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.

Saturday, July 29, 2017

The Madness of Transgenderism

Because I live in a place Rush Limbaugh calls "Realville," I refuse to go along with transgendered individuals by calling them by their preferred pronoun.  A man wearing dress and calling himself a "she" will find me resolutely calling him "he."  Even if one undergoes hormone treatment, and surgery to remove his male parts, no one can change his DNA.  Psychologically, he will always be a man dressed in drag.  And the revers is true of women as well.

The American Thinker today has an article entitled Portraits of Madness: Don Quixote and the Transgender SJW, by William Sullivan. Sullivan illustrates in his piece the suffering and hardship that delusional people impose on those around them. They often brow beat the people closest to them, the people who love them and want them to remain in their lives into going along with their fantasies, pretending that they, like the emperors subjects, can see his new clothes. But, as the little boy points out, the emperor has no clothes. Don Quixote is not a fearsome knight but a sad old man in ill fitting armor.  The wind mill is not a giant monster.  There is no such thing as "transgendered." No one "assigns" your gender at birth, as if they were ordering a customizable feature on a car. We are what we are, and it is all pretty obvious to any observer. Its either a boy or a girl. Boys have that little appendage down there, girls do not.

Unlike what has been repeatedly stated by the harridan mob...er...feminist press, boys and girls really do have differences in their psychological makeup that seem to track very closely with the differences in their DNA and so up pretty soon after birth.  As has been documented time and again, girls are generally better listeners, and better communicators, and are more nurturing.  Boys have naturally better visual skills, hand-eye coordination, and so forth.  Both the male dominated and the female dominated skills occur in both sexes to greater or lesser degrees, and some women may be better that most men at male dominated skills, and vice versa.  but none of that changes the truth that there are indeed significant differences.

I was happy to see that Mr. Trump indicated that "transgendered" individuals would not be allowed in the military.  I was disappointed with the predicatable reaction by the Left.  The idea that the transgendered do not cost any more than others is quite untrue.  The first "cost" is that these people identify themselves first and foremost not as potential soldiers, but as "special."  Because of the "special" identification, these people demand acknowledgement and even celebration of their status, which can only have deleterious effects on morale and unit cohesion so necessary to an organization whose mission is to fight wars.   Then there is the extra cost of continued treatment to allow them to maintain their delusions, which also have to be maintained even in a war zone.  Trump is right, the cost is too high, and frankly, the payoff for the nation is zero.

Sullivan concludes his article with this:
The delusions of transgender individuals will undoubtedly persist. But there is nothing noble, and there is plenty that is detrimental, in our continued cultural enablement of the madness promoted by transgender ideology.
Just so.

Sunday, July 16, 2017

Can Anyone Answer Patricia McCarthy's Question?

On another note today, Patricia McCarthy asks Why Are Republicans in Congress So Spineless? Why indeed.

I suspect Ms. McCarthy also has the answer.  They didn't expect to be in a position where they would actually have to make good on those promises.

Cadwaladr: Impersonators of God

In the article Impersonators of God, E. M. Cadwaladr explores the seemingly incredible belief that Leftists have in the power of words. I have noted this tendency over time with respect to the gun debates. Leftists seemingly believe that if they can find the right magical incantation, somehow they can solve the "gun problem." So, for instance, they seek to restrict concealed carrying of firearms in various places. But of course the criminals, the ones they should be controlling, don't care about their rules, and will carry guns wherever they please.   This also shows the limitation on the power of words.  Since Leftists do not define the problem correctly in the first place, (as in guns instead of criminals) they do not come up with the right solutions. Cadwaladr writes about this tendency to see the problems of the world as one of messaging and narrative rather than as actual real problems to be solved by men taking real actions:
Since at least the beginning of the Obama administration, both politicians and what pass for journalists have been using the word “narrative” more commonly -- and with less reservation. “We have to get the narrative right” or “terrorism is a problem of competing narratives.” Similarly, progressives seem to have acquired an unshakeable faith in sending diplomats to simply talk to our enemies -- like Iran or North Korea -- as though they could be persuaded by pure eloquence to give up on their national agendas. Obama himself began his presidency with the odd notion that he could control the world with a series of speeches -- not speeches announcing particular policies, but speeches constructed entirely of grand dreams and virtue-signaling tropes. Not to be ignored is the left’s confidence in flinging the word “racist” like a voodoo curse. To be fair, the tactic of shaming their opponents has worked well for them for decades -- withering weak Republicans in place like Christ’s fig tree. We drown in the perennial mantras of “diversity,” “social justice,” and “white privilege” -- vague ideas that are moldable enough to suit whatever magic incantation the circumstance requires. All of it nonsense. All of it just so much sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Progressives love their words. Educated elocution is the public emblem of their self-declared superiority. They sneered at Bush with his Texas drawl, and they despise Donald Trump who -- let me tell ya people -- is never going to speak like JFK. But at some point, the left’s longstanding literary fixation became something more than a badge of identity. It quietly crossed over the line from affectation into the territory of full-blown delusion. The progressive mind has come to believe that reality itself is merely the invention of words. Leftist academics have long been fond of saying -- (fill-in-the-blank) “is a social construct.” What is a “social construct” other than an edifice of words? The left believes that words have direct, causal powers of their own. In a sense they are right -- and we agree. Consider the words of the apostle John:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Language is a powerful tool, and of all the species on earth, humans alone have this powerful tool.  But like all things, it has limitations too.  It only describes a thing, it is not the thing itself.  Just as an architects drawing shows you what the building will be like, but is not the building itself, so language can be used to paint virtual pictures in our minds, but these are only virtual.  They are not reality.  They only work to create reality if enough people believe those words and acts upon them.
The problem for today’s Progressives is that only God is God. Politicians, pundits, and opinion makers are not. Lies are not the Logos. The elastic and malleable narratives of the left are only powerful enough to fool the minds of human beings -- they lack the power to make falsehoods into facts or work miracles on matter. Detroit is still a ghetto transitioning slowly into scrub forest -- no matter what narrative one invents to describe it. Subtitling the Koran “the religion of peace” does nothing to alter the violent conquest ideology outlined on its pages. Gender is not determined by one’s choice of pronouns. Conservatives know these things; postmodern relativists apparently do not. A generation of Americans has lost the capacity to know anything. When truth is invented and reinvented on-the-fly, the very notion of truth is destroyed. Language not only loses what power it does have -- it becomes psychotic gibberish. Perhaps eloquent psychotic gibberish. A predictable discourse of group howls.
Perhaps here is the real lesson of the Tower of Babel. God created man unique among all the creatures. Through language, art and music, man has the ability to conceive the power and wonders of the Creator, but man is not the Creator. When man tries to become like the Creator, he destroys himself, as at the Tower of Babel, or as in the Garden of Eden.  God does'nt destroy man, but rather his actions against God's creation destroys him.  These stories are meant as cautionary tales, not how to manuals. Or, you might listen to a more modern source, Rudyard Kipling's The Gods of the Copybook Headings.

Saturday, July 8, 2017

A Skeptic's Prayer

I was inspired to read the story of Rhonda Chervin by another story at National Review entitled When Women Pray. the book, When Women Pray is a compilation of many women's stories of the power of prayer in their lives. Rhonda Chervin's story is one of them, and she describes a stage along the journey to conversion where she prayed the skeptics prayer "God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul."  It is a surprisingly powerful prayer, for once someone can admit to the possibility that there might be a God, and that we as people might have souls, that is enough to set in motion the great healing power of God's saving Grace through Jesus Christ.

I have been a skeptic myself, having been indoctrinated in the sciences as part of my engineering training.  Of course, back then I was too busy learning this stuff to ask too many hard questions.  But, in the last 20 years or so, I have begun asking the really BIG questions.  Science can tell us how we came to be here, but not why.  Science can not tell us the meaning of life.  Mathematics tells us that the probability of life forming on any planet spontaneously is so astronomically small as to make it virtually impossible.  Like the infinite monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriter, the fact that they will eventually type the sonnets of Shakespeare does not mean that one should expect if within 5 billion years, or for that matter, within 15 billion.  Thus, belief in a Divine origin is not illogical.  Science can trace the beginning of our universe back to within nanoseconds of the big bang, but can not say what or who initiated the big bang, or why.

I came to the conclusion that there was indeed a God, that the Bible was not myth but in fact very real, and I began attending church in my childhood faith.  But, I didn't have faith.  What I had was belief built out of reasoned conclusions.  I didn't pray, because after all, even if there was a God, did he really listen to prayers?  My mother became a member of the St. Luke Society, and met weekly to pray for hundreds of people she didn't know.  I could not believe that these prayers did a thing for anyone except perhaps for the person doing the praying.

However, having come to the conclusion that there is indeed a God, the creator of all there is, and having come to believe the Bible, I could reason that things like abortion would be wrong in this God's eyes.  It would be murder, and murder most foul at that.  Indeed, reason took me far, but not far enough.  From whence had come the absolute faith that that led Saint Paul, for instance, to keep shouting to the world that fact of Jesus saving Grace, and accept execution with such equanimity.  This was true power, and I did not have it.

Without boring you, gentle reader, with my story, for mine is a boringly ubiquitous one, let me say that my alcoholism had become a matter of discussion in our household.  At my lowest point, and I could have gone lower, believe me, God reached out to me, brought me into Alcoholics Anonymous, and they in turn led me to a faith in God.  The journey of a foot, from the head to the heart, is the hardest and longest we make in life.

Along the way, I have learned that the only way I can do God's will is if I stay sober.  The only way I stay sober is if I maintain my spiritual condition.  The only way I maintain my spiritual condition is if I pray daily, seek out his will in all things.   The recovering alcoholic's life is, of necessity, a spiritual life.  Religions are ultimately the outer manifestation of our inner spiritual beings.  I have also learned that we are spiritual beings living in a physical world, not the other way around.

Go read Dr, Rhonda Chervin's story.  I am sure you will find it, as I did, inspiring. I hope if you are having difficulty with God, you sincerely get on your knees and pray the skeptics prayer.

Friday, July 7, 2017

The "Religion of Peace"

9/11/2001, the event that brought down the World Trade Center and killed 2,927 individuals, is now almost 16 years ago.  Ever since that seminal event, people have been characterizing Islam as the "Religion of Peace."  It started with President George W. Bush.  But I can't tell you how many times I hear or read such tripe.

I have tried to relay to people in my congregation that Islam is anything but a "Religion  of Peace."  There are explicit text in the Koran and in the Hadiths that instruct, in no uncertain terms, the faithful Muslim to kill Christians and Jews. The Bible, by contrast, has no such admonition that requires its adherents to kill anyone for all of time.  The New Testament, which is the culmination of God's saving grace for all mankind has not the least mention that Christians should kill anyone. But I am afraid many of them are caught up in the PC hysteria, and are afraid of being labeled as "Islamaphobic." But is it phobic when Islam really does want to kill you? I think not.

(Note to trolls:  Do not start with either the Crusades, which were a defensive war against Muslim aggression, or talk about how true Christians should be pacific.  The Bible requires you to defend yourself, and your family against aggression by another.  You are not required to be beaten to death  Nor are you required when you home is being invaded to "turn the other cheek."  There is a concept of Just War, and you should investigate that before you begin flaming me.)

In my eternal optimism that I may influence just one person, I will try to explain again with the help of an article at the American Thinker entitled The Rage of Islam by Tabitha Korol. Ms. Korol began her writing career after retirement writing letters to the editors of various publications. She has since blossomed into a writer in her own right and writes about Middle Eastern topics.

In today's piece, she explains how the culture surrounding Islam, and its twin Sharia law, keep young Muslim men enraged, and keep half the brain power of Islam enslaved.  Ms. Korol:

It begins in the home. Family life is a microcosm of the surrounding culture. Inside and outside the Islamic home, there is oppression, subordination, envy, animosity, shame, enslavement, and emotional and physical pain for any deviation. Muslim women are among the poorest, most oppressed, and least educated in the world, caged by their cumbrous shrouds in the insufferable desert heat, by their misogynist sharia laws, and by their chauvinist husbands. The 7th-century Bedouin woman’s attempt at privacy and protection has become a symbol of humiliation, servitude, and protection from men who are raised to lack restraint. Thus clad and maltreated, there is no natural interaction between the sexes, such as is found elsewhere. Not only are the women deprived of freedom and individuality, but they are also denied sunlight and Vitamin D, and more likely to develop osteoporosis, experience pelvic fracture during childbirth, and have babies who are disposed to seizures.
While boys and girls in Western cultures learn to communicate and socialize with each other, pursue their choice of careers and mate for marriage, Muslim youths are kept apart. The sexual attraction found throughout the entire natural world is spurned by Islam as “shameful”; they attach an unhealthy negativity to all aspects of sexuality. Social segregation leads to discomfort, fear, and hostility. Arab men learn to hate women and indulge in homosexual behavior with boys or effeminate men (considered an acceptable substitute), thereby emasculating the victimized male. The result is sexual confusion. The intense sexual repression and misogyny emerge as the rage and rape seen in the youths who are sent to the lands of the infidel. The husbands remain unhappy, confused, and violent. Yet Israel is blamed for the degenerate behavior with which Islamic society is riddled.
In some Muslim societies, consanguineous marriages are encouraged, often producing sick, dysfunctional children -- suitable, perhaps, for jihad martyrdom. Polygamous marriages with as many as four wives are also acceptable but deprive all of the intimacy and security found in faithful monogamous marriages. The effects of polygamy are favoritism and divisiveness, neglect, deprivation, jealousy, and bitterness. The women are stuck in a loveless marriage, beaten into submission, and robbed of friendships. Further, the Koran and Hadith sanction beating wives, with encouragement and guidelines provided on television by the Mufti of Gaza.
Sharia is supposedly based in the Koran, and was supposedly given to man by God. But in reality is a collection of Bedouin tribal customs with sought to maintain the power of the head of the tribe, and consquuently, any head of household.  For it is by the various techniques of oppression, subjugation, shame and envy along with "honor" killings that the head of the household maintains his control over both is sons and daughters, and limits the input of mothers, who might otherwise round the sharp edges of Islam.  Notice too that Islam does not demand faithfulness, as our God does.  What is in your heart is of no matter.  Rather, Islam demands obedience.  And that obedience is carried down to the heads of households, to the so called Holy Men, and to the rulers.  There is nothing our God can not forgive, there is nothing their god will forgive.

I hope you will read the whole article.  Let me close with this:
It is obvious that the violence inherent within the Muslim male has its roots in the lurid instability of the home, the mosque, and their society in general. Tragically, instead of addressing the real source of the problem, Muslims are trained to blame anything but themselves. Islam has had many “whipping boys.” Blaming Israel’s retaliatory actions for Muslim violence, as proclaimed by Ms. Simonovic, is like accusing the victim of antagonizing his attacker by defending himself.
Disturbingly, Islam appears to have been masterfully crafted to be the antithesis of Judaism and Christianity that preceded it. The Bible celebrates life; the Koran sacrifices it. Wife-beating is merely one of innumerable components that form the atrocity of Islam and threaten the survival of humankind.

Ann Coulter was right when she said that We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Make the Left Bleed

Two artcles at the American Thinker on tow separate days express what we, as conservatives, should be doing further our interests in seeing our agenda advanced and the agenda of the Left retreat.  The first, published today is The Vile, Crazy, Left by Trevor Thomas. He points out that:
I’m afraid much of what we read and hear from the President that is undesirable is the result of living most of his life under significant liberal influence. As even Rush Limbaugh himself pointed out less than two months prior to the election last year, Donald Trump is not a conservative -- at least not in the sense that most define real conservatism. But as Rush also pointed out, strong conservatism hasn’t been at the top of the GOP ticket since 1984. What Donald Trump is, and what he can continue to be, is a great ally in the battle against liberalism and the radical, perverse agenda of the modern left.
President Trump has proven this many times over since his inauguration on January 20. From (most of) his cabinet appointments, to his Supreme Court appointment, his lower court appointments, his executive orders, and so on, President Trump has gotten much done to aid the cause of conservatism and hinder the cause of liberalism. Of course, liberals are not blind to this, and thus the continuous “nasty” attacks from the left.
And nasty is as nasty does. The left simply can’t help itself, because, for the most part, it is simply who they are. In addition to their dishonest attempts to undermine President Trump and the GOP’s agenda, time and again, liberals have left nearly no insult unturned as they have sought to ridicule and insult President Trump and his family. Along with the countless vile attacks on the President, Ivanka (see herehere, and here), Melania, (see here, here, and here), and even 11 year-old Barron Trump (see here, here, and here) have suffered the evil ire of the modern left.
Even if I sometimes disagree with Trump on an issue, or find some of his tweets cringe worthy, the over the top, and horrible rhetoric of the Left makes me want to defend Trump. He is looking loke the underdog in a very one sided fight. In comparison to the vile and nasty statements by the Left, and the violence and destruction wrought by many on the Left, Trump appears to be fighting my the Marquess of Queensberry rules. Meanwhile:
Alas, whether elected officials, members of the press, entertainers, educators, and even those devoted to ministry, liberalism corrupts. And liberals still wonder how -- just how any self-respecting person could support Donald Trump. Maybe those devoted to killing children in the womb, killing the family, killing capitalism, redefining the oldest institution in the history of humanity, redefining gender, redefining the Second Amendment, defending and promoting pornography (and virtually any other sexual perversion imaginable), defending and promoting socialism, defending and promoting the myth of global warming, and so on, should consider how vile and vulgar many Americans find the tenets of modern liberalism.
So, what should we do about it? What really can we, the unwashed masses (as the Left likes to call us) or more accurately, individuals with the ability to think for him or herself, do? Well, we can Make the Left Bleed. William L. Gensert explains that we do not want to make members of the Left bleed literally, but at the same time we need to get rid of the notion that we should be better than the Left. As Gensert points out:
What would have forced civility gotten Trump anyway? What did it get George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney? Nothing -- they were pilloried from pillar to post anyway, and their enemies were never afraid to attack and abuse them for even the slightest of slights and to be truthful, even in the absence of slights.
It’s telling that McCain was surprised when all the Democrat friends he thought he had in Congress, suddenly turned on him and treated him like a pariah because he dared to oppose Barack Obama.
Republicans have always played the game with civility or perhaps they tempered their reactions because of fear. Regardless, they played checkers while the left played three-dimensional chess and the Republicans were always the pawns. Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight -- who doesn’t love Sean Connery?
To not fight, to be gentlemen and to prosecute this battle with decorum and a sense of fairness to the Democrats is a surefire loss. They won’t play that game; they will go after friends and family and anyone ever known or loved simply to kill that person politically in an apoplectic frenzy, froth, and spittle dripping from their blood-soaked jaws as they stand above the prone carcass and explain how his death was his own fault (see the attempted assassination of Scalise).
So how can you make the Left bleed? Don't spend your money where the Left draws its funds from. Don't use products advertised on Facebook, for example. Don't buy anything from Target. Even if you don't particularly like Chick-fil-A, but buy their products anyway. You don't even have to be absolutely faithful to the project to make a difference. If you deny the Left your money, you will bleed them dry. But you have to get out there and do it. Make the Left Bleed.

Friday, June 30, 2017

Federal Judge Blocks California Law Banning So Called High Capacity Magazines

Matt Vespa at Townhall.com reports that Federal Judge Blocks California Law Banning High Capacity Magazines Apparently the judge had no problem with banning the so called high capacity magazines, but he did have a problem with what amounts to a taking of legally acquired property without due compensation. So it really isn't a particular victory for the Second Amendment, but it is a victory for the Constitution. I'll take it.

Thursday, June 29, 2017

New to the Blog List is Liberty's Torch

I have added Liberty's Torch to the blog list.  I have long appreciated the ever erudite and insightful writing of Francis Porretto and have missed his thoughts around here.  Fran efforts now include others such as Col. Bunny who help to make this blog a must read.

I also want to welcome the readers of Liberty's Torch and welcome your comments on what you see around the PolyKahr estate.


Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Peruta Goes Down. Supreme Court Remains a Crap Shoot

In an article today at the American Thinker entitled Supreme Court Declines to Affirm Second Amendment Rights, Robert Arvay says:
The United States Supreme Court has declined to affirm the constitutional, Second Amendment rights which are guaranteed to citizens. They did so by rejecting an appeal from a lower court. That court had ruled that the state of California can impose severe restrictions on issuing permits to carry firearms. In refusing to hear the appeal, the lower court ruling remains in effect.
The case, to which Mr. Arvay refers is of course Peruta v. California. A Washington Examiner article goes into more detail. For the Examiner, Ryan Lovelace writes:
The question the Supreme Court refused to hear is whether the Second Amendment gives people the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.
David Kopel explains in the Washington Post article entitled Peruta v. San Diego Analysed that:
The four Peruta dissenters did not disagree with the specific doctrinal point about concealed carry. Indeed, Judge Smith’s dissent pointed out that the majority’s compilation of precedents on concealed carry was unnecessary. “If the issue before us is truly whether California can, in isolation, prohibit concealed carry, a simple memorandum disposition citing to Heller would be sufficient. A formal opinion, much less the gathering of our en banc panel, would not be necessary to answer the issue framed by the majority.”
According to the dissenters, the Second Amendment expressly guarantees the right to bear arms; legislatures may regulate but not prohibit the right. So in the 19th-century cases, the legislature could choose to ban concealed carry while not even requiring a permit for open carry. The dissenters wrote that today, legislatures ought to allowed to reverse that preference: to restrict open carry, while allowing concealed carry under a fair and reasonable licensing system. (Citing Eugene Volokh, “Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and A Research Agenda,” 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443 (2009).)
As Justice Thomas said, and I am paraphrasing, most people in government in high office are protected by police, who are armed. But for the average man on the street, having a team of armed guards at their disposal is clearly beyond their means. The Second Amendment means that government must allow the carrying of arms. But in the case of California, one can not carry openly, even unloaded, and one can not carry concealed if the Sheriff of your county refuses to give anyone a concealed carry permit. Effectively, you have been "legally" stymied from bearing arms, and the Second Amendment has been effectively rendered null.  Before the concealed carry revolution of the mid 1980s, the Second Amendment had been rendered null and void in most of the country.  In most cases, a concealed carry license was not granted, and while open carry was techically allowed, you could count on it that you would be arrested and charged with something if you did.  Here in North Carolina it was cited as Going Armed to the Terror of the People. While the statute had well defined elements, these would be discounted such that simply arming oneself would be enough for a conviction.

The refusal of ceritorari by the Supreme Court allows San Diego County to continue its practice of not issuing permits, even though California law allows permits, and even though many counties in California effectively are shall issue. As Mr. Arvay writes:
That said, it remains amazing that basic Constitutional rights could possibly be so easy to suppress. While some rights that are not even in the Constitution are enforced, there seems to be significant antipathy regarding the right to keep and bear arms -- a right that “shall not be infringed.”
I note again that everyone, with few exceptions, who is in power is loathe to advocate for the carrying of arms by the average guy. After all, who wants to be killed over doing what he percieves as his job. Besides, and this is the important point, while gun rights groups do get out a lot of votes, they don't contribute much to a candidates campaign finances. Indeed, here in North Carolina, almost everyone working for Grass Roots North Carolina is a volunteer. Unlike the Demanding Moms and Everytown efforts of Mr. Bloomberg, we have no paid lobbists working for GRNC. Because there are no big bucks coming from GRNC or from NRA, we constantly have to remind them that we are watching, and we will remember in November.

Meanwhile, as always, getting justice from the Supreme Court is always a crap shoot.  It often depends on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy awoke that day.  But in this case, the side of Justice had too few soldiers in the field.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Satanists need to donate tons of money to the Democrats to gain equal rights for Satanists

Todd Starnes tells us that SCOTUS To Decide if Gay Rights Trump Everyone Else's Rights. One always trembles whenever the Supremes (or for that matter the Grandees of Congress) take up an issue that should remain between individuals. The fact that the gay couple involved deliberately chose Mr. Phillips' cake shop and refused an offer of a free cake tells me this was a set up designed to punish Phillips for his religious views.

SCOTUSblog is particularly opaque on the issue of whether or not this has a chance of coming out in Mr. Phillips favor. saying only that Justice Kennedy has ruled both for and against religious freedom.  Why doesn't that make me feel better?  Once again an important topic is up for grabs based on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy woke up on that day.

I would note here that my stance against the gay lifestyle will get me called a "hater" by those who refuse to understand.  The Bible does not claim that being gay is the problem.  I don't really know if in fact anyone is "gay" by birth.  The problem is acting out this belief, in other words, the gay lifestyle.  I do not know, but I suspect it has to do with God's command to be fruitful and multiply.  People living a gay lifestyle can not multiply.  But in the end, I do not know why, and like everyone else will have to wait.  In the meantime, I stand on God's side in the matter.  He never stands with me, but it is always I with him.

So, do I hate gay people?  No.  I even have to admit that I don't really care if two men or two women want to pretend they are married.  I have enough worries of my own.  That by the way is tolerance. But what these people want is both acceptance and even celebration. "Look at me!  Isn't it wonderful that I want to marry this person of the same sex?"  Well, no, it is pathetic.  People have also wanted to marry their pets, and even buildings.  Yes these are (hopefully) one off crazy.  But is Mr. Phillips also required to bake a cake for the woman who wants to marry a building?  When is enough government intrusion into our lives enough?

The fact is that gay people have no more rights than any other.  I can not go into Mr. Phillips' shop and ask for a cake that celebrates, oh, I don't know, say a Satanic Mass.  Mr. Phillips would refuse based on his religious beliefs, and the State of Colorado would probably be fine with that.  But why are his religious beliefs in this case acceptable and in the case of same sex not so much?  What truly differentiates these to cases?  Well, for one, Satanists haven't donated tons of money to the Democrats and the gay lobby has.

Go read Starnes article.  I will watching with trepidation.  

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Democrats Have Become a Criminal Organization

On Townhall.com, Guy Benson explains how many on the left really feels about the Steve Scalise shooting in an article entitled Demorat Offical On Scalise: "I Wish He Was f***ing Dead!" Benson:
Echoing a sickeningly common sentiment among the Left's most hateful vile online trolls, a Democratic Party official in Nebraska has been caught on tape applauding last week's shooting spree carried out by a liberal activist who targeted Republican members of Congress as they practiced for a baseball game. Not to be confused with a separate Nebraska Democrat who expressed amusement at the shooting -- tying her glee to a disagreement over gun rights, and later doubling down -- this cretin expressed bitter disappointment that James Hodgkinson didn't finish the job in assassinating House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.
This is not the attitude of people who merely disagree.  People can have a robust debate on an issue, and shake hands afterward having come to understand where each on is stands on an issue.  Such disagreements have been the norm in society for a long time.  The use of words, logic, rhetoric, and thus persuasion has long been the approved method of dealing with colleagues,  But the Democrats do not, evidently, view the rest of us a colleagues.  They view is as enemies to be killed if we disagree.  This is more the modus operandi of a criminal organization.

The implications of that revelation is that the Left doesn't really believe its own rhetoric.  Its just business with them.  They want power, by any means necessary.  Leftist politicians will say whatever they need to say to whomever they need to say it to get their vote.  Once in power, they depend on people not watching closely to do whatever they need to do to keep power.

 So, for example, they can believe that abortion is perfectly moral and right.  A woman has a right to chose.  On the other hand, they work to keep murderers alive, and seem to make heroes of cop killers.  If killing innocent babies is fine with the left, where is the reservation to kill hardened criminals?  And if they can't bear to execute a hardened criminal, why are they so anxious to execute innocent life?  They speak out of both sides of their mouth, and so have no consistency.

The Democrats were once a party of normal people in this country.  The Republicans and the Democrats shared values and goals but had different ideas on how to accomplish these goals.  But the Democrats have been hijacked by the Left.  They no longer share values and goals with what we would consider normal people.  Indeed, they operate more as a criminal organization.  Look at what the Democrats did to rig their own primary to ensure Hillary won and not Bernie.  But this sort of behavior is nothing new.  If a political party could be indicted, they would probably be under a RICO indictment now.  

Friday, June 23, 2017

An Important Article from Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield has a article at Frontpage Mag entitled The Civil War is Here. Read the whole thing, please.

Read it?  You really need to.  Please.

So, ok.  I have been following the antics of the Left since, oh, say, 1968.  I knew some of the people involved in the Kent State riots.  I knew some of the people peripherally involved with the Weather Underground, or at least who wanted to be.  I was not in Chicago for the Democrat Party convention, but I watched it on television.  These people have always put a chill down my spine.  Greenfield knows whereof he speaks here.
After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from more democratic to less democratic institutions.
This isn’t just hypocrisy. That’s a common political sin. Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its ideology.
Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.
That’s why compromise has become impossible.
When compromise, real give and take, not just we give they take, becomes impossible, when arguments no longer persuade, when even moderates on their side are ignored or worse, you don't leave much room for anything else.

The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.
The question is what comes next.
Europe is on the verge of a civil war over ostensibly religion, but really it is over who will rule. America has imported this foreign philosophy, this cancer, and has allowed it to grow inside its body politic until we find ourselves facing the same thing. We can be of no use to anybody else if we are fighting ourselves. Frankly, I pray, and I weep, not for myself, for my days are nearly over, but for my grand children.

Keep your powder dry!

The Speech Police Strike Again

David French writes approvingly today at the National Review Online, of an 8-0 lose at the Supreme Court for a Patent and Trademark Office refusal to grant a trademark to a band named the Slants. French's article can be found at Anti Free Speech Radicals Never Give Up. French:
But not even a ruling joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor can persuade determined, far-left censors, and just as sure as night follows day, Laura Beth Nielsen, a research professor for the American Bar Foundation, took to the pages of the Los Angeles Times to make the case for viewpoint discrimination. I’ve seen enough pieces like this to recognize the type. They always begin with misleading statements of the law, declarations that free-speech protections aren’t absolute, and then move to the core pitch — in this case, that the state should regulate hate speech because it’s emotionally and physically harmful:
"In fact, empirical data suggest that frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences. Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies. Exposure to racial slurs also diminishes academic performance. Women subjected to sexualized speech may develop a phenomenon of “self-objectification,” which is associated with eating disorders."
Really? One wonders what data she is citing, and how they managed to link "racist hate speech" to these syndromes which have other causes and therefore need to have the confounding causes neutralized in the analysis. Could not all of these issues be related to lifestyle choices that are in fact the actual cause?

Enough! Mr. French hints at the true issue at hand in his closing argument:
To paraphrase Alan Charles Kors, co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, no class of Americans is too weak to live with freedom. Rather than indulging weakness and fear, activists left and right would do well to cultivate emotional strength and moral courage. The marketplace of ideas demands no less.
The radicals don't want people to grow up. Instead, they want to infantilize everyone so that their juvenile arguments actually make sense. In a world of blind people, the one eyed man is king. In truth, as adults we learn that we can not control others. Calling someone the a name does not make them so. Contrary to the ancient belief, words are not some form a magic.  You can call me a frog all day long, and I will still not croak, hop, or be able to send out my tongue to catch flies.  We learn as adults that what others think of us is not critical; rather it is what we think of ourselves that matters. We cannot, remember, control others. We can only control our own reactions.

The notion that we can only control ourselves has implications for other areas of life.  For example, if you believe that my gun, in my holster, threatens you, then you need to check your motives.  My gun in my holster is only a threat if you have evil intentions towards me.  Yet this sort of argument is often used by people trying to limit where I can carry my gun.  Well, they say, we can't have guns in the store with children.  Think of the threat of a gun to the children?  Such people never think that maybe my gun is there to protect their children.   They need to check their motives, because on this, mine are pure.

John Lotts research is meticulous and points to the notion that the more guns in an area, the less crime. I say "theory" because it can never be proven completely.  Still, John Lott has only reported what he has found after careful statistical analysis on a county by county basis.  Yet he has been demonized by the very people who are claiming that speech is violence.  Is there perhaps a double standard at work, as so often with left wing jihads?

My father had a saying that "Children should be seen and not heard."  Why?  Because children, having limited ability to reason, and no experience of life, advance callow arguments that often collapse in the face of reality.  The Supreme Court here was correct in rejecting these claims.  Rather people need to toughen up if they are going to face the world as it is, rather that as they think it should be.  Growing up means learning to face reality.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Maybe Conservative Principles Need Re-Evaluation

Today at Townhall.com, in an article entitled Spare Me the Principles Lecture. Kurt Schichter makes the point that if our principles become a suicide pact in which we are doomed to death and destruction by those who have no principles, maybe we should re-evaluate them.
First, the “If it’s wrong for them to do it to us, then it’s wrong if we do it to them” formulation is less a principle than a tired cliché. This minor disruption was a tactic; shouting was a tool. It is moral for the good guys – and we are the good guys – to use tactics and tools against an enemy that are immoral when they do it. It was immoral for the Nazis to bomb London; it was moral for us to bomb Nazis. Of course every tactic and tool is not acceptable, but the guys who stormed Omaha Beach did not “become what they were fighting” because they used the same tools and tactics as the enemy.
Second, this sort of performance art is so harmless that the cost/benefit calculus weighs in favor of tolerating such occasional inconveniences. That’s not to say we should not impose higher costs on them – we disapprove of the firing of people for what they say, but Kathy Griffin’s defenestration was a sacrifice worth making to demonstrate the costs of liberal misbehavior. This is crucial. They must pay a cost for establishing their new rules.
Finally, if our principles are worth having, they are worth fighting for in a way that might conceivably lead to success. One of the folks telling me how wrong and unconservative I am for finding it amusing – a patriot, though wrong – also mentioned that he had been fighting for free speech on campus and in the culture for 20 years. Hmmm. I’ve been fighting for them for 30 years, ever since my dean at UCSD called me in to yell at me because I wrote that the student government was composed of leftist dweebs. Shouldn’t the fact that we have spent decades using the same tactics and losing indicate that maybe we ought to try something new?
Make no mistake that Trump was not my first choice, nor my second or third, for that matter. However, Trump was far superior to the woman Schlichter calls "Felonia von Pantsuit." He has done several things so far that are in line with movement conservatives' agenda. If conservatives felt the need to let Obama have his way, they why don't they also support letting Trump have his? Where is the full throated cheer for Trump?

Over at the Christian Mercenary, T. L. Davis writes:
Now, whether it is the media clamoring for Trump's assassination, or the leftists judges ruling unconstitutionally to deny Trump the power of the presidency, or the collectivists of both parties trying to challenge every action of the president and pursuing impeachment options, it is all designed simply to deny a legally elected president the power of the presidency. They don't mind if he holds the office, or lives in the White House, what they will not allow is for him to fulfill executive duties.
This is treason, but it is much more than that, it is the initial stages of a civil war, because if they think they are going to be able to run Trump out of town on a rail with no consequences they are sadly and destructively mistaken. These are actions being taken against the system, not just Trump. They have a narrow focus on a single man, but they forget that Trump has millions and millions of followers and even more that recognize this violation of civil society as treasonous and who will join with the Trumpsters, whether they ever agreed with him or not, because it is a very dangerous precedent that cannot be allowed to succeed.
Those whom we elect must be allowed to fulfill their duties, or there is no use in voting.
Of course that is the outcome Leftist elites most desire: that conservatives realize that there is no use in voting, stay home, and the Left can continue with it transformation of the country. The Left thinks that all the actual street fighting will be done by rent-a-mobs and union thugs.  But they may be sadly mistaken, for if it comes to that, they may find themselves to be targets as well.  Such is the effect of targeting Republican Congressmen, and then justifying that act.  Having sowed the wind, they may well reap the whirlwind.  Or, as T. L. Davis writes:

Take all of the legitimate means of change off the table and there remains only one possible solution: war.