This is unbelievable. Join the Army. "Ride" a camel.

I just came across a site which states that the NDAA - the National Defense Authorization Act, an incredibly vile attack upon our country and our Constitution, which permits the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, representation, or any redress - has sections in it which are difficult to believe. Remember, this legislation was approved by 93 to 7 in the Senate, and 283 to 136 in the House.

The bill contains a provision which removes any punishment for military infractions of sodomy or bestiality.

I. SHIT. YOU. NOT.

Now, there are those who may say this is because of the fact that "don't ask, don't tell" and the discouragement of gay sexuality in the military has been deemed unacceptable. I suppose if you are going to have gay men in the military, there must be some thought given to how you are going to deal with sodomy, since that is their standard mode of sexual interaction, or so I have been told.

Frankly, when I was in the Navy, we were able to keep it in our pants until we got out on leave or liberty, and then found appropriate female company with which to interact. We didn't have access to many female sailors back when I served, so that wasn't an issue. I don't know how they keep them apart these days. But the few gay guys we had in uniform back then - the few we were aware of, anyway - kept it in their pants until they were off on leave or liberty.

So, my first thought was, OK, this is so they don't have to court martial every swinging Richard who engages in such behavior off-duty, although it is unlikely they would be surveilled simply to catch them out (or "in", as the case may be). Unfortunately, it also protects those caught slipping into their "buddy's" rack when they are on base or on board a ship, or what have you. That is not so good.

But where does the bestiality enter into it? Then the light appeared: muslim in the military. We know from our dealings with the Pakis especially - ask any soldiers or Marines you know who have returned from duty in Pakistan, or Afghanistan - muslim troops prefer sodomizing each other over having sex with women, including their wives. As the saying over there goes, "Women are for making babies. Boys are for pleasure."

Our Army and Marine officers have been told to look the other way. "Different cultures", they are told, "We musn't offend our hosts" and other such tripe. While the muslim troops have a go at each other in the barracks they have been assigned to bunk in. Back in the sixties we used to say "Different strokes for different folks", but this might be carrying that just a little too far, don't you think?

But bestiality? Sure. Who hasn't seen the famous YouTube nightvision video of a muslim having sex with a donkey? I've been told by returning soldiers I had on my ward at the VA hospital I worked at that sex with donkeys and goats was valued higher than sex with wives, although in truth much of the bestiality is more likely due to the proscription against muslims having sex with a woman they are not married to, while there is no sin in islam for having sex with an animal, nor with a boy. That's right, islam says homosexuality doesn't count if the partner is a boy instead of a male adult. There is a term for "beardless boys", Bacha Bereesh, and they are permissible for having sex. I've posted on this before, here is the source.

So, we have a win-win situation here for the "Obama Loves islam" carnival in progress. We encourage open homosexual behavior in the military by removing any possibility of punishment, and we set up the military for the addition of as many muslims as our muslim-loving President wishes to bring aboard, from the thousands who have been approved for, and assisted in, immigrating to this country, from Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, by this administration. Since most of our gay servicemen aren't into bestiality, this is the only reason that makes sense to me.

Perhaps if Major Nidal Hassan had been provided with his own donkey he wouldn't have felt the need to kill and/or wound all of those soldiers at Fort Hood.

Islam agrees. Khomeini's Teachings on sex with infants and animals here hat tip Michael

Islamic Teachings on sex with infants:

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."

The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in "Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom"

Islamic Teachings on sex with animals:

"The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man. In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold."

Editor's notes: I wonder if it is OK to sodomize a dead animal? What happens if the buyer brings the poor animal back into the city?

"If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned, and the price of it paid to its owner by him who sodomized it."

Editor's note: The poor animal first is sodomized and then killed and burned. What an Islamic justice towards animals? Where are the animal
rights groups?

"It is forbidden to consume the excrement of animals or their nasal secretions. But if such are mixed in minute proportions into other foods their consumption is not forbidden."

"If a man (God protect him from it!) fornicates with an animal and ejaculates, ablution is necessary."

Editor's note: It does not say who should have ablution: the animal or the man?

"A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine."

From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh". More here

An excellent essay: Support and Defend

I came across a blog today by a man named Dave Hunter, named simply "Thoughts Aloud". He wrote a post titled "Support and Defend", alluding to the oath he took back during the Vietnam Era when he joined the Army - just as I took back then, when I joined the Navy - to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. It contains a superbly written explanation of the difference between the representative republic we started out as being when our country was first formed after gaining our independence from England and the democracy that we have been "Hope-a-doped" and Changed into during the last 150 years of our history. Here is the pertinent section:

The essential difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy is that a republic enshrines protection for the rights of individuals and minorities in its constitution, protecting them from the whim of the majority; while a democracy is essentially mob rule, where the collective can utilize the coercive power of government to impose their will on individuals and minorities. Republics employ “representatives” to defend citizens’ interests from the natural inclination of government functionaries to overreach limited authority; the rights of the individual are paramount. Democracies select “leaders” with grandiose “visions” to utilize the coercive power of government to impose their model of an ideal society on others, the welfare of the collective is paramount.

Those of us old enough to have studied American History back before the Progressives invented “Social Studies,” understand that our Founders formed a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The notion that it would ever be empowered to violate the property rights of a minority, at the whim of the majority, and confiscate the earnings of industrious citizens for redistribution among the indolent, would have been anathema to them. These proud representatives of our self-sufficient pioneering stock considered charity, and such “social engineering” by nosey busybodies as they might have tolerated, to be within the purview of the church, not a coercive Federal government.

Our Constitution was not designed as a plaything for pandering demagogues to act out their altruistic Robin Hood fantasies. Government functionaries at all levels were meant to be servants of the people, with their activities closely monitored and regulated by the people – not the other way around. It only established a federation of thirteen individual sovereign states, as a combination free trade agreement (think European Union) and mutual defense pact (think NATO). Unrestrained commerce, sound money, and international relations were what was foremost on our Founders’ minds as they debated how best to govern themselves as a nation – not regulating the activities of individual citizens, whom they regarded as the true sovereigns in their classical liberal view of Natural Law. By design, the power of the Federal government to interfere in the affairs of its constituent states was extremely limited. Its ability to interfere in the routine daily lives of their citizens was virtually nonexistent.

As inspired as the Constitutional Convention’s work product was, Patriots freshly shed of the tyranny of a monarch routinely violating their Natural Rights as freemen, were mistrustful of surrendering any of their hard-won sovereignty to another distant and powerful central government (just as Patriots today balk at the Progressive NWO agenda for surrendering our sovereignty to a global government). Thus, several of the states refused to ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was included. This was to make damn sure the Federal government they were agreeing to join understood that its powers were strictly limited to only those specifically enumerated, and the Natural Rights of its citizens would remain forever inalienable.

The resultant federation of individually sovereign states worked splendidly for nearly 100 years, as unfettered and productive sovereign citizens were empowered to flourish in a relatively safe free-trade zone with sound money. Admittedly, the basic nature of our government began unraveling with the Civil War, and was effectively eviscerated by the Progressive atrocities committed in 1913, our darkest year (Amendments 16 & 17, and the Federal Reserve Act). Still, thoughtful students of our true history cannot be faulted for pining for a return of the halcyon days of our nation’s youth, when individual opportunity trumped collective victimhood for industrious citizens. Only the numbed minds of the easily deluded could consider the pernicious slide back into serfdom offered by the collectivists, as anything even approaching “progress.”

I reckon our Constitution, if it has any meaning at all as the supreme law of the land, must mean precisely what our Founders intended it to mean at the time they penned it, except as duly amended. Since the process for amending it is clearly prescribed, I utterly reject the notion of a “Living Constitution” that can be capriciously modified by creative “interpretations” of partisan judicial activists, to give the government powers to meddle in our daily lives they clearly were never meant to have.

They are our employees, dammit, not our rulers. As a sovereign citizen, I owe no respect or allegiance to judicial fiat, and no duty to obey any statutes, rules, or regulations common sense alone would deem unconstitutional with regard to original intent. Born a freeman in the land of the free and the home of the brave, color me an unchained and incurably contumacious Patriot, who has had quite enough of such tomfoolery. If we somehow survive the looming Constitutional crisis, resolving this issue should be paramount in the aftermath.

Ah, but this man has got it nailed. I have relatives and friends who are so compassionate and caring toward their fellow man that they have been suckered into the collectivist mindset that the ends justify the means. That it is all right to change the meaning of the Constitution or to "interpret" it in whatever way they choose simply because it will help their fellow man. That the needs of the many overrule the rights of the few. That it is OK to steal the product of the labor of one man simply because there is another man who needs help. As Karl Marx said (and these relatives and friends are mostly ignorant of the fact that it was Marx), "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Now, I understand and believe in charity. But the followers of this "philosophy" of theft via taxes given out as entitlements are not talking about voluntary giving, voluntary charity. They are not talking about reaching down into their pocket to provide. They feel it is perfectly acceptable to reach their hands down into your pocket, whether you like it or not. And they will take a grope while they are down there, just to make sure you aren't a terrorist.

A commenter on a different blog paraphrased Marx's famous line in a clever and very appropriate manner. He wrote, "From each according to their gullability, to each according to their greed."

Anonymous

For me, the primary, most significant difference between true conservatives (screw "Republican") and liberals/"progressives" is in how they value the rights of the individual. If the group, the collective, is more important than the rights of the individual, it is liberal - not to mention Marxist/Communist/socialist (but I repeat myself). If the basic, natural rights of the individual cannot be denied or overruled simply to satisfy the needs or desires of the group, it is conservative. L=g1, i2. C=i1, g2.

The other dimension to this is personal choice: it is never, ever acceptable for the group to choose for the individual. The Left believes it is acceptable to tell the individual what he can and cannot do, what he is required to do, what he must ask permission to do. The Right (as in true conservatives) neither wants nor tries to tell an individual what he must or must not do.

If there is anyone on the Left reading this, including my relatives and/or their spouses, answer me this: if the best outcome for the country would be the election of a particular man or woman to the office of the President of the United States, would it be OK for the group to tell an individual how he or she must vote? I'm not talking election by a majority (which is still "democracy" and means the individual gets screwed when a monster like Obama is elected), but actually forcing a person to vote for someone simply because it is obvious to most people that he or she really would be the best choice?

Those who favor Obamacare, excuse me, the Affordable Care Act, would mark this box a big "YES". Those who supported forcing drivers to purchase automobile insurance in order to be allowed to drive would have to mark this "YES" as well, if they are going to be honest. The same with seat belts, helmets for motorcycles, and a host of other rules and laws that have come into being, all for our own good. (Logically, we would all end up wearing bubble wrap and drinking our meals from a sippy-cup, because we could not be trusted to keep ourselves safe.)

Most of the few folks who read my posts more than once are likely to be conservatives - people who want to be left alone, and who will leave others alone. Progressives, who I'm told no longer want to be labeled as liberals, want to control other people. They don't want to let you alone. They want to tell you what you can drink, what you can eat, what you can smoke, and a host of other intrusions upon your day-to-day living, as well as the general direction of your life.

That was never the intent of the people who wrote the Constitution, and especially not the people who insisted upon a Bill of Rights before they would agree to ratify the Constitution. The rights of the individual are enshrined in those documents, because "the People" never meant "the Mob". The Founders wrote, as did De Tocqueville and others, that democracy was the bane of a free man's existence.

Please read all of Dave Hunter's essay at the link above. Then honestly ask yourself how much you like it when someone else tells you what to do. Does it matter if a thousand people tell you the same thing? If you truly think that having a hundred or a thousand or a million people telling you to do the same thing makes it valid, makes it necessary to do, let me know. I will gladly buy you a one-way airline ticket to North Korea. I'll buy one for Whoopi Goldberg at the same time. I'll try to get you seats next to each other, but I can't guarantee it.

The Jews in the Attic Test

Wandering across the Internet a few days ago, I stumbled across a post called, “The Jews in the Attic Test”. It was a post by a gay activist who was involved in firearms training for the Seattle gay community (actually LGBT, for those of you who are a bit more knowledgeable than I about these things). His group was called “Cease Fire”, and predated the “Pink Pistols”, which replaced it.

This gentleman was simply trying to help his community become safer and better able to protect themselves, mostly from those who specifically targeted the LGBT community, but toward self-defense in general. In the course of his activities, he was trying to raise the consciousness of the people in his group concerning laws that have been or might be written. He developed a yardstick to measure them by for their impact which he called his “Jews in the Attic Test”, referring to how they would affect your ability to protect a targeted group from a tyrannical government bent on imprisoning or killing them. In his case, the group might be gays, were that choice outlawed, as were the Jews. We can also extrapolate this onto those in the Liberty movement, or perhaps gun owners, if Schumer, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Bloomberg, Obama and other socialist cretins got their way.

[Allow me to digress for just a moment. When Diane Feinstein was mayor of San Francisco, she pushed very hard to have all residents of S.F. turn in their handguns, in order to make the city a “safer” place to live. At the very time she was pushing for this, and telling her constituents that there was no reason for them to own a handgun, she had six of them registered in her name. I know this for a fact, as I saw them on the screen of a computer connected to the California State computer system that covered concealed weapons permits and gun registration. I worked for the California Highway Patrol at the time, and one of the dispatchers had run her name for “weapons registered to”. Typical socialist elite hypocrisy.]

So here is the gist of this fellow’s post:

One of the discussions we had amongst ourselves as we walked from shop to shop was how to explain to others how important our right to keep and bear arms was to our freedom. People tend to understand the importance of freedom of speech and the freedom of the press pretty well and some of the other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. But the Second Amendment was and is viewed as unimportant and perhaps even counterproductive by many in today's society.

I explained to the others in my little band of activists that I looked at all laws that restricted freedom with a view to the impact it would have in a worst case scenario of our government run amok. Will this law make it difficult or impossible to protect innocent life from a government intent on their imprisonment or death?

Although I pretty much made everything up on the spot I told them I called this test my "Jews In The Attic Test". Furthermore I told them that if it fails this test no further discussion is really needed, the law must be opposed in the most vigorous manner possible.

Some laws that fail the test and why:

Government mandated ID cards and the authority to demand them at any time. The

oppressed class will be unable to masquerade as a member of the neutral or oppressor

classes.

Searches without probable cause. Imagine you are attempting to smuggle your "Jews in the

attic" to a safer hiding place. If the police at the roadblock can search all vehicles then you and

your precious cargo are headed to the "work camps".

Government monopoly on medical care. This is a bit surprising -- isn't it? If it is illegal for

you to pay someone for anonymous health care then how can your "Jews in the attic" receive

health care?

Firearm or firearm owner registration. The registration information can be used to

confiscate the firearms used to protect innocent life -- as it was under the 1938 Weapons

Control Act in Nazi Germany.

Elimination or severe restriction of anonymous financial transactions. The purchase of

food and other supplies for your "Jews in the attic" would show up in the records as being

excessive compared to what your needs were. Just as power consumption records are used

today to catch home marijuana growers.

I continue to use this test to this day and advocate its widespread use by others.

Last update: February 11, 2009

Others on the Internet have posted this info, but we need a reminder as we face increased oppressive legislation at this time. Passage and signing of the NDAA in the past few days means that every American citizen is now at risk, but this legislation can, and may, be used to target groups that our government deems undesirable.

Groups such as veterans who support Ron Paul, which DHS has already described as “domestic extremists”. Groups such as members of LDS (Mormons who are required by their religious beliefs to stock a year’s supply of basic foods and other necessities*) or anyone else who stocks supplies of food and other sundries - as encouraged by FEMA as protection against natural disasters or other unforeseen events, but whom the government now views as possible terrorists.

Any group vilified by the cretins at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), who have appointed themselves as “watchdogs” of “domestic terrorist groups” - any group they do not like - the SPLC has been accepted by law enforcement as a legitimate source of such information, in spite of the fact that their choices are completely motivated by their political (socialist) leaning and not by any resemblance to reality.

So, think about the groups that could become the new “Jews in the Attic” in our current political climate, and in light of the accelerating push towards full socialism that are country is being subjected to by the current administration and Congress. And if you find yourself sitting there smugly, thinking, “Well, I’m not like those people,” remember what the minister wrote about the National Socialist (Nazi) round-up of people during the Holocaust and WWII: “When they came for the Jews . . . “

______________________________________________

* It should be noted here, for the education of those who think the LDS is nothing but a “cult”, that the most common use of these supplies in the LDS church is when a member finds themselves unemployed, or in extremis due to serious health or financial issues. These families then at least have food and the basic necessities covered so that they do not have to choose between signing up for government welfare or starving their children and themselves. The LDS church also provides in other ways for their members when they fall upon hard times, but it then requires them to work within the church in exchange for that help, at their canneries, food outlets, or other facilities. A protocol that our government could certainly learn from.

islam goes digital or "Why I love islam" [Not]

As in removing digits. This is from a post by Sultan Knish:

Islam is peaceful. At least that is the likely defense of Rafiqi Islam, a loving husband, who told his wife that he had a present for her, blindfolded her to make it a surprise and then cut off her fingers. Then the rest of the Islam family mopped up the blood, while Mr. Islam threw her fingers into the trash, and after a few hours took her to the hospital where they warned her to tell the doctors that she had an accident.

The proximate cause of this event was that Mrs. Islam wanted to continue her education and Mr. Islam being a good Emirati Muslim was not so fond of the idea. Islam must be given credit for directness. When Muslims want to punish women for their sexuality, such as not wearing the Hijab, they throw acid in their faces. When they want to punish them for getting an education, they cut off their fingers with a machete.

Read the rest. And weep for this woman.

I hate to say this, but upon re-reading this post, I realize there are those (within our government, to be sure) who could spin this post to make people believe I approve of this obscene behavior by muslim scum. So, in the interest of protecting myself, allow me to state unequivocally for the record that this is one more reason for me to believe that islam is a cult, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. It needs to be eradicated from polite society, and relegated to some island or cordoned off land mass where those who wish to abuse themselves with islam can be kept apart from contact with reasoning humans.

You don't think it could happen here?

I wrote something on another blog tonight, in response to thoughts that Obama has no intention of staying within the rule of law, nor of giving up the White House to anything as inconvenient as a national election.

Stay with me here: yes, I realize it sounds completely insane and in the realm of conspiracy theory to posit that Obama might have plans that include remaining in office whether the American people want him to or not. However, as I have been saying for some time now, he has been behaving as if nothing he does matters, or is allowed to be questioned by anyone, certainly not by Congress. Not simply having Pelosi force through Obamacare with illegal procedural tactics, nor in providing hundreds of billions of our tax dollars to political favorites in the banking industry under the guise of a bailout, nor in taking over General Motors and then giving control of it to his union cronies, nor in shutting down oil production and oil exploration in this country (while giving Brazil billions of our tax dollars to underwrite their oil production), nor in allowing the EPA to create new regulations that shut down a number of working and viable coal-fired electrical plants, nor even in joining in a war on Libya without ever consulting with Congress, but also in ignoring or refusing to engage in every responsible act that a President could make to keep this country safe and economically viable.

When the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress, he treated Congress as his own rubber stamp, and when the Republicans regained control of the House, simply acted as if there is nothing that they can do to stop him. He ignores them, and ignores his Constitutional duties and responsibilities, as well as his Constitutional limitations. His arrogance is boundless, as is the arrogance of those who work for him, most notably Attorney General Holder, who is responsible for the state of Federal law enforcement in this country. Holder, who has openly stated he will not prosecute "his people" (aka African-Americans) for any crime against non-African-Americans - especially whites. And he calls us racist.

Obama's latest foray into declaring himself and his administration untouchable consists of having Holder tell the country - via the New York Times and Charlie Savage - that the investigation by Congress of the whole "Fast and Furious" operation run by ATF (wherein thousands of firearms, including Barrett fifty caliber rifles, were allowed to be bought and taken across the border into Mexico, where they have been used by the drug cartels to kill over three hundred Mexican citizens as well as two U.S. Federal law enforcement officers) is simply a partisan attempt to harass Holder and Obama - as Holder characterizes it, "election-year" rhetoric, and that it is also because "We are both African-American". What a racist remark!

As Mike Vanderboegh states in this article, this is essentially "Catch-22". There is no way to answer or refute someone who declares that they simply will not respond to your valid concerns. Someone who ignores the validity of your argument. Someone who resorts to dismissing everything you have to say as nothing for which they need to answer or account.

This is more than the usual playing of the race card to turn away any talk of personal responsibility. It is Holder and Obama saying - as Vanderboegh at Sipsey Street put it - they can do anything we can't stop them from doing.

Think about that. When the most powerful individual in the world and his lackey tell you they don't care what you think, they don't care what you want, they don't care what you say the rules are, do you imagine they intend to play by the rules when the rules say they need to pack up and go home? When the rules say they need to submit once more to the approval of the voters of this country? Why on earth would they? They have already demonstrated their disdain for your rules. They have already shown you quite clearly they have no intention of following your rules, especially the rules written on a 224-year-old piece of parchment with which they have already wiped their collective bottoms.

So, back to what I wrote on that blog in response to another comment:

"Millerized: perhaps that is also why we are reading that Barney Frank and some others won't be seeking re-election next year. Perhaps some of these scum - especially Frank, one of the architects of the recession/depression - want to get out of public view before it all comes apart.

Add in NDAA, FEMA opening some camps, the Army advertising for Detention/Resettlement Specialists, DOD training their people that protest is "low-level terrorism", the collapse of the EU and the euro, and I truly believe they are expecting things to come apart before they need to really worry about who might win an election.

In the meantime, Barry and MicHELLe are cramming in as many vacations and perks as they can before the crash they have been working towards takes place. They are loving the fact that they are enjoying millions of dollars of our money in the last days of that money having any value."

Imagine my surprise when I go to another blog and read that the Obamas are taking another Hawaiian vacation which is expected to cost over $4 million dollars of our tax money. At a time when many families aren’t sure where their next meal will come from let alone any Christmas presents for their children.

Does this not underline the disdain they feel for the citizens of this country? Does this not give the lie to everything these two scum say when they talk of their concern for the poor, the minorities, the unemployed? At a time when so many people are unemployed and underemployed, making sacrifices simply to keep going, and they spend millions for yet another vacation? Have we ever had a President and First Lady (I want to vomit on the word "lady" where MicHELLe is concerned) who took as many vacations as these two, let alone spent as much of our tax money as these two enjoying themselves at our expense?

Doesn't that piss you off just a little bit?

Add it up, people. If they care so little for America, its economy, its people, its Constitution and the rule of law, what makes you think a little thing like an election is going to keep them from enjoying our money for a lot longer than the next twelve months? What makes you think Obama won't take a page from the playbook used by Armadinejad in Iran, and simply declare himself the winner, no matter what the count is when the election is done? Anyone care for a little wager?

The Bottom Line

I was reminded tonight of a truth written of by Jeff Cooper, posted on a couple of blogs I read:

Not long ago it was easy to tell who the bad guys were. They carried Kalashnikovs. Now it is much more complicated, but one thing is sure – any man who covers his face and packs a gun is a legitimate target for any decent citizen. – Jeff Cooper

Think about that, for just a minute. Can you conceive of any reason for a police officer to cover his face when doing his job? I worked in law enforcement for over thirteen years, and never felt the need to cover my face, or even to cover my name or badge number. Yet, every time we see a SWAT team at work these days, their faces are covered. It didn't start out that way, but now the police are following the tactics of the Feds, like ATF and DEA. I haven't seen HRT out operating lately, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that they are covering their faces as well.

Actually, there is an excellent reason why they cover their faces: they do not want anyone to know who they are, because they are ashamed of what they do. Oh, not really ashamed, but they would be embarrassed if someone knew that they personally were doing what they are seen to be doing. It is easy to abuse, hurt and even kill when they can hide behind a mask, when they can act anonymously. Especially knowing they will never, ever be called to task for the crimes they commit against those they swore to protect.

When they intentionally shoot a mother holding her infant daughter, through the mouth, directly into the brain stem - the money shot for a sniper, and a piece of cake at 200 yards. When they enter a house, awakening a man who only got to bed a few hours before after working all night in a mine, and shoot 71 rounds at him, reportedly hitting him 60 times, and then refusing to let EMS people get to him for two hours, making certain he bled to death. When one of their number leaned into the doorway to fire several shots into his supine body after all of the other officers had stopped shooting, just so he could "get his licks in". These are the acts of men who hide their faces so that their neighbors, their families, their friends, won't know them, won't recognize them as the type of thugs who would murder a man in this fashion.

These are the kind of law enforcement officers who need to cover their faces. In fact, these are the kind of creatures who should be simply removed from society so that none of us have to look at them. Tactical teams of any flavor - Federal, state or local - should be kept behind glass, to be broken only in the case of extreme violence, or an actual hostage situation. Even then, most of these boyos are so trigger happy that the hostages are often more at risk than those holding them hostage. They definitely should not be the first response in any attempted warrant service or contact with a "person of interest". I've arrested felons on warrants as an officer with the San Diego Police Department, and most of them went peacefully when I treated them fairly and with a modicum of respect. We were quite short-handed back then (late 70's, early 80's), and we didn't have teams that would respond when arresting for warrants. Sometimes we did it solo, on a one-to-one contact when a radio check revealed the subject had warrants, sometimes with another officer for backup.

No, I'm not talking of actual warrant service, which usually involved two or more officers, more if it was a felon with a history of violence or resisting arrest. But even then SWAT was never called out simply for serving a warrant, especially a search warrant, as is the case today. When they train with the submachine guns and M-16s, they obviously develop a desire to use them, which is a very dangerous - and frequently deadly - situation for the person being served with a search warrant or warrant for arrest.

So, I'm with Colonel Cooper: being a decent citizen, any armed man with a mask becomes a legitimate target to me. Come to my door with an open, uncovered face and in uniform to serve a search warrant and I will comply. Break into my home with masks on, and I promise you that at least one of you will not be going home to your family and loved ones. If I see you coming, plan on losing more. That statement will give Janet Napolitano more reason to call me a "domestic terrorist", I am sure, but it remains my position on the use of armed and masked men to assault me and my family. Jose Guerena didn't know you like I know you.

The Obama Presidency, by the numbers

The good folks at the Gormogons posted a chart showing the discrepancies between Obama's speeches, his promises, and the reality of his administration. The chart shows - by the numbers - how badly he has done, how worthless his claims and promises have been. Since it really speaks for itself, please go there and take a look at it, would you? http://www.gormogons.com/2011/12/maybe-they-should-have-voted-for-yellow.html

Wake Up! Obama continues to deceive America

Obama deceived America as to his true intentions when he was campaigning and elected in 2008. He is continuing this behavior in his efforts to be re-elected.

I am not a fan of the NRA or Wayne LaPierre - they only pretend to support the Second Amendment, and are actually in the business of lobbying for profit (the NRA has helped write all of the major gun control legislation since the GCA of 1968). However, I just read an article written by Mr. LaPierre that contains a great deal of truth, facts that are important for anyone who supports the Constitution to read. Yes, I say "Constitution" rather than simply "the Second Amendment", because all of our rights are under attack, from the Second to the Fourth, to the Tenth, and even the First.

I think even the people who run the NRA realize that the destruction of our Second Amendment rights would put them on the unemployment line. Many of us who were formerly members of the NRA dropped them when they helped pass the Lautenberg Amendment without even informing us of the dangers inherent in that legislation. Remember the NRA's relative silence on how strongly anti-gun Obama was when he was running for the Presidency in 2008? Do you really think they only now realized this fact? If Obama manages a stealthy - or blatant - gutting of the Second Amendment, the NRA won't receive another dime from any gun owner. Or - sadly to say - former gun owner. Here is the whole enchilada:

"Obama administration officials are deliberately keeping gun owners in the dark about the president’s gun-control agenda as we head into next year’s national election, because administration officials know that when NRA members and gun owners show up at the polls en masse, antigun candidates lose.

The Obama campaign’s strategy goes like this:

1. Neutralize gun owners and NRA members as a political force in the upcoming national election by pretending to be pro-gun or at least not focused on pushing a gun-control agenda;

2. With gun owners neutralized, Obama will be able to win the election. After the president is re-elected, he won’t have to answer to voters because he won’t have to face another re-election battle;

3. Launch a full-scale, all-out assault to rip the Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights through legislation, litigation, regulation, executive orders and international treaties — in short, every lever of power at the administration’s disposal.

Barack Obama spent his entire political career proudly and publicly pushing for the most radical anti-gun positions you can imagine. He endorsed a total ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. He opposed right-to-carry laws. He voted to ban nearly all commonly used hunting-rifle ammunition.

During the presidential primary debates, Obama even vowed to re-impose the discredited Clinton gun ban, which banned many commonly owned firearms used for hunting and self-defense. [Again, why didn't the NRA publicize this during the last election? Ed.]

Obama hasn’t had a sudden change of heart; rather, he’s making a purely political calculation by staying quiet on the gun issue until the time is right. In the meantime, he’s gearing up for his second-term assault on the Second Amendment in a number of ways.

Just consider …

*Obama loaded his administration with anti-gun zealots bent on destroying our Second Amendment freedoms.

*With the help of his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, Obama made the U.S. an active partner to the U.N. gun-ban treaty. The U.N. will unveil this unmitigated attack on our sovereignty this summer and the Obama administration has vowed to implement it.

*Obama appointed two anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court justices and continues to flood our lower courts with dozens of anti-gun, activist judges. [Literally, dozens, and many in Federal courts that deal with appeals. Ed.]

*With the help of his attorney general, Eric Holder, Obama led a campaign to demonize law-abiding gun owners, claiming our Second Amendment rights were to blame for drug violence in Mexico. And in fact, emails recently released by the Justice Department prove that Operation “Fast and Furious” was a deliberate attempt to build the case for a gun-control agenda.

*Obama unilaterally imposed gun registration in four border states — requiring gun dealers to register the sales of any law-abiding citizen who purchases more than one semi-automatic rifle within one week.

It isn’t hard to see the writing on the wall. The actions that President Obama has taken so far in his presidency clearly show his disdain for the Second Amendment and hint at his plan to gut our firearm freedoms in his second term.

But the key to President Obama’s strategy is keeping gun owners complacent for now.

After all, Obama knows what happened in 1994, when the politicians who voted for Clinton’s gun ban were swept out of Congress. Even Clinton admitted the NRA was the reason Democrats lost their 40-year lock on control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Obama saw what happened in 2000, when Al Gore built his campaign on a platform of gun control and then watched as the NRA and gun owners derailed Gore in the battleground states of Arkansas, West Virginia and even his home state of Tennessee — costing him the White House.

Obama administration officials know that it’s good politics to avoid making gun control a public issue. They hope that they can lull gun owners into a false sense of security and then play us for fools in the 2012 election.

NRA members, gun owners and liberty-minded Americans should not be fooled. Next year’s presidential election will be a referendum on our freedom."

Wayne LaPierre is the executive vice president and chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association of America.

Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/12/the-obama-administration-is-planning-a-second-term-attack-on-gunrights/

Copyright © 2009 Daily Caller. All rights reserved.

Want to be an Internment/Resettlement Specialist? GO ARMY!

OK. There is no way I can post this without someone twirling their finger next to their head and proclaiming, "I always knew Reg was a wing-nut, Right-wing whacko." I mean, let's face it - resettlement camps in the United States of America? Can you imagine the U.S. government ever doing something that bizarre? Next thing you know, whack jobs like Reg will be claiming you could get thrown into a camp simply because of your religion or your ethnicity. That you could be rounded up and put in a camp simply because you were Jewish, like the Germans did, or Japanese like the - who did that? Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Wasn't he one of our President's?

Yeah, it has happened here before. There are still Japanese-Americans (who simply thought of themselves as Americans) alive who spent time in internment camps, put there simply because they were of Japanese descent. Old men, old women, young men, young women, children and babies. Not because of anything they had done. Not even because of anything they were suspected of having done. Simply because of their ethnicity.

[At the time, Executive Order 9066 (by FDR) was justified as a "military necessity" to protect agaist domestic espionage and sabotage. However, it was later documented that, "our government has in its possession proof that not one Japanese American, citizen or not, had engaged in espionage, not one had committed any act of sabotage." Michi Weglyn, 1976.]

Here is the hook for this post: the U.S. Army is hiring people for the position of Internment/Resettlement Specialist (31E). Go to goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs. Don't take my word for it. Use the link or look it up yourself. Here is one of the listed "Advanced Responsibilities":

Provide command and control, staff planning, administration/logistical services, and custody/control for the operation of detention facility or the operation of a displaced civilian (DC) resettlement facility

Now, we already have places to put enemy combatants, like at Guantanamo Bay. The military has plenty of detention facilities for criminal activity within the military. And our country already has far too many places to detain those suspected of terrorist activity. Even for "domestic terrorists", however that is being defined this week (last week it was me: a veteran with a Ron Paul bumper sticker on my car. Just ask Janet Napolitano). With the Department of Defense describing anyone protesting our government as a "low-level terrorist", they even have room for any Right or Left winger who doesn't like what is going on and publicly says so.

With all of the military coming home from the Sandbox, you wouldn't think they would need to hire more. They could simply assign soldiers to take the training and perform those duties. Would some decide to get out instead of doing that kind of work? I imagine some would. Some would also stay in for the paycheck and benefits. The clincher for me is that hiring new people would allow the Army to screen for those most suited to performing that kind of duty. You know - people who couldn't make the grade as TSA agents, young men who got picked on in junior high school, or guys (and gals) too dim to make it onto a police department payroll, but who really, really want that "authoritah". Maybe some folks who want payback from the "rich" who "stole" from them, or "those whitebread crackers who kept my great-great grandaddy as a slave".

So. What are the chances that someone has decided that there may be a need to intern Americans at some point? Or to "resettle" Americans? With all of the floods, the fires, the tornados and hurricanes we have had, even after Katrina, were any civilians "resettled"? Hell, no. The Feds whipped out the old credit card - you know, the one you pay the bill on every April 15th - and put them up in hotels. Paid for their meals. Even bought them X-Boxes to play with while they were living off of tax money most of them hadn't provided.

However, should enough of us American citizens stand up and shout "That's it. All of you traitorous bastards are out. Leave D.C. and don't come back!", you will find out why the Army feels a need to hire and train some of what I am certain will be our most upstanding citizens (and maybe a few guys from MS-13 or ex-cartel members working as CI's for the FBI). Perhaps some of us will get a chance to experience what our Japanese-American citizens experienced of FDR's hospitality. I'm sure they'd be glad to show us re-runs of Stalag-13 or maybe Hogan's Heros. Or the Wolverines visiting their families and friends at the chain link fence.

Be honest now: can you come up with a good reason, a rational explanation, for why the Army would be needing to hire Internment and Resettlement Specialists? Other than the suspicions I have voiced? Let me know if you can. Then back up and dissect that explanation with Occam's Razor, would you please?