Category Archives: gun grabbers

Second Amendment Dreams

I see so many stories coming out now about the ever increasing federal leviathans hopes of eliminating the Second Amendment. Crazy old Joe Biden even thinks the Second Amendment is about who can be prohibited from owning guns. And while Dimocrats and liberals say they don’t want to eliminate the Second Amendment, they just want to add background checks, and a few “common sense” restrictions, etc. etc., they are, well, lying.

Some do want to eliminate the Second Amendment, and I usually wonder “what it is that a Politician wants to do to me and my family that they can not do, unless we are disarmed and defenseless?” Of course many of those self same politicians will have armed body guards paid for out of our ever shrinking salary. Some will be do gooders, and really really really do believe in their hearts of hearts that if we just outlaw _____________________ A) scary black guns B) 30 round magazines C) rifles with pistol grips D) Guns with the shoulder thingy that goes up E) Fill in with whatever else they can come up with, that gun crime will cease and the world will now be a safe place, unicorns will roam freely and rainbow stew will be served fresh everyday with lightly buttered no calorie croissants. They also voted for obama because he was the best man for the job and believed him when he told them their health insurance would go down by $2,500 a year and they could keep their doctor and their insurance, but that’s another story.

You can see the legislative footprint if you will, of these types in things like the soviet style legislation like the turn in your family and neighbors you don’t like in California. Of course, California has a interesting history of showing up and confiscating guns (from safe people anyway, thugs not so much) already.

I, like they, have my idea of legislation that will keep us all safer too. Granted the direction of my legislative dreams is a bit different than their legislative dreams.

In my legislative dreams for some time, dwelt something called The Firearms Freedom Act. The first one was passed by Montana in 2009. It stated basically, that guns made in Montana, stamped on a large part of the central part of the gun “Made in Montana” would not be entered into the federal system of gun control. But, the gun could not leave the state. It couldn’t be sold over the internet or to someone out of the state. Therefore, they would not be interstate commerce. Wyoming came out with an even yummier version of this in 2010. Wyoming’s version had some pretty good sized teeth for federal agents that attempted to attack Wyoming citizens. Several states passed Firearms Freedom Acts, and several more tried to. This site hasn’t been updated since 2010, but you can see how many states were working on this. You can also see which ones weren’t, mostly the high crimes states.

I’m sure no one was shocked to know that a federal court ruled that the Firearms Freedom Acts didn’t matter.

“the Ninth Circuit panel unanimously ruled that Congress could regulate the internal manufacture of firearms within Montana because the creation and circulation of such firearms could reasonably be expected to impact the market for firearms nationally.”~~Wikipedia

I know, I know, I just said the firearms couldn’t leave Montana, that was part of the law. But it is the NINETH circuit court, and I always kind of wonder what they’ve been smoking. The guns weren’t going to cross state lines, but like the ATF, laws are what the courts make them to be, eh?

But it’s the toothy part that I’m heading for. The court says Firearms Freedom Acts aren’t legal? What to do as the government grows ever larger like the plant in Little Shop of Horrors, what to do?

Several states have responded by trying to pass a Second Amendment preservation act. In the last few days Arizona, Indiana and South Carolina have introduced bills in their state legislature. Missouri tried to pass one a couple years ago. The NRA helped squash that one, and gave Florida trouble trying to get theirs through as well. The Second Amendment preservation acts are really sort of anti-cooperation, anti-commandeering measure. For gun control to really succeed to it’s evil goal is going to require the use of each state’s law enforcement agencies. I still recall the ATF harassing the people at a Henrico Co. gunshow in 2006. It couldn’t have been done without the help of local law enforcement. Part of the BATFE’s “War on Women”, no doubt. And shoestrings.

Bob at Bearing Arms had some helpful suggestions along the lines of Firearms Freedoms Act type things that could be done to help the ATF as well. It involves removing some things from their jurisdiction so that perhaps with a narrower focus they won’t need to suffer the embarrassment of having their own weapons show up in Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman’s stash, cause I’m sure that’s just embarrassing. No word yet, from Erik Holder, El Chapo’s gun dealer.

This type of legislation says that the law enforcement agencies in that state will not co-operate with federal agencies. It dramatically weakens the bully power. Since I’ve seen quite a few stories lately where police chiefs and sheriffs are urging their citizens to obtain arms and concealed carry I suspect the law enforcement agencies in many states would be happy to see this pass.

For those that say Federal law trumps State law I found this great little Tom, Dick and Harry story. IF you are old enough to remember Tom, Dick and Harry, better yet, they’re grown up too.

So, while I may never get a firearm stamped with “Made in fill in your state name”,I continue to dream of Second Amendment protection acts being passed all across these United States. Because the soft fight is so much better than the hard fight. And despite what crazy old Joe Biden says, sometimes a girl just might NEED a tank, though this isn’t the model I hope for.

Just for a bit of levity.

Here’s a little booklet on the act if you want more information.

SHALL NOT: The State Level Plan to Protect the 2nd Amendment

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Just follow the money

I wrote recently about Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring’s unilateral move to ban reciprocity. Virginia, according to Herring’s diktat, will no longer recognize concealed carry permits from 25 other states.

The reaction from pro-rights advocates has been vicious, and in retaliation, the Virginia GOP has moved to defund Terry McAwful’s executive protection unit. Virginia state senator Bill Carrico proposed a budget amendment that could strip the anti-gun McAwful, who apparently has no problem working to disarm the very people who are the source of his power, and who has no problem using those same taxpayers’ money to protect his own worthless hide, of his protective detail. “If he’s so afraid of guns,”Carrico said, “then I’m not going to surround him with armed state policemen.”

However, it is instructive to see to whom McAwful and Herring are truly beholden, and John Richardson at No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money did just that.

Would it surprise anyone to know that both McAwful and Herring are beholden in no small part to former New York mayor and statist imbecile Michael Bloomberg? I didn’t think so.

Lo and behold the top donor to his campaign for Attorney General was none other than Independence USA PAC. They gave $1,292,417 of in-kind donations to his campaign. The money went for media production and advertising buys. To put this into perspective, the next two highest donors gave approximately half this amount each. The only candidate to get more money from that PAC was Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-VA).

Bloomberg-2-777x437And would it surprise anyone to know that Independence USA PAC is Bloomberg’s personal vendetta against our Second Amendment rights, and is dedicated to helping to elect candidates who support stricter gun-control laws? It was founded in October 2012 by Michael Bloomberg, and, so far, has been entirely funded by the former New York City mayor, according to FactCheck.org.

When your politicians are paid for by nosy, authoritarian, meddling nanny statists this is what you can expect. Bloomberg bought himself Virginia’s governor and attorney general. Now all he needs to do is say the word, and they will bend over.

Meanwhile, criminals will continue to carry Glocks in their sagging pants, while law-abiding citizens from out of state will simply switch to open carry, as is legal all over the Commonwealth.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Well, we could have had Mark Obenshain…

Mark Obenshain ran for Virginia’s Attorney General in 2013 and lost by a tiny, slim margin to a leftist, anti-Second Amendment authoritarian tool named Mark Herring, because apparently Virginia’s voters were somehow scared that their lady parts would be under the control of the EEEEVILLLL Republicans.

I know Obenshain personally, and he’s a solid pro-gun politician and a decent guy. Herring, on the other hand, is a statist nutbag who hasn’t met an anti-gun regulation he didn’t like. It is under his and Terry McAuliffe’s reign (Thanks, Trump, you buffoon, for giving thousands to elect that Clinton crony in my state!) that Virginia will no longer honor concealed carry permits from 25 other states.

Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) announced Tuesday that Virginia will no longer recognize concealed carry handgun permits from 25 states that have reciprocity agreements with the commonwealth.

Under the policy, Virginians with a history of stalking, drug dealing or inpatient mental-health treatment cannot obtain a permit in a state with comparatively lax laws and carry a handgun legally at home.

Herring said severing the out-of-state agreements can prevent people who may be dangerous or irresponsible from carrying a concealed handgun.

Note the severe amount of stupid in that last statement. Herring actually thinks (if it can be called that) criminals who don’t obey laws in other states will miraculously obey Virginia’s.

Thanks a lot, vagina voters! You’ve given us authoritarian swine, for whom this is likely only the beginning! If they have their way, Virginia will soon be getting an “A” from the Brady Center, and you will be defending your giblets from armed thug invasion using only a spork and a cell phone.

I guess out-of-staters will simply open carry, as is legal all over the state.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

NYT uses front page to spout inanities

Okay, it’s not exactly news that the New York Times spouts nonsense, especially when it comes to guns and gun rights. But when the senile old hag venerable Gray Lady prints an editorial on its front page for the first time in 95 years — and that editorial (obviously sparked by this week’s jihadi-team murders in California) is 100% dedicated to spewing obvious silliness on guns — it’s worthy of note.

TZPNYTFrontPageEditorial_121415

Here are a few selected gems from the editorial:

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.

Yes, confusing plain old semi-auto with full-auto again just based on the scary appearance of the rifles shown in media photos.

No mention of the emerging information that the murdering jihadis in San Bernardino may have broken the law both attempting to modify their weapons and, of course, in going out and slaughtering people. As if they’d ever care what “civilians” are legally allowed or not allowed to do.

So what do you want, NYT? Another ugly-gun ban like the one we already had for 10 years, which didn’t accomplish one thing except to create new criminals out of the formerly law abiding?

Well, yes, that appears to be precisely what the NYT wants, because they then go on to say (emphasis mine):

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.

“At least those countries are trying.” So let me get this straight. As long as you make a really sincere try at things that deprive people of freedom while doing absolutely zero, nothing, nada, zip, bupkis to protect lives … it’s okeydokey. It’s good.

Take even more freedom. Leave people vulnerable to even more death. It’s all to the good as long as you do something.

The shrieking old bat Gray Lady continues:

It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

As usual no plan is outlined for drastically reducing numbers and eliminating large categories.

That this is a) impossible and b) would require stormtroopers bearing large numbers of those very categories of scary weapons (even for a vain attempt) is a fact too untidy for the front page of the New York Times. So no, let us delicately sidestep any actual thinking about any actual plan for “reducing” and “eliminating.” We don’t want to consider what would actually end up being reduced and eliminated, now do we?

But not to worry! Because you see, no untidiness would be required:

It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

Yes, despite the fact that the censorious, dried-up old biddy Gray Lady opens and closes her editorial by implying that Americans who support gun rights and own ugly guns are “indecent,” we nasty folk would simply turn over our weapons for the good of humanity.

I can envision us now, patiently lined up outside our local police stations or firearm melting centers by the thousands, little American flags waving from the barrels of our Evil Black Rifles, patriotic gleams in our eyes as we wait to surrender these indecent, macho, insurrectionist arms for destruction.

TZP_Poster-The-German-Student-Fights-for-the-Fuhrer-and-the-People

Yes, there we are, converted into Times believers simply by passage of yet another law. Because of course this law, unlike all other laws the world has ever known, has shown us in a “clear and effective” way the evil that we have been harboring in our gun cabinets and in our hearts. So we have repented and with the fervor of new converts are delighting in “giving up” all that the Times dictates we should give.

And a new day dawns in which nobody — nobody! — ever again commits mass violence because the tools to do so have been made clearly and effectively illegal!

Hooray and hallelujah for our glowing future! The sun will shine upon us forever, its pure radiance never again dimmed by the blood of innocents. Our Glorious Leaders will protect us with their Great Wisdom. And we are proud — proud! — to surrender our evil, knowing we will forever be protected and kindly led by those Above Us.

TZP_Stalinist-youth

—–

It must be so, right? Because the NYT thought their words were brilliant enough, original enough, revelatory enough, and necessary enough to write a front-page editorial for the first time since 1920. Surely they wouldn’t have resorted to such drama merely to spout cliched and bloody nonsense.

(H/T Jim Bovard for the inspiration)

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Trump is a tyrannical weasel, part 2,434

In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, there’s been a lot of talk about terrorism, how to prevent it, how to fight it, and how to protect Americans. Even the DC Dominatrix Cathy Lanier has accidentally acknowledged that the citizens are the first line of defense against an attack. Of course, she continues to keep them disarmed, but admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery, right?

Presidential candidate Donald Trump has placed himself square in the middle of the conversation with another idiotic statement on guns. This time, he stepped on his own winky with golf cleats by claiming that those on the terrorism watchlist should be denied their right to keep and bear arms.

shrug_chart_final1Now, I’ve always thought Trump was a fascist uber douche. Now, that has been confirmed. While I agree terrorists should be prevented from purchasing firearms (also caught and clubbed to death with spiked cricket bats), many of the people on the watchlist are hardly terrorists.

Of the 680,000 people caught up in the government’s Terrorist Screening Database—a watchlist of “known or suspected terrorists” that is shared with local law enforcement agencies, private contractors, and foreign governments—more than 40 percent are described by the government as having “no recognized terrorist group affiliation.” That category—280,000 people—dwarfs the number of watchlisted people suspected of ties to al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah combined.

These are people who have been convicted of nothing. They have been placed on this list, because according to the source, the standard the government uses to put people on a watchlist is “reasonable suspicion” to determine whether someone is a possible threat.

Because the government tracks “suspected terrorists” as well as “known terrorists,” individuals can be watchlisted if they are suspected of being a suspected terrorist, or if they are suspected of associating with people who are suspected of terrorism activity.

These are the people Trump wants to deprive of their rights. These are the people Trump would disarm and render vulnerable to everyone from terrorist to marauding thug. These are the people whom Trump wants to label as “enemies of the state” without due process, and without so much as an official set of charges.

Trump needs to go away. Far away. He shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the White House or anywhere near government service writ large. He’s a national embarrassment, who doesn’t understand policy and is merely running for president to stroke his own violently large ego.

It’s hard for me to believe that roughly a quarter of Republicans think this narcissistic weasel somehow deserves to be president! But then again, I think he appeals to the meathead faction of the GOP – you know – the ones who sit in their trailers, drinking cheap beer, scratching their shriveled raisins and screaming about how illegal aliens are taking their jobs, while the meth cooks on the stove.

Yes, I’m being intentionally inflammatory. That said, would anyone in all seriousness consider casting their vote for someone who is proud of his desire to stomp on people’s rights without due process?

So much FAIL!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Take them out with what?

During an interview on “60 Minutes” recently, Washington DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier said something surprising – at least to those of us who have followed her anti-freedom, gun-grabbery over the years. When asked about what DC citizens should do if an active shooter threatens them during a siege like the one that took place in Paris a couple of weeks ago, Lanier, whom I have previously described as the DC Dominatrix due to her heavy-handed hatred of gun rights and Second Amendment freedoms, replied “If you’re in a position to try to take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there,”

Take them out for what? Coffee? A drink?

Despite being spanked in the courts several times, DC still has some of the nation’s most stringent gun control laws. Fox News reports that of 233 applications sent for review since the Metropolitan Police Department began accepting permits on Oct. 23, 2014, 185 licenses had been denied as of Nov. 14.

GettyImages-474248390-e1434470938562Lanier has the final say about who can have guns in the city, and it looks like there are exactly 48 people in the entire city who have been granted permission to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Open carry is prohibited, and concealed carry is nearly nonexistent, with only 44 concealed carry applications having been approved since October 23, 2014.  Virginia residents certainly can’t legally carry their tools of self defense in the city, and if they do, they risk arrest and having their lives destroyed by the very same police force whose head is now claiming that citizens need to be the ones who stand up to the horror!

So whom does Lanier expect to take up arms against terrorists until the cops can get there?

She certainly seems to be admitting that armed citizens are the first line of defense against attacks, and yet she refuses to free the residents of the nation’s capital to exercise their rights.

Such shocking cognitive dissonance from someone who is responsible for the safety and security of America’s capital! I wonder if the attacks in Paris were a wake-up call for Lanier, but somehow I doubt it.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

I am WOMAN hear me whine?

I saw a column a few days ago about a University of Miami Law Professor who was opposed to a campus carry bill making it’s way through the Florida senate.

MA Franks, another self-defense expert, urged lawmaker to reject the legislation. Franks is a law professor at the University of Miami who specializes in self-defense law and is also an instructor in Krav Maga, a Israeli form of hand-to-hand self-defense.“Guns are highly effective in committing crimes. They are rarely effective in preventing them,” Franks said.Franks said law enforcement officers and military members receive extensive training in firearms yet “struggle to use them effectively and accurately,” citing an 18 percent “hit rate” in gun fights involving the New York Police Department.“The fact of the matter is guns escalate aggression. They create a false sense of security. They encourage violence as a first resort,” Franks said.Franks also rebutted the argument that concealed weapons could prevent rape, noting most assault victims know their attackers. “Unless someone is going out on a date with her hand on a gun, this is not going to help her,” Franks said.

Apparently unmoved by the victims of rape that testified in favor of the bill, Franks believes that a woman would be unable to use a gun to defend herself.

WOW. A Professor of law, but, but the degree came from Harvard so that could be part of the problem.

I had a conversation with my Mom this morning, we were just reminiscing about my Dad, and things I had wanted to be “when I grew up”. At one time I considered lawyer, or perhaps open a auto repair shop staffed by women. A place where women could come and not feel intimidated. Dad didn’t like either of those. At the time those conversations took place women weren’t really in either of those fields. Back then there were still some jobs that were considered “men’s work”.

I remember the women’s liberation movement. Fairly well. Women were fighting to be accepted into fields that typically weren’t open. They wanted equal pay for equal work.

The first female police officer (actually functioning as a regular officer) was 1972. The academies didn’t make it easy for them to get through and often their teammates didn’t want them on the team.

The first female fire fighter to work solely as a paid fire fighter was in 1974. There were women who were volunteer fire fighters in the 1800s. There had also been BLM crews made up of solely women, but the first regular fire fighter if you will, was 1974.

The first integrated unit where men and women served together in the military in a war zone was the 1991 Gulf War. Prior to that women had been in the military, but usually as support staff, medical or clerical jobs. Going back to the War for Independence and the un-Civil War women did serve in combat units, but they disguised themselves as men. It was a process not an event. In 1974 the first six women became Air Force pilots, in 1976 the military academies became co-educational.

Women fought hard to have the opportunity to have these non-traditional jobs. If I had a daughter attending an expensive college and had one of her professors telling her that she was incapable of using an effective tool to defend herself I would be appalled and outraged, and she would be out of there and into a good school in a Miami minute. If I were alumni of the school and had a professor telling women such things I would drop support. I realize colleges are a hotbed of liberalism and progress and so to return to such an outdated and false sterotype is despicable.

So who is this ancient crocodile that is so threatened by a woman being able to defend herself against someone or a group bigger and stronger than herself?

Well, this is where it gets really sad. MA Franks, is Mary Ann Franks. A woman. Sadder still? She is a Krav Maga instructor. She recognizes the importance of self-defense but would deny her sisters the use of one of the most, if not the most effective tool to do so.

She is young now, she can do Krav Maga, but is she foolish enough to think that ALL women can? I realize she earns money teaching a way cool martial arts form, and kudos to her for that. But she lives in la-la land (sorry, forgot about the Harvard thing) if she thinks that there are no older students or students with physical disabilities. The most vulnerable do not need an effective form of self-defense? And they are every bit as deserving to live safely as the people that can afford to take her classes or have her physical abilities.

To have someone who has worked to be in a role that at one time would have been dominated by men telling others that women are incapable of using a gun is allowing her liberal ideology to damage lives. Perhaps she needs to get off the campus and into the real world where she could begin to use her mind and begin to think.

What a shame. What a selfish, silly, ungrateful child.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

LA City Council Requires Tougher Storage Laws

So the Lost Angeles (spelling intentional) City Council has decided to mandate tougher storage laws to ensure that no children accidentally shoot themselves in their fair city.

“I am tired and I know you all are too of reading of grieving parents who have lost their children through unintentional and totally preventable shootings,” said Laurie Saffian with Women Against Gun Violence.

Yes, do it for the children! Because we haven’t heard that well-worn trope before!

A violation will be a misdemeanor. Officials say there won’t be patrols checking homes to make sure the law is being obeyed, and they admit it will be difficult to know until after an incident occurs.

“Sadly, it will also come into play after tragedies occur or after near tragedies occur,” Krekorian said.

So the idiots can’t enforce it without massive violations of the Fourth Amendment, and they’ve essentially passed a new law that has no hope of reducing accidents – all to remedy a problem that pretty small, according to that bastion of conservative reporting, the Washington Post.

We know how many gun deaths were declared accidental (591 in 2011, the CDC says). And we know that 102 people killed in these accidental gun deaths in 2011 were younger than 18, according to Vernick, with half of these children younger than age 13.

In 2013, the last year for which statistics are available, 59 children under the age of 13 died due to accidental gunfire. Compare this to the 577 in that same age bracket who drowned, and 51 and 55 who died of poisoning and falls respectively. Why is it that gun grabbers aren’t lobbying for swimming pool control?

This new law can’t be enforced, and it will more likely than not be completely useless at deterring accidental deaths.

But you know what it will do?

It will ensure that any armed thug who breaks into your home will have complete access to your body, your loved ones, and your property with impunity.

Unless, of course, you think your encounter with an armed intruder will go something like this:

DOOR FLIES OPEN, ARMED INTRUDER ENTERS

You: Oh, my goodness! You have a gun! How did you possibly get one with all the strict gun laws we have in Lost Angeles?

Intruder: Shut up and lie down.

You: Oh, NOES! What are you planning to do to me?

Intruder: Well, first I’m going to tie you up and rape you. And then I thought I’d walk around and help myself to your stuff. That OK with you?

You: No! As a matter of fact, I bought a gun to protect myself against just such an eventuality!

Intruder: Well, where is this mythical gun?

You: It’s locked up right now. City Council says I must.

Would you mind waiting right there while I run and fetch it?

Intruder: Oh, sure! I’ll wait here. After all, I’d like to afford you a level playing field before I rape and rob you! Go for it. I’ve got all the time in the world!

There's no facepalm strong enough for this lunacy!
There’s no facepalm strong enough for this lunacy!

In what lunatic world do these imbeciles live?

What good is a tool of self defense if you cannot immediately use it in times of need?

And what good is a right, if you are forced to submit to idiot regulations that have no hope of preventing violence and serve to put you at a disadvantage in the face of an armed enemy?

Good luck, LA. You’ll need it.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

NOT. ONE. INCH. NOT. ONE. INCH.

France has helpfully drafted a proposal to the U.N. to internationalize the Temple Mount, Har ha-Beyit. They feel that seizing control of a section of Israel’s sovereign and most holy ground will somehow calm the violence. I never accused the U.N. of being clever, but I never thought them that stupid either.

UNESCO was planning to vote on making the Kotel, the western wall of King Solomon’s temple a islamic holy site. Mind you since it is a Jewish site now, Jews, Christians and muslims can and do go there to pray now. But if it’s changed to a muslim site, then it will be as the Temple Mount. Only muslims will be allowed to pray there.

Even more insane, barry urged Israel to hand over half of Jerusalem, the Kotel, The Temple Mount, Old Jerusalem, and the tomb of Jesus to the Hamas-Fatah terrorist organizations.
Bibi’s response? Israel cannot accept the draft resolution of the council.

Damn skippy.

Appeasement does not, nor will it ever work.

The attacks against Jews are growing more violent and aimed at larger groups. (The escalating stages) The stabbing attacks are turning into attacks against a larger group. The bus attack in Jerusalem one week ago  attacking the passengers.

“…Yisrael – the other driver, my friend – got out of the bus and ran towards my bus (shouting): ‘stop, stop, there’s a terrorist in the bus.’ …he shouted to me ‘he’s slaughtering them, he’s slaughtering them,’ and we had nothing we could do, we were trying to contact the police, there’s nothing we could do.”…..A senior security official told The Jerusalem Post that the series of attacks increasingly appears to be “a planned and timed assault.”

Damn skippy. They are.

The other bus attack was at the Be’er Sheba bus station, and came less than a week later. He was apparently financed by a new terrorist group that was recently established in the Gaza Strip by Iran and Hizballah, more hard core than Hamas. Good thing barry is releasing the monetary sanctions against Iran, huh? WOWZA, who could have seen that coming? A rise in terrorism against Israel with the release of sanctions money and financial aid?

What you may not be aware of and I haven’t heard it mentioned is something special about the Be’er Sheba bus station.

In Israel, Jewish history is everywhere. Literally. Under the floor of the Be’er Sheba bus station are Avraham’s wells. Right, the Avraham in Sepher Bereshit/Genesis. Avraham, the Patriarch.

Avraham's Wells
Avraham’s Wells

 

There was an attack of another kind this week. Joseph’s tomb (article from 28 April, 2011). On the 16th palestinians set fire to the tomb of one of the Patriarchs. And again, last week.

Seems the arabs have something against Jewish Patriarchs lately, again, always.

The so-called “Oslo Accords” signed between Israel and the Palestinians in 1995 stipulated that Joseph’s Tomb would remain an Israeli-controlled enclave open to Jewish worshippers and religious students.But at the start of the Al Aqsa Intifada in 2000, a Palestinian mob backed by Palestinian Authority police officers assaulted Joseph’s Tomb, killing an Israeli soldier in the process. Israel subsequently surrendered control of the site on the condition that the Palestinian Authority would protect and maintain it.

I ran across something very interesting the other day. A story about the number of times America has pressured Israel. What made it more interesting is what happened in America within days or hours of signing, but you can read that if you want to. But here are the times:

1991 30 October – The Oslo AccordPresident George H. Bush promoted and proudly signed the infamous Oslo Accord at the Madrid Peace Conference on October 30, 1991. The Oslo Accord was labeled a “Land for Peace” accord that demanded Israel award their land to the Palestinian murderers and terrorists in exchange for peace. The perverse Oslo proposition was simple: give us your land and we’ll stop killing you.

1992 23 August-A year later, President Bush literally picked up the pieces from Oslo attempting to rob Israel again. Meeting in Washington D.C. Bush and crew again attempted to “sell” the fictitious Madrid “Land for Peace” agreement.

1994 16 January-President Bill Clinton meets with terrorist and Israel hater Syria’s President Hafez el-Assad in Geneva. They talk about a peace agreement with Israel that includes Israel giving up the Golan Heights.

1998 28 September-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright finishes the final details of an agreement which requires Israel to surrender 13 percent of Yesha (Judah and Samaria). President Bill Clinton meets with Yasser Arafat and Netanyahu at the White House to finalize another Israel “land for peace” hoodwink. Later, Arafat addresses the United Nations and declares an independent Palestinian state by May 1999.

1998 30 November-Arafat arrives in Washington again to meet with President Clinton to raise money for a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as the capital. A total of 42 other nations were represented in Washington. All the nations agreed to give Arafat $3 billion in aid. Clinton promised $400 million, and the European nations $1.7 billion.

1998 12 December-President Clinton arrives in the Palestinian-controlled section of Israel to discuss another “land for peace” fiasco.

2001 8 June-President George W. Bush sends Secretary Tenet to Jerusalem to promote his “Roadmap to Peace,” the continuation of the failed Oslo Accord.

2005 23 August-Israel completed the evacuation of the Gaza Strip and gave it to the Palestinians. The Gaza Strip evacuation came directly from President Bush’s “Roadmap to Peace.”

Every time Israel has ceded land for peace it doesn’t work, it will not work this time.

I think we know something about “reasonable compromise” and appeasement.

How Reasonable Compromise Works
How Reasonable Compromise Works

 

An appeaser is one who keeps feeding the crocodile in the hope it will eat him last”~~ Winston Churchill

Israel and gunowners have both got to stand our ground this time. As the democrats debate on TV who can most proudly try to steal our G-d given rights, and the world tries to pressure Israel into ceding even more land, we can not give in. The results of what we have already given so far has cost us too dearly. We can not give in again.

NOT. ONE. INCH.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail