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

Monday, August 15, 2011

I am sickened by this.


I have been reading Gates of Vienna, and have it listed as a blog I follow, but I am not certain I can continue to do so. Although I value much of what I have read concerning the fight in Europe against the dangers of, and damage caused by, multiculturalism and islam in particular, I have just read a post by the distaff side of the couple who runs the blog that has me wondering at her sanity. (Having worked Psych for over eight years as an RN, I have a slight familiarity with the DSM IV.)

Dymphna, the female half of the couple just posted an article called, "Sluts, Stupidity, and Cassandras". In it she opines that women who dress like "sluts" are complicit in their own rapes. That's right, she thinks that "If the act of strutting your stuff results in an equal reaction, a girl must take at least half the responsibility for whatever transpires as a result. " Can you believe such an attitude from the keyboard of a woman? Based on the photo she uses as an icon for her profile on this blog, I would guess she has some sort of religious affiliation, possibly Catholic, yet her statement is one of the least Christ-like things I have heard in a long time. I was raised as a Roman Catholic, although I am no longer a religious person, but it sickens me to think there are women who could actually spew this kind of unforgiving, unChristian nonsense.

If men canot control their own behavior enough to not rape a woman they find sexy or slutty or simply female, that is all on them. Short of a woman getting naked with a man and allowing him to penetrate just before saying "No", I can't think of an excuse for rape. Frankly, at that point, I don't think it could even be considered rape. Our sex crimes instructor at the San Diego Police Academy back in the late seventies was fond of repeating, "Penetration, no matter how slight, completes the crime," but if a woman permits the penetration, all bets are off. I can't imagine that happens very often, though. It's not bloody likely a woman would let it get that far.

I dated for quite some time in the sixties and seventies, during the "sexual revolution", and certainly am not a prude. There have been a number of occasions when my dates had permitted significant intimacy, even getting naked on several occasions for some serious foreplay, but then said "No". None of them suffered rape, at my hands (I can't speak for anyone else they dated). That doesn't make me a saint, simply a responsible adult male who doesn't indulge in rape. Nor would I ever force my wife. (Ask my first wife: she permitted sex about three times a year during our eight years of marriage. Thank goodness my second wife has a great libido. Is this too much information? :-)

To hear this woman voice her belief that merely dressing in a provocative manner excuses rape makes me want to cease reading anything else she has to say. Perhaps she is simply a fat, friendless, foolish female who resents attractive women and enjoys knowing some of them suffer being raped, but no matter what her condition I have lost any respect I might have previously held for her thoughts and opinions. Your mileage may vary.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Western Complicity in the Rape of Boys in the Islamic World

Not just in the Middle East, either. This is so prevalent, the soldiers of several Western nations have been counseled by their superiors to "look the other way. It's a cultural thing." This certainly is gross to anyone who cares about children, but anyone who feels the muslims have a right to practice their "religion" as they see fit should be aware what they are supporting.

I started to post the whole article, but it is far too long. Be sure to read the third comment, by someone who has been there and seen it.


Jury Rights Day - September 5th


I've written before about the legal procedure called "jury nullification". I believe I have spoken to the fact that it remains one of the very few ways that remain which allow American citizens to have any effect upon the justice system whatsoever. It is so potent a weapon when used properly that every judge in every courtroom across the country tries to negate it by lying to the jury and telling them they may only judge the facts in any trial. The truth is that it is the jury's right and duty to judge both the facts and the law.

If the law is unjust, if it is unfair, if the punishment does not fit the crime, or if a juror's conscience simply will not permit them to convict, it is that juror's right and duty to vote for acquittal. Even though I am in favor of the death penalty in some cases, if a juror cannot support the death penalty, if they believe it is unjust or morally unacceptable, it is their right to vote against it. (These days, in far too many cases, they would probably be saving the life of an innocent person, railroaded onto death row by an overzealous prosecutor.)

Remember, in jurisprudence there are two concepts which speak to what is right and what is wrong: "malum per se" and "malum prohibitum". "Malum per se" means "bad in itself": murder, rape, child abuse or molestation. Things that every civilized (which is why it doesn't fit in with the teachings of Mohammed) person knows to be wrong. "Malum prohibitum" means "bad because it is prohibited", forbidden by those who rule. Running a stop sign, "cheating" on your taxes, catching a fish without a license.

Now, running a stop sign can be dangerous, could cause an accident injuring or killing someone innocent. However, if you are given a ticket for running a stop sign when it is three A.M. and you can see a mile up the road that there are no vehicles or pedestrians or horse-drawn buggies that you will put at risk by rolling through the stop, you are being punished by "malum prohibitum", punished for doing nothing that could possibly cause any harm, something someone decided they just don't think you should be allowed to do. Like smoking a cigarette in a building in many cities, buying an alcoholic beverage in some counties of some states, riding a motorcycle without a helmet in many states, or getting circumcised in San Francisco (they were almost successful in passing that law).

By extension, if a man is charged with a civil rights violation, or with the "crime" of "hate speech" because he openly speaks of the fact that some muslims mistreat, beat, abuse, and rape their wives, that some muslims kill their daughters when they feel the daughter has compromised their family "honor", does he deserve to suffer imprisonment because of this "malum prohibitum"? Has he caused an individual harm by speaking the truth? Would it not be appropriate for a juror to decide that, while he may have indeed committed the "crime" he was charged with, that he did not deserve to be punished for telling the truth? Ask Geert Wilders of the Netherlands how he feels about that.

If a man loaned a rifle to another man and, while shooting it at a shooting range, the rifle malfunctioned and fired twice when the trigger was only pulled once, does the owner of that rifle deserve to be arrested, convicted, and sent to prison because a broken part in the rifle caused it to malfunction? Does he deserve to be stripped of thousands of dollars defending himself, impoverish his family, lose his job and his good name, and be sent to prison? Even though it was proven his rifle malfunctioned and there was no intent by anyone to make it fire more than once per trigger pull? Ask David Olofson, who is now a felon because he owned a broken rifle.

When the government and our elitist legislators and the regulators of the various alphabet agencies (IRS, EPA, FDA, ATF, FBI, DOE, etc.) have citizens arrested for laws and regulatory violations that the people of this country had no say in creating, laws which criminalize behavior or activities that neither you nor I would deem wrong, it is the right and the duty of the citizens of the jury to vote for acquittal, even if the facts indicate the "crime" was indeed committed. Please visit FIJA.org and read about the history of jury nullification, of the purpose of this organization, and of the upcoming "Jury Rights Day".

14 years old. 44 pounds. Will she survive?

Apologists for islam will claim this is an aberration, a "one-off" that is rare, that it only happens a few times involving "radical" believers of islam, not the "moderates" they have come to know and love (as Obama loves them). In reality, this is an oft-repeated, common response save that this muslim's particular version of islam allows him to torture his daughter rather than kill her, as the orthodox version of islam commands (see the first line of the article). Consider the fact that she would have died, if not for her neighbors and her pastor.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/uganda-father-tortures-daughter-for-converting-from-islam-to-christianity.html

Uganda: Father tortures daughter for converting from Islam to Christianity

Muhammad said, "If anyone changes his religion, kill him." All Susan Ithungu's father did was torture her. He must be a moderate.

Seriously, however, evidently Beya Baluku, Susan's father, belongs to the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence (madhhab), which differs from its three Sunni counterparts in teaching that a female apostate should not be executed, but rather confined to a room and beaten until she returns to Islam (cf. Al-Siyar Al-Kabir, vol. 4, p. 162).

"Girl in Uganda Loses Use of Legs after Leaving Islam for Christ," from Compass Direct News, August 11:

NAIROBI, Kenya, August 11 (CDN) — A 14-year-old girl in western Uganda is still unable to walk 10 months after her father tortured her for leaving Islam and putting her faith in Christ, according to area Christians.

Susan Ithungu of Isango village, Kasese district, has been hospitalized at Kagando Hospital since October 2010 after neighbors with police help rescued her from her father, Beya Baluku. He was arrested shortly afterward but quickly released, sources said.

Susan and her younger brother, Mbusa Baluku, lived alone with their father after he divorced their mother. In March 2010 an evangelist from Bwera Full Gospel Church spoke at Susan’s school, and she decided to trust Christ for her salvation.

“I heard the message of Christ’s great love of him dying for us to get everlasting peace, and there and then I decided to believe in Christ,” she said from her hospital bed. “After a month, news reached my father that I had converted to Christianity, and that was the beginning of my troubles with him. Our father warned us not to attend church or listen to the gospel message. He even threatened us with a sharp knife that he was ready to kill us in broad daylight in case we converted to Christianity.”

Pastor Joseph Baluku of Bwera Full Gospel Church in Kasese said neighbors took her to the government hospital about 45 kilometers (28 miles) from Kasese town after she was freed.

“He locked her up in a room of the semi-permanent house for six months without seeing sunlight,” the pastor said. “The younger brother was warned not to tell anyone that Susan was locked up in a room and was not given any food.”

Young Mbusa said that when their father was away, he roasted bananas for his sister.

“I also dug a hole under the door, where I could pour water through,” he said. “My sister could drink the water using her tongue. But most days she could only feed on mud.”

A nearby resident who requested anonymity said neighbors became concerned after not seeing her for several months.

“Her brother then disclosed to us that Susan was locked up in one of the rooms in the house,” the area resident said. “We then reported the case to the Harukunggu local council and then to the Bwera police station. The police went to the house and broke the door.”

Susan was immediately taken to the provincial government hospital about 17 kilometers (11 miles) away near Bwera town, where Pastor Baluku visited her.

“The miserable young Susan was bony, very weak, and not able to talk or walk,” said the pastor. “Her hair had turned yellow, she had long fingernails and sunken eyes, and she looked very slim, less than 20 kilograms [44 pounds].”...

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Why Islam must be eradicated, like a cancer.



Yes, many will consider that title to be irrational, even obscene - to speak of doing away with a religion? Who but a madman would think such a thing? Who but a bigoted, hate-filled, right-wing loser could possibly think of outlawing or refusing to permit the worship, as he saw fit, of another man?

I do. I say that Islam really isn't a religion, unless your definition of religion includes death cults that actively preach the killing of non-believers, including targeting their infant children. And if somehow it actually was a religion, it is one which should be eradicated from the face of the earth, or at the very minimum, should be practiced only in a walled community, a Coventry from which none who followed Islam would be permitted to leave.

In my wandering around the Web tonight, I came across a post by Daniel Greenfield (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com) from March of this year, entitled "The Muslim Terrorist War against Israeli Families" (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/03/muslim-terrorist-war-against-israeli.html). In it he writes of the direct and intentional targeting of not only Israeli families per se, but their infant children. Specifically targeted, in spite of the availability of (nonetheless innocent) adult parents.

I posted a blog on the Fogel family back when they were killed. I spoke of my rage at what had been done by these flea-ridden, an-orchid, goat-raping, camel-fornicating muslim scum. But until reading Daniel's post tonight, I had no idea it was actually policy to target and kill infants.

For any of you out there - and I include my otherwise lovely family members who remain Democrats in the face of reality - who wish to marginalize this, to claim that only "radical" muslims do these violent things, I'm afraid I must correct you. As I have written before, these are the followers of the true and orthodox Islam, not muslims who have "perverted" the "Word of the Prophet" (may he burn forever in a fire on a spit - transversing his body from facial orifice to nether orifice - basted in bacon fat and rubbed with the offal of pigs). These are the die-hard believers of what Mohammed taught. The parts of the Quran or Hadith that are held up for view by those muslims who would deceive you into thinking Islam truly is a "religion of peace" are the writings of what Mohammed said early in an attempt to create a make-believe religion he could use to bend a bunch of goatherds and farmers to his will. When he was able to raise enough of an army to start putting his enemies to the sword, the truth came out. Islam has never been a religion of peace, and it never will be.

Once you come to terms with that fact - and believe me, you will learn it to your eternal sorrow if Islam is allowed a greater foothold in this country - you will understand that there is no room on Earth for an ideology which feels comfortable with, brags about, the brutal murder of defenseless infants, children, mothers and even fellow muslims. How could you close your eyes, your ears, and your hearts to such senseless killing? To deny the fact that Islam refuses to permit the very existence of anyone who does not follow their beliefs, to not grasp the fact that they are willing to even kill fellow muslims who do not accept all of the same tenets as they do, Shia against Sunni, is to deny reality.

Islam is a melanoma upon the skin of civilization. It is fast spreading and fatal. If it is not cut out in time, if it is allowed to spread, it will kill us.

Sunday, August 7, 2011

A Failed Presidency

I use Yahoo for my email. I rarely read their news because Yahoo is so hopelessly liberal that it just isn't worth the heartburn. Imagine my incredible surprise to see a news heading that read as above:

Amazing, isn't it? Yahoo published an article by Forbes that actually tells it as it is. I'm not familiar with the author, John Mariotti, but it could as easily been written by Mark Steyn or Victor David Hanson. Here it is in its entirety:

A Failed Presidency -- The American Problem

Few Americans needed Standard & Poor to confirm the mismanagement of the United States government and its finances. The downgrading of American credit will raise interest rates on America’s huge debt and ultimately on all Americans. Popular polls say that most Americans blame Congress—but that’s too simplistic. As much as Barack Obama would like to shift that blame onto Congress, the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of President. It is first and foremost a leadership problem that is crippling America—and the leader is President Barack Obama—not the many members of Congress.

No matter how many speeches he makes, the conclusion is clear: Obama’s greatest failure is spending America into enormous deficits, and being clueless about how to get the economy to recover. His speeches, riddled with “I” and “We” are mostly serving to indict him for his failings. Appearing on TV more than any other sitting president, Barack Obama is constantly “explaining” why things aren’t working, when he should be working on what to do different and better.

Instead he is “campaigning,” which is the only thing he knows how to do reasonable well. But he can’t fix the economy; he has neither the experience nor the knowhow to do it. His failed, misguided policies have only exacerbated the size of his mistakes and shortcomings.

----------------------------------------------------

“I didn’t say ‘Change we can believe in tomorrow.,.’ I didn’t say, ‘Change we can believe in next week…’ “We knew this was going to take time.” —Barack Obama, Aug. 4, 2011.

Obama has surrounded himself with academics, theoreticians and politicians and all of their solutions are wrong, flawed and ineffective. Don’t take my word for it. Look at the evidence. Nobody in his inner circle has meaningful business experience. He not only doesn’t understand business, he dislikes businesses; they are only useful as a way to collect taxes to redistribute.

For Barack Obama’s first 18 months, and occasionally even today, he and his loyalists try to place the lion’s share of the blame for America’s problems with George W. Bush. There is little doubt that Bush erred seriously on several counts: he initiated two expensive wars and then saw the Iraq war mismanaged for at least 2-3 years.

Then Bush failed, along with the (then) GOP led Congress to rein in spending to compensate for the cost of these wars. Finally, he reduced tax rates and created the Medicare prescription drug program (which turned out to work better and cost far less than was feared). Coincidentally, the much-maligned TARP initiated by Bush actually staved off a financial collapse and is largely being paid back by the banks and insurance companies involved. In perhaps his greatest mistake, Bush failed to veto a single spending bill sent to him by Congress.

Bush’s mistakes were clearly serious errors, but they pale in comparison with Obama’s failures since he took office. The Democratically controlled Congress was complicit with Obama’s failures. They have not submitted, and Obama has not submitted a realistic budget for the country in over 800 days—a clear failure to meet their responsibilities. (Exception: Obama’s irresponsible Feb. budget, which was voted down 97-0 by a Democratically controlled Senate.)

To chronicle Obama’s failures and his shortcomings is impossible within the length of a simple blog post. A few of them are most notable. Obama aided and abetted by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid rammed the new health care legislation down the throat of America—and Obamacare was created. Parts of it are well-intentioned, but much of it is feared by Americans and especially small businesses. Arguably some of Obama’s greatest damage to the economy has been done by his appointees in the EPA, NLRB, CPSC, et. al., and the Justice Department.American business is oppressed by regulation.Sadly, Obama barely realizes this.

Next came the $840 billion “stimulus” package, (mostly pork and patronage), which worked poorly or not at all—unless you consider creating jobs at $275,000 each to be a good solution. Not enough “shovel-ready” projects were really “shovel-ready” Obama admitted recently, chuckling awkwardly at his naiveté. Obama and his experts (now mostly gone back to finance or academia) predicted a drop of unemployment to under 8% when the number of jobless went the other way—upward. Now, more Americans have been out of work, for longer, than any time in the past half-century.

Obamacare not only violated many of his eloquent campaign promises; e.g., Taxes on Americans earning less than $200/$250,000 per year will no increase one penny—except for the new Obamacare tax to 3.8% applied to investment income—which will hit millions of Americans. When faced with his party’s impending losses in 2008 elections, Obama dispatched Rahm Emmanuel to attempt buying-off candidates in the 2008 primaries with a promise of high-level jobs, a legally questionable practice at best, and unethical one at worst.

During Obama’s term in office the deficit has grown astronomically as he continues, even to this day, to insist on more spending and more taxes (especially those on “millionaires and billionaires” a category that most Americans earning $200-250,000 per year hardly imagine including them.)

Those who point to his achievements name “bailing out” GM & Chrysler—but many experts feel that was done by using executive power for further illegal actions, denying legal bondholders their rightful returns. There is also a strong belief that ordinary bankruptcy could well have accomplished the same result at a cost of almost $20 billion less of taxpayers’ money. But then spending too much of taxpayers money has never bothered this White House.

To make Obamacare’s outrageous financial claims, Obama & his Democratic Congressional minions desperately needed to cut its cost. Thus, buried in the 2000+-page bill, Obama and his accomplices Reid and Pelosi cut $500 billion out of Medicare. Now he pretends to worry about seniors while ignoring Medicare’s impending insolvency. After all, even if Obama could win a second term, he will be gone before Medicare fails, and be able to blame it on his successor.

Barack Obama was going to close Gitmo—until he realized that it was as unrealistic as much of his campaign rhetoric. Obama has violated the law, which requires the president to act within 15 days after the Medicare commission advises him of a financing problem. His Democratic allies gave him a waiver in his first year, but this year—he simply ignored the law.

Obama followed Bush’s foreign policy and even left most Bush appointees in charge, until recently. Obama’s vanquished primary opponent Hillary Clinton has precluded him from making as big a debacle of foreign policy as he has on domestic policy. He tried, early in his career, kowtowing to foreign dictators and despots, apologizing for America instead of protecting and defending it.

The ultimate failure of President Barack Obama is that he is unable or unwilling to lead; to define anything more than vague generalities as a solution to America’s daunting problems. Even his own allies in the GAO state, “we can’t value a speech.” In his desperation to run for reelection, Obama continues to abdicate his responsibilities. The debt ceiling was a showcase of his failings as he periodically jumped in and out of negotiations until he literally neutralized himself.

The president made himself an outsider in the decision, even as he tried to sound like a voice of reason, making speech after speech, saying less in each successive one. Senator Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner finally fought through massive partisan problems to reach a compromise agreement—but it was clearly too little, too late. Kicking the hard work down to a twelve person “super-committee” was not enough to settle financial markets.

While Barack Obama campaigned, making still more speeches at his 50th birthday celebrations, the Wall Street voted with its money and the Dow-Jones average dropped over 500 points and the S. & P. dropped even more—5%+. 117,000 jobs created in July don’t even approach the number needed to offset new entries to the workforce. The drop in unemployment from 9.2% to 9.1% signals more unemployed Americans giving up, not more of them being hired.

Happy Birthday Mr. President. You have accomplished something no other president has done. You’ve spent America into a hole that will take a decade to fix, and kept more Americans out of work longer than anyone in recent history, and you’ve accomplished all this in record time, only 2-1/2 years. Who knows how much harm you can do given still more time.

--------------------------------------------

John Mariotti is an internationally known executive, consultant and an award-winning author. His book, The Complexity Crisis was named one of 2008’s Best Business Books. In a recent novel, The Chinese Conspiracy, he merges an exciting fictional thriller with the factual reality of America’s risk from Cyber-Attacks. (www.thechinesecomspiracy.com). Mariotti does Keynote speeches, serves on corporate boards and is a consultant/advisor to companies. He can be reached at www.mariotti.net .



Here's the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/failed-presidency-american-problem-162509281.html

and here (in case Yahoo should remove their site):
http://blogs.forbes.com/prospernow/2011/08/06/a-failed-presidency-the-american-problem/

Don't Fall For The Left's Manipulations

As usual, Daniel Greenfield posts an excellent essay (How To Fight A Blood Libel) on how the Right needs to blow off the Left's attempts to paint them as being responsible for the violent acts of any individuals - either the rare acts of violence of non-Leftist actors or those who were actually Left-leaning individuals themselves.

Greenfield is amazing in his ability to cut to the chase, to go to the crux of the matter in his analyses of political acts and political will. In this post he explains how the Left attempts to portray the Right - especially political figures, radio and TV pundits, and even Internet bloggers - as being responsible for the acts of violence perpetrated by individuals. How they always get it wrong, intentionally using these tragedies to paint the Right as being responsible every time there is an act of violence that seems to be politically motivated.

More importantly, he goes on to explain how unnecessary it is for those on the Right to feel any moral responsibility at all, although conservatives tend to accept responsibility simply because there is a greater abhorrence of violence on the Right than on the Left - as the Left uses violence to advance its aims on a regular basis, as a primary tool in their toolkit. Consider the history of every country which has attempted communism or followed Marxist agendas and you will see it is true, such as Russia, China, and Cuba (Che and Fidel were stone killers of their own people too, not just Stalin and Mao).

Please read Greenfield's post, especially you conservatives visiting here. Hopefully you are already practicing his suggestions, but if not, you might consider giving them a try. They certainly make sense to me.

For any liberal or "independent" readers, please try to suspend your immediate response to anything a conservative might write and take the time to see if there just might be some truth to what he is saying here. If you aren't simply a knee-jerk Democrat, if you truly think for yourself based on the facts presented, I believe you will find much to consider here, and may come to the realization that the media is not fair and balanced (including Fox). That the Right - as difficult as it may be to accept - isn't the author of the violence we are seeing more and more of these days.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-to-fight-blood-libel.html