A ban on the future sale of Semi-Automatic Mag Fed Rifles (SAMFR),
would have no affect on public safety; even if it actually stopped the
citizenry from accruing these rifles, and a terrorist was locked into
using only a SAMFR, there would still be 3-4 million SAMFR available to
buy, beg, borrow or steal. Further thousands of these rifles are bought
by law enforcement every year, and as we have seen in Salinas, stealing
weapons from the police continues to be a big problem; and of course the
elephant in the room is the 2nd Amendment. If we want to stop the
violence we need to concentrate on the criminals and terrorists, not
guns. As mention France has strict assault rifle possession bands, but
that didn't stop the massacres on French soil. The Administration needs
to get serious about protecting the us from Islamic Terrorism. Instead
DHS has orders not to concentrate on Muslims and a prohibition of
investigating mosques, unless a member ask them to. The result is the
the US did a good job of identifying suspected terrorist, but were
stopped from maintaining their investigation becasue of political
correctness.
But there is a larger issue; and that is current
owners of SAMFR and magazines that carry more than 10 rounds have simply
decided not to comply with these anti-gun laws. Connecticut instituted
mandatory registration for SAMFR, compliance was less than 5% and it
was also discovered law enforcement officers were the main culprit. Los
Angeles and Colorado instituted a law that forbid hi-capacity magazine
ownership, compliance in Colorado was less than 5 % and in Los Angeles
it was 0%. In a Democracy, the vast majority of the people need to
voluntarily comply with the laws (punishment is only meant for the less
1% that are sociopaths). If not, a large section of the population will
ignore the law, the result of which is devastating to a representative
government.
So what are we fighting for? Let our country's
investigative agencies do their job! Don't tie their hands with rules of
engagement based on political correctness! The anti-gun zealots tell us
he have a gun violence epidemic, when gun violence has been on a
decline since the 1970 (50%). The fact that SAMFR continue to be the
least used firearm in criminal activity should be a clue that those
calling for their ban are not doing so to increase public safety.
Saturday, June 18, 2016
Friday, June 10, 2016
Trump and the Post Alinksy Era
The fact is both Democrats and Washington Republicans don't have a
clue why Trump keeps picking up voters (a new poll now shows 37% of
voting Latinos plan to vote for Trump). The reality is, if you don't
view Trump through a politically correct prism, he is more comical than
anything else; it has been rightly said that political correctness
has eliminated humor. The left has been pushing this self censoring BS. For
40 years, since the left embraced the Saul Alinsky, the left no
longer treats conservatives as the party with a different world view,
instead the evil, xenophobic, racists, bullies, liars (etc). "RULE 12:
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off
the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after
people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This
is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and
ridicule works.") And never admit that you opponent has any positive
traits, “Can you imagine in the arena of conflict charging that
so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting the impact of the attack
with qualifying remarks such as “He is a good churchgoing man, generous
to charity, and a good husband”? This becomes political idiocy".
But the narrative has gotten too long in the tooth, and is now simply ignored by a majority of Americans (the left apparently forgot about RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.). Further the end result has been a government that ignores controls placed on government by the US Constitution, individual rights and wants of the electorate; all in the name as the need of the greater good; a euphemism for the oppression of collectivism. Further the main stream media pretty much ignores the torrent of lies that have come from both Obama and Hillary Clinton all the while demonizing Donald Trump. What you see is a very angry electorate that rabidly distrust politicians and the main stream media. The result is the more criticisms and personal attacks Trump gets, the more voters he garners. The end result is the left is at wits end becasue they have no plan "B", as all they have is lies ("Never admit to a lie or to having been wrong about something"), demonization and personal attacks, but we are now entering a post Alinsky era where the people have stopped listening to politicians and the media (in other words the people are no longer letting the left define their reality), and are looking for a candidate that has a worldview more sligned with their own, based on American exceptionalism and love of country.
But the narrative has gotten too long in the tooth, and is now simply ignored by a majority of Americans (the left apparently forgot about RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.). Further the end result has been a government that ignores controls placed on government by the US Constitution, individual rights and wants of the electorate; all in the name as the need of the greater good; a euphemism for the oppression of collectivism. Further the main stream media pretty much ignores the torrent of lies that have come from both Obama and Hillary Clinton all the while demonizing Donald Trump. What you see is a very angry electorate that rabidly distrust politicians and the main stream media. The result is the more criticisms and personal attacks Trump gets, the more voters he garners. The end result is the left is at wits end becasue they have no plan "B", as all they have is lies ("Never admit to a lie or to having been wrong about something"), demonization and personal attacks, but we are now entering a post Alinsky era where the people have stopped listening to politicians and the media (in other words the people are no longer letting the left define their reality), and are looking for a candidate that has a worldview more sligned with their own, based on American exceptionalism and love of country.
Friday, May 13, 2016
Transgenderism is Likely a Mental Disorder
It is difficult to fathom why our President is expending so much political will in trying to mainstream cross dressers. The fact remain that not only is transgenderism deviant behavior it is believed to be closely related another dysphoric condition called 'body integrity identity disorder' where an otherwise healthy person one or more limbs of one's body do not belong to them or a person suffering anorexia that has a much distorted view of their own body. Dr Paul McHugh who holds the position of Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry for John Hopkins University identifies transgenderism as mental disorder,“’sex
change’ is biologically impossible,” said (Dr Paul) McHugh. “People
who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or
vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women..for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were
“satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social
adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.” Transgenderism is a Mental Disorder
A 2003 Study from Sweden "...suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism. In other words, even when transsexual sexual reassignment surgery, the dysmorphic feeling that they were born the wrong gender had little affect on their general well being, still pathological preoccupied with their gender.
Dr McHugh has good reason for his beliefs, the truth is there should be no argument that transsexualism is a mental disorder as it is defined as such in the Psychiatric DSM-IV ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition: DSM-5). 302.85 Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents or Adults
Gender Incongruence (in Adolescents or Adults) [1] A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months duration, as manifested by 2 or more of the following indicators: [2, 3, 4]
1. a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or, in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics) [13, 16]
2. a strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or, in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics) [17]
3. a strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
4. a strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
5. a strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
6. a strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
http://www.ifge.org/302.85_Gender_Identity_Disorder_in_Adolescents_or_Adults
The sad part of this is the real victims of this push to make transgenderism main stream are the young boys who's parents are pushing them into pushing transgenderism. It is well known that children tend to be gender neutral, ie boys dressing up like mom. However they normally out grow this stage spontaneously if left alone, and it is child abuse to promote anything otherwise. What is also just under the surface is how patriarchal transgenderism is. The primary victims are women and young girls. These is the gender that is being put upon, forcing them to endure sharing a locker room and showering with men with men genitalia; something that is not only unwelcome but can be dangerous if these man are predators.
Let is also be known that there is no country that allows such things. Yes, there are unisex bathrooms but they are not the norm and have a warning displayed. Further the transsexual's have also stated they do not want separate bathrooms, they want to use what ever gender bathroom they identify with; they do not want accommodation they want full acceptance. It should also be noted that this has nothing in common with homosexuality, where gays and lesbians have no desire to share bathroom and locker rooms with the opposite sex; as Dr McHgh said "Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder."
Dr McHugh has good reason for his beliefs, the truth is there should be no argument that transsexualism is a mental disorder as it is defined as such in the Psychiatric DSM-IV ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition: DSM-5). 302.85 Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents or Adults
Gender Incongruence (in Adolescents or Adults) [1] A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months duration, as manifested by 2 or more of the following indicators: [2, 3, 4]
1. a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or, in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics) [13, 16]
2. a strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or, in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics) [17]
3. a strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
4. a strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
5. a strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
6. a strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
http://www.ifge.org/302.85_Gender_Identity_Disorder_in_Adolescents_or_Adults
The sad part of this is the real victims of this push to make transgenderism main stream are the young boys who's parents are pushing them into pushing transgenderism. It is well known that children tend to be gender neutral, ie boys dressing up like mom. However they normally out grow this stage spontaneously if left alone, and it is child abuse to promote anything otherwise. What is also just under the surface is how patriarchal transgenderism is. The primary victims are women and young girls. These is the gender that is being put upon, forcing them to endure sharing a locker room and showering with men with men genitalia; something that is not only unwelcome but can be dangerous if these man are predators.
Let is also be known that there is no country that allows such things. Yes, there are unisex bathrooms but they are not the norm and have a warning displayed. Further the transsexual's have also stated they do not want separate bathrooms, they want to use what ever gender bathroom they identify with; they do not want accommodation they want full acceptance. It should also be noted that this has nothing in common with homosexuality, where gays and lesbians have no desire to share bathroom and locker rooms with the opposite sex; as Dr McHgh said "Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder."
So why is the left and President Obama so intent on pushing this. The answer is simple, the collectivist must be able to change and define social norms and values at will.
This is allowed when we let progressives set the standard for right and wrong and allow for such social engineering, for fear of being called a racist or phobic. In reality the left created these values, when they created political correctness, and then they use political correctness to justify these perverted standards; standards that run counter to the legitimate values that define a cultural. The end result is the governments legitimizing deviant and criminal behavior under a false banner of individual rights.Once this is done, the powers that be can route out all differential cultures and values to create the world governance being pushed so hard by President Obama. Hopefully President Obama has finally over reached, so there finally be cultural and values push back rather blind acceptance and obedience to the social engineering of the left; and the action taken will portend our future for decades to come.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Historically Fascism was Derived from the Left and Socialism
Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Totalitarianism, all fall under the
heading of collectivism; big government viewing the citizenry as a
single entity and providing for the collective with what the Intelligentsia decides their common wants
and needs without any consideration for the individual, and whereby
taking care of the collective by controlling everything in their lives.
This is opposed to a government of the people, by the people and for the
people; remembering by definition the protection of individual rights
is a protection from government. The concept of fascism was developed by
Benito Mussolini, considered by historians as being one of the most
influential socialists of the 20th Century. Fascism was designed to
address what he saw as the weaknesses in socialism, and that when the
socialists nationalize businesses, the socialists in charge actually
know very little about running them. So fascism is the government
pairing with business, kept in government control by overseers and
strict regulations, to maintain the production rates prior to government
nationalization. Further like socialism, there is no one kind of
fascism, it is a robust system as was seen in it's various in Spain
under Franco, Italy and Germany; one thing they all share is the
abolition of Democracy. The point being that the left champions
collectivism, which is based on the belief that individual rights need
to be done away with in the name of saving and preserving the
collective; that the government needs to control the citizenry for their
own good..
The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed to mitigate collectivism by protecting individual rights, but even our founding fathers recognized, that no matter what restrictions are put on government, it was doubtful their new country would last more than 200 years as the progression of government tyranny is just to difficult to to withstand.
The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed to mitigate collectivism by protecting individual rights, but even our founding fathers recognized, that no matter what restrictions are put on government, it was doubtful their new country would last more than 200 years as the progression of government tyranny is just to difficult to to withstand.
Labels:
Benito Mussolini,
Bill of Rights,
Collectivism,
fascism,
US Constitution
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Islam; the truth is inescapable
Recently ISIS released a video, which
contained the quote, "Every Muslim who is well aware of the history of
Islam, knows that the holy war against infidels is an integral part of
Islam, and those who read history would know." Regardless of the source,
this truth is still inescapable.
Islam is a very compartmentalized religion. The vast majority of Muslims, like most people in the world simply want to live a peaceful life and raise a family; this being accomplished through the five Pillars of Islam. Another part is Islam comes with it's own criminal justice system that is pretty much inconsistent with any sovereign country not ruled by Sharia law (the vast majority of Muslims support Sharia law over other criminal justice systems regardless of the country where they live). Then there is the jihadist; the holy warriors that police the world for those that defame the Prophet Mohamed and/or Allah and promote the forced spread of radical Islam. "If the person who defames him (the Prophet Mohamed) is a non-Muslim living under a treaty with the Muslim state, then this is a violation of the treaty and he must be executed." While the peaceful Muslim does not necessarily condone the jihadist (some 25% when polled actually do) most are of the belief, that while they disagree with the violence of radical jihadists, one should not criticize their religion in front of unbelievers (and make no mistake, radical jihadism has always been a recognized part of Islam). I also find it remarkable if not naive when the left asked what the West has done/ is doing to anger, when the answer is the very existence of the West and it's promotion Democracy, individual rights, liberty and a liberal education; all of which are viewed as a direct assault against Islam.
Islam is a very compartmentalized religion. The vast majority of Muslims, like most people in the world simply want to live a peaceful life and raise a family; this being accomplished through the five Pillars of Islam. Another part is Islam comes with it's own criminal justice system that is pretty much inconsistent with any sovereign country not ruled by Sharia law (the vast majority of Muslims support Sharia law over other criminal justice systems regardless of the country where they live). Then there is the jihadist; the holy warriors that police the world for those that defame the Prophet Mohamed and/or Allah and promote the forced spread of radical Islam. "If the person who defames him (the Prophet Mohamed) is a non-Muslim living under a treaty with the Muslim state, then this is a violation of the treaty and he must be executed." While the peaceful Muslim does not necessarily condone the jihadist (some 25% when polled actually do) most are of the belief, that while they disagree with the violence of radical jihadists, one should not criticize their religion in front of unbelievers (and make no mistake, radical jihadism has always been a recognized part of Islam). I also find it remarkable if not naive when the left asked what the West has done/ is doing to anger, when the answer is the very existence of the West and it's promotion Democracy, individual rights, liberty and a liberal education; all of which are viewed as a direct assault against Islam.
Labels:
Democracy,
ISIS,
Mainstream Muslims,
radical Islam,
Sharia Law
Sunday, February 21, 2016
The Misdirection of Gun Restrictions
A liberal blogger asked the question, "How many people have died from gun violence because Republicans put the NRA profits above public safety?" If one looks are crime statistics and historical evidence, the answer would be none, because the people die when the crime rates are high, and there is no evidence that the massive increase of gun ownership has resulted in an increase in gun crime, as a matter of fact the opposite is true. Like the issue of background checks, there is no evidence that the gun restrictions would protect anyone or increase public safety. While the left has done a good job of associating guns to crime, the reality is gun violence follows crime rates, not the other way around.
Throughout the country, whether a state had strict restrictions or not, gun violence and homicides fell about the same rate of 50% over the last 20 years, while gun ownership nearly doubled. It is easy to pass laws and demonize guns, but much harder to actually to have real affect on violent violence. The anti-gun zealots say universal back grounds checks are logical and make sense, which on the surface does seem so, the problem is background checks have ever been shown to lower crime rates. Further the system is so flawed that some 80% of those flagged when trying to buy a gun, are flagged in error. Is this the kind of system that should be expanded?
The same with assault weapons ban. One might buy into the argument that assault weapons and large capacity magazines have the ability to shoot more bullets and kill more people, yet their use in crimes (along with use of any rifles), continue to be very rare; less than shotguns, while their number in the US has climbed to 4-5 million. As a matter of fact, if all the assault weapons disappeared from the country, there is no evidence that it would have any impact on gun violence and/or gun homicides at all; it's simply a scam. Again it is the left simply creating an emergency and divisive issue and pretending they are on the side of public safety, while nothing they are proposing has ever prevented or lowered the amount of gun crimes and/or gun homicides; the problem is not guns, it's crime; and crime is way down so gun crimes are way down. It's that simple.
Throughout the country, whether a state had strict restrictions or not, gun violence and homicides fell about the same rate of 50% over the last 20 years, while gun ownership nearly doubled. It is easy to pass laws and demonize guns, but much harder to actually to have real affect on violent violence. The anti-gun zealots say universal back grounds checks are logical and make sense, which on the surface does seem so, the problem is background checks have ever been shown to lower crime rates. Further the system is so flawed that some 80% of those flagged when trying to buy a gun, are flagged in error. Is this the kind of system that should be expanded?
The same with assault weapons ban. One might buy into the argument that assault weapons and large capacity magazines have the ability to shoot more bullets and kill more people, yet their use in crimes (along with use of any rifles), continue to be very rare; less than shotguns, while their number in the US has climbed to 4-5 million. As a matter of fact, if all the assault weapons disappeared from the country, there is no evidence that it would have any impact on gun violence and/or gun homicides at all; it's simply a scam. Again it is the left simply creating an emergency and divisive issue and pretending they are on the side of public safety, while nothing they are proposing has ever prevented or lowered the amount of gun crimes and/or gun homicides; the problem is not guns, it's crime; and crime is way down so gun crimes are way down. It's that simple.
Labels:
2nd Amendment,
Anti-gun,
Assault Weapons,
Gun Rights,
gun violence,
red
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Meet Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser; Self Hating Arms Dealer and Gun Owner Hating Zealot
The following article was published in the NYT by what may be is one of the most condescending
anti-gun zealots in a long time; he also appears to be a self hating arms dealer, "Despite what the N.R.A. says about people, not guns killing other
people, there is no consumer product as lethal as a gun. But walk up to a
guy (and it’s still almost always a guy) who is lovingly caressing the
gun he just bought and tell him that what he’s holding is a lethal
weapon and he’ll stare at you in disbelief. Ask him why he just plunked
down $600 and he’ll stare at you again. He bought that gun because he
likes buying guns — it’s as simple as that. He may mumble something
about the 2nd Amendment because that’s what he’s been told, but if you
think picking up a gun is any less impulsive than buying any other
nonessential consumer item, think again." A Gun Dealer talks About Guns
Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser statements seem designed to show gun buyers/ owners as brainless trend following idiots (based on his description of his gun buyers, it really sounds like the only people that buy guns from him are know nothing liberals that have no idea why they are buying a firearm, it’s just seemed a cool thing to do). I for one have never heard a gun owner mumble when asked why he owns a gun(s), be it for self defense, hunting or target (milk jugs included) shooting. I can surely agree that if you “walk up to a (conservative) guy (and it’s still almost always a guy) who is lovingly caressing the gun he just bought and tell him that what he’s holding is a lethal weapon and he’ll stare at you in disbelief,” as the conservative will think the woman asking the question (and it’s still almost always a woman) must be a liberal tune; the fact that a firearm is a lethal weapon is the very reason it was bought for gods sake!! Further one wonders what liberal socioeconomic circles the author runs in where one would have the money to impulse buy a $600 gun, they way most of us pickup a key chain flashlight while waiting at a checkout line. In the final analysis, when you hear a liberal say they believe in the 2nd Amendment (like it’s alien spacecrafts) and they only believe in common sense gun safety (like banning assault weapons when it is pretty much agreed the use of any rifle in a crime is so rare as to be an anomaly). The truth behind all this appears to be liberals continually trying to drum up a gun emergency where none exists; fortunately it has become common knowledge that gun crimes/homicides have been steadily falling for over 20 years, which is why the majority of Americans put gun control near the bottom of their list. But liberals still want to make it a decisive issue so they can try to use guns to discredit conservatives in elections.
Mike Weisser ends his article saying the best course is to trick gun owners into believing that anti-gun laws by liberals are only to protect the 2nd Amendment and make it easy to continue to by guns.
"Rather than considering them as participants in a modern morality play, they need to be engaged as consumers who, above all, don’t want to lose their ability to quickly and easily purchase guns. The trick is to convince gun owners that by helping to find ways to protect us from gun violence they won’t lose what they love. But that’s a conversation of a very different kind.
Liberals call these "ways to protect us from gun violence," common sense gun laws; what is not discussed openly is that liberals believe that it is only common sense to disarm the public and ban firearms. So that is their real end game.
Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser statements seem designed to show gun buyers/ owners as brainless trend following idiots (based on his description of his gun buyers, it really sounds like the only people that buy guns from him are know nothing liberals that have no idea why they are buying a firearm, it’s just seemed a cool thing to do). I for one have never heard a gun owner mumble when asked why he owns a gun(s), be it for self defense, hunting or target (milk jugs included) shooting. I can surely agree that if you “walk up to a (conservative) guy (and it’s still almost always a guy) who is lovingly caressing the gun he just bought and tell him that what he’s holding is a lethal weapon and he’ll stare at you in disbelief,” as the conservative will think the woman asking the question (and it’s still almost always a woman) must be a liberal tune; the fact that a firearm is a lethal weapon is the very reason it was bought for gods sake!! Further one wonders what liberal socioeconomic circles the author runs in where one would have the money to impulse buy a $600 gun, they way most of us pickup a key chain flashlight while waiting at a checkout line. In the final analysis, when you hear a liberal say they believe in the 2nd Amendment (like it’s alien spacecrafts) and they only believe in common sense gun safety (like banning assault weapons when it is pretty much agreed the use of any rifle in a crime is so rare as to be an anomaly). The truth behind all this appears to be liberals continually trying to drum up a gun emergency where none exists; fortunately it has become common knowledge that gun crimes/homicides have been steadily falling for over 20 years, which is why the majority of Americans put gun control near the bottom of their list. But liberals still want to make it a decisive issue so they can try to use guns to discredit conservatives in elections.
Mike Weisser ends his article saying the best course is to trick gun owners into believing that anti-gun laws by liberals are only to protect the 2nd Amendment and make it easy to continue to by guns.
"Rather than considering them as participants in a modern morality play, they need to be engaged as consumers who, above all, don’t want to lose their ability to quickly and easily purchase guns. The trick is to convince gun owners that by helping to find ways to protect us from gun violence they won’t lose what they love. But that’s a conversation of a very different kind.
Liberals call these "ways to protect us from gun violence," common sense gun laws; what is not discussed openly is that liberals believe that it is only common sense to disarm the public and ban firearms. So that is their real end game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)