Once in, you pretty much are immune to all those worldly triggers imposed by the Homophobic White Privilege Misogynists… and  pretty much you don’t care either since you have other pressing problems.

Hey, Cmod? Will this do? 🙂

And that is why you should grab the First Amendment and offend as many delicate snowflakes as you can. If anything, seeing their neck veins pulsating their way into a massive stroke makes for entertainment.

[fbvideo link=”https://www.facebook.com/shinigamabcitu/videos/670079933141100/” width=”700″ height=”600″ onlyvideo=”1″]

Imagine if you were to give them a P38. We are talking slow death by starvation.

Future archaeologists will find skeletons surrounding unopened cans of food and wonder what the hell happened.

I was tempted to post the last stanza of this as a comment to Miguel’s Under Armour post, but decided it would be better served as a post of its own.

For historical context, Danegeld, which means Danish Tax or Danish Gold, was a “tribute” that was paid by locals to Viking (Dane) raiders to keep the Vikings away.  It was protection money.

Vikings fought every viciously, which was part of their reputation.  Rape and slaughter one town, let the few survivors spread the word of just how terrible the Vikings were.  When the Vikings showed up at a nearby town a little while later, they would demand tribute or they would repeat the rape a slaughter.  Most villages would pay tribute and the Vikings would go away.  The Vikings operated a very effective protection racket across Scandinavia, The British Isles, Ireland, and the coastal countries of Northern Europe for several hundred years with this tactic.

Rudyard Kipling, who is by far my favorite classical English poet, wrote a poem about the Danegeld, as a warning.  I have committed it to memory, it is not long.

As a warning it is every bit as appropriate today as it has ever been.

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
  To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
  Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
  And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
  And then  you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
  To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
  We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
  But we've  proved it again and  again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
  You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
  For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
  You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
  No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
  And the nation that pays it is lost!"

In the new age of social media it’s not uncommon for events to go from obscurity to the public spotlight within hours. Such is the case of hunting enthusiasts Josh and Sarah Bowmar. Several days ago the couple posted a video to YouTube of Josh legally spearing a Canadian black bear  which caused the anti-hunting public at large to rear its ugly head to lash out at them.

Under Armour Fails To Support Sponsored Hunter – Bowhunting.com

When I started shooting IDPA almost 15 years ago, The fashion for Tactical Tommys everywhere was 5.11 (mostly vests, tactical pants a close second) and Under Armour shirts.  As seen with other companies, Shooting Sports, military and Police helped create a buzz on a product which expanded sales to other sports and occupations. Under Armour had pretty much forgotten Action Shooters, but quietly still remained marketing to the Hunting community.

Enter Josh and Sara Bowmar, sponsored hunters for Under Armour who dared to take legally a bear with spear in Canada. Some Hunting Hating Social Media group got a wind of it, started a petition and a measly 4,300 signatures later, Under Armour caved and dropped them from their hunting sponsorship.

Now here is the issue: Under Armour still has other sponsored hunters in file and the Save Bambi Brigade found out. Oops! They still hate Under Armour because of hunters!

They tossed a couple of hunters to the Green Wolves in order to calm the pack, but the Save Bambi Brigade was not satisfied and sensing weakness, came back for seconds, thirds and dessert.

But know, they also managed to piss off the Hunting community who is criticizing and dumping their products.

Listen , I understand a company wants to make money, but you can pretty much bet the Bambi Brigade does not spend any on Under Armour because their clothing is a) it is expensive and b) It is not made with recycled, non-GMO, gluten-free hemp. Hunters and other members of the shooting community do spend a pretty penny and are faithful to the brand. I am even willing to bet that they are the ones that spend the most money on an individual basis, so it is not a good marketing practice to alienate your oldest clients because some tofu-eating jackasses who do not contribute to your bottom line, raised a small stink online and you are afraid to appear insensitive.

Taking the middle of the road is the best way to get hit by traffic from both sides.

PS: I never liked Under Armour shirts. They reminded me of the hated Banlon shirt I was forced to wear when I was a kid. 😀

If you are married/cohabiting/etc to a petite woman (or one shorter than you), you had this conversation:

Her: “Honey, can you help me out?”
You: “Yes dear, what do you need?”
Her: “Can you get the Kitchenaid Mixer from that shelf?” She points up about 8 feet above your head.

You look up and see that 25 pound chunk of USA industrial steel on the top shelf with barely 2 inches of clearing from the ceiling and ask yourself (again) the age-old question:

“Who the f*** put that s**t up there? I know I didn’t.

You know better than ask her. In fact, newly weds and those of you about to get married , whenever you face this situation for the first time, don’t even bother to ask your sweeties as they will just giggle and probably says “I don’t know’ or some other deflecting answer. Old heads have tried through the ages and not even the Spanish Inquisition was able to make them confess.

So the next thing you do is, of course, stretch yourself as much as you can to see if you can get a grasp on the damned thing…and you fail. More than anything is to prove that you were not the one that put it there and then forgot. The next thing is to go get the only stepladder in your home which if you remember correctly is still on the side of the house where you left it 8 months ago when you were repairing the flashing, cut yourself and fell on your ass. And yes, the stepladder is still there but it is now half covered and trapped by the honeysuckle you planted at your wife’s behest last year.

So after getting the garden shears and liberating the ladder, you traipse inside the house, set the ladder and finally bring down the massive kitchen device while at the same time pinching a nerve in your spine. With a considerable amount of pain and self-control, you place the mixer in the counter, toss the ladder outside,  get two ounces of scotch with a Percocet chaser and pass out on the couch. When you wake up 12 hours later, it is night and your loved one is already in bed. You stumble onto the kitchen where she has left you supper ready, but your confused mind rings an alarm bell you can’t seem to identify: something is wrong, but can’t tell what it might be.

Halfway through your cold platter, you finally figure it out: The mixer is no longer on the counter. Once again, you look up and the damned demonic device is back again eight feet from the floor. Just to confirm your suspicions, you turn on the back porch light and see that the step-ladder is in the same place you dropped it. Damn it! She did it again!

Here is the conundrum: How come they can place items so high up, but cannot retrieve them? I have a theory that might seem far-fetched but it is the only explanation I can find: They are able to manipulate gravity as their weight increases when they pick up an object.

The explanation I propose is that a woman is able to nullify gravity and levitate on command the moment they pick up any object 10 pounds and over. Once the object in securely in their hands, they can reverse the gravitational pull and lift themselves gradually off the ground. Once the object is placed where they want, the gravitational pull returns gradually and they descend till they are safely back on terra firma. That is the only way I can fathom they can put shit way up there, but need us to bring them down.

My theory would also explain why women can carry such heavy purses and bags without seemingly an effort. I swear my wife’s handbag weighs more than my range bag with 2 handguns, 500 rounds of ammo for the pistols, 200 rounds of double ought buckshot plus all the crap we take to the range with us.  And the only reason they sometime ask us to carry a heavy piece of luggage during a trip is that they are afraid to accidentally levitate in public and give away the secret.

Yes, it sounds crazy but, do you have a better explanation for this phenomenon that has been vexing men since the dawn of time?

A professor of law at the University of Miami will be giving a lecture at Drake University Law School on September 15 to discuss the alleged similarities between “constitutional extremists” and religious extremists.

According to the press release on the lecture:

In recent years, the Constitution has become an article of faith in the worst possible sense, t is increasingly invoked to justify irrational and destructive agendas in a way that strongly resembles the way religious extremists use the Bible to advance fundamentalist views. This constitutional extremism occurs on both ends of the political spectrum: in the Right’s obsessive focus on the Second Amendment and the Left’s equally obsessive focus on the First. Though their targets are different, constitutional extremism on both the Right and Left is united in the privileging of the powerful.

I am not a law scholar by any means, but I from my experience and study of the world, I believe this professor is mistaken.

As a layman, when I try to understand religious extremists, the basic philosophy seems to be:

Believe that I tell you to believe.  Pray how I tell you to pray.  Say only what I allow you to say.  Do only what I allow you to do.  Live exactly how I tell you to live.   If you don’t, I will kill you, kill your family, kill everyone that doesn’t fall in line with my beliefs.

Religious extremists seek to control a population.  The use whatever god they believe in, and the rules set down in their holy book to justify their control.

When I think about “Constitutional extremists” the basic philosophy seems to be:

Leave me alone.  Don’t tell me what to believe, what I can or cannot say, how I should live, what I can own, or anything else for that matter.  Don’t treat on me and I won’t tread on you.  If you do start to tread on me, you won’t like it, and then shit will get real.  So for you own protection, fuck off.  

Constitutional extremism pushes the limits of small government, almost to the line of anarchy.  It is defined by an almost complete lack of control.

I assume that this professor is going to try and link religious extremism and constitutional extremism by rhetoric of violence.  But even then they are different.  Religious extremism violence is (to coin a word) actionary.  The religious extremist initiates the violence to get what they want.  Constitutional extremists violence is reactionary.  It is used to repel oppression, which generally manifests itself in the form of violence or the threat of violence.

These two philosophies are diametrically opposed to one another.

Keep in mind, I am not defending or justifying Constitutional extremism in all of its forms.  The Bundy Ranch and BLM (Bureau of Land Management) stand-offs were stupid and dangerous.  It is that this professor seems to have a bone to pick with the NRA, which is often considered to be a Constitutional Extremist group since it puts the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional rights over the feelings of anti-gun activists.  I am concerned that her interpretation of Constitutional Extremism means any time someone says “my rights are more important than your feelings.”  Which is not extremism.  It is a foundational principle of our Nation.  Then again, some on the Left go so far as to identify our Founding Fathers as extremist.

I guess what I am doing is defending a philosophy, not a group.  The idea of parading around with AR-15’s in front of some Park Rangers over cattle is extreme for me.  It’s stupid.  If some Progressive president decides to go full Vichy France and try to appease the Iranian government by putting the boot down on the Jews, well… all bets are off.  Extremism is a matter of degree.  I’m not going to wage war over cattle.  I will wage war over children in cattle cars.

I found it funny, however that this professor associates 1st Amendment extremism with the Left.  Maybe once upon a time, that was true.  Today, is the Progressive Left that tries to crush free speech with hate speech laws or diversity initiatives.  We have seen the loss of free speech on college campuses, which are overwhelmingly left of center.

The Progressive Left has waged war on religion, forcing the religious to comply with their whims against religious doctrine.  The desire of religious people to be left alone to practice their religion in peace is considered bigotry by the left.

This has led to the term Regressive Left.  Liberals who fight against freedom.  If this professor wants to talk about extremist political violence, she needs to focus on this area of politics.  The philosophy of the modern Progressive Liberal is:

Believe that I tell you to believe.  Don’t pray if you practice a “privileged” religion.  Say only what I allow you to say.  Do only what I allow you to do.  Live exactly how I tell you to live.   If you don’t, I will kill you, kill your family, kill everyone that doesn’t fall in line with my beliefs.

The modern left is a religious extremist who worships at the Church of Big Government Our Non-Gendered Person of Tyranny.

But i have a feeling that would cause this professor to take too long and too hard a look in a mirror, so she won’t.