Actual 'Gun Safety'

The gun control cabal has attempted to stealthily morph their branding from gun control…to gun safety. Yet for all their misguided [and perfidious] efforts….they have been unsurprisingly focused solely on control….rather than safety. They have long eschewed the Eddie Eagle Program, designed to teach young children how to react to coming across a firearm [Stop, Don’t Touch, Run Away, Tell a Grown-up]….not on its merits [which I would defy the gun control camp to refute], but because of its genesis in the National Rifle Association. Illustrating the intellectual immaturity of both their argument and their sock puppets….the gun control camp cannot seem to proffer an argument without invoking laughable memes and buzz phrases about the ‘eeeevil NRA’ or odd homoerotic projections comparing firearms to the phallus.

AL.com columnist Cameron Smith proposes something the Constitutional rights camp has long endorsed; the implementation of firearm safety classes in the public school system.

To be clear, there are a number of reasonable restrictions that most gun owners accept. Minors shouldn't be able to buy firearms. Felons shouldn't have them. Neither should people suffering from severe mental illness that renders them a threat to themselves or others. In spite of gaps in enforcement, many such laws are already in place.

Here's a novel idea. Instead of letting Grand Theft Auto shape the next generation's attitude toward firearms, why not offer a thorough safety and training class as an elective for seniors in high school?

Evil men and women will figure out firearms on their own, without the benefit of wise counsel and instruction. We might want to make sure that we extend a superior opportunity to law-abiding citizens interested in self-defense and being able to engage firearms without being a danger to others.

Doing so would prevent immeasurable accidental gun deaths and foster a respect for firearms rather than fear.

It's past time to take back control of our guns by focusing on training, knowledge, and engagement rather than relegating firearms to a place of fear used solely by the worst among us. 

Our public schools have for many, many years….included all manner of safety classes within their curriculum [fire, water, electrical; weather, traffic, sports, etc, etc, etc]…….so why [if firearm accidents were such a national travesty’ would the “gun safety” camp want to educate our children to ward off these unfortunate events?

Because it goes to the strategy of demonization. The gun control camp pursues a campaign of mis-education and ignorance. Modern ‘studies’ and polls are rife with alleged correlations on gun ownership, gun laws, gun ‘culture’, etc……..but one paradigm we don’t see studied [by design], is the correlation of years past, when kids grew up shooting, hunting and being educated on gun safety

Hoplophobes and 'Swatting'

The "Coalition to Stop Gun Violence" or CSGV, has taken to their Facebook site encouraging their mouth breathing lemmings to call law enforcement any and every time they see someone carrying a firearm in public. They encourage their minions to tell law enforcement that they "don't feel safe".....though from the comments and CSGV responses, that the true intent is to [and I quote] hassle gun owners. They don't merely give a marching order to call the police...but to call 911. Good job guys....tying up the emergency line for frivolous and false reports really speaks highly of the intellect that we're dealing with here. /sarc


Swatting is the act of tricking an emergency service (via such means as hoaxing a 9-1-1 dispatcher) into dispatching an emergency response based on the false report of an ongoing critical incident.


What they likely don't realize, because let's face it, we're not dealing with the MENSA crowd here....is that aside from taking law enforcement away from working and/or repsonding to actual violations of the law, filing a false report [when there is no crime being committed] is a misdemeanor in many states. Some commenters advocate telling 911 that there is an 'active shooter', which of course, will result in a felony conviction for the caller. Others state that they will leave any establishment that permits open carry, and without paying. Nice.


The comments are rife with the usual menu of stale meme's and outright lies...but the underlying theme is that their perceived [and non-existent] right to harass a citizen acting in a lawful manner, is somehow more important than the laws of their state and locality, as well as the burden placed upon the emergency services for their area.


So, I suppose it makes sense that those who would so casually disregard the rights protected under the Constitution, would likewise disregard state and local laws. Why is the gun control cabal such a criminal element?


* Hoplophobia is a neologism, originally coined as a pejorative, to describe an "irrational aversion to weapons." It is sometimes used more generally to describe the "fear of firearms" or colloquially as the "fear of armed citizens."

Obama cites Australia's gun confiscation........

Without the most base understanding that their gun control cabal is just as fundamentally ignorant as ours is.

“My biggest frustration so far is the fact that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can do just unbelievable damage. We’re the only developed country on earth where this happens. And it happens now once a week. And it’s a one-day story. There’s no place else like this,” the president said. 

“A couple of decades ago Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown, and Australia just said, ‘Well, that’s it. We’re not doing — we’re not seeing that again,’ and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since. I mean, our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no other advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this,” Obama added.

Of course, he doesn't mention the third rail of the gun control cabal......confiscation. But that's exactly what occurred in Australia.

The anti-liberty sycophants from down under suffer from the same fundamental ignorance about the issues that they're so petulantly vociferous about, as does our very own gun control cabal.

Not really sure if I should giggle at the stupid...or weep for humanity......

The only true threat to the "Institution" of Marriage.....Divorce

From Ronald Balmer, writing an OpEd in the L.A. Times:

Evangelicals like to present their position as biblical and therefore immutable. They want us to believe that they have never before adjusted to shifting public sentiments on sexuality and marriage. That is not so. 

Divorce — and especially divorce and remarriage — was once such an issue, an issue about which evangelicals would brook no compromise. But evangelicals eventually reconfigured their preaching and adapted just fine to changing historical circumstances.
When I was growing up within the evangelical subculture in the 1960s, divorce was roundly condemned by evangelicals. Jesus, after all, was pretty clear on the issue. "And I say to you," he told the Pharisees, "whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." 

Anyone who was divorced was ostracized in evangelical circles. In some congregations, membership was rescinded, and at the very least the divorcee felt marginalized. Any evangelical leader who divorced his spouse could expect to look for a different job.
Although evangelical attitudes changed incrementally over many years, it's possible to identify the real turning point with a fair amount of accuracy: 1980. 

Not long ago I surveyed the pages of Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism and a bellwether of evangelical sentiments. Condemnations of divorce, which had been a regular feature in the 1970s, ceased almost entirely after 1980. 

More telling, the "family values" movement, which took off in 1980, largely ignored this once crucial subject. Jerry Falwell and other conservative preachers attacked abortion, feminism and homosexuality, but they rarely mentioned divorce. 

What happened? In a word (or two words): Ronald Reagan. When leaders of the religious right decided to embrace Reagan as their political messiah, they had to swallow hard.

More here

He makes a good point, not only does same-sex marriage NOT harm marriage [or procreation] writ large, but the actual threat to the union of two committed and consenting citizens....has become commonplace, whereas once.....it was as reviled as is the current drama.

An Independence Day greeting to the Police/Security/Surveillance States of America

Photo h/t to eatgrueldog

This greeting is also extending to our effete political and pundit class.....but that would be redundant to the title.

BTW....tomorrow is Independence Day....the 4th of July is just a date on the calendar.....and a schlocky excuse for store sales.

"Secular Jihadists"

The latest rhetorical tantrum thrown by pouty-faced foot stompers who are seeing a decline in the legislation of their religious beliefs, and the special privileges that have come with it.

Their claims that they support liberty, freedom and individual sovereignty have been exposed for the facades they are.

Lindsey Graham, rational candidate?

There are a lot of upset people that believe in traditional marriage. They’re disappointed. They’re down right now, but the court has rules. So here’s where I stand. If I’m president of the United States, here’s what would happen. If you have a church or a mosque or a synagogue, and you’re following your faith and you refuse to perform a same-sex marriage because it’s outside the tenants of your faith, in my presidency, you will not lose your tax-exempt status. If you’re a gay person, or a gay couple, and I’m president of the United States, you will be able to participate in commerce and be a full member of society, consistent with the religious beliefs of others who have rights also…

I don’t believe there is any chance for a constitutional amendment, defining marriage between one man and one woman could get two-thirds votes in the House and Senate and be ratified by three-fourths of the states… In my view if you put it in the platform, in my view, it will hurt us in 2016 because it’s a process that’s not going to bear fruit.

What I want to do is protect the religious liberties of those who believe that opposing same sex marriage as part of their faith so no i would not engage in the constitutional amendment process as a party going into 2016 except for fighting for the religious liberties of every American.


Daily Caller


I've never really been a fan of Graham, and am not shilling for him as a POTUS candidate now.....but does he represent the most rational position on the Obergefell ruling, of the crop of GOP prospective?


An additional analysis by non-candidate Rep. Justin Amash, R-MI:


For thousands of years, marriage flourished without a universal definition and without government intervention. Then came licensing of marriage. In recent decades, we've seen state legislatures and ballot initiatives define marriage, putting government improperly at the helm of this sacred institution
.
Those who care about liberty should not be satisfied with the current situation. Government intervention in marriage presents new threats to religious freedom and provides no advantages, for gay or straight couples, over unlicensed (i.e., traditional) marriage. But we shouldn't blame the Supreme Court for where things stand.


To the extent that Americans across the political spectrum view government marriage as authoritative and unlicensed marriage as quaint, our laws must treat marriage—and the corresponding legal benefits that attach—as they would any other government institution. So, while today's Supreme Court opinion rests upon the false premise that government licensure is necessary to validate the intimate relationships of consenting adults, I applaud the important principle enshrined in this opinion: that government may not violate the equal rights of individuals in any area in which it asserts authority.


And my own analysis: We, as a society of free men....have long concluded that the marriage contract is a basic civil liberty. The denial of this contract, based on gender and sexual orientation....not only serves no purpose [as there is no burden upon the fellow citizen], but is antithetical to the very tenets of liberty....and is unequal protection under the law. The fundamental error in this entire affair, stems back to allowing the State to license this contract.


Further, this ruling is grounded in both the Equal Protection and the Enforcement Clauses [though Thomas had fair argument with respect to Kennedy's over reliance on the Due Process Clause] of the 14th Amendment; with adjudicated precedent dating back at least to the 1866 and 1875 Civil Rights Acts.


All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State or Territory "to engage in real property transactions, make and enforce contracts, and have the right to “the full and equal benefit of the laws.”


And my solution to the social strife? Remove the clergy from the role as an agent of the State, and you've solved not only this problem, but further remove the religious sacrament of marriage from the purview of the State, and place it solely in the hands of the respective denominations.

Liberty sees a rare victory

SCOTUS rules for Equal Protection Under the Law


This could actually be a boon for the GOP....if they're politically savvy enough to seize upon it. Until this day, a platform of denying civil liberties to fellow American citizens, has been a divisive plank that has kept many from voting for Republican candidates. I've long said that if the GOP were to embrace individual sovereignty and civil liberty...[notwithstanding their liberal spending policies], they would regain enough Libertarian voters to keep the Democrats at bay.


Sadly, as long as they pretend that marriage is not a legal contract between citizens....but rather some unalterable law bequeathed by God [though marriage predates the institution of Christianity], this is an unlikely prospect.


So, more likely....this further entrenches the Democratic Party as the majority.

Erasing history: Solutions in search of problems

So retailers from Walmart to Apple to Amazon to the National Park Service are falling over themselves in an attempt to not be the last entity selling or displaying the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. Oh the horror......

Attempting to erase history to soothe the intellectually frail and those prone to the vapors isn't going to solve problems of racism or violence. The flag in question plays no role in these problems. It's an inanimate object and should be treated as such. But that's how our society reacts....erase a symbol and it will be proof of "doing something!" That's all that matters...the optics.

Meanwhile these seemingly well intentioned folks are ignorant that moves such as this, merely sets a  precedent that may well bite them in the proverbial ass.

The battle flag should no more be flown over a government facility, nor incorporated into a state flag....than should the rainbow flag of the gay rights movement [yet there it is]. As stated on Doc Bailey's blog:

I believe that it is an important part of our past, and should not be consigned to the dust bin.  I thing the confederate battle flag should fly.  With a caveat.  It should fly over reenactments.  I think there is a middle ground, where we can honor the courage and sacrifice of Americans, regardless of side, and also at the same time recognize the wrong done.  Unfortunately, at the time, passions are too high for this to happen.  One can only hope that the blood pressure subside enough that we can take a more realistic look at our history.  Accept both the good and the bad, and learn from both.  Like it or not the Confederate States of America is a large part of American history, and without the CSA, the USA would not be the country it is today.

Some anti-gun meme's never die......

“You don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting, it certainly is not part of anybody’s family heritage or family tradition.” – White House Spokesman Josh Earnest


Of course, Josh is either ignorant of the fact that many people hunt with rifles that the gun control camp refers to as "assault weapons".....as well as the fact that they're not mechanically any different than any other semi-automatic rifle...or he is merely proliferating the stale, trite false narratives that his camp always does.


The gun control camps' fetish for willfully conflating semi-automatic rifles with automatic rifles....and emphasis on a 'military' appearance.....lacks integrity and reason that should be expected in discourse amongst adults.


But it's at least entertaining to see him posture as some arbiter of anyone's family heritage or tradition.


For extra credit, I present Sen. Harry Reid:


"The United States is the only advanced country where this type of mass violence occurs," [WRONG] Reid said from the Senate floor. "Let's do something. We can expand, for example, background checks....[DID NOT, AND WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED THE CHARLESTON SHOOTING] We should support not giving guns to people who are mentally ill and felons." [ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW]


Shouldn't we expect more from our elder statesmen? I'm a bit surprised that he didn't fall back on the meme, as POTUS hopeful O'Malley did, on calling for a ban on a type of rifle based on it's appearance.


It appears that Manchin and Toomey will resurrect their failed plot....so the circus continues.

Piers Morgan is still a dumbass

Embedded in another of his typical polemic [with the usual framing and hyperbole], following the tragic Charleston shooting, Piers Morgan utters the following absurdity:


I’m sick of hearing that the 2nd Amendment can’t be amended to drag it into modern life because the Constitution is such a sacred document. It’s already an AMENDMENT. Do the damn math.


Poor ignorant Piers.......this is exactly what the 2nd Amendment camp has been calling for. We ask that instead of cowardly end-runs...nibbling at the edges in order to mask the true agenda....why won't the gun control camp simply pursue an amendment or revocation of the 2A?

Waving the bloody shirt

The bodies in the tragic South Carolina shooting have barely cooled, when POTUS took to the airwaves, and without a shred of reporting as to how the firearm in question was obtained...lambasted the allegedly "easy availability of guns" and went on to use the event as a lazy political jab at those who would see our Constitutional rights infringed beyond recognition.

The jackass couldn't even follow his own script when he stated "Now is the time for mourning and for healing."

Apparently not Mr. President......apparently its time to play politics.

Stay classy Obama......

Rick Santorum thinks you're stupid

"[On Gay Marriage] This is tantamount to government establishing religion," Santorum said. "When the United States government comes in and says this is what you are going to believe, this is how you're going to practice your faith, this is a new religion. This violates, in my opinion, the Establishment Clause in the Constitution that says that Congress shall make no law with respect to an establishment of religion. If the government goes around and tells churches what they have to believe in and what their doctrine is, that is something that is a violation of the First Amendment."


Bullshit. Unabashed, embarrassing bullshit. I could care less what he thinks of civil liberties versus special privileges. I wouldn't vote for him regardless. What saddens me, is the his audience doesn't take him to task for his tactic. Either Santorum is stupid [unlikely] or he thinks that his audience is stupid.


No government entitiy is dictating what a citizen or a church can believe. It's literally impossible on it's face, and it's embarrassing to me as an American citizen, that we have clowns like this on the right, proliferating the airwaves with politically motivated false myths and memes.


So, expanding civil liberties in the face of religious opposition, unwilling to relinquish special privileges.....is tantamount to establishing religion. Yet one religion violating the Establishment Clause is somehow just....but the other alleged 'religion' allegedly doing likewise...is bad?


This guy wants to be your President

Well, no kidding....

The memo to Mr. Stephanopoulos, who was then a senior adviser to Mr. Clinton and is now an ABC News host who is currently under fire for $75,000 in contributions he made to the Clinton Foundation, warns of the potential electoral consequences an aggressive gun control push could bring.

“As much as I hate to say it, the NRA is effective primarily because it is largely right when it claims that most gun control laws inconvenience and threaten the law-abiding while having little or no impact on violent crime or criminals,” wrote Jody Powell, the former Carter press aide. 

“I support registration in principle,” the memo reads. “But two questions need to be asked. Are the people causing the problem going to comply voluntarily? If not, do you have a way to effectively enforce compliance? If the answer is ‘no’ in both cases, consider whether the benefits are worth making Bob Dole majority leader.”

Washington Times

Wait.....you mean gun control only legally affects the law abiding??? Who knew?

The gun control camp knows this....so what are they really after? We can see the shape of the strategy to come, if Hillary Clinton moves into 1600 Penn.

“We cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” she said at a CNN town hall event last year.

Translation: peoples ignorant fear of something they don't understand....should trump Constitutional and civil rights.....because it will make them feel better.

Never Again.....

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

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…..as 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.

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.....

I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE.

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......

This....is 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.” 

 Link

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.

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 consideration...my 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.

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.

Link

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'.