Friday, November 28, 2008


You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter."What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven.

"The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle (AK-47), walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.

"All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION." does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."--Samuel Adams



If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008


By Peter Hitchens

I set out on a small African voyage to see how China’s initiative looked at close quarters. I did not know before I began that my companions and I would come alarmingly close to death during that journey, though I suspected it might have its awkward moments.

Saturday, November 22, 2008


World Oil Falling possibly to $30 a barrel


Mexico - Municipality Acquires 600 Firearms for Public Security Officers


Mexico - More Than 4,000 Deaths In Mexico Associated with Drug Trafficking 2008


Approximately 50 armed men dressed in black and blue wearing military gear and traveling in 15 pickup trucks traveled to the agricultural camp of La Guajira in Culican, Sinaloa and kidnapped 27 workers, most of them from the states of Oaxaca and Guerrero. The operation was conducted within 15 minutes and only 27 workers were selected out of the group.

The kidnappers left the area via Highway 20 in the cover of darkness. The workers were contracted to harvest vegetables for exportation.


Use of Nuclear Weapons More Likely in Future: US intelligence21/11/2008WASHINGTON (AFP) - The use of nuclear weapons will grow increasinglylikely by 2025, according to a bleak US intelligence report that warnsthat US global dominance is likely to weaken over the next two decades.


U.S. Consulate General in Guayaquil Warden Message

The U.S. Consulate General and U.S. Embassy Ecuador wishes to inform American citizens visiting or resident in Ecuador to use extreme caution when sailing near the coast of Ecuador, as there was a recent incident of armed robbery at sea off the coast of Ensenada de Pedernales, Manabi by modern day pirates.

Recreational craft, merchant vessels and fishing boats all are at risk for attack by pirates. This incident highlights the continuing danger of maritime travel off the coast of Ecuador. If transit off the coast is unavoidable, it is strongly recommended that vessels travel in convoys, transit over the horizon from land, and maintain good communication at all times.


BEIJING (Reuters) - China could soon execute a man sentenced to deathlast year for spying for diplomatic and political rival Taiwan, humanrights group Amnesty International said.


IAEA report unacceptable: Rafsanjani

TEHRAN, Nov. 21 (MNA) -- Expediency Council Chairman Akbar HashemiRafsanjani has said that Iran believes that the recent IAEA report onits nuclear activities is unacceptable.

A top Iranian commander said on Tuesday that the Islamic republic's air force has built up a "solid barrier"to defend the country's airspace, Iran's English-language satellitechannel Press TV reported.


Cleric Ayatollah Seyyed Ahmad Alamolhoda saidit is credulous to trust the next U.S. administration to fulfill itspromises to change its strategy towards the Middle East.

"The society should know that it is foolish to think that a change inthe U.S. governing body will change the country's strategy towardsus," said the cleric in reference to U.S. President-elect Barak Obama's vows that he will make a fundamental change in the U.S.strategies.


Venezuela - Cult of the Thugs
November 21, 2008
This week's Unreported World reveals how Venezuelans are increasingly turning to a mystical cult that worships the spirits of dead Robin Hood-style gangsters as they seek supernatural protection from a crime wave that the police seem unable to contain.


Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Brass Monkeys, Lewd Sayings and Urban Legends

by Stephen

There are a number of sites around which retell a piece of naval history. For instance this one on myspace:

It was necessary to keep a good supply of cannonballs near the cannon on war ships. But how to prevent them from rolling about the deck was the problem. The best storage method devised was to stack them as a square based pyramid, with one ball on top, resting on four, resting on nine, which rested on sixteen.

Thus, a supply of 30 cannon balls could be stacked in a small area right next to the cannon. There was only one problem — how to prevent the bottom layer from sliding/rolling from under the others. The solution was a metal plate with 16 round indentations, called a Monkey. But if this plate was made of iron, the iron balls would quickly rust to it.



Cybereye On paper, a potential risk William Jackson

THE WORD DATA stirs thoughts of bits and bytes stored on disks, hard drives and tape. We often forget, especially if we deal with information technology issues all day, that data also exists on paper and that the sensitive information it contains could also be at risk of breaches.

A newly formed group, the Alliance for Secure Business Information, recently released the results of a survey that found that nearly half of data breaches reported by respondents involved paper documents. True, that means that more than half of the breaches did not involve paper, but it still is a reminder that information security policies must take paper documents into account.

The detailed results of surveys such as ASBI’s “Security of Paper Documents in the Workplace” might be taken with a grain of salt. One of the founding members of the organization is Fellowes, a manufacturer of paper shredders.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, but you might expect a bit of a bias in its approach to the subject. Other members are the Ponemon Institute, which advances privacy management issues; the Identity Theft Resource Center, which focuses on identity theft; and John Sileo, who speaks on business security.

The survey produced a response rate of only about 6 percent. Still, that was 819 respondents — 14 percent of them in government — and ASBI claims a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent in its results.
Biases and margins of error aside, it is hard not to agree that a lot of any organization’s data exists in paper form. Despite the increased use of electronic media, the long-anticipated paperless office has not arrived and does not appear to be getting close.

Any employee with an interest in the happenings of an organization knows that the slush basket of the office printer is a bountiful resource, as is any unattended copier or fax machine. A more dedicated seeker of confidential information can find troves of information in waste baskets, desktops and filing cabinets.

Electronic data gets a lot of attention, and rightly so, because it can be accessed remotely and easily copied, transmitted, deleted or exposed on a wholesale scale.

However, that is no reason not to pay attention to data on paper. In the ASBI report, 56 percent of respondents said controlling access to paper documents is more difficult than controlling electronic access, and 61 percent said they do not have the resources and controls needed to secure paper documents.

Trash bins were listed as the spot where paper is most at risk, and in what must be a blow to Fellowes, only 35 percent reported that paper is routinely shredded.

In addition to more shredders, ASBI recommends some common-sense practices to improve security, including better budgets and support from senior management for strict enforcement of document-handling policies, rigorous procedures for disposing of documents and accountability of managers for securing files.

Monday, November 17, 2008


By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008

(Somewhat dated, written before the election but highly informative)

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history.

Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets.

Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”


Thursday, November 13, 2008


The night we waved goodbye to America... our last best hope on Earth

Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column

Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.

The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.

I really don't see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.

It already has all the signs of such a thing. The newspapers which recorded Obama's victory have become valuable relics. You may buy Obama picture books and Obama calendars and if there isn't yet a children's picture version of his story, there soon will be.

Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa, are little-read and hard to find.

If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular saviour, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn't believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he'd promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.

He needn't worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America's Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton's stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to.

Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a 'new dawn', and a 'timeless creed' (which was 'yes, we can'). He proclaimed that 'change has come'. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn't know what 'enormity' means.

He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don't try this at home).

I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff.

And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated – but rather hesitant – invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will – 'Yes, we can'.

They were supposed to thunder 'Yes, we can!' back at him, but they just wouldn't join in. No wonder. Yes we can what exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice.

He'd have been better off bursting into 'I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony' which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship.

Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know.

They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America.

They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidised slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.

They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King – in schools, streets, neighbourhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint.

The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.

If Mr Obama's election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn't.

Mr. Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education.

He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lot of so many young black men of his generation.

If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination programme aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn't get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them.

And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn't vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.

I was in Washington DC the night of the election. America's beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street – which runs due north from the White House – the unofficial frontier between black and white.

But, like so much of America, it also now has a new division, and one which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan.

As I walked, I crossed another of Washington's secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.

They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war.

Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.

Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.

These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America's conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.

They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad.

Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

Sunday, November 9, 2008


by Raheel Raza
American Thinker

If you are Canadian and Islamist, you probably voted for the New Democratic Party (NDP), which won 18.2% of the vote on October 14, 2008.

This was an increase in of about 1% in the vote and led to seven more seats from the 2006 elections.

However, the party could not budge itself from its permanent 4th place in Canada's parliament. Endorsed by the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), the left-leaning NDP has shown an incredible lack of understanding of the Islamist agenda and how soft jihadis are using democratic institutions by manipulating our respect for multiculturalism.

As a political ideology, in the long-term Islamism seeks to establish an Islamic state in the North America, but this is barely mentioned by the suave and polished young Islamists who appear in expensive suits and with a flourish of legalese and the right disarming accents. While a Taliban style overthrow is unlikely, in the short term, Islamists hope to fundamentally change western foreign policy in favor of the foreign governments that fund them and organizations they ideologically adhere to, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Recognizing this threat, Marc Lebuis, who runs "Point de Bascule", invited moderate Muslims Tarek Fatah, Salim Mansur and me to participate in a conference in Montreal to address the infiltration of Islamists into the Canadian political system, where the first real arena has been the NDP.

The NDP was founded by social democrats, and was originally, as noted by Mansur, a critical opponent of Communism, and a key element in "denying communists in Canada the opportunity to acquire any shred of legitimacy by posing as defenders of the working people."

Today, however, it allows itself to be used by an equally potent ideological enemy, radical Islamism. The working class in the West now includes immigrants, who as ethnic and religious minorities complain of the classic oppression against which the NDP wishes to be a voice of protest.

But, the NDP fails to distinguish between the socio-economic concerns of Muslim immigrants in Canada and the well-funded, ideological organizations that purport to speak for them.
The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) is one such organization. The President of CIC, Mohammad El-Masry, is notorious for his anti-Semitic statements, his call for Sharia courts in Canada, and agitation for an anti-Israeli foreign policy.

Canadian Muslims mattered in this national election because they were, some argued, a swing vote in certain ridings. El-Masry endorsed the NDP, and encouraged voter registration to bolster it. Jack Layton should have repudiated Elmasry's support but did not.

Toronto NDP candidate and lawyer, El Farouk Khaki caused a stir recently when he defended a Muslim youth convicted for his involvement in a terrorist camp in Canada. After the judge threw out the youth's defense that "no real Toronto terrorist group existed because its goals were too fanciful to be achieved," Khaki stated that if you are Muslim in Canadian courts you will be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

He went on to accuse the judge of having an anti-Muslim bias. This plays into the victimhood complex Islamists want Muslims in the West to fall into. Khaki was not chastised by NDP leader Jack Layton or any other party candidate.

In Montreal, the NDP paraded Samira Laouni, as "the first veiled candidate," in the province. She ran from the riding of Bourassa and made no attempt to hide her support for what she referred to as "real Shariah." She did not win. Jack Layton should have vetted out NDP candidates who favor Sharia like Laouni, whom Mansur has called a "CIC operative."

It seems strange that with Canadian forces fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, the same support for Taliban style orthodoxy is allowed in Canada.

Besides pro-Sharia politicians like Laouni, Islamists are spreading their message on the street. In Mississauga, Ontario, a woman by the name of Farhat Hashmi runs an Islamic school for girls.

Hashmi wears a full niqab (face covering) and encourages young girls to emulate her. She is known for promoting a very conservative Islamic ideology that is based on Wahhabism.

She, like other Islamists is in favor of Sharia in Canada.

The results of the Canadian election were an eye-opener because all Muslim candidates from all parties lost, with the exception of Yasmin Ratansi, who for some time has been trying to distance herself from her Muslim identity despite being the first Muslim woman to get elected to the Canadian parliament..

This is a clear indication that because of the incessant and unreasonable demands by Islamists, Canadians punished all Muslims. Most ordinary Canadians, well-meaning and decent folks, are fed up with demands for unreasonable accommodation and are no longer willing to put up with politics disguised as religion in the public sphere.

Although Canadians are politically correct and diplomatic in public, the election result shows their true feeling about the trend that Muslims who may have an Islamist agenda are not welcome in Canada. Of course, the usual suspects are already screaming Islamophobia - again.

There is no rampant Islamophobia in Canada - only an attempt at gradual Islamization.

Yasmeen Ratansi was first elected in 2004 but when she sought the nomination of her party, some Imams denounced her as not being Muslim enough because she did not cover her hair and wore skirts.

She is currently Chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of women.

In two districts (ridings as they are called in Canada) the Muslim candidates who lost were openly hostile to the Islamist agenda. Wajid Khan in Toronto and Rahim Jaffer in Edmonton.

It is rumored that the full force of the Islamist establishment and the mosque structure came out to defeat these two Muslims because they were seen, in the words of one cynic "too good looking to be considered authentic Muslims".

Elsewhere, a leading supporter of the Islamist causes and past Member of Parliament, Omar Alghabra, was defeated. He has previously condemned Canadian newspapers that called Hamas and Hezbollah "terrorist" organizations, advocated the complete repeal of Canada's anti-terrorist laws, and supported Sharia law in Ontario.

Throughout the urban districts of Canada, many Islamists tried to sneak through but met with thumping defeats. Along with the Islamists, many secular and liberal minded progressive Muslims were also trounced in what may be described as "collateral damage."

The lesson for all Muslims is written on the wall: If they are unwilling to stand up to the Islamists in their communities and stop the influence of Saudi Arabia and Iran, we will all suffer because of the actions of a few.

Raheel Raza writes for Islamist Watch, a project at the Middle East Forum

Saturday, November 8, 2008


Combating radical Islam requires understanding the lawful or peaceful means Islamists use to spread their doctrines.
Islamism is a threat to America because it does not accept the principles of general religious freedom, as protected under the U.S. Constitution.

Rather, it has a totalitarian agenda that does not recognize national boundaries or the separation of religious dictates from the social, political, and economic governance of society – including the private lives of its citizenry. The Islamist view of law is based on Shari'a (Islamic law), not the American Constitution.

The central strategy of Islamists in the West is lawful Jihad, or soft Jihad. This Jihad is non-violent and proposes to work through a society's existing institutions to gain social and political influence, and then introduce Islamic law into society. Specific methods include lobbying, Islamist lawfare, libel tourism, seeking special, unreasonable accommodation in the name of religious freedom, and most importantly, radical missionization.

One of the key tools used by Islamists to spread their message and recruit individuals is that of aggressive proselytizing – thus distinguishing Muslim converts who are on a personal spiritual mission to Islam from those being indoctrinated towards a political ideology is a key task. Combating the latter begins with keeping a vigilant eye on Islamic organizations and the materials they disseminate to potential converts.