Nope, I am not a fan of burning books, or flags, but

As much as I hate that, I am a far bigger fan of liberty, and liberty means the right say and do things people do not like. Yes burning books is your right, and no one may claim to embrace liberty and advocate for punishing people for free expression. Would this include burning a Koran? Not just yes, but hell yes! In short, Sharia Law which is evil, barbaric, and utterly incompatible with Western values must never be allowed to hold any sway in a free nation. Punishing people for burning a book, even a holy book is is antithetical to liberty

Expressing your rejection of a certain barbaric ideology by burning the Koran can get you in big trouble in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Britain:

Police have arrested two people on suspicion of racial hatred after a video appeared online showing a man burning a copy of the Koran.

Unlike Nazism, Islam has nothing to do with race. If you burn Mein Kampf, will you get thrown in jail for racism? Of course not, because “racism” doesn’t have much to do with race either. It means “anything liberals don’t like.” They definitely do not like it when people fail to join them in obsequiously kowtowing before Islam.

Detectives said a 45-year-old man from Worcestershire was arrested on suspicion of posting videos or images likely to cause racial hatred and a 45-year-old woman from Evesham has also been arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred.

Basically what the UK, and other nations have done is begin the process of surrendering Western values, you know free speech, self-defense, treating women like people, not stoning Gay people, to the Barbarism enforced under Sharia Law. Instead of expecting Muslim immigrants to embrace Western values, and assimilate, Europe has decided to change the values of the West to appease those immigrants. Such actions will lead, eventually, to the extinction of liberty and those values the West has long embraced. Such an end is far more offensive than burning a book is it not?

*AUDIO* Mark Steyn: Trump Vs. The Global Warming Lunatics

.

.

*VIDEO* Joe Dan Gorman – Intellectual Froglegs: A Source With No Name

.

.

Wellesley students love them some Stalinism

Snowflakes or Totalitarian starter kits?

The editorial staff of Wellesley College’s student newspaper recently wrote that anyone who dares utter a politically incorrect thought should be met with “hostility.”

In other words, expressing “incorrect” views might prove dangerous. This is Liberal tolerance. Embrace indoctrination, or else

“We have all said problematic claims,” the editorial reads. “Luckily most of us have been taught by our peers and mentors at Wellesley in a productive way.”

If that doesn’t sound like it was ripped from a dystopian novel, what comes next is truly Orwellian: “If people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted.” In other words, if you say things some people find offensive, then there will be physical consequences.

Got that? The Left believes they can intimidate us into silence. They believe they possess a right to force us to think and speak certain things. They are, in short bullies. Imagine if the left is ever able to disarm Americans. Imagine what steps they would take if able. But of course, you and I do not to need to imagine. We can look at the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia, and dozens of other nations and see what bend these miscreant bastards desire.

Oh my God it’s a Chick fil A! RUN!!

There the Snowflakes go again

Student senators at Duquesne University are lobbying for the cancellation of plans to bring Chick-fil-A to campus in the fall, saying they “fear” for the safety of their peers.

“Chick-fil-A has a questionable history on civil rights and human rights,” Martini remarked in a statement to The Duquesne Duke. “I think it’s imperative [that] the university chooses to do business with organizations that coincide with the [university’s] mission and expectations they give students regarding diversity and inclusion.”

While Martini’s initial resolution ultimately failed, the SGA did agree to consider an alternate resolution that would allow for a vetting process of the on-campus Chick-fil-A, according to The Duke.

Martini has the wholehearted support of the school’s Gay-Straight Alliance, of which he serves on the executive board, with the group’s president calling the fast-food chain a threat to her peers’ “safe place.”

Good Freaking Grief! Do these nimrods even grasp reality? Are they going to pass out at the sight of waffle cut fries? There is only one thing more inane than these miscreants. Those that give them any credibility or coddle them.

*VIDEO* David Horowitz: Big Agenda – President Trump’s Plan To Save America

.
Click HERE to purchase Mr. Horowitz’s newest book Big Agenda.

.

.

National Reciprocity introduced

I believe I have made clear my view Federalism, and the 10th amendment. I believe that states ought to make the vast majority of their own decisions. But, this bill is supported by the Bill of Rights. The second amendment is very clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Certain states have restricted that right in violation of our constitution, and this bill could help in correcting that

Earlier this week, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced Senate Bill 446, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, which would allow Americans to conceal carry a firearm across state lines.

“This bill strengthens both the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and the power of states to implement laws best-suited for the folks who live there,” Cornyn said in a statement obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. “This legislation is an important affirmation of our Second Amendment rights and has been a top priority of law-abiding gun owners in Texas for a long time.”

Both the NRA and Gun Owners of America (GOA) came out in favor of SB 446.

“The current patchwork of state and local gun laws is confusing and can cause the most conscientious and law-abiding gun owner to run afoul of the law when they are traveling or temporarily living away from home,” Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, said in a statement. “Senator Cornyn’s legislation provides a much needed solution to a real problem for law-abiding gun owners. Law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense while traveling across state lines.”

Bob Owens has shared some of his views on federal gun laws, and the second amendment.

I don’t want more federal gun laws, but instead want the federal gun laws that exist (the National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, etc) repealed or declared unconstitutional.

Why?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Based upon my plain reading of the Second Amendment, in the broader context of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as written and accepted in the early 1790s, along with the broadsheets, letters, and other collected historical documents of the Founding Fathers, it is very clear that they meant that the federal government had no roll at all when it came to determining the arms and ordnance owned by the American people.

None whatsoever. 

Frankly, I share these views and would prefer that the states simply follow the Constitution. I do not believe the States possess a right to restrict the second amendment anymore than I believe they can restrict freedoms of religion, assembly, or speech. The supreme law of our land is the  United States Constitution, as it is written. If that document does not touch on a subject, such as defining marriage for example, then those decisions are clearly left up to the individual states.