I don’t know about you guys, but my news feeds were all filled with the buzz that retired Marine Corps General James Mattis was selected by Trump to be nominated for the position of Secretary of Defense. Every single veteran and current service member I know has been singing the praises of this particular choice – regardless of political views – and Mattis memes are dominating my social media page like I’ve never seen before.
As critical and doubtful I am of our President-elect, this was a stellar choice.
Mattis knows and understands the military.
His troops love and respect him – even now that he’s retired.
He is widely considered to have been one of the most competent, seasoned military officers in recent history.
He understands military strategy and tactics, and is able to effectively balance the mission with care for his troops.
And he understands military-civilian relations, which is critical in the position of Secretary of Defense, as he works with both civilian policy makers and military personnel to lead America’s defenses. Hell, he’s edited a book about this!
But of course, there’s at least one doofus who has gone full potato (and was stupid enough to publicly admit it) about the suggestion that James Mattis become Trump’s Secretary of Defense.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) came out against Donald Trump’s selection of retired Marine Gen. James Mattis for secretary of Defense, saying she would not support a necessary congressional waiver to allow him to take on the role.Gillibrand is the first lawmaker to oppose waiving the prohibition on former military officers heading the Pentagon less than seven years after retiring.
“While I deeply respect General Mattis’s service, I will oppose a waiver,” she said in a statement. “Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule.”
This is where I have to laugh at this daft bint and challenge her claim that she’s opposing Mattis’ selection for the sake of any kind of fundamental principles, especially not ones of American democracy.
First – we already have civilian control of the U.S. military. He’s called the President of the United States, or… you know… the Commander-in-Chief of the US military.
Second – it’s not like we haven’t had veterans serve as Secretaries of Defense! Over the last 64 years, there have been numerous SecDefs who have served – seven have come from the Navy, with seven from the Army, and one from the Air Force.
Who better to care for our armed forces, participate in decision making that impacts the military, and represent us in military alliances than a man who has spent a lifetime as a warrior, who is known for caring for the troops, and is a known intellectual?
Gillibrand’s excuse for opposing Mattis doesn’t pass muster. It is more likely that she’s already positioning herself to be the anti-Trump in the 2020 election, and what better way to do that than to oppose his nominees?
Of course, if that’s the case, she has not picked her battles wisely. Mattis is widely respected by a vast number of people in Washington, and chances are, he will not just get the Congressional go-ahead and be confirmed as the Secretary of Defense, but it will likely happen with overwhelming support from both sides of the political aisle, leaving her as one of the few doofuses who screeched for attention in the wrong arena.
But hey, if she wants to squander her political capital on a cause as stupid as opposing a supremely qualified candidate to head the Pentagon, so be it. All it will do is mar any credibility she may have had as a potential Commander-in-Chief.
Hey, did you hear Kirsten Gillibrand is running for President?
Isn’t she the moron who opposed the nomination of Jim Mattis as SECDEF?
Yeah, and now she wants to be the Commander-in-Chief!
*gigglesnort* Yeah, that’s sure to emphasize her understanding of the military she wants to be elected to lead!
Dear Chip –
As an Army veteran, a mother, and a Second Amendment rights advocate I feel a “tremendous responsibility” to address your November 30th letter to your customers in which you “respectfully ask people not to bring firearms into our stores.”
My husband and I will, of course, respect your wishes and never enter any of your stores again. If you don’t value our business (nor our safety concerns about having to leave our defensive tools at home, or worse – in our cars without positive control) enough to keep your politics away from your company, we will certainly oblige by keeping our business away from you and your products.
To be sure, you have every right to make this request. The stores are Levi’s property. I fully understand that, and I accept your choice to only do business with disarmed potential victims. That’s fine. Your property rights are as important as my right to defend myself, so I will abide by your request and never take my gun into your stores again.
But I do want to address some of your claims, so bear with me.
You claim to be a former Army officer and a father. I’m sure, if you have ever deployed to a war zone (probably not, judging by your dates of service), you remember that your firearm has kept you safe in some pretty hazardous situations. That’s why it is interesting to me that as someone who has served his country, you have so little understanding about the safety and security carrying an effective tool of self defense can provide. Actually, maybe it’s not interesting… given that you even fail to capitalize the word, “Army” in your open letter (out of respect, if nothing else), tells me a lot about what you thought of your military service. Four and a half years in the military from 1979 to 1983 should have given you some perspective, but I guess not.
I’m also puzzled that as a father, you prefer to see customers cowering and parents trying desperately to shield their children from those who will undoubtedly ignore your respectful request, rather than armed citizens who are accountable for their own safety and the safety of those around them and are willing to take responsibility for said safety.
You describe how impacted you were by the attacks in Nice, Paris, and Orlando, and yet, you fail to mention that France has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world, which somehow failed to stop the attacks there, and that the Orlando shooting took place despite the Florida state law that prohibits carrying concealed firearms into an establishment that serves alcohol. This tells me you’re either acting from a place of emotional hysteria, or you intentionally ignore the facts in your effort to genuflect in front of unhinged cowards, whose petty little feelings of dread at seeing a regular citizen carrying a self defense tool are more important to you than the actual safety of your customers.
“It boils down to this,” you claim, “you shouldn’t have to be concerned about your safety while shopping for clothes or trying on a pair of jeans. Simply put, firearms don’t belong in either of those settings. In the end, I believe we have an obligation to our employees and customers to ensure a safe environment and keeping firearms out of our stores and offices will get us one step closer to achieving that reality.”
I agree with you, Chip. You shouldn’t have to be concerned about your safety while shopping, which is why neither my family nor I will ever shop in a Levi Strauss & Company store again. Rather, we will spend our hard-earned money in an establishment that respects our right to defend ourselves, rather than bowing to cowards who soil themselves at the sight of a tool.
Our new President-elect apparently has no understanding of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I have previously pointed this out when he advocated depriving people of their right to keep and bear arms without due process if they were placed on the onerous “no-fly” list.
He proves it once again today with yet another demonstration of his lack of understanding and respect for fundamental rights. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically protects free speech from government prosecution and persecution. The nation’s courts over the years have also ruled that state and local governments cannot infringe on these basic, fundamental liberties.
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That means that political speech is protected. That means the government cannot punish you for speaking out, for expressing an unpopular opinion, for criticizing your leadership, or even your country by burning her flag in effigy. That means no politician has the right to use government force to limit your criticism of America.
But hey, apparently Trump’s respect for the First Amendment lies somewhere below his respect for property rights.
It is a right. By its very nature a right does not infringe on others’ rights when exercised. The great Walter Williams wrote that rights exist simultaneously among people.
As such, a right imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. Again, that right imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference.
Burning our nation’s flag – as repulsive as it is to me as an Army veteran – is a right. It places no obligation on another when exercised and violates no one else’s rights by force.
You may be offended by the gesture, and I can’t say I blame you.
It’s offensive to me as an immigrant. It’s repugnant to me as someone who has served this nation and is willing to die for the principles it enshrines. But as I’ve so often told Special Snowflakes, you have no right not to be offended, and this fact holds true for everyone, including those of us who find flag burning a disgusting and disrespectful act, which it is.
Burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea, said the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
The pertinent part is at around the 8:00 mark. The man Trump will seek to replace on the Supreme Court understood the Constitution and recognized that burning the flag, as distasteful as we find it, is political speech. Protected political speech.
The great thing about this country is that our right to be the most pernicious of warts is protected by the Constitution. Our right to scream from the rooftops that we hate our government, that we abhor our troops, and that we despise our flag is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, because it is the most odious of expressions that need the most protection.
If we don’t strive to protect speech and expression with which we disagree, we will wind up being censored in the end.
Freedom is hard. Freedom means understanding that even the most repulsive expression is protected from government prosecution.
I honor the flag. I have served to protect the symbol of liberty – not the cloth – but what it represents, which includes the right to criticize our government in the most offensive way possible!
If we begin prosecuting individuals for speech we find abhorrent, just think of what the SJWs will do with that power!
“The idea that you have to be protected from any kind of uncomfortable emotion is what I absolutely do not subscribe to.”
― John Cleese
As I was scanning my news feed this morning, I read that there was an active shooter incident at Ohio State University. Knowing that initial reports are nearly always wrong, I waited to find out what really happened on the sprawling campus. I was right to do so. The only person who was shot was a “Somali refugee” who plowed his vehicle into a crowd of Ohio State Students, and proceeded to go on a stabbing rampage, injuring at least nine before a police officer ventilated the bastard.
A police officer was on the scene within a minute and killed the assailant. “He engaged the suspect and eliminated the threat,” OSU Police Chief Craig Stone said.
The motive was unknown, but officials said the attack was clearly deliberate and may have been planned in advance.
“This was done on purpose,” Stone said.
While I and a number of news outlets that actually try to be responsible journalists waited for the details to come out, gun grabbing, sniveling fucktards such as Shannon Watts and Sheila Jackson Lee wasted no time calling for more gun control.
The school forbids guns on its campus, so the only recourse for students was to cower and barricade their classrooms.
But that didn’t stop these overly-excited, froth-flecked opponents of your rights from signalling their “concern” for the safety of all involved by screeching about our “lax” gun laws. I suppose if you call completely banning guns on campus “lax,” Shannon the Idiot Bloomberg Fellator Watts™ is right. Most of us with half a functioning brain, however, understand there’s nothing “lax” about a total ban on effective tools of self defense on campus.
It certainly didn’t stop the stabber, identified as 20-year-old Abdul Razak Ali Artan, from using a vehicle and a knife to attack his fellow students.
Note: Unlike other
news clickbait sites, I will refrain from calling this a terrorist attack quite yet until I get more facts, although it does bear the marks. After all, both ISIS and al-Qaida have publicly called for supporters to use vehicles as weapons. (See: Terrorist attack in Nice, France)
The initial reports about the dead slime bag have already been shown to have been wrong. Initially, he was identified as Ali Muhammad. Gateway Pundit immediately jumped in with a helpful photo of the alleged perp, gotten from some guy on Twitter, who ostensibly got the profile picture from Facebook. There are still Internet rumors out there that the car is registered to Muhammad, which would mean Artan either stole it, or Muhammad was an accomplice, which makes me think “terrorist plot” rather than “odd crime of passion” or “mental illness.”
We do know he was in the country legally and lived in Pakistan for a while before coming to the United States. We know he was a student at OSU, that he was in his third year there studying logistics management, and that he was pretty religious, per his own words.
And reports vary as to the type of blade used to slash the victims. One media outlet said Artan wielded a machete.
However, if you want to see world’s stupidest headline, I’ve got the screen cap from the link above, which has since been changed to reflect less stupid.
Are we seriously so desperate to blame guns, that we are willing to publish this fuckery?
To their credit, they did remove the idiot headline shortly after I captured it, but really… What the hell?
In any case, the investigation is ongoing, and updates are rolling in, as more and more details emerge.
How much longer before we hear rumblings of “He was traumatized by Trump’s election and thought he would be deported, prompting him to attack his fellow students”?
But for now, my thoughts are with the victims. Here’s hoping everyone recovers.
UPDATE: It’s interesting to note my prediction of Trump Derangement Syndrome above. I was close. The Daily Beast didn’t disappoint with its “poor, scared Muslim” narrative.
Artan described himself as a pious and scared Muslim in an interview with the Ohio State student newspaper in August.
“I wanted to pray in the open, but I was scared with everything going on in the media,” he told The Lantern after transfering from Columbus State Community College. “I’m a Muslim, it’s not what the media portrays me to be. If people look at me, a Muslim praying, I don’t know what they’re going to think, what’s going to happen. But, I don’t blame them. It’s the media that put that picture in their heads so they’re going to just have it and it, it’s going to make them feel uncomfortable. I was kind of scared right now. But I just did it. I relied on God. I went over to the corner and just prayed.”
NBC News’s Pete Williams reported on-air that Artan made a Facebook post lamenting the treatment of Muslims worldwide just before the attack on Monday morning.
Poor, scared, sad, cupcake! He was scared to be a Muslim! It wasn’t his fault, you see. He was just all traumatized because RACISM!
Stand by. The Trump Derangement Syndrome may be coming as a defense yet!
UPDATE 2: Welp… it sure smells like terrorism.
Authorities are investigating an anti-U.S. rant posted on Facebook just minutes before the Ohio State University attack today that is believed to be linked to suspect Abdul Razak Ali Artan, sources told ABC News.
Appearing three minutes before the beginning of the rampage that left 11 people injured, the post reads: “I can’t take it anymore. America! Stop interfering with other countries, especially the Muslim Ummah. We are not weak. We are not weak, remember that.”
The post also invokes the name Anwar Al-Awlaki, a radical American-born al-Qaeda cleric, describing him as a “hero.” Al-Awlaki was killed in 2011 but his propaganda has been linked to several domestic terrorist attacks in the years after his death.
“If you want us Muslims to stop carrying lone wolf attacks, then make peace,” the post reads. “We will not let you sleep unless you give peace to the Muslims.”