Saturday, August 31, 2019

After The Shooting Stops

John Mark has a new video out on what comes after a hypothetical second civil war.

I don't know that he is on the money on every issue but he at least is thinking about it.

The question at hand is an important one. When the bullets fly and the noble warriors from the red states win thanks to overwhelming numbers of tacticool rifles, then what? That is going to be interesting and probably almost as ugly as the collapse itself. I think we have learned some pretty harsh lessons about human nature, things the Founders understood and that we forgot along the way.

Whatever happens, and like John Mark I am and have been for years an advocate of a peaceful dissolution of the Union before it is too late, the world 15-20 years from now is going to be a very different place and nowhere will that be more true than in the U.S.

A Truth Nugget From Zman

From his post Rebellious Thoughts:

Whatever you may think of Trump, the result of the last three years is proof that elections don’t matter. 

We are ruled by an alien class of people with one set of rules for the peasantry (in other words you) and another set of "rules" for themselves that they are free to modify, eliminate or ignore at will. Holding elections doesn't mean anything because even if you replaced 100% of the Congress in 2020, the bureaucratic Deep State is the real power and you can't get rid of them. Add in the courts and the globohomo corporate lobbyists and you get a system where elections are just a farce, a type of kabuki theater we are allowed to pretend to participate in but no one really believes they matter. There are millions of government employees that run this country, 2 million openly on the Federal payroll and at least 10 million more in other jobs that are directly tied to the Federal government and not a one of them is accountable in the slightest to the tax-payers. You have no control over them being hired and they are essentially impossible to fire. Screw with them and they can send in armed agents to arrest or kill you and there isn't much you can do about it.

Set your expectations accordingly. We aren't going to vote our way out of this.

A Little Mass Shooting To Start Off The Labor Day Weekend!

You can be sure it won't be the last. In some neighborhoods, the "Friday night lights" are provided by muzzle flashes.

Some "teens" got into a little kerfuffle after a high school football game in Mobile, Alabama last night.

At least 10 people injured after shooting at Alabama high school football game, authorities say

Six were directly shot in the report last night and the rest were apparently injured in the stampede to get away. Six people shot is a mass shooting by any measurement but that number is being updated. Let's give you a little spoiler here before we get into the news of an arrest. The demographics of Mobile, Alabama as of 2010:

That is Detroit level white flight. In 1990 it was around 60% white/39% black. In 2010, almost 51% black and 45% white. I assume the real numbers when revealed in the 2020 census are going to show whites well under 40%, blacks much higher than 51% and even more Hispanics. I am sure there is no connection to Mobile being a violent city.

Quick work by the police as a suspect was arrested this morning, but it also sounds like he turned himself in.

BREAKING: 17-year-old arrested for football game shooting, charged with 9 counts of attempted murder

Here is a screenshot of the suspect being led away by the cops. You will be shocked.

OK, you probably weren't shocked. From the news story:

MOBILE, Ala. (WKRG) Mobile police have arrested a teenager in connection to a shooting at Ladd Peebles Stadium on Friday night. Police have updated the number of shooting victims to nine.

Deangelo Parnell, 17, is charged with nine counts of attempted murder, according to a spokesperson for the Mobile Police Department. He turned himself into police early Saturday morning. Parnell is a student at LeFlore High School.

So now the number of shooting victims is up to 9. I am not sure if that reflects 9 rather than 6 being shot or just the number of people hurt in total. The news story linked above says:

9 people were shot. Mobile Police Chief Lawrence Battiste tells News 5 those injured range in age from 15-47 Five people were critically hurt.

So it sounds like there were actually 9 people shot. I am not sure how three people who were shot were not noticed initially but these things are chaotic. If you click the link above there is a video of the post-game interview in the press box and you can see the crowd scattering in the background while they two guys talking about the game are oblivious. So what happened?

Battiste said this started as a fight and Parnell pulled out a gun and just started “indiscriminately shooting.” Some of the victims have been released from the hospital, but police say they did not know how many. Battiste said that surveillance video clearly shows the 17-year-old suspect firing the shots. 

Fights happen in high school. When I was in school at an essentially all white high school in the 80's fights happened. The difference is that we didn't pull out a gun and shoot wildly into a crowd. In fact there was only one incident, it happened before I was in high school, where a student fight led to one student getting his ass kicked and then bringing a gun the next day. The kid bringing the gun was the lone black kid in our school.

This kid is 17 and got into a fight and lacked the basic self-control and ability to think five seconds into the future so he pulls out a gun and starts shooting, wounded 9 people who probably didn't have anything to do with the fight. Now Deangelo is going to spend his high school graduation and the decade after that in a prison. I am sure when he gets out after being assaulted daily for a decade at around 30 years of age, he will become a productive member of society.

Clearly another white supremacist mass shooting. According to Tariq Nasheed, all of the shootings in Chicago this weekend will be the result of white supremacists and "KKK" members dressing up as black men and shooting black people. No, he seriously said that and people seriously agreed with him in the replies.

I must have missed the memo about going to Chicago this weekend, and I am super disappointed because I just got a new black guy costume and I have been practicing all week shooting a stolen Hi-Point .380 while holding it sideways into a crowd of people. Dang it!

This won't be reported as a mass shooting anywhere because like the vast majority of mass shootings it involves a black kid with an illegal gun (he's 17) shooting other black people and you can't use a story like that to push to disarm law abiding Americans.

Down the memory hole you go! It is getting crowded down there....

Friday, August 30, 2019

Not Depressed About 2020 Yet?

The election next year should have some pretty amusing moments as it will certainly feature a delusional narcissist incumbent versus whichever Democrat promises the most free stuff.  Sadly there is no way it will match the high comedy of 2016 when Trump came out of nowhere to win the nomination and then on election night the American people dropped a house on the Wicked Witch. Whoever becomes the eventual nominee on the Dem side, this will be the last American election. By 2024 there is no chance a Republican will win thanks to demographics so the Dem primary voters will pick the President and we all know what stable folks they are. We are about to hit peak clown world.


The Zman has a take on 2020 that is sure to make you feel even worse. He has jumped on the Warren being the nominee bandwagon which is pretty popular right now. It makes sense. Warren is lily white and not as senile as Joe Biden who is imploding in real time right before our eyes. She supports the same basic positions as Bernie without sounding so crazy about it, so a Warren candidacy coupled with Trump hatred might keep a far-left third party challenger out of the race and get the Bernie supporters to take the day off from cashiering at Whole Foods to vote. His post, The Last Hurrah, deals with the end of the Boomers being in charge but the last few paragraphs were prophetic:

In terms of popular culture, Trump really is the quintessential Baby Boomer male. He made a lot of money, but will never have much to show for his time. Everything about Trump is wrapped up Trump the person, the selfish, boorish oaf living for the moment. When the wife got too old, he traded her in for a new one. When he hit middle-age, he bought a sports car and started dating young women. His story will be one of endless self-indulgence.

Warren, for her part, is the other side of that coin. She is the scorned ex-wife, who got the house and filled it up with trinkets from the various self-actualizing fads she got into after the divorce. In between glasses of chardonnay, she will spend hours telling you about how awful her ex-husband was during the divorce. She is the woman, who rejected the lifestyle of her mother, but at some point, when it was too late, realized her mother was right all along. That is the real source of her bitterness.

The 2020 campaign promises to be Trump running around the country telling his fans about all the winning, while Warren runs around wagging her bony finger at them, telling them about how she has been wronged. It will be the cad versus the nag, largely a fight among white people about how best to go into that dark night. On the one side will be Trump nostalgic for a lost America. On the other will be Warren, haunted by an America that never was. Two characters from a soon to be forgotten past.

Neither side will have much to say about what comes after them, because they are from a generation that thought they would live forever and never grow old. The people who swore they would never trust anyone over thirty, now can’t spare a second to consider the future of those under 30. It’s going to be two perpetual adolescents throwing one final tantrum, demanding the rest of us indulge them one more time. It is the last hurrah for a generation that will buried, not praised, by those who follow.

Read the whole thing. It should cheer you right up!

This is where being a accelerationist is tough for me as a Gen Xer. The love of country still runs deeply, and if I could I would prefer to see America set right rather than see it fall apart and be rebuilt. I just don't see any path where that happens. The culture and especially the people have changed, more about this in a future post, and that means that maintaining what we had is impossible There is a reason that liberal democracy as we practice it in our Republic didn't grow organically anywhere else and why it has been a general failure to try to force it on other cultures. It has mostly worked in a couple of East Asian nations, notably South Korea and Japan, but everywhere else it is a failure to some degree.

No nation has ever squandered so much, not even the once mighty British empire that spanned the globe. They were a people from a small island, we are a mighty people from a continent-spanning land of plenty. History is written by the victors but those replacing us will not ultimately be the victors. They will fall victim to their own natures and cultures that have held them back for untold centuries. The descendants of those who made Europe and North America the envy of the world will ultimately be victorious and when they rise again they will curse those of us who stood by mutely or worse yet collaborated in our own destruction.

Tuesday, August 27, 2019

The Mormon "Church" Says No Guns Allowed

As if you needed yet another reason to steer clear of Mormonism besides the crazy theology and the cult culture.....

LDS Church makes it clear: No guns in its meetinghouses

If ever there were a question about its stance toward guns in meetinghouses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has removed all doubt: Unlike visitors, firearms are not only not welcome, they are strictly forbidden.

In fact, the Utah-based faith now “prohibits” all “lethal weapons” from its properties, unless carried by current law enforcement officers. Previously, the church deemed it merely “inappropriate" to have firearms in its buildings.

On Monday, church spokesman Daniel Woodruff confirmed that stricter wording had been added to Handbook 2, an instruction manual for local lay leaders, and is posted online for members and nonmembers to read.

Yep, it is right there on their website:

The language is pretty broad. Lots of things are potentially lethal weapons. As an example, knives and hatchets are common in the Boy Scouts and the Mormons are one of the largest Scout organizations around, or at least they were, so will common camping/outdoors tools be banned from their "churches"?

This is going to be an area where the leadership is going to be at odds with the regular members, who will likely, in spite of being taught slavish obedience to some old guy chosen to be the leader by outliving his rivals, just keep on carrying anyway regardless of the rulebook. Utah has one of the highest, perhaps the highest, rate of concealed carry permits per capita of any state in the Union.

Since around 30% of Utah's residents are under 18, that leaves an adult population of around 2.2 million so the percentage of Utah's adult residents that have a concealed carry permit is closer to 32.5% or basically one in three adult Utahans has a concealed permit. The state is around 55% Mormon so you can do the math here and see that there are at least one million Utah Mormons with concealed carry permits. Based on what I know about Mormons, and unfortunately I know quite a bit, I am going to go out on a limb and assume many of these concealed carriers in Utah, Texas and around the country are going to simply ignore this new mandate and keep in carrying in their "churches" to protect the families that are such an important part of Mormonism.

One of the central tenets of Mormonism is that they are led by a "prophet", like in the same sense that Moses, Isaiah and Ezekiel were prophets. This is pretty handy as it allows the church to make policy changes that they can claim are the will of God and then change those as needed, like saying that polygamy was a new and everlasting covenant but then God apparently changed his mind and said they couldn't marry 12 wives. Or the part about blacks being cursed by God and their dark skin being the mark of Cain so they weren't allowed to be Mormon "priests" but then God changed His mind again. In recent years, the once staunchly conservative Mormon religion has been moderating their positions to be more palatable to the mainstream culture, at the same time it has been downplaying their differences with Christianity rather than playing those up as they did in the past. This new rule banning guns at their meetinghouses is just more cultural virtue signaling to help appeal to prospective converts. Hopefully it won't lead to some crazed mass shooter targeting a Mormon meetinghouse because he thinks they will be disarmed.

Monday, August 26, 2019

This Is Kind Of Confusing

In the world of celebrity-watching and fawning, aka the American media, the Obama's are still treated like royalty. The Hill posted a hard-hitting piece the other day going into depth on what is on Barack Obama's playlist. Good thing we have tough but fair journalism like that to keep the powerful in check instead of wasting time looking into whether his administration used law enforcement to spy on the Trump campaign on behalf of the Clinton campaign. So the media was just giddy this weekend when news broke that the Obama's were in the process of purchasing a modest little place to call their own....

Barack and Michelle Obama are buying a $15M estate in Martha’s Vineyard

Yes, you read that right. $15,000,000. Here it is:

7 bedrooms, 8.5 baths. Almost 30 acres of property, almost 7000 square feet. Viewed from the satellite, 79 Turkeyland Cove Rd, Edgartown, MA 02539, is pretty secluded and exclusive with a long road leading back to a long driveway, easily secured by the Secret Service. It is a beautiful place, the sort of property that only a small fraction of the top 1% of all Americans could even think about owning.

But it kind of confused me a little bit. Barack and Michelle Obama are "progressive" royalty. Leftists in this country revere them and many entertain the illusion that Barack is somehow still President or that he should be President for life. They have clearly supplanted the Clintons as the favorites of Democrats. The Clintons are too corporate, too "moderate", and too white. The Obamas are far more liberal, more hip and of course as a couple are only 3/4 white. However those same "liberals" are always screeching about a few issues that they think having enough Democrats in office will fix and it has me a little confused as I try to sqaure the Obamas being so "progressive" and the newest piece of real estate they are acquiring....

I thought income inequality was a major problem in America....

...but the Obama's new home is listed for almost $15,000,000. What happened to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "New Green Deal" demand that people live in "safe, affordable, adequate housing"? Is a $15 million mansion with 7 bedrooms really "adequate housing" for a couple with two adult kids? $15 million could buy a lot of deserving working class families a modest home of their own.

I thought people deserved to be paid a "living wage"....

....but on Martha's Vineyard there is clearly a system of haves and have-nots. Housing prices are nearly double the national average while wages are around 2/3 the state average. Martha's Vineyard has a small population of extremely wealthy individuals and a much larger population of low paid, often seasonal, workers who work to make sure the wealthy have their every need catered to. It is the same in the Hamptons, in northern Michigan where I vacationed as a child and at the big ski resorts out West. The people who work on Martha's Vineyard could never afford a place like the Obama's and probably can't really afford to live on the island at all.

I thought "climate change" was an existential threat....

...but as Chuck Woolery pondered...

I thought that all white people were inherently racist and unfairly benefited from white privilege and that diversity is our greatest strength....

...but the Obama's, like virtually all successful blacks, choose to live in an overwhelmingly white area. Edgartown, Massachusetts is reported to be over 93% white and less than 2% black. The Obama's could choose to live anywhere they want but they seem to always choose some of the very whitest neighborhoods you can find anywhere. It sometimes seems like the greatest motivation for a black person in America to be successful is so they can afford to not live among other black people. Of course the same is true for white liberals who talk about diversity for others but don't want it for themselves.

The regular old wannbe Commies on social media, the antifa types who used to be the anti-globalist types who broke McDonald's windows to strike a blow against The Man, the aged hippies and idiot college kids who support Bernie Sanders because they think he is going to magically make their $250,000 student loan debt incurred getting a Gender Film Studies degree disappear, all of them think that a socialist nation will be a paradise where everyone will be equal and have all the stuff they could ever want, stuff they don't have now because Trump is keeping all of their cool stuff locked up next to the Ark of the Covenant in some warehouse. They are a lot like Dennis the peasant.

The people who will actually rule in a socialist nation, people like the Obamas, don't think that at all. They see themselves as future Commissars and Politburo members. They will be wealthy just like they are now but the rest of America will be even more poor and the gap between the noble leaders of the glorious proletariat revolution and the actual workers will be greater than ever. Like Soviet-era apparatchiks they will have all of the privileges of rank, nicer houses, the reserved roadways where they are chauffeured to important meetings while the workers sit in snarled traffic. Do you really think that the Obamas are going to give up their fabulous life and $15 million home on Martha's Vineyard in the name of equality? Do you really think Bernie Sanders will give up his three houses and move into some crappy apartment? Fake Injun Elizabeth Warren, another borderline socialist, has a net worth of over $8 million and lives in a house worth around $2 million in Cambridge, Massachusetts (66% white, 15% Asian). You think she will move into some Party provided "adequate" housing apartment? Puh-leeze. Having gotten a taste of the privileges of power, I guarantee that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not going to return to being a tavern wench shaking her ass for tips. She sees herself as a future ruler of a multicultural socialist nation.

It is not surprising that the Obamas don't want to live among their fellow blacks. They want all of the privileges and benefits of living among whites while still being able to get rich bilking money out of rich white liberals. They sent their daughters to the exclusive Sidwell Friends School where many of the glitterati in D.C. would love to send their children. Sidwell brags that their student body is "47% Students of Color", a rather vague statement, and as their Instagram account shows, the "color" of their "Students of Color" is not black or brown, but Asian (which isn't a color as such).

33 kids in the class of 2019 and two appear to be black. There are several East Asians and one girl looks South Asian but that still isn't half, so I am guessing there are a bunch of Jewish kids in the school that get called "students of color" or maybe the upper grades that are more academically rigorous are skewed more white/Asian than the lower grades. Again, that is the Obama's business to send their kid to an overwhelmingly white/Asian/Jewish school with an annual tuition of almost $45,000. But don't tell me that "diversity is our greatest strength" while aspiring to live apart from that diversity.

Barack and Michelle Obama can live wherever they want, assuming they actual live together as is normally understood in a marriage which I seriously doubt. Bully for them being that insanely wealthy while Barack has never had a real job in his life. Just kindly stop yammering about how terrible income inequality is and how diversity is so awesome when your hero and heroine live in the exact opposite manner. Thanks in advance.

Another Mass Shooting And Guess Who It Was

Over the weekend there was a mass shooting in Hobbs, New Mexico. I haven't ever heard of Hobbs either and had to look it up. From the Epoch Times:

3 Dead, 4 Injured in Shooting at House Party in New Mexico

Seven people shot. That qualifies as a mass shooting under any reasonable standard. What's that, you didn't see this on your local news? I wonder why.....

Khalil Carter, 18; Kristal Avena, 24; and Lamar Lee Kane Jr., 22; died during the shooting, police said.

Four other people were taken to area hospitals for treatment. They were identified as Michael Major, 21; Turon Windham, 20; Rontrell Hills, 23; and Jasmine Stansell, 20.

Khalil, Lamar, Turon, Rontrell. Hmmm, that doesn't sound like a bunch of Mennonite kids. Maybe some white supremacist shot them up, after all white supremacy is the only reason for mass shootings in America!

Hobbs police make arrest in deadly house party shooting

Police have arrested a man in connection with a house party shooting that left three dead and four injured in Hobbs, New Mexico.

The department arrested 19-year-old Bishop Henderson on Sunday and charged him with aggravated battery.

Ooops. As a side note, I think Bishop is his actual name, not at ecclesiastical title.

Hobbs is a smaller town of around 34,000 people, about half of them Hispanic, right on the New Mexico-Texas border. It is not really near anything, being some distance from Roswell, El Paso and Lubbock. Looking at the satellite map, it is just a mid-sized town seemingly dropped into the middle of a desert, surrounded by sand and oil derricks. It has a very small black population, less than 7% of the total, but it looks like a decent percentage were present on Saturday at this house party.

Another mass shooting with the only person in custody being a 19 year old black kid. Since the shooting was reported to have taken place at around 1 AM on the 25th and the mugshot above was taken at around 6:30 PM the same day, it is reasonable to assume that the people at the party knew who did the shooting. There is a Facebook page for a Bishop Henderson of Hobbs, New Mexico that is full of the usual photos you see in the wake of a young black man arrested for a shooting, flashing gang signs, holding a spread of cash, flipping off the camera, etc. In this case no pictures of him pointing a gun which is a little out of character.

So a mass shooting in a little town that leaves 4 wounded and 3 dead but there is very little news coverage.

I wonder why?

Sunday, August 25, 2019

Why Is It Wrong To Hope Someone Dies?

In a mostly missed news blurb last week it was revealed that current Supreme Court Justice and possible zombie Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been treated once again for cancer. She was elevated to the court in August of 1993 under the Clinton administration so she has been on the court for 26 years. More than a quarter of a century being reliably far-left and ruling consistently in ways that I believe are completely wrong. Born in 1933, she is an elderly 86 year old and has had a number of scares when it comes to cancer prior to this most recent incident:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg treated for malignant tumor on pancreas in new cancer scare

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has undergone radiation treatment for a malignant tumor that was discovered on her pancreas – and there is “no evidence of the disease elsewhere in her body,” the Supreme Court said.

The 86-year-old on Friday completed a three-week course of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy at Manhattan’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, according to the Supreme Court.


In December Ginsburg underwent lung cancer surgery.....She underwent colon cancer surgery in 1999, received treatment for early stages of pancreatic cancer in 2009, and had a stent placed in a blocked coronary artery in 2009.

As far as we know she has so far survived lung cancer, pancreatic cancer and colon cancer before another bout with a malignant tumor in her pancreas just recently. Any one of those is often fatal but surviving all of them over the course of two decades? There is some speculation that she has been dead for a long time and is being propped up like in the movie Weekend At Bernie's.

That gif just slays me every time.

Whenever there is yet another health scare or a rumor of her retirement or the occasional hoax claims that she has died, the response is predictable. 

People on the Left who venerate her as some sort of blood-soaked diminutive demigod freak out, start lighting candles and praying to whatever dark deities they worship. 

People on the Right often wish her a speedy recovery while carefully fantasizing about who might replace her. It usually includes the caveat "Not that I would wish for her death but it would be awesome to replace RBG with Amy Coney Barrett....". It is not allowed to wish for the death of anyone. Some lefties who are still under the impression that the Koch brothers are shadowy right-wing puppet-masters instead of just globalists who want cheap labor to boost their profits, celebrated when David Koch died and were blasted for it.

But I wondered, why is it wrong to hope someone dies? Of course we all die but I mean like hoping someone dies right now. It is considered terribly impolite even though the same people lighting candles and offering their organs for RBG would dance in the streets if Trump suddenly died. 

Justice Ginsburg is rightly considered an icon of "progressive" jurisprudence. Nowhere is this more true than on the question of abortion. It is not a stretch to say that RBG is the barrier to overturning Roe v Wade. She has voted against restrictions on "partial birth abortion" where a live children is partly delivered before being murdered. Her decisions have indirectly created a legal framework for killing an untold numbers of Americans who would otherwise be alive today. In other words, her legal decisions kill far more people every year than have ever been killed by every member of the NRA combined. 

So I admit it. I hope she dies and soon. This evening would be great, tomorrow would be fine but whatever as long as it is soon and especially before Trump leaves office as I assume he will in 2021. Trump has been a bitter disappointment but if he is able to replace Ginsburg with a young, solid conservative justice who can be reasonably relied upon to defend the Constitution as written, it will mean his tenure wasn't a complete loss. I am sure that the Democrats have their eye on expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court in order to pack it with liberals to offset Trump but that will take some time and right now we are in a situation where every day we get is another day to prepare. 

In her sleep or peacefully surrounded by family, whatever. It is time for her to go and if she won't retire, I hope nature takes its course, the sooner the better.

Friday, August 23, 2019

A Toddler With A Sippy Cup Of Mountain Dew.... an amusement park with a pocket full of money and three golden retriever puppies on leashes has a long attention span than President Trump. Except when it comes to Israel, then there is no question. He has laser focus, as befits the King of Israel. When it comes to things important to his base? You are lucky if you can keep him on target for a whole day.

Gun rights are one of those areas where Trump seems like a spastic drunk baby. In the aftermath of the El Paso and Dayton shootings it seemed like Ivanka was whispering in his ear about gun control but then earlier this week there was a report from Infowars suggesting he was backing off: TRUMP SHELVES GUN CONTROL AFTER TED NUGENT SAYS “TRUST THE PRESIDENT” ON SECOND AMENDMENT and Herschel at Captains Journal posted Trump Allegedly Tells LaPierre UBC Off The Table, so it seemed like the fever to "do something" had subsided. But then Herschel posted this late last night: “Let’s Call Wayne”: Trump Reverses Course On Universal Background Checks Again. Trump is reported as saying he has an "appetite" for background checks. So what the hell is he doing?

No one thinks "universal background checks" are going to reduce gun violence. The problem is the same as ever, laws only impact people who are already inclined to follow the law and as such those people pose no danger to others. Criminals intent on breaking the law are by definition not dissuaded in the least by laws. That is what makes them criminals.

However UBCs do serve a few purposes. It allows politicians to be seen as "doing something" and they love that. In general the best response to any crisis is for the government to figure out how it can be doing less to address the problem but in reality the urge to seem engaged and taking strong action is overwhelming.

It also reduces the flow of unregistered guns. If you buy a gun through a regular dealer you have to do a background check already and the sale is registered to that gun with that serial number is associated with you. But if you buy a gun from a private party or at some gun shows or flea markets, there is no record. You give them the money, they give you the gun and you now have a firearm with a serial number that is not associated with you. There are no doubt millions of guns in this country that are outside of the registration system, purchased by private parties or given as gifts to relatives or whatever. That doesn't even count the stolen guns being traded illegally on the street, the source of most actual gun violence.

Expect to see them try to slip in the bill language about gun parts. The ability to buy 80% lowers that you finish yourself and 3D guns allow people to manufacture their own firearms without the need to register the serial number drives globalists crazy. Any economic activity that they don't have their fingers in drives them nuts and when it involves firearms it increases exponentially.

You have to always remember the ultimate goal. For example, when pro-life advocates push smaller restrictions on infanticide, the ultimate goal is the abolition of abortion, something I support. For gun control activists, the ultimate goal is complete disarmament including confiscation. Confiscation is easier when they know who owns which guns and of course it is harder when they don't. The additional background checks are not making anyone safer, they are just adding a layer of difficulty in purchasing firearms and making it easier to compile a more comprehensive list of gun owners for that day when they think they will send local cops to kick in doors and get shot at by gun owners. It isn't going to play out that way but that is their little fantasy.

We can't trust Trump on guns. Or on border security. Or on suppression of speech and censorship. The only thing we can trust is that he will always ask "What is best for Israel" and that isn't going to encourage anyone to vote for him that wasn't going to anyway.

Trump is looking like One And Done.

Wednesday, August 21, 2019

Self-Defense Is Racist Now

This morning on the news round-up came a quick blurb about a "racially charged" case in Florida regarding the so-called "stand your ground" laws. The trial started this week for Michael Drejka who is being charged with manslaughter for lethally shooting Markeis McGlockton. The shooting happened as the result of a dispute over a handicapped parking spot.

From USA Today: Florida 'stand your ground' trial begins for deadly dispute over handicapped parking spot

The altercation began when Drejka reprimanded Brittany Jacobs, McGlockton's girlfriend, for parking in a handicapped spot without the proper permit outside a convenience store in Clearwater, Florida. She had stayed in the car with the couple's two youngest kids while McGlockton went in to the store with their then 5-year-old son, Markeis Jr.

McGlockton went outside and pushed Drejka, according to police. Surveillance video shows Drejka then pulling out a gun and shooting McGlockton, who died in front of his eldest child.

There is also a shocking twist to the case!

Though there's no direct evidence that Drejka shot McGlockton because he was black, Lave said race will play an important role in how jurors view this case.

"We know through lots of studies that there’s a lot of implicit and explicit bias against black people, bias that they're dangerous," Lave said. "Whatever people are saying, the fact of the matter is that if you had a white woman who shoved him away and the white guy killed her, that case would have a very different look to it."

There is no evidence it was racially motivated but race will still play "an important role". Well that is a shocking and unforeseen twist!

The other statement is just ludicrous. The assailant McGlockton looks to be significantly larger than Drejka and is 20 years younger. And obviously in almost every circumstance a woman attacking a man is different from a larger, younger man blindsiding a smaller, older man. There are some hefty hippos among the ladies but in general they are less physically imposing and less of a threat. Then there is the very politically incorrect but nevertheless factually accurate point that as it turns out, black men are more dangerous, relatively speaking. Black men, especially black men of the age of Markeis McGlockton, are the single most dangerous category in the country and by a wide margin. Saying that out loud makes people twitchy but that doesn't make it less true. Just because black men are more likely than any other racially group to commit violent crime doesn't give you a pass for shooting them but Lave's comment is inaccurate.

You might also point out that in Lave's hypothetical white woman attacking a white man case, you would never hear about it because there was no chance of a cash settlement to attract the race buzzards civil rights activists. Professor Lave wouldn't care about a white woman being killed by a white man. Furthermore I doubt very much that if a large white man knocked down a much older black man and the black man shot him that she would give a crap. Hell, if it were two black men she wouldn't care. When there is a chance to get your name in the news? Then they all show up.

This is a problematic case strictly from a "stand your ground" view. Based on the grainy video, it looks like the guy was already attacked and that the assailant was not acting in a subsequently threatening manner. It sort of looks like he was turning away, perhaps to get in his car and take off since he just assaulted someone. I am pretty certain I wouldn't have shot McGlockton in that situation. Perhaps a rational person would have pulled their gun but not shot but even then pulling your gun is a precursor to lethal action and should be done with extreme reluctance.

On the other hand, the guy gets completely blindsided and thrown to the ground. That in itself is potentially deadly, if he had fallen in a way where he hit his head it could have been fatal. Also, anyone who has played football probably knows that when you get hit like that it is disorienting. I remember getting steamrolled in football and being kind of out of it for a while. So you get violently knocked to the ground and in a split second pull your gun and shoot at someone who just violently attacked you and was looming over you. It is a matter of the timing, he pulled his gun after he was attacked and his attacker seemed to be withdrawing. That is the impression I get while sitting at my desk, drinking coffee, watching and rewatching a grainy video. Like police shooting videos, it is one thing to sit back comfortably and scrutinize a video, it is quite another for it to happen to you real-time. Would I have shot in that situation? I don't think so and most responsible firearms owners would agree, but again I am not laid out in a parking lot from being violently attacked moments earlier.

According to the USCCA, Florida's law regarding "stand your ground" is as follows:

Florida is a Castle Doctrine state. Under Florida law, there is no duty to retreat if you are attacked in any place you have a lawful right to be. Instead, you may stand your ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. 

So the question for the jury will be whether or not a reasonable person would feel threatened enough to use lethal self-defense. In general, you not only have a presumption of innocence in general but the burden is on the state to prove you did not act in self-defense in cases like this one specifically.

This case is getting widespread coverage because it ticks all the right boxes for the media. It involves a legal concealed carry firearms owner who is middle aged and white. The deceased is black and as many, many of the news reports take great pains to point out, he was "unarmed", as if an "unarmed" person is inherently not dangerous. The shooter allegedly made racially inflammatory statements at one point in the past. Best of all, the shooting itself is pretty questionable. The media in general hates the idea of lawfully armed citizens prepared to defend themselves rather than waiting for 15-30 minutes for the cops to show up after the fact so they love to play up the "racism" angle and slander gun owners all at once.

Maybe this Drejka guy is "racist". I don't know and since the definition of that term has been perverted to mean just about anyone, it is hard to prove. I do know that being "racist" isn't against the law. Maybe he is an asshole, like George Zimmerman, but again that is not against the law. The question to be determined here is whether or not it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. The local police declined to prosecute him initially but the prosecutor decided to go ahead with charges. Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri is quoted as saying:

Drejka “felt after being slammed to the ground, the next thing was he was going to be further attacked by McGlockton,” Gualtieri said in July. He has been sheriff since 2011 and also has a law degree.

That will be the crux of his defense, that in the moment he honestly thought he was going to be attacked further. The State Attorney Bernie McCabe, for whatever motivation, thinks differently and believes he can win a conviction. I have my doubts.

It is of course incumbent upon legal gun owners and those choosing to legally carry to be very responsible with that lethal force. Whether or not Michael Drejka acted responsibly and legally is for a jury to decide. It also is probably not worth getting into a shouting match with someone over them parking illegally in a handicapped spot. It is against the law and it is rude but the world is full of stuff like that.

The media and the government can be counted on to seek out examples like this one where there is some question of the justification for the shooting to focus on legally armed people defending themselves, instead of on the regular and frequent examples where people were clearly justified in using lethal force. Most people who carry for protection do so for completely legitimate reasons and are very responsible. There are over 2 million licensed individuals in Florida with a concealed carry permit and circumstances like this one or George Zimmerman are very rare, suggesting that the concealed carry population is actually far less likely to misuse a gun than the general population of Florida. That won't stop the media from pushing their narrative that concealed carrying citizens are dangerous or that white men are out looking for an excuse to gun down innocent black men.

Monday, August 19, 2019

Comrade Bernie Sanders Declares War On Half Of America

Everyone knows that the problem in America is white nationalism spurred on by Trump's inflammatory rhetoric. Right? It has nothing to do with daily, hourly even, thinly veiled or not veiled at all calls for political violence from the Left.....

Commissar Bernie is declaring war on everyone he disagrees with. Pretty cool.

First off, white nationalism properly defined and understood describes a desire for an ethnostate, like Israel, a nation that is explicitly for the benefit of and inhabited primarily by white people. Very, very few people are even suggesting such a thing, even implicitly. Trump and most Republicans certainly are not, rather Trump seems hell-bent on importing as many Indian code-monkeys to replace Americans in high tech as possible because it will help Our Lord and Savior The GDP. He uses terms like "millions" to discuss how many new legal immigrants he wants to bring in. That is the exact opposite of "white nationalism". There isn't a single white nationalist in national politics. Nor at any mainstream conservative media outlets. Actual white nationalists are very rare and are mostly relegated to being anonymous on the internet and trying to avoid getting deplatformed. That doesn't stop people on the Left from using terms like white nationalism, white supremacy, neo-Nazi and fascist interchangeably and near universally. Why should it when people on the "right"do the same thing, like "conservative" Congressman Dan Crenshaw.

Come on Dan. He has to be smart enough and historically literate enough to know that the Chinese dictatorship that the people in Hon Kong are protesting are not "fascists" in any understanding of the word. They are Communists and have been since Mao. It used to be that being a Communist was bad enough in and of itself, but now Crenshaw is adopting the Leftist trick of using "fascism" as a catch-all for "anyone I don't like". Doing so is convenient but it is intellectually lazy.

The second issue is that Hitler was not a "white nationalist" by any reasonable deifinition. Germany was already pretty much a white ethnostate at the time he came to power. Hitler was not a nationalist as much as he was an imperialist. His vision of a 1000 year Reich was an expansionist vision. Hitler was also a very specific ethnic chauvinist. He favored what he called the Aryan ethnicity. He didn't like a lot of whites especially Slavic people like the Poles and Russians. Part of Hitler's alleged plans included the Generalplan Ost, or Master Plan for the East. This plan called for basically exterminating much of the population of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. As many as 85% of Poles were slated for extermination and those are my father's people. The plan was to exterminate or resettle the Slavic people and then to repopulate Eastern Europe with Aryan Germans.

Most people in America think that World War II was just the Holocaust with some random fighting around the edges. That is not accidental, just look at how many contemporary movies deal with the Holocaust versus how many focus on the Asian theater or Africa or anywhere else in the war. America didn't declare war on Germany to liberate the camps, depending on which story you believe most Americans didn't really know about the camps until the U.S. forces stumbled on them near the end of the war. As others have pointed out, the average G.I. storming the beaches of Normandy and driving across Europe would have been far more of a "white nationalist" than Trump or Tucker Carlson. Bernie is completely rewriting history but that isn't surprising. Most of the action in the European theater was between the Nazis and Soviets fighting over Eastern Europe and if those millions of hardened troops from the eastern front had been available in June of 1944, I am afraid the allied forces would have been butchered on the beaches and thrown back into the sea. That conflict was between two bad guys but while everyone hates the Nazis and anyone who had praised the Nazis at any point in their life would be barred from ever running for political office, Bernie Sanders loved the Soviet Union and even honeymooned there, praising the totalitarian Soviets while getting hammered and singing songs with Commies. He also praised the brutal Cuban dictatorship and the Marxist dictator of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega. The guy who is trying to rewrite history to make Hitler a white nationalist has a fetish for violent, brutal totalitarian dictatorships as long as they are Communists. In wannabe-Commissar Sanders world, Nazis are The Worst People That Ever Lived Cuz Holocaust™ but the far more violent communists are people we should praise and seek to emulate. As a reminder, the various Communist regimes that controlled Eastern Europe, Russia, China and North Korea are some of the most oppressive and murderous regimes that ever existed. The Nazis were in existence for a little over a decade but the Soviets that ruled Russia and the rest of the USSR heaped misery on hundreds of millions of people, killing tens or even hundreds of millions of their own citizens, for most of the 20th century. These are the people Senator Sanders spoke so glowingly of but that is not only not a disqualifier like praising the Third Reich would be, it is actual laudable for many in the increasingly far-left and politically violent Democrat party. It is not coincidental that the Nazis are the singular villain of the 20th century for Bernie but the Soviets were praiseworthy given that Bernie is Jewish and an awful lot of the Bolsheviks were also Jewish.

What we have in America in 2019 is a relatively serious and viable candidate for President of the United States lying and misrepresenting history to try to taint anyone who opposes his policies as a white nationalist and therefore a Nazi. I see a lot of this on Twitter, people claim that "antifa" is "anti-fascist", which isn't even true and therefore if you oppose "antifa" you are therefore pro-fascist. That is obviously a false dichotomy. The Americans in World War II fought the Nazis but they didn't like the Communists either. They were anti-fascism (and the Nazis weren't really fascists anyway...) but they were also anti-commie, so much so that just a few years after the end of World War II we were in Korea fighting Communists. I am not marching with the tiny handful of actual neo-Nazis nor am I marcging and destroying stuff with the slightly larger "antifa" because my brain is more than adequate to choose a third option between "antifa" and "nazi". Such subtelties are lost on the average leftist. While Bernie isn't dumb enough to really think that there are Nazis running around America, his average supporter is and they are itching to spill (or have someone spill on their behalf) some "Nazi" blood. You don't need a brownshirt or a swastika armband, a MAGA hat will do, or voting Republican or owning a gun or voicing any concern about mass immigration. Hell, just being a normal heterosexual married white family with normal white kids who are not taught to hate themselves is enough to get you lumped in with "racists" and "white nationalists" and Bernie is declaring war on you and your family if you don't get in line.

Starting to get the picture yet? They don't see this as a political struggle, they see it as a literal war and you and your family are the enemy. It doesn't take much propaganda to turn your political enemies and even their families into subhuman enemies. Our noble forces in World War II cheerfully firebombed civilians in Germany and Japan, and eventually dropped atom bombs on two Japanese cities full of women and children. People today are even more easily swayed than people were in the 1940's.

People like Jack Posobiec and Charlie Kirk think their signaling and boundary-policing will save them but it won't. This has moved way beyond a political struggle. Bernie Sanders is calling for open warfare against "white nationalists" and "racists" but the Left has declared pretty much all regular white people to be white nationalists and/or racists so he is declaring war on half of America. Reza Aslan is using the language of "eradication" to talk about political opponents. Every day on social media leftists use violent imagery and inflammatory language to talk about conservatives and they don't make a distinction between cucks like David French and actual race realists like David Duke. While there are some people on the right eager for the cold civil war to turn hot, it seems to me that the most eager people to get the shooting started are on the left. We'll see how much they like it when their liberal urban enclaves are under siege from the vibrant diversity that is our greatest strength.

Friday, August 16, 2019

Trump Is Reading My Blog Again

A couple of weeks ago I posted that there might come a time when white Americans and Europeans will be seeking an ark as third world migration swamps the nations they built: An Untapped Export: White People?

In that post I suggested a dark horse candidate as a future home for people of European descent: Greenland.

Lo and behold, this week we see:

Trump Expressed An Interest In Buying Greenland

If he would read my blog more often and listen to Ivanka less, he would be in better shape for 2020.....

Of course, Greenland is not excited about the prospect....: Greenland Responds To Trump: "We're Not For Sale"

....but there are a whopping 56,000 people on Greenland right now and the U.S. already has a military base there, Thule Air Base. The Danish military (Greenland is sort of part of Denmark) fields an impressive 27,000 troops. The U.S. Armed Forces numbers a measly 1.3 million. Granted, several thousand of those are trannies but the rest can fight. Hell, the Coast Guard alone has over 42,000 personnel, dwarfing the Danish military. So pretty much if we want Greenland, the Danes can't do much about it. Let's hope they are reasonable and it doesn't come to that.

Thursday, August 15, 2019

Maurice Hill: The Real Face Of Gun Violence In America

Last night in the super fun city of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia, the news erupted with a story of a shoot-out where six cops were injured. At one point when I checked in on the police scanner app, over 22,000 people were listening to the feed from the Philadelphia police. The fact that there was a shooting in Philadelphia isn't newsworthy but the fact that six cops had been injured was. The shooting shed a quick glimpse on the real world of American gun violence, a very different picture than you get if you just graze on the mainstream "news" like a sheep.

According to the media and entertainment world and most of the socialist clowns running for President in the Democrat primary, the gun violence problem in America is mostly a problem with white men. In order to address gun violence we need to take guns away from white men who haven't actually committed a crime and ban "assault weapons" that are rarely used in shootings. But the FBI reports that more people were killed with blunt objects in 2017 than by all rifles (which would include regular bolt action, lever action and single shot rifles)....

FBI: More People Killed by Hammers, Clubs than with Rifles of Any Kind

Breitbart News reported the most recent numbers–those for 2017–on September 26, 2018. Those figures showed that 467 people were killed with “blunt objects (hammers, clubs, etc.),” while 403 were killed with rifles.

Obviously what America needs is common sense bi-partisan hammer control legislation. Do it for the children!

The real story of gun violence in America is not what you are being told. There is a reason we are still talking about El Paso and "white supremacy" and the need for gun control but the story of the police getting shot in Philadelphia is disappearing down the memory hole. It is simple psychological manipulation designed to soften up white Americans to support being disarmed while they are simultaneously being systematically replaced.

Some random white kid in an El Paso Wal-Mart with an AK is not the face of gun violence in America. This is the face of gun violence in America:

Photo from the Philadelphia Inquirer, accessed 8/15/2019
According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, the suspect in the shooting last night is 36 year old Maurice Hill and he is not unfamiliar with the po-leese.

In North Philly standoff, alleged cop shooter Maurice Hill has a long criminal history

In his storied criminal career as an adult (it is safe to assume he didn't start committing crimes when he turned 18), Mr. Hill has been arrested around a dozen times in 18 years. He has been busted for evading police on an unlicensed scooter (seriously) as well as drug dealing, assault and a slew of gun charges, which seems odd since as a felon he isn't allowed by law to own a gun. It is almost as if people who are felons are notable for a rather strenuous disregard for the law. I am sure a new gun control law will be just the thing to dissuade him from a life of violent crime.

Mr. Hill is a 36 year old black man who has spent his entire adult life, and probably most of his teen years as well, either committing crimes or being incarcerated for committing crimes. He is also the epitome of criminals who use guns in America. You hear about white kids shooting up Wal-Mart stores because it is a) politically useful and b) reasonably rare. You don't hear about blacks shooting people because it is a) politically inconvenient and b) so common place that it becomes background noise. Thanks again to Colin Flaherty for doing the work and making the connections the media refuses to:

Gun violence in America is largely an issue in the non-white community. Blacks and to a lesser extend Hispanics commit violence far out of proportion to their share of the population. Whites are deeply underrepresented in violent crime, especially murder. The face of gun violence in America is a black man who likely is a career criminal and probably shot another black man and an assortment of bystanders, not using an "assault rifle" he purchased at a gun show but instead using an illegally obtained handgun.

Don't let the media lie and manipulate you into giving up your firearms.

How Much Will Trump and The Republicans Surrender Without A Fight?

So called "mass shootings" occur all the time, mostly in urban areas and overwhelmingly carried out by non-whites (more on this in my next post). For example, see DeWayne Craddock And The "Mass Shooting Is A White Guy Thing" Fake Narrative. Also, Colin Flaherty does great videos providing evidence that mass shootings are mostly carried out by blacks, like this one: Colin Flaherty: Mass shootings for the last 7 DAYS. 22 mass shootings...21 by the fellas!. But when a mass shooting is carried out by a white guy, the media and liberals go crazy for a few days, then they run out of steam and start complaining about Trump again. That changed with El Paso and Dayton. While one of the two shooters was a far left loon and we don't know much about his motivations, the media has successfully shifted the narrative so that people are starting to think that the real problem in mass shootings and gun violence in general is not 13% of the population committing over 50% of all murders and 75% of mass shootings, it is actually that all white men are ticking time bombs waiting for an excuse to start gunning down peaceful people of color. The Zman had this to say in his post The White Fright:

The underlying assumption of the White Fright is a belief that whites are secretly organizing to overthrow the current order and impose some sort of pale patriarchy on the country. These white supremacists are everywhere and look just like normal everyday white people, so any white person could possibly be one of them. These people can, at any moment, turn into a violent spree killer, if exposed to certain kinds of content called “hate speech” which is found on-line.

The similarities to medieval witch hunting are too obvious not to notice. The adversary is not something that appears in material form. Like Old Scratch, white supremacy is an evil spirit that works through the infected. Once under the control of white supremacy, the person no longer has agency. Not surprisingly, like the accused witches in Salem, the modern white supremacist is most likely to be someone that vexes the moral authorities, either by their presence or by their actions.

There are really a lot of people out there who honestly think that the middle of the country is full of Klan rallies and rednecks sitting around waiting for a dark skinned fella to walk by so they can lynch them. They think we have secret meetings and even a psychic connection to one another so we can communicate our racial animus without saying a word.

Having named white supremacists as the greatest threat to America, the goal is now to disarm white men so we can't start gunning down minorities at will. If you point out that most shootings are carried out by non-whites and especially when you only look at shootings where non-whites are the victims, you clearly are a white supremacist. See how that works? You get accused of some bullshit and then when you try to defend yourself that is just proof of what you were accused of. That is why defending yourself against these charges is a waste of time and actually counter-productive so Quit Chasing The Stick.

So it wasn't long after the dust settled that Republicans, including President Trump, started tripping over themselves to be seen as "doing something" about gun violence and it is pretty clear that many of them are all too happy to throw their most reliable voters under the bus. Expanded background checks (that wouldn't have stopped either shooter), unconstitutional red-flag laws (that also wouldn't have stopped either shooter) and even bans on "assault weapons" all seem to be on the table. Trump daughter Ivanka has been lobbying Republicans to cuck on this issue: Ivanka Trump is quietly calling lawmakers about the gun debate, and whenever she is involved, regular Americans are getting screwed. Lindsey Graham took a break from banging the drum for more wars to get on-board with more gun laws: BIPARTISAN GUN SEIZURE BILL PROMISED IN CONGRESS.

Trump is all on board with red flag laws and seems to be oblivious to how those will backfire on his followers. I am not going to reiterate that logic, John Wilder's post Red Flag Laws, or, How To Repeal The Second Amendment Soviet-Style Without A Pesky Vote is a good primer.

Trump is not stupid but he is ignorant, and those are not the same thing. Trump knows a lot about some things but he is the product of his upbringing and environment. I don't know much about being a real estate tycoon, I own my house and that is about it. Likewise Trump doesn't know a much about a lot of subjects so he relies on advice from others. It also seems that he gets a lot of terrible advice from his inner circle, most notably daughter Ivanka and her loathsome husband Jared. Assuming we still have a nation, when the real history of the Trump presidency is written it will hopefully cast light on how often Trump was misdirected from what he wanted to do by Javanka. Guns are an area he knows almost nothing about. Sure his kids were competitive shooters and hunters, but being a rich kid on safari is not at all the same thing as a kid growing up shooting whitetails for meat in Michigan. Trump doesn't know much about guns and he seems unwilling to think about the ramifications of what he is doing but someone is whispering in his ear that passing gun laws sure to piss off his base is a great idea, just like wasting time getting some thug rapper that hates him our of jail in Sweden will for sure get him the black vote in 2020. Trump has the attention span of a toddler drinking Mountain Dew in a sippy cup and he is possessed of an awe-inspiring and often undeserved sense of self-confidence so I expect this from him. Where many people don't expect it is from the supposedly wiser and more experienced Republican party leaders.

One of the basic political truths that I have come to believe based on decades of political involvement and engagement as a conservative is this:

If you can count on anything, it's that you can't count on Republicans. 

Regular normie conservatives out in the heartland are often still under the impression that the GOP is a unified political party united behind Trump and working tirelessly to advance a conservative agenda. In reality most of the GOP leadership doesn't care about "conservative values" and in fact a lot of them fear and despise rank-and-file "deplorable" Republican voters just as much as Democrats do. Look at the years long pouting from "conservatives" like Bill Kristol and David French. What country club, Chamber of Commerce, DC insider "conservatives" really want to conserve is their own cushy gig. They want to write their little columns and publish their little magazines and make the right noises about the right issues, until they change their minds and make different noises about different issues, but above all they want to be able to eat at their fancy restaurants and attend their posh cocktail parties where liberals are in attendance and not be embarrassed by what the little people out in the heartland are doing.

It is almost a given that Republicans will surrender on "red flag laws". They will likely also surrender on expanded background checks for private gun sales. What is worse, it is likely this will get even broader once they start to "negotiate" with Democrats. Republicans "negotiators" give it up like a freshman sorority pledge at a frat kegger once they get behind closed doors. Happens every single time. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like a ban on "high capacity" magazines or even a resurrection of the Clinton-era "assault weapons" ban. Fox News ran a poll right after the shootings and it was pretty grim:

Fox News Poll: Most back gun restrictions after shootings, Trump ratings down

Fewer, although still a sizable 67 percent majority, favor banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons. That’s up from 60 percent in 2018.  Support includes over half of those living in a gun-owner household (53 percent). Over half of independents (58 percent) and an overwhelming majority of Democrats (86 percent) favor a ban.  Republicans split 46-46 percent, which is a shift from 2018 when it was 41 favor vs. 56 oppose.

Via accessed 8/15/2019

Look at that a little closer. Half of people self-identifying as a gun owning household support banning "assault weapons". An even split of Republicans polled supported a ban on "assault weapons". Further, 81% of people support taking guns away from "at-risk" people. So if you think that the Epstein "suicide" seemed a little sketchy, you are a conspiracy theorist and therefore mentally ill and some quack psychiatrist can testify that you should be disarmed by force. Starting to see this all coming together yet?

What Trump and Republicans seem to not understand is that their collective cucking on this issue isn't helping them. Trump said all the "right" things after the shootings and his approval ratings still went in the toilet. Granted, these are registered voters which is far less representative of the actual electorate than "likely voters" but still it indicates that Trump and the GOP's signaling on gun control isn't helping them but it is pissing off their base.

I'll be watching this closely but it is just a matter of damage control at this point as the Republicans have once again surrendered on the principle and are now just fighting over which scraps the Democrats will toss them from the table.

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

More On The Future For Boxed Wine Boomers

Earlier this month I posted about, Nshimiyiana Hamzat, the migrant nursing home worker who was sexually assaulting a disabled 50 year old white woman: Angry Cat Ladies: Welcome To Your Future. Then today I saw another lovely story:

Nursing home workers accused of taunting 91-year-old woman with dementia in Snapchat video

Nursing assistant Brayan Cortez is accused of waving a gown at Collins, as his girlfriend and fellow Nursing assistant Jamie Montesa filmed the incident. The caption in the video reads, "Margaret hates gowns" with two laughing emojis.

Here are the pranksters....

How delightful! More vibrant immigrants doing the jobs Americans won't do! Since most people, even dimwits like these two, aren't dumb enough to film themselves tormenting old people, how much of this happens every single day and no one is the wiser?

We have eviscerated the family so there is no longer family continuity meaning the elderly no longer can rely on their children to care for them, therefore we have a huge demand for low-skilled, low-wage "care" providers to take care of our old folks. But oops! We stopped having enough children to supply the demand for these care workers and the kids we did have ended up with worthless college degrees and six figure student loan balances so they can't afford to work as care-givers. That means importing people to care for the elderly who apparently don't care about the elderly. As a bonus, once they get here they are inundated 24-7 with messages about how terrible and racist white people are and how white people are the cause of all of their problems. Shockingly this stuff follows.

If you don't have a family support structure, you are going to live for decades at the whim of people like this. Maybe you will get good ones, maybe you'll get awful ones, most likely you will get indifferent ones. 2 of the 3 options make for a miserable life after you get old.

But hey, look at all of the cool electronic gadgets you bought and fun vacations you took instead of having kids because they were "too expensive"!

Monday, August 12, 2019

The Right To Bear Arms, The Tenth Amendment And Federalism

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Please note, there is not an asterisk next to the 2nd Amendment that provides reasons why shall not be infringed really means it is OK to infringe.

There is no part of American law that is more contentious than the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and nothing is more bedeviling than the words "well-regulated militia". Because we live in the same country 225 years later and the language we use and our ability to understand complicated concepts has also changed, people today read the words of the 2nd Amendment and find it confusing. Some people take the apparently plain meaning, reinforced by contemporary writings, that see the 2nd Amendment as guaranteeing the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, focusing on words like "shall not be infringed". Others claim that the most important words of the 2nd amendment are "a well-regulated militia" and interpret that to mean that only officially government sanctioned groups are covered by the 2nd Amendment.

What makes this even more confusing is that we don't have a militia today. We have the National Guard but that is an offshoot of the massive standing army, something else that would infuriate the Founders. The militia was not a semi-professional military force that could be called up and sent to fight for Israel for freedom in pointless overseas wars, it was just the everyday citizenry, people like me, many who never served officially in the military. Then there is the problem of the word "militia" that carries the connotation of scary right-wing domestic terrorists, thanks to Oklahoma City and the militia movement.

It is especially noteworthy that there is not and never was a federal militia. The militia is a state and local issue. The Founders were understandably very leery of standing armies. Even a century later in the Civil War, the soldiers were organized according to their states.

So the issue of the militia and what that meant was left to the states.

That brings us to the most often ignored amendment in the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment. A significant number of people (although nowhere near a majority on the street) could give you some of the basics of the First Amendment, at least that it talks about speech and religion and the press, and many know the Second Amendment is about guns. I doubt one in a thousand would know the Third Amendment talks about quartering soldiers or why that was an issue. The Fourth and unreasonable search and seizure? Fewer yet. The Tenth? I doubt you could find anyone on the street that wasn't a pretty die-hard conservative that could tell you what the Tenth Amendment says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Basically, if the Constitution didn't specifically grant to the Federal government the oversight of an issue, it properly remained with the states or the people. That is how it was designed, but obviously that is not how it is working today. The Second Amendment provided that no law would be passed that would interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and it left the issue of what that looked like to the states.

So what do the states have to say about the issue? Let's look first at my state of Indiana. According to the Constitution of the State of Indiana, effective 1851, Article 1, Section 32:

"The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

Nothing about a militia, well regulated or otherwise. The People. That's me. As a citizen of the state of Indiana, I have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms for my own defense and the defense of the state. Not for hunting or target shooting. For my own personal defense and in defense of the state of Indiana.

Indiana is hardly alone in this. The USCCA lists the gun laws for each state and the applicable state Constitution section regarding the bearing of arms. So for example, our neighbors to the east, the Constitution of the state of Ohio where I was born and raised, has this to say in Article 1, Section 4:

"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."

Again, The People have the right to bear arms for their defense and security. Nothing about hunting or target shooting. Our neighbors to the north in Michigan, a state we lived in for many years, says this in their Constitution, Article 1, Section 6:

"Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."

Every person, The People, have a right to keep arms to defend themselves and the state. Our neighbors to the west, home of the shooting gallery known as Chicago which has very restrictive gun laws, has this to say in the Illinois Constitution, Article 1 the Bill Of Rights, Section 22.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is a little more vague ("police power"?) which is a backdoor way to regulate what Section 22 says, that there is an "individual right" for citizens of Illinois to keep and bear arms. So I would begrudgingly say that based on the tenets of federalism and the Tenth Amendment, Illinois has some capacity to regulate guns under the amorphous "police powers".

Even states like Oregon have very similar sounding state Constitutional protections for keeping and bearing arms, as do many of the original colonies. Virginia has some of the same language about "well-regulated militia" as the U.S. Constitution. Massachusetts invokes the idea of "common defense" which could mean a lot of different things. Georgia guarantees the right to keep and bear arms but also provides for the "power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne." but the New Hampshire Constitution reads:

"All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state."

Nothing about the militia or regulating the bearing of arms. Connecticut in Article 1, Section 15 says:

"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."

Pennsylvania, Article 1, Section 21...

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Hell, in PA you can't even question it! Delaware, Article 1, Section 20:

"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for hunting and recreational use."

So protection of self, family and home as well as hunting and recreation. Very comprehensive, I liked that one. Rhode Island, Article 1, Section 22:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Short and sweet as befits the tiniest state.

On the other hand, some of the original colonies like New York, Maryland and New Jersey have no mention of a right to keep and bear arms at all, perhaps because they assumed the 2nd Amendment would suffice.

What does that mean? First, it means that as the Federal government has no jurisdiction over firearms other than a prohibition against infringing on our right to keep and bear arms and as the Tenth Amendment leaves to the states all areas not specifically given over to the Federal government, the Constitutions of the individual states are the supreme authority on the bearing of firearms. The "well-regulated militia" thing is irrelevant to gun ownership. The Second Amendment only prohibits the Federal government from regulating the keeping and bearing of arms.

Second, most states have some sort of Constitutional provision protecting in some manner the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Over 150 years ago when Indiana was still mostly wilderness as the 19th state on the extreme edge of the United States, it was still important enough of an issue for the state Constitution to specifically spell out the right of The People to keep and bear arms.

Third, when you add in the Tenth Amendment, it is clear that Federal firearms regulations are inherently unconstitutional, in the sense of being contrary to the Constitution rather than the contemporary definition of unconstitutional meaning whatever a majority of the court says on any given day.

In the real world, this doesn't mean much because the Feds still feel free to create whatever arbitrary rules about keeping and bearing arms they see fit, prohibitions on them doing so notwithstanding, and furthermore they have all sorts of groups from the FBI to the BATF who will politely shoot you, your wife with a baby in her arms and perhaps even burn your children alive if you argue. In other words, this is just an academic exercise. It ought to give you some food for thought. Firearm regulation at the Federal level is a clear and unambiguous overreach by the Federal government, in open violation of the Constitution but given bogus legal cover by the Supreme Court.

Each day we drift further away from the intent of the Founders and as we replace heritage Americans with a historic tie to things like individual liberty with people who are here for the gibs and don't know anything other than despotic narco-state socialism, that is only going to accelerate. Something to keep in mind when we rebuild from the ashes, let's make sure things are a little more explicit when we form a new legal framework the next time.