Let’s try to simplify something

You live in a very dangerous part of a very large city. In your area, there are two very active groups of people, each claiming they were the first to arrive in your city. Group A, while not passive in any way, has yet to instigate a fight, while Group B will start a fight, then when retaliation comes, they scream about innocents they specifically staged. After a while, Group B is recruited by a third party that hates Group A for some reason, and together, they wipe out more than 50% of Group A and anyone who associates with them minimally, until Groups B and C are finally stopped. The Government (City, State and National,) in response to this, officially declare a new city is formed with Group A given leadership. They decide that, rather than always fighting throughout the city, they’re going to work to fortify the city limits borders, only to have Group B constantly attack those borders, lobbing grenades at city civic centers, working to kill everyone they can.

Eventually, the city is celebrating a milestone anniversary, and Group B decides to start lobbing grenades again, but the Police are staged and ready, and stops their attacks. Following this, it’s revealed the people throwing hand grenades over fences had brought children with them and those children were hurt by the Police responding to Group B trying to blow up homes and city buildings.

In an ultra simple form, this is exactly what happened yesterday. The Israeli people have, for centuries, claimed Israel as their home. The surrounding countries, the majority of citizens being Muslim, do not dispute that both lines are descended from Abraham. The Israelis, citing historical documents, show that Abraham left all he had, land, money, etc, to Isaac, his second child and only child by his wife. Ishmael was born to a servant, and later cast out, but they claim simply because Ishmael was older, Abraham’s wishes must be disregarded.

In the 1930’s and 1940’s, many Muslim countries sided with Nazi Germany and helped kill as many Jewish people as possible. When Hitler was defeated in 1945, the U.N. gave the land now known as Israel to the Jewish people to form a nation, and instantly, Israel fell under attack by people demanding the Jews give up their homes, and ultimately, their lives. This, to me, shows two types of delusional attitude. First, the people demanding Israel be utterly destroyed and all Jews killed, not only actively deny that the Holocaust happened, but also that their ancestors didn’t take part in it. On the other side of the coin, the very people crying over “innocent protesters” being harmed when the IDF responds to attacks by those “protesters” are the same ones who demand the U.N. be obeyed without question, yet when told the U.N. created Israel and now those who are attacking Israel are defying the U.N.’s orders for Israel to be created 70 years go, just shake their heads and demand Israel give up everything because they don’t like them.

In short, above you see the modern liberal, someone who can demand an un-elected and un-accountable body be obeyed, then demand that body was wrong 70 years ago and now should not be obeyed, but only in part. These are the same people who demand that charity is something people should do more, but who fight tax cuts because “people aren’t charitable, so the government must be,” yet pointing out that being taxed to the point I can barely feed my family means I can’t be charitable only gets a dirty look as if to say “so what, you’re evil, starve and give away what little you have.”

The unspoken truth is very simple, the very people screaming about tolerance, diversity, and inclusiveness, are the ones who are the most intolerant, non-diverse, and who will exclude all who don’t praise them 24/7. So the question is this, and it’s very simple, do you stand with a country that stopped a violent terror attack, or with the terrorists who attacked? Are you a liberal, or do you recognize that you can’t reason with terrorists or criminals, and letting them have their way by disarming and removing protections, only creates more victims.

Netanyahu said it best – If Palestine laid down their weapons today, there would be peace. If Israel laid down their weapons today, there would be no Israel.

Millionth verse, same as the first

I thought I’d seen the height of lunacy possible from liberals, only to be proven very wrong today, by two different law enforcement agencies. First, in Great Britain, parents are begging a hospital to allow them to take their child to seek treatment elsewhere, only to have a judge order them to watch their child die, and Police are actually enforcing that order. On top of that, they are actually telling people social media posts about this situation may be investigated. Not only did a sitting judge, who was told that treatment at an Italian hospital stands a good chance of helping the child, tell parents they must watch their child die, but Police are actually enforcing that order.

Move to Parkland Florida, where Kyle Kashuv was taken from class, to a closed room, and questioned by multiple Resource Officers and at least one school administrator, as to why he went with his father to a firing range and posted about it on social media. No laws were broken, no school rules were broken, no one was threatened, and simply put a father took his son to the range to instruct him on firearms use, something millions upon millions of fathers have done for decades. This school, however, decided that since the media made their anti-second amendment screamer their darling, they would try to intimidate this student into silence. That’s strike one, but they did this without informing the student’s parents or letting them be involved. That’s strike two, and strike three is the laughably inept report file, where the officer cannot articulate much, or spell correctly, as if this was an official report, legitimizing the possible charges the family can now press against the school and Sheriff’s Office.

On top of the horrible actions taken by the school and law enforcement, people are still criticizing this student for going to the range with his Father, and actually saying they “don’t care about his rights” or that his actions were legal. We have people actually arguing that we should give up rights because people might not like us exercising our rights. We have people saying “oh don’t do that, it’ll offend me” as if that’s a legitimate reason to order someone to change their life! I was about 8 or 9 and wanted to shave my head for the summer, as my hair is VERY THICK, meaning if I don’t shampoo with strong dandruff shampoo twice a day, sneezing looks like a blizzard. The day I got my head shaved, a lady from our church wrote me a letter that was many pages long, telling me I shouldn’t have done that. She is not related to me, and I wasn’t really close to either of her kids, but she felt it was OK to tell me I shouldn’t have done what I did, because she didn’t like it. This was 25+ years ago, today it’s only gotten worse, as we have people calling the police on people because they “feel threatened” by a t-shirt’s message or something equally asinine.

This is the problem today, we have an entire segment of society so assured of their infallibility that they will all but stake you to the beach at high tide to silence you when you point out their idiocy. I’ve been told I need to learn more when I pointed out, rightly, that Hogg’s ranting and screaming “speech” at the march for disarming Americans, was almost a direct copy of the mannerisms and speech style of Adolf Hitler, with of course the #BanAssaultWeapons hashtag thrown in. When I then demanded that “assault weapon” be defined, I was ridiculed, as if it clearly is and should have my home raided by the Marines to protect my neighbors. To be perfectly clear, the AR-15 platform weapons are not assault weapons. This is for a very good reason, there is no single design/configuration of an AR-15. I’ve seen them use rifle and pistol caliber rounds, with and without rails, different length barrels, and so many other things, that saying to ban the AR platform is demanding multiple different weapons be made illegal, simply because it “looks scary.”

We are at a tipping point and if we don’t step back, we will lose everything, and that loss will be after a bloody conflict. The Founders were extremely intelligent in how they framed our Constitution. Freedom of Speech, at the time, was who could hear you, quill and ink on parchment, or very rudimentary printing presses. Arms at the time were mostly flint lock muskets, but repeating rifles and even crew served automatic weapons were available, and the word used specifically was to ensure that future politicians couldn’t say “that’s not arms, give it up” yet we have people demanding we do just that.

Simply put, criminals will never stop because something is illegal, laws are in place to stop those who respect law and order from doing things contrary to the good of a free society, and to provide a framework to use for deciding how to punish those who break the law. Using a firearm to commit a crime cannot be stopped by making more and more things illegal. If all firearms are made illegal, criminals will still have them and their victims will be far easier to control while committing their crimes. We need to do several things, first we need to stop the jump to “ban this or that” when a criminal misuses a tool. Toronto saw a terrorist purposely drive into civilians, killing people using a motor vehicle, should be ban assault vehicles? Knives are the dominant weapon at the moment in London, and their mayor has actually made possession of a knife outside your home a crime, to the point you must not only show you purchased new cutlery for your home that day, but explain why you did! Criminals are rolling around laughing as they watch government officials make things easier and easier for them, and until we kick the useless idiots out of Congress, put people in their place who will work for us, this will only get worse.

Check out www.cosaction.com and sign the petition to call for an Article V Convention of States, as we need Term Limits, Fiscal Responsibility, and to protect our Constitutional Rights, and we know Congress won’t do any of those things.

Will you take the Red Pill, or the Blue Pill?

England, 1932, Aldous Huxley’s book, Brave New World, was first published, showing the world a future where freedom was a drug induced daydream, and humans little more than a science experiment.  Engineered in laboratories, each caste was perfectly created for the job they would hold in society, from the Alphas who ran the offices and reported only to Controllers, to the Beta, Gamma and Epsilon castes, who never questioned why their lot in life was merely to serve those above them.  In a reverse of Hitler’s dream of eugenics, humans were no longer terminated for defects, rather defects were carefully controlled, so as to keep the lower castes in their place.  The traditional family unit demonized so far that the words Mother and Father were tantamount to the worst swear words known to mankind.

After being decanted, the children were subjected to social conditioning to ensure they would not buck the system.  Toddlers were shown beautiful flowers or colorful books, only to be shocked when they reached for them, reinforcing the idea that these things were evil and to be shunned.  From the earliest age possible, lessons would be spoken to them as they slept, enforcing the idea that they loved their caste, that they would be miserable in a higher, or any other, caste, so as to ensure they would never try to break the mold, resulting in a world where, despite the tyrannical rule, people truly believed they were free, and were happy.  Savages existed still, however, on reservations, where men and women would have children the traditional way, raising them as a family, teaching them morality and values from their religions, only to be shunned by the civilized people.

Scotland, 1945, the second World War would end this year, and Animal Farm would show a vision from Orwell, of what might have been had the Axis powers not fallen.  Farm animals, left by the farmer to fend for themselves, form a society and begin to take on roles they had never held before.  At first, all worked, all were fed equally, all were housed and allowed to live equally, but it would not last.  The pigs, representing the ruling elite, would soon come to author more and more rules, which on paper would hold all animals equal, but as seen in socialist and communist countries time and time again, they would not feel obligated to follow their own rules.  By the end, the one rule stated All Animals are Equal, Some Animals are More Equal than Others, with the pigs ultimately facing the farmers on their return, both stunned, while the other animals languished and died under the tyrant rule of the pigs who took control in the vacuum.

Scotland, 1949, George Orwell, in failing health, finished and published 1984, another cautionary tale, but on the opposite end of the spectrum.  Rather than people controlled by drugs and endless distractions, Orwell’s future saw them controlled by a brutal tyrant regime.  Slogans like War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, would reinforce that mankind was always meant to serve the powerful, either by choice or by subjugation.  Children encouraged to inform on family if they broke even the slightest rule, police free to do as they pleased, regardless of any law or infraction, government officials free from all laws they passed to control the masses.  Brutal rule to ensure society, and the status quo, continued without change, without those in power ever having to fear they would lose their power.

Prior to any of these works being published, 1929 saw the crash of Wall Street, and the beginning of a depression the world had not seen the likes of.  Having just taken office, Herbert Hoover would watch as men who had fought in World War I, and now were out of work only a short time later, would set up tent cities, or Hoovervilles, Americans left their homes to go west seeking work, some finding pay of a penny or less for a task, while their families held together as best they could.  Movies such as The Grapes of Wrath showing children begging total strangers for even a spoonful of their evening meal, would tattoo on the mind and consciousness of Americans just how bad things were, and could be again without care being taken.

1933 saw the inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and would herald a change in the United States, moving toward the end of the days of hunger.  Over the course of his first year in office, FDR would oversee the creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Civil Works Administration, banking regulation changes, and ultimately, the change in direction which would have the U.S. start back to where she was just after World War I.  Men would find work paying far more than any job in the last 4 years, industry would start to return and revitalize cities, families no longer worried that they would not eat for more than a day, but at what cost.  The expansion of government in that year saw control move to a level never seen in the U.S. before.  Government, either Federal or State, would employ more people than ever before, some given menial tasks just to have a job, while others would provide services badly needed, such as building roads, or repairing other infrastructure.

Just two years later, 1935 would witness the penultimate rise to power of Adolf Hitler in Germany, starting with Universal Firearms Registration.  His regime would boast that health care was available to more people than ever before, habits like smoking were now illegal, education was growing, and towns were safer for his work.  The world, having only two decades earlier fought a bloody war, watched as they saw the country they’d been fighting began to rally back, not seeing all of the signs that war would be at their door again very soon.  Under FDR, the U.S. trundled along, happily watching as men went back to work, industries thought gone once again started to boom and, ultimately, they believed the world was on a path to peace and prosperity.

The experiment with Prohibition showed the Government that the common man would not be overtly controlled so easily, but this showed them not only that they couldn’t seize total control, but rather that control needed to be stealthy and subtle to work.  By 1939, Germany had left the League of Nations, treaties had been broken, new treaties signed, and on September 1, 1939, Germany invades Poland, their path through Belgium drawing Great Britain into the war.  Roosevelt, knowing the American people were still very close to a bloody war, remained an isolationist, watching as Europe and Asia descended into the hell that is open warfare.  By 1940, Roosevelt would send war goods to Britain, but remained steadfast in his stance that America would not fight in this war, holding that position until December 7, 1941, when Japan would attack Pearl Harbor, resulting in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and World War 2 officially starting for the United States.

June 1944 saw the invasion of France on D-Day, with Utah and Omaha beaches the focal point of the world’s attention, and 1945 would see the end of fighting in Europe, with France liberated, and Germany once again, sanctioned for their part in a world war.  Post War Europe, unlike after World War I, saw Germany divided into two nations, East Germany ruled by the Soviet Union, and West Germany, a mostly free state under mostly self rule, with the United Nations, the replacement for the League of Nations, watching both new nations very closely.  Hitler, having worked as hard as he did to eliminate Europeans of Jewish descent, also saw something the world had not seen in some time, the Nation of Israel officially recognized in 1948, something which would cause strife for decades.  The 1950’s saw the Korean War escalate, the 1960’s and early 1970’s the Vietnam Conflict, the 1980’s Grenada, the 1990’s Desert Storm, in 2001 the destruction of the World Trade Center would see war return to the Middle East, where it would continue to the current day as of this writing.

Another change, though, was society at home during the 1950’s and 1960’s.  During World War I, women took on new roles while men were drafted or volunteered for the Military, just as in World War II, only to return home to their families, or to other careers, when the war ended and the returning men re-entered the work force.  The change, would begin here.  Children born too early for World War II and some too late for Korea’s draft, were now able to watch in more detail, starting with photos in newspapers and magazines, then on Television in the latter part of the 1950’s and again in the 1960’s with Vietnam.  War had been an abstract, only those who had a loved one return in a pine box, or grievously injured, knowing the true cost so many paid.

December of 1955, in Montgomery Alabama, saw a woman refuse to move seats on a bus, because a white passenger wanted her seat.  The powder keg of equal rights had been lit, by a woman who simply was tired of giving in.  Americans watched as laws proclaiming separate but equal were proven lies, as men and women who, solely based on skin color, were seen as second class citizens, said enough was enough, and soon, the movement would shake the country’s idea of equality to it’s core.  From Governor Wallace having to be moved by Federalized National Guardsmen, to allow a young black woman to enter a school, to protests led by the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior, to riots and protests resulting in use of force far beyond what had been seen before, Americans once again began to see the world in a new light.

Movements for equality, for peace when a tyrant rises, for better treatment of certain people, are not new to the world, just as they weren’t new in the 1950’s and 1960’s.  What was new in that time, was the media.  Radio was still not an old device in this era, but it was dominated by people taught to just read the news, not to comment and theorize.  The Who, What, When and Where, were all people got, the Why was for each listener to think on as an individual.  Hollywood had, for the most part, been the place of fantasy, of spaghetti westerns, and people were happy as they could escape for a time without being preached to about this cause of that, but this would soon change.  Other mediums were coming into their own, challenging the status quo, and setting the stage for a world unlike that which had been seen before.

1938, Action Comics launched something the world had never seen, a true super hero.  Superman, a child from another world, sent to Earth to survive his home planet’s destruction, had powers unlike anyone else.  Faster than a speeding bullet, stronger than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, the world saw a super hero rise to challenge evil in a way they never imagined.  1940 would se Captain Steven Rogers become Captain America, stepping onto the world stage to challenge Hitler, with his first cover in December 1940 showing him landing a blow to Hitler’s jaw, and side by side with Superman, launching young boys into the world of super heroes and daring do, where good would always triumph over evil, and justice would be served.   By the 1970’s the world of Comic Book Heroes would have expanded so far that heroes no longer worked alone, but in groups, to tackle larger and larger issues.  Villains and their henchmen were more dangerous, but again, good always won.

Alongside the comic book heroes, TV introduced new ideals as well.  Where the children of the 1950’s had Little Orphan Annie on the radio, Lassie or Flipper on TV, and a few comics, children in the 1970’s had the Dukes of Hazzard, professional wrestling, more soap operas than ever before, and something totally new to television, PBS, with offerings like Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers, or The Joy Of Painting, where you weren’t merely entertained, but educated as well.  Schoolhouse Rock showed how a bill becomes a law, and other lessons, The Electric Company used new techniques for their graphics, and just like that, a generation of children would no longer be outside until their parents dragged them into get washed up for supper, but who would plan their playtime to coincide with their must watch programs.

Mr. Rogers gave us a world of make believe, lessons taught in a gentle and kind way, even ensuring that a blind girl wouldn’t worry about his fish by making sure to say it was time to feed them each day.  Sesame Street showed a very diverse world, with monsters, garbage dwelling grouches, birds, and other creatures living and learning along side children and adults from all backgrounds.  So many new ideas brought into one medium that children were inundated with them by the time they started Kindergarten.  This generation would eventually learn of the Civil Rights movement, but rarely thought twice about what color their neighbor was, or why they weren’t in another class.  Rather, a new class of student to be segregated emerged, Special Education, those with learning disabilities on such a wide scale, were segregated, often taught so slowly that by the time they were to graduate High School, they might be at a middle school level of education.

Education had begun changing in the 1970’s, with a generation of children growing up watching war as never seen before, watching Hollywood celebrities protest violence, while their movies and TV shows glorified vigilantes and criminals, even seeing them side with the very people the U.S. Military was fighting, entered the education field and began to teach history, literature, and other subjects in ways that not only distorted, but blatantly re-wrote history.  The American Revolution was no longer a result of colonists wanting representation in how they were taxed, but because slave owning white men didn’t want to pay taxes, which of course ignores that the new nation taxed it’s new citizens.  Slavery was purely an American issue, where white men didn’t want to give up their free labor, meaning the roots of slavery, those being African tribes selling their neighbors to both profit and take their land, Europeans being the buyers, and that nations to this day still allow slavery, were ignored.

Students until this point had grown up with parents enforcing hard work pays off, removing privileges from students who were failing a subject so they had time to study, employers cutting hours when a student’s work began to flag, only to see a change happen, where teachers were encouraged by coaches and other extra-curricular sponsors to make sure students passed, so as not to hurt a source of income for the school.  By the time this came to light and schools stopped the practice, parents no longer held the student responsible, but questioned the teacher as to why they were failing their child.  Discipline had moved from a time when a disobedient student was paddled, only to have the parent repeat that punishment, to a time when the student was given time out, not only from their peers, but from the lessons.

Manipulation became a way of life at an early age, with boys complaining the lady teacher didn’t like boys, white teachers didn’t like minorities, coaches cut people for frivolous reasons, until we moved into a time when everyone makes the team, those who win too often are excluded to give everyone a chance, and the world again began to change.  In a move reminiscent of the 1940’s and 1950’s, books were removed for being too provocative, until books like To Kill A Mockingbird are removed for showing racism in the wrong way while books like Fifty Shades of Grey are sitting in public school libraries still.  Students are no longer exposed to the darker side of humanity’s past, and thus, no longer shown how mankind will rise to defeat tyrants and despots, resulting in students believing the very people who stood against tyranny were themselves tyrants.

Hollywood, naturally, began to change at this time as well.  In the 1980’s, a movie like Blue Thunder, where a scene shows a woman’s bare breasts for a few seconds, were rated R, and only grudgingly as opposed to X, or just not made.  Television programs which would discuss adult themes were closely regulated, news programs were careful in how they spoke of things, so as to ensure they were clean in the eyes of the FCC.  Just a decade later, and the 1990’s saw prime time programs on major networks, where all but the act of intercourse was shown.  Teenage characters were shown wearing less than most people would wear when swimming as every day attire, and romantically involved in relationships most adults remembered not knowing about until late in High School, or possibly college, and it only moved forward from there, to modern day entertainment, where sex sells, and people are shocked at how many of the celebrities they looked up to, who are now being shown to be predators that crowds would have formed mobs to hunt down only 20 or 30 years previously.

2016 will be remembered either as the year the world began to wake up to the programming we were all subject to for 40+ years, or the year the world fully took the blue pill, and stayed in Wonderland.  The election of Donald Trump, something the mainstream media said point blank was impossible, will be remembered either as the year Americans retook their power as The People, or as the year the United States gave up all freedom to tyrants.  Following this election, young people rioted in the streets, destroying property, because they could not force a country to undo an election and install someone who lost.  Others wailed in the streets, returning a year later to do so again, to protest.  States began enacting policies that only ten years ago would be so ludicrous as to oust all in power, protecting people who entered the country illegally, many who went on to commit heinous crimes.  Monuments to history, albeit a dark time in our history, were torn down by mobs who went unpunished, cities raced to remove others, to prevent just that from happening again, while many people begged for common sense, for us to not hide our history, but keep it so we may learn from it.  All of this leads directly to the situation facing the American People today.

February 2018 saw an active shooter situation in Parkland Florida, where Sheriff’s Deputies were ordered not to enter an engage, where S.W.A.T. Officers who defied those orders were fired, and all but that night, students were deputized by the mainstream media to demand Americans disarm.  Quotes like no one wants to face a shooter with an AR-15 were thrown around, while case after case from other parts of the country show people doing just that, and more.  Law Enforcement agencies all over the country decried the cowardly actions of the Deputies in Parkland, sitting outside while a shooter was in a school, which 28 years previously was made a gun free zone by a bill sponsored by then Senator Joseph Biden.  Suggestions that school districts allow those paying taxes to them to choose if teachers may choose to be armed are decried as forcing teachers who have no training to be armed, making things worse.  Districts which already allowed this, and thus are far safer, are ignored, or ridiculed.  The very people screaming about how evil the AR-15 is, who yell at Americans we don’t want to take your guns, are then seen marching demanding the repeal of the Second Amendment, carrying signs insulting gun owners, and others with signs blatantly saying they will pry them from your cold, dead hands.

We are at a tipping point, books/movies like Ready Player One show a world where people’s lives are so horrible they spend all the time they can in virtual reality, only to go into so much debt they literally become slaves until they die.  Where a corporation doesn’t flinch at killing hundreds to stop anyone from taking away their opportunity to lock in total control over society.  Movies like Equilibrium show a world where people are drugged to remove all emotion, where from a very early age they are indoctrinated to fear emotion so much they willingly take the required drugs, and those who don’t are killed.  Movie after movie after TV show after TV show shows us exactly what Huxley and Orwell warned us about all those decades ago, yet we seem to be pouring rocket fuel into our handcart, ready to fly full speed into a world where we are subjugated, and made to like it.  Those speaking out, begging society to step back are beaten to a pulp and called nazi, by those using the very tactics the nazis used, because history is no longer taught.  Those begging people not to dive head first into a world where they will be drugged into mental oblivion are berated for denying them the right to choose, only to them be demonized for not stopping someone from going to far.

We are at the tipping point, where countries invite those who openly call for the destruction of all who do not bow and serve them, to do just that.  We are watching the world burn, watching the tyrants start solidifying their power, so the question is very simple.  Will you take the red pill or blue pill?  Will you march to your destruction, going silently into the good night, or will you step back, will you realize that We The People have the true power?  Will you rise up against those who would be your oppressors, or will you place your head on the chopping block?  Only you can choose, I just hope it isn’t too late.

It’s been just over 20 years, and we’re nearly completely doomed

I turn 41 this year, meaning I’m now 23 years post High School, although only 8 post College due to being “too smart for my own good” in the mid-1990’s. I can remember not only being taught civics, forced to debate counter to my beliefs, hearing about WWII from those who fought and survivors of the nazi regime, and no matter GOP or DNC, my classmates are generally well adjusted adults. We don’t always agree on politics, but we don’t shout each other down and demand obedience.

Today, however, we have people graduating High School and College, so assured of their own superior intellect, they can’t accept that they aren’t given total and complete control over every aspect of life on the planet. We watched in the 80’s and 90’s as the USSR and all their subject nations languished in poverty until they finally fell, yet students today, watching the same thing happen in Venezuela, defend communism so vehemently that to disagree with them is treated as an attempt on their life!

Starting in 1991, while I was still in a Middle School building, I was earning credits for my high school graduation. Ninth grade English Lit saw us reading Animal Farm, 10th grade was 1984, then Brave New World was over the final two years, as the language from 1930’s Britain was a bit difficult to get through for us, so we had a bit longer. Yes, there were students who actually argued for each of the societal models we read about, but they were a vast minority.

Brave New World – Society in the 1930’s is in a depression, but Henry Ford’s assembly line would revolutionize the manufacturing world, and beyond. Just 700 or so years AF (after Ford) all life outside of “savage reservations” is engineered in a lab. Embryos are carefully controlled, not only to eradicate disease, but to stunt mental or physical development, creating a caste system. Controllers rule the world, the Alpha Plus and Alpha caste below them, with Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon below them. Each caste is programmed from birth either via aversion conditioning or sleep programming. Babies are shown flowers or colorful books, only to be shocked when they reach for them, toddlers and up have programming played to them as they sleep, so even the most subjugated of people actually defend their place in the world. Sex is common place, birth control is mandatory, and abortions required if any pregnancy occurs. Drugs are used to keep people docile, entertainment is plentiful, and in general, people are so doped up and entertained, they would fight to remain slaves to the controllers.

1984 – Written almost 20 years after Brave New World by George Orwell, Huxley’s nightmare vision of the future is turned on it’s ear. Rather than the over entertained, programmed from birth, doped out of their mind people, Orwell saw a world where a global police state comes to be. Phrases similar to the “See Something, Say Something” campaign of a few years back are common, children are encouraged to inform on their families, and fear rather than blind ignorance to subjugation and tyranny rules the world. Yet again, those running the show are above all people in more than their job, they live separate lives. As in Brave New World, the rules don’t apply to the controllers, nor in 1984. Those making and enforcing the rules disregard them without a second’s thought. This type of world can be seen in the movie Equilibrium, a not so big hit for Christian Bale, where people are required to take a dose of Prozium regularly every day. Emotion is banned, “Sense Offense” is punishable by death, and books/art/etc are destroyed so as not to provoke responses from the people, while those in power, as always, do as they please.

Animal Farm – The shortest by far of all three, Animal Farm is a tale about animals when the farmer goes away. At first nothing seems to be amiss, but the longer the farmer is gone, the more each species notices things aren’t right. The pigs first bring this up, forming a council of animals so that work gets done, food is provided to all, and life can continue. Rules are laid down, but soon edited. As they find they are “running the show,” the pigs begin to officially exempt themselves from rules, until the one rule is “All animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others” explaining the “do as you are told without question” attitude that takes over. Before long animals are sick or dead, but the pigs don’t care, as their new life of luxury is not affected, until the farmers come home, and the book ends.

Each of these books is a cautionary tale, all three warning against the traps of socialism/communism. Granted, Brave New World is a kind subjugation, as people are entertained and, via drugs, happy, but it’s still subjugation. All three societal models also spring up from a desire to avoid ills and other problems in society, but in the end, bring only more trouble and strife into being. All three also depend on an ignorant populous, Brave New World by simply outlawing all books or other items that are about “the old ways,” replacing them with meaningless things. 1984 is a society controlled so totally, people literally just eat, sleep and work, while Animal Farm is a mixture, with the pigs keeping the other animals so busy they don’t have time for anything else.

We are, sadly, seeing views like the photo above coming more and more to the fore, despite mountains and years of evidence that it won’t work, because education is now just about indoctrination and preparing students for standardized tests. One to two in three millennials today honestly does not know what Auschwitz or Buchenwald are, or that millions died in those places or places like them. Millions believe the Holocaust never happened, and students are being taught that “gun control” is the answer to every crime they hear about. After Parkland on 14 Feb 2018, we saw a student give a speech, complete with hand gestures, that only differed from a 1930’s Germany speech in the language it was heard in.

We are at a crossroads, and this may very well be the last we get before it’s too late, before our choices are Obey or Death. We have cities, counties and states now banning firearms solely because of their looks, as none address the Mini 14, a rifle that uses the same magazine as an AR-15 that’s chambered in .223 or .556. People are being told to surrender private property, with little to no compensation, or they will be fined, or worse. Students and even adults are so convinced that the Second Amendment is only there to protect muskets, that even when shown that Italy had repeating rifles and the Puckle Gun was first built 70+ years before the Constitution, that they will explode with righteous indignation if and when contradicted. Yet, in the next breath, they will proudly state how intelligent the Founders were to phrase the First Amendment as they did so it encompasses new technology for speech, then go on to state a cross on a public patch of grass is tantamount to their being cuffed and forced into a Church for the Sunday sermon. They not only don’t care, but can’t even see, their hypocrisy, nor will they ever admit their goal is totally disarming all Americans, opening the borders so everyone can come in and thus, more crime will happen, so in the end, 1984 will cease being a warning, as it will have become their playbook.

I wish I was delusional, I wish I was dreaming this while in a psyche ward somewhere, but I’m not. I’m watching the world around me inch closer and closer to tyranny, and seeing millions cheer our slow march to our own death. Far too many did not learn from History, and now we’re all doomed to repeat the worst mistakes of humanity.

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.

Just another rant

We’ve seen countless versions of the TV spot for cell providers for years, from “Can you hear me now” to today’s we’re better than the other guys, they’re all crap version. Well, I actually worked for one of the largest cellular providers in the U.S. in the very early 2000’s, and I can tell you that even back then, there were very few areas where you couldn’t get a signal because your provider didn’t have a tower near by. Yes, in the very early days of cellular phones, you had to use your provider’s towers, or incur roaming fees, which we all hated as much as we still hate overage charges.

Today, despite the truth actually being that the individual networks being very close in size, speed, reliability, my phone works even where my provider has no towers for miles, because all providers agreed to let anyone use their towers, purely to satisfy customers and eliminate roaming fees. So, today it’s all about pricing and what the plan you choose includes. My parents, nephew, and I all share a plan that allows us to have separate bills, but due to our plan, we have a very low monthly base fee, and all have unlimited talk and text. We also can choose unlimited data or just a smaller upgrade, for those who haven’t figured it out, yes, I am with Sprint on the Framily plan. My base cost each month is $45, and I’m unlimited talk, text, and data, and I’ve had very little problem steaming on Facebook or Twitter, posting to any site, browsing or watching YouTube videos, save at my home, which is out “in the sticks” where no one has too strong a signal for data. Boost is an old Nextel market, Virgin is on T-Mobile if I remember right, and so it goes with every “discount provider.”

Why am I ranting about cell phone commercials? We’ve known for years that ads are geared toward getting your money, and they’ll insult the other guy all they can to get that. My primary complaint about this is that the attitude has become so pervasive, that is now infecting real life. So many people have heard and bought into the “I’m better than your guy, so switch to me” story, that they’ve begun using it. Professors are so convinced of their own superiority, they now belittle students who disagree with them in class, rather than invite actual debate. Students are so convinced that they are the end all be all of the campus that they block access to speakers they don’t like, and in some cases, assault those who want the speaker to come to campus. Campus administrations are so afraid of a lawsuit, they don’t act to prevent this from happening, and thus, we have students actively belittled and attacked, simply for not being the same. Thus far, we’ve seen UC Berkeley students attacked and almost killed over inviting Milo Yiannopoulos or Anne Coulter, while so far, only Claremont has punished anyone over blocking a door so an invited speaker can get to their venue.

This attitude of infallibility is what must change. Professors who mock and kick students out because they mention that forensic science can tell the age, sex, or race of a person by their skeleton, or take part in assaulting those who invited a conservative speaker should be at the very least fired, if not arrested. The reason this isn’t happening is simple, the people in power are those most guilty of this attitude. Those who want to see this change must do something that won’t be easy, but it’s now the only way to get anything to happen. What is this difficult thing? We have to hit the people demanding we do what they tell us to, without any complaint, in the wallet. When celebrities go on a rant about how evil and stupid we are for not voting as they order, or for speaking out against something they support, then we need to stop spending money on their work. Sadly, this isn’t easy. Case in point, I’ve commented on several threads where a celebrity has insulted me directly, and in one case, they are the main role in a movie series I’ve loved for years. Personally, just not going won’t affect them, even if all my family and friends join, because honestly, there aren’t that many I can directly influence. But, by letting the studio putting these movies out know that I, as a consumer, will no longer pay for a ticket or DVD rental, nor purchase any merchandise, and urging others to do the same, the studio will see that their “star” is alienating the very people they want to reach. It worked with Last Man Standing, as when ABC cancelled, even with Tim Allen not attacking or complaining, another network snapped the show up, because they saw that people want to watch it. That will hurt ABC, simply because the time slot for Last Man Standing will be prime-time, and thus, a good number of people will be watching it instead of ABC. Ratings are the end all, be all, for networks. I’ll admit, TV shows are the hardest to impact, as there aren’t any show specific advertisers for fiction series, other than perhaps product placement, but it can be done.

Simply put, make your voice heard, let the network know you won’t watch a show any more because of a star mouthing of and calling you an idiot for voting as you want to, or for not believing them without question. Let the studio know you won’t spend money on a movie or it’s merchandise because a star believes you’re a moron for not thinking exactly like them. We saw a push years back to be an individual, to stand out and not conform, but today the non-conformists are all the same, demanding you “break the mold” and conform to theirs. It won’t be easy, as you’ll be left with books written by very few people, very little music that isn’t over 100 years old, but you’ll have claimed a principle and stood by it, which is very rare. There are conservative and liberal stars in Hollywood, so if you leave one fandom, there are others you can try, just as there are alternatives for movies. I personally would rather have only one or two movies every 2 to 3 years, and have them be wholesome, such as God’s Not Dead or Risen, than a movie every month where the star thinks I’m nothing more than a piggy bank they can demand money from. It’s your choice, as always, but if you choose to tell Hollywood you won’t give them your money any more, maybe they’ll get the hint and either tell the stars to shut up and not insult the people who they want to spend money for tickets, or they’ll get new stars.

The world of today, where logic is deemed unacceptable

I will be the first to tell you I pray daily I never need to draw a weapon on another human being, but I will if I feel my life, or the lives of my friends and family are in danger. That is the nature of self defense, and unlike some of the snowflakes today, you don’t have time to think “is this person really a threat? Maybe they’re just confused, maybe they just need a hug.” Doing that is a quick way to get attacked or to be killed. This story shows a young man who realized he had no time, but even with that, he didn’t just open fire. The story states there was an “exchange of words,” which begs the question, why would 3 people, facing someone armed with a rifle, not turn and run? We won’t know that answer, but if three people, holding weapons and seeing I’m armed too, don’t run, they’re a threat to me. The story goes on to say the young man called 911, begged for medical attention, yet we still have this story bemoaning that it was “unfair” because he was armed with a rifle, as if to say he was supposed to put down the rifle and get a knife, so it would be “fair?” Sorry, you break into my home, you don’t get to then demand I ensure my weapon is what you have.


Sadly, this is just par for the course, as just having voted for someone that others don’t like is reason for violence. This is just another case of liberal activists deciding that they can do anything they want and get away with it. They bemoan police violence and scream that the Officer acted hastily, yet they open with violence at every opportunity. How long before one of them files assault charges against one of these people who stood up to a bully?


If you’re still wondering why so many act like this, look no further than a College Professor who feels nothing is wrong with tweeting about wanting “white genocide” (he’s white by the way) or how someone giving a Soldier their first class seat makes him “want to vomit.” The party of “if you don’t agree, fine, but don’t lash out at me” is apparently fine with lashing out, as long as it’s aimed at the GOP or Soldiers.


It’s not just higher education though, as a teenager on a field trip was implanted with a long term birth control device. Only 20 years ago, the school would have been shut down by the state and the organizers and the people who gave the implant arrested, but today, this teen’s mother is told she has no rights? And people wonder why school choice and home schooling is so popular a topic. Well, not everyone wonders, as some students defend MAKING DEMANDS of the administration is not only OK, but that their demands must not only be listened to, but obeyed.


Finally, two stories that show both the insanity and idiocy of the world. First, VP Pence has been misquoted and attacked for not being alone with another woman or attending events where alcohol is involved unless his wife is with him. Naturally, the party that defended Bill Clinton having an affair in the Oval Office is going nuts. Simply put, VP Pence knows that ANYTHING will be used to attack him and he’s acting in a way so he can avoid that, but sadly, even that’s used to attack him. But, why is this surprising when people go insane, some serious some not, over someone being fired and hearing only one side to the story. Cracker Barrel apparently fired a woman, so her husband goes online talking about how she worked there for 11 years, and how it happened on his birthday, and the internet goes nuts. Simply put, if she was actually fired, and we don’t hear about a wrongful termination suit from her or her husband, there was good reason. Second, NO COMPANY will answer this online, as doing so means they open themselves up to so much trouble, but then again, logic isn’t a common trait with people today, is it?

Changing the Narrative

Over the last 40 years, the U.S. has seen a lot of change. The last three years of the 1970’s saw gasoline rationing, hostage crises in the middle east, and in general, the world seemed to be gearing up for something big. The 1980 election, however, saw a change, with the election of Ronald Reagan. His “Are you better off than you were four years ago,” resonated with the American people, and ushered in eight years of low taxes, smaller government, and in general, a country that had happy and prosperous citizens. As is the norm with any political environment, the pendulum swings back ever few years, and we saw that happen in 1992 with the election of Bill Clinton. For eight years, taxes went up, the Military was scaled down, haunted by scandal, and in general, not allowed to easily do its job. The attacks on September 11th 2001 saw a swing back, only to have a reversal eight years later, and another eight years after that, bringing us to the current administration.

All of this, taken as a broad picture, doesn’t seem too out of place for any other era of American history, but the smaller moves happening over this time frame set the stage for what we have today. The movement in the 1970’s, protesting against any form of Military Engagement, or the “Make love, not war” era, saw the beginning of our troops being branded murderers or worse. This, naturally, started small, with just those coming home feeling the brunt of the movement’s ire, but over time, this has branched out. The Military was just one arm of Big Brother, out to oppress those it was told to. President Reagan was shot, the first President since J.F.K. to be attacked, but survived, starting the debate on Gun Control, which continues to the present day, and naturally, is one that stays heated to the boiling point regardless of who is doing the “debating.”

Other aspects of the country’s culture have also changed as well, from how taxation is seen, how those less fortunate should be helped, and how those who are different from the norm should be treated. Forty years ago, if you were to claim to be different, the world mostly said “good for you” and expected that you be a productive member of society, and that was it. Today, special accommodations are demanded, protests are held, and the country is all but held hostage to a minority of the population. This, sadly, stems from another product of a changing America, education. The 1970’s saw a diversion in teaching from certain topics. English and math, naturally, were left as they were, as how to write a paper or solve an equation would be hard to change, but history and other topics, well, they not only involve facts, but emotion.

The movie Dazed and Confused tells the story of students in 1977 getting out of school for the summer, and shows a history teacher telling “Okay guys, one more thing, this summer when you’re being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don’t forget what you’re celebrating, and that’s the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn’t want to pay their taxes.” (Dazed and Confused – 1993) Having gone to college to study history, this is a blatantly biased thing to say, as those who “didn’t want to pay their taxes” were being taxed by a government that didn’t have anyone in the Colonies to see what was happening, and those taxes did very little for those paying them. (Stamp Act, Library of Congress) The British government, after the Seven Years’ War, was buried in debt, and so, levied a tax solely on the American Colonies in an attempt to alleviate their debt. The Colonists, naturally, didn’t like paying taxes and getting little to nothing in return, does this sound familiar?

In hindsight, yes, the Stamp Act was a minimal tax, but seeing a government willing to tax only one group of their citizenry, with said tax being largely just to recoup losses from war, sat very sourly with those being taxed. While it was mocked in the TV show Sleepy Hollow, with Ichabod Crane being shocked that while the Colonies had a revolution over the Stamp Act, the sales tax in modern times is accepted, the difference is still clear. In 1765, the British Government in London levied a tax on only the Colonies, and used a majority of that revenue to recoup losses from a war that did not involve those being taxed. Sales tax today is levied by a government duly elected by those being taxed. Yes, I personally think it’s a bit high, and would like to see it go down, but rather than a revolution, every two years, Americans are able to either keep those who are in power in power, or replace them, which is what the American Revolution was about, representation, not just taxes.

Having won the War of Independence, the new country sought to lay out laws that would not only benefit the people, but also show that one group would not be unduly burdened for any other to flourish, giving us not only the Constitution, but the Bill of Rights. In the first Ten Amendments, we see that all Americans have the same basic rights, and for almost 200 years, this served the country well. Many will point to slavery or women’s suffrage as examples that the document was flawed, but one needs only look at the social mores of the time, and to how changes came to see that the American model has much to offer to other forms of governance. Yes, slavery happened and it wasn’t until the mid-1800’s that the American people came to blows over it. After a bloody war, where people often fought those they loved, slavery was done away with, those freed from their bonds were helped to assimilate, and the road to true equality began.

Women were not allowed to vote until the early 1900’s, (19th Amendment) and yet again, the mores of the time are the reason. Yes, women were, are, and will forever be an integral part of society. However, the world at the time of U.S. independence from Britain was a vastly different one than we have today. The jobs were far more demanding physically, far more dangerous in many cases, and thus, women weren’t able to perform at the same level as men. Add to this, those now running this fledgling country were all raised under an almost feudal system, and it falls to reason that, at least at the beginning, they would be governing both in a way similar to what they saw early in their lives, and in a way so as to make the system better. From a system where only men who owned land were citizens allowed to vote, to one where every male could vote, to what we have today, the growth shows a country dedicated to the ideals set forth in the Constitution, but also one that had to have a starting point, so they could not only govern themselves, but also grow in how they govern.

Sadly, this growth has empowered those who feel they are slighted to feel that anything they are “denied” is a “right” they should have. Free speech, for example, does mean you are free to say what you wish to, but you are not free from the repercussions of said speech. Freedom of religion means you may practice your religion how you feel is right, but you are not free from seeing others do the same, and religious icons are not “government sponsored religion,” but rather often honor a group that should be honored. The world has come from a time when people were oppressed by a government to follow the official religion of the state, to one where you may follow your heart, be that in going to Church, or not having any religion at all. Today, however, that is perverted into telling students they cannot wear certain things, cannot pray over their meal, or must learn the ways of a “culture” that simultaneously claims to be a culture and a faith.

The world we live in today, while more dangerous than the world the Founders lived in, is seeing a change in how the dangers are addressed. For over two centuries, the right to keep and bear arms was just that, the right to own weapons. Many point to it being so that a militia could be formed quickly in times of need, as the Colonies didn’t have a standing army, nor could they quickly arm one, contrary to the world of today, but the verbiage is very clear when it states “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (2nd Amendment) Many today make the claim that this means only those who could be drafted should have them, that the amendment means muskets, or that because we don’t need to form a militia any more, it’s no longer valid. Cases of mass shootings are brought out to show that guns are the problem, and blatant lies are told to try to disarm the public.

For over two centuries, firearms were seen for what they are, tools with the power to harm and kill, and so, the use of one to harm or kill was prosecuted, not for using a gun, but for harming or killing another. Those screaming for everyone to give up their guns forget or ignore that mankind has been fighting and killing each other since the dawn of our history. Cain killed his brother with a stone, David killed Goliath with a pebble. In recent history, we’ve seen an attack in Europe where a man used a truck to kill, or on an American campus where the attacker only had a knife. Every day we hear stories of battered women, where their attackers used their bare hands. The issue here isn’t the tool used for violence, it’s the heart of the person committing said violence. Watching social media, those calling for women to be armed, to lessen restrictions on firearm sales that are useless, and for people in general to educate themselves with regard to this issue are attacked. Claims that they want to “put weapons into the hands of those who beat their wives” are made, ignoring that if these women had a firearm, they could either ward off an attack with the threat of force, or if needed, fight back from a much stronger position, but that doesn’t sell papers.

Crime in general is also reported on from an emotional standpoint, such as in the case of how to handle “hate crimes” or cases of rape. In early 2017, four black teens kidnapped a special needs white student, kept him bound, beat him, and tortured him for more than a day in many other ways, yet when it came time to charge, them, there were cries that it wasn’t a hate crime, simply because the criminals were black. On the other side of the issue, any crime committed against any minority group is instantly a hate crime, no matter what, in essence, telling the world that white Americans have fewer rights than non-white Americans. Rape, a horrible crime on its own, for a time had people on the fringe trying to defend rapists by accusing the victim of dressing so as to invite it, or worse. Sadly, those who spoke out against that argument, but who also wanted to teach women to defend themselves, were accused of trying to protect the rapists of the world. “Just teach men not to rape” was a mantra for many, as if you can teach those who are violent criminals not to be that, rather than locking them away for life.

We, as a society, have been told for many years what “the problem” is, from racism, to guns, to “rape culture,” to equal rights, and every time, those telling the world are completely wrong in their stance. If you want equality, don’t demand special treatment. If you want safety, don’t demand everyone else disarm, and if you want tolerance, practice what you preach. As long as parents of small children who don’t want someone who is biologically male in the women’s restroom are called bigots, as long as those who point out that the minority applicants were not qualified, as long as all white people are called racist simply because they’re white, the problems we are facing today will persist, and get worse. The question therefore stands, how many will recognize the first step, and take it?

At the core of this fight is a system of beliefs that are so diametrically opposed as to make one question how they could even exist in the same country. On the left, the core belief is that in order to provide any service, the Government must take money in the form of taxes, and then subsidize said program. On the right, the belief is that worthy programs will be funded by the people directly, allowing the programs most favored to flourish, while those seen as unneeded or detrimental to society will fall away. Naturally, this breeds discontent and anger on both sides, as one group will remind the world that “a needed program is being cut” while the other will repeat that programs which the people do not approve of should not be funded by force.

The image above shows the normal narrative used by those on the left, attempting to portray that cutting a program, or pursuing a goal will harm others. What this does not show is that programs which the world supports, when not funded by taxes, will be funded by donations. Looking at the image, the artist would have the viewer believe that the Christian voters of America are so bent on overturning Roe V Wade that they are trampling orphans, widows, and strangers. In the early days of the Trump administration, many Democrats took to quoting scripture, such as where Christ speaks about feeding the poor, or the “Insomuch as you do unto these” reference. What is left out, however, is that these are commands to his followers. He is not speaking as to say we should surrender all we have to the Government, allowing them to choose who will benefit from funding, but rather, is telling is directly to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless and so on.

This is the core of the struggle for America’s future, two groups bent on control, one totally unwilling to compromise, the other only willing to compromise minimally. There are many symptoms of this fight, some used by the media for ratings and to attack certain people or groups, others harped on incessantly to fight for “rights” for some groups, and others ignored or marginalized so as to marginalize those fighting for them. Until there is open conversation, without the infighting and attacks, we will continue to see civility degrade, government fail, and our country grow weaker by the day.
Equal Rights

From Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009 through the inauguration of Donald Trump in 2017, the media has been flooded with stories from one group or another about their rights being trampled, or completely denied. From the right to have a cake made by whomever you want, to the right to choose which restroom you wish to use, anything that is desired becomes a right, and is fought for as if not having it will end in death. Some moves were made, such as a directive to all fifty States from the White House, instructing them that refusal to allow students to use the restroom or locker room for the gender they identify as could result in penalties, which was quickly rescinded in the early days of Donald Trump’s administration. When this happened, the media began to report on how transgender students are being outed and required to brave dangerous environments, as if rescinding a directive, which has no power to be enforced, would suddenly turn public schools into 1939 Poland and Germany, with arm patches and concentration camps. Celebrity social media was filled with tearful and angry posts, and the truth was ignored. This was not about outing anyone, or forcing anyone into danger, it was about what the Constitution, at its core, stands for, the right for States to decide when the Federal Government is not explicitly given that power.

Prior to this, corporations came down on both sides of the isle, with some opening up their restrooms and changing rooms based on identity, and others falling to the right, enforcing the Men’s and Women’s rooms were for those who biologically were Men or Women. One example is Target, arguably a giant in the retail world, issuing a statement that they would allow people to choose, only to have another statement not long after that, announcing expansion plans being cancelled. To most people, this shows the heart of the free market, capitalist society that America has been for years is working. If a company acts counter to your beliefs, you are free to choose if you wish to spend money with them. Unfortunately, this is counter to the agenda for the left, which is to say, it’s allowing people to choose not to follow their orders.

The same time period, 2009 to 2017, also saw more than one example of a business forced to close, and in some cases, the owners forced to move, simply because they chose not to do business with someone. Too many, this is the core of a capitalist society, the “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” sign that used to adorn so many businesses, but this is no longer kosher for the left. As a child, I saw businesses rise and fall based on this very principle, simply because customers talked to each other, and either started or continued patronizing a business due to good service, or avoided a business due to unfavorable practices. Today, however, if a business makes this choice, the left react by suing and demanding their right to be served. The opposite is not true though, as when a man called on thirteen bakeries owned by a gay man or woman, he was refused, and nothing was done.

This is due to two factors, first that the man did not sue, but rather chose only to post the results of his calls to be viewed by those who wanted to, and second, as many believe, he would not have been successful. As this story states, you can state that bestiality is wrong, or that polygamy is wrong, and no one will bat an eye, but to say that gay marriage is wrong means you are a hateful bigot who attacks others and you must be destroyed. Questions such as if the gay couple went to a bakery owned by a Muslim were asked, and shrugged off with mere repetition of the party line that the baker the couple did go to is evil being the only thing heard. I have actually posted that I would never be a wedding photographer for a gay wedding, as an experiment, and was met with almost total rage and hatred. Even with my instant comment, which was pinned under the post, as to ensure it remained at the top, stating that my statement was due to the fact that I am not qualified to be a wedding photographer for anyone, I was accused of bigotry, called every name under the sun, and in some cases threatened with violence. I wonder what the reaction to someone posting they would never be a photographer for a traditional wedding would be? With or without the addition that they aren’t a photographer, it can almost be guaranteed that the reaction would be what the author intended, humor. This, therefore, shows that society has come to a point where not providing a service that must be paid for is seen as wrong, while the government subsidizing able bodied adults’ desire not to work is defended as a needed social service. The willful ignorance, sadly, leads to far more, and will only be solved, at this point, by swift action, and the strength to stand by that action until it’s shown to be the right choice.

In the same arena of conversation, the opposite side of the coin is getting worse by the year. While a private baker refusing to bake a cake is a national court case, many are being denied their rights on a daily basis. At the heart of the 2016 Presidential race, among many issues, was the dependence on government “benefits” that has taken over as income for so many. Stories abound about fraud, from people collecting benefits owed to the dead, to having multiple accounts, to using said benefits for unauthorized purchases. March of 2017 saw the screaming escalate, as programs such as PBS, Meals on Wheels and Planned Parenthood saw their federal funding either drop dramatically, or totally. Naturally, the media begins the preaching that these are needed programs, people will die without them, or another emotional approach, ignoring the facts to the contrary. PBS, while they would see a decline initially in their funding, would not be broke and forced to go off the air. Private donations would increase if their donors suddenly have more disposable income, not to mention the millions of dollars a year in revenue from merchandise just using Sesame Street, which is not a new idea. Yes, initially they would see a drop in the money coming in, which might mean shows that aren’t popular are moved to a new time, or cancelled. Perhaps they won’t be 24/7/365 for a while, but none of this is “killing public broadcasting.”

Continuing with this train of thought, one needs only look to Houston, Texas in the latter years of the Obama administration to see actual rights being trampled, and a silent media. In October of 2014, the city of Houston became the center of a major debate on religious freedom, as Pastors were served a subpoena to surrender copies of upcoming sermons for review, to ensure that no “hate speech” was included. This is also a part of the movie God’s Not Dead 2, released in the spring of 2016, where a Pastor is jailed after he refuses to surrender his. Houston didn’t see things go that far, as the Pastors sued the city for violating the First Amendment, and the issue was later just dropped. While a gay couple screams that their right to choose any baker was denied, Texas Pastors were threatened in an attempt to censor what they could preach. Sadly, both of these incidents, along with the bathroom debate, have set precedents. On the issue of Pastors being made to have sermons approved, the precedent is on their side, but on the other issues, it’s squarely against the vast majority of people in the country.

At the heart of all of these issues, though, is the same thing, religious liberty. The right to worship and believe as we are led to. As a Christian, this right is fundamental to so many in the world, and only a very few countries recognize it as a right. This, naturally, means that non-Christians are also free to worship and believe as they see fit, including those who choose to not worship, and for decades, even centuries, all of these groups live in relative peace. Growing up in the 1980’s, I can remember asking why Fort Worth seemed to have a Church everywhere I looked, and even the small town where my family was had more than a dozen, and it struck me as something I wanted to know more about. My parents explained that not everyone was the same, and so, some Churches weren’t like ours, as well as everyone who believed the same not being able to attend the same Church, just due to size. Naturally, as I grew and learned, I found more and more about the differences, and sadly, saw those who believed differently than me grew in their vehemence that everything was an affront to their right to religious freedom.

To read the news or watch any commentary on television, you would hear so many stories about minorities oppressed by “alt-right” groups. Stories of homosexuals who feel they aren’t safe because of Christians, or other bigotry, but the image above is more indicative of society today. Christians are told they can’t say certain things, while the opposite is not true for those “oppressed” by Christians. Step onto almost any university campus today, and you will see signs up for every club imaginable, just not many, if any, for conservative groups. Stories abound from universities like UC Berkley about conservatives hounded until they leave, or events cancelled after a speaker was invited, yet these are never called what they are, censorship.

Counter to the image above, showing just how violent some on the left can be, others stick with the preemptive model, hounding those hosting an event until a speaker is uninvited or the event is cancelled. After The Triggering, an event where speakers such as Milo Yiannopoulos took political correctness to the woodshed, however, the country saw just what students want, which is to be pandered to and protected. The aftermath, with the world having seen the very students demanding tolerance showing obscenities at the speakers, Amherst College Republicans were accused of being a “hate group,” and others demanded that the University Administration apologize to students for hosting the event.

Having attended University in Texas, much of this was not present, and what was, well, it was as minimal as to not even need much ignoring. Yes, there were calls for something not to be said because it was “hateful,” but the professors quickly shot those demands down, enforcing that in order to learn, you must be exposed to many things, not all of which you will find pleasing. Education isn’t about learning only what you find appealing, and shunning what you find bad, you must learn about what you dislike if you are to either fight it or avoid it. With students given “safe spaces” where they can color pictures or play with toys at every “triggering” they will enter the work force and not be ready for the first performance review that isn’t someone just lavishing praise on them. Those seen in the videos of The Triggering, you could almost bet, will be the first to go to their H.R. rep about a “hostile work environment” when counselled about attendance or performance, something anyone else should know is part of adult life. Unfortunately, those about to enter the adult world are woefully under prepared for this, to the point that the North Bend Public Library, in Oregon, has begun offering classes in Adulting 101, teaching skills such as cooking, changing your own oil, and other tasks that previous generations often learned from their parents before high school. Until common sense is returned to society, sadly, this trend will only get worse, until there is an entire workforce of people who demand that customers not be mean, by asking them to do their job, and far more.

The heart of this issue, sadly, is simple common sense and education. During the 1980’s, students were taught that they must be responsible for their actions, true, but also that they could not force others to do what they want. A recent comic depicting then and now, where the parents for Then, shown a failing grade on a test, asked the student to explain, while the parents for Now demanded the teacher explain. Not only does this show children that they aren’t responsible, but that they can make others change to suit their desires. This, naturally, leads to bigger problems as these students grow, enter University, and eventually the workforce. During the 2016 election, students at more than one University demanded that they be given “safe spaces” where they wouldn’t be “assaulted” by speech they disagreed with, as shown when a simple chalk inscription of the word Trump on a sidewalk was decried as a hate crime. When President Trump was declared the winner, other students demanded that their exams be postponed to allow them to “deal with the tragedy.” While not in school at the time, no one should remember anyone even asking for time off from class after the September 11, 2001 attacks. When Princess Diana was killed in the 1990’s, British students didn’t demand that school be put on hold, just as students in 1963 didn’t even suggest time off after President Kennedy was shot.

Counter to this attitude of demanding everyone stop when they’re offended, of needing a “safe space” where even ideas they aren’t fond of are banned, when confronted with the world not bowing to them, these same students lash out with violence and hate. An event at the University of California at Berkley, where Milo Yiannopoulos was to speak, sparked a riot where an employee attacked a man, Milo was forced to leave due to threats against him, and parts of the University were set on fire. The Inauguration of President Trump in January of 2017 saw much of the same in Washington D.C., with attendees blocked from entering an event on public property by people who opposed the new President, businesses damaged, and cars and more set on fire. While those in D.C. have been indicted, as of March 2017, little to nothing has been done at UC Berkley. Where the world goes from here, having watched “pranks” like the knock-out “game” or those in New York involving masks and apparent weapons, and now this, is a very scary question in deed.

The 1950’s and 1960’s saw the Civil Rights Movement, protesting laws where people of color couldn’t use certain water fountains or restrooms, had to ride at the back of the bus if they were let on at all, or had “separate but equal” schools, today sees students and adults crying racism at the drop of a hat, such as when someone is arrested, resists, and the police react, or when they aren’t hired for a job they feel they deserve, yet aren’t qualified for. When asked why so few in their demographic attend higher education, the answer that “colleges are racist” is given in some form or another, either decrying testing, financial aid, or another aspect of the admissions process. That, however, has now evolved into Cultural Appropriation, where students are attacked for having dreadlocks or an afro, women are asked to remove braids from their hair, or worse, because “they appropriated the style from another culture.” Some counter these claims with questions of why those screaming about this wear clothing that was designed originally by Caucasians, or eat food that was developed in Europe, thus, “appropriating white culture,” and while a witty rejoinder to their claims, this normally just evokes more hate and violence. In early 2017, a female athlete was approached by a black woman, who demanded the athlete remove braids from her hair, only to then physically assault the woman when she didn’t follow these orders given to her by a stranger. She later claimed she didn’t do anything to the athlete, although witnesses support the victim.

When did it become OK to jump to physically assault someone over a hair style? The simple answer, sadly, is that it became OK due to others defending these attackers because of “systemic racism” being so bad they feel as if they’re already under attack, so they’re “defending themselves.” This claim would make it sound like simply wearing a hair style they feel is part of their culture is the same as assaulting them. As long as this isn’t immediately shot down, the attacks will only get worse, until the inevitable end is reached, and someone is killed because of clothing or their hair. The hard truth is, though, that it will be extremely hard to do, as it will mean jail, community service, harsh fines, and more, when these attacks happen, as well as not charging the victim with anything when they defend themselves. Much like some states will charge you with murder for shooting someone who would have killed you otherwise, there needs to be common sense reintroduced to the system, punishing those who act wrongly, and defending those they hurt.

Another example of the arrogance in today’s young adults and teens, are the “pranks” and “games” that emerged in large urban areas such as Manhattan. In one instance, someone will be punched in the back of the head in an attempt to knock them unconscious, and this is called a game. As it went viral, others began to “play,” and in some instances, choosing the wrong mark, leading to their “game” turned on them, only to have them start whining that “it’s just a game” and trying to press charges against the person they tried to assault. Others, with just a modicum of common sense, choose “pranks” in the form of masks designed to frighten and (mostly) fake weapons. They then hide in an area and wait, ultimately charging at or chasing someone. While most of the marks just run, some fight back, either hand to hand, with pepper spray or stun guns, while others who are licensed, have detained the “pranksters” at gunpoint until the police arrive. In virtually every instance of this happening, they instantly can be heard yelling “it’s just a prank” and clinging to that defense like it’s a get out of jail free card.

In the end, their arrogance is used as a defense, with some only given a slap on the wrist, because they “don’t know any better,” although if the roles were reversed they’d do the same thing and defend themselves. As this arrogance seeps through society, we also see truly horrifying extensions of this, with examples of “affluenza” actually being cited in court, and working! The most well-known of this is Ethan Couch of Burleson, TX, who while driving under the influence at only 16, caused an accident that took multiple lives. He was, however, only sentenced to 10 years probation, then later found in Mexico, having fled the country. This incident isn’t the only one though, as in California saw the Brock Turner case, where a promising college swimmer sexually assaulted an unconscious woman, but only served 3 months in jail, while in 1969, Senator Edward Kennedy drove his car into a pond, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to die in the water. While Couch and Turner were sentence, Kennedy never served a day, and was able to retain his seat in the U.S. Senate, despite being responsible for another person’s death.

The attitude that “they don’t know better” because they were raised never having to say they were sorry, well, it’s an excuse that has been used time and time again for all manners of infraction. Kennedy and Couch took lives, Turner is guilty of sexual assault, and nothing was done to them, or nothing near what should have been done. In these cases, and this is one of very few examples, were the assailant/driver not white, or not extremely wealthy, no one can honestly say that the sentence would have been the same. Sadly, it’s true that someone from a middle class family, white or not, would have had the book thrown at them, because they know right from wrong, so the question is how do we stop the trend. The simple answer is to not give special treatment to those with “affluenza,” but there is little chance of that happening. Another idea would be forced counseling with confinement in a rehabilitation center, as in virtually every case of this happening, drugs and alcohol are involved. Perhaps if Mr. Couch had lost his freedom for a year, where he was not only forced to dry out and sober up, but also learn about why he can’t do anything he wants, if and when he’s a father, his wealthy children won’t end up like him, but that is almost just a pipe dream today.

The root for all of these issues is the same, selfishness and upbringing. The very people demanding tolerance are the most intolerant of all, because for years they’ve been told they’re special, they’re right, they should be in charge, and now they’re entering the adult world. There have been cynical posts about when telling someone no will become a crime, or when simply breathing in their presence will lead to them killing someone, but those aren’t really too far-fetched when it comes to possibilities. With women decrying “rape culture” where some even contend that “reverse rape,” or not having sex with them when they want to, is possible, is it any wonder that the world is seeing more and more attacks, poverty and worse? Until those demanding special treatment are forced to accept the very treatment that they have a right to, and nothing more, the cries about patriarchy, sexism, racism and more will continue.

Another side of the issue is the push for acceptance, or to end “shaming,” in any form they say it exists in. Young girls are wearing clothing that few would have worn in private only 30 years ago, yet it should be accepted as a form of expression. Few would agree that the victim of a crime is the reason for said crime, but in a world where girls are taught, daily, that “all men want to rape you,” why would the same people push for allowing them to wear what amounts to lingerie? Others call for “fat acceptance,” decrying Doctors for “shaming them” when it’s pointed out a woman who stands only five foot six inches tall shouldn’t weigh over 300 pounds, as that could easily lead to heart failure. While there are examples of women who are large being healthy and attractive, those screaming for acceptance are those who want to walk around in little to nothing, or who want the “right” to not be “shamed” for being morbidly obese.

Thus is born the idea of privilege, or more simply that “I’m just as good as you, but you got the job/guy/raise/etc. because you’re thin, or male, or what have you.” This argument would see the requirements that you prove you can lift sixty pounds from the ground to a shelf over your head, as that’s “health privilege” and just “shames those who aren’t the same kind of healthy.” The confirmation hearings for Neil Gorsuch show another side to this as well. A law student came forward, accusing the Judge of sexism as he put forth an example where a company might ask female applicants if they have plans to get pregnant, and if so, when. To this student, the Judge was suggesting companies have a right to discriminate, while he was pointing out that women would get a job, then once insured, get pregnant, have the child and take maternity leave, then quit, so as to use the system. Others argued against the student, suggesting simply that knowing if an applicant has plans to have a child helps with staffing plans, scheduling, training, and so on, and were all accused of being just as sexist as the Judge. So far, the only argument that is being left alone is the one where the same company asks all applicants if they have plans where they will need significant time off in the next eighteen to twenty four months for any reason. Some tried to say this was “hiding sexism” until it was suggested a man may be going in for surgery and need a month or more off to recover, at which point the debate simply went quiet, as it became obvious that the other side wasn’t willing to accept that they weren’t right.

At this point, there is now almost an entire generation entering the adult world who have been taught for almost two decades that they have “rights” that others don’t, that they shouldn’t be “shamed” into anything, and that anyone who opposes them is just trying to keep them down. The world will soon see how they fair in the work force, those that enter it at least, as many have degrees that did not exist only 15 years ago, and which offer no qualification to work in the modern world, other than as a teacher for that very degree. There is a chance, however minimal, that when confronted with a company not accepting taking time off whenever they want, with or without explanation, and without adequate notice, or a company that doesn’t tolerate claims of racism or sexism that are nothing more than crying wolf, they may grow up, but that’s a long shot.

Sadly, the more likely outcome is that companies will be driven out of business, or will at least be forced to pay due to suits, when these new adults aren’t given the corner office on day one, or aren’t allowed 2 hours, paid, for lunch, because they need to “center themselves to handle the stress of doing their job.” There is some hope, as more and more companies are adopting a new hiring style, wherein the application is all online, and clearly states that stating race, gender, religion, or attaching a photo will be grounds for immediate disqualification from the job. The first interview is completely automated, the next via phone but with a person, and only step four actually has face to face interaction. It will be deemed discriminatory, but a system where the company goes out of their way to not know race, gender or see you really shoots that down. These companies have a chance to survive, but for how long is unclear, as some in this new crop will enter public office, and while there will always be two sides of the aisle in Congress, which side has more people will determine the direction the country takes.

Where you come in is simple, stop standing by and watching, only voting every few years. Get involved with young people, even if it’s just to help them find a way to play in the park safely. You’ll be able to help them realize that just because they want to swing, doesn’t mean the others on the swing have to stop. Or that just because they want to play with the puppy does not give them the right to enter a stranger’s yard. Volunteer at the library to tutor, or with a local group to teach a skill. Not everyone needs to go to college, programmers, engineers, attorneys, teachers, sure, but we need mechanics, welders, ranchers, and more, few to none of which are college programs. A young person could easily hire on with an auto garage, learning as they go, gaining certifications, and ultimately own their own garage while still fairly young, making really good money, and having no student loans. This isn’t to say we should discourage students from higher education, but why encourage it, if you see the path they want doesn’t need it. Simply put, young people today need to be told no once in a while, helped to understand why they were told no, and educated as to what they can do, when told no, that doesn’t involve the equivalent of a toddler’s tantrum. Only time will tell if it was too late for any of this to work.

HuffPo supports harassment based on politics, not a surprise

I shouldn’t be surprised, but it seems the left just can’t go any lower at times, then they prove they can at least try. Most recently, the Huffington Post, a well known liberal publication, said that Tom Brady isn’t getting enough blowback for supporting Donald Trump in the election last year. We’ve seen this for the last 8 years mostly, although it was always there to a point, and the digital age just made it worse. In 08 and 12, anyone who said anything other than praise for Barack Obama was instantly the most racist person on the planet and looking to bring back the days when slaves were lynched everywhere. Last year anyone who didn’t support Hillary was a sexist looking to put women back in the kitchen and send the country 100+ years back in time.

I would LOVE to get an honest answer out of one of these idiots, asking why they defended people being silenced when it was Obama running then in office, or when it was Hillary running, but now defend harassment based on a personal choice. But, it’s the same as if you ask why someone supported Obama blocking immigration, or bombing countries, but they don’t support Trump just doing the same. I could hold up a list of actions that Obama took that Trump is taking, say “Trump is doing exactly what Obama did for 8 years” and I would be told I’m wrong, Obama bred unicorns that shat gold, and Trump is literally the love child of Hitler and Satan. Trump could hand these idiots $1000 each and they’d take it, then call him evil for not giving them more.

So, the question isn’t why any more, as that won’t ever be answered, or already has and is simply that the left is a hypocritical and selfish group, rather, the question is how can we wake up a generation that firmly believes their candidate not winning is the end of the world, or that words are so horrible that they have the right to forcibly silence others? The answer, well, it’s not easy, and will be dirty. We must not allow them to silence us, we must not allow them to control the narrative, and we must continue to fight the hypocrisy and stay true to our beliefs. HuffPo is advocating the harassment of someone simply because he supported our new President, but will defend Madonna’s right to free speech after she made a threat against the White House. You can’t reason with them, but we can fight them with their own tactics. When a celebrity goes off the deep end for something like Madonna or Ashley Judd did during their March, we need to stop buying anything that they profit from. Huffpo and their ilk will scream that the poor stars are being “attack for speaking their minds” or that they’re losing money because of evil conservatives, but they’d do that if Madonna saw someone a block away helping a Trump supporter up after that supporter was attacked.

Personally, I plan to do this, and it may get down to me listening to CD’s, reading books and only eating what I can get at my local grocery store, but I won’t patronize those who demean me any more. As for when they complain, I plan to simply reply with evidence that they’ve done or advocated what I am now doing, just aimed at a conservative, and it was acceptable, then I may record their mental implosion when faced with a “you did it, so I decided it was a fair tactic” argument.

The real question though, is are we too late to make a difference?