Offended Muslim Gets Couple Thrown Off Bus For Singing ‘Racist’ Song To Baby

1 Comment

This is from Mad World News.

Would would Winston Churchill say about England rolling over for the Muzzies?

Winston sure as Hell did not roll over for the Nazi’s.

So why roll over now to the puppets of the Nazi’s?

Now the Muzzies are playing the Race Card.


The parents of a 15-month-old autistic baby were riding on a bus when they started singing the theme song from Peppa Pig to keep their child happy during the ride. The couple, Nick Barnfield and Sarah Cleaves, claim they were then aggressively approached by a Muslim woman in a jihab, who began yelling, upset over their song choice.

Offended Muslim Gets Couple Thrown Off Bus For Singing ‘Racist’ Song To Baby

“A lady came up to us and quite aggressively started telling us we were irresponsible parents and that we were being racist singing the song,” Barnfield said.

Offended Muslim Gets Couple Thrown Off Bus For Singing ‘Racist’ Song To BabyThe popular cartoon which features a family of pigs, features a theme song where snorting sounds are made.

The Muslim woman automatically thought the couple was being racist and assumed the song was a reference to Islam, which forbids the eating of pork. Irate, she took up her complaint with the bus driver:

“She went up to the bus driver and told him we were being racist towards her,” Barnfield said. “The driver came up to me and said we had to get off the bus or the police would have to come.”

The couple was extremely humiliated over the whole thing:

“We were really embarrassed, ashamed and upset and we hadn’t done anything wrong- just trying to make our little girl happy. But people were looking at us as if we had done something wrong,” Barnfield said. “He [the driver] just said, ‘Go now, otherwise you’ll hold up all the passengers and no-one will be happy,’” Barnfield added.


An investigation into the incident by the bus company has begun, as the driver disputes the claim that the allegation of racism was a factor in his decision. Brandon Jones, head of external relations at the First bus group in Rotherham, England, said:

“The investigation is ongoing but we have viewed CCTV footage. It does show the customer leaving the bus at the location he describes and it does show a conversation between a lady customer on the bus and the driver, and the driver speaking to the customer. We’re speaking with our driver and with the customer to clarify the circumstances in which they left the bus. At this point I’m not in a position to confirm that they were forced to leave. It is clear they left the vehicle. The driver told us he heard no reference to racism but we are investigating the incident and have not yet drawn a conclusion,” Jones added.”

Absolute insanity, isn’t it? How long before this type of political correctness overtakes America too? With the way things are headed, it won’t be long.

Oh, and for the record, Islam isn’t a race!

[H/T OpposingViews]



Is Defending the Second Amendment akin to Supporting Slavery?

1 Comment

This is from Town Hall.

In-spite of what our British brethren think The Second Amendment prevents slavery.

We also see the idiotic guns  laws the British Government imposed on their people.

We know draconian gun laws be they be in England,Australia or america do not work. 


The English are an interesting tribe. There is much to like about their country, including the fact that repeatedly elected Margaret Thatcher, one of the world’s best leaders in my lifetime.

On the other hand, the United Kingdom has veered sharply to the left in recent decades, and Thatcher must have been very disappointed that her Conservative Party now is but a hollow shell, controlled by statists who actually thinkpeople should voluntarily pay extra tax to support wasteful and corrupt government.

And the politicians openly pursue Orwellian tax-collection tactics!

No wonder the country now faces a very grim future.

But the thing that most irks me about the British political class is the fanatical embrace of anti-gun policies. Consider some of these examples.

Given these example of anti-gun zealotry, you won’t be surprised to learn that some English pundits think America is primitive and backwards for retaining an individual right to bear arms.

You may be thinking, “so what, they have their bad laws and we have our good laws.” But it seems at least some Brits want to disarm not just their own citizens, but Americans as well.

Writing for the UK-based GuardianHenry Porter asserts that it is time for the United Nations to somehow undermine private gun ownership in the United States.

 …what if we no longer thought of this as just a problem for America and, instead, viewed it as an international humanitarian crisis – a quasi civil war, if you like, that calls for outside intervention? … If this perennial slaughter doesn’t qualify for intercession by the UN and all relevant NGOs, it is hard to know what does.

Mr. Porter doesn’t specify how the United Nations and other non-governmental organizations are supposed to accomplish this task.

Does he want Obama to ram through the U.N. treaty that leftists hope would trump the Second Amendment?

If so, all I can say is good luck trying to enforce gun bans. The American people would engage in widespread disobedience if our own politicians tried to take away our constitutional freedoms.

I’d like to see UN bureaucrats try to disarm these great Americans

And if a bunch of U.N. bureaucrats tried to do the same thing…well, that’s such a ridiculous notion that I’m reminded of my fantasy about what might have happened if the United Nations had tried to stop Texas from executing a child murderer who originally was from Mexico.

But the call for UN intervention is not the most absurd part of the article.

What could be sillier, you ask? How about the fact that Mr. Porter implies that gun owners are akin to slave owners. It’s not an explicit accusation, but you can see in this excerpt that he wants readers to draw that conclusion.

 Half the country is sane and rational while the other half simply doesn’t grasp the inconsistencies and historic lunacy of its position, which springs from the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, and is derived from English common law and our 1689 Bill of Rights. We dispensed with these rights long ago, but American gun owners cleave to them with the tenacity that previous generations fought to continue slavery.

So if you “cleave” to your guns, you’re on the same level as the people who defended slavery. I guess this is the U.K. version of Obama accusing some Americans of “clinging to guns.”

Ironically, Mr. Porter self identifies as a “journalist specialising in liberty and civil rights.” But I guess he doesn’t specify what side he’s on, so I guess we can assume he specializes in undermining liberty and curtailing civil rights.

P.S. The Guardian is known as a left-wing newspaper, but I’ve always had a special place for them in my heart ever since one of their writers accused me of being “a high priest of light tax, small state libertarianism.” He meant it as an insult, of course, but I think of it as the nicest thing ever written about me. Even better than this.


Homographs and Heteronyms, oh my…

1 Comment

Hat Tip To Old NFO.

Homographs are words of like spelling but with more than one meaning. A homograph that is also pronounced differently is a heteronym.

You think English is easy??

I think a retired English teacher was bored…THIS IS GREAT!

Read all the way to the end, this took a lot of work to put together!

1) The bandage was wound around the wound.

2) The farm was used to produce produce.

3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse

4) We must polish the Polish furniture..

5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.

6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert..

7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time topresent the present.

8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.

9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.

10) I did not object to the object.

11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.

12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.

13) They were too close to the door to close it.

14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.

15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.

16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.

17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.

18) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear..

19) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.

20) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

Let’s face it – English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren’t invented in England or French fries in France . Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren’t sweet, are meat. We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

And why is it that writers write but fingers don’t fing, grocers don’t groce and hammers don’t ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn’t the plural of booth, beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices? Doesn’t it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?

If teachers taught, why didn’t preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? Sometimes I think all the English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which, an alarm goes off by going on.

English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all. That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.

PS. – Why doesn’t ‘Buick’ rhyme with ‘quick’ ?

You lovers of the English language might enjoy this .

There is a two-letter word that perhaps has more meanings than any other two-letter word, and that is ‘UP.’
It’s easy to understand UP, meaning toward the sky or at the top of the list, but when we awaken in the morning, why do we wake UP ?
At a meeting, why does a topic come UP?
Why do we speak UP and why are the officers UP for election and why is it UP to the secretary to write UP a report?
We call UP our friends.
And we use it to brighten UP a room, polish UP the silver; we warmUP the leftovers and clean UP the kitchen.
We lock UP the house and some guys fix UP the old car.
At other times the little word has real special meaning.
People stir UP trouble, line UP for tickets, work UP an appetite, and think UP excuses.
To be dressed is one thing, but to be dressed UP is special.
A drain must be opened UP because it is stopped UP.
We open UP a store in the morning but we close it UP at night.
We seem to be pretty mixed UP about UP!
To be knowledgeable about the proper uses of UP, look the wordUP in the dictionary.
In a desk-sized dictionary, it takes UP almost 1/4th of the page and can add UP to about thirty definitions.
If you are UP to it, you might try building UP a list of the many waysUP is used.
It will take UP a lot of your time, but if you don’t give UP, you may wind UP with a hundred or more.
When it threatens to rain, we say it is clouding UP.
When the sun comes out we say it is clearing Up.
When it rains, it wets the earth and often messes things UP.
When it doesn’t rain for awhile, things dry UP.

One could go on and on, but I’ll wrap it UP,
for now my time is UP, so…….it is time to shut UP!

h/t JP


Words of Wisdom

Leave a comment

I was in Wal-mart in Terre Haute,Indiana on Wednesday.

I was open carrying my Glock .40 when a lady approached me.

She said I need to ask you about that.(My Glock)

She asked if I was a police officer,I told her “No I am not.

I am thinking this is going to go down hill quickly.

She then asked if it was legal for my to wear it in the open.

I told her yes it is as long as you have a License To Carry A Handgun.

Indiana’s law is silent about how to carry. so open and concealed is

is legal in Indiana.

She then tells my I am from England and we can not have guns.

The people who do have them are regulated heavily and watched.

She asked if she could take my picture to send to her family in England.

I consented to the picture.

As we parted she had these very profound words to pass along to me.

“Do not let Obama turn America in to England.”

I was surprised by her words as they were thought-provoking.

New Poll Shows England Wants Its Guns Back

Leave a comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

It seems our brethren across the pond are tried

of being defenseless.

It took them a while but the people of England finally woke up.

Will Americans wake up before they lose their guns?.

Is England the model for “popular” gun control?

By Erica Ritz, May 30th 2013
Article Origin.

Your webmaster is an Ex Brit (American citizen since 2005) who suffered the injustice, being a mere subject, and ‘losing’ a handgun collection in 1997. Read afirst person account of ‘the system’ and those events for which the proof, if any was needed, of just how gun registration is the classic path to confiscation.

Ruger .45 semi-automatic pistols seen during the142nd annual National Rifle Association(NRA)
convention at the George R. Brown Convention Center May 4, 2013 in Houston, Texas.
Credit: AFP/Getty Images

The United Kingdom is often held up as a successful example of gun control by those on the left. But a recent poll by the Daily Telegraph, one of England’s most widely-read publications, shows Britons themselves are far from sold on the laws.

In a poll asking readers what laws they would like to see introduced or changed, an overwhelming number of voters chose “repeal the ban on hand guns and re-open shooting clubs.”

“After all, why should only criminals be ‘allowed’ to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?” reader Colliemum wrote.

Here is a screen shot of the results, as of TheBlaze article’s publication:

(Photo: The Daily Telegraph)

In a far second place came the choice for a flat tax, at 7.59% combined to 84.53% who want to repeal the ban on handguns.

The United Kingdom passed some of the strictest gun control laws in the world in 1997 after 16 children were killed in Dunblane, England. Gun crime sharply increased in the subsequent years, doubling by 2007, according to British government crime reports.

JPFO footnote – just in 6/7/13 — A 3 year-old deaf boy in Lincoln, Nebraska is being bullied by public school officials to change his name because the hand sign for Hunter Spanjer looks like a weapon. “. More lunacy! It’s hard to believe this stuff. Check out the article and weep.

Pulling Back The Left’s Demonizing Of The Modern Musket: Real Numbers Of Violent Crime In The US


This is from Freedom Outpost.

Gun grabbers do not let facts get in the way of their agenda.

The gun grabbers only want one thing american’s unarmed.


With all of the calls for more gun control, I ran across some very interesting information that I want to share with you regarding the true statistics of violent crime in the United States. I think you will be shocked, or at least most will be at the real numbers. These are those kinds of numbers that were referenced by the likes of Gun Owners of America President Larry Pratt when he slammed CNN’s Piers Morgan recently.

Often when numbers are thrown out by talking heads and politicians with an agenda they never cite their sources and if they ever do, usually the source has a particular agenda of their own. So, let’s ask what our own Federal Bureau of Investigations say about violent crime in America.

First, take a look at The FBI’s “Uniform Crime Reports.” These reports have been put out every year for a while now and you can reference back to 1995 on the current page.

Take a look at the 2011 report on Crime in the United States:

Table 1

Table 1

Notice that in 1992 the United States had a violent crime rate of 757.7 per 100,000. The murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate was 9.3 per 100,000. When you consider the numbers, we are talking an extremely small percentage.

Nearly 20 years later, would you think that the United States violent crime has increased or decreased, especially in light of the fact that there are hundreds of millions of guns in our country? If you said “increased,” you are wrong, dead wrong.

In 2011, the same reports shows that the violent crime rate has dropped to half of what it was in 1992. The violent crime rate reported in 2011 was 386.3 per 100,000.

How about that murder rate? Same thing. It dropped nearly fifty percent as well to 4.7 per 100,000.

So why are the politicians and media types like Piers Morgan pushing a “fear” agenda on the American people? Why is there no one taking credit for a 50% reduction in violent crime in America?

I would think it is because the politicians have become “politically correct” and don’t want to actually have to deal with particular segments of the population, calling them out as the major troublemakers and instigators of violent criminal activity. So let’s take a look at where the violent crime we are seeing is coming from.

Table 16 of the FBI’s CIUS report for 2011 indicates where the trouble spots are.

Table 16

Table 16

If you will notice, in metropolitan areas, where the population is greater than 250,000 the violent crime rate is double that of the national average that we looked at in Table 1 above. The murder rate is more than double the rate of the national average.

Now if this is the case, why are everyone’s guns in jeopardy? Why must every law abiding American citizen be punished because of pockets of violent criminals who are not being dealt with adequately? It seems apparent to me that these areas should be the ones being targeted the most, and I don’t necessarily mean banning firearms, because in many cases these areas have the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

If you recall during the debate between Piers Morgan and Larry Pratt, Morgan attempted to deflect the argument away from the numbers Pratt was giving him, which were very similar to the ones above. Morgan wanted to try and compare America’s numbers to those of Great Britain. So how does England compare with the United States? Take a look at the Home Office Statistical Bulletin, which gives the crime numbers for England and Wales for 2011/12. Keep in mind that these numbers will be the lowest in the UK as separate crime stats are kept for Northern Ireland and Scotland, which have higher numbers than the ones in this report.

England and Wales have a combined population of about 56 million.

Home Office Statistical Bulletin for Violent Crime in England & Wales

Home Office Statistical Bulletin for Violent Crime in England & Wales

Take a look at the number of violent crime offenses that took place in 2011. According to this report, there were 762,515 violent crime offenses. In a population of 56 million, that comes out to 1,361 per 100,000! That’s 3.5 times the rate of the United States!

England and Wales does have a smaller murder rate than the United States, which is around 1.3 per 100,000. However, what we are not told in the discussion is what instruments are used to commit the murders or the violent crimes that are listed. Clearly the disarmed UK public has a higher rate of violent crime than the mass-armed citizenry of the United States. This is important, because from those of us who advocate that people be allowed to defend themselves, a firearm is the very best means of doing that. Additionally you carry a firearm in hopes that you never have to use it.

Additionally, keep in mind that in the United States we have 186 metropolitan areas where the population is 250,000 or greater. In the UK, they have only 32.

So what is the moral here? Less guns do not mean, less violent crime. In addition, as seen in the above reports for the United States, more guns does not necessarily mean more violent crime or more murders.

One last thing. We hear so much demonizing of the AR-15 rifle and how terrible it is. Well friends, according to the FBI’s CIUS report on Murder Victims by weapon, the total number of firearms used to commit murder in 2011 were 8,583.

FBI's CIUS report on Murder Victims By Weapon

FBI’s CIUS report on Murder Victims By Weapon

This number is down by about 1500 from 2007 and I might add, without an “assault weapons ban.” The report also indicates the kinds of firearms used in these murders: Handguns, rifles, shotguns, other guns, firearms (not stated). Of the 8,583 murder in 2011 committed with a firearm, only 323 rifles were used. The AR-15 and other rifles, referenced as “assault weapons” by the Left, are a subset of that 323.

These are things to keep in mind when dealing with emotional, irrational, and moronic gun control freaks. Fact, the United States violent crime rate is down 50% in the past 25 years. Fact, the United States murder rate is down 50%. Fact, the United States has 3.5 less times violent crime rate than the disarmed United Kingdom. Fact, rifles deemed by gun grabbers as “assault weapons” are used in a very small minority of murders that occur annually in the United States.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it liberal gun control advocates!

Read more:


Applying Technical Analysis To Gun Control … A Trader’s Perspective on Reducing Violent Crime

Leave a comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.


The controversy over gun control is once again on point in America, and appears to be more emotionally driven than ever from both sides. I thought it would be interesting to approach a topic like this strictly from a data standpoint, much like a good trader approaches trading. The key is to keep your emotions out of it and base your decisions on hard statistical data.


Anytime you develop or implement a strategy as a trader, you have two primary datasets that you are working with. The first dataset would be the criteria of your strategy you are implementing. Essentially the rules that make up your trading strategy. The second dataset is the outcome. In trading, we will define a positive outcome as being the goal of our strategy and that outcome would equal overall profitability.

If we do not like the outcome of our strategy results, we have to adjust the strategy rules. Most traders are using either a proven strategy, i.e. it’s been used in the past and has worked, or they have taken a proven strategy and made adjustments. I am not aware of any traders looking to implement strategies that have failed historically to produce positive results. As traders, we just look past those and continue searching for strategies that have met our desired outcome.

I thought it would be interesting to approach gun control in a similar fashion, so I decided to define the two datasets. I started with the outcome and worked backwards. My goal for the outcome of the second dataset is to reduce violent crimes. The first dataset would be the strategy we take, i.e. the rules or “laws” implemented around guns — how and where they can be possessed.

Now that we have our datasets for this experiment, we need to take a look at some strategies for both sides of the fence. I searched for countries with strict gun control laws as well as countries more extreme in the other direction.

My search landed me on two different countries. I ended up finding one that has very strict gun control laws and one on the entire other side of the spectrum. In fact, that country has the largest number of guns in circulation per 100,000 citizens. It was difficult to find countries extreme to the side of having guns, hence I describe only one example of each of the datasets.

The countries I landed on were the UK and Switzerland.

We will start with the United Kingdom. Their gun control laws resulted from another horrible massacre very similar to the one we as Americans are currently enduring. Its roots go way back, but the straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak was when a 43-year-old man entered a school with four handguns, killing 16 children and one adult before committing suicide. This massacre occurred in 1996, and led to the passing of the Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1997 which banned all private ownership of handguns in the UK. So that Fire Arms Act of 1997 is our rule set.

Now we will look at our output or result. Let me start by saying the crime rates in the UK were very low already, and there is a huge debate over how reliable the governmental statistics are, many believe they have skewed the numbers to be less crime after the gun ban, but here is what I found.

Homicide Offenses recorded by the police in England and Wales 1954 to 2005/06


UK Homicides Related To Gun Ban Source UK National Archives [1] – pic label


As you can see, the desired outcome was not experienced. We were looking for a decrease in violent crimes, and ended up getting an unexpected outcome. Like trading, this is beginning to provide some factual information that is somewhat unexpected.

Have you ever had a strategy you just knew would work, but when you applied it, despite your strong belief that it would work, it just fell flat? I am feeling a little like that. I thought for sure if we banned guns it would reduce crime. I think we should keep looking.

Let’s break this down to just firearm crimes.


Crimes Involving a firearm post ban. Source UK Home Office Statistics [2]


This graph was released by the UK Home Office in a statistical bulletin. Although I don’t blame the results on the gun ban, it’s clear this rule set did not give us the outcome we were after. As you can see, crimes involving guns actually increased quite a bit. In fact, based on these numbers, it looks like the rate of violent crimes where a gun was present more than doubledfrom the 1997 (gun ban year) to 2002. It’s starting to look like only honest people are following the laws.

Before we move on to Switzerland, let’s look at one more number.

53% … That is the number of burglaries in the UK that occur while occupants are at home. This number, compared to 13% in the US, is an interesting number. One has to wonder if it’s due to UK criminals knowing they will face minimal opposition and are less concerned with timing their intrusions. Unfortunately, not only did burglaries increase, but rape cases and a number of other non-fatal crimes escalated quite a bit after the gun ban went into effect, in addition to the increase in gun-related violence.

There is no way to definitively tell if this increased crime was due to the gun ban, but one can reasonably assume it was. In fact, many seem to believe so. Just look at a fact list put out by Yahoo Business:

  • “In the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled.
  • Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York.
  • England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s.
  • 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police.”

A study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gerts from the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology [3]boasts some interesting information regarding armed resistance and its impact on crime. Their study states that in America, gun ownership protects 65 lives for every 2 lives lost, which would further explain the increase in crime in the UK after the gun ban.

Let’s get back on task here. In my trading, if I make a strategy change and see a correlating change in my outcome, I would have to base my decision to continue or end the implementation of that strategy on the data available, rather than on speculation.

In the case of the UK gun control ban, the outcome was not desirable. In fact, not only did it fail to accomplish my goal of decreasing gun-based crime, it actually increased it … along with several other types of crimes.

Let’s look at another strategy. We are going to look at the complete opposite side of the spectrum. Switzerland is one of the few countries I could find with firearms so deeply rooted within their culture, that every Swiss man will at some point own and be trained with a fully automatic weapon.

This is quite the extreme, as they do not have a military … but the government instead chooses to arm their citizens with fully automatic weapons as part of a citizen militia and train them accordingly. You read that right, fully automatic weapons.

The country has a population of about six million, and at any one time close to 20% of the citizens will have a fully automatic weapon or handgun. Another 25.7% have some other type of firearm, meaning almost half the Swiss population has a gun!

After hours of searching, I could not find any clear data on Swiss crime, outside of what is available on Wikipedia (which only covers about 5 years).

A BBC news article cites: [4]

“Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture — but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept …
…but despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection.
Mark Eisenecker, a sociologist from the University of Zurich told BBC News Online that guns are “anchored” in Swiss society and that gun control is simply not an issue.”

Although we don’t have a “before and after” to look at since the Swiss have always been a gun-filled society, we can simply look at the outcome as being the end result, i.e. low crime.

When trading, sometimes you come across a strategy that works as is. Meaning you do not have to adjust it or make any changes, so you end up not having any new data points to compare. It would be like trading a strategy with the goal of generating 10% a year in mind and being profitable right out of the gate at the desired rate. Why would you change anything, right?

I have tried to keep my sources in the .gov and .org area to keep any of the tabloid type content from creeping its way into this article. My goal was to assess the options for gun control in the same way I would assess the options for a trading strategy, and make my decision based on the outcome, not emotion. It is amazing how close of a relation this topic is to trading.

One of the biggest problems people have with finding success in trading is controlling their emotions, and I think the way most people are coping with the current gun control issues are very similar to how many failed traders have dealt with trading. They make mistakes based on fear and greed, and I hear a lot of that in the gun control debate.

I just read a post from someone about their experience as a kid in high school, and how they were so scared of guns they would think about where they would hide if a gunman came into their classroom. They talked about how they were shaking their fist in anger at the current gun control laws or lack thereof.

Although these are understandable emotions to have, this emotional reasoning is filled with anger and fear. They have no place in the creation or implementation of policy. Careful study and methodical planning is the reaction this requires. Not an emotional knee-jerk reaction brought on by fearful people.

I will leave it to you to choose which trading strategy you would employ. If you are from the UK or Switzerland, I would love to hear from you. Let us know from a standpoint of experience how the gun laws in your country have affected crime. I would be interested to read some firsthand responses from citizens of these two countries.

I would also be extremely grateful if you would like, share, or tweet this article to your friends and colleagues.

[1] Uk National Archives | [2] Uk Home Office Statistics Bulletin | [3] Journal of Criminal law & criminiology | [4] BBC News Article



Leave a comment

This is from The Blaze.

This will be American healthcare under Obamacare.

How can anyone stand by and allow people to die?

Proverbs 6:16-18

King James Version (KJV)

16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

There is no more innocent blood than that of babies.

Sick children and even disabled newborn babies, are reportedly being discharged from NHS hospitals in England only to die  slowly at home or in hospices in an unfathomable manner. The innocent children are being put on controversial “death pathways,” once only thought to have involved elderly and terminally ill adult patients.

The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), an organization that facilitates end-of-life treatment, is behind the inhumane program. The Daily Mail has learned the process of “withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies.” In other words, patients — young and old — are slowly starved and dehydrated to death.

UK Doctors Horrifying Testimony Reveals How Sick & Disabled Babies Are Put on Death Pathways

(Photo credit: Getty)

One doctor, acting as a whistle blower, admitted to starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital in a leading medical journal. The doctor describes it as a 10-day process, during which the baby becomes “smaller an shrunken.”

Roughly 130,000 elderly and terminally ill patients reportedly die on the Liverpool Care Pathway, or “death pathways.” LCP is now being independently investigated at the orders of ministers in England.

The Daily Mail has more details on this tragic story:

The investigation, which will include child patients, will look at whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway targets have influenced doctors’ decisions.

Medical critics of the LCP insist it is impossible to say when a patient will die and as a result the LCP death becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They say it is a form of euthanasia, used to clear hospital beds and save the NHS money.


The use of end of life care methods on disabled newborn babies was revealed in the doctors’ bible, the British Medical Journal.

The previously mentioned doctor wrote of the pain of watching the slow, forced deaths of newborn babies. One baby’s parents decided to put their infant on the “pathway” because of a “lengthy list of unexpected congenital anomalies,” according to the doctor.

UK Doctors Horrifying Testimony Reveals How Sick & Disabled Babies Are Put on Death Pathways

(Photo credit:

UK Doctors Horrifying Testimony Reveals How Sick & Disabled Babies Are Put on Death Pathways

(Photo credit:

Here’s some of what the doctor wrote in the medical journal [emphasis added]:

The voice on the other end of the phone describes a newborn baby and a lengthy list of unexpected congenital anomalies. I have a growing sense of dread as I listen.

The parents want ‘nothing done’ because they feel that these anomalies are not consistent with a basic human experience. I know that once decisions are made, life support will be withdrawn.

Assuming this baby survives, we will be unable to give feed, and the parents will not want us to use artificial means to do so.

Regrettably, my predictions are correct. I realise as I go to meet the parents that this will be the tenth child for whom I have cared after a decision has been made to forgo medically provided feeding.


Like other parents in this predicament, they are now plagued with a terrible type of wishful thinking that they could never have imagined. They wish for their child to die quickly once the feeding and fluids are stopped.

They wish for pneumonia. They wish for no suffering. They wish for no visible changes to their precious baby.

Their wishes, however, are not consistent with my experience. Survival is often much longer than most physicians think; reflecting on my previous patients, the median time from withdrawal of hydration to death was ten days.

After reading the article in the British Medical Journal, Dr. Laura de Rooy, a consultant neonatologist at St. George’s Hospital NHS Trust in London, wrote on the BMJ website: “It is a huge supposition to think they do not feel hunger or thirst.”

UK Doctors Horrifying Testimony Reveals How Sick & Disabled Babies Are Put on Death Pathways

(Photo credit:

“The LCP was devised by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool for care of dying adult patients more than a decade ago. It has since been developed, with [pediatric] staff at Alder Hey Hospital, to cover children. Parents have to agree to their child going on the death pathway, often being told by doctors it is in the child’s ‘best interests’ because their survival is ‘futile’,” The Daily Mail reports.

Obviously, not everyone agrees. Bernadette Lloyd, a hospice pediatric nurse, wrote to the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health and blasted the use of death pathways for young children.

“The parents feel coerced, at a very traumatic time, into agreeing that this is correct for their child whom they are told by doctors has only has a few days to live,” she wrote. “It is very difficult to predict death. I have seen a reasonable number of children recover after being taken off the pathway.”

She went on: “I have also seen children die in terrible thirst because fluids are withdrawn from them until they die…I witnessed a 14 year-old boy with cancer die with his tongue stuck to the roof of his mouth when doctors refused to give him liquids by tube. His death was agonising for him, and for us nurses to watch. This is euthanasia by the backdoor.”

For now the inquiry into the death pathways is ongoing. A Department of Health spokesman said that “End of life care for children must meet the highest professional and clinical standards, and the specific needs of children at the end of their life.”

But as Teresa Lynch, a spokeswoman for the Medical Ethics Alliance, points out: “There are big questions to be answered about how our sick children are dying.”

To read more of the anonymous doctor’s testimony in the British Medical Journal, click here.




The Four Steps Towards England

Leave a comment


This is by Kirby Ferris of Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.
American is slowly headed down England‘s path of destruction.

My ancestry hails from the British Isles. I am one hundred percent Anglo Saxon on both sides of my family. Nearly every Brit I’ve met in my travels was polite (and often wonderfully witty). My father fought side by side with Brits in the Pacific Theater in WWII and his praise for their courage and honor was unbounded. I was raised an Anglophile, a person who truly appreciates the people and culture of Great Britain. However, I haven’t yet visited Great Britain.
And now, by choice, I never will.
Because Great Britain has become the one nation on the entire globe that I hold in irrevocable contempt. Yes, even more than the tyrannies of Iran or Red China or the African despots.
The Iranians, the Chinese, or the Somalis are transparent about what they are: impervious to “democracy” and disinterested in the concepts and responsibilities of personal freedom. They are socially addicted to fanatic religious, tribal, or age-old caste/cultural dictatorship and ruthless strong-arm rule.
In our lifetimes the Iranians, the Chinese, and the Somalis will likely NEVER know personal freedom. It is not in their mentalities, their culture, or within any context of any historical memory that any of them can relate to. Within their nations, they are “immune” to democracy and personal freedom. And so be it, that’s just the way it is.
But my fundamental grudge against England is that Great Britain has willfully chosen a degrading, cowardly, and amoral plummet into self induced slavery and cultural suicide. They have chosen to destroy one of the most productive freedom based cultures of the last five hundred years.
There are four steps that the Brits took toward cultural suicide, and America is not far behind.
#1. Socialism was America’s initial step towards the “English Ideal”. Thank the cultural Marxists (it’s their blueprint), Franklin Delano Roosevelt (The New Deal), and Lyndon Baines Johnson (The Great Society).
(An intriguing aside: The “National Firearms Act of 1934 under FDR, and the “Gun Control Act of 1968” under LBJ. Coincidence?)
#2.Multiculturalism (which is far, far different from the Yankee “melting pot” assimilation ideal) is America’s second step towards English Pudding World. Recently, British Prime Minister Cameron declared that multiculturalism had failed. I’ll leave that there. Even that socialist twit can finally see the forest through the trees.
#3. Political correctness is the third step toward British moral and judicial perversity. In England you go to jail for saying critical things about certain races, religions, ethnic groups, or sexual orientations that here in America are still legal, if only barely so. When “hate language” is illegal in America this will no longer be America. Jailing for politically incorrect speech is right at our borders, friends.
#4. Gun control” is the fourth step towards the wondrous “British System”. The dependency upon government that began with socialism is now complete: the government will protect you. You don’t need a gun. Surrender your firearms.
Multiculturalism exacerbates tensions among the races and cultures and these tensions breed a tendency toward violence. “You still don’t need a gun.” Just let the cops wield even more power over all of us. Give the government even more power over the individual as an excuse to quell “racial tension”. So, to instill multicultural peace? Surrender your firearms.
And political correctness shuts us all up. The emperor has no clothes, but we have been so brainwashed and manipulated that none of us dares speak out with the truth. Guns are now bad! Our children are sent to a shrink for drawing a picture of a gun in school. “Conflict resolution” has taken the place of simply beating the daylights out of the bully on the school yard. This nation’s liberals think self defense is barbaric, “macho”, and “Neanderthal”. Surrender your firearms.
Now, look closely at this photo: *
This is the end game of “gun control”. An innocent man is attacked and has no means of self-protection. This pitiful photograph was taken during the recent London riots. It says it all. This is the final fetid result of the Nanny State that is now Great Britain.
Do you think this event could ever happen in a “Constitutional Carry” state like Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming, or Arizona? Would this be even remotely possible if the thief understood that a robbery using deadly force could be met by the chance that this smaller, weaker fellow, might be packing a Glock? Don’t give me any cultural relativity blather regarding “oppression” and “pent up rage” or any of the other politically correct regurgitation used by the talking heads to excuse the rioting in London.
Just answer the question: Could this happen in Arizona, Wyoming, Vermont, or Alaska?
Could this happen in a state known for a high density of licensed concealed carry? Don’t prevaricate with any “well … that depends” and other such bilge. Yes or no?
The British have been turned into insipid weaklings. From “the sun never sets on the British Empire” to pulling down one’s pants on demand. This is sickening and disgusting.
Additionally, we should feel a deep empathy for the millions of still proud Brits who must realize that their chance to turn any of this around is over. They have been effectively disarmed. There is now NOTHING dissenting Englishmen and women can do. They are helpless.
So every time you hear some American advocate for socialism, multiculturalism, political correctness, or “gun control” spouting off, bring the pathetic image of this photograph to mind.
This is where America is heading. Anyone who denies it is either a fool or a liar. Thank you, Great Britain, for providing a warning about what’s to come.

* A thug demands the clothes and shoes from a hapless victim, during the 2011 London riots.


%d bloggers like this: