2025-09-10

Well, this isn't good - why you should worry about the martyrdom of Charlie Kirk

Unless you've been at the bottom of the Marianas Trench, or only subscribe to MSNBC, you would have been hard pressed to miss the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, at university speaking event in Utah. He's not the first victim of a political assassination, and he won't be the last. But...

Konstantin Kisin commented that it feels like we have crossed the Rubicon for some reason, and (talking to a wide variety of USA friends) I would have to agree. I'm not even sure we can articulate it, but I'm going to have a go. The very broad feeling I have, is that there are fifty to eighty million evangelical Christians in the USA, nearly all law abiding, but many many of whom are heavily armed; imagine those people (and their weapons) being put into a barrel, and someone throwing a Molotov cocktail into it. You are going to experience quite a bang.

Trump's attempted assassination in Butler, PA was a near-miss. It definitely ignited the Republican base - not least because of the lackadaisical approach of the Secret Service leadership in failing to plan his protection - but even back then, people commented about how near a miss it was of an event that would make the climatic scene in "V for Vendetta" look like the Teletubbies.

As Utah author Larry Correia noted:

Charlie Kirk was one of the least offensive debaters I've ever seen. He would actively invite those who disagreed with him to the front of the line at his college campus debates, and respectfully engage them. He would use words and reason, not violence, not hectoring, to advance his thoughts - and the success of his organization Turning Point USA (and now Turning Point UK) acrosss student campuses reflected that. He was married with two little kids, who are now without a father. I'm sure that conservatives will ensure that his widow and kids are provided for financially, but you can't replace their dad.

Every conservative with half a brain cell is now thinking: "if they are willing to go after Charlie Kirk... who else is in their sights?" And going online to Lucky Gunner dot com to order a new brick of ammunition.

I have to echo many other conservative bloggers, talking to the radical left on X and other channels tonight:

Are you really, really sure you want to do this? Because it is not going to work out like you apparently think it will.

2025-09-05

Guidance for home invasions

To set the scene, Police Chief Jim McSween, of York, Ontario, has been disturbed by recent home invasions in his city, and has therefore enlisted the help of the media in getting his message out to the homeowners.

We are urging citizens not to take matters into their own hands. While we don't want homeowners to feel powerless, we urge you to call 911 and do everything you can to keep yourself and loved ones safe until police arrive, and be the best witness possible.
This could mean locking yourself in a room away from the perpetrators, hiding, fleeing the home, but don't engage unless absolutely necessary.
You see what he's saying? Allow the perp the free run of the house, cower away, and only come out once the police rock up in a few hours time. Or days.
Our service is doing everything posssible to investigate these crimes, and to maintain public safety.
Except, of course, actually catching the perps in the act and ensuring they don't repeat their actions any time soon.
I'd like to remind people that our top priority is the safety of all our communities. [...] The best defense for most people, as you've heard, is to comply.
The safety of all thus including, apparently, the criminal community.

What a spineless, time-serving, git.

Of course, one may wonder what happens if a home invasion does not follow the pattern suggested by Chief McSween. Fortunately, the USA TV channel ABC's "20/20" show is doing a special on a 2022 Idaho home invasion - four college students in a basement house - brutally murdered with a large knife - and as of July the murderer Bryan Kohberger pled guilty and managed to avoid the death penalty.

Of course, Chief McSween was only speaking about one Canadian town (part of the much larger Greater Toronto Area). Realising that this is an internationally-read blog, your humble author aims to give regionally appropriate guidance. If you live in any of the following cities, here's what you can expect from the local police force.

London, UK
"You're nicked, sunshine. What are you doing, interfering with oppressed minorities?"
Manhattan, NY
"What are you doing with a gun? Them just for criminals, and retired police officers. You're heading to Rikers, sonny."
Morristown, NJ (home of retired NYC mafiosi)
"I'm sorry to bother you, Mr DeLuca, but we had reports of a home invasion here... You didn't see anything? Well, have a nice day. By the way, is your son Sonny Scarface around? No? He's out with your car, birdwatching in the NJ coastal marshes? Hope he gets some nice pictures."
San Francisco, CA
"You shoot an intruder, sir, we'll arrest you; he'll sue you, and he'll win."
Houston, TX
"Nice grouping there, sir. Come down to the station this afternoon and we should be able to return your weapon. You've got one spare in the meantime? No? You want one?"
Boise, ID
"Sorry to bother you, ma'am, someone heard gunshots... Car backfiring, you say? By the way, that's one fine clutch of hogs you got there. Sixteen, you say? I bet that feeding 'em is quite the task."
Wichita, KS
"Just make sure the body is within the property line when we turn up, sir."
Little Rock, AR
"Body outside the property line? No problem, ma'am, we'll drag it back inside before we take the crime scene photos."
Juneau, AK
"Y'know, sir, I heard that if you leave a body outside around here, it's just gone by the morning."

Good hunting!

2025-08-24

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the (immigration) lawyers"

Yes, shockingly, this is about UK immigration.

The (tweaked) post title comes from Shakespeare's Henry VI, part 2 in a coversation between Jack Cade and henchman, Dick 'The Butcher', in scene 2 of Act IV. There are various literary takes on this line, but a contemporary (Guardianista) focus might look at it as "back-hand praise of how lawyers confront the tribalism, partisanship and herd mentality to thwart mob violence in the public sphere of society." (Wikipedia, obvs).

There is a recent FB post by the "Community Integration and Advocacy Centre", based in Hull, UK; Charity Commission No: 1170984, who are apparently immigration lawyers, and - you'll be shocked to learn - are strongly pro-immigration. They decided to dump the following spew on Facebook to be shared with their many lawyer friends, so I thought it fair game to Robert Fisk the living hell out out it:

1. “Asylum seekers are illegal immigrants.”
❌ Seeking asylum is not illegal and this includes any person seeking sanctuary who may arrive in a small boat. Seeking asylum is a legal right under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Strawman! Not all asylum seekers are illegal immigrants. That said, illegal immigrants (economic migrants, criminals seeking cover and overs) very often pretend to be asylum seekers. This is facilitated by willing UK lawyers (q.v.)
2. “They’re just here to claim benefits.”
❌ Asylum seekers cannot access normal benefits. They receive only minimal support (about £6 a day) and usually cannot work.
Gosh, living in a 3-4 star hotel in UK with living support and ability to work under the table must be terrible compared to life in Nigeria.
3. “The UK takes in more asylum seekers than anyone else.”
❌ The UK receives fewer asylum seekers than many countries, including Germany, France, and Lebanon.
Strawman: island. Come on, you're not even trying.
4. “Most asylum claims are fake.”
❌ Almost half of claims are granted at the first stage, and many appeals are successful, showing the system recognises genuine cases.
Strawman! Immigration lawyers continue to validate immigration petitions and ongoing appeals, and Santa's elves continue to vote for Christmas.
5. “Asylum seekers are a burden.”
❌ Refugees contribute skills, resilience, and cultural diversity. Once allowed to work, they support local economies and communities.
Cultural diversity like... blowing up kids at an Ariana Grande concert? We already have skilled immigration outreach for the NHS, and I would venture to say that the UK has enough Indian restaurants, delivery drivers, phone thieves, and Turkish barbers.
6. “They should just apply from abroad.”
❌ Safe legal routes are extremely limited. International law allows people to apply once they reach the UK.
And also allows them to apply from France/Germany etc. Where it's easier to deny, hence the "I'm already here!" gambit.
7. “They’re all young men.”
❌ Women, children, and families also seek asylum. Young men often travel first because the journey is too dangerous for vulnerable family members.
Strawman! They're dominated by young men. And what's the legal family reunion rate?
8. “They get housing ahead of locals.”
❌ Asylum seekers cannot choose where they live. They are housed in temporary accommodation and do not take priority over council housing lists.
3* or 4* hotels much preferred to council B+B. How about we rehouse them in the wilds of Scotland?
9. “They must stay in the first safe country.”
❌ International law does not require this. Many seek safety in the UK because of family, language, or community connections.
They know from relatives and friends that the UK is a soft touch. And their language skills aren't evident, are they?
10. “We need to protect our women and children from asylum seekers.”
❌ This claim plays on fear, but there is NO evidence that asylum seekers are more likely to commit crimes than the general population. People seeking sanctuary are often women and children fleeing violence, seeking the same protection and safety we want for our own families.
Let's revisit Southport, the Manchester Arena, and these lawyers definitely need to be the first up against the wall.