“The state of emergency imposed in France after the Paris attacks must be extended to protect elections next year,” bbc.com reports. “PM Bernard Cazeneuve said he was seeking the extension until 15 July, covering presidential and parliamentary polls from April to June, and Bastille Day on 14 July. Parliament is expected to approve the measure on Tuesday. It will be the fifth extension of the emergency powers introduced after the attacks on 13 November last year.”
You may remember the attacks that inspired the diminution of French citizens’ civil rights. “Islamist extremists killed 130 people and wounded hundreds in gun and bomb attacks on public places in and around Paris,” Auntie Beeb reminds us. “The deadliest assault was at the Bataclan concert hall, where 90 people were killed. The attacks were claimed by the Islamic State (IS) group.”
At no point does the BBC report mention that not a single audience member inside the fatal Eagles of Death Metal concert was armed in their individual or communal defense. Nor do they highlight the fact French police left the victims at the terrorists’ mercy — which was in decidedly short supply — for three hours and forty-minutes, from 9:40pm to 12:20.
According to wikipedia.org, under the state of emergency, French authorities can launch “administrative searches and seizures without judiciary oversight and censor the press, radio, films and theater representations.” They can also issue “a decree requiring citizens to relinquish legally-owned weapons.” Not that les Français enjoy anything resembling carry rights . . .
Since the attacks, French police have raided more than 3600 homes, arresting and detaining some 400 people. An undetermined number of people have been placed on house arrest. This is what happens to a disarmed populace.
Terrorists learn and adapt. If the populous is armed and able to frustrate attacks with firearms they will not curl up into a fetal position and give up. They will move to other feasible methods.
You can fight them over there or you can fight them over here. I prefer fighting them over there and I’d rather not invite them in.
Agreed. There will always be terrorism. Disarming the public is not the solution. Allowing the public to defend themselves is the best option.
Couldn’t agree more.
This is what happens when a nation refuses to defend its borders and culture, and, instead, embraces an insane policy of multiculturalism. 20 years from now, France will be unrecognizable, having ceded much of its culture and territory to the Muslim invaders.
Your enemy’s home is the best place to defend your own home.
Yes sure it has worked so well for us (war in Irak and Afghanistan) and the French (deployments against al qaeda in Mali and Afghanistan). Take a look at Switzerland, how many stupid war in the mideast or Africa did they get involved in? Are Swiss ladies raped daily by crazy migrants? Have Swiss citizen been targeted a dozen time in recent years by terrorist? Nope. they kept their sovereignty, their border, they didn’t start any mess they couldn’t finish in some crazy country, and they are fine. Bush Jr and Obama almost 16 years of stupid war they couldn’t even understand nor finish, thousands of our troops dead for what? To kill Bin Laden? to try to bring democracy to people who don’t want it? to guard poppy fields? to train locals who will later on shoot you or bomb you? to drone some ISIS and al qaeda “leaders” who surely weren’t Napoleon or Patton and will be replaced in a heart bit by the next fool. Waste of tax $$$ as well. What have we accomplished with Irak? Get rid of Saddam (who was put in charge by the CIA to begin with) to allow ISIS to grow? Nice job! What about Afghanistan? Fight talibans we trained, financed, armed decades ago to fight the USSR, impressive! Don’t invite them in I agree but no need to go over there.
“Take a look at Switzerland, how many stupid war in the mideast or Africa did they get involved in? Are Swiss ladies raped daily by crazy migrants?”
The primary reason that Muslims have not attacked Switzerland in force is because the United States (and to a lesser degree Britain, France, and Israel) have resisted Muslims in the Middle East.
Remember, Muslim invaders penetrated all the way to Vienna, Austria as recently as 1683. Muslim invaders will go as far as they can until someone stops them. The Swiss would not be able to stop Islamic conquest all by themselves. Just as Austria needed outside help to repel the Muslim invaders, the Swiss would need outside help as well.
By resisting Muslims in the Middle East you mean bombing civilian populations and toppling countless govts in the past 50 years? I’m no ISIS sympathizer and sure don’t condone their behavior, but its pretty tough to defend US actions in the muslim world over the past 50 years…
All wars require “bombing civilian populations” and “toppling governments”. Even the so-called “good wars”. You may disagree with the policies, but let’s not be stupid about our statements.
Okay, take a look at Switzerland. Emmentaler, hot cocoa, Ricola, cuckoo clocks, universal male military service and a rifle in almost every citizen’s home.
Aside from the cheese, sweet drinks, lozenges, noisy time pieces and mandatory conscription, I like it. Oh, and the weather sucks too.
On the upside, the Swiss were the best bankers Hitler ever had.
ISIS is a product of tbe Syrian civil war which has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. The Syrian civil war is a product of the Arab Spring which started in Tunesia, far away from Iraq, and spread east through Egypt to Syria. Initially, Obama backed Assad until the Muslim Brotherhood sympathizing Turkish president got Obama to switch to the Sunni side, ISIS spread to Iraq precisely because Obama pulled out leaving a vacuum to fill. Had he stayed ISIS would not have left the borders of Syria.
The state of emergency didn’t seem to stop the truck attack at Nice.
We talking the same “attack” where there wasn’t a drop of blood to be found (on the truck or ground) despite the the massive amount of claimed casualties, and a windshield full of bullets all conveniently on the passenger side?
It didn’t stop the attack because it was a fake attack used solely to justify their “state of emergency” rhetoric.
um….you need to stop. Your giving us a bad name.
Heaven forbid we question things right?
Uh… I guess all the blood that I saw when I was there were just planted… Those sneaky French cops!
Unless it’s common procedure to scrub blood off the vehicle in France it’s mighty clean…..
That’s right! Oh, and jet fuel don’t melt steel./sarcasm
Jet fuel doesn’t melt steel. We’d have a hard time storing it in fuel tanks otherwise. /sarcasm
Making snarky comments in an attempt to cover for anything intelligent to say doesn’t make you smart either. /sarcasm…..wait, totally meant that one
Other than, you know, all the pictures of dead children from the incident floating around the internet. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Seeing I’m basing my conclusions off pics on the internet as well I could just as easily say you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I know not a one of those pics shows blood on the truck, or more than a smidgen of blood on the towels they used to cover them up. 83 people were killed during the actual “attack”, and 300+ injured. I’ve never seen 83 people ran over (by a truck no less), but I’ve had the misfortune of seeing one pedestrian hit and killed by a car, and the car definitely had blood on it, along with bits of clothing and hair.
No bodies or parts stuck in the truck, and all the bodies look to be intact, none of which is consistent with what actually happens to a human body when it’s pancaked by a multi-ton vehicle.
Say what ya will, but the photos don’t add up to what one would expect to see in such a situation.
I think this is one of the truest representations of “what happens to a disarmed populace” that we’ve seen here. Of course, the ultimate example of “what happens to a disarmed populace” is the Jews in Germany in the run-up to WWII. But in this space, it’s usually examples of people that fall victim to criminals because they’re not allowed by the authorities to protect themselves. In this case, they are falling victim to the exact authorities that are preventing their ability to protect themselves. There’s a large degree of difference between house arrest and gas showers, but when I read the title of this column, this is what I think of. This is what the 2A is in place to protect against.
Not just the Jews in pre-WWII Germany, Germans as a whole. Plenty of Germans didn’t wholeheartedly agree with the Nazi party, but once those in power, the Nazis, were the only ones with guns – well, we know how that turned out. Don’t forget Dachau started out as a camp for Germans who didn’t agree with their government.
Besides Germany there was Russia, Italy, China and that’s just off the top of my head in the twentieth century. There are more examples with smaller countries all over the Eastern and Western Hemisphere. There is not one single valid and rational reason for a disarmed civilian population. Positive reason anyway.
One of the examples of what happens to a disarmed population is the Zanzibar Revolution, which is little known outside a few historians and people who have watched “Africa Addio”. The short story- This happened shortly after the British decolonized Tanganyika (Tanzania) and Zanzibar, leaving in a hurry. 500 or so “revolutionaries” from the mainland landed in Zanzibar, and chased the newly raised Arab police force out of their stations. They seized their rifles, and proceeded to slaughter 20,000 unarmed civilians.
An Italian film crew was making a documentary on Africa at the time, and they flew over the killing fields in a helicopter, while the rebels shot at them (ineffectively, fortunately). They flew over a beach where perhaps a thousand civilians were making for the ocean, but there were only a handful of boats to take them on. The next day, the helicopter flew over again, and the bodies lay strewn over the beach. This is all on film, but it is difficult to watch. There are few people who could go away from watching a scene like that without thinking they should have something, anything, to defend themselves in the utmost emergency- regardless of what the government states or the media projects or the chattering classes deride.
There’s a lot of talk about defending against a government gone mad, but it’s also important to remember to have a defense when a government goes away.
Historically states of emergency make it marginally easier to suppress the bad guys and a LOT easier to trample on the citizenry, and in the long run result in a heightened authoritarian attitude on the part of law enforcement.
And they don’t need any help in that regard.
Govt. loves ’emergency measures’, ‘states of emergency’, ‘extra judicial powers’, etc. Its where they want to be in the first place, kings and the artistocracy ruling over their serfs.
Back to work, peasant!
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Benjamin Franklin 1755
“Deserve neither, and shall lose both.” Is how I was taught the quote ended.
“Deserve niether Liberty nor Safety”
But his statement was not what we want it to mean. It was part of a letter he wrote concerning taxing of privileged persons in order to fund the militia that defended the colony against Indians and the French (and other colonies). The privileged person had rebelled at the idea he should should give up part of his wealth to the general defense. Franklin was stating that the privileged person wanted to risk the colony being conquered (Liberty) in order to temporarily (until the colony was conquered) assure the safety (amount) of his wealth. [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-06-02-0107]
Thank you. I get tired correcting people when they make that statement without context.
Probably my last good deed for 2016.
France’s “state of emergency” isn’t going anywhere.
Well, except for spreading to a Western democracy near you.
So, France is living under the equivalent of a ‘temporary suspension’ of the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and possibly eigth amendments. This is essentially a dictatorship at this point, and a statists wet dream.
France lost its First a while ago, much much before all this mess, for decades written demands and authorizations have been mandatory in France to protest. Authorities can deny your right to protest for any given reason. Believe it or not, France has been a socialist tyranny long enough and other than a more massive military presence, the French do not notice a huge difference with the state of emergency, for the moment at least.
I don’t understand how they can tolerate this. It was bad enough suspending civil liberties temporarily when it happened, but continuing for more than a year is ridiculous… and so many attacks happened DURING the state of emergency… wasn’t the whole point of suspending people’s rights to stop terrorist attacks? You would think that at a certain point people would realize it didn’t work and they would be telling the government to give them their rights back. But, hey, as long as the government doesn’t do anything to innocent people, it’s okay isn’t it? Some governments can be trusted, right? Oh… And they have the right to censor the press during an election? That sounds VEEEERY fair. I don’t see how that could be abused at all.
Telling a government to give you your rights back only works if there’s teeth behind it. The mere idea of having to ask for your rights should be sickening.
France is reaping what they’ve sown. I can’t feel sorry for them because they got exactly what they asked for.
I don’t actually think the French government is corrupt to the point where it would be necessary to require arms in order to get their rights back, so long as there was enough public outrage. But nothing, rien, zilch. Government trusting types like to point to Europe and say “Look, they have a big government and they’re not a totalitarian regime.” Yeah, not yet, but tolerance of stuff like this can lead to stuff like the Soviet Union.
Sad but not surprising. Look at our country. Plenty of terrorism happening with Bury Soetoro calling it “workplace violence” or calling for gun control after Moose-lims kill in San Bernardino or Orlando. BUT we have the 2A and many millions of p-o’d gunowners.Never get complacent. Hillary still won by 2million votes…and we ain’t France.
The “Hillary won the popular vote” bit is getting old. She basically won California and NYC. Of course we never agreed, when the constitution was crafted, to let a few populous states, really a few very populous urban centers, decide the administration of our government, or permit those few to alter the constitution. Things are working as they should.
It proves even more sensible to have an electoral system when some states, like California, can spontaneously decide to ignore the nation’s immigration laws and bulk up their left-wing electorate even further by encouraging the uneducated, poor, and gang-ridden south to come to CA illegally. By the time Californians realize that yielding to their radicals and illegals doesn’t leave much for the productive citizens…..it will be too late. They’ll have to call in help.
Those that have not already bailed to nearby states, infecting them with their ‘It is sure to work THIS time’ mentality. NV has fallen, and AZ is not far away from collapsing under this migration.
I’ve heard rumors that the terrorists at the concert hall mutilated their victims while they were still alive, and that this was hidden from the victims families. They were never allowed to see the bodies.
Can anyone shed any light on this?
It is very well possible, I don’t know more than you but it took a little while for the special police to storm the place.
I heard that too.
Father of one of the victims: “On the causes of the death of my son, at the forensic institute in Paris, I was told, and what a shock it was for me at that moment, they had cut off his testicles, had put them in his mouth, and he was disemboweled. When I saw him behind glass, lying on a table, a white shroud covering it up to the neck, a psychologist was with me. He said: This is “the only presentable part, your son’s left profile.” I found that he had no right eye. I made the remark; I was informed that they had punctured his eye and sliced down the right side of his face, where there was a very large hematoma that we could all see.”
Police witnesses in Parliament said they vomited when they saw the disfigured bodies.
Wahhabist killers apparently gouged out eyes, castrated victims, and shoved their testicles in their mouths. They may also have disemboweled some poor souls. Women were stabbed in the genitals – and all the torture was, victims told police, filmed for Daesh or Islamic State propaganda. For that reason, medics did not release the bodies of torture victims to the families, investigators said.
And everything could very well have been different if only there had been one armed and trained shooter in the Batacan audience who could have fought back. I’m not saying thing necessarily would have been different—that’s not the point of having armed citizens in everyday life situations. But if only one “good guy with a gun” had been present when the terrorists had appeared he and they would have had a fighting chance. And a fighting chance, regardless of how slim, is always better than no chance. It is this unassailable truth that defeats any gun-control argument. Without that, you get the hours of bestial torture and murder that went on while the French police (or the Florida police for that matter) stood around outside
. . . getting organized.
Authority over people’s almost every aspect of people’s lives without responsibility and using media for cover while importing immigrants to continue the negative cash flow of a failed socialist system.
Hard to mourn the dead when we don’t avenge them. (Mark Steyn)
I’m thinking that this French “state of emergency” will last longer than the WW2 German occupation.
It’s already lasted longer than the French military’s resistance to the Nazis.
Hmm… how long did we have the ‘Patriot Act’?
Well armed people give power to the state as well as disarmed people.
This is what can happen to a well-armed people: FISA; Patriot Act. Renewed every year because….state of emergency.
But it is more fun to criticize other nations.
When Obama ran in 04 he said during his campaign he would end the Patriot Act. Ha. It was signed by Bush in 01 renewed by Obama and some parts aren’t set to expire until 2019. That’s if it doesn’t get extended again. 18 years.
We’re reluctant to admit that we’ve already lost many of our freedoms, especially our 4th Amendment right to privacy. Others will follow as the Central Government tightens its grip on the data pool.
The 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th are basically gone thanks to the WoD.
The 1st and 2nd are under constant threat and have been heavily restricted in many quarters.
Well said to you both.
I wonder, though: What’s our plan to hold the Trump administration, the US Congress, and the US Supreme Court’s feet to the fire regarding undoing the violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, of the separation of powers, and countless other violations of Constitutional matters that the previous administrations have brought upon us?
Most likely…..about nothing.
There will be a 24-30 month window to get anything done. Maybe less, as predidential campaigns run two years, now. Trump has a hostile congress, which will prevent pretty much everything Trump ran against. Doubtful Trump will be re-elected (a’ la’ Jesse Venture in Minnesota).
Congress will use its majority to protect and promote the agenda of the old line (“establishment”), which has shown over the last decade and a half that they pretty much like things the way they are: big government, earmarks (coming again), “go along to get along”, democrat-lite, etc.
If we can get a pro-2A SC nominee( who does not fold-up proving how even-handed, non-partisan they can be), we could have chance over the next decade to see some of the other constitutional issues ruled in our favor. But….the SC is not there to make rulings on constitutional issues, unless such matters are completely unavoidable. The rule for the court is to find legal reasoning that does not result is resolving a constitutional issue. Take Heller and McDonald as examples. The SC could have found 2A to be inviolable, period; they did not. The majority SC ruling merely held that some sort of right to bear arms existed, but that “right” can be restricted, within reason.
Sounds like just another way crush the French citizen’s rights and to get them used to the idea.
One obvious thing none of the gun grabber understand, BLACK MARKET, guess how Merah, the Kouachi brothers and the other nutjobs got fully auto Ak and explosives in a country where you cannot even buy as many 22lr rounds as you want (and it surely isn’t because of ammo shortage lol). Another thing, I am hoping they use some hollowpoints in those FAMAS rifle.
That pic makes me want a FAMAS
Shooting one will cure you of that problem.
The Saudi’s have captured France.
And the Russians have captured America.
The leftists don’t seem to understand that countries have no moral obligation to allow immigrants legal or otherwise. If people don’t plan to integrate and adopt the customs and culture of their new country they should not be allowed in. There is absolutely nothing racist about that as no country has any obligation to allow immigrants.
I do feel for people that want a better life and they should work hard to improve their own country. Americans and Europeans that really care should move to those countries and help them.
I understand that some of the reason for the recent influx in Europe is our doing for getting involved in Syria’s civil war, Lybia and abandoning Iraq without securing that country. All we can do now as a nation is to learn from our mistakes and not get involved in conflicts we don’t plan on seeing to the end and doing everything possible to win.
“Since the attacks, French police have raided more than 3600 homes, arresting and detaining some 400 people. An undetermined number of people have been placed on house arrest. This is what happens to a disarmed populace.”
This is actually what the majority wants. They want strict gun laws. They want a strong response to terrorism. They want relatively insecure borders. They are getting the policies that they want but they don’t want the policy consequences (terrorism). But, they blame the consequences on Bush anyway, so it’s all fine.
I’m assuming that everyone here knows that the US of A has been under “Emergency Powers” since the 9/11 attacks and has been renewed by GWB and BHO.
We’re under more than one “emergency” with some going back decades.
Or, you know, don’t let Muslims into your country. This isn’t difficult people.
Poor citizens of France…I guess their NOT as free as we all thought! They have just another Elitist government that is highly capable of undermining the Freedoms and Liberties of it’s citizenry to maintain strict governmental control through Force of Arms, Unlawful Searches and Seizures, Arrest, and /or Detentions…This is definitely NOT the definition of a Democracy, or a Constitutional Republic…But, Authoritarianism to Totalitarianism… A shame seeing France was our allies during the American revolution….Wasn’t it France that gifted us the Statue of Liberty?
Excerpt from an NWO Fringe/ conspiracy website : A synopsis of George Orwell’s “1984.”
Orwell (real name Eric Blair) described a global society of total control in which the people were not even allowed to havethoughts that disagreed with the authorities. They were subject to the Thought Police who dealt with anyone guilty of thought-crime. In the Orwellian world, the people were not allowed a personal life and everything they did, or thought, was controlled. The government, or Part, was headed by “BB”, or Big Brother, who appeared on posters everywhere with the words: “Big Brother is watching you”. In the smoke and mirrors society that Orwell describes, Big Brother himself could have been a myth to hide the real controllers, who are controlled by forces that the public have no idea exist. Orwell’s Big Brother may not even have existed, either, but the people were sold the story of his battle to save them from the terrorist, Emmanuel Goldstein, the alleged prime threat to the ‘free world’. Goldstein had been in league with Big Brother during the revolution, the story goes, but he was said to have become a major part of the resistance Brotherhood (al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and whoever the authorities blame next for their own terrorism). Orwell implies that Goldstein, too, either does not exist, or was eliminated, but as long as the people believe in his existence and his complicity in terrorism they would support the actions taken by the government to protect them from his terror.
Heard that somewhere before?
Orwell was writing about the leftists and socialists of Britian. Same trendline we see, here in the “last, best hope”.
The gag is that the leftists and socialists are busy tossing blame to the “hard right”.
Excerpt from an NWO Fringe/ conspiracy website : A synopsis of George Orwell’s “1984.” part 2.
Orwell describes the sequence of events that led to the creation of the Big Brother state. A revolution in the United Kingdom turned to civil war and , the same time, the Soviet Union embarked on a mass invasion of mainland Europe, overrunning the entire continent, apart from the British Isles and Iceland. A Third World War then broke out between the three emerging powers of Oceania (including Britain and led by what had previously been the United States); Eastasia (controlled by a revitalized China); and Eurasia (the expanded Soviet Union). During this struggle for total power hundreds of atomic bombs were dropped on Europe, western Russia and North America. Every since the mid-1990s they have been building up China to trigger the imposition of a world government. This has been happening over the years, and look at the way the media is now full of stories about a ‘reviltalised’ China and its massive military and economic capability. The way the world was separated into giant superstates is happening today with the Europe Union, African Union, the planned American Union and Pacific Union, as you will see later. The three superstates in 1984 eventually realized that a continuous stalemate war (war on terrorism) was far more effective than victory. The Constant war kept the people focused and busy manufacturing weapons and goods for the conflict.
Excerpt from an NWO Fringe/ conspiracy website : A synopsis of George Orwell’s “1984.” part 3. [Disclaimer: May not subscribe to all opinions made by the author. But, find some of it interesting.]
The standard of living was appalling because it was understood that a poor (government bank bail out) and needy population was easier to control than a rich and abundant one. The three superpowers take over most of the world, but leave one region officially ‘free’ so they have something to fight over. This ‘disputed zone’ includes the northern half of Africa, the Middle East, southern India and down towards Indonesia and norther Australia. The warring factions rarely fight in their own territory. Airstrip One (the official name for Britain) is apparently the target of Eurasian ‘rocket bombs’, but it is hinted that the Oceania government is launching these attacks on its own land to convince Airstrip One’s urban populations that they are under constant attack (‘war on terrorism’, 9/11 and the London bombings, etc.). By the year 1984, Airstrip One becomes a police state and mere province of the enormous Oceania (European Union). The People are segregated into three classes-the Inner Party, Outer Party and Proles-who are controlled by four ministries housed in massive pyramid structures. The ministries are named in line with Orwell’s law of language manipulation, which he called Newspeak. This demands that you call everything the opposite of what it actually does. You can see this technique used throughout society today-remember the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that was manipulating war?
Excerpt from an NWO Fringe/ conspiracy website : A synopsis of George Orwell’s “1984.” part 4. [Disclaimer: May not subscribe to all opinions made by the author. But, find some of it interesting.]
The Orwellian ministries are:
The Ministry of Peace: its job is to ensure continuous wars.
The Ministry of Plenty: this is responsible for controlling food and goods through rationing.
The Ministry of Truth: this is in charge of propaganda to stop the people knowing the truth. (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and the alphabet Newspeak)
The Ministry of Love: its role is surveillance, identification of ‘dissidents’, and their arrest and torture in the infamous Room 101. This is designed to make them love the government that controls them. Remember in the dark ages, the Inquisition was carried out by civil authorities. Everything Rome (Vatican) did, was done legally with civil laws. That is why they passed the ” National Defense Authorization Act”, that Inquisition and Torture in America is now legal.
Orwell’s novel features a character call Winston Smith, a member of the Outer Party, who lives in the ruins of London, the major city of Airstrip One (Britain). His parents died during the civil war and he is recruited by the ‘Ingsoc’ (English socialism) movement. He is given a job with the Ministry of Truth, which controls all media in the Oceania superstate. One of his roles is to rewrite historical records to comply with the party’s version of what happened. The idea was to make the ‘past’ conform to the Party’s version of what happened. The idea was to make the ‘past’ conform to the political expediency necessary to justify current actions. Winston wants to know real history and tries to uncover the forbidden truth. He also keeps an illegal diary of events. While at the Ministry of Truth, he meets Julia, a mechanic who maintains the ‘novel-Writing machines’, and they begin an illegal relationship. There was no personal freedom and that included relationships. Sex for pleasure was discouraged and employed only for the procreation of new members of the Party. Artificial insemination was the preferred method. Sexual life was entirely regulated by the two Newspeak words, sexcrime (sexual immorality) and goodsex (chastity). Sexcrime covered all sexual ‘misdeeds’, including fornication, adultery, homosexuality and heterosexual intercourse practiced for its own sake. They were all punishable by death. The term, ‘sex crime’, is now in very days use, of course.
The ability to control your own borders as you see fit . . .
Brexit is not looking so bad after all.