Archive for September 2015
The Center for Medical Progress’s shocking video investigation into Planned Parenthood has exposed the latter’s disturbing pro-abortion agenda and has demanded action from Congress. The House Judiciary Committee is trying to come up with some answers, launching its own probe into the controversial organization and holding its first hearing on Planned Parenthood Wednesday morning: “Planned Parenthood Exposed: Examining the Horrific Abortion Practices at the Nation’s Largest Abortion Provider.” While the list of grievances against Planned Parenthood may seem endless, specifically at today’s hearing the panelists focused on late-term abortion, the harvesting of fetal organs and a history of the nation’s abortion laws.
Emotions at today’s hearing were especially high, because two of the witnesses who took the stand were actual survivors of failed abortions.
A full room, both of pro-life activists and pro-Planned Parenthood supporters wearing those infamous pink shirts, [Read more…]
“Front sight. Press.”
Thug culture claimed another victim recently, when 16-year-old Lavauntai Broadbent and three other young violent offenders attempted to rob a couple out enjoying a nice evening in a St. Paul, Minnesota park. One of the the two victims was a concealed carrier who reacted to the sight of Broadbent’s (illegally possessed) gun by drawing his licensed concealed weapon and firing in lawful self-defense.
Four juvenile males approached the adults Friday night and one, wearing a mask and gloves, pulled a handgun and tried to rob the adults, police said. One of the victims has a permit to carry a handgun, pulled his own weapon and shot the suspect, they told police. The teenage suspect from West St. Paul died at the scene near a World War I monument at Summit Avenue and Mississippi River Boulevard.
Lavauntai Broadbent, who was to start 11th grade at Henry Sibley High School in Mendota Heights in the fall, had already been on the radar of police.
Broadbent pleaded guilty to a gang-related gross misdemeanor charge in May, though he denied he was a gang member, saying he’d only hung out with them, according to a juvenile petition.Broadbent’s family regarded him as sweet and funny, but said he had also become “messed up with the wrong crowd,” according to Shawn Distad, a family friend whom Broadbent called “Auntie.” “He did silly stuff, but nothing to hurt anybody and that’s what’s really confusing about this, if it is true, that he did go to rob somebody,” Distad said Monday. “That’s not his character. He was a loving kid.”
The concealed carrier immediately attempted to provide first aid to Broadbent. Broadbent’s “every man for himself” criminal friends ran off, but were subsequently arrested.
One thing that seems to come up consistently in the stories we post of Guns Saving Lives is that the friends and family members of young violent offenders almost universally refuse to admit—even to themselves—is that the violent offender is a violent offender.
How many times have we heard from the friends and relatives of dead and injured armed robbers that “he was a good boy,” and that his violent crimes were “out of character,” even though theses young criminals almost always have prior arrests? It’s so predictable that journalists have developed a rote formula for telling the stories of their deaths: summarize the crime that got the young offender killed, mention his prior arrests, and then interview family and friends who claim that the special young snowflake was on his way to do great things, if it wasn’t for that infamous “wrong crowd” of which he was, somehow, never actually a part.
It’s past time that we be blunt. What we’ve taken to calling “thug culture” thrives because the lifestyle is warmly, publicly accepted, especially in some minority communities.
Pathetically, “thug life” and “gangsta” culture is not just popularized, but is celebrated in music and in Hollywood. Even the President of the United States warmly interacts violent former drug dealers.
Then the same people who vilify the police cry out in anger that the very criminal culture they are encouraging has turned on them. It would be comical, if innocent people weren’t being caught in the crossfire.Instead of looking inward to solve the thug culture problem, an Obama-inspired (and Marxist and socialist supported) “Black Lives Matter” movement has been created that attacks law enforcement for daring to combat this violent thug culture. The end result is that law enforcement has been all but driven from some communities, which has led to an increase in violent behavior by the thug culture people of all races should be working to eradicate.
Unfortunately, this thug culture will persist as long as it is celebrated, defended, and even denied. Until real leaders step forward to stop this behavior, we’ll continue to see good guys with guns like this concealed carrier in St. Paul being forced into a situation where they must shoot these violent young men in order to protect their own lives, and the lives of other law-abiding citizens.
It’s a shame that things have to be this way, but you cannot help those who do not wish to be helped, and who consistently attack those who would help them. All law-abiding citizens can do in such an environment is to arm themselves, get trained, and when they encounter a violent criminal like Lavauntai Broadbent, remember three important words.
If it’s a new day, then there must be another article in Politico about Republican efforts to politically assassinate Ted Cruz. For everyone who thinks only Donald Trump (or the amnesty loving Ben Carson) is the only genuine outsider who has the credentials to fight the Washington, D.C. establishment, read about the one man who has actually been doing it. Once again, Ted Cruz is trying to defund Planned Parenthood, and once again, Vichy Republicans are gearing up to frag Cruz’s big tent:
Ted Cruz says his hard-line strategy to defund Planned Parenthood and risk a government shutdown is about doing the “right thing” and following through on Republicans’ vows to conservative voters.
But many of his Republican colleagues say it’s really all about Cruz.
Yes, it is really about Cruz. It’s about their hatred of him. And if you think defunding the abortion mills is “hard line,” perhaps you might prefer Kelly Ayotte’s “soft line” views about acquiesing in funding virtual infanticide instead: [Read more…]
Newly released tax returns from Hillary Clinton, disclosed in a Friday evening news dump last week, suggest she has been using a Death Tax avoidance strategy. Through the creation of a trust account, the Clintons appear to be engaging in legal but hypocritical measures to avoid paying the Death Tax Hillary Clinton has spent a career defending.
Clinton has consistently voted for the Death Tax throughout her time in public office and forcefully condemned attempts to lower it. But when it comes to her own finances, it is a different story. The newly released tax returns buttress earlier reports outlining the ways Clinton uses financial planning strategies that shield her Death Tax liability.
According to a 2014 report by Bloomberg News, the Clintons created trusts in 2010 and shifted ownership of their New York home to it in 2011. In doing so, they will avoid paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in future death taxes. As the Bloomberg report states: [Read more…]
By Jerry Novick
Given its general “live and let live” nature, the Libertarian political platform declares abortion a personal choice that should not be interfered with by government. Yes, I know, it’s both ironic and contradictory, given that abortion ends a life.
But basically, that’s the Libertarian approach to everything – economic freedom, social issues, and foreign policy: don’t intervene in anything unless it can be plainly seen as absolutely necessary. And for some reason, the Libertarian Party platform does not find it necessary to protect the liberty of gestating life.
But what if there actually is an “absolutely necessary” case for being Pro-Life? Would it be powerful enough to turn Libertarians into socially conservative voters?
I sure hope so – because protecting the rights of unborn children is absolutely necessary for the survival of Liberty in America.
The Liberty case for pro-life politics is actually rather apparent: [Read more…]
by Bob Owens
An elderly California women thwarted two home invaders with the only practical tool for the job:
An elderly woman took hold of a firearm to scare off two men who entered her Big Sur home and attempted to rape her on Sunday, according to the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office.
Around 9 p.m. Sunday, deputies responded to a report of an attempted home invasion in the 37000 block of Garrapatos Road, about 2 miles east of state Highway 1, sheriff’s officials said.
Two men armed with knives entered the home and made their way into a bedroom, where they tried to rob and rape an elderly woman, according to sheriff’s officials.
The woman was able to defend herself with a firearm, sheriff’s officials said.
This is just the latest example of a firearm being used for self-defense by a law-abiding citizen who has no other viable self-defense options.
So many people who complain about armed self-defense are relatively young and relatively healthy with little experience with violent crime. They delude themselves into thinking that they can either defeat an attacker with a punch or kick, which is typically something they’ve imagined, but never practiced, and certainly not against a living opponent who is likely much stronger, faster, and resistant to punches than they ever imagined. Alternately, they think they could somehow get away from an attacker, summon help that will arrive in a timely manner, or use some sort of chemical spray or other less lethal alternative at contact or near-contact distances, which again, they’ve never actually practiced.
Sadly, this is based on self-delusion, and I’ve listened to survivors of violent assaults tell me how powerless they felt when they realized, too late, that they were not physically strong enough to defend themselves against an attacker.
A firearm is the great equalizer. It enables a competent person to practically defend themselves when relative size, strength, and numbers are not in their favor.
As the apocryphal advertising slogan attributed to both Winchester and Colt stated in the late 19th Century:
“Be not afraid of any man Who walks beneath the skies, For be he tall or be he strong, I will equalize.”
Two weeks ago I wrote a piece titled, Exposing The Black Lives Matter Movement For What It Is: Promotion of Cop Killing. In the piece, I pointed to evidence of cop killer glorification and rhetoric used by the movement promoting the execution of police officers. After all, “pigs in a blanket” is a heinous description of dead police officers in body bags. You can read the piece in fullhere.
Over the weekend, Kentucky State Trooper Joseph Cameron Ponder was trying to help Joseph Thomas Johnson-Shanks during a traffic stop. After discovering Johnson-Shanks’ license was expired, Ponder was shot dead. Eventually Johnson-Shanks was chased down by other officers and when he refused to drop his weapon, he was killed.
It turns out, Johnson-Shanks was part of the Black Lives Matter Movement, the bogus “hands up don’t shoot” narrative and attended the funeral of Michael Brown (who was killed by a police officer after attempting to take away his firearm in a patrol car) in Ferguson, Missouri last year. WeaselZippers has the exclusive:
He had a long criminal history. But perhaps significantly one arrest, for ‘interfering with an officer’ was on August 11, two days after Michael Brown was killed. Not only was he a Ferguson protester, but he went to Michael Brown’s funeral and burial in a limo the type usually reserved for family or close friends. In that limo he is riding with people from NAN, Al Sharpton’s group.
Meanwhile, 25 police officers have been killed this year. Many of them have been executions and ambushes.
By John Hawkins
To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. — Charles Krauthammer
Even liberals who’ve accomplished a lot in their lives and have high IQs often say things on a regular basis that are stunningly, profoundly stupid and at odds with the way the world works. Modern liberalism has become so bereft of common sense and instinctually suicidal that America can only survive over the long haul by thwarting the liberal agenda. In fact, liberalism has become such a toxic and poisonous philosophy that most liberals wouldn’t behave differently if their goal were to deliberately destroy the country. So, how does liberalism cause well-meaning, intelligent liberals to get this way? Well, it starts with…
1) Liberalism creates a feedback loop. It is usually impossible for a non-liberal to change a liberal’s mind about political issues because liberalism works like so: only liberals are credible sources of information. How do you know someone’s liberal? He espouses liberal doctrine. So, no matter how plausible what you say may be, it will be ignored if you’re not a liberal and if you are a liberal, of course, you probably agree with liberal views. This sort of close-mindedness makes liberals nearly impervious to any information that might undermine their beliefs.
2) Liberals sources of information are ever present. Conservatives are regularly exposed to the liberal viewpoint whether they want to be or not. That’s not necessarily so for liberals. Imagine the average day for liberals. They get up and read their local newspaper. It has a liberal viewpoint. They take their kids to school, where the teachers are liberal. Then they go to work, listen to NPR which has a liberal viewpoint on the way home, and then turn on the nightly news which also skews leftward. From there, they turn on TV and watch shows created by liberals that lean to the left, if they have any political viewpoint at all. Unless liberals actively seek out conservative viewpoints, which is unlikely, the only conservative arguments they’re probably going to hear are going to be through the heavily distorted, poorly translated, deeply skeptical lens of other liberals.
3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it’s designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn’t work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they’re “protecting the environment” even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it’s not what a program does in the real world; it’s about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.
4) Liberals are big believers in moral relativism. This spins them round and round because if the only thing that’s wrong is saying that there’s an absolute moral code, then you lose your ability to tell cause from effect, good from bad, and right from wrong. Taking being non-judgmental to the level that liberals do leaves them paralyzed, pondering “why they hate us” because they feel incapable of saying, “That’s wrong,” and doing something about it. If you’re against firm standards and condemning immoral behavior, then your moral compass won’t work and you’ll also be for immorality, as well as societal and cultural decay by default.
5) Liberals tend to view people as parts of groups, not individuals. One of the prejudices of liberalism is that they see everyone as part of a group, not as an individual. This can lead to rather bizarre disparities when say, a man from a group that they consider to be powerless, impoverished victims becomes the leader of the free world — and he’s challenged by a group of lower middle class white people who’ve banded together because individually they’re powerless. If you listen to the liberal rhetoric, you might think Barack Obama was a black Republican being surrounded by a KKK lynching party 100 years ago — as opposed to the single most powerful man in America abusing the authority of his office to attack ordinary Tea Partiers who have the audacity to speak the truth to power for the good of their country.
6) Liberals take a dim view of personal responsibility. Who’s at fault if a criminal commits a crime? The criminal or society? If someone creates a business and becomes a millionaire, is that the result of hard work and talent or luck? If you’re dirt poor, starving, and haven’t worked in 5 years, is that a personal failing or a failure of the state? Conservatives would tend to say the former in each case, while liberals would tend to say the latter. But when you disconnect what an individual does from the results that happen in his life, it’s very difficult to understand cause and effect in people’s lives.
7) Liberals give themselves far too much credit just for being liberal. To many liberals, all one needs to do to be wise, intelligent, compassionate, open minded, and sensitive is to BE LIBERAL. In other words, many of the good things about a person spring not from his actions, but from the ideology he holds. This has an obvious appeal. You can be a diehard misogynist, but plausibly call yourself a feminist, hate blacks, but accuse others of racism, have a subpar IQ and be an intellectual, give nothing to charity and be compassionate, etc., etc., and all you have to do is call yourself a liberal. It’s a shortcut to virtue much like the corrupt old idea of religious indulgences. Why live a life of virtue when you could live a sinful life and buy your way into heaven? If you’re a liberal, why actually live a life of virtue when you can merely call yourself a liberal and get credit for being virtuous, even when you’ve done nothing to earn it?
By Paul Pauker
Recently, a number of conservative writers and commentators, includingCharles Krauthammer, have condemned the “mass” deportation of illegal immigrants as immoral. Of course, the deportation of illegal immigrants also involves legal and economic issues, but the arguments regarding these issues have been ably made elsewhere by advocates on both sides. The issue here is morality.
When declaring that such deportations are immoral, the advocates of this position have more often than not simply made the declaration, and then failed to explain how exactly such deportations are immoral. The word “mass” is being deliberately used to incite an emotional response: mass murder is horrific, mass rape is horrific, so advocates are cleverly using the word “mass” in place of any coherent argument to back up their claim. Basically, the word “mass” is being used to try to silence those who oppose the lenient policies regarding illegal immigration, such as amnesty, that are favored by Democrats and the Republican establishment.
However, mass murder is horrific because it involves one injustice, a murder, and then it multiplies that one injustice many times. In other words, mass murder is horrific because even one murder is an injustice, and therefore mass murder is amass injustice. And the same principle applies to mass rape. But this principle does not apply to mass deportations because, unlike murder and rape, deportation is not unjust. The deportation of an immigrant illegally present in a nation is just, under any reasoned definition of just.
Even liberal constitutional law scholars have acknowledged that a nation has the legitimate power to exclude noncitizens from the nation. The distinction made between citizens and noncitizens is a fundamental aspect of every nation. Furthermore, in a contemporary nation where the government confiscates the citizens’ money with taxes, and then uses the citizens’ money to pay for government services and benefits, the distinction made between citizens and illegal immigrants is even more crucial.
Yet following the logic of Krauthammer and other conservatives, the enforcement of a just law somehow becomes immoral once the law has been violated by a certain number of people. What principle supports this thinking?
If a hundred people violate a just law, then the enforcement of the law against a hundred people is moral. Likewise, if a million people violate a just law, then the enforcement of the law against a million people is moral. And if eleven million people violate a just law, then the enforcement of the law against eleven million people is moral. Thus, if eleven million people (the most frequently cited number) are violating the United States’ immigration laws, then the enforcement of the immigration laws, and the deportation of eleven million people, is moral.