Archive for category Opinion

Slouching towards jihad

Peter Heck:

“Let me ask a hypothetical question: would you vote for someone who ran on the platform of obliterating U.S. sovereignty, discarding the U.S. Constitution, subjugating women, and executing homosexuals and all non-adherents to an established national religion?

George Washington wrote, “By an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendents, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.”

Unfortunately, in the name of political correctness, we are trampling this very notion of unity in deference to the sacred cow of “diversity.”  No clearer can this tragic reality be witnessed than in our developing societal embrace of Islam.

Unlike other religions, Islam is simultaneously a religious and a political order.  It seeks a state-imposed caliphate…a theocratic regime that orders allegiance to Islamic law.  Those are the expectations of anyone who follows the Koran.

When Dr. Daniel Shayesteh (the former co-founder of the Islamic terror group Hezbollah) appeared on my radio program, I asked him whether true adherents to Islam could peacefully assimilate into American culture and embrace constitutional law and order.

He responded, “It is impossible for a person who follows Mohammed and says, ‘I am a Muslim’ and follows the instruction of the Koran to align himself with other laws and cultural values.  That’s impossible, because everything other than Islamic culture and principle is evil.”

That chilling admission should set off warning bells.  Yet, despite this plainly stated position, Americans continue to suffer the foolishness of political correctness that tells us we should celebrate the growth of Islam here in America.”

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1049486

No Comments

AK-47 vs AR-15, by Nutnfancy

Helpful video series by Nutnfancy comparing the strengths/weaknesses, benefits/liabilities of the AR-15 and the AK-47

No Comments

A Primer on Situational Awareness

This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR

By Scott Stewart

The world is a wonderful place, but it can also be a dangerous one. In almost every corner of the globe militants of some political persuasion are plotting terror attacks — and these attacks can happen in London or New York, not just in Peshawar or Baghdad. Meanwhile, criminals operate wherever there are people, seeking to steal, rape, kidnap or kill.

Regardless of the threat, it is very important to recognize that criminal and terrorist attacks do not materialize out of thin air. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Criminals and terrorists follow a process when planning their actions, and this process has several distinct steps. This process has traditionally been referred to as the “terrorist attack cycle,” but if one looks at the issue thoughtfully, it becomes apparent that the same steps apply to nearly all crimes. Of course, there will be more time between steps in a complex crime like a kidnapping or car bombing than there will be between steps in a simple crime such as purse-snatching or shoplifting, where the steps can be completed quite rapidly. Nevertheless, the same steps are usually followed.

People who practice situational awareness can often spot this planning process as it unfolds and then take appropriate steps to avoid the dangerous situation or prevent it from happening altogether. Because of this, situational awareness is one of the key building blocks of effective personal security — and when exercised by large numbers of people, it can also be an important facet of national security. Since situational awareness is so important, and because we discuss situational awareness so frequently in our analyses, we thought it would be helpful to discuss the subject in detail and provide a primer that can be used by people in all sorts of situations. Read the rest of this entry »

, ,

No Comments

Thin blue line

San Francisco cop: “There is pure evil out there. I see that evil a lot.”

No Comments

No mosque at Ground Zero – Pat Condell

Commentary by Pat Condell

“In case you haven’t heard, there’s a plan to build a 13 story Islamic center and mosque a few yards from ground zero in New York…is it possible to be astonished but not surprised?

Apparently it’s not enough that nearly 3,000 innocent people had to lose their lives in a hideous act of religious mass murder but now their memory has to be insulted as well, and the religion that murdered them allowed to build a towering triumphant mosque on the ground where they died.

Any religion that endorses violence is incapable of delivering spiritual enlightenment”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4

No Comments

The U.N. gun grabber

“American gun owners might not feel besieged, but they should. This week, the Obama administration announced its support for the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. This international agreement poses real risks for freedom both in the United States and around the world by making it more difficult – if not outright illegal – for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

This U.N. treaty will lead to more gun control in America. “After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms,” former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton warns. “The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.”

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty opens a back door for the Obama administration to force through gun control regulations. Threats to the Second Amendment are as real today as ever.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/27/the-un-gun-grabber/

No Comments

Why Carrying a Gun is a Civilized Act

Why The Gun Is Civilization

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

,

1 Comment

The Marines

Mr. Victor Davis Hanson has a nice write-up of the Marines over at the Patriot Post. Here is an excerpt:

Over the last two centuries, two truths have emerged about the Marine Corps. One, they defeat the toughest of America’s adversaries under the worst of conditions. And two, periodically their way of doing things — and their eccentric culture of self-regard — so bothers our military planners that some higher-ups try either to curb their independence or end the Corps altogether.

Full article

, , , , ,

No Comments

Home of Swedish cartoonist attacked

“The home of a Swedish artist who once drew a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad as a dog has been hit by a suspected arson attack, police said Saturday.

Lars Vilks, who lives in Nyhamnslage in southern Sweden, was not at home during the attack late Friday night and no one was reported injured.

It was the latest in a week of attacks on the 53-year-old cartoonist, who was assaulted Tuesday by a man while he lectured at a university and saw his Web site apparently attacked by hacker on Wednesday.”

My favorite comment on this story: “If you think that tea baggers and religious conservatives are the enemy, but come up with excuses why muslims are justified in their rage over cartoons, you have no ability to think rationally.”

I’m not making any judgment on tea baggers or religious conservatives, but I find it curious how selective humans can be with their outrage.

And so, now, everyone will be afraid to express anything that might upset these people?

http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx/world/0/APNews/General-World-News/20100515/U_EU-Sweden-Prophet-Drawing?pageid=1

No Comments

“The key to freedom is the ability to defend yourself”

“If you don’t have the tools to do that, then you are at the mercy of whoever wants to put you away.” – Marc Heim, Swiss citizen

No Comments

Army Exercise Targets Tea Party as Terrorists

From: The Patriot Post

This week, I was contacted by a number of military personnel, enlisted and officer ranks, who expressed concern about a military exercise underway at Ft. Knox, the U.S. Bullion Depository. As with most such exercises, the Ft. Knox alert occurred in stages, as if real time intelligence was being provided at various intervals.

The first intel advisory was issued on Friday, 23 April 2010, and identifies the terrorist threat adversaries as “Local Militia Groups / Anti-Government Protesters / TEA Party.”

You read that right: “TEA Party”!

Tea Party Terrorist?

Tea Party Terrorist?

The alert states that plans for the demonstration may have been interrupted by “Federal and local law enforcement” raids on a “White Supremacists Organization,” but “TEA Party organizers have stated that they will protest at the Gold Vault at a future date.”

… Further, the intel advisory states, “Anti-Government – Health Care Protesters have stated that they would join the TEA Party as a sign of solidarity.”

… As one put it, the exercise “misrepresents freedom loving Americans as drunken, violent racists — the opponents of Obama’s policies have been made the enemy of the U.S. Army.”

They were equally concerned that command staff at Ft. Knox had signed off on this exercise, noting, “it has been issued and owned by field grade officers who lead our battalions and brigades,” which is to say many Lieutenant Colonels saw this order before it was implemented.

… One officer insisted, “The American people should require greater accountability of their commissioned officers, that they abide by their oath and never allow politically motivated propaganda like this exercise on any post or base again.”

Another observed, “Whether this is complacency by officers who do not see such orders as a problem, or worse, officers who recognize the problem but do not insist the orders are changed, this is a serious problem. We are discussing the training of American citizen soldiers in the use of potentially deadly force against a specific group of political dissenters. There is never a time in an officer’s career in which he does not have a duty to apply critical thought to the orders he is given and asked to give. It is my opinion that any officer that has allowed these orders to persist, to reach the level of junior officers and soldiers, has demonstrated a lack of judgment or apathy towards what his duty requires of him. Either way, we should demand more of the commissioned officers, who we as a nation empower to lead our sons and daughters into battle.”

Read more

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Firearm Network News

Firearmnews.net

, ,

No Comments

I miss John Wayne

From: Peggy Noonan Oct 12, 2001

…manliness wins wars. Strength and guts plus brains and spirit wins wars. But also, you know what follows manliness? The gentleman. The return of manliness will bring a return of gentlemanliness, for a simple reason: masculine men are almost by definition gentlemen. Example: If you’re a woman and you go to a faculty meeting at an Ivy League University you’ll have to fight with a male intellectual for a chair, but I assure you that if you go to a Knights of Columbus Hall, the men inside (cops, firemen, insurance agents) will rise to offer you a seat. Because they are manly men, and gentlemen.

It is hard to be a man. I am certain of it; to be a man in this world is not easy. I know you are thinking, But it’s not easy to be a woman, and you are so right. But women get to complain and make others feel bad about their plight. Men have to suck it up. Good men suck it up and remain good-natured, constructive and helpful; less-good men become the kind of men who are spoofed on “The Man Show”–babe-watching, dope-smoking nihilists. (Nihilism is not manly, it is the last refuge of sissies.)

I should discuss how manliness and its brother, gentlemanliness, went out of style. I know, because I was there. In fact, I may have done it. I remember exactly when: It was in the mid-’70s, and I was in my mid-20s, and a big, nice, middle-aged man got up from his seat to help me haul a big piece of luggage into the overhead luggage space on a plane. I was a feminist, and knew our rules and rants. “I can do it myself,” I snapped.

It was important that he know women are strong. It was even more important, it turns out, that I know I was a jackass, but I didn’t. I embarrassed a nice man who was attempting to help a lady. I wasn’t lady enough to let him. I bet he never offered to help a lady again. I bet he became an intellectual, or a writer, and not a good man like a fireman or a businessman who says, “Let’s roll.”

But perhaps it wasn’t just me. I was there in America, as a child, when John Wayne was a hero, and a symbol of American manliness. He was strong, and silent. And I was there in America when they killed John Wayne by a thousand cuts. A lot of people killed him–not only feminists but peaceniks, leftists, intellectuals, others. You could even say it was Woody Allen who did it, through laughter and an endearing admission of his own nervousness and fear. He made nervousness and fearfulness the admired style. He made not being able to deck the shark, but doing the funniest commentary on not decking the shark, seem . . . cool.

But when we killed John Wayne, you know who we were left with. We were left with John Wayne’s friendly-antagonist sidekick in the old John Ford movies, Barry Fitzgerald. The small, nervous, gossiping neighborhood commentator Barry Fitzgerald, who wanted to talk about everything and do nothing.

This was not progress. It was not improvement.

I missed John Wayne.

more

No Comments

The Real Gun Guys

Real Gun Guys Blog

, , , ,

No Comments

How to Disarm America

This from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette is an oldie but goody. I like to trot this one out from time to time when people ask me “why so much politics”,  “Why do you feel the need to post and re-post every little political blurb about guns and the Constitution“? There is even a pretty good gun website where right on the home page banner it says ” No Politics, Just Guns”. Wouldn’t it be great if we didn’t have to worry about our freedoms? But if that was the case we wouldn’t need Sheepdogs or Warriors.  I could spend a lot more time drinking Scotch and smoking cigars and less time scouring the Internet and Old Media looking for the next threat vector. Until that day, we remain as always.  Now here from 2007:

Disarm America? Here’s how
We’re swamped with guns, but if we want to get rid of them, there is a way to do it
Sunday, April 29, 2007

The tragedy at Virginia Tech, with a mentally disturbed person gunning down 32 of America’s finest — intelligent working people with futures ahead of them — puts once again into focus for Americans the phenomenon of an armed society.

Dan Simpson, a retired U.S. ambassador, is a Post-Gazette associate editor (dsimpson@post-gazette.com).

The likely underestimate of how many guns are wandering around America runs at 240 million in a population of about 300 million. What was clear at Virginia Tech is that at least two of those guns were in the wrong hands.When people talk about doing something about guns in America, one of the points that comes to the fore is, “How could America disarm even if it wanted to? There are so many guns out there.” Today I want to address the question of “how” — if we decided to. Since I have little or no power to influence the “if” part of the issue, I will stick with “how.” Read the rest of this entry »

, , ,

No Comments