Skip

A response to the Left’s “Guns are only designed to kill people” (emphasis mine):

…First, what are guns designed to do? They’re designed to project force at a distance. They do this by propelling a projectile out of the end of a barrel at a velocity sufficient for the task at hand. The higher the velocity, the more force can be projected at further distances. The heavier the projectile, the more force that can be projected at a given velocity. Guns are machines that allow us to effectively project force at a distance.

To clarify, consider the purpose of a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile tipped with a nuclear warhead. What is its purpose?  Much like that of a pistol, it’s to project force at a (great) distance.  But the Minuteman III wasn’t designed to kill people. It was designed to provide deterrence; that is, to stop other people from killing us. No Minuteman III has ever killed a single person, but it was and is used every day to deter attacks on the United States.

This principle is as old as humanity. The most famous adage associated with it is:  Si vis pacem, para bellum (if you wish peace, prepare for war).

Read more

OK, one by by reporting TV station and two by a politician who swears an oath to uphold the Constitution (reformatted, emphasis mine):

A bill making its way through the Statehouse could put more guns on the streets of South Carolina.

Rep. Wendell Gilliard said Friday he believes it’s a mistake to pass a bill that would open South Carolina borders to concealed carry permits from other states. He added, it would give almost anyone the ability to walk into South Carolina with a gun. “Everybody wants the right to carry a gun and that’s dangerous in a free society,” Gilliard said. “We should not allow that.” Part of this bill also amends current legislation; It no longer requires South Carolinians to get a concealed carry permit to carry in public.

…”We’re definitely moving backwards,” Gilliard said. “It’s not a great day in South Carolina.”

So this is a bill about implementing permitless concealed carry (open carry is illegal) in SC and extending more reciprocity to other CCW holders across the US.  That’s really it – but ABC4News, in their opening line (“put more guns on the streets“) is a bit misleading. Only if a whole lot of carrying tourists go visit and a whole lot of SC law abiding citizens decide to now exercise their Second Amendment rights, given that SC is one step closer to being true to the Constitution’s “not infringe”. But having law abiding citizen is a problem in ABC4News’ eyes? But it is Democrat SC State Rep Gilliard’s statement that I found quite odd:

Read more

Well, it looks like Donald Trump may take ALL of Indiana’s delegates right now (at the time of writing, with 73% of the vote in, Trump has 52.9% of the vote).  In listening to Fox News commentators and anchors, the word that has been consistent through out ALL of the states that when Republican primary voters agree to talk to the exit pollsters has been the word BETRAYAL.  A majority of voters believe that on all levels and in all meanings of the word and what can be done politically, the word BETRAYAL best describes how the leaders and elected officials of the GOP have treated them.

And then these leaders and elected officials are in absolute panic mode that Trump may take this?  That they take no responsibility of the utter shattering of the Party that is going on?  Sorry dudes and dudettes, but if the GOP had been doing the job it should have been doing, this wouldn’t have happened.  The TEA Party wouldn’t have happened either and after 7 short years, a TEA Partier will achieve second place in the Prez race (and many agree that if The Donald hadn’t run as a Black Swan event, Cruz might have taken it all) beating all of the erstwhile GOPe-ers.

Why?

Primarily, the GOPe hasn’t

Read more

From economist Mark Perry (emphasis mine):

Based on Department of Education estimates, women will earn a disproportionate share of college degrees at every level of higher education in 2016 for the eleventh straight year. Overall, women in the Class of 2016 will earn 139 college degrees at all levels for every 100 men, and there will be a 610,000 college degree gap in favor of women for this year’s college graduates (2.195 million total degrees for women vs. 1.585 million total degrees for men). By level of degree, women will earn: a) 154 associate’s degrees for every 100 men (female majority in every year since 1978), b) 135 bachelor’s degrees for every 100 men (female majority since 1982), 139 master’s degrees for every 100 men (female majority since 1987) and 106 doctoral degrees for every 100 men (female majority since 2006). . . .

Now that there’s a huge (and growing) college degree gap in favor of women such that men have become the “second sex” in higher education, maybe it’s time to stop taxpayer funding of hundreds of women’s centers that promote a goal of gender equity that was achieved more than thirty years ago in higher education, at least in terms of earning college degrees? And perhaps the selective concern about gender imbalances in higher education should be expanded to include greater concern about the new “second sex.”

But is it misogynist to

Read more

I am afraid that some of the Political Correctness crap is now making it out of the hallowed halls of the Ivory Tower (where “eccentric” is a well used adjective – this is bordering on being an asylum).  And it is becoming clear that we who actually learned useful stuff from college may soon be overrun by these parasitical toddlers as they come out into the wide world and bring their virtual reality with them.  See what the Leftists have wrought!

Including this nitwittery; Powerline has decided to keep use the dipping ladle into the incoherency of the “anything except useful” studies that one can get a degree that is only effective if the “earner” is looking for yet another academic paycheck and show the rest of us where the potting soils of these badly raised kids get their ideas:

Mapping the Hobosexual: A Queer Materialism (Heather Tapley, University of Victoria)

Abstract

The following article introduces the hobosexual as a concept in queer materialism. Mapped at the intersection of not-for-profit hobo sex and labor practices historically, the hobosexual collapses the apparent impasse between the material and the symbolic so prevalent in queer studies.

Read more

I think Dennis Prager nails the answer to his own question (reformatted, emphasis mine):

…That is why the Left loathes Israel. If the Left actually cared about human rights, women’s rights, gay rights, or freedom of speech, religion, and the press, it would be wildly pro-Israel. But Israel, in the Left’s view, is white, European, and colonialist; in other words, Western. And the Palestinians are non-Western.

So, then, the Big Question is, Why? Why is the Left hostile to Western civilization? After decades of considering this question, the answer, I have concluded, is: standards.  The Left hates standards – moral standards, artistic standards, cultural standards. The West is built on all three, and has excelled in all three.

And I would also add the Judeo-Christian religious tradition and the values espoused therein – the base of Western Civilization also contains (used to contain?) and is built on top of it.  Take it away and what is left? Not a whole lot.

Why does the Left hate standards? The Left hates standards because when there are standards, there is judgment. And Leftists don’t want to be judged.

Read more

(Image H/T: Powerline)  The primary season is starting to wind down and Bernie Sanders took a pounding in winning only 1 of the 5 primaries last week – he’s mathematically been eliminated.  And sure, he has raised a whole lot of money outside of the typical donor class but even that isn’t enough.  But like all Socialists, they have no problem in spending all of that other peoples’ money (emphasis mine):

Sanders is biggest spender of 2016 so far — generating millions for consultants

The small-dollar fundraising juggernaut that has kept Bernie Sanders’s insurgent White House bid afloat far longer than anticipated has generated another unexpected impact: a financial windfall for his team of Washington consultants.

By the end of March, the self-described democratic socialist senator from Vermont had spent nearly $166 million on his campaign — more than any other 2016 presidential contender, including rival Hillary Clinton. More than $91 million went to a small group of admakers and media buyers who produced a swarm of commercials and placed them on television, radio and online, according to a Washington Post analysis of Federal Election Commission reports.

Read more