Thursday, October 22, 2015

Please, Dear Leader -- Ban Firearms By Decree

Dr. Barbara LeSavoy, gun confiscation advocate and Director of Women and Gender Studies at The College at Brockport in New York, may be the authentic embodiment of contemporary totalitarian leftism. She might be LARPing – that is, Live-Action Role-Playing – in the character of a self-lobotomized ideological drone. Or perhaps she’s in the middle of an immersive, Andy Kaufman-style long-form comedy sketch.

Either she, or the character she is playing, is the post-feminist equivalent of the New Soviet Man. Programmed at a chromosomal level to think and act in collectivist terms, LeSavoy looks upon Barack Obama with the same enraptured, unalloyed devotion once directed at Stalin and Mao by their most dutiful cadres. 

To her, Obama is social justice incarnate. Anointed by history and endowed with powers that are coterminous with his magnificence, he can change society by decree. Delusions of that variety were at high tide in the summer of 2008, when every syllable Obama read from a teleprompter caused adoring women to disintegrate into uncontrollable weeping. 

For many of Obama’s acolytes, passion has yielded to disillusionment. LeSavoy remains devout – but puzzled by the diffidence of the political deity she continues to adore. Why, she asked plaintively in an October 10 op-ed column for the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, doesn’t Obama stretch forth his hand and banish guns from his domain?

Writing “with a bleeding heart,” LeSavoy declared: “I admire Obama. But he has let me down.” Her embattled but resilient faith in her collectivist savior could be fully restored if he would simply “ban firearm possession in America.” Doing this would be a matter of utmost simplicity, she insists, since Obama “is the president of the United States. He can change the country. He can do it today. I believe in him.”

In fact, the only thing about America LeSavoy apparently finds worthwhile is Barack Obama and what she thinks he represents. 

“While politically minded, I am not overly patriotic,” she explains. Yet during the 2008 campaign, “my two daughters, partner, and I ate every meal in our house on Obama placemats [that were] plastic-coated, plate-sized paper rectangles with an image of his face framed by colors of the flag.”

By making such a bourgeois purchase, LeSavoy committed an act of capitalist apostasy, but it was in what she earnestly believed was a good cause. While “this mealtime ritual of American allegiance was odd for me,” she found strength in the act of looking “at the image of his face each day and [believing] that he really could be the change in America.”

To be sure, she continues, that faith has been sorely tested. She describes herself as “jaded” in 2012 as Obama stood for reelection, because some of his promises weren’t fulfilled. And yet, she proudly recalls, “I did not waver. I dug into our old dining room cupboards, and found our worn but resilient Obama placemats.” 

Those sacred totems were restored to their proper place in the dining room, where LeSavoy, her daughters, and her partner could take strength from the visage of the Dear Leader as they dined on whatever non-exploitative, social justice-compatible fare people of that persuasion eat. 

Obama-worship at its apex, or nadir, depending on your perspective.
Assuming that Obama doesn’t find a way to make himself ruler-for-life – a prospect that would thrill LeSavoy to the depths of the soul whose existence is denied by her ideology – his term as elected dictator is evaporating. Before giving someone else a turn to inflict misery on countless millions, Obama could ensure his legacy by disarming the public through a presidential decree.

“Firearm possession should be banned in America; president Obama can orchestrate this directive,” insists LeSavoy – who somehow obtained a doctorate degree without learning even the rudiments of constitutional law. (Perhaps she is more familiar with the Soviet version, circa 1938.) Her prose likewise suggests that she enjoyed the dubious benefit of very uncritical English teachers. 

Obama’s presidency “can be remembered as a remarkable turn in United States history where a progressive leader forever changed the landscape under which we live and work,” LeSavoy exults in giddy ignorance of the significance of her mixed metaphor. 

Apart from miners, sanitation engineers, and others who toil underground, Americans generally aren’t found living and working “under” the “landscape” of our country. However, the history of mass gun confiscation is replete with examples of disarmed people – or the mortal remains thereof – being disposed of beneath the “landscape” where they had once lived and worked. 

They had "gun control" in Cambodia, too.
This was true of genocidal hell states such as Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and Rwanda during the 100-day orgy of government-orchestrated ethnic slaughter in 1994. In both instances, gun registration laws provided the state with the means to locate and confiscate privately owned firearms as a necessary precursor to systematic slaughter of people deemed unsuitable for the new, “progressive” order. 

To LeSavoy it seems obvious that Obama must employ dictatorial means “to impose gun control laws in America that will reduce high levels of male violence and usher in a culture of peace and civility.” Trapped within the smelly little orthodoxy of post-feminist collectivism, she either ignores or doesn’t understand the fact that the means she endorses would involve “high levels of male violence” carried out by police officers and military personnel. 

As part of her ongoing mission to transform bright, talented female students into members of the permanent dependency class, LeSavoy publishes a journal called “Dissenting Voices.” Representative essays bear such titles as “Girls, Instagram, and the Glamorization of Self-Loathing,” and “Adiposity and Anarchism: Exposing and Examining Fat Oppression in a Capitalist Society.”

Like those suffering the misfortune to be indoctrinated by her, LeSavoy is exquisitely sensitive to “micro-aggressions” and other forms of “cultural violence.” And owing to the ideological equivalent of color-blindness, she apparently cannot perceive state-inflicted violence unless it is directed at people belonging to “specially protected classes” – or perhaps she simply assumes that the mechanism of disarmament and regimentation would always be controlled by transcendently noble beings like the incumbent president she adores.

For someone who makes a living condemning “male violence” against women, LeSavoy seems inexplicably eager to deprive women of the means of protecting themselves against prohibitively stronger, predatory men. It is possible that she believes that previously intractable human nature would be summarily transformed if the hoi polloi were disarmed. However, this would merely turn firearms ownership into the exclusive monopoly of the society’s most sinister stratum – the enforcement caste, which is notorious for making women the targets of its privileged violence.
She was "protected and served."
Women who are married to, or in a relationship with, police officers are at least twice as likely to become victims of domestic violence as are the rest of the female population. This shouldn’t be surprising, given that police are trained and licensed to commit aggressive violence and to treat non-submission as an offense meriting summary punishment. People accustomed to commanding others, and employing “pain compliance” to overcome resistance, often find it impossible to confine those habits to their professional lives.

 “Since the earliest days of law enforcement, domestic violence in police families was considered an officer’s personal business, one of those private realms into which departmental administrators chose not to involve themselves,” retired Chicago PD Homicide Lt. Dennis Banahan explained to Police Magazine. “Their attitude was that unless the problem affected an officer’s job performance, they’d prefer to ignore it. Whatever happened behind closed doors remained private. Since a large part of a cop’s M.O. is to maintain a game face, personal problems were considered just more of what we were expected to suck up and keep hidden.” 

“Police officers have always prided themselves on their ability to keep secrets within the law enforcement family,” acknowledged the law enforcement trade publication. “That’s the case in some departments to this day…. [N]o incident was more likely to bring down the Blue Wall or trigger the Code of Silence than a cop who beat his wife. Nor did agencies want to get involved.”

Damage control, rather than prosecution or protection of the victim, has long been the chief priority of police in dealing with domestic violence incidents. According to Banahan, the first officers on the scene “were expected to be the primary spin doctors.”

Blinded by a cop at a traffic stop.
Witnesses other than the victim and the offender would be removed from the scene. The victim – assuming she survived – would be separated from the abuser, not for her protection, but to isolate her and make her more vulnerable to manipulation.

“She’d be told that an arrest would serve no one’s best interest, and would absolutely jeopardize the officer’s job, thereby threatening the family’s security,” Banahan explained. “In effect, that’s telling a bleeding victim, `Hey, sorry about the broken arm and that your nose will never be the same again, but drop a dime on this guy and you’ll all be in the welfare line tomorrow.’”

In effect, the woman and any children would be blackmailed into protecting the interests of an abusive cop – sacrificing their personal security to protect the abuser’s job security.

The ministering angels who would carry out Obama’s divinely ordained mass disarmament – were he to answer LeSavoy’s earnest entreaty -- would be drawn from the ranks of the profession described by Lt. Banahan. She doesn’t understand the implications of what she is asking her political deity to do. But this is to be expected of campus progressives, who tend to be poster children for not thinking things through.

If Barbara LeSavoy is genuinely the person described in her op-ed column, she is owed a measure of pity tempered with wariness. If she is engaged in some kind of bizarre performance art, the skill she displays is worthy of applause – as long as she doesn’t lose herself in the role.  It’s worth remembering that sentiments of the kind she expressed are hardly uncommon within what we might call the “eliminationist left.”

Dum spiro, pugno!


Joshua Cottle said...

"And owing to the ideological equivalent of color-blindness, she apparently cannot perceive state-inflicted violence unless it is directed at people belonging to “specially protected classes” – or perhaps she simply assumes that the mechanism of disarmament and regimentation would always been controlled by transcendently noble beings like the incumbent president she adores."
>>>> "would always been"
"would be?"

Anonymous said...

Will, you gave the answer to the question many ask, "why would or what reason would a police officer or officers lie, against someone/s"? Will you noted that police pride themselves on keeping secrets within their own ranks and that has been noted in police publications. The missing explaintion to all of this about police and their demeanor of, Us vs Them, against the general public, is police are a cult. Nothing explains police, conduct, reasoning, thinking and demeanor than, police in America are a cult. They honestly believe they are on the same levels as God and can kill people because the have decided that is the right thing to do. They victimize innocent and lawful people many different ways because they have decided this is best for them and they are a higher life form. The police compartmentalizations their conduct to levels of serious mental health issues. This is clearly the conduct of cult members the way that they compartmentalize their criminal and Satonic conduct. Of course the "good cops" do not stand up and expose the criminal actions because the fear the cult. The cult will get them because the "good cops" have taking the oath of the cult and they know there is no safe way out. The government attorneys will assist the cult against a turncoat, a fink how many times have we seen that happen. And yes inaction on behalf of government attorneys is in fact assisting. I can give an example of how bad it is just for lawful citizens with the U.S. vs Them demeanor. A woman pulled off the road having serious medical issues. This was a country road with little traffic. Someone I know pulled over to help and called 911 for medical help. The cops showed up first and did not give any medical help but demanded ID's and ran them to see if the person who saved this woman's life had any warrants or whatever on them in the government computers. The person was giving their ID back and told to move their car out of the way so the medics had ample room. No thank you, no kind words, no nothing but rude treatment by a cult member who only agrees with other cult members.

Michael said...

I recognize that ad hominem attacks don't do anything to further debate, but....two questions:

1) Is it just me, or are all "Women's studies" professors ugly, lesbian women?

2) Why is it that these ugly women are always such sycophants for Obama or others on the left?

I'm really genuinely curious. Seems almost universally fall into these two categories.

William N. Grigg said...

Michael, it is genuinely shameful of you to use a hetero-patriarchal term like ad hominem. More enlightened people use the expression "ad hominym, especially in the presence of a non-cisgendered humyn; we wouldn't want verbal violence to inflict injury on zir self-esteem.

Joshua, thank you for catching the typo that had eluded my notice.

Michael said...


My sincerest apologies. I will step outside right now and flog myself for my sins against, uh, uh....personkind?? I'm sooo confused....

Anonymous said...


David Allan Roberts said...

And then there are those who propose that the Second Amendment be repealed, imagining the Federal Government to then be free to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. This is a misguided notion uttered by those who do not truly understand the intent of both the Founders and the written Constitution.
Were the Second Amendment repealed, or even if it never existed, the Federal Government would still be restricted from the purview of gun control. Well, anyway, that was the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution.
James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution", was initially opposed to the idea of a "Bill of Rights" being amended to the Constitution. Not that he was opposed to the provisions of the amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights. Madison's view was that if a power was not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, then it was not within the purview of the new central government, and therefore, a bill of rights would be redundant. Madison stated, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined."
Still, knowing government's tendency to usurp powers not specifically denied it, the faction demanding that a bill of rights be amended to the Constitution (The Anti-federalists) stood their ground. The Bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution, and the Founder's vision of limited government was enshrined in the Tenth Amendment.
Article VI of the Constitution requires government officials to take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Those who would urge the government to exceed its constitutional authority in pursuance of preferred agendas, are among those the framers of the Article spoke of as "domestic enemies".

MissAnthropy said...

I bet she does a killer Vulcan salute.

Seriously, if it's performance art then she took the wrong road. She could be raking it in as a Spock impersonator, like those people who charge Hollywood tourists to take their picture with lookalikes.

Reg T said...

If this creature truly has a daughter born of her flesh, it _had_ to have been artificial insemination. Any male who was inebriated enough to have sex with this creature would have been too intoxicated to consummate the act.

William N. Grigg said...

Given that my likeness won't wind up being displayed in the Louvre,I generally refrain from disparaging remarks about the physical appearance of others. Nature wasn't kind to several authors whose work I have admired. It is the output of Ms. LeSavoy's keyboard that I find genuinely hideous, and this would be true even if she looked like Barbara Feldon from season four of Get Smart!, or Connie Selleca circa 1987.

former liberal said...

Got to agree as a female who is considered attractive...That THING also looks crazy. No, Michael, it's not just you...I think some of these women may also have been sexually abused and or rejected by men in the past, and refuse to get over it.

Anonymous said...

"... a progressive leader forever changed the landscape under which we live and work,” LeSavoy exults in giddy ignorance of the significance of her mixed metaphor. "
Hahaha! You sir, are a scholar and a gentleman.

Anonymous said...

Oh, come on, MA. Don't denigrate Mr. Spock - Leonard Nimoy was a pretty good looking man. She (I'm being generous) is a female Richard Belzer.

Haxo Angmark said...

it's not performance art. Merely another gun-grabbing lesbian-communist Jewess

Bill in IL said...

This "woman" suffers from arrested development. She is not only stuck on stupid, she is stuck at 8 years old. Why do these communists always need a parent / father figure? I am a grown man and I no longer need parents to supervise me. I look down at politicians, not up. She is a complete whack job, unfortunately, there is no cure for what ails her.

John Washburn said...

The metaphor is not mixed. Do not the dead and muderered "work under the landscape"

chemdude77 said...

There is a reason that "intellectuals" like this do not have jobs in the private sector. But then again, with the privatization of the Prison industry, she could still get a lucrative job as an armed warden, putting her boots into the necks of non-violent offenders. With over 300,000 federal, state and local laws, we are all felons now!!

Michael said...

I read some of the comments posted to the original article. I'd say 99%+ defended the Constitution/2nd Amendment. What I thought was funny were the suggestions of a couple of the authors there.

One was: If the tables were turned, and the President were asked to (and did) ban ALL abortions, would the Dr. LeSavoy be OK with that?

How about if gay marriage, or taking it further, any homosexual relationship were banned? Would the good Dr. be OK with that?

I'm willing to be the answer would be "no" and that she'd scream bloody hell in order to rectify the situation.

She should expect no less from any American Citizen when it comes to their right to self-defense.

Anonymous said...

Do it, commit that act of war against the citizens. Then reap the whirlwind you so richly deserve.

EdD said...

As to the poor, deluded woman's looks, I have to agree that she does look crazy. Her ideas tend to prove that, in her case, looks ain't deceiving.

Anonymous said...

Comrades the glorious rebuilt Babel utopia is here. Paradise is in the next five year plan etched on a stone tablet by Imam Hussein the Immaculate. Mandatory gun buyback confiscation will begin when Arkansas/New York carpetbagger Hilly Clinton is sworn in at Mordor on the Potomac. All comrades of the collective will recieve a unicorn and magic chocolate fountain in their front yard. Then we will all hold hands and sing under the glorious rainbow flag just like a Benetton ad. To each according to his need, workers of the world unite. Yes we can! Keep the Kulaks out!

waypasthadenough said...

When guns are outlawed "Liberal"(commie) trash season begins and the commie newswhores die first.

Many like me won't sit home waiting for the black-suited Nazis to show up at the behest of communist trash like this commie professor that like its comrades loves to make a big show of their pacifism and compassion but have no problem sending out the police and military they often claim to detest to murder those who refuse to obey their commie laws.

We all get the elected public servants the brain dead sheeple deserve.

I’ll vote for the candidate that will bring the troops home, activate the militias, and re-invade and re-conquer commiefornia and the other commie enclaves on the left and East coasts.

They're not 'leftists,' 'liberal' or 'progressive.' They're communists/globalists. They want us disarmed so we can't kill them when enough finally wake up to the necessity of doing so.

Our Liberty is dying because of our failure to hunt the "Liberal"(commie) and globalist trash to extinction.

Free Kentucky Column: What must be done - A manifesto of the 'isms.'
Don't understand my bad attitude? Start here:
Governments will always be able to get guns so we must always be better armed than them.
Act politically but prep for what history shows will have to be done. It's way past time to prep for what will be required:

rexxhead said...

Does she think eliminating guns would magically eliminate murder? Or suicide? Or robbery? Or carjackings? The only things 'eliminating guns' would accomplish is to render the weak prey for the strong, the peaceful prey to the warrior, and the single prey to the gang. She clearly doesn't realize what she's suggesting here: a return to the Middle Ages where armored thugs in the pay of the local strongman pillaged the countryside of its wealth, its maidens of their virtue, and its peasants of their lives.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Rush can help you with his 'Undeniable Truth of Life', #24-

"Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of American life."

VonZorch said...

She may actually have decent looking when young. I have noted a tendency for leftist women to rapidly ugly as they age.

VonZorch said...

"She clearly doesn't realize what she's suggesting here: a return to the Middle Ages where armored thugs in the pay of the local strongman pillaged the countryside of its wealth, its maidens of their virtue, and its peasants of their lives."
I think she does realize it, but she believes she will be in the ruling elite.

MrApple said...

"“Firearm possession should be banned in America; president Obama can orchestrate this directive,” insists LeSavoy..."
It seems that the good Dr. needs to reread her Constitution.

Anonymous said...

She is pretty hot with the sickly-librarian look. One can only wonder why she never needed a gun
to defend herself. Keep up the good fight sister and remember that your white privilege leads to a
false sense of security.

Anonymous said...

"Those of us with ravaged faces...lacking in the social graces ..desperately wait at home inventing lovers on the phone" Some 60's song about this type of loser

Anonymous said...

What you fail to comprehend is that, if you come for our guns, the streets will run with blood.

And most of it will be yours.

All Wrong said...

My favorite part of her article was when she wanted guns banned to end male violence. When I read that, the clouds parted, the sun shone down, and I was visited by an epiphany. I had never realized that all the "gun violence" in this country was committed by men. Thankfully, we have this learned woman to set me straight.

Anonymous said...

Would banning guns decrease suicide and murders - 2007 study.

Came across this in some other research I had to do tonight and quickly read through the article from Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. It is full of 'edumacated' words and stuff like that but the conclusions simple say "NO". If you don't already have this in your arsenal, add it.


"While American gun ownership is quite high, Table 1 shows many other developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries, however, have murder rates as low or lower than many developed nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002."


"There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so."

Hopeis cruel said...

it's good that you didn't edit the bad replies I can be confident that you're not censoring dissent like too many others.