Category Archives: islam

“Confronting Evil Can Lead to Violence” – Andrew Klavan

I found this on a serendipity search:

It’s over a year old, but oh so relevant with what’s going on in the Middle East. Yup, and guess what. This is the problem with being opposed to “violence” without any qualifiers. There is immoral violence and there is moral violence. Violence in defense of the non-aggressor is moral. Violence by an aggressor is immoral.

We should endeavor to be the most existential threat on Earth to every criminal, thug, tyrant, whether official or freelance like those who follow a certain death cult ideology.

It’s what I mean, when I sign my messages:

Stay Dangerous, My Friends

Never Forget. Never Submit. Honor the Dead, With 19 Exceptions

Near the start of my day, this 11th anniversary of the attacks by amoeba-brained faithful followers of Islam on this nation’s sovereign soil at the NYC World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and another unknown target that was heroically stopped by passengers of United Flight 93, I caught a Facebook post with a link to this drivel from our illustrious governor, Dumplin’ herself.

My response on Facebook, was this:

This is NOT a fricken day of service. So stick it, Bevvie. This [is] a time for a memorial to the victims of this attack by Islamic jihadists on this sovereign land. A time for prayer and contemplation. — And tomorrow is a time for reloading.

I’ll add that we also honor those who have given their lives serving the country in the military.

Much of what I said last year at this time applies this year, too. So, I’m going to post an updated version of it here as a reminder: I WILL NOT SUBMIT.

[Updated version of last year's post begins here.]

Today, even if I just have to fry up a single slice of bacon, I will commemorate this day by eating pork. Unfortunately, I won’t get to go shooting today, as I am attending a CPR class tonight. But I will be haughtily Waving delicious pork and other meats in the face of America’s enemies, nonetheless.

In honor of those who died on that day, with the noted exception of the 19 backward scum who hijacked the planes, I do celebrate the freedoms we have — while we still have them, at least — and a emphatically assert that we will not be defeated. We will not be intimidated. And the sensitivities of those who share the ideology of those who committed those atrocities ten years ago today are not something with which we will ever concern ourselves. I will eat pork, as well, to celebrate that right while we still fend off any all attempts to impose sharia law anywhere in this country.

The title of last years post, “I Will Not Be Intimidated” comes from a thought I had four years ago after returning from a mission trip to Venezuela. On that trip, we had a four hour bus ride from the airport in Maracaibo to a chalet in the mountains in La Puerta.

We wound up running into an unexpected checkpoint, and while the leader of our group was outside the bus explaining what our purpose was, one of Hugo’s thugs got on board and stood at the head of the bus. He, very, very, slowly, scanned ever single passenger on the bus with his eyes and had a smile on his face that, although almost imperceptible, seemed to me to be rather gleeful. I believe he was gleeful that he is in a position of power to intimidate every civilian he encounters. I remember thinking to myself, “give me a break, you two-bit thug.” I don’t remember whether or not this Hugobot was even armed. It’s likely that he was, given the thugocracy we were in.

A short time after we arrived back in the states, I told this story, (including my thoughts during the experience), to a liberty-loving relative of mine and he rather seriously said, “Yeah, but if anybody was suspicious looking or defiant in any way, he would have just killed him.”

I’ve considered that caution since he said it, and the conclusion I’ve come to is, “So? I will not be intimidated.” In Hugoland, I’m sure I would have been killed had I acted too snotty or maybe made the shape of a gun with my finger and pointed it at him. And every situation requires its own analysis regarding when to resist, talk back, or comply. It was simply wise, and rather non-intrusive to comply in that situation and location. I’m am not interested in fighting that battle for Venezuelans. My battle is here.

Last year at this time in the restaurant we went to, I apparently got a serious scowl from some woman customer in the corner. Every new (to me) place I carry is yet another risk that I’m going to run into unfriendly staff or some panty-waist customer will call the police with a man with a gun report, to which our Sheriff’s office will likely and ridiculously respond — and without asking a single question, such as “Is it in his holster? Is he waving it around pointing it at people?” — regardless of the legality of the act.

But I will not be intimidated! And I will continue to carry openly wherever I can, no matter how many scowls I get. Bite me. And trust me, there just aren’t that many scowls.

[For people who are supposedly on our side, but think "bite me" shows I'm too immature to be carrying around openly supposedly being an ambassador for all gun owners, well, bite me. I'll be your ambassador when you started sending me a big honkin' check every month. You see, I'm not going to say "bite me" to someone who asks me leave his restaurant. Although I might plagiarize Bubba's letter to Bonefish, modified appropriately, and send it to them. And I'm not going to say bite me to the lady in the corner who scowls at me. Or to the cop who has to attend to the call -- though maybe reluctantly here in Johnston County -- reporting a man with a gun. But I do say that if you are supposedly pro-gun, yet you resort to arguments against open carry that are perfectly equivalent to the arguments used by the anti-gunners against carrying (or even owning) guns, then, please, stop helping.]

So that is my logic behind eating pork and regularly carrying guns, openly when possible, on the anniversary of the murderous attacks on September 11, 2001. The pork is intended to offend the sensibilities of those who would force us to convert, be subjugated, or be killed.

And the guns are to say, I WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED.

This is America!

And we will fight you until either there is not a single one of us left, or your unholy book is tossed on a dung heap and there isn’t single soul left who will be willing to carry out its exhortations.

Or, you can keep your book, believe what it says all you want…and back off.

Your choice.

Your move.

Michelle Malkin had a post a year ago today that linked to a 9/11 fifth anniversary post of hers from 2006. So here is my pledge. Lan astaslem. I will not submit.

Via RTC, we will never forget these bottom dwellers. May they be stranded in a field surrounded by hog farms.

Update: Something I meant to include.

I just saw 2016: Obama’s America this past Saturday night. Coincidentally, William Jacobson did as well. And I must say, I agree with William’s assessment regarding the slightly bizarre “anti-colonialism” theory.

Dinesh D’Souza is an odd character. He seems to be a dedicated conservative, but when it comes to theory, usually gets it wrong. Badly. I’m glad that this film came out, now, a couple months before the election for conservatives to drag their undecided friends to. And I don’t think the anti-colonialism theory actually hurts the actual data he presented. His interview with George Obama was quite weird, though. Dinesh seemed to imply that he (Dinesh) believed that Barrack should be helping George out, and yet George seemed to display the actual conservative view that he (George) is an adult and isn’t even asking for Barrack’s help.

D’Souza is no stranger to ill conceived theories. I haven’t read his The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, but Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch.org, did an excellent smackdown of it when it came out. D’Souza, is apparently, far too accommodating. Even in the case of 2016, you almost get a sense that he wants to emphasize, as he says in the very beginning, that it is the influences of his past that he has carried forward to his present.

We are only tied to our past if we choose to be. Obama is responsible for his views as an adult and not a victim of his upbringing. I often joke that as I read more about the real history of our founding, I am undoing the damage done to me by the public school system. At a certain point in our adult lives we must take responsibility for the views we hold and for the results of those beliefs as we act on them.

And for that, I condemn the 19 Muslims who attacked us on September 11, 2001, and hope that the 72 virgins they are given are men. And the same goes for those who hold the same beliefs and act on them nearly every day across the world.

I Will Not Be Intimidated

To commemorate those murdered 10 years ago today, I went shooting on some land I have about an hour from where I live with another blogger, his wife, and three friends from church. Some time this week, I will have photos and maybe videos of the event, probably both here and at the Bacon and Boomsticks site. It wound up being more a fun day of shooting than a commemoration. In a way, yes, it was also to celebrate the freedoms we have — while we still have them, at least — and a statement that we will not be defeated. We will not be intimidated. And the sensitivities of those who share the ideology of those who committed those atrocities ten years ago today are not something with which we will ever concern ourselves. Yes, we ate pork, as well, to celebrate that right while we still fend off any all attempts to impose sharia law anywhere in this country.

The title of this post comes from a thought I had three years ago after returning from a mission trip to Venezuela. On that trip, we had a four hour bus ride from the airport in Maracaibo to a chalet in the mountains in La Puerta.

We wound up running into an unexpected checkpoint, and while the leader of our group was outside the bus explaining what our purpose was, one of Hugo’s thugs got on board and stood at the head of the bus. He, very, very, slowly, scanned ever single passenger on the bus with his eyes and had a smile on his face that, although almost imperceptible, seemed to me to be rather gleeful. I believe he was gleeful that he is in a position of power to intimidate every civilian he encounters. I remember thinking to myself, “give me a break, you two-bit thug.” I don’t remember whether or not this Hugobot was even armed. It’s likely that he was, given the thugocracy we were in.

A short time after we arrived back in the states, I told this story, (including my thoughts during the experience), to a liberty-loving relative of mine and he rather seriously said, “Yeah, but if anybody was suspicious looking or defiant in any way, he would have just killed him.”

I’ve considered that caution since he said it, and the conclusion I’ve come to is, “So? I will not be intimidated.” In Hugoland, I’m sure I would have been killed had I acted too snotty or maybe made the shape of a gun with my finger and pointed it at him. And every situation requires its own analysis regarding when to resist, talk back, or comply. It was simply wise, and rather non-intrusive to comply in that situation and location. I’m am not interested in fighting that battle for Venezulans. My battle is here.

Today, before going shooting, we stopped at Smithfield’s for some barbecue (shredded pork for you yankees), and as I do as often as I can, I was carrying my sidearm openly. I got one question from a customer asking what caliber it was, one glance from the clerk at the counter, and, I’m told, a serious scowl from some woman customer in the corner. I hadn’t even been to Smithfield’s before, so I had to ask one of the folks with us if they serve alcohol. (From what Bubba says, it sounds like it is legal to open carry in NC in restaurants that serve alcohol, but not conceal carry. Didn’t really matter in this case, because I was concealing a backup piece, as well.) Every new (to me) place I carry is yet another risk that I’m going to run into unfriendly staff or some panty-waist customer will call the police with a man with a gun report, to which our Sheriff’s office will likely and ridiculously respond — and without asking a single question, such as “Is it in his holster? Is he waving it around pointing it at people?” — regardless of the legality of the act.

But I will not be intimidated! And I will continue to carry openly wherever I can, no matter how many scowls I get. Bite me. And trust me, there just aren’t that many scowls.

[For people who are supposedly on our side, but think "bite me" shows I'm too immature to be carrying around openly supposedly being an ambassador for all gun owners, well, bite me. You see, I'm not going to say "bite me" to someone who asks me leave his restaurant. Although I might plagiarize Bubba's letter to Bonefish, modified appropriately, and send it to them. And I'm not going to say bite me to the lady in the corner who scowls at me. Or to the cop who has to attend to the call -- though maybe reluctantly here in Johnston County -- reporting a man with a gun. But I do say that if you are supposedly pro-gun, yet you resort to arguments against open carry that are perfectly equivalent to the arguments used by the anti-gunners against carrying (or even owning) guns, then, please, stop helping.]

So that is my logic behind eating pork and shooting guns on the tenth anniversary of the murderous attacks on September 11, 2001. The pork is intended to offend the sensibilities of those who would force us to convert, be subjugated, or be killed.

And the guns are to say, I WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED.

This is America!

And we will fight you until either there is not a single one of us left, or your unholy book is tossed on a dung heap and there isn’t single soul left who will be willing to carry out its exhortations.

Or, you can keep your book, believe what it says all you want…and back off.

Your choice.

Your move.

Update: Michelle Malkin had a post today that linked to a 9/11 fifth anniversary post of hers from 2006. So here is my pledge. Lan astaslem. I will not submit.

Update 2: Via RTC, we will never forget these bottom dwellers. May they be stranded in a field surrounded by hog farms.

1A can mitigate the need to exercise 2A

Well, at least some of the time.

To most free men, the right to speak freely is as important as the right to keep and bear arms. If that describes you, you should be following the case of Ezra Levant closely. Yes, I know, this is up in the land of our nothern neighbor, and we don’t have national or state (ironically named) “Human Rights Commissions” here in the US. But browse Ezra’s archives and you’ll see definite rumblings of it happening here in the good ole USA.

A recent example that sticks out is the case of Joey Vento of Geno’s Steak in Philadelphia. He has a sign posted in his store telling customers “This is AMERICA: WHEN ORDERING ‘PLEASE SPEAK ENGLISH.'” Someone, or many someones complained, and his case was referred to the city’s Commission on Human Relations, previously unknown to this author, at least.

And then, of course, there are the Islamic supremacists fighting in the Underworld of the Nazgûl for strategically misnamed defamation laws across the globe which are really nothing more than blasphemy laws. You can find plenty on that in Ezra’s archives, as well.

Start out by checking the archives from the very beginning of his blog around the beginning of this year. Look for the eight or nine part video of his hearing with the Alberta Human Rights Commission “Investigator.”

It’s been a while since I watched that interrogation, but I remember Ezra making an excellent point regarding just how important the right to free speech is. He pointed to some war torn areas of the world that got that way at least in part because citizens believed they had no other recourse. In the USA, we at least have a strong foundation for the redress of grievances. A process by which we can influence government and stop abuses of power and infringements on our rights. When citizens believe that speaking out has no effect, or carries with it the risk of imprisonment or violent suppression, then there is little else left to do but either submit and become enslaved, or resist using force.

So, although the right to keep and bear arms protected by our second amendment is extremely important, were it not for the right of free speech (and the like) protected by our first amendment, then we most certainly would, eventually, be exercising one of the rights implied by the second amendment: to fight against tyranny.

This is why that no matter who occupies the White House for the next four years, one of our most important fights is going to be to get campaign finance reform — or as others have more correctly termed it, the Incumbent Protection Act — repealed. It is a slippery slope that we have already stepped onto.

But getting back to Ezra Levant, I want to refer you to a particular post from August:

…I’m not really interested in trying to “convince” Moon — or anyone else at the CHRC — that censorship is wrong and freedom is right. I don’t need to convince them, because those are my natural rights, and I don’t need their permission. I think it’s a moral mistake to even grant the CHRC and its contractors the legitimacy as arbiters of right and wrong

Some months before reading that, I had an encounter with a foreigner who is here on a green card, and whose country of origin shall remain nameless, at least for the time being. He’s an admitted statist and believes the government should run everything. We were having a conversation about the right to keep and bear arms and he chimed in with “it’s a privilege, not a right.”

I walked away from the argument a little flustered. Not because I couldn’t defend my position of it being a right. I could. But because he stated it in a way I hadn’t heard before. Usually we hear either that it is a) a right, b) a right with some allowed limitations, or c) not at a right at all.

I hadn’t heard anyone say it was a privilege before and wasn’t prepared for how annoyed I was by it. I felt a little righteous indignation about the comment. And I found myself rehearsing in my mind what I might say to him should the topic come up again. It went something like this:

So, you think it’s privilege. Well, you smarmy little *blank*, I don’t care if you think it’s a privilege, I claim it as my natural, God-given right. And you, personally, cannot take that away from me. Not even the Brady Bunch can. Nor can my legislators, nor law enforcement officers, nor judges. Sure, they can oppress me by passing unjust laws, arresting and charging me when I exercise the right, or convicting me when I’m innocent of any wrongdoing, but nothing on God’s Green Earth will ever change the fact that it is my right. My final authority is not the opinions of men; it is the fact of God’s gift.