Hard History Coming

I have been getting reoriented since my return on Sunday. But things continue to be busy around PolyKahr Estates, so I have had limited time. One thing I have been paying some attention to is the debt ceiling debate, in which our "brave" Republicans have once again capitulated and given the Left what it wants for a mess of pottage.  So, it was with interest that I noted that my friend, fellow blogger, and Conservative Examiner, Anthony Martin posted a piece on Saturday entitled Why Bloody Civil War is Inevitable. Go read the whole piece, including the links. I'll wait.  Then read the Curmudgeon Emeritus's post at Eternity Road entitled The Short Route to Chaos. Notice some similarities?

On Sunday, Anthony had to publish again to make clear he was not calling for civil war, but felt in was inevitable. You can read that here. I was particularly disgusted by the comments left by on the Examiner site by "Glenn Wright" who frankly looked to be a troll trying to provoke someone...anyone... into careless words that he could take and say "See, see! They are plotting to overthrow the government!" Today I read at the Summer Patriot, Winter Soldier site the following:

it seems to me inevitable that we fight them. it is because they are our enemies, as surely as vladimir putin, as sure as ahmadinejad. we owe them no apology for our views, and we should back away from them not one iota, and give them not one peppercorn's consideration.

There are, in fact, many other sites where one will find expressions like this. To a man or woman, all express the fear that a civil war is inevitable because otherwise, liberty will be wiped out on the face of the earth.  In a former time, one could emigrate to America.  But now there is no place to run.  Those who desire freedom to live their lives without some dictator telling them at every turn what he will and will not allow, will have no choice but to stand and fight, or accept slavery for themselves and their children, grand children, and all future generations.  For too long, liberty loving individuals have been giving up ground to the loony Left. It is as if we were in a primitive tribe who gives into mad man rather than provoke him, because nobody knows what he will do next.

On guns, to take one issue, we have caved, and capitulated our way to where we were back in the 1990s, when the concealed carry movement really got rolling. If gun rights activists became radicalized, it was because it was only by being radical that they made any progress regaining our former rights. I remember GCA 68, though I was in high school at the time.  All the wise men recommended appeasing the mad men because society was coming apart, "riots everywhere you know, we can't let them have guns too. It's only a small infringement on our rights, after all.  Who knows what they will do."  But once they got GCA 68, there were further demands, always more demands to "compromise" and "be reasonable" yet again.  But we began to see that we were not being asked to compromise, but to capitulate, and we began to follow Jesse Helms advice:

“Compromise, hell! … If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?”

"By any means necessary" is not just a slogan, but a modus operandus with the Left.  It was telling to me that one of the guests interviewed on Andrew Napolitano's show, Freedom Watch, Friday let slip the remarkable statement that they needed to cut a deal to raise the debt ceiling because they feared Obama would actually not send out Social Security checks or pay the troops!  If true, the President can be said not to be merely fear mongering, but committing economic terrorism on vulnerable Americans.  And what does that say about who cares more about grandma?  The "we care more" party is willing to hold Grandma hostage until they get their debt ceiling raised, because spending more is all that counts with them!

The great majority of Americans consider themselves some brand of conservative, while only 20 percent consider themselves Leftists.  Typical of conservatives, they have been slow to react to the foreign invasion of a European philosophy called Marxism.  It has not helped that the Marxist have hidden themselves behind false flags and innocuous sounding names.  But America is waking up, at the 11th hour.  It appears that the Left is currently in control of all the cards.  We just have ourselves, our faith and our guns.  So be it.  Our side is through capitulating.  With Jesse Helms, we say "Compromise, hell..."  Of course, that will not satisfy the mad men.  They have taken everything else, but the want our freedom and liberty too.  So, yes, there will be bloody civil war.  I am not calling for it, I just don't see any way to stop it, barring a miracle.  Don't shoot the messenger.

Yet Another "Can't We Just Compromise" Article

Around these parts, Senator Jesse Helms is remember fondly for his conservatism and his no compromise style. Helms was the longtime Senator from North Carolina. He is reported to have scream at opponents:

“Compromise, hell! … If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?”

The answer to Senator Helms question is, of course, "No!", just in case anyone had any doubts. So it was with a growing sense of anger that I read in the Huffington Post an editorial by Paul Clolery entitled Intelligent People with Opposing Ideas Can Compromise. He is, naturally, writing about the need to new gun control laws. My answer to him is the same as Jesse Helms answer was: Compromise hell.

I must admit that Clolery brings up some of the memes more subtlety than do many of the articles I read. For example, after a little history lesson about the duel between Hamilton and Burr, he points out that the founders could not imagine multi-shot weapons. Really? I give our Founders more credit for imagining the possibility of modern technology than does Clolery, but just to pop his bubble a bit, pepperbox pistols were already extant at that time, though not many were in use. I am sure some of the founders were aware of them.  If they were aware, I am sure they thought about how these could be used in the future by militia members to great advantage.

Then there's the "Second Amendment was an after thought" meme. Of course, that would mean the First Amendment was an after thought too, and there goes the freedom of the press. Where this meme falls down is that in order to get the ratification of some States, promises were made to immediately amend the document to include a bill of rights. Unlike politicians today who make promises they never intend to keep, Madison intended to keep the promise, and it was his first priority in the new Congress. So, no, the first ten Amendments were not an after thought, but an integral part of the ratification of the Constitution.

The definition of "compromise" includes the idea of a quid pro quo. In other words, we each get something. But I don't see were you are offering one of your basic rights up for grabs. My answer is always "compromise, hell," but since you insist on a "compromise" then you should be willing to give up a fundamental right as precious to you as the right to keep and bear arms is to me.

Since Mr. Clolery likes history so much, he can see the time line of Gun Control here. I would note that for all of these infringements on our Second Amendment rights, the only thing offered up is the vague promise that somehow we'll be a little safer. Of course, we didn't ask the Government to make us safer. Like the TSA grope-athons, they did that all on their own without asking us after a few newspaper editors ginned up a hew and cry. And, as it turns out, like the TSA grope-athons, not one of these laws made us any safer. You can read all about it in John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime.

So, I ask again, what fundamental right are you willing to offer up?  How about this. If we pass this further infringement on our rights, you agree not to vote in any future election. Indeed, the Government would collect the names of everyone who advocated for the infringement, or who voted for it in Congress. If an anti-gun member of Congress voted for it, all who voted for him can be presumed to have voted for it as well. This list of people would then be stricken from the voting lists, and would be barred from ever voting again. Their children would also be barred, and their children, and so forth. You, and your children and grand children would forever be barred. You, and all your family will never have a say in any future undertakings of this Nation. That's compromise. You want the illusion of safety? That's my price, and no less.  Your children will curse you forever, but then mine would curse me forever if I allowed any further infringement of our rights as well.

Two from the American Thinker

There are two articles up today at the American Thinker that I wanted to highlight to my readers. The first is Political Extremism, Left and Right by Bruce A. Riggs. I am always impressed when I read an article by someone who "gets it." This is such an article.  While the Marxist theory seems to be a beautiful idea on the surface-from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs-it ultimately ignores human nature and can only be sustained by a totalitarian system.  To Alinsky's "make them live by their own rule book" I say "you first," because they always fail to live up to their promises.  Let's look at a quote:

It requires a totalitarian state because it is a delusional quest to return man to an egalitarian herd from which he evolved thousands of years ago. And as the history of the twentieth century shows, humanity rebels against such coerced devolution. Marx's elimination of private property coincidentally strips incentives to produce. The result is social decay to a dismal level of perpetual shortages and shared poverty -- just ask the citizens who stood in the endless bread lines of the former USSR.

The radical Left's denial of human nature carries with it the arrogant assumption that humans are little more than replicated androids content to do whatever government mandates. This is simply elitist wishful thinking which projects sheep-like docility on independent beings which are more feline than bovine in nature -- and you can't herd cats.

The revolutionary socialists' road to its egalitarian fantasy world is less about achieving an altruistic "social justice" than it is about pursuing a self-serving, compulsive quest for personal redemption: The revolutionists denied human nature at work. It is a zealotry which, history shows, has led to the perverse belief that wholesale executions, killing fields, mass starvations, and forced-labor gulags are perfectly legitimate, even necessary, means of creating the perfect socialist world. These slaughters were done solely to extinguish the educated, innovative, entrepreneurial, productive "bourgeoisie" -- the "greedy" middle class whose existence was/is intolerable to the priesthood of this ostensibly egalitarian, if murderous, Collectivist ethos.

You will notice also, in all the discussion, that Marxism is a materialistic theory, as is Capitalism. But here's the difference: Marxism requires you to give up your God, and to view the State as a god. Capitalism leaves that entirely up to you. Soviet Russia was an actively atheistic State. The Communists did not entirely get rid of the Church, but it was suppressed with regulations and spies.  A lot of people who might have been drawn to the Church were kept out by fear.  The Churches were also prevented from satisfying the social needs of their communities, as they do here.  The State didn't want anyone showing it up, least of all the Church.  So, if you were brave, you could "worship" but you couldn't practice your religion.  Practicing Christianity means discipleship, which inevitably leads to providing social services for those in need.  Hitler took a different approach.  He solved the problem by substituting a pagan State wherein the pagan sources from which he cobbled together his "religion" supported the Nazi ideology.  But many pastors and priests were jailed and killed for speaking out. 

Man is more than his physical needs.  Indeed, to see man as only a collection of physical needs is to see him as only an animal.  But then, maybe that's why they see no moral impediment to killing millions of people.  After all, don't we destroy those animals among our stock which don't meet the physical characteristics, and don't have the proper temperament?  Seeing human beings as a collection of physical wants, needs and appetites leads to seeing them as essentially farm animals, and worth about as much when they can no longer perform for you.  We used to call that slavery.

Next up is an article entitled A Clear and Present Danger: Obama, a 'Living Constitution' and 'Positive Rights' by Monte Kuligowski.

We're not talking about the Constitution's enumerated functions of the federal government; we're talking about reading into the Constitution a list of positive rights which satisfy leftist notions of "political and economic justice."

and

Lost on the left, however, is the fact that the Bill of Rights was enacted to protect the states from central control. In spite of history and context, the U.S. Supreme Court has long since turned the amendments passed to protect the states against the states. The Warren Court ran wild in that abuse, telling the states and their localities what they couldn't do -- by overturning timeless speech and religious traditions of the people and effectively nationalizing political correctness.

Go read the whole thing. For myself, I need to go harvest some grass.

The Ministry of Truth

John Griffing has another article on the Cass Sunstein's proposal to limit bloggers free speech entitled Ministry of Truth, Obama Style at the American Thinker today. I previously reported about it here. At that time I said:

Well, boo hoo. It's called journalism, and is protected under the First Amendment.

Let me also say that I am not going to stop calling this Administration fascist (a term that has been misused by the left since I can remember to describe other Presidents, and pretty much anyone else they didn't like.) This time, it seems to to me to be a pretty accurate fit. Lefties have been shutting down debate whenever they can not win the argument with facts, which is most of the time. So, if Obama wants to sign an Executive Order making Sunstein's little tirade "law," it will simply prove what I and others have said all along. I will not shut up.

For more on what exactly Fascism is, see Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism.

The Liberty Sphere: Stealth Congress-Obama Scheme in Shadows

The Welshman has the scoop on what is flying under the radar in The Liberty Sphere: Stealth Congress-Obama Scheme in Shadows . Naturally, it is nothing good. So called "hate crimes" are thinly disguised attempts to require opponents to sit down and shut up. Now let's be clear. When you arguably steal elections which makes peoples votes not count, and then refuse to prosecute those cases as Eric Holder did recently with the Black Panthers, when you pass laws to make speaking out crime, when you appoint judges who make a mockery of the rule of law, you don't leave those who take their (former) liberties seriously much choice.

Homeland Security Bumbles-This Time

Over at Eternity Road, The Beach Girl has a post about the Homeland Security Paper citing essentially anyone on the right side of the aisle as an enemy of the state.

Lovely.

As publicity about the existence of this paper has spread, it has riled up an awful lot of the people. At Tuesday night's pipe club meeting (yes, a bunch of men get together and smoke pipes, discuss tobacco, and generally enjoy the camaraderie, while we are still allowed to) there was much talk of being "on the list." Glenn Beck mentioned it on his program. Townhall has had outraged articles appearing all week. The latest are from Michael Reagan and Debra J. Saunders. George Will, meanwhile, writes that everybody needs to stop wearing blue jeans.

I suspect that the next time the Administration of The One decides to produce such drivel, that the "thugocracy" will be more circumspect in hiding what it is doing. But I fully expect it will not stop. People invested in an idea seldom ask themselves if maybe, just maybe, there may be a better way.

Trigger Angry Professors Need Psychological Evaluation

Mike Adams has an excellent article up today on Townhall.com entitled "Trigger Angry." Mike examines the the case of Central Connecticut State University student John Wahlberg, who had the temerity give a speech on the merits of student concealed carry in response to an assignment by Professor Paula Anderson. After class, Wahlberg found himself facing police interrogation, using information that they should not have been able to get their hands on. A quote from the article:

Professor Anderson’s actions were outrageous, partly because the questions police asked were so invasive. Imagine police presenting a gay professor with a list of his sex partners and then reminding him that sodomy is against the law. But, wait, sodomy is a constitutional right. Wahlberg was talking about gun ownership.

And:

I have to ask the obvious: Does Professor Anderson think discussing sex makes one a rapist? Would she take seriously anyone who held such a view? Should anyone who discusses sex be hauled into the police station, reminded that rape is illegal, and asked whether every sex act he had was consensual?

Go read the whole thing.

Government has a Free Speech Right?

Over at the New Republic (Yes, I occasionally read TNR. Surprised?) Alan Wolfe
has an article excoriating the Supreme Court for really bad reasoning in a case involving one of our Natural Rights, free speech.

First off, I would put the 10 Commandments up against anything that another religion could come up with in terms of stating what our duties are to God and to one another. For those who are afraid the Lord would not be amused, I think he had plenty of time to work them out, and he might well say "bring on your seven aphorisms." Just sayin'.... But, to the point, neither corporations, nor governments can have rights. Individuals people have rights.

Yet more signs that things are unravelling.

No We Won't

Laura Hollis has a wonderful article up today. You can read it all here, and I encourage each one to read it, think about it, and ask ourselves how we can say to those who would be our masters, "No We Won't."

This may seem a complete non sequitur to people frantic about the disappearance of a trillion dollars down a rabbit hole. But that money isn’t spent yet. The 2010 elections could change things dramatically. But throwing the hypocritical spendthrift bums out of Congress (and they wrote this bill, not Obama) is dependent upon American’s access to truthful information. This, for the moment therefore, is the most critical fight.

Rick Santelli's now infamous "rant" on CNBC proves my point. It was the first sign of hope I’ve seen in months. And I am not alone (if the 1.7 million hits to CNBC’s website are any indication). Santelli tapped into a huge and powerful vein of public sentiment Mary Kate Cary in U.S. News and World Report called Santelli’s opinion, “the elephant in the room.” (Now there’s an image message-seeking Republicans should be able to relate to.)

Desperate times call for desperate measures. We can not just sit back and let our country be taken over by these people. We have a duty to our progeny to preserve Freedom and Liberty as birthrights for future generations of Americans.

Common Interests

Emmett Tyrell has a good column out today, that you can read on Townhall.com. Go ahead and read it first.

Tyrell's topic is the free speech clause in the First Amendment, arguably the most important of our Civil Rights. Whether a person is a Conservative, or a Communist, the ability to speak one's mind without fear of Government reprisals is fundamental. The First Amendment protects everyone.

Similarly, the Second Amendment has served to protect all of us from armed revolution. Since no one group has been able to secure for itself a majority of the arms in this nation, all have been forced to get what they want through the political system. (Some may argue that the Civil War was an armed rebellion. In fact, the Civil War represented traditional State on State warfare. The Confederacy had no plans to take over the United States, but rather formed a separate nation with the intent of going their own way. While it is true the Confederacy fired the first shot, that act was provoked by the United States blockading the Charleston harbor. What would Russia do if the US suddenly blockaded St. Petersburg?)

This nation has been blessedly free of the sort of bloody reprisals and retributions that have plagued other countries, not because we are made of better stuff, but because our Bill of Rights has generally been honored on both sides. But now we see more and more that one side, in this case the Left, is trying to silence us through the unFairness Doctrine, hate crime laws, speech codes, and to disarm us through outrageous laws that infringe on our Civil Rights. It seems right now that the Statesmen have been driven from office, leaving a greedy bunch of thugs in their place. Dark and dangerous times ahead. If you believe in God, pray for our country. I know I will be.

In the FUSA (Former United States of America)

Breda has a post about Friday the 13th of February. Go read it here. A quote from the piece is in order:

And to everyone who voted to enslave the freest people on earth...

I curse you. 48% of of your countrymen curse you. Future generations will curse you. Your own descendants will curse you.

Leave it to an Irish woman to know how to place a curse on someone.

Thoughts on the Bailout

A lot has been written explaining, apologizing, condemning, or praising the various bailouts that have raised our collective debt some $7 trillion. Michelle Malkin adds to the confusion surrounding bailouts with this piece, that proves you just can't satire leftists. Anything you come up with as a joke will soon be offered by these guys with a straight face.

Case in point, the newspapers in Connecticut are complaining that not enough readers are buying their papers, so they want a bailout too. Really, this is apparently no joke. It just boggles the mind that the newspapers, and other media, who gave us a choice between John McCain and Barack Obama, then made sure no one would know who the heck Barack Obama actually is, while allowing Obama to make pretty much any charge against McCain without challenge, just don't have enough subscribers anymore. Gee, who would have thunk it!

These newspapers deserve to fail. A lot of other newspapers deserve to fail as well. When a business that depends on advertising fails to provide anything to attract half the potential audience, it is not surprising that half the audience just might go elsewhere for their news.

Conservatives have nothing similar to the "fairness doctrine" to force media to include conservative content, and frankly it would go against our principles to enforce such a thing if we did have it. The only way we can change how the newspapers present the news is by voting with our pocketbooks. If enough newspapers fail, perhaps they will get the message. But they won't get it if government keeps bailing them out.

I can't help but feel that the same thing might be said about all the other bailouts being offered right now.

Declaration of Non-compliance

It has been a slow news week. Also, we have had friends over for much of the week, and preparing for Thanksgiving has taken up a huge share of my time as well.

This posting over at Mindful Musings caught my attention. Go read it, then come back.

Read it? Great!

I continually return to that fine little book by Jeff Snyder, A Nation of Cowards, which extends Thoreau's Civil Disobedience to the ethics of gun control, and by extension, the the morality of being armed. The 2nd Amendment is not intended merely for the police and military. It is intended for all Americans.

You would think that the press would vigilantly uphold at least the part of the 1st Amendment dealing with a free press. But no, they seem to want to limit competition from any upstarts who might challenge them. But the 1st Amendment is not the private plaything of the media, but for every United States Citizen. When the Attorney General Select suggests that the things we say may need an editor, I find that to be an un-American attitude, and it greatly disturbs me.

If you think your blood pressure could use a little boost, I also recommend a book entitled Lost Rights by James Bovard. It details, with actual case histories, all the ways. large and small, that our rights have been eroded. At my age, I can still recall what freedom tasted like, and it doesn't taste anything like the thin gruel being served up today.

I can not see another way, at this time, to get the point across that we will not be subjected. If just 10% of us, 30 million, were to decide to simply not comply, we could make a huge difference. Think about it.

Censorship Aussy Style

"The need to prevent access to illegal hard-core material and child
pornography must be placed above the industry's desire for unfettered access,"
Mr Wallace said.

And so, Australia starts down that slippery slope, as can be seen in this link. I know that "slippery slope" arguments have a bad history, but unless there is a logical stopping point, I don't see how they can be objected to.

The issue of course, is one we can all subscribe to; stopping child pornography. But the chosen mechanism, as usual, is State power, rather than individual actions. It's pretty clear that the proposers of this policy have something more in mind, but want to use the issue as a way to get their proposal past the public's natural skepticism.

Find another way.

Whenever the State wants to take away some of your rights, and uses an emotional issue like this one, the objectors always find themselves in the cross hairs. For the record, I absolutely abhor the exploitation of children. I think pedophiles should rot in prison for the rest of their lifetimes. That being said, the seriousness of the crimes being prevented do not justify the Government's creation of a law that gives bureaucrats carte blanche to later add something else to the list of subjects about which you have no need to know.

In the US, I used to think the Supreme Court would serve as the final defender of our natural rights. But I no longer think so. We got lucky with the Heller decision, with Kelo, not so much.