Please consider…

I’ve been lectured and spoken at.  I’ve been told I’m insensitive.  I’ve been told that I just don’t understand.  Donald Trump was elected president, and now people have all these feelings and I’m not taking them seriously.

Believe me, I do.  I understand that you are hurting and scared.  I completely get that.  My problem is not with your feelings themselves.  My problem is two-fold.  

First, and most important for my friends and family, my problem is that your fear and pain is based on lies.  You have been fed a diet of lies for months, and you believe them.  Indeed, why wouldn’t you?  It’s not like anyone has been denying them.  Indeed, much of the supposedly Conservative media (which obviously means something different than I thought it did a year ago), is engaging in the lies just as much as the “mainstream media.”

Second, and less important personally, but more important from a practical standpoint, your engagement in this very public hysteria is dangerous.  Because good and decent people like you believe the lies, too, bad and dangerous people have the moral cover to do horrible things.

You have been told for months that Donald Trump is a racist, a misogynist, and a homophobe.  You have been told that he is anti-immigrant and wants to deport all Hispanics and Muslims.  These are all lies.  Not one of them is true.

Is Donald Trump a racist?  No one thought so until recently - and there is no evidence that he is.  It has been said repeatedly in the last year, but those statements have no basis in fact.  He has been honored by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.  He fought to change the laws in a city where one of his properties exists so he could allow Blacks and Jews to patronize his club.  His lists of nominees for positions in his cabinet are replete with minorities.

Is Donald Trump a misogynist?  Again, no one thought so until recently.  The recent evidence of that is better, but still completely overblown and taken out of context.  He regularly insults women - specific women with whom he has a specific beef.  Surprise: he regularly insults men, too - specific men with whom he has a specific beef.  That’s not misogyny; it’s equality.  Moreover, he was the first to hire a woman to lead the construction of a skyscraper.  His campaign manager was the first woman ever to run a successful Presidential campaign.  He neither fears nor hates women.  If anything, he sees them as *actually equal* which means he also pulls no punches when dealing with them.

Is Trump a homophobe?  Once more, I say no, and that no one thought so until the Media started saying he was.  When the “transgender in the bathroom” issue blew up, Trump was busy making sure Trump Tower was open to transgender people while also attempting to address the very real concerns of parents.  He has been supportive of the LGBT community for a long time.  He was pro-choice until recently, and even now I suspect is only pro-Life-ish.  He has announced no plans to fight homosexual marriage.

Is Donald Trump anti-immigrant?  If so, someone should tell his wife.  Because she’s an immigrant, you see.  Legal and everything.  Someone should also tell all of those immigrant owned businesses he uses to provide supplies and labor for his various properties and businesses - obviously they missed the memo.

Does Donald Trump want to deport Hispanics?  Again, there are no facts that support this assertion.  The worst that Trump has said in that regard is that he wants to deport all illegal aliens.  Hey, guess what?  If you’re here illegally, you should be deported - because that’s the law.  You can ask the Native American tribes, the Chinese in the 13th century, and the Romans what allowing unchecked immigration of peoples who do not wish to integrate and assimilate into your culture can do to that culture.

Does Donald Trump want to deport all Muslims, or even stop their immigration? Again, there is no evidence of this.  The closest he came to that was saying we should not be importing people from a part of the world where a large number of them want to kill us without some way of making sure the ones we let in are not those who want to kill us.  This is not even controversial, except that the Media told you it was.  If you hadn’t noticed, there is a significant portion of the Muslim world that either actively wants us dead or supports those who do.  We owe them nothing, so why wouldn’t we wait on letting them in until we had some way to verify we weren’t importing terrorists?

Donald Trump is crude, yes.  He is vulgar - in the same way that many of your neighbors are vulgar.  He’s even common and low-class.  But he is not a monster.  He’s not going deport your cousin’s mother-in-law, provided that cousin’s mother-in-law is here legally.  Even if she’s not, it’s unlikely that he’s going to get around to deporting illegal aliens who aren’t causing trouble - there are enough who *are* causing trouble to keep ICE busy for years, I think.  He’s not going to throw Muslims into concentration camps.  He’s not going to start some purge of the Gays.  He’s not going to attempt to reinstitute slavery.  The very idea that he would do any of those is a lie perpetrated by the Media, the Democrats, and even some Republicans for political gain - people who are in fear are easier to lead.

Please stop believing the lie.

Which leads to the next point - why it is so important for you to stop believing the lie.  For the last six months or so, you’ve heard the drumbeat from the Clinton camp that Trump and his supporters are literally just like Hitler and Nazis.  We’re supposed to be violent, barely restrained animals who will turn on Blacks and Gays and women in a heartbeat.  Trump is going to lead a fascist government bent on complete domination of the people.  The Clinton campaign, with the help of the Media, has made people believe that for six months.

And what has been the result?  It hasn’t been Trump supporters starting riots.  It hasn’t been Trump supporters gleefully defacing others’ property and posting it on YouTube.  It hasn’t been Trump supporters beating Clinton supporters because of their political beliefs.  It has been exactly the opposite.

And, again, why wouldn’t it be?  You yourselves believe that Trump is equivalent to Hitler.  If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be afraid of his Presidency and you wouldn’t feel “invalidated” by his victory.  You might feel disappointed.  You might be concerned that his policies would hurt the country’s prestige or economy.  You would not fear for your literal safety, or believe that his victory said anything about people’s feelings for you and your pain in any way.  Only if you accept, somewhere in your psyche, that Trump = Hitler does any of that make sense.

And if your opponent is the actual equivalent of Hitler, does that not mean you are not only morally justified, but even morally required to oppose him and those who support him with violence?  If Trump is Hitler, how can anyone complain that people are rioting in protest, or even if some call for his assassination (yes, that has already happened- on CNN, which did not bother to repudiate the statement).

In 2008 and again in 2012, I thought someone who would be disastrous for the country was elected.  I stand by that assessment, and would be more than happy to point out the ways he absolutely was that.  Yet I and those like me did not engage in violence.  We did not pull Obama supporters out of their vehicles and beat them.  We did not riot and overturn police cars.  We didn’t ask that you validate our “feelings.”

We bowed our necks, set our shoulders, and continued on as best we could.

When you fail to do the same, you validate and even encourage the kind of behavior we have seen- an old man torn from his vehicle and beaten on camera to the chants of “he voted for Trump,” children *actually beaten* (as opposed to mocked) for supporting Trump, even a child tormented by his own mother - again, placed on YouTube with pride - for supporting Donald Trump.

Your child’s hispanic friend was mocked and told their family was going to be deported?  You mean children said mean things to another child?  Why, shut my mouth.  I’ve never heard of such a thing.  I mean, I and those around me were *never* mocked for our names, or because our families weren’t as rich as others around us, or because we were socially awkward.  This is a brand new phenomenon which has only begun in the last 4 days!

I’m very sorry that mean people are saying mean things.  I’m very sorry that at some point in the past you were sexually assaulted, or that your parents brought you here illegally at the age of 6, or whatever bad thing happened to you.  I truly am - if you want to tell me about it and for me to extend my sympathy, I’ll be happy to brew up a cup of tea and sit with you on the couch.

But the public histrionics; the vociferous complaints of “I thought better of my country,” they are giving cover and even justification to those committing actual violence.  They are emboldening those who would truly overthrow our way of life - by installing their own choice for President over the justly elected nominee.

Please, I beg you: consider what you are saying.  Please stop believing and spreading the lies - lies so artfully concocted.  Those lies have very real consequences (not that you are lying - it’s not lying if you believe what you’re saying, but that the people who started them knew them to be lies) which are causing actual physical violence.

Please.

Banning History

 

After the Colonies rebelled against England and won their independence, they operated for a time under the Articles of Confederation.  This first attempt at founding an association of free states proved unworkable, and a new Constitution was created.  That Constitution enshrined slavery, counted slaves as 3/5 of a person, and would not have been passed if it had not.  At the time of its passage, the issue of slavery was already contentious, and one of the compromises necessary to see its adoption was that for a certain period, the new Federal government would not address the issue.

As time progressed, the northern states- largely industrial- became even less dependent upon slave labor (though many prominent Northerners still had slaves) and the South – largely agrarian – did not.  As slavery became more repugnant to more people, it is perhaps not surprising that this caused a schism between the two groups.  And perhaps this would have been handled diplomatically, but, for various reasons, it was not.

Now, it is important to understand that the Civil War did not start over slavery.  Read the words of the people who were there.  Even those in the North did not believe slavery was the reason for the war.  Certainly it was a reason for the war.  Certainly had slavery been abolished voluntarily by all parties, there would have been less reason for the war.  But there still would have been reason for it.

The Southern States, already skeptical of the Federal Government, had 50 years of grievances about what they saw as Federal Overreach.  The election of Abraham Lincoln and the still new Republican party – on a forced abolition platform – was a sign to the Southern States that the North no longer respected their sovereignty.  They seceded.  A war between the states was waged.

Now, this little history lesson is not a defense of slavery, which was and is a hateful institution.  It is not a defense of the Republican party, which is and has been the party of Liberty and Union.  It is a defense of Honor.  Whatever you think of their motives – and, again, slavery in and of itself was not at issue – the Confederates were noble, honorable, and courageous.  We in the south venerate those heroes who were willing to die for what they believed.

Fast forward to today.  A crazy racist killed nine men and women in Charleston, South Carolina.  A picture was found with him holding the flag commonly referred to as the Confederate Flag, more accurately referred to as the Confederate Battle Flag, and most accurately referred to as the Virginia Army Flag.  And Progressives, some looking for anything to blame other than the criminal, others seizing main chance, immediately blamed the flag for the despicable act.

Showing an unfortunate lack of historical knowledge, Mitt Romney called for the removal of the flag from the South Carolina State House grounds.  Reacting, I must hope, more on fear than on principle, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley called for its removal.

Were that all that had happened, this post would not exist, but it is not all that has happened.  Since those two misguided announcements, the furor over the flag has grown.  Stores like Wal-Mart and Amazon stopped selling renditions of the flag.  Apple removed all games which contain the now-hated symbol from it’s app store.  Apparently representing history is now a hate crime.  People have called for the destruction of statues and monuments to Confederate figures.

This is sad and amazing to me.  Forget the flag itself – the history lesson was only to show that there is proper reverence which can be shown for it – this “Ban All the Things” mentality is dangerous and un-American.  Capitulation to these demands is even more dangerous and un-American.  It sets a precedent – one I do not believe we wish to set.

Today it is a symbol which can honestly be viewed as a symbol of hate and racism (I do not deny that the flag has picked up those connotations).  But more than that, it is calls to erase history.  The Gettysburg museum has removed all of its merchandise with the symbol.  Where does it stop?

For Progressives, it doesn’t.  Today it is the flag and some monuments.  What will it be tomorrow?  There are already calls for more “gun control” laws, as though they would have done anything to stop this horrific crime.  Karl Rove has said that the only gun control strong enough would be complete confiscation – and he is wrong, even that would not be enough.

They want to ban our Right to act on our beliefs.

They want to ban our Right to say what we think.

They want to ban our Right to defend ourselves – both from criminals and from tyrants.

The longer we wait to tell them, “no,” the harder it will be to do, and the more likely we will either be forced into silence, or be forced into violence.

On Natural Rights

What to write about?

I could write about the Rolling Stone UVA story, but why? At this point, Rolling Stone and “Jackie” have about as much credibility as an unemployed man with a 480 FICO score.

I could write about the riots over the Michael Brown and Eric Garner Grand Jury decisions, but, again, why? Pretty well everything has been said. People made up their minds before the evidence was in; they’re not changing them now.

I could write about CrOmnibus- the Republicans trying to sell out Conservatives once again. I could write about the Use of Force authorization that the SCOAMT wants, but won’t specify exactly what he wants. Sorry, Barry, no blank checks.

With all that’s going on in the news, maybe we need to get back to first principles. Maybe we need to consider why we’re conservative in the first place. It’s always a good idea to review why you believe what you believe from time to time.

So with that, I’ll consider the second* of the first principles: Natural Rights.

 

What are Natural Rights?

Natural Rights are those things (really the only Rights at all) that every human being possesses simply by virtue of being human. No government can grant or remove them. No one has more of them than any other person. Simply being human grants these rights. In many ways, they are simply laws of nature- like gravity or entropy. But, being laws of Human Nature, we often fight against them in various ways.

The Natural Rights are generally summed up as “Life, Liberty, and Property.” Some guy who was really smart in other ways nevertheless screwed the pooch and changed that last one to “pursuit of Happiness” in our Declaration of Independence. We can forgive him that, I guess, though that wording has cause great harm.

Each right really deserves its own post, and may get one, but they deserve a little bit of illumination here.

The Right to Life is perhaps more specifically “the Right to sustain and protect one’s life.” The Right to Life includes things like the right to self-defense and the right to bear arms. It includes the right to feed one’s self (which is a bigger thing than you might think).

It really should not be mistaken for a reverence for life. While I am pro-life when it comes to the abortion argument, it is not because of my belief in the Right to Life. Here, a baby has no more “right to life” than a man being eaten by a bear. Less, in fact, simply by the fact that the man being eaten by the bear has some chance of defending himself. He can be his own agent of life protection and sustenance.

The Right to Liberty is both the “right to be left alone” and the “right to do as you please.” From it we derive things like the freedom of the press, the right to assemble, and the right to work.

The Right to Property is the right to accumulate property. It includes the right to purchase and own a home, as well as the right to build wealth.

 

Why are natural rights important?

A belief in God is the foundation of the United States of America (if you don’t believe that, go re-read your history). The Natural Rights are the pillars standing on that foundation holding the rest of the structure up. All of the Constitutionally protected (not granted) rights are either direct applications of, or logical derivations of Natural Rights. I mentioned some in the previous section. The Right to Life is the one where we derive the Second Amendment, for example. The prohibitions against double-jeopardy and bills of attainder also have roots in the Right to Life. The Right to Property is where we derive things like the 3^rd and 4^th amendments.

Natural Rights are also important because if you do not realize from where your rights come, you might agree to any sort of nonsense. If Rights are not Natural, then they must be granted by some agency. If some agency grants them, then that same agency can rescind them. If they can be rescinded, then they are not “rights” at all.

I said previously that no government can either grant or deny the Natural Rights. No matter how restrictive the regime, no matter how devoted to Communism and/or oppression, you cannot be deprived of your Right to Life, Liberty, and Property. The exercise of those rights can be legally forbidden and therefore punished, but the rights themselves exist and you retain them fully.

That may seem trivial. What good is having a Right to Property if exercising it is going to get you imprisoned and all your stuff confiscated? But it is just the fact that people lost sight of the Right to Property that caused them to agree to stop exercising it. Communism cannot exist if the People remember their Natural Rights and vigorously defend them.

One example that might seem trivial. My brother (sorry, bro, but it highlights the point) and I were talking at Thanksgiving, and he mentioned a device had been invented which could be added to a circular saw (or table saw, or maybe either) which would sense when your finger came too close to the blade and stop the blade nearly instantly. He further asserted that this device would add only pennies to the cost of a saw, and expressed disbelief that people making saws were fighting a regulation which would mandate the use of this device.

But, of course, if you really believe in the Natural Right of Liberty, you immediately see why such a mandate should be prohibited. My Right of Liberty says that I can do what I want. Maybe I want to add this safety device to *some* saws and charge a higher price. Maybe I know that some people have uses for circular and table saws which would be interfered with by this device, so I want to continue making them without it. Maybe I just don’t want to add the device to the saws I make. Why should it be the government’s business?

And so we come to the end of this primer on Natural Rights. It is our belief in these Rights which lead first to the Declaration of Independence, and then the Constitution. Our continued belief in them is what motivates the various Tea Party organizations. It is why Conservatives are so upset with Boehner’s CrOmnibus. Belief in the Natural Rights is why we side with Darren Wilson and George Zimmerman over Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin. Our commitment to them is why false charges of rape such as those made by Rolling Stone are met with such condemnation. It is why we oppose rioting for any reason.

*-Yep the 2^nd. As alluded to, the first First Principle is a belief in God. All the founders where Christians of one sort or another.

Yeah, What He Said

Here, go read this.

It says something I've been thinking- and even saying- for the last week or so.

Let's set aside all the problems with Emperor Obama's Amnesty.  Let's pretend he did something I liked.  I dunno- an across the board tax cut, just to pick something.

That makes it no less wrong.  That makes it no less evil.  Barack Obama is not an Emperor- or, he's not supposed to be.  He is a President.  Our Founders sought for just the right term for the Chief Executive of our Nation for some time before settling on "President."  He "presides."  He is supposed to "faithfully execute" the law, see that it is Justly applied to all.

But note that he is precisely operating as an Emperor.  Even if he were going to simply ignore immigration law, that would be one (very, very bad) thing.  But it would be equally applied to all.  Instead, he enacted- by executive fiat- new law.  He did not simply say, "I'm just ignoring immigration law," his plan has requirements and prerequisites which must be met.  That's not "details about the execution of a law."  That's not "discretion."  That's authoring new law.

And the Legislature will let this stand.  The Republicans will do nothing because there's nothing they can do.  All the talk of defunding the government or shutting it down?  It won't stop this amnesty.  It won't stop an Imperial President.  Not confirming presidential appointees?  For one thing, no one will really notice that.  For another, that *also* won't stop the amnesty.

There is only one remedy- the Constitutional remedy: impeachment.  And Republicans will not do that, because the Democrats will not do that.  Democrats have welded themselves to the SCOAMT.  They hitched their wagons to him in 2008, and now it's too late.  If they turn on him now, they lose *both* the black and hispanic vote.  At least, that's their fear, and it's not entirely irrational.

Absent some real action from the Legislature- a united legislature looking to preserve the great Republic our Founders created- we have just witnessed the end of the American Experiment.

SCOAMT^2

Readers of this blog know that I believe that the President of the United States is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.  I have been saying the same since shortly after September 11, 2012.

Well, now I have more evidence.  Enter Bowe (pronounced, I’m told, “Bo”) Bergdhal.  Young Mr. Bergdhal was rejected from the French Foreign Legion before joining the United States Army (hey: US Army- you might take that under consideration).  Apparently, he believed that USA, in this case, meant US Aid and was a humanitarian outreach program, as opposed to a military force designed to kill people and break things.

So, upon being deployed to Afghanistan and actually required to fight against terrorists, he decided “this blows” and walked away.  Literally walked away- he left his duty station along with a note (apparently) in which he declared his desire to renounce his citizenship.  Now, the US Army has Views on people who leave their duty stations in the middle of a war.  It’s called Desertion in the Face of the Enemy, and it’s perhaps the second-biggest no-no an Army private can commit.

But, it turns out, this was not the end of his parsimonious behavior.  When US Army forces were sent to apprehend him, they discovered that he specifically wanted to join the Taliban.  This moves from second biggest no-no (desertion) to the biggest no-no: treason.  Providing Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.  That crime for which there is exactly one punishment.  Yes, Bowe Bergdhal is, at best, a deserter who got half-a-dozen of his buddies killed, and at worst a traitor.

So it makes all kinds of sense that the Traitor-in-Chief would release five of our highest-value terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison to secure his release.  Absolutely.  Hey, we’re only down a net 4 terrorists.  This is also “Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.”  Releasing five guys to do more harm to Americans (because that’s what they want to do) in order to get back one deserter?  Whatever happened to “we don’t negotiate with terrorists?”

Oh, SCOAMT is all over that one, too.  Now, apparently, these enemy combatants taken on the field with no uniforms, answering to no government, and representing no organized military force are somehow POWs.  That deserter? Not a deserter who was taken hostage- but also a POW.  So it’s a POW-swap.  Because King Barakanhanen said so, you racist tea-bagger.

Now, I actually expect this kind of behavior from the Man-Child-in-Chief.  He was under heat for the VA scandal, and wanted something to take that heat off.  As Ace pointed out today, it’s a political decision that Democrats can spin- unlike the VA scandal.  So it makes some sense.

What doesn’t make sense is that Republicans have remained almost uniformly silent on this.  What does it take to get John Boehner and Mitch McConnell fired up?  The President of the United States just arguably committed treason.  He violated several laws to do so- on top of all the other laws he’s already broken, and his general Imperial approach to the Presidency.  If that’s not grounds for Impeachment, what is?

It may already be too late, but Republicans must push back against the SCOAMT.  They must start stone-walling him at every turn.  No more bipartisanship, unless it’s unification against the SCOAMT.  No more pushes for Amnesty.  No more “my friends across the aisle.”  Either the Democrats are with America, or they’re with Barack Hussein Obama.  And the Republicans face the same choice; they are either for America, the Rule of Law, and basic moral decency, or they are with Barack Hussein Obama.

Which is it?

The Monarchy Moment

When is the moment that men looked up and realized they had a king?  At what point did tribes- until then living freely (if, in many places, violently) suddenly realize that one man literally had the power to decree their deaths?  Because America is getting close to that moment.

Barackahanen I has been acting especially Imperial over the last several weeks, and no one with power to do so is saying "boo" about it.  It seems he modifies the written law of ObamaCare on a near-daily basis, fitting whatever whim he has that day.  Now he is "encouraging" Insurance Providers to allow people who get insurance through the exchanges to carry their insurance until sometime in January without payment.  That is, that they would have insurance coverage starting Jan 1, but would not pay for siad coverage until sometime later in January.

And the King hath spoken.

How does the King respond to those who question his policies?  By using the power of the State to intimidate them into silence.

This is an incredibly dangerous moment for America.  Either someone with some amount of power will oppose Barackahanen I, or we will all become serfs answering to the King and his Vassals.  If the President can merely decree law, and if he can modify private contracts, and if he can use the State to silence anyone who would criticize him, then we no longer live in a Republic, but we are ruled by a Despot.


h/t. Ace of Spades

An Open Letter to Rick Perry

Honorable Governor,

I have written to you before on diverse subjects, though all linked by one theme: Liberty.  Thus it is not particularly surprising that I find myself writing again on the same subject.  Thomas Jefferson once said that "the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."  I hope that he was mistaken.  I hope that the Tree of Liberty, once firmly rooted in good soil, will thrive without such a watering.

But even if I am correct, and Mr. Jefferson wrong, it requires good soil.

Governor, the soil around the Tree of Liberty is dying.  I, and those like me, have no power to correct this.  You, and those like you, do.  When people like me decide to revive Liberty's tree, we have only one option.  My mind shudders from that idea so violently that I dare not even name it.  Politicians however, especially Governors, have much more power.  With greater power comes greater finesse with which it can be wielded.

You may be wondering at this preamble.  Why would I take such a serious, even desperate tone?  It is to impart upon you the weight of my feeling.  And not just mine.  Uncounted, and perhaps uncountable, numbers of Texans see what is going on in the United States, and we want it stopped. 

You and the other governors have the ability to stand against this rogue regime which calls itself the Barack Obama administration and protect the American people.  Perhaps you even have the power to refresh the Tree of Liberty without blood. 

The offenses of this administration against Liberty are almost innumerable.  They began almost from the day Mr. Obama was sworn in in 2009, starting with the GM Bailout which subverted established law and stole rightful remuneration from secured bond holders, while giving power over a private US company to the union which destroyed it, and to the federal government.

The so-called "stimulus" bill was simply a way to steal money from taxpayers and funnel it to the President's allies and pet causes.  The Orwellian named "Affordable Care Act" threatens our very lives, placing them in the hands of unnamed, unaccountable bureaucrats.  The IRS and EPA leak sensitive data on disfavored parties.  The government suppresses speech it does not like- holding up applications for 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 status- making it harder for groups to raise funds.  If that is not enough, they then also target the President's enemies for audits and other harassment.  Anecdotal evidence suggests all federal agencies are in on this as well, from the FBI to HHS to OSHA.

Now, we learn that the federal government has retrieved, by warrant, the phone records of every domestic phone call on the big carriers.  It is true that the Patriot Act allows for some domestic spying under very strict circumstances and very specific cases.  That is fine for true national security needs.  However, the NSA spying via PRISM and the Telecom warrants would be massive violations of all Americans' rights, even if the warrants did not make all the data so gleaned admissible in criminal trials.

I am sure I do not need to tell you, but as this is an open letter, I feel the need to inform others who may read this.  A warrant is a legal document which, in essence, proclaims that the government believes a particular person to be guilty of a particular crime.  That is why, as the 4th Amendment to our US Constitution declares, "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This should make it clear that the warrants for all calls made on the Verizon, or AT&T, or Sprint networks are nothing less than the most massive fishing expedition in US jurisprudence history.  Whatever judge signed such warrant should be immediately impeached- though that is an issue for our US Representatives and Senators.

Combined with the above abuses, how can anyone call the current administration legitimate?  It is a tyrannical regime which seeks to silence opposition while raining favors on its cronies.  It is no longer a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Governor, I beseech you- you, and your fellow governors who love liberty, protect us from this tyrant, this despot.

It is within the power of the State of Texas to provide legal safety for her People.  It is within her power to reject those laws and decrees from the federal government which are not in line with the constitution.  It is within her power shelter our Liberty.

There are 30 States with Republican Governors.  There are 33 States which are refusing to implement the Exchanges required by The Affordable Care Act.  I beg you meet with the governors of those states, along with our own Senators and Representatives to the US Congress- Re-assert the powers of the States.  Re-assert the powers of the People.  Destroy this tyrant state which has been built since the days of Franklin Roosevelt.  Burn it down.  Scatter its stones.  Salt the earth where it stood.

May God bless you, Governor.  May He bless you, the People of this State and this nation, and may God bless Texas.

 

In humble sincerity,

Allen Goodner

Arlington, TX

More, Please Part 2

Take a look at this article (I know, it's Rachel Maddow- think of it as opposition research).  Now, tell me the unnoticed bias which is just completely wrong.

Here, I'll highlight the specific paragraph:

Congress passes hundreds of resolutions, meant to commemorate everything from a special awareness week or Little League champions. The resolutions lack any real power of law and are predominantly ceremonial. For example, earlier this month the Senate passed resolutions to mark "World Plumbing Day" and commemorating the three-year anniversary of the Haiti earthquake.

Found it?  Why is US Congress "commemorating" anything?  What business are "special awareness week(s)" or "Little League champions" of the Federal government?  If they so "clutter the floor," maybe we should just do without them?  If they're so much ceremonial fluff, why have them at all?

No, I appreciate this move by Ted Cruz.  More, please.  This is just more reinforcement to the idea that the Federal Government should be involved in our day-to-day lives.  I reject that premise completely.  It is not even partly true.  In a perfect world, I would never have to consider the Federal Government.  I could focus on my State and Local governments (places where a) my voice can really be heard and b) I can at least sort of pay attention to everything that is going on), and let the Federal Government get on with doing it's job.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government has decided that I cannot do that.  Or, rather, that I cannot do that if I don't want more and more of my liberty stolen.  So I have to pay attention to this kind of crap.  Well, if I have to pay attention to it, then you'd better treat it seriously.  If it's not important enough to treat seriously, then don't do it.  Period.

I should also mention that I'm glad Ted Cruz does not seem to believe he is there to make best buddies with Harry Reid or (even) John McCain.  Rather he is there to represent the State of Texas and see to it that the Federal Government begins adhering to its actual Constitutionally granted authority.

An authority, I'll note, that includes not one word about "commemorating Multiple-Sclerosis Awareness Week" or anything similar.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

The Red-Coats are coming.
The Red-Coats are coming.

It's official, Democrats across the nation are waging war against the 2nd Amendment.

US Senate Democrats support reintroducing the "Assault Weapons" Ban- which bans a host of purely cosmetic features.
New York just passed sweeping gun controls, including limits on any magazine size over 7 rounds.
Missouri Democrats have introduced House Bill 545, which would not only ban "Assault Weapons," but would confiscate them.
And New Jersey Democrats just passed 20 gun control bills out of committee.

This must not stand.  As our forefathers before us, we "must hang together, or else we shall all hang separately."

Save that image.  Print it out.  Send it as a post-card to your State Senators and Representatives and to your National Senators and Representatives.  If you feel like including a note specifying why you sent it, please do.  But as of right now I'm calling on every 2nd Amendment defender to flood their State Legislatures and the Federal Legislature with this simple note.  Maybe then they'll get the hint.

Punishing The Innocent: Gun Insurance

James Taranto has a piece in the Wall Street Journal from yesterday where he takes on the not-so-new idea of Gun Insurance.  For those unfamiliar with the scheme, it works like this: when you buy a gun, you must also pay to insure it against any damage "it" may cause.  California legislators are trying to pass it now, but it's not exactly a new idea- having been tried and failed in Massachusetts and New York dating back to at least 2003.

Taranto focuses on an Op-Ed by political scientist HL Pholman.  Pholman, like so many liberals (I don't know his political leanings, but the arguments are those made by liberals) suggest that being forced to purchase insurance would cause people to change their behavior.  Which is likely true to at least some extent.  He does have the fallacious idea that semiautomatic rifles (rarely used to kill humans) would be more expensive to insure than handguns (quite frequently used to kill humans), but his idea is not entirely incorrect.

Taranto deals with the behavior modification aspect, but I want to deal with another.  Even if all of the benefits that Pholman asserts actually were to come to pass, this law would be terrible.  Why?  It punishes the innocent for the behavior of the guilty.

Think about it.  The people who would purchase gun insurance are people whoa are unlikely to be murdering people anyway.  Oh, some of them might use their insured guns in acts of passion, but the vast majority of weapons used to murder are used by criminals.  These criminals are not going to purchase gun insurance.  Even if it becomes a requirement enforced on the seller, all that means is that they'll resort to the Black Market.  These are criminals- by definition they break the law.

On the other hand, someone who buys a gun and insures it legally is now being forced to pay for those "uninsured gun owners."  My Second Amendment Rights are being Infringed (he claims they aren't, but they are- any hurdle; even a financial one; placed on the People by government is an infringement of my right to keep and bear arms) because of the acts of criminals.  Now, let's say I'm Johnny Gun Owner, and I have my guns insured because the law says so.  Then, Billy Bad Guy comes and steals my guns while I'm at work (darn, I knew I should have sprung for a gun safe instead of just a gun cabinet!), and goes on a shooting spree.

Now I, Johnny Gun Owner who has done nothing wrong, am liable for all that damage.  Presumably I'll have to pay a deductible (just like you do for every incident with your car insurance or homeowners insurance), and the insurance company will be stuck for the rest.  Now, maybe if he'd stolen the guns the day before, I could have registered the guns as stolen, but not now- now it's too late.

Now, before anyone starts saying, "Yeah, but," realize that we cannot legislate by "yeah, but."  That's part of what got us into the mess we're in- where every American Citizen probably violates at least three laws every day.

Once more, for the Liberals- it is already illegal to murder people.  It is already illegal to threaten them with physical violence, whether with a gun, a knife, or even just your fists.  It is already illegal to steal guns.  At what point do we acknowledge that criminals don't care about the law, and that punishing law-abiding citizens is not the answer?

About Focusing on "Mental Health"

In my Jan 16 post "Tyranny in a Velvet Glove" I said this:

    14.  Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to reaserch the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Do you know how easy it is for the DSM-V to be modified based on politics?  Congratulations, owners of multiple guns.  You can now be diagnosed as mentally-ill.

Then, just two days later, I wrote this:

So there you have it.  Now, simply believing in the Federalist (I love how they have Newspeak-ized the term "anti-Federalist" to mean "anti-Nationalist") system, and that the Federal Government might maybe be overstepping its bounds a little bit makes you a dangerous and violent criminal.

Now, I'm sure there are some who rolled their eyes and thought, "okay, now you're over reacting."

Maybe y'all should tell that to Doctor Lee Heib, MD.  Here's what she wrote (published last night):

Wait … not so fast. The problem is one of definition: Who is mentally ill?

The use of psychiatry against dissidents in the Soviet Union was one of the major human rights scandals of the 1970s and 1980s. Overt tyrants don’t need to employ psychiatry as a weapon, but establishing a dictatorship that pretends to be a republic requires a stealthy way of silencing opponents. As the Soviets discovered, not everyone is afraid to speak out, and when dissidents are perceived by the public as speaking truth, they must somehow be discredited.
So there you have it.  Not from some schlub on the internet, but from someone in medicine who can see how the SCOAMT is manipulating that profession for his own political ends.

Now, I hear you saying, "But she's not a psychiatrist, and that was the USSR.  How would she know?"

Well, the plural of anecdote is not data, but when anecdotes confirm (or seem to confirm) a prediction, then it's time to at least take a theory seriously.  So here's just one anecdote from her piece- click over to read the whole thing.

Brandon Raub, USMC veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, made quite colorful anti-war and anti-administration remarks in a Facebook page. He was subsequently drug away in handcuffs by local authorities purportedly at the request of mental health workers.

Col. Thierry Dupuis, county police chief, acted under the state’s emergency custody statute which allows a magistrate to order civil detention and psych evaluation of anyone considered potentially dangerous – i.e., he was hauled off and jailed for a “pre-crime.” He hadn’t hurt anyone. He hadn’t done anything overt except express his beliefs on paper. And anyone with a three-inch kitchen knife is “potentially dangerous.”

Mental health is a tricky issue, and no one wants true psychotics to own weapons.  However, there is often no way to find the "true psychotics" until it's too late.  So we have two choices- disarm everyone, or deal with the fact that sometimes crazy people will get their hands on weapons and do crazy things with them.

Disarming everyone is not really on the table.  Even if we wanted to do so, we would not be able to (and you can take my guns from my cold, dead hands).

Another I Told You So

Hmmm... what could possibly be wrong with diagnosing "grief and anxiety" as mental illnesses?  I mean, beyond the fact that's just stupid?

Oh, and over here I remember that the SCOAMT promised that his administration would crack down on the mentally ill getting guns.  Apropos of nothing, of course.

My mother often calls me a pessimist.  She says I look on the bad side of things and should really endeavor to see the good instead.  I tell her that Endeavour doesn't fly anymore.  After she rolls her eyes, I tell her that I'm not a pessimist.  It's not that I look at things as they are and say "Doom, gloom, and agony on me," rather I'm a cynic in that I always expect people to act in their own self-interest (that is: selfishly), and a realist in that I realize that is never going to change.

When I wrote that piece, I said this:

Do you know how easy it is for the DSM-V to be modified based on politics?  Congratulations, owners of multiple guns.  You can now be diagnosed as mentally-ill.

Okay, I know that diagnosing children as mentally ill is not exactly the same as calling any owner of multiple guns a psychopath, but they end up with the same result.  People who are not sick (most of them) being forever branded as "mentally ill."  Oh, and incidentally denied their second amendment rights as a result, at least potentially.

I do neither deny nor doubt that mental illness really exists, is a real thing, and that people with mental illnesses need treatment.  What I do reject is any so obviously fuzzy realm of science being given the authority of canon by way of a "manual."  Too many people look at the DSM-V as writ gospel regarding mental health, when we really know nothing about the brain.  We don't know why some medications work for some people, and not others.  Some medications for depression, if given to the wrong person, can actually make their depression worse.  Yet we are told by these same people that grief and anxiety (normal reactions to, say, the death of a loved one) are reason to be concerned about mental illness.

I'm not even going to say that there aren't times that someone's "grief" can go on too long and become a chronic thing that needs real help (though I'm guessing the times it needs to be treated with medication are few and far between).

What I am going to say is that this is proof that the DSM-V is a highly political manual.  It doesn't always and exclusively change because of advances in science; it frequently changes based on "best guesses" and, not infrequently, politics and a social agenda.

Which makes the SCOAMT's Imperial Pronouncements last week especially troubling.

Tyranny in a Velvet Glove

Here, go read this.  Human Events has the list of the SCOAMT's Executive Orders on Gun Control.

At first glance, these don't look so bad.  They look like "propaganda" or "window dressing."  But on further review, they are a tyrannical government attempting to disarm its citizenry.

Let's take a look at just a few:

2.  Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Oh, good.  So now my private health information is an "unnecessary legal barrier" to the Government deciding if my 2nd Amendment Rights should be honored.

 4.  Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

You know, someone more cynical than me might point out that the AG would now have the power, at least arguably, to put any member of one of the groups designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as being a "dangerous person."  So, congratulations, military vets, religious conservatives, and members of gun clubs.  You may no longer be able to purchase firearms.

5.  Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Law enforcement already runs a background check on individuals before returning seized guns.  So the only purpose for this, that I can see, is that a "full background check" takes longer, which means yet more delay in retrieving your wrongfully seized gun.

10.  Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

Guns reported lost are stole are already logged that way.  When someone runs a gun's serial number, it will come back as "lost" if it was reported lost, or "stolen" if it was reported stolen.  I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish if it's not more than that.  If it is more than that, expect DOJ officials to come "verify your report" of a lost or stolen gun.

14.  Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to reaserch the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Do you know how easy it is for the DSM-V to be modified based on politics?  Congratulations, owners of multiple guns.  You can now be diagnosed as mentally-ill.

 16.  Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Now he's just re-writing the law by fiat.  Not that that's new for him.

20.  Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

Remember that point about the DSM-V I made earlier.  Yeah.

Now, this is not to say that all of this will happen.  It's possible that this was just done to make the SCOAMT feel good about himself.  But it is what could happen.  And that should be enough.  The President has just declared that he, through his Secretaries, has the ability to take your right to own a gun away from you by fiat.

This is tyranny in a velvet glove.  The fact that we even have to consider that he might do it is completely unacceptable.

All the while he hid behind children- children the policies he believes in so epically failed to protect- while declaring that pointing out that his own daughters have armed security 24/7 is somehow "Repugnant and Cowardly."

No.  From my cold, dead hands.

From My Cold, Dead Hands

Today, Barack Obama will outline his plans for further gun control, in addition to announcing Executive Orders he plans to sign to enact some form of gun control without Congress.

I'm not going to discuss the merits of gun control legislation for two reasons.  First, there are none.  Second, the people who now want to deprive me of my 2nd Amendment Rights don't care about the merits, or lack thereof, of the legislation they wish enacted, they only want more power over me.

See, Sandy Hook Elementary doesn't matter to them.  Neither did the Aurora, CO theater shooting.  Neither did any previous mass shooting.  If those events actually mattered, they would have put together this series of events:

1. Bad guy selects location where victims have no ability to resist
2. Bad guy goes on rampage
3. When people with ability to resist show up, Bad guy surrenders or (just as likely) takes his own life.

That's always the way.  In fact, I only know of three instances, and only two in my lifetime, where people being better armed would not have stopped the violence much sooner.  The UT Clock Tower Sniper, the Hollywood Bank Robbers, and the Gabriel Giffords's event (remember, a Federal Judge was killed that day.  I guess he doesn't matter since he was a Republican).

Here's the thing.  In none of those events would more gun control laws made anyone more safe, either.  In the case of the Clock Tower sniper, there was no way to get to him until police stormed the tower.  In the case of the bank robbers, they were heavily armored enough that even the police could not hurt them until they appropriated shotguns and those same "semi-automatic assault rifles" (an oxymoron) from a civilian gun dealer.  Some guy with a Glock in an inside-the-pants concealed holster wasn't going to do much.  In the case of the Gabriel Giffords, there were too many people in the way for a responsible gun owner to fire back at the assailant.

Let's examine that one a little more, because it's important.  See, there were people at that event who were armed.  But they were responsible, law abiding gun owners.  At least one of them openly stated that he did not draw his weapon because he knew there was too great a chance of hitting an innocent. 

When we talk about "gun control" what we really mean is restricting people like that very responsible and law abiding gun owner from being able to protect themselves.  The bad guys aren't going to care about any gun laws; they've already decided to commit mass murder.

Democrats know this.  Maybe some are truly earnest about wanting to "do something," but this kind of gun violence has existed since at least the 1920s.  It isn't like the majority of them have not had time to figure it out.  So their purpose cannot be to keep guns out of bad people's hands, they know they're not going to do that.

So why would they want to enact these laws?  As I said above: Power.  A disarmed populace is a compliant populace.  If the citizenry have no means to resist tyranny, they are less likely to resist tyranny.  The only purpose any politician can ever serve, whatever he has deluded himself into believing, by restricting gun ownership in any form is to empower tyrants.

I will not ever knowingly empower a tyrant.  Not even passively.

What's Next? "Reeducation" Camps?

Now, this is from Joe ("J-O-B-S. Three letters") Biden, so I suppose we should take it with a grain of salt.  Apparently the Administration is seeking to bypass congress in an unconstitutional twofer.  The Malignant Traitor wants to issue an executive order for gun control.  Unconstitutional 1: what part of "the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be Infringed" doesn't he understand?  Unconstitutional 2: Laws are made by congress, silly.  The Executive has no authority, even via Executive Orders to compel or direct the private citizenry in any way, unless specifically granted by statute.  Which statute provides the President the power to do anything about guns I own or wish to own?

Frankly, though, as laughable as this is, it is also highly disturbing.  It is, without overstating the case or being overly outlandish, fascist.  It is, more or less, exactly what a certain poorly-mustached dictator did in Germany.  Other notables who also socialized medicine and disarmed their populace: Mussolini, Mao, Stalin.  Now what do these four have in common?

Oh, yes: mass murder/genocide and evil orders of magnitude greater than just about any other we can find in history, with the possible exceptions of Pharaoh having all Hebrew boys killed during childbirth, and Herod ordering the deaths of every male child aged 2 and under.

And these are the people (probably including Pharaoh and King Herod) that the Malignant Traitor and his Cabinet officials see as inspirational.

The Growing Police State: Email Edition

When Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy first introduced his internet surveillance bill, he claimed that it "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."  That doesn't seem to be true anymore.  After receiving push-back from law enforcement, Mr. Leahy is suggesting a series of amendments which basically mean that law enforcement and other government agencies do not need to prove probable cause to gain access to your electronic information, they merely need to subpoena the information they want.

According to CNET, the bill does the following:
* Grants warrantless access to Americans' Electronic Data to over 22 Federal Agencies.  Only a subpoena would be required.
* Allows State and Local officials warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence which is "stored on systems no offered 'to the the public,' including university networks."
* Allows any law enforcement agency warrantless access without judicial review if they invoke an "emergency."
* Requires providers to notify the Government if they are going to warn users that their data has been targeted.
* Increases minimum time for the government to notify users from 3 days to 10 days, and allows for postponement for up to 360 days.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, the 4th Amendment allows us to be secure in our "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."  Further, that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized."

I'm so sorry that it's more difficult to our Feudal Lords to prosecute us when they have to observe the niceties of proving probable cause before a judge, but that's the way the rules work.  This is flagrant disregard of the 4th Amendment, and must be stopped forthwith.

Join me in calling for Republican to Filibuster this legislation.  It is not enough that it be defeated in the House, if it were to be so defeated, our Senators must rise up and protect our Constitutionally preserved rights.

Are you angry yet?