Britain Wakes Up ...

...Hand-wringing apologists in 3...2...1.

Anti-terror code 'would alienate most Muslims'

So basically, it goes like this:

In Britain, the level of scrutiny you receive from the government is largely dependent on both the history of your personal actions and with whom you are known to associate.

To me, this sounds reasonable enough - very
"Trust-People-To-Do-What-You've-Seen-Them-Do".

The problem with that approach comes when you factor in Political Correctness and what aspects of their behavior you "mustn't see" because any such acknowledgement is inherently 'insensitive', 'judgemental' or 'discriminatory'.

It seems that someone at the Home Office had an epiphany - realizing that responsible adults (and particularly those responsible for the safety of others) are actually supposed to:

- make judgements,

- discriminate between good/bad/safe/harmful,

- and should do so based on the evidence put before them, regardless of the feelings or sensitivities of themselves or others.

Apparently, once the light died down and the host of angels ran out of breath, the decision was made to start paying attention to people's words and actions, and actually apply them as behavioral red flags to the existing Terror Code - and specifically when determining who should be subject to greater scrutiny as an "Extremist".

The measure (called 'Contest 2') would define extremists as those who "hold views that clash with what the government defines as shared British values."

(meaning essentially that the minority doesn't get to decide what's normal/acceptable for, or in opposition to, the rest of the country)

The meat of this is defined as:

According to a draft of the strategy, Contest 2 as it is known in Whitehall, people would be considered as extremists if:

• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.

• They promote Sharia law.

• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.

• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.

• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

So, if you're living in Britain and you advocate the overthrow of the government, armed religious war against non-muslims, following a law other-than & to-the-exclusion-of the law of the Land, killing gays (because that's the only acceptable treatment for those who sin against Allah) , and/or cheer-on the killing of British soldiers abroad - you will be identified as an Extremist.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me - in fact, I'm a little surprised something so common-sense could come from government at any level.

Now, I can already see the 'thought-police' arguments coming 'round the bend - but let's bear in mind that what we're dealing with here is not some nebulous, double-plus-ungood preference against unhappiness.

This is a matter where it's the simplest thing in the world to draw a broad, straight line between words and actions, usually culminating in the fiery deaths of civilian commuters - and not the least because such actions are almost universally preceded and followed by these very words and sentiments.

Just like "Not all Muslims are suicide bombers, but all suicide bombers are Muslims" - it also follows that "Not all people holding extreme views/beliefs commit mass murder, but all mass murderers hold extreme views/beliefs".

If the bombing/mass-murder parts are the actions, and we know about these only after-the-fact - then what becomes the common-theme predictor to preventing/opposing the actions?

"Those who advocate the wider definition say hardline Islamist interpretation of the Qur'an leads to views that are the root cause of the terrorism threat Britain faces."

Again - take what you've seen people do - when you take any random sampling of religious murders/executions across the world, are we talking about Lutheran, Norwegian grandmothers?

"Ed Husain, of the Quilliam Foundation thinktank, said the root causes of terrorism were extremist views, even if those advocating the views did not call for violence.

Husain, once an extremist himself, said: "Violent extremism is produced by Islamist extremism and it's only right to get into the root causes."

"Root Causes".

Now, here in the US we're more accustomed to those on the Left shrieking about 'root causes' in terms of 'American Imperialism', 'Heartless Capitalism' and 'Evil Conservative Policies' as being the "root causes" of terrorism - but that only works when you disconnect 'A' from 'C'.

I am willing to stipulate right here that those can be "root causes" of indignation, anger and even outrage.

But at the same time one would have to also stipulate that billions of people all over the world feel these very same things over a myriad of conditions every day - and yet do not feel a moral imperative to slaughter innocent bystanders by the hundreds.

So what is the "root cause " of the decision to transform 'ourage' into 'murder'?

If this could remotely be considered a one-off situation the answer might be 'mental illness' generally, or 'psychosis' or 'sociopathy' more specifically.

But this cannot be - even remotely - considered a one-off situation.

And even even opponents to 'Contest 2' have to step carefully to avoid admitting it.

"Inayat Bunglawala, a former spokesman for the Muslim Council of Great Britain, said such plans would affect many British Muslims."

"That would alienate the majority of the British Muslim public. It would be counterproductive and class most Muslims as extremists."

It's obvious that she's trying very, very hard not to say this - but is trapped by the imperative of having to create a sense of wide-spread victimization.

Roll back up to that list - according to one of the more vocal opponents to the common-sense 'Contest 2', that list would class most Muslims as extremists.

Now that's a very 'Horse's Mouth' moment there.

Most. Muslims.

And the proof, as they say...

"The Contest strategy (of which this proposal is "2" - MD) was put in place in 2003 as the UK beefed up its response to the threat of al-Qaida inspired terrorism. But the security service's assessment shows no drop in those they consider dangerous and the UK's terror threat level remains at severe general."

And with the PC-taboo on the identifying features of Islamic-Extremism hampering efforts, who would have thoght such a thing?

"In a speech in December, the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said the government's counterterrorism strategy had to include challenging nonviolent extremist groups that "skirt the fringes of the law ... to promote hate-filled ideologies".

Good Morning, Home Office.

Let me put some coffee on for you.

- MuscleDaddy

Spitzer, The Left and Its Dictators

Why is it that many prominent members of the Left admire dictators? I'll tell you a secret. Just between you and me, don't tell anyone. I believe that "Left" admire them for one simple reason: in their position, they can "get things done".



The Democrat Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, prosecuted a great many people, and publically railed against those who came to their support.
He was a man who could get things done.

"I will not tolerate this behavior" -- Danny Hakim, "Spitzer’s Staff Misused Police, Report Finds", New York Times, July 23, 2007

"ethics and accountability must and will remain rigorous in my administration" -- Cara Matthews, "Cuomo: Spitzer aides used state police to try to damage Bruno", The Ithaca Journal, July 23, 2007

"I have always stated that I want ethics and integrity to be the hallmarks of my administration" -- Melissa Mansfield, "Spitzer punishes aides after AG report", Newsday, 2007-07-23

He'll resign next Monday because of his grossly unethical behavior.



You see, dictators rule by raw power. If you don't do what they say, you'll be in trouble. With that kind of power, you can "get things done" -- in a hurry.



And the many prominent members of the Left are stymied by the lack of power in getting done what they think is right. And there are undoubtedly a few on the Right who feel the same way. The reason there are many more of them on the Left is because members of the Left want to do so much more "for Humanity" -- they see so much more that is "wrong". They pine for power to remove the obstacles they feel are impeding their perceived solutions; they pine for such power to speed up those solutions rather than have to patiently wait while they cajole and convince the masses of the rightness of their cause du jour. Hence, they have an admiration for those who actually have such raw power, and who can "get things done".



But raw power engenders a kind of Manichean anaesthesis of the soul -- tending to sharpen the contrast and remove the grey areas. It turns one's view of the world into fully good and wholly bad with a dollop of zealous righteousness added for good measure. It makes you judge whatever you feel the need to do as on the wholly good side. And this is the genesis of Lord Acton's comment.

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Oddly, they on the Left might actually be able to tell you about Lord Acton's dictum. They may even remember that he is it's author. But they know it wouldn't apply to *them*. After all, they only have the benevolent well-being of their fellow man in mind.



Speaking of dictators that many prominent members of the Left (especially Ramsey Clark, I believe) probably admire, here's someone else who had the well-being of their fellow man in mind, Liberian elected president (and dictator) Charles Taylor, as told by one of Taylor's chief and long-time henchmen.

"He [Taylor] made us understand that you have to play with human blood so enemy forces would be afraid of you."

"We put heads on sticks for people to be afraid. When the person is executed, the stomach is split and you use the intestine as a rope."

"It's not difficult to kill a baby. Sometimes you just knock them on the head, sometimes you throw them in a pit, sometimes you throw them in the river and they are dead."

"We executed everybody -- babies, women, old men. There were so many executions. I can't remember them all."

[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full post.]

An Acton reminder of the ultimate effects of raw power -- as if there aren't enough reminders strewn along the gutters of History's path.

Kim Jong Il's Horn of Plenty

Kim Jong Il presents himself as a demigod to his people, and presents his country as a veritable paradise -- a correctly run paradise. Everywhere else in the world is much much worse.



And demigod is the correct term. His North Korean flock worship him. At numerous larger-than-life statues, they stand and bow down to him.



Unfortunately, there are some backsliders in Kim's paradise.



Late February, for example, 15 of those backsliders were captured. They apparently didn't believe in Kim's land of plenty. So, as they happened to live next to the Chinese border, they crossed over looking for food to eat. When they crossed back they were caught.



It turns out that Kim has been trying to make a point to his people that they should stay inside his borders. He really is serious about it. Recently, 22 fishermen accidentally strayed into South Korean fishing waters, were picked up by the South Korean military and sent back to North Korea. They were immediately executed, of course. Straying from the One True Path isn't what Kim wants for his flock.



And for the backsliders who crossed into China looking for food? Normally, the penalty is 7 years hard labor. But, of late, Kim has been having a problem with obedience. And soon, the Spring harvest will fail again. He probably isn't looking forward to that problem.



So, the thirteen women and two men were lined up on a bridge with the whole town told to turn out and watch. Then they were shot. Murdered. As a warning to other starving members of his flock.



Kim's simple message -- starve like noble worshipers of his flock. Or be murdered.
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full post.]


You see, Kim's Horn of Plenty is chock full of bullets.

Obama's Problem From Hell Gone

Samantha Power is a professor at Harvard ("Global Leadership and Public Policy"). She wrote a book about genocide. She titled it A Problem From Hell. She won a Pulitzer Prize for this book. On the whole, I liked it, and I recommend it. It's a pretty good book except for her assumption that America, being the only remaining superpower, *is* responsible for not stopping on-going genocides around the world. That assuption led to some America-bashing toward the end of the book. Apparently, in her view, the fact that local or regional powers do nothing isn't particularly noteworthy. In reading this book, I (naively) got the impression that she doesn't like genocide.



However, there is one genocide that Ms. Power apparently is perfectly fine with.



She has no problem with the attempted genocide of Israeli Jews. In fact, she actually supports the destruction of Israel. In reading her book on genocide and the steps that America should take to stop it, you wouldn't get this idea. I doubt it would sell very well.



The recent mass murder of Israeli Jewish high school children by Palestinians, widely celebrated by Palestinians, is a good illustration of this. How does Ms. Power react to it? Silence. She isn't interested in condemning this massacre of Jews.



In fact, she is working to eliminate Israel from the Middle East. And up till today she was doing this as Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama's senior foreign policy advisor -- his leading foreign policy guru.



Here's what Sen. Obama had to say about this Jewish massacre:

I strongly condemn this cowardly and outrageous attack. The United States must strongly support Israel's right and capability to defend itself. Today, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families, and with the Israeli people who defeat these terrorists every single day that they go about their daily lives.

And here's what his senior foreign policy advisor -- a specialist on genocide -- had to say about it.

(crickets)... (crickets)...

Ms. Power has already publicly promised that a President Obama will meet with Iran's Ahmadinejad on the subject of Middle East terrorism. But she hasn't condemned his statements promising to wipe Israel and it's Jews off the face of the earth with nuclear weapons.



Ms. Power was becoming Sen. Obama's own personal Problem From Hell.

Fortunately, Ms. Power, who has been in Europe touting her new book (Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the World), had the misfortune to tell her version of the truth one too many times. She called Sen. Hillary Clinton "a monster" during an interview with The Scotsman newspaper.
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full post.]


So, now, she's gone. Back to Harvard. To "teach" young adults. About which genocides are bad, and which genocides are just peachy.

Ordinary Palestinians Celebrate Israel School Massacre

Cheering and celebration in Gaza today among ordinary Palestinians, men women and children, on hearing that some of their heroes, Palestinian terrorists, have successfully massacred Israeli religious school children at their school in Jerusalem.



The children were preparing for their own religious celebration, Purim. Purim commemorates the plot, related in the Book of Esther, by a Persian king to kill all the Jews.



Looks like the Palestinians still have a bit more genocidal work cut out for themselves. They were only able to kill 8 kids this time.



So, will the ordinary Muslims in America join in the celebrations, or forcefully voice their opposition to the mass murder of school kids, or continue their silence? Interesting question.

Latest Israeli War Crimes

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Information's Saudi Press Agency (SPA) spokesman Jihad Goebbels, Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, condemned "Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian people". The current war crimes are Israel's attempt to stop the Palestinians' missile attacks through a raid on Hamas terrorists inside the Gaza Strip.

"Saudi Arabia calls on the international community to... work to stop the Israeli war machine"

It is important to put the Israeli war crimes, and their general criminal lawlessness, in perspective -- the Sharia perspective. As is well known, Jews are not allowed to defend themselves. If a Muslim strikes a Jew, that is a lawful act.However, it is an illegal criminal act for a Jew to strike a Muslim.



It is easy to see why the Saudi Public Enlightenment Minister wished to point out to the world that Israel was committing war crimes by attempting to stop the entirely lawful (although not quite peaceful) Palestinian missile attacks.



So, for all you in the international community, please stop referring to Israeli defensive actions. That is simply not legally possible for Jews. (Oh, and while you're at it, please stop referring to Palestinian "terrorists" -- after all, they are only lawfully attacking Jews.)



Update: Sorry, but we haven't been able to confirm that the Ministry of Information SPA spokesman is actually named "Jihad Goebbels". Apparently, it just seemed a reasonable, though unsubstantiated, assumption.

L.A. Mass Shooting, Gun-Free Zone

Another badguy fires into a crowd of innocents. Today, in Los Angeles.

A gunman fired into a crowd of children and adults at a South Los Angeles bus stop Wednesday, wounding eight, authorities said. Three girls, ages 10 to 12, and a woman were in critical condition.

The police didn't happen to be right at the scene, so nobody was able to stop the badguy.

The gunman ran away, and streets in the area were shut down as numerous police officers rushed in.

L.A. doesn't like to give trained law-abiding citizens any concealed carry licenses for handguns. L.A. is a pretty much a gun-free zone. In this case, it was the *usual* gun-free zone, another school -- just outside.

Ezequiel Cornejo, 23, a tire mechanic, said he heard about 10 gunshots, probably from a handgun, just after neighborhood schools let out.

"After that I saw a little girl running, she was running back to the school, she was holding her arm," he said.

And, it being a gun-free zone, the badguy did his shooting in broad daylight.

The shooting occurred around 3:15 p.m. at Central and Vernon avenues.

Once again, the shooting didn't happen where there were a lot of guns: not in a police station, a military base, a gun store, a gun show, a shooting range, or a donut shop.



So, what is it that makes gun-free zones so attractive?

Why Gun-Free Zones?

Another guy off his meds massacred 5 people at college. A bunch of others were wounded.



The people concerned about gun violence claim the problem is guns. But I'm not so sure.



He didn't try to shoot up a police station.


He didn't try to shoot up a military base.


He didn't try to shoot up a gun store.


He didn't try to shoot up a gun show.


He didn't try to shoot up a shooting range.


He didn't even try to shoot up a donut shop.



So, what is it that makes gun-free zones so attractive?
That's a real stumper.

No Excuse For Self-Defense?

There are people in America that think the Founders were ignorant and dangerous. They're the ones who think that free speech is vital, but only when they use it. If you use it, it's called "hate speech".



They are also the ones that think there is no excuse for self-defense. Just give the criminal whatever he demands. They think the Founders were crazy, and the 2nd Amendment is for the retarded. They don't trust you with a gun, any kind of gun; and (as in England) if you fight back then you're the bigger criminal; and soon they won't trust you with a kitchen carving knife.



Janet Reno is one of them. Remember her? Clinton's Attorney General. She's filed a "friend of the court" amicus petition in the 2nd Amendment Supreme Court case (D.C. v Heller). She has buddies, too. Lots of them.



They are the guns-only-for-government crowd. They include the American Bar Association. These lawyers don't trust trained law-abiding citizens with a gun. Then there are the University professors -- a bunch of history and linguistics profs; and some criminal justice profs. Then there is the American Academy of Pediatrics. These child doctors doesn't trust you either.



All these groups, and more, are claiming that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it means, and that the government has the right to "infringe" on your right to "keep and bear arms" -- to the extent of keeping you from having a working gun for your own personal inside-the-home self-defense.



You want to know the details? You can find out here. This is a website linking the filed documents in the D.C. v Heller case. D.C. is the "Petitioner". Heller is the good guy, I mean the "Respondent".



Fortunately, Heller has some good company as well. For example, check out the "Retired Military Officers" amicus brief.



Know your enemies. Know your friends.

Why the 2nd Amendment?

Quote by Theodore Haas, a survivor of the Dachau death camp:

There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people had not been "brainwashed" about gun ownership and they had been well armed. Hitler's thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun.

On the other hand, not to worry. The Founding Fathers were smart. It can't happen here, in America.



But the reason it can't is that there are still too many trained law-abiding citizens who have not been "brainwashed" about gun ownership. Join the crowd; get trained.