By Kimberly Bloom Jackson
For more than a year after our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, the newly formed United States still didn’t have an official flag.
Finally, on June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress passed a “Flag Resolution” that declared: “Resolved, That the flag of the [thirteen] United States be 13 stripes, alternate red and white: that the union be 13 stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation” (p. 464, Journals of the Continental Congress, Volume 8). This new flag became the first definitive national symbol of our country, representing the 13 former colonies––now the United States—Massachusetts, Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Georgia, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maryland.
Although Congress gave some overall specifics on what the flag should look like, it left open details of its final design. Soon, someone took the initiative to make a flag with the stars arranged in a perfect circle, symbolizing the powerful unity between the new states. This is sometimes called the Betsy Ross flag because according to legend it was Ross who sewed the first flag—affectionately known as “stars and stripes”—for George Washington to use as a motivating symbol for American soldiers in the Revolutionary War.
By Stella Morabito. A timely piece originally published at The Federalist where Morabito is a senior contributor.
We should just dump the weaponized word ‘gender’ and say ‘sex.’ It’s the first step back to sanity in this war on our minds and bodies.
Let’s stop polluting our language with the word “gender.” Corruption of the English language was Point A on the road to President Obama’s directive to de-privatize and de-sex all school restrooms nationwide. The ploy that got us all into the lazy habit of using the empty term “gender” in place of the accurate word “sex” has its roots in gender ideology, which cultural Marxists pushed for many decades. Since cultural Marxism is nothing but nihilism, it shouldn’t surprise us that “gender” can mean whatever you want or don’t want it to mean. In other words, there’s no there there.
George Orwell’s classic 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” discusses how easily language can be a tool of political manipulation. Here’s a great excerpt that I think shows us how we got to today’s state of confusion:
Read more at The Federalist.
By now, you’re probably aware that the $20 bill is getting a facelift. Apparently, our government has nothing better to do than turn our paper currency into wallet-sized political billboards, starting with replacing the image of white, male, Democrat and slaveholder President Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) with that of black, female, Republican and abolitionist Harriet Tubman (1822-1913).
Personally, I don’t have a problem with Harriet Tubman’s image appearing on our currency. I can care less that she’s black, or a woman for that matter. Those are just superficial differences that progressive bureaucrats love to exploit, even though such attributes say nothing about the value of an individual.
However, what intrigues me most about Tubman is that, despite being born into slavery on a Maryland plantation in 1822, she refused to think of herself as a victim. You might even say she was driven by a “Live Free or Die” spirit. Unfortunately, this side of Tubman is never mentioned in the history books. Therefore, I shall do the honors.
By Heather Mac Donald. A must read article originally published in Imprimis. Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal.
For almost two years, a protest movement known as “Black Lives Matter” has convulsed the nation. Triggered by the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014, the Black Lives Matter movement holds that racist police officers are the greatest threat facing young black men today. This belief has triggered riots, “die-ins,” the murder and attempted murder of police officers, a campaign to eliminate traditional grand jury proceedings when police use lethal force, and a presidential task force on policing.
Even though the U.S. Justice Department has resoundingly disproven the lie that a pacific Michael Brown was shot in cold blood while trying to surrender, Brown is still venerated as a martyr. And now police officers are backing off of proactive policing in the face of the relentless venom directed at them on the street and in the media. As a result, violent crime is on the rise.
The need is urgent, therefore, to examine the Black Lives Matter movement’s central thesis—that police pose the greatest threat to young black men. I propose two counter hypotheses: first, that there is no government agency more dedicated to the idea that black lives matter than the police; and second, that we have been talking obsessively about alleged police racism over the last 20 years in order to avoid talking about a far larger problem—black-on-black crime.
Read more in Imprimis.
By Kimberly Bloom Jackson
Last week, near a busy outdoor shopping area, I witnessed two women break out into coughing fits while walking by a man who was just about to light a cigar. The match wasn’t even lit, but just seeing the cigar set them off. Perhaps their reaction was purely psychosomatic or maybe they just wanted to send the man a clear message of public disapproval and make him feel uncomfortable for enjoying a cigar. Either way, they sure looked silly.
Chances are you’ve seen or heard something similar. It seems to me that these kinds of Alinsky-inspired theatrics are becoming increasingly common for those who wish to draw negative attention to certain people or situations for ideological purposes. This is especially true among the anti-gun crowd. To demonstrate, I offer the following recent stories:
STORY #1: Imagine wearing an empty holster and then cited by police for “causing alarm.” This is what D.J. Parten, a student at the University of Alabama and President of Students for Concealed Carry in Alabama experienced while participating in what was billed as an empty holster protest on campus. That’s right. No guns or ammo, just an empty holster. Nevertheless, someone apparently freaked out and three campus police officers showed up. Here’s just a snippet of what happened:
Officer: “You know there’s a no-weapons policy out here, but then you want to push it.”
Parten: “Uh … this is a protest.”
Officer “Doesn’t matter. Did you get permission to wear it?”
Parten: “I don’t need permission to wear it.”
Officer: “You need permission from the university.”
Parten: “To wear a holster?”
By Kimberly Bloom Jackson
The hootenanny days of Establishment Republicans riding shotgun with Establishment Democrats may be over soon. Both political parties are so determined to cling onto what little influence they have left, they’re willing to risk it all, even if it means crash and burn at the end of the road.
In my view, we should have taken a big broom and shooed them all out a long time ago. But here we are with an even more arrogant bunch of political elites during a critical election season. As for the GOP, there’s a lot of scuttlebutt about how they’re planning to force a “brokered convention.” Yeah, I know it’s legal and it’s been done before, but depending on how the convention rules are changed at the last minute to suit Establishment whims, it may not be very liberty-oriented or respectful of voters. That’s because it likely wouldn’t be a contest between our two clear frontrunners—Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Instead, according to numerous mainstream news stories that have been dribbled out in an attempt to test the waters of resistance, Establishment politicians are hinting at choosing someone of their own liking. In other words, if the Republican primary doesn’t go the way the GOP prefers … to hell with the People!
Take it from Mr. Establishment himself, Karl Rove, who recently appeared on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show suggesting one possible scenario:
If we have somebody who we think has been battle-tested, and has strong conservative principles and the ability to articulate them, and they are nominated at this convention, there will be a lot of acrimony from the people who were seeking the nomination. But if it’s somebody who has, you know, has those convictions that they can express in a compelling way we could come out of the convention in relatively strong position … And a fresh face might be the thing that could give us a chance to turn this election and win in November against Hillary.
By Kimberly Bloom Jackson
This is the perfect reply to anyone who tries to suggest that Democrats who own guns are somehow praiseworthy supporters of gun rights. The reply comes from Mark Walters, who writes a column for Concealed Carry Magazine, which I highly recommend to anyone who carries, or is thinking about carrying, a firearm. Learn more at United States Concealed Carry Association.
Hey Mark! Dems Own Guns, Too (July 2014 Issue)
To Mark Walters:
I own guns. Carry guns. Hell, I live in Kansas and we have one of the country’s best set of gun laws.
Do you think a Democrat cannot be a supporter of gun rights or that we don’t carry guns? Do you think we are all a bunch of wimps?
Can Democrats be good supporters of the 2nd Amendment? Or does just being a Democrat mean we are evil and not capable of carrying a gun?
How does Obamacare impact your gun rights? It doesn’t. The hatred of Obama seems to be more of a personal thing for people like you. A hatred not backed by logic but just anger. I assume you never read these emails, but I wish there was a gun forum or magazine that dealt with gun rights only and was not just another right-wing haven.
Gary, Via Email
–– –– –– –– ––
So you’re a Democrat who owns guns. Big deal. Woo-hoo and pass the chips!
A must see video from Prager University:
“Is America racist? Is it—as President Barack Obama said—”part of our DNA”? Author and talk-show host Larry Elder examines America’s legacy of racism, whether it’s one we can ever escape, and in the process offers a different way of looking at things like Ferguson, crime, police and racial profiling.”
Originally posted on January 18, 2016 at Prager University.
By Kimberly Bloom Jackson
What is it about Hollywood elites who jump on their soapboxes proclaiming to be saviors of America, but then do everything imaginable to undermine the core principles of its founding?
Take Hollywood’s anti-gun glitterati for example. Between making personal fortunes from glorifying guns in their movies and living exuberant lifestyles that includes armed security, one would think they would support their fellow Americans right to self-defense. Nope.
We’ve all heard of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his scandalous anti-gun program Everytown For Gun Safety. Now, Academy Award-winning actress Julianne Moore has recently launched her own gun control group called Everytown Creative Council, which, not surprisingly, falls under the auspices of Bloomberg’s organization. To help her, she has recruited fellow celebrities Meg Ryan, Amy Schumer, Jennifer Lawrence, Reese Witherspoon, Kevin Bacon, Kristen Bell, Jessica Chastain, J.J.Abrams, and others to join in her un-American assault on the Second Amendment.
In a Huffington Post blog, Moore had the audacity to write:
- “We are actors and artists, but we are Americans first. … We respect the Second Amendment but keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of convicted criminals, terrorists, domestic abusers, stalkers and dangerous people isn’t anti-gun; it’s pro-common sense.”
- “We know that more than 90 percent of Americans support common-sense reforms that are proven to save lives. What not enough people know and what the gun lobby doesn’t want more of us to know is that a large majority of gun owners support these reforms too.”
This is a level of propaganda we would expect from the pompous pigs in George Orwell’s 1945 classic novel Animal Farm. All people are equal, but some people (the elites who like to make the rules) are more equal than others.
I finally took Rob Pincus’ Combat Focus Shooting class last summer. To be honest, I was a little nervous at first. That’s because Combat Focus Shooting goes beyond just shooting at a stationary paper target, where people stand and take their sweet time shooting at the bullseyes. If only the bad guys who seek to lethally harm us would be as still as the typical paper target.
Luckily, Pincus’ intuitive shooting class can better prepare us for a dynamic critical incident in the real world. His classes are very “hands-on” and “minds-on,” complete with shooting (with and without sights), holstering/re-holstering, loading/reloading, and lots of lateral movement, all while under the influence of multiple stimuli. In other words, it wasn’t comfy like a standard shooting range. This is precisely how my skills were taken to the next level. In fact, the class was so good, I plan to take it again in the future.
To experience this potentially life-saving training for yourself, contact Combat Focus Shooting for more information.