Is there no one who will stand and fight for conservative principles?

Laura Hollis lays out the case for why so many support Trump as the Republican nominee in an article entitled Courage vs Bravado at Townhall.com today. After going through the nearly inexhaustible list of the failings of Republicans who call themselves conservative, Hollis makes the point that if Trump will do what he says he will do, people are willing to settle for bravado, even if what the really want is true courage. Hollis:

In the absence of true courage, voters will settle for bravado. At this point, Trump is the political equivalent of a mercenary. Voters don't care what he calls himself -- much less what others call him. If (and it's a big "if") Trump is willing to go to Washington and actually do what voters want him to do, then they think he's the man for the job.

"If." The fact is, I don't trust him. There seems to be no principle on which to guide him in rough waters. He just reacts. True, his reactions are those of millions of people, but this is just populism. What we need is a principled conservative, who will stand and fight for his beliefs. Is it really too much to ask?

Texas Grand Jury Shoots the Messenger

Daniel John Sobieski has an article over at the American Thinker today that explains that a Texas Grand Jury Shoots the Messenger. If you are for life, and therefore against abortion, this will break your heart. If you are cold hearted, well... I have a liberal friend who likes to think of himself as more compassionate than I am. I wonder what he thinks of this. Here we have yet again an opposite day where the investigator bringing the news that a horrible and gruesome crime has been committed is instead indicted for bringing the proof for all to see.  Had the Center for Medical Progress not made the film, Planned Parenthood would have been able to claim they were lying.  As it turned out, they were able to do that anyway.  What kind of power does PP have over people?

Still more from the FSA

I found this over at the Smallest Majority. It is Bill Whittles Pajamas TV post here. Bill, whether intentionally or not, spilled the beans that we no longer are living in the nation to which we were born. We now live in a nation ruled by men rather than a nation ruled by laws. From the Supreme Court, some members of which seem to believe it is their job to make the law, to our President, who seems to believe it is his job both the make laws, and to selectively prosecute them, to Congress, whose job is supposed to be to make laws, but who regularly delegate that duty to the Executive, we now live in a land where, if you are part of the "in" crowd, you can get away with anything. 'Twas a time, when even the President felt himself to be beholden to the law and the Constitution, but those days have long gone. If you wonder why I no longer fly the flag, there you have it.

Fast and Furious keeps Giving and giving

I don't have much to say, Katie Pavich says it all, really, at Townhall.com today.

When the ATF dreamed up this little scheme, it wasn't a harmless sting that would net some bad guys, they were playing with lives, and lives were cut short.  Border Agent Brain Terry was killed.  Who knows how many Mexicans were killed with the 2000 or so weapons sent into Mexico.  Now we learn that at least one police helicopter was forced down, with the crew on board of course, but guns walked into Mexico and into the hands of the Sinaloa Cartel.  Nobody has been indicted, much less tried for this.

If Hillary become president (there's another criminal, but I leave discussion of her for another day), the likelihood is that she will appoint Eric Holder to the Supreme Court.  So then, we would have a criminal sitting on the Supreme Court!  Truly, that would be an opposite day triumph!

A wrong (left) turn

At the American Thinker today, Deana Chadwell had an article on the need to confront, and then to speak, the absolute truth. Her article can be found at The Wrong Turn, and I highly recommend you read the whole thing. Ms. Chadwell makes a case for first understanding the truth:

Let’s look first at the issue of truth. I say we wimped out because it is much easier, at least for a while, to whitewash all controversies and claim that truth is so flexible that it can take any shape we want it to. If we assume that truth is merely a human construct, we can claim that it comes in thousands of differing colors and sizes, tailor made to fit any need. Thus we avoid having to discern differences, make moral judgments, or stand up for anything. We can act superior to those who still see vast chasms between belief systems and we claim “open-mindedness” utterly unaware of the meaninglessness of that term.

If nothing is really true, then there’s no reason to knuckle down and learn anything, no reason to think very hard, no reason to amass facts –- we suspect they’re not true anyway. I am dumbfounded by the ignorant assertion that Muslims and Christians worship the same god. A person doesn’t have to know, can’t know, anything much about either belief and make that statement. In an untruthful world ignorance is not only bliss, it is the inescapable condition.

...snip...

You see, if one decides against absolute truth, one decides against logic; it is, after all, a self-refuting logical impossibility to say, “There is no such thing as absolute truth.” And what happens when a society decides to ignore the nonsense factor and base its “thinking” on such a floppy foundation? Insanity is what happens.

Insanity is indeed what has happened. David Codrea uses the term "opposite day" for the now normal goings on in the government and the news, and this is his shorthand for the sort of insanity that regularly infects the policies that come out of government. We know that appeasement does not satisfy an enemy, yet we are constantly told that this administration's appeasements are indeed working. "Peace in our time" you can almost hear them say. Ms. Chadwell goes on to site a Hillary supporter, but I could go down a very long list of the things that are untrue, but which nobody seems to be willing to admit. Indeed, the Donald Trump phenomenon is partly because the speaks truths that we all know, but which nobody is willing to say out loud.

Ms. Chadwell is the second published author I have now read to says that Christians and Muslims do not worship the same god. Michael Brown was the first. Christians and Jews worship the God of creation, the God who created everything that is, and everything that is not. He created man in His image. One of the characteristics of this God is constancy. We see this in the working out of his plan for our salvation. It permeates the Old Testament, and becomes fulfilled in the person of Jesus. Our God demands truth, or as much truth as we are capable of, even unto death. The god of Islam, by contrast, tells the Muslims to do one thing one day, and another thing another day. The way the Muslims figure out what they are to do now is to take the last command of their lord as having more weight than the previous commands, which are thus abrogated. So which is it? Constancy, or abrogation. Truth or lying? Lucifer is referred to as the Father of Lies, so I believe that the angel Muhammad was listening to in that cave was Lucifer. Lucifer is, of course, and angel, and thus a creation. Muslims have therefore been led astray by the snake in the Garden of Eden. They are God's children, and all must pray that they come to the true God.

In any case, people who speak of reforming Islam are either ignorant, or practicing taqqiya, the Muslim doctrine of lying to advance Islam. The reform movement in Christianity was based on comparing the Bible to Roman Catholic practice, and finding Catholic practice wanting.  The reformation was the correction of these errors by making Church practice fall closer in line with Biblical teaching.  We had a scripture that showed us where Church practice had gone off the rails.  Islam has a scripture too, the Koran, but they are not misinterpreting it.  In fact, they are following it to the letter, as closely as humanly possible.  Thus, the only "reform" possible is for the Muslim to convert to Christianity, which I hope and pray for, but it doesn't seem likely.

Chadwell then makes the second connection to complete her argument:

Because we have treated reality like a do-it-yourself kit, we’ve arrived at a second philosophical no-man’s land; we’ve decided that, despite all evidence to the contrary, humanity is basically good. We have rejected the biblical edict that “All men have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) Original sin is no longer our national creed. I’m OK, you’re OK seems like a harmless dogma, but, since it’s essentially not true, it leads down a really murky trail.

If we are basically born good, then childrearing becomes nothing more than keeping the child alive until he can fend for himself, never mind the fact that such parental neglect has created at least two generations of self-centered, amoral monsters. We are not naturally good. We can be good, but we don’t start that way. What baby has ever given a rip that his mother hasn’t had a full night’s sleep since he was born? What two-year-old goes sweetly off to her nap because she knows mommy needs some quiet time? Children need to be taught, sternly and consistently, to put others first.

The raising of children consists of slowly, over 18 years of so, turning a savage beast into a civilized human being. The child can not help it that he misbehaves, for a child does not know how to behave, or how to control himself and his emotions. Teaching him is the task parents take on when the have children. It is the most important thing anyone does. But do not be fooled, people are not "basically good." and the Bible tells us this. Given the right way and the wrong way, we will usually at least consider the wrong path every time.

Under the influence of witch doctors like Dr. Spock, and suffering under the privations of the Great Depression, the displacements of the Dust Bowl, and WWII, the greatest generation raised spoiled, entitled children by sparing the rod, and giving them the stuff they never had.  The baby boomers in turn did more of the same, even to the point of making the discipline of children illegal in many cases.  Meanwhile, the traitorous Left kept marching through the institutions, spreading evil wherever they went.

We have taken a wrong left turn, and we need to turn around.  But this great turning has to begin in peoples hearts.  Government can not do it, and elections, while they have consequences, fundamentally reflect the people doing the electing.  For better or worse, we get the government we deserve.  Pray for our nation to repent, and return to the things that made us great in the first place.

Polishing shoes and boots, something different

"Take care of your equipment, and your equipment will take care of you" is a famous saying that every soldier, sailor, or Marine has heard time and again.  We all hear it all the time when it comes to guns.  You must clean your weapon after a trip to the range.  I know that carbon and oil can make a sticky mess that, over time, can begin to impede the smooth operation of a gun.  So, I have always followed the adage, and cleaned my weapon after each trip to the range.  It has become a routine, and with the right substances and tools, takes maybe half an hour to do.

The same thing applies to shoes.  Today, I notice most men do not seem to polish their shoes frequently, often showing up in a nice suit, but wearing worn looking, unpolished shoes.  But a good pair of shoes will last decades if properly cared for, and polishing is part of the deal, along with resoling when necessary.  I polish a pair of shoes after each wearing.  I try not to wear the same pair day after day, but to let them air out and dry out for a day.  To keep shoes in shape, a pair of cedar shoe trees placed in the shoes will keep them fresh and keep the shoes in shape.  I would also note that with harder times coming economically, we are going to have to return to our grandparents way of doing things, repairing our stuff, and keep using it rather than throwing it away and buying new.  Get a good pair of shoes, and keep them looking nice.

As far as shoe polishes go, I haven't found one brand better than another.  I have used Kiwi Shoe Polish, as well as Griffin paste wax, and few other brands.  Many professional shoe polishers seem to like Lincoln polishes.  In my area, Kiwi is generally available.  All of them work and I can't really tell a lot of difference in performance.  Kiwi is somewhat harder than Griffin, but the level of shine seems the same.  The purpose of shoe waxes, which is what shoe polish is, is to protect the shoe from some water and dirt, and keep the leather finish supple and looking nice.  You may want to use a shoe conditioner if you haven't kept up with your polishing.  Shoe conditioner adds oils back to the leather surface that have evaporated out.  You can, if you want, bring a pair of shoes to a high luster by "spit shining," but a well done brush shine is all that is needed for providing the basic protection of your shoes. I don't use shoe cremes because these are not as protective. For the same reason, I don't use much liquid polish. But, I must admit that liquid polish does come in handy in special circumstances.

As far as polishing equipment goes, you will need an old tooth brush, a horsehair dauber brush for spreading polish onto the leather, and a horsehair polishing brush for smoothing out the polish and bring up the luster.  A polishing cloth can be useful for adding that finishing touch. You should have one set of daubers and brushes for each color of shoes you polish.  A trick I learned is that if you use a women's nylon hose to lightly polish the toe caps and quarter panels, you can bring a brushed shine to nearly that of a spit polished shine.

Steps to follow in polishing a pair of shoes are:

1/  Brush off the shoes to remove any dirt, dust, or mud.  A little water may be needed to get mud off, but be sure to dry them thoroughly before polishing.  While you do this, examine the shoe for any damage.  Look at the soles, and if they are wearing thin, now is the time to take them in for resoling.  Depending on your particular wear patterns, you may have to put new heals on more frequently than soles.  In any case, taking them in before they actually wear through will save money in the long run.  Also, at this time, take out the shoe laces so that you can polish the tongue of the shoe and get in around the eyes.  If you haveshoe trees keeping them in while polishing will make the job easier.

2.  Using an old tooth brush, take a dab of polish and run it along the top of the welt between the welt and the upper.  Make sure to have polish on the stitching here, as this stitching takes quite a beating.  Now polish the out sole and heal with Leather Sole and Heal Dressing. You can also use liquid polish in a pinch, but edge dressing is better.  Let that dry.

3.  Take you dauber and swirl it around the polish can one time.  You don't want too much,  Better to do two coats of polish than one thick one.  Now begin smearing the polish on the shoe, making sure to get polish into the seems and tight places.  Take the shoe in sections, doing the quarter panels and sides, the tongue and top, and finally the vamp.  Let the polish dry to a haze, about 10 minutes.  While one shoe is drying, do the other shoe.

4.  Now, begin brushing the shoe vigorously,  Move around, and polish both side to side and up and down.  What you are doing is smoothing out the wax on the shoe,  The smoother you can get it, the shinier the shoe becomes.  You are not taking the wax back off.  For a high luster, buff the shoe with the buffing cloth (or use an old nylon hose.)   your shoes have a good shine, and they are protected from weather and the stuff you may step into.  Now, if you want to become a shoe snob, take a look at this you tube. You can find others, but you don't have to go to these extremes. You can keep your shoes looking nice in about a twenty minutes.

More from the FSA

Fred Reed (if that's his real name) has an article at his blog entitled A Nation of Fly Larvae: Obama and Gun Control (h/t David Codrea and the War on Guns. Reed's premise is that Obama commits lawless acts with impunity because no one wants to stop him, for fear of being called names. He is, of course, absolutely correct. Reed:

Who is this President? How did we get him? Does he have anything in common with me? Is there anything even American about him? He is an African of Islamo-Indonesian culture, deeply hostile to America and white people and ruling with a dictatorial style more like that of Shaka Zulu than Thomas Jefferson.

...snip...

A President with brass balls—and god knows Hussein Obama has them—can do anything with an executive order. Anything. And we obey. “Yass, Bwana. What you say, Bwana.” Gun control? No problem. The Constitution? Say what? Wars anywhere and everywhere? Congress can read about them in the papers. It is astonishing.

More correctly, the European population–pale, white, feeble things wriggling like fly grubs in the corruption of a putrefying body politic—obey. Blacks and Moslems do not allow themselves to be pushed around. They are, whatever else they are, virile. They look to be history’s winners. Though not civilization’s.

Reed puts it out there, and is anything but politically correct, but his analysis is nonetheless spot on.

Fay Voshell has a different angle, one that comes from a theological point of view, but in the end each, Reed and Voshell are reaching the same destination. That destination is that if civilization is to survive, those of us who value it must ultimately be willing to lay down our lives to save it, because the evil currently stalking the land will not surrender on its own, and will not be appeased.

You can find her article at the American Thinker entitled Buy A Sword, a reference to Jesus admonishment to the Disciples in Luke 22:36.  Voshell starts off writing about the Honso Masamune, the legendary Samarai sword that could supposedly split light, but that could only be used to defend the innocent. Then she talks about the other extreme, the swords of Sengo Masamura, which did great evil.  What she is getting at here is that weapons have always been used by those seeking to defend civilization, and by those seeking to burn it down.  That becomes explicit when Voshell writes:

The idea was that the struggle between good and evil was inherent in the cosmic order, that there was something mysteriously and inherently virtuous about a weapon dedicated to the worthy pursuit of good, the protection of the innocent and the preservation of a just and righteous societal order.

There was a comprehension in the societies that revered the weapons and those who wielded them not as mere actors in the realpolitik of the age, though the reality of earthly politics and skullduggery was and is always present wherever weapons are found; but as fighters allied with the cosmic war between good and evil. There was something beyond mere heroics and posturing. There were real heroes whose combat pointed to a warfare transcending the earthly battles in which mortals were engaged.

...snip...

In other words, the sword can be associated with the sovereignty of the Kingdom of God and wielded for righteousness or it can be linked, as Marasuma’s swords, to satanic evil of total and wanton destruction. If only Marasuma’s swords prevail, evil wins every time. But if heroes employ the sword to protect and defend the innocent, evil is defeated.

The struggle, whether to do evil or the will of God, is always present in each of us, and whether we carry a Honso Masamune or a Sengo Masamura depends on which side of that struggle we find ourselves. Those who seek to disarm us seek to take the weapon out of our hands, as though the weapon itself somehow forces the hand of the user. The ancient Samarai spent a lot of time training in the use of their weapons and studying war, but the also spent a lot of time meditating on their religion, Zen Buddhism. No doubt, the Paladins of the middle ages did the same thing.  That was important, because the weapons they carried were neutral, neither good or bad.  It was, rather, the intent of the user that made both the Honso Masamune or the Sengo Masamura.

In our own age, there has come into the Church a belief that the proper interpretation of Jesus is as a divine wimp.  The Divine Wimp would never hurt a fly, was gentle with everyone, and can't we all just get along?  But this misses a lot of Jesus teachings.  The same Jesus who wouldn't hurt a fly overturned the tables of the money changers and cursed the fig tree.

Jesus was, in all likelihood, a strong, virile man, a manly man as we would now say.  Could a Divine Wimp attract so many women to his cause?  Really?  Could a Divine Wimp attract a bunch of burly, uncouth fishermen?  He had grown up a builder, hauling heavy stones working 12 hours a day.  I think he was both verbally and physically attractive.  He also, no doubt had a sharp wit, a quick mind, a memory for detail, and was very charismatic.  He knew about all sorts of things that people do, such as farming, baking bread, and he knew how business was conducted.  He had either observed them, perhaps talking with the people who did them, or had engaged in them himself.  Being a man, no doubt he had to struggle with his own inner demons, just as everyone else does.

As Christians, we need to reclaim the full picture of Jesus and his teaching.  We need to train, and to carry weapons which will serve as the Honso Masamune of our age, and be prepared to defend not just ourselves and our loved ones, but our congregations if need be.  We must be gentle as lambs, but sly as foxes.  The evil that is now spreading over this land will not be appeased.  We must be ready to take a stand.  Whose side will you be standing on?

Life in the FSA

Katie Pavlich has a funny piece today over at Townhall.com entitled Citizen asks ATF: Do I need a Federal Firearms License to sell thousands of guns to a Mexican Cartel? You can read it at the link.

The reference, of course, is to operation Fast and Furious, in which the ATF ordered dealers to sell guns to straw buyers for the Mexican Cartels, and then allowed those guns to "walk" into Mexico, where they turned up in numerous crimes, including the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.  The major players in that scandal have never been prosecuted.  The Attorney General has been allowed to defy Congress and retire, presumably with his pension intact.  I would also note that the law does not permit the breaking of the law in order to catch those breaking the law.  The ATF knowingly broke the law, as well as various international agreements.  In effect, they committed an act of war against our neighbor Mexico.  This is serious stuff, and nobody has been held accountable. If anyone should lose the right to arms, it should be the individuals who dreamed up this illegal scheme.

Fox News resident legal expert Judge Andrew Napolitano takes a different approach, one more appropriate to a lawyer arguing his case before a court.  You can find his article at The Constitution, the President and Guns. Napolitano is absolutely correct in every detail. Sadly, Napolitano's failure is a common one to lawyers, that of believing that words on a piece of paper mean something when nobody in authority is willing to enforce those words, backed up with force. No, the President "can not" do what he is doing legally, but since no one is going to stop him, realistically he can. And as the Fast and Furious operation shows, the Congress, the Department of (In)Justice, and the Courts are either powerless, of are in agreement with the President, or both.

We, the former citizens of the United States of American find ourselves now living in the Former States of American, a land I no longer recognize.

Obama lies, people die.

So, Fearless Dear Leader has announced his new gun control diktats.  You can find one take on that process at the American Thinker today in a post by Michael Filozof called Obama's Gun Control Lies. Some highlights from the piece:

In addition to the lies and falsehoods enumerated above, Obama attacked the National Rifle Association for exercising its First Amendment rights to freely assemble and petition the government. He also attacked the Republican Party (and Congress as an institution), claiming that he, and not they, represents the will of the people, and that he is empowered to act without legislative authority. He even cited Communist China's gun laws as a model to emulate.

Obama's performance – delivered before a fawning audience of supporters – was straight out of the Dictator's Handbook. Every single dictator in world history, from Caesar to Hitler to Stalin to Mao, has employed these same demagogic techniques. The American people have good reason to be frightened out of their wits over the future of the Republic, and the future of their individual liberties.

I will freely admit I did not watch the Presidential performance. I no longer watch anything this President says or does, because it is so sickening. Its for my mental health that I don't, you see. But if you insist on seeing this, you can find it here.  Personally, I find every word from this President's mouth to be a lie, including 'a,' 'an,' and 'the.'

 Another take on the President's speech can be found at Townhall.com in a post by Matt Vespa entitled Uh, what: Obama says violent felons can just buy guns online. Of course, felons have been prevented from legally possessing guns at least since 1968, and online sales are no different than sales at a brick and mortar store. You surely can select the gun online, but before you can put so much as a finger print on the weapon in question, you must go to a dealer in your state, in person, fill out your 4473 form and show ID. They will then run a background check. Of course said background check will come back disallowed, whereupon you could be arrested on the spot for making false statements on a Federal form. Of course, if you didn't make false statements on that form, then you would be denied the weapon by inspection.

I am sure Mr. Obama knows this, or can find it out fairly quickly. So, the White House tweet posted in Townhall should be considered a deliberate lie, much like the lies told passing Obamacare. But in Obama's world, the ends justify the means, and its OK to lie if the lie gives him cover to pass whatever he wants.

I want to take a moment to flesh out this idea of deliberately lying, and the evil it represents.  There exists in the law the notion of the reasonable man.  The reasonable man exercises due diligence when going about his business, such that he is presumed to know, or should have known whatever laws might bear on his business. The reasonable man presumption makes the EPA missteps that lead to the spill in the Animus river personally negligent on their part, and should result in people going to jail.  But they won't of course, because Democrat.  So, when Mr. Obama tells a lie that he knows, or should have known is a lie, the evil here is monstrous. I will make a further indictment. The fact that every member of his party in office also knows, or should have known makes them equally culpable in his lies. The mainstream news media who report the lie, but don't call him on it, can again be considered equally culpable.  The only way either of them can extricate themselves is to loudly proclaim that this is a lie.  They won't.

 Back to the Filozof piece for a minute; he says in his concluding paragraph that people should be frightened for the future of our republic. I disagree. We should instead become resolved and harden ourselves to the idea that the Republic will stand, that we will not go down without a fight. Prepare yourselves both physically, and spiritually. We must be armed both physically, but we must also be sure what we believe. What is taking place today in America is manifestly evil. We must be sure we are standing on God's side.

The People's Republik of Kalifornia Strikes Again

Jan LaRue discusses the most recent intolerable act in Kalifornia today at Townhall.com. Besides the blatant shredding of the Constitution taking place here, the act fails to do what it claims to do by inspections. It claims to make everyone safer by taking guns away from those who the family, friends, or neighbors claim are showing signs of being mentally disturbed. But it doesn't take away knives, baseball bats, shoe strings, cars...well...you get the idea. If one of these "mental defectives" were an executive, why shouldn't the state deny him his ties? Can't a tie be used to strangle someone?

The opportunities abound with such a law for those who want to control what other do.  Are you and your neighbor not getting along, perhaps because your tree shades a bit of his ground?  Does he know you have guns?  He could call you into the state.  Your teen upset at not getting to go to that party where "everyone who is anyone will be there?"  To bad for you.  California used to be a beautiful state.

She also discusses briefly the planned Obama diktats and what these might entail.  Make no mistake, they won't enhance your rights in any way, and they won't make anyone safer.  Indeed, the best we can hope for out of this President is that they won't make us any less safe than we already are.

Go read Jan LaRue's article, as she is a better writer than I am.