Ken Nelson

Benign                               Dangerous

Reporters writing about stuff they know nothing is always good for a chuckle.  I know this because I know a lot about computers, software, guns, and the military. When reporters write about these things they almost always make big mistakes.

Take this article on a perceived increase in militias in the United States. Why would there be more militias now (if there are – and I don’t know if there are)?

If the words sound familiar, there is good reason. It is rhetoric that was typical of the so-called patriot movement of the 1990s, amid similar circumstances: A Democrat, Bill Clinton, was in office. There was heightened interest in gun control legislation. Veterans were returning from the first Gulf War. Elaborate conspiracy theories were spreading.

<sarcasm>Hmmm… those darned pesky VETERANS again.  Why can’t we just animate them when we have a war and then put them in cold storage so they don’t come home and run rampant killing people and joining militias. What can we do about those dangerous VETERANS?</sarcasm>

Hey Reporter… these open militias are just wacky people, similar to eco-kooks, Dead Heads, nudists, and other eccentrics.  The ones you have to worry about will not be in a compound or running about in camouflage. The government has awesome guns and guys eager to use them. The government has air power! Fighting the government with guns is stupid.

The militias you have to worry about will plan, quietly, and then strike precisely at the soft underbelly of government.  Probably via assassination of openly corrupt politicians (can you name a few?) as well as with precise attacks on the infrastructure of government oppression.  I suspect they would go after the fuel of oppression….  our money.

What might that involve?   I suspect they would infiltrate key software engineers within the IRS information systems, and on signal cause mass confusion and distrust of the tax system. Externally and internally they would wage total war on IRS IT infrastructure. The goal would be to sow such distrust that it would cause massive non-compliance.  Would it work?  Sure. Especially so if they had people on the inside.  Nary a gun required – and much more effective.

Our government is big because it has access to our money. Take the money away, it shrinks. Simple.

But hey, this is just me thinking aloud and war gaming what would be effective. Don’t worry… I’m not planning anything personally. I’m not happy with our direction, but my personal situation is fine and requires no revolution.

But it only makes sense that somebody out there is contemplating similar.

Would Al-Qaeda do this?  Absolutely not. This would be HEALTHY for us, and they like our current self-destructive path.   The old adage of not getting in the way of a self-destructing enemy applies to them.

So, Reporter, it isn’t the wacky militias you see that will undermine your socialist utopia.   And if you really care about the country, Reporter, you would focus more on the government’s problems and not on eccentrics running around in the woods.

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

Thomas Jefferson
3rd US President
Author “Declaration of Independence”

I’m not sure who said this, but I heard it this week:

“there are those who work for a living and those who vote for a living”.

Well, whoever said it, has it spot on. Our Democracy is a sham. Oh sure we vote, but the fix is in – we exist only to serve our political class (of either party).  Our Constitution has been compromised and/or ignored. I’ve little hope for our long term future. And I’m pretty worried about our short term.

So is my wife, as she is getting busy refreshing and revamping our disaster food storage supplies.

Of course TJ knew it all long ago didn’t he….

H/T/ Glenn Beck

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)”

On the wall of my office is my commission as an officer in the United States Army.  In order to get it I had to swear an oath (above)  to defend the Country and the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to swear true faith and allegiance to the same.

This was given to me long ago and I never really gave much thought to anything but the foreign enemies part. Nor did we receive training in anything other than how to deal with foreign enemies (violently but with certain rules).   I had no training in identifying or defending against domestic enemies. And I had no training on what it meant to defend the Constitution.

I’m going to leave the Commission on my wall, because it reflects an achievement I’m proud of.  But if asked to accept it again, I’d be tempted to say “Gosh… I’m not willing to defend the Constitution as currently written, and I think you are a domestic enemy, is one out of three okay?”. 

Oh sure Ken, you say, you don’t like Obama so you call him a domestic enemy. I despised Clinton, but I would have accepted a commission from him.   I believe that Obama is a domestic enemy. I do not believe he likes or respects this country and I think he actively works against our interests and the good parts of our Constitution. I believe he and others in  his government have long term plans to subvert the freedom parts of our Constitution.

Not all parts though. I think there is one part he really likes.  And that leads me to the other reason I’d have a problem accepting a commission today… there are parts of our Constitution I would not be willing to defend.   In particular the 16th amendment – the right to tax us any darn well the Government wants to.   Put it in context with the other amendments, which detail what the Government can’t do, the 16th amendment is the most “unconstitutional” amendment one could imagine other than “this document is nullified”.

The 16th amendment led to the growth of government that threatens our rights and economic freedom and security.  Why defend it?

This is not to disparage any serving today. If I were younger I’d probably be serving as well – we clearly have foreign enemies that are actively fighting against us.

But… I’d do so with a sour taste in my mouth as I knew I’d only be willing to do a third of the job.

Rush is not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

This pains me. Colbert was on the case in 2008.

I put this under Musings and Good Ideas because I didn’t have an Outrage category and I already have too many categories!

As an aside, a Rush Rock Band or Guitar Hero edition would certainly grace my game shelf…

(BTW: The video says “no longer available”, but it is, just click on it)

“Hey Jude”, by the Beatles, isn’t my favorite song by any means, but I do think it is an excellent song.  This graphical flow chart of the song shows great doesn’t have to be complex:

Chart via: Tumblr.com

Over the last few years I’ve learned guitar. As I’ve studied songs that I’m learning on guitar I’ve found that most songs are really quite simple in structure.

I saw this photo on the web recently:

and, having been a while since I perused Deuteronomy, I decided to check it out:

13 ¶ If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and ^ahate her,

  14 And ^agive occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a ^bmaid:

  15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

  16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

  17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

  18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

  19 And they shall ^aamerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil ^bname upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

  20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

  21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she ^adie: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

The gay protestors aren’t even close to using the passage as it is intended. Only if the husband was promised a virgin and can prove that he didn’t get one is the marriage invalidated and the woman stoned. See, it’s simple really!

But here we have a situation (non-virgin woman getting married) that must happen often in the population of Christians adhering to the Bible. Yet we have no reports of stonings or even of serious reprisals.

What gives?

Well here in we see the difference between Christianity and Islam. We’ve moved on. Our scripture and its interpretations advance. Islam is locked back in the 6th century.

The flexibility is how Christianity grew.  Islam took another route – fierce adherence to unchanging dogma backed by extreme force.  I know which I prefer.

So back to our gay protestors… what they are really saying is that since you’ve moved off of stoning false virgins, why not ignore the Biblical prohibitions against gay marriage too?

Good question.

That is why I don’t derive my views on gay marriage from biblical interpretations.

Good while it lasted

222 years ago, today, an amazing set of men signed the United States Constitution. 

The Constitution defined the parts and duties of our Federal government and had a set of 10 amendments explicitly restricting the power of the government.   It was, and remains, an amazing document well worth celebrating.

I, however, propose a new day… of memorial. I propose we identify 3 Feb 1913 as the  day the Constitution was struck down with a terminal disease. Why? That was the day the 16th amendment was ratified.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

Unlike other amendments that codified individual rights, or which clarified government operating procedures, the 16th amendment granted expansive new Federal powers to to tax and even included a specific exclusion from the requirement to have equal protection under the law.  Its 30 words represent an unfortunate break with the spirit and intent of the Constitution – a break it may not survive.

Funded by the 16th amendment, government grew and grew, and with it a permanent political class that would use unlimited taxing power to punish what they don’t like and reward what the do.

Can the Constitution (and our Republic) be saved?  Perhaps. We would have to eliminate or severely alter the 16th amendment. I don’t see how that is possible now because so many people depend on it to extract money from others.

Alas, I suspect our nation just marks time now.  We wait for the impact at the bottom and wonder how hard it will be.

My wife put Red Skelton’s Pledge of Allegiance on her infrequently updated blog.

I say the pledge at least twice a month, we say it before each pistol match. I confess, however, to ambivalence as to how long I’ll be comfortable saying it.

When, for instance, it is changed to “one nation, indivisible, under SEIU”, I’ll probably say it with fingers crossed, just to keep out of my cul-de-sac monitor’s weekly reports.

Where are you O Modern George?

I know now just how brave Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and the others were. The tyranny we face from DC is far worse than what Britain was doing to the colonies. But our founding fathers saw a better way, something worth doing, even at risk of everything for them.

There were those who valued “current prosperity” and  “stability”. They were called Tories, loyalists, and other. They had theirs and didn’t want to rock the boat.

It is clear who the Tories these days are.  What is not clear is who are the Thomas Jeffersons ?  Who, in the top 1/2% of our business/economic elite, is ready to lose it all on behalf of unborn generations?

So far, it appears nobody wants that duty.

Note that removing the permanent political class doesn’t require blood or war, at least on the part of the dissenters.  The state is vulnerable. If even a 1,000 people deny New York City their taxes, it shuts down.   Similarly, about 10,000 would shut down the US government. If organized and acting in concert.

As to blood, while the dissenters wouldn’t be violent, it wouldn’t be long before the “takers” got bloody. They would send their IRS, their FBI, their DEA and who knows what else after dissenters with order to stop this quickly and by whatever means possible.   I and many other productive people been the recipient of IRS ire in the past. They start with threats and go up from there, even when it was their mistake.

So don’t be confused about who is bleeding when I state that only blood will separate the political class from power.  The patriots would bleed first. 

It isn’t something I want. Just something I see.

I find it fundamentally offensive that there is an entire group of people who spend their lives confiscating the wealth created by others and giving to their allies.

Uncle Jimbo
Ace of Spades website

Me too Uncle Jimbo, me too.

The only bi-partisan reality in DC: Really odd scary people

I’m asked regularly “Gosh Ken, what is the one thing that would fix Washington?”?

Well the obvious one is take away the 16th amendment. But that would be like asking addicts for their stash. Ain’t gonna happen.  So what can we do that doesn’t require changing the Constitution?

The only thing left, I believe, is to change the type of person that is in Washington and to change the length they stay there.

We have in D.C., “representing us”, a strange group of narcissistic sociopaths who participate in a high risk “winner take all” game where one loss usually kills your career.  You’d be strange too, if that was the game you played.   And knowing how hard you worked, you, too, would do anything to make it less likely your life’s investment would go away in a loss.

So we need term limits. One term for a Senator and 2 terms for a Representative.  I want churn. I want a person there to serve, not to score, and definitely not one that thinks he or she “rules” me not “represents” me.

Some would say “but what about the pressure they feel by the electoral process”. Due to money, gerrymandering and issue control, Incumbents win over 90% of the time.   I don’t think they have that much pressure on them except in rare times like now (when they manage to really get stupid in aggregate).

Quite to the contrary, I think that churn among our “representatives” will lead to them being more responsive because there will be no safe seats.

No, what I want isn’t perfect, but I think it far better than the corrupt system populated by narcissistic careerists that we have now.

A different kind of party

As “the hippies partied” young men were dying in Vietnam:

Meanwhile, 8,429 miles around the other side of the world, 514,000 mostly young Americans were authentically serving the country that had raised them to place society over self. The casualties they sustained over those four days were genuine, yet none of the elite media outlets were praising their selflessness.

…

So when you hear talk of the glories of Woodstock — the so-called "defining event of a generation" — keep in mind those 109 GIs who served nobly yet are never lauded by the illustrious spokesmen for the "Sixties Generation”

The image above is from an interesting and short article from Stars and Stripes about the fighting in the Hiep Duc valley that August. Read it all.

I’m sure all of Bravo Company would rather have been listening to Jimi Hendrix.

Unfortunately, the partiers run the government now.

BTW: This link has the names on the Vietnam Wall of those killed between Aug 15th and August 28, 1969.

When it comes to civil liberties, liberals are often distrustful of government power. But, for reasons that baffle me, they are quite comfortable with Uncle Sam getting into the business of deciding, or providing “guidance” on, which lives are more valuable than others. A government charged with extending life expectancy must meddle not just with our health care, but with what we eat, how we drive, how we live. A government determined to cut costs must meddle not just with how we live, but how we die.

Jonah Goldberg

 

Why should we get health care reform pushed down our throats in a couple of weeks, when the President took, what, 6 months to pick a dog for his kid??

Unknown  Protester
1:50 seconds or so into this video

"The key is not the will to win… everybody has that. It is the will to prepare to win that is important."
Bobby Knight.