Defining ‘New Liberalism”

Another comment by Dan Gilbert:

“Classical liberalism” is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying “classical” is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as “social,” or (erroneously) “modern” or the “new,” liberalism. – Mises Institute.

Today what we have is Statism masquerading as Liberalism.

Socialist Slavery

And that is exactly what we have!  And, it is no secret why if you just take a look.  You can follow the Obama administration’s agenda and tactics point-by-point simply by picking up a copy of Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky and reading for your selves.  Saul Alinsky was a communist agitator.  It is both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s political strategy manual.

Indeed, Hillary Clinton was greatly influenced by Saul Alinsky.  She did disagree with some of his methodology and argued that to effect the real change Alinsky advocated, you had to become part of the system and bring it down from within.  This translates into … do whatever it takes to get elected (including lie, cheat and steal),  and once in the system work to bring about its downfall.  Yeah, I know.  It ‘s all a “vast right-wing conspiracy!”  Do you remember that say we had as young kids … whomever calls someone else a name – is really it.  There is a lot of truth to that childish saying.  Can you name one positive and successful thing accomplished by Hillary Clinton as First Lady, as a senator from New York, or as Secretary of State?  I can’t.  Neither could a panel of liberal voters given that question during a panel discussion.  You can see it here.  But, you can find her at the center of several questionable scandals and possibly illegal actions

Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveals new details about her true relationship with the controversial Chicago communist activist and shed light on her early ideological development.

Clinton met with Alinsky several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis about his theory of community organizing.  Her relationship with Saul Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969 as demonstrated by two letters Clinton wrote to Alinsky. These letters can be viewed here.

These letters are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.  The IAF is also, incidentally, where Obama received his political  “community organizer” training and served as an instructor for a time.

The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.

America: A liberal Skew!

Forward

There is no doubt liberal progressives really do such a fantastic job lying to the American people.

Conservatives need to develop a simple message that enables the “bumper sticker” mentality of the American electorate to realize they are being fed a hearty helping of bullshit. The political, media, and entertainment elite are pulling the wool over the eyes of everyday hard working Americans; and for what purpose? Their own selfish gain and interest.

I know some of you have already figured this out, but for those who haven’t, consider the following statements I saw once posted by Allen West:

The word conundrum is defined as a complex problem that is often puzzling or confusing. Here are six conundrums that exist in our contemporary United States of America.

  • America is capitalist and greedy – yet almost half of the population is subsidized
  • Half of the population is subsidized – yet they think they are victims.
  • They think they are victims – yet their representatives run the government.
  • Their representatives run the government – yet the poor keep getting poorer.
  • The poor keep getting poorer – yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
  • They have things that people in other countries only dream about – yet politicians (mostly progressive socialists) claim they want America to become more like those other countries.

And consider these following three observations about the current direction of our federal government and cultural environment:

  • We are advised not to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but on the other hand, we are admonished to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works, as we see the liberal progressives already jumping on the recent tragedy in South Carolina. So what about the increase in stabbing victims, should we ban knives? I heard on the news yesterday that a man tried to poison a coworker by putting weed killer in his water bottle on several occasions.  Do we now also ban weed killer?
  • We constantly hear about how Social Security is running out of money. How come we never hear about welfare or food stamps on the verge of running out of money? Maybe the first group “worked for” their money, but the second didn’t. It is a simple case of printing money for political bribery and extortion.
  • Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, giving no pay raises for our military and cutting our forces to a level lower than before WWII, but are expanding and increasing the benefits to illegal aliens? It is all about pandering for votes!  Who cares about national security or veterans dying at the hands of their own Veterans Administration?

Before you call me a racist at me and start scrabbling around for another flag to ban, calm down and think about these points for a minute.  To use a cliché that is probably banned by now for being  politically incorrect or even inciting gun violence – they seem to be pretty much “dead on target”

The newest rage … “Pseudo Intellectualism”

untitled

Dan Gilbert commented that:

“Intellectuals” these days are an interesting breed. Historically intellectuals enjoyed exploring all aspects of a given situation. They compared facts, sought out further study if the research wasn’t clear. They enjoyed defending their opponent’s position to strengthen their own case. Intellectuals valued the intellect and constructive debate. They were very concerned with the preservation of the concept of free speech, valuing opinions different from their own.

Today, so-called intellectuals seek to limit speech, ideas, and opinions other than ideologically approved ones. We hear – case closed, the science is settled, alternative opinions are due to ignorance and other statements that no true intellectual in history would be comfortable with. This is dogma masquerading as intelligence and is dominant in today’s academic environment.

Politicians have latched on to this approach because it protects ideas with no depth or factual foundation, it helps to panic people and create a feeling of powerlessness, leading to more control over every aspect of our lives. A true intellectual will welcome debate, not criminalize those that hold different positions. We live in an age of deep ignorance lauded as the height of intellect, fantasy heralded as reality, and inflexible dogma held up as liberalism.

I have personally experienced this phenomena several time in discussion with liberal friends.  I have been in conversations where my more liberal friends are espousing some view on some topic be it the economy, fracking, healthcare, Global Warming, War of Terror, or whatever.  And in the course of the conversation, should you provide any evidence in support of a view contrary to their held views, it is summarily dismissed without discussion or further investigation.  Hardly an “intellectual” response.

A prime example of this is the issue of gun control.  Members of the anti-Second Amendment crowd, such  as Michael Bloomberg’s newly-repackaged “Every Town for Gun Safety” have repeatedly been caught red-handed lying and creating false narratives about gun violence.  And while tragic gun violence should be addressed, as a nation we never want to address the real issues  involved and instead simple want to ban a tool which the U.S. Constitution affirms and guarantees the American people the right to use.  Unfortunately like any tool, a gun can be used for both good and bad.

The truth is that the recent shooting at the Church in South Caroline is a prime example of why stricter gun laws do not work.  Especially if, as Vice-President Joe Biden admitted on national television in the last election, the federal government doesn’t have time to enforce the gun laws already on the books.  The shooter in this case already could not legally own or buy a gun because of a previous felony drug conviction and the family has already admitted, and then later recanted the statement, that the boy’s father bought the gun for him on his 21st birthday.  This would already be a felony under federal law and punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment (perhaps this is why they recanted the earlier statement).  How would a stricter gun lay have prevented this?  Explain it to me please.

Also the church was a “gun free” zone, so the shooter knew he was safe to carry out his plan with little chance of anyone stopping him.  There is another recent and rather similar case in which a woman with a concealed carry permit and a hand gun stopped a shooter in his tracks in her church and saved the lives of many of her fellow parishioners.  Bet you won’t hear about that in the left-wing news.

More to the point, however, is that if you bring up the facts that statistics clearly prove states and cities that allow concealed carry permits all see measurable and significant reductions in violent crime, liberals summarily dismiss that as NRA propaganda that bears no further discussion.  They totally ignore the fact that the NRA gets its statistics from the FBI and, dare I say it, the former Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice.  That is because their “pseudo intellectualism” is driven by blind ideology and it can suffer no dissent.  It is a victimization-based, revenge-driven ideology that plays well to people with bumper slogan mentalities and it is an ideology that does not bode well for the success of Freedom, Liberty, Prosperity, and American Exceptionalism!

Victimization is the root value of liberal Identity Politics

Darren:

An interesting perspective and one I agree with. Liberals tend to be the unhappiest and angriest people! They make great victims and revel in their (and other’s) victim-hood! And they want us all to be just like them!

Originally posted on A Heapin' Plate of Conservative Politics & Religion:

By Tom Quiner

Rachel Moore (before) Rachel Moore (before)

Rachel Dolezal pretended to be someone she isn’t: an African American woman.

She leveraged her faux blackness into a job running the Spokane, Washington, branch of the NAACP.

It turns out she altered her looks and biography to create a new persona. In her new identity, she fought on behalf of African Americans who were victims of the white power structure.

Rachel Dolezal (after) Rachel Dolezal (after)

And then we learned something new about Ms. Dolezal. As a college student at the predominantly black Howard University, the then publicly white Rachel Moore (as she was known in 2002) sued the university for discriminating against her because SHE WAS WHITE.

Yes, truth sometimes seems stranger than fiction.

But there is nothing strange about it. Ms. Moore/Dolezal is a professional victim.

Victimization is the root value of liberal identity politics, as embraced and nurtured by the Democratic Party.

It…

View original 69 more words

Modern Media Reporters Redefine American Heros

0603-bruce-caitlyn-jenner-getty-vanity-fair-7

Meet America’s newest national hero, Bruce (Caitlin) Jenner.  Jenner is a true hero, at least according to the newest media darlings.  I guess this is because he finally figured out that he was not really a boy, but actually a girl.  Luckily, being a member of the Kardashian Clan, she had enough money to feminize her new looks and augment her breasts. Or this whole thing could have been pretty ugly

Personally, I think a lot of liberal women actually do not like men.  They want girls with penises;  you know … the whole metro-sexual thing!  Anyway, As I understand it, Caitlin is keeping her penis.  This is probably a smart move … just in case she later decides she is really a boy again and needs to change back.  This is a real possibility should the Kardashian Clan need a new publicity stunt to bolster their sagging revenue streams.   I am not sure penis re-attachment surgery is available yet, but maybe if she kept it on ice?  It is probably is a much safer bet just to keep it attached for now.

All joking aside, I am really happy for Caitlin (formally known as Bruce) Jenner.  If he is happier as a she, who the heck am I to say he can’t be a she.  As a conservative and a true believer in individual rights … more power to him or her.  I am just not really buying into the great American hero spin being trumpeted by the media. So ESPN awarded Caitlin Jenner the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. So what?  It doesn’t really mean a thing.  Anyone can create an award and give it to whomever they damn well please.  I do think it is about as silly as Barack Obama getting awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for things they hoped he would do in the future.  We see how well that all worked out.

On another note, last Thursday, former Texas Governor Rick Perry announced his 2016 candidacy for president.

Standing with Rick Perry during his announcement were two other men.  U.S. Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, of “Lone Survivor” fame, and his twin brother, Morgan. The Luttrells, who are from Texas, have gotten close to Perry over the years and Marcus is known to have a close, almost father-son, type of relationship with Perry.

It is a real case-in-point that the media representatives present did not recognize the two men standing behind Perry. How is that even possible?  It is a real commentary on the current state of journalism, or lack there of, in this country.  They certainly rushed to recognize what a great hero Caitlin Jenner is and I bet they could pick her out of any crowd.   O.K.,  So maybe they might not know who Morgan Luttrell is, but Marcus Luttrell?  Are you kidding me?  Four clueless left-wing journalists revealed via their tweets that they had absolutely no idea who Marcus Luttrell was.

1) Ellen Mitchell.  This is particularly scary to me because she is a Washington-based reporter for Inside Defense, covering Army helicopters, UAS, radios, vehicles and TRADOC.

clueless 1

2) Katie Halper.  Another scary one because she is a history teacher at The Dalton School; besides being a progressive, comedian / blogger at Salon, The Nation, Feministing & Comedy Central.

Clueless 2

3) Judd Legum.  Is Editor in Chief for ThinkProgress and the Senior Vice President for Communications at American Progress so it is not surprising that he would not recognize a real hero.

Clueless 3

4) George Zornick.  Prior to joining The Nation, George was Senior Reporter/Blogger for ThinkProgress.org. He worked as a researcher for Michael Moore’s SiCKO and as an Associate Producer on “The Media Project” on the Independent Film Channel.

Clueless 4

Army Ranger Specialist Zac Oja had this to say:

 The priorities in this country are so screwed up as it is. A transgender person like Bruce Jenner is a hero. But someone sacrifices their college scholarship and their time to join the military and they don’t get nearly as much recognition.

We’re missing the overall point of what this country was founded upon, collective sacrifice for the greater good. The fantasy of America is what we focus on. Caitlyn Jenner, a multimillionaire and the Kardashians are the ones shaping our reality. What happened to the soldier who deployed his 12th tour in Afghanistan, that’s my definition of a real hero.

The usual hero is a day-to-day person, who does it out of a sense of purpose. They don’t do it for Instagram likes or retweets. I’m not surprised they don’t know who Luttrell is, our priorities are so messed up in this country.

Those reporters represent a smaller portion of America that is more engaged in what sells than anything else. And a Navy SEAL war hero doesn’t sell so well anymore. For them to not know who Luttrell is a perfect snapshot of what the country’s greater priorities are. Because I guarantee if Perry had the Kardashians standing next to him, everyone would be able to identify those people.

I think Army Ranger Zac Oja pretty much sums it up!

The Minimum Wage Dirty Little Secret

1386260319008-2There are about 320,000,000 people living in the United States.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 3,000,000 people are working for minimum.  That is one percent (1%) of the population.  So is the minimum wage uproar really about giving one percent of Americans a pay raise, or is something else afoot here?

The fact is that unions and their members benefit directly from minimum wage increases even though not a single union member works for minimum wage.  This is why organized labor is coming out in strong support of Obama’s proposed minimum wage increase.  If he or she can still find a job, the average private-sector union member earns $22 per hour … well above minimum wage.

There are two common formulas used in  setting baseline union wages.  The first is as a percentage above the state or federal minimum wage.  The second is simply mandating a flat wage premium above the minimum wage.  On its website, the UFCW notes that many union contracts are “triggered to implement wage hikes in the case of minimum wage increases.” Such wage increases, the UFCW advertises, are “one of the many advantages of being a union member.”

Minimum-wage hikes are beneficial to unions in other ways. Minimum wage increases restrict the ability of businesses to hire low-skill workers who would gladly work for lower wages in order to gain job experience. Union members thus face less competition from workers who might threaten union jobs.

This view is not just mere speculation. In 2004, a study published in the Journal of Human Resources by economists William Wascher, Mark Schweitzer and David Neumark concluded that lower-wage union workers typically see a boost in employment and earned income following a mandated wage hike. You just have to ignore the corresponding drop in jobs and earned income for non-union minimum-wage workers. They may have been priced out of the jobs they need, but that is not the union’s concern … its members have landed higher wages and reduced competition for jobs.

The dirty little secret is that  union members would see their paychecks grow as the result of a Democrat-backed mandate; even though the overwhelming majority of scholarly evidence says that these wage increases have a negative effect on employment.

Perhaps the American people should be more concerned with teaching the one percent of Americans earning minimum wage how to fish; rather than on giving them a fish.  That might even allow some of those 3,000,000,000 to somehow find their way off the Democrat’s progressive plantation and into a life of real opportunity and freedom.

Global Swarming

How I long for the good old days.  Do you remember back when it was just so cool to scoff at any and all warnings about new American foreign policies or old potential threats by anybody who actually knew what they were talking about?  I remember when highly intelligent, arrogant, Ivory Tower progressive-liberals with no real-world experience or common sense were boldly trashing the comments of anyone one who did not see things their way?

Do you remember the debate where Barack Obama haughtily “schooled” Mitt Romney about his lack of understanding of foreign policy after Romney made comments about the potential threat Russia still presented.  How did that work out?

  • We have unresolved Russian aggression in Ukraine.
  • Russian bombers are currently flying missions over the Gulf of Mexico
  • Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua are forming stronger military ties with Russia and can provide bases for Russian combat aircraft and missiles.

I remember when George W. Bush was ridiculed for his comments about the Axis of Evil in which he included Iran, Iraq and North Korea.  Today we see:

  •  ISIS / ISIL / DAESH or whatever you want to call it …  in Iraq and Syria, forming alliances and sponsoring attacks her in the U.S.  Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Israel are doing their own thing … tired of waiting for the Anointed One to declare which side of the war on terror he is on.  Yes …Yes … I know we are not “at war” with them, however, they are at war with us and have been since the 70s.Obama’s efforts at containment and degradation certainly didn’t stop ISIS fanatics from shooting up a cartoon contest here in the U.S.  Tell me …. how do you contain a threat that recruits via twitter and Facebook?
  • We are facing a nuclear-armed North Korea who’s leader just executed a loyal, longtime senior member of his own government who, by the way, also loyally served his father … by shooting him with an anti-aircraft gun!  And for what you might ask?  Dozing off in a meeting.  And this idiot is just itching for a reason to launch a missile at someone!
  • We have a president who is so blinded by ideology and so anxious to be seen doing something … that he is willing to sign a disastrous deal with Iran; one that we know they will not adhere to and will practically guarantee them nuclear weapons shortly after he leaves office.  Iran’s leaders just keep stringing Obama and Kerry along like a couple of organ grinder monkeys!  It is freaking embarrassing!

However, the real  icing on the cake is this:

CNN REPORTS U.S. STRATEGY TO CONTAIN ISIS SEEMS TO BE UNRAVELING.


Don’t you have to have some sort of a recognizable strategy … before it can actually begin to unravel?  Guess not!!

Should Democrats or Conservatives move to North Korea?

Live Longer in North Korea!

Live Longer in North Korea!

Isn’t it a wonderful life here in the U.S. of Obama?  According to the Washington Post 15 Baltimore, MD neighborhoods have a lower life expectancy rate than that of North Korea!  May I also point out that since 1967, Baltimore has had nothing but Democratic mayors.

On the national scene, police officers are being murdered weekly thanks to the “racial leadership” provided by Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Al Sharpton!  I understand Al Sharpton’s daughter is suing New York City for $5 million for a sprained ankle.  Must be one hell of a sprain!  Hey … maybe I can get $2.5 million for my jammed finger!

Here is an interesting idea!  With all the heat Jeb Bush has been taking for answering a question truthfully about whether or not he would have ordered U.S. Forces into Iraq like his brother George W. did ….. I would like to suggest a few other questions be asked as well.

For Barack Obama:

1) If you knew then what you know now about what would happen if we left Iraq too soon, would you still have pulled all American forces out of Iraq so irresponsibly and without an actual adult negotiating a status-of-forces agreement first?

Knowing full well that Obama will certainly point the finger at someone else (probably George W. Bush), the follow-up question should be:

2) When in your presidency do you actually start taking responsibility for the decisions and actions of your presidency?

Hillary Clinton, since she wants to be the “Working Peoples’ President (Gosh … that has such a Communist ring to it, doesn’t it?),’  could also be asked the first question.

Despite all this, we hear from John Kerry that we should simply be calm, we don’t have to worry!  All is well.  The world is safer than it has ever been!  Safer though it may be, according to Kerry it is still “possible to have the kind of attack we’ve seen in Ramadi.”  I feel so much better knowing that … don’t you?  I am sure the 4000+ American soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq would have been so happy to hear this.

And yes, we may have to kill many more members of Daesh (or ISIS or ISIL or Islamic Terrorists or whatever the hell the name of the week is).  But the question is who is going to kill them.  The area surrounding the Daesh forces at Ramadi is currently filled with Iranian militia.  Iran is predominantly Shia and Iraqi’s in the area are mostly Sunni.  That should work out well …  don’t you think? Especially with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Israel deciding to go it alone due to their extreme lack of faith in the current American leadership!

But hey … things are going so well in the Middle East … just relax!  Take a chill pill!  Move to Colorado and smoke a doobie!  Global Warming is a much more dangerous threat!  Oh Wait … according to NASA’s records we haven’t seen any global warming in 17 years …. oops!

Strangely, I remain unconvinced!  There are estimated to be between 0.7 billion (700,000,000) to 1.9 billion (1,900,000,000) Muslims in the world. This is 25% of the world’s population or 1 in 4. There are estimated to be around 9.9 million (9,900,000); about 3.75 % of the total US population.

According to ACT! for America’s president and founder Bridgett Gabriel, the radicals are estimated to be between 15 to 25 percent of the Muslim population… at least according to all intelligence services around the world,”  That means we are looking at 105 million to 475 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization.  However, Bridgett Gabriel is after all a favorite of conservatives who are concerned about terrorism. Therefore, we should not listen to her!  A much more conservative (no pun intended) estimate put forth is .01 percent of all Muslims being radicalized.  I feel much better now.  After all, that is only 7,000,000 to 19,000,000 people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization!  We should all sleep much better at night knowing that!

Still waiting for all those moderate Muslims to stand up and shout … “Not in the name of our religion!!”

The silence is deafening!

.

Are you “Proud to be White?”

There is an email circulating around with the subject line “Proud to be White!  This email claims that during the 503 days between the Travon Martin killing and the Zimmerman verdict, 10,865 blacks were killed by other blacks.  The emails then asks, “can you name one?”

Can you name any victims of white on white murders over the same time period?  Just asking!  Statistically speaking, people kill the people they know; loved ones, friends and neighbors.  Because people of different racial backgrounds tend to live clustered together, they are far more likely to kill someone of their own race than someone of another race.

This email then goes on to claim that the U.S. ranks third in the world for murders, but if you remove Chicago, Detroit, Washington, DC and New Orléans, the U.S. is then fourth from the bottom.  All four of these cities are controlled by democrats and have very tough gun laws, so the inference is clear.

Let’s look at some facts.  images

Black on Black Murder Numbers: 10, 865 Blacks Killed by Other Blacks

The number of black-on-black murders in 2012 is better estimated at 6,002. According to Bureau of Justice statistics, the percentage of total homicides with black victims where the offender is also black has remained stable for years at 93 (As a side note, the rate for the percentage of total homicides with white victims where the offender is also white is 85).  According to FBI statistics, the total number of homicides in 2012 with black victims in the United States is 6,454.  If we apply the historically constant rate of 93 to that number, we get a fairly accurate estimate of 6,002 black-on-black homicides. The first number is what can be proven.  The second number is simply a fairly good estimate.

U.S. murder ranking claim: United States is third highest.

The most correct way of comparing countries is to look at the rate of homicides, or how many homicides there were for every 100,000 people.  According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, in 2012 the U.S had a homicide rate of 4.7.  This rate is not even in the top 100.

By contrast, Honduras  is number 1 in the world and has a murder rate of 90.7, which is almost 20 times higher.  According to the United Nations, the U.S. is even a good bit below the global homicide average of 6.2.  I am not a big fan of the U.N., but you do have to get your global statistics from somewhere, and not just pull them out of thin air.

The email could be referring to the number of murders and not the rate, but even if you look at the number of murders which does not account for population differences, according to the U.N., in 2012 the U.S. is eighth behind Brazil, India, Nigeria, Mexico. Congo, South Africa and Venezuela.

Remove Four cities: United States drops to fourth from the bottom

The email also states that if just four cities with democrat mayors were removed from the tally of U.S. murders, this would plunge the country from third highest to fourth lowest in the murder rankings.

According to the FBI, in 2012, Chicago had 500 homicides, Detroit 386, New Orléans 193 and the District of Columbia 88.  This gives us an actual  total of 1,167 murders.  That same year, the United States had 14,827 homicides.  If we subtract those four cities, the murder total becomes 13,660. This will give us a drop in the homicide rate of 4.35, resulting in a drop of only 3 or 4 spots in the world rankings. This is nowhere near the bottom four. The bottom fourth and fifth spots are now held by Japan and Iceland with a homicide rate around 0.3 per 100,000.

And again, if we use the number of murders and not the rate,  when we remove those four cities, the U.S. would drop only two spots, below Colombia and Pakistan.   The U.S. would still, however, rank in the top 10.

The assertion that democrat mayors and tough gun control laws contribute to the higher murder rates is interesting.  However, not all democrats favor tougher gun laws and, in fact, some republicans do favor tougher gun laws.  Chris Christie comes to mind.

It is clear the cities and states allowing concealed carry do experience a drop in violent crime. Since Illinois started granting concealed carry permits this year, the number of robberies that have led to arrests in Chicago has declined 20 percent from last year, according to police department statistics. Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low.

Here are some other facts:

Fact: Gun homicides were 10% higher in states with restrictive CCW laws, according to a study spanning 1980-2009.

Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988.

Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).

Fact: In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed.  Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second.  Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year.

Fact:  More to the point, crime is much higher in states without right-to-carry laws.

Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.

Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%.

It is also important to note that the murder rate dropped by 17.54 percent between 2005 and 2012.  Kelly Riddell, who wrote an article describing how concealed-carry applications were out pacing ObamaCare applications, said “a July study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that 11.1 million Americans have permits to carry concealed weapons, a 147 percent increase from 4.5 million seven years ago. Meanwhile, homicide and other violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent.”

So by all means, be Proud to be White.  I certainly am.  But folks should also be Proud to be Black, Hispanic, American Indian, Alaskan Eskimo, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Arabic, or Jewish!  Take pride in your background, culture and ancestry.  Have the open-mindedness to respect and admire the good things from other cultures, races and ethnicities.  Perhaps most importantly, be Proud to be an American.  This is a great nation with a proud history.  It would be a real shame to lose all that to a handful of race-baiters and Alinskytes!

Valdosta State University Bans Air Force Veteran for Life

Valdosta State University in Georgia banned for life an Air Force veteran who attempted to prevent desecration of the US Flag. University students had laid the flag on the ground and were walking on it as part of their protest.

The veteran Michelle Manhart, also a former Playboy model, was quoted as saying, “I was just going over there to pick up the flag off the ground. I don’t know what their cause is, but I went to pick it up because it doesn’t deserve to be on the ground.”

Manhart, a former sergeant in the Air Force posed for Playboy Magazine in 2007; posing in uniform, out of uniform and while draped with the American flag. Reprimanded and demoted by the Air Force, Manhart left the military the next year.

PLAYBOY_MILITARYThe university president and the police sided with the student protesters and Manhart was ultimately given a criminal trespass warning which effectively bans her from any university activity for life.

In a statement posted on the college’s website, Valdosta State University President William J. McKinney said the American flag “represents everything that is best about our country” but also said that the demonstrators had a right to do so. “The Supreme Court has held, one of those things is the right to free speech, which includes the right to disrespect even the symbol of our country,” McKinney’s went on to say. “While I firmly disagree with the actions of the protesters, I understand their right to protest.”

While McKinney’s statement is correct, a lifetime ban from any college activity seems more than a bit excessive to me. In fact it is intended to teach a lesson to those who still respect the American flag and what it stands for. It essentially says your values are not wanted on this campus.

I hope people will remember this president’s message and that future donations and attendance at Valdosta State will reflect this state university’s one-sided support for the disrespect of this country, its flag, its values and its veterans … even if that veteran is a former playmate of the month.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 167 other followers

%d bloggers like this: