Links Kicking Broadswords: February 2005

Kicking Broadswords

Rants from two Pro-gun, pro-Constitution, anti-liberal, anti-government spouses who also discuss Lutheran doctrine and probably a lot about survival and guns from the other spouse- my husband. If you hate commies, the blue states, and love the Constitution, read this blog.

Monday, February 28, 2005

High School Years

Reading smallestminority has got me thinking about my own high school years. In high school, I wanted to join the Peace Corps, conquer capitalism and replace it with a utopian communist society. I read the Communist Manifesto when I was 15 and believed in it with my whole heart. In economics class we had to write a paper about whether we would used progressive or flat taxes. I wrote two papers, one which followed the teacher's assignment and the other which denounced both as evil. People should pool their money and hence dissolve all private property and, eventually, money itself. On my way to visit Evergreen State College I read Ecotopia, a book my parents had read in the 1970's. You can guess it's basic theme.

The obvious question is: what changed me? The answer is very simple- I became a Christian, in particular a Lutheran. That taught me to believe in original sin. Man could never have a utopian society because man was not perfect. Marx is correct- religion is the opiate of the masses. I replaced my view in a perfect earth with a longing for a perfect heaven after I die, not before. I was also given a set of absolute morals and even though I disagreed with many, I had faith God knew what He was talking about. Suddenly, high taxes weren't a glorious thing but rather theft, which is forbidden. They take from one and give it to another who doesn't deserve him. In that instant, Robin Hood became nothing but a wretched thief.

If the world had no sin, I would immediately become a liberal again. If man could truly rise above his nature and make a perfect society, why fear government? Why not ban guns and raise taxes- eventually a perfect society would exist where all could live in harmony. Unfortunately, this is not the way of the world. The true world is much messier and ugly, filled with Pol Pots and petty tyrants.

Friday, February 25, 2005

Shocked! Shocked I tell you!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Mideast_Conflict

Well, that didn't take long, did it?

My theory is this - that neo-Judaism is based on the fact that Israelis are a 'chosen people', and everyone else is merely 'goy' or 'cattle'. You can lie to them, cheat them, steal from them, it doesn't matter, since they're not really people. They're just 'cattle'.

Islam states that a Muslim is better than a non-muslim, and that a muslim can lie to, cheat, steal etc, a 'dhimi', or, non-muslim. Non-muslims, you see, aren't really people, they're just dirt underfoot.

You can see how two groups of people with this kind of attitude, religiously inscribed, will not treat each other fairly or negotiate in good faith.

Add to that, I think, the recognizably monstrous failure that islamic fascism results in (such as in the PA, and in former Iraq) juxtaposed against the tremendous success that democratic capitilism results in, and someone's going to get a wee bit jealous.

Finally, the sheer hatred of sinful mankind toward a loving God, and the awful pain that results from the knowledge of God's wrath (the law, and believe me, Islam knows the law) without knowing His Redemption in Christ. All that muslims know is that God hates them, and that must drive them to utter desperation.

Ann Coulter is right. Democracy will not stabilize the Arab world. Only the Gospel can release them from their anger.

Thursday, February 24, 2005

GO HERE

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/23/opinion/23kristof.html?ex=1266901200&en=d9bc5fbe39eed505&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

And tell me there is no such thing as Original Sin.

Monday, February 21, 2005

Annals of Rome (and America)

I recommend Annal of Rome by Tacitus to anyone seeking to understand modern America. The Roman Republic collapsed in large part because of three circumstances: they neglected morality; had a good balance of powers spread between three groups, the Senate, the Consuls, and the polity (people); and most of all desired liberty over security.
Where Rome had once valued morality and the absence of corruption, politicians could later be bought. Bribery had once been a capital crime in Rome. Boys had once been taught from early the importance of bravery and sacrifice and had heros to look up to. Those heros died out along with the morals of the people. Polybius had written in the golden age of Rome that their religion and therefore morals were their greatest strength.
To quote an old, disallusioned man writing in 109 A.D., "They preferred the safety of the present to the dangerous past". Augustus gave the people what they wanted- cheap food and fun entertainment. As long as they had a hot meal and exciting, bloody sports, there was no risk of uprising. He gave the nobles wealth and the people food in exchange for obedience. I wrote in a previous post that this is the method the devil uses- he promises safety, power, or wealth if a person will obey him. Looking back at history, this seems to be the goal of so many people. We want safety but at what price? How far can a people go until they've become slaves?
With the Senate and Consuls being given wealth in exchange for going along with the emperor and the people kept out of the way and apathetic, the balance of power was eliminated.

Today in America, morals are considered personal choices and are not mandatory. No moral is better than another. Boys are drugged up and prevented from being boys and masculinity is either distorted into hypermasculinity by gang cultures or looked down on by teachers, often parents, many churches, and so forth. I worry about America and its fascination with Social Security and sports- with bread and circuses. Why is the government so interested in regulating sports? Why do more people watch the Superbowl than vote? The people have lost all power, as have the states, thus giving the Federal government far too much power, particularly in the judicial and executive branches.

We share so many characteristics with the declining Romans. History repeats itself time and time again for there is "nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9). May we once again learn to relish freedom.

Sunday, February 20, 2005

A New Companion

Full Disclosure: I did not actually get my old Hi Power back, as I had drill that weekend and was not able to pick it up. A customer came in to that store on Saturday, the salesman called my wife and she said to sell it.

After all, we are looking it the thing as an exercise in Christian discipline; to not be so attached to objects. Still, I missed the poor unshootable thing terribly.

So, after much searching..

Everyone needs a carry pistol..

Welcome the new member of the household..

(OK, since Blogger won't allow me to upload a picture, go to www.czusa.com/01.detail.php?id=33). I hate blogger sometimes... as soon as I can set up my own page, I will.

A CZ 75 B SA in .40 S&W, which fits my hand like a glove, has a good caliber and a wonderful trigger ( I can see why Jeff Cooper has such good things to say about CZ pistols). It is lighter than a 1911, holds a bit more ammo, is easier to strip.

And it fits my hand so beautifully.
Perhaps I have a new companion. :)

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Clarification

Let me clarify my post on questioning boldly the statements/opinions of others..

Since it is right to question things of drastic, even cosmic import, such as the existence and nature of God (and it is right to do so), why then does our society state it is wrong to question the existence and nature of non-cosmic things? I do not mean to limit the question to any event, or to belittle history. The answers to one affect the universe, and all time. The answers to one don’t involve any eternal soul.

The question I have is not, as I had hoped to express, ‘did the holocaust (revolution, renaissance, reformation, name the event in history) happen the way some say it did, the question is, ‘why can one not question if the holocaust (etc, etc)?

One thing I fear is unquestioning acceptance of others ideas or views, and that society places such a boundary on them. TheKlutz rightly identifies this as nearly a ‘slippery slope’ - if we are not allowed to question one side’s version of events, are we even allowed freedom of thought at all? Surely it has been infringed, and if there is one such infringement, others will follow.

Stop Me If You’ve Heard This One Before...

There’s a conservative fellow sitting in a coffee joint, reading a copy of Michelle Malkin’s book, Defense of Internment.

Along comes Mr. Loony Left, asks what the fellow is reading and jolts in shock..

"That horrible, wretched woman! She wrote that book to put all muslims in gas chambers! Eeek!"

"Well, Mr. Left, that is kind of why I’m reading this book. I want to see what she has to say, and how she argues her case. By the way, are you sure, really sure, that she wrote that she wants to gas all the muslims?"

"I know this because Professor Jones, a noted authority on the Middle East, insists that is what she truly means. Even if she did not write as much, such a desire is secretly hid in her breast".
"Mr. Left, how do you know what she wrote, as you did not read her book? And, if you did read it, and you think she is using all kinds of code words and such to convey her wishes, how do you know what is going on her hidden self? For we may only take documents at face value, and we cannot read the minds of others".

At this point, the conversation mercifully ceases, establishing only two things. A., that Mr. Left is a hateful, bigoted automaton, B, that Professor Jones is similar.

(OK, that may not be a verbatim transcription, but you get my gist - and he did say the part about muslims and gas chambers..and he described Mrs. Malkin in uncomplimentary terms...)

Monday, February 14, 2005

“Question Boldly Even the Very Existence of God”.

Permit me, please, to digress a bit..
First, I want to thank RNS and others who broadcast our story about our local Republican class president (or something, whatever he is..). And I want to thank RNS very much for all their work over on the upper Left Coast, exposing loony lefties, and helping us citizens do things by ourselves, and for ourselves.

Second, I want to explain something..

“//When my husband would make me question the Holocaust's killing of 6 million//”

“From another post at that particular blog. I'm hoping it's not implying what it appears to be, but it does give me the creeps.”

Posted by: Dan at January 14, 2005 12:53 PM

A month ago, a reader made this comment in another forum, which made me think, and caused this thought to run through my head:

Good”.

I don’t want to sound like a mean guy. I don’t want to scare anyone. However, in some way, I do like ‘giving the creeps’ to someone else. And not in some scary way, like jumping out from some bushes and yelling ‘Boo!’.

Well, have you ever been walking down the street, maybe a trail, and something ‘gives you the creeps’? It has to me. I’ve gotten ‘the creeps’, or, that ‘creepy feeling’. It makes my hair stand up. It makes me stop whatever I was doing, and pay attention – look, feel…It makes me ask myself, ‘what is going on’? It makes me aware. This ‘creepy’ feeling makes me pay attention to things in a way that I hitherto had not. Sometimes I pause, look around, listen, think…

Does it do the same for you? When you get a ‘creepy feeling’, do you stop, and pay attention, focus on trying to find what gave you that feeling? I know it does to me, and to my wife, and to a couple of people I’ve met in my life. In fact, I’m sure that you’ve experienced ‘the creeps’, and that they made you stop, and look, and listen, even in a frightened or exhilarated way, and smell, and think.

Which comes around to the title, a famous quote from Thomas Jefferson. When I say that it is good that I gave the creeps to Dan, I don’t mean I revel in my scaring of him. What I want is to make him think, to have that feeling you get when your hair stands up on end and makes you look around and attempt to ascertain, or, ask questions, what is going on?

Question Boldly!

The best compliment I ever get is ‘you made me think’. Whenever I show my essays to people, or speak up in class, inside, I hope for that compliment – ‘you made me think’. I hope that Dan is able to read this, and I hope, I truly hope, pray, that Dan acts on that creepy feeling to ask questions. To stop, pause, focus – what is giving me that feeling? Why that feeling? What is that feeling?

And I want to end this note with a question to many – if it is acceptable to question, boldly, even the very existence of God (and it is), why is it not acceptable to ask, ever so politely or demurely, about the extent and nature of the Holocaust?

American Slavery in 2005

Someone once wrote that 90% of people have the mentality of a slave. I agree entirely but with one addition- we want the semblance of freedom. We want to light our fireworks on the 4th of July and wave our flags crying out "Freedom" but deep down, we fear and despise it. If Americans wanted true freedom, our politicians would honor their oaths to the Constitution. Social Security, income tax, Medicare, Medicaid, modern public education, gun control- all would be gone. What a slave mentality desires is a false sense of security.

Populism is not given due credit. Most assume it's dead but it's the system of choice for Republicans, Independents who vote for either party, and moderate Democrats. Populism preaches conservative social values but liberal economic ones. They'll vote against gay marriage and shout to save unborn babies (thankfully) but don't understand that giving such power to the government will open the door to even more death and tyrany. By focusing on the symptoms of a large government instead of the cause, the government stays powerful and stays safe.

In my talk with the president of College Republicans, I mentioned how gun control is the issue I'm most passionate about. He responded with confusion, wondering how such a trivial thing could be compared to issues like abortion. People don't understand that to be pro-life means far more than caring only about the unborn but also means providing an environment where life is valued and the people have the means to resist a dangerous gang/terrorist/government.

I mentioned that people want the semblance of freedom. Abortion protestors want to be able to protest abortion (which they should and if Christian MUST). We want the freedom to go to the grocery store and buy the food we want or complain about our taxes. This is not freedom but the status quo. So many freedoms have disappeared and not only do people not realize this but they prefer it. They prefer to have Big Brother care for them, feeding them lies from preschool on up about the wonders of modern society and the kind government which cares for them.
Imagine if Patrick Henry saw the FCC, the BATFE, the Patriot Act, taxation levels, gun control, public education, etc. He would be doing far more than merely smelling a rat.

Something about humanity makes us fear and abhor true freedom. That something is Sin. God offers the only true freedom a person can have- freedom from sin. Freedom from death itself but people reject Him over and over. We prefer to believe the Father of Lies, the Great Deceiver who promises us the world but delivers us to Hell instead. The promise of the Devil and of Big Bother varies greatly in degree but not in substance. They both promise safety in exchange for only one tiny thing, one bend in the knee- one act of obedience.

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Terrifying Class Discussion

My American Presidency class had just gotten out and a couple of us stood around discussing politics. The teacher (Democrat) asked if there was anything we agreed with about the Democratic Party and the president of the College Republicans brought up public education. I did my John Dewey socialist rant and when that didn't seem to work I brought up the Constitution. I asked him where in the Constitution the feds have the power to control education. He acknowledged that it didn't but remarked:

"I don't really believe in the Constitution"

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Go John Gibson !

Via the Geek with a .45, I see someone big sees a part of our conservative viewpoint.. :)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146461,00.html

Monday, February 07, 2005

Social Security

Even Democrats unknowingly acknowledge the horrendous mess called Social Security is in. I was reading (against my better judgement) the Milkwaukee Journal Sentinel, long acknowledged to be among the most liberal in the nation. They said Bush had no definite plan on how to prevent the elderly of today from losing benefits if privitization works out. There's the problem- We are supposed to pay OUR OWN Social Security. Joe pays in $100 a month for all of his working career and then gets the money (plus interest) back when he retires. Joe is not supposed to get Mary's money that she paid in. Liberals admit that it doesn't work that way. The unfortunate thing is that they don't want it to work the way it was supposed to. They'd rather billionaire Bob pay tons into Social Security that he'll never get so lazy poor people can remain irresponsible.

Liberals don't really want poverty to end or they would have eliminated the welfare state long ago. Instead, they want people to remain dependent on the system. My husband and I aren't rich and could, if we were grossly irresponsible, easily become truly poor but we DON'T. We save money, invest monthly in retirement accounts and so forth. Every American could, through hard work, "make it". Instead, they go to public school and hear that they can't. They hear that they should depend on government, that Big Brother will help them. Of course, Big Brother wants something in return....
(you)

Saturday, February 05, 2005

Ah, our schools...

Found at the wonderful Mrs. Malkins...
http://www.kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=2889805&nav=1PubVshc

I'll see you all later, and tell you about the new toys in our unit. :)

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Rendering unto Caesar

Unfortunately I have class so this will be short (so fortunately for anyone reading this).

My poli sci prof was talking about how good taxes are and how it's godly to pay them due to the old "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's...." I'm certainly not going to dispute God's Word but I am in disagreement with the professor. I have no problem giving Caesar what is due but what if 1) Caesar breaks an oath (the Constitution)
2) What if he wants far more than is necessary and most of the money will be used unConstitutionally and immorally.

I was researching the tax rates of the Roman Empire during the time of Christ. The exhorbitant taxes rates of the day were far less than 10%- one percent head tax and a wealth tax for the community. Augustus, because of the complaints of the people, replaced the farming tax with a head tax. The farming tax had been a progressive taxation based on income and the people disliked it. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html

People complained about taxes and Jesus told them to pay up. I believe the current system is no longer taxation but pure and simple robbery and coveting. The government covets your money because they covet control and power. High taxes are not Biblical and rather break two Commandments. The Small Catechism, which Lutherans accept as correct, tells people they MUST help their neighbors defend and protect their property. Theft, whether by the government or a stranger, is still theft.

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Anecdotes and Data

Anecdotes are not data. This is true. No one disputes this.

But, follow this…

Let us suppose that Private Joe has just been issued his shiny new M16A2, and Private Joe takes it to the range. It won’t work. It doesn’t feed. It doesn’t extract or eject or anything. He tries different lubricants. He tries different lots of ammo. He tries different magazines. The bloody thing just won’t work.

So Joe remembers this story, this solitary anecdote, and files it away in his memory. He even tells his friends.

Now let us suppose that Private Bob takes his M16 out to the woods. He cleans it, of course, immaculately, beforehand. It doesn’t work. It won’t work. He cusses, he lubes, he frets, he recleans. It is adamant in not loading, the bolt is stubborn in not moving. He remembers this experience of his.

I think by themselves, these stories, these experiences of Joe and Bob may mean nothing.

But they may mean something.

Many people ‘know’ that the M16 is unreliable at worst, finicky at best, precisely because of their experiences. The anecdotes of Bob, and Joe, and I, and many others accumulate into data. The one anecdote is merely one story.

But hundreds or thousands of anecdotes coalesce into data, they are collected as many different lights prism’d to one beam. Different refractions gathered into a bright truth that cannot be ignored. Alone, they may be worth nothing, together they tell us of how things are.

You see, one story of one M16 means that one man had one bad experience with one gun. Thousands upon thousands of stories of M16s means that it was not one man with one bad gun, it accumulates, it adds up to the belief, correct belief, based on experiential data, that the M16 has given many soldiers nightmares by it’s bad behaviour.

So when we say that ‘anecdotes are not data’, we are only mostly correct. We ignore the fact that they are references which can guide us to truth. When someone tells us that M16s are wonderfully reliable, we try this statement against our experiences, our memories, our anecdotes, to test its veracity. Anecdotes are data, for they are personal bits of data from personal experience.

We add them up to find fact.

free market=free politics?

In my western civilization class we discussed whether or not a free market leads to a free political system and the professor declared that the two do not go hand in hand. I whole-heartedly disagree. He used China as an example. They have a free market but an unfree political system, according to him. The problem with that statement is that it ignores the "grey" shades.

When Mao attempted to completely take over agriculture, millions were killed and he was at the peak of his power. When some high-up people started to add elements of a free market, the famine went away and there was slightly more freedom until the Cultural Revolution, where the same cycle began anew. China is not free but it's not as bad as it was and that is in part because of the free market. When capitalism is followed, individual workers are more than easily-replacable slaves to the state. The average person becomes the means of economic survival. China HAS to let people run their own businesses because without them, China would collapse. That is a far cry from the days of Mao. China is no heaven but if I had to live under Mao or in the current regime, I would choose the modern times.

Free market systems create freedom because people are more than government property to be cared for by the state. When the state controls the economy, the state is supreme. When the PEOPLE control the economy, than the government must try and stay out of the economy for it to function. The government stays out and that creates freedom. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and every other dictator the world has ever seen wants to control the people. A state-controlled economy will necessarily attempt to control the masses. To use a phrase my teacher says frequently- "It can be no other way".

North Korea- state-controlled economy and unfree
South Korea- free market and more free
Japan- free market and more free
Europe- mostly state-controlled and getting less free by the day
USA- mixed free market and state controlled (getting more controlled by the day) and more free than Europe (for how long.....)
Etc, Etc, Etc......