Taking Our Country Back

Years ago, I remember a commenter who was responding to an anti-gunner who had made a statement that, and I paraphrase here, those who wanted to own guns should move to a country where it was legal.  It was an outrageously ignorant statement and I remember that the commenter responded "Well, when I was born, it was legal to own guns here.  I didn't change, the country changed around me."  I can't help but feel that sentiment is true about almost every detail of life.  The United States I was born into is no longer where I live, though I have not moved.

And we may be heading for a showdown.

Robert Arvay again has a post at the American Thinker entitled Is the USA Headed For a Violent Revolt in 2020? in which he makes the case that the two sides are so divided and so distrustful of the other that either way the vote comes out, the other will cry foul. His analysis seems to me to be spot on. Arvay goes back to basic principles, and notes that the two sides, designated "right" and "left" have fundamental philosophies that can not be reconciled by a compromise. One side inevitably loses in any compromise. There are no win-win compromises available that will satisfy.

In 2019, we have for many years been witnessing the growing divide between two opposing political philosophies, loosely termed "right" and "left" or conservative and liberal, but the names do not capture the real cores of the two sides. Essentially, the right believes in individuality, the Left in collectivism.

Read the entire post. Be prepared. I suspect things will get worse before they get better, if they ever do get better.

Sumatra Maitra, over at The Federalist explains why we need to disengage from the Middle East, and our small wars in Whocaresistan, and bring our troops home to secure our border. His latest piece is entitled The Nations In America's Backyard Are Falling Apart While U. S. Remains Stuck In The Middle East. Again go and read Maitra's thoughtful piece.

Read it? Good.

Now, here is why I have I believe these two pieces belong together.  The Left is proceeding apace to take over this country by any means necessary. They are using the Courts as a way to rewrite the laws as they see fit. They are using their supremacy in the education bureaucracy to indoctrinate your children, and they are doing a very good job of turning out incredibly ignorant people who will vote for them. And they are replacing traditional Americans with horders of Third
Worlders who have no respect for, or understanding of, our system of government.  Now, lest someone accuse me of being a xenophobe, let me state that I am all for legal immigration, but strictly against illegal immigration.  A proper reform of our immigration laws would recognize that those coming into our country must have something of value to add to our already accomplished population.

Please remember that our system grew up organically from very ancient roots in the Viking tribes that established the English world. Remember that England was a land over run by first the Celts, then the Anles, Saxons, and Jutes (from Denmark and Northern Germany) and then the Norman invasion. But the Normans were actually the Vikings who invaded France a generation before. Our unique form of government grew out of these cultural roots. One can not simply "give" another an understanding of and appreciation for our unique system. It is complex, and requires much from the governed. As we are learning, even people long accustomed to it do not always appreciate it.

If we can cut off the Left's supply of new voters, and put Trump in for another 4 years, to change the judiciary sufficiently, we might just stand a chance.  Our next task is to retake the educational system.  The purpose of a liberal education is to teach a child how to think, not what to think.  We need more institutes of higher learning like Hillsdale College.

Indeed, if we do not take back our country today, we may not be able to take it back tomorrow.

There Ought To Be a Law...

I have commented in the past that the justice system often perversely delivers injustice to Americans.  There are literally too many laws, and often enough a new law just makes an older crime illegaller than it already was.  Such redundancy serves to make the law confusing to the people trying to obey it.  I remember teaching a session on compliance with asbestos laws to Navy compliance officers.  One of the things I stressed was that every base was different, in that there were Federal, State, and often local laws, that had to be simultaneously satisfied.  Redundancy of the laws on asbestos meant that in some cases, the laws may work to cross purposes, which would leave the hapless compliance officer with a conundrum.

In the years since, the justice system has only become more degraded.  The abundance of laws has made the normal American a potential criminal at every stage.  As an example, there are already laws on the books making it illegal to drive distracted.  It doesn't matter what distracts a driver, whether it is tuning the radio, answering a cell phone, eating a McDonald's biscuit, or putting on makeup.  So, making it illegal specifically to text while driving is just making that one thing even more illegaller.  It is already illegal if it distracts.

As adults, we should be able to make a determination that we should not answer the phone if we are in heavy traffic, or we need our full attention on the road and our driving.  Making laws like these simply infantalizes the population.  It sends the message that without Big Brother, we couldn't possibly make a decision in our own best interests.

Today at the American Thinker, Robert Arvay has a post entitled How America's Justice System Is Beginning To Crumble. Of course, our justice system is crumbling because in many cases, high ranking individuals, particularly Democrats, seem to get away with things for which lesser personages are put in prison for long terms. But Arvay is not talking about these sorts of injustices. Instead, he is writing about every day criminal justice practices that need serious reform. Things like plea bargaining, for example, or the fact that prosecutors often have seemingly unlimited budgets versus defendants that are often bankrupted defending themselves.

Arvay doesn't offer any solutions in this post.  But I can think of some.  If, after spending the time, and the expense of bringing in expert witnesses, other than the police, and the prosecution still can not secure a conviction, the state should have to pay the defendants costs of defend himself.  There are other things that may make the justice system more fair.

To use the bridge analogy, once a bridge has become visibly and seriously corroded, the need for repair does not require an expert to call attention to it. In the case of the justice system, most of us can recognize its glaring problems and can offer useful suggestions for remedy. The danger signs are obvious and ominous. In many cases, the remedy is suggested merely by identifying the problem and admitting that it is a serious defect in the system. This is the age of "see something, say something," and more of us need to get involved.

At one time we took pride in the fact that our system was designed such that we were more likely to let a guilty man go free rather than put an innocent man in jail. Today, more and more, that doesn't seem the case.

Too often the innocent are encouraged to plead guilty to a lesser crime rather than risk being prosecuted for a more serious one and going to prison for a long term. Then there are prosecutors who seemingly make their reputation by getting convictions, either by hook or by crook. In the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, prosecutor Mike Nifong attempted to railroad the accused Duke team in an attempt I am sure of getting noticed for a higher office. Fortunately for these young men, their parents had plenty of money and eventually they prevailed.  In this instance, eventually the AG Cooper intervened to declare that the Duke players were innocent and Nifong was disbarred.  But this doesn't happen nearly enough.  Indeed, it was the first time in North Carolina history.

Prosecutors need to again see their part in the justice system as achieving true justice, which means arriving as close as possible to the truth.  The legal profession needs to hold prosecutors to a higher standard of conduct in providing exculpatory information that comes into their possession, and severely censor them when they don't.  Finally, the state should have to pay the cost of defense when someone who has been prosecuted has been found innocent.  Such would make the prosecutors less eager to pursue marginal cases. 

Oh, and the next time someone says "There ought to be a law",,, 

What the Left Really Wants

Apparently I must again address what is real versus what is the Left's magical thinking.  Just as a Rutgers University professor of "gender studies" claimed that the cause of fat black women was due to racism.  Of course, it is no such thing.  Instead, as I posted, fat black women, like fat white women and fat Latin women, and indeed, fat people everywhere, are fat becuase of their diets.

Today, I noted that the Seattle School District has determined, against all evidence to the contrary, that mathematics is a tool of oppression of minorities according to a post at The American Thinker by Eric Utter. This claim indicates a profound misunderstanding of just what mathematics is. As an engineer, in acquiring my major, I necessarily acquired a minor in mathematics because of the amount of math necessary to perform as an engineer. Math is entirely neutral in terms of politics, in terms of race, national origin, sexual orientation, or any other way of dividing us that the Left may invent. The concept of "Western mathematics" is also utterly and profoundly wrongheaded.

I will not quote the article, as I usually do.  Gentle readers can read the article for themselves.  Instead, I want to point out that progressives who espouse these trash theories are doing a huge disservice to those for whom they claim to be working.  Mathematics is the means by which we can understand how the physical phenomena that make up our lives actually work.

Think about the many electronic devices you use daily.  The components that make up the circuits in your smart phone, your computer, your television or radio are all defined by mathematics.  Where are you reading this article?  If it is inside, look up and note that the roof was designed by an engineer using mathematics and science.  Indeed, the definition of an engineer is one who applies science to solve practical problems.  When you got up this morning, one of the first things you did no doubt was to open the water tap to pour yourself some water.  The entire chain of pipes, valves, pumps, and storage tanks are defined by mathematics and the science of hydraulics.

I can also tellyou that mathematics is universal, being the same at every point in the universe.  2 + 2 always equals 4, no matter where you are.  Historians of mathematics will know that the Europeans learned algebra from the Arabs, who had developed it as a way to further their mercantile efforts.  As the saying goes, unless you know your numbers, you don't know your business.  Europeans, however were more interested in finding ways to discover how God's creation worked, believing in the Christian idea of a rational God.  Slowly, they discovered more and deeper mathematics as they discovered more and more of the inner workings of God's creation.  Issac Newton is credited with discovering the calculus as a way to describe his laws of motion and gravity.

Light travels at a speed of approximately 186,000 miles every second.  Compared to light, we are essentially standing still.  Even traveling at the sound barrier as some jet airplanes can do, we are still essentially standing still.  Newton's laws it turns out are not themselves universal.  Einstein updated Newton by making it more general to include things that travel at or close to the speed of light.  This discovery has unlocked the world of subatomic particles, and shown us yet more, and more amazing parts of God's great and amazing creation.

The Left constantly claims that they are on the side of science, but how can a person rightly be "on the side of" something of which he has no understanding.  It is also true that the Left has a well deserved antipathy to the Christian and Jewish religion.  Perhaps this attack on mathematics is a reflection of the fact that the Left has always wanted to make the world as it thinks it should be rather than as it is. The Left has always promised a Utopia, a heaven on Earth.  The Bible tells us though, that Utopia can't exist, that such a thing is impossible until Christ comes again, which explains the Left's antipathy.

Just as the Left promotes the notion that one can change one's gender by declaring it to be so, just as the claim that abortion is not murder, or that the fact of climate change is due to  a gas that makes up a mere 4 parts per million parts, or 0.0004% of the atmosphere.  Seem silly?  If they understood mathematics and science, it wouldn't pass the smell test of most of our citizens.  But maybe that is what the Left actually wants.

Racism Has Nothing To Do With Being Fat

So, a black professor of gender studies at Rutgers University has claimed, according to Fox News, that black women are disproportionately fat because of racism.

Wait...What?

Now, I'm a sixty something white male who has had to battle the bulge all my life, and I can tell this professor of "gender studies" which isn't actually a thing, that the reason she and a disproportionate number of others of all races are fat is because of what they stuff in their mouths.  The "epidemic" of obesity that is plaguing the United States has everything to do with the diet most of us eat, and nothing to do with racism.

For many years I was on the Atkins diet and its variations such as the Protein Power diet. There's also the paleo diet. What these diets have in common is that they are supposedly "ketogenic." Ketones are the results of the breakdown of fats into smaller units that your body can use for energy. Your brain especially likes to use ketones above all other sources of energy. These diets work in theory, up to a point.  But they usually stop working before you get down to your goal weight.  Why this happens is the "rest of the story" below.

The problem with these so called ketogenic diets is that they all share the fear of fats with which we have all been indoctrinated.  The Protein Power diet should have been called the "Eat Fat and Lose" diet.  That's the first thing.  But not all fats are good for you.  Vegetable oils sch as corn oil and peanut oil are a no no.  On the other hand, you should eat plenty of olive oil, coconut oil, medium chain triglycerides (MCT) oil and ghee.  In fact, Dr. Steven Gundry (see below) says that the main purpose of eating anything is to get as much olive oil in your mouth as you can.

Your body can either run on glucose, or it can run on fats.  Your body can store about 24 hours worth of glucose, at which time if it doesn't get more food, it must switch over to burning fats.  The fats that it burns, of course are stored on your body, and you have easily a weeks worth or more.  Indeed, eating quality fats is key to getting into ketosis and staying there.  But once in ketosis, your hunger subsides, and you find you don't need as much food as you thought you did. 

The other thing is that you can, and should eat a lot of vegetables and even some carbohydrates.  The plants you should be eating include a variety of vegetables such as lettuce, carrots, broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, as well as more esoteric vegetables such as fennel.  On the other hand, you shouldn't eat grain and grain products such as bread, corn bread, cereals, including oatmeal.  Nor should you eat fruits except in season, and then only in very limited amounts.  Oh, and none of the nightshade family, which includes regular potatoes, and tomatoes.

The breakthrough for me came when I read a book by Dr.Steven Gundry entitled The Plant Paradox. Gundry claims to have found the answers. I suspect he has found maybe 90% of the answer to obesity. But that 90% means after all these years, I have lost 62 pounds and counting. More important, I have especially lost fat in the intestinal area.

The secret that Gundry discovered was the effect of lectins.  Lectins are the plant kingdoms form of chemical warfare.  Lectins are the way plants protect themselves and more especially their seeds from being eaten.  Lectins cause havoc in the human gut, causing "leaky gut," and limiting absorption of nutrients.  Taken with eating grains, which have a high lectin load of their own, and the meats we typically eat being fed grains as well, it's no wonder we are all getting fatter and fatter.  Then there is the fact that insulin has the function of storing fat when the cells in your body when the cells in the body are already full of glucose.

So, there you have it.  Eat more quality fats, eat more of the types of vegetables that contain less lectins, eat less meats, and get rid of processed foods.  Racism has nothing to do with it.

It Is Looking Like Civil War in Mexico

Today, at The Federalist John Daniel Davidson has an article entitled A Drug Cartel Just Defeated The Mexican Military In Battle. You may have heard about this on the news. In the city of Culiacan, the capitol of Sinaloa Province, the Mexican military and the cartel had a major battle, in which the cartel defeated the military. Now this is in a country where, according to law, nobody is supposed to have guns. There is one gun store in the entire country, located in Mexico City. Civilians can not own a gun which fires any round that has been adopted by a police agency or a military anywhere in the world, which pretty much means they are confined to .22 Long Rifle, and .38 Super Auto. So much for the public safety claims of the gun grabbers.

Armed with military-grade weapons and driving custom-built armored vehicles, cartel henchmen targeted security forces throughout Culiacan, launching more than one dozen separate attacks on Mexican security forces. They captured and held hostage eight soldiers, then kidnapped their families. Amid the fighting, an unknown number of inmates escaped from a nearby prison. At least eight people were killed and more than a dozen were injured.

The eight-hour battle ended when government forces, outgunned and surrounded, without reinforcements or a way to retreat, received an order directly from Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to release their prisoner and surrender. Lopez Obrador later defended this decision, insisting that his security strategy is working and saying, “Many people were at risk and it was decided to protect people’s lives. I agreed with that, because we don’t do massacres, that’s over.”

Now, while the Democrats and the squishy Republicans are decrying President Trump's decision to pull out of yet another endless war in Syria, where our national interests are at best fuzzy, here we have a collapsing state right on our Southern border, and if past is prologue, the current civil war in Mexico is likely to spill over and affect Americans.  Ranchers living along the Texas border might need those AR-15s.

I am sure that Trump is not among the gentle readers of this blog, but if I were in his position, I would ask the the Acting SecDef review plans for defending the Southern border and begin implementing movement of supplies and other logistics to the nearest bases along that border, with building up of men (and women, of course) as we can see more clearly the likely outcome.  As for where to obtain the men, why the Middle East looks like a good place.

Meanwhile, for those who are gentle readers, as always, you are your own first responders. Keep your powder dry.

Christians Need To Speak Up, Or Lose the Right To Speak

I didn't watch the Democrat Presidential debates, but I did hear the advertisement put on by the Freedom From Religion Foundation that ran during the debate.  I heard it on the radio the next day and I was appalled.  There is no Constitutional right to not hear or see anything related to God or religion. Indeed, the Constitution, rightly understood, allows each of us to practice his or her religion as his or her consceince may require. That may mean those who do not want to participate may hear prayers being said. They don't have to participate.

Interestingly, Tom Trinko today at the  American Thinker in an article entitled Atheists Call For Establishing Atheism As The National Religion makes the point that atheism itself is a religion. He makes a case for the notion that atheists live by faith just as much as those who believe in the God of Creation, but with less evidence or reason.

The FFRF works hard to impose its faith-based beliefs on America by using dishonest judges to exclude people of faith from the public square. They're constantly suing to end voluntary prayer in public settings. They apparently believe that the 3% of Americans who are atheist have the right to never hear anything religious, and the 84-plus percent of Americans who are religious have to shut up and sit down as a result.

The reality is that atheism is based on pure blind faith and hence is a faith-based belief system just like every other religion.

Atheism is a faith-based belief system because while atheists lack a belief in God, their position depends on them believing a number of other things that they can't prove to be true, including:

- God is unlikely — they use that to reject all evidence for God, saying it's not good enough. We don't have free will — Professor Hawking has shown that if there is no God, then we can't have free will, but we know that we do have free will.

- Everything in the universe can be explained by purely physical causes — science is a process, and it says nothing about what it will or won't explain, so this is a purely blind, faith-based claim. But if there is anything in the universe that isn't based on purely physical things there must be a god of some sort.

- The Bible is wrong — atheists can't prove that the accounts by men who died under torture rather than deny that they saw Jesus rise from the dead is wrong; they can only have blind faith that it is wrong.

- All of the miracles in the past 2,000 years are fake — given that atheist scientists and doctors have declared that multiple miracles are inexplicable, this atheist belief is based on faith, not facts.

While Trinko is concerned about our Constitutional rights, which it is true are based on the fact that they are inalienable, given to use by our Creator. They can not be taken from us by any man, or government. Indeed, when a government attempts to deny these rights, that government becomes illegitimate, and subject to being overthrown by the people.

The idea that men, not God, are the source of our rights can lead to unimaginable horror. Both slavery and the Holocaust were the results of the government defining certain human beings to not be persons and hence to not have rights. So long as we believe that our rights are from God, then we know that government can't revoke them.

But if the FFRF and the Democrats win and all our rights are suddenly not inalienable, we will be headed down a very dangerous path, with the freedom of groups of Americans existing only so long as the political party in power supports those rights.

However, my concern is of course my rights, but more important is my need to follow what I believe to be the Biblical form of Christianity. The Democrats have said that if a church does not go along with the LGBTQxyz agenda, or abortion, or indeed any of the left's ever changing agenda, there will be consequences.  No doubt those consequences will become more severe as they discover that the tax codes will not scare us sufficiently.

But noting that the final books of the Bible were written within 60 years of the Crucifixion, it can not be changed.  Oh, surely some people try to "reinterpret" the Biblical truth just as some judges try to "reinterpret" the Constitution.  But neither can be held to be legitimate.  The Bible can not be changed, and the Constitution can only be changed by the methods written into that document.

Please go read the whole article.  It is well worth your time.

Changing courses slightly, Tim Wildmon has an article article at  Townhall.com entitled Five Truths Most Americans Are Afraid to Say. These truths include that God matters, that Absolute Truth matters, that Strong Marriages and Families matter, that the Bible matters, and that the Church matters.

These things do indeed matter. If more of the people believe these things, the culture survives. If they cease to believe that these Truths matter, God is quite willing to let the culture go its own way. There is always, of course, a remnant who cling to the Bible and their churches. But God wants a relationship with His people, and if someone doesn't want a relationship, God will not force it. He will find someone else.

In the Old Testament, when a country falls, it's fall is attributed to God.  God withdraws his support for those nations who do not seek God's will.  But God is also merciful, and as the Prophet Jonah found out, if a country repents, God spares that country.

We Christians need to speak up, or we may lose the right to speak up. 

Red Flag Laws are Dangerous and Unconstitutional

Yesterday, at the American Thinker Daniel John Sobieski convincingly explained that Beto Would Risk Another Waco. But before gettin ino that, he provided a bit of background of which you should be aware.

 For example, the Democrats specifically excluded gangbangers from their proposed red flag laws. Why? The police certainly have more on gangbangers than on random law abiding citizens. Yet the Democrats don't want to take away gang members weapons. They want to take away law abiding citizens's guns.  Again, why, if the goal is to get guns out of the hands of dangerous killers?

Then there is the dangerous possibility at any time that an innocent citizen will be killed during a police raid to carry out a court order to confiscate a citizen's guns.  This has already happened when police knocked on Gary Willis's door at 5:17 am.  Willis answered the door with a gun, as who wouldn't?  One isn't usually awakened at 5:17 am by a knock on one's door.  And while police no doubt announced themselves, we have all heard of bad guys claiming to be police to gain entry.  In the ensuing confusion - remember that Willis had no knowledge that he had been "red flagged" by a relative - police killed Willis.  Democrats evidently view his death as a feature, not a bug.

So, of course readers will be aware of Beto's outspoken desire to confiscate not only semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15, but really all firearms.  Presumably, looking to England, eventually he would also want to ban knives.  But what is he going to do about fists, feet, and rocks?  Ban those too?  Here is Beto in an interview with Joe Scarborough as reported at Townhall.com

Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke said "there have to be consequences" for gun owners who do not surrender their AR-15s, which would include police going to their homes and confiscating them.

The former Democratic Texas congressman was pressed by "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough on Wednesday after the fourth Democratic presidential debate.

"OK, but let’s just assume there’s a rancher in Texas that doesn’t, that says, 'I’m not going to do this because this is an unjust law and it’s unconstitutional.' What’s the next step? I think that’s what we need to concede because there will be people that don’t turn the guns back in. What’s the next step for the federal government there?" Scarborough asked.

"Yeah, I think just as in any law that is not followed or flagrantly abused, there have to be consequences or else there is no respect for the law," O'Rourke replied. "So you know, in that case I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm and to make sure that it is purchased, bought back so that it cannot be potentially used against somebody else."

Putting it all together, it is clear that the Democrats are not the least bit concerned about the one or tow people with guns killing others, but with the 80 million innocent gun owners who didn't kill anyone. Why is that? Not being a Democrat, I can only speculate, but I suspect from reading the tea leaves on other things they are pushing, that they realize they can not achieve them while gun owners have a potential veto. But, you say, what does any of this have to do with Waco? Allow me to quote again:

Beto’s response to Scarborough is frightening on multiple levels and harkens the mind back to the day when a group of bitter clingers assembled in Waco, Texas. They were perceived to be a threat, and the guns they possessed were said to be illegally and/or dangerous. In what may be called an early application of a red flag confiscation order, government agents laid siege to their compound followed by an assault that resulted in the deaths of 76 men, women and children on April 19, 1993.

The Republicans are often described as the Stupid Party. The Democrats, on the other hand, have become the party of evil. They have embraced celebrating abortion, the killing of innocent children for the convenience of the mother. They have embraced a religion of earth worship, and have claimed that if we don't do something about climate change now, we will go extinct in 12 years. They have convinced an entire generation of children of this ridiculous idea. That is child abuse. While I am inclined to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, until these people repent, I can not vote for them, and I hope gentle readers will also not vote for them.

Getting Out of Endless Wars

At Townhall.com Kurt Schichter makes the case that The Elite Hate the Trump Doctrine Because It Puts America First. I have not liked all of Trumps policies, particularly his waffling on gun rights. But I have appreciated his putting American interests ahead of foreign interests in matters such as border enforcement, trade, and the ending of American involvement in endless wars. These are all good things. Other countries' leaders do the same thing. Russia seeks hegemony over the whole world. China does too. They seek it because then they can impose their wishes on the World, and...shockingly enough...they and their people will become rich. But each of these countries will become rich by exploiting other countries, not by building better mouse traps. We have become rich by building better mouse traps. But since our elites don't build much of anything, they want to tear down the system that encourages people to build better mouse traps.

 Here's Schlichter:

What our betters – those same smug geniuses who brought us Iraq, let NATO deadbeats string us along, and who let Mexico and China exploit us – truly hate is the fact that the American people stood up in 2016 and demanded that our foreign policy stop sucking. Americans are sick of always getting handed the bill for some lame ruling caste priority, whether it’s paying for the privilege of defending Europe on behalf of ungrateful continentals or funding the weird climate religion or letting China get rich off of gutting our industries. Mostly, we are sick of shipping our magnificent warriors off to die in ill-conceived, poorly-planned, ineptly-executed wars where we ended up shedding our boys’ (and girls’) blood refereeing fights that go back a dozen centuries.

The coastal elite gets to bask in the radiance of its own moral superiority for deploying young people in camo from Nebraska farms and Texas towns, and we get to hold the funerals.

Hard pass.

Here's the problem. When you've got a large, well fed and funded military, you have to use it to justify keeping it large, well fed and well funded. So, the liberals kept insisting that we use our military as the policemen of the World. But we are not the World's policemen. Nobody has assigned this job to us. We have just assumed the position...for what? Republicans should be in favor of reducing our military force to a minimum and using the money to pay off our debts. Now some of these debts no doubt can be written off because they were incurred helping others in their wars. But after writing down our debts incurred fighting other peoples wars, we still have huge national debts. A debtor nation is not entirely free to act. Just as one who is in debt must pay the one who holds the mortgage, so a debtor nation must do as the one who holds its bonds instructs.

Second, and I should have put this first, wars involve killing.  God's Sixth Commandment states that  "Thou Shall Not Murder."  Now, war may come to us, in the form of a foreign invasion, in which case we are bound to defend ourselves.  If one must kill in such circumstances, it is justified.  However, when we go overseas to another country and kill others who would not be shooting at us if we weren't there, I suspect our God would frown upon such behavior.  Getting into little wars all over the world may have made sense in the Cold War days, when we were trying to contain Russian aggression, but today we are in classic "balance of power" politics.  And we don't have to take the gambit of being the World's policemen.

Getting out of wars requires getting out of wars. And sometimes, it’s going to be ugly. But unless you can explain to the family of a dead soldier why it’s worth it to stay, it’s not worth it to stay. The American people, at least those who aren’t in DC or the media, understand that every problem around the world is not our problem. If you’re one of those Citizens of the World, then feel free to enlist in the Army of the World. Just count us out of your bloody altruism.

Amen

Keep a Weather Eye on China

Today at The Federalist Sumatra Maitra has a think piece entitled Selling U. S. Manufacturing To China Did Not Make It More Free. Perhaps it was 16 or 17 years ago I remember reading a paper that claimed we would be at war with the Chinese in the next 20 years. The paper, and I can not recall the title or the author, sorry, made a pretty good case. Having watched the Chinese become ever more aggressive, I think the paper was prescient. We should not take the Chinese as being no threat to us, for that is exactly what they mean to be.

Back to the premise of the article, however, the first thing to note is that, as is usually the case, the policies of the liberal elite, starting with Richard Nixon, have failed us miserably.  Who knows what Nixon promised the ChiComs when he "opened" China, but whatever it was, it was not good.  The British, under pressure from China, and no doubt the United States as well, gave up Hong Kong, a colony of Great Britain, to the Chinese.  Now the Chinese want to exercise their tyranny over Hong Kong, and the people of that tiny outpost are resisting.  Well, good for them!  We the American Citizens need to stand with them in spirit.

Maitra writes:

China is a threat, but far bigger threats are the woke corporatists who would sell their mother for the market. Footballers and female soccer players can take a knee against the American flag, but they’re silent and self-censorious about any atrocity in Hong Kong.

Apple can silently delete the Taiwan flag emoji to appease its overlords in Beijing. Google can refuse to work with the Pentagon, while helping Beijing implement the strongest secretive surveillance state. Hollywood actors can stop working in the Southern states because local abortion laws hurt their feelings, but they have no problem prostituting themselves for the vast Chinese market despite actual concentration camps in Xinjiang. This is the logical extreme of the free-market dogma, which is a dogma because it has forgotten that sometimes the market should be subservient to national interest.

As Epictetus once wrote, “He is a wise man who does not grieve for the things which he has not, but rejoices for those which he has.” The seeds of destruction are often within, and the loss of a way of life is often felt when it is lost. One should keep that wisdom in mind as a former Cold War rival returns to form in the Far East.

The usual suspects flew into a rage when Trump recently "ordered" U. S. companies to bring back the manufacturing base they had outsourced to China. Of course every adult knows that Trump can't actually do that. But it is wise for President Trump to suggest that they do in fact bring back their manufacturing base. Why? Because when we do have to face off against China, it might be embarrassing to have to ask the Chinese to send us the spare parts we need to continue fighting the war. That is what Germany and Japan found out in WWII.  If you don't make it yourself, you are vulnerable.  Japan didn't have oil at home.  Germany had coal, but no oil either.

 Kurt Schlichter has a post over at Townhall.com which raises similar points, in his own inimical style, entitled China + Liberal Elite: Get A Room.

The NBA can’t disrespect Americans enough for knowing which bathroom to use, or having guns, or not being sufficiently woke, but let the Chinese communists get fussy because some dude dunks the reds over oppression in Hong Kong – you know, supporting freedom – and the billionaire ballers can’t gimp it up fast enough for Mao’s heirs. We haven’t seen such pathetic, eager submission to the forces of evil since the last time some Bulwark scribbler got a chance to be on a CNN panel about Trump with Ana Navarro and a cross-dressing furry.

Of course, you realize don't you, that the NBA is a business corporation just like Google, who is helping the Chinese perpetrate their vast tyrannical state, or Apple, or the company that sewed the shirt on your back. Oh, and let us not forget Smithfield Pork. I do love bacon, but I won't buy Smithfield.

This latest craven capitulation to foreign potentates by our loser leaders just reaffirms what those of us who are conservawoke know – that our elitists are not for us. They are for themselves, and that means they are for their overseas paymasters. They are for China, not only for that sweet, sweet commie cash, but because the Chinese Communist Party’s stranglehold on the Chinese people provides them with a template for doing the same thing to us. Think of it – a country without accountability or restraint upon the anointed few. Wait a minute, that sounds like Washington, D.C. today – at least if you’re a Democrat.

It’s almost a cliché about how New York Times hacks gush over how lucky the Chinese rulers are not to have to worry about things like the consent of the governed. It sure is easy to do the things you and your pals want done – but the people don’t want done – when the people don’t get a say. That’s our elite’s not-so-secret fantasy – to be able to impose whatever nonsense they desire upon us without us being able to object. Whether it’s converting us at straw-point to their weird climate religion, wiping out our history and culture, or simply covering up the corruption of its own – like Hairplug One’s yayo-yiffing, zipper-dropping son – the total control exercised by its efficient rulers makes China their role model.

Indeed, one thinks it may be possible that the Democrats may be doing the bidding of China, of course for their own selfish ends, but also to make room for tyrannies around the world, such as Turkey, and of course China, to act out. To the rest of the world, the current impeachment bruhaha makes Trump look weak. He is not, but what do the Dems care about our own security? Not much.

I urge you, gentle readers, to keep a weather eye out for China. ​Of course, go and read both articles, and anything else you can get your hands on concerning China and our current trade war.  The corporations doing business in China have shown themselves to be quite willing to sell the Chinese the rope with which to hang us.

I am not in favor of boycotts, but at the same time, why should you spend your hard earned money supporting companies that do not support your principles.  But it is difficult to extract oneself from the tangled web of economical ties we have gotten ourselves into.  Do your best. 

Why I Carry A Gun

Introduction:

After carrying my gun, on and off, for several years, reading anything and everything I can get my hands on about guns, and participating at the range, dry firing practice, and other things, I have few illusions left about the nature of carrying a weapon. I am not a Rambo, nor am I a particularly good shot. A handgun is, at most, a compromise weapon. It small size means that the ammunition needs to be underpowered for a human size target, in order to remain controllable. It small size also means that the effective range of the weapon can be measured in feet, not hundreds of yards. The pistol is truly a defensive weapon, unlike the rifle, which can be either offensive or defensive nature.

Because it is easily concealed, it is the perfect weapon to carry wherever you may go, yet have your hands free to do your daily chores. But because of the compromised nature of the weapon, it is intended to buy a person time to get away, or get to his rifle or shotgun. Hollywood movies, often show people rapidly firing and hitting their targets, often at ridiculous distances, seemingly without aiming. I am always "impressed" with the man, or woman, shooting in two directions with two handguns, as rapidly as possible, and hitting the intended targets. In the Hollywood version, the handgun is incredibly lethal. But in real life, a handgun is used to stop a deadly attack, not to kill the attacker. From my experience, there may be a few elite individuals, perhaps one or two in each generation, who can pull off these Hollywood type stunts. I marvel whenever I see such shows of mastery, but I harbor no illusions as to my own abilities.

Yet, while a handgun is light in weight and easily concealed, it is a great burden on the wearer. I find myself more and more each day trying to always find a way to avoid a fight, if one should come my way. If it cannot be avoided, then keeping myself under control, not letting my emotions over run myself, because I have a gun. Like the samurai of Japan, I have adopted a philosophy that argues that if I am truly successful at carrying this weapon, I will never need to draw it. I carry a cell phone. On my walks, I carry a stick. If a discussion becomes heated, and the other person threatens to become belligerent, I do my best to back away. I no longer drink, and I avoid going into bars at night, when the worst elements are out and about. I find myself scanning my surroundings more, rather than walk around with my head in a cloud. I look for bad guys, with the intention of avoiding them before an altercation can ensue. I find myself walking out of a place if someone's actions disturb me, rather than confront them. I don't want to endanger innocent others in the name of protecting myself or my loved ones.

Ultimately, a handgun is only a tool, and in today's world, one can do very well without it. While I believe every man should carry a pocket knife at all times, I have to acknowledge that this tool likewise can be dispensed with. Fewer things need cutting, and the world is a much safer place than it was, even a generation ago. I applaud, and take advantage of all the innovations I can afford. But still I carry a gun, as I do a pocket knife.  Because "you never know whats around the corner."

A right of citizenship:

The defense of self is a natural right of all human beings. The right exists prior to, and independent of any government that may be established. In nature, if a predator attacks you, whether that predator has four legs or two, you have the right to defend yourself. When God says "You shall not murder,” he also means that if someone attacks you with the intent to kill, you have the right, even the duty, to respond, with deadly force if necessary. By not defending yourself, you spurn the great gift that God has given you, in essence committing suicide. When the Constitution was written, and the Bill of Rights was adopted, this natural right was recognized, but not granted, by adopting the 2nd amendment.

It is noteworthy that the ability to keep and bear arms was incorporated into the Constitution of the United States. It shows that the Government trusted its citizens to be able to have arms, and that those arms would never be used against the State. But it also meant that if the State became tyrannical, and all other means had failed to seek relief through the Executive, the Legislature, or the Courts, that people should take up arms to set things right. This possibility was foreseen, and discussed by Madison, Jefferson, and a number of the other Founders. Indeed, that is the reason the first ten Amendments to the Constitution were ratified. The people were so concerned that one or another of the branches of government might usurp their limited role in government, and wanted to ensure that certain things would never be done. Clearly, Congress has made laws curbing free speech, and there are many laws on the books infringing the right to keep and bear arms by law abiding people, so in retrospect, the people had some reason to be concerned.

For these reasons, I think of carrying a gun as a right of citizenship, similar to voting, and expressing my opinion to my representatives in Congress. If my State recognizes my right to carry a firearm for self defense, I am a citizen of that State. I can meet any representative of Government on the level, and reason with him. The representative cannot do otherwise because we are both armed. But if my State denies my right, I am a subject of that state, a very different proposition. The State can order me about, and there is very little I can do about it. My State does recognize my rights, if imperfectly. For instance, the State does not allow me to carry on any State owned property. This fact makes me suspicious that the State is not entirely trustworthy itself. When the Federal government says I cannot carry on a Federal installation, again, I wonder if the Federal Government is entirely to be trusted. If a government is acting correctly, and above board, there should be no reason why a citizen cannot carry a gun into any State, or County, or Municipal building. On the other hand, municipalities like Chicago, or Washington DC has no citizens, only subjects. Such people had better hope to remain anonymous from a Government that may take it into its head at any moment to do them more harm.

A Civic Duty:

One of the trends since the 1960s has been to have men, especially, vent their emotions. Whether doing so has been therapeutic, or not, the practice has made all of us seem more childish. An adult should be able to control his emotions at all times, and particularly when he carries with him the means of killing another human being. The lack of guns, strange as that may sound, is partly to blame for the general lack of emotional control seen in society today. It is an often quoted remark of Robert Heinlein that "an armed society is a polite society," but for all that it has become trite, it is still true. When each member of society is aware that everyone else is similarly armed, everyone remains more guarded in their speech and actions. People cannot afford to have outbursts. Ad hominem attacks as a substitute for reasoned debate becomes imprudent.

There are those who have expressed the belief that they themselves have too volatile emotions to fully control, and then project their lack of character on their fellow citizens. This belief that, because everyone has the potential to become angry and emotional, therefore nobody should be allowed arms is a fallacy. Even people who believe such nonsense none the less believe the police should be armed.

But are the police not made of the same stuff as the rest of us? Do these people really wish to believe that the police of a different breed, not subject to the same limitations as are the rest of society? And if the police can train themselves to be "professional," does it not stand to reason that others could as well? And how does it work, morally, that though we are not willing to defend ourselves, we expect that a police officer should put his life on the line to defend us. Is my life of incalculable value, the police officer's life only worth $50,000?

And, keeping in mind that the police are our servants, not the other way around, does it not make sense that the police should be armed to the same degree, but no more, than I can be? When one takes up arms, sooner rather than later that person is forced to grow up, and learn to become more responsible. Our society could use a little more courtesy and circumspection in our public dealings.

Thus, I believe it is a civic duty for each citizen, if he chooses to accept that duty, to carry a firearm wherever he goes, within the constraints of the law. In colonial times, some colonies had laws on the books that every able bodied male had to carry his rifle anytime he left his property. Of course, as a member of the militia, every able bodied male was expected, at a moment’s notice, to muster out and lend a hand against marauding Indians, the French, or who or what ever happened to be threatening the peace of the colony. It wouldn't have done to say "I need to go home and get my rifle."

While I recognize that today the world is much safer, it still remains a potentially dangerous place. When Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast, armed neighbors organized to protect their communities. These neighbors were demonstrating the continuing need for a militia, by organizing as a militia, and carrying out militia duties. By Federal law, the militia consists of all able bodied citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. Furthermore, the militia is divided into the organized militia, and the unorganized militia. Thus most of the time, most citizens are members of the unorganized militia, whether they realize it or not. But in times of crisis, they may become members of the organized militia, as the response of neighbors during Hurricane Katrina can attest.

Guns are a civilizing influence:

I will freely plagiarize Marko Kloos in this section, as he has said it better than I ever could.

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act"

So, there you have my reasons for carrying a gun. It is not, as people may think, because I am spoiling for a fight. Why would I spoil for a potentially life ending (for me) fight? Nor is it because I see bad guys around every corner, but bad things can happen to anyone, at any time, and it makes sense to be as prepared as possible. But the real reasons are these: it is my right, existing since ancient times, to protect myself and those I love; it is a civic duty, even though some politicians would have you believe otherwise; and carrying a gun is a civilizing influence on society as a whole.

The Talk Of Compensated Confiscation Can Not Be Justified

Today, at Bearing Arms Cam Edwards has a post on his appearance on the Laura Ingraham Show last night entitled Laura Ingraham: Dems Don't See Bearing Arms as "Real Right." Of course they don't, because they don't really see the Constitution as it is, but how they would like it to be. They see the right to vote as a "real right" though it is not mentioned in the Constitution. They see a "woman's right to choose" as a "real right" though it too is not in the Constitution. They constantly refer to the United States as a democracy, but it is in fact a republic.  But they don't see the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a real right. This then allows them to propose that all sorts of guns should simply be confiscated. And to do so, they are willing to lie through their teeth to take away guns from their lawful owners.

As Ingraham noted, “these are not reasonable restrictions. These are mandatory ‘buybacks’. It’s gun confiscation.” That’s exactly what it is. It is not door-to-door confiscation, but it is confiscation nonetheless. “Give us your gun and we’ll give you a little money, but if you don’t you’re a criminal” is not a voluntary exchange of goods for cash. It’s compensated confiscation.

Ingraham was also correct in pointing out that most of the violent crime in this country doesn’t take place in the rural, red areas where lots of people own firearms. Instead, deep-blue cities that have done their best to eradicate a culture of lawful gun ownership lead the way in violent crime and homicides. It’s why guys like Maj Toure of Black Guns Matter, Kevin Dixie of No Other Choice Firearms Training, Aaargo Jay, and so many other gun owners in urban areas are fighting not just to protect their rights, but to restore that good gun culture in the cities where they live.

These calls for ever more and ever more intrusive and tyrannical gun controls flies in the face of the fact that there is less crime today even though there are more guns in circulation:

And yet, as I pointed out on Fox News last night, violent crime went down last year, not up. Homicides dropped by 6% across the nation, even as millions of guns were purchased. The fundamental tenet of the gun control movement is “more guns = more crime”, but the reality is that since the early 1990’s, we’ve added millions of firearms every year, and our violent crime rates are about half what they were at their peak almost 30 years ago. Now, that doesn’t automatically mean that more guns equates to less crime, but it certainly disproves the idea that the more guns there are, the more crime there will be.

The emphasis is mine. But it bears repeating. While the fact that the crime rate has in fact gone down (and most people killed by guns are suicides, while people killed in mass shootings account for a few hundred a year) while gun have increased doesn't prove the "more guns = less crime" narrative, it certainly disproves the "more guns = more crime" meme being pushed by the Democrats and their media whores.

The gun control movement is, at its heart, a prohibitionary movement. Its progress is measured, not in terms of whether or not we as a nation are becoming more or less safe, but how many guns are taken out of circulation, or by how many Americans are persuaded, pressured, or adjudicated not to own firearms. Oh sure, gun control advocates sometimes acknowledge violent crime rates as opposed to individual acts of violence. When crime goes down after a gun control law is passed, for example, it is heralded as a sign of gun control’s effectiveness. But when crime goes up after new gun control laws are put in place (as we’ve seen in Colorado, for example) it’s not seen as a failure of gun control. In fact, it’s not seen at all. Gun control advocates studiously avoid talking about or even acknowledging the increase in crime, and if forced to admit that “yes, crime is up”, it’s only to argue that we simply need even more gun control laws.

Here, I have to disagree with Mr. Edwards. Not because he is incorrect; in fact he is entirely correct. Colorado has seen an increase in crime, probably because the criminal element has followed the liberal exodus from Kalifornia, where they have fouled their nest, and now are fouling it in Colorado as well by voting the same way they did in their previous home. Cam is correct to point that out. However, we who write about such things must always make sure that people understand that our right to bear arms is a pre-existent right granted by our Creator and acknowledge in the Constitution. No government has the right to limit our rights. Similarly, no government has the right to grant a woman the right to abort her child. This talk of compensated confiscation can never be justified. I am sorry that Democrats don't see it that way, but it is true nonetheless.

The Misguided Worship of "Due Process"

Today's post highlights an article by John Velleco, Vice President of Gun Owners of America, of which I am a member. His article, at the American Thinker today is entitled Red Flag Laws and the Misguided Worship of Due Process. Velleco has a point, one that I had not considered. If, and it is not too hard to envision, the judge who is deciding your "red flag" case is biased against guns, you are going to lose your 2nd Amendment rights, period.

And sure, you may be able to appeal the decision.  But who has the money and time to appeal, and appeal.  Maybe...maybe you might eventually get your guns back, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory.  By the time you win, your guns will be so rusted and abused that they would be worthless for their intended purposes. 

 All the due process in the world will not save you. What must be emphasized is that Red Flag laws are fundamentally Unconstitutional, no matter how you formulate them.

Most associate due process with concepts like the right to a hearing, an unbiased decision-maker, the right to be represented by a lawyer, and the ability to present evidence in your defense. But is it really true — as the president and many others appear to believe — that the government can take away someone's rights, so long as it showers him with lots and lots of due process? The promise of due process is little comfort when those exercising that process have no respect for the rule of law.

Imagine if the government accused you of wanting to be a drug-dealer. You've never been charged with — or even accused of — having actually sold drugs. But still, someone thinks there's a good chance you may in the future. So you're given a hearing, allowed to hire a lawyer, and permitted to testify why you won't become a drug dealer in the future. But at the end of the day, a judge still believes there's an unreasonable risk that you will enter the drug business. So, in order to prevent that possibility, for the next year or so, you no longer have any Fourth Amendment rights. The police may now stop your car and search it any time they wish and enter your home to search for drugs at will. What, that doesn't sound fair? What's the problem? You were given loads and loads of due process!

The government can't strip away Fourth Amendment rights simply because, in doing so, it has complied with due process rights. The Fourth Amendment still protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires a warrant based on probable cause. Likewise, the Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" — regardless of whether the government thinks it's a good idea that a particular person have guns.

Certainly, young children, illegal aliens, and murderers are not part of "the people" protected by the Second Amendment. Current law makes firearms possession illegal by a person convicted of a felony or who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution." But there is absolutely no historical or legal precedent for taking Second Amendment rights away from those who the government's "precogs" declare may commit a crime in the future.

I have made the point that due process was lacking in Red Flag laws, but my point was that real due process was impossible to begin with. Having a person make an anonymous complaint that is then acted upon by the government to the point of taking a persons 2nd Amendment rights can not be squared with those rights no matter what you write into such laws. What you will achieve is the ancient law where one could anonymously accuse another because of a grudge, but the state would take action against that person with little or no evidence that the accusation had any merit whatsoever.

Here is the other flaw in the idea of Red Flag laws:  you will take the target's guns away, but guns are not the only weapon he has.  If, as is purported, the target of such action truly intends to harm others, there are a thousand ways to do so.  Yet the Red Flag laws let him roam the streets free as a bird.  Might he not take his anger out on the judge himself?  Let's see here, there are knives, swords, axes, cars, fires (with various accelerants), bombs...well...the list could go on and on.  Human ingenuity in such matters is astounding.

But there is the problem with the entire scheme right there.  It is not the gun that is the problem, but the man himself.  You could ban human beings, though that seems counterproductive.  You might as well ban rocks.  Indeed, the first recorded murder was accomplished with a rock.  But God found fault not with rocks, but with Cain, who had killed his brother Abel.  It is our capacity for murder and mayhem that is the problem.  Creating more and more bizarrely convoluted laws has no effect.

What Red Flag laws do effectively is to arrest the gun, which can not do anything of its own initiative, while letting the gun owner, who can do anything go free.  Sorry to say, but our modern politicians know less than our Founders.  When one is confronted by a thug who means one harm, you are your own first responder.  The police, and I do not denigrate the police here, draw a chalk outline and investigate the crime after the fact.  They may or may not bring the thug to justice.  Having a gun evens the chance that the police may be drawing a chalk outline of the thug instead of you.  Don't you want that chance?