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 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 Dave Workman. This is a much needed “we’ll play hardball right back at you” article. Workman is an author and senior editor at TheGunMag.com.
Fox News is reporting this morning that a Virginia state senator is making good on his promise to push for defunding armed bodyguards for anti-gun Gov. Terry McAuliffe unless the Democrat does an about face on an October order to prohibit firearms in most state office buildings.
It brings up an interesting question that could apply to any government official anywhere, from mayors on up. If an elected official is opposed to the carrying of defensive sidearms by average citizens, should that official automatically lose his/ her security guards?
Virginia State Sen. Charles Carrico, a Republican, is quoted by Fox News observing, “It’s easy for someone who is surrounded by armed state policemen to tell someone else they can’t carry a weapon to protect themselves.”
If the idea were to spread, it’s likely that herds of liberal politicians would be running for cover, complaining that they “need” the protection. This would be the perfect way to test the “needs” standard for issuing carry permits in such states as New York, New Jersey and Maryland by applying it to officials who insist they need security.
Could it be that this elitist double standard might be part of the reason that, according to Rasmussen Reports, only about one in four Americans think the country is headed in the right direction? Rasmussen’s daily polling update revealed Monday that only 26 percent of likely U.S. voters think the
Read more at Examiner.
By Kimberly Bloom Jackson
When my husband and I arrived at the door of a local restaurant that came highly recommended to us, we couldn’t believe our eyes.
On their door was the infamous “NO GUNS” sign. We looked at each other in disbelief. How could the owner of the restaurant be so stupid as to draw attention to an establishment full of unarmed customers? Worse yet, how could customers be so stupid? It’s like hanging an “easy target” sign around every neck.
Fact is, mindless gun-free zones are what mass shootings have in common. They are killing zones, free from good guys with guns. That’s why the Aurora movie theater killer chose the more distant theater where guns were not allowed and thus where he wouldn’t have to worry about his plan being foiled.
Still, too many people remain in denial. Recently, an Olive Garden employee asked an on duty Kansas City police officer who was in full uniform to leave the restaurant because he was—wait for it—carrying a gun!
Intense reaction to the incident on social media prompted an Olive Garden spokesperson to apologize for the “misunderstanding.” “We love having members of law enforcement dine with us,” he said. Really? Olive Garden may say they love law enforcement, but did you know they hate the Second Amendment?
As for that restaurant with the “no gun” sign my husband and I visited, needless to say, we moved on to safer turf.