Leaving Twitter for Gab

Twitter has begun purging their site of “white supremacists” and others who don’t conform to their view of what users should be, and it won’t be long until the social network is only populated by violent liberals calling for the death of all who don’t do as they’re told. I am moving to Gab, with the same username, and will be deleting my account and writing Twitter to let them know they are fostering an environment where all who don’t follow the liberal leaders are threatened, harassed, and all but taken out and shot, and that is not tolerable to me.

Hate Speech/Fighting Words

We already know the Supreme Court has ruled that “hate speech” is not a thing, and as predicted, the snowflakes at UC Berkeley promptly kept assaulting people for daring to invite, or even consider inviting, speakers they don’t approve, to groups they aren’t members of. The UCB College Republicans are, finally, getting tired to it, and calling on the college to protect them as they protect the criminals assaulting them.

Well, I’ve recently started doing two things, if the left is doing something they demand others not do, I make sure they see me doing it as much as possible, just as anything they say no one can do, I do it. We are fighting for the future of our country, against people who won’t just change things a bit, but who will utterly destroy everything about it, replacing it with a communist nation where all who don’t bow to them are killed, those who do, but aren’t the right type of person are forced to work to pay for the “free” things they say are rights. We’ve seen that in the USSR and still see it in North Korea, and trust me, no one in their right mind would ever support that.

As they are showing their disdain for the law, by demanding “sanctuary cities,” by praising a verdict where an illegal immigrant who killed an American was not convicted, and where they assault people for speech while screaming about the Bill of Rights, and far more. Well, here’s my plan, and I personally see it scaring the hell out of anyone I use it on.

The next time I’m told, in person of course, that Trump is Hitler, or any of the other talking points, I’m going to immediately tell that person they’ve just used hate speech, or fighting words, to assault me and I’m just defending myself. Now, as I’m six foot one, about 240lbs, and don’t look “fat,” you can imagine the reaction. When they scream about their rights, I’ll ask about the rights of those being forcibly silenced. If the idiot is wearing or otherwise showing support for the antifa cowards, I’ll bring up UCB.

This crap has to stop, about 10 years ago, I was debating economic models, for an assignment in Economics, when an idiot called me racist. I told him to get lost, we were discussing a class assignment, and he grabbed me. I quickly had him in a “very uncomfortable” hold and told the Campus Police officer who came over that yes, I’d been assaulted. This was the start of the “you can’t say anything I don’t approve of” mindset, as he argued I was racist and assaulted him even after the video of him starting things, him grabbing me, and me using a very mild hold. You could show video of MS13 thanking Hillary for letting them in illegally as they go down a line of children shooting them, and the liberals would rant about the need to disarm the law abiding or the need for the “dreamers” to be made citizens so they can make something of themselves, ignoring all that proves them wrong.

So, who’s with me? Who thinks we can maybe convince a few of their idiocy, or at least get them to shut up, if we start using their tactics, or will they demand we be arrested for what they routinely say is their right?

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.

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.

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?

Open letter to Congress

In the last several months, the U.S. has seen a segment of the population rioting and assaulting people over election results. There are sitting Representatives and Senators who have openly called for an election to be voided and a candidate simply be given the Oval Office. Anyone defending the Electoral College is called a sexist or racist, and accused of trying to impose fascism, while those very people use the ultimate in fascist tactics to silence all dissent.

As a history major who has studied the Revolutionary War and the Second World War in detail, I can tell you that the “anti-fascists” are the only fascists in the United States. Fascism is the brutal subjugation of all who don’t follow the ruling party. The “antifa” are using actual logos from the Nazi party of World War II, while demanding that we accept their saying that they are fighting fascism. The videos of violence over speakers merely being invited, hearing about college professors swinging a bicycle lock at someone’s head, tell me that the very people claiming to be anti-fascism are dedicated to the violent suppression of all dissent and subjugation of a country.

Now, we hear of their calls for monuments to be defaced and destroyed on a national holiday, and worse, plans to openly kill all they can who are not on their side, and I cannot be silent any longer. I live in the State of Texas, where we’ve seen antifa fail in their attempts to assault those who disagree, is something to me, but we know they are massing their numbers, and are funded by a billionaire who has openly said his goal is the destruction of the United States, while the Democratic Party protects him from any action by the government.

2016 showed that a vast majority of the country voted for the now sitting President, while enclaves of liberals voted for the other, resulting in what they claim is an invalid election, based on very few cities going blue, while the rest of the country went red. They scream about being silenced while wanting a majority of U.S. states silenced. We saw a mild version of this in 2000, when President Bush won over Al Gore, although by September of 2001, the country had united after the 9/11 attacks. Now, we are seeing more attacks happen, yet the media and Hollywood are openly claiming that the attacks are deserved for the country electing President Trump.

The next move is very dangerous, as if the left openly starts attacking and killing, we will see martial law declared and people will be killed, resulting in the media denouncing the people protecting the majority from the minority, and defending those calling for the murder of those who don’t completely give up all rights. In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, once again, liberal officials are calling for “common sense gun control” while ignoring that the weapons used were illegal, or in some cases, not regulated due to the Obama Administration and Clinton Dept. of State deciding to not regulate bump stocks. Nancy Sinatra has openly called for the members of the NRA to be shot, while the NRA is calling for bump stocks to be regulated, which would mean it’s much harder to get them.

The answer, while simple to say, is not easy to implement. Governors need to tell their Sheriffs and Police Chiefs to not tolerate violence as we’ve seen from the cowards in masks. They must demand the laws of the land be enforced, not sign a bill stating their entire state will flout U.S. immigration law, thus harboring all who say they’re undocumented, allowing crime to become the norm. When, not if, these criminals show up to murder all who didn’t vote as the cowards want, they must be met with people unwilling to allow murder, and state officials must back those who act to defend themselves and others. We have seen examples of people who shoot intruders inside their home, being charged with murder, and the media screaming about an “innocent child killed by racists” while ignoring that the “child” was trying to harm another.

Sadly, I don’t see this happening in the states where it’s needed most. As an example, California has shown their unwillingness to stop violent attacks on those who simply do not share beliefs with criminals, while in states like Texas, the criminals are stopped in their tracks, only to have the person who didn’t take being attacked being attacked by the media and lawyers. Common Sense must return, and that means that the Constitution is respected and upheld, the other laws on the books must be enforced. Those who enter the country illegally must be returned to their country, those who rape/assault/murder must be removed from society, and those who demand laws be ignored or Constitutional rights be removed, must be told a firm no!

I hold hope for the country, but that hope is dwindling as our elected officials allow an unconstitutional “investigation” which has yielded nothing, yet it continues. We see elected officials openly calling for the President to denounce this group or that, while ignoring the violence from their own constituency. I implore our Congress to return to their actual job, representing the country honestly. We are a year from the 2018 mid-term election, and we are seeing calls for many to be replaced. Will we see that, or will we see those in office actually do what we need them to do? Only time will tell.

Boycotting Hollywood, and more

Over the past months we’ve seen celebrities like Jennifer Lawrence and Olivia Wilde telling people to not see their movies if they voted for President Trump, and just recently, Stephen Colbert told Trump supporters to not watch the Emmy’s, happily alienating over half the country. Naturally, the response from liberal Americans is joyful agreement, happily yelling at conservatives that they want us gone. What isn’t making headlines much at all, save for social media, is that Hollywood is seeing the lowest numbers for a summer season, and ratings for TV are down as well. When the ratings for tomorrow’s Emmy Awards are known, expect hype from the media about a “wonderful show” and “deserving winners” while ignoring the record low ratings for a show that normally garners high attention each year.

I won’t hide that I’ve replied to and retweeted the tweets from the official twitter of the new movie Mother that Lawrence has told me I’m not to see it, that she doesn’t want me as a fan, and I’ll do the same for any other actor that says I’m not to see their movies. Some have said they’ll still see some movies as their kids love going, and they enjoy the entertainment, but not me. I’m happy at home with my very few TV shows where actors haven’t gotten political, or DVD’s or a good book. I can happily listen to the radio and read, or work outside on my land, and watch as Hollywood implodes. What’s going to be interesting, is when Lawrence or Wilde are asked about the low box office numbers for their movies, will they admit they did it, or will they attack the people who didn’t spend our money on them after their demand we avoid them, as having “tried to silence them for speaking their mind?”

This is the problem in society today, from celebrities demanding we not see their movies who will later cry that we’re censoring them by driving their movie earnings down, to the antifa cowards who will scream about being “anti-fascist” while using brutal attacks to silence all dissent, to Senators and other liberal officials screaming about “white supremacists” while ignoring the violence from their own supporters. While it’s bad now, I can tell you it will get worse. So far, the cowards in masks have only “protested” in cities and states where a Democrat is in charge, so that they have support and know that the police will only arrest those they are attacking, but it will expand. I’ve said before, they avoid states like Texas, because Sheriffs here have been vocal in reminding those who want to rob or attack others that in Texas, we have the right to defend ourselves with the level of force we deem appropriate. If you have a knife and are threatening to kill me, or a 2×4, or a crow bar, I have the right, if I truly fear for my life, to use a firearm, either simply as a show of force, or to actually use it. This will happen, and when the first one is killed by someone they’re trying to assault with deadly force, the media, the Democrats in power, and those who were rioting and assaulting people along with the one who tried to attack and failed, will decry the “brutal murder” of a “peaceful protester” who was “just upset with fascists in power.”

We need to do a few things, the first is what I started with, boycott movies and TV where those who are decrying our way of life, our beliefs, as evil, and prove to them that we who spend money on their “art” are tired of being insulted and reviled. But beyond that, we need to support TV and movies done by those who either just do their work, or who support our way of life and our beliefs. Faith Films puts out movies like God’s Not Dead, actors like Kevin Sorbo and Melissa Joan Hart are working to not only entertain us, but also give a voice to conservatives who simply believe in the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.

Only 30 years ago, we had amazing TV with people who just hosted shows, or movies with actors who just entertained. They didn’t get political until they retired, as we now see with Eastwood or Woolery. They don’t alienate their fans, they just entertain. Reality TV was just that, often boring, but real. Today we have “reality” TV that’s either just an athletic competition like American Ninja Warrior, or Big Brother where the liberal bent is so obvious it turns the stomach of conservatives watching.

So, if you’re like me, no matter your political leaning, you see the problem with actors who alienate half the country, and recognize that we need to drive them out, and make way for those who will just do the job, and entertain.