In the Sixties, we saw the beginning of a narcissism and self-absorption that gripped the Left and has not let go.
The full-scale embrace of the importance of self-awareness, self-discovery and being ‘true’ to oneself, along with the idea that the State should care for the less fortunate, has created a swathe of Left-wing people who want to outsource their obligations to others.
Source: Daily Mail
The choke point is when the small minority expands to include you. And then it’s no longer a few billionaires. It’s the upper middle class. And then it’s the entire middle class. It’s all white people. It’s all men. And then it’s everyone. The minority turns out to be the majority. And that’s the scam.
Identity politics is approaching its own choke point. It’s running out of other people.
Source: Sultan Knish
Since I have a SIG Sauer P-226 I’d have to go with the SIG Sauer P290RS. Same 9mm ammo.
Whole list: Shooting Illustrated
Hat tip: Instapundit
Example: “hate speech is excluded from protection. dont [sic] just say you love the constitution . . . read it.” CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo, on Twitter, February 6, 2015.
Example: “I do not know if American courts would find much of what Charlie Hebdo does to be hate speech unprotected by the Constitution, but I know—hope?—that most Americans would.” Edward Schumacher-Matos, NPR, February 6, 2015.In the United States, “hate speech” is an argumentative rhetorical category, not a legal one.
“Hate speech” means many things to many Americans. There’s no widely accepted legal definition in American law. More importantly, as Professor Eugene Volokh explains conclusively, there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. Americans are free to impose social consequences on ugly speech, but the government is not free to impose official sanctions upon it. In other words, even if the phrase “hate speech” had a recognized legal definition, it would still not carry legal consequences.
This is not a close or ambiguous question of law.
When the media frames a free speech story as an inquiry into whether something is “hate speech,” it’s asking a question of morals or taste poorly disguised as a question of law. It’s the equivalent of asking “is this speech rude?”
source: Popehat
“These students and their allies look to us for support and assurances,” they write. “The academy can, and should, help our students…contest increased social inequality and exclusionary discourse toward immigrants that is now being amplified by the Trump Administration.”
Translation: We are not engaging in any education anymore. Straight political indoctrination is the order of the day.
Source: Campus Reform
4. What are your thoughts on guns?
Your date should answer, “You don’t have enough guns.” This answer should come before you mention just how many guns you already have.
Obvious.
Source: Townhall
“There’s one huge caveat: Emanuel didn’t actually study Hurricane Harvey itself. Instead, Emanuel’s study is based on thousands of climate model runs to find out the odds a storm will bring the amount of rainfall Hurricane Harvey did when it made landfall in late August 2017.”
‘Climate models’, ie, computer games, do not make it science.
Source: Accuracy in Academia
That said, the painted face of enlightened coastal liberalism has facilitated the agendas of the oppression machine far more. The drop in healthy suspicion of the US intelligence community, the demand for online censorship, the manufactured support for world-threatening cold war escalations — these things didn’t come from the red states. This willing complicity with Orwellian agendas was birthed into existence by those bastions of progressive values in America’s cultural hubs on either side of the continent. It is maintained by NPR-listening, latte-sipping liberals who view themselves as open-minded and woke.
Source: Medium
Second Amendment should not apply to Democrats. Shouldn’t be a problem… Democrats don’t like it anyway.
