• Stop Insulting the Truly Homeless.

    To apologize for something that occurred nearly thirty years ago, which was based upon an entirely different context, is a truly absurd result of political correctness run even further afoul of sanity. One innocently participates in a marvelously silly, albeit well-produced, training video three decades ago, sanctioned by the professional agency in which one works, and intended for the purpose of morale-boosting. As a result, a city’s leftist contingent of apologists for bad behavior cannot wait to jump on a fabricated issue. Create a crisis and then don’t let it go to waste. If anything, this should have been explained away with logic and rationality, not an integrity-compromising apology. Is there no reason left in some cities or honor in some city leaders? Must everyone guzzle the progressive Kool-Aid? Must everyone of substance be made to kneel before the leftist horde’s social justice lust is satisfied?

    Thirty years later, here come the social justices and political correctivists with their manufactured outrage and usurpation of the term “homeless” in order to criticize, corrupted by the warped lens of presentism. They accuse people of disparaging the “homeless,” when that term wasn’t even in common use when referring to street folks at the time. I defy anyone to find a police officer thirty years ago who referred to those living and committing crime, say, under a bridge, as “homeless.” Even twenty years ago, this was not a common term for these folks. Aside from “inside-police” terms based upon observed behavior, these folks were referred to as vagrants, derelicts, vagabonds, hobos—wastrels, for the more literary types—and the sure-to-rile, and, God forbid judgmental, but arguably accurate: Bum (Insert ominous music here). Calling these folks, “transients,” was probably as “politically correct” as it got back then.

    These luminaries of social outrage cry foul that anyone would dare to poke fun at the “homeless.” Well, if homeless advocates even approached being honest, they’d have to admit that’s not what happened. Humor at the truly homeless’ plight would be an affront. There are of course too many people who are homeless due to horrible life’s circumstances that are not their fault. In fact, it is these truly homeless people who have been insulted by those advocates, and homeless practitioners, who insist on applying the term “homeless” to people who are such by design. “Homelessness” for these people is a consequence of their reckless actions and foolish, self-destructive choices. These people, even if we concede they are well intentioned, have usurped the term “homeless,” and have inserted it into the issue as a euphemism for an irresponsible lifestyle.

    The woman who has been beaten and forced to leave her home with her child; they are homeless. The kid abused by a family member and kicked out of the house; that person is homeless. However, the thirty-five year old, able-bodied man or woman who’s been repeatedly cited for drinking and urinating in public, arrested fifteen times for shoplifting, trespassing, and assault, who has no home as a result of how they’ve chosen to live their lives, eschewing any social responsibility, is not legitimately homeless. On the contrary, they are walking insults to the really needy and truly homeless.

  • The Left’s Grand Deceit: “Common Sense” Gun Control.

    Interesting how we’re currently hearing that some poll ostensibly finds that 90% of Americans support Obama’s new gun law, in particular, the expanded background check, which would amount to virtual gun registration.

    However, something interesting happens on the way to subsequent polls; People became informed, and their positions began to change. It’s easy to support background checks when presented in a void. They seem like the “common sense” gun laws the liberals are consistently touting.

    Once people begin to understand the unintended consequences of background checks such as: Do I need to pay fifty bucks for the forms and have my 15-year old son get a background check when I buy him a .22 rifle for his birthday? Then do I have to maintain the forms? For how long? What will happen to me if I don’t maintain the forms, or if I lose them? Has my 15-year old son or 16-year old daughter committed a felony I’m unaware of, or has she been committed to a mental institution without my knowledge? Unless she was transported by the local public school to Planned Parenthood for an abortion, I, as her parent, am likely to know about such important issues involving my child, making a background check unnecessary.

    People also engage in these mental self-deceptions when they consider, “Just how many bullets do people need?” type questions. It seems people tend to create clean and tidy little scenarios in their heads as to what comprises a self-defense situation such as a home invasion. It appears that many people believe one robber will break in and seven bullets, from a handgun, or non-scary, non-assault rifle, should do the trick.

    Well, what if two armed criminals commit the home invasion? What about three, or four. In my experience home-invasion robberies normally include more than one criminal. They use speed, terror, and violence to intimidate their victims. The only thing that will turn the tables on these thugs is when the victim becomes the predator, surprising the criminals with superior firepower.

    The left is currently involved in a grand deceit: If you don’t believe exactly as they do, you want to make it easier, as our illustrious president said, “to gun down our children”. Yes, that’s what we conservatives and libertarians want. Give me a break!

    Many on the left—even the far left—admit that none of the current proposed new gun laws would have made a difference in any of the high-profile shootings of the recent past. Does this deter them? Hell no! What in the world does logic have any place in this argument? Do something. Do anything. Will it work? Who cares? Just do it!

    Let me close with a necessary cliché: The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. As someone who’s dedicated over two decades to being a good guy with a gun, this is anything but cliché to me.