Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
~ Thomas Jefferson

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Taxi Cab Depressions

I am remiss in my failure to link to this person's blog, which I first read several weeks ago. It is exceptionally articulate and insightful. The main reason is sloth. The ljk keys on my laptop do not work for some reason. Do you have any idea how tough it is to choose your words in such a way as to refrain from using them? (The preceding sentence is one of the few I have written that doesn't require those keys.)

So. Read "BlacLies Matter". Go to this link and read it all. It is long, but well worth it. Then scroll down and read "The Pig Trap". You won't be sorry. These are two very important political posts which provide a good look at the current state of affairs in this country. 

After you've done that, take the time to read some of his funnier posts as well. His wit is amazing.




Tuesday, March 3, 2015

AMERICAN TRAITORS: a nuclear Iran, operated by an islamic dictatorship, chosen and supported over Israel

Obama and Kerry - indoctrinated, trained, and groomed for office by the Communist machine.

It is patently obvious by now that Obama was raised as a child by a mother, grandparents, and - more than likely - by a biological father (and possibly a molester, as he was known to have "short eyes") named Frank Marshall Davis, all of whom had dedicated communist ties. These people were demonstrably in favor of Communism over the liberty, freedom, and open market philosophy of American Republicanism (as in the American republic espoused in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, not as "Republicans" - a disease that has much in common with Democrats and the Left).

Kerry, a spoiled elitist, raised in a culture of money and privilege, apparently was targeted for Communist indoctrination also, much as was  McCain by the North Vietnamese and the Chinese during his internment in Hanoi. And, before you denigrate this statement, try judging it by Kerry's and McCain's actions, their behavior, rather than their speech, their statements. Think of the traitorous behavior and statements made by Kerry against his fellow soldiers in 'Nam, his association with that traitorous bitch Fonda. She had somewhat of an excuse, being as vaporous an airhead, an ignorant and stupid twit as she is. She obviously has an IQ somewhere significantly south of 100. (How I wish I could make her read this. This truth would absolutely infuriate the skanky bitch.)

So. We know that Obama and Kerry are both Communist indoctrinated. We know they have both willingly absorbed and committed to this indoctrination, and act according to their accepted communist beliefs. We know that they both have declared their disdain and hatred for America and what our Constitution stand for. We know for a fact that they have committed completely to the philosophy of the Left, its collectivism and hatred of the conservative support of the rights of the individual.

What we have now just had proven to us is their desire to see America destroyed. To see the American exceptionalism as a culture destroyed  by both communism and the violent death cult of islam which Obama and Kerry have both chosen in preference over the protection of this country as a republic created to support not only the rights of the individual, but a free and open market economy designed to bring about a healthy and vibrant nation.

The Prime Minister of Israel, "Bibi" Netanyahu, gave a speech today to our Congress in which he spoke to the need to stop Iran developing as a nation in possession of nuclear weapons, a nation which has repeatedly announced its intention of destroying both Israel and America.

And yet, Obama and Kerry both work to realize this stated intention of Iran and it's "religious (actually a death cult, not a true religion) dictatorship. While Israel seeks to stop Iran from realizing its nuclear ambitions, Obama and Kerry - both deserving of the punishment awarded to such deadly traitors - seek to help Iran reach the goal of being a country possessed of the very nuclear weapons it has sworn to use against both America and Israel.

These two traitors deserve the punishment of death, for assisting a country which has sworn to destroy America and its people in attaining that goal. And, yes, I hope that the NSA and other agencies which illegally read each and every one of our private writings, as well as our open blogs, does read and make note of what I am posting here. There is no other determination that can be made other than the fact that both Obama and Kerry are traitors to America and our Constitution when they support the destruction of America, when they fail to do everything possible to protect us, but rather seek to aid our enemy in becoming able to realize the destruction of our country and our population, along with that of Israel, one of our staunchest allies.

As a blog that is so little known, so little read as mine will likely be ignored by the NSA (et al), I doubt that anything will befall me other than a moment's laughter at the thought that any agency would even pay attention to this. Nonetheless, I am willing to risk it. These two scum, these traitorous asswipes deserve the worst that could possibly happen to them. Please read this post by Allen Roth at Secure America Now:


 
Fellow Patriot,
Did you see Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech?!

Israel's leader stood strong as he spoke before a full Congress about the global dangers of a Nuclear Iran, and how does the Obama Administration react? By immediately calling his speech "no new ideas, all rhetoric." 

Yes. You read that correctly. Even after Netanyahu praised the President and the White House for America's unwavering alliance, the Executive Branch still chooses a dangerous future with Iran over our historical relationship with Israel. 

At this very moment, Secretary of State John Kerry is in Switzerland “negotiating” with the Iranians. He is working on a bad, back-door deal that will put the security of all Americans and Democracy at risk. This is unacceptable.
As Netanyahu stated, “a decade may seem like a short time in political terms, but it is the blink of an eye for the life of a nation.” Our fight to stop terrorism and its largest state sponsor needs every bit of support it can get. 
We will continue to stand with Israel, the only true ally of America in the Middle East. We will continue to work towards a peaceful future, one that focuses on the security of the American people and denounces our enemies.
Thank you,
Allen Roth

Our Congress is populated by spineless people who refuse to act against the politicians and bureaucrats who work toward the destruction of our country as a republic. So, I envision no help from that quarter. I do not know how we can vouchsafe our country from what the Left has planned. It may be that there is no help in sight. We may have to rise up as insurgents against what the Left - currently in control - has in mind for us. Only time will tell.



Monday, March 2, 2015

Risk of death from legally owned firearms

Yes, it has been over a month since my last post. Surgery on my back and other issues has been part of the reason. Today, however, I read on another blog of the fear fostered by those who hate firearms, wherein such hoplophobes (people who are afraid of weapons) claim ridiculous, lying statistics about how many people die from firearms each year in America.

A quick search at the CDC - the Center for Disease Control, a federally funded organization which studies diseases such as the bubonic plague, ebola, and other infectious diseases - indicates that only 505 accidental deaths were caused by forearms in 2013 (the last date that data for such deaths was available on their own web site.* It should be noted that the CDC is not funded to do research on the number of gun injuries or deaths that occur. Their mandate is research concerning infectious diseases only. Their publication of statistics concerning guns is a strictly political move encouraged and allowed by the presidential administrations in control at the time. * ). The number is - of course - higher if you include intentional deaths due to firearms - such as gang-related criminal shootings, police shootings of innocent people, and suicides. Even then, the number is lower than 5000, with the majority of those being criminal shootings.



Years ago, the haters who got together to create the Brady Center for Handgun Control (which changed its name once or twice to hide what it was doing), and other leftist groups trying to make the possession of firearms illegal in our country, published completely fake, made-up, statistics for handgun injuries in the home. They claimed that handguns kept in the home were four times as likely to cause injury or death as in homes where there was no handgun present. Simple study and research proved that this statistic was a lie, that the numbers were grossly inflated by this group, in an attempt to make everyone believe their lie.

If we accept and permit the use of the number 5000 (per the CDC) as to how many deaths there were (either that year, or each year on average) due to the misuse of firearms - from either criminal misuse, police misuse (as in the shooting of innocent people), or suicide (as opposed to deaths from guns in the home, which were far fewer), we discover an interesting fact: it is either 0.125% or 0.25% the number of deaths due to medical misadventure - deaths due to mistakes made by doctors, medical staff, or hospitals. 5000 deaths as opposed to either 200,000 or 400,000, depending upon whether you accept the higher or lower figure provided by those seeking an accurate answer versus the "politically correct" answer. So, medical deaths were sat least four times more likely to kill you than a gun in the home. The exact opposite of what the Bradley cretins were claiming.

Someone - Sam Clemens (Mark Twain), was it? - said there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics". So many so-called "statistics" are made-up, totally false numbers, that quoting them almost immediately brands you as a liar, as someone trying to mislead you from the truth. Instead, let us simply say that a very small fraction of gun deaths are due to guns in the home or guns in the hands of legal gun owners. Not that even a small number is desirable, at least, but neither are deaths from any other kinds of accidents. Cars in the home kill far more people that guns in the home, by a very wide margin.

So, whether or not you like guns, own a gun, or carry a gun, it is demonstrably wrong to believe the fools who insist that they are unsafe, or responsible for so many deaths. Cars are far more likely to kill, yet they are no more inherently unsafe than guns. In fact, there are certainly far more cars unsafe due to poor maintenance than guns due to poor maintenance or construction. Even the misuse of guns is less likely to cause death than the misuse of an automobile. Consider how many more vehicles there are than guns, and how many more times cars are used than guns, and that assertion proves itself.

Training in the proper handling and use of a gun is as important as driver education. Cars being so much more dangerous than guns, and certainly responsible for far more deaths, it might be suggested that driver education should be mandatory in our high schools, and that such training be required before a driver's license can be issued. Although it is certainly encouraged and offered in many, it is not mandatory in most schools, even though most states do require passing a test demonstrating a small amount of competency in driving.

Education in the proper and safe handling of guns - especially handguns - is indeed mandatory in most states which allow concealed carry of firearms. Most states require training before they will issue a permit for concealed carry, followed by testing to indicate - again, only a small amount of - competency in use. Many states also demand training before a person can get a hunting license permitting the use of a rifle, shotgun, or handgun for hunting.

Much training in the use of either a vehicle or a firearm is often administered by a parent. Some firearm training is given by a sibling, or a friend familiar with the proper handling and use of a gun. This is as it should be. When the government gets involved in such things, the training is all too often administered by someone who is often missing the demonstrated experience that should be present. How many teachers, in any school from Kindergarten to post-doctorate college classes, has had experience in the field they teach? From math through engineering, from medicine to nuclear physics, how many professors or instructors have real-world experience in their area? It should be a requirement - if such training is a requirement for graduation with any sort of degree or diploma in the subject.

While it is probably true that many folks who own firearms do not have as much training, experience, or practice in the use of their weapon as they should, many of us who own and carry firearms daily have indeed taken the time - and paid the cost - to get training. Many of us have a good deal of experience, whether it be in safely carrying and using when hunting or practicing on a range, or through having worked in security or law enforcement positions, as peace officers, game wardens, and security personnel.

Both logic and demonstrated fact indicate that the risk of injury and death from firearms is a tiny fraction of what is claimed by anti-gun zealots. Those hoplophobes are ready and willing to lie their a**es off about the safety of owning and carrying a firearm.The risk of death is quite low, and almost non-existent if the gun owner has any training whatsoever. Especially if that gun owner has passed on his knowledge of the safe use and keeping of firearms to his wife and children.

Monday, January 26, 2015

The Gates of Vienna

As anyone who has visited this little orphaned blog already know, I have been shamefully absent for quite some time, only recently returned to make a few current posts. Just yesterday, I was reminded by the author of the widely followed WRSA (Western Rifle Shooters Association) that this is the time when another excellent blog, The Gates of Vienna - a very important blog, especially considering my dislike for all thing islamic - has a brief fund-raising drive to help keep it active. I donated (using the "Tip Jar" on their home page (http://gatesofvienna.net) and I really hope anyone who happens to read this will, too. The couple that run the blog are good people, and are committed to making the blogosphere aware of the threat to Western civilization that is islam.

Allow me to remind you that I refuse to capitalize names and words that I don't respect.

The Gates of Vienna refers to the battle, in 1683, when Jan Sobieski, the king of Poland, joined forces with Leopold, the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, and defeated the Turkish Ottoman Empire, muslims seeking to rule the whole of Europe. For quite a few reasons, some of which can be read here , the Ottoman Empire had been successful at taken large bites out of the Holy Roman Empire and also of those parts of Europe which were separate.

While much of Europe was playing the game that modern-day Europe - and to a lesser extent, our government here in America - is playing, one of appeasement, of begging for a negotiated peace from the muslims, each country hoping to be the last to be "eaten" (by riots, terrorism, and demographic jihad today as opposed to the open warfare they faced back then), Jan Sobieski was bright enough to understand that appeasement simply cannot work with an ideology that demands your slavery or your death - or both.

So he allied his army with that of Leopold, along with a relatively small number of troops from Vienna itself, and this amalgamation defeated the muslims, stopping them - at the gates of Vienna. Leopold is given credit for the defeat of the Ottoman army, but it is extremely unlikely he would have fought and won, had not Sobieski brought both his troops and his willingness to enter the fray.

The authors of the blog site, The Gates of Vienna, work hard to keep us all informed of what is happening in the European clash with islam. They know that, should Europe fall, as it appears it might, it will make it incredibly more difficult for America to avoid succumbing to the forces of islam, too. America is already severely handicapped by strong Progressive forces (aided and abetted by the Democratic Party) and a President who not only favors muslims over America, islam over any other culture, but who also is extremely desirous of seeing America humbled before islam and the rest of the world.

The threat is real. As it is such a successful weapon in the Progressives' arsenal, the Left pretends the threat offered by islam is simply "conspiracy theory". Any thought or opinion they wish to discredit, they name a "conspiracy", first. To paraphrase a quote, "Those whom the Left would destroy, they first call mad."

As I have written many times already, a study of the qu'ran, the "holy" book of the muslims, of islam, tells the world very plainly what their intentions are: a Universal Caliphate where everyone is either a muslim, a slave, or dead. There is no "radical" islam, there are no "radical" muslims. There are only true, orthodox muslims, who follow the commands, the dictates of the qu'ran, the directions of the hadith. There is only islam, where there is no law, no government but sharia. Where there is no G-d but allah, and mohammed (piss be unto him) is his prophet. islam is there for everyone to see, quite plainly and honestly, right out in the open - you have only to look to ISIS/ISIL and you see islam demonstrated "in all its gory" (not glory) truth. ISIS is the distillation of the pure and true islam, as commanded by mohammed, the pedophile, the raper of nine-year-old little girls, who made up a fake religion to attract arab men into an army which was promised female slaves to rape, abuse, and sell ("war brides"), and little girls to "marry" - and then rape, abuse, and keep as chattel, as slaves to their lusts and pride.

Please do read the posts at The Gates of Vienna. In spite of what the Left will tell you, shrilly and with a full complement of lies and deception, what is posted at GOV is the frightening truth.








Monday, January 19, 2015

What the Goooood muslims think



I truly do understand the concept of not condemning an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. I don't condemn all Hispanics because of illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America. I do however, condemn those who refuse to assimilate, who use the "system" to attack our culture, to derive benefits they are not (or should not be) entitled to, or who scream hatred for gringos, like the scum of La Raza - and the "gringo" professors, social workers, and other progressives who enable and support them.
I don't condemn blacks, as there are many who don't approve of the ones who game the system, who have developed a multi-generational culture of abuse of the welfare programs, who shout about slavery as if the currently living whites are responsible and owe them recompense. I do condemn those who race-bait, play the race card, who physically attack whites at random, who teach their children to hate "whitey", who rape and steal and burn and kill.
When I write about the twisted death cult, the make-believe religion, that is islam, I do condemn the entire group. There are those - Michael Z. Williamson comes most recently to mind - who have decided I am "deranged" for holding this opinion. Why would a normal well-balanced person with a healthy mind ever think that there is a problem with muslims in general? He, and many other progressives, believe that most muslims are actually good, decent neighbors, people who would never do the nasty things the jihadis do, that ISIS does, that so many muslims in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Nigeria, Malaysia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan (pretty much everywhere muslims live) have done to non-believers and even to each other. 
These self-deluded people, who want to believe there are good muslims everywhere who only want a quiet, decent life just as the rest of us do, ignore the facts. 
It is quite simple, really. If you are a real muslim, if you believe in islam and abide by its tenets, then you are a danger to everyone who is not also a muslim. If you simply call yourself a muslim, then it is possible you might not wish to enslave and/or kill all of the non-believers in the world. But, even then, your daughters are at risk of "honor killing", of genital mutilation, wives of being stoned to death, or at least beaten and abused when they do not do exactly as their husband orders them to do.
As I wrote in my recent post "true muslims hate freedom", the "good" muslims themselves say you shouldn't call yourself a muslim if you don't follow the qu'ran. We are talking here about the quiet, "good neighbor" muslims that Michael and others claim they know. "If you are a muslim, you follow islamic rules without question," is what these muslims will tell you.
Anyone who has investigated islam with any honesty has discovered that the qu'ran and the hadith command muslims to do all of the things that ISIS is currently doing. The killing of children, the raping,  enslavement, and selling of women, the burnings, the beheadings, and all of the rest. Obama claims ISIS isn't islamic. CAIR and other propaganda arms of islam pretend that islam is "the religion of peace". How difficult can it be to see that their actions contradict their words?
Yes, there are sura which direct muslims to live in peace with non-believers. However, for those of you unfamiliar with the qu'ran or what many of those who have studied islam and the qu'ran have written about it, there is a process in islam called abrogation. Basically, it means that parts of the qu'ran that are written later than earlier parts supersede those earlier writings. Even if they appear in the qu'ran before the earlier writings (it was not written in chronological order). So, while mohammed (piss be unto him) wrote at one time that allah commanded the faithful to be tolerant of other religions, tolerant of those who did not believe in islam, later he wrote that muslims must "strike the necks of unbelievers". That they should be killed.
When the qu'ran speaks of mercy, of charity, and other things that appear peaceful and compassionate, it is referring to dealing with believers, not non-believers. It admonishes muslims to stay apart from non-believers, to not befriend them. Now, obviously, some of them are quite friendly. However, these are people who - although they identify as muslims - really aren't muslims. They may still pray six times daily, prostrating themselves toward Mecca. They may still eat the proper foods and avoid those that are not. They may do other things that muslims are supposed to do, but if they do not follow most of the islamic rules the qu'ran demands that they follow, by their own "religion" they are not muslims, they are apostates, and the qu'ran command true muslims to kill them.
I contend that these people raised in the islamic culture but not truly believing islam, are not really muslims. As I've mentioned before in other posts, there are those who are lying, being deceptive, and are indeed true believers, but do not want non-believers to know. Further, based on what we see when they gather in the streets to celebrate the deaths of Jews. of Israelis, when they celebrate the deaths of American military, when they celebrate the fall of the Twin Towers (as they continue to do on the anniversaries of that obscenity) I contend that the majority of muslims are indeed true, orthodox muslims.
True, orthodox muslims are not fit to co-exist with the rest of us. They don't want to co-exist with the rest of us. Most of them, in all of the countries in the world where muslims live (but especially where they predominate, as in the Middle East and Malaysia), they wish to enslave and/or kill infidels, anyone who does not believe in islam and will not submit to islam (the literal translation of islam is "submission"). 
There is nothing that is good in orthodox islam. Any people who cling to it - including all of the muslims Westerners claim to be goooood muslims - are a threat. Any of them who wish to assimilate with us, who actually wish to co-exist with us, need to renounce islam for the obscene death cult that it is. They need to renounce "honor" killing of their daughters and sons who choose to assimilate, dress "Western", have a boyfriend or girlfriend who is not muslim. They need to renounce genital mutilation of their infant daughters (and don't whine to me about circumcision. Men who aren't circumcised have a much higher rate of infection and cancer, so there is a health basis beyond the cultural/religious reasons for it. Besides it does not deprive those who have been circumcised of feeling pleasure during sex, which is the intent of female genital mutilation). They need to renounce  the "marriage" of nine-year-old female children to adults, along with the rape of those children once they are "married". There are so many nasty, savage, disgusting practices required of those who follow islam that I cannot understand how a mentally healthy adult could wish to belong to that cult. Or how any mentally healthy adult would wish to be friends with a true muslim. (Listening Michael?)
So, if you want to be friends with Jamal, who just slashed the vulva of his three day old daughter with a razor blade to remove her clitoris so that she will not be able to take pleasure from sex, if you want to be friends with Fatima, who says it is right for muslim males to make sex slaves out of infidel women (who muslims wives will then beat and otherwise abuse when they become part of the household), if you want to help Mohammed rape his new nine year old "bride", you are as sick as they are. If you trust all of the "good" muslims, take a walk in the ghettos of Paris, in the muslim neighborhoods of England, Denmark, Netherlands, and even here in parts of America. Go have a nice visit with Boko Haram in Nigeria. See how well your muslim friends treat you when they are in the majority and don't have to keep up appearances, when they live where the cops refuse to go. See if the "good" muslims will run out to save your sorry ass when the real muslims come out to "strike your neck". I'll gladly pay your air fare. And I'll chuckle when I hear of your fate.
[Note: for those who are somewhat put off by my paraphrase "piss be unto him", I write that solely for the few muslims who might read these posts. Perhaps it is childish, but I admit to taking some enjoyment from the thought of either a true muslim or a muslim apologist reading that phrase. Sue me.]

islam can't take a joke

I've been horribly slack about keeping up this blog. I'm convinced no one actually reads it, so I have to force myself to post anything. However, since I am a poster child for islamaphobia (as in an aversion to, not a fear of), the recent massacre in "Gay Paris" at Charlie Hebdo has moved me enough to write.

An exceeding bright, witty, and charming individual who is also an incredibly talented author (Francis Porretto is easily recognizable by that description :-) whose fiction I have read and re-read several times over, and still enjoy going back for more) wrote a post on his own very well-followed blog named "Liberty's Torch". It wasn't a long post, but it was significant enough that I will re-post it here:

Day Off...Mostly

Inasmuch as I’ll be having some extensive oral surgery in a few hours, I was planning simply to 
announce a day off fromLiberty’s Torch. What actually happened was a powerful lesson about 
President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism
          community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack 
          against the nation’s defense forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.
“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are                     necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform”                  whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters               at the White House’s daily briefing.
Clearly, despite all my efforts I don’t catch every important development just as it develops. 
Obama’s willingness to pressure media outlets, to quit defending First Amendment rights and also                 to mollify jihadis, reflects Obama’s overall policy of minimizing conflict with militant Islam.Throughout his presidency, Obama has tried to shift the public’s focus away from the jihadi threat           toward his domestic priorities.
He also repeatedly praised Islam and Muslims, and criticized criticism of Islam. “The future must                 not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” he told a worldwide TV audience during a      September 2012 speech at the United Nations.
It’s always been clear that Obama favors Islam over American interests and the Western code of justice.                  What’s now all too apparent is that he’s resolved to destroy the right to free expression for that reason.
Why not? Freedom of expression is a thorn in Obama’s flesh. This isn’t just consistent with his pro-Islam                  personal views; it’s also a perfect entering wedge for politically motivated censorship and manipulation of                        the media. It will provide him with a rationale for taking control of the Internet, for putting government                        “advisors” – armed, no doubt – into the editorial departments of major media organs, and for demanding                       “equal time” from any such organ that dares to act other than in accordance with his wishes.
There can be only one answer to this, short of forcibly evicting this pretender from the White House and                decorating a prominent District of Columbia lamppost with his remains. Every American with any public                      voice, no matter how small, must immediately raise it in the strongest possible act of defiance


 Here’s Your Prophet Muhammad, Obama,
You Camel-Fellating Fairy:




Let hell come to breakfast. It’s time and past time. Now if you’ll excuse me, I should let my blood pressure                    drop a bit before I go under the knife.

Now, back to my own contribution to Fran's topic. Obama's ridiculously obvious lie that he is concerned
about our troops (which he and that ugly, steatopygous pretend-wife of his both actually hate with a passion)
 is simply a blatant attempt to deny freedom of speech where islam and muslims are concerned. Just as he
claimed an obscure youtube video was responsible for the deaths at Benghazi.

People such as Fran and others (and myself) who speak out in lurid terms about this vile creature may well
be at risk of damage by .gov for what we post.  Part of me thinks the folks at NSA who bother to read what
even well-read blogs such as Fran's post will simply laugh their asses off and otherwise ignore it. Realizing
how many progressives have become employed by .gov, however, it is very possible that there are folks
working at NSA (or whoever else is perusing our email and blogs) who will "feel" outraged by our
comments, and may pass it on to IRS or other "organs of the State" which will then do us harm.

I'm an old, infirm individual who has nothing to lose but whatever few additional years I have been allotted.
I wouldn't mind finishing my time upon this mortal coil in peace and quiet. Nonetheless, I would, if attacked,
choose to "not go gentle into that good night." If - as is likely - I could not access my tormentors, I imagine
there are other .gov drones closer by who could be accessed. I do possess several hundred hours of flight
time in rotorcraft and fixed wing, I'm pretty well dialed-in at 600 yards with the 7.62x51, and have been an
admirer of Kurt Saxon for many years now.

So, as another man I greatly admired has said, "Let hell come to breakfast." I have tilted at various windmills
all of my life, often to my detriment (big surprise ;-) I don't mean to stop now, just because I'm old and weak.
My pathetic little un-read blog here is more for my own entertainment, and a way to blow off some of the
anger, rage even, that our "elite" leaders and our arrogant bureaucrats engender in my heart and soul.
However, if the scum in the White House, Congress, or the various other agencies in our government wish
to punish little, insignificant me, I hope they understand it may not be done without consequence, not matter
how small or insignificant that may seem to those who initiate the dispute.








Saturday, January 17, 2015

true muslims hate freedom

Earlier this evening, I wrote a post in which I mentioned "good" muslims, who so many people think are in the majority. I have tried to explain in the past the fact that many muslims practice taqqiya and kitman, forms of lying and deception that are expected of muslims, encouraged by the qu'ran and hadith. Taqqiya is lying and deception by saying that which isn't true, whereas kitman is lying and deception by omission, leaving out the truth, or telling only the part that helps the liar. With kitman there is no "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". And allah - per mohammed, his prophet (piss be unto him)  - says this is acceptable behavior for a muslim dealing with unbelievers.

I just ran across a post on the DaleyGator blog site that I want to re-post here. It concerns the fact that many muslims - including your good neighbors who prove to you by their behavior that islam is not so bad - believe freedom, liberty, is a sin. That is goes against the words of the prophet mohammed (piss be unto him). That it goes against what the qu'ran tells all muslims they must do.

So, here a female former muslim, raised in the islamic culture, speaks with some gooood muslim women, the kind you've met who seem calm and caring, just plain good folks. muslims who would never hurt a fly, let alone you or your family, or any of the other infidels out there. You know, the unbelievers that the qu'ran demands all muslims either enslave or kill? The people that muslims are ordered to "strike their necks", as in beheading? Let them tell you themselves how they feel about freedom, and whether or not they can ignore the qu'ran:


DO MANY WESTERN MUSLIMS CONSIDER LIBERTY A SIN?


Writing in The Independent, Yasmin Alibhai Brown, says they do
Things get even more complex when you think about freedom and Muslims. Muslims living in the Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia or Turkey have no freedom to say what they think about the political system or the faith. Turkey imprisons more journalists than any other nation. Iran is the second-worst country for journalists and bloggers. In Pakistan people are tortured for blasphemy – often false charges trumped up to keep people in line.
Last Friday in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Raif Badawi was dragged out of prison in shackles, brought in front of the mosque and flogged 50 times for “insulting Islam”. Imagine the scene: worshippers who had just finished praying to a merciful God then watched the merciless punishment. This will happen every week until he has been lashed a 1,000 times. He will also spend 10 long years in a Saudi prison. His body and mind will thus be shredded. Badawi, an activist, had started a website, the Liberal Saudi Network, and shared some of his perfectly reasonable views. For that he had to be punished so severely that no one would ever try to do the same again.
In Pakistan, Afghanistan, most central Asian states, Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Libya, even “liberated” Iraq, people know they must not say what they think about their rulers or their imams, not even to neighbours or friends. The only choice is to conform and live, keep your boiling thoughts locked in your own head. Imagine the psychological consequences.
This supports my belief that maybe we should start referring to Radical Muslims as Totalitarians. Surely such a title fits, as they wish to control, and control totally, the lives, words, and deeds of everyone under their control. And, as the author of this piece points out, many Western Muslims who have the blessings of liberty, reject it
Large numbers of Western Muslims are disturbed by the rights and liberties they have inherited and sometimes reject them. Meanwhile Muslims who have never known real freedom yearn for, indeed die to get those same liberties and human rights. That gap between Muslims who have and don’t want and those who crave and can’t have grows bigger all the time. For too many British Muslims, familiarity breeds contempt for freedom. They talk about it not as a priceless entitlement but a peril, out-of-control hedonism and lasciviousness – as a sin. I find that deplorable.
After my book Refusing the Veil came out last year, some female Muslim acquaintances organised a soiree for me to read from it and discuss its contents. These were reasonable, educated women. Here are some of the comments made:
“Why did you have to write this; who gave you permission?”
“Even to think these thoughts is wrong, and you go and publish them? If you were in a Muslim country you would be in jail.”
“If your mother was alive she would have slapped you for writing this.”
When I replied that my mother refused the veil when she was 22, the woman came back: “Then I feel sorry for you. She was the sinner and she made you one too.”
“OK I have not read the book because it will dirty my pure thoughts, but if you are a Muslim, you follow Islamic rules without question. Are you even a Muslim?”
Go read the rest, it is disturbing, and sheds light on the very dark truth about Islam. Is Islam more about control than about anything else? It seems that way in too many cases. And, in truth, it is only Muslims that can change these realities. That so many are either too afraid, or too deeply indoctrinated by the teachings of radical Islam will make that very difficult.


So, there you have it. If you are a muslim, you follow islamic rules without question. That means ISIS must indeed be islamic. They certainly follow the commands of mohammed, the commands of the qu'ran and hadith. And, the lady openly implied that if you do not follow the islamic rules, you are not a muslim.

There is a fellow, a good author who I think is a libertarian (based on his books, anyway) named Michael Z. Williamson. I had a great deal of respect for him until, just a couple of days ago, I mentioned on Oleg Volk's blog site that ISIS was the perfect example of pure, orthodox islamic behavior. That the muslims in ISIS are following orthodox islam, to the letter - beheading ("strike their necks") killing Christians, beheading children, taking non-muslim women as "war brides" (mohammed told them it was OK) to use as sex slaves, or to sell like so much baggage, as what use to be called "war booty", back when pillaging was a way of life, and a way vandals and goths and mongols and all the other savages would finance their raiding and conquest. Rape and pillage were accepted back then, and muslims say it's what the qu'ran commands them to do even now, in the 21st century.

Well, I lost respect for Williamson, when, instead of arguing the point like an adult, he decided making an ad hominem attack was more fun, saying I was deranged. He claims that most muslims are great people, good neighbors, just that there are a nasty few "radical" muslims who give islam a bad name. I certainly didn't expect that sort of response from an apparent libertarian, but perhaps his libertarian tendencies are actually more at the liberal end of the spectrum than the conservative end. I think a lot of "Big-L" libertarians actually are. I never would have guessed he would side with Obama, claiming that most muslims are actually good people, and that the bad ones don't really follow islam.

Anyone who has paid attention, who has read the qu'ran and the hadith, or even just had the relevant sura from the qu'ran and examples and lessons from the hadith pointed out to them can see that it is the bad muslims, the violent, lying, raping, child molesting, killing muslims who actually are the true muslims, who follow the qu'ran and do what the prophet (piss be unto him) command them to do. The rest - the quiet, well-behaved, the "bring them home to meet mother" muslims are actually apostates, renegades who refuse to follow the qu'ran. Not in a simple, oh, I won't eat fish this Friday or I'll use birth control (Catholics), or I'll just have a couple of cups of coffee and a cigarette (LDS), kind of mis-behavior, but in the refusal to do the major things they are commanded to do: to avoid unbelievers, to refuse to socialize with them, to genitally mutilate their female children, to kill the infidels around them.

Sure, you say, if they did some of those things, they would go to jail, or at the very least be shunned, ostracized. That is where we get back to taqqiya and kitman. It is all right for them to hide their muslims culture and true beliefs from unbelievers. It is all right for them to socialize and act friendly. It has been noted in many other countries, though, that once there are enough "good" muslims in an area or community (think of the ghettos around Paris, where even the cops and firemen do not go), the mask comes off, and they show their true muslim behavior.


Look at their behavior in France and in England where there are communities with many thousands of muslims living in enclaves. Think of the honor killings of young muslim girls, the genital mutilation of infant girl children, the gang-rapes of non-muslim girls, who are then forced onto drugs and groomed to be used as prostitutes or to be passed around as sexual slaves amongst a bunch of muslim men. These things are all real, documented, and have even broken through into the MSM (which does its best to ignore such things).

The good muslims are mostly a myth. Oh, I realize there are a few who don't really follow the qu'ran but still identify as muslims. But any true muslim - like the lady in the article above - knows that they really aren't muslims, even if they came from a muslim family and culture and claim to be muslims. And the qu'ran - knowing them to be untrue to islam - says they are apostate and must be killed. islam hates "former" muslims even more so than infidels.

islam needs to be wiped out. Any of the muslims that refuse to stop being savages, who refuse to stop killing, raping, child molesting and the rest - basically, those who refuse to recant their muslim belief - need to go out along with the death cult that masquerades as a religion: islam. If they are willing to be kept in Coventry, sequestered on an island, for example, and made to remain there where they cannot hurt or damage anyone but themselves, I can see allowing them to do so - although I dread to think of the suffering of their wives and the children that they bear and raise in that diseased culture.

islam must be stopped once more. Not just at the Gates of Vienna, but everywhere they exist on this planet.