God, grant them entry into thy kingdom...

Another shooting at a school. It's at moments like this that my belief in the right to keep and bear arms wavers...until I stop feeling and re-engage my mind.

Have you ever noticed that these things never seem to happen at gun clubs, hunting camps, police stations or military bases? The gutless, self-pitying pukes who commit these atrocities wouldn’t dare attack people they thought might actually defend themselves – because then they wouldn’t be able to properly make their “statement”. 100 years ago in this country, if you could see over the counter you could buy semi-automatic firearms virtually identical to those available today – and we had almost NO gun laws. Yet, this sort of thing didn't happen...DID. NOT. HAPPEN. In the old days, if someone had "had enough" they had the decency to just go out to the shed and end it all. Today...if you’ve failed, everyone else is to blame - so they must be made to pay. This sort of ‘reasoning’ is the end result of an 80 year process of removing people's responsibilities for themselves. And thanks to our glittering info-tainment industry, all the potential copy-cats, around the world, will hear about this guy within 4 hours and decide to get *their* faces on TV. Since guns are inanimate assemblies of metal, the idea of trying to “control” them is literally “pre-civilized”. And since there are probably about 200 millions of them in the U.S. today, the only thing we can change…is US.

Society and Capitalism

Some say the government permits the market to function in safety and thus is superior to it. Au Contraire! It is the market that permits government! What government could exist without the wealth necessary to run it? Government can appropriate…can confiscate wealth, but it can NEVER produce it. Government is an off-shoot of the market - an unintended consequence of the market’s very success. Show me where government ever sprang up in the absence of wealth…in the absence of a market? Civilization, Society…whatever you wish to call it – it IS the market in action. I can scrape by with subsistence farming, but if I combine with that guy over there, then my crop may good or bad…his crop may be good or bad, but together, we’ll make it. It is the division of labor. It is the market. You cannot divide or separate them: “Society” and “The Market” are one in the same. Society “happened” because people came together willingly to advance their own best interests. Historically, when those interests were no longer served, people left – and/or the society collapsed. Today, we are told that a select few will decide for us what our best interests are – and we will be coerced into cooperating to advance these pre-selected “best interests”. By no known definition can this be called “progress”. Rather, this represents the breaking of the most fundamental bonds underlying the very notion of “Society”. Society is a voluntary organization. Compulsion, to remain and participate, is a clear indicator of imminent societal collapse. When you are told that what you consider your best interests are not what you will be permitted to pursue, what stake have you in "Society"? When I want to make money, but the government takes 50+% of it, what incentive have I to try? Especially when I know that by not doing anything, I will still be taken care of. Those who continue to try - are hounded to produce more - so that it can be given to those who don't try. It is a vicious cycle that can only produce privation. History is very clear about this. The only way to prevent the disintegration of such a society, is to indoctrinate and continually re-educate members of the society to believe that those things that they have - until now - considered to be in their best interests are, in fact, not in their best interests and are indeed immoral - if not yet illegal. But even this cannot, for any appreciable length of time, prolong the life of a society whose members no longer believe it is in their best interests to remain a part of it.

Words...and their meanings

As with "Liberal", the word "Conservative" has changed meanings over the years. When I think of a "Conservative", I think of someone who, while he may not like it, does not believe that abortion should be banned by the government. Today, however, many people who consider themselves "Conservative" would have no problem employing the full weight and power of the federal government to criminalize the procedure except in certain very limited circumstances. Also, some "Conservative" people I know are all for corporate and farm subsidies - because American farms and businesses must be protected. Finally, many people who call themselves "Conservative" believe that the U.S. has a sacred duty to protect, defend and even spread Western democratic ideals - if for no other reason than to protect our foreign markets. Still others would, while giving lip-service to our “immigrant heritage” gladly prohibit ANY new immigration through our southern border. I have never seen these things as "Conservative". Rather, I believe they are a corruption of the ideals with and upon which this republic was founded. To be "Conservative" is…to conserve; it is to save, preserve, to value highly and continually use that which worked previously while being open to positive change - progress - as it comes. Many, who today call themselves "Conservative", are either reactionary, looking to hold on to what they’ve got today - or worse: simply the mirror image of the socialists they so fear.

If our safety is at risk as the result of our dependence on foreign oil, then we must save and protect ourselves - by renouncing Arab oil, drilling at home and bringing along new technologies as fast as practicable. If our health is threatened by pollution, then we ought to “conserve” clean water, air and land. A balance can be struck. If taxes are necessary (at the state level) to conserve the environment, then so be it. For every one who leaves a state for taxes, another will come for the environment. A “Conservative” is not going to look the other way while a business wantonly pollutes or permits a dangerous workplace. No, rather he is going to use other prods besides the sledgehammer of “governmental regulation” to bring businesses into line. A “Conservative” doesn’t want to abolish workers’ unions, only prevent them from perpetrating the same abuses they were called into being to prevent.

Those who call for the abolition of the Social Security System and the Department of Welfare without explaining what is to take their places, are not “Conservative”, they are Social Darwinists – and idiots. A true “Conservative” believes in neighborhoods, communities and community-based solutions for the problems our society faces. A true “Conservative” understands that Laissez-Faire capitalism doesn’t work any better than Marxism. He looks to conserve what was good and right about the Liberties and responsibilities which our grand- and great-grand-parents enjoyed, while filling in the economic holes through which many fell in the days before we understood that we – as a nation - are our brother’s keeper.

The New Deal and The Great Society were well intentioned, but they pompously replaced “community” with “government” and vacuously promised to end poverty and inequality. Their legacy of dependence and irresponsibility has been one giant unintended consequence. But, with that said, a “Conservative” understands that the government has its place – and ought, sometimes…temporarily, to expand that place as necessary…while always remembering that it is the market that creates wealth, the government creates nothing.

Huzzah!

December 15, 2007

To paraphrase someone: throughout history, the normal condition of human existence has been one of misery, oppression and poverty.

Today is the 216th anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments to our Constitution, as ratified in 1791.

This document, along with the one it amended, has been an all too rare experiment in popular self-government – and was the first (?) such experiment to temper democracy with a codified respect for individual rights. Indeed, several of our founders – at the time of the Constitutional Convention – were at pains to explain that the fundamental strength of this new system was not that it established democracy, but rather that it restrained it.

It is no accident that our republic has been as successful as it has.

Yet, pick up today’s newspaper – or turn on the TV - and you will see and hear academicians, politicians – and self-appointed social engineers in the media – lecturing us in the smooth, assured, narcotic language of “social welfare” that our experiment has failed; that our founding principles were – and are – flawed. They soothingly inform us that our principles are antiquated and irrelevant, inadequate and inapt for our current societal situation.

“Rights?!”, they cry, “What good are rights when you can’t find a job…when you can’t afford healthcare…when your neighborhood is wracked by violence. ‘Rights’ won’t keep you fed, employed and safe…but we can. Bah! What good are these two hundred year old ‘Rights’? What YOU need is the ‘right’ to a job! The ‘right’ to healthcare! The ‘right’ to decent, affordable housing! Those are the ‘RIGHTS’ you want, eh? And if you’ll just forget about those ‘old’ rights, we’ll grant you all these ‘new’ ones. We’re experts. We only want to help you. Just let us run things and we’ll take care of you. You won’t have to worry about a thing; we’ll tell you what to do. We know what’s best."

We need a new “Leviathan”, they insinuate – to “correct” our system and right the wrongs perpetrated under it.

"Now, since we're going to have change things around a bit, it'll be a bother to have naysayers constantly nagging us - so we're going to have to control what the press can say. You won't mind will you? And if some 'hard-heads' won't go along with the new program, we'll - regrettably - just have to put them someplace where they can't cause us any problems, right? Don't you agree? Of course you do. The bigger picture, after all, must be kept in view. Hmm?”

The other side of the story – the one they never talk about – is that “Rights” granted by “government” can be disposed of with the stroke of a pen. Rights, granted by man, are as ephemeral as man himself – and thus by definition – cannot truly be rights. Do you have the “Right” to a “socially secure” retirement? Sure you do…until the government runs out of money – and then…oh, well, so sorry.

To gravely point out the unfairness "inherent in our system” and glibly promise an impossible equality of outcome…to talk earnestly of the “needs” and “rights” of “Society” as though they were threatened by the continued maintenance of individual liberties - is just a new chorus to the age-old, dæmonic siren-song of the despot-in-waiting. A “Society” is an aggregate of individuals. To hold that individual rights are an impediment to society is not merely logically invalid, but nonsensical. Individual “Liberty” is the highest form of human existence – anything which diminishes it is a step backwards, a movement away, from the highest good.

Is it not wise to ask what system it is that these ‘philosopher kings’ would impose? Is it not prudent to understand the history and efficacy of that cure which they prescribe? If all is as they say, could they not simply present theirs as the superior option? Why have they not done so?

Rather, consider the concerted, coordinated, tireless assaults mounted against the continuation of our experiment and the banishment into exile of our Constitution over - and for - the last 75 years. All done in the name of "The People". Does that sound familiar? Anyone? Anyone?

Is it not meet that we should, today, reflect - just for a moment - on the fact that our national strength, will and self-confidence have begun to falter with the adoption of their prescriptions?

Do those who harangue us really know what's best...or do they only flatter themselves that they do?

A Dream I Had...

Gun Control: A conversation

Me:

“I live in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. There have been 5 shootings (3 of them fatal) within 4 square blocks of my residence within the last year. I want to carry a gun for protection. Can I?”

Gun Guy:

“According to the second ratified amendment to the Constitution of the United States, ‘A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.’ So, yes, you can.”

Gun Control Guy:

“No! The amendment refers only to ‘militias’.”

Gun Guy:

“Well, 10 USC §311 (a) tells us, ‘The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.’ So he’s good to go.”

Gun Control Guy:

“No! The amendment only refers to ‘States’.”

Gun Guy:

“OK, then, section 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania reads, ‘The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned’.”

Gun Control Guy:

“No, no, no. What was meant was state militias.”

Gun Guy:

“Really? Well then, Title 51 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 3, §301, paragraph (a) informs me, ‘The Militia of this Commonwealth shall consist of: (1) all able-bodied citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this Commonwealth, who are at least 17 years six months of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age; and (2) such other persons as may, upon their own application, be enlisted or commissioned therein.’ Now…surely he is allowed to ‘bear’ a weapon for protection.”

Gun Control Guy:

“I still don’t think so. What do you mean by ‘bear’ it?”

Me:

“I don’t want to draw attention to myself, so I’ll carry it in a holster under a coat.”

Gun Control Guy:

“NO! PCS Title 18, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, § 6106. ‘Firearms not to be carried without a license. (a) Offense defined.-- (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree. (2) A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a valid license under this chapter but carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license and has not committed any other criminal violation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree’.”

Me:

“Okay, okay. Let me see…hmm…hmm…well…there’s nothing here in the laws of Pennsylvania specifically prohibiting carrying openly…so I’ll just carry it on my hip, OK?”

Gun Control Guy:

“No! PCS Title 18, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, § 6108 No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless: 1. Such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or 2. Such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).”

Me:

“Let me guess, Philadelphia is a ‘city of the first class’?”

Gun Control Guy:

“Yes it is.”

Me:

“Wait a minute, are you telling me that I have a ‘right’ to bear arms, but if I exercise it in Philadelphia without a LICENSE FROM THE CITY, I’ll get arrested and prosecuted? What kind of ‘right’ is it if it requires a license? Do I need a license to speak my mind, or practice my religion? Do I need a license to be secure in my ‘papers and effects’?”

Gun Guy:

“Not yet, thank God. But, don’t worry, Pennsylvania is a “shall issue” state. Unless you’ve got a criminal record they’ll give you the license, OK?”

Me:

“The Philadelphia Police Department won’t give me one, because my driver’s license is currently suspended.” So, in effect, because of traffic violations, they’ve stripped me of my right to self-defense.”

Gun Control Guy:

“The 'so-called' right to bear arms is not the same as the right to self-defense. You still have the right to self-defense. If you’ve got trouble, just call the police.”

Me:

“If the bad guys have guns, then without one I have no 'meaningful' right to self defense."

Gun Guy:

As for the police...while the Supreme Court has never said anything about it, at least half-a-dozen district courts and courts of appeals have found that the police have NO duty to protect you. Cases like Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981) and DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989) very clearly demonstrate that the law does not hold the police responsible for your safety.”

Me:

“So, wait a minute, let me see if I understand this. Both the Constitutions of Pennsylvania and the United States say I have the right to keep and bear arms for my defense, but state laws and local bureaucrats have effectively nullified BOTH the federal and Commonwealth Constitutions? And to add insult to (potential) injury, the police have no duty to protect me? Am I hearing this right?”

Gun Guy:

“You got it, boyo.”

Gun Control Guy:

“If we got rid of the guns, you wouldn’t need protection.”

Me:

“While estimates vary widely, it is not impossible that there are 300,000,000 guns in the United States at this very moment. If tomorrow morning, in joint session, the Congress of the United States voted 585-to-0 to repeal the 2^nd Amendment; and tomorrow afternoon the President signed off on it; and a week later all 50 state legislatures had voted to accept the repeal; and the day after that the Congress again voted 585-to-0 to prohibit the manufacture, sale and private ownership of all firearms – and to confiscate all firearms currently held privately…in one-hundred (100) years, you might – MIGHT – get half of them. So, this idea that you’re going to ‘get rid of guns’ is nothing short of a lunatic’s dream.”

Gun Control Guy:

“We’ve got to try…for the children.”

Gun Guy & Me:

“Fuck you.”

NRA - sell out?

I just cannot get over how many people in the 'Right-to-Keep-and-Bear-Arms' (RKBA) movement simply do not get the idea that politics is the name of the game we're playing - and thus, we can't have things all our own way all the time. There are actually people who think that the NRA is a sell-out because they "allow" unfavorable laws to get passed. These same people are incensed that the NRA actually lobbies on behalf of certain "gun control" laws. These people would lose the entire game very quickly if they were allowed to control the strategy on our side of the argument. Should the NRA stay involved in the process - and try to make the best of a bad situation - even though it is clear that the votes are there to pass a stupid, pointless law? Or, should it say, "Well, we simply have to stop it!" and use up precious political (and financial) capital in a doomed effort? There simply isn't enough money or leverage to do everything. You've got to pick your battles.

Oooooohh! I get all goosebumply....

When I consider the following conversation:

Taxpayer-to-Senator 'X': "OK, so now you've been using the same accounting method that you make everyone else use for a while, let's see the books. (Scanning the balance sheet) Umm, where is the money for future Social Security and Medicare expenses?"

Senator 'X'-to-Taxpayer: "Oh, well, you see...we don't have to account for that money."

Taxpayer: "Why is that, exactly?"

Senator: "Because you see, the future payments for SS and MC are "promises", but they're not actual, true, legal obligations."

T: "So what are you telling me, you're not going to pay retirees or provide them free medical care?"

S: "Oh, no, of course we will."

T: "But, you don't HAVE to?"

S: "Right."

T: "So, then where is all the money that you collect for SS and MC?"

S: "It's...(unintelligible)."

T: "What? What did you say?"

S: "It's in the 'General Fund'."

T: "Wait a minute...you mean to tell me that all the money you collect from me for SS and Medicare isn't being put aside for me, but is just getting spent on your pet pork barrel crap?!"

S: "Well, you've never objected before."

T: "So I've put all this money into what I thought was my retirement and you've just been spending it - and all I've got to show is a non-binding, non-obligatory "promise" from you to give it back to me when I retire? Is THAT what you're trying to tell me?"

S: "Don't worry about it. You'll get your money."

T: "Well, how much have you currently "promised" to pay?"

S: "Uh, ummm, about...around...I think...something like...$60 Trillion"

T: "AAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!" WE'RE BROKE!!!!"

S: "No, it's OK"

T: "It's not OK, you asshole! The number of workers necessary to support that level of benefit payment - we ain't got!

S: "Well, if you'd quit bitching about securing our borders, we will."

T: "So that's your plan? Import workers to stave off the collapse of our benefits programs - and so what if they sneak a nuke through our southern border?"

S: "That's not gonna happen."

T: "You are un-fucking-believable - do you know that?"

S: "Look, you just need to trust me."

T: (Grabbing Senator 'X' by the earlobe) "No. Never again. Let me tell you what you are going to do. You are going to start putting all the money you collect for SS and MC and all the other benefits you've "promised" aside - and you are NOT GOING TO SPEND IT. Then, you are going to pass a law officially recognizing your OBLIGATION to pay what you've promised. Then, you are going to figure out a way - without raising taxes - to collect and save enough to pay for all of this. Do I make myself clear?

S: (Unintelligible)

T: "DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR?"

S: "Yes, sir."

T: "Then, you are going to secure our Southern Border with Mexico. I mean, SECURE the border. Do you understand? I don't care how many you let in, so long as we know who they are and where they are. Am I getting through to you, son? Are you clear on the concept?

S: "Yes, perfectly clear."

T: "That's good. Now, I want to see a report on your progress every TWO YEARS, got it?"

S: "Yes, sir."

T: "Fine. Now get out of here, you make me sick."

A modest proposal

I have decided to agitate in favor of a law requiring the government of the United States to adopt the "accrual basis" form of accounting.

If a small business used the "cash basis" form of accounting, it would never get any bank to loan it money. If a major corporation tried to use the "cash basis" form of accounting, the government would not permit it. But, that same government shamelessly perpetrates the most egregious accounting legerdemain every day of the year, lies to our faces about it and then DEMANDS more funding. When you think about it - it really is utterly outrageous. it's our money and future on the line; we must wake up and realize that we've got to get involved before the whole thing collapses under the weight of all the do-gooding socialist pipe dreams we've concocted over the last 75 years.

Make the government account for stuff the way it makes everyone else account for it. Then we'll see the reality of the situation we face. Politicians lie to us because they think we don't know - and don't want to know - the real situation. If we want to maintain a government "of the people", we have to know. The good news is, once we know, the politicians will realize that they don't have to lie to us anymore.

La la la la la...I don't hear you!

Today, we yell, "No blood for oil!" But, what happens if we lose that oil? What if we do what we say we ought to do? Will we then pat ourselves on the back for a good job? I think not. Economic collapse would be the result. Or, I suppose we could go back to drilling for oil and mining coal all over the U.S. Oh, but that's right, we want a pristine environment, don't we? Well, which do we want? Will we suffer nobly for our principles?

No, we won't. We will demand that the government *fix* the economy so we can have jobs. We will sell out our principles the moment we can't afford that new car or flat screen TV.

We want it both ways, but are too stupid to know what we're really asking for. Behind the smiles and soothing platitudes, our overlords in the political class are saying this:

"You want cheap gas? You want full employment? Then just look the other way while the government gets you what you asked for.

You want a job that pays well? Fine, just keep your mouth shut when we protect the business community from competition and guarantee them high profits so they'll do what YOU say you want.

You want universal, affordable health care? Great. But, don't say a word when we tell you to wait six months for an MRI - or that it's now against the law to go outside of the "National Healthcare System" - or that we're now going to dictate to you how much you can weigh, what you can eat...essentially, how to live your life.

You want a better life than your parents? Then just keep quiet when we go out and use our military to insure that the world is a safe place for us to do business."

You can't have it both ways - but the government will never tell you that. In fact, when someone does have the guts to tell you that, you lazily raise your head from "your" government's teat and warn him to shut up - then go right back on greedily sucking.

Do you want all our troops home? Or, do you want a good paying job? Because, you know, you really CAN'T have it both ways.

Sucks, huh?

If you look you will see

On this day, 220 years ago, our Constitution was signed and sent to the states for ratification.

Today, nearly 100 years of creeping socialism has lulled most to sleep. They do not see the liberties that their parents and grandparents had, which they can no longer claim without running afoul of a faceless beauracracy which has the power (and willingness) to destroy their lives.

In some places, like Philadelphia, the government has for so long, reached so far into our lives, that they feel perfectly justified in telling us that we can't consume certain foods that contain ingredients that *THEY* have decided are bad for us.

Will the people awaken? Will they arise in indignation and snatch back that which was taken from them in the name of "helping" or "protecting" them?

I am very apprehensive. I greatly fear that the answer is, "no".

OK, while I regain my grip...

H.L. Mencken said that every thinking man must, at some time in his life, feel the nearly uncontrollable urge to run up the Jolly Roger and start slitting throats.

Gun control activists have, for 40+ years, engaged in an hysterical, public spectacle - in which reason is abandoned because emotion is more compelling. A shrieking vomitus of emotion will almost always carry away the unintelligent and uneducated. Depressingly, in the U.S. today, the majority are unintelligent and uneducated. In fact, the more time an individual has spent in academia, the less educated he is likely to be.

We reasonable people have underestimated the effect of this tactic for far too long - and now we find ourselves utterly baffled by the fact that those who stand for the constitution and civil liberties are labeled fanatics and nuts and are on the defensive.

When logic and reason are seen as "tricks" and appeals to emotion are seen as the final word in argumentation, there really is nothing left to argue. Words and arguments are useless against someone who believes that an inanimate assembly of metal is inherently evil. In the same way that there is no basis for - and thus possibility of - negotiations with those who believe that Allah will grant them 72 virgins if they die on Jihad, there is no reaching out to those who see murder, not as an aberrant behavior, but as the result of the mere presence of a firearm. We should quit trying to be reasonable and become just as unreasonable as they are.

The time is fast approaching when I - and those like me - are going to stop talking. We are going to say, "Pass whatever law you like, but, don't come to my house and tell me I have to surrender my property and my God-given right to self-defense. You won't get a pleasant reception." There are millions of us. There aren't enough morons in this country to make even a half-assed attempt.

Am I a crazy? Am I a nut? Am I an extremist? Perhaps, but based on current definitions of extremism, so were Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hancock, et alia. I'll proudly take rank with these men and repudiate the likes of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy.

Mark my words, We The People, are going to take back our country and re-establish the primacy of the Constitution.

Yo Ho! Avast ye, scurvy dogs!

Brew Pubs

When I was younger, there was (almost) nothing as cool as a brew pub. The idea of drinking beer in the place that made it was somehow ethereal and uplifting.

The problem today, however, is that as I've gotten older, I've realized that some beer just sucks - no matter where it's made, or consumed.

So, with brutal experience keeping a tight leash on my expectations, I am looking forward to the reopening of the famed Dock Street brew pub. It is opening in the heart of University City - around 50th and Chestnut (?).

Dock Street beer was an early local contribution to the revolution that overthrew the oppressive regime of BudMiller. It was - and is - good beer. the original brew pub closed years ago and was sorely missed, so hopes are high.

However, its new location has my antenna quivering slightly; catering to college kids is not a strong statement of faith in one's product. Nevertheless, I will keep an open mind - and flexible liver.

You've got to let go...

Anyone who knows me knows I wear my feelings and beliefs on my sleeve. I've long said that I would love to be in with the "cool kids" of the dominant left wing orthodoxy and be able to make fun of President Bush as a liar and an idiot - and the war in Iraq as neo-colonial, neo-imperial, neo-militarist oil-mongering, etc. But, of course, because I think, I am unable to do any of that. And it is because so few actually can or are willing to think that I get so worked up and overwrought at times. It has in fact cost me one friendship - a guy I know who is so full of hatred for all things Republican that he cannot keep from baiting me at every turn. This guy is educated and intelligent, yet he cannot, or will not, engage in a substantive discussion of the facts - probably because he doesn't know any. The only rational arguments I've heard opposing the war have come from the Libertarian right - and they are (in my opinion) short on foresight concerning what happens once we leave.

But, this has taken such a toll on me that I am becoming as angry as those of whose rhetoric and actions I disapprove.

I gotta get a grip.

What I have come to realize is this: one sane man in an asylum, is going to be considered the craziest of all.

Thank God for the Internet, or I would have gone over to the dark side two years ago.

...And another thing...

I've heard it said that the U.S. is the "bleed-off" valve for Mexico; that is, without the ability to rid itself of some of its population, Mexico - corrupt, inept Mexico - would simply explode and the 1000 people crossing illegally into the U.S. daily would become 10,000 a day. So, the argument is: we should let the stream come in so that we don't have a flood.

Perhaps that's true. But, perhaps the right wall and the right number of border agents could keep them all out. We'll never know until we try.

In the end analysis: we are at war. To have an utterly porous border like we do during a time of war is INSANITY.

The U.S. is now, for better or worse (much worse, probably), a Socialist Welfare State. For a Socialist Welfare State to have unchecked immigration is INSANITY.

I don't know what the members of Congress are thinking, but the current "plan" is an atrocious betrayal of the People of the United States - and should not only be scrapped but be exhibit 'A' in the treason trial of those who are pushing this abomination.

Whatever other issues are involved, let's work them out individually. The proposed legislation is simply breathtaking in the scope of its abdication of responsibility and contempt for the rule of law.

Call your Congressmen and Senators, NOW.

I wish this were simple

I belong to a couple of clubs. Like most people, I guess, I don’t much think about how the club is managed until my dues go up or I notice the food/service has declined or I come across people in ‘my’ club who don’t know how to behave. Then, when it’s really too late, I get involved.

I think the same principle operates in our relationship to our government. The folks in Washington get sent there – by us – and then they (for the most part) don’t hear from us again – or we from them – until election time rolls around.

Is it to be wondered at then, when these people go off and do as they please without any real regard for what we want? Should we be surprised when after doing as they please for so long, they resent and resist us when we do speak up and tell them, "No. We want it THIS way"?

The current immigration “discussion” is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. The average Congress-person doesn’t know what “the people” want – he only knows what his “Party” wants. He may be conscientious and try to understand what “we” want, but will likely be frustrated by the name calling and partisanship which attends every issue these days. So what’s a representative/senator to do? Since the only clear, consistent voice in his ear is that of his party, he does what his party wants. What his party wants may or may not be what the people want – and it may or may not be in the best interests of the nation as a whole, but since our representatives figure we’re not paying much attention anyway, why not do what benefits them?

When you hear people talking about immigration, remember that the problem isn’t “immigration” – the problem is “illegal immigration”, a.k.a. the situation on our Southern border. If you are confused by what you hear, you’re not alone. I, for one, can’t understand the attraction of the whole “comprehensive” reform idea. Why can’t we just secure the border first and worry about everything else later? When a 400+ page bill suddenly appears and has to be voted on in just a few days, I can’t help wondering what’s all in there. Anybody else feel like that? The following may help you to understand why some of what is happening…is happening.

The DEMOCRATIC PARTY wants unrestricted immigration and amnesty for those here illegally because the vast majority of them are no-to-low-skilled and will, therefore, have to rely on the government for assistance – which means they’ll be DEMOCRATIC voters.

The DEMOCRATIC PARTY wants unrestricted immigration and amnesty for those here illegally because it is very easy to look compassionate and caring and beat up on the heartless, cruel conservatives who don’t want unrestricted immigration and amnesty for those who came here illegally.

The DEMOCRATIC PARTY wants unrestricted immigration and amnesty for those here illegally because their UNION supporters believe these people will be a rich source of rank & file union members.

The REPUBLICAN PARTY wants unrestricted immigration and amnesty because their BUSINESS supporters know that these “illegals” are much cheaper employees than the average American.

The REPUBLICAN PARTY wants unrestricted immigration and amnesty because they don’t want to look the way the Democrats are portraying them, they don’t want to lose generally conservative people to the Democratic Party. They don’t want to surrender the fastest growing demographic to the other side.

The DEMOCRATIC and REPUBLICAN Parties both know full well that their political posturing and procrastination has made the likelihood of a “painless” fix to our Social Security woes impossible. Tens of millions of new workers in the U.S. just might stave off the demographic implosion that is coming. What about the other costs associated with these people? “Who cares?” say our friends in Washington. One crisis at a time, please.

The DEMOCRATIC and REPUBLICAN Parties have – probably – been told that to shut off the…faucet ( I almost said spigot, whew!) of these low cost workers would destroy several economic sectors here in the U.S. and severely damage several others. It is only too imaginable that a sudden loss of low-cost employees in the farm sector, for example, could result in a 30+% increase in wage costs (if replacements could even be found to do these jobs – remember, we’re currently at 4.6% unemployment – and most economists consider 5% unemployment to be FULL employment). That would result in a spike in prices - and competition being what it is, our farm sector could simply disappear. Now extend that to other sectors like housing and hotel/restaurant/leisure; if a price spike were big enough and wide-spread enough for long enough, it could tip the economy into recession – or worse. Politicians of all stripes know that if we go into recession and people start losing their jobs, they are NOT going to care what they said about immigration a year ago, they are going to want jobs. Additionally, the economic health of our agricultural sector can be viewed as a national security issue. Do we let our farms go under because we can get lettuce from Chile cheaper than we can from Chino, CA? What happens when somebody like an H. Chavez organizes a multi-national embargo against us? Do you think the Department of Defense would let our computer chip industry go under? Not likely, and food seems at least as important as computers.

The DEMOCRATIC and REPUBLICAN Parties may favor amnesty because to round up 12 million illegals would likely require a level of aggressive and intrusive law enforcement (and the funding necessary for it) that Americans would not tolerate.

It’s a tangle of political self-interest and miscellaneous issues which we aren’t supposed to be able to understand or know about. So, we’re left with no answers – and worse, we find that perhaps we shouldn’t have all the answers. After all, it’s only common sense to admit that it’s not wise to air one’s dirty laundry in public. A comprehensive public examination and discussion of ALL the issues involved may well be unwise when unfriendly ears are listening.

All I can say is that you’re NOT crazy. The dissonance you’re experiencing, the difference between what you’re thinking and what the Washington types are talking about originates in the items above – and many others I haven’t considered. The bottom line is that we are not being told the whole story. Right or wrong, for better or worse, they are keeping (many) things back from us.

It’s at times like this that I realize how important a job I have electing the people who make these decisions - and how frightening it is that I don't trust them to act in anyone's interests but their own.

God Bless the Internet

Having read four or five recent articles, it seems that "Global Warming!!" is now well on its way to being debunked.

"Global Warming!!" (as opposed to 'Global Warming' - which is happening - it's just not our fault) was adopted almost a decade ago by the socialist organs of world media as a literally "holy" cause, the advancement of which was a sacred duty.

Now, however, due to the influence of interloping web loggers the scientific underpinnings of this apocalypse have been demonstrated - for all with the intellectual honesty to admit it - to be incomplete at best and wholly fictitious at worst.

I do despair at times when I see and hear and read the shamelessness with which "World Socialism" is promoted by the world's media. But today, I feel optimistic that the internet is going to prove too much for even the most repressive of regimes. Unless your country has no electricity, the internet can and will allow you to find the other story - the one the government doesn't want you to hear. China is going to find this out. Russia is going to find this out. Maybe, perhaps, even benighted North Korea will gain access to the truth. Africa, however, is the one place on Earth where the old rules still apply and will for decades to come. Africa will be the next great flash-point.

Nietzsche said, "There are no facts, only interpretations." That idea frightens many people; it need not. Governments don't suppress facts so much as they suppress interpretations. Just to see and know that your interpretation is not all alone is enough to give hope to those who, while suffering, look forward towards a day of liberation.

Letter to Senators Specter and Casey

Senator,
Please, PLEASE! Secure the border.

To not secure the border during a time of war is INSANITY.
For a Socialist Welfare State such as ours to have open, unchecked immigration is INSANITY.

My wife, my friends and I all agree that we don't care about the illegals already in the country. We didn't enforce the laws, that's our bad. But going forward we must secure the border. Further, we don't care about the economic dislocation that *MAY* occur as a result of securing the border. Just secure the border. Please.

We don't understand why you feel it necessary to keep what you consider the truth from us and we REALLY don't like being misled because you - and the rest of the Senate - feel you cannot tell us the truth. Secure the border.

PLEASE! JUST SECURE THE BORDER.

Lessons to be learned from Blacksburg

Like most people, perhaps, when the full horror of the Blacksburg massacre was revealed, among my first thoughts was, “If this guy had not had access to firearms, this wouldn’t have happened.” But then, unlike most people, I kept thinking about it. A hundred years ago, fifty years ago, guns like the ones he used were available – far more available, in fact, than they are now. Yet, this sort of thing simply didn’t happen. It just didn’t. So there has to be some other primary cause.

As I watched Fox News yesterday, I heard a report about the shooter mentioning that he'd left behind a letter in which he blamed “rich kids, debauchery and deceitful charlatans”. He finished his letter by stating, “You made me do this.”

There it was - right there. That was my answer. “You made me do this.” That's it. That is everything we need to know in a nutshell. That is what is different today. One hundred or even fifty years ago, people took responsibility for themselves and their lives and situations. It was their duty to improve their situations if they didn’t like them. If they didn’t take responsibility, then their neighbors or the state forced them to take responsibility. Over the course of the last 75 years, in a laudable effort to "help" people, we have systematically removed the necessity for people to take responsibility for themselves. Indeed, our nation has soothingly whispered in the ears of all of us, “there, there – it’s not your fault.” If something is wrong in our lives today, it is “somebody else’s fault”. But here’s the problem: even if whatever is wrong in your life is actually somebody else’s fault, it’s still your responsibility to fix it! We have created a nationwide culture of entitlement – and when that to which we are entitled (defined by television and popular music, of course) is not delivered to us in a timely fashion, we fall back into the concomitant culture of victimhood. “I didn’t get accepted to Harvard, someone is to blame.” “I am entitled to be popular and a great writer. Since I’m not – someone (else) is to blame.” And of course, right after that last utterance comes, “…and someone will pay.”

Ours is a sick society. But what do we want to do? Ban guns. That’s like throwing away the thermometer because it’s told you you’re sick. It won't make you better, but, at least there's no more proof of how sick you are.

It is already commonly understood that short of banning the private ownership of handguns – and confiscating all of the ones already in private hands (an impossible task) – there is no way to prevent this sort of thing in future. Thus, since we seem hell bent on ignoring the sickness in our society, the only decent and fair thing to do is to let potential victims defend themselves. But, what does it say about a culture and society that has to arm its children to go to school?

Oh, shit.

Some lunatic, piece of excrement has killed over 20 people in Virginia at Virginia Tech University.

There is no way to adequately address this until all the facts are known and people are able to regain control of their emotions.

But, if history is any guide, it seems clear that a MAJOR legislative assault on our right to self-defense will be one result of this atrocity.

I just don't understand.

100 years ago we had a lot more guns, per capita, a far lower standard of living, far greater poverty - than we do today, but we didn't have this kind of mass murder. I do not believe it is the case that we're just seeing this sort of thing reported more today than in past. I am convinced that it is happening more today than it did in past generations.

I don't know what's happened, but, America has changed. Her people have changed. Perhaps it is the case that today, in 2007 America, the majority of people are not capable of responsibly exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Even 50 years ago, if you felt wronged, you'd challenge those who wronged you - or you'd suck it up like a man and move on. 50 years ago, people did not indiscriminately kill 5, 10, 20 people because they got dumped by their girlfriend or they got fired from their job. At worst, they'd direct their rage at the one person perceived to be the source of their trouble. Not today. There are lots of theories, but nobody really knows why people today are so quick to resort to lethal violence or to do it in such a wide-spread fashion.

I just don't understand it.

230 years ago firearms were necessary to provide food for the table - and for defending one's rights against an overreaching government in London. 130 years ago firearms were still necessary to provide food for many people and they were necessary to defend oneself against outlaws and savages. They were considered tools; in fact, the most common place to buy a gun 100 years ago was in a hardware store. Today, it seems that they are necessary only to defend oneself against criminals and lunatics - and it is argued that if guns were properly "controlled", then those two groups wouldn't be dangerous enough to require their possession by the masses - and we'd all be perfectly safe. Some argue that they still are necessary to defend against an overreaching government - this time in Washington, D.C. - but that is an argument for another time.

It is completely true that if this mad scumbag hadn't been able to get a weapon, many now dead would still be alive. But it is also true that if just one of his victims had been armed, this might have been stopped before anyone died. When you boil it down, the end analysis is this: either nobody should be allowed to have weapons, or everyone (barring criminals and the mentally ill) should be allowed them. But, here's the rub: If you say that none may have them, unless you can get rid of every last one of them, the criminals and the mentally ill will still find them - and the "good" people will have no means of defense. Unless you can be absolutely certain that you can get rid of every last one of them, you cannot prevent another incident like today's.

The bottom line seems to be: what happened today is a matter of behavior - and thus, human nature. Despite our material progress, human nature has not changed in the last 10,000 years to the point where we can all get along without some of us resorting to violence. It seems plain to me then, that we are going to have to remain armed until America - or humanity itself - begins again to change for the better. We need to understand what it is about our society that creates the kind of violent rage in people which manifests itself in a Columbine, a U of Texas - and now a Virginia Tech.

My heart and my prayers go out to those - and the families of those - who today died or were wounded.

Bill Providing for the creation of a firearms registry introduced in Pennsylvania Legislature

While widely attributed, it is most often Mark Twain who is credited with this pity observation:

“No man’s life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.”

While Pennsylvania, more than most states, retains its remembrance of Liberty, the current carnage in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are testing the common sense of our elected officials. Several of them have introduced a bill which would create a registry of all firearms in the Commonwealth. With history as a guide, it is quite clear where this is headed.

As a purely academic and theoretical proposition, I'd like to see what would happen if this registration bill passes.

My guess is that you would see, right here in Pennsylvania - the cradle of Liberty, the first stirrings of a popular uprising against the authoritarian socialist welfare state that the United States has become.

There would be mass non-compliance and the government of the Commonwealth would have the choice of either using serious force to get its way - or backing down and repealing the law. Besides bombarding state legislators with demands for its repeal, other tactics might include refusing to pay state income tax - and hope that enough joined in to throw Harrisburg into shock; then we might refuse to register our cars - maybe even take the license plates off. I'd toss away all government ID and if asked, tell whoever asked me for it that I refuse to use it. Again, if enough of us did this, the powers that be would be overwhelmed and wouldn't be able to respond.

As a practical matter, even if the law was eventually repealed, some of us would be prosecuted - and they'd want to make examples of those that they caught. It would be bad for some of us - for a while. People would get run over by the government and many would go to jail or worse before we reasserted our rights.

We would have to use the strategies given us by Gandhi and refined by King. As soon as we started shooting – no matter how righteous our cause - we’d be written off by the rest of the country and the state could use all the force it wanted with the blessing of the people. Of course, if THEY started shooting first, well, then….

When, periodically, I re-read our Declaration of Independence, I am struck by the fact that the "injuries and usurpations" committed by the government of His Majesty King George III against the colonists in 1776 utterly pale next to those done to us daily by our own freely elected government in 2007. And I lament that I, seemingly, have not the fortitude which my ancestors showed in standing up to this repeated abuse – and crying, “No more!”

America is at a crossroads.

As Mr. Lincoln told us, “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”

If you think, as many of our “citizens” today do, that living under an all-powerful federal government which can tell you not to smoke, not to eat trans fats, to not say certain words, or say anything which may offend someone, that takes your hard earned money from you before you even see it so that it can give it back to you when you turn 65 at less than 2% interest, that countenances the abrogation of property rights, that tells you to your face that it can use your money more wisely than you can, that tells you that you may not engage in your chosen profession without its approval and, finally, that tells you that you have not the right to an instrument by which you may effectively defend your property and your life - is not slavery, then yours is indeed a mean and craven existence.

Either we will reclaim our liberties, or we will become like China – outwardly prosperous, but hollow inside.

There are none now who remember, personally, the bravery and faith which our founders demonstrated, but we can remember that student who stood in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square in 1989 and those who stood up to the storm troopers in Gdansk in 1979 and those who fought against overwhelming odds against the Soviets in Afghanistan throughout the 80s. Ours is no less a revolution than that which occurred in 1917 – and like that one it has to be continually fought. People of the West today don’t remember, or never knew that for the vast majority of history, the normal state of human affairs is one of subjugation, brutality and misery.

Stalin enslaved, tortured and killed more people than Hitler ever dreamt of – but he gets a free pass from the intellectual left today. Why? Because he was trying to help. He was trying to make everybody equal. That’s all that matters to these people. And “these people” are currently running our country. Believe it. Unfortunately, for us, they are smart enough to know that they have to take away our liberties and freedoms slowly, imperceptibly, incrementally, daily chipping away at the foundations of our liberties so that when they've all been taken away, we won't even notice. Sadly, it's not a matter of 'Where will we draw the line?' but do we realize that the line has to be drawn? At what point will we say, "Enough!" when we don't even know what's happening?

"We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." Thanks for the reminder, Ben. Are there any today who could do what you did?

Maybe, if this bill becomes law, it will be enough to convince people that they've lost much and - God willing - they'll want it back. Perhaps it will start here in Pennsylvania. The second American Revolution. But first we'll have to shake ourselves out of our funk. Clear our heads of the soft, soothing, sweet and melodious strains of the Nanny State's lullaby. I am not at all certain of the outcome. But I know this much, I won't be around to see the curtain come down on Liberty in Pennsylvania. In the immortal words of Davey Crockett, "You may all go to hell, I will go to Texas."

Philadelphia, we're #1!

Well, we're over 100 killings for the year. And it's barely April! My guess: 450 for the year. $10 to whoever guesses closest without going over.

If this city truly wants to solve this problem, then it needs to do a few things: 1. Convince black males between the ages of 15 and 25 that killing people is not OK - or 2. Give these young males something better to do than act out the lyrics of rap songs. That means create economic opportunity in Philadelphia. THAT means make Philadelphia an attractive place for small and mid-size businesses. THAT means repeal the business privilege tax and eliminate the wage tax. THAT means eliminate the hurdles and red tape that a business in Philadelphia faces and reform the L&I so people can get stuff done without years of aggravation. THAT means doing whatever we have to do to see to it that those coming out of our schools at 18 can read and add up a column of numbers. THAT means break the unions that won’t permit the changes necessary to our educational system and generally make Philadelphia an unpleasant and overly expensive place to do business. None of this will be easy, which is why people of the caliber of John Street much prefer to point at Harrisburg and D.C. and blame them for their own weakness.

We've let the Democrat/Socialists have their way here for well over fifty years - it's time we had some adult supervision. Since the word "Republican" is so anethema to so many people in this city, perhaps a Libertarian should step up and try running things.

When pigs fly, right?

Memories, like the corners of my mind...

1992 - Los Angeles, CA: Korean and Vietnamese shop owners use "Assault Weapons" to defend their property and their lives against rampaging "non-citizen residents" who are trying to loot, burn, rob and kill them while heavily outnumbered members of the LAPD stand 100 yards away and do NOTHING to stop it.

2005 - New Orleans, LA: members of the N.O. police force actually join the looters while the residents of the city are left defenseless against a rising tide of water and lawlessness.

I remember. I will never forget.

And because I remember, I will NEVER allow any further diminution of my right to self-defense. Ever.

Just a word to the wise...

...is sufficient.

Sadly, there do not seem to be many 'wise' people left in the Republican party today.

Let me explain this to you. If the Republican Party does not nominate a 2008 candidate for President who is 100%, 24-carat GOLD on the gun issue, the Republicans will suffer a cataclysmic loss. One to make 2006 look like a huge leap forward.

This means:

Giuliani: GONE
Romney: GONE
McCain: GONE

You have been warned. Don't fuck this up.

Confessions of an ex-Zumbo

After reading about all the brouhaha regarding Mr. Zumbo, I thought perhaps my experience might give some of you a window into the mindset of our hunting/target shooting brethren who had no problems whatsoever with Mr. Zumbo’s (now recanted) position.

For 20 years I was a skeet/trap shooter who dismissed the NRA as “extremist”. I was enlightened, you see. I was for gun ownership, of course, but I looked at the yokels and knuckle-draggers with their AR15 “machine-guns” and thought, “THOSE people should have their guns taken away. Sitting safely in my suburban sub-division, I saw the carnage in the cities and said, “We’ve got to have gun control to stop this sort of thing.” Among my shooting friends hardly anyone owned a handgun, or admitted to it. I was white, educated, upper-middle class and looked down my nose at the “gun nuts” who seemed to be giving the rest of us ‘decent’ gun owners a bad name. “From my cold dead hands”? Oh, please. Just look at the newspapers! Can’t you see the inner-city crime? Something must be done. And the NRA wants people to have machine guns! Ludicrous! Besides, whatever laws they pass, they’re not going to affect my Perazzi or my Browning Superposed.

One day, about ten years ago, I was sitting at a posh gun club, waiting for the others in my sporting clays group to arrive when I over heard a conversation going on across the room. This fellow was telling a couple of guys that they’d better join the NRA. I vaguely knew one of the listeners, so I discreetly joined the group. The speaker was saying that if you wanted to be able to shoot anything, you’d better get with the NRA. I simply couldn’t stand this arrogant ignorance, so I interrupted him and stated flatly, “I’d never join the NRA, they’re a bunch of nuts – extremists who give the rest of us a bad name. How can you defend their positions? The guy looked at me for a second as if I were a soup stain on his tie - and then, to his everlasting credit – he smiled at me. He simply asked me, “What is it, exactly, that you know about the NRA’s positions?” Well, they want everyone to be able to have machine guns. They oppose everything and won’t let even the most basic and necessary gun laws pass. Our cities are shooting galleries and the NRA won’t do anything to stop it.” He nodded a couple of times and then asked me, “Where did you get that information?” “Where? Everywhere! It’s in the newspapers, on the TV news – why just last week in Time magazine there was an article.” There followed a brief silence during which he calmly absorbed what I’d said. I didn’t want to be rude, he was dressed well and seemed nice enough, so I just assumed he was misinformed – and I was happy to set him straight. Still smiling, he asked me, “Have you ever actually gotten the NRA’s positions? I mean, what you know – or more appropriately – what you think you know about the NRA hasn’t actually come from the NRA itself has it? You’re only hearing what the mass media want you to hear, aren’t you?” I had no response. He had me there. “Well, I suppose you’ve got a point there.” He continued, “Do you believe that the media is unbiased? Do you believe that they don’t have an agenda that they’re pushing?” “Well, sure. Of course they’re biased. But they can’t be THAT biased.” Now his smile got wider, “In fact” he stated pleasantly, “you really don’t know anything about the NRA’s positions, do you? Isn’t it actually the case that all you know is the media’s characterizations of the NRA’s positions?” That last question hit me like an elbow in the gut. “Well, uh, that is…I mean…” Dammit! This guy was right! I didn’t know anything about what the NRA’s actual positions were. My newly arrived squad mates interrupted and I excused myself to go shoot. By the time I’d gotten home from shooting I’d quite forgotten the discussion.

About a week later I was driving to work listening to NPR (I knew they were somewhat left-of-center, but I liked the fact that they would give a story 10 minutes) when one of their commentators started talking about the need for common sense gun control, to save lives – and how the big, bullying NRA stood in the way. As I began to shake my head at the deplorable intransigence again demonstrated by the NRA, the previous weekend’s conversation came back to me and I asked myself, “Is this right? Is the NRA totally wrong on this?” I determined to get the NRA’s position on it…from the NRA. I was, however, completely convinced that I would be proven correct, that the NRA was an organization that was way out of the main stream. I did not have internet access in those days, so I called the NRA and basically told them what I was trying to do. The staffer I spoke with told me that the best thing he could do was to send me a packet of information. When it arrived about a week later, I was startled at its size. I began wading through it ready to dismiss the illogical rants and distortions I was sure I’d find. As I got into it I was confused. Was the NRA talking about the same things I was reading about in the newspapers? Slogging through the information, I began to realize – and was chagrined to find - that the NRA’s arguments and positions had the better logic. I was surprised to discover that what I thought were sensible regulations were, in fact, poorly written laws which could easily trap an honest individual. Then, I was shocked to learn that the people who were shouting about ‘common sense’ gun laws didn’t know the difference between a machine gun and a semi-automatic skeet gun – and didn’t care about the difference. I saw, in the explanation of a bill which had sounded reasonable on the news, the potential ban of guns I saw being used every weekend. This was getting close to home. Two hours later I had found the distortions and lies all right, they were on the pages of the newspaper I read every day. The illogic I was looking for was on the television every night and on the radio and in the periodicals I’d read for years. What I learned that night was that it was the NRA which was reasonable and the forces of ‘gun control’ which were extreme. I could scarcely credit what I had just read. It had to be wrong. I read it again the next day. No, it was the same. I was conflicted. I just could not accept that I’d been so wrong. I contacted the Brady Campaign to get their side. When their information arrived I discovered that, indeed, their positions were based on appeals to emotion and that facts were, for them, flexible things. I couldn’t help but notice that when gun control hadn’t worked, they had no answer – except more gun control. Worst of all, to me, was that when they discussed leading pro-gun authorities, rather than argue the merits of their work, they just tried to discredit the individual. That clinched it for me. Shortly after this, I got more involved in the issues. I learned as much as I could about the various bills being introduced in my state and at the federal level. Everything that I learned subsequently demonstrated that, while the NRA was sometimes wrong, the other side was rarely ever right.

I never met that guy again, but approximately six months after that discussion at the gun club, I joined the NRA – and three years ago I became a life member. Over the years, I’ve come to realize that the right to keep and bear arms truly is the bedrock upon which our Constitution rests. And, therefore, while it may not be perfect, the NRA is the only civil rights organization in the United States that stands up for ALL the people. You can talk all day about your right to free speech, or your right to petition the government for the redress of grievances, or your right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and to be secure in your papers and effects. You can talk until you are blue in the face about all your rights, but, if the day ever comes when the government decides they no longer apply, what are you and I - what are "We The People - going to do about it? Without the second amendment, we’re going to put our hands up and go along quietly. If you think it can’t happen here, ask yourself why not? I think what you’ll find, upon reflection, is that the only thing that separates us from those places where it has happened is this short phrase:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the defense of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

That is why I support the NRA…and that is why I believe that Mr. Zumbo should be eagerly welcomed back into polite society.

Political Strategy in D.C. Gun Ruling

It turns out that the NRA tried to dissuade the plaintiffs from taking their case to the DC Circuit Court. Further, when the plaintiffs made it clear that they intended to go ahead, the NRA actively tried to keep the case from getting heard. This doesn't fit with the stereotype of a gung-ho, sabre-rattling NRA, but it is true.

The NRA, being a conservative organization, was more worried about what could be lost than what might be won.

The NRA has been very successful at getting various legislatures to enact laws to protect and advance the cause of gun owners - and they decided years ago that the safest and most productive way to proceed was the legislative route rather than to fight a leftward tilting judiciary.

It would not surprise me if the NRA attempts to derail a Supreme Court hearing of this case because - again - of what might be lost if SCOTUS rules in favor of DC.

While, like most 2nd Amendment purists, I am utterly convinced of the original intent of the founders, I am also quite certain that after 230+ years of judicial "whisper-down-the-lane" the constitution, in 2007, means only what some judge says it means on any given day. While it looks good for us, a loss at the Supreme Court would be a devastating blow from which we might not recover for decades, if at all.

Nevertheless, it will never be more clear than it is today that the understanding - and the will - of the people is that 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says.

I say, Go for it!

I'm THIS close...

...to losing it. In a recent post I outlined how the Democrats and the fifth column fourth estate are willing to do anything to see to it that we lose the war against terror. Even though I know this, it still staggered me and caused a near uncontrollable rage when I read that the New York Times (better known as Pravda-on-the-Hudson) reported about 300 counter demonstrators in D.C. at the anti-war protest this past weekend. According to the National Park Service, however, the Pro-America, Pro-Soldier demonstration outnumbered the surrender monkeys 30,000 to 10,000. That’s commonly known as 3-to-1. But the NYT will not tell the truth when it interferes with the achievement of their avowed goal.

Despite my outrage however, the good news here is huge. This is not 1968. Not even close. The baby-boomer, hippie re-treads are just trying to relive the one moment of their pathetic lives when they felt like people were listening to them. These people cannot grasp the fact that their self-centered, hedonistic generation has done irreparable damage to the social fabric of this nation.

They will be judged harshly.

Huzzah!

This past Friday, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals found, 2-1, that individual citizens indeed do have the constitutional right to keep (and if need be bear) arms in their homes for self-defense.

The importance of this cannot be underestimated. The forces of collectivism and authoritarianism HATE the idea of an armed populace. It threatens their plans for a "better" United States of America.

Those rational souls whose legal opinions matter and who disagree with the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision base their disagreement on the following couple of things:

1. They maintain that we should follow the instructions of late Justice Warren Burger and read the Second Amendment as follows: “Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the defense of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Then, these people declare that the militia is no longer “necessary” – thus, there is no injunction against infringing (or indeed abolishing) the right to keep and bear arms.
2. Precedent (specifically SCOTUS precedent) is such that an ‘individual rights’ interpretation is counter to “accepted collective right jurisprudence” (and thus Friday's decision amounts to “judicial activism”).

Here is why they are wrong:

1. First, (duh!) the Amendment does NOT contain “because”. A while back, several highly regarded grammarians were asked to evaluate the wording and punctuation of the amendment and they indicated that it makes perfect sense as written – and to them it was clear that the authors intended an individual right. However, let us assume that the mighty Burger was right. We find that the right enumerated still obtains. If you put the amendment into an “IF, THEN” construction, we find that even if we deny the ‘if’ statement, that in no way invalidates the ‘then’ portion. To do so is to commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Just because a well regulated militia may no longer be necessary, it DOES NOT FOLLOW that the right to keep and bear arms may or should be infringed. The right was one which could be found in English common law and predated the republic. The 2^nd amendment “grants” nothing, it merely guarantees a right which all free men understood themselves to possess.

2. The precedents mentioned by anti-individual right legal types are all of dubious value and provenance. There are basically three: U.S. v Cruikshank (1876); Presser v Illinois (1883); U.S. v Miller (1939). The first was a dreadful decision which sided with the KKK against the rights of recently freed blacks. The second was an equally flawed decision which sided with an out of control government of the state of Illinois which denied the rights of citizens who were seeking to unionize to organize a defense against violent governmental oppression. If you are going to argue that these precedents should be followed, then you would necessarily have to argue (if logical consistency means anything to you) that Brown v Board of Education was wrongly decided. The third was an incomplete decision which has been twisted out of all proper interpretation. In ‘Miller’ the court held that Mr. Miller had no reasonable expectation of second amendment protection because the weapon which he was convicted of possessing illegally, a sawed-off shotgun, was not a weapon which the militia would use. ‘Collective right’ proponents have long argued that this indicates that only a militia has any right to arms. This decision was wrong because, first, short-barreled shotguns had been in military use as recently as World War I, so it was indeed a militia weapon – also the decision was flawed because it never explicated who/what was the militia. The militia act of 1792 spelled out who was in the militia – and this act, most recently updated in 1956 (and very much still in effect in the U.S. Code) clearly states that all able-bodied persons between the ages of 18 and 45 are members of the militia.
   

There are many ‘unserious’ complainants against this decision, but they cannot be taken seriously. One school of thought maintains that the militia is in fact the National Guard. The Militia Act of 1903 does allow for the creation of a National Guard, but does not change the basic definition of militia. Thus, while hope springs eternal, to claim that our founders, in A.D. 1790 foresaw the creation of the National Guard in 1917, is not merely to strain credulity but to snap it in two like a dry twig.

No, despite the linguistic, grammatical and etymological flips and twists done by those who would deny our right to self-defense, any seventh-grader can clearly understand what Madison, et. al. meant when they wrote: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the defense of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It was a good day for Liberty and a bad day for the forces of collectivism. That is why I say, “Huzzah! God save the republic.”

Much of what I’m talking about can be found here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051601.shtml

Yeah, right.

Philadelphia mayoral candidate Tom Knox currently has a TV commercial running in which he promises to add 1000 police to the force to help combat crime.

Let's talk truth for a minute. As far back as the mid-90s, money was allocated for more police in urban areas. Nevertheless, only a few new officers were added.

The problem - which still exists - is this: The average Philadelphia Police Officer can, if he works it right, make over $100,000 a year milking the overtime system. If the city were to hire 1,000 new officers, many currently making a killing (so to speak) would lose a lot of money. That is why the Police Union WILL NOT PERMIT the hiring of 1,000 new officers. Oh, they may get 10, 20...let's go crazy and say 100. But this city will NOT hire anything near 1,000 new officers in anything less than 15 years.

My question to Mr. Knox - and indeed every candidate for mayor - is this: What are you going to do to break the union stranglehold on this city?

I'd like to ask the question just to see the bastards squirm.

I'm certain now...

...that the Democratic Party has fully embraced and endorsed the idea that we cannot win in Iraq. In order to kow-tow to the lunatic fringe of their party, the leaders of the party MUST get us out of Iraq as quickly as they can.

Thus, be warned: No matter how successful our redesigned and reconfigured efforts in Iraq prove to be, the Democrats and their shills at NBC/CBS/CNN, et al. will not permit any positive news to make it to the public. They HAVE to have failure and they will now do anything - and I mean ANYTHING - necessary to leave Iraq by the election in November of '08.

Ladies and gentlemen, I greatly fear that we have already lost in Iraq because half of our body politic wants us to lose.

I am at a loss for words to describe my rage at this treachery. But, at the least, I will not be silent about this treasonous behavior.

I am most outraged that John Murtha, the traitor-in-chief, is from Pennsylvania. I can only pray that he dies before he gets any more of us killed by terrorists. May God damn him to eternal torment.