AMAZING WHAT ONE HAS TO BELIEVE...

...to 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.

IGNORANCE AS A POLITICAL POINT OF VIEW

RATIONAL THOUGHT OR FACTS are the only tools we have to combat political Islam. On the basis of facts and logic, the kafirs beat the dhimmis and the Muslims, every time. But rational thought is being declared an enemy of the Newstate. The Newstate is the government, the media, and the universities. They all work as one team now. The war against political Islam has become a war to preserve the remnants of rational/critical thought. It is the purpose of the Newstate to eliminate critical/rational thought and analysis. The battle is not with Islam; the battle is with us and how we think.

There is a rational basis for discussing Islam, but people do not want a rational basis because they really don’t want to open the box and look inside. There is a profound fear of actually looking into the eyes of Mohammed and knowing the mind of Islam. Fear, because we feel ourselves to be in the position of a spouse who has suspicions that their partner is cheating on them. If they found out that their suspicions were true, they would have to do something, so it seems better not to know. To keep us from asking questions and wanting to know, the Newstate has declared knowledge about Islam is to be called bigotry.

We just don’t do that, you know, discuss Islam. It is not proper behavior. Bigots don’t like Muslims. Isn’t being afraid of Islam called Islamo-phobia? Exerting critical thought about Islam gets you labeled as mentally and ethically ill. The primary weapon of the Newstate against knowledge is name-calling and insults.

To have knowledge about political Islam is a crime against the Newstate.

It is a crime because the authority of the Newstate has decreed it to be so. The genius of the Newstate is knowing that if facts are made a civil crime then critical thought cannot begin. For this reason, the media never, but never, connects the dots of what is happening with political Islam.

We are beginning to mimic the thinking process of Islam. Islam does not allow critical thought, because critical thought is based upon doubt. Doubt might cause you to ask questions like: “Why was Mohammed having the heads of 800 male Jews cut off? Why were the women and children sold in wholesale lots to get money for financing jihad?”

The Newstate has decreed what knowledge is allowed and what knowledge is forbidden. We have lists of ideas that cannot be argued in public without some sort of censor. Go to any university, newspaper or government agency and see if you can discuss:

The role of Islam in world slavery

In a women’s studies class, see if you can discuss how Sharia law oppresses women around the world

The history of dhimmi

The Islamic annihilation of Buddhist culture in Afghanistan

The role of political Islam in the Israel/”Palestinian” war

See if there is any critical thought about Islam anywhere in the school, newspaper, or government agency

See if you can get the local paper to run any articles on the above. Maybe National Public Radio will do a segment. Not! If you try to get the Rotary club or a local church to talk about any of these and you will find no forum. No one wants to know. You better not talk about it at work, either. If Human Resources hears about it you will be in deep bigot country.

Everybody knows this is at the same cultural level of knowing not to “break wind” in public. You just don’t talk about Islam in public territory. It is like telling N-word jokes. It’s not done.

We call this constraint of public discourse political correctness. Islam has a word for political correctness—haram, meaning it is forbidden. The Newstate now enforces what is allowed (halal) and what is forbidden (haram). Islamic knowledge has always been authoritative and now the Newstate is demanding the authority to tell us when to speak or not to speak. So, the Newstate enforces haram for Islam.

Freedom of speech and the speech of dissent is fading. America is in the beginning phases of authoritarianism. Universities are becoming centers of authoritarian knowledge—not centers of analytic and scientific reasoning. Critical or analytic thinking demands looking at all sides of a question. One of the most important questions of the 21st century is how do we deal with political Islam. But no university teaches any subjects on Islamic slavery, the Islamic annihilation of Christianity or Hinduism, Jews as dhimmis, or any suffering that Islam causes.

The very basis of all Islam—the Sunna, the Sira (Mohammed’s canonical biography), the Hadith (his traditions) are not taught. Oh, you might study a verse or a hadith, but not a systematic study.

If we speak out against political Islam, we are called bigots. But the charge of bigotry is a morals charge. We, who know, are called immoral. We are not factually wrong, but morally wrong. Why is it that knowing the life and traditions of Mohammed makes someone immoral, while not knowing the Sunna makes you morally superior? Why has ignorance become a valid point of view?

All of the doctrine of Islam is found in the Trilogy of Koran, Sira, and Hadith
. If you have not read these then you have not read both the foundation and the entirety of Islam. Why should any official, professor, priest, rabbi, preacher, or media pundit have any right to speak at all until they have read the basic material? Why should ignorance be a leadership quality?

America was founded based on arguments and debates, but now dissent is becoming morally wrong. For example: The New York Times is backing the suppression of Geert Wilder’s movie Fitna. In a shame and a disgrace, the Times condemns the man. They condemn him because he is offensive and insulting. Offensive to whom? Not to me. And they never once asked any questions about whether what he says is true. Truth is no defense against forbidden knowledge, haram. Instead they say he is the equivalent of a European redneck. They attack the messenger and not that facts. They don’t want to know about or look at the facts. Why is it that Islam can be offensive, but I can’t? Where are we are we headed here?

I am more afraid of the ACLU and the Federal government than I am of Islam. The Newstate is beginning to act as a partner with political Islam. Whatever political Islam demands, the Newstate will deliver. The Newstate has decreed that ignorance is the acceptable political point-of-view. And those who represent facts and critical thinking will be punished and condemned as moral criminals and enemies of the Newstate.

At this critical juncture, you have two choices. You can choose ignorance, fear and not being a bigot to please the Newstate. This means being a dhimmi (a kafir servant of Islam). There is another path, the path of knowledge, critical thinking and defending your civilization by telling truth about political Islam. You can choose fear, ignorance and cowardice, or you can choose critical reasoning, knowledge and courage. It is your choice. If you choose courage and knowledge, first ground yourself in some of the truth of the doctrine by reading Mohammed’s biography. It is sacred literature and will do more for you to understand Islam more than any other single thing.

Also check out the information on citizenwarrior.com, and join ACT! for America.

—Bill Warner

The ugly truth is that Islamic Supremacy is what we continue to highlight here. Islamic presumption is plain and clear: Their version of Allah (Arabic word for improper noun, GOD) owns everything, and by extension, those following him can pencil themselves at the top of this new world order. They hide the fact that Islam is not just a religion but a TOTAL SYSTEM.

It is a theocracy consisting of:

A RELIGIOUS SYSTEM that subjugates all people and holds them by a combination of fear and pie in the sky sexual and feasting after-life hyper indulgence. An easy sell to sell to bored males 18-30 years old.

A FINANCIAL SYSTEM that forces 2 1/2 percent of all banking profits to go to Islamic 'charities' and a forced poll tax foisted upon conquered peoples as an alternative to being killed or conversion to this SYSTEM.

A POLITICAL SYSTEM that uses the religious notions of the Koran as a trojan horse to usher in an intolerant totalitarian system contrary to established laws and freedom based on our US Constitutional rights.

One group, Muslims of America claims to be nonviolent, saying in a recent statement that its honored leader Sheik Gilani, founder of the parent group of MOA called al-Fuqra "does not condone nor teach us to condone violence, especially against the innocent."

Raids by police, however, in 1992 and 1993 on a 101-acre Muslim commune in central Colorado turned up bombs, automatic weapons, ammunition and plans for terrorist attacks. At least two of the communes—in New York and California—have shooting ranges. The US State Department, rarely a font of public revelation, has admitted that al-Fuqra seeks to purify Islam through violence.

For a blow by blow of how the SYSTEM plays itself out click here.

VOTING REGULATIONS UPHELD

HERE IS A FOX NEWS REPORT coming on the heels of the SCOTUS ruling upholding recent regulations aimed at curbing voter fraud in the states of Indiana and Washington.

And let's not forget the Obama truthers.

Let's revisit this revealing article by an unflappable Michelle Malkin, conservative pundit extraordinaire, exposing early in the August 29 issue of the New York Post on one of the basic fundamentals of the Obama campaign:

WHERE ARE ALL THE free-speech absolutists when you need them? Over the past month, left-wing partisans and Democratic lawyers have waged a brass-knuckled intimidation campaign against GOP donors, TV and radio stations and even an investigative journalist—who've all dared to question Barack Obama.

On Monday, the Obama campaign demanded that the Justice Department stop TV stations from airing a documented, accurate independent ad spotlighting Obama's longtime working relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Obama summoned his followers to bombard stations, many of them owned by conservative-leaning Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails to squelch the ad.

On Tuesday, the Obama campaign sent another letter to the Justice Department demanding investigation and prosecution of American Issues Project, the group that produced the Ayers ad, and Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, who funded it.

On Wednesday, Obama exhorted his followers to sabotage the WGN radio show of veteran Chicago host (and University of Chicago professor) Milt Rosenberg. Why? Because he invited National Review writer Stanley Kurtz to discuss his investigative findings about Obama's ties to Ayers and the underwhelming results of their collaboration on a left-wing educational project sponsored by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The "Obama Action Wire" gave Rosenberg's call-in line and talking points like this:

"Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse. . . . It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves."

Behind the glowing, peaceful facade lies Barack "The Silencer" Obama and his silent enablers on the left. While mainstream journalists schmoozed with liberal celebrities in Denver, practiced yoga with left-wing bloggers and received massages at the Google convention tent near Barackopolis, Team Obama was on an ugly, aggressive warpath sanctioned by Mr. Civility.

While compassionate Obama prepared to stand before thousands of worshipers at Invesco Field, purporting to give voice to the voiceless, his Chicago-schooled campaign machine was working overtime to muzzle conservative critics. "We want it to stop," ordered one pro-Obama caller to WGN.

Welcome to the future: the politics of Hope and Change enforced by the missionaries of Search and Destroy. But as the chill wind blows, where are the valiant protectors of political dissent?

On Aug. 11, I called the American Civil Liberties Union national headquarters in New York for comment about the Chicago gangland tactics of a nonprofit called "Accountable America" that's spearheaded by a former operative of the Obama-endorsing MoveOn outfit.

"Accountable America" is trolling campaign-finance databases and targeting conservative donors with "warning" letters in a thuggish attempt to depress Republican fundraising. (The official registered agent of Accountable America is Laurence Gold, a high-powered attorney for the AFL-CIO who has testified before the Senate complaining about the use of campaign-finance laws to stifle the speech of union workers—a pet cause of the ACLU.)

The ACLU press office failed to respond to my initial call. On Aug. 13, I followed up through e-mail: "I called on Monday requesting a statement from the ACLU about Accountable America's intimidation campaign against GOP donors. What is the ACLU's position with regard to such efforts? Waiting for your statement."

ACLU press officer Pamela Bradshaw e-mailed back: "Michelle, My apologies that I cannot be of more assistance, but we don't have anyone available. Thanks, Pam."

My reply: "Pam—does this mean you don't have anyone available today, this week or for the foreseeable future?"

On Aug. 20, after a week of silence, I forwarded the message again to the ACLU press office. No response. So, I won't bother asking the ACLU's opinion of the latest wave of speech-squelching moves by the Obama campaign.

Don't say you haven't been warned. Fascism seems to be coming to our own American streets unless cooler heads prevail, and The Two-Fisted Quorum just doesn't think that this war of "real and perceived grievances" can be averted short of a massive but voluntary reorganization of American priorities because, unfortunately, it's also seems very clear that the once treasured cool and hip quotients festering in the fecund minds of the Left are the metastasizing problem here...

FITZGERALD: HOW DUMB, HOW LONG?

HUGH FITZGERALD OF JIHAD WATCH today asks, "How dumb do we have to be, and for how long?" The answer of course, is blowing in the wind. And you know what that means. Massive destruction. Bombs and explosions of every sort do indeed tend to present the olfactory sensitive with a peculiar odor of the day. But until then, let's just play with words, and send them money, yep that's what they need, more money, boast our misguided leaders.

SAN'A, Yemen - A bomb rigged to a motorcycle blew up amid a crowd of worshippers leaving Friday prayers at a mosque in a rebel stronghold of northern Yemen, killing at least 18 people and wounding about four dozen, officials said. –from this news article

Shi'a and Sunnis at it again. Yes, of course, the American government must do what it can to try to stop this kind of internecine warfare among Muslims, in Yemen as in Iraq. Otherwise there might be a "catastrophic" situation. Otherwise there might be "chaos" in the Middle East.

And somehow this "chaos" and this "catastrophe" that will ensue will, we are told, be bad for us, in ways always unspecified, as if we are simply to accept the conclusion of our betters—you know, the people in the government who pick up their news just as you and I do, but who lack the time, and the inclination (unlike you, unlike me) to spend the time to read about Islam, to read the texts of Islam, to learn what the Western students of Islam (not the espositos but the real thing) have said about the contents of Islam.

For they are just too occupied and preoccupied to sit in a room and read. They may be cosseted, chauffeured about, and so on, but their daily lives are full of meetings, and hectic busyness, and travelling hither and yon, and getting someone above to "sign off" on something, and coming up with "policies" that need to be formulated by consulting with everyone and his brother, and then written up in the stilted bloodless bureaucratic language which is now the favored medium—they know no other, they have never been exposed to any other—of those in the government, and who presume to instruct, and to protect us. They have to deal now with this crisis, now with that, and with every part of the world.

How can someone as mediocre as Bush, advised by someone as mediocre as Rice—people who have never had the inclination or leisure to read widely in history, or to exercise their imaginative faculty through literature—be expected to have read about Islam? Yet if you cannot imagine something, it is difficult to think about it. If you cannot imagine an islamized Western Europe, if it is simply beyond you, then you will not worry about what that would mean, and are not likely to come up with ways to avoid that completely plausible and deplorable, and entirely avoidable, future for the heart of the West.

One more thing. If leaving Iraq would, as some direly warn, cause great disruption, chaos, a "catastrophe" in the area, then why don't any of the Sunni Arab states, presumably those who would have the most to lose, bother to give any aid at all to the government of Iraq? Answer: why should they? They do not wish to shore up Shi'a who rule in Baghdad. They will, however, continue to urge the Americans to stay, in order to keep the Sunnis in Iraq supplied with guns and money and with a powerful protector that will pressure the Shi'a to make concessions, and concessions—and the Americans will, listening gravely to the advice of rulers of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other small sheikdoms, fall for it, not realizing how they are being suckered.

And if leaving Iraq would, as some direly warn, lead to terrible disruptions in the supply of oil (during the Iran-Iraq War, that lasted for eight years, there was little disruption and the price of oil went steadily down), then why aren't other oil-consuming nations concerned? Why hasn't China lifted a finger, or spent a penny, to help promote stability and prosperity in Iraq? Could it be that the Chinese are, like the Sunni Arabs, perfectly content to watch the continuing squandering of American money, material, men, morale, happy to see us bleed ourselves, in order to do something which will benefit China and other oil-consumers as much as, perhaps more than, it will benefit the United States?

How dumb do we have to be, and for how long?

Get our troops out of Iraq. Let he chips fall where they may. Inform the public what we are really up against, Begin preparations for all-out war. Seal the ALL borders. Stop all Muslim immigration. Issue national identity cards. Begin a national rationing program for pertinent goods, especially petroleum products. Modify trading levels with China until they bulk up their safety oversights and rectify the massive trade deficit the US has been complaining about for over a decade. Tell Americans that each of us need to gird our loins with the American spirit and start acting like we've got good sense. Maybe, just maybe, candidate Ron Paul had a good idea, or two, or several.

And here's some positive news (well, the ACLU is against it, as well as all the usual suspects who are probably not quite as "law-abiding" as they would have us believe) on the defense front. The LA Times has reported that the LAPD has instituted a new anti-terrorism program that should serve as a national model for detecting suspicious activity, reporting it peer to peer and upward to the federal levels.