Before You Click On The "Read More" Link,
Please Only Do So If You Are Over 21 Years Old.
If You are Easily Upset, Triggered Or Offended, This Is Not The Place For You.
Please Leave Silently Into The Night......
Thursday, August 15, 2019
The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #714
You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,
from the beautiful to the repugnant,
from the mysterious to the familiar.
If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,
you could be inspired, you could be appalled.
This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.
You have been warned.
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
The Latest in Corporate Gun Control: Grading Banks on Their Gun-Related Business
The forces fighting for total civilian disarmament first utilized the power of government to pressure financial institutions to stop doing business with the gun industry. The Obama administration undertook that effort via Operation Choke Point.
The general outline is the DOJ and bank regulators are putting the screws to banks and other third-party payment processors to refuse banking services to companies and industries that are deemed to pose a “reputation risk” to the bank. Most controversially, the list of dubious industries is populated by enterprises that are entirely, or at least generally, legal.Allegedly sketchy, but still legal businesses like payday lenders, escort services, pornographers and, yes, firearms and ammunition manufacturers and retailers.
As American Banker wrote once the Obama administration was safely in the rear-view mirror . . .
Those involved in Operation Choke Point demonstrated a blatant disregard for the rule of law and due process, as well as the U.S. regulatory system, and the effect of their actions will resonate for years to come. All Americans should demand answers and corrective action, including the immediate removal of all those involved from their current positions — including both (FDIC Chairman Martin) Gruenberg and (FDIC Chicago Regional Director Anthony) Lowe, who still serve in FDIC leadership.That all finally came to an end after the 2016 election. But the pressure on banks and insurers then shifted from the federal to the state level. After Parkland, New York’s Governor Andrew Soprano and his Consigliere of Financial Services, Maria Vullo, put the squeeze on banks and insurers with operations in New York (i.e., almost all of them). They let it be known, in no uncertain terms, that they wanted to see them stop doing business with the NRA and to cut off their Carry Guard insurance program. Others have since jumped on board.
The NRA has sued New York over their strong-arm tactics and that legal action is still working its expensive way through the courts.
In the wake of those moves, a number of banks and other businesses made ostentatious announcements letting all the good people know that they’d decided not to touch any gun money any more because it’s all so icky. Too-big-to-fail lenders like Citigroup and Bank of America were prominent among them. It was all part of a new corporate gun control pushby big American business against the déclassé gun industry.
Now, as the New York Times reports, some operation calling itself Guns Down America is publishing a scorecard of big banks and the degree to which they’re doing business with gun makers, the NRA and other firearms-related entities. They’ve just published the grades at isyourbankloaded.org.
Guns Down America and our partners reviewed public financial and legal filings to determine how much business the nation’s 15 largest banks have conducted with gun manufacturers, the NRA, and the top recipients of NRA contributions in Congress. Based on this information, we have graded the banks on a 100-point scale.If you’re keeping score at home, a failing grade is very much a good thing (see above).
The new scorecard ranks consumer banks on...
How The Federal Government Nullified the Second Amendment to 'Ban' Automatic firearms
The original theory is that Americans enjoy a fundamental right to self-defense, in order to preserve one’s person and property against any neighbors or government agents who might act against one’s individual liberty. This is a natural right that predates our government’s formation, and was therefore enshrined in the Constitution by some very forward-thinking liberals of their time. In the words of the Second Amendment:
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
It should not be difficult for anyone with a passing grasp of the English language to understand that it is the “right of the People” that is protected in that sentence, and it is clearly not the expression of a peculiar power owned by the newly-founded centralized government created by our Constitution. Such straightforward, simple language in our Bill of Rights was actually suggested by Samuel Adams and John Hancock to accommodate the antifederalists at the Massachusetts Convention of 1788 and to avoid confusion about the new government’s limited powers, meant to guarantee that “the Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Adams thought far too much of future generations, clearly, because a second, competing theory has emerged within the last 100 years which suggests that gun ownership is not a right, but a privilege granted by the government, and the kinds of firearms allowed to peaceable citizens depends on what neighbors and government agents would deem allowable at any particular point in time.
The latter is entirely incoherent when contextualized with the words the Second Amendment, but that doesn’t matter, because it’s the position that is broadly recognized as truth for most Americans. Today, it’s just natural to assume that the federal government has the right to curtail gun ownership of this gun or that one among “peaceable citizens” if the federal government feels that some guns are too dangerous for law-abiding citizens to own.
This is the progressives’ magic trick, and some Americans fall for it due to a simple deficiency in human nature. For example, Chris Cuomo of CNN recently tweeted that “[t]here was no individual right” in the Second Amendment even “contemplated” until Antonin Scalia inferred the “individual right” in the Heller v. District of Columbia decision.
Winston Churchill once observed the reason why Chris Cuomo would say something so patently stupid, and why such stupidity might so commonly be...
Her Son’s Freshman Orientation At Virginia Tech Was Full Of Leftist Propaganda
Now that I have witnessed college propaganda firsthand, I refuse to ignore the indefensible and discriminatory behavior of the liberal campus bullies anymore.
Are taxpayers funding academic institutions to indoctrinate our kids? That disturbing and irresistible question plagued me during the long drive home last week from college orientation. I doubt I am alone in this wake-up call.
Like many other women, I just sent my youngest child to college. I am so proud of him and his decision to join the Army ROTC and study engineering. He will be attending a revered Virginia institution known for its military Corps of Cadets program.
The centerpiece of the campus is the military parade field featuring beautiful pylons bearing the school’s founding principles: words such as “honor,” “duty,” “brotherhood,” and “ut prosim” (that I may serve). The war memorial also bears the names of all known cadets who have given their lives for our nation since World War I.
Established in 1872, Virginia Tech has an honorable and proud tradition in my home state, and its graduates are some of the most accomplished and wonderful people I know. Hokies shine around our nation as leaders and as a great credit to their school. I know many to be people of faith, and many, many are conservative.
The Madness Begins
Because of this, I was shocked to experience what I can only describe as extreme and overtly leftist propaganda spewed at our children’s orientation. The opening “University Welcome” event for students and parents separated families immediately in the auditorium.
Nobody expected the event to begin with prayer or the Pledge of Allegiance — heavens, no! But one might expect to remember the names of fallen cadets on the pylons or the 32 dead and 17 injured in the 2007 shooting on Virginia Tech’s campus, the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Nope. Instead, the administration made the stunning choice to open orientation by recognizing two Native American tribes on whose land the college was built (with the implication that it was stolen).
What followed went from slightly bothersome to downright alarming. The college filled the next two hours with speaker after speaker who introduced themselves with not just their names and titles but also preferred pronouns — as in, “Hi my name is Penny Nance, and I identify as she and her.” At first, parents were slightly surprised; by the end, they were mad.
Every person on the stage looked exactly as you would expect them to identify. At that point, I noticed all the new students’ badges contained not just their names but also their preferred pronouns because the school had made it part of registration. The heavy-handed diversity lecture that followed seemed rather tame in comparison. Parents left the venue in shock.
Parents Vs. Children
The rest of the day followed the same two-track program, parents versus children, allowing the college to share different sets of information with each. It gave parents the hard line against underage and excessive drinking, but according to students present, the university assured them that campus police are there to help them navigate wayward behavior, which was implied to be normal. “Be open to new experiences,” orientation leaders urged throughout the day.
“Parents, don’t be shocked if your kid comes home changed,” they intoned in the other room — this to the hundreds of parents, including myself, who had saved and sacrificed to send our children to this “top educational institution.” The attitude they conveyed was one of how “privileged” we should feel that they selected our children to attend such a fine and prestigious university. Lucky us.
At one point, after dinner, they sent parents off to oblivious sleep while they lectured students on not making assumptions about each other’s gender or sexuality. Were they suggesting students ought to be fluidly “exploring” their gender and sexuality, as if it were some expected adventure? In the era of “Me Too,” that seems off message.
The school constantly defined and showcased identity group politics, but certainly not all identities. It’s apparently way cooler to be a minority trans woman with food allergies than simply to be an American college student. Interestingly, the university offered Halal food but no...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)