Hat tip: Chris Lynch.
I’m more tough than I used to be – but hardly a marathon-running spec ops guy. I’ve beaten cancer (2x) and a serious car wreck.
Frankly, most days just walking is a challenge. 😦
But, I read about these bubble-wrapped snowflakes in colleges, demanding safe spaces to share their feelings, because they say a chalk writing on the pavement in support of a presidential candidate with whom they disagree distresses them!
And that makes me sick!
THEN, I read about THIS guy (courtesy of my friend Borepatch)
Associate Supreme Court Justice Scalia has passed away.
Having said this (from The Wall Street Journal)…
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Saturday at the age of 79, will be remembered as one of the court’s most influential, trenchant and controversial voices. Below are a few outtakes from some of the more influential and notable opinions from his storied, 30-year career on the court.
•D.C. v. Heller (2008) By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s blanket ban on handguns, ruling for the first time that the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms in one’s home. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion.
There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
• Kyllo v. U.S. (2001) The court ruled that the government couldn’t use thermal imaging technology to detect a suspected marijuana-growing operation without a warrant. Justice Scalia wrote that the use of sense-enhancing technology not in public use to gain information within the home constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.
We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws “a firm line at the entrance to the house…That line, we think, must be not only firm but also bright which requires clear specification of those methods of surveillance that require a warrant. While it is certainly possible to conclude from the videotape of the thermal imaging that occurred in this case that no “significant” compromise of the homeowner’s privacy has occurred, we must take the long view, from the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment forward.
• Printz v. U.S. (1997) The court held, 5-4, that a federal law requiring local law enforcement to conduct background checks on gun purchases was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia wrote that the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer federal programs.
Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.
• Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995) The court ruled 6-3 that public schools could randomly drug test student athletes. Justice Scalia wrote that the privacy interests compromised by giving urine samples under the district’s policy were negligible.
Just as when the government conducts a search in its capacity as employer (a warrantless search of an absent employee’s desk to obtain an urgently needed file, for example), the relevant question is whether that intrusion upon privacy is one that a reasonable employer might engage in, see O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S. 709 (1987); so also when the government acts as guardian and tutor the relevant question is whether the search is one that a reasonable guardian and tutor might undertake. Given the findings of need made by the District Court, we conclude that in the present case it is.
• RAV v. City of St. Paul (1992) Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in which the court struck down St. Paul, Minn.’s crime banning “hate-crime,” for violating the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee.In so doing, the court tossed aside charges against a group of teenagers that burned a cross in the yard of an African-American family.
The dispositive question in this case, therefore, is whether content discrimination is reasonably necessary to achieve St. Paul’s [p396] compelling interests; it plainly is not. An ordinance not limited to the favored topics, for example, would have precisely the same beneficial effect. In fact, the only interest distinctively served by the content limitation is that of displaying the city council’s special hostility towards the particular biases thus singled out. [n8] That is precisely what the First Amendment forbids. The politicians of St. Paul are entitled to express that hostility — but not through the means of imposing unique limitations upon speakers who (however benightedly) disagree.
* * * *
Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone’s front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire.
The Internet is rife with both praise and derision for this Justice. I shan’t post the hateful texts here. There is Great Fear amongst the conservative and libertarian elements of society that without his swing vote, and Constitutionally-measured opinions, that ‘we’ (civil libertarians, gun owners/carriers, and American Society at large) are doomed. Doomed to the progressive, post-Constitution era of further governmental intrusion on rights, and final loss of the America in which we were raised.
His body wasn’t even cold, when The President announced he would find a suitable replacement, and (some) Republicans suggested The Senate block ANY appointment for the next eleven months (until the next President could be sworn in)!
In other words, politics as usual.
God Save The United States Of America (while I’m still allowed to post this!)
or rather, stinkin’ permits!
Last week, the Attorney General in Virginia decided to cancel reciprocity with 25 other states. The uproar around the country among gun enthusiasts was considerable. This brought up, once again, the issue of a national reciprocity law, which, as I pointed out, would be unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.
Now, in no way was that post meant to suggest that I am not a fan of universal reciprocity for carry permits. In fact, I believe that insofar as a government has the right to place prerequisites on the exercise of my civil rights by requiring that I obtain a permit to do so, then no government has the right to decide that the decision of any other government is null and void in its jurisdiction.*
But, given that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to regulate carry permits, or the carry of guns, how then do we accomplish this?
I mentioned in my last posting that one argument cited for government mandated reciprocity is the Driver’s License system. After all, they argue, since my driver’s license is recognized by other states, my carry permit should be as well. While I agree with that premise, most people who argue this route don’t realize that this is the result of an agreement between the States, not because of any law.
What, then, should be our answer?
For me it is simple: abolish the carry permit system altogether.
Why? Because it’s unnecessary, under any understanding of the Second Amendment.
And yet, states require carry permits, and most of us think nothing of it. In fact, we make a big deal of it. “Look at me!” we rejoice. “The Government has acceded to grant me its begrudging permission to exercise a right already guaranteed under the Constitution!”
Naturally, the anti-gunners will argue that without a permit system any criminal would be allowed to carry a gun. How would we be protected from such a thing?
And yet, it should be obvious that criminals carry a gun now without permits. The law does not change their actions, because, by definition, they are criminals.
So, how do we get the permit system revoked?
Unfortunately, we white Americans are going to have to be honest about our white forefathers, and be honest about how it all began – as a way to keep guns out of the hands blacks. So to make the permit system go away, we have to show how racist the whole system was, and how that discrimination carries over to today, by allowing the government to know just who owns guns.
Think about how effective this would be, to tie in the carry permit system with the images of Jim Crow, the Confederacy, and the KKK.
Can we do this? Yes. Will we do this? I don’t know, but I hope so. Because, honestly, it is the best route to national reciprocity – by making every American equal.
(from Fill Yer Hands, in full)
Out of the hands of Blacks, and undesirable foreigners. (Sullivan Law)
Control is control is control. It’s what statists, of all flavors, want.
If you are not reading Peter Grant (Bayou Renaissance Man) daily, may I say your daily blog reading is – in the very least – incomplete!
For those of us interested in personal security and safety…
In today’s racially charged climate, with criminal flash mobs an ever-increasing problem in many cities, the average urban shopping mall now qualifies as a “stupid place” to be. (!!!)
In 2013 four Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, in a chilling foretaste of what could happen in any city in America at any time. I wrote about it that same day. I urge you to read the warning I gave then, and ask yourself the same questions I posed on that day. They’re as relevant as ever they were.
Now Foreign Policy brings us an in-depth report on what happened that day in Nairobi, complete with many eye-witness and participant accounts. It’s the next best thing to a security briefing on what you might confront any day now in an American shopping center. I have no faith whatsoever that our police and security forces could stop such a thing from at least getting started. I hope and trust they’d do rather better at shutting it down before it got out of hand: but if the attacking party is larger, or better-armed, or their assault is timed to coincide with mass street protests that draw too many cops away from the danger zone . . . who knows?
We already know that fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and/or their sympathizers are trying to infiltrate the United States. Some claim they’ve already done so. None of us know the facts . . . but I guaran-damn-tee you, they want to. Nairobi was a foreshadowing of what they’d like to do to the Great Satan, America itself. Go read the Foreign Policy article in full, and ask yourself: if something like that goes down tomorrow, in my town, and I’m there, what am I going to do about it? Am I prepared to deal with it? If not . . . why not?
The Quote of the Day (Month, Year) from the wonderful Tamara!
We used to do assimilation. You would move here and we would hate you and make you live in ghettos and organize political parties against you, and your kids would learn our games and our songs and our language and move out of the ghettos and be our tradespeople. And your grandkids would be our doctors and lawyers and aldermen and would forget your language and we would add your food to our menus and take one of your holidays and hang it on our wall as a trophy and use it as an excuse to get drunk every year.
But not any more. Now assimilation is imperialist and racist and bad. Indeed, in Europe, which is several kilometer markers further down this road than we are, assimilation is actively discouraged. No, no, Mr. Refugee… You don’t need to learn the language; you’ll never be one of us anyway. You just sit there and let us feed you and keep you like a zoo animal to look at and remind ourselves that we don’t feed you into ovens anymore like our parents did because we’re so much better now.
We’ll see who cracks first, the guests or the hosts, but sooner or later, somebody’s getting loaded into cattlecars, because that’s how things go in Europe.
AMEN Sister – Sadly…
Coming soon to an America near you!
John Kerry has been a traitor since the Vietnam War. He gave aid and comfort to our North Vietnamese Communist enemies, betrayed every man and woman that ever served in our military, and has rarely missed an opportunity to support and help any enemy of America. Fortunately, until he became secretary of State, he lacked the power and influence to do really significant damage to America. No more. With the guidance and direction of Barack Obama, a man mentored and raised by Marxists and Islamists, he has done unimaginable damage. Consider this from, of all sources, the Associated Press:
Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.
The revelation on Wednesday newly riled Republican lawmakers in the U.S. who have been severely critical of a broader agreement to limit Iran’s future nuclear programs, signed by the Obama administration, Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the wider deal is unwisely built on trust of the Iranians, while the administration has insisted it depends on reliable inspections.
Of course, the A.P. usually runs left-of-center, so this document might be suspicious…
WAIT a minute!?
You must lower your speed limits to continue to receive federal highway funds! And numerous other examples…
Well, they are at it, again!
Via Cousin Joel
S.1689 – A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to reduce the funding available for a State under the national highway performance program and the surface transportation program if the State issues a license plate that contains an image of a flag of the Confederate States of America, including the Battle Flag of the Confederate States of America.
Because, of course, these are all signs of evil!
And we should
ignore paint over sanitize history.
h/t Brock Townsend
from Free North Carolina, in part…
Christopher De La Viña,an Hispanic student wants to know.
As a child in public schools and now as a graduate student in history, I have learned one thing to be true about the United States: It is a White country. The founders were White, White men established its core principles and political system, and White men and women built the nation into what it is today.
Even before I became aware of the importance of race, I never thought this was “racist” or unfair; it was simply a fact. America has always been a White country and always should be. Why, then, … are White people giving away their country?More @ Elliot Lake News
I’m old enough to remember the Watts riots in L.A., Detroit. Rodney King? And a multitude of others. And something has always bothered me:
WHY do these folks feel the need to violently destroy THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS to make a point?
In days of yore, I participated in protests. I remember one at the State Capitol, wherein we stood in the Summer heat (all 250 or so of us) to protest The Clinton so-called ‘Assault Weapons Ban’, and our own State legislature considering similar legislation. This was in the 90’s – the temperature was around 100°.
And not one of us engaged in violence, criminal looting or destruction. We had been advised not to come armed, and we didn’t. We carried signs (and American flags), signed petitions, talked amongst ourselves and drank lots of water. And listened politely to speakers like Sheriff Mack. And watched media trucks circle us deciding whether or not we were worth a spot on the 10 o’clock news.
Apparently we weren’t.
Here’s one opinion as to why they foul their own nests:
The borderline-Jacobins at Slate, who believe spanking is child abuse, and personal responsibility is out of fashion, try to explain looting away as a social phenomenon: “Why would anyone burn down the only CVS in their neighborhood?”
The reason, I think, is likely the same reason that poor black Americans in cities across the country burned “their own” neighborhoods in the late 1960s:
They did not experience those places as their own. Then, like now, police brutality was a precipitating cause of the violence, but it was the long-term experience of the indignities of the ghetto that gave shape to the riots. Then, like now, commentators compared the rioters to animals who had run wild and needed discipline. Rioting, to these bystanders, was not proper political protest but the criminal actions of poor people who merely wanted to grab what they could for free. This narrative, which I heard throughout my childhood growing up in Baltimore in the 1980s, put the blame not on the depredations of the ghetto, but on the character of its residents. It completely misapprehends the political economy of our poorest neighborhoods.
In other words: they riot because society has ignored them. Not only is that a specious argument, but it also highlights the fact that Baltimore hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1968. So which party is responsible for ignoring the downtrodden social class?
Told another way, Abraham Miller at National Review wrote:More @ Red State
The last and final SEVEN episodes start tonight!
Because JOAN HOLLOWAY!
(Yeah, I know, I’m a dirty old man!)
The ubiquitous and intense (and sometimes sexy) show, which reveals for us mores and folkways of Madison Avenue in the 60’s and 70’s is back. Complete with the political incorrectness, drinking and smoking in the workplace, and sometimes the degradation of women.
It was a different time.
We have evolved.
But we still like women.