Its All About the Benjamins

The true nature of the invading force on our Southern border is exposed here by William L. Gensert in a piece at the American Thinker entitled The Caravan: Rules During an Invasion. Gensert takes a while to get to the heart of his argument, but it is this: the "caravan" otherwise known as an invading force, is a tool of the Democrat party.

Let's unmask the "caravan" for what it is.

Look at the timing. The mass of migrants seems to be scheduled to arrive at an hour of convenience for the Democratic Party. The timeframe is malleable. At first, there were trucks picking them up at night (when no one was looking) to get them to the border faster, just in time for the election. Suddenly, as the Democratic Party's needs have changed, those trucks have disappeared.

Yet we know, should things change again, and the Democrats want them to arrive before election day, there will be new trucks to bring them here. Should they want the huddled masses to breach our border after election day, they will let them continue their walk on foot. The determination of the course of "caravan" action will depend on what the president says and does and what the left thinks the optics will be.

It's all about the Benjamins. People mistake the left as an ideology when it is really a religion, and as with all false religions, proponents are all about power and wealth. It is not a coincidence that powerful Democrats all become fabulously wealthy, with multiple mansions and scads of servants, while serving the public.

I do not know who is funding the invasion, and I don't wish to speculate. The Left has a number of billionaires who could be funding it. Beto O'Rourke's campaign has been caught by Project Veritas apparently admitting sending them funding for supplies. There are other possible sugar-daddies who could benefit, including some in the Mideast as well as China.  But it does appear to be controlled by the American Left. 

America was won by conquest.  That was how things were done.  We are constantly chastised because we displaced the people who were already here.  Our culture displaced their culture. I here it all the time how put upon the Indians were, even though it now appears that they in turn conquered the peoples they refer to as the Ancient Ones.  The Left, sensing potential weakness in us, wants to exploit our supposed guilt over what our forebears did.  But I do not feel any guilt, do you?  If our forebears had not won an improbable victory in the New World, I would not be here.  So no, I am not sorry. But now, another culture wants to displace ours.  Why are they seen as good, when they are simply trying to do what we ourselves did?  If we were the bad guys then, why are not they seen as the bad guys now?  The answers to these, questions and more, can be found in the last quoted paragraphs: its all about the Benjamins. 

Tucker Carlson at Prager University

Tucker Carlson explains the recent history of the immigration issue at Prager University. If you wonder why I say that the Dems have only one principle, Tucker Carlson explains it in a nutshell for one issue.  But its the same thing on all issues we face today.  They will back anyone who can deliver votes. Now, I am aware that Republican politicians are often only slightly less shameless, but at least Republican voter tend to have a few more principles, which keeps their politicians in check. Dems, not so much.

If you haven't voted yet...

John C. Goodman explains Who's To Blame For Our Bitter Divide over at Townhall.com today. It is an interesting read, and I encourage gentle readers to go there and get a good education on the origin, purpose, and results of identity politics. Along the way, you will find that the real purpose of identity politics is specifically to divide people along tribal lines, set each tribe against the others, and reap the votes by promising to get revenge for perceived historic evils done to your tribe by others.

Identity politics divides us into tribes. It implicitly sets tribe against tribe. The divisions are created not by reason, but by emotion and resentment. Once tribal warfare begins, it takes on a mind of its own – under no one’s control. But let’s not forget how all this started.

The Democratic Party long ago ceased being the party of collectivist ideas. Today it is the party of identity collectivism. It’s what Ayn Rand once called “barnyard collectivism.” Further, identity politics not only engenders hateful divisiveness, it encourages violence and threatens the stability of our democratic institutions.

Goodman goes on to explain a tribal view of rights and responsibilities gives the aggrieved party greater rights and fewer responsibilities than the supposed oppressors. Whether we are taking about skin color, or feminists, or the LGBTQxtz crowd, the implication is that Democrats are going to repay, seek revenge, and right the historic wrongs of these aggrieved parties. And there are plenty of tribal hustlers out there making a living off of the perpetually aggrieved. Whether we are talking about the "Reverend" Al Sharpton and the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson, or the screetching harpies of the Feminazi movement, or the lawfare committed by LGBTQxyz against Christians who are trying to live their faith.

Goodman is correct that this must stop.  Was your great great grandfather held as a slave?  That is a tragedy for him no doubt.  But why is that a tragedy for you now?  The Lord works in mysterious ways, and there was a reason he put you here now, and I don't think its to make the white man pay.  Similarly, were you the queer kid who got picked on by the bullies in high school?  Not good, and no doubt you have resentments.  But have you never heard of Freddy Mercury and the super band Queen?  Mercury turned lemons into lemonade.  Maybe that would be a better way than to constantly carp, complain, and seek retribution for your resentments.

I have read somewhere that the United States produces one quarter of the worlds GDP. Think what we could accomplish if, instead of nursing grievances and making someone else pay, we put our minds to how we could improve the lives of others, while of course helping ourselves as well. That is after all the essence of a successful business.  Focus on making the others lives better.  Plant our feet in the here and now, because yesterday is a cancelled check, and tomorrow is a promissory note.  All we really have is today to make our lives meaningful.  Revenge may feel good, but it leaves one hollow.

I leave you with this:

There was a time when the liberal democrats endorsed traditional civil rights – believing that everyone should be equal before the law. Those days are gone. There was a day when our universities were dedicated to the unencumbered search for truth, wholeheartedly defending the right of people to express views with which they disagreed. Those days are also gone.

Here’s why this is dangerous. One step away from the belief that you have no right to express your ideas is the belief that you have no right to vote. One step away from the idea that you have no right to express your ideas in the polling booth is the belief that the people you vote for have no right to govern.

When lawfully elected governments are deposed in other countries it is almost always in the context of a claim that elected officials had no legitimate right to be elected in the first place.

AFA Responds to Insane Arguments Against Armed Guards at Tree of Life shooting

The American Family Association Responds to Insane Arguments Against Armed Guards by Dr. Michael Brown. President Trump had suggested that every house of worship should have armed guards, and the Huffington Post had written an article that attempted to counter the Presidents suggestion, while hilariously making the President's case. Note that I was pointed to this article by David Codrea at the War on Guns.

Before we get started though, you should probably go read the HuffPo article, written by Erin Schumaker here.

Ms. Schumaker brings up a number of points, but the most interesting is that armed guards don't stop mass shootings, they just move them. About this, Brown writes:

I mean no insult to Schumaker, but really now, you have got to be kidding me. How can this be taken seriously?

First, for the people at Disney Springs and EVE Orlando, the security guards apparently saved their lives. You better believe they’re glad those guards discouraged the killer from attacking there.

Second, if the Pulse had the same type of visible security, the killer might not have gone there either. (There was, in fact, a guard inside the Pulse who traded gunshots with the killer. But it would appear the security was not as outward and visible as at the other locations.)

Brown goes on to note that:

Schumaker also references a more recent event, when “security measures deterred a gunman who tried to enter a predominately black church last week, but he went on to kill two people at a nearby Kroger supermarket.”

Again, I’m sure the members of that predominantly black church are grateful for those security measures. As for the people tragically killed at Kroger’s, perhaps if that store had those same security measures in place, the murderer would have left that scene as well.

If one wants to explore further afield, the Aurora, Colorado shooter also apparently over looked two closer theaters in favor of the one that advertised the unarmed status of their attendees.

While I am sure that having more armed security guards will not stop all mass shooting, it is also true here as elsewhere in life, that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.  That is, while more armed guards, more visibly placed, will help reduce mass shootings, there is no perfect solution.  Those seeking to kill large number of people will always seek out the softest targets.  In the end, each of us is held liable by our creator for our own lives.  We are each our own first responders. 

Bearing Arms Asks the Wrong Question.

While the statics come out in favor of concealed carry, yet again, I think it is also true that Tom Knighton here is asking the wrong question.  His article at Bearing Arms asks In the Wake of Synagogue Shooting, How Effective are Armed Citizens Anyway? But the truth is, the armed citizen is not an unpaid security guard, nor is he a member of the police, who do have a mandate to protect the public at large. No, the armed citizen only job is to protect his own life, and those of his loved ones. He has no duty to act just because he carries a gun. But most of us would consider him a coward not to act if the opportunity arose.

The use and abuse of statistics is the way of the "Utilitarian Argument."  The utilitarian argument says that the only things allowed in society are those things that serve society.  Unfortunately, the utilitarian argument is a slippery slope that inevitably leads to a dystopian future.  There is no end to the horrors that can be visited on people in the name of society.  Thus for instance, since older people can no longer work, their abilities being eroded by time, they can be euthanized.  Similarly, we can abort disable children in the womb because they would be a net cost to society. Indeed, the entire eugenics movement was based on utilitarian arguments.

Some things must be based upon principles, immune to utilitarian arguments and statics.  The right to free speech, to freedom of religion and so on are such principles.  The right to defend one's life is another.  Along with that right is the right to possess and carry tools necessary to that end.  These should not be up for grabs, but recognized by everyone.  Laws should only apply to those who abuse these rights.

Still, it is interesting that when an armed citizen is available, and has an opportunity to stop a bad guy, that they are 75% effective.  Good to know, so thanks for the tip, Tom.

Go read the article and see if you agree.

It is not the guns that killed in Pittsburgh...

The shooting of people at a synagogue yesterday in Pittsburgh, with the shooter saying things like "all Jews must die!" has the Left already calling for more gun control.  It is not clear yet that any proposal could have stopped this, but the left does not seem to "get it."  But as Kevin McCullough points out in an article over at Townhall.com It Was No More the Guns Than It Was the Bombs. We already have extensive "bomb control" in this country. Bombs, by the nature of such things are designed to kill indiscriminately. But they must be designed, built and set in place by human hands. Similarly, guns do not shoot themselves. They must be loaded, aimed and fired by human hands. The common denominator in any killing is that one or more human beings decide to kill one or more other human beings.

Eventually all of this will be leveled at the feet of inanimate objects—the guns themselves.

Taking them away—preferably from the entire citizenry—is the only thing that will quench the thirst for control from the activist political class, celebrities with outsized perspective of their own opinions, dishonest faculty in the classrooms of the universities, and smarmy news anchors who look down their noses at close to everyone.

But it wasn’t the guns that left us the tragedy in Pittsburgh.

For it took human fingers to pull the triggers.

Just like it took human hands to create the dozen bombs sent to politicians, without human hands pulling the trigger on three firearms those eleven fatalities would be alive today.

No it wasn’t the guns, the gun laws, the politicians, or the NRA that did any of this.

Truly the source of this pain is traceable.

It can be defined, identified, and in an attempt to be helpful even be targeted.

But our society doesn’t wish to.

Because to admit the real culprit is to admit something that all the elites try desperately to avoid.

Basically... looking in the mirror.

Mankind is sinful. Left to our own devices murder is normal.

If we want to get to the truth of the matter, we must confront the fact that guns, and to a lesser extent, bombs, make killing more efficient, but they are not required. Swords, knives, spears, javalins, daggers, scimitars, stones and rocks have been used to kill, along with various tools that were designed for other purposes such as nail guns, screw drivers, ice picks, chain saws, jet engines, and the list goes on...and on...and on...

At the same time, we don't want the most efficient means of committing violence concentrated in the hands of the government such that they alone have a monopoly of violence. For the government is not composed of angels, but instead is composed of we the people.  And of course the police are not there to protect any one individual, but are there to protect the public at large.  But again, they are not made up of angels, but instead are drawn from the people.  Nothing in their training gives the special powers of good over evil.  They merely have numbers and fire power.

The truth is there is no solution.  No set of laws, or magical incantations can prevent murders.  The most you can do is make murder itself illegal and punishable in the old fashioned way...a life for a life. 

Katie Pavlich Smacks Down David Hogg

Katie Pavlich had an excellent answer to David Hogg right here. A special thanks to Tom Knighton at Bearing Arms