Category: Stupid O’ The Day

Observation O’ The Day:
I assume you’ve noticed that the lying dems almost unanimously shake their heads “no” as they’re saying “yes” to almost every lie they tell. this is a perfect example.

He likely doesn’t care how he’s thought of, as he thinks his pension and benefits are sacrosanct. Well. I’d give him pause to consider that at Courts Martial where he could wind up ‘dismissed’ (that’s the same as a Dishonorable Discharge for the enlisted ranks) and the loss of all pay and benefits. Not to mention a long term at the Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth.

In the day of the internet, which records and keeps everything, these moron politicians still think they can gaslight people

Tony Blinken Tells Congress ‘No One Anticipated’ Taliban Takeover of Afghanistan.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken testified before Congress on the Biden administration’s chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal in a long-awaited hearing that was originally scheduled for September. Though he claimed that “no one” in the Biden State Department anticipated the Afghan government’s swift collapse, a group of diplomats warned Blinken of that very prospect roughly one month before the Taliban captured Kabul.

“Even the U.S. government’s most pessimistic assessments did not anticipate that the Afghan government and security forces would collapse so rapidly in the face of Taliban advances,” Blinken told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday.

Twenty-six diplomats, however, sent Blinken a dissent cable in mid-July 2021—one month before the fall of Kabul and six weeks before a suicide bombing attack killed 13 American servicemembers—warning of Afghanistan’s rapid deterioration. Asked why he ignored that cable, Blinken responded, “Very simply because no one anticipated the government and Afghan forces would collapse as quickly as they did.”

Blinken’s appearance comes nearly two months after the Biden official was set to testify before the House committee in late September. But Blinken failed to attend the hearing, defying a subpoena in the process, and only agreed to testify after the November presidential election. Blinken also missed a May deadline to turn over withdrawal-related internal documents, which were requested under subpoena.

Continue reading “”

Sedition, Insubordination, Conduct Unbecoming. In a time of war; Treason.
This sort of thing must be rooted out and the bureaucraps fired, those on active duty who took part relieved, and those who may not have been on active duty (retired), recalled and face courts martial. The military must be completely subordinate to the elected constitutional national command authority and follow their legal orders or what we’ll wind up with is a military hunta akin to the praetorian guard of the roman empire who decided who the next emperor would be after disposing of the last one.

Sorry, We Can Only View This Secret Pentagon Meeting as a Plot to Foment an Insurrection

John Frankenheimer directed a movie called Seven Days in May in the 1960s, starring Kirk Douglas as a military officer who uncovers a coup against the president of the United States by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who signed a deeply unpopular nuclear disarmament treaty. That’s a movie. In 2024, the Pentagon brass plotted to countermand President-elect Donald J. Trump’s orders. If we’re going by the Left’s rules here, this is an insurrection. It’s a military coup. What’s worse is that these anti-Trump meetings were held in secret and then got leaked to the media (via CNN):

Pentagon officials are holding informal discussions about how the Department of Defense would respond if Donald Trump issues orders to deploy active-duty troops domestically and fire large swaths of apolitical staffers, defense officials told CNN.

Trump has suggested he would be open to using active-duty forces for domestic law enforcement and mass deportations and has indicated he wants to stack the federal government with loyalists and “clean out corrupt actors” in the US national security establishment.

[…]

“We are all preparing and planning for the worst-case scenario, but the reality is that we don’t know how this is going to play out yet,” one defense official said.

Trump’s election has also raised questions inside the Pentagon about what would happen if the president issued an unlawful order, particularly if his political appointees inside the department don’t push back.

“Troops are compelled by law to disobey unlawful orders,” said another defense official. “But the question is what happens then – do we see resignations from senior military leaders? Or would they view that as abandoning their people?”

CNN’s Scott Jennings tore apart these unelected bureaucrats yesterday. We’re back to the same Deep State games, but this time, Trump, with no re-election ahead of him, can go hard and fast to rid the Pentagon and any agency of troublesome government workers who think they’re above the law and not accountable to the will of the people. The illegal orders narrative is also ridiculous, soaked in the anti-Trump hysterics that have engulfed the Left.

Secret meetings on thwarting a duly elected president are not a good look.

Time and time and time again, “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion,” and other similar words are being used as excuses to dumb down educational standards. Here are 24 examples.

By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)

October 15, 2024

Time and time and time again, “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion,” and other similar words are being used as excuses to dumb down educational standards.

Here are 24 examples:

1) The New York Times wrote, “The Board of Regents on Monday eliminated a requirement that aspiring teachers in New York State pass a literacy test to become certified after the test proved controversial because black and Hispanic candidates passed it at significantly lower rates than white candidates.”

Original: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/nyregion/ny-regents-teacher-exams-alst.html?_r=0

Archive: https://archive.ph/GzyQM

2) The New York Times wrote, “A 2009 Princeton study showed Asian-Americans had to score 140 points higher on their SATs than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics and 450 points higher than blacks to have the same chance of admission to leading universities.”

Original: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/white-students-unfair-advantage-in-admissions.html

Archive: https://archive.ph/MEDXn

3) Patrick Henry High School, San Diego’s largest high school, cited “equity” as its reason for removing some of its classes in advanced English, advanced history, and advanced biology.

Original: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/story/2022-04-10/san-diegos-largest-high-school-quietly-eliminated-several-honors-courses-parents-are-outraged

Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20220410124259/https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/story/2022-04-10/san-diegos-largest-high-school-quietly-eliminated-several-honors-courses-parents-are-outraged

4) The Vancouver School Board cited “equity and inclusion” for why it got rid of its honors courses in math and science at its high schools.

Continue reading “”

Sotomayor’s Mistake

In her dissenting opinion in Cargill, Justice Sotomayor offers a concession that she may come to regret down the road:

On October 1, 2017, a shooter opened fire from a hotel room overlooking an outdoor concert in Las Vegas, Nevada, in what would become the deadliest mass shooting in U. S. history. Within a matter of minutes, using several hundred rounds of ammunition, the shooter killed 58 people and wounded over 500. He did so by affixing bump stocks to commonly available, semiautomatic rifles.

One of the important Second Amendment questions that has not yet been considered at length by the Supreme Court centers around which commercially available weapons ought to be counted within the provision’s definition of “arms.” The gun-control movement insists that modern sporting rifles such as the AR-15 are sufficiently exotic as to escape protection. Second Amendment advocates, by contrast, consider such a distinction to be arbitrary, reasoning that if semi-automatic handguns are protected, then there is no reason that semi-automatic rifles aren’t, too.

Since the Heller ruling in 2008, however, this debate has been focused more on whether AR-15s are mainstream than on whether they are functionally different than other guns. This is because, as Mark W. Smith explains:

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller established the “common use” test based on the text and original meaning of the Second Amendment and under the Supreme Court’s traditional role of enforcing national, constitutional baselines against local outliers.

The Heller court established the “common use” test to decide how a court should determine whether particular objects, or arms, should be protected by the Second Amendment. Specifically, do the arms being legislated or regulated constitute arms in “‘common use’… for lawful purposes like self-defense.”

To get around this problem, those who wish to ban the AR-15 have taken to claiming that the rifle is not, in fact, “in common use,” and that, as a result, it is not protected under the Second Amendment. Remarkably, Justice Sotomayor just pulled the rug from underneath that argument — and, to make matters worse, did so in an official Supreme Court opinion on the subject of firearms law. Look, again, at the language that Sotomayor uses to describe the AR-15:

He did so by affixing bump stocks to commonly available, semiautomatic rifles.

Sotomayor even uses the word “common”! Not “everyday” or “universal” or “normal” or “usual,” but common — the very word that was used in Heller.

Naturally, I do not expect Sotomayor to remain consistent. If, in the course of a case delineating the meaning of “arms,” she is asked to decide whether the AR-15 is in common use, she will undoubtedly insist that it is not. But, by the point at which she does so, her words will have been used over and over and over again — in the amicus briefs, during oral arguments, and perhaps in the majority opinion, too.

Uvalde Lawsuit Against UPS, FedEx the Dumbest Ones Yet

Lawsuits against companies that had no hand in something like the awful events of Uvalde aren’t surprising, but they’re stupid.

It’s idiotic.

But I thought we’d seen all the stupid we were going to see on that front. That’s a case of “shame on me” for underestimating the vile idiocy of the anti-gun movement. It seems they have found a new target.

On the day of the shooting, the gunman was armed with a weapon ordered online and shipped to Oasis Firearms in Uvalde where it was then picked up by the shooter.

The lawsuit claims the companies then shipped an enhanced trigger system to the gunman’s house. This allowed the gunman to convert it into a fully automatic or semi-automatic weapon.

The lawsuit cited the UPS conditions of carriage as proof of a violation. The UPS conditions state that, “Shipments must not contain goods which might endanger human or animal life or any means of transportation.”

The families also said that the shipment of the Hell Fire trigger to the gunman’s house was a violation of school zone area protections. The gunman’s house was less than 1,000 feet away from the Robb Elementary School zone.

Yep. This is pure idiocy.

The Hell Fire trigger has been on the market for over 30 years. It’s nothing but a trigger that allows people to fire semi-automatic weapons a bit faster, much like many other trigger modifications. These are not illegal and are perfectly acceptable to ship through either UPS or FedEx.

Moreover, it doesn’t violate the UPS conditions of carriage because the trigger won’t do any of those things. Not by itself, anyway.

“But it’s also a violation of school zone area protections.”

The courts have long found that people living less than 1,000 feet from a school zone don’t forfeit their Second Amendment rights simply because they live within walking distance of a school. That means people can lawfully buy guns and store them in their homes.

It also means that there is no reason for a carrier to question gun part going to a home within that area.

In short, UPS and FedEx had no reason to not ship the part to the individual who turned out to later become the Uvalde killer.

Let’s also be real here for a moment. UPS and FedEx aren’t gun companies. They don’t have any reason to stay in this fight. They make money shipping guns and parts, but do they make enough to deal with the negative publicity that might arise? Probably not. They’re far more likely to cave than a gun company might.

But let’s understand what this is really about. It’s not about UPS or FedEx doing anything wrong. They know this is a stretch. They don’t expect this to go to trial, even. Oh no, this is about something far different.

What these folks are trying to do is to use the legal system to bully UPS and FedEx into refusing to transport firearms or firearm parts. They want to see these carriers cut out every firearm-related company so that those companies will have a harder time shipping products to customers.

As a result of that, it becomes harder for law-abiding citizens to get not just parts but guns shipped to their FFL.

All of this isn’t about correcting wrongs committed prior to Uvalde. It’s about making it harder for you and me to exercise our Second Amendment rights. Who needs gun control if you can’t find a gun to buy in the first place?

That’s what this is about. Sure, this one lawsuit won’t necessarily change the landscape, but it’s never about one lawsuit. It’s about the death by a thousand cuts. It’s about making it just too difficult to deal with the firearm industry.

And the stupidity won’t end here, either. We’ll see more and worse.