"Sic Semper Tyrannis"

This is a great post penned by Mr. Sharkey four years back and I repost it today:

It was on April 15th, 1865, the hand of Justice pushed the American Lenin into Cocytus' icy grip where all traitors to country go. With the immortal battle cry of all who would strike down the tyrant, "Sic Semper Tyrannis", Abraham Lincoln was struck down.

It was the politics of Lincoln which drove this nation into it bloodiest conflict and set the foundations of the tax you were forced to pay and the other infringement and violations of the Constitution we endure daily from a central Federal Government. Of that Civil War and the politics behind it the historian Jeffrey Hummel wrote in Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, "The Civil War represents the simultaneous culmination and repudiation of the American Revolution."

If you should suffer from a terminal case of Lincoln worship, I suggest for an antidote read, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War by Thomas Dilorenzo. For a taste of what it contains see Walter William's comments on it, "Delorenzo is Right About Lincoln".

In memory of this great day, I flew the Bonnie Blue flag of Secession and the South Carolina flag of Sovereignty and thought how this county might have been had not the American Lenin come to power. Remember, "Sic Semper Tyrannis" and rejoice!!

WP

"It is against our religion; we do not do this in our culture," Alaeddin said.

Islam 'insulted' by alleged child killer's mug shot, says husband

April 10, 2009
By KIM JANSSEN, Staff Writer

The police booking photo of alleged child killer Nour Hadid released Tuesday is an "insult against our religion," says Hadid's husband, Alaeddin.

Orland Park police detectives say the 26-year-old Muslim woman was treated as any other suspect in a murder probe would be, and they did not intend to humiliate her when they photographed her Sunday without her headscarf and wearing only a skimpy top.

Nour Hadid is accused of beating her 2-year-old niece Bhia Hadid to death over four days at her home on the 9000 block of West 140th Street. The child had 55 separate bruises and was beaten "from head to toe," according to prosecutors, who say Hadid confessed.

But Alaeddin Hadid - who insists his wife is innocent - said Orland Park police are "really going to be in big trouble" for releasing the woman's booking photo to the news media after she was charged with first-degree murder.

The Hadids are Muslims and Nour "never leaves the home without covering up," said Alaeddin, who's vowed to sue.

By custom, some practicing Muslim women wear the hijab, or headscarf, and cover their arms and legs when in public.

In the mug shot, a bare-headed and obviously emotional Nour appears to be protecting her modesty with her hands.

"It is against our religion; we do not do this in our culture," Alaeddin said.

"People have been calling me about this all day."

No, you just beat children to death and then worry about pictures without scarves Alaeddin, newsflash, you are in OUR culture, OUR nation, OUR weay of life- not yours.

WP

Happy Platt & Matix Day!

Twenty-three years ago today brought us this made for TV movie, the Feral Bumbling Idiots to tears and the rage of the Wonder-Nine.

More on this can be found here and there.

Just remember this, from all incidents such as this (the rending of cloth, the flowing of tears and the cries of anguish echo) comes knowledge...

WP

A Defence of Defense

CSMK sent me the link I think it well worth posting about.

A Defence of Defense

On this topic, in the recent past, it has often been said that "We will just have to agree to disagree," and for most of my life I have lived according to that dictate. This has never produced agreement, or even termination of the issues under discussion. It was simply a method to disengage; exhibition boxing, with fighters returning to their corners following rounds where no punches landed, at times with none even being thrown.

But alas, the world has changed, drastically; altered to such extent that to me it is no longer recognizable. Some of my thoughts, my beliefs and even some of my actions seem oddly inappropriate, or worse, unacceptable. Consequently, I no longer accept that we can "agree to disagree" and further, I will longer attempt to reason with you. If this seems arbitrary or personally offensive let me add that, in attempting to specify the recipients for this, I found I could not. Therefore I am writing to everyone, stating the case as simply as possible and you must judge the value for yourself. Whether you choose to finish reading this or not, you will find that there are consequences to either choice.

Defense, as a subject and in its concepts, is as simple and basic as any subject can be, extending from a status of non-thinking "instinct" to one of years' long intelligent planning. Moreover, it is common to all living beings, from the smallest of germs, unable to be seen, to the largest of animals, impossible to ignore. While there are animals without natural predators, even these have developed defenses; knowledge of the poisonous or for use against those that will fight against being consumed. If there were any species that did not have or use defense, it must have became extinct long ago.

No; defense is not complex. It is probably the most understood and widely utilized behavior possible among sentient beings, across all boundaries, both natural and artificial and with or without intelligent thought. It is truly a mystery then, to contemplate that defense can be contentious. It is though, but only, amusingly enough, to what is delightfully called intellect.

Defensives choices can be summarized with two words that are familiar to all; "Fight or Flight." The second choice, "Flight" has seldom been contentious, seen as nothing more than a non-aggressive act of removing yourself from perceived danger. A choice of flight however, is not always available or practicable; dead-end escape routes or being unwilling to abandon protected children, are inherent situational limitations. But some arbitrary limitations have now been added. Whether artificial bounds of logic or law should be added, such as the daily quoted, entertaining line "If you're not guilty, why did you run?" produces only doubt, confusion and submission to aggression. Flight however does sometimes remain a valid choice, within limitations.

When the word "Fight" is mentioned however, simplicity disappears; all Hell breaks loose, and the subject becomes encumbered with related concepts, conditional choices, moral circumstances, and even invented word definitions. I have already stated that I am no longer willing to "reason with you," and this seems an appropriate time to add that I also do not write to propose, argue, sway, convince or even inform. I am aware of all facets of the issues, the contentious opposites of moral and immoral, peace and war, and the philosophies concerning the nature of man. For years I have taken part in all aspects of these issues, including the newest; political correctness, enforced fairness and tolerance of multiculturalism. As the world has changed, and is changing, I can no longer view these disagreements as anything other than unending mental masturbation that produces no climax or satisfaction. So, what then is the purpose of this letter? It is to state, in no uncertain terms, a view of the world in which you now live. I write, as a nice guy, concerned with your safety, to say that you may be in danger; perhaps mortal danger. As I do not know exactly who you are as you read this, I have some questions about you.

Do you believe in, and will you act, in defense? For me this is a rhetorical yes; but I know that some will answer in the negative. For those, my retort is simple; "Bull****, you are lying." I stand ready to walk up to you, grab you by the throat and begin squeezing, keeping breath from your body. I fully expect you will raise a hand in defense, to prevent this, and would be astounded if you did not. You are safe, of course, as I do not want, and will not, kill you for a test. Some might even allow for my commitment, with a strong-willed lapse into unconsciousness, to prove a point. I will not argue your view, as I know I am replaceable in this experiment by someone that is willing to kill you, then your family, then your friends and then your neighbors. Yes, the world has changed and I am not responsible for the change or for your safety.

Will you, in an act of defense, grab a stick, a rock or any handy object to protect yourself and loved ones? Again my rhetorical yes, and a "bull****" for the naysayers; most of them anyway as I cannot exclude exceptions. For these exceptional people, I will only say that I may mourn your family, but I will not mourn you or take on the responsibility of your family once you have allowed your self-destruction. My view is that you should have become extinct long ago, preventing the proliferation of that gene, that belief and that reaction. Again, in many ways you may protest or argue, but I have already said that I will not. That's just one of the ways of the world now; made possible in part by your stupid and continued resistance to a valid view of defense.

And we now arrive where you suspected we were headed; to the subject of weapons. I finally realized that the unending arguments on this subject were not really about "guns," demonstrated by the continuing fight in some places, even after guns are banned, against swords, then knives, then to "sticks" (those clubs I mentioned) and further even to toy guns and other items that "may appear to be guns." What are weapons or firearms in this context? Nothing more than "intelligent planning" to have a powerful "stick" handy when it becomes needed. Again I say "Bull****" to those that would prohibit them, and again I maintain that, however your contrived protests against guns are presented, you are lying. And sadly, lying, even to yourself, can have tragic consequences.

The lie is caught in observable, logical inconsistency; proved by simply looking at reality. In every case it is obvious that weapons and firearms are allowed; to the armed forces, police, regulatory agencies, officers of the court and yes, even politicians. This approval however is not extended to "free people," it is not willingly granted to "citizens." This stance and its observable outcome reveals a basic belief. It is not sticks, stones or firearms being legislated against; it is "selected people," and your contempt for these "certain people" is blatantly and obviously on display. All of these people can be divided into two groups; those approved, as presumed to be "under approved direction" and those that are not. Period.

It really is that simple, and I will no longer argue, as it is desired to focus the argument into endless, meaningless repetition. I write, as a good and kind person, to tell you that you are in danger, not from me but from yourself, as you will live within the results produced by your actions.

Having opposed my position on my right to bear arms and attempted to make me defenseless by voting to disarm me by law, this may be a good time for you to review some of your assumptions. Will those you have approved of having arms respond at all times, and act on your behalf when they do respond? Do you have a firm belief that police or U.S. Troops will not fire upon its own citizens? Will you seek my help, and will I respond, when you are come under immediate threat? Will I do so at cost and expenditure; knowing that I also increase a threat to myself and loved ones in order to help you?

Think of other questions on your own - and note that they all boil down to a single one: Will a reasonable person work to preserve another, one that has worked against their efforts of life preservation? There are two broad classes of parasites, one feeds and survives on its host in symbiotic relationship, being careful, in its own interest, to help it survive; the other, short-sighted and without thought for its own well being, endangers and kills its host.

I do not know, and will not speculate, on how or what constitutes the criteria for the division of people; after all, those allowed the provision of arms were and are those "free people" and "citizens" prior to joining those "approved classes" you believe you direct. I will not even speculate that "gun owners" are "hated for our freedoms" or any of your many other projections. I simply want you to know that I consider you, and your arguments, irrelevant. I read history and I am content to leave you to the one you are creating for yourself, you are deserving of it. I hope you remember this at the appropriate time.

The man who wrote this is much more elegant & circumspect than I- and he is absolutely correct about remembering.

WP

Leonard and Dorothy Saye Day

It is has been thirteen years today and this is a reprint from the original.

You can try to contact Patrica Saye for more details via a Google search, but I have not heard from her since I first posted the story in 2005.

And you folks thought Waco was the last time...

--WP

AMMENDED

After Will's question, I did some searching for more information and found Patrica Saye's number. I called and spoke with her and then sent her the link to my post and she came by and posted the following comments in Haloscan:

My father originally attended a seminar held by the "Montana Freemen."

He was charged with "Felony Theft" - for "endorseing" a draft "signed" by 2 of the Montana Freemen, Leroy Schwitzer and Dan Peterson.

My mother died in my arms, the evening of 01/10/03, while my father was in the hospital, scheduled for surgery the following morning, after our phone had been turned off 2 days earlier, and I could not reach the doctor earlier that morning, until my brother stopped by earlier that afternoon, and left his cell phone with me.

If you have any questions, you may call me on my cell (702) 806-9066, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have, if I can.

WP, I'd like to thank you for contacting me today, and for sending my parents story out each year at this time.

May God bless you.

Patricia

P.S. - I do need to update my website.

Again Patrica, thank you for making your family's story available.

--WP

Jiverly Voong = Revolving Joy

A friend down in the RGV sent this link which says the murder's name is Jiverly Voong and then also says it is an alias:

Gunman Identified As Jiverly Voong, 42, Of Johnson City
Voong Recently Let Go From Job At IBM

BINGHAMTON, N.Y. (CBS) ― Related Slideshows
A gunman opened fire at an immigration services center in downtown Binghamton on Friday, killing 13 others before taking his own life, in what's being described as a "classic spree killing," according to CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.

A law enforcement official says the gunman died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Authorities say the rampage began when the gunman barricaded the rear door of the American Civic Association building with his car before entering through the front door, firing his weapon, the official said.

Orr said a senior law enforcement official told him after entering the front of the building, the gunman shot the receptionist in head and killed two others at front desk.

The official then said the gunman went to the southwest corner of the building where citizenship tests were being taken. There he shot 11 people and then killed himself. Others in the building hid and barricaded themselves before SWAT teams swept through the building.

The official said the gunman, who was also carrying a bag with two guns -- a 9 mm with an extended clip, and a .45 mm, never took any hostages. He was also carrying a bag that had survival gear, extra ammunition and a hunting knife.

The dead gunman was carrying identification with the name Jiverly Voong, age 42, from upstate New York, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr. He apparently acted alone although investigators are still questioning a number of people who were inside. The motive is not known.

The name is an alias that the man has used in the past, said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly and was talking on condition of anonymity.

He also told me that the name seemed off and that he ran it through an anagram site and the first out of six is "Revolving Joy".

There is a whole lot that can be read into that but I think it best right now to just wait and get more facts.

WP

UPDATE

It seems that Jiverly Voong may be his name and the alias is Linh Phat Voong.

UPDATE II

I am hearing that he was Vietnamese and some of the victims were too.

Earlier today police called Broome Community College to find someone who could speak fluent Vietnamese to "assist police with translation," said college spokesman Richard David.

UPDATE III

Jiverly Wong?

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Found via the blog Friends of Ours:



It sounds as if the former capo Michael Franzese knows that which he speaks of:

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

WP

Obama bows to Saudi king

Obama bows to Saudi king
Greeting called 'most unbecoming for president of the United States'

Posted: April 02, 2009
4:12 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

President Obama greeted the king of Saudi Arabia with a full bow from the waist yesterday, a move one commentator described as a violation of protocol and not worthy of the office he holds.

"I am quite certain that this is not the protocol, and is most unbecoming a President of the United States," writes Clarice Feldman in an American Thinker commentary.

The situation developed as leaders of the world attending the G20 summit in London assembled for a photograph to mark the event.

Video by a television crew was posted on YouTube. The bow comes at about 50 seconds into the video:

Kenyan & Muslim, understand this- NO AMERICAN BOWS!

WP

Gerald Celente expect World Riots Ghost Malls and a Revolution in This Country

Obama's "Aunti Zeituni" is STILL a wetback. II

Judge extends Obama aunt's stay in United States
Wed Apr 1, 2009 12:42pm EDT

BOSTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's Kenyan aunt, who was ordered deported five years ago, can stay in the United States legally until next year when she makes a new asylum bid, an immigration judge ruled on Wednesday.

The issue of her immigration status flared three days before Obama was elected the first African-American president in the November 4, 2008 election. His late father was from Kenya and his white mother, also deceased, was American.

Zeituni Onyango, 56, whom Obama calls "Auntie Zeituni" in one of his memoirs, has been living in a public housing complex in Boston and is the half-sister of Obama's father.

"The decision as to Ms. Onyango's request to stay permanently in the U.S. will be made during a second hearing," Michael Rogers, a spokesman for Onyango's lawyer, Margaret Wong, said in a statement.

Yes, I was really mystical yesterday, wasn't I...

WP