The hate us. They really, really hate us.

Democrats, 2004: “What’s the matter with Kansas?” 

Democrats, 2013: “The heck with Kansas. And Iowa. And Oklahoma. And Nebraska.”

Since Obama’s re-election, the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) have grown more openly hostile towards the “rubes” in flyover country. While their honesty is refreshing, it does get a little tiring. It will end, though, as all things must, and it will not end well for the Democrats. Americans live in America because it’s, well, America, not Europe. And considering how well Europe is doing right now, NOT being Europe is a good thing. 

Number of comments: 0 Add comment
January 30th, 2013 by exurbankevin

Forgone delusion

Looks like it’s time for another article on that most elusive of Democratic dreams, a blue Mountain West.

“It’s just a different world,” said Bill Carrick, a veteran Democratic strategist in Los Angeles who has worked widely in the region. “Nevada became the next California and now Arizona looks like it will become the next Nevada. … It’s just pushing the West further and further from Republicans.” 

Arizona is the next California? Really? Let’s look at Nevada’s Presidential voting history: 

And California’s voting history, 

And finally, Arizona’s voting. 

Just for grins, let’s look at Utah’s voting history. 

Ok, remind me again how Arizona is the next California? 

If anything, it’s getting worse for the Democrats as their statist, tax-and-spend pipe dreams come crashing to the ground in California, Illinois and New York, leaving the rest of the country shaking our heads at their folly. 

And it goes downhill from there for Dems in the west as the last 8 years has seen the decline of “moderate” Blue Dog Democrats most likely to thrive in these climes. The wide streak of independence that we in the west hold so dear is the mortal enemy of the big-city machine politics that has taken over the Democratic party . It can be argued that Ron Barber/Gabby Giffords (let’s face it, they’re one and the same) were/are two of the last moderate Dems in Congress, but they’ll stay in Congress only until the State legislature can correct the mistakes that the “independent” re-districting commission made two years ago. 

If (and and I say, “if”), the Republican brand name is in decline in the Mountain West it’s not the Democrats that are raping the benefits, it’s the Libertarians. 

“The West is the most American part of America,” said Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute, a libertarian think tank in Denver. “It is a place where you have much more respect for individual choice and you have more ability to be who you want to be.”

The Democrats know this, and are trying their level best to jump onto that bandwagon.

“The libertarian thing is no longer about property rights or gun rights,” he (Democratic operative Carrick) said. “It’s now about letting people live their lives as they choose.” 

Except it IS about gun rights and property rights and lower taxation and a smaller government footprint on our neck. The Democrats are racing towards more and more government control of our lives, and can’t and won’t relinquish their dream of using government as an instrument of moral guidance in our lives. 

And that is why, try as they might, they won’t won’t turn Arizona blue. 

Number of comments: 1 Add comment
January 29th, 2013 by KevinC

Will Obama be the end of the Democratic Party?

A bunch of Democrats certainly think so

 Some activists foresee a power struggle between the national party, which aims to elect Democrats above all else, and the new group, which aims to build the president’s legacy — and may have to pressure wavering swing-state Democrats to tow the unapologetically liberal agenda laid out in his inauguration speech. 

I mean, it’s not like a power struggle between insiders and messianic egomaniacs has ever shattered a U.S. political party before. 

Oh, wait

Some historians speculate that if the Progressive Party had run only the Roosevelt presidential ticket, it might have attracted many more Republicans willing to split their ballot. But the progressive movement was strongest at the state level, and, so the new party had fielded candidates for governor and state legislature. In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the local Republican boss, at odds with state party leaders, joined Roosevelt’s cause.

In spite of this, very few Progressives were elected to local offices; about 250. The Democrats gained many state legislature seats, which gave them 10 additional U.S. Senate seats; they also gained 63 U.S. House seats. 

Napoleon Bonaparte once said “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” 

Carry on as you were, Organizing For Action, carry on. 

Number of comments: 0 Add comment
January 28th, 2013 by exurbankevin

The Biblical Basis For Self-Defense.

I have friends who are strong Christians and pacifists who will not raise a fist in their defense and will employ any means other than armed resistance to injustice. I respect their opinion and will not condemn them: There’s a lot of room inside the church of Christ, and as long as you’re down with salvation by grace and the Nicean Creed, I don’t care where you stand on AR-15’s. 


Just as I am willing to respect their views on pacifism, I ask them to respect mine on the defense of my family. David French does an excellent job of laying out what is and is not said in the Bible and elsewhere about taking up arms in defense of one’s life. 

“The idea that one is required to surrender their lives — or the lives of their family, neighbors, or even strangers — in the face of armed attack is completely alien to scripture.  There are many examples of martyrs surrendering their lives in the face of evil, but such an act is highly contextual and in response to the individual call of God on a man (or woman’s) life.  I know of no precedent for the idea that we are called to surrender the lives of others (such as our spouse, children, or neighbors) in response to deadly attack.” 

Read the whole thing, and the only thing I’d add is to look at the Augustinian idea of a “just war”. A war, an offensive action by a group of people against another group of people is a war that… 

  • Must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain or as an exercise of power.
  • Must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state.
  • Peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence 

I believe this also applies to individuals, not just nation-states. I am justified in taking violent action to defend my life if… 

  • It occurs for a good and just purpose such as defending the innocent rather than for self-gain or as an exercise of power.
  • It is waged by a properly trained and prepared individual not a criminal or some recklessly attacking out of mindless rage. 
  • Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence. The purpose must be to stop the threat, not punish perceived slights or dominate another person. 

I believe that armed self-defense is an extension of a Christian’s mandate to protect the innocent, to “watch over widows and orphans in their distress.” No one doubts that a person can be a policeman who carries a gun and watches over society at large and be a Christian: Why is there any doubt that and armed individual can watch over a small portion of society (a family) still have an abiding faith in God? 

Number of comments: 0 Add comment
January 25th, 2013 by exurbankevin


Number of comments: 0 Add comment
January 24th, 2013 by exurbankevin

Gun Rights Are Civil Rights

They're perfectly ok with judging a gun by it's color.

“The right to own weapons is the right to be free.” – A.E. Van Vogt

Danny Glover, star of the “Lethal Weapon” movie series and a host of other violent shoot-em-ups, has a unique take on the origin of the Second Amendment.

“I don’t know if people know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” Glover said. “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect, to protect themselves from slave revolts and from uprisings from Native Americans.”
“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from – that’s what the genesis of the Second Amendment is.”

Quite the opposite, Mr. Glover, as Mr. Tracy Morrow (aka Ice-T) will now explain to you.

“I’ll give up my gun when everybody else does. It’s legal in the United States, it’s part of our Constitution. The right to bear arms is because that’s the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It’s to protect yourself from the police.”

Just so. The Second Amendment isn’t about the majority forcing its will upon the minority; it’s about making sure the smallest minority, the individual, has the means to protect himself or herself against those who would do harm to them. Gun rights aren’t about perpetuating racism, they’re about eliminating racism. Let’s here another voice in the argument, former Secretary of State and Stanford provost Condelezza Rice.

“The way I come out of my own personal experience, in which in Birmingham, Ala., my father and his friends defended our community in 1962 and 1963 against White Knight Riders by going to the head of the community, the head of the cul-de-sac, and sitting there, armed. And so I’m very concerned about any abridgement of the Second Amendment.”

Well certainly Mr. Glover didn’t dream up the idea that gun rights activists are racist out of thin air, right? I mean, somewhere in the 200+ year history of the United States, there has to something that talks about gun control and racism, right?

Unfortunately for Mr. Glover, there is. There is law after law and ruling after ruling showing how gun control started with racism, continued with racism and is still racist today.

Forner’s book reveals how, before the Civil War ended, Southern States enacted ‘Slave Codes’ that prohibited slaves from owning firearms. After Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation that freed slaves in the rebelling States, and after Republicans pushed through the Thirteenth Amendment freeing all the remaining slaves, Democrats in the South persisted in keeping the newly freed slaves from owning the means to protect themselves – guns.”

It cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them (slaves) as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens … it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.(Emphasis mine)

The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.”

The Black Panthers took Malcolm X’s approach to the extreme, openly carrying guns as they patrolled for police abuses on the streets of Oakland. They even made guns part of their official uniform, along with the black beret and leather jacket. Every member learned about Marxism and firearms safety. California passed a law to disarm the Panthers and then Congress, after King was assassinated by James Early Ray, passed the Gun Control Act of 1968 — the first major federal gun control since the 1930’s.”

Gun rights isn’t about white people having the guns in order to oppress others. Gun rights is about freedom for everyone, regardless of race, color, sex or creed. Gun rights aren’t oppressive, but rather, owning a gun is the first step on the road to freedom.

Number of comments: 0 Add comment
January 22nd, 2013 by exurbankevin

Well that was fun.

The truth hurts, and the truth can be funny. 

Number of comments: 0 Add comment
January 15th, 2013 by exurbankevin

They Told Me If Glenn Reynolds Voted for Romney…

… the White House would team up with religious groups to limit civil liberties, and they were right

During one session with a dozen religious leaders on Wednesday, Biden made a specific request to those gathered to preach to their congregations about the importance of enacting stronger gun control laws, said the Rev. Michael McBride, a participant in the meeting and a community organizer for the PICO Network, an alliance of faith-based organizations. 

Imagine, imagine the outrage from the left if the Bush White House met with religious leaders to ban gay marriage or end the horror of the abortion. But seeing how this is anti-firearms freedom legislation, it’s for the children, and therefore ok. 

Number of comments: 0 Add comment
January 11th, 2013 by exurbankevin

Hope for the bull

If Obama’s gun-grabbing legions are ramping up the P.R. efforts, it’s a sign that their ideas are weak and need to be sold to the American public. 

The White House is working with its allies on a well-financed campaign in Washington and around the country to shift public opinion toward stricter gun laws and provide political cover to lawmakers who end up voting for an assault-weapons ban or other restrictions on firearms.

With President Obama preparing to push a legislative agenda aimed at curbing the nation’s gun violence, pillars of his political network, along with independent groups, are raising millions of dollars and mapping out strategies in an attempt to shepherd new regulations through Congress. 

I find it hilarious that the anti-gunners are certain the NRA and the Tea Party are top-down organizations, where mindless followers take directions from “the gun lobby” or the Koch brothers or what have you… 

… and then throw their weight behind Mayors Against Illegal Guns, started by and funded by and controlled by billionaire Michael Bloomberg. 

Number of comments: 1 Add comment
January 10th, 2013 by exurbankevin

Weakening the bull

In my younger years, I was privileged to watch a bullfight in Quito, Ecuador. We can debate the cruelty of the sport at another date, but suffice to say a bullfight isn’t just about killing a bull: There are layers and layers of symbolism and meaning to each of the tercios, culminating with the matador‘s escotada that finishes off the bull. 

The power  and strength of the bull is respected and honoured, but in the end, the bull never stands a chance. In a one-on-one battle, the toro would make quick work of the matador

But the bull is never given that chance. He is grievously wounded by the picadores and the banderilleros long before the matador steps into the ring: By the time the cape comes out, the bull’s destiny is sealed. It is not a question of if, it is only a question of how, and how soon. 

Which brings me to the current attack on the Second Amendment. Gun owners have been watching the spectacle of Piers Morgan’s antics and Senator Diane Feinstein’s gun-grabbing legislation as if that was the fight ahead of us. 

It is not.

It is the spectacle.

It is a series of small cuts designed to weaken us, to get us ready for the sword that lies underneath the cape. The on-camera grandstanding of David Gregory and Hollywood’s pious hypocrisy are twirls of the cape meant to make us unprepared for the killing thrust. 

The sword is now out, and the matador is preparing to finish us off

But the funny thing is, sometimes, if the bull is strong enough and the matador botches his stroke, a bull can survive the bullfight, and in fact turn the tables on his supposed killer. 

Are we gun owners strong enough, smart enough and quick enough to survive the bullring?

For our country’s sake, let us hope that we are. 

Number of comments: 0 Add comment
January 9th, 2013 by exurbankevin