Letter to my son on the occasion of your completing the 9th grade

(This is an actual letter I wrote to my son. These are thoughts, ideas, and morals he and I discuss on a regular basis and are well ingrained in my interactions with, and in the example I have tried to set for, him. But, as completing the 9th grade seemed like a good milestone, I chose to write these ideas down and print them out so he would have them to look at over the years. I thought it would make a good inspirational piece for others… as well as myself)

My youngest son,

I know full well that raging blood, testosterone, and a host of other hormones, thoughts, ideas and dreams boil through one’s body at the gnarly age of 15. In completing your first year of high school this month you have so many things ahead of you that it would be overwhelming for even the brightest minds to prepare you. But, I can offer you some very simple rules that will help you no matter where you find yourself in the coming three years you have left of high school, and even beyond that.

“What have you done for me lately?”

I think one of the most important lessons a young man can learn is to realize that your success lies not in “the past” but in “the present” and “the future.” Intriguingly, human nature dictates a “what have you done for me lately” mentality. And that’s a good thing!

Those who fail the most often are generally those who focus too much on the past and neglect their present and future actions. People who insist on being continually congratulated for past actions are typically those whose self-esteem is based on constant “pats on the back” and this causes them to require constant gratification rather than constant re-proving of oneself.

How well you played football last year, how well you did on a math test last week, or how well you did on a JROTC inspection yesterday doesn’t matter as much as how well you will perform today! The reputation that counts most is the one you earn today!

“Stand up”

Don’t be afraid to challenge others, even your superiors. I’ve spent a lot of years giving you the Forrest Gump  “Lt. Dan” treatment, telling you to “Get down, Shut up!” But those demands were because you were a child. You’re not a child any longer, you’re a young man, and I’m sure even you have noticed that you don’t hear those words from me anymore.

I think it was Dr. Laura Schlessinger who once wrote something to the effect: “Every good man I know had a father who was more than a little hard on him.” These words ring true because the best men among us have been those who had a hard, disciplinary father to guide them.  So, you’re lucky!

You don’t hear harsh words of reprimand from me much anymore because being a young man means that you acquire much more responsibility to interpret and decide for yourself on issues of what is right and wrong, without having to be being told to do so.

Remember that it is very much human nature to follow others. Very few people have the guts to stand up and lead, and this is why it is so easy to do if you have good moral character. It is easy because people “want” to follow a charismatic leader. The hardest part will always be to maintain good moral character after others have chosen to follow you.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to predict every occurrence that might happen to you in the future, or the correct action you must take for every occurrence. Therefore, it is important to maintain a simple “test” when making life’s decisions. This test includes asking yourself two very simple questions: (1) Is what I am about to do honorable, and (2) after I do this, will I be able to look my friends and family in the eye with confidence?

“High standards”

Despite what other parents might accept, I have long told you that I expect your standards to be much higher than the rest of society. This is something that some men simply choose, and some men simply don’t.

This includes not engaging in activities that many view as being not necessarily “illegal.” That is to say, just because you might be able to “get away with” something, doesn’t mean it is right.

If you set high standards for yourself, you won’t have to worry much about how well you pick your friends. When you decide “not” to do something because it isn’t right, those who follow you will very often be those with good moral character, and you will often help to dissuade those who might have chosen the wrong path.

“The only way to stay out of trouble is to stay away from it”

One of the earliest lessons I taught you was that “The only way to stay out of trouble is to stay away from it.”

That very simple message clearly explains that anytime you get into trouble it is your fault and no one else’s. Anytime you get into trouble it is “always” your fault because “you” are responsible for your own actions; not your friends, not your older sister, not your older brother, not the TV, not your teacher, or anyone else. You alone determine whether or not you make the right decisions.

This is precisely why I say that, as a young man, you always possess the moral responsibility to challenge others when you suspect that they might be wrong. This is the single most important responsibility that we, as men, possess.

Never, ever go along with the crowd just because you don’t want to be an annoyance, or because you think you might hurt someone’s feelings! Always, always express your opinion! Another’s wrong opinion will always take charge when your correct opinion is kept silent.

Remember, you are the direct link to all the members of our family who have come before you. Respect them by showing them – in your actions – that they have done well.

You’ve become a very impressive young man! But that was yesterday. Your actions today and forward will determine how well your children admire you, and what example your name will leave in our family.

As Winston Churchill spoke in 1941: “Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never–in nothing, great or small, large or petty–never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

Posted in Education, South Carolina Fathers Initiative, Who is Keith Pounds? | Leave a comment

How Orangeburg’s ‘culture of crime’ is killing black children

The crime in Orangeburg County and surrounding areas has become not only a state, but a national, embarrassment.

Orangeburg-area law enforcement officials, school officials and parents themselves have long side-stepped the obvious racial implications of the area’s crime and violence and this is having deadly affects on the area’s minority children.

Let me rephrase that – Black cops, black school teachers, black school administrators and black parents in Orangeburg are killing black children!

Most of the country recalls that in August, 2010, an 18-month-old boy and a 2-year-old boy were found drowned in a vehicle in a river in Orangeburg. The boys’ mother, Shaquan Duley, was found guilty of murder.

But crime, violence and “Don’t Snitch” mentalities in this predominantly black part of our state is nothing new. In fact, it is clearly an accepted part of the area “culture.”

Very recently, after an internal investigation, Orangeburg’s South Carolina State University, the state’s only historically black public college, made “several high-level ‘personnel changes,’” including the removal of the university’s chief of police and chief of staff. The university president insisted that it was his priority to “sustain public trust in what we do,” but he further insisted that “the nature of personnel matters is not publicly disclosed.”

Although, the local Times and Democrat (T&D) reported that “a high-level university source, who asked not to be identified,” reported that the dismissals included the Police Chief, Chief of Staff, General Counsel and Vice President of Student Affairs. Other officials also resigned. The university’s initial silence over the matter would be understandable, until we take into consideration other examples of the ‘Don’t Snitch’ culture in Orangeburg.

Very recently, Orangeburg-Wilkinson High School principal, Gregory McCord, was reported as saying that he would be replacing the school’s head football coach, but that decision was overruled by officials in the District office. We have more recently discovered that the principal would be “reassigned to a site to be determined.”

The T&D reported that Greg Carson, public relations director for the school district, insisted that “This is just something we do.” Apparently, in Orangeburg, school officials are allowed to deny the public information because it is simply “something they do.”

Just 5 days after news that the OW High principal would be reassigned, the T&D reported that a 14-year-old and a 16-year-old broke into the high school, vandalized several rooms and offices for a period of about five hours, stealing electronic equipment, including laptops and televisions. During their five-hour rampage, no alarms sounded until the pair began spraying a fire extinguisher, setting of a fire alarm.

There are already rumblings that school officials new for several months that the security alarm was inoperable, but chose not to address it.

The very next day in Orangeburg, three black males ages 14, 17 and 20 attempted to “rob a drug dealer” who was age 26. The 14-year-old was shot and killed.

On April 19, barely two weeks ago, local news reported that a man had received nonfatal injuries from a gunshot he received at Denmark College in neighboring Bamberg County. The victim was a male student at the college and was reportedly shot by a former student. Immediately following that incident, students told reporters that they were “threatened with punishment if they speak publicly about the shooting.”

As one student said, “They threatened to expel us if we talked to ya’ll.” Early T&D reports were that Denmark College officials and campus police were “tight lipped” about the shooting. Denmark College seems to have sent the message to students not to cooperate with “outsiders.”

Less than a month later, on May 8th, there was another shooting at Denmark College. On the same day, the Orangeburg County Sheriff’s Department was looking for one of its own deputies who had reportedly “pistol whipped” his own wife during a domestic argument.

A brief look at South Carolina Law Enforcement Division crime statistics for the counties of Orangeburg and Bamberg are worthy of note. Among all 46 counties in South Carolina, here’s how these two seemingly lawless counties rank in the major criminal categories: In Motor Vehicle Theft Orangeburg ranks 1st, Bamberg ranks 25th. In Rates of Murder, Orangeburg ranks 2nd, Bamberg ranks 18th. In Robbery, Orangeburg ranks 2nd, Bamberg ranks 15th. In Property Crime, Orangeburg ranks 4th, Bamberg ranks 19th. In Breaking and Entering Orangeburg ranks 2nd, Bamberg ranks 13th. In Larceny Orangeburg ranks 12th, Bamberg ranks 24th.

The numbers related to Juvenile-specific crimes are just as tragic. In overall Juvenile Violent crime, Bamberg ranks 1st, Orangeburg ranks 14th. In Juvenile Property crime arrests Bamberg ranks 3rd and Orangeburg ranks 18th.

In far too many of these cases, law enforcement and school officials (predictably) blame parents and parents (predictably) blame law enforcement and school officials.

But in Orangeburg, blame actually lies much, much deeper. In Orangeburg, crime, violence and “Don’t Snitch” seem to be an ingrained part of the culture. Of course, Don’t Snitch campaigns do nothing more than restrict law enforcement and empower criminals.

As one T&D responder wrote in regards to the SCSU scandal on the newspaper’s website, “We as a race of people are still stuck on go. We blame everything on white people yet when given a chance to do something good for your own color you rob and steal from them, why? Its because you don’t believe in what you are doing… Put the school in the hands of people who care, not black people who practice racist ways against their own.”

Orangeburg’s ‘culture of crime’ and subsequent victimhood mentality and ‘Don’t Snitch’ campaigns have allowed stakeholders (parents, police and school officials) to blame each other for far too long.

Black officers have led law enforcement in Orangeburg for years. Black teachers and administrators have led Orangeburg schools for years. Black politicians have led Orangeburg’s economy and development for years. And black parents have chosen to have their children out-of-wedlock, with no father figure, for years.

It is not the fault of any “one” of these stakeholders: it is the fault of all of them combined! It is the fault of black culture in Orangeburg. And those of us in other parts of the state are sick and tired of seeing black adults in that area killing their own children!

Posted in Crime, Cultural, Single Mothers | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

James Clyburn, District 6 and the Corridor of Shame

Keith Pounds

James Clyburn has served South Carolina in the US Congress for some 20 years now. But, in the currently volatile political environment, there are growing rumblings across the 6th District that his time is over!

District 6 has long been called “The Corridor of Shame” for a number of reasons, and its residents are finally showing that they are tired of being considered ‘the armpit of South Carolina.’

First, according to FBI statistics, South Carolina was the most violent state in the union from 2001 to 2010. In addition, reports compiled by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) show that violent crime rates in Clyburn’s district are among the most dangerous of all districts in the state.  Therefore, it is safe to say that James Clyburn has represented one of the most violent and dangerous districts in America and in 20 years he’s done nothing to change it.

According to the 2010 Crime in South Carolina Bookcompiled and presented by SLED and the South Carolina Department of Public Safety, South Carolina’s violent crime has exceeded the national violent crime rate every year since 1975.

According to the annual SLED study, Richland County is the 5th most violent county in the state, Marion County is the 6th, Sumter is the 8th, Colleton is the 11th, Bamberg is the 15th, Orangeburg is the 21st, and Florence is the 23rd most violent. It is important to remember that these counties exist in a concentrated area of the state, which exacerbates the overall problem making violence in District 6 particularly disturbing.

While statewide crime rates have been dropping since the mid-1990s, the violent crime rates in South Carolina’s District 6 (the Corridor of Shame) remain terribly tragic. The annual SLED study statistics are worth a brief review.

The statewide average Murder rate per 10,000 people is 0.57. Counties in District 6 far exceed that, including: Colleton (2.06), Orangeburg (1.73), Williamsburg (1.45), Florence (0.88), Sumter (0.74), and Bamberg (0.63).

The statewide average Rape rate is 3.37. Counties in District 6 far exceed that, including: Colleton (7.5), Williamsburg (4.4), Clarendon (4.0), and Bamberg (3.8).

The statewide average Robbery rate  is 10.73. Counties in District 6 far exceed that, including:  Orangeburg (18.5), Marion (16.9), Florence (14.3), Colleton (12.3), Bamberg (11.3), and Williamsburg (12.5).

The statewide average Breaking and Entering rate  is 99.5. Counties in District 6 far exceed that, including: Orangeburg (164.4), Marlboro (136.2), and Florence (113).

The statewide average Motor Vehicle Theft rate is 29.1. For the District 6 county of Orangeburg alone it is 60.2.

But wait! There’s more!

In September 2010, the charlestonteaparty.org website highlighted a stunning comparison of District 6 with the devastating (and very embarassing) unemployment rates across the state. Charlestonteaparty.org showed that District 6 matched precisely with what had become known as the “Corridor of Shame.”

Below are two separate, but very stunning, graphics: the first is an overlay of the area known as the ”Corridor of Shame” and the other outlining Clyburn’s 6th Congressionl District in 2010.

One can’t help but look at these two graphics and feel that Clyburn either has utter contempt for his constituents or he is a complete imbecile. In either case, we can’t help but wonder WHY the people of the 6th District have re-elected and re-elected and re-elected this man and allowed him to keep them in such dire poverty!

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

While unemployment across the state has decreased slightly since 2010, the rates in District 6 (The Corridor of Shame) remain tragic: Marion (17.4%), Clarendon (13.1%), Orangeburg (12.2%), Williamsburg (11.9%), Colleton (11.1%), Sumter (9.8%), and Florence (9.6%).

We wonder when will the people of the 6th District wakeup?

When will they acknowledge that James Clyburn has kept them in dire poverty and with high unemployment and surrounded by dangerous violent criminals and that James Clyburn is the reason they are referred to as “The Corridor of Shame”?

When will they acknowledge that those of us in other parts of the state call them “the armpit of South Carolina” because so many of the people in that District are poor?

When will they recognize that those of us in other parts of the state call that area “Little Africa” because when you go there, you feel like you are in the Congo and fearful that some wild animal might attack you?

When will they realize that James Clyburn gave them all of this?

Posted in Big government, Crime, Cultural, Education, Entitlement mentality, Poverty, Who is Keith Pounds? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Constitution 101: Part 11, The Recovery of the Constitution

Read Part One: Introduction

Read Part Two: The American Mind

Part Three: The Declaration of Independence

Read Part Four: The Problem of Majority Tyranny

Read Part Five: Separation of Powers: Preventing Tyranny

Read Part Six: Separation of Powers, Ensuring Good Government

Read Part 7: Religion, Morality and Property

Read Part 8: Crisis of Constitutional Government

Read Part 9: Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution

Read Part 10: The Progressive Rejection of the Founding

This final session of the Constitution 101 class was facilitated by Dr. Larry Arnn.

Dr. Arnn explains that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” was a series of economic programs aimed at extricating America from the Great Depression with a vastly enlarged size and scope of government. As Arnn explains, “unelected bureaucratic agencies – the administrative state – became a fact of American life.”

As part of the New Deal, Roosevelt sought a “Second Bill of Rights” which described that “the old rights” of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” were inadequate because they did not provide “economic security.” By ‘economic security’ Roosevelt called for “new” economic rights, which include the right to a job, a home, a fair wage, education, and medical care.

As Dr. Arnn explained, John F. Kennedy’s “New Frontier” and Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” continued the “transformation of the relationship between the American people and their government.”

The problem with this entire line of thinking is that it has brought many of us to believe that “equality” must be a “result” rather than a “right.” Of course, the one entity many have come to rely upon to enforce this new “result” has been “government.”

We should recall Reagan’s statement that “with the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Today, Progressives view the Declaration of Independence, and even the Constitution, as a “contract” between the people and government in that “the people” give government power in exchange for certain rights. The Founders believed otherwise recognizing that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” (my emphasis added).

In the Q&A section of the class, and what turned out to be an excellent summation, Dr. Arnn was asked what could be done to help change how Progressivism has turned current thinking away from our Founding principles. He explained that an important consideration would be to repeal the 17th Amendment, which now allows for a “direct” election of US Senators. The Founders originally established that US Senators were appointed by state legislatures. Under that system, US Senators paid better attention to the needs of the states.

When asked what the Founders would be the most shocked by today, Dr. Arnn highlights that the federal government has become “a large, unaccountable government, not authorized under the Constitution, makes most of the laws in our country now in the administrative, bureaucratic state, enforces most of those laws and hears most of the judicial appeals against that enforcement. So, we’ve built a whole other government, which Liberals call, and with pleasure, with satisfaction, the ‘4th branch of government.’”

Dr. Arnn finally described “self government” as the idea that “you’re in command of yourself… what ‘you want to do’ and what ‘you do’ might be two different things because you make judgments  about what you ‘ought to do’ and you have the self control, or self government to implement those judgments.”

He interestingly compares that self control to governments!

Lastly, Dr. Arnn makes the insertion that “government itself” has become a “major player” in elections. Elections used to be battles between different factions and ideas within the private sector – businesses, private land owners, and private individuals – where “sovereignty” is supposed to be found. Elections have now become “a contest between public sector (government) and private sector.”

As he also notes, those in society today with advanced college degrees and schooling tend to be overwhelmingly on the side of government and Progressivism, and there exists simultaneously among those with degrees and those without degrees, a gross amount of “people whose entire livelihood is derived from the government.”

Fortunately, as Dr. Arnn also notes, there are a growing number of people today who recognize what is going on and who disagree with the current situation. Dr. Arnn’s answer for those who disagree with Progressivism is “education.” That is, education in our universities, but to have Conservative minded people take their fight into the public school system as well!

Posted in The Constitution | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Constitution 101: Part 10, The Progressive Rejection of the Founding

This is the tenth (10th) of a planned eleven (11) articles highlighting a 10-week online Constitution 101 class I am taking with Hillsdale College. I am writing these eleven articles because, at this critical time in our nation’s history, it is important that all of us focus on our Founding principles. I hope you enjoy these articles, and, in the spirit of open and honest intellectual debate, I hope you’ll feel free to add your own comments!

Read Part One: Introduction

Read Part Two: The American Mind

Part Three: The Declaration of Independence

Read Part Four: The Problem of Majority Tyranny

Read Part Five: Separation of Powers: Preventing Tyranny

Read Part Six: Separation of Powers, Ensuring Good Government

Read Part 7: Religion, Morality and Property

Read Part 8: Crisis of Constitutional Government

Read Part 9: Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution

This session of the course was facilitated by Ronald Pestritto, assistant professor of Politics at Hillsdale College.

Dr. Pestritto describes Progressivism as “the belief that America needs to move or ‘progress’ beyond the principles of the American Founding,” that progressivism supports “flexibility” in political forms unbound by fixed and universal principles, and “the need for unelected experts who supervise a vast administration of government.” He adds that Progressives believe that “circumstances, not external principles, ultimately dictate justice.”

Pestritto highlights some of the more prominent progressives as being Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and John Dewey.

He suggests that the biggest problem with Progressivism is that it has caused many Americans to believe that government is “a problem solver.” He insists that this is a concept imported from Europe, is a rejection of our Founding principles, and has made its most prominent stance in American universities.

Progressivism flourished with Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal and was extended through Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.

Pestritto insists that human beings are clearly capable of “reason” but are simultaneously driven by their “passions.” Progressivism takes advantage of “passion” by inserting that man’s rights and freedom are given not by his Creator but by whatever ”current legislative authority” exists, in view of the current needs of society.

Our Founding principles demand that the rights and freedoms outlined in the Declaration of Independence were not only needed at that moment in history to defeat King George, but were needed for all men, for all periods of time. This unnerves Progressives who believe that “rights” should be determined by what “society” feels are needed at any given time.

Dr. Pestritto notes that, due to Progressivism being introduced so successfully in American universities, even Conservatives in America today often use Progressive language, so even Conservatives often sound like Progressives.  Another reason Progressivism has been so successful is because it made its headway during the time of the Industrial Revolution and other significant advances in society at the turn of the century. Because of those stunning advances, Progressives were able to easily “point out” supposed “problems” with society.

Ultimately, as a society we should seek to focus on “education” to bring us back to our Founding principles. Do we teach that the purpose of government is to establish rules and laws which allow individuals the liberty to determine their own destiny, or do we teach that government is the answer to all human  problems?

Clearly, our Founding principles dictate that government is not the answer to all human problems.

The one foreseeable concern is that it has taken decades (nay, about a century) to bring us the horrible Progressivism we encounter today. Let’s hope it won’t take that long to re-establish our Founding principles, because I question whether or not our free society will live that long.

Posted in The Constitution | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

My thoughts on Stand Your Ground and carrying a Concealed Weapon

Keith Pounds

As we continue on in the Zimmerman/Martin case, I’d like to offer a perspective from South Carolina. This will not be a critique of the case (because we do not yet know all the facts), but rather a position on Concealed Weapons carry.

I am not an attorney or in law enforcement, but I am a citizen who is not completely stupid.

In South Carolina, your home is your castle. So is your car, and so is your business. As part of the Protection of Persons and Property Act of 2006, we maintain the “Castle Doctrine” which guarantees a person the right to defend himself or herself, and others, against “great bodily injury” in his or her own home, vehicle, or business.

To actually carry a weapon outside of one’s home, business or vehicle, one must have no criminal record, complete a Concealed Weapons class and obtain a Concealed Weapons Permit (CWP) from the state. The CWP classes in the state are very good courses as they are taught by military and law enforcement trainers who teach not only state gun laws but gun safety and how to shoot. The course is designed so that even if you’ve never picked up a firearm in your life, you will do well.

Those who have been issued a CWP in South Carolina have proven that they are decent people who have not broken the law in the past and who know how to behave like civilized human beings.

Much like Florida, South Carolina also maintains a “Stand Your Ground” law. In South Carolina, the law reads, in part, that “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.”

Unfortunately, a bill introduced by South Carolina State Senator Bakari Sellers recently (in response to the Zimmerman/Martin case) seeks to repeal the Stand Your Ground law. According to Sellers, “You would still have the right to protect yourself,” but “You’d just have to try to retreat and mitigate so we don’t have warrantless, needless murders like we had down in Florida.”

First and foremost, Sellers calls the Zimmerman/Martin case an instance of “warrantless, needless murder” despite the fact that there has yet to be a trial to discover what actually happened. My concern is that Sellers apparently has no need or concern for the concepts of due process, innocent until proven guilty, or trial by jury which are so important to Americans.

Not surprisingly, Sellers is from Bamberg County which, along with neighboring Orangeburg County, consistently finds itself revealing some of the highest crime rates in the state, and is one the most dangerous areas in the state to live.

An important point is to note that it is not law abiding citizens with CWPs committing crimes in those counties, but rather thugs and punks in an area which has a comparatively high population of minorities who commit crimes. While it may be uncomfortable for some to talk about, overwhelming criminal statistics clearly show that criminal activity is often directly related to the proportion of minorities in an area. Clearly, the criminal element in Bamberg and Orangeburg area is out of control so the last thing the state needs is to impose gun restrictions on law abiding citizens.

A further problem with Sellers’ line of thinking is that current law in South Carolina does not allow a person to “pursue” another person and kill them, but does allow one to “Stand Your Ground” and meet force with force if that person tries to kill you.

In contrast to Sellers’ ideas of justice, Senator Kevin Bryant, of District 3, out of Anderson, SC, proposes that we should be able to carry a gun, concealed or not, with or without a state-issued permit. Spartanburg, SC Sheriff Chuck Wright made national news last year when he urged all women in his county to carry a gun after the attempted rape of a woman. He also praised a man with a CWP who prevented another man who kicked in the door of a local church.

THUGS AND PUNKS

As mentioned above, in order to obtain a CWP in South Carolina you must be a law abiding citizen (which means you’ve never been in trouble with the law). Unfortunately, the fact that a person has a history of abiding by the law often works to the advantage of thugs and punks.

Let’s admit that, for the most part, those who engage in criminal activity do so because of the “culture” in which they were raised, plain and simple. Others begin to engage in criminal activity because they start using drugs and begin associating with those who were “reared” in a culture of criminal activity.

These thugs and punks simply do not have the same value system the rest of us have. They don’t value their family, they don’t value their future, and they certainly don’t value you or your family, or your future. All they care about is the next handful of cash they can get to buy drugs or over-priced shoes. And they don’t care who they have to hurt to get it. The few sane people who probably understandthis best are law enforcement or those with family members who are drug addicts. They are thugs and punks and they are the scum of the earth.

Most crime is “reactionary” and not as “calculating” as some might think. Thugs and punks will rob you simply because you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. For the most part, you are not going to be “stalked” and there will not be an elaborate plan to catch you off guard when you least expect it. It simply happens whenever a thug gets the urge for some cash, and if you happen to walk around the corner, you will very likely be his next victim, especially if you appear defenseless.

The point here is that if you present as an easy target, you can bet your sweet butt you’re eventually going to become a target… if you haven’t been a target already.

CWP AND GUN SAFETY

The primary problem with any aspect of the gun control issue is that Liberals are unable to separate “passion” from “reason.” We can explain it this way – Liberals want to “control” everyone else because they think other people are as dangerous as they are. Most of us know it is better to choose reason over passion, and we therefore have no problem with guns because we know that, especially with a gun on your hip, you must make reasonable decisions, and be personally responsible for those decisions.

For Liberals, their core assumptions acknowledge that their decisions are most often based on passion, and they realize that this can, and does, lead to dangerous decision making. For most of us, we don’t mind people carrying guns because we expect others to be reasonable in their decision making, and when they are not, they will be punished by the law. Liberals want the law to restrict us from making our own decisions because they think we will allow passion, rather than reason, to rule our decisions.

Even when the law allows people to carry and own guns, Liberals insist on ridiculous “gun safety” precautions which do nothing more than encourage thugs and punks to intimidate, assault, rob and kill.

As a case in point, some suggest that you should never carry a loaded gun. Of course, you should always treat a gun as if it’s loaded, but some suggest that, even when carrying your weapon, you should not chamber a round unless you intend to use it. This is Bogus!

There’s an old saying in my home state of Louisiana which suggests that “when the time comes that you need your gun, chances are you’re going to need it in a hurry.” So yes, always have a round in the chamber! This may not be such an issue with a revolver, but if you carry a semi-auto with a round in the chamber, you are ready to fire and nothing can go wrong if you need to your weapon. The last thing you want if your life is in danger is to be so nervous as to not be able to chamber a round in the split second you will likely need to get off a shot.

Secondly is the very important concept of what the military would call “situational awareness.” Very simply, this involves the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in your surrounding environment. I believe that your own situational awareness includes projecting yourself onto the situational awareness of thugs and punks. You do this by what I call “speaking their non-verbal language.” Let me explain what that means!

Thugs and punks are predators and you are their prey. The next time you walk past the lions and tigers at the local zoo, you’ll notice that they always watch the children in the crowd. This is because they are predators and they are programmed to always seek out the weakest first. Your job should be not to look like prey!

Most laws restrict you from even presenting your gun unless you have a reasonable fear of losing your life. But, if a group of thugs is obviously sizing you up, reach your hand under your shirt (or wherever your weapon is) to let them know you are “carrying” and not afraid to use it! I should warn you that this will be intimidating to thugs and punks and they will very likely start cursing you because you “dared” not to be afraid of them.

The best thing to do at that point is to be as sarcastic as they would be. Say out loud “I don’t know what you’re talking about, I don’t have a gun at all,” and then calmly begin to remove yourself from the situation (keeping your eye on them, of course). After that, you should be able to get into your car, or in the building.

Of course, if they follow you, there is a point where it is obvious they intend to do you harm. I suggest that you consciously decide to defend yourself long before the time to do so is actually encountered. This includes taking a CWP class and going to a shooting range at least once a month or so just to target practice. Familiarize yourself with handling your weapon.

Obviously, if a thug or punk ever presents a deadly weapon you should shoot him at that precise moment. You do not bark out commands! You simply shoot him, and you keep shooting until he is no longer a threat.

That’s it, there’s nothing else to discuss. And that’s precisely why I suggest that you consciously make the decision to defend yourself long before the time to do so is actually encountered.

Posted in Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part Nine: Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution

This is the ninth (9th) of a planned eleven (11) articles highlighting a 10-week online Constitution 101 class I am taking with Hillsdale College. I am writing these eleven articles because, at this critical time in our nation’s history, it is important that all of us focus on our Founding principles. I hope you enjoy these articles, and, in the spirit of open and honest intellectual debate, I hope you’ll feel free to add your own comments!

Read Part One: Introduction

Read Part Two: The American Mind

Part Three: The Declaration of Independence

Read Part Four: The Problem of Majority Tyranny

Read Part Five: Separation of Powers: Preventing Tyranny

Read Part Six: Separation of Powers, Ensuring Good Government

Read Part 7: Religion, Morality and Property

Read Part 8: Crisis of Constitutional Government

This session was facilitated by Kevin Porteuss, Assistant Professor of Politics at Hillsdale College.

While some today tend to view the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as separate, unrelated documents, Dr. Porteuss is adamant that the Constitution acts to “guard” the principles in the Declaration of Independence.

He explains that Abraham Lincoln viewed the Constitution as “the embodiment” and the “fulfillment” of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and that one had to interpret the Constitution in light of the Declaration of Independence in order to understand the Constitution correctly.

Dr. Porteuss suggests that today we find two distinct groups of Americans who have come to believe in diametrically opposed and fundamentally different ideas of “just government.”

He is not afraid to compare today’s divide to that which existed just prior to the Civil War. He explains that while some may have once used the Constitution to support slavery, if one were to use the Constitution “in conjunction with” the Declaration of Independence, one would find it clear that slavery is an inherent wrong.

For me, one of the most fascinating ideas that Dr. Porteuss discussed was that of “blood lineage” to the Founding members of our great nation. He recognizes that even today there are Americans, like myself, who are direct blood descendants of those men and women who fought and sacrificed for our nation’s independence.

At the same time, he also acknowledges that very many Americans today are not at all descendants of our Founders. He explains that while these Americans have no blood connection to America’s Founding members, they are “our equals in all things.” This makes our great nation very unique!

Lincoln addressed this precisely in a July 4th, 1858 speech, which included, in part:

If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal;” and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration; and so they are.

To me, this is one of the most beautiful things about being an American – knowing that it is not just a “blood connection” that grants citizenship. As a human being you are entitled to citizenship simply by believing in the principles of our Founding.

Dr. Porteuss is clearly concerned about the great political divide in America today. He explains how Americans are divided between supporting either (1) our Founding principles or (2) Progressivism and modern statism. He explains that, while not exact, the divide today is eerily similar to the divide between pro-slavery and anti-slavery prior to the Civil War. As Porteuss suggests, we are “exactly where we were in 1858.”

Posted in The Constitution | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Constitution 101: Part 8, Crisis of Constitutional Government (critique by Keith Pounds)

This is the eighth (8th) of a planned eleven (11) articles highlighting a 10-week online Constitution 101 class I am taking with Hillsdale College. I am writing these eleven articles because, at this critical time in our nation’s history, it is important that all of us focus on our Founding principles. I hope you enjoy these articles, and, in the spirit of open and honest intellectual debate, I hope you’ll feel free to add your own comments!

Read Part One: Introduction

Read Part Two: The American Mind

Read Part Three: The Declaration of Independence

Read Part Four: The Problem of Majority Tyranny

Read Part Five: Separation of Powers: Preventing Tyranny

Read Part Six: Separation of Powers, Ensuring Good Government

Read Part 7: Religion, Morality and Property

This class was facilitated by Dr. Will Morrisey, Professor of Politics at Hillsdale College.

Dr. Morrisey explained that at the heart of the American constitutional crisis of the mid-eighteenth century stood the moral, social, and political evil of slavery.

He outlined the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 which allowed for “popular sovereignty,” meaning that Americans living in the new “territories” could choose whether or not slavery should be legal there. Lincoln said popular sovereignty was an abandonment of moral principle.

In the famed Dred Scott Decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Founders did not intend for the principles of “natural rights,” enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, to apply to blacks.

Morrisey explained that the Constitution is based on the Declaration of Independence, which is a “pro-human document.”

Lincoln once asked that if slavery was “good” why did no man seek it for himself?

Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas, a political rival of Lincoln, insisted that each state should decide domestic issues (even slavery) on its own; that each state should decide whether or not slavery was good or evil “for them.” He insisted that “self government” was a “right” of free men and that each state had a right to choose for themselves whether or not they wanted slavery, just as with liquor laws, school budgets, etc. As Douglas said, states should maintain “the right to pass laws concerning our property and domestic and private institutions by our own consent.”

Lincoln insisted that people had a right to choose slavery only if slavery were not wrong, insisting that people do not have a right to do wrong. Clearly, Lincoln believed that to “vote” on slavery amounted to nothing more than majority tyranny.

Very early, James Madison noted that in many areas, the number of whites who did not own slaves and slaves themselves outnumbered whites who did own slaves. Therefore, in those states, whites who owned slaves were an aristocracy.

In the Q&A session for the class, Dr. Morrisey was asked if the Civil War itself was actually about slavery or about states’ rights. He insisted that slavery was clearly a defining issue in the decades before the Civil War, but it was indeed fair to say that the two (slavery and states’ rights) were clearly related.

This has always been an interesting question to me because in the 1830s (30 years before the Civil War) there were clear, constitutional crises involving the federal government and state governments over who had the authority to deal with Native Americans. This ultimately led to the Indian Removal of the 1830s which ultimately pitted the President against the Supreme Court.

Another question asked Dr. Morrisey how the Founders could preach “equality of rights” and simultaneously hold another man in bondage? In essence, were the Founders hypocrites? His answer was in two parts: (1) He insisted that it was important to distinguish between “the person” and “the principle.” That is, does it matter if they were hypocrites? The Founders said slavery was wrong and that “equal rights” for all men was right. They recognized God given rights and this should be held separate from their own moral failings (which we all have), and (2) It is inherently incorrect to say that the Founders were slave owners because some were not slave owners at all. Some freed their slaves upon their death and/or bought slaves for the sole purpose of freeing them.

In Summation, with this 8th article, I now have only 3 more sessions and 3 more articles to complete this 10-week Constitution 101 class with Hillsdale College. The timing could not be more perfect! I am anxious to get at least one of the professors to give his thoughts on how liberty, rights, and even “constitutional crisis” apply to our ongoing issue of Obamacare. The answer should be intriguing!

Posted in The Constitution | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Constitution 101: Part 7, Religion, Morality and Property

This is the seventh (7th) of a planned eleven (11) articles highlighting a 10-week online Constitution 101 class I am taking with Hillsdale College. I am writing these eleven articles because, at this critical time in our nation’s history, it is important that all of us focus on our Founding principles. I hope you enjoy these articles, and, in the spirit of open and honest intellectual debate, I hope you’ll feel free to add your own comments!

Read Part One: Introduction

Read Part Two: The American Mind

Read Part Three: The Declaration of Independence

Read Part Four: The Problem of Majority Tyranny

Read Part Five: Separation of Powers: Preventing Tyranny

Read Part Six: Separation of Powers, Ensuring Good Government

This week’s class was facilitated by Dr. David Bobb. He explained how the so-called “separation of church and state” does not entail the separation of religion and politics, meaning that the ‘separation of church and state’ did not mean that churches, or their members, could not seek to influence politics.

Dr. Bobb further explained that the Founders believed that it was “immoral” for government to coerce religious beliefs, but they also argued that it was advisable for government to recognize their reliance on Divine Providence as well as support and encouragement of religion.

The Founders recognized that human beings were capable of doing “good” but equally capable of doing “tremendous evil.” As Dr. Bobb put it, human beings simultaneously possess “roiling passions and calming reason.” He posits that our nation’s founding is based on the concept that “the vital truths of human existence are affirmed by both reason and revelation” and that that concept is “among the most revolutionary tenets in the history of ideas.”

Dr. Bobb reminded the class that God is invoked four times in The Declaration of Independence. He is referred to as (1) the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, (2) Creator, (3) Supreme Judge of the world, and (4) Divine Providence. He insists that ours was set up to be a state that did not proclaim an official religion but this did not mean it was set up in opposition to Christianity. The Founders believed that support of religion entailed support of reality, and that to be a religious and moral people would make us “a loving people.”

In the Q&A session of the class, Dr. Bobb was asked: “Can an atheist be a good self-governing citizen?” In answer, he replied “Yes, it is possible.”

Although, he added that “It’s a difficult thing to suppose that one’s self and one’s nation is entirely self-created, to have no humility before a Creator. So it’s possible that one can be moral, but on the whole the Founders believed that people, and individuals themselves, ought to recognize that there is a Divine Being.”

This class recognized that just as every individual person is imperfect, so too is every regime (or government) imperfect. The Founders believed that for America to be free, it had to be virtuous.

Posted in The Constitution | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Constitution 101: Part 6: Separation of Powers, Ensuring Good Government

This is the sixth (6th) of a planned eleven (11) articles highlighting a 10-week online Constitution 101 class I am taking with Hillsdale College. I am writing these eleven articles because, at this critical time in our nation’s history, it is important that all of us focus on our Founding principles. I hope you enjoy these articles, and, in the spirit of open and honest intellectual debate, I hope you’ll feel free to add your own comments!

Read Part One: Introduction

Read Part Two: The American Mind

Read Part Three: The Declaration of Independence

Read Part Four: The Problem of Majority Tyranny

Read Part Five: Separation of Powers: Preventing Tyranny

This week’s class was facilitated by Dr. Will Morrisey, professor of politics at Hillsdale College.

Dr. Morrissey opened the class explaining that “it takes persons organized into a regime to violate rights systematically,” and that, “It’s going to take a different kind of regime to secure those rights systematically.” As explained in the Declaration of Independence, governments are established to ensure those rights.

In early Greek Democracies, people came together in large groups and debated and voted in a single action: that is, “thinking and action came together” or at nearly the same time. In our Republic, people are encouraged to deliberate, debate and then wait before action is actually taken. In essence, “time” is put between thought and action.

We all know that our system of government is divided into three branches: (1) the Legislature, (2) the Executive and (3) the Judicial. The Legislature (which is the most powerful) is further divided into two parts (1) the Senate and (2) the House of Representatives. As Dr. Morrisey explained, this “separation of powers” forces all three branches to act slowly and deliberately, to avoid “groupthink” and a “surge of opinion.”

Although, as Dr. Morrisey also explained, even a Republic can become a tyranny if the three branches of government allow one of the branches to “concentrate ruling authority in one body of representation” (such as in the case of today’s Supreme Court).

As John Locke (1632-1704) wrote, “For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he got me there and destroy me too if he had a fancy to it for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom: that is, to make me a slave.”

Surprising to me, Dr. Morrisey insists that “separation of powers” does NOT mean that the three branches of government don’t, or can’t, “influence” each other. The threee branches are not completely “separate” because that would constitute three different governments.

As Dr. Morrisey put it, “what the framers wanted was rather powers ‘independent’ from one another with respect to their capacities to make decisions but ‘interdependent’ if they actually want to get something done.”

In the Q&A portion of the class, Dr. Morrisey explained how “Progressive” movements were successful in passing the 17th Amendment, which changed the way Senators were elected to Congress. Previously, Senators were elected by state governments. This is what the Founders wanted because they knew that state legislatures were “closer” to the people and knew who was best able to represent their districts at the federal level. Of course, there was an important “check” here because “the people” in each district held their state congressman responsible for who they picked.

Simply, the 17th Amendment not only eroded very important “checks” in the legislature, U.S. Senators are no longer really “ambassadors” for their state and now less capable people are elected to the Senate.

As Dr. Morissey further explained, Progressive movements in America are responsible for demanding a “substantial administrative state” establishing vast bureaucracies which have come to act as a “fourth branch of government.” The bureaucracies are intended to “manage in detail” human freedom. These bureaucracies affect every American familiar with “excessive lawmaking.” And as Dr. Morrisey put it, “the moneyed few are the only ones who can afford attorneys to negotiate around excessive laws.”

In summation, he insisted that each of the three branches should feel free to disagree with the other branches. Our system allows “the sovereign people” to make the ultimate decision when there happens to be a “constitutional crisis.” If a President refuses to enforce what the Supreme Court decides, “the people” should decide whether the President or the Supreme Court are right. They can do so by re-electing or not re-electing the President, or having their representatives in Congress impeach the President.

As Dr. Morrisey reminds us, the Preamble of the Constitution reads that “We the people… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Therefore, “We the People” are the ultimate judges of what the Constitution means!

Posted in The Constitution | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment