Attempts To Thwart Independence

It is well to remember H. L Mencken's quote that "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

At The Federalist today, Jessica Marie Baumgartner has an article entitled COVID Fearmongering Worked So Well, the Government Is Now Creating A Poultry Panic. Baumgartner has recently gotten into the backyard chicken raising craze in order to have fresh eggs for her growing family, herself and her husband. Eggs are considered one of the most complete bioavailable sources of protein and other vitamins and minerals you can find. After all, an egg is a little kit for building a chicken, so it should be.

In 2020, the supply chain experienced disruptions that no one in my generation had ever seen. It became even more apparent to those who believe in the power of self-reliance that it is up to us to take care of ourselves. Backyard farming began booming, along with an increased interest in raising chickens.

Since then, efforts to balance self-sustainable lifestyles have been threatened. Government interference in normal healthy practices continues to grow amid concerns over “public safety.”

During the pandemic, my family added fruit trees to our already-growing vegetable garden and discussed getting chickens. It offered a sense of peace in a time of unprecedented government overreach.

I had similar thoughts when the pandemic was going full steam. But I was put off that notion by the woman down the street who had had hens for years. No one ever complained. But then, a new president of our HOA took over and he was determined to enforce all the provisions of our HOA, including the provision that no one could have "farm animals" on their property. Now, remember that our properties are all two acres or more. Apparently, they threatened to take her home. I don't know if it is constitutional or not, but I decided not to test it.

Now as avian flu is making headlines, fears that “they’re coming for your chickens” are being realized.

Although the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) admits that “the current public health risk is low,” it also posted that more than 90 million detections have been found in wild birds and backyard and commercial flocks across 48 states.

Yet, in the fine print, they note that this number was compiled over a two-year period and offer no information on how the testing was administered, how deadly the virus is, or how many birds have recovered.

So once again, the numbers are being stacked to breed fear. Why?

Why indeed? Could it be that the institutions we used to trust have been hijacked by the globalists? We know that in the name of "Climate Change" a number of countries have called for the culling of the herds of cattle. They have talked about closing farms.  They want us dependent on their laboratory grown "meat" and to become vegans. But as Lierra Keith's book The Vegetarian Myth shows that vegetarianism and veganism are not moral alternatives to eating meat and are not healthy. While vegetables may contain proteins, they are not complete, and they also introduce poisons that slowly ruin your health.  It has been said that plants are trying to kill you.

We should all be suspicious of why the big, bad bird scare keeps getting pushed.

While constant death-toll counters were used to scare people about Covid, despite the fact that Covid was never as deadly as predicted and mostly affected senior citizens who are usually at risk for all illnesses, there have only been two cases of avian flu reported in the U.S., with no fatalities.

Two. Total. Out of hundreds of millions of people. Still there is a push for more testing, and even the development of two vaccines in the works — for an illness that has done virtually nothing.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-26/eat-less-meat-is-message-for-rich-world-in-food-s-first-net-zero-plan

...snip...

In addition, the latest bird flu scare happens to coincide with climate alarmists’ movement to prevent people from eating meat.

The globalist oligarchy, the World Economic Forum, claims that eating “lots of meat” is bad for the environment, and Bloomberg noted that the 2023 Paris climate agreement is slated to curb our “excessive appetite for meat.”

Although the narrative surrounding meat consumption focuses on the human carbon footprint, very few outlets are willing to report on the catastrophic effects of malnourishment, often developed due to a lack of meat consumption.

Baumgartener concludes with the truth that the more we are independent, the less we will be subject to being frightened into the government's idea of what our lives should be. We are slowly realizing that most of our government has been captured by the globalists, who do not care about you and me. They are in thrall to the international mega-corporations and their profits. We know that the WEF believes we need to cull the human population down to 500 million from the current 8 billion. They use climate crisis as the excuse, but what they are really thinking is that most of us won't have anything to do in their "brave new world."  Idle hands, right?  I think, as usual, these so-called "best and brightest" have no idea beyond their technological ideation. Men will always be needed to do the dirty and dangerous jobs these elite pansies won't do. But more than that, they have not figured out that people are endlessly inventive and will find things to do that have not been thought of yet.

Be a Critical Thinker

Here's another one for gentle readers today.  Found at PJ Media by David Strom is Teacher Focused on Reason Over Ideology Fired. I encourage you to check out the X posts as they will give you a flavor of what Warren Smith is about. I remember teachers just like Warren Smith who shaped me. Learning to think critically is the most important thing one can achieve. If you are a Christian, it is doubly important to separate out the real teachings of Christ from those others would impose on you. But sussing out the facts from the propaganda is important in every area of life. Be a critical thinker. And now I have to run.

Electric Semis Cost Us How Much?

 I don't have much time today, so I will simply point to a post by Olivia Murray at the American Thinker entitled New report: Trucking industry firm finds transition to 'electric' semis hikes operating costs 114%. Now, imagine that your food costs, already 30% higher have an addition 114% tacked on. You think you are hurting now? But read the whole report.

Let Hamas Be Destroyed

 Mike Konrad at the American Thinker today has an article that must read, if you don't read anything else today. Konrad article is entitled What the War Is About. Without mentioning either God or the devil explicitly, though he does quote from Scripture, he speaks about how God intervened in human history to improve the life of people in Western Civilization. Western Civilization is currently under attack, but true Christians should know that God has already won and should stand up and be counted as on His side. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matt 16:26)

Konrad starts by analysing the Battle of Thermopylae from the framework not of battle tactics, but from the world changing results of that battle.

There are times when large wars produces miniscule results, waged only to re-arrange pieces on a chessboard (War of the Spanish Succession) -- and times when small scuffles will make or break a civilization (The battle of Thermopylae).

...snip...

At the battle of Thermopylae, were the Spartans really morally preferable to the Persians? Both had Indo-European leadership, so this was not about race. The Persians were an autocratic tyranny with a semi-divine king, yet the Spartans were a totalitarian monstrosity.

So which side was right?

The key lay in the underlying Greek culture. While Sparta was a nightmare, the rest of Greece was not. Other Greek city-states had a concept of the worth of the individual, and a nascent sense of democracy. And even Sparta had a concept of rights for women.

By today’s false standards, Persia was a multicultural wonderland which included autonomously semi-empowered ethnicities of color, while Sparta was elitistly white. (Early 20th century racists thought the Spartans were close to the Nordic ideal. Argh!).

Yet, it would be multicultural Persia which would descend into historical despotism while ancient Greece (hopelessly white) would invent Western civilization (and Orthodox civilization as well). Had one been a neutral observer in 480 B.C., it would have taken some discernment to comprehend that. Yet, even though Sparta was a flawed representative of Greece, overall the battle was a struggle between light and dark, good and evil, freedom and tyranny.

A note here for those not familiar with the Bible. Konrad's use of light and dark refer to the Biblical meaning of "light" as illustrating the Truth of God, versus the darkness representing evil, the devil, and the demonic. It carries no racists overtones. Racism and the preoccupation of skin color is an exclusive fetish of the Left. It has no bearing in the real world and is a construct used by the Left solely to distract from its indefensible positions.

The next turning point in creating Western Civilization was the conquering by Alexander the Great of Israel. In subsequent centuries, the relatively advanced Jewish culture would be Hellenized as Jews discovered that the Greeks although pagan, had a high culture of their own. Into this world was borne Jesus of Nazareth.

What is also clear is that the Greeks were not like Israel’s other enemies (at least, not at first). The Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians were genuinely deranged. The Egyptians worshiped frogs. The Assyrians and Babylonians were mindlessly violent.

The Hebrews were blindsided by a Greek culture that could compete with their own. The Greeks had higher math, music theory, impressive architecture, wonderful literature, great art, and the Olympics. It was easy to look down on the Egyptians, but one could not do that with the Greeks (Westerners).

...snip...

And it is no accident that the New Testament is written in Greek.

This meeting of European and Hebrew is the real beginning of world civilization.

I am going to state it bluntly, true world civilization begins when the West meets the Jews.The rabbis went nuts as Jewish youth started embracing Greek culture. They called this the crisis of Hellenization. [James Mitchener also described this phenomena in "The Source." -ed.]

Konrad also notes that the other world religions were dying out until revived by Westerners. In particular, Islam was a dying culture until the Wilhelm II revived it. The devil is always working to undermine Christ. Yet today we face a reinvigorated Islam, that never produced anything but misery and slavery.

Konrad goes on to describe the Western Civilization, blessed with the Christian faith, as dynamic and inventive. Science in its true form bloomed in Christiandom because of a belief, born of the Bible, that God is not the god of chaos and confusion. Thus the world is knowable, and Christians set out to find it.

Recently, we have lost faith in science not because science is bad, but because scientists themselves have betrayed science and us by claiming science in the name of Leftist politics. Similarly, what was and is the only way to make a living, by trading something you have for something someone else needs (capitalism) has become a dirty word in a post Christian and increasingly pagan world. Churches have betrayed the people by bowing to the world rather than standing up for the Gospel of Christ. All of these things stem from a lack of faith in the saving promises of Christ. We must have spines of steel, and put on the full armor of God.

What is going on in the Mideast is much deeper than an ethnic, colonial, or national struggle. Should Israel fail, world civilization will fall accordingly.

This is why I support Israel, and why the West should continue to do so.

Let Hamas be destroyed.

Exactly so.

There Should Be No Carve Outs For the Police

 Today at Bearing Arms Tom Knighton has a piece entitled Why Special Exceptions for Law Enforcement Make Little Sense. Knighton brings up the famous case of the DEA agent who claimed to be the "only one" professional enough in that room (he was giving a talk to a classroom full of kids) to handle his gun, just before firing a negligent discharge into his own leg. This incident spawned the "Only Ones" meme by David Codrea at the War on Guns.

You see, we the armed public, are not perceived to be sufficiently trained, or sufficiently responsible enough to manage our firearms on our own without the "help" of legislators, who pretty much don't know anything about guns or handling them. Witness the bozo statements by Congress citters about guns. I could put more such links, but they would be redundant. They don't carry daily, but they presume to tell everyone else how to do it. They create a series of "gun free zones" that require us to constantly take our guns out of our holsters and put them in our cars. Then they complain that guns are stolen out of our cars. Then they suggest we just keep them locked up, where they can't do harm, but can't do any good either.

See, the police aren't some special class of people who are more pure than the rest of us because their cause is righteous. Police departments are organizations made up of people, which means some are good and some are bad. Some are smart and some are idiots.

What's more, we also know that while law enforcement may well go through a great deal of training initially, armed citizens not only put themselves through extensive training on their own time, but often continue with training through discussion, videos, range trips, and additional classes.

I'm not trying to denigrate law enforcement here. I'm just saying we, the law-abiding public, should have the same access and availability for firearms that police officers do. Just because they draw a paycheck doesn't make them experts on how to handle guns, after all, and I'm sure most officers can name some colleagues they don't think should be allowed out in public without supervision, much less allowed out with a firearm.

The expertise of the police is in things like patroling, catching speeders and other criminals, investigating crimes and building cases for prosecution. Guns are tools, but not their most important tools, same as civilians. Therefore, whatever restrictions are placed on civilians should be applied to police officers as well. They really aren't the "Only Ones."

Best Practice Is Concealed Carry

 Mike McDaniel has yet another piece on the open versus concealed carry of firearms at the American Thinker today entitled simply Open or concealed carry? McDaniel, I think would agree that the best weapon you have is the one on top of your shoulders. Good situational awareness, avoidance when possible, de-escalation when necessary should be your go-to. My Shotokan Sensei years ago noted that the only fight you win is the one you didn't have. One should strive to never have to draw and use the gun, though if you have to draw it, you must be prepared to use it. It is a tool, not a talisman.

The primary advantage of concealed carry is criminals can’t know who is carrying and have to assume everyone is and act accordingly. This applies largely to red states. Of course, situational awareness plays a role. Anyone appearing to be an easy, unaware target is more likely, armed or unarmed, to be attacked. Obviously, the greater the number of honest people carrying concealed, the greater the potential deterrence.

Many would argue there is no commensurate advantage to open carry, but for the sake of argument, I’ll make a case. An openly carried handgun might—might—convince criminals the person carrying it is prepared and situationally aware, someone with whom one does not trifle—unless observation reveals otherwise. It can’t be assumed an open carrier will therefore be less aware, relying on their exposed weapon to ward off evil, but it can’t be discounted either.

McDaniel cites a number of advantages to open carry besides the supposed deterrent factor. One of these is that it is easier to carry a full size gun, whereas most concealed carry guns are sub optimally small. Yet I carry a full size 1911 handgun daily and slip it under a shirt, behind a jacket, under a sweater, and so on. Now when I started out, I didn't think I would be able to do this, so I bought your typical "belly gun" as a first buy. But I soon found that no one was paying any attention. I was of course hyperaware, but most people are buried in their phone or concerned about their current mission.

One other consideration I call "don't scare the white women":

The other primary issue to consider is stampeding the women and children and frightening the cattle. The mere sight of a firearm is sufficient to panic some people. However, there is nothing sane Americans can do, nor should they, to avoid aggrieving the perpetually aggrieved, particularly those of an anti-liberty/gun bent. Rational Americans aren’t responsible for the moment-to-moment mental health of the unbalanced, but one can make a reasonable case for doing what’s reasonably necessary to avoid unnecessary confrontation of all kinds.

When I see someone carrying openly, and that’s actually less common than most imagine even in Flyover Country, I take a few moments to assess their actions and apparent emotional state, and to date, that’s all it has taken to be comfortable with them.

McDaniel makes the point that no one is responsible for the reactions of another. Each one of us is responsible for our own actions and reactions. When people say that seeing a gun make them feel unsafe, they are demonstrating a desire to control others, not a particulary delicate sensibility. Such people are manipulative and should thus be ignored. However, why draw attention to yourself? I have had the experience of listening to an anti-gun person bang on about it while I stood there with my 1911 on my hip and smiled and nodded. If you go about concealed, you don't have to become a lightening rod.

Here, I have to interject something that comes up frequently. Should a Christian be carrying a gun, prepared to shoot someone? Our God did command us not to commit murder. But He is not a pacifist, and we are not to be pacifist either. Our God hates evil and sin, and if we love Him, we will too.  God sent Israel in to slaughter the men, women, children and even the animals of those worshipping the ancient demons (and this should frighten us today, as many still worship these beings.) God also expects us to defend ourselves, our families and neighbors against unlawful attempts to take their lives. We should use the best tools available for that job, but always pray we don't need to use that force.

McDaniel comes down on the side of concealing our firearms. I agree.

Generally, it’s best to go about one’s business as unobtrusively as possible, relying on situational awareness and solid knowledge of use of force law to avoid ever having to draw or fire one’s handgun. Arguably has the greatest chance of doing that while carrying concealed.

The Greatness of Trump

 I have wondered at, and then been impressed by President Trumps ability to take a lickin' and keep on tickin'.  But Andrea Widburg at the American Thinker explains how Trump does it and remains a happy and joyful warrior. Her post can be found at Trump explains the secret behind his astonishing emotional resilience.

From Trump's The Art of the Deal:

When people treat me badly or unfairly or try to take advantage of me, my general attitude, all my life, has been to fight back very hard. The risk is you’ll make a bad situation worse, and I certainly don’t recommend this approach to everyone. But my experience is that if you’re fighting for something you believe in — even if it means alienating some people along the way — things usually work out for the best in the end.

The former president added that he doesn’t let his legal troubles bother him too much.

There it is. If Trump were given to quoting the Bible, he might have said, “Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” (Matthew 6:34.) At a visceral level, Trump understands that you take each day as it comes, dealing with that day’s needs and not worrying too much about the next day.

Now, as I have said, I am not a Trump guy, and I am not wild about his style either. The man has many flaws, though which one of us does not? The thing is, he is proving himself to be a great man despite his flaws. Moreover, his greatness stands in contrast to the small men and women who are arrayed against him. It reminds me of Gulliver's Travels and the Lilliputians. Given a choice between Trump and almost any other politician running, I will vote for Trump every time.

Another Reason to be Grateful for George Washington

 Daniel Greenfield, aka Sultan Knish, has post at his website entitled The Left's Plot Against George Washington. If you do not know the history of the Left, the idea that the Left had a plot against Washington will surprise you. That's because the media tend to focus on Karl Marx as the founder of the Left. But actually, the Left has existed since the snake tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden. Oh, the devil changes tactics to snare people in every age, but he is always a liar and a murderer. He always attempts to subjugate people under him.

We must remember that there were two revolutions in the 18th century. One was the American revolution, which resulted in the republic of the United States of America, and the French revolution, which devolved into the reign of terror. The philosophies underlying the two revolutions were diametrically opposite. While the American revolution specifically invoked God and Divine Providence, the French revolution was a consciously atheist affair. And the French revolution was therefore a Leftist revolution.

But the War on Washington isn’t just a recent phenomenon.

The Left didn’t want until George Washington was a statue to topple him. Newspapers like The National Gazette, The Philadelphia Aurora and The New York Time Piece, which were the vanguard of the emerging Democratic-Republican party, depicted him being led to the guillotine.

Democrats today claim that they oppose George Washington because he was a slave owner, but why did Democrats who were not only slave owners then but defended slavery (unlike Washington who favored liberating slaves and whose Washington Benevolent Societies were the organizing network for black conservative voters in the 1800s ) oppose him then?

Long before their relatively recent interest in organizing black people, American leftists were great enthusiasts of the French Revolution and favored bringing it to this country. My book, ‘Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers’ Fight Against The Left’, reveals how the Democrats got their start as the “French Party” built around “Democratic Societies” modeled on French radical Jacobin clubs and set up with the aid of foreign emissaries of the French Revolution.

George Washington’s great crime in the eyes of the leftists of his day was his refusal to turn over America to the forces of the French Revolution which was the USSR of its day.

...snip...

French Foreign Minister Charles Delacroix had urged Citizen Pierre-Auguste Adet, the French ambassador, to “use all means in his power to bring about a successful revolution, and Washington’s replacement.”

Washington, always a fighter, would not take the leftist campaign against him lying down.

In his address to Congress, President George Washington had warned of the threat of “certain self-created societies.” By those he meant the Democratic Societies. In a private letter he even more explicitly described how “these societies were instituted by the artful & designing members (many of their body I have no doubt mean well, but know little of the real plan),” by an agent of the French government “under popular and fascinating guises, the most diabolical attempts to destroy the best fabric of human government.” The Democratic Societies, he warned, were created to “sow Sedition; to poison the minds of the people of this country.”

We owe the Father of our Country a great debt of gratitude for his actions. He managed to provide an example of humble service, right actions, and faith in God that has stood the test of time. Greenfield has provided yet another reason to be grateful that Washington was our first President under the Constitution.

The Myth Of The Plant Based Diet

So, this is not "new," but I came across it and having read Nina Teicholz book Big Fat Surprise, I thought I would share it with gentle readers. The article can be found at the Atlantic entitled How We Got Meat Wrong by Nina Teicholz.

The idea that red meat is a principal dietary culprit has pervaded our national conversation for decades. We have been led to believe that we’ve strayed from a more perfect, less meat-filled past. Most prominently, when Senator McGovern announced his Senate committee’s report, called Dietary Goals, at a press conference in 1977, he expressed a gloomy outlook about where the American diet was heading.

“Our diets have changed radically within the past 50 years,” he explained, “with great and often harmful effects on our health.” These were the “killer diseases,” said McGovern. The solution, he declared, was for Americans to return to the healthier, plant-based diet they once ate.

Except that plant based diet we once ate never existed. It was a myth.

Early Americans settlers were “indifferent” farmers, according to many accounts. They were fairly lazy in their efforts at both animal husbandry and agriculture, with “the grain fields, the meadows, the forests, the cattle, etc, treated with equal carelessness,” as one 18th-century Swedish visitor described—and there was little point in farming since meat was so readily available.

Settlers recorded the extraordinary abundance of wild turkeys, ducks, grouse, pheasant, and more. Migrating flocks of birds would darken the skies for days. The tasty Eskimo curlew was apparently so fat that it would burst upon falling to the earth, covering the ground with a sort of fatty meat paste. (New Englanders called this now-extinct species the “doughbird.”)

In the woods, there were bears (prized for their fat), raccoons, bobo­links, opossums, hares, and virtual thickets of deer—so much that the colo­nists didn’t even bother hunting elk, moose, or bison, since hauling and conserving so much meat was considered too great an effort. A European traveler describing his visit to a Southern plantation noted that the food included beef, veal, mutton, venison, turkeys, and geese, but he does not mention a single vegetable.

Infants were fed beef even before their teeth had grown in. The English novelist Anthony Trollope reported, during a trip to the United States in 1861, that Americans ate twice as much beef as did Englishmen. Charles Dickens, when he visited, wrote that “no breakfast was breakfast” without a T-bone steak. Apparently, starting a day on puffed wheat and low-fat milk—our “Breakfast of Champions!”—would not have been considered adequate even for a servant.

Indeed, for the first 250 years of American history, even the poor in the United States could afford meat or fish for every meal. The fact that the workers had so much access to meat was precisely why observers regarded the diet of the New World to be superior to that of the Old.

I present this data to you not to convince you to adopt a meat based diet unless you want to. Rather, it is to show you that you have been lied to about something as personal as your diet. What right does the government have to manipulate you into eating a diet that frankly consists of mostly wheat in various forms? They are not serving you, are they? Sounds like they are serving Big Food, doesn't it?

Minnesota Measure Would Allow Abortion Up To Birth

 Over at Life News Steven Ertelt reports that Catholic Bishops Oppose Minnesota Measure Allowing Abortion Up To Birth.

The Catholic Bishops of Minnesota are urging state residents to oppose a measure that would allow killing babies in abortions up to birth.

A proposed “Equal Rights Amendment” SF 37 deceives voters with its nice-sounding name – by taking women’s rights and turning it into unlimited abortion.

As Catholic News Agency reports, the measure drew opposition from the Catholic leaders because of that fact.

The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis this week urged Catholics to join a rally to oppose a proposed constitutional amendment that they say “fails to protect Minnesotans from discrimination based on religion, could constitutionally mandate legal abortion up to the moment of birth, and promotes harmful gender ideology.”

The proposed amendment, sponsored by St. Paul Rep. Kaohly Her of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL), adds several protected categories to the state’s constitution, in part saying the state cannot discriminate against a person on the basis of sex.

Within the category of sex, the proposal includes “making and effectuating decisions about all matters relating to one’s own pregnancy​ or decision whether to become or remain pregnant,” as well as “gender identity or gender expression” and “sexual orientation.”

Under such language, any protections for unborn babies and any limits on abortion would be prohibited.

Gentle readers are urged to read the whole article.

We Must Have Access to Every Personal Weapon the Soldier Musters Out With Today and in the Future

 David Codrea, writing at Firearm News in an article entitled Next Generation Army Rifle Highlights Danger of 'Common Use' Argument to Defend 2nd Amendment. Codrea makes the point that the true meaning of the Second Amendment is that civilians, being ultimately the militia, should have access to the same or better weapons as the military. And it makes sense if you think about the Second Amendment for a few minutes. If civilians are to be called up as the militia, when they muster out with their own weapons and ammunition, you want them to be compatible with the military's such that they can share ammunition with their military counterparts.

If the Bruen standard, of text, history, and tradition is to guide the law, what was in common use at that time was equal or superior (like the more accurate and longer-ranged Pennsylvania/ Kentucky rifles) to the Crown’s standard-issue Brown Bess musket. Citizens mustered with the intent to match and to best a professional military threat. Arms “in common use at the time” by everyone meant arms in common use by infantries, who would otherwise prevail if not matched (and surpassed) in capability.

Rather than deter tyranny, a dictated inferiority would invite it. To argue otherwise is to argue the Founders thought sending an outmatched yeomanry to their slaughter was “necessary to the security of a free State.” That’s insane.

And the prohibitionists are aided in citizen disarmament when “gun rights leaders” not only accept – but argue for an invented “in common use at the time” qualifier that limits permitted firearms to what is commercially popular, as opposed to what soldiers and police carry (with the latter somehow magically transmuting their “assault rifles” and “weapons of war” into the more benign “patrol rifles”).

But Codrea's other point is that using the 'common use' argument of Heller is a trap that ensures the government can ban future weaponry because it is not currently in common use.

If “the people” of the Second Amendment can be denied arms based on them not being “in common use” for sport and for limited “self-defense” situations, what chance would they have resisting tyranny equipped with future weaponry that today would be considered the stuff of science fiction? Who knows what those imposing their demands will have at their disposal, along with the power to withhold from citizens 50 years from now, or 100, or beyond?

Since no innovation ever begins “in common use,” a government with the power to do so can ban all new weapon developments from those they would rule, retaining them exclusively for itself. It’s what I warned about when I wrote “Things to Come” back in 2002 for Guns and Ammo:

“It’s been said that a battle isn’t won until a man with a rifle occupies the ground. We must keep in mind that someone probably once said the same thing about spears.”

I urge gentle readers to read all of Codrea's article. It is important to understand exactly where we stand with regard to the right to keep and bear arms. We have made great progress over the last several decades clawing back our birthright from the jaws of the gun grabbers. But we must always keep our eyes on the prize. Biden claims that even cannon were not owned by private citizens when the Second Amendment was ratified. But he is wrong. Wealthy people did own cannon and sometimes armed local militia with cannons and other arms as well. If the Second Amendment means what it says it means, we should have access to every personal weapon that the soldier musters out with today and in the future to be able to deter tyranny.

A Writer Notices A Lot of Fat People Out Protesting, and Tells Us Why?

This particular article hit home for me, and I hope someone who reads it will not spend most of their lives trying to get thin.  There is a way to get and stay thin and fit, so you don't have to believe the MSM.  The article by Jennifer Galardi at The Federalist is entitled Fat, Unhappy Campus Protesters Should Try Lifting Weights and Eating a Burger (without the bun, of course.)

I suspect most of us have become numb to the ugliness of these people, but Galardi has been a model and of course lives in L.A. where the "pretty people" live, so she notices it more. Moreover, she is a fitness instructor and has spent a lot of time on camera. Her story:

As my X feed continues to populate with videos displaying the disgraceful behavior of pro-Hamas campus protesters across the country, I can’t help but notice how unattractive and unkempt they all seem to be.

In an era that celebrates obesity and poor health, I know these are not politically correct thoughts, but the uncomely appearance of student protestors is hard to ignore. Unsightly midriffs and unappealing piercings, which haven’t really been in vogue since the early ’90s, abound on these encampments. The masks don’t help.

I noticed this trend long before the protests littering college campuses. Many extreme activists — particularly those of the gender cult — seem to possess some sort of internal self-loathing, furious with a society that only acknowledges outer beauty.

I understand this anger and it’s not completely unjustified. As a fitness instructor who spent years in front of a camera, often wearing minimal clothing, I struggled with body dysmorphia for most of my life. I felt the constant pressure to lose just a few pounds. I always resented being directed to tell those working out with me at home that “this move will really whittle your waist” or that just a few more reps would help them “melt the fat away!” I hated the sales pitch of weight loss and the unrealistic standard of beauty pushed on women, particularly in Los Angeles where I lived.

My insecurities manifested on one side of the extreme, with endless exercise and food control. These protesters have landed on the opposite side of the spectrum. They have thrown in the towel altogether, displaying an utter disregard for their appearance or health. You don’t have to be a beauty queen to care about your appearance, but you should have more than an ounce of self-respect.

While not a fitness instructor, I have at various times in my life been on the Pritikin Diet (don't), the Adkins Diet (pretty good), the Gundry Diet (again, don't) and finally landed on what Dr. Ken Berry and others call the Proper Human Diet or Carnivore diet. This has worked best for me. Additionally, I go to Planet Fitness, in part because it is the least expensive gym for weight training. But in the past I have run, bicycled between 50 and 100 miles, all to stay in shape. Unfortunately, eating a typical American diet, I continued to gain weight.  I have dropped from 301 pounds down to 232 on the carnivore diet. Today I eat meat and eggs, concentrating on getting proper amounts of protein. My waist has shrunk and keeps shrinking, while my weight slowly goes down. Galardi is correct in her prescription to eat meat and lift weights. You don't have to become a body builder to have an attractive shape. An hour ot so lifting weights each week, and eating a proper human diet will do wonders.

The link between physical and mental health is real. Studies have shown the positive effects on mental health that come with adopting a ketogenic diet, likely because healthy fats, as well as cholesterol, are the building blocks of hormones, key agents in mood regulation. Higher-protein diets have been linked to higher levels of dopamine and norepinephrine, brain chemicals that play a role in mood, motivation, and concentration. Extensive research has also determined that weightlifting can alleviate depression, particularly a feeling of worthlessness.

Undoubtedly, this is why many of these students are driven to activism. They have no sense of purpose. In an era when everything has been given to them and every comfort at their fingertips, they are desperate for meaning. Particularly the coddled children at an Ivy League school like Columbia that costs almost $70,000 a year before room and board, books and supplies, and other living expenses.

Some protestors demanded vegan food be delivered to their encampments. Diets that eliminate all animal products may be fine for some people who have time to prepare food with an eye toward proper food combinations that contain complete proteins.

But prepackaged highly processed vegan foods such as fake meat products, non-dairy ice cream, or any of the other vegan snacks are no healthier than their traditional counterparts. In fact, they are usually worse, filled with inflammatory ingredients such as seed oils and glucose-spiking carbohydrates, which can lead to unstable blood sugar and erratic moods.

I follow Dr. Eric Westman, who studied at the feet of Dr. Atkins, who himself was standing on the shoulders of people like Banting, and I am amazed at the number of things that are corrected by eating a proper human diet. Once you get your glucose steady, your insulin low and steady, all sorts of things begin to heal. Many people report improvements in joint pain, skin rashes, heart disease, and on and on. And Westman and doctors like him don't make a penny from selling special supplements. Meat, especially red meat, and eggs. That's it.

In an age of digital and information overload, the focus of health has morphed from the basics like eating nutritionally dense food and getting daily exercise to elaborate bio-hacking routines to optimize human potential. As a health nut, I’m into all the latest trends, but for most people, extreme measures are not necessary. Simply prioritizing the time needed to cook your food and treat your body like the gift that God intended it to be is enough. Put down the cream puff or the bagel with vegan cream cheese and pick up a couple of eggs and some weights.

Exactly so. Go on then and live your life contributing to the betterment of mankind. Protesting is a dead end. Do something more meaningful. May I suggest that you start by going to church?

* If you do lift weights, please read this book by Fred Hahn: Slow Burn. Hahn' method is to do one set each of 6 exercises using the heaviest weights you can manage lifting to muscle failure. He explains why this works, and of course you should use machines. Why? Well think about doing bench presses or squats to failure without a spotter. Just sayin'.

NC Democrat Talking About Gun Grabbers

 Deborah Ross used to be my State House representative.  With changing district lines, she was promoted up to the U.S. House, while Riley Nickel is now my representatives.  But I digress.  It seems that Ms. Ross is up to her old tricks, but now at the national level. Tom Knighton has the story at Bearing Arms entitled NC Democrat Wants Mandatory Storage Law.

The first thing I wonder about is just how does she intend to enforce such laws? Will she have police come around and hold surprise inspection of homes and storage conditions? And what does she consider "in use"? And what does she mean by safer? For whom? There are other considerations that Knighton mentions as well.

The term "mandatory storage" is far more accurate.

And, to be honest, it's a terrible idea. While I support people securing their guns when not in use, most laws don't really account for "in use" the same way you or I might, particularly with regard to self-defense.

Believe me, when you hear the loud noise in the middle of the night, you don't want to have to fool with keys or a combination in order to get your firearm.

Ross claims:

A North Carolina lawmaker is calling for safe storage laws to keep guns out of the hands of children. In a partisan Judiciary Committee hearing this week, U.S. Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC) testified something needs to be done to save American lives.

“In North Carolina, guns are now the leading cause of injury or death for children surpassing car accidents and one of the reasons for this tragedy is the lack of safe storage across the country,” said Ross, who represents the 2nd District, most of which is in Wake County.

...snip...

Speaking in a partisan hearing in Philadelphia this week, Ross cited the October 2022, Hedingham neighborhood mass shooting in Raleigh as an example.

“The shooter was a 15-year-old that took a firearm that he used to kill five people from his family home, and it was left unsecured,” she said.

Children having access to guns is something she said she would like to see changed. Nationally, Ross says 70 percent of school shootings are committed by children who have access to unsecured guns in their home.

Knighton notes that Ross's statistics are cherry picked, or worse, include as "childeren" 18 and 19 year olds, who are often killed during gang and criminal activity. But that is par for the course for gun grabbers. Gentle readers should read the entire article. I don't think this is going anywhere. What Deborah Ross wants at the moment is to create something to talk about to fire up her base. But really, it is a safe seat for Democrats, and Ross is likely to be able to retire in the job. More's the pity.

Jews Should Abandon "Learned Helplessness"

 John Farnam at Ammoland has a piece reporting that a Well-Orchestrated, Organized and Violent Anti-Jewish Fervor, Is Now Unmistakable in Every Corner of Our Nation. Farnum points out that too many Jews have become helpless like sheep. And wolves really don't care how many sheep they kill.

A long-time friend, currently living in the LA area, called yesterday expressing concern for the physical safety of himself and family.

He is Jewish, and like most of my Jewish friends, not particularly religious. Only rarely does he (at least marginally) observe Jewish holidays. In fact, in our conversations, he often expresses cynical skepticism concerning all religions.

However, he is understandably concerned about the current, well-orchestrated, well-organized, violent anti-Jewish fervor, which is now unmistakable in every corner of our nation, and by no means confined to college campuses!

...snip...

My Jewish friend forwarded me a letter (email) he received yesterday from a Jewish academic organization listing several “precautions” American Jews should be taking these days.

Most related to lowering personal profile.

It’s all sound advice, of course, but the admonishment to “go armed” was conspicuously absent from the list—a glaring omission I pointed out!

I really don't understand this "learned helplessness." The LORD does not demand pacifism from those who follow Him. Yes, He tells you not to murder. But self-defense is not murder. More Jews should go armed everywhere they go. Hamas started this war, and Hamas could stop it at any point by surrendering. Moreover, any American who supports Hamas holds an indefensible position. Any Jew who is attacked by Hamas supporters has every right to defend himself, just as Israel has the right to defend itself.

To Conceal or Not to Conceal?

Over at Bearing Arms Tom Knighton presents a discussion with a fellow gun blogger on Is Open Carry Idiotic, or Just a Topic for Debate? In the post, Knighton takes up an article by Kat Ainsworth Stevens. Now, Ms. Stevens doesn't dispute anyone's right to open carry. She just thinks it is unwise to do so.

From a tactical standpoint, open carry is…unwise. There are a lot of guys who will argue that having a visible firearm serves as a deterrent. Mr. Bad Dude, they reason, will see that gun and think twice about messing with [insert location here].

However, Mr. Bad Dude is just as likely to see Dude With Visible Weapon as the first target to take out. That or Bad Dude might think, hey!…a freebie!…and proceed to take that gun (ask me how many hardcore open carriers have proper handgun retention training).

When you conceal your gun, you take any potential weapons-based target off your back, you stop looking like a loot drop, and you retain the element of surprise.

I agree with Ms. Stevens on this point. It makes no sense to draw attention to yourself as carrying a gun. Too many people have been "SWATed" by anti-gunners, and some have been thereby killed. As discussed above, why remove the element of surprise? As long as your gun remains concealed, you have the option to engage at a time and place of your chosing, not that of the Bad Dude. You should take advantage of it.

I have to run now, but please read the entire article and also the embedded article. And as the Liberty Doll says, "Happy Shooting."

The Frat Boys Turn Out to Be the Heroes

 Over at Townhall.com Kurt Schlichter has an excellent piece entitled The (Communist) Nerds Are the Bad Guys in This Movie. Schlichter starts by pointing to the movie "The Revenge of the Nerds" as painting the nerds as the good guys and the frat boys and the bad guys. But that movie was a lie. As Schlichter points out, so called "Nerds" were just normal people studying hard and trying to get an education. We didn't have time for the stuff fraternities were known for, but which were even then largely overblown.

For those of us who came of age in the greatest of decades, the 80s, it’s a bitter pill to swallow to realize that we have been sold the lie by movies like “Revenge of the Nerds” that frat boys are the eternal bad guys. On college campuses today, the nerds are the bad guys, a communist collection of weirdos, losers, and mutations of heft who cry about Palestine, whine that the cops are mean to them for breaking the law and scream that they are being literally murdered by people who won’t honor their myriad food allergies. The 80s nerds were courageous rebels. Today’s nerds are pathetic conformists – they all look the same, they all sound the same, and they all smell the same. They’re not amusing nerds like Pointdexter and Booger. They don’t rock out like the ROTN nerds. These are garbage nerds, spoiled commies with stupid masks, stupid piercings, and stupid hair.

Today, the heroes fighting back on campuses are labeled frat boys, whether they’re in fraternities or not, but what they really are is a bunch of normal dudes. It’s obvious at first glance. They are mostly (but not all) straight white males, in shape, well-dressed, and free of stupid masks, stupid piercings, and stupid hair. They guzzle Coors Light instead of gulping SSRIs. They protect the Old Glory and proudly wave it. And they mock the pinko losers.

They don’t give a damn about the gentle feelz of the commie nerds. They’re rough and insensitive, cruel and hilarious. When a gigantic commie waddled up and waved her chubby finger at them, they chanted “Lizzo” and worse. It was hilarious and cathartic. It was liberating. Sure, some of it was obnoxious. Some of it was in bad taste. Some of it got called racist, but here’s the thing – these white boys are going to get called racist no matter what. They have been all their lives, so I doubt they care about one more epithet.

America’s normal young men are fed up. They’re done. They grew up in educational institutions dominated by communist females who despised them. They were always hated because of the race of the majority of them – this pushback by normal guys is multiethnic – and they were always hated because of their gender and unapologetic devotion to cisgenderism. They are told they are the problem and their oppression the solution. Their mere existence is claimed to be proof of a devotion to “white supremacy.” Their heritage is proof of their moral bankruptcy, an original sin that they can never scrub away. They are the oppressors, even though there’s no one more oppressed on a college campus than a frat boy, targeted by an administration that hates him, subjected to a double-track justice system that nukes him if he’s caught sneaking a Dos Equis, but that kisses the collective booty – the enormous booty – of the communist terror fans who take over chunks of the campuses. The normal guys are the designated villains, by the left and Hollywood too, and the rest of us are supposed to hate them.

Schlichter seems to be hopeful that these normal young men will begin the pushback against the Democrat communists that have seemingly sprung up everywhere. In truth, there are more of them, and they are tougher than communist protesters. I just wonder if they can be as ruthless and brutal as true communists can be, when freed from the constraints of God who created man in His image?

They’re not the bad guys. The paradigm of the 80s movies has changed. Those nerds were just cool people trying to get along. Today’s nerds are trying to help the people who want to kill all the Jews in Israel. That’s not cute, and that’s not funny. Thank goodness the frat boys know their enemies and thank goodness their masculinity hasn’t been so suppressed that they have forgotten their instinctive desire to destroy their foes. That is what men do. The communist trash people better hope that this remains on the level of shouting insults across the lines of cops. The stinky campus commies of 2024 won’t stand a chance when today’s Ogres sound their war cry, “Nerds!”

What is the Democrats' Plan?

 Gentle readers are probably wondering where I have been the last week or so.  Look, I put this blog together for personal reasons, not to get paid.  In fact, I don't receive anything in the way of monetary gain for this blog.  But it is also summer, and I am more active now and therefore have less time to scour the internet for stories of interest.  However, I will try to catch up today.

First up is a post by D. Parker at the American Thinker entitled What is Biden's end game in brining in terrorists. Oh, I know he will call them "refugees," but since the people in Gaza overwhelmingly voted for Hamas, I think it is safe to say that they are all terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.

The ruling class left has seen the importation of thousands, if not millions of military-aged men from enemy nations.

And now in a move that dials the insanity up to eleventy, they want to bring in supporters of Hamas, if not the terrorists themselves. Everyone is anticipating an October 7-type attack in the states that will make 9/11 look like a pinprick by comparison.

So, how do they think they are going to politically survive bringing on such an attack after importing these people in?

What is their plan, and what is their endgame after the inevitable terrorist attack that they’ve facilitated?

It’s a mind-boggling move to bring in people who overwhelmingly support a terrorist organization.

But with the ever-present warnings of the growing threat of terrorism and the looming election, it easily pushes the insanity off the scale.

Parker points out that not only are our Federal Government allowing, passively, terrorists into the country, but they are actively supporting them by moving them around the country at taxpayer expense, providing funding and other facilitation, again at taxpayer expense, of these potential terrorists. Thus, if and when they decide to attack us, the left and the Democrats can be held accountable for providing aid and comfort to the enemy. This is a crime, a treason, with serious consequences. What is their plan to beat these charges?

This means the terrorists are going to take full advantage of the situation to carry out as much murder and mayhem they can. They will want to set a new standard of destruction, and you can be sure it will be with the full approval of Red China. (Red as in communist, before the left decided to deceive everyone and switch the colors in the 2000 election).

They are going to attack places with as many people as possible and avoid locations where people can be armed. They aren’t going to be deterred by ridiculous rules or silly ‘gun free’ zone signs. They are looking to create maximum casualties and chaos, so they are going to be looking for large crowds. They may also attack infrastructure targets as well as create mass casualty events since Biden and the Democrats have so helpfully provided them with the resources to do this.

Since they ostensibly won’t have a fixed base to which they can return as with the Gaza in the October 7 attacks, they aren’t as likely to take hostages. Unless they have very ambitious plans to have such bases in place for their attacks.

These are the general considerations, but as far as specifics are concerned the terrorists have a large target area, so they have most of the advantages – with a lot of help from Biden and the Democrats.

So, we’ve looked at how the terrorists are going to take full advantage of the situation, and it would seem to be very bad news for Biden. But somehow, they don’t seem worried. The FBI has issued repeated warnings about terrorism from our open border and yet the border remains wide open and Biden's team is working overtime to bring in more potential threats, so what do they know that we don’t?

Parker is assuming the Democrats have a plan, and it appears it is not legal, or else why the deception? It is not an unreasonable assumption given the past history of the Democrat party. But what is it?

UCLA Protesters Convert to Islam, Say Muslim Prayers

 Sarah Arnold, yesterday at Townhall.com reported that Hundreds of UCLA Students Converted to Islam and reported prayed Islamic prayers shouting "Allahu Akbar". the saying Allahu Akbar means Allah is the Greatest God. I am sure that these ignorant students do not realize this, but they are playing with fire.

I have said before that whoever Muhammad was speaking to in that cave, it wasn't an angel of God. Let me be more explicit; Allah is the Snake in the Garden of Eden. He is the very devil, and these students have just pledged themselves to him. Unlike Christianity which requires a catechism (course of instruction) it is easy to convert to Islam. But I will leave gentle readers to find out for themselves.

Hundreds of University of California of Los Angeles (UCLA) students converted to Islam and participated in a massive group prayer to Allah on Wednesday night.

Just before police officers moved in and dismantled defiant pro-terrorism protest encampments at UCLA, students said Muslim prayers as the sun set over the campus.

The pro-terrorism students chanted "Allahu akbar" during the prayer and chanted "Allah is the greatest" of all gods.

Fortunately, the True God of creation, who can not lie, is merciful, even if Allah is not. One can repent of such foolishness. But one has to repent and ask for forgivenness. I doubt these students will do so though.