Regular readers know I am not openly supporting any Presidential candidate (except, of course, Joe Maddon – the Chicago Cubs manager, on my sidebar! 🙂 – bumper stickers for charity! )
So, I’ve been observing the machinations and mewlings of the candidates as a distracted observer. With an airline barf bag at-the-ready!
An interesting side note on this (and most recent) elections, is the degree of partisanship that continues to appear. For example: YOUR candidate said “X” so many years ago (a crude statement), therefore they do not deserve to be President! Completely ignoring the high crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated by their own candidate! A crime being stronger than an inappropriate statement.
Now we have a recent debate (which, again, I refused to watch) wherein Mr. Trump made a number of provocative statements, including if he were President, Secretary Clinton would be in jail!
One would have to be wearing blinders and earplugs to not understand the meaning behind such a statement had to do with her alleged actions involving thousands of confidential government emails and perhaps non-actions involving the deaths @ Benghazi. (The sale of uranium to Russia and the misdeeds of The Clinton Foundation notwithstanding!)
But depending on your party affiliation, you might choose to make Mr. Trump dictatorial and conclude his statement was a blanket declaration to imprison all those who differ with his policies.
And ignore the crimes of your own candidate.
Of course, as oft repeated by Bill O’Reilly*, holding up another’s bad acts do not serve to justify one’s own!
“THEY did it!, so I get to!”
*I used to enjoy watching Mr. O’Reilly, until he began parsing the Second Amendment and stating ‘assault weapons’ (whatever THEY are) should be banned. Then, I stopped watching him. I view him as a populist, saying what ‘the people’ want to hear (not unlike Mr. Trump. Huey Long?). Except, O’Reilly has slightly better filter than Mr. Trump!)
(as posted by Wirecutter
Hofstra University has posted a “trigger warning” sign to warn students about the potentially disturbing content that may be discussed during Monday night’s presidential debate.
According to CBS New York reporter Tony Aiello, a sign inside of the student center at Hofstra reads, “Trigger warning: The event conducted just beyond this sign may contain triggering and/or sensitive material. Sexual violence, sexual assault, and abuse are some topics mentioned within this event. If you feel triggered, please know there are resources to help you.”
Back when I was in college (covered wagons, etc.) there were those doing their duty. Either by questioning the authority of the government to facilitate wars, or by going to fight them! People on both sides of the issue were VERY vocal and emotional.
Yet rarely did either side feel ‘triggered’ and in need of a ‘safe space’ or ‘counseling’ based on someone’s speech alone!
Have our youth become so overly sensitive that this is thought necessary? By the nature of societal evolution?
Or, has this been the plan all along?
Is this a valid comparison?
from Free North Carolina (in part)
Bronze Star and Purple Heart recipient Captain Humayun Khan died heroically. But his exceptional courage in Iraq and his Muslim father’s post-Democratic convention histrionics on TV do not erase the security threat posed by killer warriors of Allah infiltrating our troops.
Don’t take my word for it. Ask all the forgotten Gold Star moms and dads who have lost their children because politically correct pushovers at the Pentagon looked the other way at the Muslim military menace.
Don’t take my word for it. Just re-read the ignored warnings issued by Muslim soldier Nidal Hasan, the vengeful mass murderer who gunned down 13 service members—including a pregnant private first class who lost her life and her child—and wounded more than 30 others at Fort Hood in 2009.
More @ V DARE
Let me see. Not only are we not vetting Muslim immigrants into the United States, but we are looking the other way in the name of political correctness in our military – to their detriment!
Isn’t giving aid and comfort to our enemies defined as something heinous? I can’t remember…
As reminded to us by Tamara
“We have a lot of people outside our house, yelling and shouting profanities,” he said. “I yelled at them, ‘Please leave the premises.’ They were showing a firearm, so I fired a warning shot and, uh, we got somebody that got hit.”
“Someone was shot?” the operator asked.
“Well, I don’t know if they were shot or not, ma’am,” he told her. “I fired my warning shot like I’m supposed to by law. They do have firearms, and I’m trying to protect myself and my family.”
This dude messed up by the numbers, killed a man, and wrecked his life and his family’s life, in addition to those of his victim and his victim’s family, all because he was stupid and believed a lot of the sort of BS self-defense advice you pick up from well-meaning ignorant morons in gun stores and on the internet.
Folks, self defense with a firearm is no joke. This is life and death stuff right here; it literally does not get more serious than that. With great power comes great accountability.
I think it was Jeff Cooper who said warning shots were tactically unsound. First, they alerted the bad guys as to your exact location. Second, they wasted a possibly valuable round of ammunition. He recommended generally against them, but if one absolutely had to, put one into a solid backstop or an advancing assailant. THAT should get their attention!
My initial CCW instructor taught us to remember every round sent downrange is a potential million-dollar lawsuit.
REMEMBER those Four Rules (see sidebar)
(Guffaw in AZ does not dispense legal advice. Find your own lawyer, and get training and liability insurance!)
Rachel Maddow: TV Host Says She’s Reading About Adolf Hitler to Understand Donald Trump’s Candidacy
“What is amazing is the Republican Party that picked him,” she told Rolling Stone about Trump. “Over the past year I’ve been reading a lot about what it was like when Hitler first became chancellor.” (FB)
Gee, think that’s an impartial, or loaded comment?
If she were truly an impartial student of history, one might think she’d study Huey Long to understand Trump’s candidacy.
Just as she should study Mao Tse Tung or Stalin to understand Bernie Sanders’ or Hillary Clinton.
Or Barack Obama.
(See what I did there?)
Please understand, I’m not openly supporting Mr. Trump.
And Ms. Maddow may read anyone she wishes.
It’s interesting The Left always defaults to calling
The Right Republicans Anyone With Whom They Disagree, Hitler. When Stalin, Mao and their fellow travelers did much worse in terms of raw numbers. And cultural destruction.
Of course, we don’t criticize those with whom we agree, now do we?
as recently posted by The Queen of Snark (in part)
(…) In the wake of the Istanbul bombings, the people in charge of wrapping the world in foam padding are trying to figure out more ways to make us perfectly safe. Apparently this will put a security checkpoint at the edge of the airport grounds to screen you before you get to the security checkpoint inside which will screen you to get on the plane. It’s screeners all the way down!
…and if they move screening back to the airport access road, they set off a truck bomb in the traffic jam rather than a backpack bomb in the terminal.
The reductio ad absurdum of this, of course, is to avoid creating the security bottlenecks that make such target-rich environments by putting a TSA checkpoint outside every front door in America.
(and here’s the money line)
There’s just no practical way to nerf the world.
They don’t look age 3 to me…
The Democratic sit-in to protest the Republican-controlled Congress’ inaction on gun control legislation on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives entered its second day Thursday with no end in sight.
The Democrats’ protest began with a speech by Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, who participated in civil rights sit-ins in the 1960s, condemning Republicans for blocking gun control legislation and accusing the GOP of kowtowing to the National Rifle Association.
The Democrats continued to give speeches with frequent pauses to chant “no bill, no break” and “Shame! Shame!” as the House voted to adjourn and start a new legislative day at 2:30 a.m. (International Business Times)
A tantrum? Seriously?
Are they going to hold their respective breaths now, until they turn BLUE?
I have two memories of tantrums (tantra (plural?) 🙂
The first was recounted by my own Father. On numerous occasions, he would share the story on how I had thrown exactly ONE tantrum. He ‘dealt with it’, and I never did it again. (The inference was I received a spanking – this was the 1950’s after all!)
The second was our own daughter, Molly. She was mostly well-behaved, but at one point, in a large, popular shopping mall (Metrocenter – N. Phoenix, before stores closed wholesale and it became a gang meeting place), she decided when the three of us were window shopping (I was married at the time) to throw a serious tantrum. I think she was probably three at the time.
Mary and I looked at each other, while Molly was on her back, flailing, screaming and crying, agreed telepathically that immediate action was needed.
We turned and walked away. No counter-screaming, no histrionics, no beatings.
Molly suddenly noticed our departure, immediately stopped her tantrum, and rushed to rejoin us, now better behaved.
AND, she never did it again.
My point is we have two choices to respond to the anti-rights forces in Congress. One would be brute force, getting in their face and (verbally, at least) spanking them for their childish behavior.
Would this make us feel good? Yes. Superior? Certainly.
Would it solve the larger problem? NO.
The second choice would be to let them have their tantrum, and let the world see how un-adult, child-like and emotionally crippled they are.
And continue to block ALL attempts to pass restrictions on the rights of law-abiding citizens!
Have YOU written, emailed and/or called your Congressmen regarding your opinion on all these onerous bills?
I HAVE. MORE THAN ONCE!
You have no right to complain if ‘a backroom deal’ is made, and our rights are further restricted!
DO IT NOW! Click on the link below for contact information!
(And, now for something completely different – as promised)
22 VETERANS COMMIT SUICIDE DAILY
Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #21 of 22)
When I ran across this article on Facebook, I truly thought it must be either dizinformazia, or an article culled from The Onion.
After a little side research, I determined this to be the genuine article. By a genuine LGBT activist. Who is quite obviously NOT a libertarian!
Famous LGBT Activist Reveals The Scary, Real Goal Of The Bathroom Battle (And It’s Not Bathrooms…It’s Way Worse)
What you may have been suspecting has been confirmed. LGBT activists’ end goal is not ruling over the bathroom. It’s obliterating the family. Riki Wilchins, a famous transsexual who recently wrote a piece in the gay publication The Advocate, revealed that many conservatives and even LGBT activists are missing the forest for the trees.
Titled,“We’ll Win the Bathroom Battle When the Binary Burns,” Wilchins says the real goal is to kill the notion of male and female altogether. The “binary” refers to gender distinction, and getting rid of the “heterobinary structure” is the goal. Wilchins writes that the fact that we are arguing over male and female facilities is proof that we still have far to go–that there should be no gender distinctions in general.
In fact, Wilchins points to an emerging group of people who don’t want to affiliate as any gender. Life Site News explains, “’Non-binary’ people don’t identify as male or female and they often want to be referred to as ‘they’ or ‘hir’ or ‘zer.’ So the fact that there are even intimate facilities that reflect the “binary” truth about gender should change, Wilchins wrote.”
If you are confused, you are not alone. But beneath all of the titles and non-titles, the insidious plan is the destruction of the family, reveals Stella Morabito, senior contributor to The Federalist.
“What we are really talking about is the abolition of sex. And it is sex that the trans project is serving to abolish legally, under the guise of something called ‘the gender binary.’ Its endgame is a society in which everyone is legally de-sexed. No longer legally male or female. And once you basically redefine humanity as sexless you end up with a de-humanized society in which there can be no legal ‘mother’ or ‘father’ or ‘son’ or ‘daughter’ or ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ without permission from the State. Government documents are already erasing the terms. In such a society, the most intimate human relationships take a hit. The family ends up abolished.”
Morabito hits home the point: “Sex distinctions are the germ of all human relationships. Abolishing them legally basically abolishes family autonomy. And this is an act of violence against children because it would serve at some point to separate them from their origins. Every child’s first transcendental question is ‘Where did I come from?’ If the law will not allow the child to see his own origins and wholeness in the faces of a mother and a father, it destabilizes the child’s sense of self. It creates personal dysfunction in children and basically ends up spreading more dysfunction and even dystopia in society.”
This is scary. If Morabito and other cultural watch-dogs are right, the bathroom battle is far more serious than many think. We need to really pray and ask God for help–before it’s too late and our future generations end up really damaged. Do you agree? (Faith Family America)
SO. Either Ms. Wilchins is a dystopian uber-Statist of the first order, or is a deepest cover agent promoting such nonsense reductio ad absurdum*!
I truly hope it is the second choice offered.
If this is indeed the true ultimate agenda, it goes way beyond men ‘self-identifying’ as female to visit women’s rooms and/or taking surreptitious photos of women and girls, or worse!
But, as The President is taking a hard line on this issue, ‘blackmailing’ the States to conform to this agenda in their schools, or lose federal funding(!), and many believe him to be a variety of Marxist…
*Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum, is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. (Wikipedia)
I recently ‘joined’ Pinterest, another (self-serving) social media website wherein one chooses topics in which one has an interest (guns, humor, history, watches, pets for example), and pictures, articles, recipes, essays, things-for-sale appear in a hodge-podge of stuff from other members (aka PINS). One may simply view them, expand them for more in-depth reading and/or comment on them. PIN them to review later (as more are always being added.) And, of course, add their own PINS to the group conversation!
The ultimate time waster!
Funny Pictures Of The Day – 42 Pics
Saved from guns.com (Gilboa 9mm AR-type submachine gun)
I’m new at this, but this PIN caught my eye:
A useful tool for covert and undercover operators, those that travel abroad in unstable countries, or anyone at risk of being held unlawfully.
A leading federal law enforcement agency asked for a special emergency handcuff key for their undercover operatives.
The Undercover Bracelet is the result.
This unique handcuff key is designed to always be situated at the optimum location for access and deployment – right next to the wrist.
Disguised as a common “gummy bracelet”, this rubbery flexible bracelet won’t draw even a second glance when worn in most environments.
This device is completely non-metallic, even the key portion.
The key, which is permanently affixed to one end of the bracelet, serves as the connector joining the two ends.
The key is not visible when the bracelet is worn.
It is quickly accessed by just yanking on the bracelet, exposing the key.
The bracelet accommodates wrists up to 10″, and can be cut down to fit.
Weight: 0.2 oz.
Made in USA.
On Amazon – $18.47
On Pinterest – $9.99 !
And joining Pinterest is FREE!
(FTC – neither Pinterest or Amazon gave me anything. Get you own key!)
OBAMA CUTTING BORDER SURVEILLANCE IN HALF!
Agents threatened with termination for enforcing law
Yeah, I saw this in my email and scoffed at it! (The source was to me, questionable)
Then, my mole inside the BP confirmed the story – before I could even ask him.
As a lame duck President, does he not even care anymore about his ‘legacy’?
Or is this just more Cloward & Piven, progressive claptrap, designed to ‘level the playing field’?
How does a Chief Executive, with the duty and responsibility for enforcing the law, even make such a decision?
Of course, he has HIS armed guards.
He should try living in Naco or Nogales!