Supreme Court Declines to Hear Kentucky Abortion Ultrasound Law

I’m a bit surprised. It only takes 4 justices to decide to hear a case and there are 4 definitely proabortion proggie justices on the court. I’ll bet they figured to cut bait due to the possibility that there were 5 justices that just might take the opportunity to gut Roe v Wade some more.

The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal to the Kentucky Ultrasound Informed Consent Act, which requires “doctors to perform ultrasounds and show and describe fetal images to patients before abortions, as well as play an audible heartbeat of the fetus.”

Their decision means the law will stay in place.

The ACLU challenged the law on behalf of EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville, KY, which is the state’s last abortion clinic.

The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law:

“As a First Amendment matter, there is nothing suspect with a State’s requiring a doctor, before performing an abortion, to make truthful, non-misleading factual disclosures, relevant to informed consent, even if those disclosures relate to unborn life and have the effect of persuading the patient not to have an abortion,” the appeals court held in its ruling.

Muhammad Makes List of Top 10 Baby Names in the U.S. For First Time

That’s demographics, part of which is a high birthrate for moslems, another part being the number of ‘refugees’ imported by charities run by purportedly well meaning, but crap-for-brains idiots

Sophia still reigns as queen, but Jackson has lost his crown as king.

The parenting website BabyCenter released its annual list of 100 most popular baby names for girls and boys in the United States, and for the 10th year in a row, Sophia is at the top. Liam knocked Jackson out of the No. 1 spot that he had held onto for six years straight.

The online parenting and pregnancy destination compiled the names of babies born to some 600,000 registered U.S. users in 2019 and combined those that sound the same but have different spellings (such as Sophia and Sofia) to create a true measure of popularity. The Social Security Administration also generates a list, pulling from the names of all babies born in the U.S., but the agency treats each unique spelling as a separate name.

Almost all of last year’s top-10 darlings are still favorites this year, with a few exceptions. Revealing a rise in Arabic names, Muhammad and Aaliyah made the top 10 for the first time, replacing Mason and Layla.

Kenneth Anderson: The Fragmenting of the New Class Elites, or, Downward Mobility.

In social theory, OWS is best understood not as a populist movement against the bankers, but instead as the breakdown of the New Class into its two increasingly disconnected parts. The upper tier, the bankers-government bankers-super credentialed elites. But also the lower tier, those who saw themselves entitled to a white collar job in the Virtue Industries of government and non-profits – the helping professions, the culture industry, the virtueocracies, the industries of therapeutic social control, as Christopher Lasch pointed out in his final book, The Revolt of the Elites.

The two tiers of the New Class have always had different sources of rents, however. For the upper tier, since 1990, it has come through its ability to take the benefits of generations of US social investment in education and sell that expertise across global markets – leveraging expertise and access to capital and technological markets in the 1990s to places in Asia and the former communist world in desperate need of it.

As Lasch said, the revolt and flight of the elites, to marketize themselves globally as free agents – to take the social capital derived over many generations by American society, and to go live in the jet stream and extract returns on a global scale for that expertise. But that expertise is now largely commodified – to paraphrase David Swenson on financial engineering, that kind of universal expertise is commodified, cheaply available, and no longer commands much premium. As those returns have come under pressure, the Global New Class has come home, looking to command premiums through privileged access to the public-private divide – access most visible at the moment as virtuous new technology projects that turn out to be mere crony capitalism.

The lower tier is in a different situation and always has been. It is characterized by status-income disequilibrium, to borrow from David Brooks; it cultivates the sensibilities of the upper tier New Class, but does not have the ability to globalize its rent extraction.

The helping professions, the professions of therapeutic authoritarianism (the social workers as well as the public safety workers), the virtuecrats, the regulatory class, etc., have a problem – they mostly service and manage individuals, the client-consumers of the welfare state. Their rents are not leveraged very much, certainly not globally, and are limited to what amounts to an hourly wage.

The method of ramping up wages, however, is through public employee unions and their own special ability to access the public-private divide. But, as everyone understands, that model no longer works, because it has overreached and overleveraged, to the point that even the system’s most sympathetic politicians understand that it cannot pay up.

The upper tier is still doing pretty well. But the lower tier of the New Class – the machine by which universities trained young people to become minor regulators and then delivered them into white collar positions on the basis of credentials in history, political science, literature, ethnic and women’s studies – with or without the benefit of law school – has broken down.

The supply is uninterrupted, but the demand has dried up. The agony of the students getting dumped at the far end of the supply chain is in large part the OWS. As Above the Law points out, here is “John,” who got out of undergrad, spent a year unemployed and living at home, and is now apparently at University of Vermont law school, with its top ranked environmental law program – John wants to work at a “nonprofit.”

Pity the poor avocado-eating graduates: University-educated millennials have absorbed elite values but will never enjoy the lifestyle.

Countless articles have rehearsed the class insecurities of the “left behind” Brexiters. Generally these unfortunates are depicted fulminating over pasties and ale in shabby market towns and grim post-industrial cities outside the London area. The object of their antipathy is the shiny “elite”, plugged into a promise-filled, multicultural urban life and the knowledge economy, seemingly buoyant in the new, frictionless modern world.

Leaving aside its substantive, real-world pros and cons, Europhilia has become a mark of devotion to the culture and worldview associated with this “elite” and the modern world it navigates. It is a value set strongly correlated with tertiary education and that has come to be called “openness”. . . .

Meanwhile, the boom in openness-promoting tertiary education produced not so much a boom in graduate jobs as inflation in the qualification levels required to do the jobs we already had. This has left many young people struggling to service a mountain of debt on salaries that are never likely to show much of the “graduate premium” they were promised.

Today, thanks in part to the “open” economy whose values form the foundation of the “cultural Remain” identity, the cost of living — and especially home ownership — has rocketed. Simple aspirations that were within the reach of the working class in the 20th century are an unattainable dream today for millions of young people far higher up the sociocultural pile. And yet those young graduates have all, in the course of moving away to get their degree, absorbed the “open” value set now explicitly taught in tertiary education.

The result is an Everywhere precariat, that has absorbed the values of a world that has little to offer it in terms of concrete benefits, and resolves this conflict by renting the heavily-subsidised and internet-enabled perks of a smarter lifestyle than it can afford to buy. Where once rentals might have just been housing and cars, today that can even include clothing.

THE BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR FUTURE

A stupid, ignorant, indoctrinated, instead of educated population is easier to control.

We face a lot of threats, of course–asteroids, rogue nuclear nations, stateless terrorism, pandemics–but in my opinion, the biggest threat to America’s future is our unbelievably bad public school system. It is hard for those (like me) who went through the public schools decades ago to understand how much things have changed. Academic standards have collapsed; objective testing is out of fashion; corrupt left-wing unions have taken nearly complete control; indoctrination has largely replaced education. The result is that we are raising a generation of ignoramuses.

Michael Ramirez ties the public education fiasco to Veterans Day.

I think we are rapidly approaching a point where there is a serious question whether our population is too dumb to sustain a democracy.

A Great Awakening to the Fight is Upon Us
No more compromise, no more calls for bipartisanship.

Last week in a dinner speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., Princeton professor Robert George had some advice for social and religious conservatives: “You must fight.”

It was an exhortation that does him no good in the academic world. A distinguished Ivy League scholar and teacher isn’t supposed to talk about the “culture war.” George has strong connections with the established conservative world, too, which balks at the confrontational style. In my year at the James Madison Program at Princeton, which George directs, visitors included George Will, Steve Forbes, and Andrew Napolitano. But the other night was a firm declaration of resistance.

It was fantastic.

One of the people cheering at the end was William Barr, who delivered his own call to arms last month in a speech at Notre Dame. “I think we all recognize that over the past 50 years religion has been under increasing attack,” he said. Traditional believers have felt the “force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault” again and again. Barr called it “organized destruction,” a deliberate campaign to destroy the religious foundations of American society.

What progressives have rosily characterized as a noble movement for equality and freedom is no such thing, Barr argued. It is a coordinated effort of academia, popular culture, mass communication, and the entertainment industry to remove faith and the faithful from the public square, forever…….

In the last year I have seen Tucker Carlson deliver three speeches. In the first, in St. Louis, he described his transformation from young libertarian to middle-aged social conservative who believes in God, family, and country, but in a self-mocking mode.

“I was so stupid back then,” Carlson said, “because I actually believed liberals when they professed to favor free speech, individual rights, and religious conscience” (I’m paraphrasing from memory). ……

Carlson knows better now; he recognizes the actual character of the opposition. It has changed him. The boyish quibbler of the ’00s has become the moral force one sees every weeknight. In the third speech, which he gave at an American Greatness/New Criterion conference in Washington, D.C., last month, he admitted that there are very few places he can dine in the city and not fear an attack or something done to his food. An Antifa gang stormed his house in November 2018. But 10 seconds in Carlson’s presence tell you he isn’t going to waver.

I wonder if these figures realize how extraordinarily satisfying and innervating their statements are to people who have experienced progressivism in America as a steamroller leveling their workplaces, schools, and shopping zones for a good half-century. Did Lindsey Graham suspect that social conservative households would erupt in cheers when he finally had enough of the Kavanaugh hearings and thundered his objections? Did Donald Trump suspect in 2015 that a simple insistence on national borders would resound so loudly among Americans who regard the United States as their home, not their accidental place of residence?

How can other Republican leaders and conservative commentators remain unaware of how much social, religious, and national conservatives want them and need them to assume a fighting stance? Those of us who work in professional spaces—academia, big business, medicine, mainstream media, public schools—retreated into foxholes years ago, and we await backup.

Two years ago, after speaking to a small religious group in Atlanta, my host drove me home but not before asking how I got along with my colleagues.

“Just fine,” I answered, ”Emory is a good place, with mostly good people. Sure, they can’t understand how anyone could have supported Trump, but they never mistreat me.”

“Wait,” he interrupted, ”they don’t get it?”

“About Trump—no,” I said, “but that goes for just about any college campus you can name.”

He didn’t hesitate: “Then it’s war.”

He wasn’t excited, he wasn’t angry, just matter-of-fact. His logic was pat. If a political opponent won’t listen to you, if he considers your politics inexplicable, it isn’t so big a leap to judging you indecent, repugnant, deplorable. From there, yes, it’s war. …….

This summer at a conference at a well-known university, I sat down with the head of a new institute on campus who was just as blunt. For some reason, the 2012 ticket came up, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. He offered a summary remark: “At this point, if you can’t answer yes to a basic question, nothing else counts. Doesn’t matter where you stand on taxes, foreign policy, regulations . . .” He then shook his head.

“What’s the question?” I asked.

“Are you ready to fight?”

The Gun Grabbers Mislead Us

Gun control did not become politically acceptable until the Gun Control Act of 1968 signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

The law’s primary focus was to regulate commerce in firearms by prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers.

Today’s gun control advocates have gone much further, calling for an outright ban of what they call assault rifles such as the AR-15.

By the way, AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, which is manufactured by Colt Manufacturing Co. As for being a military assault weapon, our soldiers would be laughed off the battlefield carrying AR-15s.

Let’s look at some FBI statistics on homicide and then you can decide how many homicides would be prevented by a ban on rifles. The FBI lists murder victims by weapon from 2014 to 2018 in its 2018 report on crime in the United States. It turns out that slightly over 2% (297) out of a total of 14,123 homicides were committed with rifles.

A total of 1,515 or 11% of homicides were committed by knives. Four hundred and forty-three people were murdered with a hammer, club, or some other bludgeoning instrument. Six hundred and seventy-two people were murdered by a hand, foot, or fist. Handguns accounted for the most murders—6,603.

What these statistics point out clearly is that the so-called assault weapons ban and mandatory buy-back plan, which Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke and others call for, will do little or nothing to bring down homicides. More homicides could be prevented by advocating knife control, hammer control, and feet and fist control.

Gun controllers’ belief that “easy” gun availability is our problem ignores U.S. history. Guns were far more readily available yesteryear. One could mail order a gun from Sears or walk into a hardware store or a pawnshop to make a purchase.

With truly easy gun availability throughout our history, there was nowhere near the mayhem and mass murder that we see today. Here’s my question to all those who want restrictions placed on gun sales: Were the firearms of yesteryear better behaved than those same firearms are today?

That’s really a silly question; guns are inanimate objects and have no capacity to act. Our problem is a widespread decline in moral values that has nothing to do with guns. That decline includes disrespect for those in authority, disrespect for oneself, little accountability for anti-social behavior, and a scuttling of religious teachings that reinforce moral values.

Foundation Grants $13,000 to Introduce Women, Youth to Hunting in Florida

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. —  Fish & Wildlife Foundation of Florida is working to introduce more women and youth to hunting.

The foundation recently announced a $13,000 grant to the National Wild Turkey Federation – Gator Gobblers.

Their recent actions come as a result of a sharp decline in the number of Americans who hunt. The foundation says while the older generation is retiring from hunting, too few younger people are taking their place. The decline in hunters leads to significant ecological and economic issues.

“We’re committed to getting people outdoors and preserving our outdoor heritage,” said Fish & Wildlife Foundation of Florida President and CEO Andrew Walker in a press release. “This project is an important step in exposing new audiences, including the next generation of conservationists, to hunting.”

In order to pass on the traditions of safe, ethical hunting, and teach conservation principals, new hunters will learn all aspects of hunting and harvest their first animal in a safe environment.

America’s Delusional Elite Is Done.

I want to thank Claremont for the opportunity to reply to Michael Anton’s review of my book Bronze Age Mindset. 

Since at least 2015—but in fact from before Trump ever came along—there has been a tremendous intellectual disturbance or ferment online, among both the right and the left, that has escaped the notice or surveillance of the mainstream media, the literary and pundit-political establishment, and all those who imagine themselves gatekeepers of public taste and opinion.

Trump’s campaign beginning in 2015 brought this countercultural phenomenon to view of the authorities, who have been struggling to understand it and contain it ever since.

What are the “crazy Pepe frog people” online all about? The terms “altright” and “altleft” have been designed as catch-all categories to describe what is going on, but they’re misleading. There have been a few inadequate attempts to understand this phenomenon before Anton’s article: for example Angela Nagle’s book Kill All Normies, or a few articles by lesser-known journalists.

But Anton’s review of my book is the first big attempt, as far as I’m aware, to really try to understand what’s going on from a sympathetic point of view; which is to say, non-polemically and without the ulterior intention of getting us censored or of bringing the weight of the national security establishment on our backs.

I think Anton, whatever our disagreements—and they seem to be considerable—must be praised for realizing that the phenomenon in question isn’t going away and cannot simply be suppressed, but must be understood.

What you are witnessing, I would like to tell the readers of Claremont, is the unraveling of the postwar American regime—or what is mendaciously called by its toadies the “liberal world order”—in a way that is far more thorough than the disturbances of the 1960’s, and with consequences that will be far more dire…………….

The anti-male and anti-White rhetoric of the new left is extreme. The racial attacks on whites in particular approaches exterminationist propaganda seen only in, e.g., the Hutu against the Tutsi in 1990’s Rwanda.

For anyone who doubts this, consider the following few examples, which are far from complete:

A columnist for the Huffington Post, a major leftist publication, wrote an article titled “Towards a Concept of White Wounding,” apparently calling for racial violence.

The New York Times hired a columnist who had repeated vulgar racial attacks on whites, calling “whiteness” “awful,” whites “only fit to live underground like groveling goblins,” expressed great joy at “being cruel to old white men,” and declared that whites will be “extinct soon.” The Paper of Record stood by her when these attacks were exposed, and only quietly let her go recently when she supported a boycott against her own employer.

Symone Sanders, currently a senior adviser to Joe Biden and previously the national press secretary for Bernie Sanders, mocked a disabled white teenager who was tortured on camera in 2017 by a black mob screaming “Fuck Trump! Fuck white people!” and otherwise called cases of antiwhite political violence “a protest.”

The New York Times—again, hardly an unknown blog—published an opinion column by Michelle Goldberg with the eliminationist title “We Can Replace Them,” ostensibly against “white nationalism,” but in fact directed against a demographic white majority as such, which the author seeks to replace with nonwhites for what she imagines to be political advantage.

Kevin Drum at Mother Jones, a major organ of the Left that pushes the security establishment’s Russia Hoax conspiracy theories, called this summer for “a literal or figurative war” on whites and a “race war” that the DNC must be willing to get “Lincolnesque” about.

Major leftist and establishment media such as Newsweek publish cover stories titled “Is Your Baby Racist”; major publishers promote books titled White Fragilityor The Dying of Whitenessand CNN—not white nationalist outlets—runs graphics on “The Vanishing White American.”

Again, all this is par for the course these days; as everyone knows, state-funded universities routinely hold “white privilege” seminars and orientation sessions, promoting a concept the plain meaning of which is to dispossess people of property and civil rights based on their biology.

Battleground: 7 in 10 say US ‘on the edge of civil war’

Partisan political division and the resulting incivility has reached a low in America, with 67% believing that the nation is nearing civil war, according to a new national survey.

“The majority of Americans believe that we are two-thirds of the way to being on the edge of civil war. That to me is a very pessimistic place,” said Mo Elleithee, the executive director of Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service.

And worse, he said in announcing the results of the Institute’s Battleground Poll civility survey, the political division is likely to make the upcoming 2020 presidential race the nastiest in modern history.

Screen Shot 2019-10-23 at 1.01.43 PM.png

(Screenshot)

Highlighting findings that show voters angered with compromise and growing unfavorable ratings of President Trump and most 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, he said the poll “paints a scenario, a picture of a highly negative campaign that will continue to exacerbate the incivility in our public discourse.”

He added, “It will be a sort of race to the bottom, or has the potential to be a race to the bottom.”

The Civility Poll is an offshoot of the famous bipartisan Battleground Poll conducted by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners and Ed Goeas of the Tarrance Group.

While it found that 87% are frustrated with the rudeness in politics today, it also revealed that the public really isn’t interested in traditional compromise. For example, a nearly equal 84% said that they are “tired of leaders compromising my values and ideals.”

Elleithee explained, “It seems to me what they’re saying is, ‘I believe in common ground, it’s just that common ground is where I’m standing. As soon you move over to where I am, we’ll be on common ground.’”

Screen Shot 2019-10-23 at 1.02.01 PM.png

(Screenshot)

Goeas pointed to the poor favorable ratings of presidential candidates and said that 2020 may be a rare race between candidates that less than half the country likes.

“There is going to be a large body of voters who dislike both of them, and that’s going to be the swing vote in the election, which means it dictates the kind of campaign that’s run,” he said.
Lake agreed that the national division is widening. “There is relative consensus that divisions in this country are getting worse,” she said in her memo accompanying the survey released Tuesday.

Is America Entering a Dark Age?

Many of the stories about the gods and heroes of Greek mythology were compiled during Greek Dark Ages. Impoverished tribes passed down oral traditions that originated after the fall of the lost palatial civilizations of the Mycenaean Greeks.

Dark Age Greeks tried to make sense of the massive ruins of their forgotten forbears’ monumental palaces that were still standing around. As illiterates, they were curious about occasional clay tablets they plowed up in their fields with incomprehensible ancient Linear B inscriptions.

We of the 21st century are beginning to look back at our own lost epic times and wonder about these now-nameless giants who left behind monuments that we cannot replicate, but instead merely use or even mock.

Does anyone believe that contemporary Americans could build another transcontinental railroad in six years?

Californians tried to build a high-speed rail line. But after more than a decade of government incompetence, lawsuits, cost overruns and constant bureaucratic squabbling, they have all but given up. The result is a half-built overpass over the skyline of Fresno — and not yet a foot of track laid.

Who were those giants of the 1960s responsible for building our interstate highway system?

California’s roads now are mostly the same as we inherited them, although the state population has tripled. We have added little to our freeway network, either because we forgot how to build good roads or would prefer to spend the money on redistributive entitlements.

When California had to replace a quarter section of the earthquake-damaged San Francisco Bay Bridge, it turned into a near-disaster, with 11 years of acrimony, fighting, cost overruns — and a commentary on our decline into Dark Ages primitivism. Yet 82 years ago, our ancestors built four times the length of our singe replacement span in less than four years. It took them just two years to design the entire Bay Bridge and award the contracts.

Our generation required five years just to plan to replace a single section. In inflation-adjusted dollars, we spent six times the money on one quarter of the length of the bridge and required 13 agencies to grant approval. In 1936, just one agency oversaw the entire bridge project.

California has not built a major dam in 40 years. Instead, officials squabble over the water stored and distributed by our ancestors, who designed the California State Water Project and Central Valley Project.

Contemporary Californians would have little food or water without these massive transfers, and yet they often ignore or damn the generation that built the very system that saves us.

America went to the moon in 1969 with supposedly primitive computers and backward engineering. Does anyone believe we could launch a similar moonshot today? No American has set foot on the moon in the last 47 years, and it may not happen in the next 50 years.

Hollywood once gave us blockbuster epics, brilliant Westerns, great film noirs, and classic comedies. Now it endlessly turns out comic-book superhero films or pathetic remakes of prior classics.

Our writers, directors and actors have lost the skills of their ancestors. But they are also cowardly, and in regimented fashion they simply parrot boring race, class and gender bromides that are neither interesting nor funny. Does anyone believe that the Oscar ceremonies are more engaging and dignified than in the past?

We have been fighting in Afghanistan without result for 18 years. Our forefathers helped to win World War II and defeat the Axis Powers in four years.

In terms of learning, does anyone believe that a college graduate in 2020 will know half the information of a 1950 graduate?

In the 1940s, young people read William Faulkner, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Pearl Buck and John Steinbeck. Are our current novelists turning out anything comparable? Could today’s high-school graduate even finish “The Good Earth” or “The Grapes of Wrath”?

True, social media is impressive. The internet gives us instant access to global knowledge. We are a more tolerant society, at least in theory. But Facebook is not the Hoover Dam, and Twitter is not the Panama Canal.

Our ancestors were builders and pioneers and mostly fearless. We are regulators, auditors, bureaucrats, adjudicators, censors, critics, plaintiffs, defendants, social media junkies and thin-skinned scolds. A distant generation created; we mostly delay, idle and gripe.

As we walk amid the refuse, needles and excrement of the sidewalks of our fetid cities; as we sit motionless on our jammed ancient freeways; and as we pout on Twitter and electronically whine in the porticos of our Ivy League campuses, will we ask: “Who were these people who left these strange monuments that we use but can neither emulate nor understand?”

In comparison to us, they now seem like gods.

Hands Off My Gun, Pops

One of these days I will put together a list of the most commonly held incorrect assumptions about popular social attitudes in the US. Included in said list will be the belief that young people are enthusiastic gun grabbers who are finally going to see to it that the American citizenry is forcibly disarmed. David Hogg was an organic phenomenon, grown out of the fertile soil of young men who spent their teenage years playing Call of Duty, after all–nothing manufactured about his story!

From a YouGov survey released a few days ago, results from the three questions addressing gun control by respondent age cohort:

Parenthetically, “buyback” is an Orwellian term. To buy something back, one must first sell the thing. The federal government didn’t sell any of these guns. It didn’t manufacture any of them, either. Such a program would not involve buying anything back–it would involve the theft of the personal property of American citizens in blatant violation of the US Constitution–with forcibly stolen funds, of course.

Food truck driver makes meal on I-10 for stranded drivers

WINNIE, Texas (KTRK) — One area that was seriously impacted by Imelda was Winnie in Chambers County and I-10 is still shut down in that area and could stay that way for days.

As Tropical Storm Imelda hit, 200 vehicles became trapped on I-10. One of them belonged to Reggie McCoy.

He was driving an 18-wheeler with a food delivery going to Beaumont. A day and a half later, there was still high water.

“The area right here, we got a lot more water,” said McCoy as he showed ABC13 the flooding via Skype. “You can see it right here.”

McCoy was stranded on I-10 for more than 36 hours, he says. With a truck full of food and nowhere to go, he asked his boss if he could share.

“He was like, ‘Hey, whatever anybody needs. Let’s get it off the truck.’ We’ve got water. We’ve got milk, toilet paper,” explained McCoy.

Then he met another stranded driver, Kenny the cook. McCoy had some chicken, so they got a grill and Kenny was able to prepare it right there on I-10.

“We had chicken wings last night and a few grape tomatoes and chips and milk,” said McCoy.

Kenny the cook was happy to help.

“In 2005, Houston took me in from Katrina, so, I’m just giving back, that’s all,” said Kenny.

McCoy said they were able to feed between 30 and 40 people……

How to stop mass shootings: End war and the culture of violence

A noble aspiration, but this is a condition of the heart and mind of fallen man and that won’t change until we have a new Heaven and Earth.

Undoubtedly the worst day in any family’s life is when a police officer arrives at their residence to inform them that a loved one has been killed either in a mass shooting or in a senseless act of violence at work or driving or walking to or from their place of employment.

The family’s grief would be palpable; their anger would be understandable because no human being’s life should be ended by an act of violence. Unfortunately, there are violent human beings in every society who because of mental illness or are just plain evil — harboring resentment against “others” whether they are members of any easily identifiable racial, ethnic, or religious group.

The recent spate of mass shootings has brought into focus the AR-15 rifle used in virtually all the horrific acts of violence that have claimed hundreds of lives across America. In response, many media pundits, anti-Second Amendment activists, and virtually all Democratic presidential candidates decry the private ownership of the AR-15 “assault rifle,” and call for a “government buyback” of these firearms or outright confiscation of the rifle as their solution to ending mass shootings in America.

The AR does not stand for “assault rifle,” a gross mischaracterization of a firearm that was created in the 1950s by the ArmaLite Company that branded it. The AR-15 is a semiautomatic, lightweight rifle and has the same capabilities as a semiautomatic handgun. This means that only one round can be fired at a time when the trigger is pulled, unlike a machine gun, which is capable of firing bullets repeatedly by holding the trigger down. Since 1986 civilians can no longer purchase machine guns.

In short, the term assault rifle is a politically loaded term based on federal and state law definitions. The government defines an assault weapon as a semiautomatic rifle, pistol and shotguns that have the capability to use detachable magazines. Nevertheless, why would any citizen want to own a firearm that looks like a military weapon? The AR-15 is typically used for target shooting, hunting, home defense and competitive matches. In other words, 99%-plus of lawful AR-15 owners are peaceful, given that 5-10 million AR-15-type rifles are owned by private citizens.

But the advocates of banning the private ownership of so-called assault weapons assert that “Enough Is Enough,” and that to stop the carnage in America the government — which is supposed to protect our safety and security — must not kowtow to Second Amendment defenders who believe that there is a fundamental right to self-defense.

Have the “gun grabbers” thought through their proposal to ban the AR-15 or similar type firearm? Apparently not, because if they did, a ban on so-called assault weapons would, yes, increase shootings. In other words, the law of unintended consequences would kick in.

Prohibition of any substance or item leads to black markets. Our experience with alcohol prohibition during the 1920s and early 1930s and drug prohibition today are the quintessential examples of policies that increase violence — and corruption — in our society.

The violence that would ensue after a ban of so-called assault weapons would turn our cities — and rural communities — into killing fields as black market gangs would vie for turf to sell their contraband to individuals who would defy the government’s “assault” on their Second Amendment rights. In addition, law enforcement officers would have to be armed to the teeth to eliminate the assault weapon black market. Funerals for police officers would skyrocket.

But instead of a knee jerk reaction to mass shootings, maybe, just maybe, federal elected officials and presidential candidates would reflect how their actions have contributed to mass shootings.

A common trait of most mass shooters is that they served in the military, had been rejected to serve or came from a military family. In an essay, “Wars and Domestic Massacres,” Libertarian Lew Rockwell makes the compelling argument that our foreign policy of unending global conflict that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of individuals in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, promotes a “culture of violence” in America that cannot be dismissed.

In sum, banning rifles would not end mass shootings, but a foreign policy of peace and commerce with all would be the humane way of leading by example. Maybe then we will be safer at home instead of eviscerating the Second Amendment.

 

CA Senate Passes Resolution ACR-99 Telling Pastors to Embrace LGBTQ Beliefs

 

California Senate passed a resolution telling Christian clergy to accept and support LGBTQ ideology, even if doing so violates their Christian beliefs.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 99 (ACR-99) was introduced by Democratic state Assemblyman Evan Low of San Jose on June 4 as a way to gather support for LGBTQ identity and behaviors.

CBN News previously reported that more than two dozen doctors, counselors, former homosexuals, and other Christian leaders signed a letter condemning the resolution, which they said violates religious freedom.

The resolution also condemns counseling for unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion, known as conversion therapy.

The bill says “California law recognizes that performing conversion therapy on young persons is ineffective, unethical, and harmful. Conversion therapy has been rejected as ineffective, unethical, and harmful by leading medical, mental health, and child welfare organizations in the United States.”

Several Christian leaders are speaking out against the resolution saying it infringes upon their free exercise of religion.

How you can tell that Proggies know transgenderism is a con.
Even as Proggies push transgenderism, telling us a trans woman or man is a real woman or man, their own behavior shows they know this is a scam.

Well, we’ve known for a long time that proggies and demoncraps are past masters at the con-game.

Leftists repeat endlessly that those people whom they call “transgender” are really the sex they claim to be, rather than the sex their genes cause them to be. A man named Julia Serano, who thinks he’s a woman, wrote an entire very, very long post entitled Debunking “Trans Women Are Not Women” Arguments to this effect.

I’m cherry-picking here, but the following is my understanding of a few of the arguments Serano makes to establish that he and those like him are women. I consider each nonsensical, but won’t debunk them now, because I have a different goal for this post:

  1. When he goes out looking female, he experiences sexism, which means he is having “very real life experiences as a woman.”
  2. He’s a feminist!
  3. You can’t tell people’s sex chromosomes by looking at them.
  4. Some biological women can’t get pregnant.
  5. Pointing to women’s biology as a reason for saying men aren’t women is sexist because people have historically pointed to women’s biology as a reason to keep them barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. (He doesn’t use those words, but that’s the best way to summarize his argument.)
  6. The socialization argument (e.g., Bruce Jenner can’t be a woman because he lived most of his life as a man and was therefore never socialized as a woman) is wrong because. . . . Okay, I admit, I can’t make heads or tails of the analogy Serano makes to rebut this. Maybe you can figure this one out: “I ask you to consider the following scenario: A young girl is forced against her will to live as a boy. Upon reaching adulthood, after years of male socialization and privilege, she comes out about identifying as female and begins to live as a woman. Do you accept her as a woman? If your answer is yes, then it is hypocritical of you to not also accept trans women as women.” Huh? Is it me or did that ignore biology entirely?
  7. Men who think they’re women don’t retain their male energy and male privilege and this sacrifice proves that they’re really women.
  8. You’re being sexist if you claim that men who think they’re women are just caricatures of women. Remember, these men are feminists!

There are more “arguments” to be found at the link, but you get my point. Serano isn’t trying to convince us that he’s more to be pitied than censured because he suffers from a mental illness that makes him believe he’s a woman. Instead, he is insisting that he is, in fact, a woman.

The above is from a self-published post at Medium. Don’t let that fool you into thinking, though, that Serano is just a lone voice in the LGBTQ+ wilderness. During June (Gay Pride Month), the New York Times gave some of its rarefied real estate to Serano, publishing an op-ed he wrote assuring us that the “science of gender is rarely simple.” That’s gobbledygook.