Monthly Archives: September 2015

Iran’s War On Dogs

shutterstock_296706074-998x661“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”  If that’s the case (and I’m inclined to believe that it is), what it says about Iran is not so good:

Iran’s War On Dogs

(Warning: there’s a rather nasty video (fortunately not on auto-play) near the top that shows just what kind of people (if we can call them that) we’re up against.)

On the eve of the Obama administration’s deal to pour $150 billion into the coffers of soon-to-be nuclear Iran, we should consider carefully the character of the government with which they have struck a bargain.

Iran has a government that mostly preaches death—death to Israel, death to America, death and more death. It also supports terrorism to kill Americans. So no one should be surprised at the major protests the deal has sparked, including the one headlined by Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz at the U.S. Capitol on September 9.

[…]

The ubiquity of beheadings and other horrific violence seems to have had a dangerous anesthetizing effect on all of us. So perhaps some Americans would better understand the sociopathic nature of the regime we’re promoting by getting a glimpse into its attitude on dogs. Its war on dogs.

This paragraph follows the video, which it describes:

Dejected and terrified, a stray dog whimpers as a man methodically injects her hindquarters with acid. The creature then writhes and shrieks in agony for interminable minutes. The animal is not dead yet when the executioner tosses her sobbing body onto a mass of carcasses. Next, a puppy is injected.

Gun-grabbers who engage in SWATting should be prosecuted and imprisoned

In case you haven’t previously heard of it, “SWATting” is the practice of calling in a false report of criminal activity to 911, usually with the intent of getting a SWAT team to show up and catch the victim unaware.  It’s not just highly dangerous, it’s illegal…but laws apparently aren’t for moonbats these days.

The latest tactic of the gun-grabbers is to call the cops if they merely see you open-carrying:

Moms Demand SWATting

“You see a GunFilth waving its penis substitute, exit, call police. Armed robbery in progress.” So wrote Twitter user “Little Black Dog” on September 13 of this year.

The injunction was a particularly colorful one, but the idea behind it, alas, is not as uncommon as one might wish. “I see you #opencarry with a gun in public,” a man named “joe villa” threatened earlier this week, “i’m calling the cops. psycho behaving erratic. make your day.” A translation for the more literate among us: “The law be damned; exercise your rights under the law and I’ll threaten your life.”

“Take a look through the comments threads on Moms Demand Action’s Facebook page,” Bearing Arms’s Bob Owens tells me, “and you’ll see a lot of this.” “Not,” he clarifies,

from the leaders of the group. But it is a mindset popular among the followers. On there, on the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence — ironically — and on GunFreeZone.net, you’ll notice commenters advocating that people call the police and exaggerate what is going on, hoping to get the cops to come in.

This is inexcusable.  They’re basically looking to get people killed for daring to exercise their rights.  Anyone who SWATs a gun owner should be charged with attempted murder.  If the situation escalates and someone is killed (as happened with Erik Scott), the charge should be upgraded to murder.

Not much of a surprise, in hindsight

“Hyphenated-Americans” were literally a Communist plot. Stalin’s post-WWII plan was to destabilize the United States by sowing Balkanization among our different races and ethnicities:

Great Moments in Leftist History

Quoting from School of Darkness, the autobiography of Communist-turned-ex-Communist Bella Dodd:

By April 1945, there was evidence of trouble in the Communist Party. Uneasiness increased among its functionaries. I first became aware of this in my work with the Italian Commission of the American Communist Party.

One day two foreigners appeared in our midst, recently come from Italy. Berti and Donnini were a smooth, attractive pair, who called themselves professors and had become leaders of the Italian Commission. They immediately started a controversy, about the work among national minorities.

Earl Browder at the convention of 1944 had insisted on the elimination of a sense of difference among the foreign-born and had moved to have them treated as part of the American labor movement. To this Professors Berti and Donnini offered strenuous objections. They emphasized the importance of separate national organizations, of encouraging the foreign-born to use their languages, and of circulating foreign-language newspapers. They encouraged the organizing of the different national groups almost as if these were foreign colonies. It would strengthen the sense of nationalism among them, they asserted, a necessary thing for the building of world communism.

These two Party functionaries found themselves on the carpet for their unwelcome views. Plans were on foot to expel them. Then, suddenly, came the amazing news that they were members of the Italian Communist Party! Up to this point, like others, I had regarded them as honest but misguided foreigners with a penchant for disputation.

Now I realized that nothing they said had been unpremeditated, and that they were not speaking for themselves. They represented the International Communist movement and it was clear that Browder’s approach to the national problem was in disfavor with some sections of world communism.