DPRK Online

You saw it first here. The Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea, the Stalinist and terrorist government which controls the northern half of the Korean Peninsula, is online. There are other web sites maintained by the DPRK here and here. (Note: I have checked the sites for viruses. The sites appear to be clean.)

As can be expected, the web sites are as cryptic as the North Korean government itself. They are half propaganda, denouncing the “imperialist Yankees,” and half groveling attempts at separating businessmen from their capital.

There are photo galleries of the various business and tourist trips sponsored by the Korean Friendship Association, the organization that has cognizance of the website.

There is a tourism section on the website too. The tourist trips to North Korea, “have become popular amongst our KFA members as well as other people, who are welcome to join, to experience North Korea outside the tourist trail and have interaction with North Korean citizens first hand.”

(I didn’t know there was a tourist trail north of the DMZ. Will wonders never cease?!)

Crossposted at Chicago Boyz.

Friday Night War Pic

This is the first post in a series of Friday Night War Pictures.

LAV-25 during Operation Just Cause (1989):

Hat tip to Wikipedia.

Obama Video Montage

Personal Jesus:

Cult of Personality:

Yes, We Shall:

The Heller Decision

Lexington Green quoted Justice Scalia at ChicagoBoyz wrote:

T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

I agree completely with Scalia on this.  The 2nd Amendment is a practical guarantor of the natural right of the individual to protect himself against tyrannies of crime and the state.  It is easy to recognize that natural right.  It is difficult to hold in contempt the man who defends his house from a burglar, or the woman who fends off an assault at night.  Yet our society that claims to support rights to self defense often holds in contempt the very means to exercise that right:  Firearms available for purchase, practice, and use by the public.

To those who oppose gun ownership rights, but support natural rights to self defense, I ask:  How do you reconcile these?

I am concerned that the District of Colombia, et al V. Heller Decision was five-four.  That margin is too narrow, and only demonstrates that the natural rights of the people need to be constantly defended, even against the Supreme Court. 

Zen posted a link to a UN Human Rights Council report.  I quote from the introduction of that report, emphasis mine.

The principle of self-defence has an important place in international human rights law, but does not provide an independent, supervening right to small arms possession, nor does it ameliorate the duty of States to use due diligence in regulating civilian possession.

It appears that our defense of our natural rights has international enemies, too.

On a related note, my support for the 2nd Amendment actually goes much deeper:  I think gun safety ought to be taught in public schools.  There is no reason why one should have to join the military or go to an NRA-sponsored gun safety course to learn the four rules of firearms safety.  Somehow I doubt that the nanny-statists who want to distribute condums and birth control in public schools would support a proposal as this, however.  You see, only certain kinds of nanny-statism are allowed.

I agree with Zen, too.  Also, some interesting analysis at The Belmont Club.

I wonder what Eugene Volokh thinks of this…

…you know…of The Volokh Conspiracy.

 
Supreme Court Rules Death Penalty Is ‘Totally Badass’

Thomas PM Barnett, Rule-Sets, and Democratic Sovereignty

In a recent post on the Thomas PM Barnett Weblog, Tom laments the Irish people voting against the Lisbon Treaty:

It is weird how the EU can let one country decide to run a plebiscite and then kill a treaty. Better is majority like we did with the Constitution.

(I might add that the Constitution wasn’t adopted by the United States by way of a majority; it required consensus of all thirteen states under the Articles of Confederation. Tom is correct, however, in that Treaty ratification today requires the consent of the Senate, which is not unanimity. But I digress…)

Tom’s view seems to fall in line with his views on forms of governance around the world: In the first of his books he discusses the concept of the Rule Set:

A collection of rules (both formal and informal) that delineates how some activity normally unfolds.

First Post at New Venue

I have changed venues.  I used to blog at smitteneagle.blogspot.com, but have shifted to WordPress.  Most of the posts from Blogspot have been imported here.

And because this humble Sea-Soldier marches to the same sounds as the Horse Soldier, here is a little Corb Lund: