Our President's Narcissism, and Our Part in Feeding It

For anyone so interested, it may be useful to be reminded periodically, that America was not always as it is, and that Americans, too were much different once upon a time.  Kevin Williamson, over at National Review has a piece on Obama's Last Days that bemoans not only the apparent narcissism of the President himself, but our attitude toward this cult of personality. We citizens could nip this sort of thing in the bud by not paying it the attention that the President so craves. But we don't. It wasn't always so.

To be a republican in the 18th century was to be a radical. The American founders were deeply suspicious of pomp and circumstance: It is not mere coincidence that the ban on an official national church (that, and not having a manger scene at city hall, is what “establishment of religion” means) came in the first item on the Bill of Rights. Many republicans of the founding era were so suspicious of religious bureaucracies that it was not a foregone conclusion that the Catholic Church would be tolerated throughout the colonies. (Indeed, for a time it wasn’t.) And they were even more suspicious of the claims of royalty. In the person of the English king, they found a compound of those sources of suspicion: a hereditary monarch who was head of state and church both.

The idea that a large, complex society enjoying English liberty could long endure without the guiding hand of a priest-king was, in 1776, radical. A few decades later, it became ordinary — Americans could not imagine living any other way. The republican manner of American presidents was pronounced: There is a famous story about President Lincoln’s supposedly receiving a European ambassador who was shocked to see him shining his own shoes. The diplomat said that in Europe, a man of Lincoln’s stature would never shine his own shoes. “Whose shoes would he shine?” Lincoln asked.

As I have noted in the past, the idea of nobility was like putting lipstick on the pig. So called "noble families" started out as the most ruthless, most murderous thugs in the region, who bullied murdered, and forced their way until they were given control. Usually, they had to continue to be more ruthless and murderous than everyone else because any sign of weakness they showed would have been the end of them as another nearly as ruthless and murderous creature would take their place.  These people then took the wealth of the people as taxes, in return for guaranteeing the peoples safety.  Of course, they never kept their promise, but the peoples wealth was taken nonetheless.  Funny how that works.

No one who demands respect by virtue of noble birth, should receive any more respect than that given to any man or woman by virtue of their humanity.  Nor should one who is wealthy by reason of noble birth be allowed to keep it.  It was stolen, truly.

American Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, indeed any official should be shown the same respect due to anyone else, and no more. These people are a self selected bunch, who have by hook or crook, convinced enough people to vote for them.  As a result they have been given great responsibility, and temporarily the perks that go with that job.  The perks that go with the job are not personal attributes but rather taxpayer concessions to facilitate performing their job.   For example, former Presidents receive lifetime Secret Service protection at taxpayer expense.  We do this to ensure that Presidents actually leave office, knowing they will be protected from those they may have hurt with their decisions during their time in office.

 The constant obsession with the Presidents comings and goings, what he ate for breakfast, and when he last farted should be of no more concern to us than that of anybody else.  The President should shine his own shoes, for crying out loud.  In a health republican polity, the President would be like the School Principal.  Yes, you know who he is, and have a vague idea what he does, but
in your day to day activities as a students, your teachers and your work are more important.  Nobody idolizes the Principal.  

Raising a Middle Finger to Gun Control Libtards

Here's a good one from Kurt Schlichter that I missed a year ago.  But Bearing Arms pointed to the article, and it is a doozy.   The article entitled Gun Rights Advocates Have a Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is. published by the Independent Journal Review. You would expect, of course, that if it is so devastating, it must also be quite sophisticated and subtle. But Schlichter doesn't do subtle.

American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?

“Screw you." That’s it. Except the first word isn’t “Screw.”

That's it? We just raise a middle finger and go about our business? As it turns out, yes, and the reason why is the rest of the story, so to speak.

It’s not exactly a traditional argument, but it’s certainly appropriate here. The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.

You can’t argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.

But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It’s about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach.

I certainly hope that one of the first bills to come before the Congress is the National Reciprocity bill currently circulating in Congress. Regularizing the carrying of firearms across State lines is fits the true meaning of Constitution as regards regulation of interstate commerce. Just as a driver's license issued by one State is recognized in the other 49, so a permit to carry should be recognized. The only problem I see with this is that it will make permanent the regime of concealed carry permits, which were always intended as a step back to Constitutional carry that obtain before.

The original reason for concealed carry permits was a public attitude that honest people carried their weapons openly.  Only criminals carried concealed.  In those days, the early 19th century, it was perfectly acceptable for people to go about publicly armed.  Today, the public does not want to see weapons, and open carry is discouraged.  While it is perfectly legal, you will make a spectacle of yourself if you open carry, and anything that might conceal even a portion of a weapon such as a coat will earn you a visit from the police. Most concealed carriers I know appreciate the laws allowing open carry as a way to avoid a visit from the police because their the wind accidentally blew their cover garment and momentarily revealed their concealed gun.

In any case, you now have permission to raise a giant middle finger to those who want to control your use of a gun.  Kurt Schlichter and I authorized you to do it.

The Left Suddenly Discovers the Value of Having Guns

David Codrea has an interesting article on liberals who are suddenly buying guns over at Oath Keepers entitled Rush by 'Liberals' to Buy Guns Refutes Progressive Narrative and Raises Hypocrisy Quetions. The gun grabbers, who are mostly Leftists, have been telling us for years that we need only rely on the police-never mind that hiring someone to defend you does not absolve you of the responsibility to defend yourself. Now, suddenly, here they are buying guns for self defense? Does anyone else smell a rat? Are Leftists now preparing to demonstrate Mao's axiom that power grows out of the barrel of a gun? As I have always suspected, the Left hoped to get the rest of us to give up our guns, but they never intended to give up theirs. That was just a convenient ruse.

The 9mm vs. .45 debate continues

I occasionally check into various forums dealing with 1911 style handguns, if for no other reason than to keep up with the latest poop being jawed about.  One of the classics debates that people (especially those new to these forums) is oil versus grease for maintaining your pistol.  There are partisans for each, with a known set of reasons for each choice, and then there is the great majority who use whichever product is most effective in their particular environment.  Similarly, the other classic debate is the fabled 9 mm versus .45 ACP.  This debate can be extended to include .38 Spl, .357 Magnum, and .40 S&W or 10 mm. Bearing Arms has the usual debate ender when these arguments get started at 9mm vs. .40 vs. .45 which is better for self defense?

I get asked every now and then by people who are new to shooting: "What gun should I get?" often followed by "Which bullet is best for self defense?"  I tell them the same things.  If you are new to guns, take a basic course to learn how to shoot safely.  Rent some guns you are thinking about and try them with a box of ammunition.  See which ones you shoot the best.  It is better to carry a .32 ACP that you can shoot well, than a .45 ACP that you can not.

On the Political Meaning of saying Merry Christmas

I say Merry Christmas to everyone I meet, and if they seem not to appreciate my "Merry Christmas," I tell them I hope they will take it in the spirit in which it is given.  But, truth be told, I do not feel very merry this year.  The birth of the Christ child as always is an exciting time for me, but I feel the weight of our failure as Christians to proselytize our neighbors, and the Muslims in our midst.

This singular duty was brought home to me in an article in today's American Thinker entitled Christmas in a Time of Religious War.

Now, to the rub. This is not the time for lighting candles in town squares, hashtags of peace, vigils and prayers for understanding. It is time to spiritually prepare ourselves for battle. We need to spiritually go to war with the ideology of Islam as it is being practiced and believed by millions, not just a few million, but it seems hundreds of millions, so yes, we are going to war with Islam.

I have tried to wake up members of my own congregation, but it seems many are still lost in the dream of political correctness and peace through ecumenical dialog. I have even had people try to convince me that all religions teach essentially the same thing. My answer is no, they do not. Only one religion teaches that the only way to the Father is through the Son. For only one is its central character not just King, but Prophet and Priest. Man no longer needs a mediator, because Jesus is our mediator, our Lord, and our Savior. Furthermore, the God of Creation, who knew us before the world was created, and carefully planned and timed his salvation of His Creation, has seemingly delivered an unlikely President to us.

There is hope. Reports say that the Christians of Egypt, living under the most horrible dhimmi conditions, are heartened by the election and words of Donald Trump. As the Soviet prisoners languishing in the Gulag were heartened by the words of Ronald Reagan, so now are the hearts warmed by the members of the persecuted church by the words on Donald Trump. Think about that for a moment.

.This most unlikely of leaders, this most unlikely of Christian leaders, has spoken in defense of the persecuted unlike any President in memory. The man who so many mocked has shocked the world. What lies in Donald Trump’s heart, I don’t know, and certainly those who speak so derisively of him don’t know either. Nor do we know how God has chosen him and how He will use him. But I do feel that Providence is at work here. Who among us will mock that?

I pray each day for our new President, that he will be the kind of leader we need at this time. The Bible is full of unlikely leaders who turned out to be the ideal man for their time. I pray that Trump will be such a leader.

Meanwhile we Christians are fighting a Spiritual battle with not only Islam, but also with the Left. Why, does the Left seem drawn to Islam, one wonders? Islam seeks to kill homosexuals, subjugate women, and demands that atheist and agnostic or irreligious submit to their god. Yet the Left seemingly prefers Islam to the simple persuasion that Christianity offers.  What can explain the apparent suicidal attraction these people have with a program that surely wants to kill them all.  Fay Voshell answers that question in another article at American Thinker entitled Preferring Herod to Jesus.

Voshell notes that the Left has always had a soft spot in its heart for tyrants and dictators. Their gushing descriptions of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and more recently Castro are sickening to anyone who has looked at the history of these dictators with anything like clear objectivity. It is this same yearning for a dictator that drives the Left like lemmings jumping off the cliff, toward the object of their obsession, only to realize to late that their obsession is a rendezvous with a horrendous death.

I hope you will read both articles 000today, and after the Christmas gifts have been passed out, the dinner has been eaten, and the game watched, ponder these thoughts as you say another "Merry Christmas!"

The Idea of America: Immigration

From the beginning, the United States has attracted immigrants to its shores.  People came, and brought their various cultures and skills with them for freedom and liberty.  Freedom means to be free from something or someone, whereas liberty means free to do or be what one wants.  Within the law, both are to be had here in the United States.  I have lived overseas, and I have visited other countries. I enjoyed both, but I am an American, and I strained at my leashes when overseas.

I mentioned in my first post on the idea of America that I was speaking with a Russian immigrant.  I well remember meeting this woman at the airport, and I remember being at her wedding, and helping her get her papers in order.  I have no problem with immigrants-who come in legally, obey our laws, and who want to acquire the "idea of America."  She now is married to a friend of ours, has a son, a job, and she enjoys her freedoms and liberties here in the United States.  Sure, she goes back to Russia on occasion, but just like me, she always returns.

Acquiring the "idea of America" means first of all, understanding that we are a nation of laws, and that no one (including Hillary Clinton) is above the law.  It requires that each potential immigrant learn English, to the best of his or her ability.  Having lived overseas myself, I understand that everyone has different abilities when it comes to languages, and even though a person might have no trouble learning one language does not mean that he will be able to learn another with equal facility.

Acquiring the "idea of America" means learning the history leading up to the Declaration of Independence, and understanding that seminal document.  It also means learning the history of the Revolution, and the Constitution. One can not hide out in an immigrant community and allow criminals to continue to rule the lives of people in those communities.  One does not have to give up his or her culture to come to America, but one does have to give up his old way of life. And why wouldn't you?  You have come here to be free, so be free!

Acquiring the "idea of America" means using ones skills to add to America, make a living for oneself and ones family, and be able to contribute to bettering the lives of those around you.  If you have come to suck off the welfare teat, then you are not a true American.  Go home, we don't want you.  If you have come to change America, its Christian heritage, its laws, then leave.  We don't need you either. America is unique in the world, there is no other. There are enough places to go where they already practice what you preach.  Go there and be happy.  If you want to come to America because you think we are easy pickin's, again you have picked the wrong target.   While some have tried to show a softer side of America, we are still the land with a rifle behind every blade of grass.  Don't awaken the sleeping giant.  We are still the country that managed to send fresh homemade fruitcakes to our boys serving in WWII,  Imagine what message that sent to German generals?

So, welcome to America, but be prepared to do the hard work necessary to become an American, or go home.

The Idea of America, Then and Now

Yesterday, I wrote about the "Idea of America" and what that (used) to mean.  One thing it used to mean was that somewhere, at least one courageous editor would publish a piece on the recent Senate report on Planned Parenthood.  Some editorial might just propose that Planned Parenthood should not be funded with taxpayer dollars. But here is a story about what it means today.  Phelim McAleer has a piece today at Townhall.com entitled The Senate Report on Planned Parenthood that No One is Talking About. You may recall that the Center for Medical Progress made a very devastating investigative film showing Planned Parenthood people talking about selling baby parts quite matter of factly, as if they were talking about some chicken for dinner. While Planned Parenthood claimed selective editing and taking these words out of context, the Senate did its own independent report.  McAleer:

Matching up documents and invoices the Committee found just how one $15 an hour “technician” spent an hour of his time in early summer 2014.

“For Example on one day in June 2014, the ABR technician obtained a 20 week old fetes at a [Planned Parenthood] clinic. From that one fetus, ABR sold its brain to one customer for $325; both of its eyes for $325 each ($650 total) to a second customer, a portion of its liver for $325 to a third customer; its thymus and for $325 and another portion of liver to a fourth customer; and its lung for $325 to a fifth customer. These fees are merely the service fees for the specimens themselves; ABR separately charged each customer for shipping, disease, screening, cleaning and freezing, as applicable. So from that single fetus for which ABR paid a mere $60, ABR charged its customers a total of $2,275 for tissue specimens, plus additional charges for shipping and disease screening.”

In the recent kerfuffle of so called "fake news," one point is often lost. We have always had "fake news" to one degree or another. People, being people, will always slant the news one way or another. But to out an out not report on something that is so disgusting, so inhumane, frankly so evil goes beyond the faking of news. This is willingly giving cover to the selling of baby parts, thus becoming an accessory after the fact.  Now, no, one can be charged for failing to report this, but that does not mean that they are therefore off the hook.  If the press wants to regain the trust of the American people, reporting on things like this instead of doing pieces on the need to "manage fake news" would be a good start.