Near the start of my day, this 11th anniversary of the attacks by amoeba-brained faithful followers of Islam on this nation’s sovereign soil at the NYC World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and another unknown target that was heroically stopped by passengers of United Flight 93, I caught a Facebook post with a link to this drivel from our illustrious governor, Dumplin’ herself.
My response on Facebook, was this:
This is NOT a fricken day of service. So stick it, Bevvie. This [is] a time for a memorial to the victims of this attack by Islamic jihadists on this sovereign land. A time for prayer and contemplation. — And tomorrow is a time for reloading.
I’ll add that we also honor those who have given their lives serving the country in the military.
Much of what I said last year at this time applies this year, too. So, I’m going to post an updated version of it here as a reminder: I WILL NOT SUBMIT.
[Updated version of last year’s post begins here.]
Today, even if I just have to fry up a single slice of bacon, I will commemorate this day by eating pork. Unfortunately, I won’t get to go shooting today, as I am attending a CPR class tonight. But I will be haughtily Waving delicious pork and other meats in the face of America’s enemies, nonetheless.
In honor of those who died on that day, with the noted exception of the 19 backward scum who hijacked the planes, I do celebrate the freedoms we have — while we still have them, at least — and a emphatically assert that we will not be defeated. We will not be intimidated. And the sensitivities of those who share the ideology of those who committed those atrocities ten years ago today are not something with which we will ever concern ourselves. I will eat pork, as well, to celebrate that right while we still fend off any all attempts to impose sharia law anywhere in this country.
The title of last years post, “I Will Not Be Intimidated” comes from a thought I had four years ago after returning from a mission trip to Venezuela. On that trip, we had a four hour bus ride from the airport in Maracaibo to a chalet in the mountains in La Puerta.
We wound up running into an unexpected checkpoint, and while the leader of our group was outside the bus explaining what our purpose was, one of Hugo’s thugs got on board and stood at the head of the bus. He, very, very, slowly, scanned ever single passenger on the bus with his eyes and had a smile on his face that, although almost imperceptible, seemed to me to be rather gleeful. I believe he was gleeful that he is in a position of power to intimidate every civilian he encounters. I remember thinking to myself, “give me a break, you two-bit thug.” I don’t remember whether or not this Hugobot was even armed. It’s likely that he was, given the thugocracy we were in.
A short time after we arrived back in the states, I told this story, (including my thoughts during the experience), to a liberty-loving relative of mine and he rather seriously said, “Yeah, but if anybody was suspicious looking or defiant in any way, he would have just killed him.”
I’ve considered that caution since he said it, and the conclusion I’ve come to is, “So? I will not be intimidated.” In Hugoland, I’m sure I would have been killed had I acted too snotty or maybe made the shape of a gun with my finger and pointed it at him. And every situation requires its own analysis regarding when to resist, talk back, or comply. It was simply wise, and rather non-intrusive to comply in that situation and location. I’m am not interested in fighting that battle for Venezuelans. My battle is here.
Last year at this time in the restaurant we went to, I apparently got a serious scowl from some woman customer in the corner. Every new (to me) place I carry is yet another risk that I’m going to run into unfriendly staff or some panty-waist customer will call the police with a man with a gun report, to which our Sheriff’s office will likely and ridiculously respond — and without asking a single question, such as “Is it in his holster? Is he waving it around pointing it at people?” — regardless of the legality of the act.
But I will not be intimidated! And I will continue to carry openly wherever I can, no matter how many scowls I get. Bite me. And trust me, there just aren’t that many scowls.
[For people who are supposedly on our side, but think “bite me” shows I’m too immature to be carrying around openly supposedly being an ambassador for all gun owners, well, bite me. I’ll be your ambassador when you started sending me a big honkin’ check every month. You see, I’m not going to say “bite me” to someone who asks me leave his restaurant. Although I might plagiarize Bubba’s letter to Bonefish, modified appropriately, and send it to them. And I’m not going to say bite me to the lady in the corner who scowls at me. Or to the cop who has to attend to the call — though maybe reluctantly here in Johnston County — reporting a man with a gun. But I do say that if you are supposedly pro-gun, yet you resort to arguments against open carry that are perfectly equivalent to the arguments used by the anti-gunners against carrying (or even owning) guns, then, please, stop helping.]
So that is my logic behind eating pork and regularly carrying guns, openly when possible, on the anniversary of the murderous attacks on September 11, 2001. The pork is intended to offend the sensibilities of those who would force us to convert, be subjugated, or be killed.
And the guns are to say, I WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED.
This is America!
And we will fight you until either there is not a single one of us left, or your unholy book is tossed on a dung heap and there isn’t single soul left who will be willing to carry out its exhortations.
Or, you can keep your book, believe what it says all you want…and back off.
Via RTC, we will never forget these bottom dwellers. May they be stranded in a field surrounded by hog farms.
Update: Something I meant to include.
I just saw 2016: Obama’s America this past Saturday night. Coincidentally, William Jacobson did as well. And I must say, I agree with William’s assessment regarding the slightly bizarre “anti-colonialism” theory.
Dinesh D’Souza is an odd character. He seems to be a dedicated conservative, but when it comes to theory, usually gets it wrong. Badly. I’m glad that this film came out, now, a couple months before the election for conservatives to drag their undecided friends to. And I don’t think the anti-colonialism theory actually hurts the actual data he presented. His interview with George Obama was quite weird, though. Dinesh seemed to imply that he (Dinesh) believed that Barrack should be helping George out, and yet George seemed to display the actual conservative view that he (George) is an adult and isn’t even asking for Barrack’s help.
D’Souza is no stranger to ill conceived theories. I haven’t read his The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, but Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch.org, did an excellent smackdown of it when it came out. D’Souza, is apparently, far too accommodating. Even in the case of 2016, you almost get a sense that he wants to emphasize, as he says in the very beginning, that it is the influences of his past that he has carried forward to his present.
We are only tied to our past if we choose to be. Obama is responsible for his views as an adult and not a victim of his upbringing. I often joke that as I read more about the real history of our founding, I am undoing the damage done to me by the public school system. At a certain point in our adult lives we must take responsibility for the views we hold and for the results of those beliefs as we act on them.
And for that, I condemn the 19 Muslims who attacked us on September 11, 2001, and hope that the 72 virgins they are given are men. And the same goes for those who hold the same beliefs and act on them nearly every day across the world.