[The Hill] President Trump lashed out Thursday night at the not guilty verdict for an undocumented immigrant charged with murder in the 2015 shooting death of Kate Steinle, calling it "disgraceful."
"A disgraceful verdict in the Kate Steinle case! No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration," Trump tweeted"
"A disgraceful verdict in the Kate Steinle case! No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration."
10:30 PM - Nov 30, 2017
#3
On July 1, 2015, 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle died in a hospital two hours after being shot in the back by a bullet which had ricocheted off the concrete deck of Pier 14. The bullet had come from a .40-caliber handgun, one of three shots fired by Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, a Mexican national unlawfully residing in the United States. He was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter, but convicted of illegal possession of a firearm.
It is a travesty. He was here illegally, had been deported multiple times, used drugs, second-grade education. Probably broke into an agent's car and stole a firearm. He fired 3 shots, one ricocheted and killed Kate. I'm surprised he wasn't pawned off in court as a poor DACA kid. Anyone else would have been in the slammer pronto. Drive a car in California and kill someone while you're are drunk and MADD ladies will make certain you get charged and prosecuted vehicular homicide and put away.
#5
The left's sacred cows get away with murder every day. Two weeks ago I heard an accident and turned to see one car wiped out in the middle of the street. Went over and a young lady was sitting in the car crying saying she is tired of being hit by hit and run Mexicans. She said through her tears this was the second time in a month.
But the real problem is people still don't give a damn.
#3
Coming from CNN, which admitted they covered up Saddam's brutality for years? I think they're worried about getting "foreign agent" status properly applied to them.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
12/01/2017 7:37 Comments ||
Top||
[Citizen-Times] Devin Patrick Kelley, a 26-year-old Texan, killed 26 people before apparently taking his own earlier this month during church services at Sutherland Springs Baptist Church in Texas. News reports indicate the slaughter was the result of a heated “domestic situation.”
All indications are that upon his bad conduct discharge from the U.S. Air Force he should have been identified as an individual who could not buy or possess weapons legally. That crucial information was never relayed to civilian authorities. Thus, Kelley obtained and used a Ruger rapid-fire assault rifle as he carried out his atrocious mass murder. Correction: He could not participate in the federal firearms transfer system. He had every right to buy a firearm outside of the federal system and to possess a firearm.
With perhaps some oversimplification, here is an attempt to shed light on how and why this tragedy took place. Read my attempt: He was a liberal murdering bastard. End of explanation.
There are two “doors” that regulate human behavior. One is the conscience. The New World Dictionary defines the conscience as: “a knowledge or sense of right and wrong, with a compulsion to do right”. The second door is consequences-natural physical consequences along with man-made laws and consequences. The conscience has the potential to require the individual to do what he/she thinks is right. It can also require the individual to not do what he/she thinks is wrong. A major trouble with the conscience is that it must be obeyed voluntarily. Humans have the choice to obey or violate their consciences on a daily basis. In regard to consequences they are seldom totally predictable in nature. Also, consequences set up by man-made laws are very difficult to enforce consistently. So far, so good.
In the classic serial killer novel made into the movie “the Silence of the Lambs” this duality of conscience and consequences is very well portrayed by Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter. Hannibal has no conscience to prevent him from killing people who get in his way. He kills them and eats chosen “delicious” body parts. Hannibal displays little fear of being caught in his criminal/anti-social behavior. He has proven himself very capable of avoiding capture and confinement.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) along with thousands of its members insist that the Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to own firearms. Their mantra is that “Guns don’t kill - people kill.” To many it appears the NRA is willing to ignore the harsh reality that too many people have been killed by people wielding assault rifles. Not an assault rifle. Assault rifles are capable of firing automatic fire. The firearm Kelly used was a semiautomatic, in this article deliberately misrepresented as an assault rifle.
These are automatic rifles that fire dozens of rounds before requiring reloading. How long will the NRA shirk its responsibility to support legislation that sets reasonable limits on (A) who can legally own firearms and (B) which firearms pose too great a risk of harming or killing Americans and, therefore, must be controlled or banned for the safety of all? What could possibly motivate that influential organization to continue with its present philosophy and lobbying to Congress? Surely people don’t have to be told the answer to that question! It is money. The notion of "legally own" is such a sad thing, built up by the press and government over the span of two generations, almost as an article of faith. Most people, I would guess about 90 percent, think that because they have not run afoul of the law, they have the right to own a firearm. They ignore the reading of the 2nd Amendment. Their rights, despite the notion of "legally own" are granted by God, not by government. The 2nd Amendment serves as a admonition to government not to infringe on that right.
I have personally chosen not to join the NRA because of their rigid stance that perpetuates this needless killing. I will continue, like many of my friends, neighbors and relatives to own simple non-assault firearms for personal safety. Good for you! Just what your shooting sports friends need. A Kommie scold. You're worse than a vegan who insists everyone be aware he is vegan.
There was a time when peoples’ consciences told them not kill people with their firearms. There was a time when assault rifles were not readily available. There was a time when people did not play video games that resulted in people dying before their eyes. For some who have never witnessed a killing this surely must diminish the value of human life. The good old days, eh?
In those days children played Cowboys & Indians, pretending to kill each other all over the neighbourhood, smallish boys got BB guns as a matter of course, and everyone carried pocket knives to cut things that needed to be cut. The ones girls got were prettier.
If we could re-tool the “American conscience” perhaps we could reduce killing to zero per year. But, since we can’t control consciences, what can we control? We can, if we choose to do so, regulate and control rapid-fire assault rifles. Personally, I think being a bitchy scold is your best idea. See your shooting sports line up to spend evenings in a diner, sipping coffee, telling them about how you'd like them to be disarmed. It is your best destiny. And you're too late on the assault rifles. They are heavily regulated by virtue of federal gun laws, starting in 1933 et seq.
There is a prevent-minimize-control continuum that is considered in regard to disasters and tragedies. Prevention is generally the least expensive choice. Minimization is more expensive. Correction is usually much more expensive than either of those two. The huge trouble with the correction phase is that human life cannot be restored once taken. That is a somber reality that NRA officials and many members need to ponder on. Are they so intent on the right to possess any firearm that they can convince themselves they have no part in the prevention of killing innocent people? There is at least a thin line here between what our military personnel should have and what civilians should or should not be allowed to own. Most of my neighbors say they see no need for any hunter or gun enthusiast to own assault rifles. But in government, when you pass laws chock full of involuntary measures to prevent some ill, invariably individual rights are violated, sometime grossly by those laws. You were doing so well straight up lying about firearms, then you go and commit a false logic: "all my friends say" and so on.
In her great song “Superman” Donna Fargo sings, “Now, let’s go through this one more time. You do your thing and I’ll do mine. But, honey baby, we got to draw the line when your hang-up starts messin’ with mine”. It is becoming quite clear that the NRA’s hang-up is messing with precious human lives. Bob Dylan asked,”How many deaths will it take ‘til we know that too many people have died?” When will their collective consciences kick in and tell them that profit should never trump human life? Donna Fargo, that Constitutional philosopher. And don't get me started on Bob Dylan's masterful multi volume work on Constitutional rights.
Should we beg NRA members to discontinue their membership in an attempt to persuade that powerful organization to support legislation banning assault rifles?
#1
If only we could pass just the right laws, create the perfect rule set, we could finally achieve a Perfect Society and end hate, violence and murder. (Wait, don't we already have laws against killing people? Shut up, he explained)
The fallacy underlying banning guns is the idea that if we remove the tool, we stop the impulse. But murder is more about intent than implements. In Britain, they got rid of guns and suddenly found themselves in an epidemic of knife crimes. Murder is fungible, if you will. People with intent will find a way.
#2
The NRA routinely supports measures that keep guns away from the insane. The crank who wrote this piece is simply a militant ignoramus who won't let facts get in the way of his hatred.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
12/01/2017 8:29 Comments ||
Top||
#3
On the other hand, if the NRA had a conscience, they wouldn't have sent me three "give us your money" letters a week for the past year
#4
I believe their conscience is of a higher order - that of preventing oppressive authoritarian/totalitarian government destroying our basic human liberties. Of which, hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens have already given their 'last full measure of devotion' to prevent.
[Examiner] Newsweek magazine accused President Trump's daughter Ivanka of plagiarism. But rather than claiming that she ripped someone else's work off, the magazine said she was guilty of making a speech more than once.
"Ivanka Trump plagiarizes one of her own speeches in India," blared the headline from Wednesday.
The story covered Trump's appearance at the Global Entrepreneurship Summit in Hyderabad, India, this week and said attendees may have expected "a robust keynote address" but instead, "the breadth of her talking points were recycled from a previous speech she gave during a foreign trip earlier this month.
Some on social media criticized the magazine for characterizing the speech as though Trump had done something afoul.
"That ... isn’t what plagiarism is," remarked New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman on Twitter.
Another Twitter user said, "You can't plagiarize your own speech, you morons."
"Um yeah it’s ok to do that," said a third. "I plagiarize myself all the time, claim my own words as my own."
After drawing scrutiny, Newsweek changed its headline to say that Trump "recycles" the speech, instead of "plagiarizes."
The explosion of sexual harassment and assault claims, some going back forty years, is the inevitable consequence of the sexual revolution. Long before Bill Clinton’s sordid sexual escapades led him to impeachment, our culture had normalized public sexual behavior and mores once hidden away in the private realm, and kept there by laws, morals, and customs. Like many of our social pathologies today, our sexually saturated public culture and the unleashing of sexual predators are the bitter fruit of the free love movement of the Sixties.
Those who didn’t live through that period cannot imagine how quickly and radically our society was transformed. And that change was encouraged by certain species of dubious Pop-Freudian psychological ideas that had been combined with left-wing theories of political revolution. This synthesis was predicated on the delegitimization of the “bourgeois” virtues, morals, and values that had created the “false consciousness” empowering capitalist oppression. “If it feels good, do it” and “Fuck authority” became the most important personal and political imperatives.
Thus sexual liberation became an instrument of political “liberation,” and both revolutions enabled personal liberation, a weird mash-up of radical individualism and communist collectivism. Listen to Herbert Marcuse, denizen of the Frankfurt School and guru of the New Left:
The civilized morality is reversed by harmonizing instinctual freedom and order: liberated from the tyranny of repressive reason, the instincts tend toward free and lasting existential relations––they generate a new reality principle.
So too another popular intellectual of the Sixties, renegade classicist Norman O. Brown:
The life instinct, or sexual instinct, demands activity of a kind that in contrast to our current mode of activity can only be called play. The life instinct also demands a union with others, and with the world around us, based not on anxiety and aggression but on narcissism and erotic exuberance.
One can see this political justification for “free love” in the 1969 Wellesley commencement address of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who wrote her senior thesis on the most consequential theorist of modern left-wing activism, Saul Alinsky. “We’re searching for more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating modes of living,” Rodham said. Her three sexually charged adjectives reveal the by then preposterous union of the sexual and the political revolution that starts with “questions about our institutions, about our colleges, about our churches, about our government,” Rodham continues, and enables “human reconstruction,” a phrase echoing the leftist “new man” necessary for achieving the collectivist utopia of social justice and equality.
The women’s movement in particular embraced this theory. Sexual mores were a tool of patriarchal power, the means for keeping women “barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen,” as the cliché went. Taking away women’s sexual agency and autonomy prevented them from “raising their consciousness” and “acknowledging their repression” by the bigoted, puritanical values of retrograde Catholics and “fundamentalist evangelicals” striving to “roll back the clock.” Emboldened by sexual liberation and its empowering pleasures, women now could demand freedom from “bourgeois” rules that denied them sexual ecstasy and personal expression. Now the “double standard” of sexual codes would be abolished, and women would become the equals of men, needing only laws to be changed or written that encoded that equality.
Validated by such ideas, the powerful human sex-drive, which smarter peoples before us knew had to be controlled to minimize its destructive consequences, now began to run riot. No one has captured the consequence of “revers[ing] civilized morality” as well as Tom Wolfe does in his brilliant 2000 essay “Hooking Up.” The “sexual revolution” had by then become a “lurid carnival.” Public life and popular culture from movies and magazines to television and the Internet were filled with pornography both soft and hard. Perversions like sadomasochism became chic, its appurtenances fashion statements, and later its practice the theme of a best-selling series of novels. Divorce lost its stigma, and men were now free to dump the mother of their children for “trophy” wives half their age without tainting their careers or prestige. Read the rest at the link
#2
I am beginning to think that all of those out of context, random sex scenes and female nudity in movies was a form of sexual harassment/punishment of "uppity" actresses.
I never understood why a movie had to have a 20 minute graphic sex scene burning film and taking up story time except to humiliate the actress, gratify the actor and the director, and fill up time in a movie that really didn't tell a story.
#3
I never understood why a movie had to have a 20 minute graphic sex scene...
Cheap commercialism. When the Movie Theaters went multiple screens it was a moneymaker on over-priced popcorn sales to turn the blind eye to teenagers sneaking out of the G-rated films they bought tickets for... For Hollywood writers? Why work hard to write good dialogue when you can just put in minutes of Bump-n'Grind?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Examiner] Newsweek magazine accused President Trump's daughter Ivanka of plagiarism. But rather than claiming that she ripped someone else's work off, the magazine said she was guilty of making a speech more than once.
The explosion of sexual harassment and assault claims, some going back forty years, is the inevitable consequence of the sexual revolution. Long before Bill Clinton’s sordid sexual escapades led him to impeachment, our culture had normalized public sexual behavior and mores once hidden away in the private realm, and kept there by laws, morals, and customs. Like many of our social pathologies today, our sexually saturated public culture and the unleashing of sexual predators are the bitter fruit of the free love movement of the Sixties.
