ThePhalanx.com

The final stretch...

2008-10-05T16:07:00.000-04:00

The presidential campaign is entering the final stretch and it is now only a question of time. Will it be McCain or Obama.

The true question is of degrees. What degree of government intervention are Americans willing to tolerate. If Obama wins, as he may very well do, the question of statism will be put to rest in perpetuity. If McCain triumphs the tide of statist intervention. Will most certainly continue but the socialist transformation will not be complete as it would with an Obama win.

Both candidates, particularly Obama, have centered their campaigns on the premise that to be succesful they must ensure greater responsibility for the lives of it's people, not unlike an antebellum plantation owner...and that's exactly what we are becoming: slaves to an ever powerful state.

This move towards complete social and economic control has been slow, especially compared with the rapid deterioration of such societies as Western Europe, but this should come as no surprise given their propensity for tyrannical governments.

In America where freedom and individual responsibility has been long cherished this transition has been fat more subtle, beginning in earnest with the the so-called progressive era.

With the election of 2008, we are in the final stretch, not only for this election season but for freedom loving America in general.

Fannie and Freddie

2008-09-29T21:02:00.002-04:00

There is no doubt that easy credit and the ability of unqualified buyers to obtain it and the propensity for mortgage lenders to provide it has created a significant strain on the economy, which will cost the taxpayers billions.

The left, has been quick to blame the GOP, almost entirely for the failure of mortgage giants like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Speaker Nancy Pelosi certainly said as much prior to today's vote on the Wall Street Rescue package. But as with most things in Washington the issue is a bit more complex.

Indeed, it was the left who opposed reigning in the free wielding tactics of Fannie and Freddie and as a result a collapse was inevitable. In the era of modern media, such a reality is inescapable, save those who refuse to see that which is obvious.

Let the excuses begin...

2008-09-22T12:47:00.001-04:00

Most candidates wait until the outcome of an election before they start making excuses for their lost. Remember the ill-fated election of 2000? Gore didn't start complaining before the votes had been counted that Bush was going to steal the election. No that fantasy began afterward. Kerry didn't warn in the summer of 2004 that he was going to be swift-boated.

Senator Obama, however, and his cronies in the media, have started a new a new trend. They have begun to float rationalizations for any possible Democratic failure in November. The premise is this: If Obama loses, its not because of policy or political philosophy. Its not because he will raise taxes on Small Busineses who employ 80% of all Americans, its not because he will institute rationing of healthcare through state control, or oversee a massive expansion of government entitlements or discourage oil exploration, while simultaneously raising taxes astronomtically. No, if Obama loses its only because he is...Black. Thats right, anyone who votes against this latest Democratic incarnation of re-distributive government couldn't possibly object to anything but his skin color.

This complaint will be repeated loudly and often until this lie has be taken for the truth, in the true sopirit of Joeph Goebbles. This startegy will be used expertly in an obvious attempt to deliegitimize a McCain presidency, even before it begins. Just as the farce of a Gore victory in 2000 was used, skillfully, to delegitimize the presidency of George W. Bush. Lest we forget, the American left cares nothing for the facts, which will be the first casuality in their efforts in a race to teh bottom as they plan their next political comeback. Depend upon it!

Link:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/22/2008-09-22_poll_barack_obama_could_lose_six_percent.html

Another word (from the past) on climate change

2008-09-11T08:51:00.002-04:00

Climate change on Mars...Bush to blame?

Originally published: September 22, 2005

For centuries man has been obsessed with the planet Mars, since the dawn of the space age in the 1950s man has been able to explore and understand mars (and the other planets) in ways never before imaged. With this newfound capability we have discovered that Mars is in the midst of a period of climate change. For several years now, scientists with NASA have observed that icecaps on Mars have been decreasing in size for the third straight year in a row. So its seems Earth isn't the only planet in the solar system experiencing climate change. Now all this begs the question, will the left attempt to blame Martian climate change on George Bush, as they have done here on Earth? Any knowledge of Earth history will tell us that Earth has experienced far more significant changes in temperature over the millennia.

Indeed, Earth has experienced ice ages and uncharacteristically warm periods as well, many of which occurred long before man came to dominate the planet. Yet, the left tirelessly persist in blaming George Bush and the United States. Even if, man-made gases are to blame for changes in temperature, why is it that only the US and George Bush shoulder any fault. Wasn't Bill Clinton President for 8 years prior to Bush, and why only the United States? There in lies the ultimate fault of the Kyoto Treaty (a treaty leftist insist America must endorse). A treaty which would lead any rational person to question its framers motives. Why would nations like China and India be excluded from pollution restriction, when both countries are major polluters. The US is criticized for producing 24% of the world's CO2 emissions, yet the US accounts for over 25% of the world's industrial output, China by contrast, accounts for only 3% of the world's industrial output, yet produces 14% of the world's CO2 emissions. India is also a top 5 polluter, yet both countries aren't bound to any of the provisions of the Kyoto treaty. If our concern is protecting the environment, then why such a glaring oversight?

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html

Solar flares acting up again, is Bush to blame?

Originally published: September 12, 2005

Scientists have noted that the Sun is becoming increasingly active with a number of solar flares. This will be the 7^th major solar flare up for the sun. Solar flares can be extremely dangerous and technically devastating. Flares can cause harm to astronauts in earth's atmosphere. These flares can also cause harm to orbiting satellites. If these satellites are damaged it could be devastating for communications, and other industries and services dependent upon space technology.

Such flares can also prove dangerous to terrestrial equipment, including power grids. These flares are difficult to predict and can send high doses of radiation in Earth's direction in a matter of minutes. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is monitoring the situation, but there is little that can be done other than to warn. Regardless of this it would not be surprising if leftist will try to blame the president if these flares cause any serious damage. One must keep in mind that leftists have no propensity for science. How else do you explain the belief, held by many liberals, that Bush's policies created Hurricane Katrina? Keep in mind that if certain people believe the president can control the weather, it would be no great trick to convince them that he controls the Sun as well. Such blatant ignorance demonstrates the lack of knowledge and understanding that is dominant in the party that capitalizes on poverty and ignorance.

http://space.com/scienceastronomy/050909_solar_flares.html

We take it back, Obama isn't...

2008-09-10T21:27:00.006-04:00

Two years ago shortly after Barack Obama declared that he was considering a run for president, after having served only 1 year in the United States Senate, The Phalanx declared Obama to be a new kind of politician, more pragmatic and far more palatable than the likes of Hillary Clinton or John Kerry. Though certainly not an endorsement, Obama's rhetoric certainly seemed to be the beginning of a new era in American politics.

Of all the prospective Democrats running for office, however, Obama seems far more palatable than Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and worst of all John Kerry. Obama, appears to have a more pragmatic style to governing, rather than the slash and burn political style of his Democratic contemporaries.
http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/10/obama-considers-presidential-run.html

Well...we take it back, we take back every last word.

Frankly, we were wrong, after 19 months it has become increasingly apparent that Obama is far less palatable than Hillary Clinton, we would much prefer Clinton, Gore or even the most extreme leftist one could envision. Far from being a new kind of Democratic as Clinton vowed to be (and for the most part was..., at least after losing Congress), Obama is the quintesential politician. For all we know he may be a Quintesson as well, he certainly is two faced.

After watching his campaign with his Democratic and Republican rivals we now see Obama for the phony he truly is. To be certain, John McCain is nothing special by any means, but most Americans know who McCain is, having been in the public eye for sometime. Obama's political inexperience, however, has been ignored by the pundits in a rush to anoint their token to prove the American left isn't the paternalistic plantation that it is. Every day we learn how inept a politician Obama actually is. I suppose you can put lipstick on a great many politicians with little to show for it.

For the derision leveled at George W. Bush for his horid speaking ability has anyone ever caught glimpse of the equally inept, pre-packaged Barack Obama without his prepared speeches?

The Left (A Case Study in the Double Standard)

2008-09-02T18:06:00.003-04:00

Since the Left and the Media establishment anointed Barack Obama as their standard bearer for the November election, the hypocrisy has been practically immeasurable. For month Hillary Clinton spoke of her experience and her supposed ability to lead from day one. Obama's supporters poo pooed this argument, rallying behind his change mantra. Now we see the Audacity of Hope has become the Audacity of Hypocrisy. Obama and his camp have attacked and belittled Alaska Governor Palin as being inexperinced (particulary on the matter of foreign policy).

As any Clinton supporter can attest, Obama is the least experienced Democratic Candidate for president in the entire history of the Democratic Party, less experience than William Jennings Bryan in 1896, less experience than Alton Parker in 1904, less experince than John Davis in 1924 and while the 1872 nominee, Horace Greeley served only 1 year in Congress, Greeley had served as a prominent political leader and newspaper editor for years before his illfated run.

Inspite of Obama's non-existence in all things related to political experience, he and hsi team have been vocal in chiding the experience of, Palin. If serving as a governor is not a suffieint stepping stone for the presidency, then perhaps someone should tell four of the last five presidents.

On top of this heaping plate of hypocrsy, we now hear rubblings of attacks on Palin's children and her family. Imagine the outcry if there were attacks on Obama's children. Obama to his credit has slammed these attacks, but the attacks continue and of course the media is along for the ride.

Petty or hypocritical?

2008-08-29T19:32:00.003-04:00

Is the Obama campaign little more than a collection of petty hack politicians or simply typical leftist hypocrites?

No sooner had John McCain announced his choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin did the Obama team proceed to deride her so-called inexperience. It is certainly difficult to imagine how someone like Obama, who's only experience is that of a "community organizer," could criticize anyone. Imagine the audacity of the Obama campaign to criticize someone for a lack of foreign policy experience? Obama is running for president, Palin is running for VICE president, yet Obama's foreign policy resume is non-existant. If there any doubt about Obama's international naivete, one need only look to his comments following Russia's invasion of Georgia. The Democratic nominee, the political equivalent of a high school freshman displayed a knowledge reminiscent of a child who spent most of their time sleeping in class.

The petty team Obama slighted Governor Palin for being a former small town mayor. But in reality the slight was an affront to small town America in general, something Obama has down in the past.

The attack serves to belittle a Governor of an important state who has far more executive experience than the re-distributionist Obama. Indeed, this act of pettiness demonstrates the danger of a person like Obama and is typical of such condescending leftist politicians who's
elitist attitudes are par for the course when dealing with those who embrace a socialist/fascist agenda.

Russia launches blitz on Georgia

2008-08-09T19:02:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, the ~~Soviet Union~~ Russia, launched a full scale military assault on its tiny Georgian neighbor. As Russian ~~dictator~~ Prime Minister, Putin told President Bush, "war has begun." The Russians claim they are acting to restore peace through their use of heavy bombers, and ballistic missiles on the local civilian population.

The Russians also claim that their assault was in response to Georgian attacks on Russian "peacekeepers." Anyone inclined to believe that a nation of 4 million (i.e., Georgia) would launch an attack on the armed forces of a nation of 140 million (i.e., Russia) probably also believed the story propagated by the Nazis that their invasion of Poland in 1939 was in response to Polish incursions.

Putin, who is ranks among the worst of Russia tyrants, has unleashed an unprovoked power grab, coincided with the opening of the Olympics, to further Russian hegemony in the region. Perhaps the Georgians can hold out as the Fins did against the Soviets after another unprovoked Russian attack. Russia's symbols and leaders may change, but its maniacal desire for tyranny and savagery goes unabated....

Links:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/09/georgia.reax/index.html

What is wrong with Detroit?

2008-08-09T17:56:00.003-04:00

What is wrong with the motor city, aside from the legally challenged Detroit mayor and the depressed economy, which typifies Michigan's one state recession, made worse by high taxation and political mismanagement?

Even Motown Records abandoned the City of Detroit over two decades ago, and now it seems many American consumers are doing the same. Why are the Big Three automakers continuing to loose marketshare, even as survey after survety shows quality on-par, or even exceeding the foreign competition.

The answer is clear and to get that answer, a person can simply visit a Ford, Chevy, Jeep, Dodge or other Big Three branded dealership. What do you see? Row after row after row of fuel inefficient trucks and large SUVs. In an era of $4 gasoline the market for such vehicles has dwindled to a trickle. Then go visit a Toyota or Nissan or Honda dealership? You see the exact opposite (with the possibel exception of Toyota) You will witness a sea of small and medium size passenger cars. Why is it that America's foreign competitors seem to understand the domestic market so much better than entrenched domestic producers.

As the conomy has slipped and as gas prices have soarded, Japanese auto producers in particular have ramped up production of various in-demand vehicles, including hybrids, meanwhile the big three talk a great deal about shifting production, little else is down. This goes to the inefficiency in the way the Big Three have operated, dependence on Unions and less reliance on innovative automation renders the Big Three far less efficient in altering production strategies. At the same time companies like Toyota have sold over a million hybrids with several models in production, while GM and Ford have only sold a few thousand and Chrysler hasn't sold a single one. What exactly is it going to take to wake up these fossils in Detroit, perhaps when they are auctioning off the corporate headquarters for these firms, perhaps then they will recognize what should have been done? Will someone tell GM, Ford and Chrylser to stop talking about Volts, hybrids, hydrogen fuels cells and increased fuel efficiency and start production.

Pick up practically any magazine these days and you will notice that GM and Ford, in particuloar, are spending millions advertising Ford Escape Hybrids and malibu Hybrids and so forth, but where are they. In Metro Atlanta, for example (or all of Georgia for that matter), not a single Ford dealer has even one hybrid, in fact, while Ford continues to produce thousands of their non-0selling conventional models. Why are they advertising cars that can;'t be purchased at any price. This has the affect of aggravating potential customers and driving them to the competition. Exactly who is running the shop in Detroit?

Links:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYXm6L25yay9RRQymP7uDxeSsX1g
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/06/news/companies/big_three_woes/?postversion=2008080610

Where do we rank?

2008-07-24T16:14:00.003-04:00

The US ranks 29 among the community of nations insofar as it relates to the academic performance of the nation's public school students. This showing is down from America's academic performance 4 years ago. Even as the US spends far more on average than most every other country on earth our public students continue to rank far behind much of Europe, Canada and East Asia.

Ranking:

1. Finland
2. Hong Kong
3. Canada
4. Taiwan
5. Japan
6. Estonia
7. New Zealand
8. Australia
9. Netherlands
10. Liechtenstein
11. S. Korea
12. Slovenia
13. Germany
14. United Kingdom
15. Czech Republic
16. Switzerland
17. Macao-China
18. Austria
19. Belgium
20. Ireland
21. Hungary
22. Sweden
23. Poland
24. Denmark
25. France
26. Croatia
27. Iceland
28. Latvia
29. United States
30. Spain
31. Slovak Republic
32. Lithuania
33. Norway
34. Luxembourg
35. Russian Federation
36. Italy
37. Portugal
38. Greece
39. Israel
40. Chile
41. Serbia
42. Bulgaria
43. Uruguay
44. Turkey
45. Jordan
46. Thailand
47. Romania
48. Montenegro
49. Mexico
50. Indonesia
51. Argentina
52. Brazil
53. Colombia
54. Tunisia
55. Azerbaijan
56. Qatar
57. Kyrgyzstan

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-FINN080229-sort.html?s=1&ps=false&a=up

Yet, what are our esteemed political leaders telling us? They tell us that our system works, that its the best in the world and so on and so forth. This of course is a lie, indeed not only is America's public school system not working, but we are continuing to fall further and further behind. As the emerging economies of China and India continue to move forward, US students will find themselves less and less capable of competing on the world market. If this trend continues it won't be long before American children aren't qualified to do much more than clean up after their foreign supervisors. This trend should come as a surprise to no one, such studies have regularly demonstrated the continued failings of our monolithic, state-centric, monopolistic educational system.

Those who suggest alternatives, such as school choice, vouchers, charter schools and home schooling are often chided with derision by those who apparently have no problem with America's 29 ranking (i.e., the American Left, Teacher's Unions and Statists). Here America these opponents of choice are staking steps to outlaw homeschooling (as in California) and derail choice initiatives (as in Utah), meanwhile in the world's best performing nation (Finland) state-centric No Child Left Behind style mandate are non-existant. Indeed, students don't even enter the classroom until age 7 and when they do, politicians don't flood the classroom with billions to pay for unnecessary technological destractions, they focus on academics.

In several of the planet's top performers like Belgium and Hong Kong school choice is the norm, where school funds follow the child and parents are free to send their children to a state school, private secular school or a parachial school and the results are pretty obvious. Yet here in America we cling to our philosophy of a command style approach to academics, with our children as the victims.

Obama's plan to destroy the economy

2008-07-17T16:14:00.002-04:00

Are there people out their so blind with a lust for power and influence that they will do anything to maintain that power, even at the expense of a nation.

Witness Obamanomics. Senator Barack Obama plans to raise taxes by as much as 25% on all those with incomes exceeding 250,000.00 per year. This figure includes most small business owners who employ approximately 70% of all Americans. These same small business owners are responsible for 80% of all teh new jobs being created in Amnerica today.

What will happen to these small business men and women once Obama's success averse tax policies are implemented. What will happen to those working for small businesses when their employers are forced to absorb an additional 25% business expense?

When will America awaken to the reality that Obama simply isn't prepared to be president? If his tax policies don't cripple this nation economically, his do nothing, don't drill, oppose nuclear, oppose energy alternatives and tax the oil companies policy on energy will ensure the permanent ruination of these United States of America.

There is no bias in the media (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

2008-07-17T16:07:00.000-04:00

We often hear about bias in the news media. While any truly objective person cannot escape the reality of this leftist bias in the media. We are frequently told that such bias is purely a figment of a right wing imagination. In realty it is simply a figment of the truth.

Earlier this summer, for example, Senator John McCain made his seventh visit to Iraq with nary a word from the major news networks. Is it because the story of the war in Iraq is unimportant, perhaps its less important because the level of violence has decreased so significantly. Or perhaps it is because John McCain is a Republican and as the GOP standard bearer in the November election the mass media will endeavor to pay as little attention to the senator as possible, in their ongoing effort to anoint Barack Obama as president, just as they ignored Hillary Clinton during the primary season. How else do we explain the phenomenon that is Barack Obama who less than 4 years ago was an obscure state legislator now on the cusp of the presidency. The mere suggestion is laughable, yet scary when one considers Obama's backward views on everything from the economy to foreign affairs.

If there were any doubt of the bias in favor of Senator Obama witness the spectacle that is Obama's upcoming trip to Iraq. The planned visit, Obama's first in years, has been catapulted into the media spotlight, so much so in fact that all three night time news anchors (Williams with NBC, Couric with CBS and Gibson with ABC) will be traveling with America's presumptive favorite son. Meanwhile, who even remembers McCain's visit. Such disproportionality in the media is nothing new but it does beg the question: why does the media even bothers to maintain the charade of impartiality?

Link:
http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_9906023

Iran test fires missiles

2008-07-10T10:10:00.002-04:00

For the second time this week the terrorist haven and Islamic Republic of Iran has test fired a new round of ballistic missiles capable of striking Israel. This veiled threat towards the west shouldn't be seen as anything more than saber rattling by a nation that has developed a technology that was used in war over 60 years ago. Perhaps this is something we should look upon with awe.

Exactly how is it that a nation like Iran with so much wealth and resources has taken so long to do something so simplistic in terms of technological prowess. This should not lead us to believe that Iran is only a mere 60 years behind the times. After all Iran is probably about 1200 years behind the time.

The last thing this country or any country needs is war with Iran, such a conflict with Iran would make the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look like Granada. And to what end? If this nation and the rest of the western world would finally embrace energy alternatives as they certainly should, particularly hydrogen, nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, etc...Such a strategy would deprive these radicals of the only leverage they have and ever could have on the freedom loving world.

Iran's saber rattling poses no genuine threat to Israel, while Iran tinkers with another 60 year old technology (i.e., nuclear weaponry), Israel has sufficient capabilities to thoroughly defend itself, perhaps dealing a crushing blow. The mullahs of Tehran may be radical, but they aren't so foolish as to risk suicide and any such conflict with Israel would certainly be an act of suicide.

Links:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/10/missile.iran/index.html

The dangers of an unwritten constitution

2008-07-03T18:52:00.003-04:00

Here's a question for anyone who is a citizen of the United Kingdom? Whats the highest law in the land? The answer is: It depends. In Britain, the nation's top judge, Justice Lord Phillips, asserted recently that Islamic Sharia law should be used in a variety of capacities insofar as it relates to Britain's Muslim subjects.

'It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'
-Justice Phillips

Herein lies the danger of nation's without a written constitution. We have already seen other nations (e.g., Canada) make exceptions for Islamic communities. Exceptions which do not apply to the larger population. Imagine if a Christian couple wanted a marriage or business contract to be based on the Bible, rather that the nation's applicable laws, or a Jew using the Torah or Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc...using their respective parochial systems rather than a universal code of justice. To what do certain individuals (i.e., Muslims) deserve such exceptionalism and where does it end.

Link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031611/Sharia-law-SHOULD-used-Britain-says-UKs-judge.html

Get murdered...we'll take a report

2008-07-01T17:11:00.001-04:00

Rarely in law enforcement do police have the opportunity to stop a murder or rape in progress. Its an extremely poor argument when we tell people to 'get raped, get assaulted, get robbed or better still get murdered. The police will come by soon to take pictures and complete a crime report, maybe even find the perpetrator,' meanwhile the victim is no less traumatized, if not dead.

Clark assails McCain's qualifications

2008-06-30T19:57:00.004-04:00

One has to wonder what type of bizzaro world we have entered when an Obama surrogate can assail the executive qualifications of John McCain. Albeit true, Senator McCain is no poster-boy for those of us who truly value freedom its pureist forms, but few can assert with any degree of seriousness that Senator McCain served with honor, indeed heroically in the face of unimageaable pain and torture. Regardless of this, Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander and failed 2004 presidential candidate has assailed McCain in a matter that can only be interpretted as a slight against all Americans who have served their country, and even those of us who haven't.

According to Clark, McCain's credits are of no great importance:

"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
-Wesley Clark

Perhaps General Clark is right, being shot down while flying combat missions in the service of your country is no great feat and apparently refusing to bow to almost un yielding pressure while captive in an enemy POW camp speaks nothing to a person's character either...what exactly is the message to all the other former POWs out their?

General Clark also derided McCain's experience on the grounds that his military service encompassed no executive responsibility and thus can be completely discounted. By General Clark's own reckoning only those military personal who held executive authority have experience that would qualify for the presidency. By this manner of circular logic only three president's in American history (Washington, Grant, Eisenhower and maybe Jackson) were qualified for the office.

Anyone who is a champion of the Constitution and liberty knows that there is no shortage of material upon which to attack the lackluster John McCain, yet this is best Obama's generals can muster? An attack which can only boomerang on the equally unqualified and unspectacular Barack Obama.

Links:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/29/america/campaign.php

Gun Safety a dream says Ivory Tower Professor

2008-06-28T14:55:00.002-04:00

In a recent Washington Post article , Professor Arthur Kellerman takes issue with the recent Supreme Court decision concerning the 2nd Amendment (big surprise).

While Professor Kellerman, does not hesitate to criticize Justice Scalia for his conclusion, the same arguments can be made in critiquing the esteemed professor. The professor’
Such arguments, as those posed by Kellerman are conspicuously absent when answering the question: what do you do if the unthinkable takes place and your home is terrorizes by a knife (or gun wielding) bandit intent on doing you harm. Should we simply wait and hope the police arrive before the assailant is finished robbing raping or murdering his intended victim? Why exactly is Professor Kellerman so opposed to the principle of self –defense? Since when did being a citizen of the United States entail surrendering certain basic human rights to the state? Indeed, 74% of all violent crimes committed in the United States do not involve firearms, yet we are to believe that barring law abiding citizens will save us from crime. Such a premise is purely beyond the pale of reason. Nor does it explain why countries like Australia and Britain have seen increases in violent crime as firearms have become all but impossible to acquire, nor does it explain how violent crime has increased as gun restrictions have become more ubiquitous in the United States.

As Kellerman notes, there are incidents in which firearms have caused accidental deaths or been the instrument by which suicides have been committed. In Japan, where firearms, are virtually unknown by the general populace, suicide far outpaces anything seen in the US or anywhere else in the industrialized world. The assertion that suicide is a result of the presence of firearms is as spurious as the assertion that the presence of cutlery leads to stabbings.

Yes accidents can and will happen but does this realty lead to the draconian decision to ban all firearms? Verily, 55000 annual deaths on American roads certainly hasn’t lead to Kellerman’s call for a ban on motor vehicles, nor has it lead to a call to ban home swimming pools, even though statistics clearly show that more accidental deaths occur in homes with swimming pools than they do in homes with firearms.

Then there is the subject of concealed weapons permits, while this is not addressed directly by the professor, it warrants such attention. Perhaps Kellerman refuses to address this matter because such data would reveal that less than 1% of firearms related crimes involve those citizens who have met the requirements to obtain a firearms license. The point being that law abiding citizens meeting certain reasonable requirements before they acquire firearms present no danger to themselves, only ne'er do wells who show no respect for the law in the first place. And it also begs the question, of those homes the professor supposedly studied in which the presence of firearms was related to some unjustifiable homicide, in how many of those homes were the owners legally able to obtain or possess a handgun?

Link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062702864.html

More thoughts of the 2nd Amendment

2008-06-27T08:26:00.003-04:00

The fallout from yesterday's Supreme Court decision will likely continue for some time and as the dust settles we have the opportunity to take a closer look at the decision.

According to Justice John Paul Stevens, the 2nd Amendment applies only to militias (and thus the second half of the amendment is purely superfluous) though in every other instance when the framers mentioned the people, such as the 10th amendment, it did indeed refer to the "people."

In any regard Stevens' contends that the true purpose of the amendment was to prevent congress from disarming the various state militias and replace them with a standing army.

Using Stevens' own logic, can it not be argued that this has already been done? After all, the Militia system was eleminated nearly 100 years ago, replaced by the National Guard, which is very much an arm of the national army bearing little resemblance (or automomy) to the
former militias they replaced.

Stevens further asserts that their is no indication that the framers ever intended to enshrine the right of self defense in the constitution. Indeed even if that were true, which it certainly is not, the 9th amendment would surely protect this long held right from the intrusion of the statists. But of course the 2nd amendment most certainly does enshrine the principle of self defense, as this was the purpose of the militia and as these bodies were composed of private citizens who regularly furnished their own weapons it would be extreemly difficult to fathom any other rational argument that is not tainted by the stain of statist thought.

Freedom lives (for another day)

2008-06-26T10:19:00.003-04:00

Today in perhaps the most anticipated of the US Supreme Court, the justices, have ruled that the Washington DC gun ban is unconstitutional. The 5-4 decision declared (rightly) that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.

For some time now, those who have opposed individual gun rights have argued that the 2nd amendment only applied to militias, this argument is without merit given the entire wording of the amendment and when one takes into account the circumstance of 18th century America. The militia has no modern equivalent. The militia of the 1700s and beyond was an informal all volunteer group of citizens dedicated to protecting themselves, their families and communities. The modern National Guard, while similar in function is a fully integrated component of the US military command structure, unlike the militias of yore.

The courts decision, uploads the rights of individuals to protect themselves, their families and their property. yes there are some that believe only the state should have that function, but I suppose their tune would be quite different if suddenly a bandit chose their home as the next home invasion target, perhaps they could just tell the criminal to wait 15-20 minutes until the police arrive.

Naturally this decision will be vilified by the left who will site erroneous gun facts, that reward criminals by disarming law abiding citizens and providing them with easy prey to fall on.

Previous Articles on Gun Ownership:
Another word on Gun Violence

The VT Massacre and the inevitable Gun Control Debate

Right to bear arms faces the high court

Why they voted no

Links:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWBT00928420080626?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Mexican Soldiers implicated in Phoenix area Home invasion

2008-06-26T09:22:00.002-04:00

It is a well documented fact that the US border with Mexican is both extremely porous, and dangerous. General Pershing could have attested to this fact nearly a century ago. Sadly in the intervening century little has changed. Instead of Pancho Villa, we have a never ending tide of illegal immigrants, and while many (if not most of them) are benign seeking only better opportunities, others are far from innocent. In fact some are quite dangerous.

In addition to this ever growing flow of illegal immigrants there is a growing amount of crime being committed in the border states of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California. These crimes have been committed by Mexican drug lords and now apparently they are being committed by the Mexican army itself. While the Mexican army is not formally at war with the United States, the corrupt nature of certain Mexican officials, including soldiers does give reason for concern.

Perhaps even more disconcerting is the realization that our political leaders in Washington on both the left and the right display not even the slightest bit on concern for our national security interests, much less the rule of law, both of which are threatened when a sovereign nation refuses to protect its own borders as we have done. Are political leaders appears more concerned with winning elections and scoring political points with various interest groups rather than upholding the Constitution, but then again why should this come as a surprise? Our leaders have been ignoring the very laws they have been swoen to uphold for generations.

Links:
http://kfyi.com/pages/local_news.html?feed=118695&article=3875223

Return to the Articles?

2008-06-21T18:35:00.004-04:00

Would not a return to the Articles of Confederation be preferable for all those Americans who cherish freedom (granted this is a ever shrinking minority group).

In theory the US Constitution is the preeminent symbol of effective government, one that recognizes the needs of the majority, while securing the rights of even the smallest groups. In theory the Constitution limits the reach and scope of the national government, guaranteeing our basic individual freedoms, including above all self determination. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution, for example, should, in theory, enshrine the sovereign rights of the various states which make up this republic.

This premise, however, is sound insofar as future generations remain dedicated to the principle and letter of the Constitution, in reality in over 230 years of history we have seen this is far from the truth. No sooner was the ink dry on the much heralded Constitution had Congress passed laws restricting free speech and during the 20th century a continuous erosion of state sovereignty occurred, first during the so-called Progressive era, continuing during the New Deal, the Great Society and right up to present day abominations like the No Child Left Behind Act.

Today the Constitution is little more than a guideline, to be conveniently ignored whenever possible. Today our courts have deemed it a proper function of the state to seize property in order to raise money and regularly site foreign law (rather than the Constitution) in rendering decisions. When we have arrived at such a state, we must recognize that the Constitution is no longer in force. Sadly the very document that gave birth to our republic contains the seeds of its destruction. Our Constitution, which includes such flexible language like the "elastic clause' has allowed our federal government to continually erode the rights of both the states and its citizens, while paying only lip service to the concept of federalism.

Under the now defunct Articles of Confederation, the powers of the federal government were greatly limited, and the sovereign powers of the individual states were greatly enhanced. If we are defenders of liberty we must recognize the power hungry have made a mockery of our constitution and so long as the current system remains in place, we can expect nothing less than the unchecked expansion of the federal government.

Obama's public works projects:

2008-06-20T16:57:00.003-04:00

In a previously referenced article, Senator Barack Obama, addressing a meeting of Democratic Governors, outlined some of his plans for the economy. In reality, it was little more than an insane political prescription for economic stagnation:

Obama said he would work with them on policies that would help, including a plan to spend billions in taxpayer dollars to build roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects that could create jobs and improve transportation routes. Obama asked if they have projects that were ready to go if they had the money, and there were nods and calls of "Absolutely!" around the table.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91DVH680&show_article=1

After reading this can anyone truly believe that Obama or the 16 Democratic governors present are fans of economic liberty. Is this the 1930s or the 21st century. Does Barack Obama truly believe that the path to economic recovery is to levy massive (and historic) tax increases to finance vast public works projects. And exactly who will fill these jobs? And are these the types of jobs that Obama wants to create in modern day America?

Is this how Obama envisions America will be able to compete with the emerging economies of China, India and Eastern Europe? It must be, after all he favors the status quo when it comes to our under-performing, outclassed schools, that produce students who lag far behind the rest of the developed world. And with out world class education, digging ditches and laying pavement is about all the next generation of Americans will be qualified to do. Already American companies are forced to import an ever growing number of engineers and scientist to fill their employment needs

Its a tired saying when one argues that the left favor nothing but "tax and spend" policies but it sadly continues to ring true. So much for the "New Democratic Party" of the Clinton era. Obama's planned re-birth of the WPA is no recipe for America's long term economic vitality (further highlighting his economic ignorance).

What this country needs, first and foremost is an energy plan that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, thereby reducing inflationary pressures, something the left (and the right) have failed to enact in the nearly 40 years since the first oil shock. Secondly we need a climate that encourages economic growth and entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama and his leftist friends favor a punitive tax structure that punishes success and rewards idolatry while simultaneously re-invigorating the modern American welfare state. Does anyone actually believe the farce of a "windfall profits tax" will lead to lower costs for the American consumer, to say nothing of job growth?

Can we afford such deception?

2008-06-20T16:20:00.003-04:00

Today in a Florida speech that would surely make Dr. Joseph Goebbels blush, the esteemed in-experienced, weak-minded smoker, and collectivist-leaning Senator from Illinois decried proposals to open the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to oil exploration.

According to Senator Obama, the savings would be minuscule and would be non-existant for over 20 years. This pronouncement alone should automatically disqualify Obama for the role of chief executive. Either teh presumptive Democratic nominee is knowingly distorting the facts, is ignorant or is seeking to ensure our continued dependence upon a band of oil rich tyrants from Venezuela to Saudi Arabia, whatever the motivation, if it were anyone other political leader would we not argue that that individual has no business leading the United States of America.

America can ill afford such misguided and foolish leadership mentality. With each passing day, Barack Obama further demonstrates why he should never occupy the White House, or any other leadership position in government.

Every American desrvesto know the answer to this question: Mr. Obama, what is your motivation for endorsing an energy policy that enshrines American subservience to Middle Eastern dictaors? Why do you cling to a policy of ignorance and champion that policy to your equally ignorant followers?

Previous Post on Oil Exploration Proposals:
http://www.thephalanx.com/2008/06/american-left-and-energy-dependence.html

Link:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91DVH680&show_article=1

The American Left and Energy Dependence

2008-06-18T20:46:00.003-04:00

Its not everyday that one can say "George Bush gets it right," in fact its been a rare occurrence within the span of nearly a decade, but today one can say just that with regard to the president's energy challenge to Congress. Today, in this politically charged climate, the president called on Congress to take steps toward energy independence, thereby reducing skyrocketing energy costs.

The president's plan was four fold:

1. Open the Outer Continental Shelf to exploration and drilling
2. Open ANWR to exploration, as it was originally intended
3. Bring Oil Shale resources on to the market
4. Increase America's refining capacity

On all four counts the president is right, naturally these issues will only address short-term consumption needs, as our long term future lies in energy alternatives like hydrogen and various synthetic liquid fuels. But it is the short term that should concern us all, after all the problem of high energy costs threaten to completely destroy the US economy.

Naturally the American left came out in strong opposition to the president's proposals.

"another page from (an)... energy policy that was literally written by the oil industry — give away more public resources."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi

"This is not something that's going to give consumers short-term relief and it is not a long-term solution to our problems with fossil fuels generally and oil in particular..."
-Sen. Barack Obama

"...we cannot drill our way out of this problem"
-Sen. Harry Reid

The fact is, the American left, with each passing day, appears more and more to have been invested in the ongoing immizeration of this country. When people like Barack Obama tell us that such measures won't have any impact on short term energy prices, it demonstrates the type of economic ignorance that only a weak minded smoker could exhibit. The fact is that roughly 40-50% of oil prices are a direct result of trading on the commodities market, which is essentially speculation about the long term pricing of energy resources. A strong commitment by the United States to reduce its dependence on foreign oil would have an immediate impact on oil prices. Need we forget that nearly a decade ago then president Clinton vetoed a similar measure to open ANWR to drilling, where would we be today if our esteemed former president had teh insight to serve as a steward for our energy security, rtaher than covering for one scandal after another?

Now we are to believe that the left has the best interest of the American people at heart? This is difficult to fathom when every move toward energy independence is met with opposition, what is the motivation? If not either to cripple the country economically for short term political gain?

Senator Reid claims that the oil companies control millions of acres in oil leases that are not being used to drill on and thus no further opening of such lands is warranted. This of course is nonsense when one considers the fact that the cost to drill in many of these areas would exceed the benefits. But then again from the standpoint of such demagogue politicians American industry should give away resources rather than make a profit in the first place. How else can one explain a new proposal by House Democrats to nationalize the nation's refineries and another Democratic plan to tax windfall profits. While the president's proposals would work towards reduced cost and energy independence the only proposals made by the left call for socialism, higher taxes and higher costs for the American consumer.

Both proposals will have an impact on energy, one works for us, the other works against us. How gullible are we as Americans that such a position is even defensible?

Links:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_bi_ge/offshore_oil
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/PainAtThePump/story?id=5197676&page=1

Liberalism = Tyranny

2008-06-17T16:23:00.002-04:00

Ever wonder how any sane person who calls themselves a liberal, or the disgustingly euphemistic "progressive," and yet calls themselves a champion of the constitution and liberty.

Liberalism is diametrically opposed to liberty, much less the US Constitution for the simple fact that Modern American Liberalism (Not to be confused with Classical Liberalism), asserts that it is a fitting and proper role for the state to use its coercive powers to reallocate the wealth, labor and resources of private citizens in pursuit of a purported collective good. Essentially a liberal would argue that an all powerful state by right should make decisions on our behalf.

This certainly isn't the first time in human history that a select have argued that they and they alone should dictate the proper direction for our individual endeavors, that "they" know best. Indeed, the slave masters of the antebellum era certainly felt that way. A liberal cannot support individual liberty, individual recognition and individual achievement as it challenges the supremacy of teh state in such matters. As archtypical liberals like Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton have noted, there is a war against teh idea of the "individual."