Quote of the day—Shabtai Shavit

With this enemy, we have to push aside arguments on law, morality and comparisons of security and the rights of the individual. That means to do what they did in World War II to Dresden. They wiped it off the map. That is what has to be done to all the territorial enclaves that ISIS is holding.

Shabtai Shavit
Former chief of Mossad
November 15, 2015
Experts Explain How Global Powers Can Smash ISIS
[Opinions vary. Read the article for other views.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sean Davis

Democrats aren’t doing this because they think it’s the only possible way to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons. We know this because we’ve established that the attorney general already has all the power she needs to indict, arrest, convict, and sentence known, dangerous terrorists. Democrats are doing this because they think it will benefit them politically. In the wake of a massive terrorist attack on free, innocent people in Paris, Washington Democrats have decided that their real enemy isn’t ISIS. Just like Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton declared in a recent debate, their real enemies are Republicans.

And they’ll do whatever they can to defeat these dangerous electoral terrorists…even if it requires the wholesale elimination of the constitutional right to due process.

Sean Davis
Co-founder of The Federalist
November 23, 2015
Sorry Democrats, But There Is No ‘Loophole’ That Allows Terrorists To Legally Buy Guns
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

The beasts of Islam have declared war against all of Western civilization. And there is no appeasing them. The more you give the more they demand.

And unless the EU stands with Israel against the beasts of Islam, the EU will drown in its own blood.

Robert J. Avrech
November 15, 2015
Paris and The Beasts of Islam
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Larry Correia

Militant Islamist Wahhibi douchebags want to kill you. Period. Don’t make excuses for them. Don’t try to explain them away. They literally want you to submit or die. This isn’t rocket science. Just ask them. They’ll tell you.

Larry Correia
November 16, 2015
Thoughts on Paris
[This is probably one of the most important points you must understand in this war. This isn’t something you can negotiate with them about. It’s not about some piece of desert which contains oil, forcing capitalism on them, poverty, or some misunderstanding that some “smart diplomacy” can fix. You cannot bargain with them anymore than you can bargain with a psychopath who wants to torture and kill you for his pleasure of watching you suffer and die.

You might get concessions from them that slow their attack some. But their long term goals and nature have not changed since the origin of Islam hundreds of years ago. Our country has fought since Jefferson was president. Reading about their mindset and their attitudes at that time is eerily similar to what I read about them now. I am firmly convinced the only long term options we have are:

  1. A low grade war or series of wars that never ends.
  2. We are conquered by them.
  3. We fight to win and completely destroy the religion as it is currently interpreted by those who demand world domination.

The only questions are which option do we chose and if we chose to fight and win how do we do that. I read one post on Facebook by someone I greatly admire which said, in part,

It’s not going away from magical thoughts.

“You can’t kill your way out of this war/to victory”

Really? I guess you’ve never heard of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. We killed the fucking shit out of them and they cried uncle and never raised a fist against us again.

In fact, no war has even been won in the history of mankind that was won any way but killing so many of the enemy that HE admitted he was beaten.

It’s not a good option. There are no good options. This is only the best option.

The Islamic people attacking the west have explicitly said:

The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling’s, and trading with interest.

You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.

If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him.

Their religious belief is that non-believers must convert, submit, or die. We must chose the option which they do not offer. That option is that we fight and completely neutralize those who insist the world be Islamic.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tom Trinko

In the end, liberal identification with criminals leads to the police knowing that the politicians don’t have their backs and to a reduction in effective crime control. It’s not an accident that liberals disagree with Giuliani’s “Broken Window” policing philosophy, since liberals don’t seem to care about the victims of “petty” crimes.

We need to tell the American people, our friends and neighbors, the truth that liberals aren’t like honest folk instead liberals identify with criminals and therefore support laws that favor criminals over victims and society.

Tom Trinko
October 31, 2015
Why Liberals Identify with Criminals
[H/T to Ed Driscoll.

There is far more to this than Trinko elaborated on in his post. In The Gulag Archipelago, Volume 2: An Experiment in Literary Investigation, 1918-1956 by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn there is extensive reporting of how the criminal class was the natural ally of the communists because the criminals would steal from and murder those with property. I.E. those who bettered themselves above the “common person”. Also political heresy, ideas contrary to communist thought, was considered more dangerous than thieves and murders to the communists and were treated as such.—Joe]

Preventing gun violence

Via email a few weeks ago from “longtime reader” Mike H. we have Taking executive action on guns, McAuliffe bans firearms in most state offices:

After facing resistance to new gun-control measures in the General Assembly, Gov. Terry McAuliffe used his executive authority Thursday to bolster prosecutions of illegal gun sales and ban firearms in most state offices.

In an executive order signed during a morning news conference in Richmond, McAuliffe established a task force that will direct state resources toward gun prosecutions, ordered the Virginia State Police to create a tip line to let people collect rewards for reporting gun violations and enacted an immediate ban on openly carried guns in executive branch offices.

“Gun crimes are not acts of God,” McAuliffe said. “But for too long, certain politicians and lobbyists have told us that gun violence in America is some sort of natural phenomenon, something we cannot do anything about. Today, we are gathered to recognize that we are not helpless to gun violence, that we can prevent it.”

Really? McAuliffe is “recognizing” he can prevent gun violence? Citation needed.

Is he also going to “recognize” he can prevent religious violence by restricting religions?

I’m in agreement with Matt Irwin.


Quote of the day—Matt Irwin

Any politician who wants gun control should not only never make office, but should be banned from politics for life.

Matt Irwin
November 6, 2015
Comment to McAuliffe Attempts To Claim Virginia Loss Wasn’t Because Of Gun Control
[Of course. It’s no different than they wanted to implement speech, religion, or book control.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bookworm

My reversal on guns came about because I realized that gun’s are a predicate requirement for individual freedom and security.  I’ve created five principles that justify this conclusion.  These principles are:  (1) Armed citizens are the best defense against the world’s most dangerous killer: government; (2) I am a Jew; (3) I am not a racist; (4) a self-defended society is a safe society; and (5) the only way gun-control activists can support their position is to lie.

October 1, 2015
Five reasons that the benefits that flow from guns far outweigh the risks inherent in guns
[There are a lot of different reasons people can reverse their position on a subject. If you want to have the power to change minds it is important to have as many different tools in your toolbox as you can. You may need to try a great number of them before you find the tool that works in any given situation.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Roberta X

Maybe we are just little, and governments are huge.  That doesn’t mean we should make it any easier for them to do bad things than it already is.

Roberta X
October 14, 2015
Okay, Let’s Take This “Get Rid Of The Guns” Thing One Step At A Time
[Roberta has some good points.

I would also like to suggest people look at the numbers.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

I was listening to the audible version of A History of the English-Speaking Peoples: The Birth of Britain today and it was implied that the power of church of early Britain was restricted by enforcing vows of poverty. That might be a misunderstanding of mine because I was driving in heavy traffic at the time and wasn’t giving the book my full attention. But anyway, that suggested something to me.

I wonder if requirements of poverty and perhaps chastity for politicians would improve the character of those who seek public office. They currently take an oath of office to uphold the U.S. constitution. But that is ignored by 99+% of them. In part because what the constitution “really means” is subject to interpretation and opinion. It can’t really be measured with numbers all that easily. Income can be measured much less subjectively. The indirect bribes of “stock tips”, “loans”, and “donations to the foundation” would be more easily detected by the lifestyle they live if they were required to live a life of poverty after gaining public office.

Of course the downside would be that very capable people would be self deselected from the potential candidates. But if one is to claim that politicians are self serving and government is too large and powerful. Such a requirement would change the character of the politicians in many that is in the generally correct direction.

Civil disobedience

The American People elected a handy Republican majority in Congress, in part to repeal Obama Care. Republicans ran, and were elected, based on that promise. Then they turned tail as soon as they were sworn in. They lied. As a Party, they lied.

We are now faced with the a representation system, as a means of redress of grievances, as a means of carrying out the will of the People with regard to upholding and protecting human liberty, which has failed. With Boehner’s recent stunt of shutting down an election for a new Speaker, the Republican Party is clearly maintaining its practice of running interference for the Progressives (incremental communists), and so there is no apparent correction in sight for this situation.

That leaves us with one option left before we get out our guns; civil disobedience. Refuse to take part in ObamaCare. Don’t even acknowledge it. There are ways of dealing with this, which your accountant/tax preparer, if he’s any good at all, can discuss with you.

Some Americans, as I type this, are in the Middle East in harm’s way, taking smallarms fire, in their attempts to save some of the Christians who are under attack and being killed for no reason other than their faith. They are risking, and some will lose, their lives in standing up for what’s right. I think we can risk getting a few letters in the mail, don’t you? I’m looking forward to it.

Quote of the day—Vladimir Lenin

One man with a gun can control 100 without one. … Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.

Vladimir Lenin
Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Soviet Union
[To remove guns from the hands of private citizens is to make them easier to control. Gun control is not about guns. It is about control.—Joe]

I’ll blame public education

People sign petition to ban discussion of politics and religion in public.

And, not as an aside but as the central issue, notice how readily some people are led to do something that, if they thought about it and had control of themselves they would know is wrong. Some of them sign reluctantly, but they sign. You’re seeing the standard American’s hypnotic state being briefly co-opted. You can see the hesitation and the resistance, but they go along as a way of avoiding the more uncomfortable of options.

If the guy with the petition understood just a little bit more about how this works, he could have some of those people explaining in detail, specifically why the first amendment is a terrible idea, and ultimately why America should be reduced to ashes.

If we don’t get it at home, we are programmed to be pliable and moldable to other people’s will, to avoid confrontation, when we enter public education as small children.

Thank you for signing my petition to repeal the first amendment, now go back to your regular programming.

The path forward

Lobbying and money in politics only gets you so far. It nudges government in a one direction or the other but changes in the mindset of the people is what makes the real differences. On the gun issue we are taking new shooters to the range and creating more gun owners. We can legally carry guns in public in all 50 states (theoretically, in some jurisdictions it is still impractical or even impossible in practice). Crime rates are dropping as gun ownership increases. And most importantly the mindset of the general population is changing:

According to Quinnipiac, when asked, “Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States?” 48 percent of all voters responded by opposing gun control while 45 percent responded by favoring more.

When broken down by parties, only 16 percent of Democrats opposed more gun control. A full 76 percent of Democrats–roughly 3 out of 4–want more of it. Republicans were just the opposite, with only 23 percent supporting more gun control while 73 percent–roughly 3 out of 4–oppose adding more laws.

Independents oppose more gun control by a margin of 49 to 45.

I haven’t done the math so it’s a little difficult to know what this means for the electoral vote count for President. It could be that the Anti-Gun Presidential Candidate is only looking at the short term to the nomination and will attempt to switch directions after the nomination. But we need to keep doing what we are doing and create more and more gun owners. Give or sell cheap your old guns to people without guns. Give them some skin in the game when a politician tells them how they are “a minority of people that hold a viewpoint that terrorizes a majority of people”. That’s right. Some politicians believe that just holding a viewpoint terrorizes people. Such politicians are not fit to be on a government payroll and the more gun owners there are the less likely they be successful in gaining power and if they are successful the less likely they will be to impose their anti-freedom agenda upon the good people of this country.

Have your lawyer question everything

I agree with Professor Reynolds. Prosecutor conduct like this should carry the death penalty:

the California Court of Appeal reveals that state prosecutors and California Attorney General Kamala Harris continue to be part of the problem. Kern County prosecutor Robert Murray committed “outrageous government misconduct.” Ms. Harris and her staff defended the indefensible—California State prosecutor Murray flat out falsified a transcript of a defendant’s confession.

Kern County prosecutor Robert Murray added two lines of transcript to “evidence” that the defendant confessed to an even more egregious offense than that with which he had been charged—the already hideous offense of molesting a child. With the two sentences that state’s attorney Murray perjuriously added, Murray was able to threaten charges that carried a term of life in prison.

My view on this sort of thing is that if they aren’t going to play by the rules and are not punished by breaking the rules then their opposition is under no obligation to play by the rules either. It’s game on.

We really don’t want to go there but I don’t see an alternative.

Quote of the day—Averett Jones

Now, society has the right and obligation to insist that each of us does not interfere with the rights of others. But rights are different from preferences. You have the right not to be injured personally or financially by anyone. BUT you do not have the right not to have your feelings hurt since you and you alone can determine what hurts your feelings.

You do not have the right to live in a risk free society where everyone else adjusts their rights to suit you.

You do not have the right to live in a society where everyone agrees with you and nothing you see or hear offends your tender sensibilities.

Your rights end where mine began.

Averett Jones
September 24, 2015
Gun Control vs. People Control
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—dittybopper

I find the idea that we should extend the same protections we give to game species to prevent them from becoming extinct to criminals and tyrants oddly curious.

September 23, 2015
Comment to Quote of the day—Shannyn Moore
[This was in reference to Moore denigrating the use of standard capacity magazines for use in hunting.

I understand that dittybopper was being witty but that aside I don’t find it odd or curious in the slightest.

Criminals are the constituents and allies of tyrants and those who aspire to be tyrants. It naturally follows that those who desire the rule of a tyrant will, of logical necessity, desire the same or greater protections for the preservation of criminal and tyrant species as is normal for the conservation of game species.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Glenn Reynolds

Police don’t actually protect law-abiding citizens from criminals so much as they protect criminals from the much-rougher justice they’d get in the absence of a legal system.

Burglars would be hung from lampposts, and shoplifters would be beaten and tossed into the gutter if there were no police, as in fact happens in countries where there isn’t a reliable justice system and a civil-society culture that restrains vigilantism. Reminder to the criminal class: Ultimately, we’re not stuck in this country with you. You’re stuck in this country with us.

Glenn Reynolds
September 2, 2015
[Upon the recommendation of Ry I’m listening to the Audible.com version of A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Vol. 1: The Birth of Britain and was reminded of what professor Reynolds said earlier this month (above). The native people of Britain were conquered by the Romans more than once. After the first time they waited for several years and then attacked the Roman bureaucrats, the military, and the natives who had collaborated with the Romans. In some cities, with populations of tens of thousands, they killed every man, woman, and child.

There may be lessons here for those who are in the process of conquering our country today. Just because you think you are bringing civilization to the savages doesn’t mean the “savages” appreciated it or have been “domesticated” once you have achieved your immediate goals. And ultimately you may find you’re stuck in this country with us.—Joe]

QOTD – from the guy that coined the word “menticide” in 1933

“One important result of this procedure [use psychological torture and mental manipulation while pushing for a “confession” and public show trial] is the great confusion it creates in the mind of every observer, friend or foe. In the end no one knows how to distinguish truth from falsehood. The totalitarian potentate, in order to break down the mind of men, first needs widespread mental chaos and verbal confusion, because both paralyze his opposition and cause the morale of the enemy to deteriorate – unless his adversaries are aware of the dictator’s real aim.”

From “The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing” by Joost A. M. Meerloo, first published in 1933

This explains the true damage “PC” speak and the language police really pose. It’s a fascinating book in many ways, and I’m not that far into it yet. It really hammers home the idea of “if you are accused of being [non-PC], never apologize, never back down, never quit (force them to fire you).”

I’m reading this book at the time – one of several I’m slowing slogging through, along with the Gulag Archipelago. Combine with “SJWs Always Lie” by Vox Day, and two recent articles on victim culture, microaggression, and “trigger warning,” ( http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggressions-really-come-from/  http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/ ) it’s awful easy to get depressed at just how messed up, and how mentally fragile, humans are. On one hand, these ideas explain so much of human history and current political events that it is scary, and understanding opens all sorts of doors; the fact that such ideas are all now known to me is potentially very useful. On the other hand, the fact that the people that need to know what’s being done to them are the ones that need to know this the most, and are going to be the most resistant to hearing it, and will tend to make the problems worse, is terrifying. Continue reading