Category Archives: authoritarian swine

authoritarian swine, gun control

Presumed Guilt

Ran across this little bit about civilians terrified of open-carrying cops cops terrified of open-carrying civilians.

Enough is enough; we must get guns under control
“What is alarming to the police is that they have no power to ascertain the potential criminal background of an armed individual until a crime is committed, and by then it is too late,” said Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, an advocacy group.

Oh, noes! They can’t bust people until a crime is committed. How horrible.

Maybe they should consider the possibility that if the person isn’t doing anything wrong… then maybe he isn’t doing anything wrong. I know: it’s a difficult concept for public school-indoctrinated idiots in an age of imaginary microagressions.

Then again, claiming the worst without evidence worked so well for other police states.

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, Politics

Their understanding of “compromise”

7 Comments

…is nearly as comprehensive as that of “due process.”

Susan Collins Unveils a Gun-Control Compromise
After the Senate voted down four gun-control bills inspired by the Orlando massacre, the Maine Republican Susan Collins unveiled compromise legislation Tuesday that addresses a bipartisan concern: individuals suspected of terrorist ties being able to purchase guns.
[…]
The New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayotte emphasized that the legislation protects Americans’ due-process rights, a major concern among Republicans who voted against a Democratic bill restricting sales on Monday.

Collins is the NRA B+ rated fool whose closest approach to being pro-RKBA is that there are only some infringements she’s OK with. Ayotte, you may recall, is one of the turncoats who voted for cloture on the Manchin-Toomey-Gottlieb abomination, allowing it to go to a vote; but then she threw a hissy fit because they wouldn’t let her amend it further to expand mental health prohibitions.

The compromise (PDF) is that both statist parties get the unethical, unworkable, rights-violating additions to the prohibited persons list, and the Republicans can pretend it includes “due process.” The only folks giving anything up are the people they screw over.

“Due process” is not being allowed to beg for reconsideration after you’ve lost a human/civil right by bureaucratic decree by being placed on a secret list that has never resulted in the capture of a terrorist. For pretty much any reason, or none.

To learn what due process actually is, one would have to refer to the Bill of Rights, with which these oathbreakers regard as a to-do list of things to be trashed.

“…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

They have to go through the “process” first,to establish the alleged necessity. An ex post facto “hearing” in which you may not be allowed to challenge or even see supposed evidence against you does not count.

This all sounds terribly familiar.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, genocide, gun control, gun grabbers, mindset, Politics, resistance

42,500

8 Comments

Hiding Child

Well, the government, the talking-heads, even your neighbors, are having a fresh conniption fit over firearms and their availability. As always, one should ask, cui bono? Who benefits?

For many of us, we spend much of the time informing these people of the gruesome human costs of tyranny, especially once disarmed.

Still, they wear you down. They call you a conspiracy nut. They tell you that “If these plans really were afoot, then it would be all over the news.”

They are so insistent, that, eventually, you begin to wonder if they are right. Even I have; just in the last week.

Then, I remember this article from a few years ago.

42,500.  Institutions.

The next time you grow weary of the fight, start to doubt yourself, and start to think about taking that “Red Pill” and going back to chewing on your ‘steak dinner’. Just remember… FORTY-TWO-THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED INSTITUTIONS.

You’ll find your strength, again. I promise.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, Politics, Terrorism

No-Buy Terrorist Watch Lists: Bugs vs. Features

3 Comments

It appears that all the politicians are jumping on the idea of a no-buy list based on terrorist watch lists. It’s not merely a “bipartisan” enthusiasm for violating your rights, it’s downright nonpartisan.

Obama certainly loves him some no-buy, thinking anyone who disagrees with him must be crazy. Which could conveniently get them added to the standard prohibited person list for a NICS check.

Clinton, of course, has long been committed to the destruction of Second Amendment-protected rights, and sees this as another in a long line of rationalizations for victim disarmament.

Trump is not only embracing the no-process idea, he’s asking the NRA to join and help him. Perhaps he momentarily forgot he’s no longer a Democrat.

At any rate, I’m sure that staunch defender of RKBA, the NRA, will set Mr. Trump straight…

Um. Oh. Wait a minute.

“We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing.”

But we can count on the Libertarian Party to speak up for human/civil rights, can’t we?

Maybe not. LP Presidential nominee Gary Johnson has gone from “No, it is unconstitutional to deny someone’s rights”  to “Gov. Johnson believes Second Amendment rights are too fundamental to be denied without due process“, a position he reiterated on Fox News just minutes ago as I type: terrorist watch lists are flawed, include innocent people, and should be fixed before we use them to revoke rights forever. We should be open to a “discussion” of broadening the definition of a prohibited person. The nicest thing I can say about that shifting position is that it’s awfully wishy-washy for the party that holds that “all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.” A more accurate summation is unprintable on this web site.

If all these principled and brilliant people think a no-buy list for terrorist suspects is a good idea, maybe we should look at it more closely. Could those flaws I see actually be features?

That’s going to be tough to say, because a no-buy list of terror suspects doesn’t yet exist. What’s been introduced in Congress will be debated, amended, and marked up in assorted committees. We’ll have to guess, based on what does exist.

The starting point is that persons in the Terrorism Screening Database would be added to the prohibited persons list under 922(t)(1)(B)(ii).

The TSB (“watch list”) consists of…

…pretty much anything someone wants it to be. Including wives found to be troublesome by disgruntled hubbies, not to mention the occasional senator, peace activist nun, lesbians, and Cats, toddlers, and House Representatives. Heck, Nelson Mandela was on the list.

Note that the bill would flag such threatening people in a NICS check. Sale denied.

Scenario 1: Joe Terrorist wonders if they’re on to him. He strolls into his local Black Rifles R Us and tries to buy heat-seeking–bullet-piercing-bullet bullet-hose of a weapon of mass destruction. He gets denied. Since he knows he has a clean criminal and mental health record — but also knows he’s a secret terrorist — he figures out the obvious and goes on the lam. So much for that investigation. I’m sure the FBI will be happy.

Hmm. Maybe they’ll amend that to allow the sale, but will immediately notify the FBI so they can go pick him up in a timely manner.

Scenario 2: Omar Asshole buys a gun, and a few days later, before the feds show up, he goes on his rampage. Whoops. I’m sure that’ll be noted in someone’s annual performance evaluation.

Scenario 3: Billy Bob Hunter gets a downcheck on NICS. While he’s scratching his head puzzlement, the feds come and drag him in for questioning. Probably because his name shared too many common letters with a suspected terrorist. Or was a small government advocate, peace activist, senator…

Remember: this is based on the same source used to assemble the no-fly list that has enabled the TSA to capture exactly zero terrorists in nearly fifteen years.

But don’t worry, Billy Bob. If you’ve incorrectly been denied, you can always appeal to correct the record. Someday. Maybe. In the interim, what’s a violation of basic human/civil rights compared to terrorism? That’s what DC congresscritters call “due process.”

Something else to remember: Roughly 95% of NICS denials are false positives. If you believe that adding a known-corrupted list to that broken system will make it work better, you’ve never had to work with a legacy computer system.

But let us pretend it all works.

Scenario 4: Syed Jihad suspects they’re on to him. Following the lead of the majority of firearm-toting criminals, he has someone else buy his gun for him, or gets it on the street. FBI becomes aware of him when turn they on cable news the next morning.

If we take Feinstein et al at their word that this terrorist addendum to the NICS check is to stop terrorists then the best case scenario is that 1) a known terrorist 2) consciously chooses to purchase his weaponry via an FFL, 3) actually gets flagged, and either 4) is then stupid enough to delay his attack long enough for the feds to get off their butts and investigate (this assumes the sale proceeds to avoid tipping off terror-boy), or 5) gets denied and yet doesn’t opt for another technique like mowing down pedestrians with his car on his way home from the gun store.

Feinstein and King would have you believe that their little attack on basic freedoms would have stopped the Orlando Asshole‘s attack…

…even though he had no criminal record, and was not on the watch list, and acted faster than do the feds typically investigate denials.

A buggy system? Only if stopping real terrorists is the purpose. On the other hand, a watch list that allows individual immigration officers to ban their wives from the country with a simple fake data entry is made to order for listing those pesky “Oath Keepers, Other Liberty Groups” and taking away their tools of liberty. Instant prohibited persons. Objecting to a congresscritter who doesn’t properly represent your pro-freedom views in DC might be enough to get listed. So much for those calls to contact your representatives.

Yes; those are features. If your goal is a totalitarian police state with no meaningful constitutional protections for the subjects. It looks like Feinstein has finally found a way to force Mr. and Mrs. America to turn them all in. By nonjudicial, bureaucratic decree. This time with at least the passive backing of the Republican and Libertarian Presidential candidates, and the National Rifle Association, along with the Democrats.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, So Much Stupid!

Someone certainly is crazy

1 Comment

The Emoter-in-Chief has been whining again.

Obama Slams ’Crazy’ Gun Rights Activists After Terror Attack In Orlando
“The fact that we make it this challenging for law enforcement, for example, even to get — to get alerted that somebody who they are watching has purchased a gun, and if they do get alerted, sometimes it’s hard for them to stop them from getting a gun, is crazy. It’s a problem,” Obama said in the Oval Office today.

That’s so irrational on so many levels. Notifying the feds of a prohibited person trying to buy a gun from a dealer is pretty easy… since the feds are the ones doing the background checks. But if the person isn’t prohibited, how is anyone supposed to know he’s double-secret prohibited? Of course, this is a set up for a secret “no-buy” terrorist watch list, similar to the no-fly list to which people get anonymously added for the darnedest reasons.

But let’s say they inflict no-process presumed guilt on America (more so, I mean, and the Orlando Asshole strolls in to buy a gun…

…and walks out with it because he was not under investigation, and hadn’t been for years. Possibly he should have been, but that’s hardly the dealer’s problem.

All right, all right. We’ll pretend he was under investigation and was on the nonexistent (fingers crossed) no-buy list. He gets rejected, the feds are notified…

And they do nothing. Except maybe curse about how the suspect now knows he’s being investigated. So we’ll leave out the part where our sexually confused protagonist gets notified. To keep the secret, the dealer will have to complete the sale. No doubt the feds will schedule him for a pick-up in a few days, and take that gun.

Oh. Wait. By that time he already shot up the helpless nightclubbers.

So tell us again, Barrycade, exactly what are you proposing to prevent another Orlando?

Moving on:

Obama complained out that the shooter was able to purchase weapons legally, even though he had been investigated by the F.B.I. for connections to radicalization but didn’t have a criminal record.

Darn that stupid presumed innocence! And closed investigations! No one being investigated — past, present, and probably in Obama’s mind future — by the FBI should be allowed a constitutional right. Or get an endorsement for a presidential campaign. Never mind.

“It appear that is one of those weapons he was able to just carry out of the store, an assault rifle — a handgun, a Glock, which had a lot of clips in it,” Obama said.

giggle- First off, the SIG MCX, as sold to civilians in America, is not an assault rifle. (And for the record, it isn’t even an AR-15-pattern rifle, since it uses a very different action; a forward assist does not an AR make.)

Now that Glock stuffed full of clips… Having used a variety of Glocks, including the Glock 17 that Ass-boy is reported to have possessed, I can attest that they run very,very poorly when stuffed with junk. Typically, you get the best results when you inserted a single loaded magazine. A bunch of paper clips, tie clips, stripper clips, whatever, will jam it. Possibly that’s why the scumsucker apparently only used his MCX.

No, we aren’t “crazy.” We simply note that the Orlando murderer wasn’t a prohibited person.

We note that the no-buy list doesn’t yet exist (fingers still crossed), and would would work about as well as the no-fly list, which hasn’t helped the TSA catch a single terrorist for going on 15 years.

We note that we allegedly still have constitutional rights, like RKBA and due process.

For that matter, private sales happen. Perfectly lawfully, since — again — the perp in question wasn’t prohibited. That would go through any list. Want to mandate universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks? That’ll work about as well, since criminals most often obtain their guns through extra-legal channels anyway. I suppose you could require the prohibited persons to report themselves for checks…

Oh. Wait. You can’t. I almost forgot.

No. We are not crazy. But either the President is, or he has other plans that would magically prevent a cold-blooded killer — with a clean record, not under investigation — obtaining any one of the hundreds of millions of firearms already in the country. Sounds like a post-constitutional total police/surveillance state, or total confiscation attempts followed something close to civil war.

I’d prefer that he be crazy.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Media, resistance, spirit of rebellion

Larry Pratt, the media and the “bullet box”

8 Comments

The anti-gun punditry was all aflutter last week with the news that Larry Pratt had stated that in some near-future time, we might have to resort to “the bullet box” to preserve “proper constitutional balance.”

Speaking of November’s election and its possibile consequences, Pratt noted:

The courts do not have the last word on what the Constitution is. They decide particular cases, they don’t make law. Their decisions, unlike the Roe v. Wade usurpation, don’t extend to the whole of society, they’re not supposed to. And we may have to reassert that proper constitutional balance, and it may not be pretty. So, I’d much rather have an election where we solve this matter at the ballot box than have to resort to the bullet box.

Now I differ with Pratt on a number of points, including any poorly supported assumption that the R. candidate will appoint better justices than the D. candidate. And the item he mentions is historic piece of military equipment more properly called a cartridge box, not a bullet box (and you can still buy replicas of it, NFI). But I don’t see anything unusually incendiary in what he said.

Unlike the Usual Suspects in the media.

The Huffington Post (presumably just before writer Ed Mazza swooned into a deep faint) cried that:

Pratt’s organization is considered even more extreme than the National Rifle Association. The Southern Poverty Law Center claims Pratt has “ties to the militia movement, white supremacist organizations and Christian theocrats.”

The SPLC, of course, makes millions by claiming that everybody to the right of Hillary Clinton has similar eeeeeevil “ties.” Specific claims against Pratt have been long debunked, as anyone with 10 fingers and a search engine could discover. And don’t you always laugh at those little squeaks of horror about organizations “more extreme than the National Rifle Association”? After all these years, it’s amazing that hopolphobic journos haven’t realized that, within the gun-rights realm, most organizations (including ours) are “more extreme than the National Rifle Association”?

Oh well.

Ed Kilgore of the New Yorker has a better understanding of Second Amendment supporters and even compliments us (though I suspect he doesn’t consider it a compliment) by calling those of us who are beyond the NRA “Second Amendment ultras” rather than the usual “extremist” cr*p. I’ve never been an “ultra” before and I think I’d rather like being one.

He also makes the absolutely correct point that if conservative politicians and activists like Larry Pratt, Joni Ernst, Mike Huckabee, or Ted Cruz (all of whom have made statements compatible with the “bullet box” remark) heard rhetoric similar to Pratt’s coming from, say, a black-nationalist group, they’d be crying alarm.

But Kilgore seems to have no grasp of the concept of a constitutional republic and seemingly no understanding at all of limited powers, the Bill of Rights, or for that matter the plain truth that individuals have rights that no government or interest group has authority to abolish.

Bottom line, although his language is restrained and high-toned, Kilgore, like Mazza, seems to hold the common hoplophobe view that taking to the bullet box simply means “shooting anybody you disagree with.” Especially if you don’t like particular election results or the views of judges.

Of course, anyone can see by Pratt’s statement that he’d rather do just about anything rather than resort to shooting. And I wonder how many of the fainting pundits understand that Pratt was referring to the famous “four boxes of freedom” — soap, jury, ballot, and cartridge — and that the final item is only the very last resort of people who’ve been so tyrannized that the first three fail utterly to preserve freedom. Not “democracy.” Freedom. Individual rights. The soap box, the jury box, and (at least in theory) the ballot box are all tools of the individual. It’s only when government or perhaps powerful agents working with government take them away that the cartridge box legitimately comes into play.

On the other hand, we know where we stand with the first three boxes now.

The soap box has long been under threat from uppity presidents, self-righteous campus thugs (not to mention campus speech codes), political intolerance on any part of the spectrum, state governments, federal officials, and even petty local tyrants.

Between the over-criminalization of everything, the pressure to force us to incriminate ourselves (pdf), and other forms of courtroom tyranny, the jury box isn’t as free as it was supposed to be, either.

And the ballot box? Oh, please. At a local level, and sometimes even at a state level, voting may occasionally nudge government a little ways in the direction of greater respect for individual rights. But at the federal level, overreach, mission creep, corruption, secrecy, uber-surveillance, funny money, militarization, paranoia, unaccountable bureaucracy, and “stroke of the pen, law of the land” arrogance have gone so far that the ballot box has become nothing but a kind of “opiate of the masses” — a quasi-religious ceremony that encourages us to believe we can influence the far-off “gods” who — no matter whether they’re the gods of the Ds or the gods of the Rs — increasingly rule without regard to any limits on their power.

No, I do not know a single gun owner who believes in “shooting anybody you disagree with.” But then again, maybe those ardent advocates of unlimited “democracy,” those believers in the “anything-goes” power of unelected judges, justices, and bureaucrats really do have something to fear.

Not gun owners. We’re not their enemy. We’re not the enemy of any peaceable people, no matter how much we may dislike their opinions. What they have to fear are the inevitable — and now rapidly growing — consequences of the very policies they so lovingly or stridently or self-servingly or ignorantly support.

—–

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, hoplophobia, Media, Poll

Poll: What happens to Katie Couric now?

7 Comments

If you’ve read any gun news this week, you know that “journalist” Katie Couric was caught faking part of a documentary to make gun-rights activists look stupid and ashamed of themselves. Fortunately, one of the participants had made an audiotape — a very damning tape for Couric and her methods.

Even anti-gun NPR thought what Couric and her team did was a huge, manipulative no-no.

So in this week’s poll we ask, What happens to Couric now?

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, guns

here’s what the nra just endorsed for president

23 Comments

The NRA just endorsed Donald Trump for president at its national convention.

This is what they endorsed.

 

I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. — Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. — Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

Q: Do you support the California law allowing judges to confiscate someone’s gun if they are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others?

A: This is something to look into–people with mental health problems are on the streets who shouldn’t be. — Source: CNN SOTU 2015 interview series: 2016 presidential hopefuls , Sep 20, 2015

Q: You’ve talked about wanting to keep the terror watch list but, under current law, individuals on the terror watch list and the no-fly list have been allowed to buy guns and explosives. Are you OK with that?

TRUMP: We have to have a watch list, but we have the laws already on the books as far as Second Amendment for guns, if people are on a watch list or people are sick, this is already covered in the legislation that we already have,

Q: But under current law people on the watch list are allowed to buy guns.

TRUMP: If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it’s an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely. –ABC This Week 2015 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Nov 22, 2015

Donald_Trump_GunSo the NRA – an organization that is supposedly dedicated to preserving our Second Amendment rights – America’s First Freedom – endorsed a candidate who implied that the NRA is uncompromising and that Republicans are wrong not to bend on at least some restrictions.

The NRA endorsed a candidate who thinks it may be acceptable for a judge to confiscate the property of an individual with some nebulous concept of “mental health problems.”

The NRA endorsed a candidate who believes people placed on a secret no-fly list without due process should be relieved of their right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA endorsed a candidate who has publicly voiced his support for an “assault weapons” ban and who wants a waiting period before anyone is allowed to make a constitutionally protected purchase. Of course, now he claims he no longer supports the ban on those scary black rifles. Just in time to run for President as a Republican.

Congrats, NRA. You’ve endorsed a flip-flopping, tyrannical weasel, who has hoodwinked a plurality of Republicans into supporting him, and you fell right in line with the rest of those who care more about “winning” than they do about the direction this country is taking.

You care more about defeating the evil Hillary than you do about endorsing someone who has zero respect for basic human rights and believes they should be subject to the whims of politicians.

America’s first freedom, indeed.

Nauseating.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun grabbers, Politics

Ask the wrong questions, get the wrong answers

18 Comments

And so it begins.

Both parties have now produced “inevitable” presidential candidates who are corrupt, opportunistic, sexist, self-serving, anti-gun, pro-big government, as personable as rabid skunks, and (worse from the mainstream point of view) electorally weak.

The Punditocracy, both professional and amateur, feels it has no choice other than to persuade its readership to hold their collective noses and v*te for … somebody. But since there’s not a single good thing to say about the candidate of their reluctant choice, the argument usually goes: “Yes, we know you’ve said you’d rather v*te for nobody than for ______. But think again! On issue A, B, or C Candidate So-and-So is so much worse than Candidate Such-and-Such that you simply must v*te against ________. Or the sky will fall.”

In the face of national loathing for both mainstream candidates, it’s amazing that political insiders have not yet shoved forward an independent Ross Perot or John Anderson type. But here the situation stands. For now.

I am not a pundit. I don’t care if you v*te for Unindicted Co-Conspirator D or Mercurial Megalomaniac R. I don’t care if you v*te at all. As an old political junkie myself, I wake up about two mornings out of three thinking Trump would be less ghastly than Clinton II and wake up on the third morning thinking Hillary has advantages over The Donald, though by the time I’ve dosed myself with caffeine I can’t recall what those advantages might be. Oh yeah, that with those mysterious health problems she’s hiding, she’s more likely than Trump to drop dead suddenly and be replaced with someone marginally less horrible. Or with her email and corrupt fundraising history she’s more likely to be disgraced, indicted, or otherwise forced out of office early. That’s her advantage.

Not a good enough reason to v*te for her, though. Unless someone puts a gun to my head, I won’t be v*ting for anybody.

But I don’t care if you v*te or not. That’s your business. I do care if Americans ask the right questions about these party animals, about the thick mess the country is in, and about how we personally should respond to it.

‘Cause it seems vast swaths of Pundithood want you to ask the wrong questions. And when you ask the wrong questions, you never arrive at the right answers.

—–

One of those “You must v*te against ______!” pieces showed up in the TZP mailbox the other day. (A widely circulated but wildly misattributed piece of commentary.) It made a valid and important point against Hillary: the Supreme Court.

Justice Scalia’s seat is vacant. Ginsberg is 82 years old, Kennedy is 79, Breyer is 77, and Thomas is 67. …

These are 5 vacancies that will likely come up over the next 4-8 years. …

Hillary Clinton has made it clear she will use the Supreme Court to go after the 2nd Amendment. She has literally said that the Supreme Court was wrong in its Heller decision, stating that the Court should overturn and remove the individual right to keep and bear arms. Period.

Never mind that no court, no president, can ever “remove the individual right to keep and bear arms.” They can mightily interfere with the exercise of said right. So yes, the prospect of Hillary controling multiple appointments to the court is ominous.

But then the pundit goes absurdly over the top:

If Hillary Clinton wins, and gets to make these appointments, you likely will never see another Conservative victory at the Supreme Court level, for the rest of your life – – – Including your children and your grandchildren.

The rest of your life? The rest of your grandchildren’s lives? Oh, really? Let’s say you have a child this year and that child grows up and, at age 25, has a child. Then that child, your grandchild, lives 75 years. (Note: “the rest of your life, ridiculous enough, appears in the original. Someone added all those grandchildren as the piece circulated. So it’s the pundit’s editor going even farther over the top.)

We’re supposed to believe that, if Hillary is elected, the Supreme Court will remain rabidly Hillarian for the next 100 years???

“The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”

But worse than the Alice in Wonderland math and the Chicken Little claims are the things unsaid, the facts unstated, the untruths cleverly implied — the questions unasked. Such as:

What makes anyone think Donald Trump is a “conservative,” or that he would appoint “conservative” justices? Trump has supported single-payer health insurance (to the left of Hillary). Trump has been anti-gun, just like Hillary. Trump has used big government to his own ends and wants to use them now in populist (traditionally “left-wing”) causes. Trump has contributed to past Hillary Clinton campaigns. Conservative? What?

What makes anyone think that justices appointed by Trump, even if he happened to choose a few “conservative” ones, would be pro-gun or pro-liberty? This generation may have forgotten that the court headed by “conservative” Chief Justice Earl Warren produced some of the most unconstitutional, left-wing decisions in U.S. history (with Warren’s full and enthusiastic collaboration). But surely we can’t already have forgotten that current “conservative” Chief Justice John Roberts single-handedly saved Obamacare. “Liberal” justices tend to remain liberal, but “conservative” ones often do what other gov-o-crats do: v*te for big government once they’re part of it.

Ask the wrong questions — or fail to ask the right ones — and you’ll inevitably get the wrong answers.

While (correctly) damning Hillary, the viral article says not one, single, positive thing about Trump. It offers not one smidgeon of evidence that Trump would do anything better. Because there is no evidence to offer. It implies in a slippery and sideways manner that he’s a conservative (whatever that means), but actual evidence of his principles or his intentions is completely absent.

But Hillary is anti-gun! Hillary will appoint nasty Supreme Court justices!

So please don’t notice that Trump is just Hillary with even worse hair, a louder mouth, and a different variety of sexism.

The sky will fall if you v*te for Hillary! Your grandchildren will still be stuck with her 100 years from now!

Never mind the consequences of Trump. Don’t mention them. Imply that he’s a “conservative” antidote to creepy authoritarian anti-gun eternal statism and maybe in November it’ll miraculously turn out to be true.

It could happen. And pigs could fly. And Dorothy could click her heels and come safely home to Kansas. And Jesus really could appear on a tortilla. And orchids could bloom outdoors at the North Pole. And presidential candidates could tell the absolute truth, hold noble principles of freedom, and always do exactly what we hope they’ll do, just because we hope it so very, very ardently.

It could happen.

But wouldn’t we be better off if we closely examine reality and act in accordance with that?

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Media

Goose, meet gander

6 Comments

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.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail