Tag Archives: gun grabbers

Was that Jelly or Jam?

It appears the Biden crime regime is waging a war against law-abiding citizens who are Second Amendment supporters by attacking them on First Amendment grounds. Yes indeed Barry Sotero is enjoying his third term via his favorite sock puppet the corrupt Joe Biden, so Biden is carrying on Barry’s proud tradition of using government to attack citizens by force, with lies and with government agencies gone rogue.

They went so far as to physically attack January 6th attendees. We know that incompetent, corrupt (and now promoted) Michael Byrd murdered Ashli Babbit.

USCP Inspector Thomas Loyd Commanded Cops To Fire Munitions At Peaceful Protesters on Jan. 6 LIES And Cries To Judge Kelly During Proud Boys Sentencing Hearing

Julie Kelly has been covering the trials going on for the January 6th political prisoners, and she’s been pointing out the absolute travesty of justice going on.

BREAKING: Judge Tim Kelly just made destruction of part of a temporary metal fence on govt property a federal crime of terrorism.

Said removal of fence was part of the Proud Boys “conspiracy” to “influence the conduct of government.”

This dramatically increases base level of jail time for Joe Biggs and Kelly no doubt will do the same for the other Proud Boys.

Knew it was coming but still flabbergasted.

She also has pointed out that the “judge” in the President Trump trial in the banana republic formerly known as the USA is far from being an acceptable judge.

Chutkan comes from a family of influential Jamaican Marxists.

In addition to her bias against the January Six defendants, she was appointed by Barack Obama. He nominated the most radical judges he could find.

She also worked at the same law firm as Hunter. Let’s just say, for argument’s sake, that she can be impartial; what about her past with Burisma and her former law firm representing Fusion GPS? She didn’t recuse herself when the Fusion case came up until she was found out the day before the proceedings.

She has referred to defendants as insurrectionists, and her sentences were the harshest of the judges.

Trump judge says defense should have started BEFORE indictment!

Now Kelly is out with a new report about a hearing before Chutkan, and “it’s worse than reported.”

NEW: I have transcript from today’s hearing before Judge Chutkan and it’s worse than reported.

Chutkan marveled at Jack Smith’s rapid “discovery” production while downplaying fact DOJ could not name a single case in DC District that went from indictment to trial in 5 months: pic.twitter.com/pAxcBlv7dv

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) August 29, 2023

Julie Kelly exposes just how corrupt and biased Trump J6 judge Tanya Chutkan REALLY is in damning thread

President Trump was correct when he said they weren’t really after him, he was just in the way of them coming after U.S.

So January 6th fedsentation (a lot like a presentation staged by feds) stopped the challenges to the fraudulent election that were going to be presented. The people (except for the feds, corrupt cops and antifa) that had gone there, had gone to express their grievances, something that is allowed by law. Unlike BLM they didn’t riot or burn cities, no, others presenting themselves as Trump supporters did that.

They have no problem with stifling free speech, that became crystal clear during the covid fiasco. Nor do they have a problem stifling free speech to keep you from defending yourself or others. Such as lawyers. Rules and laws no longer apply to the left.

The weaponized DOJ is also determined to disarm law-abiding citizens. Pawshawwww, pesky Constitution. Why worry about that when you have the Department of Veteran’s Affairs…again.

This outrages me as these are men and women who were willing to place their life on the line for our country. And they basically stand to lose human rights (self-defense) because they didn’t balance their checkbook?

New Bill Would Stop VA Bureaucrats From Gaming The System To Grab Veterans’ Guns

The legislation, introduced on Friday by Reps. Roy, Eli Crane of Arizona, Lance Gooden of Texas, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Andy Harris of Maryland, and Mary Miller of Illinois, specifically bars the VA from sending veterans’ names to the Department of Justice to be added to the federal government’s no-gun list.

….

FBI data from 2023 shows that nearly 98 percent of the names placed in the NICS “mental defective” category by federal agencies were handed over to the FBI by the VA.

….

A memo released by House Veteran Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost notes that the decision to name a fiduciary and disarm veterans is often made by “VA general schedule employees, not a court or similar judicial authority.” There is an appeals process for veterans who want “relief of firearms prohibitions imposed by the law” but whether or not that relief is granted is once again determined by the VA.

And if disarming them via government agency isn’t sufficient, they’ll just have a government agency shoot you, stone cold, graveyard dead.

On August 9th in Provo Utah an elderly senior citizen, Craig Robertson was killed in his home. My comments come are in regards to the following article. Apparently the basically home-bound elderly man who took care of his visually impaired son had grown dissatisfied with the Biden Crime Regime’s continual attacks on our country, it’s citizens, borders, way of life and Constitution.

The FBI Claims Disabled Trump Supporter Who Was Killed in Morning Raid Had Pulled a Gun on Agents

According to an email from FBI spokeswoman Sandra Barker, Craig Robertson “resisted arrest and as agents attempted to take him into custody, he pointed a .357 revolver at them.”

Despite this assertion, the agency hasn’t presented any corroborating evidence. When questioned about photographic or video proof of Mr. Robertson’s alleged action, Ms. Barker refrained from commenting.

Yeah, maybe so, maybe not. The FIB seems to lie about everything these days. I wouldn’t trust them if they told me it’s still Summer. But what the neighbors had to say was pretty interesting as well. What is it with the FIB and these early morning in the dark raids? It’s almost like they are trying to provoke a response to an intruder. Why don’t they walk up to the door at noon, just knock and say “We’d like a word, please”. And this over the top tactical team crap is ridiculous.

His social media also showcased support for former President Donald Trump, displayed tactical equipment, and boasted an expansive firearm collection. Neighbors estimated he owned about 20 guns.

In Texas isn’t that called a neophyte or hobbyist?

During the warrant execution before sunrise, officers employed flash bangs to get Robertson to leave his house. When he refused, alleging innocence, gunshots ensued around 6:15 a.m. local time, as per Jon Michael Ossola, a witnessing neighbor.

Subsequent local accounts state that Robertson was pulled out of his home, where he succumbed to his injuries on the sidewalk, concealed beneath a sheet.

Other neighbors had more to say, so this is kind of out of order from the article.

Another neighbor, Katie Monson, recounted to The Associated Press how agents unsuccessfully tried to breach Mr. Robertson’s door with a battering ram, then used a tactical vehicle. After hearing shots, she saw officers pulling Robertson outside.

A battering ram and a tactical vehicle for a 75 year old disabled man?? Seriously? And about them shooting at Robertson…

The incident escalated when Robertson reportedly aimed a firearm at law enforcement, prompting what witnesses called a “hail of bullets” at his Provo home.

Aimed, not discharged. It’s still dark and he answers the door with a gun in his hand…again, why not noon, knock on the door, and say “We’d like a word”.

Neighbors have said he was a decent guy. Understandably his family is distraught. Family of Trump supporter Craig Robertson shot dead in FBI raid breaks silence

His relatives said Robertson — who they described as a “firearm enthusiast, collector and gunsmith” — loved the US “with all his heart” but had become increasingly disappointed by the Biden administration.

He was understandably frustrated and distraught by the present and on-going erosions to our constitutionally protected freedoms and the rights of free citizens wrought by what he, and many others in this nation, observed to be a corrupt and overreaching government,” the statement said.

As an elderly — and largely homebound — man, there was very little he could do but exercise his First Amendment right to free speech and voice his protest in what has become the public square of our age — the internet and social media.

Did he say things he ought not have said? Obviously.

Sen. Mike Lee is looking into the murder of Mr. Robertson. Mike Lee says elements of Provo FBI raid were ‘highly unusual,’ calls for ‘serious’ investigation

This article lists the things off the top of Sen. Lee’s head that were odd. The question came up at a townhall meeting.

My point is, this murder seems to be part of a bigger picture attack on U.S. citizens by various and sundry arms of the Biden crime regime’s captured agencies.

Before the pre-dawn attack on Mr. Robertson, why was the FIB even there?? Because he posted a threat on a social media platform? Because he objected to the erosion of our liberties in the banana republic so the Biden crime regime decided to prove him wrong by murdering him for using freedom of speech? You know, presumably the FIB could do some basic, oh I don’t know, investigation and find out the man is basically home-bound, disabled and 75 freaking years old??? Maybe talk to some neighbors?? You know, investigate? But why do that when you can use all your tacti-cool toys, right? When I took my concealed carry class 153,000 years ago I remember one of the things taught was if you had to be involved in a self-defense shooting, there needed to be three elements.

I call it the J.A.M. elements,” said Jamison, who also teaches courses on gun laws and safety at Great Guns gun shop in Liberty. J.A.M. roughly translates to jeopardy, ability and means. “First, is the person being placed in jeopardy? Does the person making the threats have the ability to carry out the threat? And third, does he have the means to carry out the threat?” he said.

I would maintain that the elderly home-bound 75 year old caring for his visually disabled son may have lacked some of those elements. I think the FIB case is more like jelly than J.A.M. and that’s what Mr. Robertson was executed for, freedom of speech.

Ayn Rand called it. But then she’d know. She escaped communism.
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

When Rights are Privileges

As you may, or not know, the United Nations has claimed there is no human right to self-defense.

Does a woman have a human right to resist rape or murder? Do people have a human right to resist tyranny? The United Nations Human Rights Council has said no – that international law recognizes no human right of self-defense. To the contrary, the Human Rights Council declares that very severe gun control – more restrictive than even the laws of New York City – is a human right.

Unless of course, one is a member of the U.N.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

I would maintain that this is because the U.N. thinks they are G-d. G-d has a different command.

“If someone rises to kill you, rise up to kill him first.” This one is an under 8 minute video.

Psalms 144:1

1 Praise be to the L-RD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.

As well as we are commanded to look out for the weaker or helpless.

Psalms 82:4

4 Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

So, what has set me off on this? An incident that happened in formerly red state Texas. And maybe Texas is still a red state, Austin however, is not. If Texas had any sense they would expel Austin.

In July 2020, during the summer of riots for a man that overdosed on drugs, had a criminal record including pointing a gun at a pregnant woman’s stomach, a BLM/Antifa rioter decided it would be a great idea to point a loaded rifle at a soldier who was working as a ride share driver. Apparently BLM/Antifa scum thought he would be the only one armed. He guessed wrong. Sgt. Daniel Perry was armed. When his car was surrounded after he had dropped his passenger off, and aforementioned BLM/Antifa rioter pointed his rifle at Sgt. Perry, Sgt. Perry shot him. This seems sensible to me.

This will be the last sensible thing in this saga for some time.

The Travis county jury found Sgt. Perry guilty of murder. Unbelievable. But wait, there’s more.

Detective In Daniel Perry Self-Defense Case Says Soros-Backed Prosecutor Told Him To “Remove Exculpatory Information”

Fugitt said, “It became clear to me that the District Attorney’s office did not want to present evidence to the grand jury that would be exculpatory to Daniel Perry and/or show the witnesses statements obtained by the family of Garrett Foster and/or their attorneys were inconsistent with prior interviews such witnesses gave the police and/or the video of the incident in question.

And now we’re at the point where the adults are going to have to intercede.

Texas AG Paxton Slams Soros-Backed DA After Jury Finds Army Sergeant Guilty of Murder For Fatally Shooting Armed BLM-Antifa Protester in Self-Defense

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton slammed Soros-backed Travis County DA Jose Garza after a jury convicted a Texas soldier of murder for shooting a BLM-Antifa terrorist in self-defense.

A Texas soldier was found guilty of murder on Friday after Soros-backed District Attorney Jose Garza sought murder charges for an act of self defense during the 2020 George Floyd riots.

Texas AG Ken Paxton slammed the Soros prosecutor after Governor Abbott refused appear on Tucker Carlson’s show to speak on the case.

Apparently the State of Texas no longer recognizes the right of self-defense. @GregAbbott_TX is welcome to come on and discuss. pic.twitter.com/A7o5MvZTVy

Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) April 8, 2023

Texas Governor Seeks to Pardon Army Sergeant Convicted of Killing Gun-Wielding Protester

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he is seeking to pardon the U.S. Army sergeant who was convicted of shooting dead a man wielding a gun at him during a Black Lives Matter protest in 2020.

Abbott announced on April 8 that he will pardon Sgt. Daniel Perry, 37, who was working for Uber in Austin at the time, as soon as a request from the state’s parole board “hits my desk.”

I am working as swiftly as Texas law allows regarding the pardon of Sgt. Perry,” Abbott wrote on Twitter.

I would say our criminal justice system is well and truly jacked up. But what should we expect when you have people that actually vote for a communist that says he wants to send unarmed social workers out to crime scenes. Yep, that’s what Chiraq chose to replace Beetlejuice in Chicago, whom they wanted rid of due to the spiraling crime rates. Frying pan, meet fire.

There is a heck of a disconnect between the brain of a leftist and reality. Of course, if they used voting machines for the elections, who knows.

Chicago Mayor-Elect Brandon Johnson (D) told CBS News on Thursday his plan to tackle the city’s crime problem: Send more social workers to crime scenes.

Johnson, a staunch progressive, pointed to instances where police killed black men as evidence to say more police officers are not the solution.

While this is away from the topic of self-defense, it does I think give a clue to the mindset of the politicians on the left.

IT NEVER ENDS: Biden Regime Set to Unleash Scheme to Wipe Out Gasoline-Powered Cars

The Biden regime is determined to force Americans to swallow their radical “climate change” agenda by any means necessary.

FOX News revealed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will announce the most restrictive standards in American history on gas-powered cars. The regulations will specifically target tailpipe emissions.

Under this plan, all Americans will likely be forced to buy electric vehicles, which is exactly what Biden wants.

Did this go through Congress? Senate? House? Hellloooo, did ya’ll vote for this? You’re our elected representatives, you answer to U.S. Did you sign off on this? Or did a tyrant just hijack your job in another blatant attempt to help China and limit the freedom of movement of American Citizens? The EPA, I don’t remember voting for them.

This is where I’m going with this, yes, there is a Second Amendment. However, if the Soros purchased D.A.s just ignore it (for some, not the protected class of course) and go ahead a prosecute even in a clear case of self-defense, does it matter? No ammo or guns were banned, it’s just if you defend yourself they will try to bankrupt you, or put you in jail for defending your life. If you’re not one of the BLM/Antifa rioters, or a repeat offender criminal, those they do catch and release.

Sometimes I read threads on Quora, there are discussion thread on all kinds of things. You might be reading a thread on a TV show, and the next thread under it is a question posted about “what would happen if I decided to take a gun away from someone I saw carrying” “Is there any reason I and some friends shouldn’t follow someone into a bathroom we know is carrying a gun and take it away from them”. “When will gun owners admit their right to have their weapons of death should not interfere with my right to feel safe”.

It is absolutely appalling to me the number of people that think they have the right to forcibly take private property from someone they don’t know, they aren’t doing anything wrong, and these moonbats think they are well within their rights to attack someone and steal from them. Thank you colleges, universities and MSM aka #FakeNews. If anything ever was a argument for concealed carry, it’s this sort of thing.

There is NO common ground to be found with these people. None.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Paper or Plastic? Check, Cash or Big Brother?

I guess through one source or another you’ve probably heard that just like FakeBook working for the CDC, and any other Federal alphabet that wants them to, same as Twatter in a Frankenstein combination of censorship and citizen control, the credit card companies have jumped on the donkey cart of big brother spying. The worst of private businesses working for the government against the citizens.

Mastercard Praises Congress’s Mid-Summer Passage of Gun Control

This announcement came after weeks of pressure from Gabby Giffords’ gun control group, Giffords, Democrat lawmakers in New York, and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D), all claiming that labeling gun purchases under categories such as sporting goods or general merchandise was not sufficient.

Hochul went so far as to contend that major credit card companies need to take action and “do their part” for gun control.

Credit Card Giants to Categorize Gun-Related Sales Separately, NRA Condemns ‘Erosion of Rights’

Visa announced Saturday that it is ready to join other major credit card companies to tag firearms-related purchases, a move that Second Amendment advocates argue would only put lawful gun owners under surveillance.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), a Switzerland-based group that sets and monitors quality standards for industries of all types, on Friday confirmed that one of its subcommittees had voted to establish a new merchant category code (MCC) for firearms, which previously fell into the “general merchandise” category.

BRAVE NEW WORLD? Credit Card Companies To Use Special Code To Track Gun Purchases

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that the mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, along with other elected officials and state pension fund trustees, have requested that major credit card companies implement a weapon code for the purchase of firearms and ammunition.

Officials in New York City and the state of New York have asked American Express, MasterCard, and Visa to make a four-digit merchant category code (MCC) like the ones used for other retail categories to better identify and report suspicious behavior, such as large purchases of firearms.

“The creation of a new code would help financial institutions detect and report suspicious activity, such as unusually large purchases of firearms or ammunition, or purchases from multiple stores, that may be used for criminal purposes,” it claimed.

Well, for a change, I won’t be all doom and gloom. I heard about something today and I wanted to pass it along. Instead of big brother plastic, how about using coin? Except it’s spelled “coign”. I admit I’m guessing it’s pronounced “coin”. It’s the first credit card for conservatives. While some have been issued and are using their cards, there is a waiting list. But I’m hoping if they get a lot of people signing up that it will be a far better alternative to the woke credit card companies out there now. I’ll change in a heartbeat when my turn comes. Here’s the FAQ site for them if you’re interested. https://www.coign.com/faqs

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

International Women’s Day

So International Women’s Day was a few days ago. This international woman spent it working.

I had a conversation with a girl friend recently. She said her boyfriend teases her about being a “manly woman” because she is able to do all kinds of things for herself without asking the help of a big strong man. I guess he thinks that would be him, snerk. Since I’m about 12 years older than she is I told her back in the 70s or so, that was called being a feminist. You could grow up to be whatever you wanted to be. Women became lawyers instead of the legal secretary, they became doctors instead of the nurse, they started becoming fire fighters and paramedics. Now when it comes to farming, the women have often, probably usually, worked as hard as the men. So really, the feminists were a bit behind the times there. But in general, it was more of a opening up of career choices. I still remember a interview with Stefanie Powers in which she talked about being with William Holden because she loved him and chose to be, not because she “needed” him. There were female police officers, female investigators and they carried guns, used them and it was part of the job.

My my, how feminism has deteriorated. As has the Demoncratic party, the party of “tolerance” as long as you agree with them. The party of “diversity”, as long as you hold all the opinions they tell you to. The party of “freedom”, as long as you are content with the scraps they are willing to let you keep. A few years ago when I wrote for another group it was gently suggested to me that I quit chewing up demoncrats and spitting them out in my columns. I was astonished. They are tasty with BBQ sauce, and besides, I could see what they were becoming. To be a demoncrat you have to sign on to their party platform. Which means you must be in favor of defenseless citizens. A demoncratic candidate may tell you they “support the Second Amendment” and maybe they do. But if they have any hopes of any committee appointments or advancement within the party, or support of the party, they will tow the line.

It’s a upside down kind of thing. President Trump is accused of being a misogynist and yet Trump’s Pick to Lead the Office of Violence Against Women Believes Guns Can Reduce Domestic Violence

President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Office of Violence Against Women believes that arming women in domestic violence situations is key to their safety, despite experts’ warnings that the introduction of guns into abusive relationships can imperil victims.

Shannon Lee Goessling, a former Florida prosecutor, has argued that women in domestic violence situations should take up arms against their abusers.

Perhaps President Trump doesn’t fully grasp the concept of being a misogynist?

In Indiana in 2017 there were two bills in the house on guns. One would allow a woman to use a useless order of protection as a instant permit to get a handgun. Perhaps Indiana didn’t want to be known like New Jersey is for killing a innocent woman named Carole Bowne.

Carol Bowne knew her best shot at defending herself from a violent ex was a gun, and not a piece of paper. And it was paperwork that left her unprotected when Michael Eitel showed up at her New Jersey home last week and stabbed her to death, say Second Amendment advocates, who charge local police routinely sit on firearms applications they are supposed to rule on within 30 days.

More recently there was a group of male legislators in New Hampshire that wore pearls to a hearing on confiscate guns first ask questions later “Red Flag” laws. A group of harpies lead by astro-turfer Shannon T.Watts were “outraged”, upset, angst ridden, miffed, full blown hissy fit pitching over it. Then a bit more came to light. Far from being anti-women or mocking towards women, these men had the audacity to believe that all people have rights. You don’t take things away from people because you don’t like the things they have. Unless you’re Mikey Bloomberg and it’s a 32 oz. Soda pop. Then you do. But gun rights activist Kimberly Morin of the Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire set the record straight.

Online, members of the Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire, a pro-guns organization, have said Watts and other Moms Demand Action members have it all wrong: the pearls symbolize opposition to the bill itself and support for the Second Amendment and the Women’s Defense League — support for women, not denigration of them.

“The PEARLS are in support of the Women’s Defense League. Women who ACTUALLY PROMOTE GUN SAFETY and WOMEN’S RIGHTS,” tweeted Kimberly Morin, president of the group.

Morin told a local newspaper that they’ve been wearing pearls for this reason since 2016. She accused Watts, who lives in Colorado, of being an out-of-state “paid hack” who is lobbying for gun control legislation from afar and whose group doesn’t understand local politics. In a day-long Twitter offensive, Morin also called the Moms Demand Action volunteers “harpies,” a reference to a creature from Greek mythology that had the body of a bird and the head of a human woman.

The harpies of course, don’t think women should have the chance to choose which defensive tool they can wield to their best advantage in being safe. Boy howdy, that’s some “open-minded” isn’t it?

Speaking of open minded, the Occasional-Cortex has chimed in on the gun control debate. Being the good little socialist-communist she is, she is keeping a “list” of her enemies and harangued the Demoncrats that didn’t vote lock step on gun control as San Fran Nan wanted. Occasional-Cortex apparently can’t read about what is going on in Venezuela these days. But considering she’s a “Post Turtle” and how she got where she is, hardly shocking. She won an audition…..

Which probably explains why she thinks her “Green new/raw deal” is great.

The Occasional-Cortex speaks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not only is she arrogant, she’s easily led. From the founder of Greenpeace believe it or not.

Demoncrats were once a time thought of as the party of Jews. As demoncrats celebrate their incredible diversity with the addition of 3 antisemitic women it is becoming ever more obvious, they never were in the first place. Its the new position of the left, and it’s not just an American phenomena. Democrats’ Support for Israel in Rapid Decline. Israel, the one and only Jewish state in the world. The left has no problem with the many muslim states (including Franceistan, Germanyistan, Swedenistan and Englandistan) only the one Jewish state it seems. One of these things is not like the other?

But hey, they’re women, and now they’re powerful, so celebrate right? Sexist much?

The media and the demoncratic party excuse and cover up the antisemitism. Dear Rep. Ilhan Omar, Do Not Gaslight Us Jews even the Daily Freir chimed in. They are a humor site, in case you didn’t know. Pelosi restricts Ilhan Omar to just one anti-Jewish tweet per week.

But hey, she’s a woman, and a muslim, and new, and fresh so content of character is not important and will not be considered.

And all these women are hell bent on leaving other women at the mercy of abusers, known and unknown to them.

Woman tells 9-1-1 dispatcher she shot a man who wouldn’t leave her home

The daughter told the emergency dispatcher the man was hitting her mother and was trying to shoot her mother. The woman took the phone from her daughter and related what happened.

“I asked him to leave,” she said to the emergency dispatcher. “He will not put his hands on me or my children. He’s still in my house. I tried to do this nicely.”

When the dispatcher asked the woman whether she shot the man, the woman said, “Yes ma’am, I did…. He needs an ambulance.”

What happened to “If it saves just one life”? Was that mother’s life not important? The children’s lives not important?

I ask you, what in all that above is cause to celebrate anything about International Women’s Day? Well, excepting Kimberly Morin. These women have done nothing good, noble or even mildly helpful! Where is the feminism in putting other women in a position where they are less secure and able to defend themselves? Ok, they’re women, so what?

I say if we’re going to celebrate women’s day, that we have models of good, courageous, noble women to hold up. Not just some flotsam or jetsam that someone tripped over. So I’ll give you some amazing women.

18 Incredibly Brave Jewish Women

And then there’s this woman. Lepa Radić.

17-year-old Lepa Radić was a Bosnian Serb who fought with the partisans during WWII but never got to see the Nazis lose the war. In February 1943, Lepa was captured. The Nazis tied a rope around her neck but offered her a way out. All she has to do is reveal her comrades’ and leaders’ identities.
Lepa responded:
“You will know them when they come to avenge me.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMAZING: #Kurdish female soldiers dancing in #Raqqa after defeating ISIS, on streets where #ISIS bought and sold women. A great video!

https://twitter.com/HananyaNaftali/status/1104290725175455744

You know, ISIS, Omar’s buddies?

These kinds of women, now these women deserve celebrating and being remembered!

I’m not all that crazy about “Women’s Day”. I think there are fine and noble people of both genders that should be celebrated. The idea of celebrating people just because they are women regardless of how they act as humans bothers me. Perhaps when they have “International Men’s Day” I’ll rethink the issue. Feminism has become a perverse image of what it was supposed to have been. Instead of truly empowering women, it strives to weaken them, to instill a victim mindset. The left’s idea of power is wearing a stupid pink hat with ears or a hashtag. Geez. Maybe I’m just cranky and need to spend some time with my emotional support animal.

My Emotional Support Animal
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Savage Ignorance Part II

Unreasonably warm temperatures (55° on 13, December) spawn tourist outbreaks along woodland trails. How does one differentiate tourists from regular hikers and mountain bikers? Voices as loud as their clothing, hands crammed with devices and radios, unleashed trail-poopers (dogs), and packs of even louder chubby fast-food wrapper spewing hotdog fingered kids for whom being chained to a hamster wheel for six months…without food, would be beneficial. People attend movies to laugh, cry, and escape reality if but for a short time. Conversations, seat-kickers, and cell phone glow can spoil the experience. In like fashion, nature is spoiled when rude civilization intrudes. Didn’t the Bush Administration argue the fight against Tourists was international? Didn’t they coin the term “GWOT” for “Global War On Tourism?” Recently I considered reporting a herd of Tourists to Homeland Security. None appeared menacing, not even their dogs, and some seemed friendly enough. But isn’t that what people say when told their neighbor ran over pedestrians with a truck or blew themselves up at the train station killing many people? I’m keeping an eye on them.

In Part I, I began exposing Michael Savage’s campaign to ban private ownership of certain firearms and magazines, in which he employed arguments perfectly useful…to Confiscationists. If I don’t like Savage, why listen to him? I don’t. I used to enjoy his wit and irreverent humor but his undisguised jealousy of conservative radio-talk show hosts and promotion of a Buddha-ized version of Judaism wore thin. His claim to be the only true radio conservative on the one hand, and assertion FDR’s socialist New Deal solved the Great Depression on the other, was the final straw. Anyone with a modicum of understanding with respect to economics, history, and the Constitution knows this is false. I listen when necessary because 2nd Amendment supporters must be prepared to answer its enemies. Las Vegas was the impetus for Savage’s first salvo against the right to keep and bear arms as the second was the Sutherland, Texas church shooting.

On 6 November, 2017 Savage resurrected with a vengeance his anti-2nd Amendment rant from the previous month yelling into the microphone; “Don’t tell me if everyone had a gun in that church they could have stopped the killer! You John Wayne types.” With a sneer he added, “And please don’t play John Wayne with me on this show. I’m going to hang up on you if you call and say if all those church-goers had had a gun, this wouldn’t have happened. Yeah, you John Wayne types. You’d freeze up, drop the gun, and shoot yourself in the foot if evil came into your church with an ‘assault rifle” (sic). He asked how the “shooter,”1 a nut, got a gun. “Why? Because gun laws are too weak” Savage continued. “Gun shows are wide open ranges and anyone can buy a gun there.” He mocked conservatives arguing more guns are the answer and pastors saying G_d is with us even in the midst of such tragedies. Savage insisted every “nut”2 in the nation can buy an AR15 because of “lax gun laws” and the killer was allowed to buy an “automatic rifle.” Although Savage conceded he was ultimately stopped by a man with a gun, “That was only after he had killed everyone” he said and then trotted out an argument near and dear to the hearts of liberals with respect to the 2nd Amendment; “People have a constitutional right to drive,” Savage argued, which comes with all sorts of regulations, licensing requirements, training, and tests to enjoy this “right” (sic). People have to “demonstrate” knowledge of how to operate the car and that they can drive before getting behind the wheel. Why isn’t this true with guns? Then he shouted; “Why is the right to own firearms one hundred percent free from licensing, but not the right to drive? All you tough guys who want ‘assault weapons’ (sic) say, ‘well that government will come down and get us. Let’s roll armed and go out like the militia.’ Yeah, all the tough guys on conservative radio are going to lead you. Onward Christian soldiers with their ‘assault weapons’ (sic). They’ll run so fast you wouldn’t be able to say Mickey Mouse.” Wow. During this diatribe Savage let out he has a concealed carry permit. How does one obtain a permit in radical Left-wing People’s Republic of Marin County of California’s Bay Area? You can’t unless you’re a rich celebrity or well-connected. But, Savage confessed, he’d be too scared to use his firearm so he has two body-guards. Are they armed? When it comes to self-defense, how long must Americans endure being preached down to by upper-crust gated community, goon-protected self-styled aristocrats? It reminds me of the unquenchable hypocrisy flowing from ultra-rich super-liberal Senator Ed Kennedy raging about the plight of the poor in America. Savage continued railing against conservatives claiming the “knee-jerk” reaction from “right-wingers” is; “You can’t touch guns. But we must touch guns!” He yelled becoming unhinged. “Tell me I’m wrong that every nut-job in the world shouldn’t be able to get ‘assault-weapons’ (sic). You’re wrong! Too many nuts have their hands on too many guns!” He accused conservatives of arguing “nuts” should be allowed to have guns adding that those who claim they “need assault-weapons” (sic) for home defense “would poop in their pants instead. People armed is not the answer!” He shouted.3

On the following day, Savage claimed “right-wingers” oppose any and all restrictions on who can have a gun and the number of rounds held by a “clip” adding; “I have no idea why anyone in this country ‘needs’ a thirty-round clip (sic). Who really needs an assault-rifle? What, to hunt elephants? Don’t they use single-shot rifles, in .30-06 to hunt elephants? A single round from that caliber would drop an elephant. So what in the hell do we need a thirty-round ‘clip’ (sic) for? I know, you’re going to stand up like Paul Revere and you’re going to say Charge! You won’t say charge. You’ll drop your gun, you’ll drop your shorts, and you’ll run like everyone else. Stop pretending that you’re a big hero!” He then called for banning “assault weapons” (Meaning ARs, AKs, and similar function rifles) and “multiple round ‘clips” claiming this would limit the number of guns in circulation hence limiting criminal access. The Texas killer was able to kill so many people because “He had a machine gun in his hands!” Savage shouted. But, with an “assault-weapons” (sic) ban, he continued, the killer would have been forced to use a single-shot rifle which would have allowed the men in the church to have subdued him by beating him over the head with a chair. To this insanity Savage added; “One in five police officers is killed by an assault-rifle” and then he screamed; “I no longer believe Americans need to run around with thirty-round ‘clips’ (sic) and assault rifles! When the hell did the 2nd Amendment ever say you had the right to own an ‘assault-weapon?’ (sic) What am I going to do with one, wait for the day the government comes to get me? I’m going to hold off a platoon of government agents? You people are living in a dream world!” He then asserted, as before, AR15s were useless for home defense. The best weapon, he said, is a shotgun but they “are complicated to use” and “their mechanisms are complex, not for amateurs.” Savage again claimed an AR15 round will go through house walls but shotgun pellets would not. A pistol round might go through a wall but this was unlikely, he claimed, because they had 15 to 20 round “clips” (sic) as opposed to the thirty-round capacity of “assault-weapons” (sic). Finally Savage claimed because there are restrictions on the 1st Amendment, you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater or threaten the president, banning “assault-weapons” and thirty-round “clips” didn’t violate the 2nd Amendment. “There’s a difference between the right to bear arms and the right to bear machine-guns” he said.4

It would be beyond charitable to describe what Savage said as either abysmally ignorant or intentionally deceptive. His persistence in calling magazines “clips” and conflation of the terms “assault-weapon” (no such animal), assault-rifle, and machine gun with semiautomatic rifles demonstrates his knowledge of firearms is limited, at best, and promotion of an agenda supersedes honesty.

Conceding the Texas killer was stopped by an armed man but this would have failed inside the church because, Barney Fife-like, fear-stricken and trembling men would have dropped their guns shooting themselves is illogical. It is stupid. It also ignores the many, more than capable, men and women who carry and could have stopped the killer. It makes no sense unless Savage, shamed there are real people with spines out there, beyond the Bay Area, in places like Texas, is projecting his own timorous nature onto others. During any mass shooting event, in the time it takes to call the police, for them to respond, set up a command post, assess the situation, identify the good from the bad guy(s), and formulate a counter-response, the massacre is usually over. Contrary to the lies told by Savage, when a “good-guy” with a gun is on the scene, casualties are “dramatically lower” and is often the deciding factor in limiting the “body count.” In nine mass shootings in which victims had to wait for police arrive, from Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, Texas (16 October, 1991) to Pulse Night Club, Orlando, Florida (12 June, 2016) 220 people died. In eight similar shootings in which an armed good-guy was on the scene, from Pearl High School, Pearl, Mississippi (1 October, 1997) to the Curtis Culwell Center, Garland, Texas (3 May 2015), 37 people died.5 Savage’s attack on men and women willing to shoulder the responsibility for the safety of others, putting their own lives on the line, is disgraceful.

Why do liberals seem to go after the rights of law-abiding Americans as opposed to violent criminals (Chicago)? Why do they mock and ridicule notions of personal responsibility with respect to self-defense? Are the spines of liberal men removed in-vitro or do they dissolve naturally as they progress toward puberty? Savage’s allegation; conservatives want every “nut” to have guns, is a malicious lie and ignores the fact that, under “federal” law, they are already prohibited from so doing. Information on anyone institutionalized and or adjudicated “mentally defective” by mental health officials and judges must be forwarded to the FBI where it is entered into their massive data base known as NICS (National Instant Criminal Background System). If anyone so classified attempts to purchase a firearm, once the FFL (Federal Firearm License) holder calls and submits the individual’s name as required by law, they will be rejected. Further, as to Savage’s assertion armed law-abiding citizens are not the “answer,” approximately 2.5 million people per year employ a firearm to prevent violent criminal attack. In 98% of those cases, displaying the firearm is enough to stop the attack.6 Instead of reducing violent crime, Savage’s solution, disarming intended victims, always the first on the scene by virtue of their status as targets of criminals, would lead to even more murders and mass shootings.

Savage’s analogy between the “right” to drive and to keep and bear arms is slick sleight of hand. There is no constitutional right to drive and it is untrue that the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms is completely unregulated, unrestricted, and unlicensed. All manner of legal restrictions, including age, legal status as a citizen, mental health, criminal record, and so forth apply to obtaining a firearm. Savage ignores the fact that each year more than 37,000 Americans are killed by other drivers in automobile accidents, essentially negligent homicide, with an additional 2.35 million injured, maimed, and crippled. Automobile accidents are the single greatest cause of death in the United States.7 Speaking as a passionate car lover and former police traffic investigator, Americans in general are careless, cavalier in attitude, irresponsible, and exert little effort to perfect driving skills. And yet once started, they and their automobiles pose a grave hazard to everyone in their path. By contrast, more than 124 million Americans own close to 300 million guns but there were only 505 deaths by gun accident in 2013 and of 2,596,993 deaths from all causes the same year, only 1% were firearm related and most were suicides.8 Comparing drivers to people who own guns makes for a very poor argument. One wonders to which constitution he refers.

The right to keep and bear arms is not subject to a utilitarian “needs” test. It’s no one’s business how many neckties, cars, horses, guns, or pairs of shoes anyone owns. People have a G_d-given right to their property and to accumulate however much of it they desire. But, for the non-gun owning public swayed by such arguments, let me ask you this; how many guns, rounds (not bullets) of ammunition, and magazines will you need when the power goes out, it’s not coming back on for a long time, and when called, the cops aren’t coming either. Remember the riots in Los Angeles (1992), Ferguson, Missouri (August 2014), and Baltimore (April 2015) and attendant looting, robbery, destruction of private property, and even assaults including murder? Where were the cops? Where was the National (sic) Guard? Natural disasters like Hurricanes Andrew (August 1992), Katrina (August 2005), and Harvey (sic) (August 2017) all resulted in attempted looting, rape, robbery, and destruction of property. Again, where were the police? In each case it was armed citizens, or lack thereof, who prevented crime or fell to predatory animals called looters.

Savage’s attempt to delegitimize semiautomatic rifles by tying them to elephant hunting is pathetic. No one hunts elephants with so-called “assault rifles,” nor a .30-06 single shot rifle. It is illegal to hunt elephants (as is the case with buffalo, Rhinos, and lions) with a caliber smaller than the .375 H&H. Most professional and experienced hunters use either the .404 Jeffrey, .416 Rigby, .416 Remington, .458 Winchester, or the .470 Nitro Express in bolt action repeating rifles.9 The point is not to argue the efficacy of one caliber compared to another but to demonstrate Savage hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about. These are all strawman arguments. Savage also seems ignorant of the fact that it was the American citizen soldier; the farmer, mechanic, tradesman, shopkeeper, and laborer, trained to arms, who were the backbone of the resistance to Britain’s armies in the War of Independence possessing modern equivalents of the “assault rifles” of their time.

In Federalist Paper #28, Alexander Hamilton declared the people held an “original right of self-defense” to take up arms, resist, and defeat even their own government should it betray and usurp their liberties.10 In Federalist #29, Hamilton added the “best possible security” against a standing army was the whole body of the people, who are armed and “stand ready to defend their own rights.”11 In the Federalist Papers and writings of many other Founding Fathers it becomes clear the main purpose of an armed populace, not a military or National (sic) Guard was to serve as a bulwark against infringement of their liberties by their own government.

Savage’s claim one in five police officers is killed in the line of duty by “assault-rifles” is false. It comes, from Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat, California), who appeared on Face the Nation making this claim. She took this “statistic” from the Violence Policy Center, a virulently anti-2nd Amendment Leftist organization. Here’s the trick. California classifies all semiautomatic firearms, including pistols, rifles, and shotguns, as “assault-weapons” (sic) a classification rejected by the FBI. Feinstein and Savage conflate California’s broad and ambiguous “assault-weapons” category with semiautomatic rifles meaning ARs, but this is a lie. Roughly 1% of officers shot and killed in the line of duty are killed by semiautomatic rifles.12 Using lies spun by ultra-liberal Senator Feinstein and an extremist anti-2nd Amendment group? Does Savage attack conservatives so viciously, while claiming to be one himself because, well, he’s not really one after all?

More demonstrations of ignorance can be found in Savage’s claim that shotguns are complicated and complex to use. This is absurd. A shotgun is typically one of the first guns kids learn to shoot because its operation is so simple. His claim AR15 rounds will, but shotgun pellets won’t penetrate sheetrock walls is wrong to the point of being dangerous. They all will. Finally, his use of the hackneyed “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” cliché is another liberal shibboleth. Pay attention Michael; the 1st Amendment is a prohibition against government interfering with free political speech. For it to be free, one must rightly possess or control the platform from which one speaks. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is not political speech nor does its shouter own the platform from which they yell. At the least, it’s a property rights violation of the theater owner, the sole determiner of what will or will not be said on his platform. The same holds true for threats against the president. These are fallacious if not atrocious analogues.

Savage’s straw man arguments and discreditable analogies demonstrate ignorance of the fact America’s Declaration of Independence proclaimed all rights G_d-given, inalienable, and among them is life. They are off limits to a majority vote of one’s neighbors or act of government. Inherent in the right to life is the right to protect it which also presupposes the means to do so. It is an illegal and unconstitutional act by man or his governments to alter, modify, regulate, infringe upon, or in any way denature a G_d-given right. It is not possible to square calls for “reasonable gun laws,” which by their nature must violate the 2nd Amendment, with equal claims to support the 2nd Amendment.

11 Typically I employ terms like: Killer, murderer, dirt bag, scum bag, and so forth. A shooter is someone engaged in target practice and competition at the range. Never let your foes and the ignorant shape the narrative through misuse, intentional or not, of vocabulary.

22 Unless someone clearly defines what they mean by “nut,” you should not presume you share the same understanding. For example, to me the term applies to an individual clinically diagnosed as schizophrenic. A person suffering an emotional meltdown, depression, or PTSD, for example, is not necessarily insane, often far from it. Savage lumps them, including soldiers returning from war who have difficulty adjusting to civilian life with the same broad brush as the insane. Cops who have seen too great a loss of life, in tragic ways, too many times and are having trouble dealing with it, could, under Savage’s broad brush, be characterized as nuts as well. They are not.

33 Michael Savage, The Savage Nation, broadcast 6 November 2017.

44 Michael Savage, The Savage Nation, broadcast 7 November, 2017.

55 Caleb, “Fact: Armed Citizens Do Stop Mass Active Killers,” 16 June, 2016, at http://www.preparedgunowners.com.

66 Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime,” at http://scholarlcommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol186/iss1/8/1995. See also John R. Lott, Jr., More Gun’s Less Crime (Chicago, Illinois, The University of Chicago Press, 1998)

88 Atlanta Center For Disease Control at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/invsr64/nvsr64_02pdf.

99 Cameron Hopkins, “African Big Game Hunting Rifles,” American Hunter (July 9 2010).

1010 Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, Clinton Rossiter, Editor, The Federalist Papers (New York, N.Y., A Mentor Book, New American Library, 1961), 178-181.

1111 IBID. 182-187.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Self Defense notions from a Patriarch

So this last week the Parasha was Vayishlach. This is an exciting portion. It’s when Jacob/Yakov/Israel returns home from his exile working for his crooked uncle Laban. Yakov had fled his brother Esav’s murderous rage after Esav regretted having sold his birthright for a bowl of beans, lentils. Esav didn’t value his birthright in the least. Probably a message in there for those that would pressure Israel to give up land for peace. It never works, because like Esav, they just always want more and don’t keep their end of the bargain. So, Yakov is returning home with his wives, their handmaidens and 12 children, a passel of camels, donkeys, sheep, goats and some servants. Yakov has done well, he is a very successful shepherd. But, he is in a quandary, what will his meeting with his brother be like? Will Esav still want to kill him, or will time have mellowed him. Yakov sends angels to ascertain his intentions. Turns out Esav hasn’t changed a bit. He’s heading towards Yakov with 400 men. Yakov is way outnumbered.

Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed (Gen. 32:8)

From Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks:

The fear is understandable, but his response contains an enigma. Why the duplication of verbs? What is the difference between fear and distress? To this a Midrash gives a profound answer:

Rabbi Judah bar Ilai said: Are not fear and distress identical? The meaning, however, is that “he was afraid” that he might be killed; “he was distressed” that he might kill. For Jacob thought: If he prevails against me, will he not kill me; while if I prevail against him, will I not kill him? That is the meaning of “he was afraid” – lest he should be killed; “and distressed” – lest he should kill.

And this brings us to self-defense.

One might argue that Jacob should surely not be distressed about the possibility of killing Esau, for there is an explicit rule: “If someone comes to kill you, forestall it by killing him.” Nonetheless, Jacob did have qualms, fearing that in the course of the fight he might kill some of Esau’s men, who were not themselves intent on killing him but merely on fighting his men. And even though Esau’s men were pursuing Jacob’s men, and every person has the right to save the life of the pursued at the cost of the life of the pursuer, nonetheless there is a condition: “If the pursued could have been saved by maiming a limb of the pursuer, but instead the rescuer killed the pursuer, the rescuer is liable to capital punishment on that account.” Hence Jacob feared that, in the confusion of battle, he might kill some of Esau’s men when he might have restrained them by merely inflicting injury on them.

Self defense is very definitely a Jewish concept, but unlike his brother Esav who delights in it, Yakov will do so if required, but he wants to avoid it. The taking of a life is not something to be done lightly. So what did he do to try to prevent needless loss of life?

He had a three pronged approach. Prayer, he threw himself on G-d’s mercy, he sent lavish tribute female and male goats, sheep, donkeys, camels all with the proper proportion for the most effective breeding program. Sort of a gift that keeps on giving. But then he prepared for battle. He divided his people into camps, his thinking was that if one camp was attacked the other might escape. Then he had the children with each of their mothers. Yakov knew the four women would fight for their children, so he left the children with their mothers, then he placed himself in front of them. Esav would have to go through Yakov to get to his family.

I’ve heard the opinion that if Yakov had really trusted G-d there would have been none of this battle preparation business. He would have just gone and met his brother. I don’t agree with this opinion. I think people are people and they have plans of their own. Plans I may not appreciate or agree with. I think if their plans concern me, I want a say in how they turn out. As Esav’s plans would have included Yakov’s family, I figure he felt the same way. There are cemeteries with those that refused to believe anything bad would happen to them. I’ve heard that there were Jews in the Warsaw ghetto that refused the chance to escape because they didn’t really think the nazis wanted to annihilate them, and perhaps, because they expected a miracle. I heard Rabbi Tovia Singer say in a lecture that while the Jewish nation will always be preserved, that promise does not extend to individuals. I’ve also heard it said that when you pray for help, you usually have to do something, expend some kind of effort for him to have something to help you with. And so, Yakov had his three pronged approach, which ultimately was successful. There was no battle between brothers, only a brotherly meeting, with quite possibly temporary brotherly feelings judging from Yakov’s refusal of Esav’s offer to escort them. It’s like having a black snake to guard your chicken house from mice. Yeah….the snake may eat the mice, but more than likely it is eating the chicken eggs, and/or baby chicks. I’ll pass, and Yakov did as well.

Yakov and concealed carry holders face a moral dilemma. More from Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks.

Moral dilemmas are situations in which doing the right thing is not the end of the matter. The conflict may be inherently tragic. Jacob, in this parsha, finds himself trapped in such a conflict: on the one hand, he ought not allow himself to be killed; on the other, he ought not kill someone else; but he must do one or the other. The fact that one principle (self-defence) overrides another (the prohibition against killing) does not mean that, faced with such a choice, he is without qualms, especially given the fact that Esau is his twin brother. Despite their differences, they grew up together. They were kin. This intensifies the dilemma yet more. Sometimes being moral means that one experiences distress at having to make such a choice. Doing the right thing may mean that one does not feel remorse or guilt, but one still feels regret or grief about the action that needs to be taken.

Even people of great faith, realize that there is a time to “Praise the L-rd and pass the ammunition”.

There is nothing about being prepared with a gun, a concealed carry endorsement if your state requires it, that says you don’t believe that G-d can and will keep you safe. We have fire extinguishers and spare tires, right? We have generators for bad weather, and carry an umbrella. The right tool for the right time.

That I think, is one of the things about concealed carry holders that leftists, politicians and the #FakeNews (sometimes one in the same) don’t understand about “gun nuts”. We are not anxious to kill, we don’t want to do that. What we do want is for us and our families to be safe.

Heat seeking bullets, who knew? Did BassPro have these listed in the Black Friday flier?

Self defense is not a spur of the minute deal. We put thought into what gun, training tactics, classes and tests to be able to live as free citizens. Just like Yakov had his three pronged approach for meeting Esav, we too plan our defenses.

These mixed feelings were born thousands of years earlier, when Jacob, father of the Jewish people, experienced not only the physical fear of defeat but the moral distress of victory. Only those who are capable of feeling both, can defend their bodies without endangering their souls.

Because like Yakov facing Esav, there can be bigger, stronger, mightier evil that hates us.

Elected Moonbat Swalwell
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Savage Ignorance Part 1

Beretta92FS
1911A1
Glock 19 Gen 4

Recently I had occasion to patronize several commercial establishments including an apartment complex. Displayed on the glass entry door of each was the international symbol for “No,” a red circle bisected by a diagonal line. Centered in each was a handgun; Beretta 92FS in the first, 1911A1, possibly a Colt, in the second, and a Glock 19, Gen 4 in the third. I thought; thank G-d for Smith & Wesson. Why do those responsible for malls, schools, stores, apartments, and venues open to the public believe posting these stickers deters those bent on violent behavior? Criminals, by behavior and definition, exist outside the law and if legal prohibitions against them possessing firearms provide no dissuasion, a decal surely won’t. Instead they disarm the law-abiding, the only ones already on the scene capable of halting violent crime and mass shootings.

Webster’s Dictionary (a virginal source of information for today’s public school students) define Straw Man as: “a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up to be easily confuted (overwhelm in argument, refute conclusively).”1 Talk show host and baron of bombast Michael Savage knows something about Strawmen. Recently he launched a series of attacks on the 2nd Amendment, specifically semiautomatic rifles as well as their owners. His wild assertions were an army of scarecrows so stuffed with combustible straw, one dared draw nigh with matches at his own risk. When anyone says; “I own guns” or “I’m a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment” followed by a “but,” they don’t. They’re lying. It’s a trick to seize the intellectual and moral high ground thereby casting those in disagreement as extremists. Savage case in point. He began each show declaring support for the 2nd Amendment followed by an angry frothing at the mouth denunciation of firearms owners and notions of self-defense. In so doing, he promoted arguments undercutting the very amendment he purports to defend. Hay crammed in his Strawmen must have been plucked from the field of contradiction.

Savage’s first broadside came the day after the Las Vegas, Nevada Mandalay Bay Hotel mass shooting. He said he was a gun owner, big supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and to have given a “fortune” to the NRA apparently believing by brandishing such credentials he was immunized against critique. Savage asked if Americans should be able (allowed) to own “military grade weapons” and “assault rifles,” terms left undefined. He asked; should a man in therapy and on medication for mental problems be allowed to own a gun? If concealed carry was legal, how could armed citizens have stopped the killer’s rampage Savage demanded to know. In mocking tones he added; “Gun-slingers will say that. No matter what you hold in your pocket, you couldn’t have defended yourself. Fallacious argument. All you John Wayne’s with concealed carry on your mind, put it aside. You’d have gone down like ten pins.” He asked why anyone “needed” an “automatic weapon” declaring there needs to be “limits.” Should people be “allowed” to own a Howitzer, Russian tank, or bazooka? No one “needs” a semiautomatic rifle to defend their house, Savage continued, saying a shotgun was much better in that role. “The whole idea you’re going to get a semiautomatic rifle to hold off an army, come on. Stop the BS. If someone breaks into your house all you’ll have time to grab in the dark is a shotgun and an automatic pistol, not a semiautomatic rifle. Unless you keep a semiautomatic weapon fully loaded, and in your bedroom, it’s not going to do you any good. And if you do keep one, you’re crazy. If you keep a semiautomatic rifle next to your bed cocked and locked and ready to fire, you’re a sicko.” He then mocked Mandalay survivors who said they were no longer atheists. Next he attacked unnamed conservative talk-show radio hosts who, after Mandalay Bay, still opposed new gun control laws and regulations, yelling into the microphone; “You bunch of John Wayne’s!” He accused them of calling people like him, now supporting stricter new gun control laws; “lousy communist Progressives” adding in sneering tones; “No one wants to seize your guns otherwise it would have happened during the Obama years.” He asked how the killer had obtained “machine guns” because “they’re illegal” reminding listeners he wasn’t new to the gun control debate and had been on his high school rifle team. He asked if every psycho in the nation should own machine guns. “Did you know machine guns are legal in Nevada?” Savage continued. “But of course, fully automatic rifles are illegal.” What? Come again. Continuing in mocking tones, he asked who “needed” a fifty round drum magazine. “They should be illegal!” He shouted. “I argued this before. When I asked callers why they ‘needed’ one, they said to hold off the U.S. government which is against the private ownership of firearms.”2

Savage continued his assault on the 2nd Amendment the following day floating hysterical conspiracy theories attacking the Las Vegas Police for taking too long to assault the killer’s hotel room. Once again he reminded listeners he was a gun owner, “passed all the tests,” and gave money to the NRA therefore his calls for new gun bans had to be reasonable. Again he asked if the right to keep and bear arms included hand grenades, bazookas, used Russian tanks, and half-tracks asking; “Should there be limits on the right to keep and bear arms? What do you mean saying the 2nd Amendment ‘permits’ you to have any number of machine guns? Does this mean you can own two hundred machine guns, that every man should be able to have an arsenal in his basement? I can see having weapons to defend yourself but does that mean an entire arsenal? Why not RPGs and flame throwers? I don’t think the 2nd Amendment goes far enough” he continued in sarcastic tones. “I think we should be allowed to have flame throwers for that evil government that may arise any moment now. We should be able to have flame throwers.” During Savage’s shows, he insisted on calling magazines “clips” and using the terms semi and fully automatic rifles interchangeably.3 He entertained, as experts, numerous callers claiming because they had been in Vietnam, they knew precisely what weapons the suspect used (opinions subsequently contradicted by the FBI). Many voices sounded too tender to have been alive let alone old enough to have served in Vietnam. Once again he labeled anyone holding contrary views as “John Wayne’s” and “right- wingers” promising to hang up on them if they called his show. Savage concluded by attacking the Las Vegas Police, again, and blaming mass shootings on prescription drugs and the “proliferation of guns.”4

Savage’s claims and Straw Man arguments are wrong on so many levels, space and sufficient matches probably don’t exist to address them all. His oft repeated claim to be a firearms authority, supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and NRA backer is artifice, a trick as noted, to prevent debate to the contrary.

As to the efficacy of concealed firearms with respect to the Mandalay massacre, handguns are designed for self-defense at personal distances not against someone shooting rifles from the 32nd floor of a hotel window hundreds of yards away. Savage’s attempt to undermine concealed carry by judging its validity against situations for which it was never intended is a fallacious straw man argument a practice he accuses critics of employing. Does he really know what he’s talking about?

Doctors don’t use the terms bacterial and viral infection interchangeably. Weight lifters know the difference between dumb and barbells. Authorities on any subject use proper terminology. Improper use exposes pretenders, poseurs, and frauds. For example, in Stephen King’s novel Salem’s Lot, his policeman character checks his .38 special revolver to ensure the “safety is on.”5 A kid in his novel IT, warns another kid to be careful with his dad’s pistol, a Walther PPK, because it has “no safety.”6 In the movie The Fast And The Furious, Vin Diesel’s character Dominic Torretto tells Paul Walker that his dad’s 1970 Dodge Charger’s engine had so much torque, it twisted the “chassis” coming off the line.7 As a Deputy Sheriff and later policeman in the 1970s and 80’s, I carried and or shot Ruger, Smith & Wesson, and Colt revolvers in .38 special and .357 magnum. None, nor those on revolvers of colleagues, had a “safety.” I’ve also shot a variety of PPKs from Walther and Manurhin and their clones from FEG to Bersa and each had de-cocker safeties. Except for the Imperial (1965), Chrysler abandoned the chassis in favor of a uni-body frame, (1960-1961), which my 68’ Charger has, exposing The Fast And The Furious’s writers to be automotive ignoramuses. In like fashion, Savage insisted on referring to drums and other magazines feeding semiautomatic pistols and rifles as “clips” and conflated “assault weapons, assault rifle, semiautomatic rifle,” and “machine gun” as interchangeable terms, one and the same over and over.

A “clip” holds individual cartridges, “has no spring and does not feed shells directly into the chamber. Clips hold cartridges in the correct sequence for ‘charging’ a specific firearm’s [fixed] magazine.”8 A magazine holds rounds in a box, separate from the firearm for the weapons under discussion. Examples of clip “fed” firearms would include the Russian Mosin-Nagant 91/30 and American M1 Garand of W.W. II fame as well as the postwar Soviet SKS. Cold War weapons like the Soviet AK-47, U.S. M14, and later M16, are magazine fed. No such category of “assault weapon” exists for firearms. Any object that can be used to hurt another; flyswatter, umbrella, coat-hanger, or kitchen counter hardened wedge of cornbread is an assault weapon. The term “assault-weapon” was invented by liberals to frighten non-gun owners into believing your AR15 is identical to an M16 and that AKs and Mini-14s are full-automatic machine guns. Repeat after me; “The other side lies.” Editor of Jane’s Military Publications and firearms expert Charlie Cutshaw writes there are firearms categorized as “assault-rifles” but to be so classified they must be “shoulder-fired,” capable of fully automatic fire,” and chambered in a caliber intermediate “between pistol (or revolver) and rifle ammunition.”9 Some have a device allowing operators to switch from semiautomatic to full-automatic fire and back again. Commercial AK47s, AR15s, Mini-14s, and similar families of rifles don’t have this capability. Their triggers must be pulled, one at a time, for each round fired hence they are not “assault rifles” but “semiautomatic rifles” and “carbines.” “Machine guns” are typically heavy and tripod mounted, with hand held versions called “submachine guns,” and are capable of full automatic fire, emptying a magazine with a single pull of the trigger.10 Consistent misuse of terminology indicates Savage is grossly ignorant and misinformed, flagrantly dishonest, or both. He has no credibility.

No one wants to take your guns is the mantra of people, who, in the same breath, call for “assault weapons” (sic) and “high-capacity” (sic) bans. Time and again Liberals from anti-2nd Amendment organizations to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have said no one wants to take your guns and then promote Australian gun control which did just that. They are either stupid or brilliantly cunning. Perhaps dangerously naïve, I have never called liberals stupid because they’re not. Recall that U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake essentially resurrected the “sporting purpose” standard in upholding Maryland’s ban on AK and AR rifles mislabeling them “assault rifles” asserting they are not commonly used for lawful purposes including home defense.11 Liberals claiming; no one wants to confiscate guns, followed by proposals to ban AR, AK, and similar rifles, sounds contradictory until one understands their two pronged “trick”; the first is how they define “gun.”12 Confiscationists define “gun” in general as a firearm possessing a long established sporting purpose commonly used for hunting, trap and skeet shooting, and target competition at ranges and with no military analogue.13 This would exclude ARs, AKs, FN-FALs, and so forth. The second part of their trick is to convince the non-gun owning pubic there is no difference between full and semiautomatic firearms. Obama and others said time and again, AR15s, AKs, their derivatives, and similar rifles are military weapons that belong on battlefields, not our streets. It would not be confiscation, they argue, to return military weapons in civilian hands back to the U.S. Military where they belong.14 The only way to do this is through a ban on “civilian” possession of semiautomatic rifles and confiscate them as did Australia and England, and incrementally in California. How can Savage, living in Marin County, California, one of the most liberally infected in the galaxy, deny confiscation is not the liberal’s end game? He lies.

Like Judge Blake, Savage’s claim no one uses and no “cop” would recommend using an AR15 for home defense because they are such a poor choice, is pure buffoonery from one who has lived for too many years behind the Bay Area’s Tofu Curtain.15 Breathlessly, about to reveal a secret, Savage said his listeners, had never heard or been “told this” but one of the reasons AR15s are such poor choices is because the .223 round goes through walls. Shotguns and pistols are better because their rounds don’t. On the contrary, “More Americans than ever are relying on AR15s for home defense. Not only is an AR easier to shoot more accurately than a handgun—thanks to its additional points of contact with the body (cheek weld, shoulder mount, and two hands)—[and longer sight radius]—on AR rifles chambered in .223/Rem/5.56 NATO, produces superior terminal performance, and penetrates less when compared to the typical handgun.”16 An AR is harder to grab in the dark than a pistol or shotgun, Michael? Why is that? People have been attaching optics and lights to ARs for decades. A cocked and locked rifle makes one a “psycho” Michael?17 Employing his unloaded pistols and shotguns without lights against intruders beggars the question as to whose sanity should be in question. His rhetorical cant; “who needs” this or that firearm or “high capacity clips” and that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t allow possession of bazookas, hand grenades, and Russian tanks is a fallacious Straw Man argument to set the stage for infringements against the 2nd Amendment.

Savage is ignorant of or intentionally misrepresents the 2nd Amendment’s meaning. It grants no rights including to own anything. Rather, it recognizes an individual right to self-defense, to keep and bear arms, and establishes prohibitions against any government infringement on this right. The Declaration of Independence establishes it as a G-d-given right belonging to every individual inherent in their humanity whether government exists or not. It is inalienable and off-limits to a majority vote by one’s neighbors, act of government, or fashionable whim of the times. Rights cannot be modified, regulated, licensed, or infringed upon by government otherwise they would be called privileges.18 Inherent in the right of self-defense is the means by which one exercises it. To answer Savage’s “need” question, rights are not dependent upon a utilitarian need standard which, at best, is arbitrary, subject to popular opinion, or manipulated and controlled by those in power. Were this not so, government could raise the bar to demonstrate “need” so high, it becomes insurmountable thus rendering the right de facto abolished. Employing Savage’s Straw Manneed” standard to firearms ownership would subordinate it to ephemeral notions of “the common good, the good of the whole,” or “the greater good.”19 How long before it became extinguished? Ask Britons. By suggesting the 2nd Amendment regulates bazookas, half-tracks, Russian tanks, and grenades, therefore rifles can be regulated as well, is hay falling from massive gaps in Savage’s last Straw Man. Matches please.

Half-tracks and used Russian tanks are not firearms hence are regulated by other laws not the 2nd Amendment which applies to weapons citizen soldiers would keep and bear. Bazookas were the technological equivalent of shoulder fired canons, used against tanks, and grenades are sort of like exploding cannon balls. None of these are proper analogues to firearms. These are fallacious and false arguments employed by the deceitful to trick the unwary into surrendering bits and pieces of their 2nd Amendment rights until all of them are gone. This explains why Savage banned calls from those who knew what they were talking about in favor of kooks, conspiratorialists, the deluded, and poseurs.

11 Frederick C. Mish, Editor-in-Chief, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, Massachusetts, Merriam-Webster, Inc., Publishers, 1985), 1165, 276.

22 Michael Savage, The Savage Nation, broadcast 2 October, 2017.

33 IBID. 2 October, 2017.

44 Michael Savage, The Savage Nation, broadcast 4, 5, and 6 October, 2017.

55 Stephen King, Salem’s Lot (New York, N.Y., A Signet Book, New American Library, 1975), 317.

66 Stephen King, It (New York, N.Y., A Signet Book, New American Library, 1986), 353. With eleven years between publication, King still couldn’t get it right.

77 Universal Studios, The Fast And The Furious, 2001.

88 Kyle Wintersteen, “9 Most Misused Gun Terms,” Guns & Ammo, online, 21 November 2016 at http://www.gunsandammo.com.

99 Todd Woodward, “Down Range: Assault Weapons ‘Hoo-Hah,” Gun Tests 11 (November 2004) 2.

1010 U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, at http://www.aft.gov/firearms.

1111 Jeff Knox, “Judge Says Maryland Ugly Gun Ban is Ok,” 13 August 2014, at http://www.FirearmsCoalition.org. See also; Michael Dorstewitz, “Judge Rules AR-15s are not covered under Constitution and are dangerous and unusual,” Liberty Unyielding at http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/08/13/judge-rules-ar-15s-not-covered-constitution-dangerous-unusual/#XErDCz10jgxiDG81.99.

1313 Richard Stevens, “Nazi Strategy Summed Up In 2 Words, Sporting Purpose,” 7 April, 1988, Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, at http://jpfo.org/filegen/-n-z-/nazirot.htm.

1515 I should know, I lived there for ten years.

1616 Richard Nance, “Your AR15 ASAP: Hornady’s Rapid Safe Wall Lock and Gunlock Provide a Safe Storage Solution for Quick Access in the Home,” Guns & Ammo 10 (October 2017), 76.

1717 Expanding what constitutes “mental illness” and “mental instability” is very popular on the Left who will use such determinations to expand individuals prohibited from owning firearms. Can thought-crimes be far behind?

1818 Ronald J. Pestritto, Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism (Lanham, Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield, Publishers, Inc., 2005), 3-6. See also; Gary T. Amos, Defending the Declaration (Brentwood, Tennessee, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., 1989), 127-129.

1919 Jeff Snyder, A Nation of Cowards (St. Louis, Missouri, Accurate Press, 2001), 119-121.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

When the world goes crazy

I don’t think there is anyway to say it that makes it better. I’ve just seen one too many things recently that just makes it seems like there is a competition for the “Most insane or hypocritical” category. Though perhaps those two should each have their own category.

Let’s start with Israel. She is still under attack from the pieceful Falestinians. They are flying fire kites in an attempt to burn crops, vineyards, wildlife, domestic animals, people and anything else they can reach. This is because they love the land so deeply. Sort of like the abusive spouse that says they love you so much that if you ever try to leave they will either kill you and take everything. Yeah, boy howdy, if that doesn’t say true love I don’t know what does. L-O-V-E, like OJ loved Nicole. We want to return to the land we love so much, we’re going to burn it down, break through this security fence, invade a sovereign country and rip the Jews hearts from their chest. Nope, not hyperbole, that’s actually a quote.

So, you have the arabs of Gaza trying to throw the Jews off the land and out of their homes.

And, in the Nativ Ha’avot neighborhood of Elazar in Gush Etzion which is about 11 miles South of Jerusalem, the Capitol of Israel, it’s working!! Jews are being thrown off their lands and out of their homes! No no, not by the Falestinians or Abu Mazen, but instead by the Israeli (way less than) Supreme Court. Yes, once again the liberal Jew hating left has submitted a claim that one meter, one flipping meter of land that runs through the neighborhood is arab. Mind you, they can’t prove it, or haven’t yet. The homes were ordered destroyed in September 2016, and this overrode a State of Israel assertion that they homes were/are legal. Israeli politicians showed up, I guess to talk, because they certainly didn’t do anything useful, like stopping it! Judge Ayelet Shaked was there and has said it’s unnecessary. You see, when those homes were built 15-20 years ago, the state certified that the land was all-cool and fine to build on. Now because of a leftist group fifteen homes are going to be destroyed. I watched Ari Fuld live stream from the scene of the impending crime and he nailed it as self-hating Jews on the Supreme court. Mind you they still haven’t proved the arab claim on the one meter. But, the homes are being destroyed. After Amona, I’m so ticked I’m not using any of the words that I think apply. A group of young Israelis circulated a petition to stop it. That didn’t work either. I watched the people singing and dancing in one of the beautiful homes, it’s heartbreaking especially after Amona.

I think someone needs to have a serious talk with the Jewish Agency and tell them this sort of thing really puts a damper on people wanting to move to a country that will throw you out of the home you’ve lived in for 20 years on the whim of some left-wing group or a spurious claim of an arab that may not have even known he “owned” the land until two weeks before. And, quite possibly found out through the efforts of the aforementioned left-wing group.

And since under Bibi Netanyahu this keeps happening, I sincerely, most sincerely hope that Israelis will begin to listen to the message of Moshe Feiglin and Zehut. If this is breaking my heart, I can only imagine the pain of those going through it.

But this leftist hatred of Jews goes way back. I read an interesting article by Stephen Schecter of Zehut. He was talking history, specifically the Dreyfus affair. And he nails it.

The Dreyfus Affair unleashed a torrent of anti-Semitism in French society at the time, an anti-Semitism which proved to be European when it culminated in the Nazi pan-European program to incinerate its Jewish population. Today, Israel’s very existence has unleashed a torrent of anti-Jewish vitriol whose ultimate denouement remains to be seen.

It is in that sense that one can simply state that Israel is a reincarnation of the Dreyfus Affair, but one which goes on and on, and which will only end when Israel, and the Jews themselves, decide to put an end to it. Unfortunately, there are today too many Jews who place themselves on the side that vilifies Israel, without even the decency of the French Jews of Dreyfus’ time who simply kept a low profile. Their excuse was most likely they felt vulnerable as a minority in a country that was not their own. Today they have no such excuse. Israel exists as a Jewish state. In working to destroy it, however, these latter-day Jews will reproduce the helplessness of their French co-religionists of a hundred years ago, and thus bequeath to history the ironic footnote of Jewish complicity in their own demise.

Not that Franceistan is far better today. Macron’s Overt Antisemitism

Macron’s logic and morality run along the same lines. If the move of the American embassy to Jerusalem breeds violence in Gaza, it is morally and politically imperative not to do it. Peace above all, even if it means the clogging of the arteries of Israel’s heart, is good for Israel, and for the world, according to this moral anti-Semitic argument. To balance it off, Macron draws moral equivalency between Israel and Hamas by refusing to address this entity’s expressed supreme goal of destroying Israel. Peace, the anti-Semites will argue, is more important than Israel.

Somehow it always seems to be Israel that the nations are willing to lead to the alter for sacrifice. Even the left-wing Jews, maybe even especially the left-wing Jews. For instance, crazy Bernie Sanders

Bernie’s smear pushes the Democrats further away from Israel

He has adopted the Palestinian narrative about the “Great March of Return” in total. He not only accepts the blatantly false claim that it is “non-violent,” thereby ignoring the use of Molotov cocktails, stones, firearms and incendiaries that have laid waste to swaths of Israeli fields. He also claims that Hamas wasn’t involved despite the fact that it has already claimed responsibility and admitted that most of those killed while attempting to breach Israel’s border fence were members of the terror group.

What a hateful, horrible lying man. He also lied about the number of deaths during the 2014 Gaza war, he gave even higher figures than those Hamass fabricated. How pathetic is that? He needs his meds/adjusted/started/re-evaluated/whatever.

But Bernie is a elitist. No matter what happens to the little people, he’s above it all.

No armed teachers in schools? No worries, Illinois Demoncrats hates the kids so much they are getting rid of the armed guards. Illinois House approves measure to replace armed school guards with mental health professionals Because obviously Demoncrats recognize having armed guards or armed teachers will do nothing to help. Unless of course you are an elitist. Like for example obama Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, one of those responsible for Common (rotten to the) Core failing program.

Anti-Gun Arne Duncan Sends His Children to School with Armed Security

On May 20 Breitbart News reported that Duncan suggested Americans ought to pull their kids from school until Congress passes more gun control. He said he and his family would even be willing to take part in the school boycott if it were done “at scale,” i.e., if there were broad-based participation in such a boycott.

……

Jewish World Review reports that Duncan’s children “attend the exclusive, private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools in tony Hyde Park, which a Lab Schools brochure brags is ‘patrolled by the University of Chicago Police Department (UCPD) and private security.’”

So, as long as we are discussing elitist hypocrisy and the resultant craziness, let’s take a look back at a well remembered and despised catholic priest known as Father Michael Pfleger. Don’t recall the name? He’s the priest that threatened to “snuff out” the owner of Chuck’s gun shop. Actually he threatened to “hunt him down and snuff him out”. For some reason I would take that as a threat. Maybe I’m just sensitive? Not content to let it go with merely threatening one man, the good father then threatened to “snuff out” legislators that didn’t vote the way he told them. Ahh yes, Chicago mob politics. Oops, sorry, Chicago Church politics. That was back in May of 2007. And yes, he is still the priest at St. Sabina’s. Well, it seems the anti-gun priest who goes around threatening to murder, not kill, murder people has armed bodyguards, one of whom was arrested on 27th May 2018. Yep, police showed up and found the “bodyguard” holding a gun. I use quotes because it seems there is some discussion as to if he really is a bodyguard.

Records with the Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation show that Hale’s FOID card expired in December 2017. Records also show that he is certified to work in Illinois as a security guard, and that he was once disciplined but it doesn’t explain why.

A May 29 blog post on “Second City Cop” referred to Hale as “Pfleger’s security” and said that “Pfleger and his minions called 006th dist (sic) nonstop to try to get the guy out of arrest.”

How elitist and entitled. There was also discussion as to whether or not St. Sabina’s priest has armed guards.

When asked about Hale’s relationship with the 68-year-old Pfleger, a church secretary told Chicago City Wire only that Hale was not a bodyguard. He deferred further questions to Pfleger, who did not return a call to clarify whether he employed Hale as private security and whether he called CPD asking for Hale’s release.

Susan Thomas, a spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Chicago, wrote in an email that “Fr. Pfleger does not have armed security and to our knowledge, neither does any other priest.”

Well, Susan Thomas, you’re in for a real shock. The people at Guns Save Lives have a delightful collection of pictures of St. Sabina’s father with his armed “bodyguards”, and they are printing. Discretion must not be their forte, just as sanity or decency is not Father Phlegm’s of St. Sabina’s.

But, when you’re an elitist hypocrite, that’s just how you roll.

And since Chicago is so concerned with guns, gun owners and gun crime I’m sure their court system is set up to handle things in a swift and just manner, right?

I know, I crack myself up too. It’s Chicago.

Prosecutors: Gun Offender Was Free On Recognizance Bond When He Got Another Gun And Killed A Man

(Judge Stephanie) Miller—a champion of the county’s “affordable bail” movement—let Williams go free on a recognizance bond after he was charged with possessing a stolen handgun on the South Side.

……

On February 9, Williams hit the trifecta, according to police and prosecutors: He stayed out after his unenforced curfew; he got a gun, and he shot someone to death.

……..

On February 21—the very day that Williams first failed to appear in court—Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart sent a letter to county leaders including Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle. Dart was concerned about the “alarming” number of people charged with illegally possessing handguns who were being released on electronic monitoring.

But the terms of Williams’ release were so loose, he wasn’t even on electronic monitoring, according to court records.

Preckwinkle responded a few days later, accusing Dart of “sensationalizing” the issue.

Pat Milhizer, a spokesman for Chief Judge Timothy Evans, also fired back at Dart: “The types of cases addressed by Sheriff Dart are gun cases — but they are gun cases in which nobody was shot or killed. That means the charge is not an inherently violent charge.”

YOU’VE.GOT.TO.BE.KIDDING.ME!! This is Corrupt Chicago where priests go around threatening to “snuff out” law-abiding citizens and legislators, which I get, given Chicago may not be the same things. You are living in high crime gun control central, and they have a man who was released on a recognizance bond after possessing a stolen gun, no monitoring. He gets another gun a few months later and kills someone and the county board President accuses the Sheriff who is concerned, with sensationalizing the issue. So, if a criminal has a gun that’s not “inherently a violent charge”. Wow. Wow. But a law-abiding citizen with a gun to protect themselves or their families from Judge Stephanie Miller’s release on recognizance bail. Oh HECK no! They don’t know what they are doing, Father Phlegm will show up and threaten to “snuff them out” and the go back to St. Sabina’s to preach whatever it is he preaches at the Roman Catholic Church. I’m guessing it’s more along the lines of social justice than anything Moshe brought down from Mt. Sinai.

And for the cherry on top of the crazy. There is a Muslim Imam, Imam Mohammad Tawhidi that I admire. He is very strong and brave, very brave. He follows us on Twitter. That alone isn’t remarkable, we have Israeli followers, Iranian followers, Kurdish followers, all kinds of followers. But Imam Tawhidi is very unique. He speaks out against radical Islam, vocally, forcefully and often. Often as in daily. He’s known as the Imam of Peace. He calls Hamass a terrorist organization. People want to hear what he has to say, it’s an important message in this day and age of the UN siding with terrorists, Franceistan, Germany, and Englandistan all harboring, aiding and encouraging terrorism of innocent Israelis and the Jews in their countries as well. Social media has been a big part of spreading Imam Tawhidi’s message.

And so, Facebook banned him. Yep, Facebook, with it’s well know bias against Jews and Israel, banned a peaceful, decent, brave Imam.

Is Facebook Biased Against Jews?

When it comes to incitement, is Facebook biased against Israel?

Is Facebook Biased Against Israel and Jews?

Perhaps stung by that criticism, mere days after two Muslims murdered fourteen people in San Bernardino, California, CEO Mark Zuckerberg vowed that Facebook would “create a peaceful and safe environment” for Muslim users.

Oy. Vey. Vay.

A friend once told me some stories, or jokes I suppose about the wise men of Chelm. It was a town of fools in the stories. First, Chelm is real and second, the people were not fools. But, for the purpose of this column, let’s go with the joke part.

One day a hole opened up on the bridge to the city of Chelm, and every day people crossing the bridge fell through the hole and were injured. So the wise men of Chelm, instead of repairing the ruined bridge, decided to build the hospital under it…

The whole column is very good.

So much is inverted and crazy. Terrorists are labeled as peaceful marchers, Priests are using armed guards while threatening to “snuff out” law-abiding citizens and preventing them from being able to defend themselves from Judges who release murders on recognizance and county presidents that say it’s just gun crime, not always a big deal, self-hating Jews doing everything they can to destroy the one Jewish state, and helping the arabs who are trying to burn it to the ground. The solutions being proposed might as well have come from Chelm for all the sense they make.

In spite of all this, יש תקוה There is hope.

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

BREAKING NEWS, BREAKING NEWS!!!!

This is a guest contribution from one of our TZP Facebook followers, Erik Johnson, who is also a friend and darn fine Viking.

It was all over the news. The radio reporter read how the United States had finally come to its senses; the time for knife control had arrived. London Mayor Sadiq Khan gave a speech to a joint session of congress repeating his words of great wisdom “No one needs to carry a knife!” Former comedians touted on their late night shows the fact that you don’t need a 10” meat cleaver to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Moms who don’t get action President Whannon Satts declared “No child should ever have to walk into a kitchen and see a weapon.” Nancy Pelosi proposed legislation banning high capacity assault knives with features similar to knives used by the military such as pliers and screwdrivers and those plastic tooth pickey thingies. Chuck Todd on Face the Nation held up a knife made by the Victorinox Corporation and asked “Who would ever need such a thing? It is clearly made for the army.” Joe Biden pointed out in a speech given to students at Berkley that in America more people are killed every year by knives than with AR-15s. Then his handlers tackled him to the ground and promptly shoved a sock in his mouth. A child who attended a school where a knife attack occurred, although he was truant on that day, Jesse Pig, waxed poetically on The View, “Our f—–g parents don’t f—–g know how f—–g to use a f—–g knife!”, then spit out the tide pod he was choking on. Of course the usual suspects gave the typical straw man arguments. National Rapier Association President Wayne LaThereThere called a press conference to ask, “How the hell are we supposed to cut a steak or even butter toast? Really people this is nuts!” Former President Obama was first to respond to the NRA’s claims saying, “Now let me be clear. No one needs a cut steak”, as a member of his secret service detail portioned a $2000 piece of kobe beef for him which he had pilfered from the White House kitchen prior to leaving office. Then my alarm went off. I looked at the pen knife I laid on the nightstand just before going to bed. “No”, I said to it, “This country will never become so insane we will try to ban knives.” The clock radio wailed as loud as it possibly could. The radio reporter read how the United States had finally come to its senses…..

Practical and commemorative. Because no one should be left defenseless!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

So Penguin, about that book

So little boss Hogg and his little Hogg sister are release a book to encourage taking rights, not privileges away from adults. Rights the little Hoggs are not even old enough to enjoy as they are still children. At least that’s how he referred to himself in his recent bullying session with Laura Ingraham.

The Hogg duo anxious to capitalize on their 27 seconds of fame have “written” a book. They must be paragons of organization. What with all the media appearance, school work and now managing to get a book released. All on their own. Amazing.

I received the following from a active TZP follower of facebook:

#NeverAgain has been the cry of the Jews for decades to remind people of the Holocaust under Nazi Germany.

Now, activist and high school student David Hogg is using the title “Never Again” for a book he is writing that will be published by Penguin Random House.

The book is about gun control. “A new generation has made it clear that problems previously deemed unsolvable due to powerful lobbies and political cowardice will be theirs to solve,” according to the preview of the upcoming book.

For anyone wishing to contact Penguin Random House about the title,

please call at 212-782-9000;

e-mail to: customerservice@penguinrandomhouse.com, RHAcademic@penguinrandomhouse.com, penguinpublicity@us.penguingroup.com, atrandompublicity@randomhouse.com, penguinpress@penguinrandomhouse.com

Should you wish to let Penguin books who have chosen to publish this know your opinion that’s how you can do so.

So thank you follower of TZP!!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail