Friday, December 29, 2017

News Flash: The Constitution Applies to All 50 States

Here’s a novel concept: enumerated civil rights apply equally in every state in the union. Can speech be more stringently regulated in Maryland than it can in Montana? Do police have broader search and seizure latitude in Arkansas than they do in Alaska? Why no, no they don’t. And that means that . . . States have a constitutional duty to recognize gun rights nationwide.
In response to the House of Representatives passing the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (which would essentially require states to recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states) this month, those who oppose gun rights are invoking states’ rights — an argument conservatives favor in other contexts. But a federalism argument cannot stand where Congress is exercising authority that has been explicitly granted by the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment (along with the Thirteenth and Fifteenth) is one of the Reconstruction Amendments, passed in the immediate wake of the Civil War. It (was) intended to redesign American federalism by requiring the states to respect basic rights of their citizens, including “the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments to the Constitution.”
Isn’t the Second Amendment one of those first eight Amendments in the Bill of Rights? Why yes, yes it is. But wait … aren’t gun rights somehow different?
The question then is: are gun rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?  During the debates on the Amendment, and the related Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Second Freedman’s Bureau Act, the right to keep and bear arms was explicitly invoked frequently as one of the elementary civil rights and rights of citizenship that Freedmen, who were regularly and violently disarmed, were entitled to enjoy along with whites. The Supreme Court recognized this and more in 2010, in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. In that case, the Court unambiguously held that the Second Amendment is a “fundamental right” that “is fully applicable to the States.”
Hmmm - a precedent like that could be downright inconvenient for the forces of civilian disarmament if a national concealed carry reciprocity law ever comes before the Supreme Court.
To be sure, there are other considerations that should be part of the reciprocity discussion. For example, moving between and among the several states is a fundamental right upon whose exercise the states may not place a substantial burden. Nor can states discriminate against new residents by treating them differently in matters of importance, like medical care and welfare benefits. This has implications for American gun owners. If a state may not chill the freedom of interstate travel by placing restrictive conditions on certain benefits, it is reasonable to conclude that stripping one’s carry rights in order to cross state lines would also be impermissible under the Fourteenth Amendment.
So while I'm not a constitutional law expert, it seems to me that national reciprocity is on good legal footing should the bill currently in the Senate is signed into law, and subsequently challenged in court.

You can bet the farm that there are plenty of hoplophobic anti-constitutionalist snowflakes frenetically scribbling an irrational and hypocritical challenge as you are reading this.

Thursday, December 14, 2017

Bar Stool Economics: For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.


Many of my faithful readers have probably seen this before - it has been around in various forms for quite some time. Since the Fake News media outlets have been babbling about how pending tax cuts are exploitative of the poor to the benefit of the rich, now is the time to revisit what will happen if the Liberal version of "fairness" is implemented.

The author chose to base his analogy upon the swilling of beer in a a tavern in hopes that it might better relate to Snowflakes that think everyone else owes them something.



Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share”? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. ' I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Al Franken - Resignation or Expulsion?



As of this morning, December 6, 2017 there are at least 15 United States Senators from the Democrat side of the aisle calling for the resignation of Al Franken.

Add that to the 52 Senators on the other side of the aisle to arrive at the magic number of 67.

Why is 67 a magic number?

Well, Grasshopper, according to Section 5 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, this is the number of Senators needed to expel a seated Senator.

In the history of the United States there have been 20 members expelled from Congress  -  15 from the Senate and 5 from the House of Representatives.  Of these 20 disgraced reprobates, 19 have been members of the Democrat party.  The only outlier was a fellow expelled before the Democrat party was founded in 1828.  Senator William Blount of Tennessee was expelled for treason in 1797.

So, as you can clearly see, this will be nothing new.  It is about time that the Senate grew a pair and took some positive action.

Stuart Smalley – you have got to go.  You are not good enough, not smart enough, and doggone it, people don’t like you.




By the way, according to the Constitution of the United States Congress refers to both Senators and Representatives.  All Senators are Congressmen, but all Congressmen are not Senators.

Monday, November 13, 2017

A World Where Ordinary People Believe They Are Constantly In Deadly Danger

Below is one of the best bits of common sense I've seen in a long time.
It is entitled:  "How to Talk to Your Kids About Guns" and was written by Katherine Mangu-Ward the editor in chief of Reason magazine.


After you read this one, check out this article as well:  The Fragile Generation

Perhaps these pieces seem to be common sense only because I've been tooting the same horn for a long time.

Here are two true statements:

1. The number of privately held firearms in America has nearly doubled in the last two decades while the number of gun murders per capita was cut in half.

2. The number of kids abducted by strangers in 2011 was 105, out of approximately 73 million children in the United States. That's down slightly from 115 two decades ago.


After Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and injured hundreds more by firing into a crowd from the 32nd floor of his Las Vegas hotel in October, America dove headfirst into our now-traditional national shoutfest about gun laws.

One side sees its argument as self-evident: The moment when dozens of people lie dying in the street of gunshot wounds is the right time to pass laws restricting private gun ownership. The other side, by and large, frames its argument in the language of rights and freedoms: You may not like what some people do with some guns, but the Second Amendment exists for a reason.

Too often absent from both sides of the debate are well-parsed statistics. Restrictionists will cite the approximately 33,000 annual gun deaths in America, but that number reveals almost nothing about the question the public really wants answered after Vegas or the Orlando nightclub shooting before it: How likely am I to die in an incident of random violence?

Two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides, as statistician Leah Libresco explained in The Washington Post shortly after the Vegas shooting, and "almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them." Next are "young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides" that are often gang-related, and after that "the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence."

The number of people killed in mass shootings is far smaller—there were fewer than 90 incidents that fit the FBI's formal definition of "mass killing" with a gun in the last three decades, most of them with just four victims—yet the center of gravity in the gun control debate isn't suicide hotlines, drug legalization, or domestic violence shelters. Instead, politicians and pundits perseverate on reducing firing speeds, excluding mentally ill people from the right to buy a gun, and building lists of people with ties to terrorist groups: interventions aimed at minimizing the odds of already-rare deaths from mass shootings.

A frenzy of attempts at preventive policy making follows each high-profile incident but actually creates the conditions for future failure. Gun prohibition produces the same problems as drug or alcohol prohibition; attempts to restrict harmless sale and possession in order to catch a minority of misusers yield all kinds of unintended consequences.

Black markets make the purchase of prohibited items riskier and more expensive, and make the transactions untraceable. Bans are likely to be disproportionately enforced among black and Muslim gun owners, increasing racial disparities. Narrowly tailored restrictions will push product development teams at big firearms manufacturers and garage tinkerers alike to find workarounds that circumvent the letter of the law. And any mass confiscation of illegal weapons or accessories will lead to more violence, as die-hard gun rights believers inevitably fight back against law enforcement.

Take a misunderstanding of the scope and nature of a problem, combine it with a desire to "do something" in the face of national anguish, and you get a recipe for both bad law and cultural conflict.

A nearly identical problem plagues another heated national conversation: Are our children in danger? How likely is my kid to be grabbed by a kidnapper? Underlying much of the invective about helicopter parents, millennial snowflakes, and trophies for everyone is the question of what risks American kids realistically face.

In a country where violent crime has been largely declining for decades, and where crimes against children have declined even faster, there is nonetheless an overwhelming conviction among parents and the press that the world is more dangerous than it was for previous generations. But the FBI says reports of missing children are down 40 percent in the last two decades, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that teen homicide rates have fallen by more than 40 percent; homicides of kids under 14 are at a near-record low; and overall child mortality rates have declined almost by half.

As Lenore Skenazy and Jonathan Haidt explain in "The Fragile Generation" (page 18), the result is a cultural and legal landscape where attempts to protect kids from imagined or exaggerated risks generate new—and very real—threats to their well-being. Oversupervision and reflexive appeals to authority for conflict resolution push ordinary kid squabbles and teen misbehavior into the principal's office or even prison, instead of giving kids the chance to resolve disagreements on their own. As parents opt to keep children indoors, opportunities to practice independent decision making and to make mistakes in low-stakes situations with friendly strangers disappear. Obesity is on the rise, and physical fitness—an aid to self-determination and independence, according to J.D. Tuccille (page 14)—is suffering.

Parental paranoia also conspires with legal paternalism to keep teens out of the grown-up world. On page 54, check out a map of all the ways the law is delaying adult milestones and sending mixed messages about when adolescents can be trusted to make decisions about marriage, work, driving, smoking, and more. In her interview with Reason's Robby Soave on page 56, advice columnist turned Atlantic essayist Emily Yoffe describes a campus culture where women in particular are neither trusted nor expected to know their own minds when making decisions about sex and alcohol, and where young men are subjected to flawed adjudications where adult authorities determine their fate, sometimes without ever getting a chance to defend themselves.

Raising kids to believe in personal responsibility and autonomy is tough in a world where the politicians and bureaucrats respect neither. In the 21st century, when a child is taken from his parents by people he barely knows, it's likely to be the result not of a snatching by a stranger but of busybody neighbors calling Child Protective Services because they disagree with someone's parenting choices.

Mass shootings, kidnapping, and child abuse all happen, of course, and they are horrible. But demagoguing those small-but-real threats to push through intrusive laws is dangerous in its own way.

Unfortunately, citing statistics rarely changes hearts and minds. Each mass shooting seems to ratchet up the panic over private gun ownership. Each kidnapping calls for wall-to-wall coverage while parents enroll their children in yet another supervised extracurricular.

One reason Americans are more inclined to panic over shootings or kidnappings these days is, perversely, that these incidents are so rare. They are the last isolated cases in what was once an epidemic of commonplace violence. Because kids do not go missing as a matter of course, we freak out more on the rare occasions when they do. As even schoolyard fistfights become unusual, we treat each one like a national security incident instead of a learning experience. Our culture has changed, mostly for the good, with wealth, a robust rule of law, and an ever-expanding circle of empathy driving the drop in violence.

Legislation is a blunt instrument, and carving ever-changing mores into the legal code means pushing well-meaning adults to behave in nonsensical ways. Police, social workers, and a large number of teachers, doctors, and other trusted figures are increasingly required by law to behave as if the sidewalk in front of the school, the Publix parking lot, and the Las Vegas strip are risky environments, when in fact they're safer than they have ever been. The law is nearly always a lagging indicator of changing social practices and expectations, not a leading one.

Would-be restrictionists of all kinds thrive in a world where ordinary people believe they are constantly in deadly danger—even when that danger is grossly exaggerated. 

I found this article here:   Reason.com

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Mass Murders in Context



Here is another thing to think about.

There have been more murders each and every month for the past several years in Chicago than in the Las Vegas mass murder on October 1.

Where is the media outrage?

And get this: the murder rate in Chicago is not even close to the highest in the USA.  The murder rate in St. Louis is over twice that of Chicago.  Chi-Town’s homicide rate is a distant 8th behind St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, Cleveland, Newark, and Memphis.

Where is the media outrage?

Take a look at the chart below.  Washington DC and Oakland California homicide rates are astronomical.  These cites are essentially the Belly of the Beast when it comes to restrictive gun control laws in the USA.

Go figure.



Sunday, October 1, 2017

It's Always Something . . . Never Mind

Its always something.
What's all the fuss about this nut taking a pee?

If he needs to take a pee, he ought to be standing up.

Oh -

Never mind.


Saturday, September 30, 2017

Cow Farts and Global Warming. That Cheeseburger is Gonna Gas You, Dude!



Good grief!  Now those pearl-clutching snowflakes have got more to worry their sensitive little brains into an even softer form of mush.

According to what seems to be myriad stories about flatulent livestock, we are all gonna die in a fiery furnace unless we give up our cheeseburgers and take up alfalfa sprouts, kale, and soybean tofu.

Well, listen up buttercup, I've got some bad news for you.

All that bovine generated methane happens when big beefy heifers eat copious amounts of  cow chow.  As you may know, cows are vegan.  They love kale and alfalfa and soybeans.  Guess what happens if each and every one of the billions of humans on earth stopped eating meat, butter and eggs and subsisted entirely on green leafy stuff.

They would all fart - A LOT.

Noxious vile clouds of vegan-generated greenhouse gasses would choke the planet and melt all the snowflakes.  Let's not even think about how very very smelly this would be.

Don't worry too much or too long, because it would be virtually impossible to grow enough kale and sprouts to feed everyone.  There are not enough acres of farmland on earth to grow all that ghastly green grub and simultaneously crank up the production of toilet paper and air freshener - just sayin'.

Friday, September 29, 2017

Heads Up Chicken Little, the Sky is About to Fall!

Oh the Humanity!  

A humongus volume of greenhouse gasses are about to be released upon us.  The volume is astronomical.  Mush-for-brains environmentalists will be clutching their pearls as a gazillion tons of particulate, fly ash, carbon dioxide, and toxic fumes, come blasting from the caldera of the Bali Volcano.

Mother Nature is set to belch an amount of global warming effluent that far exceed the relative mosquito farts from a century of human activity.


How come there are not throngs of tie-dyed protestors chanting in the streets? 

When Will Nancy Pelosi and Chuckie Schumer save us from this evil capitalist plot?

I can hear them now:  Hey Hey - Ho Ho.  Pass a law so the Volcano Won't Blow

DEEP inside the giant volcano that has Indonesian authorities, residents and tourists on edge, magma is rising.

Molten rock, which has been accumulating for the last 50 years or more, is heating up and slowly dissolving the rock above, while the pressure is pushing through the volcanic crevice and finding weak points to penetrate.

Increased temperature in the groundwater is creating steam filled with gases like sulphur dioxide; it’s been steaming away quite strongly over the last week. Volcanic gases, which smell really bad and are quite dangerous, fill the air.

A plume hovers above off the top of the volcano about 500 metres above the crater’s rim.

It’s getting thicker, pulsating a little bit.

As it’s doing that, the mountain is shaking, there’s deep volcanic earthquakes. 10-15 kilometres below the surface the rocks are melting, interacting with water and ocean sediment, melting, trying to bubble their way up to their source.

Once they do, that’s when Mount Agung will erupt.

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Pete Rose, Football, and the Star Spangled Banner.



Remember Pete Rose?

He was a 100%, balls out, give it your all, Baseball Player.  He would ALWAYS run full speed for first base after a hit - even when the ball had been caught for an easy out.  He ALWAYS put forth 100% passionate effort into each and every play.

Pete Rose ALWAYS stood for the National Anthem and ALWAYS held his cap over his heart.

Not only that - he was really tough.  His head-first dives into home plate were epic.  A well known quote of his sums it up:  "I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball."

Pete Rose is Rough and Tough and 100% American.

Pete Rose NEVER took a knee

In football, taking a knee once referred to a ploy by which a quarterback could run out the clock and deny their opponents a sporting chance at gaining ground.  It ended the play without really playing

I've always considered taking a knee as lame and unsportsmanlike.

NFL football players once had a reputation as being rough and tough - just like Pete Rose. No longer is this the case.  Now a large number of them are cowardly wimps that show wanton disrespect for the Star Spangled Banner.  These chumps get paid untold millions of dollars and then spit upon the very soul of the America that gave them the gift of a thousand lifetimes. 

Taking a knee to insult the USA, and everything it stands for and every opportunity it has made available to each and every American and NFL player, is even more lame and unsportsmanlike.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

National Instant Criminal Bacground System (NICS) checks for voters.


Republicans worry about vote fraud. Democrats claim that Republicans are just imagining things. But in testimony Tuesday before the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, I will suggest a simple solution that could make both parties happy: Apply the background check system for gun purchases to voting.

Democrats have long lauded background checks on gun purchases as simple, accurate and in complete harmony with the Second Amendment right to own guns. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has bragged that the checks “make our communities and neighborhoods safer without in any way abridging rights or threatening a legitimate part of the American heritage.”

If Democrats really believe that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System doesn’t interfere “in any way” with people’s constitutional rights to own a gun, doesn't it follow that the same system would not constitute an infringement on people’s right to vote? This would give Republicans a system for stopping vote fraud and Democrats a system that they have already vigorously endorsed.

The NICS system doesn't just determine if potential gun buyers have criminal histories. It also checks whether a person is in this country illegally, has a nonimmigrant visa or has renounced his citizenship. Such people are not allowed to vote. The system doesn’t currently flag people who are on immigrant visas but who could be added to the system.

In 34 states, felons are not able to vote immediately upon release. The background-check system would detect these too.

Of course, Democrats and Republicans will continue to argue over whether illegal voting is a major problem.

Since Democrats believe that the NICS doesn’t in any way interfere with or suppress gun ownership, how could it suppress legal voter registration? Thus, Democrats shouldn't have anything to worry about. If there doesn't turn out to be any vote fraud, Democrats can say that they were proved right.

But it is likely that Democrats will take issue with the NICS once it is applied to something other than gun purchases. NICS requires government-issued photo IDs, and Democrats have vehemently opposed voter ID laws. Moreover, the fees that gun buyers have to pay on private transfers can be quite substantial, ranging from $55 in Oregon to $175 in Washington, D.C., and would be compared to poll taxes. Because of the Constitution’s 24th Amendment, the courts have struck down poll taxes as unconstitutional.

Still, I doubt that Democrats would concede that background check costs discourage gun ownership.

A simple solution is for the costs of the background checks to see if people are eligible to vote could be picked up by the states instead of being charged to people registering to vote. Possibly, once Democrats acknowledge this undue burden, we could talk about the government picking up the costs of background checks on gun purchases too.

Applying the NICS background checks to voting would undoubtedly elicit a long list of other concerns from Democrats about how the system interferes with people’s right to vote. The debate could prove quite embarrassing for Democrats. Will they finally admit to the double standard? They are very concerned about getting poor people’s votes, but they want to make it difficult for poor people to defend themselves.

John R. Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and is scheduled to testify Tuesday before the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.

Sunday, August 27, 2017

The real threat to our republic is the Orwellian Antifa

A good bit by Ned Ryun that I found at "The Hill".  This is probably the first time I've cut-and-pasted from The Hill, since I generally find their poorly hidden agenda a bit distasteful.

Over the past few months, we have finally entered the fully realized historical revisionism promised in George Orwell’s “1984,” in which the motto, “Who controls the present controls the past. Who controls the past controls the future,” was central to shaping the book’s dystopian world. In the book, history was continually being rewritten and re-promulgated to meet the political necessities of the moment. There was no history to be remembered, let alone lessons to be learned.

For all the talk of Trumpian bluster or exaggeration, there is only one group that seeks to systematically and violently achieve its goals here in the United States on a broad scale: the so-called “anti-facist” movement, now commonly called “Antifa.” And the goal? It’s not “anti-facist” or “anti-racist” as they attempt to portray themselves. It’s the systematic elimination of free speech, free assembly, and free thought via any means necessary, including violent protest, the media and Orwellian revisionism.

It is the imposition of a perverse type of intolerance based on Marxist and Chinese communist values that, it turns out, is far more welcome and pervasive within the Democrat Party of Sens. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) than neo-Nazis, the KKK and white supremacists are in the Republican Party. The gunman, James Hodgkinson, who shot Rep. Steve Scalise and four others in Alexandria was a habitual Antifa website visitor and advocate and Sanders volunteer. Even Democrat vice presidential candidate, Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-Va.) son has been identified as an Antifa activist.



Yet, the media would have us believe that it is the white supremacist movement that is the real threat to our republic. Consider that most media estimates put the Antifa movement, largely built out of the “Occupy” movement of 2008-2010, at more than 200,000 members. The Southern Poverty Law Center, on the other hand, puts the number of Klu Klux Klan members at about 6,000 KKK …in a country of almost 330 million. But actions speak volumes compared to mere numbers.

The vandalized statue of Christopher Columbus? Antifa. The statue torn down in Charlotte, N.C.? Antifa. The violence in Charlottesville? Antifa. The violence in Seattle? Antifa. Not excusing the vile nature of the white supremacist protest, but it was a licensed march that remained comparatively nonviolent, albeit troubling, until, as one eyewitness described it, “It started raining balloons filled with urine, feces, paint, burning chemicals & boards with nails driven into them.”

This violence against reprehensible, yet innocent citizens, and more importantly, law enforcement, which the Antifa routinely violently opposes, is not the result of a few bad apples. It’s the fundamental philosophy of the loose confederation of Antifa cells, much of it laid out for all to read on “how to” websites.

Ominously, the group that over the past few years has preferred baseball bats, axe handles, even small flag poles — all with nails installed to make them latter day DIY maces — is upgrading their arsenal. Consider what Daryl Jenkins, a national Antifa leader said recently, “If we care about [our country], we’re the ones who need to go out there and do what needs to be done. More and more to the hard left, you start seeing people willing to bear arms. I don’t run with people who don’t care for guns all that much.”

Increasingly, the violence we are seeing on the streets is not the result of the alt-right movement, but of the Antifa movement imposing their views on our society: tearing down statues, burning the American flag, shutting down town hall meetings, destroying private property and looting. All of it tactical toward achieving the goals of destroying the American culture, society and economy. Never mind that the tactics are themselves the tactics of the fascist.

Yet, the likes of CNN and the New York Times and Washington Post spend much of their time touting the alt-right threat. Why? A couple of reasons. First, most mainstream media types are philosophically inclined toward anti-establishment organizations from the start; they see little wrong with crypto-fascist violence if the stated goals are in line with their own values systems.

Second, that the Antifa movement hides behind its opposition to the Trump administration gives them the veneer of respectable protest the mainstream media needs to protect them. Finally, it’s a lot harder to look in a mirror and admit that your own values are being corrupted, when you can easily point your finger at others and judge, especially if the mob encourages and rewards you for doing so.

But as the Antifa movement showed during the Obama administration, with riots and violence during global economic meetings in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere, their ilk have little loyalty to even their most ardent supporters and enablers. The media like CNN and others on the Left coddling them should be careful; you can only embrace vipers for so long before they turn on you.

Friday, August 25, 2017

Robert E. Lee

Your history lesson for the day.

Robert E Lee was married to George Washington's granddaughter.  He worked with Ulysses S. Grant during the Mexican-American war and became a decorated war hero defending this country.  Lee believed slavery was a great evil, and his wife broke the law by teaching slaves to read and write. After the civil war he worked with President Andrew Johnson's program of reconstruction. He became very popular with the northern states and the Barracks at West Point were named in his honor in 1962. He was a great man who served this country his entire life in some form or other.

Lee's memorials are now being called a blight.

No American military veteran should be treated as such. People keep yelling, "You can't change history." Sadly you can. This is no different than book burning by the Nazis.  ISIS is attempting to erase  history as well by destroying historical artifacts.  Are these the kind of policies and beliefs we, as Americans should embrace?  Is that really who we want to become?
 
No military veteran and highly decorated war hero should ever be treated as such. This is not Iraq and that is not a statue of Saddam Hussein.

Lee was also very torn about the prospect of the South leaving the Union. His wife’s grandfather George Washington was a huge influence on him. He believed that ultimately, states’ rights trumped the federal government and chose to lead the Southern army. His estate, Arlington, near Washington DC was his home and while away fighting the war, the federal government demanded that Lee himself pay his taxes in person. He sent his wife but the money was not accepted from a woman. When he could not pay the taxes, the government began burying dead Union soldiers on his land. The government is still burying people there today. It is now called Arlington National Cemetery. DO THEY WANT TO TEAR THAT UP ALSO??

As memorials to Robert E. Lee are destroyed or hidden under cloaks of darkness, keep these few historical facts in your mind. 

Friday, August 18, 2017

History has Stopped

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

― George Orwell, 1984


I wonder when the statue of Lenin in downtown Seattle WA will be removed . . .

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Antifa: ISIS of the West - Watch out Mr. Borglum



The Left does not merely want to re-write history, they want to erase it.

ISIS, Taliban, Khmer Rouge, Chi-Coms, and other sundry bands of zealots have been destroying monuments, religious holy sites, and archaeological antiquities. 

Now, the Liberal progressive uber-left are doing the very same thing.  Just this week a Democrat candidate for the Governor of Georgia has demanded that the Stone Mountain carving -  largest bas-relief in the world -  be defaced and ultimately removed.



Speaking of grandiose carvings in stone, what about Mount Rushmore?  Of the four American Presidents hewn there in granite, two of them were slave owners, and another has been denounced as a racist.  Abraham Lincoln is obviously next, since Antifa scumbags have defaced even his memorial in Washington D.C just this week.  The sculptor of Mt Rushmore himself, Gutzon Borglum, has been labeled a xenophobe therefore, I imagine this most American of American Monuments will someday fall to the stark raving mad "Anti-fa"






Saturday, August 12, 2017

I have a very high IQ - Where is my Disability Check?



There’s a new kind of “privilege” in town, and if you suffer from it, you can’t help it any more than you can help your skin color or your gender. (Although, of late, gender seems to be completely open to debate and have nothing to do with biology.) If you are an intelligent person, you have “cognitive privilege” according to an op-ed in the Daily Iowan.

Well, that’s just really not fair, is it?

With all the “privileges” out there that need to be kept in check, may God help you if you are white, male, attractive, and smart. You are public enemy #1 to the social justice set, you privileged scumbag.

I’ll let the author, Dan Williams, explain cognitive privilege because I couldn’t possibly do it justice in a summary:


We now know that intelligence is not something we have significant control over but is something we are born with. We are living in a society in which success is increasingly linked to one’s intelligence. This is not to say that intelligence is the only factor that is important. All that is implied is that below a certain threshold of intelligence, there are fewer and fewer opportunities. These opportunities are being shifted upward to jobs that require heavier cognitive lifting or else are being replaced by robots. Thus, the accident of having been born smart enough to be able to be successful is a great benefit that you did absolutely nothing to earn. Consequently, you have nothing to be proud of for being smart. 

So, in other words, if you’re not that smart, your job may be taken by a robot, and that isn’t your fault. I assume that this will eventually lead to the assumption that if you are cognitively “disabled,” the world probably owes you something. Because we’re all about “fairness” in the United States, right? RIGHT?

Furthermore, if you are smart, in the wise (cough) words of former President Obama, “You didn’t build that.” You just hit the genetic lottery and should be humbled (and perhaps a little embarrassed) as opposed to proud.

Will this be the next thing that kiboshes people who deserve it from getting a job? “We wanted to hire her, but she is smart. We have already exceeded our quota of cognitively privileged individuals, so we’ll have to go hire that dumb guy or we’ll be breaking labor laws.”

Sometimes there is so much ridiculous stuff out there that you all must just think, “She has to be making this up.” Oh, that I was so creative. Nope, this is the society in which we dwell, with one ridiculous outrage on top of another.

Disregard the fact that you could do something about your lack of cognitive privilege.

Of course, none of this takes into account the possibilities we all have to improve our lots in life. Between libraries and the internet, opportunities abound to learn more about basically any topic you want. Perhaps you won’t end up being a neurosurgeon, but what is stopping you from being an expert on some other topic that perhaps takes a brain with common sense as opposed to book sense?

If we all devoted our time to improving ourselves, instead of watching reality television and walking around with our faces and thumbs firmly engaged with our cell phones, perhaps the “cognitive privilege” of those who do focus on learning would not provide so great a disparity amongst our opportunities.

So much of this is a choice about how we spend the hours in our days. It’s about our drive and the habits we intentionally develop.

Williams doesn’t want you to feel too guilty if you are intelligent. Just the right amount of guilt will do:
The purpose of pointing out someone’s privilege is to remind them of the infinite number of experiences that are possible and the very large number of experiences that are actual [sic] that they know very little about. The purpose is to enlarge their moral consciousness, to make them more sympathetic to people who are less fortunate than they are.
Feelings of guilt are natural when coming to consciousness of one’s place in the scheme of things — and noticing that one has been conferred benefits through sheer accident — but guilt is an impediment to social-justice action, not a motivator (guilt slides easily into resentment).

Okay, isn’t that possibly the worst kind of condescension that ever existed? You know how feminists always talk about men with whom they work “mansplaining” something to them and how it infuriates them? Wouldn’t “smartsplaining” and moral sympathy be every bit as infuriating to one without “cognitive privilege?”

I don’t know about you, but if I had a “disability” the last thing in the world I would want is sympathy. Particularly if my disability was that I was stupid, I wouldn’t want the intellectual elite fawning over me superciliously.

Privilege is just the other side of the “ism” coin.
A while back, I wrote an article called The Great American Butthurt and it was all about how much I loathe any word ending in “ism.”


Words to express our affront are being made up left and right by the mere addition of “ism” to the ends of what were formerly perfectly neutral words. It seems like pundits can take basically any word and add “ism” to the end of it and that means they’re being slighted. The list of isms could go on and on, but instead of promoting more equality, all they’re doing is promoting more division. Isn’t that divisionism?

Personally, I’m affronted by the constant barrage of affronts. When did we, as a nation, become such weenies? How is it that such a collection of whiners has become the vocal majority? Certain people are constantly offended and demand the attention of others so they can express the epic level of their personal offendedness.

So vast is the recent level of Great American Butthurt that no mainstream news outlet is complete without breathlessly exposing a secret “ism” each day. These secret “isms” are called “microaggressions,” defined as “the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership.”
Oh my gosh. SHUT UP ALREADY.

How can our country ever again expect to be united when we are constantly divided by a never-ending series of isms and privileges? What if we just stop labeling everyone and everything and just be human beings with choices and personal responsibility for those choices?

I’m not denying that racism and sexism exist – of course, they do – but why would people spend so much time focusing on some perceived negative instead of focusing on the positive aspects of self-improvement? I’m also not denying that being an intelligent person makes it easier to succeed, but there are plenty of very bright people who can’t make a go of it.

When everything is an ism or a privilege, doesn’t that take away from the true, serious issues that exist? If everyone is so busy competing for victimhood, don’t the actual victims get drowned out in the roar? And if everyone is angry at everyone else for accusations about isms and privileges, it’s a pretty good bet folks will never be able to get along.

Success isn’t about your privileges or your lack of isms. It’s about your drive. It’s about the choices that you make.

We can get out there and make opportunities happen or we can complain about it. Guess which decision will make you more successful?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I found this item here:  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-08/its-not-fair-smart-people-need-check-their-cognitive-privilege

Friday, August 11, 2017

Donald Trump talks striking North Korea ... in 1999! Fire and Fury

A Revolutionary Act

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it. 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


FYI:  Both of those sage bits of truth have been attributed to George Orwell - however, to tell the truth, neither are original Orwell quotations.  They don't even appear in any of his published works.  Good ol' George is, however, one of my intellectual heroes.  Truth be told, there are few that had a clearer vision of the truth and the future it portends than him.

Since millennial progressives don't actually read, invite some of your snowflake acquaintances to find a spoken-word version of 1984 by Orwell.

You'd best remind them that it is a warning, not an instruction manual.


Thursday, August 10, 2017

N.Korea Nuclear Pact Signing

Democrats keeping us safe since 1994.

How's that been working out lately?

No Brain - No pain


When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead.  All of the pain is felt by others.

It is the same when you are stupid.

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

"Under New York law, your gun is loaded even if its not loaded"



Yup - you read the title correctly.  New York Assistant District Attorney Jack Ryan actually said that.  Worse yet, he actually believes that brutally harassing good, upstanding, law abiding American Patriots is a bigger part of his job than preventing crime and punishing those that commit actual crime.


Here is John Stossel's take on the fascist New York City goon squad of Mayor DeBlasio.

Have a gun license? Plan to bring your gun to my hometown? Don't.

Mean New York authorities will make your life miserable.

Patricia Jordan and her daughter flew here from her home state of Georgia. She wanted her gun nearby for protection.

Jordan obeyed all the Transportation Security Administration's rules: She put her gun in a locked TSA-approved case with its bullets separate. She informed the airline that she had a gun. The airline had no problem with that.

In New York City, she kept the gun locked in her hotel room. She never needed it, but her daughter told me, "I was glad she brought it just in case something did happen."

When leaving the city, Jordan followed the TSA's rules again. At the airline counter, she again told the agent she wanted to check her gun. But this time, she was told: "Wait."

"Next thing I know, they're getting ready to arrest me," she said.

Her daughter was crying, "Please don't arrest my mom!" But New York City cops arrested her, jailed her and told her she was guilty of a felony that mandates a minimum 3 1/2 years in jail.

Jordan's ordeal is not unique. Roughly once a week, New York City locks up people for carrying guns legally licensed by other states.

Another Georgia visitor, Avi Wolf, was jailed although he didn't even have a gun. He just had part of a gun -- an empty magazine -- a little plastic box with a small metal spring. He brought it to the city because it wasn't working well and he thought a New York friend might repair it. He couldn't believe he was being arrested.

"Somebody could've done more damage to an individual with a fork from McDonald's," Wolf told me.

Wolf, too, checked with the TSA beforehand. They said, just declare it to TSA agents. So he did.

"I'm telling them ... I have a magazine here. It's empty, no bullets ... Next thing I know they're pulling me over to the side, they're like, 'Do you know what you have in your bag?!' 'I know what I have in my bag, I told you what I have in my bag.'"

Following TSA instructions didn't do Wolf any good. "Fast forward about an hour and it was four Port Authority police there. The chief of LaGuardia airport is there, [as if] they thought they found somebody trying to do 9/11 repeat," he says. 

"They asked me if I had a gun license. Of course I had a license. I'm from Georgia, and everybody there's got a gun license. And they're like, well, sir, you're going to be getting arrested now."

Wolf and Jordan spent less than a day in jail, but each had to pay lawyers $15,000 to bargain the felony charge down to "public disorder."

"We are not going to apologize for enforcing our gun laws," said Assistant District Attorney Jack Ryan when I confronted him about these pointless and cruel arrests. He said New York City enforces laws as "humanely and as compassionately as we can."

But the system is neither fair nor humane.

Patricia Jordan kept her bullets separate from her gun, as TSA regulations require.

"The officer could not even find my bullets in my suitcase. I had to show him where they were," she told me.

That didn't matter, said the DA, because the gun and bullets were in the same suitcase.

"Under New York law, if they're together, they're loaded," says Ryan.

"They're loaded even if they're not loaded?!" I asked. Yes, he said.

I called him a sadistic bully (the full video is at JohnStossel.com). He replied that New York City must make sure people are "not threats."

New York claims this keeps us safe. But people like Jordan and Wolf actually make us safer. Texas data shows licensed gun owners are seven times less likely to murder someone than a nonlicensed person. They also prevent some crimes. Nationwide, crime has dropped as the percentage of people with concealed handgun permits has risen.

Licensed gun owners aren't the problem. Crazy laws and callous prosecution are.


John Stossel
Wednesday, August 09, 2017