"We will not forget those who solicited our deaths and the deaths of our families. We will not forget and history will not forgive."

"Tap dancing in a minefield blindfolded."

My reply to Bob Nicholson's latest.

Mr. Nicholson, As you have done me the courtesy of a reply to my email regarding your anti-NRA screed (something that rarely occurs with others of your collectivist proclivities), I thought it only fitting to return the favor by answering your ill-formed and ill-informed opinions and questions by giving you an honest glimpse into the world view of those of your fellow citizens whom you so evidently despise. I do so in the hope that such knowledge might help you avoid personal culpability for the civil war that you evidently seek.

You begin by asking sarcastically, "So how do you really feel about background checks?" The Founders would have thought the entire idea to be repugnant and unworthy of a government that claims to represent a free people. Requiring the people to obtain the prior permission of the government to exercise a God-given, inalienable and natural right as codified in the Constitution would be preposterous to the Founders. One might as well require prior government permission to exercise a First Amendment right.

If the law-abiding must seek government approval then such rights are not rights at all and are subject to federal ban at any whim of the bureaucracy. THAT is the central tyranny of your proposal. A related offense to liberty is this: that government control of the private sale of firearms is designed to develop lists, not of firearms but of firearm owners. And the only reason for that is to facilitate confiscation at some future date and time.

For bureaucrats can only send armed men to the doors of people who are on their list. Indeed, this is what happened to the Jews and other "political undesirables" in Nazi Germany. All arms having been previously registered by the nominally democratic regime of the Weimar Republic, the Nazis had no trouble disarming their opponents. Ironically, the same Weimar socialists who had registered everyone's weapons (including their own) then found themselves disarmed by means of the same lists they had created.

Understand, then, that we have no intention of traveling that road. We will fight and we will kill in righteous self defense anyone who tries to take our liberty, our property and our lives.

You may think us crazy for doing so, for even thinking that we have the right to shirk our "responsibility to society" (to use your words), but the fact of the matter is that we are here, we are not changing our minds, we are done backing up to every unconstitutional infringement the federal government has imposed upon us since the National Firearms Act of 1934 and we will shoot the armed thugs operating under color of law that your proposed policy sends to our doors to compel our obedience.

Accept that as the ironclad fact and promise that it is, deal with it and act accordingly. For we will not forget those who solicited our deaths and the deaths of our families. We will not forget and history will not forgive. (Cf. Nuremberg, 1945-46.)

As for your second paragraph sneering at the possibility of successfully fighting the federal government backed by the military, my first reaction was, "Just who does this jerk think the military is made up of?" The military, my apparently clueless friend, is made up of OUR sons and daughters (especially the tip-of-the-spear units) NOT those of our pretended "betters" who send theirs to hothouse-lily Ivy League schools where they chant "Black Lives Matter" while safely ensconced in their anti-free speech "comfort zones." OUR sons and daughters are the ones who have spent the last decade getting combat experience in foreign wars. OURS not theirs. And which way do you suppose our adult children will be pointing their government-provided ordnance when the orders (YOUR orders that YOU solicited) come down to disarm Grandpa Jack or kill Uncle Billy as "enemies of the people"?

My second reaction to that paragraph was disbelief that anyone could be so ignorant of military history as to make such a stupid statement. Rambo was certainly fiction, but in the extensive chronicles of guerrillas versus governments, the governments lose almost as often as the insurgents and when they do, they lose spectacularly. You may ask the ghost of His Majesty's General Thomas Gage how his gun raids worked out for King George the Third. Which leads me to my third comment to that appallingly ignorant paragraph. I wondered aloud, "This moke really doesn't understand that there are people who have been studying and preparing and training to do that very thing since the original sin of Waco in 1993."

For it is the same regime that committed the massacre at Waco that you evidently trust with the power to circumscribe our liberties, the power to seize our property, even at the cost of our lives. No one in the federal government was ever called to account for Waco, nor for any of the scandals to date in the Obama administration beginning with, but certainly not limited to, Fast and Furious. Well I've got news for you. As I told Eric Holder in a letter more than six years ago, there will be no more free Wacos. The next federal bloody misadventure of that sort will get us all a nice, ghastly civil war. And it will be a war that we have been considering how to win for the past twenty years.

I refer you to an essay I wrote regarding the application of 4th Generation warfare in the context of just such a civil war as you seek to provoke. You will find it here. I would draw your particular attention to Bill Clinton's Rules of Engagement:

The thing is, once started, the regime will find it almost impossible to stop on any terms besides their own unconditional surrender as they would be fighting an enraged but dispersed network insurgency. It is likely that after a few weeks of such blood-letting, the administration will be unable to find anybody left alive with sufficient influence among the insurgents with whom they can negotiate an end to the horror. The fact of the matter is that they would have done their best to kill the folks they would need to stop what they started. And they will want to stop it, oh, yes, out of concern for their own miserable hides if nothing else. For they will have provoked a conflict that will not be directed at the war-fighters, the grunts, even those in the outnumbered federal police, but rather at the war-makers, i.e. themselves.

In this they have only Bill Clinton to blame. When the Philanderer in Chief, frustrated with Serbian intransigence in 1999, changed the rules of engagement to include the political leadership, news media and the intellectual underpinning of his enemy's war effort, he accidentally filed suit under the Law of Unintended Consequences. The Serbians knuckled under, yes. But the rest of the world took note, including (the Three Percent). I assure you, the appeal to the higher court of history in that case has yet to be decided. . .

Johnston is as wrong as he can be when comparing past history to 4th Generation warfare, distributed networks and leaderless resistance, especially as will be practiced in the United States if it ever goes to war with itself. He is wrong, but the powerful men and women he is writing for think he's right. Unfortunately for them, in the situation the administration would find itself after Waco Two, the "decapitation" strategy would for them more resemble Russian Roulette played with an automatic pistol. . .

I have asked this question before. They will fight to the last ATF agent or to the last oath-breaking soldier. Will they fight to the first senior bureaucrat, the second Congressman, the third newspaper editor, the fourth Senator, the fifth White House aide? Can they stand Bill Clinton's rules of engagement?

What does this have to do with you? Well, remember what I said above, "We will not forget those who solicited our deaths and the deaths of our families. We will not forget and history will not forgive."

One of my readers had this reaction to your email bleating, Borg-like, that "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated":

"I find it baffling that Bob thinks we'd waste a single shot on people in the military. What a horrid waste of time and ammo, engaging those who didn't cause the problem. People like Bob, who sent them, however. . ."

He left the hypothetical results of your proposal for civil war hanging in the air. Ho Chi Minh once said, "Cherish your enemies, for they teach you the best lessons." You begin to see, perhaps, just how right the old collectivist butcher was, especially when by your advocacy of the precursors of tyranny, you invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences upon yourself. This is a mission I took upon myself many years ago: I am trying to save lives here, one unthinking collectivist tyrant wannabe at a time. I hope you can appreciate that.

For we represent two different world views, you and we. Boil it down and you believe that people should serve the government. If you didn't, you wouldn't trust a corrupt regime willing commit Waco massacres with one scintilla of essential liberty. We believe, like the Founders, that government should serve the people -- that it should be accountable to the people and restrained by the rule of law under the Constitution of the Founder's Republic. Each side believes fervently in these mutually exclusive propositions. It is collectivism versus individualism. Throughout history, such fundamental divides have most often been decided by sanguinary wars of unspeakable ferocity. If you believe otherwise, you are whistling past the graveyard of our own history.

My advice? Try to understand that you are tap dancing in a minefield blindfolded. You are unthinkingly toying with titanic forces you barely recognize. The NRA, as perhaps you can more readily understand now, is truly the least of your worries. Consider Ho Chi Minh's advice. Perhaps the best counsel that I can offer you is that provided by the Sheriff in Silverado, who when asked by a townsman what was happening, advised, "Hide and watch."

Sincerely,

Mike Vanderboegh

The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters

"Establishment Exploiting Paris Terror to Mask Own Culpability, Attack Freedom."

What did Rahm Emanuel say about never letting a serious crisis go to waste?

David Codrea: "Look No Further than Your New Jersey Neighbor for Easy Guns!"

“Need a gun? Your Manasquan area neighbor could easily sell you a semi-automatic,” Tom Davis of The Patch advises New Jersey readers.

Lousy day yesterday, lousier night.

In addition to the chemo ass-kicking, I very literally got blindsided while helping load some shelving for delivery to a friend. The warehouseman who was helping us was in a hurry, and backing up without looking as I attempted to walk around him, he knocked me ass over appetite onto the concrete. (It was like being struck by a swinging side of beef.) Hit with my entire weight on my left kneecap, then flipped back and smashed my head. The kneecap is going to give continuing trouble, I can tell, (I can walk on it if I keep it absolutely straight but it will not flex without giving way and transmitting excruciating pain) but I skipped going to the ER in the interest of the co-pay. My head merely has a knot raised on it, which is probably karma. I am committed to deliver the shelving this morning, so it will be afternoon before I get back to post. Sorry.

Collectivist tyrant wannabe, somewhat surprisingly, responds to my email.

Regarding my post and email here, a collectivist tyrant wannabe, somewhat surprisingly, responds.

From: BOB NICHOLSON bobncolumn@gmail.com

To: georgemason1776@aol.com

Sent: Wed, Nov 18, 2015 9:36 am

Subject: Re: When you get what you want, the NRA will be the least of your problems.

So how do you really feel about background checks?

Im (sic) always amazed at the hate some people have for their government. How did it come to that? If we really had a totalitarian government come to power, and the military was on their side do you really think that your small arms could hold off an armored attack? Rambo was fiction.

Why do you see tyranny in taking a few minutes to fill out a background check? Do you feel no responsibility to society at all? Or perhaps you have something to hide? If you could not pass a check I certainly understand your militancy.

Nothing in what support in that column would infringe upon your rights. When I have bought guns I went through a background check. Whey I got a carry permit I went through another check. I have my guns and I have my permit and no rights were harmed in the process.

Thank you for writing.

Bob

"The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous run to it and are safe."

Along with the more numerous threats and imprecations of those who disagreed with me on recent posts, I received a handful of supportive messages and emails such as the one below (as well as the Bible verse from Proverbs Chapter 18 in the header above). God bless you all for your kind words. I'm taking a lot of flak for those posts but I guess that means I'm over the target.

From: REDACTED

To: Mike Vanderboegh

Sent: Tue, Nov 17, 2015 8:11 am

Subject: Muslim Innocent Posts--Some Encouragement

Mike,

Good Morning. I just started perusing your blog this morning and saw some of the replies from the "all Muslims must die" crowd (and some of the barely less radical elements). I didn't read all of the comments because I've been reading enough of that around here from the former friend I'd mentioned before who's turned racial collectivist.

I know how discouraging it is to see this--especially for you as a founder of the Threeper movement--so I just wanted to add my voice to the other side. Thank you for standing up for the Biblical, moral position of defending the innocent. There are others of us out here who agree with you, and it's encouraging to us to read your words. It's, frankly, a long overdue breath of fresh air--no lies about a "religion of peace," no collectivist "kill them all" statements, but a leader actually saying "Yes their religion is wrong, but God didn't tell us to judge them for that, and we protect all innocent parties."

Keep up the good work. It encourages us, and it is right in the eyes of the only court which matters. Have a blessed day.

Thomas Sowell: "Stop the Bleeding."

There are lots of complicated issues revolving around the open borders -- drugs, visas, employers, refugees, crime syndicates, sanctuary cities, amnesty and more. But first we need to stop the bleeding.

More lying hoplophobia from Pravda-on-the-Potomac.

"From 2004 to 2014, over 2,000 terror suspects legally purchased guns in the United States."

Bob Owens comments: "Post’s Ingraham Suggests Gun Owners Should Be Treated Like Terrorists."

"Ten Ways To Avoid Being Killed During A Terrorist Attack."

"It is not hyperbole to state that we are all now terrorism responders because the avowed goal of Daesh and other such groups is to bring death and destruction to Mainstreet U.S.A. However, with planning and preparation individual citizens can sometimes prevent, often shorten and effectively respond to mass killing incidents."

Keep talking, you collectivist tyrant. Between you and ISIS we ought to have a real run of record firearm sales in 2016.

"Obama says gun control to be top issue of final year."

Asked by interviewer Bill Simmons of HBO if gun control will be the “dominant” issue on his agenda next year, Mr. Obama replied, “I hope so.”

“We have this weird habit in this culture of mourning and, you know, 48, 72 hours of wall-to-wall coverage, and then … suddenly we move on,” Mr. Obama said. “And I will do everything I can to make sure that there’s a sustained attention paid to this thing.”

"One can only hope that . . . Christians languishing in . . . ghettos never discover how American refugee resettlers, and even some Christian leaders, have worked to prevent Congress from making a place for Christian refugees."

"So Far: Syrian Refugees in U.S. Include 2,098 Muslims, 53 Christians."

See also: "Scandal: U.S. Christian Groups Prioritize Muslim Refugees over Christian Ones. Here’s Why."

Their plight involves a nightmarish catch-22. When Christians flee as refugees they cannot go to UN-run refugee camps because there they face the same persecution and terror from which they fled. If they are not in the refugee camps they are not included in the application process for asylum. The U.S. State Department knows this, but continues to allow the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to select refugees for asylum with no regard to the endangered Christians and other religious minorities. According to statements in the Sunday Express from an ISIS defector and aid workers in the UN camps, ISIS is sending teams of trained assassins disguised as refugees to kidnap and kill Christians.

And we’ve just learned that the State Department is poised to rule that Yazidis but not Christians are likely to be designated as victims of genocide in Iraq.

The blame is not just with the United Nations and the Obama administration. U.S. organizations who resettle refuges are also to blame. This includes Christian groups that resist any focus on Christian victims of ISIS, and oppose actions by Congress to welcome not just economic migrants but also Christians and other religious minorities victimized by ISIS.

Ralph Peters channels Curtis LeMay.

"The generals who won World War II would start by leveling Raqqa, the ISIS caliphate’s capital. Civilians would die, but those remaining in Raqqa have embraced ISIS, as Germans did Hitler. The jihadis must be crushed. Start with their “Berlin.” Kill ten thousand, save a million."

ISIS and the Logic of Anarchy

“When a country is being subverted it is not being outfought; it is being out-administered. Subversion is literally administration with a minus sign in front.” ISIS has subverted western Iraq and eastern Syria because it is out-administering the Baghdad and Damascus regimes there. That is, ISIS has erected a competent bureaucratic authority covering everything from schools to waste removal which, combined as it is with repression, is secure and stable. And with that territorial security, ISIS has apparently created a central dispatch point for planning terrorist attacks abroad. Eventually, the end of ISIS can only come about when some other force out-administers it.

ISIS is the upshot of anarchy, in other words: a situation which obtains when a populated territory is without administration, so that warrior bands prevent anyone from feeling secure. The toppling of a secular Baathist regime in Iraq in 2003 and a revolt against another secular Baathist regime in Syria in 2011 reduced those countries to dust and chaos. Baathist totalitarianism, followed by such chaos, meant that only a movement equally extreme in its own right could take root and flourish in the vacuum. Thus, whatever strategy we follow against ISIS must have as its endgame a plan to out-administer it, or else anarchy will simply return and ISIS along with it.

If the student thugs of the Chinese Cultural Revolution were call Red Guards, what are these? Black Guards?

"Protesters reportedly shouted "F- you, you filthy white f--" "f- you and your comfort" and "f- you, you racist s-."

"Throngs of protesters converged around fellow students who had not joined in their long march," The Review reported. "They confronted students who bore ‘symbols of oppression' such as ‘gangster hats' and Beats-brand headphones. The flood of demonstrators opened the doors of study spaces with students reviewing for exams. Those who tried to close their doors were harassed further. One student abandoned the study room and ran out of the library. The protesters followed her out of the library, shouting obscenities the whole way."

Video link.

Worst day in a while.

Sorry, but all I could muster today was releasing comments (and deleting the more blood thirsty ones from folks who don't believe that Muslim babies are innocent). At present, this post represents a new SSI record, with 89 published comments and probably three dozen or so direct threats of violence to Muslim babies and yours truly for posting it. Now I'm going through the email backup. Will try to have more stuff for tomorrow, but then, it's almost tomorrow at the moment anyway.

Rival campaigns starting to fear Ted Cruz Increasingly, the field sees a clear path for Cruz into March."

He has more cash than any other Republican candidate. He is organized in every county in the first four voting states. And he has served up one strong debate performance after another. Now, not three months from primary season, rivals concede they have begun to fear Ted Cruz has an increasingly clear path to the Republican nomination. “Anybody who thinks differently,” said an operative with a rival 2016 campaign, “is lying to you.”

I'm taking a poll. How many of you are willing to kill a Muslim infant because his or her parents are Muslim?

How many are willing to kill a Kurd, the predominant number of which are Sunni Muslim, even if they are pro-American and fighting against the butchers of ISIS? They're Muslim, right? How many are willing to kill a Shia woman, raped and victimized by ISIS monsters, to finish their job simply because she too is Muslim? C'mon. Why don't you extend your sterile and often anonymous demands that "all Muslims must die" to these folks? Don't you want to be philosophically consistent? Or are you prepared to agree with me that there ARE Muslims innocent of any crime and thus not deserving of death at our hands?

I am not arguing about the validity of their faith. I am a Christian, but I also understand that absent the burden of protecting the innocent -- ALL innocents -- from attack by collectivists of any ilk, including Muslim religious collectivists, it is not up to me to execute God's judgment upon someone simply because of their faith, however mistaken it is. Even if you do not share my faith, what part of belief that the Constitution extends to everyone regardless of race, color or religion are you willing to tear up? And if you are, how are you different from the collectivist monsters of every ilk that we claim to fight?

I'd like to know. Right here. Right now. How many of you are volunteering to be baby killers?

Tom Baugh's Kerodin "mea culpa."

Just had this forwarded to me from George Patton's site by a reader: "My Kerodin Mea Culpas: III Arms and Others." It links to this at Tom's site.

The NRA is the least of this collectivist moke's problems, he just doesn't realize it yet.

Bob Nicholson, collectivist advocate of tyranny.

"How the NRA helps arm criminals."

My reply via email directly to the constitutional scofflaw (also posted as a comment at the site, but I doubt it makes it):

-----Original Message-----

From: georgemason1776@aol.com

To: bobncolumn@gmail.com

Sent: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 11:30 am

Subject: When you get what you want, the NRA will be the least of your problems.

My dear pathetic Mr. Nicholson,

Provoking a bloody civil war by insisting that the federal government take over the private sale of arms among the previously peaceable and law-abiding ("universal background checks") and making us all felons with nothing left to lose seems a strange way to reduce violence. Indeed, when you get what you want, the NRA will be the least of your problems. Currently, every law passed in the states since Sandy Hook has been nullified and negated by armed civil disobedience and non-compliance, and that has nothing to do with the perfumed princes of the NRA bureaucracy in Fairfax. Indeed, the politicians of these states don't know whether to defecate or go blind, since they are coming to the conclusion that to enforce such laws will cost them personally.

How then will you enforce your appetite for our traditional liberty, our property rights with the iron fist of state-sanctioned violence at the cost of our lives if we tell you and your state minions to go to hell at the muzzles of our rifles? Tell us now how many of our deaths is it worth to you to enforce your tyrannical will upon us? 100 thousand? A million? Ten million? And what will you do when we conclude that your attacks require not just the willingness to die for our principles, but the necessity to kill in righteous self defense of them as well? Do not extrapolate from your own moral cowardice and assume that just because you pass a law that we will all roll over and willingly submit to being slaves of the federal government. And do you suppose that we will not remember who sought our demise and that of our families by advocacy of such tyranny?

Be careful what you wish for, as the ancient Chinese proverb warns, you may get it. But if you are determined to try to sate your appetite for social control by your plan, then kindly have the courage of your convictions and accompany the first raid parties to our doors. We can then introduce you to the ironclad Law of Unintended Consequences. If not, then kindly shut up your impotent squeaking, you and your collectivist ilk are boring the rest of us.

Mike Vanderboegh

PO Box 926

Pinson, AL 35126

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com

Yes, there are Muslims innocent of any crime, and this is what God has to say about that.

Jeremiah 22:1-9 (New King James Version):

Thus says the Lord: “Go down to the house of the king of Judah, and there speak this word, and say, ‘Hear the word of the Lord, O king of Judah, you who sit on the throne of David, you and your servants and your people who enter these gates! Thus says the Lord: “Execute judgment and righteousness, and deliver the plundered out of the hand of the oppressor. Do no wrong and do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, or the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place. For if you indeed do this thing, then shall enter the gates of this house, riding on horses and in chariots, accompanied by servants and people, kings who sit on the throne of David. But if you will not hear these words, I swear by Myself,” says the Lord, “that this house shall become a desolation.”’” (Verses 1-5).

For thus says the Lord to the house of the king of Judah: “You are Gilead to Me, The head of Lebanon; Yet I surely will make you a wilderness, Cities which are not inhabited. I will prepare destroyers against you, Everyone with his weapons; They shall cut down your choice cedars And cast them into the fire. (Verses 6 & 7)

And many nations will pass by this city; and everyone will say to his neighbor, ‘Why has the Lord done so to this great city?’ Then they will answer, ‘Because they have forsaken the covenant of the Lord their God, and worshiped other gods and served them.’” (Verses 8 &9)

Or, if you prefer your moral guidance with a little less Old Testament, try this quote from Lord Moran:

“I contend that fortitude in war has its roots in morality; that selection is a search for character and that war itself is but one more test — the supreme and final test if you will — of character. Courage can be judged apart from danger only if the social significance and meaning of courage is known to us; namely that a man of character in peace becomes a man of courage in war. He cannot be selfish in peace and yet be unselfish in war. Character, as Aristotle taught, is a habit, the daily choice of right and wrong; it is a moral quality which grows to maturity in peace and is not suddenly developed on the outbreak of war. For war, in spite of what we have heard to the contrary, has no power to transform, it merely exaggerates the good and evil that are in us, till it is plain for all to read; it cannot change; it exposes.” – Lord Moran, in The Anatomy of Courage (1945)

And if even that doesn't make an impression on you, try this on for size. By targeting innocent Muslims, you are playing right into the hands of civilization's bloody-handed enemies: "The Islamic State’s trap for Europe."

"The Islamic State’s strategy is to polarize Western society — to 'destroy the grayzone,' as it says in its publications. The group hopes frequent, devastating attacks in its name will provoke overreactions by European governments against innocent Muslims, thereby alienating and radicalizing Muslim communities throughout the continent. . . The strategy is explicit. The Islamic State explained after the January attacks on Charlie Hebdo magazine that such attacks 'compel the Crusaders to actively destroy the grayzone themselves. . . . Muslims in the West will quickly find themselves between one of two choices, they either apostatize . . . or they [emigrate] to the Islamic State and thereby escape persecution from the Crusader governments and citizens.' The group calculates that a small number of attackers can profoundly shift the way that European society views its 44 million Muslim members and, as a result, the way European Muslims view themselves. Through this provocation, it seeks to set conditions for an apocalyptic war with the West."