We're the Only Ones Offended Enough

Off-duty cops who plan to see the pope during his tour of the Big Apple ​are being warned to leave their guns at home — or face being ​sent away and ​reprimanded by NYPD brass, police officials warned in a memo ... “This is our city and we should be able to carry,” a police source said, describing the policy as “very offensive.” [More]

What, you don't like it? Awww, poor baby.

And whose city is it, again...? The mansion now belongs to the hired help?

What's offensive is the rest of us would get a hell of a lot more than a reprimand. From you disgruntled "Only Ones."

Question of the Day: Would You Send a Gun to Defend a British Home?

Knowing what we do now, noting the likely course the UK and its people seem determined to chart for themselves, if a similar plea for help went out today, would you send a gun to defend a British home...? [More]

Be sure to leave a comment under the article with your answer for all to read.

And Remember, for "Progressives," Every Day is Opposite Day

On public lands, Congress should stand with American people, not anti-government extremists [More]

How the  organization -- that centers its entire existence around the oath its members take to the Constitution  -- can be characterized as "anti-government" is not explained, naturally.

Our State Fair is a Great State Fair!

Except for the occasional armed robbers taking advantage of the No Guns policy...

[Via Harvey]

Sympathy for the Devil

Gimme that old time religion?

Opportunistic political panderers from both parties, along with special interests are having a field day attacking Ben Carson for saying he does not believe Islam is consistent with the Constitution, and that he "would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

Thinking they've found a prime "Gotcha!" to exploit, people who ignore the Constitution whenever they find it an impediment are dragging out the First Amendment Establishment Clause, and the Article VI prohibition on religious tests. The thing is, Carson never said there oughtta be a law -- he merely stated what he made clear was his personal viewpoint, and last I checked, we're still allowed to have those, even if some might take offense and issue fatwahs.

Here's the thing. Were a Muslim to be elected president (and yes, I know some will say one already has been), if he did not hold Shariah "law" above the secular as the "supreme Law of the Land," prevailing worldwide Islamic thought would brand him an apostate. And this is the person who would appoint an Attorney General, Supreme Court Justices, and... Again, there can be no law against those positions being filled by the "faithful," so whether or not you're OK with that is up to you. But as with all the politically correct uproar following Carson's response, the devil is in the details, because the implication is that anyone not OK must be a xenophobe, an extremist, a bigot...

Since we're talking about religions, do you think there'd be such an uproar if Carson had opined he wouldn't feel comfortable with a chicken-sacrificing Santeria practitioner in the White House?

Hell, let's cut to the chase. Let's talk about an ancient and established religion, one that is recognized by the government, one with practitioners throughout  the land, and one that involves itself in vigorous legal and outreach actions centered around all kinds of Constitutional issues, including, as a plus for those who value "progressive" causes, women's reproductive rights and same sex marriages.

I'm talking, of course, about Satanism.

I'm also talking about moral and logical consistency, which means if the "outraged" rival candidates and pundits are going to exhibit any, they have to agree that they could support a Satanist for president, and condemn as intolerant anyone who would venture that they are disqualified by "virtue" of their religion.

If what everyone in the field is professing truly reveals their unwavering principle that religion doesn't matter, they should have no problem publicly agreeing with consistent substitutions. Whether such a candidate would have a chance is not the point. And would the establishment candidates decry that as unacceptable intolerance?

Let's test some convictions, shall we? How would these alterations to on-the-record statements of conviction fly with the respective campaigns?

Marco Rubio: "I personally do not believe that your religious denomination being a Satanist should disqualify you from serving in office."

Jeb Bush: "The former Florida governor believes an individual’s faith being a Satanist is irrelevant to seeking the White House or any public office..."

Lindsey Graham: “[Carson] is not ready to be Commander-in-Chief. America is an idea, not owned by a particular religion ... [he]needs to apologize to American Muslims Satanists."

Ted Cruz: In trying to navigate a minefield, Sen. Cruz got it right that the Constitution prohibits religious tests as a matter of law, which, as we've already noted, is irrelevant to what Carson actually said.  Cruz should now weigh in on if he'd have issued a different statement had Carson said he "would not advocate that we put a Satanist in charge of this nation."

John Kasich: "Although Kasich did not say he would have a problem with a Muslim Satanist president, he did not directly address the issue and answered the question more broadly." (Kasich being a weasel-wording equivocator...? Say it ain't so!)

Bobby Jindal:“If you can find me a Muslim Satanist candidate who is a Republican, who will fight hard to protect religious liberty, who will respect the Judeo-Christian heritage of America ... I will be happy to consider voting for him or her.”

Rand Paul: "...did not indicate he would have any objections to a Muslim Satanist president in an interview on CBS Sunday."

Donald Trump: "Would I be comfortable?" (Well, would you be?)

Mike Huckabee: "I don’t think we ought to just disqualify from somebody because of his or her Satanist faith."

George Pataki: "You know, they said the same thing back in the past, you couldn’t have a Catholic president, you couldn’t have a Jewish president, you couldn’t have an African American or a women president and now Dr Carson is saying you can’t have a Muslim Satanist president and I think it is just wrong.”

Carly Fiorina: "When host Jimmy Fallon asked Fiorina if she was affirming that she would be fine with a Muslim Satanist president, she confirmed, 'Yes, I would be fine with that.'”

Bernie Sanders: "I am very disappointed that Dr Carson would suggest that a Muslim Satanist should not become president of the United States."

Hillary Clinton: "Hail Lord Sata... uh, not really, but she did tweet:

Martin O'Malley: “American people are better than latest Trump/Carson/GOP anti-Muslim Satanic bigotry. Hate is not an American value. #diversityisourgreateststrength. It’s sad to see the party of Lincoln being led by candidates who choose bigotry against Muslim Satanic-Americans over 'united we stand.’”

Lincoln Chaffee: “Regarding Dr Carson’s statement that a Muslim Satanist shouldn’t be president, Article II Section 1 of our Constitution clearly states the qualifications for the presidency. Dr Carson should discontinue his campaign based on making such an uninformed and discriminatory statement that a Muslim Satanist shouldn’t be able to ask American voters to have the freedom to make that decision.” (First of all, Carson never said that, and second of all, who seriously gives a damn what Lincoln Chaffee has to say about anything?)

Lest anyone think this comparison for the sake of establishing consistency is insulting to Muslims or Satanists, and God forbid I'd ever want to do that, I'd presume to think the latter would agree that the candidates ought to extend to them comparable recognition to their beliefs. As for the Islamic community, I'll offer them the most respectful acknowledgement I can: Equal treatment.

So how about it, fellas? Can I put you on record as agreeing with and embracing this change?

And maybe getting some of your high ranking religious leaders to endorse it...?

All Things Considered

Missoula considers background checks for all gun sales [More]

Since when has a little thing like the law stopped determined "progressives"?

Speaking of which, between transplanted Californians bent on continuing to foul whatever nest they fly to, and the young skulls full of mush, look for this not to be the last attempt.

[Via Catherine]

And the Crowd Went Wild

The thought strikes to combine this with the running of the bulls... [More]

The Pilgrim's Progress

Sanctuary!

“The Church in the United States knows like few others the hopes present in the hearts of these ‘pilgrims.’ . . . Offer them the warmth of the love of Christ and you will unlock the mystery of their heart. I am certain that, as so often in the past, these people will enrich America and its Church.” [More]

Heck, what American doesn't like pilgrims?  And he's right, you know, at least about that "enriching the Church" part:

Immigration from Latin American countries has kept Catholic number stable in recent years, and 39 percent of American immigrants are Catholic.

Now that the hemorrhaging has stopped and they're stabilized, the birthrates'll have things climbing in no time.

And don't worry about that "wall of separation" forcing all Americans to bear burdens that will benefit the Church. Prozis only bring that up when they want to go after conservative value issues.

We're the Only Ones Practical Enough

The vehicle can withstand fire from almost any armament, and while some would say that's overkill for a local police force, Winder said it’s a matter of practicality. “I think people should be aware that in the Salt Lake Valley there are hundreds, if not thousands, of 50-caliber rifles in the possession of civilians," Winder said. [More]

They oughtta be OK as long as they don't run  into any "unarmed" men...

I also nominate Max Roth and Fox 13 News for an "Excellence in Authorized Journalism Award," for definitively informing us:

With the proper permit, these big guns are legal to own.

Really?

On a side note, who's the smirking idiot who introduced the segment?

[Via Todd S] 

We're the Only Ones Objectively Reasonable Enough

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Ryskamp ruled that Deputy Ramesh Nandlal was entitled to qualified immunity, and that he made an "objectively reasonable mistake" when he shot and killed Richard Montero, of Greenacres, in April 2010. [More]

Yeah, it was all a "mistake":

Objectively, who could possibly find such "commonsense crime control" unreasonable?

CCDL Poker Run

[Click to enlarge]

In what looks to be a fun event and a nascent tradition, Connecticut Citizens Defense League is raising money for its litigation fund. [More]