Tuesday, January 17, 2012

The Militia Act of 1792

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."



Does anyone truly doubt that Amendment II to the U.S. Constitution establishes an individual right? Men were required to provide themselves with suitable arms under the Militia Act. The arms were not issued to the individuals, but purchased or otherwise acquired by each person. Common weapons that can be carried by a man in his hands, not artillery pieces.

You're so stupid. That was over 200 years ago.

The founders did not want a standing army. The militia - armed, free citizens defending their own property - were the first line of defense. When the muster was over, the militia would disband into individual citizens who returned - with their own arms - to their homes. Individual homes (and persons) were defended by the same weapons used to defend the Nation against invasion.

That's such an antiquated notion. Nobody is going to invade us today, and we have police and military people to defend us!

What about our border with Mexico? We are under perpetual invasion through our southern border. 911 takes time. The military takes even longer. And police have NO DUTY to protect you, only to respond to a crime in progress. A "crime in progress" could be you at the bad end of a stickup, or worse, a shooting like the recent events in Arizona.

Friday, May 13, 2011

If You Build It, They Will Come: "The Crossings" Homeless Shelter in Charlottesville, VA

The City of Charlottesville, and its ding-dong Mayor Dave Norris, have never met a wasteful “infrastructure” spending project that they did not like. To wit: “The Crossings,” a high-rise homeless shelter, to be built on land that the city council re-zoned, purchased for $1.55 million, and then transferred ownership of, to a shell corporation of a “non-profit” homeless advocacy group. “Virginia Supportive Housing,” the parent of the shell corporation, calls the $1.55 million a “loan” from the city.

According to The Hook, the poor poor pitiful poor homeless people who will infest the shelter will pay 30% of their income, or $50, per month, whichever is greater. The city and the non-profit plan to have half of the 60 units reserved for the homeless, with the remainder to be rented out to suckers willing to shell out $500 each to live in a 360 square foot studio in a soon-to-be tenement.

What will happen to the $1.55 million that the city “loaned” to the non-profit group? Since they don’t make profits, how will the money be generated to repay the loan? What if no one besides the homeless wants to live in a homeless shelter, and no units are rented at full price? Will the city bring in even more homeless people to occupy the building? What will the maintenance of the building cost? If public housing and “section 8” housing are any indication of future results, the shelter will be a big loser, with the taxpayers left holding the bag for the foolishness of government. What else is new?

“It’s about doing things smarter,” says Mayor Dave Norris, who may be borderline retarded.

The impetus of this boondoggle reportedly comes from a 2006 New Yorker article in which a dummy journalist “relates the tale of a lovable-yet-hopeless Reno, Nevada, drunk named Murray Barr. Over a decade, Barr ran up a million-dollar tab in public services including frequent emergency room visits and repeated arrests and incarcerations for public intoxication."  Sounds like a guy I would want living across the hall from my apartment.

"It would probably have been cheaper," the author concludes, "to give him a full-time nurse and his own apartment."

The article in the Hook continues by making the preposterous claim that the shelter will be a net savings for the city and the local indigent hospital, UVA HealthSystem:
Norris says that UVA hospital spends about $11,000 per year on each of the 20 most habitual emergency room users. And Charlottesville planning director Jim Tolbert says there's one Charlottesville man who has been arrested over 700 times.

Yes, what a fantastic idea! Everyone should get free housing, free healthcare, free food, free everything! We would all be so much better off!

Of course, this is a stupid idea. It reminds me of the courtroom scene in The Fountainhead, when Howard Roark is put on trial for blowing up a building he designed, which was to become a low-rent housing project
"The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest of men.

The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime motive.

…To a creator, all relations with men are secondary.

The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism.

Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self.

…Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.



…As poles of good and evil, [man] was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism – the sacrifice of self to others. This tied men irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal – under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind.



Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn’t done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence.



Rulers of men are not egotists. They create nothing. They exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit. The form of dependence does not matter.



Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation, or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man’s right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else’s. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Barack Hussein Obama: Pussy or President?

Over at American Thinker, Robert Morrison has written a good piece contrasting President Obama against Winston Churchill, and their respective personal reactions to war and the use of force.  President Obama comes off as a small man concerned with keeping his own hide intact, while the great Sir Winston demonstrated confidence and manly firmness.
...[C]ontrast Churchill's reaction to coming to power in those sternest of days with the president's reaction to his own finest hour. At a time when the whole world should applaud his order for the killing of Osama bin Laden, President Obama spoils the effect of this splendid victory in the war on terror by going on Sixty Minutes and emoting about how nervous he was. "It was the longest 40 minutes of my life," he confessed.
Mr. President, with all due respect, pipe down! Don't spill your guts on national TV. In leading us against the terrorists, it's your job to spill their guts. And, by the way, you should show the photograph of bin Laden...If the reason you sent in the SEALs was to prove to the world we had Al Qaeda's number one killer, the photo confirming all that should have been released at the same time.
...

Rush Limbaugh took issue with the photo you did release. He said it made you look like a little boy in the Situation Room with the big boys. He has a point there.

And then there are the times when President Obama was called upon to throw out the first pitch at a couple of baseball games. Wearing his "mom pants," Obama threw one ball in the dirt, and at another game, he lobbed the ball past the catcher. To say that he throws like a girl gives a disservice to the fairer sex. Although he portrays himself as athletic, the evidence does not bear this out.

President Obama had a golden opportunity to present himself as a strong leader of a strong nation. Instead, he demonstrates his pussy nature. Little more can be expected from someone with a defective personality and severe narcissistic tendencies.

Please understand.  I do not hate President Obama.  Life is too short to be consumed by hate for another human being.  I hate what he has done, and continues to do, to our great nation.  He should never have been elected dog catcher, let alone President.of the United States.  He does not have the temperament necessary for the job, nor does he have the skills of leadership to make himself effective.  Being a community rabble rouser does not qualify one for the highest executive office in the world.  Hell, I have more executive experience than the President did before his inauguration.  He shows little promise of "growing into the job," save to cement his own, and his party's, power in the fashion of Marxism.

Oopsie!  There's that word again.  I should stop using that word.  Maybe I could say "socialist," or "commie," or "red."  How about calling Obama an "Alinskyite?"  It does not matter.  They are all cut from the same cloth.  What is important is to remember the parable of the scorpion and the frog:
One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.
The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hello Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride across the river on your back?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you won't try to kill me?" asked the frog.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"All right, then.  How do I know you won't just wait till we get to the other side and kill me there?" said the frog.

"Ah," said the scorpion, "Because, you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from his own back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and danced a little jig on the sinking frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

Then they both drowned in the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

The frog is the producers of this country, who bear the load of others as well as their own. The scorpion is the Statist, the welfare recipient, the looters and moochers who ride on the backs of others, controlling them and eventually killing them because destruction is their nature.

President Obama is a scorpion.

Friday, May 06, 2011

South Carolina Debate and Self-Preservation

Many have said that Herman Cain won last night's debate in South Carolina.  Many critics of any candidate other than Ron Paul have attempted to diminish Herman Cain by calling him "pro Federal Reserve," and insist that Ron Paul's idea to audit the Federal Reserve will be some kind of panacea to our economic malaise.  This is a silly argument, and does not demonstrate much consideration of the facts which led to out poor economic state.

As Mr. Cain has stated, we have bigger problems than the Federal Reserve.  What is to be accomplished by an audit?  Is not spending money, the exclusive authority of the House of Representatives, the real problem?  I am no fan of the Federal Reserve, but if we spend every red cent coming into our government, and then borrow and spend more money, how is the Federal Reserve to blame?

I like Ron Paul's adherence to our Constitution.  But his foreign policy based on his interpretation of our Constitution and the writings of our founders is bizarre.  To say, in effect, that the islamo-fascist terror attacks against us were somehow our fault for being Americans is akin to blaming a woman for her own rape because she dresses provocatively.  Mr. Paul's policy of non-intervention is isolationism, period.  If any use of our military force outside of our borders is unconstitutional, then what is the purpose of our military?  Is not one of the stated purposes of the Constitution "to provide for the common defence"?  In an address to congress, President George Washington said, "Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard.  To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."  In a later address, Washington went further:  "There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness.  If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."  Self-preservation, not unlimited war, was the goal of the founders.  This is reflected in Washington's remarks, and the writings and statements of many of his contemporaries.

Ron Paul, and his champions "Mike" and "the Southern Avenger," like to deride and insult conservatives or libertarians who believe in a strong foreign policy by calling them "neoconservatives."  This is a thinly veiled anti-Semitic remark, and it is disgusting.  Because our only ally in the middle east is Israel, they see any intervention by our military in the region as a prop in support of Israel.  But they forget that there are people, and nations, in the world who wish us ill and make efforts to carry those wishes out.  I would recommend the book The Threatening Storm, by Kenneth Pollack, to any reader who thinks that Ron Paul's opposition to the Iraq war "from before the beginning" was an honorable position.

Speaking of honorable, is calling yourself "the Southern Avenger" a good idea?  Really?  Just what are you avenging?  What kind of neo-Confederate neo-secessionist loon would use that title?  Do you have a big stack of Confederate money that your great-great-granddaddy saved, and you hope to cash in?  Or do you think you are better and smarter than the rest of us dumb Yankees?  Maybe you want to bring back to prominence the social club that Nathan Bedford Forrest started?  You are an outlier, sir, the fringe of the fringe.

Monday, May 02, 2011

UBL Dead, Mutual Masturbation Begins in Earnest.

Thanks and praise to our military, in particular our special operators.  They are the best at what they do.

Please do not misunderstand.  UBL's death is a blessing to the civilized world.  But as Harvey Keitel said in Reservoir Dogs, "Let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet."

UBL was a bad man, but he was only one man.  There are plenty of other islamo-fascist terrorist assholes ready to take his place in the islamo-fascist terrorist asshole power structure, not to mention the hordes willing to aid and abet the perpetration of further atrocities against the Great Satan and the rest of the Western world.

President Obama deserves some credit for giving the green light on the mission.  But the mission was only a continuation of the larger mission begun by his predecessor, which then-State Senator, and later Senator, and even later President Obama actively worked against.  One must ask oneself, if President Bush had authorized this action and had achieved the same result during his time in office, would the reaction by the media be the same?

Dear reader, you know the answer.  Bush would have been called the usual names, accused of the usual "cowboy" attitude, and at least a handful of congress critters would begin impeachment proceedings against him.  He would have been accused of assassination, undeclared warfare, and anything else his opponents could get to stick to the wall.  You know I am right.  This is not sour grapes.  This is logical, critical, rational analysis.

UBL is reaping the whirlwind, and I am pleased.  I hope he was wrapped in a pigskin before he was tossed overboard in his "burial at sea."  But there will be more to fill the void he has left behind.