Federal Court OKs Barring People With High IQs From Becoming Cops In Connecticut

Court OKs Barring High IQs For Cops – ABC News

A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.

But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.

Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Connecticut the Liberal Fascist State

Bill Quick sums up my feelings on the new “gun safety” laws passed in Connecticut

Conn. lawmakers pass sweeping gun control measures – CBS News

“I pray today’s bill — the most far-reaching gun safety legislation in the country — will prevent other families from ever experiencing the dreadful loss that the 26 Sandy Hook families have felt,” said House Majority Leader Joe Aresimowicz, D-Berlin, referring to the families of the 20 first graders and six educators killed Dec. 14 inside Sandy Hook Elementary School.

It won’t in the future, and it would not have in the past, prevented any of these slaughter, and these filthy bastards know damned well that it won’t, but that’s not the point of this assault on the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

Exactly right! This is all about expanding governmental power and shrinking individual liberty!

 

CT Man’s Gun Control Testimony: ‘Constitution Did Not Guarantee Public Safety, It Guaranteed Liberty’ (Video)

The Epic Gun Control Testimony You’ve Been Waiting For: ‘The Constitution Did Not Guarantee Public Safety, It Guaranteed Liberty’ – The Blaze

How do Connecticut residents feel about the crackdown on the Second Amendment? Well, there are people from both sides making passionate arguments on the issue, however, one gentleman last week was able to make a particularly persuasive case against more gun control and in favor of the U.S. Constitution.

Meet Robert Steed, a resident of Vernon, Conn. who took three days straight off work to attend several gun control hearings in Connecticut. On March 14, Steed was more “aggravated” than usual with lawmakers and he let them know it in his fiery testimony, telling them that they were “coloring outside the lines of constitutional parameters.”

“This is the third day I’ve taken off of work to come here to, like so many of the rest of us, to plead with you for us to keep our guns because of some wing-nut in Newtown, Connecticut,” he said. “If that isn’t inherently wrong, I don’t know what is. That these bills are even in proposed form is scary enough. That any of you could possibly be undecided is scary enough. What are you looking at?”

He went on: “I can’t for the life of me understand how this state can have as many gun laws on the books as it does and have members of its Legislature need to take firearms 101. And as far as what I felt were potshots taken at the NRA, they’ve done more for gun safety – they’ll do more for gun safety this weekend than this committee will do in your careers.”

Watch Steed’s testimony in full below:

.

.
Connecticut will be the next state set to tackle new gun control measures is Connecticut, the same state where the tragic Newtown massacre occurred. On Tuesday, a key committee of the state’s General Assembly unanimously approved expanding criminal background checks. On Wednesday, lawmakers were set to discuss expanding the state’s current ban on so-called “assault weapons” to include even more firearms as well as additional magazine limits and universal background checks.

Last week, Steed told lawmakers who believe legislation will prevent tragedies that “evil exists” and “sometimes things are beyond your control.”

“Adam Lanza commits a crime, and I’m here to gr0vel and plead for my rights and explain to you that my firearms are kept safely?” he asked rhetorically. “I keep hearing the word “solution”… you’re not going to find a solution, it doesn’t exist. You can’t find a broad brush solution to evil.”

Connecticut state Rep. Steve Mikutel (D) refuted Steed and said lawmakers can craft a solution to gun violence. “We can solve this,” he said.

Mikutel admitted that “we live in an open free democratic society,” therefore lawmakers won’t be able to address all violence in society. If the U.S. was a “dictatorship” Congress would have a better chance of dealing with violence, but that’s not the way they want to go, the Democrat added.

“You’ll get a better handle on it maybe in a dictatorship where they just go in and take all your guns and lock-down, and they’ve got big brother watching all over you everywhere, they’ve got cameras on every corner, cameras in every neighborhood,” the Democrat continued.

“Well, we have some of that going on right now,” Steed interrupted.

Mikutel explained that Connecticut doesn’t want to go down that route and so it makes lawmakers’ job more “difficult.”

“The reason that your jobs are becoming so difficult is because you’re coloring outside the lines of constitutional parameters,” Steed shot back. “That’s the bottom line. You are trying to marriage up public safety with constitutional rights. The Constitution did not guarantee public safety, it guaranteed liberty. And sometimes what comes with liberty is tragedy, unfortunately.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

CT Democrat Stripped Of Deputy House Speaker Title For Making Lewd Remark To 17-Year-Old Girl (Audio)

Politician Stripped Of Title After Lewd Snake Comment – Connecticut Post

A veteran House member from New London was stripped of his deputy speaker title this week after he made a lewd comment during a budget hearing.

Speaker of the House J. Brendan Sharkey said Thursday that Rep. Ernest Hewett made a remark perceived as sexually harassing during an exchange with a 17-year-old intern from the Connecticut Science Center.

After the teenage girl said that working at the science center helped her overcome a fear of snakes, Hewett allegedly made reference to a snake with him, under his desk top.

.

.
“The public needs to know this is an environment where they will be respected,” Sharkey said. “That kind of language shouldn’t be used in any public setting.”

After hearing an audiotape of the incident, which occurred Feb. 21, Sharkey stripped Hewett of his deputy speaker title Wednesday. With the removal of the title goes $6,446 in extra pay above the rank-and-file rate of $28,000.

“After I first heard about it, I thought maybe in the broader sense maybe he was misunderstood and it may not be that big a deal,” Sharkey said in an interview.

“But based on the audio, it’s hard to interpret it that way. It’s hard for anyone who heard the audio or was there to think it was anything other than a sexual innuendo.

“I guess the best word I can use to describe this is disturbing,” Sharkey said.

Sharkey last week ordered sexual harassment training for all House Democrats who are not in their first or second term. In addition, he has invited women members of the 99-member majority caucus to meet with him and Hewett on Tuesday.

Hewett, a former mayor of New London who is in his fifth term in the House, said Thursday that he wanted to apologize to the young woman, whose identity he did not know.

“Secondly, I want to apologize to my colleagues for the statement I made,” he said.

“I take full responsibility for my actions. In hindsight, I can really see how this can be misconstrued as something sexual,” Hewett said.

Rep. Kim Fawcett, D-Fairfield, one of the lawmakers invited to the sit-down with Hewett next week, said lawmakers must find the 17-year-old intern.

“The apology needs to go to the 17-year-old girl who testified and the Connecticut Science Center who brought their intern to the Legislature, which submitted her to that kind of harassment,” Fawcett said.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

New Jersey principal to pack heat at his school?

I am sure Leftists will get the vapors over this news

Score another one for Wayne LaPierre and the NRA. Passaic Valley High School will soon have a pistol packin’ principal.

Raymond Rotella, a career cop and former school resource officer, may become North Jersey’s first school administrator to pack a pistol when he enters Passaic Valley Regional High School each day.

The decision to arm the principal is one of several moves the district has made to beef up security following the school shootings in Connecticut late last year, including developing a rigorous registration process for visitors and installing elaborate security entrances.

“Having a teacher or a principal carry a weapon is not a policy I would have recommended for most people,” Superintendent Viktor Joganow said. “But we don’t just have someone who is trained to use a weapon, we have someone who is trained to respond to a crisis.”

Joganow said he sent 1,400 copies of a letter detailing the proposal and Rotella’s qualifications to parents. While only a few parents responded, the reaction has been mostly positive, he said.

The Passaic Valley Regional school board will meet Tuesday to take up the first of two votes required to adopt a policy permitting Rotella to carry a weapon in the school.

Rotella has served as the high school’s principal for the past three years. In his previous career as a Little Falls policeman, he served for four years as the high school resource officer. He’s had his concealed weapons permit since he retired in 2007 as a police sergeant in charge of the department’s firearms training unit.

Rotella sees the policy as a means to reassess the role of a school principal in a crisis. During a lockdown, he typically would be required to lock himself in his office or a classroom. But if the policy is approved, he said in an interview Wednesday, he would become an integral part of the school’s security plan.

Like I said, Liberals will wet their beds over this, but it is likely the best way to prevent or stop school shootings, especially when it is tied in with more secure entrances. The training is essential too. I believe that anyone carrying at a school should either be someone with training, or that they should undergo additional training depending on their past experience. The reality the Left does not want to face is that sometimes the only way to stop a violent criminal is with equal or greater violence.

 

Do Conservative Bloggers have to think of EVERYTHING?

Doug Powers, Austin’s brother, notes that the pro-gun rights arguments need to change to match the emotionalism in the anti-gun rights side. And he is right. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee has been having hearings on gun control. On the pro gun control side, Gabby Giffords, victim of a crazed gunman, said “too many children are dying.” At a hearing in Connecticut, the father of a child murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary gave similar testimony (and gave some in the blinded-by-bias media a chance to show off their mad video editing skillz).

And on the pro Second Amendment side we most often hear testimony from Wayne LaPierre, somebody else from the NRA, or lawyers arguing on behalf of the Second Amendment. They make arguments on constitutional grounds and even speak about people whose lives are saved because they had guns — but where arethose people? Ask them to come forward at hearings and press conferences.

Let’s face it, the left usually kicks the right’s ass when it comes to emotional arguments that are designed to tug at the heart so aggressively that onlookers are too distracted to use their heads to think through what’s actually being presented to them (and that’s not necessarily a bad thing as we pride ourselves on being on the side of reason). However, emotional arguments can be constructed without selling out on the logic and common sense end of things, and that’s where the right needs to do a better job.

There certainly are no shortages of children (and adults) whose lives have been saved because of gun ownership. Almost every day there’s a story. Here’s one from just the day before yesterday:

A home invasion suspect was arrested at a hospital after a mother shot him during the crime at a Montgomery County home, deputies said Wednesday.

Erin, who asked to be identified only by her first name, told Local 2 she was putting her 6-year-old son to bed when she heard a loud noise coming from her bedroom on Mink Lake Drive Friday night.

“I threw the cover over my son and I took off running, screaming to the living room to let my dogs out,” she said.

Erin said she turned around and saw three masked men, pointing a gun right at her.

The woman had a gun — at least two actually — and it didn’t end well for one of the criminals. The other two fled, and the mother and her son were unharmed as a result.

Powers is right, we could find literally thousands of Americans whose lives have been saved because  they, or a friend, parent or neighbor was armed. Does this not seem the perfect way to fight back against the Left’s Emotionally based testimonies? Of course it does, because it is. So why has the leadership of the NRA, or Republican Congressmen not thought of it? Or maybe I should ask, why have they chosen NOT to go that direction since surely it has been suggested to them. I mean honestly, this is one of the biggest issues the Right faces. Too often the best arguments, ideas, etc come from people like Doug Powers, and other Conservative bloggers. Are we just that much smarter than our “leaders”? Or are we more intent on fighting? Do they fear unvarnished Conservatism?  What are they thinking? Seems too often they are thinking about not losing, rather than about winning.

 

Ah yes, OF COURSE, here comes the “blame toy guns” crowd

IDIOTS!

SANTA MONICA, Calif. (AP) –  A crusade against toy guns that began in 1987 is being re-launched following the elementary school shooting in Connecticut that left dozens dead.

Santa Monica activist Jerry Rubin says a personalized merit award will be sent to children who write to him about why they don’t like playing with toy guns.

Rubin says his anti-toy gun project used to reward children who sent in their toy guns with teddy bears in exchange, but stopped after he ran out of the 5,000 donated stuffed animals.

STUCK ON STOOPIT!

New Jersey town to have armed security in schools

Via JWF. Here is my prediction, many schools will follow the NRA’s advice, and will have armed security, and no armed guard, or teacher will go nuts and slaughter any students, and even then, the Left will still hate guns. 

What kind of crazy, gun-nut red-state lunatics are these putting guns in schools? Oh wait, it’s New Jersey.

Don’t mess with Marlboro Township.

The leafy, well-heeled New Jersey suburb will station a permanent armed cop in each of its nine schools starting Jan. 2.

It’s apparently the first district nationwide bent on packing heat in every schoolhouse since madman Adam Lanza gunned down 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14.

“We’ve made a collective decision as a town that we need armed security in each of our schools,” Mayor Jonathan Hornik told The Post.

“With this new evil, you can’t just sit there and hope that it doesn’t happen in your town. We must protect our kids.”

The mayor and other town officials had approved the initiative before the chief of the National Rifle Association ignited a firestorm on Friday by calling for armed guards for schools.

Besides putting a cop in each of its schools — one kindergarten, five elementary, two middle and one high school — Marlboro will consider fortifying entrances with steel doors and bulletproof glass and installing surveillance cameras “all over” to feed to the police department, Hornik said.

Cost won’t stand in the way of “state-of-the-art” safety, he added.

“This isn’t a luxury item. This is a necessity, based on what we saw happen in Connecticut,” said Hornik, a Democrat who supports an assault-weapons ban and stricter gun control.

Amen, tour government mandates our kids attend school, and it is their duty to do their best to protect those kids. As that mayor said, this is not a luxury, it is a necessity. Now, will having armed security be an absolute guarantee against a psycho bringing a weapon and trying to harm the kids? No, nothing is 100% guaranteed, but this is the single best deterrent there is.

Jim Hines-(Doofus) blasts Rick Perry for believing in self-defense

Rick Perry is as solid for gun rights as there is, so, of course, ultra Liberals are going to attack him for it. Jim Hines of Connecticut went well past simply disagreeing with the Texas governor however, saying that Perry has “blood on his hands”

The stats, of course, back Perry up and refute the whining Rep. Hines, who puts his faith in Liberal feelings based legislation rather than in the wisdom of the Founders. But, Hines’ remarks are typical of the hate-filled rhetoric we have been hearing from the Left the past week. They have taken their campaign of demonization to new lows. Sadly, Democrats use to at least attempt debate, now, though, it is vile personal attack and baseless allegations. Frankly, in their lust for political power, Liberals would rather smear their opponents, and ignore evidence that proves their fascination with gun control is an abject failure, than actually try to prevent future mass shootings.

 

Noted buffoon: America, turn in your guns!

Good grief! The Left has truly gone bat shit crazy. They actually think that law-abiding citizens disarming will stop schools shootings They really are addicted to collective guilt aren’t they?

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee wants Americans to turn in their guns.

The Hill reported:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on Wednesday afternoon urged people to turn in their guns, arguing it would be an appropriate response to last week’s mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.

“I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns,” Jackson Lee said on the House floor. “Oh no, I’m not going to take your guns. But look at what Dick’s Sporting Goods did … they wanted to be part of the solution and part of America.”

Dick’s Sporting Goods announced this week that it would stop selling and displaying guns at its store closest to Newtown, and would suspend the sale of modern sporting rifles nation-wide out of respect for the victims of the shooting.

So, a sporting goods chain is now “part of America” because they have suspended the sale of modern hunting rifles? They are now part of the solution? Solution to what exactly? All they did was cave in to the hyper-sensitive nonsense the Left deals in.

Of course Dicks Sporting Goods, which may have just lost my business can do what it wants. But this move by them is transparently superficial. This is the type of emotionalistic “solutions” Liberal minds come up with. They like to “make a difference”, they feel that by doing something, they are really making things better. Whether or not these “somethings” work, or are effective matters not. For Liberals, it is enough to feel like they are doing right thing.

 

Why the creepy little weirdo who shall not be named on this blog did it

The Other McCain, who I stole part of that headline from, reports that we may have a motive in the Newtown shootings

We now have the first clear suggestion of a motive:

NEWTOWN, Conn. –  The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped  because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility . . .
[The creepy little weirdo], targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown after killing  his mother early Friday because he believed she loved the school “more than she  loved him,” said Joshua Flashman, 25 . . .

“From what I’ve been told, [the creepy little weirdo] was aware of her petitioning the court for  conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed,” Flashman told  FoxNews.com. “[The creepy little weirdo] was apparently very upset about this. He thought she just  wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry. I  think this could have been it, what set him off.”

A senior law enforcement official involved in the investigation confirmed  that [the creepy little weirdo's] anger at his mother over plans for “his future mental health treatment” is being looked at as a possible motive for the deadly shooting.

Sounds plausible. I think it is clear that this creepy little shit needed to be locked away, for his good, and for those around him as well. What it takes, legally, to put a dangerous sicko away I am not familiar with, but surely it is not easy, and with mostly good reasons. One question I do have though. If I lived with a person who was a wacko, yes, I know by calling him a wacko I am being insensitive, but, I think we should be a tad more honest about wackos, so too bad if it hurts your sensitivities. If I lived with a wacko, I would make sure they could NEVER get my guns. So, I do wonder if his mother had them locked away. As a practice, I believe in locking guns away only in certain situations, for safety reasons, such as having small children around. Frankly, having you gun locked up, unloaded, makes it harder to use if it is needed in a hurry.

Speaking of guns, The Other McCain also notes that on the MSNBS Gun Control 2012 Telethon, which benefits the delusional Leftists among us, some ass hat, there are so many on MSNBS called the weapons the creepy little weirdo used “exotic”, which is, how shall I put this delicately, BS!

Today on the Endless Gun Control Telethon that is MSNBC — I Watch, So You Don’t Have To™ — a guest on Morning Joe referred to the Newtown shooting as exemplifying the problem caused by “exotic weapons.” This demonstrates the problem caused by common ignorance.

Adam Lanza’s weapons were a Bushmaster .223-caliber semi-automatic, a type described by the New York Times as “the most popular rifle in America, according to gun dealers,” as well as two 9-mm pistols (Glock and Sig Sauer) and a shotgun of unknown make.

These are not “exotic weapons” by any definition.

Of course, to Leftists, any gun is exotic, because Leftists, and Liberals, HATE guns. Liberals hate guns because they do are ignorant about guns, and because they have been taught, indoctrinated to think of guns, and gun owners, as bad. Leftists also hate guns, but for  a different reason. They see guns as the ultimate symbol of the thing they hate most, Individualism. Anything that makes people more independent is evil to a Leftist. And make no mistake. Leftists KNOW that bringing back the idiotic “assault weapons” ban will not do a single thing to curb any mass shootings. They know that, as Stacy McCain notes, the Bushmaster rifle was not banned by Diane Feinsteins’ pet legislation.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Californication) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Corruption) are vowing legislation to bring back the (absurdly misnamed) “assault weapons ban.”

We will leave aside the biggest aspect of the misnomer (i.e., semi-automatic rifles are not “assault weapons”) and focus instead on the “ban” part of this rhetorical delusion. The Bushmaster was NOT banned under the law Democrats want to bring back.

What we are dealing with here — amidst the chaotic cacophony of frenzied liberal noise — is another one of those “do something” episodes that occasionally afflict the media/politics nexus. The follies that result from the “do something” impulse, as politicians react to the latest headline and try to reassure voters that government can fix whatever problem concerns them, has resulted in some of the most awful stupidity in history, including Republican stupidity: Terrorists strike New York? Create a new government agency for airport security! Give the feds more wiretapping authority! Invade some foreign countries! And . . . how’d that work out for ya?

Their aim is to take out individualism, and they see this as an opening to further their agenda. The Left is at war here, as they have been for a long time, against Individualism, to achieve the end of destroying Individualism, they must take away the guns. As Stacy notes, Liberals are squealing like stuck pigs over the rhetoric the Leftists are using. The Leftists use that rhetoric “Assault weapons” “Exotic weapons” “Gun Culture”, and it gets the Liberals, who emote instead of thinking, into Do Something Mode. This is how we get stupid, ineffective laws that end up restricting rights rather than preventing crimes.

Some very good questions for those screaming for us to ban guns

Over at The Daily Clash, there is a great list of excellent questions that ought to be posed those calling for more gun laws in the wake of the Newtown school massacre. Be sure to go read them all, but here are my favorites

Did you know that the shooter had an altercation with school staff when he tried to enter the school the day before the shooting?

Doesn’t Connecticut already have some of the strictest gun laws?

Wasn’t this school a gun-free-zone?

I would add this one. What law could be pass that the gunman would have obeyed?

Also, I had a discussion at work today with two men. One of them was denouncing the “rednecks” who love guns. He seemed to believe that limiting magazine capacity, and limiting the number of bullets one could purchase would be good ideas. As a bartender, I stay out of political conversations, unless someone asks me my opinion. This man did ask for my thoughts. I said the best way to handle the prevention of mass shootings in schools is with armed, trained security. His response made me angry. Without missing a beat he said that we could not afford that. I responded that with all the money spent on education, and the worsening results, we ought to address safety first. And between the States, counties, Washington DC, and parents, the money could be found. What I did not say was that if the government mandates your child attend school, then their first, and most serious obligation is to protect your child.

After the two men paid, one of them, the one that was silent, came back and said I had raised a great point, one that made sense. He noted the heroic principal that went at the gunman. “Too bad she was not armed.” he said. “Yes,” I answered “maybe she would not have stopped him, but, she would have had a much better chance.” I find it odd that Liberals wish to continue NOT allowing people like that principal even the choice of carrying a gun.

 

So, let me understand this. We need to take guns away from heroes to make us safer?

The Delusional Left refuses to live in the real world. They are screaming to ban handguns, assault weapons because a 20-year-old psycho, who cannot legally have handguns murdered his mother, stole her guns, and slaughtered 20 children? The Left wants more gun control even though Connecticut has very strict gun laws already. Laws that did nothing to stop the killer. Killers like this walk through laws and go on killing sprees, largely because the left has defined schools as “gun free zones” as if a sign will stop a mass murderer. But, who are they seeking to disarm here?

In last week’s mall shooting in Oregon, the mall was also super safe because it is a gun free zone by the way, a hero with a concealed carry permit helped stop the shooter and saved lives. Why would the Left wish to disarm him?

The shooting last week at the mall in Clackamas, Oregon has been overshadowed by the tragedy that unfolded Friday morning at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. In Oregon two innocent human beings lost their lives, but perhaps the carnage would have been worse if not for Nick Meli, who has a concealed carry permit and was in the mall when the gunman opened fire. Meli pulled his weapon, but did not shoot the gunman because there were bystanders who could have been injured. The gunman saw Meli, an armed citizen, and rather than shoot more innocents he pointed his weapon at himself.

“He was working on his rifle,” said Meli.  ”He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side.”

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

“As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them,” he said.

Meli took cover inside a nearby store.  He never pulled the trigger.  He stands by that decision.

“I’m not beating myself up cause I didn’t shoot him,” said Meli.  “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.”

Tens of thousands of Americans use guns every year to defend themselves, the lowest estimate shows that 274 Americans per day act heroically BECAUSE they are armed, but the Left wishes to disarm them? Of course, the Left insists that this is the only way, and the Left are the geniuses behind gun free zones, right? Certainly the Left cringes when anyone suggests armed security in schools, or allowing teachers with concealed carry permits have guns in school. And again, Sandy Hook Elementary, a gun free zone, became a killing zone Friday. And one very heroic woman, the school principal sacrificed herself by charging the gunman. What if this woman had a gun?

Town officials in Connecticut say the principal who died in the rampage at an elementary school was killed while lunging at the gunman as she tried to overtake him.

Dawn Hochsprung was gunned down in Friday’s massacre in Newtown. Board of Education chairwoman Debbie Liedlien says administrators were coming out of a meeting when the gunman forced his way into the school and ran toward them.

Perhaps this woman, this hero would have chosen not to carry, but if she had, certainly she would have a much better chance against the shooter. But, again, any choice she would have made was negated by the gun free zone nonsense. Also note that if armed security had been in place the shooter would have been dead before he was able to force his way into the school. But, all of that matters not to the Left. All they can do is blame guns, and law-abiding gun owners. If the Left truly wants to point fingers they ought to go look into a mirror.

 

How do thugs like Jerry Nadler (D-irtbag) get elected?

Have we really sunk so far? From Madison, and Franklin, and Mason, and Jefferson and Washington to bottom feeders like THIS bag of dung?

Out of all the Democrats exploiting this tragedy, Nadler is leading the pack.

(CNY) — Today, following the shooting massacre of 20 children in a Connecticut school, President Obama said that “meaningful action” needed to be taken to prevent such tragedies from happening in the future.

But what “meaningful action” can Obama actually take, given Republican control of the House and Congress’ deeply felt fear of the politically mighty National Rifle Association? And politics aside, what new laws would actually solve or make a dent in the country’s crazed-gunman problem?

Rep. Jerry Nadler said thinks that the president has only one option.

“There’s only one meaningful action he can take, which is to take on the N.R.A., label them as the enablers of mass murderers they are, really push for strong gun-control legislation and call out those congressional leaders who don’t support it,” Nadler told me this afternoon.

“It is time to call out the N.R.A. as enablers of mass murder and start embarrassing people and saying, ‘Who do you stand with? The parents and children of this country or the potential mass murderers?’”

The fact is if there HAD been a couple of NRA members there they would have done their best to stop the killer, but Nadler does not give  a flip about facts. I suppose slandering people who value liberty and obey the law is a small price to pay for furthering his Statist agenda. Instead of looking gleefully at this as an opportunity to eradicate self-defense rights, why is Nadler not pushing for armed security in our schools? Could it be he cares far more about control than he does about protecting kids?

 

Morally retarded publicity whores threaten to descend on Sandy Hook Elementary

The Westboro Bastards Church is going to go too far one day. 

I cannot think of a more cruel bunch of trash. To seek to inflict more pain upon these families? If these miscreants possess souls they must be black. Like I said one day they will picket the wrong person’s funeral. 

What we SHOULD have been doing years ago to prevent school shootings?

No one with a shred of morality could help but be devastated by yesterday’s horrific events. Evil was visited upon us and the toll, is, in ways immeasurable. There is no more heinous an act than what was perpetrated yesterday. Babies slaughtered by an evil man, so close to Christmas. Dear God this is awful. I can not imagine how any parent, or grandparent or sibling copes with such an atrocity. I do not know if I could. Our national heart has been broken, but the hearts of these families? I pray God gets the through, and, in fact, I think ONLY God could get anyone through such a time. I so wish we could, as a nation, simply grieve and look at ways to be pro-active, rather than reactive in such a time. But, the usual inane blame game has started already, and that simply adds to the sadness I feel.

No, it was not video games, or movies, or guns that caused this act. Only two things are to blame, and only one of those can we hope to have any control over. The one thing we cannot control is the severe mental illness that drives such murderers. I know  many work diligently to find ways to predict certain behaviors. Maybe one day they will find a way. Should we look at institutionalizing people with certain mental abnormalities? The Other McCain, whom I respect, raises this topic

Psycho, loony, bonkers, daft, zany, berserk and cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

Advocates for the mentally ill discourage such colloquial terms as tending to stigmatize psychiatric patients. But we might ask whether stigma — and the consequent damage to the fragile self-esteem of kooks — is really worse than turning loose a homicidal schizo who kills 27 people.

I saw we might ask that, except that it’s politically incorrect to do so. We have been carefully taught that wackos are victims, and we’re not supposed to talk about the possibility that they might also be dangerous, lest we infringe the “rights” of murderous lunatics.

To quote Dirty Harry, “Well, I’m all broken up over that man’s rights.”

You’ll excuse me if I sound somewhat bitter about it, but this school shooting kind of spoiled my plans for the day. And also, some kids in Newtown, Connecticut, will miss the rest of their lives.

Our culture has lost all sense of perspective, of reasonable balance, so that we are unable to make common-sense judgments about risks. Which is the greater danger: That a schizophrenic might have his feelings hurt, or that a schizophrenic might go off his meds and kill people?

Common sense is quite nearly illegal nowadays and it’s certainly unfashionable in the Obama Age. So the usual liberal dingbats — including the ACLU types who assured us it was “a fearless, independent life style” for a crazy woman to defecate in public on the streets of Manahattan — are telling us we need more gun control.

And I say, no, what we need is more kook control. But no member of Congress in either party would have the guts to introduce “The Dangerous Lunatic Incarceration Act of 2013,” which would put wackjobs like Adam Lanza some place where they couldn’t kill people.

The question here, to me, is this. Do I trust the government to judge who is a “danger”. That, of course is a big one isn’t it? To be sure some people ought to be locked up, in a mental health facility, but, who do I trust to use such a responsibility properly? I doubt Congress, as inept as it is, could be trusted not to screw that up. I know that McCain IS on the right track here. It is who decides that concerns me.

Now, the other thing to blame is pretty straight forward, certainly it is not as complicated as who should be taken to the Padded Wall Hotel.  That other thing that SHOULD have been in place ever since Columbine. That other thing being this. We spend money on top of money on education, yet none goes to properly securing our schools? That other thing that, I am almost sure WOULD have stopped the act yesterday, and would have stopped most, if not all recent school shootings is to have armed security in our schools. Yes, I know, Liberals will howl over this idea. I can hear them now. “What kind if country do we want to live in?” Well, how about a country that acts pro-actively to protect our children? That IS, after all, one responsibility our government actually does have. So what is the plan? Here it is…

Driving home yesterday, a caller to the Medved Show, a retired police officer suggested that we hire retired police officers to protect our schools. His argument was sound. These who are trained, and know what to do. Their job would be one thing. To prevent such atrocities. I would add some particulars. I would prefer that private companies handle this security. In my view they would be more trustworthy than some government agency. The only provisions would be that they hire former, or current police officers, especially former SWAT, former FBI agents, or Secret Service agents, former U.S. Marshals, military personnel, especially former special forces Rangers, SEALS, Green Berets, Marine Recon, etc. In other words people with particular skill sets that could be trusted to neutralize threats to our children in school. The answer to violence is not to be found in metal detectors, ID badges. It is in having trained, armed personnel who have the ability, and willingness to take deadly action to stop violent predators.

Such a plan, in my view would have two immediate impacts. First, the security measures these people would implement would certainly be much more effective than current ones. Second, the temptation to attempt such an act of horror, and do not delude yourself into thinking that such acts are not beyond the minds of terrorists, would be greatly reduced. There is a reason these mass killings tend to happen in “gun-free zones”. However twisted the minds of these killers may be, they never seem to target areas where they might encounter armed resistance. And yes, it is true that a truly deranged person might attempt to shoot up, or attack a school in some other way. In that case, who do you want in place to stop them? Someone asking for ID or a highly trained warrior who will not hesitate to terminate the threat?

Yes, I know, I can hear it now. Some Liberal will ask where the money would come from to pay for this. I would answer FIND the money. Maybe by using some of the money we waste so freely now? Further I recognize that such a plan will not happen. It just makes too much sense. And common sense is an endangered species it seems Yes, I know Liberals will cringe at the prospect or armed security. Liberals hate guns, they see them as the problem, not as a tool that can as easily prevent tragedy as it can be used to commit an act of evil. Liberals do not get that and most never will, I do not care about them. Let them wallow in their ignorance. I care about protecting our kids.

So there it is, a fairly simple plan to secure our schools. Perhaps we can present such a plan to our Congressmen, and Senators? Both on the federal and state level? Who knows, we might just be able to push some rational ideas into their heads.

Connecticut Democrats Want To Spend $300,000 To Renovate State’s Communist Party Headquarters

Connecticut’s Red Ink – National Review

The Nutmeg State will be funding the Communist Party.

Yep, despite massive debt and a mushrooming deficit, Governor Dannel Malloy, with the obedient Democrat legislature in tow, will convene the State Bond Commission on June 4th and push through a $300,000 “grant-in-aid to Progressive Education and Research Associates to finance renovations to the New Haven Peoples Center at 37 Howe Street.” The masquerades of Progressive this and People that aside, 37 Howe Street happens to be the headquarters for the Connecticut Communist Party, run by Joelle Fishman, who also happens to be the regional bureau chief for the infamous Peoples World. Which, yes, also happens to be located at 37 Howe Street.

So here we have a state that is awash in red ink, consciously increasing its red ink, to directly send taxpayer dollars to a place that publishes Red ink.

My pal Tom Scott, former state senator and considered by many to be Connecticut’s primo conservative, called to say “Is there anything this Governor is unwilling to spend our money on? We have the highest per-capita debt of any state, we’re the highest taxed state in the nation, and yet Malloy and the Democrats see fit to spend $300,000 to prop up the Communist Party of Connecticut. This is outrageous. And Malloy is a fiscal misfit. We need to turn the heat up on these Democrats to remove this item from the bond commission agenda.”

While Democrats do their compliant routine, Senate Republicans are said to be planning a press conference tomorrow at the state Capitol to highlight and protest the Commissar’s Governor’s plan.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Leftist Democrat lets her anti-Israel hatred show

Gateway Pundit has the story

At least she’s honest about hating Israel. Most Democrats just try to hide it.
Democrat senatorial candidate Lee Whitnum called her Democrat primary opponent a “whore” during a debate last night. She also pushed for the US to prosecute Jewish Americans who go to Israel and join the army and kill.  She believes prosecuting our own American citizens “would solve anti-American sentiment world-wide”, because “they are the number one reason why people hate this country”.

Video at the link, go ahead and feel the Leftist hatred of anything good in the world.

Your Marxist Morons of the Day are…………..

An Indian tribe, the Oglata Sioux for suing liquor stores for, wait for it…….. selling booze! Say Anything has the scoop

The Oglala Sioux Tribe of South Dakota runs a dry reservation, and has (with one two-month exception) since 1832. Yet despite this prohibition, alcoholism on the reservation continues to be a problem because the citizens of the reservation can drive to communities off the reservation and buy all the beer they want.

In short, it’s yet another failure for prohibitionist policy.

But the tribe wants to pin the problem on alcohol retailers and the beer companies, blaming them for reservation citizens buying the booze, and to that end have filed a lawsuit against them.

The lawsuit alleges that the beer makers and stores sold to Pine Ridge’s Indian population, knowing they would smuggle the alcohol into the reservation to drink or resell. The beer makers supplied the stores with “volumes of beer far in excess of an amount that could be sold in compliance with the laws of the state of Nebraska” and the tribe, tribal officials allege in the lawsuit.

The Connecticut-sized reservation has struggled with alcoholism and poverty for generations, despite an alcohol ban in place since 1832. Pine Ridge legalized alcohol in 1970 but restored the ban two months later, and an attempt to allow it in 2004 died after a public outcry. …

The tribe views the lawsuit as a last resort after numerous failed attempts to curb the abuse through protests and public pressure on lawmakers, White said. He said the tribal council voted unanimously about four months ago to hire his law firm.

The lawsuit says one in four children born on the reservation suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The average life expectancy is estimated between 45 and 52 years, the shortest in North America except for Haiti, according to the lawsuit. The average American life expectancy is 77.5 years.

As Rob port notes, the situation is sad and tragic, but blaming legal businesses for it is asinine. If someone drinks to excess, it is their fault, no one elses. This lawsuit is idiotic, and dangerous. It seeks to hold legal businesses responsible for the bad acts of some clients. Which industry is next?