Heh, there's a lot of it right now.  In fact there are ski resorts in the midwest opening early -- earliest in 23 years in one case, and second-earliest opening EVER for that particular location.  Wolf Creek in Colorado is open and has a nice amount of snow as well.  Hmmm..... global warming eh?  Maybe not.

But you can hang this nice piece on your wall without freezing your butt off, which I'm doing right here and now -- in Florida.  Just email kairia.rocks@gmail.com and it can be yours!

Democrat Eric Swalwell, Congressman from California, has suggested nuking Americans who refuse gun confiscation.

Swalwell made the comment in response to a May news article on his radical plan that was widely recirculated on Twitter on Friday in which he called for a $15 billion government program to confiscate millions of guns from Americans.

So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your ****ing mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power. https://t.co/bK1GVyjFej

— Joe Biggs (@Rambobiggs) November 16, 2018

Swalwell responded to the tweet by writing: "And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities."

Well now.

We have a Congressman who has stated that if you don't kowtow to a blatantly unconstitutional position he has taken he supports using nuclear weapons on US soil to kill you.

Oh by the way, what he wants is to confiscate all semi-automatic firearms.

I will remind Mr. Swalwell that the Second Amendment makes any such "law" void and of no force and effect and thus not only does no citizen have a duty to follow such a law they have every right to resist, including pre-emptively, through whatever means are necessary.

I might also note that a threat to use weapons of mass destruction, specifically nuclear weapons, on US soil to obtain a political result is about as serious as a threat gets and thus calls into question exactly what is the appropriate means of preventing any such threat from being realized?  Oh, and why is this not an act of domestic terrorism and why is not this ****head under indictment for same?

There is exactly one legitimate means by which such a law -- banning and confiscating guns -- can be passed: Repeal the Second Amendment first.  Suggesting or promoting any other path is not only illegitimate it is a direct violation of his oath of office in which he swore to uphold the Constitution.

Further, anyone who believes this guy was trying to be "funny" has rocks in his head.  He was saying exactly what he believes and thinks; he is neither the first nor will he be the last gun banner who has made the mistake of saying exactly what they intend to do with anyone who refuses their unconstitutional jackbooted bull****: Attempt to murder said person(s) using the full force of the state.

I remind Mr. Swalwell that making such a statement is the height of stupidity.  Anyone hearing such a threat and potentially subject to the results of same, since Mr. Swalwell is in fact a member of the body that could carry such a threat out and thus it is credible, is entirely within their rights to take him at his word and believe that it is in fact his intent to carry that threat out.

Let me quote something else to Mr. Swalwell:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Should Mr. Swalwell (or anyone else in the government) decide to attempt what he claims he supports I will state right here and now that the people of this nation have every right and in fact duty to pull out that old crusty document in its entirety and make him eat it.

Or is it?  The world's most-intelligent service has said so though....

The CIA has concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul last month, contradicting the Saudi government’s claims that he was not involved in the killing, according to people familiar with the matter.

What's the response?  Nothing?

How about a complete boycott of all Saudi oil and other products and services, cutting them off from all US Dollar transactions (to which they're pegged, which would destroy their economy overnight), rescinding protection for cartels in US law and then prosecuting the entire nation and the rest of OPEC for price-fixing?

Oh by the way, we can do that now without trashing our own economy -- we're energy self-sufficient.  For real.

Of course other nations are not, and they might get pissed.  So what?

Oh and then there's the obvious question, which I raised before: Why are we suddenly concerned with one political murder when three thousand political murders, on our own soil and which the Saudis promoted, financed and which the majority of the murderers were their nationals, took place on 9/11?

How about the millions of people they've contributed to murdering by spreading their Salafi-based horse**** political ideology wrapped in the claim of "religion"?  Do none of those dead people count?

Got any answers to those questions, Mr. President?  Mr. Obama didn't.  Nor did Mr. Bush.

My initial reaction to this story: Wanna die?

Andrew Klavan has a long-standing observation about the Left: "Everything they do turns out the opposite of what they say they intend," and that extends to LGBTQ issues. In an effort to create "safety" for LGBTQ students, a Florida school district decided to force a male P.E. teacher to watch a female student change in a boys' locker room, all under the guise of transgender rights. 

The deal is basically this: In a middle school there is a girl who "identifies" as a boy.  The school has decided to let her behave as a boy, which happens to include gym class.

Now maybe you don't remember middle school gym class.  I do.  We had lockers.  And locker rooms.  And we dressed out for class, then took a shower after getting nice and sweaty before going to our next class.

"Nice and sweaty", of course, because as middle school goes on the boys and girls start going through puberty.  This of course means the boys start sweating and it smells nasty.  The girls start sweating too, a bit less nasty -- but not much.  Thus the need for showers.

Uh, with the puberty thing comes boners.  And very visible testicles.  Some boys start that later than others, and there's much crap that goes on in said locker room as a result.  Thus someone has to supervise it, because if you don't there will be towel wars, often in a near-gang-assault style, and that's not good at all.  The less-developed boys will be screwed with, maybe literally.

Now throw a girl in there, no matter whether she "thinks" she should be female or not.  Worse, tell a male gym teacher he must supervise said mess.

Bull****ing****; there would be an instant locker room full of wood -- and that's for starters.

There's no solution to the cluster****ery that coddling this bull**** generates.  What are you going to do -- have a female gym teacher supervise?  Ok, now every single 14 year old boy is sporting wood twice over!

That'll go over well -- with the girl, say much less the teacher.

NOT.

Shall we discuss the apparent felony of said male teacher gazing at the underage girl's nude body, which he cannot avoid in the performance of said duty.  So the school board, basically, ordered the gym teacher to play "commit a (serious) felony a day."

He refused (good!) and was "disciplined" for refusing to break the law, never mind doing something that were there any actual fathers left in this country instead of them all being soyboys would likely result in said father, or more than one of them, killing that gym teacher with their bare hands for leering at his teen daughter!  Incidentally while said girl may think she should have been a boy and want to be treated like one I bet that doesn't include grown men leering at her nubile young body and every teen boy in the locker room sporting wood which they would like to use with her.

Never mind that ordering an employee to commit a felony offense is likely a felony on its own and all who conspired to do so and then punish him when he refused are likely guilty of conspiracy, which is also a felony.  Then there's the coverup by issuing a gag order to the staff to try to keep the outrageous conduct of every one of these adults out of the news -- and the DA's office.

**** these people, **** this state, **** that school board and where are the damned handcuffs?

This is complete and utter crap.

A federal judge ruled in favor of CNN on Friday, allowing the network’s star reporter Jim Acosta to temporarily regain access to his White House press credential.

"I will grant the application for the temporary restraining order. I order the government reinstate the pass," U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly ruled from Washington.

Kelly – who rescheduled Thursday’s planned hearing for Friday morning – heard lengthy oral arguments earlier in the week about the cable news network’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The administration had suspended Acosta's "hard pass," which provided expedited access to the White House grounds.

Total and complete garbage.

Let's start with the first part of this -- Due Process -- because it begins and ends there.

Since when does a discretionary "hard pass" come with a Due Process right?

Remember, the Fifth Amendment says:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What was he deprived of that fell into the category of life, liberty or property?

He was not deprived of life.

He was not deprived of property.

He was not deprived of liberty as nobody has a right to enter into the White House grounds (go ahead and try it sometime without invitation -- prepare to be immediately arrested or even shot!)

The 5th Amendment does not mean that a privilege extended to someone comes with a due process right that now attaches before said privilege is revoked.  That's the salient difference between rights and privileges; one attaches to you as a consequence of being human; the other is discretionary and thus can be withdrawn.

Conflating these two is how we have permitted all sorts of crap -- such as "driver licenses" for non-commercial use of the roads -- to take place.  You have a liberty right to use public roads to transport your person and personal effects for non-commercial purposes and in fact the courts have ruled that you have a right to travel on same using the means customary to the present day.  Yes, there really is a ruling that says that -- which means "driver licenses" are unconstitutional.  So are mandatory insurance laws as does demanding you accept financial responsibility for the unlimited in price decisions of others on those same roads.  In other words my decision to spend $1 million on an exotic car becomes your potential liability if there is an accident.  That's insane; I had no voice or vote in your decision to place a million dollars of your property "at risk" in public and the financial responsibility for that decision should be yours, attaching with the power to make the decision!

On the other hand and in the instant case you have no right to be present in the various halls of government except by invitation of the office-holder thereof.  Try to claim a right to sit in the office of a Senator or Representative and see how that works out for you. If the officeholders set forward some means of public access (e.g. the Gallery in the House and Senate) then all well and good but note that all who refuse to follow the rules -- you may observe in those Galleries but may not demonstrate in any way, whether verbally or via waving of signs and other items.  You can be and will be immediately removed by armed police officers if you in any way attempt to disrupt the proceedings.

Thus is the case here.  This issue does not turn on whether Acosta legally committed assault.

It turns on his refusal to follow a legitimate request from a White House staffer to surrender the microphone that did not belong to him -- that microphone was White House property.  Possession of same once you have been told to surrender it is theft by conversion -- for openers.  It is not only a violation of reasonable and customary decorum it is a criminal offense, albeit given the likely value of said microphone a misdemeanor (theft by conversion.)

This "judge" is nothing of the sort and it matters not who appointed him.

No judge has the power to contravene the Constitution nor to invent language that is not present no matter how grave -- or trivial -- the subject matter.