More Nuclear Grade Stupidity

Good Freaking grief how detached from reality can a person be?

Yes, because the 7th century barbarians would never kill those teachers, take the aid and fund more terrorism, and kill the diplomats would they? And culture? Islamic terrorists destroy every cultural symbol from every land every chance they get. Seriously, how stupid can a human being be?

Alicia Keyes, beautiful, talented, and incredibly ignorant

Egalitarianism is the height of foolishness. Pam Geller gives us an example. Singer Alicia Keyes dove head first into the pool of diversity obsession with this

alicia-tweet26

Geller responded by trying to educate Keyes about radical Islam and “diversity”

Hollywood stars and entertainment blockheads continue to flout their stupidity and useful idiocy.

The burka is iconic of gender apartheid, misogyny, oppression and subjugation. What next, Alicia, swastika epaulets in the name of diversity and enlightenment?

There is no diversity allowed by Sharia Law, there is only complete compliance, or brutal punishment. Burka’s are a symbol of that totalitarian system. Twitter also laid some knowledge on Keyes

keys-burqa2

The Left rejects any suggestion that runs afoul of their egalitarian fantasies. Some cultures are better than others. The Left snubs it’s nose at the very idea that western culture is a superior culture, and rejects true Liberalism (which actually celebrates liberty) but bends over backwards to excuse the culture in many Muslim nations. The Left has chosen to reject reality, and wisdom, which is why they howl over any suggestion that refugees from certain nations need to be heavily screened before being allowed in Western nations. 

It is an odd dynamic that the left screams about diversity, and equality, yet ignores the very real oppression and brutality under Sharia. They rant about tolerance, yet turn a blind eye to cultures/religions/governments that show no tolerance for anything but complete subjugation of liberty. But, Leftism is an ideology of feelings, and “good intentions”. If you feel the “right” things and mean well, reality ceases to matter under Leftism. Sadly, the reality the left ignores is oppressing people in much of the world.

Your Marxist Morons of the Day

There are degrees of stupid. There is stupid, then there is Jimmy Carter level stupid, then there is Nuclear Grade Stupid Bob Owens explores a case of the nuclear grade variety

One of the realities of law enforcement is that higher-level police brass are typically more interested in protecting their own power and advancing their own careers than they care at all about the realities officers face on the street. That detached and self-serving mindset is probably behind a new recommendation by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (and allegedly some other law enforcement organizations) that law enforcement officers should be allowed to fire warning shots.

Wait, wait, did he say warning shots? I would hope the idiots at the International Association of Chiefs of Police realize that bullets do not stop until they hit something, in other words a “warning shot” might very well endanger innocent bystanders, or people in their homes, etc. Of course that is not where their collective stupid stops, oh no………..When Leftists start digging in the Pit of Eternal Stupidity, they keep going and going, and

“There was a lot of discussion,” says the IACP’s Terry Cunningham, describing the process that led the 11 law enforcement organizations to include warning shots in the new consensus use of force policy. Cunningham was struck by the anecdotes of situations in which warning shots saved a life — or might have, had they been allowed.

Let us take a peek at the criteria for using “deadly force”

The new policy still sets strict conditions for warning shots:

1. The use of deadly force is justified;

If deadly force is justified then how will a warning shot help? If the officer, or innocent person is in imminent danger, a warning shot, it seems to me, would increase, and not lessen that imminent threat

2. The warning shot will not pose a substantial risk of injury or death to the officer or others; and

3. The officer reasonably believes that the warning shot will reduce the possibility that deadly force will have to be used.

That is simply adds additional layers for officers to weigh. I fail to see how this does anything positive

But Cunningham says the motivation for the change is to give officers a little more wiggle room when faced with a threat.

“We’re kind of entering into this new environment in use of force where everybody is trying to learn how to better de-escalate,” Cunningham says.

Many police trainers have come to believe that overly rigid use of force rules, however well-meant, may sometimes leave officers with no other option than to kill someone. The new model policy is a response to those concerns.

“Why not give the officers more tools?” Cunningham says. “I think it’s the right thing to do.”

Look, I am not an expert here, but Owens has a lot more training than I, so what does he think?

My training and the training of pretty much every law enforcement officer and other civilians in the United States is that if you encounter a deadly force situation, that you engage the threat with rounds fired at the center of exposed mass of the threat in order to stop the threat’s ability to harm or kill others.

Seems like common sense doesn’t it? The situation is very dire if deadly force is needed so why would anyone suggest the officer be unduly burdened with more rules made up by politically motivated police chiefs?

This new warning shot policy recommendation suggests that officers engaged in a deadly force encounter should take the time to look beyond the threat to see if there is a safe backstop for them to fire a bullet. I do not see this being a viable tactic for patrol officers in a typical encounter that occurs with little or no warning, nor one that will do anything other than greatly increase the risk of innocent bystanders being hit when officers making a split-second decision to fire a warning shot pick a poor choice of backstop that will either fail to stop the projectile, or cause the round to ricochet. In either event, a round was launched when it was not needed to be fired.

Owens adds a lot more, and sees some possible justifications for such a policy

To provide political cover for law enforcement brass, to hang patrol officers out to dry and to protect their own careers in the event of a controversial shooting. “Officer Doe had the option of firing a warning shot in this scenario according to our policy. You can’t blame me for this.”

To provide political cover for law enforcement brass who are receiving pressure from elected officials educated by the entertainment fantasy industry that “shooting to wound” is a viable alternative, apparently completely unaware of the reality that arms and legs still have major arteries, and that a shot to the knee, thigh, elbow, bicep, or should could still result in a fatal bleed-out within seconds or minutes, leaving the officer who fired the shot hung out to try as he explains he was trying to “shoot to wound.”

Much more at Bearing Arms. To me this is simply an overreaction to political pressure to agitators such as Black Lives Matter and other leftist groups, and to a media that reports for sensationalism rather than to impart facts, and useful information. In short, this is a new front in the War on Police.

So now milk is RAAAAACIST or something

Is there a bottom of the Pit of Leftist Lunacy? Maybe not, I mean consider this

When you think of milk, what first comes to your mind? If you’re a millennial, you probably think of strong bones, Got Milk? commercials, or maybe eating your favorite cereal while watching cartoons on a Saturday morning.

What about racism? White nationalism? If you’re having trouble finding the connection between these institutions and milk, you’re not alone. You, along with the rest of the nation, have been so accustomed to hearing the benefits of milk that you probably didn’t even realize the subtle racism hidden in our health facts.

It may not surprise you that the United States was founded on racism. That every institution we uphold has racist roots that are sometimes difficult to catch and even harder to fight against. This phenomenon affects our voter ID laws, state testing and,  yes, even our federal dietary guidelines. But how can our health guidelines, a system meant to be built upon scientific fact alone, have racist messages? Where there is a deep-rooted tradition to suppress an entire race’s existence, there’s a way.

The federal endorsement of milk in American diets contributes to the problem by uncritically pushing people to drink milk, despite the potential detriment it has on non-white people’s health.

Our current federal dietary guidelines urge people to drink three cups of milk a day, according to the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The main health benefit of milk is to guard against osteoporosis, a disease that weakens your bones — hence the “stronger bones” rhetoric. While this is a very practical health benefit, osteoporosis affects Africans at a significantly lower rate than it does most Americans, according to an article on Mother Jones.

Egads! Honestly who thinks this stuff up? What type of person enjoys finding racism everywhere everyday? Who is so demented that they are only happy when they are pretending to be a victim? Leftists of course! Because, leftism is an ideology for pessimists, bitter folks, and malcontents.

Your Marxist Morons of the Day

I am not sure which is more disturbing, that people can make up idiocy like this, or that others actually buy into it

Southern Illinois University will soon host a month-long series of “nap-ins” to help guide students on their “internal journey to diversity.”

According to The Daily Egyptian, the Illinois college will offer four two-hour napping sessions for interested students who would like to “internally generate” “dreams of diversity.”

Yes, you read  that correctly. They are going to generate dreams, by taking naps. Good Freaking Grief! But the stupid, it deepens

“The nap-ins are part of the internal journey to diversity. All dreams start while sleeping,” explained Marissa Amposta, student coordinator of the event, noting that her nap-ins will take place in the rotunda of the campus library, and that students will be able to share their dreams on a fabric scroll displayed nearby.

Meanwhile, the team has set up a labyrinth of sorts surrounding the fabric scroll in a metaphorical ploy to “help guide students to their dreams,” Amposta explained.

“The maze is sort of a metaphor for the general path to diversity. It takes a while to reach, and it’s complicated,” she elaborated.

Yep, this is what universities teach now folks. This is what college students go into massive debt to learn. 

Linked at Doug Ross thanks!

 

I love when Liberals try to be profound

And end up looking like complete morons

What is she 12? I mean, does she really think this denotes intellectual depth? This is a talented woman. I have great respect for actors. They have a true gift, the ability to bring fictional people to life, or historical figures to life. Yet so many actresses seem to be so quick to reduce themselves to body parts. Is this empowering to women somehow?

For the record, I do not mind when entertainers speak out, I do not even mind if I disagree with their ideals. I am bothered, however when they speak out of ignorance, and I mind when they are applauded for it. And I especially mind when they are applauded for saying inane things. I mean Cate, really, your vagina has purposes, and none of those involves thinking, reasoning, or expressing political views