Don’t Be A Dick – Don’t Shop At Dick’s Sporting Goods

Dick's Scorecard

Modified “SCORECARD” for Dick’s

Dick’s Sporting Goods, also doing business as “Field & Stream,”  seems very determined to alienate a sizable portion of their clientele. The NRA-ILA (National Rifle Association – Institute for Legislative Action) summed it up pretty well:

We have recently been reporting on the bizarre anti-gun activism of one of the nation’s larger firearm retailers, Dick’s Sporting Goods and its affiliated Field & Stream stores. First, the company announced it would stop selling most centerfire semi-automatic rifles at its stores, carry only limited capacity magazines for semi-automatic guns, and ban firearm sales to certain legally eligible adults. It then took the further step of declaring it would destroy its inventory of the newly-restricted firearms at company expense. And if that weren’t enough, the news also recently broke that the company had hired expensive D.C. lobbyists to push for gun control measures on Capitol Hill.

Dick’s, in other words, was positioning itself as a rising star in the field of corporate gun control activism, in obvious contradiction of its own financial interests.

Hard Times for Dick’s as Second Amendment Supporters Respond to Company’s Anti-Gun Bent, May 11, 2018

Dick’s opened a new outlet recently in Cedar Park, Texas which is not too far from where I live. I have bought a few things in that store and was contemplating the purchase of a Ruger LC9s (highly concealable 9mm handgun to go with my Texas Concealed Carry Permit). They gave me a “SCORECARD” to keep track of my purchases and win points towards future discounts. Their prices on handguns looked to me to be pretty good and they carried all the latest models.

READ MORE at InAmerica.us

Advertisements
Cancel Citibank Card

Why I Cancelled My Citi Visa Card (and Why You Should Too!)

On March 22nd Citibank which issues Citi Visas and Mastercards released a “Commercial Firearms Policy” to announce to and unprecedented requirements to force firearms dealers who do business with Citibank to quit selling “high capacity”magazines. Citibank’s new policy:

“Under this…policy, we will require new retail sector clients or partners to adhere to these best practices: (1) they don’t sell firearms to someone who hasn’t passed a background check, (2) they restrict the sale of firearms for individuals under 21 years of age, and (3) they don’t sell bump stocks or high-capacity magazines. This policy will apply across the firm, including to small business, commercial and institutional clients, as well as credit card partners, whether co-brand or private label. It doesn’t impact the ability of consumers to use their Citi cards at merchants of their choice.”

First off it would be illegal for a licensed firearms dealer to sell a firearm to someone who hasn’t passed the FBI online background check. The only exception I know, at least in Texas, is a person who holds a state issued concealed carry permit (meaning they have passed a far more extensive background check than what the FBI conducts).

READ MORE at InAmerica.us 

Transgender In The Military

Originally posted on inAmerica.US

United States Military

Back in August President Trump ordered Defense Secretary James Mattis to not accept the enlistment into the military of openly transgender individuals. Since then lower courts have ruled to block that order and as of January 2nd the U.S. military may have to, at least temporarily,  accept transgender enlistments. Two U.S. courts of appeals ((Fourth Circuit and D.C. Circuit) upheld the lower court’s preliminary injunctions.

It is not clear why the administration has not sought a stay from the Supreme Court. The primary issue is not really whether these transgender individuals are fit for military service, but rather the powers delegated to the President under the United States Constitution.

From a statement by Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readinessyesterday:

“Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the federal courts have no authority to make policy regarding the military. The Department of Justice (DoJ) should have protected the constitutional rights of President Donald J. Trump by filing an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court immediately after the District of Columbia and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeals denied requests for stays of lower court preliminary injunctions. The issue is not the military transgender policy alone, but who gets to decide what the policy will be. By failing to petition the Supreme Court to stay the lower court orders, the DoJ has tacitly conceded that federal judges can make military policy and establish medical standards for enlistments.”

Even if one doesn’t take Constitutional issues into account (and one should take the Constitution into account) transgenders often suffer from severe mental illness and have suicide rates approaching 40% which is even higher than that for schizophrenics who currently cannot serve in the U.S. military.

The expense and difficulty of dealing with the needs of this small minority of individuals should not be allowed to sabotage the U.S. military the function of which is to defend the United States, however sympathetic one might be for some of these unfortunate individuals. Sympathy and compassion is not the issue. An efficient and effective military and the Constitutional right of the President to direct that military as the Commander-In-Chief is the issue.

One theory of why the administration has not sought a stay from the Supreme Court is that the Defense Department is currently conducting a “study” and will continue to litigate later this year using results from that study. In the meantime transgender recruits may have clauses in their enlistment contract specifying that they can be discharged if the administration prevails in court and specifically stating that the government will not pay for any transgender treatments (e.g., sex-reassignment surgery) during their enlistment.

Let us hope that is the case and the Trump Administration fully plans to protect the rights and authority of the Presidency from Left wing courts and hopefully they will prevail in the Supreme Court. That also may be more likely if the President has the opportunity to appoint more Conservative judges to the high court who will protect the Constitution.

You can read more on the issue on Breitbart and the Center for Military Readiness.


InAmerica.US

 

Net Neutrality

Some interesting and insightful articles on Net Neutrality brought to you from InAmerica.

Good riddance to net neutrality

Net Neutrality

Now that Net Neutrality has been repealed, the companies that build and maintain the infrastructure will be able to charge more to companies that demand more. What a horrible concept, basing prices on supply and demand!

It was inspiring that the net neutrality supporters were trying so hard to protect streaming companies like Netflix and Google from paying more for their increasing use and increasing demand that generates the need for more infrastructure and maintenance. Netflix only has a market value of $81 Billion and Google $730 Billion, so thank goodness consumer advocates are working so hard to protect them from paying more for their increasing share of the bandwidth.

Jack Hellner, READ MORE at  The American Thinker

The crony monopolists behind net neutrality show their true colors

December 14, 2017 is increasingly looking like a day that could go down in history for all the right reasons — namely, as the day when the tech industry’s stranglehold on Washington, D.C. policymakers was broken. That day, Ajit Pai’s FCC repealed the thoroughly unnecessary program known as net neutrality, a move that in itself counts as daring considering its utter defiance of tech industry pieties. To make matters even better, Chairman Pai himself repeatedly pointed to the hypocrisy of tech’s justifications for net neutrality, since most of their fearmongering described tactics that the tech industry itself used to censor and control the internet.

READ MORE at The American Spectator

Net Neutrality – The Internet Was A Success Without It!

A lot of techies and millennial types are going apoplectic over the FCC’s current move to roll back provisions for Net Neutrality adopted under Obama. A lot of people I know who are technically literate consider it blasphemy to be against Net Neutrality.

I guess then I am a blasphemer.

In principle I rarely support increasing the scope and power of government unless someone can show a large, unambiguous, and clear benefit of government regulation. There are good arguments for regulation and government oversight, sometimes. One example of where government regulation clearly fits is in assuring that large enterprises be 100% responsible for cleaning up the messes they make instead of passing the buck to taxpayers which is clearly a subsidy for those enterprises.

READ MORE at InAmerica

 

 

 

Obama Treason Exposed

Obama Treason Exposed

Obama treason exposed by Breitbart:

These days, we are living through a real-life international spy thriller full of vast conspiracies, lawless rogue government agents, unthinkable betrayals all driven by stupendous greed and a blithe willingness to lie about absolutely anything.

An extraordinary and thorough report by Politico exposes a vast left-wing conspiracy at all levels of the Obama administration to collude with a terrorist organization in hopes of empowering a nation devoted to the death of America.

According to the report, Obama officials pressured federal investigators to back off investigations into huge money-laundering, weapons and drug trafficking operations by the terrorist group Hezbollah. The Obama administration offered this protection even as Hezbollah was raking in $1 billion a year and extending its murderous anti-American influence far beyond the Middle East.

All in the name of what? Upholding the U.S. Constitution? Fighting the war on terror? Peace in the Middle East?

Not hardly. It was all in the name of placating Iran — Hezbollah’s patron nation — so that the Obama administration could ink a ridiculously lopsided deal on Iran’s nuclear program. A deal that scored Iran hundreds of millions in cash and billions more in sanctions relief.

At the very, very, very end of the whole deal, Iran gets to weaponize its nuclear program anyway.

If that is not outright treason, then nothing is.

READ MORE at Breitbart

 Charles Hurt, The Nuclear Option: Amid Anti-Trump Hysteria, Obama Treason Exposed

More like this at InAmerica.us

The FCC Will Vote To Repeal Net Neutrality On Thursday

Internet

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote to repeal the agency’s net neutrality rule on Thursday, much to the dismay of Silicon Valley and Democrats and to the cheer of conservatives.
The FCC will vote on Chairman Ajit Pai’s “Restoring Internet Freedom Order” on Thursday, which would repeal the FCC’s 2015 net neutrality rule, which regulated the internet as a public monopoly.

FCC Chairman Pai said in a recent speech that repealing net neutrality would restore the internet as a free and open platform.

“So when you get past the wild accusations, fearmongering, and hysteria, here’s the boring bottom line: the plan to restore Internet freedom would return us to the light touch, market-based approach under which the Internet thrived. And that’s why I am asking my colleagues to vote for it on December 14,” Pai concluded.

-Sean Moran, READ MORE on Breitbart News


More like this at InAmerica.us

Net Neutrality

A lot of techies and millennial types are going apoplectic over the FCC’s current move to roll back provisions for Net Neutrality adopted under Obama. A lot of people I know who are technically literate consider it blasphemy to be against Net Neutrality.

The Internet

I guess then I am a blasphemer.

In principle I rarely support increasing the scope and power of government unless someone can show a large, unambiguous, and clear benefit of government regulation. There are good arguments for regulation and government oversight, sometimes. One example of where government regulation clearly fits is in assuring that large enterprises be 100% responsible for cleaning up the messes they make instead of passing the buck to taxpayers which is clearly a subsidy for those enterprises.

A lot of the arguments I hear for Net Neutrality come down to something like “big powerful corporations controlling access to the Internet will block access to those sites they don’t like.” So I guess the Koch brothers are scheming to buy large ISPs (Internet Service Providers) and block access to Left leaning websites?

In reality if you want to see real examples of businesses discriminating against a particular point of view you don’t have to look much further than Google, Facebook, and Apple, all heavily Left leaning corporations heavily in favor of Net Neutrality.

Josh Steimle made a lot of good points in Forbes back in 2014 when Net Neutrality was first being discussed. He wrote that:

“I don’t like how much power the telecoms have. But the reason they’re big and powerful isn’t because there is a lack of government regulation, but because of it. Government regulations are written by large corporate interests which collude with officials in government. The image of government being full of people on a mission to protect the little guy from predatory corporate behemoths is an illusion fostered by politicians and corporate interests alike. Many, if not most, government regulations are the product of crony capitalism designed to prevent small entrepreneurs from becoming real threats to large corporations.”

In the long run more regulation more often than not ends up favoring the largest corporations which can most easily deal with the red tape (and then pass the cost on to you and other taxpayers). Josh Steimle goes on to say that:

“Free speech cannot exist without privacy, and the U.S. government has been shown to be unworthy of guarding the privacy of its citizens. Only the latest revelation of many, Glenn Greenwald’s new book No Place To Hide reveals that the U.S. government tampers with Internet routers during the manufacturing process to aid its spying programs. Is this the organization we trust to take even more control of the Internet?”

We can with some version of Net Neutrality guarantee some version of Internet service that some perceive as “fair,” but I prefer the idea of competition. We don’t know what clever people will come up with in the future if we regulate the opportunity out of existence today.

READ MORE at InAmerica