Sex and the Left

Have you ever wondered what the Left's obsession is with sex? Have you ever noodled over what the Left and Islam have in common that makes them apparent allies? Well, I have. I have pondered especially over why the people who brought us "if it feels good, do it" would be rooting for the jihadis who want to kill them (and you and me.) Here's an answer, and it makes complete sense. Bookworm has an article over at American Thinker today entitled Sex and State Power that explains everything:

For many years, physicists have tried to find a unified theory of everything. They have faith that somewhere out there, there is a theory that will explain the physical properties of all things, without any exceptions. I'm not sure that dream will be realized in the scientific arena, but I think I might have stumbled across a unified theory that underlies statist philosophies, whether they are socialist or theocratic: sex.

Go and read it. It really does explain everything.

Anticipating the October Surprise

Pamela Geller has a piece today at the American Thinker entitled The October Surprise is Coming. Ms. Geller doesn't pull any punches in calling the "democratic" leadership exactly what it is. Interestingly, Geller speculates that our October Surprise this time will probably be a full scale depression. The reasoning goes that a mere "economic emergency" worked the last time, but this time they are likely to be thrown out of office unless it's a bigger and better October Surprise.

Also, interestingly, Ms. Geller has a candidate for President that we had not considered before:

Yes. And there is some comfort to be found in the fact that decent, rational men, statesmen, exist and speak the truth. They represent our last hope, a vestige of reason and sanity in this era of the modern barbarian. These are the men who need to take the reins of their respective nations. Bolton 2012: The stakes couldn't be higher.

It does have a certain ring to it, no?

Alcohol Serving Restaurant Carry Becomes Legal in Virginia

Mike Stollenwerk has a great Washington Examiner article today entitled 43 States Now Allow Gun Carry where Alcohol is Served. The map shows how isolated North and South Carolina are. Yet each time the bill comes up, Deborah Ross (D-Wake) manages to bottle it up in "her" committee, where the bill languishes until it finally dies.

Apparently, North Carolina feels strongly that if a person goes into restaurants that serve (gasp!) alcohol, she shouldn't expect to be able to defend herself if needed. Such places are filled with drunken men who, you know, will sense that our heroine has a concealed weapon and try to take if from her and shoot her with it....or something. North Carolina also feels that if a woman takes her children to the park, or the movies, that she should be similarly defenseless. That's how strongly North Carolina believes in defenselessness as a defense...or whatever. Of course, in North Carolina, you can always depend on the police to be there in time of need...or not.

But, congratulations to Virginia, and to the Virginia Citizens Defense League! North Carolinians will keep trying, as you have done. It's just that it will take longer here, evidently.

Happy 4th of July

On this July 4th, let us celebrate the McDonald ruling by checking out this article from the American Thinker entitled Thanks to Otis McDonald and the Supremes by Bob Weir. The article begins with:

The most important job of the government is the protection of its people. That protection involves their physical safety and the security of their property. It means providing police presence to deter criminals before they commit crimes and harsh penalties for offenders whose crimes were not deterred. The fact is that most crimes cannot be deterred because the bad guys don't generally mug people in front of the officer on patrol. Since the police can't be everywhere, people need a way to protect themselves.

That was how Otis McDonald felt when he walked into a Chicago police station and applied for a .22-caliber pistol two years ago. The 76-year-old retired maintenance engineer became the public face of one of the most important Second Amendment cases in U.S. history. As the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging Chicago's 28-year handgun ban, McDonald was a sympathetic figure: an elderly man trying to protect himself from violent hoodlums preying upon his neighborhood.

The article makes the obvious point, which we have all known since...well...time immemorial, that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Gun control laws only affect the law abiding. These fundamental truths are so self evident, that one is hard pressed to ascribe to gun control advocates pure motives.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court behaved sanely when they recently ruled that the Second Amendment to the Constitution gives an individual the right to keep and bear arms. Nevertheless, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, presiding over his personal thugocracy, declared that the Supremes are divorced from reality. "They don't seem to appreciate the full scope of gun violence in America," said the man who doesn't set foot outside his office without a police escort. "

I am often struck by just how many people who can afford armed protection, and take advantage of it, none the less do not want other Americans to enjoy whatever level of protection they can afford for themselves. Remember Rosie O'Donnell, who travels with an armed guard, yet advocates for gun control? How about Mayor Bloomberg. It does seem disingenuous, no?

We all owe Mr. McDonald our gratitude because his courage in taking on Chicago's gun ban has resulted in a ruling that reinforces what the champions of liberty meant when they wrote about not infringing on the people's right to bear arms. We're also indebted to five of the nine justices, who decided that the Second Amendment is the law of the land, superseding local gun control laws. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito made it clear that "self-defense is a basic right ... individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment." Can I have an "amen"?

Go read the whole thing. Also note that Bob Weir is a former Detective Sargent with the NYPD. Many, many rank and file police, military, and others believe as we do. Remember that too.

Wisconsin DA Gets It

The Jackson County DA, Gerald Fox seems to get the gist of the recent McDonald ruling, according to Mike Stollenwerk at the DC Gun Rights column entitled District Attorney Declares Most State Gun Laws Unconstitutional. Too bad Chicago's Mayor Daley doesn't seem to understand.

The Anger of the Public

Concerned Citizen over at the Western Rifle Shooters Association has a great piece up that highlights an article in Pajamas Media by Victor Davis Hanson which explores why Americans are so angry. A quote:

There is a growing sense that government is what I would call a new sort of Versailles — a vast cadre of royal state and federal workers that apparently assumes immunity from the laws of economics that affect everyone else.

In the olden days, we the public sort of expected that the L.A. Unified School District paid the best and got the worst results. We knew that you didn’t show up at the DMV if you could help it. A trip to the emergency room was to descend into Dante’s Inferno. We accepted all that in other words, and went on with our business.

But at some point — perhaps triggered by the radical increase in the public sector under Obama, the militancy of the SEIU, or the staggering debts — the public snapped and has had it with whining union officials and their political enablers who always threaten to cut off police and fire protection if we object that there are too many unproductive, unnecessary, but too highly paid employees at the Social Service office. In short, sometime in the last ten years public employees were directly identified with most of what is now unsustainable in the U.S. The old idea that a public servant gave up a competitive salary for job security was redefined as hitting the jackpot.

That anger extends to State governments as well. When NC had a budget shortfall, the first response was to raise taxes. (For anyone who drives through our fair State, take warning, do not violate by a jot or tittle any of the traffic laws. The police, in an effort to get more money out of us, have turned law enforcement into tax collection.) I heard over and over again that if we had to shrink our lifestyle because of the economy, why so should the State-and not through reduction of legitimate services, but through reduction of benefits.

Read the whole thing. It is worth it.

The Liberty Sphere-RINOs

Anthony Martin, over at the Liberty Sphere, has a post up to day naming the RINOs in the Senate who will not support a filibuster of Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court.

Elena Kagan is one of the worst threats to liberty to come along in many years. If the Progressive/Marxist MSM had an ounce of integrity, they would recognize that Kagan should be given the Palin treatment. While Palin at least had been a mayor and a State governor, palin has not even been a trial lawyer, let alone a judge. While I do not think such experience is necessary to high office, I would like to point out that much of the criticism of Palin was on just that point.

The Senate now has 41 people with an 'R' after their name. They could mount a successful filibuster of Elena Kagan, forcing the Administration to choose another candidate. Why don't they? What are they waiting for? The ability to filibuster is an important tool and the right should use it as much as the left does. Kagan should be Borked. But we have Progressives in the Republican party who are, frankly, sympathetic to the collectivist idea. We must get rid of these RINOs at the nearest opportunity, starting with McCain.