This Week’s Desperate Celeb: Johnny Depp!

Not a fan of YouTube: Click here

Pelosi: I Am a ‘Target’ Because I Am a ‘Master Legislator,’ ‘Politically Astute Leader’

I’m just gonna leave this here…


Screen shot/Family Guy

Pelosi said, “We believe there’s a real opportunity. Now, it’s not a slam dunk. History is on our side, but it takes strategic, unified and disciplined — to have harmony. It doesn’t mean we have anonymity, but we have unity when it comes to that fight. Should I sing my praises? Well, I am a master legislator. I am a strategic politically astute leader. My leadership is recognized by many around the country, and that is why I am able to attract the support that I do which is essential to our election, sad to say.

“I am very pleased that the cooperation that we’re doing working with all the social media and small donor community to change how we communicate but also how we attract resources, intellectual and financial to the party,” she continued. “I have experience in winning the Congress. When people said to us in 2005, you don’t have a chance, be prepared for a Republican permanent majority, I said — Harry Reid and I said we don’t accept that. We proceeded. We took the president from 58 to 38. President Bush won the election. The fact is they will always make a target. Senator Reid was a target. Senator Daschle was a target. Tip O’Neill is a target. I am a target. They always want to choose our leaders and usually, they go after the most effective leaders because they want to take us, diminish the opportunity that we have.”

Full article: Pelosi: I Am a ‘Target’ Because I Am a ‘Master Legislator,’ ‘Politically Astute Leader’ – Breitbart

There’s an Antifa Gym Now. It’s Glorious

Oh, my.

Wow, you guys.

It simply amazes me how they make these videos and comments and try to make it sound like they are the victims and are being attacked all the time. The last time I checked, it was large groups of their own that were attacking others. They enjoy creating fake hate crimes in between beating people with bike locks, dumping bottles of piss on women, and car jacking people because they don’t like their bumper sticker. And of course, sprinkle in some campus burnings and Starbucks windows busting. The “Escalating violence” they speak of is coming from their own, and literally everyone knows it but them.

I started laughing when he mentioned whatever it was about a gym for “marginalized people” that “aren’t accepted into the heteronormative masculine macho gym culture.” Every gym that has been established since probably the mid-90s has touted their open mindedness and acceptance of all. Yeah, you are always going to have a-holes in any situation like that. But what the hell kind of gyms do these people visit?

I’m a member of a gym that wouldn’t give a crap about how they identify. Seriously, I use a hospital based gym (it’s owned by a hospital system and has tons of hospital offices and services, including an urgent care, attached in the complex). The majority of clientele there are over the age of 50 (we have a few members over the age of 100!) and/or have serious handicaps or medical conditions, their specialty being heart problems. That’s not to say that we don’t have our fair share of younger people, including millennials. And every once in a while we have a grunting weight tosser that gets in, but those guys get shut down pretty fast, either by the staff or an ornery elderly person. The clientele also boasts a large mixture of minority groups. And the LGBT community there is well represented as well. We have transgender folks who use the gym.

But we also let in evil police officers and right wingers, because we believe in including everyone and working out our differences instead of having secret clubs.

And no one gives a rat’s backside about anyone’s gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. If they do, they keep their mouths shut.

Now, I’ll admit. I have had a few run ins with people who don’t approve of my tattoos and the quantity and/or size of them, and especially the fact that they are on a woman. I get stared at a lot more at this gym than anywhere else. But I’ll give credit where it is due. Of the people who give me looks, I’d say about 90% of them eventually approach me and start a conversation with me. It is almost never about my tattoos, either. I think these people want to know what I am about. I think maybe two of the people who have approached me in all these years came at me wanting to know about the tattoos and both asked to touch them (which oddly happens more than you would think. If you’ve ever wondered, they feel like skin). After our conversation, we’re usually on even ground and the disapproving looks stop. A few became “gym friends.” But this has never made me feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or in danger.

But I’ll say, I approve of the Antifa gym. It keeps these a-holes out of gyms like the one I am in. Really, if we got inundated with these people, they’d make our gym experience very uncomfortable and stressful, and most likely hostile. We don’t need that, and neither does any other gym on Earth. So I approve. Stay with your little hate groups and leave the rest of the USA alone. Just don’t start demanding the tax payer fund them.

NYT: Who Wants to Live in a Society Where Everyone Is Armed for Self-Defense?

AP/Rogelio V. Solis

The newspaper admitted that “all people in that situation, unarmed and under fire, would want long to be able to protect themselves and their friends,” but quickly hedged in the admission by positing:

Yet consider the society Americans would have to live in–the choices they would have to make–to enable that kind of defense. Every member of Congress, and every other American of whatever age, would have to go to baseball practice, or to school, or to work, or to the post office, or to the health clinic–or to any other place mass shootings now take place–with a gun on their hip.

Full article: NYT: Who Wants to Live in a Society Where Everyone Is Armed for Self-Defense?

Imagine the drop in mass shootings, gang violence, etc. that would take place if the armed assailant knew ahead of time that 95% of the people he comes across are going to be able to shoot back!

This is why I hate articles about guns and self defense with guns by people who don’t own guns, shoot guns, or know anything at all about guns.

For a large portion of the USA, the above unimaginable bother that they are using to make self defense with a gun unfeasible is what we do. That’s our life. I am usually armed. Unless I know I am going in to a government building, I am armed. If you ever happen to meet me, you can bet money that there’s a gun on me somewhere. And I’m not alone, not by a long shot.

Any time I meet someone, I assume they are armed. 99% of my friends are armed.

The media wants to make it seem like this is a hardship that not many people are willing to do. But we do. There’s a lot of us, and it is public record, and we’re exercising our rights all the time.

For those who do carry, you know. At some point, and you don’t even realize it, you forget the gun is even there. When trouble seems to be coming, you remember it really fast, but most of the time we don’t think about it. It’s there, we put it there, but we can’t feel it and it isn’t getting in the way.

I carry a revolver and sometimes a compact 1911 (not usually at the same time). Sometimes the 1911 jabs me in the ribs because it likes to remind me it is there. But both firearms are in good holsters (leather for the revolver, plastic for the 1911) and don’t move, shift, or slap around while I walk. They push into my skin and stay there until I say otherwise.

So to me, no, carrying a gun through my daily activities is not a bother. In fact, I feel better being out alone running errands. I have never pulled my gun in anger and hope to never have to. But if the time should come, I can’t really run away anymore. My mother – who also carries – is on a cane and sometimes a walker. She can’t run away anymore either. I feel better going out alone, and I feel better about my mom going out alone, knowing we’re both armed and know how to use our guns. And yeah, sometimes I forget it’s there.

You know what is a bother? Having to think about my mother burying her only child because a guy stabbed me death for my purse. I lost a friend like that years ago, he was shot in the neck for the $3 he had in his pocket and then died slowly in the street because none of the a-holes walking by could be bothered to call 911. That was a real bother. I lost a really dear friend, who you can tell I am not yet over, and his parents lost their only child weeks before he graduated college. You know what else would be a real bother? The emotional and physical turmoil I’d go through post rape. That would be a lifetime full of bother!

So no, carrying my gun really isn’t that much of a bother.

N.C. law: Woman can’t back out of sex once underway

Aaliyah Palmer was at a party when a man pulled her into a bathroom for sex.

She was willing.

But, she told Fayetteville police, when the sex turned violent, she told the man to stop. He didn’t listen.

She thought what happened to her was rape, but she found out that under North Carolina law a woman is not allowed to back out of sex once it is underway.

“It’s really stupid,” Palmer, 19, said of the law. “If I tell you no and you kept going, that’s rape.”

In 1979, the North Carolina Supreme Court, in State v. Way, ruled that women cannot revoke consent after sexual intercourse begins.

Full article: N.C. law: Woman can’t back out of sex once underway

Wow. I don’t even know where to go with this one. My brain immediately took on the ways this could go bad or go well.

OK, so my initial reaction to this is that it is completely insane. In this woman’s situation, if the sex became violent and she didn’t want to take part in that, she should have had the right to say no, this needs to stop. And when he refused, yes, I would call that rape.

My mind is in a uproar over this, however, because we all know damn well that some woman somewhere is going to claim she told the guy half way through that she wanted to stop and was then raped. Whether she actually told him to stop or not. I mean, how the hell do you prove that she did or did not tell him to stop half way through?!

BUT! Either party should be allowed to say stop at any time during the act and have that respected. It’s still your body, and sex takes an intense amount of trust to engage in.

Let me know what you think here, guys. What’s your take on this?

Here Come Your Consequences

According to this, the professor in this clip:

Has been suspended indefinitely from Essex County College.

If you don’t want to rage through that clip, she was arguing – obnoxiously – that the all black Memorial Day celebration was their right and was the best option for black people who wanted to attend.

That’s fine. You can do whatever you want to here in the USA. If you want to exclude everyone else from your party, fine. But, two things.

  1. Don’t bitch when other races have parties for only their race. Can’t go to the Mexican party? Boo hoo, lady. Can’t go to the white party? Boo hoo, again. If you can, everyone else can, too. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
  2. You should be ashamed. No, I’m not kidding. Your ancestors – your mother and father, your grandparents, etc. – fought damn hard to be included in society. I mean, damn hard. They lived through segregation. They fought like mad and a lot of folks were beaten, arrested, killed, etc. trying to win that fight. They won. By the grace of God, they won! And now here you are fighting for black only parties, black only housing on college campuses, black only college graduations… you are fighting damn hard to reverse everything your ancestors bled for! How dare you! Have some respect for those who came before you and created the life you have. Yes, there is still work to be done. There always will be. But winning the next fight should never include destroying the previous victories.

Supreme Court Limits Government’s Ability To Revoke Citizenship

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday to limit the government’s ability to strip U.S. citizenship from legal immigrants for lying on their naturalization applications.

The Court said that naturalized immigrants cannot lose their citizenship for making false statements that are irrelevant to an immigration official’s decision to grant it. Instead, a jury must decide if such false statements would have influenced the decision.

“When the illegal act is a false statement, that means demonstrating that the defendant lied about the facts that would have mattered to an immigration official, because they would have justified denying naturalization or would predictably have led to other facts warranting that result,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the ruling opinion.

Full article: Supreme Court Limits Government’s Ability To Revoke Citizenship