Steven Hildreth Jr. on how to deal with police:
So, I’m driving to my office to turn in my weekly paperwork. A headlight is out. I see a Tucson Police Department squad vehicle turn around and follow me. I’m already preparing for the stop.
The lights go on and I pull over. The officer asks me how I’m doing, and then asks if I have any weapons.
“Yes, sir. I’m a concealed carry permit holder and my weapon is located on my right hip. My wallet is in my back-right pocket.”
The officer explains for his safety and mine, he needs to disarm me for the stop. I understand, and I unlock the vehicle. I explain that I’m running a 7TS ALS holster but from the angle, the second officer can’t unholster it. Lead officer asks me to step out, and I do so slowly. Officer relieves me of my Glock and compliments the X300U I’m running on it. He also sees my military ID and I tell him I’m with the National Guard.
Lead officer points out my registration card is out of date but he knows my registration is up to date. He goes back to run my license. I know he’s got me on at least two infractions. I’m thinking of how to pay them.
Officers return with my Glock in an evidence back, locked and cleared. “Because you were cool with us and didn’t give us grief, I’m just going to leave it at a verbal warning. Get that headlight fixed as soon as possible.”
I smile. “Thank you, sir.”
I’m a black man wearing a hoodie and strapped. According to certain social movements, I shouldn’t be alive right now because the police are allegedly out to kill minorities.
Maybe…just maybe…that notion is bunk.
Maybe if you treat police officers with respect, they will do the same to you.
Police officers are people, too. By far and large, most are good people and they’re not out to get you.
I’d like to thank those two officers and TPD in general for another professional contact.
We talk so much about the bad apples who shouldn’t be wearing a badge. I’d like to spread the word about an example of men who earned their badges and exemplify what that badge stands for.
The eloquent Ted Cruz takes on CNBC moderators during yesterday’s Republic debate:
“Let me say something at the outset, the questions asked in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media.“
“This is not a cage match. And you look at the questions — Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues.”
[AUDIENCE APPLAUSE; MODERATOR SMIRKING]
“The contrast with the Democratic debate, where every thought and question from the media was, which of you is more handsome and why?”
“Let me be clear, the men and women on this stage have more ideas, more experience, more common sense, than ever participant in the Democratic debate. That debate reflected a debate between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.”
“Nobody believes that the moderators have any intention of voting in a Republican primary […] The questions being asked shouldn’t be trying to get people to tear into each other, it should be what are your substantive solutions to people at home.”
On Thursday’s NBC Today, Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd portrayed his fellow “journalists” as victims of a GOP trap: “Look, in many ways this was a premeditated attack. There had been some leaked ideas that, you know, beforehand, they were going to go after the moderators and say, ‘Hey, the Democrats didn’t get questions like this,’ and they determined this before the debate even started.”
Sadly his colleagues fell for the trap when they asked dumb questions of their own accord that were not asked of the Democrats.
Continued Todd: “But boy, Cruz captured the moment. And he actually came across as magnanimous. He’s the guy that supposedly everybody secretly doesn’t like, he was the guy that defended everybody on that stage.”
Ronda Rousey is asked by a reporter about her thoughts on gender pay gaps in sports.
Ayn Rand College Grant Program Should Be Applauded For Breaking Through The Anti-Reason, Anti-Capitalist, Far-Left College Echo Chamber
From Inside Higher Ed:
Fears of corporate influence on higher education are nothing new. But are colleges and universities, which receive smaller and smaller shares of their budgets from public funding, and which have struggled to bounce back from the 2008 recession, more likely to accept gifts with ideological strings attached than they would have been previously?
That’s the idea behind a forthcoming paper in the Journal of Academic Ethics, called, “BB&T, Atlas Shrugged and the Ethics of Corporation Influence on College Curricula.” It says it is the first study to track a particular set of donations by the financial services holding company BB&T to colleges and universities stipulating that they teach the works of free-market capitalist Ayn Rand and address the “Moral Foundations of Capitalism.”
How awesome of BB&T under former BB&T CEO John Allison to expand the diversity of ideas available to college students.
Such actions should not be condemned but applauded.
I wish there were such a program when I went to college — sadly the bulk of what I heard in the ivory tower was left-wing, progressive, anti-corporate ideology. Sadly, I did not learn about Ayn Rand until after college. I am thankful I did.
John Allison, ran a successful bank that was basically untouched by the financial crisis and did not need a bailout (read his book The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure for how the government caused the financial crisis and how BB&T prevented itself from being damaged by it). Allison also credits the moral code of Ayn Rand’s philosophy Objectivism — a philosophy for living on earth — in large part, for his and BB&T’s success.
Ayn Rand is such a great writer and profound thinker. Here is a link to quotes that demonstrate the breadth, clarity and depth of Ayn Rand’s thought — in her own words — so you can judge for yourself.
Like her or not — Ayn Rand is important and influential — she is, and should be, part of the college canon. Any proper business school that does not expose their students to the works of Ayn Rand is committing education malpractice.
The real disgrace are the college professors, journals and bureaucrats – funded by the government — who blackball professors who could expose students to Ayn Rand’s ideas. (Perhaps one day Inside Higher Ed could publish something about that.)
Sounds like the regressive Left is scared of their monopoly on young minds coming to an end. It’s about time.
Related: CISC Executive Director C. Bradley Thompson speaks to the incoming class of Lyceum Scholars at Clemson University on the nature of a liberal arts education.
From the description, “Mr. Bowden talked about his book, The Enemies of Christopher Columbus, published by Paper Tiger. In the book, the author addresses the objections to the celebration of Columbus Day, attempting to help people celebrate the holiday as a remembrance of the core values of Western civilization without condoning less civilized behavior by Columbus in the past. Mr. Bowden included examples of how Columbus Day was observed in the past, including the first commemorative stamps and coins issued at the Columbian Exposition, in contrast with the protests of the present. After his presentation he answered questions from members of the audience.”
Watch the video here.
Keith Weiner is president of the Gold Standard Institute USA in Phoenix, AZ. He is CEO of precious metals fund manager Monetary Metals. He writes for Forbes and other major media outlets about free markets, money, credit, and gold.
Some of the topics covered include:
• What isn’t the problem with the Fed and the dollar?
• Forget about the spin, what is the real purpose of the Fed?
• What does it do to labor?
• What does it do to capital?
• Effect of falling interest rates
• What does it do to the culture?
• Can’t the Fed just raise rates?
• Is there hyperinflation occurring right now, unnoticed?
• Is ZIRP helpful or detrimental for ordinary working people.
• What is the remedy for fixing our monetary system?
• What is the problem with debt never being extinguished?
• How does fiat money play out in the end?
• Explain about the marginal utility/productivity of debt in lay terms
“The safeguards provided by an objective legal system hinge on a proper understanding of what objective law is. This lecture by Tara Smith, professor of philosophy and holder of the BB&T Chair for the Study of Objectivism at the University of Texas – Austin, clarifies objectivity itself — not in epistemological detail, but in application to everyday living — and then charts its requisites for a proper legal system. We see how the function of government sets the terms for the just exercise of state power and how confusions about objectivity result in its corruption.” — Ayn Rand Institute
From Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System: An Interview with Tara Smith | The Undercurrent:
[Dr. Smith:] …readers should care because the stakes are huge. We are talking about the law—about government power, about power to force you to do things you don’t want to do. Now that’s a legitimate power. But if we’re to have a just government that treats people as they deserve, that government must be constrained to do only what it needs to do, to do its job. The government’s authority is limited to that.
Courts, through judicial review, when people challenge certain applications of the law, play a crucial role in keeping the government limited to its authorized activities. Judicial review is designed to make sure it is the law that governs, and not anything else.
TU: Antonin Scalia is perhaps the most widely-known Supreme Court justice, and is seen by many as an authority in this field. What’s your estimation of Scalia’s approach to judging?
Dr. Smith: It’s fatally flawed. There are isolated lines to like in some of his opinions, but there are far more serious errors—damaging errors. […]
Read the rest of the interview to learn why.
Pope Francis’s Crusade Against Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All – Forbes
“The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth.” This was Pope Francis’s summary of his Encyclical earlier this year on the alleged destruction of our planet. The leading culprit, in his view, is humanity’s use of fossil fuels, which he believes are immoral and should largely be illegal.
But if he wants to help humanity, especially the poorest human beings, Pope Francis needs to recognize that fossil fuels make Earth not a “pile of filth,” but a far better, healthier, cleaner, and more bountiful place to live.
Imagine a commoner from 300 years ago was magically transported from the Earth in its state back then to the Earth in its state now. What he would see is not “an immense pile of filth” but an environment that is beautifully clean and healthy compared to anything he—or even the Papal Royalty of 300 years ago—ever knew.
He would marvel at the cleanliness and drinkability of the water, in contrast to the inaccessible and disease-ridden water he had been used to; the eradication of or inoculation against once-ubiquitous disease-carrying insects; the pure air compared to the indoor wood fires he kept warm by (when he could afford wood); the ability to access the most beautiful parts of nature. And he would marvel at the bounty he was surrounded by: the farms surrounding him with fresh food, the comfortable buildings, the affordable, abundant clothing, labor-saving machines. The Earth that once seemed so hazardous and so barren of resources has become a wonderful place to live.
Thanks to energy from fossil fuels.
From Don Watkins at ARI:
Today’s opponents of economic inequality are fighting to dramatically expand government control over our lives, including through higher taxes, a larger regulatory-welfare state and an unprecedented hike in the minimum wage. And they are winning.
Despite reams of criticism from free-market-oriented economists, columnists and policy analysts, the inequality alarmists continue to hold the moral high ground in this debate. How can we change that?
In a new essay, Yaron Brook and I argue that the key to turning the tables on the inequality alarmists is to expose them as the enemies of the only kind of equality that matters: political equality.
You can download a PDF of the essay at:
This is a message that urgently needs to be spread. I hope you’ll help me out by sharing this as widely as you can.