I cam across this video on my Youtube recommendations.

It is very difficult for me to say a good think about a dedicated Leftist.  I find their morals to be detestable.  I have a true dislike for the dyed-in-the-wool Bernie Sanders supporter because I loathe what they stand for.  It is greed and avarice.  Sure, they will tell you they are for more equality or some bullshit like that.  But what they really want, when you listen to them, is for people who make more money than they do to pay for their tuition, health care, rent, and everything else.  They believe it is the job of the government to redistribute wealth from those who make a lot of it to those who don’t.  The latter group, just happens to include them.  It is greed and avarice, dressed up as altruism.

For the 22% of Sanders supports who have jumped over to Trump, I can say this complimentary thing about them.  They may have detestable principles, but they are principled none the less.  When you ask them why they won’t support Hillary, to the man, they say it is because Hillary is a hypocrite.  She comes out against the 1% in speeches and then takes tens of millions of dollars in speaking fees.  She rails against Wall Street and then takes money from Wall Street and uses her influence to bail out her Wall Street son in law.  She is the queen of the 1%; corrupt, greedy, immoral, etc.

It’s hard for me to praise Trump, but I will say this complimentary about him.  He’s not a hypocrite.  What you see (as bad as it is sometime) is what you get.  He isn’t a billionaire that badmouths making money in some “I feel your pain” populism.

In this regard, Trump and Sanders are similar.  They are honest about what they stand for.  They don’t pander.

So watch how this Daily Show correspondent treats these Sanders turned Trump supporters like heretics.  This isn’t an interview.  This is her trying to convince them that they are wrong and them mocks them for their supposed stupidity.  I can’t agree with a Sanders supporter on 99% of issues, but as soon as one says that Hillary is corrupt, greedy, and should be in jail and not the Oval office, I can come across no-man’s-land to shake hands on that.  This correspondent is just a Democrat-at-all-costs Hillary hack.

I know The Daily Show is on Comedy Central.  But it has billed itself as a News Show for some time.  Not a parody news show but a real news show.

I liked Jon Stewart.  He was legitimately funny.  Yes, he was left of center, but he attacked Democrats as well when they deserved it.  It wasn’t perfectly balanced, but Stewart had the integrity to point out bullshit on both sides of the aisle.

This isn’t funny.  This isn’t speaking truth to power.  This pure, one sided hackary.

The notoriously far left wing propaganda news site conducted a poll where they showed a group of Democrats and Republicans 11 different guns and asked them which ones should be illegal.

Because, of course, our Constitutional rights should be decided by having a bunch of people decide what looks scary.

The poll was pretty much as you’d expect, Democrats were more in favor of banning guns than Republicans and the semi autos were more favored to be banned than the lever guns.

But what caught my eye was this:

When polled on the Remington 700, 42% of people thought it should be legal and 42% of people thought it should be illegal.  Only 26% of Democrats thought it should be legal.

The Remington 700 was introduced in 1962.  It is a push-feed bolt action rifle.  It is, by volume of sale, the most popular bolt action rifle sold, and  is, without a doubt, the most popular hunting rifle in North America if not the world.

The model above is a Remington 700 BDL with a synthetic stock and black oxide finish.  The synthetic stock and black oxide is a popular combination due to lower cost.

I can almost hear the 74% of pearl clutching Democrats who saw that black rifle with the big optic on it and shriek “Oh my god, look at that evil sniper rifle.”

According to Democrats, the list of “evil black guns” isn’t just AR-15’s and Glocks, but includes the most popular hunting rifle sold in America.

They said they weren’t coming for you deer rifles.  They are going to call them “assault sniper rifles” when they make you turn them in.

ST. PETERSBURG — U.S. Rep. David Jolly said he’s always considered his congressional district to be all of Pinellas County. But it’s southern Pinellas — particularly St. Petersburg’s predominantly black, heavily Democratic neighborhoods — that will likely determine the incumbent Republican’s political fate…
Jolly also says he’s open to considering stronger measures on semiautomatic rifles, including an idea to require anyone who purchases one to keep it locked up outside the home in a gun locker. Those who wish to buy those high-powered rifles should also be subject to intense background checks, investigations and lengthy waiting periods, he said.

Source: Davis Jolly makes his Congressional pitch to St. Petersburg’s black, Democratic voters | Tampa Bay Times

Pinellas County is screwed. They get to choose between this RINO traitor or the Democrat contender, former RINO-then-Independent-then-Democrat former governor Charlie Crist.

I think the Florida GOP needs a reminder this November that discarding the Constitution in order to pander to certain political minorities, comes with consequences.

Hat Tip Jeff A.

It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It has no middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and in it are lies and  the pit of man’s fears with nothing even resembling basic knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination and feelings. It is an area which we call the Liberal Zone.

A group of protesters had a sit in at the office of Florida Senator Marco Rubio to protest his “legacy of violence” and was tied to the Pulse Nightclub Shooting.

What was Senator Marco Rubio’s “legacy of violence” on this issue?  Rubio voted against the No Fly, No Buy Bill on Constitutional principles, aka Due Process.  That is violence according to the left, supporting the Constitution.  Pledging allegiance to a radical religious organization that murders gays around the world? What “legacy of violence” are you talking about… there’s nothing to see here.

Rubio’s “legacy of violence” is just another example of the Liberal re-definition of the word violence to mean “disagreeing with a Liberal or Liberal talking point.”  That’s what it was an “act of violence” to write Trump 2016 in chalk on a sidewalk on an college campus.

“The underlying theme seems to be that if words and symbols can be connected to the collective trauma experienced by a historically oppressed or marginalized group of people, they “constitute an act of violence” (an opinion shared by 53 percent of the surveyed college students).”

Of course, supporting the Constitution with a vote in the Senate is not violence.  But this idea has become so pervasive on the Left that both Democrats running against Rubio for Senate, Patrick Murphy and Alan Grayson, have endorsed this sit in.

This is collective insanity.  This is a political ideology that can’t the Radical Islamic forest for the terrorist trees, and thinks that defending the Constitutionally protected civil liberties of American Citizens is WORSE than shooting 100 gay people in a nightclub.

This we cannot abide.  The people of Florida, if you value your liberties, vote for Marco Rubio.  I think that just endorsing him over two liberals is in itself an act of violence.

We need out of this political Twilight Zone.

Two court bailiffs were killed Monday afternoon when an inmate wrestled a gun away from an officer and opened fire in a southwestern Michigan courthouse, authorities said. The gunman was shot and killed as other bailiffs rushed to the scene.

Source: Two Bailiffs and Gunman Killed at Berrien County, Mich., Courthouse – NBC News

That was the story when it first came out. Almost immediately, dear old Shannon Watts went in the offensive:

Of course, she ended up sticking her Christian Louboutin-clad foot in her mouth when more information came about later:

Two court bailiffs were killed Monday afternoon when an inmate wrestled a gun away from an officer and opened fire in a southwestern Michigan courthouse, authorities said. The gunman was shot and killed as other bailiffs rushed to the scene.

Berrien County Sheriff Paul Bailey said the confrontation took place about 2:25 p.m. ET at the county courthouse in St. Joseph, along the shore of Lake Michigan.

The inmate was being moved from a holding cell by a bailiff and a sheriff’s deputy, Bailey said early Monday evening. A fight broke out, and the inmate was able to disarm one of the officers.

I know their little black book of strategy is to strike while the news item is still out and then mold a Narrative to their advantage hoping people will not wise up. And up to a certain point she is right, specially among her faithful. But when you start to accumulate a proven record of false notifications and commentaries, some of that people will wise up while others not aligned will qualify you as inveterate liar and avoid your cause.

And that is why we win,

I bumped into this exchange related to the fatal shooting of two bailiffs in Michigan last night:

He did not reply to my question but went the way these idiots go when caught having sex with their own minds:

If you happen to drop by Twitter sometime today, go ahead, find him and give him the link for this post and ask him why was he making fun about the deaths of two Michigan bailiffs. Also tell him he is invited to drop by the blog and leave his explanation in the comment section.

Gerard N. Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen Professor of Law  at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.  He is a professor of torts, constitutional law, intellectual property, legal history, and admiralty law.  

I guess he must have taken some transfer credits from the Barack H. Obama school of Unconstitutional Law when attending Yale Law School, because as a professor of Constitutional law, Gerard Magliocca published this legal turd of an Op Ed.

Wouldn’t a better approach be for amenable states or municipalities to spend money on public education campaigns to discourage people from owning guns, much in the way that they do to discourage smoking? This would do nothing, of course, with respect to deranged people who want to kill many.  But there are many more easily preventable gun deaths from suicides, accidents, or domestic violence.  If lawful gun possession went down by, say 10%, many lives would probably be saved.

…

Would the First Amendment be violated by government speech that discourages the exercise of a fundamental right?  I think that the answer is no so long as that speech is general.  In other words, forcing gun store owners or abortion providers or liquor stores to lecture customers about the evils of those goods would be deeply problematic.  But if the speech is not done at the point of sale and comes through media (TV, radio, etc.) then I see no First Amendment violation in what amounts to government propaganda.

I may not be a legal scholar but allow me to answer his rhetorical question.

Yes, asshole, using the government and government funds to discourage people from exercising a Constitutional right is very fucking problematic.  The use of propaganda too discourage a civil liberty is abhorrent.  You might as well argue for the government to mandate that on the news and in every police procedural TV show, the suspect allow the police to search without a warrant and the defendant give up his right to counsel and just confess to whatever crime his is charged with.  Wouldn’t that make the government’s job easier too?

I’m going to paraphrase his first paragraph to address his last.

“Wouldn’t a better approach be for amenable states or municipalities to spend money on public education campaigns to discourage people from worshiping or speaking freely, much in the way that they do to discourage smoking? This would do nothing, of course, with respect to deranged people who want to go to church on Sundays, put up nativity scenes, fly Confederate flags, or even post on racist message boards.  But there are many more easily preventable deaths from gang and extremist violence.  If the freedom of speech and association went down by, say 10%, many lives would probably be saved.”

Sure, Magliocca’s proposal might convince millions of normal, law abiding Christians to abandon their religion, but hey, it will do nothing to stop the next Dylann Roof from getting any bad ideas.  So that’s something I guess.  (Because we all know that Islam is a religion of peace and no true Muslim has ever committed an act of religiously motivated violence)

See, I believe in the principle that I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Gerard Magliocca seems to believe that if he does not agree with what you say, he has the right to have the government coerce convince you to say something else.  And somehow that is Constitutional.  Apparently the Magliocca standard is a passive aggressive assault on your civil rights is OK.

If this is the future of Constitutional Law professors in America, we are doomed.