Victory is the condition for the restoration of civilization

At the American Thinker today is a piece by Lars Møller entitled Upheaval and Pushback that shows us through several counter revoutionary defeats that our winning this one is by no means a sure thing. The modern left (for the left has always been with us. It is in fact ancient and goes by many names, though Lucifer will suffice) began with the French Revolution. Its counter revolutionaries, the Vendee were destroyed, slaughtered, and executed. Møller spends the first half of his article on the history of French Revolution and its subsequent loss of life, all to satisfy a belief in an ideology that has proven time and again to be false. All this to discuss the American experience with this same ideology:

There are striking parallels between the events of the French Revolution and its Russian counterpart. In both cases, on the one hand, there were revolutionary forces trying to reshape an entire country, gripped by utopian fantasies, whatever the human cost, and on the other hand, counter-revolutionary forces fighting to roll back the revolution and restore order. In Russia, the “Whites” suffered the same tragic fate as the insurgents of Vendée.

What has attracted relatively little attention, considering the severity of the cultural impact in our society, is the struggle between the forces that have driven the “woke” revolution and the counter-revolutionary forces that fight for the values ​​that underpin Western civilization. Many imagine that “woke” simply stands for (ridiculously) exaggerated “humanism” and “tolerance”. However, that is a monumental fallacy. It denotes in reality one side — the dark one, to be sure — in a life-and-death struggle between totalitarianism and freedom.

Under the guise of humanism, Democrats have been working to reshape the United States ever since Lyndon B. Johnson’s immigration bill of 1965. Although with the resemblance of a bitter parody, in this case too, it is as if there is a fantasy of a thousand-year empire guaranteed, not by the presence of enlisted savages with bayonets in the streets, but by the steady influx of immigrants dependent on public benefits and with the prospective right to vote in general elections.

...snip...

The reality is that the United States has had its own piecemeal revolution since Obama came to power in 2009. In a civilized society like the American one, where people generally trust legislators, judges, and executive authorities, many have long been reluctant to stand up to them. However, as absurdities and injustices have become increasingly obvious, not least the socially devastating mass immigration from the South, people across the country have begun to sense danger and fear for the future of their children.

Unfortunately, Marxism did not die with the Soviet Union in 1991, but lives on in disguise. Its goal, however, is the same as before: the destruction of Western civilization. In recent years, it has attacked its enemy in subtler ways than before, weaponizing ethnic and sexual minorities, and is constantly seeking new strategic alliances in political movements of importance, e.g. Islamism. At its core, therefore, it is as totalitarian, anti-human, and evil as ever. Revolution is a bloody affair. It begins with boundless dreams and promises, but invariably ends in “terror”. Justice, of course, has nothing to do with it.

I do not know if Møller realizes it or not, but the term "Western civilization" is a code term for Christianity. The entire edifice of Western Civilization was built on the Christian faith. The idea of Judeo-Christianity ignores the Old Testament, pretending that Christianity was something New and thus destroyed the Old. But in fact, Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, and as Paul noted, we gentiles who call ourselves Christian are now grafted into the vine of God's chosen people Israel. The first disciples of Jesus were Jews. The first Christians were about 5,000 Jews baptized into Christ on Pentecost. Even today, there are Jews still being baptized into Christ. Glory hallelujah

Marx was virulently atheistic, as were the French revolutionaries and the Russian revolutionaries. Indeed, atheism has characterized all Communist and Marxist revolutionaries. One can think of them as teenagers rebelling against their parents, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous to the rest of us.

Since Obama, Americans have endured a revolution intended to dissolve any sense of national identity, cut it off from Western civilization, and drown it in multiculturalism, with invading masses of Third-World aliens acting as unwitting accomplices. The project has been truly revolutionary — all-encompassing and nihilistic.

It was not a given that Trump should win the November 2024 election. He did, however. And in doing so, he gave voice to all the decent people of the country who, for years on end, saw their national pride trampled and dishonored by hostile forces rooted in Marxism and other anti-Christian ideologies. Undoubtedly, he will unleash the righteous anger that has gripped the Americans, as it once gripped the brave counter-revolutionaries of the Vendée. Not to forget: It is a fight to the death!

Faced with a lurking, uncompromising enemy of everything we hold dear, we cannot take victory for granted because we have justice on our side, but must fight until victory is truly won. As Trump shouted to the crowd during the Pennsylvania campaign rally: “Fight, fight, fight!” Victory is the condition for the restoration of civilization.

The Infinite Monkey Theorem

 When I was in college, studying to become an engineer, one of the courses I took was statistics.  But since I wasn't trying to become a theoretician, I took a course in the application of statistics.  But I did learn at least enough to know that the more data points you have, the better your statistics reflect reality.  One of these theorems was called the infinite monkey theorem. There are various versions, but it goes like this:

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys independently and at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, including the complete works of William Shakespeare.

Of course, being young and quite full of myself, I thought this was quite clever. Actually, it points to both the power, and the limitations of statistics. The power, of course, is in the ability to tease out small signals from a great deal of data that looks like random noise. The limitation however is that there is never an infinite anything, especially time.

Of course, I thought that this was a proof that evolution was correct. Whether one believed in a god or thought that we came about through random mutations, the infinite monkey theorem seemed to prove evolution to be true. At the same time, however, I was training to become an engineer, a profession where one designed things which, we all hoped, would make people's lives better. In my defense, I didn't have a lot of time to contemplate things metaphysical as I was busy learning about the physical.

I have mentioned before that though I was raised in the Church, I was an agnostic, not sure that there was in fact a god, and in any case, I couldn't see that if He existed, that He had much sway over world affairs. Boy, was I stupid. The infinite monkey theorem may serve a useful purpose in statistics, but it bears no relation to the real world. In the real world, if I placed an infinite bunch of parts of a clock in a box and then shook it for an infinite amount of time, it would never become a clock. It is only when some craftsman specifically designs and constructs a clock that it becomes a clock.

God is the greatest mathematician, the greatest physicist, the greatest chemist, and so on. He is the Great Engineer of the Universe and the Creator of everything that is and everything that is not. Reading the Bible where Christ rebukes the Sadducees and Pharisees, people smarter than I am, it is only by His grace that my eyes have been partially opened.

SCOTUS Wrapped Around an Axle

 You have probably read by now that the Supreme Court has stabbed the Second Amendment and its supporters in the back with its recent ruling upholding the Biden era ATF ruling on so-called "ghost guns." John Woods has a post at the American Thinker mocking the SCOTUS ruling:

I have a suggestion for the nation about SCOTUS: the Supreme Court judges should be required to trade out their black robes for open-in-the-back hospital gowns and pink Crocs. The nine judges -- except for two -- seem incapable of keeping the lower court activist judges on the reservation. The SCOTUS judges should also be required to write all their opinions in red crayon, starting with their nonsensical decision on unserialized “ghost guns.” Looking at the Second Amendment with a powerful magnifying glass, I have yet to find or have overlooked the part that mentions serial numbers.

...snip...

SCOTUS should dress the part, since we seem to have a complete clown show in the Judiciary. Maybe the need to use their hands to keep their rosy red cheeks from peeking out of the hospital gown will prevent them from getting their hands on the people's rights. With their red crayon, they may want to circle and highlight the parts of the Second Amendment that mention age requirements or serial numbers.

I would like to see the return of the little red cartoon devil on the shoulders of each of these judges. He should have a baseball bat with the words “Read the amendment as it was written.” Every time these activist judges and SCOTUS add any words or additions to the amendment in the Bill of Rights, the little devil should whomp them up aside the head and scream, "Read it as it was written, Stupid!" in their ear.

I can't help but think that Woods may be onto something here. After all, where the weapon was made, or by whom, should have no bearing on a case of an unlawful shooting. In fact, serial numbers are frankly for the use of the manufacturer who needs to know when and to whom a weapon was sold for warrantee reasons. As Mike McDaniel has noted many times, neither knowing the serial number nor trace data has never solved a murder case. What has is standard police procedures. SCOTUS has apparently gotten wrapped around an axle that was spun up by anti-gun lawyers and they overlooked common sense.

Be Prepared

You may have noticed that the Left has decided to take down Elon Musk because he is pointing out all the waste fraud and abuse in the government one agency at a time.  In particular, they seem especially upset that he has pointed out the utterly ridiculous wasteful spending at the USAID, which was established by an executive order and can be eliminated by the same means. Of course, they really want to get rid of President Trump, but since he is too hard to get to, they have selected Musk, who is merely the messenger.  He can't fire anyone.

In typical manner, the Left has decided to take what they call "direct action" by committing arson on Tesla dealerships, and intimidating Tesla owners by damaging or burning their cars.  As Tom Knighton notes in a post at Bearing Arms entitled Things Are Getting Ugly. Be Ready, all patriots should upgrade their awareness. In the parlance of Col. Jeff Cooper, you should be at condition "yellow" most of the time. But these are not normal times, and you may want to go to "orange."

In 2018, I wrote a piece here at Bearing Arms about the dangers of the mob going after ideological opponents. At the time, left-leaning mobs were hounding any Republican they could find out and about, even if they were just trying to eat a meal. I was actually looking for something else I was sure I wrote here and stumbled on it, but it sort of felt important to look at it a bit in light of what we're currently seeing all around us.

At the time, I feared escalation. Sooner or later, I worried the mob mentality would kick in and someone would go too far and then things would get really ugly.

...snip...

My fears last time were misplaced, thankfully. This time, I don't know that we'll be as fortunate. The thing is, we all tend to hope for the best, prepare for the worst, so I highly recommend that you get in a little extra range time, carry anywhere and everywhere you can, and be ready if the next target of this kind of stuff--or worse--is you and yours.

If you haven't been to the range lately, and I am one who doesn't go as often as I should, recommend you all go and sharpen your skills. Also clean and do any maintenance on your weapons. Finally, keep your weapons close by at all times.

A Word About Bible Translations

 Something that I wanted to discuss yesterday, and it slipped my mind is Bible translations.  Now, I don't know either Greek or Hebrew, but these are the original languages of the Bible.  Latin is not, and as we all said in Latin class, "Latin is a dead language, dead as it can be.  It killed off all the Romans, and now it's killing me."  My point is that I am forced as probably most of you, to rely on my pastor who knows these languages.

So, the King James Version (KJV) is a fairly good translation.  Considering the date it was translated, and the limited sourcing of original materials, one can only think that the Holy Spirit was guiding the translators.  It gets most of the main points correct.  Its language is archaic and often hard to read, especially for our young people, who aren't exposed to Beowulf, Canterbury Tales, or Shakespeare.  In the early 90s, I was convinced to purchase a New International Version translation in the Oxford Study Bible, which included the Apocrypha.  This was all the rage in the early at the time.  However, this translation is heavily influenced by Calvinist theology, and one finds too many places where one has to mark through and put a better translation above the marked language. The English Standard Version, which claims to be a modern update of the original KJV misses the mark in that it translates the "seed" of Adam as "offspring."  This is an attempt to erase Christianity.

There are other translations and paraphrases of Holy Scripture.  Some are better than others.  But I have settled on the New King James Version, which preserves the all-important "seed" of Adam, while giving us a more readable Bible that maintains the majesty of the original KJV.    

The Bible in School

 Dr. Steven Cutchins has an intriguing article over at the American Thinker today entitled The Bible in Schools? Research Says It Matters. Why is it so intriguing? Well, I have some personal experience to share, but first I want to tell you what the research says.

Research from the Center for Bible Engagement’s Power of 4 study, which examined over 400,000 people, found that casual Bible reading doesn’t change lives. But engaging with Scripture four times a week or more does.

Those who did saw significant improvements in mental health, decision-making, and moral behavior -- including lower levels of loneliness, anger, substance abuse, and pornography use.

While the study analyzed individuals of all ages, its findings suggest that younger people -- who are increasingly grappling with depression, anxiety, and identity confusion -- would likely experience similar benefits.

The research found that individuals who engage with the Bible regularly experience 30% less loneliness, 32% fewer anger issues, and a 60% decrease in feelings of spiritual emptiness. Additionally, pornography use declined by 62%, substance abuse by 57%, and gambling by 74%, while participation in faith-sharing increased by 228%.

If a secular program yielded these results, every school in America would adopt it. However, since it’s the Bible, they are compelled to ignore its benefits.

I have to confess that 10 years ago I would have found these results astounding. Today, I say "But of course." When I escaped from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and joined the Missouri Synod, my new pastor suggested I start reading the Bible every day, following a program put out by the Missouri Synod. He had been following it for 37 years. I took it to heart but found I could only follow it for perhaps 4-6 months at a time. Finally, I decided made a commitment to read the entire Bible in a year following the prescribed readings each day. I will say that it has been eye opening. Each time I read a chapter, or a verse, I find new meanings. Sometimes I read a book and wonder what it has to do with me, only on a later reading it suddenly becomes clear that it was written just for me.

Daily Bible readings generally take between a half hour and 45 minutes. You read a Psalm a day (except for Psalm 119) Then you read a chapter or two or three depending. By the end of the year, you have read the entire Bible, and read the Psalms twice. For those who have only read the New Testament, you may think that God changed his mind about mankind. Nothing could be further from the truth. God appears in the Old Testament as all three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And because you read it in bite sized chunks, you form a habit; you begin to look forward to it.

I read the Bible for His truths; for religious and theological reasons. It is a great story with one central character, namely God. But it is also literature with a number of genres. It is history (and archeologists keep uncovering things that prove the Bible true), poetry, prophesy, Gospels, epistles or letters, and apocolypse. Today, our laws are ultimately grounded in God's laws presented in the 10 Commandments. But it wasn't always so. For much of human history, human life was dirty, brutal and short. And in many places where Christianity has been rejected, it still is. It was God who said that we shouldn't murder each other, that we shouldn't kill our children, that we shouldn't steal our neighbor's stuff and so on. For the first time he demanded that the Israelites exercise the same justice on strangers as they did for themselves. They must not discriminate on a someone because he was poor. This was revolutionary stuff in its day. It is only because of the spread of Christianity that we do not see it as revolutionary today.

One can teach the Bible in schools as history, as poetry, as the shaper of our culture, without teaching Christianity. Students are free to believe what they and their parents want to believe. But it is important as citizens of the United States, and the state and community in which they live to understand our place in history.

Gun Control Doesn't Work As Advertised

 How many ways can we point out that gun control doesn't work as advertised

Tom Knighton has a post at Bearing Arms entitled British Teen Getting Gun Shows Gaping Hole in Strict Gun Control System. We can all admit that (formerly) Great Britain has one of the most restrictive gun control systems in the world. And yet, a teenager managed to get around all those laws to obtain a shotgun and kill his family members. He also planned to kill his classmates at school. You can read the quote from the Tottenham and Wood Green Independent for yourself.

This is always the case though. The law-abiding people who want a gun can buy a gun, and indeed likely already have. The law abiding who want a carry permit likely again, already have one. Meanwhile, criminals do not bother to obtain a permit; but they carry anyway pretty much anywhere.  You may be disarmed but the criminal never is.

Right now, the North Carolina legislature is on track to approve a version of Constitutional carry in the state. The governor is sure to veto the bill, and the Republican majority no longer has a veto proof majority. While Paul Valone, founder and head of Grass Roots North Carolina is confident enough legislators will override the governor's veto, I have my doubts. They should have done it last year when they had a veto proof majority.

In any case, I was listening to the Democrats' objections, and it seemed to center around the notion that everybody would be carrying (and of course there would be blood in the streets.) But that did not happen in the other 29 states that have passed Constitutional carry. Indeed, there have been no problems that would not have happened anyway because...see two paragraphs above. But one wonders that supposedly smart lawyers seem to think that something written in a book with far too many laws as it is, will somehow prevent someone who isn't supposed to have a gun from acquiring one. But out here in realville it doesn't work that way.

One unfortunate impact of this, beyond the loss of innocent life, is the fact that now the rules will get tightened in England yet again, all while a teenager was able to navigate the system that's already one of the toughest in the world and would likely get past any additional rules, too.

I'm sorry, but this is really just evidence that no matter what you do, some enterprising soul will figure out a way around the system. This time, it was with something as simple as a fake ID. I'm pretty sure that happens here in the United States more often than we'd like to think, too.

An Armed Society Is a Polite Society

 At Ammoland Alan Gottlieb has an article pointing out the incredible double standard in the media of always refering to any gun use as "gun violence" but reverting to acknowledging that it is the criminal who commits violence with a knife. You can read the article Media's Shocking Double Standard, Where Are Calls to End 'Knife Violence'

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is pointing to media hypocrisy in its reporting of at least ten attacks involving knives or hatchets, most of them fatal, yet there was not a single mention of “knife violence,” indicating an appalling double-standard in how violent crime involving firearms is routinely portrayed, whether by broadcast or print media.

“We checked ten different reports regarding fatal and non-fatal knife attacks, all over the country,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “and not a single report included the term ‘knife violence’ anywhere in the text. Yet pick up any newspaper, read any online report involving the criminal use of a firearm, and by the time you’re finished, you will have seen at least one reference to ‘gun violence.’

I can only conclude the media has a deplorable double-standard when it comes to reporting homicides involving guns, yet the victims are just as injured or dead. “Underscoring this nonsense,” he said, “is the way the media is reporting the Department of Health and Human Services’ removal of a former surgeon general’s warning that ‘gun violence’ is a public health hazard. Gun ownership is not a communicable disease. Putting that warning on the HHS website was just one more effort by the Biden administration to demonize firearms and the people who own them.

The fact that the media has universally adopted the gun-grabbers' term for gun use as "gun violence" betrays a general desire of the Left to disarm the American public. They pretend that it is the guns that jump out of peoples' holsters and start shooting innocent victims. But when it comes to knives, or indeed literally any other weapon, suddenly it is the person wielding the weapon. The fact is that there is no such thing as "gun violence." There is just violence, committed by people. And there is generally no solution for violence, though by executing swift justice you may keep it down to a dull roar. Also you can keep it to a minimum by remembering that an armed society is a polite society.

Only Buy from the Outside of the Grocery Store

 Monica Showalter, at the American Thinker thinks she has happened upon the reason for our obesity epidemic in an article entitled So where'd America's obesity epidemic come from? Chef Andrew Gruel has a theory... Ms. Showalter goes on to expound on the Gruel theory that we don't teach home economics in the schools anymore. Which is true. I met my wife while working for the Navy department. We both worked for and retired from the civil service. She always said that what we needed was a wife. What she meant was that we didn't have time left to do the job that a wife formally performed of seeing to the home care and functioning. We could afford to eat out more often. Thus, we ate both more food, and richer food than we might normally have eaten. But we also ate many more carbohydrate laden foods than we would otherwise have eaten as well.

While I was in treatment for cancer, I was fed a diet that included more calories than I needed and was very high in carbohydrates. I put on easily 10 to 15 pounds while in the hospital for three weeks. I have since shed most of that excess weight by eating a carnivore diet, or as Dr. Ken Berry calls it, the Proper Human Diet. Dr. Berry along with others who have revived this style of eating have a lot of evidence that this is in fact the way humans ate for thousands of years before the agricultural revolution. Think about it; have you ever walked out in the woods and found food there for the picking? Most things, like berries, have relatively short seasons, and do not bear fruit over the long winters.

Now, a lot of claims have been made for the carnivore lifestyle. One is that it starves cancer. I will not make that claim. I will, however, say that if a person goes on it, he will, with some rare exceptions, lose weight, feel more energetic, and clear up a number of annoyances and disabilities caused by autoimmune diseases. Many skin diseases can be reversed without medication. Many cases of osteoarthritis can be reversed. Fatty liver can be cured. Diabetes in many cases can be reversed, though you can't cure it. I have personal experience with these claims that I make. Your mileage may vary, as they say.

Do you have to eat carnivore always? Well, no. Sometimes you can have a sweet potato as a treat. Or you can eat broccoli and asparagus on occasions. Everyone is different. Some people can eat heavy cream and cheeses and still lose weight. I find I cannot do that, though I keep some cream around for various reasons such as making an omelet.

Chef Andrew Gruel is onto something.  We need to teach old fashioned home economics if for no other reason that if you can't do it yourself, how are you going to know if the people you hire are doing it correctly?  The other half of that though is that we need to eat more meat and healthy vegetables, less grains and high carbohydrate foods like potatoes.  And these need to be prepared at home where you can control the ingredients.  A good rule of thumb is to only buy from the outside walls of the grocery stores and avoid the middle.

The Bird Flu Scamdemic

 Janet Levy has an important article today on the current effort to scare the public with "bird flu."  Her article can be found at Covid Redux: The Bird Flu Scare. As she notes, this has the same feel as the Covid scamdemic had. Second, it should be noted that the bird flu has apparently not affected either Mexico or Canada. What this tells me is that we are being scammed again. Rather than culling millions of birds, the government should let the flu run through the flocks to achieve herd immunity. Having naturally immune birds is far superior to the need to vaccinate the birds. In any case, please read Levy's article and consider that the expensive eggs are the result of government actions.

Be Careful Of What You Wish

 Mike McDaniel has a post today at the American Thinker entitled Dem violence and manhood. In it, he highlights a twitter post from Kurt Schlichter that asks if the Democrats really want violence and intimidation to be the new rule, because there will only be one rule. If one reads the Old Testament, one will notice that God, while long suffering, eventually lost patience with people who did not love him, and ordered the Israelites, a normally peaceful people, to kill every last one of them, men, women and children, their livestock, and burn all their possession. As Kurt Schlichter implies, they may not like the new rules.

McDaniel then points to a case of Vice President J. D. Vance walking with his 3 year old daughter when "protesters" began shouting and harassing him:

Certainly, Vance had Secret Service protection, so his daughter and he weren’t in obvious physical danger, and Vance, taking advantage of that relative safety, treated the “protestors” with the civility they denied him. But he’s absolutely right: they were s**t people. Did their parents not teach them one doesn’t terrorize little children? Were they raised by wolves, or the modern equivalent, terrorists? Or were they sufficiently intelligent to realize they were protected by the Secret Service and Vance’s position? Did they understand many a Normal American father would have done them real violence for threatening his daughter, and no jury, perhaps not even in a blue state, would have convicted him?

...snip...

While Normal Americans understand that violence unleashed on a societal scale can’t be easily put back in the bottle, D/s/c don’t. Caught up in the adrenaline rush of “direct action,” they’re learning in the second Trump Administration there might be consequences. They might even be expelled from the universities whose classes they don’t bother to attend, so busy are they building a better world through trespassing, arson, destruction of property and intimidation of innocents.

They, and the D/s/c politicians who think they control them, believe political violence is like an amplifier potentiometer. It can be dialed up to 10, down to 6 and back to 0 at will and with no consequences. Normal Americans, people who simply want to be left alone to raise their families and go about their daily business—yes, they actually go to work and produce, or they’re fired—keep that potential for violence tightly under control. For them, there are no potentiometers. They’re at zero or “kill them all”--a second civil war.

The danger D/s/c “protestors” represent is just that real. With the current reemergence of the rule of law, the danger of civil war may be reduced, but those funding and inciting those “protests” never cease wanting one.

How can Democrats/socialists/communists (D/s/cs) be so passionate about killing infants in the womb? Or assasinating Elon Musk? For that matter, how can they be so passionate about supporting Hamas when it is they who started the latest war with Israel? It seems they are on the wrong side of everything, and they are very passionate about it. But they should be reading the Old Testament and asking themselves when God will finally have enough of them. Be careful what for what you wish.

Civilians Stop More Active Shooters that Law Enforcement

 Olivia Murray has a post at the American Thinker today entitled New report: civilians stop more active shooters than law enforcement. The report comes from John Lott's Crime Prevention Research Center. For sure, Lott's methods are strictly utilitarian, but when principle is supported by practical evidence, it shows the Second Amendment is clearly correct.

I say this in all seriousness, God bless the work of the CPRC because compiled and organized data is invaluable in the gun debate, but of course armed Americans physically present for what’s fixing to be a massacre do a better job of preserving innocent life than government hires not near the coming carnage. As the saying goes, “When seconds count, police are minutes away.”

...snip...

The Center also revealed that of the 180 cases its researchers looked into, a bystander was hit in only one instance (.56%) of the time, interference with police happened zero times, armed civilians suffered injuries themselves 24.4% of the time, and “the shooting they prevented [was] likely to be a mass public shooting” in a whopping 32% of the case examples.

It’s not unknown why the Founders included the Second Amendment—unless you’re a leftist idiot—and it wasn’t because they just wanted to guarantee a person’s right to to don waders and go duckhunting, but once again, with the data in, the Second Amendment proves itself to be the best protection against undeserved violence. Not only the violence that the state would surely inflict upon us if we were unarmed (all states do), but against violence from those who should be our very neighbor.

Indeed

A Primer on Respect for Human Life

 I mentioned in the last post that I am currently reading John Zmirak's book No Second Amendment, No First: Guns and Government. The book presents the Bill of Rights, and in particular the Second Amendment, as grounded in the Christian faith in the God who has created mankind in His image. There is much that then flows from that simple statement.

Yesterday, at the American Thinker Selwyn Duke had an intensely personal piece entitled Without God, There Is No TRUE Respect for Human Life which pursues what a belief in God, the Creator and His creation of us in His image implies. For there can be no true respect for human life without this belief. When someone proposes to reduce the population of the world by some amount, you quickly see that this person has no respect for human life.

Duke writes of his youth so that you can understand the path followed to get where he is today. I can sympathize because, while I was trained in the church, I abandoned those beliefs, believing them to be mere superstitions. It was only late in life that I came to realize that the world described in the Bible is real down to the tiniest detail. People ask how God can condemn people to hell. But God doesn't, we our selves condemn ourselves to hell by not following His instructions for coming to Him. But some might say, wouldn't it be better to simply destroy a person rather than having them eternally tormented? Perhaps, but God has infinitely more respect for us than we do for ourselves, so he cannot simply destroy us. It is why he cannot destroy the Devil, though it might eliminate a lot of problems. He has respect for the Devil, who has no respect for Him.

Since my title is bound to inspire criticism that I’m a “God botherer,” I’ll preface what follows by stating that I wasn’t always the halo-adorned, floating-in-the-ether desert mystic (without the sand or heat) you behold today. I wasn’t raised with faith, and as a 12-year-old was an agnostic who’d say, “I’d never believe or disbelieve in anything there’s no proof of.” Later on I’d be rather dismissive of theists, actually, viewing them as God botherers myself, though we didn’t have that term or as many Richard Dawkins-like secularist warriors back then. I suppose we were, relatively speaking, handicapped in our exercise of supercilious anti-theism.

But that has changed — and I’ve changed. I long ago could’ve moved on to supercilious pro-theism; only, my faith instructs that Pride is the father of all sin, Humility is a virtue and warns that “he who exalts himself will be humbled.” The realization I’ll expound upon today further explains why I’ve changed, and I mention my spiritual evolution not because I’m narcissistic (though that isn’t to say I’m not!) but because maybe, just perhaps, a few non-believers will consider what follows more seriously knowing it doesn’t come from someone “raised to think that way.”

...snip...

That we are mere things under the atheistic world view is an indisputable corollary of it that has been recognized by atheists themselves. I remember a fellow online who said, perhaps lamentably, that we humans are just robots, “really cool robots.” A botanist named Lawrence Trevanion, seeming more clinical about the matter, has defined people as “objects that perceive” (thankfully, he’s responsible for the health of plants, not people. Though were I a fern, I still think I’d rather be in the care of a “God botherer” gushing with deific sentimentality). But the implications of this belief are serious.

It’s often stressed in America that “our rights come from God,” as our Founders insisted, because we know that what God has bestowed only He can rightly revoke. The logic is airtight. People ultimately yield to greater power, authority and wisdom and, unless profoundly devilish, defer completely to the Ultimate Power (upon recognizing it). How compelling it is, the belief that the Creator of the Universe and Inerrant Author of All has decreed something so. And this, by the way, involves not a matter of faith but fact: human psychology. Generally speaking, it’s how people operate, like it or not.

Is it any different with human life? People will, as a rule, respect it when considering man a divinely created being, infused with a soul and deemed sacred by God. If he’s just an organic robot, however, all bets are off.

It is important to realize that all sorts of bad things flow out of the atheistic belief that man is an organic robot: genocide, eugenics, attempts to change man's nature all flow out of this basic disrespect.  Another thing that flows out of an atheistic worldview is psychopathy.  For that is how a psychopath views other people, as objects.  But as Duke points out, most people who embrace atheism do not live as psychopaths because they have not fully examined what that position means.

To reassure my non-believer friends, and remember I once was one of you, yes, I know the vast majority of you are not psychopaths. As I’ve illustrated, however, this is because you don’t truly live your atheism and all its implications. And even insofar as a few of you might have thought matters through and concluded we’re just “really cool robots,” you (thankfully) don’t feel this on an emotional level. You don’t live down to your beliefs.

So, then, what of my article’s title? After all, some who don’t recognize God then do in practice have respect for human life. The answer lies in a twist on a George Washington saying about morality. To wit: “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that national morality [respect] for life can be maintained without religion.” (Of course, respect for life is part of morality.) As is said in commercials, “Individual results may vary.” But the national (collective) picture is clear: The more we mainstream godlessness, the more it and its corollaries will permeate not just minds but hearts. This is why a very sober atheist, whose thoughts I read decades ago, expressed concern over his creed’s wider embrace. He grasped its implications.

Watching was is happening in Europe and in England, I fear for what it portends if we, as a nation, do not turn back to God. For He will, out of love, let us go our own way if we insist. But what a miserable place we will bequeath to our children without Him at its center.

Democratic Virtue Signaling

A lot of politicians, and particularly Democrat politicians seem to have friends and family who are...let's say...prone to cross the lines between legal and illegal. That is the only explanation for why they are so protective of the criminal class. Now, California is a one-party state. Therefore, it makes sense that a one party, Democrat run state would want to protect home invaders against law abiding homeowners. Mike McDaniel has the story at the American Thinker today entitled California tries to tear down the Castle Doctrine.

McDaniel spends a couple of paragraphs reviewing the history of the concealed carry movement, and the Constitutional carry movements along with the reinforcing of the law of self-defense and Castle Doctrine. Castle Doctrine in particular doesn't require you to run from your domicile before using force to defend yourself and those in your care. With that background established, McDaniel writes:

Such laws also commonly feature the presumption that someone (un)lawfully entering a home isn’t there for good and lawful purposes, and whatever force is necessary may be used against them. They also commonly immunize citizens who defend themselves and their families from prosecution and civil liability. This is a good thing as the relatives of dead violent criminals often suddenly discover the departed were were irreplaceable assets to humanity and minutes from receiving a declaration of canonization from the Vatican.

Castle Doctrine laws arguably overlap Stand Your Ground Laws, which 27 states enjoy. They’re not residence specific and feature essentially the same benefits as Castle Doctrine laws. So long as one is legally present, there is no requirement to run away before using whatever force is necessary against criminal attack. Both laws are common sense, sane empowerments of the law-abiding and innocent against violent criminals.

Despite what anti-liberty/gun/racist cracktivists whine, neither law allows anyone to bypass laws governing lawful self-defense. They’re entirely race neutral.

So, naturally, the California legislature wants to eliminate the Castle Doctrine to empower criminals to invade more homes. This is shocking, and goes against not just our founding principles, but against God. I am reading John Zmirak's book No Second Amendment, No First: Guns and Government, and I am reminded of those principles. The first is that everyone, all mankind, is created in the image of God. That is who we are and it is also our purpose being here: to reflect His image. God, and Jesus is God in the flesh, is not a pacifist. While he commands that we do not murder our fellow images of God, he also demands that we defend ourselves, our families, and our neighbors.

Another principle, not explicitly stated, but it can be derived from reasoning about the stories in the Bible is that no man (or woman, or child) is "good." Jesus tells us that only God is good. All men are inclined to do evil, and that includes all men (and women) in government. It is no surprise then that the state run by the Democrats, who have abandoned God, the Bible, and the founding principles, want to now make self-defense a nullity.  It is a piece with the belief, in spite of all of history, that men are basically good.

Who Stole the Constitution?

 J. B. Shurk has an article today at the American Thinker that tells us just how far away from the founders Constitution we have wandered, and how far we must go to get some semblance of it back. The article is entitled Master Thieves Stole the Constitution, and in fact that is exactly correct. Some of them thought they were doing what was in our best interests, but on balance they were not. Others though knew precisely what they were doing, and why. We, the citizens who were being duped too often where unaware of just exactly what the thieves had wrought.

Everyone has a favorite adventure novel or movie in which a daring thief swaps something of immense value with something terribly fake. A forged painting hangs in lieu of the original on a museum wall. A bag of sand takes the place of a bag of jewels inside a pressure-sensitive safe. Lead bars are substituted for gold bullion in Fort Knox.

The American people are the victims of a similar kind of heist. Over the last century, master thieves have stolen their freedoms, representative government, and constitutional protections. Cheap knockoffs have replaced priceless American treasures.

The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Environmental Protection Agency, or the Internal Revenue Service. It says nothing at all about the hundreds of other administrative agencies and regulatory bodies that compose the federal bureaucracy. On the contrary, the Constitution is a blueprint for a small government with limited powers. Those powers are explicitly enumerated, while all other powers are explicitly reserved for the American people and the individual states.

I remember talking to someone who was planning to vote for a certain Democrat because he had made a statement about education, and she was very concerned about education having young children. I explained that education was a state and local issue and was nowhere in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution had listed a very limited number of powers, among which education was not one. No matter.

One of the things the Department of Education does is grant money, which was taken from the taxpayers in the first place, back to the states. But of course, the grants have strings attached. You may wonder why schools now have so many adminstrators, couselors, and other non-teaching adults on the payroll. Well, blame it on the DOE. The grants government gives effectively give it control. Why would you give control of your schools and what they teach to some bureaucrat in D.C? This was supposed to be one of the things left to the states and the people.

The Environmental Protection Agency knows what’s best for your land. The Department of Education knows what’s best for your children. The Department of Health and Human Services knows what’s best for your body. Should you disagree with their “experts,” the Department of Homeland Security is eager to censor your social media messages as “disinformation.” Should you decide to defend your family and property from government intrusion, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is ready to commandeer both. The Transportation Security Administration keeps a naughty list of citizens whose luggage must always be tossed. The Federal Bureau of Investigation loves to organize pre-dawn raids of citizens who too publicly oppose government overreach. Unelected government bureaucrats advise citizens which parts of the Bill of Rights remain in effect.

However else this system of government is described, it cannot accurately be called “representative,” “constitutional,” or “democratic.” It is not of the people, by the people, or for the people. It is of, by, and for the bureaucrats. It is a system that operates in secrecy and justifies its secrecy as the prerogative of “experts.” It looks nothing like the U.S. Constitution. It is a cheap and unimpressive forgery.

Please read all of Shurk's article.  Trump appears to be taking a wrecking ball to the deep state, but remember that we may only have a few years to undo what others have wrought.

Only Congress Should Make the Laws

 Today at Townhall.com Tom Knighton reports that the Firearms Policy Coalition Takes to Court to Argue Only Congress Can Create Laws. This has been a hobby horse of mine for as long as this blog has been running. The Constitution sets clear limits to the powers of each of the three branches of government. Congress makes the law, and the Executive branches...well executes the laws. If you are in an executive agency, you are not asked whether you agree with the law or not, or if you think the law should be changed. You are expected to faithfully execute the laws as written.

I am sure that I am not the only one who has been upset about this, but it is nonetheless good to see someone is attempting to get this very real problem of our federal government back in line.

Through the years, Congress has passed numerous laws. It's hard to keep up with exactly what is and isn't legal nowadays, though most of us manage to figure out the broad strokes.

As bad as that is, federal agencies have been empowered by Congress to essentially create new laws with the stroke of a pen. These regulations have the force of law but are created by faceless bureaucrats rather than our elected representatives. This has created issues regarding guns, the environment, commerce, and pretty much every aspect of American life. Now, an organization is doing something about it.

No, the Firearms Policy Coalition isn't the only one that has tried, but it's the one taking action at the moment:

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a brief with the United States Supreme Court in the case of FCC v. Consumers' Research, which is set to address the question of when and how Congress may delegate its authority to administrative agencies. The brief can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

“Amici have a particular interest in this case for two reasons. Amici litigate cases in federal court around the country, and the question added by the Court concerning the availability of mootness exceptions is of great importance to Amici,” the brief explains, as “firearms cases frequently risk becoming moot, and the contours of the mootness doctrine are thus extremely important to Amici. Of even greater import to Amici is reigning in unconstitutional delegations of legislative power. Individual liberty, including the right to keep and bear arms, is routinely violated under the guise of broad delegations to administrative agencies.”

Knighton puts a very nice spin on why the Congress first started delegating law making powers to the Executive branch:

Look, I understand why Congress started empowering federal agencies to create regulations. Passing laws is time-consuming, and a lot of times, it's just not going to happen even when it probably needs to. By allowing agencies to enact regulations and interpret law, they can be more agile and, arguably, less beholden to political whims.

I am not so sure. I suspect that legislators are first of all political animals, not really interested in getting into the weeds of most issues. Most of them are lawyers, and don't want to do the work to become experts themselves, so pass the actual lawmaking on to the "experts." But this blurs the lines between the two branches. Rather, with fewer agency bureaucrats in the Executive branch, Congress could afford more specialists to do some of the heavy lifting while writing the bills. But while executive branch "experts" tend to stay on, Congressional staffers can come and go more freely. Moreover, by having Congress make the law, and preventing the Executive from making laws, we restore the balance making Congress more powerful while making the presidency less so.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

 Anyone who has been paying attention will know that the Biden administration was anti-gun, at least for guns in your and my hands, from the top on down. And while the Biden administration has been the most anti-gun, they are alone.  I think every administration has been anti-gun to a greater or lesser degree.  Of course, they all loved guns in government's hands.

Now, I have never understood this philosophy.  Being against a tool, an inanimate object, really doesn't make sense.  In many ways guns are like fire extinguishers.  You have them in case of need, but no sane person hopes to have a need.  Unlike Hollywood, where the police, for example, are drawing their guns on every show, most police officers never draw their guns, much less actually shoot them except to qualify annually.  Yet they all carry them, just in case.

Mike McDaniel at the American Thinker has a post today entitled Citizens stop armed attackers; the FBI lies in which he makes clear the degree to which the Biden administrations animus toward guns in private hands has distorted the FBI's statistics. McDaniel does this by comparing the FBI statics to similar ones from John Lott's Crime Prevention Research Center. As he notes, Lott has been rather famous in the gun community for carefully researched statistics, which he showed us in his book 'More Guns, Less Crime.' Here he looked at the effects of crime and gun laws on a county-by-county basis over time for all counties in the United States. It was stunning, and he made his research available to other statisticians. Nobody could refute Lott's statistics or his conclusions. So gun grabbers did what they always do: tried to impugn his character.

McDaniel writes:

But there’s another area of data collection and dissemination where the FBI has been deceiving the public, and Lott, once again, exposes their lies:

I’ve seen many cases of politicized data. Until January 2021, I worked in the U.S. Department of Justice as the senior advisor for research and statistics in the Office of Justice Programs, and part of my job was to evaluate the FBI’s active shooting reports. During my time with the DOJ, I discovered that the FBI either missed or misidentified many cases of civilians using guns to stop attacks. For instance, the FBI continues to report that armed citizens stopped only 14 of the 350 active shooter cases identified between 2014 to 2023.

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which I run, has found many more missed cases and is keeping an updated list. As such, the CPRC numbers tell a much different story: Out of 515 active shooter incidents from 2014 to 2023, armed citizens stopped 180, saving countless innocent lives. Our numbers even excluded 27 cases where a law-abiding citizen with a gun stopped an attacker before he could fire a shot.

The FBI’s lack of accuracy on this issue is no surprise. One of the most enduring D/s/c narratives is the idea that Normal Americans shouldn’t be allowed to have guns. They’ll just shoot themselves or their families, and worse, they might shoot criminals! Only the police should be armed because they’re the professionals. So of course, the FBI would support that narrative by claiming citizens virtually never stop active shooters.

Please go read the entire post and be aware that the government has been gaslighting you on this issue as well.

One Can't Have Public Virtue Without Private Virtue

 Selwyn Duke has an article at the American Thinker entitled As a Matter of Fact I DO Care What People Do in Their Bedroom. The title is a shocking statement to the modern ear. One imagines Duke to be some sort of busy body, a Karen. But Duke then clarifies what he means:

As to my meaning, no, I’m not Enid Strict The Church Lady (I don’t look good in a dress and I tend more toward Paul Harvey than Dana Carvey). Nor would I, as emperor, put CCTV cameras in everybody’s home; I’ve no interest in uber-intrusiveness. But I do have a strong interest in preserving civilization — and in restoring it in the first place.

Now, I so boldly made my statement to that woman because, in part, I aimed to strike a tiny blow against the very modernistic social norm of assumed libertinism. But the real problem with the “I don’t care what people do in their bedroom” line is that, translated, it amounts to (whether the person intends this or not):

I don’t care about character.

Or perhaps, “Character doesn’t matter.”

Here we get to the real issue. Christ said that the greatest commandment was to love God with all our hearts and minds. But the second was like it: to love our neighbors as ourselves. But man has a decidedly limited ability to love. With all that I have on my plate now, can I afford to love someone I hardly know? Yet we are called to this, and there is good reason to care, and care deeply, about what others do in private.

The elders among us may remember that the above line was used to justify Bill Clinton’s gutter-rat morals during his 1992 White House run. But “you can’t be one kind of man and another kind of president,” responded his general-election opponent, then-incumbent President George H.W. Bush. Really, though, Bush was just echoing greater thinkers, such as our Founders. To wit:

“Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private [virtue], and public virtue is the only foundation of republics,” stated our second president, John Adams.

John Witherspoon, a minister and fellow Declaration of Independence signatory, issued an even sterner warning. “Let a man’s zeal, profession, or even principles as to political measures be what they will,” he said, “if he is without personal integrity and private virtue, as a man he is not to be trusted.”

Yet, we may often be reluctant to advocate for private virtue thinking that our own short comings will likely be thrown back in our face. It probably has or will happen to you, and it is quite humiliating. Yet, as I have quipped to my granddaughter, "don't make my mistakes. Be an original and make your own."

This said, Chastity is just one of the Virtues (out of style though it is); as I illustrated in “Where Have You Gone, George Washington?” there are numerous others. Moreover, there have been individuals who struggled with Chastity but still did great things and even were, in reality, virtuous in other dimensions. Paul of Tarsus might have been one (it has been theorized that the “thorn” in his flesh could’ve been sexual temptation). And Augustine of Hippo certainly was, with his famous supplication, “Lord, make me a saint — but not today!” Yet there’s a profound difference between such men and those unabashedly living, as we euphemistically put it now, “alternative lifestyles” (as if at issue is embracing an organic diet).

This difference is implied in ancient Chinese sage Confucius’s lament, “It is not that I do not know what to do; it is that I do not do what I know.” It’s one thing to value and promote virtue but, owing to weakness, fall into vice.

It’s quite another to value and promote vice.

In Romans 3:23 Paul says that everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Elsewhere Paul in Romans confesses that "For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me." So, despite even Paul's sins and iniquities, yet he provides a profound witness for Jesus as the living God coming to us as a man subject to all our temptations and weaknesses.  The Left has tried to paint Trump as a flawed human being but has failed in that mission because their candidates are also flawed and visibly so.  I think what voters have seen in Trump is his acknowledgement of this nature and yet he advocates for morally right positions both privately and publicly. Because it matters.

Duke closes with this:

We would do well to remember that apathy is not a virtue — and that the future belongs to those who care.

It is often too easy to decide that I just do not care. I have been at this for a long time, and sometimes I feel the weariness of it. Duke reminds me why I must keep on, because Truth matters, because virtue matters, just as He commanded.

Rearming the Military

 John Farnum has an interesting idea that deserves to at least be considered.  The idea, written about at Ammoland entitled Trump Should Order All Our Military Officers and NCOs To Carry Concealed At All Times. Obviously, there would need to be special training. Carrying concealed here at home is much different from carrying overseas and carrying in a war zone. It might involve renegotiating our Status of Forces Agreements with foreign countries where we have bases. But certainly, the President can order military members to carry on base even overseas.

With DJT now in office, we have a window of opportunity to officially endow our military Officers and NCOs with the very “good faith and confidence” to which we now give only hollow lip service.

All our military Officers and NCOs should routinely “go armed” (concealed pistols) at all times, on and off base. The authority to do so will be federal, and thus, it supersedes all local and state laws and regulations.

Of course, this will require compulsory training since military personnel, regardless of rank, currently have scant idea of what to do with a pistol (the unhappy case for the last one hundred years)!

Discreet, professional concealed carry is an art that requires specific equipment, training, and philosophical grounding and needs to be taught by experienced instructors who do it routinely.

Specific knowledge of how all this fits into our criminal justice system, indeed the entire “concealed-carry lifestyle,” including guns in the home, is also essential since these Officers and NCOs will be armed all the time, no matter where they go.

Please read Farnum's article. It is short, and of course short on details. But one must understand that he is talking about officers and senior enlisted, not your buck privates. It does require specific training and understanding of what a concealed carrier should do. Just because they carry concealed does not mean that they should go looking for trouble. Rather, they should be ready and able to defend themselves and others if the need arises.

The Truth About Covid Is Coming Out Slowly

 Over at PJ Media today, Ben Bartee has an article claiming that COVID Shots Cripple Immune System - Possiblt Permanently. You need to read the whole article, but the bottom line is that if you got the two Pfizer shots, your immune system suffered to some degree, and this may be a permanent fact of life. To quote Alex Berenson, "I don't use the term VAIDS (vaccine-induced AIDS), but I'm not sure how else to describe the T-cell changes the Yale team is finding." Bartee also critizes people like Sean Hannity who told us the jabs were safe.

The truth is slowly coming out. It is hard not to think that on some level this may be part of the globalist scheme to decimate the population of the world. But it is equally possible that the mRNA "vaccine" experiment was a case of extreme hubris and arrogance gone wild. In any case, read the story and make up your own mind.

No Second Amendment Means No First Amendment Either

Who is an adult, and what does it mean to be one? The Left seems to think that a child can make the momentous decision to permanently remove his or her sex organs because he wants to "trans." They also believe that a 14-year-old can make the decision to abort the child growing in her womb without parental consent. But an 18- or 19-year-old, while he can join the Army and carry a gun in war, cannot buy one for himself. This is what is at the heart of a federal lawsuit entitled Escher vs. Mason in Massachusetts.

 Ronald Beaty has an article at the American Thinker highlighting the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) lawsuit against the Massachusetts law banning those adults 18 to 20 years of age from possessing firearms. The article Massachusetts vs, the Second Amendment is about more than just the Second Amendment though. As Beaty points out, the Second Amendment protects the First Amendment and indeed all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The rights acknowledged by, but not granted by, the Constitution are rights granted to each person by our Creator. Think about it for a moment: does the state have the ability to give you something it does not possess?  The state is a construct in which the people agree to grant it certain of their individual powers for the common good.  It is only legitimate so long as it operates within the boundaries of its constitution and that of the Constitution of the United States.  

In Massachusetts, a legal battle is unfolding that should resonate with every conservative who values the sanctity of the Second Amendment. Escher v. Mason isn't just about firearms; it's a litmus test for how we view adulthood, responsibility, and constitutional rights in contemporary America.

The Massachusetts law in question, House Bill 4885, strips legal adults aged 18 to 20 of their right to purchase, possess, or carry semiautomatic firearms and handguns. This isn't merely overreach; it's a direct assault on the clear text of the Second Amendment, which does not discriminate by age among "the people." If we are to take our Constitution seriously, we must defend the rights of all citizens, not just those deemed "mature enough" by the state's paternalistic gaze.

At the heart of this legal challenge lies a fundamental conservative principle: the inviolability of individual rights. The Founders did not carve exceptions into the Second Amendment for age. They understood that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, which is why 18-year-olds have been historically recognized as adults -- capable of voting, joining the military, and, yes, bearing arms. The Militia Act of 1792, enacted shortly after the ratification of the Second Amendment, explicitly included 18-year-olds in the national defense, expecting them to be armed like their elders.

This historical precedent is not just a footnote but the bedrock upon which the plaintiffs in Escher v. Mason stand. They argue that there is no traditional basis for denying these rights to young adults. The Supreme Court's decisions in Heller and Bruen have made it abundantly clear that firearms "in common use" are constitutionally protected. Semiautomatic firearms and handguns are the dominant tools of self-defense in modern America. To deny these to a segment of the adult population is not only anachronistic but egregiously unconstitutional.

For a greater perspective on the Second Amendment and its relation to the First (and the rest of the Bill of Rights), also read Joachim Osther's post, also at the American Thinker today entitled Protecting the Second Amendment is protecting the First. Osther points to a book which should be in every conservatives library entitled No Second Amendment, No First: God, Guns and the Government.

No Second Amendment, No First is divided into three parts. In the first section, which is aptly titled “How the Biblical Worldview Gave Way To a Progressive Hive Mind,” Zmirak sets the stage by investigating the radical lurch of secularism that threatens the first two Amendments.

The Judeo-Christian worldview that enabled self-governing and was foundational to the development of the Constitution has deteriorated at the expense of secularism. Zmirak uses the Second Amendment “as the test case, the prime example, of how our political masters are confiscating our rights in the name of protecting us from ourselves.”

...snip...

The right to self-defense against despotic governments or tyrants is tied to the assumption that a human life has value. The value of life is derived from a Biblical perspective, and Zmirak uses these chapters to illustrate that this is the “proposition on which America is built… every liberty we cling to, each institution we value, flows from that assertion.” This is why we have the right and the duty to protect ourselves and others.

The most effective arguments for the First and Second Amendments start with the principles and experiences that led the Founders to codify them, and Zmirak articulately unfolds this in Part 3 of No Second Amendment, No First.

Please go read both articles today. Neither will take very long, and both are important. I will be following Escher vs. Mason closely and will follow up as I have time.

The Left's Constant Chaos: Tribalism

 Andrea Widburg today, at the American Thinker has a post entitled Let's talk about Africa, which is where tribalism takes you that speaks to the dangers of balkanization that the Left keeps pushing on America. It's always the same with these people: women vs, men, blacks vs. whites, etc. And notice that all whites are classified under the "white Anglo-Saxon protestant" umbrella. But the term "white" can be applied with equal precision to peoples from Northern Europe, Southern Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and the Indian Subcontinent. They have a wide variety of skin tones but are all one "race." However, all of the different "races" of men are the same species, and all are created by the same God.

Through recounting three stories from Africa, Widburg shows us the results tribalism has on the fabric of society.

Humans are inherently tribal. We put people into hierarchies of relationships that usually flow outwards from family. As nations developed, the tribal family might encompass all of Germany, France, or Russia, but it was still an “us” versus “them” allegiance. Marx believed that the workers of the world would unite but in 1914, Marxists were shocked to discover that the workers of Germany did not feel any fellowship with the workers of England.

In these old nations, tribalism still had a genetic component, as well as a historical one. I had a Welsh friend whose roots in Wales went back, as she said, “to Caesar’s time.” Tribes were familial, historical, and geographic.

It was different in America, a place to which people came because they were rallying around unique ideas. This does not mean, as leftists like to say, that America “is an idea,” justifying ignoring its borders. It is a full-fledged nation, complete with defined, defensible borders and an overarching rule of law.

However, it’s also a collection of people from disparate families, geographic regions, and historic allegiances who have come for the liberty that underlies America’s institutions (flowing from the Constitution) and its culture. It’s those beliefs that make America a very big tribe.

America is a place where one can move from one part of the country to another and generally be accepted wherever that is. While there are surely regional accents, and common memories that are regional in nature. But one can fit in pretty much anywhere. However, the more balkanized we become, we risk losing this ability.

Please read all of Widburg's stores of tribalism in Africa and what happened as a result. We may not be able to change Africa, but we surely can keep what we have.

Conan the Barbarian comes to mind...

I suppose I have become cynical in my old age.  After years of hearing Democrats describe spending as "investments" and the theft of our hard-earned money under color of law, and at gun point no less, as our "fair share," I have become numb to Democrat outrage.  It is all just Kabuki theatre to me.  Then someone like J. B, Shurk at the American Thinker comes along with a rip-snorter entitled Our Self-Important, Self-Deluding, Self-Unaware 'Elites' and I remember how I felt when I recieved my first pay stub. The notion that the government would take a huge amount of my money, and use it to fund things like "foreign aid" and welfare checks to people who wouldn't go out and earn it outraged me. But as I say, over 70 years I have become numb. But don't you become numb. Read Shurks screed. And whenever you read "Democrat" think "Democrat/socialist/communist." I'll provide some money quotes though:

Our self-appointed “ruling class” is insufferable. Two-plus weeks into the restored Trump administration, and the Democrat/media outrage template has become utterly banal:

(1) Trump delivers on a campaign promise.

(2) Democrats collapse onto fainting couches and wail, “He can’t do that!,” and then

(3) those same sobbing sad sacks get back up, clutch their pearls, and collapse in anguish yet again.

It would be amusing if their funerary pantomime were not so exhausting.

And this:

Unindicted “Russia collusion” co-conspirator and former acting director of the FBI Andrew McCabe ran to the Communist News Network to complain that all his old friends at the Bureau are terrified of being fired. He reported to fellow Democrat traveler Anderson Cooper that FBI officials are worried about how they’re going to pay their bills and take care of their families. “If you get fired,” McCabe explained energetically, like one toddler telling another toddler about the world, “you’re done. That’s the end of your reputation, your ability to get any job. You lose your pay, you lose your chance at a pension, you lose your health insurance.” Baby Cooper agreed with Baby McCabe that those consequences sound scary.

Yet neither had the requisite self-awareness to ponder, “Is this what J6 protesters felt like when the Gestapo FBI hunted down alleged trespassers as if they were America’s ‘Most Wanted’ criminals?” Watching the two Democrat babies cry about FBI agents losing their jobs and reputations after we have seen the Bureau do the exact same thing to law-abiding Americans for years is absolutely surreal!

Did Cooper and McCabe ever shed a tear for military veterans who were treated like domestic terrorists for merely showing up in D.C. on January 6, 2021? Did they call out the federal government’s atrocious actions when patriotic Americans with no prior criminal records were forced to choose between egregious plea “deals” and spending years in pre-trial confinement away from their families? Did they ever stop to wonder how ordinary citizens who don’t have the “elite” privilege of avoiding prosecution (as McCabe did) or the luxury of a side hustle on CNN (because the “most trusted name in news” regards liars and lawbreakers as “reliable sources”) were ever going to pay their bills or provide for their families?

Of course, it wasn't JUST the FBI who persecuted these people. There were the DOJ prosecutors and the Judges who kept people in prison for years without trial. The only reason to keep a person in jail pending trial is that they are a flight risk, or they are so dangerous that society needs to be protected from them. Neither applies to January 6th defendants. But the FBI agents should have refused to go after these people on the grounds that it was an illegal order. Had enough of them stood up, the whole nightmare would have collapsed. They deserve what Trump is handing out. And it is not revenge, it is justice.

Speaking of losers, Senator (up)Chuck Schumer ran to the Senate floor to complain about President Trump’s decision to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (which has always been a CIA front for fomenting revolutions and may have funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses in Wuhan, China), the Department of Education, and other nefarious limbs of the Executive Branch that essentially launder taxpayer dollars into the bank accounts of bad people. Ol’ (up)Chuck fumed, “This is just the beginning. ...Who knows? Next might be the IRS.” And the people of America rejoiced!

It was obvious even before Democrats started openly grooming children with “drag queen” story hours and encouraging them to have sex “change” operations in the fourth grade that the Jackass Party is totally delusional. But consider just how incurably delusional the Dim Dems must really be for their highest-ranking leaders in government to run to the cameras and cry about the possible elimination of the dreaded, politicized, corrupt, and well armed IRS.

I can't remember the first person who proposed a flat tax, but I have always like the idea. Under the proposal, everyone, with no exceptions, pays a flat 10% of their income to the fed. Someone once suggested, I can't remember who proposed it now, that we could file our income takes on a post card. Here's how much I earned, here's 10% of that amount. Done. The IRS would be much smaller and have much less power. Perhaps that is why the Democrats (read socialists and communists) are so apoplectic about losing it.

Please go read J. B. Shurk's article and enjoy the delicious outrage as Shurk unloads on the Democrats' crying.  Conan the Barbarian comes to mind.

DOGE is legal

According to Andrea Widburg at the Amercian Thinker Trump's attack on the Deep State is spectacular and almost certainly legal. Trump is using the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) as his personal agent to pry out the huge amount of wasteful, often immoral spending in which our government has been engaged. Certainly, a majority of Americans would not spend their own money on these things, which means neither should our government.

In the last few days, Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) has effectively put an end to USAID, gelded the General Services Administration (GSA) tech division, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Treasury, and fired corrupt people in the FBI—and that’s just the short list. With the war on USAID, GSA, OPM, and the Treasury alone, DOGE is saving taxpayers at a rate of one billion per day. All of this has driven the Democrats into a frenzy as they insist that an elected president managing the government is a coup. Unfortunately for them (but not for us), they don’t have a legal leg to stand on.

Widburg is a lawyer and has a lawyer's understanding of the intricacies of the law. She lays out a case for why, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the Democrats, what DOGE is doing is legal. Please read her case. On another note, however, certain people have doxed members of DOGE and even written of committing violence against these people. If Elon Musk or members of DOGE do commit crimes, they can be dealt with through the law. The idea that violence by private citizens should be taken suggests that Musk is correct, and these wasteful payments are indeed wrong. I would also point out that the fact that past presidents signed these things into law without calling out the wasteful spending doesn't speak well for our leaders.

Birthright Citizenship Will Ultimately Be Decided By the Supreme Court

 Ever since Trump signed his executive order ending birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, the Left has been going crazy.  Several states have sued trying to stop him.  Now, COL Allen West has weighed in on the issue at Townhall.com giving us a black man's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Naturally, West thinks the Amendment was designed to grant citizenship to recently freed slaves, not to people who illegally cross our borders and drop a baby. The heart of West's argument is this:

I find it very perplexing, and hypocritical, that the progressive socialist left, aka the Democrat party, is so interested in the 14th Amendment. Back when it was being created and debated, Democrats were staunchly against the 14th Amendment. Matter of fact, they were against the preceding 13th Amendment which ended slavery in America. These two Amendments, along with the 15th, were legislative endeavors, policies, sought out by Republicans. Yes, the same Republican Party that was established for one single issue, the abolition of slavery. I believe that we should have a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution, not this living constitution nonsense leftists seek to impart. And they do so for a very specific reason, and that is to manipulate the Constitution to fit into their designed ideological agenda.

And such is the case with the 14th Amendment, especially Section 1.

The 14th Amendment's original intent was to grant citizenship to the Blacks in America who had just been made free by the 13th Amendment. Remember again that the Democrats did not support either of these amendments then, and according to Joe Biden, “No amendment to the Constitution is absolute.” This is the same Joe Biden who delivered the eulogy for a known Klansman, his Senate Democrat colleague Robert Byrd.

...snip...

Now we have these delusional leftists who want us to believe, and accept their “living interpretation” that anyone can just waltz across the border into our Republic and be a citizen. They want us to believe that we have no sovereign borders and citizenship in these United States is a privilege to all, and even a birthright. For me, as an American Black man who has had generations in his family serve this Nation in uniform, and in combat, this is offensive, condescending. The leftists are taking something intended to right a wrong, which they created and did not support, and now manipulating it to the advantage of those entering our Country illegally. And this is being done all to the detriment of the American Black community, hence the protest in places like Chicago.

Now, many experts agree with West, but the question will wind up in the Supreme Court. So what any of the so-called "experts" think is irrelevant. Once again the meaning of the law is being decided by 9 men in black robes. *Sigh*.

The Ultimate Goal of the "Shall Issue" Concealed Carry Movement

 Jeff Charles at Townhall.com has an article entitled Thomas Massie Introduces Measure That Would Be A Game Changer for Gun Rights. The bill introduced by Massie would allow Constitutional Carry nationwide. Given that all the Democrat/socialists/communists would vote against this on general principle, and there are a number of Republicans from anti-gun states, I suspect this is going nowhere. But one hopes that something in the way of nationwide carry can be achieved.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) announced on Thursday that he is introducing the National Constitutional Carry Act, which would protect the right to keep and bear arms in all areas of the country.

If passed, this legislation would be a tremendous win for the Second Amendment.

"Massie's legislation is composed of two major provisions. The first provision prohibits any state or political subdivision from imposing criminal or civil penalties on eligible individuals carrying firearms in public. The second provision invalidates any existing state or local laws, statutes, regulations, or local restrictions that criminalize, penalize, or otherwise dissuade the carrying of firearms in public. In addition to covering all fifty states, H.R. 645 includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and other territories of the United States within its scope to ensure that residents of all U.S. jurisdictions enjoy consistent protection of their Second Amendment rights."

I am sure the first thing that states will object to is the potential loss of the revenue stream that concealed carry licenses provide. Sheriffs in North Carolina get $75 bucks every five years for the privilege of carrying a firearm concealed in public. Hell, the sheriffs fought tooth and nail to maintain the $5 dollar permission slip to purchase a firearm. I doubt this $5 fee represents a significant revenue stream, but they defended it as if it was all they got. So, I am sure they will fight this too.

Still, we should watch this and applaud each step the bill makes toward passage. This represents the ultimate goal of the "shall issue" concealed carry movement.  Please go read the whole article.

California Wildfires Negate All Their Supposed "Savings" of Greenhouse Gases

 I noted several days ago in a post here entitled Do Californians Deserve What They Get From Their Leaders? that the wildfires are putting out more greenhouse gases than decades of so called "savings" from the EVs. Now D. Parker at the American Thinker has just reiterated the point with additional data in a post entitled It must be climate change.

First, it was global cooling, then global warming, until they came up with the climate crisis wording that never had to change.

Sometimes, the phrasing is all they need. Back in the 1970s, the ominous threat was from global cooling until things started warming up. Then, they turned on a dine to make it global warming. And that’s still the operative propaganda phrase when the weather is going in the right direction. But then the environmental activists came up with the phrase for the crisis that made it unfalsifiable -- climate change.

So, when there’s a cold snap -- it’s climate change. A heat wave -- climate change. Snow -- well, you get the picture. The funny thing is that for most normal folks, this is becoming a joke, to the point that people started referring to the arsonists accused of starting some of the LA wildfires as ‘climate change.’

...snip...

The state’s record-breaking 2020 fire season, which saw more than 4 million acres burn, spewed almost twice the tonnage of greenhouse gases as the total amount of carbon dioxide reductions made since 2003, according to a study published recently in the journal Environmental Pollution.

Not to mention the fact that others around the globe are failing to curb their emissions, negating the point of all the steps demanded by the environmental activists that only served to destroy our economic future.

Please go and read Parker's post. He packs a lot of information into his post with excellent use of the hyperlink function. Indeed, the use of hyperlink was what attracted me to the internet in the first place. Rather than footnoting articles, one could connect directly to the article in question whether it be a new article or a scientific paper.

On a personal note, I was appalled to learn that the fires are now in Ventura County as well.  We lived in Camarillo for several years, while working at the Pacific Missile Test Center at Point Mugu, California.  Mrs PolyKahr was born and raised in Oceanside, California.

Journalist Insults the Gun Culture

 Tom Knighton has it right at Bearing Arms when he notes with respect to a recnt story out of Chicago that This Is Not Gun Culture. It is actually the opposite of gun culture. It is in fact gun barbarism.

The actual "gun culture" includes things like the Appleseed Project, the International Practical Shooting Confederation, the International Defensive Pistol Association, along with the National Rifle Association and many state organizations like Grass Roots North Carolina. It includes the many responsible hunters, concealed carriers, and sport shooters who constantly train to maintain the skills required to be responsible gun owners. And of course, it includes the many trainers and writers for various publications. The gun culture is NOT the problem with violence in Chicago, or anywhere else.

Speaking of violence committed with guns, the WBBM News Radio article embedded in the above article calls this "gun violence." The use of "gun violence" is a deceptive way to turn the reader's attention to the tool used rather than the true cause of the violence, the miscreant himself. Journalists don't use "fist violence" when writing about someone beating another with fists. They don't write about "knife violence" when discussing a stabbing. For all of these other crimes the writers place the blame where it belongs, on the criminal. It is only when the criminal uses a gun that they then write or talk about "gun violence." But the use of the term "gun violence" is a illegitimate as the use of any other tool to commit violence.

We here at Bearing Arms, as well as the other gun-related sites, are part of the gun culture of the United States, along with our readers. We value the Second Amendment and the freedoms that come from having the right to keep and bear arms and a nation that more or less respects that right.

We are the gun culture.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't seem to understand what is and what isn't "gun culture."

This was made painfully obvious in a recent story out of Chicago.

Cherie Animashaun, 20, says her first memory of the danger of guns was when her mother wouldn't let her go to her favorite park anymore.

"I remember in kindergarten, I used to go to the park behind my house in Evanston, and, one day, my mom told me we couldn't go to the park anymore. She said it wasn't safe,” says Animashaun.

The Cornell University student and Evanston Township High School graduate didn't even know what a gun was, but she remembers being afraid.

"In first grade, you don't know the depth of the issue, but you can feel it,” Animashaun tells WBBM. “ I remember being terrified. For the most people I know, seeing guns growing up is almost a prerequisite to this generation."

For her and her peers, guns and gun violence have become the norm, something Nina Vinik soon realized.

"I've been working to reduce gun violence for the last 20 years,” Vinik says. “I was a young housing lawyer in the 90s, and a lot of my clients lived on the West and South Sides of the city. Gun violence was at its peak in the city, and West and South Side neighborhoods are the hardest hit by gun violence. I was tired of reading about violence happening on the blocks where my clients lived. It led me to see the ability to feel safe in our homes and communities as just a threshold issue for the ability for kids and families to thrive."

Project Unloaded, a 501(c)(3) organization, was born in 2022 after the rise of school shootings. One in particular sparked Vinik's activism.

...

“That can make a difference in connecting with their peers in sending the message that gun violence is preventable, guns do not make us safer, and that little by little, by sharing those messages far and wide, we can chip away at the gun culture that is driving so much violence."

Please read all of Knighton's article. I don't know if these people intend to be insulting, or if it is just ignorance, but they insult everyone who is legitimately a part of the gun culture.