Retten til selvforsvar

For retten til at forsvare sig selv og sine kære

Man skyder da på Dansk Folkeparti

En af Dansk Folkepartis kandidater til kommunalrådet i Odense, Karsten Trøjborg, blev i løbet af 2 uger henholdsvis overfaldet og skudt på.
Første episode var 1. maj, hvor Trøjborg blev skudt i benet udenfor sit eget hjem, af en eller flere personer som åbenbart ikke har haft problemer med at få fat i et våben, trods et af verdens skrappeste våbenlove. Intet tyder i øvrigt på, at den sag bliver opklaret.

14 dage senere kørte en bil med fire somaliske mænd op på siden af Trøjborg mens de råbte “så kan du lære det”, hvorefter de steg ud af bilen og slog ham i hovedet. Heldigvis var han mand nok til at slå igen, hvilket åbenbart jagede somalierne på flugt.

Hvor er det et smukt land vi lever i, hvor danske politikere overfaldes og skydes på af udlændinge, mens forbryderne går fri, på grund af politiets inkompetence. Det er vist det som venstrefløjen normalt ville kalde for “amerikanske tilstande”, selvom det mere ligner somaliske tilstande.

Kilde: Uriasposten

Gad vide om der havde været en smulere mere mediedækning, hvis det var eks. Khader som var blevet skudt? Herfra ønskes Karsten Trøjborg i al fald god bedring og al muligt held og lykke i sin kamp at få Danmark tilbage.

Reklamer

maj 21, 2009 Posted by | Kulturberigelse, Systemet, vold | | 3 kommentarer

Om våbenlov i et af verdens mest farlige samfund

Navnet Jamaica bringer billeder af blå badestrande og afslappede ganjarygende rastafarier, men ifølge FNs “Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems” er Jamaica et af de absolut mest mordplagede samfund i verden. Her er historien om en kvinde der voksede op under afvæbningen af den jamaicanske befolkning.

HOW GUN CONTROL “WORKED” IN JAMAICA

by Tina Terry (c) 1998

(Published in THE FIREARMS SENTINEL, the quarterly publication of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) – P.O. Box 270143, Hartford, Wisconsin, 53027 – phone: 414-673-9746; web site: http://www.jpfo.org)

Those who stridently and self-righteously lobby for the seizure of all guns by the government in America, particularly women like Sarah Brady, Barbra Streisand, Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, would do well to study the results of forced disarmament in other countries.

I have personally lived through a government-instigated disarmament of the general public, and its subsequent, disastrous consequences: From 1961 to 1977 my father (who is a white American, as are my mother, sister and I) was stationed with his family and business in Kingston, Jamaica.

Around 1972, the political situation in Jamaica had so seriously deteriorated that there were constant shootings and gun battles throughout the city of Kingston and in many of the outlying parishes (counties). In years past no one had even had to lock their doors, but now many people hardly dared venture out of their homes. This was especially true for white people, and even more especially for Americans, because of the real risk of being gunned down or kidnapped and held hostage by Jamaicans, who had become increasingly hostile towards whites and foreigners. My father took his life into his hands every morning simply driving to work. Going to the market or to do a simple errand was often a terrifying prospect. The open hatred and hostility which was directed at us seemed ready at any time to explode into violence, and indeed did so towards many people on many occasions, often with tragic or fatal results.

The Jamaican government decided that the only solution to this Volatile situation was to declare martial law overnight, and to demand that all guns and bullets owned by anyone but the police and the military be turned into the police within 24 hours. The government decreed that anyone caught with even one bullet would be immediately, and without trial, incarcerated in what was essentially a barbed-wire enclosed concentration camp which had been speedily erected in the middle of Kingston. In true Orwellian fashion, the government referred to this camp as “the gun court.”

My father and all of our American, Canadian, British and European friends, as well as middle class Jamaicans of all colors (locally referred to as “black,” ‘white,” or “beige”) knew that we were all natural targets of this kind of draconian government punishment. The relentless anti-American propaganda spewed forth by Michael Manley, Jamaica’s admittedly pro-Castro Prime Minister, had resulted in the widespread hatred of Americans, British and Europeans by many Jamaicans. Racial hatred of whites and “beiges,” as well as class hatred of anyone who appeared to have money or property, were rampant.

Consequently, we all dutifully and immediately disarmed ourselves, and handed our weapons in at the nearest police station. It was either that or be sent straight to the gun court. Even after we had disarmed ourselves, we lived in deathly fear that the cops, not known for their integrity, and well-known for their hatred of whites and Americans, would plant a gun or bullet on our property or persons.

So there we all were – government-disarmed, sitting-duck, law-abiding citizens and expatriates. Anyone can guess what happened next: the rampant and unfettered carnage began in earnest. Robberies, kidnappings, murders, burglaries, rapes – all committed by the vast populace of still-armed criminals. Doubtless the criminals were positively ecstatic that the government had been so helpful in creating all these juicy and utterly defenseless victims for their easy prey.

We’ve all heard the phrase, “When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.” I can personally confirm that this statement is absolutely and painfully true, because that is exactly how the Jamaican disarmament worked. At the time of the disarmament order, I was away at boarding school in the United States. However, I remember vividly coming home for the summer. I remember the muted but pervasive atmosphere of tension and terror which constantly permeated our household, affecting even our loyal black servants, who worked for and lived with us, and whom we took care of. (Practically every household in Jamaica, except the very poorest, had live-in servants. There was no welfare or public school in Jamaica, so middle-class families became completely responsible for the well-being of their servants, who were considered to be part of the family, including taking them to the doctor, and helping to educate their children.)

I remember lying awake in bed at night, clutching the handle of an ice-pick I had put under my pillow, and listening to the screaming of car-loads of Jamaican gangs going by our house, praying that they wouldn’t pick our home to plunder. The favorite tactic was for a group of thugs to roar up to a house, pile out, batter down the door and rape, steal, kill, kidnap… whatever they felt like. They knew the inhabitants had been disarmed, and that they would be met with only fear and defenselessness. My pathetic ice-pick seemed incredibly puny, but it was all I could think of. Our family didn’t even own a baseball bat.

I remember lying awake thinking about how our beloved dogs were old and feeble, and that they could not protect us. And that I could not protect them either.

I can barely describe the abject terror and helplessness I felt as both a white American and as a young woman during that time. Jamaica was then about 90% black. Although I was (and still am) an American citizen, my family had lived in Kingston for almost 12 years when this situation occurred, and I considered Jamaica to be my real home. Many of my friends were Jamaican. My first serious boy-friend was Jamaican. For all its faults, I loved this beautiful, suffering island dearly, and I felt like a stranger when I was away at school in America, where I was always homesick for Jamaica.

When we had first moved to Jamaica in 1960, my sister and I (both Blonde and obviously white) had been able to ride our horses up into the hills, and, whenever we encountered local Jamaicans, their salutation to us was open and friendly, as was ours to them. As things deteriorated into the reign of terror, and then the government instituted overnight citizen disarmament, when we ventured outside our home, we almost always encountered hate-filled stares and hostile hisses of, “Eh, white bitch! Eh, look ‘ere, white bitch!” and other unprintable epithets.

Jamaica was, in the 1970’s, a country with at least 50% illiteracy and an illegitimacy rate of over 50%. If a Jamaican girl wasn’t pregnant by the age of 15 or 16, she was often derisively branded “a mule,” since mules, the offspring of horses and donkeys, are almost always sterile. Being a woman, let alone a white woman, in such a climate, especially after the disarmament of the citizenry by the government, was one of the most terrifying experiences one can imagine.

At that time, I had never held or fired a gun. I had rarely ever even seen a gun. No one in my family had ever learned about, used or even talked about firearms, except my father, who had been in the U.S. Army. In our social circle, guns were deemed “unseemly” and “inappropriate” for polite society, and especially for young ladies. I had never given much thought to any of the Bill of Rights, let alone the Second Amendment. Yet we Americans all knew the Bill of Rights did not protect us in Jamaica, just as it hadn’t applied to us at our previous station in Singapore.

My dad had fought in World War II, however, and had brought back a Luger pistol, which he had taken with him to Jamaica when we moved there after having spent 6 years in Singapore. No law had prevented his bringing a gun to Jamaica in 1960. When my dad handed that pistol and all his bullets in to the police, I vaguely realized that he was no longer allowed by the government to protect my mom, my sister or me, or our household.

I was pretty confused at the time. Terrified of being kidnapped, raped, murdered, robbed, at the same time I was still mindlessly anti-gun, because the criminals all had guns, and the government had declared guns to be contraband, and we were all terrified of being hurt by bad guys with guns, all of which somehow meant that guns must be “dangerous” and “bad” and therefore should be banned, just as the Jamaican government had decreed. As white Americans, our status was that of Permanent guests in a foreign and increasingly hostile country. In fact, after 6 years in Singapore, and 12 in Jamaica, we well knew how to strive to be “model guests,” which meant that questioning or challenging the Jamaican government’s authority was unthinkable — even when such government authority decreed that we be made helpless. None of us had any illusions about any “rights” to defend ourselves. We might have been able to do so with the government’s blessing in the good old days, before chaos and violence and racial hatred had taken over. But now it was different. Now we were white, visible, foreign, sitting ducks in a hostile black sea. And I was a white, visible, foreign, female sitting duck.

As obedient as I was to authority, I grasped that our household was defenseless, and that I as a woman was particularly defenseless. And I realized that, had my dad still had his pistol, I would have felt much safer. I even realized that I would be willing to pick up a gun if my life were threatened. For a person who claimed to be anti-gun, these feelings really confused me. At least eleven friends and acquaintances of my family were raped, kidnapped, murdered or robbed within about a year after the disarmament, and I believe it is a miracle that we are all still alive. I am convinced that many of these people would not have been victims had they not been disarmed by the Jamaican government. It was tragically ironic that the government had sold this whole disarmament program to us with the promise that: “We’re here to help you, and this is for your own good and safety.” Because of this horrid and indelible experience, and of my interest in and undying loyalty to the American Bill of Rights, I have made it my personal business to study the history of the Second Amendment. I have studied related topics, too, such as police responsibility to citizens. It is my belief that many people believe that disarmament is no big deal, because it is the job of the police to protect us. Particularly many women seem to believe this. The media and of Government authorities continue to generate pervasive and corrosive propaganda aimed at creating a helpless and disarmed populace. I used to completely believe this propaganda, but I have learned the following realities:

1. The police have no legal duty to protect individual citizens, and cannot be held responsible if they fail to do so. Even if a citizen’s 911 call gets through to the emergency center, the police can simply choose not to show up, and the citizen has no legal recourse against the police. The courts have repeatedly ruled on this. As the court wrote in Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982): “There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.” The U.S. Supreme Court, in South v. Maryland, __ U.S. ___, ruled in a similar vein as far back as 1856.

2. The police carry guns primarily to defend THEMSELVES, not to protect us.

3. Because of items 1 and 2 above, we should all consider the police to be, essentially, HISTORIANS. They show up AFTER the crime has been committed and attempt to reconstruct and document the history of the crime. If the history is satisfactorily re-constructed, then the perpetrator is apprehended (if he can be found) and then (perhaps) prosecuted. This after-the-fact law enforcement does little good for the dead or wounded crime victims.

4. Women have a particular stake in preserving the right to bear arms. There is no way to describe the helplessness a woman feels when she is disarmed and made helpless by anyone. Add to that the rage she feels when the agency who is disarming her and leaving her at the mercy of rapists, murderers, goons and thugs, is a sanctimonious government telling her that it’s “for her own good.”

Although there are many serious issues in today’s roiling political And social stew, I believe that preserving and restoring the Bill of Rights in general, and the Second Amendment in particular, is the most pivotal and basic issue to all Americans, and particularly female Americans, even if they don’t yet know it. The consummate idiocy propounded by some folks (including some women) that the Second Amendment exists only to protect sportsmen’s rights is particularly ridiculous and relevant to women, most of whom don’t hunt, and who care more about being able to get a decent hand-gun for self-protection than a hunting rifle to pursue deer or elk.

Anyone who thinks the Bill of Rights is either “out of date,” “hokey” or “needs revising” – all of which I’ve heard from well-meaning but tragically ignorant and complacent Americans – should try living in a country which doesn’t have one. I have been there and done that, and I don’t want to go through it ever again -especially not in my own native nation. So I am dedicated to preventing today’s government nanny from turning, as so often has occurred in history, into tomorrow’s government despot.

Finally, I implore anyone reading this, particularly women, to likewise dedicate themselves to studying this issue carefully, and to likewise taking an active stance to preserve the Bill of Rights in general and the Second Amendment in particular.

Postscript: As of the latter part of August of this year (1998), it doesn’t appear that the situation in Jamaica has changed much for the better. Many Jamaicans of all colors have immigrated to America to start businesses and to escape the hopelessness of the situation in their homeland. I recently spoke with a black Jamaican named Marcus, who has opened a wonderful Jamaican restaurant in Phoenix named “Likkle Montego,” where I can go and eat Jamaican food, and catch the latest news from my long-lost home. When asked how things are today in Kingston, Marcus simply shook his head: “Nottin’ change attahly know. Everyt’ing still de same. Crime is still bad, mon. Gov’ment still de same. T”ings dere is bad and terrible, mon. Bad and terrible.”

And guns are still outlawed in Jamaica. Armed criminals still Terrorize disarmed citizens, since still in Jamaica only outlaws (and the government) have guns. Like the man said: Bad and terrible, mon. Bad and terrible.

==================================================
Please include the following re-publication information with any republishing:

Permission is given to republish this article, as long as none of it is changed, shortened or altered, the author and JPFO are given full credit in any such republishing, and this entire republishing message is included. Author may be reached by writing to:
Tina Terry
c/o JPFO
POB270143

Ligner det noget vi begynder at genkende i vores del af verden?

maj 16, 2009 Posted by | Mord, vold | , , | 5 kommentarer

Den belgiske stat dræber vuggestuebørn

I går formiddag blev en belgisk vuggestue udsat for et horribelt angreb. En psykisk syg mand gik direkte ind i vuggestuen og stak adskillelige børn og voksne ned med en kniv. I alt døde én pædagog og to børn, mens 10 børn blev såret. Også to pædagoger blev såret, da de forsøgte at stoppe manden.

Spørgsmålet er, hvor mange ville være sluppet med livet og førligheden i behold, hvis mindst én af disse to modige pædagoger havde haft adgang til en pistol? Hvor mange ofre er den belgiske våbenlov og de belgiske politikere dermed ansvarlige for?

januar 24, 2009 Posted by | Systemet, vold | , , | 4 kommentarer

65 % af kriminaliteten i Kbh. begås af kulturberigere

JP skriver:

Flere teenagere bag vold og røverier

Hver gang der varetægtsfængsles tre 15-17-årige, er de to af udenlandsk herkomst.

Det er en underlig formulering som JP bruger. Måske er de blevet forvirrede over al den sammenblanding af begreberne ‘unge’ og ‘etniske minoriteter’, men statistikken taler heldigvis sit klare sprog.

65 % af de som fremstilles i dommervagten er altså af “udenlandsk herkomst”, men ifølge Danmarks Statistik er “kun” ca. 20 % af befolkningen i København indvandrere eller efterkommere af indvandrere. Heldigvis har den forhenværende (hvorfor spørger de ikke den nuværende?) formand for Fædregruppen på Nørrebro, Khalid Alsubeihi en forklaring på denne lille overhyppighed:

Det er ikke etniciteten, der er årsagen. Men der er en række problematikker, som danske børn ikke kæmper med i samme grad som indvandrerbørn.

Hmm, disse problematikker skulle vel ikke være tilstedeværelsen af en mindre tegningfjendsk og racistisk voldsideologi?

Bemærk desuden at kriminaliteten også er støt stigende i København, alligevel er også københavnerne komplet forsvarsløse overfor disse moralsk rådne individers hærgen. Der har man sågar indført “visitationszoner”, hvilket er newspeak for “nytteløs vold mod borgerne”. De burde hellere have indført zoner hvor det er påbudt at bære våben til forsvar af eget liv og levned. Men det går jo ikke, så risikerer man jo at københavnerne opdager at de selv kan – helt uden myndighedernes “beskyttelse”. Tænk hvad det ikke kunne føre til af selvstændighed og manglende autoritetstro.

december 28, 2008 Posted by | Kulturberigelse, vold | | Skriv en kommentar

Kan du se forskellen?

Fra sagen om Martin Nielsens trafikdrab på den 15-årige Mark Hansen:

“Jeg er ked af det. Det er utilgiveligt, det jeg har gjort. Jeg bander af mig selv, over det jeg har gjort. Det er svært at sætte ord på min følelser,” sagde Martin Nielsen, der modtog dommen roligt, mens han nikkede til dommeren.

JP

Der findes ingen straf, der kan godtgøre det tab, Pia Hansen har lidt, lægger den 26-åriges mor (til Martin Nielsen, RTSLF) ikke skjul på.
»Selv hvis straffen blev otte år, så er det en meget lille pris. Den dreng kommer aldrig tilbage,« siger hun.

JP

Fra sagen om “To unge mænds” mord på den 19-årige Patrick Nicolajsen Steffin:

Luderland, lorteret og luder,” råbte de, inden dommeren ikke så anden udvej end at forvise dem fra salen. På vej ud nåede de også at smadre et vindue i retssalens dør, ligesom nogle journalister også fik en trussel med på vejen.

“Du er en luder, og jeg smadrer dig, hvis du skriver noget dårligt“.

JP

november 25, 2008 Posted by | Kulturberigelse, Mord, vold | | 2 kommentarer

Sverige

Hat tip Skjoldungen @ Hodjas Blog

november 20, 2008 Posted by | Systemet, vold | , , , , | Skriv en kommentar

Voldsforbryder fik tæsk af 13årig pige

Læs historien på Ekstrabladets hjemmeside.

Pigen modtager naturligvis prisen for hædersværdig ageren.

RTSLF prisen for hædersværdig ageren

RTSLF prisen for hædersværdig ageren

november 13, 2008 Posted by | Hædersfolk, vold | | Skriv en kommentar

De sædvanlige symptomer på et sygt samfund

Ekstrabladet bringer i dag en historie om en 56-årig buschauffør, som to gange blev voldtaget af en 17-årig dreng.

Kvinden blev udsat for så kraftig vold, at hun måtte køres til behandling på sygehuset, og derfor gik der nogen tid, før betjente lørdag formiddag kunne begynde at afhøre hende i detaljer.

Man spørger sig selv om kvinden ikke ville have haft fordel af at være udstyret med et håndvåben til forsvar mod den slags umennesker? Men disse tanker behøver man naturligvis ikke gøre sig, i et land hvor politiet er de eneste som må bære våben, og som derfor altid er der til at forsvare lovlydige borgere mod overgreb. Ik’?

august 23, 2008 Posted by | mishandling, overfald, skydevåben, Systemet, vold | , | 14 kommentarer

Folk må forsvare sig selv

Følgende indlæg kan dd læses på JP.dk

NÅR MAN læser i avisen om de sager, hvor almindelige mennesker har ringet forgæves efter politiet, er der virkelig grund til at skærpe opmærksomheden.

At almindelige mennesker kan leve i forvisning om, at politiet kommer til undsætning, hvis man har indbrud eller bliver overfaldet, er en rettighed, der er lige så basal, som den er nødvendig, for at et samfund skal kunne fungere.

For hvad bliver konsekvensen, hvis flere og flere mennesker føler, at politiet ikke beskytter dem? Svaret er både oplagt og skræmmende, for hvem vil blot acceptere, at voldelige mennesker til hver en tid kan bryde ind hos dem og gøre, hvad de har lyst til, uden at politiet kommer?

Hvis ikke almindelige borgere i dette land kan forvente, at politiet beskytter dem, så er de ganske simpelt nødt til at beskytte sig selv.

Det er ikke en gang selvtægt, for selvtægt betyder, at man ”tager sig selv til rette”, men hvis ikke man kan forvente, at der er andre, som ”tager til rette”, så er det ikke længere selvtægt, men simpelt hen selvforsvar.

Alle mennesker har ret til at forsvare sig selv, men hvis man skal forsvare sig mod eksempelvis bander, som bryder ind i ens eget hjem og truer ens familie, så er man nødvendigvis nødt til at have midlerne til at forsvare sig selv.

Lemp våbenlovgivningen
Derfor vil en nødvendig konsekvens af, at politiet ikke kan forsvare borgerne, være, at man lemper våbenlovgivningen, så borgerne får midlerne til at forsvare sig selv.

Før man bryder ud i hånlatter og vrængen over amerikanske tilstande, så overvej følgende: Der er i de seneste år sket en markant stigning i voldelig kriminalitet, hvor også flere almindelige familier har oplevet, at der er dukket personer op i deres hjem, som har truet og tæsket dem for at få penge.

Hvad skal disse mennesker gøre, og hvad skal andre mennesker gøre for at imødegå dette? Skal man sidde med foldede hænder og tage, hvad der kommer?

Jeg tror, at de fleste mennesker vil foretrække, at politiet kunne beskytte borgerne og sikre trygheden i samfundet, men når det nu ikke er tilfældet, hvad er mulighederne da?

Af Bo Grünberger, stud. theol.

Godt gået Bo.

Da tiden er knap vil jeg nøjes med at kopiere min kommentar på Anna Lyttigers blog:

De fleste mennesker er mod en liberal våbenlovgivning fordi de er blevet bildt ind at flere våben skaber mere vold. Det er ganske simpelt en forkert antagelse. Flere våben fører beviseligt til mindre voldelig kriminalitet, fordi a. forbryderne er mere bange for bevæbnede civile end for politiet b. folk kan forsvare sig, og ofte gør det hvis de har midlerne.

“Jamen, hvis alle har våben, så skaffer de kriminelle bare endnu større våben”. NEJ. Hvor mange eksempler har du hørt om, hvor forbrydere i det våbenliberale USA slæber kampvogne, M60 eller panserværnsraketter med, når de er ude og begå røveri eller indbrud? Et samfund hvor alle har våben er mere trygt end et samfund hvor kun forbryderne er bevæbnede, fordi det udligner det ulige magtforhold mellem forbryder og borger.

“Jaaaamen! I Amerika er der meget mere vold og kriminalitet end i Danmark”. Ja, det er der. Det skyldes at USA er langt mere multikulturalt, og sikkert også den lave grad af socialt sikkerhedsnet. Men ser man på graden af kriminalitet i de forskellige stater og amter, så er der en helt klar tendens for lavere kriminalitet i områder hvor våbenlovgivningen er mere liberal.

Anyway. Hvis staten fortsætter deres idiotiske begrænsninger af borgernes frihedsrettigheder, samtidig med at volden stiger og politiet bliver mere og mere elendig til at beskytte borgerne, så bliver den generelle respekt for systemet mindre og mindre, og “selvtægt” bliver mere og mere udbredt. Det ender med at flertallet af borgere bliver kriminelle, fordi de har erhvervet sig midler til at forsvare sig selv (Det kan være noget så ligegyldigt som en pepperspray), og folk der i forvejen er kriminelle, har ikke meget respekt for andre love som de eventuelt måtte finde forkerte.

juni 15, 2008 Posted by | lovgivning, overfald, røveri, retsfølelse, skydevåben, USA, vold | , , , | 2 kommentarer

Under et års fængsel for at klippe fingeren af et andet menneske

Det flyder med meldinger om folk der bliver mishandlet hvor systemet er lige til at lukke op at skide i, og hvor retfærdighed et en by i Rusland. Alligevel vil jeg gerne henvise til historien om en 17-årig som blev tævet til han besvimede, hvorefter umenneskene klippede fingeren af ham.

Dommen:

– 3 måneder til den ene

– 9 måneder til den anden

– Den tredje fik sin dom udskudt, fordi han skal “mentalundersøges”

– Den fjerede fik en såkaldt ‘ungdomssanktion‘, hvilket er en toårig “behandlingsdom” hvor man kommer på institution hvor der “arbejdes med den unges sociale adfærd, boglig indlæring og praktiske gøremål d.v.s. der vil blive opstillet mål i f.t. personlig udvikling, skolegang, uddannelse, arbejde, bolig, fritidsaktiviteter” og man efterfølgende får støtte til en bolig.

Er der ét eneste menneske som kan kalde dette retfærdighed? Svinene klippede fingeren af en dreng, for helvede!

Det er efterhånden en gammel traver, men hvad helvede er der sket med vores samfund? Nogle gange overvejer jeg seriøst aldrig at flytte tilbage til Danmark, men man kan ikke uden videre vende sit land ryggen uden at gøre en indsats.

maj 16, 2008 Posted by | Systemet, vold | | 19 kommentarer