First there was a study showing that liberals are more likely than conservatives to exhibit “psychotic” traits. Now there’s more research that may indicate the Left has left sanity, with a new study of nationwide psychoticism finding that liberal states top the list.
The study is titled “Psychopathy by U.S. State,” by Professor Ryan H. Murphy at Southern Methodist University. It’s worth noting, mind you, “that Murphy’s research is not politically motivated, like Rossiter’s book The Liberal Mind,” writes American Thinker, which reported on the professor’s findings.
The site continues, “Without going into the details of Professor Murphy’s research methodology, we note that Connecticut is at the top of the psychopathic pyramid in America. It is followed by the states of California, New Jersey, New York, Wyoming, Maine, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Illinois. Virginia closes the top ten most ‘psychopathic states,’ whose populations show personality characteristics of antisocial behavior.”
Strikingly, eight of these 10 states voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
Why do Democrats and their socialist ilk hate patriotic Americans who love their country and want the best for its citizens, including border protection and sovereignty?
Because Democrats have been successfully brainwashed and indoctrinated in public schools and have become strident and militant proponents of the new world order, of global communism, and of open borders. Anybody else who believes differently is a threat that must be marginalized and eliminated. And the money coffers are full; there is enough to go around for many years of social unrest and societal disruption in the style of their socialist guru, Saul Alinsky, the author of Rules for Radicals.
Every day another famous or infamous Democrat celebrity is taking to the stage to vilify, misrepresent, and threaten the opposition with disrupting their lives, their peaceful access to grocery stores, gas stations, movies, restaurants, or just walking down the street.
Public officials of the Trump administration are being stopped and harassed in public places by unhinged liberals triggered by speeches of Representative Maxine Waters, who claims that she has a right to peaceful activism. Calling for violence publicly is not peaceful. When you restrict someone’s civil liberties in this manner, it is not peaceful activism.
It is a mass hysteria, hate, and histrionics stoked by the MSM, reading their marching notes from the Democrat Party. The western world is shaking its collective head as to what is happening to our country.
Twenty-four alleged MS-13 gang members are facing federal indictment for several crimes, according to a press release by the Department of Justice on Friday.
The gang members and their apprentices were allegedly involved with five murders, drug trafficking, kidnapping, extortion, and also allegedly planned to murder eight people between 2015 to 2017, according to a report by the Justice Department. Currently, 21 of the 24 members are known while the other six names, both members and associates, have not been revealed.
Shouldn’t have had time to resign. Should have been fired for cause.
A reporter in Springfield, Mass., resigned from his job Friday after posting a Twitter message falsely stating that Maryland shooting suspect Jarrod Ramos had brought a “Make America Great Again” hat to the office of the Capital Gazette.
Springfield Republican reporter resigns after tweet about Maryland newspaper gunman https://t.co/FpVj7abeqk
— The Boston Globe (@BostonGlobe) June 30, 2018
And these are the people who tell 1/2 the country what to think every night.
— Andrea Mitchell (@mitchellreports) June 29, 2018
that was so stupid even Tamara Keel chimed in:
— Tamara K. (@TamSlick) June 29, 2018
When you’ve lost the proggie Washington Post, you’ve lost (period).
After years of smearing good people with false charges of bigotry, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has finally been held to account. A former Islamic radical named Maajid Nawaz sued the center for including him in its bogus “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists,” and this week the SPLC agreed to pay him a $3.375 million settlement and issued a public apology.
The SPLC is a once-storied organization that did important work filing civil rights lawsuits against the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s. But it has become a caricature of itself, labeling virtually anyone who does not fall in line with its left-wing ideology an “extremist” or “hate group.”
Nawaz is a case in point. Since abandoning Islamic radicalism, he has advised three British prime ministers and created the Quilliam Foundation, to fight extremism. He is not anti-Muslim. He is a Muslim and has argued that “Islam is a religion of peace.”
So how did he end up in the SPLC’s pseudo-guide to anti-Muslim bigots? His crime, apparently, is that he has become a leading critic of the radical Islamist ideology he once embraced. Thanks to his courage, the SPLC has been forced to pay a multimillion-dollar penalty and acknowledge in a statement that it was “wrong” and that Nawaz has “made valuable and important contributions to public discourse, including by promoting pluralism and condemning both anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism.”
Let’s hope this settlement is the first of many, because this is not the first time the SPLC has done this. In 2010, it placed the Family Research Council (FRC) — a conservative Christian advocacy group that opposes abortion and same-sex marriage — on its “hate map.” Two years later, a gunman walked into the FRC headquarters with the intention to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces.” He told the FBI that he had used the SPLC website to pick his target.
Unfortunately, many in the media still take the SPLC seriously.
It may be dawning in the minds of the proggies that President Trump just might not be the blundering fool they take him for.
Lao-Tzu’s dictum: ‘There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent.’applies.
And a ‘God bless her little heart’ to notoriousRBG. May she suddenly come to the conclusion that she really should be spending more time with her family.
WASHINGTON — President Trump singled him out for praise even while attacking other members of the Supreme Court. The White House nominated people close to him to important judicial posts. And members of the Trump family forged personal connections.
Their goal was to assure Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that his judicial legacy would be in good hands should he step down at the end of the court’s term this week, as he was rumored to be considering. Allies of the White House were more blunt, warning the 81-year-old justice that time was of the essence. There was no telling, they said, what would happen if Democrats gained control of the Senate after the November elections and had the power to block the president’s choice as his successor.
There were no direct efforts to pressure or lobby Justice Kennedy to announce his resignation on Wednesday, and it was hardly the first time a president had done his best to create a court opening. “In the past half-century, presidents have repeatedly been dying to take advantage of timely vacancies,” said Laura Kalman, a historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
But in subtle and not so subtle ways, the White House waged a quiet campaign to ensure that Mr. Trump had a second opportunity in his administration’s first 18 months to fulfill one of his most important campaign promises to his conservative followers — that he would change the complexion and direction of the Supreme Court.
Years ago, when I was a young lawyer, I had an interesting conversation with a much older judge. He was a Democrat, an old-school liberal, and he said something revealing: “There’s the law, and then there’s what’s right. My job is to do what’s right.” Or, to put the philosophy in the words of one of my leftist law professors, “You determine the outcome first, then you do your reasoning.” Time after time, that’s exactly what Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to do.
It was written that certain lawyers will “strain at a gnat but swallow a camel “ if either will advance their agenda. It was not seen as being to their credit.
As that demoncrap judge revealed, Justice Scalia was right:
It is literally true that the U.S. Supreme Court has entirely liberated itself from the text of the Constitution.
What ‘we the people’ want most of all is someone who will agree with us as to what the evolving constitution says.
We are free at last, free at last. There is no respect in which we are chained or bound by the text of the Constitution. All it takes is five hands.
(and that includes previous SCOTUS decisions and laws passed by Congress)
What in the world is a ‘moderate interpretation’ of the text? Halfway between what it really says and what you want it to say?
The only reason you need a constitution is because some things you don’t want the majority to be able to change. That’s my most important function as a judge in this system. I have to tell the majority to take a hike.”
And from a 9th Circuit dissent by Judge Alex Kozinski:
Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted….But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.
The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to ignore binding precedent. …..
Looking at Trump’s list of 25 candidates (and reading the speculative “short lists”) to replace Kennedy, one thing seems certain: The moment the new nominee is confirmed, no matter who it is, the Supreme Court will grow appreciably more originalist. Look for fewer sweeping moral statements — like Kennedy’s declaration in Obergefell that “marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there” — and more close textual and historical analyses of the Constitution.
No one should believe that any judge is entirely free of ideological bias, but there is a profound difference between judges who approach a legal conflict with the question, “What does the Constitution mean?” and those who instead ask, “What does justice demand?”
So, what can we reasonably expect?…
Second, look for the court to offer greater clarity on the Second Amendment. Since Heller and McDonald, the Court has essentially gone quiet about gun rights. Left undecided are questions about the extent of the right to bear arms outside the home (implicating carry permits) and the nature and type of weapons precisely protected. If an originalist court follows the late Antonin Scalia’s reasoning that the Second Amendment attaches to weapons “in common use for lawful purposes,” then broad “assault weapons” bans will likely fail.
This is why Presidential politics are so important. If President Trump nominates a SC Justice the likes of Scalia, Thomas or Gorsuch, and Roberts doesn’t turn out to be the next squish, this case will probably be heard before the SC and we just might get some Supreme Clarity on how stupid some states are about RKBA.
The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously to throw out a lawsuit challenging California’s law requiring new semi-automatic handguns to microstamp identifiers on shell casings when the gun is fired.
The lawsuit, NSSF v. State of California, filed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, argues that the law should be overturned because the technology to implement it does not exist.
The law requires a set of characters to be stamped in two places on every cartridge fired by a semi-automatic handgun. While it would take relatively little modification to add microstamping to the firing pin, firearms would have to undergo major changes, and use some technology that doesn’t exist, to stamp the casing in a second location.
The state argued that a law should not be struck down simply because it is impossible to implement. Instead, they said, legal requirements often force companies and industries to innovate.
Regardless of whether innovation ultimately creates a solution, gun makers are likely to argue that the requirements create an unnecessary obstacle to the exercise of the right to bear arms. Gun makers would have to create two versions of affected handguns – one for California and one for the rest of the United States.
Well, just the cynical side of me, but as the crim used a shotgun and the whole thing was over a grudge, the gun-grabbers and media will move on in a day or two since this idjit doesn’t assist in advancing their agenda. Bet we will see a lot of newspapers hiring security staff.
Five people were killed on Thursday when a man with a shotgun opened fire at the Capital Gazette newspaper offices in Annapolis, Maryland’s capital, in a “targeted attack,” police said. The suspect had sued the paper six years ago and lost.
Three senior law enforcement officials briefed on the matter told NBC News that the suspect has been identified as Jarrod Ramos, 38, of Maryland.
Ramos sued the Capital Gazette for defamation in 2012 after it wrote about his guilty plea to criminal harassment in a 2011 column. His case was dismissed, and an appeals court affirmed the decision.
Everyone is going crazy-ape$#!+ about Roe v Wade, but the same concern is also about Roberts and how he might turn the squish on DC v Heller
There’s a game the most cynical social conservatives suspect Republicans play: Keep the Supreme Court within one vote of overturning Roe v. Wade but never truly put the landmark abortion decision at risk. That way, come election time, Republicans can whip up enthusiasm among anti-abortion voters without ever losing the issue as a motivating factor or facing the political consequences of being able to more meaningfully regulate the procedure.
Such thinking returns with the upcoming retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, announced this week. With Kennedy gone, President Trump has an opportunity to replace the Supreme Court’s swing vote with a reliable conservative, perhaps even imperiling Roe. But even if Trump chooses such a conservative and gets his nominee through a closely divided Senate, that nominee could surprise everyone with the occasional liberal lean. All eyes would then shift to Chief Justice John Roberts, the jurist most likely to take over Kennedy’s role as “the decider” on the court.
In 1992, when conservatives last hoped they had an anti-Roe majority on the nation’s highest court after nearly 12 years under Republican presidents, they discovered they were not one but two votes short. Two of Ronald Reagan’s three appointees to the Supreme Court joined half of George H.W. Bush’s appointees in voting to uphold Roe. Only three justices voted to reverse it, one of them being Byron White, a Democratic nominee. Kennedy, currently the last Reagan appointee on the court, wrote the majority opinion affirming “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” — and legal abortion.
Roberts is more conservative than Kennedy. Kennedy was more conservative than John Paul Stevens or David Souter, among other Republican appointees who frustrated the right. But Roberts is an institutionalist who has let down conservatives before.
Nearly 20 years after Republican appointees rescued Roe, the Supreme Court seemed similarly poised to strike down the Affordable Care Act in 2015. The votes on paper seemed to be there. Then, without warning, Roberts rode to ObamaCare’s rescue, joining the liberal bloc with a majority opinion that, among other things, justified the mandate as a tax. Many court watchers thought the conservatives’ dissent read strangely like it was supposed to be the majority opinion.
Maybe this kind of conversations will help persuade some of the ‘rational’ who might be for gun control that things aren’t as they’re advertised by the screaming-meemie gun-grabbers.
A gun, by its nature, is a polarizing thing. A gun forces us to envision ourselves on either one end of it or the other. A gun is an equalizer, a tool, a symbol of liberty and power and slaughter and loss.
Kroger announced plans Thursday to partner with driverless car company Nuro to deliver groceries using its autonomous vehicles.
The partnership comes as the largest U.S. grocery players continue to tackle the expensive challenge of “last mile delivery” — the final step in getting a product to a shopper’s home. It is a feat that is particularly perilous when dealing with fragile products like fresh food. It is further complicated by populations that vary wildly across the U.S., with some far less dense that others.
Walmart recently said it was partnering with Postmates to expand its online grocery delivery program. Amazon announced early Thursday plans to work with entrepreneurs who run their own local delivery networks of up to 40 delivery vans. It is not clear whether it will use that network for food delivery.
the HuffPo “gets it”. Ohhh the humanity.
The news that Justice Anthony Kennedy has retired from the Supreme Court is sending liberals and progressives into a panic. Kennedy has of course been the key swing vote in abortion and gay rights cases. Whether those cases will withstand a new Supreme Court with five core conservatives is a serious question. But there is another area of Supreme Court jurisprudence that may also be dramatically affected by Kennedy’s retirement: the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court has only ruled in favor of an individual right to own guns in two decisions, and in neither one did Kennedy write his own opinion. He did, however, make up one of the five votes in both 2008’s D.C. v. Heller, and 2010’s McDonald v. City of Chicago. Both cases invalidated complete bans on possessing handguns in each city. The Supreme Court has not, however, returned to the Second Amendment since McDonald was decided, despite thousands of lower court cases wrestling with the balance between the right to keep and bear arms and public safety.
On the same day in 2014, the court refused to review three cases involving laws regulating the selling of guns to people across state lines as well as a Texas law prohibiting 18- to 20-year-olds from carrying guns in public. The justices have also declined to review cases upholding permitting procedures regulating guns in public in Maryland, New York and New Jersey, among many other laws and cases.
Justice Clarence Thomas has not been quiet about his anger over the court’s refusal to hear any new Second Amendment cases. In a dissent from the court’s refusal to hear a case challenging California’s 10-day waiting period for gun sales, he wrote that the Second Amendment is a “disfavored right” and the Supreme Court’s “constitutional orphan.” Furthermore, he said that the lower court’s sustaining of the waiting period was “symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.”
There has been a lot of speculation about why the five court conservatives, including Kennedy, have not reviewed any of the lower court cases upholding various gun restrictions. The most common theory is that neither the four conservatives other than Kennedy, nor the four liberals, knew how Kennedy was going to vote.
Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor, and author of one of the most important books ever written on the Second Amendment, Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, speculated in 2014 that among the other justices that “there must be some concern about the way Kennedy is going to go” in future gun cases. Well, that concern is now moot.
Francis penned an article this morning that bears some further questions. I encourage you to give it a read. As others have explained recently, including Ace, Kurt Schlichter, Tom Kratman, and many other luminaries on the Right, we are perched on the edge of a knife. Violence is simmering beneath the surface – perhaps even a full-blown Civil War. Francis explains:
There’s no reasoning with one who considers you evil. There’s certainly no compromising with him. He’s out to destroy you. He’ll take whatever opportunity you offer to slip the dirk between your fourth and fifth ribs and twist it. Nor is there any way for you to convince him that you’re not evil. He assumes a priori that everything you say is ultimately aimed at his destruction.
At that point it becomes war to the knife.
We haven’t yet seen violence with actual casualties. But we will.
Justice Kennedy is ‘popping smoke’.
Cross your fingers folks, this is going to be a biggie.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Trump told reporters that the search for Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy’s replacement will begin “immediately” amid news of Kennedy’s retirement. Mr. Trump made the remarks as he met with Portugal President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa Wednesday.
Mr. Trump said Kennedy is a man he has “great respect for” calling him a “great justice” of the Court with “great vision” and “tremendous heart.” Kennedy notified Mr. Trump in a letter Wednesday, telling him that effective July 31, he would “end my regular active status as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, while continuing to serve in a senior status.”
“We will begin our search for a new Justice will begin immediately,” he said, adding that he aims to “pick somebody who will be as outstanding” as Kennedy was. The president said he is looking to pick from the list of 25 nominees that was released when Mr. Trump made his last pick to fill a vacancy with Justice Neil Gorsuch. He said the list of names included “highly educated, highly intelligent people.”
Mr. Trump and de Sousa are expected to discuss addressing global conflicts and promoting economic prosperity, according to the White House.
Attorneys for FPC and FPF submitted over 900 pages of analysis and supporting exhibits, including a video that shows the actual operation of a “bump-stock-device” on an AR-15 type firearm, in an extensive opposition that shows the Trump Administration’s unlawful proposed ban fails every test.
WASHINGTON, DC (June 27, 2018) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) have announced that their extensive, 923-page opposition comment was filed with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding the agency’s proposed rulemaking to ban “bump-stock” devices. The FPC Comment and its 35 exhibits can be viewed online in their entirety at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-fpf-opposition-atf-bump-stock-ban.
The FPC Comment in opposition was filed on the groups’ behalf by attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG) after President Trump directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to use executive actions to unlawfully and unconstitutionally expand the scope of statutes to force the dispossession and destruction of legally-acquired property–without just compensation–and subject possibly more than 500,000 Americans to severe federal criminal penalties. FICG attorney Adam Kraut produced a video (Exhibit 28) with Patton Media and Consulting to show how a bump-fire-type device actually works when it is installed on a firearm.
“It is beyond outrageous that ATF has purposely misled the public on the function of bump-stock-devices,” said FICG Chief Counsel Joshua Prince. “Even setting aside the constitutional concerns, there are a plethora of issues that preclude ATF from moving forward with its bump-stock proposal. ATF is unlawfully attempting to usurp the Congress’ power by modifying a definition codified in the tax code by Congress and is attempting to retroactively apply this definition, which is precluded by federal tax laws designed to prevent this kind of action by the Government.”
“Perhaps more frightening than the text of this unlawful executive action is the fact that the Trump Administration is expressly saying that not only can the ATF re-write Congress’ statutes to mean whatever they prefer, but that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect conduct with common semi-automatic firearms and parts, let alone devices like machineguns,” commented FPC President and FPF Chairman Brandon Combs. “That should send chills down the spines of American gun owners.”
“Our important opposition is not only a substantial addition to the rulemaking record, but a warning shot across the ATF’s bow. If the ATF proceeds with this unlawful and unconstitutional proposal, our attorneys have been instructed to explore every possible legal remedy, including filing a federal lawsuit and seeking an injunction. We would relish the opportunity to defend the Constitution and law-abiding American people against the Trump Administration’s patently anti-gun arguments in a court of law,” Combs concluded.
Only in some places. All in all, the U.S. has become more ‘gun free’ than otherwise.
The rumors are that Justice Kennedy was such a squish on Heller that only Justice Scalia’s ‘hedging’ within the decision is what kept him from voting against it. As the membership of the Court is still pretty much as it was; until Kennedy and one of the proggie Justices – ala’ notorious RBG – die or retire, (the fear being that Justice Roberts turns into the new squish) and is replaced during Trump’s tenure, the consideration is that no one, on both sides, wants to roll the dice.
Ten years ago this week, the Supreme Court for the first time explicitly recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense. Since then the Court has revisited the subject only twice, while it has heard about 45 cases involving the Fourth Amendment and about 60 involving the First.
That stark disparity reflects a failure noted by critics on and off the Court. After waiting more than two centuries to acknowledge that the Second Amendment imposes limits on legislation, the Court has passed up dozens of opportunities to clarify the extent of those limits, leaving the task to lower courts that are often hostile to gun rights.
District of Columbia v. Heller, decided on June 26, 2008, overturned a handgun ban in the nation’s capital, finding it inconsistent with the Second Amendment right to use firearms for self-defense. Two years later, the Court overturned a similar law in Chicago, confirming that the Second Amendment constrains states and cities as well as the federal government.
That is far from the only time a court has reached a conclusion that seems inconsistent with what the Court has said about the Second Amendment. “Most federal judges have not accepted Heller,” Alan Gura, the lawyer who argued the case, recently told Tom Gresham on the radio show Gun Talk. “They have taken the posture of ‘go ahead and make me do it.'”
Over and over again, the justices have declined to do so. Last year, for instance, the Court refused to hear a case challenging California’s highly restrictive carry permit policy, which lets local law enforcement officials decide who may be armed in public. As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out in a dissent, it is “extremely improbable” that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to the home.
“Please find another historical event to exploit. Because you sound like a bunch of hysterical know-nothings.”
In September 1941, the Germans took Kiev. On Hitler’s orders, the new military governor orders the round-up of all Jews in the vicinity and marched them north of the city to a place called Babi Yar. There, Jews were stripped naked and taken into a ravine in groups of ten.
Once at the bottom their fate was clear. Among the cries of children (many already separated from their parents), Jews were made to lie down atop others who had already been murdered.
German soldiers then walked across the bodies in the large pit and meticulously shot every man, woman, child and baby in the head or neck. Then the next group would be brought down and it would happen all over again and again over a period of two days — until almost 34,000 people were no more.
Babi Yar was only the third largest massacre of Jews during the war. But the killing of children — Jewish and otherwise — started in 1939, when German medical professionals were reporting any child with disability to the authorities, and parents started handing them over to special “schools” where thousands were eliminated using drugs and starvation. All of this before the wholesale industrialized killing of humans was in full swing.
Now, if you really believed Donald Trump or Kirstjen Nielsen or Sarah Huckabee Sanders are keen on engaging in this sort of behavior one day, or anything close to it, you’re a depraved coward for not taking up arms and stopping them. And the only other possible reasons for you to constantly compare them to Nazis are that you’re tragically illiterate on basic history or a hopelessly unimaginative and dishonest partisan — or maybe both.
BREAKING: New RNC ad slams democrats for unleashing pattern of violence across the United States pic.twitter.com/K5f2teGuT6
— Wired Sources (@WiredSources) June 27, 2018
BREAKING: New RNC ad slams democrats for unleashing pattern of violence across the United States pic.twitter.com/K5f2teGuT6
— Wired Sources (@WiredSources) June 27, 2018
MISSISSIPPI (WCBI) – Starting July 1st, Mississippians will have fewer restrictions for carrying firearms without a permit.
To paraphrase a quote attributed to everyone from Churchill to Uncle Ben from Spider Man, “with great power comes great responsibility.”Law enforcement emphasizes that idea with the new rules.
Mississippians have been able to concealed carry since 2016, but those guns had to be in a holster, and concealed carriers weren’t allowed in courthouses.
Starting next week, it can be pants pockets, coat pockets, waistbands, anything that hides the gun from plain sight.
While it’s not required, law enforcement is asking those who carry to be mindful of your surroundings and above all know what you’re doing.