Day by Day Cartoon by Chris Muir

Friday, February 26, 2016

Movie reality?

So - "Black Lives Matter" supposedly sends some people in KKK sheets to a Trump rally.

Must have been watching "Blazing Saddles" while reading their little red books...

Those Trump KKK Supporters were #BlackLivesMatter Activists

Media outlets quickly picked up a story about two Klansmen in full robes and caps standing outside a Nevada caucus site to "support" Donald Trump. While Trump certainly has a very active Neo-Nazi Alt-Right base, it mostly spends its time on Twitter calling conservatives "cuckservatives" and retweeting anime and Taylor Swift memes to make themselves seem younger than they are. (That doesn't mean he's responsible for them.)
There was one obvious problem with these two KKK Trump supporters. They were black.
Snopes has a different take:
"Photos" that were circulating of one of the purported black men in the KKK outfit were actually stills or screenshots from a popular Dave Chappelle skit called "Blind Supremacy":

What a circus.

I'm still leaning toward Cruz.


Thursday, February 25, 2016


In the Beloit Daily News:

Streets awash in stolen guns

UNDER THE OPEN RECORDS law the Beloit Daily News asked for and obtained information on how many guns have been stolen since 2013 in the city.
The answer is 66.
THAT’S NOT TO SAY this newspaper is against any and all adjustments in gun laws. There are sensible reforms that may be worthwhile. No one needs assault-style rifles with extra-large ammunition magazines. No one needs armor penetrating ammunition. Government should consider closing sales loopholes for gun shows and perhaps even private parties that evade background checks. We think last year’s repeal by state leaders of Wisconsin’s 48-hour waiting period for handgun sales was a mistake and should be reinstated.
Case in point: Christopher O’Kroley is charged with gunning down a 24-year-old Stoughton woman the day after he bought a handgun legally without a waiting period. If O’Kroley had to wait one more day to obtain the gun would he still have killed the woman? No one can say one way or the other, but the case ought to give state legislators something to think about.
While we are very skeptical more gun laws will make criminals change their behavior, we’re also skeptical that making guns easier and quicker to obtain and carry will make us safer.

MEANWHILE, WE GIVE the Beloit Police Department credit for initiating a program to track stolen guns used in the commission of crimes. More data is a good thing.
The numbers of stolen guns here — and, by implication, the thousands of others across Wisconsin — ought to suggest to policymakers and law enforcement that more attention needs to be directed toward the black market for weapons. Undoubtedly, this is a key source for guns being used to shoot up our streets.
One more thing: Part of being a responsible gun owner is to keep your weapons secured. Lock up your guns so they are harder to steal.
I left a comment:

No one "needs" to be able to read anything they want to, whenever they want to. Perhaps we should regulate people's access to philosophy texts that might cause them to think in ways that we don't agree with.

The Second Amendment is very clear in it's wording. If you understand the thinking of the Founders, you realize that the "arms" mentioned are precisely "assault-style rifles with extra-large ammunition magazines: and "armor penetrating ammunition".

There is no "gun show loophole". All sales from Federally licensed dealers must be cleared through the FBI E-Check system, and in the case of handguns in Wisconsin, through the "Handgun Hotline". Sales between private parties are not regulated, but the BATFE takes a very dim view of private parties "dealing" in firearms.

If you look long enough, you will always be able to find a case where someone did something that would have been prevented if only that person had "obeyed the law". The trouble, as pointed out in this same editorial, is that criminals DO NOT obey laws. If someone is so without an internal moral compass that he or she will commit premeditated murder, a waiting period won;t change things. On the other hand, there have been cases of women killed by persons bound by restraining orders while they waited for that same (the BDN website truncated the comment here - had to post the rest as a second comment) waiting period to expire - they were rendered defenseless by the law meant to "protect" them.

Laws are not the answer. Follow the Constitution. Teach children history and respect. Teach children how to properly handle firearms - this should be as much a part of public education as physical education is. Allow law-abiding people un-infringed access to the arms that are their right to keep and bear. Accept the fact that some persons will be criminals or deranged regardless of any laws - and that we need to be prepared to defend against them at any time.

The police are second-responders. The victim of a crime is the person there first. Give him or her a fighting chance, or at least the right to decide if they want to be capable of defense!

Almost every "mass shooting" in this country has been in a "gun free" area. Think about that. Perhaps there's a really useful law that could be enacted - make anyone who posts a "no guns" sign responsible for any act of violence committed with a firearm on their premises.

As far as "tracking" stolen guns - how does that help the victims? Unless you can tie the gun to the shooter under legal rules of evidence, where it came from is irrelevant.

By the way - where is it outrage over President Obama's administration's "Fast and Furious" operation, where hundreds of those evil "assault rifles" were purposely allowed to be sold - illegally - to Mexican drug dealers? How about we enforce some of THOSE laws before saddling good citizens with yet more useless - and illegal - waiting periods and limits on private sales?

Read that Second Amendment again. And, if you own a gun - keep it secured. If you are not carrying it or within arm's reach of it -KEEP IT LOCKED UP.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016


Bill Whittle on gun violence

Letter to Mr. Russ Feingold

Got an email from good 'ol Russ - he wants me to tell the GOP leadres to approve Jugears' appointment to the Supreme Court, regardless of what a mess his likely appointee would make of what's left of the Constitution.

His email:

Russ for Wisconsin
Friend --

President Obama will soon nominate someone to succeed Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. This responsibility is not only critical to the operation of our highest court, it is a responsibility explicitly laid out in our Constitution: The president shall appoint a justice to serve our nation and the Senate will provide "advice and consent."

Once President Obama nominates a new justice, the Republican-led Senate can consider the nominee and decide not to support them -- that's their right, and it's what the Constitution means by "advice and consent."

What the Senate cannot do is abdicate this constitutional responsibility. Yet Senator Ron Johnson has proposed doing exactly that. He's putting Republican party politics ahead of our Constitution and offering up only excuses. "Doing nothing is also an action," he said this week.

His "doing nothing" is actually not action, it's partisan obstruction. His "doing nothing" is why Washington has become so dysfunctional. His "doing nothing" flies in the face of his constitutional responsibility, and it has to stop. So I'm calling on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senator Johnson, and other Senate Republicans to drop their knee-jerk obstruction and give the president's Supreme Court nominee fair consideration.

But I need your help to build pressure.

Tell Mitch McConnell, Ron Johnson, and the Senate to do their jobs and give fair consideration to President Obama's Supreme Court justice nominee.

The Supreme Court plays a unique role in applying the Constitution to important questions of American life and business, but if Senator Johnson and other Senate Republicans continue on this damaging path, our country could be waiting over a year for a new Supreme Court justice.
Join me in reminding Senator Johnson, Mitch McConnell, and other Senate Republicans of their crucial responsibility.

Tell Senator Ron Johnson, Mitch McConnell, and the Senate to do their jobs and give fair consideration to President Obama's justice nominee.

Senator Johnson's tactics have already damaged one branch of government -- we can't let him use the same tactics on another.

Thank you,
Russ Feingold

(links removed. Don't want anyone to accidentally give him any encouragement. If  YOU want to send him anything, look up the email yourself!)

My response:

Dear Mr. Feingold,

Yes, the Senate has the authority to approve or disapprove a Presidential Supreme Court appointment.

What they do not have is a Constitutional responsibility to approve an appointee who will not rule based upon the original intent and wording of the Constitution. They do not have the responsibility to approve someone who will legislate from the bench.

The Supreme Court is not there to interpret the Constitution as a "living document" - they are there to rule on cases and how the Constitution, as written and ans originally intended, allows or prohibits that particular law in question.

We have had entirely too much "interpretation" from the Supreme Court in my lifetime. It's time for this to end.

If President Obama nominates someone with the above credentials and judicial record, I am all for them. Otherwise, let's wait until next February.

There is no case before the Supreme Court so critical tha we need to rush this. I cannot conceive of any such case arising in the next year.

Except, possibly, a ruling on whether or not we have had a legitimate President for the last two terms - and even that could wait until next year - he's already done about all the damage he could, unless the CONgress refuses to do their jobs.


Chuck Kuecker
Beloit, WI.

Funny how when the Demonrats obstructed Republican appointees, there was no hoo-haw raised...

Monday, February 15, 2016

Educational video

Explains racial inequality - as per the liberal left.

This is being shown in some schools - with the intent of putting a guilt trip on white students.
A few notes:
1. Discrimination has been part of human society since the first men split into groups that developed apart from each other - when they came over the hill and met up again after decades, they were treated as "the other". Human nature. Not a nice thing, but also not something that can be legislated out of existence. "Affirmative action" probably did more to hurt miorities than Dred Scott.
2. Poor schooling. Before the liberals got hold of America's  school system, it produced people like George Washington Carver and Martin Luther King, Jr. Then, the government razed all the "ghettos" and forced people into Soviet-style gulags, where gangs sprouted up as an unintended consequence of the "war on drugs". Is it any wonder that whole generations grew up thinking that shcool was worthless?

3. Underemployment - see #2.

4. Standardize tests - see #2.

5. School to prison pipeline - see #2.

6. Housing segregation - not an issue in most places since the '60's. Unless you want to count people on welfare not being able to move into McMansions...

7. Racial profiling - a weasel word for being able to notice the disproportionate difference in crime rates among different groups - again, see #2 above.
And the hint about "drug tests" - they affect everyone who wants a job these days, but are NOT required to get governmental assistance - read, live off the productive citizens...

8. Shortened lifespan - possibly linked to lifestyle? Lots of white folk in this bunch these days.

9. "Privilege" - the whole excuse for this video - let's make the white boy feel bad if he succeeds.

No one gave me a leg up or a free ride - I had to earn everything I have, and the liberals reward me with "Jugearscare" and yet more taxes, and in many cases, especially in government jobs, allow less-qualified individuals in over qualified males and white females, all in the name of "affirmative action".

Seen at Hot Air

Friday, February 5, 2016

Letter to the editor

Just got one of those "chain emails" . I think this one's worth propagating.


For some reason, people have difficulty structuring their arguments when arguing against supporting the currently proposed immigration revisions. This lady made the argument pretty simple. NOT printed in the Orange  County Paper .....

Newspapers simply won't publish letters to the editor which they either deem politically incorrect (read below) or which do not agree with the philosophy they're pushing on the public. This woman wrote a great letter to the editor that should have been published; but, with your help, it will get published via cyberspace!

From: "David LaBonte"

My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to "print"
it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange  County Register:

Dear Editor:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear
down the Statue of Liberty   because the people now in question aren't
being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Islandand other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some
would even get   down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground.
They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved good-bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture.
Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought alongside men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from.
They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan . They were defending the United States of America as one people

When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German-American or the Irish-American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country.
Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here.
These immigrants truly knew what it
meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one Red, White and Blue bowl.

And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country.
I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life.
I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty , it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.

Rosemary LaBonte