How much longer will we stand idly by, like the proverbial frog in boiling water?

I was born in 1967. My parents were Boomers, born in the mid-40s after the war. The US has been at war for my entire life, and for the lives of my parents (only my mom is still living). At the end of WWII we fell right into the Cold War. The Cold War morphed into the War on Terror, and in the 80s we started a War on Drugs too. Just think about that for the moment. The country has been in a state of war and wartime reduction in freedoms since 1941. How can that not have a damaging effect on the culture of any country? There are very few people alive today in the US that remember what it was like to live in a country not at war.

In WWII we interred tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans. Through the 50s we harassed and abused citizens because they knew somebody who knew somebody who once attended a communist party meeting. Let's not forget that a big part of why the USSR came to be a world power is the billions we gave them in support during WWII. We were forced to side with Stalin because our involvement in WWI can be connected pretty damn directly to the rise of Hitler and Nazism. (Our involvement in WWI resulted in the very one-sided Treaty of Versailles. Without that treaty Hitler probably never rises to power.) In the 80s we destroyed communities trying to root out demand for drugs. Today we regularly destroy innocent lives both at home and abroad over the War on Terror.

Do you ever stop to think about the price we are paying for all this war? I'm not talking money, although all the money wasted on these useless wars could have done a hell of a lot of good in many other places. I'm talking about the cost in freedom. These wars being fought allegedly to protect our way of life are in fact destroying our way of life. From the Red Scare of the 50s to the Drug Scares of the 80s to the manufactured fear of terrorists today, our freedoms as citizens are being eroded more and more. If you are paying attention at all you know that our current government considers the Constitution a minor inconvenience at best when it gets in the way of the War on Terror or Drugs or whatever. In 1999 Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun, famously stated, "You have no privacy anyway. Get over it." At the time I thought McNealy was an asshole. Now I realize he was right.

All these wars we are fighting are at least partly our fault. If we don't get involved in WWI Hitler likely never rises to power. That forced us to ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler, which helped the USSR become a global power. In the 50s we overthrew the modern and progressive Iranian Government and installed the Shah as a dictator / king. Iranians have been rightly pissed ever since and the extremist Mullahs in power today are the result of that overthrow in the late 50s. In the 80s were we forced to support the Muslim opposition to the USSR invasion of Afghanistan. Central to that opposition was a young Saudi named Osama Bin Laden. Later, we were forced to support Saddam Hussein as he battled the Iranians that came into power because of our meddling in Iran. It goes on and on. The US gets involved in a foreign country. Thousands and thousands of innocent people die. Eventually an entire generation of people that hate us comes to power in these countries. Every time our drones take out a wedding party in the middle east dozens of new terrorists are created. We've created just about every major enemy of the US in the last century.

For a country so hell bent on being in a permanent state of war, we sure do suck at it. Maybe we should give peace a chance. But that might be kind of difficult since there is really nobody around that knows what peace looks like.

This post inspired by the Vampiric Memories episode of the Common Sense podcast.

The problems with the obamacare website could have been predicted by anyone looking into CGI Federal, the company behind the debacle. The parent company of CGI Federal was fired by the Canadian government for failing to meet its contractual agreements.

I stopped by the range after work for a quick 150 round workout*. When I looked at the grouping on my target I thought, "Well, that's the only part of my life where I lean to the left!"



* Hands at sides, from beep. 2 or 4 hits on target. 7, 15, and 25 yards.

I received this canned, and unsurprising, response from Virginia Senator Tim Kaine regarding my mail to him regarding the current push for gun citizen control. I've posted the letter in its entirety below, with some comments inline.

Dear Mr. -----: 

Thank you for contacting me to share your views on proposals to reduce gun violence. I appreciate hearing from you.  

No one can deny that gun violence is a serious problem in this country today. We owe it to the victims of the growing number of mass shootings to vigorously debate specific and comprehensive proposals that can keep our communities safer.  The right approach focuses on many issues - improvements to the mental health system, better security protocols and common sense rules about gun use, including keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals.

What exactly is "gun violence?" If the Senator's doublespeak is referring to the need to reduce violence committed by people using guns, I have to ask, why are we not equally concerned with violence committed by hammers and fists, which account for more deaths each year than guns? Obviously, no one thinks hammers should be subject to government regulation, this reference to "gun violence" is meant to use emotion to distract from the real agenda. Senator Kaine then tosses out a comment about "the growing number of mass shootings" without any support to support his claim. In fact, mass shootings are NOT increasing. Even the leftist mouthpiece ABC News had to grudgingly admit to that. Kaine also uses the buzz words "common sense," implying a less-than-favorable judgement on those who might disagree with his as yet unnamed proposals

When I was on the Richmond City Council in the 1990s, our city was mired in an epidemic of gun violence that included the city having the second-highest homicide rate in the United States.  The most successful step we took was implementing Project Exile, a program that involved federal prosecution and tougher penalties for gun crimes that were previously treated more leniently in state courts. Celebrated by diverse groups engaged in the gun violence debate - including the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign - the program helped drive down Richmond's homicide rate by nearly 60 percent within a few years.

The Senator rightfully lauds his efforts to reduce the homicide rate by enforcing existing law. This is a notable accomplishment for sure, but let's re-emphase what his efforts brought about; increased enforcement of existing laws.

In 2007, the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech revealed glaring weaknesses in campus security protocols at colleges and universities, in our mental health system and the gun background check system for gun purchases. In a bipartisan spirit, I worked with then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell to immediately improve our background check system and issued an executive order ensuring that those adjudicated to be mentally ill and dangerous would be entered into a national database and barred from purchasing weapons. We also changed standards for mental health treatment and increased funding for community health programs while dramatically improving campus security and efforts to assist college students suffering from mental stress.

Once again, the Senator is pointing out improvements where made in existing programs, with a positive effect. But he's really just setting the reader up for a "bait and switch."

In January I attended a round-table event in Richmond with Vice President Biden on gun violence, to talk about the lessons learned in Virginia and the need for a comprehensive approach to these problems.  As your U.S. Senator, I will work to bring that kind of comprehensive approach that will strengthen the safety of our communities, while protecting our Second Amendment rights. As a gun owner who worked with others to constitutionally guarantee Virginians the right to hunt, I know that you can be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment without tolerating the gun tragedies that are too often a part of our daily lives.

I was wondering how long it would be before the Senator got in his "I support the 2nd Amendment, but..." line. I've not yet heard from a politician who wanted to restrict the Constitution who didn't preface his attack with a claim of support for the very thing he was attacking. He attempts to distract with the red herring of a constitutional right to hunt. In fact, there exists no such constitutional right. One would expect our Representatives to have a better knowledge of the Constitution they swore to uphold.

Concerning specific proposals, I am a strong supporter of universal background record checks.  This is the only way we can enforce existing laws that prohibit dangerous individuals from purchasing guns.  I am open to supporting legislation placing reasonable limits on high capacity magazines, combat-style weapons and gun trafficking if they are carefully drafted. 

The misdirection of referring to past accomplishments complete, Senator Kaine finally gets around to hinting at his current agenda. The Senator throws out the liberal sound bite "reasonable limits in high capacity magazines." The gun grabbers love to toss around the term "reasonable" without defining it. Thirty rounds is too many they say. So 29 is okay? Some suggest no one needs more than 10 rounds. So 9 rounds in a gun is safe, but adding one more makes the carrier dangerous? The "reasonable" restriction appellation, as well as "combat-style" weapons, are nothing more than attempts to distract an uninformed voting population with meaningless terms. The Senator also attempts to draw attention from the real issue by calling for restrictions on "gun trafficking," an obvious attempt to mislabel the transfer of legally owned weapons between private parties.

Forty years. Fifty-five million. Just numbers?

On Friday we braved the cold and snow, to join 500,000 other Pro-Life supporters in the annual March for Life in Washington, DC. This is the eleventh year our family has done this. In the 40 years since  Roe v. Wade, 55 million Americans have been killed in their mother's womb. A huge number of those babies were killed, for profit, by tax-payer supported Planned Parenthood. This is genocide that is championed, and even cheered, by our current president. Think about it for just a second — 55 million Americans.

Why did we go to DC? Do we think that the president is going throw open the window in the White House and say, "What was I thinking?" Of course not. Will legalized abortions be overturned any time soon? Doubtful. The March for Life is a movement to change hearts. It is wake up call that civilized people don't sacrifice children on the altar of convenience. And it's happening. The huge percentage, even possibly a majority, of the participants in the march are young people. As one speaker noted, the young are not the future of the Pro-Life movement, they are the Pro-Life movement.

Just as young people today realize the importance of the 2nd Amendment to preserve life and liberty, they are also refreshingly Pro-Life. The old guard which supports the oppression of both liberty and life is fading into the past.

55 Million.

I grabbed the log entries below this morning. At least four different computers, with four different IP addresses, from the United States Senate network were used to view my rebuttal to Senator Warner. It appears someone in DC is taking notice.

Click to embiggen

In contrast to the pathetically weak and anti-Constitution message I received from Senator Warner, the response from my Representative in the House was much more encouraging. Obviously, Congressman Wittman remembers the oath he swore. I'm reprinting his entire response here.

Dear Mr. ------: 

Thank you for contacting me in regards to your support for the Second Amendment and gun rights. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me. I value your views on the important issues facing our Commonwealth and the Nation. 

As a gun owner and strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, I believe that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms must be diligently protected. Additionally, I do not support a national gun registry. Such a registry would only put an unnecessary mandate on law-abiding citizens. Gun registration and owner licensing do not help police solve crime as criminals do not register their guns or get licenses. 

Moreover, I believe the right to keep and bear arms is an individually possessed right, as are all rights protected in our Constitution. The Founding Fathers, the Framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights could not have been clearer about the nature of the right and the purpose of the Second Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized it as an individual right in several landmark cases. 

Rest assured that I am committed to preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes. I will continue to defend this sacred right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a member of the House of Representatives in the 112th Congress. 

Thank you again for sharing your views and opinions with me. I am committed to serving you to the best of my abilities. If I can ever be of assistance to you or your family, please do not hesitate to call me at (202) 225-4261 or contact me online at: www.wittman.house.gov.

Sincerely,
Robert Wittman
Member of Congress

BTW, it's important that we contact our representatives frequently, and keep these issues at the forefront. Ruger has provided a way of contacting many of them in one fell swoop; President, Vice-President, your Senators, Representative, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State-Level Elected Officials and State Attorney General. Of course, you need to also contact them individually and directly, but I strongly encourage you to take advantage of this handy tool.

Like most Americans who still believe in the value of the Constitution, I have been writing my representatives about the current push towards gutting the 2nd Amendment. I received a form letter response from Virginia Senator Warner. It's the same letter he's sending everybody, it's pretty generic, and true to the Senator's form, non-committal. I am pleased that he did not use those leftist terms of misdirection; "assault weapon ban" or "high capacity magazine." His reply does however contain a very troubling line. As politicians frequently do, he prefaces it with a claim of being pro-2A.

"I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. I own firearms and I have an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association. However, I also recognize that, like with many of our constitutional rights, our Second Amendment rights are not without limits.  It is unfortunate that a tragedy of this magnitude is what is needed to prompt action, but we need to have a serious discussion on how to best avoid these kinds of mass shootings in the future. The status quo is not acceptable."

Hold on just a minute Senator, perhaps you could elaborate on the "many" rights that you feel "are not without limits." We already know Senator Warner supports limits on the 1st Amendment as it pertains to the freedom of religion. Does this "serious discussion" he proposes include limits to other parts of the Bill of Rights as well? Maybe we could place limits of the 4th Amendment in order to make sure the government finds all those guns folks have hidden in their homes? Does he also support limits on the 5th and 6th Amendments to speed up the prosecution of those unwilling to obey unconstitutional gun ban laws? Perhaps limiting the application of the 8th Amendment might make it easier to set up camps in which to house those pesky patriots?

Even when a politician tries to camouflage his agenda, his words often belie his true feelings. Senator Warner has shown he has forgotten, or perhaps never believed, the oath he swore to uphold the Constitution.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Nowhere does the oath say "support and defend the Constitution with limits."

Update, January 15: Contrast this with Congresman Wittman's response here.

Some people will say anything.
Some people will believe anything.
Together, they make a dangerous combination that will destroy our Nation.