We. Told. You. So.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has the story:

No Muslim Brotherhood

(h/t: Weasel Zippers and Mona B)

by John Rossomando  •  Jan 3, 2013 at 1:10 pm

An Egyptian magazine claims that six American Islamist activists who work with the Obama administration are Muslim Brotherhood operatives who enjoy strong influence over U.S. policy.

The Dec. 22 story published in Egypt’s Rose El-Youssef magazine (read an IPT translation here) suggests the six turned the White House “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The story is largely unsourced, but its publication is considered significant in raising the issue to Egyptian readers.

The six named people include: Arif Alikhan, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for policy development; Mohammed Elibiary, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council; Rashad Hussain, the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference; Salam al-Marayati, co-founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); and Eboo Patel, a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.

Alikhan is a founder of the World Islamic Organization, which the magazine identifies as a Brotherhood “subsidiary.” It suggests that Alikhan was responsible for the “file of Islamic states” in the White House and that he provides the direct link between the Obama administration and the Arab Spring revolutions of 2011.

Elibiary, who has endorsed the ideas of radical Muslim Brotherhood luminary Sayyid Qutb, may have leaked secret materials contained in Department of Homeland Security databases, according to the magazine. He, however, denies having any connection with the Brotherhood.

Elibiary also played a role in defining the Obama administration’s counterterrorism strategy, and the magazine asserts that Elibiary wrote the speech Obama gave when he told former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave power but offers no source or evidence for the claim.

According to Rose El-Youssef, Rashad Hussain maintained close ties with people and groups that it says comprise the Muslim Brotherhood network in America. This includes his participation in the June 2002 annual conference of the American Muslim Council, formerly headed by convicted terrorist financier Abdurahman Alamoudi.

He also participated in the organizing committee of the Critical Islamic Reflection along with important figures of the American Muslim Brotherhood such as Jamal Barzinji, Hisham al-Talib and Yaqub Mirza.

Regarding al-Marayati, who has been among the most influential Muslim American leaders in recent years, the magazine draws connections between MPAC in the international Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure.

Magid heads ISNA, which was founded by Brotherhood members, was appointed by Obama in 2011 as an adviser to the Department of Homeland Security. The magazine says that has also given speeches and conferences on American Middle East policy at the State Department and offered advice to the FBI.

Rose El-Youssef says Patel maintains a close relationship with Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, and is a member of the Muslim Students Association, which it identifies as “a large Brotherhood organization.”


{ 0 comments }

Fireworks above St. Basil on New Year's Eve 2013

From Simply Orthodox ☦

  1. Arrive for Church Services on time! We take for granted the Divine Liturgy at the best of times. Often we believe that as long as we are there for the Gospel, Sermon and Communion we have had “a good enough dose of God for the week.” Partaking of the Matins or Orthros service and the full Divine Liturgy will prepare you fully for stepping up to the precious and life giving Chalice of Christ. This will in turn fortify your spiritual journey into the world for the coming week. Our responsibility to Our Lord is to respect the schedule laid out for us, at least once a week.
  2. Ask for forgiveness from our family, friends and Christian brothers and sisters in our parish. Forgiveness is a difficult virtue to put into practice and even more difficult to use regularly. Let us therefore use the virtue of forgiveness as a basis for our continued commitment to theosis and by regarding our earthly relationships with one another as truly important. Let us practice forgiveness, as it is the first step in preparing for Holy Confession and Holy Communion each and every Sunday.
  3. Learn about praying and prayers. We tend to use the prayers we were taught as children. There are many prayers available for parishioners to use: check the prayer book and ask your Priest, he can assist by providing prayers that pertain to your specific situation(s). Pray often, more than once a day. If you do not have a prayer corner set up in your home, ask your Parish Priest to assist you in setting one up.
  4. Become a steward in your parish and community. Become an active, involved, caring Orthodox Christian. Donate to your Parish, become, if not already, involved in keeping our environment clean (God placed us on this earth to care for His creations!!!), donate to food banks, school lunch programs, etc. Create an organized community outreach for the less fortunate residents of your area. As stewards of humanity, it is incumbent upon us, as Orthodox Christians to lead by example.
  5. Attend more than one (1) Church Service per Month. Don’t be a “C ” & “E” (Christmas & Easter) Parishioner. Place prayer, worship and Church Services on your list of priorities, above all other recreational activities. The benefit of a fulfilling spiritual life will lead you to many rewards in the future.
  6. Put your God-given Talents to use. We all have hidden talents, or talents not used to their full potential. Recognize them, ask for guidance from Our Lord and put them to use for the benefit of God’s Holy Church.
  7. Invite your children, grandchildren, siblings and friends to Church Services. Become a host to your own family. Guide them and explain to them that the One Holy Universal and Apostolic Church is the One True Church. Explain that Orthodoxy offers all to its faithful. Bring one guest to Church per year at least and allow God to do His work.
  8. Contact your family members that have stepped away from your family; or if you have stepped away, call your family. Practice patience, understanding and forgiveness. We are on this earth but once. We have one opportunity to practice forgiveness and ask for it as well. It is never wrong to come back home, even after a lengthy absence. We should never be embarrassed to admit our faults to our families and our desire to renew our relationships. We must remember, we are not perfect, we all have faults and we never know when we may be called by God to return home.
  9. Experience the life of the Church and her many gifts to heal you. Attend Church services; come to Confession and Communion on a regular basis. We were born unto this earth dependent upon our Lord. Use Confession to unburden your sins and Communion to heal you. Rely on your Parish Priest to be your Father Confessor and Spiritual Guide.
  10. Recognize that we are tested by Our Lord and tempted by the devil himself, daily. We are put to the test daily, as in school, so in life. Pray frequently, ask for guidance, see beyond the test, look for the good only in all situations. Avoid temptations that are “too good to be true.” Recognize that we are accountable for all of our thoughts, actions and deeds.

- By Fr. Stephen Lourie


{ 0 comments }

From ari, a commenter on PJM:

Sorry, but you are very, very wrong. Leftists have friends, relatives, cousins, and telephones. One of the worst weeks, ever, was hearing my mother list out all the people who called her up to tell her to abort me. One DROVE HER to an abortionist, and dragged her into his office. She was barely 90 pounds, probably 80something pounds, and five feet tall. She fought. She was a teenager, in high school. She got knocked up by her boyfriend. She was trying to keep it secret enough, so he could finish college. She didn’t know he loved her, just that he had used her.

Her own relatives- his relatives, too, once he found out. I’ve been on the phone with them. They are proud of what they were arguing for. To my face, they were proud of arguing that I shouldn’t even get a chance to exist.

Leftist women don’t intend to have kids. They get jobs in media and in school. They look professional and intimidating. They are wealthier and more influential than regular, schleppy housewives. They are social workers driving vulnerable teens to the abortion clinic, across state lines, for instance. They are teachers, and professors, and school nurses. For that matter, they are, occasionally, pastors in some congregations.

I’m in my forties- I would have been in that first wave of legal abortions. My mother had to flee to a distant relative in a far city, and hide under her protection ( IN AMERICA!!!) until I was born. My dad, upon hearing that his summer fling had produced a child spent months- MONTHS!- finding her, and then begging her to trust him enough to keep her safe, for her to marry him. They had another child near immediately, stayed in contact with her family mostly, and then joined the military and petitioned to get out of the country.

This sounds like some awful Taliban special, doesn’t it? It was in America, b/c of a death-dealing, pro-choice harpy. I literally cannot imagine the grief and fear my mother endured to keep me safe and alive. I thought she was lying when she told me, it was so bizarre. I called and asked the participants who were still alive- they are still proud and sure of what they did- they said it to my face. To me- To ME- the one they would have killed without concern.

I thought there was anomaly. I was married, with two children. Married to a good man with a good job, with lovely, cared for, happy, smart children. I got pregnant a third time, and I had relatives- on his side (!)- driving up to tell me to get rid of it- screaming at me that it was too much, too many, I was too old, that she would never help- I had every friend from before my marriage tell me that I shouldn’t have more- my husband’s boss took him out and the guys wife suggested an abortion for me, and a vasectomy for him. For the environment. This couple had four children. I was pregnant with our third.

Seriously, we are religious, stable, married for years, financially stable, well-educated, I volunteer, he works 60 hours at a responsible job, he’s got multiple degrees, I’ve got certificates for my field, we own a house- we are excellent parents- and yet, somehow, my children shouldn’t exist.

It’s a sickness. An absolutely Absolutist evil. They don’t just kill their own children, they want to kill everyone else’s children.

January 2, 2013 – 12:35 pm

More of ari’s story here and here.


{ 2 comments }

Remember when I explained why the US can never tax its way out of debt?

ZeroHedge: Putting America’s Tax Hike In Perspective

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/01/2013 10:02 -0500

One of those occasions when one picture really does speak a thousands words.

Tax Hike In Perspective

Houston, we may have a spending problem.

A spending problem?   Ya THINK?

lobo91 has it scoped out pretty well:

@ Iron Fist:

This was a bad deal. There are, for all practical purposes, no spending cuts in this deal.

There are never going to be any spending cuts. Ever. It’s just not going to happen.

4 years from now, we’re going to be looking at probably $23-24 trillion in debt, an even smaller workforce than we have now (which will make the unemployment figures look better, sadly), a credit rating that will be downgraded a couple more times, and interest payments that will consume the entire budget, outside of entitlements.

And that’s the optimistic view.

THIS is how it will play out in real life.

 


{ 1 comment }

 


{ 0 comments }

“Patriotism is, fundamentally, a conviction that a particular country is the best in the world because you were born in it….”
- George Bernard Shaw

If Obama’s re-election doesn’t show you that the USA is hopelessly lost, there may be no hope for you. But on the odd chance that it served as a wake-up call, here we go. The main problem is the sin of idolatry, and the United States of America is the idol.

Learning Idolatry

You went to a public school (or to a “private” school that mirrored public school teaching). You learned to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Other than the words “under God”, which were added in the 1950s, this pledge is a mixture of lies and idolatry. You learned to sing some “patriotic” songs. You studied a false history that is constantly being revised in Orwellian fashion to fit the agendas of those currently in power and/or vying for power.

You learn about a war for independence from England and that this was a good thing. Then you learn about a war for independence from Washington, D.C. and that this was a bad thing. If there is a brain in your head, you will notice that something wrong with this picture. But your teacher keeps screaming something about “ending slavery” so you realize that you had better keep your mouth shut. Then you learn about the invasion of Puerto Rico that started an American Empire, which was a good thing. Then you learn about World War I and World War II and how those wars ended the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Japanese Empire, and even the French and British Empires, and that this was a good thing. (While the demise of the Ottoman Empire was long overdue and well deserved, the end of the Russian Empire was an unmitigated disaster for Russia and the world.)

You hear that it is your country right or wrong, that you must stand by it no matter what, and that this a good thing. But then, you learn about the Nuremberg Trials and how it was a crime for Germans to have stood by their country whether it was right or wrong.

You hear about “American exceptionalism” – how the US has a mission to expand its form of government and its way of life all over the world, and how the laws of history that have always applied to every nation do not apply to the US.

You also learn that what a person believes does not matter. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, agnosticism, atheism – they are all equivalent. What you believe isn’t special; you can’t even claim that what you believe is the truth, because you need to be tolerant.

You study mythology. You read about what ancient peoples used to believe and some of it sounds a bit silly. Finally, one of your classmates says it out loud. And the connection is made. “Maybe someday people will say that what we believe now is silly too.” So, you wonder about that church or temple where your parents take you.

Finally, it sinks in totally. The United States of America is your god. It is the only god that you must believe in.

There Are Just Too Many People Against You

The Parable of the Two Cruise Lines

You are locked into a two-party system. It is like having only two ships to choose from for a long journey. Each has different accommodations. You can only pick one. You will want to try to travel with your friends. But you will have to decide which of the two different accommodations suit you best. One has a swimming pool and the other a hot tub. One has tennis, the other one shuffleboard. One serves seafood and the other barbeque. One has live music every night while the other shows first-run movies. One trip you might take one of the boats and the next the other. Maybe you could care less about tennis and shuffleboard, but would like both the pool and hot tub. Maybe one boat meets most of your needs, but you need to give up your live music and sit through music that bores you.

So, you write the two cruise lines and tell them what you would really like on a trip. So, both cruise lines write back and tell you that forty (40%) percent of the potential cruise customer like cruise accommodations just the way they have them, or, at least, forty (40%) percent of the public will tolerate the cruise accommodations just the way they have them. With two competing cruise lines each catering to forty (40%) percent of the potential cruise customer, eighty (80%) percent of the potential cruise customer is pretty much locked up. It just isn’t worth trying to make a third cruise line to cater to the other twenty (20%) percent. OK, a few companies have started up thinking that they could get a chunk of the remaining disaffected twenty (20%) percent and start making inroads into the other cruise line customers. Too bad they they all go broke. People who buy tickets to the the new cruise lines often lose their fare money or find themselves stranded at a foreign port of call.

Twelfth Amendment

The above basically explains why we have a two-party system. Most other countries have multiple parties, where you can find a cruise ship much more to your liking. Of course, they allow the other cruise lines to stay in business and not strand travelers at foreign ports. They allow third parties to have a minor role in the government. However, in the US, you have to deal with the Twelfth Amendment. Before the passage of the Twelfth Amendment, it was possible–even likely–to elect a President from one party and a Vice President from another. So, if you run a third-party candidate you might win “second prize” so to speak. (The explanation is too long and complicated to provide within this article, but it is true.)

Of course, the concept that you are “electing a President” is a misstatement. You vote for a slate of electors who are the only people who actually get to vote for the President. All States do it that way, but no State has to do it that way. Each State legislature decides how to pick those electors. In most States, it is winner take all. So, if your guy gets a few votes less than the other guy in California, your guy gets no electors. The guy with a few votes more gets all fifty-five.

Red States, Blue States

It is a joke for people to call the United States of America either a “nation” or a “country.” Our Founders considered it to be a federation – in fact, a republic of republics. A “nation” is a people, a blood line, a race, and a shared culture. A “country” is a geographical place. If you are a Cherokee, that is your nation. If you live North Carolina, that is your country. If your ancestors (or most of them) came from Scotland and you live in Alabama, your nationality is Scots-American and your country is Alabama. So, you may be a Mexican-American from Texas or an African-American from Missouri or a Serbian-American from Florida.

Peoples differ. Regions differ. States are sovereign, although we act as though they are not, and the federal government violates that sovereignty on the basis that might makes right. But certain States have certain biases. Over the last few presidential elections, some patterns have emerged. Some States tend to be almost automatic for the Democrats and some seem almost automatic for the Republicans. It has gotten to the point where presidential campaigns focus on a few “swing States” and virtually ignore those not in play.

In recent years, statisticians in academia and the media have provided maps using the color blue to indicate a Democrat vote and red to show a Republican vote. Considering that red is the color of socialism (as it was in the USSR), it should have been the other way around.

King Numbers and the Voting Machine

Ghost Voter

If we break down the red and blue motif to a county level, you would see that most counties are red. Rural people tend to be more conservative. They also tend to be less likely to cheat during an election. Urban dwellers do tend to be more liberal, they also tend to be more dependent on government services. When the garbage trucks don’t come to a rural area, there are a lot of options. You can let it pile and wait. You can burn some of it. You can bury it. You can re-use certain things, such as scrap metal. You can compost some of it. In the city, life without garbage services is not very pleasant and it gets that way quickly. I personally have known people who have moved to a major city only to be greeted by the local Democratic machine with the warning, “Hi, we are the Democrats and the Democrats pick up the garbage around here.” And slow garbage pickup is one of the commonest complaints from those living in precincts that don’t vote with the political machine – which always turns out to be an arm of the Democrat party.

Now there is also a literal machine. It is a voting apparatus that makes election theft automatic. No more messy paper ballots that can be easily recounted. Forget about those nasty punch cards, that provide some evidence of the voters’ actual intent. Modern science has given us a video game that helps a voter imagine that he is part of the process. No one really knows what happens.

Of course, voter registration is another matter. In every State where a photo ID is required to register, Romney won in 2012. Ineligible or nonexistent voters are rarely purged from the rolls. During my misspent youth in politics, when I worked as a precinct committeeman, a former Chicago resident offered to help me. He told me that he used to go from precinct to precinct voting for his deceased friends. As he put it, “Just because they died, they shouldn’t lose their right to vote.” (This, of course, was said with a heavy Chicago accent). I politely declined. I hope that he is no longer voting, but considering that he only passed away a couple of decades ago, I have to assume he still is.

So, it looks as though the Democrats will be able to win any national election for the foreseeable future.

Obama burning the US Constitution

Constitution Be Damned, the Dems Do What They Want

In this Alice-in-Wonderland world of the twenty-first century, we have an illegal alien in the White House. Or, at least, we have a guy who will not show his real birth certificate, and has boasted of his foreign-born status on video. We have a Supreme Court that refused to hear a case challenging his citizenship and/or his place of birth. That same sorry Supreme Court has ratified a highly unconstitutional piece of legislation that this illegitimate President ramrodded through Congress.

There simply is no hope for the United States of America

So, there you have it. You and your fellow citizens have been given a strong dose of propaganda and most of them have taken the federal government as their god. You are locked into a two-party system that takes you on a cruise to nowhere. The Democrats can win any national election at will. The have no desire or need to follow the Constitution.

The national debt is well into the trillions and you have a President obsessed with more spending. Currently, the national debt is rising by the minute. Once Obama’s ramped-up spending kicks in, we will be looking at hundreds of trillions. It will never be manageable. The outcome just will not be pretty. Perhaps you will see hyperinflation. Maybe you will find yourself rushing out to spend your paycheck, or government check, today because the money will be almost worthless tomorrow.

There are other ways to deal with this kind of debt and none of them are pretty. Just imagine if the US defaulted on all its debts. Your government bonds, or the ones in your retirement fund, would be worthless. China would lose its investments and who knows what they would do in retaliation. Perhaps they would even take over US territories, such as Guam. Heck, maybe they would invade Hawaii. Why stop there; there’s always the west coast.

Due to the current ridiculous interpretation of the First Amendment, we are banning Nativity scenes and allowing Muslim terrorists to plot violence from their mosques, which are temples to their false god, Allah. If you are a US citizen and find this paragraph offensive, you are living proof that the government propaganda machine his caused you to worship the United States of American as your god.

Creeping Sharia is the number one threat to your freedom today. You have an openly pro-Sharia Muslim Congressman from Minnesota. He was even allowed to swear on the Koran when he took office. You have a closet Muslim President. Even Grover Norquist is a Muslim Brotherhood mole. At the rate things are going, it is only a matter of time before there will be a US Caliph.

The Only Way to Save Any Part of America

Our Founding Fathers knew exactly what to do in a situation like this. Thomas Jefferson explained it very clearly and succinctly in his Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately, those government propagandists in the public schools work overtime discrediting Thomas Jefferson’s greatest achievement. They play “hide the ball” and have you look at the least relevant portions of the document, but if you would bother to read the whole thing, you would see that it is a secessionist document. Not only did Jefferson justify the Thirteen Colonies’ secession from England, but he also justified secession as a prescription for tyrannies far less than those that we now suffer from in Obama’s America.

How Would Secession Work?

Pick a sovereign and solvent State – any sovereign and solvent State. That would leave out places like Illinois and California. Illinois boasts of sovereignty on its State flag, but it is a fiscal nightmare. California is also a fiscal nightmare and it has other problems, too. California probably should be more than one State. Perhaps some of California should be part of Mexico. On its own, California would probably deteriorate into third-world status. So, think of places like Montana, Alabama, Texas or Alaska.

Waving Texas flag

Texas is probably the perfect candidate for secession. It has a population of over twenty-five million. Israel is a major player on the world stage with a population slightly above seven and one half million. Switzerland, the banking capital of the world, has slightly less than eight million. Ireland has less than five million, yet it is one of the main ancestral homelands for inhabitants of the US and other emigrant destinations.

Texas has a long sea coast, so it can have a navy and merchant marine. Texas already has a foreign border, so it has plenty of experience with migration issues.

Texas has a long history of independence and many citizens of Texas see themselves as Texans first and … well, as Americans, too.

Texas has a relatively good economy and independence would only make it better. True, they would get no help from the government, but it does cost money to tax Texans, ship their money to Washington, and then ship some of it back to Texas. Let the Texan tax themselves and spend their money in Texas.

Texas would be a free country again and the US would have new ally to the south, just as Canada is to the north.

But Doesn’t Secession Require Violence?

What planet are you from? I have been trying to think of all the secessions and secession movements in the developed world in the last 100 years and I can only think of two that involved significant violence. That would be the Irish Independence and the break up of the former Yugoslavia. Of course, the collateral effects of the two world wars cannot count as wars of secession. WW I and WW II were wars of invasion. Yes, we re-cut the map, afterwards.

India seceded from Great Britain through peaceful–yet forceful–means. The Slovaks left their Czech friends peacefully. The old Soviet Union broke up with minimal violence. Quebec has taken several votes to secede peacefully from the rest of Canada, which has made it clear it intended to honor the Quebec voters’ wishes. Scotland has reemerged on the world stage with a high degree of independence, and no violence was involved.

The Spanish Civil War was not about secession; it was a war to determine whether the Communists (who called themselves “Republicans”) or the Monarchists (who called themselves “fascists”) would control all of Spain. Red China did not secede from Nationalist China; it too was a civil war; the Reds captured most of China, but did not get as far as Formosa, a/k/a Taiwan.

One gray area comes to mind in Israel. One could make a good argument that it was established with or without a war of secession. However, no one in his right mind would argue that a sovereign US State should leave in a violent manner.

If That Is True Why Was There a War the Last Time States Seceded?

Confederate flag captioned with 'If this flag offends you...you need a History lesson.'

Good question! However, Southern secession and the war that followed were only remotely related. South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860 and no war started. Six other States followed suit and no war started. Lincoln almost did not make it to Washington, D.C., as there was an assassination waiting for him in Baltimore. However, Lincoln did take office on March 4, 1861 and there was still no war.

Most US forts in the South either disbanded or became Confederate forts. However, there were three exceptions. Two unimportant forts in Florida and one in South Carolina, Fort Sumter. Lincoln refused to give up this illegal fort on foreign soil and was even plotting to resupply it. So, Confederate forces fired enough cannon balls in the general direction of the fort–harming no one–and it gave the Yankee troops cover to “surrender.” It was a friendly surrender and the Yankees were allowed to fire their own 21-gun salute with their own cannons. (Whoopsie! They shot and killed one of their own guys. Must have been F Troop.)

Still no actual war. Lincoln ranted and raved and yelped about a bunch of troops to invade Dixieland. With his popularity at an all-time low, four more Southern States officially left. Two more States, Kentucky and Missouri seceded and didn’t secede. (It gets confusing when you have two official governments in your State.) Maryland came pretty close to voting for secession, but Lincoln had the ringleaders abducted and jailed, and that was the end of that.

Still no war. There were many opportunities to avoid a war. Finally, on July 21, 1861, some eight months after South Carolina seceded, Lincoln’s troops got around to invading the South at the Battle of First Manassas.

There is absolutely no chance that a modern secession of any US State could possibly result in war.

What About My Social Security Checks? Who Would Pay If My State Secedes?

Any State that secedes needs to think this one through. True, the seceding State could just pick up the obligation and payroll deductions on its citizens like the US, but that is part of the reason the US is falling apart. Entrusting politicians with pension funds is just not a good idea in the long term. It would probably be better to bring in the insurance companies. Let them run the program. We can debate the details at length, but suffice it to say that insurance companies could provide better benefits with the money collected now, or the same benefits while collecting less, and that includes picking up the current people receiving social security benefits.

OK, So What Do I Do When Texas, Alabama, Montana or Alaska or Wherever Leaves the Union?

Well, the simple answer is to go to that State. Any State freeing itself from Obama’s tyranny will probably need more people. It will be a prosperous land and there will likely be a “gold rush” to take advantage of that. It is likely that, whatever your field may be, they will need more of them in a former US State that is now independent.

If you have a nice home State with secession potential, push to secede. It probably will be a lot easier for subsequent seceding States. Running your State is putting on drain on the US Treasury, and it is most likely sending people to Congress that are giving the Obama Administration fits. Dictators love passive citizenry. States like California will tolerate very high federal taxes–even push for them–and let the government spend away. Obama already has seven imaginary states, so he might not even miss a real State leaving the Union.

Where Will It All End?

At some point, every State may opt to leave, and the federal government could have a going-out-of-business sale. Most of the land west of the Mississippi is owned by the federal government. This could be sold at any time. US military equipment could be sold to individual States. Of course, insurance companies will be lining up for their share of the lucrative privatized social security business.

However, if you or your State can free itself from the tyrannical federal government, what do you care? It will be a great thing when this horrible nightmare is over.

Stop Worshiping a False God

Our faith is in Jesus Christ, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The lands of North America are His creation. The US system of government is a man-made institution. In the words of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, democracy has finally been recognized as the god that failed.

The United States of America–as we once knew it–is a false god. It is doomed. Its many good principles can ONLY be saved, or rather, revived, through secession.

Also see:


{ 4 comments }

Previously published on 2.0: The Blogmocracy

By: coldwarrior

The Orthodox church is expanding directly into the Muslim Caucasus.

Orthodox Church Forms New Caucasus Eparchy

28 December 2012 | Issue 5044
The Moscow Times

The Orthodox Church has formed a new entity covering the predominantly Muslim North Caucasus regions of Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan.

The Makhachkala Eparchy was set up by the Holy Synod, the church’s supreme governing body, church spokesman Vladimir Legoida said late Wednesday, after the two-day session ended, Interfax reported.

The new eparchy, which will be cut out from the existing Vladikavkaz Eparchy, comprises the country’s most unstable regions and will pose a challenge to the church, an analyst said.

Dagestan and Ingushetia have been at the epicenter of a violent insurgency by Islamic extremists. Chechnya has been relatively quieter but has also seen attacks by suicide bombers recently.

It will be headed by Bishop Varlaam, who hitherto headed a monastery in Murom, a city east of Moscow.

The move is consistent with the policy of Patriarch Kirill of bringing the church’s territorial makeup closer to the country’s political divisions, said Roman Lunkin, an expert with the European Center of the Academy of Sciences.

Lunkin added that moving bishops into traditionally Muslim regions also poses risks. “Now it will be easier to accuse the church of proselytism,” he said.

Mr Lunkin does not like the Church expanding into the muzz areas! How dare they!

Eparchy (eparchia)

Originally the name of one of the divisions of the Roman Empire. Diocletian (284-305) and Maximian divided the empire into four great Prefectures (Gaul, Italy, Illyricum, and the East). Each was subdivided into (civil) Dioceses, and these again into Eparchies under governors (praesides, pegemones). The Church accepted this division as a convenient one for her use. The Prefectures of Gaul, Italy, and Illyricum made up the Roman Patriarchate; the Prefecture of the East was divided (in the fourth century) between the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch and three exarchs. The Diocese of Egypt was the Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Diocese of the East (not to be confused with the Prefecture of the East) became that of Antioch. Asia was under the Exarch of Ephesus, Pontus under Cappadocia, and Thrace under Heraclea. Under these patriarchates and exarchates came the eparchies under metropolitans; they had under them the bishops of the various cities. The original ecclesiastical eparchies then were provinces, each under a metropolitan. The First Council of Nicaea (325) accepts this arrangement and orders that: “the authority [of appointing bishops] shall belong to the metropolitan in each eparchy” (can. iv). That is to say that in each such civil eparchy there shall be a metropolitan bishop who shall have authority over the others. This is the origin of our provinces. Later in Eastern Christendom the use of the word was gradually modified and now it means generally the diocese of a simple bishop. The name Eparchy is, however, not commonly used except in Russia. There it is the usual one for a diocese. The Russian Church now counts eighty-six eparchies, of which three (Kiev, Moscow, and St. Petersburg) are ruled by bishops who always bear the title “Metropolitan”, and fourteen others are under archbishops.

The new Eparchy greatly increases the Church’s role and influence in the Caucuses and is a rather provocative act done on purpose by the Church to fight muslim expansion. The new Eparchy will have a Metropolitan and a central Cathedral. So, who will protect these churches and these Christians amongst the muslim hoardes?I think this article may shed some light on that question:

Defense Minister Pledges Support for Church

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu on Friday pledged his support for the Russian Orthodox Church, promising to re-establish the close ties that bound religious and military officials before the October Revolution in 1917.

“We will continue to support the Russian Orthodox Church with renewed energy and, most importantly, restore those traditions that existed under the Russian [pre-revolutionary] government,” Shoigu said at a meeting with Patriarch Kirill, the country’s top Orthodox Church official, RIA-Novosti reported.

Shoigu, who was installed as defense minister in early November after his predecessor was ousted amid a corruption scandal, worked closely with the church in his capacity as emergency situations minister, a post he held for almost two decades.

Russian authorities are often accused of an overly cosy relationship with church officials….

At the meeting with Shoigu on Friday, the patriarch expressed hope that his appointment would lead to a strengthening of Russia’s armed forces.

“Understanding the importance of the responsibility placed on your shoulders, we will pray for you. At every service, the church prays for the country’s authorities and its army,” Patriarch Kirill said.

Something tells me that the Russians might be looking for a fight. And that is a good thing.

Reference:


{ 0 comments }

Bare Naked Islam has the story:

Syrian rebels beheaded a Christian man and fed his body to dogs, according to a nun who says the West is ignoring atrocities committed by Islamic extremists. The nun said taxi driver Andrei Arbashe, 38, was kidnapped after his brother was heard complaining that fighters against the ruling regime behaved like bandits.

Read it all here.


{ 0 comments }

Royal martyrs: Tsar Nicholas II and family
Royal martyrs: Tsar Nicholas II and family
More information here and here.

By Stanislav Mishin

(h/t: Mike C. and Rayra at GCP)

These days, there are few, few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions.

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss-crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere….but criminals are still armed and still murdering and to often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.

While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.

Stanislav Mishin

The article reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina.

Also see:


{ 2 comments }

Second Amendment

From: 2nd Quotes

(h/t: huckfunn)

The following quotes by the authors of the Second Amendment, their contemporaries, various state and federal courts, and others should be useful in the debate over whether that amendment protects a right of individuals or only the military.

The Second Amendment states:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States….Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America” – (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

“the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone,” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in ‘An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

“…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?” (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967])

“The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])

“…the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)

“Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.” (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

“Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame.” (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato’s Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755])

“The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes.” (Dwight, Travels in New England)

“What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

(The American Colonies were) “all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them.” [George Mason, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)]

“To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed…to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless…If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country.” (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823]

“It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.” (James Madison, “Federalist No. 46″)

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.” (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])

“The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government – and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.” (Edward Abbey, “The Right to Arms,” Abbey’s Road [New York, 1979])

“You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you….There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”)

“You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”)

“As much as I oppose the average person’s having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved.” [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.]

“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

” ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

“The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

“The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.” [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and ‘is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

Also see:


{ 2 comments }

Bill Whittle: “Where do we go now?”

YouTube Preview Image

A brief critique:

  1. One witness recalls that Robert E. Lee came to regret his decision to surrender at Appomattox on account of the corruption, tyranny and brutality visited by the North upon the South after the war. Lee said, “Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand.” The South had been brutally ravaged during and after the war and its economy was never allowed to recover. I traveled there as a child – a century later! – and saw the widespread poverty still suffered by Southerners of all races.
  2. Emigration continues to be a valid and honorable option, simply because there are still some parts of the world where people believe in liberty. Idolatry is a sin, and making an idol of one’s country or its form of government is no exception. It isn’t “the idea of America” that I am concerned about – it’s virtue, limited government, individual liberty with the responsibility that it entails, economic opportunity, and our Judaeo-Christian heritage. If more conservative people go to a place where there is already a conservative population, it becomes a net gain for both the newcomers and for their new country.
  3. Virtue begins at home, in our private lives. Those who find it impossible to survive while living a virtuous life under a socialist/fascist government will preserve their honor by leaving.
  4. Just because Bill Whittle personally likes Mitt Romney doesn’t make Mitt either a good candidate or a good man. Politicians know how to charm influential people such as Bill Whittle. Mitt Romney isn’t even a conservative, he makes Russia into an enemy, and he doesn’t get the Counterjihad.
  5. The bigger the city, the denser the population – in more ways than one! We will still have big cities, and we must find ways to counter big-city corruption and machine politics.
  6. Because of the tyrannical and contradictory nature of taxation and regulation, more and more people won’t be able to pay all those taxes and follow all those regulations and still survive. More and more formerly law-abiding people will have no choice but to make their living “off the books.” A tyrannical government promotes a corrupt and predatory mentality. I work in retail and we are plagued with people shoplifting small items such as pen refills and sometimes even clearance items that nobody would have bothered to steal a decade ago.
  7. Bill Whittle’s new economic structure based on “voluntary microtaxes” (actually private donations for causes people believe in) will be much harder to implement than he anticipates. That’s because we conservatives who are not on the Obama gravy train have much less discretionary income than he realizes – and tyrannical governments always find ways to destroy their subjects who engage in independent productive activity.

Just sayin’…

  • There is no “Stockholm syndrome” on 1389 Blog or in our lives outside of the blogosphere.
  • There should be no “Stockholm syndrome” in your life either.

{ 0 comments }

On YouTube:

YouTube Preview Image

Published on Nov 28, 2012 by ScratchGroup

This animation vid was created in response to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Our view is simply that Israel has the right to defend itself.


{ 0 comments }

White cat with snowcat: 'Who did this?'

A Big Cat Christmas!

(h/t: eaglesoars)
YouTube Preview Image

Published on Dec 21, 2012 by BigCatRescue

Looking for a purr-fect gift? The 2013 Big Cat Rescue Calendar is available NOW!

It’s Christmas time for tigers, lions, leopards and more at Big Cat Rescue! Watch the big cats “opening” their presents and investigating their Christmas Trees! Thanks to our supporters who continue to enable us to provide fun enrichment for the cats all year long! HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

WEBSITE
FACEBOOK
GOOGLE+
TWITTER
DONATE
BIG CAT SHOP

THANK YOU!


{ 0 comments }

Matt Damon: Promised Land

Matt Damon’s Anti-Fracking Movie Financed by Oil-Rich Arab Nation

By Lachlan Markay

September 28, 2012 at 8:03 am

A new film starring Matt Damon presents American oil and natural gas producers as money-grubbing villains purportedly poisoning rural American towns. It is therefore of particular note that it is financed in part by the royal family of the oil-rich United Arab Emirates.

The creators of Promised Land have gone to absurd lengths to vilify oil and gas companies, as Scribe’s Michael Sandoval noted Wednesday. Since recent events have demonstrated the relative environmental soundness of hydraulic fracturing – a technique for extracting oil and gas from shale formations – Promised Land’s script has been altered to make doom-saying environmentalists the tools of oil companies attempting to discredit legitimate “fracking” concerns.

While left-leaning Hollywood often targets supposed environmental evildoers, Promised Land was also produced “in association with” Image Media Abu Dhabi, a subsidiary of Abu Dhabi Media, according to the preview’s list of credits. A spokesperson with DDA Public Relations, which runs PR for Participant Media, the company that developed the film fund backing Promised Land, confirmed that AD Media is a financier. The company is wholly owned by the government of the UAE.

The UAE, a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), has a stake in the future of the American fossil fuel industry. Hydraulic fracturing has increased the United States’ domestic supply of crude oil and natural gas in areas such as the Bakken shale formation and has the potential to increase domestic production much more in the foreseeable future. That means more oil on the market, and hence lower prices for a globally traded commodity.

Fracking is boosting the country’s natural gas supply as well. While the market for American natural gas is primarily domestic, the Energy Department recently approved Cheniere Energy’s plan to export about 2.2 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas per day from Louisiana. The Department is considering LNG export applications from seven other companies.

A strong global market presence for American natural gas could also work to the UAE’s disadvantage. The Arab nation ranks seventh worldwide in proven natural gas reserves. For instance, Japan’s energy imports are expected to rise significantly over the next five years. The country is currently a major importer of UAE natural gas. If it decided to import more LNG from the United States to accommodate its increased energy demands, it could deal a blow to the UAE economy.

Another source of competition might come from other industries that use natural gas to manufacture other products. As American gas grows cheaper the United States becomes a more attractive destination for industries that manufacture petroleum-intensive products. The UAE, meanwhile, has invested billions attempting to shore up its own share of the plastics and chemicals markets, both of which rely on petroleum products and are likely to gravitate towards the cheapest sources of those products.

All of this suggests a direct financial interest on the UAE’s part in slowing the development of America’s natural gas industry. Pop culture can be a powerful means to sway public opinion. While Promised Land, like anti-fracking documentary Gasland, appears to inflate the dangers of hydraulic fracturing, it may have an impact on the public’s view of the practice.

More here.

Oscar nominations or no, expect this film to be a box-office bust:

Breitbart: ‘Promised Land’ Review: Anti-Fracking Propaganda Gussied Up as Oscar Bait

Knee-jerk ideology has poisoned the creative wells of two of Hollywood’s more talented stars.

 
“Promised Land,” an anti-fracking propaganda film dressed up as Oscar-season fare, re-teams “Good Will Hunting” star Matt Damon with director Gus Van Sant. Neither can salvage a story that exists solely to demonize natural gas companies and the process of fracking.

Sure, Van Sant’s camera captures some quaint landscapes, and Damon remains a rigorously engaged actor. But who could push past a story top heavy with silly twists, undernourished subplots and a hero without a clue as to why his enemies hate his handiwork?

What’s most surprising is that you’ll leave the theater knowing little more about the pros and cons of fracking than when you entered.

“Promised Land,” co-financed by forces eager to squash new American-based energy sources, casts Damon as a salesman climbing the corporate ladder at a billion-dollar natural gas firm. Steve is sent to a rural Pennsylvania town, one of many dying in our flailing economy, to secure drilling permit rights for farm land loaded with shale. The company will use the controversial process of fracking to dig deep into the shale deposits to line its corporate coffers and throw much needed cash to the land owners. Steve’s co-worker (Frances McDormand, far too good for such material) is on hand to help seal the deal.

The plan seems assured until a local teacher (Hal Holbrook) and an environmental activist (John Krasinski) start convincing the locals how bad fracking is for the environment.

The film’s script, written by Damon and Krasinsky, lacks courage, brains and logic. Damon’s character is a star businessman, a guy who can put the squeeze on a mayor one minute and then sweet talk the locals to sign any piece of paper in his pocket the next. Yet when confronted with a green-certified fracking critic he practically breaks down and cries like a baby.

Wouldn’t a fracking salesman be up on both the alleged criticisms of his industry as well as the best ways to shred his opponents’ arguments? Not here. And didn’t Steve expect at least some resistance to his proposal? That there Google has plenty of anti-fracking videos even the hayseeds he’s dealing with can peruse.

Things get uglier when Krasinski’s character makes a move on the purty teacher (Rosemarie DeWitt) Steve courts by getting drunk and passing out on her couch.

Van Sant and co. aren’t subtle about their intentions with “Promised Land.” The energy company here is depicted as ruthless, its workers spit out the same tired jokes and sales pitches. The locals are given little complexity. Either they’re angry at Steve for potentially ruining their land, eager to spend the money he’s promising to give them or simply pawns swayed by a town fair or emotionally charged poster.

At one point, a banner with the natural gas company logo flutters and falls on Steve’s car windshield as a storm washes away his plans to win the townsfolk over. If only we could decode what the symbolism means.

“Promised Land” leaves us with a twist so hackneyed it should have been laughed out of the first table read. Instead, it arrives to make sure we don’t forget the messages the film has been screaming at us from the opening sequence. Fracking bad. Big business very bad. And movies based on pure ideology, not sturdy storytelling, are even worse.

More here.


{ 1 comment }

FreeBeacon: Chinese Hackers Suspected in Cyber Attack on Council on Foreign Relations

No Council on Foreign Relations

BY: Bill Gertz

Computer hackers traced to China carried out an advanced cyberespionage attack against one of America’s most elite foreign policy web groups – the website of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

According to private computer-security forensic specialists, the hacking incident involved a relatively new type of ploy called a “drive-by” website cyber attack that was detected around 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday.

The specialists, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the attack involved penetrating the computer server that operates the New York City-based CFR’s website and then using the pirated computer system to attack CFR members and others who visited or “drove by” the site.

The activity ended on Thursday and the specialists believe the attackers either removed their malicious software to prevent further details of the attack from being discovered, or CFR was able to isolate the software and remove it.

The FBI was notified of the attack and is said to be investigating.

FBI spokeswoman Jennifer Shearer declined to comment when asked about the attack. But she told the Washington Free Beacon: “The FBI routinely receives information about threats and takes appropriate steps to investigate those threats.”
[...]
The method used in a “drive-by” attack requires hackers to covertly plant malicious software in the CFR computer system. Then, they used the software and the web site to attack visitors to the site by infecting their computers in a hunt for secrets and other valuable information. One of the specialists said the attack also involved using the CFR site for what is called a “watering hole” attack, when people who visit the website are infected.

One of the victims who visited the CFR’s website, cfr.org, discovered the attack and alerted computer security specialists on Wednesday.

In response, a small group of private security specialists launched an investigation into the activity and found that that it only targeted computer users using the web browser Windows Internet Explorer 8 and higher versions. The attackers were able to exploit a security flaw in the browser software called a “zero-day” vulnerability – a previously unknown flaw that allows computer hackers to gain access to a targeted computer.
[...]
Investigators said the computer attackers that targeted CFR were able to set up a covert network capable of identifying, encrypting and sending stolen information found in targeted and infected computers back to a secret command and control computer.

In the case of the CFR hack, the malicious software involved software that included Mandarin Chinese language, the specialists said. Also, the attackers limited their targeting to CFR members and website visitors who used browsers configured for Chinese language characters – an indication the attackers were looking for people and intelligence related to China.
[...]
The CFR is one of the most elite foreign policy organizations in the United States with a membership of some 4,700 officials, former officials, journalists and others. Its members include NBC anchor Brian Williams, Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie, and former Sen. Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s embattled but as yet un-nominated choice for secretary of defense.

Current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, the Obama administration’s senior Asian affairs policy maker, also are CFR members. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) is also a member, as is Secretary of State-designate Sen. John Kerry.

Its board and members include a who’s who of U.S. foreign policy and national security elites, including former U.S. Central Command commander Army Gen. John Abizaid, and former Secretaries of State Madeleine K. Albright, Colin Powell and Henry Kissinger.

Fox News CEO Roger Ailes also is a member, as is News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch. Former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are members, as is former CIA Director and former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and former CIA Director David Petraeus.
[...]
More here.

Now hear this!

The Chinese are not the enemies of the US – not unless we choose to make them so. That said, it is exceedingly unwise and improvident for the US government to allow itself to become indebted to anyone, let alone to a foreign government, friendly or otherwise.

Our enemies are Islam, socialism, and those who aid and abet either of the former. Our very worst enemies are those at home: the CFR and everyone involved with it, no matter which political party they claim to be allied with.

Our forebears condemned traitors to execution by means of stout hemp rope.

Dante Alighieri condemned traitors to the ninth circle of Hell.

They. Have. It. Coming.


{ 0 comments }