Chipping Away

Granted, this ruling has no real precedential value, but a Federal judge has said that marijuana users cannot have their 2A rights taken away. Essentially ruling that marijuana is commonly used, and using it isn’t an indicator of a propensity for violence, therefore making a user of the drug into a prohibited person is a step too far, in light of Bruen. That’s the second significant case this week.

That case is the gift that keeps on giving. The best part of this ruling is that the left will be torn: Support marijuana use, or oppose guns. What to do? LOL

CNN to Black People: You Were Born Stupid and Poor, But It’s White People’s Fault

A recent study found that black children have less grey matter in their brains than white children. They researchers then came to the conclusion that this was the result of the stresses of poverty, drugs, and violence, which was caused by systemic racism. How can you draw that conclusion? It seems to me as if they began with the conclusion, then went looking for the support.

I can think of several alternative conclusions.

  • Cause and effect is reversed. Perhaps it is the lack of grey matter that causes the poverty and violence.
  • Perhaps it is that poverty and violence were caused by something else. Why does it have to be racism, and what supporting evidence do you have?

The study itself said this:

Black children experienced more traumatic events, family conflict, and material hardship on average compared with White children, and their parents or caregivers had lower educational attainment, lower income, and more unemployment compared with those of White children. Black children showed lower amygdala, hippocampus, and PFC gray matter volumes compared with White children. The volumes of the PFC and amygdala, but not the hippocampus, also varied with metrics of childhood adversity, with income being the most common predictor of brain volume differences. Accounting for differences in childhood adversity attenuated the magnitude of some race-related differences in gray matter volume.

OK. So how did you determine cause and effect? Were the black children born with less grey matter than whites? Did the amount of grey matter decline over time? Did you compare black children who were wealthy (say, Jayden Smith or the Obama girls) to white children who were poor, to see if there were correlations there? How about including other races? Asians?

Nope. Instead, the study began with the following assumptions:

Current U.S. Census data show that Black households, on average, have a lower median income, lower educational attainment, and higher rates of unemployment and poverty compared with White households. Moreover, research suggests that Black children are more likely to be exposed to trauma and domestic violence and are more likely to have a parent who died, an incarcerated parent, or divorced or separated parents compared with White children. Additionally, research has shown that Black children live in disproportionately disadvantaged neighborhoods and are more likely than White children to be exposed to neighborhood violence. These racial disparities are not random. Rather, they are deep-rooted structural inequalities that result from a history of disenfranchisement of racially minoritized groups (e.g., slavery, segregation) that reinforce themselves through societal norms and practices (i.e., systemic racism)

(highlighting added)

I was with them on the other evidence. Yes, there is evidence that black children are likely to be poor, have incarcerated parents, and lower intelligence. I agree. What they are essentially saying is that black are poor, less intelligent, and more likely to be criminals than are whites, and that there is a biological and physiological basis for this. That’s exactly what I have saying for years. What I have a problem with is the conclusion that is unsupported by any evidence presented by this so-called study- that it’s white people’s fault.

This seems like junk science with no control group and little in the way of actual, well, science. When I was a teacher, had one of my students turned in an unsupported conclusion like that one, it likely would have received a poor grade.

FA and FO

The Orlando Philharmonic advertised a “family friendly” drag show, where trannies were lewdly performing children’s Christmas songs while allowing children in the audience. The state warned them that they had better not have the show in front of kids. The Philharmonic went ahead and performed the show with children in the audience anyway. They posted a small sign, saying that the show was not suitable for children, but that they would be permitted to enter.

That isn’t good enough.

So the state of Florida is revoking their liquor license.

Good. The next time, DCF should enter the venue and raid the place. Any child who is found to have been brought there by their legal guardian should be removed from that guardian’s care and placed in foster care.

Stop grooming kids to be part of the sex trade.

Kavanaugh Is Wrong, IMO

This past week saw a huge win for gun rights, in that SCOTUS the Fifth circuit struck down a part of the GCA that was added during the Clinton administration– making eliminating a provision of the law that prohibited persons out of people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders. AWA over at GunFreeZone did an excellent post on the ruling, and I won’t attempt to recreate that here.

There are those who oppose that ruling and are claiming that there will be domestic abusers lining up to kill their former partners over this. I don’t think that there will be any big changes. Those who want to kill their partners just aren’t deterred by a piece of paper saying that killing someone is illegal, even if signed by a judge. The left always assumes that criminals are simply honest people who gave in to a moment’s impulse, and each of us is equally likely to give into an impulse to kill others. An interesting insight into the leftist mind, eh?

My opinion on these DV orders is that they are bullshit aimed at men in an attempt to give women another arrow in their lawfare quiver. About ten years ago, I was the subject of one of those orders. It was sought and granted without me even being present, with the initial order not even having my correct name on it, by a woman that I hadn’t even seen in months, and in that order she alleged that I did things in stalking her that were impossible because I was not even in the country when they were alleged to have happened.

David Letterman was once subject to a DV order that was obtained by a woman who lived thousands of miles away, after the woman alleged that they were in a secret affair and that Letterman was sending her secret messages using his top 10 lists as a code. Using accusations of domestic violence has become a common tactic for women who wish to win divorce and child custody cases, as well as angry girlfriends who wish to get back at former boyfriends. Men have no legal recourse against women who are proven to be lying.

 Here are the disturbing statistics:

The decision that is the subject of this post fixes some of that. That isn’t how the left, or apparently Brett Kavanaugh, sees it. Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in the Bruen case, arguing that sometimes we have to weigh in on whether or not a law is a good idea.

That’s where he is wrong.

The Amendment says “shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say “… unless you have a really good reason to do so.” The Supreme Court isn’t there to decide whether or not a law is a good idea. The court is there to decide whether or not a particular law comports with the Constitution. Deciding whether or not a law is a good idea is the job of Congress. All of the authority of the government derives from the Constitution. Any power or authority that the government takes upon itself that is outside of that authority is nothing more than tyranny, an unconstitutional power grab that is based upon the principle of “might makes right” that flies in the face of the principles upon which the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” was built upon.

There are those who would try and make the case that there is some balancing act to be done, but that isn’t how our government is supposed to work. Thomas sees that. Scalia, although a pragmatic sort of man, saw that as well. Kavanaugh does not.

The left, well, they don’t see the Constitution as anything more than a piece of paper containing words that can be worked around, as long as the words are pretty enough.

Fuck them. Not one more inch. This decision is proof to me that the jury box isn’t completely dead. The war continues.


The nice folks over at GunFreeZone posted a link to a video and expressed an opinion on posturing. I invite you to go and check it out. Unfortunately, that opinion is incorrect. JKB makes the claim that the loser of the fight is displaying decorticate posturing. He is wrong.

What you see in the video is decerebrate posturing. In the difference lies a huge change in prognosis. All posturing is a common outcome of severe brain injury. It refers to involuntary and abnormal positioning, and the presence of posturing after TBI suggests a poor prognosis.

Both types of posturing often indicate some extent of damage to the brainstem, which is the part of the brain that controls important functions like breathing. Decerebrate posturing, which is what we see in the video JKB linked to, is caused by damage to deeper brain structures and is much more common than the other type, decorticate posturing. Decorticate posturing is caused by damage to both hemispheres of the cerebral cortex and is rarer than decerebrate posturing, but is generally associated with better survival rates.

Generally, the recovery outlook for individuals with abnormal posturing after brain injury is poor. Even though there are instances where individuals regain consciousness and recover, only 37% of those who display decorticate posturing after a head injury survive. Only about 10% of individuals with decerebrate posturing survive.

In the video JKB links to, the individual displaying this posturing has one thing going for him: Youth. If he is admitted into the hospital within 6 hours of his injury, he is likely to double his chances of survival, even though it is still likely that he will have some permanent disability. So an 80% chance of death, and a 20% chance of permanent disability. All of that from a punch to the head.

Think about that the next time someone says that a concealed carrier should just take “his beating like a man.”

Quality Teachers

The video below is an example of what is teaching your kids. I spent 7 years as a teacher, and I can tell you that there are some really good teachers in your schools. There are also some real pieces of shit. The Wisconsin woman in this video is the latter: you can see for yourself what she dresses like to go to work and the mouth she has as she is driving over 100 miles per hour in a 30 mph zone, passing people on the shoulder, and admits to having both mental health and drug problems. A real pillar of the community.

35 year old Amanda McKaig’s arrest is also reported in this news story.

Hate Crime

Take a look at this before I comment on it. I’ll wait while you watch it.

Note that there are at least two, perhaps as many as four, black kids as old as 14 are beating on a 9 year old white girl. What the video doesn’t show is the rest of the facts here.

  • Her 10 year old brother was beaten on the same bus at the same time
  • All of the assailants were black
  • All of the attackers were older than the victims
  • The two victims had only been students there for three weeks at the time of the beating
  • The mother had been reporting escalating physical beatings and school officials refused to take action

Now the school wants to do something, and has had the oldest of the assailants arrested. I think it should be a hate crime. Imagine if the situation were the same, but races were reversed: a group of white kids were harassing and beating two black children. What would happen then?

I also blame the mother. She let her white kids go to a school that is 2% white , likely because she wanted to show how progressive and inclusive she is.

Coconut Palm K-8 Academy placed in the bottom 50% of all schools in Florida for overall test scores (math proficiency is bottom 50%, and reading proficiency is bottom 50%) for the 2020-21 school year.
The percentage of students achieving proficiency in math is 27% (which is lower than the Florida state average of 48%) for the 2020-21 school year. The percentage of students achieving proficiency in reading/language arts is 31% (which is lower than the Florida state average of 52%) for the 2020-21 school year.

You let your kids go to a public school just to prove a point. Now they are paying the price.

When my son was in school, he was bullied and physically attacked by a larger boy. I went to the school and asked them what they would do about it. The reply was that “We can’t watch the entire outside during PE.” So I told my son that he was being given permission to beat the shit out of the other kid. He did.

The school called me and said my son was about to be suspended. My reply to that was my son had a right to legal representation before being suspended, and that I would return for his suspension hearing with an attorney, who would want them to state on the record why one kid can beat others, but no defense is allowed. They decided not to suspend him.

That kid never touched my son again, and my son learned an important lesson about bullies.


As is typical of the left, we see an article where a prominent, rich leftist who demands more housing be built for the poor then having a meltdown when that housing is proposed for their neighborhood. That was perfectly illustrated when DeSantis shipped illegals to Martha’s Vineyard. So now it’s an Obama supporting sportsball athlete who demands more housing be built for the poor at public expense, but doesn’t want poor people living near his home.

It’s the lefty who demands that he be allowed to feed homeless bums in the park, but who shies away from allowing a homeless person to stay in his own home, or doesn’t want to set up his soup kitchen in his own gated community.

It’s seen when the left demands that landlords be forced to accept section 8 vouchers, or advocates prohibiting foreclosures, or rent control, or any one of another things that are paid for by someone else.

The government who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the enthusiastic support of Paul.

Blood in the Streets

My news aggregator turned up this little gem: A convicted felon flouted gun laws and was arrested at gunpoint. When he was arrested, he had three different handguns, as well as a supply of drugs, on his person.

What really struck me about this, is that this story came to me while the liberals of Florida are in the midst of a meltdown over Republicans (and especially Ron DeSantis) pushing Constitutional Carry in this state. The biggest arguments that I see are:

  • that, without a law making permits necessary for legal concealed carry, criminals will carry guns
  • Police can’t tell the difference without permits telling them who the good guys are

What is so disingenuous about this, is that it wasn’t that long ago that they were saying that people with concealed weapons permits are nothing more than criminals who haven’t been caught yet, who will snap at the slightest provocation and turn every contested parking space into a full scale firefight.

As I said in response to the above linked article: There are already 25 states that have passed Constitutional Carry. Crime and shootings in those states haven’t gone up any more than anywhere else. Every time a gun rights bill comes up, the anti gun people drag out the same old, tired arguments about how every car accident will result in a gun battle and it never happens. They did made that argument in 1989 when Florida passed concealed carry. None of it happened then, and none of it will happen now.

What we know for sure is that criminals are called criminals because they don’t obey the law. This is evidenced by the number of convicted criminals who are caught not only possessing weapons, but doing so without a permit. Therefore, we must assume that this law only works to prevent people who AREN’T criminals from carrying weapons. Who would be opposed to a person who isn’t committing crimes carrying a weapon? The answer is obviously one of the following:

  • people who are planning to commit a violent act against that armed person
  • people with so little self control that they themselves know that they cannot be trusted to carry a firearm, and are projecting that lack of violent impulse control upon others

So my question to those people who are opposed to law abiding citizens carrying weapons is: Which of those are you?