10. He believes in religious freedom, and will protect us from Muslims
9. The fact that he’s chummy with the Clintons, means he can be bi-partisan
8. Sarah Palin endorsed him, so he has the support of conservatives
7. He’s a businessman – he knows economics
6. If a Supreme Court Justice rules against him, he can just fire them
5. He will bring back manufacturing jobs to the U.S., no matter the costs
4. Three words: Huge. Mexican. Wall.
3. He isn’t afraid to start a currency war with China to show them their place in the world
2. He can just use imminent domain to take back America from foreign companies
1. He can shoot first, and ask questions later – but still have tons of support
Compiled with the help of Trump supporters – their mountains of assumption, ignorance of the man’s past, and misunderstanding of how government works.
Written in a time filled with the gasps and death of the Soviet Union, and its satellites’ declarations of their independence, I found Alvin Rabushka’s “The Failure of Socialism in China” capturing my attention. In it, the author mentions the method that Mao Zedong attempted to use to incite the communist Chinese economy to grow – namely central planning. The author also illustrates why the planning did little to anything at all on its own in the way of economy-building or growth.
As many economists critical of socialist governments point out, central planning heavily relies on a number of measures, so that it can claim to function better than alternative forms of economies.
Find the complete post here: Conservative Daily News
I did a reaction post on Obama’s awful State of the Union Address from last evening, and was asked to be a guest on PrairieDogma, a new, weekly show on Spreecast. The interview and discussion of Obama policy lasted just over an hour. I’m grateful to @PrairieDogSD for giving me the time to snark, and for being a great interviewer. I’m also grateful for @NJLibertarian for his expert producer work.
You can find the interview here:
Now, off the bat, I will admit the title could be misleading – after all, it is not about how a failure to control guns has created a new problem, but rather, it is about how some liberal academics would like to frame the gun control argument. It is actually the absurdity of the far left and other educational elites, that continues to hurt their causes the most.
Just how bad was this egregious attack on the 2nd Amendment? Read my entire skewering of an anti-gun academic here: http://freeradicalnetwork.com/failures-of-gun-control/
While the left is content to spew their opinions and opine on subjects that they are dangerously under educated about, the chasm between what they claim and what they do continues to grow wider. The left claims to care so very much about the people, and whatever shortcomings that they face. The reality between the left’s over-reaching legislation and their over-spending, is that they will happily use whatever they must in order to further their own flawed claims and defective logic.
Read the rest at Conservative Daily News
Bailofrights tackles one of the main issues plaguing the right in Playing Dirty. How should right take on the left’s insidious framing of the language to suit their claims? Read on, and find out.
The recent rampage in Newport, Connecticut has the entire country talking about gun rights, safety, and the protection of young, innocent schoolchildren. Fixing the woeful measures of school protection, is a commonly held belief, across politics of all stripes. How best to protect those schoolchildren, however, has any number of suggestions, and just as many critics.
Many centrists and most Republicans support the placing of armed police, either active or retired, in schools. The reasoning goes, as police, they have received plenty of training, both with firearms, and with person-to-person interactions. Met with a threat, police’s first instinct is surely not carelessly to open fire – that is the last option, when talking and negotiating have proven ineffective. Trained to use words first, and lethal force last, is how the police operate.
While thinking about that, and attempting to find problems and flaws with police in schools, I may have inadvertently found a reason why some progressives do not want cops in schools. Much progressive rhetoric relies on the belief that authority is inherently bad, and it should always be questioned, and sometimes engaged physically.
I think here lies the crux of their problem with police in schools. How on earth could police officers who provide safe learning environments be a bad thing? While there are some progressives who actually fear the inanimate object that is a firearm, seeing a mature, responsible authority figure at school with that firearm, would tear down tenets of the progressive orthodoxy.
Students would see and interact with a policeman everyday, learning that police are not the overbearing monsters that many on the left would have the public believe. Add to that the effect of a sidearm tucked safely away in a holster, and the child learns that the gun is not the randomly-firing, crazy-tool-with-a-mind of its own, either. Opposing police in schools also creates a problem with many progressives’ claim that only highly-trained, responsible, licensed people should be allowed to have firearms at all.
If you allow children to see this same responsibility daily, and the children also grow to respect the policemen as more than just an authority (as someone who has sworn to place his own life in between the children’s’ lives and any threat) and you would cause all sorts of short-circuiting with liberal narratives. The schoolchildren will experience cognitive dissonance between the media who love to show the most atrocious police stories possible, and the friendly school protector. The children will also be able to ask the policeman questions and learn from him.
Once that sort of erosion of progressive dogma starts – where would it end? The progressives, already outnumbered, might be forced to defend more of their often illogical and baseless claims, in futile attempt to remain relevant. Why it could be the end of the entire progressive false reality. To me, the positives far outweigh the imagined negatives, and the course is clear – show the children we care enough to protect them from both evil threats, and the misguided progressive claim that guns are inherently evil, and that people should not be able to protect themselves.
- The latest The Conservative Sunrise Special! paper.li/JBrenn/conserv… Thanks to @elisabethlehem @BruceNV #conservative #tcot 2 hours ago
- The latest The #OTNN Times! paper.li/JBrenn/1340669… Thanks to @penguinponders @stix1972 @TX_1 #hoosiers #maga 15 hours ago
- Bill O’Reilly’s Nostalgia Factor bit.ly/2pmNDTT| A great piece by @JonahNRO 16 hours ago
- RT @DLoesch: Coward. I’ll debate you, a paid lobbyist who stalks and defames me and whose supporters often send me death threats https://t… 16 hours ago
- The latest The Evening #tcot Times! paper.li/JBrenn/1305576… Thanks to @Dbargen #tcot #news 19 hours ago
- The latest The Conservative Sunrise Special! paper.li/JBrenn/conserv… Thanks to @RealJamesKist @EscholT @TRMirCat #conservative #gop 1 day ago
- 9,746 hits
Top Posts & Pages