The Violence Worker!

Who Would Keep Their Pledge?

232 years ago, the grandest experiment in self governance in political history was set in motion when 56 men signed their names to an eloquent and daring document whose words still echo in the hearts of free people around the world.  No other political document on earth, either before or since, has impacted world history so profoundly than our Declaration of Independence.  The only document that even comes close was written eleven years later and is our own Constitution.

The men who wrote the Declaration of Independence did not just write some flowery sounding words.  These were not men looking for earmarks and pork.  When they signed this Declaration, they did so knowing full well that the consequences could be deadly.  The very last sentence of the the Declaration indicates that they knew the weight and significance of their words:

—And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Most people never get that far in their reading of the Declaration.  If they know anything about it at all it is probably connected with the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" phrase and even then, most people probably assume that particular phrase is part of the Constitution.

As I was contemplating the upcoming Fourth of July Holiday, that last sentence popped into my head.  Long ago, I had a US History teacher take time in class to point out that sentence and its importance to us and the Declaration.  It was in eighth grade and our teacher was an Estonian immigrant whose parents came here to escape the Nazis.  I wish I could remember her name as she had a profound influence upon me and my love for history.

The point to all of this is to compare McCain and Obama and decide which one would sign such a pledge and if they signed it, would they keep their word.

Rather than beat around the proverbial bush, I'll come straight out and say that McCain would sign it and mean it.  Obama might sign it it, but as soon as the political heat started rising, I believe he would disavow it as soon as he could.  He has a history.

On March 18, 2008, Senator Obama said this:

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.  I can no more disown him (Jeremiah Wright) than I can my white grandmother."

Six weeks later, on April 29th, Senator Obama disavowed Wright. 

Since his disavowal of his former spiritual adviser, Mr. Obama has since disavowed others and changed his position on a number of issues.  Michael Crowley , editor of the New Republic, a center-left publication, pointed this out in an op-ed in the Guardian yesterday:

During the Democratic primary season, all those eons ago, Barack Obama deployed no more powerful line against Hillary Clinton than his insistence that 'we can't just tell people what they want to hear. We need to tell them what they need to hear'. More than just a catchy couplet, the phrase was a deadly arrow into the heart of Clintonism.

Few things crippled Hillary's campaign like the belief that she would say or do anything to get elected, from supporting the Iraq War to claiming she'd dodged sniper fire at Tuzla. In Obama, Democrats seemed to have found something refreshing: a brave truth-teller unmoored to pollsters such as Mark Penn, someone who had spoken out against Iraq the war and could at last restore integrity and honesty to Washington politics.

But since Obama dispatched Clinton, he has seemed rather more attuned to what the people want to hear or perhaps he has simply traded the wants of a liberal audience for those of a more moderate one. Either way, he is treading that reliably time-worn path every nominee follows to the political centre. And the question for Democrats is whether to applaud Obama as a cunning politician who knows how to win or fret that he's given undecided voters reason to think his 'politics of hope' are just politics as usual.

McCain, on the other hand has shown that he doesn't march to any drumbeat but his own.  In conversation, I' often described McCain as a bit of a loose cannon, but never have I gotten the impression that his vote or his opinion was for sale and that includes polling results.  McCain's experience as a combat pilot, POW and subsequent years of service both in and out of the US Navy and US Senate have molded him into someone who has had to face more than just some angry words.  In other words, he isn't afraid of much and he isn't afraid to take unpopular stands if he thinks he's right.  I sometimes disagree with his stances, but I respect him for not putting up a finger to check the political wind.

No one is perfect and that goes for McCain.  However, if the Declaration were to be signed today, it could be argued that both would sign it given a similar set of circumstances, but there is only one that you could trust to keep his word and it isn't Obama.

VW

Wesley Clark Is A Hack!

Wesley Clark is trying his best to position himself as Obama's logical running mate.  He thinks in his warped little incompetent mind that he would fill the "security gap" as Obama's Veep.  Today, on FACE THE NATION, Clark revealed the extent of his utter disdain for reason and logic with this exchange:

McCain's experience in Vietnam, where he was a prisoner of war for five years, has seemed at times almost to grant him invulnerability to criticism of his security background. But on Sunday he was assailed by a fellow military man, a highly decorated one who was once the NATO supreme  commander.

McCain frequently points out that he led "the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy," but Clark said on CBS television that that was not enough to support a claim to the presidency.

"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall" as a wartime commander, the general said on CBS. Clark is mentioned as a possible Obama running mate, although he originally supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

When the interviewer, Bob Schieffer, noted to Clark that McCain had been shot down over Hanoi, Clark replied, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

When Schieffer then asked what executive responsibility Obama had held - the Democrat's résumé includes work as a community organizer in Chicago and eight years in the Illinois legislature - Clark said that Obama was running on the strength of his character and good judgment.

How does just having good character and judgment equal a resume?  Most of us then, should be overly qualified for the job then!  This coming from the man whom General Hugh Shelton, Clark's former boss, said when Clark was running for President in 2004:

"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early (read fired - VW) had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

And then there is this:

Another general told the Washington Post "There are an awful lot of people who believe Wes will tell anybody what they want to hear and tell somebody the exact opposite five minutes later."

Here is a man that was fired from a very responsible position for integrity and character issues telling us that Obama has character and good judgment.  It's kind of like getting a child molester to swear to your character at your trial.

Clark attacks McCain for his service and for his resume and doesn't even blink about the fact that Obama's resume is thinner than than a piece of cellophane.

The only way you can say things so obviously contradictory is if you have no character or integrity.

Clark is a hack.

VW

Violence Hussein Worker

Violence Hussein Worker...Nah...It just doesn't work for me.

Is it any wonder cult leaders and dictators focus on the cult of personality?  Most of them have no resume other than being young revolutionaries or they just have the "god complex".  The cult leaders usually have no formal theological training.   In order to mold their support, dictators and cult leaders have to sell themselves as some kind of messiah/god and you will surely perish without them.  People within religious cults and dictatorships, especially the socialist variety, tend to either take the name of their leader and/or name their children after them.  You see the cult of personality in such places as North Korea and Cuba.  In a cult called the House of Yahveh, many of its members take the name of Hawkins after the founder of the cult, "Wild" Bill (now Yisrayl) Hawkins. 

It's not uncommon for parents to name their children after famous people.  I'll bet there are more than a few Hillarys, Britneys, Justins out there.  Heck, even Hillary (untruthfully) claimed for awhile that she was named after the famous Mountain Climber, Sir Edmund Hillary.  Naming a child after someone famous is not new, but it's a bit different if it's a group of people who think they are involved in some sort of political or religious movement.  It gets a little scary.  (I've yet to find anyone else named Violence, but someday it might catch on - ya never know.) 

Now comes the story about Obama supporters taking on the his middle name as their own:

Emily Nordling has never met a Muslim, at least not to her knowledge. But this spring, Ms. Nordling, a 19-year-old student from Fort Thomas, Ky., gave herself a new middle name on Facebook.com, mimicking her boyfriend and shocking her father. “Emily Hussein Nordling,” her entry now reads.

With her decision, she joined a growing band of supporters of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who are expressing solidarity with him by informally adopting his middle name.

The result is a group of unlikely-sounding Husseins: Jewish and Catholic, Hispanic and Asian and Italian-American, from Jaime Hussein Alvarez of Washington, D.C., to Kelly Hussein Crowley of Norman, Okla., to Sarah Beth Hussein Frumkin of Chicago.

Obama's political rise is sometimes characterized by critics and supporters alike as being "messianic". 

Welcome to the cult of the socialist fellow with no resume.

VW

Post Bush

There's kind of a meme going around a few blogs today about what the left is going to do when they no longer have George W. Bush to kick around anymore.  It's a mildly interesting topic, so I thought I'd put in my two cents since it's too hot to go out and mow the lawn.

At Wizbang, Cassy Fiano says this:

There are so many lefties who are absolutely consumed with hatred of W. Once he's out of office and there's no one left to hate, what are they going to do with themselves? There'll be no more need for protesting the "Bush regime". There'll be no more reason to carry on with BDS. It'll be over. And I can't help but think that these lefties who hate W will be massively disappointed that their conspiracy theories weren't true. It seems to me like these people were enjoying their misery these past eight years thoroughly. It probably makes them feel so important to carry on with all of these protests, so sophisticated to deny America and align themselves with terrorists and their appeasers. They get attention for their stunts. And with Bush out of office, all of that will go away.

I can only imagine the emptiness these people will feel, especially if Obama gets the Presidency... because with McCain they can continue on with their merry charade, bleating feebly about how this is really Bush's third term, and Karl Rove is behind the whole thing anyways, and by the way, have they told you about Halliburton conspiring with the Jews to take out Palestine?

So, I'd imagine that they'd be terribly disappointed if their guy wins, because then, their entire existence will be erased. They'll have their Marxist President, and everything they've been working towards will likely happen.

The question is, what then? After the "Bush regime" has been driven out, what are these idiots going to do? My guess is, they'll probably do one of two things. They'll either keep protesting about nothing the way they have been for the past eight years, claiming that McCain's presidency is really just a shadow presidency and that Bush is still in charge. OR, they'll sit around, soaking in their nostalgia, wishing for the good 'ole days when they had a reason to feel important.

I'm going to disagree with Ms. Fiano.  She thinks that if Obama wins, it will take the wind out of their sails and I just don't believe that. Hate doesn't die that easily and the hatred for Bush and his administration is a huge, palpable, seething, festering beast that will not go gently into death or even slumber.  Hatred must feed to live and the left will have to find food for their hate beast or risk letting it die in some kind of nostalgic, marijuana induced haze.  Hate is their comforter; their warm blanket they wrap in during a cold winter night in front of a crackling fire.  As much as the left claims they are about peace, they need a bogeyman.  They need hatred and bad things to happen to perpetuate their existence. They will even go so far as to fake an attack by bigots to try and stir up an outcry that hatred and bigotry exists and we need them to expose it and eradicate it.  There are numerous instances where people have been caught fabricating a so-called hate crime to either draw attention to themselves or their cause.

If McCain loses to Obama, the left will not lose its well nourished hatred for Bush.  Indeed, the left will continue to hound the Congress and the Courts to arrest, try, jail, torture and execute any and all Bush administration officials.  They will turn their hate to any perceived enemy.  Indeed, the scope of their hate will not lessen, it will broaden.  They will demand that Conservative opinion be censored and censured.  They will be emboldened to increase totalitarian control over the commercial airwaves, cable wires and satellite links.  Dissent will all of a sudden cease to be patriotic. 

Admittedly, I paint a rather dismal scenario almost as if I'm encouraging people to hate from my perspective.  Certainly the battle for freedom and free speech will be an important one if Obama wins, but to think I hate them or even despise them is a bit of a stretch.  My fear is not one borne out some kind of hatred, but  from a definite concern.  The left openly advocates the limiting of free speech through such draconian methods as the "Fairness Doctrine".

I don't hate them, I fear them.

VW

It's Official!

Send campaign donations to my tip jar!

VW

The 2nd Amendment Lives!

As I'm sure most of you know, the Supreme Court gave those of us who are for gun rights a reason to celebrate.  In a 5-4 (otherwise known as a "split decision") ruling, the Supreme Court said that gun ownership cannot be banned.  As I understand it, it can be regulated, but outright bans for honest and sane (whatever that might be) Americans are unconstitutional.

And that is a good thing.  There does need to be a modicum of regulation to keep them out of the hands of people whose intent is to cause some kind of harm.  Just as there are some limits on free speech, there needs to be some limits on who can legally own a gun.  The Court said that reasonable regulations such as not allowing felons to have them or to ban them from such places as schools, etc. is OK. 

Personally, I don't own guns.  I'm not against them and I am in fact contemplating purchasing a firearm at some point in the future.  I grew up around them.  My Dad was a cop and kept a fully loaded .38 in the house.  For as long as I can remember, I knew where it was kept hidden.  I knew where it was because he showed me where he kept it.  Along with that knowledge came dire warnings of great physical harm if I ever touched it without him present.  I can assure you they were not idle threats and I knew it.  As I grew up, my Dad purchased some rifles and shotguns from time to time.  Again, I knew where they were kept.  On occasion, we would go out and target shoot.  Between the ages of 16-18, a buddy and I even did a little hunting.  It was perfectly legal back then to do so without an adult.  For me, guns are not scary things that, once in my hand, will force me to train it on some poor innocent person and pull the trigger.  Guns are tools.  All tools carry some danger and degree of risk.

The only problem I have with this ruling is not the ruling itself.  I think the Court ruled wisely and I think it was long overdue.  My problem lies in its perceived fragility.  This was not a 6-3 or 7-2 decision.  This was, by every definition, a close call.  If Obama is elected, this ruling could be in danger.  He will appoint judges and justices that think that the 2nd amendment gives the military the right to bear arms and not the citizenry.  He will most likely have the opportunity to select at least two Justices and possibly up to four if he gets a second term.  While it is rare that the Supreme Court ever reverses itself, it can happen.  If they do revisit an issue, they usually try and  disambiguate their previous ruling.  If the ideological makeup of the court is sufficiently shifted, it is possible they could indeed reverse this decision.

I didn't read through the entire opinion.  It's 157 pages of legalese and I'm no lawyer.  Here is the link if you want to slog through it for yourself.  I did scan through it.  It seems as if both sides spent considerable amount of space trying to define "keep and bear arms" 

In his dissent, Stevens used the old liberal idea that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, it's a group thing:  (From Page 83)

This reading is confirmed by the fact that the clause protects only one right, rather than two. It does not describe a right “to keep arms” and a separate right “to bear arms.” Rather, the single right that it does describe is both a duty and a right to have arms available and ready for military service, and to use them for military purposes when necessary.

In other words, the 2nd Amendment guarantees you the right to carry a gun if you are in the military.  Again, I'm no legal scholar, but it begs the question:  Why in the name of everything sacred and profane would you need a guaranteed right to carry a gun in the Army?  If there is anyone who thinks that is what the Constitution is saying, please enlighten me why the framers went to such lengths as to guarantee the rights of the military to have a weapon?   Just being in the military at any level, whether National Guard, Reserves or full time active duty, implies that you will at some point "bear arms". It's the nature of the business, no amendment needed.

The Constitution, however, is focused primarily on individual rights.  In Justice Scalia's majority opinion, he writes:

1. Operative Clause.  (From Page 8 and 9)

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.

Soon the courts will be filled with cases seeking to define the limits of firearms regulation.  There will be some communities that will try and push the envelope of this ruling.  The more the court rules, the more trial attorneys seek to twist and squeeze contextual meanings and individual definitions not intended by the Court out of the pages of the majority opinion.  Such is our system, I suppose.

In any case, a mighty blow was struck for individual freedom.   Justices Stevens and Breyer are great examples why Obama should not be elected.  We don't need Justices who think group rights trump individual rights.

VW

Is Queen Gregoire Jealous?

From KOMOTV News in Seattle

SEATTLE - Gov. Chris Gregoire has accused the Countrywide Financial company of discriminatory and predatory lending practices that targeted minority borrowers.

One wonders if she is upset because she didn't get offered the same VIP rates as her Democrat colleagues in the Congress.  What she probably means is that they discriminated against her for a minority of Democrat Leaders.

VW

Are We Spinning Out Of Control?

A few days ago, there was a piece that circulated news outlets that has been on my mind.  It was an opinion piece that asked if the US was spinning out of control.

Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal. Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism.

The can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault. Eroding it is a dour powerlessness that's chipping away at America's sturdy conviction that destiny can be commanded with sheer courage and perseverance.

In some ways we are spinning out of control.  Weather and floods happen with varying frequency.  We get beat up for awhile and then things seem to level off.  It's not the first time floods have battered the Mississippi heartland nor is it uncommon for the south and southeast to be battered by hurricanes.  We've lived through droughts before and we've survived earthquakes in the past.  Who knows what tomorrow will bring?  It's enough to depress even the most cheerful among us. 

The writer's of that piece are most likely liberal.  It's surprising then that they would write that last paragraph.  It amazes me that they can write such an insight and then go on to suggest that it's the government's fault for not fixing everything.

And that is my point.  We are spinning and if we don't get some kind of handle on things, we will soon be out of control.  It's not the disasters that are propelling the spin, it's the nanny state.

America's "can-do, bootstrap approach" is disappearing because we are increasingly demanding that the President and Congress take care of us.  The dirty truth is simply that they cannot and as long as we expect them to take care of us, we will continue on this downward spiral.

When Katrina happened, government at all levels was cited for a myriad of failures.  Never mind the devastation was just not New Orleans.  Katrina affected an area the size of Minnesota.  Whole towns disappeared. But should you reasonably expect the government to give you immediate aid?  Should you expect the taxpayers to completely rebuild your life at no cost to you?  The problem with Katrina was not just one of government failure, it was also one of individual failure times thousands.  There are still hundreds of people living in hotels on our dime almost three years later!   There is no "can-do" here! 

Anyone who expects any government aid within in at least the first 72 hours is delusional, I don't care how well oiled the FEMA machine appears to be. 

Gone from our collective consciousness are the words of President John F. Kennedy:  " And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."  More often than not, people aren't asking the the government to do anything - they are demanding it and threaten to hit the streets rioting if they don't get it.

What did we do 50 or 75 years ago when a disaster hit?  There was no FEMA.  There was no organized government relief effort. 911 hadn't been invented.   We relied upon each other.  We came together as a community and did what we could do.  We banded together as Americans because as Americans, we could rebuild. 

I'm not saying that government doesn't have a place.  Certainly, with the advent of such things as FEMA, we've been able to do more to save lives and rebuild quicker.  The problem is that now, we expect government to do it all.  Why can't we set up some sort of program based upon the Habitat for Humanity model?  Let the people rebuild, but let them help.  Most people can do at least something to help themselves.

Sadly, we are no longer that nation that will do that.  We have lost our sense of community. There are pockets of America that still believe in doing for themselves and still have the ability to pull the community together, but they are fewer and fewer.  The people affected by the Mississippi floods are doing it.  Sure they are getting help, but they are also doing a lot for themselves and helping each other as they sandbag the levees.  Most of the rest of the country now expects a total free ride. 

We are spinning and all the Democrats are offering is to spin us that faster.  The lesson of JFK is forgotten and we never learned this lesson from President Reagan:  "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." and this from President Ford:  "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

The only way we will regain control is a return to our roots of self-reliance and less dependence on the handout.  I'm not sure if we will ever be able to shrug off big government.

I fear for our future.  I fear for my children and I especially fear for my grandchildren.

VW

James Hansen, Master Of Demagoguery

Here we go again.  Someone high profile nitwit demanding or scheming to bring some evil Capitalist/Republican to justice in some kind of Stalinesque show trial complete with a foregone conclusion of guilt.

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer. (Emphasis added)

This is on the same level as the Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law saying he will charge the administration with war crimes.  It's mostly rhetoric because you know it isn't going to happen.  It's incendiary language used for the sole purpose to stir people up - usually people who only see things on an emotional level.  It isn't going to happen (except in some Communistic wet dream) and those of us with some measure of critical thinking skills know demagogic drivel when we see it.

When asked about his call for trials:

Hansen dodged the question, stressing instead the need to take stronger measures against global warming.

I think that proves my point. 

VW

I'm Back!

Mrs. VW and I arrived back from our mini-vacation to the Oregon Coast.  We were based out of Seaside, but we got down as far as Pacific City and Tillamook.

Yeah, that Tillamook! 

We also spent a day in and around Cannon Beach.

Haystack Rock near Cannon Beach - quite possibly the most famous rock on the west coast.  This was at low tide and accessible.  We did walk out to it.  This was taken from the road above the beach.

And we found a restaurant that frankly could use a better name:

Ecola is a nearby creak and state park, but it reads a little too close to E-Coli!

On Thursday, we took the Cascades Train down to Portland.  We got off the train, walked 6 blocks to the MAX stop and caught a streetcar (now called "light rail") to the Portland Airport. 

At the airport, we rented a 2008 Chevy Impala SS and drove over to the coast.  Let me tell ya, that Chevy had some some giddyup and go.  Going back, we did the opposite, drove to PDX and dropped off the car, took the MAX back into town, walked the 6 blocks back to the train station and rode the train back home.

We had a great time.  The trip was far more relaxing than it sounds making all of those connections.

Give me a day or two to get back into the swing of things.

Oh and one last thing: 

If you go to Tillamook, don't bother stopping at  the Blue Heron.  They don't make cheese, they are more of a tourist trap.  It's not a bad place, but they don't make cheese, they just sell their label.  The cheese is made in Portland by someone else. 

VW