Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.

          Pres. John Kennedy





Sit down, grab a cup of something, start the video (best to set to "full screen"), open your mind and see if this flies in the face of the myths being pushed hard by our "progressive" anti-2nd Amendment politicos...most notably, President Obama and the ever-corrupt Hillary Clinton.





Is it possible that they don't know? Can President Obama, Hillary Clinton and countless "progressive politicians" be unaware that there absolutely is nothing even close to an epidemic of violence today. In fact, it is just the opposite.

So, let me first address the overall premise...that violent crime is rampant!

Of course, data can be unreliable (the NY Times and Huffington Post, for instance, seem to have a secret stash of bad data which it uses and hopes no one notices) or mistaken because of its methodologies, and it is often attacked to deflect from the underlying issue. so, using objective data is critical. In arriving at my conclusion that the "epidemic" statement is, simply, a massive lie, I've gone to data by the FBI. Surely, even the most deluded activist must agree that no agency knows more or speaks more loudly on all matters  involving crime in the U.S.A..

Here are the facts! Violent crime, in EVERY category is down, WAY DOWN!. The overall crime rate, over the last 15 years, has been in steady decline. In 1994, the overall crime rate was 713.6/per 100,000 of population; in 2013, it was down to 367.9. That's an almost 50% decline. During the same period, murder and non-negligent homicide was down a full 50%, rape by 36%, robbery by 55%.

And, here's a link to the full table, so one can use data to respond accurately and honestly to the chronically "wrong" in the media and politics.

So, this leads us to the question that is foremost in my mind. How are politicians, like Clinton and Obama, who MUST know the truth, daring to argue to impose further restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms because of this mythic "epidemic of violent crime"?

Clearly, there's an agenda here that is driven by something other than an "epidemic". Why would these politicians be deliberately flogging a false premise to solve a problem that doesn't exist? Whenever the government takes an action which restricts the rights of citizens it inevitably shifts that power right into the hands of that government. For years, the federal government, in particular, has been slowly but steadily growing, often by intruding upon the rights of citizens. Today, we have a massive federal bureaucracy of unelected and grotesquely overpaid and pampered handmaidens of the elected class. This has been called the "fourth branch of government", akin to the British ministry form of government.

Anything that bloats that bureaucracy entrenches the party which supports that bloat. Currently, that's the Democrat Party. And it is undeniable that imposing more regulation will grow the bureaucracy under the "feel good" objective of reducing violent crime. That it is highly unlikely we could have a more pronounced and steady decline in crime by relying upon the wrong premise of an epidemic of crime seems irrelevant to these politicians.

The latest arena for this nonsense is gun control. This week, President Obama plans to introduce some meaningless and foolish executive action around gun control. It will also play a role in the upcoming elections. That role is to whip up fear and angst using this false narrative of an "epidemic of violence". 


Caring Can Be Contagious





By now, everyone who gets even a glancing blow from our media knows what's happened at the University of Missouri. In short, a gaggle of really uninformed and childish "students" so mixed our First Amendment with bully totalitarianism that the University's President (obviously a man whose lack of backbone enabled him to slither his way off campus) elected to resign rather than stand up for what's right. The University will certainly be damaged by this activity; not only in its reputation (interestingly enough that reputation includes having one the premier journalism schools in the country), in being seen as a school real students will avoid and, not least of all, in sponsors and donors.

The following video is self-explanatory. These children are so far out of line that it's staggering. For example, one student says the besieged photographer for campus news (and freelancing for ESPN) and a student reporter by the way--are told they can't take photos or interview other students--of their little "encampment"/protest. When one of the young men reminds them that he has as much a First Amendment right to take photos on a public place under circumstances for which there can be no expectation of privacy, they escalated their attacks by blocking his shots, surrounding him, yelling at him and generally acting like a group of out-of-control toddlers.

Watch and bemoan  the state of higher education that is sweeping America. (I am, however, grateful these little cretins gave me an opportunity to actually use the word "bemoan"):

That harshly shrill voice, ironically, belongs to a very "progressive" media professor, Melissa Click, who has written about Lady GaGa's brave stance against--are you ready?--bullying! Prof. Melissa has now become a national object of scorn, mainly for her role in this absurd incident and for being the voice of "we need some muscle over here". 

These kids are in for a very disappointing future. Can you imagine them someday working and having to attend a course on leadership! The sheepish bleating will be deafening.

And now, thanks to blogger Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty Digest for having found it, we can see a very tongue-in-cheek scenario of what our educational future may devolve into if we continue on our current path. It comes from Australia and is simultaneously funny and frightening: