Some thoughts on "black history month"

Posted on February 4, 2012 by jewamongyou

Alas, “black history month” is upon us.  Otherwise known as “Lies, half-truths and distortions Month”.  As a person who doesn’t watch television, I can go through the entire month without being exposed to any of the above – as long as I avoid all large retail outlets, government offices and educational institutions.
Most of the claims of black inventions are, of course, bogus.  Also, we are not supposed to notice that a large proportion of the noteworthy black individuals we are told about are “light-skinned blacks”.  In other words, they were only partially black.  If an individual shows any negro characteristics, then he is considered “black” by the “one drop rule”.  This being said, to expect all noteworthy American blacks to be pure negroes would be unfair.  After all, how many noteworthy Jews were pure Jews?  Perhaps if the powers that be were balanced in their representation of black history, the rest of us wouldn’t feel the need to straighten a crooked tree by bending it to the other extreme.  In other words, we would have no problem acknowledging the achievements of blacks in Western history.
But there simply are not very many notable blacks, outside of sports, entertainment and politics, who would be called “negro” by an unbiased person.  But here, as is so often the case, we are fooled by words.  “Black” can mean many things.  In the U.S., it can mean “negro” or it can refer to an ethnic group that is largely negro in origin.  Thus, a person can be predominantly Caucasian by race, but “black” by ethnicity.  “African-American”, it has been claimed, only refers to ethnicity and not race – but it has plenty of its own problems.  For example, can a Caucasian child, adopted by an “African-American” family, call himself “African American”?  Would a college, university or government accept such an identification?  Probably not.  Would an American negro child, adopted by a white family and behaving like a white in every way, not be good enough to fill a quota?  Obviously, this is not the case.
Those who deny the biological reality of race typically ignore the distinction between “race” and “ethnicity” when it suits their purposes.  They consider Eric Holder to be “black”, and defend their position by claiming that society forces him to be black because he cannot pass as white in our “racist society”.  Hence, race is a “social construct” in their eyes.  In fact, ethnicity is a social construct, not race – but they conveniently ignore the distinction.  By doing so, they are able to include a lot of mixed-race inventors, authors and scientists in their lists of “notable blacks”.
When told that blacks are not as intelligent as whites or Asians, on average, they then point to their artificially inflated list and say, “This list proves that you are wrong!  Can’t you see that there are many great black minds?”  In their view, this is evidence that race is only a social construct.  In other words, they socially construct “blacks” to suit their purposes – and then use those self-same “blacks” as evidence that race is a social construct.  A perfect example of circular reasoning.
I have no problem with blacks celebrating the accomplishments of other blacks, but “black history month” is not just an expression of ethnic pride; it is also a tool that is used to spread confusion about the nature of race/ethnicity – and it is one of many institutions used to bolster the official cult of black deification in our society.  To reinforce the constant message that blacks are superior to the rest of us.  As such, it is a source of resentment for “lower-caste” ethnicities.

Posted in examples of propaganda, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 9 Comments

Leftist bumper-sticker politics

Posted on February 1, 2012 by jewamongyou

Here’s a comic recently posted on Facebook:

The largely leftist audience, on Facebook, reacted with predictable approval.  What is it they approve of?  It could be the stereotype of anybody who opposes immigration as an ignorant white hick.  Or perhaps it’s the assumption that opposition to immigration is based on the idea that only those whose ancestors were here first have a true claim to the land.
Considering that very few, if any, modern populations are descended from the original inhabitants of what they now call “home”, the second assumption would necessarily mean that there is no true “home” for any nationality or ethnic group.  Hence – a world without borders.  This is obviously a goal of the establishment Left.  I happen to think life is very pleasant in Samoa.  Would the Left agree that I, and millions of others like me, have every right to move to Samoa?  What would happen to the native culture if we did?  Perhaps the establishment Left would make some qualifications, for example that unlimited immigration should only be allowed into large, “concept nations” such as the U.S. or Canada.  If so, then they must surely oppose such immigration into countries like Sweden – but I have yet to hear of any leftist expressing such an objection.  All indications are that the Left is unanimous that any objection to large-scale non-white immigration into Sweden is “racist”.
No, I think what we have here is a straw-man argument.  We do not oppose large-scale non-white immigration because of any fantasy that “we were here first”.  We are well aware that Native Americans were here first.  Does the Left truly believe we are so ignorant as to be unaware of this fact?  I doubt it.
At this point in human history it is pointless, in most cases, to try to figure out “who was here first” and then give their descendants special rights.  furthermore, very few “Native Americans” today look anything like the one depicted in the comic; many of them sport blond hair and blue eyes.  They are just as much Caucasian as Native American – but it is more advantageous for them to claim their Native American heritage as their own, so that’s what they do.  But not all of them; many of the “white hicks” the Left loves making fun of happen to have Native American blood flowing through their veins.  As a matter of fact, I’d be willing to wager that “rednecks” are, on average, more Native American than leftists.  Put another way, leftists are probably more white than rednecks.
If we don’t care about who was here first, then what do we care about?  We care about whose civilization built this nation.  As it turns out, it was not Africans who built this nation, though admittedly their forced labor was helpful to some.  It was not Mexicans or mestizos who built the nation we now call “The United States of America”. It was not the Chinese, though admittedly their labor was helpful to some.  It was whites from Europe who built this nation and it is their descendants who represent a continuation of that culture.
Except in sports or entertainment, the black contribution to America was negligible.  Those who have been brainwashed, by the public school system and the media, into believing otherwise would do well to google “black invention myths” or watch this YouTube series.  Mexican immigrants are largely Native American, this is true.  But the tribes they are descended from had their homes in what is now Mexico, not the United States.
Though the Native American tribes, and their descendants, made very few contributions to what is now called “The United States”, I am not aware of anybody who denies their right to be here; after all, being here first does count for something.  It could be said that they have “squaw-ting rights”.
In short, the much-acclaimed above comic is representative of typical leftist tactics:  Stereotype the opposition, misrepresent its argument and then make fun of it.  Try to tell them otherwise and they’ll plug their ears and loudly chant, “RAA-CIST… RAAA-CIST!”

Posted in examples of propaganda, immigration/ Hispanics, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 15 Comments

"No longer colorblind"

Posted on January 31, 2012 by jewamongyou

Did you hear the latest?  President Obama has announced he will “no longer be thrifty with tax money”.  Kind of reminds me of when the Nazis announced, late in 1944, that they would “no longer coddle the Jews”, or when al-Qaida recently announced that they will “cease being so tolerant of those who burn the Quran.”
But back to reality.  None of the above would be so ignorant of their own past attitudes and policies.  The establishment Left, on the other hand, excels in displaying total ignorance of their own attitudes and policies.  Portland Realist brought one such example to my attention:

No longer colorblind

Schools’ new approach turns racial issues into cultural lessons

BY JENNIFER ANDERSON
The Portland Tribune, Jan 19, 2012
A black teacher at a North Portland’s Open Meadow School sent an email to fellow teachers and staff last week with the subject line of “Whiteness,” asking for “articles or anything that helps explain what ‘Whiteness’ is and the impact it has.”
At nearby Jefferson High School, the white principal is working with her majority-white teaching staff to be more culturally responsive to the largely black student body.
Across town at mostly white Mt. Tabor Middle School, the black principal is encouraging open discussions in the classroom about the recent black-on-white assault of a 14-year-old girl on a MAX train.
At Marshall Campus library last week, 70 Portland Public School teachers — all but 10 of them white — ranked themselves in order of their self-assessed “White Privilege,” then candidly shared their feelings and experiences with racism.
Why all the talk about race in the schools, if we live in a nation where children “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character?” to cite Martin Luther King Jr. on the anniversary of his birth this week?
For decades, it seemed that the right thing to do was foster a “colorblind” society, where race doesn’t matter — a la Stephen Colbert’s “I don’t see color” shtick.
Now education and government leaders here and nationally have adopted the opposite thinking, that we must focus on race at all times — because not doing so is actually setting the cause of racial equality back even further…

The “Mainstream Media” acts much like “Big Brother” in Orwell’s 1984.  “Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia”.  Never mind that everything you’ve seen, read, hear and know tells you otherwise.  Never mind that, for the last several decades, race and racial disparities have been in the headlines in newspapers across the country.  Never mind that schools have been indoctrinating black students to be proud of their racial heritage while, at the same time, doing everything in their power to cause white students to be ashamed of their own.  Never mind that, even as early as the 1970’s, when I was in high school, schools were keeping inventory of their students by race.  We must ignore long-standing government programs such as “No Child Left Behind”, forced integration and the anti-white violence it has engendered.    We must pretend that we never saw the multitude of studies that showed how black students were disciplined more than white students – and how teachers must therefore be held accountable for their “racism”.
All of that is in the past, and we must now make believe that it never happened.  Now we are told that, in the past, schools were “colorblind”.  It is as if we were told today, in the year 2012, that “American society has been ignoring Martin Luther King too much, that the time has come to start naming streets after him and maybe even recognizing him with a holiday”.  It makes us want to scream at the newspaper (or television, if you numb your mind with that device), “HELLO!!  Where have you been the last 50 years?”

Posted in examples of propaganda, government/corporate discrimination against whites, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 11 Comments

Autistic child trapped in her own body

Posted on January 30, 2012 by jewamongyou

Latte Island recently posted an extraordinary video about an autistic girl who had been unable to communicate, until one day she started typing on a computer keyboard.  I tried to post a comment there but, for some reason, I couldn’t get through the word verification.  I found the video very moving and informative.  The family appears to be Jewish.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4XMlhCfp3Q&w=420&h=315]
Thank you, Latte Island, for bringing this to our attention!

Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments

A libertarian defense for the War on Some Drugs

Posted on January 28, 2012 by jewamongyou

I’m about to do something I loath.  I find it very distasteful to cite the Oregonian without attacking it.  But one can find valuable things even in puddles of bile and vomitus.  From the article:

Horrific murder no surprise in meth capital of US

Jan. 21, 2012, 6:03 p.m. PST
AP
FRESNO, Calif. (AP) — When a 23-year-old Fresno woman fatally shot her two toddlers and a cousin, critically wounded her husband then turned the gun on herself last Sunday, investigators immediately suspected methamphetamine abuse in what otherwise was inexplicable carnage. It turned out the mother had videotaped herself smoking meth hours before the shooting…
A Bakersfield mother was sentenced Tuesday for stabbing her newborn while in a meth rage. An Oklahoma woman drowned her baby in a washing machine in November. A New Mexico woman claiming to be God stabbed her son with a screwdriver last month, saying, “God wants him dead.”
“Once people who are on meth become psychotic, they are very dangerous,” said Dr. Alex Stalcup, who treated Haight Ashbury heroin users in the 1960s, but now researches meth and works with addicts in the San Francisco Bay Area suburbs. “They’re completely bonkers; they’re nuts. We’re talking about very extreme alterations of normal brain function. Once someone becomes triggered to violence, there aren’t any limits or boundaries.”
The Central Valley of California is a hub of the nation’s methamphetamine distribution network, making extremely pure forms of the drug easily available locally. And law enforcement officials say widespread meth abuse is believed to be driving much of the crime in the vast farming region.
Chronic use of the harsh chemical compound known as speed or crank can lead to psychosis, which includes hearing voices and experiencing hallucinations. The stimulant effect of meth is up to 50 times longer than cocaine, experts say, so users stay awake for days on end, impairing cognitive function and contributing to extreme paranoia.
“Your children and your spouse become your worst enemy, and you truly believe they are after you,” said Bob Pennal, a recently retired meth investigator from the California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement.
I am not an expert on meth, but from what I’ve heard and read, it’s probably not a good idea to take up the habit.  Perhaps it is possible to be a casual meth user, just as there are casual users of many other illegal drugs.  But the analogy that came to my mind, and I’m certain I’m not the first to think of it, is that of a person who releases a dangerous beast into an inhabited area.  If that animal injures somebody, the responsibility goes back to the person who released it.
To damage one’s mind, in such a way that he becomes a danger and nuisance to those around him, is the equivalent of releasing a dangerous beast upon the unsuspecting public.  Whether he releases an actual beast, or turns himself into a beast, is immaterial; either way, people find themselves in danger because of his actions.
It is unfortunate that we must take government opinions, and studies, with a grain of salt.  It is difficult to trust them.  But if there were a substance that, upon repeated ingestion, caused people to become beasts, I can see how a ban on that substance could make sense.
Posted in libertarian thought | 18 Comments

Liberal Douche Garofalo

Posted on January 25, 2012 by jewamongyou

Eugenicist is on a posting hiatus, but she still gives me good ideas for this blog now and then.  Here are some nice memes, of a genre called “liberal douche Garofalo”.  Enjoy!









There are many more where those came from – and you can make your own here.  If you come up with a good one, feel free to share it in a comment.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

"MAX attack not so simple"

Posted on January 24, 2012 by jewamongyou

We recently saw news reports of blacks attacking a white on the Portland MAX (train).  According to the Oregonian, and the powers that be, this attack wasn’t racially motivated.  Therefore, hate-crime charges will not be pursued.  We are told:

Police have made arrests. Karley escaped with just bumps and bruises. TriMet has promised a written apology and to improve security. But there’s still something hanging out there. Buckland and I couldn’t decide which was uglier: The video or the reaction to it. “People have taken a grain of sand,” the landscaper and fishing guide said, “and tried to turn it into a 200-pound boulder.”
Karley is white. Her attackers are black. For many people hiding under the hood of anonymity on talk radio and in online forums, that’s all the evidence they needed to unload: Hate crime! Racist attack! Proof of “black hate” and “black racism”!
Stop. The reality, investigators say, is that the flogging started after Karley and her attackers had a “verbal dispute” on the train. Karley made it clear that she didn’t appreciate the girls’ loud, distasteful remarks about a boy riding with her. They, in turn, didn’t like that she had the mettle to stand up for her friend. So, the thugs advanced.
Yes, Karley told me, one of the strangers referred to her as “white girl.” But it was an encounter of a hundred insults. The girls were drunk on their own spit. These are the things bullies say.

Reading this story, a sense of deja vu came over me.  Haven’t I seen this before?  Oh yes!  Back in 2008 there was also a black on white attack – and we were told the same thing, that race was not a factor.  That the white victim was just as much at fault as the “vibrant” perpetrators.  In another black-on-white attack the same year, the Oregonian did admit possible racial motives – and even included the fact that racial epithets were used – but readers had to get about half-way through the article to learn that it was “African Americans” who were attacking the elderly white woman.
The black-on-white public transit crimes we read about in the news are only the tip of the iceberg.  I have personally heard white victims recounting their ordeals, at the hands of blacks, in attacks that never made it to the news.  Are there any white-on-black attacks on the MAX?  I seriously doubt it.  Whites do sometimes misbehave on the Max, but it appears that most violent incidents are by blacks.
But getting back to the first incident, an Oregonian article, printed January 13th, 2012 (but apparently missing from their webpage) helps put the racial aspect of the crime in context:

Officers arrested three young women suspected of beating and spitting on a 14-year-old Centennial Middle School student Dec. 26 on a Green Line MAX train.  A bystander’s video of the attack went viral.
Rakeshia Shamone Burns, 18, her 16-year-old half-sister and the 13-year-old half-sister of the 16-year-old face counts of assault, riot, disorderly conduct, harassment and interfering with public transportation, said Sgt. Pete Simpson, a Police Bureau spokesman.

One gets the impression that there are a lot of half-siblings in the black community of Portland.  But aside from that, it is obvious that the authorities threw the book at those “troubled youths”.  Notably missing, of course, are “hate-crime” charges.  The article continues:

In a separate incident, a mother and daughter were arrested following a fight about 3:05 p.m. Thursday about a TriMet bus near Southeast 122nd Avenue and Division Street.
Officers were told that the pair tried to use invalid transfers, then verbally abused the driver and punched two passengers who tried to intervene.
Tina Renee Duckett, 36, and Markishia Welikea Duckett, 19, were jailed on counts of assault and interfering with public services, Simpson said.

Lest there be any doubt as to the ethnicity of this mother-daughter team, here’s what they look like:

All told, the article (on page B2 in the corner) describes three separate incidents.  They could not hide the race of the first two.  But here is the description of the third:

On Wednesday, a 15-year-old Benson High School student was beaten about 8 p.m. as he walked to a MAX platform on North Interstate Avenue.  He was catching a Yellow Line train home after a wrestling tournament when a car driver yelled at him, then punched and kicked him Simpson said.
The suspect, who remained at large, was described as in his 30s, about 5-foot-10 and 200 pounds, with a silver Toyota Avalon.

Is it just me or is there something obvious missing from the above description of the suspect?  Should we take a wild guess here and assume that that assailant was black?  Well, it turns out we would be right.  Here are some comments from the comment section of another Oregonian article:

MSNBC is reporting that the assailant was a black man. Yep, another racist attack. What other motive could there possibly be? Supposedly police are trying to retrieve videotape from the MAX platform to attempt the ID. But if you believe the police, Tri-Met or anyone at the Oregonian (which is too PC to even give a description of the villain) REALLY want to find the assailant, you’re dreamin.
I had a feeling. The O keeping it quiet to temper the story about the black mom and daughter Trimet Assault and the black teenager Trimet attack the other day. Ms Crombie, maybe you have any comment on this, sometimes reporters leave notes on these things?
Gee. The Seattle news says it was a 200 lb black adult male that administered the beating to a 15 year old white kid. No hate crimes in Portland if the Oregonian won’t print the news.
The printed version of this story in the O goes on to describe this guy as aprox 30 years old, 5-10 and 200lbs. Presumably so others can help track him down. What are the chances that the O just accidentally forgot to include his race while every other news agency is reporting that he was black?  I don’t care what race he is….white, black or otherwise just print the news in it’s entirety and quit thinking you need to be so GD PC! This is exactly why the O is in the crapper.
Three different incidents, all involving black perpetrators and white victims.  And yet they still have the audacity to tell us that race had nothing to do with them.  This is why we should never support the Oregonian, or any other “mainstream” newspaper with our money.  I get mine used from work.
An afterthought:  I’m pretty sure that Pete Simpson, the police spokesman, is well aware of the truth.  He would probably love to be able to speak his mind, but he fears for his job and his family.  He probably did include the race of the perpetrator in the last case – but the Oregonian conveniently left it out.
Posted in crime and violence, examples of propaganda | 10 Comments

Why do they always blame the Jews?

Posted on January 22, 2012 by jewamongyou

Julie Kroll, of The Wrap, asks a fairly good question:  “Why do they always blame the Jews?”

Have you noticed how celebrities who seem to reach a crisis moment in their lives lately bring up the Holocaust or engage in anti-Semitic wordplay during their outbursts — most notably Mel Gibson, John Galliano and Lars von Trier. Two were drunk, one is known for his unpredictable behavior, but still: Why blame the Jewish people?…

She goes on to give some examples of celebrities, and their relatives, making anti-Jewish comments or claiming to be Nazis.  Some of them were drunk, some senile and some apparently taken out of context.  But, for our purposes, we can assume that they were expressing their sincere opinions.  After all, we know that many people really do dislike Jews.  This much is not in question.
I knew, from the start, that Kroll would not even try to give an honest answer.  Instead, this is what we get:

 I read an article one of my good friends sent me from Aish.com. Historians and sociologists have come up with numerous theories to explain anti-Semitism. We will examine these one by one, and discuss the validity of each.
Economic: Jews are hated because they possess too much wealth and power.
Chosen People: Jews are hated because they arrogantly claim they are chosen by God.
Scapegoat: Jews are a convenient group to single out for blame.
Deicide: Jews are hated because they killed Jesus.
Outsiders: Jews are hated because they are different than the rest of society.
Racial Theory: Jews are hated because they are an inferior race.
Let’s examine these six frequently given reasons…

After briefly examining only the first of these reasons, economic envy, Kroll apparently ran out of space and concluded, essentially, by saying “don’t be an anti-semite”.  Not once does it even occur to her that there might be some sort of behavior, or attitude, common among Jews, behind the dislike called “anti-semitism”.  It’s really very simple.  If it is acceptable to announce that one likes Jews, or “people of color” or gays, then this must refer to certain traits.  Otherwise, such a statement is meaningless.  If a person can like certain traits, then it follows that he can also dislike those, or other, traits.  I’ve never heard of anybody getting in trouble for saying he “likes Jews” or “likes gays” for example.  But the implication would be that, relatively speaking, he dislikes gentiles or straight people.  But this is not considered a problem.  If that same person were to announce that he “likes gentiles” or “likes straight people”, there is little doubt that there would be vocal objections.
As of this writing, there are only 9 comments to Kroll’s article.  That is to say, there are only 9 approved comments.  Here is my comment, which I doubt will be approved:

Perhaps it’s because anti-white organizations and individuals, such as the SPLC, appear to be composed largely of Jews.  Here is a short piece I wrote addressing this very issue:
http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/a-disgusting-spectacle/
Here is a good synopsis how we know the SPLC is anti-white:
http://unamusementpark.com/2011/08/the-splcs-crusade-against-white-rights-no-state-fair-there/

Posted in examples of propaganda, Jewish stuff and Israel | 50 Comments

Queen Beatrix of Netherlands wears headscarf on state visit to U.A.E.

Posted on January 20, 2012 by jewamongyou

Hat tip to Human Stupidity (he sends me a lot of stuff) for bringing this to my attention.  Should the figurehead monarch of a historically Christian nation honor Islam by covering her head while visiting mosques in Muslim countries?  Many people are asking this question:

Queen Beatrix took on the fiery leader of her country’s anti-Muslim party, Geert Wilders, on Thursday by dismissing as “nonsense” his criticism of her decision to wear a headscarf during a recent visit to a mosque.
The queen made her unusually forthright comment to Dutch reporters covering her state visit to the United Arab Emirates and Oman. Her comments were not recorded, but Beatrix told reporters she wore the head scarf in the UAE and again on a visit to an Oman mosque to show religious respect.
The popular monarch was responding to questions from reporters about parliamentary questions filed by anti-Islam lawmaker Geert Wilders, who said the monarch’s decision to cover her head on a visit to a mosque in Abu Dhabi on Sunday legitimises the oppression of women.
It is rare for the queen to respond so directly – and dismissively – to criticism from a political party in the Netherlands, where the unelected head of state’s role is largely ceremonial.
Wilders is a staunch opponent of Islamic head scarves and head-to-toe burqa robes for women. He is not alone in his position: the government of the Netherlands has announced plans to ban burqas.

I have no idea why she was visiting a mosque in the first place, but I can think of several possible reasons.  As for her decision to obey the dress code within the mosque, of course she did the right thing.  What kind of person would visit a house of worship, of any religion, and disrespect the the dress code?
When gentile politicians visit the Western Wall in Israel, they typically wear a skull cap.  I happen to believe this is unnecessary and silly – but I understand their motivation:  They wish to show respect for local traditions and people.  When I visited Egypt, I walked about dressed in a Galabiyeh for much the same reason.
Perhaps Mr. Wilders has a problem with his queen visiting a mosque in the first place.  This I could understand, but surely he doesn’t expect her to be rude and disrespectful toward people in their own native countries.  If Europeans expect foreigners to respect European traditions in Europe, then they need to set an example by respecting other peoples in their own lands.

Posted in Muslims, pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism | 8 Comments

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

Posted on January 18, 2012 by jewamongyou

Human stupidity brought a positive turn of events to my attention.  The government of Ireland is now allowing homeowners to protect themselves with lethal force.  In the past, the law required them to retreat in the face of an intruder.  Naturally, “civil liberties organizations” are attacking the new law.  Apparently, the right to defend yourself, your family and your p0ssessions, is not a “civil liberty” according to them.
As told by Irish Central:

Irish homeowners now have legal right to shoot intruders

New law is attacked by civil liberties organizations as ‘license to kill’

By

CATHAL DERVAN,
IrishCentral.com Staff Writer
Irish homeowners can now legally shoot anyone who enters their property – a move that has been slammed by civil liberties campaigners in a row with Justice Minister Alan Shatter.
Legislation has now  come into effect that allows homeowners to use “reasonable force” to defend themselves, their families and their property.
The new home defense bill has moved the balance of rights back to the house owner if his home is broken into “where it should always have been,” say top Irish police.
The police association of superintendents and inspectors, the AGSI, stated before the bill became law, that “the current situation, which legally demands a house owner retreat from an intruder, was intolerable.”
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties, however, is highly critical of the change in the law but Justice Minister Alax Shatter has denied it is a “license to kill.”
Council director Mark Kelly has labeled the new law “lax” on home defense and is highly critical of the legislation.
Kelly said: “These are lax proposals, which contain insufficiently robust legal safeguards to protect the right to life of householders or intruders.
“The law encourages people to use lethal force to defend their property and is at odds with Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights which obliges the state to ensure that lethal force can only be used if absolutely necessary and strictly proportionate in all the circumstances.”
Those who object to the law claim that innocent people will accidentally get shot.  This is true, but it illustrates the flaw of so many “civil liberties” proponents:  They are so concerned about the right to life that they are willing to sacrifice basic rights in order to protect it.  In more sane times, people understood that other priorities sometimes take precedence over an individual life.  Among them are justice, pride, spiritual fulfillment, protection of family and nation, and liberty.  For many people, these are values that make life worth living.
I applaud the Irish for passing this law and I hope it can withstand the inevitable attacks from the European Union.
Posted in libertarian thought | 5 Comments