tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-91303616156219000542024-03-18T07:02:33.726-07:00Standing ByThe truth has no agenda-Glenn Beck. They also serve who only stand and wait-John MiltonPolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.comBlogger2766125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-59376645688683852002024-03-18T07:02:00.000-07:002024-03-18T07:02:01.716-07:00Disrupting Terrorist Plans<p>At <i>Bearing Arms</i> today, Tom Knighton has piece entitled <a href="https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2024/03/17/terrorism-is-a-threat-constitutional-carry-is-the-solution-n1224216">Terrorism Is A Threat. Constitutional Carry Is The Solution.</a> He notes that much of the protection of society at large depends on police, fire departments, and the military. Each of these units can be factored into terrorist plans. They can get inside the OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) loop and overwhelm them. What they cannot factor in is the random armed citizen. They don't know where he or she may turn up. They don't know what he or she will do. He is not a professional, so is unpredictable in every way. </p>
<blockquote><em>If you want to combat terrorism, there are a lot of things you shouldn't do and trust that it'll keep the bad guys off balance.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>For example, gun control.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Terrorist networks can get around any anti-gun restriction you care to throw at people. They can move personnel and munitions across the globe with relative ease, so they'll bypass all the restrictions you want.</em></blockquote>
<p>Knighton goes on to cite <a href="https://thegunwriter.substack.com/p/terrorism-is-a-disease-constitutional">Lee Williams at the Gun Writer blog</a>, who noted that FBI Director Christopher Wray has warned of the terrorist threat:
</p><blockquote><em style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Wray’s warning, however, was dire. He told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that known or suspected terrorists were infiltrating the country across the wide-open southern border using counterfeit documents. One of the smuggling networks, he said, has ties to ISIS. Add to this the thousands of unknown border crossers from countries that hate us, and the more than 80,000 military-age males from China, and you have a terrorist hellbroth just waiting to bubble over.</em></blockquote>
<p>...snip...</p>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">We should thank Director Wray for his timely information and for his candor. This is precisely why we have fought so long and so hard to restore our Second Amendment rights, so that law-abiding Americans no longer have to bend a knee and beg the Crown to sell them back their constitutional rights in the form of a permit to carry defensive arms. Constitutional carry levels the playing field, making it easier for the good guys and gals to lawfully carry arms.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">In the 29 states that now offer some form of constitutional carry, when a terrorist rears their ugly head — be they a card-carrying ISIS member or a lone-wolf jihadist — Americans can take immediate action without waiting for First Responders to arrive, assess the situation, plan and then respond.</em></blockquote>
<p>Let us call the hordes of illegal migrants coming across our Southern and now Northern border exactly what it is: an invasion. As such, this is exactly what our Second Amendment was designed for. Our governments, at all levels have studiously ignored the militia, in hopes, one supposes, that we would just forget about it. But here we are, and in at least 29 states, armed citizens of the unorganizeed militia could be anywhere at any time. They can therefore disrupt any plans the terrorists make.</p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-65370474255851838942024-03-16T08:53:00.000-07:002024-03-17T04:54:03.092-07:00Pray, Vote, Prepare<p> I have run this story before, but new data has come to light, and it bears repeating in any case. The government, never your friend, is spying on you, and particularly on people considered in opposition to the regime. Of course, the Constitution prevents them from spying directly, but, if they can get the banks and other corporations to do it, or get a sister agency in another country's government (Five Eyes) to do it, and just hand it to them, well then... It is still illegal. They can not get another party to do something they have no legal right to do. But they are doing it anyway.</p>
<p>Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has the story at <i>Ammoland</i> entitled <a href="https://www.ammoland.com/2024/03/house-committee-tackles-federal-government-weaponization-video/#axzz8UeJTiDBx">House Committee Tackles Federal Government Weaponization</a>. Keane has helpfully included video of the hearings conducted by U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.</p>
<blockquote><em>The Hearing on the Weaponization of the Federal Government delved into questions of why the federal government spied, and lied, about the lawful purchases by Americans by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The U.S. Treasury admitted that it collected information on Americans’ purchases of firearms and ammunition, shopping at several sporting retailers, including Cabelas, and even tracked people using search terms that include “Bible.”</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>The admission came by letter to U.S. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) just one day after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen refused to answer questions from Congress if the surveillance occurred.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>The letter would appear to implicate the federal government with violating Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights protecting against illegal search and seizure, as the activity was conducted without a warrant.</em><blockquote><em>Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) laid out in his opening statement the grave concerns Congress has with this intrusive and potentially illegal search and seizure of Americans’ private financial data.</em></blockquote>
<p>I will admit that every time I read about this I get in a state of cold fury. I am well beyond white hot, to cold. That this goes against the very document all these administration people took and oath to defend and protect should be obvious. Between censorship, and combing our bank records looking for gun purchases and and things like Bibles...Bibles?...violate the first, second, fourth and fifth, and probably the ninth amendments. This si just so outrageous. Since the process is done secretly, nobody knows if he is being targeted, so no standing to sue. And Congress holds hearings, but does little else, while the courts often display a cowardice that is appalling.</p>
<p>I pray that we can stop the Democrat-fascists before it is too late, but the hour is late. The Democrat-fascists will do anything to gain total control. Of course, vote, prepare, and pray. </p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-59992860597490430572024-03-15T17:12:00.000-07:002024-03-15T17:12:59.690-07:00Another Gadsden Flag<p>Intreped investigative journalist James O'Keefe is at it again. This time <a href="https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/03/14/okeefe-catches-dod-official-stating-support-for-mass-gun-confiscation-n1224197">O'Keefe Catches DoD Official Stating Support for Mass Gun Confiscation</a> according to Cam Edwards at <i>Bearing Arms</i>.</p>
<blockquote><em>Investigative journalist James O'Keefe released his latest undercover video on Wednesday, in which a Defense Department official named Jason Beck detailed (among other things) his distaste for gun ownership and his belief that the Second Amendment should be repealed. Beck, who works as an Associate Director, Total Force Requirements & Sourcing Policy in Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's office, went so far as to tell O'Keefe that the National Guard could be tasked with rounding up the 400 million or so firearms in the hands of American citizens.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>"I wonder if you would see a similar solution to like, school integration," Beck mused. "You know, where they did have to mobilize the National Guard."</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>"How many people in the National Guard, you know, maybe were personally opposed to integration, but still followed orders and made it happen," he continued.</em></blockquote>
<p>...snip...</p>
<blockquote><em>What Beck wants to see is far more akin to what Faubus did than Eisenhower's decision; using the military to block the exercise of a fundamental right instead of ensuring that right can be exercised. Of course, that's right in line with the Massive Resistance to the Bruen decision we've seen from blue state governors like Gavin Newsom, Kathy Hochul, and Phil Murphy; who have defied the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen just like their fellow Democrats did in the deep South with Brown v. Board of Education in the 1950s and 60s.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>It doesn't surprise me that a D.C. bureaucrat, even one who works in the Department of Defense, has such contempt for his fellow Americans that he thinks it would be a good idea to call up citizen soldiers and demand they carry out a mass confiscation of firearms. According to an October 2023 Gallup Poll, almost half of all Democrats nationwide support a ban on handguns, and I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of Democrats in the D.C. area would be in favor of repealing the Second Amendment.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>O'Keefe's latest undercover investigation may not be all that shocking but it's still a timely reminder of the disdain that's endemic on the left when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms, not to mention the dystopian fantasies they have of disarming tens of millions of American citizens. Not by themselves, of course. They'd task others with doing their dirty work for them. Beck might have revealed himself to be an idiot when it comes to mass gun confiscation, but based on the video he's smart enough not to want to be the one knocking on the door of a home and demanding the residents inside hand over their firearms.</em></blockquote>
<p>The Left is as old as humanity itself, and these people have always believed that they are special. In ancient times they claimed to be the sons of gods. They believe that they are wiser and more knowledgable, and better able to direct the lives of the rest of society better than anyone has done it before. Nevermind that they haven't really studied actual history, the Bible, the canon of Western civilization, or human nature. That last can be deduced from the fact that they uniformly believe that man can be perfected and they can bring about heaven on earth. Either that or they are cynical liars trying to convince us to willingly give up power.</p>
<p>Just as in the previous post, this report by O'Keefe should be understood by the Left as another Gadsden Flag</p>
PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-55732281205617492922024-03-15T14:41:00.000-07:002024-03-15T14:41:41.190-07:00MTG Warns Dems "Don't Push To Far"<p> Tom Knighton at <i>Bearing Arms</i> asks <a href="https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2022/01/14/mtg-second-amendment-n54374">Did Marjorie Taylor Greene cross line with Second Amendment comment?</a> Lt's have a look, shall we?</p>
<blockquote><em>Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. In her brief time in Congress, she’s managed to ruffle a lot of feathers, and not just among Democrats.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>However, she’s always been a vocal supporter of the Second Amendment.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>A couple of days ago, she laid out why the Founders made sure to preserve the right to keep and bear arms when she addressed some of Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams and her espoused positions on various issues.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Greene noted:</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">While not in agreement with Abrams’ stance on vaccinations, Greene then transitioned and moved onto the gubernatorial candidate’s stance on guns and the Second Amendment saying, “The next thing she talked about was grabbing people’s guns. She hates Georgia’s Second Amendment rights. She wants to stop constitutional carry,” Greene said.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Greene continued, offering advice to Georgia’s current governor and state lawmakers, urging them to pass and sign legislation to combat Abrams’ call for “grabbing people’s guns.”</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">She went on to say, “Ultimately, the truth is it’s our Second Amendment rights, our right to bear arms, that protects Americans and gives us the ability to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government,” she said. “And I hate to use this language, but Democrats, they’re exactly … they’re doing exactly what our Founders talked about when they gave us the precious rights that we have.”</span></em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Now, to most of us, this looks like Greene warning us that Democrats are acting tyrannical and reminding Democrats not to push things too far.</em></blockquote>
<p>Sounds like it to me as well. But some Democrats took umbrage at her remarks. As Knighton says, it sounds like an "if the shoe fits" situation. Just like the colonials who flew the Gadsden flag, Greene was saying to the Left "Don't Tread On Me." Gentle readers can read the entire post. More people need to speak out. And Greene, as a member of Congress has a special platform. Good for her.</p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-72539181464815648212024-03-14T17:44:00.000-07:002024-03-14T17:44:29.112-07:00F-15s and Nukes, Oh My<p> Mike McDaniel has a post at the <i>American Thinker</i> entitled <a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/03/how_to_provoke_a_real_insurrection.html">How to provoke a real insurrection</a>.</p>
<blockquote><em>What’s the best way to provoke an insurrection, a second civil war? <a href="https://www.thecollegefix.com/stop-insurrection-threat-with-gun-control-johns-hopkins-report/">Try to disarm Americans</a>.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #eeeeee;">Lawmakers should pass gun restrictions in order to prevent an “insurrection,” an academic paper argues.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>This sort of totalitarian, anti-constitutional thinking has long been part of Democrat/socialist/communist (D/s/c) Party doctrine. They’re hot for preventing “gun violence” and “insurrection,” unless it’s against their political enemies: Normal Americans. Then, they’re ready to use F-15s and nuclear weapons, as Fang Fang bang bang Congressman Eric Swalwell said in 2018</em></blockquote>
<p>Swalwell isn't the only one who is talking about strafing and bombing fellow citizens on American soil. Biden has said it several times. If anything, it shows how out of touch these people are. The idea that anyone in authority could ever authorize the use of such weapons on our fellow American citizens seems unbelievable. Sure we may have differences, but do these differences mean that the Government can declare war on half the population?</p>
<p>The truth of the matter is that it is the Democrats/socialists/communists who are doing everything in their power to provoke an insurrection. It isn't normal Americans, who want the Constitution to again be the law of the land, to live under the rule of laws that are applied equally to everybody, to defend our border and (again) follow the law. Also, I think we all want them to stop talking about "Our Democracy" because it was never a democracy. As John Lott has noted:</p>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Concealed handgun permit holders are “extremely law-abiding” and make up an insignificant portion of violations, John Lott told The Fix via email.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">The Crime Prevention Research Center president said permit holders are convicted of firearms violations at thousandths or tens of thousands of one percentage point,” across the country. He pointed to a study he conducted that was published several month ago.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">In particular, Lott took issue with the violence on January 6, 2021 being the basis for any gun regulation. “January 6th was not something anyone supports,” Lott told The Fix. However the evidence would seem to indicate political violence as stemming mainly from progressives he said, pointing to the 2021 Lafayette Square riot and the 2017 riots during President Donald Trump’s inauguration.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">He also criticized the recommendation that people not be allowed to carry guns in polling places or government buildings. He shared a study, last updated in 2021 that found “23 states officially allowed people to carry guns in state capitols, and there were no problems reported,” Lott said.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">He shared other research he conducted that questioned the value of “red flag laws.”</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">“If a person is a danger to themselves or others civil commitment laws are much better ways of dealing with these problems,” he told The Fix.</em></blockquote>
<p>What I believe, but can not prove, is that the Democrats, most of them, have been bought off by the globalist international communists. Not a few Repbulicans have also succumbed. Our "representatives" no longer represent us. They instead represent their masters who have bought them. So it is no surprise they see us as "the other" and would use F-15s and nukes on us.</p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-23973781913065305792024-03-14T06:15:00.000-07:002024-03-14T06:15:59.317-07:00Keep A Gun or Two At The Ready<p> Kurt Schlichter recently wrote a book with the title <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Attack-Kurt-Schlichter-ebook/dp/B0CR1N7R8T">The Attack</a> attempting to warn people that Muslim sleeper cells are likely (that's 99.9% probable) already in the United States. These sleeper cells are already programed to carry out their mission with no command and control necessary. Through the device of first person accounts he illustrates just what damage such cells can do including killing thousands of us, damaging our supply chains and infrastructure. I have so far read about 70% of the book, and it is terrifying.</p>
<p>Now, <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/are-ramadan-jihad-cells-already-in-u-s/">FrontPage Magazine</a> adds a layer of authenticity to Schlicter's book, in a piece by Clare Lopez entitled <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/are-ramadan-jihad-cells-already-in-u-s/">Are Ramadan Jihad Cells Already In the U.S.?</a> Gentle readers can read the entire article, which features both Eric Prince of Blackwater and Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas. But the central idea of the article comes here:</p>
<blockquote><em>Epoch Times show host and reporter Roman Balmakov interviewed Erik Prince at the March 2024 CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference. During the interview, entitled “Terrorist Sleeper Cells Are Already in the U.S.,” Prince told Balmakov that one reason he believes the Biden administration is so reluctant to strike back in any meaningful way against Iranian terror proxies — much less any Iranian target itself — is that the Iranian regime has already surged unknown numbers of military fighters across our wide-open southern border.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Prince suggested that such fighters — whether Iran’s own IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps), Quds Force, or proxy jihadis from HAMAS, Hizballah, or Houthis — could be flown on Iran’s Mahan Air from Iran to Venezuela.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Then from there, they could head north through the Darien Gap that lies between Colombia and Panama, and then on up to and across the U.S. southern border.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Combined with other hostile military forces already certainly here, to include Chinese Jungle Tigers and Hezbollah cadres, these forces are likely forming cells, conducting pre-attack casing, surveillance, and training, and getting ready to launch combined attacks inside the homeland later in 2024, or should the U.S. do anything to upset Iran’s mullahs.</em></blockquote>
<p>Meanwhile, over at the <i>American Thinker</i>, Raymond Ibrahim has an insightful essay entitled <a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/03/how_carnage_and_atrocities_heal_muslim_hearts.html">How Carnage and Atrocities Heal Muslim Hearts</a> that tells us from yet another perspective that we can expect another jihadi attack, probably of fairly large proportions sometime in 2024.</p>
<blockquote><em>In a recent communiqué, the Islamic State called on its followers to <a href="https://www.raymondibrahim.com/2024/03/04/islamic-state-calls-for-beheading-and-burning-of-every-western-civilian/">slaughter and terrorize</a> every single Western person they could reach. A snippet follows (emphases added):</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #eeeeee;">Lions of Islam: Chase your preys whether Jewish, Christian or their allies, on the streets and roads of America, Europe, and the world. Break into their homes, kill them and steal their peace of mind by any means you can lay hands on. ... Solidify your plans and diversify the attacks: detonate explosives, burn them with grenades and fiery agents, shoot them with bullets, cut their throats with sharp knives, and run them over with vehicles. A sincere person will not lack the means to draw blood from the hearts of the Jews, the Christians, and their allies, and thus ease the suffering in the hearts of the believers. Come at them from every door, kill them by the worst of means, turn their gatherings and celebrations into bloody massacres, do not distinguish between a civilian kaffir [infidel], and a military one, for they are all kuffar [infidels] and the ruling against them is one. ... Intentionally seek easy targets before hard ones, civilian targets before military one, religious targets like synagogues and churches before others, for this will satisfy the soul.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Of curious interest here is not so much the sadistic though ultimately hackneyed calls for carnage, but rather the claim that torturing, terrorizing, and tearing infidels apart somehow “eases the sufferings in the hearts of the believers” and “satisfies the soul.”</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Such claims are actually derived from Islam’s most sacred text. The Koran exhorts believers to “fight them [those who oppose Islam], Allah will torment them with your hands, humiliate them, empower you over them, and heal the hearts of the believers, removing the rage from their hearts” (Koran 9:14-15).</em></blockquote>
<p>Again, I urge gentle readers to read Ibrahim's full essay. The point, however, is not to panic. Never panic. Rather, it is to be as prepared as you can be for what will likely happen. Have food and water on hand. I suggest canned meats such as tuna, corned beef and Spam. Find a local source of eggs. Keep a supply of canned vegetables. Have plenty of bottled water, blankets, and other stuff you know you will need. But don't invest too much in those freeze dried products. Keep a gun or two ready, with plenty of ammunition. Have any medicines you need around in sufficient supply for at least a month. You know what you need. Then, pray to our LORD God that he protects you and yours, but just as importantly, pray for the jihadis too. They have been duped by the devil into believing that Satan is god. He wants to sit on God's throne. It is a story as old as the snake in the Garden of Eden.</p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-80098400507459781452024-03-12T13:55:00.000-07:002024-03-12T13:55:48.663-07:00Government Must Prove Arms are NOT in Common Use<p> Mark W. Smith, the host of the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/@TheFourBoxesDiner">Four Boxes Diner Channel</a>, writes today to tell us that the government bears the burden to show that an arm is NOT in common use in <a href="https://www.ammoland.com/2024/03/assault-weapons-ban-government-must-prove-that-weapons-not-in-common-use/#axzz8UHwR3SMF">Spoiler Alert: 'Assault Weapon' Ban ~ Government Must Prove That Weapons Are NOT In Common Use</a>.</p>
<blockquote><em>Bianchi challenges the constitutionality of Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban, which seeks to outlaw the AR-15, among other semiautomatic firearms.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Tellingly, the original Fourth Circuit panel in Bianchi seemed poised to issue a pro-Second Amendment ruling, but before that occurred, the Fourth Circuit took the case en banc likely to avoid the possibility of such an outcome.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Bruen instructs that the constitutional inquiry starts with the text of the Second Amendment. This means that, at the outset, a lower court must determine whether the object of a firearm’s regulation is an “arm.”</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>At this first step, Bruen instructs that the burden is on the party challenging the firearms regulation to show that the item being banned is an “arm.” Heller defined “arms” as “weapons of offense or armor of defense.” There is no doubt that AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles subject to the Maryland ban are “arms,” which means that the burden shifts to the government to show that the arms it seeks to ban are not “in common use” by Americans for lawful purposes (or are dangerous and unusual).</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><i>Bianchi is an “arms ban” case in the same way that Heller was an “arms ban” case, which struck down D.C.’s ban on owning a handgun, was an arms ban case. Heller provides the constitutional test to be applied by the lower courts in arms ban cases, and that is the “in common use” test.
</i><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><em>There is a reason that the Fourth Circuit in Bianchi asked the parties to address when the “in common use” test comes into play.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><em>If the “in common use” analysis occurs at the plain text level (text-first), the burden would be on the pro-Second Amendment plaintiffs to demonstrate that an arm is in common use. If, however, the inquiry occurs at the historical level (history-second), the burden rests on the government to prove that an arm is dangerous and unusual.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><em>The anti-gun movement desperately wants the “in common use” analysis to occur at the plain text level where the party challenging the firearm regulation has the burden, but that is entirely contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in Heller. How do we know? It’s plainly obvious from the decision itself.</em></blockquote>
<p><span style="background-color: white;">Well, I have already given the probable outcome with the "spoiler alert." If this goes to the Supreme Court, as seems likely, the Court will very likely instruct the Fourth Circuit that the government that wants to ban arms must prove that the arm in question is NOT in common use. Of course, the gun grabbers want to make the argument about just how common is "common use" because such wrangling distracts from the real issue.</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color: white;">Courts seem reluctant to allow citizens to exercise the rights granted to them by God, and acknowledged by the Constitution. What these courts betray is a lack of belief in citizen's rights. These tyrants apparently believe that rights are granted by government, and therefore government can take them away. Such judges, at the very least should be impeached.</span></p>
</blockquote>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-89955433402741395692024-03-10T12:37:00.000-07:002024-03-10T12:37:26.560-07:00The Fascist Far Left Finds a "Workaround" <p>Some may have seen infamous <i>Face the Nation</i> interview with ATF Director Steve Dettlebach in which one of the ATF's "top experts" couldn't disassemble a Glock pistol (snicker, snicker.) Or you may have seen a later recording of it on one of the gun blogs. For anyone who is familiar with guns, and the ATF should be, don't you think, it is all very funny. But D. Parker at the <i>American Thinker</i> noticed something more sinister in a post entitled <a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/03/when_leftists_love_profiling.html">When leftists love profiling</a>.</p>
<blockquote><em>New FBI special agents have an important moral and ethical component to their training, culminating in a <a href="https://archive.ph/KpNvO">tour of the Holocaust Memorial Museum</a> in Washington, D.C. to see what happens when law enforcement loses sight of what is right. It was started more than two decades ago by then–FBI director Louis Freeh, and in 2005, Director Robert S. Mueller said the training has never been more relevant.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #eeeeee;">“At a time when law enforcement must be aggressive in stopping terror, these classes provide powerful lessons on why we must always protect civil rights and uphold the rule of law,” he said.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>The same article had a relevant quote from a new FBI agent participant:</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">“They did an excellent job of showing how the law enforcement in Nazi society was complicit,” said Lucas, a new special agent, after the program’s conclusion. “It’s important to try to be aware of all the circumstances around you and make sure nothing’s crossing the lines, and remember why we’re really here.”</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>All of this has fallen on deaf ears. What we all suspected, but didn’t want to believe, has been confirmed in congressional testimony on a new violation of our constitutional civil rights, with the FBI following in the footsteps of the Gestapo. What’s even worse is that the far-left predilection for deception is causing some on the pro-freedom right to miss the point.</em></blockquote>
<p>All joking aside, the point is right here:</p>
<blockquote><em>Unfortunately, far too many in the <a href="https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/atf-director-faces-the-nation-with-his-ignorance-of-firearms/">firearm freedom</a> community were distracted by the <a href="https://www.ammoland.com/2024/03/atf-experts-show-shocking-lack-of-firearms-knowledge-on-national-tv/#axzz8U6Fj3NKs">rookie mistakes</a> made by people who purport to know about firearms technology. They missed a dangerous and authoritarian admonition from the director, where <b>he said that firearms dealers shouldn’t sell a gun to someone paying cash</b>.</em></blockquote>
<p>Now why would the Director of the ATF do that? If you look on the front of a typical Federal Reserve Note you will see in small print "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE." So if a gun dealer refused to sell a gun to someone paying cash, he is recommending something illegal. But of course, there is more to it than that:</p>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">FBI whistleblower George Hill prompted the yearlong investigation by testifying that Bank of America, unprompted, gave the feds the names of customers who used their cards in the D.C. area Jan. 5–7, 2021, “overlaid with any firearm purchase at any time,” said Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">The feds told financial institutions to search transactions using Merchant Category Codes (MCCs), such as gun-related keywords and firearms retailers Cabela’s and Bass Pro Shop, and the interbank Zelle network for alleged Jan. 6-related keywords such as “MAGA” and purchases like “religious texts” to identify potential “homegrown violent extremism,” the report says.</em></blockquote>
<p>...snip...</p>
<blockquote><em>If you’re keeping score at home, note that the fascists of the fringe far left are first and foremost gun-grabbers — they love guns, but only in their hands — but aside from that, the Second Amendment is always in their sights. Beyond that, they are just trying to shred the Bill of Rights by the numbers, censoring free speech, arresting journalists, and attacking freedom of religion.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Their weaponization of government is just their workaround for the Fourth Amendment. Unconstitutional “red flag” laws are a combined attack vector for them against the Second and Fifth Amendments, with some others thrown in for good measure.</em></blockquote>
<p>One way or another, they are going to find out who has the guns. If it is illegal, and it is, to build a database, they will access bank credit card records to surveille you. Never mind that that they are breaking the fourth and fifth amendments. That is just a bonus. But I would remind the deep state that if something is illegal for the government to do directly, it is illegal for them to coerce someone else to do it for them.</p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-78507198751089481652024-03-09T09:51:00.000-08:002024-03-09T09:51:41.032-08:00Why You Need an AR-15<p> Over at <i>PJ Media</i>, which you can access from <i>Townhall.com</i> Kevin Downey, Jr. has a piece entitled <a href="https://pjmedia.com/kevindowneyjr/2024/03/06/40000-reasons-and-counting-why-you-need-an-ar-15-n4927032">57,000 Reasons -And Counting Every Day - Why You Need an AR-15</a>. So many reasons! If Downey listed all 57,000, the article would be a book length tome. But Downey doesn't have to list them one by one. He just points out that so far 57,000 and counting is the number of military aged Chinese men who have crossed our Southern border. And for anyone who has been living under a rock for the past decade, the Chinese Communists have made us the enemy, and are determined to defeat us. Even now they can not overcome our military, as weak as it has become, but the Chinese are masters of unconventional and asymmetrical warfare. Why do you think they are coming here?</p>
<blockquote><em>I don't want to sound like an alarmist but that part of the oath our military, police, and politicians take that mentions "enemies foreign and domestic" might be more than just a phrase.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>When Gropey Joe Biden isn't fighting to keep the borders open or flying 320,000 illegal immigrants to our airports at all hours of the night, he is doing his dementia-best to disarm We the People, especially of those big, scary AR-15 rifles.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #cccccc;"><b>FACT-O-RAMA!</b> Your pink-haired pinko-in-law likely thinks the AR in AR-15 stands for "assault rifle." It stands for "Armalite rifle." Armalite is the company that originally designed the weapon.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>No one knows how many illegal immigrants from China have tangoed over the border and disappeared into our society. The numbers I heard last were roughly 37,000 in fiscal year 2023 and 20,000 more since then, for a total of roughly 57,000, but that was three weeks ago.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Roughly 150 Chinese immigrants illegally sneak into the United States every day. Most are men of military age. What's even more concerning is that the far-left apparatchik "fact-checkers" are defending the tsunami of military-aged Chinese pouring over the border. When the dubiously named "Politifact" tells us we don't need to worry about the Chinese invaders, it's time to wake up.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>When those multi-tasking "Marxist-Americans" are allowing record numbers of Republic-crushing illegal immigrants into America while simultaneously trying to Hoover up our AR-15s, I start to smell a stink badger in the perfume aisle.</em></blockquote>
<p>After writing that he doesn't want to be an alarmist, he presents us with a big alarm warning. You can imagine what 57,000 and counting men can do in terms of documenting soft and hard targets to damage our ability to defend ourselves. And while we are trying to fix our infrastructure, they come in and impose the CCP on the American People. And that is why you need to prepare things like food, water, energy, and of course have an AR-15 or two and plenty of ammo for each. And if your AR-15 is 5.56 Nato instead of .223 Remington, you can use ammunition supplied by the military if need be.</p>
<p>The next part is secret, so shhhhh:</p>
<blockquote><em>Why are the lefties after those dreaded AR-15s? Perhaps because the commies at the top of the Xi-heap know what's coming and want those pesky weapons purloined. And what better way to do that than to whip up their Pravda dupes in the mainstream media and get them to induce a manic panic in their green-haired street urchins?</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>I've proven the AR-15 is the least-used weapon for murderers. The Ruger Mini 14 is comparable to the AR-15 (if you aren't into "bells and whistles"), and some people find it to be a <a href="https://americanshootingjournal.com/this-is-why-the-ruger-mini-14-is-better-than-the-ar15/">superior firearm</a>, yet the easily controlled Bolshies haven't even heard of it.</em></blockquote>
<p>As I said, the Ruger Mini-14 is a secret. So mum's the word, right? Gentle readers should read the whole article, but don't panic. Instead, prepare. Because the current administration is determined to let these people in to destroy the country. Why? Again, I think it is because as long as the United States stands, it is a rebuke to Marxist dictators everywhere.</p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-77834467411454515922024-03-08T16:21:00.000-08:002024-03-08T16:21:04.835-08:00The Left Would Rather Demonize than Debate<p>Tom Knighton, at <i>Bearing Arms</i> has post entitled <a href="https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2024/03/07/feds-lump-gun-rights-supporters-in-with-violent-extremists-n1224108">Feds Lump Gun Rights Supporters with 'Violent Extremists'</a>. This is just another attempt to make the targeting of law-abiding gun owners seem legitimate to the those who are not themselves gun owners. They want to make being a gun owner seem icky, not something "nice" people do.</p>
<blockquote><em>The term "violent extremists" isn't what it once was. It's hard to recognize such a term when it's used to describe people peacefully protesting while it's not used for people burning down neighborhoods and calling for law enforcement to be defunded or eradicated.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>But a lot of people don't really follow that. They see the news and trust the journalists for some silly reason, or they trust the government when they tell them something, for some equally silly reason.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Those folks figure "violent extremists" are people who will use violent actions to potentially hurt or kill people in pursuit of a cause that simply can't win in the legislatures.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>So if you find you're part of a group that's been lumped in with violent extremists, you might get a bit miffed.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Prepare for miffage, ladies and gentleman, as it seems we humble gun rights supporters are akin to actual violent extremists <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/feds-likened-gun-control-open-borders-opponents-to-violent-extremists/">according to the federal government</a>.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #cccccc;">Federal law enforcement lumped together conservative positions on guns and immigration with violent extremism in guidance given to financial institutions to help them monitor people’s transactions, a congressional investigation found.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #cccccc;">The House Judiciary Committee and its Weaponization Subcommittee released a report Wednesday detailing the efforts by federal agencies and large financial institutions to surveil Americans’ private financial transactions in the wake of the January 6 protests.</em></blockquote>
<p>...snip...</p>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #cccccc;">“This FBI intelligence product, along with other materials shared by federal law enforcement, detail the extent to which federal law enforcement derisively viewed American citizens,” the report states.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #cccccc;">“Federal law enforcement used this report and materials like it to commandeer financial institutions’ databases and ask the financial institutions to conduct sweeping searches of individuals not suspected of committing any crimes.”</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em style="background-color: #cccccc;">The intelligence brief suggested that outside “pressures” prompting domestic violent extremists (DVEs) to engage in political violence including “firearm legislation, the easing of immigration restrictions, and new limits on the use of public land.”</em></blockquote>
<p>Gentle readers can read the whole post. The point is that rather than admit that there are two sides to the gun debate, the Left would rather demonize gun owners, conservatives, Christians, and anyone else who disagrees with them. </p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-76885542201039109772024-03-06T16:18:00.000-08:002024-03-06T16:18:54.620-08:00The Climate Lies About Beef<p> John Klar explains why <a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/03/the_biggest_climate_lie_is_about_cows.html">The biggest climate lie is about cows</a>. He explains it better that I can, but essentially cows are large ruminants, much as buffalo are. The fertile soil of the Great Plains was created by generations of buffalo pounding their hooves into the soil along with plant matter, urine and manure. When grazed instead of being being fed grain on a feed lot, cows do the same thing, building the soil and sequestering greenhouse gases.</p>
<blockquote><em>When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced that people would have to stop eating hamburgers because cow flatulence was an existential threat to life on Earth, most people duly chuckled. Nevertheless, AOC’s call for cow-culling was taken up by the United Nations, European Union, World Economic Forum, and “Climate Envoy” John Kerry. Protests defending farming in Holland, Ireland, and Belgium opposed these bold attacks on gentle bovines. Contrary to slanderous arguments by globalist fearmongers, cows are the solution to many of humanity’s most significant environmental problems. Here’s why.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>The fertile American heartland was created by buffalo. Hooves pounding the land pressed plants into the ground to mesh with manure and urine, feeding the soil microbiome and nurturing vital soils. The advent of human technology tore into the ground in reckless tilling, releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the air and depleting soil health while proclaiming a “Green Revolution” that initiated the slow desertification of the land. Synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, and GMO chemical adjuncts have compounded and aggravated the problem.</em></blockquote>
<p>Note, the above speaks to cows grazing, as God intended, eating grass, processing the grass through four stomachs, where the cow's microbiome slowly digests it to turn it into proteins and fats. Yes, cows due burp carbon dioxide and methane, but these gases are just recycled gases that are again taken up by growing new grasses. On the other hand, cows kept in concentrated animal feed operation (CAFO) actually produce more methane and CO2, as well as other destructive products:</p>
<blockquote><em>Cows fed grain produce less methane than cows on grass… unless one includes the pollution generated by planting, seeding, harvesting, and processing all that grain. Atrazine, glyphosate, neonicotinoids, and a bevy of other toxic chemicals and fuels are immediately eliminated from the cow-feed pipeline when cows are fed grass only. Grass blades are God’s solar panels — truly renewable, converting the sun’s energy into edible meats through the bodies of livestock, without building a concrete prison or tilling the ground.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>The focus on cow methane is a deliberate <a href="https://www.libertynation.com/why-cows-are-good-not-bad-for-the-climate-and-humanity/">ruse</a> by “manure-deniers.” Cows produce methane through enteric fermentation, but they also generate manure and urine that nurture soils, which in turn absorb methane and carbon dioxide through microbial activity, prevent soil erosion and water loss, and improve the soil microbiome and thus crop productivity — all without the toxic intrusion of the U.S. chemical industry.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>If cows are eliminated and replaced with synthetic meats, we are told the environment will <a href="https://www.globalresearch.ca/myth-gmos-saving-planet/5804013">benefit</a>: yet the opposite is easily demonstrated. <a href="https://www.libertynation.com/synthetic-chicken-will-never-fly/">Synthetic meats</a> are “cultured” in vats using plant matter as a growing medium, likely soy and/or corn. That soy and corn will be produced using the same destructive GMO practices that are destroying America’s farmland.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Manure can only be replaced with more synthetic fertilizers, particularly urea (nitrogen), which is made from natural gas (aka methane). Urea production gives off <a href="https://news.berkeley.edu/2012/04/02/fertilizer-use-responsible-for-increase-in-nitrous-oxide-in-atmosphere/">nitrous oxide</a>, a greenhouse gas identified by the EPA as having a Global Warming Potential (GWP) <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials#:~:text=Nitrous%20Oxide%20%28N%202%20O%29%20has%20a%20GWP,Gas%20Emissions%20and%20Sinks%20uses%20a%20different%20value.%29">273</a> times more potent than carbon dioxide.</em></blockquote>
<p>Please read the whole article. Klar knows whereof he speaks. Interestingly, most of the land in this area of North Carolina is better suited to grazing cattle than for growing crops. I would also note that humans have been eating large ruminant animals for 3 million or more years, while we have been eating vegetables for only the last 10,000 years. If you have ever been hiking in the woods, have you ever seen any vegetables commonly seen in the supermarket? No? That's because they don't exist in the wild, and what does exist is so limited, man can not live all year on vegetables. Besides, man can not derive nutrition from leaves and grass. We are not ruminants. Instead, we are predators, and need meat to survive. Further, we can derive every vitamin, mineral and the macronutrients in just the right rations to thrive.</p>
PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-53822551651794484362024-03-04T10:06:00.000-08:002024-03-04T10:06:21.196-08:00Climate Alarmism Backfiring<p> Gabriella Hoffman has an article at <i>Townhall.com</i> entitled <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/gabriellahoffman/2024/03/04/climate-catastrophizing-finally-backfiring-on-radical-environmentalists-n2636025">Climate Catastrophizing Finally Backfiring on Radical Environmentalists</a>. I say from Hoffmans voice to God's ear. I have been waiting for this for twenty-five years.</p>
<blockquote><em>Bloomberg <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-02-27/trump-s-green-bashing-europe-s-right-put-climate-goals-at-risk?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&cmpid=socialflow-twitter-climate&utm_content=climate">writes</a> Americans appear to long for Trump administration-era energy policies and European right-wing parties skeptical of Green New Deal policies are gaining traction ahead of their June parliamentary elections. </em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>"Part of the reason the political winds are shifting is that climate regulations, as they ramp up in stringency, are starting to impinge more on people’s daily lives — at a time when many feel squeezed by inflation and the cost of living,” the report <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-02-27/trump-s-green-bashing-europe-s-right-put-climate-goals-at-risk?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&cmpid=socialflow-twitter-climate&utm_content=climate">observed</a>d.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>With respect to our country, Americans care deeply about the environment and want clean air and clean water. Who doesn’t? What turns people off from environmentalism, naturally, is putting nature above people and guilting us for traveling, driving cars, eating red meat, and simply breathing.</em></blockquote>
<p>Normal Americans of course want a clean environment. They want a clean environment for the children and future generations as well. But everything in life requires a balance between competing goods. One must evaluate what one desires against what is possible, what is affordable as well as what one must give up to have the desirable thing. This is what normal people do when evaluating anything. In addition to that, one must consider other budgetary items like food, shelter, utilities, insurance, maintenance and other considerations. No one has time to elevate just one thing over everything else.</p>
<p>Gentle readers can read the whole article, and whatever you do, don't eat ze bugs.</p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-3076596505952605642024-03-04T08:42:00.000-08:002024-03-04T08:42:15.137-08:00The Left Tries to Frame Christians As the Mythical "Christian Nationalists"<p> I have commented in this blog that one cannot be a Christian and at the same time be a Marxist, a Communist, Fascist, Socialist or any of the other branches from the tree of Marx. Why is that? Because at heart, Marxism requires allegiance to the State <i>uber alles</i>. But Christianity demands that you are loyal to, and love Christ above all. As He noted, one cannot serve God and mammon. Our Constitutional Republic was explicitly set up as being <u>under</u> God, not in place of God. Marxist systems of government attempt to replace God with the state. As Mussolini put it: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."</p>
<p>Today, at the <i>American Thinker</i> Wolf Howling (a pseudonym, of course) has a <i>tour de force</i> essay taking us back to the French Revolution and the modern beginnings of Devil's re-emergence entitled <a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/03/christian_nationalism_the_american_revolution_versus_the_french_revolution.html">Christian Nationalism: The American Revolution Versus The French Revolution</a>. Both of these revolutions occurred within decades of each other at the end of the 18th century. Each though had fundamentally different philosophical underpinnings. The American revolution had the Bible, and writers such as John Locke. The French Revolution disdaining the Bible, held up human reason as the ultimate good. It was consciously atheistic. In essence, the French Revolution committed the Original Sin of putting man on the throne of God.</p>
<p>Howling starts his article by pointing out what most Christians believe, that God granted man certain inalienable rights - rights that a legitimate government is duty bound to protect:</p>
<blockquote><em>Christianity stands athwart neo-Marxists’ over-arching goal of creating an all-powerful government, free from any competing moral or ethical authority. Because America was founded on Biblical principles, neo-Marxists have to drive Christianity from the public square and uncouple America’s founding from its Judeo-Christian roots. The left’s latest effort has been to attack <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/02/23/leftists-propagandize-christian-nationalist-scare/">“Christian Nationalism.</a>”</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>If you are a believing Christian or Jew, you are likely mystified about this newly made-up class of “Christian Nationalists.” According to Politico’s top reporter, Heidi Przybyla, it is a small subset of Christians—evil ones—who want to establish a theocracy. The defining characteristic of this subset of evil Christians is that they falsely believe that God Himself grants each person immutable rights to life, liberty, and property.</em></blockquote>
<p>Furthermore, we believe that if the government orders us to do something against the Commands of our God, we should resist. I would note that this is the basis for the idea that soldiers should not follow orders blindly but should weigh the legal and moral ramifications of their orders. Just following orders did not absolve the Nazis of their crimes.</p>
<blockquote><em>The concerted scaremongering against Christian Nationalism carefully avoids discussing the Bible and for good reason. The overarching messages of the Bible are morality, the sanctity of individual life, and the necessity of impartial justice. Indeed, one of the first commands God gave the Israelites before they entered the Promised Land was to create courts of law to administer “true Justice for the people.” He emphasized that the Israelite judges “must not distort justice; you shall not show partiality… Justice, and justice alone, shall you pursue…” <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/deuteronomy/16">(Deuteronomy 16:18-20)</a>.</em></blockquote>
<p>Here I would disagree to some extent with Howling. The moral law presented in the Torah are certainly the Commandments of God, as exemplified in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). But as Paul wrote, the Law exists to convict every man as a hopeless sinner. No one can escape, and one cannot do enough good works to merit salvation. But God sent his very own Son into the world to live as one of us, but commit no sin, and to die a brutal and horrible death by execution on the cross for the sin of the world. By faith in Christ and through the grace of God, we may hope to be saved. This was God's plan from the very beginning, in Genesis. Even so, it is Christ's resurrection that gives us hope that we too may one day be with Him.</p>
<p>The Torah presents us with both the moral law and the ceremonial law. Christ, by his death and resurrection on Easter abrogated the ceremonial law, but the moral law remains. A rightly ordered Christian's first loyalty is to God. A rightly ordered government preserves its peoples' rights under God.</p>
<p>While Howling leads us through a brief history of the philosophical thoughts leading up to each revolution, he closes with these paragraphs:</p>
<blockquote><em>The canard of “Christian nationalism” comes from the atheist path that brought the Enlightenment to a bloody end with the French Revolution. Virtually all modern society’s ills can be traced back to that Revolution, which birthed socialism and a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror">modern police state with absolute power</a>. Naturally, the first thing the French radicals had to do to remake society was rid the nation of a competing system of morality and authority—i.e., Christianity—and this they did with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution">brutality and bloodshed</a>. George Neumayr <a href="https://spectator.org/the-audacity-of-obamas-secularism/">explained</a>,</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>"The secularists of the French Revolution regarded the Roman Catholic Church as the last obstacle to atheism’s final triumph. Blurting this out, the French dilettante Denis Diderot proposed to his fellow revolutionaries that they strangle the last priest with the “guts of the last king.”</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>The French Revolution’s legacy has been a disaster for humanity. <a href="https://reason.com/2013/03/13/communism-killed-94m-in-20th-century/">Over 100 million people died</a> in the 20th century because of communist, socialist, and fascist police states unmoored from Judaism and Christianity. Moreover, the children of the French Revolution, people such as <a href="https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/04/the-face-of-evil-3.php">Michel Foucault</a>, a <a href="https://newcriterion.com/issues/1993/3/the-perversions-of-m-foucault">gay pedophile</a>, and <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08935696.2022.2026753">Herbert Marcuse</a>, have overtaken the West’s ivory towers and poisoned the West with <a href="https://www.bookwormroom.com/2021/10/11/analyzing-how-leftism-destroys-intellectual-honesty/">postmodernism</a>, <a href="https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-theory/">critical theory</a>, <a href="https://newdiscourses.com/?s=DEI">DEI</a>, and atheism.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>And now, the French Revolution’s legacy gives us the utter canard of Christian Nationalism. It is a charge that relies on historic illiteracy to redefine our nation. It must be fought tooth and nail, for the stakes could not be higher.</em></blockquote>
<p>As I said at the beginning, Wolf Howling's essay is a <i>tour de force</i> and can not be digested fully without also looking into the many, many links. You will know some of them, but there are others that we new to me at least. Please read the whole post. Christ demands we fight, mostly with our spiritual weapons: our prayer, our confession, our liturgy and communion. But it may sometimes demand our physical weapons as well. Pray, and keep your powder dry.</p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-24031072804478144112024-03-03T11:58:00.000-08:002024-03-03T11:58:38.990-08:00Democrats view voters as subjects to be ruled<p> Rajan Laad has a think piece at the <i>American Thinker</i> that asks the question <a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/03/why_do_democrats_hate_white_rural_america_so_much.html">Why do Democrats hate white rural America so much?</a> It's a question that has weighed on my mind as well. Growing up in the upper midwest as I did, and living now in North Carolina, I meet all kinds of people, and for the most part they do not fit the description of offered by Schaller and Waldman:</p>
<blockquote><em>“They are the most racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-gay geodemographic group in the country,” claimed Schaller. “Second, they’re the most conspiracist group. QAnon support and subscribers, election denialism, COVID denialism instead of scientific skepticism, Obama birtherism.”</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>“They don’t believe in an independent press, free speech,” Schaller said. “They’re also the most strongly White nationalist and White Christian nationalist. ... They’re most likely to excuse or justify violence as an acceptable alternative to peaceful public discourse.”</em></blockquote>
<p>No, and in fact rural America is filled with not just white people, but blacks, Asians and pretty much every other race of Americans. What all these people have in common is that they can all see what is happening to their country. They can all cite a list of unaddressed grievances like the ones Laad has listed. They just want to get the jack boot off their necks and get back to living their lives. Laad rhetorically asks "Why the hatred?</p>
<blockquote><em>Why the hatred?</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>The Democrats view voters as subjects who need to be controlled rather than citizens to whom they are accountable. Their object is to rule (not govern).</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>They see these dissenting white rural voters as impediments to their permanence of power.</em></blockquote>
<p>Please read the whole post and contemplate what Laad is saying. Then pray to find a way out of the net the tyrants are laying for us.</p>
PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-29079727558194717042024-03-02T06:38:00.000-08:002024-03-02T06:38:13.893-08:00When There Is A Gun Store and a US Senator to Smear, Truth No Longer Matters<p>At <i>Townhall.com</i> today we have a treat. F. Paul Valone, the head of Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC), who often writes for us and of course often appears on local radio, has written a national story. Valone is outraged that Leftist media is <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/f-paul-valone/2024/03/01/misrepresenting-gun-tracing-to-smear-a-us-senator-n2635974">Misrepresenting Gun Tracing to Smear a US Senator</a>. First term Senator Ted Budd happens to own a gun store and range facilites. Unlike our other US Senator, gun owners can count on Budd not to stab us in the back (we hope.) Anyway, let Valone tell it:</p>
<blockquote><em>On gun issues, never underestimate the capacity of leftist media to distort, obfuscate, and downright lie. If they can simultaneously smear a pro-Second Amendment legislator, so much the better.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Such was the piece by McClatchy newspapers, which recently spun an elaborate yarn based on firearm tracing reports and false accusations against Second Amendment defender Senator Ted Budd (R-NC). And what was Sen. Budd’s “crime?” Owning a gun shop and firing range named “ProShots.”</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em><a href="https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article285939706.html">“NC senator’s gun shop among hundreds monitored by ATF for weapons traced to crimes,”</a> headlined the piece, which breathlessly described his ostensible transgression: “For the third year in a row, the gun shop owned by U.S. Sen. Ted Budd was among hundreds across the country flagged by federal authorities in 2023 for selling weapons that were later traced to crimes, according to newly released records.”</em></blockquote>
<p>All very sinister! Could it be that ProShots is on the list for political reasons? In this day and age, would that shock anyone? Valone goes on to note:</p>
<blockquote><em>Despite McClatchy’s assertions, traced guns are not “crime guns:” Guns used in crimes are not necessarily traced, and guns traced are not necessarily used in crimes, a long-acknowledged problem. Said a <a href="https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20090527_RS22458_0ce045ad4e9b1a028740f05176cd7ac635bb4e2e.pdf">2009 Congressional Research Service report</a>: “Firearms trace data … may be biased by several factors,” further saying “traced firearms … may not be representative of firearms possessed and used by criminals” and “there remains significant variation over time and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to ‘when, why, and how’ a firearm is recovered and selected to be traced…” Mine was once traced during a traffic stop before being returned. Did that make it a “crime gun?”</em></blockquote>
<p>Gentle readers should go on to read the whole article by Valone. It is very instructive to learn that the ATF trace data is not worth the paper in is printed on because of various flaws in gathering of the data. Also, one should always remember that every gun sold by any Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) is approved by the FBI through its National Instant Background Check (NICS) system. Valone cloese with:</p>
<blockquote><em>ProShots was undoubtedly ensnared by Joe Biden’s weaponized ATF and the so-called “zero tolerance” program through which it has shut down hundreds of gun dealers for even minor paperwork violations – all, of course, part of a scheme to curtail gun ownership by executive order. If anything, ProShots should be congratulated for surviving the Biden quagmire.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Naturally, I pointed out these fallacies and more during interviews with McClatchy reporters, who downplayed or ignored every one because, after all, <b>when it comes to ostensibly “mainstream” media coverage of gun issues, truth no longer matters</b>.</em></blockquote>
<p>Indeed</p>
PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-77357701407502919252024-03-01T15:28:00.000-08:002024-03-01T15:28:15.102-08:00A Request from David Codrea<p> Per David Codrea's request, I am sharing this <a href="https://waronguns.com/his-name-was-duncan-lemp/">post</a> at the <i>War on Guns</i> website.</p>
<blockquote><em>This is the evil we face at the personal level from “our own” government.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Be outraged, be horrified, and be warned. This could have been me, this could have been you. And the DSM would have parroted the state’s narrative as the prohibitionists high-fived themselves on X and made small d!ck jokes.</em></blockquote>
Please go read the linked article by James Bovard and consider whether the Montgomery County police acted as a hit squad.PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-8438218282621435232024-03-01T14:03:00.000-08:002024-03-01T14:03:16.327-08:00The Left Won't Like the New Rules<p> Jack Hellner at the <i>American Thinker</i> today has a post entitled <a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/03/trumps_presidential_immunity_case_to_be_heard_by_scotus_and_the_left_roots_for_him_to_fail.html">Trump's presidential immunity case to be heard by SCOTUS and the left roots for him to fail</a>. But as he points out, the Left might not like the new rules. After all, if Trump doesn't have immunity after he leaves office, then neither do Obama or Biden.</p>
<blockquote><em>Aesop’s fables are revered for their ability to communicate profound moral concepts to young children, but clearly the short parables are too advanced for the average Democrat, and especially the weaponized anti-Trump operatives in the Biden regime, because they’re cheering on the “no-presidential-immunity” agenda, oblivious to the “be careful what you wish for” precept.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em><b>Without presidential immunity, Barack Obama and Joe Biden are living on borrowed time.</b></em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>One of the most despicable, dangerous, and deadly actions of any American president was when Obama dictatorially “derailed” a massive investigation into Hezbollah’s billion-dollar drug-running ring to appease the tyrants in Iran—which we know was because he selfishly thought it would help his legacy...</em></blockquote>
<p>...snip...</p>
<blockquote><em>How about Obama’s ATF and Operation Fast and Furious? The policy is directly to blame for the deaths of American agents (no one would dispute that), and how many others?</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Should Biden and Obama be charged with enabling Iran and terrorists because they built up Iran’s war chest? Because at this moment they have blanket immunity, despite reaping endless death.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Should Biden be charged for refusing to enforce border laws? Because at this moment he has blanket immunity, despite a number of high-profile murder and rape cases (just over the last few days), and an obvious increase in “migrant crime.”</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Should Biden be charged for having energy policies that enrich Russia, Iran, and other tyrannical regimes, that in turn cause great damage throughout the world? Because at this moment, he has blanket immunity.</em></blockquote>
<p>Of course, even George W. Bush and Clinton would come under scrutiny. No one does anything for pure reasons. There are always a mixture of the good with the bad in any decision process. And the ones who don't like the decision of policy will no doubt use the current lawfare techniques to bring criminal charges and lawsuits against any former president. Only a masochist would want the job under these conditions. But hey, if the Left wants to play by these rules, they won't like them when turned against them.</p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-45356762530446589082024-03-01T04:48:00.000-08:002024-03-01T04:48:58.317-08:00The Emptiness of Communist Promises<p> Today at <i>Townhall.com</i> David Harsanyi has an essay entitled <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/davidharsanyi/2024/03/01/if-this-is-christian-nationalism-sign-me-up-n2635935">If This Is 'Christian Nationalism,' Sign Me Up!</a> Harsanyi is an admitted agnotic. But his point is that whether you believe in God or not, the natural rights theory of the origin of our rights aligns perfectly with Christian and Jewish notions of these rights. I would also note that simple observation of human nature makes these rights, in Thomas Jefferson's words "self evident."</p>
<blockquote><em>The other day, Politico writer Heidi Przybyla appeared on MSNBC's "All In With Chris Hayes" to talk about the hysteria de jour, "Christian nationalism." Donald Trump, she explained, has surrounded himself with an "extremist element of conservative Christians," who were misrepresenting "so-called natural law" in their attempt to roll back abortion "rights" and other leftist policy preferences. What makes "Christian nationalists" different, she went on, was that they believe "our rights as Americans, as all human beings, don't come from any earthly authority."</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>As numerous critics have already pointed out, "Christian nationalism" sounds identical to the case for American liberty offered in the Declaration of Independence. Then again, the idea that man has inalienable, universal rights goes back to ancient Greece, at least. The entire American project is contingent on accepting the notion that the state can't give or take our God-given freedoms.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>It is the best kind of "extremism."</em></blockquote>
<p>...snip...</p>
<blockquote><em>Conservatives often chalk up this kind of ignorance about civics to a declining education system. It's not an accident. But even if progressives were fluent in the philosophy of natural rights, one strongly suspects she, like most progressives (and other statists), would be uninterested. It's a political imperative to be uninterested.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>If natural rights are truly inalienable, how can the government create a slew of new (positive) "rights" -- the right to housing or abortion or health care or free birth control? And how can we limit those who "abuse" free expression, self-defense and due process if they are up to no good? You know, as President Joe Biden likes to say -- when speaking about the Second Amendment, never abortion -- no right "is absolute."</em></blockquote>
<p>Our rights are, in fact, unalienable whether they come from our Creator, or are a natural part of human nature. What are called "positive rights" are things you have a right to if you pay for them. A right to housing? Sure, whatever you can afford. A right to health care? Again, whatever you can pay for. A right to food and to water? Again, whatever you can afford. But you do not have a "right" to abort your child because everyone, including your child in the womb has a right to life.</p>
<p>Harsanyi notes that he chooses to believe in natural rights. I will pray that the Holy Spirit inspires Harsanyi to faith. But as I have already been inspired by the Holy Spirit to faith in Christ by the grace of God, I can not shut up about it. The Bible's admonitions, it turns out, perfectly align not only with natural rights theory, but provide people with the best chance of having a long and prosperous life. The "positive rights" the Left promises are already ours, by virtue of the natural rights. Thus, their promises are empty as shown by countless Communist paradises.</p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-79734879872887659302024-03-01T03:46:00.000-08:002024-03-01T03:46:49.074-08:00Even in NYC the Police Cannot Stop You Just Because You Have a Gun<p> Over at <i>Bearing Arms</i> Tom Knighton has an article explaining that <a href="https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2024/02/29/the-new-republic-laments-bruen-actually-protecting-rights-n1224022">The New Republic Laments Bruen's Actually Protecting Rights</a>. In this case, the defendant wasn't what they call a "sympathetic" person. Indeed, it was an actual felon. But even a felon has rights too. Indeed, in NYC today they may have more rights than you do.</p>
<blockquote><em>If something is a right, then you have a right to do it without being harassed by the authorities. I can criticize the government, for example, and shouldn't have to worry about the government making my life difficult because I did. I shouldn't get accosted by the police simply because I'm going to a church the powers-that-be don't particularly care for.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>But for a very long time, if you carried a gun, you could be approached by law enforcement under a presumption that you were doing something wrong until you showed them you were, in fact, legal.</em></blockquote>
<p>So, in places like New York one would be presumed guilty until proven innocent if you were carrying a gun. Thus, they turned American jurisprudence on its head.</p>
<blockquote><em>Folks at <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/179385/supreme-court-bruen-cops-concealed-carry">The New Republic have an issue with that</a>.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>With a headline reading, "How the Supreme Court Created One Nation Under the Gun," and a sub-headline that reads, "Two years after the high court's ruling in Bruen, we now live in a world with a constitutional expectation that any firearm is a legal firearm," they make it clear they see it as a bad thing.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>It’s been more than two years since the Supreme Court opened a new frontier for gun laws. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court laid out a far more restrictive test for determining whether such laws violate the individual right to bear arms that the justices previously found in the Second Amendment. I’ve chronicled time and time again how judges have tried to apply that test to existing laws, sometimes with far-reaching implications.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Earlier this month, a federal judge in New York ruled that simply possessing a gun in public no longer amounts to probable cause for an arrest in that state. The decision is one of the first to apply Bruen to how police officers carry out searches and arrests—a sign of how much the Supreme Court’s ruling has changed the legal landscape when it comes to guns in American life.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>In February of 2023, NYPD officers encountered Robert Homer on Guy R. Brewer Boulevard, near the border of Queens’ Rochdale neighborhood. A group of officers, using the city’s ARGUS surveillance camera network, observed him sitting in the driver’s seat of a silver van. One of the officers saw Homer put what appeared to be a black handgun into one of his pockets while in the van, go to a nearby deli to get something to eat, and return to the van. After his return, officers arrested him and found a handgun in his pocket. Court documents do not say whether he was able to eat his meal first.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>After his arrest, federal prosecutors charged Homer with violating a federal law that bans people with felony convictions from owning firearms. <b>Critically, however, the officers were unaware that Homer had a previous felony conviction prior to arresting him. Instead, their justification for making the arrest—what is known as “probable cause” in court—revolved around his simple possession of a firearm</b>. The arresting officer additionally told the court that he thought Homer lacked proper “firearm discipline” and that he was in what the police described as a “high-crime area.”</em></blockquote>
<p>The emphasis above is mine. The police would have been fully justified in arresting Homer on the charge of being a felon in possession of a gun*. But they were not aware of the status of Homer as a felon, but merely that he had a gun. I remember years ago at a rest stop here in North Carolina that a man came out of the rest area with an openly carried gun on his hip. One of the other men got very upset, and was only less so when I explained that it was perfectly legal to do so.</p>
<blockquote><em>If we see a group of people protesting, the assumption is that they're lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights until or unless we're shown otherwise. Gun rights are no different.</em></blockquote>
<p>Exactly so.</p>
<p>* At one time, a person's right to carry a gun was restored with completion of his sentence for a felony. Wardens of prisons returned the inmate's belongings including guns and ammunition at the end of the inmate's sentence. David Codrea coined the notion that if a person can not be trusted with a gun, he can not be trusted without a custodian. So, by letting someone out of prison, society had determined that they could be trusted, rightly or wrongly. The idea that committing a felony disbars someone from enjoyment of Constitutionally protected rights seems, in my humble opinion to go againsts the jurisprudence layed out by the Constitution and common law. But I am not a lawyer.</p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-54944696223576233942024-02-29T12:01:00.000-08:002024-02-29T12:01:59.126-08:00The Leftists Won't Like the New Rules<p> Judge Andrew Napolitano explain why Judge Engoran's ruling in the New York fraud case is so wrong. We have all read about the 8th Amendment issues with excessive fines. That is the Amendment that bars cruel and unusual punishments. But as Napolitano tells it, there is even stronger reasons buried in the common law. You can find his article at <i>Ammoland</i> entitled <a href="https://www.ammoland.com/2024/02/donald-trump-and-government-theft/#axzz8T914PDog">Donald Trump and Government Theft</a>.</p>
<blockquote><em>When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo described the basic principles of tort law in one easy line, he was reflecting upon centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence. His dictum of wrong first and remedy afterward was essentially based on the common law understanding that an injured party can only seek damages for a wrong actually caused.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>The legal and philosophical essence of wrongness is harm. The law does not concern itself with trifles or with theoretical wrongs, but only wrongs that have caused palpable and measurable harm.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>The rational corollary to harm first and remedy later is that where there is no harm, there can be no remedy. Were this not the case, then a crazy plaintiff could drag a hapless defendant into court for all sorts of fanciful or theoretical or immeasurable or speculative claims — none of which caused harm.</em></blockquote>
<p>...snip...</p>
<blockquote><em>The government created a phantom harm by arguing to the court that Trump’s corporation was not fully accurate in its loan applications and thus was charged a lower interest rate on the loans than it should have been charged had it been accurate; and thus it earned more income on its use of the money it borrowed than would have been the case had it scrupulously reported the value of its pledged assets; and thus — somehow — the government ought to be able to confiscate the excess income plus interest.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>This, of course, defies the no-damages-without-breach-of-a-duty principle and no-damages-without-caused-harm principle that have been the bedrock of American tort law. It also redefines fraud.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>The government told the court that Trump defrauded his lenders by inaccurately stating his assets. If you borrow $100 million from a bank and pledge as security a building worth $2 billion, you will get more favorable loan terms — a lower interest rate — than if you pledged as security a building worth $1 billion. But Trump’s banks did their own due diligence on the value of the assets he pledged, and they told the court that they were satisfied with Trump’s valuations.</em></blockquote>
<p>So, the State of New York, that suffered no harm, therefore should have no remedy. It has inserted itself between two parties that were satisfied with a mutual transaction, so that it could steal for itself some $400 million of Trump organization money. It should be clear that this can not stand, for if it did, it could be used against any of us.</p>
<p>Please note, once again, that I am not a "Trump" guy. He has many flaws, as do all of us. At the same time, Trump in office did most things right, unlike the desiccated puppet for whom the <strike>Democrats</strike>...er...Communist/Socialist stole the election. Now, to keep Trump from getting back into office, the Communist/Socialists are using the law and asserting bizarre theories, also known as lawfare. They want to put him in prison or failing that to impoverish him. None of it is right, and the truth is they are making a martyr of him. But even worse is that they are making a mockery of the law, and eventually they are not going to like the rules being used against them.</p>
PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-67079504291006437342024-02-29T07:09:00.000-08:002024-02-29T07:09:02.096-08:00We Can Do Better Here<p><a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/02/killing_candidates_south_of_the_border.html">Killing candidates south of the border</a>, by Silvio Canto, Jr. at the <i>American Thinker</i> shows us again why we need to hang onto our Second Amendment as if our lives depended on it, because they just might. The Left has effectively banned guns in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Great Britain. Now the international Left is gunning for them here too. And the Biden administration along with the <strike>Democrat</strike>...er...Communist/Socialist party is doing whatever it can to help. But see what is happening south of the border, down Mexico way:</p>
<blockquote><em>If it’s Thursday morning, then it’s another post about violence in Mexico. Or as a Mexican friend said: “Dios mio todos los dias” or “My God, every day.” Yes, killing is happening too much south of the border, whether you are a journalist or a couple of candidates running for office. This is the story:</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>"Two mayoral hopefuls in the Mexican city of Maravatío have been gunned down within hours of each other, as experts warn the June 2 national elections could be the country’s most violent on record.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>"The widening control of drug cartels in Mexico has been described as a threat. During the last nationwide election in 2021, about three dozen candidates were killed."</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>"The campaigns haven’t even started yet. They formally begin on Friday."</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>"On Tuesday, this farming town, where most of the men wear boots and big belt buckles, was in a state of wary shock following the previous day’s killings. Dozens of state police were visible around city hall."</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>No campaigning yet, but the killers couldn’t care less about that. Who knew that criminals did not obey or respect election campaign laws? Remember that the next time that someone questions your Second Amendment right.</em></blockquote>
<p>"Who knew that criminals did not obey or respect election campaign laws?" But it should be obvious. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Note that the legitimate purpose of laws is to set the expectations of society, and the punishment meted out if those expectations are not met. Seen in this light, the laws should be few and well understood. God figured you only needed 10 laws, which he layed out in the book of Exodus. But man, always looking for a way to wiggle out of the law, kept pushing the envelope, so the rabbis added explanations. Then some power hungry types added some illegitimate laws as well until the poor Jew living in the first century had 613 of these things to do every single day. We have thousands, and they don't stop even one crime.</p>
<p>One of these illegitimate laws in Mexico is that you CAN have a handgun. Yay...what? But there are restrictions. For instance, it can only be in a caliber that has never been used by a military anywhere in the world. Believe it or not, there are such things: 38 Super Automatic is one such caliber. But there is only one gun store in Mexico where you can buy such a weapon, and of course it is run by the Mexican military. There are other restrictions as well. So few people actually have guns. Suffice it to say that if you are a disfavored candidate in Mexico, your life is...precarious.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the cartels can get all the guns and ammunition they want, including actual real life assault rifles, not the pretend things we civilians can get here in the States. They just smuggle them in with everything else they are smuggling.</p>
<p>The intent of the Second Amendment was that at a moments notice, in case of invasion, the government could call up the militia, and they would arrive with whatever the current military soldier is equipped with, including guns, ammunition, food, water, ready to go into battle. If we still had that, every man would have an fully select fire M4 style weapon and hundreds of rounds of 5.56 Nato ammunition. We don't, but that was the intent. We can, and should do better</p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-48029402311954204282024-02-28T02:24:00.000-08:002024-02-28T02:24:28.355-08:00Statue of Astarte Being Erected At University of Houston<p> I have to go to work today, but I wanted to share this with you. Olivia Murray at the <i>American Thinker</i> today has a post exposing the University of Houston of harboring a sect of the goddess Astarte or Ashtaroth, an ancient Canaanite goddess and wife of Baal. You can see her idol at <a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/02/university_of_houston_set_to_erect_a_towering_goatheaded_femaleesque_statue_with_tentacle_arms_on_campus_for_the_abortion_movement.html">University of Houston set to erect a towering goat-headed, female-esque with tentacle arms on campus for the abortion movement</a>.</p><p>To any Christian, this is in-your-face paganism. The idols, of course are just statues, it is what is behind the statues that is so shocking and unnerving, for there is a real, malevolent being behind the statue. For that matter, the famous bull statue on Wall Street represents the ancient idols of Baal. So we have been flirting with paganism for a long time.</p><p>Please go and read the post, then tell me that the Left isn't Satanic. Tearing down the statue, of course, isn't the answer. The answer is in changing peoples hearts and minds. Hold fast to your faith in Jesus Christ and his promises. That is the answer. It will get worse before it gets better.</p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-54882141072396002492024-02-27T07:40:00.000-08:002024-02-27T07:40:43.577-08:00The Devil and Climate Change<p>Today I wanted to highlight an essay by William Sullivan at the <i>American Thinker</i> entitled <a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/02/the_left_demands_millions_of_human_sacrifices_to_appease_the_gods_of_climate_change.html">The Left Demands Millions of Human Sacrifices to Appease the Gods of Climate Change</a>. He puts in fairly well in that a lot of ancient people had the same beliefs. In ancient Israel, remnants of the various tribes of Canaanites sacrificed to the gods Baal, Astarte and Molock. Baal was the ancient fertility god, while Astarte was his wife and lover, and sought various perversions like cross dressing priests and "sacred" prostitutes. Molock was the one to whom they would sacrifice their children by tossing them into the fiery belly of the image of the god. Got that? They threw their newborn children alive into fire that consumed them. Sullivan cites the Aztec example, but such pagan worship of demons happened everywhere until the Christian era. Sullivan writes:</p>
<blockquote><em>“At their Monday night poker game in hell,” <a href="https://www.steynonline.com/12992/warm-front">writes</a> Mark Steyn, “I’ll bet Stalin, Hitler, and Mao are kicking themselves. “It’s about leaving a better planet for our children?’ Why didn’t we think of that?”</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>These three evil socialists of yesteryear would certainly be green with envy at the way today’s green socialists have convinced millions of citizens to willingly surrender their liberty to the State.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>“The ruling classes of the fading West are determined to save the planet by immiserating their fellow citizens,” <a href="https://www.newgeography.com/content/007809-the-inhumanity-green-agenda">writes</a> Joel Kotkin. He continues:</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Their program calls not only for fewer people and fewer families, but also for lower consumption among the masses. They expect us to live in ever smaller dwelling units, to have less mobility, and to endure more costly home heating and air-conditioning. These priorities are reflected in a regulatory bureaucracy that, if it does not claim justification from God, acts as the right hand of Gaia and of sanctified science.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>This apparent religiosity highlights an interesting sort of logical somersault for modern progressives. On the one hand, they <a href="https://www.christianpost.com/news/god-given-rights-are-christian-nationalist-heidi-przybyla-says.html">believe</a> it to be primitive “Christian Nationalism” to assert, as all documents associated with America’s Founding do, that our natural rights were endowed to us by God, rather than some government edict written by a government official somewhere. On the other hand, high priestesses like Nancy Pelosi <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-on-wildfires-in-california-and-west-mother-earth-is-angry">assure</a> the faithful that hurricanes on the Gulf Coast and wildfires on the West Coast are signs that “Mother Earth is angry,” and is visiting her vengeance upon us.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Quite literally, today’s party of The Science™ is an apocalyptic doomsday cult which fears the wrath of deities that are personified by nature, complete with the sacrifice of countless children.</em></blockquote>
<p>Again, I point out that these "deities," whom Christians recognize as demons, are not new. They are the same ancient demons who turned people away from the Lord, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, the God whose first command to man was to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.</p>
<p>These people act as if they have just discovered that the climate changes. Horrors! Again, reading the Bible will tell them that changing climate has always been a feature of the earth. Didn't famine drive the ancient Israelites into Egypt?</p>
<p>Jesus described the devil as the father of lies and a murderer from the start. So, one test of whether you are being influenced by the devil is if you are being asked or told to murder, particularly if you are being asked to murder your own children. But mass murder by whatever means, the more heinous the better, is a hallmark of the devil, whether it is the gassing of Jews, the genocide of Christians in Albania, the Holodomor, the hacking of the Tutsis, or as Sullivan notes the mass slaughter by the Aztecs. The attack on the Israelis on October 7 is just the latest example.</p>
<p>Gentle readers will want to read the entire essay and ponder the scope of the hoax being perpetrated on the people of the world today. The more I find out, the more shocked I am that so many seem to be on board with this incredibly bad idea. I, of course, will continue to pray that God will take the whole mess of people pushing this stuff to the woodshed, but of course He acts in His own time for His own purposes. We just need to remain on His side. Praise be to God. Sullivan closes with this:</p>
<blockquote><em>What progressives are pitching with the green agenda today is anything but progress, and their prescriptions to maintain political power are sillier and deadlier than ever. But that doesn’t stop young people, being tutored in the modern-day temples that we call universities, from offering their absolute devotion to this green doomsday cult.</em></blockquote>
<p>Perhaps I should pray for a more discerning generation of young people, for they are the ones who will have to fight this.</p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-8535350053807068322024-02-25T10:24:00.000-08:002024-02-25T10:24:16.687-08:00What is Christian Nationalism?<p> Yesterday I had a post that questioned what in the heck was "Christian Nationalism." It seemed from the description offered by Ms. Przybyla that it was just plain Christianity. Today. there is a post at the <i>American Thinker</i> by John Leonard entitled <a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/02/what_is_a_christian_nationalist.html">What is a Christian Nationalist?</a> that attemptes to answer that question.</p>
<blockquote><em>On MSNBC “award-winning investigative journalist” (from Politico) Heidi Przybyla said this recently:</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>"Remember when Trump ran in 2016? A lot of the mainline evangelicals wanted nothing to do with the divorced real-estate mogul who cheated on his wife with a porn star and all of that, right? So what happened was, he was surrounded by this more extremist element. You’re going to hear words like Christian Nationalism, like the new apostolic reformation. These are groups that you should get very schooled on because they have a lot of power in Trump’s circle. And the one thing that unites all of them because there’s many different groups orbiting Trump but the thing that unites them as Christian nationalists — not Christians by the way, because Christian nationalist is very different — is that they believe their rights as Americans don’t come from any earthly authority. They don’t come from Congress, they don’t come from the Supreme Court, they come from God.</em>"</blockquote><blockquote><em>Horrors! Does this mean that a Christian nationalist believes what the Declaration of Independence said — that our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come not from King George III, but from our Creator? How does that separate a Christian nationalist from any other ordinary Christian? What is she trying to say?</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Ms. Przybyla continued:</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>"The problem is that they are determining, man — men — are determining what God is telling them. And in the past, that so-called natural law ... it’s a pillar of Catholicism, for instance, and has been used for good. In social justice campaigns, Martin Luther King evoked it talking about civil rights. But now you have an extremist element of conservative Christians who say this applies specifically to issues like abortion, gay marriage, and it’s going much further than that, as you’re seeing for instance in the ruling in Alabama. The judge is connected to a dominionist faction.</em>"</blockquote><blockquote><em>Um...what? Is Ms. Przybyla trying to say that mainstream Christians support abortion rights and gay marriage, but Christian nationalists do not?</em></blockquote>
<p>Well count me in Christian Nationalism if that is the case. The book of Leviticus is pretty clear that both of these are an abomination to God. And what God hates we should also hate, don't you think? Now, clearly God can forgive these behaviors, but only if the one doing them repents. It doesn't sound like Ms. Przybyla wants to repent.</p>
<blockquote><em>If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you’re a Christian. Okay, then...so what is a nationalist? According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, a nationalist is a person who wants his country to be politically independent, or a person who strongly believes that his country is better than others.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Putting the two terms together, we get a follower of Jesus Christ who strongly believes that America is the greatest nation on the face of the Earth. And that’s the problem?</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Oh, wait a minute — one of the Alabama justices is accused of being a dominionist. This is, apparently, a person who seeks to create a nation governed by Christians according to their understanding of biblical law. Is the justice a dominionist because he quoted from the Bible instead of a biology textbook? Both basically say the same thing on this issue.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Most Christians I know (and I know more than a few through social media) realize that America was founded not as a Christian nation, but as a secular nation founded by Christians with Christian principles. Muslims, Jews, and atheists alike have been welcome to participate in our secular government that still operates on Christian principles.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Obviously, the term “Christian nationalist” is meant to be seen as a pejorative. It is being used to separate the “good” Christians (those who support abortion and gay marriage) from the bad Christians (actual Christians). It is a term intended to divide and conquer.</em></blockquote>
<p>Frankly, I want my country to operate on Christian principles. What does Ms. Przybyla want us to operate on, the Devil's principles? That would of course by Sharia. No thanks, and I don't think she would be too happy with that either. So, in the end, the term "Christian Nationalism is just a nonsense phrase that can mean whatever the Left wants it to mean at any period in time. It is not meant to convey information but to disparage whoever is being accused of it.</p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130361615621900054.post-65617284280055919102024-02-24T07:22:00.000-08:002024-02-24T07:22:42.669-08:00Catholic Bishop Denounces Leftist Boogeyman<p> This is disturbing. I pray every day for the Christians around the world who are being persecuted. But, now our government is one of those active persecutors. And they have help from the mainstream media. Today Matt Vespa at <i>Townhall.com</i> has a piece entitled <a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/02/23/politico-reporter-unloaded-a-dangerous-commentary-about-christianity-on-msnbc-n2635665">Why a Catholic Bishop Said This MSNBC Segment Was One Of The Most Disturbing Things He's Ever Seen</a>. Heidi Przybyla finds it disturbing that what she termed "Christian Nationalists" believe that our rights as human beings don't come from any earthly authority but instead come from (here she points upward) God! The horror!</p>
<p>She makes plain that normal Christians don't believe that. Unfortunately, I have news for Ms. Przybyla: All true Christians believe that. More to the point, if she had bothered to read the Declaration of Independence, she would have found that Thomas Jefferson also believed that our rights come from God. And everyone who signed the Declaration endorsed that belief.</p>
<p>Bishop Robert Barron also corrects Ms. Przybyla when he points out that if our rights came from some earthly authority, then those rights could legitimately be taken away by that same authority. This would eventually lead to tyranny. So, as an American, never mind as a Catholic priest, he wanted to make clear that our rights come from our Creator, or God.</p>
<p>You can read the whole post and watch both videos. The post is not that long. I don't know what the heck "Christian Nationalism" is supposed to be. Every time I hear about it, I think to myself that what they believe sounds a lot like what plain old Christians believe. I suspect this is another made up strawman that doesn't exist.</p>PolyKahrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17921059911992220363noreply@blogger.com0