Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

The political left can’t tell the difference between fantasy and real life, and doesn’t care to

original article: The media doesn’t understand guns — and doesn’t want to
October 4, 2017 by Stephen L. Miller

The American political left and mainstream media pundits at large do not understand guns. They are not educated about them and they refuse to learn about them. They could not tell you the difference between an automatic or semi-automatic firearm. They don’t understand what a suppressor does or does not do. It’s safe to say most of them have not heard the term “bump stock” until this week.

What they are, however, is convinced that we need more laws to prevent mass shootings like the one in Las Vegas from happening ever again – and they will host guest after guest on their shows who are not experts in firearms, or firearm training, to lecture the American public at large about why this needs to happen.

If anyone out there on that side of the aisle is wondering why your pleas to “do something” are falling on mostly deaf ears,that would be why.

Democrats would be better off offering up legislation banning high-rise hotels in attempting to make a connection to the Las Vegas shooting than they would suppressors or background checks

It’s a largely one-sided debate happening on cable networks, and it is why those on the right – including everyday Americans and lawful gun owners not responsible for mass shootings or breaking gun laws – largely ignore what is blaring out at them from their televisions and social media.

Column after column is fired off about how much the National Rifle Association donates to congressional candidates (spoiler: it’s not much, about 200K a year). For every breathless declaration that the NRA has blood on their hands, it’s worth noting more journalists have committed mass shootings in this country than NRA members.

Firearm experts in media such as Washington Free Beacon’s Stephen Gutowski (also an NRA-certified instructor), National Review Online Editor Charles Cooke and Federalist co-founder Sean Davis are sidelined from national cable news and Sunday show appearances in favor of guests who suggest suppressors are used by hunters to prevent deer from hearing a fired shot. Gutowski, Cooke and Davis will never be invited on Jimmy Kimmel or Stephen Colbert’s shows to clear up the falsehoods being spread to mass audiences or to defend the second amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Las Vegas narrative jumped to ludicrous speed shortly after the massacre ended when losing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton demanded that we “put politics aside” right before immediately politicizing the shooting in the same tweet. She then went on to state, “Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.” Mrs. Clinton’s claim that firearm suppressors render guns “silent” was given three Pinnocchios by Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post. This of course didn’t matter. Kessler’s fact check went mostly ignored on social media. Clinton’s false tweet about firearm suppressors garnered more than 58,000 retweets on Twitter. Glenn Kessler’s fact check? Thirty.

Kimmel chastised Paul Ryan and the GOP Congress for not enforcing laws about guns that literally do not exist.

Within hours of the Las Vegas shooting, Senator Chuck Schumer was pushing the narrative that the GOP was ramming through legislation to de-regulate silencers. This was also a fabrication. Reporters began shouting questions at Paul Ryan about “Silencer” legislation. The 64-year-old shooter in Las Vegas did not use a suppressor but Democrats have found their shiny object to fixate on – much like the no-fly list post-Orlando – which had nothing to do with the actual tragedy at hand.

Democrats would be better off offering up legislation banning high-rise hotels in attempting to make a connection to the Las Vegas shooting than they would suppressors or background checks.

America’s foremost health care expert, Jimmy Kimmel, once again repeated long-debunked Democrat talking points in another tearful monologue (Las Vegas is his hometown so it’s hard to berate him for showing emotion). Kimmel chastised Paul Ryan and the GOP Congress (again) for not enforcing laws about guns that literally do not exist. These include the so called “gunshow loophole,” an online background check loophole and allowing mentally ill individuals (a move supported by the ACLU) from purchasing firearms. All of these claims have been debunked and yet are ignored by fact-checkers at mainstream outlets and cable news pundits. Stephen Paddock did not have a criminal background, prior record and no evaluations of suspect mental health. So what then?

New York Times Magazine’s Ana Marie Cox tweeted “Man, imagine if the right believed in unfettered access to the ballot box as much as they believed in the right to own guns.” Her sudden support of background checks and voter ID laws (two things needed to purchase a firearm in America) are a welcome surprise.

Politico reporter Dan Diamond tweeted out an email announcement from The American College of Physicians calling for a ban on all automatic and semiautomatic weapons. What Diamond did not reveal is a ban on semiautomatic weapons would include most handguns. I’m not sure members of media know this fact, and more importantly, have demonstrated zero willingness to learn. But sure, let’s put them in charge of the health care debate.

And this is where the credibility chasm exists in media as they continue to parrot Democrat narratives on guns. As the sun rose on Vegas the morning after, and before Americans could grasp the facts of what had happened, Democrat leaders including Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer and their celebrity Hollywood base were already pointing fingers and placing blame without facts and without knowledge.

Law-abiding, gun-owning Americans will not be lectured to about a national tragedy they had nothing to do with, and they certainly won’t be lectured by elitists in media who refuse to understand even a basic grasp or terminology about a sacred constitutional right.

And until they do, we will refuse to have that “conversation” the left and the media keep telling themselves needs to happen.

bias, corruption, crisis, culture, Democrats, ethics, government, gun rights, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, legislation, liberalism, nanny state, pandering, political correctness, politics, progressive, propaganda, public policy, regulation, second amendment, tragedy

Advertisements

Filed under: bias, corruption, crisis, culture, Democrats, ethics, government, gun rights, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, legislation, liberalism, nanny state, pandering, political correctness, politics, progressive, propaganda, public policy, regulation, second amendment, tragedy

Gun control advocate: blanket gun control not the answer

original article: Statistician Who Championed Stringent Gun Control Now Argues Against It After Studying Data
October 3, 2017 by HANK BERRIEN

Writing in The Washington Post, Leah Libresco, a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, the site run by famed statistician Nate Silver, admits that she reversed herself on gun control, evolving from blaming the NRA for gun deaths to realizing more stringent, blanket gun control was not an answer to gun deaths.

Libresco starts by confessing that before she started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate her, and she blamed the National Rifle Association for blocking the banning of assault weapons, restricting silencers, and shrinking magazine sizes.

Then she started analyzing data from the roughly 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and a light bulb went on. She writes that when she examined the evidence, “The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.”

Notably, Libresco dismisses the oft-stated myth that the tight gun laws in Britain and Australia had any relevance for America, as she writes, “Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans.”

Libresco continues, “When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an ‘assault weapon.’ It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.”

Libresco notes, “Silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer.”

Some more reality: “Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them.”

Segueing to the next-largest set of gun deaths, young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides, and the tertiary set, women killed (mostly as the result of domestic violence), Libresco decides, “Few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.”

Libresco writes, “I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. … I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions.”

Suggestions?

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Libresco concludes: “We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.”

crisis, culture, government, gun rights, public policy, reform, science, tragedy
 

Filed under: crisis, culture, government, gun rights, public policy, reform, science, tragedy

The Gun Control Farce

original article: The Gun Control Farce
June 21, 2016 by Thomas Sowell

Surely murder is a serious subject, which ought to be examined seriously. Instead, it is almost always examined politically in the context of gun control controversies, with stock arguments on both sides that have remained the same for decades. And most of those arguments are irrelevant to the central question: Do tighter gun control laws reduce the murder rate?

That is not an esoteric question, nor one for which no empirical evidence is available. Think about it. We have 50 states, each with its own gun control laws, and many of those laws have gotten either tighter or looser over the years. There must be tons of data that could indicate whether murder rates went up or down when either of these things happened.

But have you ever heard any gun control advocate cite any such data? Tragically, gun control has become one of those fact-free issues that spawn outbursts of emotional rhetoric and mutual recriminations about the National Rifle Association or the Second Amendment.

If restrictions on gun ownership do reduce murders, we can repeal the Second Amendment, as other Constitutional Amendments have been repealed. Laws exist to protect people. People do not exist to perpetuate laws.

But if tighter restrictions on gun ownership do not reduce murders, what is the point of tighter gun control laws — and what is the point of demonizing the National Rifle Association?

There are data not only from our 50 states but also from other countries around the world. Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm’s empirical study, “Guns and Violence: The English Experience,” should be eye-opening for all those who want their eyes opened, however small that number of people might be.

Professor Malcolm’s book also illustrates the difference between isolated, cherry-picked facts and relevant empirical evidence.

Many gun control advocates have cited the much higher murder rates in the United States than in England as due to tighter gun control laws in England. But Professor Malcolm’s study points out that the murder rate in New York has been some multiple of the murder rate in London for two centuries — and, during most of that time, neither city had serious restrictions on gun ownership.

As late as 1954, “there were no controls on shotguns” in England, Professor Malcolm reported, but only 12 cases of armed robbery in London. Of these only 4 had real guns. But in the remainder of the 20th century, gun control laws became ever more severe — and armed robberies in London soared to 1,400 by 1974.

“As the numbers of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen” is her summary of that history in England. Conversely, in the United States the number of handguns in American homes more than doubled between 1973 and 1992, while the murder rate went down.

There are relevant facts available, but you are not likely to hear about them from politicians currently pushing for tighter gun control laws, or from the mainstream media, when those facts go against the claims of gun control advocates.

Despite hundreds of thousands of times a year when Americans use firearms defensively, none of those incidents is likely to be reported in the mainstream media, even when lives are saved as a result. But one accidental firearm death in a home will be broadcast and rebroadcast from coast to coast.

Virtually all empirical studies in the United States show that tightening gun control laws has not reduced crime rates in general or murder rates in particular. Is this because only people opposed to gun control do empirical studies? Or is it because the facts uncovered in empirical studies make the arguments of gun control zealots untenable?

In both England and the United States, those people most zealous for tighter gun control laws tend also to be most lenient toward criminals and most restrictive on police. The net result is that law-abiding citizens become more vulnerable when they are disarmed and criminals disobey gun control laws, as they disobey other laws.

The facts are too plain to be ignored. Moreover, the consequences are too dangerous to law-abiding citizens, whose lives are put in jeopardy on the basis of fact-free assumptions and unexamined dogmas. Such arguments are a farce, but not the least bit funny.

civil rights, constitution, culture, gun rights, ideology, law, study

Filed under: civil rights, constitution, culture, gun rights, ideology, law, study

Will Hillary disarm her armed security?

original article: A President Hillary Will Look at Disarming the Citizenry
October 19, 2015 by Sarah Lee

https://i0.wp.com/cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2015/08/29/hillary-clinton-really-is-coming-for-your-guns/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/48027142.cached.jpg

News broke last week that the Democratic frontrunner, you know her as Hillary, has decided that a program of gun confiscation would be “worth considering on a national level,”specifically one that looks like the Australian manadatory gun confiscation program that President Obama likes to throw out when discussing the nexus of school shootings and the 2nd Amendment.

It’s no shock to most conservatives and libertarians that the progressive wing of our political brethren would like to disarm the citizenry. As mentioned, Obama discusses it fairly regularly. And logistically, as RedState points out, it wouldn’t be difficult for a President Hillary (whoa. That’s the first time I’ve written that and it was a bit disconcerting…) to get the ball rolling:

Never mind that it would be unconstitutional under current understanding of the Second Amendment. If she wins, she’d simply appoint people to the Supreme Court who disagree with the Heller decision and are prepared to throw it out. That decision solidified the second amendment as an individual right.

Get ready America. They really are willing to start openly talking about taking your guns.

By the way, Barack Obama has already mentioned Australia’s gun confiscation program four times: here, here, here, and here.

Of course, those who deal in reality know that disarming the citizenry has the effect, as Jim Webb to his credit pointed out at the Democratic debate, of keeping those who want to defend themselves from violence from doing so:

More to the point, as Steven Crowder points out, there’s some debate about the efficiacy of such a program. Oh, and that it would be nothing less than tyranny and an extreme violation of our founding principles. No biggie.

Well, there’s argument about whether the gun related homicides and other various crimes have actually increased or not. Some places have the homicide rate increasing at 3.2% along with armed robbery at 44%, while some other stats have them remaining about the same. At the very least, we do know that the policies have not significantly decreased crime. That’s not even being debated. Which…considering that the Australian government spent a considerable amount of money on the laws, seems at the very least, disappointing.

That’s not to address the most important issue at play here: what the Australian government did was an unfettered act of tyranny. Despite how leftists try to sugarcoat it, the Australian gun “buyback” program was mandatory. That makes it effectively a gun ban. When American leftists support Australian policies, they are absolutely, unequivocally supporting an outright ban on firearms. Disarming a populace is, at it’s very core, the denial of a human right to self-preservation.

It occurs to me that the reason millennials and those progressives courting them are so cavalier about the 2nd Amendment is a result of the very freedom we’ve always enjoyed in this country: the right to bear arms. What I mean is, had we been living under a system where the government long ago prevented us from having that freedom, there would very likely be just as loud a call to have that rule reversed. Funny how easy it is to forget tyranny exists when you live under an umbrella of freedom.

bias, civil rights, crisis, Democrats, elitism, extremism, government, gun rights, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, political correctness, progressive, public policy, reform, relativism, scandal, video

Filed under: bias, civil rights, crisis, Democrats, elitism, extremism, government, gun rights, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, political correctness, progressive, public policy, reform, relativism, scandal, video

Common Core shows more political agenda – this time against guns

Common Core-aligned writing lesson on gun debate fuels claims of political agenda
October 15, 2015 by Perry Chiaramonte

Common Core backers are sneaking a social and political agenda into nationalized curriculum, say critics, who now have new ammo in a writing lesson plan for teachers that they say gives a slanted perspective of the gun debate.

A study guide dubbed, “The Battle Over Gun Control,” authored by KQED, a northern Californian affiliate of National Public Radio, and the nonprofit, taxpayer-subsidized National Writing Project, states that “moderate gun control” measures introduced following the Sandy Hook school massacre were deep-sixed by the “powerful political influence” of the NRA. Second Amendment advocates say the wording, in supplemental material designed to help teachers plan instruction, frames the debate in a one-sided fashion aimed at influencing young minds.

“The issue took center stage in December, when a lone gunman entered an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., killing 20 children and six adults in one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history,” reads an intro from the guide. “Yet, months down the line, the issue remains highly controversial: An attempt to enact moderate new gun control measures this spring was voted down in the Senate, due in part to the powerful political influence of gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association.”

Concerned parents and longtime critics of Common Core say that this is just another example of flaws associated with the federally-imposed standards. While Common Core itself is not technically a curriculum, it drives classroom lessons by imposing a standard, nationalized test. Both private and nonprofit curriculum providers tout their material for its alignment with the standards tested in the Common Core examinations.

“This guide shows that the common core philosophy of education is coming to all schools.” Alice Linahan, founder of Voices Empower, a grassroots organization that opposes Common Core, told FoxNews.com. “It’s a shift from teaching fact to teaching attitudes, belief and behavior.”

Linahan says that she is not so much concerned with the gun-control views in the lesson but that such methods may leave students unprepared for the real world.

“Does a child get a job because they can read well, write well and have competent math skills, or do they get a job for supporting gay marriage and gun control?” she said.

“The Battle Over Gun Control” also lists eight relevant Common Core standards for English, Language Arts and Social Studies and how to use methods like information gathering from varied media and other formats, comprehension of informational texts and analytical writing with substantive arguments. The Department of Education funds the National Writing Project with grants that total more than $25 million annually.

Critics say the guide purports to give both sides of the hotly contested topic, but steers the debate to favor stricter gun control. In what the authors refer to as “key points on the gun control issue” from an NPR blog. The “Topic Background” contained in the guide explains that “interpreting the intent of the framers of the Constitution is at the heart of the gun-control debate.”

The materials offer “guiding questions” for students such as:

-“Are rules and guidelines that were created over 200 years ago still applicable today?”

-“When a greater number of people in our society own guns, are we safer or more at risk?”

-“How accurate is this statement: ‘The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.’”

Other resources provided are an infographic titled, “Armed to the teeth: Gun ownership in America,” and originally published by GOOD magazine, which calls itself “a magazine for the global citizen.”

It is not clear how widely the lesson has been distributed, although schools throughout the country have used lessons prepared by the National Writing Project.” Officials for KQED did not respond to requests for comment.

National Writing Project Executive Director Elyse Eidman-Aadahl said that both her organization and the NPR affiliate stand by the supplemental teaching materials.

“[T]he National Writing Project and KQED both feel it is important for students to engage in fact-based conversations about issues that matter to them, their families, and their communities,” she told FoxNews.com in a written statement.

Linahan says that materials such as “The Battle Over Gun Control” will be continued to be used in schools nationwide if the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides funding for schools, is re-authorized.

“What will be mandated in the act, if it’s renewed, will continue a shift in our education system and makes it federal law,” she said, adding that her organization, Voices Empower, is looking to campaign against the upcoming re-authorization.

The Common Core State Standards Initiative was devised by an association of the nation’s governors and backed by the Obama administration in 2009 with the goal of setting a uniform standard for grades K-12 nationwide. Some 45 states, in many cases enticed by federal grants, have signed on and are testing students in grades 3-8 and once in high school.

Critics of the initiative maintain that it is not the federal government’s job to impose educational standards.

bias, bureaucracy, children, culture, education, gun rights, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy, reform, scandal, second amendment

Filed under: bias, bureaucracy, children, culture, education, gun rights, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy, reform, scandal, second amendment

Cornell Professor Takes on “Gun-Free Zones”

original article: Cornell Professor Takes on “Gun-Free Zones”
October 5, 2015 by Shawn

The media always carries water for the Democrats, but they’ve been worse than usual following the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. Perhaps inspired by President Obama’s ignorant rant hours after the tragedy, the mainstream news organizations have decided this mass shooting is about one thing and one thing only: gun control.

It’s therefore a little surprising that USA Today gave William Jacobson, a professor at Cornell University, space in their op-ed section to promote the opposite point of view. Apparently you have to throw the gun-rights crowd a small bone now and then so you can have plausible deniability when people accuse your newspaper of advocacy journalism, aka, left-wing bias.

“In other mass shootings, the shooters’ motivations have varied, from racism to religion to anti-religion,” wrote Jacobson. “There has not been a single common theme, except for one.”

According to the professor, the one thing that ties these mass shootings together is the fact that almost all of them have taken place in so-called “gun-free zones.” In other words, Umpqua Community College – like the theater in Aurora, Sandy Hook Elementary, Columbine, and the black church in Charleston (to name just a few) – banned firearms on the premises. Strangely enough, that did not deter Christopher Mercer.

Gun-free zones presume the good intentions of those entering the zone. And the overwhelming majority have such good intentions. But for those who have bad intentions, gun-free zones turn schools and other locations into shooting galleries. The good people are unarmed, the evil person is armed.

Why is this so hard for gun control advocates to understand? A child could see the simple logic here. Yes, the college banned firearms. They also, presumably, had firm rules against murder. If someone is willing to put their life and freedom in jeopardy to kill others, they aren’t going to be stopped by a policy banning guns. This is kindergarten stuff, seriously. But we keep hearing the same tired refrain from the left, as though any argument can trump this obvious counter.

Some have claimed that these killers actually seek out gun-free zones, knowing they will be less likely to run up against armed resistance. That may be true, but there’s not much evidence to support this assertion. In most cases, the killer is either shooting up a place he has some connection to or is simply looking for a place where a lot of people will be gathered together. It just so happens that most of these places are also gun-free zones, making their murderous job a lot easier.

Liberals wave away the idea of a gun-toting hero as a conservative fantasy. They claim that it’s just going to lead to more violence. But no one’s talking about making it mandatory for everyone to carry. We’re merely saying that Americans should have the right and the ability to defend themselves. We should not be forced – by either the law or private policy – to become helpless victims, just relying on hope to keep us safe from people like the Oregon shooter. No government has the right to put its citizens in mortal danger, least of all this one.

bias, crisis, Democrats, extremism, gun rights, ideology, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, progressive, propaganda, public policy, second amendment, tragedy

Filed under: bias, crisis, Democrats, extremism, gun rights, ideology, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, progressive, propaganda, public policy, second amendment, tragedy

No free speech for gun rights?

original article: Lawsuit filed over NRA T-shirt at middle school
May 11, 2015 by Kate White

The mother of a teenager who wore a National Rifle Association T-shirt to school is suing the Logan County Board of Education alleging her son’s constitutional rights were violated.

Tanya Lardieri filed the lawsuit in federal court last month on behalf of her son, Jared Marcum. Marcum was charged in 2013 by police with disrupting an educational process and obstructing an officer after he was asked to turn the shirt inside out or face suspension by Logan Middle School staff. A judge later dismissed the charges.

The lawsuit seeks $200,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages. Shana Thompson, attorney for the school board, couldn’t be reached Monday. Lardieri and Marcum are represented by Chapmanville attorney Ben White.

On April 18, 2013, the lawsuit states, Marcum, a member of the National Rifle Association, who was 14 at the time, wore a pro-Second Amendment T-shirt to the middle school.

“The shirt was an un-alarming olive green tee shirt bearing the NRA logo, which is the letters ‘NRA’ in black, the words ‘PROTECT YOUR RIGHT,’ an image of a hunting rifle and the Official NRA Logo which has an Eagle and two crossed firearms,” the complaint states.

Marcum was approached by faculty during his lunch period and asked to remove the shirt or turn it inside out. He was taken to the principal’s office when he refused. He was suspended for one day, according to previous Gazette reports.

The lawsuit claims the shirt complied with the county and school’s dress code policies at the time and didn’t display a violent or threatening image.

Marcum now attends Logan County High School. The lawsuit identifies him only by his initials, but the incident has previously been reported by the Gazette, as Marcum and his parents have spoken publicly about it. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Johnston in Charleston.

Also named in the lawsuit as defendants are: Phyllis Adkins, who was president of the school board at the time of the incident; William Davis, vice president of the board; Mark McGrew, the board’s current president; Pat White and James Frye, both board members; Wilma Zigmond, superintendent of Logan County schools; Ernestine Sutherland, principal of Logan Middle School; David Burroway, Howard Rockhold and Christopher Marcus, all teachers at Logan Middle; and the school’s secretary Anita Gore.

children, civil rights, culture, education, free speech, gun rights, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, progressive, relativism, scandal, second amendment

Filed under: children, civil rights, culture, education, free speech, gun rights, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, progressive, relativism, scandal, second amendment

You know there’s no such thing as a perfect political candidate, right?

A story from Epic Times relates a poll on the viability of a Ben Carson candidacy for president:

ONLY 31% SAY BEN CARSON IS THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT
May 5, 2015 by EpicTimes

The biggest grievance I’ve heard about Dr. Carson is his comments on the 2nd Amendment. In asking whether Carson is the right man for the job, one comment exemplified many others I’ve seen elsewhere:

carson_guns

Now, it’s worth noting a few things here. This person “Julie” seems to think she knows exactly what Carson believes about guns (possible, but I have my doubts) and that this issue alone is enough for her to consider him unworthy of being president. Hmm. Are there single issues that should make or break a candidate? Sure, I think so.

There are some pass/fail issues on my list. By pass/fail, I don’t mean I’ll gladly vote for a candidate simply if that person espouses what I think are the correct beliefs on such and such issues. I mean there are several hoops for a candidate to pass before I’ll even consider voting for them. Abortion would be one such issue: if you’re willing to play semantic games with personhood, denying children in the womb all civil rights (sometimes even children outside the womb) merely for the convenience of someone else, I don’t believe I can trust you with anyone’s rights. Do you remember who else from human history used the “they’re not really people” argument? If you’re willing to take that road, you’re not getting my vote. Other issues are heavy like this one; acknowledging that the most innocent of humanity have the right to life just like the rest of us is merely the first such hoop for me.

The second amendment is a pretty big issue too, I think. Now, most of the criticism of Carson on the issue of gun rights seem to mindlessly treat him as though Carson approves of any and all gun control legislation. He doesn’t. From what I’ve heard him say, Dr. Carson’s concerns about gun violence are hardly the same as the rabidly anti-gun control freak progressives. We conservatives like to say we’re far more open minded and intellectually honest that the political left. That’s often true, but it’s something that has to be proven every day. Conservatives are the last people who should be proving this statement by Dr. Carson:

Sometimes people just hear one little thing and they don’t hear anything else.

So you heard Carson say something about guns that you don’t like. I’m with you. But have you actually paid attention to the other things he’s said on that same issue?

DR. BEN CARSON AGAINST GUN REGISTRATION: WE ‘SHOULD BE REALLY CONCERNED’ ABOUT MARTIAL LAW

Ben Carson On Gun Rights: 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Cover Tanks, Rocket Launchers

Now, I’m not sure I agree with Carson about that tanks and rocket launchers, but I’m not sure I disagree with him either. But he’s totally right about gun registration. If you’ve not taken the time to actually research Dr. Carson on the gun rights issue you should show some of that open mindedness you believe you posses: Attacking Ben Carson Over Gun Conrol.

When people condemn Carson for his supposed stance on gun control (either because they aren’t paying attention or because he needs to clarify a few things) it sure sounds like they are demanding perfection, especially when they don’t seem to care about anything else he has to offer.

There could be some merit to the issue of Carson’s lack of political experience. Then again, political experience (like handing out forms) hasn’t been such a valuable asset to people who’ve been running the country has it? However, political incompetence is not sufficient to explain the current troubles the United States is experiencing. In fact, with what President Obama is doing it seems like he is succeeding in precisely what he set out to do, things like “fundamentally transforming America”. The harm we’re suffering as a nation is the natural result of Obama’s philosophy. That’s the embedded progressive, “government knows best” philosophy that’s been employed for decades. Obama is merely the latest player in that long tradition of concentrating power. Dr. Carson has the opposite philosophy, something that hasn’t been tried in a generation. That’s worth something to me.

And because Carson isn’t a professional politician he’s not trained in the fundamental flaws of politics: peddling influence and spending other people’s money. I don’t want a professional liar in the oval office. I’ve had enough of that. I don’t want a political insider running things whose time is largely occupied by paying back political favors gathered over a lengthy career in politics. I don’t want a president beholden to innumerable special interests. I want someone running the show who knows how to make a living outside the public sector, whose made a name for him/her self doing some grand things of his/her own initiative.

Republicans have a reputation for eating each other’s candidates alive long before the primary elections. Republicans also have a reputation for being very logical and driven by common sense while simultaneously being politically stupid. Some of those descriptions are good and should remain, but the other things need to change. Attacking each other’s preferred candidate has worked great in the past, right? Why don’t we save that sort of thing for the general election in 2016 instead?

american, bias, campaign, conservative, culture, elections, government, gun rights, ideology, politics, Republicans, right wing, second amendment, video

Filed under: american, bias, campaign, conservative, culture, elections, government, gun rights, ideology, politics, Republicans, right wing, second amendment,

Common Core: You have rights ‘in certain situations’

November 17, 2014 by Dave Jolly

Brad McQueen is a public school teacher in Tucson, Arizona. He was also a Common Core insider who became aware of the dangers of curriculum. Those dangers so alarmed McQueen that he wrote the anti-Common Core book The Cult of Common Core: Obama’s Final Solution for Your Child’s Mind and Our Country’s Exceptionalism.

One day recently, he discovered that a US Constitution/Bill of Rights poster that hung in his classroom was not teaching the truth. The poster, created by the Arizona Foundation for Legal Services and Education had paraphrased the Second Amendment in such a way as to teach a lie. The poster read:

“You have the constitutional right to, in certain situations, ‘keep and bear arms’ without government interference.”

Note that whoever wrote the poster stated ‘in certain situations’ which is nowhere stated in the Second Amendment or Constitution. McQueen goes on to explain that there is a purposeful effort to teach specific liberal concepts in today’s public education instead of the truth.

McQueen wrote:

“When I was working on the Common Core test last year, the PARCC exam, I was told that the new Common Core way of writing and thinking demands that kids cite the ‘experts’ in the texts that are presented to them on the exam when writing their essays and not rely on their own thinking or opinions.”
“I was told that if they wrote about their own opinions or their own thinking that they would fail the Common Core test.”

“I was also told that they expected that teachers would mimic this new Common Core way of writing and thinking in their classroom instruction. The true goal of Common Core is to have kids parrot back talking points, determined by the administration in power no doubt, rather than to truly think for themselves.”

“What if a teacher used the ‘expert’ opinion put forth on the erroneous U.S. Constitution poster I have in my classroom? With a few small changes in wording to our founding documents kids would be presented with quite a different view of their rights guaranteed in those same documents.”

“Kids instructed in the Common Core method of thinking and writing would know that they had better parrot back the ‘experts’ on that poster, or the experts in their Common Core aligned textbooks as their grades, their test scores, and their teachers’ paychecks may depend on their mastery of this skill.”

“Luckily, I caught the bogus wording of the Second Amendment on the class poster and my class and I compared the poster’s wording to the original document, the U.S. Constitution.”

“The kids in my class were furious and I liked that they were furious. It shows that our kids are still independent thinkers. However, as Common Core takes hold that will all be changing soon and perhaps in just one generation.”

Like McQueen, others have been warning that Common Core is more interested in training students to believe and think the way liberals want them to think and believe than they are in teaching the truths. It is nothing more than a socialist propaganda brainwashing tool designed to raise a generation of good socialist comrades. That’s why it is so important to repeal and replace Common Core in every state as soon as possible before it’s too late. As McQueen said, it could happen in just one generation and your kids and grandkids are that generation being targeted.

original article: Common Core Insider Teacher Warns of Common Core Brainwashing

bias, children, constitution, education, freedom, government, gun rights, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, reform, second amendment

Filed under: bias, children, constitution, education, freedom, government, gun rights, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, reform, second amendment

University officials threaten students passing out U.S. Constitution

University officials threaten students passing out U.S. Constitution
October 14, 2014 by Kaitlyn Schallhorn

University officials threatened to call the police and disciplinary action against students who were passing out copies of the U.S. Constitution at Southern Oregon University (SOU) last week.

A group of four students at SOU handed out copies of the Constitution on campus Tuesday while collecting signatures to end the university’s restrictive speech policies, which limit free speech to an area that totals less than one percent of campus. While doing so, the students were approached multiple times by school administrators and campus police who all asked the students to move to a different area of campus.

“We encountered wild accusations that because the event was affiliated with SCC, there was legitimate fear for the imminent danger of students on campus.”   

“I would very much like you to leave, if you would, please, because the students have the right to be able to come by here without you guys, you know, invading their space and asking them to do something,” Tim Robitz, director of university housing, can be heard telling the students in an exclusive video obtained byCampus Reform.

School administrators threatened to call the police on the students when the group did not leave. One of the students in attendance told Campus Reform that some administrators resorted to “personal attacks” and threatened disciplinary action.

“We have our free speech zone. I understand that you may not like it, but that’s where it is,” Allyson Beck, SOU’s family housing coordinator, told the students in the video.

WATCH: Officials confront pro-Second Amendment students

The four students are affiliated with Students for Concealed Carry (SCC), a nonpartisan student organization that advocates for concealed carry rights on college campuses.

“We encountered wild accusations that because the event was affiliated with SCC, there was legitimate fear for the imminent danger of students on campus,” SCC member Stephanie Keaveney told Campus Reform after the incident. “Administrators accused us of causing an immediate panic for the safety of students in the face of gun violence, or the promotion of such.”

Campus police did inform the group that they had received a complaint from another student who said he felt uncomfortable, although members of SCC told Campus Reform that not a single student complained to them.

“[S]tudents on this campus were in no way framing themselves to be a legitimate threat to safety or inciting unlawful behavior,” Keaveney said. “This action was only related to SCC in that its members on this campus believe in order to fight for our second amendment rights; we must first be free to exercise our first amendment rights.”

Besides asking the group to move to the designated free speech zone, SOU officials asked the students to make sure they were explaining to their peers why the free speech zone exists in the first place.

“Well I just think if you’re going to ask someone to sign a petition, it’s always helpful if you’re explaining both sides of the petition–why the policy exists is certainly useful as opposed to saying ‘we want this,” Robitz can be heard telling the students in the video.

While Robitz did tell the students he would be willing to sit down and have a conversation about SOU’s speech policies, but that “doesn’t necessarily mean [he] supports doing it.”

“If you’re asking me if I support it, I don’t think I could say yes or no at this point because clearly there’s a number of reasons why it exists and I think we need to look at all those–good, bad, and indifferent–because it’s not just about the free speech of students,” Robitz told the students in the video. “When you open it up to free speech that means anyone anywhere can come on here and do that and that might create some other challenges for this campus that we’re not prepared to manage.”

Students were handing out the free Constitutions in what SOU considers a “residential area” because of its close proximity to residence halls. The four students didn’t have a table and stayed on a sidewalk which led to a main road.

“Caging students in censorship zones flies in the face of the First Amendment and undermines the reason for education,” David Hacker, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, toldCampus Reform. “Colleges and universities are and should be the marketplace of ideas, and the Constitution protects the speech rights of everyone, not just groups or students that a few university officials personally choose.”

Keaveney confirmed to Campus Reform that city police never approached the student group or asked them to leave. She also said that so far the university hasn’t taken any action against the students despite the threats to the contrary.

“While it is lawful for the university to maintain policies prohibiting activities which genuinely disrupt the educational process, restricting speech as acutely as SOU has by instituting and upholding the free speech zone is grossly more broad than necessary to ensure the educational process is not interrupted,” she said.

Neither Beck nor Robitz responded to a request for comment from Campus Reform.

A university spokesperson did confirm to Campus Reform that the incident took place but did not say if the students would be further disciplined.

Another view of the incident: 

UPDATE: In an email Tuesday afternoon, SOU confirmed to Campus Reform that it has no plans to further discipline the students.

original article: University officials threaten students passing out U.S. Constitution

abuse, bias, bullies, censorship, constitution, education, free speech, freedom, government, gun rights, left wing, liberalism, oppression, power, progressive

Filed under: abuse, bias, bullies, censorship, constitution, education, free speech, freedom, government, gun rights, left wing, liberalism, oppression, power, progressive

Pages

Categories

October 2017
M T W T F S S
« Aug    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031