By Scott Weiser
While the Milo event at CU last night was largely peaceful an undercurrent of potential violence was simmering just below the surface and cowardice of liberalism was evident everywhere, especially in the face of this leftist disrupter of civil debate.
This coward pushed his way into the middle of a passionate but peaceful discussion of economics and women’s rights between liberal protesters and a gay advocate of capitalism and tried to provoke conflict. Calling the man waving a gay rainbow flag a “Nazi” he then exhorted the crowd to “move forward” and began not so subtly pushing those he disagreed with out of the crowd while proudly displaying his utter lack of tolerance for reasoned debate. He tried to disguise his masked forcible interference with free speech by turning away and pushing with his back, but the video shows what happened.
When his bandanna mask was pulled down did he proudly show his face like many people, including the gay man he was abusing? No, he and his cohorts tried to hide their faces because they are all cowards who are unwilling to stand behind their beliefs and be identified.
There is probable cause that this person and those conspiring with him violated 18 U.S.C. 241, conspiracy against rights, because they went in disguise in a public place with the obvious intent to physically prevent or hinder the free exercise and enjoyment of the right to peaceably assemble and engage in free speech on the part of all those he interrupted with his violence. He should be tracked down, arrested and tried accordingly.
The full text of the statue is below. Judge for yourselves:
18 U.S.C. 241 Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. (emphasis added)
By Scott Weiser
Of all the insipid arguments against law-abiding people carrying guns for self defense, the one the LA Times editorial page made on Tuesday, January 17, 2017 is one of the most ignorant and frankly stupid ones ever expounded.
The editorial says “As the nation has learned so painfully, there is little that can be done once someone has armed himself — and it is almost always a him — and starts shooting up a school or a workplace or a neighborhood, intending to kill as many people as possible.”
This assertion is in and of itself a complete falsehood. There’s plenty that can be done to stop a mass shooting, the question is only whether there are people who are trained, equipped and prepared to do what is necessary.
The LA Times goes on to say “The NRA and its statehouse allies adhere to the disproved theory that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun, and thus the more firearms carried around, the safer society becomes.” This theory is anything but disproven, and most bad guys with guns are stopped by good guys with guns, but that’s another article entirely, so we will let it lie for the nonce.
The fundamental flaw in the LA Times article is the noxious notion that the individual right to self-defense can allocated by degrees based on someone else’s analysis of risk.
In the article cited by the LA Times, author Jared Keller, a “writer for hire” and contributing editor at Pacific Standard, says “statistically, it’s more likely that someone with a concealed carry permit will set out to commit mass murder than prevent it. Analysis by the Violence Policy Center has found that at least 29 mass shootings since 2007 were carried out by perpetrators with concealed carry permits. That’s more than three times the number of concealed permit holders who prevented mass shootings through their swift action.”
Whenever some liberal pundit mentions statistics in conjunction with one’s fundamental constitutional rights, watch out, they are about to statistic them away! What Keller and the VPC claim has been demonstrated to be false, but that too is not really relevant to this argument.
The essence of the LA Times and Keller’s entirely fallacious argument is as follows: Few armed citizens actually use guns to stop mass shootings perpetrated by criminals, therefore no citizens should be allowed to carry guns to protect themselves against mass shootings perpetrated by criminals. The flaw in this logic should be obvious to all rational people.
Every individual enjoys the constitutionally-protected right to self defense using a firearm, thus sayeth the Supreme Court…and the Constitution. This right accrues to each and every individual citizen as complete and is fully enforceable by every individual. It cannot be apportioned among individuals or parceled-out by dribs and drabs to an individual by anyone, including government, based on some outside analysis of risk, which is the essence of the gun-banner’s reasoning.
To say that an individual (in this case an adult, law-abiding college student) has only a partial, limited right to self defense because someone, be it government or gun-banners, has decided that his chances of either needing it or being able to use it effectively are nil is complete nonsense and flatly unconstitutional.
It is the same as saying that the right to the free exercise of religion can be limited to praying at home only on Sunday because one does not “need” to pray more often than that or that people don’t “need” to speak in public so they can be prohibited from doing so, or that the press only “needs” two pages of news, maximum.
The sort of mindless liberal calculus of death that both the LA Times and Keller engage in is both typical of liberals and entirely unconstitutional and it is offensive to the fundamental principles upon which our nation was founded.
No one’s right to carry a gun for self defense can be infringed because she might not have occasion to use it or might be unable to use it effectively at need. Those are decisions that she gets to make and consequences she must accept as a function of her right to choose to be armed, or to not be armed.
What the LA Times and Keller are trying to do is to convert the Bill of Rights into a Bill of Needs that they get to administer based on their arrogant idea of who should get to protect themselves, when, where and how.
And that cannot be tolerated.
By Scott Weiser
A bunch of anti-oil-and-gas liberal loonies in the small Boulder County, Colorado town of Lafayette are trying to get a hilariously unconstitutional law on the ballot in order to stop lawful access to privately-owned underground minerals. In their manifesto, drafted by ardent local anti-fracker Cliff Willmeng, who’s previous attempt at banning fracking in Lafayette was tossed out of court on it’s ear by Boulder County District Court Judge D. D. Mallard, the group East Boulder County United is trying this time to declare Lafayette to be a sovereign nation that’s not part of the United States of America or the State of Colorado. In an utterly futile and frankly absurd attempt to legalize illegal “direct action” protests against the owners of mineral estates in Lafayette who might have the temerity to access and extract their wholly-owned private property, the group is planning to present its manifesto to the Lafayette City Council on Tuesday, January 17th.
Engaging in a bit of bald-faced cultural misappropriation they invoke a mish-mash of Native American and liberal fascist ideology as justification, but what they are attempting is pretty much what Marxist dictator Josef Stalin did to Russia and the rest of the Soviet empire and what President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela did when he seized the assets of foreign oil companies and nationalized them. And the result if this Marxist useful idiocy succeeds will be much the same.
In Venezuela, where you can’t buy toilet paper and people are starving because of Maduro’s obsession with Marxim, the economy has crashed and burned, literally. By stealing the assets of companies that were working to extract oil and gas from one of the richest reserves outside of the Middle East, Maduro instantly drove all foreign investment out of Venezuela and there’s nobody to extract the resources upon which Venezuela depended for its economic survival.
In Lafayette, even if this asinine attempt isn’t instantly laughed out of the room, the economic impact would be devastating, and here’s why: In the United States the right to private property is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, which says “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Could Lafayette impose bans on the extraction of oil and gas? Certainly. Under the power of eminent domain the Lafayette City Council can pretty much seize whatever it wants from private owners and turn it to public use. The fly in the ointment however is the “without just compensation” part of the Constitution.
Maduro was able to simply steal the infrastructure and investments made by oil companies because under Marxism there is no such thing as private property. But that is not the case in the United States, nor in Colorado, whose Constitution says exactly the same thing about government taking private property. Government can do it, but it has to justly compensate the original owner when it does so. And this is as true in what is cynically referred to as “The People’s Republic of Boulder County,” in which the City of Lafayette happens to be, as it is anywhere else.
Willmeng’s mother, Lafayette City Councilperson Merrily Mazza, is quoted in the Boulder Daily Camera as saying “The only way to change the law is to disobey it.” While civil disobedience is a common tactic of last resort in petitioning one’s government for redress of grievances it’s hardly the “only way” to change the law. In fact, that’s not what Mazza and her son are attempting. They aren’t willing to engage in personal civil disobedience and willingly suffer the legal consequences of doing so as a form of protest intended to garner sympathy for legal change.
What she’s trying to do is amend the law to make it legal to interfere with the rights of others to do what they have every legal right to do simply because her son’s previous attempts were rebuffed by the courts. In championing this travesty she is in fact removing the most persuasive component of civil disobedience: the public perception that the person arrested and jailed for violating a purportedly unjust law has been unjustly sanctioned.
What Mazza is supporting is a disgusting display of moral cowardice that demeans and belittles the sacrifices of genuine martyrs to unjust laws like Rosa Parks and the Rev. Martin Luther King, who broke the law and suffered the consequences in order to show how unjust the law was through personal sacrifice. Mazza wants to remove the very thing that makes her call to civil disobedience disobedient.
Ignoring for the moment the absolutely unconstitutional attempt to legalize unlawful private interference with private property owners in the use and enjoyment of their property through protests, blockades and other physical “direct action,” and the unconstitutional attempt to declare Lafayette as a sovereign nation not subject to U.S. or state law, and the astonishingly arrogant attempt to declare mineral estate owners as non-persons, something Stalin was known for doing right before sending them to Siberia to die, if these Marxist loons succeed, the City of Lafayette will owe the mineral owners potentially hundreds of millions of dollars for the value of the minerals Lafayette seized and must therefore pay for with just compensation.
But Marxism never sleeps and Marxist useful idiots always think that they can take what doesn’t belong to them without paying for it. It’s past time to let them know this isn’t going to be allowed, before it costs everyone in Lafayette everything they own.
Please attend the Lafayette City Council meeting at 6 p.m. Tuesday at 1290 S. Public Road in Lafayette and offer some “direct action” by laughing this Marxist idiocy right out of the room.
Here’s a link to the idiocy: bit.ly/2ilpcTT
By Scott Weiser
For many decades before and after the Civil War, masked Ku Klux Klan racists intimidated, terrorized and killed blacks. In 1948, as the civil rights movement was getting underway at the federal level under President Harry Truman, states began passing anti-mask statutes to prohibit groups like the KKK from concealing their identities in public places.
South Carolina enacted a statute in 1962 that is still in effect that says “No person over sixteen years of age shall appear or enter upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road, public way or highway of this State or upon the public property of the State or of any municipality or county in this State while wearing a mask or other device which conceals his identity.”
In 1872 wearing masks while intimidating and murdering blacks was legal in Mississippi and the rest of the “Solid South.” In 1948 it was made illegal under federal law, and is codified today in 18 U.S.C. § 241, Conspiracy against rights, and § 245, Federally protected activities.
Since that time there has been a resurgence of Democrat-aligned liberal fascist masked domestic terrorism and Democrat disruption of speeches and rallies of the political right. The expressed intent of many of these riots is to deliberately shut down the ability of Republicans and other conservative right-of-center citizens to engage in free speech and assembly “by any means necessary.” These liberal fascists have decided that any speech that doesn’t align with liberal progressive fascism is “hate speech” and that therefore liberal fascists have the moral authority to prevent free speech they don’t like using threats, violence, intimidation and physical obstruction, in defiance of federal civil rights laws.
Sixty-nine years after Truman acted, on January 15, 2017, these two leftist thugs, and many others, participated in a violent demonstration that caused the UC Davis College Republicans to cancel a scheduled speech by Breitbart technology editor Milo Yiannopulos out of fear of physical injuries or death to persons wanting to exercise their rights of freedom of assembly and speech by attending Yiannopulos’ event.
This is hardly the first time leftist thugs have disrupted his events or bullied college administrators into banning Yiannopulos from their campuses outright, before he’s even spoken, a clear First Amendment violation. He’s been banned by colleges and universities worldwide, and he’s coming to CU Boulder on January 25th.
Yiannopulos could be aptly described as an unapologetically right-wing self-described “dangerous faggot” and “the world’s most fabulous internet supervillain” who has become an acute thorn in the side of the liberal fascist left because he is unashamedly gay and unabashedly conservative in his rhetoric and he revels in calling out left-wing hypocrisy.
On December 21st, Boulder Daily Camera staff writer Sarah Kuta wrote “Yiannopoulos, an editor for the “alt-right” website Breitbart News…[is coming] to the Boulder campus, where just 20 percent of students identified as conservative in a 2014 survey, is being organized by the CU College Republicans and by the CU chapter of Turning Point USA, a conservative student activist group.”
Kuta’s editorializing disguised as reportage implies that 20 percent of CU Boulder’s 27,000 plus student body isn’t enough people to justify allowing Yiannopoulos to speak because he’s “alt-right” and because he is often insulting to minorities, much like any number of leftist so-called comedians like Wanda Sykes.
Kuta’s article focuses on how CU might prevent Yiannopoulos from speaking or permanently ban him from CU in the future if he offends the tender sensibilities of one of the protected classes of snowflakes at CU. Kuta says “At CU, there are 15 protected classes: race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, age, disability, creed, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, veteran status, political affiliation and political philosophy.”
She also says, quite irrelevantly, that “”Alt-right” is an offshoot of conservatism that has been described as mixing racism, white nationalism and populism.” Aside from the fact that the term is coinage from 2010 by a known white supremacist, Richard Spencer, that does indeed align specifically and intentionally with white supremacy, Kuta editorializes by engaging the common liberal fascist trope that adds whatever categories leftists don’t like, such as conservatism and populism to the term so it can be conveniently applied to anyone the left dislikes, thus fallaciously tarring them with the broad guilt-by-association brush. That sounds a lot like discriminating on the basis of political affiliation and political philosophy to me, so perhaps she should be banned from the CU campus, not to mention a staff position as a reporter at the Daily Camera.
With the invocation of “alt-right” in connection to conservatism, populism, racism and white nationalism it’s time for a little remedial review of which side of the political spectrum the vast majority of actual racism and white nationalism has traditionally resided.
In 1890, Benjamin Ryan “Pitchfork” Tillman, became governor of South Carolina. During his tenure, and throughout the1890s more lynchings of African Americans occurred in South Carolina than in any previous decade.
According to the NAACP, while speaking about preventing blacks from voting, Tillman said “We have done our level best. We have scratched our heads to find out how we could eliminate every last one of them. We stuffed ballot boxes. We shot them. We are not ashamed of it.”
Tillman was a Democrat, and so were virtually all the other elected officials in the south during the period.
From 1876 to 1974 Democrats held the governorship of South Carolina and the “Solid South” movement had Democrats in solid control of the entire south right up until the 1964 Civil Rights Act dismantled Democrat-controlled institutional racism, white supremacy and widespread violations of the civil rights of blacks.
Democrats are in point of historical fact entirely responsible for the passage of the Civil Rights Act because of their long love-affair with violent racism and black oppression going back to the very foundation of this nation, and more than 600,000 Americans lost their lives in the Civil War putting down that Democrat insurrection.
But now Democrats want to try to claim the high moral ground as Democrat operatives and other liberal fascist agitators work hard today to do to Republicans and conservatives exactly what Democrats did to blacks prior to 1964. The only difference in the tactics and intentions of Democrats and other liberal fascists today is that they are motivated by ideological hatred based on political affiliation and racism rather than being motivated exclusively by racism.
The violent obstruction of the upcoming Inauguration of President Trump that has been promised by leftist liberal fascists and Democrats alike is classic Democrat behavior going back to before the Civil War. To interfere with the exercise of civil rights protected by 18 U.S.C. 241 and 245 because those victimized are of a different political persuasion rather than merely being black is as much a federal crime punishable by up to ten years in federal prison today as it was in 1948. It’s time to put down the Second Democrat Insurrection with force and finality.
The U.S. Department of Justice has a duty and an obligation to rigorously enforce these statutes, and to immediately arrest and prosecute violent thugs like the ones pictured above who conspire to violate the rights of others and who do so while hiding behind masks like their KKK brethren of old.
On January 20th in Washington DC, and on January 25th in Boulder, Colorado, and on every day forward from this day until the dissolution of the Union and in every place in the United States from sea to shining sea Democrat insurrection and liberal fascist violence will be an intolerable affront to the Constitution and the rights of every person, regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, age, disability, creed, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, veteran status, political affiliation and political philosophy.
Photo Credits: Brietbart & National Archives
Former Denver“Losing federal funds could force Planned Parenthood nationally to turn away hundreds of thousands of low-income men and women, who rely on the organization’s clinics for basic health services like cancer screenings and birth control, according to Planned Parenthood. In many parts of the country, particularly in rural areas, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for some Planned Parenthood patients to get health care elsewhere, resulting in serious health impacts, according to Planned Parenthood officials.”
This sort of liberal trope, that only the federal government can possibly fund Planned Parenthood is deliberately intended to whip up emotions using one of the most common fallacies seen from the left: the fallacy of Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief. Put succinctly, this fallacy amounts to a “The sky is falling” claim predicated on predictions of dire consequences that will occur if wrong-thinking people don’t immediately surrender to Planned Parenthood propaganda.
Of course the reality is that refusing to provide $400 million in public funds to Planned Parenthood because it will not cease and desist from using some of that that money to perform abortions on the public’s dime won’t “force” Planned Parenthood to do anything. Planned Parenthood is a private organization that has no right to public funding if the public doesn’t want to grant it, which the election of Donald Trump seems to indicate is the case.
But what denying public funds actually means is merely that Planned Parenthood will need to look elsewhere for funding, such as finding liberal donors like George Soros or Hillary Clinton to contribute, or it could use its own money to ameliorate those “serious health impacts” for poor people. But it won’t. It will close clinics and deny services and then falsely blame the Trump administration because this is not about money, it’s about politics.
Planned Parenthood doesn’t want to become independently funded by charitable donations or private grants, it wants to continue to stick its snout into the public trough not because it needs the money but because it is part of a progressive plan to normalize publicly-funded abortion as a “right.”
No matter what one’s personal opinion may be on the subject of abortion, taxpayer-funded abortion is, and always must be subject to the will of the people, who need not feel any guilt for denying funding to any cause they don’t wish to support, no matter how plaintive or alarmist the demands for public funds might be.
Planned Parenthood is perfectly capable of providing the same levels of service nationwide that it provides today on its own dime if it chooses to do so. But it won’t, it will try to shift the blame to Trump because it’s politically expedient and advantageous to do so.
The taxpayers who are being dunned to pay for Planned Parenthood’s abortion services should keep this in mind and should not only reject these specious arguments but should demand that Planned Parenthood fund its own services using existing free-market principles and by appealing to those who can financially support their programs voluntarily.
The need for skilled workers has never been greater in the US, except perhaps during wartime, when women took over what had traditionally been men’s trades out of pure national need. Rosie the Riveter was the icon of WWII’s manufacturing push and proved that it’s not just men who are capable of or interested in the skilled trades.
Manufacturers are desperate for qualified employees who are neither college graduates with degrees nor high school dropouts with no STEM skills. What they want are employees who have a solid general education combined with specific knowledge and skills that benefits the employer. Welders, electricians, carpenters, miners, machine operators, maintenance technicians and hundreds of other tradespersons are needed to build the things that will make America great again.
Vocational education has always been something of a pejorative phrase in both parental and educational circles. It was often considered a path of last resort for under-performing students who had difficulty with the classic public-school practice of didactic and often abstract education. When the phrase “vocational school” is mentioned parents conjure up visions of “Happy Days” Fonzie in his leather jacket working on a jalopy in auto shop or some teen comedy movie stereotype of the incompetent nerd making bird houses in wood shop.
Parents naturally want to believe that their children are all doctors, lawyers and rocket scientists, but the truth is more banal because most children grow up and work in much less prestigious or advanced careers, even if they have college degrees. But parents are ever hopeful so they push their children towards academic excellence and advanced college degrees. There’s nothing wrong with that because every child needs to have before them a vision of success and prosperity that drives them towards excellence and a college degree is a proven lifetime economic benefit.
But the truth is that the country doesn’t really need another MBA or another lawyer or another liberal arts graduate, it needs people who know how to build and fix things, people who know how to wield a hammer or operate a CNC milling machine or weld pipelines and steel structures, people who know how to build and maintain things like the deteriorating bridges on our highway systems.
Looking down our noses at vocational education dooms many children to frustration and corrosion of self-esteem as they aspire to be rocket scientists but end up moving boxes in a warehouse because the job openings for rocket scientists are few and far between.
So, it’s time to expand our vocational educational system beyond the academic outliers and underachievers and make vocational education a part of the required high-school curriculum. Every student should be exposed to the panoply of vocational skills that the country needs in ways that allow them to experiment and learn just what it means to hold down a job and gives them the opportunity to find skills that they find interesting and enjoyable. We need to do this before we send them off to college so that at the very least they have an idea of what they want to be before they burden themselves with tens of thousands of dollars in educational debt.
To do this we need to solicit, or even mandate the participation of those who directly benefit from well-educated and skilled young people entering the work force: America’s manufacturing industry. We need to get industry to fund the technological infrastructure needed to give students these opportunities and we need to build more facilities that provide places where every student can sample many different trades.
One of the best places to start is by using as much of the underutilized factory and warehouse space that exists in Colorado Springs as possible, which can be converted into multi-discipline learning laboratories teaching everything from carpentry to machine-tool operation and programming to welding to manufacturing robot programming to wind turbine maintenance. Whatever skills our employers need they need to pay to equip school districts to teach and we need to expose all of our young people to vocational skill-building, not just the academic underachievers.
No young person really knows what they want to do as they enter high school and it’s a travesty that we send many of them off to college and expect them to discover their true passion in life in the elevated academic sphere with its limited choices and philosophical airs when it may be that they would be far more satisfied with a vocation that guarantees them a job and the self-esteem-affirming experience of not being buried in college loan debt for half their lives.