January 23, 2013

Law Enforcement Against Gun Control

There is a page on Facebook that I was referred to recently called "Law Enforcement Against Gun Control". The people who set it up and maintain it do so anonymously. They have to. In many cases their careers would be over if their superiors discovered they are pro-Second Amendment supporters of civilian firearm use. My father was a police officer for most of his professional life. My brother-in-law is an FBI agent. I spent four years in the United States Army. People who spend their days focused on these issues have a worldview and a vocabulary that is unmistakable. People whose entire concept of law enforcement is driven by Hollywood and popular television dramas, on the other hand, have a completely different worldview and vocabulary. It is very easy to distinguish between the two. I mention this because some people out there are certain to point that the anonymous aspect of the "Law Enforcement Against Gun Control" page might also mean it is fake. I'm very certain the people behind this page are genuine law enforcement professionals.

Yesterday, they asked what their readers felt front-line law enforcement could do to help advance the Second Amendment. This is important to them because they are the ones who will be faced with the task of confiscating AR15/AK47 clones and other "assault weapons" should Sen. Dianne Feinstein's new bill make it to President Obama's desk. The president has already said he is eager to sign this bill into law. This was my answer:


An honest question that deserves an honest answer.

If President Obama and his supporters succeed, then many of you will die attempting to confiscate firearms from those who previously were law-abiding citizens. It seems to me that anyone who works in law enforcement is facing a far more difficult choice than the rest of us: do you risk your career now by speaking out and joining pro-Second Amendment advocacy groups or do you risk your lives later enforcing unconstitutional laws?

This will be far more serious than even the dangers and stresses you currently face because many of the "criminals" the current administration is trying to label as such are just as well trained as you are, and in some cases, even more highly trained than you are.

First you need to determine how your department's administration and political overseers feel. They will be the first line of allies you will need on your side, or perhaps the first set of enemies you will have to either convert or overcome. "Mayors Against Illegal Guns", numerous "Fraternal Order of Police" groups, and so on. As long as these groups are supporting the anti-Second Amendment crowd then President Obama controls the single most important PR tool available in this fight. If your chain of command does not speak for you, then you must make that known through letters to the editor of the local paper, call-ins to the local radio talk shows, social networking activities like this Facebook wall, etc. Make sure your chain of command knows that if you are sent to confiscate guns from people who up until now have been law-abiding citizens you will not comply.

Second, contact any local, state, or national representatives who are pro-Second Amendment. Make yourself available to speak at their rallies, townhalls, and campaign stops. Become part of their political machine. Use whatever free time you have to participate in official activities where the voters can see that at least some real law enforcement personnel are on their side even if the mayor, the chief, and the other administrators are not.

It is a hard thing to ask, but if we lose in the political arena it will be even harder.

Third, become an active trainer in your community. Start up an armed self-defense class, volunteer at other people's armed self-defense classes, be available to the local CCW instructors both as a consultant and as an expert instructor in the legal aspect of CCW training. Be someone in an official capacity that your neighbors and curious onlookers know can be trusted to give accurate, real-world information and advice on armed self-defense and legal rights/responsibilities in an armed self-defense situation. Be the people's ally and trusted adviser.

Fourth, and perhaps most important of all, locate everyone in your organization who supports the Second Amendment, band together, and form a solid wall against those elements in your organization who do not support civilian firearm ownership and use. Stand together now and maybe together you can exert enough pressure to insure that you never have to face the possibility of an armed engagement with someone whose only crime was a firm belief in the vision of our nation's founding fathers.

But that's just my take on it. It is cold, hard, and there is no good end in sight, but this is how I see it.


Yang Li, a real American patriot

I have been known to joke, "half my ancestors arrived on the Mayflower, the other half helped them survive the first winter."

But it's not a joke. Not really. I carry in my blood the genetic legacy of three native tribes. I also carry the blood of early capitalists desperate to break free of the crushing poverty of a London back alley. My family in its various branches goes back to both French and English peasants seeking a safe place to serve the Lord their God in the way their conscience deemed fit rather than in accordance with the dictates of an oppressive royal family. German farmers whose land was confiscated to build a palace, Irish peasants starving beneath the whips of Scottish masters exiled from their highland home, and even the blood of those Scotsman all flow in my veins. Thanks to a maternal great-great grandfather with a taste for rape who lost the family plantation in the Civil War, I even carry a few drops of blood from the slaves who were dragged to this new land in chains.

I am as American as it is possible to be. When you talk about "traditional", you're talking about me. When you talk about "old-fashioned", you're talking about me. When you talk about "oppressed people", you're talking about me. And yes, even when you talk about "native rights", you're still talking about me. My family has been here as long as there have been people here, and we are not alone.

The fellow in the video below has not been here since the beginning. In fact, he has barely been here for a full decade. Nonetheless, he came here for the same reason my forefathers came here: freedom from oppression. This is Yung Li and although he has been here only a few short years, he is a real American patriot. You see, he was in Tiananmen Square in 1989 when the tanks rolled in and the troops opened fire. He knows firsthand what happens when an armed, oppressive government encounters unarmed peasants who disagree with it. He has heard the bullets whizzing past his head and he has seen the blood on the tiles of that ancient courtyard. So when someone like Thomas L. Friedman goes on CNN and says point blank that the United States is washed up, done with, and needs to copy China, Yang Li vehemently disagrees. He came here to escape that system. He does not want to see it replicated here.

In the video below, Yang Li tells us a little about himself, but that is not his real message. His real message is how important it is to preserve, unchecked and uncontrolled, civilian ownership of "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines". He feels passionately about this issue, as passionately as I do, because he was there in Tiananmen Square when the bullets started flying and his friends were dying. Myself, I never want to see a Tiananmen Square style massacre on American soil, even if that means every now and again some lunatic grabs an assault rifle, loads up a dozen or so thirty-round magazines, and shoots up a shopping mall, a movie theater, or a school! Instead of restricting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens in a vain and foolish effort to prevent that lunatic from getting a gun, what we really need to do is make absolutely certain that when he whips out that rifle and starts shooting there will be a dozen or so armed Americans firing right back at him.

Don't try to sell Yang Li on your sick, delusional idea that taking away my gun or limiting the size of my magazine is going to magically prevent the next massacre. He and I both know you are either insane or lying through your teeth. He and I both know that if you take away my gun, the next massacre won't be a couple dozen moviegoers or school children. If you take away my gun the next massacre will be hundreds, and possibly thousands, of innocent people who have gathered to peacefully protest against an armed, oppressive government.

I'm not going to say it "can" happen here. I'm going to promise you it will happen here. To make certain it happens here, just pass Senator Dianne Feinstein's poorly designed, ill-conceived "assault weapons ban". If you take away the most effective self-defense weapons and accessories from we the people, then you will insure that the government can kill as many of us as it likes any time it likes. Both your life and mine will be worth nothing to the representatives of utopian masterminds convinced you and I are the only impediment to their perfect world. Those masterminds will send their foot soldiers to hunt both of us down and kill us. It is what they have done for five thousand years. It is what they are doing right now in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, in China, in North Korea, in Myanmar, in Somalia, in Zimbabwe, in Darfur, and in a dozen other places around the world. It is what they did on that sunny day in 1989 in Tiananmen Square. It is what many of them would love to do right here in America, but they can't, because there are still patriots here who are almost as well-armed as their foot soldiers and in many instances better trained.

Reality is sometimes dark and ugly, but we have to face that ugliness and defeat it. History is an implacable, unforgiving teacher whose lessons are soaked in the blood of those who failed to learn them. It is far past time that we put this debate to rest once and for all. Gun control empowers criminals and tyrants! It does not bring peace and safety. Those who support it, who seek it, and who are trying right now to achieve it are the allies and agents of criminals and tyrants, even if they themselves do not realize it! Freedom of speech is as sacred as freedom of self-defense, but both require a sober, realistic assessment of history's bloody textbook. You must make that assessment on your own because if you depend on someone else to do it (even if you depend on me!) then you play right into the hands of the utopian masterminds and their smiling, bright-eyed salespeople.

My introduction has been far too long. Here is the video:

Update: January 29, 2013

January 18, 2013

Tired of repeating myself on gun control

Honestly speaking, after twenty years of research the academics are divided into two camps:
1> Those who hate guns and refuse to accept the research of their peers
2> Those who accept (often begrudgingly) that increased gun control laws lead to increases in crime, not reductions.

As for myself, I have been active in this debate for over five years now (Culture and Crime, April 18, 2007) and I am seriously sick to death of the inanity of gun control advocates, their constant name-calling, their shrill siren songs, and their remarkable ability to completely ignore every single fact and figure brought before them. Whatever is driving the gun control crowd, it most certainly is not a genuine and sincere desire to minimize the violence in modern society.

Yes, we can reduce the level of violence in modern society. It will not be easy, but it can be done. However, restricting in any way civilian access to firearms will have the opposite effect. I was just on an anti-gun website that I will not link to here, at least not until they recognize what is staring them in the face. On their site they had two lovely multi-color maps of the world. The first showed gun ownership and the second showed violent crime. Naturally the United States was the darkest, deepest red for gun ownership, almost a blood red. Oddly enough, Brazil, Ecuador, and Columbia were very light pink, almost white, indicating very low firearm ownership rates. And yet, on the violent crime rate map the United States was the light pink shade while those same three South American countries were almost blood red. Their conclusion, "Among civilized countries the United States has the 26th highest violent crime rate due to their corresponding high rates of gun ownership."

Not even the tiniest whisper of Brazil, Ecuador, and Columbia. I guess we must assume those open-minded, deeply compassionate gun control aficionados lumped the three most prosperous nations in South America in with the "uncivilized" countries? Nor was there any mention of the 25 countries with higher violent crime rates! Naturally three out of the twenty-five are Brazil, Ecuador, and Columbia, but South Africa, France, Germany, and Great Britain (all with strict firearm controls and low levels of firearm ownership) were also part of the twenty-five. For Europe, the reality everyone in the anti-gun movement tries to pretend does not exist is the simple fact that every single European country with widespread Islamic immigration since 9/11 has also seen a dramatic increase in violent crimes, especially rape, murder, and assault. The main source of violent crime in Europe since 9/11 is radicalized segments of their rapidly growing Muslim population.

The main source of violent crime in the United States, on the other hand, is gang-related violence in cities like Chicago, Washington D.C., Cleveland, and Baltimore. Firearms are often used in gang-related violence in the United States, but the vast majority of those firearms are illegally obtained through theft and straw purchases. Mayor Bloomberg of New York City and Mayor Emanuel of Chicago wail endlessly about "gun traffickers" bringing illegal weapons into their cities while daily working to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens through any means at their disposal. Los Angeles is not far behind them and just yesterday Mayor Villaraigosa announced an "economic war on guns" by ordering the city worker's pension fund to divest itself of stocks and mutual funds that invest in firearms or ammunition manufacturers.

There are somewhere around 25 million AK-47 and AR-15 clones in civilian hands in the United States. In States where it is legal to own them, most owners will have multiple 30-round magazines for those rifles. A few owners will have crazy items like 75 or 100-round drum magazines. Out of those 25 million or so "assault weapons" with "high capacity magazines", three rifles were recently used in mass shootings, and of those three mass shootings, only two of them deserve the label: the Aurora theater shooting and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Every violent crime is a terrible tragedy. Events like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting will haunt the national psyche for decades. The best way to insure we see even more of these crimes is to ban, limit, or restrict civilian ownership of "assault" weapons.

As I said in the beginning, something else is driving the anti-gun campaign. I don't know whether it is paranoia, politics, simple greed, or a vast globalist conspiracy, and I don't care! The one simple fact I as a gun owner can not ignore is that there does indeed exist a highly coordinated, well-funded effort to step by step deprive me of the best self-defense tools available in the civilian market. As a result, I must ask myself, "Why are these people working so hard to take away my guns?"

Since the research clearly shows a direct correlation between increased civilian firearm ownership and reduced violent crime, their stated goal of desiring a safer world must be an outright, overt lie. That leaves two types of people who would love to see me and people like me armed with nothing more than baseball bats and kitchen knives: criminals and tyrants! The research is very clear. There can be only one conclusion from where I sit. Those who are leading the anti-gun movement must have backing from organized crime, globalist wannabe tyrants, or old aristocratic families who fear armed peasants. Perhaps the rank and file are simply deluded sheep who think with their hearts rather than their brains, but I cannot ascribe simple naivete to the leaders. If they were that naive, they would not know how to lead.

Paolo Buonnano, et all: Crime in Europe and in the US (a .pdf file)
Gary Kleck: Guns and Crime, a summary
John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime (blog)
FactCheck.org: Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts
Washington Times: Gun ownership up, crime down
FBI: Uniform Crime Reports
CDC: NIOSH Publications and Databases

January 11, 2013

The world wants you to be a peasant

Piers Morgan is British. Britain still has a royal family. Britain has always been a two-class society: the aristocracy and the peasantry. In a two-class society the noble class has certain obligations and the peasant class has different obligations. The nobles are obligated to provide the peasants with the tools they need to survive, defense from outside threats, as well as capture and execution of dangerous persons (unless those persons are nobles, of course). The peasants in turn are obligated to pay taxes which usually amount to about half their productive capacity. They are also obligated to completely trust that the nobles have their best interests at heart. Peasants are not allowed to disagree with the nobles, nor are they allowed to debate with the nobles. Any debate or discussion takes place solely within the nobility. This kind of two-class society was the foundation of human existence for five thousand years.

In 1776 everything changed. The American colonists, inspired by John Locke and William Blackstone as well as the English Magna Carta, threw off the yoke of the nobility once and for all. Their "Declaration of Independence" proclaimed that the rightful sovereigns of any nation were the people themselves when guided by good Christian morals and an enlightened self-interest in the prosperity of their land. The end result of a protracted revolution and a long debate was the U.S. Constitution, including an itemized list of ten basic human rights that the government would not be allowed to interfere with.

But the old noble class had not completely vanished. Many of their prejudices still ran hidden throughout society. As time passed, some people prospered more than others. Most of the time this was due to better creativity, better problem-solving, and a better ability to understand basic economics. Once in awhile it was due to criminality: an inherent ability to evade the law enforcement capability of the nation as well as clever perversion of the basic freedoms protected by the Constitution. Among those who prospered it became commonplace to think of themselves as superior to the "common people". Socially and economically two distinct classes began to emerge in American society. The greatest difference between the two-class American society and the traditional European or Asian two-class society was the complete lack of barriers in American society between the two classes. There were no protections in place for American economic elites who were foolish in how they managed their inheritance. As a result, the road down was swift and unavoidable. For economic commoners, on the other hand, the road up was clear and free of obstacles for anyone with intelligence, creativity, and a propensity for hard work. After the Civil War, everything changed again.

The American Civil War left the United States with two distinct, immobile classes of people. In the north there was an entrenched aristocracy based on banking, industry and international trade, as well as an impoverished working class with limited access to capital, education, and the tools of productivity. In the south there was a severely damaged but still resolute landed aristocracy and a class of economically disadvantaged freed slaves living alongside the downtrodden and disadvantaged whites. Over the next seven or eight decades a series of economic upturns and downturns that were largely driven by events on the opposite side of the globe created such a huge gap between the two that the old economic mobility became severely limited. It still existed, but it was harder than ever for the elites to completely fail and for the commoners to completely succeed. As the economic classes became more solidified, so did the assumptions of the social classes. The Stock Market crash of 1929 had a devastating impact on the economic life of the nation. Afterwards, it became almost impossible for any kind of genuine social mobility to occur. This social stagnation lasted until after World War Two.

During the opening decades of the Twentieth Century several things changed both politically and economically. The wealth of the United States became more concentrated in the hands of fewer people, usually people with solid ties to national banking and federal politics. This group of entrenched elites became convinced that they were an entirely new breed of human. Under the influence of European academics, they decided that the old, traditional two-class society was no accident. In their minds there were in nature and in fact two completely different types of humans: those who could and those who depended on those who could. Along with this new sense of nobility came the old standards of noblesse oblige. It became the duty of the rich to care for and protect the poor. Under this new set of social assumptions, Franklin Delano Roosevelt won the 1933 Presidential election and ushered in the era of the "New Deal".

From the end of the Civil War to the beginning of FDR's New Deal, there were many factors that contributed to this solidification of the old freedoms into the privileges of two distinct classes. For example, the sudden introduction into the workforce of millions of freed slaves in Southern States where there was very little industry to absorb their labor made it easier for better educated surviving plantation owners to convince less educated former slaves they still needed their former masters. Those slaves who had been under more enlightened masters and had received an education before the Emancipation Proclamation gave them their freedom quickly took advantage of this situation as well by moving into occupations and positions abandoned by whites who had died in the Civil War.

As the educated former slaves gained businesses, became teachers, and took over abandoned plantations, groups of disenfranchised whites joined together under the leadership of former Confederate Army Officers to both terrorize the successful former slaves and intimidate the impoverished former slaves. The real goal of the original Klu Klux Klan was to prevent the freed slaves from voting for Republican politicians locally and federally. This is because the new Republican Party had been the driving force behind the election of Abraham Lincoln to the White House along with a Republican majority in Congress. Faced with an abolitionist Congress, the Democratic/slave-owning Southern States withdrew from the Union, leading to the war and their abject humiliation at the hands of the Union Army, especially during the last two years of the war. The founders of the original KKK did not realize it or even consciously think of it in those terms, but their real-world goal was to create a permanent peasant class of blacks that the whites could easily exploit. Without even realizing it, they set out to recreate and make permanent the two-class society their ancestors had rejected in 1776.

Another important factor that both aided and worked against the complete transformation into a traditional two-class society prior to the advent of the New Deal was the opening of the American West. After the Civil War the new nation quickly moved to gain control of the entire continental region under the social guise of "Manifest Destiny". This created huge economic opportunities such as the nation had not seen since the century before. Disenfranchised and disenchanted people of all social classes could move west and start over again. Many of these people gained great economic success, sometimes through creativity and intelligence and sometimes through criminal activity. For a short time, from about 1865-1890, there were in effect two United States of America. East of the Mississippi the country was fairly stagnant socially and economically, with two distinct classes and very little social mobility. West of the Mississippi the nation had fallen back on its original, freely mobile social and economic ideals with many individuals either rapid climbing or rapid falling both economically and socially. Individual success was once again based on initiative, hard work, creative problem-solving, and good social skills rather than birthright.

The old aristocratic assumptions were hard to break, however, and much of the real-world turmoil in the "wild west" was in fact nothing more than violent confrontations between those who assumed they were entitled to success and those were struggling to achieve it. High-noon gunfights and battles with natives, the stock of penny novels and later on Hollywood movies, were present but were very few and far between. Far more common were events like the Johnson County Cattle Wars in Wyoming and the war between the "Cowboys" and the Earps in Tombstone that led up the now infamous Gunfight at the OK Corral.

Many people look back on the Civil War, the "Wild West", and even the New Deal and they see a battle of "good" and "evil". Depending on who is doing the writing, the "good" side might be the economic and social elite while the "bad" side is everyone else, or even vice versa. Karl Marx was among the first to observe that "winners write the histories", but he was not entirely correct. Winners might write the official histories, but the losers write the popular ones. One way or another both versions of history do get recorded and it is up to each of us individually to decide which version we are going to believe. Even more importantly, we need to recognize that "good" and "evil" are largely meaningless out here in the real world. There are behaviors that are productive and there are behaviors that are self-destructive. Most of what we call "evil" is self-destructive, although sometimes it takes years or even decades to see the consequences. In the worst cases, the consequences of self-destructive behavior do not become apparent until a century later when someone finally sits down to write the history of a people or a nation, which is exactly where we find ourselves today.

It is only very recently that historians have begun to re-examine the consequences of FDR's New Deal (see, "New Deal or Raw Deal", by Burton). Southern voices on the "War of Northern Aggression" have also recently begun a serious reconsideration of both the motivations behind the Civil War and the consequences of it on American society. Even more recently, a new "Tea Party" movement has sprung up seeking to return the American political dialogue away from "what can the government do for me?" and back to "what can I do for my country?" The old, aristocratic response to these sudden changes in the social and political discourse are both predictable and expected. In the name of "public safety" they are seeking to complete the destruction of American society that began with the Civil War, became solidified with FDR's New Deal, and will lead us inevitably back into the arms of the very tyrants our forefathers fought so hard to be freed from.

The re-election of Barack Obama was a huge loss for the new, revitalized freedom movement. It provided the old aristocratic assumptions a new sense of legitimacy. In their minds they now have a social mandate to complete the three generation long battle to reassert their traditional rights and privileges. Behind Al Gore's refusal to sell CurrentTV to Glenn Beck and his rapid agreement to sell to Al Jazeera is an assumption that he is part of the global elite, just as the royal family of Qatar is, and the rest of us are mere peasants who really ought to shut up and do their bidding. This same assumption is behind Joe Biden's insistence the the President is not only entitled to use executive orders to restrict the Second Amendment, but is obligated to do so. Behind the editorial decision of the Journal News to release a map of registered gun owners is the aristocratic assumption that peasants like you and I don't need firearms for self-defense. The editor's assumption, Piers Morgan's assumption, Diane Feinstein's assumption, Nancy Pelosi's assumption, and Joe Biden's assumption are all the same: they are the elite and they know how to protect the common people so the common people should just shut up and let them do their jobs.

The world's elite want to disarm the American citizens. We, the American gun owners, are the very last obstacle in their effort to reassert their privileged status. We already have multi-generational political families (Kennedy, Clinton, Romney, Bush, etc.), we already have tax-payer protection of their favored banks and businesses, we already have severe limits on our ability to object to their machinations. The last step in their strategy, the one obstacle to a genuine global government, are American gun owners. We, the American gun owners, are the largest standing army in the world. We are the world's greatest marksmen, we are veterans of the world's greatest military. No military in the world dares to invade the United States because they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it would be suicide. We are better armed, better prepared, and more proficient with our weapons than any army in the world. That is the real reason Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, and everyone else is working so hard to control our firearms.

Why do I need an AR-15 clone with a 30-round magazine? I need one because the person they will send to collect mine will be carrying one and I need to be at least as well armed as he is.

January 08, 2013

European Life Died in Auschwitz

A much abbreviated version of this arrived in my email inbox this morning. I have spent half an hour or so searching around and have been unable to confirm if it is real. Nonetheless, as President Obama selects an avid anti-Semitic for Secretary of Defense, as the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda secure their hold over the largest, most powerful countries in the Middle East, and as Iran brings its nuclear weapons program to a conclusion, there is much here to consider. Remember, it is not paranoid to recognize when someone or some group really does intend to harm you.

Let me also add, I have met many Muslims who hate the extremists among them as much as I do. Most of them are even more scared than I am of the potential for destruction that radical Jihadist Islam represents. In most Islamic countries, ordinary civilians cannot own firearms. It is the governments and the terrorists who possess firearms with impunity. Most Islamic governments have been completely impotent in their ability to counter the agenda of the terrorists. Instead, they have disarmed the ordinary civilians, leaving them at the mercy of both oppressive governments and sadistic terrorists. If I lived in Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, or Lebanon, or Egypt, I'd be as frightened as the majority of the disarmed civilian population.

This "op-ed" is biased, prejudicial, and horribly accurate. There are tens of millions of open-minded, tolerant, generous-spirited Muslims in today's world. They work hard, care for their families, and struggle to maintain good relationships with their non-Muslim neighbors. Unfortunately, there are also millions of intolerant, fundamentalist, close-minded Muslims who back the terrorist agenda wholeheartedly. The Muslim world is just as divided as modern America with one important difference: the peace-loving Muslims have been completely disarmed and are at the mercy of their fundamentalist, often sadistic neighbors!

As the Obama regime seeks to immortalize itself and disarm the American people, keep in mind that they are not the only enemies of freedom. By design or by default, they are leading us down a path with only one endgame: another global war finishing in a global tyranny ruled by a coalition of communists and jihadists, a coalition that will self-destruct the moment it is established, reducing any of us who survive to the hunter-gather, pre-agricultural life of our ancestors.

Here is the "op-ed":


The following is a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez and published in a Spanish newspaper on Jan. 15, 2008. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe – and possibly to the rest of the world.

All European Life Died In Auschwitz
By Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez

I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth – Europe died in Auschwitz … We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.

The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.

And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride. They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition. We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe! The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world’s population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

1988 – Najib Mahfooz

1978 – Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1990 – Elias James Corey
1994 – Yaser Arafat
1999 – Ahmed Zewai

1960 – Peter Brian Medawar
1998 – Ferid Mourad

Physics: 0
Economics: 0

Total: 7

The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN MILLION or about 0.02% of the world’s population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

1910 – Paul Heyse
1927 – Henri Bergson
1958 – Boris Pasternak
1966 – Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 – Nelly Sachs
1976 – Saul Bellow
1978 – Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 – Elias Canetti
1987 – Joseph Brodsky
1991 – Nadine Gordimer World

1911 – Alfred Fried
1911 – Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 – Rene Cassin
1973 – Henry Kissinger
1978 – Menachem Begin
1986 – Elie Wiesel
1994 – Shimon Peres
1994 – Yitzhak Rabin

1905 – Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 – Henri Moissan
1907 – Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 – Gabriel Lippmann
1910 – Otto Wallach
1915 – Richard Willstaetter
1918 – Fritz Haber
1921 – Albert Einstein
1922 – Niels Bohr
1925 – James Franck
1925 – Gustav Hertz
1943 – Gustav Stern
1943 – George Charles de Hevesy
1944 – Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 – Felix Bloch
1954 – Max Born
1958 – Igor Tamm
1959 – Emilio Segre
1960 – Donald A. Glaser
1961 – Robert Hofstadter
1961 – Melvin Calvin
1962 – Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 – Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 – Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 – Julian Schwinger
1969 – Murray Gell-Mann
1971 – Dennis Gabor
1972 – William Howard Stein
1973 – Brian David Josephson
1975 – Benjamin Mottleson
1976 – Burton Richter
1977 – Ilya Prigogine
1978 – Arno Allan Penzias
1978 – Peter L Kapitza
1979 – Stephen Weinberg
1979 – Sheldon Glashow
1979 – Herbert Charles Brown
1980 – Paul Berg
1980 – Walter Gilbert
1981 – Roald Hoffmann
1982 – Aaron Klug
1985 – Albert A. Hauptman
1985 – Jerome Karle
1986 – Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 – Robert Huber
1988 – Leon Lederman
1988 – Melvin Schwartz
1988 – Jack Steinberger
1989 – Sidney Altman
1990 – Jerome Friedman
1992 – Rudolph Marcus
1995 – Martin Perl
2000 – Alan J. Heeger

1970 – Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 – Simon Kuznets
1972 – Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 – Leonid Kantorovich
1976 – Milton Friedman
1978 – Herbert A. Simon
1980 – Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 – Franco Modigliani
1987 – Robert M. Solow
1990 – Harry Markowitz
1990 – Merton Miller
1992 – Gary Becker
1993 – Robert Fogel

1908 – Elie Metchnikoff
1908 – Paul Erlich
1914 – Robert Barany
1922 – Otto Meyerhof
1930 – Karl Landsteiner
1931 – Otto Warburg
1936 – Otto Loewi
1944 – Joseph Erlanger
1944 – Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 – Ernst Boris Chain
1946 – Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 – Tadeus Reichstein
1952 – Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 – Hans Krebs
1953 – Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 – Joshua Lederberg
1959 – Arthur Kornberg
1964 – Konrad Bloch
1965 – Francois Jacob
1965 – Andre Lwoff
1967 – George Wald
1968 – Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 – Salvador Luria
1970 – Julius Axelrod
1970 – Sir Bernard Katz
1972 – Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 – Howard Martin Temin
1976 – Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 – Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 – Daniel Nathans
1980 – Baruj Benacerraf
1984 – Cesar Milstein
1985 – Michael Stuart Brown
1985 – Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 – Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 – Gertrude Elion
1989 – Harold Varmus
1991 – Erwin Neher
1991 – Bert Sakmann
1993 – Richard J. Roberts
1993 – Phillip Sharp
1994 – Alfred Gilman
1995 – Edward B. Lewis
1996 - Lu Rose Iacovino

Total: 129

The Jews are not promoting brain washing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims. The Jews don’t hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants. There is not one single Jew who has destroyed a church. There is not one single Jew who protests by killing people.

The Jews don’t traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

Perhaps the world’s Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems. Muslims must ask, "What can we do for humankind?", before they demand that humankind respects them.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel's part, the following two sentences really say it all:

"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."
-- Benjamin Netanyahu

It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.

He did this because he said in words to this effect: "Get it all on record now – get the films – get the witnesses – because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened."

Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it "offends" the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This essay is in memory of the 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who were "murdered, raped, burned, starved, beaten, experimented on and humiliated" while the German people looked the other way.

Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be "a myth", it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets. How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center "never happened" because it offends some Muslim in the United States?