Thursday, July 30, 2009


Is this for real, or simply another line of digital dope offered up in the form of political wishful thinking? As much as we might pine for the ushering in of that new post-racial worldview that Obama promised but can hardly deliver even if he tried, which he obviously isn't when it counts the most—on the fly—the dividend bearing reality remains that "until you see the reds of their eyes" racial politics is big business and too formidable a stick of ill repute to simply fade away.

However, words will be words, and often fetch a handsome price on the information markets these days. So the knaves with their knives on all sides of the compost pile continue to line up in service to their killing fields of choice.

Former associate of the Oakland, CA of the revolutionary Black Panther Party, and now conservative agitator—David Horowitz—on the aftermath of the recent Henry Louis Gates spectacle, writes:

NOW, FOR WHITE PEOPLE the term "racist" is really tantamount to being called a "ni---er" if you're black, except that blacks are free to call whites racists while whites can't even write the word n-i-g-g-e-r without risking repercussions. Watching this show—watching this cop be not only unapologetic but demanding that Gates apologize to Crowley and his mother (for the trash-talk Yo Mama), it occurred to me that a great turn is indeed taking place as a result of the election of Obama.

First we had the spectacle of Sotomayor—a race-preference leftist—backing off entirely from race preferences, and now we have policemen who normally would just be under fire, saying enough—we're not going to take it anymore. Saying: For years we've bent over backwards to apologize for racial injustices, some of which occurred and some of which did not, we've taken so many hours of courses and training to be sensitive to minorities, and we're not going to be called racists anymore when we're not. You are a professor making five or ten times what I make. You are in state whose governor is black; you're in a city whose mayor is black. You're pretending you're a powerless victim and at the same time phoning my chief and calling me a racist, telling me I don't know who I'm messing with because your friend who is black is the president of the United States. F--- you! And that's something of a cultural revolution.

Read it all.

While we can agree with the Horowitz analysis of the racial game as it is historically played, it is far too early to presume that this president has actually achieved racial consensus and has flatlined the old racist beast by inadvertently appealing to those very same tactics in solving this social dilemma that has supposedly led to the often cited racial polarity in the first place, beer garden or no beer garden.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, July 28, 2009


JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT you had mastered the quaint old Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, along comes a spider...

Big Brother welcomes you, and look, it wasn't the Republicans, after all. It was YOU sleeping or fooling around like a spoiled brat on watch duty, all along. But pay me no mind, I'm nothing. In a nation where the splendid words of Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan are ignored or mocked, there's no claim of special consideration for the words of warning I bring to the table.

But if you like your nationalized health care, you'll like your nationalized pizza, too. Then you might be able to fit into those nationalized motor cars that are coming our way. But all is not lost; we can then celebrate the Ayatollah's Iran getting White House support for nuclear power while we note that at the same BAT time and on the same BAT channel that very same White House denies Americans the right of continued nuclear power.

What a country! After all, snookering the law of inertia, a government in motion tends to remain in motion, unless something more powerful gets in its way.

Speaking of Bat Ye'or, here she is in her own words:

I belong to no group, no community apparatus. My only contribution is my work. But I believe that my work has opened an enormous field for reflection, not only for the Jewish world but for the Christian world as well that has suffered much more than the Jews from dhimmitude.

I have described the process of Islamization of the Christian communities and of certain Christian countries through demography, immigration, enslavement, forced conversions, but also through genocide such as that which is being perpetrated against the Christians of Sudan. But beyond all that, I am Jewish. My identity is Judaism. Just as, when I was young I was subversive, didn't feel Jewish and would have perhaps fallen in with communism, since I was opposed to that Jewish bourgeoisie that I couldn't identify with—the country of Egypt was in total poverty and I did not accept the chasm between the populations...

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 23, 2009


LIVING AMONG THE BROKEN GLASS and junkyard battlegrounds of ordinary American life for ample portions of my fifty plus years I've come across many a hustler, thief, or druggie who can deport themselves as if scripted by a charm school mistress. I agree with the others above that Henry Louis Gates is wrong in this case. I have followed the career of Prof. Gates with some interest over the past decade or so.

Henry Louis Gates
Seems he often desires to approach the racial issue with detachment and intelligence, but he often tends to slip under pressure, thus proving he still labors under the racialist spell, and he just can't shake loose of it. This incident is just more proof. Doesn't make him Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or less a human being than I am, or the Harvard professor that he is, but it does show just how incredibly difficult it is to shed a grievance we as Americans, black and white, male and female, young and old, rich and poor, revolutionary or saint, individuals all, have been indoctrinated by society great or small to embrace.

Gates is not being reasonable in his post-arrest comportment either, because this incident was not racial profiling. His self-regarding notions of "how he comported himself" were almost immediately betrayed when he began to yell and scream in succumbing to disorderly conduct when faced with procedural requests for ID which he didn't present.

He did present a Harvard ID, but the record apparently shows that he offered nothing with his address on it. Thus, this appears like he was spoiling for a scene—some fresh data for his class or this documentary he has already announced.

Had he just quietly and politely provided his proper identification and answered all the questions the police officers had every right to ask, chances are damn good this Harvard professor would not have been arrested.

Class warfare in America? Yes, and Henry Louis Gates showed he had no class.

Labels: , , , , ,


MY DARLING DEBT, YES, WE KNEW YOU THEN, and we know you now. Texas Congressman Ron Paul delivers a striking blow to what I see in the real estate game as the continuation of the same monetary irrationalities that put us into the fiscal trouble we now find ourselves.

Just yesterday I had a conversation with a MetLife loan officer. He told me that his firm is currently offering 105s to select clients, but he hears that 125s are coming. What that means is that another round of secondary mortgage loans for 125% of current home values will be floated to a certain stratum of financial clients. All it would take is another Islamic attack or a continued dollar plunge or any number of current pressures upon the American and global economies to push back in shocking the system at an unregulated moment, and oops, there goes all that risky lending again right down the drain. Pessimistic? Not empathetic enough for the 21st century debt-oblivious consumer?

Maybe. But risk is always a capitalistic concern. One would think that the government and the banks would have learned something from all this freewheeling market manipulation, and move to modify the business models to help send a solid message to consumers that a slower, more conservative approach to borrowing and spending is not only recommended but of necessity required. For the sake of honesty, I admit that I got caught up in it myself, and am now paying the price for my own irrational exuberance. Congressman Paul is warning that we ALL must snap out of this debt-driven nightmare and learn to live within our means as individuals, communities, states, and nations, or else simply prepare for whatever version of the worse case scenario finds us in its path of destruction.

Would I assume a 125 loan, if it would help me out of a current crisis? I don't know, but I would think about it long and hard with some tough questions answered along the way before I would jeopardize myself, or my lender in such a scheme which is based on an optimism that may or may not be warranted or rational.

As I prepare to enter the real estate industry myself, as a very green rookie agent fresh of the state and national exams, I know there is much to learn, and I intend to wrestle and deconstruct every nuance of the business. I plan to master what I, in good conscience, can stand and deliver in honest representation of those persons who wish a serious and dedicated advocate during what is a very strategic and personal transaction—buying or selling real property.

Owning real estate carries with it a traditional "bundle of legal rights" transferred with the property from seller to buyer. These are the recognized rights of the holder of title to the property and include:

  • the right of possession - the property is owned by whomever holds title;
  • the right of control - within the laws, the owner controls the use of the property;
  • the right of exclusion - others can be excluded from using or entering the property;
  • the right of enjoyment - the owner can enjoy the use of the property in any legal manner; and
  • the right of disposition - the title holder can sell, rent or transfer ownership or use of the property at will

    This bundle of rights offering strong compulsions toward private ownership should not be taken lightly. Private ownership is the backbone of the American system. Our financial networks must continue to rise to the occasion, but we as owners and potential owners must also redeem our responsibilities if we wish to be considered as carriers of the promise that ownership bestows. The unfortunate fact that far too many of this nation's foreclosure properties from the least to the greatest have been found in a sorry physical state due to departure vandalism is disappointing, and of course criminal. Egregious vandalism like this does not speak well of us as honest and forthright people who deserve to own property.

    Life is risky, but the glory of our efforts as buyers and sellers, agents and brokers, is that we can each work to minimize that risk, for ourselves and for others, and in the spirit of goodwill, peace, and liberty we can change the world for the better, one satisfied property owner at a time.

    Labels: , , , , ,

  • Monday, July 20, 2009


    A critical look at the REAL crisis of the 21st century, a crisis which those of us who acknowledge it are mocked and ridiculed by the appeasers for inventing, when the facts reveal that in actuality more and more alert citizens with the passage of time are coming to realize the honest observation that the rising Islamic threat presents a grave and penetrating danger to western civilization and the entire human race.

    The moment of truth is now. We must prepare ourselves, tending to the spirit and the body with equal wind. Please read this article, and click the links at the bottom of the page, if you are one of the scoffers. Your own life, or the lives of your children may be saved as a result.

    The following Q&A was sent from another concerned patriot on this early front. Please take these words seriously:

    When I read MA Khan's new book, Islamic Jihad, I was struck by two things, the high quality of his scholarship and an emerging historical trend.

    Khan is firmly in the Foundationalist School of scholarship. He does not indulge opinion, but bases his work on the Islamic doctrine of jihad and its historical effects on civilization, with a focus on the destruction of India. He investigates and documents two little known areas—the Sufis and the enslavement of the Hindus.

    The excellence of his book is part of an historic pattern. When Islam attacked us on September 11, 2001 we were unprepared for war. Our intellectuals were spineless dhimmis who have been bought and paid for by the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood, and as a result, were apologists and not able to defend our civilization.

    However, in one of the more remarkable intellectual events in history, a new type of intellectual was drawn into the study of Islam. Trained critical and scientific thinkers who were amateurs in the field of Islam applied their critical reasoning to this subject and produced a wealth of excellent books and articles. The new Islamic scholarship was fact-driven and took up Islam's challenge of war.

    Khan's Islamic Jihad is an excellent intellectual weapon.

    BW: Welcome Mr. Khan. Tell us about your motivation behind writing this book.

    Khan: Thank you Bill giving me this opportunity to share my thoughts on the kind of danger the progressive world faces from an Islamic resurgence and how we deal with it.

    What we are witnessing today in Muslim countries-namely in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Sudan etc-is the Talibanization or Saudization of the society, i.e., the establishment of Sharia in all spheres of life and society. In other Muslim countries, the demand for the same is solidifying; in a few decades, the face of the entire Islamic world will dramatically change.

    The Islamic world is heading toward that which it embraces: Islam as a complete code of life, as believed by every Muslim. This transformation seems inescapable at this moment. But our major concern now is the infidel world, particularly the West. The native population in Europe is declining from low birthrate, while Muslims are procreating at unbridled rates. In the UK, Muslim population is increasing 10 times faster than the rest; the trend should be similar in other Western European countries. And where does this lead? By the middle of this century, Muslims will become the largest religious group in Europe.

    And what will happen under that circumstance? We can easily make a guess. Take the example of Pakistan: in elections, only 10% of Pakistanis support parties that seek to institute Sharia rule. Now look at Britain: some 40% of the Muslims support Sharia rule, with only 37% opposed. This figure, I believe, is skewed to a good extent as Muslims don't speak the truth. Nonetheless, what these figures mean is that a much greater proportion of Muslims living in the West are Sharia-loving or Taliban minded as compared to those living in Islamic countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan. Therefore, unless the mentality of Western Muslims changes drastically in coming decades, which is unlikely, the Talibanization of Europe would become an inescapable reality by the middle of this century, undoubtedly spreading to North America, Australia, Russia and India.

    We know what Sharia means to civilized humanity. We witness it in Saudi Arabia; we witness it in Afghanistan under the Taliban; we witness it in Talibanized areas of Pakistan. We clearly know that the plight of women-Muslim or not-would become worse. Treatment of non-Muslims is horrible and extremely degrading under Sharia rule: it is happening in Taliban-occupied regions in Pakistan. The Hindus and Sikhs are being subjected to humiliating jizya, which is an exorbitant discriminatory tax for the security of the life and property of non-Muslims in Islamic state (see Quran 9:29). The Taliban attacked the Sikh community in Orakzai for failing to pay the demanded jizya, slayed the men, took possession of their homes and properties, and enslaved the women and children, in accordance with the Quranic commands (33:26) and Muhammad's example of dealing with the Jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza [M.A. Khan, Islamic Jihad, p47-49]. Thousands of Hindus have already relocated to India in recent months in order to escape the Taliban oppression.

    What is at stake today is obviously the Talibanization of globe—that is, the establishment of the governance of the Quran and Sunnah (i.e. Sharia) globally—which is a central demand of the Quran (2:193, 8:39), and the ultimate goal of Islam. And that will be the worst disaster ever to befall humankind. Therefore, averting this Talibanization of the world, which seems inescapable at this moment unless something drastic happens, should be the central concern for the civilized humanity as I see it. My book is an effort to make the world, both Muslim and non-Muslim, understand what Jihad, the scourge of our time, truly means for our future and take real measures to defeat it.

    BW: How do you think we must fight battle?

    Khan: In recent years, many ingenious measures have been tried and are being tried: the global war on terror, regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq for spreading freedom, democracy and modernity, and efforts to engage and work with the so-called moderate Muslims for winning the hearts and minds of the wider Muslim community etc. But nothing is working; since the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., the number of Jihadis, in the form of numerous radical Islamic groups around the world, are increasing exponentially. The overall Muslim mindset is also becoming increasingly radicalized everywhere, including the West.

    There are also many initiatives amongst the so-called moderate Muslims to reform Islam. Many of these Muslims are also making rewarding careers in the guise of their phony reform campaigns. But attempts at reformation as occurred in Christianity, which was basically going back to the root, the originality of the religion, makes things worse in the case of Islam. A genuine and successful effort by the brilliant Saudi scholar Abdul Wahhab (1703-91) to reform Islam, in the mold of reformation of Christianity by Martin Luther (1483-1546), gave birth to Wahhabism, the Islamic scourge that we are confronting today. Efforts to reform Islam away from orthodoxy, i.e., along a rational and humanistic line, have been tried by some powerful Islamic rulers, namely the Baghdad caliphs, al-Mamun, al-Mutassim and al-Wathik (813-847), as well as Akbar the Great in India. They were the greatest monarchs in the world of their time and ruthlessly dictatorial. While they effected some positive changes during their rule, soon after their departure, it was all overturned. Islamic orthodoxy struck back with greater brutality and horror in every instance.

    Thus, efforts at reformation have worsened the situation or failed. Any new attempt at reforming Islam is meaningless today because Muslims are becoming well-educated and can read the Quran, which has been translated in all major languages, by themselves. They are no less intelligent than the "reformers" and can understand what the verses of the Quran truly mean. Reformation in the age of modern education is a meaningless exercise and is destined to failure.

    What might work, something that has not been tried, is what I personally call 'shaming the Muslims out of Islam'. Islam is a horrible and shameful ideology, unfit for the civilized world. But most Muslims, who are average human beings, do not know what is actually in the Quran and Sunnah, or, they have never analyzed the contents of Islam's fundamental texts critically. They have no idea what it means to be a true Muslim and how shameful it is in the modern civilized conscience. If they are made aware of the true nature of Islam, they will leave this barbaric and dehumanizing cult in large numbers. Islam will be condemned to the dustbin of history where it always belonged.

    This is the only measure that has not been tried. And I have been trying exactly that in my website, (founded November 2005): "Telling the Truth about Islam". And my book, Islamic Jihad, is also an extension of that effort. I have convincing evidence that it will work.

    BW: Would you elaborate on the shaming of Muslims and how it would work?

    Khan: If you look closely at the history of Islam, you would realize that Islamic orthodoxy, with its violent underpinnings of Jihad, has tremendous resilience. As elaborated already, every attempt to reform it from within was followed by its resurgence with greater ferocity. From the 19th century onward, the European colonial powers did effect significant changes in the Islamic world like the equality of religions, liberation of slaves, and the ideas of secularism, progressiveness and modernity. But after colonial withdrawal, these positive changes are all being over turned. Humanity is now being threatened by Islamic orthodoxy and its Jihadis, on a scale unprecedented in history.

    What these factors tell us is that attempt to reform and secularize Islam is not only doomed to failure, but its survival in any form will turn calamitous to humanity. So those, who care for our progressive and modernist civilization, particularly those in position of power, must understand this critical factor while dealing with Islam. We probably have time, this time round, to save humanity from the ongoing scourge of Islam, albeit sustaining damages of whatsoever scale it may be, we will be left with no such option if Islam has another opportunity to strike.

    So the need of the hour is to break the back of Islam once and for all. And here comes into play the idea of 'shaming the Muslims out of Islam'. What we need is to discredit Islam root and branch, to the level of cells and atoms. This is not difficult to achieve. Simply telling the truth about Islam will do.

    I have already mentioned: 'Islam is a horrible and shameful ideology, unfit for the civilized world.' The thing is, most Muslims have little idea of what Islam truly is, what it means to be a true Muslim. Most of them, particularly outside the Arab world, are ignorant about Islam; very few of them read the basic texts of Islam with a proper understanding. They know about Islam mainly from hearsay as part of their growing up. And when it comes to living their life, they are under tremendous influence of the kafir world from their surrounding, through the media, through all the goodies the kafir world bring to them.

    At the same time, they also remain indoctrinated rather subconsciously with the cardinal thoughts in Islam, namely:
    1. Islam is a complete code of life,
    2. Islam is the perfect religion and Muhammad was the ideal man for all time; therefore, both are beyond questioning or criticism,
    3. Only Muslims are destined to receive God's succor, and
    4. Islam will eventually dominate the world, i.e. all people will become Muslim some day.

    This subconscious indoctrination of the so-called moderate or liberal majority of Muslims easily plays into the hands of the extremists. When the extremists make noise on the ground that the prophet has been defamed or blasphemed or that Islam has been insulted, both being perfect and beyond finger-pointing in their subconscious mind, they too join the orgasmic frenzy with the extremists. We have seen this in the controversy over Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, and more recently, over the printing of Prophet Muhammad's cartoons in a Danish paper or Pope Benedict's comment on Muhammad.

    I think that this so-called moderate variety of Muslims can easily be dissociated from Islam. What we need to do is to say the truth that Islam is not a "religion of peace" as goes the popular discourse, but a barbaric, inhuman and uncivilized cult; that Muhammad was not a noble, a perfect man for all time, but he was a brutal plunderer and mass-murderer lusting for power, wealth and sex; that he was a sex-maniac with a pedophilic urge for a kid as young as six when he was in his 50s and not far from death; that Islam, as initiated by Prophet Muhammad, is a barbaric institution of imperialism, forced conversion, and slavery and sex-concubinage. Islam, as depicted in its sacred texts, is more horrifying than this.

    What we need is to hold the pages of the Quran, prophetic traditions and biographies, and Islamic history bare to Muslims and to the world. This will be enough to shame the Muslims out of Islam.

    Why would this work? Let me start with my own example. I was one such liberal/moderate Muslim. When 9/11 occurred, I felt that the attack was rather justified because of the United States' unjust policies toward the Palestinians. I was lucky, I should say, that I was already involved in some internet groups that were critical of Islam. But after the 9/11 attacks, as critical analysis of Islam, the Quran and hadiths flourished dramatically, I became a defender of Islam for quite some time. I continued to resist looking into the basic texts of Islam, the Quran, Sunnah and Muhammad's biographies for 2-3 years. But I eventually read them, and I was shattered and frustrated with myself. I was ashamed because the Quran reads like a manual of unconditional war against non-Muslims, Muhammad was one of the most horrible, if not the worst, human being in the history of mankind. And I had believed that Islam was the most perfect and peaceful religion, a perfect code to human life, for 35+ years of my life.

    For a Muslim, living Islam is the most difficult thing in the world, and this was the case with me. Only when I read the basic text of Islam and understood its truth was I able to leave Islam with ease. If I hadn't read these texts, I couldn't have mastered the courage to leave Islam despite the horrible things Muslim Jihadis continued to perpetrate, or howsoever hard the critics would criticize those fanatics.

    Similarly, after reading my websites and—websites that focus on the criticisms of Islam based on its foundations: the Quran, the Sunnah, and Prophet Muhammad—many Muslims are leaving Islam, even some potential suicide-bombers and mosque imams amongst them. I have testimonies from Muslims, who considered themselves "Muslims for life" just a couple of months ago, that they would never leave the most fulfilling creed of Islam. But after reading my book, which basically exposes the true nature of Jihad against the popular discourse that it is a peaceful struggle with the self, against vice, for eradication of poverty, for human rights and women's rights etc., they found their whole life based on a lie, and were shattered. Their faith in Islam was shattered.

    So the challenge in front of us is to bare the foundation of the Islamic creed in front of these so-called moderate/liberal Muslims and to make them read the foundational texts of Islam. Once they do that, a majority of them will find their faith in Islam shattered. And there it begins: the collapse of Islam like a castle of sands. Humanity will be rescued from its lasting horrors once and for all.

    BW: There has been a good deal of truth-telling about Islam since the 9/11. But it is not working so far; we are not winning the battle. What do you think is need to be done?

    Khan: That's absolutely true. A lot of literature has been produced, particularly in the form of books, telling the truth about Islam. But you must also take into account that a much greater volume of literature has been produced, selling the lies of Islam. Let me emphasize that for 'shaming the Muslims out of Islam', we need books and literature focusing the Quran, Sunnah and Islamic history, books like Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not A Muslim, Andrew Bostom's Legacy of Jihad, Dr. Ali Sina's Understanding Muhammad, and probably my Islamic Jihad. Very few penetrative books of this type, except those of Ibn Warraq and Bostom, have been successful. Most books of this type are not picked up by reputed publishers, fearing Muslim backlash; they are often being self-published published and receive little attention. Most important factor of all is that very few Muslims, who in general have a very poor book-buying and reading habit, buy books like these.

    Therefore, those books, telling the truth about Islam, have very little impact on Muslims, our prime target. On the other hand, books telling the lies about Islam, which are produced in much larger volumes and the media is eager to promote, are the books that most Muslims and non-Muslims buy. So we have, on the whole, a nullification of the impact of truth-telling books by the lies-telling ones.

    And when it comes to the news media, which Muslims read to a large extent: there the truth-telling is largely absent; lies-telling is overwhelmingly prevalent. Our mainstream media (MSM) is based on lies, on falsehood, when it comes to the coverage of Islam. And whatever little truth-telling is done, very little of it is focused on the foundational texts and doctrines of Islam.

    The MSM is the biggest culprit, the biggest accomplice, in the success of radical Islam. They are most eager to circulate the messages-audio-tapes and videos et cetera, of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other top al-Qaeda and radical Islamic leaders and ideologues as such. And getting these messages to Muslim audience, harboring potential recruits, is crucial to the success, with which the radical Islamic agenda is progressing. At the same time, the MSM rigorously filter out the few voices that are trying to focus their criticism on the foundations of Islam, criticism that will matter in enlightening both Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam and in shaming the Muslims out of it.

    The same goes with the Internet. It has played tremendous role in the success of al-Qaeda and like-minded radical Islamic groups in spreading their messages, which is the linchpin of their tremendous success in popularizing their violent mission and recruiting cadres. While the truth-tellers have some success there, where they can spread their messages with relative freedom, but there are only few such websites with limited readership against a deluge of pro-Islam and militant Islamic websites. And most of all, the truth-telling websites are banned in most Islamic countries, and even in the West. For example, most educational institutions in Australia have banned all truth-telling websites, namely Faith Freedom, The Religion of Peace, Jihad Watch , Islam Watch and Islam Monitor amongst others categorizing them as hate-sites.

    So, it will become clear why we are not making significant ground in our truth-telling efforts. The outcome of this battle, I think, will be determined by the media. We must recognize that the investment of hundreds of billions of dollars annually in strengthening intelligence apparatus, tightening security and the war of terror is going to waste. Some of these measures are also working counter to their intended objectives, by helping the radicalization of the Muslim mind on various grievances, howsoever unjustified they may be. And of course, it is causing loss of lives in large numbers on both sides.

    In the media, we can kill this menace with a small fraction of the investment and with much less loss in life and properties. The battle can be won with ease. Muslims can ignore the noise made by truth-tellers, often discredited as fringe Muslim-hating Islamophobes, in a negligible few and little-known websites, but they cannot ignore the Mainstream Media. When the truth-tellers get the opportunity to bare the fundamental sacred texts of Islam in the pages of the MSM to show how horrible and barbaric the cult of Islam is, Muslims at all levels would be forced to defend their creed by looking into those texts. Every attempt to defend Islam would lead to their enlightenment about the filth and inhumanity that lies at its heart.

    We have more than convincing evidence to affirm that the so-called peaceful majority of moderate/liberal Muslims, ashamed, frustrated, and angered of what they have unwittingly believed for their whole life, would start leaving Islam en masse. The West's problem would be solved in a decade or two with the collapse of Islam; I can challenge you on that. From there, the remedy to the Islamic problem in the rest of the world, including Muslim countries, would soon begin.

    The fact is that the Islamists have tremendous advantage against the truth-tellers in every aspect of this battle. The truth-tellers are fighting this battle against mountainous odds: their opponents have annual investment of billions of dollars against zero on their own side; the Islamists have almost all the ground in the MSM, the decisive battleground of this struggle.

    I realize that there is little chance of this changing at all. The future of this battle remains hugely tilted toward the Islamist side as of now. The Talibanization of the globe remain an inescapable possibility unless circumstances changes drastically, possibly horribly.

    BW: Thank you for enlightening us, Mr. Khan.

    Bill Warner
    Political Islam

    Personally, we at the Two-Fisted Quorum do not believe Mr. Khan's solution of shaming will work. There is an incredible swath of humanity's muster aiming for this fight, millions of indoctrinated assassins intoxicated with the pernicious urges of brutality and demonic rage, a disposition that will not take no for an answer. No amount of persuasion will still this Islamic beast as it prepares for war and total control. This particular fight will of necessity take place. There will be unfathomable casualties, but I believe that if Americans, particularly its cowed and dhimmified leadership finally wake up to this monster threat and throw off the chains placed around them by succumbing to the dual seductions of Islamic briberies and liberal progressive mythologies, the West can win this war, albeit at a formidable price of blood, treasure, and lifestyle for several generations.

    Labels: , , , , ,

    Friday, July 17, 2009


    IT IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL that the Obama campaign would choose to first publish Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" (COLB) NOT on its own campaign website, but, on Daily Kos, a hard-left website, and then later adopt the Daily Kos document as its own "official" copy. Since Obama chose to publish his alleged COLB on a public non-campaign website, Daily Kos, he has waived all rights of privacy to it! Let's See It, Mr. O! Produce your actual Birth Certificate not just a COLB of dubious origin (which can be issued to non-citizens)! In addition, the State of Hawaii Health Director waived the privacy privilege by making official public statements about the COLB.

    —Patriot Skyline

    THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN no right to privacy in the first place. There is certain criteria to meet to stand for election to the highest office in this land. There was general knowledge and immediate concerns that warranted the public airing of Mr. Obama's birth records. But political operatives at every level straight up to the Supreme Court of the United States have stonewalled common sense, and legal precedent.

    The man is obviously hiding facts that make him ineligible to hold the office to which he aspired.

    Yet another outrage from the first Marxist American President...

    Yes, these Marxists do get it. This is THEIR plan to bring America to its knees. Just watch Obama, and his smirking grin...

    He knows the plan is working, is pretty damn well on track and in due time the neutron bomb of Obama politics will render us helpless. It's a constitutional outrage the way this stealth takeover of our government is operating, an administration that promised transparency, but what Obama really meant was his government would be invisible.

    Can you say czarism?

    Craig on July 18th, 2009 3:04 PM posted the following on another site in response to another poster named Heather, who is quoted immediately below in response to the call for sunshine on Obama's right to govern...

    “Obama is all you have, so instead of bitching about it, get behind him.”
    —Heather Hetherington

    We obviously have diametrically opposed points of view and manny of us do not feel helpless like you.

    If BHO was born in HI, we will drop that issue. But he is not “all that we have”. There are the legislative and judicial branches of our government that we will not let him marginalize or subvert. While some elements of the Opposition will challenge BHo in a principled but genteel fashion, there will be a more robust Opposition that will do everything legal to kick this Marxist counter-revolutionary to the curb and then kick him and Rahmbo some more, till we have the type of patriotic Americans administering our Republic for which our Founding Fathers fought and died.

    We are waging a fight to the death for the continuation of our Republic. You can fight with us, fight against us, or sit on the back porch, but we will not drink the hemlock of neo-Marxism and statism while BHO says, “It is good drink and all of your problems will go away.”

    "The birth-certificate controversy is about Obama’s honesty, not where he was born."

    Meanwhile, in a surprising shift of position, the respected Andrew C. McCarthy of the National Review Online pens an excellent comprehensive opinion on why the Obama birth certificate issue has already served to root out certain truths about this president, and given the resistance of his administration to release information on other still troubling details of his life as they impact on his status as an honest man, why the issue should remain on the front burner until the American people know the full extent of their relationship with a man who promised us transparency...

    Read it HERE.

    Labels: , , , , ,

    Thursday, July 16, 2009


    Frank Wolf
    This letter arrived today from esteemed Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA-10th District). We very much appreciate his continued advocacy for local safety issues, human rights around the globe, as well as his repeated efforts to inspire the current administration to remember its promise for transparent government, promised by the candidate, and often touted by the new president with little or no change from the business as usual model Americans have come to loathe from both parties.

    The congressman's report:

    Dear Friends,

    Congress is deep into the appropriations season. The House has passed seven of the 12 FY 2010 spending bills, with five more on course for consideration before the annual August congressional recess. This week the House will vote on the Energy and Water, and Financial Services appropriations.  The Transportation-Housing and Urban Development (THUD) appropriations subcommittee on which I serve approved the THUD bill Monday evening, and that bill should be on the House floor later this month.

    Transportation Improvements

    The transportation spending bill approved by the subcommittee includes another $85 million for the Dulles Corridor Metrorail extension project.  This latest installment would bring the total federal share for the project to date to over $440 million. I am hopeful that both the full House and Senate will include this funding in the final version of the spending bill to continue the federal share for this critical project.  A national report earlier this month ranked the Washington, D.C., metro area as having the second worst traffic congestion in the nation, a dubious distinction that the area has held for a number of years.  Mass transit in the Dulles corridor is critical to relieving congestion on busy roads and will connect the nation‚s capital to one of the world‚s leading international airports.

    My recent efforts also have focused on two transportation safety issues.  In light of the tragic accident that occurred on June 22 on Metro's Red Line, the Washington region‚s congressional delegation has worked together to secure $150 million in the FY 2010 transportation spending bill for Metro safety and maintenance improvements.  This funding would be matched by Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.

    The state's decision to close a number of rest areas on interstate highways in the Commonwealth is also of deep concern, and my letter to Governor Kaine urges the state to reconsider the decision. I fear that fatigued drivers, especially long-haul truckers, without convenient places to pull off the highway could increase the risks for accidents. This is a safety issue and the state has a responsibility to the hundreds of thousands of drivers on Virginia's highways to resolve this matter.

    Attorney General Is Stonewalling

    Earlier this year, President Obama stated that he ran "for president promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. My intention is to hold him and his appointees to his word.

    As you will recall, I have been trying to get answers from Attorney General Eric Holder on the Justice Department‚s (DOJ) plans for the disposition of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.  After waiting 118 days for a response to my letters of March 13, April 23, and May 13, my office received only a cursory acknowledgment from the department on July 7 that failed to answer a single question.  Similar questions from members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have similarly been dismissed or gone unanswered.  The attorney general's blatant obstruction of this most basic responsibility leads me to question this administration's commitment to transparency and accountability.

    Mr. Holder's failure to explain his decision to dismiss a recent voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party is also of great concern. Both the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and I have sent letters to the department seeking an explanation. My office has also called on the House Judiciary Committee and the DOJ inspector general to investigate this matter.

    Disappointing Effort on Human Rights

    My concerns are growing regarding the Obama administration's failure to date to champion human rights as a central part of American foreign policy.  My statement in the *Congressional Record* highlights those concerns, specifically with the administration's dealings with China, Cuba, Sudan, Egypt, North Korea, Vietnam, Iran and Russia. I was quick to criticize the Bush administration when its public rhetoric in the human rights arena failed to match its action. But in this new, young administration, it seems even the rhetoric is absent. 

    I hope this information is helpful. For more on these and other issues, please visit my website. Please continue to share your views on matters of interest to you.

    Best wishes,

    Frank Wolf

    Labels: , , , , ,

    Tuesday, July 14, 2009


    Sarah Palin
    ON FRIDAY JULY 10, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27 (HJR27), sponsored by State Rep. Mike Kelly. The resolution “claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”

    The House passed the resolution by a vote of 37-0 (3 not voting) and the Senate passed it by a vote of 40-0.

    Six other states have had both houses of their legislature pass similar resolutions—Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Louisiana—Alaska joins Tennessee as the second to have such a resolution signed by the Governor.


    Passage of this resolution appears to be part of what is now a growing state-level resistance to the federal government on various levels. Similar 10th Amendment resolutions have been introduced in 37 states around the country, and various states are considering single-issue legislation in direct contravention to federal laws.

    Most recently, the Arizona Legislature passed a measure for public approval on the 2010 state ballot that would give Arizona voters the opportunity to nullify, or opt out, of any potential national health care legislation.

    Since 2007, more than two dozen states have passed legislation refusing to implement the Real ID act of 2005. In response, the federal government has recently announced that they want to “repeal and replace” the law due to a rebellion by states.

    Pending legislation in states around the country also includes preventing state law enforcement officials from enforcing federal laws, refusing federal gun regulations, refusing to send a state’s national guard to any duty other than what the constitution authorizes, legalizing marijuana for various purposes and more.


    While HJR27 is strongly-word in support of the principles of limited, constitutional government that the 10th Amendment represents, it is a Joint Resolution and does not carry with it the force of law. But supporters say that this is an important first step to get their message out not only to grassroots supporters, but to the media, and legislators in other states as well.

    Read the final version of the resolution below:

    Relating to the Sovereign Powers of the State


    WHEREAS the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and

    WHEREAS the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

    WHEREAS some federal actions weaken states’ rights protected by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

    WHEREAS the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

    WHEREAS art. IV, sec. 4, Constitution of the United States, reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” and the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

    WHEREAS the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (1992), that the United States Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

    WHEREAS all states, including Alaska, find themselves regularly facing proposals from the United States Congress that weaken states’ rights protected by the Tenth Amendment;

    BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and be it

    FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

    COPIES of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States; the Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Vice-President of the United States and President of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; the Honorable Lisa Murkowski and the Honorable Mark Begich, U.S. Senators, and the Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress; all other members of the 111th United States Congress; the presiding officers of the legislatures of each of the other 49 states; and the governors of each of the other 49 states.

    Labels: , , ,

    Sunday, July 12, 2009


    Of course these nasty, rather inconvenient statistics would never happen here in America, right, because we have our precious US Constitution to protect us from evil bandits and foreign and internal freedom fighters, right? Oops, Madame Sotomayor just slipped us a silver mickey, but hey, I think in the long run our millions of gun-hating people-loving progressive permissive class clowns might appreciate this...

    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were
    rounded up and exterminated.

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. Priceless.

    Bottom line: Americans must be crazy to cling to their guns and their religion and their matter of fact principles that fly in the face of all this BIG LOVE doled out by governmental gun control fanatics because every American know by now after all our progressive thought experiments that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with protecting oneself or one's family whether it be from a criminal enterprise or a criminal government.

    Yes, that must be it. After all, they'll never come for me...

    Labels: , ,

    Saturday, July 11, 2009


    THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE has shifted over the last 20 years. Activists pointed to Britain, Australia and Canada as models of gun control policy; however, the statistics tell a far different story, says John Barnes of the Washington Policy Center. Read on...

    It’s an age-old story. A criminal shoots someone, and then politicians propose gun-control measures that would have done nothing to prevent the shooting. On March 26, Kyle Huff killed six people at a late-night party in Seattle. Seattle mayor Greg Nickels immediately called for more regulations on guns. None of his proposals would have prevented the tragedy.

    There is another side to stories about guns. In 1990 a group of gang members pulled a Seattle man from his bicycle and beat him. He used his legally-registered handgun to shoot one of the assailants and stop the attack. In 2002 a West Seattle woman shot an intruder who had broken into her home and was beating her roommate. In 2003 an elderly Tacoma man confined to his bed shot an intruder who had kicked in his door and attacked him. In 2004 a Spokane woman awoke one morning to discover an intruder in her house, whom she held at gunpoint until the police arrived. In all of these cases, if it were not for the legal use of guns in self-defense, the victims would likely be dead.

    The gun control debate has shifted over the last 20 years. Back then it was common to hear that it is in everyone’s best interests if the government made guns go away. The legislative agenda of anti-gun groups was much more radical and overt. Activists pointed to Britain, Australia, and Canada as models of gun control policy.

    In 1997 Britain banned handguns, and between 1998 and 2003 gun crimes doubled. According the British Home Office, between 1997 and 2001 homicides increased by 19% and violent crime increased by 26%, while in the U.S. those same crimes fell by 12%. Between 2000 and 2001, robbery increased by 28% in Britain but only 4% in the U.S. Domestic burglary increased by 7% in Britain, but only 3% in the U.S.

    In 1996 Australia enacted sweeping gun control laws. In the six years following, violent crime rates rose by 32%. Canada isn’t faring well under its stringent gun control laws. Today Canada’s violent crime rate is more than double that of the U.S.

    The fact that during this time right-to-carry laws were expanding in the U.S. makes these statistics all the more telling. Now 40 states allow citizens to carry guns. Violent crime rates are steadily declining in the U.S. Research—and common sense—show the “right-to-carry” by honest citizens deters crimes against persons and property.

    Now even the most vocal anti-gun groups in Washington admit there is an individual right to own guns. The debates rage not over the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns, but how to keep them away from criminals. But just because the debate has shifted doesn’t mean we are immune from bad ideas masquerading as sound public policy. Exhibit one is Mayor Greg Nickels’ knee-jerk call for more gun control.

    Citing a rash of gun-related crimes in the past few months, the mayor wants the state to allow cities to tighten restrictions. He is going after the usual targets: “assault” weapons, the supposed “gun show loophole,” and requirements for trigger locks and “safe storage.” All of these are problematic.

    There was a federal assault weapons ban in place from 1994 to 2004. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms says the ban did not reduce crime nationally. Criminals who wanted to obtain such weapons found easy ways to get them in spite of the ban. Moreover, law enforcement research shows these guns are used in only about 1% of violent crimes.

    The National Institute of Justice found in the 1980s and again in 1997 that only 2% of criminal guns come from gun shows. A report by Handgun Control, Inc., (hardly a friend of gun rights) found only two of 48 big-city police chiefs said guns bought at shows were a major problem in their cities.

    Research shows at least 2.5 million protective uses of guns each year in the U.S. Guns are used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes. Most often the mere sight of a gun prevents a crime from occurring or getting worse.

    Reasonable gun restrictions are clearly necessary; obviously owning a machine gun shouldn’t be legal. But gun ownership is not only a fundamental constitutional right, it is a proven way to reduce crime and save lives.

    Source: John Barnes, "Legal Gun Ownership Saves Lives," Washington Policy Center, May 17, 2006.

    Of course, there are blank spots in the cited statistics above, but some trends are obvious. Deterrence is not a big headline grabber, but it does change the dynamics of who does what to whom and when. Indeed there are untold instances on record of someone "successfully" defending themselves and others against intruders, but of course the liberal media avoids these stories. What's more disturbing is the fact that often the surprised but alert homeowner is hauled into court to defend himself against charges, while the intruder skirts off. It's an outrage.

    Criminals use guns illegally with impunity, and yet the system coddles them. Meanwhile law abiders are demonized, and if the anti-gun lobby has its way, soon they will be criminalized. Ironically, perhaps only then will the system begin to work in their favor again.

    But don't take my word for it. Google the web using these four keywords: gun ownership saves lives. There are lots of stories supporting the data. One merely has to be open to the information.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Thursday, July 09, 2009

    AMAZING WHAT ONE HAS TO BELIEVE... believe in gun control.

  • That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

  • That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn't really want to shoot you and he'll let you go, but that you should give him your wallet, because he'll shoot you if you don't.

  • That Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control.

  • That "NYPD Blue" and "Miami Vice" are documentaries.

  • That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

  • That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat to world peace, and China, Pakistan and Korea can be trusted with nuclear weapons.

  • That Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

  • That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

  • That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

  • That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

  • That the "right of the people peaceably to assemble," the "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the states.

  • That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1917.

  • That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.

  • That private citizens can't have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and private citizens can't have assault rifles, because they are military weapons.

  • That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.

  • That it is reasonable to jail people for carrying but not using guns, but outrageous to jail people for possessing marijuana.

  • That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it's for possessing a gun.

  • That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights and a sign of fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable solution to the "gun problem."

  • That the first amendment absolutely allows child pornography and threats to kill cops, but doesn't apply to manuals on gun repair.

  • That a woman in a microskirt, perfume, and a Wonderbra, without underwear, is a helpless victim, but someone getting paid $6 an hour to deliver the cash from a fast food place to the bank at the same time every night is, "asking for it." And you won't allow either of them to carry a gun.

  • That Illinois' law that allows any government official from Governor to dogcatcher to carry a gun is reasonable, and the law that prohibits any private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a million dollar jewelry business, is reasonable. And it isn't a sign of police statism.

  • That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self defense only justifies bare hands.

  • That with the above, a 90 lb woman attacked by a 300 lb rapist and his 300 lb buddy, has the "right" to kill them in self defense, provided she uses her bare hands.

  • That gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence, but sex education in school doesn't encourage kids to have sex.

  • That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950's and 1960's, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.

  • That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time, and anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

  • That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, and that cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren't aware of the dangers involved with guns.

  • That the gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

  • That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, and the increase in crime requires more gun control.

  • That 100 years after its founding, the NRA got into the politics of guns from purely selfish motives, and 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the black civil rights movement was founded from purely noble motives.

  • That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, and statistics that show increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

  • That we don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, and we should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments of that Constitution, thereby becoming an oppressive government.

  • That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to the fabric of society.

  • That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

  • That guns cause crime, which is why there are so many mass slayings at gun shows.

  • That guns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army only has 3 million of them.

  • That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

  • That the Constitution protects us, so we don't need guns, and can confiscate them, thereby violating the 5th amendment of that constitution.

  • That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, yet a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen."

  • That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, and gunmakers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

  • That a handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

  • That a majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population used to support owning slaves.

  • That one should ignore as idiots politicians who confuse Wicca with Satanism and exaggerate the gay community as a threat to society, but listen sagely to politicians who can refer to a self-loading small arm as a "weapon of mass destruction" and an "assault weapon."

  • That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has machinegun toting guards.

  • That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.

  • That a woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

  • That guns should be banned because of the danger involved, and live reporting from the battlefield, which can keep the enemy informed of troop deployments, getting thousands of troops killed and perhaps losing a war, is a protected act that CANNOT be compromised on.

  • That the right of online child pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is a constitutionally protected extension of the Bill of Rights, and the claim that handguns are for self defense is merely an excuse, and not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

  • That the ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

  • That a house with a gun is three times as likely to have a murder, just like a house with insulin is three times as likely to have a diabetic.

  • That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need larger capacity magazines than civilians, who must face criminals alone, and therefore need less ammunition.

  • That we should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns, too.

  • That guns have no legitimate use, but alcohol does, which is why we issue cops beer instead of guns.

  • That police and soldiers are the dregs of society who were unfit to get any real job, which perfectly qualifies them with the high moral standards and keen intellects to handle these complicated tools and be our guardians.

    Copyright 1999, 2000 by Michael Z. Williamson
    Permission is granted to copy in part or in total for non-profit purposes, provided due credit is given.

    Labels: , , , , , ,