More stories of vote fraud

Katie Pavlich over at Townhall.com today has another story on vote fraud here.

It always seems that voting machine "calibration issues" resolve to the benefit of Democrat candidates.  If it were truly "calibration issues" as they claim, some votes for Democrats would be recorded as a vote for a Republican instead.  No, this very clearly is intentional.  Either the company supplying the machines has corrupt employees tampering with the inner workings, or corrupt employees at the County level are setting up the machines this way, hoping to gets some of the not so sharp eyed voters to vote unwittingly for favored  candidates.

Pavlich writes:

So what do we do about this? If machines in different states repeatedly changed votes from Democrat to Republican, Eric Holder would have launched a federal investigation under suspicions of fraud and I doubt "calibration error" would be accepted as an excuse for widespread problems.

The Republicans have shown themselves to be largely ineffective in ferreting out and punishing any of the lawless behavior of this administration, whether it is Fast and Furious or the IRS scandal. They have had six years, and no one has gone to jail yet.  So, as to "what do we do about this?" I dunno.  Perhaps put some teeth into the notion that if a particular candidate receives the benefit of vote fraud, that candidate shall be presume guilty and spend time in the slammer.  In any case, unless there are consequences to the actual candidates, this is never going to stop, and indeed will continue to get worse.

Your votes are being stolen, and the Dems want to steal more of them

I have to run today, and don't have a lot of time, but Oh my: Studies Reveals Significant Number of Non Citizens Vote in US Elections is an eye opener. Finally, years after the fact, there is more than anecdotal evidence. Too bad it is being swept under the rug by the MSM. Mona Charen has a syndicated piece based on the same journal article at Townhall.com here. Charen writes:

In many states, their participation wouldn't be large enough to make a difference, but in North Carolina in 2008, the authors calculate, non-citizens may well have tipped the state into Barack Obama's column. "So what?" you may say. Even if John McCain had won that state, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the national election. True, but remember the presidential race in 2000? Remember "hanging chad" Florida?

Several House seats, and one very significant Senate seat, were probably won by Democrats on the strength of illegal votes. In 2008, the authors note, Sen. Al Franken won by just 312 votes in Minnesota. That seat was the 60th vote to give Democrats a filibuster-proof supermajority to pass major legislation like Obamacare. "(Voting) participation by just 0.65 percent of non-citizens in Minnesota is sufficient to account for the entirety of Franken's margin. Our best guess is that nearly 10 times as many voted."

If illegals made possible Obama's win in North Carolina, what are the chances that those same illegals provided the margin that brought Kay Hagan to the Senate?  And why is "comedian" Al Franken allowed to hold a seat he clearly won by fraud and deceit?

Message to Franken, "It's not funny, man."

Militant Narcissism

I have been noting of late a lot of what I call militant narcissism on display at every turn.  And it occurs in all areas of life, both right and left. It is seen in Moms Demanding (worthless and meaningless) Action on Guns and in gun owners ostentatiously open carrying in stores and restaurants. It is seen in the utterly terroristic tactics of militant homosexuals, of Islamic jihadi terrorists, of the mobs in Ferguson, Missouri, and even in the aggressive driver weaving in and out of traffic in an often vain attempt to get to his very important destination a bit faster. It is often caused by people who have found what they believe is THE ONE TRUE WAY, whatever it is, and everyone must now sit down and shut up.  If you do not bow to THE ONE TRUE WAY, they will make you.

Some examples may help illuminate what I mean by "militant narcissism."  The other day Mrs. Polykahr and I were out shopping.  On the way home we encountered a bicyclist on a two lane road struggling along at around 10 mph smack dab in the middle of our lane, forcing us to slow down.  Where we encountered him there were double yellow lines indicating no passing.  Now, on a lot of roads around here, the pavement stops inches past the white line, and the road falls off onto a soft shoulder.  Obviously, one can not ride the shoulder because it is not paved.  But on this particular stretch, there was a wide paved shoulder, and he should have taken advantage of it.  Eventually, the way was clear to pass, and the center line had become dashed, so we did.

Now, the bicyclist was within his rights as a vehicle to take up the entire lane. He was not doing anything illegal.  But he was being extremely discourteous, and I am sure he knew it.  But bicyclists have become "militant" in greater numbers these days, feeling that theirs is THE way to get around, and that those who drive cars are just not doing their part.  They are not saving enough energy, or they are contributing to greenhouse gases, or whatever the reason for riding rather than driving is.  Often, this type of bicyclists doesn't really like this mode of transportation, but believes himself to be doing it out of a misplaced sense of duty.  This attitude of course ignores that many have handicaps that prevent them riding a bicycle, and no amount of training or working out will ever allow them to do so.  It also ignores that the only reason the bicyclist is able to pursue his particular sport is because trucks, vans and other vehicles ply the roadways bringing goods and services to a market near his home.  If he had to ride 30 miles to the supermarket every day to pick up the days groceries, rain or shine, snow or extreme cold, he would think differently about making riding a lifestyle.  But these people do not think about these things. No, instead they do things like this.

I know something about riding a bicycle.  When I was younger, I rode a bicycle frequently to work, and was a member of the Potomac Pedlars, a bicycle club with thousands of members and a riding schedule that had several rides posted for every day of the week.  Riders were classified as AA, A,BB, B, CC, C, or D.  AA riders were semi-pro or professional riders.  These were the guys you might see in the Tour de France.  A and B riders were excellent.  C, where I rode, were of average athletic ability, and D was for duffers or newcomers to the sport.  An average rider with reasonably good equipment (a well set up road bike) and a thorough knowledge of his gears could average 20 mph on level to moderately hilly roads.  This guy had the equipment, and was dressed the part, but he was clearly a D rider.  A skilled and knowledgeable rider is able to ride alongside traffic without imposing unduly on other faster traffic whose operators also have the right of way.

M. Scott Peck wrote a book back in 1994 called A World Waiting to be Born. Perhaps if we all took heed of his admonitions, we would find our roads easier to travel.

Forgiving

Today's American Thinker has a very good article on what the author calls "political Christianity" by Jeremy Egerer entitled The Devils Own Christianity. Egerer has much to say about the current Pope's condoning of evil, but this caught my eye.  Egerer:

Pope Francis says to the South Koreans that forgiveness and charity are the keys to Korean unification – a noble sentiment, if someone is really asking for our forgiveness; a wonderful teaching, if it weren't for the belligerent, murderous tyrant interested in enslaving each and every one of us. We may consider it fortunate for humanity, then, that the South Koreans are backed by something stronger than Papa Francesco's kisses and homilies: most notably an armed and dangerous defender of liberty known as the United States of America. If Jesus saves men from burning in Hell, America saves men from burning on Earth. Both are leaders of charitable organizations – that is, if charity concerns not only a granting of gifts, but also a protection of person and property. And certainly we can agree that if Christians are to be charitable, our charity has to do something with our earthly happiness.

Pope Francis is making a mistake that many Christians make, and that those who aren't Christian, but wish to shame or defame us make. Forgiveness is a personal act. A State can not forgive, because each person in that State may not be ready to forgive. Further, a State can not forgive another State, because each person in the other State may not be in need of forgiveness for the act for which the forgiveness is extended.  Some may never be ready to forgive, and may nurse that hate all their lives on this earth.

The purpose of forgiveness is to purify our hearts, it is something we do for ourselves. We may say to someone that we forgive them, but that act will not necessarily change the other persons mind.  We let go of the hurt, the anger, the hatred to God, because these emotions will destroy us if we hang onto them. We become so embittered that we no longer can see the world as it is.  You probably know someone like this.  So, we let go and let God. Furthermore, forgiveness does not mean that the person who hurt us, or wronged us does not deserve punishment. Just that his or her punishment is no longer our concern.  Neither does it mean to forget.  A woman who has just been through a trying divorce through no fault of her own may forgive her ex-husband, but she would be foolish to forget and let him back into her life.

Another aspect of Christianity that people get wrong, including many Christians is the notion that Christians should be pacifist.  They often base this on the saying of Jesus to turn the other cheek.  At the time, it was a common practice for a higher status person to take the back of his right hand and slap a lower status person on his left cheek.  Naturally, the act was infuriating to someone who had been thus slapped.  Jesus advised to turn the other cheek, which would force the slapper to use his left hand, thus shaming him.  But if you are being beaten silly and you are afraid that you might be seriously injured or killed, you must defend yourself.

Now, I am not a great theologian, nor do I put myself in the august company of one who might be elected Pope, but I can read and think, and it seems to me that now even the Catholic church is going off the rails.  And if they have these things wrong, what else?

Spies at the State Fair

I had my spies at the State Fair yesterday.  Well, actually, my "spies" included Mrs. Polykahr, the daughter and grand children.  They reportedly had a good time, thank God.  I asked Mrs. Polykahr if they had metal detectors set up to detect guns at the entrances.  Since Mr. Troxler undertook to twist the clear language of the law to make it say what it clearly does not, and then got a "judge" to follow his lead, I wanted to see if he was going to truly protect fair goers.  My spy reported that the only thing he had in the way of protection was a large sign.

Apparently, Mr. Troxler believes, as this video shows, that all that is required is to post a sign, and he has done his job. But the fairground is public land, and the fair is publically sponsored. Therefore, there are only a few places, spelled out in the law, where guns can be prohibited, and the fairground isn't one of them. But since the Commissioner undertook to disarm law abiding concealed carriers, he had an obligation to ensure no one had guns, thus the need for metal detectors to screen all persons entering the fair.

I have discussed what happens whenever there is a soft target. Sooner or later, some poor mangled soul gets it into his head to go and kill as many people as he can before the police arrive to stop him. Yes, this is sickness of the most horrific kind, and ideally such a person should be taken in custody and treated.  Meanwhile, prepared concealed carriers could stop him if he makes an appearance at a venue like the fair. But Mr. Troxler believes he knows better. He has sent away for one of those kits, because, you know, it works so well.

Its Opposite Day at the State Fair

Yesterday, as I was driving to work, one of the news headlines was that Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC) had filed suit to overturn Agricultural Commisioner Troxler's ruling that guns would not be allowed at this year's State Fair. According to GRNC, in an alert today, this was the result:

Judge Donald Stephens’ decision in the GRNC lawsuit against posting the state fair against concealed carry can best be summarized in his own words: “If I can find a way to interpret the statutes to prohibit concealed handguns in the state fair, I will.”

It was evident to all that Judge Stephens had his mind made up long before the hearing began. When GRNC’s attorney argued, his attitude was nearly contemptuous, and when the Attorney General’s representative argued, Stephens was soothing and supportive as if talking to a pet dog.

The denial today of GRNC’s temporary restraining order was a classic case of legislating from the bench by, perhaps willfully, misinterpreting both the intent of the General Assembly in passing HB 937’s opening of assemblies to concealed carry, and the potential cost to crime victims of not being able to protect themselves against violent predators, as has happened repeatedly in other state fairs, the most recent being last weekend in Arizona.

GRNC is examining our options, including appeal, legislative action, and possibly an open holster demonstration at the fair. Allow me to say what I told conservative talk show host and GRNC supporter Bill LuMaye: “We don’t know yet how we will react to this setback, but I can tell you one thing: Whatever we do will be done to expand the rights of lawful North Carolinians and their ability to protect their families. The left has called it ‘the long march.’ This is our long march.”

GRNC’s operating philosophy: Never give up. Never give in. Never go away.

I, of course, am not a smart lawyer, but I also thought the language of the law was pretty clear. David Codrea's blog War on Guns notes that ever day in a Progressive Paradise is Opposite Day. This ruling strikes me as being a typical Opposite Day ruling. The judge was determined to find against us no matter what the law said.

Another Sheriff Dispised by the Dispicable

Sheriff Lewis of Wicomico County, MD, has attracted all the right people, meaning he has become despised by the despicable, with recent comments about the Second Amendment. The story is at Townhall.com, by Michael Schaus and entitled Maryland Sheriff Attacked for Promising to Defend the Second Amendment.

There is a little prayer that goes something like this: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Let us recognize first off that the Second Amendment acknowledges a pre-existing right to bear arms, it does not grant that right. The same is true for the rights granted in the First Amendment. Second, we must acknowledge that the rightful purpose of law is not to prevent crime, but to set forth the penalties for commission of certain crimes deemed harmful to society as a whole. Unstated in the law is the notion that men have free will, and can choose to do good or evil at any time. Three, laws will only be observed by those who obey the law, not by those who do not. Those who do not, we call criminals.  The point is, you can not change human nature.

Sheriff Lewis is absolutely correct.  He has taken an oath to defend and support the Constitution of the State, and of the United States.  If others who have taken similar oaths decide, as men with free will can do, to break that oath, Sheriff Lewis has warned them that he will nonetheless keep his oath within his County.

On the other hand, the people attacking Sheriff Lewis have not been paying enough attention to that little prayer.  You can make laws endlessly.  You can be as oppressive as you want, but you can not prevent bad guys from obtaining weapons with which to do nefarious things.  If you ban the (legal) sale and the (legal) manufacture of guns, they will still obtain them by smuggling them into the country.  If they can smuggle drugs,  what makes you think they can't smuggle guns with that shipment?  Or, they will manufacture them underground.  Any competent machinist has the skill and access to the tools needed to build a gun.  If you make it rewarding enough, someone is going to be making guns on the side.  Remember free will?  And, of course law enforcement, the military, and any number of "special" and  "elite" politicians, like Diane Feinstein, will be exempt, so that legal manufacturing will continue to supply them.  So, thefts from armories, corrupt police, or shipments will supply whatever is needed to continue crime as always.  These are unchangeable facts.

I understand, you are afraid.  You are afraid that neighbor with the guns secretly wants to shoot you.  Probably not, but have you ever approached him with anything but hostility?  Why don't you bake a cake, take over, and sit down with him over coffee and cake?  Discuss guns with an open mind.  Why does he keep them?  Maybe it is for exactly the same reasons you are afraid of them.  Maybe he wants to defend his family against an armed assailant.  Are you an armed assailant?  No?  Well, stop worrying about your neighbor.  Or maybe you are afraid that someone has a squirrel running around in his head telling him to go to your children's school and kill as many of the evil bastards as he can  (they're not evil bastards, that is what the squirrel is saying.)  Could be, I don't know.  But maybe your new friend has a different idea of how to protect not only your kids, but his own.  He probably has a better idea of both the power and limitations of guns.  Maybe you could try some of his ideas.  After all, we have tried the gun free zone idea, and that hasn't worked very well.  Just a suggestion, but remember that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

Now say it with me:  God, grant me the serenity...

Confession

I have a confession to make.  Like a lot of bloggers out there, I have taken my shots at Moms demand action for gun safety, the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, etc.  Now, Shannon Watts may just be exactly who she says she is, or she may be cynically using the Newtown massacre as an excuse to dance in the blood of innocents.  I don't know, and I could care less.  That is between her and her God.  But many of the women who go around, make calls, and generally make nuisances of themselves are actually scared.  They are scared of Ebola, they are scared of rising health costs, they are scared of global warming, they are scared.  They have listened to the media, have bought the Koolaid (reference Jim Jones), and done the "right things" by those lights.

To make matters worse, many of them are single, the men in their lives have not been acting very manly.  They are alone, raising children, don't have enough money to do what the media leads them to believe they should.  They just want it to go right somehow.  All these problems but no real solution.  Then along comes Shannon Watts, telling them they can do something! She points them at the wrong target, and off they go.

In point of fact, this is true of most anti gunners.  At the top of the heap you have a vile evil person who wants to ban guns in hopes he can ultimately control you and your lives.  But the foot soldiers are true believers who have been pointed at the wrong target.  Some of those true believers can be awakened with discussions of principle, of statistics, of the numbers of guns already in circulation, the ease of smuggling replacements across the border, or what have you. Most, unfortunately can not.  I would laugh if it wasn't so damn serious.

Instead, I think I will pray for these people.  For it all is really in his hands.

Surprise...Not...Hypocrisy at the highest levels

In an excellent article over at the Moral Liberal, Bob Barr notes the hypocrisy evident in the disparate way in which Voter Identification is treated as opposed to concealed carry.

“Let me be clear,” Attorney General Eric Holder emphatically declared in a 2012 speech to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, “we will not allow political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens of their most precious rights.” Holder’s remarks were a call to arms against efforts by Republicans to require that voters show identification when they go to vote. His words reflect a belief that the right to vote is so “precious” that requiring individuals to show an ID before casting a vote is tantamount to being “disenfranchised.”

However, when it comes to protecting the right to “keep and bear arms” – which, unlike the right to vote, is a right expressly guaranteed in the Constitution itself – the Attorney General of the United States is nowhere to be found. Apparently our Second Amendment rights are just not “precious” enough to worry about when governments engage in actions expressly designed to “disenfranchise” individuals from exercising those rights.

The hypocrisy is so blatant it is painful.

One could point out the same hypocrisy with other rights, such as freedom of the press. Indeed it has been done, and it is very amusing to imagine that a publisher has to jump through all sorts of hoops to be allowed to get his message out. But, that tyrannical governments have done so, indeed some still do, can not be denied. But the fact of the matter is that those advocating either position don't really care that either position makes no common sense. In their arrogance, they don't feel a need to.

For fans of the M1911 Pistol...

Frankly, I like the old war horse, and I shoot it best. It is somewhat quirky, I know, and requires attention to maintenance more that, say, a Glock, but I like how it shoots in my hands. Real Clear Defense has an article extolling the virtues of the M1911 pistol, and the Marine Corps official return to that platform in an article by Paul Huard entitled Greatest Pistol Ever Stopped Attackers Cold. If you are a fan too, go read the article.

The Muslim Antichrist

I have been wondering where this was going to go. Michael Youssef has published a two part story over at Townhall.com entitled The Antichrist and the Muslim Mahdi. Today, we get the answer:

There can be no doubt: Muslims are preparing to accept the Mahdi as their leader—and the Mahdi is indistinguishable from the world leader we know as the Antichrist.

Ever since I read Robert Spencer's Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry Into Islam's Obscure Origins I have been convinced that the "god" who inspired these verses was not the God of Creation, the God that Christians and Jews worship, the God that gave Moses the Ten Commandments. No, the "god" that Muslims swear allegiance to is the Devil, by whatever name he goes by. Note that our God does not need us to kill for him, indeed instructs us not to do it. Our God does not need us to pray to him, rather it is we who need to pray, and He does answer our prayers. Indeed, the All Powerful, Omnipotent One does not need anything from us, but He desires to have a relationship with us, personally, one on one. Jesus directed that we pray silently, and in privacy. The Muslim god demands they pray publicly five times a day. The Muslim god wants obedience, not relationship. Allah demands "Worship me, or I will have my minions kill you!"  Notice the differences in the message here?

Ultimately, God's will will be accomplished.  I control nothing.  All I know is that my God cares for me, and if he can care about me, he can care for anyone.  If you are thinking of converting to Islam, think about it.

SWATing because GUN!

According to an article by Charles C. W. Cooke in National Review Online, this is what our anti-gun fellow citizens are thinking, and apparently actually doing:

‘You see a GunFilth waving its penis substitute, exit, call police. Armed robbery in progress.” So wrote Twitter user “Little Black Dog” on September 13 of this year.

The injunction was a particularly colorful one, but the idea behind it, alas, is not as uncommon as one might wish. “I see you #opencarry with a gun in public,” a man named “joe villa” threatened earlier this week, “i’m calling the cops. psycho behaving erratic. make your day.” A translation for the more literate among us: “The law be damned; exercise your rights under the law and I’ll threaten your life.”

or this:

Reacting to a photograph of a man standing at a checkout with a handgun holstered upon his hip, mom-who-demands-action Joyce Ward asks, “Why weren’t the police called immediately?” And “why,” Ward continues, “wasn’t he shot by the police for having a weapon”? Fellow poster Lisa McLogan Shaheen has a similar inquiry, wondering, “Why hasn’t someone called 911 so the cops can gun him down?”

This sort of reaction is the reason I choose to carry concealed. These people are advocating murder by proxy, in this case using the police as a murder squad. These men, or women, were not threatening anyone, merely publicly carrying a weapon, which is not a crime, and actually shows good common sense. But I choose instead to emulate the cat.  After all, a cat has sharp claws, capable of rending flesh, and with which it can in very short order inflict hundreds of cuts to the body or an opponent. But, the cat usually keeps its claws sheathed. It usually appears to be a harmless fuzzball unless attacked.  On the other hand, people who are advocating SWATing open carriers who are doing nothing wrong are bearing false witness against fellow citizens. Whether the intent is to merely scare them, or to have them "gunned down" as one commenter stated, doing something like this is despicable and revolting.

That said, I sympathize with the Open Carry movement, and share its goals.  The ultimate solution for both concealed carriers and open carriers is to have what has been dubbed Constitutional carry.  Concealed carriers are people who have gone through background criminal checks, been fingerprinted, and taken mandatory State training to obtain a license to practice what should be a Constitutional right.  As such, the government knows if we have guns, and we would likely be the first they came after if, as some have advocated, they decided to confiscate guns.  Not likely in North Carolina at the moment, but things can change.

Some would say that my risks of being killed or seriously injured by criminals, or now we are facing our Muslim brothers as well, are pretty low, to which I say "Thank god."  I would not want to have to shoot someone, and I am the type that tries very hard to avoid conflicts which might erupt and put me in these situations.  I carry my weapon as insurance. You have insurance on your car, right?  Do you intend to get into an accident?  You have health insurance, right?  Do you intend to get sick?  You have life insurance, right?  Do you intend to die prematurely?  The issue of carrying a gun for protection is an emotional one for many people, but for me it comes down to risk, and I evaluate those risks as small, but not small enough to ignore.

Further, using Leftist words against obvious Leftist, who are you to judge?  If a single mom with small children has been attacked in her home by a crazed ex, I will not find fault with her carrying all day, every day, whether at home or abroad.  If a guy has a job that sometimes takes him to a sketchy neighborhood, I certainly understand why he might want to carry a gun with him.  Would you rather that such neighborhoods receive no service because a few drug gangs set up shop there?  You meet all sorts out in public, of whose background and situation you are totally unaware.  Perhaps the guy you just SWATed is an off duty police officer buying groceries for his family.

The open-carry movement can at times be needlessly provocative, unforgivably impolite, and depressingly counter-productive. Mom’s Demand Action’s mawkish and narcissistic hoplophobia to one side, I share the concern of those who feel that some advocates of the right to bear arms have traded justifiable concern regarding the integrity of their rights for gratuitousness, confrontation, and vanity. Nevertheless, there are constructive and there are disastrous ways of establishing social and legal bright lines, and the proposals that are simmering around the gun-control movement’s fringes fall decidedly into the latter camp. Having been widely chastised for their stupidity, both “Little Black Dog” and “joe villa” removed their boorish warnings and slunk, chastened, back into their festering holes. Their friendlier allies at MDA and beyond would do well to follow suit, politely advising the hotheads that this really isn’t a game.

Exactly.

Anniversary of Restaurant Carry

Yesterday was the 1 year anniversary of being able to carry our weapons into restaurants that serve alcohol. HB 937 became law effective 1 October 2013, which law also permitted carrying at funerals and parades, venues that charge admission, and on school property when you are picking up your child.  Ammoland has published the story here. Of course, you still can not carry in a restaurant serving alcohol if you are drinking, but if not, then you are permitted.  I have often noted that most of the people eating in typical establishments that serve alcohol are in fact drinking the National Drink of North Carolina, sweetened iced tea.  Mrs. Polykahr and I went out last night to a casual dining facility, where Mrs. Polykahr had our National Drink, and I had water with a twist of lemon.  I was armed.

Readers may remember the editorials excoriating legislators for even considering this expansion of concealed carry, claiming alcohol and bars just don't mix.  To the argument that the law did not permit a person to be standing at the bar ordering drinks while armed, some made the ridiculous claim that even so, some drunken fool would just grab your gun and start shooting up the place.  That claim was easily shown to be specious.  After all, your weapon is concealed, right?  But, nonetheless we were treated to editorials claiming blood would be running in the aisle of North Carolina restaurants.  Ohio, Virginia, and Tennessee had all passed similar laws previously, and there was no uptick in crime as a result.

So, after a year, how many incidence of concealed carriers committing crimes in bars and restaurants have occurred?  According to Grass Roots North Carolina, the number is: zero, zilch, nada.  Just as we all predicted.