The Great Divide

 Mike McDaniel has a post at the American Thinker entitled A New Year's reflection that reviews the year just past and projects a possible future. I am sure I will be reading a number of those today, but I wanted to highlight his post in part because it expresses the fundamental assumptions, seldom expressed, involved in each side's thinking in our ongoing public debate. McDaniel starts with the usual notion of taking a moment for reflection:

At the end of each year, as a new year is about to be born, we take a moment to reflect on the past and on what the new year might bring. According to the CDC—if anything they say can be believed—current American life expectancy for men is 74.8 years and for women, 80.2 years. There’s that white male privilege again.

But then he gets into the meat of the article. If you go to the link to his personal blog, you will find numerous articles speculating on the probability of a second civil war. And it is not just him. I have read many articles speculating that a civil war is exactly what the Left wants. After all, if the Left can provoke the Right into firing the first shot, they will have the excuse they need to send in the military. They will make, at least in their minds, Joe Biden's threat to use F-15s on American citizens a reality. It is in this context that he explains the difference between the two sides.

What we’re dealing with is hubris—excessive pride—which inevitably leads to disaster. As always, much depends on which path Americans take: the path of liberty or the path of totalitarianism. One side—Democrats/socialists/communists (D/s/cs)—believe in equality of outcome--equity. They believe not only in big government, but that government can never be big enough. They’re the self-imagined, credentialed elite, the morally and intellectually superior, the expert class whose policies, like themselves, are perfect, non-falsifiable. They know America is evil, systemically racist, oppressive and just plain stupid and it’s their destiny to fundamentally transform it, to create the new, D/s/c man. They alone are qualified to recreate human nature into what they know it can and must be: a mirror image of themselves. They are their higher power.

On the other side are Normal Americans, largely but not exclusively Republicans. Politics do not consume them. Because most are Christian they know they’re fallen, sinners, and they labor to be worthy of God’s promise. They aren’t entitled. They expect to work for what they have and expect to be judged on their abilities and effort. Working, treating others with sincerity and kindness, caring for their families and going about the innumerable small things that make up daily American life are their focus. They believe in the Constitution and the rule of law, in equal opportunity and merit. While many have credentials they know experience and demonstrated ability are most important. They know things, do things, invent and make things. They’re the people who make America work. They don’t care about race and gender. They judge others as Martin Luther King urged: on the content of their character. They know they can’t change human nature, but they might help others change themselves, one soul at a time.

The next four years will largely determine which of those views of America, of human nature, will prevail. If Donald Trump succeeds in draining the swamp, in clearing the deadwood and malice from the federal work force, we’ll have the opportunity to see just how much of that non-work force was not only unnecessary but detrimental to the republic. Not “our democracy,” but to our constitutional, representative republic, where elected officials and every federal employee are hired hands, accountable to the Americans who hired them, duty bound to serve them and the ideals that created and sustain our republic.

I have placed a key sentence in bold: They are their higher power. It is what Obama meant when he said that We are the ones we've been waiting for. One can not understand anything the Left articulates or does without understanding this unspoken belief: they are their own higher power. The Left firmly believes, as Dostoyevsky said, "Without God, anything is permissible." Lying, cheating, even murder if need be, for the cause. Criminality is whatever the Left decides it is today. For a look at what that is in practice, take a look at the history of the Soviet Union, or just look at what Trump has been put through.

That too is a fundamental difference in outlook. D/s/cs virtually never say “representative republic,” choosing instead “our democracy.” This is a very conscious choice, a matter of narrative and messaging, an attempt to define the terms of the debate and in so doing win before a word is spoken. “Our democracy” is a tyranny of the majority, totalitarianism dressed up in Sunday clothes. Our representative republic limits them in every way, in rhetoric, in intent, in power, and the self-imagined elite accept no limitations.

Please read all of McDaniel's article. I find most such to be rather inconsequential, the writers no doubt treat such articles as proforma. But McDaniel has expressed something worth keeping in mind whenever one deals with the Left.

Trump Puts the Panamanians and the Chinese On Notice

Katie Pavlich has the report at Townhall.com entitled Trump is Right About the Panama Canal. It was built by the United States after France failed miserably. And it did costs us dearly in blood and treasure but proved invaluable. We should never have given it away. If the Panamanians cannot manage the canal with Panamanian labor and Panamanian management, including maintaining the neutrality of the canal, then we should take it over again. But in any case, having the Chinese in Panama is absolutely unacceptable. President Monroe had figured that out in 1825.  That the Biden administration has tolerated it is one more reason why Trump was elected.

Trump made big news last week when he threatened to take back the Panama Canal, a move met with grumbling and a response from the Panamanian government.

“We’re being ripped off at the Panama Canal like we’re being ripped off everywhere else,” Trump said during recent remarks in Arizona. “We will never, never let it fall into the wrong hands.”

“The Panama Canal is considered a vital National Asset for the United States, due to its critical role to America’s Economy and National Security. If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, and without question,” Trump continued. “To the Officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly!”

...snip...

Further, prior to the U.S. handing over management of the canal the two countries signed a pair of treaties. One of them gave the U.S. the right to use military force to reestablish neutrality in the canal if it ever were to be threatened.

“The Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, or the Neutrality Treaty, stated that the United States could use its military to defend the Panama Canal against any threat to its neutrality, thus allowing perpetual U.S. usage of the Canal,” the State Department says.

Now that the Chinese Communist Party has embedded itself in the ports and companies running the canal, where ships are being charged exorbitant fees, Trump has a right to invoke the terms of the treaty.

Trump would be perfectly within his rights to take back the canal, at least until it is secred again. Still, I don't think it will come to that.

I am not holding my breath

Mike McDaniel has a post at the American Thinker today that speculates on the idea of Constitutional carry for all Americans?. This is the ultimate goal of all our work since the first "Shall Issue" concealed carry permits were issued. The ability to carry your weapon with you across state lines should be as natural as the ability to drive in another state. This fits perfectly into Congress's Constitutional authority to regularize trade among the several states. Yes, I understand that it is not strictly trade, but truck drivers, for instance, do travel from state to state and often have valuable loads that place them in danger from hijackers. Shouldn't they be able to defend themselves?

McDaniel writes:

Among the most significant advances in upholding the Second Amendment has been the spread of Constitutional Carry (CC). Circa January 2024, 29 states allow CC:

Louisiana and South Carolina have joined 27 other states in recognizing Constitutional Carry. The others on that roll are: Alabama; Alaska; Arizona; Arkansas; Florida; Georgia; Idaho; Indiana; Iowa; Kansas; Kentucky; Maine; Mississippi; Missouri; Montana; Nebraska; New Hampshire; North Dakota; Ohio; Oklahoma; South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas; Utah; Vermont; West Virginia; and Wyoming.

As a side note, you will not find North Carolina among those states. We had a chance while we had a veto proof majority in the state house, but as usual, Republicans blew it. And you know what I aways say about such states: a state that does not trust its citizens to be armed is not to be trusted.

McDaniel seems to be somewhat hopeful, though not willing to hold his breath. Personally, I am less sanguine about the prospects. Republicans from New York, California, and other anti-gun states will likely not vote for it, which means no national concealed carry for us.

Still, the number of CC states is likely to increase, and the first step of establishing national concealed carry reciprocity might eventually lead to national CC. The devil, as always, will be in the details. And as always, it’s up to informed Americans to stiffen congressional Republican’s spines in this, and much else. Donald Trump’s mandate will have a two-year expiration date unless Republicans can, for once, avoid being the stupid party and stand firm against socialist/communist Democrats and media.

Democrats don’t oppose Second Amendment advances because they’re concerned about public safety. Their coddling of criminals over the last four years has made that plain. They oppose those advances because they don’t want Americans to have too much liberty. Americans might get used to it, and that would be bad indeed for Democrats. It’s time to convince Congressional Republicans failing in that endeavor would be even worse for them.

It would be wonderful to see national reciprocity for those with Concealed Carry permits as a first step before I leave this world. But, as I said of McDaniel, I am not holding my breath.

The Evil That Men Do

Pastor William Ramsey in his 1856 article "Spiritualism, Satanic Delusion,  and A Sign of the Times" had this to say: 

One of the artifices of Satan is, to induce men to believe that he does not exist: another, perhaps equally fatal, is to make them fancy that he is obliged to stand quietly by, and not to meddle with them, if they get into true silence.

But, as Mike McDaniel notes, normal Americans recognize evil, and the power behind evil. In his post at the American Thinker entitled Evil is as evil does McDaniel illustrates not only the power of evil, but the consequences of not fighting against it wherever it raises its ugly head

Evil. Normal Americans know it exists and walks among them. Like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, they know it when they see it. They know Satan is evil’s father and acts that violate God’s law, and many that violate man’s law, are clearly evil.

...snip...

We establish criminal law to restrain evil, to punish it, perhaps to deter it. And because we recognize the truly evil must be removed from existence, we ordain the death penalty, which is imposed only for the demonic acts of a few. This power comes from God who gives us the unalienable right to self-defense. We loan this power, on condition of good, moral, sane behavior, to the police, prosecutors and courts. But because they are human, they sometimes embrace and aid evil.

Take the case of Daniel Penny who any reasonable person would understand saved lives on a New York subway car. For that exercise of legitimate power against evil, he faced years in prison. DA Alvin Bragg aligned himself with evil in that prosecution. Intelligent enough to know prosecuting legitimate self-defense can only encourage greater evil and prevent the good from using their power to combat it lest Bragg’s evil be visited on them, Bragg chose evil.

I have lately been reading the book of Isaiah, the prophet most associated with predicting the coming Messiah and the character of His being. He is variously characterized as a lamb for the slaughter, and as a servant of the people, but also as a King who would rule with true justice, unlike the human rulers who gathered wealth to themselves and to hell with the people. And, of course Jesus did give power and authority for mere men to cast out demons in His name. And so we must.

As McDaniel points out, most of the time we do this by through law and the courts. When the courts become corrupted, evil abounds, justice becomes corrupted, and the things Isaiah prophesies happen to us.

One can argue such people aren’t truly evil, that they’re merely caught up in self-righteous political delusions. Surely not everyone whose political beliefs do harm is evil, but those who would knowingly destroy the lives of others, who would enact policies that can only do harm, that would terrify the good into allowing evil, that would excuse and enable the most demonic among us, have earned that title. If the self-imaged elite are truly morally and intellectually superior, where’s their excuse for the evil they encourage, unleash and inflict?

Evil exists. We see it here and around the world. We are given the opportunity to recognize and oppose it and in so doing to define ourselves. That opposition begins with calling it what it is and not shying away from identifying its human actors and their enablers.

Exactly so.

Needing the .38 Super Automatic

 I am still recovering from cancer surgery and I have yet to face radiation treatment.  Recently, I put on my gun again.  Part of my recovery recovering something of my old self.  Having been given a second chance at life, I intend to live it. 

Having gotten a gift card to the range, I decided to oil up my 1911 in .45 Auto in anticipation of shooting a few rounds.  To my surprise, racking the slide of the .45 was much harder than it had been before I went in the hospital (note to self - strength training).  But racking the slide of the .38 Super Auto was much easier.  I therefore switched from carrying the .45 to the .38.

Today I noticed an article by Mike Hardesty at Ammoland entitled Beyond .45 ACP: Exploring 9mm and Other Calibers for the 1911. Long time readers will know that I am a fan of the M1911 pistol, and of John Browning. However, I do not think that Browning's designs are sacred. Everything can be improved, and the M1911 style guns being produced today show many improvements over the WWI and WWII pistols. That includes calibers.

John Moses Browning’s brainchild 1911 design literally changed the world of pistol shooting. From its inception to its adoption by the military – a very interesting story in itself – throughout its storied career, ol’ slab sides, as it has affectionately been referred to, is arguably the most recognizable pistol in the world by non-shooters.

There’s a reason for that: originally chambered in .45 ACP, the gun had (has) a reputation for one-shot stops. Its 230-grain FMJ bullet was greatly feared by those on the other side of the front sight. I had a cousin (second cousin, actually), Billy, who was in the Air Force and was stationed in Japan after the war. He was tasked with helping to keep the peace. He said they’d roll up to a scene where looting or other nastiness was occurring and pull out their M1 carbines. Typically, that had no effect on stopping the activity, but when they pulled out their .45s, all nefarious actions would cease. It seems the bad guys wanted no part of the .45 ACP.

Hardesty includes discussions on .22LR, .38 Super, 9mm, 10mm, and .40 S&W. As he points out, 9mm is the most popular these days, which is too bad. The lack of the availability of .38 Super ammunition drives people away from the cartridge. That in turn causes fewer guns to be built in the caliber. But .38 Super is a wonderful cartridge to shoot, having the hitting power of a .45 Auto in a lower recoil package. Sort of a 9mm on steroids.

.38 Super

Next, there’s the .38 Super. This caliber was one of the original non-.45 calibers to be chambered in 1911s. It was very popular in some South American countries, as laws there precluded owning pistols in military calibers. That effectively ruled out .45 ACP and 9mm. I believe that the .38 Super, which behaves like a 9mm on steroids, was popular for that reason. It is a powerful round. Typically it is loaded about 200 fps faster than the 9mm. It came out in 1929 as a possible solution to penetration issues suffered by the .38 Special and .45 ACP. Today, many competitive shooters use it in matches as it makes major power factor without .45ACP-style recoil in USPSA or similar contests. One of its only downsides is that it is not as available and it costs more than 9mm.

More powerful than 9mm – sort of a “9mm Magnum”

Makes major power factor with reduced recoil

Popular hunting round for small to medium game

Magazines can hold more rounds than .45 ACP

Note that the .38 Super is popular South of the border and in the U.S in competitive circles. More about that in this piece by Stephen Hunter at the American Rifleman entitled The Super 38. About the .38 Super the author notes:

But besides its tactical advantages, the .38 Super represented one allure of gun culture that only occasionally gets acknowledged, and yet one that is absolutely fascinating and all but impenetrable to those who don’t feel the pull. That is, it has charisma; it has personality, pizzazz, and vividness. It’s out of the ordinary, beloved by some, aggressively non-generic and it carries information with it. It says—and we love to say this—“I have thought hard about these issues and come to a logical conclusion and made these sound decisions. I am not passive; I am active in deciding about my own defense.”

I suspect this is why I bought the .38 Super in the first place. I didn't need it, I just wanted it. I wanted it for its "charisma." But now I need it too, I am glad I have it.

Cuba Has Run Out of Sugar

Cuban

 He he...it's not funny...ha ha ha!  Sorry.  Olivia Murray at the American Thinker reports that Cuban communists fumble the economy so badly that they now import sugar - at $25 a pound One does wonder just how this can happen. But, as we have contended at this site for a long time now, communism doesn't work as advertised. It works fine for giving a lot of power and money to a few at the top, and immiserating everyone else though. I contned that the true purpose of any socialist scheme is a power grab, with a bunch of high minded words to make the pill go down easier for the suckers...er...the useful idiots.

For the better part of a century, Cuba has been under the control of communists and their ideologies, and the previously inconceivable has finally happened—they’ve run out of sugar. Like John Hinderaker at Powerline quipped, “This is like Libya running out of sand.”

Or…like Alabama running out of cotton.

Like Costa Rica running out of pineapples.

Like Russia running out of vodka.

Like Saudi Arabia running out of oil.

Like China running out of rice.

Like the Midwest running out of corn.

Like Afghanistan running out of opium.

How is this even possible? Do you really even have to do anything to get a tropical crop to grow on an island nation with a literal year-round growing season?

Oh, but you are one of those who say that true communism has never been tried. If it had been tried, communism works in theory? (See what I mean by "useful idiots"?)  Michael Malice would disagree.

Here’s what Russian-born Michael Malice recently said, via John Stossel:

‘One thing that drives me crazy,’ says Malice, ‘is when people say, ‘Communism works in theory.’ … Everything works in theory. Reality is how you determine how something works or not!’

I built a flying car, but it only flies...in theory.

I made an invisibility cloak, but it only hides a person...in theory.

I invented anti-gravity boots, but they only float...in theory.

I created a weight loss pill that makes the pounds just fly off a person, but it only works...in theory.

Stupid, right? Yes, and that’s exactly how asinine the “in theory” claim sounds.

As Hindraker points out in his article, sugar now costs Cubans $25 a pound in a place where it is grown, while in the United States in costs $1 a pound. Enough said.

Reason 2,574 Why We Need Guns

The article I am highlighting today was published on the 24th of December, but I did not have time then to include it for gentle readers meditations.  The article in question is by D. Parker at the American Thinker entitled Are they going to say the horrific murder of the woman on the subway was caused by "fire" violence? Actually, they aren't saying much of anything because this doesn't fit into any of their "narratives." First, it was committed by an illegal alien who has been living here rent free and squandering some $30 a day on drugs. Second, it didn't involve a firearm.

By now, you’ve probably heard of the horrific violence perpetrated by an illegal alien on an innocent woman riding New York's subway.

It’s part of a disturbing trend of illegal invaders committing unspeakable crimes while governments focus more on ‘social justice,’ and disarming the innocent.

No matter the facts, civilian disarmament zealots, better known as the gun-grabber lobby, persist in trying to take away our firearm freedoms. People are clearly the problem, not inanimate objects.

The nonsensical lie from the gun-grabbing left is that ‘If no one has a gun, no one needs a gun.’

Except that evil will always find a way to commit murder, so good people always need to be able to defend themselves.

The woman was apparently sleeping when the illegal alien poured something on her and the put a lighter to it. The woman woke up on fire. She was probably already blinded and her lungs were already burned when she stood up as a reflex. The death was horrific, one that a human being should not have to bear. But this kind of evil points to the real issue involved: It is not the tools they use to commit their crimes, but the evil intent of the criminal. He could have used a gun, of course, or a knife, or a screwdriver for that matter. All of them and more will kill if used to kill. But none of them has a moral compass. They are inanimate objects devoid of any motivation. Their lethality depends on the motivation of the person using them.

People are the problem, not inanimate objects, and it’s a fool’s errand to think that everyone can be magically made ‘safe’ with gun control, gun safety, gun reform or whatever the B.S. buzzword of the day is. You’ll always need a gun to defend yourself from knife, arson, and vehicle attacks, not to mention plain old governmental tyranny.

It’s also important to stop playing into the hands of the gun grabbers, referring to our firearm freedom as “gun rights” because it subliminally implies that certain inanimate objects have ‘rights.’

Parker is right on both counts. I have a confession to make.  I have often used the term "gun rights" myself. Mea Culpa. They are not "gun rights" because guns have no rights. Rather, they are human rights. I, and indeed every human on the planet has a right to defend themselves from an attack on themselves and their loved ones. They also have a right to obtain and wield the most effective weapons they can obtain. In today's world, that is often a handgun because if can be carried everywhere and is instantly available when needed. But rifles, machine guns...who knows, maybe lasers...may in the future be necessary.

We are all made in the image of God. Our purpose is to be faithful images of God on earth. It is why the commandment not to murder, for you will be murdering an image of God. But because we are all fallen from our original purpose, some of us sometimes try to murder others. Until Christ comes again, one must remain vigilant to guard one's life. Thus, the need for a gun.

A Christmas Contemplation

 I don't have a lot of time, as we traditionally go to our daughter's house for Christmas.  But I wanted to highlight an article for gentle readers at the American Thinker by Jeff M. Lewis entitled A World Without Christ?. It is interesting to contemplate what that might look like, so profoundly has He influenced the world. The first thing that would go would be the American Republic. Our very existence depends on people who believed in Christ and wrote our laws in conformity with the Bible. Hospitals would not exist. Imagine a Hobbsian world where life is brutal, short, and meaningless.

A world in which Christ had never been born, and therefore a world in which there was no Christmas and no Christian faith or influence, would be a dystopian nightmare we can only fearfully imagine. Without Jesus, we would have no example of the self-giving, sacrificial love of the Son of God or of God the Father who sent His only Son to redeem the world from our sin—our separation from and rebellion against God. But when we begin to look around, startlingly, one does not have to do a “deep dive” into the history books or look too far to see the contrasting realities that exist right now.

Compare the wealth, prosperity, and standard of living of the West to the citizens who live under the rule of socialist, communist, or Islamic dictatorships. The socialist/communist system of government is openly hostile to religion or to belief in an almighty Creator God. In every case, Christianity is banned under the penalty of law and imprisonment. For the people who live(d) in those countries, it may as well be as if Jesus had never been born.

As you go about your day today, celebrating Christmas, please remember the reason for the season. It is the anniversary of the birth our Lord, Jesus Christ, who quite literally changed the world for the better. We Christians often complain that the world is not better, but to contemplate what it would be like if Christ had never been born is to immediately praise God for this selfless act. For in our sinfulness, we could not change things ourselves. Only God Himself could give Himself as a sacrifice for our sins. Halleluiah.

The Good New at Christmas

 This may be my last post before Christmas.  Op tempo (operations tempo) has increased here at beautiful PolyKahr Estates as Christmas approaches.  And because we are anticipated the anniversary of the birth of our LORD in the flesh we naturally turn to more spiritual things.  So, it is interesting that Richard Rail has a piece at the American Thinker entitled Who be you? that speaks to our most important identity: our relationship with God.

Rail takes as his starting point a previous post by J. B. Shurk entitled Who Are You?

A while back, J.B. Shurk had an interesting item where he discussed a five-point plan to achieve “a sense of peace” in this life. It’s worth the read. I was enamored of the title, “And Who Are You?”

This — Hanukkah and Christmas — is a particularly cogent time of year to consider this question, since it grapples with issues that almost inevitably turn spiritual. That’s helpful, since we may drift away from what matters most, and thinking about the spiritual can put us back on the right road.

So who are you? This question arose in a comical way in Acts 19:13. “Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon possessed. ... One day the evil spirit answered them. ‘Jesus I know and Paul I know about, but who are you?’” We’re not told how the Jews answered.

Commonly, we think of ourselves in terms of what we do. Welder. Writer. Teacher. But those are attributes we develop as we go. Similar are the roles we fill along the way. Father. Aunt. These stations accrue as we move through life, but only superficially do they answer who we are.

I submit that we are our beliefs, which inform our actions, which become the attributes and roles (the adjectives, you might say) that limn our lives. Together these form our relationship with God. Beliefs x Actions = Relationship with God. BA=R. All nice and mathematical-looking.

Jesus came into the world and told us that we too could be sons (and daughters) of the God of creation. His mission was to die for our sins, a sacrificial lamb, so that we, though sinful beings, might be seen by God as blameless. What Good News! It makes all our politics and the day-to-day troubles pale in comparison. Our true purpose is to be imagers of God in the world.  There is nothing more important that to cling to this one Truth and build our relationship with Him.

The Attitude that Needs to Change

 Tom Knighton at Townhall.com has an article entitled This is the Attitude That Needs to Change on Guns. What attitude is that, you ask? The notion that if you make it more difficult for legal gun owners to access guns, somehow it will make it equally more difficult for illegal gun possesors. Sadly, that is not the case.

The problem that Aiken has, though, is a poor understanding of things, and he's got fewer excuses than most.

"If we make it too easy to get guns, the wrong people will get them. I know because my niece was killed by someone who got a gun despite the laws I literally just said would prevent it."

I don't mean to pick on Aiken, but his attitude about guns is far too common.

The problem is that people legitimately believe that gun control works and that if we make it harder for law-abiding citizens to get firearms then criminals will have an even harder time getting them. That's simply not true. We know it's not because the Department of Justice itself has looked at where the guns come from and it's not from lawful gun sales. Most of them come via theft or buying a stolen gun from someone else.

How are you going to regulate that?

Exactly so. People who are going to commit crimes with a gun are hardly going to be disuaded by laws preventing them from accessing a gun. It is the very definition of a criminal and an outlaw. Laws will never stop a criminal, because they do not care about laws. Period.

Gun Grabbers Dance in the Blood of Their Victims

 J. B. Shurk has an article today at the American Thinker entitled Dismantling the Bill of Rights Is No Solution. The first right written about in Shurk's piece is the Second Amendment because that is the one currently under attack due to the recent Wisconsin School Shooting.

After the recent school shooting in Madison, Wisconsin, the usual suspects immediately called for more “gun control.” Joe Biden’s White House released a statement demanding these additional infringements upon Americans’ Second Amendment rights: “Universal background checks. A national red flag law. A ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.” (The president conveniently ignored reports that the teenaged attacker used a 9mm pistol.) Democrat Congressman Mark Pocan insists that gun manufacturers be held responsible for the school shooter’s violence. Disgraced former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe (who was rewarded for leaking classified information and lying to federal agents) wants “legislation that changes the context of gun ownership” in the United States and new requirements that “eliminate the ability” of Americans “to purchase guns without a background check.”

So the departing president wants executive authority to determine which Americans enjoy Second Amendment protections. The congressman from Wisconsin wants to hold manufacturers criminally and civilly liable for the misdeeds of others. And the former acting director of the FBI wants to fundamentally transform the “context of gun ownership.” What part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand?

If you are a gun owner, you are used to calls to dismantle the Second Amendment every time someone misuses a gun and the gun-grabbers dance in the blood of the victims. But this sort of thing happens all the time to the entire Bill of Rights. In theory, our "leaders" swear on the Bible (in other words to God Almighty himself) to protect and defend the Constitution. But they obviously don't mean it.

If we were still a country that took loyalty oaths seriously, it would be worth noting that all three of these men raised their hands and solemnly swore to protect and defend the Bill of Rights. As retired FBI supervisory special agent Arthur P. Meister once wrote, “all public office oaths require true faith and allegiance to principles of lawful authority derived from the Constitution.” An official’s “deference” to the Bill of Rights “must trump all other promises and commitments” precisely because “the public elects, empowers, and allows a select few to govern many.” The U.S. government cannot expect public trust if its officers regularly violate their oaths to the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, if faith in the U.S. government is historically weak, then government officials should consider their disregard for the Bill of Rights the proximate cause.

Unconstitutional attempts to confiscate Americans’ firearms have become such a regular reaction to mass shootings that lawmakers act as if erasing the Second Amendment were no big deal. “Oh, what’s the harm?” they dismissively suggest on cable television. “It’s just an annoying little right. It was written, like, three centuries ago...by white supremacists! And if it saves even one child, it’s worth it!”

Shurk then takes us on a long discourse on the fact that our current system under the Democrats and particularly under the Biden administration is a two tier system where the people on the "inside" seem to get whatever they want, while the people on the "outside" aren't even given the bare protections afforded in the Constitution. Indeed, the people in charge, who have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution don't seem to have read it at all.

Make no mistake, none of the things Biden is pushing would have stopped any crime. Every wet dream wish of the gun grabbers is just to burden gun owners as much as possible.  The things they want now will never be enough.  And whatever the pathologies suffered by the Wisconsin shooter might be, they are tragic perversions of an unfortunately sick mind. The vast majority of gun owners (some 107 million own guns) did NOT commit a crime and never will. What is the logic here, then, that everyone should be punished for the crimes of the few? By that logic, everyone would be sent to jail whenever someone is robbed. Rather, the logic here is that if they can effectively neuter the Second Amendment, we will all be easier to control. Therein is the real reason.  Not because the care, but to increase their power and control.

Another Frivolous Lawsuit

 Over at the American Thinker today, Eric Utter has a post entitled Biden administration seeks to punish oil companies. The administration is putting its thumbs on the scale seeking to have the Supreme Court sanction a novel theory that oil companies should pay for damages caused by so called "globlal warming."

The Washington Free Beacon recently reported that the Biden administration’s stunningly unjust Department of Justice “quietly weighed in on litigation pending before the Supreme Court this week, siding with liberal cities and states that are seeking to force the nation's largest oil companies to pay billions of dollars in damages for global warming.”

Biden’s Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, is pushing the Supreme Court to give its imprimatur to the notion that states can make laws mandating that oil companies pay “the costs of global climate change.” Prelogar is also urging SCOTUS to “allow Democratic states to pursue their individual lawsuits against the various companies.”

The Beacon also noted that the lawsuits against the big oil companies “are being assisted by the California law firm Sher Edling, which was founded in 2016 to wage war on oil companies via novel legal methods,” and has “received nearly $14 million in donations wired through the so-called Collective Action Fund for Accountability, a shadowy pass-through group that isn't required to publicly disclose its donors.”

I have pointed out over time that the entire theory of man-made climate change has been thoroughly debunked. Yet it continues because the people behind it see it as a way to take money from you and me and put it in their own pockets. Why work for it, when you can steal it instead? If this were not done under color of law, it would be a crime of the greatest proportions. But what I want to point out here is what Utter also points out: that in fact oil, coal, and natural gas have actually greatly benefited the human race. You would not be reading this, execpt for fossil fuels generating the electricity to send these pixels all over the world.

Let me explain. Any possible “damage” these companies have done to the earth is more than counteracted by the literally incalculable good they have done. Global warming? Petroleum, coal, and natural gas-based energy has prevented countless millions from dying of extreme cold over the past century or more via various, relatively inexpensive, heating systems. Global cooling? Petroleum, coal, and natural gas-based energy has prevented countless millions from dying of excessive heat via the relatively recent miracle of air-conditioning.

What else? Let’s see. How many lives have been immeasurably improved because of the internal combustion engine? The freedom to get in one’s car and drive to work, or to travel across the country to see the sights, historical, environmental, or otherwise, is a blessing—though too often taken for granted now—beyond compare. The same goes for air travel. Not to mention that, prior to gasoline-powered vehicles, things were a tad more difficult. Who wants to ride a horse to work in heavy snow and 40-below windchills? Walk? Bicycle? What about the elderly, infirm, and handicapped? Would that be fair, inclusive, tolerant, and kind? And the ubiquitous horse poop—filling the streets and thoroughfares of that era was an ever-present health threat on several levels.

More? Before petroleum-based oils came into existence, many people lit their homes with lamps fueled by whale oil. Sperm—and other—whales were also benefactors of the switch to oil, coal, and natural gas.

Exactly so. Before the age of fossile fuels, the average person lived and died in a 10 mile radius of where he or she was born. Most people could not afford to keep a horse, and horses are not that fast anyway. Most people worked very hard to just survive, and most people lived to an average of 40 years. Think about that. This is what the Biden administration wants for us. Still think they have our best interests at heart?

The Insane Cost of Health Care

 Andrea Widburg at the American Thinker has a podcast on Health care costs, or more accurately, the insane costs of actual health care. She offers multiple reasons for this calamitous situation, not the least is Obamacare and illegal aliens. Go watch her podcast one of either Rumble or Youtube.  But make a cup of coffee because it's a 45 minute sitdown.

Human Nature Does Not Change. Neither Should the Constitution Except Through the Amendment Process

 Today I want to highlight a case that is discussed at the  American Thinker by Carlton Allen entitled Hawaii Judges Say 'Hell With the Constitution'. The case involves Christopher Wilson, a resident of Hawaii who was charged with carry a pistol while hiking. Wilson cited the Second Amendment and the Bruen decision. The Hawaii Supreme Court citing the states "spirit of Aloha" reinstated the charges against Wilson. The United States Supreme Court has so far refused to grant certiorari in the case on technical grounds. Such is the state of play.  

When I served as a judicial officer, I leaned into the originalist philosophy championed by Justice Antonin Scalia. His wisdom — that judges must adhere to the Constitution and the law as written, not as they wish it to be — served as a lodestar. As Scalia famously remarked, “The Constitution is not a living document — it is a legal document.” This sharp declaration underscores a vital truth: the Constitution is not a chameleon, changing with the political winds or cultural trends. It is a fixed, enduring framework meant to safeguard liberty and ensure the rule of law. Judges are bound by its text and original meaning, not free to reinterpret it to suit their preferences or the moment’s fashionable ideologies. To treat it otherwise is to abandon constitutional governance altogether.

The principles of originalist philosophy are important if we are to have Constitutional governance at all. Human nature does not change, and the laws laid down in the Constitution do not change just because current whims of society change. People have certain rights, and those rights always exist in all times and places. Thus the Constitution is not a "living document" but a legal document.

This principle could not be more relevant in the wake of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s defiance of U.S. Supreme Court precedent in State v. Wilson. The procedural posture of the case is important: Christopher Wilson, a Hawaii resident, was charged in 2017 with carrying a pistol without a license while hiking. Wilson argued that his actions were protected by the Second Amendment, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2022), which affirmed the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.

The Hawaii Supreme Court, however, reinstated charges against Wilson, effectively ignoring Bruen. In a particularly audacious move, the court criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for “cherry-pick[ing]” historical evidence and engaging in “fuzzy” reasoning, dismissing the Bruen decision as backward-looking. The Hawaii court even invoked the state’s so-called “spirit of aloha” as justification for rejecting the plain guarantees of the Second Amendment. This was more than a bad legal ruling — it was a brazen act of judicial nullification.

When the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices denied certiorari on procedural grounds, noting that this was an interlocutory matter that had not yet fully played out in Hawaii’s courts. However, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, issued a statement that should serve as a warning to all who care about constitutional governance. Justice Thomas sharply criticized the Hawaii Supreme Court for not giving the Second Amendment its proper weight, observing that the lower court’s analysis “failed to give the Second Amendment its due regard.” He further noted that Hawaii’s defiance of Bruen was deeply troubling and a signal of broader disregard for the rights of Americans.

...snip...

What makes the Hawaii Supreme Court’s actions in State v. Wilson even more concerning is that this is not a case of a state challenging the constitutionality of federal law. Instead, Hawaii has effectively declared that the Second Amendment, as interpreted in Bruen, does not apply within its borders. By reinstating charges against a citizen exercising what the U.S. Supreme Court has unequivocally affirmed as a fundamental right, the Hawaii court has treated the Constitution not as the supreme law of the land, but as an inconvenience to be disregarded.

This is not interposition in the historical sense — it is an outright dismissal of federal authority and a refusal to acknowledge the Second Amendment’s binding force. Such defiance signals a dangerous precedent, where states or localities decide unilaterally which parts of the Constitution they will honor. It is a direct challenge to constitutional governance and the principle that the rights enshrined in the Constitution apply equally across all states.

By invoking doctrines like nullification and interposition — whether explicitly or implicitly — progressive activists undermine the structure of our Republic. The Constitution is not a patchwork quilt of negotiable rights. It is a unified legal framework, and its protections do not cease to exist when they conflict with the political preferences of a state or locality. What Hawaii has done is more than defiance; it is a rejection of constitutional order, one that endangers the rights of all Americans.

Gentle readers are encouraged to read all of Allen's article. This is one to watch as the precedent set by the Hawaii Supreme Court cannot stand.  I would note especially the statement by Justice Scalia that the Constitution is meant to be difficult to change. One cannot legitimately reinterpret the plain meaning of the words to mean something different because of changing fashions. Fashions always change, but as noted above, human nature does not.

The Problem of Over Credentialism

 When I graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, the state board that licensed engineers had only in the last 20 years removed the old path to engineering of experience and passing the licensing test.  Abe Lincoln got a law license by "reading the law," which consisted of study and experience.  In his piece entitled The Cult of Credentialism J. B. Shurk notes that many American novelists had no college experience, yet were literary geniuses:

I once saw a celebrated American author give a class of literature majors one of the best lessons they could learn. He was speaking about the English language when he noticed that all of the students were busy taking notes rather than listening. He paused and asked how many planned on being writers. All hands went up. He asked how many expected to be successful in their pursuit. Most hands went up. Then he looked them in the eye and told them that majoring in literature is not the way to do so. The students were shocked (as were some of their professors), but the famous novelist continued. He listed his favorite writers of the last century and noted that most had spotty educations and work experiences that had nothing to do with writing. Prestigious college degrees and straight As, he told the students, are no substitute for creativity and life experience.

It was interesting watching some of the reactions in that auditorium. Surely literature majors had noticed that for every Ralph Waldo Emerson, T.S. Eliot, or John Updike with a Harvard degree, there were ten Mark Twains, Ernest Hemingways, Hunter S. Thompsons, or William Faulkners whose academic achievements were rather modest. Still, many of the young students had gotten it in their heads that if they attended the fanciest schools and read the great works of literature with enough enthusiasm, they would one day be recognized for their own literary genius.

I have noted several times over the years that society has become over credentialed. Journalism is a classic example of this over credentialism. What one needs to start journaling is a combination of ability to write well, curiosity, persistence and persevirance and a heathy dose of common sense. It helps to be somehwat witty, but that is not what is needed. What one doesn't need is a college degree. The Brooklyn Bridge was designed and built by John Roebling, who had much experience with engineering, though he only spent two semesters in formal studies. (I hereby apolgize to David Miller, and engineer I worked with a Cherry Point who thought we needed less non essential courses in engineering training. Sorry, I was wrong)

As with so much else in our culture today, we have been taught to value the wrong things. Education, critical thinking, and intellectual growth are vitally important. A degree is only as important as it assists an individual in these pursuits. If a person advances toward an academic degree without becoming a better thinker, then the degree is just window dressing. Everybody likes an attractive store window, but if the merchandise inside is shoddy, no customer will return. Today, a college degree is advertised as the essential accoutrement for every successful person. Unfortunately, a college “education” has been responsible for producing a surplus of shoddy minds.

A few years back, I watched an argument unfold online. People were debating the emergence of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” departments in schools and corporations. The back-and-forth was spirited but respectful. Many voices pointed out that DEI initiatives are a legalized form of discrimination that do nothing but divide Americans and aggravate pernicious tribalism.

Then a Boston professor jumped into the debate. She explained that she had advanced degrees in these subjects, that her education had cost several hundred thousand dollars, and that she had been the recipient of several illustrious university grants. She concluded that her C.V. proved not only that she knew more than everyone else, but also that those reading should feel lucky to be the beneficiaries of her free “expertise.” The professor’s patronizing tone conveyed such an appalling appeal to (undeserved) authority that the episode seemed the perfect encapsulation of academia’s collapse. Knowledge and critical thinking skills have been jettisoned in favor of lofty yet hollow titles connoting unearned prestige.

This little incident was an ominous precursor to the “Reign of COVID Terror,” the greatest outbreak not of disease, but rather of crimes against humanity. Rampant junk science and detestable appeals to authority coalesced into a ghastly form of totalitarianism that gave us lockdowns, injection mandates, religious persecution, mass surveillance, and the glorification of “expertise.” In the end, most of what the “experts” told us (with regard to COVID’s origin, transmission, lethality, and treatment) turned out to be spectacularly false. But the “experts” touted their credentials, pointed to all the exalted prefixes and suffixes surrounding their names, and expected everyone else to obey. Authoritarianism thrives when “the credentialed” presume to know best. Credentialism, after all, is sister to aristocracy.

Here is the problem with over-credentialism os that it breeds authoritarianism and totalitarianism. After all, if a highly credentialed person claims to know, can ordinary people with only common sense prevail in a debate? The meaning of PhD after a persons name is Doctor of Philosophy. But as my uncle, who has a PhD in mathematics noted, what it really means is "piled higher and deeper. One learns more and more about less unless until one becomes and expert on nothing." Not literally true, but it is a far cry from the idea of the Renaissance Man such as Issac Newton.  In truth, we need both kinds of people and knowledge in our debates.  The COVID lockdowns and idiotic requirements show what happens when highly credentialed people quickly shut down all debate.  As we learned, Sweeden did none of these things and suffered no more that those of us that did as the credentialed said.

Please read all of Shurk's article.

Burying Communism

 I would like to see it, if it were possible to Bury Communism for Good, as D. Parker suggests at the American Thinker. But, spoiler alert, all of the forms of collectivism, whether communism, socialism, progressivism, fascism, or some other name yet to be invented, partake of the worst instincts of mankind, namely envy. They all propose to give men something for nothing. All you have to do is put the "right people" in power. Unfortunately, there have never been the "right people."

It’s always been a perennial lie of the political left to falsely claim they’re all about fresh ideas, bringing in “new” winds of change, and that communism has never really been tried before. Anyone with a passing familiarity with history knows that’s a colossal pile of B.S., but if they can bluff their way along, they can hawk their societal slavery once again. The strains of collectivist control of the economy were in the cards in the last election, and if they had won, they would be crowing about how we’re all commies now.

Thankfully they lost, and they lost “bigly,” given the long odds with the national socialist media and every leftist celebrity on their side, so now is the time to take a good hard look at the damage their genocidal dreams have wrought upon humanity over 400 years finally declare enough is enough. It’s time to make the case for burying these collective ideologies for good.

I encourage gentle readers to read all of D. Parker's piece, for he makes a good case that we should indeed bury it once and for all. But we will never get rid of it entirely. Until Jesus comes again to rule in true justice, we are stuck with fallen people who will prefer envy to actual work. Still, there are things we can do. We can use the media and entertainment to make heroes out of people who work hard and succeed. We can also stop lionizing communist leaders and instead demonize these people. After all, they didn't become communist out of altruism, they did it to gain power and wealth at the expense of the everyday people. They were sure THEY knew how others should live, but not themselves.

We now know that history isn’t on their side, we also know that there is a very high cost to humanity with their Utopian fantasies. Fantasies that can never work, but always end with a mountain of corpses.

If there is one common thread running through collectivist thought down through the millennia, it’s an upper-crust, self-styled intellectual authority class that appears to think it knows better than the rest of humanity, and thus should rule over them. Thus, this intellectual authority class develops collectivist systems to control everyone else and bring about a perfect Utopia — at least, that’s been the sales pitch for the past 2,000 years.

One of the things about all collectivist systems is the utter misery imposed on the working people, for their own good, of course. And when they don't go along with being immiserated, then there are the "re-education camps" and gulags, and sadly the executions. Millions of executions, because when people don't "think correctly," they must be eliminated.

Force is the primary differentiating factor between communistic (or whatever) systems and those based on economic liberty. It's the only way those systems can work, and it’s the reason they need to finally be on the ash heap of history. Because in the 400 years of failure from the concepts that ‘have never really been tried before’ billions of people have been oppressed, and untold millions (we know that at least over 100 million) have been thrown into cattle cars, shipped to concentration camps and gulags, and murdered.

We also need to emphasize this aspect of collectivist systems. They inevibably mean the murder of people on an industrial scale.

The UAP Debate

 I am bringing something a little different today, a piece on what until yesterday were called Unidentified Flying Objects, or UFOs.  Now, I don't necessarily believe in UFOs, nor do I not believe.  I am open minded concerning the existence of UFOs.  According to John Nantz at Townhall.com in a piece entitled Crash Retrievals, Reverse Engineering, And the Cost of Secrecy: The UAP Debate Unfolds, the new term is "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena."

November marked another round of historic House and Senate hearings on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). Sworn testimony was delivered before both legislative bodies, and more astounding information has been revealed to the American public through highly credible whistleblowers and government officials.

UAP is the modernized acronym for Unidentified Flying Object (UFO). The old acronym carried baggage and stigma, but more importantly, has simply become antiquated and inaccurate. The unidentified phenomenon aren’t simply flying objects, but have been observed to be trans-medium, moving with unimpeded ease between space, atmosphere, and water.

The various Congressional hearings on UAP have been, shall we say, interesting, but have been overshadowed by the political events going on.

the UAP question for most people is relevancy. However, during the November 20 Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on UAP. Jon Kosloski, head of the Department of Defense’s UAP investigation program, the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) told the senate committee that UAP are real, there are cases that defy his understanding of physics, and that UAP are not our technology or adversarial technology. These are stunning admissions, especially in light of DOD’s decades long denial of even the existence of UAP, and active disinformation campaigns designed to discredit the topic and anyone who dares to counter the DOD narrative.

On November 13th, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability aired by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), held a UAP hearing and empaneled retired Rear Admiral Timothy Gallaudet, former Director of DOD’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) Lue Elizondo, journalist and author Michael D. Shellenberger, and former NASA Associate Administrator of Space Policy and Partnerships Micheal Gold. All four individuals are experts in their fields and gave testimony under oath.

Of the many points Rep. Mace made during the hearing, perhaps the most incisive was in regard to the government making disability payments to individuals who’ve suffered demonstrable harm from their work on or around recovered UAP. Her statement related directly to questioning by Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) who cleverly observed, “Well you can’t talk about fight club if there’s no fight club.” Moskowitz’s point was if the DOD required Mr. Elizondo to sign non-disclosure agreements about crash retrieval programs, then that tacitly acknowledges the existence of crash retrieval programs.

UFO, or as they are now known UAP have not inteseted me much. But the Bible does mention other intelligent beings created by God. These beings, called angels, demons, and the whole company of Heaven. Could these be the extraterrestrials that are the subject of Congressional hearings? One wonders. But please read Nantz's article, and follow further developments.

Has America Lost Its Collective Mind?

If you have been paying attention, you have, no doubt, been wondering: Has American lost its collective mind? As if to answer that question, at Townhall.com today, Matt Vespa has a hilarious post that encapsulates the absolute insanity of the "woke" movement in Comedian Hilariously Takes Down Cancel Culture Which Attacks This Classic Christmas Song

This story isn’t new, but one comedian decided to incorporate it into his act regarding the controversy surrounding the song ‘Baby, It’s Cold Outside,’ which the political correctness police deemed a date rape anthem or something. The song was all the ‘isms’ and ‘ists’—the song was sexist, misogynist, etc., and radio stations stopped playing it. So, to analyze why this song is problematic, comedian Tom Cotter read this Christmas classic's lyrics compared to another song that reached the top of the charts, ‘WAP’ by Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion.

Gentle readers are encouraged to watch as Tom Cotter alternately reads the words to "Baby It's Cold Outside" and "WAP". This shows that America has truly gone insane.

Is Climate Sanity Setting In?

Chris Talgo today has an article at Townhall.com entitled Climate Alarmists Are More Desperate Than Ever, which catalogs a number of trends toward climate realism. What one has to realize is that climate cooling...er...warming...er change has never been about the climate. The entire scam has been a United Nations effort to redistribute the wealth of developed nations toward the undeveloped. Keep in mind that the undeveloped nations could adopt our laws and system of government and have our success within a few decades. But they are socialists, so would rather steal it than earn it.

While campaigning, Trump made it crystal clear that he intends to unleash the American energy sector, particularly with regard to new oil and natural gas extraction projects. Moreover, Trump has pledged to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Accords, authorize the construction of new pipelines throughout the nation, allow U.S. exports of U.S. liquified natural gas to our European allies, eliminate President Biden’s electric vehicle mandate, and abolish a host of frivolous regulations that have handicapped U.S. energy production in recent years.

It also must be noted that among the American population, climate alarmism seems to be on the decline as well. In years past, climate change consistently ranked among Americans’ top concerns. However, as several recent polls show, Americans now rank climate change last or near-last in terms of their highest concerns.

Meanwhile, in Europe, climate realists continue to make progress by calling attention to the absurd measures taken to prevent a so-called climate catastrophe.

Talgo provides a number of examples of European nations imposing ever more stringent regulations on their people. In addition to Germany and France, I would add that Ireland wanted to cull cattle herds destroying farmers livelihood. But of course, this isn't about climate. This is about socialists trying to redistribute the wealth rather than make their own wealth. As such, they seem more interested in hitting people over the head than understanding people's concerns. But it's for their own good, right?

Like Germany, several other European countries jumped on the climate alarmist bandwagon years ago, much to the detriment of their citizens. From the Netherlands to France, farmers and many others have protested against the implementation of climate alarmist policies that put their livelihoods in jeopardy.

As Arnaud Rousseau, who leads one of France’s largest farmers union, put it, “What is happening at the moment stems from the accumulation of rules that at first you accept ... until it becomes too much.”

While the bottom-up protests in Europe and the victory for Trump bodes well for climate realism, it would be foolish to believe that this necessarily means climate alarmists are on their back foot.

Instead of listening to peoples’ genuine concerns about high gas prices and electricity bills, their apprehensiveness to buy electric vehicles, their questioning of the green transition, or any other uneasiness they may have about upending their daily lives, climate alarmists believe it is best to smash them into submission.

Let this be a lesson for other ideas. If you can't convince a majority of people that they should change their ways through open and honest debate, maybe it is not a good idea. Please read Talgo's article.