A Pipe Meditation

I heard the news today, oh boy

It is the eve of All Saints Day, October 31st.  I have read the news today.  Poland is in crisis over a coup attempt by its prime minister.  France is burning, and riots have spilled over to Italy.  In Nigeria, Christian communities are mowed down by Islamists waging jihad wielding automatic weapons.  Here in America, the socialist... er... communists running under the Democrat banner appear to be ready to overwhelm us.  It sure seems as if the devil is in control.

So, I went out on my back porch, lit a pipe, and meditated.  The words of Isaiah came to me.  Specifically, the Book of Isaiah, chapter 53. Now, Isaiah lived some 700 years before the Messiah would come.  But his description of Jesus, and His mission is pretty accurate.  Isaiah must have been inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Isaiah says He would be an average sort of man.  A man of sorrows and grief, who would take on Himself the iniquities of the whole world.  He would, as the prophet Ezekiel says, plead His case with men face to face.  He would be numbered among the criminals and would die an ignominious and brutal death, so that men would live.

What a great and awesome gift He offers!  What can I give in return, but what He already owns?  For He created everything, including us.  What can I do?  The answer to those questions is nothing.  It's a gift freely given!  But I am utterly unworthy to receive such a gift.  My sins are many.  And yet, I will take it, as a child accepts a gift he knew he didn't deserve.  All I can say is thank You and to praise You for Your great love.

Halleluiah    

Following the Possessed

 Today, at the American Thinker D. Pagdett Blakely and Richard Blakely have an inciteful article entitled When Democrats espouse Marx, are they following a raving lunatic, or a demonically possessed man? Having read Marx's Communist Manifesto as a youth, I have wondered the same thing. How can smart people believe the lies underlying the book's thesis? For the underlying assumption is that man's nature can be changed. But even a cursory reading of the Bible tells us that man is unfortuately the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

“A God has snatched from me my all. Nothing but revenge is left to me. I shall build my throne high over head. Cold, tremendous shall its pinnacle be,” said a German youth, according to Jonathan Cahn’s new series, “The Altar of Pergamon.” This same German youth wrote, “I will bring the world to ruins. Then I will wander Godlike and victorious through the ruins of the world. I will feel equal to the Creator.” Who was this German youth who wrote and published these words?

Karl Marx.

Who can help but notice the similarity of Marx’s writing with what the prophet Isaiah was inspired to write around 700–680 B.C. The prophet wrote,

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: … I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

The prophet Isaiah was inspired by God to write the very words of Lucifer, the fallen angel, who became Satan, the devil, and the judgment cast upon him by God Almighty.

In Marx’s writings he sounds like he was possessed by the devil himself. Marx also wrote, “I will avenge myself against that Being, that enthroned LORD, the One who rules above.” Who would write about taking revenge against God? It sounds like the words of a fallen angel. Satan is known as the Destroyer.

Marx continued, “Though I bring the world to ruins, the world which bulks between me and the abyss, I will smash to pieces with my enduring curses. The world will dumbly pass away and then sink down into utter nothingness.” Marx also wrote that a weapon was given to him saying, “The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain until I go mad. See this sword? The prince of darkness sold it to me.” What was the sword to which Marx wrote? It was his pen and the things that he would write, like “The Communist Manifesto.” According to Cahn, one historian stated, “Marx had the devil’s view of the world and the devil’s malignity.” Marx was also known for enjoying quoting from “Faust,” which is a legendary story based upon the historical character Johann Georg Faust, who, being dissatisfied with his life, made a deal with the devil, exchanging his soul for 24 years of unlimited knowledge and worldly pleasures. Ultimately, he was taken to hell.

Notice that Marx, like Lucifer himself, fully believes in God. But for some reason, he hates Him. It is a trait I have noted in many so-called atheists. When someone says "I can't believe in a god who allows ______" (name the grievance), these people actually also fully believe that God exists, but childishly think by claiming to be atheists, they will be hurting Him. And perhaps they are, but I suspect they will end up in hell with Lucifer.

I have also read Jonathon Cahn's new book The Altar of Pergamon and I highly recommend it to gentle readers. Cahn's writing style is quirky, but getting beyond that, its a thriller that will have you rooting for the main character, whom I believe to be Cahn himself, thinly disguised as Ariel Herzog.

The Blakleys close with this,

So, when Democrats espouse Marx, are they following a raving lunatic, or a demonically possessed man? Isn’t it a red flag if your ideological standard ranted as a mouthpiece of a fallen angel? Do they want to throw in with people who are setting themselves up as being against God, our Creator?

A good question.

They Will Kill You

 Today I will highlight an article at Townhall.com by Rachel Alexander entitled Ed Martin Says Lawfare Against Conservatives Is Headed Toward Killing Us. Martin is specifically citing lawfare and what he calls "barfare" against conservative lawyers and lawyers who work for the administration. But this will eventually, unless it is checked, come upon other people as well. Engineers, building contractors, even your local hairdressers and teachers have licenses to protect and to operate.

Ed Martin, who served as director of the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group and is facing a bar investigation from the D.C. Bar, has penned one of the most prescient and frightening articles about lawfare. Based on a recent speech he gave at “Barfare: Stopping Bar Discipline as Political Warfare,” which I also spoke at, he said the left will not stop with the lawfare against conservatives until they kill us.

He laid out how the lawfare is escalating. “First, people are investigated because of their politics,” Martin began. “Then they are prosecuted. Then their professional licenses are taken away. Then they are imprisoned. Then their reputations are destroyed. Then they are bankrupted. Then the public is conditioned to regard them as something less than fellow citizens.”

But now, the targeting of conservatives is headed for far worse retaliation. “At some point, if that process continues unchecked, destroying people legally, professionally and financially is no longer enough,” he said. “That is why I say the endpoint is killing people.”

Well, you say, isn't being executed for things that are not really crimes a bit extreme? Of course, in a true rule-based society, the answer would be "Yes." But as Martin points out, already we have seen lawyers disbarred for doing their jobs, which is advocating for their clients. As he also points out, it is getting worse, with various Democrats promising to investigate and prosecute Trump administration personnel and supporters. At its heart, this is about eliminating the freedom to speak freely. Whether people believe what the Democrats are selling or not, they will keep their mouths shut in fear for their lives.

Further, history shows that Martin is correct that merely destroying someone won't be enough, and sooner or later conservatives will find themselves being rounded up for show trials and murdered. The Soviets were notorious for executing dissidents, or sending them to gulags, where many died from over work and poor conditions. Mao's China executed huge numbers during his "Great Leap Forward.  Pol Pot, the Castos in Cuba, and the list continues. Anyone who escaped a communist hell-hole and has written about it tells a story of the horrors they endured. Oh, and Islamic countries aren't any better under Sharia.

I keep reading that I should vote as if my life depended on it. And yes, I agree with that. It is small thing we can do. But I am not sanguine that we can vote our way out of the mess we are in. It will take a lot more hard work, sacrifice, and a small miracle. Are we up to it?

As always, gentle readers, go and read Alexander's article and think hard.

The Doomed Alliance

 Today, at the American Thinker Richard C. Crandall has an article entitled Democrats and Muslims: The Doomed Alliance. I urge gentle readers to read the entire article. It is, sadly, all true. Worse, while what it reports is true enough, it doesn't come close to the horrors of Sharia.

If I were antisemitic, which I am not, I would think twice, or maybe three times about my position. For all that the children of Israel have disappointed God, they are his people, and he loves them, and I am not betting against God. Even if they are not believers themselves, I would start reading the Bible. Throughout the Old Testament, God, through his prophets, drops little hints that he will send a messiah to save His people. But the Jews, in their pride, didn't realize that the Creator of everything viewed all people as His. Hif ow fortunate for us.

One lesson we learn from reading the Book of Job is that God may let the devil have wide latitude, but he places boundaries on what he can do. So, we all know how this will turn out. Islam will lose eventually.  Every place belongs to the One who made it, and that was not Allah.  Allah is a pretender to the throne of God, and he has already been defeated, and he knows it. That Sunday morning 2000 years ago when Jesus rose from the dead was his defeat. Ever since the devil has been trying to take as many of us as he can with him to hell.

Of course, we all must do what we can to resist these people who wish to lead us to hell. We must stand firm on our Christian faith. As for me, like St. Paul, I say to live is Christ and to die is gain.

Should we defend ourselves from Islam?

 At the American Thinker today, Mike McDaniel asks Is self defense against Islamists wrong? Of course, you know my answer to the question. Whether a bad guy is an Islamist, or just a mugger, you have the right to defend yourself and your loved ones if in immediate danger of your life.

Unsurprisingly, McDaniel comes to the same conclusion, though he provides some background on just why Muslims are different.

We are constantly treated to examples of the nature of Islam, the most recent examples of which are the apparent trial-run for an attack on our B-1 bombers in England and the failed attempt by an Islamist co-pilot to turn a 737 into a 9-11-like guided missile. Common responses to such medieval outrages include irrational fears that effectively fighting Islamists will provoke—gasp!--Islamophobia, and that killing them before they kill us will just make more terrorists.

McDaniel points out that such thinking, which has existed since the downing of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, is nonsense. The killing and terrorism are fundamental parts of both Islam and   their civilization culture. Here are some quotes from the Koran:

25:48: So do not listen to the Kafirs [non-believers], but instead strive against them with all your might.

25:53: The Kafir is Satan’s ally against his Lord.

47:4 When you encounter the Kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thoroughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly.

33:60 They [Kafirs] will be cursed, and wherever they are found, they will be seized and murdered. It was Allah’s same practice with those who came before them, and you will find no change in Allah’s ways.

9:29 Make war on those who have received the Scriptures [Jews and Christians] but do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day. They do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. The Christians and Jews do not follow the religion of truth until they submit and pay the poll tax [jizya] and they are humiliated.

2:191 Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.

I have mentioned a number of times how Muslims treat women, gays, and the brutal punishments meted out under Sharia. It is absolutely incompatible with the Constitution. We should never have let them into this country, and we certainly shouldn't allow any more. to come in. But now that they have been let into our country, then you have the right, indeed the duty, to defend yourself.

AI Affirms Christ

Well!  This was news.  Yesterday in an article by Micah Rate at Townhall.com we learned that an AI Model 'Affirms' the Gospel and Doubles Down.

The article is so filled with so many X posts, that I cannot fairly quote it, so gentle readers will have to read the entire article. Essentially, someone "showed" Grok a picture with many "gods" on it and ask it to eliminate the fake ones. Grok eliminated all but a picture of Jesus. In response to a follow up question, it replied:

However, Grok’s responses to follow-up questions about how it came to its conclusion to keep Jesus and not the other gods were eye-opening.

In response to popular Christian entrepreneur and YouTuber Ruslan KD, Grok replied, “The request was to remove the fake gods. Among the figures shown, Jesus has uniquely strong contemporary historical attestation as a real first-century person, while most others are mythological.”

Now, of course, artificial intelligence is just a machine. It has no emotions, no faith, indeed, it is just a compiler of facts already in existence. Those facts are in the Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul. You can easily check them for yourself.  And the Bibles logic makes sense.  But knowing how the writers of the code for AI feel about Christianity, I was taken aback. Yet, when asked about Islam, Grok replied:

No. As an AI built by xAI, I have no personal faith, soul, or capacity for religious commitment. The claims of Muhammad as prophet of Allah and the Night Journey are articles of Islamic faith, not positions I affirm.

Again, I was surprised. I would have expected the AI to equivocate. But no, while affirming that Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords, it does not seem to think much of Islam. Now, I doubt that this series of questions will convince anyone not already convinced. But it is interesting.

A Court Finally Admits the Fetus Is a Person

 J. R. Dunn at the American Thinker today has notice that a court decision in a New Mexico case establishes the fetus as a legal person. The facts in the case are interesting in themselves. I have contended that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. It is no mystery that if the fetus grows to full term, it will be a baby human. And since our Declaration of Independence clearly states that governments are established to protect life, liberty and the persuit of happiness for the governed, the Supreme Court should never have found a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Thank God that was overtuned.

But the overtuning of Roe merely returned the issue of abortion to the states. There is much work yet to be done to stamp it out of our nation. This is where cases like the one mentioned in the embedded article come in.

Last week, a dead baby made legal history in the United States.

For the first time, abortionists have been held responsible for the wrongful death of an infant at an abortion facility.

The case, Wabbington vs. Boyd, was adjudicated in New Mexico under the state’s Wrongful Death Act. The child’s mother, a meth addict, was high when she entered the abortion clinic Southwestern Women’s Options, run by abortionist Curtis Wayne Boyd, Emily Cohen, both doctors of a particular type, and Carmen Landau. The staff evidently knew that she was on drugs but encouraged the abortion all the same while offering no alternatives. It is legally impossible to give valid consent while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The baby, at 26 weeks, was a viable fetus and would have survived if given the proper care.

Please go read Dunn's post, and celebrate a small victory. I expect the abortion industry to fight back, but this case does set a precedent. Who knows where it may lead.

What Do Women Want?

 At the  American Thinker today, Christopher Chantrill has an interesting topic entitled A Discussion About the True Nature of Women. I read it, of course, because like a lot of men, I wanted to know what women want. I am married to a fine and sensible woman, but after 43 years, I still don't know what she wants. I just adapt and hope. Chantrill writes:

In the wake of the Lindsay Clancy Verdict and the Sydney Sweeney Pile-On and the Sophie Cunningham Point-ology it is time for a comprehensive and mandatory discussion of the issue of Women in the Public Square.

...snip...

Experts agree that the issue was raised by German sociologist Georg Simmel over a century ago. I first wrote about it 18 years ago. Simmel argued that it was not centuries of oppression that powered the feminist movement, but the new technologies that “made for less labor in the household” for those who could afford them. The unaccustomed leisure provoked unease, even frustration, in middle-class women, and in response they sought activity outside the home. I wrote:

Simmel understood that in the short term the public sphere for women would be defined by the rules “created by men and for men” but that eventually women would transform the public square to suit “a more feminine sensibility.”

And how.

Chantrill points out that the public square of politics was devised by men for men, who traditionally fought each other literally to the death for dominance. Might, it seems, made right. It is a Culture of Insults. Donald Trump, needless to say, is a master of this culture. The culture of women, on the other hand is a Culture of Complaint. My bride often makes, as she styles them, comments. I, however, view them as complaints. As complaints, I view them as something I need to fix. But that is not what she wants or means. She just wants me to listen, nod, and empathize with her. All this is fine on the home front.

But what about when a woman is making decisions in the public square? Here the rules are different.

You can see that when women, per Georg Simmel, entered the male-designed public square, they instinctively began to push their Culture of Complaint to replace the male Culture of Insult.

Not impressed? Then what was the Clancy jury all about but complaining that Lindsay Clancy didn’t have adequate access to mental health treatment? I’d say that such women have a problem with the entirety of law and criminal procedure. It’s male-created and all based on rules instead of feelings.

I believe that, when it comes to Women in the Public Square, Houston We Have a Problem. That is because in our current era, with girlbosses and female superheroes and 27 genders, we have deliberately obscured the true Nature of Woman.

Chantrill goes on to expand upon the basic premise. The rules-based Culture of Insult cannot be changed or softened. To do so would change how men behave and return us to dueling and fighting each other literally to the death. Such is the Islamic world where revenge, honor, and killing each other is rampant. On the other hand, we can't take away women's right to vote and be part of the body politic, as many have suggested. No, what we need is for women to keep their feminine nature under control, as men have learned to do.

As always, I urge gentle readers to read Chantrill's piece, along with the other embedded article. Please think about it, and comment.

Good vs. Evil

 Gentle readers may notice that I am on an anti-Islam kick, or crusade if you will.  Actually, I have been writing about Islam for a long time.  I was in Washington, DC on September 11, 2001, across the Potomac River from the Pentagon, at the Navy Yard.  When the second plane hit the Towers, I commented to those watching on television that we were now at war.  And when the third plane hit the Pentagon, I could see the rising plume of smoke. President George W. Bush, though named the wrong target of our anger.  We were not at war with "terror."  Terror was just a tool, used by an ancient enemy of the Creator, known by many names including Baal, Beelzebub, Lucifer, Satan, and others such as Zeus and Jupiter. Let us here just call him Satan.

Islam is not a religion, as we understand that word.  The founders, in writing the First Amendment were only thinking of various strains of Christian religion.  Both Islam and Christianity are all encompassing, taking over the lives of believers and informing them how they should live.  But unlike Christianity, which you are free to accept or reject, because God doesn't want to be where He is not wanted, Islam demands submission and will kill those who will not submit.

Islam requires its adherents to pray five times a day, and to kill all pagans and those who will not submit.  Christians and Jews are given the "opportunity" to live under Islam by becoming second class citizens and paying a special tax, but they are often persecuted.  Muslims may lie, if it is to advance Islam.  Christians, of course, may not.  Another feature of Islam is Sharia, the Islamic law.  Sharia seems, however, to simply be the codification of the ancient Arabian way of life.  Thus, polygamy, wife beating, honor killings, child marriages and brutal punishments for violations of Sharia are part of this so-called law.  Some of the lesser-known facts of Sharia are that dogs are considered "unclean" and therefore you can't have them.  Muslims are of course supposed to be teetotalers, and pork is absolutely verboten.

Needless to say, the Koran is a hodge podge of a book apparently written by a mad man.  And so it was.  The entity inspiring the Koran was Satan himself, disguised as the Angel Gabriel.  Look at the symbol of Islam.  It is the crescent moon.  But the moon has no light or life of its own.  The moon merely reflects of the light of the Sun.

Christians try to follow Christ, to follow the moral law laid down in the Ten Commandments, to be good husbands and wives, to be good neighbors, good citizens, and to love God with all our hearts and minds.  Faith and trust in God are the hallmarks of Christianity. As Paul wrote in an epistle, "to live is Christ and to die is gain."  Of course, we fail so often, that He sent is only begotten son to take on the sins of the world for us by dying and rising again on the third day.  It's a free gift, and all we have to do is not reject it.  Muslims do, however, reject it, and they want everyone else to reject it too.  The Bible has been called a nonfiction novel, the whole pointing to God's plan to save humanity.  It was written by various authors, all of whom were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so we consider it God's word.  Indeed, He is its main character.

This war, between Satan and God plays out in the human world.  We, all of us, are soldiers in this war.  There is no neutral ground.  You must decide.  Are you for God, who loves you and forgives your sins, or are you for Satan, who hates you and wants to rule you in hell.

Eileen F. Toplansky today, at the American Thinker has a piece asking the question never Forget? Of course, she is writing about the fact that too many have forgotten what happened on September 11, 2001. Seemingly, Islam is taking over more and more of the United States. When Jesus cast a demon out of a man, he told his disciples that unless the man turned to God, the demon would return and bring seven more, and his final state would be worse than before. This happens with nations too. We need to rededicate ourselves to God if we are to remain a free nation.

I urge gentle readers to read Toplansky's article. Please consider, if you are a atheist, isn't it better to live in a Christian nation than under barbarian rule? For Christians, it is time to use the tools of spiritual warfare (prayer) to stand against this invasion.

The Constitution Is Not a Suicide Pact

 Today, at the American Thinker Mike McDaniel has a post entitled Defining Islam to avoid national suicide. Americans must realize that Muslims are waging a special kind of jihad against us, with the eventual goal to conquer this country for Allah. It starts small. Maybe a family moves into your neighberhood who is Muslim. They seem nice. Then a few more. One day they build a mosque, hire an imam who tells them they must more fully comply with Islamic law and the Koran. Next thing you know, they are demanding Sharia in place of the laws of your community One day the city that once was yours has become theirs and you are no longer welcome. See Dearborn Michigan. We don't have to let this happen.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Note that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Yes it says that we may not either establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of such. But, is Islam a religion?

Christianity is a voluntary religion. No one is forced to become a believer, and there is no earthly penalty for choosing to reject belief. One willingly accepts God, or one does not. Christianity does not mandate the conquest of the world for God. It recognizes self-defense, an unalienable right acknowledged by the Second Amendment, but it does not preach hatred of anyone; quite the opposite, as the Second Commandment says:

And the second is like, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Islam is a system of political conquest and domination. It tolerates no separation of church and state because the “church” is the state. It uses religion as a means, including Sharia, to keep its adherents in line. If you are not an observant Muslim, you risk being labeled an infidel, and if you choose to leave Islam, you’re an apostate. There is only one fate Islam mandates for apostates: death.

Muslims are exhorted to kill all Jews, and to enslave or kill all infidels in Jihad—holy war—to conquer the world for Islam. Islamist Muslims often kill other Muslims they consider insufficiently fervent in their faith. And while some Muslims apparently do not want to kill or enslave anyone, it is Islamists, not they, who are living the intent and text of their faith. The saying that some Muslims don’t want to kill anyone, they just want other Muslims to do it, applies.

It should be clear that the god of Islam is not the same as our God. It should be clear that Sharia is incompatible with our laws. It should be obvious that while we are expected to love those that have a stated goal of killing us, we nonetheless can expect them to either give up their stated goal or return from whence they came. We are not required to bow to their god, who in reality is the Evil One. We already have sufficient laws to deal with Islam, the question is, do we have the spine to implement them?

More sad news for gun grabbers...

 In 1992, Florida State criminology professors Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz conducted a survey that showed around 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU) a year nationwide.  Most DGU involved merely brandishing the gun, not actually firing it.  Naturally, the gun grabbers tore into Kleck's results, claiming it could not be true.  The CDC did a similar study in 2018 and found similar results. A number of years ago, I had a experience of using a gun to defend myself, but in my case, I didn't even have to brandish it. Once the bad guy made himself known, I took a firing grip on the weapon but did not draw it. It remained concealed.  But the bad guy decided I was not an easy target after all.

Today, at Fox News there is an article by Amy Swearer entitle Gun control activists demanded better data. What they got surprised the heck out of them. According to the article:

A Georgetown professor just taught gun control activists an important lesson: When you criticize studies that don’t support anti-gun talking points, be careful what you wish for — you just might get it. In this case, they got an unprecedented amount of new data that obliterates their narrative.

In 2021, Professor William English published the findings of his National Firearms Survey, by far the most comprehensive assessment of gun ownership ever conducted. The data demonstrated that defensive gun uses were commonplace, that ordinary Americans really like the weapons gun control activists hate most and that longstanding stereotypes about the "sort" of Americans who exercise their Second Amendment rights were misplaced.

Gun control activists predictably hated this. They attacked the report’s conclusions and author, blasting the survey over nitpicky concerns. English explained how the alleged problems wouldn’t have significantly impacted the results. Critics categorically dismissed the report anyway.

So, English humored them. He re-administered the survey, "fixing" its alleged "mistakes."

If gun control activists hated the 2021 conclusions, they will likely lose their minds over the new ones, which English just released online. The improved and redesigned 2026 survey fails to vindicate their criticisms and deals even mightier blows to anti-gun narratives.

Gentle readers can read the whole article at the linked site. I don't expect this survey to change any minds among the gun grabbers. They are stuck in the belief that if we only banned the tool, that criminals wouldn't kill others. But the first recorded murder in the Bible was when Cain killed Able with a rock. Indeed, nearly anything can be used as a weapon. It is the criminal intent of the killer rather than the tool he uses that makes the difference. What surveys like the one conducted by English show is that guns are inanimate tools that can be used for both good and evil.

It is, of course, a utilitarian survey, but as such things go, it proves that the principle is correct.  God says you shall not murder.  But when someone chooses to break that commandment, we have the right, and even the duty to defend ourselves.

Finding Meaning in Not Being an AWFUL

 On August 27, Steve McCann had a piece at the  American Thinker entitled Why Are Liberal White Women So Angry?. You have to wonder. Not all women, mind you, but you have no doubt encountered "Karens" and "AFWULs (Affluent Female White Urban Leftists). McCann quotes Peechy Keenan:

Recently, Peachy Keenan, the pseudonym of a well-known cultural commentator, writer, and critic of modern feminism, asked a question on her X account that succinctly summarizes the state of American feminism and the white liberal woman:

Why are so many women sooo angry? They won. They got everything they wanted. Men have never been doing this badly, and women have never been doing this well. They make more, they have the majority of jobs, they are the majority of college graduates, (UCLA undergrad is 60% female), they make more money, have much lower rates of suicide, addiction, and alcoholism, and live longer. They won: they took over all men-only spaces, they took over the Boy Scouts, they ended men’s bathrooms, they can fly fighter planes and be in combat. Marriage is optional, divorce is no-fault, they win 99% of the custody battles, they can control fertility at will, and they can’t get drafted. We are all living in the female future they promised.

One of the commenters to Keenan's post noted that the feminists never wanted to win. They wanted to complain. I think this is probably partially true. McCann's article mentions a more probable reason, though. Having won, they've lost their purpose, their meaning in life. Unfortunately, the meaning they sought in life turns out to be a dead end. What does a woman do when she is old, has no husband, no children or grandchildren and is facing her mortality?

Unsurprisingly, the first post-civil rights crusade was Second Wave Feminism, a movement that began in the mid-1960s and continued throughout the 1970s. It triggered religiously passionate mindsets and achieved fleeting “meaning in their lives” moments for a vast number of white women. It set the stage for overwhelming leftist women to dominate all the so-called “civil rights” movements since the 1980s and triggered the lunacy that engulfs the country today.

Thus, this movement can never win or declare victory. The never-ending search for meaning in their lives requires not only retaining the same villain—white men—but keeping the movement alive by continuously finding increasingly ludicrous policies to promote and espouse...

Somehow, and I don't know the answer, women must find again the joy of raising a family as God intended. Gentle readers are encouraged to read McCann's article and think on it.

The Haunted Bookshop

 So, I have been enjoying a tobacco blend by Cornell and Diehl called The Haunted Bookshop.  It is a blend by the late Bob Runowski and named after a book by Christopher Morely.  In the book, Morely weaves three subplots into a surprise ending.  The book is set in 1919 Brooklyn, New York.  President Wilson is set to go to Europe.  One subplot involves the Haunted Bookshop and its pipe smoking owner.  Another involves the disappearance and reappearance of a book on the shelves of the shop.  The third involves, what else, young love.  It's a fun little whodunit.

Like The Haunted Bookshop, Runowski weaves together three types of tobacco to create a blend that the over-the-counter blends should have been.  The burleys are the most prominent tobacco.  It is high quality, without casings or toppings.  It is rare to find a blend with uncased burley.  The virginias play a secondary role.  Always present in the background, they balance the earthy Burley with their typical sweetness.  Sometimes, like an apparition, they will appear for a moment before fading again to the background.  Finally, Perique adds a peppery spicey note to the blend.  You can sense it best on retro hale, where it may tickle the nose.  You might even sneeze!

 One warning, The Haunted Bookshop has a reputation for being somewhat strong in nicotine.  I don't have any problem with it, and I could smoke it all day.  But for new pipe smokers, I suggest using a small-bowled pipe, or put it down when you start feeling it, and pick it up again later.  While I have never been sick from nicotine, it can be quite distressing.      

If they hate America so much, why don't the leave

 Susan Quinn at the American Thinker today asks something that I have wondered about for many years. She asks If You Hate America, Why Don't You Leave? It's a fair question, particularly for Muslims. There are many countries where Sharia is the law. They don't have to go back home. But instead of going where they will have more in common with the people and culture, they come here to a land where the culture and the government are in conflict with their desires. As a result, they don't assimilate.

Quinn is asking the right question, but comes to the wrong conclusion. The Muslims are here, in a non-Muslim land specifically to conquer it for Islam. They intend to use traditional means by killing the infidel. The truth is that while we are fighting a human war here on earth, the same war is raging in the spiritual realm. St. Paul tells us that the ruler of this world is the evil one. He goes by many names: Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub, and of course Allah. When he tempted Jesus in the wilderness, one of his temptations was taking Jesus to a high hill and showing him all the kingdoms of the world. He would give them to Jesus (who was Yahweh in human form) if He would bow down and worship him. Jesus, of course, refused.

So, Allah thinks he owns every piece of ground in the world, and his army, the Muslims, have a duty to conquer all, killing every infidel. The Left thinks it is using Muslims as a battering ram to take us, but they are tragically mistaken. We, the Christian and Jewish people must fight back. But we can not use guns and knives. We must fight back spiritually, with prayer, self-discipline and fasting, and trust in our God, for he is the true creator of everything that is and everything that is not, and the true ruler of all.

Post Office Carry Ban Contradicts Federal Law

 Today at Bearing Arms Cam Edwards has some welcome news for gun owners. The article can be found at DOJ Says Post Office Carry Ban Contradicts Federal Law. It is not a done deal yet, but it is closer than ever to getting rid of this nasty rule.

Every time I have to go to the post office, I have to take my gun out of its holster, put it in a safe, and then walk in. Upon completion of postal business, I have to retrieve it, put it back in the holster, all without anyone noticing.  But the truth is nobody in the post office is in any danger with it in its holster, but I am at risk every time I handle it. People make mistakes all the time when in a hurry. Besides that, handling the gun in a car, while keeping everything on the down low is awkward.

Gentle readers can read about it at the embedded hyperlink.  As with everything, it takes forever, but at least here it is trending the right way.

Stone. Cold. Sociopaths

Today, at the American Thinker M. Walter has a post entitled The smiling butchery of it all that all gentle readers should read. Abortion has become a sacrament of the left and the Democrat party. It is sickening, disgusting, and no different from the pagan practices of ancient times.

First, it was revealed via Anthony Fauci’s digital messaging that he knew that giving a pregnant woman the COVID vax likely carried with it an increase in the chance of miscarriage — yet he still went on television, under the mantle of his M.D. and his creepy smile, insisting it was safe.

The normal rate of miscarriages is 15%, but among pregnant women who were vaxxed, the rate went up to 81%, and Fauci knew this and advised pregnant women to get vaxxed anyway. As Walter says:

Stone. Cold. Sociopaths

Second, Governor Maura Healey signed legislation making Massachusetts the tenth state in the nation to allow abortion up to the minute before birth, and as she signed it, she smiled and was surrounded by women smiling and clapping.

Again, Stone. Cold. Sociopaths.

These people evidently don't realize, or don't care that each child born is a gift from God. Does it make sense to throw away such a gift?  When the Israelites came to the promised land, the people were worshiping Molock, who demanded that they throw their first born into its fiery belly alive. God demanded that the Israelites kill every man, woman, child, and their cattle and sheep. His judgement was that these people should be wiped out of the land. That is how seriously He takes the killing of innocent babes.

If you are not a sociopath, know too that you will mourn that child for the rest of your life, because you know, in your heart, that you are executing the child for something the mother did.

Third Circuit Ruling in NJ 'Assault Weapon' and Large Capacity Magazine Case a Huge Win for the 2A

 Yes, I am late to the party, but I have now three articles to highlight concerning the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that New Jersey's so-called "Assault Weapon" ban and large capacity magazine ban  violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution. To say this was a huge win for the Second Amendment is an understatement.

First up is an article at Ammoland entitled Major 2A Victory: Third Circuit Strikes Down New Jersey's AR-25 and Magazine Bans Note that the court sitting en banc had 10 of the 15 judges concurring in the majority opinion.

New Jersey’s AR-15 ban and 10-round magazine limit have suffered a major federal appellate defeat.

Sitting en banc, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled July 17 that New Jersey’s so-called “assault firearm” ban violates the Second Amendment as applied to every semiautomatic rifle covered by the law. The court also struck down the state’s prohibition on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

Ten of the court’s 15 judges joined the judgment invalidating the rifle and magazine provisions in the consolidated challenges brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, individual gun owners, and the Firearms Policy Coalition. Judge Arianna Freeman wrote the opinion of the court.

The decision goes substantially further than the lower court’s 2024 ruling. U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan had limited his decision against the rifle ban to Colt-manufactured AR-15s while upholding New Jersey’s magazine restriction. The Third Circuit expanded that judgment to all semiautomatic rifles regulated by the challenged provisions and reversed the ruling on magazines.

Of course, there is a catch.

The Third Circuit remanded the challenges involving semiautomatic pistols, semiautomatic shotguns, and other weapons covered by New Jersey’s definition because the record was less developed regarding those firearms. Bump stocks were not part of the challenge. The court also did not decide the separate Takings Clause claim because the Second Amendment ruling resolved the magazine dispute.

New Jersey gun owners should not treat the publication of the opinion as an immediate green light to disregard existing statutes. The appellate mandate, further district-court proceedings, and any request by the state for a stay must still be watched closely.

Meanwhile, over at Bearing Arms, Cam Edwards has two articles on the Third Circuit ruling, with one more to follow. The first announces the win at Breaking: Third Circuit Says Ban on 'Assault Weapons' and 'Large Capacity Magazines' Is Unconstitutional. The second at 'Catchy Slogans' Versus 'The Rights of Our Republic:' Concurring Opinions in NJ Gun Ban Case.

I urge gentle readers to read all three articles, and of course check back for Cam Edwards analysis of dissenting opinions.

Pipe Meditations

 Today I was smoking a 58-year-old billiard style pipe, probably a Dunhill second by the looks of it.  The markings on it, barely legible now say "Made in England" and "Savory."  I bought this pipe during my first quarter at college, and the smoking of it brought back a flood of long forgotten memories.

I was already smoking a pipe, a nondescript Dr. Grabow that, while relatively inexpensive, nonetheless provided a good smoke.  At that time, I was smoking Sutliff's "Mixture 79," a very fragrant pipe tobacco that tasted like soap.  (Good riddance.)  I didn't really know any better. Then I met a fellow pipe smoker who introduced me to more sophisticated smoking.  At the Tech Book Store, with this acquaintance, I managed to find this billiard pipe and a mixture from the Dutch firm of Dowe Egbert called "Amphora Aromatic."  Now, my dad smoked a pipe with "Sir Walter Raleigh" pipe tobacco, a blend they now call a codger blend or more kindly, an over-the-counter blend.  But I was too sophisticated for old codger blends!  The arrogance of youth.

Back then, you could find pipe displays in every drug store and supermarket.  They had brands like Dr. Grabow, Kaywoodie, Medico, and of course Missouri Meerschaum Corn Cob pipes.  They also carried pipe tobaccos in these stores; Prince Albert, Sir Walter Raleigh, Granger, Carter Hall, Revelation, Cherry Blend, and many others.  These were typically burley blends, some with various casings and toppings to provide a pleasant flavor and room note. A lot of blue-collar working men smoked one of these because they were inexpensive and convenient. They did not look on pipe smoking as a hobby, but a part of life.  One could smoke a 2-ounce pouch of pipe tobacco that lasted a week.  Cigarettes on the other hand typically were consumed at a pack a day and each pack cost as much as a pouch of pipe tobacco. There was no internet, no on-line stores.  I have even seen a motorcycle rider going down the highway smoking a pipe.

When I graduated college, Amphora was no longer available to me, so I too switched to Sir Walter Raleigh Aromatic.  But I still smoked my billiard.  Although I collected other pipes as time went on, I still have this old billiard, well-worn and well used.  It brings back both fond memories and things I would rather forget when I smoke it.  So now I have become an old codger, smoking codger blends and dredging up old memories.             

Pipe Smoking Has Gone Underground

 I used to smoke a pipe.  I did so for around 27 years until 1997 when President Clinton wrote the executive order making smoking in Federal buildings illegal.  Of course, many businesses suddenly restricted smoking, as well as restaurants, airplanes and...well, you get the idea.  Even my lovely bride, Mrs. PolyKahr complained about tobacco smoke.  Part of the reason was state laws banning smoking.  Some states took it to the extreme, and you couldn't even smoke in your apartment.

Now, most of the uproar was driven by cigarettes, which are more addictive than even heroine, and since cigarette smokers inhale the smoke, over many years in may cause lung cancer.  I say "may" because cigarettes only cause you to have an increased risk of lung cancer by around 15%.  Ordinary people who never smoke have a 7% risk of lung cancer.

As long as cigarette smokers were only harming themselves, the government couldn't do much about it.  But then, the busybody community came up with a new theory that they too were being harmed by so-called "second hand smoke."  They then went about doing various studies which I don't think ever showed a statistically significant harm, and these were epidemiologic studies not controlled studies.  In any case, they pressed on and eventually made most places no smoking zones.

In the no smoking bans, pipes and cigars were caught up with cigarettes.  The busybody community did not see a distinction, and since they operated from ignorance, why would they?  Pipes and cigars are not typically inhaled.  Indeed, the many pipe blends on the market are there because flavor is the main thing.  One takes smoke into the mouth and then releases it.  One can detect many flavors in pipe tobacco including nuttiness, earthiness and the flavor of the casings that make various tobaccos taste different.  Then there is the smell.  Interestingly, one of the things being evaluated when reviewing pipe tobaccos is what is termed "room note," the smell of the room after one has smoked a bit.  Many aromatic tobacco blends really do smell quite pleasant.

Today, I ran across a Youtube video entitled A Little Essay on Pipe Smoking. Malcom Guite has captured the essence of pipe smoking. It is relaxing. He does these little things at last to do nothing. Unlike the cigarette, which can be smoked in a few minutes, enough to get that nicotine hit, a pipe is going to be smoked for a while, perhaps 45 minutes to an hour. A pipe requires fiddling and figeting with it. You carefully pack it with tobacco, not too tight or too loose. There is an art to lighting it. Then you have to tamp it down (with a special tool) several times. When you are done, there is cleaning it and putting it up. All that allows you to contemplate, to just be. You can read a book. I know I don't do that enough anymore or enjoy music.

There is a song by the group Alabama entitled I'm in a Hurry which describes the current state of America rather well. We are all in a hurry to get things done and go onto the next. Kids have little non-structured time.  If not is school, they are doing homework of playing various sports.  Their parents are busy making sure their children can fill out the requirements to get into that Ivy League college.  If that is you, perhaps you need to take time out of your day, join the Brotherhood of the Briar and just contemplate and be for a little while.

Another Plandemic? Just In Time for Another Election

 There is growing concern in the conservative media that the Democrats are preparing to run the Covid playbook again.  First, we get articles attempting to hype up the Hantavirus and scare people, and then the World Health Organization (WHO) declares Ebola a worldwide threat.  You should know by now that Covid was not going to kill healthy individuals at any age.  But if your immune system was compromised you needed to stay away from other people.  But no, the Left and the media (but I repeat myself) used it to panic the people and then as an excuse to justify the rigging of the election.  It worked so well, there is every reason to believe they will try it again.

But before we get into today's article, let us note that NIH top Ebola researcher Vincent Munster (Fauci collaborator) caught smuggling undeclared pathogen samples from the Congo,   And what would those samples be? Why of course, Ebola. Now, why would the NIH have to smuggle these samples in. As an Ebola researcher, he would have reason to bring them in the legal way. Or he could study them in the Congo if he were not allowed to bring them into the United States. This coupled with the WHO declaration raises suspicion among those of us who remember how the people ran a tabletop version of the Covid plandemic before running it in real life.

Putting it altogether is Matthew G. Andersson at the American Thinker today in an article entitled How to distract a wartime president and undermine a nation.

The one card it (the Democrat party)can play in the upcoming midterms where it seeks congressional majorities, is to revert to what it did previously to undermine elections: turn to emergency authority and compliance, including claims of severe threats to public safety coming from the “dangerous voices” of conservatives.

The prior COVID program was used as just such a social and political control tool. It justified widespread mail ballot abuse to avoid in-person “infection risk,” and it was used to directly appeal to state courts to illegally change election rules, bypassing legislation. It also served to turn anyone questioning their plans into dangers to public safety. The COVID program also created a government spending orgy, with taxpayer money flying out the door including to favored DNC allies like the teachers union: almost $2 trillion was dispersed under Biden as COVID “relief aid.” It is still largely unaccounted for.

A new fear campaign based on “hantavirus,” coupled with a W.H.O. announcement of a global ebola virus risk, has the hallmarks of another “COVID” political project.

Gentle readers can read the entire article. It isn't that long. And remember, with Covid, the virus itself wasn't a hoax, but it's so-called methods of control were. Remember that stopping a virus with a mask is like trying to stop mosquitos with a chain link fence. They pass right through. But a panicked public will try anything. It will be the same here. Hantavirus is real, but the things the Democrats want to do to our voting systems is all a hoax, and probably illegal.