OVO

THE STATE CREATES ITS OWN ENEMIES

Goulishly capitalizing on the tragedy of a mass murder, the anti-gun forces are surging forward with their plans for total gun confiscation. If law-abiding private citizens were disarmed, they claim, criminals and crazies would be unable to kill and maim. That’s an obvious lie–criminals, by definition, disobey laws, and madmen can kill with knives, cars, or champagne bottles as easily and as senselessly as they can with guns. The not-so-secret agenda of the State and its apologists is clear: disarm peaceful citizens to render them powerless. Turn law-abiding Americans into criminals with the stroke of a legislative pen. Anyone who refuses to surrender his or her weapons would become an Enemy Of The State, much the same as any armed citizen is right now in the Soviet Union, or Communist China, or Socialist Nicaragua, or Fascist El Salvador, or Monarchist Great Britain. Gun confiscation is non-partisan–it is always and forever aimed at anyone disliked by the current gang in power.

GUN SEIZURE SPARKED 1776 REVOLUTION

The American Revolution began in a dispute over gun control when British Redcoats marched toward Lexington and Concord to disarm farmers there. London claimed to be the “legitimate” government ruling America, just as Washington or Sacremento or Albany claims to be today. And their attempt to disarm us, stems from the same power lust that drove King George. We must, therefore, hold onto our guns–legally or illegally–for the very same reason the colonists did.

THE TRUTH ABOUT GUN OWNERSHIP

The anti-gunners, certain that the role of government is to grant privileges and dictate behavior, shout that citizens have no reason to be “allowed” to own assault rifles, which have “no legitimate sporting use.” The Constitution, though, says nothing about “a well-regulated sporting club” being necessary. We do not own handguns, assault rifles, shotguns, and other powerful weapons because we are hunters or plinkers or collectors. We do not even own guns because the Constitution “allows” us to. The Constitution does not “grant” rights. It recognizes rights already and irrevocably held forever by the people themselves (individuals), and forbids government from trampling on them. We have a right to keep and bear arms regardless of whether the Second Amendment exists or not! All Article Two guarantees is that we shouldn’t have to defend that right against “our” federal government. We’ve seen that simple guarantee erode, though, haven’t we?

The real reason for gun ownership is to protect the individual from the State, whether it be an invading State from accross the seas or a domestic State grown tyrannical and oppressive. The goal of total, repressive confiscation is clear in the subtle, shifting arguments of the anti-gun forces. When handguns were the target, they clamored prohibition because handguns were not militia-type weapons protected by the Second Amendment. Now they cry for assault rifle bans because “mere citizens” have no business possessing “military-style” weapons!

These eager confiscators rightly point out that assault rifles, handguns, and indeed all “weapons” have only one purpose: to kill. Again they speak a truth, but only partially. The unasked question is, “To kill whom? And under what circumstances?” The answer is, “To kill any who attempt to rob, maim, rape, or kill us.” Even that answer, though, does not fully express the most important reason for gun ownership. Only a small number of people are actually touched by criminal violence. The State, though, touches each and every one of us every hour of every day. People in government seek to tax our earnings to pay for their whims, to draft our children to fight in wars they start, to regulate and interfere with our lives out of pure love of power and their desire to wield it. They have become as tyrannical as any Tory redcoat, Soviet Commissar, or Nazi Gestapo. And they are coming to steal your last line of defense against them. Will you meekly obey?

GUN CONTROL ENFORCED AT GUNPOINT

When any law against guns is passed, how is it backed up? How will the State remove banned weapons from private hands? How will agents of the State disarm the citizenry? Why, by the use of guns, of course! This contradiction has never bothered statists. Why are handguns and assault rifles evil and wicked in the hands of private citizens, yet perfectly fine in the hands of employees of the State? If this is truly “government by the people” why do we see the servants disarming their masters by force? What do they fear from us, if theirs is a legitimate, benevolent government? If the State does not seek to control us, why does it want us disarmed?

The usual answer–stripped of equivocation–is that “mere citizens” are like half-witted children, incapable of safely handling “dangerous” commodities such as weapons or explosives or medicines or information. And only when some half-witted children pass a civil service exam or are elected by other halfwits to work for the wise and benevolent State do they magically become smart and honest and trustworthy enough to carry weapons and decide whom shall be “allowed” to possess guns and what sort of design, shape, or weight such weapons shall be.

Sounds pretty condescending and paternalistic, doesn’t it? That’s how they view us. Sheep for the shearing at tax time, cannon fodder during war time, and dangerous idiots the rest of the time.

And they dare ask us to obey their decrees?

GOVERNMENT CREATES CRIME

What many gun owners refuse to face, usually by saying “it can’t happen in America,” is that the government can and does create new classes of criminals with the mere stroke of a pen. In 1919, Prohibition turns millions of people overnight from sociable drinkers to Enemies Of The State. The victimless crime of ingesting alcohol turned neighborly, peaceful people into fair game for imprisonment, fines, and seizure of property. Some fought back, often with simple shotguns against “revenooers” armed with assault rifles (the Thompson sub-machine gun) in a modern version of the Whiskey Rebellion. The Prohibition amendment created crime by definition. If, tommorow, smoking or drinking coffee or owning a book were declared illegal, the State would suddenly point to a new “criminal underworld” of massive proportions. In the eyes of the State they would become “a new breed of criminal” to be weeded out of society and thrown into prisons. So it is with any prohibition of popular activities, including gun ownership.

GUN PROHIBITION DISARMS THE POOR

Let’s face it–police respond faster to calls from Beverly Hills than they do to calls from Watts. And the rich can afford armed guards, to boot! When so-called Saturday Night Specials are banned, does it affect those who can spend hundreds on a fine pistol? No. Does it prevent criminals from stealing whatever weapon they want or buying it on the black market? No. The only people harmed by a “cheap handgun” ban are the honest poor who have hardly enough money to feed their children, let alone defend them from inner-city marauders. Any form of gun control disarms those least able to defend themselves. And what good is a 15 day waiting period to someone who is threatened by an armed criminal coming by tonight? When one perceives a threat, one should be able to aquire protection immediately.

GUN PROHIBITION IS RACIST

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was rammed down the throats of the American public, blatantly exploiting then-current fears of gun-toting black rioters by implying that the law would help to disarm American Blacks, other minorities, and all dissenters at a time of civil upheaval. to paraphrase a popular slogan, “If the government does not trust minorities with guns, minorities cannot trust government.” Ask any Native American.

In a mirror image case 20 years later, assault rifle bans are being ramrodded through legislatures by appealing to fears that gun-toting white racists are on the loose.

The real and only purpose of gun control is to disarm the innocent and the peaceful, of whatever race, creed, or social status.

GUN PROHIBITION IS SEXIST

The same goes for women. Police and purported feminists urge women to resist rape with fists, fingernails, keyrings, and screams. But why should any woman allow an assailant to get within arms length of her? Why don’t Women’s Rights activists in or out of government reveal the most effective way for a woman to defend herself: to buy a gun and learn to use it? The truth is, they want women to feel weak and perpetually threatened so that they will beg the State for protection. A woman standing proud, armed, and fearless is the last thing most self-proclaimed “feminists” want (since that would undercut their perverse longing for a huge paternalistic government!)

GOVERNMENTS KILL MORE THAN ANY MASS-MURDERER

How can people who work for or worship the State–statists–point to the murder of five children in a schoolyard or twenty people in a restaurant and claim that as sufficient reason to disarm tens of millions of Americans? Are they so presumptuous as to suggest that we are capable of such violent madness? Perhaps there is a degree of psychological projection going on here: statists feel within themselves the urge to kill and project it onto the people they fear the most–us, the victims of the State. For while tens of millions of people own guns, only a minuscule fraction ever use those guns to aggress against others. Every State, however has guns and even more powerful and terrifying weapons in its clutches and every State has used them, will use them, and are using them to murder hundreds, thousands, and millions of innocent, unarmed people.

How can the insane mind of a Patrick Purdy ever dream of matching the death toll of the most minor skirmish in the smallest of wars or “police actions?” The murder of five innocent children is heart-rendingly tragic, but how many thousands of innocent children were roasted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many unarmed, peaceful, young people were slaughtered in Tienanamen Square? How many women, children, and old people have been shot by the bullets of “their own” government in Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador, India, Israel, Afghanistan, Tibet, Argentina, Libya, Ireland, Russia, South Africa, Chile, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Iran, and on and on and on for every State you can name, even “our” United States. For statists to use the “mass murder” of a few people as an excuse to disarm Americans when the State is the largest, bloodiest, longest-lived institution of mass-murder in all of history is appallingly hypocritical. Do we owe allegiance to the apologists for such atrocities? NEVER!

Private ownership of weaponry is the last defense against all tyranny, foreign and domestic. The thought that there might come a time when peaceable gun owners (even members of the patriotic NRA) must take arms against an American Li Peng commanding the local police and the US military is anathema to nearly everyone. The possibility, however, must be faced. A lot of American colonists were horrified at the thought of defending themselves against “their” king’s army, too.

CIVILIAN-BASED DEFENSE PREFERED TO STANDING ARMY

Some say that the Constitution “granted” the right to keep and bear arms to provide for a “well-regulated militia.” Since we have a standing army, the argument goes, civilians no longer need to own guns. Yet that amendment was written precisely because the British used that exact argument in their attempts (from 1768 to 1777) to disarm the colonists. Americans detested the standing armies of the British government and knew that civilian-based defense was the ultimate, perhaps the only protection against any threat to liberty, whether from London, Moscow, or Washington, D.C.

DEFYING UNJUST LAWS IS RIGHT AND PROPER!

When the day comes (and it will, if we don’t raise our voices in protest now) that the Imperial State commands its subjects (that’s how they view you and me, regardless of what they say) to turn in our weapons, what will we do? Make no mistake–if people refuse to surrender or destroy their weapons, they will be dealt with by heavily armed police; they will be imprisoned, fined, perhaps even shot if they try to defend their Constitutional–nay, their human–rights.

Of whom should we be more wary–invading troops whose rule we would never sanction, or “our own” government, to which most of us grant some legitimacy and which is right here, right now, all around us? Perhaps paraphrasing a parent’s question will help provide an answer: If the State passed a law telling you to jump off a cliff, would you? No fair answering that “good, pure, sober, honest politicians wouldn’t let that happen.” With guns, it is happening right now.

And when that friendly cop on the beat (whom most gun owners exalt as a good man just doing his job and who may even be a fellow NRA member!) comes around to your house, he will come armed with “good government” handguns and assault rifles. “Sorry pal,” he’ll say, “but the law is the law.”

That possibility is something many gun owners–staunch defenders of law and order and supporters of local police–refuse to face. They blank out the fact that even–perhaps especially–in America, they may have to choose between owning their guns and facing the full implication of the Declaration of Independence,

“…that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it…”

Some would rather surrender meekly to the State, giving up their last shred of defense against tyranny, rather than face that choice. But if they do surrender their firepower, the choice will have been made. And it won’t matter whether our new masters speak Russian, Chinese, Japanese, English, or American Bureaucratese. They will be our masters nonetheless.

WHAT TO DO

First of all, keep your guns! Do not turn them in just because some law is passed ordering you to do so. That’s just what they want–sheeplike compliance. you are not a criminal. Don’t let the State treat you like one. The colonists who turned in their weapons to their Tory town governments soon learned the folly of their actions. Any government that outlaws gun ownership is an outlaw government! It is no more necessary to obey an oppressive, tyrannical State than it is to obey any thief who demands that you turn over your property under threat of death. We know the free person’s answer to such a demand. So does the State. That is why statists seek to browbeat us into disarming without a fight. They need the sanction of the victim. They cannot hope to disarm us by force. That would tip their hand and guarantee a revolution. But by stealth, instilled guilt, and appeals to our peaceful, law-abiding natures will they attempt to expropriate our only defense against their continued and increasing predations.

Resist the urge to obey the edicts of self-proclaimed rulers. Don’t walk timidly into a concentration camp filled with once-free men and women. Decry with every fiber of your being this trampling of our fundamental human rights!

THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS IS A CIVIL RIGHT, WITHOUT WHICH ALL OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFEND.

THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS IS THE RIGHT TO OWN–AND PROTECT–YOUR BODY AND YOUR PROPERTY.

THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS IS THE RIGHT TO RESIST TYRANNY.

ANY WHO SEIZE GUNS ARE THIEVES OR TYRANTS.

Every law restricting free, immediate access to firearms is a direct attack on individual freedom. The course of action is up to you. Demand the repeal of all such laws or ignore them with impunity. But never accept them as legitimate restraints upon your liberty. Nothing legitimate can issue from the pen of tyrants.

from OVO 11 CONTROL (September 1991)

Editor-in-Chief Tøger Seidenfaden of the newspaper Politiken has issued an apology to the descendants of Mohammed for the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslim riots after the publication of these cartoons resulted in over one hundred deaths.  Don’t offend the Muslims.

The Ministry of Children, Equality, and Social Inclusion (Norway) has awarded Imam Mahdi Hassan of Tynset with the title Role Model of the Year.  “Mahdi Hassan is such a role model. He is visible, he has knowledge and a strong sense of commitment and makes use of these things to create a better day-to-day life for young people in Tynset.” Mr. Hassan told the newspaper Arbeidets Rett that he wants a ban on homosexuality: Homosexuality is prohibited in the Koran, and I believe in my religion.”  Regarding the death penalty for homosexuals, as prescribed in the Koran, Mr. Hassan said: “That must be up to each individual country to decide.  For myself I think that people must do what they want, and that people shouldn’t be punished for it.”  Don’t offend the Muslims.

United Kingdom Minister of Education Ed Balls has banned corporal punishment in schools, except for Muslim schools.  Don’t offend the Muslims.

A 23-year-old British woman told Dubai police she had been raped.  She was tested for drunkenness, charged with having illegal sex and faces up to six years in prison.  Don’t offend the Muslims.

Today the group Abu Sayyaf killed 11 people (ten civilians, one a baby girl, and a soldier) in the Philippines. Today a car bomb killed 18 people near two guesthouses in Kabul. The attack appears to have targeted non-natives who worked at the Indira Gandhi Child Health Institute. Today Qamar David was sentenced to life in prison in Kaarachi “for outraging religious feelings of Muslims” by sending a text message. Don’t offend the Muslims.

Don’t offend the Muslims.

Don’t offend the Muslims.

Don’t offend the Muslims.

This video is why director Michel Gondry should be the one to adapt The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch by Phillip K. Dick to film.

From the 1906 book The Outbursts of Everett True by A. D. Condo and J. W. Raper. With thanks to Barnacle Press.

Some women who protested at the Islamic Center of Washington, wanting to be able to worship in the main prayer hall with their male counterparts, were asked to leave by the police. But they say their struggle will continue. Carpets with intricate designs cover the floors of the main prayer hall and turquoise tiles line the walls. But the source of contention is a small room created with 7-foot-high wooden walls. Jannah B’int Hannah describes how she feels in there where she cannot see the imam, or leader of the mosque, speak. “Boxed in, stifling, suffocating and totally a second class citizen,” Hannah said. Over the weekend, Hannah and approximately 20 other women prayed in the main hall, but D.C. police were called. They asked them to leave or be arrested.

Article continues.  A few words for the person who made the call to the police.  When the police come next time to tell you how to conduct your religion, remember what you did.  Remember that you asked for the State to determine and enforce how you worship.  Remember that you requested armed police officers to enter your mosque and differentiate between the right and the wrong way to be a Muslim.  Remember well what you did.  Because if you complain when it happens next time, you’ll have no one to blame but yourself.

Details are scant, but this appears to be a case of the establishment of religion – expressly forbidden in the United States Constitution.  The police should have taken the call and told whoever made it they could not respond without a criminal charge.  Threats of violence?  Sure.  Trespassing?  A little sticky, but maybe.  ‘Praying in the wrong room?’  Sorry, not our problem.  In this case, the State went too far in establishing how to be a Muslim.

The State doesn’t always go too far.  Sometimes it doesn’t go far enough.

Dustin Gardiner, Dad accused in ‘honor killing’ will not face death penalty:

A Glendale man accused of slaying his daughter in an “honor killing” will not face the death penalty. After sparring with the suspect’s defense attorney over its death penalty review process, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has said it will not seek death for Faleh Almaleki, 49. The Iraqi immigrant is accused of slaying his daughter, 20-year-old Noor Almaleki, for being “too Westernized.” Police say he used his Jeep Cherokee to run down his daughter and another woman in a Peoria parking lot Oct. 20. Noor Almaleki later died of her injuries. Almaleki is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated assault and two counts of leaving the scene of a serious accident. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The decision not to seek the death penalty comes after Almaleki’s attorney, Billy Little, a public defender, asked a judge to take special precautions to ensure the County Attorney’s Office wouldn’t wrongly seek the death penalty because Almaleki is a Muslim.  Little requested that the office make public the process it uses to determine whether to seek capital punishment.  “An open process provides some level of assurance that there is no appearance that a Christian is seeking to execute a Muslim for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs,” Little wrote, referring to County Attorney Andrew Thomas’ Christian faith. [...] Prosecutors said Almaleki has admitted killing his daughter because she disgraced the family by not following traditional Iraqi or Muslim values.

I oppose the death penalty in all cases.  That having been said, this has the appearance that a murderer received a reduced sentence due to being a Muslim. The County Attorney’s Office issued a statement about the case: “The defendant is charged with first degree murder and, if convicted, will spend the rest of his life in prison. As is in all first degree murder cases, the decision on whether to seek the death penalty is made on a case by case basis. Cultural considerations played no part in the decision not to seek the death penalty.” I certainly hope so.

Capital News Service, Legislator Says Disabled kids are God’s Punishment:

[Virginia] State Delegate Bob Marshall of Manassas says disabled children are God’s punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy. He made that statement Thursday at a press conference to oppose state funding for Planned Parenthood. “The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” said Marshall, a Republican. “In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”

Delegate Bob Marshall, Statement on Recent News story by Capital News Service:

A story by Capital News Service regarding my remarks at a recent press conference opposing taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood conveyed the impression that I believe disabled children are a punishment for prior abortions. No one who knows me or my record would imagine that I believe or intended to communicate such an offensive notion. I have devoted a generation of work to defending disabled and unwanted children, and have always maintained that they are special blessings to their parents. Nevertheless, I regret any misimpression my poorly chosen words may have created as to my deep commitment to fighting for these vulnerable children and their families. Sincerely, Delegate Bob Marshall

No need to apologize, State Delegate Marshall!  Because you were right the first time.  Christianity does consider the disabled to be cursed by God. Let’s consult the primary evidence…

Who makes people blind? “Who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?” – Exodus 4:11.
Does God make people blind as a punishment? “The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart.” – Deuteronomy 28:28
What about people with other disabilities; does God hate them too? “Whosoever … hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. [...] Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries.” – Leviticus 21:17-23
And those who God favors, if they kill disabled people are they rewarded? “And David said on that day, Whosoever [...] smiteth [...] the blind that are hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.” – 2 Samuel 5:8
Did Jesus know about these laws and want us to keep them? [Jesus said] “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 5:18-19.

See, State Delegate Marshall?  You stood up for your faith in the public square.  Don’t let your critics force you to back down.  In fact, I’d like to encourage you to go that one step further and detail what you mean when you say “In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord.”

Should we sacrifice first-born babies likewise as we sacrifice ox, sheep and liquor? “Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.” – Exodus 22:29.
That’s pretty harsh. Sure about that God? We’re supposed to kill children for you? “Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah…. And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands…. And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child…. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back. And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth…. And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed.” – Judges 11:29-40.
Just asking one more time, God, it’s right in your eyes to offer human sacrifices? “Josiah … did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord … And he burnt the bones of the priests upon their altars.” – 2 Chronicles 34:1-5.
Yikes. How do you think I’m supposed to feel after killing a child? “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” – Psalm 137:9.

The problem isn’t that State Delegate Marshall misrepresented Christianity.  It’s that he represented it accurately to a Christian nation that makes a point of being ignorant of its own religion. Let’s see what else this moral giant has said.

Wikipedia, Robert G. Marshall:

Marshall sponsored the Marshall-Newman Amendment to the state constitution that prohibited same-sex marriage as well as civil unions, domestic partnerships, and “other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.” It also prohibits the recognition of other states’ such legal arrangements. [...] When asked about abortion in the case of incest, Marshall replied that sometimes incest is voluntary. In response to abortions in the case of rape, Marshall said, “Your origins should not be held against you [referring to the victim's unborn child]. The woman becomes a sin-bearer of the crime, because the right of a child predominates over the embarrassment of the woman.”

God bless State Delegate Marshall. He’ll get nothing but curses from me.  Spitting hatred and contempt.

Subtitled.

Wikipedia:

Ghada Jamshir is a Bahraini women’s rights activist and an ardent campaigner for the reform of Sharia courts in Bahrain and the Arab Gulf states. Jamshir heads the Women’s Petition Committee lobbying for a law that would shift jurisdiction over family and women’s affairs from Islamic Sharia court to civil courts. In 2006, Time Magazine identified Jamshir as one of four heroes of freedom in the Arab world, and Forbes magazine selected her as one of the ten most powerful and effective women in the Arab world.

In 2005, the Bahraini government brought three criminal charges against Jamshir for allegedly publicly defaming the Islamic family court judiciary, and faced a jail sentence of up to 15 years. These charges were eventually dropped on 19 June 2005. Since 2006, Ghada Jamsheer has been under permanent surveillance, there is a 24-hour presence of plainclothes Public Security officials of the Ministry of the Interior outside her home. After her criticism of government policies, Bahrain authorities ordered the local media and press to prevent the publication of any news relating to Jamshir. The order came from the Royal Court, through its minister Shaikh Khalid bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa. Jamshir also claims that the Minister of the Royal Court gave her a direct threat demanding that she end her public work, after which the regime attempted to install a spy camera in her house, bugged her telephone, and sent individuals to bribe and blackmail her.

I admire her courage.

Trevor Blake: Chatroulette Puppet. Online video performance. 18-19 February 2010.  Excerpt.  Silent, color, 1 minute 9 seconds.

The content of these links may not be appropriate for all readers and all environments. – Trevor Blake

Furry Girl, Introduction, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Non:

After working on the outskirts of the porno industry since 2002, I have steadily been moving from wanting to modernize and re-define the concept of feminism to wanting to stop beating that dead horse entirely. Many of my friends and favorite people consider themselves feminists. A lot of my enemies consider themselves feminists, too, and they exist in larger numbers, with better funding, and with better brand recognition as the face of feminism. [...] I spent way too much of my own time trying to shoehorn myself into feminism, and I look back on that as an embarrassing waste of my energy.

Feminism as a word/identity is used to describe so much of everything that it has ceased to mean anything at all. Is fucking people for money feminist? Is climbing the corporate ladder feminist? Is wearing an abaya feminist? Is shaving your pussy feminist? Is being a stay-at-home mom feminist? Is BSDM feminist? Are sewing and crafting feminist? Is makeup feminist? Is being a woman in the military feminist? Is broccoli soup feminist?!?! You have people lined up, ready to fight to the death over their absolute certainty over whether or not such things are truly feminist. (What the word “feminism” stands in for, of course, is deemed permissible by the “right” kind of people.)

In general, I’m tired of “feminist” being used as a blanket qualifier to mean “awesome”, especially when it comes to the concept of feminist porn. I think “awesome” works just fine as a qualifier for awesome. I seek to advance the idea the first person in any debate to propose that their position is correct because it’s the most “feminist” has hereby lost the argument. I have been guilty of this one plenty of times in the past, but I can learn from my mistakes.

Furry Girl, Biography of a Pornographic Polemic:

Why would you NOT want call yourself a feminist? That means you’re sexist, then, right? Pick a side! We’re at war!
I don’t call myself a suffragette, either, but that doesn’t mean I am against women being allowed to vote. I still consider myself super-duper anti-sexism, because sexism is still a problem in my society. Unfortunately, it’s frequently perpetuated by people who call themselves feminists.

What could you possibly have against feminism?
For starters: “feminism” doesn’t have anything close to a singular meaning, so it’s too hard to have rational debate about it when it means opposite things to different people; the feminist pendulum has run its course and too often turns into pointless misandry; feminism used to be about women’s right to be more than just barefoot and pregnant, and now it fights for the “right” of women to be barefoot and pregnant and be given a ton of government and corporate handouts for churning out babies; feminism is commonly embraced by people who’s underlying beliefs are that women are stupid, feeble creatures who need to be controlled and saved; feminism these days focuses way too much on imaginary first-worlder problems like women choosing to feel badly about themselves because they think they’re not pretty enough, rather than real-world problems in the Global South where women aren’t allowed to own property, vote, or have a safe abortion; some feminists are obsessed with fanning and exploiting insecurities in women in order to indoctrinate them to their style of victim feminism, rather than being positive and helping women see that they’re strong and powerful. Last but not least: it’s REALLY FUCKING DIFFICULT to spend your entire life being viciously picked on by girls and women for various reasons, then swallow the idea that women are your true solidarity sisters and that men are the cruel enemy that oppresses you.

From the 1906 book The Outbursts of Everett True by A. D. Condo and J. W. Raper. With thanks to Barnacle Press.

Robert Tait, Turkish Girl, 16, Buried Alive for Talking to Boys:

Turkish police have recovered the body of a 16-year-old girl they say was buried alive by relatives in an “honour” killing carried out as punishment for talking to boys. The girl, who has been identified only by the initials MM, was found in a sitting position with her hands tied, in a two-metre hole dug under a chicken pen outside her home in Kahta, in the south-eastern province of Adiyaman. [...] A postmortem examination revealed large amounts of soil in her lungs and stomach, indicating that she had been alive and conscious while being buried. Her body showed no signs of bruising.  The discovery will reopen the emotive debate in Turkey about “honour” killings, which are particularly prevalent in the impoverished south-east.  Official figures have indicated that more than 200 such killings take place each year, accounting for around half of all murders in Turkey.

Radio Netherlands Worldwide, Anti-Islam Book Launch Cancelled:

The book launch was scheduled for Thursday at The World Forum, but was cancelled because the director of the venue does not believe he can guarantee the safety of his guests. The book in question is Islamofobie? (Islamophobia?), written by Islam critic and PVV supporter Frans Groenendijk. The PVV, or Freedom Party is an anti-Islamic opposition party led by Geert Wilders. Green Left party member Tofik Dibi, who was to receive the first book at the launch, says he regrets that the conference centre acted out of fear.

Mahmood Delkhasteh, Rapists in Iran’s regime:

Sexual assault against men and women is being systematically used in Iran in an attempt to stifle opposition.

Justin Penrose, Rapist Jamaile Morally in Boiling Oil Jail Attack:

A jailed killer poured boiling oil over another inmate because he refused to convert to Islam. Jamaile Morally, 26 – sentenced to life as part of a gang that raped, tortured and murdered a teenage girl and left another for dead – led two other inmates in carrying out the attack.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Burqa-Clad Robbers Hold Up Post Office:

Two burqa-wearing robbers have held up a French post office using a handgun concealed beneath an Islamic-style full veil, court officials said.

All articles continue at links.  Part of a series that never ends… [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and etc.  What sort of emotive debate can occur about honor killings?  I fail to see it as an issue with two valid perspectives which can come into harmony through compromise.  I am similarly too morally stunted to support the trial of Geert Wilders for – killing children?  Islamic theocracy-backed rape tortures? Prostelytising with boiling oil?  Robbing a bank?  No, Geert Wilders is on trial for making a film.  Maybe Wilders is lucky – some filmmakers who were critics of Islam in the Netherlands didn’t get to go to trial.  Violence and threats of violence to filmmakers and book authors, multicultural understanding for pedophiles and murderers.  That’s what Islam brings to the table in the 21st Century.  What do you bring?

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

From The Open Society and Its Enemies.  Princeton 1971

Most people associate Valentine’s Day with romance, but for Salman Rushdie, I expect it has vastly different associations. On February 14, 1989, Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa, ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie for writing his book The Satanic Verses – and this death sentence has been perpetually reaffirmed by Iranian leaders, though no assassin has yet carried it out.  It was the first salvo in what has become an all-out Islamic war against the freedom of speech.

Rushdie did not invent the “Satanic verses.” The term actually refers to an incident, recorded in Islamic tradition and referred to in Sura 53, in which Satan, not Allah, spoke through Muhammad’s mouth. The verses that the devil gave to the Prophet of Islam have been known thereafter as “the Satanic verses.”

Article continues.  See also Sura 53, Wikipedia.

When the little girl on the witness stand said, “No, it didn’t happen,” Frances Keller put her head in her hands and began to sob. It was the second day of what would be a six-day trial of Keller and her husband, Danny, on charges that they’d sexually assaulted a young girl, Christina Chaviers, in the summer of 1991, when the 3-year-old was an infrequent drop-in at their home-based Oak Hill day care. Among the multiple counts were allegations that Danny had forcibly penetrated Christina with a pen and his penis and that Fran had performed oral sex on Christina and forced the girl to do the same. The charges were based on statements Christina had made, first to her mother, Suzanne Guinne, and then to her therapist, social worker Donna David-Campbell. There was no definitive physical evidence.

On the witness stand, the little girl sat on her older sister’s lap, chewing on a lollipop. “Did Danny ever touch you in a way you didn’t like?” Assistant District Attorney Judy Shipway asked. “No,” Christina replied.

“Did Fran ever touch you [in] a way you didn’t like?” Shipway asked. “No,” the girl replied.

Shipway tried a different approach. Did Christina tell anyone else that Danny had hurt her? She did not reply. Shipway asked if Christina would like to “whisper to me” her answer. “No,” she said.

“Christy, when you say no, do you mean you don’t want to talk about it, or do you mean, no, it didn’t happen?” Shipway asked. “No, it didn’t happen,” Christina replied once and then again. “No, it didn’t happen.”

“But did you tell somebody it happened?” Shipway asked. “Yes, yes, yes,” she answered.

Fran held her head in her hands; all the emotion of the last year and a half welled up. Finally, she thought, everyone in the courtroom had heard the truth: Nothing had happened. Fran felt a measure of relief – certainly, this whole ordeal would soon be over. But that’s not what happened. Instead, Fran and Danny Keller were each convicted of sexually assaulting Christina Chaviers, and each was sentenced to 48 years in prison. For the Kellers, now 58 and 68, respectively, it was effectively a life sentence. They’ve since come up for parole, but neither will acknowledge the remorse that is a requirement of release – after 17 years, the Kellers still fiercely maintain their innocence.

And in fact, the Chronicle’s reinvestigation of the Fran’s Day Care case has revealed serious problems with the state’s case against the Kellers – including questions about the quality and reliability of the state’s medical evidence and forensic interviews. Moreover, the sensational nature of the charges themselves, in a period of hysterical national rumors about supposed “satanic ritual abuse” at day care centers, made it virtually impossible for the Kellers to receive a fair or even rational trial. Finally, our investigation has uncovered potentially exculpatory evidence that the Kellers’ defense attorneys say they were not aware of at the time of the 1992 trial.

In light of the problems with the original prosecution and this additional evidence, there remain substantive doubts about the Kellers’ guilt. Indeed, it’s an open question not only whether the Kellers were rightly convicted – but more fundamentally, whether any crime ever happened at Fran’s Day Care at all.

Article continues.  Fran and Danny Keller are in prison for ritualized child rape that never happened, while well-documented real-life ongoing ritualized child rape organizations wring their hands and say oh, so sorry, oh, so sorry.  So very, very sorry.

From the 1906 book The Outbursts of Everett True by A. D. Condo and J. W. Raper. With thanks to Barnacle Press.

Look at the faces of these people as the facts are revealed. Listen to the silence.

Background:
Geert Wilders [29 March 2008] [29 March 2008] [4 May 2008] [11 September 2008] [28 September 2008]  [10 June 2009] [3 September 2009] [3 November 2009]
Pin Fortuyn [6 May 2009] [1 July 2009] [21 October 2009] [3 November 2009]
Theo van Gogh [14 February 2008] [17 May 2008] [3 September 2009] [11 September 2008] [10 June 2009] [1 July 2009] [3 November 2009] [5 November 2009]

From the 1906 book The Outbursts of Everett True by A. D. Condo and J. W. Raper. With thanks to Barnacle Press.