Posts Tagged ‘Self Defense’

The Worst Election Ever

Monday, November 7th, 2016

crooked_hillary_ftI’ve been observing and participating in our nation’s electoral process for more than three decades. I’ve seen some awful candidates and despicable campaigns, but I can’t remember a single presidential election cycle in which I was so thoroughly disgusted with my choices(or lack thereof.)  I’ve remained quiet since the primary season because I see no point.  I had nothing to add, and nothing useful to say about the state of the primary, and given the two major parties’ nominees, nothing good to say about any of it.  The Republican nominating process was a disgusting, miserable mess.  It was dominated by open-primary states, and the GOP’s nominee was chosen not by conservatives, or even Republicans more generally, but instead by the media and by line-crossing Democrats in open primary states.  As bad as that is, the Democrat primary was even more ridiculous.  Bernie Sanders never had a prayer, as the whole party apparatus of the DNC was aligned against him, and the conclusion was determined not by voters but instead by the broken, corrupt “super-delegate” weighting of the outcome.  Bernie’s supporters would be right to feel betrayed, because it was quite literally rigged against him.  What it all means and has meant to me is that I have been a man without a candidate.  Gary Johnson, while the sole vaguely-qualified third-party candidate, proved to be a kook, Jill Stein is insane from a policy-based point of view, and Evan McMullin is just a Kristol-Romney sock-puppet.  As you can see, things are pretty slim, and conservatives don’t have much to look forward to in this election.  The question therefore arises:  What’s a conservative to do? How can a conservative maintain his or her principles and still vote in this election?  The answers seem quite negative.  The conclusions one must reach simply aren’t satisfactory.  Still, as conservatives, we have a responsibility to make a judgment about all of this.  Ignoring or evading that responsibility is the deepest betrayal of our principles we could undertake.  Let us consider the ugliest election ever, and know what our actions or inactions will really mean.

Let us begin from the self-evident premise that voting for McMullin, Stein, Johnson, or “None of the Above” is nothing more or less than a protest vote.  There’s no escaping that conclusion, and pretending to ourselves that any of these candidates have even the remotest chance of victory is simply absurd self-delusion.  It’s time to embrace the horror:  With or without us, whether we abstain entirely, or vote for one of these three protest candidates, in just about a day’s time, either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be our President-elect.  While horrifying, at least to a conservative, this is the fact from which there is no escape.

It is true to say that Donald Trump isn’t even approximately a conservative.  Worse, his lifetime of bad, boorish, and perhaps worse behavior means that it’s difficult to overlook what a complete buffoon this man has appeared to be over this campaign and election cycle, but also over the course of his life.  You can worry about a lot of things if Donald Trump wins, from his insane tariffs notions, to his likely retreat on illegal immigrants and amnesty.  He rightly says Obama-care must be repealed, but then goes on to describe replacing it with another government program. He seems to be acceptable on second amendment issues, but that’s assuming he’s gotten an education and has completely disavowed his previous stance on such things as the “assault weapons” ban. His foreign policy leaves much to be desired, and it seems at times that he doesn’t know all that much about the subject. On the other hand, he has expressed a generally pro-American view, as contrasted against the America-Last stance of the current administration.  He seems to exhibit some concern for veterans, although that’s been a somewhat more spotty record in the past.  His views on Supreme Court and other judicial appointments is less than comforting.  Most of all, he’s told a huge number of whoppers during this election cycle.

Then there is Hillary Clinton.  There is nothing whatever to recommend her.  She is wrong on virtually every issue where an actual conservative might be concerned, to the extent that she could and should be viewed with real enmity by anybody even approximately interested in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  In a word, Hillary Clinton’s policy preferences are un-American to the core.  She absolutely hates the country as founded, and like the current resident of the Oval Orifice, seeks to undo the United States as a nation governed by a free people.  She detests free speech, she would act to restrict further the free exercise of religion, imposing on private citizens those restrictions that apply legitimately only to government.  Hers is the ultimate cultural attack on what it is to be an American.  Her policy on immigration is an open border.  Her view on citizenship is expansive, inasmuch as she believes we ought to be overrun by foreigners of every conceivable description in order to solidify her party’s hold on government.

More than all of this, however, Hillary Clinton is an un-convicted criminal.  She is still under investigation by the FBI, particularly with respect to the Clinton Foundation, but more, her entire career in and around government has been littered with crooked dealings and corrupting applications of power and privilege.  She owes no allegiance to the American people, but is instead a sort of mob-boss, where she and her friends exercise control over the law itself.  There is no office beyond the reach of their corrupting influence, and as this campaign season has demonstrated, almost the whole of the news and entertainment media are in her corner at best, but at worse, in her pocket.

Don’t bother to tell me this and that about Donald Trump.  As far as I am aware, his actions, some of them detestable to me, have not resulted in the deaths of Americans, and have not included treason, effective espionage for enemies of the United States, and bizarre and wholly illegal instances of thorough corruption of government offices, in and out of office.  I know he’s likely to betray the people who would put him in office, as he already has on several issues, but what he is not is a person who hates America, or Americans, at least as far as I can determine.

As a conservative, I am forced to evaluate and pass judgment on such things as this presidential election, making my choices and taking responsibility for them, not evading them and hiding behind a veneer of claimed inviolate principles.  There is no moral superiority to be found in permitting Hillary Clinton to be elected President.  As a conservative, I believe in my right to life, and my right to defend it and all the facets of it.  What I notice is that if Hillary Clinton is permitted to become President, my rights, and indeed the rights of all Americans, to their lives, and their liberties, as well as the means to defend them shall be stripped from us.  In short, as a first principle, I believe in the right of self-defense, and I believe in the moral imperative of defending one’s rights along with one’s life.  Hillary Clinton will make it infinitely more difficult for Americans to defend themselves, and worse, she will increase the number of actual threats confronting us.

She will import millions of refugees from nations torn by war, and most of those refugees will not in any way add to our national growth or prosperity. In many cases, and in many ways, they will come here to sponge off of the rest of us.  They will come here to attack us.  There’s no good in this.  There’s no improvement in the American condition by virtue of these programs.  Hillary will extend taxation to an even greater degree.  This is an attack on property rights, including the property that is your labor.  She will doubtlessly tinker with Obamacare but rather than repeal it, she will seek to extend its oppressive, crushing burden on all those who most shoulder its burdens.

Therefore, tomorrow morning when I rise, I will go vote for Donald Trump.  I do not enjoy this prospect, but there is no rational alternative.  Hillary Clinton is such a thoroughly evil creature that I cannot countenance her ascension to the presidency without my opposition by the only method that now remains to me:  I must vote for the most viable opponent to her.  That means that the Kristol & Romney sock-puppet cannot have my vote.  It means that Gary Johnson cannot count on me.  There would be no scenario in which I could vote for the walking brain-death that is Jill Stein.  No, I cannot merely withhold my vote for the top slot on the ticket.  I must do that which is despicable to me: I must vote for Donald Trump and hope that we conservatives will have some means by which to restrain him, for with Hillary, there is none.  There is no manner by which to temper her attacks on America should she obtain that office.  I shudder to think of her Supreme Court nominees.  I gasp when I think at the extending reach of her corrupt, criminal enterprise.  I must vote for Donald Trump, not because I favor the man, or would have chosen him among my top ten to lead the country, but because he is the only candidate who can stop Hillary Clinton.  He’s the only one remaining to defeat her, and for the next four years, that will have to be good enough, bad as that may be.

We can talk about what conservatives must do in the future, should our nation survive long enough to make that question relevant, but the truth is that Hillary takes that possibility off the table.  If she’s permitted to consolidate the power Obama has already seized, and if she’s permitted to wreak further havoc on our nation’s economy and our national culture, there will be no recovery.  Not in my lifetime.  Not in my child’s lifetime.  It’s time to face the horror of tomorrow with a stiff upper lip.  I can vote for Mr. Trump, or I can accept the destruction of our nation under Hillary Clinton.  That’s not a choice, but instead a threat, and a threat that removes all other options.

As a matter of self-defense, one doesn’t seek the fight, but must be willing to fight when confronted with an existential threat. In terms of our national polity, our culture, and indeed, the whole body of law that defines our governance.  Hillary Clinton is a mortal threat to all of that. Most American would prefer to avoid fights.  None of rational intent relish the notion of defending one’s life and liberty, for all the ugliness that is inevitable in such a fight.  We conservatives would just as soon live and let live, in the main, and more often than not, we’d be happier if our fellows would simply abide by that golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Sadly, ours is an era in which the resurgence of the aggressive state increasingly attacks us, acting as a surrogate for the whims and wishes of some of our fellow citizens who have captured, at least for a moment, the power of the state to act in their favor by aggressive means, particularly theft.  In this environment, there is no way for we conservatives to fend off our oppressors if the executive branch of our government is dominated by yet another villain, perhaps worse than the current occupant of that office.

Hillary Clinton’s potential election is a serious threat to all Americans, whether they have the wisdom to see it or not.  We conservatives did not choose this fight.  It’s been thrust upon us by the ceaseless aggressions of the statists who now hold the reins of power.  Hillary Clinton is merely their latest and perhaps most corrupt and criminal agent, and the America she intends to create is an abomination before Nature and Nature’s God.  We must defend ourselves from her maniacal intentions, and we must do so whether she wins or not.  Without doubt, it is true that the world would be slightly less disagreeable to our continuing liberties should she be defeated.  In the arsenal that is an election for the defense of a nation,  Donald Trump is the only bullet remaining in the magazine for our cultural and national self-defense, and tomorrow morning, as soon as the polls open, I will be pulling that trigger.  Just as I am certain Ted Cruz felt dismay and disappointment at having to make the same choice, he acted as a responsible adult must in defense of all he loves, and voted for Trump.

He certainly isn’t the best weapon we could have, and he’s not the means of defense I would choose, but he’s the only one we have remaining. I will vote Trump.

That doesn’t mean I like it.  In the context of self-defense, who ever likes it?

 

The Video Michael Bloomberg Needs to Watch

Saturday, July 21st, 2012

We Can't Protect Ourselves?

Imagine that you’re enjoying your coffee at an Internet Cafe in Florida.  Imagine that two armed thugs bust through the door, ordering people around, threatening their lives, and intent upon robbery.  One is waving a gun, while the other is swinging a baseball bat.  You are at the mercy of whatever comes next, because you are unarmed.  This is a terrible situation for any person, and you are out of options if the thugs decide to open fire.

Now, imagine that among your fellow patrons, a 71-year-old man who is armed decides that he will not let himself or fellow patrons be victimized any longer.  Samuel Williams is a hero. Thankfully, Mr. Williams does not live in Bloomberg’s New York, where he would have been prohibited from this courageous act.

Watch what happens:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm9o3vhKoF8]

For the ludicrous jack-ass who presides over the city of New York as though he’s an Emperor, and who claims it is nonsensical to believe that armed citizens can prevent murder through self-defense, you would think this video might prove to him the error of his beliefs, but it will not. His object is not to prevent the deaths of innocents, but to leave you defenseless.

Bloomberg's security

I have one question for Mayor BloomingIdiot:

Why do you have armed bodyguards?  Why?  Isn’t it “nonsensical” to believe they can protect you?

Or is it something else? Is it that you are worthy of self-defense, but we are not?  That’s a mighty fine armored limousine you have, Mr. Mayor.  Can the residents of New York get the same?  No?  You have bodyguards and police around you wherever you go.  Can you offer the same assurances to all the New Yorkers who you forbid from arming themselves in their own defense?  No.

Fraud.  Hypocrite.  Liar.

 

 

Detroit Shock City: Self-Defense Killings Soar

Monday, February 6th, 2012

Self-Defense v. "Vigilantism"

The Daily is covering the story of Detroit’s soaring rate of self-defense killings, but as usual, the liberal slant on the story quickly abandons the notion of self-defense and instead re-labels it “vigilantism.” I have a serious problem with the shading of this story as one about vigilantism, because if a thug breaks into my home and I kill him, I’m not a vigilante, but a home-owner and citizen exercising my right to self-defense.  Only in a place where violence against innocent citizens is considered tolerable at some level could it be possible to see this as anything other than what it is:  A direct response by the citizens of Detroit who refuse to be victimized because big government has failed them and is now collapsing under its own weight.  Instead, they blame it on the citizens, comparing Detroit directly to the Wild West.

From the article:

“It’s a lot more acceptable now to get your own retribution,” the official said. “And the justice system in the city is a lot more understanding if people do that. It‘s becoming a part of the culture.”

The problem isn’t that it is now acceptable, but that it hasn’t been all along.  Had it been acceptable for the last fifty years, Detroit might not have spent most of that period at or near the top of the country’s Murder Capital list.  It’s well past time that the citizens of Detroit begin to act in their own defense, in recognition of their predicament, because despite the propaganda, cops cannot protect us.  The Daily spends a good deal of time talking about the response times for Police in the Detroit area, but the truth is that most things happen faster than cops can be called, never mind respond, as one officer points out:

“It’s not about police response time because often the act has already taken place by the time the police are called,” said Sgt. Eren Stephens. She said citizens have a right to defend themselves.

“Anytime a life is lost, we’re concerned,” she said. “But we can‘t be on every corner in front of every home. And we know that there are citizens who will do what they have to do to protect themselves.”

Of course, this is obvious to we residents of RealVille, USA, where we understand that bad guys aren’t really impressed by cops, and don’t tend to wait around for them to respond.  They hit, take what they want, and flee.  There’s not going to be time for a response when thugs strike, and relying on police to take care of your self-defense is a very risky proposition, since they can’t be everywhere at once.  The article concludes with this story:

Early, the director of the criminal justice studies program at the University of Michigan’s Dearborn campus, reasoned with the men for more than 20 minutes before he sensed they were about to shoot him in the head — then he ran. As his attackers fled in the opposite direction, neighbors emerged from the street’s stately homes with shotguns.

“All I could think of was my daughter coming home,” Early said. “I didn’t want her to see me shot dead.”

Weeks later, Early packed up his home and left Detroit. He hired Threat Management to supervise the move.

“Where else do the police come to your house after you’ve been robbed and ask you, ‘Why did you call us?’ ”

I don’t blame the gentleman for moving, but the ugly truth of our current cultural and economic collapse is that the thugs will eventually follow.  It’s not as though these are folks who are inclined to take a job at a gas station or fast-food outlet. I’m actually happy to see that the people of Detroit have finally had enough, and are now adopting the habits of a vigorous self-defense.   I wonder how many people have lost their lives over the years waiting for a Police response that would never arrive on time.  That’s not a complaint about the police, either, but merely a recognition of what sort of shape we’re in as a country.

There is no easy way around what is likely coming, as our economic problems aren’t likely to substantially improve, and may indeed become dramatically worse. The sooner we realize that just as good fences make for better neighbors, that a well-armed citizenry makes for a more polite society, the better off we’ll be.  It’s not vigilantism but instead a simple recognition that the cops simply can’t cover it all, and as the resources of government are shifted from their most important roles of defense and public safety to a focus on welfare statism.  If you wonder why people no longer wait for police, it’s not because they want to pack arms like the old days of the Wild West, but because increasingly, it’s the only rational alternative to ending up on a slab in the morgue.

Leftists can piously suggest that this had been about vigilantism, but it’s nothing of the sort.  The people of Detroit are merely exercising the vigorous defense of their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and in all of this there is a lesson for all of us, both in what we must be willing to do, but also in the fallacy of liberal-induced social complacency.

What’s More Frightening Than A Teenager Packing Heat?

Friday, January 6th, 2012

A Mom With a Gun

In my view, the case of 18-yo Sarah McKinley is a perfect example of why we have the second amendment. The media coverage has likewise exemplified the typical  out-of-touch attitudes that demonstrate little knowledge of the culture, while pontificating endlessly about it.   24-year-old Justin Shane Martin, armed with a twelve-inch hunting knife, was killed on New Year’s Eve as he tried to break into McKinley’s Oklahoma home along with an accomplice.  His accomplice, Dustin Stewart, fled, calling 9-1-1 to report the shooting.  While some in media thought this story was another example of the horrors of firearms, on Thursday, Sarah Palin made mention of the case, making plain the cultural divide, telling the National Review:

“I’m all in favor of girls with guns who know their purpose.”

She went on to say:

“She fulfilled a purpose of the Second Amendment. I’d advise my own daughters to do the same. This mom protected an innocent life. Kudos to the 911 dispatcher, too.”

You and I are apt to nod in grim agreement with that sentiment, surviving out here in fly-over country where the intelligentsia cares not to tread, but where they have no problem spewing their disdain for us while taking ad revenues based on our reading and viewing.  In this case, Suzi Parker, writing for the Washington Post, seems less than comfortable with the whole notion.  Writes Ms. Parker:

“There’s something a bit frightening about teenaged girls running around packing heat. Where I live, it is very common for girls to go hunting with their fathers as a rite of passage. As my colleague Lori Stahl wrote earlier this week, it’s not even uncommon in the South for suburban moms to carry a gun.”

Note to dingbats everywhere: Women living in the suburbs are not immune from attack by violent felons.  More, to suggest that there’s anything wrong with the fact that women are arming-up with greater frequency merely speaks to Ms. Parker’s woeful ignorance.  This young woman wasn’t “running around packing heat.”  She was home alone, a recent widow, with her infant child.  Parker seems most upset by the fact that this woman was a teenager, and she worries very much about the maturity of young people who might have guns:

“But I know more than a few teenagers of both genders, and they should never be near a gun. In Teen Land, everything is traumatic. You try to dye your hair blue, it turns green: “I’ll never leave the house again!” the teenager screams.

“Imagine one of these drama kings or queens post-break-up, grabbing his or her rifle.”

Does Sarah McKinley have green or blue hair, Ms. Parker?  Even if she did, would it mean she is somehow inherently incapable of taking seriously the possession of firearms or their use in the defense of herself, her home, and her child?  After all, do we really want to call her a “teenager,” lumping her in with the 13-yo who is more prone to such moments of exaggerated trauma?   This young woman is a widow and a mother, meaning she has more practical life experience than some women twice or even three times her age.  Losing her husband to cancer on Christmas day, Sarah McKinley has every reason to be considerably more mature than some of her contemporaries.

Of course, this may be part of the problem for Ms. Parker, since she seems to scorn the whole idea of guns as a means to self-defense, but I wonder if it’s cultural.  After all, Parker is from a different world than McKinley, as I’m betting that young Sarah McKinley was never a writer for such wellsprings of erudition as Penthouse, like the wise Suzi Parker, but I suppose that’s okay so long as you only write the articles. (To get a better sense of Ms. Parker, you can read an interview with her here.)

The point is that Ms. Parker has a thinly veiled contempt for a culture with which she seems only vaguely familiar.  She seems to sneer at the notion that a young woman would defend herself, as she writes:

“In Oklahoma, McKinley has become a hero. A fund has been created to help out the “pistol-packing mama” as she’s been dubbed. Some women’s groups are heralding McKinley as a woman who refused to become a victim in her own home.

“I understand where they’re coming from, but not everyone is as cool and collected as Sarah McKinley. It’s natural to celebrate the successful defense of hearth and home. But for every gun-brandishing hero or heroine who blows away the intruder, there are many more that get shot with their own guns during a struggle.”

That not every person successfully defends themselves from an intruder doesn’t imply the intruder wouldn’t have harmed them even without the presence of the gun.  I suspect Ms. Parker has never faced a felonious attacker armed with a twelve-inch hunting  knife while unarmed.  It’s as though Ms. Parker seems to think that everything would have gone just fine if only Ms. McKinley hadn’t been armed with a shotgun and pistol.  Then we get to the real point of the article, which is a an attack on gun ownership:

“Hopefully, McKinley won’t inspire thousands of young mothers, fathers, or any teenagers who want guns – to buy firearms for their homes without, as Palin said accurately, knowing their purpose.”

She seems to suggest that there might be a real danger posed by young parents seeking to defend themselves and their families, but she should also know that teenagers younger than 18-yo cannot purchase long-guns, and in most jurisdictions, a person cannot purchase a handgun until attaining 21 years of age.  I suppose it would be a worthwhile exercise for Parker to acquaint herself with the laws in question, but why bother when you have a story to write?  What frightens me more than a teen-aged mother with a gun is one who is without, because some do-gooder(?) like Parker agitates against it.  How many young mothers will be brutalized and murdered for lack of a gun, unarmed because such allegedly thoughtful persons as Parker have cautioned against it?

In my view, the infinitely more dangerous concept is another liberal with a keyboard, because the damage they do in the world is nearly always more offensive.  Being something of an expert on “Sex in the South,” one would think she’d more easily grasp the concept of guns as a prophylactic.  For journalists, of course, the backspace key works well too.