Saturday, May 16, 2015

Never Again.....

My visit to Dachau the weekend after the 70th anniversary of it's Liberation by Allied Forces.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Bernie Sanders, 2nd Amendment Advocate?

An article penned at Slate, takes presidential candidate [and admitted Socialist] to task for supporting common sense 2nd Amendment protections. Yes, that’s right…..I used the same framing that the gun control camp uses: “common sense”. Since the term has no defined metric, no meaning beyond personal bias….it’s just as applicable if the gun rights camp were to employ it. I won’t be continuing to use it… it’s a lazy tactic lost on the gun control cabal, but the point is made.

What’s interesting beyond the fact that Sanders doesn’t buy into the empty gun control narrative, writ large anyway……is that Slate uses this article to rail against a 2005 piece of legislation that they would not support were it directed against any other lawful industry. That legislation is the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)”. This bill protects firearm manufacturers against lawsuits and punitive damages stemming from the criminal use of its products.
The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it.
This, apparently, is a bad thing. The author attempts to bolster his disdain for this protection by citing invented examples of other industries that he sees as analogous.
But the act’s primary purpose is as simple as it is cold-blooded. Every state imposes liability on manufacturers who are negligent in their production and sale of products. If I crash my Prius because its accelerator malfunctions, I can sue Toyota for negligently manufacturing a faulty pedal. If my child dismembers himself with a blender at Sears, I can sue Sears for negligently leaving that blender within a child’s reach.
The glaring hole in his assertion however, is that he cites negligent faults in the product themselves, or negligence on the part of the intermediary, the retailer. He thinks you, the reader, are too stupid to see the difference. Firearms manufactures are protected….as are other industries…..from tort liability in cases where a person takes a lawful, and lawfully procured item…and uses it in a criminal act. If the author were correct, or had journalistic integrity, he would assert that because Sears left a blender within reach of a child…one could sue the manufacturer of the blender. But since cannot, he concoct a fantasy where he would have you believe that the firearm industry has been granted special protections, because…….eeevill NRA.

To recap, gun control supporters such as this author, would advocate for punitive liability judgements against the manufacturer of a non-defective lawful item, lawfully distributed to a lawful retailer, [presumably] lawfully sold to an appropriate consumer........but only if the item is a firearm. A legal product. Wow.

That idiocy aside…..I might actually watch a debate between Sanders and Clinton, if gun control is on the agenda. No, Sanders is not a champion for individual liberty, writ large….he’s a collectivist….but he’s an interesting cat.

Sunday, May 10, 2015

Meme's of the so-called "Culture Wars"

The National Organization for Straight Marriage has released an ever-so-helpful guide to using politically correct talking points. But the cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.....


Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is the following:

“Gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose;

they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. 

So let's take a closer look; Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose....unless they wish to partake in the same social customs and privileges as every other citizen. If they cross that line, the loving members of organizations such as NOM, will attempt to use the force of law to keep them second class citizens, while folks like NOM get to retain the special rights that they so dearly love.

NOM claims that nobody has the right to "redefine" marriage.....yet NOM would deign to "define" marriage on the first place. Let us not forget that marriage has undergone many redefinitions, as women have slowly attained equal rights as full citizens over time; women are no longer chattel to be used as bargaining or brokering by wealthy males and families; and we do not allow the polygamy that we read about in the Bible.

Finally, a marriage means something special, yet with different qualities to each person and couple. If allowing gays to partake in the same civil contract [because marriage is a civil contract under our system of laws], causes such extreme anguish with folks such as NOM....then perhaps that says something about their marriage......

Sunday, May 3, 2015 what your college-age children are learning....

Approximately 50 student protesters marched into Barton Hall Friday afternoon to disrupt Cornell President David Skorton’s farewell party.
The protesters marched across the gymnasium floor–filled with over 500 students, employees, and locals–waving signs and chanting various slogans, until ultimately settling upon the stage where a four-piece jazz band was playing to deliver their grievances against Cornell, Skorton, administrators, the Board of Trustees, Cornell Police and the NYPD, the KKK, Israel, and the jazz band. 
The protesters had earlier marched across campus and sat in the intersection of East Avenue and Campus Road outside Duffield Hall for over an hour, despite the “system-wide delays” reported by the local bus system and the dismay expressed delivery truck drivers. The undergrad, graduate, and faculty members sitting on the road took turns standing in the middle of their circle to deliver speeches regarding a variety of topics including, but not limited to, the following: systematic racism, sexism, rape culture, the riots in Baltimore, microaggressions, Cornell’s occupation of indigenous lands, capitalism, oil companies, patriarchy, masculinity, and straightness. 
One student, whose jumbled speech was to the effect of “we’re all fucking racists,” blurted the N-word out at one point and was later reprimanded by another speaker. Later, the offender returned to the middle of the circle to apologize for his choice of words, saying something to the effect of “I’m sorry, I’m a fucking racist, fuck me, fuck America.” 

Nobody is a more ardent supporter of civil and Constitutional liberties than I......but our academia writ large....has morphed into Clown College.

I'm saddened by the world I will leave my daughters.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

The burns.....

While ironically reporting on former President GW Bush talking about "chaos in the middle east, and the current Administration's policies", 'Outnumbered' intellectual luminary Stacey Dash said the following:

“When George W. Bush was president, the most important thing to him was not to be liked, but to be respected; And you better believe no one would have been beheaded when he was president.”

Perhaps Ms. Dash would be well served to remember the large number of foreign citizens who were beheaded in Iraq...a practice catalyzed by the beheading of Daniel Pearl in 2002. All during the Administration of GW Bush.

Speaking of flaming stupid....

Fox & Friends attacks Miami’s history-making black woman cop because she could be a flag-hating Muslim

Friday, April 24, 2015

Yep...I could watch this forever

h/t Knuckledraggin My Life Away

Thursday, April 23, 2015

USMC v. Army......Epic rap battle

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Children on the Internet

It was only a matter of time. I lasted longer than others, in keeping an open comment blog. But as any can see, the pathetic nature of some....who not only cannot conduct mature discourse with an opposing view......but when told to go elsewhere.....flail about in a petulant tantrum [evidence is in the comments section of the post below].

I have been forced to require comment moderation, since I don't have the time some basement dwellers do, to police this site from folks who need validation from being intellectually dishonest. Many of you who stop by here, already know the vermin of which I speak.......and you warned me to be sure.

Anyway.....those of you who proffer mature dialogue [which as been everybody expect the offending party] I will approve those comments as quickly as I can.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Gun Rights and "Compromise"?

There's an oft repeated line that comes from the gun control camp....aside from the emotional framing and illogical narratives. The gun control camp asks "why won't the gun rights camp just 'compromise' on this issue?" This is typically accompanied by immeasurable euphemisms such as "reasonable" and "common sense", but those are designed to appeal to the uninformed.

My issue is with the core question of "compromise". Every time I have asked what is to follow below, I either haven't received any answer, or have received simply more of the same issued script.

The 2nd Amendment [to highlight the context, one of the enumerated Constitutional rights guaranteed to the People] is, and has historically been the most infringed upon, restricted and regulated Constitutional right of the bunch. The 2nd Amendment has had limitations imposed upon the People, to an extent unfathomable to the very same critics were they to be likewise imposed upon any other Constitutional right.

So, let's remember the purpose and intent on the 2nd Amendment, that the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Yes, I know someone will invariably come along [again] and proffer the Militia = National Guard = collective right canard; they can't help it, its part of the script. But let's dispense for a moment with the history of such infringement to date and use the Amendment as it is realistically protected and restricted currently.

Now, let's consider the gun control position. It does vary, publicly. I have my doubts that anyone who employs the gun control narrative really supports the 2nd Amendment, though many make a point of saying so. It typically goes like this: "I support the 2nd Amendment, but.....". To be generous, let's presume that there are those who would disarm the citizen body wholly and completely; and there are those who would see the citizen able to own a fowling piece, or perhaps a target rifle locked at a State sanctioned shooting club. Perhaps there are even a few who merely think that licensing and taxing private transactions between citizens [again incompatible with any other right], and the registration of firearms is a good idea...though we've seen the result of that happening in other nations.

So...taking both positions into question is two-part but simple: 1. What is the "compromise" sought by the gun control camp? Not the nickel and dime legislation designed to merely set precedence for further restriction, but the end state?

And 2. What "compromise has the gun control camp shown to date? Remember where the positions started and are currently, along the philosophical X Axis.

All rational and mature comments are welcome, but I've been waiting for so long, for anyone from the gun control camp to offer up a cogent answer.

Saturday, April 18, 2015

This week in the ongoing oppression of Christians

Yes, that was sarcasm. Todd Starnes, where are you?
Cochran City Manager Richard Newbern said the city council voted to wave the Christian Flag over city hall. 
Councilman Gary Ates said he made the motion for the flag to stay up. He said the council voted to keep it up 5 to 1. "The city manager took the flag down because an attorney said we could have a problem," said Ates. 
Ates said, "The people of Cochran came to a city council meeting and said 'let's put the flag back up'," said Ates. 
Ates said about 75 to 100 people requested it to be put up again. 
"It was the right thing to do," said Ates. 
We reached out to other Cochran city officials; none of them could be reached for comment.

This flag has no more place above a government building than a rainbow flag or a Confederate battle flag. But it will be defending by those seeking victim status or claiming that we're a "Christian nation".

It takes two groups of fools to fight a 'culture war'.