summer patriot, winter soldier

lenny kravitz and the high school bass man ...

lenny kravitz and the high school bass man.

lenny kravitz is walking down the street in new orleans, and just happens to have a camera person in tow.  hey, such is the nature of my celebrity that, ... , well, such is the nature of my celebrity that that has never happened to me, actually neither has ever happened to me, walking down the street in new orleans or having a camera person in tow.

well, who cares how likely it is to have happened exactly as depicted, because it is all pretty much just in good fun.  lenny kravitz hears this choir singing one of his songs, so he just goes and stands and listens and claps his hands, and is really enjoying himself.  the choir isn't too bad, and they are accompanied by a pretty good guitar and drum combo, and they are kinda rocking.

it's new orleans, right?

and, a kid is playing guitar and singing and doing a right passable job on the fret-boards. 

so, lenny kravitz goes over, and joins in.  not singing, not playing lead guitar riffs until he is blind, but takes over this kid's drum kit.  and starts flailing away, and lenny kravitz is a pretty good drummer.  and, he gets into playing, and he plays and he plays, and the kids are having a great time.

and, smiling, and laughing, and jumping around, and grinning, and maybe even a few sets of panties get peed, such is the good humor, and the little girls bouncing around in glee.  and, the kid on the guitar says some stuff, and lenny kravits just keeps playing the drums, really enjoying himself.

and, the bass player, throughout all this, never skips the beat, once.  he doesn't grin, he doesn't jump, he just keeps hammering out the beat.  even when the guitar kid, the lead guitarist comes over and sticks the mike in the face of lenny kravits and prevails upon him to sing, which kravitz wants none of, he is playing the drum kit.  but, the kid keeps after him, not nattering him just exactly, but he prevails upon kravitz to take the mike and sing, which kravitz does, while the drum kid retakes his seat and gets back onto the beat, the kid with the bass playing on through this whole deal.  never misses the beat.

well, kravitz sings, and everybody is really sousing their drawers now, and the kid with the bass never cracks a smile, and never really looks like he is trying too hard.

he just has that bass player's oblivious-to-everything-that-is-going-on-around-him look on his face, and a nuke could go off on the next block, and he would never look up or even acknowledge it with so much as a frown or raised eyebrow.

well, all good things must end.  right?  even the house of david, with solomon at the head looking like things are gonna be flush for judea forever, ... , even the house of david gets kicked to its knees by a couple knuckleheads in charge, and a little wayward sinning and such, and worshiping other g_ds besides the really jealous one.

so, lenny kravitz stands up, and goes over and shakes the hand of the guitarist.  no, not the lead guitarist who is playing some really great licks and has the pony tail and the patter. but, the bass man, with the hair cut high and tight, he of no smile, he who never tries to catch kravitz's attention, he who never cracks a frown or a grin, or shakes his rear, or any of that.

the guy who keeps the beat going.

the bass player.  kravitz shakes the hand of the bass player, and leaves.  just like that.  no hand shake for the lead guitarist, he of the patter and the hot licks.

now, that friends, reveals a lot about lenny kravitz.  decent fellow.

and, this little essay tells you everything you ever needed to know about the guys who play bass guitar.

they just cover your ass, and ask for nothing more than the chance to play.  and, to keep the beat.  it ain't for the hair cut.  it ain't for the patter.  it is not for the hot licks and lead lines.  it is just all about the beat.

john jay @ 06.30.2010

this is all depicted at msn at the following link:  http://thebubble.msn.com/#/video/?id=92f6509b-5cf0-41d0-b9f1-13bfb49bdef8 . 

the blasphemous book of jau jau .... at tasty infidelicacies ....

friends:

if this isn't the most brilliant thing that i have ever seen in the blogs, ... , well, then, ... , i just don't what is.  just the magic touch, wise and provocative and human and kind, ... , but insistent about certain unsettling truth.

and, the art work.  it is just sumptuous.

it is, ... , perhaps, ... , a bit of a parody.  or, it is, ... , perhaps, ... , a bit of prophesy and a foretelling in as gentle a way possible, the deadly serious clothed in wit & grace, of what yet is to befall us, if we do not rouse ourselves from our torpor and our lethargy and get up off of our fat dead butts and assert our right and our way in the world against the encroachments of islam.

for example, from the chapter "the fool king."

1. in the beginning of the republic, the people governed themselves, and elected men to pass laws and to do the will of the people. it was designed, from the beginning, that the nation, having hard fought a long and bloody conflict and now free from the tyrant king george and his armies, should no longer be a nation of one man's whim, but of laws.

...............

5. and the nation, which was christian in its infancy, was now corrupt and filled with unbelief, and forgetfulness.

6. and the people waxed cold, and grew slothful, and became like spoiled children, who demanded to be pampered and fed, and entertained, as did rome of ancient times, and so their judges and rulers, who came from within their midst, were very like them, to the detriment of all.

7. now it came to pass, that in the two hundred and thirty-second year of the republic, the people, tired of the wars against allah and his prophet, may he thirst evermore in the presence of the living water, and may he famish evermore in the presence of the bread of life, did raise up from their midst a ruler who was untried in battle.

8. and so he had no understanding of war and neither had he understanding of warriors. he was a ruler who had never ruled, nor did he understand business, but was corrupt within and without, who sent violent thugs to enforce his bidding, for he was but was a fool who spouted nonsense that tickled the ears of the slow-witted people, and they, being easily duped and dazzled, did make him king and ruler of all.

9. the fool king had no sooner come into power, that he began to meddle in affairs that did not concern him, and because the people feared him, they did not prevent him from stealing that which was not his, nor did they try to stop him when he flouted the laws and did that which was utterly despicable.

there is the chapter entitled "the unhappy yemenite looketh for jews to slaughter, and findeth naught," which is a razor sharp exhibition of the author's peculiar, and i use this word for no other does quite so nicely, but it is not in any sense pejorative, but describes only a singular sensibility, blend of wit and anger and incredulity and outrage at the depths to which islam can sink, and a profound despair that no matter how low they go, there is always the ability to sink lower in the mire.  and the muck.

friends, i cannot do justice to the originality of the artwork in this post.  there is, for example, in the chapter "the fool king telleth a wicked lie" a panel of two women in full head scarf looking to a mosaic of the "fool king," who bares an uncanny resemblance to i.b. totally insane obama, gazing rapturously over all he surveys and thinks to rule, which so completely compliments the text.

it is wry.  it is arch.  it is acerbic.  it is funny, and a razor sharp parody of pretense and failure.  it is sad.  it is prophetic, all at once.  it is hopeful and buoyant in the spirit and zest of its rapier pen excising the evils of our age, and it is profoundly sad as it points to the folly of man in his various downfalls from grace an the zenith of achievement, as once again we step into the pit of blackness of sloth and cynicism, not probably to emerge for a good long while.

friends, i do not know of the recency of your visits to the bible.  i have recently spent a lot of time in ezekiel, and daniel, and jeremiah and samuel, and with zechariah, ... , and, when i read the chapters of the books of jau jau my mind was transported to the words of the prophets of another age.

the books of jau jau, in a terrible way, have that feel about them, and mournfully set out the prospects of a fall from grace fully as horrible as the fall of the house of david and the temple, and the conquest of jerusalem by nebuchadnezzar, and the portent of nebuchadnezzar's dreams.  and i felt this, even while i laughed until the tears rolled.

i will not spoil them by setting them before you, but the author of the book of jau jau has fixed it, so that if you read her, you will never again hear or read the phrase, "peace be upon him" without a wry smile, and a silent hoot of derision, crossing your fervid brow.

please go to http://tastyinfidelicacies.blogspot.com/p/blasphemous-blog.html , "the blasphemous book of jau jau" at "tasty infidelicacies", proprietor, jewel.  you'll never look at a barbecued pork rib in the same manner, ever.

i thought that i could turn a sentence, the inspiration upon me.  i just have to say, understanding the evil that is envy, that i would gladly have given, ... , well, i am not going there, i need that arm, ... , that i would that i had written this piece.  but, i did not.  mores the pity.  so, all i can tell you, ... is, that ... .

if you want to experience a spiritual uplift and have a good smile and a hearty laugh, and understand our enemies for the pathetic twits that they are, then go to "tasty infidelicacies" for a wonderful read.

and, if you wish to understand what it is that you give up without a fight, seemingly, try think for about 10 or 15 seconds without any interruptions, over what you have just read.

this is a rare bird, this jewel of the jordan, this one that calls herself jewel.  she is, it would seem, just on the mark.

john jay @ 06.30.2010

p.s.  and, no, i haven't a clue was [a] "jau jau[s]" is/are?  laughing.  and, go here, as well, http://tastyinfidelicacies.blogspot.com/ .

this is the doing of the n.r.a., join now ... the united states supreme court puts a "stumbling block" of biblical proportion in the path of those who would lead the way to the totalitarian state ...

this is the doing of the n.r.a., join now  ...  the united states supreme court has placed a "stumbling block" of biblical proportion in the path of those who would lead the way to the totalitarian state.  the court has given i.b. totally insane obama a "green weenie" of major proportion, to suck on and savor, and shorts to sniff.  it should bring back fond memories of frank davis.

friends:

the national rifle association has been litigating these cases for years, and in the last two or three years has achieved stunning victory after stunning victory in our high courts asserting the right of the common citizen, that be you and that be me, to keep and bear arms in protection of his personal liberties and in protection of "his very own self," as we say out n.e. oregon way.

i wrote my third year writing assignment in law school in 1977, when the only law review case in the land, something from a san francisco law school, simply misstated case holding in order to support an argument that no individual right to own weapons existed, that the language in the amendment referred to a collective right to form militias controlled by states.

no criticism arose to decry this deliberate falsehood, and such was the tenor of the intellectual times that no other articles arose to challenge it, that ever reached the prestigious publication of a law school journal.  certainly, my writing assignment, to be performed by each third year student was never considered for inclusion in a law journal.

but, i have watched in the ensuing 33 years as the national rifle association marshalled academic and scholarly support and muscle to bring litigation to challenge this state of affairs, and watched the development of the historical, legal, philosophical and intellectual argument that has so triumphantly prevailed, all of this coming to a head in the last five years or so in the court systems all over the country.

right on the pages of the n.r.a. journal, where these subjects have received much scholarly treatment, and where the political proselytizing has taken place to get the money to support this litigation.

my dear friends, if you have brains in your heads, any inclination at all to support and protect your gun rights, join the national rifle association.  it is not perfect by any measure, by any stretch of the imagination, but it is the best that we have.

in the next several days i will be getting the text of the opinion, will read it, and will offer my observations.  i fully expect it to be premised upon the observance of the same "natural law" arguments that carried the day in the washington d.c. pistol licensing case, and paying the same honor and obeisance to john lock and sir william blackstone and the role of natural law in the formation of the thought of our founding fathers, and once again elevating such argument to the prominence it so deserves in our legal system.

a big victory.

read about it here.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/28/gun-lobby-victory-american-right-to-bear-arms-ruling .  (hey, is the manchester guardian a united states publication?  laughing.)

know the magnitude of the victory by the gnashing of teeth from the other side, your enemy, my enemy, who would impinge upon our rights and liberties the better to control and subdue our opposition to their plans to impose totalitarian rule upon us.

by that observation, i plainly mean that obama and his minions and his ilk will contend with a populace armed to the teeth and fully jealous of its liberties.  the n.r.a. has done its job, and admirably.  and, we live in purely historical accident that a conservative majority of the court was able to maintain its influence on the decision, ... , and that those worthies courageously stepped up and did their jobs.

now, you couch potato's, it is up to you.

when the constitutional convention adopted the document that would be ratified and would form our nation in 1789, just after benjamin franklin was accosted by the proverbial and apocryphal little old lady, who advanced upon him with furled umbrella, and said, "sir, i understand that we are to have a republic."

"yes, madame," he replied, "... , if you can keep it."

john jay @ 06.29.2010

muslims, i am waiting ...

where are the refutations?

no refutation being forthcoming, i take it as a given (therefore) that under shari'a doctrines of self defense that i, as an infidel, am perfectly justified to defend myself against direct attacks from islam upon my person, and against indirect attacks designed to weaken my society and make it more susceptible to conquest by islam.

well, now, ain't that just peachy keen?

next, we turn to domestic law.  and, folks, having done more than just a little research on gun rights under the second amendment, i remember with stark clarity some cases out of the southeastern united states just prior to the civil war on some of these very issues as raised in sayyed muhammed hussein fadlallah's "fatawa no. 10" on self defense.

they deal with the justification of the pre-emptive strike against an aggressor.  right out of the hill country.  {:O)

john jay @ 06.29.2010 

no muslims to refute my assertions ... no takers ...

well, then.

no muslims care to refute my assertions.

i take that to mean that islam, the koran, the haddiths stand for the proposition that i am obliged to defend myself from islamic attack and depredation upon me and my society and my country.  and, against direct attack such as upon my person and such indirect attack as the stealth jihad launches to undermine the health and vitality of my society.

islamic attacks oblige me to defend myself and my kith, kin and countrymen.  it is as simple as that.

as john locke and lord blackstone would be wont to say, it is high time to put the contest between islam and the west before g_d, and may the outcome of the contest reflect g_d's will.

john jay @ 06.

an open invitation & challenge to islam ... refute my contention that islamic doctrines of self defense oblige me to defend myself from islam ...

in this recent post, http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2010/06/islam-teaches-me-that-i-must-defend-myself-my-fellows-against-the-depredations-of-islam-and-that-i-m.html , i assert that islamic doctrine oblige me to defend myself from islamic/jihad attack upon my country, my heritage and my religion.

furthermore, as shari'a with regard to self defense set forth by the learned sayyed muhammed hussein fadlallah, http://english.bayynat.org.lb/fatawa/s10p1.htm , this injunction as to humans is "... an intrinsic urge ...," and while he views it as "... obligatory on the mukallaf ...", surely it is no less an intrinsic urge upon me as an infidel, this intrinsic urge to survive and live and defend myself, and therefore no less obligatory upon me as an infidel to obey that urge.

even if i am an infidel am i not subject to the same immutable "intrinsic urges" and the same laws of behavior as allah has established for all men?  surely i must be, because were i not, were infidels not capable of being motivated and driven by such urges, how then could we obey and observe the strictures of islam upon our conversion?  this is a problem for you muslims, is it not?  and, this is key as to why i may assert the tenets of islam to protect myself from islam, is it not.

i am a man, created in the image of g_d, and subject to his laws.  and, i assert the law of g_d to defend myself.

it is simple as that.

i therefore invite islam, any muslim who draws breath, to respond at these pages and refute my assertion and conclusion that it is just, nay, that it is obligatory upon me to defend myself upon the aggressions of islam as asserted by the jihad terror, and that it is further incumbent upon me to defend my society against those tactics and objectives the jihad has demonstrably asserted to weaken my society and overthrow it, and to rule it by shari'a.

says the learned fadlallah:

"furthermore, it [the obligation of self defense] goes beyond driving away direct threat to one's own being to that which is indirect, e.g. that which may result in undermining society, the land as a sovereign entity, and all that which relates to its security, economic welfare, political interests, and so on of the type which makes the individual and society function ... ."  foreword, section ten of fatawa.

i conclude that according to the very tenets of islam, to the will and wisdom of allah, that i am therefore both entitled and obliged to defend myself from the stated goals of the o.i.c., the muslim brotherhood, and their front organizations in the united states such as c.a.i.r., and from any and all similar and allied front organizations or fund raisers for abbas, hamas or fuzzball [i wrote "hezbollah," but the spell checker made me do it, so i am gonna leave it that way, ... , it seems appropriate, somehow] and that i may exercise my defense of self from direct attack upon myself or against indirect attacks designed to subvert and undermine the health of my society and country.

i announce one "limitation" upon any islamic or muslim refutation of my assertion, and that is to say that i will not respond to any assertion or argument that is premised upon the observation or argument, in whatever form or guise it may take, that for me so to do is not to advance the will and aims or according to what allah has ordained.

for three reasons.--

1.)who are mortals to speak for allah and to announce what allah has ordained.  in short, who say's so.  the bible, and jesus and the prophets are asserted by islam as part of islam.  i simply refer any and all to those sections of the bible describing the lot of false prophets, and those who pretend to speak the word of g_d when in fact it has not been spoken to them by g_d, but fabricated for their own ends.

if you deign to speak for g_d, then prove it, before you blather.

2.)i further view it as a highly dubious proposition that allah intended all of us to be islamic, and that such an intended result of islamic jihad is what g_d in fact intended at the creation of adam and eve.  were that so, it would be an amazing thing that an all knowing, omniscient, omnipresent and omni-prescient g_d simply did not make adam and eve and all their offspring, and all their descendants's down through time to thee and me, muslims to begin with.

and, 3.)bullshit.  in short, a shorter version of the "says who?" argument.  islam is "uncreated," in other words, it has not been crafted via the intervention of man but is the living testament of g_d.  it is, therefore, immutable by human intervention, supplementation, or for that matter, by obeisance or disobedience.

it is capable of being altered only by g_d's intervention.  since g_d is incapable of error or oversight, if he had intended us all to be muslims at the time of creation, he would simply have made us that way to begin with.

it is beyond peradventure that he did not, or has not intended since, to do so.  witness the fact that islam and muslims are a minority of souls upon this earth.  in short, dear muslims, g_d in his infinite wisdom saw in advance this struggle between men and religions to win his favor, and the only thing that is foreordained, is that the strong and the resolute shall win his favor, and so far, it has been amply demonstrated that he has chosen the jews as his people, and favored christianity with science, technology, culture and military power.  to islam, he has given the hind and dry tit, and the sewers and the deserts of the world in which to inhabit, and in which to fester.  i do not know what the future holds in particular, save that islam will be defeated, and i make this assertion on history as i have seen it: islam flowered, and the flower withered on decay and degradation and intellectual sloth from which islam will never recover.  you owe all your contemporary "success" because of the indulgence of western socialists who want to defeat free market economics, and when their indulgence wanes, ... , well then, you will suffer your destruction.

and, so it is written in the sands of arabia.  you have been denied europe many times, and so it is, so it was, and so it ever shall be.

so, if any of you who answer this challenge wish to assert that it is the will and in accord with the will of g_d that we should all be muslims of the islamic faith, then you are going to have to demonstrate such proposition to my satisfaction before you can take the simple out that i cannot defend myself from shari'a or the jihad or the direct attack by a muslim because so to do is contrary to g_d's will.

say's who?  say's who, according to the demonstrated will and word of g_d?

so, come on, muslims.

demonstrate to me that according to the tenets of islam, i am not obliged to defend myself from islamic aggressions, depredations, attacks and ridicules on the same grounds and by the same means and to the same extent you attack me and my society and my religious convictions.

i have sayyed muhammed hussein fadlallah on my side, and according to him, it is the word and will of allah that he advances because it is the word and the will of allah as advanced by the teachings of allah since time immemorial.

who you got, suckers?

john jay @ 06.27.2010

 

islam teaches me that i must defend myself & my fellows against the depredations of islam, and that i may kill in order to do so ... .

islam teaches me that i must defend myself & my fellows against the depredations of islam, and that i may kill in order to do so, if necessary. 

update, 08.24.2011.  if you doubt my assertion that islam preaches that a muslim may kill anyone who is a danger to muslim society, regardless of whether said person has threatened or harmed that musliim, please consider this.  http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/cairo-university-lecturer-in-islamic-jurisprudence-every-muslim-who-meets-a-zionist-is-entitled-to-k.html .  dr. salah sultan, a lecturer in islamic jurisprudence at cairo university, opines that any muslim on egyptian soil may rightfully kill any zionist.  simple, straightforward as that.  end update.

this was the precise issue addressed in my essay, "it is a moral imperative to resist aggression":

the questions posed here and the issues examined becomes, therefore, in my mind, when do we acquiesce in the necessity [to defend ourselves], in those moral imperatives engendered by and in response to the actions of those who wage aggressive war upon our rights, our liberties, our religious and political values, and our civilization.  in short, when does it become a moral obligation to rise in defense of ourselves, whether that defense express itself by intellectual argument, or whether it is pressed by violence and force of arms.

the essay posits the notion that not only is self defense permissible within certain contexts, but that it is obligatory in a moral and ethical sense to rise to one's own defense, or the defense of one's fellows, or the defense of one's religion or heritage or civilization.

i suppose it no secret that i view the west, the united states, my fellows and myself as under aggressive, unprovoked and unrelenting attack by islam and its muslims adherents, and that i think it high time that the west, we, you and i act accordingly and take those measures necessary and proper to defend ourselves.  the only moral and ethical inhibition i have seen in the past is just to whom may i take such measures, and need i identify a person actively engaged in a terrorist act before i may exact just retribution.

this inhibition is rapidly diminishing, as i have resolved to my own satisfaction, if not necessarily predictably a jury's, that all of islam is a just entity against who to retaliate, just as islam views me as a just target.  tit for tat, it has become, in my own mind.

curiously i find that islam agrees with me, and that according to islam doctrine i am justified to defend myself against islam, against muslims, for islams attacks upon my fellows and i.  islam views self defense very broadly, as do i. 

hey, i looked it up, at google.  really.

i direct your attention to the website of ayatollah sayyed muhammed hussein fadlallah, the link being http://english.bayynat.org.lb/fatawa/s10p1.htm .  the subject discussed is self defense according to the islamic law of sharia, and, if you will notice, the article is under the heading of "fatwa."

my notions of what is entirely fit and proper for you and i to do in defending ourselves from islamic predation and depredation is precisely confirmed by islamic doctrine, and this islamic scholar.  he writes, this man learned in the ethics of self preservation, and in the defense of one's fellows and one's homeland:

  "self-defense and all that which is aimed at preserving one's life are intrinsic urges. thus, the shari'a has made it lawful and obligatory on the mukallaf to comply with it. furthermore, by rewarding the practicing self-defense and punishing for its abandonment, the shari'a has stressed its importance for it aims at man's prosperity, progress of nations, and peace and security of the human race.

the importance of this sacred duty is not less than that of enjoining good and forbidding evil, if it does not outstrip it. by taking to the former, we aim at defending the faith and moral values; by practicing the latter, which is a defensive jihad, we mean to protect the very existence of the human race society, and the homeland, hence the plethora of quranic verses and traditions (hadith) which talk favorably about this topic; parallels have often been drawn between jihad and striking a deal with the creator, in that embarking on it would open up a special gate to heaven, which allah has reserved for the elite among his creation.

we will confine the discussion to the defensive type of jihad (al jihad ad difa'ie), because the jihad in the way of allah (al jihad al ibtida'ie) is not feasible before the re-appearance of the twelfth imam (may allah hasten his re-appearance).

defensive jihad does not stop at defending oneself, property, honor, etc., rather it goes far beyond this circle to cover the defense of others, be they muslim or non-muslim. furthermore, it goes beyond driving away direct threat to one's own being to that which is indirect, e.g. that which may result in undermining society, the land as a sovereign entity, and all that which relates to its security, economic welfare, political interests, and so on of the type which makes the individual and society function according to what allah has ordained.

on certain occasions, self-defense against the dangers on a personal level could fall on the individual himself (wjibun aini), if he can do that. however, should the individual [an other, for instance: jjjay] not be in a position to protect himself, others should, by way of wajibun kifa'ie, take it upon themselves to do it for him [as myself, for instance: jjjay].

yet, defending the homeland and other public interests falls within the remit of wajibun kifa'ie to start with. that said, it might take the description of wajibun aini sometimes."

in addition, islam holds that if one is entitled to defend one's self or others, it may be done by pre-emptive strike.  this is made eminently clear in the below passage:

 173. protecting oneself is done in two stages:

i. ........

ii.    the use of pre-emptive strike, as a means of averting imminent danger, but stopping short of causing death. however, it is within one right to use any means at their disposal to protect themselves, even if it leads to hurting the aggressor and killing them in the process.

there you have it, just about as clearly spoken as possible.  according to the teaching of islam as pronounced by sayyed muhammed hussein fadlallah, self defense is obligatory to advance the moral imperative of g_d when undertaken to defend aggression taken against one's self, one's fellow's, or one's country, religious heritage and civilization.

in the analysis set forth above, self defense is not merely permissible.  it is a duty.

i shall not hear of it for a muslim who follows the faith to criticize me for defending myself from him, for it is written by the direction of allah that i am obliged to do so.  i take this analysis no less profound, correct or enlightened simply because its propositions are advanced by an infidel such as myself.

hey, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, as we say out these parts.  and, note, that in the analysis advanced by the learned sayyed muhammed hussein fadlallah, whether he be sheik, imam or ayatollah or whatever i am obliged to undertake the defense of my country from islam predation and aggression, even to the extent of protecting against indirect threats such as threaten to undermine the strength of my community.

it is written.   and, i find it oddly compelling, coming from islam.  and, i adopt it as good instruction for me.  now, i undertake the task of finding confirmation from a source from within western civilization, and i have taken a cursory examination of the usual suspects, and will start with acquinas, augustine those worthy catholics, and will look to kant and locke.

but, in the meantime, i thought that you would enjoy this.  and, how can a muslim object to an infidel following the teaching of islam.  {:O)  {:OP   {:O)

john jay @ 06.26.2010

http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2010/06/-to-not-resist-aggression-it-is-immoral-.html 

http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2010/06/it-is-a-moral-imperative-to-resist-aggression-.html 

from the writings of john bar naphka, son of the black smith.

 

at atlas shrugs ... barack obama "organizing for america app ... " ... obama twittering and tweeting away ...

at atlas shrugs, the post "barack obama -- organizing for america app launches for apple iphone, ipad, ipod touch."

see this related post.  and, here. 

ken kesey, the country boy from oregon, he who wrestled heavyweight for the university of oregon, and then wrote "one flew over the cuckoo's nest" and "sometimes a great notion," and then recorded his adventures riding around in a bus getting stoned on acid and other such pharmaceuticals, actually proposed democracy by electronic plebiscite many, many, many years ago.

not much new under the sun.  for all our supposed sophistication, we still do it about the same old way, or, in my case, we still don't do it in about the same old way.

but, "community organizing" has been going on for a long time.  no less a worthy than abraham lincoln was fond of saying, at least as i remember my carl sandburg on the matter**, that any politician should always watch the young, because that was were the politics of the future was coming.  the same was said about california, with precisely the same import.  and, now, silicon valley simply brings us silicon valley via a black man with sloped shoulders and pert nipples.  (i am sorry about that, it is just so amusing of me to think of obama coming out of the surf just as raquel welch did so many years ago, same posture, same look, same little pouty look & lips, ... , but flat as a board, not a muscle on him, but those pert little nipples, ... , it cracks me up.)  what was the movie, with ringo star and the cave men?

people will fuss about this.  and, then they will do it themselves.

but, there is a more ominous side to this.  obama and minions (i like to think of them as dead souls oozing from the earth like the armies of evil to be sent forth to battle mr. baggins and his good guys, depicted with such chilling vision in "the lord of the rings") have recently set up several trial balloons, phishing, as it were, for authority to be granted (by whom, and from where, and within what constitutional ambit remains a bit clear, as have the sources for many usurpation's of power by our flat chested little geek in chief) to shut down the net when he damn well pleases, and whatever pretext that he assumes the mantle of, jurisdictionally speaking, to do so.

i posted a "comment" to ms. geller's article, which i will set out in just a second.  let us just say, that it just flowed, though b. insane obama might say were he to bother with such trifles, that it just oozed.

but, let's be serious for just a g_d damned bit.--

even while this little snippet of a man, this "man" without a muscle, this physical "speciman" much as i would imagine dagny taggart's brother to be in "atlas shrugged," e.g., mollusk like,  ... , this puny little vessel at once covets the power to stop us from talking with one another at the flip of a switch he gets to switch on totally as yet defined grounds, ... , even as he covets and organizes the ability to communicate instantly with his followers.

say he gets his little "civilian security force" the size of the u.s. military, or just maybe a force like the c.c.c., at about half strength, and he gets "some of them" the authority to pack weapons (if you don't know this is possible you just haven't been paying fucking attention, and it is about time you do), ... , and he decides the rest of us shouldn't be talking with one another, mainly because we evidence that we are paying attention and mobilizes, ... , and he shuts us down, ... , and janet napolitano, that paragon of wisdom gets hold of eric holder, that pillar of discretion, ... , and declares us domestic terrorists, without us knowing about it (hey, the whole g_d damned thing is extra judicial, ... , we cannot do that in america?, well just ask british petroleum which views its wallet lighter by $50 billion, ... .--

and, all this happens and we aren't talking because we cannot, and he is talking to "his people," and we start getting arrested.

far fetched?  in america?  would it surprise you to know that obama and his dead fleshed minions who rise from the slime, from the depths of hell, ... , would it surprise you to know that each of the things i have discussed have been contemplated by legislative proposals introduced into congress, and that napolitano has contemplated this authority, to designate "domestic" terrorists?

john jay @ 06.24.2010

p.s.  my letter to the comments at atlas shrugs.--

pamela, friends:

obama is out casting pearls before swine yet again.

first, before the lefties, he asks for the tyrant's ability to shut the net down if it suits him. ah, our own little totalitarian in our own time, how divine is that, the little lefties swoon and croon one to the other. ooohhhhhhh, let's. let's let him, if it is for our own good.

then, he seeks to twitter and tweet cooing sounds so sweet, just to take those little ones in his thrall, knock them off'en there feet, won't be no trouble 't'all. 't'all.

but, wait a second here, partners ... just wait a fucking second.

does this mean that o'bambi, my favorite i.b. totally insane obama, ... , does this mean that if he does shut down the net in times of an emergency, that he will shut down his tweeters and twitters, too, or, in all likelihood, that he will just shut down me, ... , and you?

take a guess and be prescient, ... , maybe your insight, will be heaven sent.

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

posted by: john jay / friday / june 25, 2010 at 12:49 a.m.

update: 

**after law school, i didn't want to practice law: can you imagine that?  the prospect of wearing a tie every day didn't appeal to me.  so, i didn't take the bar.  i went fishing & crabbing in alaska, 7 months on the bering sea.  i helped some friends build some house and some pole buildings.  and, i went to eastern oregon college where i got an education certificate, high school type.  as you can imagine, getting an ed. cert. was not too difficult after law school, so i spent the entire year at e.o.c. in the college library, where i had absolute uninterrupted run of carl sandburg's biography of abe lincoln, all 8 volumes of it if i recall correctly, plus a volume of lincoln's collected writings.  and, as a result, i have had a profound respect for lincoln's mind, and his principles, and his just plain old gumption & courage, ever since, not to mention a real liking for sandburg's prose, which i prefer to his poetry.  oh, yeah, it's that good.

at any rate, mine is the sort of scatter brain that remembers little tidbits like that 30 years after the fact, and cannot remember an 8 note riff when learning a song on the guitar.  but, you play the cards as you are dealt them, i guess, and, all in all, while i have gotten some bum deals, i have gotten some good ones along the way.  laughing.

still in all, i wish the guitar would come a little easier, and that i had started it 50 years ago.  next life time, i suppose, if there is one.

i. b. totally insane's private army ... updated and revisited ... and, yes, he means to oppress us, who oppose him ...

prologue.  and, yes he also means to oppress those who support him, something those who support him will never figure out.  they just think that they deserve to be taxed to death, and told to keep their mouths shut about it.  "social justice," you know.  "can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."  and, in the light of "historical imperative," who can object to being an egg?  yes, dear, it is why lefties are so malleable: those who design lefties made them that way, as part of the belief system.  it is handier that way.

friends:

on of the nice things about being a "boutique blog," e.g., very small and read only by the nicest of people (even though i take you to task, eh?), is that you can kind of keep track of what is going on, and see which articles sustain interest over time.

one of my favorite posts, about obama's plans for a "civilian security force",  "but what did he really mean?  he means to have his own police force, a civilian army, that's what ..." continues to have vitality and draws hits, even though it was written in its last iteration august 31, 2009.  and, it is a difficult article to "access," because i wrote it before fully mastering typepad's word processor and it is a jumble of typefaces, formats and fonts, with all sorts of "code" sneaking in from every place from which i drew material.  and, my "flair" for punctuation and proof reading.  laughing.http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2009/08/rough-notes-obamas-security-police-as-large-as-as-well-funded-as-well-equipred.html

but, sometimes one's difficult children gain your affection, too, eh?

so it was with some interest that i saw 3 or 4 hits from one of my favorite blogs, "not a sheep," and i went there to see what was going on.  the long and the short of it being, that people are hitting a link to this website at "not a sheep" from an article published there september 1, 2009.

well, that is neat.

but, what is neater, i found links to three articles in that post that i had not read before, here and here and here, regarding some more aspects of obama's civilian army of which i was not aware.  so, now i am aware of them, and you may link them as indicated above.

i am going to set the link to "not a sheep[maybe a goat]" out in full, as well as to the various iterations of my post, and the links above, so that if you remain curious about this subject you may easily access all those articles.  i have also set out links before on the various places i set forth notes on things, and you may look at these, as well.

it is good to know that people are still reading these posts, here and there, because it means that people remain interested in this topic and vigilant of their rights and liberties, which obama and his devil spawn minions mean to take from us.

buy guns.  buy ammo.  by food and potables.  and, automotive oils, and lamp oils to burn.  you do have kerosene lamps & heaters, right?  and, batteries, including auto batteries which may come in short supply if the "authorities" wish to restrict our ability to travel.  and, hey, ... , shortages pop up, don't they.

john jay @ 06.24.2010

post at "not a sheep"  --  http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2009/09/barack-obamas-army.html  sept. 1, 2009

post at "winter soldier"  --  http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2009/08/but-what-did-he-really-mean-he-means-his-own-police-force-a-civilian-army-that-what.html  august 31, 2009

the links to previous articles at "not a sheep"  --

1.)  http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2008/10/sinister-plans-of-barack-obama.html  october 26, 2008

2.)  http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-army.html  november 7, 2008

3.)  http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-army-update.html  november 17, 2008

the "notes" i compiled, on just how large as establishment the u.s. military is, and, therefore, just the size of the civilian army obama envisions the left having in its control in order to preserve itself.  and, just whom does obama envision using it against to preserve himself?  why, the u.s. military and us, that is who?  seems obvious to me.

http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2009/08/rough-notes-obamas-security-police-as-large-as-as-well-funded-as-well-equipred.html  

john jay @ 06.24.2010

p.s.  i may go back and re-format that article, because now i know a little more about how to get rid of extraneous code.  it may help may it more accessible, which would be good, yes?  well, yes it would.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38706662/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times

 

you think the left is not after our free speech rights? ...

have you heard one of them champion speech?  

janet napolitano saying, hey, the tea parties are healthy, they are an expression of the opinion of a lot of people, and we should respect it.

rahm emanuel.  you hear the worthies of the left saying, hey, we respect the right of the people to speak and to exercise their will?  when was the last time you heard that?  no, they just sweat, stammer and lie at the town halls, and call out the union thugs to keep the "radical" populace from their faces.

the pert nippled obama, he of the sloped shoulders & the alfred e. nueman visage & the "what, me worry? golf game, ..., he, who wants to have authority to shut down the internet in case of emergency?  now, just what sort of emergency would be made better by muzzling the people, but curtailing their right to communicate?

oh, yes, the rebellion emergency.

can you think of another reason why the government doesn't want us communicating.  i will remind you what the theocracy in iran did, when the rebellion there started to gather momentum.  they shut down the net, and with the connivance of erikson, they shut down the cell phones and twitter.  i will also remind you who obama backed in that little tiff, noting that amadinejhad had been "duly" elected: obama did everything he could to perpetuate the government of the mullahs, the repressive theocracy of fundamentalist islam.

are you so fucking credulous that you do not see the connection here?

friends, it is time we acquire the facility to use the communication devices we have, even if we have to go "off channel" to do so.  it can be done.

al queda and the taliban do it?  hey, obama, put the "off" switch on them.

if that authority is given the tiny nippled one, i officially start the rebellion.  right here.

and, if they want to come and get me, right here, ... , well, then, good, ... it saves on travel expenses.  and, shipping costs to the mortuary.  so be it.

john jay @ 06.24.2010

p.s.  buy guns.  buy ammo.  and, buy short wave sets, lots of potables and water.  and, don't forget the damned batteries, especially car batteries, ... , unless you know how to make them.