Supporting Islam = Treason (#2)

I have elected to apply the "KISS Principle" to this matter.
1. Treason, under our Constitution, is limited to waging war against the USA (Which includes adhering-to or supporting those who are active in such acts).
2. Islam has been in a state of self-declared war against all non-Muslims for 1400-years.
3. Islam requires all of its adult male members to either be personally involved in such warfare
(Jihad) or to "support it with all their wealth".
4, Much (Most?) of all contributions to "Islamic Charities" ends up, as the Koran commands (Please see #3 above) in the hands of terrorists whose program includes attacks on the USA.
5. No believing Muslim will publicly condemn or deny those parts of the Koran or other Islamic teachings which call for such wars---Including against the non-Muslim citizens of and lawful visitors to the USA.

SUPPORTING ISLAM AND ITS ONGOING WAR AGAINST ALL OTHERS (INCLUDING THE USA) IS TREASON. THE PENALTY FOR TREASON IS DEATH.

What Is True Charity?

What is "charity"? Well, it is certainly NOT the mere transfer of property from one person (Or, "class") to another----Especially when demanded and enacted by governments.

"Charity" is the love (Charitas) underlying the free-and-voluntary giving of care, physical-emotional-spiritual, to others when they need any or all of such gifts---And, includes the spirit in which such are given. All of those gifts can best be given without the receiver knowing anything about the giver except the charitas sent with the gifts.

There are times-and-places (eg The South of the Sudan) when it is NOT enough to merely give BUT to also insure that the receiver has the protection-and-peace in which to use what has been given. In such cases the gift of physical protection must be given---But, seldom is. When it is, the suffering, blood, limbs and lives of protectors are also gifts of charitas.

These protectors are given and accept the vocation to help protect Christ's sheep-and-lambs (And such occasional goats, as "pathological pacifists", specially provided by the Church) as they are willing to to show that "greater love" (See John 15:13) which was so praised by the Christ.

Those protectors are called "WARRIORS" and may be members of armed forces---Or, such citizens who are willing to make the same gift of life.

Dealing With Neo-Nazis

Neo-Nazis who go merely about, posturing in strange uniforms (Like the "Fruit Of Islam"), should be either ignored or treated to finger-pointing and belly-bending bouts of laughter---Either tactic defeating their goal of maintaining and stirring-up what is left of inter-racial hatred in the USA (As is the tactic of the "Nation Of Islam", Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and such like critters).

Those Neo-Nazis, IF ANY, who misuse the right to keep and bear arms, attack-injure-kill their fellow citizens or support their desires-and-lusts by rape-and-robbery should be punished according to law. [If "The Law" does not effectively punish those crimes, then citizens, organized into companies of The General Militia or Committees-Of-Vigilance should do so in the effective traditions of the American People---A tactic recommended to such persons who live in "Black neighborhoods" to deal with the outlaws who dwell among them without effective actions by the police to prevent their crimes.]

Effective Dealing With Rioters

The recent mob actions in Philadelphia, Milwaukee and Londonistan lead to the question of how to deal with rioters as individuals and groups. The "stuck in the 1960s" social theories and resultant actions do NOT do so.

AS INDIVIDUALS AND SMALL GROUPS: The police appear usually too few or too late OR too politically afraid to take such EFFECTIVE actions as will protect innocents from death or great bodily injury or life-destroying property damage by such individuals or small groups.

However, citizens in some places can assist the police my marking such rioters as evidence. The most effective way of doing so is by putting 0.32-inch (The size of "OO" buckshot) or 9mm or .38/.45/.30-inch holes in the bodies of such thugs.

Thereafter and when danger is past, the police can take out their little note-books and record the evidence left for them. (Please Note: A hard touch of a triangular file to the lands of a gun barrel and light touch to the tip of a firing-pin and extractor will neutralize the usual forensic evidence.)

(OH YES---The same "marking" can be utilized as to home-invaders, robbers, rapists, threatening drug dealers & gang-bangers, those followers of Mohammed who attack others who criticize them or their ideology or even include then in general photos in public places) Etc.

IN LARGE GROUPS: The proven best tactic is to have them (By their own actions or by external force) gathered together in one place (eg. A stadium as in the "Nike Riots" in Constantinople, for which see) and use it as a "surrender or die killing zone".

Black Mob Attack On Whites At State Fair

On the evening of August 4, 2011 a very large mob of Black youths attacked Whites on and near the Wisconsin State Fair grounds.

Mr. "Rick" Frenette (CEO, Wisconsin State Fair) totally avoided the fact that the mob who attacked fair goers, inside and outside of the fair grounds, was made up of Black youths. The fair's police spokesman avoided, as much as was possible, that fact.

Mr. Frenette's "solution" to that Black mob action was to order that no youths (White, Black or Green) would be admitted to the fair park, after 5:00pm unless accompanied by adults. This action punishes, without "due process", all non-Black youths and ignores the realities of Black thugs selecting persons of other races as crime victims at a rate many, many, times the reverse.

Although I am somewhat interested in what excuses some (eg Those "Professional Blacks", NOT Black professionals, who make excuses for such misconduct) will make as to this event, I do know that any attack on me or mine at the fair would have such scum requiring major medical treatment---OR, that of the special attention of the Medical Examiner.

I also know that the police were, as usual, too few and too late (And, perhaps, too politically afraid) to protect my fellow citizens. Those free Americans should be prepared to do so in the future as an exercise of their legal right to self-defense and without regard to any laws or rules depriving them of the means to instantly do so

Breivik VS Jihadist: Irrational VS Rational Terrorists

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Rational or Irrational?

In response to last night’s post about the psychopathy of Anders Behring Breivik, our longtime reader and commenter Blogger sent these brief observations on the apparent mental state of the killer:

People who don’t work in mental health have no idea how “normal” psychopaths (as well as irrational people) can present.

I work as a mental health nurse and we sometimes get patients who have written long narratives about various beliefs and philosophies. Their manuscripts are often included in their medical record, and the professionals read them to get background on the patient.

To the untrained observer, these people can come across as incredibly sane, often displaying even more developed ideas that we thought our own were. Those inexperienced in treating the mentally ill may wonder about their own sanity. But we nurses are used to it.

This Norwegian killer was your typical psychopath, and since they are often good-looking and intelligent, people also assume psychopaths are ‘rational’. But the actions of this psychopath are both evil and irrational. It makes no sense, logically, to advance a political stance by presenting it as evil.

An Islamic terrorist, on the other hand, is instructed by his or her highest authority, Allah, and the examples of Muhammad, whose actions Muslims are told to emulate. They are brainwashed.

Therefore the actions of a terrorist carrying out the commands of Allah are evil, but rational.

Winston Churchill On Islam & Obama's Response

Winston Churchill on Islam

This is prescient:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

It comes our way via Bookwoorm who you should be reading daily. She goes deeper and does some juxtaposing and concluding:

Our government would do well to remember the nature of the forces arrayed against us, and to remember Churchill’s advice about recognizing the enemy sooner, rather than later:

“Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

But I think our current leader would be happy to live as a slave, because he does not see much in our culture that is worth saving by fighting. I know that Obama suffers from a vast historical ignorance, one he reveals on a regular basis, so I doubt he has more than a passing familiarity with Churchill’s life or thinking. Nevertheless, it was entirely fitting that our Quisling, Vichy-esque President, as one of his first acts in office, got rid of the Churchill reminder occupying space in his office, and sent it on an ignominious trip aback to its land of origin.

Guns: Thomas Jefferson---Again

This is not a new concept. Cesare Baccaria outlined this truth in his seminal book Crimes & Punishments in 1764, in a passage that made such an impression upon Thomas Jefferson that he copied it into his daybook and quoted it at length in letters to his nephew and to James Madison:

"The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? And does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons."

TO WHICH I ADD AGAIN NOTE MR. JEFFERSON'S OTHER COMMENTS ON ARMS:

No free man shall ever be debarred
the use of arms.

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

The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants

AND, PERHAPS, MOST IMPORTANTLY: President Thomas Jefferson's note on the interpretation of the Constitution: "On every question of construction 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 to the probable one in which it was passed.

I Was Wrong On Norway!

I APOLOGIZE! I was wrong on the source of the recent terrorist act in Norway. I operated on a "If it walks like a Muslim terrorists, If it uses bombs like a Muslim terrorist, I it murders children like a Muslim terrorist, it must be such." I did not think and did not think that Norway could produce an Oklahoma City type of monster (May his name be forgotten!).

While all the pathological pacifists, others in a state of "dhimmitude" (Look it up) and the Islamic providers of their usual disinformation use both as an example of "See, Christians do it also!", the ongoing campaign of rape, murder and genocide will be continued by Muslims in The Sudan and most of those crimes throughout the world---As a standard for behavior set by the teachings of Islam and the example of that fellow Mohammed (Himself a murderer, liar and treaty-breaker, bandit and the perverted sexual abuser of a nine-year-young girl-child).

What Is A "Mosque"?

NER: ‘What is a mosque? Interview with Sam Solomon
Posted on August 1, 2010 by Eeyore
This is an interview quite similar to the one Vlad Tepes did of Mr. Solomon on June 7th of this year. Here is a written transcript of that interview from The New English Review:
What is a Mosque? An Interview with Sam Solomon
by Jerry Gordon (August 2010)

Gordon: Greetings Mr. Solomon and thank you for consenting to this interview. Let us start with the simple question, what is a mosque and what is its basic function in the Muslim community?
Solomon: A mosque, totally unlike a church or a synagogue, serves the function of orchestrating and mandating every aspect of “life” in a Muslim community from the religious, to the political, to the economic, to the social, to the military. In Islam, religion and life are not separate. They are indivisible. In Islam religion is not just a part of life, but “life” is absorbed and regulated to the tiniest detail by religion (See Figure 1). In other words every aspect of a man or woman’s life must be defined and governed by religion. So there is no concept of personal choice whatsoever, or in theological terms, there is no “free will,” but only limited preferences between prescribed courses of action. In addition, there is no concept of a personal relationship between the person and the entity being worshiped, so “worship” itself, is of a different nature than that performed in a church or synagogue.

Figure 1: Comparison of Non-Islamic vs Islamic views of one’s freedom of choice and options in life.So we see that a mosque is a seat of government. A mosque is a school. A mosque is a court. A mosque is a training center. A mosque is a gathering place, or social center. It is not a place of “worship” per se as understood and as practiced in Western societies.
Specifically, how is a mosque a threat to the community within which it is built?
Every single mosque in the world, by definition, is modeled on the mosque of Muhammad in Medina in accordance with the Sunnah. The Sunnah interprets the Qur’an by reporting exhaustively on everything that Muhammad said, did, or consented to. Therefore, his Medina mosque, the first mosque, was a place where he gave judgments, where he decided who would be executed, where he instituted policy—domestic and military— where Jihad war strategies were designed. Consequently, it was a storage place for arms, a military training base, and was where troops were blessed and dispatched. Literally they were sent to conquer – first the whole of Arabia, and then the rest of the known world. Therefore if the present-day mosque is modeled as per the Sunnah of Muhammad then there should be very serious concern. As is well-known, Muslims are required to follow the example (Sunnah) of Muhammad—and according to Sura 33:36 it is not an option or a matter of opinion: “It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.”  This explains and establishes beyond doubt why arms have been found in mosques in various countries, and in different capital cities.
In addition to the undisputed significance of the Medina mosque as the role model for all Mosques, there is also the Islamic policy of establishing strategic Mosques as beachheads with interconnected networks. Taken together, these two policies do constitute a clear and present danger—and a need for concern.
For example, when Abu Hamza[1] was the Imam of the Finsbury Park mosque in the United Kingdom, he trained people, he sent out terrorists  and British authorities found arms stored there.  He was well within his Islamic mandate as these activities were sanctioned by Islam. He didn’t find it wrong because it is in the Islamic manuals. Another prime example of a mosque being found to have engaged in high-level political, military and intelligence activities is the Munich Mosque, which is now considered by Islamists to be on a par with some  of highest-ranked Mosques in Muslim countries.[2]
What comment do you have on the significance of the Ground Zero Mosque set to open on 9/11, 2011?
First of all, the sponsors and supporters of the Ground Zero Mosque insist that the significance of the building of this mosque is that it constitutes a refutation of the radical “fringe” within Islam, and as such, is a gesture of peace and reconciliation toward America and the victims of 9/11.
But, it is ludicrous for anybody to accept that this is a gesture of peace in the Western sense—rather it is a different definition of “peace.” It is the Islamic definition of “peace” as a suspension of “struggle” which is ultimately said to emerge once opposition ceases, and Islam reigns supreme as Muhammad has stated, “Islam rises and nothing rises above it.”
The rationale of the sponsors is that acts of terrorism are being carried out by misguided “radicals” rather than true Muslims and that as a consequence, Islam itself has been victimized and defamed and needs to be defended. Their solution is to appear to decry all “radicalism”, and to take the bold symbolic act of erecting a 13 to 15-story Mosque—ostensibly representing true Islam—on the site itself, in their words, to “bridge and heal this divide.” [3]
So, if allowed to be built, this mosque would consolidate, solidify, and embody a fallacious and pernicious interpretation of what really happened at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.[4]
In one fell swoop, it will be a re-writing of American history with American cooperation, and will achieve another major Islamic goal of setting a high profile beachhead at a strategic location in the seat of American economic power.
When you speak of setting a “beachhead,” is building this mosque tactically similar to Muslims building  the Al Aqsa Mosque  adjacent to  the Western Wall in Jerusalem?
Most Westerners do not realize that there are two Mosques on the Temple Mount. One is called Masjid Al-Aqsa, the Mosque of Ascension, and the other is called “Qubbat Al-Sakhra”, the Dome of the Rock.
To provide the groundwork for answering your question more specifically, the basic principle is, that a mosque, totally unlike a church or synagogue, is a “sign” and a “symbol” of the establishment of “authority”—both religious and political—not just a place of worship for its adherents.
A mosque is the symbol of the establishment of an Islamic authority, and an announcement of the beginning of the “rightful restoration” of the land according to Islamic claims that the “whole world is a mosque,” and is echoed in Muhammad’s words, “the whole earth has been declared unto me a mosque.” Therefore it is a matter of “restoring” rather than “claiming” the land to Islam, as any land not in current submission is at virtual war with Islam, and must be brought “back” according to the Qur’anic version of history.
This process of “bringing back” has a name, it is called “Islamisation,” and is implemented progressively though immigrating segregating, gaining rights, and slowly asserting the supremacy of Islam politically, socially and even culturally. So, yes, the Ground Zero Mosque would be a beachhead—and an important one, but it is not exactly the same as in the case of the Al Aqsa Mosque.
The building of the Al Aqsa Mosque adjacent to the Western Wall was a necessary consolidation of prior Qur’anic claims to the Holy Land and the spiritual base of Judeo-Christian Monotheism,[5] whereas the building of the Ground Zero Mosque would be more in line with the tactical aspect of spreading the base. (See footnote 3)
Having said that, some “beachhead” mosques are more strategic than others.  As we have seen earlier the Munich Mosque became the most influential of those built outside Muslim lands prior to the proposed Ground Zero Mosque.
If built, the Ground Zero Mosque will be the most influential sign and symbol of Islamic authority in the Western World.

t thing for us to know about Islam?
>The most important thing for a non-Muslim to understand about Islam is that Islam is not simply a religion. Islam is a social and political system, an indivisible melding of religion and state.
It is a socio-political, socio-religious, socio-economical, socio-educational, socio-judiciary, legislative militaristic system cloaked and garbed in religious terminology.
We must never forget that Islam is an all-encompassing ideological system, and as such wherever there is a Muslim community there will be Sharia and wherever there is a Sharia there is an Islamisation of the territory and ultimately of the nation.

Obama Has "Done Things"!

Some persons have accused Mr. B. H. Obama of doing nothing while President of the United States except continue to "campaign". THAT IS FALSE! He and his Administration have, as far as I can tell, worked mightily towards their goals through the following affirmative deeds.

1. He alienated some of our best allies (eg The UK, Poland, The Czech Republic and, most specially, Israel) by a combination of insults and betrayals including declaring Israel a "terrorist nation".
2. He has most specially attacked those in our nation most able to create new and permanent jobs (ie The small business owners) by imposing tax-like masses of administrative rules-and-regulations, plus an impending and impossible like burden
if and when "Obamacare" goes into effect.
3. He has done all possible to reduce the "free exercise of religion", but only by Christians, and has done all possible to poof-up Islam (An ideology which is based on, among other things, a perpetual declaration of war against all "unbelievers" as a direct command from its Allah). This includes an "opening up to the Muslim Brotherhood" whose goals and means are, in every way, opposed to that favored by the great majority of US citizens.
4. His Administration has, most specially, attacked the best staff of the CIA (ie Those whose successes are not reported) and exposed them to unwarranted prosecution.
5. Even more than prior presidents, he has refused to secure the Southern borders of the USA against drug smugglers, Mexican based "hit squads" and "kidnapping details", drug lord aided Middle-Eastern terrorists, job thieves---And very much lied about this matter.
6. His agents have facilitated the arming of Mexican drug gangs, against the advise of front line BATF agents and honest-and-protesting American gun dealers,
7. He has weakened the credit of the USA by enabling the spending of trillions of dollars more than the income of our nations (Weakened, in part, by his above-noted anti-job tactics).
8. However, he has proved he is an "honest politician" (ie He stayed bought) by his loyalty to: Job-destroying and budget-busting public and private unions; Other supporters of illegal immigration; That small "Gay" minority in the USA; Such traitors as "Bill" Ayers; Others of the same and anti-American purposes; And, others of the same ilk.
9. He as over-extended the Armed Forces of the USAs in useless military operations, thus aiding the ememies of our nation.

IN FACT, IT APPEARS THAT, WITH VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS, HIS EVERY OFFICIAL ACT HAS WEAKENED THE USA IN THE FACE OF ITS ENEMIES, EXTERNAL-AND-INTERNAL

Quo usque tandem abutere Obama, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?[Paraphrased from Cicero's orations against the traitor Catiline.]

I, Me, Myself As Racist?

Due to some of my comments about Mr. B. H. Obama, Al (The Liar)Sharpton, Jessie (The Extortionist) Jackson I have been accused of being an anti-Black racist against them. If, and only if, there was a hint of racism on my part, it would be against other blacks for the self-slavery to those persons who are "professional Blacks" making a living or sustaining their power by the ongoing stirring up of what remains of inter-racial mistrust in the USA.

Whatever remained of my youthful racism (If any) has been erased by such persons as Walter Mitchell, Professor Thomas Sowell, Congressman (Ex-soldier) Alan West and Herman Cain (Who I support in his campaign for the Presidency) who happen to be Black, but are true professionals and gentlemen.

[In the case the goat-loving Muslim who comments on my column makes his cowardly comments on this one, I remind all that: Being a Muslim is NOT a matter of race; The false prophet Mohammed called blacks "raisin heads"; And, in the classical Arabic of that critter, the same word is used for slave as for a Black person.]

Wisconsin's Unconstitutional CCW Law

The new Wisconsin CCW Law (1) and related legislation violates my constitutional (Article-I, Section-25, The Constitution of Wisconsin) in a variety of ways, of which the following are only some of those limits.
A. I cannot step off my property (2) without being within 1000-feet of a school and, therefore, am restricted from bearing arms on a capricious and arbitrary basis. The density of schools in my and other urban areas makes the exercise of that rule impossible in practicable terms and discriminates against me and others because we are urban dwellers.
(This is also against the public policy which supports the conservation of gasoline; I note hat I purchased my home before the "1000-foot rule" was placed into law.)
B. Declaring rifles and shotguns, for the purposes of this act, as "not guns" is a violation against reason, is arbitrary-and-capricious, and is unenforceable
C. That CCW law requires me to pay a fee to exercise a constitutional right. As the charging of such fees (eg "Poll Taxes") are, by extension of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution and relevant court decisions (3) are patently unconstitutional.
D. The requirement for "training" may be an equal, parallel, violation of law as: Most such training programs assess a fee/charge; And, if any written test is required, a violation of equal rights parallel to those mis-used by some jurisdictions to limit voting (4).
E. As I (And many others) have physical problems limiting my (Our) ability to walk
down-and-up steps (eg At gun shops where "training" is often given) or for extended distances (eg At out-of-door gun-clubs/ranges offering like training), the imposition a training requirement may be a violation of the "Americans With Disabilities Act" (5) and may expose the State of Wisconsin to damages for enforcing that provision.
F. Charging a fee for a "fingerprint/record check" is parallel to the those noted above; This especially in light of the fact that purchasing a firearm already requires a fee-based check (Which I recently paid in the process of buying a firearm) and that the permit-issuing authority (Or any law enforcement agency can easily use existing electronic resources to check for prior felony convictions, current court orders which might limit CCW or like pending cases.(Also, a simple, but sworn-to, statement that there are no legal bars to CCW would legally suffice as the penalties for "False Swearing" are severe.)
G.. The conversion of local public libraries (Apparently already done) and public university grounds-and-buildings into "gun fee zones" makes them into "free fire zones" for criminals and "crazies" which: Provides those anti-social persons with unequal protection of the laws above those of other citizens; And, most certainly, should not be public policy (6).
I. Finally, there is nothing in Article-I, Section-25 which allows the Legislature (Or, the Courts) to put limits on the right to bear arms for the lawful purposes contained in that Amendment (7).

I also note the following:
I. I most certainly hope that the Legislature had the foresight to include some clause in the noted legislation which would prevent the entire Act from being declared unconstitutional if one-or-more parts-or-sections of it are so ruled.
II. If not, the Legislature must pass corrective legislation in the immediate future.
III. If, and only if, any CCW permit is required, there is no rational reason for it to cost more than the ID-card now issued by Wisconsin's Department of Transportation; An agency which is set-up to issue such cards and should be delegated that job (The CCW card to show citizenship and "double" as a voter-ID card and general ID as is the current DOT card).
IV. Is the State of Wisconsin willing to throw away money defending that unconstitutional Act?

NOTES
(1) http (colon)//legis (dot)wisconsin (dot) gov/publications/im/M2011_pdf
(2) Post: Curtilage--So You Do Not Have To Look It Up
Link: http://crusaderknight.blogspot.com/2011/06/curtilage-so-you-do-not-have-to-look-it.html
(3) http (colon) en (dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment-to-the_United_States-Constitution
(4) http(colon)en(dot)en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Literacy_test
(5) http(colon)//www(dot)ada(dot)gov
(6) Post: Why Did So Many Students Die?
Link: http://crusaderknight.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-did-so-many-students-die-at.html
(7) Wisconsin Constitution Article I, Section 25
"The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."

After Shooting Someone In Self-Defense

WITH THE PASSAGE OF A CCW LAW IN WISCONSIN, THOSE WHO "CARRY" AND ARE FORCED TO USE A GUN (OR OTHER WEAPON) IN SELF-DEFENSE SHOULD BE AWARE OF THIS ARTICLE.

THE BEST ARTICLE OF 2008..
After The Shooting
"...there are some things that you need to remember..."
by Larry Correia
As self-defense oriented people, we tend to think about the actual encounter a lot, and seldom, if ever, about what we should do in the aftermath. If you are unlucky enough to be involved in a violent encounter, there are some things that you need to remember to maximize your chances of a successful outcome.

Call for help immediately. Even if you produced the gun and your assailant retreated with no shots fired, call the police. If there is somebody out there worth pulling a gun on, then the cops need to know about it. They may have just gone around the corner to pick an easier victim.

As soon as it is safe for you to do so, call 911. Always ask for an ambulance. If somebody has been shot, whether injured or even if you are a hundred percent sure that they are dead, I still want you to ask for medical attention. First off, killing people sucks, so if I've got an injured assailant, I don't want him to die, I just wanted to make him leave me alone. Second, if you don't ask for medical attention, then there is a good chance that fact will be brought up during any potential trial. Basically it is just another tool of a prosecutor trying to portray the permit holder as a blood-thirsty vigilante.

If humanly possible, have your weapon secured before the police arrive, at least in your holster, but definitely not in your hand. The responding officers do not know you, and the information they got from dispatch was probably sketchy at best. The last thing you want to do is survive a violent encounter only to get shot by the cops because they think you're the bad guy.

If you are ever in a situation where you still have the gun in your hands, and the police arrive, they are going to order you to drop the gun. Comply with their instructions because otherwise they may think you are the threat and very well may shoot you. Do not start talking or trying to explain what is going on. Don't be offended because they are treating you like the bad guy. This is not the time to get indignant. This is the time to keep from getting shot.

If you have medical training, and you have just shot and injured an attacker, you may be tempted to administer first aid. Keep in mind, however, that a minute ago this person was trying to hurt you bad enough that they were worth shooting. That threat may still be a threat. Your primary advantage is the fact that you have a firearm. If you then put yourself close enough to administer treatment, you are giving up that advantage. He may not be as incapacitated as you thought, and when he wakes up and sees the person who just shot him within arm's length, you have a real good chance of getting your head twisted off your shoulders. He may have a folding knife that you won't know about until it cuts your kidney in half.

Keep in mind that when the police shoot somebody, the paramedics do not rush in and give immediate aid. The police always secure the individual before the paramedics move in. That is for everyone's safety. If you have been through first responder training, keep in mind one of the very first examples that was given to your class. If you come across a car accident, and the car is on fire, you do not have to climb into the burning car to try and help, because now you are just one more injured person to treat. You never want to endanger yourself to administer aid.


Never tamper with the crime scene. You may have heard the old myth, usually given by an imbecile that does not understand self-defense law, "if you shoot the guy on the porch, drag him in the living room." Bad idea. Do not ever do that. Once you shoot someone, wherever it happened is now a crime scene. If you tamper with the evidence, the authorities will figure it out, and this will now create doubt in the minds of the reasonable people looking at your case. If you felt the need to tamper with the scene, they will believe that you are trying to hide something. The only thing you may do is to make the area physically safe for yourself, but other than that, leave it alone.

On that same note, do not flee the scene. Your personal safety comes first, so if you need to get away to keep from being injured, that is one thing, but make sure that you then call the police as quickly as possible. If you flee the scene of a shooting, that once again raises the specter of guilt with the authorities, and that will color their investigation accordingly.

The responding officers are going to question you. I want you to give a brief statement, and then shut up, accent on brief, with little or no details. As in, "Officer, he attacked me, I was in fear for my life, so I shot him." That is it. Do not start to babble to the police. Do not try to explain everything at the time. They will continue to question you. At that point you will politely tell them that you are not going to answer any more questions until you have your attorney present.

When you shoot somebody, unless you have ice water in your veins, you will be going through various stress reactions. Some of you may be in shock, others will be distraught that they just took a life, others may be enraged that some bad guy just threatened their children, but whatever your reaction, you will not be in a calm state of mind. It is a medical fact that adrenalin affects our higher brain functions. You will tend to forget details, some of which may be very important, or even worse, your brain will fill in the forgotten blanks with facts that will later be shown to be incorrect.

Wait until you have an attorney present before you make your complete statement. This gives you the time to compose yourself and calm down. Also, the Bill of Rights gives us the right to legal counsel. Take advantage of it. A good attorney will keep you from saying anything stupid that will be used against you in court later.

Now some of you may not like this. You may have the mistaken belief that it is the bad guys that need the defense attorneys, not us good guys. Unfortunately that is not how it works in real life. We work in an adversarial system, and anything you say during a statement, can and will be used against you in a court of law.

These are just a few basic tips to keep in mind. Your primary consideration in a violent encounter is to first survive the attack, but doing these things may help you survive the aftermath.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

-Larry Correia is an author, firearms instructor, and one of the owners of Fuzzy Bunny Movie Guns in Draper, Utah. FBMG is a gun store, specializing in self-defense needs, training, and full-line smithing. Their online store is at www.fbmginc.com The author can be reached at larry@fbmginc.com

Marriage, Democracy And Like Subjects

I continue to be both amazed and distressed at the too many people who will not accept the democratically expressed will of the People as to, in this case, the support of the traditional definition-of and laws-regarding "marriage". This includes Mr. B. H. Obama as to the "Defense Of Marriage Act" (DOMA), as enacted by our Congress, AND, columnist Sherry Schultz ("No liberty and justice for all in Wisconsin"; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel; July 2, 2011; Page-4J) as to the direct will of the People in enacting an amendment to our Constitution defining marriage and limiting certain benefits to persons in that state. The same and democratic decision was not accepted by the minority in California where a like proposal has been appealed to some judge on the left-coast.

There are those who claim that allowing same-sex "marriages" will lead to demands that multi-partner like relationships to be allowed under law. From hardly noticeD news items, there have been such moves in other places.

If this continues, our only question may be: "WHAT IS THE AGE-OF-CONSENT FOR A SHEEP?".

Dane County Courts VS Democracy

There have been, at least, two Dane County Circuit Court decisions halting the enforcement of our "collective bargaining law"---The last being by Judge Maryann Summi. More recently, another Dane County Circuit Court judge has attempted to nullify the State Constitution's provision defining marriage and forbidding allowing marriage related benefits to "other" couples.

. This again raises this question: Why do the citizens of Dane County (Especially Madison, that "X square miles surrounded by reality") have the unequal power to elect those judges who have the "first shot" at challenging the acts of our Legislature, whose members are elected from all of Wisconsin's counties, and the Administrative Rules of the Executive Branch of our government, headed by a governor elected by all the voters of this State?

Again, this appears to very much be an unequal protection of the law, one acting against the People outside of Dane County.

Again, I suggest randomly selected from all of Wisconsin's Circuit Courts, three judge panels (No two judges from the same Court Of Appeals district), to make decisions on all such challenges to State Acts. With today's teleconferences and like communications, this should not be a problem. Appeals from those panels would go, if accepted, directly to the State Supreme Court.

In fact, it is well-past-the-time when the Legislature should enforce equal rights to those citizens, outside of Dane County, as to judicial reviews of the acts of that Legislature and of our various Administrative Rule making agencies.

Jury Instruction VS Too Complex Laws

Many of our laws (Most specially as to tax-codes, business laws, "green" laws and such like creations of those lawyers lurking in legislative bodies and administrative agencies). "Common sense", as a requirement for citizens who generally wish to obey our laws, has become most uncommon.

As for criminal court (Or other prosecutions) which may result in jail/prison terms or crippling fines, I suggest that the following be the first "jury instruction" given and the first rule for trials without juries or for Administrative Hearing Examiners or tribunals.

(This is written for jury instructions in criminal cases. Like positions should be posited for non-jury trials and administrative hearings.)

"The jury is first to consider if the law in question is one that can be understood by the ordinary citizen, with an average education and without prior consultation with an attorney or other like specialist. If the Jury finds the answer to be "no", it (They) must acquit without further consideration of any facts or other instructions of the Court. The jury must not consider any "should have known" position unless the defendant was proven to be an expert in the applicable part of the Law. If, and only if, the answer is "yes", then they may proceed to the consideration of the other facts and law pertaining to this case/matter."

It is very likely that such an instruction will not be automatically considered by the Court and may, very likely, be rejected by judges. Yet, proposing it and having it rejected offers a wide door for appeals of any convictions.

You may wish to refer to: Silverglate, Harvey A.; "Three Felonies A Day---How the Feds Target the Innocent"; Encounter Books; New York & London; 2009.

The Dark Side Of Compromise

Mr. David M. Shribman (Executive Editor, the "Pittsburgh Post-Gazette") has touted the benefits of compromise in our national-political life ("Loss of compromise is a threat to nation"; "Milwaukee Journal Sentinel"; June 26, 2011; Page- 1J). I suspect that he has put aside his history books some years ago and has forgotten the very "dark side" of compromise.

During the formation of this nation we executed a probably necessary compromise as to counting slaves to determine States' representation in the Congress. During the 1850s the USA compromised further on the question of slavery. The results of such compromises were: A delay in the abolishing of slavery; The bloodiest war fought by the American People; And, an anti-democracy movement from "these United States" to "the United States".

In the 1930s the United Kingdom and most European nations compromised with Adolf Hitler when a firm "NO!", a few French soldiers and, perhaps, a few rifle shots would have stopped his expansion-of-power into the Saar and throughout Europe. The results of that compromise was many millions of dead and the physical-and-other exhaustion of the USA and other nations.

By "reaching out" and "dialog" the Churches, European nations and the USA are attempting to compromise with a newly resurgent Islam (Which seeks its perpetual goals by traditional means). The results are: Multiple wars in the Middle East; Asymmetrical war with Muslims throughout the world ;Weekly reports of small group or individual, military-style, Jihad everywhere; And severe threats to democracy and public safety in every jurisdiction where Muslims form more that a minute part of the local population.

Within the Congress compromise with morality and financial sanity have yielded a multi-trillion dollar debt, spending well beyond revenues, a great danger to the security of the nation as well as an ongoing roll-call of corruption and anti-democracy arrogance from the White House down to local elected officials.

Compromise with the examples of history will condemn us to repeat the most horrid lessons of history (Paraphrased from George Santayana).

Treason & Support Of Islam

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE-III

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
“ Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[13]

Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695. In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[14] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).
==================================================================================

To me it would seem that such persons as Major Nidal Hasan (Of Fort Hood infamy), those members of the "Fort Dix Six" who were US Citizens. the ex-Marine recently charged with shooting at the Pentagon, the other two and West Coast Muslims recently arrested before they could execute an armed attack on a military installation were all waging war against the USA or planning to do so. But, they were not so charged nor is it likely that the newer cases will result in that object-lesson and most horrid of crimes.

Why? Could it be that Muslims have become "more equal than others" (Like the pigs in "Animal Farm)? Or, could it be that active prosecution of treason cases would place at risk so many editors, publishers, politicians, professors and such persons.
===================================================================================
More specially, I note that it has been clearly demonstrated-and-proved that most contributions to "islamic charities" end up in the hands of terrorists who are, also in fact, involved in active military "jihad" against the Armed Forces of the USA. Such actions meet the requirements of the Constitution and above-reported court case to warrant charges-of and convictions-for treason.

Constitutional Amendment Regarding Lawyers & Congress

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT REGARDING LAWYERS & THE CONGRESS

Section-I: No person who has ever graduated from a school-of-law or has practiced law shall be seated as a Member of the Congress of the United States.

Section-II: Nothing in the Constitution of the United States or in its laws shall prohibit the People of the Several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or of the Territories of the United States from enacting like measures as to the Members of their Legislatures.

Section-III: This Amendment shall take effect five-years after ratification.

========================================================================
NOTE BENE: As lawyers already control the Courts in our national government (And that of the Several States and territories or possessions of the USA) and are well on their way to control the various agencies as make up the Administrative branch of our government(s), it would be well to have one branch free of them. Why?

Attorneys generate laws which are so complex as to insure the full employment of other attorneys (And themselves if removed from office). This complexity leaves the USA in a handicapped place to such economic power-houses, who lack a large lawyer-class, as Japan, Korea, India and the “Peoples Republic” of China.

For the individual citizen or business-owner, the complexity of laws leaves them open to many penalties (Including prison “time”) if they fail to comply with even the smallest detail of some law or Administrative Rule.

“Ignorance of the Law is no excuse—For violating any law” was a sound maxim, when laws (And administrative-rules) were few, written in English and could be known and understood by most citizens with no more than a high-school education. That is no longer the case.

Of course, we could follow William Shakespeare's recommendation (Henry VI, Part-2, Act-4, scene-1) where Dick-The-Butcher states, “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers”. (I would excuse my lawyer who I like!)