February 28, 2009

The Real War









Jihad Watch Responds to Congressman Keith Ellison
Rise of the Iran Lobby
Hamas Taking Advantage of U.S. Diplomacy
Hamas Happy to Receive $900 million in U.S. Taxpayer Money
Muslim History at Wikipedia

Say: Do you dispute with us about Allah, and He is our Lord and your Lord, and for us are our deeds and for you your deeds; and we are sincere to Him? Or do you say that Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do you know better or Allah? And who is more unjust than he who conceals a testimony that he has from Allah? And Allah is not heedless of what you do. Those are a people that have passed away; and for them is what they earned and for you what you earn; and you will not be asked of what they did.
Al-Baqarah, 139-141


I have a deep and abiding respect for Islam. There are profound currents running through the Qur'an that speak clearly of a prophet completely devoted to his divine maker and fully convinced of his own righteousness. However, I have zero tolerance for bigotry, regardless of whether it is founded on spiritual beliefs or secular philosophies.

We must not underestimate the danger of Iranian and Saudi Arabian backed Islamic factions so filled with hatred for one another that they will happily burn the world to ash in their efforts to rise supreme and destroy their opposite. We are too focused on Palestine, too convinced in our own assumption that if we solve the mutual genocidal tendencies in both Israelis and Palestinians somehow the entire Middle East will settle into a modern Islamic utopia. This is a deeply flawed assumption and it has blinded us to a much larger, much more violent history between Islamic sects both of which now overflow with money earned from the sales of oil and natural gas to the gluttonous Christian world.

There are hundreds of Islamic sects, but for this discussion we need focus only on the two most radical, most militant, and most devoted to the complete and total destruction of all enemies: Sunni and Shi'a.

Saudi Arabia is the home of Islam. The Prophet grew into his faith on the backs of merchant camels plying the great desert between the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea, and the Mediterranean. His family was from Medina and it was in Medina where he built his first following. The first jihad took place when the ruling clans of Mecca attempted to destroy the growing Muslim enclave at Medina. The tribes allied with the Meccan royalists were destroyed. Not long after, The Prophet died, leaving his burgeoning "empire" in the hands of four "caliphs".

One of these caliphs, a fellow named Ali, raised up Muhammed's daughter Fatimah as the true heir to The Prophet's mantle. Under the influence of Ali and Fatimah, Islam took on a new vision of itself and the world around it. The other caliphs were not impressed and attempted to destroy the new cult, succeeding only in driving it far to the east, clear to the lands now enclosed in the nation of Iran. These are the Shi'a, the Arabian version of Islam is Sunni. Both believe the other is as much infidel as any non-Muslim, and both believe the other must either be destroyed or converted at the point of a sword.

There are two brands of Islamic terrorists, those loyal to the Sunni, and those loyal to the Shi'a. If they would just focus their energy on one another, the rest of us could go about our business. Unfortunately, Great Britain and the United States have formed deep, long-standing ties with the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia. Long before we needed oil, we needed protection from piracy and the Sunnis were key to achieving it. One of the vital achievements to increased security in Iraq was a shift in U.S. and U.K. policy away from a focus on close ties with Shi'a tribal leaders and the extending of a hand of peace and compromise to the Sunni tribal leaders as well.

Al Qaeda are predominately Sunni, but by feeding off tensions between the U.S. and the Iran/Hamas/Hezobollah trinity, they have earned the temporary loyalty of some smaller Shi'a militias in Afghanistan, Somalia, and other hotspots. The Taliban, who were driven out of Afghanistan and into the Pakistani tribal areas where they have been allowed to set up a pseudo safe-zone of their own in the Swat Valley, are primarily Sunni, just like Al Qaeda, and this is the foundation of their alliance.

Al Qaeda/Taliban alliance is Sunni, the Iran/Hamas/Hezobollah alliance is Shi'a, and BOTH groups believe they alone are the true Islam. One of the reasons our world is poised on the brink of a total collapse is that we are not fighting a single enemy, we are fighting two enemies both of whom would just as happily destroy one another as they would us. This is a three-way, global war with two tyrannical, fascist sects attempting to either destroy or corrupt from within an industrialized civilization that when worst comes to worst, tries to at least pretend they are dedicated to freedom and liberty.

One major problem we face is that the global political body we in the freedom-loving west are looking to as an arbiter in this conflict was originally set up and specifically designed to provide a place where the smallest, least significant nation would have the opportunity to voice its anger at the biggest, most powerful nations among us. We created the United Nations to prevent ourselves from oppressing the weak and by doing so, inadvertently created a system allowing the weak to oppress us!

This is why it has become so vital that as these two Islamic forms of fascism seek to pervert the world system to their own tyrannical ends we oppose them at each and every minor foothold they gain. For make no mistake, both groups now control a great deal of the world's wealth. The Sunnis backed by Saudi Arabia (including Al Qaeda and the Taliban), the Shi'a backed by Iran, the Chinese, and the Euro-American industrialized west, are the new First World (with Japan eternally poised on the border between east and west). The Latin Americans, the Indians, the Southeast Asian Free Trade Zone, and those African nations with relative stability (Tanzania, Kenya, South Africa, etc.) are the new Second World. The modern "Third World" is no longer an agrarian world of mixed peasant farmers and hunter-gatherers. The new Third World is embroiled in civil war, civil unrest, and petty dictatorships. The front line of the new world war is Somalia and Darfur, not Palestine.

The only way we will be able to preserve the United States of America is by becoming as zealous about protecting and advancing freedom and liberty as the Sunni and Shi'a militants are about Islam. It is not a religious war of Christianity versus Islam, not even close. It is an idealogical war of secular freedom versus Islamic fascism. The most important allies we will have in the coming years are the moderate Arabian and Persian peoples. Not their governments and not their religious leaders, because when push comes to shove, the governments and religious leaders are both in bed with the fascists. It is the people themselves, those who crave freedom the way a bird craves the open sky, that we must seek out and win the loyalty of. Without their support we are lost, because the money to buy weapons and the willingness to destroy the world in their own zealous drive to destroy one another is fully in the hands of the fascist union of religious and political leadership dedicated to seeing the entire world transformed into either a Sunni utopia or a Shi'a utopia, either of which would be founded firmly and squarely upon Shari'a law.

It is not a war of Islam versus the West. It is, instead, a war of freedom-loving people versus religious zealots. The creation of a Taliban controlled zone in the Swat Valley is a huge victory for the zealots. It should never have been allowed to come about. It is the third great victory in a war that has been going on for over a century. The first great victory was the complete and total surrender of the industrialized world to the addiction of cheap petroleum, handing the Saudi Arabian Sunnis the wealth and influence they needed to wage war against their sworn enemies, the Shi'a. The second great loss was the 1979 Iranian Revolution, giving the Shi'a an equivalent source of wealth. The loss of the Swat Valley gives the Sunni a manufacturing base for a nearly endless supply of personal and squad-based military weapons.

We cannot afford to lose control of the United Nations, or even worse, the United States itself, by passing Shari'a-inspired limitations on Freedom of Speech, Freedom from Search and Seizure, Freedom from Self-incrimination, or, most frightening of all, Freedom to Defend Oneself.

Freedom of Speech and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are not fringe issues. This idealogical war is just as important as the modernization of Afghanistan, the security of Iraq, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. In a very real sense, World War Four is here and now and being fought on a daily basis in the American media and the halls of Congress. We cannot afford another defeat.


February 26, 2009

Why is Mexico burning?




So, I am sitting here on a snowy February day watching Anderson Cooper. In a long, personal, heart-wrenching video about Ismael Estrada and his lifelong experience living on the U.S.-Mexican border, special care is taken to mention that the violence is caused by "American guns smuggled into Mexico".

Um, no. It's not.

While it is true that far too many guns are purchased in American gun shops by people who turn around and trade or sell them directly to cartel members ("straw" purchases), that does not account for the huge numbers of automatic weapons, grenades, mortars, and other military hardware in the hands of the cartels. One recent CNN article blames the high number of weapons on the "6,600 U.S. gun shops within 100 miles of the Mexican border." Only a few paragraphs later it reports, "Drug traffickers used a bazooka in Tuesday's shootout with federal police". As the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner pointed out a few days ago, the number of straw purchases American citizens make on behalf the cartels is meaningless because you cannot buy a bazooka, a mortar, an RPG, or an AK-47 in an American gun shop.

The real problem is not the guns the cartels are stealing from their own government, buying from foreign suppliers, and yes, sometimes smuggling in from the United States. The real problem is the culture of drug use in the United States which pours billions of dollars into the hands of the most sadistic, sociopathic people on the globe. At PBS.org, Robert Stutman has a very revealing interview about the connections between casual drug use among Americans and violence in Mexico. Anderson Cooper and his staff have the same internet access I do, perhaps even better access. So why aren't they quoting Stutman and other people directly involved in fighting both drugs and the violence they create? When comparing the situation in Columbia and Mexico, Stutman has this to say:

Both Colombia and Mexico are basically controlled by narcotics traffickers, and I think they may deny it. But anybody who knows it, knows it. They got there by very different means. And therefore I look at the countries very differently. I think basically, for years, the Colombian government and Colombian officials have tried to fight the cocaine war. They are simply out-gunned, and out-manned. We have had God knows how many Colombian cops killed. Nine Supreme Court justices were killed in Colombia.

I look at that country very differently than I look at Mexico, which has been bought off. To me there is a world of difference. In Mexico the issue is simply corruption. There are some exceptions, obviously. There are cops in Mexico who died fighting this, and I'm not denigrating those individual cops. The system never tried to fight cocaine in Mexico. In Colombia, they fought it, and they're basically losing. I won't go to Mexico. I have disdain for the system there. That doesn't mean individual Mexicans. It means the system that has allowed itself to become so corrupted. . . for the politicians to deny it. That's making politics more important than kids dying of drugs.

Virtually every administration has gone up there and testified that Mexico is cooperating with us. That is such crap, it's a joke, and every DEA agent knows it. But the argument that DEA agents would give you is--and it's a legitimate one--is that if we get up there and publicly say that, then the Mexicans will kick us out of the country, meaning kick out the DEA agents who are down there. Therefore, we would be worse off than we are now. That is absolutely a legitimate argument. But it means we perpetuate the myth that Mexico is really cooperating. The problem with Mexico is you don't know who the bad guys are.

There are cops who die. There are policemen who I know in Mexico who are incredibly honest and hard working, who risk their lives, but the system doesn't encourage that. That's the difference. The system encourages the corruption in Mexico, because nobody gives a damn.

There had been successful moments with Mexico, but there has never been more than a moment that has been successful. I think Mexico is probably the worst-case example of the drug problem. I don't mean all Mexicans, but the system doesn't care. All the system cares about is, "How much money can I get out of this?" Politicians and law enforcement officers have become multi-millionaires from drugs in Mexico.


In contrast with Anderson Cooper's emotional retelling of Estrada's story, Lou Dobbs gets right to the point and focuses on the enormous quantity of drugs captured in the recent raids on the Sinaola cartel:



It seems to me that Lou Dobbs has a better understanding of the situation than Eric Holder whose press conference became a campaign platform for reinstating the unwanted, unneeded, and useless Assault Weapons Ban.

And not only Lou Dobbs, John Roberts also did a reasonable job of seeking out and interviewing a knowledgeable commentator:



So what happened Anderson? Your show is supposed to be the one concerned with "keeping them honest", but instead of an indepth report on the causes of gang violence in Mexico we get a tearjerker that contains nothing more than your producer's quaint and unrealistic nostalgia. Bill Conroy over at NarcoSphere tells a very human story, but also includes clear and honest coverage of the corruption that makes the violence possible.

Over at Dallas News, Tod Robberson has a very enlightening opinion piece that points out all the many reasons legalizing drugs simply will not work. Among other things he reminds us that casual drug use rates among adolescents would probably increase dramatically regardless of how carefully such legislation is crafted.

Sadly, there is no way I can justify closing out this post without relating one of the most humorous, and yet frightening, internet fiascos I have had the displeasure to recently witness.

Over at Foreign Policy, an analyst named Shannon O'Neill asked the question, "Why is the United States backing Mexican Drug gangs?" In the middle of her article she stated this:

There are nearly 7,000 gun shops along the southern U.S. border, about three for every mile. They sell thousands of hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, AK-47s, and "cop killer" guns and bullets that cut through Kevlar body armor. The weapons quickly flow south, again with barely a nod from U.S. Border Patrol.


Within days the comments portion of the blog overflowed with readers pointing out the blatant falsehoods in that one paragraph. Dozens of people stepped up to correct her propagandistic assertion that military grade weapons are flowing through straw purchasers into the hands of Mexican gangs. In an effort to save face, she came back a few days later with this response:

I do incorrectly imply in the article that gun shops on the border sell hand grenades and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. The border gun shops do not legally sell these. However, these type of weapons used by Mexican drug cartels have been seized by customs officials making their way south through the border. How they are purchased is somewhat unknown, but many of these are making their way to Mexico through the United States.


Undeterred, dozens more came back and pointed out that if she is presenting herself as an expert, she has a responsibility to not "imply" anything, but to do solid research, present the facts, and then give her analysis.

She has not replied since.

The part that scares me is how easily she published a blatant lie on the pages of an internet site read by politicians in many different governments, including our own. The politicians readng her article would have neither the time nor the inclination to read the comments section!

When I see the sheer stupidity being displayed by Eric Holder in proposing that by some miracle reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban would magically end violence in both Northern Mexico and dozens of American cities I cannot help but wonder if someone like Shannon O'Neill is sitting in an official capacity inside the vast labyrinth of American intelligence agencies publishing equally false, misleading, and delusional reports and those reports are the basis for Holder's own analysis.

Who is really advising our President? No one on his cabinet has a published history reflecting a solid reliance on fact-based academic reports. Many of them have histories of fraud, deception, and avoidance of reality. If the people who write their reports are not extremely devoted to factual analysis, there is no way to predict what kind of delusional policies and laws we are going to see in the next few years.

Every day that goes by only serves to increase my concern. The recent mass arrests of Sinaola members was the result of a wide-ranging investigation begun long before Holder was considered for his post. Seeing him take credit for an operation that he had nothing to do with, and then use that operation to justify a reconsideration of the Assault Weapons Ban, is sickening in the extreme.

I have spent thirty years telling people that "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" would be the death of the modern world. No one believed me. Everyone in love with the modern culture of unlimited self-indulgence has insisted that what they do on their own time in the privacy of their own home has no impact on the world at large. Well, the thousands of dead innocents caught in the crossfire between rival gangs and the Mexican army indicates to me that I was right all along.




Do you know how to catch wild pigs?




I got this story from Tim Schmidt, founder and current president of United States Concealed Carry Association. I hope he doesn't mind my including it here:
Do you know how to catch wild pigs?

You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

Is this what is happening to America? The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc., while we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America; you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free-ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!

Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam the gate on America.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"

Thomas Jefferson


In all fairness, this is not the first time I've heard this story. The version I'm familiar with is much simpler and more practical. Also, this is the first time I've seen it used allegorically. The version I learned was meant to be a genuine survival skill. For what it's worth, it also works really well for capturing wild sheep and goats.


February 25, 2009

Should the US perform Mexican customs duties?




ABC Reports US is a "Vast Arms Bazaar"

Of special interest is this quote:
Drug gangs seek out guns in the United States because the gun-control laws are far tougher in Mexico. Mexican civilians must get approval from the military to buy guns and they cannot own large-caliber rifles or high-powered pistols, which are considered military weapons.

The ease with which Mr. Iknadosian and two other men transported weapons to Mexico over a two-year period illustrates just how difficult it is to stop the illicit trade, law enforcement officials here say.

The gun laws in the United States allow the sale of multiple military-style rifles to American citizens without reporting the sales to the government, and the Mexicans search relatively few cars and trucks going south across their border.


So, in reality what this "news article" is presenting is an opinion piece that states the U.S. government should be responsible for policing smuggling into Mexico. Considering that Mexico routinely supports illegal immigrants leaving their country across that same border, I suppose it is not surprising.

Maybe, and this is just one man's opinion, what we really need to do is bring back our military from the far-flung corners of the globe and forcibly annex our corrupt, crime-ridden, violent, barbaric southern neighbor.

If we bring the Mexican provinces into the fold, force them to grant their civilians the same freedoms enjoyed in the United States, and execute corrupt Mexican officials, we can create a win-win situation for everyone. It would certainly solve the border problem if there were no border to police.

Oh, that's right. First we really need to clean up the criminal activity and corruption in our own country!

The Austin Gun Rights Examiner has an article laying out in precise detail just how this corruption works: Big Government vs. Your Civil Rights. The salient passage (minus internal links) being:
One of Obama’s biggest corporate donors is the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Meagher and Flom, LLP, who contributed $505,774 to Obama’s presidential campaign, and a total of $1,699,345 to all candidates (3rd highest law firm total). By comparison, the entire “gun rights” lobby spend $1,898,904 during the election cycle. Skadden, Arps represents the inventors of a “firearm safety system,” patent number 6499243, which adds a biometric activator that links a gun to one owner. The “Summary of the Invention” section of the patent application notes:
The safety system further makes use of a person’s fingerprint data, which is a unique personal property that is highly suitable for tracking and control. [Emphasis added]
Sidley Austin LLP contributed $565,788 to Obama, and $1,415,394 to all candidates (5th highest law firm total ). Sidley Austin represents the inventors of the “Gun identification kit,” patent number 7380706. This invention provides a way for every gun to have a spent cartidge case made available for entry into a ballistic fingerprint database. Of course, such a database is useful only if all firearms are entered into it:
Because the vast majority of publicly owned firearms have not been used in the commission of a crime, they will not show up in [such a] database. It would therefore be desirable to provide a means for increasing the number of firearms for which…information and data is available.


And, of course, just a few hours ago I pointed out that important facts about Barack Obama's career were mentioned by neither the Second Amendment advocates nor the Republican Party campaign supporting John McCain. How can voters be expected to make intelligent decisions when they are not provided with real facts? Instead of insane innuendo about his birth certificate, why did the opposition never once reveal the facts about his illegal and unethical management of the Joyce Foundation?

So, any hotshot Federal Prosecutors out there looking to go down in history? All you have to do is prepare a case against Obama, Holder, and Emanuel and successfully get the trio imprisoned for treason, accepting bribes, misuse of power, and anything else you can think of that describes the obvious corruption going on among our senior employees.

For in the end, this is supposed to be a "nation of the people, by the people and for the people", which means our public servants are supposed to serve us, not the other way around.


How to lose an election




Obama and the Joyce Foundation

Why did the NRA and other Second Amendment Advocates wait until one month prior to the election before revealing the role of the Joyce Foundation in the complete and utter perversion of our legal system? Instead of platitudes and implausibilities, why did they not trot out the simple facts of this relationship and the impact it was having on the Supreme Court?

And why is a minor blog hidden in the backalleys of cyberspace the only person I can find carrying this story?

Here is the first page of the post linked above, minus the internal links. Click on the link above, read the post in its entirety, and follow the links:
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama must demonstrate executive experience, but he remains strangely silent about his eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. He has one obvious reason: during his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.

There is another, less known, reason.

During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.

The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.

In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.

Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that “sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium.” Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he “was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time.” Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.


Facts. Lots and lots of simple, straight-forward facts. What happened to investigative journalism? What happened to journalist accountability? What happened to respect for the people?

I'll tell you what happened. The political and economic elites have stolen your country from you. America is no longer a "nation of the people, by the people, and for the people". We have become an oligarchy. The media spoonfeeds disinformation, fires investigative reporters (replacing them with pretty faces that read teleprompters), and disregards any reality that does not support the party line fed to them by Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, and their many political friends.


The great American pep rally



(There are five videos embedded on this page. It will not load correctly on older machines and slower connections.)

I watched President Obama's State of the Union Address this morning. Lots of cotton candy fluffiness, not much substance. It felt more like a sermon or a high school pep rally than a realistic assessment of where we are and where we're going. But don't mind me. I've been angry at the new kid on the block since February 16th.

And what exactly was going on while America enjoyed a national pep rally?

The First Amendment Was Attacked by Al Sharpton & the NAACP


The Second Amendment Was Attacked by Multiple State Senates


A Few Judges Accepted Some Kickbacks


California Tried to Legalize Pot


And A Bunch of Folks Claimed Pot Will Save the Economy


It seems like just yesterday I was pointing out that casual drug use is the main source of revenue for the violent gangs that have transformed both American inner cities and Northern Mexico into war zones. Will legalizing marijuana reduce the amount of money flowing into these gangs? Probably not. Their main products these days are cocaine derivatives, methamphetamines, and Ecstasy.

Maybe I'm dense, but I just don't get it. America has never been a moral paradise, but corruption and casual law-breaking has never been this rampant. Even worse, in the midst of this whirlwind of illegal activity, the only thing the President of the United States can say about the State of the Union is, "...we're going to come back stronger than ever!"


February 24, 2009

Rotten at the core




Remember this post?: Now you'll really need a gun!

Well, today I have a few more articles to consider:
Sharia Law Becoming a Reality in Some American Communities
Barry Rubin Warns New American Initiatives Will Make a Bad Situation Worse
Pro-Palestinian Diplomat Appointed to Head National Intelligence Council
New NIC Head Favored Earlier, Harsher Response to Tienanmen Square

Two horrible realities have been forced on the British people by their elected officials. One of them, a total ban on handguns, I wrote about in this post: "Reality Check Time". The other could never have been made possible without the first. Sharia courts now handle most minor and some major criminal cases within British Muslim communities:
Oct 2003, Women and Sharia Law in Britain
Feb 2006, 40% of British Muslims Want Sharia Law
Nov 2006, As Authority Collapses Sharia Law Expands
Feb 2008, Sharia Law in Britain May Be Unavoidable
Sep 2008, First Official Sharia Law Courts Held

I have read the Koran a couple of times. I have studied the Old Testament (Jewish Torah) extensively. I am a born-again Christian who has spent the past thirty years deeply influenced by Biblical teaching. I am also a devoutly patriotic American. You need to know these things about me because they color everything I write. When I speak of Islam, the Koran, and Muslim philosophy I do not speak as an expert, but neither do I speak from complete ignorance. I am also a student of history and through my history studies I have come to recognize the patterns that govern how a society changes.

If President Obama succeeds in bringing members of Hamas and their families to the United States for resettlement, then within a decade entire segments of naturalized and freeborn American citizens will never enjoy the liberties promised them by the Bill of Rights. Mark your calendars with today's date. Remember it well. When the time comes that Sharia courts in the United States imprison women for being raped, order wives caught in adultery stoned to death without fear, and encourage your neighbors to take up arms and demand Sharia become the law of the land, then remember that a crazy American expatriate living in Japan saw it coming ten years earlier.

June 17, 2007, Sharia Law Gaining Support in Minnesota
March/April 2008, Minnesota Taxpayers Paying for Islamic Education
January 24, 2009, 20 Somali-American Men May Have Been Recruited for Jihad
January 28, 2009, Have Americans Been Recruited for Jihad?
Minnesota Foundation Report, Many Somali Refugees Resettle in Minnesota
Muslim American Society of Minnesota

I don't mind if half the people in America become Muslims. I don't mind at all. However, if that half seeks to overturn 230+ years of sacrifice, dedication, and loyalty to an ideal of freedom and liberty for everyone, then I have a problem. Fundamental Christians might seek to enforce Old Testament law in their personal lives, but they would never set up courts based on Torah Law nor would they require stoning and other brutal punishments for adulteresses or thieves. The teachings of Christ will always mediate and soften even the most extreme forms of Christian legalism. There is no such mediating factor in the Koran. In fact, the second half of the Koran is more vehemently legalistic than the first half, leading Koranic scholars and theologians to emphasize Sharia law and social conventions that denigrate women in the name of "protecting the weaker sex".

The more we allow radical Muslims to resettle in the United States, the more they will demand the imposition of Sharia law. We cannot allow ourselves to fall under the same naive belief that the British held concerning the benevolence of the Muslim community's religious leaders. There is a real danger that we will allow the milder, more moderate Muslims to convince us that their more radical brethren are more comic than cause for concern. This was the same mistake that Iran made in 1979. These people are dedicated to their Imams in ways that surpass even Catholic loyalty to the Pope. As long as the Imam is modern and benevolent there is no problem. However, when poverty and oppression create desperation among the people and a radical Imam rises to power, nothing short of death will stop them from reaching their goal of transforming whatever community they live in.

When the battle lines are drawn five years from now, Americans must rest firmly upon the fundamental law of their land and imprison or even execute the more radical Imams as soon as they appear. Freedom of Speech is important, vitally important, and the more radical Imams must be allowed their Freedom of Speech, but the moment they move from spiritual inspiration to political instigation, Separation of Church and State must be immediately imposed. Failure to do so can only lead to one place, Sharia courts in Muslim communities denying Constitutional rights to their own people.

The battle to restore the Constitution and Bill of Rights to prominence in our land is not just a Second Amendment issue. It is the only way to insure that future generations will have the tools to oppose all forms of tyranny isolated communities within our borders attempt to enforce. We cannot allow any form of tyranny to take root at any level of society. The moment it takes root, it will rapidly spread until personal tyranny is considered common sense. At that point, political tyranny is only one election away.

-------------------------------------------------
After spending six hours on research, I find I'm a day late and a dollar short!
Armed Citizen: Muslims Want to Take Over America

The danger of us gun nuts is not all the times we're wrong. No, the real danger is not recognizing the one time we're right.


Where I stand




(Breaking alert: I just learned about H.R. 25! Now that is a bill worth supporting!)

This post started life as a comment posted here: David Codrea Article at "Digg!"

Since it sums up my entire position, I decided to post it here as well. Enjoy!

-----------------------------------------------

A number of comments (on David Codrea's "Test your knowledge of Gun Control" article) have touched on hotspots like Mogadishu vs. "peaceful" cities like Tokyo.

I live in Tokyo. There is rampant crime here that is never reported in the media. Home invasions, burglaries, rape, and even murder are not as uncommon as some people would have you believe. Since the beginning of the year half a dozen taxi drivers have been killed. Some of them with kitchen knives, some of them with "commando knives", and some of them with baseball bats or wooden practice swords. One of them was shot.

Tokyo is safer than Chicago or New York, but not as safe as Denver or Cheyenne.

The problem in places like Mogadishu is not a lack of gun control. In fact, the problem is excessive gun control. Only militia members who work for warlords are allowed to have weapons and ammunition. Everyone else is either unarmed or executed without trial. Many who either fear guns or favor non-violence have fled to refugee camps and some of those refugees are in Darfur, where they are victimized by yet another "militia".

This is the core problem with defining "militia" in the Second Amendment as "organized, official military or police". In every single place where organized militias exist, non-members are both unarmed and, without exception, badly oppressed (including Gaza, areas controlled by the Taliban, and so on).

The Militia Act of 1792 says,
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."

In today's world, "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen" would have to be defined, "each and every adult citizen".

So, by the definition created by the Founding Fathers, if you are a citizen of the United States at least 18 and not yet 45, then you are the militia. Not only does the Militia Act define who is in the militia, it also defines their weapon. The definition reflects the highest level of military technology at the time. Therefore, to translate this into modern terms, a member must own, maintain, and be proficient in the use of a multi-function rifle capable of automatic fire in either 5.56mm or 7.62mm. In other words, a nice M-16, AK-47, or equivalent.

Instead of bringing back the unconstitutional and cosmetic "Assault Weapons Ban", I think we need to update and enforce the Militia Act of 1792. We need to enroll every adult without a felony conviction or an affadavit of mental incompetence into the Militia, order them to buy, maintain, and learn to use an appropriate weapon, and then (as in the original) forbid the government at all levels from confiscating those weapons or limiting their availability and usefulness.

Now, if any individual is unwilling to be enrolled in the weapons carrying portion of the Militia because they are opposed to violence, that's okay, too. They are enrolled as support personal and lose their protection from the entire Bill of Rights. If you want your rights back, all you have to do is be willing to defend them and express this willingness by shifting your enrollment back to the weapon-owning side of the militia.

That, like it or not, is the genuine intention of our Founding Fathers. Instead of arguing "gun control" vs. "no gun control", we need to ask ourselves if we believe the ideals of our founders and if we do, are we ready to defend and support those ideals?

If you don't support the ideals of the Founding Fathers then please feel free to move to a country that better suits your personal value system. I'm American and I want America to return to the original vision of its founders. Not only do I oppose further erosion of that vision, I support any and all efforts to reverse the erosion that has already occured.

Half my ancestors arrived on the Mayflower, the other half helped them survive the winter.

In closing, freedom has never been "free". I'm sorry, but if you enjoy the freedoms of life in the United States of America than you have a sacred duty to defend those rights. You cannot hide criminal activity behind the Fifth Amendment or spew profanity under the First Amendment without also accepting your duty under the Second Amendment. Life does not work that way.


February 22, 2009

Collectivism vs. Individualism






Santelli's Tea Party
Police Confiscate and Later Return Anti-Obama Sign
Putin Labels Economic Crisis a "Perfect Storm"




Lou Dobbs Poll as of 11:30 p.m. on Sunday, Feb. 22, 2009 (Japan Time):

How would you characterize the government's use of cameras in public places?

Necessary Security 50% 1296
Unnecessary Spying 50% 1304

Total Votes: 2600

----------------------------------------------------

In addition to conflicting opinions in the videos, notice how close the poll is. Right now people in the United States are evenly divided between collectivism and individualism. We are sitting atop the most important crossroads we have encountered in our 230+ year history. In years following World War 2, the world itself was divided between two principle social philosophies, the collectivist societies of the USSR, China, and their allies vs. the individualist societies led by the United States. In fairness, it should be noted that in countries such as France, Thailand, Holland, Japan, and a few others, the social systems operated under profound collectivist sentiments that were moderated by individualist political minorities.

It's not as simple as Democrat vs. Republican, Socialist vs. Labor, or any other Left vs. Right dichotomy. Over the past two hundred and thirty plus years even the United States has shifted back and forth between collectivist and individualist political majorities depending on factors such as economic stability, unemployment, and prevailing fear of external conflict.

Then the USSR vanished, seemingly overnight. Suddenly the distinction between the two sides of the political spectrum became blurred. Compromises began to flow back and forth. Much to everyone's chargin, mistakes were made by both sides. Political polarization began to grow. Neighboring cities, counties, states, and nations enacted policies the exact opposite of one another. The clever narcissists, always on the lookout for a decline in vigilance, played one side against the other and carved out huge areas of corruption between the two. When 9/11 threw the industrialized nations into a dizzy spiral of paranoid restrictions on personal liberties, the anarchists threw a celebratory rave and joined forces with the narcissists.

Now we live in a divided world where in many areas complete chaos is considered business as usual. The main problem with polarization is that it allows the most immoral and unethical among us plenty of room to ply their trade. Crime and criminal-mindedness expand into the gap between the two sides. Political and social polarization of the past twenty years has allowed terrorism to flourish and gangs dependent on narcotics sales to expand their violent trade.

Crime cannot be legislated out of existence because criminals, by definition, ignore the law. The only thing laws can do is punish behavior society deems either non-productive or destructive. In this era of extreme polarization, the biggest danger we face is each group (collectivist vs. individualist) trying to translate it's political, moral, and ethical position into laws designed to punish those who disagree with them. Therein lies the root of every civil war ever fought on any continent.

We in the United States need to recognize that certain aspects of our relationships with our neighbors are not going to change. Second Amendment advocates will never accept limitations on their legal freedom. Environmentalists will never accept the industrialist's desire to ignore, or in extreme cases denigrate, the natural world. People who grow up in major cities will always long for the freedom of open spaces but at the same time they will never have enough intimate experience with nature to truly understand "the natural order of things". People who grow up in the country will never understand the paranoia of city dwellers nor will the country citizen ever sympathize with the city dweller's need for an externally imposed sense of structure and order.

In short, the real issue both sides need to oppose is the desire of their opponents to legislate them out of existence. Demanding a legally enforced moral and ethical conformity to either a collectivist or an individualist society leads to one of two irreconcilable and equally undesirable outcomes: anarchy or fascism.

Herein lies the true strength of the Second Amendment and herein lies the only reason that gun control laws must be completely removed from the books, every single one. The Second Amendment, untouched and unlimited, gives both the collectivist and the individualist the same key freedom, a freedom that must not be compromised because every time it is weakened we move one step closer to either total anarchy or complete fascism. The true purpose of the Founding Fathers, the true motivation for writing the Second Amendment and wording it as they did, a purpose and motivation confirmed in the Militia Act of 1792, is to give the people of the United States of America the one thing no other government in history had ever granted: legal authority to wage war against the established government.

The Second Amendment is the ultimate protection for both liberals and libertarians, and even for both criminals and law-abiding citizens. The Second Amendment is the legal right to rebel against a government that no longer listens to the people's complaints!

Like it or not, when someone like the Unabomber, the Weather Underground, and even the Ku Klux Klan, takes up arms to fight against the government they are acting fully within their legal rights. The Second Amendment does NOT give them the right to attack civilian targets. Any attack on a civilian target is terrorism and should be responded to with the full force of law. However, attacks on law enforcement and military targets are acts of war, not acts of terrorism and even though most people feel the same emotional revulsion in both cases, the two types of attack are NOT the same.

Just because the Second Amendment gives the people of the United States the legal right to engage in armed rebellion does not mean armed rebellion must be the first response for someone who feels their rights have been infringed upon. Of course not! It is only after all other avenues of redress have been attempted and refused that the people should take up arms. We are not there yet, not even close. We were not there when Lincoln forced a military response from the south by refusing to hand over Fort Sumter and started the Civil War, which also means at least 618,000 lives were wasted in an illegal and unnecessary war.

Collectivist organizations like the Brady Campaign shoot themselves in the foot every time they force through another restriction on the Second Amendment. This is why I find it so difficult to understand the position of the gun control lobby. The foundation of their philosophy is first of all illegal, because it forces limits on a law which says, "...shall not be infringed." Period. No exceptions. There's nothing about "concealed vs. open", "sporting vs. military", and so on. The "militia" in the first clause is clearly defined in the Militia Act of 1792. The entire "organized vs. individual" debate is silly and the tragedy of it all is that D.C. vs. Heller's ambiguities means we will have to face several more Supreme Court cases before somebody points out the obvious.

Additionally, by attempting to limit or repeal the Second Amendment the collectivist organizations are removing the best weapon in their arsenal for opposing a tyrannical, fascist government so dedicated to individualism that society is reduced to a violent, chaotic social anarchy. The existence of the Second Amendment would allow the collectivists to build an arsenal, create an army, and rebel against an individualist government gone to extremes. Why in heaven's name would they want to remove their best legal defense?

I don't know how far into the future the United States of America will continue to exist. I do know that right now the collectivists have gained the political majority and there is every danger they will use their newfound power to force through laws and regulations which so severely damage the freedoms of the libertarian individualists that they take up arms and rebel.

Way back in 1980 I fully expected rebellion to break out all across the United States. At that time, I fully supported the government so I did the most logical thing for a young man expecting rebellion to do, I joined the Army. The expectation of rebellion was not the only reason, nor was it the main reason, but that does not change the simple reality that it was indeed a very real factor in my final decision to enlist.

Now I look out at the ebb and flow of information across the globe and it strikes me that the current political climate is even more volatile than it was back in 1980. There are millions of people spread across the entire spectrum of American society who are actively seeking a good excuse to start a shooting war. Even worse, not all of them are individualists! Many of the collectivists are fully prepared to use violence to force their agenda on the opposition. The current situation is very explosive and cannot be allowed to continue. If it does continue, the "worst case scenarios" I posted yesterday will seem like nothing more than fond daydreams.


February 21, 2009

Unbelievable




Illinois General Assembly Bill HB0687

Now that you've read the bill itself, go to Sensibly Progressive and watch the seven-minute segment of the Glenn Beck show he has embedded on his page.

Let me start by mentioning that the Brady Campaign has removed an opinion piece from their website which accused John Lott of racism. The page was up as recently as two weeks ago, but when I went looking for it today it was gone. I would really like everyone who favors restriction or repeal of the Second Amendment to take a moment and seriously consider what the effect would be of passing every law the Brady Campaign is working to achieve.

As I pointed out as recently as February 15th, the top five percent of our economic elite believe they and they alone deserve the right to self-defense. The insurance bill being proposed in the Illinois senate is a perfect example. Not only would this bill make it impossible for a minimum wage earning single working mother to buy a gun to defend her family, there is no way she could afford the insurance burden such a law would bring.

Another problem, why should a criminal have the right to sue a victim who shoots them in self-defense? Because in the end, the main people who would be embarking on legal action to collect that million dollars in insurance money would be the criminals victimized by ordinary citizens.


February 20, 2009

As the world collapses around us






Mexico in the midst of virtual civil war
Iowa National Guard Unit Begins Practicing for Martial Law

As the world collapses around us over the next few days, weeks, or months. I want everyone to be absolutely clear on one thing. This collapse is not caused by bankers, politicians, lawyers, or gun owners. This collapse is the direct result of forty years of the baby boom generation's narcissistic and elitist belief that any earthly desire they have is their god-given right to possess. The "recreational" drug culture founded on heavy metal rock and roll, self-indulgence, and wild promiscuity is the fuel behind the massive upsurge in violent gangs as well as the assumptions by people in positions of power and influence that they are above the law.

Narcissistic elitism dedicated to self-indulgence. Not only has this culture destroyed the greatest civilization the world has ever known, it has brought about the complete and total collapse of the first realistic opportunity for a unified global body politic based on something other than a sadistic and overbearing dictatorship.

If you use recreational drugs purchased on the black market, even if you only use them occasionally, you are the driving force behind the coming collapse. Everything else is symptomatic or consequential. The drugs are the linchpin holding the entire ruinous mess together.

"Sex, drugs, and rock and roll" is the rallying cry of those who have destroyed us from within.


I admit it, I'm scared




Karl Denninger Gives Up on Optimism
Star Parker Sees No Hope of Return to Realism

When I was in high school I could not balance the books I read on my own with the things they were teaching in my classes. Case in point, Daniel Boone. I discovered the pioneers when I was ten or eleven years old and read voraciously everything I could get my hands on. By the time I took American History 1 (Mayflower to Manifest Destiny), I already knew all of the major players, had read most of their biographies, and was intimately familiar with their legends. So when our history book recited a series of legends about Daniel Boone and tried to sell them as historic fact, I objected strongly.

It took some delicate negotiations, but I finally passed that course. The way it worked out was I took different tests and wrote different papers than anyone else.

None of the other students complained. They thought, and told me often, that I was being given special treatment because I was too stupid to follow the normal textbook.

Those kids now work as business managers and investment consultants. Several of them are worth millions, or at least they were back in August of 2008. They honestly believe the current system works, and works well. When I tried to point out that their entire personal wealth was based on a circle of debt they could never repay and supported by federal debts their grandchildren would still be paying for, they laughed at me.

So now Karl tells me he is ready to head for the hills and Star reports the transition from failed capitalist economy to socialist economy on the skids is almost complete. Karl and Star are not alarmists. They were both critical of the Bush-Cheney comedy duo, but it has only been the past couple of months they have become genuinely concerned. So when both of them sound a trumpet of panic within ten days of one another, I get very, very scared.

Japan is still very much a closed society. If the next six months sees a global economic collapse so complete that airlines stop flying and ships stop sailing, they will quickly revert to something the world has not seen since the decades leading up World War Two. I do not want to be trapped in this country if the global economy grinds to a complete halt. My wife and children will be fine, but I will quickly be seen as an enemy of all that is Japanese.

No, I'm not being paranoid. History clearly demonstrates how the Japanese feel about foreigners in their midst when everything falls apart.

So, yeah, call me insane, but watching the world economy collapse scares me half to death. The one clear lesson of history is that no one ever pays attention to the lessons history teaches.

Japan is really not all that unique. Every country in the world has a history riddled with moments of sheer insanity, although some of them hide their past very well. If some of your friends are "crazy survivalist nut jobs", now would be a really good time to call them up and renew your acquaintance. Sometime between now and year-end you're going to need their expertise.


Lou Dobbs on the 2nd Amendment





I hope to high heaven President Obama and the people he has gathered around him are as intelligent and intuitive as I believe them to be. Granted, Presidential Directive 2009-15 was a major disappointment, I still think it was pure naivete rather than a cynical attempt to import the persons necessary for another 9/11-style event. At least, I hope it was just foolishness. By the same token, my understanding is that President Obama is a Constitutional Lawyer by training and education. Surely he understands that passage of H.R. 45 or something similar could only lead to civil war.

------------------------------------------------



This video speaks for itself. Just hit "Play".

The full story is here: Chimpanzee Attack in Connecticut. It seems to me I remember reading somewhere that owners of exotic animals are required to keep a tranquilizer gun handy. Lacking that, if she had owned a large caliber handgun she could have killed the chimp herself and saved her friend.

Seriously. I don't understand why anyone would oppose those of us who believe in full and free exercise of our Second Amendment right. The right to keep and bear arms is not like driving a car. It's not a privilege. It is a constitutionally protected individual right. As dangerous as our world is, why would anyone oppose their own right of self-defense?


February 19, 2009

Campus Rights vs. Student Rights




Debate Arises Over Legality of Guns on Campus
College Student Suspended Over Right-to-Carry
Oregon Student's Suspension Renews Gun Debate
Campus Can't Be It's Own Law

Okay, a short summary (but make sure you read the articles and get the details!):
A thirty year-old, former Marine, is studying psychology at Western Oregon University. He has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Knowing that in the State of Oregon the law allows him to carry on campus, he slips a pocket knife in his back pocket and a small handgun in his front pocket. Someone sees the knife, panics, and reports him to campus security. Campus security finds him studying in the student center, takes him into custody, and calls the police. Naturally, the police refuse to charge him with anything. Since the police refuse to jail him, the campus organizes a tribunal which suspends him pending psychological examination and a ten-page paper on the effects of carrying a gun on other people!

We call this kind of thing, a "witch hunt" for good reason. Whenever paranoia takes precedence over legal rights we poise our society on a razor edge between anarchy and despotism while obscuring the path between.

I have been here in Japan for twenty-three years. In that time I have seen numerous mass shootings in "gun-free" school zones. Each one horrifying in it's brutality. So now I find myself months away from returning to the U.S. for graduate school (pending acceptance, naturally). Needless to say, I am worried. The most alarming element of these kind of shootings is the helplessness of the students. Sitting there, cowering behind the useless shield of a plywood desk, waiting for the killer to reach them. I get shivers up and down my spine just thinking about it.

Under no circumstances do I want to sit helpless while some marginalized, despondent, suicidal individual comes strolling through campus taking potshots at everything that moves. If I wind up being in the small minority that ends up facing such an individual, I want to have a fully-loaded, well-maintained pistol of my own. I'm a damn fine shot. While I was in the U.S. Army I qualified "Expert" with both pistol and rifle. I am certain that I can take down an armed assailant as safely, if not more safely, than a part-time campus security guard. I'd be willing to match my competence against most uniformed police, as well.

Personally, I prefer to openly carry a pistol on my hip where everyone can see it. Any student on the same campus who is considering a mass shooting will know that there is at least one other armed student on campus and they will have to decide if the possibility of facing me is worth the risk. I'm betting they'll take their plan somewhere else. If they don't, I'm certain I can stop them long before they kill a dozen or more of their fellow students.

Mind you, I never want to find myself in such a situation, nor would I actively seek out such a situation. The point is, I cannot know the future. None of us can. I do not understand why in the face of so many mass shootings there are so many people who want to disarm the students! The students are the first line of defense when something like this happens. They are the ones in the gunman's sights. They are the only ones in a position to do something to save their own lives. In order to take that initiative, they need to be well-trained and well-equipped. That does not mean students need to walk around in body armor with automatic weapons slung over their shoulders. It does mean that those students who are willing to learn self-defense shooting techniques and able to afford a good-quality firearm should have the freedom to prepare themselves.

Whether they choose to carry concealed or openly, adult students who are willing to go to the time and expense of learning how to handle firearms safely and competently should be granted the freedom to carry their weapons to class. Clear, easily understood rules against using a firearm for intimidation and setting out exact punishments for such use also need to be in place. I don't want students threatening teachers they don't like, nor other students. Absolutely not. I do want them (and by extension myself) to have the tools needed to mount an effective defense should someone decide to go on a rampage.


February 18, 2009

Cornered Cat




The internet is still a wild and woolly place. There are uncountable corners of the worst corruption and malfeasance the human animal is capable of. Fortunately, there are also bright, shiny places where facts are facts, reality is faced head on, and truth is the currency of the realm. I like to think this blog is one of those places, but since I'm the writer, my opinion is highly biased.

On the other hand, there is Cornered Cat. Wow, talk about a ray of sunshine in a dark world. Just when I had begun to fear common sense had fled the scene once and for all, I find a mother of five who not only uses firearms to keep herself safe, she teaches her kids how to stay safe, too. "Childproof...isn't!" is the first in a series of twelve articles about teaching children as young as four years old how to be safe around firearms.

Last October, 8 year-old Christopher Bizilj died when his father handed him a fully loaded Uzi then told him to point and shoot. I have no idea why the father thought an 8 year-old could safely handle an Uzi. Even for an adult, the Uzi is a difficult weapon for an unskilled person to control. Most adult training classes begin the first live fire exercise with the instructor's hands on the forearms of the adult student the first time they pull the trigger. The same thing should have been done for Christopher. Better yet, the father should have let Christopher practice with a .22 for a few more years before placing an unloaded Uzi in his hands and teaching him how to use it.

Tens of millions of parents in the United States teach their children how to safely handle firearms and regularly take them shooting. According to the CDC, 37 children aged 14 and under died from firearms related accidents in 2005 (the last year for which data is available). This is far below the tens of thousands figure you'll find quoted by the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun advocacy groups, but still far too high for me. There is no excuse for adults to allow children access to firearms before the children are ready to use them. There is no excuse for gangsters to hide fully loaded weapons in playgrounds, no excuse for criminals to drop their weapons in school parking lots, and so on. Nonetheless, these things happen. The only sure way to keep your children safe is to teach them safe handling.

Teach them. I know it's time-consuming and annoying. I also know that far too many of us want our children to walk through life in a kind of daydream of innocence and then suddenly become responsible, law-abiding, well-balanced adults on their eighteenth birthday. Well, I have some bad news for you. Children are not sweet, innocent little creatures of heaven. Children are adults in training and you, the parent or guardian, are their personal trainer.

Riding a bicycle, driving a car, handling a firearm. These are all skills involving inanimate objects. These are all skills your children need to learn how to do safely. Their life really does depend on it.


Peaceful Australia?






Arsonists set fires that kill two hundred in the southeast, out west criminals terrorize the police with complete freedom.

Funny how we never heard of this kind of crime prior to the sweeping buyback and firearm restrictions of the past decade and a half.

Fans of gun control, I ask you, is this really the path you want America to follow? Wouldn't it be better if the guy who lived next door to the police station owned a pair of machineguns he was always happy to use in defense of his local police?

Oh, that's right, you're expecting the police to protect the guy who lives next door. Now tell me, how are they going to do that when they cannot protect themselves?


February 16, 2009

Welcome to Armageddon!




Karl Denninger, the only economist I trust at the moment, is not a happy camper: Massive FX Dislocation

Karl, I hope you don't mind, but I'm cutting and pasting this here on my blog page:

RED ALERT: FX Dislocation in Process!

8:17 CT

I do not know what is going on here, and I don't think I want to.

Someone, apparently someone in Asia, wants dollars. A LOT of dollars. There is a forced-liquidation event underway that is massive, it is against all asset classes and it is spreading.

It originated at approximately 7:15 CT this evening and originated out of Asia somewhere. All of the primary currency crosses got hit at once - Euro, Pound, Yen - all weakened dramatically against the dollar and it is still going on. The Asian stock markets got walloped at the same time in coordinated waves of forced selling.

At the same time the US futures markets got nailed as well, down some six handles on the /ES in a near-vertical drop. While this sounds "not that big" to move these markets in a coordinated fashion like this is a trillion-dollar enterprise - this is not some small company that went bankrupt, or even a large company.

There is no news coverage at the present time identifying the source of this but it is not small and contrary to some reports it is not "automatic selling"; this is forced liquidation.

Folks, if this translates into Eastern Europe where there are severe instabilities already brewing literally everything in the financial world could come apart "all at once."

The worse news is that if this happens Bernanke will have killed us (in the US) by extending those swap lines all over the planet during the last six months. These will become utterly uncollectable and they are massive, in the many hundreds of billions of dollars.

To those who are reading this, I hope if you're in the markets you are prepared for extreme levels of violence. You must expect that the authorities will try to arrest the destruction if they are able, but you must also be prepared for the possibility that we have reached a "critical mass" point beyond which "duck and cover" is the only winning strategy.

Unfortunately.

I hope I'm wrong; this is going to be a long night.


And a bit more bad news: U.S. Federal Debt Exceeds World GDP

For the first time in years, I'm going to play the prophet.

Stock markets around the world will plunge to levels not seen since before World War One. By the end of the month, all forms of paper currency will be worthless. Assuming your bank survives, anything you have on deposit will still have some value, but out in the real world the only thing any merchant anywhere will accept is metals. Getting your deposits out of your bank in a useful form will be temporarily impossible.

By year-end, a new currency will be issued, probably one with global usefulness. Anyone lucky enough to have funds on deposit with a real bank or savings and loan will have those funds converted into the new currency and finally available for withdrawal. Next year credit will return, but large upfront down payments will be required on any and all credit transactions. If instead of funds on deposit you were holding any form of debt prior to the conversion, that debt will still be on the books and payment will be demanded more strenuously than ever.

Between March and December, throughout the remainder of this year that is, social unrest will become commonplace. Violence will be the preferred method of dispute resolution, which means anyone who has stockpiled weapons and ammo will either be in a position to control their local society or will find themselves raided by government-backed military and police forces who mistakenly believe confiscation will stem the violence. It won't. With every mass confiscation violence will expand.

If you live in the countryside you will have to fortify your residence. Many people will flee to extremely remote regions, but instead of peace, they will find well-armed, highly organized bands of survivalists already in place. There are simply too many people and not enough remaining wild lands.

Sometime in the fall there will come either a single, global-scale catastrophic natural calamity or a series of local calamities that add up to a global event. Next winter billions around the world will starve.

In conjunction with the issuance of a new global currency, the role of the United Nations will be dramatically expanded, or perhaps they will simply be replaced. Either way, the world's first true global political system will be born from the chaos of the remainder of this year and the first half of next year. Throughout the second half of next year and into the winter, things will gradually begin to improve with one noteworthy exception: civil liberty. Despite high-sounding claims to moral and ethical standards, individual freedoms and liberties will be completely removed in order to "re-establish an orderly, prosperous world for everyone".

By New Year 2012, we will be living under the one-world, Satanic dictatorship described so eloquently in the Revelation of John. There will be a massive propaganda campaign to insure everyone that the New World Order is purely secular and solely interested in helping each of us individually to achieve our full potential. 2012 will be marked by a massive campaign to stifle dissent, but none of the "end of the world" scenarios that most people are expecting will come about. Except for the arrests and executions of anyone who opposes the global government, things will be relatively peaceful and fairly prosperous. Most everyone who is not actively opposed to the New World Order will enjoy a standard of living that nearly returns to the comfort and prosperity of a few years ago.

Welcome to Armageddon. Sit back and enjoy the show!

------------------------------------
Comments written later in the day:

In the Congo, a Village Fights off a Rebel Militia
This is the fatal flaw in the idea that no one needs to own a gun. And yes, what is happening in the Congo could easily happen in your hometown. If it does, who will protect you? Prepare now. Before year-end we're going to be seeing similar stories coming out of "advanced" nations.

Founder of Islamic TV Station Beheads Wife
Remember yesterday? With all the drug culture driven violence in our country, do we really need this kind of religious violence? Islam is not what angers me. No, what angers me is hypocrisy. The purpose of his station is "countering Muslim stereotypes"!

CNN Reports Parents Still Seeking Answers
I know it's harsh, and not what they are looking for, but the real world answer is simple: an insane man shot her down in cold blood. The reason he chose to shoot her at school is simple as well. The United States Congress violated her Second Amendment rights by declaring her school a gun-free zone!

Former Head of MI5 Fears Britain Becoming a Police State
Britain banned handguns in 1997. Handgun crime doubled. So they banned toy handguns. Crime still doubled. So they armed their police for the first time in history, and now the police themselves have become targets. Step by step Britain is becoming a police state and the former head of MI5 agrees with me. So why does the Brady Campaign keep holding up Britain as a handgun free utopia? Maybe because what they really want is a police state in America, too.

I know things are happening fast. I know people feel helpless. There are powerful, influential people in high places who want you to feel helpless because the more helpless you feel the more important they feel. Write letters, real paper and ink letters, to your Congressional representatives at the State and Federal level. Attend every single City Council meeting. If you have the time, run for City Council yourself! In your letters and in City Council meetings you need to remind politicians that they are not nobles. They are elected public servants. They are your employee and you can fire them! So if they don't change the direction the nation is going, then vote them out of office!

Make your voice heard, before they silence you forever.


Now you'll really need a new gun!




How in the name of all that is Holy did this one slip under the media radar?

Unexpected Urgent Migration Needs Related to Gaza

Too lazy to click on the link and read a one paragraph Executive Order? Not a problem. Here ya go!:


Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27,
2009


Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs
Related To Gaza

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and
the laws of the United States, including section
2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of
1962 (the ``Act''), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I
hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the
Act, that it is important to the national interest to
furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to
exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency
Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose
of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration
needs, including by contributions to international,
governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and
payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of
Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department
of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian
refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.

You are authorized and directed to publish this
memorandum in the Federal Register.


(Presidential Sig.)

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, January 27, 2009

$20.3 million dollars in your tax money has just been given to God-alone knows how many Hamas terrorists and their families in order to allow them to take up residence in your neighborhood. Well, okay, technically the Order does not specify persons with membership in or loyalty to Hamas, but neither does it exclude them!

Now tell me, all you loving fans of Sarah Brady, are you sure you don't want a nice, shiny, brand-new .357 magnum? I promise you this, the Hamas terrorist that our President just brought to live next door is going to own as many firearms as he can hide in his basement, along with illegal explosives, blasting caps, and anything else he can get his hands on. Not only will he own them, he will either use them himself or he will convert your children to his own murderous brand of an otherwise loving religion and send them to school loaded with enough C4 to take down half the building. And, worst of all, since he is brought into the country as an "emergency refugee", he will be granted Diplomatic Immunity by default, which means your deep and abiding faith in your local police department will be useless because they will not be allowed to touch him!

You see, there are many clauses and provisions for sending aide overseas to help the needy. President Obama could have used our ties with the United Nations to funnel money into UNRWA. If he had done so, the money would have fed the terrorists' families and provided medical relief to the terrorists' foot soldiers, but they still would have been in Gaza. Instead, he used the Refugee Migration Assistance Fund which, by law, means the money must be used to help oppressed people find a new home in America. For their first few months they have Diplomatic Immunity to allow them time to get used to American laws. This is all fine and good if the refugees are Liberian college students, starving families from Darfur, or even Libyan businessmen opposed to Kadaffi, but residents of Gaza who voted overwhelmingly to put a terrorist organization in charge of their homeland?

Before you wander off, here's a couple mores note of interest:
Swarming Attacks
The Coming Swarming Attack

--------------------------------------------
An open letter to the President:

Dear Mr. Obama,

With this one Executive Order you have lost any support I previously had for you. The minute my feet land on American soil I am going to start bombarding the Congressional Representatives of whatever state I wind up living in with demands for your impeachment. President Bush took my liberty with his Patriot Act, but even he was not stupid enough to use tax money to buy the terrorists a plane ticket and a house in suburban America!


February 15, 2009

One minute late



Police arrive within two minutes to find 5 of 6 women dead

I learned about the above article after reading a post on Hecate's Crossroad.

Remember the lessons learned from Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Northern Illinois University? We need to wake up and look at reality head on. Even when they are honest, hardworking, and dedicated to public service, the police almost never arrive early enough to rescue you. It's not that they don't want to, they can't!

There will always be criminals. It is tragic that society lets so many people slip through the cracks and into lives devoted to parasitic occupations involving violence against law-abiding innocents. Not only is it tragic, if history is any indication, it is also unavoidable. Charities, halfway houses, free clinics, government-run rehabilitation programs, free food, discount food, ever since the earliest days of human history we have struggled to be generous and take care of our most disadvantaged people. We try, and still we have criminals. Not only do poor people resort to crime, the rich and powerful use criminal activity to expand their influence and prestige. After all, with 530 fraud cases opened in relation to the current economic crisis we cannot assume that "rich and powerful" equates to morally just.

We do, though. Every single day. For example, the current sheriff of Orange County seems to believe that ordinary citizens are beneath her and therefore she does not have to grant their demand to loosen restrictions on the issuance of concealed carry permits. Not only does she feel this, a popular commentator named Dana Parsons agrees!

This is how we sell ourselves into slavery. We start with a peaceful society. Because we are peaceful, we begin to abandon our natural right to self-defense. The criminally minded both high and low realize we are no longer vigilant and begin their parasitic work to deprive us of life and prosperity. So we appoint strong, honest men and women to defend us against the criminals. The criminals see this, and then some of them learn to gain enough trust to join the ranks of our defenders. After awhile, it becomes difficult to tell the difference between the defenders and the criminals. Some of our modern defenders are less honest than the criminals we expect them to protect us from!

At that point we face a choice. We can take back our right to self-defense, forcibly if necessary, or we can give up altogether and put someone at the top of society's pyramid we do trust and then demand this person clean up the mess. Right now America faces a deadly choice. Through a massive grassroots effort, we have elected a president we trust to clean up our government. However, if we allow this administration to continue chipping away at our sovereign right to keep and bear arms, then what will happen in the future? Remember Phil Dominguez? Sandra Hutchens?

There are many people in positions of influence who would love for us to hand them complete and total power. Our forefathers knew many such people. It is because they knew these people would forever be a danger to our freedom that they drafted the most progressive constitution and bill of rights the world has ever known. Among all modern nations in our world, the United States is still the only nation where the Constitution specifically states:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

In the words of George Santayana:

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

-----------------------------------------
(Added later)

I am not the only one sounding a warning clarion. Yuri Orlov has this to say:

And so we will have former soldiers, former police, and former prisoners: a big happy family, with a few bad apples and some violent tendencies. The end result will be a country awash with various categories of armed men, most of them unemployed, and many of them borderline psychotic. The police in the United States are a troubled group. Many of them lose all touch with people who are not "on the force" and most of them develop an us-versus-them mentality. The soldiers returning from a tour of duty often suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. The paroled prisoners suffer from a variety of psychological ailments as well. All of them will sooner or later realize that their problems are not medical but rather political. This will make it impossible for society to continue to exercise control over them. All of them will be making good use of their weapons training and other professional skills to acquire whatever they need to survive. And the really important point to remember is that they will do these things whether or not anyone thinks it legal for them to do be doing them.


Okay, a caveat on Mr. Orlov's theory:
Yuri Orlov is a former Soviet. He probably does not fully appreciate just how many Americans currently own firearms. The usefulness and effectiveness of former gang members, military people, and former police officers will be dramatically more limited as ordinary people either take charge of their own self-defense or provide defense for both themselves and their neighbors.

No one wants our civilization to collapse, but if it does, who would you rather trust your life and the lives of your family to, a neighbor you have known for a couple decades or an Iraq war returnee with questionable sanity? Not that all former military and police will be unstable. Not at all. Some of your neighbors might very well be warzone returnees or former law enforcement that you are more than willing to trust with your life. However, I strongly suspect that most of your neighbors are ordinary people just like you.

Wouldn't you be safer, regardless of whether or not there is a collapse, if you and your neighbor are both proficient in the use of firearms and you have a nice little arsenal of your own?