Saturday, February 07, 2015

Which "Radical Islam"???

The real “Radical Muslims” are those who do NOT follow the teachings of Islam as allow or encourage or command the use of murder, genocide, rape, torture, theft, lying (To deceive “unbelievers”), torture, wife-beating and other such horrors to further Islam itself and the individual, perverted, lusts of adult, male, true-believers in that criminal-terrorist ideology.

Those abominations were inflicted on the world by that fellow Mohammed of Mecca and Medina, the inventor of Islam. Muslims present him as the “ideal and perfect man”. Mohammed was, himself, a murderer, liar and treaty-breaker, bandit and the perverted sexual abuser of a nine-year-young girl-child. “Real Muslims” follow that life-example to this day.

Those self-identified as “Muslims” who do not follow the above-noted and anti-civilization teachings and examples are true “Radical Muslims” and, within the community of true believing-and-behaving Muslims (ie The ummat al-Islamiyah) are heretics and may be subject to summary killing by the “True Believers”.

If you continue to use the terms “Radical Muslim” or “Radical Islam” to describe those, claiming to be Muslims, who loyally follow the horrors demonstrated by such as ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas and other faithful “Sons Of The Prophet”, you are:
  1. Lying in cooperation with Mohammed's commands to deceive; Or,
  2. Forwarding the method of “Telling a lie so often that it becomes the truth”; Or,
  3. Both---To the total destruction of your credibility.


Thursday, February 05, 2015

Communicating With Jihadists---Updated


The lessons of history and current events demonstrate that the only means of "communicating" with those Muslims waging Jihad is by the application of over whelming and deadly force as at: Tours (732 AD); Las Navas de Tolosa (1212 AD); Granada (1492 AD); Lepanto (1571 AD); Chocim/Khotym (1621 AD); Vienna (1683 AD); The USA's campaigns against the Islamist-Pirates of the Barbary States (1805-1815); Navarino (1827 AD); Israel’s various and defensive wars from 1948 on (Just in case you ask, I am not of the Jewish Faith nor do I have any financial interests in the State of Israel); Multinational mini-campaigns against the Islamist Pirates operating off the Muslim Sudan.

To these I add the most excellent shooting down of the mad dog who assassinated a ceremonial guard on Canada's Parliament Hill and by the armed citizen who liquidated the swine who beheaded a lady in Oklahoma.

I can now gladly add the lessons of The Sniper!

FROM: George Santayana. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Weapons On Work-Sites

There are many organizations/companies which forbid the bringing of guns and other weapons into their buildings or even (Illegally/unconstitutionally?) on their open properties (eg Parking lots). This is most specially noted by the many persons entering medical facilities. In most such cases there is a “posting”, by signs at entrances, of that prohibition. With very few exceptions, that also applies to employees.

Those who establish such policies seem to have ignored the following:
  1. The best recent evidence (eg From The Centers For Disease Control) is that the armed person is much less “likely” to be murdered or maimed by a criminal than the “Nanny State Dependent” and unarmed targets of criminal attacks;
  2. The time between a “911” call and effective police action is long enough for a criminal to kill or injure many persons;
  3. There have been cases where the police did not respond to a call for help (In Madison, WI) in such cases or long delayed such responses (In Milwaukee, WI) until the victim was murdered;
  4. Unless a private organization/company has a level-of-security at/above that found at airports, requiring staff (And visitors) to disarm themselves before entering such companies or organizations may be financially liable for damages in the cases of the death-of or injuries-to such weapon-deprived persons; And,
  5. Without exact information, I suggest that there are many more deaths/injuries caused by criminal intruders than by the staffs or law-abiding visitors to such places (Further research needed!).

You might note the possession of a handgun, in violation of employer's rules, by Dr. Lee Silvermann at the Mercy Fitzgerald Wellness Center (In Pennsylvania) as allowed him to shoot-and-kill a mental patient who had just murdered a staff member---And do so before (Alleged) armed security staff and very much before police responded. [Should such an employee be subject to discipline OR honored and that by means including a change in anti-weapon policy?]

Hiring Criminals & Probability Theory

It appears that there are many (Especially the Fascist actors in the current Federal Administration) who are, more-and-more, “leaning on” private-sector employers to not reject persons with criminal conviction histories (Especially before going through other qualifications/factors), especially those as are related to the proposed job duties and, thereby, wasting the limited resources of those who invest their legally hard-earned moneys in such businesses.

It appears that those tyrants require an education in “Probability Theory” and its principles (As based on criminal justice experience and the basics of scientific methods).
  1. The accuracy of any (Probability) statements approaches 100% as more-and-more confirming examples are recorded-and-experienced Vs. those which oppose any such statement.
  2. Those who have been convicted of crimes are more likely to continue criminal behaviors (Although not necessary the same offenses) than those without such convictions.
  3. That is even more so/probable as to non-economic arsonists and sexual predators.
  4. Sexual offenders who begin such crimes in their teen years and have not stopped by age 30-years are likely to continue until death or the gross weakness of very old age.
  5. The vast supply of data demonstrates that Blacks (16 to 30 years-of-age) are very more likely to commit serious crimes than Whites and very, very, more more likely to do so than Asians.

Those who still “push” for such risky employment of others should:
A. Arrange for the hiring of sexual predators or non-economic arsonists in the day-care-centers or schools in which their children or grandchildren are enrolled OR as family-hired “baby sitters” in their own homes;
B. Hire those found guilty of embezzlement to be accountants/book-keepers/financial-officers to manage those “advocates'” own personal funds or the companies in which they have invested or in such organizations (eg Labor unions, political party units) to which they belong.

PS---In large part the above is based on my 34-years of professional work in a State “Department Of Corrections”


Monday, November 24, 2014

Harvard Study On Guns

Harvard study shows privately owned guns are very effective crime fighting tools

By Kevin “Coach” Collins
A little heralded Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy study holds some devastating news for those who are trying to take guns from America’s population.
Here are the facts the study found.
The overall message of the report is that nations with private gun ownership have less crime.
In the period 1991 to 2011 gun ownership rose steadily; murders by guns fell 39% and firearms related crimes dropped 69%.
The nine European countries with the fewest guns have a combined murder rate three times higher than the nine European countries with the most guns in private hands.
With rare exceptions, since 1950 mass shootings have virtually always occurred in states with restrictive gun ownership laws. Moreover despite very strict laws against private gun ownership, three of the worst recorded school shootings have happened in Europe.
Contrary to liberal lies, while America leads the world in private gun ownership, we are just 28th in gun murders per 100,000 people.  
From 1991 to 2011, America’s overall violent crime rate and our murder rate both fell by half; a remarkable feat by any measure.   
On average 200,000 American women protect themselves from sexual attacks each year using guns.
By a ratio of 80 to 1 Americans use guns for crime prevention rather than to commit murders.
During the period studied (1991 to 2011) deaths by accidental discharges of firearms fell 58%.
Much to the contrary of liberal lies the UK’s violent crime rate in 4 times higher than ours and their rape rate is 125% higher than ours. The UK also has 133% more assaults than we do. 
After plunging into extreme gun banning Australia has experienced a 19% increase in murders and an increase of 69% in armed robberies.
Despite passing increasingly more restrictive gun control laws, Chicago’s homicide rate jumped 17% last year and by many measures it’s the most deadly city in the world.
Over the 23 years, following its implementation of a law requiring each household to have a gun, Kennesaw Georgia saw its overall crime rate drop by 50% and its burglary rate fall by 89%.

Sunday, November 16, 2014

FBI & Self-Defense Statistics

For reference re: justifiable homicide

Posted by David Hardy · 29 August 2014 11:45 AM
In the dispute over how many self-defense cases occur, one data point often cited by those seeking to minimize the number is the FBI Uniform Crime Report's count of justifiable homicides (a legal category that includes self-defense). This is usually in the range of 900 a year, including several hundred by police. While that doesn't count self-defense that doesn't result in the perp's death, it is argued that it is inconsistent with hundreds of thousands or millions of defensive uses annually.
What's not realized is that the FBI count is artificially defined in a way that far undercounts defensive uses. The usual definition of self-defense with a deadly weapon is use of force immediately necessary in light of a reasonable belief that the perp is likely to inflict death or serious bodily injury.
But the FBI UCR Reporting Handbook at pp. 17-18 uses a completely different definition. Reporting officials are instructed, in the case of use of force by a non-LEO, to include under justifiable homicide only killings "The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen."
The illustration given (do NOT list as justifiable a situation where a citizen shoots a fellow attacking him, in a crime of passion, with a broken bottle -- the author must have watched too many 1950s movies about street fights) makes it apparent that the assault itself does not count as "commission of a felony."

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Race, Guns, Drugs & Violence

In reading the "press offerings" on this subject, I do note that those who depreciate the gross misuse of guns by Blacks:
1. Point out the issue of poverty among Blacks--Without providing data as to such crimes among poor Whites; And,
2. Blame the illegal drug trade for such gun-related violence----Without providing parallel data as to any, if such, disproportional violence among Whites involve in illegal drug sales/distribution.

I wish I could find the "research"; But, I recall that the removal of Blacks from our statistics as to gun-related and other violence would leave the USA with a record of violent crimes no worse than Belgium, a nations whose citizens (For a EU nation) can easily obtain handguns (Or were so).

Friday, November 07, 2014

Questions For Nominees For AG/Federal Judgeships

I have yet to read or hear the fullness of (Federal) judges or candidates for Federal elective/appointive offices (Especially to the Federal Bench) responses to the following questions.

1. Do you agree or disagree that the original Constitution of the United States could not be ratified without a Bill Of Rights, that resulting in the latter document being the first ten amendments to the first?
2. Do you agree or disagree with President Thomas Jefferson that the intent of the authors of the Constitution (ie As the above-noted "Package Deal") is to be considered when involved in interpretation of that document?
3. As to the Second Amendment, do your agree or disagree that we can clearly understand the intent of those authors be understood from the comments of Presidents Jefferson, Washington and Madison---And, the other patriots who established our Republic?
4. Do you agree or disagree with the statement that the "Shall Not Be Infringed" clause of the Second Amendment is the strongest statement of a limit-to or prohibition-against Federal acts in violation of the above-noted "package deal"?
5. Will you obey or resist the ruling of the Supreme Court Of The United States in declaring the rights under the Second Amendment as due every citizen without regard to membership in  a "militia"?
6. Will you obey or resist that Court's making that ruling binding, through the 14th Amendment, on the States?
7. How (If at all) have Federal judges considered/addressed the noted "shall not be infringed" clause?