Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Next year in Jerusalem

Daniel Greenfield is also known as "Sultan Knish" and he blogs under that title.  Greenfield often writes warnings about the dangers of letting so many Muslims into our nation.  In this piece, he underscores that in our war with Islam that exists, whether we wish to acknowledge that we are at war or not, President Trump has struck another brilliant blow.  Greenfield's article is titled What the War Over Jerusalem Is Really All About. In it, Greenfield points out that:
It’s not about a “piece of land here or there”, as the PA’s top Sharia judge clarifies, it’s a religious war. And Israel is not just a religious war between Muslims and Jews, but a shifting frontier in the larger war between Islam and the rest of the world. It’s another territory to be conquered on the way to Europe. And Europe is another territory to be conquered on the way to America.
The declaration by President Trump is not so much for the Israelis. Israelis know where their capitol is. It is more about showing that we are not going to be governed by what Muslims think. In acceding to their demands, previous presidents have to be seen in Muslim eyes as having submitted to Islam, thus proving Islam's supremacy. By defying that outlook, President Trump has struck a blow to their self image as supreme.
Jerusalem is a metaphor. Every free country has its own Jerusalem. In America, it’s the First Amendment. Our Jerusalem is not just a piece of land, it’s a value. And the Islamic Jihad seeks to intimidate us into giving it up until, as the Hadith states, we abandon our religion for Islam.
Moving the embassy to Jerusalem will do much more for America than it will for Israel.
I would say that Jerusalem is more than mere metaphor. It is spiritual. Jerusalem was to be God's shining city on the hill, and on the last day God will give us a new Jerusalem, which will really be that shining city on the hill, and where we will all finally be at peace. I disagree only that in that it is not only our First Amendment, but our entire Constitution, rightly serving as our guiding document, not something that some use for toilet paper. But I digress. Everyone seeming looks to his or her own version of a shining city on a hill where fallen man. living in the muck and mire, will someday live in righteousness and purity. In that sense, moving our embassy to Jerusalem was the right move.

Saturday, December 9, 2017

Out of the mouth of babes!

There exists a moral difference between righteous violence in defense of the innocent and malicious violence if furtherance of selfish claims.  There exists a moral difference between self defense and the defense of one's family, and the aggressive violence of an attack.  My parents taught that there was no difference between the two, that all violence is morally repugnant, and used Jesus's saying that those who live by the sword will die by it as proof.  But carrying a weapon, and being prepared to use it in defense of yourself and your family is not "living by the sword."  I saw this fact then, and I still see the distinction today.

To accept whatever some thug wants to mete out to you is the essence of pacifism.  It is to admit that the strongest and the most ruthless thug among us will make the rules to suit themselves, and the rest of us will have to live with those rules no matter how unjust. I do not think that is the kind of world we should want, or accept.  As adults, we may have our sense of right and wrong beaten out of us.  We may believe that indeed children are traumatized by violence, but then one finds a story to remind you it is not true.

Don Cicchetti, writing at the American Thinker today tells a powerful story of an incident that happened to his the 7 year old daughter and himself that shows how children actually deal with thoughts of violence.  Cicchetti's piece can be found at What Being a Dad With a Gun Taught My Daughter. Go read the whole thing before you read the following. I wouldn't want to spoil the ending for you.

Read it?  Good.  Now you may continue:
So I went back in the house and got Sam and my nice Ruger 9mm, and we sat down on the floor of the kitchen, because that's the place with the most walls between us and the outside world, which could be filled with bullets and anger at any moment.
While waiting, she asked me: "Daddy, what if the robber gets in our house?"
"Well, he would have to get past all those cops, and they all have guns, huh?"
"Yeah." She smiled for a moment but then got serious again. "What if he gets past the cops somehow?"
"Well, he would have to get past the bars on the windows, huh?"
"What if he breaks the bars and gets in the house?"
"Well honey, what do you think will happen then?"
"You'll shoot him!"
"That's right." And then a peaceful smile came across her face, and we waited for the all-clear sign. Turns out the miscreant was not in our yard after all, but I was proud of the aggressiveness and professionalism of the local LEOs. I hope they got the guy.
Out of the mouth of babes!

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Embassy Moving To Jerusalem

President Trump is set to announce tomorrow that he is moving the U. S. embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, Israel.  Katie Pavlich has the scoop over at Townhall.com.

No doubt this will throw the Arabs and Muslims into turmoil.  Indeed, anything seems to, as these people seem to be perpetually offended at the very existence of Jews and Christians.  Therefore I have never felt that the taking of offence by these people should be a reason not to move the embassy to Jerusalem.  And while I don't think the President is a very pious Christian, it certainly shows our support for Israel, and we all hope that eventually all Israel will come to Christianity in God's time.  We can also hope that the Muslims will do the same, but I am not holding my breath.

This day, we should all pray for President Trump.

Saturday, December 2, 2017

A Gripe: Lookyloos

I end up driving a lot, and one of the things I see constantly is the aftermath of fender bender accidents on the road.  One  of the great annoyances is that these seemingly ubiquitous  situations seem to always back up traffic for miles on end.  Recently coming out of Charlotte, my wife and I encountered a 2 mile back up that took an hour to get through.  Yesterday, a similar back up occurred on I-40.

It seems that each and everyone who passes the site of an accident has to look long and hard at the aftermath.  I call these idiots "lookyloos."  Lookyloos seemingly stop, backing every one else behind them. and stare for a few moments.  No doubt they wring their hands and tut tut, but what value are the adding?  They didn't witness the accident themselves.  They can not do anything for the unfortunates involved.  All they can do is cause more trouble by backing up the traffic.

Now, I am as sensitive and as empathetic as the next guy, but I have to think: " What if a doctor is trying to get to the hospital to perform an emergency operation?  What if a patient dies because the doctor could not get there in time due to these lookyloos?" Lookyloos seem to have a pathological need to show they care by stopping and looking at every tragedy that happens around them even though it doesn't involve them and even though they will just get in the way of anyone who might be able to actually help.

Lookyloos, stop it.  Next time think before stopping.  In all probability, the most useful thing you can do is the keep moving on.

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Perhaps a Little Skepticism Is In Order?

Living in the same house with a feminist, who believes that the ONLY reason girls prefer to play with dolls is because that is how they are raised, I often find myself in hot water.  In other words she believes in nurture, not nature.  Of course, when she needs to, she is perfectly capable of playing the "but I'm just a girl" card, so there is that.

I have given up trying to explain that men, on average, are better at mathematics and science than women on average. But that "on average" is important because is says nothing about an individual person. I have known mathematical geniuses who are women. I have known more than my share of men who were mathematical dunderheads as well. Women on average are more drawn to become nurses, probably because it fits with their natural feelings of nurturing. But I know male nurses, and these guys aren't pansies. The point is that there are differences between men and women besides their plumbing, and those differences probably allowed us to survive long enough to be having these discussions today.

Whatever our philosophical disagreements, we both agree that women can be as ruthless, and predatory as can men.  So it was interesting to read Fay Voshell's piece today at American Thinker entitled Both Men and Women Can Be Sexual Predators. Voshell, coming from a Christian tradition notes that God makes no distinctions between men and women here. As St. Paul says, all have fallen short and deserve to die. But we are all, as she notes, redeemable.   What Voshell is arguing for is the same skepticism we give to those who commit other crimes. 
Maybe there is a little room for realistic cynicism.
As Angelo Codevilla recently pointed out, “Men, but mostly women, have been trading erotic services for access to power since time began.” As he observed sexual power plays during his eight years on the Senate staff, “Access to power, or status, or the appearance thereof was on one side, sex on the other. Innocence was the one quality entirely absent on all sides.”
Codevilla’s point is that all sexual transgression, including bargaining and power mongering, is held to be entirely the fault of men. But not all can be blamed on what radical feminists see as an inherently detestable and predatory patriarchy.
Women can be just as predatory as men, sexually and otherwise. Though assigned invisibility by most contemporary feminists who have a vested interest in the myth of women as always and forever victims of men, Phyllis Chesler and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, both cool-headed analysts, have shown that women can be as cruel and heartlessly manipulative toward men and other women as men can be toward women and other men.
Matt Lauer is the latest to be summarily fired based on being merely accused. NBC can, of course, do what it wants. Is Matt Lauer a cad? I don't know. And now I hear that Garrison Keillor has been fired as well. Both men were leftist, so one is tempted to allow oneself a moment of schadenfreude, but Christ's admonition is to pray for those who persecute you. Perhaps before these men are tried and found guilty in the kangaroo court of public opinion, some healthy skepticism is in order?

House Passes Concealed Carry Reciprocity Out of Committee

According to an e-mail alert from Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, Concealed Carry Reciprocity has passed the House committee had now heads to the floor for a vote of the full House of Representatives.  That's the good news.  The bad news is they also passed along an NICS Fix bill.  Pratt estimates that Concealed Carry Reciprocity is a bigger deal that the NICS Fix, so overall good news.

The House is likely to pass both bills.  But Concealed Carry Reciprocity is unlikely to pass in the Senate, which members of the House know.  So this may be just window dressing to keep gun owners in their pocket.  Time will tell.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Are Mass Murders Uniquely American?

I noticed this post from Clayton Cramer over at Of Arms and the Law on Sunday, but have not had time until now to post it here. I used to read Clayton Camer all the time, but sadly of late I have not been as wide ranging due to limited time to do so. Cramer has an interesting take on the whole problem of mass murder when he asks Is Mass Murder Exceptionally American?

Cramer points out that none other than Barack Hussein Obama claimed that mass shootings and mass murder doesn't happen elsewhere in the world.  He implied that we Americans are particularly bloodthirsty, and therefore need to have our guns taken away by our betters.  But is that really the case?
The recent tragedies in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs, Texas, are causing many Americans to wonder, “Is this kind of mass murder peculiarly American?”
The facts suggest otherwise.
There is nothing exceptionally American about mass murder or even firearms mass murder —even though some of the rhetoric accompanying these tragic events portrays the U.S. as singularly plagued by them.
After defining what is meant by the term "mass murder" and clearly excluding the genocides of the 20th Century committed by governments against their own people, Cramer goes on to document a number of mass killings that have taken place around the world. Moreover, he shows that even in places with gun control of the sort the gun grabbers so want to do in our country, that mass murders with firearms still occur. But the other thing that comes to light is that if a person has murder in their heart, anything can be turned into a weapon: vehicles, knives, clubs, it really doesn't matter.

The gun grabbers are generally aware of these statistics as well.  They know their arguments will not stand up to the facts.  So what is their motive?  Frankly, I believe the Left wants to take away the guns from the average citizen in order to gain a monopoly of force that will allow them to dictate their desires on this great country.  Sure, we could protest, but they don't have to listen.  Everything would then be like Obamacare where they imposed it over our protests, and even continue to keep it even after we elected a new government.  The Second Amendment is the only real threat the people have!  And then only if we are willing to use it. We may not yet be willing to use the Second Amendment, but as my last post makes clear, it is inevitable unless something changes.

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Can This Country Remain Together?

I have noticed with growing concern the many people on both sides of the aisle who are endorsing the current version of further infringements to our right to bear arms. Let me note that the current push to put more information on more people into the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) is a further infringement of the right to bear arms.  The NICS itself is an infringement because it is a prior restraint on a right.  It is the same as if before I could publish this blog post it had to be approved by  someone from the government, who would demand that I prove to his satisfaction that the blog post contained nothing false.  "But a blog post can't kill anyone," you say.  If the ideas in that blog post become popular enough, they can start a revolution, which could kill many.  So, yes, the First Amendment protections carry the same weight as the Second Amendment protections.

Of course, prior restraints on First Amendment rights would never by tolerated, or would they?  As I write this, the Supreme Court is considering two cases involving our First Amendment rights to freedom of religious expression. But make no mistake that the constant drum beat for political correctness is also an attempt to get you to self censor yourself to conform to the dictates of the Left. So, it was with some sense of despair that I read John Hawkins post of November 18, 2017 a Townhall.com entitled Do Conservatives and Liberals Have Enough in Common To Keep a Country Together Anymore? After some explanation of his position, Hawkins comes to the heart of the matter:
Recently, a Republican group in North Carolina asked me to come out and speak. After my speech, there was a Q&A session and someone there asked me, “Is it time for people who love their country to get their guns, head to D.C. and do something about what’s happening in our country?”
Just to be clear, he wasn’t advocating a terrorist attack or a random shooting; he was asking if it is time for patriots who love this country to attempt to overthrow the government to help bring our nation back to Constitutional governance.
What DIDN’T happen is worth noting. Nobody laughed. Nobody shouted, “Oh, come on!” Nobody said, “Oh, that’s just crazy, Dave. You’ll have to excuse him and his wild questions.” Instead, people sat quietly and listened for my response.
This should unsettle you if you are a patriot, and if you are a Leftist, it should be frightening. The fact that people instead of feeling bullied, believe that their patience is being tested beyond the breaking point should be disturbing to the Left. I agree with Hawkins that the ground work has not been done. We need a formal documentation of our grievances, but no doubt many will feel that the blocking of Trump agenda and the attempt to impeach a duly elected President would be enough.
The longer version of what I told him is that he’s right to be concerned about the country and that, yes, it is entirely possible we won’t hold together long term. What happens when we – almost inevitably at this point – have a debt-driven economic crash which causes Social Security and Medicare to be gutted? Other than wanting to get those checks, what do we have holding us together anymore? Eating lunch at McDonald’s? Watching The Walking Dead? NFL games….oh wait, sorry. We don’t even have that anymore.
We have broken bonds as a nation before: first, with the British, then during the Civil War. Regrettably, we may be headed toward another break down the road. That’s not something anyone should welcome, but when large percentages of the population are forced to live under grating rules they disagree with in the strongest of terms, paid for with increasingly large amounts of tax money they didn’t want to give up and implemented by people they don’t like, respect or feel bound to as a people, no wise person should assume that will continue indefinitely.
I can not help but mourn the loss of a great if flawed nation. I urge everyone to pray for our nation, and ask for guidance to do the right thing.

Sunday, November 12, 2017

Godless Atheism and the Texas Church Murders

Selwyn Duke says what I have been trying to say relative to the Sutherland church shooting, only Duke says it better, and more clearly than I have managed to say it. Duke's article is at the American Thinker today and is entitled Godless Atheism and the Texas Church Shooter. Duke writes:
“If God does not exist, everything is permitted,” wrote Fyodor Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov. Mentioning this in association with Devin Patrick Kelley, the militant atheist who last Sunday perpetrated the worst church shooting in U.S. history, is bound to raises hackles. Of course, few atheists will descend into committing murder; in fact, I’ve known some I’d call “good people.” Moreover, note that I myself once not only didn’t believe in God, but like Kelley thought religious people were “stupid.” Yet is it possible a straight line can be drawn between atheism (the belief) and increasing crime and immorality? Ideas do have consequences, after all.
Duke's point here is that unless we rely on a higher power than we men and women, everything becomes matters of preference. We can dress it up with pretty words, but at the bottom, that is what it means, and Dostoevsky is correct that everything is permitted. The idea that there are actions that are moral and those that are not, indeed to even discuss values, becomes a matter of consensus based on human preference.
This brings us to the true meaning of “You can’t be moral without God”: If divine law isn’t real, no one can be “moral” because you cannot conform to a non-existent standard. “Moral” is as incomprehensible a term in a universe without Truth as “physical” would be in one without matter. So, if God doesn’t exist, neither atheists nor theists can be moral — only in or out of fashion.
The reality, my atheist friends should note, is that embracing any moral is a matter of faith. We cannot see a moral under a microscope or a principle in a Petri dish. Science cannot prove murder (or anything else) is wrong — only possible. For science merely tells us what we can do, not what we should.
People generally don’t come to terms with these implications of atheism because most don’t take their world view to its logical conclusion; many also wouldn’t want to, for it means staring true meaninglessness in the face. It means that all the causes moderns fill their lives with are mere vanity. Tolerance can’t be better than intolerance, love better than hate, or respect for life better than murder in a godless, Moral-Truth-bereft world.
For me, I have been where these people are, as Duke says he was too. It was the realization of the ultimate meaninglessness of everything, the sense that there is nothing, that our lives mean nothing, and go nowhere, that caused me to keep seeking.  Looking into the abyss I took Pascal up on his wager.  The road of faith before seemed weak, turns out ti be the greatest of strengths.  To place oneself in the hands of a being we can neither see, nor understand, but rely on him to make it right, actually takes guts and strength. And once I began to have faith, I could see that I had really been running on nothing but faith all along.

So what does this have to do with the Texas shooter?  What does this have to do with gun control?  Just this, if you believe that man is truly the measure of all things, and that there is no moral truth, only men's preferences, then our right to self defense is not a God given, pre-existing right that can not be infringed (morally) but is a privilege once granted to our people at some previous time in history,   It has no meaning in today's world.  Also if you believe this way, then Government is indeed the only thing that can civilize an otherwise barbaric people.  Unfortunately, the government cannot be everywhere, and prosecutors cannot bring even an approximation of true justice, if one can say that such exists.

What the framers intended, was that we would be largely self governing.  The laws would be based on Christian teachings and the moral law.  Government, in this scenario, would necessarily be limited.  The people would have a right to arms as a way to keep government in check because, as every Christian knows, we are all poor miserable sinners, in need of the saving Grace of Jesus Christ.  Under this system,  there is no need for the police to be everywhere, no need for prosecutors to provide perfect justice, because God provides the ultimate justice.  Note that murder would be rare because to kill another human being, is to kill an image of God.

What I am saying is that there is no need for gun control, and in any case, it would be ineffective if the reason is to eliminate peoples ability to murder each other.  More people are killed with other instruments and tools.  On the other hand, if it is to put a totalitarian system in place, which I believe to be the real reason, it will not have an effect.  I know the power the elites think they will get by forcing all of us to live as they think we should.  But it is an illusion, and illusive.  Too late they will realize the emptiness of their lives.  Meanwhile, if there are 300 million guns in America, only one of those guns actually was used to murdered 26 people and injured 20 others.  The other 299,999,999 guns did not do anything. 

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Too many laws

Clark Neily over at Townhall.com asks If the Law is This Complicated, Why shouldn't Ignorance Be an Excuse? It is a fact that the average person can no longer know what the law is, and even lawyers do not really know all the law. Neily:
"Because I said so.” “Life isn’t fair.” “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” These are some of the great cop-outs of all time, and the last one is particularly troubling in a country with so many laws that it is impossible to count—let alone read—them all. When was the last time you sat down with a complete set of the federal, state, and local codes setting forth the tens of thousands of criminal violations for which you could be sent to jail? If you answered “never,” you’re in good company. Nevertheless, America’s judges still cling to the proposition that it’s perfectly fine to lock people up for doing something they had no idea was illegal. But it’s not fine, and the justifications for that palpably unfair rule have only grown more threadbare with time.
Things have gotten so bad that even an act as innocent as sharing a Netflix password or a bank website password with a family member could potentially carry criminal penalties if the website disallows password sharing. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 bans intentionally accessing a computer “without authorization,” and the Supreme Court has recently declined to hear a case from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Nosal, that held that password sharing could be prohibited by the Act. Although the majority opinion did not explicitly mention innocent password sharing, the dissent noted that the lack of any limiting principle meant that the majority’s reasoning could easily be used to criminalize a host of innocent conduct.
Emphasis is mine.  Nosal, for instance, was engaging in shady, unethical behavior if not outright fraud.  But there appears no provision for, as Neily notes, sharing a Netflix password with a family member.  Neily goes on to note that there are estimated to be 4000 Federal crimes, and 300,000 Regulations that carry the effect of law enforcing fines and jail time on the unfortunate who get caught up in them.  Then there are the State and local laws, ordinances, and rules that can further trip a person up.

One of the problems is the increasing number of laws prohibiting morally blameless activity that nobody would naturally think would be a criminal act.   For example, picking up a feather you find on the forest floor while out hiking:
Moreover, as noted, the increasing criminalization of morally blameless conduct makes the punishment of innocent mistakes even more likely. For example, federal law makes it illegal to possess the feather of any native migratory bird even if one just picks it up off the ground, and the potential penalties for doing so include fines and even time in prison. Think federal prosecutors would exercise their discretion to prevent miscarriages of justice under such obscure laws? Think again. Contrary examples are as numerous as they are horrifying.
Neily goes on to cite a number of examples. But we have seen other examples of the overcriminalization of the law before. Back in 2011 a Missouri family faced a $4 million fine for selling more than $500 worth of bunnies in a year. The Dollarwhite family didn't abuse their rabbits, and kept them exceptionally clean and well cared for. Apparently the Dollarwhites did not know about the obscure requirement to obtain a license when they sell to another for resale.  The license is to ensure that they are not abusing their rabbits.  But why didn't the USDA merely inform them of this "paperwork violation" and help them get licensed?  In my opinion the reasons for putting this family through hell can only be because of malice on the government's part.  And in the end, the Dollarwhite family did not do their due diligence by hiring an attorney and paying him to find out all the laws rules and regulations pertaining to the practice of rabbitry. 

But this gets to the heart of the problem, doesn't it?  If one has to consult an attorney before taking any action, knowing that one could be liable even if your attorney thinks you are allowed to do it, maybe the law has become to complicated.  Maybe its time to clip the wings of the regulators, and maybe its time to force our Congress to do its real job, and legislate sensible laws that we can all live with. 

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

The problem with gun violence is people, not guns

Another shooting, this time in Sutherland Springs, Texas on Sunday at a church service.  Someone who should not have been able to buy a gun somehow slipped right passed the eagle eye of the NICS system run by those super sleuths of the FBI, and bought a gun from a gun store. He violated laws against murder, against felon in possession of a gun, and lying on 4473 form.  So the existing laws clearly did not stop him from murdering 26 people, and injuring 20 others.  And guess what?  The proposed laws won't stop the next guy either.  Why?  We'll get to that below.  First I want you to go to the American Thinker, and check out the article by Daniel John Sobieski entitled When Jeanne Assam's Gun Stopped a Church Massacre.

Sobieski's point is that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. It is a hard fact, one that can only be ignored, but who's truth can not be denied. Only when confronted by someone else with a gun do these people finally stop, either shot by the good guy with a gun, or by suicide, or rarely by surrendering.  Guns are not inherently evil in and of themselves.  I have yet to see one jump up of its own volition and begin shooting up the place.  They also have no power to turn an otherwise good guy into a bad guy.  A gun does not, like some movie scene suddenly start calling out to the person in possession of it "Come use me to shoot a bunch of people in a church."  There is no evil spirit in the gun.  Guns are also not magic talismans, instantly shooting down people without aiming as in movies.  No, a gun must be trained with and the skills one develops are perishable.

Interestingly, gun violence has gone down as the number of guns has grown.  It is as if John Lott was right all along.  Today you are less likely to be killed by gun fire that at any time since the 1960s.  By the way, you are approximately twice as likely to be killed in a traffic accident as with a gun.  But what has increased is the number of mass shootings.  Glenn Beck speculated yesterday that the increasing number of mass shootings may have to do with  way the media seems to lionize these people.  In any case I have made a policy  of not including the name of the shooter in any of my recent posts.

One of the interesting things about mass killings is that most have occurred in legally defined gun free zones.  Schools, shopping malls with no gun signs, theaters with no gun signs, churches, government offices and so on.  To me this speaks of the killers deliberately planning to kill as many people as possible without having anyone else armed with equivalent force.  In other words, evil intent.  Which leads me to the idea that it is not the guns that are the problem to be solved, but rather the people wielding them.

The solution for guns in general, and mass shootings in particular lies with a recognition  that the world is a morally ambiguous place, at best.  People with evil intent are everywhere, and even those with the best of intentions often do evil anyway.  The idea that the police can be everywhere and stop every bad thing from happening is an illusion.  Police can not be everywhere all the time.  And even if they could, the police are not angels, but composed of the very same people that inhabit the rest of the world.  Whether you attribute the evil that stalks the world to the devil or to man's perversion, the fact remains that it is the people themselves that must be dealt with, not the instrumentality.  How does it help to leave even more victims defenseless in even more locations?  What is needed is more responsible people with guns in more places to be able to quickly respond with a gunman decides to do evil things.     

Sunday, November 5, 2017

Our Country is Under Siege

Today, David Soloway asks at the American Thinker Is Islamic Reform Possible?. He then answers with a resounding "No!" He goes on to suggest things we can do to limit the damage. I agree with most of Soloway's article, and most of his policy prescriptions. The one bone I have to pick is his insistence on calling Islam a "faith." Islam is not a faith, and nowhere in the Koran is there a requirement that its adherents had to demonstrate "faith." Rather, Islam demands obedience. If you do the various duties required of a proper Muslim, you are golden. What you believe or think is of no importance. If you can justify something legalistically, then you are allowed to do it, no matter how perverse.

This is in sharp contrast with Christianity, where what you believe in your heart affects how you relate to the world. You must believe in your heart that God humbled himself to become a man (while still being God), suffered and was tempted as man is, but lived a perfect life, and became THE innocent sacrificed for our sins, to be raised. The bad news is the Good News! God has done for us what we could not do for ourselves. I may be a poor miserable sinner, but when God looks at me, he sees Christ, and is pleased. Thus God deliberately fools himself to save a sinner like me. Alleluia.  Jesus taught that if you murder a man in your heart, it is the same as if you had murdered him in the world.  Thus it is in your heart that you must change, and that will change your outward practices.  Islam doesn't address the inward man.  More wonderful still, the Holy Spirit does the work of remaking you if you let him in. 

Soloway points out that because there is no command and control structure in Islam, it is devilishly hard to effect changes.  Indeed, the only way is for all of us to get in the faces of Muslims and constantly urge them to change everything about Islam:
In “Reform Islam or Live the ‘New Normal’ Forever,” Roger Simon argues that Donald Trump’s often frustrated travel ban on problematic countries, though not illegal, is insufficient. “It's only a meager beginning in dealing with a situation that has not changed in any real sense since 9/11, as the events in New York Tuesday testify. If we do not move even more seriously to prevent them, they will indeed become the ‘new normal.’ ” The violence, he continues, “will never be squelched until the ideology is defeated and reformed… We must all now be obnoxious, politically incorrect busybodies and get in Islam's face, demanding reform in every way possible, economically, socially, theologically and, yes, militarily.”
This is a bravely unpopular stance to adopt vis à vis Islam that will surely be opposed and condemned by progressivists and offended Muslims. In fact, however, it does not go nearly far enough. Islam is a notoriously resistant and tentacular faith. I have long argued in book and article that Islam cannot be reformed. For starters, it features no single “pontifical” authority that could institute real change. Moreover, the canonical network is too intricate and too vast to admit of effective modification. Expurgating the Koran, were it even possible, is only the tip of the sand dune. The hundreds of thousands of Hadith would need to be reviewed and amended, as would the Sunnah and Sirah, the five schools of jurisprudence, Twelver Shia, centuries of ulemic literature, and the underlying cultural predispositions, beliefs, ideals, and orthodox practices that form the bedrock of 57 Muslim nations and the West’s Muslim populations.
I understand why the Left seems to adore Islam. Islam isn't a religion at all, but a totalitarian political system disguised as a theology. Rather than demand that the man change, as Christianity does, it codifies and tolerates the perversity of mankind. Osama Bin Laden supposedly spent some time in London and found their morals to be loose. What then would he think of the Muslim practice of marrying a prostitute for an hour, having sex with her. and then divorcing the woman. Is that what he calls living morally?  The Left loves Islam because they don't have to change, they just have to not be caught, same rules they live by now.  As a bonus, they get to tell everyone else how to live.  As for offended Muslims, this jihad goes on in their names, so either they own it or renounce it.  But if they renounce it, they also have to renounce Islam itself.

Soloway goes on to note that we should ban all Muslim immigration since the practice of taqqiyah prevents us from knowing whether they are individually moderate or not.  But we also must investigate every Mosque and be ready to close down those that are preaching jihad.  It is in  these Mosques that many young men are radicalized.  Now the left will say that we can not do that because the 1st Amendment.  But understanding that Islam is not a religion as we haave understood such, but a totalitarian ideology that is at odds with the founding of this country, allows us to ban it, just as we have banned Mormons in the past.

This country is under siege from multiple enemies. We have a Leftist 5th column,  We need to rediscover our heritage, which was to stand for our principles while walking humbly in the world.  We also need to rediscover Christian values, if not Christianity itself. 

Saturday, November 4, 2017

Professors want the Supreme Court to limit gerrymandering

So, here we go again.  Some professors want the Supreme Court to, as they say, "limit gerrymandering", so that they can put more anti-gun Democrats in power at the state level to get guns out of the hands of Americans.  This is just rich.  Here in North Carolina, the state government was run by Democrats, for Democrats for over 100 years.  Gerrymandering was of course practiced, and nobody said a word.  Now that the Republicans have taken over, its lawsuit after lawsuit to end gerrymandering, at least until the Democrats take over again.  What hypocrisy.

But the question on the table is about guns, isn't it?  Over at Townhall.com, Beth Baumann has a piece from November 2, 2017 entitled Washington Post: Supreme Court Could Make a Move on Guns...In An Unconventional Way. The argument boils down to this:
The professors believe the reason "significant new gun laws" haven't be enacted in recent years is because gerrymandering has allowed the GOP to stay in power.
Nothing fancy here, just that the Democrats are losing, so it needs to be changed, because the American people once again don't know what is good for them, so we, their betters, must decide for them. And while it is stating the obvious, apparently Ms. Baumann is forced to say that boys will be boys, and politicians will be politicians:
There's one simple reality behind gerrymandering: It has always taken place and it always will. Asking people to put their political differences aside to draw these lines is unfathomable. That's asking political movers and shakers to put their political aspirations and beliefs aside for the greater good of their constituents.
But what about guns? How does this affect guns, you ask?
Liberals have an absolute obsession with the NRA. How a liberal feels about guns and the NRA has become their litmus test. That being said, these professors are no different. Arguing that gerrymandering is the way to fix America's "gun violence" problem is just...stupid.
The Second Amendment is a fundamental right protected by the United States Constitution. Those of us who want to protect ourselves for self-defense — or simply because we want to utilize our right — shouldn't be punished by anti-gunners who feel we're overstepping our boundaries.
These professors should be absolutely ashamed of themselves...
That is, if they had any shame, but they do not.

Once again, the professors argument presupposes that the problem lies with the instrumentality, rather than with the person wielding the instrumentality. But guns are inanimate objects. They do not jump out of their holsters of their own volition and begin shooting people. A person has to make the decision to take hold of the gun and direct it towards another person and pull the trigger.  There can be no justification for doing that short of defense of self or ones family from imminent death or serious bodily injury.  Also the fact that absent a gun, a car, a hammer, an ax or screwdriver will also do says that eliminating guns will not stop crime.  Therefore the motives behind the anti-gunners push for gun control is to give the government an overwhelming monopoly of force.

And of course, that can't be spoken about out loud...

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

500th Anniversary of the Reformation

Today is Halloween, or the Eve of All Saints Day. It is also the 500th Anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation. On this day, 500 years ago, Martin Luther started a revolution with the nailing of 95 theses on the doors to the Wittenburg Church. Luther's intention was to start a discussion on certain practices of the Roman Catholic Church that were not biblically based. For instance, the Church sold "indulgences" which were pieces of paper stating that the Pope would reduce your time in Purgatory for a fee. Of course there is no such thing as Purgatory. And any Christian is entitled to forgive the sins of another. Thus the Lord's Prayer contains the petition "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." Powerful stuff that, for it asks God to measure us by how we measure others. Is that what you really want?  It is a hard truth, and to live it requires a new way of thinking.  We don't naturally think this way.

I am a Lutheran, and in celebration of the 500th Anniversary, I have been reading Hallmarks of Lutheran Identity by Alvin Schmidt. In terms of explaining Lutheran Theology, as opposed to that of Calvin, or Wesley, or the seeming hundreds of others who popped up in the United States, the book is excellent, and highly readable.  I have also been restudying Luther's Small Catechism, and now realize I should have been devoting more time to it all along.  I am also engaging in something that was illegal in Luther's time.  I am reading the Bible!  In English!  Indeed, William Tyndale was executed for, among other things, translating the Bible into English from the original Greek and Hebrew.  Thanks to Martin Luther, I know that the work of Salvation has already been done by Jesus Christ on the Cross, because I could not do it for myself.  Only Christ, with no help from me.  Only Scripture, no other word is necessary.  Only by faith in Jesus, God's only begotten Son.  Only by Grace, because I deserve none of it.  Thanks be to God.

I recently had some experience with Luther's theology of the two kingdoms.  Luther noted that there are two kingdoms:  the Kingdom of Grace, and the Kingdom of the World.  The Kingdom of Grace is God's Kingdom, where your past sins are forgiven and everyone is perfect.  In the Kingdom of Grace, the Lion truly lies down with the Lamb, and doesn't lick his chops.  The Kingdom of the World is the one we experience every day when we encounter a set of blue lights on our tail, as a police officer pulls us over for speeding.  As Christians, we live in both Kingdoms.  So, for example, because the Kingdom of the World requires us to be armed, it may be that soldiers are needed to defend the country against a foreign invader.  It is no sin to serve as a soldier, or to kill in war.  But as a Christian, you should pray for your enemies, difficult as that may be.  Understanding in which Kingdom you are acting at any moment clarifies your duties.  Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.

I should note that in keeping with Luther's theology of the two kingdoms, I have been explaining opposition to abortion in mixed terms.  To the world, I should explain it in terms of natural rights.  To Christians, I can appeal to the Word.  In either case, it is wrong.  To the worldly, we have a right to life, that extends from our conception until natural death.  Abortion denies a child this right.  Therefore it is wrong.  Mea Culpa.
Today at the American Thinker, Scott S. Powell explains that the United States of America would not exist as a separate nation, nor would we have the Constitution we have if not for the Reformation. Powell's article can be found at The 500th Anniversay of the Reformation and What it Means Today. Powell explains that the American founders were heavily influenced by Reformation thinkers and theologians such as John Calvin. It is interesting, and true. We are a Christian Nation, founded upon Christian principles. We ought to start acting like it.

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Would Republicans rather lose than fight?

I have already written to my Senators and representative that unless they finally get on the ball and begin working to pass the Trump agenda, I really don't see any reason to continue voting for any of them.  Of course, I won't vote for the Democraps either, but I don't see a good reason to vote for Republicans.

So, it came as a surprise to see that Brian C. Joondeph at the American Thinker was asking if the GOP would rather lose than fight? on 29 October 2017.  I've talked to others who feel the same way.  Perhaps the Senators and Representatives can afford to lose my one vote, but if these others are any indication, can they afford to lose all of them?  In any case:
Then why aren’t these things happening? Now nine months into the Trump presidency, ObamaCare is still in place, so are high taxes. The border wall isn’t funded. There is little Congressional support for Trump blowing up the Iran nuke deal and the Paris climate accords. For cutting regulations. Cleaning out the swamp creatures of the deep state. Expeditiously confirming conservative judges, Neil Gorsuch aside.
This is a recipe for disaster. A big league electoral loss. The GOP, it would seem, prefers to lose rather than fight. A recent Fox News poll, a generic congressional ballot for the 2018 midterm elections, illustrates this quite clearly. Democrat candidates lead Republicans by 15 points. Granted, this is over a year ahead of the midterms, but still a bad omen for Republican members of Congress. Wimps or fighters?
Go read all of Joondeph's article. If you are inspired, write your Representatives and Senators as well.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

Alexa is watching you

I recently had a conversation with someone who had the nerve to claim that I was a luddite because I did not jump on the latest in gadgetry.  While it is true that I am judicious in adopting new gizmos, I am anything but a luddite.  The term luddite comes from one Ned Ludd, who supposedly broke into a stocking weavers shop and destroyed his equipment in protest of workers losing their jobs to the new technology.  Like most people, I am not opposed to new technology, I just pick and choose which new technology I wish to adopt.  Also, I am a slow adopter, waiting to see what falls out from other users first.  "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"

According to Pem Schaeffer in his article at the American Thinker today, that is exactly what I should be doing.  Pem asks the question: Alexa, what are you doing in my room? He then proceeds to answer that question, and what Alexa is doing is not necessarily benign. My friend was raving at what all Alexa could do, when fundamentally all Alexa is doing is a bunch of simple calculations at very high speed, not actually "thinking" as we understand the word "to think."
A.I. has not broken through the mysteries of innate human intelligence. Instead, techniques have evolved for applying massive computational power to simulate various human capabilities. Prominent examples include interactive systems in the newest automobiles. They recognize voice input, speak back in response, and perform various tasks at our behest. All use inexpensive digital hardware running highly evolved computer programs. The irony is that while their performance seems dazzling, they are in fact doing what they do through an extremely fast series of the simplest acts.
If my friend wishes to be dazzled by this display of simulated human intelligence, that is fine, but I remain unimpressed. I would as soon turn on my own coffee in the morning, and switch on and off my own lights, thank you. However, the really scary part is not the ability to turn the lights on and off, it is that Alexa is connected to the internet, and therefore you are inviting the world to see what is in your house, what you are doing, and as they say, case the joint.  Do you really want to give some criminal access to your home in order to case it and decide if there is anything worth stealing?
Echo, where Alexa lives, while complex in one sense, is remarkably simple at the human interface level. It has speakers for talking to you (with Dolby performance, no less), a microphone for listening to you (with similar high-performance specs), and a wireless interface to the internet via your home network. Newer versions include a video camera to watch you even in the dimmest of ambients. All versions are noticeably absent display screens and other interactive devices like a touch panel, keyboard, or mouse.
So far, so good. The immense power of Echo and Alexa lies not in voice recognition and voice synthesis capabilities, but in the connection to the internet. Voice recognition simply digitizes inputs to the microphone and analyzes them for language content. Voice synthesis is the reverse of this process – creating spoken words from series of ones and zeros.
The magic of digital technology is that it reduces everything to elementary operations, executed by incredibly fast, inexpensive, and nearly error-proof electronic building blocks suggestive of basic LEGO pieces. That the A.I. technology is primitive is not as relevant as the very fact that humans are investing billions in it...but for what purpose?
...snip again...
The main point here is that simple as the Echo device may seem, once you connect it via the internet to the GDI, it is accessible to any other processing element of that global structure. Anyone who listens to and speaks to Alexa opens himself up to monitoring by and voice prompting from a vast universe of digital resources operated by unknowable entities in unknowable locations. And without realizing it, he willingly provides input to "big data" archives. This is what "the cloud" means. Instead of being connected to your neighbor's laptop, or Amazon's server bank in Timbuktu, you're interacting with a vast, unstructured, indeterminate array of digital resources in the ether.
One thing to note is that the internet stores everything forever. We warn teenagers today that if they don't want nude pictures of themselves turning up years later in some porn site, don't allow nude pictures of yourselves to be taken. But there are far more nefarious creatures out there than a mad boy friend. Peoples private data has been stolen from a number of companies and institutions you thought were protecting that data. Ever hear of names like Target, Yahoo! and Equifax? Interestingly, the way to find out if your data was released in the Equifax fiasco is to input your private data over the internet. Have these people no self awareness?

Please go read the whole article. If you have children and grandchildren, be especially careful, and choose your technological wonders with extreme caution. You never know who is watching you and why.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Why Abortion is Wrong

I am reading the Bible using the Lutheran Daily Lectionary published by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. If you read each day's lectionary lesson, you will at the end of the year, have read the entire Bible. Then you start all over, because the Bible is a deep book, and what you read last year will mean something different and more wonderful today.  Today's readings included the 23rd chapter of Ezekiel. The prophet Ezekiel writes at the time of the Babylonian exile.  In his prophesies of the destruction of Jerusalem he writes:
For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their hands; with their idols they have committed adultery, and they have even offered up to them for food the children whom they have borne to me.
Back before the Babylonian exile, the Israelites waged a constant battle against the fertility cults that surrounded them, and lived among them.  . Believers in these cults believed, in the manner of infantile egoism, that they through their actions in keeping the fertility gods favorable to them, could bring the rains, and make the crops grow. So, the believers performed rites in front of the idols of these gods, and sacrificed children to them.  (Compare these believers in fertility gods to global climate change alarmists today.)   While their motives were certainly different, they were more understandable. For if there was no rain, there would be no crops, and the people would starve to death. Thus they had a powerful incentive. One can even understand in the circumstances that an ancient Israelite might take out a little insurance, right?

But, the one unforgivable sin, you see, is failure to trust in the Lord, the one who brought them out of Egypt, the one who defended them time and again. For as Jesus says, in Matthew 5:45:
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
So, our God, Creator of everything that is and everything that is not, finds the murder of your children as abhorrent as do we.  Whether it is because of a lack of trust in God, or for other reasons, abortion is wrong.

But you don't believe in God, do you?a  You are a modern woman, and above all that myth and legend, and superstition.  And I am not here to change your mind, for that would be a fool's errand.  I am here to tell you though, that you will not be happy as a result.  You will pine for your child, and you will curse the day you listened to the feminists who said you could have it all.  Another false promise form false prophetesses, for everyone must make choices, and some choices foreclose others.  Be careful in the choices you make.

Friday, October 13, 2017

Why we can't give in on bump stocks

Selwyn Duke has an article today that explains why the gun rights community will fight tooth and nail to prevent the government from infringing our Second Amendment rights by banning bump fire stocks.  Dukes article entitled Why I Oppose Banning Bump Stocks in today's American Thinker perfectly captures the attitude of a lot of people in the gun rights community. Duke:
The latest firearm-equipment boogeyman is the “bump stock,” a device allowing one to fire a semi-automatic rifle more rapidly. Liberals learned of bump stocks because Las Vegas murderer Stephen Paddock had modified 12 of his rifles with them.
This has made them a target for prohibition, and an easy one, too. After all, almost no one wants to buy a bump stock, so even many Republicans — and the National Rifle Association — are willing to place greater restrictions on the device. I also have no plans to acquire one, but I wouldn’t even consider outlawing the stock. Why?
Well, for that, you will have to read the rest of the article.  Suffice it to say that Duke is past weary of the ever changing drive to ban whatever it is that is the latest piece of firearm equipment.  If you are old enough, you will remember when they wanted to ban the so called cheap  "Saturday night special" because supposedly urban blacks used them to kill each other.  Notice the racist overtones here, and these were Democrats that wanted them banned. But it doesn't really matter.  What matters is that they can ban something, anything, then they will be back the next shooting for another slice.

Duke's idea is to try to pin down liberals as follows before we give in to any sort of ban:

*  You say bump stocks allow a person to fire too rapidly. Okay, what exactly is the maximum number of rounds per minute a weapon available to the public should be capable of firing? What’s your reasoning?
*  “High-capacity magazines” is an ambiguous term. Exactly what size magazine should citizens be allowed to own? What’s your reasoning?
*  Don’t tell us about “high-powered rifles.” Tell us exactly what the maximum muzzle velocity of a publicly available firearm should be. What’s your reasoning?
*  Another ambiguous (and misleading) term is “armor-piercing ammunition.” What exactly should the maximum penetration power of a publicly available round be? What’s your reasoning?
Once you formulate your concrete vision (for the first time in your lives), please present it. If we accept it, though, note what the agreement means: You don’t get to ask for more anti-gun laws ever again. There’s no more politicizing of the issue after every shooting. The vision is conceived, articulated, agreed upon — and then set in stone.
Of course, Duke realizes that this is highly unlikely, and short of them offering a unified, all gun grabbers agree on this list, there is really no point in discussing it further

Thursday, October 12, 2017

My Stack On Medium Quick Access Safe

About a year ago Mrs PolyKahr saw a good deal for Stack On Medium Quick Access Safes to keep curious fingers off our guns when we don't have immediate control of them. We each stuck one on our night stands, and programmed the biometric lock with a combination that we each could remember. Of course, a biometric lock requires batteries or a secure source of electricity, which means that the biometric lock has to be backed up with a mechanical lock and key.  Batteries will fail at the moment you need them the most, and there is no such thing as absolutely secure electricity.

Mind you, these are not like a Liberty Safe that is so heavy the bad guy can't steal it, and is fireproof and all the other proofs.  These safes are not designed to thwart all comers.  These are just designed for peace of mind if you have young children running around.

I personally take my weapon out at night and keep it on top of the safe, because if awakened by a bad guy in my house at night, I don't want to have to be fumbling with the biometric lock to get to my gun.  That being said, I have noticed of late that the battery case, which is on the upper part of the inside of the safe has begun to sag a bit, making contact with the batteries somewhat iffy at times.  Of course, I can always use the key, but that means I could have bought a cheaper safe if I didn't have to have the biometric lock.  Otherwise, the safe has done the job it was intended to do.  However, I would not buy another one, there are cheaper alternatives. 

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Make No Mistake-This Is War

There have been several articles about the recent assault on the Second Amendment as a result of the mass shooting in Las Vegas. While the dead are buried, the wounded are tended, and the police search for a motive, the Left is busy calling for a bunch of stupidity that will not affect the next mass shooting, but will burden all the law abiding people that did NOT have anything to do with the mass killing. I intend to highlight a few of those today, gentle reader, if I may.

The first is Alicia Colon's article that appeared in the American Thinker October 8, 2017 entitled The Unbelievable Stupidity of Those Who Believe that Laws Stop the Lawless. As a readers digest version, the title says it all. Of course the Left doesn't really believe that there is some magic incantation or formula that will suddenly cause evil people to be good. Indeed, if there were, the whole of the Christian Church could declare victory and the reign of Jesus on earth. But there is no such magic incantation, and so one must view the manufactured anguish of the Left as nothing more than an attempt to convince the American public to give up their Second Amendment rights. In any case, go and read the whole thing, as she makes some other good points as well.

Next up is William Sullivan's piece on October 9, 2017 at the American Thinker entitled The Logical End of the Left's Antigun Crusade.   Sullivan takes as his starting point an interview with Representative Don Calloway on the Tucker Carlson show:

Recently on Tucker Carlson’s show, Don Calloway (Rep D-MO) opened with this pearl of insight into the leftist mind, suggesting that “mass shootings are the result of the types of weapons that are available to our society, and the lethality of weapons that are available to our society.”
But are mass shootings truly “the result of the types of weapons available to our society?” Follow that logic to its reasonable end.
Following which, Sullivan destroys the logic of the Left by pointing out that the total number of people killed by mass shooters in the last 51 years is 948 people. This is tragic. More tragic still is that 3,827 people were killed in 2014 alone by either being beaten of stabbed. Morally, there is no difference between being stabbed, or beaten, or being shot by a mass shooter. Yet one is held out as being more reprehensible. Moreover, it is not the existence of the weapons themselves that are the cause of these mass shootings, but the murderous intent of evil people.  Guns, as always, are inanimate tools.  They do not influence people who do not have the desire to kill, to become killers.  The problem, as always, is the people themselves.

Today there are a number of proposals out there to ban the so called "bump stock" to prevent someone from doing the same thing the Las Vegas shooter did. Years ago one of the flashy moves in cowboy movies was to "fan" the hammer of a Colt 45 Peacemaker or similar single action revolver while the shooter held down the trigger. The result was a very rapid rate of fire. But no one actually did this in real life. It was only the trick shot artists who might fan his revolver in a demonstration. One could not actually aim while fanning. Similarly, bump fire has been around, but it is not very accurate, and people don't (usually) use bump fire in real life. So, conservatives are not all fired up to defend the bump fire stock since, as Spike Hanson points out in his piece at the American Thinker entitled To Win the Second Amendment War:
Whether or not bump stocks end up banned is a trivial matter. The war over the Second Amendment will not hinge on the outcome of this particular battle. Both sides know this; the importance of the issue is entirely psychological.
For progressives, a win would be a move in the right direction, evidence that conservatives are vulnerable. It would be comparable to the Doolittle Raid against the Japanese homeland in 1942 – a strike of no great strategic import but invaluable as a way to shift national confidence from the Japanese to the American side.
For conservatives, there is little to be gained by thwarting this progressive gambit (which is the reason some are prepared to make a tactical retreat). Why expend resources on such an insignificant matter when winning it will not much advance the Second Amendment cause? Why, indeed! The answer is that a defensive mindset leads to defeat. Fainthearted people rarely win at war. This is no less true for a political war than it is for a military one.
And there it is. I myself have no real interest in fighting this fight. But we must, because we can not give on inch. Not one more inch. This is a war, and we can not lose it. The NRA has signaled that they are agreeable to banning bump fire stocks. But then the NRA have been the Neville Chamberlains of the gun rights movement since I can remember. Their appeasements have given us the gun control laws we have today. And those laws have nothing in common with the American system of Constitutional government, but more with Fascistic and totalitarian governments. Therefore I urge readers to consider joining the GOA effort to stop Congress from passing a bump stock ban, and get back to work giving us National Reciprocity.

This is war. We can not lose it.

Saturday, October 7, 2017

The Solution to Las Vegas Is Not Making Things Illegal

The shooting in Las Vegas has spawned many emotions.  Everyone of course deplores what the shooter did.  Most of us are also impressed with the speed with which the police responded, and are comforted by the stories of people helping people at the scene.

Some people believe that somehow we need to do SOMETHING, anything, even if what we do would not have stopped the Las Vegas shooter.  So it is with the calls to make the bump fire stock and similar products illegal.  Supposedly, the reason the shooter could fire so rapidly is because he had a "bump fire" stock installed on his semiautomatic rifles.  With training, the bump fire stock allows more rapid fire that one can achieve with the trigger finger only, approximating what can be achieved with a fully automatic weapon.  It sounds reasonable, right?  If the killer couldn't get a hold of a bump fire stock?  Similarly, if Cain hadn't had easy access to a rock, Able would have still been alive.  But of course we can make rocks illegal, can we?  Indeed, trying to protect people by making things that can kill illegal is a fool's errand.

If we are looking for a solution, we are looking in the wrong direction if we are seeking to make various inanimate objects illegal  The problem is not the existence of semiautomatic rifles, or indeed any firearm.  It is also not the existence of devices like the bump fire stock.  The problem is that a man decided to commit an evil act and kill as many people as possible.  Since everybody is an image of our Creator, the desire to kill another human being indicates a hatred of God.  Of course, murder is already illegal.   There is nothing our legislators can do, except of course posture and virtue signal.

The truth is that tragedies like  Las Vegas can't really be prevented.  The only way to prevent a tragedy is to change the killer's heart.  No man can do that, only the Holy Spirit can do that.  But the Holy Spirit can only do that if he can be exposed to the Christian message.

Update:  Please also read The Ugly Truth for Liberals: Gun Control Will Not Stop Mass Shootingsm by John Hawkins.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Digital Amateur Radio

I wanted to talk a little today about the "digital" modes of transmitting information over the radio waves.  A digital mode involve signals that transmit some combination of discrete frequencies by one station that can then be decoded by another station to reveal the information being transmitted.

The oldest "digital" mode is what is called Continuous Wave (CW) that transmits Morse code.  The transmitter is either on or off.  The length of the elements are either long or short.  These long, often called "dah" and the short, called "dit" thus make up a binary code, the differing combinations of which make up all the letters, digits, punctuation and pro-signs of Morse code.  CW is still practiced in Amateur Radio, and can be used anywhere in the amateur bands.

Radio Teletype, abbreviated RTTY, is a radio implementation of a land line technology that was an early form of sending text over the phone lines.  The wire services such as UPI, used teletype extensively.  RTTY uses two tones, usually 170 Hz apart, to transmit the letters, digits, punctuation, and again certain pro-signs to transmit text as opposed to voice.  RTTY proceeds at 45.45 baud, or about 60 words per minute.  Once upon a time, to operate RTTY one had to make a substantial investment in converting old teletype machines to transmit over the air.  But with the advent of personal computers, software took over this function, and with a simple sound card as the interface between the computer and the transmitter, one could be in the RTTY business.   Today, the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) promotes RTTY as a digital mode that is very popular.  It is also one of the easiest to understand, and to set up the software to run. But in fact, only a few experts with RTTY operate during contests, and there seems to be little other activity.  So I have to question the ARRL's notion of the term "popular."  As a result, a new practitioner can not get any experience themselves, because RTTY operators only use their equipment at certain times when a new person will be reluctant to try out the mode.

Since 2000, a number of digital modes using inexpensive sound cards as the interface between your computer and a transmitter have popped up like mushrooms.  One of these, PSK31, is a digital mode that uses phase shift keying to key the transmitter at 31 baud.  The mode was designed to be used as a conversational mode for "rag chewing" as opposed to simple contesting.  As late as 2012, ARRL was promoting PSK31.  The advantage of PSK31 is that 25 or 30 conversations can be going on simultaneously in the same bandwidth as a voice conversation over Single Side Band (SSB).  Unfortunately, PSK31 has fallen out of favor as well.

The latest bright shiny object in the digital amateur radio constellation is a product called FT8.  I have not looked into FT8 yet, but it comes out of the same developers as JT9 and JT65.  These modes were designed to explore the common problem of digging a signal out of the noise.  The high frequency bands, where Amateur Radio operates are plagued by varying degrees of static noise.  As more and more electrically powered devices come on the market, the static noise has become stronger and stronger.  The JT programs are capable of digging a readable signal that is buried deep in the dirt.  They are great for contesting, for DXing (radio talk for contacts between two countries) and for QRP (radio talk for low power operation).   However, these programs are not designed for conversing.   A typical exchange involving call sign, grid locator, and signal report takes 6 minutes!   Radio, if it is to be more than an expensive toy, must be able to convey more that the person calling, and a location and signal report.  In times of disaster, we must be able to convey what we need to survive, health and welfare traffic, and other emergency communications.  In good times, Amateur Radio shows that people, wherever they are, are fundamentally the same.

While it is interesting to get signals out of static, and amateurs should pursue that, I would like to see more activity on modes that operate at or just above the noise threshold such as RTTY and PSK31.  These modes actually can convey useful information in a timely fashion.  Using PSK31 signals, I have noted that my CQs have been heard as far as Europe, South America, Africa, and across the U. S, at only 25 watts of power.  Imagine that a signal with the power of a 25 watt light bulb can be decoded at half way around the world, in high static conditions.  Yet no one is responding.  I guess they are all chasing after the latest shiny object.  

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

In 65 Years, the World Has Turned Upside Down

This piece was published on August 30, 2017, but with Labor day coming, and preparations for a house full of guests, I didn't have much time to devote to finding stories to highlight for readers.  The article in question is by David French at the National Review entitled Can a Progressive's 'Inclusive Values' Include Christianity? French starts off by acknowledging that he has signed the Nashville Statement, which, as he points out:
Over the weekend, I was honored to sign a document called the Nashville Statement. It’s a basic declaration of Christian orthodoxy on sexuality, sexual orientation, and sexual identity. Its 14 articles can be boiled down to a simple statement: We believe the Bible is the word of God, and the word of God declares that sexual intimacy is reserved for the lifelong union of a man and a woman in marriage. It acknowledges the reality of same-sex attraction as well as the reality of transgender self-conceptions, but denies that God sanctions same-sex sexual activity or a transgendered self-conception that is at odds with biological reality. In other words, it’s basic Christianity.
Too often I think we hear the words of condemnation: we have sinned, but we don't hear the words of grace: but if you truly repent, God will forgive you. The Nashviille Statement contains both the condemnation and the grace. It is thus well balanced, and indeed, I signed it myself. Would that the church body to which our congregation belongs, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America could write such a powerful, yet Biblically accurate statement of faith. Alas, it has been taken over by radicals like so many other institutions in America. But according to French, many Evangelicals think that being a Christian means never hurting anyone's feelings:
The backlash was of course immediate, with multiple liberal Evangelicals deriding the statement as cruel or mean. In their theology, God’s word is subject to an overriding cultural and political test. One can reject even His clearest commands if those commands are “mean” or “intolerant.” And what’s “mean” or “intolerant” is — oddly enough — defined almost entirely by secular social revolutionaries...
The statements by Jen Hatmaker, a respected Evangelical and author, are troubling to say the least. It is as if she has read and internalized only one half of the Bible, and discarded the other half. But Jen Hatmaker at least represents just one person's opinion. She has no power to make us do anything. The mayor of Nashville, Megan Barry's statement that the Nashville Statement does not represent the "inclusive values of the city & the people of Nashville" is more troubling because:
This statement is in many ways far more ominous than anything that comes from the liberal Evangelical world. The liberal Evangelical argument is one reason that the Nashville Statement was necessary. The authors and signatories expected pushback. Barry’s statement, however, is different. It’s not separation of church and state, it’s a declaration of state against church. We are reaching a troubling stage of American politics when the reality of American pluralism is yielding to a demand for cultural and religious uniformity. Megan Barry is expected to have a position on civil rights and civil liberties, but that’s a far cry from stating that Biblical orthodoxy is incompatible with the “inclusive values” of a city that’s located in the heart of the Bible Belt. The Southern Baptist Convention has a headquarter building right in downtown Nashville. You can’t drive five minutes in Nashville without seeing a church that’s teaching exactly the values and beliefs contained in the Nashville Statement. Is Barry’s position that they should change their ways, shut up, or leave?
We are living in times not much different that those Paul describes in his letters to the Corinthians. In 65 years the world has been turned upside down. Father give us strength to keep proclaiming your word.

Saturday, September 2, 2017

Bloomberg Exposed

I am taking off an admittedly biased news source today, as the reporting appears to be accurate.  My piece comes from an NRA/ILA blog post entitled Disaffected Gun Control Activist Exposes Bloomberg Top Down Bureaucracy. The post in turn cites another post by Kate Ranta at the Huffington Post. I cite the NRA/ILA post because I suspect many of my readers don't quite believe that Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action are in fact astroturf groups.  I don't cite Kate Ranta's piece at HuffPo, because I don't want to give them any more traffic, but if you want to read it, you can find the link in the NRA/ILA post.

True "grass roots" organizations rely on dues from members for their financial support, and unless these groups are very large, depend on volunteers to show leadership and to do any sort of lobbying of the legislature.  Because these groups can show a large, well organized membership, they do get the attention of legislatures and the public.  Such groups include the Virginia Citizens' Defense League and Grass Roots North Carolina. In addition, such groups typically have a narrow focus because once the scope widens, disagreements with the goals of the group may split the group apart. Grass Roots North Carolina is a typical example. The focus is on gun rights. That doesn't mean that gun rights advocates don't care about other rights as well, just that they have chosen to get involved with gun rights through a focused group.

An astroturf organization is so named because unlike a grass roots organization, there are no roots.  Astroturf is all show and no substance, like the carpet for which it is named,  manufactured by the AstroTurf corporation. Astroturf operations tend to be waged by a lone person or a corporation, in this case by Michael Bloomberg, who funds most of the activity. Astroturf relies on paid lobbyist, paid spokesmen, and their messaging is carefully orchestrated from the top.  This is why Bloomberg routinely outspends grass roots gun advocacy groups but loses anyway.

Michael Bloomberg appears to be a narcissistic, ego maniac, who wants to control everyone and everything, from how big a soft drink they can buy, to how much salt restaurants put in food, to whether or not you and I can defend ourselves.  I don't understand such people, and I really don't want to.  I just want to be left alone.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Fred Read: To the Barricades

I like to read Fred Reed as he writes about seeming everything.  Fred has led a misspent life, which gives him an excellent, if cynical, perspective.  His take on the current civil war is contained in his post To The Barricades: We Will At Least Be Less Bored. Fred writes:
Half the country, led by New York, wants to control, and does control, everything of importance to the other half. Everything is decided remotely: what your children learn in school, what you can’t say to them because they might tell their teachers; who you have to hire, with whom you have to associate, what religious practices are permitted, whether you can have a Christmas tree in the town square or sing carols on the public streets, whether you can defend yourself and your family. New York versus the Deplorables. The city holds the high cards.
Bitter conflicts force the taking of sides, often with people one does not like. For example, I think Trump is a horse’s ass, dangerous, naive, uninformed, and a thoroughgoing damned fool. I detest the KKK (which barely exists, but never mind) and disagree with the Alt-Right on many things. Yet when I look at the other side, the armed bands, the censorship, thought control, indoctrination, the re-writing of history, their media arm, the identity politics, the push for control, control, control—I think,“I’ll take Trump—gack–and certainly the Deplorables.” And of course if violence comes, it’s one or the other. You can’t reason with a mob armed with lengths of rebar.
Precisely so. In the real world, where you are unlikely to find a true conservative candidate, much less find a republican with a spine, one has to take what one can get. Given a choice of, as Fred says, New York, or Trump, I'll take Trump. If I have to pick sides, I guess the Deplorables are closer to my thinking than the control freaks of the Left.

Saturday, August 26, 2017

The Left Forgets Its Own History

Why does the Left keep doubling down on gun control despite the fact that clubs, bats, and other weapons were used in Charlottesville, and an automobile was used to kill one person.  Indeed, vehicles have been used in Charlottesville and elsewhere, yet the Left seems to focus only on guns.  Today, Jeffrey T. Brown asks Does the Left Know Something's Coming Involving Guns? Although the Left keeps hinting that they are worried about the right, there has been no right wing gunmen so far. Indeed, it was a Bernie Sanders supporter that opened fire on Republican Whip Steve Scalise. With that history, and with the constant Left wing violence, it seems the people on the Right have been remarkably restrained.

 Brown asks further though:
What if they know something we don't? This sounds a little "out there," but we live in a time when what is going on beneath the surface dwarfs what we see as the end result of someone's planning. So what if the discordant calls for gun control are because those politicians, anarchists, and activists (though I repeat myself) have foreknowledge of some kind of planned escalation of their brand of "protest" and are setting the stage for disingenuous "I told you sos'? What if they have something of a timeline along which they either believe that things will happen or will make things happen, to escalate the blitzkrieg of media and hysteria by which they effect "change" – meaning a coup?

What if they and the media are in bed together on this, too, and have prepared their stories and narratives ahead of time? In Charlottesville, Trump was caught flat-footed but still gave an accurate response regarding hate on many sides, but Terry McAuliffe had a complete speech ready to go, condemning the left's shadowy enemies while omitting any mention of the Marxist combatants who came to do actual, physical harm. No one in the media batted an eye.
Brown further points out that:
The left, it seems, has orchestrated these fights. Their surrogates are not there to protest; they are there to provoke. They come armed, masked, and emboldened by the political support of the left. It's the Marxist left's goon squad, there to ensure that one side speaks, one side controls, and the other side stays quiet or is punished. Liberal mayors and governors seem disinterested in preventing the violence, even ahead of time. Police officers report, as in Baltimore and Charlottesville, that they were told to "stand down," though they knew that harm could have been prevented if they'd been allowed to do their jobs.
The Left, it seems is building toward an event, possibly one manufactured, as in Charlottesville, where someone will shoot and then all hell breaks loose. Just as at Kent State in 1968, a provocateur will shoot off a pistol, or a long gun, and turn what is a "peaceful" riot into a full blown deadly event with at least one person killed. As at Kent State, the "peaceful" protesters will have weapons staged to come out when the riot inevitably turns deadly, to do as much damage as they can. As at Charlottesville, the subsequent drum beat will turn a single death of someone who shouldn't have been there into a massacre.

So why is the Left doing this?  What do they gain from destroying the rule of law, from destroying the history of the Democrat party by destroying the statues of various Confederates?  Brown again has the answer:  
On the other hand, what if the crises don't happen? Well, then the left fabricates them. We saw this clearly in the days and weeks following the election, as dozens of leftists utterly made up hoaxes about being assaulted, or insulted, or seeing churches burn, none of which turned out to be true. What if, as we saw with the fake "Trump supporters are racist" meme, the left gets tired of waiting for an event that doesn't come and makes it happen? In this day and age, with the malice and insanity of the left on full display, who thinks this is not within the realm of possibility?

I hope I'm wrong, but the left is determined to continue the philosophical movements of the Obama years despite its loss. Leftists don't care about elections. They care about raw power, intimidation, disinformation, and corruption. The wealth of America is a goal well worth lying and cheating for if you're on the left. What's another constitutional right sacrificed? It's not as though they'll be around much longer anyway if they win.
This has all played out before. In those days, the "direct action" gang was called the Weathermen. Their decade of rioting and mayhem resulted in the election of Richard Nixon. As with Trump, the Left was gunning for Nixon from day one, which helped Nixon by making him look like the underdog. The Left eventually got rid of Nixon, because of his own fatal flaws, but history would be much different had the Left played by the rules. They wouldn't be playing out this replay if they remembered their own history.

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

On National Carry Reciprocity

Again, I am running up against a deadline, so there won't be an extended discussion.  I urge you to read Salena Zito's article at Townhall.com entitled Thank God He Was Carrying. Of course judges and prosecutors have special dispensation, as do police officers. Such people often make enemies by the very jobs they do, even if they are absolutely fair, honest, never make a mistake. But a lot of normal people make enemies who are unreasonable as well. We also deserve to carry and not just in our home states. National Carry Reciprocity is another important item the Congress is not passing because they are too focused on hating Trump. I urge them to get over Trump, and embrace the opportunity to begin returning the nation to its people.

Monday, August 21, 2017

Republicans Unmasked

I've got to run today, but please read Trump's Unintended Consequence: The Republican Party Reveals Itself, and it ain't pretty.

I've been a Republican since I first voted for Richard Nixon (sorry about that.)  I admit I have not often liked my choices, and this election was no different.  The problem has been that the Democrats keep moving Leftward, while I am staying put.  But if the Republicans can not see fit to repeal Obamacare, or give us meaningful tax reform, what good are they?  I intend to sit the next election out.  Or, as David Prentiss put it:

What is a nation who has been lied to by both parties supposed to do? What is the base of the GOP going to do?

I don’t know, but I do know I’ve never seen the center right base so disgusted and angry at its own. GOP: Trust me, the base hasn’t left Trump, but it has left you. It’s not official yet, but the avalanche is about to begin. The anger is going to boil over. Upon you. GOP: you’re not going to like it, but you have no one to blame but yourselves.

To the very small list of conservatives that fought the good fight: I apologize. But to the rest: You have become like the salt in the parable. Good for nothing.

Thursday, August 17, 2017

I'm From the Government and I'm Here to Kill You

David Hardy of the blog Of Arms and the Law has a new book coming out entitle I'm From the Government, and I'm Here to Kill You, about horrible disasters visited on the American people by an often indifferent and incompetent government with no legal consequences whatsoever. You can pre-order the book at Amazon.

More on Charlottesville

Yesterday I was watching an HLN news babe excoriating President Trump for saying both sides were in the wrong, and then extolling the supposed Antifa "heroes."  I really had a hard time, as I saw the dust up as being a replay of the Nazis vs the Communists in 1930s Germany.  Neither side is in the right, and neither side is on the Right.  I yelled at my TV, but that really does no good, does it.

Derek Hunter has a post today at Townhall.com entitled  The Gathering Mob which makes the same point, and several others as well. Really, you should read the whole thing. My first thought was that if I took the most salient points and quoted them here, I would have to quote the entire article. None the less, let me quote just one piece, the then let you read the rest at Town Hall:
The term “alt-right” is used by those idiots to give themselves something to cling to and to seem larger than they are, and for the media to paint their political opponents as part of these monsters’ circle. It has no basis in logic.

The proper place for these creatures is on the far-left. They, like their kindred spirits who call themselves “Antifa,” seek complete government power to impose their will. Just as with the Bolshevik vs. Menshevik, totalitarians always will break into factions and fight each other for power. That’s what Charlottesville was.

Left-wing “journalists” have been tweeting a meme comparing Allied troops in World War II to the antifa in Charlottesville in an attempt to misdirect the public, to make them think people responsible for violence across the country are somehow heroes. An appropriate comparison would be to compare them to the Soviet troops. Show up to an antifa rally with an Israeli flag and see how that goes over.

Out of it, radical leftists, as always, were emboldened and took to the streets across the country, and violence and anti-police words and actions soon followed.
Indeed. Charlottesville was a false flag operation from beginning to end. The media had to move on from the "Russia, Russia, Russia" meme, and Charlottesville was its next thing. Did whoever funded it expect someone to drive a car into a crowd and kill someone? No, I don't think so. But at the same time, they knew if they could get these two groups together, surely something newsworthy would happen.  The media has been pushing this notion that Trump was somehow responsible, then running polls and reporting on the polls.  Its an old technique for creating news.  You can't believe what you hear or see anymore.

Keep your powder dry.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Charlottesville and the Bearing of False Witness

I was torn whether to say something about the firing by Google of Mr. Damore, or cover instead the recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia.  Google's firing of James Damore, a software engineer, and form all accounts, a brilliant analyst, is to be condemned.  If Google were any ordinary company, they could be as Leftist, Progressive, Communist, and Marxist as they please, with no consequence to anyone else.  But Google as a large monopoly, with access to everybody's search engine history.  Indeed. Google attempts to control what you find with its search algorithms, which try to "nudge" you toward their preferred outcome.  This is dangerous, as it suppresses free inquiry and free speech. I suspect that as Kurt Schlichter suggested here, Google should probably be broken up as a monopoly enterprise for the good of society. Go read Schlichter's article. Enuff said.

The other item, however, is more disturbing, as people were injured and one killed.  It is disturbing because conservatives and classical liberals are being wrapped up in the same group as the KKK, white supremacists, white nationalists, and the so-called alt right, The first time I even had heard of the alt right was during a Hillary Clinton speech. I had to look it up. I consider myself a classical liberal, who believes the Founders were inspired, and who works to return the governance of this nation to its Constitutional roots. As such I abhor both the white supremacists and Antifa equally. Indeed, I abhor identity politics in general, as it is a cheap attempt to gain votes for illegitimate causes that can not stand up to scrutiny. So, upon reading John Hawkins' article at Townhall.com entitled How the Liberal Media Created Charlottesville, I found the correct place to lay the blame. Of course, the immediate blame lies with both the White Nationalists (who at least were protesting with a permit), and with the Antifa movement, but they would not have felt emboldened to show their hatred and evil ideologies in public had it not been for the mainstream media.

Hawkins writes:
To begin with, the liberal media is almost entirely responsible for growing the Alt-Right merger of hate groups and internet trolls. Most people are well aware of the stifling political correctness that reached an apex under Barack Obama. People are sick and tired of being attacked and scolded by the humorless left-wing thought police every time they stray from the latest liberal doctrine. That created a large group of people who enjoyed tweaking social justice warriors and some of them realized the easiest way to do that was with racial slurs. Every time some doofus leaves a noose on a college campus or says the N-word, it’s treated like a national crisis. If you’re an anonymous troll who enjoys getting people to react to everything you say, that’s a FEATURE, not a bug. All you have to do is say something racially offensive and all these people who studiously try to ignore you will go out of their minds.
That racial element gave the Nazis, white supremacists and KKK mouth-breathers a way to connect with the more socially adept trolls making the Pepe the Frog memes. Of course, the media liberals fueled them as well with their hypocrisy. They painted EVERY white supporter of Donald Trump or the Republican Party as a racist even as they ignored and defended the vicious anti-white rhetoric that has become commonplace on the Left. Just to give you a quick example of that, there was a hashtag that trended on Twitter after the attack called #ThisIsNotUS. It started out as a way for white liberals to virtue signal, but it quickly turned into an all too typical attack on white people, America and Trump voters...
The mainstream media has used the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a source for the grouping of all these disparate groups as members of the alt right. That is like using your crazy uncle, who never had anything to do with them, as a source for your conspiracy theories about the Bilderbergers and the Tri Lateral Commission. The fact is that the White Nationalists and the Antifa movement are both leftists groups. After all, NAZI stands for National Socialist and the full name of the group was the National Socialist German Workers Party. They have nothing to do with conservatism or classical liberalism, as John Hawkins makes clear:
On the other hand, white supremacists are nothing on the Right. David Duke is a joke. Richard Spencer? Let me tell you a little story about Richard Spencer. I was walking around CPAC and noticed an enormous gaggle of media surrounding someone I didn’t recognize, who didn’t seem to be drawing a crowd of regular attendees. As it turns out, the massive group of media people weren’t following a big name. They were following Richard Spencer, who was later kicked out of the conference, presumably because the organizers never wanted him there in the first place.
Yet Richard Spencer, like David Duke before him, is treated like some kind of rock star by the media liberals even though he’s a nobody in the conservative movement. Why? Because they don’t care about conservative opinion. They don’t care about conservative views. They care about creating propaganda that paints the Right as a bunch of hood-wearing, Nazi-saluting scumbags. So, they treat Richard Spencer like a rock star.
This creates a sort of Kim Kardashian effect. Ninety five percent of any influence Spencer has comes from the fact that anything he does is a big deal to the media. Why were Spencer and Duke able to gather even 500 Tiki torch-waving idiots in Charlottesville? Because the media would cover everything they did with bated breath. It gave them a chance to feel important, to feel like they were making an impact. In fact, white supremacists have started to believe their own BS because they keep hearing it from the media. After fighting with Richard Spencer on Twitter, I still remember one of his fans claiming that white supremacists were an essential part of Trump getting elected. My response was….
“Yeah, you guys made a bunch of Holocaust memes & called people cucks and then you're all....’I'm helping.’”
But of course, they weren't helping at all. Many people, not knowing any better, probably viewed the endorsements of Trump by various white supremacists groups as reason to vote instead for Hillary. Trump's victory might have been a landslide except for the outsized media presence these groups have. Indeed, the whole media presence, and the emphasis on the alt right during the election may have been a false flag operation designed to drive votes toward Hillary, as I have noted already the fact that these groups are also Leftist. Trump may have been as surprised and appalled by these groups endorsement as everyone else was.

On the Left, perhaps, lying about people is considered acceptable behavior as long as it achieves your ends, but among conservatives it is called Bearing False Witness, and is a violation of God's commandments.  In a court room, it would be called perjury, and it must stop.