The People's Right to Self Defense

J. Robert Smith has an article today at the American Thinker entitled Washington, Arizonans, and the Primal Right to Self Defense that makes the case that the DoJ's lawsuit against Arizona is not just wrong headed, but fundamentally flawed; what he calls "moral abandonment." A quote to give you a feel for the article:

The Obama administration asserts the de jure paramountcy of the national government in the enforcement of immigration laws and border defense, yet de facto, the national government has been wholly inadequate in executing the aforementioned duties. Its inadequacy flows chiefly from political reasons, rather than reasons of resource or competence. The national government stands accused of a failure of will. Thereby, the Obama administration and the national government are defaulting in a basic duty to the people: to attend to their defense.

The Democrats in Washington look on illegals as future Democrat voters. The more that they can be kept poor, uneducated, and on various welfare programs and "free" handouts, the more they can be exploited for political gain. The Republicans are afraid of angering Hispanic voters. Both parties are lobbied by businesses that exploit illegals for cheap labor. In all this, ruthless drug gangs and petty criminals wreaking havoc on citizens is considered just the price of doing business by these feckless opportunists.

Meanwhile, if anyone notices the illegals in our midst and says anything about them, we are called racist and xenophobe and told to sit down. Now, conservatives and Constitutionalists have made it pretty clear that we welcome legal immigration. The analogy to a home is a pretty good one. Ring the bell, tell us your name. If you are selling something, and we are interested, we may invite you in. But don't break in in the night, raid the refrigerator, and help yourself to the silver. That sort of behavior is likely to get you shot around these parts.

If the Federal Government will not defend the borders, Arizonans have a right to defend it themselves. Indeed, as J. Robert Smith points out, the right to self defense exists prior to any government that may be established. I would argue that securing the peoples right to life and property is the first, and greatest care of a government. If the government in question won't perform that duty, but instead goes about trying to do what the people can and should do for themselves, the people may be forgiven for thinking they may not need that government. Congress has made itself irrelevant by handing over so much power to the executive branch. If it wasn't explicit before, the President made it so when he noted that if Congress wouldn't pass a Cap and Trade law, he would have the EPA write regulations to that effect. Now, with this lawsuit against Arizona, the Executive is making himself irrelevant as well.

At the Gun Show

This last Sunday afternoon, I manned the Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC) table at the Dixie Gun Show at the Fairgrounds in Raleigh, NC. Each show is different. Since the elections of 2008, and with the Great Ammunition Shortage scare, the emphasis has been on buying a gun, or on securing a few cases of ammunition. While all that was still at the heart of the show, this time there were a number of political candidates with booths at the show, or they were circulating the show and asking folks to vote for them. Senator Richard Burr had a booth at the show, as did the Republican Women. B. J. Lawson came around, reportedly, on Saturday, so I did not see him. When candidates would ask for our support, we usually handed them a candidate survey and asked them to fill it out if they had not done so already. GRNC has a very active "Remember in November" program to identify candidates friendly to gun rights at the State level.

The "Restore the Constitution" folks had a booth at the gun show. I carried some fliers for their upcoming event at Guilford CH Battlefield National Park to our table to hand out. Their website, in case you want to go this Saturday is here. I am planning to be there. Hope you can make it too.

The Gun Owners of American had a booth at the show, as did the NRA. I mentioned to the man manning the GOA booth that I had seen Larry Pratt on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano the day before. He seemed pleased. I feel it is important to let people know that they are not lone voices talking to a brick wall; that the message is getting through. Over at our table, there was some discussion to the effect that while many of our members are Life members of NRA, that NRA is going down the wrong track. Many are worried that NRA may come out endorsing Harry Reid because of his support of the shooting range in Las Vegas, never mind that his votes for Sotomayor and Kagan should permanently brand him as 'F' on gun rights. Were Mr. LaPierre listening, and he is not, I would ask him what part of "shall not be infringed" does he think allows the constant compromising of our rights with those who want to take away my rights? I would advise him to stand on principle, no matter the consequences. But that is just me.

All in all, a good show. I bought a few things, mostly maintenance items for firearms already owned. It was good to see the guys, and to talk to the public. We signed up a goodly number of new members, and quite a few more went home to think about it. To them, I say "Even if you don't join, thanks stopping by for a chat and for letting us tell you about GRNC."

No Reason to Apologize for Hiroshima

The anniversary date of the bombing of Hiroshima is a day to remember history as it actually was, not as the Left would have us believe it was. Today's understanding of Hiroshima can only happen because the Left has distorted history. The Left is always pointing out that America was the only nation to use nuclear weapons in a war. True, but beside the point. The Left's arguments about nuclear weapons often seem to mirror those about guns: it is more noble for a good man to die rather than use the most effective weapon available to stop the bad guy. Such arguments are, of course, total nonsense.

So let's look at a few facts. Japan bombed the United States Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. They had, before that time, been waging a war of aggression against China, and clearly had their eyes on achieving hegemony over the Pacific rim. The United States declared war in self defence. That the United States would eventually prevail was anything but assured. Japan had a powerful Navy, and a ruthless Army, with a warrior culture and plenty of recent combat experience to shake out its weapons. At roughly the same time, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States, forcing us into a two front war. Frankly, I would have to have bet on Japan, were I a neutral party.

By the time the United States had battled its way to Okinawa, it was obvious that Japan had lost. Why didn't the Japanese sue for peace then? No one who advocates for the "America should apologize" crowd ever seems to ask this question. After the battle of Midway, things went down hill for the Japanese. They could have surrendered at any point. Why didn't they? Certainly, once they began throwing Kamikaze pilots into the fight, they had to know their cause was lost. Why not surrender then, and not lose a generation of young people too? The Left never asks, because to ask is to point out that the Japanese may have been at fault for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Had they surrendered earlier, when it became apparent that the war was lost, they would not have suffered nuclear attack.

Bruce Walker has an article up today at American Thinker entitled The Hiroshima Question. I am glad that so far Obama has not apologized to the Japanese, though I'm sure he wanted to. He also hasn't bowed to the Emperor; that he seems to reserve for Muslim thugs. A quote from the piece though, may get you to read the whole thing:

Representatives of the American government yesterday attended, for the first time, the Hiroshima Ceremony, which this year marked the 65th anniversary of the use of fission weapons on Japanese cities. Democrat and Republican administrations alike have consistently refused to participate in this ceremony, which implies American guilt. Some Japanese are now saying that attending without a formal apology (which Obama will not give) is inadequate. There is no reason for America to apologize at all for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

No reason indeed.

Update: This piece by J. R. Dunn in yesterday's American Thinker is worth reading and contemplating as well.

Update 2: Per John, I stand corrected.

Way Up North: Why Women Should Vote

Way Up North: Why Women Should Vote

I had no idea this happened. Yet more history that has been erased. But it doesn't surprise me to learn that Woodrow Wilson had a hand in it either.

Go and read the whole post, and then encourage your wife, mother, daughter, or other significant woman in your life to go and vote-after they have researched the facts, of course.

The Volt is a Joke

I had a difficult time today deciding what to write about. The world seems at times to be spinning out of control and off its axis. Racism, both real and imaginary, the continuing tale of the JournoList 400, Climategate, and the incredible ability of Gaia worshipers to say, in essence that even if we got the facts wrong, goofball warmening is still true, all tug at me to make a comment. But then I stumbled upon an article by Doctor Zero entitled The Value of a Volt. I have noted before that the good Doctor has a way with words. It's a rare enough gift, and I appreciate how he says things as much as what he says. Here's a quote:

But wait, there’s more. Almost four hundred million dollars in federal subsidies were pumped directly into the design and production of the Volt. The initial production run consists of just ten thousand units, with 45,000 more planned for 2012 if sales are good. This would add just over $7200 more in taxpayer subsidies to each Volt produced over the next two years. Since 2012 production will be scaled back if early sales are disappointing, it might be more logical to add the subsidies to the first 10,000 units only, which would leave early adopters outside of California paying $33,500 for a car which actually costs $81,000 per unit, with taxpayers picking up the remainder. It’s actually even worse than that, because GM expects to lose money on every Volt sale. Those losses will be spread among other GM products, or perhaps wiped out with further taxpayer subsidies.

The Chevrolet Volt is, of course, a complete joke. And having the President of the United States hawking the product is down right embarrassing. I would imagine that many inside GM feel diminished realizing what has become of a once great company.

Besides the costs, which this article emphasizes, there are the environmental costs, which causes one to wonder what problem the Volt is supposed to solve? For instance, although the Volt runs on electricity stored in batteries, how is that electricity generated? A coal or natural gas fired plant perhaps? How much cleaner is the generating plant than your car? It must be substantially cleaner to overcome the losses in energy that occur that occur from converting one source of energy into another, only to have it reconverted back again. These losses are physical facts that can not be overcome. They are the price for utilizing any form of energy, including muscle power. For example, a potential energy source such as natural gas is burned to spin an engine (losses) which spins a generator (losses) to make electricity which goes out over the wires (losses) to a transformer to be stepped down to 120 volt AC (losses) to go to your home (losses) to charge a battery (losses) to spin a motor (losses) to power your car all of 40 miles. You can eliminate some of those losses by putting the potential energy source closer to the final conversion point, which is what gasoline powered vehicles do. But it gets worse. At some point, you will have to recycle the batteries. Modern batteries contain exotic heavy metals which are extremely toxic, and expensive, and can not be simply thrown out. So in the end, an electric car is no more environmentally friendly than a fossil fueled automobile.

The problem has been a confusion of goals. We have three potential goals, none of which are improved by the Volt. One goal is to become more eco-friendly. As shown above, the Volt is not really all that eco-friendly when to take into account the lifetime costs of the vehicle. Another is to achieve energy independence. To improve our energy independence, a simpler way would be to convert the truck fleet over to natural gas. We have an abundance of natural gas, and it is pretty clean relative to coal and petroleum. The third possible goal is to get us off fossil fuel altogether. That goal, unfortunately, is not possible, and only exists among people who hold to an ideology that believes people are a cancer on this planet: the Gaia worshipers. Is that who this administration is pandering to?

Civil Disobedience in the City Where the Criminals Do Not Fear the Police

Via David Hardy of the blog Of Arms and the Law comes this piece in PajamasMedia by Jack Dunphy entitled Chicago: Where Criminals No Longer Fear the Police. Jack Dunphy formerly wrote for the National Review, which is where I first became aware of him, or her. "Jack Dunphy" isn't his real name. He chooses to write under a pseudonym because he is in fact a member of the LAPD. The title says it all. Criminals do not fear the police, so that the murder rate in that city is one of the highest in the country.

A quote to give you a taste of what the article is about:

And it gets worse. Three Chicago police officers have been murdered in the last two months, the most recent of whom was Michael Bailey, who at age 62 was only weeks away from retirement. On the morning of July 18, Bailey had finished an overnight shift guarding the home of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and was in front of his own home cleaning his new car, which he had bought as an early retirement gift to himself. He was still dressed in his police uniform when someone tried to rob him. Police officers everywhere accept the risks to life and limb attendant to the job, but it’s generally taken for granted among cops that the uniform will serve as a deterrent against being robbed on the street. What level of depravity has a city reached when a uniformed police officer is no safer from a street robbery than anyone else? More important, what is to be done about it?

I can't think of a better way to illustrate the ineffectiveness of the Chicago police than that. In the midst if this, Mayor Daley wants to make it as difficult for the law abiding citizen to have a gun to defend himself as possible. But the normally law abiding apparently have a solution for that: it is called civil disobedience. Confronted with the fact that the City can't even defend its own on the one hand, and the criminal element on the other, the citizens of Chicago make the only rational decision possible: to arm themselves.

Talking Guns in Polite Society

Over at American Thinker today is this short piece by Rosslyn Smith entitled "The Changing Face of Gun Ownership." Ms. Smith purports to show that the demographics of people who own guns is changing. Suddenly the more respectable people now own guns too.

Hmmmm.

I think what is happening is not so much that folks are now all of a sudden buying guns as that people now feel more free to talk about guns and shooting. There are, of course, some, like the isolated family mentioned, that never before considered owning a gun, but now realize it may be useful. But for a huge number of gun owners, talking about their guns was akin to passing gas at the dinner table. It simply wasn't done. Besides, one doesn't want to scare the faint of heart among us. But with the Heller and now McDonald rulings coming down firmly on the side of the Second Amendment, many more people are willing to admit that they own guns. More people are willing to admit that they enjoy using their guns. It has now become a topic of discussion in polite society again.

Of course, I am mindful that Mr. Obama has been the gun salesman of the year for going on two years in a row. But a lot of that has been fueled by sales of semi-automatic rifles to people who already have at least a handgun, and maybe a traditional bolt action rifle as well. These people just want to get an AR pattern rifle while the getting is good.

Recently I was talking to an outspoken liberal at work who mentioned that he too had guns. I would have expected him to espouse the gun control mantra, so it was good to hear that my friend had not totally lost his mind. Now if I can convince him that all our troubles were not caused by just Bush...