Communists disguised as Democrats overturn logic again

I am getting just a little bit tired of Communist groups continuing to sue the State over voter ID laws, and apparently doing a bit of judge shopping as well.  The latest group to sue is the ACLU, with the result that a Federal Appellate judge has overturned it.  From the WaPo:

Voting rights activists scored legal victories in key presidential election states Friday, the most important being a federal appeals court ruling that North Carolina’s Republican-led legislature enacted new voting restrictions in 2013 to intentionally blunt the growing clout of African American voters.

The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit was an overwhelming victory for the Justice Department and civil rights groups. Election law experts consider North Carolina’s voter law one of the nation’s most far-reaching.

Now, as it points out here at the American Thinker, one has to wonder if logic still count for anything?

If it is unconstitutional to require an ID to be able to vote, how is it okay to require an ID to cash a check, board an airplane, drive a car, or anything else? If I go up to a bank teller and present a check against Donald Trump's account, what right has the teller to ask me for an ID? Surely such an action would be discriminatory, given the federal court's ruling.

I recently sold some scrap metal to a junkyard. It was a couple of old car batteries and miscellaneous scraps of copper and aluminum I didn't need. They required me to show a government-issued photo ID to receive payment. The reason for this is simple: to help track and discourage people who steal such things and sell them to junkyards. Surely the integrity of our electoral process is more important than keeping tabs on people who sell scrap metal to junkyards.

There is one, and only one reason why requiring a government issued photo ID to vote is not desirable: if you want to make it easier to commit voter fraud. That's it. I am past tired of communists disguised as Democrats overturning common sense laws put in place to ensure one person gets one vote, and no more. Despite what the communists disguised as Democrats think, some animals are not more equal than others.

Trump may be unfit to be President, but we KNOW Hillary should not be elected Dog Catcher

Yesterday, Obama made the fitness of Trump to be President an issue by claiming that Trump "unfit to serve". Is he kidding? The absolute worst President in history, is talking about someone else's fitness to be President. Is this the pot calling the kettle black?

The point is he may indeed be unfit to be President, but we don't know that.  On the other hand, we know Hillary is unfit to hold even the office of dog catcher.  Which is the point being made at the American Thinker in a post by Patricia McCarthy entitled Fitness Test for the Presidency.

 At the time that Obama first ran for office, some voices raised questions about his fitness per the Constitution, but they were quickly shut down and never received much ink. As Alan Korwin has pointed out in the American Handgunner as well as here at AZCentral, the Constitution requires that a president be a "natural born citizen." A natural born citizen is one born to two United States Citizens on United States Soil. McCain was put through the ringer because while both parents were US citizens, he was born at a foreign posting in the Panama Canal Zone. Ted Cruz was questioned quite openly about his father's citizenship at the time, and the fact that he was apparently born in Canada. I have come to agree with Korwin on the point. Ted Cruz is unfit to be President by virtue of his not being a natural born citizen.  McCain, on the other hand, was born on soil that was, at the time, under United States jurisdiction.  So why was Obama, the son of a Kenyan citizen given a free pass?  No one even wanted to know.

In any case, Obama has no ground to stand on in claiming Trump is unfit.  He was also unfit, and remains so.  The Left though has achieved its goal, and precious little can practically be done, short of declaring every action taken in the last 8 years null and void.  Meanwhile,whether they knew the Constitution or not, millions of people have been complicit in committing the crime of misprision of treason.

Trump has his faults, but he is not an unindicted crime boss

Selwyn Duke doesn't post often to American Thinker, but his writing is always a treat, and today's post is no different.

Too often one encounters people who believe that "all religions teach the same thing."  I find this sort of thinking reductionist at best, and lacking in spiritual insight.  As an example, Buddhism believes that man becomes god himself if he becomes enlightened enough.  Judaism, on the other hand looks at God as the all powerful creator of everything that exists.  Man can never become God, but God can, if he so chooses, accept certain men, based not on their works, but on their faith.  Christianity proposes that all men may become the sons of the living God if they have faith in Jesus, and truly believe.  Through God's great grace and love for his creature, man, Christians dare to call upon Him as "Father."  This is a profoundly different idea than the religion proposed in the Koran, in which man must submit.  Christianity's "perfect example" is Jesus, who was a servant to all mankind, eventually suffering a torturous death, taking the punishment each man deserves on Himself, for the salvation of mankind.  For this reason Jesus was called the Son of God, and the Christ, the Savior of Mankind. Hence Christians pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ.  Islams "perfect example" is a lusty womanizer, pedophile, warlord, who healed no one, spread his religion by terrorizing anyone who would not immediately accept it.  The Christian God wants us to love him and have a relationship with him.  Islam's Allah demands you submit.  So you perhaps see some slight differences there?

Selwyn Duke's article ttoday at American Thinker is entitled  Why the Establishment Can't Grasp the Nature of Islam . Duke introduces his topic with these paragraphs:

The media and effete powers-that-be have been twisting themselves into Halal pretzels Islamsplainin’, rationalizing how a given Muslim terrorist attack isn’t really “Islamic” or isn’t significant. These contortions can become quite ridiculous, such as suggesting that recent Allahu Akbar-shouting Munich shooter Ali Sonboly might somehow have had “right-wing” motives because, among his violent passions, was an interest in Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik.

A more common (un)intellectual contortion is the minimizing tactic of claiming, as is politically correct authorities’ wont, that a given jihadist attacker “has no ties to IS” (the Islamic State), as if there’s nothing to see here if a man doesn’t provide notarized evidence of allegiance to the boogeyman du jour. Yet this is much as if we’d claimed during the Cold War that a Marxist terrorist attack wasn’t really a Marxist™ terrorist attack because we couldn’t find a connection to the Soviet Union. The issue and problem wasn’t primarily the Soviet Union but communism (Marxism birthed the USSR, not the other way around), an evil ideology that wreaks havoc wherever it takes hold. Likewise, the IS didn’t birth Islam; Islam birthed the IS.

Various people have been mislead to believe that since not ALL Muslims are waging violent jihad, that somehow Islam is the "religion of peace."  But anyone who has studied ISIS tactics, or those of the Taliban, will quickly note that fellow Muslims are more often the target of these groups ire than are Christians, Jews, and other assorted religions.  As it turns out:

Yet there’s more to understanding Muslim violence. A comprehensive German study of 45,000 immigrant youths, reported in 2010, found that while increasing religiosity among the Christian youths made them less violent, increasing religiosity among the Muslim youths actually made them more violent. Not more violent “if they join Islamic State” — but more violent, period. And while the study authors had their own, mostly politically correct explanations, I think I know a major reason why.

Becoming serious about a faith and digging into it generally means getting closer to its actual teachings. A lukewarm cradle Catholic may have little knowledge of even the Bible, but a devout one will likely have read that and the Church’s catechism. Likewise, an indifferent nominal Muslim (you know, the kind they call “moderate”) may not know much of the Koran, nine percent of which is devoted to political violence. Yet a pious Muslim may scour that book — and more. He may also imbibe the remaining 84 percent of the Islamic canon, the two books known as the Hadith and Sira.

And, respectively, 21 percent and 67 percent of their texts are devoted to political violence.

That’s what you call a full dose. Also note that while access to these two more obscure Islamic canonical texts was once limited, the Internet age places them at everyone’s fingertips. Couple this with the violent preaching of immigrant Imams, and that Muslims consider violent warlord Mohammed “The Perfect Man” and thus the ultimate role model, and the German study’s findings are no mystery. Speaking of mysteries, though, the true effect of Islam will remain one unless we delve further — and break ourselves of certain misconceptions common to our times.

If one merely reads the newspaper, or listens to the nightly news reports on the television, one gets a disconnected presentation of events. These can seem random, disconnected, events out of the blue.  The value of news magazines is in their more in-depth reporting, tying various pieces of the random events together to form a picture.  One such picture is the one proposed by Eileen F. Toplansky, also at the American Thinker today, in a blog post entitled: Is there a backstory about Khizr Khan and Donald Trump?

 As it turns out, there is.

But is there even more to the story about Khizr Khan? According to Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat, Mr. Khizr Muazzam Khan is a promoter of Islamic sharia law and a co-founder of the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law (sharia). In fact, in the past, Khizr Khan has shown "his appreciation for an icon of the Muslim Brotherhood" by the name of Said Ramadan, who "wrote material for the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia, an organization that has been promoting Islamic revivalism and indoctrination to recruit young people in Malaysia to jihadism." Mr. Said Ramadan was the son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood including Ahmad Bahefzallah, the boss of Huma Abedin (Hillary Clinton's aide)[.]"

With the background Toplansky has provided, it looks more and more as if Mr. Khan's performance at the DNC convention was indeed a plant designed to get Mr. Trump to make exactly the sort of statement that he indeed made. But looking at the bigger picture, at least Mr. Trump has shown no tendencies to allow Sharia to supplant the Constitution. The Democrats themselves look more and more like a party of fruits and nuts (for a sampling see the trangendered issues, the gay issue, the planned parenthood abortion issue, the current problem with showing ID for voting, but nothing else), led by a criminal gang, supported by the useful idiots of the press, and looking to prey on the rest of us. How any normal, red blooded American can seriously associate with these people is anyone's guess.

 Mr. Trump has his faults, to be sure, but they don't (so far) extend to actual treason, and he is not an unindicted crime boss.

Other countries are founded on blood and soil. The USA is founded on an Idea.

A commenter to a blog at Ammoland here has one of the best explanations of the difference between the United States and every other country on the face of the earth, and thus explains the fact of American Exceptionalism.I have tried to explain this in the past, only to have my explanations fall on deaf ears.  Perhaps the commenter can reach those I could not, since he writes much more elegantly than I do.

The commenter, one oldshooter says the following:

The idea that the 2nd Amendment only covers militia service and purposes is incorrect from a grammatical standpoint, and there is no reason to think the drafters were poor grammarians-quite the opposite, in fact. Because of the way the explanatory “militia clause” is used in the amendment, it is not, grammatically speaking, a limitation on the imperative, “shall not be infringed” clause. However, there is a much more far reaching principle involved. If you consider their writings at the time, and the principles the Founding Fathers were basing our country and government on, you will see that the most fundamental principle underlying all others was the idea that the government was instituted by the people, for the purpose of safeguarding the personal liberty of each individual citizen. The basic idea is that your liberty to rant, rave, and swing your fist should be unlimited-until your fist reaches the end of my nose. Or to use Jefferson’s words, your freedom should be unimpaired, “so long as it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” This in fact, is the idea that makes America “exceptional,” as no other country on Earth has EVER been founded on such a radical principle. It is far more common for nations to ascribe to either the monarchical principal that the people (the “Subjects”) live to serve the sovereign/monarch, or a socialistic one (a la the NAZIs) that the individual citizen lives to serve the state, and the benefit of the state supersedes the benefit of any individual citizen. That idea is based on the Utilitarian Philosophical principal that “the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few.” Americans believe the exact opposite, that the liberty of the individual outweighs (and should underlie) the behavior of the government. The Founders weren’t “wimps,” and didn’t see the government’s job as protecting the people, but rather as safeguarding the people’s inherent right, and ability, to protect themselves. THAT guiding principle is ultimately the explanation for why the 2nd Amendment protects everyone’s right to keep and bear (ie, to own and carry) “arms” (ie, weapons, including the most effective weapons today-guns), for whatever use they please, so long as they do not hurt innocent others. It is a direct outgrowth of our exceptionalism-the protection of the individual’s inherent right to arms is, in fact, simply another good example of American exceptionalism. That also explains why anti-Americans like Obama, Hillary, and Socialists in general, neither think America is exceptional, nor see anything wrong with infringing the citizen’s inherent rights to self-defense-they just don’t believe in “Americanism,” that is, in the basic founding politico-philosophical principles on which our country is founded.

The United States is not like a nation such as England, or Germany, Japan, or China, or any of the nations that make up the continent of Africa. Those countries are based on ethnic majorities and and regional and historical areas: blood and soil. The United States is an idea, and if you take away its founding idea, you take away the United States. What you have left is the Former States of America.  Indeed, it is why I no longer fly a United States flag at my house.  We are no longer living in the United States.  Instead, for a number of years we have been living in the FSA.

Finally, a hat tip to David Codrea at the War on Guns for pointing me to this post.  Thanks.

The Only Rights Someone Else Need to Respect Are The Ones YOU are Willing to Defend

The Daily Caller has the poop on the deliberate bait and switch know as gun control here. The video is the work of undercover members of Project Veritas. This is, of course, of a piece with the leaked DNC e-mails, the Clinton private server e-mails, etc. etc. etc.

Do not doubt that if Hillary is elected, she will do her best to nullify the Second Amendment.  Of course, that does not me she will take away your right to bear arms, for no one can take that away but our Creator.  But it is a right she will no longer have to respect.  Remember that the only rights someone else needs to respect are the ones YOU are willing to defend.  

Then there is this. Bill Whittle may be right, that maybe now Bernie supporters will be more sympathetic...nah. They are too self absorbed at the moment to feel anything for anyone else. But if it makes them feel better, I feel for them, I really do.  Such betrayal is difficult to stomach.

7 Things the Left Doesn't Want You to Know About Their History

Dinesh D'Souza has an article over at Townhall.com entitled 7 Things the Left Doesn't Want You to Know About Their History. I am surprised more people do not know this history, or the history of the Republican party for that matter. Republicans can be proud of our Abolitionist founding, and our fight for civil rights before and after the Civil War. It is amazing to me that the Democrats have laid claim to being the party of civil rights, and that Republicans have just let them. As D'Souza points out, the KKK, the Dred Scott decision, the building of the segregation movement, and many more were all Democrat. Margaret Sanger, whose birth control, and later abortion idea was specifically designed to limit the number of blacks was taken up by the Democrats with enthusiasm. The founder of the Democrat party, Andrew Jackson, dispossessed the Indian Tribes of their land and set in motion the profoundly Unconstitutional idea of Manifest Destiny.  If it weren't that so many lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and their political bosses are Democrat, the whole party might have been indicted on RICO charges.

Go read D'Souza, then tell me if you would rather have Hillary elected President.

Carrying a 1911 style Pistol

I recently came across a blog entitled Jeff Coopers Five Facts of 1911 Life. As I carry a 1911 style handgun most everywhere, I am always interested in things 1911. My own choice was a Kimber TLE II, which has everything you need, nothing you don't, and always goes bang when you pull the trigger. Of course, many other weapons are fine instruments as well, and I have nothing but respect for anyone who carries on a daily basis.  I decided on a 1911 after a lot of time trying others pistol types, and settled on a Kimber after reviewing other brands of 1911.  The Kimber works for me.  For me, the manual of arms for that weapon is the simplest, and most intuitive.  YMMV.

The M1911 pistol was John Moses Browning's masterpiece, well ahead of its time.  It served the armed forces if the United States in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.  Many special forces units still use it, as well as many law enforcement units.  It is heavy, at 38 oz. but strangely carries well concealed.  In the summer, with a Hawaiian shirt or a Guyabera it completely disappears.  A sport coat completely hides it, yet it is ready to go in an outside the waistband (OWB) strong side holster.  Browning made minor improvements to his design, including getting rid of the grip safety when he designed the Hi-Power, but he never made another giant leap like the M1911.  The ergonomics of the 1911 style pistol fit my hands, and the weapon just points naturally,  It is well balanced, and the weight helps it absorb some of the recoil.  In its original configuration, it can be detail stripped entirely without tools. No other gun can claim this distinction.

The proper way of carrying a 1911 pistol is cocked and locked.  When I first put the pistol on, there was some controversy, as Mrs. Polykahr was used to revolvers.  To her, it looked unsafe.  I carried it about the house for about a week, unloaded, to demonstrate that it was indeed safe.  I also pointed to Jeff Cooper, the father of the Modern Technique of the Handgun.  She wasn't impressed, but eventually relented..

In any case, I have carried my 1911 pistol in what Jeff Cooper termed "Condition 1" where the pistol has a full magazine inserted, has a round in the chamber, is cocked and has the thumb safety ON, since I first got it.  Counter-intuitively for most people not familiar with the gun, it is the safest way to carry a 1911 pistol.  If you carry in any other condition, you will handicap yourself in bringing the gun into action, or you will endanger yourself and those around you.  Here is what Boatman has to say:

Condition Three. Chamber empty, hammer down. This requires you to manually cycle the slide before firing. To return the gun to its carry position after firing, you have to drop the magazine, empty the chamber, drop the hammer, reload and reinsert the magazine, all without shooting an innocent bystander. Condition Three is the slowest-into-action of any method of carrying a 1911 and, as such, is a dangerous concession to those whose nervous systems are conditioned to revolvers whose hammers are always at rest when not in use and which are not equipped with the operator-controlled safety systems of the 1911.

Condition Two. Chamber loaded, hammer down. This requires you to cock the hammer with your thumb before firing. It also requires you to very carefully pull the trigger and lower the hammer over a loaded chamber before returning the gun to its holster. The technique for manipulating a Condition Two carry is best practiced out in the country in a freshly plowed field, where the bullets will not ricochet off the pavement or the occasional rock every time you re-holster your gun.

One often sees cops, on police shows, racking the slide as they go into a situation, implying they had not chambered a round before hand. This is the equivalent of Condition Three, and is very dangerous. You are not always, as a concealed carrier, going to have the luxury of knowing in advance that you need to have your weapon out and ready. Indeed, the bad guys are going to attempt to get the jump on you and you are usually going to be behind the power curve and trying to catch up. In such a situation, you may be holding the bad guy, who may be wielding a knife. with your weak hand while using your strong hand to bring the gun into action. The thumb safety naturally falls under your thumb, and you should ride it as you bring your weapon up to use it. If you had to rack the weapon first, before firing...well...you would probably be dead.  Condition Two is just plain dangerous all around.  I can't think of anything more inducing of an accidental discharge than pulling the trigger and trying to control the hammer as it drops on a loaded chamber! What foolishness.

There are weaknesses and compromises in every pistol design, and the 1911 style pistol is no different.  Some pistols are finicky about ammunition, though the Kimber has proven to be largely immune to such issues.  But my example has proven to be finicky about what magazines are used to feed the ammunition.  While others have had great success with Chip McCormick magazines, I find these do not drop free when spent.  Wilson Combat 47D mags have proven to be unreliable, though they are highly recommended in the 1911 community.  The magazine I have found works best is Kim Pro Tac Mag.  While it is somewhat expensive, it has proven to be totally reliable in my gun, and drops free when I push the magazine eject button. Note that I use the 8 round magazines, which work fine in my gun, but 1911 purests will eschew the 8 rounders for traditional 7 rounders.

Magazines are usually the weak link in the pistol system, so if you carry for self defense, you must be ruthless about culling old magazines that no longer work reliably.  Yes, you may get a few more years out of a mag by replacing a spring, but the feed lips can become misaligned by a very small amount, and you will never be able to find and fix such a problem.  It is better to toss out a magazine that is not feeding reliably and purchase a new one.  Indeed, just keep a lot of extras so you are never out.

Holster makers make every style of holster ever conceived for the 1911 Government Model, so popular is this style of handgun. As a result you will find a dizzying array of holsters in leather, kydex, fabric, and the newer kydex and leather combination holsters.  After trying several styles, I settled on two that work for me.  One is a clone of Bruce Nelson's Summer Special.  The Summer Special is an inside the waistband (IWB) holster that, when worn at the 3:30 position, brings the gun in tight to the body. I have never had an issue with either of my Summer Special style holsters. The other holster that I have found works well for me is the Mitch Rosen 5JR holster. The 5JR is a pancake style holster, first popularized by Roy Baker in the mid 1950s. It also holds the weapon close to the body, and the draw from this holster is fast. For concealed carry, I use the open top version. Again, I have never had a problem with this style holster. A final word on carry is to get a good solid gun belt. Gun belts do not have to look like heavy duty affairs. There are many belts designed to look stylish but still be substantial enough to carry a gun. These belts will be expensive, costing perhaps $75-$110, but they are worth their weight in gold.

The 1911 pistol is a working pistol, and should be carried, maintained, and shot often.  Having it sitting in a gun safe is, in my opinion, a tragedy.  It serves no purpose whatsoever if it is merely a safe queen, trotted out to be petted once in while, then put back because you don't want to mar it in any way.  It will only acquire the patina of hard use that makes historical pistols valuable if it is used for the purpose it was designed.

Whatever weapon system (and it is not just a gun, it is in fact a weapon system) please train with it often.  Your life may depend on it one day, though I pray, gentle readers, that and I will never need to draw it in anger.  But if you do, I want you to prevail.