The leftists in the Blue cities want to starve the red states out economically until we submit to their socialism and gun control. The Civil War that follows is going to be epic. Larry Correia cuts to the quick in his usual outspoken style.
Olbermann is one stupid son of a bitch.
One of the big arguments you hear from the left about the Rittenhouse case is: Kyle is a murderer because he had no business being in Kenosha. If he had only stayed at his mom’s house, he wouldn’t have needed to defend himself.
OK, let’s play that game. I will counter that claim with one single name: Manuel Terán.
Manuel Terán was from Venezuela. He had a student visa to attend Florida State University. Instead, he decided to drop out of school to become a self described “forest defender” who would protest to protect the environment. In other words, he was in violation of the terms of his student visa, and was then an illegal immigrant. He headed up to Georgia and began camping in the woods to prevent the construction of a new police training center near Atlanta. By camping in the woods, protesters hoped to prevent the construction crews from clearing the land.
When Georgia State Police arrived to clear out the protesters, one of the officers was shot. When police returned fire, the dead body was found to be holding a handgun. Ballistic tests matched the bullet taken from the police officer to that handgun. The dead protester was identified as Manuel Terán.
His mother said that Manuel was not the type of person to shoot at police, and also claimed, “They said he had a gun. If he had one, it was for protecting himself against the animals in the forest.” Except it is illegal for him to have a gun, since he was in the country illegally.
Still, Manuel Terán has become a martyr for the cause in Atlanta. If only he had stayed where he belonged. Isn’t it funny how Kyle Rittenhouse was wrong for visiting his father in Kenosha, less than 50 miles from his mother’s home, but an illegal immigrant is celebrated for crossing a national border illegally, travelling thousands of miles, arming himself with a handgun (which the left wants outlawed), then using that handgun to shoot a police officer?
Watch this, and read some of the comments.
My initial thought was that it can’t be real. Then I reconsidered. This is the kind of childish, magical thinking that my children displayed when they were 8 or 9 years old. My daughter once asked me why I wouldn’t buy some expensive car or another. I replied that we didn’t have money for that. Her answer was, “Just go to the ATM and get more.”
That is the exact level of thinking displayed by this man-child, and the comment that followed. Just who is going to provide or pay for the basic, no frills life that you feel should be provided to you?
I had a similar conversation with my niece less than a year ago. My niece made the statement that people should get things that are necessary for free, because we all have a right to the necessities of life. She used feminine hygiene products as an example.
I pointed out to her that, since no one was paying for tampons, there would be no money to pay the people who worked in the tampon factory, so why would anyone work there for free? Her first reply was, “Wait! There is a tampon factory?”
I said, “Well just where do you think tampons come from? Is there a tampon tree somewhere?”
She replied, “Well, in that case, I suppose you could get women to work there and pay them with free tampons.”
I said, “What would that be worth? If everyone already gets tampons for free, what good is it to pay them with free tampons? So how are your employees going to eat, buy gas, or buy a house?”
She said, “That’s my point. Money is stupid. Why can’t everyone just trade and barter for stuff? Why should we all have to go to work just to be able to afford the things we need to live? The government can just print all of the money we need.”
I tried to explain money to her, but she didn’t get it. She is only 14, so I can excuse that. It’s her older sister, who is 21, that is evidence of an entire generation that doesn’t understand money. All they know is that they think somehow it’s their right to receive a living without having to do anything. This is why they all are demanding a living wage, or whatever they want to call it. It’s why they love socialism. They all want something for nothing.
There is a word to describe people working to provide things to people who aren’t doing a thing to earn what they receive, and that word is slavery.
Michelle Obama famously said, “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country,” after the Democrats nominated her husband. Politifact gaslighted the nation by claiming that wasn’t what she said, and Michelle had to walk back her comments.
Last week, Tim Kaine’s wife, as part of Virginia’s Board of Education, denounced the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as being responsible for slavery. As a result, the US history that will be taught in Virginia schools is one that seeks to vilify the nation’s founding, then use that as a springboard to vilify the nation today. Of course, the press and her husband are seeking to walk back those comments, not because they disagree with them, but because she wasn’t supposed to say that part out loud.
The left positively hates this country, its government, and everything it stands for. They want to tear it down and replace it with their version of a communist utopia. Never mind that socialism and communism have never worked before. See, the reason that those have never worked before is that people who are as smart as they are have never been in charge.
They aren’t just grooming your kids to be their little sex puppets. They are grooming them to understand and believe that the little people are simply objects to be owned by their social betters. They are teaching children to be subservient little slaves with no capacity for rebellion or independent thought. They want a nation of serfs, of obedient little servants who can be ruled over by the political elite.
This vision of America, a communist one with them as the leaders, is the reason why they want to disarm you. That’s the vision that Tim Kaine and his wife have for us. He wants to disarm and enslave you, she wants to teach your kids that the Constitution and the nation’s founders are evil and should be eliminated.
The Democrat party is evil. There is no other way to say it.
Leftists on Twitter are all upset because there was a Pat Tillman tribute during the Superbowl. Although the left is all in favor of going to war against a nuclear armed Russia, wars that are started by Republicans are bad, so the facts of his death have to be viewed in that light. The reasons that the left is giving for being upset are:
So if the US winds up in a shooting war with Russia, I expect all of those bloviating leftists to rush down to the recruiting office to sign up.
Internal documents show that the BATFE is going from dealer to dealer and looking for minor infractions and then using them to revoke FFLs. Maybe its time that someone challenge GCA ’68 on Constitutional grounds. Most of it has gone far beyond regulating interstate commerce.
A recent study found that black children have less grey matter in their brains than white children. They researchers then came to the conclusion that this was the result of the stresses of poverty, drugs, and violence, which was caused by systemic racism. How can you draw that conclusion? It seems to me as if they began with the conclusion, then went looking for the support.
I can think of several alternative conclusions.
Black children experienced more traumatic events, family conflict, and material hardship on average compared with White children, and their parents or caregivers had lower educational attainment, lower income, and more unemployment compared with those of White children. Black children showed lower amygdala, hippocampus, and PFC gray matter volumes compared with White children. The volumes of the PFC and amygdala, but not the hippocampus, also varied with metrics of childhood adversity, with income being the most common predictor of brain volume differences. Accounting for differences in childhood adversity attenuated the magnitude of some race-related differences in gray matter volume.
OK. So how did you determine cause and effect? Were the black children born with less grey matter than whites? Did the amount of grey matter decline over time? Did you compare black children who were wealthy (say, Jayden Smith or the Obama girls) to white children who were poor, to see if there were correlations there? How about including other races? Asians?
Nope. Instead, the study began with the following assumptions:
Current U.S. Census data show that Black households, on average, have a lower median income, lower educational attainment, and higher rates of unemployment and poverty compared with White households. Moreover, research suggests that Black children are more likely to be exposed to trauma and domestic violence and are more likely to have a parent who died, an incarcerated parent, or divorced or separated parents compared with White children. Additionally, research has shown that Black children live in disproportionately disadvantaged neighborhoods and are more likely than White children to be exposed to neighborhood violence. These racial disparities are not random. Rather, they are deep-rooted structural inequalities that result from a history of disenfranchisement of racially minoritized groups (e.g., slavery, segregation) that reinforce themselves through societal norms and practices (i.e., systemic racism)
(highlighting added)
I was with them on the other evidence. Yes, there is evidence that black children are likely to be poor, have incarcerated parents, and lower intelligence. I agree. What they are essentially saying is that blacks are poor, less intelligent, and more likely to be criminals than are whites, and that there is a biological and physiological basis for this. That’s exactly what I have been saying for years. What I have a problem with is the conclusion that is unsupported by any evidence presented by this so-called study- that it’s white people’s fault.
This seems like junk science with no control group and little in the way of actual, well, science. When I was a teacher, had one of my students turned in an unsupported conclusion like that one, it likely would have received a poor grade.
This past week saw a huge win for gun rights, in that SCOTUS the Fifth circuit struck down a part of the GCA that was added during the Clinton administration– making eliminating a provision of the law that prohibited persons out of people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders. AWA over at GunFreeZone did an excellent post on the ruling, and I won’t attempt to recreate that here.
There are those who oppose that ruling and are claiming that there will be domestic abusers lining up to kill their former partners over this. I don’t think that there will be any big changes. Those who want to kill their partners just aren’t deterred by a piece of paper saying that killing someone is illegal, even if signed by a judge. The left always assumes that criminals are simply honest people who gave in to a moment’s impulse, and each of us is equally likely to give into an impulse to kill others. An interesting insight into the leftist mind, eh?
My opinion on these DV orders is that they are bullshit aimed at men in an attempt to give women another arrow in their lawfare quiver. About ten years ago, I was the subject of one of those orders. It was sought and granted without me even being present, with the initial order not even having my correct name on it, by a woman that I hadn’t even seen in months, and in that order she alleged that I did things in stalking her that were impossible because I was not even in the country when they were alleged to have happened.
David Letterman was once subject to a DV order that was obtained by a woman who lived thousands of miles away, after the woman alleged that they were in a secret affair and that Letterman was sending her secret messages using his top 10 lists as a code. Using accusations of domestic violence has become a common tactic for women who wish to win divorce and child custody cases, as well as angry girlfriends who wish to get back at former boyfriends. Men have no legal recourse against women who are proven to be lying.
Here are the disturbing statistics:
The decision that is the subject of this post fixes some of that. That isn’t how the left, or apparently Brett Kavanaugh, sees it. Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in the Bruen case, arguing that sometimes we have to weigh in on whether or not a law is a good idea.
That’s where he is wrong.
The Amendment says “shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say “… unless you have a really good reason to do so.” The Supreme Court isn’t there to decide whether or not a law is a good idea. The court is there to decide whether or not a particular law comports with the Constitution. Deciding whether or not a law is a good idea is the job of Congress. All of the authority of the government derives from the Constitution. Any power or authority that the government takes upon itself that is outside of that authority is nothing more than tyranny, an unconstitutional power grab that is based upon the principle of “might makes right” that flies in the face of the principles upon which the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” was built upon.
There are those who would try and make the case that there is some balancing act to be done, but that isn’t how our government is supposed to work. Thomas sees that. Scalia, although a pragmatic sort of man, saw that as well. Kavanaugh does not.
The left, well, they don’t see the Constitution as anything more than a piece of paper containing words that can be worked around, as long as the words are pretty enough.
Fuck them. Not one more inch. This decision is proof to me that the jury box isn’t completely dead. The war continues.
As is typical of the left, we see an article where a prominent, rich leftist who demands more housing be built for the poor then having a meltdown when that housing is proposed for their neighborhood. That was perfectly illustrated when DeSantis shipped illegals to Martha’s Vineyard. So now it’s an Obama supporting sportsball athlete who demands more housing be built for the poor at public expense, but doesn’t want poor people living near his home.
It’s the lefty who demands that he be allowed to feed homeless bums in the park, but who shies away from allowing a homeless person to stay in his own home, or doesn’t want to set up his soup kitchen in his own gated community.
It’s seen when the left demands that landlords be forced to accept section 8 vouchers, or advocates prohibiting foreclosures, or rent control, or any one of another things that are paid for by someone else.
The government who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the enthusiastic support of Paul.