Tuesday, January 30, 2024

Government Agencies Should Justify Need for Guns. You and I Do Not Need To.

 We often hear that nobody "needs" a 30-round magazine to hunt deer, or that nobody "needs" more than ten rounds to defend oneself.  People who have no idea about guns, self-defense, or tactics are all too happy to tell us what we "need."  Of course, the Bill of Rights is about "rights" not "needs."  Each individual should evaluate for himself what are his needs.

But government agencies are another matter.  As Tom Knighton at Bearing Arms notes If Anyone Needs to Explain Why They Need Guns, It's the EPA and a lot of other federal agencies too. As Knighton notes at the end of his piece "After all, I’m not sure I want to trust guns to an agency that thought a mud puddle counted as “navigable waters” in any way, shape, or form."  I would hope not.  It sounds silly, but this was actually a thing with these whack-jobs

Gentle readers can read the amounts of their tax dollars wasted on providing EPA agents with weapons, ammunition, and training. Since the EPA typically brings civil suits rather than criminal proceedings, which would be the domain of the Department of (in)Justice and the FBI, one wonders if these are not Obama's national security force? Remember that Obama said during his campaign that "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." One has to wonder what all these federal agencies are doing with all these guns? The Department of Energy or the Social Security Administration...what the heck?

These agency heads and others need to defend their agency's need for and use of guns. On the other hand, you and I do not. Period.

Monday, January 29, 2024

America First Sometimes Means America Fights

 I was drawn to Kurt Schlichter's article today at Townhall because, just as my Pastor had made the point that sometimes you should give hate a chance.  God hates people peoples' sins, and therefore we should hate it too.  Thus, Schlichter suggests Conservatives (should) Give War a Chance. Schlichter is correct that as it says in Ecclesiastes 3:8 there is a time for everything, including war. Sometimes, rarely, you must fight. Some things are worth fighting for.

It seems bizarre that I have to tell fellow conservatives this, but it’s sometimes OK to go to war. We’re fighting right now, and some cons about our current armed conflict are up in arms. But war is not inherently wrong. War is sometimes necessary. Sometimes it’s not. And sometimes, a war is poorly run. For example, in America, that “sometimes” is pretty much the entire last 30 years. But that does not mean that war is never an option. Sometimes it’s necessary. Conservatism is not pacifism with lower marginal tax rates.
Again, I don’t know why I have to say this, but I do. There is a strain of modern conservatism that believes all war is inherently wrong and done solely for the sake of corporations and blah blah blah blah blah. I get the cynicism. I deployed a couple of times. But this idea that there is nothing worth fighting over outside our borders is childish. It’s not conservative. It’s just lame. And people should stop thinking it.

Schlichter points out that we should only go to war when our national interest is clearly at stake. This does not mean going to war to advance the profits of some corporation or another. And if some corporation has invested a lot of money in some third world hell hole ruled by tyrants who have "nationalized" the corporations' investments, well, tough luck. It does not mean interfering in wars around the globe that do not affect us like the Russia - Ukraine conflict. It also does not mean funding such boondoggles. But when it involves the clear national interest, such as when we are being invaded (which we are), then we don't apply a proportional response. No, we put such an overwhelming response that they will talk about it for generations such that nobody even thinks of doing again.

Gentle readers can read Schlichter's piece. What must be understood is that all war is not wrong. Some wars are necessary to defend your country, your freedom and culture, and your family. Just as aggressive violence against another is wrong, but self-defense is justified, so the counterpart for nations prevails.

War is not inherently wrong. Sometimes, war is the answer. Sometimes we’ve got to fight. Not all the time, and not stupidly, but sometimes. We can distinguish between situations. We should not be fighting Russia in Ukraine. We should be fighting Iran right now because if we punch it in the nose, it’s going to stop escalating, as is its pattern. We can’t substitute clichés for thought. We can’t just babble about forever wars as if it’s our fault that we have been under attack by these mutants for over 40 years. I am America First. And sometimes, that means America Fights.

Saturday, January 27, 2024

For The Children - No Really

 Alan Korwin is an unusual writer at Townhall.com, which is a shame because he is an excellent writer, writing Gun Laws of America through now 6 editions. But today, he is writing An Open Letter On Utopian Pacifism. What? An essay by a gun writer on pacifism? What gives? But if you know the history of "Utopia" it might clue you in to Korwin's philosophy...and mine for that matter.

I’m a Utopian Pacifist. Although I’ve written ten successful books on American gun law*, I support no weapons of any kind on the surface of the Earth, in an era of enduring peace, prosperity, harmony and abundance.
It turns out this is impossible (utopian). The problem is The Four Horsemen of Human Havoc: angry hungry stupid and wicked.

...snip...

If I could wave a wand and make guns disappear, the brutal communist Chinese dictatorship would make new ones. And the Italians (Beretta), Brazilians (Taurus), Russians (AK-47), Austrians (Glock)—all armed nations would be in business making the iron river. Including basement tinkerers.
Wands are fiction but you can imagine a gun-free world—just think back to pre-gun times. What you get is Genghis Kahn with rampaging hordes, Julius Caesar and Roman Legion crucifixions, Vlad the Impaler, universal serfdom and endless millions horribly murdered. A gun-filled world paradoxically turns out to be more civilized, with safer neighborhoods—even though evil people and government tyrants rampage constantly. Our guns help control them.
A gun-filled world is actually more civilized than a gunless one, with sword-bearing bad guys committing slaughter.

...snip...

I stand by my philosophy, and await the day when evil evaporates and guns are no longer needed. Until then, the Marines have it right: Peace through superior firepower. Do not submit to elitist demands to disarm you.

I didn't come up with this formulation, and I don't remember where I first heard it, but I will shamelessly use it: There are only two ways to change a person's mind. You can either use persuasion or force. Persuasion is the only moral and civilized way. If both parties are armed, persuasion is the only way. The gun is the great equalizer, making the old, the frail, the weak the equal of the young, the healthy and strong. Thus, the gun is a force for good, with nearly 1 million defensive gun uses per year, most with no shots fired.

Along the way, Korwin throws out some interesting statistics.  For example, did you know that the shooting sports are more popular than golf?

Gentle readers should read the entire essay, and follow Korwin's advice: Do not, under any circumstance, give up your guns. And keep fighting for your gun rights, if not for yourselves, then for your childrens' sake.

The World Is A Dangerous Place

At the American Thinker today Victoria White Berger writes about the experience she and her husband had of buying their first gun, a .38 Special revolver. Her story can be found at Our First Gun. I would have pointed out that they should have obtained two guns, unless they were always together, and should have gotten their permits for concealed carry too. But baby steps, right?

It’s a .38 Special revolver. Up until one month ago, I had scant idea what such a gun looked like or could do. My husband eventually made the decision to get a gun, which surprised me a little as he is a very peaceable man. Yet, he is a lover of the U.S. Constitution: peaceable, but no fool. This week is our 30th anniversary. For our anniversary present, we bought the gun together.
We have talked about buying a gun over the past few years. We live in the South in a semi-rural area bordering the Gulf of Mexico. Traditionally, gun ownership is considered mostly normal here. It is by and large a quiet, working-class, family area, and nobody thinks of gun ownership as a threat to anyone but to those with evil intent.
However, the current reasons that many, many more are buying guns are not the past’s ‘regular’ reasons; nor were our own reasons, this week, in any way ‘regular.’ It was a scary decision, but we are not interested in being shot, molested, raped, or carted off from our home. We would rather take a stand for ourselves, for our lives. Our reluctance to submit to the growing tyranny in the United States has reached, if not our doorstep yet, a place in the core of our hearts. This is happening everywhere, to all sorts.
Isn’t it interesting how much firepower the FBI commands, and how they regularly and with impunity break down the doors of the common people now? Isn’t it curious how Joe Biden makes such a big noise about guns, but lives, travels, and sleeps in fortresses of one sort or another -- stationary or mobile?

We all have our reasons. In my case, I had had a revolver since 1976 but didn't carry it. A revolver is a good choice for a first gun, because they don't require as much maintenance.  Then 9/11/2001 happened and I realized that we were not safe. I came to realize that we had never been safe, that we were always our own first responders, and that we always need to carry our weapons with us. But that realization came over time.

In the meantime, please read Ms. Berger's experiences, and encourage your friends and acquaintances to at least think about getting some kind of self-defense training, possibly getting a gun. We pray we will never use it, but the normal state of the world is a dangerous place.

Thursday, January 25, 2024

Shadow Banning?

 You may have heard of somebody complaining about "shadow banning."  Usually, it is someone who makes money off his or her blog, and usually it is because they are saying things the Left doesn't like.  Well, as it turns out it is happening to John Petrolino at Bearing Arms in an article entitled Social Media Censoring 2nd Amendment News Just By Searching!?!?

The technocratic overlords who run Meta, and whoever else is in the pocket of the U.S. government, the deep state, or otherwise affixed via Operation Mockingbird, have truly jumped the shark. The other day when I was searching for my own work here at Bearing Arms via a search engine, I could not find the piece. That multi-colored logo did not deliver, even when I put the full title of the piece into the search. It actually happened again with another article. Alphapet Inc. is not the only company that’s putting the clamp down on searches they find disagreeable. I got a ping the other day about a search in a Meta property that did not go according to plan.
My friends over at News2A.com were doing some research for an article that they were working on. Much like many journalists, leaning on social media for details or information gathering, News2A was cruising Facebook. Just lurking in some solid 2A pages will provide a luscious amount of fodder to look into following up on. In this particular instance, they got an angry notification after trying to execute their search.
I have to confess to finding it hard to find my own blog sometimes on the search engines, whether bing or google or even Duck Duck Go. Shadow Banning? Who knows

Thank God My Parents Left Europe Two Generations Ago

 Raymond Ibrahim at the American Thinker today has an article entitled 'Europeans Will Succumb to Islam' Says Former Intelligence Chief. It is a disturbing article on many levels. I won't quote extensively from it, as gentle readers are welcome to click and read it for yourselves. One of the thoughts I had was that the takeover by Islam of Europe leaves us with only one ally in the world, Israel. But even more disturbingly, it paints our debates over the Second Amendment, and the right to self-defense in an entirely new light.

In short, “Europeans will succumb to Islam. On the one hand, because they are unable to even see this conflict coming, and on the other, because they are incapable of resolving conflicts in a similar fashion.”
By this, he means that Europeans are incapable of resolving conflict the way the Muslims who are flooding their conflict do -- through violence. After describing Islam as “a completely different culture” that “we are not at all prepared for,” the former intelligence chief stressed that “we’re incapable of resolving conflicts even by means of violence, like family clans do from the Arab states. These people resolve conflicts by violence, whereas people in Central Europe think that this can only be done through the courts.”
This is an important point and explains the paralysis. For most non-western peoples, not just Muslims, if they see something that they believe is wrong, they fix it -- including through force. Most western people, on the other hand, are so accustomed into believing that a “rule of law” still exists -- that the authorities will see justice done. This is clearly no longer the case. The sooner this is acknowledged, the better. Otherwise, and as Maaßen concluded, “The end result will be the gradual destruction of our European cultures.”

There was a time in Europe when conflicts were settled as the Muslims do with violence by clan actions, because courts were few and dispense "justice" rather haphazardly. Now, I am not saying that is right; far from it. But there are always situations where when seconds count, the police are minutes away. The individual is always the first responder and should have the means to defend himself and his family at all times. But Europeans have never had a Second Amendment, and so slowly, over time, they have been reluctantly forced to rely on their governments to protect them.

But what do you do when you government no longer protects you. In London recently, a woman was arrested for praying silently on the street in front of an abortion clinic. At the same time, Muslims can block the street with their "prayers" in mass. They use "prayers" as a weapon.  Here, the government no longer protects you and me, while giving the green light to muggers, murderers and thieves to plunder the population. Taxpayer money is being handed out to illegal aliens which means we are paying for our own replacements. How the Left must be laughing.

It will not go well for the Europeans when Sharia becomes the law of the land. Unfortunately, they did it to themselves by abandoning God.

In this environment, where we can not trust anyone at any level of government, maintaining our weapons and ammunition is critically important. The Left keeps desperately trying anything that might stick to nullify the Second Amendment. They keep attempting to form a register such that they can go door to door and confiscate our guns. We can not let that happen. Only the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can know what will happen, but we need to be prepared. Remember that any claimed "law" that goes against the Constitution is no law at all.

Wednesday, January 24, 2024

The Key Word in Gun Control Is "Control"

 Time after time, California is given an A+ rating on its gun control laws by the gun grabbers.  But as Tom Knighton points out in an essay at Bearing Arms entitled So Much for California's Gun Control Efforts, these laws fail both to control who has guns, and to protect the people of California. Perhaps that is part of why they are leaving in droves?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is a big fan of gun control. In fact, he likes it so much he wants to export it to the rest of the nation in the form of a constitutional amendment.
To be fair, Newsom isn’t alone. A lot of people on the anti-gun side of the debate want gun control similar to what Newsom has in effect already.
In fact, we’re told we’re insane for not wanting it.
Yet the problem is that gun control doesn’t really work. California is far from what most of us would call a safe state, and while it’s not the least safe either, that has to do with factors beyond gun control.
And for those who will try and argue that gun control actually does work, then please explain this to me.
"More than 100 guns were seized and nearly 30 people arrested this month as part of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department’s Operation Consequences."
"At those locations, suspected gang members and people prohibited from possessing guns were found to have 102 guns, including 18 unserialized weapons known as “ghost guns,” resulting in 29 felony arrests, authorities said in a news release."
"An image shared by the SBSD shows assault-style rifles, a shotgun and a variety of pistols."
Also found were 50 pounds of methamphetamine and five pounds of cocaine.
Because drug control works brilliantly, too.

The problem, as I and others have constantly pointed out is that criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. So, they have guns even though the "law" says that they may not. It makes perfect sense too, if you consider that they are dealing in a product that is illegal as well. They can't very well come crying to the police that their illegal product was stolen by some other criminal gang, now, can they? From their point of view, they need protection and guns are a way to protect themselves and their property.

A more honest approach would be to allow everyone to own and carry guns without restriction, and then go after illegal activities such as drug dealing on the merits of the case. But gun grabbers don't really care about drug dealers, indeed, don't really care about criminals at all. They don't really even care about school shootings except as ways to publicize their preferences. The target of all gun control efforts is the law-abiding citizen. They don't want YOU or me to have guns. I don't know about you, but I don't trust any government that doesn't trust us with guns. After all, why should they care if they are not planning something that will provoke us?

Congressmen Propose Unconstitutional Laws

 Mike McDaniel at the American Thinker today has a piece on the Brief History of Assault Weapons. Spoiler alert...are you ready?...there is none.

And now, a brief history of “Assault Weapons…” There. Did you enjoy it? That’s all the history required. There is no such thing and never was. ATF Director Steve Dettelbach was recently asked by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) to define the term. Keep in mind Jackson Lee is very much an anti-liberty/gun cracktivist and was lobbing a softball to fellow traveler Dettelbach:
"Dettlebach was questioned by Democrat Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee who asked the ATF director whether he knew what an "assault weapon" was after acknowledging the recent mass shooting in Buffalo, New York."
"Let me just hold up just to pay tribute and acknowledge that these are the deceased — their families are still mourning — of the incident in Buffalo at the grocery store. It was an assault weapon that killed them," said Lee."
"She continued, "My question to you is just simply a ‘yes’ or ‘no.' You know what an assault weapon is? You seen one?""
"Dettlebach deflected the question, saying the term is not something he's qualified to rule on."
No matter how she pressed him, Dettelbach, the head of the ATF, an organization all about firearm definitions and laws, refused to define the class of weapons he was testifying must be banned. That’s odd, but unsurprising. Even Dettelbach, who is also an anti-liberty/gun cracktivist, knows there is no such thing.

So, who dreamed up the term "assault weapon"? It was certainly a very effective, if also a totally bogus term that caught on in the gun grabber community, and even has been used by gun writers including yours truly. But if you understand how semi-automatic rifles work, you could simply put a semi-automatic rifle in a wood stock, and it becomes a low powered hunting rifle, while in the typical black rifle furniture, it becomes the dreaded "assault rifle." Incidentally, the AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle, not "Assault Rifle." Well, here's that bit of history:

The term can be traced back to a 1988 book—Assault Weapons And Accessories In America—by Josh Sugarman, the founder that same year of the Violence Policy Center, dedicated to disarming non-criminal Americans. It was Sugarman who coined the term, and a primary gun grabber tactic:
"Assault weapons-just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms-are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
In those heady, pre-Heller (2008), McDonald (2010) and Bruen (2022) days, cracktivists like Sugarman believed it was possible to discredit the Second Amendment, disarm the public, and like all good Democrat/socialist/communist (D/s/c) cracktivists, any means to their ends were legitimate, particularly fear mongering and lying.
Their approach was incremental. If they could ban any class of firearm or accessory, that might open the door to banning everything. Thus were “assault weapons” born. Some even began calling common bolt-actioned, scoped, hunting rifles “sniper weapons,” but that never really caught on.

The fact is that there is no such thing as an "assault weapon," and the Director of the ATF knows it. That is why he declined to embarrass himself. Yet, the gun-grabbers continue to try to ban a myth, just as they tried to ban other myths like cop killer bullets and plastic guns.

The Bruen decision along with Heller and McDonald has pretty much put an end to banning the so-called "assault weapons." The only way forward would be to repeal or modify the Second Amendment. For now, that is a pipe dream, though it may be the subject of future debates. But in light of what the Supreme Court has said, I wonder that the people proposing to pass such a law in Congress are not booted out of office. It is, after all not a matter of disagreement on policy, but proposing laws that they know are Unconstitutional.

Gentle readers are encouraged to read all of McDaniel's post.

Tuesday, January 23, 2024

History Matters

 Tom Knighton, at Bearing Arms has a piece today entitled Actually, History Does Matter in which he defends the Bruen decision against a editorial writer who says history doesn't matter unless it is anti-gun history. Then it matters. Our editorialist wants to have it both ways.

The Bruen decision changed things regarding gun laws in America. For the first time, lower courts were expressly directed to look not at their own feelings or some compelling governmental interest on gun control, but the history of this nation.
In short, if a historical analog doesn’t exist for a gun law at particular points in time, the law is unconstitutional.
To say that this bothers some people is putting it mildly. While they don’t even blink about the First or Fourth Amendments applying to the digital world, they think permitted guns should remain in some kind of status.
And they love to claim that history isn’t a particularly good guide.
"The framers of our Constitution penned the Second Amendment over two centuries ago. Today, the meaning of that amendment is being endlessly debated. In any debate that impacts gun laws, protecting the safety of citizens must always be the first priority. It hasn’t always been."
No, protecting people’s rights must always be the first priority.

Indeed. The Court should apply the same test to other of our enumerated rights.

The two-faced nature of this anti-gun screed comes when he cites recent history after saying that history doesn't matter:

"In 1986, President Reagan signed legislation that banned private citizens from owning fully automatic guns, with few exceptions. In 1994, during the Clinton years, Congress passed into law a bill that banned the manufacture and sale of certain semi-automatic assault-style guns for civilian use. The bill included a ban on high-capacity magazines. At the time, three former presidents – Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan – wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives to support that legislation. Ten years later, in 2004, a Republican Congress allowed that law to expire, and those rapid-fire long guns and high-capacity magazines were once again flowing into our society and into our public places."
"Our military protects us from rogue nations. Who is protecting our kids sitting in a classroom?"
"President Reagan took legislative action against powerful guns in our society. We now have a new generation of guns as dangerous as those he acted against. Why aren’t Republicans in Congress following his lead? Some will blame our nation’s Second Amendment, but the Second Amendment doesn’t protect any type of gun. Presidents Reagan and Clinton have shown us that."

The Bruen decision prevents the courts from just interpreting our right to armed defense away from us into a nullity. History does matter. If we wish to preserve our nation as founded, then we must pay attention to our history, both the good and the bad.

Monday, January 22, 2024

More About the LaPierre Resignation

David Codrea, who also runs the website The War on Guns has an article today at Firearm News on the resent retirement (?) of Wayne LaPierre from the National Rifle Association (NRA). Codrea, being a gun writer has more to say about both LaPierre and the NRA, whom he often refers to as the "Lairds of Fairfax," than I did. I was just a member, and observer. But what he writes about them fits with my own take that the NRA served as a sort of fifth column among gun rights supporters. They seemed always willing to compromise our rights without extracting anything from the gun-grabbers. You can find Codrea's article at LaPierre Made A Career of Second Amendment Compromises. David is too kind. I would have said he made a career of Second Amendment Appeasements.

Codrea's writing is compact, and filled with interesting tidbits, such that I can't take any money quotes to illustrate the point. You should just read the whole article. No doubt more could be said as well.

I initially joined the NRA in 1977 thinking that everyone who owned a gun should be a member. But I got disgusted with the single-minded focus on hunting and skeet and trap shooting. The NRA seemed to support the "sporting uses" idea of the gun-grabbers and the "Fudds." So, I quit.

I rejoined when I got my concealed handgun license after the 9/11/2001 attacks. But I soon discovered that the NRA was still as useless as ever in holding up the true purpose of the Second Amendment. Indeed, it was state organizations like the Virginia Citizen's Defense League and Grass Roots North Carolina that were the real powerhouses advancing our right to arms for self-defense. That is when I also discovered a bunch of scholars, lawyers, writers, smart folks all, and decided to join as your humble servant.

Now, the NRA has done some things well. Perhaps the most important of these is education. They do provide what I call "train the trainer" classes for those who wish to become marksmanship and gun safety trainers. Certified NRA trainers are generally recognized as the gold standard. But I don't pay much attention to NRA political ratings. I use Grass Roots North Carolina ratings for a truer assessment of those I might be able to trust. But remember, nobody can be fully trusted. Only God: All others must be verified.

What will become of the NRA? It depends on whether they have learned their lessons.

Sunday, January 21, 2024

Pray Today For The Unborn

 In an essay at Townhall.com today, Dr. Robb Brunansky tells us about A Biblical Commemoration of the Sanctity of Life. It is fine to oppose abortion for practical reasons, as always following the Law of God is also good practice.  So, citing these reasons may make someone think.  But we should oppose abortion vehemently on spiritual grounds. God does not take the act of abortion lightly, and neither should we.

This Sunday marks the 40th anniversary of National Sanctity of Life Day, when we celebrate human life, especially the lives of the unborn. Over the past forty years, many changes have occurred in the pro-life movement. The development of sonogram technology has advanced the pro-life cause as people see more clearly that what is growing in the womb is not merely a clump of cells but a human being. Movies and other pro-life campaigns have also helped expose the true evil of those who murder children in the womb. Of course, the most significant development was the U.S. Supreme Court rightly overturning Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

I have said on a number of occasions that the claim that the fetus is just a clump of cells that can be casually cast away is pure sophistry, designed to excuse the woman having the abortion, and relieve her of her guilt. But the truth is it is murder, and it usually doesn't work as advertised.  Just as the blood of Able cried out from the ground, the cries of the children aborted remain in their mother's ears.  They sense the joy they would feel had they brought their children into the world.

Which brings me to the three reasons Brunansky gives for why we must oppose abortion on theological grounds:

First, abortion attacks the character and nature of God.
When the Bible describes who God is, one key attribute of God is that He is the source and giver of life. In the Creation account, God brings all life into existence in the world. The world God made was very good, and it was devoid of death.
Furthermore, when God created humanity, He created us in His image (Genesis 1:26-27). We were created to reflect the reality of who God is. Because we are the image of God, any attack on human beings without divine sanction is an attack on God Himself. That includes murder on babies being knit together in the womb.

...snip...

Second, abortion attacks those God cherishes.
Throughout Scripture, we see the divine importance placed upon children. Jesus Himself was the chief example of God’s love for children. In Luke 18:15-17, people brought their babies to Jesus to be blessed by Him. The disciples found this to be inconvenient for Jesus, and they rebuked these parents. Our Lord, however, far from finding children to be a nuisance, loved them and desired they be brought to Him to bless them.

...snip...

Finally, God has commanded us to defend the weak and vulnerable.

Of course, as Christians, we must have compassion on those who, having made poor choices, finding themselves in such a predicament. After all, as Paul wrote, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We need to find ways to help people considering abortion to choose life instead.

...This Sanctity of Life Sunday, let us remember as Christians why we value life, why we oppose the murder of those in their mother’s wombs, and why we seek to abolish such murder from our land. And may God pour out His compassionate mercies upon us and change the hearts of our fellow Americans, that we might live in a nation whose people love life because we love Christ.

Saturday, January 20, 2024

When are these people going to jail?

 From the American Thinker, Jack Hellner has a piece entitled So filled with fraud: The green agenda and the rich who benefit from it. If you have had the feeling that you are being gaslighted by the media and the car companies pushing EVs, you are right.

The federal government essentially has ordered electric car companies to commit fraud.
Here's the headline:
The Electric-Vehicle Cheating Scandal
A government rule makes them look nearly seven times as efficient as they are.
Here's what's from the article:
"When carmakers test gasoline powered vehicles for compliance with the Transportation Department's fuel efficiency rules, they must use real values measured in a laboratory. By contrast, under an Energy Department rule, carmakers can arbitrarily multiply the efficiency of electric cars by 6.67. This means that although a 2022 Tesla Model Y tests at the equivalent of 65 miles per gallon in a laboratory (roughly the same as a hybrid). It is counted as an absurdly high compliance value of 430 mpg. That number has no basis in reality or law.
For exaggerating electric car efficiency, the government rewards the carmakers with compliance credits which the can trade for cash, Economists estimate these credits could be worth billions, a vast cross-subsidy invented by bureaucrats and paid for by every person who buys a gasoline powered car."

So, how did Elon Musk become the richest man in the world? Was it because he is some kind of super-genius? Well, not exactly. Musk became rich in part by selling carbon credits to Ford and GM, so they could make money on their very good selling trucks and SUVs. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with gas powered trucks and SUVs. I do have a problem with so-called "carbon credits" which function much as indulgences did in the middle ages. Back then, the Catholic Church sold "indulgences" to rich people to supposedly forgive their sins and thus get them a reprieve from Purgatory. Carbon credits are equally useless in getting rid of CO2, but do make money for the hucksters selling them. Oh, and they cost you and me a lot of money each time we buy a vehicle.

"Until recently, this subsidy was a government secret. Carmakers and regulators liked it that way.. Regulators could announce what sounded like stringent targets and carmakers would nod along, knowing they could comply by making cars with arbitrarily boosted compliance values, Consumers would unknowingly foot the bill."
In other words, the government, the carmakers and the green pushers knew this was a massive fraud but they didn't care. They were greedy and the radical green agenda was all that mattered. The people are irrelevant, especially the poor and middle class. And of course, Democrat campaign workers posing as journalists, have participated in perpetuating the fraud by just repeating talking points without doing research or asking questions.

So, when are these people going to jail?

"I never thought the agencies of our Federal government, with such gusto, would be turned against the American citizen"

 Watch the video If You've Bought A Bible Or Something From Bass Pro Shop, Beware at Townhall.com.

A Shocked Davos Crowd Hears the Truth

 Yesterday, we learned from a post by Monica Showalter at the American Thinker that Argentina's Milei rips into the 'bloody abortion agenda' to shocked crowd at Davos. I have been reluctant to comment on the ascendency of Milei because I simply don't believe in politicians. Every now and then, one comes along to surprise me. Milei is starting to be one of those. As a libertarian, one would think he would have a laissez faire attitude on abortion. But no, he actually called it murder! He defended it on libertarian grounds too!  And of course he is absolutely right. It is murder. Moreover, the Most High God ordered a number of cities destroyed, men, women, children and animals, because of the practice of sacrificing children to the fires of Molech. Abortion is no different.

It probably wasn't a surprise to the pampered swells and princelings of the World Economic Forum at Davos that Argentina's libertarian president, Javier Milei, would defend free markets and condemn socialism. He did it in spades, with his battle cry, "Long Live F***** Freedom."
What wasn't on their bingo cards, however, was that he also blasted abortion and population control, with a passion not seen since ... well, ever.
According to LifeSiteNews:
DAVOS, Switzerland (LifeSiteNews) — Argentine President Javier Milei has called out population control and the “bloody abortion agenda” during his speech at the World Economic Forum (WEF).
During his special address, Milei said that “another conflict presented by socialists is that of humans against nature, claiming that we human beings damage the planet which should be protected at all cost even going as far as advocating for population control mechanism or the bloody abortion agenda.”
“Unfortunately, these harmful ideas have taken a stronghold in our society. Neo-Marxists have managed to co-opt the common sense of the Western world, and this they have achieved by appropriating the media, culture, universities, and also international organizations. The latter case is the most serious one probably because these are institutions that have an enormous influence on the political and economic decisions of the countries that make up the multilateral organizations.”

...snip...

Milei's been passionate in the past about the right to life -- and on explicitly libertarian grounds -- that a woman has a right to control her own body all right -- and so does a genetically unique and separate baby, even at the earliest stages of life. He told that to Tucker Carlson a few months ago, calling abortion 'murder.'
I hope Milei can do what he has campaigned on, for Argentina needs him. We need more like him. I have never understood what is the appeal of Marxism or any other of the collectivist array: Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Progressivism, Fabianism - like the Devil himself these people change their names to suit. Their leaders always turn out to be men of small accomplishments unless one counts ruthlessness and brutality as "accomplishments." Please go read Showalter's post.

Thursday, January 18, 2024

I Guess I Am On A List Too

 Joy Pullman has an article today at The Federalist telling us that A Bible, Slingshot, and Sports Gear. So, I'm Probably On a 'Terrorist Watch List'. I recently bought a Bible with a credit card too. I bought an English Standard Version (ESV) to use in our Bible studies. So, I guess I am on a list somewhere as well. While such surveillance is unconstitutional, to be despised by the despicable is a badge of honor.

Americans who shopped at sporting goods stores and bought religious books “like a Bible” were flagged through their banks as potential domestic terrorists, Rep. Jim Jordan revealed Jan. 17.
The federal government also flagged as potential criminals any transactions that involved the terms “MAGA” or “Trump,” the House Judiciary Committee chairman said. These Americans were tagged as possible “violent extremists” with zero due process or even notification of this criminalization of their constitutional rights to property, free speech, consent to their government’s activities, and religious exercise. The federal government even asked for surveillance of Americans’ messages on private payment apps like Zelle, a competitor to Venmo.

...snip...

So if you’ve shopped at a sporting goods store, including Cabela’s, Bass Pro Shops, Dick’s Sporting Goods, or myriad gun retailers, you could be flagged to law enforcement as “Lone Actor/Homegrown Violent Extremism.” All these retailers and dozens more appeared on a list Jordan found that a federal financial crime agency distributed to instruct bank employees in how to criminalize their fellow Americans’ religious and political ideas.
“In other words,” Jordan writes in a letter released yesterday, the federal government “urged large financial institutions to comb through the private transactions of their customers for suspicious charges on the basis of protected political and religious expression.”

It is hard to express just how Un-American and Unconstitutional all this is. Moreover, this is Fascism in action. Because it is illegal for the government to do it, they have pressured banks and payment systems such as PayPal and Venmo to do it and pass the search on to the government. But the government is not allowed to do that either. On the other hand, the Democrats seem not to care about the law if it interferes with their tracking down people who disagree with them, another Fascist trait.

Oh, and I can’t forget the other item of treacherous samizdat I bought in the last year: last Lent, I bought myself a Bible from ChristianBook.com, a terrorist-sounding site if I ever heard one. They sell other “extremist” gear like Bible commentaries, devotionals decorated with hearts, artsy Bible journals complete with marker sets, plush dolls, craft kits, and Jesus stickers.

...snip...

Turns out, benign, all-American consumerism by a completely peaceful and law-abiding citizen with zero criminal record or activity somehow threatens the people running my own country into the ground. What are they afraid of, and why do they hate Jesus so much?

...snip...

The deepest opposition to Democrats comes from serious Christians, because Democrats’ cornerstone policies blatantly violate the Ten Commandments (and lots more, including much of the Bible’s book of Romans). This is why it makes sense for them to connect Bible-buying with dissent from their politics.

Indeed

The Muslim Offer: Convert or Die

 Richard C. Crandall has an essay at the American Thinker today highlighting some Uncomfortable Truths About 10/7 today. Those uncomfortable truths are that the reason underneath the immediate Hamas issue is Islam itself.

Good grief — it’s been over three months, and writers are still expressing shock, surprise, and outrage that Muslims murdered, mutilated, raped, and tortured Jews on 10/7. They even preface the acts with words such as “brutal,” “degenerate,” “horrific,” “monstrous,” and “savage.” Because it will happen again, I suggest the following to prevent future shock, surprise, and outrage.
First, recognize the cause of 10/7. Although it is comforting to believe that Hamas, a specific group in a relatively small area, was the cause of 10/7, this is incorrect. The snarky among you will quickly respond that Hezb’allah and Iran were also responsible. This is also incorrect. The correct answer is that Islam was the cause of 10/7.
Second, to understand why Islam was the cause of 10/7, study its history. Briefly, Muhammad spent the first part of his career as a prophet in Mecca, where he attracted few followers. Even revealing the verses in the Koran on the virgins in paradise failed as a recruiting scheme. As a failed prophet, Muhammad moved to Medina, where the verses in the Koran changed from patience and tolerance to legalization of the murder, rape, and robbery of non-Muslims. With the new revised Islamic moral code, the number of Muhammad’s followers rapidly increased, and they started attacking caravans and raiding villages.

Part of the problem is that Muslims are encouraged to base their lives on the life of Muhammad, and to do the things he did. But, even by the standards of his own day, Muhammad was a boorish, brutal thug who raped women, had sex with 9-year-old girls, beheaded people who refused to become Muslims, took sex slaves while looting and pillaging everywhere he went.  Remember that many of the areas Muslims invaded and took over were Christian, and Christianity frowns on all these behaviors. It should be obvious if one studies the Gospels and then the Koran, that these are two very different Gods. Indeed, one is the direct opposite of the other. Can you guess the Evil One?

Reading the Koran and hadith reports will also provide an understanding of the mentality of the Muslims who participated in 10/7. They believed that their behavior was a requirement for them to enter paradise, where, for eternity, they would have daily sex with 70–100 virgins. Frequent sex would be possible because they would have perpetual erections and no fatigue, and the virgins would have the sex drive of camels in heat. When they were not having sex, they would be seated on jeweled chairs arranged in rows or circles, where boys with perpetual youth would serve them wine from gold cups. While seated and drinking, they would brag about what they did on 10/7. After all, it never gets old, even for eternity, to retell the story about being ninth in line in the gang rape of a helpless young Jewish woman. It is especially entertaining to retell the part where, after the rape, her breasts were cut off, and she was beheaded with a shovel. The storyteller usually leaves out the rest of the story, where an Israel tank with an all-female Jewish crew ran over him.
Fourth, it is comforting to believe that the issue is about a small area of land where a solution can be achieved. Even the status quo, with occasional periods of violence, is acceptable. However, the truth is that it is about Islam. Shortly before he died in 632, Muhammad told his followers, “Allah has ordered me to fight against the people till they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” Muhammad started to fulfill this command with the expulsion and annihilation of the Jewish tribes in Medina. Muhammad’s successors quickly turned much of the Judeo-Christian world into an Islamic colony.

I urge gentle readers to read the whole article. We cannot allow any more Muslims into this country. Clearly, they have a plan to invade, grow their numbers, and then begin to take over. They will eventually offer what they have always offered: Convert or die.

Maybe the WEF needs to grow up

 Yesterday I went to work at 6:30 am and got home at 6:30pm, so I was beat.  But I saw this yesterday morning and wanted to bring it to gentle readers' attention.  It is a piece at the American Thinker by Gary Gindler entitled Davos :From Proto-Fascism to Post-Fascism.   Ginlder connects the dots from the French Revolution to Hitler and Mussolini and the Soviet Union to show that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is just another attempt by small men of little accomplishment, but having huge egos, to rule the world. Gindler doesn't say so, but I will: this is demonic, and we should fight it just as we did with Fascism in the 1940s and with the Soviets in the Cold War.

The political adage “If you cannot beat them, join them” has been well-known for centuries. So, the Left made one extra step and arrived at the “if you cannot beat them, lead them.” The Left has been trying (unsuccessfully) various methods to eliminate capitalists and private property.
Eventually, Leftists learned their lesson and decided to preside over private property instead of confiscating and spreading it around. Lenin used it (the so-called “New Economic Policy” in the Soviet Union 1921-1928), Mussolini used it, Hitler used it, and the Chinese used it. It blatantly violates a well-demarcated borderline between the government and the governed. However, by now, it is the cornerstone of globalism.
Note that the systematic and deliberate infiltration of the state into private economic affairs did not begin with Mussolini. In 17th-century France, for example, Chief Minister Cardinal Richelieu established state-sponsored and state-directed cartels. That resulted in public-private entities that were granted monopoly status in their respective fields. Richelieu aimed not to build a proto-fascist state per se; his cravings were more down-to-earth: France had a war to win. (The following definitions are used: “Socialism is a state of society where most wealth, either de jure or de facto, belongs to a government. Fascism is a form of Socialism where most wealth de facto but not de jure belongs to a government.)
Nevertheless, Cardinal Richelieu deployed state power to consolidate state power even more. His offer to the French merchants was one they could not refuse: guaranteed profits under the protection of the state or guaranteed imprisonment at the Bastille.

Let us pause here and consider the many manifestations of fascism we have seen over the last three years. We have seen Bud Light fall on its sword over transgender Dylan Mulvaney. We have seen Dick's Sporting Goods lose business because of a decision to not sell modern sporting rifles. We have seen Target trying to push transgender clothing, another blunder. Ford is losing money on EVs, but pushes on anyway, possible to its own bankruptcy. Then there is Bank of America that voluntarily handed the government the credit card records for January 6 suspects without a warrant. Can we really say that all these CEOs are doing this purely for ideological reasons, or are they being pressured by government forces?

The story of the proto-fascist policies of Richelieu demonstrates the theme observable in all future left-wing economies: a short-term boost in economic activity due to crushing, inescapable state intervention, and then, in the long run, unavoidable decline and stagnation. As it is known, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, and the entire Soviet bloc post-World War II followed this course. The demise of Communist China is inevitable for the same reason. A similar fate is awaiting the Davos Oracles of “stakeholder capitalism.” From that outlook, all four of Dumas’s three musketeers were the first proto-anti-fascists.
State-managed “stakeholder capitalism” was known in the 1600s as mercantilism. To use 21st-century terminology, Cardinal Richelieu established a form of stakeholder capitalism in France, where the government served as the only principal stakeholder.
Karl (sic) Schwab publicizes “the third way,” “stakeholder capitalism,” as the ultimate solution. His “capitalism” must be quoted because it corresponds to free-market capitalism in only the remotest sense. Note that National Socialists of the Third Reich also run under the banner (or, rather, the smokescreen) of “the third way.” Schwab is painfully aware that “the stakeholder concept competed head-on with Friedman’s notion that ‘the business of business is business’—and it ultimately lost out.”
There are no surprises here. Schwab’s “stakeholder capitalism” is just a reformulated branch of leftism, rebranded for the 21st century, commonly known as Fascism. Of course, it is not a replica of 20th-century Fascism; it has been updated and modified to incorporate “climate change,” digital technologies, and the pandemic, and has expanded global outreach. “Planet’s health” becomes the central stakeholder in the global economic system.

I urge gentle readers to read the whole article, and tell anyone you know that the whole WEF schtick, with its 15-minute cities, the eating of bugs, riding in underpowered and unreliable EVs to mindless jobs that you didn't choose is not designed for human flourishing. The great ideas that power the world do not come from the likes of the Davos crowd.  They come from people you never heard of in odd corners of the world.  But that constant innovation will be lost under fascism.

Then, there is this: these morons honestly believe that there are too many people and they need to kill about 8 billion of us off. None of this is true. None of it. Like the Left in general, these people are living in a fantasy in which they are the kings, the rest of us serve as peasants at their suffering.  But we all outgrew playing prince and princesses years ago.  Maybe they should grow up too.

Tuesday, January 16, 2024

Judge Strikes Down Post Office Ban

 A little bit late with this one.  I saw it but other issues seemed more urgent.  At Bearing Arms several days ago, Tom Knighton had a good news piece entitled Judge Rules Banning Guns In Post Offices Unconstitutional. From The Hill:

A federal judge in Florida ruled a U.S. law that prohibits people from having firearms in post offices to be unconstitutional, the latest court decision declaring gun restrictions violate the Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Trump appointee, cited the 2022 Supreme Court ruling “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen” that expanded gun rights. The 2022 ruling recognized the individual’s right to bear a handgun in public for self-defense.
The judge shared her decision in the indictment that charged Emmanuel Ayala, U.S. Postal Service truck driver, with illegal possession of a firearm in a federal building.
The judge did not dismiss Ayala’s separate charge of resisting arrest, but did note that the firearm charge violated his Second Amendment rights, saying it is “incongruent” with the “American” tradition of “firearms regulations.”

Tom Knighton goes on to write:

The judge argued, “A blanket restriction on firearms possession in post offices is incongruent with the American tradition of firearms regulation.”
Now, I’m quite sure that a lot of anti-gunners are going to take issue with this. After all, Bruen does say that sensitive places can be gun-free zones, so why can’t a post office be included.
However, the judge notes that post offices have been around since the nation’s founding, yet our Founding Fathers made no effort to ban guns there.
She’s not wrong on that, either.

I often avoid going to the post office, as I do banks because I don't want to leave my gun in my car. It's not easy to remove a gun and put in a locked container without someone noticing. But it's supposed to be concealed, right? And let's face it, the less you manipulate your weapon, the less chance you have for a negligent discharge.

Even so, if it is Constitutional, then no matter how inconvenient I should keep on doing it. But if it isn't Constitutional, and I have never believed it is, then the only real reason for banning guns in the post office is to harrass people carrying guns. That doesn't seem like a good reason to me.

What Happens When Muslims Reach Significant Minority Status

 Olivia Murray has a post at the American Thinker today that tells us that the Muslim hordes display a warlike dominance across Europe under the pretense of 'prayer'. More and more people are coming to the understanding that Islam is a totalitarian control system under the pretense of a religion. But Islam is not a religion in the sense that the West understands 'religion.' Because Muslims claim that Allah is God, many people are mislead. But as you will learn from watching Dr. David Woods at Acts 17 Polemics, Islam is not in fact a religion, and Allah is the Devil claiming to be Yahweh, the true God. Islam, is a lie, from start to finish proclaimed by the father of lies to fool people into rejecting the Christ.

Like a dog marks his territory with urination, so do the new-to-Europe third world Muslim invaders with “prayer.” Ostensibly, they came as asylum seekers and refugees, displaced and downtrodden, ready to adapt and contribute to the West. Now that there’s enough of them, they can throw off the shackles of subterfuge and openly act in accordance with what they planned from the very beginning… in a particularly warlike way.
Either intentionally or coincidentally, these Muslim hordes are engaged in the conquering tactics articulated by Saul Alinsky in his well-known Lucifer-dedicated book, Rules for Radicals:
For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people’s organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power.
Just as Alinsky desired to undermine the virtues and ethos of the West, so do the new-to-Europe third world Muslim invaders.

...snip...

Sure, this is Islamic prayer—aggressive, domineering, and disruptive—but this is not the Judeo-Christian prayer of the West, which is meek, gentle, and humble.

Among the "beautiful names of Allah" include "trickster." A Muslim never knows if he will be saved or if Allah will decide to send him to hell anyway for no reason. Allah does not love people, there is no concept of grace. Frankly, I think I will stick with the True God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  I would also point out that the Constitution is consistent with Christianity, but Islam is antithetical to American values.

Monday, January 15, 2024

Those Awful EVs

 Andrea Widburg had another excellent post yesterday at the American Thinker, this one about problems with EVs entitled A cold El Nino winter reveals another problem with electric vehicles.

Have you ever driven a Tesla? I have. It’s a lovely car to drive because it accelerates quickly, handles well, and is stocked to the brim with cool gadgets. In a sane world, rich people would buy it and other electric vehicles (EVs) for fun and, as competition drove the price down, ordinary people would think about them, too. But we don’t live in a sane world. We live in an insane world in which our governments are forcing us to buy EVs to “save the climate.” That’s why it’s important to focus on just how awful EVs are, and this winter is forcing that focus on a lot of foolish people.
Let me count the problems with EVs:
- The batteries require child slave labor.
- Mining the materials for the batteries is one of the most violent environmental acts around. To sound like a leftist, you’re almost raping the earth, and it’s a burden borne by third-world countries under heavy Chinese influence.
- The batteries, when they die, are often too expensive to replace, killing the cars.
- When the batteries catch fire (and they do, often), that’s it for the car.
- If you think ordinary batteries are terrible for landfills, EV batteries are worse, way, way worse.
- The electricity for EVs must come from somewhere, which usually means fossil fuels.
- Repair costs are incredibly high (which also drives up the overall cost of car insurance for everyone as EVs flood the roads and insurance companies have to adjust to deal with these costs).
- EVs are generally less reliable than traditional gas-powered cars.

And then there is both cold and hot weather. EVs are notorious for both taking longer to charge, and having less range when the temperature goes down, and A/C eats a lot of range. And this is after one spends sometimes hours waiting in line for a charging station, then hours to actually charge the vehicle. This compared to 15 minutes to fill your internal combustion car and get a cup of coffee to boot.

It’s especially slow when it’s cold. Not only does your battery drain much more quickly (killing efficiency by as much as 41% when temperatures drop below 40 degrees Fahrenheit), but your battery also recharges more slowly. This problem is exacerbated if you’re in a place where you need to use your car as shelter and warmth from the cold during the slow charging process...

When the internal combustion engine powered cars were replacing the horse and buggy, there were no government subsidies. Rather, men with vision looked at the situation on the ground and grew both the automobile, and gasoline stations organically. If EVs were as good as those pushing them claimed, everybody would be clamoring to get one. The fact is, though, that the technology is awful. It was awful 120 years ago, and it hasn't improved much since.

Openly Proposing Treason

So, I was not paying a lot of attention yesterday to the news, but Andrea Widburg is back from vacation at the American Thinker. She had an alarming piece entitled Lawmakers and others are secretly planning a military mutiny if Trump is elected. This is outright treason. The Constitution is clear that the President, elected by the Electoral College based on the peoples' votes is the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy. Period. To mutiny against him is high treason. Period.

Mutiny is on the menu should Trump win again. That’s according to an allegedly “secret” plan, that’s being widely trumpeted on NBC News, for the military to refuse to follow orders from Trump. Part of this is pre-election posturing, but part of this is entirely consistent with the post-Obama military, up to and including the execrable Mark “White Rage” Milley.
Section 2, Article II of the United States Constitution is extremely clear that the President calls the shots when it comes to the military:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

I don't know what else to say about this "secret" plan. As Widburg makes clear:

Note that wiggle-room phrase “constitutional norms.” You see, the one constitutional imperative is that Trump is the Commander-in-Chief. By electing him, the American people will have concluded that he is the best person to determine whether America is in sufficient peril that a military force becomes necessary. It’s not up to a cabal of special interest groups and lawmakers, none of whom have any constitutional authority to make calls about the military.

Gentle readers are encouraged the read the whole article as it includes references to Widburg's blog and to Redstate that bear on the topic. If Trump is elected, and that is a big IF at this point, considering the desparation of the d/S/C party, he will have his work cut out for him turning the ship of state around. For at this point, nothing less that a full 180 degree turn will right it.

Saturday, January 13, 2024

In the battle for the human brain, ideas are more important than bullets

J. B. Shurk, at the American Thinker says that We Are In An Abusive Relationship With Our Government. It's an interesting way to look at it. The citizen is like the wife of an abusive husband. She never knows when or why he will turn on her and beat her up. After citing California's Marxist government inviting into the state illegal immigrants, then granting them free "healthcare" and taxpayers' expense while telling taxpayers they are "haters" if they object, he makes his point with full fury:

As Sundance frequently reminds readers over at The Conservative Treehouse, “We are in an abusive relationship with our government.” And in California, where the Marxist globalists rule with absolute power, the government never gets tired of slapping American citizens around and telling them it’s for their own good.
California’s decision to become a Mecca for foreign men who want to chop off their willies and hang out in women’s restrooms is just the latest example of government insanity promoted as “progress.” While foreign nationals are invading the United States in unprecedented numbers, Department of Homeland (in)Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas continues to claim that (1) there is no crisis of any kind, and (2) if there is a crisis, Congress should just allocate more money for DHS to quickly bus the invaders into small towns throughout the country. Hear that, American citizens? The problem isn’t that tens of millions of foreigners are illegally entering the country; the problem is that people are noticing the problem — which would quickly disappear if DHS had the funds to hide the invaders more effectively and seed them into the counties where illegal votes from illegal aliens will do Democrats the most good. Canceling American votes one invader at a time — yet none dare call it election-rigging on a massive scale!
Mayorkas’s admission that his plan to tackle illegal immigration consists of (1) making it worse but (2) hiding it more effectively is another infuriating example of why governments (of any kind!) can never, ever be trusted. The best that any civilized society can do is shackle government power so severely that its agents feel as if they are rotting away in a dark dungeon without any prospect of public glory. That’s why our Founders worked so hard to write a Constitution that limits the powers of all the miscreants who inevitably end up running things. After all, at its core, government is nothing more than a collection of unethical people given legal immunity for performing otherwise criminal acts.
In exchange for a little law and order, prosperity, and peace, the people look the other way while government bureaucrats steal their property (taxes), intimidate them with threats of force (FBI-Gestapo), and occasionally sacrifice their children for the greater good (war). As soon as government is celebrated as something wonderful (instead of something that should always be dreaded and despised), those same bureaucrats break free from their dungeons, anoint themselves as unaccountable kings, and devise the most elaborate schemes to pillage, plunder, and endanger the citizenry without remorse. No tax is too high! No government mandate or regulatory fiat is too grotesque! No life is too precious for the spoils of endless, needless war! In Mayorkas’s world, bureaucrats bark orders, citizens comply, the government tells you what you may own, and armed IRS agents confiscate the rest!
How has the freest nation on Earth been reduced to a population of citizen-slaves begging for government scraps? America’s tyrants use the same two-pronged approach that all totalitarian regimes do: the U.S. government (1) lies about everything, while (2) intentionally inflicting emotional harm on its citizens. Everything that unscrupulous government agents such as Mayorkas shove down Americans’ throats is part of a psychological war meant to enfeeble, confuse, dispirit, and infantilize the adult population while indoctrinating younger generations to accept absurdities, surrender to “woke” ideology, and refrain from ever questioning authoritarian “elites.”

Shurk here is painting a picture of a soft totalitarianism, but it is totalitarian and tyrannical nonetheless. Our representatives do not represent us. They rig the elections, and then punish us when we notice. It is as Stalin said: it is not the voters that count, but the people who count the votes. The laws rules and regulations have become so numerous and opaque that you probably commit a felony a day, and any citizen can be snatch up at any moment and made an example of. And if by chance the citizen has not done something illegal, they will make up the law to fit.  Telling the truth has become a revolutionary act, as has going to Church and preaching the Gospel. In this atmosphere, at which everyone is supposed to live in fear:

What this means is that fighting for human liberty against the government’s encroaching totalitarianism requires more than civil disobedience; it requires an acceptance that everything our government says is a lie and everything our government does is destructive. The U.S. government — along with most Western governments that have been captured by central banks, spy agencies, and an international cabal of Marxist “elites” — is dedicated to destroying any notion of “objective truth.” That is why we are told that biological sex is a social construct, that private property causes “climate change,” and that popular political movements are “undemocratic.” To free our bodies, we must free our minds. And to free our countries, we must work to free the minds of as many of our fellow citizens as we can.
When the battlefield is the human brain, revolutionary ideas are more important than bullets.
That and do not be afraid.

Thursday, January 11, 2024

Don't Forgive Them, Because They Didn't Ask

At Townhall.com today, Kurt Schlichter has a piece entitled Yeah, No-We're Not Ready To Forgive Bud Light. As Schlichter points out:

Forgiveness requires a recognition of wrongdoing, an apology, and the making of amends. One thing I haven’t seen is anybody from Bud Light saying, "You know, we suck. We shouldn’t have glorified this weirdo and his whole bizarre agenda, and we shouldn’t have insulted and disrespected our largely conservative consumers. We were wrong to do that. That was bad, and we’re never going to do it again. We reject this whole trans weirdness, and we love you, our consumers. You’re the heart and soul of America. You built our country, you feed it, you fuel it, and you fight its wars, and you are great Americans, and we love you, and we’re sorry. We’re sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry, and we will never do it again.” That would be a start.

But, as Schlichter says, they aren't sorry at all. They're only unhappy their customers retaliated.

But they don’t want to make it all better. The officers still have to get along with their 30-year-old liberal second wives – I don’t know if they actually have 30-year-old liberal second wives, but you know that none of the executives want to have to explain to their peer group how they cater to normal Americans rather than to the weirdo contingent. They don’t want to apologize because they aren’t sorry. They don’t want to promise that they are not going to do it again because they totally will. Again, this woke crap wasn’t an accident or an anomaly. This is what they think. They think that guys can pretend to be women, and that’s a good thing, and they think that their consumers are idiots rather than just guys with terrible taste in suds. And they don’t want to make amends. They want to sweep it under the rug. Their broom is a check.
And I’m just disgusted by the conservative influencers who play along. This was a great moment in cultural conservatism. This is when we all came together and said, no, enough, you shall not pass. But the minute Bud Light got out its checkbook, we got pseudo-conservatives turning to us with a straight face and saying, "Well, you know, maybe Bud Light got a raw deal."
No, we got a raw deal. We got a raw deal from people who pretend they care about what we care about and instead care more about the almighty dollar. Millions of dollars is a lot of money, and I understand the temptation. And I understand some people are too weak to fight the temptation. But that doesn’t require that the rest of us go along with it. When you see some hack explaining why you should drink Bud Light, you should understand that the guy is not only aesthetically wrong about a terrible beer but is trying to manipulate you.

The demons determined to bring the United States to abject poverty

 William Levin has an informative article today at the American Thinker entitled The Electric Car Con Explained. Levin shows that the contribution of automobiles to total emmissions are miniscule. Yet the Biden administration is pushing these on the American public. From other sources, we learn that dealers are giving up their franchises rather than attempt to sell electric cars to an unwilling public. In the face of this, one wonders why the Biden bunch keep doubling down?

Is electricity a source of energy? Most people will answer yes, which is incorrect. Electricity carries energy but it is not itself a source of energy, which in the U.S. is supplied 60% by natural gas and coal, 18% nuclear and 22% renewables (hydro, solar and wind).
The related question is whether cars are a major consumer of energy and hence a significant contributor of Co2 emissions? Again, most people believe both statements are self-evidently true, hence the importance of moving to electric cars..
In fact, cars (light-duty transportation) account for less than 5% of global energy demand, with U.S. cars accounting for 19% of the global car fleet, declining to under 15% by 2050 as car demand grows faster outside the U.S..
Putting these facts together, and they are indisputable facts, provides a stunning insight..
The U.S. car fleet accounts for a mere 1.0% of global energy demand (5% x 19%), declining to 0.8% by 2050. So even if the U.S. shifts 100% to electric-powered cars, the maximum climate impact in 2050 is a meaningless 0.2% (22% x 0.8%) reduction in global Co2 emissions from the current electric grid, up to a maximum of 0.5% assuming solar, wind, and hydro can, implausibly, power 60% of electric demand..
In other words, there is no factual basis to claim that the government mandate to switch to electric cars will have any material impact on global Co2 emissions.

Despite the facts and the indisputable conclusions quoted above, the Biden administration continues to drive the change to EVs. Levin goes through the math and shows that electric cars don't really save money. In fact, they cost more. But that isn't really that surprising when you consider that at every stage of the electric production and distribution system, energy is being lost, whereas a gasoline automobile the energy source is within feet of the work being done.

Again, I ask why the Biden administration keeps doubling down on the push for EVs, in the face of strong resistance from the general public? Between subsides for EVs and increasing the CAFE standards on gasoline powered vehicles, they seem determined that you "vil drive an EV and you vil like it, or else." They are like a mother who insists you eat your broccoli even though it tastes awful because it's good for you (not).

Missing in climate change discussions is its inhumane logic. Global emission increases through 2050 are due to population growth and rising economic activity in China, India, and the rest of the developing world (i.e., non-U.S. and Europe). GDP growth raises living standards. Falling GDP and population reduction outside the developed nations are the true, but strategically hidden, moral epicenter of the climate change agenda.
China, India, Asia, and Africa are not buying what world elites are selling as they self-righteously jet to exhilarating climate confabs. No one should. Demanding that 80% of the world, or some six billion humans, sacrifice their well-being, and their children, is an immorality never before articulated and rationalized.
The hard truth is that no set of actions can remotely meet the arbitrary IPCC requirement for a 70% reduction in global Co2 by 2050, certainly not the puny contribution from electrified cars and indeed nothing short of a horrific determination to strangle the world whole.
By all means purchase a battery-powered vehicle if it pleases you. But do not imagine for a moment that it saves money or is doing anything that matters for climate change.
We are ruled by liars, fools and demons, too often all three in one.

Tuesday, January 9, 2024

Gun Control Is Not Normal

Jennifer Sensiba at The Truth About Guns has an article telling us that Today's Gun Control Isn't Normal, And We Shouldn't Pretend It Is. As someone who has had the good fortune to live as long as I have, I remember when we were much freer. I remember when guns could be purchased by mail, and have it delivered to your door. Or, you could go to the hardware store, Montgomery Wards, Sears and Roebucks, and other stores and put down your money and take away a gun. No background check, no FFL, and nobody cared. Especially for us old farts, the current situation isn't normal, and I refuse to pretend it is.

One very troublesome aspect of human psychology is normalcy bias, our hesitance to believe that the way things are right now is how they’ll always be, and how they always were. In many ways, that’s how it is with gun control. It’s easy to think that just because something has been a certain way your whole life that it can’t possibly change. Whether we live in denial or not, sometimes the world changes anyway.
After the NYSRPA v Bruen decision, anti-gun politicians and commentators accused the Supreme Court of things like “repealing the 20th century.” But, the truth is that even most of the 20th century wasn’t a gun control paradise. In this article, I’m going to give several examples of things that are “unthinkable” today that show gun control is both relatively new and entirely worthless.

...snip...

Not only was concealed carry and gun ownership common in those days, but one could simply send in a postcard requesting one. When the gun arrived, you’d pay the postman for the gun and then have it. There was no waiting period, background check, or any other hoop to jump through. The gun would go straight to your door.
But, if you wanted to go to a store and get one. Hardware stores sold firearms, suppressors, and many other highly-regulated things right on the shelf like a BB gun today. But, this guy thinks such a thing is crazy, despite it being normal only decades ago.
If you're against the ban on ghost guns, you in essence believe there should be no background checks on gun purchases whatsoever. You believe you should be able to pick up a gun at Ace Hardware next to the hammers.

Well, yes, exactly so! This was normal from the time immemorial in the United States until 1968. Sensiba speculates on the causes of the current mass shootings. That too is not normal. People used to teach their children to be responsible in general, including with guns. People learned early on that you don't solve your problems with a gun.

When we see gun control activists acting like we’re crazy for not accepting their laws as normal, we need to remind them that what they’ve done to society isn’t normal. We should be able to take a gun just about anywhere we want without having to grovel for permission and pay money. We should be able to order guns online and have them shipped to our door, or go get one from a vending machine if someone wants to offer them and we want to buy one.

Monday, January 8, 2024

No more J6s

 J. R. Dunn has a important, and excellent essay today, at the American Thinker entitled No More J6s. Dunn points out that January 6th was a set up by the Democrats and the deep state to both embarrass MAGA supporters and suppress them. And too many of us fell for it. We need to be sharper, and more cunning. We need to be less naive. We need to recognize that our Republican "representatives" are as capable as the Left of stabbing us in the back, so that we need to keep a careful eye on them. We need to recognize that the methods of the Left will not work for us. They have an army of malcontents, anarchists and ne're-do-wells ready at a moment's notice to protest whatever they are paid to protest. We are not those people, and putting ourselves in the crosshairs will only get us figuratively shot.

Please read Dunn's article, and take it to heart as it is meant to point to more positive ways we can actually improve our chances of success. I will not quote from the article because really the whole article is worth reading, perhaps several times.

You must have noticed that the Left uses violence, coersion and corruption. This may be described as "human nature" and to an extent it is. But what is happening is more than just your typical "human nature." It is demonic in the its breadth and extent, so if you are a praying person, it would be good to invoke the Lords blessing on our efforts.

The Ultimate Women's Issue

 Mike McDaniel has a message for women: get a gun, get training, and carry that gun everywhere.  It is the ultimate women's issue. But before coming to that conclusion, he discusses Less-lethal weapons and the ultimate women's issue. He discusses the disadvantages of less-lethal weapons for women especially in fighting against a male attacker.

What, then, should men, and particularly women, carry to save their lives if the worst happens? Obviously, concealed handguns are the best choice. A great many manufacturers make many models in serious calibers that not only conceal well, but shoot well. I can’t say it often enough: preserving the Second Amendment is the ultimate women’s issue.
However, the women’s press is full of articles about less than lethal weapons, usually depicting them as devices that will stop an elephant in its tracks, and are infallible at saving lives. The Lamestream Media usually leaves the topic alone, not wanting to give anyone any ideas, on the general theory lesser weapons are gateway drugs to guns. Either way, they’re producing bad, and potentially deadly, advice.
I’ll deal only with two less-lethal weapons: pepper sprays and knives.

I believe that everyone should carry a knife...as a tool for cutting things. At a minimum, everyone, male and female should carry a pocket, or purse knife. Whether it is slicing open boxes, cutting a rope, or any of a thousand other things needing cutting, a good, sharp pocket knife is an essential. I also carry what is known as a rescue knife that has a window breaker and a seat belt cutter. One never knows what the future holds, and besides, it also has a blade which may be useful for cutting things.

What a knife is not is a weapon unless one has had extensive training. Even so, one doesn't want to come into contact with an attacker if at all possible to stop him at a distance. And a gun is a stand-off weapon. It allows the possibility of stopping the attack before the attacker has a chance to do damage to the victim's person.

Then there's:

Pepper Spray: It’s marketed in containers of various colors and sizes, with or without hand straps. It comes in three primary types: sprays that produce a reasonably tight, liquid stream, sprays that produce a sort of fog, and sprays that produce a sticky, gel-like stream. I can count on one hand the number of times I used the stuff during my police career.
It’s designed to irritate the eyes, throat and lungs, producing a burning sensation on the skin. It does this reasonably well. The problem is not everyone is affected. Police officers tend not to use it, particularly indoors, because when they do everyone gets dosed, and the cops and crooks end up coughing, snorting, their noses running and eyes burning, but still have to wrestle it out. Many people are so drugged or drunk they barely notice the pepper spray. Some people just get really mad and determined to hurt the person that sprayed them. It causes relatively few to suddenly become cooperative, but sometimes the threat of being sprayed does. That’s a very slim possibility on which to bet one’s life. Another problem is wind and precipitation greatly hamper effective employment. It has to be aimed, and from close range, and digging it out of pocket or purse is slow and clumsy.
Getting into grappling range of someone who wants to beat, rape or kill you is, for obvious reasons, to be avoided. That’s one of the primary advantages of firearms; they’re distance weapons.

...snap...

The best possible defensive tactic is the Pythonesque King Arthur option: run away, run away! If that’s not possible, the next best option is a handgun which one carries every day, and with which one is intimately familiar and confident. It really is the ultimate women’s issue.

Saturday, January 6, 2024

Are Gun-Grabbers Losing?

 D. Parker has an interesting post today at his blog Libertas Veritas entitled The gun-gabber lobby is losing.

Take a look at the site, which is the personal blog of author D. Parker from the American Thinker and consider all you read and know about the issue. Does it feel like we are winning? I don't think so. And here's why.

The recent mass shooting (which remember is a fairly rare event, made more terrifying because each one is endlessly covered by the news media as if this is happening all the time, while ignoring the number of gang related shootings that occur every weekend in places like Chicago) at Perry High School in Perry, Iowa was committed by a boy who was confused and wanted to be a girl. For the most part the MSM ignored that fact. Why? Because it did not fit their narrative.  It will always be this way.  You can not make journalist be honest.  That is a fact.

Here is another: the fact of the matter is that we are locked in a spiritual war that will never end. The Left will never stop trying to take away our guns. As Parker points out, their idea that guns are like cigarettes and we can use the same methods to take them away is pretty stupid. But they will never admit defeat, because they can't. And we cannot make them either. Those are the facts.

Sorry

Wayne LaPierre Retires

 By now, you have heard the news that Wayne LaPierre Is Retiring As NRA CEO and Executive Vice President, if you are a gun owner. Cam Edwards has the report over at Bearing Arms. Gentle readers can read Edwards' piece for themselves. I want to say a few words though.

I have been in the past, and right up until this year, a member of the NRA. But I have often disagreed with the approach taken by the National Rifle Association toward the Second Amendment. The NRA was established by Union Army officers after the Civil War as a way to improve the marksmanship of the average rifleman, which they deemed abyssimal. They wanted men already trained in good marksmanship if we had to go to war again. Now, the NRA has done many good things for the gun owning community, but it had by the early 1970s become a club for Fudds-gentleman hunters and trap and skeet shooters for whom guns were a hobby. But that was not the intent of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights to maintain a pool of men who could be called upon in times of emergency to fight off foreign invaders and those inside who threatened tyranny. The Second Amendment anticipated the right of self-defense as an ancillary part of its intended mission. The framers also clearly anticipated technological improvements to "arms" which is why that term was used and not "single shot muzzle loading muskets." So, why then did not the NRA, claiming to speak for the 2A community, tell our Congressmen "not no but hell no" to "compromises" to our Second Amendment rights? Had the NRA fought harder, perhaps we wouldn't today have that abortion known as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and subsequent "compromises." Has any "gun control" legislation actually accomplished its purported purposes? For those who are wondering, the answer is "No! None have worked as advertised, to reduce crime, but all have burdened the exercise of the Second Amendment."

I am sorry to have to say this, but the NRA has failed in its fundamental mission. And a great deal of that can be laid at the feet of Wayne LaPierre. Good riddance. Now, maybe the NRA can resolve its legal issues and become the no compromise organization gun owners deserve.

Thursday, January 4, 2024

In Staying With the Left, Jews Forced To Violate Their Principles and Integrity

I have been disappointed with many "conservative" voices calling out the anti-semitism of the authoritarian fascist far-left because it fails to say why we should be supporting the Jews and Israel. Sure, hatred is bad. But there are reasons that go beyond these secular parameters, and J. R. Dunn has hit on a number of them in his article at the American Thinker today entitled Beating the Anti-Semites. Dunn points out that it is not possible to be a practicing Jew and be a Leftist. Indeed, it is not possible to be a practicing Christian and be a Leftist. Whether you are reading the Torah (the first five books of the Bible, known as the Law) or you are reading the Bible, you will come across a contradiction between what you should be doing as opposed to what you are actually doing. Christ demands that we repent of these things, that we rethink what we are doing and change our ways.  But the Left pretends that doing these things is really good.

As an aside, now after 70 years as a "conservative" I have come to disagree with the founders of the "conservative" movement, Russel Kirk. Kirk proposed that conservatism contains no ideology. I suppose he was writing in opposition to Marxism, so in that sense I will forgive Dr. Kirk. But conservatism does indeed have an "ideology" that goes back to the Garden of Eden, and man's fall from grace. Conservatism believes in the fallen nature of mankind, and in the idea that only God can bring about his reconciliation with Him through the life and death and resurrection of His Son. The notion that man is "perfectable" if we just make enough rules, and murder of enough dissenters is pure hogwash. Yet it always comes down to murdering a whole bunch of people.

Jews were swept into the Left's orbit because of the idea of intersectionality. Just as the homosexual movement needed to gather together the gays, lesbians, bisexuals and all the other perverts under the umbrella which has become known as LGBTQWERTY++2S, so the Left gathers groups of disaffected malcontents who, on their own would be ignored by politicians. Then they enforce a "one for all and all for one" lockstep on each individual group. This leads to ridiculous things like gays protesting for Hamas, even though Muslims would throw them off high buildings the gay men were to go to Gaza.

Anti-Semitism within the American Left is largely the product of intersectionality, the concept that all aspects of leftist activism – Blacks, Latins, gays, Muslims, and whatever -- are interwoven and must be mutually supportive. All leftists must accept and support all left-wing constituencies no matter what contradictions might exist. Civil rights activists must support abortion, union members must support gun control, and gay rights activists must support the Palestinians (despite the fact that they’d one and all be given a brief flying lesson if they were to be caught out in much of the Muslim world). This is how the Left asserts itself and gains power. It’s a Third Millennial version of the Popular Front politics of the mid-20th century, in which liberals, communists, social democrats and what have you were all called to do their part in fighting the bourgeois (which, in practice, meant putting the commies in power).

You see the problem don't you? Jews are being asked to support the very people and organizations that want to kill them. But Jews are not as self-loathing as the gays.

It follows from this that any leftist who buys into intersectionality – which is all of them – is objectively (as any good Trotskyite would put it) an anti-Semite. You can’t duck this or contradict it. If you support the American Left, then you support Hamas, which supports annihilating Jews “from the river to the sea.” There are consequences for holding such ideas, and those consequences will be forthcoming.
The flip side of this is that no American Jew who supports his community, who values his heritage, can honestly call himself a leftist. This despite the fact that most American Jews (the ultra-orthodox excepted) were raised in liberal-left traditions. It’s a difficult thing to overturn the convictions of a lifetime, but it has to be done. As it stands, American Jews are in the ghastly position of collaborating with those out to destroy them.

I would add here for emphasis that no Christian can honestly call himself a Leftist. Such Leftist innovations as abortion are so offensive to God that we can not accept it, period. Legislatures are called extreme for limiting abortions to 12 or 15 weeks, but they are doing so because of our hard hearts. But any Christian should call it murder plain and simple. This makes sense because the theology is the same in both the Old and New Testaments. There is no difference.

Dunn makes the point that it is time, indeed long past time, for Jews to join American conservatives. The conservatives won't make Jews violate their principles and integrity to satisfy their agenda.