Remember the half-time tirade given by Bob Costas about a year or so ago? Just in case your memory is a bit foggy, he ended up lumping all of us together in a single, big gun culture. Of course, you and I know this simply doesn’t reflect reality.
Most of the the people in this country who respect American values and tradition have a healthy attitude about guns. This culture is rooted in American history and the tradition of law abiding citizens owning guns responsibly. This is our right, stated and codified in law such as the Second Amendment. This shouldn’t be something that some silly politician can strike down or put out to pasture. Yet, this is exactly what idiots like Michael Bloomberg in New York have done.
There is also another type of gun culture in this country. This is the one that needs to be tamed. The gang culture can be found in the inner cities of places like New York, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, and many other violent cities. It is this culture that misuses guns and is responsible for the vast majority of the gun violence in this country.
New York City is a prime example of this second type of culture. They have recently experienced a rash of new shootings. Most of this has been done by teenagers who have obtained handguns illegally and decided to use them to get revenge for perceived slights and stupid Facebook posts. Listen:
“There are more than 300 of them in New York—violent crews of dozens of 12 to 20-year-olds with names such as Very Crispy Gangsters, True Money Gang, and Cash Bama Bullies.
Police say these groups, clustered around a particular block or housing project, are responsible for about 40 percent of the city’s shootings, with most of that violence stemming from the smallest of disses on the street, Facebook, Twitter or Instagram.
‘Its like belonging to an evil fraternity,’ said inspector Kevin Catalina, commander of the New York Police Department’s gang division. ‘A lot of it is driven by nothing: a dispute over a girl or a wrong look or a perceived slight.’
The trend of smaller, younger crews has also been seen in Chicago and Northeast cities over the last few years as police have cracked down on bigger, more traditional gangs, experts say.”
Interesting. It also brings up the point that idiots like Bloomberg in New York, or even Obama back when he was in Chicago, really have no idea about what is going on…or that they are simply playing politics with guns and have no intention of ever really solving the real problems and issues.
The bottom line is that a huge part of the gun violence problem we are seeing in this country is really not even a gun problem (since any idiot who really wants to can manage to find a gun illegally). Nope, it is actually a cultural problem. Until our leaders, teachers, and parents understand this, we will have a tough time solving this…and many other social ills.
What do YOU think about this? Is the gun problem mainly a cultural problem? Are the liberal solutions to this just not working? Can they ever hope to work? What should be done instead?
By Joseph R. Carducci on May 1, 2014
Ever since Obama took over the office of the President, there have been a number of people claiming that he was so interested in power, they could really see him taking steps to ensure that he never had to give it up. Of course, in the past, this kind of talk has been more or less confined to conspiracy theorists and others that mainstream society might consider to be, let’s just say, less than credible.
Since Obama began his second terms, his true colors have really begun to show. He does not love America and is interested only in furthering his own agenda. This agenda will come at the expense of the traditional Christian roots of our nation. Yet, he will seek to protect the law breakers and the Muslims and basically everyone who seeks to destroy and denigrate America.
Now, we have seen the continued militarization of police forces all around the country. Plus, the police forces are engaging in more and more excess and using their newly found might to basically attack a number of the citizens they have supposedly sworn to protect. We have seen examples like the Bundy ranch and how they dealt with citizens during the Boston Marathon bombing aftermath: forced people to remain in their houses, then did house-to-house searches and forced families to stand outside during the searches! They even confiscated guns and items that were legally obtained.
Now we already know that Obama has signed an executive order giving him the right to declare martial law any time he wants. This is a significant sign that he thinks there might be a good reason for him to need that authority. Say what you want, Obama is at least able to realize the signs of the times. He sees that the Republicans are very likely to capture the Senate, which would give them full control over both houses of Congress. This would put Obama in a very dangerous situation.
Once this happens, the question then becomes what do the Republicans do with that advantage? It is certainly possible that impeachment proceedings could be started. If this goes to its end, there is also the possibility that Obama could even be tried as a traitor to the USA. It is certainly obvious that he has no love lost for America and its traditional values and principles.
There are a number of people that have talked about this, even some within the government. Obama, being the prideful man and committed liberal that his, could simply not afford to let such a thing stop his extreme agenda. Personally, I think he feels as if no one else can accomplish or be trusted to push his agenda through and it doesn’t matter how many people oppose him.
Declaring martial law could be a way out for Obama. This could happen either right before the midterm elections happen, or before the newly elected Congress takes office. This would be a great solution to keep him even more firmly in control than he is now. Plus, he would also be able to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
You may or may not be aware of this, but Obama has actually relieved nearly 200 top military commanders in order to make the military more loyal to him and his extreme vision for America. This includes even some of the top generals and colonels. Obama has even quietly asked members of the military to swear a personal oath of loyalty to him. Plus, he has been arming and equipping the Department of Homeland Security, making them as well trained and armed as the military. This is what he will most likely use if martial law is ever declared. The Constitution denies the military the right to operate on US soil. Not so with the DHS.
If Obama does declare martial law, we will be faced with only two choices. We can buckle under and except Comrade Obama as our new dictator…or we can resist and possibly rise up and declare a second American revolution.
Which do YOU think it will be? Will we see Obama declare martial law? If so, what do you think the circumstances will be? How will America respond to such an event? How would YOU resist?
White House spokesman Jay Carney let President Barack Obama’s Benghazi cat out of the bag today, when he acknowledged that the president’s unilateral intervention in the 2011 Libyan civil war hasn’t led to a stable government in the Islamic and tribal country.
“There’s a difficult dynamic in place there, which is the result — the positive result in the sense that [Libyan dictator Moammar] Gadhafi is gone — but you know you have a situation in these countries where a dictator held together a nation through intimidation and force,” Carney said today.
The admission of chaos in Libya came as he was questioned about a newly revealed email which describes the administration’s effort to blame a YouTube video for the deadly Benghazi attack in 2012, instead of “broader failure of policy.”
When The Daily Caller asked him if the Libyan turbulence is an example of the “broader failure of policy” suggested in the memo, Carney equivocated, and eventually said “I would never tell you what to write.”
Since Moammar Gadhafi’s government was destroyed by Obama’s use of airpower, jihadis have gathered freely throughout Libya, armed with weapons looted from Gadhafi’s huge armories. Obama didn’t despatch any U.S. troops to guard the weapons or help build a central government, despite lessons learned in Iraq.
Some of the weapons and jihadis have reportedly fueled terror attacks in neighboring countries, including Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Mali, and the Central African Republic.
In September 2012, some jihadis gathered at the lightly guarded U.S. compound, which they attacked before attacking a nearby CIA compound. Four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, were killed by the jihadis. The compound was weakly guarded because officials were insisting that Obama’s Libya policy was successful, and Al Qaida was on the run.
The weak Libyan government did not block the jihadi attack, and reportedly slowed the arrival of U.S. aid. Since the attack, the U.S. government has closed the two facilities in Benghazi, even as it tries to track and catch the attackers.
Three days after the Sept. 11 attack, White House officials discussed how to spin the Benghazi disaster, which threatened to upset Obama’s November reelection strategy.
The officials quickly choose to blame the attack on Arab inability to control supposed anger over a YouTube docudrama produced by a Egyptian immigrant in California, rather than a possible “broader failure of policy” in Libya, Egypt and the Arab region.
The official spin, according to the memo, on page 13 of this link, should be that “these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
The spin was successful. It kept the “broader failure of policy” issue out the 2012 election, and kept the GOP and the media focused on the credibility of the YouTube claim.
Since the election, GOP investors and media reports have focused on the White House’s promotion of the distracting video, not on the possible “broader failure of policy” that the officials have successfully sidelined for 18 months.
But Carney slipped today, and accidentally highlighted some of the “broader failure of policy” when he was asked by a reporter to explain why the U.S. has failed to catch the jihadis who killed four Americans, even after 18 months of investigations and surveillance.
“Attempts to move forward with a democratic government are challenging and are not often successful, at least, every step is not forward,” he admitted.
“It is a challenging case, to be sure,” said Carney, describing the fractured government’s limited ability and authority to identify and deport to U.S. courts.
“But can I assure you that the president’s direction was that those who killed four Americans will be pursued by the United States until they are brought to justice,” he said. “If anyone doubts that, they should ask — if there are any — friends and family members of Osama bin Laden.”
By Andy Grimm
4:55 p.m. CDT, May 1, 2014
Half of Illinois residents would move to another state if they could — the highest percentage for any state, according to a poll released by Gallup this week. Nearly half of those polled in Connecticut and Maryland said they would move.
Some 19 percent of Illinoisans surveyed said they plan to move in the next 12 months, a rate that trailed only Nevada.
The New Jersey-based polling firm conducted interviews of 600 residents in each state, asking “Regardless of whether you will move, if you had the opportunity, would you like to move to another state, or would you rather remain in your current state?”
On average, 33 percent of those polled would leave their state. Montana, Hawaii and Maine had the lowest percentage of residents expressing a desire to move.
The top reason for wanting to move from Illinois, given by 26 percent of those polled, was “work/business-related.” Weather was the next most-cited reason for wanting to move, though the poll was conducted from June to December 2013, meaning pollsters contacted respondents at latest midway through this year’s frigid, snowy winter.
A release from Gallup points out that Illinois has ranked at the bottom of recent polls gauging residents satisfaction with state taxes, state government and “overall perceptions of how their state compares to others as a place to live.”
On the positive side, since the poll has a margin of error of plus/minus 5 percent, Illinois could be tied or faring better than the other states in the top three, Connecticut (49) and Maryland (47), said Brian Gaines, a political scientist at University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana.
The responses likely point to a general disaffection with state leadership, which has been scandal-plagued for decades and more recently has seemed unable to deal with lingering budget and pension crises, Gaines said. But he noted that it often is hard to say why people want to move.
“It is sort of noisy data. There are a lot of reasons why people want to move, and it could be that they have a problem with their city or local area more than their state,” he said. Despite the polling responses, it is unlikely that 20 percent of current residents are likely to move in the next 12 months, Gaines said.
The poll can be viewed here.