[American Thinker] Later this year, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to decide on the constitutionality of President Trump's request that a citizenship question be placed in the 2020 U.S. Census.
Democrats know that the 2020 Census citizenship question likely passes constitutional muster; like everything else constitutional, that's why they fiercely object to it, citing "privacy" concerns ‐ a concern a federal judge, earlier this month, rejected.
So what's the real reason they're opposed to a citizenship question?
Democrats know that states are blue or purple; they want to pad the stat sheet in the swing states. States' electoral votes, as well as future federal funding, are determined by their population totals. Having illegals and non-citizens counted in our Census means that swing states' electoral votes will increase, as they did for several swing states between the 2000 and 2010 Censuses.
THE ISSUE IS NEVER THE ISSUE
"The issue is never the issue," as Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky once remarked, and the Census, illegal immigration, and non-citizen unholy trinity is not at all different.
After the 2010 Census, Texas gained four U.S. House of Representatives seats. It's worth noting that Texas has had gains after every Census since it joined the Union in 1845. Florida, after the 2010 Census, gained two seats; like Texas, Florida was admitted into the Union in 1845 and has also seen its electoral votes increase after every Census.
Reliably Democrat states such as Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey each lost a seat following the 2010 Census, and New York lost two. Undoubtedly, Democrats, usually guaranteed those states' electoral votes, would like to see gains there after the 2020 Census.
Electoral vote allocations from the 2010 Census expire after the 2020 elections; 2020 data will determine electoral votes from 2022 to 2032.
[Right Scoop] Kaitlin Bennett is quickly becoming the latest online right-wing personality to try to cash in on people retweeting a blonde with a gun, BUT she also pulled a rather funny gag on liberal students at UCLA.
She dressed up like an insane feminist and asked them to sign a petition to send conservatives and Trump supporters to re-education camps, AND OF COURSE THEY SIGNED IT.
This is the country that puts religion on its passport.
[DAWN] Who would have thought that an agriculture university situated in the leafy, quiet and serene environs of Tando Jam, just outside Hyderabad, Sindh, is doling out degrees with the religion of the holder mentioned on the uppermost section of the document?
Can someone explain what could be the logic behind such obvious chauvinism? This is a country where 98 per cent of the population adheres to one religion. Why then should there be any reason to wear our faith on our sleeve? And this too in a province where most of the Paks practising the Hindu faith reside. As if attacking their places of worship and kidnapping and forcibly converting their girls were not enough, we also want to stamp their religion on their academic degrees? Unlike our Christian brothers and sisters who sometimes take up Moslem names ‐ not that it saves them from any form of discrimination ‐ Paks of Hindu faith usually don’t even do that and their names are sure giveaways for any type of bias that the society wants to mete out to them. It becomes all the more pertinent to ask, why then this need to put a scholar’s religion on her degree? Why?
Pakistain enjoys a unique feature. It is perhaps the first country in human history to have been created on the basis of a religious identity. The other such example is Israel. Surrounded by even more real, imagined or provoked-into-enmity foes than Pakistain, does the ’Zionist entity’ go to the extent of putting religion on the degrees its academic institutions give out? At least an internet-based search did not throw up anything to suggest that. What about Soddy Arabia ...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in the Soddy national face... ? There has been a systematic attempt by certain quarters in our country to emulate the kingdom in as many ways as possible. Does Saudi Arabia put religion on the certificates it bestows upon students successfully completing their degree courses? Again, at least a web search does not suggest so. The same goes for Iran, which does not display religion on academic degrees.
Why should this hang around our necks like an albatross? One does not want to judge anyone too harshly. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. Let us assume that the Tando Jam University is guilty only of neglect and not of premeditated malice. Maybe it’s just an oversight, the oft-cited ’holy manal error’ that has gone under the radar so far. If that be the case, it should not be so difficult to correct the mistake and erase this embarrassment for the land whose inhabitants are the heirs of Bhitai and Sachal. After all, it is the riot of colour in the patchwork of rilli that makes it beautiful.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/25/2019 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Because plants give a $hit...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/25/2019 0:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Tando Jam University is guilty only of neglect and not of premeditated malice. Somebody or somebodies there are guilty of cunningly concealed malevolence for sure. No way is that mere neglect.
[DAWN] THE sharp tone and unusual specificity of the remarks made by the Financial Action Task Force about Pakistain after the Gay Paree meetings should be taken seriously by the government. Much of the language in the blurb following the meetings is routine ‐ listing the 10 areas in which outcomes are required, as well as pointing to the specific risks that Pakistain’s financial system faces. But in significant measures, there is new language in the public remarks that points towards a hardening of the stance taken by the global watchdog. In one place, for example, the remarks say that Pakistain "does not demonstrate a proper understanding of the TF [terror financing] risks posed by Da’esh, AQ, JuD, FiF, LeT, JeM, HQN and persons affiliated with the Taliban ...Arabic for students... ". This is a striking sentence because it goes far beyond the language of the October 2018 meetings in clearly saying that the country "does not understand" the hazards it is facing, and goes on to make a long list of terrorist entities that present such a terror-financing risk.
The remarks end by pointing out the "limited progress" that has been made thus far, and "urges Pakistain to swiftly complete its action plan, particularly those with timelines of May 2019". This language takes the message from FATF far beyond what was said in October, and even implies that further action could be taken as early as June if strong material progress is not made on the plan by May. There is little doubt that FATF is ratcheting up the pressure on Pakistain, and the focus is entirely on terror financing. Naming specific groups means action needs to be taken against them, and not of the sort we have seen over the years, which appears to be more cosmetic in nature and easily reversible.
Previous governments have struggled with the question of acting against those entities named by FATF and listed under UN Security Council Resolution 1267 as terrorist entities. Announcing a ban on a group is only the first step; this needs to be followed up with asset seizures and travel bans. This is the point at which genuine compliance can be said to begin. For the moment though, the government is struggling with the very first step of notifying a ban, let alone following it up with concrete steps to separate the leadership of these groups from their operations and assets. In the meantime, the country’s financial system faces further action from FATF, a step that would bring significant costs for the economy at a time when it is already gasping for air. It is surprising that, over the years, hardly any seriousness of purpose has been in evidence when it comes to curtailing the terror-financing risks in Pakistain. But that attitude cannot continue any longer. The time to take forceful action has arrived.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/25/2019 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[DAWN] PAKISTAN can by no means leave the task of countering terrorism unaccomplished. For that, it will have to adopt a policy mechanism to control all shades of bad boy groups. In retrospect, Pakistain has already taken some measures that have put pressure on murderous Moslems and their supporters. This pressure should remain sustained and be expanded across the board, reflecting the state’s resolve that no bad boy group will be allowed to operate here.
First, murderous Moslems should not be allowed to hide behind the state’s religious-nationalist paradigm.
Secondly, these groups should not have any space in the political or strategic calculus of the state. As far as denying physical space to bad boy groups is concerned, implementing the National Action Plan and the National Internal Security Policy would do the trick. At times, changing the behaviour of some sectarian or bad boy groups can confuse the state’s response, especially when these groups offer complete disengagement from violence in return for entry into mainstream politics. But the leaderships of such groups cannot guarantee holding back their vulnerable mid- and low-rank cadres from committing acts of terrorism, or joining some other violent groups.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
02/25/2019 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[14 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[Boston Globe] The home DNA kit from AncestryDNA was a gift, and it was supposed to be nice. But when Catherine St Clair sent in her sample, she instead learned a shocking truth about herself: She was not the biological child of the man she knew her entire life as "Daddy.’’
The trauma sent her to his Texas gravesite, where she lay down and sobbed. "I felt I lost him all over again," she said.
First came the home DNA kits, with their promise of light fun. Learn if your family is part Scottish! Go on a DNA-inspired globe-trotting trip! Connect with distant cousins!
Now comes the fallout: As millions upload genetic results to AncestryDNA and 23andMe and smaller firms, many are learning devastating news. They’re not their sister’s full sibling, not related by blood to anyone in their entire family, not who they thought they were.
#3
On the other hand, in the last year I gained 2 cousins, kids who were adopted out in the 1970s and who didn't know their birth parents, who had their DNA tested by the same company I used. Now they have hundreds of cousins, and in one case, a half-sister, they didn't know they had.
#4
Aren't most DNA testing labs located in China? If true, that's a lot of info I don't want China to have. I can just see some futuristic weapon that could be detrimental to some gene or another of Americans. Conspiracy? Maybe. They can sell your info to big pharma and insurance types.
Who gives a rip who you're related to or if that's your biological father or not.
The only useful bit of info I find is to discover possible medical problems to have a heads up to deal with. But IMO not at the expense of China having the info too. Besides not that sure if I want to know...
Posted by: Jan ||
02/25/2019 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"Then your family all comes callin' slap you on the back and say cheeee-se... Pleeee-ase..."
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/25/2019 12:46 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Family Style.
And, yeah, I've got a brother I'm a little suspicious about.
#7
Who gives a rip who you're related to or if that's your biological father or not.
I know or have known many kids who were adopted. Knowledge of their birth parents usually means a hell of a lot to them. Your mileage may vary.
#10
Spousal Unit did the test, found a half sister ( dear old dad was plowing somebody else’s field), and another relative took a certain G. Washington to court over aland issue: seems George took that land also.
Kinda scary what you can find out....
Always a good idea for a small people in the midst of rapacious enemies, no matter the circumstances.
[Rudaw] The tour of the US by Ilham Ahmed, a senior Syrian Kurdish politician, may not have succeeded in persuading President Donald Trump ...New York real estate developer, described by Dems as illiterate, racist, misogynistic, and what ever other unpleasant descriptions they can think of, elected by the rest of us as 45th President of the United States... to reverse his Syria military-withdrawal plan. But it is just the kind of public diplomacy Kurds of the Middle East need to engage in if they are to secure their interests in an uncertain time and avoid being forced to link their political fortunes to those of their regional adversaries.
The latest decision by the White House regarding Syria - that the US will keep "about 200" troops in the country "for a period of time" - is no doubt an improvement on the original call for immediate withdrawal. But as with so many Trump administration orders, this one too could prove to be not worth the paper it is written on. In any case, the consultations with high-level Ottoman Turkish government officials that preceded the White House announcement mean the worries and fears of the Pentagon's Kurdish allies are unlikely to be allayed.
Continued on Page 49
h/t Instapundit
[AmGreatness] There have been so far about three general reactions to the concocted Jussie Smollett psychodrama.
One, and the most common, has been apprehension that Smollett’s lies will discredit future real incidents of hate crimes against gays and minorities. This could be a legitimate concern, given the tensions within a multiracial society.
Yet, in fact, there is no evidence in the past that false reports (some lists of such fake hate crimes put the number at around 400) have had such an effect‐either on spiking real hate crimes, suppressing reporting, discouraging police investigations, or preventing even more race-crime hoaxes.
As Heather Mac Donald has recently once again noted, the 2017 upswing in reported hate crimes from the prior year may well be largely because an additional 1,000 police agencies were for the first time reporting such crimes. Mac Donald also notes that a "hate crime"‐a micro percentage of reported violent crime‐is narrowly defined not to include general interracial violent victimization, a category in which African-Americans on average commit 85 percent of such crimes.
...A second reaction was the far more legitimate worry that thousands of hours of careful police work were squandered, as resources were diverted from real crime investigations. Although so far, the overburdened Chicago police have been careful in downplaying this redirection in limited resources, it was no doubt gargantuan.Yet Smollett’s supporters almost immediately questioned the police department’s ethics when authorities ever so cautiously hinted that the facts and Smollett’s own behavior did not line up with a racist attack.
...Yet the third, most important, and most ignored reaction was that in some sense Smollett himself was a racist and had committed a hate crime.
#2
I think we already have enough laws to cover assault, battery, arson, etc. "Hate crime" definitions only increase the tensions without a multiracial society.
#3
"Of similar crimes, why oh why must
Some victimisations be primest
Cuz... race, predilections,
And wedding cake captions?"
Inquired a hate crime hating crimist.
[Babylon Bee] HOLLYWOOD, CA‐At the 91st Academy Awards this evening, elite celebrities flanked by bodyguards, security, metal detectors, and physical barriers like walls and fences banded together to condemn borders and walls.
The celebrities made direct attacks on the concept of a wall as a means to provide security and protection, all while surrounded by high-tech security which included surveillance, armed personnel, and curious obstructions known as "walls" that prevent "just any old non-millionaire person" from walking in and disrupting the event.
At publishing time, they had all gone to exclusive after-parties at multi-million-dollar mansions surrounded by towering brick walls.
BLUF:
[Politico] FDR’s court-packing battle is one of the best-known constitutional struggles in U.S. history. The story, as it’s often been told, pits an entrenched, reactionary Supreme Court, which overturned a slew of Roosevelt’s New Deal economic reforms, against a hubristic president willing to take the unprecedented step of asking Congress to appoint six new, and sympathetic, justices to the bench. Only a national outcry against this unconstitutional skulduggery, along with a newly cowed court that began upholding Roosevelt’s laws, stopped the plan.
Yet this narrative gets much of the court-packing episode wrong. New research I have conducted, forthcoming in the Journal of American History, demonstrates that Roosevelt saw his plan in the context of a long tradition of judicial reform, not as a departure from it. FDR wanted to encourage older justices to retire, not to add extra justices to the bench. He saw a recent, although now nearly forgotten, law cutting Supreme Court pensions as preventing retirements and thus appointments that were his due. The court-packing episode was partially an attempt to fix retirement issues‐not a mere presidential power grab. And at the time, at least at first, many in the press and public agreed with him.
Today, those looking to reform the Supreme Court might want to look away from court packing and instead consider the seemingly mundane issue of judicial retirement‐and how it has reshaped the court throughout its history. A new SCOTUS retirement plan might just be the best way to protect the court’s independence from the hyperpartisanship of our times.
#2
The Supreme Court had to be slapped down for calling programs in the New Deal unconstitutional, the black robed insurrectionists! The message was sent for the Court to stay out of Big Government's way and it stuck for fiftyish years.
Now every court in the land seems that they can legislate from the bench... The chaos that this is causing needs to be dealt with.
[The Federalist] In 1964, Dean Martin sang "You’re nobody ’til somebody loves you." In 2019, it seems like the opposite is true‐you’re nobody until somebody hates you and lets you know it.
At least, that seems to be the impression Jussie Smollett had when he set about devising the plan for the hoax hate crime that has dominated the news lately. In need of something to help him stand out in Hollywood where everyone is richer, more famous, better looking, and more successful, Jussie knew that finding his personal x-factor would be a task.
So he did what no right-minded person in his shoes would do and faked a racist and homophobic attack on himself, confident that his new status as victim would be his ticket to martyrdom in the political sphere as well as personal success. What could be better than railing against the evils in society while boosting your own career? Given the toxic tribalism that now defines and divides our politics and culture, his confidence was not misplaced.
Tribalism inspires us to caricature and think the worst of the people outside of our tribes, which is the main reason this story gained any traction. In his book "Them: Why We Hate Each Other ‐ and How to Heal," Ben Sasse explains that society now falls "into ’anti-tribes,’ defined by what we’re against rather than what we’re for. Hence the rise of social-media faux-communities devoted to how the other side is destroying everything good and true‐and the cable news channels on left & right that thrive on outrage."
Unsurprisingly, immediately following news of the attack, celebrities proved Sasse right when they assigned blame for what happened to Jussie. Billy Eichner tweeted, "Heartbroken and furious reading about the attack on @JussieSmollett. I want Trump and all MAGA lunatics to burn in hell."
#2
Tribes tend to do poorly when confronted by the non tribal world. They have their Little Big Horn moments but the long haul is never kind to them.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/25/2019 8:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Re the Ben Sasse panty twister book: I had a cartoon on my desk for years, two guys in suits walking down the street. One guy says "I don't want to manage my anger, I want to franchise it."
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/25/2019 8:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Seen on Twitter: If Jussie Smollet wanted so badly to be the victim of a hate crime, why didn't he just put on a #MAGA hat?
A companion to my previous post in opinion
[Townhall] While the unkillable ideological cockroach that is socialism seems to be enjoying a resurgence primarily among stupid and/or evil millennials, there are three key groups who will oppose any such transition here in America. There are ex-military folks like me who served in the ruins of socialist countries and saw the way they poison a culture (and literally the land too ‐ socialism is always an environmental atrocity). There are folks, like my wife, who escaped from murderous socialist hellholes ‐ wear your scummy Che t-shirt around her and she’ll cut you. And then there are the rest of the Normal Americans who are both aware of socialism’s 100 million corpse tally and who don’t particularly want a bunch of aspiring campus Castros taking power and telling bossing them around for eternity.
... first we need to define "socialism," because there seems to be a lot of confusion about what socialism is among the young people supporting it. "Socialism" is defined as "socialism." You have probably seen on social media where smug dorks in knit caps post memes about how, "If you support having roads and armies, you support socialism!" Okay, if every kind of government has roads and armies, then roads and armies are not an attribute of a socialist government in particular but of government in general. This kind of soft thinking is the sad result of too many years spent watching The Daily Show, which offers its audience such pseudo-smart insights designed to blow the minds of credulous sophomores. Personally I believe that enchantment with Marxism among "cognitive elites" is due to the fact that these people were educated beyond their innate ability - on the principle "if you try teaching calculus to a dog, you'll drive it mad". Now I wonder, could you say the same thing about Marx?
...Understand that the real motivation behind "socialism," as they use the term, is to shift power and resources from people like you into the hands of the unaccomplished losers who make up the Democrat Party. In terms of specific policies, socialism, as imagined by our useless millennials, seems to be less about Marxist doctrine than about just stealing things that millennials really want from you ‐ that is, your money and your power. It’s an attempt to create a moral, cultural and political framework to justify making you an impoverished subject toiling for, and obedient to, the kind of hipster geebos who inhabit Brooklyn and Santa Monica.
#6
Proof that stereotypes are a bad way to go. Thanks, g...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/25/2019 8:00 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Skinny jeans and the sport coat or suit jacket that appears to be at least 3 sizes too small. I often wondered if the goal of this type of wear is simply arse exposure. Does anyone here know ?
#9
Probably because their moms don't help them buy their clothes anymore, B.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
02/25/2019 8:13 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I wear jeans (definitely not skinny) and a black t-shirt most of the time. I'm invisible...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/25/2019 8:15 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Among young people socialism seems to be 'everything I like' and capitalism is 'everything I don't like'. There isn't much thought beyond that. They use Democratic socialism to dodge the inevitable history but don't think deeply on how different socialists (Chavez, Mudara, Hitler) were elected before they shut down democratic apparatus.
#12
Historically, the US is run by old men who talk left but govern right-center. As long as I can have 20 more years of that I really don't care what they do to themselves after that. Just don't do it to me. Selfish? You bet.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/25/2019 10:39 Comments ||
Top||
#13
...but don't think deeply on how different socialists (Chavez, Mudara, Hitler) were elected before they shut down democratic apparatus.
#14
What #11 (rjschwartz) said ^ !!
The lack of intellectual rigor is mind boggling. They hate Big Business™ but have no clue that replacing it with an all powerful state monopoly simply removes any freedom of choice that they have... Fascism was Good for Italy, it will be Good For America! (/sarc, if it's needed!)
#15
"cognitive elites" is due to the fact that these people were educated beyond their innate ability Self-styled "elites" all have a sense of self-importance that vastly exceeds their native ability. Education only made that misapprehension worse.
h/t Instapundit
[TennesseeStar] If somebody wanted to fundamentally transform society to its roots, where would he or she start?
The most logical starting point would be education. And if there were one part of the educational system that would produce this transformation most broadly, effectively, and efficiently, it would most likely be at our schools of education that train teachers for the K-12 classroom. That’s where ideas from the rest of academia are inserted into the curriculum for elementary and high school students, and where politically unsophisticated young people are turned into classroom teachers. Control the schools of education, and the education system will eventually be yours to forward your political agenda.
Remarkably, that is just what has happened in this country. Over 100 years ago, when our education schools were just starting up or growing from two-year normal schools to university status, Progressive educators set out to transform the nation into one that was based on social science theories, collectivism, and central planning.
How successful were they? Several years ago, I started an investigation into how politicized education schools have become. Today, the Martin Center is releasing the results of that investigation in a new report, titled "The Politicization of University Schools of Education."
The report’s main conclusion? That schools of education may very well be radicalized beyond anything imagined by the early Progressives.
The way I came to that conclusion was through two methods. One was an empirical examination of the syllabi of three major education schools, the Universities of Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Carolina. I looked at 290 total syllabi from the three education schools and tabulated the most frequently assigned authors. Rather than basing popularity on the number of times an author’s works were assigned, I used the number of classes in which their works were assigned; counting every time a book or article is assigned can skew the results if a professor assigns multiple works by the same author. I also counted every author for each article.
In the other method, I identified the major strains of radical K-12 education‐Progressive, critical pedagogy, and multicultural education‐and followed their increasing influence in academia.
The overall results of the main empirical investigation are in Table 1 below.
...So, who are these authors and what ideas are they promoting?
First of all, they are not fringe players, but key members of the education establishment. Most of them have held prestigious positions in the world of education.
...Secondly, every person on my Top Ten list is highly political and holds beliefs far to the left of ordinary liberals.
...My findings were strongly corroborated by the two other studies I found that explore the same topic. Both were conducted by political moderates: Frederick Hess, who is the lead educational expert at the American Enterprise Institute, and David Steiner, the director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy (hardly a hotbed of conservatism). Steiner summarized his findings:
In the domain of foundations of education, the books most often required by the programs we reviewed were authored by Anita Woolfolk, Jonathan Kozol, Henry Giroux, Paulo Freire, Joel Spring, Howard Gardner, and John Dewey . . . The rest are well-known works that embrace a constructivist and/or progressive standpoint. Conspicuously absent from almost all such syllabi were works that took a very different approach to teaching, such as those by E. D. Hirsch or Diane Ravitch. I might add that, in my - fairly extensive - experience (in Israel, not USA - our monkeys always imitate yours), the main damage due to these politically indoctrinated teachers is not due to political indoctrination of students but to sheer professional incompetence. That is, math & science teachers who learned their subjects by sheer rote memorization, have no basic understanding and reward their own kind of rote memorizers with top grades while punishing students who ask "awkward" questions. To see how it ends, one only has to look through professional scientific journals
#1
Depends on a few things. Smart kinds are bored sh*tless in pubic school.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/25/2019 6:59 Comments ||
Top||
#2
When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school,
It's a wonder I can thing at all.
And though my lack of education hasn't hurt me none,
I can read the writing on the wall.
- Paul Simon
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/25/2019 7:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Smart kinds are bored sh*tless in pubic school.
Gosh, does that mean I'm smart? I can't think of a time in my life when I was so badly, desperately bored as when I was in high school.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
02/25/2019 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Gosh, does that mean I'm smart? Yes, relatively speaking. You were "smarter" than your environment allowed for. As we are learning, that is not saying much.
#7
Smart kinds are bored sh*tless in pubic school.
Some are. I loved my schools and my teachers, and mostly was well challenged, even if it meant I was in a reading group of one reading books the teacher had put aside for the purpose. And at home my mother encouraged us to use her university text books as research materials for our homework. Trailng daughter #1 was like me; trailing daughter #2 was bored to tears at being forced to waste so much time. The two fosterlings were also one of each, though since they pushed hard to graduate early with high honours, they were going faster than normal anyway.
[VictoryGirlsBlog] Thirteen former military commanders and other "elites" have signed a letter to the House of Representatives demanding "universal background checks" for all gun sales in the United States. The baker’s dozen of constitutionally illiterate military advisers and former "combat leaders" are putting their weight behind HR 8 ‐ a bill that violates your right to dispose of your own property as you see fit, as well as makes tools of self-defense much more inaccessible to We the People.
"A prohibited person with dangerous intent can easily buy a gun over the internet or in a parking lot with no questions asked," the military advisers wrote to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer."For those of us with extensive firearms training, who have seen the damage inflicted by a powerful weapon in the wrong hands, this is simply unfathomable," they wrote.
"For those of us with extensive firearms training..."
Ya know, I remember pretty vividly an MRX in Hohenfels, Germany, during which I had to show a rather chunky Air Force Colonel how to lock his bolt to the rear on his rifle, so forgive me if I’m not impressed by the claims of people like Wesley Clark and Mark Hertling who signed on to a letter generated by Gabrielle Giffords’ gun control organization, urging legislators to relieve you of your rights.
"Each of us has, at some point in our lives, made the choice to risk our lives for our fellow citizens and place ourselves in harm’s way. We were trained, we were coached, and we were prepared for the dangers that we chose to face," says the "Veterans’ Coalition" to Shred the Constitution ‐ retired senior officers who flog their credibility as people who risk their lives to defend our nation, but who seem to have forgotten that they also took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic ‐ the same Constitution that says the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Translation: Don’t you know who I am? Look at my uniform! Continues..with names and comments.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/25/2019 0:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Idiots all
Making Criminals of people who would not otherwise be.
And DO NOT ACT like you are Military going against MY CONSTITUTION you worthless idiots. I would rip that rank off your collar in a heartbeat you traitors.
Democrats are all the same, all the time.
Always worthless, always imposing.
Shame on all you phony troops here.
Also dumbshits like that idiot Wesley Clark never had business being in the military at all. What use was he ever other than WWIII?
Idiots, never turn on me this way traitors.
Or better said - democrats.
Shame on you pimping your Service to remove MY rights you worthless idiots.
Democrats make horrible Troops usually by the way. Been there, seen it.
#8
Never served in the military, so I have nothing to say about whether these mokes violated their oaths or not, however, I do reserve the right to lump them with the other socialists pigF***ers like Schumer & Pelosi. You get the same respect and just deserts as they do.
Posted by: Glinesing Smiter of the Leprechauns9160 ||
02/25/2019 8:35 Comments ||
Top||
#9
People are shot by criminals in every totalitarian society on the planet. Making our society totalitarian will not bring that nobody ever gets shot by a criminal goodness.
And I'm f*cking sick and tired of hearing that curtailment of my law-abiding citizen rights will solve a problem I'm not causing.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/25/2019 9:08 Comments ||
Top||
#10
While I hate to recycle assessments, Wesley Clark was and remains a leg humping stooge. An utter stonad of the 1st magnitude who can claim the singular honor of having been the highest ranking officer to be relieved of command since the Civil War. Oh, and that was for 'questions of personal integrity' or more colloquially LYING.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[DAWN] THE sharp tone and unusual specificity of the remarks made by the Financial Action Task Force about Pakistain after the 
[DAWN] PAKISTAN can by no means leave the task of countering terrorism unaccomplished. For that, it will have to adopt a policy mechanism to control all shades of
[Babylon Bee] HOLLYWOOD, CA‐At the 91st Academy Awards this evening, elite celebrities flanked by bodyguards, security, metal detectors, and physical barriers like walls and fences banded together to condemn borders and walls.
