You need to watch this. It's important to all Americans, not just our Jewish compatriots.

This should be very interesting.

The Washington Post is holding a photo caption contest. As you can see, it involves beer and President, um, O'bama. Head over the the Washington Post page to see the entries so far, or enter your own.

Photo Credit: Charles Dharapak - AP

H/T to Beer in Baltimore.

I recently mused about the trustworthiness of a person who objects to the right of self-defense or who advocates "gun control." Over at JFPO, there's an article which looks at the mindset, and motivations of the propagandists who work against our rights.

The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale. 

Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.

The author goes on to list seven categories these oppressors fall into.

1. Elitists
2. Authoritarians
3. Criminals
4. The Fearful
5. Ideological Chameleons
6. Security Monopolists
7. The Dysfunctionally Unworldly

I found the divisions, and the accompanying descriptions, to be frightenly accurate. Go read the article. It makes for a good defense to know the enemy.

Here: The Seven Varieties of Gun Control Advocate

There's a battle over religious freedom brewing in the United States. Currently the aggressors are focusing on the Catholic faithful. However, people of all faiths should be concerned. While the opening volley happens to focus on the Catholic church, this is ultimately an attack on all Americans and on the freedoms we treasure. Russell Shaw opined last year that religious persecution in the United States "will be a tight-lipped campaign of secularist inspiration in which the coercive power of the state is brought to bear on church-related institutions to act against conscience or go out of business."

The declaration by President Barack Hussein Obama ordering the Catholic Church to violate its fundamental beliefs was only the first wave of an assault that shows no sign of letting up. The president's declaration was met, thankfully, by indignation by the Church in the U.S. Over most of the country last weekend, Catholics heard statements from their Bishops, read during Mass, condemning this attack. Here in the Arlington Diocese, we heard a statement from Bishop Loverde.

If you've been following the news recently, you know there's been a spate of traveler arrests in New Bloomberg, er, New York, for gun possession. Before I go further let me state categorically that gun owners have a responsibility to know the law. Just as when gun owners fail to act responsibly in safe handling of their weapons, I find it hard to feel sympathy for those who make themselves victims. However, that doesn't change my view of anti-gun laws and those who support them.

I've already mused over the natural right to self-defense. A gun happens to be part of the tool set. Why do so many people and states try to restrict our right to be armed? In my opinion it's a matter of trust. Not the prohibitionists' trust of me, but my ability to trust them.

Take the misnamed Mayors Against Illegal Guns, headed up by the aforementioned Mayor Bloomberg. These politicians do not want citizens to be armed. Why? Could it have anything to do with the fact that so many of the group's members are convicted criminals? Criminals inherently, and rightfully, fear armed victims. Gun control laws are not about guns; gun control laws are about power and control over people. In the United States, gun control laws have their roots in racism. Today, we see that the self-proclaimed "enforcers" still are lacking moral or legal ethics. When Meredith Graves was arrested, the Mayor chose to falsely claim that she was in possession of cocaine in order to destract from the ridiculous gun arrest. In the now dropped case against Mark Meckler, officials refuse to return his firearm, despite having no legal right to keep it. The state in this case is committing a criminal act in the name of control.

The anti-freedom folks try to make gun owners out to be dangerous and untrusted. Deep down that reaction is not a reflection on the gun owner, it's a reflection of the person's own mistrust of themselves to behave civilly under stress. Their own bigotry causes them to link criminals using guns with law-abiding citizens. And it's not just with guns that the false association occurs. In Illinois a disturbed person attacked people with drain cleaner. Suddenly anyone who needs drain cleaner to fix a plumbing problem needs to show a photo ID and they will have their personal information logged by the state. It's not a coincidence that Illinois is also the only state in the U.S. that refuses to trust law-abiding citizens with guns for self-defense.

If someone doesn't support my right to be armed, I know that I must be wary of their true motives. While it's not an infallible character clue, it does warrant suspicion. After all, what does an honest person have to fear from a law-abiding armed citizen? Absolutely nothing. In my view it is perfectly legitimate to judge a person's integrity by their view on the 2nd Amendment.

It's a matter of trust.

Humans have a God-given right, actually it's a command, to protect themselves and those in their care. In fact this responsibility has been described as a "grave duty." Contrary to popular thought, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is not the grantor of this right, the Amendment exists as an affirmation of what man naturally possesses. For those of us fortunate enough to live in Virginia, we also have the Virginia Constitution as yet another written reminder. Specifically we can turn to Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power:

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

There you have it. God, the U.S. Constitution, and the Virginia Constitution all standing united to reiterate the right to be armed for self defense. That's a pretty strong triad giving us words to live by. Literally, words to live by.

Bravo Sir. Jimmy Carter is no longer the worse president ever.

With all the partisan rancor proceeding any election, perhaps we need to look the candidates' views on issues that are more germane to everyday life. In an interesting coincidence, this week I came across two articles, both mentioning Republican presidential hopeful, Rick Santorum, and his views on two subjects we muse over frequently.

First, on beer:

"It's the stouts, the bocks and then the white ales and the wheats,” said Santorum during a stop at the Millstream Brewery in Iowa on Sunday. He also said that he’s a fan of Guinness and will “drink a light beer if it’s really hot."

Not the former senator’s cup of tea: IPAs, which he called “a little too bitter."