BMEWS
 
Sarah Palin's enemies are automatically added to the Endangered Species List.

calendar   Wednesday - November 24, 2010

another critic of the rop on trial in austria for hate speech ….

This is one of the seriously most interesting articles I have run across lately.  I’m feeling a bit guilty on my timing as it should have been posted much earlier. I won’t go into silly details as to why it wasn’t.  Reason being, I dropped the ball on this one and can’t find a good excuse to palm off. So better to just say, read as much as you’ve patience for.

A word about one of the links I have here. English save free speech .org.  I have had no problems with it personally. I believe it to be a safe site.  However, for some reason the Zone alarm site check I have installed on my tool bar, which came with the recent ZA update, flashes a yellow ribbon at the top of the screen saying it’s a questionable site.  It isn’t to my knowledge. And only ZA is giving that warning. I feel I have to state that in case some may prefer not to visit the site. I have, and experienced no ill affects.

There’ll a bit of reading involved but I think it will hook ya. Have a drink and a snack handy. That’s just for ppl like me who are not very fast readers.


Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Versus the State of Denial

Dianawest.net

By Diana West

This week’s syndicated column is about Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff , who goes to trial for “hate speech”—i.e., speaking out against Islamization—on November 23 in Vienna. Her website, including defense fund information, is HERE.

image

When Barack Obama spoke in Mumbai about “the different meanings” of jihad, he set up us up again for the Big Lie: “I think,” the 44th president said, sounding much like the 43rd president, “all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence toward innocent people that is never justified.”

All—all—of the sacred books and schools of Islam say differently. Every, single one. The fact is—not the fantasy—there is no distortion of Islamic texts required to justify the violence of jihad from Mumbai to Tel Aviv to New York City to Bali to Madrid and beyond.

But we, dhimmi-citizens of an Islamizing world, are not supposed to notice the links between the violence and the faith, the faith and the law, the law and the violence—and certainly not say so out loud. Most people don’t. Increasingly, this state of denial is enforced by actual states of denial - the most recent example being Austria, which, in a trial on Nov. 23, will attempt to use “hate speech” laws to send Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff to prison for as long as three years for statements about Islam very similar to those I’ve just written.

The Viennese mother and housewife originally approached the subject of Islam from her unique background that includes a childhood stint in Iran during the Islamic Revolution in 1979 when her diplomat-father was stationed there; and her own work experience with Austrian embassies in both Kuwait at the time of the Iraqi invasion in 1990, and Libya, on 9/11 ("The Jews did it!” Elisabeth’s Libyan landlord shouted at her that same day).

She studied the Islamic texts and commentaries, the apologetics and the critiques. Empowered by her natural right to free speech, she decided to educate others in her native Austria about the Koran, about Islamic law (Shariah), in seminars she offered under the auspices of the pro-Western-civilization think tank Wiener Akademikerbund (Association of Vienna Academics). Contracted by the anti-Islamization Freedom Party (FPO) in 2008, Sabaditsch-Wolff has been educating Austrians about Islam ever since.

“The groups were very small at first, sometimes as few as five or six people” she recently told me. “Later on, the numbers rose to 35.” Last fall, one attendee in particular seemed “overly enthusiastic about the topic,” Elisabeth recalls. She turned out to be a journalist who would brand the seminar a “hate school” in a sensational story for NEWS, a left-wing publication.
“It caused a huge uproar among the establishment,” Elisabeth says, although now that her trial approaches Austrian media are silent.

“Bishops, rabbis, politicians, all of whom had never attended any of my seminars and knew nothing of the content, were asked to weigh in and condemn me. The bishop said, `One must never speak about any religion the way Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff did about Islam.’ This was especially painful for me.”

Elisabeth’s husband, a military surgeon, is very supportive of her. “My mother had to come to terms with her daughter being maligned in the media,” she says.

“My sister has cocooned herself and believes the NEWS story rather than confronting reality. My father, who has attended all of my seminars, knows the truth and supports me 100 percent.”

Of course, when she enters that Vienna courtroom, she will face the state alone. “The thought that the state—a state that I love very much and that I represented proudly all my life—is prosecuting me for thoughts is a painful one. It is hard to understand that I should have to stand trial for thoughts that are not only based on experience but are the product of careful study of the texts that make up Islam.”
But Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is also standing trial for her courage ...............

DIANA WEST SOURCE

H/T credit also to Europe News

THE TUNDRA TABLOIDS LIVE BLOGS ELISABETH SABADITSCH-WOLFF’S TRIAL IN VIENNA……

Posted on 11/23/2010 by KGS

This is coming straight from the courtroom in Vienna, Austria, where the Tundra Tabloids is being handed a live feed from Henrik Raeder Clausen of EuropeNews. You’ll be the first to know about the events taking place inside the Austrian courtroom, where the first hearing of the case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who’s accused of violating Europe’s onerous hate speech statutes, will be heard.


avatar

Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 11/24/2010 at 08:13 AM   
Filed Under: • Blog StuffFREEDOMJack Booted ThugsJudges-Courts-LawyersRoPMA •  
Comments (0) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Monday - November 15, 2010

A Line In The Sand

Or A Hand On Your Nads


When government literally has you by the balls, things have gone way too far.



The next rebellion is going to be over 4th Amendment rights. Airport “security” has gone too far, and it’s a useless jobsworth program for losers anyway. Cut the crap, get the government out of it, and find a sensible solution: profile the towelheads, leave granny alone. Catch someone with a bomb? Take them outside and shoot them. Right on the spot. And then leave the rest of us the hell alone.


image



The middle-aged man in the blue shirt spoke gently, but directly, to Tabitha, as if he had done this a thousand times before with 12-year-old girls like her. In words tailored to her understanding, and designed to make what he was about to do seem normal, not creepy, the man in the blue shirt made it clear that if she didn’t do as he instructed she would not get to go to Disneyland. He merely wanted to show another man what was under Tabitha’s blouse and panties. Her refusal was so firm, and her face so alarmed, that he backed off and tried another tactic. If Tabitha would merely stand still while one of the man’s friends touched her body all over (caressing her in ways that no one ever had) then that would be the end of it, and she could go to Disneyland.

Say what??? Are you going to allow this to happen to your daughters?

If you’re one of those who has basically decided that any indignity is merely the price of safety, consider that so far, it has been airline passengers and on board crews who have prevented tragedy … not the federal government.

It’s time to return the responsibility for flight safety to the airlines and the passengers — who have thus far deployed the only effective countermeasures anyway. It’s time to end the TSA’s strip-and-grope protocol before it becomes so commonplace and accepted that we forget it was ever objectionable. In the memorable words of President Obama (on another topic), it will become “the new normal.”

Having thus submitted to such unconscionable invasion of our bodies and souls, how could we ever rationally draw the line to prevent any sort of federal government encroachment?


A growing pilot and passenger revolt over full-body scans and what many consider intrusive pat-downs couldn’t have come at a worse time for the nation’s air travel system. Thanksgiving, the busiest travel time of the year, is less than two weeks away. Grassroots groups are urging travelers to either not fly or to protest by opting out of the full-body scanners and undergo time-consuming pat-downs instead. Such concerns prompted a meeting Friday of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano with leaders of travel industry groups.

Napolitano met with the U.S.Travel Association and 20 travel companies “to underscore the Department’s continued commitment to partnering with the nation’s travel and tourism industry to facilitate the flow of trade and travel while maintaining high security standards to protect the American people,” the department said in a statement. Federal officials have increased security in the wake of plots attributed to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Industry leaders are worried about the grassroots backlash to Transportation Security Administration security procedures. Some pilots, passengers and flight attendants have chosen to opt out of the revealing scans.

More of the units are arriving at airports, with 1,000 expected to be in place by the end of 2011.

Right, so now you have a choice: either submit to a full body X-ray where some high school dropout gets to gawk at your naked body, or submit to a serious fondling by a total stranger in front of a crowd.

Proper response: Eff off, we’re not flying. Not here, not there, not anywhere. TSA is crap. After spending billions you haven’t caught one terrorist, yet you’ve made tens of millions of innocents suffer and feel degraded. Screw you.

John Tyner won’t be pheasant hunting in South Dakota with his father-in-law any time soon. Tyner was simultaneously thrown out of San Diego International Airport on Saturday morning for refusing to submit to a security check and threatened with a lawsuit and a $10,000 fine if he left. And he got the whole thing on his cell phone. Well, the audio at least.
...
He’d been reading about the scanners and didn’t like them for a number of reasons, ranging from health concerns to “a huge invasion of privacy.”
...
During the next half-hour, his cell phone recorded Tyner refusing to submit to a full body scan, opting for the traditional metal scanner and a basic “pat down”—and then refusing to submit to a “groin check” by a TSA security guard.

He even told the guard, “You touch my junk and I’m going to have you arrested.”

That threat triggered a code red of sorts as TSA agents, supervisors and eventually the local police gravitated to the spot where the reluctant traveler stood in his stocking feet, his cell phone sitting in the nearby bin (which he wasn’t allowed to touch) picking up the audio.

According to TSA at the time the controversial body scanners were installed, travelers would have the option to request walking through the traditional metal detector but that option would be accompanied by a “pat down.”

Why Tyner was targeted for a secondary pat down is unknown.

It’s “unknown” only if you are willfully stupid. Everyone else can see the obvious truth: he balked at the intrusive behavior and so was singled out for punishment. How dare this little sheep resist the shearing?

image


How about a body search for a 3 year old? Sure, this cartoon was ironic dark humor when it came out, but now it’s becoming standard practice. This is the real world result of Death By Political Correctness. Or as Drudge puts it, The Terrorists Have WonSo submit to major indignity one or the other, or go directly to jail. You, the sheeple, have no choice.

“Advanced imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers,” TSA said in a statement released Monday. “Passengers who opt out of [advanced imaging] screening will receive alternative screening, including a physical pat-down.”

But anyone who refuses to complete the screening process will be denied access to airport secure areas and could be subject to civil penalties, the administration said, citing a federal appeals court ruling in support of the rule.

Well, no. We do have a choice. And the choice is that we boycott flying. Take the train, take the boat, drive yourself or don’t go. Let the airlines rot. Let them go out of business yet again. (hell, it seems they all file for Chapter 11 every year anyway)

Want to hear stupid? The pilot of that 300 passenger missile has to go through the X-ray screening too. Just in case the guy flying the airplane is trying to sneak in a bomb. Idiots. Didn’t anyone figure out on 9/11 that a jetliner IS a bomb, fare more effective than any pair of underpants filled with PETN?

So let the protests begin. Let the boycotts commence. And let the airlines go to hell. And tell that worthless moonbat witch Napolitano to step the hell off. She’s using the “it’s for your own good” bullshit line, which is even worse than “it’s for the chiiiiildren” crap. Protecting us from an unseen, unnamed enemy, saving us from “man caused disasters”. And yet catching no one, EVER.

As part of our layered approach, we have expedited the deployment of new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) units to help detect concealed metallic and non-metallic threats on passengers. These machines are now in use at airports nationwide, and the vast majority of travelers say they prefer this technology to alternative screening measures.
...
All images generated by imaging technology are viewed in a walled-off location not visible to the public. The officer assisting the passenger never sees the image, and the officer viewing the image never interacts with the passenger. The imaging technology that we use cannot store, export, print or transmit images.  [do you actually believe that? Hell no!]

I think you could count the time in minutes between some hot famous actress getting a screening and her recognizable image being sold to TMZ or the gossip blogs. Minutes. Maybe only seconds.

Hey government: you can’t take our guns, you can’t take our land (Kelo v. New London be damned), and you can’t take pictures of us undressed. That’s our right, and that’s what digital cameras and Facebook are for. Sod off.

Full Frontal Nudity Doesn’t Make Us Safer: Abolish the TSA
The Republicans control the House of Representatives and are bracing for a long battle over the President’s health care proposal.  In the spirit of bipartisanship and sanity, I propose that the first thing on the chopping block should be an ineffective organization that wastes money, violates our rights, and encourages us to make decisions that imperil our safety.  I’m talking about the Transportation Security Administration.

Bipartisan support should be immediate.  For fiscal conservatives, it’s hard to come up with a more wasteful agency than the TSA.  For privacy advocates, eliminating an organization that requires you to choose between a nude body scan or genital groping in order to board a plane should be a no-brainer.

When it comes to protecting against terrorism, this is how things usually go: A danger presents itself; the federal government responds with new rules that erode privacy, treat innocent people as suspicious and blur the distinction between life in a free society and life in a correctional facility; and we all tamely accept the new intrusions, like sheep being shorn.

Maybe not this time.

A lot of people, of course, couldn’t care less if a stranger wants to gaze upon everything God gave them. But some retain a modesty that makes them reluctant to parade naked in front of people they don’t know, even virtually. Henceforth, Jennifer Aniston is going to think twice before flying commercial.

Besides the indignity of having one’s body exposed to an airport screener, there is a danger the images will find a wider audience. The U.S. Marshals Service recently admitted saving some 35,000 images from a machine at a federal courthouse in Florida. TSA says that will never happen. Human experience says, oh, yes, it will.

For the camera-shy, TSA will offer an alternative: “enhanced” pat-downs. This is not the gentle frisking you may have experienced at the airport in the past. It requires agents to probe aggressively in intimate zones — breasts, buttocks, crotches.

If you enjoyed your last mammography or prostate exam, you’ll love the enhanced pat-down. And you’ll get a chance to have an interesting conversation with your children about being touched by strangers.

Reviews of the procedure are coming in, and they are not raves. The Allied Pilots Association calls it a “demeaning experience,” and one pilot complained it amounted to “sexual molestation.” The head of a flight attendants’ union local said that for anyone who has been sexually assaulted, it will “drudge [sic] up some bad memories.”

Join the movement. Take back your right to privacy, take back your dignity, take back your country. Dump TSA and give the airlines back the responsibility for passenger safety. Competition will find an effective, dignified, low-cost solution in a matter of months. And if Red Eye Air’s safety policy is lax and their planes get blown up, they’ll be out of business the very next day.

She described to me that because I had opted out of the backscatter screening, I would now be patted down, and that involved running hands up the inside of my legs until they felt my groin. I stated that I would not allow myself to be subject to a molestation as a condition of getting on my flight. The supervisor informed me that it was a standard administrative security check and that they were authorized to do it. I repeated that I felt what they were doing was a sexual assault, and that if they were anyone but the government, the act would be illegal. I believe that I was then informed that if I did not submit to the inspection, I would not be getting on my flight. I again stated that I thought the search was illegal. I told her that I would be willing to submit to a walk through the metal detector as over 80% of the rest of the people were doing, but I would not be groped. The supervisor, then offered to go get her supervisor.

I took a seat in a tiny metal chair next to the table with my belongings and waited. While waiting, I asked the original agent (who was supposed to do the pat down) if he had many people opt out to which he replied, none (or almost none, I don’t remember exactly). He said that I gave up a lot of rights when I bought my ticket. I replied that the government took them away after September 11th.

No. This has gone too far. Dump this, dump the TSA, dump the Patriot Act, and probably dump Homeland Security. It is time to rise up.


avatar

Posted by Drew458   United States  on 11/15/2010 at 01:37 PM   
Filed Under: • Big BrotherFREEDOM •  
Comments (5) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Saturday - November 13, 2010

offend muslim skank and get arrested do not pass go.  jokes not allowed re. any raghead muzzy.

How’s this for stupidity?  People have cars damaged and homes taken over by strangers ... but it’s civil rather then criminal liability. Never mind that. I’m just sayin cos this is weird.

Apparently, free speech does not include making tasteless or ill advised jokes on Twitter. Not only can you be arrested, you can be charged with—gasp --
the big ‘R’ even if that subject never came up.  It’s all in the eye of the beholder I guess.

Here’s what happened.  Oh, I should mention it happened as will be explained below, due to the slag’s (slag, Britspeak for skank,) appearance on a radio program.

A conservative British politician has been arrested after jokingly asking on Twitter for someone to “stone” a pesky Muslim reporter. Can “someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death?” asked Birmingham Councillor Gareth Compton. “ I shan’t tell Amnesty if you won’t. It would be a blessing, really.”

Bad taste? Well, yeah to some.  Just how did racism get into the mix?  Well, the scummy muzzie broad whose name is, as you already saw above, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. The skank is a very, very, far, far left journalist.  She was upset by his Twitter post and furthermore, she said that as he suggested she be stoned, that remark tied her to islam which in turn meant he was being racist, cos of course she is muslim.

How’s the logic so far BMEWS?

So, he was duly arrested with the big ‘R’ being one of the serious charges.  He has been suspended from the conservative party btw. Hey, that’s understandable isn’t it?  Come on before you gripe ask ... what’s important? Votes or honor?  See how that works?  So here’s all of it and the more I think about it the more pissed I get.  There were muzzy scum on the streets this week, not a lot mind you, but the fact that there were some with signs during a memorial day week on Nov. 11, which commemorates those fallen in Brit wars, there they were with their usual signs calling for the death of Brit soldiers. While Brits are fighting a war in some god forsaken even less then turd world place. 
I shouldn’t rant so much. Can’t help it tho.


Tedious: Yasmin Alibhai-Brown

Simon Heffer,
Sat. Telegraph

Why on earth did the police arrest a silly man who joked that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a rather tedious newspaper columnist, should be stoned to death? I don’t dispute that the joke was in poor taste – most of us would settle for having her locked in a cupboard and not let out until she promised to stop being boring – but the idea that anyone is actually going to be prompted to stone her to death as a result of this oaf’s remark is insane. Those of us who write newspaper columns must get used to abuse and, if we can’t, should do something else. And why, I wonder, are the police so slow by comparison to arrest genuinely murderous nutters who abuse our freedom of speech and call sincerely for jihad?

HEFFER


The stupidity of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
Rod Liddle
Saturday, 13th November 2010

The Yasmin Alibhai-Brown business is quite remarkable, isn’t it? She takes herself on to Radio Five Live to make her usual sententious and ill-thought out views on the stoning of Muslim women. Western politicians are not morally qualified to condemn such stonings, she said, because they’ve killed lots of Muslim women with bombs etc. Now, this is a typically stupid assessment, for all the obvious reasons. It implies that the allies were not morally qualified to condemn Nazi atrocities because they killed some of the very same people, largely inadvertently, with bombs and so on. It is, like the rest of YA-B’s journalism, an Aunt Sally argument scarcely worth the effort of rebutting.

A Tory councillor called Gareth Compton, from Birmingham, heard her talking this usual drivel and posted a message on Twitter to the effect that maybe YA-B should be stoned to death. Nobody could possibly consider this an incitement to violence; it was, poor taste or otherwise, a joke. But the old bill were dispatched to arrest Mr Compton (he’s been bailed) and YA-B, puffed up with her matchless self-regard and self-importance, has said that she wishes to press charges on the grounds that it is a racially motivated incitement to murder. Well it’s neither racially motivated – it was motivated by your own stupidity, love – not an incitement to murder. Incredible.

SOURCE


avatar

Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 11/13/2010 at 02:51 PM   
Filed Under: • Big BrotherCULTURE IN DECLINEFREEDOMJack Booted ThugsUK •  
Comments (2) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Friday - October 29, 2010

Part of the cost


image




from the comments, this gem:

The same gang of leftists also demonstrate against their OWN western countries, not just against Israel. And they root for the other side to win in wars (Iraq, Vietnam, El Salvador, you name it). Being a leftist is often just self-hate.

That is why they love Islam, the ultimate enemy of—themselves.

Since Israel is the ultimate example of the Judeo-Christian world view that the Left despises and since Israel has to do battle with the Moslem enemy the Left adores, it is natural for the Left to hate Israel and act accordingly.

Bulls-eye.


avatar

Posted by Drew458   United States  on 10/29/2010 at 07:19 AM   
Filed Under: • FREEDOMHumorIsrael •  
Comments (0) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Tuesday - September 07, 2010

speaking of islam …

BMEWS, This is a very, very, very looong read at the link.  Sometimes I think these things get overlong, but darn if they aren’t also very interesting.

So then, here’s a taste and it’ll be short here.  No comments from either myself or WOOF, who I just decided to name. I said what I wanted to say in a previous post.  I’ll leave the the rest to anyone interested.  Which don’t seem to be many which you might say is a plus for the enemy.

image
WOOF

Oh yeah ... H/T Europe News ....


Teaching Sweden about Islam

EuropeNews

By Henrik R. Clausen

In Denmark, it is well known that the Swedish public debate about immigration, and Islam in particular, hardly exists

The established political parties have a tacit agreement not to discuss the developments, and a compliant press is very helpful towards achieving that goal. Only one political party is seeking to open the discussion in anticipation of the September 19th general elections.

On August 30th, they hosted an evening conference with guests from abroad invited to teach interested Swedes about Islam, the connection to crime and the possible implications for freedom of speech and other civil liberties. This packed the hall with just under 100 in attendance. The speakers were:

Nicolai Sennels, Danish psychologist. His extensive professional experience with criminal Muslims has taught him important reasons why the cultural differences between Western and Islamic cultures makes traditional crime-preventing methods ineffective.

Farshad Kholghi, Iranian-born, non-Muslim refugee to Denmark. Now a professional actor and debater, his personal experience of living in an Islamic society has motivated him to speak out now, in order that we may know the dangers of Islam and Sharia, and defend our Western ideals of freedom.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, daughter of an Austrian diplomat. Having lived and worked in several Islamic countries, her extensive experience and studies earned her an invitation to teach the Austrian political party FPÖ about the dangers of radical Islam. For her assessment of Islam, she was reported to Austrian police for ‘Hate speech’, but continues to stand up for womens’ rights, freedom of expression and other Western values.

Nicolai Sennels:
How do we deal with immigrant crime?

The first speaker, Nicolai Sennels, was armed with an array of slides with examples and statistics regarding immigrant crime. A handful of Antifa-style youth was watching from a distance, but apparently found the charts, bars and numbers presented by Nicolai Sennels to be not worth their time.

Sennels pointed out that crime rates are not falling over time (as one might expect), that quite to the contrary crime is more extensive among second and third generation immigrants. Thus, we cannot expect immigrant crime to level off in the foreseeable future, unless new methods are found and applied.

With his documentation he busted several other myths, including the one that the high crime levels was due to the traumatic experiences of coming from a war-torn country. This is countered by way of example, as crime rates among immigrants of Turkish background are at the very top of the statistics, beaten only by those of Moroccan background. Neither of these contries have suffered major military conflicts for many decades. In contrast, immigrants from Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan have much lower crime rates. War trauma simply isn’t a plausble explanation, but rather a diversion from the real problems.

OK ... I checked and it worked ... try again. Thanks

http://europenews.dk/en/node/35004


avatar

Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 09/07/2010 at 12:25 PM   
Filed Under: • FREEDOMInternational •  
Comments (7) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Monday - August 30, 2010

a small victory

EPA Drops Attempt At Lead Ban for Bullets But Not Sinkers




The Environmental Protection Agency has denied a petition filed by environmental activists seeking to ban lead in ammunition, saying such regulation is beyond the agency’s authority.

The agency’s decision, announced Friday shortly after FoxNews.com published its report on the issue, sided with hunters and fishermen who had argued that the such regulations weren’t allowed under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.

“EPA is taking action on many fronts to address major sources of lead in our society, such as eliminating childhood exposures to lead,” the agency said in a written statement. “However, EPA was not and is not considering taking action on whether the lead content in hunting ammunition poses an undue threat to wildlife.”

Responding to a grassroots outcry from gun owners, the Environmental Protection Agency today announced that it has denied a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity and other radical groups that had sought to ban the use of lead in ammunition.

Agreeing with the position of the NRA and the firearms industry, the agency explained in a news release that it “does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).” Further crushing the hopes of anti-gun and anti-hunting activists, the release added: “nor is the agency seeking such authority.”

“It’s outrageous that this petition even went this far,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director.  “We applaud the EPA for its understanding of the law and its common sense in this situation — both of which were totally missing in the petition filed by these extreme anti-gun and anti-hunting groups.”

Because the EPA has no power to regulate ammunition, it will not move ahead with a public comment period on the petition.  However, a comment period will remain open until September 15 on the other part of the petition, which asks EPA to ban the use of lead in fishing sinkers.

Tens of thousands of citizens wrote in and called. Good. Never let your eye off of government, and smack the snot out of them the instant they step out of line. Now write them again and tell them to mind their own damn business regarding fishing sinkers. Lead at the bottom of sea is about as safe as it’s ever going to be, and fish don’t eat sinkers. Duh. Stupid little totalitarian “centers”. Screw ‘em till they bleed.

Contact Lisa Jackson directly to voice your opposition to the ban (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681):

Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4700
Fax: (202) 501-1450
Email: jackson.lisa@epa.gov

Or go online at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480b3974b


avatar

Posted by Drew458   United States  on 08/30/2010 at 08:36 PM   
Filed Under: • FREEDOMGuns and Gun Control •  
Comments (2) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Wednesday - August 04, 2010

The Perpetuation of Stupid

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is an IDIOT

Bob Menendez (D-NJ) is an even BIGGER IDIOT

Megyn Kelly and James Rosen of Fox News are lazy reporters at best




This is why I can’t watch the news. I just can’t. The level of stupid out there is overwhelming. It’s me against the millions. I can’t take it anymore.

from Politico, but posted everywhere else as a news item:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday night argued that the 14th Amendment no longer serves the purpose it was designed to address and that Congress should reexamine granting citizenship to any child born in the United States.

The 14th Amendment was passed following the Civil War out of fear that southern states would try to find a way to deny citizenship to freed slaves.

Pointing to that history, Graham said during an interview with Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren that birthright citizenship should not be applied to babies born in the United States to parents who are illegal immigrants.

“I’m looking at the laws that exist and see if it makes sense today,” Graham said. “Birthright citizenship doesn’t make so much sense when you understand the world as it is.”

“You’ve got the other problem, where thousands of people are coming across the Arizona/Texas border for the express purpose of having a child in an American hospital so that child will become an American citizen, and they broke the law to get there,” he said. “We ought to have a logical discussion. Is this the way to award American citizenship, sell it to somebody who’s rich, reward somebody who breaks the law? I think we need to look at it really closely.”

To further justify having that “discussion,” Graham also pointed to tourists who, he says, come to the United States on 90-day visa during the later stage of pregnancy in order to give birth to a child with U.S. citizenship.

“You come to a resort, you have your child at a hospital within the resort [and] that child is an American citizen,” Graham said. “That, to me, cheapens American citizenship. That’s not the way I would like it to be awarded.”

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell has called for “taking a look” at changing the 14th Amendment as well.

The line in question in the amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States …”

70 or more people commented on the post at Politico, and NOT ONE saw any error in Graham’s “understanding” of the 14th. Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, bless her blond roots, said that the 14th does give citizenship to anyone born here, then the camera went to Rosen out in DC who instantly parroted that remark.

I surrender. My nation has drowned in stupid.



Hey Graham, you dumb cracker: READ THE GOD DAMNED AMENDMENT:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



Didn’t I just post on this two weeks ago? Why, yes I did. I guess “reading comprehension” must be subject to majority rule that the plain and simple words that I read in the first section of the 14th DO NOT MEAN WHAT THEY SAY, and that millions and millions of people have turned the meaning INSIDE OUT because they only repeat what they are told, understand things the way they want to, are just plain lazy and/or stupid, or at least have never spent one whole minute making the smallest of efforts to try and think and understand what the Constitution ACTUALLY SAYS.

So, I’ll post it again.

The opening section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866:

An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

Note the “and not subject to any foreign power” part. This one paragraph grants full equal rights to all, regardless of color or gender.

This Act was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson (D-TN), but the veto was overridden by the Radical Republicans in Congress. This Act is still alive today, as 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Because the actions of this Act were not specifically empowered by the Constitution as it then existed, the ideas of the Act were quickly duplicated by the 14th Amendment. That’s a bit of a chicken-egg thing, but it worked.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

While the 14th is most famous for overturning Dred Scott it also overturned Barron v. Baltimore, an 1833 decision wherein the Supremes ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. [ Barron was also the Kelo of it’s day, and that decision was just as wrong as Kelo regarding property rights. ]

So it is blatantly obvious that the later Slaughterhouses decision was wrong because it was over-focused. Slaughterhouses specifically only “incorporated” those rights that the federal government had granted, not those rights that it “merely” recognized. And this started the nation down the long slow road of incorporation. At this point in time, Amendments 1 through 9 have been incorporated, although the 3rd Amendment (quartering soldiers in your home) has only risen to the 2nd and 10th Circuits; it has never come before SCOTUS. The 10th Amendment deals with the States themselves, and thus it’s incorporation would be redundant. So in effect Slaughterhouses has been mostly nullified even if it hasn’t yet been explicitly overturned. I’m waiting ...

But back to that “and not subject to any power” bit from the Act. That’s the same meaning as the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language in the 14th. It takes an act of willful blindness to not see the real meaning, and that meaning is this: foreign nationals who are in our country and who give birth do not magically bear American citizens. They are “subject to any foreign power” because they are citizens of that other nation; they are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.  This means that the “anchor babies” thing is bass-ackwards, dead wrong, and always has been.

Hey, that’s not just my opinion. The smallest bit of research shows that this was the original intent. Here are the words of the author of that part of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob M. Howard (R-MI):

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United State and the States wherein they reside.” I do not propose to say anything on the subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as to not need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment of which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard is the law of land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are, or are not, citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideration in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

Talk about your “original intent” - it’s all in the congressional record, the whole debate, right here.





You want audacity? I’ll give you audacity. I’ll stand up against the entire United States population, the bleach blond lawyer/reporters on Fox News, the whole House of Representatives Lindsey Graham included, and even the 9 old codgers on the Supreme Court. I am right, and YOU ARE WRONG. ASS BACKWARDS in fact.

It sucks being alone sometimes though.


Oh, and Bob Menendez? What’s he got to do with this? He was asked to comment on Graham’s statement. He said that if we stopped giving citizenship to all the children of foreigners born here, then this would result in millions of children having no citizenship in any nation at all.

Horry clap.  banghead  crazy  banghead  crazy  banghead  crazy  banghead  crazy

UPDATE:
Hey, Ann Coulter agrees with me! She even traces it all back to 1982. Michael Zak writes me that there will be an article up at Grand Old Partisan tomorrow. So I am not alone. But I still fear we [the VRWC] are a choir standing in a circle, singing to ourselves. Isn’t anyone else listening?


avatar

Posted by Drew458   United States  on 08/04/2010 at 01:21 PM   
Filed Under: • FREEDOMGovernmentIllegal-Aliens and ImmigrationTypical White People: Stupid, Evil, Willfully BlindUSA •  
Comments (7) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Saturday - July 17, 2010

A Post Gone Awry

Spending far too many hours in front of the computer again, looking stuff up, reading, learning. I’ve dug down into the Tea Party movement, delved into the Tenth Amendment folks, read the history and studied to my eyes crossed. I’ve concluded that the vast majority of issues we have with government today all started with a deliberate misinterpretation of one word in our Constitution. I was inspired. I saw the whole post in my head and how I’d make my points and so forth. Even the title:


Root Causes: The Worst Word In The Constitution




And that word is “regulate”.


reg·u·late –verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.
[definitions 2 - 4 all mean to normalize]

Do not confuse “regulate” with “regulation”, though the definitions can be quite similar at times.

reg·u·la·tion –noun
1. a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, esp. to regulate conduct.
2. the act of regulating or the state of being regulated.
3. re: Machinery . the percentage difference in some quantity related to the operation of an apparatus or machine, as the voltage output of a transformer or the speed of a motor, between the value of the quantity at no-load operation and its value at full-load operation. (setting a nominal value and the accepted tolerance limits)
4. re: Electronics . the difference between maximum and minimum voltage drops between the anode and the cathode of a gas tube for a specified range of values of the anode current. (setting a nominal value and the accepted tolerance limits)
5. re: Sports . the normal, prescribed duration of a game according to the sport’s regulations, exclusive of any extra innings, overtime period, etc.: The Knicks tied the score in the final seconds of regulation, sending the game into overtime. (setting a nominal value and the accepted tolerance limits [in this case the limits are +/- 0])

reg-u-lation –adjective
6.prescribed by or conforming to regulation: regulation army equipment.
7. usual; normal; customary: the regulation decorations for a halloween party.

Regulate and regulation appear just 8 times in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

The Constitution of the United States
Article 1
Section 4 - Elections, Meetings

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Section 9 - Limits on Congress
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Article III, The Judicial Branch
Section 2 - trial by jury, original jurisdiction, jury trials
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Article IV - The States
Section 2 - state citizens, extradition
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.(This clause is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
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.

I looked into case law, trying to determine when things started to go bad and of course the answer was FDR. Of course. Obama the First, a power mad Socialist. While the Progressive movement had started in the late 19th century, it wasn’t until the turnover of the Supreme Court that began in 1937, shortly after many parts of the New Deal legislation had been shot down and FDR’s attempt at packing the court with sympathetic justices (he wanted 15 Supremes!) failed, that the first federal power grab started with NLRB vs Jones. Up to that point, the word “regulate” in the Commerce Clause had clearly meant “to normalize”. From that point forward it began to mean “to control through rules”, and thus the Legislative Branch managed an end run around the 10th Amendment and achieved nearly unlimited power. And FDR eventually got to pack the court anyway, since he was President For Life. He put 6 robes on that bench. That new usage of the word is still with us, and it only gets worse as the years go by. And from it all modern federal power flows at the expense of the states. But we’re used to it. It’s been around since the time my parents were born. It isn’t right, but it’s normal to us; we don’t know any different. You and I would not even recognize the limited federal government that existed in 1927. We live in the nanny state and have never known another world.

From there I was going to go into the more recent deliberate misuse of the word, the “regulate” involved in the Second Amendment ... and how it took 71 years to get to McDonald v. Chicago, and we still aren’t out of the woods yet on that one.

But along the way, and it was a long way, from legal formalism (conservative originalism) vs. legal realism (proto-progressivism) to US v. Darby to Wickard v. Filburn, recent usurpations of the Commerce Clause like ObamaCare and many readings at The Tenth Amendment Center, that I ran across a prolific writer and constitutional scholar named Robert Greenslade, and through him I found the website The Price of Liberty. Nearly all of Greenslade’s writings are archived there, and every one is worth reading. Price of Liberty may be a Libertarian blog, and I’m fine with that if it is. Many of the hundreds and hundreds of essays there are very thought provoking; I’m hooked.

The road to taking back our nation is going to be long and difficult. It’s going to have to be piecemeal sometimes, because once in a while something good came out of this wrong definition. But I think I’ve located the very core, the one single word, that the Tea Party movement is all about. I’m not claiming ownership, just a shared epiphany: dozens of other folks have made the same conclusion and written extensively about it. And now I want to try and read all of them ... including every opinion that justice Clarence Thomas - who should be one of the saints of the movement - has written. Antonin Scalia too. God bless them both.



No, the word regulate isn’t bad in and of itself. The way the Constitution was written, it’s meaning is very clear. It’s the deliberate misconstruing of that one word that has caused the problems, and up until very recently, each and every single law based on that lie has been put in place by the left. And if by chance you don’t think that this rape of the word and the consequences of that is nearly universal, allow me to quote Robert Greenslade quoting Alfred Clark:

Today, in a very real sense, law no longer governs the American people. They are governed by regulations, orders and directives issued by one or the other of our multiple Federal bureaus. I am not now referring to war regulation and the like, but to conditions existing before the war, and which, unless the trend is checked, are likely to continue and to intensify after the war is over.

This has been accomplished, to a very large extent, through a new and, in many aspects, a startling interpretation of the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, which is now being used to obliterate the States and convert our system into a highly centralized form of government, exercising uncontrolled police power in every State, over all, or nearly all, local affairs and industries.

...

This may sound to you like a soporific nursery rhyme. Not so. On the contrary it is modern judicial logic…Indeed, if Junior decides to emulate Popeye and insists upon a double portion of spinach at the dinner table, thus increasing the demand on the market, and lessening the supply to meet the demand, his act may so affect interstate commerce as to bring him within the ambit of Federal control.

And it’s true; the federal government has unlimited powers over everyone and everything. And it’s far worse now than what Clark saw in his day: the above quote is from 1943. So much for limited government; the very concept Clark held out as an extreme example then is current politics and policy today (see Bloomberg and trans-fats, Michelle Obama’s campaign against obesity, Obamacare and diet, pending legislation to outlaw Happy Meals, et al).


avatar

Posted by Drew458   United States  on 07/17/2010 at 06:25 PM   
Filed Under: • FREEDOM •  
Comments (5) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Saturday - July 03, 2010

The Next To Die

Thinking about it I realize this is a very appropriate Fourth of July post. This country exists so that folks the world over can get away from crap like this, and live their lives here the way they want. That’s what the “melting” pot is all about, now that the left has pushed us to accept a “salad bowl” instead. Same thing with Teddy’s “hyphenated American” speech over 100 years ago. Come here, leave it all behind. That’s the real idea. Happy Independence Day!


Honor Killing Count Down For Young Actress



‘Harry Potter’ Star in Family Feud Over Hindu Beau

The father and brother of a British actress who starred in the more recent “Harry Potter” movies have been charged with threatening to kill the 22-year old actress, apparently in disapproval of her boyfriend.

The actress, Afshan Azad, played Harry’s classmate Padma Patil in the popular series. Her father, Abdul Azad, 54, and her brother, Ashraf Azad, are accused of threatening her in May during a fight at her Manchester, England, home. The brother is also accused of assaulting her.image

Details of the alleged threats and assault weren’t immediately clear, but prosecutors have said the Muslim men did not approve of her relationship with her Hindu boyfriend.

Golly this sounds awfully familiar. Completely controlled by the men in her family, even though she is a legal adult with a well paying nascent career.

The altercation occurred at the family home in Manchester, England. In addition to threatening her, Afshan’s brother, 28-year-old Ashraf, is also accused of physically assaulting Afshan and “causing her bodily harm.”

The potential role of religion in the case has raised questions about the men’s motivation.

“In traditional [Muslim] societies the family comes before the individual, and the woman represents the honor and purity of the family, so for a woman in the family to engage in a relationship that is taboo can be viewed as a violation of the family,” said Haroon Moghul the Executive Director of the Maydan Institute, a consulting firm that seeks to raise awareness of Muslims.

What a PC crock o’ crap. Harpoon the Maroon there is a lying apologist and spin doctor. “Raise awareness” translates as “sling whatever BS around that stupid people will accept.” Y’all ain’t foolin’ nobody here nohow Maroon.

Such cases can lead to what some people term “honor killings,” though the term often is denounced in religious communities as a misnomer.

“It is poorly named since there is no honor in killing a woman. What these crimes are about is controlling a woman and it is not something unique to just Muslim society,” Hussein Rashid, a visiting instructor at Hofstra University’s Department of Religion, told Fox411.com. “I can’t put words in these men’s mouths, but it sounds like they had real issues with the success of a woman in their household and that this is about a loss of power.”

a) No, it isn’t unique to muslims. The Amish are forever setting their daughters on fire for discussing bible verses with strange Mennonite boys from the next town over. NOT!! It is 100% unique to muslimes you lying sack of camel shit. OK, maybe some ethnics folks don’t like it when their kids go against tradition while living in a foreign country, and maybe they argue about it a lot at dinner time and send their daughters to their rooms without their bowl of mish-mish. Or whatever, wherever. But they don’t enlist the rest of the family to murder their own child. EVER.

b) I doubt that they had issues with her success, as long as she didn’t get any uppity idea in her empty female head and want to spend any of that money without their express permission. Or worse yet, having achieved financial independence, that she assumed that that kind of freedom implied and allowed her other kinds of freedom. Like dating whomever she wanted, or driving a car, or going out in public without her leash being held by several male relatives.

Oh, I take part of that back. This young woman is 3rd generation English!

Her family is originally from Bangladesh though both her parents were born and educated in the UK.

Which makes this even more inexcusable. Her grandparents were the immigrants. Mumsy and Daddy were born and raised there. I guess nobody did much assimilating over the past 50 years?
Fuck Pisslam. Fuck your sicko twisted un-assimilated family. Take the money and run. America beckons. Or else you will be the next statistic.


avatar

Posted by Drew458   United States  on 07/03/2010 at 09:47 PM   
Filed Under: • FREEDOMRoPMA •  
Comments (25) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Thursday - April 29, 2010

Carol Sends A Reminder

You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.  Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.
“Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing. “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them.  Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times.  But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.” The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars. A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.  When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you
as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.  In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire? It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns. Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after
the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.  Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with armed with a Kalashnikov rifle , walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead [including the shooter and his mum].

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities
refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged
while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”

All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a
collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.  Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few
who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply. Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..”
-- Samuel Adams


NOTE OF ACCURACY: An appeal was considered in October 2001 by three senior judges headed by Lord Lane. Submissions by the defence that Martin had fired in self defence were rejected by the appeal court. However, on this occasion the defence submitted evidence that Martin suffered paranoid personality disorder specifically directed at anyone intruding into his home. This submission was accepted by the Court of Appeal and, on the grounds of diminished responsibility, Martin’s murder conviction was replaced by manslaughter carrying a five year sentence, and his ten year sentence for wounding Fearon was reduced to three years. These sentences were to run concurrently. On 28 July 2003, Martin was released after serving three years of his five-year sentence,[2] the maximum period for which he could be held following good behaviour.

Still, it is still true that he was given life in prison for defending his own.

And on the TV news today I see another group of ugly white folks have been arrested. This time it was 5 folks in Georgia, caught with 2 7” firecrackers in their car. But those giant firecrackers were “filled with shrapnel” and they had provisions at home for making more. Funny, the photo they had on TV showed them as clearly being made of red paper, at least on the outside. Details to follow if this story grows legs.

Since last November certain folks have been expecting a gun-grabbing putsch from DC. That hasn’t happened yet, but first they have to get the public a bit more worked up.


avatar

Posted by Drew458   United States  on 04/29/2010 at 04:07 PM   
Filed Under: • FREEDOMGovernmentGuns and Gun ControlSelf-Defense •  
Comments (11) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Friday - April 16, 2010

A peek inside?

Reading the Tea (party) Leaves?




A nice quick read over at Pajamas Media where Rick Moran takes a somewhat academic look in on the internal tensions illustrated by the Tea Party movement. It all boils down to “We, the People” but you need the explanations to see that in the right way.

Follow on discussion in the comments is pretty good too, initiated by a fantastic counterpoint essay by reader Winston Smith. Um, I meant Michael Smith, comment #3.

And it’s very nice to see that a large number of the voices have no faith in either party.

A two party system is a control system, not a political system. A distraction. The curtain behind which the power elite hides.  (comment #1)



Fight the power, man.

image

Right on.


avatar

Posted by Drew458   United States  on 04/16/2010 at 09:17 PM   
Filed Under: • FREEDOM •  
Comments (3) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Monday - April 12, 2010

Don’t need no Teleprompter Jesus

H/T The Jawa Report


avatar

Posted by Christopher   United States  on 04/12/2010 at 10:11 PM   
Filed Under: • FREEDOMObama, The OnePatriotismTyrants and Dictators •  
Comments (0) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Tuesday - March 23, 2010

Here’s one to think about.  The law is the law. Read the story, use the link and see comments there.

So then BMEWS. What do you think on this subject?  Was she right? Does she really have that right, being a public business, even if it is her home. ??

If discrimination is against the law, and it is, then she broke it. Maybe she can’t say it out loud but when she saw these two creeps, maybe her stomach turned and she just didn’t want them. Whatever.  Someone in comments at the Mail where i found this, has an interesting observation.  He says that being her home doesn’t exempt her from the other rules and safety/fire regs. She can’t say no I won’t install fire alarms or safety devices because it’s also my private home. So therefore, she can’t discriminate against a couple of really disgusting GAK inducing homos.  It figures and is no surprise that the creeps and scum making calls and threatening her and her family over this are so busy insuring their right to IMPOSE themselves on someone who clearly doesn’t want them.  I’d be willing to bet money that not all those calls and threats are even coming from the homosexual community. Some surely are of course. Nope.  I’d bet that the majority of them are threats and calls from those wonderful umin rights campaigners who are outraged and insulted on behalf of the homosexuals. And we know they really aren’t insulted at all.  They just live to have a cause to be outraged over. Otherwise, they have no life.  And I wish they didn’t.

A GAK INDUCING COUPLE. SEE EM HERE

We’ve been vilified for turning away gays queers, say Christian B&B couple

By Daily Mail Reporter

A Christian bed-and-breakfast owner is facing legal action for breaching discrimination laws after turning away a gayreally weird couple.

image

Susanne Wilkinson said it was ‘against her convictions’ to let the couple share a double bed in the home where she lives with her husband and children.

But she was reported to police after refusing a room to Michael Black, 62, and John Morgan, 56.

And her stand attracted a furious response from gayhomosexual rights campaigners.

Last night the Wilkinsons, who are in their 50s, were under siege from abusive phone calls, text messages and emails.

Among the messages was a threat to burn down their home in the quiet village of Cookham, Berkshire.

The incident unfolded on Friday when exams consultant Mr Black and Liberal Democrat councillor Mr Morgan arrived at the £75-a-night bed and breakfast following a theatre trip.

Mrs Wilkinson admitted she had made assumptions in expecting a man and a woman when she took a booking from a Mr Black. She said she invited the men in before explaining ‘courteously’ why she could not offer them the room.

She insisted she was not homophobic and would have offered two single rooms, but the guest house was fully booked.

Her husband Francis, a former City worker, said it was a question of living by their faith.

‘We live according to our values and our Christian beliefs. We are not homophobic,’ he said.

‘Of course everybody has the freedom to live as they choose but we feel that in our own home we have every right to say no to something we don’t agree with.’

Defending his wife, he said she would have explained the situation ‘gently’. ‘We are sorry for the distress that was caused to them,’ he added.

Last night the Wilkinsons, who are in their 50s, were under siege from abusive phone calls, text messages and emails.

Among the messages was a threat to burn down their home in the quiet village of Cookham, Berkshire.

The incident unfolded on Friday when exams consultant Mr Black and Liberal Democrat councillor Mr Morgan arrived at the £75-a-night bed and breakfast following a theatre trip.

Mrs Wilkinson admitted she had made assumptions in expecting a man and a woman when she took a booking from a Mr Black. She said she invited the men in before explaining ‘courteously’ why she could not offer them the room.

She insisted she was not homophobic and would have offered two single rooms, but the guest house was fully booked.

Her husband Francis, a former City worker, said it was a question of living by their faith.

‘We live according to our values and our Christian beliefs. We are not homophobic,’ he said.

‘Of course everybody has the freedom to live as they choose but we feel that in our own home we have every right to say no to something we don’t agree with.’

Defending his wife, he said she would have explained the situation ‘gently’. ‘We are sorry for the distress that was caused to them,’ he added.

Swiss-born Mrs Wilkinson, a former air hostess, said: ‘People just take it for granted that their lifestyle will be accepted wherever they go.

‘If they had gone to a hotel I think it would probably be different, but this is my house, we live here with our children - it’s our home that’s the difference.’


avatar

Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 03/23/2010 at 02:26 PM   
Filed Under: • Daily LifeDIVERSITY BSFREEDOMGay Gay Gay!UK •  
Comments (8) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Sunday - March 21, 2010

Revolt in 2010

Sounds like a Heinlein novel. He actually wrote one titled ‘Revolt in 2100’. Guess we’re 90 years early.

image

Let the bloodbath begin!

bat

Update!!

Courtesy of Old Catman in the comments.

Yes! We have guillotine!

image

Democrat heads will roll! Public executions! I’ll be running the hot dog/popcorn stand.


avatar

Posted by Christopher   United States  on 03/21/2010 at 07:55 PM   
Filed Under: • Big BrotherCommiesDemocrats-Liberals-Moonbat LeftistsFREEDOMGovernmentNanny StateObama, The OnePatriotismSelf-DefenseTyrants and Dictators •  
Comments (8) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  
Page 7 of 9 pages « First  <  5 6 7 8 9 >

Five Most Recent Trackbacks:

Once Again, The One And Only Post
(3 total trackbacks)
Tracked at diamond painting uk
The Glee alum's dark cheap diamond cheap diamond painting painting locks were styled stick straight and tucke diamond painting kits d behind her diamond painting kits ears diamond painting uk…
On: 03/20/21 10:12

Vietnam Homecoming
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at 广告专题配音 专业从事中文配音跟外文配音制造,北京名传天下配音公司
  专业从事中文配音和外文配音制作,北京名传天下配音公司   北京名传天下专业配音公司成破于2006年12月,是专业从事中 中文配音 文配音跟外文配音的音频制造公司,幻想飞腾配音网领 配音制作 有海内外优良专业配音职员已达500多位,可供给一流的外语配音,长年服务于国内中心级各大媒体、各省市电台电视台,能满意不同客户的各种需要。电话:010-83265555   北京名传天下专业配音公司…
On: 03/20/21 07:00

The Brownshirts: Partie Deux; These aare the Muscle We've Been Waiting For
(2 total trackbacks)
Tracked at 香港特首曾荫权和部分高管分别用步行或搭乘公共交通工具的方式上班
西安电加热油温机 香港盛吹“环保风” 专家指市民已从被动变主动 中新网9月29日 淮安导热油电加热炉 电 据香港中通社报道,9月29日晚由香港某环保团体举行的“无冷气夜”,吸引了5万名市民及超过60间企业承诺参加。这是香港最近环保活动不断升温过程中的大型活动之一。 进入九月,香港各界环保活动渐入高潮,层出不穷。特首高官与各界市民齐齐参与,是其中一个最大特色。…
On: 03/21/18 12:12

meaningless marching orders for a thousand travellers ... strife ahead ..
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Casual Blog
[...] RTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPL [...]
On: 07/17/17 04:28

a small explanation
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at yerba mate gourd
Find here top quality how to prepare yerba mate without a gourd that's available in addition at the best price. Get it now!
On: 07/09/17 03:07



DISCLAIMER
Allanspacer

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:
  1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
  2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
  3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
  4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere
It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.


Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner



GNU Terry Pratchett


Oh, and here's some kind of visitor flag counter thingy. Hey, all the cool blogs have one, so I should too. The Visitors Online thingy up at the top doesn't count anything, but it looks neat. It had better, since I paid actual money for it.
free counters