I'll just leave this here....

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. - Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story


National Review

HuffPo says retro ads like these are supposed to make you 'wince'

If they mean 'wince' as in remembering when society valued respect and accountability, but no longer does, I agree.

But they don't mean that, they mean 'guns are evil' and nobody should grow up inculcated in the fundamental right of self defense and individual sovereignty.

Sheepdogs

 

I constantly find  people who put my thoughts to words better than I can; Laura Walker has done so on this occasion.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.”

Until the wolf shows up

This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door. Look at what happened after September 11, 2001, when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, “Thank God I wasn’t on one of those planes.” The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, “Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.” When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

While there is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, he does have one real advantage. Only one. He is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

Read the rest at SOFREP

Honor the Sheepdog....even if you know them not

 The Sheepdogs by Russ Vaughn

The Sheepdog of Clackamas Town Center

Nick Meli is emotionally drained.  The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her baby when a masked man opened fire.

"I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?,'" he said.

The friend and baby hit the floor.  Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.

"He was working on his rifle," said Meli.  "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.

Meli took cover inside a nearby store.  He never pulled the trigger.  He stands by that decision.

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli.  "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and taking the innocence of everyone else.

Words true to this very day

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~Thomas Jefferson

Even more disgusting.....

.......than the media's vile exploitation of the school shooting

Paraphrasing: "God is not going to go where he is not wanted and so if school administrators really want to protect students, they will start every school day with prayer"

I'm not going to post the video of the sick fuck...but it can be found here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is2x7QTZ8AI&feature=youtu.be

Maybe the Mayans were right....

If Glenn Beck starts making sense, can the end of humanity be far behind?

On Wednesday night’s Real News on The Blaze TV, S.E. Cupp and Glenn Beck engaged in a strategy session focusing on ways to move the Republican party forward in the wake of 2012’s losses. Their conversation centered around the GOP’s historic opposition to gay marriage – both agreed that the party of Lincoln must find a politically amenable solution to move party towards accepting, if not embracing, same-sex marriage rights. In the process, however, Beck became somewhat vexed over the real and persistent problem that religious objections to gay marriage pose to formulating a policy that accepts the practice. Beck noted though that the answer to this problem lies in the Constitution – and he is correct.

“What do we do – and by ‘we,’ I mean conservatives, because I feel strongly that the answers are not going to come from Republicans and the party, but conservatives – what do conservatives do going forward to take back this message,” Cupp asked.

Beck detailed on his chalkboard a spectrum of political freedoms and detailed where voters stand relative to Republicans and Democrats in Washington. He found that most voters’ beliefs no longer sync with those of their elected representatives.

Beck then turned to the issue of gay marriage. “All we want to do is get along,” Beck said. “Where we unite is here; maximum freedom. The Constitution.”

“The question is not about gay marriage – should they compromise and move farther left,” Beck continued. “The question should be: why is the federal government involved in marriage at all?”

Beck closed by noting that he recently had a conversation with libertarian entertainer and outspoken atheist Penn Jillette. He was encouraged by their agreement on the essential governing principles which would bridge the religious divide between them on the issue of same-sex marriage rights.

Mediaite

The Bovine Excrement of the 'war on Christmas'

The contrived "war on Christmas" is the bread and butter of Fox News and other assorted bobble-heads this time of year. They give the Comedy Channel a run for their money in expressing their faux outrage.

Christmas.....the most accommodated holiday in America.

The general gist of the 'coverage' revolves around commercial entities using their free market latitude to have their employees wish customers a Happy Holidays, rather than a Merry Christmas. The premise is to be inclusive of valued customers of many religious faiths who share a holiday during this time of year, and those of no particular faith. This of course seems a tad ironic given that these same commercial entities have diluted the religious aspect of the Christian holiday [based on Pagan foundations] being so utterly diluted by crass commercialism so as to be a cartoon caricature of its original meaning...which doesn't get the same contrived push-back by these defenders of 'traditional America'. This controversy is recycled and trotted out every year around this time...all the while the proponents take advertising dollars from those who would otherwise end up on someones 'naughty list'.

The kicker, is that both 'Christian friendly' retail outlets and those bobble-heads making their living on these kinds of controversies, are guilty themselves of often wishing their audiences and shoppers the very same Happy Holidays.

The other controversy involves the placement of religious symbolism in or on government property. This argument brings forth the meaning of Constitutional clauses and original intent, but sadly lacks reason and logic in much of the discussion. I might ask specifically, what tangible benefit exists for such displays. I get the argument of 'what's the big deal'.....and they don't personally offend or bother me.....but to argue for such action, one needs a logical position. Given that adherents to the Christian faith have no shortage of  time and place to display and admire religious symbology in the private sphere, I've seen much emotion from that position, but not as much reason. Does faith for some require constant public validation, to be fulfilling?

I rather like Steve McKinion's take on this:

Christianity’s most potent enemy is not a secular culture, but a religious one. Authentic Christianity and secularism have little, if anything, in common. Observers can easily distinguish between the two. Religion, on the other hand, can masquerade as true faith. Meaningless offerings of “Merry Christmas” by unbelievers and mindless attacks on non-Christians are just two examples of a cultural Christianity gone mad. Christians should be offended by the unbelievers who claim the name of Christ — like Fred Phelps and the other morons at Westboro Baptist Church — rather than the unbelievers who don’t. The latter group is just honest, the former take the name of my Lord in vain and are an embarrassment to those who genuinely know Christ.

The Christmas season is, and should be, a wonderful time of celebrating family, friends, gift-giving, and helping out the less-fortunate. But Christians understand that those practices are cultural, not necessarily Christian. If we really want to make sure that we keep Christ in Christmas, we’ll do so when we practice and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God conceived of a Virgin, crucified for our sins, and resurrected to give life to all who believe. Enjoy the season. Enjoy the Gospel. Just don’t confuse the two.

Two other points of view:



"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." - Thomas Jefferson

Memories of old friends........

Toys that is.

For some odd reason, I came across a mention of the Six Million Dollar Man action figure, and it reminded me of the set I had when I was around 6 or 7.

I did a little research, and thankfully, it's not worth thousands....making me wish I had made the impossible decision at that age to keep it boxed in mint condition...unlike my Star Wars action figures and comic books.

The No-Longer-Walking-Dead Body Count

For fans of the show [or comic]....

 

Freedom for Me or Freedom for Thee?

One of my regular reads,  Total Survivalist Libertarian Rantfest, posts a few thoughts that seem to dovetail quite nicely with what I wrote the other day. Concepts of freedom that are constrained to merely what you may want for yourself....that is tyranny.

It has become clear to me recently that some people only want their own freedom. More accurately they want to be able to say yes, no or maybe to various potential freedoms based on their own belief system. This is what really confuses me.

Anybody who gets in the way of THEIR freedom is a jack boot Stazi thug that should be killed; however they have the right to tell everybody else what the hell they can and cannot do. It isn't that they only pursue their own freedoms (in terms of practicing or advocating for them) that is the issue. I do not donate money or time to help causes I don't care about or expect other people to. (Though this year when I voted there was one simple question for everything. Will this person/ bill make people more or less free? I voted for freedom including several bills I do not personally agree with. Think about it.) It is that they have such a sense of moral superiority that they think it is their right to not only do what they want, but prevent others from doing the same. The concept that other people have some rights also is simply not in their worldview. It is pretty clear that these folks do not want to live in a free society, they just want to be the one wearing the jack boot.

This brings us to an interesting point. It isn't that you cannot choose to associate, or not associate, with who you want. It isn't that you cannot advocate for or against what you want by promoting education and whatnot. However when people talk about using force of law (or other types) to make people act the way they think is correct in areas that are reasonably within the realm of freedom it becomes an issue.

It is my personal opinion that to expect other people to accept my freedom I have to accept theirs. That is the trade off.

Do you think that everyone should get out of your business but you have the right to tell them what to do? If so what makes your views inherently superior to other peoples? What are your thoughts on this topic?