Roy, Reciprocity and Rosie

I was live on Twitter last night about the reciprocity lies and propaganda being spread by the left, but as always, they just keep giving me ways to prove the idiots they are. Well, as we’re used to by now, they just keep one upping themselves on the meter of “how blatantly hypocritical and idiotic can I sound today.” Yesterday I read an article where Rosie O’Donnell said she doesn’t feel like anyone should need a gun, unless they’re a cop, as she told a story about her girlfriend “springing up ready to shoot” when they heard what sounded like a break in. Now, while I disagree with her, this story was her saying she doesn’t think anyone needs a firearm, but today, I find the image below, where she flat out says “I don’t care if it’s your right, you don’t get to.” Simply put, we have liberals today who are so convinced of their “rights” that the actual rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are ignored and trampled on. Your “right” to not be offended is non-existent, and I guarantee, when someone robs you, or worse, you’ll wish you had a firearm. As for “demanding change,” why don’t you read the U.S. Constitution, there’s a method there. You won’t succeed, but you’ll earn a lot of respect for doing it right, as opposed to the contempt and pity you earn with statements like this one.

The issue here, though, is that we have elected officials who firmly agree with her. Safe behind their gated communities, walled off homes, and armed guards, they believe that the rank and file American public should be forcibly disarmed. Just after the Sutherland Springs shooting, former VP Biden was on TV and said that the man who used his AR-15 to stop the killer, should not have been allowed to carry said weapon, meaning that more people in that church would be dead. Although, keep in mind that this is also the man who, while arguing that no one should be allowed to own a pistol or rifle, said that you just fire through the door with a shotgun, to “scare off” would be intruders.


Their hypocrisy isn’t limited to just the public figures and high profile officials, as we’ve not heard much from Senator Menendez after the jury decided his corruption was OK, but he’s back in the public eye, now stating that any licensed person who enters New Jersey while armed, for any reason, should face a minimum of five years in prison. He doesn’t care that you can get lost on the highway and have to “enter” the state so you can u-turn and go back, you are in danger of being thrown in prison if you enter with a legally owned and carried weapon, because NJ has decided that they are the only state that knows how to handle LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who exercise their rights. Well, Senator, reciprocity goes both ways. If New Jersey officially states that they will not honor any concealed carry license, then no drivers or marriage licenses from that state should be valid in any other. Maybe when New Jersey residents are told their licenses are all invalid outside their home state, they’ll wake up and demand that their state FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, or they’ll just not leave that state again and we’ll be rid of them. The saddest part is that they openly admit their hypocrisy in cases like this. They scream states’ rights when it comes to Concealed Carry Reciprocity, but demand all states honor what they say is valid. I have personally told people that if a state decides they won’t honor my Texas license to carry, then Texas should decide not to honor marriage or drivers licenses from that state, only to be told I’m an “ignorant bigot who doesn’t understand.” I then pulled up the dictionary definition of reciprocity, only to be told I had pulled up a hacked site. When I said OK, you pull up the dictionary, they started back at the start, with their “bigot” or “racist” accusations. Unlike the idiot at my community college, this one didn’t grab me to “ensure their right to be heard” when I walked away. Although the look on their face said they wanted to hit me when I wrote “I pity the stupid, and you’re their king” and showed it to them. It was petty, but it felt good.


Finally, the hypocrisy is on display for the world with the Roy Moore sideshow. Judge Moore served in one way or another for 40 YEARS, yet when he runs for the U.S. Senate, suddenly a celebrity lawyer and multiple women finally go to the news, not a law enforcement agency, with allegations that things happened 30 years ago. While we have pictures of Al Franken groping a journalist as she sleeps, or creepy Joe Biden on video countless times, the mere allegations are enough to have liberals from New York to New Delhi demanding Roy Moore step down and all but be exiled to the desert. Today there are many links all over my social media to a story where one of the women admits she “altered” the inscription in the yearbook, while also claiming it’s still true, the “I made up this evidence, but that’s it, he still did it, don’t demand proof.” The same yearbook that for almost 3 weeks, the celebrity lawyer has refused to let anyone see as she demands we all accept her expert has analyzed it and it’s valid. With the admission of falsifying evidence, and the other proof that others have lied, this is when the lawyer and all of the women must be told all evidence will be made public, all testimony will be made under oath to a sitting Judge, and when one side is proven correct, the Judge will decide what happens. That way we either get to see a Judge charge these women with attempting to influence an election in ways other than voting, or we see them slink away, whining about how no one believes them, ignoring that they give no reason to.


As I said many times in this post and have said many times before today, the issue boils down to hypocrisy and ego. The DNC is so assured of their own superiority and infallibility that they ignore that their “rights” do not negate our rights. Antifa scream that they’re “fighting fascism” while they use fascist tactics to silence all dissent. The DNC screams that they’re working “for women” as more and more Democrats are proven to be sexual predators. All of this needs to stop and there are simple solutions. If you accuse someone and say you have evidence, give it to law enforcement, don’t just hold it up as press conferences, then say no to anyone who wants to look at it. If you are going to give speeches about protecting women, make sure you aren’t a predator yourself, or surrounded by them.

Congress is full of people who have been in their office for so long they’ve decided they are no longer citizens and servants, but royalty, and we must remind them they are not. All 535 of them work for us, and we need only take their power away, by voting them out, to send a message. Less than 1% of those in the House and Senate should be there today, yet we have 20, 30, and 40+ year office holders, hell bent on maintaining their cushy job, where they give a speech, tell someone they won’t be getting your support, and submit a bill you know will fail once in a while, and collect your pay. No one in this country is above the law, and we need to prove that. I personally feel that Franken shouldn’t just be allowed to resign, but he should be charged and tried for his crimes. Conyers should be in jail, and Clinton and her cronies, including Obama, should be locked away for all of the crimes of the past 8 years. Who knows, if high profile, rich, people start going to jail for their crimes, maybe those who replace them will think twice before saying “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it,” or “millions will die because of this bill.” I know it’s a long shot, but I can dream, right?

All for me, none for you

I’ve written about this many times, and the arguments always devolve into the people demanding special treatment defending their “right” to it with arguments that would make a spider monkey tell them they’re idiots. The current thread is about the current case going before SCOTUS, regarding the baker who was sued into bankruptcy over refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. This baker did not say gays were not welcome in their business, only that they would not bake the wedding cake, which in their opinion, sanctioned the wedding, something their faith would not let them do. Naturally, the couple in question sued for having their “rights” violated, eventually causing the bakery to close and the family to lose their livelihood. Fast forward a bit, and we now have a gay coffee shop owner going on a profanity laced tirade, kicking Christians out of the shop. They were not asking the shop to cater or otherwise take part in anything other than the same business transactions everyone else was a part of, yet these legal experts that not that far in the past that screamed about rights, are now silent.

Well, I’m not a lawyer, I’m just a guy with a degree in history and a certification to teach secondary social studies, which includes U.S. Government, and there is no right to shop and buy from who you want. Business owners can legally deny anyone service, and only the free market can legally respond, by patrons deciding if they wish to continue shopping there. The First Amendment, simply, protects you from Congress passing a law restricting your speech or ability to exercise your faith (or lack thereof.)

While the current SCOTUS makeup is a pretty even split, I believe they will side with the baker, and hopefully force this couple to repay every dime their first suit stole from the business. If I had my way, when they rant about their rights, I would then simply say “So, you support bankrupting the gay coffee shop owner who kicked out Christians for being Christian, and not even for asking for a special service?” When they say that’s not the same thing, I’d agree, the Christians’ request was to purchase was was readily available in the shop, something the baker said they would not stop anyone from doing, it was not a request for a special service for a private event.

The long an short of this is very simple, you have a right to shop where you want, and the businesses have the right to say, “sorry, we don’t wish to provide that service.” But these lawsuits have never been about equal rights, it’s about forcing conservatives to accept as normal, that which we believe is not. Marriage is a social construct, and I personally believe the Government should have NO PART IN IT! You go to the religious leader of your choice and get married. Government can allow you to show someone who financially depends on you as a dependent, that’s it. If the wife makes the most, she is head of house, if it’s two women, the higher salary is head of house, there is no “spouse” just a “dependent.” But, sadly, this argument is also shouted down as “not allowing homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals,” when in fact it is, as it strips the “rights” one group wants from everyone, and is far more fair, but liberals aren’t about fairness, they are simply about forcing you to bend to their will, and they will soon find, the average American conservative is tired of bending, we now stand for what we believe. If SCOTUS rules for the lesbian couple, I will demand they rule against the coffee shop, you can’t have it both ways.

Society is at a tipping point, and I can’t say we’ll tip the right way

Just 40 years ago, regardless of your stance on politics, race, money, or religion, people were generally able to exist alongside anyone. There were arguments, just as there are today, but they didn’t end with divorce, or calls for arrest for some imagined crime, they just ended with an agreement to disagree, and not revisit the topic. Even 25 years ago, this was still the case, as I can remember my parents and I having that experience with friends. We may have been upset and avoided the other person all we could for a time, but we generally didn’t dispose of someone for a simple disagreement. During my high school years, when these conversations happened, they were either short lived or lasted months or years, as both parties would go back and research then come back and keep working to bring the other person to their point of view. Many of those I call friends vehemently disagree with me on many topics, from healthcare to immigration and more, and we still call the other a friend, unlike so many today.

During the election of 2016, many people became incensed at others for not agreeing with them on who to vote for, candidates had people insulting and demeaning others over the simple fact that you will never find one candidate that everyone will agree with. From George Washington to Donald Trump, every President has had people who wanted someone else for the office, yet they all were chosen to fill the job for their time. Sadly, today we see violence happening in the name of “resisting a fascist regime” from a group that is using Nazi logos and names, and tactics straight from Mussolini’s or Hitler’s playbook. The simple statement that “when your argument requires you to assault those who disagree, it has no value in any sense” perfectly sums up all of the groups who have rioted to stop what they don’t want. However, if you look at eras in the past, you will rarely find the “I don’t like that, so you can’t do it” attitude, you may see protests, signs outside a business or school, and chants being repeated to bring people to one side or the other, but rarely will you see violence erupt over a mere invitation of a speaker, or not wanting a statue removed from a city park.

This attitude, sadly, has been growing for the last 20 to 25 years, and seems to be all but unstoppable now. From the 1990’s and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, to today’s demand that the military, and in fact, the federal government, “must” pay for all manner of things, society is at a tipping point. It is my hope that, over the course of this, I can highlight areas were simply walking away, or changing how a topic is approached, may help stop the flight toward anarchy or worse.

I have rights!
The go to argument today, it seems, is that everything is a right, or the denial of someone else’s rights, to stop an argument and “win” the day. Just pointing out that something is or isn’t included in the Bill of Rights is a trigger to call someone racist, sexist, bigot, or nazi, after which all bets are off and the person the group crying hates is instantly a demon from hell to be killed on the spot. Sadly, when the inverse of that argument happens, they defend the person “denying a right” as having the right to so, completely ignoring history and that they so recently argued completely against their new stance.

Just over two years ago (April 2015), a couple in Oregon sued a local baker for not making a cake for their wedding. The bakery in question is owned and run by a Christian couple who said that to do so would violate their faith. Rather than let the free market take over, and see who the public supports, the couple in question sued, eventually winning the day, and forcing the bakery to close. The argument that a business cannot deny service, else they are guilty of discrimination, is one that has been debated for decades, yet until 2015, people didn’t sue, they simply told their friends and family, and let the market decide if the business was guilty or not. If the community disagreed, the business would see sales decline until they either change their policy or close their doors for good. (1)

 That same year in Indiana, a pizza parlor was sued by a gay couple for not catering a wedding. Granted, this story produced a seemingly endless stream of humor over any couple wanting pizza for a wedding, but it shined a light on a new law in Indiana, which the restaurant owner said allowed a business to refuse service on religious grounds. In the Oregon case, the bakery was closed and a family’s ability to support themselves was stripped from them, over a simple matter of a cake, while in Indiana, the community rallied around the business and raised money for them to keep them open after being sued. (2)

On the opposite end of the spectrum from the examples above, just two years later (October 2017,) a coffee shop in Seattle, run by a gay man, saw a video go viral, as the owner went on a verbal tirade against Christians, as he kicked them out of his shop, and was very profane in doing so. Using the examples above, one might expect the damaged party (the customer) to sue and force the business owner to capitulate or close their doors, but this one saw nothing of the sort. The ACLU quickly got involved in the first two, proclaiming loudly in both cases that the First Amendment meant that a business could not say their religious freedom trumps anyone else’s, while in the case of this coffee shop, they were silent, and the community saw nothing more than customers treated as if they had urinated on the counter while their heads spun on their necks. (3)

The sad part of this is that a mere 20 years ago, many businesses had signs that they catered to a small group or didn’t serve others. Most were considered jokes, as they read “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason, with or without explanation.” This was often cause for laughter, or just a decision to not patronize a business, and again, the market decided which businesses succeeded or failed. Granted, this scenario is largely geographic as you will always find areas of any country that hold either very liberal or very conservative views, and the community rarely sees challenges to this, as those who disagree don’t stay long, if they visit at all. Taken as an example, Nashville and Los Angeles are almost on different planets, as in Nashville you find a generally conservative community, raised on Bar-B-Que and beer, and country music, while Los Angeles is so diverse in what you find it could almost be a country on it’s own. From international food, to different cultures, to different religions and lifestyles, when someone from either city visits the other, culture shock is almost too mild a term to use.

These example show two things very clearly, one segment of society demands that no one disagree with them, no one is allowed to run their lives according to anything but what they allow you do, while their polar opposite simply avoid a business that is not in line with their views. Chic-Fil-A has been the target of many tirades and more for their policy of closing on Sunday, despite the policy stating it is to allow employees to spend time as they see fit with their families. When the CEO, Dan Cathy, was interviewed and stated that his personal belief that marriage is a sacred union of a man and woman, the media proclaimed for the world to hear, that the business was homophobic, despite having the quote showing this was Mr. Cathy’s personal opinion. The Robertsons of Duck Dynasty fame faced the same, as the patriarch of the family, and the other members, said their personal belief is that marriage is for a man and woman, and saw the series almost cancelled, despite it always showing the family praying over their meal, and it being obvious that they are a deeply religious family.

All of examples of both sides of this argument point out a massive difference in how the two sides of this situation handle themselves when they are faced with those who disagree. There is a wonderful quote, although who said it first is something attributed to many, but there is a segment of society that says if something offends them, no one may do it, while their inverse simply says if something offends them, they will avoid it. This is perfectly shown in the fact that a baker and pizza parlor were sued, while a coffee shop was not, when they refused service to customers completely opposed to their views. There are very few examples of something so offensive it should not be in polite society, that being vulgar language, pornography, other nudity or graphic displays of affection, as very few people want to see any couple, gay or not, all but having sex in public, or someone dressed in so little a doctor could perform a full physical exam without needing them to disrobe. A prime example is something heard from both sides in the late 1990’s, and even parodied in South Park’s episode entitled Tolerance Camp.

I was sitting with friends just a short time after graduating high school, a few of them openly homosexual, when a story came on the TV about a Gay Pride parade that facing complaints and even threats of charges for public indecency. Knowing our friends, no one was shy about voicing their opinions, as the video showed men in lingerie few women would even want to try on outside of a closed room, and worse. Oddly enough, at least by current standards, the few gay people at the table were the most upset, as they said, it painted homosexuals as being perverse and horrible people, and I agreed with them completely. Those at my table were among the nicest and most amazing people I have known. I joke that, if you get a flat in Texas, don’t worry, in about ten minutes four guys in a truck with tools and beer will be by to help, and everyone at that table would agree we were “those guys” as we would all stop to help anyone who needed it. Aside from asking those few people for clothing advice when I didn’t want my mother or sister to know about a surprise party, they were people to me, just people with expertise in an area I didn’t have, as are the rest, we all find something interesting, and pursue it, and come to the others when needed. But, sadly, today, we’ve seen a movement from one extreme on the political scale to demonize all who don’t believe as they do, and those being demonized are so marginalized that any argument to defend themselves only adds fuel to the fire.

Academia is no longer about academics
Growing up for most Americans, those in their very late 30’s or older, a bad grade was a prompt for your parents to have a conversation about your studies. A note from the teacher about how you were “acting out” was reason for the parents to either ground, or spank, or otherwise punish you. If you were spanked at school, you were spanked again when you got home. My own grades began to slip in high school due to my unwillingness to study, and my parents sat me down and explained why I needed to study. Being who I am, I found a way to “study” so I’d pass, but didn’t truly apply myself, otherwise I would be in a far different place in life today.

Today, however, we have students so assured of their “rights” that they claim discrimination for a failing grade when they didn’t show up, or demand “safe spaces” where they can ignore the world. and their parents are defending them. A cartoon published years ago shows two situations, both where the student had failed a test, where in one the parents ask the child to explain, and in the other, they angrily shout at the teacher to explain. Having gone to college to teach, as I love studying history and teaching, I first found that as I don’t coach any sport, I’m not able to find a teaching position, but also having substituted for several years, this attitude is slowly encroaching on even the most conservative of states and cities. I am thankful I never had to sit in on a conference where parents were told their child was failing, but I did hear students in the halls telling their friends how their parents would “make the teacher change the grade or they’d have them fired.” The attitude of your academic success is someone else’s responsibility teaches only that you need to complain to get your way, and leads to so many other problems in life that no one entering the workforce is able to handle.

I also remember in one class, where I only had one day and it was test-prep, students claiming their teacher allowed the use of iPods and the like when absent, but the teacher didn’t leave me anything stating this, so I told them no. I was accused of being a Draconian Tyrant, and explained that in actuality I was a Jeffersonian, in that I followed the rules unless they were amended by someone with that authority. The students actually began to question me about their test prep, it being an AP Government class, and I ended up getting a long term position from that teacher as a result. In this situation, thankfully, the students wanted to learn, and seeing that they had someone in the classroom who could help, jumped at the chance.

When I returned for my two weeks in the classroom, I lectured, answered questions and generally had a wonderful experience, as the students were bright, engaged, and eager to learn. In the down time, some asked me about various colleges, and other paths in life. I didn’t hold back, telling those who wanted to open an auto garage they should first go to trade school, then learn from a master while getting their business degree slowly, so they’d have little debt and gain experience and real world knowledge, and they were shocked that a teacher didn’t just say “go to college.” Others wanted careers where college was a must, and I told them about loans and such, and advised against debt where it could be avoided. A few of the other teachers cautioned me in this, saying that I could anger parents who wanted their child to attend college, but I will not lie to students and tell them a path that isn’t right for them is. A few parents complained that I was “advising their child that college was wrong,” and I explained that I actually had advised college would help, but that there was a path that would avoid much, if not all, of the normal debt, and was told “you’re lying to cover yourself.”

This shows the attitude so prevalent in the world today, that being “I’m right, don’t you dare say you didn’t do what I said, you’re wrong and must now suffer!” After that experience, I was ready to tell that school district not to call me, but a move negated that need, as well as entering my Junior year, where I was either waiting tables, delivering pizza, in class or asleep, so the situation was resolved, but I was saddened still that parents are so hell bent on their child going to college, regardless of the child’s desires, that they will attack anyone actually listening to the child and being honest.

The rise of the social justice warrior
In each example used so far, you see an attitude of “I’m right, do as a say” which has given rise to the SJW, or Social Justice Warrior. This person cares little for anything but getting their way, as they will sue a bakery for disagreeing, support a coffee shop for kicking out a customer who wasn’t asking for special treatment or service, and silence all dissent. In April of 2016, Milo Yiannopoulos and Steven Crowder were invited to speak at U Mass, by the college Republicans, at an event now known as The Triggering (4 and 4.) This was, by design, meant to challenge students’ positions on various topics, to get them to debate and discuss, and learn from each other. Sadly, it went exactly opposite to the plans, with students cursing and shouting down the speakers. The students, in this case, in an attempt to avoid being offended, managed to offend many more to a higher degree.

The simple fact is, today we have people on all sides of every issue that firmly believe in their own infallibility and their right to not be challenged. When you suggest that the government should not force citizens to purchase a product provided by the government, you’re accused of wanting “millions to die.” When you point out that you simply want the mandate removed, not the products, you’re told you’re lying, that you want death and you will never change their mind. This is a large issue for sure, but this attitude goes much farther than just Health Care or other government programs. Stories have been told many times of a woman ranting at a man for holding the door as she “doesn’t need a man” to do that for her. Some have the man saying fine, then entering and not holding the door, only to then be berated for being rude. That event, ranting about holding the door and not holding the door, shows the attitude of “I’m always right, do as I say!” the clearest. How is anyone to know if someone wants a door held for them or not? A video online some ago shows a woman ranting at a couple as they simply share a chaste kiss for “having sex” in a restaurant. When the business refuses to kick them out, the woman then throws her food on the ground and demands a refund, after which it gets worse when she’s told no.

Opponents of unfettered immigration and open borders are accused of racism for wanting all immigration laws already on the books enforced. When those people ask what race an “illegal immigrant” is, they’re screamed at for “clouding the issue” and being racist. When illegal immigrants rape or kill an American, and are given little more than a slap on the wrist by a “sanctuary city” (5) opponents of illegal immigration use this to show why our laws must be enforced, while supporters of open borders say it’s a “random incident” and “shouldn’t be used to tar good people” but they can’t offer any statistics to show how it’s an isolated incident.

The cries of racism or sexism aren’t restricted to illegal immigration or opinionated people who believe they have a right to be right. Very few people today will argue in favor of Jim Crowe laws as we saw in the 1950’s and 1960’s, rather the opposite, as “separate but equal” never works. But, today, we have minority students demanding segregation, companies sued for not hiring a minority over a more qualified person, and even calls to change a character’s race or gender to be “inclusive.” One company, just over 15 years ago, had a policy that all applications were online and anyone including “anything that would give away the race or sex of the applicant” was disqualified. The first and second interviews were automated via phone, the third via phone with a live person, and the fourth was all but a job offer and the first time you were seen by anyone. This company was sued (although they won each time) for “policies that harmed minorities” and the argument was that minorities wouldn’t have access to the needed technology, despite public libraries not charging for internet time to apply for jobs, and phones being widely available and inexpensive.

The popular culture arguments are even more comical, as they are almost all made by those who would never watch the program they demand conform to their point of view. Two examples show how the policy works wonderfully, or could fail dramatically. The Flash, on the CW network, has the characters of Joe, Iris, and Wally West, played by African Americans, and being a long time fan of the comic myself, I noticed the change, but never cared, as these three are amazing in the role they play. This shows that if you hire for talent, it won’t matter who is playing the role, unless there is a reason to otherwise look for talent. Doctor Who, for years, has come under fire for not having a woman play The Doctor. Initially, the role of someone who fled their planet to avoid military conscription, and being the 1960’s, meant a man, but over time, we have seen women assume roles originally played by men, from Commanders on Gallifrey, to Missy taking over from The Master, and the new Doctor coming in late 2017 is a woman, but from all reports, will do amazingly, indicating that until now, the right woman for the role just wasn’t available. In a funny twist of fate, someone was outraged that Superman on the CW show Supergirl was to only be white, despite having a white man playing the role in the credits, while another was incensed that Rami Malek, a “white man,” was playing an Egyptian Pharaoh in the Night at the Museum movies, until Malek let them know he was born in Egypt, and thus, actually an Egyptian!

This argument also comes into play in many other situations, but it always comes down to the same basic tenet, hire based on race/sex to avoid being racist/sexist, and the irony of “you must be racist/sexist to not be racist/sexist” just brings about the response of “you’re too ignorant to understand.”

Agree with me or you’re a Nazi and to be killed

The secondary tactic today is to call everyone who doesn’t agree with and follow you without question a nazi. Being a student of history, and having already said this here, those using that accusation to silence dissent are actually using the nazi tactics and logic. After World War 1, Germany was demoralized and dejected, until a charismatic man named Adolf Hitler rose to power and gave the country a scapegoat and whipped them into a frenzy. This is a typical tactic, that being to paint your opponent as so evil that all around you will rally to your defense. Charlottesville, VA saw a violent clash between “nazis” and “antifa,” although many now claim to have seen these groups come in on the same busses, suggesting they are simply one group instigating violence to get their way.

My personal stance, and arguments, against this argument is simple, my Grandfather and Great Uncles fought in World War II against the actual Nazis, with one dying on D-Day and laying in Calais to this day. My Great Uncle Coleman, a tank commander on D-Day and in North Africa, rode into Paris when it was liberated, and told me about his time in the Army fighting a brutal regime that murdered millions for the “crimes” of being Jewish, or gay, or otherwise undesirable. Just under a century before that, my ancestors fought to free slaves in the south, but because I don’t support what these “enlightened” people do, I am now painted as nazi.

The clarion call, of course, is to disarm all who are legally armed after any event involving a firearm. A “white supremacist” killed African Americans after the election of President Trump and the call was for gun control, not killer control. Those crying for “common sense gun control” ignore the tool used when it’s a pressure cooker (Boston Marathon bomber,) a truck (NYC,) or a van full of fertilizer (OKC Federal building,) and look for how to fix mental health, but when someone uses a firearm, you’re a nazi for wanting to address the actual issue, not just ban a tool.

Looking at three specific events should show how making a tool illegal is going to do nothing, as Chicago and Detroit should prove on their own. Columbine High School saw a brutal massacre of students, by other students, using weapons stolen from their parents or others they knew. These were high school students, and thus, they should not have any legal way to purchase a firearm. The only exception is if they were already 18, they can legally buy a shotgun, but they used other weapons that they could not legally purchase, so if they acquired the weapons illegally, how would yet another law stop them. Sandy Hook Elementary was virtually identical, with the killer stealing the weapons to kill with them. Again, he acquired them illegally, but the call was to pass another law, not address how to stop the person. This one also showed media ignorance, as they showed a photo of an AR-15, when that was left in his car and not used. Finally, Sutherland Springs, TX, saw a Baptist Church targeted by an avowed atheist who hated Christians. While he did purchase his weapon, he should not have been allowed to, as had his Dishonorable Discharge and Domestic Violence charges been properly reported when they happened, the state of TX would have had him on record as a prohibited possessor, meaning legally, he shouldn’t have been allowed any weapons. But, in the aftermath, former Vice President Biden is on record saying the man who had his own AR-15, and stopped this murderer, should not have been allowed to have the weapon that stopped a killer and saved lives.

The simple fact is that if you argue against removing a statue, for a speaker to come to a private event, or for law abiding citizens to be armed as the law allows, you are labeled a “nazi” and will be attacked, in some cases, physically and to the point of death.

What do we take away from this?
What we take away from this is, simply, that it is still a long and hard fight to bring common sense back to society as a whole. Those accused of being nazis, or racists, or sexists, will be among the first to tell you that someone who has a history of violence should not be allowed to own a firearm, or a man deported five times who has felonies in addition to his illegal status should not be allowed in the country before he is even able to kill someone. But they also tell you that a private business can deny service, and the free market should then decide if that was a wise choice.

These are the people who stop in a driving rainstorm to change a stranger’s tire, who hear about a family in their community suffering a loss and rally to cook meals and help, and generally do all they can to help anyone in need. Those accusing them of all manner of horrible things are those who demand that you wait for the Police when a killer is standing over you. They scream that you want children dead for suggesting women arm themselves to prevent assault, while also screaming that we need to “teach men not to rape,” as if it’s a genetic thing, although they also tell you being a man isn’t genetic.

The arguments don’t make sense, as they tell you that rape culture is only fixable by “teaching men not to rape,” then tell you that you can’t assume someone’s gender. They ignore the actual culture of rape in Hollywood and the DNC, while harping on “locker room talk” from over a decade ago from a man who, until he ran for President, was never accused of racism or sexism. All of this, to me, proves that we don’t have a racism, sexism, or homophobia issue, we have an willful ignorance issue.

If someone broke into your home five times, each time doing damage to your property and family, would you welcome them back again, and then say they didn’t do anything wrong by their actions leading to the death of one of your family? No, you wouldn’t, although I also wouldn’t argue that a pistol round can ricochet and kill as was argued in this case, having read about it, but that is just what the jury in San Fransisco has said. If you were beaten to a pulp would you blame the bat, or the person swinging it? If you were fired for calling in sick when found to later be at a baseball game, would you blame racism for your being found out to be lying? This is the crux of the matter and what must change, as we have almost half of all Americans today blaming everyone but the person responsible. Zarate, after killing Kate Steinle, is acquitted despite multiple felony convictions and deportations, companies are accused of racism when a minority who is less qualified than a non-minority, doesn’t get the job they want, and men are accused of all manner of crimes for merely living their lives. The question here then becomes simple, when, if ever, will society finally stop this madness? If we don’t, we are headed for the end of the grand experiment that is the Shining City on the Hill that is the United States.

The Rules
Now, I’m sorry I have to put this here, but as I’m going to encourage my followers on Gab and Twitter to share this, so as to have as many as possible in the conversation, there are some rules I do not budge on when it comes to comments.

Remain civil and respectful of everyone’s right to their own opinion. You do have a right to think and believe as you do, but so do those you disagree with.

This is, by my design, an family friendly blog. Yes, I know that the topics I write about are not those children, or even teenagers, normally read about and discuss, but part of rule one, being civil, is not resorting to profanity.

If you resort to a base insult, you will immediately be ignored by me and all others who understand the rules of a debate. If I challenge your point and you call me racist, you are proven to be someone unworthy of my time and respect, and I will ignore you after that.

CITE! YOUR! SOURCES! I have cited my sources for the examples above, and if you have an example used where the source isn’t cited, you can assume it’s my own personal experience, but feel free to ask. If you are asked for source material, either admit you’re using something you can’t prove, or provide the source material.

Finally, and most importantly, I am never, by disagreeing with you, denying any right or insulting you, rather, I am embracing my own right to free speech, and questioning what I do not believe. If you are unable to convince me, that is not my “denying your right” to anything, it’s my refusal to embrace your point of view simply because you demand I do.

 

 

Addendum – I’ve fought the HTML and revised over ten times now and I cannot get a constant result of a SIMPLE CARRIAGE RETURN after the centered section headers.  I know it looks bad, but sadly WordPress is apparently in a mood to undo all changes when I save a draft.

An open letter to Congress and the Supreme Court

I will be mailing this letter, with only the salutation changed to personalize it, to all Reps and Senators from TX, on any relevant committee, and to all SCOTUS Justices.

Dear Sir/Ma’am,

We have seen tragedy in this country for decades, from Waco and Ruby Ridge, to Oklahoma City, to most recently, Las Vegas, and all of these tragedies share a few common threads. First, and almost instantly, there is a clarion call to “enact common sense gun control,” regardless of the fact that Waco with the Branch Davidians was the Government storming their compound, or OKC was a van filled with fertilizer, or the Boston Marathon bomb was a pressure cooker, it’s always “we need gun control.” What is ignored in all of these events, is that the weapons used were either perverted from their intended use (the van, fertilizer, pressure cooker) or illegally obtained, as those bent on committing murder will not let something like a law stop them.
Looking as the Sutherland Springs, TX shooting, the assailant was dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Air Force and had a domestic violence charge in his past that was not expunged or otherwise done away with, so he was a prohibited possessor in the State of Texas. The reason he was able to purchase his weapon was not due to the law being inadequate, but rather, the U.S. Air Force not filing the records properly and/or in good time. Had any background check in the State of Texas been run on his and shown his dishonorable discharge, the sale of any firearm would have been denied instantly, and this would not have stopped him finding a way to murder those he hated. Had it not been for a man with an AR style rifle and another with a weapon of his own, the TX shooter may not have stopped until all in that church were dead, yet we have a former Vice President, on record about that very shooting and the man’s actions to stop a murderer, saying the man should not have had that weapon that day, indicating he would prefer more people die waiting on police than a law abiding citizen step in to protect people.

Looking to Maryland now, however, we see far more than negligence in the mindset that banning weapons will keep them away from criminals, we see poorly thought out and poorly worded legislation, just as we saw in the wake of Las Vegas with attempts to regulate or ban bump stocks, using the verbiage “any device capable of increasing the standard rate of fire” of a semi-automatic weapon. The current rush to ban “military style” weapons, or “weapons of war” is as ill-advised and ill thought out as the rush to ban “devices that increase the standard rate of fire” of a semi-automatic weapon.

When looking at the first example, you need only speak to anyone who has used semi-automatic firearms for any significant length of time, and they will tell you that all humans are born with 10 such devices, they’re called fingers. For any weapon that does not automatically cycle and fire the next round (which are currently not available to civilians without extensive licensing and fees) there is no “standard rate of fire.” That term in and of itself refers only to automatic weapons, the term semi-automatic means that one round is fired every time the trigger is pulled, no more. The move after Las Vegas was to ban Bump Stocks, which rock the weapon and have a bit of plastic that prevents you from fully depressing the trigger, so the trigger is “pulled” very rapidly. This, however, is not the only way to do this, and two require nothing more than clothing and your body. You see, if the shooter does not properly seat the rifle against his or her shoulder, the weapon could rock in their arm, causing a bump fire situation until they react to remove their finger. Likewise, you can fire from the hip, with a finger or thumb through a belt loop and the trigger guard, also allowing the recoil to rock the weapon, firing very rapidly, so the above legislation would, in effect, ban fingers and belt loops in addition to bump stocks. Not to mention, it bans inexperienced shooters from ever learning lesson one on the range. Again, I am not averse to regulating bump stocks, and in fact fully support such regulations, but as a college educated American, who studied History and Political Science specifically, I see warnings of government overreach, due to poorly worded legislation, and I don’t like it.

Moving to the new situation in Maryland, where “military style” weapons are being banned, or others are saying the Second Amendment does not include “weapons of war,” I could not disagree more on both parts. First, if you visit any Military installation, the hip of every Military Police Officer will have something I own on it, a semi-automatic pistol, either in 9MM or .45ACP caliber. Simply by those men and women using them in their day to day duties, that is now a “military style” weapon, and a “weapon of war” as it’s also carried overseas by infantry, special forces, MP and other Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen both in and out of theaters of war. Aside from the make and barrel type, my 12GA shotgun is the same, as it’s the most common gauge shotgun on the planet, it’s just that the Military and Law Enforcement use Bull Barrels and I have a Bird Barrel currently. In point of fact, the only weapon I own that is not a “military style” weapon is my AR-15, it simply mimics the look of a Military weapon, that being the M-16, but that’s where it ends. Other than a few specific jobs in the military, the vast majority of rifles used as Select Fire, meaning you have 3 or 4 options, those being Safe (firing disabled,) single shot, 3 shot burst, full automatic. I know very few positions in the Military today where I would want a rifle that cannot fire at least a 3 shot burst, and every rifle I’ve owned does only that.

Moving on with respect to my AR-15, the only thing that is actually the same with regards to weapon function (this ignores the look or the rail system allowing additions to the weapon) is the caliber of ammunition, that being 223 Remington or 556, oddly enough, many widely available rifles today, which are not banned, are more powerful than either of those calibers. With no more than gravity and resistance by air, a 223 or 556 round will travel roughly 1650 feet, just about a third of a mile, before it hits the ground. Other rifles, such as the 308, 7 Mag, or 300 Winchester will travel further, and do more damage at further distances, as they were designed for hunting larger game, yet these are not banned as they aren’t “military style” or “weapons of war,” although again, as with my pistol and shotgun, many weapons designed for hunters are used by the Military today, as they are trained to find and use the best tool for their job.

Now, why have I chosen to reach out only now? I was only four when John Hinckley Jr attempted to assassinate President Reagan, but I have studied that event as it began the snowball of “common sense gun control” almost 40 years ago. From the Brady Bill and other waiting period laws, to the background checks of today, nothing has worked to curtail the violence in the hearts of evil men and women. One need only look to Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, or any other major city to find gang violence, and no weapon used by the thugs who seek to intimidate and control others is legally owned. Yet, in some of these places, citizens who just want to live their lives are disarmed, and even later told that unless the criminal is in the building with them, police will not respond until at the earliest, the next day. Worse still, some who defend themselves and either harm or kill their assailant are later charged with a crime, or the family of said attempted murderer are allowed to sue the person attacked for monetary damages.

As recently as 2012, George Zimmerman was attacked by a young man who may have been under the influence of narcotics, and defended himself, ultimately taking the life of his attacker, and was then charged with murder and civilly sued for defending his life. While yes, there are particulars of the case where I disagree with choices made, or need more information, the simple fact that Martin was attacking Zimmerman, and inaction would lead to Zimmerman’s death, have not changed.

Only two years later, Officer Wilson was forced to choose to shoot Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri, or he would have died. The mantra was quickly taken up by the media that Brown was running away, or had his hands up, or was kneeling, and all three have him shot in the back, while forensics show the rounds that struck him entered from the front, corroborating Wilson’s story that Brown was attacking him, yet a Police Officer who had responded to the scene of a crime, who was being either aggressively approached or attacked, lost his livelihood and had to move his family, because of a societal attitude that all boils down to “blame the tool, not the criminal.”

Sadly, this attitude is now so prevalent, that we see situations like Maryland, where legislation passes that is so poorly worded, anyone could point out what I have, and ban semi-automatic pistols, or shotguns, as if the Military uses them, they are now “weapons of war.” These same people often point out that “you don’t need an AR 15 to defend your home” or “the second amendment was about the military” and they are wrong on both counts. If someone enters my home illegally, and is carrying a weapon, seeing my pistol is likely to get me shot, while seeing me holding my AR 15 causes instant pause and often flight rather than fight. Were I restricted to my sidearm, I would most often be forced to use it to defend myself, but the mere sight of a rifle in my hands, the mere threat of force, often causes attackers to flee, allowing me to report the crime to the proper authorities and no one is harmed unless the criminals resist their later arrest.

The second argument, that the Second Amendment either only allows the use of weapons available at the time it was written, or that it applies only the Military, are both just as wrong as the assertion that “you don’t need (whatever weapon they hate at the time) to defend yourself” in that it seeks to impose rules where those rules have been specifically forbidden. The wording and timing of the Second Amendment are concrete facts, we know it was written just after a bloody war of independence from a government which sought to subjugate the colonies, and use them to make money, with no respect for the people who would be actually producing what the British would use or sell. That scenario showed our Founding Fathers that, if the government chooses tyranny over respect for the governed, the only viable option is for the people, the citizens and civilians, to stand up and say no more. Yes, our Military swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, but that does not prevent a tyrannical government from locking up all Military installations and only allowing those who will swear fealty and loyalty to the government out, thus ensuring they are well armed and the rest of us are left with what we personally own, the exact situation the colonists found themselves in just over 200 years ago. While this argument can be used to say that tanks, RPG’s, planes, and so on are legal for civilians to buy, there is valid reason to prevent a civilian from purchasing those as they have use only in a theater of war, and we all hope that the streets of small-town America never become such a theater. Saying, however, that a weapon that merely resembles another, and is the same caliber, but is actually less powerful and useful in battle, is a “weapon of war” or “military style” while other more useful and powerful weapons are allowed, shows an arrogance and ignorance that, in the halls of State of Federal government is very dangerous.

To show, using another Amendment, where this can go, we need only look at the potential ramifications of Net Neutrality being repealed. There are already allegations of Twitter and Facebook censoring certain viewpoints and not others, which from what I’ve seen amounts to stopping speech some find offensive and allowing calls for actual violence, based solely on political affiliation. Without Net Neutrality, all that needs be done is for Twitter, Facebook, or another to report to the ISP being used that someone is “engaging in hate speech or violent online behavior” and that person now either loses their internet connection, or must pay astronomical rates to keep it, all based only one a simple report. This, oddly enough, does exactly what I use as an example of how the Founding Fathers knew about and included advances in technology. The argument is often made that the Second Amendment only covers weapons that were available in the late 18th Century, but what is ignored is that the Puckle Gun was already available, was a rapid fire weapon, and was just too expensive for the Colonial Government to purchase. But, if your weapons can be taken because they aren’t covered by the Bill of Rights because they didn’t exist in the late 18th Century, so can your methods of speaking. Looking to the time of the Bill Of Rights, only the early printing press, quill and ink, and your voice were available. So, by the logic of “only the weapons available in colonial times” are covered, so too are methods of speech.

To close, and I do thank you for taking the time to read this letter, I will quote the Tenth Amendment.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”

In short, anything the Constitution does not specifically mention as a power of the Federal Government, or specifically prohibit the Federal Government from doing, is something only The People, or the individual States can do. We all know that the Bill of Rights does not grant us the right to free speech, peaceable assembly, petition, to bear arms, or any other right. Rather, the Constitution and Bill Of Rights simply enumerate the rights all of us have, and state that the Federal or State government must protect them. As the Third Amendment prevents quartering of Soldiers in citizens’ homes, the Federal Government cannot do that, and also must prevent States from doing so either. As there is no mention in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights of the word Marriage, let alone what that is, that is not a power delegated to the Federal Government or prohibited to the States, so it is up to each state to decide for themselves.

We must reclaim common sense in all aspects of governance, as we are moving toward a time when the Federal Government may say that as someone is unpopular, they may be jailed so others are not forced to hear them, or as a certain religion is unpopular, you may not hold public office if you don’t renounce your faith. Oddly enough we have sitting Representatives and Senators already disparaging those nominated for federal office due to their faith, while private citizens scream that a teacher joining a student led prayer is a violation of the First Amendment. For too long we have allowed the perversion of our way of life, the perversion of our founding principles, and if we don’t act soon to reclaim what those actually are, and protect them for all Americans, we will lose our country as we did in 1861, and I fear not even a four year war could repair it this time.

Is this the beginning of the end?

Some time ago, I posted about Oregon Senate Bill 719 and it’s repercussions. You see, this bill allows for the confiscation of ALL FIREARMS from anyone deemed “a threat” to themselves and/or others. That, however, isn’t the issue. If someone is a known psychotic, or otherwise mentally unstable, not only do I not want them to be armed, I want them in a mental institution, as they do represent a danger to themselves and others. The issue here, however, is that anyone can lodge a complaint that someone is a “danger to themselves and others” and the court then must act. Today, there are many who have already tried to have people arrested or worse for simple comments about policy or politics in other ways. These, however, were not comments that threatened anyone at all, but simply disagreed with someone’s desire to oust this politician or that, or do away with some law, or the like. We have the masked cowards, or antifa, demanding that we bow to their will or they will attack, while those who support these masked cowards demand we not even speak about our right to defend ourselves from them, and therefore, you simply saying as there is a threat of violence from antifa due to you not agreeing with and bowing to them, you will exercise your Second Amendment rights, that person could then say you are a threat to others because you want to defend yourself.

This is where it comes to such an out of focus point that it’s silly, you see, there is no court hearing, no police showing up to let you know you’ve been charged/accused, they just let one person decide if you are a threat, then you have 24 hours to turn over ALL of your firearms, or you’re a criminal. Oh sure, you can appeal, and IF the complaint is found to be simply someone who hates guns and wanted you forced to give yours up, they’re punished, but that’s more subjective than their complaint. They just say they “honestly felt threatened” and there is no way to legally prove anything else. Yes, you are supposed to get your weapons back, but again, that person keeps filing that they “honestly feel threatened” and you are forcibly disarmed, for good.

Moving on from there, there are lawmakers in Oregon fighting to repeal this bill, for one of several possible reasons I’m sure. First, we have the Second Amendment, which of course liberals argue was written because we didn’t have an army, and now that we do, only the army should be armed. This could not be further from the truth, as the official government in control of the American Colonies did have an army, and that army was called on to disarm and take control of the colonies. The Second Amendment was put in place because the Founders know there could come a day when this new government they were forming would decide the people were little more than subjects to be controlled, and move to tyranny, so the right of The People to be armed and able to fight for their right to freedom is protected (not granted, but only protected) by the Constitution. Of course, this brings up the next argument that it only applies to muskets, but again, this is not true. Not only did the Founders use the word “arms,” they did it deliberately, as they knew that those fighting the new tyranny would need access to the same weapons being used against them, and look up the Puckle Gun if you don’t believe it, as muskets were far less advanced, and the Puckle Gun is far older than the Constitution.

My next move on this would be the Fourth Amendment, which without quoting it, protects all U.S. Citizens from Unreasonable Search and Seizure. This is a major point in this argument, as the only thing needed for police to bang on your door and demand all weapons, which we know will include a “we need to make sure, so we’re going to search your home” moment, is one person complaining that they “honestly feel you are a threat to yourself and others,” which is totally unreasonable as there is no burden of proof put on anyone but the person now forced to prove a negative, which is not possible. Under the Fourth Amendment, police must not only show a warrant or probable cause, they must show it to both the person being searched and the court. Yes, they can say they saw you threatening to shoot someone, so they burst in to stop that, then searched the area to ensure all was safe, etc, which is probable cause, but if my neighbor or a relative says they “feel” I’m a threat to myself or others, and they aren’t required to show concrete proof, the police then have no probable cause or other reason to search the home. And no, your refusal to allow a warrantless or baseless search of your home is not reason enough to them search the home. Technically as well, the Seventh Amendment comes in, as you have a right to a jury trial, as the value at stake (even one firearm) is over twenty dollars, but that’s an argument for another time.

The last Constitutional argument I can make against this law invokes the Sixth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment, as both are completely ignored by this law. The Sixth Amendment states that you have the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against you, and to be confronted with witnesses against you. You also have the right to obtain witnesses in your favor, and right to counsel. All of these are ignored, as you aren’t informed of the complaint or the hearing until after the fact, and then simply told you must surrender all weapons. Yes, you can appeal, but that will not be happening within 24 hours, so you are disarmed and then told you must prove you are not a threat. This, again, is forcing you to prove a negative, which is impossible. But, beyond that, it is never the defendant that must prove their innocence (although many do end up doing that) it’s the State that must prove guilt, “beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.” This law flips the burden of proof, and does it after imposing the penalty. In a normal criminal complaint, the State must prove their assertions before sentence is carried out, but under SB 719, there is only one sentence, being totally disarmed, which is carried out before you have the chance to even face your accuser. To be Constitutional, the State must allow you to be notified of the complaint, to face your accuser, and then to counter their attempts to prove you are a danger, forcing the onus of proof onto the State, but they ignore all that in the name of “if one person feels unsafe, we must act” which tramples not only the Second, but also the Tenth Amendments. You see, the Tenth Amendment is the best in my opinion, as it specifically states that all powers not specifically delegated to The State (federal government) are reserved for The People (individual states,) and in this case, the Second Amendment specifically states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” No mention of what types of “arms,” or that one person not liking guns and thus “feeling unsafe” allows you to disarm me, just that as The People have a right to be free from tyranny, they shall always have the right to keep and bear Arms.

So, Oregon, in this move, has taken the first step toward tyranny, and it will be telling to see where they go from here. Will politicians “feel unsafe” that those who didn’t vote for them are possibly armed and demand their constituents be disarmed? Will the Governor decide that people not liking her new law “threatens her” and file complaints against all citizens of the state? This is the penultimate “slippery slope” as it allows for anyone to “feel threatened” and remove all responsibility for proof from the government and place it all on the citizen after sentence is carried out. As for myself, I’m glad to live in Texas, where our Governor wouldn’t support, let alone sign this, and would if over ruled, take it to the State Supreme Court to have it nullified, but I also call on all Oregonians to abandon ship now. Liberal run cities and states are raising minimum wage, which will mean higher taxes to pay it, they’re working to disarm you, I won’t be surprised if and when there is either a tax to move out of state, or a ban on all people moving out of state to “ensure the burden of tax income is met.”

We aren’t far from a state of governance where states will demand other states be taxed higher than them to offset their spending, California has already been shown to spend billions on illegal immigrants and they also disarm their citizens as much as they can (while exempting themselves from all of those laws,) so how long until they demand Texas “pay our fair share?” Or how long until they demand we obey their laws? We’ve already had states that “legalized” gay marriage demand all other states honor, but they refuse to honor laws from states that allow citizens to carry their weapons, or certain weapons. We are approaching the beginnings of what can cause civil war. California demands we honor their laws, that we pay for criminals to stay free, and Oregon demands that no one complain when disarmed on a complaint by someone you aren’t allowed to face, how long until someone sues CA or OR over these situations and those states decide they “have a right” to do as they please?

I know it’s not a pretty picture, but unless we demand logic and respect for all, as the laws on the books state must be done, we will see it get worse. From liberals rioting and destroying public universities over a speaker, then demanding they be allowed to riot over anything, to states demanding you disarm because someone “feels threatened” without telling you who or why, it’s only a matter of time before you even speaking out against un-Constitutional acts warrants life in prison. Remember, first they came for the Communists, and I said nothing. Next they came for the nationalists, and I did nothing. Then they came for me, and no one was left to do anything. We must stand together for the actual rights all of us enjoy, and quash the notions that this group or that has “rights” that only they enjoy, or this country will fall.

The 1st Amendment for liberals (dummies)

It seems that we have an entire segment of the U.S. adult population who needs to go back to High School Government class, as they keep suing everyone and anyone but the U.S. Government for “violating the First Amendment.” Well, once again, I’m going to try to explain this in as succinct a way as I can so you might understand the point of the First Amendment is not to protect you from witnessing others exercising their faith, but to protect all Americans from the Government ruling that you can’t do that at all.

The full text reads as follow.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Looking only at the first two clauses, Congress is prohibited from passing any law which elevates one faith over others, and also prohibited from passing any law that restricts the right of every American to openly practice their faith. This does not mean that a school teacher cannot choose to join already praying students, or that a school must tell a Bible study they can’t meet on school grounds, it means two very concrete things. First, CONGRESS cannot pass a law that respects one faith over others, and second, that CONGRESS cannot pass a law that restricts the rights of all Americans to exercise their faith. Period!

While Congress is now busy arguing over which party gets to lie about Trump next time, however, we have high prices attorneys threatening small town schools where a Coach decided to join his students in prayer, not force them to, not even suggest it, he wants to join them! They pray before a game, and he wants to as well! This must stop, and sadly, at this point, litigation may be the only way. We need to counter all attempts to silence Christians with counter-suits using the same Amendment they are to attack us. They claim that praying is respecting an establishment of religion, we need to counter with two simple questions. First, which LAW did CONGRESS pass requiring that prayer be spoken? Second, are you trying to prohibit the free exercise thereof?

These cowards are well aware that they are wrong, and are censoring and silencing those they don’t agree with, but they’ve had free reign for decades, and two Presidencies where the White House was behind them. They ignore Muslims blocking traffic and the streets of NYC to pray, forcing New Yorkers to watch and hear Muslim prayers. They ignore companies and schools being forced to stop everything to allow Muslim prayer, or teachers forced to lead classes in those same prayers, all in the name of diversity.

We, at least those of us who have studied the book of Revelation, know that these are signs of the end of days, and while we can’t stop that, we are to never stop working to further His kingdom. We don’t know if the end of days is days, weeks, months, years or even centuries away, but we know it’s coming. Now more than ever we should be fighting for our God given human freedom to worship who and as we choose, if for nothing more than our call to spread the Gospel to the world.

Will you be cowed and silent, or will you brave the lions’ den? How do you wish to be able to answer what you’ve done for His Kingdom when you finally meet him? I know my answer, to all the above questions, and to what I will do when told I must hide my faith. I would rather die for Christ than dishonor all He has done for me, what about you?

Smokey

Is it really still morning in America?

For many years, we’ve heard the loud protests from “gun control” advocates that they aren’t pushing for confiscation and forcibly disarming the American public, but Oregon’s Governor just signed bill which allows the confiscation of weapons from those “deemed to be an imminent threat to themselves or others. Here’s the problem, who decides that simply owning a weapon isn’t an “imminent threat?” Say you’re an outspoken critic of this Governor, and she just decides that since you constantly post about her in “less than complimentary terms,” that she “feels threatened” by you, so now you’re disarmed. What about people who are very public figures? Dana Loesch has had to move, again, because of threats to her and her family, because she is a very outspoken supporter of the Second Amendment and the NRA. She’s quick to let you know how she feels, but has never been a friend to the liberals crying over every death after someone who has a weapon on them, illegally, is killed. Say this law was federal, what’s to stop some liberal judge from declaring that anyone who supports the NRA is an “imminent threat” to themselves or those around them? This is the slippery slope that conservatives have talked about every time “common sense gun control” is brought up.

Another example of the idiocy we’re expected to ignore from our elected officials, this bill that supposedly would ban bump stocks/automatic weapons, but if you read it, it bans EVERYTHING that can “increase the rate of fire” of a semi-automatic weapon. Now, I made more than my fair share of jokes and comments about Shannon Watts saying that no rifle should fire 10 rounds a minute (yes, 1 every six seconds, which I can beat with a bolt action rifle where I have to load every shell,) but this bill is just moronic and why is very simple. Every human is born with a “rate increaser,” it’s your finger! The faster you pull the trigger, or if you don’t seat the rifle against your shoulder tightly enough, it will bump fire without a bump stock. Here’s the idiocy about this though, faster fire is actually far less accurate than slower fire. Notice in the movies though, the weapon doesn’t move much when the “machine gun” fires. This is false, the barrel is going to rise and move, so you’re not going to be able to just “mow down” your target. I’ve fired in competition for a few years, and I tend to use every second I’m given, ensuring my accuracy is the best it can be. But, as always, the “scary thing” is so evil it must be possessed by Beelzebub himself, so must be taken by force from all who have it.

With the Oregon law, and the low chance that any judge on the bench now other than those now being appointed by President Trump, would side with the Constitution, we must act and act fast. We have the 2018 mid-term elections in just over a year, and the primaries in half that time. Read your Constitution, and only vote for those who will honor their oath of office and stand up to bullies like Oregon who would declare anyone an “imminent threat” and disarm the with no hearing or charges. That’s a violation of not only the 2nd, but also the 4th Amendment, as it’s definitely unreasonable search and seizure. Stand up to idiots who would say they want to ban “machine guns” but then say that ANYTHING that can increase the rate of fire is illegal, as they know perfectly well that simply being semi-automatic means the simple trigger can do that, as they are working to disarm all Americans.

Make no mistake, they know that if they ever disarm the citizenry, the criminals will still be armed, and they want that, as they want a police state. They want total control over ALL ASPECTS of your daily life. First they’ll disarm and declare Martial Law “to protect us.” Next certain cars aren’t “environmentally sound” so they’re taken, then certain speech is “hateful” so banned. I’ve studied End Times Prophecy for over 25 years, and this is the world that will come to pass when Satan installs his puppet, and then rules. Which side are you on? Do you stand up for your own rights, or will you bow when told you have no rights?