This is what the Left calls “progress”

Totally erasing any distinction between the genders is one of the goals of the Left Follow along here with me. A woman, who wants to be a man, has a baby, but refuses to be called the “mother” because in his her its mind she is a he, so he is a father. WTF!

The father had insisted on a home birth to avoid being listed as the mother on hospital documents – a Germanlegal requirement.

Although the father has been taking hormone replacement therapies for years he elected to retain the reproductive organs of a woman.

Because he physically gave birth to the child the unidentified man is seen as the mother, however by law he is recognised as a man.

In 2001 German law dropped the previous requirement for gender reassignment surgery in order to be lawfully recognised in a person’s perceived gender.

Perceived gender? Again I ask WTF??

It was only in August of this year that Germany decided to include a ‘third gender’ option on birth certificates, where children born of indeterminate gender no longer have to be listed as either ‘male’ or ‘female’. Germany has been the first country in Europe to adopt this change.

The man’s request to appear as the father on the birth certificate has been granted, but his demand that the child’s gender not be released has been denied, according to the Daily Mail.

Good Freaking Grief! Excedrin needs a new formula called Moonbat Relief!

funny-headache-puppy-dog-dude-enough-paws-ears-cute-pics

 

 

Dear Governor Andrew “SCREAMIN” Cuomo

funny-picture-gorilla-flipping-the-bird1

Gun owners in New York have a message for you, you pathetic tragedy pimp

New York Governor Cuomo the Junior may have rushed throughhis new gun control law with such speed thatpolice will avoid its restrictions only through the blessed miracle ofselective enforcement, but he may have a little trouble getting the state’s firearms owners to attend his party. The new law requires owners of those scary-looking rifles known as “assault weapons” to register their property (amidst assurances that, oh no, the registration lists will never be used for confiscation), but gun rights activists are actively urging gun owners to defy the new mandate.

According to Frederic Dicker at the New York Post:

Assault-rifle owners statewide are organizing a mass boycott of Gov. Cuomo’s new law mandating they register their weapons, daring officials to “come and take it away,” The Post has learned.

Gun-range owners and gun-rights advocates are encouraging hundreds of thousands of owners to defy the law, saying it’d be the largest act of civil disobedience in state history.

“I’ve heard from hundreds of people that they’re prepared to defy the law, and that number will be magnified by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, when the registration deadline comes,’’ said Brian Olesen, president of the American Shooters Supply, one of the largest gun dealers in the state.

Dicker quotes a Cuomo administration official admitting, “Many of these assault-rifle owners aren’t going to register; we realize that.” Which means that state officials were merely posturing rather than entirely ignorant of history when they penned the law and jammed it through. As I’ve written before, gun laws traditionally breed massive levels of non-compliance — even in places where you might think people have no strong history of personal arms, or of resistance to the state, When Germany imposed gun registration in 1972, the country’s officials managed to get paperwork on all of 3.2 million firearms out of an estimated 17-20 million guns in civilian hands. Californians may have registered as many as ten percent of the “assault weapons” they owned when that state imposed registration in 1990 (though the New York Times put the figure rather lower, at about 7,000 out of an estimated 300,000 guns covered by the law).

 

When Liberals don’t like history, they just re-write it

Aaron Worthing dissects a piece at Mother Jones that attempts to  make the case that Hitler’s disarming of the Jews was, get ready for it, good for the Jews.

So this morning I find out that Mother Jones published a piece called Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control?  The dissembling involved is nothing less than spectacular.  So let’s fisk this sucker:

Now, the fascinating thing about the Mother Jones piece is that it exposes a tactic the Left has been using a long time, call it historical erasure. They spin history, omit the things they do not like, and push their scripted version as “fact” to the masses. It is another way to replace education with indoctrination. Watch what Mother Jones does here.

Back to the subject of gun control, a more serious examination of the evidence comes in “Nazi Firearms Laws and the Disarming of German Jews,” in the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative law:

 
This article addresses German firearms laws and Nazi policies and practices to disarm German citizens, particularly political opponents and Jews. It begins with an account of post-World War I chaos, which led to the enactment in 1928 by the liberal Weimar republic of Germany’s first comprehensive gun control law. Next, the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was consolidated by massive searches and seizures of firearms from political opponents, who were invariably described as “communists.” After five years of repression and eradication of dissidents, Hitler signed a new gun control law in 1938, which benefitted Nazi party members and entities, but denied firearm ownership to enemies of the state. Later that year, in Kristallnacht (the Night of the Broken Glass), in one fell swoop, the Nazi regime disarmed Germany’s Jews. Without any ability to defend themselves, the Jewish population could easily be sent to concentration camps for the Final Solution. After World War II began, Nazi authorities continued to register and mistrust civilian firearm owners, and German resistence to the Nazi regime was unsuccessful.
 
That is right, folks, Kristallnacht was about disarming Jews, too.
 
And I gently suggest you read the whole thing.
 
Of course the Mother Jones piece acknowledges this, in a backhanded way:
 
In 1938, under Nazi rule, gun laws became significantly more relaxed. Rifle and shotgun possession were deregulated and gun access for hunters, Nazi Party members, and government officials was expanded. The legal age to own a gun was lowered. Jews, however, were prohibited from owning firearms and other dangerous weapons.
 
In other words, the people Hitler liked were allowed to have guns, but not others.  Oh and by the way, the Jews were not allowed to have guns, but hey, why would they need them?  Of course that last question is rhetorical and facetious, but Mother Jones actually found a professor will to argue that it was good for the Jews in Germany to be disarmed:
 
“But guns didn’t play a particularly important part [in maintaining Hitler’s power or the Holocaust] in any event,” says Professor Robert Spitzer, who chairs SUNY Cortland’s political science department and has extensively researched gun-control politics…. If Jews had been better armed, Spitzer says, it would only have hastened their demise. Gun policy “wasn’t the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights, and they were a minority group.”
That is my favorite part, right here “Gun policy “wasn’t the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights” 
See that? The professor, Joseph Spitzer dismisses the notion that being disarmed had anything to do with what eventually happened to the Jews. It was that they were persecuted and denied their rights you see. Of course, it never dawns on Spitzer that the most egregious attack on the rights of German Jews WAS disarming them. Or maybe Spitzer does realize it was, and he is just spinning to downplay the importance of the right to bear arms and the inherent dangers of a government forbidding a segment of its people the right top self-defense. A danger that was crystal clear to our Founders.
Worthing goes on to note that this same propagandist/idiot, take your pick, also refuses to acknowledge that Stalin trampled the rights of Russians by disarming them. 
Of course I find myself quoting Judge Kozinsky’s gorgeous opinion (it’s a dissent but today can be cited as controlling law) in defense of gun laws, again:
 
If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
 
Really it is beyond bizarre to say that it was a good thing for the German Jews to be disarmed under the Nazis.  Even if their defeat was inevitable, maybe those Jews would have preferred to take a few of the bastards with them rather than being murdered without a shot.  And their defeat only looks as inevitable as it must have looked for the Americans in 1776, or the Jews in Warsaw.  And certainly Hitler was worried about Jewish resistance, which is why he disarmed them!
 
Sheesh.
 
The same idiot professor makes the same argument with Stalin: 
Gun enthusiasts often mention that the Soviet Union restricted access to guns in 1929 after Joseph Stalin rose to power. But to suggest that a better armed Russian populace would have overthrown the Bolsheviks is also too simplistic, says Spitzer. “To answer the question of the relationship between guns and the revolutions in those nations is to study the comparative politics and comparative history of those nations,” he explains. “It takes some analysis to break this down and explain it, and that’s often not amenable to a soundbyte or a headline.”If that sounds like Leftist spin AKA BS that is because it is, and Worthing refutes it with common sense 
Again, if Stalin didn’t think an armed populace was a threat to his rule, he wouldn’t have disarmed them.  Oy!
Of course the Mother Jones piece is a prelude to their REAL message, which is “See Americans, gun bans are not that bad, so even IF wink wink, Democrats were to ban guns, it would be OK!! We know, a Unicorn told us so!”
Go read the whole post!

Daniel Greenfield: The only way to stop a bad man with a gun is with a gun

Greenfield is a great writer, and he lays out the rational position on gun ownership here

It takes a gun to stop a man with a gun. That is the hard truth of human affairs. It is why we have a Second Amendment, it is why we have armies and police, and it is why people own guns.

There is no going back to a time before people owned guns. There is no going back to a time when violence did not exist. There is only the reality that killers stalk the streets and that we can either defend against them or take comfort in empty outrage.

Guns stop shootings. Not all the time and not every time, but they do. Gun control does not. Media coverage calling for gun control does not.

Go read it all, including the numerous cases in Europe where bad guys have walked into schools and murdered kids despite Europe’s vaunted gun control measures. Laws do not stop killers, force does. Murder is evil, and those that would end mayhem and murder by disarming the law-abiding are aiding evil whether they know it or not.

You will not believe what those nutty teens in Germany are doing to get drunk

DUDE!

Police in southern Germany warned this week of a dangerous new form of alcohol abuse among teens – using tampons soaked in vodka to get drunk quickly and hide the smell. The practice poses grave health risks, they said.

Police in the Baden-Württemburg city of Tuttlingen responded Tuesday to growing online chatter among teenagers that they could become intoxicated using the vodka tampons without having alcohol on their breath.

This is not true, police said, denying that it was an effective way to get drunk. They also warned girls that the alcohol could damage vaginal walls and increase the risk of infection. Boys have reportedly also been using tampons anally.

“I believe this is very dangerous,” head of a children’s clinic in Singen told southern German paper Südkurier last week. “For us this is a new thing.”