Y’all need to back off Tyrone Hankerson. The Howard University law school student at the center of a school embezzlement scandal says all the financial aid he has received is legit. The 25-year-old from Atlanta, Georgia suffered the heat of a social media …
Coleman Hughes, a black student at Columbia, goes there. His essay begins like this:
In the fall of 2016, I was hired to play in Rihanna’s back-up band at the MTV Video Music Awards. To my pleasant surprise, several of my friends had also gotten the call. We felt that this would be the gig of a lifetime: beautiful music, primetime TV, plus, if we were lucky, a chance to schmooze with celebrities backstage.
But as the date approached, I learned that one of my friends had been fired and replaced. The reason? He was a white Hispanic, and Rihanna’s artistic team had decided to go for an all-black aesthetic—aside from Rihanna’s steady guitarist, there would be no non-blacks on stage. Though I was disappointed on my friend’s behalf, I didn’t consider his firing as unjust at the time—and maybe it wasn’t. Is it unethical for an artist to curate the racial composition of a racially-themed performance? Perhaps; perhaps not. My personal bias leads me to favor artistic freedom, but as a society, we have yet to answer this question definitively.
One thing, however, is clear. If the races were reversed—if a black musician had been fired in order to achieve an all-white aesthetic—it would have made front page headlines. It would have been seen as an unambiguous moral infraction. The usual suspects would be outraged, calling for this event to be viewed in the context of the long history of slavery and Jim Crow in this country, and their reaction would widely be seen as justified. Public-shaming would be in order and heartfelt apologies would be made. MTV might even enact anti-bias trainings as a corrective.
Though the question seems naïve to some, it is in fact perfectly valid to ask why black people can get away with behavior that white people can’t. The progressive response to this question invariably contains some reference to history: blacks were taken from their homeland in chains, forced to work as chattel for 250 years, and then subjected to redlining, segregation, and lynchings for another century. In the face of such a brutal past, many would argue, it is simply ignorant to complain about what modern-day blacks can get away with.
Yet there we were—young black men born decades after anything that could rightly be called ‘oppression’ had ended—benefitting from a social license bequeathed to us by a history that we have only experienced through textbooks and folklore. And my white Hispanic friend (who could have had a tougher life than all of us, for all I know) paid the price. The underlying logic of using the past to justify racial double-standards in the present is rarely interrogated. What do slavery and Jim Crow have to do with modern-day blacks, who experienced neither? Do all black people have P.T.S.D from racism, as the Grammy and Emmy award-winning artist Donald Glover recently claimed? Is ancestral suffering actually transmitted to descendants? If so, how? What exactly are historical ‘ties’ made of?
Hughes goes on to lament the double standard the public applies to famous black writers. For example:
The celebrated journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates provides another example of the lower ethical standard to which black writers are held. In his #1 New York Times bestseller, Between the World and Me, Coates explained that the policemen and firemen who died on 9/11 “were not human to me,” but “menaces of nature.”1 This, it turned out, was because a friend of Coates had been killed by a black cop a few months earlier. In his recent essay collection, he doubled down on this pitiless sentiment: “When 9/11 happened, I wanted nothing to do with any kind of patriotism, with the broad national ceremony of mourning. I had no sympathy for the firefighters, and something bordering on hatred for the police officers who had died.”2 Meanwhile, New York Times columnist Bari Weiss—a young Jewish woman—was recently raked over the coals for tweeting, “Immigrants: They get the job done,” in praise of the Olympic ice-skater Mirai Nagasu, a second-generation Japanese-American. Accused of ‘othering’ an American citizen, Weiss came under so much fire that The Atlantic ran twoseparate pieces defending her. That The Atlantic saw it necessary to vigorously defend Weiss, but hasn’t had to lift a finger to defend Coates, whom they employ, evidences the racial double-standard at play. From a white writer, an innocuous tweet provokes histrionic invective. From a black writer, repeated expressions of unapologetic contempt for public servants who died trying to save the lives of others on September 11 are met with fawningpraise from leftwing periodicals, plus a National Book Award and a MacArthur ‘Genius’ Grant.
Hughes says this double standard is common in society:
But we make an exception for blacks. Indeed, what George Orwell wrote in 1945seems more apt today: “Almost any English intellectual would be scandalised by the claim that the white races are superior to the coloured, whereas the opposite claim would seem to him unexceptionable even if he disagreed with it.” Only a black intellectual, for instance, could write an op-ed arguing that black children should not befriend white children because “[h]istory has provided little reason for people of color to trust white people,” and get it published in the New York Times in 2017. An identical piece with the races reversed would rightly be relegated to fringe white supremacist forums. In defense of such racist drivel, it won’t suffice to repeat the platitude that ‘black people can’t be racist,’ as if redefining a word changes the ethical status of the thing that the word signifies. Progressives ought not dodge the question: Why are blacks the only ethnic group routinely and openly encouraged to nurse stale grievances back to life?
Read the whole thing. It’s very, very brave. Hughes is a black undergraduate at an Ivy League university, yet he has no been afraid to say what has been unsayable. That man has guts.
By the way, his essay is not merely an exercise in whataboutism. He addresses real philosophical and moral concerns in it. He focuses on blacks, but as a general matter, if you read the mainstream press, you’ll find there’s a tendency to treat gays and other minority groups favored by liberals with kid gloves — as if they were symbols, not real people, with the same virtues and vices that everybody else has. For example, in a previous job, I observed that some liberals in the newsroom viewed local Muslims through the lens of the culture war between liberals and conservatives, and did not want to hold them to the same standard with regard to extremist rhetoric, apparently because doing so might encourage conservatives in their own biases.
Another personal example: last year, I wrote several posts about Tommy Curry, a radical black nationalist who teaches philosophy at Texas A&M (see here and here). In his written work and spoken advocacy, Curry advocates what can only be described as anti-white hatred. Don’t take my word for it; go read the blogs I wrote, which quote generously from, and link to, Curry’s own work. A white man who spoke the same way about any racial minority would never have been hired by a university — A&M hired him knowing exactly what they were getting, because he had published — and would never be retained by one after his racism became known. I linked in one of the blogs to a podcast (subtitled, “White People Are The Problem”) on which Curry was a regular guest; on that particular episode, this philosophy professor argued that white people cannot be reasonable, because they are white.
Imagine being a white student in that man’s class.
But there is a different standard for bigots from the left. The Chronicle of Higher Education wrote a long piece about the fallout from my blogs, and positioned it as Curry having suffered because he wanted to “force a conversation about race and violence” — a conversation that people didn’t want to hear. The writer — no doubt reflecting the biases of his own professional class — could not seem to grasp why people would be really offended by the unapologetic racism of Tommy Curry’s writing and speaking. This is precisely the double standard that Coleman Hughes decries. It is lucrative for radicals like Curry, Coates, and others, but a just society should hold us all to the same standard of discourse and morality. This is one aspect of the Enlightenment that I am eager to defend. It’s not only morally right, but practically, observing it it is the only way we will be able to keep the peace in a pluralistic country.
I found Hughes’s essay via Prufrock, a free daily digest that comes to you in e-mail, to which you can and should subscribe by clicking here.
For 12 weeks he traveled the country, up and down the coasts, to Indiana the day Martin Luther King Jr. was killed; to Nebraska, where he won a vital primary in a devoutly conservative state; to Oregon, where he suffered the first political loss by any member of his family; and then to California, where he vowed to go on to the Democratic convention “and let’s win there,” only to walk through a hotel kitchen where it all – the campaign against a long war, the campaign for a new sense of national purpose – tumbled to an end with an outstretched arm and spray of gunfire.
It looks like we are in for a long hot summer in America. I am one who does not like extremely hot humid weather. It is even more painful when the prospects of ignorant, indoctrinated Soros paid gumps may seek to riot in American streets this summer. The reason for such plans are always the same tired excuses given by bitter useful idiots who don’t know anything and got that mixed up when it comes to justice, freedom, liberty and reparations. To this day, many black Americans who stupidly call themselves African Americans do not even understand how reparations are designed to be carried out.
Just recently in Seattle, white patrons at a certain bar were required to pay for the drinks of black female patrons. The reason given “it was a form of reparations for slavery.” That makes about as much sense as white shoppers being forced to buy groceries for black grocery store patrons as a form of reparations. It is stupid and victimizes people who had nothing to do with slavery and gives a false sense of gotcha to those receiving reparation drinks or whatever.
Black Americans would be better served by the example of other people groups who have dealt with cruel and unfair treatment. After the Empire of Japan bombed Pearl Harbor during World War Two, it was not long before Japanese residents in the United States suffered a major ordeal. They were rounded up and systematically tossed into concentration camps. The reason given is were at war and the Japanese might carry out war activities within the continental United States. After all, it was the Japanese who fooled America into thinking they wanted to be our friend by signing a peace agreement with our republic. They had even given beautiful Flowering trees to cities like Washington D.C. and Cleveland which annually bloom every spring.
The Japanese residents in America suffered in concentration camps and had faced racist treatment prior to the Peal Harbor attacks. But they took it in stride and like the Chinese who also immigrated to the United States received shabby treatment. But rather steep themselves of a caldron of bitterness, the Japanese and Chinese immigrants patiently learned how to succeed economically. They supported businesses in their respective communities and gradually became highly successful, despite whatever white Americans thought of them at the time.
In addition, although the Japanese could have been very bitter, but to the immeasurable embarrassment and chagrin of those who tossed Japanese into concentration camps, they enthusiastically mobilized their sons and sent them into the American armed forces to volunteer their services. The Japanese regiments were among the more highly decorated in World War II. Although they went into the military ranks under suspicion and resentment, they came out as heralded heroes.
But of all the ethnic groups in America it seems that Black Americans have had the most difficulty securing their place as assimilated. Many early political leaders including Abraham Lincoln expressed concerned over the ability of Blacks to adjust because of the slavery culture in which the first few generations were raised. Despite apprehensions, freedom and education brought tremendous hope and optimism to Black Americans within three generations. After three generations, many blacks were overcoming the culture gap. In time Blacks in every other nation on earth saw their ethnic counterparts in America experiencing a higher standard of living than Blacks in any other part of the world. In fact, by 1970 a black high school student in Alabama or Mississippi had a higher chance at obtaining a collegiate education than a white student in Great Britain.
Great Americans like Frederick Douglas, Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver all believed that hard work, an education and faith in God would ensure a pathway to success and blaze a trail for following generations to follow. Still others like W. E.B. Dubois and white democrats fought to instill a level of bitterness and hatred for America in Blacks and conned them into expecting government gratuities as a main source of revenue. Experience has proven that such a mindset has corrupted and debilitated Black Americans socially, economically and most horribly in family life where females now run over 70 percent of all Black American households.
Many tend to uphold the Black female as morally superior to the Black man. Yet they fail to answer the question that if Black females are morally superior, why is it they continue to raise the most damaged generations of Black boys in the history of the republic? After all it is they who have complete access to their boys without any input from men, because of their aversion to Black male authority. Remember, they preferred government handouts over a working Black father in the home. Until the 1970s, the majority of Black American households were headed by Black American men who either had one or two jobs.
In the mid-sixties there were groups of Marxist agitators who promoted violence an attitude of entitlement among Black Americans. One of the most famous was Eldridge Cleaver, who had been trained in Marxist philosophy and evil tactics while serving a fifteen year sentence in a California prison. In 1967 he became Minister of Information for the Black Panthers. Their goal was to use violence to wipe out the economic and social structure of the United States and roll out communism so that everyone would be equal, but equally poor. Just like today’s Black Lives Matter movement, it wasn’t about working to improve the quality of life for anyone. But to destroy the prospects of a good life for everyone, except the elites at the top of course.
After leading a wave of violence in 1968, Eldridge Cleaver and his wife fled the United State and hid out in Cuba for eight years. A funny thing happened. While in Cuba he witnessed the horrendous failure of communism as a means to improve life for the common man. Mr. Cleaver concluded that it would be better to come back to America and pay for his crimes in prison than to remain free and morbidly disappointed in Cuba. Black Americans today would be much better off if they researched the Eldridge Cleaver story for themselves and came to the logical conclusion that while it may not be perfect in America, it is the best hope for mankind after God almighty. Here’s hoping and praying, that they awaken from their democrat party influenced nightmare and seek to live rather than just exist as Soros, Alynski inspired cretins. I know it might seem impossible, but miracles do happen.
Enjoy the miracle of Blowin’ away the Myths and Revealing the Truth via #TheEdwardsNotebook commentary every day on #freedominamericaradio, #goodtalkradio #talkamericaradio #shrmedia during #MoneyTalkwithMelanie at 5:10 PM EST, on KCKQ AM 1180 Reno, Nevada during AM News, just after 4:30 AM during the Captain’s America Third Watch show emanating nationwide from flagship station AM 860 WGUL the Answer Tampa Florida. The Edwards Notebook is also heard regularly on FM 101.5 and AM 1400 the Patriot, Detroit. Last but definitely not least, #TheRonEdwardsExperience talk show is heating up the airwaves to a growing audience Fridays at 4:00 PM EST, 1:00 PM PT on KCKQ AM 1180 Reno Nevada, #shrmedia and americamatters.us and at 7:00 PM PT Thursdays on #goodtalkradio.
© 2018 Ron Edwards – All Rights Reserved
E-Mail Ron Edwards: [email protected]
San Francisco’s Mayor Ed Lee died suddenly early Tuesday morning. Lee, 65, died at Zuckerberg San Francisco General hospital at 1:11 a.m., according to a statement from his office. “Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife Anita, his two daughters …
The president was intent on a public patriotic celebration. It was important, he said, to “give significant expression to our thoughtful love of America.” He marched at the head of a parade past cheering tens of thousands of citizens who lined Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House. Later that day the president traveled to the Washington Monument, where he gave a speech that denounced an unnamed ethnic group. He said that it “must absolutely be crushed” before it could further subvert America and its influence abroad. He urged Americans to make it clear that “loyalty to this flag is the first test of tolerance in the United States” and demanded that his political party pass a plank making it clear that anyone who was a real American would agree with his course of action abroad and at home.
Thus Woodrow Wilson kicked off his campaign for reelection in June 1916. “Together, the speech and the plank,” writes Patricia O’Toole in her excellent new biography The Moralist, “proposed to abolish the Constitution’s guarantees of free expression and free assembly. Equally startling was the fact that no one in the mainstream press protested the demagoguery.”
Nearly a year later, after America entered World War I, Wilson went on to establish the Committee on Public Information, whose missions were censorship and propaganda to help persuade Americans that they faced an evil empire in the form of Wilhelmine Germany. Meanwhile, Wilson’s attorney general, Thomas Watt Gregory, locked up suspected spies and subversives. Gregory also oversaw a voluntary American Protective League. To make the world safe for democratic liberation, Wilson was prepared to suspend liberty: “If there should be disloyalty,” he declared, “it will be dealt with a firm hand of stern repression.”
Like not a few past national American leaders, Woodrow Wilson has come under closer inspection for his flaws in the past few years, including at his beloved Princeton University, where the Woodrow Wilson School has wrestled with his legacy on, among other things, race relations. A 10-member committee examined the matter of renaming the school. It decided that his views “clearly contradict with the values we hold today,” but concluded that expunging his name was not a good idea. There is also a Woodrow Wilson High School in the nation’s capital, but for now there does not appear to be a movement to alter its designation.
For many years, it was conservatives who dinged Wilson. Perhaps his most virulent detractor was H.L. Mencken, the sage of Baltimore. He took an almost lascivious pleasure in dismantling Wilson, referring to him as Moses and scorning his oratory for “its ideational hollowness, its ludicrous strutting and bombast, its heavy dependence upon greasy and meaningless words, its frequent descent to mere sound and fury, signifying nothing.” But later conservatives, such as Richard M. Nixon, admired him, and George W. Bush sounded very much like Wilson in his second inaugural address, when he proclaimed, “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”
What to make of Wilson’s fascinating and influential presidency and life? O’Toole offers a fair-minded portrait of a vain moralist and political visionary whose certitude could exceed his judgment. She chronicles Wilson’s rise from the presidency of Princeton to becoming governor of New Jersey to president in the quadruple-contested election of 1912. Absent the Bull Moose candidacy of Theodore Roosevelt, which crippled his erstwhile protege William Howard Taft, Wilson would probably never have become president. After he won, however, the rectitudinous Wilson was able to give full vent to his crusading impulses in both domestic and foreign policy.
Thomas Woodrow Wilson was born on December 28, 1856, and grew up in Augusta, Georgia. His father, Joseph, a Presbyterian minister, carefully instructed his son in grammar and syntax, and Woodrow later referred to his father as his greatest teacher. “From his father,” writes O’Toole, “Tom had learned that great oratory was closely reasoned and deeply felt as well as pleasing to the ear.” At Princeton he studied history and philosophy, ransacking the past for lessons about the present. He also had blank calling cards upon which he inscribed, “Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Senator from Virginia.” At Princeton he scored an early coup in his senior year when he successfully submitted an essay to the International Review, which was edited by Henry Cabot Lodge. The piece called for cabinet government in the United States, a sign of his desire to import elements of the British parliamentary system into American politics.
Wilson had a heroic conception of politics that looked with disdain upon the grubby pols cutting backroom deals. He wanted men of influence to set the terms of debate, much as he believed they did in Great Britain, where Gladstone and Disraeli vied to climb the greasy pole. In 1885, Wilson published a book called Congressional Government in which he expounded upon his belief that the power of the presidency had become emasculated by an overly powerful Congress. In 1899, after America made its first stab at establishing its own empire, Wilson declared that strong presidents were imperative: “When foreign affairs play a prominent part in the politics and policy of a nation,” he wrote, “the Executive must of necessity be its guide…”
Armed with a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins, Wilson ended up returning to Princeton, where he became its president by 1902. Now he sought to create his own little empire. He hired 50 young preceptors who, like the tutors of Oxford and Cambridge, were supposed to elevate standards at Princeton, and he embarked upon a grand plan to build quadrangles, akin to those at Oxford and Cambridge, that would sideline the famously snobbish eating clubs such as Tiger Inn and Cap and Gown. He wanted to create a new sense of academic community. The alumni revolted. Wilson, never willing to compromise in any way, lost the battle.
His next crusade was in 1909 over the location of a long-delayed building for Princeton’s graduate school. Andrew West, the dean of graduate studies, thought it should be built near the university golf course. Wilson disagreed. He wanted it located centrally amid the hustle and bustle of the undergraduates. For Wilson, who could not bear to see his precious Princeton sullied by any vision other than his own, the stakes could not have been higher. He embarked upon a ferocious battle. But the affable West, who enjoyed close relations with the wealthy alumni that were going to fund the project, won out.
With his Princeton career at a dead-end, Wilson looked for an exit. In 1910, with the backing of the Democratic machine, he capitalized on his national reputation as a reformer to run for governor of New Jersey. Wilson easily won and was quickly viewed as presidential timber. After only four months as governor, O’Toole reports, Wilson embarked on a 9,000-mile speaking tour to the West Coast and back. His message about what ailed America was as clear as it was direct: “the control of our politics, therefore our life, by great bodies of accumulated and organized wealth.” In 1912 he rode the wave of progressive indignation against the trusts to capture the Democratic nomination. The New Freedom was his credo, as against TR’s New Nationalism. O’Toole perceptively notes that Wilson performed best on a stage. “He had studied elocution as diligently as any actor,” she writes, “and without seeming to raise his voice could make himself heard by a crowd of fifteen thousand even in a hall with poor acoustics. A genius at the harmonics of political speech, he could easily work idealism and self-interest into the same chord, and he had the rare ability to stir emotion even as he appealed to reason.” On the personal level, however, he always had trouble. The journalist William Allen White recalled that when he first met Wilson, “the hand he gave me to shake felt like a ten-cent pickled mackerel in brown paper.”
Wilson approached the presidency, in many ways, as an amplification of his previous duties at Princeton. Once more, he would be the great reformer. But Congress would prove to be his trustees, reining in his grand ambitions. From the outset, Wilson believed that he could pursue a morally correct foreign policy that would set wrong aright. He told a British envoy, “I am going to teach the South American Republics to elect good men.” His great antagonist Henry Cabot Lodge, however, saw from the outset that Wilson was “extraordinarily green” when it came to dealing with foreign nations.
When it came to entry into World War I, Wilson temporized. Eventually, the British naval blockade of Germany prompted Kaiser Wilhelm to authorize unrestricted submarine warfare. O’Toole deftly recounts the complicated diplomatic maneuvering that Wilson engaged in to try and avoid becoming entangled directly in the Great War. Even as Wilson’s ambassador to the Court of St. James, Walter Hines Page, pushed for intervention, Colonel Edward M. House sought to serve as a kind of honest broker between the British and Germans to effect an end to the hostilities. O’Toole is not much impressed by House’s performance, which she depicts as consisting of naïve diplomatic blunders. But House did also create The Inquiry, a group of scholars led by Walter Lippmann, that attempted to prepare the administration for the postwar negotiations and became the basis for the Council on Foreign Relations.
Throughout, Wilson’s pacific aims could not have been more ambitious. Wilson may already have intervened militarily in Veracruz in 1914, in Haiti in 1915, and in the Dominican Republic in 1916, but he always saw himself as a man of peace. In May 1916, he delivered a speech in Washington that sought to reorient American foreign policy and prefigured much of his later diplomacy. He called for a community of nations and for collective security. “Most radical of all,” O’Toole writes, “was his abandonment of isolationism, the first principle of U.S. foreign policy.” In April 1917, after Russian Tsar Nicholas II was toppled from power, one of Wilson’s last remaining objections to entry into World War I was removed. Now he could fight for democracy with democracies.
But as hubris is usually followed by nemesis, so Wilson found himself checked by November 1918, when the Democrats suffered a crushing loss in the midterm congressional elections. After he returned from France and the protracted peace negotiations, Wilson was wholly convinced that it was imperative to create a League of Nations and that the covenant had to be ratified in toto, including Article X which stated that “The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League.”
This Henry Cabot Lodge and other Republicans would not endorse. Lodge did not attack the treaty frontally but wanted to load it down with reservations that he reckoned Wilson would not accept. When the French ambassador assured Wilson that it would not pose a problem for France, Wilson responded that he would “consent to nothing. The Senate must take its medicine.” It was the battle of the quads all over again. Wilson, refractory and pedantic, simply could not even contemplate a compromise. He had banished House in 1919 and became ever more isolated and convinced of his own infallibility. He embarked upon a trip across the country to rouse support for the treaty but ended up wrecking his fragile health. He had succeeded not only in paralyzing his diplomacy but also himself.
Despite his incapacitation and long convalescence, which saw his young second wife, Edith Bolling Galt, essentially run the nation, Wilson flirted with the idea of trying to capture the nomination for an unprecedented third term. He saw himself as indispensable. Freedom and peace depended on another term. Party elders put the kibosh on that. The moment had arrived, as it were, for regime change in the Democratic Party and the doughty governor of Ohio, James M. Cox, got the nod. His running mate was the young Franklin D. Roosevelt, assistant secretary of the Navy. Cox campaigned for the League of Nations, but his Republican counterpart Warren G. Harding vowed that it was time to return to “normalcy.” Harding won.
Wilson took the election news serenely but remained as flinty as ever. When Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer recommended in January 1921 that Wilson commute the great socialist leader Eugene V. Debs’s sentence, whom he prosecuted for delivering an anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio, he refused. “Wilson,” O’Toole writes, “knew that he would be denounced by champions of free speech but did not care.” To the last, Wilson, who died in 1924, remained unbending in his resolve to smite anyone who dared disagree with him. It was Harding who commuted Debs’s sentence in December 1921.
Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of The National Interest.
Detained immigrant children line up in the cafeteria at a temporary home for immigrant women and children detained at the border, in Karnes City, Texas. Immigrant children in the custody of U.S. border authorities allegedly suffered pervasive abuse ranging from insults and threats to physical assaults, according to documents reviewed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
While anti-gun activists are going on and on about how unsafe our children are, building a soapbox out of dead kids to try and make their point, it seems that schools aren’t the murder-death-kill traps they’re described as. Yes, there are some features that need to be addressed in some way, shape, or form, schools are still probably the safest place for your children.
Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) clearly show that school-age children die every year in far greater numbers outside of school in a variety of ways.
Take a look at the raw data. According to statistics compiled by The Washington Post, 80 students died in shootings at elementary, middle and high schools from 2000 to 2016. That includes 11 students who committed suicide.
Considering there are more than 50 million schoolchildren, that makes homicide victims in schools vanishingly rare.
At home or on the streets is where the vast majority of school-age homicide victims meet their end. The CDC data show that during the same time period, a total of 34,227 children ages 5 to 18 died from gunfire. Suicides made up nearly a third of that total, 10,779. Accidental gun deaths accounted for another 1,694 deaths.
In fact, data amassed by the Chicago Sun-Times show that more children ages 5 to 18 became homicide victims in Chicago during 2016 alone — 113 — than perished in school shootings from 2000 through 2016 all across America.
But it is not only guns awaiting our progeny when they are not at school. The CDC statistics show children have died in much greater numbers due to a variety of more exotic causes of death. Some 8,555 drowned during that 17-year period. Of those, 155 were suicides. So more children intentionally drowned themselves than suffered fatal gunshots at school.
Schools are safe places for your kids. It doesn’t get much more simple than that.
The media has pushed this idea that our schools are under attack, but let’s look at the handful of school shootings his year. Now, let’s look at the total number of schools in the nation.
When you compare those two numbers, you see an extremely low percentage experiencing anything of the sort. The risk is actually minimal.
Now, it should be noted that while only 80 died in that 17-year span, we already have a significant percentage of that number in 2018 so far. I get that. Yet let’s say we match that 17-year total in 2018 alone. I pray we don’t, but for the sake of argument, let’s say we do.
That’s 80 kids killed at school.
Yet there were 50.7 million kids attending public school in 2017. Now, I’m not great at math, but I fail to see the statistical significance of 80 people out of a population of almost 60 million people. That’s not a public health crisis, that’s statistical noise.
Don’t get me wrong, I recognize that all of these are real people who were loved by someone. To those loved ones, the loss is a devastating tragedy. I could only imagine what it would be like to lose one of my kids to anything. I get that.
However, we also need to look at the bigger picture when we talk about the risk to our children. While kids may well feel their lives are in danger going to school, that’s an artifact of the media’s attention on Parkland and other shootings, not one based on the actual risks. That’s because the reality won’t push forward the narrative that guns are bad and must be banned.
My guns aren’t going anywhere and in truth? My kids are just as safe as they’ve always been when they’re at school. They have more to worry about from the typical stupid kid stuff than they do about an active shooter entering the building.
The post Despite Rhetoric, Schools Still Safe For Your Kids appeared first on Bearing Arms.
The Grand Theorist of Holocaust Denial, Robert Faurisson : A court decision in France finally ends one of the most dispiriting controversies in modern intellectual history. Or does it? On April 12, just now, Robert Faurisson suffered one more minor legal defeat in a French court, which is good news, in a small way, for the world, and, in a bigger way, for the newspaper Le Monde.
Making the world a safer place, one home at a time, IDENTILOCK® is now shipping internationally at extremely competitive prices.
Detroit, Mich. (Ammoland.com) – IDENTILOCK®, the world’s first biometric finger trigger lock, are proud to announce that international customers can now enjoy that piece of mind that comes from knowing that a personal or home defense firearm cannot be used by unauthorized persons.
IDENTILOCK products will ship via USPS or DHL for cost effective shipping prices. Countries with a Free Trade Area (FTA) will have no import tax. Countries under a Most Favored Nation (MFN) agreement will have only a 2.6 percent import tax. All customers will be responsible for any customs or taxes in their respective countries.
Customers can find their pricing by clicking the USD dropdown button beside the BUY NOW button on the top of IDENTILOCK’s website. Prices are available in US, Canadian, Australian and Euro dollars, British pounds and Japanese yen.
“Firearm safety is not just a concern in our country, but worldwide,” Omer Kiyani, founder and CEO of IDENTILOCK, said. “I wanted to make our innovative biometric fingerprint trigger lock available to any responsible gun owner across the globe.”
As a longtime NRA member and vocal advocate for our 2nd Amendment Rights, Kiyani faced a life-changing crisis when he suffered a life-threatening gunshot wound as a young man. Only after he emigrated to the United States working as an engineer in the automotive industry did he decide to build a business around his hobby and belief around his constitutional and basic human rights. Kiyani founded IDENTILOCK and began to develop the most advanced gun lock system on the market. The IDENTILOCK was introduced in 2017 and offered firearm users, civilian and law enforcement, a trigger locking system that blended speed, usability and practicality with all the safety and security for peace of mind.
The IDENTILOCK biometric fingerprint trigger lock system is available for many of the most popular pistols.
IDENTILOCK FIT GUIDE:
|IDENTILOCK Model||Firearm Fit Guide|
|1911-A1||Smith & Wesson 1911
Most Springfield, Kimber, Ed Brown and SIG Sauer 1911’s
|S&W-B1||M&P 40 SHIELD
M&P 9 SHIELD
M&P 45 SHIELD
|GLK-A1||G19, G17, G20, G21, G22, G23, G26, G27, G29, G34, G37, G38, G39, G40|
|SIG-A1||SIG Sauer P229 variants|
For more on IDENTILOCK and to sign up for their email newsletter featuring exclusive news and offers, visit https://getidentilock.com. Available online and at Amazon, Brownell’s Zanders and Optics Planet. Stay in the conversation on Facebook and YouTube.
Founded by Omer Kiyani, a 2nd Amendment advocate, gunshot victim survivor and former automobile industry safety systems engineer, IDENTILOCK® develops the world’s most innovative gun safety products. The IDENTILOCK® firearm trigger lock is the first product utilizing state-of-the-art biometric technology to enhance user safety and security while prohibiting non-recognized users from accessing the firearm.
The post IDENTILOCK, Biometric Fingerprint Trigger Lock, Now Shipping Internationally appeared first on AmmoLand.com.