our liberties are being eroded by the very government that is supposed to protect them.  Naturally, they are claiming necessity.  As the English would say, bolox.  At the same time, the Left is preparing to go into the streets and begin making it uncomfortable for us from below.  The hope is that we will look for a savior to bring order.  We must stand our ground, and insist on our Constitutional rights.  But to do that, we must be prepared.  Have you stocked up on food and ammunition?  You may be needing them.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Light Blogging Ahead

It is Thanksgiving week, and I expect light blogging ahead.  Please have a Happy Thanksgiving.  Also please remember that the purpose of the holiday is to give our Father in Heaven thanks for all he has done for us in the passed year.  See you all when I get back.

May the Lord be with you,


Sunday, November 21, 2010

Ethridge Concedes to Ellmers

As of Friday, Bob Ethridge conceded to Renee Ellmers. The story is at the National Journal here.

Sorry to be late getting that to you, but it has been busy around the PolyKahr house. We are having family and friends in this year for Thanksgiving. Today I finally have a chance to prepare my Grandmother's recipe for fruit cake. It makes a big recipe, and I'll be sending some along to my Dad and others.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

More on the TSA (The Sexual Assault) Controversy

Leonidas, over at Eternity Road has the best explanation I have seen for the outrage being expressed by air travelers of late. You can find it at Boycott Commercial Air Travel! The picture at the top says it all. When the original 9/11 terrorists took over airplanes with mere box cutters, I said at the time that if civilians with concealed carry permits could carry their weapons on board, it would not have happened. I still believe that.

Like Leonidas,  I have also refused to fly, only once relenting in 2006 to fly Las Vegas, where we were there to babysit with the grand daughter, while her parents partied.  But, if you still have any doubts, read Leonidas post.  The most intriguing, to me anyway is here:

You are more than 100 times as likely to die in a car crash than from a terrorist attack on US soil. About 42,000 people die annually in a car crash. 3,000 people died on 9/11, and a few in other terrorist attacks since (e.g. Ft. Hood.) The odds are clear - under 4,000 people have been killed in terrorism attacks on US soil since 2000, while over 400,000 people have died in car accidents. While terrorism is horrifying it does not rise to a risk that justifies abrogation of our Constitutional rights - especially when the proffered claims of "safety" magainst said attacks made by the government are in fact intentionally false and misleading.

This probably presents the leading argument for why we should not allow our freedoms to be taken away from us like this. And frankly, I do not think the TSA is not using these naked body scans and groping sessions to further security, but to numb us to having our privacy invaded in this fashion. Once we become used to it, there will be more, and at more places. Court houses would seem to be next. Then it will be sports stadiums, and finally anywhere at all. Soon enough, backscatter devices will be portable enough that they will be used at routine traffic stops. Precedent already allows police to stop everyone at drunk driving checkpoints (a thoroughly unconstitutional development.)  So, take a car to grandmas house, or take a sleigh, or a train, or bus.  But do not take a plane.  We have to send a message that Americans will not tolerate further intrusion on their persons for any reason.

Update: The American Thinker has a very good article, by Selwyn Duke, that bears on the topic at hand entitled Profile Muslims or Pat Down the Masses. Among other things, Mr. Duke brings up:

Now, we all know what kind of suicidal idiocy engenders such blindness: a politically correct brand that panders to the sensitivities of vocal, politically favored minority groups such as Muslims. But what about the sensitivities of millions of Americans who have to tolerate intrusive body scanning and pat-downs and watch their children subjected to same? And the kicker is that when Janet Incompetano (as Mark Steyn calls her) was asked if Muslim women sporting hijabs would have to go through the same full-body pat downs, she equivocated and said, "adjustments will be made where they need to be made" and "With respect to that particular issue, I think there will be more to come." Are you kidding me? Is this Total Recall meets One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Muslim women are the demographic second-most likely to commit Islamic terrorism. If they aren't subjected to scrutiny, what is the point (besides "security theater")?

What's the point, indeed. Every one of the terrorist attacks have been committed by Muslims. No one else. If we can't screen Muslims, why even bother-unless as I think, the exercise has other purposes.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Remind You of '1984'?

Ben Shapiro has an article up at Townhall.com today entitled The Obama Administration In Your Pants. Please check it out. It is a fascinating read about the latest tactic by TSA to invade our privacy for no real increase in safety.

Here, though, is for me the money quote:
But we're supposed to trust the TSA. "We are frequently reminded that our enemy is creative and willing to go to great lengths to evade detection," the TSA explains, touting its new policies.
It's a stretch, I know, but I found it remarkably similar to the perpetuals wars, and the justifications upon which freedoms had been slowly stolen from the people in George Orwell's book '1984'.  If more people would stand their ground and simply refuse to be either scanned or patted down, we could end this horror. This is not for your protection, and the TSA will be hard pressed to show any benefit to it. Frankly, it is nothing less than sexual assault under the color of law.
The irony of all this is that it won't make us safer. Not one whit. So long as we treat nuns and imams the same way at the security gate, we're doomed to failure. You can't find bombs when you search 621 million passengers; they could be hidden anywhere, including Abdulmutallab's secret favorite spot. Terrorists already know how to beat this system. The scanners don't pick up what's inside body cavities. They don't make our luggage screening system any better (seriously, is there anyone in the United States who hasn't accidentally passed a pocketknife, nail clipper or Mace through security?). All this does is overload the system even further so that by the time our intrepid and steadfast TSA agents examine Muslims, they're so tired of prodding and poking that they do a cursory job.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Taming the Administrative State

I toiled for 25 years in what I considered service to my fellow citizen working for the Federal government. I finally retired, in part, because of the conflict between what is, and what is supposed to be. Ayn Rand said:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
There are, you see, too many laws. The days when a citizen could know the law, and therefore be able to stay within its boundaries, has long vanished. Today, there are arcane "laws" on the books over which you, or I might stumble at any time, that we know nothing about, and more importantly, would not reasonably know to ask about. Many are arbitrary, or are arbitrarily enforced. So, while knowing the law, and believing yourself to be within it, one can find oneself being hit with fines and other penalties for noncompliance.  Others "laws"  clearly are Unconstitutional, yet have been "interpreted" by the courts to be Constitutional. Such are the wetlands laws, and the Endangered Species Act, which claim to be able to take your property, while granting you the priviledge of continuing to pay taxes on the property, all  wihout compensating you for it.  Another example is the recent Seattle case of the BATFE confiscating some airguns because they claimed these could easily be turned into "machine guns."  Really?

The problem of too many laws, arbitrarily enforced, and at the same time refusal to enforce others, is the subject of a post at Eternity Road by Francis W. Porretto entitled Horsemen Part 2: A New Political Alignment. In explaining the new political alignment, Poretto introduces us to a new, seemingly oxymoronic term, anarcho-tyranny:

Yet the functional characteristics of both anarchy and tyranny are easily seen in our current state of society. Government by law, the American conception of governmental legitimacy, has vanished because of the proliferation of millions of obscure, unenforceable, and mutually contradictory laws. The exercise of arbitrary power without regard for the rights of the citizen is rampant; denial of the right to bear arms, no-knock drug raids, "asset forfeiture," "civil penalties," and warrantless searches and wiretaps are merely flagrant examples. All that's missing is consideration of the dynamics that have brought those conditions about -- conditions any sane man would condemn utterly and, if adequately equipped, would surely resist -- and which are propelling the new alignments of the present day.
We balk at the writing of National Security Letters by FBI agents, yammering on about how this is a grotesque violation of the Constitution-and it is. But at this stage of the Administrative State, do they really need a law? Couldn't the FBI simply write a rule, getting a Federal Judge to agree on its necessity as cover? Except for budgeting for the agencies swarming among us and eating our profits, is Congress even necessary anymore? I often wonder if the kabuki theatre of elective politics isn't merely to take the audience's eye off the other hand:
In considering these matters, electoral politics -- the pursuit of elective office and the behavior of those who've attained it -- is where the eye tends to focus. Certainly that's the center of most media attention. Yet there are other routes toward power over others that don't require complex and expensive campaigns or a protracted trawling for votes. Those are the avenues that have been, and are being, most successfully pursued by the would-be tyrants of our day. They've done some of the worst damage to the concept of government by law.
What a person does who lives under such a State is to avoid anything that marks him out as deserving suspicion, while quietly pursuing one's own interests. In a sea of green dots, one doesn't want to be the red dot:
The growing reaction, amid growing consciousness of the power and lack of constraint on the regulatory state, by ordinary Americans is quiet, stubborn personal resistance. As a citizen becomes aware of particular regulatory threats to his personal position, he tends to react, not by assuring compliance, but by armoring against it. This is particularly visible in regard to "endangered species" regulations and "wetlands" regulations. Many a landowner who finds a specimen of an "endangered species" on his land will adopt the 3-S treatment for such creatures. After all, if a federal agent were to encounter that wolf or spotted owl, the landowner's whole parcel could be declared "protected habitat," and therefore barred to human use in perpetuity. Similarly, a landowner who discovers that a segment of his parcel would technically qualify as a "wetland," another category of property barred to human exploitation, is more likely to have it quietly dried out and filled in than to report his discovery to the local authorities.

Go read the whole post. As usual, Mr. Porretto includes a wealth of data that I have glossed over, and just says it more elegantly than I can. Porretto doesn't get into what to do about the overgrown and out of control Administrative State, but I have a few ideas.

One thing the presumably conservative Congress needs to do is revise the way regulations are made. Congress needs to bring such activities back under its fold. All proposed regulations should be staffed through the respective committees, then voted on by both houses of Congress, as if it were a law, before it could be implemented. All existing regulations should be immediately placed on hold pending a review by an oversight committee, that would be required to receive testimony from citizens on the effects the regulation has had, good and bad.  To those critics who argue that this would slow down the process to a crawl, I would ask them to go back and read the forgoing. It's a feature, not a bug.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Get ready for it, The Mask is Coming Off

Voter fraud, and election fraud is as old as the Republic. It has always happened here and there, though most elections have been largely free of such shenanigans. But ever since the Presidential elections of 2000, when Bush refused to sit down and take it, the election fraud, and voter fraud has become more blatant, and more public. Al Franken stole the election by fraud, in my opinion. He just kept finding ballots that...well, what do ya know...had his name on them. Franken was abetted by a partisan Secretary of State who looked upon his efforts with, shall we say, indulgence.

This election season, the Franken act is being played out in many places. In Texas, as the American Thinker explains in an article entitled Why Democrats Win the Close Ones by Rick Moran, Democrat Solomon Ortiz is pulling the same stunt against Republican winner Blake Farenthold.  Ortiz keeps "finding" ballots that just happen to be marked with his name on them.  The same thing may be happening in our own NC-2 race between Renee Ellmers, the election night winner, and Bob Ethridge who just magically happened to find some ballots with his name marked on them.

Now, one of the checks Election officials perform on election night is to count how many ballots were sent to each precinct, subtract how many people voted, including spoiled ballots, and how many unused ballots are being returned.  The numbers should match up.  So, if someone takes a few hundred ballots from a precinct, County officials will know election night.

Now, bad as this is, what all this very public election fraud is REALLY doing is stirring up chaos.  They want to get caught. The Left wants you not to believe that elections have value.  It's part of the plan to demoralize you.  Note too how the mask is starting to come off.  The Communist Party USA actually was a sponsor of the One Nation rally, along with all the usual suspects.  Then there are the calls for violent revolution emanating from the Left. Watch the video at the Blaze.com as this MSNBC calls for violent revolution. The Left will begin to squeeze the middle class from the top down, and the bottom up. They will try to initiate riots in the streets, have governments declare emergencies or martial law.  Try to confuse you even more.  Look at the students rioting in the formerly Great Britain.  Supposedly rioting because the cost of tuition is being raised, these students are just a little too animated for it to really be about that.  What they are really doing is creating chaos for the sake of creating chaos.

Next year, prices will begin to rise, as the dollar devalues.  It will be because of deliberate policy, and the President and Ben Bernanke knew it would happen, wanted it to happen even.  There will be hardship, as people find that a loaf of bread costs $25.  Many do not know how to bake there own.  Gasoline will also go through the roof, again by design.  There will be protests, and riots.  Top down, bottom up.  Then there will be someone saying that if we abandon our sovereignty, and join the rest of the world in what Soros calls a "new world order" that somehow all this will be fixed.  It is a lie.  This is what has been planned all along, and they are hoping you take the bait.  Don't.

Like cattle, you have been nudged and herded toward the cattle chute.  They want you to go there.  But resist.  Be prepared.

Now, if all this sounds like tin foil hat conspiracy theory, well, I am right there with you brother.  Until I watched Glenn Beck's series on George Soros, and realized that he has done this at least 3 or 4 times before in Eastern Europe.  I am still looking into it, but then, Glenn has not been wrong so far.  Take heed.  Be prepared.  Don't fall for any of the Left's tricks. 

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

The War on Guns: Violent leftists agree with SPLC and 'Waco Jim' on threat from the armed right

The War on Guns: Violent leftists agree with SPLC and 'Waco Jim' on threat from the armed right

Just to show you, dear friend, what the other side believes, here is commentary from Bernadine Dohrn, Ted Rall, and others. Who is the violent ones again?

The Left Apparently Doesn't Read the Right's Liturature

Yesterday, I had this exchange with a "liberal" at work before my wife kicked me under the table (yes, Ms. PolyKahr and I work together.  It allows us more time together.)

Him:  "If Communism is the worst thing for a liberal, what is the worst for a Conservative?"

Before I could answer, he filled in his answer "A theocratic monarchy, that's what."

I started to explain that we had fought a revolution to get out from under a monarchy when I got kicked, and the conversation ended.  Obviously, he was very happy with himself, apparently getting the last word means winning on merits to him.

But just in case he stumbles across this blog, here is a brief history, and an explication of what conservatives actually believe.

The modern Conservative movement came about in the late 1940s when William F. Buckley and other like minded individuals established National Review.  Buckley famously said that a Conservative stands athwart history yelling "Stop!"  There is some truth to that statement, in that Conservatives are slow to adopt new ideas.  The reason we are slow is not, as the Left likes to chide us, because of stupidity, but because we are unusually attuned to what is called "the law of unintended consequences."  We want to see if anyone else has tried it, and what their experience has been.  We want to look at all its parts, and think about what if it is administered by our worst enemy.  But there is an even more important reason, we want to test it against the Constitution.

The Left claims not to understand our insistence on clinging to long held traditions such as the Bible, the Constitution, and social and moral traditions.  For many on the Left, I think a lot of this can be attributed to impatience to make their mark on the world.  They figure they are smart enough that they can just throw out everything and start over without the help of untold generations of men who have gone before.  To me, the arrogance of such a belief is breathtaking.  But a careful reading of the Bible, of the Great Books, of history and philosophy, seems a necessary thing if one is to set about remaking the world.  Rudyard Kipling wrote about this after WWI in the The Gods of the Copybook Headings. Go read it, please.  Man has not changed, and there truly is nothing new under the sun.  Whatever you want to call it, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Progressivism, or Liberalism, it is a variant on the oldest form of government known to man, the Strongman.  Monarchy, of course, is just one variant.  More modern versions include Fuhrer, Il Duce, Dictator, President for life, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat-one thing about these guys is they are certainly creative.

Here, I want to pick a particular bone.  The word "liberal" once had a good meaning, before it was sullied by Socialists and Communists hiding under its umbrella.  Classical liberals included such men as Madison, and Jefferson, who would be angry to see what passes for liberals today.  Neither would condone "interpreting" the Constitution to say something not said in the document.  Neither would they condone such Unconstitutional programs as Social Security.  Both would be appalled at our large professional military, and the designation of the United States as a "superpower."  But I digress.

So, what is it then that Conservatives wish to conserve?  It is faithful adherence to the Constitution, as written.  Until the Constitution is amended, it should stand as originally written and intended.  Judges can not change the law by interpreting the law.  If they could, then there is no need for legislatures.  We can just have judges make up law as they go.  Indeed, such is the old common law-you see it has been tried before. The concept of Stare Decis is a good one, in that it provides some continuity to others who may come before the Court relying on previous precedents, but the Court should always look at the original law, and determine what the original law meant in each case that comes before it. Furthermore, before a member of the legislature votes on a bill, he or she should make an independent determination of the Constitutionality of that bill. Before a President signs the bill into law, he also should make an independent determination of the Constitutionality of that bill. Our Presidents and Congressmen have failed us miserably on this score. As an example, President Bush said during his campaign that McCain-Feingold was Unconstitutional, and he would, if elected, veto it. Yet, he signed it when he was elected. He failed in this case.

So, if you are reading this blog, here is what a conservative believes-faithful adherence to the original meaning of the Constitution.  If you do that, you will necessarily have small, less intrusive government, stable currency, strong protection of contracts and property.  Most of the governance in everyday life would issue from the States and local governments.  We would all be much freer

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

New Golden Rule: Do Unto Others Before They Do Unto You?

Ol' Remus has a post up at Eternity Road entitled Default that Francis Porretto is at pains to have us read. So go read it.

One of the things that struck me in this post, something I have long known, but haven't spoken about out loud is:

At present, complexity is yielding ground to adaptability. We're well into it. We are no longer a nation of laws, we are a nation of men, especially those men who were the first to figure out there is no legitimacy on offer, and where there is no legitimacy there are no restraints. Surely you have noticed that all enterprises are, or are becoming, criminal enterprises. Absent legitimacy, it's a race to the bottom—that eternal, irreducible power center. Here the violent will prevail over the merely criminal, and the homicidal will prevail over the merely violent. Mexico is a nearby example.
I feel like a broken record here, or maybe like a lone nut standing between a sandwich board trying to tell my fellow citizens something they just don't want to hear: if our government acted solely within the bounds prescribed by the Constitution, we would not be in this mess.  Our Federal Government would not have a Department of Energy, or a Department of Education.  We would not have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,  Aid to Dependent Children or any of the other things weighing our system down.  The EPA would not be writing regulations, because that would be the job of our legislature, not the executive.  The executive, freed from writing legislation, could concentrate on doing its job in protecting our borders and defending us from foreign enemies.  And maybe, just maybe, the Courts could be dissuaded from trying to "interpret" our Constitution into oblivion.

Well, one can wish...

If only we returned to Constitutional governance.

Bernanke Sentences US to Great Depression

Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank has just sentenced us to another Great Depression. Monty Pelrin has the story at the American Thinker entitled Bernanke's Cowardice Has Sealed Our Fate.

Bernanke could have taken a different tack. He could have stood on principle, repeated for all to hear that the supposed purpose of the Fed was to protect the economy, and refused to print more money. Sure, there would have been some hardships, but just as with the bank bailout, or letting GM go into bankruptcy, the hardships would have been fewer, of less seriousness, and shorter. The government would have been forced to address the issue of its fundamental insolvency.  As it is, the government gets to pretend for a while longer.

Let's look at some of the things that might happen, just so you can do some planning:

- First, massive inflation. Imagine a quart of milk selling for $25, a loaf of bread for $23, a pound of coffee for $75. Plan on being cold at night in the winter, and being hot most of the time during the summer.   That's because you won't be able to afford the energy to keep the house air conditioned.  Naturally, other prices will go up as well.  If your car breaks down, will you be able to afford to have it repaired?  What about getting it checked for safety annually? 

- Savings will disappear. Oh, you'll still have the same amount of money, but it will be worthless. It will have no purchasing power to speak of. Even if interest rates were reasonable now, they won't be able to keep up with the hyperinflation.  Unless you are part of the rich elite, by which I mean multimillionaires and billionaires, you will likely end up financially wiped out.
- If you have stocks, it may make sense to keep them, if the fundamentals are sound. Stocks in basic companies like oil, food, and other things people need will survive.

- Look for Government to try to control prices to keep them down. Unfortunately, the only effect of wage and price controls will be shortages of whatever they try to control.  In the face of riots and other violence, expect the government to declare martial law.

It will not be pretty, no matter what happens.  And it all could have been avoided.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Way Up North: Lethal Force: a Christian Response?

Way Up North: Lethal Force: a Christian Response?

I have pointed this out on several occasions, but never with such authority.  There is nothing in the Bible, rightly interpreted, which suggests that one may not defend oneself and one's fellows.  Indeed, God demands it.  Such defense of yourself may even extend to waging war, when required to defend your fellow citizens against an invading enemy.

For a primer on pacifism, see here. If you are looking for a well reasoned and articulated answer to the question "why?", see here.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Healthcare Is Not a Right

An interesting and short piece appeared in the American Thinker yesterday entitled The Liberal's Guide to the Non-right to Health Care by Fred Snelson. Go read the whole thing, as it is short.

The most interesting part, to me comes here:

A right is not a tangible object. That would be a commodity. A right is much more precious. Rights are not bestowed on Americans by a benevolent government. Rights are given to us by God, and the founding documents were written to ensure that the government can't take them away. The liberal intelligentsia, who tend to be Humanist (euphemism for atheist) have a philosophical problem with this fact. That's tough.

A bullhorn is a commodity. Freedom of speech, immeasurably more precious, is a right. Bibles, Books of Mormon, Korans, and Torahs are all commodities. Freedom of religion is a right. A rented arena is a commodity. Freedom of assembly is a right. Lest any liberal readers still don't get it, allow me to elaborate. "To keep and bear arms," is a right. The Second Amendment guarantees that the government can't interfere with my -- God given -- right to defend myself or my family. Furthermore, it guarantees Patriots the right to band together to defend the country against a government that becomes as tyrannical as King George III, but thanks to the genius of the founder's, revolutionary change can be non-violent. The founders called such principles, "natural law," which in enlightenment thinking is synonymous with God's law.

Although it is my right "to keep and bear arms," I can't expect to be provided with a gun by the government at the expense of other taxpayers. A gun is not a right. It is a commodity.
Just so.

Is Renee Ellmers being Al Frankened?

I've been out of pocket the last two days, while I've been earning some money.  But I've been following the events to our east, in the 2nd NC District, where Renee Ellmers, the Tea Party candidate beat incumbent Bob Ethridge for the Congressional seat.  It was a stunning victory, in a tight race.

Then, out of the blue, Samson County officials announced that they had "found" some ballots had not been counted, and surprise, surprise, Ethridge had picked up 453 votes, which put Ethridge within the required 1% of votes to enable him to call for a recount.  Naturally, Ethridge did call for that recount.  If, and I emphasize the "if,"  Bob Ethridge was planning to Al Franken his way to victory,  "finding" some mysteriously uncounted ballots that just happen to break his way and enable him to recount his way to victory would be the scenario he would desire.  And here it is.  What do ya know?

Samson County officials "explanation" is no explanation at all.  They claim that 3 of 4 early voting sites were not included in the tally released Tuesday night, but that the count is now correct.  Huh?  Whenever the polls close, polling officials must submit the counts to the County electronically, and then courier the tape from the counting machine to the County that night.  Along with that tape, they must also include all provisional ballots voted, an accounting of all the ballots originally sent to the polling place, spoiled ballots, etc.  The Chief Judge delivers each of these items, in sealed bags, the seals having been signed by all three judges prior to forwarding these to the County.  So, County officials had these results from all three early voting sites prior to election day.

Republican National Committee officials at first declined to help Ms. Ellmers in her recount battle, but seem to have relented after being put to shame by Rush Limbaugh on his radio program yesterday.  Of course, Ellmers could use a little help from anyone who can spare as little as $10 to help with the effort.

If, and again I emphasize the "if" it can be shown that Bob Ethridge is pursuing an Al Franken strategy, there are things you can do is to publicly shame him, Alinski style.  Take every opportunity to point out that Renee Ellmers is being Al Frankened.  When talk turns to the Ethridge-Ellmers recount, as it inevitably will around the water cooler, accuse him of trying to Al Franken Ellmers.  If you see him at a restaurant or shopping, make a show of not being where he is because he is trying to Al Frankened his way into another term in Congress. Make both Ethridge, and Franken's name a swear word, like being Borked.

As a voter, you should take this very personally, because Ethridge is trying to disenfranchise you.  If he wins, he will not be your legitimate representative, Renee Ellmers will be.  And remember this, when people say you are being unfair, or over the top...well...we learned it from the Left.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Thoughts on the Elections

I am still tired from election day.  Working for the Board of Elections, I got up at 4:30 am and worked until 9:00 pm reconciling ballots and packing away all the polling gear.  I was on my feet most of the day, and my legs felt like lead, my back was in spasms.  When I got home last night, I did not want to look at anything to do with elections.

I am amazed and elated to wake up and find that Republicans now control both the North Carolina House and the Senate, something that has not happened in 112 years.  This historic election provides several important opportunities for our State.

The most important, for the long term, is the opportunity to redraw Congressional district boundaries.  Currently, districts are heavily gerrymandered to provide safe seats for the likes of David Price and until recently Bob Ethridge.  Renee Ellmers seems to have taken out Ethridge, if she can survive the inevitable recount.  But we can do even more.  We can rationalize our district boundaries to ensure that the Congressional delegation we send to Congress truly represents the State.  You would be amazed to discover how many conservative working people there are in this State, but they are represented by closet Progressives.  If this were not so, do you think Jesse Helms would have survived all those years in the Senate?

We can finally get a Castle Doctrine bill, and a Restaurant Carry bill passed, as well as perhaps carry in public parks and theatres.  The Democratic House bottled up both the Castle Doctrine and Restaurant carry in committee, and never let them get a vote.  I suspect with when allowed to get voted on, both will pass handily.

We can whittle taxes back down to levels that encourage businesses to return to North Carolina.  NC got the big head during the boom years, and is now suffering because, like the monkey that grabs a big wad of food from a small mouthed jar, and doesn't want to give any of it up, our legislatures don't want to give up any of the gains made then.  But the State has to tighten it's belt like everyone else.  With high unemployment rates, the State must recognize that the people simply don't have the money to support the programs the politicians seem to want.

I'll have other thoughts later, after I'm fully recovered.  Interesting times...

Update:  Paul Valone, head of the Grass Roots North Carolina group has his thoughts as well here. Paul doesn't mention redistricting, but does mention improving the situation for legal carriers in the State. By the way, this would be a good time to mention that GRNC can use all the help we can get. If not a member, become one. If a member, but behind on your dues, catch up now. Lobbying the legislature is a numbers game as much as having effective people to speak to the issues.