"What Were You Guys Thinking? Why Did You Kill Him?""Why, why did you kill him?" a traumatized Vanessa Guerena begged to know as she was interrogated in a makeshift "command center" by detectives from the same Sheriff's Office that had just slaughtered her husband Jose. Her questioners, eager to exploit her trauma to extract information, initially refused to give her a straightforward answer.
Jose, who had finished a graveyard shift at the Asarco copper mine, was sleeping when a SWAT team from the Pima County Sheriff's Office laid siege to his home on the morning of May 5. Vanessa was doing laundry, and the couple's four-year-old son Joel was watching "Transformers," when the SWAT raiders pulled up in a Bear Cat armored vehicle.
The siren sounded for less than ten seconds; just a few seconds later, the order to "breach" the door was given because, as on-scene commander Deputy Bob Krygier later explained, nobody inside the house had "submitted to our authority."
Vanessa initially thought that there was an emergency "somewhere in the neighborhood," and called the police. When she saw armed intruders on her property, Vanessa screamed for her husband to wake up. Jose told Vanessa to take their younger son (whose older brother, Jose, Jr., was in school) and hide in the closet, while he went to confront the invaders.
Seconds later, Jose was sprawled face-first in a pool of his own blood, shredded by more than sixty rounds fired by the SWAT team. That's how his four-year-old son would later find him. Joel was left alone after Vanessa, who had gone out to plead for someone to get medical help for her husband, was assaulted and brutalized by the SWAT operators and then detained for questioning. The child remained alone in the house with the body of his dead father while Krygier developed a "tactical team" to extract the child at minimal risk. That is, minimal risk to the berserkers who had just killed Joel's dad.
Why I Can Vote With a Clear Conscience
This is the one election that in all of our history is a fork in the road that we had better choose wisely.
This next president will appoint several Supreme Court justices.
That alone should be enough to make everyone sit up and take notice.
If HRC is allowed to stack that Supreme Court, the country is gone.
It is that serious. There is no turning back, none.
We will not have the luxury to say, we can hang for another 4 years.
The communist planks are all in place…
...that ball is at the finish line and just needs that last punt over the goal posts and it is game over.
That one issue will have ramifications for decades.
Your children and grandkids will experience the full weight of that one issue alone.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Senate Rejects Efforts to
Protect Gun Records from ATF
The Senate yesterday tabled an amendment by Senator Rand Paul which would have protected 4473’s and other gun records from blanket searches by the ATF under the PATRIOT Act.
While some Senators withstood the heat from their leadership to protect your gun rights, many others buckled under the Washington-generated pressure.
Please click here to see how your Senators voted, and who it was that betrayed you!
Senator Jim DeMint, R-S.C., sat down for an interview with Coffee and Markets, a podcast hosted by Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech. When asked about the National Labor Relations Board's attempt to keep Boeing from building a factory in his state, DeMint had some exceptionally harsh words for the NLRB:
DeMint: I mean, they’ll lose the first couple of appeals because they go back to the board that the President has stocked with union thugs basically, and –
Cianfrocca: “Union thugs”, may we quote you? That’s a great word.
DeMint: Once this gets in front of a fair and impartial judge they’ll win, but it’s only after millions of dollars in legal expenses and several years of chilling effect.
DeMint: What they’re trying to do is to tell any company in America, don’t even think about moving to a right to work state or expanding to a right to work state or you’re going to have to go through millions of dollars of legal expenses and this type of government harassment. It’s pretty amazing in America that we’re dealing with this type of third world tyranny.
This page contains a listing of various Civil War Slang with the meaning of each.
Do you think you would have understood what your ancestors meant by the slang terms they used? Read this list...you might just be surprised!
Here are the 18 reports of police misconduct tracked in our National Police Misconduct News Feed for this Thursday, May 26, 2011:
Via ojibwa, L&P
In 1979, Pakistani Brigadier General S. K. Malik wrote a book entitled The Quranic Concept of War. He was strongly encouraged in this effort by Pakistani Army Chief of Staff, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who had recently made himself President of Pakistan. Following widespread civil disorder, Zia had deposed ruling Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in a bloodless coup on July 5, 1977. Zia was killed in a suspicious aircraft crash in the Punjab in August 1988, along with several of his generals and U.S. Ambassador Arnold Lewis Raphel. Zia is most famous for his joint support with the United States of the Afghan Mujahideen (holy warriors) against the Soviet Union during the Soviet-Afghan War from 1979 to 1989. He was fundamentalist in his Muslim faith and helped to replace the older British Colonial system of law with Sharia during his presidency.
Zia was so enthusiastic about Malik's brief 158-page book that he wrote a Foreword and a 25-page Preface to it. In the Foreword, Zia pointed out that Jihad and the Quranic concept of war were not exclusively for soldiers or restricted to military means but were also the responsibility of all Muslims in every endeavor of Muslim life.
In the Preface, Zia defined Jihad with these words:
“The most glorious word in the vocabulary of Islam is Jihad, a word which is untranslatable in English, but broadly speaking, means 'striving', 'struggling',
'trying to advance the Divine causes or purposes.”
He further points out that Jihad “is a conflict between good and evil, between right and wrong, between truth and untruth, and between legitimate and forbidden courses of conduct.” He elaborates a bit on the concept of Jihad Bin-nafs or struggling with oneself, but moves quickly to the duty of every Muslim to make certain that Islam is not impeded. He insists that all Jihad is defensive but defines defensive in such a way that any opposition to Islam must be crushed. He quotes the Koran (Quran):
“Therefore, when you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks; at length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, build a barrier against them;”
He explains that Islam views the world in terms of two opposing camps, one submissive to Allah, Islam, and Sharia, and the other in opposition to Allah, Islam, and Sharia. It is the duty of the first, the House of Islam, to conquer and bring the other into submission. Islam is an Arabic word meaning not peace but “submission.” The choice to “infidels”
will be submission or destruction.
Finally, Zia endorses a decidedly enlightened doctrine of the conduct of war similar to the Geneva Convention and Christian War Doctrine. These rules can be justified by Quranic verses. They include making a distinction between combatants and non-combatants, avoiding injury to non-combatants, forbidding excess cruelties of any kind, prohibition of reprisals and collective punishments, and decent treatment of enemy prisoners and wounded.
Unfortunately, some of these rules are contradicted by other Quranic verses and many of Muhammad's historical actions. In addition, at least two of the four principal Sunni Muslim schools of jurisprudence allow extremely broad definitions of combatants to include even women, children, and handicapped persons who fight against Islam with words or actions--also very broadly defined. Regrettably, Western rules of martial conduct have also been abused in similar ways. On balance, these Quranic rules of warfare, as endorsed by General Zia, are enlightened and commendable policies if followed. The problem in their application is the sharp distinction the Quran and Muhammad often make between Muslims and those who will not submit to Islam. The ultimate choice for non-Muslims remains not peaceful coexistence, but conversion to Islam, a degraded form of slavery, or death.
Brigadier Malik makes some critical distinctions between Jihad and military strategy:
“The first step to this study is to understand the difference between total strategy, that is, Jihad, and military strategy….Jihad entails the comprehensive direction and application of power while military strategy deals only with the preparation for and application of force. Jihad is a continuous and never-ending struggle waged on all fronts including political, economic, social, psychological, domestic, moral, and spiritual to obtain the object of policy. It aims at attaining the overall mission assigned to the Islamic State, and military strategy is one of the means available to do so. It is waged at individual as well as collective levels; and at internal as well as external fronts.”
The broader aspects of Jihad, including political propaganda and agitation, infiltration of government and educational organizations, establishing Muslim enclaves by migration, interfaith religious “dialogues,” and establishing a system of mosques and schools in target countries can also create conditions for quick and easy military victory. In Europe and North America, multiculturalism, political correctness, and hate-speech laws have severely muzzled opposition and seriously hindered the West's ability to resist more and more aggressive Islamization. The broad strategy of “civilization” Jihad is creating political fifth columns that could eventually render the West almost defenseless, both politically and militarily.
When I first encountered Mary Chesnut as a starting point for exploring the American Civil War while an undergraduate at Harvard, I could not have been more fortunate. She provided a riveting antidote to the “fiddle-dee-dee” school of southern womanhood on which I had been weaned as a teenager in the 1960s. Although Scarlett O’Hara was a beguiling screen heroine, Mary Boykin Chesnut was a flesh and blood Rebel, whose wartime scribbling brought to life intimate and important aspects of southern culture. Since its publication in 1905, Chesnut’s diary has become compelling reading.
Via Kimberly, Belle Grove