Skip to content

What College Professors Say and What They Really Do

February 27, 2017

Let me tell you about some extraordinary people I know.  One of them wanted to pick up some courses on teaching methodology at a local college, but she got an unwanted education in political science instead.

You see, tolerance on campus stops when academics have to be tolerant.   Diversity of opinion and alternative solutions aren’t allowed if they diverge from the professors’ cherished beliefs.  Liberal professors don’t like guns, so other people shouldn’t be allowed to have them.  Then, these same college administrators hide behind sovereign immunity when another disarmed visitor is robbed, raped, or murdered on their campus. The problem isn’t that licensed gun owners are unsafe on campus or that students with carry permits are irresponsible. The “gun-free zone” on campus is about school administrators who are drunk on power.  This is how it happened.

Say a military veteran came home.  She settled down near her family.  At first she worked part time at a local church and at a local school.  It was a rural school district and it felt like the right place to put down roots in civilian life.  After a while, the school even asked her to join the school security team.  That was an honor she hadn’t expected.  She hadn’t known that rural schools had a security team to protect the students and staff.

These things take time.  The Sheriff screened her.  She passed her FBI background checks and had a clean record.  She went on to renew her concealed carry license.  She also took a special course on emergency trauma care and on confronting a murderer on school campus.  She did well.  To graduate from her course, her scores had to exceed the state police qualification standards.  Now, she carries in public and on campus where she works, but our story is only beginning.

This same veteran wanted to take some night courses at her local college.  That is when she found out she couldn’t carry on their campus.  She’s glad she checked.

Now you’re probably thinking she was told that she can’t be part of the college security team..and you’d be wrong.  She was told that she can go armed almost everywhere else in her state, but not on her college campus.  That isn’t what she was expecting at all.

When she was looking for a school, the local college said they wanted older students to come back and finish their degrees.  The local college said students at this campus were mature and they took their education seriously.  But maybe not.

This experienced military veteran was told that all college students should be disarmed because they are probably immature drunks and druggies who are borderline crazy.  That is what faculty representatives said.  That is what they said when they testified against allowing licensed carriers over 21 years of age to carry on campus.

She was told one thing about the college when the school administration wanted her money, and then told the opposite thing when she wanted to protect herself as she walked to her car late at night across campus.

She’d read the local police reports about students robbed on and near campus.  It isn’t as if the “no-guns on campus” signs disarmed the criminals.  These laws only disarmed honest people like her.

She’d seen the world.  She was the responsible one, and these academics were acting like spoiled adolescents.  That is where my story ends and yours begins.

Here is my hint for those looking at colleges.  Look at what the school says about the mature intellectual life on campus, but don’t stop there.  Before you make a decision, look at what the administrators actually do to control students and subject them to arbitrary regulations.  Fortunately, you have options.  Not all colleges are the same.

Too often, there is no freedom of expression on campus..except in a “free speech zone”.  There is no right of self-defense on campus.  The professors say women are victimized by rape on campus, but they won’t let women go armed for self-defense.  Often, students can’t even carry pepper spray in their purses!

This young woman was trusted enough to protect our children when she teaches in the morning, but she wasn’t trusted enough to protect herself when she is a student late at night.  That is crazy.  Unfortunately, she isn’t alone.  A similar story is played out thousands of times every day.

Academics say one thing and do another.  That is the very definition of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.  Think about that when you choose your college.  Think about it when you choose your legislators who turn your campus into a “gun-free zone”.gun-free-zone

How to Repair an Imperfect Government

February 26, 2017

I’ve been traveling for the last several days.  I’ve had to watch the major news networks in restaurants and airports.  I did a little first person observation as well.  I watched the news media as I was standing behind hundreds of reporters when President Trump entered the room to address a convention.  Very few of the reporters stood up.  After listening to their news stories, I think there is a struggle for America’s soul.  The struggle is real as Socialist politicians and their media supporters cling to power.  The Socialists say we need more government, and they will say anything to get it.  Then again, the Socialists always say they need more power, no matter how big government gets.  Some of us say more freedom is better than more government.  Freedom is the answer to our most serious and our most pressing persistent problems.  The reason lies in our very nature.  We can judge the results for ourselves..and we must if we are to repair this mess.used-tools

No candidate is perfect.  All of us are flawed.  Look at your community and at our nation.  My community suffers from every sin imaginable.  We are weak and corruptible.  We see the same weaknesses in our public figures.  Look at the presidential pardons Barack Obama made in his last days in office.  Look at Obama’s military sales in his last hours in office!  Look at the hundreds of millions of dollars the Clinton Foundation laundered as foreign governments bought favors.   No one is immune.

What should we do in light of that fact?  Socialists say solutions come from government programs.  They say we need an all-powerful government that can soothe every injustice wrought by an imperfect populace and an unfair world.  Only an omnipotent government can deliver equality in the face of human imperfection.  Because the government’s mission is so important, ordinary citizens must be taught what to think so we will all obey the state. (unless a republican is in office)

Sure, government is flawed, but those flaws are really features according to the socialists and their apologists.  Government corruption, kickbacks, and graft are simply the perquisites of government service.   Government should be powerful and centrally planned.   Elites think the government is too complex to be understood or operated by ordinary citizens.  

I disagree.  Government is made of men.  These bureaucrats and politicians are as flawed as any of us. They are as biased and partisan and self-serving as any capitalist robber-baron ever was.  We are corrupt, and so are our politicians!  Perfection is nowhere to be found.  Not at my kitchen table, and not at the White House.

Let’s look at the results.  Our behemoth government spent uncountable fortunes trying to satisfy every need.  Today we are taxed and controlled by an unknowable mountain of government regulations.  Government is so complex that we can be neither sure we followed the laws nor sure we properly paid our taxes.  Despite those sacrifices, we have the sick, the crazy, the fatherless, and the poor in record numbers.

Can you name even one problem that government made smaller?

There are alternatives.  Conservatives have a different view of society.  Contemporary conservatives live in a dirty and imperfect world.  Political conservatives live in a world that never goes according to plan.  Accidents happen, and the people on the scene have the best idea about how to solve their problems.  Their solution is to simplify government if it becomes too complex.  Conservatives want to fit government to us, rather than demand that we mold our lives to fit some government plan.  Conservatives think that government should be small, local, and simple.

These conflicting visions are clashing across America today.  Are we uncaring if we reject an all-powerful government?  Speaking personally, I want my neighbors to keep their own money and their freedom.  My neighbors are flawed, yet I trust my neighbors far more than I trust a government bureaucrat.  Judging by the latest election results, lots of my neighbors think the same thing.

Freedom is the answer and I love the solutions I’ve seen.  I saw working class families start their own schools.  I saw doctors start their own medical practices without the insurance companies.  They didn’t like the options they saw, so they made their own.  They reformed education and healthcare without a government plan or approval.  I’ve seen companies move from overregulated and overtaxed blue states so they could grow their businesses.

We live in a messy laboratory of freedom.  You have options, so choose the solution you want.  Move to a big-government blue city like New York, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Saint Louis, or San Francisco if you want.  If that isn’t your cup of tea, then move to a free state.  I love that freedom of choice.  I resent anyone who tries to take those choices away or who says we must all be the same.  I resent politicians who say it is noble to rob my neighbor of his freedom or his wallet.  I resent politicians who have such bad solutions that they need to impose them on all of us by force.

Please listen for those distortions as you hear news reporters and Socialist politicians tell us what we should do.  I resent the lies, like being told that I could keep my doctor, or that the earth is warming because of my car.  Government should be held accountable for their lies, and that is what the Socialists fear.  We can hold the media accountable for the lies they tell us as well.

That leaves open the questions of utility and morality.  A nation of angels doesn’t benefit from an all-powerful government. A nation of flawed humans can’t survive an all-powerful government.  That shows that government should be limited, but it leave open the spiritual question.

Are we perfect or are we flawed, and how should we live together?

DEAR CHRISTIANS: Do You Want To Ignore PERSECUTED Christians To Import Muslims? by Greg Hopkins

February 19, 2017

My friend Greg Hopkins is now writing regularly for Clash Daily.  His latest article is on religion and culture.  He asks us why we ignored persecuted Christians for the last eight years.  Great question.  Please give Greg a read. RM

“When Trump announced that he would give immigration preference to persecuted Christians last week, I rejoiced. Yet I saw little rejoicing from my fellow Christians on social media, especially from those on the liberal side of the pews. Throughout his tenure, Obama ignored the plight of Christians in the Mid-East and Africa who have been murdered, tortured, raped, kidnapped, maimed and driven from their homes in the hundreds of thousands by ISIS. Christians haven’t been persecuted for their faith in such numbers, over such a wide area since the Emperor Domitian. Finally granted asylum here, their plight may end. This is a group who, unlike Muslims, can understand the Christian roots of America’s founding and Constitution, and are willing to assimilate.

“So let me ask my fellow Christians some questions for self-evaluation and prayer. Is your plan to reject admission of your brothers and sisters in the faith for a group of people whose religion is not only antithetical and openly hostile to yours, but who are trapped in a 12th century mentality/culture by that religion?”

Source: DEAR CHRISTIANS: Do You Want To Ignore PERSECUTED Christians To Import Muslims? ⋆ Doug Giles ⋆ #ClashDaily

Berkeley Riots and the Political Climate Necessary for Hothouse Snowflakes

February 19, 2017

Let’s talk about what we saw happen on the University of California campus when Milo Yiannopoulos tried to speak.  We saw outside protesters shut down free speech at the home of the free speech movement.  That riot does not represent most of America.  The riot represents a minority view and could only happen in the special environment of an intolerant Socialist city.  That riot could only take place in the political micro-climate necessary for hothouse snowflakes.uc-berkeley-riots

You see, anyone the leftist thugs don’t agree with is an intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, fascist bigot.  Let’s simply call us fascist bigots or FBs for short.  Yes,  Milo Yiannopoulos and his audience we’re officially dubbed as FBs..even though the speaker was a gay man with Jewish parents who has a black boyfriend.  We are FBs..even if the audience was mostly students from UC Berkeley.

Consider the larger issue from the Socialist point of view.  The protesters had to beat people with metal pipes and burn books in order to stop fascism.  Or, maybe they just like calling names and beating people.  Lots of thugs do.

So the big-government rioters were a little short on issues and an intellectual framework.  Also consider the narrow environment where you can stage such protests and media events.

A few dozen police could have stopped the riot, but they were told not to do so.  The riot was not a matter of insufficient law enforcement resources.  The campus police could have easily stopped the violent riot on campus while still allowing peaceful protest.  Campus police didn’t, even though campus security demanded a seven thousand dollar security fee so that conservatives could speak on the UC campus.  (I think the seven grand was a tax, not a security fee, but we’ll leave that to the 9th circuit court to decide.)  Someone in a position of power, like the Chancellor of UC, Berkeley, Nicholas B. Dirks, probably told campus security to withdraw.  And withdraw they did.

Campus Security was not alone.  They could have asked for help from the local police.  Jesse Arreguin, the mayor of Berkeley, ordered the police to stand back and give the protesters “room for expression.”  The results were predictable.  In case you’ve forgotten, the Mayor of Baltimore told the Baltimore Police to give protesters room to riot before that city burned.  I think the riot was a scripted media event and the riot organizers knew the police would withdraw.

The mayor of Berkeley could have asked for help from the California State Police.  He didn’t ask for help because the riot was politically approved at the highest levels.  It is part of the Socialist party platform to shout down and beat down conservatives.  The interesting question is why.

Socialist politicians and their rich supporters want us to think the Yiannopoulos riot in Berkeley expressed popular rejection of conservative views.  That is the perspective the legacy media tried to sell us.  They are wrong.  The riot was as scripted as a Socialist political convention.  The results were planned before the first ticket was sold, or should I say, before the first ballot was cast.  Building a riot like this wasn’t easy.

There are only a few large Socialist controlled cities where the city mayor would tell the police to withdraw so the media could film a riot.  The list is shorter still, because most US citizens would have stopped the riot even if the local police withdrew.  That sounds like an outrageous claim, but it is true.

Imagine what would happen if a crowd of rioters tried to beat up people and burn businesses in middle america.  The University of California Berkeley campus is a “gun-free” zone in a “gun-free” city embedded in an anti-gun state.  The rioters came with clubs, pipes and sledgehammers while the audience who wanted to hear  Milo Yiannopoulos speak were disarmed.  You wouldn’t find that political micro-climate across most of the United States.  To make my point, imagine if Milo Yiannopoulos spoke at Texas A&M.  The peaceful audience would defend themselves when they were attacked by the violent rioters.  The audience wouldn’t start a fight, but they could end one.  I doubt the police would have much to do.  Snowflakes melt pretty quickly when they get outside of their Socialist Hothouse heated with political donations.

The Socialists tried to label us as deplorable, but that didn’t work. Now, they need to paint conservatives as intolerant.  Democrat politicians and their backers want to brand small-government conservatives as extremists.  The Berkeley riot was the latest media event to do so.  That is pure propaganda like the Ferguson riots back in 2014 and the Baltimore riots in 2015.  As a propaganda tool, the riot has worn thin.  

Most of us are tolerant..perhaps too much so.  We want to hear issues openly discussed and we assume good will from others.  That belief isn’t always justified.  It is the Socialists who only tolerate one point of view and claim the right to shout us down rather than engage in open debate.  If you doubt me, then ask how many conservatives sit as tenured faculty on the UC Berkeley Department of Sociology, or who sit on the Berkeley City Council.  The faculty in our elite universities are more segregated than the residents of any gated community.  For that matter, how many conservatives are in the legacy media?  There are a handful, even though most of us describe our views as politically conservative.  Their bias is showing as they try to stereotype us.branding-conservatives

Yeah.  Nice try with the latest public relations campaign trying to re-brand Socialism.  I am not a Fascist Bigot, even though they call me one.  Neither are you.  This riot tells us far more about Socialist California politicians and the legacy media than it does about our beliefs..or the beliefs of Milo Yiannopoulos..if we were allowed to hear them.

Setting My Priorities

February 11, 2017

My wife shared this with me.  She manages her own business, so she has to set priorities all the time.  Thank you, Jen.  It is a timely topic on the “slow facts” blog.

I’ll post this at work..and share it with my readers as well.  It is easy to let the urgent crowd out the important.


Ensure that Good People are Still Able to Do Good Things

February 10, 2017
tags: ,

I wrote about “Being Tolerant and “Pro-Choice” for Self-Defense“.  One of my readers said it all better than I did.

Frank in FL said, “Evil people will do evil things; crazy people will do crazy things; stupid people will do stupid things. Any solution to this problem cannot involve making it impossible for good people to do good things.”

I agree.  Any solution must ensure that good people are still able to do good things.tip the scales

Being Tolerant and “Pro-Choice” for Self-Defense

February 9, 2017

I couldn’t believe it. I heard a news story where a person said, ‘The police should protect me on campus. Self-defense isn’t my job.’ While that is a fine attitude for a child, it seemed perversely immature from an adult. If you’re not sure where you stand on that issue, then let me bring up some obvious points.

Criminals are a fact of life.  The first point is that there are bad people in our world. They are even on campus.  These bad people don’t worry if they hurt us. In fact, we are as insignificant as an insect to them.  They will simply take what they want.  It could be our wallet, our body, or even our life.  It is hard for us to understand their point of view.  We don’t go around looking for innocent people to victimize.  They do.

Ask the experts.  I wish bad people were not with us, but they are.  It can be hard to believe that bad people exist because we don’t see them every day. If you think that your town is immune, then please go ask an expert on crime in your area.  Fortunately, these experts are available every hour of the day or night.  They are happy to talk to you.  Please walk into your local police station and ask the officer at the desk if there are bad people in your town.

Take your time.  I’ll wait.

You don’t stop evil by being defenseless.

It is your job to protect those you love.  Our immature friend said the police were there to protect her.  As much as I appreciate the police, it isn’t their job to protect you or me as individuals.  Protecting us from an immediate threat isn’t even near the top of their job description.  The police catch repeat criminals and collect evidence for prosecutors.  That is their job.

The police don’t have magic powers.  I don’t blame the police that they can’t keep me safe.  Protecting me is an impossible job for any police department.  In practical terms, it is only after we’ve been threatened, robbed, beaten or raped that an unarmed citizen even has a chance to call the police.  You are already a victim by that time.  The criminals are long gone before the police even get the call for help.  That is why law enforcement officers ask us to protect ourselves until they arrive.  Again, you can ask them if you don’t believe me.  I’ll wait.

Self-defense should be left up to us.  Self-defense advocates, like me, say you should carry a legally owned firearm, but only if you want one.  Anti-rights advocates go further.  They say we should not be allowed to protect ourselves even if we want to.  They say, “I don’t want to protect myself, and you shouldn’t be allowed to either.”  That attitude imposes their bigoted views on others.  It is intolerant and dictatorial.

We can’t be allowed to have whatever they don’t want for themselves.

You know best.  Most of us feel differently.  We have a live-and-let-live attitude that says, ‘You know what you need better than I do.’  Sure, I want you to protect yourself and your family, but I’d never force you to do so.  I even want you to get a gun because I think firearms are useful tools for self-defense.  I also want you to get training so you can do the right thing at the right time.  I want lots of honest people to have guns so they can protect the innocent.  That reduces violent crime and keeps us all safer.. even anti-gun advocates.  Yeah, that is what I want, but the choice is up to you.

Anti-rights advocates disagree.  Anti-rights advocates think the police should come with guns and disarm honest gun owners.  That sounds violent to me.  I’m tolerant and “Pro-Choice” when it comes to self-defense.  So are most of us.

Help me here.  Tell me which one of us is violent, and which one of us is for peaceful co-existence?


%d bloggers like this: