Loading...

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Murder and Glee


The murderous rampage which brought death to 20 children in Sandy Hook has been embraced with glee by the gun control fanatics. Only an unthinking emotional reaction to such horror can breath new life into a movement which seeks to leave honest, law-abiding citizens defenseless in the face of criminals and tyrants. Without these crimes the quislings of gun control, who would sooner surrender themselves to a rapist, or watch their children's murder by home invaders, or lick the boot of every petty tyrant from the county code enforcer to the Usurper in Chief, would have nothing, absolutely nothing, with which they can make their case for individual disarmament. So when such murders happen, they stifle their grins and trot out stupid arguments hoping they will be absorbed by osmosis into the emotional crowd.

One of the stupidest arguments brought forth by these happy exploiters of tragedy is the notion that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the individual's right to keep and bear arms. A prime example is this article at the Daily Kos titled What Part of "Well Regulated" Do You Not Understand, Shooty McGunnut?. It is available here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171383/-What-Part-of-Well-Regulated-Do-You-Not-Understand-Buford-McRedneck#

 It is one thing to be ignorant and emotional and exercise your freedom of speech to weigh in on a public topic. It is quite another thing to be arrogant and rude as well. To be fair, it is probably not his fault. He likely is the product of an upbringing where he was given a trophy for riding the bench in intramural coed basket weaving, passed along grade to grade with a good GPA for attendance, and given a college degree in some footed pajama major that only required he buy the professor's book and ritually repeat the liberal slogan's of the day. It is time that he and his fellow travelers on the gun control kiddy train get schooled.

This poor clod believes that:

it's about time that gun control advocates reclaim the legal high ground in constitutional debates, because frankly the 2nd Amendment not only does not prohibit regulation of firearms, it explicitly states that keeping guns under the control of civil authority is the purpose of the right to bear arms.”

He then follows up with a classic straw man:

The NRA and its fellow travelers cannot claim to support the 2nd Amendment when they completely ignore what it says and just make up their own fantasy language that says the exact opposite - from "well-regulated militia" to "totally unregulated proliferation of individual destructive power.

In other words, they claim that "well-regulated militia" really means totally unregulated, totally undisciplined, completely unmonitored, and utterly unaccountable distribution of weapons of mass destruction to everyone.”

Finally, he removes any doubt that he is thinking instead of emoting he pukes up a laundry list of
things that tighten his panties, which he attributes to “these people”, and which have nothing whatsover to do with gun control, the second amendment or anything else. These are just the teddy bears in his room that become his scary monsters when the lights are out:

As far as these people are concerned, freedom of speech means their right to shut everyone else up and deny us any practical ability to seek redress of grievances from elected officials, because silencing people who disagree with them is somehow an act of legitimate expression on their part. Separation of church and state means that conservative religious beliefs are to be taxpayer funded and shoved down the people's throat, because a state that does not acknowledge the absolute and unquestionable supremacy of their religion is violating their religious freedom. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure means that people who are the wrong color, religion, or nationality are automatically guilty; police can do whatever they find convenient without restriction unless the suspect is rich and white; and there is no right to privacy. Equal rights means that you can deliberately create impediments to voting that specifically target racial minorities and communities that are politically hostile to their agenda.”

This fool Troubadour's mental process (it can't be called thinking) is not “well-regulated.” Unfortunately such incoherence is not uncommon among gun control advocates.

Troubadour's ramblings are full of ignorant assertions and only two are germane to the issue. His first assertion is “it explicitly states that keeping guns under the control of civil authority is the purpose of the right to bear arms.” He is absolutely correct – if we live in Alice's Wonderland where words mean whatever he chooses them to mean. In the real, hallucinogenic free, world the 2nd amendment was ratified as part of a package of 10 amendments the sole purpose and common theme of which was to place limits on what government could do. Here are the real world words of the 2nd amendment:

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

What the amendment states clearly is that the right of the people to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed. It is a clear limitation on the power granted to government. It is the exact opposite of what the Troubadour tool claims. The purpose given for affirming this right of the people, and by no means is it implied that it is the only reason for affirming the right, is so that a free state might be preserved.

It is easy to see where the Troubador tool get's this notion that the purpose of the amendment is to keep guns under the control of the civil authority. It is because he is scared of guns and WANTS the amendment to mean what he wants it to mean. And so he has to systematically take each part of the amendment and make it mean something other than what it actually does mean.

It is clear that the “security of a free state” is a central concern of the authors of the amendment. In a discussion of the amendment there are only two possible meanings of “free state.” One meaning is a government (state) which is free to operate without the sufferance of a higher, more powerful government. The other meaning is a political entity “free state” where the people of the state are free. For the Troubadour's position on the 2nd amendment to be at all defensible the first definition must be adopted. This, of course, is nonsense. If the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the sovereignty of the state against the federal government, or foreign governments, then it would guarantee the right of the state, not the individual, to keep and bear arms. Likewise, if the purpose were to “guarantees the right of the People to not be terrorized by random individuals,” it would not declare the right of the people to keep and bear arms as such a right would be counter to the assumed purpose.

Clearly the little tool Troubadour made no effort to comprehend the meaning of “free state” in the context of the 2nd amendment choosing instead to read his desired meaning into it. He commits the error with regard to the phrase “well-regulated militia.” Gun phobics seize on this phrase to insist that the people's right is not an individual right and can only be exercised in the context of a government controlled militia. And, universally, they make no effort to understand the terms but simply insist they have the meaning the ascribed to them because, well, that's how they “feel” the words should be understood.

It takes no real effort to discern the meaning of the word militia. It is defined by law today in the US code and also the constitutions of most, if not all states. It has essentially the same meaning today that it did when the amendment was drafted. It means every able bodied person who can bear arms. It includes both the organized (those able bodied persons who are working within a formal group) and “unorganized” (those able bodied persons who aren't part of any formal group) militia. The meaning is clear and indisputable except, by those such as the tool Troubadour who make no effort to understand the meaning.

The Troubador would have you believe that the right to keep and bear arms does not apply to each individuals but only to those who under the control of an organized militia and only during such time as the organized militia permits. Where the amendment naturally means “all the able bodied people ready to fight are necessary to securing a state where people are free so the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed upon”, Tourbadour want to believe that it means “all the able bodied people who might under control of the state government are necessary to ensure the government is secure so the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed upon as long as they are subject to the government in which case the government can infringe upon the individual all it wants.”

The last hope of Troubadour and the merry band of constitutional subversives is the phrase “well regulated.” Having ignored the clear meanings of militia, free state, and people they poor into this phrase the meaning they so desperately want. Well-regulated, he insists, must mean subject to the control of the civil authority. Of course this is not what it means. If one let even a few synapses fire it would be clear that such a meaning renders the entire amendment incoherent. If the first part of the amendment means what Troubadour fantasizes it means then the last part would undermine it. TO make sense it would have to read “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” or, “the right of the state to permit the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

As usual it takes very little research to discover meanings of “well-regulated” that fight comfortably within the 2nd amendment and do not mean “under the control of the civil government.” Even today we speak of electrical components that use clean “well-regulated” power. We can find references to “well regulated” timepieces, “well regulated” minds, and “well-regulated” persons in the literature of the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. In the minds of 21st century serf “well regulated” can only mean “subject to the control of civil authorities. In the minds of persons capable of using Google it can easily mean “well functioning”, “working as intended” and other such constructions which have nothing to to with civil authority.

Piecing together the most natural usages and meanings of the words of the 2nd amendment reveals to the modern mind the real meaning of the 2nd amendment:

all the able bodied people working together effectively, are necessary to preserving a state where people are free. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.”

Troubador concludes his illiterate rant by saying:

the first step to really making progress is being assertive about the immorality, irrationality, and unconstitutionality of the anarchic policies the NRA supports and has bought themselves through corruption of government. There will always be criminal personalities who even then just cannot reconcile themselves to being accountable to society, but for the rest, maybe they could just learn how to read so we can stop burying children for their ignorance.”

It is that combination of arrogance and ignorance that makes Troubadour such a collossal douche. Like many of the vocal gun banista's, Troubadour is full of self-righteous dismissal and disparagement of those he disagree's with. We share that in common, I suppose. The problem with his arrogance, though, is that he is, along with his fellow traveller's, completely, totally, and inexcusably wrong. He is not only not right, he is the opposite of right. And he is the opposite of right on each and every single area of inquiry. He and they, are irresponsibly not right because we live in an age where anyone can look up virtually anything and get an education in seconds that would have taken years of hard work to obtain not too many years ago. Yet he, and they, don't make the slightest effort to inform themselves.

There is certainly room for discussion about how we prevent crimes like the slaughter in Sandy Hook. We can discuss the practical application of the 2nd amendment with regard to the mentally ill and whether the right applies to all arms or not. However we need to do so in the context of our legal system which provides for altering the constitution by amendment and not the fiat declaration of judges nor the passage of legislation. However, we can only have such discussion with people willing to be informed by fact and not emotion. People such as Troubadouche don't qualify.

Wednesday, November 07, 2012

Illegitimate President

I do not concede that Barack Obama was legitimately elected President. The reason is not because his secrecy regarding passports, draft records, SS #, college admissions, raise suspicion that he may have disqualifying secrets. I'm willing to accept that he is constitutionally qualified to be President. The reason is not that I  think he was illegitimately elected in 2008. I have no doubt that he got more votes than McCain - the desire for a change from the Republican party and the enthusiasm for electing the first Black President was palpable. I do not acknowledge Barack Obama as the President because I believe he, and the Democratic party, committed massive voter fraud and vote tampering and stole the election.

Prior to the election there was near unanimous agreement that voter enthusiasm was down among Democrats  and substantially stronger among Republicans. Something on the order of 8 million fewer voters overall turned out to vote in 2012 than in 2008. In 2008 Obama's popular vote margin was approximately 9.5 million. This election, Obama's reported margin was approximately 2.7 million.  Even if there was no increase in Republican turnout in 2012 over 2008, and the decline in votes for Obama was no more than the overall decline in votes, Obama's margin should have been no more than 1.5 million votes.  In a year when everyone was acknowledging that there was far greater enthusiasm on the Republican side, in a year when virtually all anecdotal reports were of very heavy turnout in Republican precincts, we have to believe that the Republican vote shrunk by 2.9 million votes. If we are to believe the reported returns then we have to believe the Democrats and the make it up media instead of our lying eyes.

We should believe our lying eyes.

Our eyes have seen the Democrats fight every effort to ensure the integrity of the vote by requiring voter ID. Our eyes saw poll workers wearing  Obama hats in violation of election law. Our eyes saw Republican thrown out of Pennsylvania poling places. Our eyes saw Federal government vehicles being used illegally to ferry voters to the polls. Our eyes saw millions of dead people kept on the voter rolls and our eyes saw our military personnel denied the opportunity to vote by the willful violation of the law which required the DoD to establish voting assistance centers and the failure to send out absentee ballots to military voters in a timely fashion. And our eyes saw electronic voting machines record votes cast for Romney repeatedly recorded as a vote for Obama. Very similarly, in the Democratic bastion of Prince George's County, Maryland, votes against same sex marriage were  recorded as a vote in favor of same sex marriage.

Can I prove that there was systematic voter fraud and vote tampering in this election? No I cannot. Likewise, it is impossible to prove that there was no systematic voter fraud and vote tampering. By not requiring voter ID we have made it impossible to verify that the people casting votes are entitled to cast votes. By utilizing electronic voting we have made it impossible to verify that the votes counted are the same as the votes cast. There is now no rational reason to accept the reported results of any election as legitimate.   We know that political parties, particularly the Democrats, are willing to engage in voter fraud and tampering. We know they are willing to violate election law. And we know that there is no way to prove or disprove allegations of vote tampering and voter fraud because of the Democrats resistance to voter ID.

Eric Holder, appointed by Obama as Attorney General, has opposed every effort to ensure the integrity of elections by requiring that potential voters prove they are who they claim to be.  The only reason to oppose this is in order to commit fraud. There is no reason to believe otherwise just as there is no reason to believe that votes cast for Romney showed up as a vote for Obama by accident.

I believe the reported election results that are being used to claim Obama was reelected are fraudulent.  If our system of voting was legitimate it would be possible to disprove my assertion. It can't be done because our system of voting is unverifiable and therefore illegitimate. Until we have a verifiable system of voting we cannot have a legitimate election and therefor cannot have a legitimate president. We have no democracy. We have no Republic.We have no rule of law and the government has no legitimate claim to the respect or allegiance of the citizenry.

Until we return to a verifiable system of voting Obama will have no more legitimate claim to the Presidency than Hugo Chavez.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Catholics to the Left of Me, Catholics to the Right

After writing about the abomination that is Obama's mandate that every employer in America be forced to provide free contraception services I decided to see what others were saying.  As  convert to Catholicism with an evangelical conservative background I was especially interested to see what more left leaning Catholics were saying. I recommend the experience to all.

I spent some time engaging the discussion at a blog called Vox Nova. If you haven't visited it I recommend that you do. There are sentiments there that I find ignorant and offensive as well as sentiments that are insightful and commendable. If you visit do so with an open mind.

With regard to the HHS mandate there seemed to be two predominant strains of thought.  One seemed to be expressed by people who, while not directly denying the Church's teaching on contraception, really have no use for it and are twisting themselves into pretzels in an attempt to minimize the offensiveness of the mandate. The other was from people that I developed a respect for.  These were Catholics on the left who assent fully to the Church's teaching on contraception, indeed all the Church's teaching. Where this second group supported the bishops in speaking out against the mandate they invariably wouldn't discuss the issue in isolation. Invariably these people brought in other social issues such as nationalized health care and angry denunciations of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Interacting with these folks was an experience. My differing opinions were permitted but, usually, not engaged. Whenever I expressed an"unorthodox" opinion the response was almost always derogatory.  I had blinders on and a commitment to conservatism over and above my commitment to the Catholic Church. When I raised a point which they could not address with consistency the discussion was terminated or shifted.

At one point, in response to my suggestion that the government get out of health care, a writer responded that the government got into health care, and created Medicare, because people "routinely died in the streets" because the couldn't afford treatment. I questioned the assertion and, in response, was sent a link to a Washington Post "Fact Check" column about Ron Paul's claim that things weren't so bad before Medicare. That column basically said that they couldn't refute Paul's claim but that things were more expensive now and so we needed Medicare. In other words, the writers "proof" was nothing of the sort.
He admitted as much, told me to do my own research, and then dropped the conversation.

This writer had an emotional commitment to a particular position and wasn't about to let facts change his thinking. My experience at this left leaning site was exactly the experience that the Left experiences when venturing into the territory if the Right.

Many on the Right have an emotional commitment to things like the death penalty and the military and aren't about to let facts change their thinking. Many on the Right dismiss the arguments of the Left with disparaging comments about commies and criminal lovers that do not address the argument.  It is easier to put down someone who disagrees with you than it is to entertain the idea that you might be wrong.

In the Catholic Church the Left and the Right should shut up and listen to the Church. It is indisputable that the Church teaches that there almost no circumstances that justify the imposition of the death penalty in civilized nations. It is indisputable that both Iraq wars were not justified according to Church teaching on just war. These are not comfortable truths to those Catholics on the Right.  Likewise, those on the Left who argue for expanded government services such as national health and welfare are misapplying Church teaching.  The great encyclical Rerum Novarum provides the foundation for the Church's teaching on social justice. The Left misuses this and twists the call for providing for the poor  into a support for government services.  They miss the important point that " It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity - a duty not enforced by human law."


All of who adopt the Catholic label need to recall what we say we believe. The Church is a divine institution guided by the Holy Spirit. Where we find ourselves in disagreement with what the Church teaches it is we, not the Church, which needs to conform. When we find ourselves in disagreement with fellow Catholics we need to consider that it is our brother speaking and accord them proper respect. They might be correct. We need to listen to the Church - not the politicians and interest groups of the left and the right.   


If I have Catholics to the let of me, and Catholics to the right, I just might be standing with the Church.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

A Simple Solution

There is a false subtext infusing the debate around the federal government's mandating that contraceptive coverage be included in every insurance plan. The falsehood is that a choice must be made between respecting the rights of one group or another. The supporters of ObamaCare push this lie. In their minds if an employer exercises his right not to offer an insurance plan with contraceptive coverage then the employer is, in effect, denying the employee the right to choose contraceptive coverage. The elephant in the room, which the left pretends doesn't exist and the right acknowledges but won't talk about, is that the only reason rights are in conflict is because government has injected itself where it doesn't belong.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Obama Says Chew Your Cud.

Obama's contraceptive mandate is an assault on all freedom.  This mandate is applauded by cud-chewing ruminants who, like cattle in finishing pens happy to be fed, are oblivious to their fate.  The government that can force contraceptives be to given to you, can also force you to take them or deny them to you. 

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Obama's Contraception Compromise is Another Attack

First Obama hit the Church in the nose with his mandate that schools and hospitals include contraception in the health care plans. Next he beat the Church with a bat with his "compromise" that would force the Church itself to directly provide contraceptive coverage. It is time to see this exemplar of mendacity for what he is and condemn him with uncompromising clarity.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Gonzalo Lira: A Tale of Two Settlements

The recently announced mortgage settlement is a complete rip-off and cover-up of fraud. The link below explains it simply.

Gonzalo Lira: A Tale of Two Settlements