NJ Sheriff and Former Chief Show Contempt for Oaths with 2nd Amendment Infringements

Extensive quotes from two New Jersey law enforcement officials leave little doubt that they would gladly support any and all citizen disarmament edicts. Opinions expressed by Bergen County Sheriff Michael Saudino and former Tenafly Police Chief Michael Bruno in Monday’s Pascack Press appear representative of predominant command attitudes in the Garden State. (Note the story is not online so there is no link to offer—I was sent a photo of the April 16 page 3 story “Mental health ‘highest priority’ for public, school safety” written by Michael Olohan. I have not received a response from the paper to an inquiry I sent them yesterday. This post will be updated if a link becomes available. )

Sheriff Saudino says it’s “fortunate” that New Jersey has draconian infringements and hopes to see them become a “model” for the rest of the country. And naturally, he repeats the same lie many prominent gun-grabbers offer while they’re doing the direct opposite of what they say.

“I don’t say it very often, but I do believe in the Second Amendment,” Saudino protests.  “However…”

Who didn’t see that huge, in-your-face “but” coming?

He doesn’t think the “average person” should have the very weaponry the Second Amendment is supposed to guarantee. To underscore his point, Saudino smears those who disagree as “the NRA and some gun nuts.”

First of all, both the military and Saudino’s tactical police teams have access to fully automatic weapons. And note he doesn’t define when his sworn duties will require him to issue the orders to “take out mass amounts of people.”

If taken literally, and I would, the Constitutional Oath-breaking maniac is talking about making war on American citizens. Naturally, he doesn’t want those who would defy tyranny also being able to resist it.

Former Chief Bruno, no longer in a position to actively take anyone’s guns, has his own way of harassing edict-abiding gun owners.  He wants gun-grabber sympathizers to “contact their local police chiefs and ask to see the firearm files of legitimate registered gun owners in town.

“The hot topic today is guns,” Bruno asserts. “Everybody’s talking about guns, restricting guns, eliminating guns, taking guns.”

Wait a minute – for years the anti-gun voices have been calling gun owners paranoid, insisting “No wants to take your guns.” Current events show this to be a LIE.

That was a rhetorical question. And Bruno ignores that some of us are talking about protecting our guns.

“I guarantee you it will be an eye-opener for you, because when you talk about that person who snaps and can go right into their own home, take a weapon go out and do something with it—you have hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of guns in your communities,” he bemoans, insulting citizen trustworthiness by insinuation while being part of a system that protects and rewards enforcer misdeeds.

Like the problems come from “legitimate registered gun owners” who strive to comply with all prior restraint mandates, no matter how offensively oppressive.

Still, in order to keep their lucrative double-dipping gigs going, New Jersey sheriffs like Saudino need to sell out their countrymen and parrot the narrative expected by their masters. Besides, he and Bruno are taken care of as LEOSA beneficiaries, “eligible to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States or United States Territories, regardless of state or local laws…”

It’s the “Only Ones” loophole. They have their seat at the table, so why should they care if you’re outside looking in. Still, Mr. Mason’s “except for a few public officers” observation comes to mind.

The sad thing is it hasn’t always been that way, even in New Jersey. Those of us who have been around a while will remember this 1993 quote from the testimony of Trenton Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Constance before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

“Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that ‘assault weapons’ are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Progressive Illinois Rep. Declares Constitution Means Nothing

Progressive Illinois Rep. Declares Constitution Means Nothing
Progressive Illinois Rep. Declares Constitution Means Nothing

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- An Illinois technocrat has demonstrated the Progressive attitude about the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Representative Bill Foster has a Ph.D. in Physics from Harvard. He was raised and earned his Bachelor degree in ultra-liberal Madison, Wisconsin.  In his view, the Constitution is a document that can be re-interpreted to mean different things every few years. That is true in a sense. Amendments to the Constitution can be put forward and passed any time. It is clear a constitutional amendment is not what Representative Foster is talking about. From chicagotribune.com:

Flanked by two area high school students, a pediatrician and the mother of a gun violence victim, U.S. Rep. Bill Foster told a community forum audience Monday the Second Amendment should be up for reinterpretation as new generations come into power.

“It always has been up for reinterpretation,” Foster, D-Naperville, said during an event focused on gun violence. “The technology changes, and the weapons thought to be too dangerous to be in private hands change. A civil war cannon is frankly much less dangerous than weapons we are allowed to carry on the streets in many of the states and cities in our country today. This is something where technology changes and public attitude changes and both are important in each of the generations.”

What does “reinterpretation” mean? It means you take the same words in the Constitution, and apply a different meaning to them. If you can do that, the Constitution only means what you want it to mean, when you want it to mean it. If Representative Foster means that legislators, such as himself, should change the meaning of the Constitution when they wish it, then Constitutional limits on government power mean nothing. Much of the purpose of the Constitution was to limit government power, to provide stability, to prevent rapid, radical change in the laws.

The Representative mentions technology changes and public attitudes. But technology changes apply to the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and most of the Bill of rights. Should we give the legislature the power to change most of the Bill of Rights at will?

The Constitution is designed as a structure of government to moderate and delay change so as to prevent hurried legislation in response to emotional public reactions.

In short, Representative Foster is talking about scrapping the Constitution and ruling by legislative fiat. That has always been the Progressive way.  From heritage.org, a quote from Charles Merriam, an early, leading Progressive political scientist:

The individualistic ideas of the “natural right” school of political theory, endorsed in the Revolution, are discredited and repudiated…. The origin of the state is regarded, not as the result of a deliberate agreement among men, but as the result of historical development, instinctive rather than conscious; and rights are considered to have their source not in nature, but in law.

Progressives believe that experts should rule society, that the “average man” is incapable of knowing their own best interest. Progressives believe there is no absolute right and wrong. Right and wrong are defined by Progressives and their experts at any particular time.

Progressives see the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as obstacles to be overcome, not pillars of American society that must be defended.

Progressives generally view the State as god, or at least the manifestation of God on earth. Right is anything that advances Progressivism. Wrong is anything that hinders the Progressive agenda.

President Wilson, one of the political foundational Progressives, is attributed as believing that “limits on government power should be abolished”

Representative Foster is an iconic technocrat. After working as a government scientist for his career, he was able to win a seat in the House of Representatives. He does not believe in natural law. He does not take his oath of office seriously. No Progressive does. To Progressives, oaths, natural law, the Constitution, are all outdated concepts to be placed in the dustbin of history in order to achieve power. Setting aside the Constitutional questions, Foster ignores facts and lies to advance his agenda.

Foster is a scientist. He understands how to lie with statistics. His prowess at doing so is shown below:

“I doubt that’s the most effective way to control gun violence,” Foster said. “The most accurate predictor of the rate of gun homicides, if you look at the statistics, is actually the number of guns per person in the state or in the community.”

That is an irrelevant conclusion. “Gun violence” is a propaganda term. It is not germane to the argument about the effectiveness of the legislation.  It does not matter to a victim if they die from a gunshot, or because they did not have a gun to defend themselves. If they die from a club, or a knife, or a bombing, they are still dead. If a country institutes restrictive gun legislation, and the homicide rate increases, the legislation is a failure for its stated purpose. It is irrelevant if the number deaths inflicted with guns go down. It is the total, unjustified homicide rate that matters. John Lott says that every country that instituted gun bans saw increases in the homicide rate. From crimeresearch.org:

One thing gun control advocates such as Vox would never mention is that every single time that guns are banned — either all guns or all handguns — homicide/murder rates rise. This is a remarkable fact.

It would be unsurprising that if there are more guns, there are more gun homicides. If there are more cars, there are more car accidents. If there are more hospitals, more people die in hospitals.

What is surprising is that as the number of guns has increased in the United States over the last 30 years, the rate of gun homicides and gun accidents has decreased dramatically. Foster may not know this. Progressives are notoriously good at ignoring facts. As a scientist, he should know it. As a Progressive, it is “crimethink” as described in the novel, 1984. That fact contradicts his assertions, even about “gun homicides”.

 That fact contradicts his assertion, even about only "gun homicides".
That fact contradicts his assertion, even about only “gun homicides”.

Anyone can find “experts” to show statistics that agree with their position. That is the foundational weakness of Progressivism. Choose your expert, and you get the policies you want.

Representative Foster does not think you are smart enough to rule yourself. He does not think you will recognize his use of statistics to lie, or he would use other methods.

Improved technological communications allow everyone to contrast competing expert opinions and construct their own. That technology is changing all the Progressive assumptions about their ability to “construct consent” and rule as technological elites.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Sick to Death of The “Words Hurt” Leftists

“Mr. Singer, I have asked you more than once to treat my readers with respect, and you continue to speak disrespectfully. I ask you one last time, to tone it down and make your point using some degree of civility, else I shall block your comments from here on. This is a blog for serious, intelligent, civil discourse, not a mudfight.”



NO! NO! NO! Your “blog” (Propaganda Rag) is NOT about “serious, intelligent, civil discourse…” I express my personal viewpoint(s) without vulgarity or threats of any kind. You and some of your ilk are just CRYBABIES because someone has the balls to disagree with you based on evidence-based opinion. Just as you have the Right to spew your MSNBC, CNN…et. al. “talking points,” I just as your other followers have the Freedom of Speech to rebut your arguments. If you and your followers are such fragile “victims,” maybe a public forum of Free Speech isn’t for you. You and your ilk are free to critically analyze and critique ANY of my blog postings and I will respond appropriately as an adult. Maybe you’ve forgotten that part of being an adult is to suffer the slings-and-arrows from others we don’t agree with. I will NOT allow those of you on the Left to monopolize the bully-pulpit. Funny how the words you don’t agree with are, “obnoxious and aggressive.” I suggest you look at your own words towards Our President and other duly elected politicians with whom you display Zero respect for at any time. Are your words Not “aggressive?”
-Respectfully, James


One of more than a few exchanges between me and Ms. Dennison. Virtually every day she rants on about Our President, other duly elected or appointed government official. Mostly these rants are mirror copies of the garbage regurgitated by the leftist mainstream media.

Her issue with me seems to be the fact that I sometimes, about once a week, take issue with something she posted or respond to one of her followers who decides to lecture me about one of my responses. Apparently, I fail to understand that the “reply” link is only to be used by those sycophants that heap praise upon her and, not from anyone who disagrees with her point of view.

This is the problem with Facebook, Twitter, et. al. One ends up preaching to the choir because if you take on one of these Fragile Snowflakes who refuse to grow-up and Respect Your opinion, they attack you and cry to the media platform (gods) using terms like “obnoxious, Aggressive, threatening, bullying…etc.

So, I would say to any and all of your weak and fragile SJW, snowflakes, Leftists…etc., Grow-up! If you are not willing to hear from the opposite end of the spectrum, then don’t use any social media! Take up a new hobby like knittings or Words for Friends.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Attack the Second Amendment and You Will Have A Casus belli Moment!

Whether repeal of the Second Amendment is feasible or not and, it’s not, revisionist history is meant to purposely distort its meaning into irrelevancy. Former Justice Stevens claims that his conception of gun rights is “uniformly understood” yet offers no legal precedent to back up the contention. Stevens claims that the Second Amendment’s explicit mention of the right of “the people” does not create an “individual right,” despite the inconvenient fact that within the Bill of Rights, the term “the people” is mentioned, in the Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. All of these amendments have been found to protect the Individual Rights of the People (Not to mention the Fact that The U.S. Supreme Court has, in fact, decided the Second Amendment IS an individual Right. Heller v D.C.)

The debate over the Second Amendment centered on a dispute over who should control the militia: the federal government or state governments. Every man understood that he may be called upon not only to defend his family, community and, his country from invaders (And, sometimes defend himself against his own government).

“In the writings and speeches of the American founders, the threat of disarmament was always a casus belli, which makes sense for practical and ideological reasons. None of the God-given or Natural rights codified in the Constitution not freedom of speech, press, or religion, or the ability to vote or demand due process had a longer or deeper history in English Common Law and tradition than the Right to Defend oneself.”

Noah Webster reasoned: “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops.” How ironic the “whole of the people” has forgotten this legacy, this historical fact.

In another recent essay, “7 Terrible Gun Control Arguments…And How to Beat Them“, there is a “picking apart” of the “arguments” of the Left. Alas, there can be no critical discourse with the Left. There can be no dialog when one side starts off the conversation with misleading statements or lies.

One of my fellow WordPress contributors is…well, insane. She regularly criticizes anything conservative. She craps all over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with impunity and ease. This week, she made the mistake of referring to my writings as obnoxious and “aggressive”. She’s upset that I take her and her followers to task for their coo-coo for cocoa puffs rantings. This was my reply to her:

“Most of your readers are leftist, liberal, socialists…etc. And no, I’m not making threats. I never say anything I’m not willing to back up with actions. That’s what’s called being adult. One cannot have “civil discourse”, as you say when the other side begins everything with a lie. Liberals almost without exception, begin every argument/conversation with a lie. It’s not always intentional, sometimes it’s just ignorance based on believing everything they see and hear from the mainstream media. One cannot engage in civil or critical discourse with a party incapable of critical thought.
Funny how you people on the left name call and use words like “obnoxiously” when confronted with facts that contradict your own belief system. You disregard the Rights of others because of your feelings. One cannot intelligently talk about issues when your feelings run your mouth. You call my speech aggressive. I call you weak-minded and unable to openly discuss issues. I like many Americans, are sick to death of the liberal left. And, we will not compromise Our Rights, hence the election of President Trump. The ballot-box is us playing nice. You keep pushing us towards that corner, and you won’t like what comes next. That’s not a threat. That’s a warning from Americans who have awakened and won’t be pushed any longer.”

And, my “feelings” are reflected in the Latin term casus belli. This term means an event or political occurrence that brings about a declaration of war. Here’s a little gun confiscation history we would all do well to remember.

“In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control. You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Understand, the Bill of  Rights is a Negative list of Rights. The document lists our God-given or Natural Rights to self-defense. The term “Negative list of Rights”, refers to the Fact that these codified Rights are restrictions placed upon the government and NOT Individuals.

You on the Left, so-called Democratic politicians and others who believe you can and will disarm the American people, you are wrong. To repeal the Second Amendment would have no more effect than if one removes all references to the Ten Commandments from the public venue. The ideas and principles are still present and people are stilling willing to Die for their beliefs. Are YOU, on the left, willing not just to Kill but to Die for your beliefs? Because I can tell you, there are Tens-of-Millions or more of us willing to KILL you in defense of Everyone’s Freedom and Liberties as guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of these United States.

Remember, attempts to disarm the American people will result in a casus belli event that will have lasting effects on Our country’s future. The “right” virtually corners the market when it comes to well-educated, well-trained and, experienced warfighters. Past and present members of the Special Operations Group (Special Forces, Delta Force, Navy SEALS…etc) even sent a letter to then President Obama warning him that civilian disarmament would not be tolerated. In fact, the letter clearly stated their hearts and efforts would go to protect the Rights of the American people in support of the Constitution. Those of you on the Left would do well to take heed of these facts.


Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

The Lexicon of the Insane

Attempting to understand the meaning of anything these Social Justice Warriors say in conversation, is maddening. So, I’ve decided to post the Official Glossary as defined by these mentally ill groups and their “enablers”. Enjoy…preferably while drinking heavily. This glossary will focus on how such terms are used in practice rather than how social justice warriors might define them in theory. The deranged are Legion.

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects people with disabilities, regardless of validity.

(verb): condesplaining by a able-bodied person to a disabled person. See Condesplaining

(abbreviation): assigned female/male at birth. This tends to be a statement of biological reality concerning people whose brains do not conform to said reality.

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects young or old people, regardless of validity.

(verb): condesplaining to a person of a different age. See Condesplaining

(adjective): a person who identifies with no gender. Usually (but not always) a denial of biological reality.

(adjective): someone considered to be part of a privileged group who works with social justice warriors to achieve their goals.

(noun): the use of parts of a culture by someone who does not identify as a person from that culture. Although appropriation has been responsible for the spread of new and better ideas and technology throughout the world, social justice warriors view appropriation as problematic.

(adjective): a person who identifies as a mixture of two genders. Usually (but not always) a denial of biological reality. See Intersex

1. (noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects a group which is said to lack privilege, regardless of validity. See Ableism, Ageism, Anti-Semitism, Biphobia, Cissexism, Classism, Condesplaining, Heterosexism, Homophobia, Islamophobia, Racism, Religious oppression, Sexism, Transphobia
2. (noun): a combination of prejudice and power.

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects bisexuals, pansexuals, polysexuals, or genderfluid people, regardless of validity.
Birth-assigned sex
(noun): see AFAB/AMAB

(noun): the belief that socialism will result in gender equality. This term is used by social justice warriors to accuse fellow-travelers of sexism.
Body positivity
(noun): acceptance and advocacy of unhealthy body weight.

(abbreviation): coercively assigned female/male at birth. A term used by social justice warriors for an intersex child who is assigned a gender by parents and/or doctors.
Check your privilege
(phrase): an annoying phrase used by social justice warriors to silence someone.

(adjective): a person who identifies with the ability/disability indicated by their externally observable features. This is a sign of a healthy mind.

(adjective): a person who identifies with the ethnicity indicated by their externally observable features. This is a sign of a healthy mind.

(adjective): a person who identifies with the gender indicated by their externally observable features. This is a sign of a healthy mind.

(abbreviation): cisgender heterosexual.

(verb): condesplaining by a cisgendered person to a transgendered person. See Condesplaining

(noun): any system that does not cater to the whims of transgendered people.

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects people of lower social standing and/or little wealth, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of classism against wealthy people, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.

(verb): See Econosplaining

1. (verb): to support traditional and/or dominant power structures.
2. (verb): to work against social justice warriors.

(verb): the act of a person said to be privileged explaining something to a person said to be oppressed.

(verb): to agree to participate in an activity, especially activity of a sexual nature. Consent cannot be given when someone is intoxicated, unconscious, or has been threatened or manipulated into compliance, but social justice warriors only recognize this if a female is in such a condition.

Content Warning
(noun): an alternative to trigger warnings which were created because some people complained that a trigger warning is itself triggering. See Trigger Warning and Triggering

Cotton ceiling
(noun): the tendency of transgender women to be excluded from opportunities and privileges available to cisgender women. See TERF

Cultural appropriation
(noun): see Appropriation

Cultural erasure
(noun): the demand that immigrants fit into the cultures of their new countries. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of cultural erasure of the nation hosting the immigrants, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.

(adjective): See Problematic

(verb): to deny an individual the agency to choose one’s gender identity.

1. (verb): any doubt whatsoever in the truth of social justice.
2. (verb): any doubt whatsoever in the truth of any statement by a member of a victim class. See Victim class

(verb): to divert a discussion from its intended topic. This is frequently done by social justice warriors through a variety of means, including accusations of bigotry, unchecked privilege, etc.

(adjective): scientific findings that disagree with the social justice narrative. This word is typically used as though it were a magic spell to repel uncomfortable truths.

(noun): the expression of any less-than-favorable preference toward a person or group believed to be less privileged or more oppressed than oneself, regardless of validity.

(noun): the idea of hiring employees and accepting students for the purpose of achieving certain quotas of victim class members. This often reduces the quality of student bodies and workforces. See Victim class

(adjective): a derogatory term for a young straight white cishet male who has opinions contrary to social justice dogma.

(verb): condesplaining by a wealthier person to a poorer person. See Condesplaining

(noun): a less extreme version of a shitlord. See Shitlord

(adjective): any person or institution that is insufficiently leftist.

(noun): the idea that people, objects, and ideas can be identified based on externally observable features. Although this is empirically true, social justice warriors consider this idea to be problematic.

1. (noun): the idea that one’s own culture is superior to others. This is viewed negatively by social justice warriors, even if it is factually justified.
2. (verb): to judge other culture by the standards and values of one’s own culture.

(abbreviation): See AFAB

(adjective): See Enemy

Fat acceptance
(noun): See Body positivity

(noun): the idea that women should have the same rights and privileges as men without having the same responsibilities and drawbacks.

(verb): to exclude people from a broader community to which they belong. See Horizontal oppression

(noun): the socially constructed roles for each biological sex.

Gender binary
(noun): the idea that there are only two genders; male and female. This is viewed as problematic by social justice warriors, despite being based on biological facts.

Gender Equality
(noun): the belief that people should receive equal treatment and not be discriminated against on the basis of gender. Frequently accompanied by a denial of inherent biological differences between the genders.

Gender expression
(noun): a person’s external presentation of gender. This may or may not be in alignment with either biological reality or one’s gender identity.

Gender identity
(noun): a person’s internal sense of gender. This may or may not be in alignment with biological reality.

(noun): a gender identity that changes over time. No biological basis for such an identity exists in humans.

(noun): an umbrella term for gender identities other than male and female. See Third gender.

Hate crime
(noun): a crime said to be motivated by bigotry against some aspect of the identity of the victim, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability. Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of hate crimes against people who are said to be privileged.

Healthy at any size
(phrase): the belief that being morbidly obese is a life choice with no negative consequences. In reality, obesity leads to heart disease, type 2 diabetes, chronic joint pain, and many other illnesses. See Body positive
(noun): the belief that heterosexuality is the only acceptable, natural, or normal sexual orientation. This is important for maintaining and defending traditional societies, so social justice warriors oppose it.

(noun): the individual and collective beliefs and practices that favor heterosexuality. This is said to cause unjust oppression of non-heterosexuals.
(verb): Condesplaining by a heterosexual person to an LGBT person. See Condesplaining
(adjective): see Third gender

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects homosexuals, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of bigotry against heterosexuals, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.

Horizontal oppression
(noun): the support of traditional and/or dominant power structures by members of victim classes, especially when it negatively affects other members of victim classes. See Collusion, Internalized oppression, and Victim class

Inclusion theater
(verb): to appear to practice diversity and inclusivity without actually doing so. This is commonly done to avoid the wrath of social justice warriors without actually kowtowing to their demands.

(noun): the goal of removing all barriers to participation in society for members of victim classes. This is a primary goal of social justice. See Diversity and Victim class

(noun): any action that is in disagreement with social justice dogma.
Internalized inferiority
(noun): see Internalized oppression
Internalized oppression
(noun): a term used to denounce a member of a group said to be oppressed who deviates from social justice ideology. Variants include internalized racism, internalized misogyny, internalized homophobia, etc. See Victim class
Internalized superiority
(noun): a term used to denounce a member of a group said to be privileged who deviates from social justice ideology.

(noun): the social justice warrior method for analyzing the various privileges or oppressions that a person may experience. See Progressive stack

(adjective): a person who is born with genitals which are not male or female, but something in between. While a legitimate concern, social justice warriors spend relatively little time addressing it.

1. (noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects Muslims, regardless of validity.
2. (noun): any criticism of Islam, regardless of validity.

It’s (insert current year)!
(interjection): a frustrated declaration that one should agree with social justice warriors. Often used in place of a valid argument.

(noun): see Intersectionality
(abbreviation): refers to the ever-expanding list of non-heterosexual orientations. Using a smaller, less current version can be seen as problematic and non-inclusive.

(abbreviation): See AMAB

(noun): the belief that social anarchism will result in gender equality. This term is used by social justice warriors to accuse fellow-travelers of sexism. See Brocialism

(verb): condesplaining by a man to a woman. See Condesplaining

Men’s rights activist (MRA)
(noun): any man who rejects social justice dogma, especially of the feminist variety. See Enemy

(noun): any activity that makes a social justice warrior uncomfortable. In reality, there is no such thing as a microaggression because the law of excluded middle requires that an act be either aggressive or non-aggressive.

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects females, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of sexism against men (misandry), due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.

(noun): the belief that gender differences in behavior, character, and intelligence are caused by biological differences in brains. Although this is empirically true, social justice warriors consider this idea to be problematic.

(adjective): See Agender

(verb): condesplaining by a neurotypical person to a neurodivergent person. See Condesplaining

Open letter
(phrase): a method by which social justice warriors publicly whine about whatever they find to be problematic at the moment. See Problematic

1. (noun): discrimination at the group or societal level. See Discrimination
2. (noun): see Microaggression
1. (noun): the idea that other people and groups are distinct beings different from oneself, even if they are not believed to be inferior.
2. (adjective): a person or group recognized as distinct from oneself.
3. (verb): to place another person or group into the position of an Other. This is generally a useful way of dealing with social justice warriors, as well as some of the more delusional types of people mentioned in this glossary.

(adjective): a person who self-identifies as a non-human. Otherkin are either one of the most delusional types of people given consideration in social justice ideology or trolls who are faking it to make fun of social justice warriors.

1. (noun): systemically enforced social inequality embedded in individuals and institutions.
2. (noun): material and structural constraints that hinder a person’s opportunities.
3. (noun): any hierarchical relationship, regardless of validity.
4. (noun): any opposition to social justice dogma.

(adjective): a synonym for bisexual used by people who reject the gender binary. See Bisexual and Gender binary

1. (noun): the phenomenon in which a member of a victim class appears to be a member of a privileged class, and can thus access some level of privilege that other members of the victim class cannot. Variants include white-passing, straight-passing, etc.
2. (verb): to appear to be a member of a privileged class when one is not.
3. (verb): to cross over from one community to another without detection.

(noun): a system of male dominance that suppresses non-masculine traits and behaviors. This is considered to be problematic by social justice warriors, even if such a system is formed voluntarily and proves more successful than other forms of social organization.

(verb): to reprimand a person who is not acting in accordance with social justice ideology, regardless of validity.

(adjective): see Pansexual
1. (noun): a person’s perception of one’s ability to influence outcomes to meet one’s needs and wants.
2. (noun): the ability to make decisions that affect another person
3. (noun): control of societal institutions

(noun): a pre-judgment of an individual or group, usually based on stereotypes.

Prejudice plus power
(phrase): the social justice warrior standard for bigotry. This leads them to deny possibilities such as anti-white racism, misandry, heterophobia, cisphobia, and other bigotry against groups said to be privileged.

(noun): the celebration of a non-cisgendered identity or non-heterosexual orientation, despite the fact that having such an identity or orientation is innate and not an accomplishment.

(noun): the sum of the advantages (or lack of disadvantages) that a person or group has, regardless of whether those advantages are innate, legitimately earned, or illegitimately taken. Social justice warriors view privileged people as normative and claim that privileged people view others as unnatural or deviant.

Privilege blindness
(noun): a lack of awareness of one’s privilege.

(verb): See Condesplaining

(adjective): that which is at odds with progressive or social justice ideology, regardless of truth value. This glossary would be considered highly problematic.

Progressive stack
(noun): an arbitrary and capricious method used to decide how privileged a person is relative to others. Often referred to by non-SJWs as the Oppression Olympics. See Intersectionality

(noun): invented words for other genders. Social justice warriors sometimes demand that other people call them by these words and become enraged when their fantasies are not indulged, not unlike a child’s tempertantrum.

(adjective): See Discredited

(noun): an umbrella term for all non-heterosexual, non-binary people.

(adjective): a person who is unsure of one’s gender identity or sexual orientation.

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects minority racial groups, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of racism against white people, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.

Rape culture
(noun): the belief that brutally victimizing women while they scream for help is socially acceptable.

(adjective): See Enemy and Problematic

Religious oppression
(verb): any criticism or negative sentiment based on religious beliefs and/or practices, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of religious oppression against Christians, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.

Right side of history
(phrase): a trendy political position in the present that is highly detrimental to future generations.

Safe space
(noun): a location where emotionally unstable and/or immature people who are upset may gather to receive comfort and counseling for the traumatic experience of being exposed to a mere difference of opinion.

(noun): the idea that one can choose one’s identity, regardless of empirical facts.

(noun): see Feminism. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of sexism against men, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.

(verb): to suggest that degenerate behavior has negative consequences and should therefore be discouraged. Social justice warriors consider this to be problematic.

(noun): a person who engages in problematic speech and/or behavior. See Problematic

(verb): condesplaining by a “normal-sized” person to a person widely perceived to be too small or large. See Condesplaining

Social construct
(noun): an idea created and developed in society. While a valid concept, social justice warriors misuse this concept to reject a priori truths.

Social justice
(noun): the goal of equalizing participation in society, redistributing resources, and providing safety and security for all. In practice, this always results in advocacy of socialism or communism, and social justice warriors tend to be willing to commit injustices in the name of this greater good.

Stay Woke
(phrase): an annoying phrase uttered by both social justice warriors and non-SJWs to advise other people to hold true to their beliefs.

(noun): a fixed image about a person or group that collectivizes them and denies their individuality. Social justice warriors tend to reject these unless they concern people said to be privileged, but they tend to ignore the fact that stereotypes frequently have a basis in reality.

(verb): See Heterosplaining

(abbreviation): sex-worker exclusionary radical feminism. Some social justice warriors meet this description, while others find the concept to be problematic.

(abbreviation): See SWERF and TERF

(abbreviation): trans-exclusionary radical feminism. Some social justice warriors meet this description, while others find the concept to be problematic.

(verb): See Sizesplaining

Third gender
(adjective): a distinct gender that is neither male nor female. No biological basis for such an identity exists in humans.

(adjective): a person who does not identify with the ability/disability indicated by their externally observable features. This is usually a sign of an unhealthy mind and may lead a person to alter one’s externally observable features in an effort to make them resemble that of one’s ability identity. This may include self-harm.

(adjective): a person who does not identify with the ethnicity indicated by their externally observable features. This is usually a sign of an unhealthy mind and may lead a person to alter one’s externally observable features in an effort to make them resemble that of one’s ethnic identity.

(adjective): a person who does not identify with the gender indicated by their externally observable features. This is usually a sign of an unhealthy mind and may lead a person to alter one’s externally observable features in an effort to make them resemble that of one’s gender identity.

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects transgender people, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of bigotry against cisgendered people, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.

(noun): a person who alters one’s presentation to express one’s gender identity. See Gender identity

Trigger Warning
(noun): an advisory that following content may upset emotionally unstable and/or immature people.

1. (adjective): content may upset emotionally unstable and/or immature people.
2. (verb): to engage in communication which may upset emotionally unstable and/or immature people.

1. (verb): to publicly disagree with, criticize, or debate a social justice warrior.
2. (adjective): a person who does the aforementioned.

(noun): people who claim that being transgender requires one to have gender dysphoria.

(noun): people who claim that being transgender does not require one to have gender dysphoria.

(noun): see Genderfluid

Verbal violence
(noun): the nonsensical idea that speaking words can inflict physical harm on someone.

(noun): a member of a victim class. See Victim class

Victim blaming
(verb): to suggest that people have some responsibility for their own well-being and self-defense.

Victim blindness
(verb): a lack of awareness of one’s victim status.

Victim class
(noun): a group of people said to be oppressed by dominant beliefs, practices, and institutions.

White nationalism
(noun): any effort by white people to form a group identity and advocate for the interest of their group.

White privilege
(noun): the belief that white people have inherent advantages due to widespread racism.

(verb): condesplaining by a white person to a person of color. See Condesplaining

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects sex workers, regardless of validity.

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects people who are different from oneself, regardless of validity.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

7 Terrible Liberal Gun Control Arguments … And How To Beat Them

I argue for a living. I often deal with hacks, liars, and agenda-driven fanatics. But never in a quarter century of being in courtrooms have I faced such a blizzard of constitutional illiteracy, technical ignorance, flabby reasoning, and outright lies as I have to deal with people who think our Second Amendment rights are up for debate.

Our rights are not up for debate. But, as a courtesy, because talking is the way a free people should endeavor to solve problems, we should debate them anyway. Rational discussion beats the alternative – many of us are vets who saw the alternative overseas – even if the other side prefers emotional blackmail using articulate infants to bum rush their anti-civil rights policies. So, here are seven (it could have been 50) of the most annoying – and dishonest – arguments you will hear, and how you can fight them.

1. You Don’t Actually Have The Right To Own Guns Because You Aren’t In A Militia!

Nope. That’s wrong right off the line because Heller v. District of Columbia (2008) 554 U.S. 570, holds as a matter of settled law that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms regardless of their militia status.

The Second Amendment provides: “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.” Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, dismissed the argument that this right somehow, despite the clear text, belongs to “militias” and not individuals. Your opponent may not like that, but that’s what Heller says. That’s what the Constitution says.

I was there with the Army in LA, by the way. Don’t tell me chaos can’t happen here.

2. But Wait – It Says “Well-Regulated Militia.” Doesn’t That Mean The National Guard?

Well, aren’t citizens with guns not “well regulated?” No. Congress regulates the militia – Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution provides that “The Congress shall have Power To …provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia….” And Congress has decided what “well regulated” means. It means the current level of regulation since that is what Congress has imposed. It could enact further regulation if it wished. If the Congress feels like decreeing that every member of the militia (which Congress can expand as it wishes to better reflect society) must be armed with an AR15, it can. (Hint hint).

3. Well, Scalia Still Says Guns Can Be Regulated So We Can Ban Modern Weapons!

No. What the anti-civil rights crowd likes to do is cite language from Heller that recognizes a few traditional exceptions to when and what arms may be kept and borne – in other words, gun banners try to have narrow exceptions swallow up the rule. Always pivot back to and demand that these people recite the basic holding: The Second Amendment recognizes the right of citizens to individually keep weapons in common use for lawful purposes, including self-defense.

Liberals hate when you do that, especially when you confront them with the fact that Heller protects weapons “in common use.” In that case, it was handguns. However, the fake assault weapons that liberals hate (which are involved in a tiny fraction of crimes) numbers in the millions. AR15-style weapons are in common use. Deal with it.

Oh, I guess they never filled out a Form 4473. You know, all the lies about it being “easier to buy a gun than a Pepsi”does not exactly inspire us to believe that the gun banners’ pleas for “common sense reforms” are anything but the first steps toward confiscation and disarming our citizenry. Lying demonstrates a lack of good faith.

Nor does the fact that none of these “commonsense gun regulations” addresses the problems they cite. Ask your gun banner pals which reforms they want that would have stopped any of the recent killing sprees by people who are not conservative observant Christian or Jewish NRA members. Background checks are their usual go-to. Those are already a thing, and the scumbags all passed, except for the one scumbag whose check the FBI screwed-up.

You know, instead of hassling citizens who have committed no crime, maybe we ought to demand our law enforcement agencies start doing their damn jobs.

5. You Have Blood On Your Hands!

Actually, don’t stop them when they go this way. Scummy drama queen invective like this is proof that the stubborn defense of our rights is working, and that they have nothing else but to lie about us. Their hysterical shrieking helps motivate other people who may not have been paying attention to protect their rights. After all, “You support murdering children!” is a super-effective way to alienate normal folks and highlight the essential dishonesty of the gun banners.

6. No One Wants To Take Your Guns!

This is another classic lie. In fact, that’s exactly what liberals want to do. How do we know? They tell us when they think we are not looking – and, with more frequency, when we are. It’s fun when they say they don’t want to take your guns, then say you have to give up your ARs. If your opponent is getting wistful about Australia’s gun confiscation, he wants to take your guns.

Let’s get serious. They all want to take your guns. Why? Two reasons. First, it takes power from the citizenry. Liberals love that. Second, gun rights are important to normal Americans because the fact we maintain arms means we are not mere subjects. We are citizens, with the power to defend our freedom. Liberals hate that we have that dignity; taking our guns would humiliate us, and show us who is boss. They want to disarm us not because of the gun crime – name a liberal who wants to really do something about Chicago as opposed to hassling law-abiding normals – but because they hate us and want to see us submit.

Even the Fredocons are getting into the act, which is no surprise since Never Trumpism is always the first step downward to active liberalism. Pseudocon Bret Stephens demanded that America repeal the Second Amendment in the New York Times in October 2017. Fellow puffcon Ross Douthat simpered something similar, and the Captain Stubing of ConservatismBill Kristol, tweeted his concurrence.

7. The Second Amendment Is Obsolete And This Stuff About Defending Against Tyranny Is Crazy!

Obsolete? Isn’t our Constitution a living document that should change with the time? Well, in the last couple decades gun rights have expanded massively across the country via legislation – faster and more thoroughly than gay marriage did – so the Constitution is evolving toward recognizing more gun rights. Anti-civil rights holdouts like New York and California are failing to recognize that the Constitution changes with the times and stuff, and those states must conform to the new consensus about the freedom to keep and bear arms. That’s how this works, right? Right?

Did you liberals say that our government is always going to be benevolent? Sorry, I can’t hear you over the sound of the revelations of government misconduct and oppression of individual citizens for their views. Also, since Trump is totally Hitler for real, isn’t giving him a monopoly on force a bad idea?

Finally, there is the claim that “a bunch of violent country guys with rifles couldn’t take on the government anyway.” First, at the threshold, this is a disgusting slander. Violence is the last resort justifiable only in cases of outright, active violent tyranny where no political or judicial processes are available. The idea that American citizens, many veterans, are somehow chomping at the bit for a civil war is right up there in the Liberal Slander Top 10.

American citizens do retain the right to use force to stop such tyranny. If some government decided to say, round up Jewish citizens, violence would be appropriate to protect our fellow citizens as a last resort. Luckily, our street-level law enforcement personnel and military would never do such a thing, but that does not mean a situation could never arise where people acting under the color of authority might seek to violently violate the Constitution and deprive citizens of their rights and lives. The Founders were wise to recognize our citizens’ right to have the ability to resist violent tyranny.

But could citizens effectively resist violent tyranny? That’s a long story – someone ought to write a novel on the subject – but the short answer is, “Yes.” As Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan all teach, a decentralized insurgency with small arms can effectively confront a modern police/military force. Of course, in America’s case, the police and military rank and file are much more likely to sympathize with their fellow citizens and freedom than with some hypothetical tyrant, making such a horrifying scenario highly unlikely – though not utterly impossible.

But the bottom line is that two untrained idiots with handguns shut down Boston. What do you think 100 million Americans – many trained and some battle-tested – could do with their rifles? (To get a feel for the level of utter dishonesty among our opponents, just scroll down to the comments and count the lies about me somehow supporting civil war in this column).

The liberals want to have a conversation about guns. So should those of us who love freedom. We have the facts. We have the law. We have the right. And we have a choice.

Citizens bear arms and hold a veto over tyranny. Serfs obey their masters because they have no choice. Pick one.


Reposted from https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/02/22/7-terrible-liberal-gun-control-arguments–and-how-to-beat-them-n2451718

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

But You Said I Was Being Paranoid! No One Is Coming for Our Guns…Explain This!

“We just want common sense gun safety measures…Don’t be paranoid! No One is coming for your guns…blah, blah, blah…”

Uh, okay. Then why is this happening in various locales in the U.S.A.??


Why is the State of Illinois issuing a MANDATE that ALL 18-20 year-olds that own rifles and shotguns, turn them into law enforcement or face Felony Prosecution? Here is the proposed Oregon Law:


Of course, The State, “agents” of the State and the Military are EXEMPT. Wasn’t this tried before? Oh, yeah. Here’s an excerpt from the news report:

Boston – National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.

Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

In case you missed this bit of history because it wasn’t taught to you in school, this event was the spark that initiated The American Revolution against the British. If you think for one minute that Hundreds of Thousands, if not Millions, of Law Abiding Americans, will just roll-over and allow themselves to be disarmed, You are sadly mistaken.

The State of Illinois is ORDERING 18-20 year-olds to turn in ALL Firearms or face prosecution! So, if you are a married couple, a single parent, or a single woman with a stalker or restraining order against an ex, the STATE has determined that you have No Right to self-defense, the Right to Life or Liberty because the STATE has deemed you too immature to be responsible with a firearm. You can still enter into a legal contract, buy a car or a house. You can still join Our military and Put Your Life on the line for your Country, to Protect Our Constitution WITH A FUCKING GUN, however, You, yourself cannot possess a firearm in your home to defend your life and the lives of your loved-ones.

To those State Governments and “elected” officials, I say, FUCK YOU!! Just like in CA, CT, and NY, MILLIONS of Patriots, “Free” Americans have and will continue to Refuse to Comply with your UnConstitutional edicts. There are Millions of Americans who WILL shed the Blood of Tyrants to Defend Our God-given Rights!

Where are we and Our Marches??? Where are Our Walkouts? Time to go on the protest offensive…until it’s time for the violent offensive. And, it’s coming soon enough.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure, Jefferson wrote in a letter to William S. Smith, a diplomatic official in London, on November 13, 1787.

I think it’s about time….

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment