British defeated, colonists have the right to bear arms!

Well, the Supreme Court has handed down their decision in D.C. v. Heller. According to the big court the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens and not just to members of the "militia."

The decision makes sense to me. Some have argued that the amendment was put into place to keep the Federal Government from disarming the states ans so did no apply to the individual citizens outside of state sponsored and organized militias. I have always felt that this interpretation just didn't fit. Looking at the time period of the writing of the amendment we see that the British had recently (within 10 years) been defeated by an armed citizenry. Granted, the colonists were formed into militias during the conflict but the individuals usually owned the weapons they were using. The individual colonies, or states, did not normally supply small arms.

I also find it ironic that the weapons in question Heller were handguns. At the time of the writing of the Second Amendment sidearms were the weapons of officers and some mounted troops. The vast majority of the colonists carried muskets or hunting rifles. These were the assault rifles of the day. If the amendment is strictly construed it seems that an argument could be made for overturning assault rifle bans as well as D.C.'s handgun ban.

Book review - Lost Victories

Just finished reading a book called Lost Victories: The Military Genius of Stonewall Jackson by Bevin Alexander. The book is an analysis of General Jackson's military career in the Civil War.

Mr. Alexander makes several good points in his book. He accurately points out that, in some areas, Jackson was ahead of his time in his strategy and innovative in his tactics. He covers the early war and Jackson's desire to take the war to the Northern populace. This strategy was proposed by Jackson just after the Valley Campaign while the Army of the Potomac was engaged creeping up the peninsula towards Richmond. Mr. Alexander accurately states that Lee and Davis overruled Jackson and ordered him to Richmond to take part in the Seven Days battles.

What Mr. Alexander does not discuss was the grand strategy of the Confederate States. Their aim was to be seen as defending themselves, not as the aggressor. By the time of Sharpsburg it was clear that the tactic of defense had succeeded in winning the emotional battle on the diplomatic front but a win on Northern soil was needed to firm up the deal. As Mr. Alexander properly notes, no politician likes to back a loser.

Sharpsburg is the point where Mr. Alexander makes his next unusual point. He claims that Lee's orders to concentrate at Sharpsburg effectively lost the campaign. As evidence he points out that the Army of Northern Virgina had already scored a major victory by capturing Harper's Ferry and the garrison there. By concentrating at Sharpsburg, Lee committed to a stand-up slugging match with no room to maneuver and against a heavier foe. This resulted in his army being bled white. Upon reflection it seems that Mr. Alexander has a point here.

While his Sharpsburg analysis is interesting and thought provoking, he has one major flaw. In Mr. Alexander's book Jackson made no mistakes. Those that history has attributed to him are credited to his subordinates or to Lee. Lee is knocked about pretty sharply on the strategical and tactical fronts as well. While Mr. Alexander is proper to credit Jackson with much, it may be a bit of a leap to consider him as the strategy source for the Army of Northern Virgina.

Thorny dilemma

Recently Mrs. Spiff received an interesting email. It was from a fellow Believer who claims to be politically conservative. The gist of the message was that this person had found out about a third party candidate that they felt was an attractive alternative to John McCain.

While the particular candidate involved was not a decent choice in my opinion it got me to thinking. In my mind it doesn't take much to be an attractive alternative to John McCain. There are several third party candidates that would be much better than McCain, in my view. The idea of voting for one of them is indeed a powerful draw for conservatives. However, before we sign petitions, put up yard signs, or pull the lever let us consider the big picture.

History shows us that in modern times no third party candidate has ever won the presidency. Most barely break double digits in the polls. This means that, absent a concerted defection on behalf of a huge chunk of one of the two major parties, McCain or Obama will win. Given the recent failure of conservatives and Christians to act in concert in the GOP primaries, the chances of such an defection are dim indeed.

I am no John McCain fan. See previous posts if you need any doubt removed. McCain is pretty spineless and is a crackpot on several issues. While I am not a McCain fan I am very offended and worried by Barack Obama. Let's take a look at the candidates.

McCain is not a conservative but he may well choose a conservative running mate. Obama probably has the list narrowed down to Raul Castro and Raila Odinga. McCain has a pretty solid pro-life voting record. Obama is pro-abortion. McCain has stated that he will appoint Supreme Court justices in the vein of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Obama probably considers the Ninth Circuit to be too conservative. McCain has clearly stated his intention to win the war in Iraq. Obama has stated just as clearly his intention to lose it.

I don't like John McCain. I have nightmares about Barack Obama. A vote for a third party candidate might send a message to the Republican Party. It might also put Obama in the White House. At this point I don't plan to vote for John McCain; I plan to vote against Barack Obama.

Unbelievable!

Read this and then come back to this post. I am bothered by this on a very deep level. The disrespect shown is almost unreal.

I am sure that Obama didn't know where the porta-johns were placed. I am also sure that he is in charge of his campaign and that he would be among the first to call for a police chief's head if his officers placed porta-johns on a memorial to Martin Luther King Jr. during a police function. I am sure that Obama and his ilk would scream bloody murder and hold the chief directly responsible, even if he didn't know where the porta-johns were placed.

Aside from that aspect, what kind of people is Obama consorting with? Who would do something like this anyway? What kind of thought process leads someone to put toilets on top of a memorial dedicated to those who have died to maintain the order that allows for rallies such as this?

Perhaps we can learn more about Barack here. That should make you at least wonder about Barack and look deeper into who he is, what he stands for, and who he flushes the toilet on.

Movie time!

Has anyone seen the movie Expelled? Mrs. Spiff and I went and saw it on Saturday on the recommendation of my in-laws. Excellent flick which I highly advise everyone to see as soon as possible.

Expelled is a documentary done by Ben Stein on the scientific controversy surrounding the theory of Intelligent Design. I have little information on Mr. Stein but I know he does a good job with the topic at hand. Most of what was covered I already knew or had surmised but seeing all the pieces put together was invaluable. Mr. Stein interviews several prominent Darwinists and it is fascinating to see the masks come off. These men and women truly have little to hide and no fear of retribution.

If you are looking for a movie defending Creationism then you will be disappointed. If you are concerned that there is discrimination against anyone not toeing the Darwin line then this is the movie for you to see. In my view it gets several thumbs up and is a must see for anyone, on either side of the debate, who values free exchange of ideas.

Was it something we forgot?

"We have been recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown.

But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us."
- Abraham Lincoln, Thanksgiving Day Proclamation of 1863

There are few subjects that I agree with President Lincoln on; not the least of which his disregard for the U.S. Constitution. One must admit though that the man knew people. He knew Americans best of all. The above quote is over 140 years old but rings as true today about this nation as if it had been spoken yesterday.

President Lincoln hits at the heart of the matter. If we refuse to recognize God's grace then he will withdraw it. On a national level he will remove his protection. On a personal level the offer of redeeming grace can only stay open for so long.

Society

"Society is an open-ended partnership between generations. The dead and the unborn are as much members of society as the living. To dishonor the dead is to reject the relation on which society is built - a relation of obligation between generations. Those who have lost respect for the dead have ceased to be trustees of their inheritance. Inevitably, therefore, they lose the sense of obligation to future generations. The web of obligation shrinks to the present tense."
- Edmund Burke

Of course we should not always emulate those who have gone before us. Rather we need to understand them as best we can and learn from their experiences. We also have an obligation to those who follow us that they be able to honor us when we are gone and not be ashamed of what we did in our short space in time.

Americans in general have forgotten what those before us did and we have no thought for those who are to come after. We live for the day by a set of ethics and standards that have no root or stability.