We will have so many awesome Second Amendment posters that you may get bored with Second Amendment posters (as if!). Plus other cool, funny stuff and dogs!
And one more Second Amendment poster. It’s from a Proggie, but I want to show just how stupid it is by juxtaposing it with a story and video out of Texas, about a police officer who found himself in a gun fight. First, the poster:
And here’s the story, with video:
The man, Marco Antonio Saavedra, 44, was pulled over in Pasadena, Texas, after running a stop sign Thursday when he ignored officers’ request to stay in his vehicle. The video showed Saavedra getting out of his white sedan.
Saavedra can be heard saying, “What did I do” as he stepped out of his vehicle and stood up.
The officer told Saavedra three times to “stay in the vehicle” and then told him twice to “show me your hands.” Saavedra had his right hand behind his back as he stood next to his car.
Saavedra then leaned back into his car before drawing a handgun and pointing it toward the officer. The officer fired several times, hitting Saavedra on the left side of his body.
The driver is seen stumbling around the street before raising his gun a second time. The officer fired several more times, hitting Saavedra, who then fell onto the pavement. The officer also hit the passenger window of his police cruiser with a bullet.
Pasadena Police spokesman Vance Mitchell said Saavedra had arrest warrants on aggravated assault charges and for violating his bond. Court records show Saavedra, from Houston, had been accused of assaulting his wife on at least two occasions. Police said the gun Saavedra had was reported stolen.
This video shows something close to the officer’s eye view:
And this video shows how long the man was still standing — and a potential threat — before he hit the ground:
Just imagine if the police officer had only three bullets. The reality is that humans are not ducks. They are not deer. They are not squirrels. They are big, they complicated, and they are often on substances that keep them going long after an ordinary person would have hit the ground. Whether you’re a police officer or an ordinary citizen, the government should never be allowed to determine in advance what it thinks you “need” in a deadly confrontation.
One more thing. Let me repeat that last sentence in the article above: “Police said the gun Saavedra had was reported stolen.” None of the gun control laws in America, not just in Texas, but anywhere in America, would have prevented Saavedra from having a gun and posing a mortal danger to someone, whether cop or civilian.
When Republican congressional leaders went to the White House on Jan. 23, 2009—just three days into Barack Obama’s presidency—to discuss legislation, he helpfully reminded them that his policy preferences necessarily had to prevail because “elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”
Obama is out of office now, but the regrettable consequences of his election remain strewn across the political landscape. Perhaps nowhere is that more consequential than in the makeup of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The 4th Circuit handles cases originating from the states of Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Obama appointed six of the eight judges who, on March 1, refused to reconsider a wrongheaded 2-1 ruling of a 4th Circuit panel last fall. That ruling found the World War I memorial Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, suddenly “unconstitutional” after more than 90 years without controversy.
Erected with funding from the American Legion and local families in 1925, at what is now the intersection of U.S. Route 1 and Maryland state Route 450, the 40-foot cross features a plaque listing the names of 49 Prince George’s County men who gave their lives in what H.G. Wells dubbed—wrongly, as it turned out—“the war that will end war.”
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission took control of the land on which the memorial sits in 1961 because of its location.
According to the October ruling, the commission’s paying for the upkeep and repairs of the monument “has the primary effect of endorsing religion and excessively entangles the government in religion”—supposedly in violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause.
That plaque at the base of the memorial also includes the words “valor, endurance, courage, devotion.” But the only thing the secularists at the American Humanist Association (which filed the suit) is “devoted” to is anti-Christian intolerance.
To the humanists, the decision was “a big win … for the separation of church and state.” Never mind that that’s a phrase and a concept nowhere to be found in the Constitution, the left’s assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
The vote was 8 to 6 against reconsidering the panel’s ruling, with all six Obama appointees to the 4th Circuit in lockstep (along with an appointee of President Bill Clinton and another, shamefully, from President George W. Bush.)
Two of the “Gang of Eight” judges, Stephanie D. Thacker and James A. Wynn, also made up the 2-1 majority in the October ruling. Both were put on the bench by Obama, for whom judicial appointments were a key component of his 2008 campaign vow of “fundamentally transforming” America.
Writing for the majority in refusing to rehear the case, Wynn held that the plaque commemorating the local veterans’ sacrifice was insufficient to offset the sectarian religious iconography of the cross itself.
“We cannot allow it to be the final word,” said Hiram Sasser, deputy chief counsel for First Liberty Institute, the Plano, Texas-based nonprofit public interest law firm representing the American Legion, warning of the slippery slope the 4th Circuit’s ruling will create if it’s not repudiated by the Supreme Court.
“If this decision stands, other memorials—including those in nearby Arlington Cemetery—will be targeted as well,” Sasser warned.
In her majority opinion back in October, Thacker dismissed concerns about how this ruling might affect other monuments, noting that size does, in fact, matter.
“The crosses [at Arlington National Cemetery] are much smaller than the 40-foot-tall monolith at issue here,” she wrote.
In his dissent in October, Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory wrote that the First Amendment “does not require the government ‘to purge from the public sphere’ any reference to religion.”
Gregory, initially nominated by Clinton late in his term and renominated in 2001 by Bush, added he could not agree that a monument honoring veterans “violates the letter or spirit of the very Constitution these heroes died to defend.”
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, called the 4th Circuit’s ruling “an affront to all veterans,” and a spokesman for Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, a Democrat, said his office would file a brief in support of the veterans memorial monument when the case is appealed to the Supreme Court, as it will—and should—be.
A reversal by the justices would send a much-needed shot across the bow of an out-of-control 4th Circuit.
It would also send a clear signal to the neighboring 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which will be hearing an appeal by Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, of a ruling against its nearly 75-year-old county seal.
The Lehigh County seal, which dates to 1944, includes a cross among a number of other historical symbols. On March 12, the county filed an appeal of a September ruling in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which is demanding a redesign of the county seal without the cross.
“In this case, neither the longevity of the seal, nor the secular symbols surrounding the cross detract from the religious message that a cross conveys to the reasonable observer,” wrote District Judge Edward Smith in his ruling.
Not surprisingly, Smith is also an Obama appointee, further underscoring the notion that elections have consequences—in this case, adverse consequences.
That’s why conservatives should be grateful it’s President Donald Trump—and not President Hillary Rodham Clinton—who is appointing federal judges these days.
For years, Publius Huldah, Judi Caler and even the late Phyllis Schlafly have warned us against a Convention of States (Article V Convention aka Balanced Budget Amendment) while the likes of Mark Levin and Mark Meckler have pushed in favor of a Convention of States.
In spite of nasty verbal assaults and slander by so-called fellow Conservatives, Huldah, Caler and Schlafly stood by their convictions as they continued to warn us that Progressives, such as George Soros and Larry Lessig are pulling the strings for a Convention of States , often collaborating with their friends on the right. (See: Convention of States Adopts Newspeak to Sell the Con-Con).
Calling for Convention of States, Communists see an opening.
Since the Parkland shooting, gun control advocates and their fellow Communists smell blood in the water or at least they think they do. Feeling empowered, Communists are openly pushing the repeal of the Second Amendment while at the same time stepping up the call for a Convention of States.
While yes, America is a nation that is more divided than ever and as Americans, we should find common ground that would bring us together, for the future of this great nation, for our children, grandchildren and their children; but a Convention of States is not one of them nor is the repeal of the Second Amendment.
One group seeking a convention in the hope that it would produce a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution claims — using highly dubious math — to have resolutions from 28 of the 34 states required to compel Congress to call such a convention. Another group, the Convention of States Project (COSP), seeks more broadly to strip the federal government of power. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is supporting this effort.
A liberal group, Wolf PAC, has persuaded a handful of blue states to request an Article V convention with the hope that it will reform campaign finance law.
Much of the opposition to calling an Article V convention results from the danger that such a convention could veer in dangerous and unpredictable directions, especially in this toxic political atmosphere. Recognizing theseconcerns about a runaway Article V convention, COSP and ALEC have urged states topasslaws purporting to direct delegates how to vote and providing for those delegates’ recall should the delegates disobey the legislature’s instructions constraining how their delegates could vote.
These bills are a sham that do nothing to reduce the dangers of calling an Article V convention[…]
To those on the right who believe that a Convention of States is the way to go, think again. This should be a wake up call.
Lastly, if for no other reason than the fact that Communists have for years been pushing for a Convention of States, Republicans and Conservatives must recognize the hard truth that both sides are collaborating, down to the same talking points against We The People. Newspeak: “The system is broken and to fix our broken system, we need a new constitutional convention.”
If you don’t believe me, just google the following words:
“to fix our broken system, we need a new constitutional convention.”
Risk assessment is in the news. Most of it phony. Let me give you an example: Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, opened in 1990. In the last 28 years, approximately 84,000 students have passed through its halls. Fourteen didn’t make it. For all you statisticians out there, that’s .0001666 of the entire student body. If you averaged in all of the rest of the schools in Miami-Dade, Florida or the entire South, that number would decrease. If you averaged in every school in the United States, Columbine and Sandy Hook included, the numbers would still go down. Way down.
Now before you decry me as being cold and heartless, let me say that I deplore each and every one of those shootings. Any reasonable thing that can be done to prevent such incidents in the future should be implemented. (And by “reasonable” I intend to remain the final arbiter on that. Wrapping every student in bubble wrap and only feeding them through a tube is too extreme. Unless I can buy a lot of stock in bubble wrap companies.)
Where was I? Oh, yes. Risk factors. I have noticed that a number of students (perhaps prompted) have publicly stated and carried signs that stated that they “No longer feel safe in their schools”. I find that hard to believe, unless some adult was telling them that this was the case. Have seventeen people ever died in a school bus crash? Have you ever heard a child say, “I no longer feel safe in a school bus”? Fifty thousand people die in car crashes every year. When was the last time you heard a child say, “I no longer feel safe in an automobile”? I’m not sure what the statistics are for lightning strikes or falling space debris, but have you heard cries of “I no longer feel safe going outside”?
Whoever is promoting this fearmongering among children should cut it out. Now. Teens are in far more danger of being killed texting while driving, but even though it is illegal, it is a greater threat. Will children boycott getting drivers licenses out of fear, overhyped or not? I don’t think so.
Liberals need the emotional tug on the heartstrings of little children quaking in their shoes, fearful of their lives if they return to their classrooms. Thus, it is being artificially induced and I wish they would cut it out. You’ll have to excuse me now. I have to buy some “falling space debris insurance”.