Washington, DC – -(AmmoLand.com)- Right now, in some ways, Second Amendment supporters should be feeling very good. We have seen two very strong pro-Second Amendment justices on the Supreme Court, making Chief Justice John Roberts – who voted to strike down the handgun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C., the swing vote. We have a pro-Second Amendment president who is nominating more pro-Second Amendment judges, and a Senate that is confirming them.
But what happens when there is an anti-Second Amendment president in office after Trump? That is not unthinkable. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama won two terms while attacking our right to keep and bear arms. Their judicial appointments are generally hostile to the Second Amendment – the three justices appointed by Clinton and Obama (Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor) who heard the McDonald case voted to uphold Chicago’s handgun ban.
So, what do we do should an anti-Second Amendment president take office? The time to plan is now – before the moment hits. If we fail to plan to protect our Second Amendment rights in those difficult times, we’re planning to fail to protect our Second Amendment rights.
So, what should our plan be? The first step is to leverage what we do have: To wit, use a pro-Second Amendment president and United States Senate to confirm pro-Second Amendment judges. This provides a firewall that can declare gun bans unconstitutional. But firewalls can be breached. This is the last line of defense against an anti-gun president.
The next step is to work to elect a strong pro-Second Amendment bench: State lawmakers, local officials, state’s attorney, even the school board. This is where many governors, attorneys general, Congressmen, and Senators get their start. And while President Trump is an exception, most presidents have once been governors or Senators in the past.
This farm team also has its uses. If you elect enough of these lower-level officials, you can literally block an anti-Second Amendment president or governor from pushing through that agenda. In 1999, a GOP Congress killed Bill Clinton’s post-Littleton gun-control agenda. In 2013, a Republican House was a bulwark against Obama’s efforts to reinstate an arbitrary semi-auto ban after Newtown. Think of this as another firewall, the third-best defense against an anti-gun president.
Now, we come to the second-best defense against an anti-Second Amendment president: You boot him (or her as the case may be) out after one term. To do this, you need that solid farm team to produce a contender. This can work out reasonably well, but that anti-Second Amendment president still has four years’ worth of time to wield regulatory power and the bully pulpit.
When all is said and done, the best defense for an anti-Second Amendment president is to make sure one isn’t elected in the first place. But it is foolish to place our rights in that basket. We need to make sure that we have adequate plans to withstand the next president who will try to deprive us of our rights.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
Jim Carey’s artistic talent is less than a chimpanzee on LSD and is IQ is 100% less than a piss-ant.
Jim Carrey hasn’t made a good movie in ten years, but his hyperpartisan, dark and dreary sketches make his recent run of critical and box office bombs (like “Dark Crimes,” which scored a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes) look like real works of art.
Like most of his colleagues in Hollywood, Carrey has become increasingly political and Trump-obsessed since Hillary Clinton forgot to go to the Rust Belt, but what’s most disturbing about his cynical, grotesque and emphatically unfunny work is his depiction of women associated with Trump. He seems to particularly revel in mocking their appearances and portraying them as subhuman monsters guilty of “kidnapping” and “murdering” innocents.
In just the last two weeks, Carrey has targeted two prominent Trump admin women, White House Press Sec. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Department of Homeland Security Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen. On December 19th, the washed-out actor posted a drawing of Sanders as “the Gorgon,” who will “turn your heart to stone” — or at least his portrait of her will:
Two days after Christmas, Carrey accused Nielsen of being a “kidnapper” and murderer after an immigrant child died while in the care of DHS, a tragedy he blames on Nielsen, whom he suggested is a Nazi.
“Now we add a second child to your list of murders. Callin’ it your job don’t make it right, Fraulein Kirstjen,” he wrote.
Carrey has also lampooned First Lady Melania Trump, particularly mocking her for her foreign accent and her “I Really Don’t Care, Do U?” jacket.
“Nothing comforts a federally-abducted refugee child like a photo op with a Slovenian model wearing a coat that says she doesn’t give two craps about your misery,” he wrote in an image depicting her saying, “Smile for me darlink. I came very long way.”
Perhaps the most infamous of Carrey’s satirical pieces was another one attacking “monstrous” Sarah Sanders, which again portrayed her in a deformed manner. In the piece, posted in March, he took his criticism of her a step further by questioning the sincerity of her Christian faith.
“This is the portrait of a so-called Christian whose only purpose in life is to lie for the wicked. Monstrous!” he wrote in March.
That piece prompted some of Carrey’s fans to turn on him and Sanders’ famous father, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, to push back.
“Pathetic BULLY, sexist, hater, bigot & ‘Christaphobe’ @jimcarrey attacks @PressSec for her faith; what would be hypocritical Hollywood reaction if he called someone a ‘so-called Muslim’ or ‘so-called Jew?’ ” Huckabee tweeted, adding “#classlessCarrey.”
Gov. Mike Huckabee
Pathetic BULLY, sexist, hater, bigot & “Christaphobe” @jimcarrey attacks @PressSec for her faith; what would be hypocritical Hollywood reaction if he called someone a “so-called Muslim” or “so-called Jew?” #classlessCarrey
FOX & friends
Too far? Jim Carrey paints mocking portrait of WH Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, calls her ‘fake Christian’ | @CarleyShimkus
Carrey responded to the backlash by declaring that he was “gratified” by the reaction to his ugly depiction of Sanders.
“I am so gratified by the reaction to my little drawings. It is the job of a political cartoon to vex those who abuse power or enable those abuses,” he said. “This administration has been lying to the American people from day one while plundering the country and debasing our values. And those who cover for this shameful mobster of a President are putting makeup on a melanoma and telling the cancer patient that everything’s fine. Monstrous? You bet!”
While Carrey appears to enjoy portraying Trump women as grotesque monsters, he spends most of his energy smearing Trump as a simultaneously buffoonish and Machiavellian figure whose actions are supposedly leading to piled up bodies and the unraveling of American democracy, or something.
A few examples of some of Carrey’s obsessively Trump-focused posts from just the last two months:
Shameless lies. Endless indictments. The rise of racist hate groups. Kidnapped children. Contempt for rule of law – and quite possibly TREASON. Let’s end this ill-wind that’s blowing America off-balance and turning us against each other. VOTE DEMOCRAT!
As the California death toll rises our Sadist-in-Chief is spending $220 million to send troops to the border for nothing. That’s one way to get rid of Democrats. This is no longer politics. This is manslaughter.
Has Mad Dog Mattis become Lapdog Mattis? Are the brave men and women of our military now being used as extras in an expensive PR stunt…paid for by YOU? It’s just one of the many ways Toolius Ceasar disgraced himself and our soldiers this Veterans Day.
A lawmaker with common sense that knows the dangers of trying to destroy and rewrite history.
Florida Republican state Rep. Mike Hill proposed a bill that would prohibit the removal of “remembrances” constructed on public property from Mar. 22, 1822 and onward.
If enacted, the bill would prevent public universities in the state from taking down the memorials, creating a backdrop similar to one featured in North Carolina, where protesters tore down a Confederate statue in August.
A black lawmaker in Florida filed a bill that would bar the removal of Confederate monuments in the Sunshine State. Such statues and other memorials have come under attack on American college campuses during recent years.
“It will not change any person’s life today by tearing down a Confederate monument” Tweet This
Such memorials “may only be relocated, removed, altered, renamed, rededicated or otherwise disturbed if necessary to accommodate construction, repair, or improvements to the remembrance or to the surrounding property,” according to the bill. While governments have bypassed similar laws by selling land on which Confederate memorials are located and permitting the new owner to remove them, Hill’s bill stipulates that sale of public property containing a memorial must result in the memorial occupying a position of “equal prominence.”
The move came just months after Florida State University quietly removed a statue of former Tallahassee Mayor Francis Eppes, a supporter of the Confederacy, under the cover of darkness. FSU spokesman Dennis Schnittker told the Tallahassee Democrat newspaper that the statue had been relocated to temporary storage.
Should the bill become state law, it’s unclear what, if any, impact it could have on the Eppes statue. Hill did not respond to a request for comment from Campus Reform in time for publication. It’s unclear how many confederate statues and memorials currently stand on Florida public college campuses.
“It will not change any person’s life today by tearing down a Confederate monument or tearing down a statue or tearing down a cross,” Hill said to the Miami New Timesmore recently. “It will not change any person’s life by doing that. What it will do is prevent someone from learning the history of why it was there in the first place.”
But protesters on some college campuses might beg to differ.
The University of North Carolina (UNC) – Chapel Hill’s statue depicting Confederate soldier Silent Sam has generated both debate and defacement. UNC faculty members threatened to tear down the statue in February. A graduate student got arrested in April after smearing Silent Sam with a concoction she claimed to contain red paint and her own blood. And, in August, protesters tore down the statue.
The UNC’s Board of Trustees subsequently proposed a $5 million plan to house the statue on the edge of campus and comply with state law preventing its removal. Faculty members and TAs who wanted the monument removed from campus entirely threatened to withhold grades and not teach for the first week of the spring semester.
UNC’s provost later said in an email obtained by Campus Reform that those actions by graduate assistants and professors violated students’ First Amendment rights. UNC’s Board of Governors rejected the trustees’ plan, asking the group to draw up another proposal.
The North Carolina school is not the only institution of higher education to get caught up in the Confederate controversy. Vanderbilt University announced in 2016 that it would dole out over $1 million to remove the word “Confederate” from a residence hall’s inscription. That same year, South Carolina’s York Technical College forbade the Confederate flag from being featured at a Confederate history event.
Individuals associated with the Confederacy are not the only historical figures to have come under attack. A statue of Thomas Jefferson was vandalized with “racist + rapist” and covered with a sign reading “Black Lives Matter — F*** White Supremacy” at the University of Virginia, the institution he founded.
This woman does not deserve to be called a mother as she is not a mother but a sperm recipient.
She needs to be prosecuted to the maximum under Illinois law.
Prosecutors in Illinois announced charges on Thursday against a mother who they claim had knowledge of her teenage daughter’s diabetes diagnosis but concealed it and left it untreated, leading to the girl’s death.
Amber Hampshire was hit with charges of involuntary manslaughter and endangering the life or health of a child, Madison County State’s Attorney Tom Gibbons said in a news release.
Her daughter, 14-year-old Emily, died in early November from diabetic ketoacidosis, according to the news release. Her death “was completely senseless,” Gibbons told Fox 2 Now.
“Upon further investigation, it was determined that Emily had been first diagnosed with diabetes in 2013 and had suffered prior serious medical complications as a result of diabetic ketoacidosis, including as recently as February 2018,” the news release said.
Amber Hampshire was charged with one count involuntary manslaughter and one count endangering the life or health of a child, prosecutors said in the news release. (Alton Police Department)
Details from the investigation suggested that Hampshire “was fully aware of Emily’s diabetic condition but took measures to conceal” it and didn’t give her the “appropriate medical treatment and medication, which led to Emily’s death from diabetic ketoacidosis,” officials said.
“Amber Hampshire had all of the information and all of the resources available to take care of this and instead chose to conceal it from even the closest family members,” Gibbons told Fox 2 Now.
The girl’s father was reportedly unaware of the diagnosis.
Had Emily received treatment for the condition, “it would be absolutely survivable,” Gibbon said.
Search warrant documents viewed by Fox 2 Now noted several things taken by law enforcement which showed that Hampshire had been given the necessary items to care for Emily’s condition but did not put them to use.
The reasoning isn’t clear; religious considerations did not seem to play a role, Gibbons told the outlet.
“Investigators looked into that angle and I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that’s a claim or defense in this case,” Gibbons said. “I think there will be substantial evidence to the contrary.”
Alton Police Department Public Information Officer Emily Hejna confirmed to Fox News that Hampshire turned herself in on Thursday and is no longer in custody.
Attempts by Fox News to reach Hampshire were unsuccessful.
Hopefully, this will be the lifeline that will save Sears.
I think Sears buying K Mart was a very bad deal for Sears.
Friday was the deadline for prospective buyers and liquidators to put in their offers to buy Sears.
Sears, which also owns Kmart, filed for bankruptcy in October.
The 125-year-old company has more than 68,000 employees.
Department store chain Sears won a reprieve from liquidating Friday after its chairman, Eddie Lampert, submitted a $4.4 billion bid in an effort to buy the retailer and keep it alive.
Lampert’s hedge fund, ESL Investments, put forward the tentative proposal for the parent of Kmart and Sears earlier this month, with his formal submission due today. The offer came just in time to meet the 4:00 p.m. deadline, CNBC first reported.
Friday’s offer, which Lampert submitted through an ESL affiliate, Transform Holdco, is for 425 of Sears’ stores. To fund the bid, it has a $1.3 billion financing commitment from investment banks, a spokesperson for ESL said in a Friday statement.
The bid would “offer employment to up to 50,000 associates,” the spokesperson for ESL said, cautioning, though, that it would depend on “further actions the company may take between now and closing.” It would also reinstate severance protections for “eligible employees.”
The bid may help divert liquidation, but may not necessarily. Sears’ advisors have until Jan. 4 to decide whether ESL is a “qualified bidder.” Only then could ESL take part in an auction against liquidation bids on Jan. 14. They will weigh the value of Lampert’s bid against offers to liquidate the company.
The full structure of Lampert’s bid could not immediately be determined, but will be made public in coming days. If it is similar to the $4.6 billion proposal he outlined earlier this month, it is likely to face pushback from the company’s unsecured creditors. As part of the initial bid, which regulators required Lampert to make public, financing would in part stem from $1.8 billion in debt that Lampert would forgive through a so-called “credit bid.”
Unsecured creditors said earlier this month they will object to a credit bid. Those creditors believe there may be claims against Sears for transactions under Lampert’s leadership. Those deals include Sears’ spinoff of Lands’ End and transactions with Seritage Growth Properties, a real estate investment trust Lampert created through some Sears’ properties.
Sears declined to comment to CNBC for this story.
The company filed for bankruptcy on Oct. 15. At that time, it said it would close 142 unprofitable stores, then in November it announced the closure of 40 additional stores. On Friday, it disclosed plans to close 80 more stores, bringing the total closures to more than 260, or more than a third of its 700 or so stores.The 125-year-old company has more than 68,000 employees.
Once the nation’s biggest retailer, it was also its first “everything store,” stocking wares from jewelry to clothing, from hardware to prefabricated homes. But the department store industry has struggled over the past half-decade, as the mall has become less convenient and apparel more casual. Rival J.C. Penney has also felt the pressure; on Wednesday its shares dipped below $1 for the first time.
“When I own guns, do I need to become a teetotaler?”
The companion question is:
“When I own guns, do I need to abstain from all contact with marijuana? For that matter, how about other consciousness-altering drugs, even ones I take by prescription?”
Any time you’re involved in a shooting incident, accidental or intentional, even in a case of otherwise justifiable self-defense, responding police will probably at some point administer a breath-test.
When you blow anything but a 00, it is safe to say that evidence will not be “helpful” to your case.
However, I’ve never heard of anyone being charged with “Possession of a Firearm While Intoxicated” (a misdemeanor in most states) when the event takes place in the gun-owner’s home, and all other behavior on the part of the gun-owner is lawful and reasonable.
In fact, I’ve rarely heard of a prosecution of any person who has been drinking and simultaneously in possession of a firearm, unless he was doing something else unlawful or stupid, like verbally threatening people, brandishing weapons absent good cause, driving erratically, etc.
The vast majority of people I know who consume alcoholic beverages are not “alcoholics,” nor “problem drinkers.” Most have never been arrested for DUI, nor are they ever likely to be.
People who occasionally consume alcoholic beverages, but are not alcoholics, are probably not going to radically change personal habits when they decide to buy a gun, any more than they will decide to stop driving.
In fact, a single DUI conviction will not automatically block gun purchases at NICS, at least in CO (multiple DUI convictions will). And, there is no question on Federal Form 4473 (required of all retail gun purchasers) that asks, “Are you an alcoholic?”
My advise is to minimize the likelihood that you will have significant levels of ethyl alcohol (ETOH) in your system any time you handle/carry guns, and of course do your best to be a “good and reasonable person,” whether you have ETOH in your system or not.
In this country, we enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms, and we also enjoy the freedom to consume beverages containing ETOH.
My advise is:
Enjoy these two freedoms as you wish, just not at the same time. After the first drink, it’s time to lock-up the guns.
Don’t like it? Too bad! One simply cannot enjoy the exercise of all freedoms at the same time, as noted above.
Want to “go armed” every waking minute of the day? Then, you get to be a teetotaler. I don’t know another way.
With regard to marijuana, there IS a question on Form 4473 form that asks:
“Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
BATF’s policy is:
“We believe it is illegal to purchase, and probably to even possess, any firearm when you use marijuana”
So at the federal level, “unlawful marijuana” is a redundancy. All marijuana is unlawful, and conflicts between state and federal law are of no interest to BATF. Lying on Form 4473 is a sure way to end-up in federal prison.
Some bona-fide authorities insist that marijuana is legitimately useful in treating serious pain. Others, every bit as authoritative, insist marijuana is of no use whatever in treatment of pain, and indeed has no legitimate medical application at all.
Frankly, I don’t know.
Those who use marijuana for non-serious, “recreational” purposes are well-advised to have nothing to do with firearms of any kind. Don’t try to buy them. Don’t own them. Don’t have them in your home. Stay away from them. .
Who use marijuana for what they believe to be legitimate pain therapy do so at great risk, but it is probably best to lock-up all guns in a separate room. Marijuana itself needs to be kept in a locked container.
When marijuana and guns are discovered in close proximity (in the same room), a charge of “Illegal Drugs with Guns Present” (a felony in most states) is extremely likely. In the experience of most lawyers I know, marijuana and guns (in close proximity) are not mixing well in charging decisions.
With regard to prescription drugs that are also consciousness-altering, we all have to apply common sense. When the bottle says, “Do not drive after taking this medicine,” most reasonable people would conclude that carrying a gun after taking this medicine is probably also a bad idea.
The foregoing is intended as “guidance.” I believe it represents sound advice, but adhering to it is no guarantee that nothing bad will happen to you.
Yet, of this you can be sure: Laws are duly voted-on and passed by legislative bodies in this country. They’re then “on the books.” Heaven knows they’re not perfect, and no law is fair to all people at all times.
But, when obedience to laws becomes “optional,” we descend, by a short route, into anarchy and chaos, and we can kiss our civilization, imperfect as it is, good-by.
About John Farnam & Defense Training International, Inc
As a defensive weapons and tactics instructor John Farnam will urge you, based on your own beliefs, to make up your mind in advance as to what you would do when faced with an imminent lethal threat. You should, of course, also decide what preparations you should make in advance if any. Defense Training International wants to make sure that their students fully understand the physical, legal, psychological, and societal consequences of their actions or in-actions.
It is our duty to make you aware of certain unpleasant physical realities intrinsic to the Planet Earth. Mr. Farnam is happy to be your counselor and advisor. Visit: www.defense-training.com
R.I.P. William ” Piper Bill” Millin 14 July 1922 – 17 August 2010.
Piper Bill was either the bravest or craziest man that day on the beaches of Normandy.
Mortars blasted the day away and hell rained from the sky. The sea quickly took on the color of crimson as the bodies of the fallen floated on all sides.
But he kept pushing on side by side with his leader, wading through the water, along with every other brave soldier who was part of the largest military invasion in history to date.
Making it through the deep, cold water, he walked onto the shore as more men fell under heavy gunfire and shelling. He had no guns. He had no grenades.
But what he had in his hands turned out to be good enough to help him survive that dreadful day: his bagpipe.
William “Bill” Millin was a Scot born on July 14, 1922 in Regina, the capital city of Saskatchewan, Canada. He began to pipe his way to fame after he joined the Territorial Army located at Fort William in the Scottish Highlands.
He played in the pipe band of the Queen’s Own Cameron Highlanders before volunteering at Achnacarry in 1941 for training as a commando. There he met Lord Lovat, to whom he would become a personal piper.
On D-Day, Bill was one month short of 22 years old.
Pipers had previously been restricted to the rear of battles by the British government, after the death of several pipers during World War I. However, Lovat, who was also Scottish, said that the law was specifically for the British and encouraged his personal piper to accompany him at the spearhead of the invasion into Normandy.
Thus, during the invasion of Normandy, Bill Millin was the only piper on the battlefield, as well as the only man wearing a kilt. His kilt was the same Cameron tartan one his father had worn during WWI. In accordance with Scottish culture, Bill wore the kilt with no underwear beneath.
The only weapon he did have on D-Day was a ceremonial dirk, which he neatly tucked into his stocking.
As the invasion fleet began to sail, Bill was on the leading craft with Lovat, playing “The Road to the Aisle” on his bagpipes. As they sailed off the Isle of Wight, they met several other vessels carrying troops.
The nostalgic tune from the bagpipe was heard by the troops on the other ships, and they cheered and threw their helmets into the air as the song moved them.
The waves began to grow unstable as they moved beyond the Solent and into the English Channel, and Bill was forced to stop piping.
After hours of sailing in choppy waves, a new day began to set in. The shoreline of Normandy slowly began to appear through the grayness of the budding dawn.
Seasick from the long hours of sailing, Bill was particularly excited about getting ashore, paying no mind to the grave danger that lay just ahead.
Lord Lovat jumped off the craft first, then Bill and the rest joined him in the frigid water. Bill’s kilt floated on the water as the coldness struck him. Right away, they were met by heavy shelling and machine gun fire.
“Play again…’Highland Laddie’ and ‘The Road to the Isles,’” Lovat’s order came as he made for the shore. Bodies had begun to fall all over the place, floating on the water. The atmosphere was filled with smoke and screams and ear-splitting blasts.
Bill began to make the bagpipe skirl with haunting tunes of “Highland Laddie” and “The Road to the Isle” filling the deathly air. Some of the soldiers stood still as the songs began to sound in the midst of the chaos, passionately cheering and waving their arms. For a moment they had forgotten that they were in the shadows of death.
The objective of Lovat’s commando unit was to get past this beach, codenamed Sword Beach, and join up with the troops of the 6th Airborne Division at Pegasus Bridge.
Pegasus Bridge had been taken over by the troops of the 6th Airborne Division during the early hours of the day in a surprise attack, which left the Germans unable to swarm into Sword Beach.
While Bill played his pipe, he barely thought about the danger he was in–he was just following orders. Perhaps Death was not interested in a man with a kilt and no underwear that day.
At one point, the commandos were under attack from sniper fire. Bill later recalled seeing the flash as the sniper shot at them. Everyone else was flat on their stomachs and Lovat was on one knee as they all lay low to avoid being hit. However, Bill, engrossed by the music of his pipe, was still standing. He stopped playing when he noticed what had happened.
Lovat and his group chased the sniper as he ran into a cornfield. After they gunned down the sniper, Lovat ordered Bill to resume his piping.
The 6th Airborne Division was kept heavily occupied by repeated attacks from German troops and were surrounded by Panzer divisions. As time rolled by, the pressure on the British troops was gradually becoming overwhelming.
They were in dire need of help from Lord Lovat’s 1st Special Service Brigade, which was supposed to be there by midday. Apparently, Lovat and his commandos were running late.
But just an hour later, the men of the 6th Airborne Division were drawn by the sound of a skirling pipe, with tones of “Blue Bonnets Over the Border” filling the air. Green berets came into view. Lovat was finally there.
The presence of the commandos lightened the spirits of the troops of the 6th Airborne. As soon as they arrived, the commandos quickly surged onto the bridge to engage the Germans, with Bill Millin’s resounding tunes filling them with energy.
Millin would recall years later that it seemed like a very long bridge. Yet, as they marched across the length of the bridge with Millin at the forefront, he did not sprint, even with danger coming from all sides.
The last tune he played was “The Nut Brown Maiden.” He had played it for a little French girl who had walked up to him, full of energy and demanding music as she jumped about.
His bagpipe got damaged eventually, after shrapnel from a mortar struck it. However, it was not completely ruined.
Bill would later serve in operations in Netherland and Germany before being discharged. He worked for some time at Lovat’s estate before becoming a psychiatric nurse in Glasgow.
He visited Normandy several times after his retirement. During Lord Lovat’s funeral, Bill played his bagpipes as a tribute to him.
Bill’s main bagpipe was donated to the Dawlish Museum, while another set of spare pipes he had used later was given to the Pegasus Bridge Museum.
For years, a big question remained unanswered for him: why had the Germans neglected to shoot him on D-Day, even though he was the loudest and most noticeable member of the invading troops?
He got his answer nearly forty years later, during a D-Day reunion.
He put the question to one German commander who, in response, tapped his head and said that they had decided to not waste a bullet on a Dummkopf—apparently, they had quickly assumed that he was crazy.
Indeed, strutting onto a battlefield with nothing but music was a clear definition of crazy. But this craziness became legendary. This incredible story of loyalty and bravery led to the immortalization of Bill Millin with a bronze statue at Sword Beach.
Millin died of a stroke in 2010. He lived for 88 years, but his story will certainly live much longer.
U.K Home Secretary Sajid Javid is a useful idiot destroying what once was Great Britain.
The people of once Great Britain are being destroyed by willful ignorance about the evils of Islam.
That’s a useful first step. There are indeed Muslims who are “driven by an ideology” and other Muslims who “practise their own religion in their own way with their own family and their own friends,” that is, Muslims who are bringing Sharia to the UK and advancing the cause of political Islam, and those who are not. What, however, is Sajid Javid doing to confront the exponents of political Islam and Sharia? So far, British officialdom has been consistently supine before them. And how does Sajid Javid propose to determine which camp Muslims in Britain fall into? Without any reliable way to distinguish “Islamists” from “those who practise Islam,” how does making this distinction in the abstract help secure the survival of Britain as a free society?
“Sajid Javid defends deportation of grooming gang members,” by Matthew Weaver, Guardian, December 26, 2018:
…Javid also highlighted the benefits of immigration. “It might sound strange coming from a home secretary – I’m a big fan of immigration and what it means for our country, in terms of how it makes us stronger … I see people all the time today and they really don’t care if their doctor is of Pakistani origin, what they care about is that they are getting a good service and these are people that they do really see as British. I do think society has changed very positively like that.”
He said Islam was compatible with British values. “There are many Muslims that I know who are very devout … that are model citizens in terms of what they do their job, how they care for others.”
But he condemned those who saw as Islam as an ideology, saying he would make a distinction between “those who practise Islam and those who you might describe as Islamists, that are driven by an ideology, rather than practise their own religion in their own way with their own family and their own friends. They see it as their duty to spread to ideology and also to disrespect at the same time the laws of the country that they have chosen to live in.”
Political Correctness is running wild in our so-called institutions of higher learning.
What kinds of insanity are coming next?
Getting up the courage to ask someone out on a date can already be nerve-racking, but now that college campuses have completely gone off the deep end, that fear will be intensified.
Today’s crazy comes from — unsurprisingly — the University of Missouri (Mizzou), best known for torpedoing its enrollment rates after campus protests led a professor to threaten a student journalist. An official at Mizzou indicated during a deposition that a male student who was physically larger than the female student he asked out may have violated the school’s Title IX policy because his physical size gave him “power over her.
For years, we have been told that one must receive “affirmative consent” before anything of a dating or sexual nature takes place. Critics of such policies, such as this reporter, have often wondered what would happen if the mere ask is unwanted, does that also constitute sexual harassment or assault?
Now we appear to have our answer: Yes.
When a Mizzou official was questioned regarding a case where a black male Ph.D. candidate at the school asked out a white female fitness trainer, she bizarrely suggested that the fact that the male student was larger than the female student gave him “power over her” and violated school policy.
The Daily Wire previously reported on the case in July. The male student, who The Daily Wire will refer to as John Doe, asked out the female fitness instructor, who will be identified as Jane Roe. She said she was busy but discussed with him possibly going out later that month. Two days later, she told him to “stop making romantic advances toward her,” according to John’s lawsuit against Mizzou. Despite not wanting to date him, Jane asked John to keep taking her dance classes.
John did this, and later asked Jane to recommend some YouTube videos to help him improve his dancing. She suggested private lessons but told him she didn’t teach privately. She then, according to John’s lawsuit, avoided him for the next week.
On October 14, 2016, John wrote Jane a three-page letter “apologizing for being awkward around her, expressing sincere feelings for her, and asking [her] what if anything she wanted from Plaintiff,” his lawsuit said.
Cathy Scroggs, who was Mizzou’s Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs when the incident involving John and Jane occurred, was asked during a recent deposition if the accusation against John satisfied the school’s policy for sexual misconduct regarding one having “power or authority” over another. Scroggs responded, “I think he was perceived as having power over her.”
She was further questioned as to the “nature of [John’s] power over her.” The interviewer asked if it was just John’s “size” that contributed to that “power.”
Scroggs responded: “His physical size.”
The interviewer then said part of the conduct code “doesn’t require him to be a teacher.” And asked, “When it says person of authority, it doesn’t mean, like, a teacher or boss?”
Scroggs responded: “Well, I suppose it could; but in this case, no, I didn’t interpret it that way.”
So while most people would assume “power or authority” refers to a professor or other superior’s relationship with a student, Scroggs indicated that literally being larger than another person and asking them out could be an unfair sexual situation.
Later in the deposition, Andy Hayes, Mizzou’s Assistant Vice Chancellor for Civil Rights & Title IX, suggested that if someone were confused about whether they had “a legitimate purpose” for asking someone out on a date, they could call his office for clarification, but they might not get a definite answer. Here’s what he said in the original exchange:
Q. Is asking someone out on a date a course of conduct on the basis of sex? Let me just ask you that.
Q. So you could ask someone out on a date with a legitimate purpose and not fall within this rule; is that correct?
A. You could.
Q. Okay. What I’m trying to get at here is, a student reading this policy, how did they know what is a legitimate purpose within the meaning of the rule?
A. Well, I’m going to speculate. But if they wanted it clarified, they could call my office. They could ask someone about it if they needed clarification. I don’t know that many students read the rules before they take action.
So, students need to have a “legitimate purpose” for asking someone out on a date, and if they don’t know if they’re legitimately asking someone out, they can call the school’s Title IX office to find out.
But what happens when someone does call the office for clarification? Hayes was asked. The following exchange occurred:
Q. … If someone called the Title IX office and reached Megan Grant or someone else, another person in your office and asked what no legitimate purpose meant, would you assume that they would give the same answer as you?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Might they have a different definition?
A. I don’t know.
Q. It’s possible?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know if it’s possible?
A. Well, I don’t know what someone else would say. I don’t know how they would answer that question.
So, a student who seeks clarification about whether they have a “legitimate purpose” in asking someone out may get different answers from different people, any number of which could lead to him being found responsible for sexual misconduct, as John was.
John was suspended for his interactions with Jane and sued, feeling the punishment was far too severe for the situation.
Mizzou has attempted to dismiss the lawsuit, but much of John’s lawsuit was upheld.