More thoughts on Gorsuch

I’ve been watching the Judge Gorsuch confirmation hearings.

The takeaway I have from Judge Gorsuch is that he is a man that believes in the letter of the law.  He has no interest in being an activist or making his decisions based on the direction that the winds of politics blow.

This has Democrats apoplectic.

Compare Gorsuch’s statements with that of Judge Sotomayor.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

She never mentioned the rule of law once.   For her, a law was mutable to conform to her sympathy for the participants in a case.  Probably on the grounds of identity politics.

This hearing is about much more than confirming Gorsuch.  It is a battle of the rule of law versus the rule of feelz. 

This battle is being fought on every front in this administration.

Can cities ignore federal immigration laws because they have the sadz for drug dealers and rapists from Mexico and terrorists from the Middle East?

Is the right to keep and bear arms something that shall not be infringed even if it gives Democrats the scaredz?

If the Republicans waffle on Gorsuch, it will show the people that we have chosen to a nation that cannot rely on the law to be applied equally, became the interpretation of the law will be applied in a capricious way.

Senate Question

I wish I could ask Judge Gorsuch one question during the Senate confirmation hearing today:

“Judge Gorsuch, when we break for the day, I’m going to go home, sit on my couch, and put together a little YouTube playlist of videos of you and Congressman Trey Gowdy just absolutely demolishing Democrats with your brilliant legal acumen.  What do you think would go better with that, single malt Scotch or Kentucky Bourbon?”

Something I noticed during the Gorsuch hearing

I’ve been watching snippets of the confirmation hearing of Judge Neil Gorsuch for Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

I love Gorsuch.  The man has one of the most brilliant legal minds I have ever seen in action.

I came to Senator Dianne Feinstein’s questioning of Judge Gorshuch.  What a clown-show, dumpster fire that was.  Let’s look at two clips.


“Super-precedent.”  That’s what Roe v. Wade is to her, super-precedent.  There is no real legal definition for that that I can find but it is obvious what it means to her.  To her, Roe is a HIGER precedent than the rest of the Constitution and can’t be overturned.  Personally I don’t think it should be overturned, but I also don’t think that a decision from 1973 is so sacrosanct that it can’t be questioned.

Then we come to this:

What Senator Feinstein was doing was blatant.  She was probing him to determine what he thought the limitations of Heller was.  What can she propose to ban that he wouldn’t rule against.

She was trying to get him to admit that he’d uphold a ban on weapons most useful for the military.  Why?  So she can pull some legal fuckery and argue (like she’s done before) that any “assault weapon” is best suited for the military and justify a ban on semi-autos.

She was asking Judge Gorsuch exactly what size boot she is allowed to put on and how hard she can stomp it in the face of the American people before he will stop her.

To see this play out this way is mind blowing.

It is obvious that the Democrats have a very different copy of the Constitution than is enshrined at the National Archives.  Their version has a Second Amendment that says “An unregulated abortion is the necessary to the security of a liberated Woman, the right of doctors to keep and bear abortifacient , shall not be infringed.”  Your right to keep and bear arms, on the other hand, is limited to what they in their infinite ignorance doesn’t scare them and is completely capricious.

At this point, I am no longer going to argue against Bluexit.  The Liberal concept of a Civil Right is fucked.  To them, it is the right to stomp on others.  Unregulated abortion is the right to murder an unborn child, depriving it of its right to life, for the convenience of the mother.  The right to defend yourself, however, is racist and should be banned.

Since Liberals have decided they want a country where they are all running around stomping on each other’s faces in some gladiatorial oppression Olympics, where getting somebody fired for using the wrong pronoun with with you is the height of social achievement, they can take their boot and go.  I don’t want to live in that society.

Less than worthless

Moms Demand Action made this post about a recent Newsweek OpEd.


#DisarmHate is one of the most worthless and social-justice-esque hashtags on Twitter right now.  It is full of Tweets like this:

Because there is nothing more intersectional than a hashtag dedicated to promoting the idea:

As a society we can stop this epidemic by hiring trans women of color, making sure they have safe places to live and standing up when we see or hear them being demeaned and attacked and simply by valuing their lives.”

But back to the Newsweek article.

During the recent Jewish holiday of Purim, at least seven Jewish community centers in the U.S. and Canada received bomb threats. Altogether, Jewish institutions in North America have received more than 150 threats of violence since the beginning of the year.

Lets forget for a moment that the first person to be arrested for making threats against Jewish groups wasn’t the white supremacist that everyone on the Left wanted it to be.

Or that the lasted round of campus Antisemitism has come from the deep blue University of Illinois at Chicago, in the form of flyers about “Jewish Privilege” – which is straight out of Nazi propaganda – and is associated with #BlackLivesMatter.

After seeing this horrible Antisemitism, what does the writer for Newsweek want?

But rather than proposing policies that would make targeted and vulnerable communities safer, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is doing everything it can to gut our existing gun laws and advance its agenda of more guns for anyone, anywhere, no questions asked.

I’m sorry, but after watching all that ANTIFA violence and watching Leftists attack Jews on college campuses you are damn straight that I want to be able to carry a gun on me anywhere, no questions asked.

I know firsthand how threats can turn violent and even fatal when individuals filled with hate have easy access to weapons. On a beautiful summer day in 2006, I was shot at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, where I worked. Four of my female colleagues also were shot and—luckily—survived. Tragically, our colleague, Pam Waechter, was shot and killed that day.

In the more than 10 years since my shooting, the gun safety movement has made progress by passing gun laws that help keep guns out of dangerous hands. I have been proud to be part of that progress, working with Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, as well as the Alliance for Gun Responsibility, in Washington state.

But now the gun lobby is doing everything it can to undo that progress.

I truly feel bad for the author to have been in that situation.  I can’t imagine being there when that shooting happened.  However, the way I was raised, my reaction was different.  I felt the time had come for the “Israeli Approach.”

That’s right, bring a long gun.

What the author fails to mention is that the Jeiwsh Federation shooting was carried out by the US citizen of Pakistani heratage, and Muslim, Naveed Afzal Haq.  Muslims have become the pet darlings of the Radical Left, to the point where two of them are being hailed for leading the Women’s March (including a convicted terrorist).

This article wants me to believe that the threat comes from White Supremacists and the NRA is backing them.  Turns out, it is the Left coddling Radical Islamists and Jew haters in the name of Social Justice is the the real threat to Jews.

So I cam going to be armed.  I can’t trust the Left to protect me.  When some member of the Muslims Student Association tries to run me over or stick a knife in my ribs these same people will tell me not to be Islamophobic and if Israel wasn’t oppressing the Palestinians, maybe I wouldn’t be bleeding out.

Bullshit.  My father raised me to fight antisemitism with the two best tools we had, education and a 1911.  If the first fails, the second wont.

I’m just can’t take advice from a victim of Islamic terrorism who’s response is to disarm the Jews.  That is the attitude of a Capo.  I’m going to stand with the NRA, knowing that if the Left won’t try and stop Islamic and Leftist Antisemites from trying to hurt or kill me, I’m going to have to do it myself.

Burn the Witch, Pt. 2

There is an old adagenever get high on your own supply.

Eric Idle has broken that rule.

What is funny about the “burn the witch” scene from Monty Python’s Holy Grail and the stoning scene from Life of Brian is how over the top ridiculous it is.  Some poor sod was going to get burned alive or stoned to death because of an angry mob of idiots or hysterical housewives.

Yes, that is British funnyman Eric Idle advocating genocide based on political ideology.

He is secure enough in his belief that he is right and everybody that disagrees with him is so wrong they should pay for it with their lives.  This is both sad and horrifying, but this is what the far Left has become.  Heretics are to be killed.

There is no room for discussion on this.  The idea that anybody who isn’t a true believer in anthropocentric climate change must die is the Green equivalent to ISIS.

I never though that what would get me send to the gas chambers was thinking is it not the best use of $2.2 billion taxpayer dollars to fund unsustainable, unfeasible, and ultimately failed green energy projects owned and managed by major political donors.

But really that is irrelevant.  The reason a totalitarian wants to exterminate you is capricious.  They want to exterminate you and will find whatever justification makes it, in their minds, OK to do so.

Advocating mass murder for political disagreements is not funny.  I’m getting really tired of the Left making genocide their go to final solution for winning political arguments.

Image probelm

CNN tweeted one of the dumbest headlines of the year, so far.

They were mocked on Twitter because, of course, statues don’t move in the snow.

I couldn’t care less about that.

I’m concerned about the wording of “stands her ground against the Wall Street bull.”

She is standing up against the bull?  The Wall Street Charging Bull being “the symbol of aggressive financial optimism and prosperity,” as a reference to a Bull Market.

So this girl is standing defiant against a strong, positive financial outlook.  Do I have that right?

The statue was put up by State Street Global Advisors to promote more women in Wall Street and on corporate boards.  You’d think that a multi-trillion dollar investment firm would be in favor of a bull market.


Feminist virtue signaling is ad odds with good economics.  Just ask the New York Daily News: “You go, Fearless Girl staring down the big, bad bull.”

The big, bad bull?  What?  The big, bad good market in which people are making money and have a positive outlook on the economy?


Of course, other feminists have gotten in on the action putting pussy hats and Moms Demand Action hats on the statue and taking pictures.

Not a single one asking why the Fearless Girl is opposed to the Bull.

The lesson that I learned here is that it seems like Liberal Feminists don’t know the difference between a bull market and a bear market, they don’t really care how the economy performs, they just want to make big show of girl power strength, regardless of the consequences; and if that is the case, that’s the perfect reason to keep feminists off of Wall Street and out of the board rooms.  The last thing this country needs is a bunch of Social Justice Activists standing on top of the burning wreckage of the American economy, cheering “pussy power.”

More MDA SYG inconsistency

Moms Demand Action posted two articles about Stand Your Ground in Florida.  In typical unable-to-get-anything-about-guns-right MDA fashion, the two articles were in near direct contradiction to each other, and one of the articles is in contradiction to established MDA dogma.

First up, we have MDA commenting on this article from the New York Times.

Oh, shit!  What is Florida going to do now?

Republican legislators in Florida are planning to compound the deadly mischief of the state’s Stand Your Ground law by allowing accused killers even greater leeway to claim self-defense and immunity from prosecution in violent confrontations.

Dear God, no!  How much more leeway are “accused killers” going to get?

Under current law, homicide defendants must prove at a pretrial hearing that they “reasonably believed” they were threatened with grave bodily harm, and therefore are entitled to make a claim of self-defense at trial. But a bill moving through the Republican-controlled Legislature would turn the hearing process on its head, by shifting the burden to prosecutors to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that a defendant’s claim to self-defense was not valid. 

Oh.  So Florida is going to apply the legal standard that is at the core of American jurisprudence, placing the burden of proof in a criminal trial on the prosecution.  That doesn’t actually sound so bad.

Of course, MDA isn’t going to stand for this.  They don’t care about civil liberties or the rights of the accused  when it comes to gun laws.

A few clicks of the scroll wheel down the page and MDA posted about this article from CNN on a movie theater shooting in Tampa.

Seems that a judge tossed the defendants defense of Stand Your Ground.  I find this odd as MDA has told me countless times that a claim of SYG cannot be questioned and is a get-out-of-jail-free card.

“Because the defendant’s testimony was significantly at odds with the physical evidence and other witness testimony, this court has considerable doubts about his credibility, and is not willing to come to the conclusion that these circumstances are those envisioned by the Legislature when the ‘stand your ground’ law was enacted,” Barthle ruled.

Turns out that the shooter LIED about the incident.  Wittiness and evidence contradict his statement to the police.  As it turns out, the shooter was in a lot less danger than he claimed to be in at the time off the shooting.

Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, according to a criminal complaint, and Reeves then took out his handgun and fired at Oulson, killing him.

As cholesterol laden as movie theater popcorn soaked in artificial-butter-flavored-grease may be, it is not cause for an immediate threat of death or grave bodily harm.


The proposed Florida law, if it passes, would not change the facts of the case.  It would only mean that the jury has to decide on the SYG claim rather than the judge toss it at pre-trial.  This is EXACTLY the type of evidence that would be presented to a jury during a criminal trial.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury.  I love the movie The Untouchables.  One of my favorite quotes from that movie is “They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.”  Somehow it is less memorable as “They pull a bag of Orville Redenbacher, you pull a gun. He sends stains one of your shirts, you send him to the morgue.”  Because that is what happened in this case.  I think even Al Capone would let this one slide with just a warning.

Here’s the kicker too.  Reeves, the shooter, was a RETIRED TAMPA POLICE CAPTAIN.  Yep.  Those cops who are the only people professional enough for MDA to be allowed to carry a gun in public.  One of them had a bad shoot and lied about it.

A cop lying at trial?  This is my shocked face.

Between these two posts what I learned is that a CCWer who was a member of the elite, endowed by government authority with the superior nature to carry a gun in public, shot someone in an argument unjustifiably.  He claimed SYG, and the prosecutor reviewed the evidence and decided there was enough to show that he was lying and SYG was not a reasonable defense and had the judge toss SYG.  But if Florida makes it a requirement for prosecutors to do just that to a jury, Florida will become a murder free for all?

It’s like these people don’t even read the things they post.  They sure as hell don’t understand what they are talking about.

I was scrolling through the comments on these posts and found this.


My God.  Yes, an armed society is a polite society.  Apparently the spokesperson at Messaging Matters is a psycho who would get into crazy road rage incidents and shopping mall parking lot fights if it weren’t for the fear of getting shot.  Only someone completely unhinged (and I checked, this person is not a troll) would bemoan not being able to pick fights in public because of CCW.  CCW works.  This nut job proves it.

Leave it to these people to be so wrong that they actually prove us to be right.