A few years back Superman (2011 in DC Comics) announced he was renouncing his U.S. citizenship! Now, I’ve not been a comic book reader/consumer since I was 10-11 years old, but I was always a big Superman fan.
I found this action repulsive. One – that the beloved character would do such a thing, and Two – that in so doing such a children’s fictional comic would make the national news. After all, they ARE just comic books.
Fast-forward to NOW. It was announced a couple of months ago (and made the national news again recently) that beloved perennially-in-high-school everyteen comic book character Archie Andrews would die in the comic book. This was NOT due to his having been in high school 78 years.
It was because he would dive in front of an assailant attacking his friend with a gun, and his taking a bullet for him! Archie’s GAY friend!
What do I make of this?
Political correctness aside, I like to believe I would have done the same thing for any good childhood friend. My best friend from third grade through college was a legitimately brilliant. IQ off the charts. Socially, less skilled. But, except for his studies and church, my constant companion. He was the geek I aspired to be, even though I didn’t have the mental acuity.
After his own father disowned him when he came out of the closet as a college freshman, and my own father lampooned his gayness, I had to stand up for Carl. Fortunately, no one shot him. And I, myself, had to overcome childhood indoctrination regarding gayness, and what that means. After all, sexual preference aside, he remained my friend!
I’m not yet certain how I feel about comic books being tools for political correctness. Of course, even Peanuts eventually had a Black character. I suppose comic books must change with the times, as well. I don’t know how the Archie friend’s character’s gayness is shown to the comic book audience. Obviously kids are more aware of such things than I was 50-60 years ago.
But, I know one thing.
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. – John 15:13 (ASV)
If we can teach this to the self-absorbed-faces-glued-to-their-cell-phone adolescents, then all is not lost. If only adults read comic books.
(re: ‘offensive’ sports team names…)
Just call them the Redskin Potatoes. That way nobody gets hurt.
And no one gets to amputate the dictionary.
Light pink/tan people remain white.
By now you’ve likely seen the suggestion to drop Washington
from the name, because it’s too embarrassing too.
Hypocrisy though is no longer racist, according to The National Council for La Raza, speaking for the United Negro College Fund, according to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, at a meeting of the Black Congressional Caucus. It remains improper to call mulattos mulatto.
This is cultural Marxism, an effort to control thought and language, by applying opprobrium, cultural taboos and using social constructs designed to pit classes against each other in a power struggle. It leads up to use of force justified by new law, to exercise political control over a population. It’s a very effective political technique and tearing at the fabric of America.
(from Page Nine #136 – Alan Korwin – the Uninvited Onbudsman)
On a similar bent, have you seen the TV commercials for a Blacks Only on-line dating site? Can you imagine the furor if there was a Whites Only dating site? THAT (of course) would be racist!
I believe for CCW folks to ‘fit in’ with the mainstream, they must dress in a similar fashion. Most of the time here in the Southwest, this is not a problem. Hawaiian shirts, square-cut camp shirts, and Mexican wedding shirts are in abundance, and even the lowly colored T-shirt can provide enough concealment for casual wear in this 100+ degree environment. (not me in the photo!)
This has not always been so for me. Working @ TMCCC, initially men were required to wear shirts and ties (management being from the Eastern United States clothing meme) and as the company prohibited weapons, one had to be discrete with regard to what kind and where one was possessing. Being a known quantity (the gun guy) in my department, I was especially singled-out for surveillance. One time, a black nylon eyeglass case I wore was accused of being a holster, another time, management prohibited all personnel beneath a certain level from carrying brief cases!
Style also enters into this equation. Col. Cooper oft made pronouncements pooh-poohing fashion, saying the utility of proper concealment was of more importance. Of course, he lived in the high desert outside a small town and could pretty much wear whatever he wanted. He wasn’t constrained by a business environment expecting 80’s cut suits (with tiny belt loops – in the 80’s). Last time I saw him in person was a warm day during which he wore a very heavy (and not stylish) suit coat over his 5″ 1911 (in a holster on a beefy belt). I know he was wearing the 1911, as he removed the coat, much to the consternation of the young turk law enforcement types in the audience at the time. You see, he was speaking on a community college campus and firearms were not permitted there. A couple actually lunged out of their seats, as though they were going to wrestle the old man to the ground and arrest him!
Women who CCW are a whole different issue. Many choose not to carry on their bodies, but use purses, briefcases and backpacks designed for such a purpose. This, of course, has both utility and drawbacks. If one chooses to leave their purse in the car, or with an unknowing luncheon partner while visiting the restroom, for example. Or grabs their wallet out of the armed purse to run into the
stop and rob convenience store, because the purse is such a pain-in-the-ass to lug around!
Of course, they might utilize one of those new bra holsters, and carrying something like a .32 or .380?
The point is that one must make allowances for fashion, but decide what works specifically for them. I’ve a fused right hip. Wearing an ankle holster on my right leg is hardly a valid choice for me. And wearing a heavy suit jacket in the Summer just invites attention. (Reminiscent of those ‘guys in suits’ (security) who hang around Las Vegas casinos not gambling in the Summer!)
I remember visiting the shopping district in a high-end neighborhood some years ago. I paid particular attention to the men I thought might be carrying a concealed weapon. I think I spotted nine men, no women, because their clothes didn’t quite fit right (they kept adjusting their belts) and seemed overly concerned about how their jackets or shirts were riding. One doesn’t do that with a cell phone.
Make right choices, for both your clothes AND your armament.
Be safe, but be comfortable. And inconspicuous.
A Federal court in Denver ruled that it is acceptable for a police chief to order subordinates to attend an Islamic event — even if they object based on religious reasons.
When Paul Fields, a Tulsa, Oklahoma police officer, objected to being forced to go to an Islamic mosque that had featured a controversial speaker (who promotes the destruction of Western civilization and the creation of an Islamic caliphate), he was ordered by superiors he must attend the mosque or suffer the consequences.
Paul Fields is a Christian.
As a Christian, his unwillingness to attend centered around the fact he did not want to go to a religious event where the topics being covered “discussed Islamic beliefs, Muhammad, Mecca, and why and how Muslims pray.”
Fields, who was one of the key officers that lead a protection program for the mosque, …
Now, I believe in the rights enumerated in the First Amendment. Speech, Press, Assembly. Freedom of Religion (or from Religion) as mandated by State authority.
Doesn’t such an order violate such a Right?
I’m betting this was all done in the name of political correctness and inclusion. Because, after all even the opinions of those seeking to destroy us have value. (yeah, right – Guffaw)
I’m certain Hillary Clinton would agree. Except she stated legal firearms owners are terrorists and as such have no right to an opinion!
h/t Preserve Freedom
(courtesy of Say Uncle…)
Did you know that the number of Americans getting benefits from the federal government each month exceeds the number of full-time workers in the private sector by more than 60 million? In other words, the number of people that are taking money out of the system is far greater than the number of people that are putting money into the system. And did you know that nearly 70 percent of all of the money that the federal government spends goes toward entitlement and welfare programs? When it comes to the transfer of wealth, nobody does it on a grander scale than the U.S. government. Most of what the government does involves taking money from some people and giving it to other people. In fact, at this point that is the primary function of the federal government.
Just check out the chart below. It comes from the Heritage Foundation, and it shows that 69 percent of all federal money is spent either on entitlements or on welfare programs…
So when people tell you that the main reason why we are being taxed into oblivion is so that we can “build roads” and provide “public services”, they are lying to you. The main reason why the government taxes you so much is so that they can take your money and give it to someone else.
(income redistribution – who knew? – Guffaw)
We have become a nation that is completely and totally addicted to government money. The following are 18 stats that prove that government dependence has reached epidemic levels…
Of course, this is what the
Fabian Socialist, Utopian, Communist, Socialist, Progressives have wanted all along. Collapse the system from within; a fundamental transformation if you will…
*the end of the world as we know it
How DOES one measure a President’s greatness? Can we really compare John Adams to Millard Fillmore? Is it holding to the Constitutional base? Preserving the Union through extra-legal means? Being a good guy?
I remember as a kid being taught Washington was great because he was offered kingship and declined. And he was a great general who never told a lie. Of course, he wasn’t so great during the French and Indian War, and the whole Whiskey Rebellion thing.
Jefferson. One of my heroes. Governmental minimalist. Except, he too, took the reins and expanded governmental power. And, he was a nasty slave owner, like Washington. Of course, he did draft the 3/5 compromise, setting the stage for eventual emancipation of the slaves.
Lincoln. Preserved the Union! Through extra-legal means like suspending Habeus Corpus. Massacred Indians. Freed slaves in States over which he had no control.
Theodore Roosevelt. Rough Rider. Trust Buster. Progressive. Racist.
Franklin Roosevelt, his second cousin. Kept us in the Great Depression much longer than the rest of the World. Another Progressive. Locked up the Nisei. Military tribunals for combatants and civilians. Was elected FOUR times!
JFK. Didn’t duck. Daddy bought him the White House by dealing with Sam Giancana. Had style. Charisma.
Reagan. Likable. Snowed the Soviets into disbanding and taking down the wall. High taxes. Central American underground war stuff.
G.W. Bush. Also likeable. Kept us ‘safe’ after 911 with the War in Afghanistan and The PATRIOT Act.
You notice certain names are conspicuous by their absence…?
So what do YOU think?
I’m not rich. Even when I was able to go to a regular 40-hour/week job with benefits. I was lower-middle class, at best. Now that I’m on medical disability, I can barely make ends meet. I lost my home a year and a half ago.
Cars and guns are important to me. Guns apparently more so. I currently am driving a 2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue with over 140K miles on her. She needs a lot of work I cannot afford. And I certainly cannot afford a (newer, in-better-shape) different vehicle. Sigh.
I also own two guns: a custom 1911 and an electroless nickel Smith .38. Both have seen better days, but, just like the ol’ clunker, THEY WORK!
Murphy’s Law recently posted a photo of his workhorse pistol, a Beretta 92F. She looked a little like she had been dragged behind something for a while. Obviously, this made no difference to Murphy, who said she worked and shot like a champ!
Which brings me to my point. My car looks and works like crap, but she still works. My 1911 and revolver both function, albeit they are cosmetically imperfect.
So I’m a bigot. :-)
I LOVE the look of a nicely appointed vehicle and a fine firearm! When I first saw Murphy’s photo, my heart sank. I thought how sad it looks like that, and how much she resembled my well-worn 1911. And, I see nicely running cars on the street, painted all pretty, and I secretly loathe my beater car.
Okay, I don’t know if it’s bigotry or shallowness…
Thankfully (as of this writing) the car and guns still function, but there’s always tomorrow!
h/t Lagniappe’s Lair
There is a piece of legislation making its way through both the House of Representatives and Senate that could have real implications for freedom of speech in the media and on the internet. On Wednesday, Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 (S.2219), which seeks “to examine the prevalence of hate crime and hate speech on the Internet, television, and radio to better address such crimes.” Meanwhile, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) introduced a companion bill in the House – H.R. 3878.
“This really bothers me a great deal. Senator Ed Markey and Representative Hakeem Jeffries… are taking their Hate Crimes Reporting Act and they’re trying to jam it through and get passage in both the House and the Senate. It’s happening simultaneously… Is that part of Cass Sunstein’s old stomping grounds? The information administration looking to analyze all media outlets including radio to determine if they are working to advocate and encourage hate crimes. This is good, huh?”
In a Wednesday press release, Sen. Markey a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, explained why this legislation is particuraly important given the recent shooting in Kansas.
“We have recently seen in Kansas the deadly destruction and loss of life that hate speech can fuel in the United States,” Sen. Markey said, “which is why it is critical to ensure the Internet, television and radio are not encouraging hate crimes or hate speech that is not outside the protection of the First Amendment.”
Glenn happened to have a German radio from the Nazi era on his desk this morning, and he explained the great lengths taken by the Nazi government to ensure the German people only heard what they wanted them to hear.
“This [radio has] the German swastika on it, the German eagle is on it. This was an S.S. approved radio. It would only pick up the right radio stations, so you couldn’t tune into to the BBC or anything else. They just took those frequencies away,” Glenn explained. “I love the people who say the Nazis are extreme right. No, they’re not. The battle of World War II in Europe was communist versus Nazis – communists versus the national socialists… Both of them wanted world domination… Both of them were socialist… It’s the same group of guys.”
(excerpted from Glenn Beck)
YES, the recent shootings in Kansas were horrible. REGARDLESS of the allegedly White supremacist’s choice of targets or his own political thoughts.
Remember when so-called ‘liberals’ championed the First Amendment rights of disgusting individuals like the Nazis who marched in largely-Jewish Skokie, Illinois? Well, these same folks (and their political descendants) are now trying to remove the First Amendment rights of anyone with whom they disagree, for ‘our’ own good, under the guise of the ever popular PC term hate speech.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HATE SPEECH IN A NATION WHICH ESPOUSES PROTECTIONS AS ENUMERATED IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION! PERIOD.
AND, USING IT AS AGGRAVATING LABEL FOR VIOLENT CRIME GIVES THE STATE THE METHOD IT NEEDS TO SUPPRESS NOT ONLY THE SPEECH OF DISGUSTING PERSONS WE ALL DON’T LIKE, BUT ALSO THOSE WITH WHOM WE AGREE, BUT ‘THE POWERS THAT BE’ DISAGREE’.
Don’t like President Obama’s policies or legislation? Must be a racist. Wait a minute – that’s hate speech!
Oh wait, it only works one direction…
Remember when we were kids, and taught to strive for self-sufficiency, personal responsibility, and integrity?
Remember when Candidate Obama told us he was five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America?
Welcome to that world…
“The majority of the class felt that they would rather be a slave than to be a factory worker. And she was just extremely confused by that, knowing what slaves went through, she couldn’t understand why anyone would choose that,” James said. “The rationale by those students to choose slaves was that they had free housing, they had free food and they had free protection…”
You’ve done it. Created a bunch of slave-minded kids who’ll grow up willing to be slaves if you give them enough ‘free’ stuff.
I think I’ll go throw up now. (Firehand)
Sadly (a word I’m utilizing more and more) I agree with Firehand. To be fair, obviously, this New America didn’t begin with President Obama. (FDR?) But, he’s certainly done nothing to foster the rugged individualism that used to typify citizens of this country.
We are now generationally creating
citizens legal residents occupiers dependent on the government teat for nourishment, information, protection and all manner of goods and services. Paid for by those of us who spent most of our lives working and paying taxes. And the recipients are so dependent, they have no understanding that their contract with government has a quid pro quo. And they are passing this tradition onto their drone progeny.
♫ I owe my soul to the company store ♫ – Tennessee Ernie Ford