If you are reading this, you ARE the resistance

Mike Vanderboeg has an excellent post (actually, all of Mikes posts are pretty good) over at the Sipsey Street Irregulars entitled: "This is Bill Rupert: If you are reading this, you ARE the resistance." A surprising quote:

So what does WWII occupied France have to do with modern America? I would suggest we have labored under a Vichy-style occupation since 1865 when a virulent form of government supremacism extinguished states rights in the original Federal system and then the Progressivist virus metastasized under Theodore Roosevelt and the rest is history as the republican vision of a decentralized, localized and minimal government became as anachronistic as the notion of natural rights.

This is how I see it too, looking back now, and learning a little history late in life. Linclon, with the best of intentions, sought to save the union. But in saving it, he had to obliterate certain Constitutionally guaranteed rights. After the war, the rebellious Southern States had to be suppressed, again for the sake of preserving the Union. But things took a turn for the worse under the "progressive" notions of "good government" under Theodore Roosevelt. Of course, by then the Marxists were beginning the "Long March through our Institutions." And now here we are, living under Obamunism, with Statists throwing every hare-brained and gushy ill thought idea they have ever had at us, and taking away our liberties in huge gulps.

Actor Craig T. Nelson said on the Glenn Beck show on Fox News Friday, see here that he was going to stop paying his taxes. Nelson has a point. If the Federal Government bails out California, then the voters of every State should have a say in how California spends it money, and the policies California imposes on its citizens. But we haven't, and we won't. It is indeed, taxation without representation. But even when you do have formal representation, do you really? I get pablum responses from my so-called "Representative." You know the kind..."Thank you for letting us know your opinion on this issue." Am I being represented?

The point is, Craig T. Nelson has found his form of resistance. Each of us who desire liberty must find our own way to throw sand in the machinery. We can not let this stand. "This is Bill Rupert: If you are reading this, you ARE the resistance."

The Liberty Sphere: ******SPECIAL LIBERTY ALERT!!*******

The Liberty Sphere: ******SPECIAL LIBERTY ALERT!!*******

The Welshman alerts us to The One's restrictions on free speech...you know just in this special case. Except of course, if they get away with it, there will be more and more special cases.

Now what nasty things can I say about the Pokulus Bill.

You have an individual right to guns, but nobody said anything about ammunition.

The Liberty Belles have a post up reporting that there are bills in both California and New York to require more state scrutiny of ammunition sales. In New York, dealers would be required to take note of the amount and caliber of ammunition purchased. I assume that if a person purchases a caliber for a gun he has not registered, he can expect a knock on the door. In California, quoting the Belles:

In California, AB962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a "handgun ammunition vendor" in the Department of Justice's database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice. Mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.

I have been to classes and matches that required at least 100 rounds of ammunition to complete. Classes in advanced technique require much more. Don't these people ever think, or ask questions of those they hope to regulate? But all that is beside the point. The truth is that a criminal will not generally be bound by laws which limit you and me. What is to prevent someone from stealing someone else's identity and buying 50 rounds from several stores, or simply stealing the ammunition? After all, if someone is bent on a crime which may involve murder, what's an additional charge? Clearly this is not about preventing crime, as if the State really cares about the safety and peace of mind of ordinary citizens. Instead, this is about controlling the ordinary citizen, so the State can continue to rape and pillage the property of ordinary citizens. The theory the gun grabbers are now working under is that you may have an individual right to guns, but nobody said anything about ammunition. At the rate the Supremes have moved, it will be another 100 years before they deign to pronounce on the obvious.

The Liberty Sphere: If You Want to Know What's Wrong with the GOP...

The Liberty Sphere: If You Want to Know What&'s Wrong with the GOP...

The Welshman nails it. Go read

And If A "Consensus of "Experts" Told You to Jump off a Cliff?

Goofball Warming or Climate Change as proponents of the former like to style it now, has been a cause of mine since the first Kyoto Treaty was signed. Mark Hendrickson has a good explanation of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and how it works (or doesn't) in this piece titled A Closer Look at Climate Change.

The IPCC’s Feb. 2007 report stated: It is “very likely” that human activity is causing global warming. Why then, just two months later, did the Vice Chair of the IPCC, Yuri Izrael, write, “the panic over global warming is totally unjustified;” “there is no serious threat to the climate;” and humanity is “hypothetically … more threatened by cold than by global warming?”

So what explains how an individual sitting on the IPCC, a Vice Chair, say just the opposite?

The policymakers’ summaries are presented as the “consensus” of 2,500 scientists who have contributed input to the IPCC’s scientific reports. “Consensus” does NOT mean that all of the scientists endorse the policymakers’ summaries. In fact, some of the 2,500 scientists have resigned in protest against those summaries. Other contributing scientists, such as the individuals quoted above, publicly contradict the assertions of the policymakers’ summaries.

Just so we are clear, "consensus" has no place in determining scientific truth. Newton did not seek consensus when he published his laws of motion. Instead these were the result of individual effort, that was confirmed by other scientists who saw that his laws worked by putting them to the test. Today, we know that Newtons "laws" only hold for a spectrum of reality, and that Einstein's laws become more descriptive as thing speed up. Einstein's theories were initially rejected. Scientists devised experiments which would prove him wrong, only to discover he had been right. But few people think of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity as a "law."

From Anthony Watt's site "WattsUpWithThat" there is this quote. go read the whole thing. Indeed, bookmark the site and refer to it often.

In order to support a theory, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the theory, and the predictions then need to happen.
While the occurrence of the predicted events is not proof positive of a theory, they increase the believability of the claims. However, if the predictions are not observed, this tends to indicate the theory is flawed or even wrong. Some predictions are absolute in nature. Einstein’s prediction of the bending of light by the Sun is such a case. It either would or would not bend, and this was considered a critical test of the validity of his theory of general relativity. It did bend the predicted amount, and supported his theory.

So what then is the reason for claiming a "consensus" of scientists agree to this if a "consensus" has no meaning here? Well, of course it is to bully the public, with the help of the MSM into believing we must act now. It is, in other words, another made up "crisis." Mark Hendrikson again:

The sponsors of the IPCC, the United Nations, and liberal American politicians all share the goal of reducing Americans’ wealth by capping our consumption of energy with a binding international climate change treaty. They are willing to resort to scientific fraud to further their goal. In the words of Al Gore’s ally, former Under-Secretary of State Tim Wirth, “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing” by reducing Americans’ consumption of fossil fuels. Keep that in mind whenever the IPCC is cited in support of a climate treaty.

When I was receiving my first indoctrination training on goofball warmening, I asked a buddy, an "expert" from one of our field offices, "If the theory is correct how does it explain the dramatically warmer and cooler temperatures that existed in prehistoric times? Where were the SUVs then?" That question has never been answered.

For the true believers, those who buy into the myth of Gaia, the "ecology" is on a knife edge. Cut down a single tree that happens to be the only habitat for some rare butterfly, and the whole thing unravels. In this myth, man must not do anything which might disturb the delicate balance lest we destroy everything. However, for those of us who believe that God created the universe, and this planet specifically for us, and knowing who and what we are before he created us, the earth is probably immune to man's undoing. Einstein said it best: "God does not play dice with the universe."

For more information, please read: Richard Lindzen's The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus and bookmark this site: Science and Environmental Policy Project.

The Breda Fallacy: TSA, pt. III

The Breda Fallacy: TSA, pt. III

Breda went to the NRA Convention in Phoenix this year. Naturally, she flew. Her travails with the TSA are recorded on her blog. Breda, unfortunately, has one prosthetic leg. Fortunately, she doesn't let it interfere with living a full life.

Here's the thing though. The TSA didn't have to be created, and most of the things critics said would happen have in fact happened as a result. The airlines are private companies, who supplied their own security for their own airplanes before 9/11. Why wasn't that good enough? The airlines could have competed based on the level of security provided. Say you are squeamish. Airline A could advertise that they strip search every passenger, Airline B might require reservations in advance, and advertise no searches, but does a complete criminal and credit check. Airline C might have a list of business people and frequent fliers that go on with no check, but any walk-ins get the strip search routine. Everyone then weighs costs, supposed benefits, time and routing in making their decisions of which airline to fly. The costs are readily apparent in your ticket price. But instead we get the enormous costs ($5.3 Billion in FY 02) and incompetence of the TSA.

I'm Not Saying Obama is Hitler...Just sayin'

Oh good, because then the debate is over. But Rachel Marsden has a point in her latest article on Townhall.com entitled Obama Not the First Head of State to Design Cars. A quote:

“Sitting at a restaurant table in Munich in the summer of 1932, Hitler designed the prototype for what would become the immensely successful Beetle design for Volkswagen (literally, the "car of the people"),” says the Hitler Historical Museum’s website. He then said to the head of Daimler-Benz: “Take it with you and speak with people who understand more about it than I do. But don't forget it. I want to hear from you soon, about the technical details."

Ms. Marsden points out that people around the world are jealous of American cars:

“Americans just have to get out of their big cars,” a French friend sighed to me recently.

“Yeah, I’m sure your girlfriends find it really sexy that you can ‘lift’ your scooter into its parking spot and that they have to take the subway to meet up with you on your dates,” I replied.

So, to keep everyone from being so jealous, we'll just have to drive smaller rollerskates like everyone else. I wonder if the smaller bit applies to Beverly Hills mansions? Nah...

That’s environmental paranoia in a nutshell for you. It isn’t really about the environment, it’s about control. You, too, are going to be forced to look as stupid as the guy pulling ten canvas bags out of his faux leather man-purse. If you dare show up at any grocery store in Toronto, Canada, without your own ratty, reused bags, you’ll be charged five cents for each one – a tax on your audacity, collected by the City.

So, in Rachel Marsden's formulation, the nerds (you know, the guys who play Dungeons and Dragons instead of doing something useful) are now in charge, and they are going to force you, with a gun to your head, to look as nerdy as they do.

Oh, and that bit about Hitler? She isn't saying Obama is Hitler or anything-just noting a similarity, that's all.