On Virtue

We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise.  We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst 

--C.S. Lewis The Abolition of Man

It is often said that Conservatives can't simply be "against" things, we have "to have a positive message."  Many Conservatives then protest that we *do* have a positive message, it just gets drowned out because we have to oppose all the cultural rot, or the Progressive agenda, or whatever.

While there is a point there, it must be said that our message *does* get drowned out.  So it is good, from time to time, to remember what it is we are for.  But what are Conservatives for?  What do we want to "conserve?"

I would suggest that Conservatives are for Virtue.  Honor, Courage, Justice, Thrift, Sobriety, and Industry are character traits seemingly in short supply.  Anyone who argues against government expansion, but does argue for personal virtue is arguing for chaos.

John Adams is quoted as saying "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

We have fallen into the trap C.S. Lewis mentioned in The Abolition of man.  Every "advancement" of the progressive era has served to remove virtue.  Welfare has assaulted industry and thrift.  The Left's assault on self-defense (see also: Martin, Trayvon) is an assault on courage.  Every HBO or Showtime show seems to be an assault on sobriety, and often justice.

The results have been predictable.  A society which will not maintain its own virtue will require an ever growing government.  A People which does not practice Honor and Justice will become a police-state.  A People which does not practice Thrift, Sobriety, and Industry, will become one constantly on the verge of economic disaster.

Conservatives seek to promote Virtue.  A People of Personal Virtue are a people who do not need a big government.

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.

Memorial Day

That's an odd name, right?  "Memorial Day."  A memorial is a structure, monument, or act designed to help people remember an event.  So what is the memorial?  What event is being remembered?

Is the memorial cooking hamburgers and hot-dogs?  Is it flags and banners? (BTW- Kudos to Whataburger- every one I saw today had their flag at half-staff)  It certainly seems fairly generic, doesn't it?  I mean, there are at least three secular holidays we celebrate the same way- and in Texas we've got a lot more.  So that can't be the memorial, can it?

And what are we remembering?  The last Memorial Day?  More seriously, are we remembering every individual death incurred by members of our military?

I feel like Charlie Brown asking the meaning of Christmas.  There has to be more than hot-dogs and hamburgers, more than graves and flags.  So what is it?

Maybe the answer lies in what it means (or at least used to mean) to be an American.  Maybe the answer is not the individual deaths, but the purpose of those deaths.  Maybe the answer is this: Today we remember Martyrs.  Not martyrs for any Religion- but Martyrs for Freedom.  Today we remember the lives they knowingly endangered and gave up so that we, today- and every day if we choose- *could* eat hamburgers and hot-dogs.  Today we remember their families and the sacrifices they made.

Today we remember that freedom is easily lost or forfeited, and requires a terrible price to redeem.  I thank God that I have not had to pay that price- not myself, or anyone I love.  I thank God that there are those who have, and more who continue to stand ready to make that sacrifice.

God bless you, heroes, I, for one, am not worthy of your service.

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

The Tenther "War On Drugs."

Kurt Schlichter has a piece over at townhall.com about building a "bite me" coalition.  I recommend you go read it.

But it got me thinking: what he's really talking about is a Tenther coalition.  Shrink the Federal Government.  Let the States decide for themselves.  Let the People decide for themselves.  It's a highly Libertarian Tenther coalition, to be sure, since it's focusing on even shrinking State and Local governments, but I could get behind that.

However, whenever we start talking Libertarian policies, we inevitably talk about "the war on drugs."  And, inevitably, someone suggests "just letting the States decide."

As a Dedicated Tenther, I think I need to address some points here- and they're applicable across the Tenther movement.

1) There is a role for the Federal Government.
Advocating for small and limited Federal Government is not the same as advocating for no Federal Government.  The Articles of Confederation were scrapped for a reason.  The EU, which is built on an even shakier confederation, is reeling from one crisis to the next.  A strong Federal Government is necessary for many things.

2) The States' powers and privileges are not sacrosanct.
This is a corollary to number 1.  Wherever the State's powers and privileges conflict with the Federal Government's, the States must take second place.  If they don't, we're back to that whole "Articles of Confederation" thing.  That didn't work out so well.

3) The Default must be Personal Rights
It's easy to get caught up in the Tenth Amendment as being empowering to the States, but the 9th and 10th amendments were designed to be empowering to The People.  The People were supposed to have more control over their specific states, so granting greater rights to the State was supposed to be safer.  I point to Colorado and New York for how that's going.  We must remember that the Power rests with the People; it is delegated to the States and then to the Federal Government.

With those in mind, along with the common knowledge of the 10th Amendment, I propose a Tenther's view of drug policy.

1) Federal drug policy should be as permissive as possible.  Allow it to be imported, place an import duty on it, require it to meet certain standards, etc.  It's getting in anyway, and this would lessen the strength of the black market (though not the strength of the drug growers).

2) State drug policy can be as restrictive as that State wants.  Full legalization for California?  Go for it.  Completely illegal to posses, transport, or sell in Oklahoma?  Sure. 

3) Personal responsibility must be paramount.  If you can't get a job because you're a drug addict, that's not my problem.  Not one dime from the public treasury should be spent on you.  Got high and killed someone in a car wreck?  I'm sorry, "being high" is no longer a mitigating circumstance, it will now (by law, if I had my way) be an exacerbating one.  Sharing needles so you caught some horrible disease?  Sucks to be you, my friend. (For the record, this is how I feel about alcohol and tobacco as well)

Tyranny in Small Things

Austin, the Capitol City of my Great State of Texas, recently passed a ban on plastic grocery bags.  Now everyone is supposed to use reusable (that is: cloth) bags instead.  This is being hailed as a win for the environment, because those plastic bags were so terrible.

Man, I'm so old I remember when plastic bags were the "environmental" choice, since those eeeevil paper bags came from trees.  (Hint to liberals: when something literally does "grow on trees," that's not a bad thing.)  So now the plastic bags are no longer in favor, so we must change to cloth bags.

Now at least one City Council member in the City of Dallas wants to implement the same thing in that city.  This is why conservatives in Texas should not turn a blind eye to the bad things the Austin does; eventually some idiot will try to bring those bad ideas to our own cities.

Now, I don't actually have a problem with reusable bags themselves.  They are a breeding ground for disease, but they're cloth.  They'll survive the clothes washer just fine.  Wash 'em every couple of weeks and you'll be fine.  Double wrap your meat, and wrap your produce, and you can go even longer between washings.  I use them at Aldi (I don't even buy all of my groceries there, and they've cut my grocery bill about in half), because Aldi (as a private enterprise) encourages their use.  I'm fine with that.

On the other hand, I also like plastic bags.  They're convenient.  They're light.  I don't have to turn around and go back home when I realize I didn't bring any with me. 

On top of that, they're every bit as "reusable" as my cloth bags.  I don't reuse them for groceries, but we keep one in our minivan to put trash in.  I used to carry a couple in my kids' diaper bags (thank God they're both out of diapers now- those things are expensive), for accident containment.  I use them as a "lunch box" for work.  I've used them to line trash cans in the house, paint buckets, and all kinds of things.

They save me a lot of hassle. 

In short, it really annoys me that people are now telling me I shouldn't be able to use them.  So let me ask this: are you targeting plastic trash bags next?  Plastic trash bags are, well, plastic, too.  Am I going to have to change out my plastic trash bags for paper?  For canvas?  If not, then you'll excuse me if I don't believe your objection to the plastic trash bags is about the environment; rather, it's about your desire to control ever facet of my life.

Blow that.

It is not the government's job to mandate that I use reusable grocery bags.  It is not the government's job to make sure I recycle.  It is not the government's job to force me to do anything.

This seems like a tiny thing, but it really isn't.  The Government has already taken over health care.  Just ask your doctor how much of a pain ObamaCare is.  Ask your insurance provider.  Government wants to rule every part of your life, and this is simply another facet.  It seems minor, but the door it opens is huge.

Update & Scienceyist Alert:
FotB tsrblke sends along this little nugget.  Turns out that those "reusable bags" are actually worse for the environment than plastic bags anyway.  And that assumes that someone is just using the plastic bag once and then throwing it away.  It gets even worse (for the canvas propagandists) if you reuse even just 40.3% (well less than half) of your plastic bags just once. 

Seeing History

The Travis Letter- the letter written by Lt. Col William Barrett Travis after the beginning of the siege of the Alamo to rally support and reinforcements- has been on display at the Alamo since February 24.  Somehow I missed that until last week.  Once I found out, I had to rectify the situation, and my family and I went to San Antonio yesterday to view the letter.  I think it's still there today, but will be gone tomorrow.  So if you're not already pretty near there, you're out of luck.

Much of the exhibit was information about Travis himself.  There were legal documents regarding his land-grant as a soldier in the Texas Army, then his heirs' expanded land-grant for him being a Hero of the Alamo.  There was even a document he filed with a court- he was a lawyer before he was a soldier.

It was actually kind of sad to see the letter itself.  It was humbling.  The reverence of most who viewed it was positively palpable.  But it was sad.  One hundred seventy-seven years is a long time for ink to stay on paper, and it wasn't exactly super-well preserved early on.  As a result, most of the writing has faded.  You can still pick out clips and phrases of the letter, but much of it has faded to the point where you can't read it anymore.

Nevertheless, the text of that letter still stirs the blood.  I encourage all of those who are looking to take our liberty to Remember the Alamo.  It would probably be a good idea to remember Gonzales, Goliad, and San Jacinto, too.

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.

Sometimes I'm Just Not Cynical Enough

Just two days ago, I said this:

     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.

Yesterday (I just found it today), the Washington Times had this:

The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence.

But its latest study turns inward and paints a broad brush of people it considers “far right.”

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

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.

Yay us.

Now, I could go on and on about how there have been no- repeat that: no- violence from "far right groups" in America that I can recall in my life time.  In fact, all of the politically motivated violence I can recall has been from the Left side of the aisle.  Jared Laughner, anyone?  How about that Marx quoting maniac who flew his plane into a building in Austin?

I could, but I won't, because it doesn't matter.  What does matter is that a branch of the US Department of Defense just called everyone who believes in the Federalist system, individual liberty, and self-governance a potential terrorist.  In light of the SCOAMT's Imperial Proclamation above, that seems pretty scary to this "anti-Federalist."

(And, no, the irony of Tenthers being called "anti-Federalist" is not lost on me).

Let it Burn.

That's Just Crazy Talk

Back in 2009/2010 when conservatives were pointing out the myriad problems with ObamaCare, one of the things we were assured would never happen would be that doctors would stop practicing or would move to fields which were less expensive to practice with similar repayments.  You know, like rational people.  "That's just crazy talk." 

Well, someone should tell the Windber Medical Center in Southwestern Pennsylvania that, because apparently they didn't get the memo.  As of March 31 they will stop delivering babies due to ObamaCare. 

The Windber Medical Center will stop delivering babies after March 31 because its obstetricians are either leaving or refocusing their practices, and because hospital officials believe they can't afford it based on projected reimbursements under looming federal health care reforms.

I'm surirpised by this.  Not that it is happening, but that this is the first one I've heard about.  I'm sure there will be more, and I would not be surprised to find out this isn't actually the first, just the first one to get national attention of any sort.  The fact is that ObamaCare is cripiling doctors and hospitals.  "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," was a lie.  The SCOAMT knew, or should have known, that doctors would leave the feild in droves.  Which will be just another arrow in the Trannie's quiver when they're ready to fully Nationalize healthcare.

And it is coming.  All tyrannical regimes do two things first.  They nationalize healthcare, making you dependent upon the state for your health.  They disarm the populace, making you easier to control and incidentally dependent upon the state for your protection.  We're seeing a push to disarm the populace in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting.  ObamaCare is the vehicle by which the Trannies will nationalize health care.

Unfortunately, it may be too late to do anything about that.  So let it burn.

Beware Gun Grabbers' Double-Speak

We've heard a lot about Americans' "rich hunting tradition," and evil "assault weapons."  As such, I believe it is necessary to provide a warning against ever accepting their terms as the nomenclature for the gun debate.  Tansnational Progressives (Trannies) (shamelessly stolen from the AoSHQ) like to use words that sound innocuous for things that are bad, and words that sound scary for things that are not.  They love to use double-speak and word games to make it harder to argue against them.

For instance, when a Tranny talks about our "rich hunting tradition," they're a) lying (no such "rich tradition" exists- more in a minute) and b) laying the ground work for banning all guns.  See, if it is true that I don't need ten bullets to kill a dear, it is also true that I don't need a gun at all.  People hunted dear, and even bigger game, with bows and arrows, and with spears and javelines before that, long before gunpowder was even invented.  So if we're going to limit gun ownership based on what is "needed" for hunting, then we can ban guns outright.

Now, to that "rich hunting tradition."  That's bull crap made up by Democrats to give them cover to steal your guns.  While it is true that many people have hunted for a long time, it is a) not something unique to American or Americans, and b) has never been (as far as I can tell) a majority of the population.  And hunting as a purely recreational activity certainly did not first arise in America.  So while it is true that we have had hunters, even recreational hunters, from before the beginning of our nation, to call it a "rich hunting tradition" is a sleight-of-mouth trick to make you equate the 2nd Amendment with hunting- a relationship which simply does not exist.

As for "assault weapons," as the Reason author so ably points out, Trannies don't even know what makes a weapon and "assault rifle."  An assault rifle is a selective fire weapon, meaning it can fire in semi-automatic, burst (usually), and/or fully-automatic modes.  We also call them "machine guns" (though that's not correct either, as machine guns are not typically selective fire, and are only capable of fully-automatic fire).  To be an assault weapon, there has to be a way for me to pull the trigger once, and more than one bullet to come out.  No weapon used in Aurora, CO, or Sandy Hook Elementary met that definition.  So they must actually mean something different.

Based on their words, to them the difference is magazine capacity.  So a weapon holding 7 bullets in New York is just fine, but one holding 8 is suddenly an "assault weapon."  Congratulations owners of virtually all semi-automatic pistols: your handgun is now an "assualt weapon."  So are many bolt-action rifles. 

If they're so willing to defraud the language with these terms, what are they doing with terms like "dangerous person" (a little vague, no?), or "gun safety devices?"

Liberal Media Personalities: You Gun Owners Are Evil

See, if you own a gun, you support the Eeevil "Gun Lobby."  And the Gun Lobby must be opposed like the Nazis, and failing to do so is the same as failing to speak out against Democrats (like Bull Connor) during the 1960 Civil Rights debates.

I would set aside these two statements, because they're so stupid, but many will listen to them.  Even if these two particularly stupid statements don't persuade anyone, they're simply adding to a growing chorus designed to make you believe that a) guns are evil, b) gun owners are evil, and c) anyone who thinks otherwise is weird or defective.  Therefore they must be exposed and ridiculed.  They must also be refuted.

So let's take this "Nazi" thing, first.  Opposing gun ownership is being like the Nazis, not like opposing them.  For those of you not aware, just like every other tyrannical regime since the 19th Century, one of the first things the Nazis did was prohibit private ownership of firearms.  You see, the point of owning a gun is not to hunt, or shoot at paper targets, or at clay pidgeons.  The point of owning a gun is not even, primarily, to defend yourself, your family, or your home from robbers and theives.  The point of owning a gun is to have the means to oppose a tyrannical government.

So, when a tyrannical government wants to take power, the first thing it must do is to disarm the populace.  So far from opposing the "Gun Lobby" (read: "Gun Owners") being like opposing the Nazis, it is simply enabling those who would be Nazis, or any other kind of tyrant.  This is also why, yes, I should be allowed to own a howitzer.

Now, on the Civil Rights comment.  Again, would it surpise you to know the nation's first gun control laws were enacted (again, by Democrats) in the South to prevent the newly freed slaves from defending themselves from the likes of the (largely Democrat) KKK?  So, far from failing to oppose the gun lobby being akin to failing to oppose desegregation and Civil Rights, opposing the gun lobby is exactly like opposing the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

The simple fact is that no single item represents the Freedom of Man, and the fact that the People are Sovereign over their Government like The Gun.  An armed populace is one that does not need to fear its government.  An armed populace is one that is sovereign over its government.  Armed civilians are the employers and bosses of the military and the police.  Simply put, a disarmed populace is none of those things.

And only a tyrannical government would seek to disarm its populace.

Let. It. Burn.

House Republicans are already preparing to capitulate to Barack Obama on tax increases.  When he rejects that offer, then they'll come back with tax increases and another increase to the debt ceiling, providing him everything he wants.  In addition, John Boener and GOP leaders are removing fiscal conservatives from their places on House committees.  This is all just more evidence that the GOP is dead as a conservative party.  So let it burn.

But what does "let it burn" mean?  Well, I think it means different things to different people, so I'll explain what I mean, and you can chime in in the comments (hint, hint).

First, "let it burn" does not mean a complete disengagement.  If it looks like things really can be turned around, we have to be willing to rush to the point of conflict to turn things around.  However, it does mean not spending one more minute defending the Republican party.  Not one more dime sent to the RNC or any Republican incumbent. 

It also means disengaging, as much as possible, from the coming economic collapse.  Taxes are going to go up.  Growth is already anemic, and higher taxes will just cripple the economy further.  This means a collapse is very seriously nigh, and we must be prepared.

We must be prepared for the collapse itself.  This means making as sure as possible that you have the means to take care of your family during the collapse.  Form informal groups and cooperatives with others, banding together to see your families through the tough times ahead.  I have a family farm I hope to have operational before the collapse, if it holds off long enough.  Food, shelter, and clothing are the most important things you can secure.  If you can do that through a job that pays well enough, that's fine.  If you can't, then you need to find a way to provide those things.

We must be prepared for the possible societal collapse.  That sounds alarmist, but it is an entirely possible consequence.  Over 51% of the voting public in the United States voted for Barack Obama, who promised them no end to their free stuff.  Once the economic collapse comes, their free stuff goes away anyway.  With luck, enough progress will be made politically that "the masses" will be willing to wait for economic relief.  If there isn't, then our Society, with 60+ years of class warfare rhetoric, 40+ years of racial warfare rhetoric, and an especially divisive President is ripe for societal unrest.  Part of being prepared for that unrest is the same as being prepared for the economic collapse.  Food, water, shelter.  Add physical safety and you're okay.  Another part, though, is being ready to lead.  Which leads us to the third thing we have to prepare for.

We must be prepared to rebuild.  Whether "just" an economic collapse, or a complete societal collapse, those who have prepared are most likely to come out of the trouble in a better situation.  Their preparations will give them advantages over their unprepared neighbors.  This means those unprepared neighbors will look to them for relief.  Those neighbors will either look to the prepared as leaders, or as targets.  If properly prepared, we can be seen as leaders and guide the rebuilding.

Let it burn is as much a path and strategy as anything.  It requires preparation and commitment.  It is not simple resignation and a complete disengagement from the economy, society, and culture.  It is an acknowledgement that "it" is going to burn anyway, and a prioritization of limited resourced based on that realization.

The Imperfectibility of Man

I've already posted this morning on Bob Costas's ignorant (at best) comments on Sunday Night Football last night.  I've also posted about San Bernardino going all "Thunderdome."  AoSHQ Moronette AlexTheChick posted over at Double Plus Undead an open letter to Costas and Whitlock which I highly recommend you read.

But I want to get a little more into this mentality that says "Guns bad."  It's the same nanny-state mentality that says that more Government is always the answer, and any failure of Government is not due to the fact that Government is incapable of doing certain things, but due to the fact that the Government needs absolute unchecked power.  This idea is based on a fallacy to which it seems both Whitlock and Costas fall prey.

There is an idea, ascribed to by teenagers and leftists, known as the perfectibility of man.  According to this idea, if people would just "be nice" to each other, and if the right rules were in place, all the evils in the world would go away.  This is the core premise behind such failed ideologies as Marxism and other collectivist systems.  It ignores the facts of human behavior.  People are not perfect, and no rules or enforcement thereof will make them so.

Case in point: perhaps my favorite quote directed to Messrs. Costas and Whitlock is this, "What caliber did OJ use?"  Human beings are violent, jealous, lazy, evil beings.  People don't like to acknowledge this, but it's true.  All that cursing you use?  It's a form of violence.  It's a very minor way to vent your aggression so that you don't actually become physically violent.  Human nature is evil. 

Now, this is a hard concept for two reasons.  One, if you accept it, you have to accept your own evil.  In the case of Bob Costas and Jason Whitlock, I'm sure they would vociferously deny that charge.  Second is that it means you must accept that evil will occur in the world, often for no good reason. 

It is the concept of the perfectibility of man that caused people to look for someone, other than Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden, to blame for 9/11.  It is the concept of the perfectibility of man that causes bleeding hearts across the globe to try to "understand" murderers and rapists.  It is the concept of the perfectibility of man that says if we'd just take all the weapons away, no one would ever be violent again.

However, man is not perfectible.  Indeed, a central truth you must accept if you wish to actually address the balance of evil in the world is man's imperfectibility.  If man is not perfectible, then Government cannot be the solution, since it is run by imperfect men.  If man is not perfectible, then a better armed society is safer than a less armed society, since such a society would give the (relatively) innocent the means by which to protect themselves.  If man is not perfectible, then we do not have to wonder "why" atrocities occur; we can blame the perpetrator for their actions and treat them accordingly.

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?

Are You Angry Yet?

The Government is stealing your private property.  Have you noticed?  Are you angry?

Private Property rights are the source from which all Liberty flows.  Private Property rights are based on the idea that you have a limited number of hours of life, and you should be able to spend them how you choose, and dispose of the produce of your labor as you choose.  The income tax is a tax on the produce of your Labor.  It is, in essence, the Government proclaiming that it, not you, owns your labor and that it, not you, gets first choice of how the produce of that labor is spent.

Are you angry yet?

One of the things one can do with the produce of his labor is accumulate private property, especially real property (that is: land).  When the government taxes your property, they are claiming that they own it, not you, and that they get first choice of how to dispose of it, not you.

Are you angry yet?

Between the income tax and the property tax, the Government is stealing hours of your life away.  Then, once you die, they again seize your property.  So-called "inheritance taxes" are ostensibly designed to prevent people from becoming "too" rich.  Even if such were possible it would be evil- I should be able to accumulate as much property as I am able, and then should be able to dispose of it as I choose- including willing it to my descendents upon my death.  In the real world, of course, the very rich find ways of avoiding the death tax, while it is the upwardly mobile who are most punished by it.

Are you angry yet?

If the President has his way with the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, more of your income will be seized by the state through your income taxes.  Spending will be cut drastically (generally a good thing, really) with no plan or design to guide the cuts (a bad thing).  One consequence of this will be States increasing their own taxes (income, property, or both) stealing yet more of your income to use in ways you might actively oppose.  Additionally, the death tax, currently in abayance, will return at 55%  More than half of the wealth of the moderately successful will be seized upon their deaths, while the truly rich will have already divested themselves of direct ownership of their assets- thus avoiding most of the brunt of such a tax.

Are you angry yet?

If you aren't, you should be.  If you are, what are you doing about it?

Fighting Back

Okay, so let's assume we're not just going to surrender.  Let's assume we either want to actively attack, or make a strategic retreat to shore up our defenses.  What do would our goals be?  How could we accomplish them.

Goal 1 - Reform Education
This has a couple of different fronts, and we should work on all of them.  Whether we're attacking into Blue areas, or just shoring up the Red, the tactics are largely the same.

1- Run, baby, run.  Are you clean and articulate?  Do you have the fortitude to pound the pavement for several months out of the next year?  Then let me recommend getting plugged in with both your local Tea Party and local GOP groups, then run for a spot on the School Board or your City Council.  It's hard to think much bigger than that, for most people, so let's work on making our local governments as conservative as possible.

Then, support current local politicians who are solidly conservative for State-wide positions, including your State Board of Education.  Let's get Conservative ideas taught in schools. 

2- Let those who can, teach.  Are you moderately successful in your profession, and have a degree?  Are you now unemployed?  Let me recommend an alternative teacher's certification.  Not all States have these, but I'm pretty sure that most do.  This is a teachers certification for people who did not get education degrees.  Different states handle them differently. 

Remember that liberal Government and Economics teacher you had?  Imagine if he had been conservative.  How many high schoolers could have learned solid conservative economic lessons?  Remember when you had to read "Of Mice and Men" in High School?  Imagine if your teacher had been a Conservative using it to teach lessons about personal responsibility and the need of a society to protect itself?

How many times have Conservatives complained about the liberal bent of education?  Well, it won't change if we don't change it.

Goal 2- Reform the Culture
I've mentioned this a couple of times recently, but we really need to get into the culture war and start fighting.  If we want to be taken seriously, we have to act seriously.  Again, I don't think these tactics change much no matter whether you're on the strategic retreat, or the attack side.

1- Conservative culture warriors. We have a plethora of conservatives in entertainment.  Many of them are afraid to 'come out' as conservatives because of what it would mean to their careers.  We need them to step up despite their fear.  We need conservative leaning action movies, dramas, and romantic comedies.  We need conservative TV shows and music.  In return, we need to vociferously defend any entertainer who comes out as conservative, and support them monetarily.

2- Get in the local game.  Your city has a Fourth of July festival.  Your local GOP and/or Tea Party group should sponsor a float and a booth.  Make sure the name of your local GOP or Tea Party group is on the list of sponsors of Christmas toy drives, or Thanksgiving food drives.  Make sure their names show up as sponsors of local 5Ks and bike races.

I think if we could focus on these two goals, using these four tactics, we could make great strides.  Think, if you're a "strategic retreat" type of deep, deep Red States churning out conservatives from their education systems, backed with a culture with which people can identify.  Eventually we would be big enough to attempt the Diaspora without losing our strongholds.  If you're an "attack" type, imagine Purple states turning Pink, and Pink states turning Red as the next generation is reared with conservative ideas.

But whichever side you're on, none of this works if you don't get in the game.

The "Liberty" Party

No, those aren't scare quotes, they're to denote that the word "Liberty" should be featured in Republican talking points.

People more in tune with such things than me have been digesting the election return numbers, but I think a couple of things are clear.  First, too many people that Republicans thought would be voting didn't.  Second, the margin of loss, while painful, was actually less than in 2008- that indicates we made up ground.  Third, the Republican Message is scary to people who live on Government Cheese.

For an example of that, go check out this post from Ace.  This isn't the only story I've heard of this kind.  When one party is offering free stuff, and the other is offering responsibility, people who are dependent upon (or believe they are dependent upon) that free stuff will vote for the free stuff.

While it is actually true that Romney's plan would be better for them, they never heard that; or if they did, they didn't believe it.  What they heard was that Romney wanted to end their entitlements to "pay for" tax cuts "for the rich."

So it's time to change the messaging.  I noted in this space last week that part of what we need to do is infiltrate popular culture.  Movies, TV, and music should all be things on which we focus.  But our politicians need to fine tune the message, too.

With respect to Mark Davis, I suggest we become the "Liberty" Party.  We're not for tax cuts, we're for "Economic Liberty."  We're not for school choice we're for "Education Liberty."  We're not against unions, we're for "Labor Liberty."

Liberty should be the national message, and it can be adapted to anything- including social issues.

Homosexual Marriage: "I'm neither for nor against same-sex marriage.  However, I believe in Moral Liberty and vehemently oppose anything that would restrict churches, organizations, or even employers from having their own rules regarding who they employee or what benefits they provide based on such issues.  I believe that, where it becomes a public policy issue, Liberty is better protected by the States exercising their authority than by the Federal Government making one-size-fits-all laws."

Abortion: "As a matter of official national policy, I do not have a specific stance regarding abortion.  I do believe that the States should have their just Liberty, under the 10th Amendment, to make whatever laws their People see fit regarding the availability of abortions.  Roe v Wade is not bad because it made abortions more easily available, but because it simultaneously usurped the role of the Congress as the Legislative branch, and violated the 10th Amendment Rights of the States."

It is important to remember that these are national stances.  At the State and Local levels, you have much more room to fit yourself to your direct constituents.  That also means that Republicans in Texas and Republicans in Massachusetts might take different State stances on same-sex marriage or abortion, but would take a single, unified stance at the national level.

There are probably others who are even better at this phrasing than I am, but I believe this is the message we need to be broadcasting: Liberty.

Simple Truth: Direct Taxes are Tyrannical

Government runs on taxation.  While a sovereign government can print its own currency, that currency means nothing if its people produce nothing of value.  Taxation is a charge on the value someone creates.  Taxes are necessary to the functioning of government, and a government which does not raise enough in taxes to cover its obligations is doomed, eventually, to failure.

There are two methods to raise these taxes, they are Direct Taxation and Indirect Taxation.  In general, Indirect Taxes will be conducive to Liberty and Direct Taxes will be conducive to Tyranny.  It behooves us to understand why.

Indirect taxation taxes the value created by a good or service.  In general, these will be sales taxes (a general tax on the value of any transaction) or a duty or levy (a specific tax on an item or category of items).  If you want to think of them that way, indirect taxes are a commercial transaction which takes place on top of another commercial transaction.

In any commercial transaction, payment is rendered for some good or service.  If you are the one who is "selling" then you are rendering a good or service in exchange for a different good- usually money.  If you are the one who is "buying" then you are rendering a good (again, usually money) for some other good or service.

In the case of indirect taxes, the "good or service" you are "purchasing" is the Government.  Specifically, it is to be hoped that what is being funded is the necessary operation of, or payment for, government obligations.  In theory, the taxes should have some baring on the item or transaction taxed.  As a specific example, gasoline taxes are supposed to be used to pay for road maintenance and new roads.  Another specific example would regulatory charges which pay for the operation of the regulatory agencies.  A more general example- a sales tax- simply pays for the operation of government generally.  It is assumed that the operation of government assists the sale in some way- for instance, by providing enough peace and stability for a money economy to function.

These are conducive to Liberty for two main reasons.

The first is that there is a limit to the amount of money an indirect tax can raise.  While a government can theoretically set any level of fee or taxation on any specific good, service, or transaction, the reality is that people do consider those fees and taxes into the cost of items before they purchase them.  Raising sales taxes too high will serve only to kill your money economy.  Barter and under-the-table economies will quickly rise to replace the "official" economy and thus deny funds to the Government all together.  To some degree this happens already.

The second reason is that indirect taxes are, to some degree, voluntary.  No one has to purchase cigarettes, or alcohol, or even gasoline for that matter.  Certainly many people do purchase these things.  Many people even view them as "necessities," but they are not.  The British Government thought of tea as a "staple item."  Weren't they surprised when some men in Boston most emphatically said, "no, it's not?"  So to the extent that various goods, services, and transactions can be avoided, so can those taxes be avoided.  That gives me many legal options for keeping more of my own money.

Direct taxes, however, are inherently tyrannical.  They are taxes on one of two things, in either case the tax is a form of tyranny.  Direct taxes are either a tax on simply being alive, or they are a tax on a person's labor.

Note that taxes, in these cases, would still be "commercial transactions."  That is, you're paying a good (money) for something- but what is that "something," and do you have the option to avoid that tax by not partaking in that something?  In the case of a "capitation" or "per-head" tax, the tax is simply on your life.  You are, in essence, paying the government just because you are alive.  Note that this is the kind of "tax, but not-a-tax" written into ObamaCare to enforce the individual mandate.  Simply being alive is enough to force you (in that particular case) to purchase a product or pay a tax.  Income taxes, however, are taxes on your labor.  Again, conceptually, you are paying the government for the right to produce something of value and reap the benefits of it.

In either case, the government is taxing one of your Natural (or "inalienable") Rights.  It taxes your right to Property in the case of income taxes, while it taxes your right to Life in the case of per-head taxes.

Now, that in itself is tyrannical.  Indeed, it is the definition of tyranny- you either live only at the sufferance of the State, or you work directly for the good of the State.  But beyond that, the same things that make indirect taxes conducive to Liberty are reversed in direct taxes.

Limit on taxation?  Well, there is a practical limit, in that those with means will eventually expatriate and renounce their citizenship if necessary to avoid insanely high taxation.  But those without means have no ability to avoid those taxes.  There is no surety against a 100% income tax and total redistribution of wealth.  Indeed, some on the Left have prescribed exactly that.

Voluntary?  Only insofar as you could always choose to commit suicide, or refuse to engage in any labor.  That is, they are only voluntary to the extent you can volunteer not to live, and not to obtain property.

I, personally, have been skeptical of the practical way in which a national sales tax could be implemented.  With the re-election of Barack Obama I no longer care.  Direct taxes are tyrannical.  Indirect taxes are not.  It is time to force the Government out of sectors it shouldn't be in in the first place, and back to its first principles.  Direct taxes, with their correspondingly lower revenues, are the best way to do that.