America’s 1st Freedom | Is Europe Grasping For Gun Rights?

Is Europe Grasping For Gun Rights?

Terror threats, rising violent crime and the European Union’s suffocating strictures on guns have many Europeans craving their own version of America’s Second Amendment.

Source: America’s 1st Freedom | Is Europe Grasping For Gun Rights?

For decades, European have been quick to disparage the United States for our robust Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms, as enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Shielded, whether they knew it or not, by geographical features which (until recently) have served as de facto barriers to easy migration, and even more by despotic but mostly stable governments in places like Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and secure in almost completely homogeneous and law-abiding societies, they mocked us for our “love affair” with guns, and derided our supposed “frontier mentality” on the subject.

But now, in light of the deluge of Third-World immigrants that was unleashed upon Europe in 2015 and continues to this day, some, at least, are mocking no longer. Rather, they are wishing (and I have heard this same thing from European friends on Facebook) that they had more Constitutional guarantees of freedom, and especially a 2nd Amendment!

The linked article is on the longer side, but worth reading in full; here are a few excerpts:

“In 12 days I visited Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Monaco, Italy, the Vatican, San Marino, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Austria. Everywhere I went, I interviewed people about the state of things in Europe, and I was truly shocked by one thing in particular — the number of people who told me they envy America for its Second Amendment.

“I’m not making that up. Ask yourself this question: How much do you know about the details of the founding documents of any country in Europe? If you are like me, it’s not much. So that makes it even more remarkable that many people in Europe are familiar with one very important detail about the U.S. Constitution—our Second Amendment freedom to keep and bear arms.

“Even more surprising was the number of people who expressed a wish that they, too, could be given the right to defend themselves and their families. And in several European countries, gun-rights measures are being actively addressed…”
Continue reading “America’s 1st Freedom | Is Europe Grasping For Gun Rights?”

Advertisements

Treaty of Versailles | The Holocaust Encyclopedia

Image result for versailles treaty germany punishment
https://www.slideserve.com/mikasi/woodrow-wilson-and-the-treaty-of-versailles

Source: Treaty of Versailles | The Holocaust Encyclopedia

Contrary to popular belief, Germany had entered World War One only reluctantly, and as a result of its mutual-assistance pact with Austria-Hungary. When it became obvious that the Kaiserreich could not defeat the Allies – especially after the entry of the United States, with over a million fresh troops, and in light of the “November Revolution” that resulted in Bolshevik (Marxist / Communist) takeovers of several major German cities – its representatives sought to negotiate, in good faith, a treaty to end the war.

Those negotiations were intended to be conducted on the basis of Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points,” which “called for the victorious Allies to set unselfish peace terms with the vanquished Central Powers of World War I, including freedom of the seas, the restoration of territories conquered during the war and the right to national self-determination in such contentious regions as the Balkans.”

Those reasonable hopes did not take long to be dashed: Continue reading “Treaty of Versailles | The Holocaust Encyclopedia”

Centenary of Armistice Day: 11 November, 1918-2018

Centenary-Armistice-Day-1918-2018On this day, almost at this hour – at the “eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month” – the guns of the Western Front fell silent at last, and four years of a cruel, horrific, European brother-killing war, the “Great War,” World War One, the “war to end all wars” (if only!) came to an end.

Image result for world war one western front

Bled nearly dry by four years of meat-grinder warfare, a whole generation nearly annihilated, Europe was exhausted. But the arrival of more than a million fresh, able, and (for the most part) well-equipped American troops turned the tide. Now hopelessly outnumbered, its cities falling to Marxist revolution and even parts of its once-proud military in mutiny, Germany had no choice but to sue for peace. Continue reading “Centenary of Armistice Day: 11 November, 1918-2018”

‘Multiple Men’ Were ‘Ready to Take a Bullet’ for Us, Says Shooting Survivor

Screen Shot 2018-11-10 at 9.34.25 AM
Screen shot of a tweet by ABC’s Good Morning America. Interestingly enough, this video clip has been removed from the link above. Do they not want to promote, or even admit to, male heroism? Is that just too far removed from the dominant narrative, in today’s media?

Source: ‘Multiple Men’ Were ‘Ready to Take a Bullet’ for Us, Says Shooting Survivor

As “Mister Rogers” used to say, “look for the helpers.”

“Toxic masculinity” – or the protest against it – is all the rage these days, in the Left-wing media and academic world. America, so the currently-dominant narrative (a la #metoo) goes, is a land of misogyny, a “rape culture” in which sexual exploitation, assault, and violence against women women is commonplace.

I will not here discuss the incredible twisting of any rational definition of “assault” required to get to this number (and even then, it may well be a fantasy). Nor will I dwell on the fact that some of those same Leftists are willing to welcome with open arms a genuine rape culture, that of Islam (see “grooming gangs” in Britain, and the incredible spike in rapes in Germany and Scandinavia, linked to Moslem migrants).

I will, instead, point out that the horrible tragedy of the Thousand Oaks shootings in California showed positive masculinity at its best. The Daily Signal reports,

“While we were all dog-piled at the side, there were multiple men that got on their knees and pretty much blocked all of us with their backs towards the shooter, ready to take a bullet for any single one of us,” Teylor Whittler, a woman who had been in the club during the shooting, said Thursday morning, reported ABC News.

“And just the amount of people who made sure everyone got out OK or if they were out … they made sure, they went around to every single person around them and asked them if they were OK and if they needed a phone to call their family … just in general any way they could help. It was awesome,” she continued.

And these were just the anonymous heroes; ordinary, decent men doing what ordinary, decent men do, when others are in danger.  There were others, too, as I have elsewhere noted; known, individual examples of courage and heroism:

Sheriff’s Sgt. Ron Helus, 29-year veteran of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, who was gunned down responding to the incident; 23-year-old Cal Lutheran alumnus Justin Meek, who died shielding his sister and others from the gunman with his own body; Sean Adler, a 48-year-old married father of two, who apparently died attempting to disarm the gunman; former Marine Daniel Manrique, who “ran in to help people escape the violence and ultimately gave his life protecting others.”

This is what men – real men, not either über-macho @$$holes or testosterone-deprived nu-malesdo. It is what all men are supposed to do: to protect, to care for, to defend, and to give help and succor to those in need, and especially to those who may not be able to care for and protect themselves, in a given situation. And if necessary, to lay down their lives for those they are protecting: following the example of Christ Himself, dying that others may live. That is what true manhood, true masculinity, is all about. God bless them!

Jim Acosta violated one of the oldest rules of journalism | NY Post

Jim Acosta

There was a time not long ago when young journalists were taught not to become the story. Apparently, many news organizations have flipped that lesson on its head.

Source: Jim Acosta violated one of the oldest rules of journalism | Michael Goodwin | NY Post

As some or many of The Anglophilic Anglican’s readers may know, CNN’s Jim Acosta (pictured above) has been stripped of his White House press credentials for what this opinion piece by Michael Goodwin accurately (in my view) defines as boorish, disgraceful, and narcissistic behavior during a press conference on Wednesday.

[CNS News points out that

“The announcement came after a contentious exchange earlier in the day during a press conference where Acosta repeatedly interrupted and badgered President Donald Trump and refused to give up the microphone when a female White House aide tried to obtain it to pass it on to another reporter.

In her statement, Sanders stated the White House will ‘never tolerate a reporter placing his hands on a young women just trying to do her job as a White House intern.’ Sanders called Acosta’s behavior ‘absolutely unacceptable’ and disrespectful to other reporters he refused to allow to ask their questions.”]

Goodwin notes,

“There was a time not long ago when young journalists were taught not to become the story. Apparently, many news organizations have flipped that lesson on its head…
Continue reading “Jim Acosta violated one of the oldest rules of journalism | NY Post”

‘Blue Wave’ turns out to be more like a ripple | NY Post

Image result for trump calls pelosi
President Trump called House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi late Tuesday to congratulate her on the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives.

Source: ‘Blue Wave’ turns out to be more like a ripple | NY Post

Well, Election Day is over, and although not all the ballots are counted as of yet, it’s possible to make some overall observations. One of those is that Americans are still probably more moderate – even if that is defined only as “resistant to radical change and/or extremism” – that die-hard partisans on either side would like to admit.

The so-called Democratic “Blue Wave,” so touted just months ago, was already giving signs of ebbing well before yesterday’s election; to the point that some on the right-hand side of the political aisle were beginning to make hopeful noises about a “Red Wave,” instead. That did not happen.

The Democrats picked up +/- 30 seats in the House, giving them a majority there. This should come as a surprise to no one; historically, the party of the President nearly always loses at least one House of Congress – usually both – in the midterm elections. It would have been almost epochal, from a political perspective, if the Republicans had managed to hang onto both Houses.

What is a bit of a surprise is that the GOP not only held onto their Senate majority, but actually added a couple of seats to it. That is very unusual for a midterm election: for the governing party to not only hold onto the Senate, but increase their representation there. They also made gains in statehouses across the country, adding more Republican governors than they lost to the Democrats.

And even in the House, the much-vaunted “Blue Wave” was not much more than a ripple: as of 10:15 this morning, just a few minutes ago at this writing, the New York Times was reporting that the the Dems had picked up only 27 seats (28 as of 9:10 p.m., a bare 10 more than they needed to gain control). While there are still a few contests that are too close to call, compare this to the 63 seats the Democrats lost to the Republicans in 2010, the first midterm of Obama’s presidency, or the 54 in Bill Clinton’s.

Although gridlock can be bad, in that it prevents anything of significance from actually getting done, it can be good, at times, as it helps to prevent either side from going too far, too fast, in promoting its ideological agenda. I would like to think that the outcome of yesterday’s elections is a sign of America’s fundamental moderation, and impatience with extremism on either side, as I suggested in my opening paragraph.

And so it may be. But it’s also possible that it points, instead, to the the growing and hardening of the political gulf between segments of an American voting populace that is split almost down the middle between conservative / populist / traditionalist and liberal / globalist / progressive viewpoints.

If so, the challenges to our “American experiment” may be only growing, as well.

 

Election Day 2018 (U.S.)

Image may contain: one or more people, people sitting, people standing and indoor

Today is the day of the midterm general elections, here in the United States. I took advantage of the “early voting” option to exercise my franchise last week, and as I commented at the time, I was very far from the only one!

But as I drove past Mechanicsville Elementary in Gamber, on the way home from work this evening at around 6:40, it was still busy, only a bit over an hour before the polls closed. And the same was true of every polling place I drove past, all day today, and I drove past quite a few of them.

Whatever else can be said about this election cycle, it’s got people stirred up! That’s more to the good than otherwise, I think, regardless of the outcome; in order for our representative, Constitutional Republic to operate effectively, it needs an informed, active electorate. Active they certainly seem to be, this time around – I just hope they’re also informed!

An Anglican clergyman friend of mine posted the following on Facebook today:

As I was driving away from the polling place today I was struck by the thought that I, a Christian monarchist, have resolved to be active in local republicanism. What can I say? There is no king, Christian or otherwise, running for office or who has a chance of being forcibly enthroned by holy reactionary forces. You gotta work with what you have in order to keep the modern Jacobins at bay, but it ain’t ideal.

I am an American Anglican. As an Anglican, monarchy is the natural polity, but as an American, I stand for the traditional rights of Englishmen that modern England and the rest of the UK and the Commonwealth have sold for a mess of collectivist, leftist and PC pottage.

King George III was right, I believe, about how the liberated colonies would come to suffer unduly for the lack of a monarchy, but England and the UK have given up the ghost. The House of Windsor is a vapid imitation of the Kings that went before it, and only in American republicanism is found the true tradition of the Anglo-Saxon kings of old, albeit in a diluted form.

I am an Anglican, and I therefore stand for the Monarch.

But I also stand for the Bill of Rights, which is an enumeration of the rights of Englishmen, and that’s why I will assist in leveraging the republican way here in Henderson County, North Carolina against the forces of American Jacobism and Bolshevism and the clueless “liberals” to their right.

He speaks, in large measure, for me as well. Until the King comes again, the form of government bequeathed to us by our Founders (“A Republic, Madam… if you can keep it!” as Franklin put it) – and to the greatest extent possible, as our Founders bequeathed it to us – is our best available shot at keeping the forces of darkness at bay.

But this election is a concerning one. Those forces of darkness are very strong, and although the mask is slipping, that also means they are relieved of the moderating effects of pretense and subterfuge. We live in trying times…