Amid a wave of sexual abuse lawsuits, the Boy Scouts of America has filed for bankruptcy. Founded in 1910, BSA is the largest scouting organization, and one of the biggest youth organizations, in the nation. BSA has faced turmoil from social justice dolts for years, finally caving to demands for admission of girls to the traditionally all boys organization last year. One former scout claims that the BSA's filing is an admission of guilt (see CBS article here). BSA has already settled tens of millions of dollars' worth of lawsuits in the past, but has over 300 cases still pending. The scouting programs used to be a place where young boys learned valuable skills, and were exposed to strong moral guidance. Those days are not only gone, but the organization appears to be infested with sexual predators. What a shame. No amount of money will ease the pain endured by those that have been victimized, but holding those that committed these heinous crimes accountable is certainly important.
BSA needs to clean house, and they need to get back to their roots.
Real estate mogul and reality TV star, Donald Trump, announced that he will be running for President in 2016, followed by statements that point to the fact that illegal immigrants are criminals and need to be stopped. Since his comments vilify an arguably significant portion of the Democrats' voting base, Trump has been, of course, labeled a racist. NBC has also cancelled their dealings with Trump, claiming that he doesn't represent their values...I guess they value criminal activity more than economic success. NBC's ridiculous comments can be seen here. Trump's response can be seen here. I find it disturbing that many in our society will shout down those that dare to point to the truth, just because the truth doesn't fit the politically correct script that the liberal media attempts to feed us. The horde of invaders that pours across our southern border, seemingly unchecked, brings nothing to our nation but disease, crime, and an enormous economic burden. Trump pointed that out when he stated that Mexican immigrants are, "...bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists and some, I assume, are good people." Not an inaccurate statement, and not something that anyone should be shocked by. I don't fault anyone for wanting to come to America; it's the greatest nation on the planet, despite the best efforts of those on the left. I do fault them for sneaking into our nation illegally, bringing disease and crime with them, and then demanding that we change our culture and rules to suit them. Those that want to come here need to follow the legal process for doing so, learn our language, obey our laws, and become productive Americans. I applaud Donald Trump for having the fortitude to speak the truth and stand by his comments. What a breath of fresh air in the political arena.
There is heated debate still taking place over proposed increases to the minimum wage at both the state and federal levels. Some are demanding that the minimum wage be increased to an alluring 15 dollars per hour. Those in favor of a minimum wage hike cite the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) claims that raising the minimum wage to over ten dollars an hour would "lift" an estimated 900,000 people "out of poverty." The desire to implement a massive (over 106% if the 15$ folks get their way) increase in the minimum wage revolves around the argument that anybody that holds a job, of any kind, should be able to handily support a family on the wages paid by that job. I enthusiastically disagree with that argument.
If you choose to spend your adult life as an uneducated and unskilled laborer, don't expect to raise a family in comfort. Who, in their right minds, believes that if you have no marketable skills, you should be rewarded with a "living wage?" I'll tell you who, those that expect a handout (something for nothing) and those that rely on that segment of the population for votes. Granted, the politicians that promise those handouts don't honestly believe that every unskilled dolt deserves a handsome salary, but they'll readily force employers to offer it in exchange for the votes of the habitually needy. What would be the result of lowering the bar in such a way? In the short term, drastically raising the minimum wage would put more money in the pockets of those that hold entry-level positions, should their employers choose to keep them employed full time. I propose that in the long run, employers would cut their employees' hours, further increase automation, and pass on the cost increases to their customers. As a result, those increased costs would offset the increased wages of the unskilled employees, and have an obvious impact on the rest of us. The same CBO report that claims a wage hike would be a magic cure for poverty also reveals what many of us already knew: Raising the minimum wage would cut jobs, an estimated 500,000 of them. Economists' opinions on the effects of large increases to the minimum wage differ, as one would expect. Let's face it, calling economics consistent is like calling Bruce Jenner a woman. Gather ten economists in one room, ask them all the same question, and you'll most likely get ten different answers. Should there be regular increases in the minimum wage? Yes, but they must be reasonable, and based on the increases in the cost of living. A 106% increase is not reasonable, no matter how much those in favor of it shout and stomp their feet.
Some people are monsters and we can only wish that they were chosen for deselection. If only Jodi Arias had died of a childhood disease, stepped in front of a bus, or overdosed on drugs, then we wouldn't be hearing about how she brutally murdered her ex-boyfriend, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars in court costs. ABC News reports (click here for article) that Arias' trial has cost taxpayers an estimated 3+ million bucks, while a judge now decides whether or not she should someday be released on parole. Paroled? Really? Some would claim that the reason the court costs are so high is that it was a death penalty trial; they'll follow that up with a rant about how we should abolish the death penalty. Reasons for abolishing the death penalty range from its ineffectiveness as a deterrent to its alleged brutality. I'd like to address both of those points. I wholeheartedly agree that the death penalty, in its current state, is not an effective deterrent to crime. The reasons for this are simple: The sentences are not carried out swiftly or publicly. The current, much backlogged, system of appeals allows a convicted killer to live on death row for decades, probably dying of old age, after costing taxpayers an extravagant amount of money. Death sentences that are carried out are done so in the dark of night, behind closed doors, with no televising of the event. While there is typically a small group of witnesses at executions, the event is not seen by the general public. Would-be killers don't ever see their peers being put to death, and know that their sentence for killing someone won't be much different than their last stint in prison, with gyms, television, and college degrees at their disposal. What about the alleged cruelty and unusual nature of the death penalty? For all of recorded history, humans have killed other humans that represented a viable threat to their neighbors, and society in general. In later centuries, we required trials prior to the elimination of the vermin. As we became slightly more civilized, we refined the methods that we've used to kill the monsters in our midst. Recent methods in our nation include electrocution, hanging, firing squads, and inhalation of poisonous gases. Of late, we have mostly chosen to use injections of a lethal combination of drugs. The combinations used for lethal injection executions typically involve a starter drug that ensures the killer's lack of any pain, distress, or discomfort. I cannot fathom why anyone would consider lethal injection to be cruel and unusual punishment, especially when compared to the punishment inflicted upon the killers' victims. Please engage in a wee bit of research as to the methods that death row inmates have used to slaughter their victims, and then compare that to the methods in use to, someday, execute those killers. The claims of execution being brutal, inhumane, or cruel are downright insane. The death penalty, in our nation, is not currently an effective deterrent to crime, but it could be if we choose to eliminate the obstacles to its effectiveness. Streamline the process, stop the absurd number of appeals allowed, and get it done. Publicize it; put it on television with a parental warning. Make it a real and visible punishment, and it will be a deterrent. Make it harsh; if it involves a modicum of pain and suffering, such as that inflicted on a killer's victim, it will leave a lasting impression on those that view it. Wastes of skin, such as Jodi Arias, might think twice about ruthlessly killing someone, if they know that they would face swift and severe punishment and have some idea of what that punishment entails.
Robert Goldstein, a UCLA Law Professor, asked his upper level law students, "...to imagine that they are lawyers in the St. Louis County Attorney’s office..." and cited a report on Michael Brown's stepfather, Louis Head, who shouted, "Burn this bitch down!” after a grand jury decided not to indict Ferguson
Police Officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown. The students were then faced with the dilemma of deciding whether or not Head should be indicted for inciting a riot. The question read, "“[As] a recent hire in the office, you are asked to write a memo
discussing the relevant First Amendment issues in such a prosecution.
Write the memo.” Seems pretty straightforward and realistic, does it not? Seems like the sort of thing that a lawyer would be expected to do in the performance of his or her duties, right? Enter the professional victims. In an article on Fox News (click here to read it), Maxiam Lott describes how some (it's not clear how few) of Goldstein's students complained, and a blogger by the name of Elie Mystal wrote that Goldstein's exam question was, "racially insensitive and divisive." Lott writes, "Mystal also incorrectly alleged that the question asked students to “advocate in favor of extremist racists in Ferguson.”
While race certainly motivated those that were demanding Officer Darren Wilson's head on a pike, Goldstein's exam question was completely devoid of racial factors; it was exactly the sort of requirement one could expect to face in the real world. Does UCLA not attempt to prepare their students for future employment in the real world, or do they expect them to spend the rest of their lives languishing in the artificial world of academia?
Goldstein attempted to defend his perfectly rational intentions by stating in an email to his students, "As with many of my exams in this upper-level elective class, questions
may be drawn from current legal issues in the news or from recent court
reports. This helps make the exam educational and relevant.” He goes on to cave in to pressure from the professional victims, and those that cater to them, by writing, "I clearly underestimated and misjudged the impact of this question on
you. I realize now that it was so fraught as to have made this an
unnecessarily difficult question to respond to at this time. I am sorry
for this,” Unnecessarily difficult? Don't lawyers in the real world have to face situations like this on a regular basis?
The professional victims and race baiters don't want the truth to be highlighted. They don't want to have to respond to tough questions, like, "What should be done about the looting, arson, riots and assaults that were incited by Head, Holder, Sharpton, and the like?" They just want us all to shut up, admit our white guilt, and do what they tell us to do (namely pay them). What a farce. To Robert Goldstein I say, "Grow a spine." To his perpetually offended students and critics I say, "Grow up."
I find it odd that the left is up in arms over voter ID laws (RACIST!), yet they are the only ones that seem to get caught committing voter fraud, voter intimidation, and, well, just plain cheating. They insist that minorities are too stupid to obtain ID cards, but demand that law-abiding citizens provide ID for every other manner of official business. Between the black panthers (I refuse to capitalize that) and the illegal invaders, the left might sway some key election battles with illegal votes. Never mind that the democrat base consists of those that always vote for the biggest handout; what about the effects of illegal immigrants voting (illegally) in some of the closely contested races? Breitbart has an interesting piece (click here to read it) that asks the tough questions, and posits that Al Franken (liberal douche-bag extraordinaire) might have won his recount as a result of illegal immigrant votes. How much of an effect do illegal immigrants actually have on our elections? I doubt that anyone can say with true certainty, but I believe that it's significant. Look at all of the left's efforts to cater to the illegal invaders; do you really believe that it's done out of kindness? That's a huge chunk of their voter base!
In the Breitbart piece, Joel Pollak states that an estimated 6.4 percent of non-citizens vote, and that 80% of those people vote democrat. I would have guessed a higher percentage on both counts, but his numbers are probably based only on those that answer surveys honestly. He goes on to report that voter ID laws are strikingly ineffective, since obtaining an "official" ID is disgustingly easy for illegal invaders. I believe that while voter ID laws are not as effective as we would like them to be, they are necessary and make sense, despite the left's baseless cries of racism. The bottom line is that foreign invaders are voting in our elections, and their choices are predictable. Illegal invaders vote for the biggest handouts, which come by way of democrats taking from the producers and giving to the non-producers. Pointing that out is usually decried as racist, insensitive, or whatever other buzzword the left is enjoying this week.
"It's for the planet!"...or something. California Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown signed SB270 into law, making it illegal for retailers to use single-use, plastic bags. Instead, stores will charge a ten cent per bag fee for paper bags. The starry-eyed fools that supported this steaming pile of crap claim that "most plastic bags end up in the ocean or landfills." If that were true, why would it be so? I'll tell you why; it's because people are lazy. First of all, I don't believe the severity of their claims. Most people have jumped on the recycling bandwagon already, reusing plastic grocery bags for other things, not to mention the fact that "single use" grocery bags are typically made from recycled materials. The lazy minority that refuse to recycle are the cause of plastic making its way into landfills or the ocean. California's typically misguided solution to lazy people is to ban the bags and increase costs; let's also not forget the jobs lost and other economic impacts (see here) of the huge hit the plastic bag industry will take. Additionally, a recent analysis undertaken by Reason Foundation found that "Lightweight plastic bags constitute less than 1 percent of visible litter, represent only 0.4 percent of all municipal solid waste, and are not a major cause of blocked storm drains. Banning them has practically no impact on the amount of litter generated, the amount Californians pay for waste disposal, or the risk of flooding." Reason's article goes on to discuss the real and measurable impact of alleged "reusable" bags. Just when you think the discussion in California couldn't get any crazier, in an article from the San Diego UT (click here to read it) supporters of the new law claim that, "Producers are responsible for the end of life impact of their products." That's about the dumbest thing I've heard all week. That's like saying that Jack Daniels is responsible for what your abusive step dad does when he gets liquored up. Well, since the uninformed voters that seem to make up the majority of California have elected a bunch of crooks and idiots to their state legislature, garbage like SB270 has been the norm. Liberal control over the lives of the voting base continues to grow in California, where the state motto should be changed to, "If we can't tax it, ban it!"
There is currently widespread and rabid demands for Ray Rice's head on a pike over a video of him punching his (then) girlfriend in the face, knocking her out. Rice was arrested back in February for simple assault, but the demands for excessive punishment only began once the media hyped the incident. There is no shortage of players in the NFL that have been arrested for criminal acts (and I'm not talking about speeding tickets) and are still collecting that seven figure pay check. I have to ask, where's the outrage over the rest of the dirtbags that the NFL employs? UT San Diego has a database of NFL player arrests (click here to see it), and you may be surprised to see the number and seriousness of the arrests. Why? Because you've likely never heard of them before, since the media didn't choose to hype them the way they did the Rice case. On August 31st of this year, Ray McDonald of the San Francisco 49ers was arrested on suspicion of felony domestic violence. Where's the outrage? On July 20th, St Louis Rams linebacker Jo-Lonn Dunbar was arrested for battery and disorderly conduct. Where's the outrage? On July 19th, Eagles safety Keelan Johnson was arrested for assaulting a police officer. Where's the outrage? I submit that the NFL only punishes those that the media demands they punish. Again, I ask, where's the outrage over the other criminal acts of NFL players? Why is the media silent on those counts? Why do those players get a free pass by the media and league? Rice did nothing worse than other players, but he doesn't rate to play football anymore, or something. If we're going to hold him to a certain standard, let's hold the other domestic abusers, dopers, drunk drivers, and cop beaters to the same standard.
In a move that can only be described as puzzling, the Huffington Post has hired former NFL player Donte Stallworth as a "fellow to cover national security." Let me go ahead and point out the 800 pound gorilla in the room: Stallworth is a nutjob, having demonstrated his loose grip on reality with his 9/11 truther tweets in 2009. Oh, and there's that pesky little manslaughter conviction to go along with his national security ignorance. The Washington Post blathers on about how great Stallworth is in an article (click here to read it) that seems to focus more on his love of homosexuals than anything else. Huffpo's Washington Bureau Chief, Ryan Grim, can't offer anything relevant to Stallworth's national security expertise (or lack of it), but attempts to justify the hire by stating, "...his LGBT work brought him to our attention and impressed us." Well, that's just super.
Breitbart has a more focused piece (click here to read it) that points to Stallworth's insane tweets, while alluding to the obvious question: What in the hell are they smoking over at Huffpo?
Former President Jimmy Carter is scheduled to be the keynote speaker at an event held by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). ISNA, according to the Justice Department, is one of the major funnels of money to Hamas, which is officially designated as a terrorist group. Looks like Carter is off his meds again. Carter has long been considered the worst President in U.S. history and, of late, is popularly referred to as the second worst. Antics like this don't exactly help his image. Breitbart has an interesting piece on Carter's latest stupidity (click here to read it), in which they point out Carter's long-held belief that Israel is the bad guy, and Hamas is a peace-loving victim. The article references Carter's claim that Israel's actions are "...even worse instances of Apartheid than we witnessed in South Africa." What is Jimmy smoking? Excuse the hell out of Israel for wanting to keep those who have vowed to destroy them on the outside of Israel (unlike us, with our wide open borders). Israel is the last shining example of how to treat the clearly stated threat that is islam. Carter, on the other hand, willingly aids our known enemies. The Breitbart article points out that Carter's actions may very well be in direct violation of federal law. Since Jimmy is a democrat, he'll get a free pass by the MSM, as well as our blatantly corrupt Justice Department. Nothing to see here folks; move along.
An interesting article in the U.K.'s Daily Mail (click here to read it) shows some disturbing photos and tweets that were allegedly posted by ISIS terrorists from right here in the U.S. One photo was taken in Chicago, and the other in front of the White House. Their tweet said, "We are in your state," "We are in your cities," "We are in your streets." The FBI has since sent warnings to police forces across the country to be on the lookout for terrorist activities based upon these tweets and other intelligence. An old friend of mine, who is also a fellow Marine, states that while conducting training in the Arizona desert (near our wide open border with Mexico), he has come across ravines filled with garbage from the illegal immigrants that are invading our nation on a continuous basis. Among the garbage were korans, prayer rugs, and various documents with Arabic text. Muslims are sneaking into our country along with the other invaders. It is not politically correct to point out that islam's stated goal is to convert or kill every non-muslim on the planet. Our nation is referred to as, "The great Satan," by most islamic groups. The liberal mindset is that all cultures are equal, and stating otherwise makes you a xenophobe, islamophobe, or some other sort of phobe (insert label du jour here). That mindset is incredibly dangerous on every level. Islam is not compatible with Western Civilization. We cannot continue to ignore the threat that islam represents to our very existence without dire consequences. There very well might be "moderate" muslims out there that do not desire to destroy our way of life, but they are strangely silent. There is no shortage, however, of muslims that dance in the streets, celebrating acts of terrorism around the globe. It doesn't matter if we try to be "sensitive to their feelings," or some other such hogwash; they still want to kill us all. Our impotent government allows these cretins to practice their cult in our nation, and spew their hatred of all things Western. I'm sick of it, and I'm sick of our liberal politicians acting like they cannot see the obvious. Make no mistake, we are at war with islam. To deny that, for the sake of not offending them, is foolish and dangerous. *Note: Lack of capitalization is by design, as I lack any respect for the cult of islam.
Let me preface this piece by stating that I usually enjoy reading Todd Starnes' column on Fox. Not so today. Starnes penned a piece titled, "Feds ban school's beloved pink cookie," (click here to read it). The title would lead one to believe that the feds directly targeted a school's cafeteria, and its products, with legislation or administrative action. In truth, the Elyria, Ohio school's traditional dessert product simply doesn't meet the nutritional constraints of this administration's (admittedly silly) school lunch requirements. While I think that Fedzilla is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, Starnes' article is much ado about nothing. He states that the USDA requirements mandate that all school snacks must contain less than 200 calories; that's not an unreasonable requirement for a "snack." One only need look at the ingredients of the subject cookies to understand that they're far from healthy. So, I must ask, What's the big deal here? Residents of Elyria, Ohio can still eat as many sugary, fatty snacks as they'd like, they just can't get them in taxpayer funded school cafeterias. Want to feed your kids junk food at school? Pack them a lunch! Obama's school nutritional rules are poorly executed, but I can't fault anyone for expecting that taxpayer funded school meals be somewhat nutritious. What are your thoughts?
In an opinion piece that Eric Holder wrote for The Saint Louis Post Dispatch (click here to read it), Eric Holder pushes the failed logic that skin color should be the deciding factor in the hiring of police officers. He states, "...police forces should reflect the diversity of the communities they serve."
I say that our nation's Attorney General is an idiot. I say that I would rather live in a town where the police force hires the most qualified persons to do the job, regardless of their skin color. He also blathers on about "...the deeper conversation that the legitimate demonstrators are trying to advance." More asinine drivel. What conversation topic would that be? That there's too many white cops? That when things don't go their way, African Americans are justified in robbing, looting, and burning down their neighborhoods? I'll give credit where it's due; Holder's letter asks the residents of Ferguson to be patient and not participate in the appalling acts that have been on display there lately. Aside from that, it misses the mark.
I won't even get into the racist
rantings of the usual suspects on the left over the recent events in
Ferguson, MO. I will, however, point out the blatant hypocrisy of the
left that can be seen there. Democrats rabidly decry gun owners as
extremists and claim that only the police should have guns. Democrats
then get in an uproar after the police shoot an unarmed man. Which is
it? Can you pick one and stick with it? The phrase, "I told you so,"
comes to mind. Those of us that live in the real world
are quick to point out to our misguided friends on the left that if only
the government (that includes police) has guns, we are no longer
citizens, but subjects. We become servants, serfs. We are at the mercy
of our government.
Today, we see small business owners and
home owners in Ferguson taking up arms to defend their lives and
livelihoods from the mobs of looters, thieves, thugs, and other garbage
that is running rampant in their neighborhoods. The police have backed
down for fear of racist figureheads like Al Sharpton and their cohorts
in the media.
Ferguson is a prime example of why our
2nd Amendment is paramount to our very survival as a nation and as a
people. Democrats will still come up with excuses for their irrational
beliefs, but their arguments don't hold water.
In an article here, Marine veteran Mario Alejandro claims that a security guard at Six Flags Great Adventure, in New Jersey, refused to allow him entry to the park because his shirt was "offensive." The suspect shirt is pictured above...I'll give you a minute to face-palm this one.
When contacted for comment, the dolts that run the park reaffirmed their idiotic stance by claiming that they don't allow shirts that portray "vulgar, offensive, or violent" images or wording. That's a pretty broad brush stroke, and it sounds like their interpretation of that is completely absurd. I guess the outline of an M-16 is scary, or something, to somebody, somewhere, maybe.
I, for one, will never set foot in another Six Flags park.
Our federal government, by its very design, is inefficient. Our government was never intended to run a business, of any kind, and it has demonstrated repeatedly that it cannot. Who on this earth, other than someone who is certifiably insane, would choose to put our federal government in charge of their health care when the feds have clearly demonstrated that they can't even run a cash for clunkers program?
Let's look at one of the biggest, most bloated examples of our government's inability to successfully do much of anything other than tax us: Amtrak. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, also known as Amtrak, has been a loser for as long as anyone can remember. Their 2012 financial statement (Click here)reveals that their annual net loss for that year was only 1.23 BILLION dollars. Fans of big government would probably cheer, since that's a smaller loss than the previous year (1.34 billion).
Compare that dreadful performance to a railroad that isn't run by Fedzilla, Union Pacific. For 2nd quarter, 2014, UP has earned a 1.2 billion dollar net profit; that's just for one quarter (Click here to see the report) See the difference?
Now, let's take a peek at our beloved U.S. Postal Service. There's a mess, if ever there was one. As of March 31st of this year, the USPS posted a quarterly loss of 1.8 billion dollars (Click here to see for yourself) There's no secrets to this; the Postal Service has been bleeding cash for decades.
Again, compare that to a company that the feds haven't run into the ground. United Postal Service (UPS) earned a net profit of 4.37 billion dollars in 2013 (See the report here). This is starting to look like a trend, isn't it?
Democrats would have you believe that our federal government can do a better job of managing your health care than you, or a private sector company can. How could you possibly drink that Koolaid when you look at their track record? The feds are incapable of running a business without it costing you and I many billions of dollars in losses. A real company would not last if they posted the kind of losses that Fedzilla does. Tell me again why you want them to be in charge of any part of your life?
I've seen this post (Click Here) in a couple of different places, and it points out some key flaws in the stance of our friends on the left. I would add another question to this list: Why do liberals seem so enamored with terrorists? These questions are quite simple, but please don't hold your breath waiting for intelligent answers from the left/media; I wouldn't want you to expire.
Yashiko Sagamori asks: If you are so sure that ” Palestine , the country, goes back through
most of recorded history,” I expect you to be able to answer a few basic
questions about that country of Palestine :
When was it founded and by whom?
What were its borders?
What was its capital?
What were its major cities?
What constituted the basis of its economy?
What was its form of government?
Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
What was the language of the country of Palestine ?
What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine ?
What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and
tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary
unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or
Chinese yuan on that date.
And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. I pulled this blog out of my footlocker, knocked the dust off of it, and decided to give it a whirl (again). My partner, Hans, has moved on to other projects but, perhaps, I might try to persuade him to author an occasional post for this little corner of blogdom.
On a side note, the third party comment system that we had in place (Haloscan) went the way of the dodo, so all previous comments have been lost. Sorry. Comments are now functional through Blogger. Here's to more eye poking, liberal infuriating, inconvenient facts, with a sprinkling of opinion. Okay, maybe more than a sprinkling. Cheers!
New Orleans, a long time haven for corrupt liberals, has some very strict gun "control" laws in place. In fact, New Orleans was the first city to file suit against gun manufacturers because of the actions of criminals (something about the manufacturers being responsible for what thugs do). I'm sure that the residents of the below sea-level city by the sea will sleep better at night knowing how safe they are from violence. Gun control curbs violence, right?
Enter a little known element known as the truth: New Orleans is the single most violent city in the nation. This is not my opinion; this is a fact. This is based on the crime data reported to the FBI in 2007.
It has been long known to those that do not base their decisions purely on emotions that gun control does nothing to prevent violence and crime. One only need look at the fine example of Washington, D.C. to see that.
The starstruck reaction of the average Obama voter was, at the very least, entertaining. Seeing first hand how utterly ignorant they are would be entertaining if I could forget that these individuals have placed their messiah in the Oval Office.
Media bias has been quite clear for years now, but this is yet another vivid demonstration of that bias. It's hardly surprising, but it speaks volumes about American voters, and our beloved "mainstream" media.
