Former Supreme Court Justice calls for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Now we're talking. Update!

Courtesy of the New York Times:  

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.” 

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters. That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option. 

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

Before anybody starts freaking out about liberal judges, it should be noted that former Justice John Paul Stevens is a Republican.

And he is right, the 2nd Amendment, as it is currently written, does not make any sense in the 21st Century.

If the Ammosexuals truly think that their cache of pea shooters would slow down the government if it actually turned on the people, they need to step away from the Meth and reevaluate that facts.

Even the military style weapons that these Rambo wannabes keep masturbating over would only piss off the soldiers in their armored vehicles and missile equipped helicopters.

Which means that they, their home/fortress, and cache of assault style weapons would likely be blown up in a rather spectacular fashion after they fired their first shot.

No, the simple fact is that we have FAR too many guns, FAR too many gun nuts, and FAR too few lawmakers willing to defy the NRA.

Update: Well this op-ed certainly caught somebody's attention.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED! As much as Democrats would like to see this happen, and despite the words yesterday of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, NO WAY. We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 28, 2018

And that somebody sounds a little panicky. 

Recently fired deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, writes op-ed for the Washington Post.

Courtesy of WaPo: 

I have been accused of “lack of candor.” That is not true. I did not knowingly mislead or lie to investigators. When asked about contacts with a reporter that were fully within my power to authorize as deputy director, and amid the chaos that surrounded me, I answered questions as completely and accurately as I could. And when I realized that some of my answers were not fully accurate or may have been misunderstood, I took the initiative to correct them. At worst, I was not clear in my responses, and because of what was going on around me may well have been confused and distracted — and for that I take full responsibility. But that is not a lack of candor. And under no circumstances could it ever serve as the basis for the very public and extended humiliation of my family and me that the administration, and the president personally, have engaged in over the past year. 

Not in my worst nightmares did I ever dream my FBI career would end this way. 

The next day I woke to find the president of the United States celebrating my punishment: “Andrew McCabe FIRED, a great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI — A great day for Democracy.” I was sad, but not surprised, to see that such unhinged public attacks on me would continue into my life after my service to the FBI. President Trump’s cruelty reminded me of the days immediately following the firing of James B. Comey, as the White House desperately tried to push the falsehood that people in the FBI were celebrating the loss of our director. The president’s comments about me were equally hurtful and false, which shows that he has no idea how FBI people feel about their leaders.

Towards the end of the 2016 election cycle The Guardian reported that the FBI was essentially "Trumpland," and that Hillary was seen as "the antichrist personified" to a large swath of FBI agents.

That was seen as part of the reason why the FBI's investigation into Trump's ties with Russia were kept on the down low while Clinton's email kerfuffle was featured on the front pages virtually every single day.

One has to wonder now if the FBI is happy with their performance, and in some cases lack of performance, during the 2016 elections?

I am not at all sure what they thought they would gain having Donald Trump as president, but if it was to be attacked on an almost weekly basis, have their top people humiliated and fired, and to have their entire agency undermined, well I guess they certainly got that, didn't they? 

Robert Mueller abruptly reverses decision to support bail for Paul Manafort after learning of planned op-ed co-written with man who has ties to Russian intelligence.

Courtesy of Business Insider:

Special counsel Robert Mueller has abruptly reversed course on a bail agreement his office struck with Paul Manafort's legal team last week that would have allowed him to be released from GPS monitoring. 

Manafort evidently failed to tell the government that he was ghost-writing a draft op-ed about his work in Ukraine as late as November 30. He was working on it with his longtime protege Konstantin Kilimnik, who is believed to have ties to Russian intelligence, according to the special counsel's court filing. 

The government said that the court had initially "admonished" Manafort's lawyer for making public statements to the press about the case and on November 8 had barred both "the parties and counsel from making statements that could interfere with" a fair trial. 

"Even if the ghostwritten op-ed were entirely accurate, fair, and balanced, it would be a violation of this Court’s November 8 Order if it had been publish," the government argued. "The editorial clearly was undertaken to influence the public's opinion of defendant Manafort, or else there would be no reason to seek its publication." 

The filing continued: "Because Manafort has now taken actions that reflect an intention to violate or circumvent the court's existing orders ... the government submits that the proposed bail package is insufficiently reasonable to assure his appearance as required. The government's prior general consent to the bail package presupposed that Manafort was complying with the Court's existing orders."

It has been clear to me for months now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is not fucking around here. 

Apparently Manafort did not get that memo and did not understand that Mueller would drop the hammer on him if he even pushed a pinky over the line.

One thing I can say with some confidence is that this is definitely going to send a chill down the spine of everybody already targeted by the Mueller team, as well as those who believe their number will come up at any time.

If I were Jarred Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., or even Trump himself, I would probably have to sleep with the night light on tonight.

Joe and Mika co-author op-ed in response to Trump tweets.

The op-ed appears over on the Washington Post.

Here is a sample:President Trump launched personal attacks against us Thursday, but our concerns about his unmoored behavior go far beyond the personal. America’s leaders and allies are asking themselves yet again whether this man is fit to be president. We have our doubts, but we are both certain that the man is not mentally equipped to continue watching our show, “Morning Joe.” 

The president’s unhealthy obsession with our show has been in the public record for months, and we are seldom surprised by his posting nasty tweets about us. During the campaign, the Republican nominee called Mika “neurotic” and promised to attack us personally after the campaign ended. This year, top White House staff members warned that the National Enquirer was planning to publish a negative article about us unless we begged the president to have the story spiked. We ignored their desperate pleas.

The president’s unhealthy obsession with “Morning Joe” does not serve the best interests of either his mental state or the country he runs. Despite his constant claims that he no longer watches the show, the president’s closest advisers tell us otherwise. That is unfortunate. We believe it would be better for America and the rest of the world if he would keep his 60-inch-plus flat-screen TV tuned to “Fox & Friends.”

The article goes on to debunk much of what Trump claimed in his tweet.

Including the fact that Mika was bleeding from a recent facelift, which this image had already put to rest yesterday.

For the record, this is a picture of @MorningMika at Mar-a-Lago at the time Trump is claiming she was "bleeding badly." pic.twitter.com/NJgioOD3Va

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) June 29, 2017

The National Enquirer did, by the way, go ahead and publish the article that Trump used in an attempt to blackmail Joe and Mika into laying off the criticisms.

 Oooh, that'll teach'em!

As I have said before I am by no means a fan of Morning Joe, and rarely watch anything that they broadcast even on You Tube.

But I have to say that they are certainly doing their part in driving the orange shitgibbon out of what is left of his mind, and that is definitely driving up their likeability in my book.

And they should have no problem keeping it up, since Trump simply cannot stop watching their show and then tweeting about them.

Watched low rated @Morning_Joe for first time in long time. FAKE NEWS. He called me to stop a National Enquirer article. I said no! Bad show

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 30, 2017

God this whole thing is just so fucking sad.

This is what our politics has turned into, one long drawn out soap opera. 

Sources are now claiming that FBI Director Comey wanted to go public about Russian interference back in the summer of 2016, but that Obama Administration blocked him.

Courtesy of Newsweek:  

FBI Director James Comey attempted to go public as early as the summer of 2016 with information on Russia’s campaign to influence the U.S. presidential election, but Obama administration officials blocked him from doing so, two sources with knowledge of the matter tell Newsweek. 

Well before the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence accused the Russian government of tampering with the U.S. election in an October 7 statement, Comey pitched the idea of writing an op-ed about the Russian campaign during a meeting in the White House Situation Room in June or July. 

“He had a draft of it or an outline. He held up a piece of paper in a meeting and said, ‘I want to go forward. What do people think of this?’” says a source with knowledge of the meeting, which included Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Department of Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson and the national security adviser Susan Rice.

The other national security officials didn’t like the idea, and White House officials thought the announcement should be a coordinated message backed by multiple agencies, the source says. “An op-ed doesn’t have the same stature. It comes from one person.”

Though this op-ed would have contained much of the explosive information that was finally released by the intelligence agencies on January 6th, it would NOT have contained information about the FBI's ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's links to the Russian interference.

Would this op-ed have changed the outcome of the election? That is hard to quantify. But maybe.

And let's remember that the Obama Administration was beyond confident that Hillary would win the election, and did not want to be seen as interfering to bring about that outcome.

If the Obama Administration can be faulted for anything it is in having confidence in the intelligence of the American people.

You see Donald Trump knew that a great number of American voters were dumb as a box of rocks, and he spoke to them right on their level.

However what we must also keep in mind is that Comey actually DID help to alter the outcome of the election by sending that letter to Congress in October in which he essentially suggested that Hillary Clinton may be about to be indicted.

I don't know if this is some attempt by Comey to repair his reputation in some way by suggesting that he wanted to do the right thing but was stopped from doing so, but the facts are that his letter about those e-mails on Wiener's computer all but handed the election to Donald Trump.

And that is not something I will soon forget, or forgive. 

Newspaper owned by Donald Trump's son-in-law publishes op-ed calling for the FBI to investigate anti-Trump protesters. And so it begins.

Kushner, with Ivanka and Donald Trump.

Courtesy of Alternet: 

The New York Observer, a newspaper owned by Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, published an opinion piece Friday calling for the FBI to launch a coordinated crackdown on nationwide anti-Trump protests, mobilizations and recount efforts. 

Titled “Comey’s FBI Needs to Investigate Violent Democratic Tantrums,” the article was written by Austin Bay, a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel and adjunct professor at the University of Texas in Austin. 

Kushner, who is married to Ivanka Trump, purchased a majority stake in the New York Observer in 2006 for roughly $10 million and currently operates as the outlet’s publisher. 

Bay’s opinion piece appeals to FBI director James Comey to “conduct a detailed investigation into the violence and political thuggery that continue to mar the presidential election’s aftermath,” including a “thorough probe of the protests—to include possible ties to organizations demanding vote recounts.” 

“The hard left’s violent reaction to Donald Trump’s election is vile and dangerous,” writes Bay. “Peaceful protests? No, the demonstrators vandalize and destroy. They have two goals: intimidating people and sustaining the mainstream media lie that Donald Trump is dangerous.”

The op-ed also wants the FBI to find out if anybody associated with the protests are being paid by George Soros or any other left wing bogeyman. 

I'm trying to remember, how long did it take Hitler to start throwing dissenters in jail again?

Sarah Palin rails against fake news while citing an op-ed that she wrote herself. Update!

Courtesy of Simple Sarah's Facebook page: 

"If it's Monday, it's delete the press." 

As a victim of fake news for years now, I'm accustomed to waking up to headlines like these - false, fake & foolhardily written. Keep it up media! Really, please do. The more you attack, the more we win.

At this point Sarah Palin actually links to Snopes to prove that the story in the top right hand corner is fake. Snopes!

I did not even know that she knew how to find Snopes on the internet.

And Palin's point is valid. She has indeed been the focus of a number of fake news stories over the years.

Why not? After all the true stories about her are only a tiny bit more believable than the fake stories about her.

However having said that did you notice the story at the bottom left?

That story was based on the op-ed that Palin and her ghostwriter posted on a Right Wing news site, that was reported on by just about every news outlet in the country.

So color me confused. Is she complaining that SHE wrote fake news, or is she suggesting that everybody who covered it wrote fake news?

Because I read it and she most certainly DID refer to Trump's deal with Carrier as "crony capitalism."

So is she upset that the MSM reported accurately on what she wrote, or is she upset that she wrote it, or perhaps is her wig just a little too snug this morning and is cutting of the blood flow to her brain?

I'm not sure but that last one sounds like a pretty good subject for a fake news story if anybody wants to run with it.

Update: Even Glen Beck thinks that Palin is suffering some kind of brain damage.

Courtesy of Right Wing Watch:

Beck said that Palin’s fawning endorsement and sycophantic defense of Donald Trump during the campaign was “crazy,” but it is even more bizarre that once it was reported that she was possibly under consideration for the position of secretary of veterans affairs in Trump’s administration, she turned around and attacked Trump over his plan to prevent Carrier from moving a thousand jobs to Mexico. 

“Sincerely, has she had a brain aneurysm?” Beck asked his staff during his weekly “Think Tank” television program. “Because I don’t know what has happened to her.” 

Palin attacking Trump over the Carrier deal is absurd, Beck said, because “you own it, Sarah. You brought it to the table. He said he would do that!” 

Eventually, Beck and his staff concluded that perhaps Palin is lashing out at Trump because she is just “butt-hurt” over the fact that she may not get the V.A. secretary position.

You know when even Glenn Beck is asking if your brain is broken,  you might want to check to see if your brain is broken.

The original Trump tramp Sarah Palin calls Carrier deal "crony capitalism." Uh oh, somebody got their fee fees hurt.

Courtesy of ABC News: 

Gov. Sarah Palin, who is being considered for a cabinet position in the Trump administration -- is raising alarm over president-elect's recently announced deal with Carrier, suggesting in an op-ed it could amount to "crony capitalism." 

"When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent," Palin wrote in a 'Young Conservatives' op-ed. "Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail."

Uh oh, she used the "C" word, and the other "C" word.

Methinks somebody is NOT getting a cabinet position.

Wait, there's more: 

"Foundational to our exceptional nation’s sacred private property rights, a business must have freedom to locate where it wishes," Palin said. "In a free market, if a business makes a mistake (including a marketing mistake that perhaps Carrier executives made), threatening to move elsewhere claiming efficiency’s sake, then the market’s invisible hand punishes." 

Palin goes so far to point out that such government intervention sets an "illogical precedent" of a corporate welfare system she labels as "a hallmark of corruption. And socialism." 

"However well meaning, burdensome federal government imposition is never the solution. Never. Not in our homes, not in our schools, not in churches, not in businesses," she added. 

"Gotta’ have faith the Trump team knows all this."

That last part is Palin speak for "Goddammit, why don't you know this?"

In her ghostwritten op-ed Palin compares this bullshit deal of Trump's with Obama's deal with Solyndra, which is a favorite conservative pinata, even though it is one failure among a number of successful renewable energy incentives.

Palin's disdain for all government incentives is summed up in this paragraph:

However well meaning, burdensome federal government imposition is never the solution. Never. Not in our homes, not in our schools, not in churches, not in businesses.

While I certainly don't agree with Palin that all attempts by the government to support or even rescue certain businesses are a bad idea, I do agree that if this Carrier deal is any indication as to how Trump will approach trying to "Make America great again," that he will in fact do quite the opposite.

The REAL question here is what suddenly caused Donald Trump's most ardent cheerleader, a woman who ignored the mocking of a disabled reporter, pretended not to notice the "grab them by the pussy" comments, and was not allowed to go on stage the night of his acceptance speech, suddenly turn on her favorite tangerine colored fuhrer?

Well if I had to venture a guess I would suggest that whatever behind the scenes deal she first made with Trump back in the day, has now been denied to her.

Let's face it Palin does NOT offer her support without a little something in it for her, and considering how aggressively she has been pimping Trump that something must have been substantial.

It was pretty clear that she really wanted this VA job, so perhaps she now knows she is no longer in the running. Or perhaps she just learned that Ivanka will be the First Lady instead of her. Or that Arnold Schwarzenegger will be the new star of "The Apprentice."

Well whatever it is, she is clearly off the reservation.

The only question to ask now is whether Trump cares enough to throw her a bone to keep her happy, or has she served her purpose is no longer of any use to him?

Is Bernie Sanders ever satisfied?

More dammit, I want more!

Sanders wrote an op-ed in which he celebrates all of the progressive policies which have now been added to the Democratic Party platform:

The Democratic Party platform drafted in St. Louis is an excellent start in bringing forth policies that will help end the 40-year decline of the American middle class. These initiatives, if implemented, will create millions of good-paying jobs, significantly improve health care, and reverse the dangerous trend in this country toward an oligarchic form of society. 

Do you hear a "but" coming? Because I hear a "but" coming.

But, let us be clear, this is a document that needs to be significantly improved by the full Platform Committee meeting in Orlando on July 8 and 9.

Now here are some of the progressive provisions in the platform as listed by Sanders himself:

At a time when huge Wall Street financial institutions are bigger now than they were before the taxpayers of this country bailed them out, the platform calls for enacting a 21st-century Glass-Steagall Act and for breaking up too-big-to-fail banks. 

The platform calls for a historic expansion of Social Security, closes loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying taxes, creates millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, makes it easier for workers to join unions, takes on the greed of the pharmaceutical companies, ends disastrous deportation raids, bans private prisons and detention centers, abolishes the death penalty, moves to automatic voter registration and the public financing of elections, eliminates super PACs, and urges passage of a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, among many other initiatives. 

These are all major accomplishments that will begin to move this country in the right direction. I congratulate Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.), chairman of the Platform Drafting Committee, and all 15 members of the panel for their hard work.

Okay by almost ANY standard that is an incredibly progressive agenda, and the part that Sanders' delegates had in drafting it should give them quite a sense of accomplishment.

But to Sanders it is just not goddamn good enough.

The problems? It does not guarantee a $15 dollar an hour minimum wage, and does not condemn the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP if you prefer.

In other words Sanders has achieved virtually every one of his goals in crafting this Democratic platform, but it is not perfect so he remains dissatisfied.

Now first let us not forget that the Democratic party is NOT married to this platform and there is nothing which forces them to pursue these policies.

Secondly let's remember that just because the Democrats might want to get these policies passed into law, there is absolutely no guarantee that such a thing will happen, especially while facing off against an entrenched Republican opposition.

And thirdly the stated reason that the Hillary delegates refused to sign off on an official opposition to TPP, is because our President is for the deal, and they refused to take a stand in direct opposition to his desires.

And lastly Sanders should know that even if the language opposing TPP is not part of the official platform, Hillary Clinton, who has stated her opposition to the plan, will be against it or not depending on what she thinks is right.

She is not bound by the language of the party platform, so it has no real control over her future decisions as President.

So his op-ed reads like nothing more than the thinnest of excuses for not officially dropping out of the race and endorsing Hillary Clinton.

What he is demanding will not happen, so he wields his progressive purity as a shield to deflect criticism as he continues to milk his last remaining supporters for contributions and basks in the media's attention.

Can't even say I'm surprised.

By the way if you want see just how delusional the remaining Bernie Bros have become just take a listen to H.A. Goodman.

And trust me, he's not the only one holding on to those delusions.

As you might imagine Florida is not at all happy that their Senator Marco Rubio hates his job, and has decided not to do it anymore.

"Wow debating is hard too. I'd quit if there weren't so many cameras on me."

In response to an interview during which Rubio said that he was not seeking reelection by way of explaining why he was missing votes, and a statement by a friend claiming that Rubio "hates" the Senate, the editorial board at the Sun Sentinel wrote this op-ed: 

Sorry, senator, but Floridians sent you to Washington to do a job. We've got serious problems with clogged highways, eroding beaches, flat Social Security checks and people who want to shut down the government. 

If you hate your job, senator, follow the honorable lead of House Speaker John Boehner and resign it. 

Let us elect someone who wants to be there and earn an honest dollar for an honest day's work. Don't leave us without one of our two representatives in the Senate for the next 15 months or so. You are paid $174,000 per year to represent us, to fight for us, to solve our problems. Plus you take a $10,000 federal subsidy — declined by some in the Senate — to participate in one of the Obamacare health plans, though you are a big critic of Obamacare. 

You are ripping us off, senator.

For all of you out there biting your fingernails at the prospect that Rubio will face off against Hillary Clinton in the general election, and offer her a real challenge, I think you can put those concerns to rest.

Personally I never understood the attraction to Rubio, and his poll numbers have certainly never reflected any substantial support.

However now I think it is safe to say that he has ZERO chance of winning this GOP nomination.

By essentially quitting Rubio has for all intents and purposes Sarah Palin'd himself.

After let's not forget that this is still only Rubio's first term as a Senator and he is already hating his job, and looking for an easier gig. Which for reasons that totally escape me, he seems to believe describes the job of President of the United States.

Yeah, stick a fork in him, he's done.

The Powerful Pornography of the Gun Fetish.

Source

This is from an op-ed over at Truthout by William Rivers Pitt, that I thought was very spot on and worth sharing: 

Over the weekend, hundreds of gun-rights activists descended on the Alamo in Texas to lament how hard it is these days for gun-owners in America. The crowd was regaled by luminaries like Alex Jones, who dispensed his gibberish with the proud fervor of someone who has taken to heart the old adage, "There's a sucker born every minute," because he knows he's getting paid no matter what he says. "If it's a war they want," he roared again and again as the day wore on, "it's a war they'll get." 

Maybe I am desensitized at this point, but after another week of stories about dead children, I find myself most bothered by this thing at the Alamo, for it represents the distilled essence of the ongoing, blood-sodden catastrophe that is this nation's terminal fetish for guns in all forms. They really do think they are under siege, and see themselves standing post on the walls of their own fictional Alamo, facing down hordes of Obama-programmed FEMA soldiers who carry the banner of the UN and seek to take their guns before instituting Sharia Law across the land. 

Under siege? It would be funny if it wasn't so completely lethal. It is almost like a magic trick: a pack of dangerous, dim-witted blivets who drape themselves in camouflage and masturbate relentlessly to "Red Dawn" on a nightly basis sprawled on a pile of NRA leaflets while clutching an AR-15 in their other hand have figured out a way to become an untouchable class in American politics, even as the blood and brain matter of children swells past their ankles and up over their fatted calves. 

It is, perhaps, the most remarkable trick ever turned in modern American politics. A few bottles of Tylenol are poisoned in 1982 and kill seven people, and the country erupts, and Tylenol is scourged from every shelf in the land, and new safety measures are swiftly enacted. More than three hundred million guns kill tens of thousands of people on a yearly basis, however, with gun and ammunition sales going through the roof every time a mass slaughter happens, and the nation barely twitches. 

Somehow, these sad, sorry, pathetic, weak, soulless, gutless sacks of shame have not only insulated themselves and their deadly little hobby from the normal procedures of civilized society that take place when a mortal threat is exposed, but have giddily convinced themselves that they are, in fact, the real victims in all this. They can, and do, sell guns on Instagram and evade any and all background checks or other firearm laws, yet somehow they are being crushed under the bootheel of tyrannical governmental overreach.

There is more, and if you are interested I suggest that you click the link at the top to read it, however this part really spoke to me in that it lays out just how perverse this obsession with owning guns has become.

Now I personally don't really have an issue with a person owning one gun for protection and keeping it locked away in a safe location, or owning a rifle for hunting, and also keeping that safely locked away when not in use.

No my problem is with these assholes that own an arsenal of weapons, many of them designed for combat, who spend their days fantasizing about repelling an attack by the Iranians, North Koreans, or Obama led liberals, who they believe are about to tread on their sacred freedoms, seemingly unaware that most of those freedoms were taken from them by the previous administration right before their very eyes.

These people have traded away their actual manhood for a symbol of manliness, leaving them largely impotent in regards to dealing with aggression or personal safety unless they have a gun in their hand.

How else to explain the outpouring of support for George Zimmerman, who gunned down an unarmed teenager who was doing nothing wrong other than trying to get home in the rain?

I truly believe that if Zimmerman had beaten Trayvon Martin with a baseball bat, or a crowbar, and left him alive, that he would have been convicted. However the gun, an instrument solely designed to kill, has become such a symbol for freedom in this country, that it seems to defy justice. (Well unless you are a woman of course, then you get a twenty year sentence for firing a warning shot.)

Our entire perception of an appropriate response to potential violence has been skewed to the point that it almost seems that murder with a gun is more accepted these days rather than to injure to our attacker, or to fire a shot to dissuade them from continuing.

As I have shared before, I was trained in the martial arts by a very strict traditionalist.

And the guidelines that he taught me forty years ago, still resonate with me today.

It is better to walk away than to argue.
Better to argue than to injure.
Better to injure than to maim.
Better to maim than to kill.
And better to kill, than to allow innocents to suffer harm.

A simple lesson, but one that has never seemed more timely.

I just wish that these gun nuts had been exposed to similar instruction when they were young.

Yet more crazy gibberish from Sarah Palin today. This time on Fox News.

Clearly Palin is on the show to pimp her ghostwritten Breitbart op-ed which we picked apart earlier today.

I had a hard time taking in all of her rabid talking points because I was distracted by what looks like a hollowed out donkey's ass sitting on her head.

It was SO stiff that it did not move even a little bit as she raged and spit venom about "GOP elephants" and their lack of courage in "repilling" Obamacare.

She of course is all in for Ted Cruz and his hostage taking techniques, and very upset by the rest of the establishment GOP folks who seem dead set against allowing Cruz to destroy the party.

At one point, while referring to the establishment Republicans as "elephants" Palin invokes her father:

"What is surprising though is...my dad who is a science teacher and a natural history teacher...Dad if you're watching this morning. If you're out of moose camp already and you're home. You are a teacher and you never told me that elephants were cannibalistic. I wish I would have known, and then we would have a different tactic in he way that we do campaigning."

I literally have NO idea what that was supposed to mean but she seemed very pleased with herself after saying it.

When the host (Let's call her Fox News Barbie for right now.) explains to Palin that the "elephants" she is referring to include John McCain, and that they say the plan to defund Obamacare is "not rational," Palin accuses them of "waving a white flag" and giving in to the Liberals.

She also claims that there is "mischief" going on:

"The mischief, in this case, are other very big things going on in the world that Obama would like to see distracted out minds away from. Things like...oh perhaps he'd like ta lob missiles into some foreign country's civil war with no intention of having those missiles actually impact the outcome of that war?" (WTF?)

Fox News Barbie then tells Bible Thumping Barbie that she has a Twitter question for her (At which point you can see Palin swallow hard) from an audience member (Whew!)

The host then asks her about whether or not she might be in the running for Senator Begich's seat, but Palin quickly says it does not have to be her who challenges him, and then changes the subject some bullshit about coal.

However Fox News Barbie refuses to let Palin off so easily and asks her again, at which time you can see the Grizzled Mama's hackles going up and she gets a little testy, finally using her children as a deflection, saying she wants to "keep them nice and pure."

Yeah, somehow the phrase "nice and pure" and Palin children don't really go together for me. How about you guys?

She is then asked whether she would endorse any of the GOP Senate hopefuls in Alaska, and she says she would. (You can almost hear Joe Miller and Mead Treadwell screaming "Nooo!" from here.)

Another Twitter question asks if she thinks Benghazi will have any impact on Hillary's ability to run for President.

Her answer:

"If it doesn't have an impact on the 2016presidenital election if she is a candidate, then America I am very disappointed in our electorate, because anyone who would just throw away two hundred years of our military ethos and leave our men behind to be murdered, in Benghazi  in this case, no that person should never be considered as a Commander-in-Chief. "

Did this nasty bitch just accuse Hillary Clinton of purposefully allowing the men in Benghazi to be murdered?

Oh she is biting off way MORE than she could possibly chew. She better goddamn hope that Hillary ignores these remarks or the next shoe print on somebody's behind will be sporting high heels.

Personally I don't know WHY Palin bothered to show up on Fox today, as she had already filled the news cycle with stupidity from her ghostwritten op-ed and from her hastily taken down tweet. However if she were intelligent I guess she might actually have a real job in politics.