Clarifying America's Gun Culture
By Katie PavlichSince NBC sportscaster Bob Costas went on his halftime anti-gun rant on Sunday using words written by Fox Sports Columnist Jason Whitlock, we’ve heard a lot from the media and from uniformed commentators about America’s “gun culture.” The fact is, America actually has two gun cultures and it is important to distinguish them from one another.
The first gun culture is deeply seated in American history and her founding. Founding Fathers like George Washington understood that an armed citizenry would prevent government tyranny, which is why we have the Second Amendment. This is a concept rapper Ice-T understands but sadly doesn’t promote in his songs.
“It’s legal in the United States, it’s part of our constitution. You know, that’s the last defense against tyranny,” Ice-T said in a local television interview last summer.
Each year, more than 75,000 National Rifle Association members meet for the NRA Annual Meetings. The majority of those people carry concealed and every year, everyone who attends that meeting goes home bullet wound-free.
Historically in America we’ve had a deep respect for firearms. The vast majority of people have used them to celebrate American history, for collection, personal protection, hunting and sport. We see American gun culture celebrated each year when dads take their kids elk hunting for the first time. We see it when women head to the range to safely practice shooting their new pink pistols. We see it when a mother shoots an intruder while she is home alone in order to protect her children. We see it practiced when thousands of people sign up for concealed carry permit and hunters’ safety classes each year. Not to mention, the multi-billion-dollar firearms industry employs millions of people and provides the government with billions in tax revenue every year.
The other gun culture in America can be found in the inner city of Chicago, Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles and others. Ironically, violent gun culture is found within gangs in cities with the strictest gun laws. It is the same culture promoted in Hollywood films made by liberals, glorified by rappers whose music is worshiped in violent gang plagued neighborhoods and disrespectfully joked about at NBA parties.
For example, just recently we saw photos of San Antonio Spurs players Tim Duncan and Tony Parker pointing fake guns at the head of a referee they don’t like.
On Saturday morning, a Halloween picture of Tim Duncan and Tony Parker holding fake guns to the head of a Joey Crawford impersonator went viral, surfacing on Reddit and quickly spreading across the Internet.
In the photo, the San Antonio Spurs teammates are pointing fake guns at the back of the head of a man dressed in a makeshift Crawford referee uniform. A noose hangs above the fake Crawford.
Duncan, dressed like the comic book hero The Punisher, presses his fake gun against Crawford's head while Parker, in a leather jacket and an eyepatch, points his fake gun and mugs for the camera.
Crawford is an NBA referee who has a long past with the San Antonio Spurs. In 2007, he ejected Duncan for laughing while on the bench, then allegedly challenged him to a fight. He was fined $25,000 by the NBA.
In cities like Chicago, where 10 murders a weekend is average with more than 436 happening in 2012 alone, the breakdown of the family, lack of firearms education and a missing respect for proper firearms use is to blame for a violent gun culture in addition to the individuals committing the crimes.
Many in the media, including Costas and Whitlock, lump everyone who happens to own a gun into the same gun culture category. Why they do this, only they know. But in the case of former NFL player Jovan Belcher shooting the mother of his child nine times and then taking his own life, there has been no discussion from either newsman about the proper use of a firearm. Hint: It’s not to kill one of your girlfriends because she stayed out too late at a concert.
There are approximately 60 million gun owners and 100 million handguns in America. Each day, the vast majority of those gun owners use their guns properly. That is a gun culture to celebrate.
http://townhall.com/columnists/katiepavlich/2012/12/05/clarifying_americas_gun_culture/page/full/
Real-Life Grinch? Texas Teacher Tells Kindergarteners Santa Is Fake
An Austin, Texas afterschool teacher has one kindergartener’s parents furious after she told students Santa Claus was fake, the Houston Press reported.Susan Tietz Gammage said her 5-year-old daughter, Aven, came home from Pease Elementary School last week and asked if what Mrs. Fuller said was true.
“She said ‘None of you believe in Santa do you?’ and said that you and mommy buy all our presents and put them under the tree. She said that you should tell us the truth,” Gammage said her daughter told them.
Gammage said coming clean about Claus is definitely not the school’s place: “Another adult has no right to submit their own beliefs on a group of 5-year-olds and their families — about Santa, God, politics or whatever — especially phrased ‘your belief is not right,’” she wrote on her Facebook page.
“To break that harsh reality to them in such a brutal way is just wrong,” she told the Houston Press. “Especially since these kids are 5. She is just really getting into Santa.”
It’s apparently not just the one teacher who refused to get into the Christmas spirit — Gammage said another parent told her about another teacher who informed a student that their drawing of Santa Claus needed to be labeled imaginary.
Gammage said she contacted the principal, who was “horrified” by what the instructors had done and gave her daughter’s teacher “tools to deal with this situation” in the future.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/real-life-grinch-texas-teacher-tells-kindergarteners-santa-is-fake/
American Politics as a Confidence Game
....Power, of course, lurks beneath everything a con artist does, but largely, a swindler strives for self-aggrandizement. It's a psychological, ego-stroking thing. Indeed, as John le Carré, the famous British spy novelist, once pointed out, con artists are like traitors in that they relish seeing what they can get away with.
And American con artists have gotten away with a lot in recent years. Consider health care reform, for instance, which was supposed to save ordinary Americans from paying ever higher premiums for their health insurance. However, as Sally Pipes has pointed out, a program that was sold on the premise that it would save families $2,500 per year has, in fact, done the exact opposite, costing families about $2,000 per year since the Affordable Care Act was passed -- a $4,500 difference that will only get worse as the years go by. It's a classic case of a con trick that worked long enough to get the legislation passed and that now will become entrenched in federal bureaucracy indefinitely, costing hugely in the decades to come.
It gets worse. One of the most incredible and successful confidence games recently has centered on claims that the rich don't pay their "fair share," with the implication that the rest of us are shouldering a disproportionate burden of federal income tax payments. Now, the target in this case consists of half the population that pays no federal income taxes at all, along with their "shills" -- supporters -- in the media and elsewhere. The fact that the rich -- say, the top quintile of American tax-filers -- fund almost the entire federal government is irrelevant as far as the con trick is concerned. The better-off know they're being swindled, and those who pay nothing are easily persuaded that somehow they're being taken advantage of by "millionaires and billionaires."
Speaking of what you can get away with, perhaps no better example can be found than the ongoing investigations into the tragic murders of four American officials in Benghazi. Maxwell Smart's signature line in this case can hardly be improved upon: "Would you believe that this was all the result of an insulting video?" Another classic con, or an attempt at one, at least, since the explanation has now been exposed as a sham.
Which leaves us with the fiscal cliff that Congress has been leaning over for some time. The administration's recent proposal provoked a chortle from Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and a weary sigh from House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). "This is not a game," he lamented. Sadly, it is, Mr. Speaker. It's a confidence game. Better get used to it.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/american_politics_as_a_confidence_game.html
Explaining the Progressive attack on Charitable Deductions
Perhaps the most revealing plank of the Progressive agenda is the curious and obsessive attack on the charitable deduction allowance.
It does not require any explanation to conclude that an attack on this deduction is also an attack on the charities themselves. So, why the attack on institutions that do good, conduct research, nurture, and provide for the needy?
First we must acknowledge that the charitable deduction allowance is commonly abused. However, this is not a reason to end the deduction. Foundations that have charitable deduction status have become a mechanism to hide political contributions, payoffs, and fund personal expenses. The Clintons have several foundations. Rahm Emanuel has a foundation. Hank Paulson has a multimillion dollar foundation. There certainly are quirks in other foundations and charities outside of politics. I am certain that there are Republicans that have foundations as well. The abuses are not sufficient reason to end legitimate contributions to legitimate charities. A focus on the issuance of charitable deduction status is a more proper course.
Yet, the Progressives want to toss the charitable deduction allowance baby out with the tub water. Why? Who would be against the Salvation Army, the American Cancer Society, the Community Church, parochial schools, et al? The warm hearted Left, apparently.
Progressives enjoy herding people to the door step of governmental assistance. Food stamps and disability payments and the entire cornucopia that is federal assistance are their pet programs. Charities are an obstruction to a full and total reliance on government.
Those who contribute to charities do so in what they deem to be the most efficient use of their money. They decide. They contribute. The theory being that those who manage their money do so in the most efficient manner. This concept, a free market idea, is an anathema to all that is Progressivism. The best charities will receive the most money. Progressives shun the concept of individual decision making in this instance as well as all others.
Removing the charitable deduction will be devastating to churches and schools affiliated with churches. Without the deduction, churches will lose standing in the community. Parochial schools will suffer to the predictable delight of the teachers unions. The voucher program initiatives will suffer as these alternate school choices come under financial strain and decline. It is no secret that the secular Progressive Left has little use for organized religion, parochial schools, or the school voucher system. Ending charitable deductions is a calculated maneuver to knock the pins out of from under these impediments to the Progressive movement.
It has been said that governments do not share power. The power to provide, the power to subsidize, the power to create a reliant citizenry, are all functions that the Progressives believe should not be shared.
The discomfort that the Progressives see in charitable deductions is a prominent display of how they think and of what they believe. The forwarding of the "Mother Government" concept is their game. Charities, and all that are reliant on those charities, are antiquated obstructions to their mission.
PK's NOTE: Currently on a $4,000,000 VACATION in Hawaii, this is absolutely wrong and shocking:
1.4 BILLION Spent On The Obamas In 2011 – British Taxpayers Only Spent 57.8 Million On The Royal Family
While most of America is suffering through one the worst economic downturns in U.S. history, the Obamas are living the high life at your expense. During 2011, U.S. taxpayers spent an astounding 1.4 billion dollars on the Obamas. Meanwhile, British taxpayers only spent 57.8 million dollars on the entire royal family.Some of the things that Robert Keith Gray has uncovered are absolutely mind blowing. The following are a few facts from his new book....
-Never before has so much money been spent on a president and his family during a single year
-The Obamas have the "biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever"
-While Obama has been in office, Air Force One has been "running with the frequency of a scheduled air line"
-Obama has 469 senior staff working under him, and 226 of them make more than $100,000 a year
-There is always at least one projectionist at the White House 24 hours a day just in case there is someone that wants to watch a movie.
-The "dog handler" for the family dog Bo reportedly makes $102,000 per year and sometimes he is even flown to where the family is vacationing so that he can care for the dog
Are you outraged yet?
When the Obamas are at the White House the expenses are outrageous, but the expenses really kick in to a whole new level when the Obamas go on vacation. But it doesn't seem to trouble the Obamas that many of their vacation trips cost more than many American workers will make in an entire decade....
So how much is too much? It seems that Barack Obama does not have his priorities in order.
Meanwhile, our national debt is growing out of control and the middle class is being absolutely crushed by taxes, regulations and the declining economy that Obama is overseeing. The economy is completely and totally falling apart, and yet the Obamas are partying as if it was 1999. Their attitude seems to be "let them eat cake".
Citigroup to Cut 11,000 Jobs and Take $1 Billion Charge
Citigroup announced on Wednesday that it would cut 11,000 jobs, reducing its work force by roughly 4 percent in an effort to cut costs.Under the reduction, 1,900 jobs will be eliminated in the institutional clients division. Another 6,200 positions will be removed from the bank’s consumer banking business, along with 2,600 jobs in the operations and technology group.
Citigroup has had a turbulent recent history, after teetering on the brink of collapse during the financial crisis and receiving a $45 billion lifeline from the federal government. Since emerging from the financial crisis, it has been sharply reducing its expenses and trying to shed even more troubled assets in an effort to restore the bank to its past profitability.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/citi-to-cut-11000-jobs-and-take-1-billion-charge/?hp
Limiting Government
By Sylvia Bokor
Individual
rights have been bastardized. There is no such thing as "a right to a
job," "a right to health care," "a right to a decent home," et cetera.
No one can transform the actions of those that create products and/or
services into another's purview.
Today, violations of individual rights are so pervasive that many Americans are ignorant of what individual rights actually are and of the extent to which their rights are daily violated.
Individual rights are not rights to the skills, knowledge, and/or products that others create. Individual rights are rights to actions.
The right to life is the freedom to take those actions to sustain one's life. The right to property is the right to keep what one earns. The right to liberty is the freedom to move about freely, uncoerced, to visit and/or live and seek work where one chooses. The right to the pursuit of happiness is the freedom to take those actions that one believes will result in one's enjoyment of life.
Inherent in the principle of individual rights is the proviso that no one may violate the rights of others. There can be no "right" to violate rights.
Yet there is a rapacious violator among us and it is not criminals or confused youngsters. It is government -- i.e., elected and appointed officials.
Do you want to start a business? Politicians violate your rights by demanding that you buy a permit to operate it, practice a given skill, sell certain products, handle various chemicals, operate a machine or a vehicle, construct a building, et cetera.
Do you want to expand your business or find a job? Union leaders and politicians collude to violate your rights through minimum wage laws.
Do you want to move to a state that has a better market for your business? Or maybe you want to merge with another business in order to create a more efficient and profitable operation? Politicians violate your right to life, property, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by demanding you ask their permission.
Politicians' violation of individual rights and regulations is symbiotic. That relationship directly affects the growth of government.
Signed into law in 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act was an unprecedented violation of individual rights. Alleged to be a safeguard against "unfair competition," it opened the door to hundreds of violations of individual rights across the board.
During the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt massive interference in the economy began in earnest. In addition to hundreds of executive orders, Roosevelt and his politicians enacted a quantity of regulations that took virtual control of many areas of business. The most destructive and long-lasting were: ending the gold standard; regulating the banking industry; regulating the stock markets; paying farmers to reduce production; forcing wage earners to pay into a "retirement" fund over which they had no control and no choice of investment; forcing employers to allow unionization of their employees and giving organized labor leaders the right to bargain collectively; mandating minimum wage laws.
Amity Shlaes, senior fellow, the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, "Not only through the New Deal, but also through the 1950s and onward the number of workers in the public sector grew. By 1962 they represented an eighth of the national work force." The government had become a behemoth.
The Federal Register, which publishes all regulations indicates by its number of pages the mammoth surge in regulations. From 1975 to 2011, the number of pages increased from 71,224 in 1975 to 169,301.
As the number of regulations grew, recognition and protection of individual rights shrank completely reversing the intention and meaning of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Government was becoming unlimited; individual rights had become limited.
Between 2008 and 2010 the federal government grew by 143,000 employees. By 2009, the number of federal employees alone was more than 2.10 million. Add the 546,000 Postal Service career employees and the number swells to 2,645,000 federal employees.
In 2011, Obama placed on the regulatory agenda 2,676 new regulations. New agencies were formed. More government workers were hired.
Every time a regulation is enacted, it violates the individual rights of every American. The Affordable Health Care Act best exemplifies this fact. It violates the rights of medical personnel, patients, health insurers, insurance clients, medical suppliers, wage earners of every other kind and every home owner. But that's not the end of it. Taking part in that gang rape of our individual rights, the Supreme Court in effect upheld politicians' right to violate rights. Justice Roberts' opinion argued that it was okay to violate our right to life, i.e., to choose what products to buy, because Congress has the authority to violate our property rights, i.e., to levy taxes.
That Supreme Court decision made way for what some have correctly called "a regulatory tsunami." The Affordable Health Care Law alone has already established -- although the work is not even close to completion -- 180 new boards, commissions and bureaus, and created over 13,000 pages of new regulations.
The Dodd-Frank Act -- an act that further regulates an already over-regulated industry -- presently has more than 200 proposals and rules and is not yet completed.
Elected and appointed officials have passed regulations in almost every profession. The regulations distort business projections, interfere with our choices and plans, inculcate uncertainty and undermine risk-taking. They adversely affect income, job opportunities, and general prosperity as businesspeople seeking to protect their enterprises close their plants and/or farm out work to other nations. Further troubling is that the plethora of regulations is causing our most productive and innovative to opt out of the workforce entirely, diminishing economic growth and future prosperity radically.
And still elected and appointed officials write more regulations.
The one protection Americans have against omnipotent government is recognition and protection of individual rights. It is the only mechanism that effectively limits government in size and scope.
To limit government, violation of individual rights must be forbidden. All elected and appointed officials must be prohibited upon penalty of fines and/or imprisonment from violating individual rights in any way for any reason.
This is the only way to stop the bleeding of our freedoms. It is the only way to limit government. We must demand an end to the violation of individual rights.
Today, violations of individual rights are so pervasive that many Americans are ignorant of what individual rights actually are and of the extent to which their rights are daily violated.
Individual rights are not rights to the skills, knowledge, and/or products that others create. Individual rights are rights to actions.
The right to life is the freedom to take those actions to sustain one's life. The right to property is the right to keep what one earns. The right to liberty is the freedom to move about freely, uncoerced, to visit and/or live and seek work where one chooses. The right to the pursuit of happiness is the freedom to take those actions that one believes will result in one's enjoyment of life.
Inherent in the principle of individual rights is the proviso that no one may violate the rights of others. There can be no "right" to violate rights.
Yet there is a rapacious violator among us and it is not criminals or confused youngsters. It is government -- i.e., elected and appointed officials.
Do you want to start a business? Politicians violate your rights by demanding that you buy a permit to operate it, practice a given skill, sell certain products, handle various chemicals, operate a machine or a vehicle, construct a building, et cetera.
Do you want to expand your business or find a job? Union leaders and politicians collude to violate your rights through minimum wage laws.
Do you want to move to a state that has a better market for your business? Or maybe you want to merge with another business in order to create a more efficient and profitable operation? Politicians violate your right to life, property, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by demanding you ask their permission.
Politicians' violation of individual rights and regulations is symbiotic. That relationship directly affects the growth of government.
Signed into law in 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act was an unprecedented violation of individual rights. Alleged to be a safeguard against "unfair competition," it opened the door to hundreds of violations of individual rights across the board.
During the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt massive interference in the economy began in earnest. In addition to hundreds of executive orders, Roosevelt and his politicians enacted a quantity of regulations that took virtual control of many areas of business. The most destructive and long-lasting were: ending the gold standard; regulating the banking industry; regulating the stock markets; paying farmers to reduce production; forcing wage earners to pay into a "retirement" fund over which they had no control and no choice of investment; forcing employers to allow unionization of their employees and giving organized labor leaders the right to bargain collectively; mandating minimum wage laws.
Amity Shlaes, senior fellow, the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, "Not only through the New Deal, but also through the 1950s and onward the number of workers in the public sector grew. By 1962 they represented an eighth of the national work force." The government had become a behemoth.
The Federal Register, which publishes all regulations indicates by its number of pages the mammoth surge in regulations. From 1975 to 2011, the number of pages increased from 71,224 in 1975 to 169,301.
As the number of regulations grew, recognition and protection of individual rights shrank completely reversing the intention and meaning of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Government was becoming unlimited; individual rights had become limited.
Between 2008 and 2010 the federal government grew by 143,000 employees. By 2009, the number of federal employees alone was more than 2.10 million. Add the 546,000 Postal Service career employees and the number swells to 2,645,000 federal employees.
In 2011, Obama placed on the regulatory agenda 2,676 new regulations. New agencies were formed. More government workers were hired.
Every time a regulation is enacted, it violates the individual rights of every American. The Affordable Health Care Act best exemplifies this fact. It violates the rights of medical personnel, patients, health insurers, insurance clients, medical suppliers, wage earners of every other kind and every home owner. But that's not the end of it. Taking part in that gang rape of our individual rights, the Supreme Court in effect upheld politicians' right to violate rights. Justice Roberts' opinion argued that it was okay to violate our right to life, i.e., to choose what products to buy, because Congress has the authority to violate our property rights, i.e., to levy taxes.
That Supreme Court decision made way for what some have correctly called "a regulatory tsunami." The Affordable Health Care Law alone has already established -- although the work is not even close to completion -- 180 new boards, commissions and bureaus, and created over 13,000 pages of new regulations.
The Dodd-Frank Act -- an act that further regulates an already over-regulated industry -- presently has more than 200 proposals and rules and is not yet completed.
Elected and appointed officials have passed regulations in almost every profession. The regulations distort business projections, interfere with our choices and plans, inculcate uncertainty and undermine risk-taking. They adversely affect income, job opportunities, and general prosperity as businesspeople seeking to protect their enterprises close their plants and/or farm out work to other nations. Further troubling is that the plethora of regulations is causing our most productive and innovative to opt out of the workforce entirely, diminishing economic growth and future prosperity radically.
And still elected and appointed officials write more regulations.
The one protection Americans have against omnipotent government is recognition and protection of individual rights. It is the only mechanism that effectively limits government in size and scope.
To limit government, violation of individual rights must be forbidden. All elected and appointed officials must be prohibited upon penalty of fines and/or imprisonment from violating individual rights in any way for any reason.
This is the only way to stop the bleeding of our freedoms. It is the only way to limit government. We must demand an end to the violation of individual rights.
PK's NOTE: THIS is a blatant example of what is wrong with government:
Detroit Councilwoman’s Actual Rant: We Voted for You, Obama, Now Give Us Some of That Gov’t ‘Bacon
Speaking before the Detroit City Council on Tuesday, Councilwoman
JoAnn Watson said President Barack Obama owes the ailing city a
government bailout because its residents supported him in the 2012
presidential election.
“Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that,” said Watson, according to FOX 2 Detroit. “Of course, not just that, but why not?”
“After the election of Jimmy Carter, the honorable Coleman Alexander Young [Detroit’s former mayor of 20 years and former vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee], he went to Washington, D.C. and came home with some bacon,” she added. “That’s what you do.”
As of this writing, the White House has announced no plans to bailout the crumbling Motor City.
But, you know, this video got us thinking: Following the 2012 presidential election, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and talk radio host Rush Limbaugh were savaged by top GOP leaders for saying President Barack Obama won because he promised to give people “free” stuff.
Romney accused the president of promising “gifts” to minorities, young voters, and women, while Limbaugh dubbed the president “Baracka Claus” (a play on “Santa Claus”).
“In a nation of children,” said Limbaugh, “Santa Claus wins.”
“It’s a proven political strategy, which is give a bunch of money to a group and, guess what, they’ll vote for you,” said Romney.
Romney continued:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/detroit-councilwomans-actual-rant-we-voted-for-you-obama-now-give-us-some-of-that-govt-bacon/
“Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that,” said Watson, according to FOX 2 Detroit. “Of course, not just that, but why not?”
“After the election of Jimmy Carter, the honorable Coleman Alexander Young [Detroit’s former mayor of 20 years and former vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee], he went to Washington, D.C. and came home with some bacon,” she added. “That’s what you do.”
As of this writing, the White House has announced no plans to bailout the crumbling Motor City.
But, you know, this video got us thinking: Following the 2012 presidential election, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and talk radio host Rush Limbaugh were savaged by top GOP leaders for saying President Barack Obama won because he promised to give people “free” stuff.
Romney accused the president of promising “gifts” to minorities, young voters, and women, while Limbaugh dubbed the president “Baracka Claus” (a play on “Santa Claus”).
“In a nation of children,” said Limbaugh, “Santa Claus wins.”
“It’s a proven political strategy, which is give a bunch of money to a group and, guess what, they’ll vote for you,” said Romney.
Romney continued:
What the president did is he gave them two things. One, he gave them a big gift on immigration with the DREAM Act amnesty program, which was obviously very, very popular with Hispanic voters, and then number two was Obamacare … For a home earning — let’s say $30,000 a year — free health care, which is worth about $10,000 a year, I mean it’s massive, it’s huge. So this — he did two very popular things for the Hispanic community.
No comments:
Post a Comment