The Further Adventures of Silence DoGood

God, grant them entry into thy kingdom...

2008-02-15T08:27:00.000-08:00

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

2008-01-24T15:58:00.000-08:00

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

2008-01-24T15:54:00.000-08:00

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!

2007-12-15T11:25:00.000-08:00

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...

2007-12-08T17:29:00.000-08:00

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?

2007-11-11T07:33:00.000-08:00

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....

2007-09-24T06:10:00.000-07:00

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

2007-09-24T05:44:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-09-17T07:09:00.000-07:00

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

2007-09-17T06:53:00.000-07:00

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...

2007-09-10T17:50:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-23T11:06:00.001-07:00

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...

2007-08-23T10:46:00.000-07:00

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...

2007-06-27T18:28:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-27T06:39:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-12T05:15:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-23T07:13:00.000-07:00

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

2007-04-18T05:39:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-04-16T10:55:00.000-07:00

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

2007-04-05T07:05:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-04-03T06:29:00.000-07:00

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...

2007-03-25T08:05:00.000-07:00

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...

2007-03-23T05:31:00.000-07:00

...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

2007-03-22T10:27:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-19T17:00:00.000-07:00

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...

2007-03-19T13:01:00.000-07:00

...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!

2007-03-13T13:38:00.000-07:00

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:

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.
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:

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.

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.

2007-03-13T13:06:00.000-07:00

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...

2007-02-16T06:42:00.000-08:00

...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.

What if...

2007-02-16T04:34:00.000-08:00

What if it takes ten years, 1.5 Trillion dollars and 7,000 American lives to establish a stable, democratic Iraq?

What would we get for our expenditures?

An example that every democratic reformer in the middle-east could point to and say "there is our future". A working Iraq would pose a mortal threat to Iran's 'Mullah-cracy'. It would also prove that the Islamic middle-east is capable of and ready for a democratic form of government. This would serve as a catalyst for change throughout the region. Peace with Israel would finally have a chance and the area currently most likely to see the start of the Third World War would be remade into a stable, prosperous region.

THAT would be worth every penny and life - because down the line, the number of lives saved which otherwise would have been lost to terrorism or outright warfare will dwarf the numbers we see today.

A stable Iraq IS worth the cost and I can only hope that we do not repeat the mistakes of 1968-1974 by giving up when we could have won and repudiating our former ally.

The costs to us if we give up in Iraq will be enormous. We will be back there within ten years - losing a lot more people.

Let's do the right thing, now.

What did I tell you?

2007-02-13T05:01:00.000-08:00

Nanna Philly, not content with banning smoking and keeping trans fats out of your life is now considering mandating hand sanitizers at government and school buildings.

If anyone still has any doubts that people in government - at all levels - believe that they can run your life better than you can and are going to run it better FOR YOU, think hard about this.

How long before someone introduces a bill to outlaw McDonalds? Think I'm kidding?
I give it one year.

dijya ever notice...

2007-02-11T07:31:00.000-08:00

The very same people who wail, gnash their teeth and stridently declare that the U.S. has no business trying to improve the world - to rid it of Islamic fundamentalism and to make it safe for us are the very same people who sit around and demand that the U.S. gummint make the playing field level for some, guarantee an income for others, tell us what to eat (no trans fats), ban smoking (without actually "banning" it) and make sure that nobody makes more money than THEY feel is appropriate?

These people cannot even spell, let alone define hypocrisy - but they're bound and determined to run this country. God save the republic.

Remember today

2007-02-08T08:47:00.000-08:00

Today, the City Council of Philadelphia is likely to vote to ban the use of Trans Fats within the City of Philadelphia.

Let us remember:

In 2006 City Council banned smoking in interior public spaces.

In 2007 (probably) City Council will ban the use of Trans Fats in the preparation of foods sold in the City of Philadelphia.

Everyone knows that had they been able to, they would have banned the sale and possession of handguns in Philadelphia.

I want everyone reading this to ask themselves what is going to be the next tiny little bit of your freedom to be taken away from you - for your own good.

If you think that smoking and Trans fats are 'unusual' and that the council will stop banning things, think again.

This is but a taste of what the people inside City Hall have planned to make you healthier, thinner and generally more like their idea of a perfect citizen. If you don't like it...tough. This is for your own good - and since you obviously don't know what is good for you, we are going to make you do what's good for you - because, of course, we know better.

Between this and the militarization of the police force, I am going to stock WAY up on ammo.

You won't read this in the Philadelphia Inquirer

2007-02-07T05:55:00.000-08:00

Affirmative Action is the name given to the social program of preferential treatment for Americans of African-Slave descent.

In the minds of those who created and enacted it, it was a method for both restitution and accelerated rehabilitation for the entire "Black" community. In theory and in practice it was a good idea. I say "was" because it is no longer so. It is, today, a terrible weight around the collective neck of the entire United States of America. The problem is with a phenomenon known as "The Law of Unintended Consequences".

After decades of being helped and praised and promoted ahead of everyone else, the "Black Community" AND the political class in Washington came to expect that they would not be criticized, that they had only to shout "Racism!" and stick their hand out and they'd get whatever they wanted.

The improvement in the political and economic situation of the descendants of African slaves in the United States since the second world war is nothing short of miraculous.

But human nature is unchanged. No intellectually honest person would dispute that, at its root, “Affirmative Action” is reverse discrimination. And when a group gets power over another group, it will do most anything to maintain that power. The rationale in 1964 was, "We are going to use discrimination for you rather than against you. We’re going to set you up with superior rights in order that the ‘playing field’ will be level." That still teaches discrimination. Just as the time-honored “peculiar institution” of the ante-bellum South taught people that slavery was part of the natural order of things, so today do we have a sizeable group of people who believe that the wrongs of slavery can never be erased and thus the peculiar institution of never criticizing the black community can never be ended. With economic freedom and opportunity better than anywhere else on this planet, sizeable portions of the black community are stuck in a holding pattern of relative poverty. When someone like myself starts to ask questions about why this is so, he is shouted down and told that he does not have the right to talk about it. This a right only the “black community” possesses. They have been given that superior right and they are using it just as Bull Connor used the superior rights of the white community fifty years ago. White people who dare to question the orthodoxy are labeled racist – the 21st century equivalent of being “uppity”.

The rapidity of achievement of descendants of African slaves in America has vindicated the use of “Affirmative Action”, but, I believe that the point of diminishing returns was reached twenty years ago.

African Americans use the word “nigger” with abandon. But let a white person use it and that person will be viewed as little better than a pedophile. “Racism” is the most dreaded term in America today – but whites aren’t allowed to define it. They can only beg forgiveness when they are accused of it. Think about that: while it may be materially different than having to step off the sidewalk when a white person passes, the mindset behind it is exactly the same. Are we trying to overcome racism or just give everybody a shot at it? That’s a fair question.

The damage done is not inconsequential. O.J. Simpson was let off by a predominantly black jury NOT because he was innocent, but because the members of that jury felt that his acquittal would somehow make up for past injustices. The three members of the Duke Lacrosse team who were wrongfully charged with rape were tried and convicted in the press and in academia because it was seen as poetic justice, making up for past misdeeds by whites. In both cases (and many others) Justice was never the issue, revenge was. Ironically, the very people willing to prejudge these kids would tell you unhesitatingly that revenge is not the way to redress wrongs.

One of the gravest dangers is in the idea that some are not entitled to question the actions of others. What we see today in the “Speech Codes” on many college campuses is the codified superiority of certain classes. Woe betide the student or faculty member who makes another feel “uncomfortable” or in any way demeaned. This is quite simply the cancellation of the First Amendment and the establishment of an untouchable political class. Worst of all, unlike the suppression of civil rights in the U.S. after the Civil War, this is happening with the enthusiastic support of the vast majority of Americans. Recent polls have indicated that many (most?) black people believe that whites are racist. What is the difference between that belief and the belief that blacks are lazy? Both prejudices spring from irrational beliefs. And both spring from an unchallenged orthodoxy.

And lest we think that it does no harm to those who benefit from this new superiority, consider this: The black communities in many American inner cities have suffered a complete cultural and moral collapse. The result is a river of blood that sweeps away thousands of young black men every year. Yet we dare not question the true origins of the problem. The “black community” can’t because that would be to admit that there exists a problem not caused by white racism, but in fact caused by the unchallengeable nature of the current dogma. Ask yourself what happens to white commentators who ask out loud if "gansta rap" and hip-hop "culture" are dangerous? Are they not dismissed as racists? The white community dare not say anything for fear of being labeled racist. The end result is that band-aid approaches are tried. Foremost among these is “Gun Control”. The right to keep and bear arms is rightly considered my many to be the bedrock upon which our liberties rest. Nevertheless, in the name of political correctness - born of “Affirmative Action” - we are going to smilingly surrender our own liberties and not even gain the goal we profess to seek.

The pendulum has gone from one extreme to the other – and now it is time for it to find the middle.
It is time to admit that discrimination based on race is wrong, period. Even when it is reverse discrimination designed to help those previously injured by its mirror image. It is time to say to descendants of African slaves, "you are our equals. What racism remains can never be used to oppress you again and will be overcome through the education of our future generations. Now it is time for you to step up and embrace the responsibilities that go along with your hard won rights." To not do so will only engender a new form of racism born of the perceived unwillingness to carry your share of the load.

Some who read this will call me a racist and write me (and my ideas) off out of hand. Some who read this will enthusiastically agree with me out of their own racist attitudes. The people I want to reach are the ones who will ask themselves, "Is he right?" and then go on asking questions.

My Hero

2007-02-07T05:42:00.000-08:00

It has been said by others, so I do not wish to claim originality or credit for it, I merely wish to reiterate that George W. Bush is my hero.

I cannot think of another President since Lincoln who was so vilified, so condemned, so HATED as this man.

In a time when political chameleons like Bill Clinton are praised as great statesmen, someone with a back-bone of steel is surely going to be viewed as an ideologically driven madman.

When strength of conviction is seen as proof of idiocy, we are in perilous times, indeed.

He has, by no means, been perfect...BUT...as Jay Nordlinger of National Review has put it, we shall not see his like again for a long time. Love him or hate him, we will look back and wish for someone with whom you know where you stand.

I firmly believe that historians will look back at the year 2007 as a watershed: the year that human civilization moved decisively forward - or retreated headlong. At this writing, my money is on retreat.

May God bless and keep you Mr. President.

What could happen

2007-02-02T08:58:00.000-08:00

It is generally acknowledged that the majority of those who constitute the armed forces of this country are Caucasian, Christian, Capitalist people from middle America - what the liberal elites call "flyover country".

What is happening right now is that the socialist elites from the fringes of America and their propagandists in the main stream media are doing everything in their power to see to it that we lose the battle in Iraq. What will happen if we lose in Iraq is that we will also lose in Afghanistan and we will be forced onto the defensive in the war against religious fundamentalism.

What I foresee as not only possible, but in fact likely is this:

If we surrender in Iraq, it will be a repeat of our craven actions in Vietnam, where we were close to victory, but decided to lose instead. As with Vietnam, the loss will originate from – and be carried out by - the Socialist/Democrat Party. This will infuriate the armed forces because this time, our enemies will follow us home - and to every corner of the world. They will force us to withdraw from world affairs and to withdraw from the world economy. This will result in a cataclysmic economic collapse here in America – and throughout the world.

The Socialist/Democrat party will demand further socialism and power to alleviate the economic hardships that they caused. This will be met by opposition from “flyover country”. When these new policies fail – and are resisted by the people, our ruling political class will order the military to impose its policies on the populace. The military – comprised of those who were forced to capitulate against their will and those who still revere the Constitution and the capitalist system, will repudiate its solemn pledge to remain a-political and will enter politics in an unmistakable fashion in order to re-establish the rule of the Constitution.

We will have the second American Civil War. This time it won’t be North and South, but rather Left and Right.
Think: Spanish Civil War.

The Right will win and we will have a period of Military rule until the Constitution and its attendant institutions can be restored to their rightful role and primacy.

Dullards like Ted Kennedy will be packed off to a harmless house arrest for the rest of their lives – or perhaps banished from the U.S., while authoritarian fifth-columnists like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton will be tried for their crimes.

I estimate casualties close to the number suffered 1861-1865.

Ayn Rand’s got nothin’ on me.

The real reason behind it

2007-02-02T08:20:00.000-08:00

When the New York Times recently opined that Florida's relatively liberal (in the original sense of the word) concealed carry laws were allowing "criminals" to obtain permits and that the lunatic legislators (along with, of course, their Stygian masters at NRA headquarters in Virginia) who allowed this law to come into being should be ashamed of their willful abetting of not-yet-committed murder, I was again puzzled about why a thoroughly discredited and hugely unpopular policy like "Gun Control" was again featuring on the To-Do list of the American Socialist Left.

After much cogitation and evaluation of recent political events I am convinced that "Gun Control" is the "Great Obstacle" to the success of Socialism in this country. The New York Times editorial staff knows that "Gun Control" has never and will never positively impact crime. What it will do, however, is remove the power to resist from those over whom the Editors and their political masters would rule.

"Gun Control" swept through Europe in the aftermath of the First World War and the economic upheavals of the nineteen-twenties and thirties. It is generally acknowledged that the laws were passed not to combat crime, but to prevent the arming of political factions opposed to the status quo.

With all the anecdotal evidence we have today, it snaps the back of credulity to argue that “Gun Control” is to protect the people. Combined with the recent assaults on free-speech (embodied in the McCain/Feingold Act) and property rights (a la the Kelo decision), it is beyond chilling to consider what a gift a disarmed populace would be to the ascendant Political Class in this country.

The Constitution of The United States is dead. It has been for over seventy-years. The only thing standing in the way of authoritarian Socialist rule in this country are 30,000,000 gun owners who will not go quietly into that good night.

If the government succeeds in its incrementalist approach to undermining the idea of self-defense against all enemies foreign and domestic, the United States will be over. As it is, our liberty hangs by a slender thread.

I will not meekly submit to the rule of people like Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer - or for that matter Jerry Falwell.

Don’t Tread on Me.

And now, as a famous blogger likes to say, “I’m off to the range”, just to piss off Diane Feinstein and Hillary Clinton.

The real John F. Kerry...

2007-01-27T19:33:00.000-08:00

...has shown himself in Davos, where yesterday he gave aid and comfort to our enemies. There are no words adequate for his base and disgraceful behavior.

But, just so everyone knows clearly what JFK is like, remember this:

John Kerry, January 23, 2003:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

He is too loathsome for words. I thank the Almighty that he did not become the coward-in-chief.

May he die of AIDS.

My hope fades

2007-01-27T19:29:00.000-08:00

The forces of pusillanimity and stupidity are clearly winning.

We are going to give up in Iraq, that much is clear.

Whatever the merits of the President's plan, the Democrats (and some Republicans) WILL NOT ALLOW IT to succeed. Too many politicians have staked their future electability on W's failure.

Now, I think I'll go look into changing my nationality. America is fucked - and I don't want to be here when the Muslims take over.

Bring it on...

2007-01-05T09:40:00.000-08:00

Shall we see if free speech still exists in the United States?

Lets.

Mohammed was a pimp. Mohammed was also a pederast who performed oral sex on camels.

Those who follow the false religion invented by this criminal are fools.

Calculus

2006-12-28T06:10:00.000-08:00

It was never my strong suit. Nevertheless, with some effort and a good teacher, I was able to master the subject (at least well enough for a 'B').

The calculus that faces us all today – and which will require a far greater application of intellect and will power – is what to do about Iraq. First, we must understand that “Iraq” is just a metaphor for the apocalyptic theocracy which motivates much of the politics of the developing world.

It would be all too easy to just say, “Well, it was a noble instinct that brought us here, but we see now that we can’t win.” To retreat from Iraq would force on us a world-wide defensive war against the same kind of indiscriminate, self-immolating attacks we’ve faced for the last five years. Whereas our enemies will never stop attacking us, we will never see peace so long as we are on the defensive. The attacks we’ve suffered will only stop when our enemies are dead. Anyone who can’t see that is willfully blind. Thus, unless you are willing to accept a “certain number” of 9/11 style (but much more casualty-ambitious) attacks (or a retreat from the world and the economic collapse that would entail) a defensive war is not a solution, or, thus, an option.

Now, that just leaves an offensive solution.

There are two facets to the solution which inform the decision-making in Washington: Military and Political.

Militarily, it is a “no-brainer”. You send in 50,000 troops and you clear and hold Baghdad until the Iraqis can create a stable, relatively democratic government capable of defending itself and the people against the forces currently arrayed against it. If it takes ten years, then it takes ten years.

But, here’s where the calculus comes into play. The problem is with the second ‘facet’ – Politics. The people of the United States, having been convinced by a pusillanimous and America-hating leftist media that the war should never have been fought in the first place, are now convinced we cannot win and therefore will not tolerate any further sacrifice in the attempt. Additionally, the civilian casualties necessary to ‘pacify’ Baghdad will not be tolerated either.

We have attempted to fight this war in a kinder, gentler fashion. We’ve gone to self-defeating lengths to spare the indigenous non-combatant population from unnecessary injury. What have we achieved? They are still dying by the truck load. The Iraqi people are being killed by their own kind and we have done virtually nothing to stop it because we don’t want to hurt them. Re-read the last sentence and think about it for a minute. The bottom line is that the Iraqis have and will continue to pay a very high price for Saddam’s rule because of the necessity of his removal and the turmoil that has unleashed. If we had never gone in, they would be still be dying: in his torture chambers and gassed in their villages. Thus, it is my opinion that we bear no responsibility for their suffering. As to our own casualties, just ask a random selection of our personnel over there whether we can win and if they're willing to stick it out until then. If they're willing to stay and fight, why should we think that the sacrifice isn't worth it?

Were we to take off the white gloves and descend upon Baghdad with a World War Two level of ferocity, we could easily win and as a happy coincidence we would likely see Iran, Syria et al reconsider their anti-American activities.

Will this happen? Actually, yes. However, first we will retreat. The delivery of our final answer to the medieval mindset of Islamic extremists around the world will require the United States to suffer an attack the likes of which will make 9/11 look like an ice cream social. Only when we've lost 50,000 civilians in a nuclear or biological attack will we wake up and decide to fight. Then, the bloodletting and suppression of civil liberties will be beyond today’s comprehension. Today, when we could bring things to a conclusion with much blood, we will wring our hands and not act. Later, the bloodshed will be of Biblical proportions and we will wail, gnash our teeth and point our fingers at those who lost the opportunities to act while there was yet time.

Alas, such is human nature.

Requiescat in Pacem

2006-10-11T10:11:00.000-07:00

I’ve read that Colonel Jeff Cooper has passed away. His was a voice of reason amidst a cacophony of politically correct foolishness. When I first started reading him, in his column in the back pages of Guns and Ammo, I thought him a barbarian. He offended me. Yet, rather like that car wreck on the side of the road, for reasons I didn’t understand, I just had to look - to read him. Several years passed before I realized that I had been so ‘educated’ by the forces of socialism and political correctness that I could no longer readily recognize truth when I saw it. It looked crude, brutish, unrefined, unthinking. But Col. Cooper’s writing style and command of the English language eventually forced me to realize that here was someone who did think - and thought clearly. I didn’t always agree with him, but by God he called it like he saw it and he never candy-coated it. I owe him for that. To repay that debt, I’ve sworn to eschew political correctness and tell the truth in as unvarnished a way as I am capable. It is not easy. Anyone who’s ever tried it will tell you that. I am by nature a diplomat. I detest confrontation and crave conciliation and consensus. But the time for that is past now. Jeff Cooper's blunt, soldierly recitation of the truth allowed me to tear away my blinders and see - and realize - the gravity of the situation that the citizens of the United States are in. May the God who he frequently invoked and petitioned to save our Republic, now take him to his bosom and grant him rest.

Well, back to politics...

2006-10-11T10:09:00.000-07:00

It has already started: George Bush ‘lost’ North Korea. Those who claim that the current administration failed to stop Kim Jong Il are the same ones who rant about our war of conquest in Iraq (which, incidentally, is the only one of the original axis of evil which does not and will not have a nuke). And when pressed for a plan of their own, these same people point to the feckless, nay, reckless 1994-style diplomacy of Messrs. Clinton, Albright and Carter which resulted in the ‘agreement’ whereby NK was allowed to go about developing nukes so long as they did it quietly and didn’t embarrass the U.S. Then there is South Korea which is more afraid of Northern refugees than of being nuked. There was a time when I could laugh at antics like these. That time is long gone now. These people should go buy the World at War and watch it.

Away down south in...

2006-10-11T10:02:00.000-07:00

Argentina!

For vacation, my wife and I went to Buenos Aires. We noticed immediately what a people, who are prisoners in their own country, do to demonstrate some kind of resistance. They graffiti. During much of the past 50 years, Argentina has been a military dictatorship. The few democratic governments have been corrupt to the point of farce. During the ’60 and ‘70s, many people who opposed the various military juntas ‘disappeared’ never to be seen again. People vented their feelings on the walls of virtually every building. I noticed one major difference between the U.S. and the third world through the content of graffiti. Almost all of it in BA was political in nature. In Philadelphia, it is essentially visual litter. Right there I saw how good we’ve got it at home. Also, every Friday, the mothers of those who ‘disappeared’ silently demonstrate outside the Presidential Residence, the Casa Rosa – the pink house.

There appears to be a good size middle class in Buenos Aires which is a hopeful sign for the future of Argentina. Sadly, intelligent economic policy – as in the U.S. – is often sacrificed on the altar of Politics.

One troubling thing that I’d not seen since Rome in 1984 was children, six or eight years old, begging aggressively in the streets. Not many, but it was disconcerting nonetheless.

Since politics caused the de-coupling of the Argentine Peso from the U.S. dollar in 2001, their economy tanked and is now rebounding. Fantastic deals on local merchandise are available. A twenty minute cab ride is $10.00 (Argentines use the dollar symbol for their peso – American prices are noted ‘U$S’) – roughly U$S3.00. One holdover from the old monetary system is that most ATMs dispense US dollars as well as the Argentine Peso. There were many banks that went under in 2001-2 and I saw something I’d not seen at home before, bank branches empty and shuttered on major streets.

I never fail to be amazed at how polite locals will be if you have even a rudimentary grasp of their language and try to speak to them in that language. If you apologize for not speaking it well and use lots of “please” and “thank you”, most people will go out of their way to help you. (Except the French)

We stayed at one hotel – The Faena – that was so cool, so hip that many of the waiters and waitresses, doormen and chambermaids simply sneered at dumpy American tourists even as we supported their livelihoods. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie would have been welcome, but yours truly was an eyesore, apparently. A very European hotel, indeed. It's a shame really, because some of the staff were beyond delightful, they were actually friendly. Rather schizophrenic, but I suppose that is the nature of hip, trendy and cool these days.

Random thoughts

2006-10-11T09:51:00.000-07:00

It’s been a while. I’ve been busy, first, preparing for – second, taking – finally, getting re-acclimated to being back from – vacation.

Some thoughts while I’ve been away:

I’d never heard it before, but, in a piece for the National Review, Jonah Goldberg mentioned Orwell’s Dictum:

“Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.”

Isn’t that great? I must make a note to myself to re-read Orwell.

When I was a kid I was utterly enthralled by the British production The World at War. It aired in the states in 1975 I believe and from the first episode, I was riveted. For several years I’ve wanted to purchase the DVD set, but it was $140 and I just couldn’t bring myself to drop that kind of coin. A couple of weeks ago I saw it on sale online for $75 – so I snatched it up.

It has reminded me, forcefully, of a several things that are pertinent to our current situation in the world. First, the people who throw around the term “Nazi” don’t have the slightest idea what they’re talking about. I have been reminded what a real “Nazi” is and I’ve decided that should anyone ever call me a Nazi, they will be given ten seconds to retract the statement and apologize for it before I physically make them do so.

Second, taking out dictators before they start wars is, ultimately, MUCH cheaper in terms of treasure and human misery than waiting for “just cause”. Just ask the French, Dutch, British and Polish.

I firmly believe today that had Franklin Roosevelt invaded Germany in the spring of 1939 and removed Herr Hitler we would have had a similar struggle to the one in which we find ourselves today in Iraq; and FDR would have been, perhaps, more viciously pilloried than our current President is. However, thanks to the gift of hindsight, we know that he would have been heroically and salvifically right and correct to have done it.

Mark my words, future generations will look at the administration of George W. Bush and shake their heads that more people did not see what he saw.

Finally – and this is crucial – “The People” are ultimately responsible for the actions of their governments. When we consider ‘responsibility’ in the business sense, we imagine someone being fired or punished in some way when things go wrong. It is exactly the same on the national and international scale. The people of Germany and Japan didn’t vote to invade their neighbors, torture and commit genocide, but it was their homes and businesses that were destroyed by bombs, who died in firestorms and of starvation or in reprisals. The people paid the cost and in the end analysis that makes them responsible. This is something we must bear in mind today.

To say that we should treat the Iraqis as victims of Saddam, while true, ignores the bigger truth that they have paid, do pay today and will continue for some time to pay for the crimes and behavior of the previous government of Iraq. For the United States to have said that we must not bomb Bagdad to remove insurgent strongholds is very kindhearted, but we see that almost three-quarters of a million people have died anyway since we first went in. What has been spared, really? What kindness have we actually performed? To have flattened Bagdad and removed the places for the insurgents to breed might have led to fewer deaths. But, of course, war is fought on the front pages these days. And if we do, that battlefield is where we will lose. Political Correctness kills.

We in the West today are already far down the exact same path that we went down in the 1930s. Actually, it’s much worse today. At least in 1941, after we were attacked, we fought an all-out, no-holds-barred total war. Today, we don’t want to hurt anyone and we don’t want anyone to hate us. It is human nature to not learn from mistakes. It is human nature to just hope that everything will turn out OK. It is human nature to say that everything would be OK if you just let Mr. So-and-So have what he wants – and to blame the violence on those who actively oppose the forces of evil. Even as they were marched into the gas chambers, people said, “Oh, they won’t hurt us. Why would they do that?” Astounding really.

Either we are going to fight a war, or we are going to enforce the law. In one scenario we obliterate the enemy and those with whom he allies himself. In the other, we serve warrants on people who publically behead our soldiers and countrymen and sternly warn them to show up for their court dates.

What's it all about, Bushie?

2006-09-05T06:23:00.000-07:00

Cast your minds back.

Consider: at Noon on the eleventh of September in the year 2001 C.E., was the nation of Afghanistan at war with us? Did the government of Afghanistan make an official declaration of war against the United States? Did the armed forces of Afghanistan attack us? Did agents of the government of Afghanistan attack us? Did the people of Afghanistan attack us?

The answer to all these questions is, “No”.

Who did attack us? An extra-national organization which shared a religious viewpoint with the government of Afghanistan. To date, it has never been shown that the government of Afghanistan had a hand in either the planning or the execution of the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, it has never been shown that the Taliban knew anything of the 9/11 attacks until they happened. While it surely knew their attitudes and general intentions, the Taliban only gave Al Qaeda sanctuary. In return, OBL provided weapons, vehicles and other items which the government of Afghanistan either could not afford, or obtain through normal channels.

By what right did we send armed forces into Afghanistan?

While most hawks will admit that the people and government of Afghanistan were no threat to us, most on the anti-war left admit that we were justified in going into Afghanistan after OBL.

I hope that I can be forgiven for being confused.

It is a fact that the government of Iraq provided sanctuary, training, financial and moral support to Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO, Islamic Jihad, etc. There is no proof and no reason to assume that the government of Iraq had foreknowledge of - or a hand in - the planning or execution of 9/11. So what is the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, unlike Afghanistan, Iraq had a program to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Unlike Afghanistan, agents of Iraq had attempted to assassinate a former President of the United States. Unlike Afghanistan, the government of Iraq was in flagrant violation of no fewer than 14 U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring it to change its behavior and open itself up to inspections designed to guarantee that it did not have either WMD or the programs necessary to produce them. Unlike Afghanistan, the government of Iraq was crafty enough to host Al Qaeda, et. al. and still maintain plausible deniability in the event of an attack upon the West.

By any measure you wish to use, Iraq was the greater threat. Nevertheless, our efforts are undercut by many who either expected a quick “video game” war - or whose only motivation is to embarrass the President politically and damn the consequences.

Take a look at the current behavior of the government of Iran and tell me that Iraq was not attempting to build a nuclear weapon and that we could have negotiated or pressured Iraq to forego its ambitions. How quickly we forget what a complete and utter failure the sanctions regime against Iraq was. Ask yourself this: would we have been able to go in and root out Al Qaeda if the nation of Afghanistan had had nuclear weapons in 2001? Or, would Osama still be living there, directing and financing operations while we tried to negotiate for his extradition?

Yeah, yeah, sure. But, speaking of which - where is Osama? Why have we not killed Osama? This ‘diversion’ in Iraq has weakened our ability to find him and fight the ‘real’ war on terror. What of Al Qaeda?

What is Al Qaeda? Is it not a loose grouping of like minded individuals all over the world? Afghanistan was its headquarters and Osama was its CEO and treasurer. What is the state of Al Qaeda today? If he’s even alive, Osama is living in a cave and is not able to direct much more than which rock to use as a pillow. Even if he is still in contact with Al Qaeda cells throughout the world, that world has got its eyes if not its hands on his money. He no longer controls anything like the organization he did in 2001. Let’s be clear, the remnants of Al Qaeda remain dangerous, but there is no longer the money or direction that there once was. If he is dead, others will step up to fill his shoes. Had our efforts in Afghanistan slowed down sufficiently, who doubts that foreign Jihadis and branch-office Al Qaedans would have run to Afghanistan? In fact, the recently resurgent Taliban is probably made up of foreign replacements of the same stripe that we face in Iraq. It is entirely reasonable to suggest, as the President has done, that many of those we now face in Iraq are preoccupied with trying to kill our soldiers there rather than our civilians at home. Why is this dismissed as irrelevant? If our invasion of Iraq caused the creation of Jihadis, then so did our invasion of Afghanistan. So would any self-defensive response have. If we defend ourselves, the call goes forth for Jihad. If we don’t defend ourselves, we are called cowardly and invite more attacks. The only question that matters is: Where will we fight these people - in the aisle of the plane or in Baghdad?

I firmly believe that we are facing a challenge the like of which we have not seen since 1865. And sadly, I don’t believe there are enough Americans left today with the fortitude necessary to see this thing through.

The NSA: Liberty vs. Survival?

2006-09-01T09:34:00.000-07:00

Most of us understand that the NSA 'probably' has used filters to pick out certain words or phrases from phone conversations for 30 years or more. Thus, if you tell a friend over the phone that you'd love to kill the president, you should not be surprised if you get a visit from the constabulary. Do we object to that? Some do. Some don't. The point is that in my every day life, the mere fact that the government may be listening to my phone conversations, does not constitute harm to me.

Now, with that said, if the IRS seizes my bank account tomorrow because an NSA geek told them that he heard me admit to cheating on my taxes, OK, now there's trouble. We must nip that right in the bud. But, if we need to avoid that extreme, we also need to avoid the extreme that says that someone in the U.S. - even a citizen - who is talking to a known Al Qaeda member overseas deserves the same privacy as the rest of us. Are we at war? Certainly some people are trying to kill as many of us as they possibly can – that’s good enough for me – so, yes, we are at war. Is the commander-in-chief ‘allowed’ to intercept enemy communications during a time of war? Hell, yes. Can the rights of citizens be restricted for the good of the nation as a whole during war time? Centuries of case law say, “Yes”. I have no objection to this program and will defend it for a couple of years - at any rate – before I again question its necessity and efficacy.

The problem most people have with the NSA program is their fear of what I have outlined above: ‘mission creep’ – and justly so, but would you rather get dunned by the IRS because we were over-cautious or vaporized by an Al Qaeda nuclear attack because we were not cautious enough? Is this a false dichotomy? Maybe, but here again is the point: We don’t know where or when our enemies are planning to strike us and if we don’t find out in time are we going to say, “Well, we lost Chicago, but at least the government isn’t listening in to my phone conversations?” Or, is every finger in the country going to get pointed at the President for failing to protect us? We all know the answer to that question. Which tools shall we say we cannot use? But, remember, if we don’t use this tool and we get hit again we may find ourselves reaching into the box later for one we’ve sworn to never use again.

One difficulty the administration had, of which we the people were blissfully unaware, is that when the current questionable NSA program was originally suggested, it probably occurred to someone that it might violate the law by circumventing the FISA court. Now, let’s say you’re the President: what do you do? Do you send a note to Congress and say we need a law to allow us to do this? Do you start the program and then ask Congress to OK it with a new law or amendment to the current FISA statute? Or, do you decide that we need it now, regardless of its legality - and it must remain secret? The regrettable part is that had the President contacted Congress – at any time – debates and votes would have been required, knowledge of the program would have become public and severely damaged its effectiveness. Thus, the President really only ever had the last option. Now, as it happens, it did leak and its efficacy has been weakened, but the President gets full marks for doing the right thing. Laws are designed to deal with certain situations. When situations change, however, the laws rarely do – and then only very slowly, in a conspicuously open forum. That’s not what’s needed when people are - as we speak - planning attacks designed to kill hundreds of thousands of us.

Judge Richard Posner of the University of Chicago in a recent interview reminded me that 100 years ago, there were few dedicated telephone lines and we were perfectly content with party lines on which a dozen or more people could easily eavesdrop. Does the availability of privacy create the right to it? It just may be that our current expectations of privacy are just that – expectations – and have no corresponding basis in law.

A stupid idea for your consideration

2006-09-01T07:12:00.000-07:00

All rational, intelligent and educated people, whether they admit it or not, recognize that our problems have their origin in the large numbers of disaffected people of the Islamic faith.

It is axiomatic that we cannot kill them all; nor can we win in a propaganda war when the authoritarian governments and religious authorities who rule these people control access to information. Our current experience indicates that creating democratic institutions is very difficult, if not impossible.

Thus, we find that we cannot convince them - by propaganda or the introduction of democracy - to stop attacking us; we cannot defeat them militarily and we cannot effectively defend ourselves against them without gutting civil liberties.

What do we do? Our only choice seemingly is to withdraw from the world stage, close our borders and resign ourselves, as have the Europeans, to the occasional attack.

Of course, the occasional attack could be a nuclear one, but, while we could lose upwards of a million people if a moderately-sized nuke were detonated in Manhattan, we might then win this war militarily by turning much of the Middle East into a lake of glass for the next 100,000 years. Even then, however, we would likely face other Islamic extremists from Asia or those who have emigrated to Europe. Thus, we find that even as we kill more and more of the Jihadis, their deaths seem only to serve as a greater enticement to others - and we are forced to accept that for every 100 we kill, 250 are created. Again, we are brought face to face with the fact that there is no military solution short of overthrowing the entire Middle East and/or killing all Muslims. Now, if that seems unacceptable, then where are we left – and what do we do?

The key to this situation (which we have known all along) is the one thing which unites all those who violently oppose and attack us.

Here is one avenue that we have not investigated. It is an avenue which I expect we will not try as it will be anathema to perhaps half of American citizens. The avenue falls generally under the heading of “convincing”, but would still require a great sacrifice and loss of life in the attempt.

That avenue is conversion.

The acceptance of a modern religion by those currently of the Muslim faith would obviate the misguided religious fervor that animates the violence perpetrated against us.

As has been done since the founding of the Church in the aftermath of Jesus’ execution, those of the faith have gone to all parts of the world and proselytized for the acceptance of a faith based on love and community. And, just as in the olden times, many will die for their faith in the attempts.

We needn’t focus exclusively on Christianity, but of the major religions, it is the least hated by Muslims. Judaism, well, forget it. Hinduism has been at loggerheads with Islam on the subcontinent for centuries. Buddhism might work, but Christianity has the great benefit of a supreme leader in the Pope – for Catholics, and the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury for many Protestants. Other Protestant denominations are small enough that democratically elected supervisory boards effectively manage affairs. Having one person or a small group of policy makers means less chance of sects which advocate and engage in activities counter to the main stream of religious thought.

Today, of the affected areas, Christianity has the greatest foothold in Africa. It is North and East that the message must travel.

This may well be a staggeringly stupid idea. Certainly, five years ago I would have thought mad anyone who proposed it. Yet, re-read the first five paragraphs above and then ask yourself what other ideas and options are out there?

The only thing that is crystal clear in our situation today is this: Either we will drag the Islamic world into modernity or they will drag us back into the medieval. And since a medieval world containing nuclear weapons will not remain a world for very long, even the most outlandish ideas ought be considered.

Pomposity on Parade

2006-08-31T06:45:00.000-07:00

Donald Rumsfeld has hit a nerve on the left – and not a small one.

While many were outraged by the SecDef’s comments, Keith Olberman’s response is arguably the most representative of the pseudo-intellectual anti-war left in this particular case. Therefore, his verbal lashing of the SecDef last night deserves especial attention.

(It is nothing short of depressing that I, or anyone, should have to take the time to counter the rantings of a moderately talented comedian.)

Though his rhetoric was at times high-flying, it was nothing new. Basically, he proudly marched into the leftist armory, broke out the shop-worn cudgels of McCarthyism and then equipped an army of straw men with them.

What Mr. Olberman no doubt considers high moral dudgeon and righteous indignation, is also arrant hypocrisy.

First, Mr. Olberman is appalled that Mr. Rumsfeld is criticizing those who disagree with the war and insinuating that they are morally deficient. Excuse me, but, is it not the case that the Mr. Olberman makes his living by calling the administration wrong and their actions unethical - every night? What is good for the goose, Mr. Olberman, is good for the gander.

Mr. Olberman’s eloquent venom is spent decrying the sheer, unmitigated gall of an administration that dares to reply in kind to its critics when said administration has gutted civil liberties in this country, muzzled its opponents, embarked on an unjustified war of imperial conquest, attempted to kill the poor blacks of New Orleans, etc. etc.

Mr. Olberman’s chronicling of abuses would be stirring if it weren’t for the tiny fact that none of his statements are true.

You may not like the Patriot act, but if you believe that the government is listening in to Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat’s phone conversations, you’re WRONG, period – end of story.

You may think our excursion to Iraq was a mistake, but don’t fool yourself that Iraq wasn’t - or couldn’t have become - a festering Islamic fever-swamp like Afghanistan.

While he missed this particular one, one of the “ironies” that Mr. Olberman likes so much is that the hated, demonized Senator Joseph McCarthy - was right. He was a grandstanding, self-aggrandizing blowhard – but he was right. There were Communists in our government and we were right to have been looking for them. The lesson we should take from McCarthyism is that it’s not what you say, but how you say it that determines whether you succeed or not.

At the end of the day, Mr. Olberman and those like him are outraged because they KNOW they’re right and how dare anyone contradict them.

If we value the right to free speech and thus the right to criticize the government, then we cannot complain when they criticize us back.

Mr. Olberman, I’ll make you a deal: if the FBI or the Secret Service shows up at your door and takes you away for criticizing the government, I’ll be one of the first to storm the Bastille to get you out. But, we both know that the picture you paint is not a landscape, but a dreamscape.

Or, maybe it's me. Maybe your rant was a masterpiece of sublimely ironic and facetious wit.

Nah.

Funny if it weren't sad

2006-08-30T05:00:00.000-07:00

I believe that one, if not the greatest, benefit of our efforts in Iraq is that it has almost completely diverted the attention of the fifth column, er, I mean, fourth estate in this country away from our activities in Afghanistan. I regret that I have to report that I firmly believe that if we were not in Iraq, our efforts in Afghanistan would have been severely hampered by the reflexive negativity of the main stream media. Perhaps, the media would have managed to turn the people against our Afghanistan effort as they have done with Iraq. As it is, however, I can thankfully report that we have done more to improve the lives of Afghanis in five years than has been done for them in the last 150.

Katrina's true legacy

2006-08-29T03:49:00.000-07:00

What has the last year shown us? It has shown us that when people are indoctrinated to believe that ONLY the government can fix their problems, nothing gets done.

Bureaucracy kills. It killed people a year ago and today it kills initiative, ideas and the hope of a renewed New Orleans.

Picky, picky, picky...

2006-08-25T05:03:00.000-07:00

Not much use in pointing this out I suppose. And I know that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, or so says Mr. Emerson, but I think it does bear demonstrating that the same people who laugh when a conservative says that allowing "Plan 'B'" contraceptives to be sold over the counter will increase promiscuity among teens - will scream and cry that the availability of guns causes crime.

If knowledge of - and tools necessary for - a behavior causes more of a behavior, then it ought matter not what the behavior is.

You cannot have it both ways.

Global Warming

2006-08-01T11:33:00.000-07:00

I just want to see if I can understand this issue without getting into the finer points of computer modeling and statisitical analysis:

1. Is Global Warming happening?

Probably. Temperatures have risen over the last hundred years more than has been the historical norm.

2. Have we caused it?

We don't know. We don't know enough about how the Earth "works" to know what is actually happening. There are simply no atmospheric/climate models complex enough to accurately state the causes or predict the end result of this phenomenon.

3. Could this be "Bad"?

Maybe. It is also possible that increased CO2 will cause more plant life and we'll end with a greener Earth that produces more oxygen.

4. If it could be "Bad", shouldn't we take precautions?

Reducing pollution is always a good idea. But, some advocate a radical re-ordering of society to stop the emission of "greenhouse gasses". To take steps that could literally destroy the world economy when we don't have adequate knowledge about the causes and potential ramifications of "Global Warming" is nothing short of irrational. The Kyoto Protocol that was heralded as a necessary step, would have done virtually nothing to even slow down the rate of increase of the Earth's temperature. What it would have done, however, is cripple the economies of many nations. Even those governments that signed the accord, have found it impossible to meet its requirements without curtailing economic growth.

What is a good idea, for a multitude of reasons, however is to devote ourselves to the development of a "post fossil fuel" world economy. If we did not need oil, we could quickly disengage from the Middle East. If we did not need oil, we could stop arguing about pollution risks from drilling and refining of petroleum products.

Some in the scientific community, because they've concluded it contributes to global warming, advocate labeling CO2 as a pollutant. Fine, let's call it a pollutant and admit that it contributes to global warming. Should we severely restrict our global industrial output to minimize emissions of CO2? To answer this question, consider this: in 1992, during the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines, the Earth herself spewed more CO2 into our atmosphere than all of mankind's activities, since we climbed down out of the trees...combined. Now, what benefit, exactly, is going to accrue to us from our minimization of CO2 emissions? The more important question is: how do we go about reining in the earth's own dangerous and heedless activities?

The bottom line seems to be this:

The idea that we can positively and meaningfully impact forces that we have no substantial understanding of is the height of both anthropocentric arrogance and sheer, unadulterated stupidity.

No measures we take, no matter how drastic, are GUARANTEED to fix the problem (if we even understand the problem, which we really don't) - and in fact may serve only to plunge BILLIONS of people into misery and deprivation for no good reason.

Let's all put down the Kool-Aid and step away from the edge of reason.

Just like Daddy told me...

2006-08-01T07:57:00.000-07:00

When I was a boy helping with the landscaping, Dad told me that if I wanted to make sure a weed didn't come back, I had to pull out all of the roots, not just the portion I could see.

With that in mind, I was struck by the following observations which may clarify some of what is going on around us today:

At least as far back as 1900 Western civilization - in its highest form: liberal democracy - has been in a non-stop, life-and-death struggle against:

Sectarianism
Nationalism
Militarism
Authoritarianism

Out of which flow:

Monarchism (which is comprised of: authoritarianism,
nationalism)

Colonialism (nationalism, militarism, authoritarianism)

Socialism (Authoritarianism)

Totalitarianism (Authoritarianism)

Communism (Nationalism, Totalitarianism, Militarism,
Socialism) [As embodied in Soviet and Chinese versions]

Fascism (See 'Communism')

Islamism (sectarianism, fascism, totalitarianism)

If we take a look at the location of the five (5) gravest threats to peace and security in the world today:

1. Iran
2. North Korea
3. Iraq
4. Syria
5. Taiwan (versus China)

We find in each case that at least one of the above four major social disorders is at its root:

1. Iran – Islamism (with its component diseases of
sectarianism, socialism, nationalism and
totalitarianism)

2. North Korea – All of the above

3. Iraq – Sectarianism

4. Syria – Authoritarianism

5. Taiwan – Nationalism, Militarism, Authoritarianism

The first world war ended monarchism and colonialism. The second world war ended militarism and nationalism, the third world war (aka the cold war) ended most of authoritarianism. Today we are engaged in the fourth world war which will, I hope, put the final nails in the coffin of authoritarianism and if not destroy, then seriously weaken sectarianism.

Of all of our battles, sectarianism is the longest running and will be the most difficult to dispense with because it will require a new ordering of human society and a new conception and practice of religion. In other words, we need to evolve societally before we destroy ourselves.

There is no option for civilization. Either we move forward or we retreat into medievalism. If we are to progress, the struggle must be seen for what it is. We must fight and we must win.

Just so you know.

Can we get a grip, please?

2006-07-24T13:09:00.000-07:00

Many people think that the absence of war is the same thing as peace.

Many believe that if tanks aren’t rolling, rockets and bullets aren’t flying and planes aren't strafing, then things are good.

People and governments are often more interested in making a problem 'go away' than in rectifying the situation that caused the problem in the first place. Rather like an exasperated parent, they are more interested in 'quiet' than in 'justice'. But, ‘quiet’ is not ‘peace’. The establishment of ‘peace’ is not possible without ‘justice’.

Let us consider the instant case in the Middle East.

If Israel is forced to stop before Hezbollah is either destroyed or significantly degraded and things go back to the way they were before the current hostilities, who will claim that there is peace? "Well", some will say, "at least people aren’t dying". That news will come as a surprise to the victims of Hezbollah/Hamas killed in the past ten years.

By not addressing the underlying cause, by not ridding the world of Hezbollah, by not bringing "Justice” to those who have embarked on war, we encourage their behavior and only set the stage for another war later on. And wars have a nasty habit of getting worse with each iteration.

In this particular case, “Justice” can mean nothing other than this: Hezbollah is either destroyed or reduced to the point where they cannot injure or kill Israelis. Then, when “Justice” has been served, there will be a ‘quiet’ that will genuinely mean ‘peace’.

The ‘International Community’ won't help Israel. The U.N. is both unable and unwilling to enforce its own resolutions. Negotiations are impossible with terrorist gangs. Thus, Israel should be left alone to do what we all know is both necessary and long overdue.

To believe in any other possible resolution is to delude yourself.

Revisiting Semantics

2006-07-21T05:52:00.000-07:00

Let us again discuss the question:

"Who needs an AK-47 to go hunting?"

The more I consider it, the more clever this contstruction appears. Of course for the purposes of our discussion, you can substitute the term "military-style semi-automatic rifle" for "AK-47".

The plain answer to the question, of course, is: no one.

Now, when given that answer, the average "gun control" advocate will say, "Correct. Therefore, AK-47s (et al.) should be banned."

The biggest problem, the sneakiest trick, in this question is the unspoken, but implicit assertion that hunting is the ONLY valid use of firearms. Thus, if any particular firearm is not needed for hunting, it is not needed, period.

This then brings us to the problem of the word "need".

Again, we have a sub-textual assertion: If you don't "need" a gun, you ought not have one.

This, in its turn, leads to the questions: "Who 'needs' a gun?" and "Who decides who 'needs' a gun?"

The average "gun control" advocate will steer well clear of the first question and instead focus on the second. He will tell you that the government is best suited to answer that question. And what does the average "gun control" advocate understand by the term: "government"? He understands: people like him - enforcing their will through bureaucratic, regulatory agencies which are mostly unaccountable to the citizenry.

Thus we see - at the end - that what is posited as a simple question is in reality a cunning - if invalid - argument for governmental regulation of firearms.

Fortunately, semantic and sophistic tricks work both ways.

When asked, "Who needs an AK-47 to go hunting?" the truest and best reply is, "Well, that depends on what you're hunting."

Peace!

2006-07-21T03:42:00.000-07:00

I remember this guy who lived about five doors down from me in my dorm during my freshman year at Penn State. He was very proud of a large poster that sported a picture of Albert Einstein and had a bottom caption that read, "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. –A. Einstein"

For about the next fifteen years I thought that was a very sage and incisive commentary on the folly of humanity in general and our politicians in particular.

Then, one day – out of the blue – I realized that, actually you can. You can simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Old Al, smart as he was, didn’t understand human nature.

Why had there not been a third world war right after the second? Why had Russia and we not come to blows? The A-bomb, that’s why.

The thought of the other side using that weapon was enough to get the self-preservation instinct to kick in on both sides. Result? Cooler heads prevailed for 50 years.

But for those cooler heads to be heard over the baying for blood that is part and parcel of human biology, each side had to be seen by the other as having the ability and the willingness to wage total war.

So, for fifty years, while we didn’t like each other, we tolerated each other because the alternative to not getting along - was death.

It was the willingness and ability to wage war that kept the peace. We prevented war by preparing for war.

It is this seeming contradiction that is at the heart of most human affairs. Human nature is the same whether we’re talking about a two-year-old or a nation-state.

A two-year-old will do as he pleases, regardless of what you say, until you demonstrate that you can make him stop. An anti-democratic government will violate treaties, abuse its populace and threaten its neighbors until it is made to stop. And much like the class clown who gets egged on by his classmates to disrupt the teacher, Iran and North Korea get tacit encouragement from some of their neighbors because they like seeing the teacher (the U.S.) discomfited.

From the 1930s in Britain to the U.N. today, "peace advocates" have done nothing but hasten – and worsen - war.

Today, those who demand that we use no force anywhere, ever, are only asking for bigger trouble down the line. When those who condemn Israel for doing whatever it takes to remove the threat of Hezbollah council “restraint” and cry “proportionality” they are only setting the scene for a bigger, bloodier clash.

Any fourth grader can tell you: The longer you refuse to defend yourself against a bully, the worse the bullying gets. Once you stand up to a bully, the bullying stops.

This is not only common sense, it is an innumerably repeated lesson of history.

Sadly, another facet of human nature is that from generation to generation, we rarely learn from our mistakes.

They've chosen...

2006-07-18T08:25:00.000-07:00

Last year I said that the Israeli removal from Gaza was a challenge to the Palestinians and their supporters. The challenge was that having been given much of what they wanted, this would be the final opportunity for the Palestinians to demonstrate that they do want peace and are capable of living in a two-state situation next to Israel.

Well, the Palestinians have made their choice. With help from Syria and Iran, they have demonstrated conclusively, for all to see that they will never accept anything but the destruction of Israel.

Now, those whose first instinct is to blame Israel need to answer the question: How do you get along with people who will settle for nothing but your utter destruction?

The best that CNN/New York Times/NPR can come up with now is that the Israeli responses to acts of war upon them is: "disproportionate". Of course, they never bother to tell us what constitutes "proportionate".

Despite the avalanche of evidence to the contrary, there are still people in this country who believe that we can negotiate with, appease or co-opt the kind of people who run Al Qaeda/Hezbollah/Hamas. The behavior of these people can no longer be considered just obtuseness, it is arrant cowardice and verges upon treason.

What we should do is send a Marine Division over to help the Israelis and exact a bit of revenge against Hezbollah for 1983's Beirut barracks bombing.

This is your wake up call...

2006-07-11T06:13:00.000-07:00

I see where Al Qaeda has posted video of their atrocious desecration of the bodies of two of our soldiers.

If you hate the President, fine. If you think our efforts in Iraq were/are a mistake, great.

BUT...

Anyone with even the tiniest shred of intellectual honesty MUST admit that the mindset of these people is such that no compromise with them is possible. Whether in Iraq or Indonesia - Bahrain or Borneo, it was inevitable that there would be a showdown between ourselves and these people.

Those who claim we should just retreat into fortress America and let the world tear itself apart without our input either don't know or wilfully ignore the lessons of the 1930s. We tried ignoring the world's problems before - and it only made it worse for us when we finally had to get involved.

This is war. It is already upon us. It is not the kind of war we've read about in our history books. It will require us to lower ourselves toward our enemy's level in order to win.

The great risk is that we will lower ourselves too far down to easily come back. That risk, like the struggle itself, is unavoidable.

My only hope today is that the bad guys hit us again - hard enough this time to shake us out of our complacent idiocy.

And when they do, I pray they hit the New York Times.

Ch...Ch...Ch...Ch...Chaaaaaanges...

2006-07-10T04:55:00.000-07:00

First off, I've never played or been a fan of soccer/football. I don't know the rules and generally would rather watch the History Channel than a soccer match. However, I did see some exciting soccer during the recent World Cup and would not hesitate to watch more games.

With that said, some thoughts:

While I don't much care for the 'dramatic' style of Italian play, I have been to Italy several times and love the country. So, I was rooting for the boys in blue during the final. On the other hand, I have little regard for the nation of France these days, so I was rooting against the French team.

But then a funny thing happened.

The announcers mentioned that the French team was comprised of 'old men', who many consider 'over-the-hill'. Despite the fact that these 'old men' are all younger than I am, I began to root for them because they are considered too old to be able to compete. It began unconsciously at first; then I caught myself clapping and cheering when everyone else was groaning or booing. I did my best to keep it under control, but the fact was I was cheering for the 'old guys'.

I've read and been told that one never truly considers oneself 'old'. Regardless of your age, you always think you're the same person you've always been - the same person who ran around playing tag and then ran around chasing girls. It comes as a shock to find that others start treating you differently. At first you like the respect, but then you realize that it's your chronological status, not your intellect or abilities that are getting the respect.
It's not easy to admit that you can't do what you used to do, that time's no longer on your side and that, no, you won't live forever.

I recently read that they've developed a drug that can prevent the macular degeneration of the eyes that occurs naturally with age. I expect to see a flood of such preventative pharmaceuticals and medical treatments in the next twenty years. The baby-boomers will not go quietly into that good night. (While only 19 days removed from that generation, I steadfastly refuse to consider myself a ‘baby-boomer’)

Who knows, maybe I’ll be playing tag again in 50 years.

Here's an idea...

2006-07-10T04:50:00.000-07:00

With the exception of those who support Italia, no one really likes the penalty kick finish to soccer/football games.

It's just so...so...unfulfilling to see a game end like that.

After discussions with my friend Spock, we have decided that games should be decided as follows:

1. After 90 minutes there should be ONE 15 minute overtime.
2. After that, the referees should exit the field and a sudden death, first goal wins free-for-all should ensue.

Now THAT would be exciting.

People you should know...

2006-07-08T07:09:00.000-07:00

I have decided to start an occasional series on great Pennsylvanians.

Most will be people you've never heard of, because, what can I say about Ben Franklin, James Buchanan or Ben Rush that's not been said before?

Let's get started:

ROBERT E. LAWS

Rank and organization: Staff Sergeant, U.S. Army, Company G, 169th Infantry, 43d Infantry Division.

Place and date: Pangasinan Province, Luzon, Philippine Islands, 12 January 1945.

Entered service at: Altoona, Pennsylvania.

Born: Altoona, Pennsylvania

G.O. No.: 77, 10 September 1945.

Details of his service:

He led the assault squad when Company G attacked enemy hill positions. The enemy force, estimated to be a reinforced infantry company, was well supplied with machineguns, ammunition, grenades, and blocks of TNT and could be attacked only across a narrow ridge 70 yards long. At the end of this ridge an enemy pillbox and rifle positions were set in rising ground. Covered by his squad, S/Sgt Laws traversed the hogback through vicious enemy fire until close to the pillbox, where he hurled grenades at the fortification. Enemy grenades wounded him, but he persisted in his assault until one of his missiles found its mark and knocked out the pillbox. With more grenades, passed to him by members of his squad who had joined him, he led the attack on the entrenched riflemen. In the advance up the hill, he suffered additional wounds in both arms and legs, about the body and in the head, as grenades and TNT charges exploded near him. Three Japs rushed him with fixed bayonets, and he emptied the magazine of his machine pistol at them, killing 2. He closed in hand-to-hand combat with the third, seizing the Jap's rifle as he met the onslaught. The two fell to the ground and rolled some 50 or 60 feet down a bank. When the dust cleared the Jap lay dead and the valiant American was climbing up the hill with a large gash across the head. He was given first aid and evacuated from the area while his squad completed the destruction of the enemy position. S/Sgt. Laws' heroic actions provided great inspiration to his comrades, and his courageous determination, in the face of formidable odds and while suffering from multiple wounds, enabled them to secure an important objective with minimum casualties.

For these actions Sgt. Laws was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Taken from

http://www.worldwariihistory.info/Medal-of-Honor/Luzon.html

Pheewwww!

2006-07-08T06:16:00.000-07:00

The U.N.'s conference on small arms has ended with a whimper. No final agreement or treaty came out of it.

Looking back on it now, I'm beginning to wonder what I was so worried about.

I mean, when has the U.N. ever accomplished anything?

If the U.N. can't come together to deal with Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein why did I worry they would weaken my gun rights?

Nevertheless, better to be safe than sorry, eh what?

It's still too much...

2006-07-07T12:23:00.000-07:00

I see nothing but a solid chain of causation from the Clinton administration’s 1994 capitulation to blackmail - to the United Nations refusal to do its job - to the Democratic Party and the fourth estate’s efforts to hamstring and embarrass the commander-in-chief in a time of war - to the end result: a saber-rattling, nuclear-armed sociopath making demands from North Korea. And still, people like the senior senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, (someone who should know better) want us to negotiate. Dear God in heaven, when will we learn?! Apparently, no useful lessons were drawn from the mistakes of the 1930’s. Lord knows our President is doing a good job, but the good guys are badly outnumbered today.

Winston Churchill must be spinning in his grave.

It's too much sometimes...

2006-07-07T12:20:00.000-07:00

I take no pleasure in saying this, but:

I am firmly convinced that - short of a miracle - we will only truly begin to fight this war when the left shuts the hell up and gets out of the way. The only way that will happen is for us to get hit again. Sadly, I believe that we will have to lose at least 10,000 civilians for the left to sit down, shut up and let us win this war.

Once the people see that the left, through their hampering of our war effort, has caused the deaths of 10,000 civilians, the people of the United States will finally have the blinders ripped away and will demand that we do what we have to do to win – and it won’t be pretty. In 1945, despite a hopeless cause, only nuclear strikes (plural) stopped the fanatical Japanese and it may well be the case that similar measures will be needed to convince all of Islam to delouse itself of Islamo-fascist fanatics and those who create them.

U.S. v. Ned Lamont

2006-07-07T05:19:00.000-07:00

I have been hearing a lot of yadda-yadda-yadda about the Lieberman-Lamont race in Connecticut.

At first I couldn’t understand why so many people were expending so much energy talking about one race. Then I noticed who was talking the loudest – the Kos/Atrios/Moveon/Sheehan-for-President crowd.

Then it began to make sense. The far left in this country is terrified – utterly terrified – that the people of the United States are going to repudiate - once again – their surrender-at-any-cost strategy for the war on terror. If Lieberman wins his primary in a state that the far left believes to be a safe-haven for them it will mean serious trouble for them and their message nationwide. However, a Democrat would still be in the Senate. What would be apocalyptic however would be for him to run as an Independent in the general election and win. Were he to do that, not only would it be a bitch-slap to their message, but it would be enormously damaging to the Democratic Party – the vehicle by which they expect to take power…and everyone would know who caused the damage. It might very well spell the end of their influence over the party.

Now that Zell Miller is gone, I cannot think of another Democrat that I’d consider voting for other than Joe L.

Go Joe!!!

Time to dig out the suitcase?

2006-07-06T13:46:00.000-07:00

Despite my hopes and optimistic beliefs in mankind, I would be lying if I didn't admit that despite my best efforts and those of many liberty minded people, it looks like only a matter of time before the United States goes down the road that the United Kingdom has been traveling for many years now: the road of nanny-state prohibitionism. The Brits have banned handguns and all but banned long-guns. Knives and swords are about to be banned and shortly they will find themselves asking 'Nanny' for permission to keep a cricket bat in the basement. All this has happened despite the fact that the growth of the number of prohibited items has not been met by a concomitant decline in violence and crime. In fact, quite the opposite has occurred. But, since a government NEVER admits it was wrong, a failed policy will remain – forever and ever, Amen. Perhaps after they take away all the belts and shoe-laces, the British Isles will finally know tranquility, peace and harmony. It seems a foregone conclusion that the emotional, unreasonable and illogical course of action to which the UK is committed will be copied here.

Not me. I’m not going to go willingly into serfdom. The instant this country implements a firearms registry, or anything like that, I’m voting for the last time as an American - with my feet. I’ll find someplace where liberty is still cherished – or at least available for sale.

God save the Republic.

Ann Coulter's problem...

2006-07-06T13:16:00.000-07:00

As I see it, the real problem with Ann Coulter is that by using the tone she does, she alienates many who actually hold the same opinions on things as she does - and that is a loss for our side.

It is a loss because Ann Coulter is one of the most incisive and analytically brilliant commentators around today. Unfortunately many people, myself included, often are laughing too hard (or fuming too hotly) to clearly see the points she's making.

Regardless of her tone, however, she deserves a place among the pantheon of heroes for asking the following question the other day:

"When is the New York Times going to uncover a secret Al Qaeda program?"

In that one sentence she exposed the overweaning pride and feckless nature of those who consider themselves smarter than everyone else.

While I can only take her in small doses, I do love her.

What's it all about?

2006-07-04T12:50:00.000-07:00

Today, on the fourth of July, it behooves us to consider what those who broke away from Great Britain were trying to do. To that end, let us consider the following.

The founders were concerned with and by several things:

1. The abuses of power that occur when governments are not accountable to the people.

2. The abuses of power that occur when any faction – even if it be a majority - gains control of the government.

3. The abuses of power that occur when any branch of the government overreaches its purview.

They believed that all people - independent of their condition - have basic rights which cannot be violated. They also realized that if these rights were to be maintained certain responsibilities had to be met. The founders believed that an educated and ethical populace could rule itself successfully. Indeed, they believed that such an arrangement was the only truly just – and therefore legitimate - method of governance. These were new, untested and 'dangerous' notions to many in the 18th century.

The ideas embodied in the Declaration and Constitution are high ideals. It is the belief in these ideals rather than any geographical location that defines one as an ‘American’.

But belief is not enough. For our system to work, everyone must do their best to live up to the principles outlined in the founding documents. With that said, it is vital that we realize that high ideals are rarely embodied in people or institutions. Nevertheless, to abandon them as unattainable is the gravest sin which a rational human can commit.

Americans and their institutions are not infallible – by any stretch of the imagination. We have failed our ideals at every turn in our history: from allowing slavery into our constitution to using the power of government to conduct ‘witch hunts’ for communists during the 1950s. We fail ourselves and our ideals almost constantly. Nevertheless, it is our constant struggle against our fallible human nature which elevates us. It is the same for society as a whole as it is for any individual member of that society: If you are not trying to improve, you are retreating into the historical failures of the past.

Liberty, as understood by our forebears, was not a state but a process. As such, it is never complete.

When you look around the world today you see ‘advanced’ societies abandoning the ideals which we hold dear. Troublingly, here in the U.S. we too have retreated from many of the ideals we profess to hold dear.

Many people today no longer believe that people should be expected to live up to their responsibility to get along peacefully, so, to minimize the mayhem we must revoke the right to keep and bear arms.

Then, also, there are those who say that people are incapable of responsibly planning for retirement, so the government needs to take their money and do it for them.

On the other hand, some today say that opportunity is insufficient, that a right to pursue happiness is not enough – they say we must guarantee people a certain level of material wealth – that the poor have a right to an income from the government. But in order to enact this right we must necessarily diminish other rights like the right to keep what one earns and the right to pass on to one’s heirs what one has worked a lifetime to achieve.

If you believe that 'others' will handle your responsibilities, you will shortly find that these same others have taken your rights with them.

To retreat from freedom and liberty in order to gain security has never been a safe bet and it isn’t one now. Make no mistake, some of the trade-offs are for the better; but ours was a country that once strove for the best.

This’ll drive ‘em nuts...

2006-06-28T09:23:00.000-07:00

The next time some whiny bitch tells you that the NRA is evil because they stand in the way of “commonsense gun control”, shove the truth up their ass as follows:

Regrettably, the truth of the matter is that it is the forces of gun control who are the ones standing in the way of “reform”. It is groups like the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence and the Million Mom March that are the roadblocks to the policies you seek to implement.

You see, since the “gun control” movement began over forty years ago, the people at the heart of it have had, as their ultimate goal, a complete and comprehensive ban on the private ownership of handguns and the strict restriction of long arm ownership to those whom the government approves.

They have convinced themselves somehow that the second amendment to the constitution is irrelevant. Now, they have had some help. If you view the law as nothing more than what a particular judge says it is, then if you get some decisions that go your way, it is easy to convince yourself that you’re right. U.S. v. Cruikshank; Presser v. Illinois; U.S. v. Miller – these and a few others are the hooks on which the gun control crowd hang their hats.

Now if you believe in the original intent of a law, however, then you are not going to consider these precedents as having any import.

So, it then becomes necessary to see who has the better argument. It is easily argued that both Cruikshank and Presser were wrongly decided viz. the 14th amendment and Miller said nothing about the meaning of the second amendment. Following on, any decision that uses these as their basis is equally flawed.

Today, there is today no constitutional scholar worthy of that term who doesn’t recognize the intent of the founding fathers. Thus, if you are a “gun control” advocate, you either cling feverishly to stare decisis in the face of strong evidence of erroneous judgment or you admit that the people of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms and you start arguing about the meaning of the word “infringed”.

To take the latter course is simply unthinkable for the “gun control” crowd. This is strong proof of their totalitarian intent.

Since they won’t admit that the people have any right to keep and bear arms, any and everything they do is highly suspect. Because they won’t admit the real meaning and validity of the second amendment, the NRA recognizes that regardless of what they say, their endgame remains the same. Thus, the NRA opposes them at every turn. When there is no hard and fast backstop to keep legislation or judicial activism from overreaching, no ground can safely be given up. When every “gun control” scheme enacted is welcomed by shouts of “It’s a start!” no proposal will be unopposed. The NRA understands that there is no such thing as an unlimited right, but until the other side - at a minimum - acknowledges the existence of that right, there can be no discussion between the two sides.

If, on the other hand, the courts and legislatures and people around the country had a firm notion of what is acceptable and what crosses the line into the unconstitutional, then a real discussion of a firearms registry could take place. A genuine exchange about the efficacy of a licensing system may happen. A calm talk about the possibility of storage requirements is conceivable.

As it currently stands, however, as long as the forces of “gun control” persist in their perverse denial of the reality of the second amendment, they frustrate their own avowed goals and prolong the bloodshed.

How to...

2006-06-28T09:06:00.000-07:00

From an occasional series on how to talk to gun-control advocates…

A. Answering the question: “Who needs an AK-47 to go hunting?”

There are three major ‘problems’ with the above question:

1. “Need” – Forget the Constitution. If you believe that a human has the inherent right to life, then you necessarily believe that that human has an inherent right to defend that life – with whatever tools are necessary.
2. “AK-47” – Once again there is the (intentional?) confusion between “semi-automatic” and “assault” rifles. Are we discussing a semi-automatic version or a select-fire “machine gun”? If we are discussing a semi-automatic, then, what is the difference between it and a Browning automatic hunting rifle? Or a Remington 1100 skeet gun? They all work the same way. If you ban one, you have to ban the others. If, on the other hand, we’re discussing a “machine gun” then we’re discussing something that is already very tightly controlled by the government.
3. “Hunting” - This could be subsumed under #1, but since it concerns a slightly different point, I’ll break it out: While hunting is one facet of it, firearms ownership in this country is not about hunting. It is about the founders of our republic realizing that unchecked power grows abusive. Therefore, they quite intentionally placed final authority and the ultimate veto power in the hands of the people. It has been variously estimated that during the course of the 20th century, approximately 40- 60 million people died as the result of international wars. During that same 100 years close to four times that number died at the hands of their own governments.(1) Think that our government won’t become like that? Do you think you have rights? Refuse to pay your income tax and see what happens.

(1) - http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm

The U.N. strikes again

2006-06-28T07:12:00.000-07:00

I believe that there is more than enough political will in this country (and the current administration) to keep the World Government wannabees in Turtle Bay from futzing with our rights, but what worries me is that the rest of the world will adopt ill-conceived and draconian policies which will make it all but impossible for me to travel overseas with my Perazzi target gun to shoot trap/skeet/sporting clays. It is already a sizeable headache to do so in Europe. I don't know that I'd even try it in South America. And Asia? Well, forget about it. After this it may become literally impossible for anyone but the Olympic team to go abroad to shoot.

Have you considered...

2006-06-22T08:52:00.000-07:00

What most people haven't thought about or refuse to think about is this:

At some point, there was going to be an accounting between Iraq and the rest of the world.

The chances that a stable, responsible government would have emerged after the passing of Saddam were between slim and none.

As bad as Saddam was, his criminally insane offspring would have been far worse.

Any military leader strong enough to emerge as the next head-of-state would have to have many of the same "qualities" possessed by the soon to be convicted Mr. Hussein.

In short, things were not likely to get any better in the near-to-mid term in Iraq. Would it have been a good idea to leave a country like that alone to whip up God knows what kinds of weapons?

The people who oppose this war are quite simply, Stupid.

Again and again and again...

2006-06-22T08:34:00.000-07:00

Until the assholes remember...

1981-3: Saddam uses chemical and or biological weapons on Iranian troops

1988: Saddam uses chemical/biological weapons on Iraqi Kurds

1991: Upon entering Baghdad, U.N. and U.S. weapons inspectors are horrified to find a nuclear weapons program they estimate to be no more than 18 months from a test device.

1991 - 2002: Saddam Hussein refuses to fully comply with U.N. weapons inspectors and does not account for all the chemical/biological agents he admitted to having. He merely claims, "They're gone."

But George W. Bush is the bad guy because we didn't find any WMD? What about the hundreds of artillery shells we've found filled with mustard gas and sarin? Oh, well those aren't really chemical weapons say the BDS sufferers like Kos and Atrios.

Whatever.

Could it be...

2006-06-21T06:54:00.000-07:00

To anyone willing and able to think, the truth is axiomatic:

Guns are inanimate assemblies of metal - they cannot walk, they cannot talk, they CANNOT KILL.

So then, since a gun is value-neutral, it means that guns are bad only when in the hands of bad people and, following this, good when in the hands of good people. A better way to describe it may be to say ‘responsible’ people and ‘irresponsible’ people.

Now, we have in Philadelphia certain neighborhoods where gunfire is common and many lives are lost every year. Behind the rhetoric of gun control advocates you find that – when pressed – they will admit the vast majority of communities have no problems with gun-related violence. They almost always point to the inner cities as the reason for gun control. Thus, we find that the people in the inner cities are the problem, not guns. Why are they the problem? Because many of them are deeply irresponsible. The questions that dare not get asked are: “Why are so many people in our inner cities so irresponsible?” And, “What do we do to make our citizens more responsible?” The answer to these questions lies in the assumptions and designs of over seventy years of social policy and for those of the political class these questions are as unthinkable as a fundamentalist Christian asking: “But if the bible is wrong about the sun orbiting the earth – then what else is it wrong about?

Nevertheless, until these questions get asked by those who make and implement our social policies, we will not get a handle on our problems.

In the meantime, while we waste our energies trying to put a band-aid on the cancer in our cities, people die.

Idiocy undaunted by reality

2006-06-19T05:40:00.000-07:00

Tom Ferrick is either an Epsilon-minus semi-moron, or he's a shrewd practitioner of Josef Goebbels' art of propaganda. Goebbels knew that if you tell a lie big enough, long enough - eventually it becomes fact.

Mr. Ferrick, a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, keeps playing the one string he knows how to play - gun control - as the answer to Philly's violence epidemic.

Despite the fact that there is no evidence to support his assertion that his policy prescription will ameliorate the situation in our poorer neighborhoods and despite the mountain of evidence that gun-control has failed utterly everywhere and in every manner it has been attempted, he just keeps on playing.

Tom Ferrick: King of the one-string guitar. Would that he were around for 'One Night Only'.

Am I all wet on this?

2006-06-09T06:20:00.000-07:00

Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other. Even your right to life can be rescinded if you abdicate your responsibilities and commit certain acts. You have a responsibility to pay taxes and obey the law. In return, you are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness as you see fit.

Now, some people say that animals have rights. This is patent nonsense. For the reasons that I've outlined above, if an individual is incapable of fulfilling their responsibilities, they cannot have any rights.

Consider a human child. By law, it has no rights. Can a child vote? Can a child own firearms? Can a child enter into or enforce a contract? Does a two-year-old have the right to free speech? (In fact, considered properly, a child does not even have the right to life. The question is moot, however, because the child's parents have the responsibility to protect him/her and act for him/her in worldly matters. In return, the parents have the right to protect the life of their child and raise him in peace and safety. Additionally, no one has the right to take a child’s life.) Thus, the child is, for all intents and purposes, chattel.

Similarly, whereas an animal cannot fulfill any responsibility, there can be no possibility of rights. We, as humans, have the responsibility to protect them, avoid inflicting upon them unnecessary pain and suffering and maintain their numbers. In return, we have the right to use them as is best for ourselves and them.

It is only by the blood and pain of those who went before us that we have the advanced society that we have today. Analogously, it is by the suffering of some animals that we will find ways to prevent or cure disease in the future. And not just for ourselves; veterinary medicine has benefited from product testing and vivisection as well. If it is demonstrably unnecessary, then inflicting pain and suffering should be unthinkable and punishable - but if not, then let’s not fool ourselves that it is anything out of the ordinary.

The slow, painful death of an antelope run down by lions and eaten alive is not something humans can - or ought to try to - stop. Nature is immutable and it is only our hubris, in thinking we are beyond it, that allows foolish notions like 'animal rights' to flourish.

Education is expensive

2006-06-09T05:48:00.000-07:00

Well, it seems that the Dixie Chicks new album is gathering dust on shelves all over America and their tour is about to be cancelled because no one is buying tickets.

I think it instructive to use these young ladies to illustrate some of what is wrong in America today:

Yes, you have the right to free speech and yes, you can use your prominence to promote a political agenda.

However, whereas we live in a (currently) capitalist society, it does not behoove one to repudiate and belittle the cultural norms and moral outlook of those whom you would have as customers.

Further, it ought not come as a great surprise that having thus insulted potential customers, they refuse to purchase your product and/or service.

I am unaware if these young ladies blame the President for their current troubles, but if they do, then they have again failed Marketing 101 and will need to repeat it yet again - or drop out.

Don't worry we'll handle this...

2006-06-09T04:49:00.000-07:00

So, New Jersey is thinking of passing a bill to ban protests at military funerals.

The impetus for this is the disgusting displays mounted by followers of a particular fundamentalist Christian minister, Fred Phelps, who believes that our society's acceptance of homosexuality is the reason our soldiers are dying in Iraq.

Now, nobody wants to be rid of these protests more than I; but, why is it the job of the legislature to fix this?

What does it say about our way of thinking today that any time there is a problem, we immediately seek a law to protect us?

My guess is that the nannies in Trenton are saying to themselves, “Well, if we don’t do something, there is going to be trouble and somebody is going to get hurt.”

I don’t know about anyone else, but, as for me – I’m thinking that sometimes we need to have trouble and sometimes people need to get hurt. Sadly, this is often the only way we learn.

These protesters have the right to free speech. Grieving families have the right to a dignified funeral service. Let the people work out the details.

If just one family walked over to these ass-clowns, grabbed their signs and hit them over the head with them, we would likely see no more of this sort of thing. And we sure as hell wouldn’t need legislation - which stays on the books forever and can be misused by the state.

Peace whenever practicable.

Sylvester and John...up a tree...

2006-06-07T19:20:00.000-07:00

K-I-S-S-I-N-G

The Philadelphia Police Department says it doesn't track the crime rate of concealed carry permit holders. Really?

Does any honest, sensible person in Philadelphia really believe that if concealed carry permit holders were committing gun crimes the PPD wouldn't know about it and get constant front-page coverage of it by the Inquirer/Daily News?

Of course not.

You know damned well that the PPD tracks the crime statistics of concealed carry permit holders - but because those statistics don't support the Mayor's call for more gun control, the good Syl Johnson won't allow those statistics to see the light of day.

I'm feeling like buying another gun.

John Street and Sylvester Johnson can kiss my narrow, white ass.

Let's play 'Guess The Theme'

2006-06-07T11:30:00.000-07:00

"During the course of the 20th century, some 40 million people died as the result of warfare. During that same time, approximately 140 million died at the hands of their own governments" -paraphrase of extract from 2001 U.N. report

"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error."
-Justice Robert Jackson

"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." -U.S. Constitution

Karnak's crystal ball

2006-06-07T08:57:00.000-07:00

Here, today, on June 7, 2006 I am forecasting the following:

Whereas the Democratic/Socialist party of the United States has fallen under the sway of lunatic fringe elements like those at the Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground, any Democratic/Socialist candidate for President in '08 will, during the primaries, have to run so far to the left to win the votes of the democratic base that the Republican nominee in the fall of '08 will have a ridiculously easy time portraying the Democratic/Socialist nominee as dangerously extreme.

Result: A Republican victory in the Presidential election of 2008. Once again, the Republicans will be saved only by the insanity of the Democrats.

Karnak has spoken

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

2006-06-05T04:55:00.000-07:00

The U.K. is the most violent developed country. That was the finding of a U.N. study that looked at violent crime throughout the world. The majority of murders are committed with knives and the problem is such that members of Parliament have introduced bills to ban the private ownership of knives in an effort to staunch the flow of blood.

Interesting, is it not, that here in the U.S., the National Rifle Association has been saying for over 125 years that behavior is the problem. If the behavior is not addressed, then whatever tool is at hand will become an "instrument of crime".

It is also "interesting" (by that I mean illustrative and disheartening) that the U.K., which has banned handguns and strongly regulates long guns, now proposes to enact the same ineffective, liberty denying, band-aid style "solution" to the "knife problem".

The knife has a long history in the U.K. - especially Scotland - and the obtuseness of those who claim that NOW it has become a problem is quite simply staggering.

They've banned guns - and now knives are popular.

Ban knives and cricket bats will replace them.

Ban cricket bats and...well, you get the picture. At what point does common sense reenter the picture? When will we say: Our values have become corrupted and our acceptance of aberrant behavior must cease.

This is about the U.S. as well. Those who advocate gun control don't have a clue about human nature or the mechanics of incentives.

Whenever this is pointed out to them they just raise their collective voice. This is why I will never permit any further abridgment of my right to self-defense. No matter how well intentioned or how awful the mayhem in our inner cities becomes, my rights are not what's wrong with our society.

Mindfield

2006-06-02T04:52:00.000-07:00

Some things the Iraq war has taught us and some questions it has raised:

1. Nobody has all the right answers at the right time. Should we have had more troops in Iraq? Maybe. Would we then have suffered more casualties rather than less? Maybe.

2. War and the way we wage it has changed dramatically since 1945 - and our military is still coming to grips with this fact. Because of nuclear weapons and the mind-boggling capabilities of the U.S. military, the chances of a large, set-piece struggle such as in Korea are slim. But, even as in Korea, the fear of a widening fight will continue to limit our options. And if that doesn't, then our fear of world opinion will.

3. When you train soldiers to be killers and then force them to act with the restraint of policemen, you are asking for trouble.

4. The people of the U.S. need the kind of clear cut choices that we faced in WWII. Sadly, in 2006, if we wait for another Pearl Harbor, we'll lose tens of thousands of civilians and we'll still end up fighting a trans-national enemy who laughs at the Geneva Convention.

5. The U.S. does need to take a hard, dispassionate look at our international alliances in light of the fact that the cold war is over. Perhaps it is time to quit being the world's policeman and retrench at home.

6. Foreign oil and Israel are two flashpoints for those who hate us. We need to reevaluate our attachment to both.

7. Just like Lyndon Johnson before him, George Bush maintains we can have guns and butter. It has become clear that one of the greatest of our failures since 9/11 has been the failure to make the people of the U.S. understand why we need to fight this fight and why we need to win this fight. But, most importantly, the people should have been forced to invest in the fight. As in WWII, when we have to sacrifice for the effort, we all feel a part of the effort - and we'll back it to the hilt.

Thoughts 'n reflections

2006-05-23T06:57:00.000-07:00

Had occasion last evening to meet and talk with Ed Crane, founder of the Cato Institute. Cato is a well respected think tank in DC that has as its mission the promotion of good old fashion liberty.

Liberty is one of those concepts that seems to elude most people today. People like to scream about their 'freedom' but seem perfectly happy to stand by and watch as the underpinnings of that freedom get whittled away to nothing. The liberties of free speech and expression and the right to keep and bear arms are probably the two most prominent liberties being eroded today, but the liberty to start and run a business without excessive state interference (i.e. licensing, fees and taxes) is all but gone. The liberty to decide how to save for your retirement has been gone since the New Deal. The liberty to keep what you earn, likewise, is about gone. These - and many others - are liberties which Americans don't seem to miss. Perhaps that is because they don't realize they ever possessed them in the first place.

Every time the government gets involved - or increases its involvement - in affairs that affect my life and how I live it, I (we) lose another little bit of my (our) liberty.

Responsibilities are the flip side of rights. Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other. Thus, if the government becomes so involved in our lives that we no longer have any individual responsibilities, we will no longer have need of any individual rights.

The problem is, for many people, being told what to do and how to do it is comforting and far preferable to having an opportunity to do as one pleases. This attitude is not the one that built America, rather it is the one that will accompany its decline and fall.

In case you're wondering

2006-05-22T05:17:00.000-07:00

People with whom I've spoken who support gun control always ask, "Why does the NRA oppose even small increases in gun control?"

The answer is this: The proponents of gun control are in an all or nothing fight. They either don't understand the end game of gun control, or, they won't admit it. But no matter how they bob and weave, there can only be one end for gun control - a comprehensive ban on the private ownership of firearms.

Let's look at the gun control idea du jour: one-handgun-a-month (OGM). Like every other gun control scheme, this is supposed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths. Unfortunately, also like every other gun control scheme, it only affects those who obey the law. Thus, if Philadelphia implements an OGM, the bad guys will go outside the city to get them. If Pennsylvania implements OGM, people will go out of state to get them. So, what do we do then? Obviously, the federal government needs to impose a nationwide OGM law. But what if that doesn't bring down crime? Will they say it didn't work and we should repeal the law? No, silly, we need to stop selling handguns in the U.S. But what if rifles and shotguns pick up the slack? Naturally, we need to stop selling rifles and shotguns. Then, when people still die, they'll tell us that we need to confiscate those guns still in private hands. Thus we see the ineluctable end of "gun control".

This is not arguing the slippery slope. This is over forty years of fact.

Gun control is a fallacy. It has never worked. It never will work. It CANNOT work because you will never get rid of the guns.

We need to ask why places like D.C. with a complete ban on the ownership of handguns has the eighth highest murder rate in the nation. We need to ask how New York City went from the top five to #140.

The real problem is political correctness. To truly understand the problem is to necessarily point a finger at the communities where this slaughter is taking place. But, according to the political and academic classes that would be racist and an exercise in blaming the victim. Until we start telling ourselves the truth, nothing will get better. NOTHING.

God save the Republic.

More mud for the water

2006-05-10T10:00:00.000-07:00

The CIA, like every other national intelligence organization around the world, operates in a highly compartmentalized fashion. This is necessarily so because information about one intelligence source could be prized from another source if one or the other were compromised.

Thus, sources who may work next to each other in the defense ministry of country X would not likely know that the other was an intelligence source for the U.S.

Additionally, the CIA analysts who see the raw intelligence from one source may not see the raw intelligence from another source - again, for security purposes. So, it is not only possible, but highly probable that no mid-level CIA analyst could ever know the whole picture.

Now, if source 'A' tells his CIA contact that Saddam does have WMD and source 'B' tells his CIA contact that Saddam does NOT have WMD then the decision about the 'real situation' is going to be one of weighing the relative merits of sources and the potential for damage if such and such a description of a situation is, in fact, true.

So, at the end of the day, the people who make the decisions see much more than any mid- to high-level CIA analyst.

Claim that President Bush lied about WMD and you necessarily exclude certain intelligence we had. Claim that Saddam had them and you run into the inconvenient fact that we've not found any.

Hate the President all you like, but don't fool yourself that there was no intelligence support for the decision he made.

I need someone to explain to me...

2006-05-10T09:51:00.000-07:00

Why this is not the end of the United Nations:

The U.N., after receiving much criticism and complaint from the liberal democratic West has 'reformed' its human rights committee...and named Cuba to it.

Someone please explain to me why I - or anyone - should listen to or pay for anything that emanates from Turtle Bay.

It is said that "the third time's the charm".

If that's true, who's up for a "League of Democracies"?

Truth will win...eventually

2006-05-07T15:07:00.000-07:00

The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Mayor of Philadelphia, the commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department, the television news...and on and on and on...

These are the people lecturing us that gun control will save the lives currently being lost to violent crime in Philadelphia.

They are respected voices. They are influential voices. They are also voices of capitulation and cynicism.

These people say that guns are the problem and that new gun control laws will fix that problem.

However, they don't like to mention the following inconvenient FACTS:

1. Currently:

-Purchasing any firearm with the intention of reselling it to someone who is legally prohibited from owning it...

-Reselling a handgun without notifying the State Police...

-Selling a firearm to anyone legally prohibited from owning one…

-Purchasing a handgun without going through the proper background check...

-Possession of a handgun by anyone under 21 years of age...

-Possession of a firearm by anyone convicted of a felony...

-Possession of a firearm by anyone on probation or parole...

-Carrying a firearm without a license…

-Assault…

-Battery…

-Attempted murder…

-Murder…

Are all violations of Pennsylvania law – and most are felonies.

Ask (and then answer) yourself – honestly - what new law is going to stop activities that are already illegal from the start?

Well, I guess we could ban all handguns and allow no one to have them because they cause crime and mayhem.

Except…

Currently, in the city of Philadelphia there are over 30,000 people who have permits to carry concealed handguns. Interestingly, among these thirty thousand people, the number of crimes committed is so small, the Police Department doesn’t even track them. The number of gun-related crimes committed by permit holders is – at worst - in the single digits and is rumored to be ZERO.

Now, if guns are the problem, why haven’t these thirty-thousand people racked up a sizeable body count?

The answer is: Because guns aren’t the problem.

The longer people fool themselves that more laws and the restriction of other people’s rights are going to solve the problems that face our inner cities, the longer the blood will flow in areas like Kensington and the South West of Philadelphia.

The truth will set you free.

Once again...

2006-05-04T19:01:00.000-07:00

Just to refresh my own memory, it helps to write this out:

ANYONE who accuses the President of 'lying' about WMD in Iraq and/or 'deceiving' us into the war in Iraq is guilty of the exact thing of which they accuse the President; namely, cherry-picking intelligence to support and conform to a pre-determined course of action.

There was ample evidence that Saddam had WMD. There was significant evidence that Saddam had no WMD.

At the end of the day, the President had to make a decision. He decided that there was no conclusive evidence that Saddam did not have them - and he would not give Saddam the benefit of any doubt.

You may not like the decision he made. You might have made a different decision than he did.

BUT...to accuse him of lying is to assert that he knew without doubt that Iraq DID NOT HAVE any WMD.

That assertion is patently false.

Believe what you like, just don't fool yourself that you have any facts to support your position.

Feelings are not facts. Just because you think he lied doesn't make it so.

Wake up!

Immigration doodles

2006-05-02T12:13:00.000-07:00

There is so much crazy talk out there. And when I hear people saying, “It’s really quite simple” the hair on the back of my neck stands up.

I don’t think the immigration issue is that cut-and-dried. For many, it’s about national security pure and simple. For others, it’s about human rights. Personally, I think it’s about the political ramifications of economics.

While I am very fond of over-complicating things, it seems to me that there is a lattice work of issues here which impact each other.

However, I am unable to put it all together in one essay, because I lose my place so often when thinking about it.

Therefore, let me just tackle a couple of threads.

First, national security. The individuals who perpetrated the 9/11 atrocities did not sneak across the Mexican border, they did not have to. They were educated, middle-class men with money enough to fly in. However, today they might have to cross the U.S.-Mexico border because of upgraded security at airports. Further, we know that they procured fake government documents via an underground network created by and for illegal Mexican immigrants. It is impossible to achieve anything like ‘security’ when you cannot or will not control your borders.

Second, the rule of law. If we turn a blind eye to those entering the U.S. illegally, then why should anyone follow the prescribed path to legal status? What message do we send when we ignore our own laws? On the other hand, to round up and deport (actually, forget deport – just round up and take the names of) all 12,000,000 illegal aliens in the U.S. might be impossible. So then, do we send an even worse message by attempting to enforce the law – and failing? Alternatively, if we were determined to round them up, we would necessarily have to enact and employ laws so draconian that the people of the United States might demand their recision; which puts us back at being unable to enforce the law. Finally, it has been noted that something like 75% of the people in Los Angeles County jails are illegals. They perpetrate a sizeable portion of the street crime in many communities.

Third, foreign relations. Our embrace of NAFTA was more about keeping Mexico going than it was about U.S. economics. The economics of NAFTA made some sense for us, but it was far more a case of trying to prop up a neighbor which, if it collapsed, would send not thousands of people into our country on a daily basis, but tens of thousands. That it is in our best interests to give Mexico a “safety valve” and look the other way on illegal immigration may have been a compelling argument in 1996. But, 9/11 fundamentally changed the rules. Furthermore, Mexico has begun to behave like a trans-national welfare queen. It is estimated that the amount of money sent home by immigrants in the U.S. is equal to around 25% of Mexico’s annual GDP. While railing against the racist and inhumane immigration policies of the United States, they have taken no meaningful steps to reform their economy or political system. (To be fair, though, NAFTA and other U.S. policies have enabled Mexico to avoid making tough decisions and reforms) While we’re on it, let’s not forget their titanic hypocrisy when we compare the immigration laws of the two countries (of course, if the more draconian of their laws date to about 1996, then the U.S. probably insisted on them. We'll take Mexicans, but not Hondurans.). Be that as it may, today, in 2006, our options are increasing unpleasant. It begins to look like, regardless of what we do about illegal immigration, we can either prepare for a Mexican civil war, or we can prepare to make Mexico the 51st state. How’s that for a choice?

Fourth, the economy. This is where it gets tricky – and this is where you find the disconnect between Washington, D.C. and Main Street, USA. Let’s be clear: I am certainly not an economist - I’m just thinking things through as best I can. I am probably all wet on this, but I just know we’re not being told the whole story. I’ve heard this guy quote a study that says that illegal immigration hurts the U.S. because these people suck up social services, welfare, correctional and educational dollars from a system that they don’t pay into. I’ve heard that guy quote another study that says they do pay some taxes and they support businesses where they live such that they are a net gain for us. I don’t know. There is nothing definitive. But on the face of it, it certainly would seem that they get a pretty good deal from the U.S. taxpayer.

The President has said that we need these people because they do jobs that Americans won’t. I find that sentiment insulting to Americans and demeaning to immigrants. But I think I know what he’s really trying to say. On April 7th, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that unemployment in March was 4.7%. Because there is always a certain number of people who either can't or won't work, economists generally consider 5% unemployment to be ‘full employment'. So, the question isn’t whether Americans will do these jobs, but rather, what Americans are you going to find to do these jobs?

Consider this: If we were to wave a magic wand and make the illegals go away today, many businesses in the agricultural, hospitality and construction sectors, along with the lawn care/horticultural industry - among others - would have to go into the regular labor market to find help. It is not impossible that for many agricultural firms, labor costs could triple. These companies would find themselves priced out of the market and would either go under or leave the U.S. Now, it would likely be the case that prices for agricultural products would actually go down were this to happen. But, not everyone would benefit. Firms which support these farms could be badly hit. Also, hotels, restaurants, lawn care and construction firms – which cannot easily leave - would see a dramatic spike in costs. Raising prices to cover this, sales would suffer. Businesses in these areas would then curtail spending, hurting their supporting industries. Eventually, consumer level spending would slow down; and if consumer spending slows down enough, the rest of the world will slow down their funding of our trade and budget deficits. A recession would be a real possibility. And a recession means angry voters. (Ah, the political angle rears its ugly head)

Now, let’s say we don’t make the illegals vanish, but make them all citizens. (Poof!) I get the feeling that one dirty little secret nobody wants to talk about is that citizen-employees can demand considerably higher wages than can illegal aliens. In this scenario, unlikely though it may be, a significant portion of the economy might be faced – overnight – with 10(?), 20%(?) higher labor costs. The old devil, inflation, is ever nigh.

Thus, in my imaginings, it would seem that while we must gain control of our borders and have an accurate list of who’s here, the flow of immigrants must continue and their legalization (deporting them is practically impossible) will need to be such that an orderly, predictable and s-l-o-w ratcheting up of labor costs occurs. While we don’t want to admit it, the damning truth is that ‘We the People’ are not going to accept, “I told you so” if our ‘solution’ to illegal immigration contributes to an economic downturn. Which brings us to…

Fifth, politics. Because ‘something’ will always irritate ‘someone’; and these ‘someones’ vote, politicians go to great lengths to do nothing. At the same time, in order to convince the electorate that they are earning their pay – and ought to be reelected, they will go to great lengths to look like they’re doing something. Combining these two is the real art of politics. Regrettably, this combination almost always makes for really bad ideas. While, from the purely economic point of view, losing agricultural and other businesses that cannot compete is a natural and unavoidable part of the market economy, from the political/policy side the question is: Do we want to let these businesses go over seas or fold-up? If you're in Minnesota, you might say, yes. If you're in Southern California, however, you might say, Hell, no!! In the end, however, while you may postpone the inevitable, the laws of economics will always hold and prevail. Thus, my belief is, if they're going to die anyway, don't waste money and effort trying to keep them going. That's what an economist might say. But, politicians make policy - and economists make lousy politicians. In all likelihood, because the current spotlight on security won't let them, Congress won't be able to pull a smoke-and-mirrors trick like they did in 1986. So, if I were a betting man, I'd lay money that you will see huge subsidies to every last even potentially affected group in exchange for real immigration reform. Politically palatable? Yes. Smart? No.

Hey, like I told you, I’m just tossing out ideas. I don't have solutions, but without much more info, we are not going to even have a chance to make good decisions. If I’m totally wrong and this is a simple issue, great! I’d love for things to be simple, but in my experience they rarely are.

Happy 90th

2006-05-02T05:15:00.000-07:00

...to Bernard Lewis. Arguably, the greatest Orientalist of the last 100 years, he has been a voice of reason in the cacophany that is the 'discussion' of Iraq.

He has written that Islam today needs a dose of democracy; and while that dose would ideally have come from within, its introduction, however effected, is beneficial.

He may not feel that the invasion was the best idea or that it has been prosecuted particularly effectively to date, but, he recognizes that the rationale behind it was and is valid - and that it may well have been necessary - for us.

While George Santayana said it first, Lewis puts it better:

"...make no mistake, those who are unwilling to confront the past will be unable to understand the present and unfit to face the future."

An open letter...

2006-05-01T06:01:00.000-07:00

To those of the Muslim faith and particularly to the people of Iraq:

We don't want to be in your country. We don't want to kill you. We don't want to take your land. We don't want to rule you. We don't want to steal your oil.

We DO want to make sure that you run your own country - so that criminally insane people like Saddam & Sons don't have access to weapons that make it possible for them or their low-life friends to attack us. We wish that this whole thing hadn't happened. But, because the U.N. failed to do its job, we had no other way to find out what threat your country represented to us.

We want to leave as soon as possible. YOU will determine how quickly we leave.

God Bless.

The People of the United States

Whatdya think?

2006-05-01T05:19:00.000-07:00

I believe that, for many years, people on the political left in our country circumscribed their world of ideas by worshipping the sainted memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Any policy prescription had to be in line with his 1930's 'New Deal' to stand a chance of enactment.

Today, I think I'm starting to see the same pathology on the right. Since his death, I'm hearing more and more about "Reagan Republicans" and who is "Reagan-esque".

This is dangerous.

Reagan was the right man for his time; and his goal of reducing the size of government remains a noble one. But it was only one of his goals; the first of many. To make a diminution of government the ultimate goal and the highest good is to display a gross ignorance of fundamental political philosophy and can legitimately be pointed to as an abdication of our commonly understood social contract.

The right and the left both want roughly the same outcome, but believe in different processes to achieve that outcome.

Personally, I believe that as much good as the government can do, it will unintentionally do far more harm. But, let’s be vigilant that we don’t fall victim to the same kind of intellectual sclerosis that has brought political discourse in the country to a standstill.

At the end of the day, we the people allow the politicians to bullshit and talk down to us. We need to start demanding thorough answers to the pressing questions of our time.

Oh, that's right, now I remember

2006-04-29T07:28:00.000-07:00

With all the crap that passes for news and opinion these days, I find that - about once a month - I need to remind myself of some facts:

Before our invasion -

1. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, started two wars

2. Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons
2a. We know this because Saddam used these weapons against his own people.

3. Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons program in 1991

4. Iraq never accounted for all the WMD that they possessed

5. Iraq ceased cooperation with the U.N. weapons inspectors

6. Iraq was in violation of the cease fire that ended the Gulf War.

7. Iraq was in violation of 14(?) U.N. Security Council Resolutions

8. If you include the combat casualties in the two wars he started, Saddam Hussein is responsible for the deaths of around one million people.

9. The government of Iraq was giving money, arms and training to various terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda.

10. Iraq subverted the U.N.'s oil-for-food program and spent money meant for food and medicine on weapons and palaces.

11. When Saddam passed from the scene, his criminally insane sons could have taken over a country that possibly possessed WMD.

Have I missed anything? Probably. But, that's enough I think.

See? What'd I tell ya?

2006-04-28T15:05:00.000-07:00

I just returned from running an errand. Dry and thirsty work it was, too. Thus, as I returned, I staggered in to an establishment where caring professionals were able to rehydrate me with a beverage of English manufacture. Whilst recovering my chemical balance, I chanced to glance up at the television where to my horror I observed Wolf Blitzer - a CNN minion - interviewing George Clooney on the situation in Darfur, Sudan.

Will someone explain to me exactly what in Mr. Clooney's resume qualifies him to issue pronunciamentos on foreign affairs or humanitarian assistance? Admittedly, any moron capable of forming a coherent sentence could say what needs to be said about the atrocities taking place in Darfur, but, Mr. Clooney's presence means that someone with real foreign policy or humanitarian relief experience didn't get heard today on CNN.

This episode only further cements my position that since the advent of the television, the line between journalism and entertainment has blurred to the point where, today, journalists interview each other and tell us it's expert testimony. Journalists now think they make the news. How many stories have you heard - out of Iraq - about journalists in harm's way? These people think THEY ARE the story.

We've got to get a grip, people. We really do.

I shouldn't admit this, but...

2006-04-28T11:59:00.000-07:00

Oh, well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at my feelings. I've recently realized that I'm now living in the country formerly known as the United States of America.

The sad truth is that I sometimes wish that Al Qaeda had detonated a nuclear bomb in New York. If that had happened, we wouldn't be having any discussion today concerning what the President knew about Iraqi WMDs; or how well treated the detainees at Gitmo are, or whether the CIA is sending people to other countries to have them tortured, would we?

No.

We would be more united than at any time in our history and we would be making God damned sure that ANYONE representing even the remotest threat to us was killed or put someplace where they could be closely monitored.

I am now convinced that we, in this country, have become too rich, too well fed and too educated to long survive.

When college educated Americans call our treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay 'torture', they literally re-define the word. Only someone completely and willfully ignorant of history could call it that.

But you can't argue with these people. Not only can't they argue - lacking any facts, they WON'T argue. No matter how many facts you give them, they refuse to be educated. They have convinced themselves that their feelings are facts and as such - are incontrovertible.

After years of demonizing the people who are trying to keep us safe, the left (stuck in a 1968 mindset) looks like it has convinced enough people that it will be put back into power here. Thus, I fear I may get my wish. When you combine the Main Stream Media, Hollywood, Academia and the Democratic Party - you have a sure-fire recipe for 9/11 the sequel

God save the Republic. (With apologies to Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC (ret.) for stealing this tag line)

1981...take two!

2006-04-28T11:34:00.000-07:00

While it is not outside the realm of the possible that the U.N. will take meaningful steps to curb Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, I wouldn't put any money on it.

And, because of a fifth column in this country 500 miles wide, the odds that even the titanium-spined George W. Bush will take military action to stop Iran are very small.

Many in the chattering class have attempted to get out ahead of the news by making arguments downplaying the danger of a nuclear Iran. In their 'figuring' they've decided that neither the U.N. nor the U.S. has the political will to do anything about Iran, so it's a done deal - Iran will go nuclear.

Not so fast. There is one player for whom national defense is not an abstract philosophical argument interwoven with divisive politics: Israel.

Israel will (as it has always done) watch the situation and take action if and when IT decides it is proper.

If I were a betting man, I would place a large wager that the U.N., the E.U. and the U.S. will dither and procrastinate until Israel finally acts to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities on its own. Then the whole world will angrily wag its finger at them and say, "What'dya do that for?" while secretly heaving a huge sigh of relief.

The pusillanimity and political cravenness of this are incalculable. I expect that from the E.U. and the U.N. but not from here.

This may be the end

2006-04-26T08:42:00.000-07:00

If, five years from now the world says the same things about Darfur that were said about Rwanda, I believe that the world will lose every last tiny shred of respect for - and belief in - the United Nations.

If the United Nations does nothing to stop the genocidal atrocities which are at this moment occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan, it will cease to exist - in any meaningful way - as an international organization dedicated to peace and human rights.

Let's understand what is happening:

-Nations with business ties to Sudan are preventing the U.N. from taking any action for fear that they could suffer economic harm.

-Islamic nations are preventing the U.N. from taking any action because they actually approve of the slaughter of non-muslims.

-The U.N. refuses to allow arms to get to the people of Darfur so that they can defend themselves. Instead, they obscenely pontificate that "small arms cause instability".

By my estimation the U.N. has less than two years. After that it will be too late for Darfur - and the U.N. If the U.N. fails to take action in Darfur while it continues to hamstring our efforts to defend ourselves and promote democracy, the United States will, I believe, have little choice but to withdraw from the U.N., expel it from New York and establish something like a league of democracies.

If that happens The United Nations will be an historical artifact - like the League of Nations - within ten years.

I hope the U.N. gets its act together, but that's not the way to bet.

And another thing...

2006-04-26T06:59:00.000-07:00

How dare the government "investigate" the oil companies for windfall profits when these firms' ability to make money, indeed their ability to run their businesses at all, is utterly hog-tied by Congressionally imposed red tape!!!

The hypocrisy is so titanic that I can only shake my head in admiration of the chutzpah.

God save the Republic!