The Race-Baiters and Liberals Are At It Again

Okay, let's talk about the incident that happened at Spring Valley High School. If you're a liberal or a racist who doesn't like white folks or police officers, this is where you might want to go read something else. Reason is, I'm gonna be talking some hard truths here which you're not going to like if you fit either of those two categories. Now, having said that, let's get down to it.

First and foremost, as a retired LEO I absolutely will not, under any circumstances, attempt to judge or second-guess the actions of a police officer. Having done the job for 23 years I know what these guys and gals are going through, and they have my full and unbiased support. I don't believe in judging a police officer solely based on the version of the cell phone video released by the news media due to the fact that most of the time there's a hell of a lot more to the video than the news media shows. Namely, the actions that the perpetrator committed to escalate the situation in the first place, or any acts that the cop may have done to try and keep the episode from escalating. The news media cares about ratings, period, and they will do whatever they need to do - including selective editing of video - to get those ratings.

The bad thing is, it appears that I'm in the minority on this one. I know of and respect Sheriff Lott, but I gotta say I think he messed up when he invited the FBI and the obviously-racist NObama DOJ to investigate this one. I'm guessing that he did it to ensure "transparency" and avoid someone like the ACLU or the NAACP from accusing him of a cover up should the internal investigation clear the deputy of any wrong-doing. After all, it isn't justice unless the white guy is convicted, right? (Excuse me while I go throw up in my mouth.) But by getting the NObama DOJ involved in it, he's pretty much sealed the fate of the deputy. If I were the deputy I'd be putting out resumes about now.

But I think the thing that pisses me off the most about this whole thing is the outcry that the liberal news media has fueled due to the cop being white and the student being black. This is one of those situation where race has absolutely nothing to do with the incident itself. The cop didn't call the student a nigger and the student didn't call the cop a cracker, so why bring race into it?

Because that's what makes it news. Additionally, our liberal-corrupted society in this day and age has been conditioned by the liberal news media to look at everything in terms of "black and white," and "how can I be offended by this?" If there's any way certain parts of our society can take a simple incident and turn it into something racial, they will. If there's any way some liberal pussy out there can get offended at something innocent and harmless, they will. And at that point that's all you'll hear about.

So that's not what I'm going to talk about. I'll save my disgust with our liberal-conditioned society and the growing amount of liberal "my pussy hurts" crybabies for another day. Right now let's talk about something that no one seems to want to talk about in the media; namely, what the student did wrong.

First, she and her boyfriend were disrupting the class. How, I'm not sure because the news media didn't say (it's not "news," you know). But I do know from everything I've read about it that the student was asked THREE TIMES by the teacher to leave the class. The student refused, so the teacher went and got the principal, who also asked the student THREE TIMES to leave the class. When she refused again, the principal went and got the School Resource Officer and asked him to remove her from the campus. The SRO then asked the student THREE TIMES to leave the classroom and the campus, and again the student refused.

In case you're not keeping count, that makes a total of NINE TIMES that the student was asked to leave the classroom, and each time the student refused.

At this point anyone with any rational thinking or common sense (God, there's that term again) would ask themselves just what this punk (and I use the term intentionally) was taught by her parents and how she was raised. By the actions of the punk student alone it is a fair and honest statement to say that this girl was not taught any kind of respect for authority of any kind whatsover. This is evident by the fact that she was acting up to the point that she had to be expelled from the class to begin with, and it is only exacerbated by her refusal to leave the school when asked NINE TIMES, three of which were by a police officer who could - and did - arrest her dumb ass.

In my opinion, the punk brought it on herself. And if you want to blame someone, blame the parents who raised this smartass punk kid, not the cop.

But you and I both know that's not the way it's going to go, don't we? No, the liberal news media is going to continue to play up the race card, the NAACP is going to pipe up with their usual line of bullshit, and I'm just waiting for that race-baiting asshole Al Sharpton to chime in. Honestly, I'm surprised we haven't heard from him by now, but I'm sure we will before long.

This wiseass little punk brought what happened to her on herself by her own actions, but to be fair she isn't the only one to blame. No, I'm not talking about the deputy who was just doing his job; I'm talking about the parents who failed to raise this kid into a responsible person who has the requisite respect for authority and who doesn't do shit to get the cops involved anyway.

Now we get to sit back and see how long it takes the racist DOJ to fry this guy. I'm hoping I'm wrong about this, but I kinda doubt it.

Deo Vindice.

IHC

Top Ten Reasons NOT To Vote for Billary Clinton

Let's be clear about this: I abhor "Billary" Clinton. She's a liar, a thief, a hypocrite, a narcissist, an elitist, and a general overall bitch. The only good thing I can say about her is that she doesn't have a twin sister.

Oh, wait, she does. Bill. Silly me.

For the life of me I can't see any logical reason why anyone with an ounce of common sense would even consider for a fraction of a second actually casting a vote for this woman. I can think of only one other person who is more unqualified to be President of the United States, and the liberals already elected that clown - TWICE. But the scary thing is that people - grown adults who are supposed to be mature and have some common sense - are actually considering voting for her, and for the stupidest of reasons. (I used to like Katy Perry until I saw her singing for and playing palsy-walsy with the Wicked Bitch of the North on TV yesterday.) And the number one stupid reason that people will vote for her is because she's a woman. That qualifies you to be President of the United States just about as much as being black does, and we all see how good THAT has worked out, don't we?

So here they are, friends and neighbors, my Top Ten Reasons NOT To Vote for Billary Clinton.

#1. She's a liar. According to her, she was under sniper fire when she landed in Bosnia when she was Secretary of State. News footage of the event show her being presented with a bouquet of flowers by a local girl when she got to the foot of the ramp. She also claimed that Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center at the time of the attack on 9/11. Billary later admitted that Chelsea was safe and snug in her bed in her own Manhattan apartment watching the attack on TV. She also claims to have been "instrumental" in the Northern Ireland Peace Process, although the actual participants can't recall ever seeing her in the country, much less at the table when the deal was being brokered. And then there's that video she claims she didn't know about that she at first blamed the Benghazi attacks on, the one that her very own e-mails have now proven that she knew about and told her staff to use that as the cause of the attack. I could go on, but you get the idea.

#2. She's a thief. When she and her twin sister left the White House at the end of Bill's presidency, they took a crapload of furniture with them - furniture that belonged to the United States of America since it was in the house when they got there, and that they never paid for it. I'm still trying to figure out why they weren't charged with a crime.

#3. She's a hypocrite. She voted for the Iraq war when she was a senator and then claimed she "voted for it before I was against it" when she ran for the Democratic nomination in 2008. She also wants to strip Americans of their firearms while she herself huddles behind the protection of an armed security detail - paid for with the taxes of those very same Americans.

#4. She's a narcissist. Nobody, but nobody, loves Billary Clinton as much as Billary Clinton.

#5. She's an elitist. She'll never admit to this, but she firmly believes that society should be ruled by a select, elite few - namely, herself and the other high-ranking Democrats who all think they know what is better for us than we do. Of course, all of the rules they'll pass won't apply to them because they'll give themselves an exclusion just like they did for NObamacare.

#6. She has no real leadership experience. She was First Lady of the United States. Big deal. She got that title just because she was married to the President, so that's no real accomplishment. And as FLOTUS she had no real, official, decision-making duties. The one thing she did try to do failed miserably; namely, her attempts to get the first version of NObamacare off the ground. (Bet that one still stings, too.) As Senator from New York she has exactly ZERO legislation with her name on it as the author. Personally, I'm still trying to figure out how she got elected to that office to begin with. And as for her term as Secretary of State, well, I have one word for you: BENGHAZI.

#7. She's anti-Second Amendment. She's one of those overtly stupid people who seem to think that disarming yourself in the face of danger will keep you safe. Yeah, I can't figure that one out, either. And she makes all of these statements from behind the security of an ARMED security detail.

#8. She considers Americans who don't share her point of view or opinions as "the enemy." She made this statement during the Democratic Presidential Debate last week, and this statement brought a rather stinging rebuke from, of all people, the Vice President of the United States Joe Biden. When he made a statement about deciding not to run for the Democratic nomination, he made the statement that the Republicans were not "the enemy" but rather, were "opponents." That's about the only thing the Court Jester has said in the past 7 years that I agree with, but in this case he's spot-on.

#9. She's pro-choice. Which, in my book, makes her pro-murder.

#10. She's power-hungry and thinks she can do no wrong. If you need proof that she's power-hungry, all you have to do is listen to the Democratic debate. And if you need proof that she thinks she can do no wrong, just listen to her testimony at the hearings about her illegal use of a second server for her e-mail while Sec'ty of State and at the first hearing on Benghazi when she shouted, "At this point, what difference does it make?" I'm sure it makes a hell of a lot of difference to the parents and loved one of the four Americans she let die. But of course, she doesn't see it that way.

And there you have it, fellow Conservatives, the Top Ten Reasons NOT To Vote for Billary Clinton. The only bad thing is that right now, unless something really drastic happens, it looks like she just may have enough liberal lemmings, morons, and idiots that will vote for her to win the nomination. But to be honest, I can't think of who would be worse as President - her or that socialist idiot Bernie Sanders.

More on that assclown later.

But I have to admit, I think it would be kinda fun to watch Donald Trump and her go at it during the General Election. Trump is a street fighter and Billary is an alley cat, so the ensuing fight would be epic to say the least!

Time will tell.

Deo Vindice.

IHC

The Second Amendment - A Closer Look

One of the things we as a people have the sometimes annoying tendency to do is over-examine things. We as a species have the unnerving habit of over-complicating things, and the Second Amendment sticks out in my mind as the #1 thing we have over-complicated by way of over-examining it. We have taken something so simple in its wording and meaning and have examined the crap out of it to the point where we have, in some circles of belief, changed the definition of it to the point where in those circles it no longer means what the Founding Fathers intended it to mean.

To reverse this and see for ourselves just what the Second Amendment really means, you have to use and understand the language of the time in which it was written. This is where we of the 21st century go wrong, just as we did in the 20th century.

So let's take a step back in time, put on our tri-corner hats and take another, fresh look at the Second Amendment, shall we?

"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."

That's the whole amendment as written; now let's break it up into pieces.

"A well-regulated milita:" A militia was (and is) a group of civilians who band together and operate as a military group. This group has no ties to any established government and is not under the control of any such government. They are loosely organized and are, for the most part, armed with privately owned weapons and use privately owned equipment. "Well regulated" in the 18th century meant "adequately drilled," or "adequately trained" in the use of those weapons. Considering that most of the colonists in the 18th century had to hunt to survive, it goes without saying that they had their own weapons and were fairly proficient in their use.

"Being necessary to the security of a free state:" Here's where we of this day and age really go wrong. "Being necessary" simply meant then, as it does now, that you had to have it. It's required, period. The part where we go wrong is the "free state" part. Back when the Second Amendment was written they weren't referring to a state as in a piece of land, for the simple reason that there were no states at that time. The word "state" refers to a state of being, that state being free.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms:" The big thing that the British tried to do that really pissed the colonists off was when they tried to confiscate the powder, cap, balls, and muskets of the militas. Back in the 18th century most communities had an armory in which the arms and ammunition for the militia was stored when not being used. The British knew that in order to resist the people had to have arms, so they attempted to confiscate the arms and ammunition from every armory in every major town and city in every colony. So this part of the amendment simply states that the people, the individual citizens, have the right to own and keep their firearms, and that they have the right to carry (or bear) them as they see fit.

"Shall not be infringed." Do I really need to explain this? This specific part of the amendment is what fuels my belief that ANY gun control law OF ANY TYPE is unconstitutional. "Shall not be infringed" means just that - no government or person has the right to tell me in any way, shape, or form that I can't own and carry a firearm, period.

The liberal left and the Democrats will tell you that the word "militia" means the National Guard, but that's bullshit. You have to remember what the 18th century definition of the word means; if you do that, then you know that the liberals and Democrats are full of crap. They'll also tell you that the phrase "the people" refers to the individual states as an organized entity and not the individual citizens. Again, that's crap to anyone with an ounce of intelligence. If that's the case, they why does that phrase mean the individual citizens in the other nine amendments? The Supreme Court of the United States recently handed down a decision affirming what we of normal intelligence already knew, that the phrase "the people" did in fact refer to the individual citizen and not the state as an entity. This, of course, made the gun-grabbers VERY unhappy, but that's life.

When all else fails, the liberals and Democrats will pop up with the word "need," as in "Why would anyone NEED an M-16" or "Why would anyone NEED a .50 caliber rifle?" That's always a prelude into the old "common sense" thing which I wrote about yesterday, and I, for one, never fall for it. My stock reply is always that nowhere in the Second Amendment does the word "need" appear, nor does it refer to the "need" of the people. It specifically states the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and that's that.

Boy, does that really piss them off.

If you're a supporter of the Second Amendment as I am, then you'd better keep your eyes open because the Buffoon In Chief is about to try his hand at denying us our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in a way that will allow him to circumvent Congress. He's considering an Executive Order along those lines, and the only reason he's doing it now is because he's coming up on the final year of his final term, is not eligible for re-election, and therefore has nothing to lose.

We, on the other hand, stand to lose everything. Repeal the Second Amendment and the others will fall as well. After all, do you really thing that the Founding Fathers organized the Bill of Rights in its current order by chance? Or do you think as I do that they placed them in order of importance from one to ten?

Keep your eyes open, patriots, it's about to get ugly.

Deo Vindice.

IHC

"Common Sense" Gun Laws

So let's set the record straight right off the bat: There's NO SUCH THING as "common sense gun laws." Actually, if you want to get right down to it, IMHO four words that can't be used together in the same sentence are "common sense" and "gun laws."

Why is that, you ask? Well, it's simple and it goes like this - what may be "common sense" to you may not be "common sense" to me or someone else. The one thing "they" say is that "common sense sometimes isn't so common." When it comes to the topic of gun control and gun laws, common sense goes right out the friggin' window.

But just for the hell of it, let's use that "common sense" thing that the liberals and gun-grabbers speak of so highly and so often and turn it against gun control laws, shall we?

If you look at the statistics concerning "gun violence" and mass shootings - and I mean the statistics released by the FBI and not The Brady Bunch or any outlet of the liberal news media such as the New York Times - you'll notice a couple of things right off the bat. First and foremost is that the cities that have the most legally registered guns and concealed weapons permits also have the lowest violent crime rate. I remember several years ago when Florida became the first state in the nation to pass a "must issue" concealed weapons permit law, Dan Rather went into a prison and interviewed seven inmates who were all in prison for armed robbery or other such violent crimes. When asked about the dropping of crime in relation to the rising of CWPs being issued, one of the prisoners stated aloud, and the rest agreed with him, that "no one wants to get shot, not even us." For that reason, the con said, he would steer clear of an area where there was a better than average chance that he would get shot by one of his victims. In this instance, "common sense" dictates that an armed populace is a safe populace.

The next thing you'll notice is that cities and states that have the most stringent gun control laws also have the highest violent crime rate. Take Chicago, for example, the hometown of the Buffoon In Chief and his former Court Jester, Emmanuel Rahm. Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the nation, and what does it have to show for it? The highest murder rate in the nation, that's what. Yet Rahm and NObama and all of the other liberal Democrats continue to cry for more gun control laws, saying that the laws we have in place aren't good enough. (I'll get to that in a minute.) In the mean time the body count in Chicago continues to rise, as does the body count in the city with the second most stringent laws in the nation - Washington, D.C. In this instance, "common sense" dictates that an unarmed populace is not a safe populace but rather is just a bunch of victims waiting to be victimized.

The third thing you'll notice is that most of the firearms used to commit violent crimes are stolen. "Common sense" in this instance dictates that background checks don't work since criminals tend to be criminals and steal the guns they need in order to act like, well, criminals.

If you step outside of the FBI stats for a bit and take a look at current events, you'll notice several things about the mass shooting that have taken place in the past few years, especially in the past few months. Let's talk about the most recent ones first.

There have been three mass shootings that I know of in which the firearm(s) used was/were purchased legally by the person doing the shooting. This is possible because in each of these instances the shooter was nuts, and the one thing that you can't determine by a background check is the sanity level of the applicant. Of course, the liberal answer to that is to enact a new law which requires a sanity hearing to determine sanity before purchasing the weapon, but this idea is so ludicrous and so stupid that it barely warrants attention. In any event, that one will lead you right into the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" thing, something I firmly believe in. In any event, "common sense" would once again dictate that background checks don't work.

And speaking of things that don't work, if you look at the last 15 or so mass shootings that have taken place you'll discover that with one exception they've all taken place in a "Gun Free Zone." Need some examples? Okay, how's this: Columbine, Aurora Colorado, Virginia Tech, the Washington Navy Yard, Fort Hood (twice), Chattanooga Tennessee, Sandy Hook, Umpaqua Community College in Oregon, Charleston South Carolina, Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota, all took place in GUN FREE ZONES. Actually, a report issued by the Brietbart news agency reveals that since 2009 a whopping 92% of mass shootings that have taken place in America have taken place in a GUN FREE ZONE. So in this instance, "common sense" would dictate that "gun free zones" don't work. (Wanna read it for yourself? Here ya go: )

Now let's talk about the continual cry from the liberals and Democrats for more gun control laws.

It's like this: in our nation as of this moment there are more than TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND gun control laws on the books, yet gun violence continues to be a problem. "Common sense" tells me two things: first, we have more than enough laws already on the books to do the job, and second, the Federal government is doing a lousy job of enforcing them. Since the "Brady Bill" became law in 1993 the Federal government's prosecution rate of those people who were denied a permit to purchase a firearm due to a background check is less than one percent. "Common sense" dictates that you don't need more laws if you're not using the ones you already have on the books, but you can't tell a liberal that, can you?

Here's the whole thing about the liberals using the phrase "common sense" when speaking about gun laws - it's a ploy, a plot to play on your sensibilities as an adult. After all, no self-respecting adult would want to be accused of not having "common sense," now would they? No, they wouldn't, so the liberals and Democrats use this ploy to their advantage even though any amount of "common sense" would tell you that it's all a lie and a plot to begin with.

No, I prefer to work on facts, and the facts tell you plain and simple that gun control, background checks, and "gun free zones" don't work.

Anyone with any amount of common sense can see that.

Deo Vindice.

IHC