About a year ago I covered Senator Cory Booker questioning Secretary of State nominee, Mike Pompeo about butt sex.

That Mr. Pompeo is a Christian and has a distaste for buggery was, according to Senator Booker, disqualifying for office.

Here’s the video.

Senator Spartacus McGrandstand went down the same line of questioning with Neomi Rao, the nominee for the DC Circuit Court seat vacated by the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Here’s the video.

I have no idea what Rao’s religion is.  Her biography says she is of Parsi-Indian heritage, which would suggest she is a Zoroastrian.  Her husband is Alan Lefkowitz, which is about the most Jewish name I’ve ever heard.

Regardless, under Article Six of the Constitution of the United States, he has no right to ask her about her religious opinions, and asking her if she thinks that homosexuality is a “sin” is a religious question.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. 

Then he has the audacity to ask her if she has ever has an LGBTQ person working for her.  Clearly the implication being that if she hasn’t her personal feelings reflect themselves as bigotry.

For most people, an employee or subordinate’s sexual orientation is neither here nor there, nor should it be a topic of discussion.  Except for the Junior Senator from New Jersey, who seems to believe being a Lucky Pierre is in fact a job qualification.

This is going to be Booker’s grandstanding ad nauseam for the rest of his time in the Senate.  Just as Mazie Hirono, who coincidentally he sat next to, has her standard question for all men about if they have ever sexually harassed or assaulted someone, he is going to have his standard question for any conservative if they think that gay sex is wrong.

This is just another example of the Democrats radical shift Leftward and attack on religion.

Booker is running for President.  Maybe he is too far inside his own bubble, but I don’t think accusing religious people of being anti-Gay bigots for not thinking gay sex is something wonderful and to be celebrated is going to be as popular an opinion as it is in New Jersey.

I’m not here to give him advice, because I don’t want to see him be President.

I just think “Gay sex isn’t yucky” is a strange hill to die on.

Also, I think that the 49 year old unmarried Senator’s secret girlfriend is a beard.

During his State of the Union, President Donald Trump was trying to make the point how dangerous our refugee policy is for the people coming here.

He sated that “One in three women is sexually assaulted on the long journey north.”

That is a horrifying statistic.  Having a policy that is not a people magnet, would discourage waves a migrants to head north, and there by expose fewer women to the predators who take advantage of them.

This is a mostly legitimate argument.

Trump Derangement Syndrome has some crazy effects.

Effects like getting major American media outlets to downplay sexual assault to own Trump.

Fact check: Trump says “1 in 3 women is sexually assaulted on the long journey north.” But there’s less to that number than meets the eye. https://t.co/Rpz00zdH4L

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) February 6, 2019

This is WaPo’s live fact check of Trump’s statement.

The White House attributes the 1-in-3 estimate to a 2017 report by Doctors Without Borders. But there’s less to that number than meets the eye.

Trump states as a fact that 1 out of 3 women traveling through Mexico is sexually assaulted. But the report did not conduct a random-sample survey that could be applied to all migrant women. Instead, the group interviewed nearly 500 people whom its doctors treated, of which 12 percent were women. So the statistic is derived from the experiences of 56 women and cannot necessarily be considered representative of all migrant women.

In the interviews, 31.4 percent of women said they were “sexually abused” on the journey, not “sexually assaulted” as Trump says. Considering only rape and other forms of direct sexual violence, 10.7 percent of the women who were interviewed said they were affected during their journey.

“Your sampling is not proper statistical gathering” and “sexual abuse is not sexual assault” are both very shitty arguments to make.

It comes across as “we don’t need a wall because the raping of migrant women by coyotes isn’t as bad as Trump says it is.”

Considering that WaPo would be among the first to claim and a misplaced hand during an awkward hug by Trump would qualify as sexual assault by the President, this is one hell of a take.

When you hate Trump so much that you are wiling to engage in hand-waving dismissal of the sexual exploitation of thousands of women just to counter one of his points, you probably need to do some deep soul searching.

That is 138,500 Venezuelan Bolivares. I got them in eBay for $2.40 from a numismatic company so you know they are making a profit.  The bills are worthless for commercial use and I framed them as a reminder of what Socialism did to my country of origin.

And I am going to give you a bit of trivia about these bills: The paper, ink and work used to print them was more expensive than the face value of the bills at the time of issuance, just 2 years ago.

And to think that there are people in this country, even Venezuelans that left because of the conditions, who voted for Socialists like Bernie Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez, leaves me speechless.

The state goverment of Oregon, under one party rule, is going whole hog on gun control.

I have discussed Senate Bill 501 before.  I have now seen the text of the bill.

It’s worse than I thought.

SECTION 2. (1) Except as provided in subsection (9) of this section, a person may not purchase or otherwise receive a firearm unless the person has first secured a permit to receive a firearm under this section. 
(2)(a) A person may apply for a permit to receive a firearm from the sheriff of the county in which the person resides.
(b) The sheriff may charge a reasonable fee for processing applications for permits under this section.
(3) Within 30 days of receiving an application for a permit under this section, the sheriff shall issue a permit to receive a firearm if the applicant:
(a) Is at least 21 years of age;
(b) Has no prior criminal convictions;
(c) Has not been found in contempt of court for violating a restraining order, stalking order or other court protective order;
(d) Is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance; and
(e) Provides proof of completion of a firearm safety course.

So:

Permits to own must be issued by the Sheriff.  This is a breeding ground for corruption, see the NYPD de Blasio special for details.

The Sheriff may change a “reasonable fee” but that is not defined by the bill.  From the people who keep calling banning all semi-autos “reasonable gun restrictions” I can imagine a sheriff saying that a $500 fee is “reasonable.”

Once again, I fully support gun training.  I believe that mandatory training is tantamount to a literacy test.  It allows the antis to set training standards that are so difficult to meet that many people can’t clear the hurdle.  That is exactly the Illinois did with their CCW.  Training is 16 hours and costs more than $500.  Many working class people can’t give up two full days and $500 to do the training.

I’d like to give credit to CMBTTek for his comment:

“On one hand, the gun grabbers talk about how mandatory training is necessary, and that only the well trained should be able to own guns, etc…

Then they introduce a law that will prevent people from training.”

Elsewhere in this bill, there is the proposal to limit ammo purchases to 20 rounds per month.  If the state mandates live fire training, a gun owner may be required to buy 20 rounds per month for 5 months just to get the minimum number of rounds needed for the course.

That’s not all.

(6) Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, a sheriff may deny a permit to receive a firearm if the sheriff has reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has been or is reasonably likely to be a danger to self or others, or to the community at large, as a result of the applicant’s mental or psychological state or as demonstrated by the applicant’s past pattern of behavior involving unlawful violence or threats of unlawful violence.
(7) If a sheriff denies an application for a permit, the sheriff shall provide in writing the reasons for the denial. The denial shall be sent to the applicant by certified mail within 30 days after the application was made.

What is reasonable?  Facebook posts, Tweets, old yearbook quotes?  Those are all fair game now as matters of politics go.  New York is trying to make providing your Facebook history mandatory for a gun permit.

Now if you don’t like being denied a gun permit because you have a picture of you in a MAGA hat, which is the modern day clan hood and literally violence against black people, you can appeal.

SECTION 3. (1) A person denied a permit to receive a firearm under section 2 of this 2019 Act may petition the circuit court in the petitioner’s county of residence to review the denial. The petition must be filed within 30 days after the receipt of the notice of denial.
(2) The judgment affirming or overturning the sheriff’s decision must be based on whether the petitioner meets the criteria that are used for issuance of a permit to receive a firearm and whether the sheriff had reasonable grounds for denial under section 2 (6) of this 2019 Act.

Reasonable was never defined.  The Democrat judge can agree with the Democrat sheriff that your MAGA hat is enough of a justification to deny your permit.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 9.320, a party that is not a natural person, the state or any city, county, district or other political subdivision or public corporation in this state, without appearance by attorney, may appear as a party to an action under this section.

So anti-gun groups can show up to your hearing as a party.  I can’t wait for anti-gun volunteers to start trolling the court rooms looking for appeals for denial they can use for activism.

(4) Petitions filed under this section shall be heard and disposed of within 15 judicial days of filing or as soon as practicable thereafter. 

So 15 days or… whenever the Judge decides his docket is free.  There are a lot of illegals needing refugee status ahead of you.

(5) Filing fees for actions shall be as for any civil action filed in the court. If the petitioner prevails, the amount of the filing fee shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner and may be incorporated into the court order.

So the court has a financial incentive not to overturn the sheriff on appeal so the sheriff doesn’t have to pay the filing fee.  Brilliant.

The word of the day today is Chicanery. Merriam-Webster defines Chicanery as:

One) deception by artful subterfuge or sophistry
Two) a piece of sharp practice (as at law)

Appropriately, both examples used are political.

One) He wasn’t above using chicanery to win votes.
Two) resorted to political chicaneries

If you think I am being cynical with this bill, understand that the modern Democrat party has taken the worst of political satire and used it as a How To manual.

AOC and the SJW’s read Harrison Bergeron and think that Handicapper General  Diana Moon Glampers was the hero.  Clearly the Pigs of Animal Farm are the model of behavior for the party elite, who damn the rest of us to environmental austerity and budget breaking electricity bills while they jet set to Davos for a climate change summit.

I can only assume that their intended vision here is to emulate Franz Kafka’s The Trial, where in a rational person is condemned as guilty by a cornucopia of legalistic and  bureaucratic abuse.

Want proof?

SECTION 5. (1)(a) A person who owns or possesses a firearm shall report the loss or theft of the firearm to a law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the location in which the loss or theft occurred within 24 hours of the time the person knew or should have known of the loss or theft.

By what standard should a person have known about a theft?

If you don’t report the the theft of a gun within 24 hours of when a prosecutor thinks you should have known it was stolen, you get to go to jail.

SECTION 7. (1) Notwithstanding the fact that ORS 166.412, 166.435 and 166.438 require a gun dealer or other person transferring a firearm to request a criminal background check only when transferring a firearm, a gun dealer or other person transferring ammunition shall comply with the requirements of ORS 166.412, 166.435 and 166.438 before transferring
any ammunition to another person.
(2) A person may not receive more than 20 rounds of ammunition in any 30-day time period.
(3)(a) Any person transferring ammunition shall maintain a record of all ammunition transferred by the person to ensure that a person does not receive more than 20 rounds of ammunition in any 30-day time period.
(b) The Department of State Police is not required to maintain a record of ammunition transfers under this section to ensure compliance with subsection (2) of this section.
(4) This section does not apply to ammunition purchased and used at a target shooting range.

So background checks and reported sales records for ammo.  That is going to go a long way in discouraging ammo purchases.  The 20 limit per month means no more Black Friday Sales at Cabela’s.  This is going to not just hurt shooters but hurt every gun store that doesn’t have an attached range.

So far, part four doesn’t address what happens if I go to the range, buy 500 rounds, shoot 5 and leave with the other 495 rounds.  Is that allowed?  How fast will the Democrats realize this loophole and close it down?

If I have read this bill right, the permit to purchase isn’t like a FOID or FID, where it is good for years.

A permit issued under this section is valid for a period of 90 days from the date of issue. 
(5) A person may apply, during any 30-day period, for:
(a) One permit to receive a handgun; and
(b) One permit to receive a rifle or shotgun

So you can get a permit for one handgun and one long gun every 30 days and the permit is only good for 90 days.

When you done with that, the dealer still has to run a background check on you, where they get another bite at the denial apple.  Then there is this little gem:

The gun dealer shall obtain the thumbprints of the purchaser on the firearms transaction thumbprint form and attach the form to the gun dealer’s copy of the firearms transaction record.

So the police get a copy of my thumbprint with each gun I buy.  I can’t see that being a total deterrent to buying a gun.

I’m not even including the parts about assault weapons or high capacity magazine bans.  That’s boilerplate at this point.  I’m just focusing on the part of the law that are rife for abuse where law abiding people can be systematically denied their rights or even turned into criminals for trying to comply with the law.

Then there is SB 0275 which goes even further to attach liability for gun crime to the victims of gun theft.

A person who owns, possesses or controls a firearm shall report the
loss or theft of the firearm to a law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the loss or theft occurred within 24 hours of the time the person knew or should have known of the loss or theft.

Again, what is “should have known?”

(b) If a means of reporting a loss or theft of a firearm within 24 hours is not reasonably available, the person who owned, possessed or controlled the firearm that was lost or stolen must report the loss or theft within four hours of the means of reporting becoming available.

Four hours?  So if you lose your gun in a tragic boating accident, when you swim back to shore and your cellphone is waterlogged, what do you do?  When does the clock start on that four hours?

Each firearm for which a person does not make the report within the time required by subsection (1) of this section constitutes a separate violation.

God forbid you don’t remember every gun by serial number that disappeared, you can report the ones you thought were stolen, but if you miss one or discover a few more are missing later, congrats, you are guilty.

It’s clear that this law is intended to go hand in hand with an AWB to make sure that your AR-15 didn’t get lost in the woods on a camping trip or drown in a tragic boating accident.

These two terrible laws aside, there is one good one worth noting.

House Bill 2291 – Establishes tax credit against personal income taxes for purchase of qualifying gun safes or locking mechanisms.

“Qualifying gun safe” means a gun safe, or handgun vault, that is commercially available and that is made from steel and secured with a digital or dial combination locking mechanism.
(B) “Qualifying gun safe” does not include a glass-faced cabinet.
(2) A credit against taxes otherwise imposed under ORS chapter 316 shall be allowed for the purchase of one or more qualifying gun safes or locking mechanisms during the tax year.
(3) The amount of the credit allowed under this section shall equal the least of:
(a) The total purchase price of all qualifying gun safes and locking mechanisms purchased by the taxpayer in the tax year;
(b) If reported on a joint return, $100; or
(c) $50 on all other types of return.

My only complaint is that this not nearly enough money.

I have mentioned it before.  I am a big fan of gun safes.  Everyone should have one.

Usually I am a fiscal conservative, but since I can’t get rid of subsidies, I might as well put one to good use.  I’m all for giving tax deductions for the full value of an Underwrites Laboratory certified Residential Security Container – commonly known as a gun safe (for purposes of insurance, safes are very different things).

If I can do more to encourage the purchase of gun safes, I will.

The better news is that most UL RSC’s are made in the USA.  That little made in China Sentry safe-looking-thing for $150 in Lowe’s or Wal-Mart is not an RSC.  It’s a POS.

If I can support both American manufacturing and reduce the incidents of gun’s falling into the wrong hands, while being much more effective than a cable lock, that to me is a much better use of tax payer money than making it easier for drug addicts in New York to get high in parks.

Unfortunately, this bill makes too much sense.  It lowers taxes and increases safety, which means the Democrats will shoot it down.

Brace yourselves law abiding Oregonians, trouble is coming.

CBS NEWS POLL: 76 percent of viewers approved of what they heard in Pres. Trump’s #SOTU speech; 72 percent said they approved of Pres. Trump’s ideas for immigration. pic.twitter.com/VXJ09v6DKv

— CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) February 6, 2019

76% approved the speech and 72% approved what the President said about immigration.

Those are some very powerful numbers., specially when mixed with the reactions we saw on TV  of the Socialist cadre in Congress. Ocasio-Cortes ends up like a shallow brat that was there because the parents forced her to go to the Miller’s 50th anniversary party but she rather be checking out foodie trucks downtown and sharing in Instagram.

I made a comment in Facebook that now the Democrats will demand impeachment against the President for larceny since the SOB spent an hour stealing their thunder and not giving a damn. You are gonna look like an idiot opposing his immigration plans when he drives home the difference between Legal Immigrants like ICE Special Agent Elvin Hernandez who has gone after Human traffickers and rescuing women from forced prostitution to the illegal immigrant scum that shot a person in a subway platform of the sanctuary city of New York.  Let’s say Senator Schumer was not happy with that and the rest of the speech, specially the President ripped a new asshole to the new NY law on Late Abortions. 

I think that the central message (to both parties) of Trump’s SOTU was simply this: “Look what we have accomplished for the American People in only two years. How come you guys did not do it before?”

And the rest of us are going “Yeah, how come?”

PS: Nice not to hear an hour and some minutes of somebody saying “I-me-mine” every two breathing cycles.

It has been so long since I played with a camera with manual settings, I have forgotten all about shutter speed. A good picture ruined because I set a too slow speed (1/100) in a bright day with a moving subject.

At least the trees remained still.

Totally accidental, but I kinda like the washed out background.

At least I am not wasting money on developing and printing.

The Nuremberg Defense is a plea for defense in which a person abdicates culpability for some atrocity by saying they were just following orders.  It stems from a code of German military conduct Befehl ist Befehl – an order is an order.

Central to the Nuremberg trials was the principle that following orders in not an excuse for committing crimes against humanity.  Each person has the duty to exercise moral judgement over the orders that they are given.  In the modern Western militarizes, military law explicitly states that soldiers must not obey clearly illegal orders, i.e., if a commanding officer orders a female prisoner to be raped as a form of torture, the subordinate is legally bound not to obey.

I have maintained that the Nuremberg Defense is such an act or moral cowardice, that it is tantamount to a guilty plea.  The defended knew what he did was wrong, but did it anyway believing the excuse of “just following orders” would spare him from consequences.

I give this bot of history as prelude to this.

.@HardballChris asked @AOC about Trump tying the "notion of socialism" to the Maduro regime.

"He feels like he feels himself losing on the issues. Every single policy proposal that we've adopted and presented to the American public has been overwhelmingly popular." @AOC pic.twitter.com/b8zdRuJZ6A

— The ReidOut (@thereidout) February 6, 2019

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t see herself and her party’s more radical voices as equivalent to Maduro because she was elected and her opinions are popular.

“We were democratically elected” is the new Nuremberg Defense.

It doesn’t matter how popular poll numbers are or by what landslide a politician wins an election, the implementation of evil is still evil.

Hugo Chavez was democratically elected by promising the poorer people of the urban areas of Venezuela free stuff from the goverment off the largess of wealthy and the oil driven economy.

We see where that has taken Venezuela.

Maduro was elected.  His election was a sham, but consider how much chicanery we saw in Broward and Palm Beach Counties, Arizona, and Georgia.  Where the Democrats lost was not for lack of trying.  There was just enough Republican oversight to keep the worst of the fraud at bay, and just barely.

When you lose the opposition oversight, you get a place like Chicago.  A city where there were more affidavits filed to rescind their ballot signatures than there were signatures to get the Republican candidate on the ballot, and the state Attorney General has announced that she won’t investigate the obvious fraud.

Let these Democrats get enough of a foothold in a place and they will never allow themselves to be voted out of office ever again.

I know it’s cliche, but Hitler was elected, so was Robert Mugabe.

The tactic of making the poor resent the rich and then promising the poor free stuff taken from the hands of the rich is an almost guaranteed path to election success.  It’s also a guaranteed path to economic ruin too.

“We were elected because our idea are popular” is not a defense against taking people’s rights away and destroying the economy.

Out Founding Fathers knew that which is why they created the Bill of Rights.  To make sure the rights of the people were not easily trampled on by popular opinion.

When your policies have bankrupted a nation, caused millions to starve, millions more to fall into destitution, the rights of the people to be eroded, all while making you and your buddies wealthy through graft and corruption, “but we were democratically elected” is not a defense.