"Si vis pacem, para bellum." If you want peace, prepare for war. —Roman proverb

Paul Dowling has some news for Jews who believe that they should not own guns.  First, their own history should tell them that they need guns for self defense.  If you don't believe it, just go visit the website of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership. As a Christian, I view the Jewish people fondly, because if they had not been there, Christ would not have come into the World, and God's plan for salvation would not be possible. But I do not agree with the pacifist strain that runs through both Judaism and Christianity because it goes against God's word:

"You shall not murder." —Exodus 20:13

The above commandment does not prohibit the righteous taking of a human life, only the immoral taking of a human life. Properly translated, this negative commandment reads, "You shall not murder." The positive corollary of this commandment would go something like this: "You shall use deadly force, if necessary, to protect innocent life." Thus, all righteous citizens in a republic, to the greatest extent possible and appropriate, should possess the proper means by which to fulfill their shared obligation to defend the lives of their loved ones and fellow citizens.

"If a burglar be found breaking in, and be struck dead, it is not murder." —Exodus 22:2

Jewish law has always required the active defense of every innocent life. According to God's commandment, in Exodus 22:2, a thief should be proactively attacked, to defend against the deadly threat he poses. If the thief were to die of his wounds, the defender's blood is not to be shed as a penalty for having justifiably taken the life of a criminal. A person who is capable of defending the innocent but chooses not to do so is guilty of a tremendous wrongdoing. Also, he who actively enables the deaths of others, by supporting government-sponsored victim-disarmament (AKA "gun control"), has blood on his hands — the blood of those wrongly murdered, with no chance of rightfully defending themselves against their criminal aggressors, be those assailants lone outlaws or state actors.

Of course, Dowling is here writing about the Hanukah attack in Monesy, NY, in which 5 people were stabbed during a Hanukah party at a Rabbi's home. Why was there no armed security, as there was at the Christian church in Texas?  The Bible contains truth for all people at all times.  Human nature has not changed since man first walked the Earth, and hence, the 10 Commandments remain as operative today as they were when first written down.  That you shall not murder also means that you shall do all in your power to protect and defend your neighbor.  These laws were given to the people of Israel first, but too many ignore it.  They do so at their own peril.

I have noted before that I consider the Constitution to have been divinely inspired, though not itself Holy Scripture, but rather deriving from Scripture by men who had studied and believed the teachings of the Bible.  The Second Amendment was placed there for multiple reasons.  The first was as a way to avoid a standing army, allowing the central government to call up the militia in time of invasion.  The second purpose was to place power in the people to avoid tyranny.  The third was to allow everyone to act in time of personal attack.

Also, please note that the presence of police does not guarantee your individual security.  The police are agents of the government, and are there to carry out the will of those in charge of the government.  Not to put too fine a point on it here, but the police are there to draw chalk outlines, investigate and bring the perpetrators to justice...if those in charge so choose.  Justice in this world is an iffy thing.

Our rights were granted by God to all people.  But there are those desirous of power over others who would deny our rights.  As our rights defend us, so we must defend our rights.  Si vis pacem, para bellum.

After thought:  Jesus said that those who live by the sword would die by it.  It is, of course, true.  But owning a gun is not "living by the gun."  Living by the gun would be holding up others at gun point for their goods.  Islam, notoriously, allows jihadis to profit in such fashion from its religious warfare.  That is living by the sword. Owning a gun, and having it ready to use in defense of your life does not .. 

Our Cause Is Noble And Just

Perhaps you have not heard yet that, with its new Leftist takeover of the Commonwealth legislature, as well as its Leftist Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General, Virginia plans to outlaw an untold number of guns, magazines, and who knows what else. So far, 95% of Virginia counties, and many cities as well have passed resolutions vowing to resist the proposed laws. Attorney General Herring has declared these "Second Amendment Sanctuaries" to not be legal. On the other hand, the Leftists themselves seem to think that illegal immigrant sanctuaries are just the bomb. So, consistency is not their strong suit.

David Lanza at the American Thinker has advise for gun owners in Virginia. He says to Document The Virginia Crackdown using the 1968 Soviet crackdown of Czechoslovakia.

If you want the real story to reach America and the world, you must film it and spread the story yourself. Do not rely on social media, smartphones, or other internet-based communication — just in case the stories about internet censorship turn out to be true.

For an example of the best response, we should look to Prague, 1968. The Soviet crackdown at that time involved tanks rumbling through the streets of many Czechoslovakian cities. The Czech citizen response is a model for at least a short-term response among the people of Virginia now. When the Soviet tanks made their first appearance on August 21, 1968, the head of a Prague film school immediately gathered his students and distributed cameras and film. He told the students that he did not know why there were tanks on the streets and that they might even be witnessing the beginning of World War III. But he instructed them to take as many pictures and movies as they could and see to it that the film got out of the country to the rest of the world.

While your at it though, you don't need merely to get the images out of Virginia, but you also need to arrange for having access to secure internet services and have relations with organizations that will show the public your film. As Lanza points out, the MSM will attempt to bury the evidence.

Meanwhile,  Scott Morefield points out that the Leftists will ban a number of weapons that are at the moment legal to own and that it is clearly unconstitutional to ban.  But, since the Supreme Court has not pronounced on these types of weapons, Leftists have a fig leaf of cover for their clearly unconstitutional actions.

Which brings up the murky part, because if the history of such laws in Connecticut, New Zealand and elsewhere are any indication, the likelihood of a majority of Virginia gun owners complying with these new laws is next to nil. So, when the peasants inevitably refuse to prostrate themselves before their new masters, will the state government push some kind of confrontation with local authorities who refuse to help? Will they ask the Trump administration for assistance? Or will they simply ride things out, using state agents to prosecute cases as they arise, knowing full well there are thousands of “outlaws” out there just waiting to be caught.

I suspect, for all their bluster, Democrats will settle for the long game. Get the laws on the books. Get people used to them. Then, pick off the dissenters one by one. It’s the path of least resistance, and having the laws on the books is half the battle for these jackals. After all, selective “justice” has always been part of the Bolshevik playbook.

In response, Second Amendment proponents in Virginia should play the long game too. They may not be able to stop the laws from getting on the books, but they should most certainly challenge each new law as unconstitutional by any state or federal constitutional measure. They should also use this issue as a springboard to continue to organize and defeat leftists in every remotely swing district. And yes, local authorities should absolutely refuse to help them enforce their ridiculous laws.

We here at Standing By will be watching Virginia closely, while continuing to take actions to try to keep Leftists out of power here in NC. Wherever Democrats (read Communist/Socialist/Fascists/Progressives) gain power, they go after guns. They always claim, of course, that this is for safety, to combat crime, and reduce what is called "gun violence." But this is an excuse ginned up to explain their hatred of you and your guns. The REAL reason is that the Left wants total control over you and how you live your life. You will note that it is not merely guns. They want to dictate your religion, your food choices, your mode of transportation and everything else.  Then there are the promises of free stuff paid for by others: promises that never seem to come true, but which always seem to attract some envious and greedy voters. 

Our cause is not, as some may say, a "hobby."  Our cause is freedom and liberty.  Our cause is the cause of the Founders, of Constitutional government, of keeping our Rights and expressed in the Bill of Rights, and of equal treatment under the law.  Our cause is noble and just.

School Resource Officer Pawns Firearm, Brings Pellet Gun To Work

This is why we all need understand that we can not depend on others to defend either ourselves or our loved ones. Hat tip to Dave Hardy at the blog Of Arms And The Law

Lift Up Your Voices Unto The Lord

As is usual, there are about a hundred things that need discussing, but I have limited time. For example, it is estimated that when the census is over that a number of states that voted for Trump in 2016 will have one of more fewer seats in Congress. California on the other hand, alone is expected to gain 11 seats. North Carolina will lose one. Thanks to Eric Holder, George Soros, and the "sue them till their blue" strategy, we in NC can count on that one seat being a Republican seat. All this is because of the courts (?) making the decision to count illegals in the census. Then there are the new gun confiscation bills being proposed in Virginia. But that too has much to do with Holder, Soros, and illegal immigrants. Yes, I pay attention, but can only comment on a limited stream of the many that cross my desk.

This week, being Christmas week, let us instead turn our attention to faith. Many things that people generally think we know with absolute certainty, we actually do not know. For example, the so called "law" of gravity is really a theory that has not been disproven...yet. But the fact that some theory may come along to disprove what we think we know about gravity means that it can not be known absolutely. So what does that mean? It means that we all live by faith in something. Such then is the article by Jack Kerwich today at Townhall.com entitled Absolute Certainty and Faith: The Proof for God's Existence - And His Nature.

(1)Terms like “absolute certainty” and “faith” possess some measure of elasticity. There’s a sense in which, arguably, there is nothing of which we can be absolutely certain. The world that we take for granted, or what philosophers have called “waking reality,” could be a dream, a video game, or a matrix.

...snip...

(2) “Faith” is not, as many seem to think, tantamount to irrationality. It does not require a “blind leap.” Neither the Bible nor the Church for much of its history viewed faith as anything other than a source of knowledge by which reason is at once supplemented and perfected. For that matter, Judaism and Islam as well largely shared this vantage.

Faith encompasses trust and hope. As such, faith is and can only be a virtue peculiar to a personal, or an inter-personal, relationship. Faith is always faith in a person.

To repeat, however fashionable it may be, all contemporary talk of placing faith in, say, the universe isn’t universally recognized as the patent nonsense that it is only because it has the effect of imbuing the universe with the qualities of a person.

I come across people all the time who do not themselves have any training in technology, or science. Yet they insist on telling me that my faith means that I can not possibly someone who understands science. Of course, these people do not even understand the fundamental principles of science. But if you believe that a rational God created the universe for us, then you must also believe that He gave us the powers of reason so that we could discover His great creation. Faith is what propellers Christians to confidently use what science tells us is true to apply scientific knowledge to practical problems-the very definition of engineering, by the way.

But faith also tells us that we Christians will be persecuted and hated in this world for our faith. At The Federalist today, Nathaniel Blake has an article entitled Liberal Order That Seeks To Shut Down Christian Charities Does't Deserve To Survive. In that article he notes that the LGBTQxyz mob is increasingly using government to persecute Christian charities and churches in the U. S.:

This should not surprise us. Jesus promised that the powers of this world would hate his followers, not that they would love us if we were virtuous. While we Christians should always strive to be more like Christ, we should not succumb to a quasi-Pelagianism that presumes our winsomeness determines how others receive the gospel. Christ himself was crucified, and the grace and charity many martyrs exemplified did not save them from persecution unto death.

But that we should expect trouble in this world does not mean we should be disinterested regarding politics, nor does it excuse governments that oppose the church and oppress its people.  That our nation seems to be starting down this path has intensified Christian reconsiderations of liberal political theory. Although our government ostensibly protects the freedoms of religion, association, and speech, procedural liberalism increasingly appears insufficient to protect our rights or to ensure a culture of tolerance and pluralism that includes Christians who maintain the traditional teachings of our faith.

As Christians, we need to recognize that we are fighting against the evil one, and things will only get worse. We can not succumb to hardening our hearts, but at the same time, we must be "be as shrewd as snakes and harmless as doves." And while we still can, we need to lift up our voices.

The Left Teaches Us Another Great Strategy For Winning

Today, Kurt Schlichter has an article at Townhall.com that nails the Virginia Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities For The Win. Schlichter's typically sarcastic and sardonic phraseology is in this article simply brilliant. One of the points that Schlichter makes is that Second Amendment sanctuaries are borrowed from the Left's new rule book wherein they just ignore, or openly defy laws they do not like. But unlike the Left's new rules, Second Amendment Sanctuaries are for the purpose of upholding the law, in this case the Constitution.

It’s glorious how the normal people of Virginia are rising up to reject Governor Blackface … or is it Governor KKK-klothes? He can’t seem to remember which one he was in the photo, meaning he had probably donned both creepy get-ups at some point. Yay, our Democrat betters! In any case, the people are telling him, “No, we’re not letting you goose-stepping Bloomberg bots take our guns,” and it is especially glorious that the means to make this righteous commitment is a new, and not garbage, sanctuary movement.

I’ve always been an advocate of playing by the left’s new rules, and this is a great opportunity to new rules the libs good and hard. We got your sanctuary right here, pinkos.

See, the left decided that Virginia, whose northern reaches are now full of government workers and other garbage people, needed to turn blue. With tons of lib donor money and the aid of a typically inept state GOP (I know those feel here in California), they managed to just barely grab control of both houses of the legislature. With Governor Byrd-Jolson in charge, they immediately promised to do away with the Second Amendment. They announced that they were going to confiscate the citizens’ scary guns and do all sorts of other things to show those disobedient, probably Jesus-loving rubes who was boss.

There's another subtext to this article, but one not to be missed: government can only push and nudge so far. At some point, the people get a say and the people have spoken loud and clear here. At this point, 90% of Virginia counties have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries:

In any case, the Democrats have finally found a kind of sanctuary city they won’t goo goo over – one that protects the constitutional rights of American citizens instead of one that undermines and breaks the duly-enacted laws passed by the American people’s representatives for the benefit of foreigners who shouldn’t be here in the first place.

This kind of civil disobedience is absolutely justified in the face of manifestly unconstitutional threats to the Bill of Rights. The liberals think the Constitution is some sort of cafeteria, where they get to pick and chose the rights they will enforce – usually rights that aren’t even in the Constitution in the first place. But this only works if American citizens go along with it, and they are not going to.

. Please go read the entire article as Schlichter is at his best here. But also take some courage here. We need to get involved in the political process and turn it to our advantage. I realize, of course, that most have to work, and raise kids, mow the lawn and take out the trash, but in the few minutes that remain, we all need to be more active at the local and state level. Do not let Bloomberg do to us what he did to Virginia. Please also remember that we are supposed to be on God's side here, so don't let winning by any means necessary become your focus. He will be with us if we are with him.

Rediscovering the Not Nice Jesus

It is not often one sees this, but it is the truth. Taylor Day has the story on Christmas Day, that Jesus Wasn't Very Nice. He also didn't press his message on everyone he met. He actually wanted to make people work for it. He wanted to make people think, and see God's commandments as God intended them, as things that made your life better, rather than as rules to keep people from enjoying themselves. Day:

Jesus wasn't nice, and I can say this with absolute certainty. Therefore, I get disgusted when I see a lot of churches and preachers trying to emasculate the teachings of Christ into a simple "just be nice" doctrine. When a Christian dares deviate from this, liberals pounce and call someone's faith into question, as we saw last week with Christianity Today's attack on President Trump. That is a deep perversion of the truth and the Lion of Judah's message.

Nice people don't make enemies, and Jesus Christ had enemies in excess. King Herod believed an infant Jesus to be a usurper. The Pharisees hated Jesus since His teachings often contradicted their actions. Because cancel culture was also a thing in the first century, the Pharisees ultimately saw their popularity plummet and wanted revenge. The Romans wanted punishment for calling Himself a King while the Jews called for his crucifixion because He was nicknamed the Son of God.

I have to say that I have never understood the beatitude that the Meek shall inherit the earth I have read a number of commentaries on the Beatitudes, but have never found a satisfactory answer until reading Taylor Day's post:

The meek remain one of the most misunderstood concepts in the Bible. Some Christians mistakenly assume that it means quiet and submissive; however, it is anything but. Edward Feser, an esteemed modern philosopher, writes:

"When Christ said, "Blessed are the meek," He was using a military term[.] ... Strength under control. Power under authority. Formidable determination in the face of the constant onslaughts of the enemy. The humble willingness to do what your Master commands you to do.

The exact opposite of feeble timidity."

One of the reasons I left the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is because they have adopted the notion of the mamby pamby Christ. Whereas Luther himself wrote many martial hymns. Luther understood Jesus as a real life man, one who had worked hard and had callused hands, one who was afraid of no one, one who would do his Father's will no matter what. In this understanding, then, martial hymns are excellent metaphors for the faith. I joined instead the Missouri Synod, because these people understand that Jesus wasn't nice.

If we are to take up our crosses as Christians, perhaps we need to also stop being nice, perhaps we need to become soldiers of Christ.  I should point out that being nice about such things as abortion and infanticide, or the LGBTQxyz agenda hasn't made the liberals like us any more.  It may be better to be respected than liked.  Abortion after all is murder, infanticide.  The LGBTQxyz agenda is anti-life, and Jesus is the Lord of Life.

Of course, I am aware that Christians will be called hypocrites for calling out the sin of others.  How dare we, right?  Did not Jesus tell us to take the log out of our own eye before we take the spec out of our brother's eye?  Only someone who commits no sin can truly take everyone to task for their sins.  There was only one of those.

But this is where being "nice" may come in.  For as Christian soldiers, we can never condone sinful behavior, and we must constantly point out that such behavior separates one from God.  But as fellow sinners ourselves, we must always have compassion for our fellow man. We need to love the sinner while condemning the sinful behavior.  And while we would like everyone to join us, we must understand that we can never compromise Biblical principle.

And here is where Jesus found himself, in a world that is no different than it is today.  Man has not changed.  He always wants to do the wrong thing, and rejects God's law.  In such circumstances, Jesus could not be nice, he needed to be the muscular, militant warrior for His Father here on earth.  We Christians need to rediscover this not nice Jesus, and emulate Him in our lives.  But we also need to remain grateful that God did for us what we could not do for ourselves, took the punishment for our sins Himself, and now welcomes all to be with Him in Heaven

Merry Christmas, And Practical Christianity

It is the eve of Christmas Eve, and has Christmas Day grows closer, no doubt I will have less and less time.  So, let me say to all readers of this blog, Merry Christmas, and a Happy (and blessed) New Year. With that being said, Fay Voshell has an excellent Christmas post at the American Thinker today entitled Satanists At The Christmas Party. She takes the inevitable party poopers to task as a lead off to the real reason for the season:

One thing is sure. What Christians in America have known for at least two generations is that there’s always someone itching to spoil their Christmas party in the name of diversity, separation of church and state, individual “rights” or some other doctrinal tenet of the Dark Side. There is always the uninvited satanic gate crasher who pops up at the last minute to join the mocking “enlightened” party pooper cynic who wears the intellectual equivalent of a lampshade on his head.

But perhaps the First State Satanists don’t know just what it is Christians in Georgetown, America and around the world are celebrating at Christmas. The fact is that for Christians, Christmas is the biggest party this side of glory. That is because for the faithful, Christmas is celebration of a victory with cosmic significance. Christians believe that when Christ was born, the promise of Genesis that Satan the serpent would be crushed under the feet of a savior was fulfilled. We believe the major battle against Satan and the forces of evil has been won, that victory over sin and death has been accomplished.

So, that's it. That's why we are so happy, saying "Merry Christmas" to one and all, singing carols, giving gifts, and generally making merry. Because Christ has come into the World. As Saint Paul noted, we have all sinned, and fallen short of the Glory of God. But God has taken on our sinful form and our sins as well, and because we could not atone for our sins, he himself has atoned for them. Hallelujah!

But, wait...there's more!

As it turns out, Christians believe Christ the gracious and merciful Host invites everyone to the celebration. Whosever will may come and receive a welcome from Him who came to seek and to save those who have lost their way.

Yes, though they don’t believe it, the Son of Man invites even repentant First State Satanists to his Christmas celebration. All they and any of us must do is accept the invitation and put on the robes of righteousness the sacrificial Host supplies so as not to be cast out by angelic bouncers.

Then? Party on joyfully forever in the presence of the heavenly Boy.

So, if someone would like to understand the REAL things we Christians believe, and if one has limited time, he could do worse that to read the book of Romans in the New Testament to the Bible. Romans was written by Paul after spending most of his adulthood as an apostle of Christ teaching and preaching the Gospel. It summarizes his thoughts on Christianity just before the Roman government executed him around 60 A.D. (also known as the "common era.") I say all this by way of introducing a post by Selwyn Duke entitled On How Evangelicals Can Support Trump, Both Libs and Conservatives Get It Wrong.

With both the Russia and Ukraine hoaxes having fizzled and the "legal" means for President Trump's removal perhaps exhausted, at least for now, the Left appears to have moved on to a "moral" argument designed to influence the 2020 election. Initiated by Christianity Today and advanced by figures such as CNN's Chris Cuomo, the idea is that Evangelicals — and by implication all Christians — should be ashamed to support Trump because he makes a "mockery" of their faith.

It's an interesting argument not because it's anything but a demagogic one, but because it relates to interesting issues completely eluding the very uninteresting people making the argument. Unfortunately, I've yet to hear them treated adequately.

So, did you go read Romans yet? Duke has in this post shown us one example of practical Christianity at work. While the Left claims that we Christians are making a "mockery" of our faith, in point of fact if we bought into the Left's rhetoric, we couldn't vote for any candidate. As was noted before, all people are sinners. But, as long as we are talking about voting for a candidate who makes a mockery of Christianity:

And that's the point. As usual, leftists are engaging in pure projection. Cuomo the Lesser supports Cuomo the Greater (N.Y.'s governor), a man who signed a bill allowing prenatal infanticide up to birth ("Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you," Jeremiah 1:5, anyone?). In fact, along with other purported leftist "Christians," the Lesser makes a mockery of his own faith.

It requires a striking lack of self-awareness, or a sociopathic lack of compunction, for the glass-house Left to hurl its White House stones. Who, Mr. Cuomo, is this saintly viable alternative who must exist if you imply that Christians should abandon Trump?

Whomever you suggest, it won't just be someone supporting prenatal infanticide, putting boys in girls' bathrooms ("[M]ale and female he made them," Genesis 5:2), and indoctrinating schoolchildren with sexual devolutionary propaganda ("But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea," Matthew 18:6).

So, while we Christians recognize that Trump is all too human, we also recognize that so are we all. But even though Trump has done many things that go against our beliefs, as have we all, would have Hillary been a better choice? Without reciting her deplorable record of crimes for which she will never be prosecuted, thank you Democrats, I think not. If politics is the art of the possible, then continuing to support President Trump is what is possible today. Tomorrow? God only knows.

Second Amendment Sanctuaries Are Legal And Right

The current situation in Virginia, as Christmas rapidly approaches, is that its Governor, Ralph Northam, with the help of a new Democrat majority in the legislature, plans to pass bills that would outlaw certain types of firearms that are now quite legal to own.  Indeed, he plans to outlaw guns that are currently legal in all 50 States of the Union.  Presumably, he then plans to arrest and imprison anyone who will not comply.  He even threatens to call out the National Guard to carry out a house to house search and arrest function.

In response, Virginians have erected what are called Second Amendment Sanctuary counties and cities where the new laws will not be enforced, and where sheriffs and local police will not cooperate with the effort to make felons out of law abiding citizens.

While Second Amendment Sanctuaries are a new idea in our time, they apparently are not new at all.  Indeed, as attorney Hal Holbook writes at the American Thinker today, in a article entitled Second Amendment Sanctuaries Started in 1774, the idea has been around since the founding.

Spearheading the war on Virginia gun owners is Gov. Ralph Northam, best known for his gig in blackface or Klan attire, and for calmly endorsing post-delivery abortion, that is, infanticide. To divert attention from the backlash, he is moving to criminalize all sorts of innocent conduct that has been lawful in the Commonwealth since Jamestown was settled in 1607.

It’s as if “the Redcoats are coming” again. Northam’s counterpart in 1774 was Lord Dunmore, the last royal governor, who took measures to disarm “disloyal” Virginians led by Patrick Henry. The patriots were arming and organizing themselves into independent companies to protect their rights.

None other than George Washington formed the Fairfax Independent Militia Company. “Threat’ned with the Destruction of our Civil-rights, & Liberty,” wrote George Mason, the volunteers pledged that “we will, each of us, constantly keep by us” a musket, six pounds of gunpowder, and 20 pounds of lead.

...snip...

... Counties that have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries make clear their dedication to use all lawful means to protect their constitutional rights. Law-enforcement authorities have scarce resources and must choose how to allocate them. Work to solve murders and robberies, or track down gun owners because they have rifles with those oh-so-deadly pistol grips or adjustable stocks? That’s a no-brainer.

But those who support filling the prisons with law-abiding citizens just because they have, for instance, a rifle that will also shoot flares -- which is nothing more than a distress signal -- should remember our history. The Second Amendment was adopted to prevent exactly those kinds of infringements.

What Halbrook is pointing out with this article is that, contrary to Attorney General Mark Herring's assertions, the current wave of Second Amendment sanctuaries are both legal and have a historical basis. But that is exactly the point that Eric Pratt of the Gun Owners of America made in an article published in The Roanoke Times entitled Second Amendment Sanctuaries Are Lawful and Right Pratt writes:

Those hostile to the Second Amendment rights of individuals to keep and bear arms are mischaracterizing the efforts of Virginians who urge local governments to pass “Second Amendment Sanctuary” resolutions. Critics falsely claim such policies openly defy state law. They do not.

Sanctuary resolutions provide the most prudent and effective way for local officials to inform the newly elected General Assembly and the governor that if they rush forward to create new felony crimes to jail law-abiding Virginians — just for exercising their most fundamental and natural right of self-defense — then they cannot expect localities to enforce such unjust laws.

As noted, Governor Northam has forces at his command. The State Police and the National Guard are two such forces. Indeed, he could deputize more people if he so chose to carry out his laws. The question, though, for both members of the State Police and the National Guard is will they obey an order which is clearly Unconstitutional? The military is well aware that simply obeying an order is no excuse. That is the reason for the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. Following orders that are not moral or legal does not absolve the individual who followed those orders.  Everyone at all levels needs to be clear that he may be personally held liable for any order he carries out that is not legal or moral. 

Please read both articles, and spread the word among your friends and acquaintances.  The next two years will be interesting times in The Old Dominion.  And, of course, North Carolina is next in the cross hairs.  Keep your powder dry. 

Hallmark Caving To LGTBQxyz Mob Is A Bridge Too Far

Have I mentioned that I like to watch Hallmark movies?  So, I will confess it now.  Yes, I realize that these movies are formulaic, much as the Harlequin Romance novels are.  There are certain Hallmark stars that show up time and time again because these people project the sort of personality the Hallmark movies typically want projected.  Lacey Chabert, Candace Cameron Bure, or even Ali Liebert, who is in real life a lesbian are stars on the Hallmark Channel.  But Liebert projects a normal character on television, and the reason  people like these movies is not because of the real life of the actors and actresses, but  because the movies themselves project an idealized picture of life.

If you’re a pious Christian mom who wants to escape into a universe where all the cynicism and immorality of modern life aren’t allowed, or if you want to snuggle up with your eight-year-old daughter and watch a silly movie without having to explain inappropriate content you weren’t expecting, the Hallmark Channel is about the only place left that will let you do it.

So, on the heels of the Chick-fil-a cave in to the LGTBQxyz mob, now comes the Hallmark Channel, caving to the LGTBQxyz mob as well, in a piece at The Federalist by Hans Fiene at For the LGTB Mob, Lesbian Ads On Hallmark Channel Are Just The Beginning.

On the latest episode of “Everybody on the Internet is Angry,” the Hallmark Channel found itself caught between a Christian rock and an LGBT hard place. After the network ran a commercial from online wedding firm Zola featuring a lesbian wedding, One Million Moms, a division of the American Family Association, “voiced its concern and gave Hallmark the opportunity to do the right thing.”

Hallmark quickly dropped the ad from its schedule, but after complaints from “prominent LGBT celebrities and advocacy groups” and the rise of #BoycottHallmarkChannel on Twitter, the network reversed its decision, with Hallmark CEO Mike Perry apologizing for the hurt the company had caused and stating, “Hallmark will be working with GLAAD to better represent the LGBT community across our portfolio of brands.”

The major point of the article is that the mob will not be content with taking most of the culture. No, even this small corner of the culture will be invaded, and you will be required to celebrate their perverse lifestyle. You will be made to care.

Once upon a time, you could watch a sizable chunk of network TV shows with your children without exposing them to programs that praised fornication (of both the heterosexual and homosexual varieties). Then the children of the sexual revolution got control of the writers’ rooms and the programming decisions, and now you don’t dare let them near a Thursday evening sitcom for fear they’ll contract HPV via satellite dish.

Once, you could take your kids to a Star Wars or superhero movie without being told you weren’t welcome in Skywalkerland or Iron Man Village if you believed homosexuality was contrary to God’s law. Not anymore. Once, you could trust Disney and PBS not to fight actively against the Christian beliefs you wanted your children to hold. Then Disney and PBS stuck gay characters in programs aimed at preschoolers.

While Hallmark may not be the hill on which Christians want to die, we will eventually have to speak out and resist the cultural invasion of evil that currently is on the march. Will you be on the side of God, or the side of Satan? Personally, I no longer eat at Chick-fil-a, but then I didn't eat there often anyway. Their food just doesn't appeal to me. But now I will not watch Hallmark movies, and that hurts. Still, I can not support the LGBTQxyz program. It is not that I hate gays themselves, I don't, but I can not condone their actions, and I will not celebrate the LGTBQxyz lifestyle.

But it’s important for all Christians not to miss the three-fold point. First, the LGBT mafia zealously desires to drive faithful Christians out of any space where they are welcome. Second, the LGBT mafia is proving to be ruthlessly efficient at carrying out this goal.

Third, the same ruthlessly efficient mob probably won’t be content to take away every metaphorical sanctuary we have and then stop short of seizing our literal ones. If they wouldn’t let us celebrate cheesy Hallmark Christmas without celebrating their sin, they won’t let us celebrate actual Jesus Christmas that way either.

Ooops...I Forgot Yesterday Was Bill of Rights Day

Yes, December 15, 1791 was the day the Bill of Rights, otherwise known as the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, was ratified.  I will state again that my focus on the 2nd Amendment is because the 2nd is the thing that guarantees the other 9 Amendments...or should if people were paying attention.  I know, I know, your twitter account is more important than the petty things mentioned in the Bill of Rights.  But some old white men fought a long war with the most powerful army in the World at that time to give them to you.  You shouldn't squander them on things like "Dancing With The Stars" or Kim Kardashian.

To remind you, and me of course, of the importance of this date, here is  Alan Korwin giving his take on the fact that Bill of Rights Day, December 15, Is In Big Trouble:

While gun rights previously took most of the heat, all civil rights are in more jeopardy in 2019. Gun-rights advocates promoted the date, because they saw Second Amendment guarantees of the right to arms as fundamental to protection of the rest. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org, has vigorously promoted the date for decades, under a banner, of “All of the Bill of Rights for all citizens,” knowing gun rights were carried on its coattails.

Journalists, who as a group often disparage the Second Amendment and the armed populace it encourages, now face a torrent of anti-Bill of Rights sentiment and laws, largely from left-wing college students and professors, who believe free speech, which derives its nearly absolute powers from the First Amendment, falls out of favor. Along with it, the right to practice religion without government interference, and even the right to assemble, have come under withering scrutiny, including physical and moral attack. Varieties of “political correctness,” euphemisms for marxism/socialism are to blame, promoting fear, hatred, racism, intolerance, “required diversity,” offensiveness, narratives and group think as reasons to curtail free exchange of ideas and speech.

Pundits note that so-called “red-flag gun laws,” as well as current congressional efforts to impeach the U.S. president, rely heavily on removal of due process protections under the 4th through 6th Amendments. These include bedrocks of freedom such as innocence until guilt is proven, the ability to confront your accuser and compel witnesses to appear in your defense, and public trials by jury, all of which have been abrogated. Other guarantees of the Bill of Rights have been ignored, with no penalties—or even charges—brought against the perpetrators, one of the most glaring flaws in the Constitution—it provides no specific penalties for abuse of its terms, short of revolt.

Many on the Left say that President Trump is shredding the Constitution. Actually, no, he is not directly doing so. But,  by letting it be known that he would not veto a Red Flag law should one come to his desk, he encourages the shredding of the Constitution by those bent on such a task. Red Flag laws are arguably the most egregious of these infringements to date, but they are hardly the first. Remember the Kelo decision? Or for a more damning case, how about Roe v. Wade. And then there is the National Firearms Act of 1934. These violations of the clear words of the Bill of Rights have gone on for decades. Every time the Left gets away with it, they double down the next time. It's like children to keep pushing the envelope until one day their parents can no longer control them.

So, I implore you, if you have not done so, to read the Bill of Rights yourself. These are not written in some arcane legalese. These are written in plain English, and should be easily understood by persons of average intelligence. There are no "penumbras" or "emanations," no secret meanings only understandable by the learned Justices of the Supreme Court. No, YOUR rights, MY rights, are spelled out in black and white on the page. So, read it today. Discuss it with your family. Keep it close to your heart. Most of all, remember it when you vote. You have no right to free stuff, rather you have the right to be free.

Impeachment Circus Moves To A House Vote

The Democrats are planning to pass articles of impeachment on a party line vote.  No Republican is expected to vote in favor of these articles.  And while a number of vulnerable Democrats will not vote for them either, it is expected that enough Democrats will be lined up to vote them out of the House.  As Peggy Ryan notes in her piece at the American Thinker today, entitled Unconstitutional Impeachment: The Real Abuse of Power, this is not the first time the Democrats have steamrolled the American electorate. Back in 2009 they did it with Obamacare. Now, here they are again.

The House has filed articles of impeachment against President Trump. The charges are vague, not criminal, not in line with constitutional requirements, but Democrats don't care. The American people are opposed to this illegal impeachment, but again, Democrats don't care. They have a mission, and nothing will stand in their way.

But then we've been here before, haven't we? In 2009, our government rolled over us like a tank in Tiananmen Square to pass Obamacare. Like impeachment, Obamacare was unpopular, opposed by most Americans. Like impeachment, Congress and their media pushed the lies, the empty promises: to tamp down opposition.

And here we go again. Nancy's marshaling her forces to once again steamroll the people. And she's just as committed to overthrowing our government as she was to enacting a socialist takeover of our health care. Our government operates outside the will of voters because it can. Once we send these people to Washington, we relinquish control, have no way to stop them until the next election, usually years away.

The horrifying truth is, we the people no longer matter. This globalist cabal has plans in place to take control of America, and it's not going to let a bunch of Constitution-toting idealists get in the way. We had no say with Obamacare, and we have no say in impeachment.

Ryan is clearly upset that we seem to have a legislature who believes that it can rule against the will of the American people. Such an attitude is dangerous, not to the legislators themselves, but to us, the American people. Yes, of course the Senate in this case will not convict the President. But if the Senate majority were Democrat, what then? The Democrats are willing to use vague issues as a means to impeach a President who has not met the test of the Constitution, high crimes and misdemeanors.  As such, then, you have to wonder what else the Democrats are willing to do that is against the Constitution?  And isn't acting against the Constitution, and their own Constitutional oaths therefore both criminal and treasonous?

What do we do about that?  We have already seen that if you are high enough on the Democrat food chain that you are impervious to prosecution.  The reluctance to call out the Demorcrats may well stem from the fact that many Republicans may have succumbed to the same ambitions.  It is unlikely that we will be able to vote our way out of this mess.

Frankly, I think each of us needs to take up our obligation to having integrity.  We all need to examine our selves, purge selfish motives to the degree possible, and ensure that we our selves have integrity.  Then we need to start talking to our fellows at work, and wherever we encounter them.  We need not change minds, because that is often not possible, but we can begin planting seeds.  We must begin to speak out if we are to save our republic. And for heaven's sake, go vote. You never know when one vote may make the difference.

Show up, America. There's more at stake than the Trump presidency. Our Constitutional Republic is on the line.

Not One Inch

Before retiring and coming to North Carolina, I resided in Virginia, so I pay attention to what happens there.  Then too, Virginia being right next door, so to speak, I also worry that troubles coming to Virginia won't stop there.  So, I was gladdened to see that so many Virginia counties we passing Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions and ordinances.  More on that in a minute.

Philip Van Cleave, President of the Virginia Citizens' Defense League (VCDL) has an article at  Ammoland Entitled VCDL's Position On Gun Control & "Compromise" - Screw "Grandfathering". Van Cleave presents the correct attitude for gun owners:

Who are WE to negotiate away the right of future generations to own AR-15s, or their equivalent, and magazines of whatever capacity they want?

Who are WE to give away the right of future generations to protect themselves from criminals or from a government that's gone tyrannical, just so we can selfishly have our guns and magazines now?

And who is stupid enough to think that the gun controllers won't be back, over and over again, to get those guns and magazines out of our hands anyway in the near future?

I don't know about you, but I don't trust a government that doesn't trust me to have guns.

I have made a point many times in the past as well that when the government doesn't trust me with a gun, I sure don't trust them either. We should never "compromise" our rights, because they are not just our rights. They belong to our children and grandchildren, and their descendants as well. They belong to each of us because of our humanity. Therefore it is not our right to compromise away the rights of others. It is also not legitimate for the government to take those rights. That is why the Bill of Rights was put in the Constitution, and it appears that the Founders were extremely prescient. Our right to keep and bear arms would have disappeared years ago had they not made the Bill of Rights the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

On the notion of "sanctuary counties and cites," I have noted that when the Left was passing sanctuaries for illegal immigrants, it was, and is illegal and wrong.  When law enforcement refuses to cooperate with ICE, it is also wrong.  So, when conservatives started passing Second Amendment sanctuaries, I recognize that this is also wrong, but at the same time I can not help but feel that turnabout may well be fair play.  Goose...Gander?  But there is this difference also:  gun control is not legal, and therefore sanctuary status may be the only way to defend the citizenry.

Please go read Philip Van Cleave's article and let me know what you think.  And remember, not one inch.

The United States Was Founded With The Help Of Divine Providence

I have to run today, but I want to leave you with a post by Eric Utter at the American Thinker entitled Evil Ascendant in which Mr. Utter points out what is wrong in our culture today:

If politics is indeed downstream from culture, when the culture is polluted, politics will be as well. The Founders would not have put up with the wide-scale poisoning of our culture and the internal annexation of the country they begat us. They would not have tolerated an attempted coup. Deep down, progressives know this. It is largely why they are bashing the Founders now.

Progressives try to skirt these facts by equivocating and asserting that everything is relative. There is no objective truth, they aver, only “my truth” and “your truth.” Take abortion, for instance. Some see it as a “woman’s fundamental right,” others as outright murder. Que sera, sera. Whatever will be, will be. In reality, “My truth” is merely code for: “You must tolerate anything I do, no matter how bizarre, sinful, or damaging, without questioning it or shaming me. I, however, don’t have to reciprocate, because you are an intolerant, Hitleresque ass.”

I’ll be blunt. There is an elephant in the room. A big one that no one is talking about: Evil will always win if good doesn’t fight back. Always. Always. Too many good and decent people do not truthfully understand this. They want nothing so much as to be seen as tolerant, caring, open-minded. These attributes, of course, are precisely what evil uses to advance its agenda and secure ever more power and control over others. Using others’ kindness, tolerance and ignorance against them is…the very essence of evil. It never rests, never takes a day or a moment off, doesn’t worry about being labeled evil. It does not care if its actions are bigoted, racist, shameless or harmful. Nor does it fret about whether or not it will be seen as kind, tolerant, inclusive, or open-minded. Evil always advances when allowed to do so. Always. It never stops, is omnipresent, pushes, prods, changes shape and appearance. It cares not of decency, logic, whim, niceties, demeanor, manners, feelings, justice or fairness. Especially fairness.

Utter goes on to say that more people need to join the fight. I agree with him on this, though I am as lost as the next guy as to how we can be more effective. There is a saying that when you get in the mud with a pig, you just get muddy yourself and the pig enjoys it. But another problem is that you and I can never "out muddy" the pigs of the world. At some point, there is a line you and I will not cross, that the "pigs" will do. So what is to be done? I suspect we must fight as hard as we can, but rely on Divine help to take the fight to victory. In other words, we must fight till all hope is gone, but continue to pray, and have faith.  The United States was founded with the help of Divine Providence and it may be that God is waiting for His people to show they remember that fact.

Islam is Not A Religion, But An Affirmation Of Tribal Cultures

Raymond Ibrahim has a post describing the problem with the Islamic concept of jihad as that it is hard to tell the difference between the jihadi and the murderous, psycopathic killer. Ibrahim's piece can be found at Jihad and Criminality: Inseparable Bedfellows at the American Thinker today. Indeed, what he points out is that there is no real difference. Islam does not require a change of heart, as does Christianity. It merely requires one to do what one always wants to do anyway. And since people are, as described in the Bible, fallen, people naturally turn toward criminal enterprises because these often give them what they want.

...As the director of the study himself explained, criminals “are the perfect fit” because the “Islamic State doesn’t require any intellectual sophistication. It doesn’t ask you to study religion. It makes it all like a computer game.” In other words, criminals are ideal recruits because they don’t know -- nor do they care to learn -- the first thing about “true” Islam.

Or, as John Brennan memorably asserted of ISIS members when he was head of the CIA, “they’re criminals. Most -- many -- of them are psychopathic thugs, murderers who use a religious concept and masquerade and mask themselves in that religious construct.”

Here, again, we see how ignorance of history -- willful or otherwise -- undermines Western security. The fact is, from the very beginnings of Islam and throughout the centuries, the overwhelming majority of Muslims who participated in jihads had no “intellectual sophistication,” did not “study religion,” and generally behaved like “psychopathic thugs, murderers.” That’s because Islam’s “religious construct” was always designed to entice and mobilize such men.

You must understand that Islam is not a true religion, as understood by the Jews and Christians. It is rather an attempt to affirm Arabs, and as it expanded, other peoples, in their tribal ways. It was not meant to tame the human heart and make us better people. As long as the West continues to look at Islam is a religion, we will be at a disadvantage. Note too, that Allah is not the God of the Bible, the God who created the universe and the creatures who occupy the Earth, including mankind:

Then and now, those who undertook jihad were never obligated to have sincere or pious intentions. That’s because -- and despite all Western projectionism and relativism -- Allah is not God; he is not interested in the “condition” of the jihadist’s “heart,” but rather his sword. The cold, businesslike language of the Koran makes this clear. Whoever commits to the jihad makes a “fine loan to Allah,” which the latter guarantees to pay back “many times over,” always commensurate with the jihadist’s efforts (Koran 2:245, 4:95).

...snip...

“[I]f taking lives and ravaging the lands of the infidel were the means by which the ends of expanding Islam were served, then the new converts’ traditional pleasures were now happily endowed with a pious rationale,” writes one historian on the Turks’ conversion to Islam. Similarly, “the Tartars had adopted Islam because it was the easy religion, as Christianity was the hard one,” observed a fourteenth-century European. Whereas Islam complemented the tribal way of life, Christianity only challenged it.

Please go read Ibrahim's article at the link, and ponder what he writes here.

Mass Killings Are A Human Problem Not a Gun Problem

While we await more news about how and why there was a mass shooting at the Navy Shipyard in Hawaii, it may be worthwhile to ponder a shooting that occurred in India, a country that makes the gun grabbers really proud.  India's gun restrictions make California look like the Wild Wild West.

Tom Knighton, in a post at Bearing Arms notes that an Indian Border Patrol Officer Kills Five Co-Workers In A Mass Shooting. But Knighton's point in writing this article is not so much to look into the motives of the killer, but rather to point out that contrary to the meme that mass shootings only happen in the United States, in fact they occur all over the world. The problem, as always, is people, not the tools they use to kill their fellow man:

The country of India has some very strict gun control laws. In fact, they recently passed a law that states you can only have one gun total. That’s a hell of a lot worse than the gun rationing schemes some of our own lawmakers are pushing, though I don’t doubt they’d love to pass a measure like that.

The United States, on the other hand, is supposedly the only country where mass shootings happen. They simply don’t occur in countries with strict gun control, or so we’re told.

I, for one, have been arguing that the issue is a human issue, not a gun issue. Something is very wrong with people and our society that we produce people who would do such a thing. However, I’ll also note that we’re not the only ones who do this. Christchurch, New Zealand, for example, wasn’t American.

David Hardy, in his new book, Mass Killings: Myths, Realities, and Solutions makes the same point:

Actually, it does. The record death toll from a mass shooting came in Norway, in 2011: 67 deaths. The record death toll from a mass killing of any type came in China, in 2001; the killer used bombs to take 108 lives.[2]  In 1982 a berserk South Korean policeman killed 56 (the same number that died in our worst shooting, in Las Vegas), in 2007 two Ukrainians killed 25 with a hammer and a pipe, in 1986 a Columbian used a six-shot revolver to kill 29 in a Bogota restaurant. This “just doesn’t happen in other countries”?

Hardy, David. Mass Killings: Myth, Reality, and Solutions (pp. 4-5). Kindle Edition.

Note that Hardy has done a great service to the gun rights cause by pointing out that these killings occur Worldwide, and that the tools vary, depending on what the killers can get their hands on.  There are homemade bombs, cars, knives as well as guns.  The solution then, is not in restricting guns, because mass killers will just find another tool.  The first recorded murder in history is that of Cain killing Abel with a rock.  Are we going to ban rocks?

It is unfortunate that news of these killings in other countries does not feature in U.S. news reports.  But that doesn't mean they don't happen with regularity.  Even in counties like India, where guns are heavily restricted, as Knighton's post points out.

Here are the facts:  The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights, in part to provide a balance of power in favor of the citizens as opposed to government power.  The only reason why politicians want to restrict the arms the people have is because they fear if the people have the balance of power on their side.  One has to wonder why?  In any case, restricting firearms is illegal, no matter what either the politicians or the Supreme Court says.  The black letter law says our right to arms "shall not be infringed."

Go read knighton's post.  While your at it, why don't you download Dave Hardy's book at Amazon.  It is only $2.99 for heaven's sake, and I read the whole book in one sitting.  In other words, it is short and concise. 

Don't Enforce Federal Gun Laws - Repeal Them

Another long piece to read is David Codrea's article at Firearm News entitled Who Will Guard Against 'Guardians' When Trump Admin Enforces More Gun Laws. Codrea makes a number of excellent points about how gun laws supposedly designed to entrap criminals can also be used to ensnare those with no criminal intent. And in the case of "red flag" laws, these can entrap totally innocent individuals. But he also points out how other laws, through a series of possible events, can be used to put gun owners behind bars and deny them their Constitutional rights.

Codrea is writing about the recently announced project of the DOJ called "Guardian."  As Codrea notes, though, DOJ has a lousy record when it comes to getting guns out of the hands of criminals.  Speaking of DOJ failures, let us not forget that during operation Fast and Furious the DOJ actually gave guns to drug cartels in what has been called a "botched sting" operation. But as Codrea has noted, it was no such thing.  But Codrea points out other instances where the Federal government's pursuit of a monopoly of power proved destructive of individual citizens.

But Codrea's point, as always, is that all of these laws are Unconstitutional:

Many in the industry have yet to learn they can’t protect their businesses by throwing customers under the bus. And many in the rice bowl gun groups have yet to learn their first duty is to their members, not to their advertisers and sponsors.

When the emphasis is on law enforcement rather than rights enforcement, it’s a one-way street leading to tyranny. Without going too far afield, a project I worked on years ago to petition DOJ to enforce the Second Amendment in the states the same way it would were civil rights laws being violated went nowhere – despite a supposedly “pro-gun” administration. And don’t get me started on NRA’s deliberate indifference and outright hostility by some prominent apologists.

As for embracing this latest scheme by our “Guardians” to somehow protect us through infringements, there’s really only one principled response: “Enforce existing gun laws?” The hell with that. Repeal the damn things.

These laws are also remarkably ineffective. After all, a felon who is already prohibited is hardly likely submit to a background check. Dr. John Lott has a piece at Townhall.com entitled The Futility Of Gun Regulations From Ghost Guns To Background Checks that makes this point. Lott notes that those with criminal intent will get guns, whether they be so called "ghost guns" or they smuggle guns in with the drugs they also smuggle. And those without criminal intent are no danger in the first place.

Gun laws and gun regulations only serve to restrict guns from the hands of the law abiding. As such, they represent not crime control but citizen control. But the Second Amendment was written to provide an overwhelming balance of power on the side of the citizen against the government.

David Codrea is correct, that all Federal firearms laws a regulations should be repealed.

African Americans Aren't The Only People Democrats Want To Disarm

Mark Overstreet, today, at The Federalist gives a succinct history of Democrat disarmament in a piece entitled African Americans Aren't The Only Ones Democrats Want To Disarm. Overstreet starts with the post Civil War, during which Democrats came up with laws that either banned blacks outright from possessing guns, or were selectively enforced against blacks, not whites. He then goes through the history of gun control ever since. If you have been in the gun rights arena for any time, you've heard most of this history. But it is not often enough told such that you always come across people who, in their naivety will ask "But why can't we have a discussion about common sense gun reform?" They don't realize that there is all this history pointing to the fact that Democrats (and not a few Republicans for that matter) do not trust you. And the reason they don't trust you is that they plan to impose something they suspect you will not like. At the same time, they don't want to end up like so many tyrants in history.

Please carve out some time and go read Overstreet's article.  Even if you know this stuff, it is useful to be reminded.  If you are an old fart, like me, you no doubt remember being able to buy a rifle from the Sears Catalog, and have it delivered to your door by the U.S Postal Service.  How far down the sewage pit we have gone.

As I noted here, Feinstein’s “ban” allowed owners of “banned” guns and magazines to keep them and allowed the continued manufacture of the same guns in slightly modified form and the importation of the magazines in their original form. The anti-gun Washington Post admitted “no one should have any illusions about what was accomplished. . . . The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.” This year, several Democrats running for president have explained what “broader gun control” means, saying they support confiscating semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines. And nowadays when Democrats talk about confiscating guns, they don’t mean “only from blacks.”

Update: I also have a post, here that speaks to the history of the Second Amendment, and why it is still relevant today. Hint: because mankind has not changed one bit.

Demographics Is Destiny-And Why It Matters

David Codrea, author of the website The War On Guns as well as a featured columnist at Ammoland and Guns magazine has pounded on the issue of immigration for years now. His point, and it is the same point that has been made by Ann Coulter and many others, is that unlimited immigration from failed states to our south will inevitably change the voting patterns we traditionally see. Democrats and Leftists see this a feature, not a bug. David Codrea notes that our gun rights will naturally be eroded when people with no experience of a right to arms are presented with a chance to vote them away.  Moreover, people with no history of the American Revolution will hardly understand why the Second Amendment was put in the Constitution in the first place.

In the great push of "other stuff" that typically crowds my days, I have often placed Codrea's concerns in this area at a lower priority.  But he is exactly correct about demographics being destiny.  Our system of government evolved out of the Anglo-Saxon tradition.  To those born to it, it seems as if it is coded in our DNA.  Latin Americans come from a different tradition, a tradition of Roman law, that is utterly foreign to the Anglo-Saxon tradition.

To David Codrea, let me just say that I am sorry I have not made immigration a priority.  But let me remedy that by featuring, today, at Townhall.com Scott Morefield's piece entitled The Most Important Issues For Conservatives, And Why None Of Them May Matter In The End. After Morefield goes through naming and analyzing the issues most conservatives care about, including abortion, taxes and regulations, judicial activism, and gun rights, he presents immigration as what should top the list for us. Why? Again, because demographics is destiny.

Finally, there’s immigration, and I’m going to go ahead and brush aside all the arguments above - at least insofar as they serve to place those issues at the number one slot - and slide this issue right up there at the top, heads and shoulders above the rest. Abortion, tax policy, deregulation, gun rights, judicial activism … all are critical to maintaining the United States as the type of place where the most people can have the highest quality of life. But if we allow Democrats to succeed in filling our country with people predisposed to vote for big government, over time and election cycles it simply won’t be possible to win on any other issue. In other words - if we lose the immigration battle, we lose the war, for good.

Please go read Morefield's article, and check out the internal links as well. Clearly, Morefield has been on this issue a long time as well.

First they came for gun owners...

Often enough we find ourselves preaching to the choir.  I, frankly, would never have thought of using the comparison made by Paul Curry in his article at Townhall.com today entitled Let's Give Red Flag Laws A Try With Abortion. That's because I don't consider abortion to be a moral choice, let alone being a Constitutional right. Nevertheless, by assuming that abortion is a Constitutional right, he gives himself a chance to speak to those who might be liberal gun grabbers and might not have thought that their favored "Constitutional right" might be similarly restricted.

This past October, Stephen Nichols, an 84-year-old Korean War veteran, former police officer, and current school crossing guard, was the victim of the flawed fed flag law mentality. Mr. Nichols’ offense? He was overheard, and misquoted, by a waitress in an Oak Bluff, MA, diner. Mr. Nichols, speaking with a friend, complained of the local school’s security officers leaving for coffee while the school children were unattended. Mr. Nichols complained that anybody could “shoot up the school” while security officers took breaks. Subsequently, and on the word of the waitress who overheard his statement, Mr. Nichols had his licensed and registered firearms seized and was immediately fired from his position as a crossing guard. Mr. Nichols had his 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights essentially revoked.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Nichols’ accuser acted in good faith, what does his predicament say about the potential for people acting in bad faith? How many ex-boyfriends, ex-girlfriends, ex-husbands, or ex-wives can easily abuse red flag laws? How many constitutional rights are red flag law proponents willing to submit to arbitrary review by judges? What if red flag laws were applied to other situations of life or death, say abortion? Proponents of red flags laws regarding 2nd Amendment rights argue, absent evidence, that without them someone may die. If we applied the same reasoning to abortion rights, absent red flag laws for abortion, someone will die.

Note that the emphasis is mine. But the question is a reasonable one. You may not agree with my Second Amendment rights, but then, how will you feel if your so-called abortion rights are similarly restricted by a judge on the say so of some member of the public who doesn't know you, or your situation.  How about an eaves dropping waiter who overhears a portion of what you say and then filters it through his own prejudices and then reports it to a judge, who then issues an ex parte order against your abortion. Suddenly, at 5 am you are awakened to a SWAT team delivering a  judicial order with deadly force.

It is also not too far to think that perhaps the purpose of red flag laws against firearm owners are intended to set a precedent that may be used later to eliminate  or negate the rest of the Bill of Rights.  Firearm owners are a minority.  But then, so are all the other people for whom the Constitution protects their rights.  The smallest minority is one, but even that one has certain unalienable rights.  Even if you do not particularly agree with firearm owners, you should understand that if we do not all hang together, surely we will all hang apart.

Martin Neimoller (read about him here) was a Lutheran Pastor who came to understand the Nazi regime as a dictatorship. He is credited with the famous quote "First they came for the communists, but I wasn't a communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Jews ...then they came for me" In the United States, Neimoller might have made his quotation read "First they came for gun owners, but I wasn't a gun owner, so said nothing."

Think about it.

The Stoic Way of Life

If we are to bring back any sanity in the politics and the culture of America, it is true that more of us will have to begin acting like the adults we are.  We are going to have to face facts, not wishful thinking.  We are going to have to understand reality on the ground, and not posit things as the "should be" according to our own sense of fairness.  We are going to have to regain the "stiff upper lip," that characterized generations past.

That is the topic of today's post, based on the article by John Dale Dunn over at the American Thinker entitled The Stoic Philosophy Can Fix This Mess. Dunn writes:

Vice Admiral James B Stockdale was a naval fighter pilot about to be redeployed to Viet Nam War when he took graduate studies at Stanford, and became immersed in the philosophy of Stoicism, that helped him deal with his hardships when he was shot down, then held a prisoner for 7 years, becoming the Commanding Officer of the American prisoners at the Hanoi Hilton. He was one of the most revered and honored Naval Aviators of all time, recipient of the Medal of Honor.

Stockdale in his writings and his speeches made his case for the value of Stoicism, a moral and ethical philosophy originating with Seneca the younger, a Roman in the first Century AD, and with the teachings and writings of Epictetus, a Greek Slave brought to Rome, who was a teacher and scholar, and then with the last of the good Roman Emperors, Marcus Aurelius (2nd century AD).

Please read the whole article. Note that I am not advocating we do not fight the evil that is overtaking our country. On the contrary, I think we need to fight, and more importantly, to win. But we can be bitter, or we can be happy warriors. I think it is important to be the happy warriors. For one thing, being happy drives the Left out of their minds.

I hope everyone had a good thanksgiving, and indeed, that all my readers were thankful for everything the Lord has given us.  It is too easy to take our lives for granted.  But an attitude of gratitude can go a long way toward making us less anxious.

We Will All Be Made To Care

Today at the American Thinker Fletch Daniels has an article entitled The Democratic Cold War on Christianity is Heating Up. The day is coming when all will be required to say to God, "I am with you" or "I am against you." The Left is forcing this, and Christians will be made to suffer for their beliefs. But Daniels, for the sake of publication in the American Thinker makes the article about politics and the electorate:

One of the great unknowns in terms of the future electorate is the effect the Democrats’ increasingly radical anti-faith stance will have on its voting coalition.

Black and Hispanic Democrats tend to be far more religious than the white Democrats who are driving the party’s agenda. Will this alliance hold as the party increasingly kowtows to vocal anti-Christian Marxists? Will these voters start to defect as Democrats intensify their open war on people of faith?

These questions arose this week when the sad story emerged that Chick-fil-A would no longer support three mainstream Christian-based charities; the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Paul Anderson Youth Home, all under the auspices that they are anti-LGBTQ.

While all that may be true, the real story is that the Left doesn't care about the LGBTQxyz people, nor does it have any compassion for these gender confused people. The Left sees this as a spear, and a wedge to drive between people pitting Christian against Christian, brother against brother and sister against sister. You will be made to care!

Any public person, group, company or church that identifies as Christian will be forced to take a stand on the question of whether or not they celebrate the LGBTQ lifestyle regardless of whether they want to or not, even if they barely care about the issue. That’s the plan. Because the Bible presents a clear position that is counter to the prevailing culture, it is an easy avenue of attack. The hate on this issue is one-sided. Christian theology teaches to love the sinner while hating the sin. Anti-Christian leftists practice hating the Christian while celebrating the sin. Christian unwillingness to celebrate the sin is the offense that cannot be overlooked.

A front-page article in USA Today noted that the Methodist church is about to split over this issue. Naturally, the article was sympathetic towards the LGBTQ movement and disparaging of Bible-believing Christians. But, churches that reject Biblical teaching have nothing left to stand on, for if some verses are untrue, then all of them can be cast into the fire. Churches that make these compromises become just another reflection of the dominant culture, salt that has lost its saltiness, which is indeed the point of the attacks.

Everyone, each individual, will be made to decide; whether I am on the side of God, or I am on the side of the culture, which unfortunately is on the side of The Evil One. For God is not on the side of men. God IS, and we must walk with him, not the other way around.

Mrs. PolyKahr once asked me how I became so radical. I told her that in truth, I have always believed these things. But as one by one my beliefs came under fierce attack, and I was forced to defend them, I went through a process of testing my beliefs against the arguments arrayed against them. Sometimes I changed beliefs, but that only made me more, in her words, "radical." That is because I found the arguments on the other side wanting.  They lacked truth.  Like all men though, I often come up short of my own beliefs, which requires me to pray for forgiveness and also strength and guidance.  Amen.

An Eclectic Post

Today's post will be necessarily short to allow you, gentle readers, to instead pursue the linked articles.  Reading all the linked articles, however, will take about an hour of your time, but the education is well worth it.

First up is John Dale Dunn's article from yesterday at the American Thinker entitled The Biological Challenge to Darwin. Dunn points in turn to a book by a Dr. Marcos Eberlin and to commentary by Dr. Ronald Cherry. Dunn:

Dr. Cherry provided me with a commentary titled “Zero Probability for Self-Generated Life” that I found compelling and worth summarizing and discussing for the many who are interested in the debate on the origination of life and the appearances of species of life, the question—does the Darwin Theory of Origin of Species hold up to modern scientific analysis that includes the microanatomy and microphysiology as well as the active complex biochemistry of the magic that is a living cell?

The life functions of a single human cell, as described by Dr. Cherry, are far more complex than the world's most capable supercomputer, and impossible for man to duplicate using non-living materials due to the complexity and the sub-microscopic size and fragility of biochemical and cellular elements that are critical to the development of more complicated functional living things, but also that provide for maintaining the survival of the “lesser” forms of cellular life. The complexity and rapidity of life-requiring DNA transcription into messenger RNA, and then ribosomal translation into enzymes and proteins of structure and function challenges human understanding.

Dunn's article provides some very strong evidence for an intelligent creator. Is it proof of God? Well, no, I don't think that it can be "proof" of the existence of God. To believe in God, and his plan of salvation for mankind requires faith. There will never be proof this side of the physical death. Naturally, I do not believe myself to be able to discern the "Will of God," but I do believe the Bible sets forth that Will. It is for me to have faith, hope in things unseen.  Please first go read Dunn's article.

Next up, also at the American Thinker today is Janice Shaw Crouse's article entitled Attorney General Barr Stands Athwart History, of course echoing the famous quote by William F. Buckley. Barr has given two speeches, one at Notre Dame and the other to the Federalist Society within the last two weeks.

The speech given at Notre Dame had to do with the place of religious liberty and indeed faith in the public square as envisioned by the Founders.  In that speech he points out that as fallen men, we need restraints.  As society has become more secular, self restraints have loosened, requiring more governmental restraints.  But governmental restraints are inferior to self restraints because these are one size fits all.  But go read Barr's speech.

Finally, also go read his speech at the Federalist society.  He points out that both Congress and the Courts have encroached on the power of the Executive.  As I have pointed out in the past, Congress has delegated its power to legislate to the three-letter agencies.  But that is not what the framers wanted.  Instead, the legislature should legislate.  The Executive should perform those functions for which an executive is most needed, such as foreign relations and the defense of the nation against a foreign enemy.  Again, go read the linked speech to the Federalist Society.

Boys get access to girls locker room

Today I want to highlight a story from the Daily Wire by Matt Walsh in which a an Illinois School District voted to allow biological boys into the girl's locker room. No mention is made of it, but I suspect that the boy who brought suit to force this was backed by powerful forces. But that really shouldn't have made a difference. The vote was morally wrong. It was also wrong on purely utilitarian grounds. Face it, it was just wrong.

Also please watch the Matt Welsh Show at the bottom of the article.  Matt tells us how he really feels.  Of course, Walsh feels compassion for these gender confused boys, right up until they want to have access to the girls's bathroom and locker room.  There's a reason boys and girls are traditionally separated and it is not because we are trying to protect the boys from the girls.

I have also watched as so called trans-women, who were men or boys, have taken championships in women's sports.  To me, this represents an unintended consequence of feminist arguments that claim there is no difference between men and women.  Of course we all know that is not true.  So every time I hear women complain, I want to say "I told you so."

But this is more serious.  As Walsh points out, the District could have done a number of things that would have preserved girls' privacy.   That they did not can only indicate either that they are ignorant, or evil.  I vote for evil.

Chick-Fil-A Surrenders To LGBTQXYZetc Mob

I've got to run today, but I recommend you read the following post from Matt Walsh today at the Daily Wire entitled Chick-Fil-A Just Caved To The Rage Mob. They're About To Learn The Hard Way That Surrendering Never Pays.

This is what Chick-fil-A will now learn the hard way, as have so many before them: You cannot appease the mob. It doesn’t matter if you give them what they want. It doesn’t matter if you fall to your feet, confess your sins, and beg forgiveness. All your self-abdication will do is empower and encourage your critics. They will not forgive you (not that Chick-fil-A needed forgiveness). This is an age of scalp-claiming, not mercy. Now they will happily take yours, celebrate the victory, and move on to the next target. You aren’t their friend now, or their ally. You’re just a trophy on their shelf. Congratulations, Chick-fil-A.

Oh well. Popeyes is better anyway.

The Santa Clarita Shooting Happened In Another Gun Free Zone

Cam Edwards at the website Bearing Arms has a post analyzing the latest school shooting in Santa Clarita, California. The killer was a 16 year old, who at the time of the writing survived the self inflicted head wound, no doubt meant to kill himself as well. A hat tip to David Hardy if the website Of Arms And The Law for pointing me to the post. The first thing to note is that California has every gun control wish list on its books, including Red Flag laws. They didn't stop the attack. Also, note that a person 16 year of age can not legally own a weapon, and yet, he had one.

Cam Edwards post can be found at Bearing Arms under the title Details Emerge In Santa Clarita Shooting, But Democrats Don't Wait For Facts. As an example of not waiting for facts to emerge, or even noticing that none of the proposals currently on the books would have made a difference at all:

Meanwhile, gun control activists like Shannon Watts from Moms Demand Action are trying to pin the blame on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, with the hashtag #MassacreMitch trending on Twitter. What gun control law passed by the House would have prevented this attack? It doesn’t matter. As long as they can try to blame Republicans or “the gun lobby” for a shooting that happened in a state with the most restrictive gun control laws in the country and a government that’s completely controlled by Democrats, they will.

The truth is, the person responsible for this shooting shot himself in the head after trying to murder his classmates. I don’t know or care what this 16-year old’s political beliefs are. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are to blame for today’s shooting. However, it’s a fact that you can have universal background checks, a ten day waiting period on firearms purchases, background checks on ammunition purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, microstamping, a “high capacity” magazine ban, red flag laws, “safe storage” laws, age restrictions on purchasing firearms, and dozens of other gun control laws and still have an attack like this happen.

And, of course, the gun grabbers know that more laws won't stop the killing. These school shootings and others like it are an excuse to disarm you and me.

Without Rights, What Do You Do When You Are In The Minority

Jeffery T. Brown writes yesterday at The American Thinker in an article entitled Natural Rights Versus Political Rights about the impending Socialist government that it seems our neighbors plan to impose on us. He has every reason to be worried. The fall of Virginia to the socialists, and the obvious glee with which the racist Governor Ralph Northam announced his plans to disarm Virginia residents tells us much. Perhaps when the Constitution is respected by those elected to office, one doesn't need a defensive weapon. But Socialists do not respect the Constitution because they deny the premises on which it is based.

A headline I read this weekend proclaimed that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, the Klan-hood-wearing gent formerly known at VMI as “Coonman,” was “working on” possible gun confiscation in Virginia now that money on the Left has successfully buried his racism and bought the legislature for their party. Aside from the obvious commentary about what happens when Democrats obtain power, the headline suggests a far deeper problem confronting our country. It is only a matter of time before anti-constitutional forces seize control of the Senate, or perhaps the White House, and when they do, what historically American citizens consider to be unalienable rights will suddenly disappear. The coming purge of natural rights is inevitable.

When we talk about natural rights, non-fascistic Americans understand this to be what is embodied in Bill of Rights, which are declarations enshrined to protect the individual from the tyranny of the government. These rights are considered innate natural rights, which vest in a person because of his humanity, rather than his political loyalties or beliefs. They are unalienable because they derive from that humanity, rather than one’s fear of or allegiance to a political party or government. Political rights, however, are what immoral politicians have empowered themselves to grant, and “rescind,” depending on whom the rights benefit. When it appears politically advantageous to gift a new right, meaning to manufacture a preference to benefit a political faction or interest group, regardless of the will of the general population, then that “right” will suddenly materialize to reward political fealty or to buy favor. When a politician or political mob believes that their opponents must be punished, then those same politicians will cancel natural rights that protect the equality and liberty of the citizens who are their enemies.

When God is acknowledged, then natural rights are unalienable. When government is god, then rights are the property of the government. After all, if God is merely imaginary, then so too is the supremacy of the human being as He created it because, as far as totalitarian fascists are concerned, He didn’t. It’s useful to recognize that socialism is atheistic, to help understand how they devalue life. If we can deny the divinity of God, we can devalue His creations, so that they are nothing more than pawns to be used and expended for the gain of those who would rule them. If human life has no natural value, because it is not of the divine, then there is nothing lost when it is extinguished. This is true no matter the stage of life of the one to be canceled. If human life has political value, however, then its value lies in its capacity for exploitation.

There is a reason Leftists constantly refer to our system of government as a "democracy." It's not that they are in love with the idea of democracy; quite the contrary. But in a pure democracy, your neighbor can vote away your rights. Now, anyone is free to give up his own rights. Anyone is free to sell himself into slavery. But what he is not free to do is to give up YOUR rights, or to sell YOU into slavery.  That is the reason our system of government is actually designed as a Constitutional republic.  The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular was set up to place certain natural rights off limits, and out of the reach of the your neighbor, or of power hungry politicians who know better than you how to live your life.

The idea that your neighbor can vote your rights away is also known as "collectivism," because rather than having individual rights which are off limits of infringement,  everyone is collectively at the mercy of the majority.  If you are in the majority, no doubt this seems reasonable.  But sooner or later, everyone finds themselves on the side of the minority.  What happens then?

Thus, when the Supreme Court decided for our entire country that human life is garbage while it is in the womb, the decision gave a prize to the left’s political supporters, but literally led to the political sacrifice of millions of human beings. “So what,” they tell us, “those aren’t human lives.” Indeed, as the same Governor Northam informed us during a radio interview concerning post-birth “abortion,” it isn’t even a human life when out of the womb and breathing on its own, unless the mother who sought its death says it is. Thus, the right to live will be granted to the child or taken from it by someone whom circumstance has placed in a position of superior power. Rights pass only through those who pretend to own and grant them, you see. They are political, not natural.

So, while many Christians believe that abortion is murder, they are forced to pay for thise procedures through their healthcare insurance as well as through their taxes. This is collectivism Similarly,

...concerning advocating confiscation of the tools of self-defense, the same political party has already previously operated on the premise that these sub-humans, whose utility lay in their role as servants and pawns, should never be allowed to defend themselves from their enslavers, who later became their political oppressors. The southern Democrats were fully aware that what they intended to do to their former possessions would get them shot, if their chattel had the unalienable right to arm and defend themselves. Thus, their political slaves were denied the Second Amendment. Then as now, those in power can only see the natural right of self-defense as dangerous if they are already aware that they intend to do things for which someone would justifiably have a right to shoot them.

The sad thing is that our Constitutional Republic, with its Bill of Rights allows each of us to live and let live. We may agree to disagree with our neighbors because we are assured that our neighbor can not take away our own rights. Socialism, or whatever collectivist system you call it, makes you and your neighbor enemies. There can be no peace in such a system because everyone finds him or herself in a minority.

Update: I noted today that more Canadians read my posts than people in the U.S. Not sure what is attracting you to the blog, but welcome.

Update 2:  Alan Korwin has another piece which makes the same point, only more pointedly.  His article can be found at They've Gone Too Far. The money quote is:

What I haven’t done is consider the dire threat politicians present to the nation, when they stoke the flames of revolution by doing precisely what the British did that got us there those many years ago. They have announced they’re coming for our guns. It is not subtle. It is not limited. It is not allowed.