Tag Archives: Mainstream media

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.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Feelin’ Triggered

It seems that recently Fredericka Whitfield, a cnn #FakeNews anchor had a segment talking about the school shooting in Florida. The one where the FIB ignored tips and the police never followed through on the myriad of calls they had on Bucket O-Chum. So guess who they had on as a SENIOR analyst? Yep, an FIB dude. Some guy named Tom Fuentes. Tom is everything cnn #FakeNews would want in a senior analyst and everything we would expect in a cnn analyst. Tom thinks female teachers are incapable of carrying concealed.

From the transcript:

And then the fact that they have the gun come out when the uniformed police arrive and do what they’re supposed to do, run in, they’re liable to get killed because all the police are going to see is someone waving a gun around and they’re coming into an active shooter situation. So, you know, that adds to the danger.

And then one of the things that people don’t talk about, a lot of these schools — Sandy Hook had an all-female faculty from principal to teachers. And for a woman, where are you going to hide that gun during the day? You can’t put it in your desk drawer, somebody might steal it and you can’t get to it.

You’re not going to have it in a safe in the principal’s office, you can’t get to it. On your person, hiding it — if you wear a dress, if you wear a skirt, are you going to have to wear a jacket every day with a belt and a holster the way a detective, you know, on duty would do?

It’s not a real practical solution even for a variety of reasons much less being adept is more than just pulling the trigger and making the bullet go down range.

WHITFIELD: Right. And the comfort level, all of that. You know, so many teachers have arms open. They want to hug their kids. I remember that from my school teachers. And certainly that would present a real problem of where exactly to put the gun if it comes to that.

FUENTES: Oh, yes. The kids are going to be “hey, Miss Jones, are you packing?” I mean it’s just not a good situation for it.

WHITFIELD: All right. We’ll have you back. Tom Fuentes — thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Let’s start with that “waving a gun around” part. Apparently since Tom is former FIB, that type of behavior must be de rigueur for the FIB. When they aren’t running guns to Mexico. He must think armed citizens behave that way. We don’t. Tom has seen one too many movies apparently, I don’t care if they were training films telling the FIB how we, the unwashed masses behave. We don’t. We apparently behave far better than the FIB, since I wouldn’t, and don’t personally know concealed carry people that would behave in such a manner.

Shall we move on to the for a woman, where are you going to hide that gun during the day part?

I know, hard to believe this is a serious question. But like little Julie Bandaras from FOX who apparently doesn’t know anyone who has every bought a gun legally, this idiot doesn’t know any women who are smart enough to be prepared protect themselves.

It reminds me of the story of the Pauline Kael political quote.

In December 1972, a month after U.S. President Richard Nixon was reelected in a landslide victory, Kael gave a lecture at the Modern Language Association, during which she said, “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them”

Then Fredericka of cnn #FakeNews chimes in,

You know, so many teachers have arms open. They want to hug their kids.

Right Fredericka, they are only capable of giving hugs, cause they’re women, right? If someone came in to hurt them, be it a crazed kid, pedophile, the unibomber, Chucky the killer clown, or muslims #ReligionOfPieces ala Beslan, they would only want to stand there and hug, they wouldn’t want to stop the SOB in it’s tracks right? Cause well, they’re women, and that’s all they can do? I have a hunch that “open arms” excuse is crap because in this age of #MeToo, I really doubt too many teachers feel safe to “hug” their students.

Ahh Tom and Fredericka, both up to cnn #FakeNews highest journalistic standards.

CNN has standards? Who knew!

 

 

 

 

 

 

So let’s talk about those elusive, at least for cnn #FakeNews journalistic standards.

From The Washington Examiner, No one would accept, in any other national discussion, the level of ignorance seen in the gun debate

Weinstein is correct when he writes, “The onus should be on those citizens who own the weapons technology, and purport to understand it, to share that understanding with the skeptical and less-informed.”

Beauchamp also notes that there’s a big difference between correcting a gun control advocate who’s “actually writing the legislation” versus “a random citizen deciding whether to support a new [assault weapons ban].”

And this is why that open discussion often doesn’t take place.

Because gun ban proponents don’t want to have a discussion. They just want to fling poo. The article continues.

It’s the ignorance of lawmakers, gun control activists, and media commentators that is inexcusable and insulting. Understanding the issue is the bare minimum required of their respective professions. Yet, so many simply refuse to learn the topic.

It’s things like Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., saying she opposes “rapid-fire magazines,” whatever those are. It’s things like Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., calling for a ban on “gas-assisted receiver firearms,” which are not real. It’s things like professional cable news commentator Steve Schmidt saying it’s harder to buy cough medicine than an AK-47, which is a damned, stupid lie.

No one would ever accept this level of ignorance and dishonesty in a similarly serious and emotionally charged debate.

No one would cheer if a pundit said it’s easier to get a late-term abortion than Sudafed. His audience would ask to see his homework. No one would shrug it off if a legislator incorrectly referred to a “trimester” as a “semester.”

……

Hell, no one would accept this level of ignorance from a traffic report. If a journalist referred to a pickup truck as an “auto-style speedbox,” he would rightly be laughed off the air.

Apparently neither Tom or Fredericka are aware that many everyday women are far more prepared to defend their animals, themselves and their homes than “progressive” women are to defend their children. It amuses me to think of the potential number of women these two twits may have passed on the street that are carrying concealed weapons.

I’m sure it would be a shock to them to know there are books with such topics covered. The Cornered Cat: A Woman’s Guide to Concealed Carry

There are great women’s concealed carry holsters.

There are beautiful custom handmade holsters.

There are shops with all kinds of amazing gear for women.

There are concealed carry purses.

So what it boils down to, Tom, is you are an ignorant, misogynistic, condescending miserable excuse for a man.

Women are capable of far more than you can even dream of. We cut down trees, we raise animals, children, work in the military, law enforcement, are legislators, take care of people and we can not only carry a firearm, we can deploy it and save the life of someone we care about. A concept foreign to you, the Sheriff of Coward county, and Captain Jan Jordan, who directed deputies to stage and form a perimeter outside Stoneman Douglas High School, rather than immediately entering the building during the mass shooting.

And ya’ll, ya’ll are the “professionals” that you and your ilk want us to leave our safety, and the safety of our families in your hands?  Oh HECK no. No thanks you miserable wretch. Bless your heart.

Because us real women?  WE can do pretty ok.

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Julie B. at FOX NEWS ate the Tide Pods

So I got an interesting, if slightly outraged message tonight.

Did you hear what that chick on FOX said tonight?

Um, just finished up a lovely Shabbat, reading a good book, drinking some good coffee and not watching TV. You’re going to ruin my good mood aren’t you? Yep.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5744551412001/?#sp=show-clips

It would seem some newscaster, I don’t watch decided to go full auto stupid. Yes, indeed, that is a tiny little joke. Some news personality on FOX news decided to speak authoritatively on guns and the Second Amendment. Indeed, she spoke with great authority, with facts? Not so much.

She starts out with it’s the right of every US Citizen, ok, good start Julie. The the effect of the Tide pods sets in. It’s the responsibility of lawmakers to prevent those who “don’t deserve the right to own one” from getting them. It’s not an infringement on the Second Amendment to stop arming the mentally ill. She realizes some will ask “how do you determine who is mentally ill?” But she says it goes past mentally ill.

Um, Julie, when did you decide to hate Veterans, and do you kneel during the National Anthem as well?

The VA is restricting veterans’ gun rights without due process

The VA, in making the determination that a veteran requires a fiduciary to help them manage their money, is additionally making the decision that the veteran cannot handle a firearm, either. The VA is not conducting an evaluation to determine whether a veteran is a threat to himself or herself or others, requiring a medical determination verifying the veteran is displaying signs of violence, or notifying the veteran his or her Second Amendment rights are being eliminated. The VA simply reports the veteran to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) system and makes the “mentally defective” judgment of the veteran by default.

She has the novel idea that background checks should include criminal records!!

Wow, Jules, what a concept!

And any history of violence or drug abuse!

Lautenberg Amendment

Great idea Jules, maybe they could like have some kind of form the could fill out before they buy a gun and answer those questions. Like questions 12 b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i for example. Check out form 4473 Julie, listed for your convenience below.

4473

And they should require training. In Israel for example you need a doctor’s note proving no history of mental illness and drug abuse. You must also demonstrate you can use your gun at a firing range before you can take it home with a limited supply of bullets. I think she actually meant the whole cartridge though. Um, Julie from Israel Give the Good Guys Guns. Then she wisely explains to us that a correctly aimed bullet does what it is supposed to do. There doesn’t need to be thirty. Then she lectures us to think for a second, does an American need an assault weapon to protect themselves, target shoot or provide food for their family?

Gee Julie, I’m a little uncertain, what exactly is an “assault weapon”?

 

The she informs us we’re not applying for a driver’s license here. No kidding? Cars and Trucks as Weapons of Terror Um, Julie, perhaps you could clarify for me which of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights that you never studied in school involves transportation?

Then she rattles on that just like our police and military get the proper training to use the weapons, so should civilians. I think she is unaware that unless a state has Constitutional carry you do have to pass a test to get a concealed carry endorsement.

Then she sanctimoniously lectures us that owning a gun is a right, but it is our responsibility to carry one responsibly. Obviously from her New York ivory tower she is unaware that gun owners and concealed carry holders are some of the most responsible people out there.

She doesn’t seem to understand, it’s not the inanimate object that is of any threat, it is the hand that holds it.

It seems to me, our ill informed Julie is confusing you and I, law abiding gun owners with a bucket of chum who had been reported to the FIB, and the police had visited his home 39 times.

Julie, this is a law-enforcement failure because of a deal struck for money. Why don’t you investigate that? Why doesn’t that bother you?

But you did great on your cnn #FakeNews audition tonight, you’ll be great there, really.

Julie says she “wants to have a conversation about it on twitter”. @JulieBanderas ‏

Bless your heart.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Goose, meet gander

Oh goody. Background checks for reporters.

Secret Service takes on new credentialing role for conventions
For the first time this year, the Secret Service has a hand in credentialing the media; during previous conventions only the Congressional press galleries were in charge of credentialing the media. Members of the media began hearing more about the Secret Services’ role in the credentialing process as they began to attend walk-throughs at the convention sites in Philadelphia and Cleveland, leading BuzzFeed Washington Bureau Chief John Stanton to issue a strongly worded letter to fellow journalists, urging them to speak up about the new processes. In his letter Stanton cited concerns about the background checks, the lack of a clear appeals process, and the involvement of a third-party subcontractor, urging his fellow journalists to express their concern over the process.

What? Suddenly the lamestream muddia doesn’t like background checks to exercise a Constitutionally-protected right? I can hardly wait for the Journalism License, and bans on hi-cap word processors.

I wish I could be optimistic enough to hope this would give them some perspective on the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

What a RIOT!

I’m probably dating myself here, but I remember when the term, which I still occasionally used, meant “how funny or humorous”.

I want to say up front, this isn’t about endorsing or disparaging a political candidate, this is about something I’m seeing that’s very disturbing and becoming somewhat frightening as it grows more common.

The first time I ever heard of riots was in the 60s. My Dad drove into the city to get his Mom out and bring her out to the suburbs where we lived and it would be safer for her. I was terrified till he got home with her and they were both safe.

It was a few years later that the L.A. riots happened, the ones where the Korean shopkeepers were the only ones that still had stores standing in their area because they were up on top of their buildings with AR-15s. The ones the liberals say have no civilian use.

Then there was George Zimmerman, when the black panthers formed mobs and publicly and openly put a bounty on his head with no repercussions.

This last year we saw Ferguson and Baltimore savaged by mobs, with the blessing of the Missouri Governor and the Baltimore Mayor. Repercussions? Meh, not so much.

But those were riots because something didn’t go the way people wanted it, and since they weren’t happy everyone and everything around them was going to suffer till they got their happy pants on again.

What we saw this weekend with Donald Trump, candidate for President was a different kettle of fish.

Mr. Trump has been having huge crowds at his rallies. Some love what he says, some hate it. Ok, fair enough, I have to leave the room or have a air sick bag handy if I’m in a position I can’t get out of listening to “The Bern” or Hillary discuss how fast they can each seize rights or redistribute the fruits of working peoples labor. That’s the political process, the politicians say what they will do to us or for us and we get to choose who we want to lead us. At least that is how it is suppose to work.

What I’m understanding happened this weekend is more along the lines of Ann Coulter, and other conservatives being prevented from speaking at universities because the precious indoctrinated children attending these universities didn’t want to hear an opinion different from how their liberal college professors had indoctrinated them. Bless their little hearts. Rather than just not attend if they didn’t want to hear, or even put their little hands over their ears and hum to themselves they had to prevent others from hearing what was said. Much like University of Missouri assistant communications professor, Melissa Click yelling for “some muscle” to remove a videographer. See some irony here? Only what WE the tolerant liberals want you to hear, will you hear.

So back to this weekend. There was suppose to have been a Trump rally in Chicago at the University of Illinois at Chicago on Friday. However due to a massive protest, that was canceled. There were people that had lined up since midnight the night before so they could hear the speech. They had broken no rules, but because the tolerant leftists didn’t want to hear what Mr. Trump had to say, then they deemed no one would be allowed to hear what Mr. Trump had to say. The protestors seemed to be a mix of Black Lies Matter, liberals, and turns out barry’s good buddy Bill Ayers was there too.

Apparently only SOME black lives matter as a young black entrepreneur who had been a Trump supporter was beaten and shot  by the tolerant leftists.

A day later when Mr. Trump was speaking at rally in Dayton Ohio a Black Lies Matter activist attempted to jump on stage after throwing something at Mr. Trump. The secret service sprang into action and protected Trump and nabbed the self-identified activist. Trump said the people disrupting were fans of “The Bern” and leftists. The communist Senator from Vermont said Trump was a liar. Old Bernie probably should have checked out his buddies social media pages before he called Trump a liar on that one. The guy was an avid Bernie fan. And besides being a Bernie fan, he is a star in a pro-ISIS video, busy guy.

Dr. Ben Carson had what I thought at least, were some very accurate statements about what is going on with some of this. This is an excellent little video clip. No, I didn’t say that because it had horses in it, I said it because Dr. Carson hit the nail on the head. Oh, guess that was a bit violent too, eh?

I suppose my point is this, whether or not Donald Trump, Ted Cruz or, well, it will probably be one of them, is the nominee for the Republican candidate for president, this is ugly. Because now this huge mob on the left had learned they can shut down the speech of someone they don’t like. The riots I mentioned earlier were basically hissy fits because something didn’t go the way some group of people wanted it to go. Elect better leaders and that sort of thing will be dealt with and you won’t have a part of a city burned. But THIS, this stuff is about affecting the political process. This is about keeping from people going to a rally to investigate candidates and maybe ask questions. They don’t agree with his politics and policies, and they intend to make sure you don’t have the opportunity to make up your own mind whether you do or not by denying you the opportunity to go hear the speaker and make an informed choice. They want to stop it by either stopping the speaker or making people afraid to go hear them, either way, the result is the same. More uninformed voters, and that has yet to work out well for our country.

Again, I’m talking events here, not candidates, rule of mob vs. rule of law. How could such a thing have happened? I guess I never have liked bullies.

But ultimately? The only ones responsible for these reprehensible actions are those that committed them.

Our electoral process
Our electoral process
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

So How Could This Happen?

As I look at the massive amount of “change” our country has endured since I was a child, I’m not feeling a lot of “hope”. I had long wondered how our country had gone from one of fierce independence, strong work ethic and Judeo-Chrisitian values to one where living on the dole is viewed as an entitlement to some people, and it comes with a free obola-phone. The fierce independence and looking after yourself and your family has become “let the government do it”,  “wait for the police” and “there ought to be a law”. We are to have been a country ruled by law, not mobs. And we have moved so far away from that. “How could this happen?” A friend of mine on Facebook asked that the other day. This column was already percolating in my brain when he did. I may have some insight into it.

You know the old saying there is nothing really new under the sun? Well, many of the things we see in America now have been done before, and succeeded brilliantly for those that implemented the policies.

Let’s do a little compare and contrast, shall we?

There is a traveling exhibit from the Midwest Center for Holocaust Education called “nazi Propaganda”. No, I didn’t mean to capitalize nazi. There was an exhibit of artifacts and a lecture series that explored different aspects of the Propaganda.

“Propaganda is a truly terrible weapon in the hands of an expert”~~adolph hitler 1924
hitler had one of the best at propaganda Joseph Gerbils (Goebbels, yes, I enjoyed doing that too), who said that “Any man who still has a residue of honor will be very careful not to become a journalist”. That’s pretty rich coming from a one time journalist.

When hitler came to power in 1933, Germany had a very well developed communications system. There were 4,700 daily and weekly newspapers, a total circulation of 25 million. Of these 81%  were locally owned, although there were some national ones that had even attained international recognition. When the nazis came to power in 1933, they owned less than 3% of the 4,700 papers. Through the elimination of the multi-party system the nazis gained control of the newspapers that had been run by those parties. The nazis used the press and radio to create fears of a communist uprising and then the populace was willing enough to accept limits and the curtailing of their liberties.

The nazis had a great ally in Julius Streicher who produced Der Strumer, a virulently antisemitic “newspaper” and I use that term loosely here. Mostly it ran articles on how the Jews were to blame for everything wrong, and they wanted to start a war while the rest of the world wanted peace. They ran horrible cartoons by “Fips” designed to isolate and dehumanize Jews. It ran from 1923 to 1945 and during the Weimer Republic was the receipient of many lawsuits by politicians and Jewish groups. It did not stop them though, and when hitler came along, it thrived.  The nazi regeime also embraced the new technology of radio and television. They already had a thriving movie culture. With the creation of the people’s radio, hitler’s speeches could be broadcast everywhere, factories, homes and even the streets, and they were. The cheap mass produced radios had very few stations available on the dial, quite the shocker that, eh?

The German propaganda machine was also at work in the US and Britain believe it or not. In many news stories of the time the writing was done in such a was as to create fear among Americans and the British and leave them wanting to just get it over with and give in. Interestingly to me anyway, most of these stores came from the AP. Germany also forbid it’s citizens from getting any news from sources outside of Germany. But with the great radio shows on, why would they want to? I mean who could turn down hitler speeches and home making tips all in one broadcast?  Besides, listening to the BBC was considered very treasonous, and punishable by prison time.

Propaganda was used to sell the majority who hadn’t voted for hitler (was it racist back then to demand voter ID?) that there would be this national community, it’s just that a few people wouldn’t be part of it. Germans by in large it seems, ate that National Community Hope & Change stuff up. It was necessary to convince them not to intervene when they saw their neighbors of many years being hauled off and their belongings taken away. The ghettos were posted with signs warning of health dangers, that was meant to discourage non-Jews from entering and seeing conditions for themselves. With the lack of sanitation, people starving and lack of medical care, that was somewhat true, but not why the nazis posted the ghettos. Films were staged in the ghettos to show the German people that the Jews bred and carried diseases. The goal with that would be to decrease any sympathy the Christians might have felt and any desire to help the Jews. The Jews were also portrayed as not caring about anyone but themselves. Films were also staged to convince the world that the Jews were being treated very humanely, and just in the camps for “re-education” to the nazi way of the thinking and life. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Part of the goal of the propaganda was not so much to enlist ordinary Germans in killing the Jews, but to convince them not to intervene on the Jews behalf. After all, they weren’t REALLY human were they?

So, why is this relevant today? People would recognize the dangerous conditions and do something about it before it ever got this far again, right?  No set of Americans would sit idly by while one segment of the population was marginalized and attacked by leadership would they?

How about people who believe the Constitution should remain the law of the land, and not ruling by pen and cell phone?

Would the government ever paint such people as “the enemy”?

http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2012/08/08/us-army-using-tea-party-insurrection-scenario-to-train-officers/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/23/does-army-consider-christians-tea-party-terror-threat/

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2012/08/bringing-war-back-home-full-spectrum.html

Would the government ever single out those people and use the force of the government to go after them?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2711039/Emails-IRS-official-Lois-Lerner-called-conservatives-crazies-holes-Eric-Holder-gets-new-pressure-investigate.html

http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/erev-rosh-hashanah-lois-lerner-degrades-conservatives-now-judaism-26594/

Remember all the antisemitic cartoons? Some of these appeared in newspapers, some were made up by readers.

http://lumberjocks.com/topics/34254

The Media Research Center put together a lovely list of some of the worst attacks by the mainstream “media” on ordinary American Citizen. Curiously, the “media” was very supportive of Occupy Wallstreet.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2014/02/27/5-years-after-7-worst-media-attacks-tea-party

What happens when a reporter actually tries to do the job, and report on Government and investigate stories? Um, doesn’t turn out well.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/102714-723693-former-cbs-news-reporter-blows-whistle-on-pro-obama-bias.htm?p=full

So, while in Germany many of the newspapers MAY have been forced to regurgitate the party poop, in America it seems we see this kind of reporting, not because of being forced into it, but because the media itself is on board with the ideology of the current regime.

Anyone remember Candy Crowley from CNN a “moderator” (chuckle, chuckle, snort) helping the President out during the debate against Mitt Romney? Or who can forget the classic of CNN making it appear a semi-automatic rifle is a automatic by the way they talked during the “report”.
Speaking of ideology, when the media constantly calls a semi-automatic rifle an “assault rifle” and report on someone shot breaking into a house as a “gun shot victim” because the home owner shot him? Does that not seem to be allowing their ideology to drive the story, to influence people that haven’t a clue about guns? To convince people that the ability to defend themselves and their families from any kind of a threat is not something they should want.

Nice blog post about CNN and guns.

http://dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/cnn-lies-fakes-story-once-again.html

And a great video to show anyone who doesn’t understand about a semi-automatic and fully automatic.

If you want to compare how the obama infatuated press handles a story think about what you are hearing now that there was a Republican landslide on Tuesday. The media is marginalizing that, saying the people want Republicans to work with obama. The British press presented the story a bit differently.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2822484/WHAT-LANDSLIDE-Obama-threatens-vetoes-executive-orders-Americans-reject-giving-Republicans-historic-gains-Congress.html#ixzz3IIYedBh1

As did the Candadian http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/67371

I discovered the first time I went to Ireland and listened to the news on the radio as I was driving that the way I heard stories on the radio in Ireland was vastly different than the way they were presented at home.

Why would the media do this? Lie to citizens, target certain individuals (think Sarah Palin or Phil Robertson) certain businesses (Chik-fil-A or Hobby Lobby) try to isolate them, polarize and demonize them?

Some pretty good answers can be found in the film Grinding Down America. You can watch it on YouTube, but you have to find the different sections. Or, if you don’t mind the Spanish subtitles, the movie is in English, and it is well worth watching.

So, my first villain in “How could this happen”, is the media. And unlike Germany, the mainstream media in America is part of the problem, not the watchdog.

I mean seriously, if they can’t even report a story involving a gun correct AFTER it has happened, why do we even listen to them give a weather FORECAST?

Der Sturmer

Just create the indifference
Just create the indifference
Allow none to show sympathy
Allow none to show sympathy

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail