The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Jobs: A New Reality

Los Angeles, CA – The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping industries across the globe, and there’s no doubt it’s putting many jobs at risk. High-paying professions, such as radiologists who read medical images like x-rays, CAT scans, and MRIs, are discovering that AI can interpret these images with greater accuracy. The medical community is just beginning to feel the effects of this change, and it’s clear the landscape will continue to evolve rapidly.

The legal profession is also being turned upside down by AI. Lawyers, once considered irreplaceable for their expertise, are finding that AI can offer legal advice, generate documents, and guide individuals through complex legal processes. With a few prompts, people can have AI draft legal filings and tell them how to proceed, essentially transforming them into their own legal advocates. The era where AI can turn anyone into a virtual Clarence Darrow is upon us.

The entertainment industry is another sector facing major disruption. AI has the potential to replace screenwriters and create stories on demand, threatening the livelihood of many creative professionals. The Screen Actors Guild and other unions are pushing for legal protections against the encroachment of AI, hoping to shield actors and other creatives from job loss.

However, these efforts may be in vain. AI, as a form of expression, is likely protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, meaning attempts to regulate or limit its use face significant legal hurdles. While unions and professionals may fight to slow AI’s takeover, the technology is here to stay, and it’s reshaping the job market in profound ways.

The takeaway is simple: those who learn how to use AI effectively will thrive, while those who resist or fail to adapt may find themselves left behind. As AI becomes more integrated into daily life, mastering it is no longer optional—it’s essential. In this new era, understanding AI will be as fundamental as reading and writing.

How big city politicians kill crime to bullshit to public.

Chicago, IL – You’ve just heard your local news anchor confidently tell you that despite how it may seem, crime in the Windy City is actually on the decline. But you have to ask yourself, is crime really slowing down, or is someone massaging the numbers with a pencil?

I don’t care what your mayor or the news media says, especially in large cities – the police chief or superintendent does not set policy. Mayors never give up that control. The police brass get their marching orders and either follow them or get replaced. Statistical deception is only limited by the creativity or lack thereof by those in charge of presenting the numbers.

The term often thrown around is “killing crime.” Here’s how it works: police reports are categorized on forms generated by the department. The system, created by the FBI, divides crimes into Part One offenses (the most serious) and Part Two offenses (less serious), all under the Uniform Crime Reporting system (UCR).

Take burglary as an example. A burglar breaks into a home to steal property or commit another crime. If the police make an arrest and clear the crime, it’s reported as a burglary. That crime is then cleared by police efficiency stats. But when they can’t make an arrest, police bosses don’t want it reported as a Part One burglary. So, officers are instructed to categorize it as vandalism and simple theft instead. It’s a clever way to cheat—by not reducing the burglary rate but showing an artificially high rate of solving crimes.

And what happens to officers who don’t play along with this bullshit? For starters, they’re reassigned to districts far from their homes. Their chances for promotion evaporate, and their efficiency ratings tank. You get the picture.

Now, how do they cover up homicides? As an investigative TV news producer, I got a tip from a Chicago homicide detective who spilled the beans. He explained that certain cases, like a murdered prostitute estranged from her family, get dumped into a special file labeled “pending death investigations.” The trick is that since these deaths aren’t officially classified as homicides, they never make it to the UCR system.

I asked the detective how I could get the numbers on these death investigations to expose the system. He told me what I already suspected—it would require a mountain of research, and I’d get no help from the department.

So, I took a different route. I filed a public records request with the Cook County Medical Examiner and got access to their case database. I compared the homicides listed in the city of Chicago with what city officials were claiming. The results were shocking: Chicago police had concealed over 350 murders. I passed this information to retired CBS2 reporter Pam Zekman, who confronted former Chicago Police Superintendent Phil Cline with our findings. That story won an Emmy.

If you’re a mayor and don’t like your crime statistics, don’t worry—you can always cheat. Below is a brief rundown of the Uniform Crime Reporting system. Anyone with half a brain can figure out a way to bullshit the public.

The UCR system is a national crime data collection program managed by the FBI. It classifies crimes into two categories: Part One Crimes (the serious stuff, like violent and property crimes) and Part Two Crimes (less serious offenses). Part One Crimes are what most jurisdictions use to gauge the overall crime rate, and these are the numbers the public hears about the most.

Part Two Crimes, on the other hand, cover a broader range of offenses but don’t carry as much weight when calculating crime trends or shaping public perception.

Now that I’ve told you how officials hide or kill crime, here’s the flip side: some jurisdictions over-report crime to snag more federal funds.

So, how trustworthy is the UCR? About as trustworthy as your local politicians!

Children, Firearms, Safety, and Security

Chicago, IL—Let me begin with my personal story. I grew up in poverty, raised by a dysfunctional single mother who was mostly absent. By the age of 14, I was emancipated, living on my own, working full time at night, and attending high school during the day. Thankfully, I had a good sense to always stay  one step ahead of child protective services and foster care.  I learned early how to survive in a harsh world, and part of that survival was understanding the value of personal protection.

As a child, I was fascinated by guns. TV shows like Roy Rogers and Dragnet portrayed firearms as necessary tools for the good guys. I understood early on that guns weren’t just toys—they were instruments of security in a world with dangerous people. By the time I joined high school junior ROTC at 13, I was handling real weapons: M1 Garands, Browning Automatic Rifles, and .45 pistols. We were taught military discipline and, more importantly, firearm safety.

At 13, I saved up money to buy my own .22 rifle. No bureaucratic red tape, no mandatory age verification. This was before the federal government stepped in with the Gun Control Act of 1968, an overreach that only complicates law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms today. On rifle team day I took that cased rifle and a box of 50 rounds of ammunition with me to school on the CTA bus, and no one batted an eye. Back then, there was a respect for guns and those who handled them responsibly. That sense of responsibility is precisely what’s missing in today’s conversations about children, firearms, and safety.

Now, let’s talk about your kids and firearms. The harsh truth is, in a country with over 400 million guns in circulation, your children will inevitably encounter one. Will they know what to do? If you’ve chosen to shield them from guns entirely, you’re setting them up for danger, not safety. Ignorance is not a safety measure—it’s a liability. The most irresponsible thing you can do as a parent is leave your children ignorant of firearms, thinking that because you don’t own a gun, they won’t encounter one.

Children are curious by nature. Telling them something is “off-limits” without providing context or knowledge only makes it more tempting. If your child stumbles across a firearm—whether in your home, a friend’s, or elsewhere—will they know to handle it safely or leave it alone? That’s a question every parent must answer. And if you haven’t equipped your child with the knowledge and respect for firearms, then you’ve failed in your duty as a protector.

At around eight years old, you should introduce your children to firearms. Teach them firearm safety—every rule, every caution. Then, under your supervision, let them shoot. This takes the mystery out of guns, satisfies their curiosity, and instills a respect for the power of a firearm. The earlier you teach them, the more ingrained this respect becomes. Remember, it’s not just about today’s safety—it’s about preparing them for tomorrow’s reality. Whether it’s participating in shooting sports or, God forbid, defending themselves in an increasingly dangerous world, firearm knowledge is essential. -

In our modern society, we’ve turned firearm ownership into a taboo. The left would rather have you believe that by teaching your child to shoot, you’re endangering them. But the facts tell a different story. Many times, children have successfully defended themselves and their families with firearms. We don’t talk about those stories enough because they don’t fit the anti-gun narrative.

There’s another reality that the left doesn’t want you to face: when the world plunges into war again, or even when your child is drafted into military service, those who know how to handle a firearm will have a head start. Equality means that your 18-year-old daughter could be called into combat just as your son could. Would you want her entering the battlefield without any prior experience with guns? Of course not.

To those parents who shudder at the idea of their child handling a gun, I say this: By refusing to teach them, you’re abdicating your responsibility. Not teaching your child about firearms is, in itself, a form of neglect.

For the adults who have never touched a gun, it’s time to wake up. You’ve been conditioned by a society that wants you dependent on others for your safety. The truth is, when danger comes knocking, the police will not be there to save you. They’ll only arrive to clean up the aftermath and write reports. Self-defense is your responsibility. Don’t outsource it.

It’s time to arm yourself and your children with knowledge, not fear. Firearm safety is about responsibility, discipline, and survival. Those are American values

It’s either Donald Trump or four more years of hyperinflation and the end of the middle class.

Kamala Harris promised change, joy, and a new direction. But every time she opens her mouth, we’ve learned that she would not change a single thing from what’s been happening for the last 3 1/2 years. Her campaign of change has evaporated completely. She embodies the continued decline of America into her socialist ideal. The reckless printing of currency backed by nothing cannot be sustained without a total economic collapse. Living off your credit cards without generating income is exactly what the Biden/Harris, Obama/Biden, and Clinton/Gore administrations have done to America. The interest we must pay alone is devastating.

The Democrats crying, “tax the rich” is hollow because the Democrats are the rich today, and they will never tax themselves. Remember, our Congress is overflowing with multi-millionaires. We will never see them vote for term limits, nor will they ever significantly tax the rich. These are all hollow promises.

Trump, on the other hand, is a transparent and known character. In many ways, Trump is flamboyant, and sometimes he comes off as a bully when he speaks his mind, but you never have to guess what he’s thinking. Trump has always demonstrated kindness, particularly to those less fortunate than himself. He refused his presidential salary, instead reinvesting it into America. Trump wants to return America to what it should be—a good business model—rather than being the world’s charity and policeman. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say taxpayers must fund other nations. We are certainly free to form defense alliances, but that doesn’t mean we have to support the entire Third World.  These extreme left-wing administrations’ obvious goal was and is to form a one world communist government from which there is no escape.  

We have two choices, socialist ruin along with the end of our way of life.  The other choice is to return to fiscal sanity with continued freedom and liberty. 

Tulsi Gabbard is a lifelong learner, always seeking growth and understanding.

Tulsi Gabbard is an impressive and accomplished figure that came from a deeply Democratic family and background. She uniquely balanced political office with military service, something rare in today’s political landscape. As a combat veteran who served in the Middle East, she rapidly advanced through the officer ranks, adding depth to her leadership.

Her remarkable experiences have shaped her evolving political views. She has shown the courage to explain when and why her perspectives have changed. Over time, Gabbard grew disillusioned with the Democratic Party as it moved away from traditional values.

Gabbard stands out as a skilled orator and sharp debater, known for her quick thinking and thorough understanding of different perspectives. Her intelligence and leadership capabilities are truly exceptional.

While I generally have a deep distrust of politicians, Tulsi Gabbard is an exception. She values the Constitution, our history, and the Bill of Rights, demonstrating a genuine respect for foundational principles.

I don’t see her selling out or compromising her beliefs for personal gain. She comes across as a strong, independent woman committed to doing what’s right for her fellow citizens.

The Future of Courtrooms: Embrace Zoom for Efficiency and Accessibility

In today’s fast-paced world, commuting to courtrooms for limited hearings or traffic cases is becoming increasingly impractical. It’s time to fully embrace the technology that we know works—Zoom. The COVID-19 pandemic taught us that much of the court’s business can be conducted remotely. Now, we need to take this lesson and expand its application.

Court appearances for matters like small claims and traffic citations often require litigants to travel long distances, navigate congested city streets, find parking, and waste an entire day for what might amount to a 10-minute appearance. This is not only inefficient but costly for both the individual and the system as a whole. Why are we still adhering to these outdated, resource-draining practices when technology offers a better solution?

Today, we have the capability to hold entire trials via Zoom, involving prosecutors, defense attorneys, defendants, and judges. While defendants retain the constitutional right to face their accusers, this would only be necessary in a small minority of cases. For routine traffic citations, where the police officer is often the only government witness, remote hearings make perfect sense.

The benefits of Zoom hearings are clear. First, they would reduce traffic congestion, taking numerous cars off the streets and saving energy. Second, the pressure on court security would be reduced with fewer people entering courthouse buildings, making them safer and more manageable. Finally, many courthouses are located near expensive parking facilities, further burdening individuals who are already fighting fines or legal disputes. Moving these appearances online would cut down on those extra, often predatory, costs.

Beyond convenience, using Zoom enhances government efficiency. It cuts down on unnecessary delays, makes the legal process more accessible, and saves both time and taxpayer money. For minor legal issues that need not require in-person appearances, it’s the smart, modern solution.

The legal system should be adaptive, not stuck in the past. Embracing Zoom for court proceedings is not just practical—it’s the future of good government.

The Menendez Brothers: A Tragic Story of Wealth, Abuse, and Consequences.

The Menendez brothers’ case has long fascinated the public, raising complex questions about abuse, wealth, and justice. Lyle and Erik Menendez were convicted of the brutal 1989 murders of their parents, José and Kitty Menendez, in their Beverly Hills mansion. Their defense? Years of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse at the hands of their father, with their mother complicit through her silence and neglect. While this abuse, if true, paints a harrowing picture of their childhood, I believe it does not justify the violent path they chose.

The Menendez brothers were both adults at the time of the murders—Lyle was 21, and Erik was 18. As adults, they had the means and opportunity to escape their allegedly abusive environment. In fact, they were more than capable of fleeing from their situation rather than resorting to violence. They had access to considerable financial resources, cars, and the ability to travel freely. If life with their parents was truly unbearable, they could have left. They could have sought legal protection or, at the very least, distanced themselves from the toxic environment.

However, they chose not to. Instead, they stayed, enjoying the benefits of their parents’ vast wealth and luxurious lifestyle. Their desire to maintain that life is clear. The murders were followed by a spree of extravagant spending—sports cars, watches, and even a new business venture. It’s hard not to see this as more than just a reaction to years of trauma. It feels more like a deliberate attempt to continue living in comfort without the burden of control from their parents. They wanted the wealth but none of the abuse.

I am not suggesting that the abuse didn’t play a role in shaping the brothers’ mindset. Abuse can have devastating psychological effects that last a lifetime. But the decision to murder their parents was not the only option available to them. At some point, their actions became more about preserving their lifestyle than simply escaping the trauma of their upbringing.

That brings us to their sentencing: life without parole. Is that a fair punishment? Personally, I think life without the possibility of parole was a bit over the top. While they deserved severe consequences for their actions, I believe life with the possibility of parole would have been a more appropriate outcome. It would allow for the potential of rehabilitation and reflection, particularly given the mitigating factor of their abusive upbringing.

Justice must always strike a balance. In the case of the Menendez brothers, while they committed a heinous act, the complexity of their situation should have been given more weight. Life with the possibility of parole would have allowed the legal system to reassess their future at a later time, after years of consideration and rehabilitation.

The Menendez case is a tragic example of how wealth, power, and abuse can intertwine to produce devastating outcomes. The brothers made a terrible choice, one that cost them their freedom and their future. But the question remains: was their punishment truly just? I say, put them up for parole.  I know they are not entitled to any of their parents wealth at this stage. 

Appendix carry for striker-fired pistols is insane!

Throughout my life, I’ve tried every possible  way to carry handguns, seeking a balance of accessibility, convenience, comfort, concealment, and, most importantly, safety. It can be a very challenging goal, especially when it comes to larger firearms.

When Glock popularized reliable striker-fired pistols, many manufacturers followed suit. These pistols, however, lack the traditional manual safety lever. Instead, they have a small trigger safety that must be depressed to fire the weapon.

Now, imagine pulling your gun in a high-stress situation. Recall the female Secret Service agent fumbling for her gun during the first attempt on Donald Trump’s life in Butler, Pennsylvania. If she had accidentally discharged the firearm, the risk of injury would have been minimal with a hip holster. Had she been using an appendix carry position, the consequences could have been much more serious.

Our bodies aren’t uniform. While some men might handle appendix carry without issue, the reality is that many have a bit of a belly, which makes safe appendix carry even more difficult. This method becomes particularly risky when reholstering under stress, such as after a physical altercation or while apprehending a criminal.

I strongly advocate for sticking to traditional hip or shoulder holsters. Appendix carry poses significant risks—self-inflicted injuries, including self-castration or severing the femoral artery, are real possibilities.

Most appendix carry holsters are cheap Kydex scabbards. If you’re looking for a holster, choose carefully from established manufacturers. Your life depends on it, so price should never be a concern. Personally, I’ve trusted Galco holsters for over 50 years. While they do offer some well-designed appendix models, their shoulder and hip holsters are the safest bet, providing protection without endangering the family jewels.  

Donald Trump says it all right here. It is time to end the reign of terror brought to you by Kamala Harris!

 

SHOT SHOW 2025: A Must-Attend Event for Firearms and Outdoor Enthusiasts

The SHOT Show (Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade Show) returns in 2025, once again drawing professionals from around the globe to the largest event of its kind. From January 21-24, 2025, Las Vegas will host this annual expo that has become a cornerstone of the firearms, ammunition, and outdoor gear industries.  If you are not an industry professional, beware that the public is not invited to this event.  

What to Expect at SHOT Show 2025

As the world’s premier event for the shooting sports industry, SHOT Show 2025 promises to be even bigger and better than previous years. The event will feature over 2,500 exhibitors, offering the latest in firearms, ammunition, tactical equipment, and outdoor accessories. Attendees will have access to new product showcases, hands-on demonstrations, and the opportunity to connect with industry leaders.

Why You Can’t Miss SHOT Show 2025

Even with that missing tech push, SHOT Show 2025 will still be the place to be for professionals in the shooting, hunting, and law enforcement industries. Whether you’re a dealer, distributor, or manufacturer, the networking and educational opportunities are unparalleled. Attendees will have the chance to sit in on seminars, witness the latest tactical gear, and possibly get an early glimpse of prototypes or other emerging trends.

Don’t miss this opportunity to be part of the action, explore the latest innovations, and engage with the leaders shaping the future of firearms and outdoor equipment.

Register Now for SHOT Show 2025

Reforming America’s Prisons: A Path to Humane and Effective Solutions

America’s prison system has become counterproductive, excessively expensive, and unnecessarily violent.

There is a major issue with public perception of prisons. Many believe prison is solely for punishment, leading to indifference about the suffering of inmates. Our so-called correctional system is often seen as the lowest priority in law enforcement.

Can prisons be reformed? Absolutely, and it doesn’t need to cost nearly as much as we are currently spending.

First, let’s address prison violence. The individuals sent to prison are often some of the most violent people in our society, coming from various troubled backgrounds. Multiculturalism in prisons only exacerbates tensions, leading to beatings, rapes, and even murders. Segregating inmates by cultural or ethnic groups may not be a politically correct solution, but it would significantly reduce these violent conflicts. Doing so would make managing inmates easier, lower medical expenses for treating injured prisoners, and reduce workers’ compensation and disability payments resulting from staff injuries. This practical approach would make a difference in creating safer environments.

A significant portion of crime in America is fueled by narcotics addiction. The criminalization of drugs has led to vastly inflated prices, resulting in wealth for drug dealers, corruption among public officials, and a variety of related violent crimes. Drugs are not expensive to produce, but their illegal status makes them costly. Ending the drug enforcement policies that enable these black markets could put dealers out of business overnight. For those struggling with addiction, we should focus on providing meaningful treatment options—not as a way to avoid jail but to support those genuinely seeking freedom from addiction. Current programs almost always function as mere “get out of jail free” cards for people with no real intention of breaking their habits.

Another major issue is the lack of productive activities in prison. Inmates often have idle time, which contributes to further criminal behavior. These individuals will eventually re-enter society, and we have a choice: they can either become productive citizens or hardened criminals. Most prisoners receive little more than occasional vocational training, which does little to prepare them for life after release.

Everyone desires meaningful work that pays well and makes a difference, and inmates are no different. Many have talents that go unnoticed and undeveloped. The entertainment industry—whether as actors, singers, or comedians—does not require background checks. Yet few prisons cultivate these talents. Many inmates may possess great singing voices or comedic abilities, but they’ve never had the opportunity to explore them. Helping inmates develop their potential in these areas could open doors to a successful future.

Similarly, many renowned chefs began honing their culinary skills while incarcerated. The culinary arts are another field where background checks are less of an obstacle, and many former inmates have successfully opened their own restaurants. This is a true measure of rehabilitation and success.

Additionally, many inmates lead lives that are far from ordinary, which gives them a unique perspective. Some have turned this experience into a talent for writing. Who knows how many potential Ernest Hemingways are behind bars, waiting to be discovered?

In any event, the last person we ask about what training they would like to get is the inmate.  They may have their own great ideas that we should not ignore.

Technology has brought us a Zoom and Skype calls.  Prison inmates should be allowed liberal access so that they can communicate to loved ones and mentors.  Right now the correctional telephone systems are nothing less than a corruption cabal and accordingly their families pay exorbitant and prohibitive amounts of money on those calls.

Respect is key to transforming prison culture. Inmates are rarely addressed with the basic dignity of being called “Mr.” or “Ms.” A foundation of mutual respect between staff and inmates—starting with proper greetings—could help foster empathy and kindness. Many inmates never experienced the positive influences of good parenting. Teaching respect, tolerance, and kindness in prisons would be one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce violence.

Only after inmates learn these core values of respect and empathy can multiculturalism be considered. In the meantime, segregating inmates to reduce violence is a necessary first step.