Every lover of the Second Amendment already knows that California is one of the most hostile states when it comes to the Constitutional right of the citizenry in keeping and bearing arms.
With the Beaver State right next-door, possibly just through the mere process of osmosis, Oregon State Sen. Rob Wagner (D-Lake Oswego) and Oregon House Rep. Andrea Salinas (D-Lake Oswego) have also gone stupid.
Remember that episode of Gilligan’s Island then a Latin American ex-dictator washed ashore? Inasmuch as life imitates art (sorry for qualifying Gilligan’s Island as art), the California Democrats are off and running in their promise to deliver dis, dat, and de udder ting.
I’ve heard that California is becoming a de facto Third World nation. Ain’t it da troot?
Anyhow, is there anything Democrats won’t want to tax? The answer is a resounding NO.
Don’t believe me? Just check out the latest from the Republica Popular de California (bienvenidos los comunistas y miembros de La Raza).
Without fail, whenever any given government gives away more free stuff to any given tax base that simply doesn’t contribute more than they take, taxes skyrocket.
That’s what’s happening to the former Golden State.
When Obama was running for his second term, I asked a friend of mine (a black woman) who she was voting for in the upcoming election. She looked at me rather incredulously and shot back, “Obama, of course!”
Fair enough. But my next question, “So what’s Obama done to improve your life?”
Especially in the run-up to the mid-term elections, Democrats are lulling the party faithful into a state of extra stupid by drilling into them the mantra, “Trump only gave tax cuts to the rich… Trump only gave tax cuts to the rich…”
From Bernie to Beto, from San Francisco to Fire Island, those fibbin’ libs are purposefully lying to their constituents in regards to President Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.
And for whatever bizarre reason, the Demo-drones are lapping it up.
For those folks, I have one reasonable question: Do you have the basic intelligence required to read and comprehend your tax information on your paystub? Of course, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they’re actually gainfully employed.
Are there no depths that the Leftists won’t sink to in their attacks against President Trump? Obviously not.
As just about everyone already knows, the plane carrying the First Lady to Philadelphia had to return to Joint Base Andrews (Maryland) shortly after take-off due to the cabin briefly filling with smoke.
Other than the FLOTUS and flight crew, there were also a number of Secret Service agents and members of the press corps aboard the flight.
Nonetheless, Leftists have crawled out of their collective holes to wish nothing but evil should befall Mrs. Trump.
By definition, a true civil war is when two legitimate claimants to government attempt by force of violence to take control of an entire nation while crushing the opposition.
England had a civil war. So did Russia, Ireland and Spain. Technically, America never fought a civil war. The Confederate States of America never sought to conquer the North. They just wanted their independence, which was constitutionally correct at the time.
But for the sake of understanding the mainstream moniker, I’ll refer to The War When The North Invaded America simply as “The Civil War”.
A handful of screamingly obvious holes in this public crucifixion of Judge Brett Kavanaugh;
Did a US Senator REALLY bring up 16-year-old boys farting… at the Senate Judicial Hearing?
Am I honestly expected to believe that someone who has a doctorate in psychology doesn’t understand the intricacies figuring out a GoFundMe account?
Am I honestly expected to believe that someone who has a doctorate in psychology has a self-admitted “fear of flying,” but has not much of a problem flying on a number of occasions to various South Pacific vacation hotspots?
Am I honestly expected to believe that someone who has a doctorate in psychology hasn’t have a clue how to contact her elected federal legislators?
Am I honestly expected to believe that someone who has a doctorate in psychology doesn’t know the wherefores and whys of who ponied up for her polygraph?
I’m sure every objective person reading this will also ask the same.
It’s fairly obvious to even the casual observer that the Republican *achem* “leadership” in both the Senate and the House is at a minimum, filled with deep state RINOs… at a maximum, filled with cowards.
But in all fairness, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) did today give a full-throated defense of Judge Brett Kavanaugh in regards to the despicable and blatantly despicable Democrat attacks against him.
The only things out-flapping their mouths were the sheer number of back-boobs, ass-flab and navel-gazing-nipples.
Making its way across social media as well as the hard-leftie Establishment Media is a cellphone video of a handful of 1960s rejects who took it upon themselves chide Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, as he dawdled his way to his SUV.
Not that I have any support or sympathy whatsoever for the top RINO in the upper chamber, I do, however, bemoan the utter lack of civility and class regarding the political Left.
Obviously caught at the special moment when their oral cavities weren’t filled with sticks of butter or frozen lardsicles, the crowd (numbering almost as many as a dozen individuals, or 30 people by sheer weight) could be heard wheezing their way through “Where are the babies?” or “Abolish ICE!” along with “We know where you live.”
As I see these folks cankle-deep into their childish antics, two questions come to mind;
This isn’t your father’s Democratic Party. You can say that again.
So what is today’s new and improved Democratic Party up to?
Defends those poor, mistreated ISIS killers
Refers to NRA members as “terrorists”
Protects the integrity of MS-13
Openly advocates for Hamas
Labels Republicans as “deplorable”
Booed the mere mention of God at the DNC a few years ago
The latest from the Jackass Party is that while the Trump Administration feeds, clothes, educates, provides medical treatment… all in a safe and sanitary setting, the Democrats openly lie of what’s happening.
The Democrats have described these facilities as throwbacks to Nazi death camps. Does the below picture look anything like Auschwitz? Hardly.
The New York Times quoted DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen correcting the fake news report that 12,000 minors were separated from their parents. In actuality, the vast amount of children held in protective custody of government officials came to the border via a third party, in other words, human traffickers;
The vast majority, vast, vast majority of children who are in the care of H.H.S. right now — 10,000 of the 12,000 — were sent here alone by their parents. That is when they were separated. So somehow we’ve conflated everything. But there is two separate issues. 10,000 of those currently in custody were sent by their parents with strangers to undertake a completely dangerous and deadly travel alone.
Secretary Nielson recently claimed that human trafficking is a $500 million per year business. As the Washington Post noted;
The math is pretty simple. A Homeland Security official explained that the agency assumed that transnational criminal organizations receive an average of $5,000 per person smuggled, a number based on interviews with undocumented immigrants who are caught. DHS apprehends about 300,000 people a year who try to illegally cross the border each year, so the agency took one third of that number — 100,000 — and multiplied it times $5,000, yielding a figure of $500 million.
According to the staff at Casa San Diego, only 10% of the kids there were actually separated from their parents. 90% of those residents were trafficked, sent across the border alone. This house is similar to Casa Padre in Texas. It’s the largest government contracted Youth Center in the nation. One of the dozens funded by you, the US taxpayers.
Of those astronomical numbers who made the trek with human traffickers, Ingraham also cited an interview she conducted with US Border Patrol Agent Hector Garza, when she asked of the conditions these children deal with at the hands of the human traffickers;
So we see on a daily basis Laura, we see these kids being abused on the Mexican side. We know when some of these female children come across, their parents send them with Plan B medication because they are expected to be raped along the journey when coming through Mexico, Central America and that’s horrific.
Ingraham also noted what the human traffickers to with these children as soon as US law enforcement officials are within sight;
On of our border agents from Texas last night revealed that he’s seen on many occasions that when border patrol approaches a ‘family unit’, the so-called parent, who ends up not being the parent, just drops the child runs.
And while the Democrats give a wink and a nod in approval to the modern-day slave traders, the number of women and girls raped by the “Coyotes” is simply put, sky high. As the reliably leftie Huffington Post noted;
According to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. That’s up from a previous estimate of 60 percent, according to an Amnesty International report.
This year alone, immigration authorities expect more than 70,000 unaccompanied minors to come through the United States unlawfully…
Here’s the truth of the matter; there aren’t any “unaccompanied” children headed from Central America to the US-Mexico border.
Slavers (aka: “Coyotes“) are the ones making tons of cash while plying their trade.
And the Democrats look the other way, instead, salivating at the sight of probable future Democrats crossing the border. Illegally, I might add.
From October through May [of 2018], the Border Patrol apprehended 32,372 unaccompanied minors, up about 1,300 from a year earlier.
The tens of thousands of children that cross over illegally to the United States is a problem that was alive and well during the Obama years, but widely ignored by the Establishment Media. As CBS News reported;
In fiscal year 2015 there were 39,970 children apprehended, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics. That figure increased by about 33 percent in 2016 (59,692), before declining in 2017 (41,435). For fiscal year 2018, there have been 32,372 unaccompanied children apprehended, on pace to surpass 2017.
While the Democrats are making political hay from their often quoted “Nazi” comparison to Team Trump, I say shoot back.
Trump and his subordinates need to tell the American people the truth: The Democrats are complicit in the 21st century slave trade. End of story, full stop, period.
It’s glaringly obvious that the Deep State, and their predictable coterie of bootlickers, ass-kissers and brown-nosers from Hollywood, the Establishment GOP, and the MSM, have a deep-seated, burning hate for our president.
So maybe a thousand clams really is nothing more than just pocket change to the likes of Pelosi and the rest of her Limousine Liberal pals.
But for a better idea of what exactly Joe and Jane Lunchbox have to deal with living in the Soviet Socialist Golden State, a recent report from KABC-TV (Los Angeles) paints a much gloomier picture than the vast majority of Americans could never imagine their hometown.
With San Jose located at the tail-end of California’s famed (and über-expensive) Silicon Valley, the city named in honor of Saint Joseph is literately just down the road from Pelosi’s 12th Congressional District.
As KABC cited;
An uninhabitable burned-out home in San Jose went up for sale at the price of $800,000.
While it may sound crazy, there are people willing to pay. A realtor said in less than 24 hours, 10 potential buyers contacted her. She anticipates selling it in a few days.
So what’s the reason for the high interest? Buying the charred home and rebuilding on the property is a lot cheaper than buying a brand new home in Silicon Valley.
As one of the studio anchors noted at the end of the video report;
“That is a testament to what’s going on in the state of California…”
Entry to the United States is, for starters, a boon to immigrants and to the family members back home to whom they send money. It should be valued on these moral grounds alone.
Liberals must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity.
Then there’s the everything medical and health news service MedicalXpress.com in regards to Obama’s Affordable Care Act, and the opinions of Associate Professor Patricia Illingworth (medical and business ethics, as well as health policy and bioethics and the law) and Professor Wendy E. Parmet (health, disability and public health law) both of Northeastern University;
Calling it a “moral obligation” and a “global public good,” Illingworth and Parmet suggest that healthcare is a human rights issue, and that extending coverage in the U.S. to non-citizens could actually alleviate both the cost and care burdens on everyone. In fact, the researchers co-authored a book on the subject, The Health of Newcomers: Immigration, Health Policy, and the Case for Global Solidarity, that ties together their expertise—Illingworth, professor of philosophy and fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvard University; and Parmet, the Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law.
And as penned by Adam Lee of the religion-centered Patheos;
On a first pass, it’s hard to see what argument could be made against open borders. Shouldn’t travel be a basic human right? (It is, according to the United Nations.) Why shouldn’t I, or any human being, be able to move freely and to live wherever I choose? It strikes me as indefensible – another form of segregation, really – to say that there are some parts of the planet where I can never go, just because of where I was born.
OK, I get it. Free everything to whoever is categorized as poor or low income. So who exactly are the poor and low income people of the world that have a right to everything American?
According to a report by the Pew Research Center regarding personal income across the globe, per person;
Poor (living on $2 or less daily)
Low income ($2.01-$10 a day)
Middle income ($10.01-$20 a day)
Upper-middle income ($20.01-$50)
High income (more than $50)
Keep in mind that globally a “poor” singular person is a yearly income of no greater than $730. ($2 a day X 365 days per year = $730).
Again, according to Pew, this is the percentage of who falls into which category;
Poor – 15%
Low income – 56%
Middle income – 13%
Upper middle – 9%
High income – 7%
According to the Pew global guide, a single person who subsists on $33.26 is nearly smack-dab in the middle of the “upper middle income” category. Annually, that person makes $12,140.
Know what else the total of $12,400 is? It’s the Federal Poverty Line. So as far as the world is concerned, their upper middle income is our poverty-stricken.
But back the status of the world’s less fortunate. The total percentage of the world that makes less than the American Federal Poverty Level (the poor, low income, and middle income according to Pew) comes to 84% of the human population of planet Earth.
The global population is approximately 7,613,100,000. Eighty four percent of that total is 6,395,004,000
Forget about the 1,500 “caravan” of wannabe illegals from Central America.
Just when you thought California’s Democrat governor, State Senate and the State Assembly couldn’t squeeze the people of California out of another cent, the Democrats have somehow managed to ratchet down the thumbscrews just a little bit tighter.
As reported by Edmund DeMarche of Fox News, two elected Democrat lawmakers have introduced a bill that would take away half of the Trump Tax Break from certain California-based companies;
Calling the Trump administration’s tax reform plan a “middle-class tax increase,” two California lawmakers introduced a bill that would force large companies to fork over half of their expected savings to the state.
Assemblymen Kevin McCarty and Phil Ting, both Democrats, introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment 22, which calls for a 10 percent surcharge on companies with a net earnings over $1 million. The plan could potentially raise billions for the state’s social services programs.
But wait! Hasn’t the state government already given a new and hefty tax on the job-creators? Yep, sure did.
The measure (Prop 30) creates three new personal income tax brackets for rich residents and adds a quarter-cent to the sales tax. The higher tax rates, which hit single filers making $250,000 and up and married taxpayers earning at least $500,000, last for seven years, and push the top tax rate to 12.3% for filers earning $500,000 and above, or $1 million per couple. It is effective starting with the 2012 tax year.
If you thought that sky-high personal income, home, and auto taxes weren’t high enough, guess again.
The tax-happy Democrats in Sacramento have a bevy “special” taxes and fees placed on all of the hard working, legal citizens of California.
According the state’s Board of Equalization, many of the various special taxes and fees levied on Golden State residents would give any reasonable person pause;
It’s been awhile since any of us can recall the POTUS having a televised roundtable meeting with senators and congressmen of both parties.
To be honest, I can’t remember that ever happening. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it never happened, I’m just saying that this political junkie was born in the ’50s and nothing even close to today’s historical meeting held by President Trump leaps to mind (full meeting in video below).
One of the more prominent subjects discussed was DACA (Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program), which certainly appeared to me as a done deal.
Well, Trump certainly dangled the DACA carrot in front of the drooling Dems, almost daring them to accept his offer to sign-off on DACA if the Democrats agreed to:
Dump the visa lottery in favor of a merit-based system
Fund the border wall
Now I realize that the machinations of politics is based on compromise, so no matter how much I want to see Trump get 100 percent of what he wants, the nature of the beast demands some give-and-take.
But one thing I’ve noticed, the Democrats love touting of the 690,000 “Dreamers”, a number are serving in the Armed Forces.
After some very basic research, I found that a mere 900 DACA enrollees either now of have ever served in the military. That’s just slightly above one-tenth of one percent.
Something else that I noticed, both Democrat and Republican members of Congress had quite the habit of referring to those in DACA as “kids”. It was only Trump that corrected that particular Infantilization.
Yet another few facts came to light that I’m sure the like-minded should be aware of;
DACA had no requirement of English fluency, as evidenced by the application form that had a space to list the translator used to complete the form. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that “perhaps 24 percent of the DACA-eligible population fall into the functionally illiterate category and another 46 percent have only ‘basic’ English ability.”
Unfortunately, many Dreamers are poorly educated. Only 49 percent of DACA beneficiaries have a high school education, even though a majority are now adults.
But the pièce de résistance regarding the Dreamers is this;
The Obama administration did not check the background of each DACA beneficiary, despite a requirement that they have no felony convictions and pose no threat to national security. Only a few randomly selected DACA applicants were ever actually vetted.
This may explain why, by August this year, more than 2,100 DACA beneficiaries had had their eligibility pulled because of criminal convictions and gang affiliation.
Throwing their opponents in “psychiatric hospitals” is what the Soviets did…
Hell hath no fury like a Democrat who thinks they’re right. By their own words and actions, they’ve proved themselves to be overly-emotional, vindictive, and probably worse of all, their obstinacy in error.
No, our ever-weepy political opposition has the act of hyper-hysterics down to a science.
Case in point would be a report from the reliably far-left Vox.com as the lay out the (achem) “proof” that President Trump needs to be removed from the Oval Office under the auspices of the XXV Amendment.
In what’s suppose to be real news, Vox.com writer Eliza Barclay recently had a nice game of underhand softball catch, err… I mean interviewed Dr Bandy X. Lee, an assistant professor in forensic psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine.
Despite Dr Lee failing to ever examine President Trump, she’s not only edited a book entitled The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President ($13.99 on Amazon), the good doctor has also “briefed a dozen members of Congress — Democrats and one Republican — on the president’s mental state.”
However, Dr Lee’s literary actions have resulted in some blow-back from her fellow physicians;
These efforts have not been welcomed by all of Lee’s colleagues in psychiatry — some say her warnings are unethical and break the Goldwater Rule, the American Psychiatric Association’s stipulation that its members never publicly discuss the mental health of a public figure. One esteemed fellow psychiatrist accused her in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine of having “misguided and dangerous” morality.
Yet Lee’s overt and arrogant dismissal of the American Psychiatric Association’s Goldwater Rule being quite possibly the least of her transgressions against both medical professionalism and political objectivism, her medical proof seems to this layman as very much in the Lacking Department.
Cited by Barclay as examples of Dr Lee’s alleged psychiatric evidence of Trump being off the deep-end;
“[H]is retweeting some violent anti-Muslim videos showed a concerning attraction to violence.”
In actuality, the “anti-Muslim” videos Trump retweeted were actually two videos of Muslim violence, as well as a singular video of Muslim desecration and destruction of a Christian artifact.
“And then there were the belligerent nuclear threats this week.”
Well, yeah. That’s understandable, especially in the knowledge that the last quarter century of presidents have done nothing in regards to the North Korean nuclear except to pass the buck to whatever unfortunate bastard gets elected long after they themselves have comfortably retired.
“[P]rovoking our allies and alienating them”
Does “provoking” and “alienating” our allies have anything to do with telling our NATO “allies” to get off their collective dead-asses and contribute the measly 2 percent of their GDP like they previously promised to?
“[N]ot to mention poke a beehive in the Middle East by declaring Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.”
Hold on. By recognizing the obvious, that makes Trump mentally deranged and incapable of completing his legally elected term of office? Seriously?
I can’t help but wonder if the good doctor might argue against all dogs being mammals, or the sun rises in the east, or if 2+2=4.
Other than being as medical doctor, Lee also holds an MDiv (Master of Divinity) degree. In light of her so-called evidence of Trump’s mental illness, maybe she should take a bit of Christ’s advice: “Physician, heal thyself.”
Eight members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) , to include the monumentally dimwitted Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), have joined forces in another attempt to push through something called the Police Accountability Act.
As reported by Pete Kasperowicz of the Washington Examiner, if any given law enforcement official (LEO) should be found of committing murder or assault in the line of duty, the same LEO would also find themselves up on federal charges that could result in the death penalty;
Several House Democrats have introduced legislation that would subject state and local police to the death penalty if they are found guilty or assault or murder.
The Police Accountability Act, from Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., is one of the Democrats’ answers to the police brutality that they say still plagues black Americans around the country.
His bill would subject police to the death penalty when cops commit certain crimes that already trigger the death penalty in other circumstances. Johnson, who has introduced this bill in prior Congresses, said it’s needed because police cannot be put above the law.
“I support our law enforcement officers,” Johnson said. “They have a difficult job to uphold the law and to protect and serve the American people and to keep them safe from harm’s way. They should be commended and we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude.”
“But law enforcement officers are not above the law and should be held accountable like anyone else,” he added.
“People are rightfully demanding an end to unequal justice, and that those who are responsible for the use of excessive force be brought to justice,” Johnson said.
Unfortunately for Congressman Johnson and his pals at the CBC, reporter Philippe Lemoine of the National Review has already published data that sinks the Democrat narrative the black males are somehow “targeted” by police;
According to this narrative, black men are constantly harassed by the police and routinely brutalized with impunity, even when they have done nothing wrong, and there is an “epidemic of police shootings of unarmed black men.” Even high-profile black celebrities often claim to be afraid of the police because the same thing might happen to them. Police brutality, or at least the possibility that one might become a victim of such violence, is supposed to be part of the experience of a typical black man in the U.S. Events such as the death of Brown in Ferguson are presented as proof that black men are never safe from the police.
This narrative is false. In reality, a randomly selected black man is overwhelmingly unlikely to be victim of police violence — and though white men experience such violence even less often, the disparity is consistent with the racial gap in violent crime, suggesting that the role of racial bias is small.
Let’s start with the question of fatal violence. Last year, according to the Washington Post’s tally, just 16 unarmed black men, out of a population of more than 20 million, were killed by the police. The year before, the number was 36. These figures are likely close to the number of black men struck by lightning in a given year, considering that happens to about 300 Americans annually and black men are 7 percent of the population. And they include cases where the shooting was justified, even if the person killed was unarmed.
Similarly, a black man has on average only 0.32 contacts with the police in any given year, compared with 0.35 contacts for a white man. It’s true that black men are overrepresented among people who have many contacts with the police, but not by much. Only 1.5 percent of black men have more than three contacts with the police in any given year, whereas 1.2 percent of white men do.
Perhaps living proof that a mind is a terrible thing, Rep. Johnson is best known for his concern that the US territory of Guam might “tip over” if too many Marines were stationed in the Island.
I’ve never even heard the phrase “bump stock” until Washington Democrats started screaming about the firearm accessory in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting.
While party politicians ranging from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) to Sen. Bernie Sanders (Dem Soc-NH) have been hyperventilating for legislation to ensure bump stocks will never be sold to the general public, the same partisan politicos certainly seem to have come down with collective cases of amnesia.
As reported by Awr Hawkins of the Breitbart.com news portal, it was actually the Barack Obama Administration that authorized that particular piece of equipment back in 2010;
While bump stocks are taking criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike, it is interesting to note that the devices were approved for sale in 2010 by Barack Obama’s ATF.
The ATF approved the devices because they do not convert a semiautomatic rifle into an automatic. Rather, they are an accessory that allows semiautomatic rifle owners to mimic automatic fire for short bursts.
According to the Washington Post, Rick Vasquez, the ATF official who signed off on non-regulation for bump stocks, described them as “a goofy, little doodad.” This squares with the Breitbart News report that bump stocks “are for novelty, not accuracy.” They are devices that allow bursts of rapid fire but are unpredictable because the gun’s buffer tube can bounce around or bobble inside the device, making jams and inconsistent fire patterns likely.
Vasquez, a former Marine, put is this way: “[Bump stocks are] for those guys who want to look like super ninja when they’re out on the range — they’re the people my peer group makes fun of. If you want a machine gun, join the Marines.”
Lost in Vasquez’s humor is the fact that not everyone will join the Marines and very few people can afford their own machine gun, with prices starting at roughly $15,000. So a bump stock is a $200 substitute that allows cash-strapped citizens to mimic real machine guns on the cheap.
But bump-stocks may be facing an uphill battle, as Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is calling for a ban on the devices and numerous GOP Senators–including John Cornyn and John Thune–admit unfamiliarity with the devices yet still express openness to a hearing on a ban. Moreover, Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX) made clear his belief that “typical gun owners” do not need bump stock devices.
As seen in the video below, the bump stock mimics the rapid fire capability of an automatic weapon by using an automatic’s own kinetic energy caused by the round’s primer expliding coupled with the weapon’s recoil on the buffer spring.
Bump stocks are simple pieces of equipment that replace the stock of a rifle and add a small “support step” in front of the trigger. The shooter rests his finger on this step and pulls forward on the barrel or forward grip to press the trigger against his finger. The recoil of the shot then propels the rifle backwards into a gap in stationary stock where the loose fit gives the rifle freedom to bounce forward. This, along with sustained forward pressure on the rifle, has the effect of ‘bumping’ the trigger back into the shooter’s unmoving finger. So long as a shooter maintains forward pressure, the rifle will continue to fire at a rate much faster than could be accomplished with even the quickest possible series of manual trigger pulls.
Victimhood has always been a lucrative business. Doubt me? Just look at the millions of dollars pulled in by the likes of Al Sharpton, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Jesse Jackson.
Or if you’re anywhere near the University of Iowa, look up student Dan Williams. He’ll give you the lowdown on those with a low IQ.
If you’re lucky, Williams will happily explain to you how unfair it is to the more stupid that dwell amongst us that smart people have a clear “privilege” over them. And by crackie, that’s just wrong and needs to be stopped, forthwith. And probably fifth and sixthwith, too.
Reported by Thomas Lifson of The American Thinker, “Progressives, crazed with identifying new forms of oppression attached to the currently fashionable catchword privilege, have finally embraced the stupid as a victim class.
Lifson notes one of the more interesting (amusing) passages in Williams’ article;
There are many kinds of privilege besides white privilege: cognitive privilege, for example. We now know that intelligence is not something we have significant control over but is something we are born with. We are living in a society in which success is increasingly linked to one’s intelligence. This is not to say that intelligence is the only factor that is important. All that is implied is that below a certain threshold of intelligence, there are fewer and fewer opportunities. These opportunities are being shifted upward to jobs that require heavier cognitive lifting or else are being replaced by robots. Thus, the accident of having been born smart enough to be able to be successful is a great benefit that you did absolutely nothing to earn. Consequently, you have nothing to be proud of for being smart.
As every schoolchild knows (or at least should know), the Declaration of Independence clearly states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Maybe it’s the “self-evident” part that the stupid need explained to them, or possibly that the pursuit of happiness is far from a federal guarantee of happiness.
Nonetheless, Williams makes a point of blaming those gifted with intelligence for the stupid being, well… stupid.
And victims. Don’t forget that the less intelligent are victims of the more intelligent.
For the benefit of Williams and the stupid he claims are victims, allow me to point out that once that whole creation stuff is finished, some rather interesting things happen;
Some people are taller than most, some are shorter than most
Some people are stronger than most, some are weaker than most
Some people are more intelligent than most, some are less intelligent than most
Referring back to the article from The American Thinker, Lifson correctly opines;
I am not certain if Williams is an actual sophomore, but he certainly is sophomoric. He understands nothing about intelligence, though he pretends he does. (In fairness, I was once an undergraduate college student intoxicated with the new ideas I was learning. And it was my privilege to learn from scholars immersed in classical thought, not progressive propagandists.)