Another case of Black Privilege?

Unclear at this time, but I have my suspicions.

You may remember the story of the Philadelphia Dunkin’ Donuts murder. The one that proves the lie of the liberal anti-self-defense shibboleth “just give them what they want and you’ll be ok”:

Once inside, the suspect demanded she hand over money from the store office. After taking the money, the suspect shot Lugo in the head. She was pronounced dead at the scene.

Well, it turns out that, as has happened so many times in the past, the suspect should have been in prison.

There was no need for Judge Medinilla to let Mr Gibson loose. He was already guilty of violating his probation, and she could have ordered him back to jail without the state having to prove anything else; no trial was required. With the Philly police already pointing to him as a murder suspect, why would any judge in his right mind turn him loose when it was not necessary?

Was this a case of Black Privilege? It’s impossible to really know unless this particular judge had handled a case under similar circumstances but with a white suspect. I’d say the odds of finding such a case are low so we’ll never really know.

But based on the left’s penchant for portraying black criminals as misunderstood and mistreated by the system, I’d have to say my suspicions are strong on this one. I mean, this is hardly a choir boy:

Gibson’s “extensive history of violence’’ and “documented anger issues,” including 64 previous criminal charges, with nine convictions for felonies and 15 for misdemeanors. Besides the manslaughter/weapons conviction, which had been pleaded down from a first-degree murder count, his other offenses included assault and terroristic threatening.

He had also violated probation 14 times over the years.

If ever there was a poster boy for a “three strikes” law, this guy was it. Maybe people shouldn’t be sent to prison for life after three felony convictions, maybe it should be four, or five or some other number, but in my humble opinion, 9 felony convictions including a manslaughter conviction that was plead down from murder one (I wonder how many of his misdemeanor convictions were plead down from felonies?) and 14 probation violations pretty thoroughly demonstrates to me that this guy has no desire or capacity to live peaceably in a civilized society.

But as a result of the lax treatment of criminals associated with the privilege of being black in a country that affords blacks numerous indulgences, a productive, contributing, hard working member of society was brutally murdered AFTER giving the criminal what he asked for.

And then the cities with policies that enable these predators to roam the streets try to blame lawful gun owners and gun manufacturers for their own failures.

And unless the people in charge can get the lax enforcement of our election laws and regulations straightened out before next year’s mid-terms (something I sincerely doubt they’re capable of) it’s only going to get worse from here.

Share

Unexpectedly…

Cutting off the “enhanced” payments results in people suddenly finding employment.

The number of unemployment-benefit recipients is falling at a faster rate in Missouri and 21 other states canceling enhanced and extended payments this month, suggesting that ending the aid could push more people to take jobs.

The full article is behind a paywall, but the headline really says it all.

The scary thing is that this result really was unexpected to a large number of supposedly very educated people.

Hat tip to From the Barrel of a Gun.

Share

Filibuster Prediction

The Dems are not happy that their ability to cheat in elections is under threat.

I really loved this quote from Senator Menendez:

“So, if I invite you to do things, whether it’s on infrastructure or voting rights and you basically say no, then it creates the impetus for some to consider what is necessary to be done to change the rules to permit maybe at least a democracy exception, because this is the very core of our government and how we proceed. And it affects all other things.”

Um…those huge foundational things are exactly what the filibuster was designed to defend. When something is both controversial and of such large import, a 51 % majority should not be able to force it onto the other 49%…this is also, by the way, why our form of government is NOT a Democracy.

“Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic.”
–Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

That’s also the reason why Constitutional Amendments require a 2/3 majority of Congress and must be ratified by 3/4 of the states before it passes. Things of foundational import should not be taken lightly nor passed by a party-line simple majority. That’s why the filibuster was introduced in the Senate in the first place.

But Democrats see their opportunity slipping away. They know that they lost the Presidential election last year…bigly. They know that we know it. They know that we are pissed about it and that they’re going to get slaughtered in the mid-terms if they aren’t allowed to cheat.

As a result, I’m going to make a prediction: The Dems will end the filibuster sometime early next year. They will convince, threaten or bribe the two Democrat hold outs to vote their way eventually.

The Arizona audit is getting a lot of attention and other states are considering starting their own…at least in some “suspicious” counties. AND States are starting to pass vote integrity laws that will make it much harder for the Dems to steal elections in those states.

This scares the crap out of the Democrats. They’ve worked too hard to get here, they’re not just going to let it all slip away. That means they MUST pass legislation at the federal level that outlaws the provisions states are trying to pass to stop them from cheating. And it has to be done in time for the 2022 mid term elections.

So, my prediction is that the filibuster will be nuked sometime in early 2022 and HR1 will be “passed” on a party line vote with Harris casting the tie breaker within days thereafter.

The next step will be packing the Supreme Court as quickly as possible to prevent them from ruling the law unconstitutional.

And then that’s all she wrote.

Share

NICS sleight of hand

Pretty much every year, the anti-gun lobby crows about how many firearms sales were denied due to rejected NICS checks.

Evidently last year, there were a record number of denials (conveniently commensurate with the record number of checks conducted) so of course they’ve got to make hay about it.  From “Everytown for Gun Safety Banning” (no link from me):

According to FBI data obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made by Everytown for Gun Safety, the background check system blocked over 300,000 illegal firearm salesin 2020 — 42% of those to people with felony convictions. This represents the highest number of annual denials ever and almost double the nearly 169,000 denials reported by the FBI in 2019.

Of course, they use this claim to try to push for more restrictions…but doesn’t that mean the system as it exists is working? It’s denying all those criminals access to guns isn’t it?

What’s more, when they filled out the ATF Form 4473 to buy the gun, they had to have lied on the form because it specifically asks if any of the disqualifying factors are true before the gun retailer ever submits the information to NICS. So, the 300k criminals who tried to buy guns and were denied last year have all committed federal felonies, so they’re now off the street and no longer a threat to society, right?

Well…not so fast.

The most current analysis I could find was from 2017. In that year, there were 112k denials. Of those the ATF only investigated less than 13k. How many prosecutions were brought you may ask?

12.

Twelve.

two more than ten.

That’s a prosecution rate of .0107 percent. And that’s an improvement over past years.

I don’t even know how many of those resulted in a conviction, but the odds are the conviction rate was even smaller than that.

I’m wondering…why should we continue to pass ever more restrictive federal laws if they aren’t going to be enforced anyway? What’s the point?

Rhetorical question. They know that the laws only affect the law abiding. What they’re trying to do is make it more difficult for the law abiding to buy guns. The law abiding follow the laws (by definition) so it doesn’t matter whether the laws are actually enforced or not, the group they are targeting for disarmament will, in fact, be disarmed.

The leftists that support gun control are also absolutely aghast any time those poor misunderstood criminals are punished for breaking the laws that they pass so it’s obvious they don’t care if those laws are followed by criminals, they only care about laws to deter the law abiding.

Why? Because gun control isn’t about crime. Gun control isn’t even about guns. Gun control is about control. They can arrest and control (incarcerate) criminals any time they want. To control the law abiding, they have to find more creative means to either make them criminals, or to restrict their ability to resist.

Failing to actually enforce the laws that they pass is a feature, not a bug, of their policies.

Share

Holiday Traditions

Every holiday has it’s traditions. Some of them are widespread, some not so much.

Fireworks for New Years and the Fourth of July. Cookouts on Memorial Day. Gift giving for Christmas.

One of my family traditions is that I always make chicken and noodles from scratch, served over mashed potatoes with Thanksgiving dinner (as a side dish, we have Turkey too). That was a specialty of my grandmother, one of my favorite things to eat when I was young and I use her recipe.

Now that we have a new national holiday to be celebrated on June 19th, it only makes sense that some traditions should be established in recognition of it. It looks like the process has already begun:

The newly-official holiday of “Juneteenth” was celebrated in many communities with gunfire and mayhem:

Follow the above link for a list of the festivities.

Also there’s this one:

Chicago is so out of control with so many violent incidents happening, that this story has been mentioned in passing in their local media.

The video at that link could be disturbing. It’s violent.

To add flavor to that last one, some genius named Richard Taite went full retard on twitter by A) mistaking the Puerto Rican flag the murdered couple were flying with a confederate flag and then B) implying that you deserve to be murdered if you fly the wrong kind of flag.

He subsequently completely deleted his twitter account in shame, but his stupidity was screenshotted for posterity.

At any rate, I can hardly wait to see what exciting events are in store for next Juneteenth.

Share

Will you please share your private medical information with me?

I’m a little confused about something:

If you’ve been vaccinated against the Wuhan China Institute of Virology Virus, what difference does it make to you whether anyone else has been or not?

You can sit back and smile smugly as all those unvaccinated rubes get sick and suffer, secure in the fact that you’ve been immunized, right? So why do you care?

Tucker Carlson’s response to the intrusive request for personal medical information is a pretty good one. When asked by a “journalist” if he’d been vaccinated, Tucker replied: “When was the last time you had sex with your wife and in what position? We can trade intimate details.”

My response would be more along the lines of “Have you finished your gonorrhea treatments yet, that all cleared up now?” or something along those lines.

Just a more creative way to say “mind your own business”.

Share

Buying used guns began when the internet was invented…

Miguel over at The Gun Free Zone has a fisking of an article that’s really good, but there was one point I don’t think he explored thoroughly enough:

The catch is that the federal background check law is silent on sales brokered online and completed person-to-person when they are made by anyone other than a federally licensed gun dealer.

The law was created at a time when the expectation was that sellers typically knew the buyers personally. As a law-abiding citizen, a seller was essentially vouching that the other person was also a law-abiding citizen.

OK, history lesson boys and girls:

Waay back in prehistoric times before the internet was invented, they had these things called “Newspapers” that were published, in most places, every day. Even in rural communities they typically had a local paper even if it was only published once or twice a week.

Now these things were primarily used to share “news stories” so that the public could stay informed about what was going on in the world. Think about, say, Google news or the Daily Kos, only on paper.

But way in the back pages of the paper, usually just before the “funny pages” where they printed the cartoons for the day, there was a section called “classified ads”. If you had a piece of personal property to sell, you would pay the newspaper a few bucks and they’d put a listing of what you had for sale (usually along with your phone number) out there for public consumption.

Again, relating it to the Internet, think “Craigslist” or maybe even “eBay” but on paper.

Anyone who read the paper (and there were many people who only got the paper for the classified ads because many of us couldn’t afford to buy new things back then and buying used was the way to go) could call the number provided, set up a face to face meet, and pay cash money for whatever was for sale, no muss, no fuss.

So, contrary to the beliefs of the whipper-snapper in the story, it seems that buying used items (whether it be guns, or musical instruments, or cars, or washing machines) was actually a VERY common occurrence long before the internet was invented. In fact, I’d wager that methods for advertising such personal transactions existed before paper was invented. Humans have a unique ability to find creative ways to get things done with the resources at hand…that’s what drives innovation after all.

At any rate, the actual fact of the matter is, the drafters of the National Firearms Act of 1968 specifically exempted private individuals selling their personally owned property from the restrictions of the law for one primary reason:

At that time it was still politically expedient for government officials to at least pretend like they were still trying to work within the constraints placed upon them by the Constitution. To that end, they understood that the term describing the ability of a private citizen to sell, trade or otherwise transfer ownership of their own personal property to another private citizen without having to beg permission from the government first is actually “freedom”, not “a loophole”.

By the way, gun shows have been popular in the US since at least the 1950’s, so when the GCA of 1968 was being drafted, they were fully aware of the ramifications of declining to restrict private sales under the aegis of that law.

Share

Priorities

It’s important to have one’s priorities straight.

For example, you know about all those stories in the media about evil white supremacists attacking Asians and Jews, and rioting in the cities, burning and looting, taking over entire blocks of some cities. Rampant crime in major cities obviously being perpetrated by members of the Three Percenters, and the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers and the Patriot Guard Riders right?

Don’t worry, the Biden Administration is on it.

“Racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists (principally those who promote the superiority of the white race) and militia violent extremists are assessed as presenting the most persistent and lethal threats,” the strategy says.

Yup, white supremacy is the worst threat this country is facing right now.

And the weaponization of the federal government against patriotic Americans continues apace.

Share

Revelations

I haven’t posted in a few days…I was actually out of town.

My Aunt Ann passed away on the 3rd and I went home for her funeral. I’ve actually lived in my current location for much longer than I lived in Indiana where I grew up, but I still consider myself a Hoosier at heart and consider central Indiana home.

Anyway, I went home for my Aunt Ann’s funeral. She was 83, a good god-fearing woman, a schoolteacher, wife of 61 years and mother of four. She had a rough last year so it’s good that she’s at peace and with God. Uncle Bill, her husband and my Dad’s brother, is also not doing well and I fear he won’t be long behind her. My Dad had 9 siblings, of which only 4 remain.

At any rate, while at the funeral, I found out a couple of things about my Dad that I thought I’d mention for posterity.

First, during the funeral, my Mom spoke. She related how, as a young college student at Marion College (now called Virginia Wesleyan University), her roommate and best friend Ann had invited her to go home to Sheridan with her over a weekend. Once they got there, Ann had a date with her boyfriend Bill, Ann didn’t want to leave Mom out, so she told her that Bill had a brother and asked my Mom if she’d be willing to go with Bill’s brother as her date.

Mom said she’d never been on a blind date before so she was a bit reluctant but, for her friend, she agreed. That’s where she met Ray, my father. If it hadn’t been for Aunt Ann, I’d have never existed. I owe her my life and I never even knew it.

To be fair, I’m sure at some point or another I’d heard that story before, but I hadn’t remembered it. I’m glad for the reminder.

The other thing I found out just by accident. I remember my Dad having a private pilot’s license when I was young. A few times, Dad would rent a little Cessna or Piper from the local grass strip airport and we’d fly around and look at the county with a bird’s eye view. I always thought that was the coolest thing. It eventually got too expensive and he let his license lapse, but those are some good memories.

What I didn’t know, and what I found out, is that my Dad had actually gotten his pilot’s license while he was in high school. He and a friend, right after high school, went in together and bought a small plane that they hangered and flew out of the tiny Sheridan airport. Mom said that after they met, he would occasionally fly to Marion from Sheridan to meet with her and go on dates.

When he was drafted into the army in 1956, he sold his interest in the plane and he and Mom got married. He still flew enough to keep his license active up until the early 1970’s, but I never knew he’d started so young or owned (half) a plane.

I know they’re not earth shattering discoveries or anything like that, but they’re just little tidbits that bring my Father’s life just a little bit more in focus. He wasn’t one to talk much about himself so although I know the broad strokes of his life, it’s the little details that are missing so when I get some of those from someone else, it fills in a little blank spot and brings him just a bit more to life for me. These are the kinds of little details that, when Mom and I are talking about him, don’t normally come out unless something specific in the conversation sparks the memory.

I need to have more conversations like that with her. If I find out any more little tidbits, I’ll write them here as well so hopefully, these stories won’t all be lost to time.

Share

It’s no one’s “Democracy”

Robert Stacy McCain asks “Who’s Democracy is this” in a post that links to his piece on the subject in The American Spectator.

My answer is “it’s no one’s democracy”.

Because it’s not a democracy at all.

Our form of government is a Constitutional Republic. The founders considered democracy as a form of government when determining the form ours would take and soundly (and correctly) rejected it. Mob Rule is hardly a recipe for efficient and effective governance.

“Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic.”
–Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

A Republic is based on the rule of law, not on the rule of the mob.

The fact that the US is not a democracy is evidenced clearly in the Constitution itself.

The only members of the federal government who were, as designed in the Constitution, directly elected by the people are members of the House of Representatives. Each representative represents a relatively equal sized portion of the population as determined by the census and the establishment of the congressional districts in the states and directly elected by the residents of that district.

The House of Representatives very name describes it’s purpose. It is The People’s House and is there to represent the people.

The Senate was originally intended to represent the interests of the state governments. This is why each state has two senators, regardless of size. As individual, sovereign states, each state government was considered to be of equal importance and therefore was given an equal say in the federal government. Senators were originally chosen by the legislatures of the states.

In my humble opinion, the 17th Amendment which institutionalized direct election of Senators by the people was the second biggest mistake ever included in the supreme law of the land. The biggest mistake was the 18th Amendment which was subsequently repealed, so the 17th is the biggest mistake that is still operable. By approving the 17th Amendment, the state governments basically surrendered any influence they had in the federal government to the whims of the masses…but I digress.

The President is not elected by the people, the President is elected by the state governments. The electors who make up the electoral college are selected by the state legislatures, not directly elected by the people. The Presidential election is, by nature, essentially an advisory election, the only thing that commits the state legislatures to selecting electors based on the outcome of the popular vote is the law of the specific state. If any state passed laws allowing them to completely disregard the popular vote and select presidential electors by picking names out of the phone book*, or through a Ouija board, or just choosing whoever they darn well please, that would be perfectly constitutional.

The problem is that the there are no states who’s laws allow for such. Each state has it’s own set of laws that determine how the Presidential election is to be conducted in that state, but they are all based on the popular vote. When, as was the case in 2020, several of the states just arbitrarily ignore their own laws in a bald-faced attempt to change the outcome that was probable were the election to be held in accordance with the laws, that is a subversion of our Republican government who’s primary principle is the Rule of Law.

Insisting that the laws be upheld and voiding the outcome of elections that were held in violation of those laws may very well be a subversion of democracy, but our system of government is NOT a democracy. Such insistence for the sovereignty of the rule of law is absolutely, 100% supportive of our Republic.

*For my younger readers, a phone book is a pre-internet, paper volume published annually by the local telephone company that listed the addresses and phone numbers of everyone in the locality with a telephone who didn’t specifically request an “unlisted” number.

Share