Dozens of companies boycott NRA over Florida shooting — but it’s backfiring big time

Democrats love government so when they are faced with multiple failures of government -- in the Florida school shooting --  what do they do?  They blame the NRA.  These are people who will never learn even the most obvious lessons.  We cannot influence them.  All we can hope to do is to block them -- JR

A multitude of companies that had longstanding relationships with the National Rifle Association have severed their relationships with the NRA in recent days, caving to pressure from anti-NRA, anti-gun advocates who place blame on the NRA for the tragic Florida school shooting on Feb. 14.

But that boycott is beginning to backfire and it appears the corporations ending their relationships will have no lasting effects on the NRA — and maybe even help the pro-Second Amendment organization pad its rolls.

What’s going on? In response to the NRA boycott, thousands of people are posting on social media they have decided to join the NRA because they believe in freedom, the Second Amendment and stand opposed to the liberal outrage mob unfairly placing responsibility on the NRA for the Florida shooting.

Others posted they had upgraded their memberships to higher levels.

The #TweetYourNRAMembership hashtag contains thousands of posts and the number of people joining the NRA is swelling. It’s not clear how many people have joined the NRA because of the boycott, but it appears the boycott will only help the NRA — not hurt it.

SOURCE





Here Are 5 Reasons Transgender Policies Are Harmful
   
Who knew that removing the federal government from debates over school bathroom policies would be considered an assault on LGBT rights?

That’s the argument activists made last week when the Department of Education announced that it would be enforcing Title IX the way the federal government always had — up until the second term of the Obama administration. That’s when the Obama Department of Education announced that the word “sex” now meant “gender identity” — and ordered schools to open up their bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and dorms accordingly.

It’s understandable why many ordinary Americans recoiled at this transgender mandate. Most Americans — including those who identify as transgender — aren’t activists and want to find ways to peacefully coexist. Most can understand why a man who identifies as a woman doesn’t want to be forced into the men’s room, but also understand why women don’t want a man in the ladies’ room. These concerns are even more heightened when dealing with students.

As I explain in my book, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, new transgender policies raise five distinct areas of concern — privacy, safety, equality, liberty, and ideology — and the Trump administration is right to reject the radical Obama policies in favor of letting local officials work to find reasonable compromises.

It shouldn’t be hard to see the privacy concerns when men who identify as women can enter female-only spaces. When changing for gym class, most high school girls don’t want to see or be seen by boys who identify as girls.

The reason we have separate facilities in the first place is not because of “gender identity” but because of the bodily differences between males and females. This privacy concern is particularly acute for victims of sexual assault, who testify that seeing naked male bodies can function as a trigger.

SOURCE





Ex-Air Marshal Comes Forward on FL Shooting With Statement Democrats Hate

The recent mass shooting at a Florida school that left people 17 dead is once again sparking a gun control debate — and this time around, the main focus revolves around whether or not educators should be allowed to conceal carry on school grounds to protect students in the event of another shooting.

And according to Chad Robichaux, a former special agent with the U.S. Federal Air Marshal Service, the logic behind arming educators is sound.

Robichaux appeared Thursday on SiriusXM’s “Breitbart News Tonight” to discuss the recent shooting as well as the steps that can be taken to deter such an incident from occurring again.

As noted by Breitbart News, Robichaux was responsible for the development and implementation of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The FFDO program, which started in 2003, trains select flight crew members on how to effectively use a firearm “to defend against an act of criminal violence or air piracy,” according to the Transportation Security Administration.

Crew members wishing to become certified in the program must undergo 56 hours of training at a state-of-the-art facility in Artesia, New Mexico.

“Upon successful completion, the pilot is deputized as a federal law enforcement officer and issued a TSA-approved firearm and federal flight deck officer credentials,” the TSA states.

Robichaux revealed that the program has proved successful at deterring hijackings, and a similar result would be seen if educators and other staff members in schools across the United States were armed.

SOURCE





Stop immigration! Sydneysiders don't want a bigger population. They are voting with their feet

This could apply to many large cities

Traffic jams. Housing costs. Packed beaches. High-rise living. The pace and general stress of life.

Many of Sydney people’s everyday concerns can be linked in some way to population growth. What if we could just turn it off, and keep a stable population of around five million?

It might surprise you to learn it would be relatively easy for Sydney to cut its population growth to near zero. It wouldn’t take an onerous “one-child” policy like China’s. All we’d have to do is turn off the tap of foreign immigration, to a net in-take of zero, and almost overnight the city’s population would plateau, staying basically flat right out to 2036.

At least, that’s what modelling done by the state Department of Planning and Environment in 2016 showed.

The department, which expects the city’s population to reach 6.4 million by 2036, said that the population would actually stagnate at beneath five million without any immigration (we have since already passed five million). Their projection takes into account both the loss of immigrants expected to arrive, and the babies they would be expected to have.

So it can happen. The question is, do we really want it to happen?

There would be side effects, that’s for sure, and they wouldn’t all be pretty. My colleague, Jessica Irvine, detailed some in an article in 2016. The budget would be in disarray. The ageing population would cause increase strain on working people. Education and tourism would suffer.

Ever the opportunist, Tony Abbott popped up again last week, arguing for a reduction in immigration to reduce supply pressure in the economy. His comments were immediately denigrated by Liberal colleagues, but it was hard not to suspect they were playing the man and not the ball.

The question is, is dreaming of a stable population unreasonable? Do we want Sydney to grow the population ad infinitum? Will there ever be a point when we say ‘that’s enough’? Ten million? Twenty million?

There are many first-world cities with populations much larger than Sydney, so it clearly can absorb more growth. But it would appear Australians don’t want that.

The clue is in the hundreds of thousands of people who are voting with their feet, deciding that Sydney is not for them. As the Herald reported on Monday, more people leave Sydney than arrive from within Australia every year. And it has been that way for four decades.

This seeming distaste for a bigger, more expensive Sydney seems born out in the planning department modelling also. Otherwise, why would the city’s only path to growth be via immigration?
Australians are overwhelmingly in favour of multiculturalism. But a majority don't want further population growth. The thing is, they don’t want a recession either.

Changing our relationship with population growth is complex because it requires a rethink of our economic approach.

At the moment, growth dictates our priorities. Australian rightfully celebrates going 27 years without a recession (defined as two consecutive quarters without economic growth). And politicians are no doubt determined to not be in charge when that streak ends.

However, Australia has been taking the shortcut on this by growing the population. Growing the economy while growing the population is a lot easier.

There’s another system that requires a constant input of new people to achieve returns: a Ponzi scheme. Those don’t normally end well. Unless you are prepared to grow literally forever, then such a system is set up for failure eventually.

If some day we want to consider having a stable population without an economic meltdown, it might pay to start thinking about how we do it. Japan is having to do just that, and is seemingly making an OK fist of it.

But it requires having a nuanced conversation that, in this political climate, seems somewhat optimistic. It doesn’t help if anyone who raises the idea of reducing immigration is tagged a racist or economically illiterate.

Whatever the optimum size for Sydney might be, it would be nice to get there as the result of considered decision making rather than just drift into it because we couldn’t face the hard questions of how to deal with the economic ramifications.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************