We have a crisis of the heart in this country

We have learned in the last several days, of a “prank” where a young lady pushed another young lady from a height of about 60 feet, into a pond/river. The young lady who was pushed is now in severe pain from injuries suffered due to her uncontrolled fall from such a height. Naturally, the immediate response after making sure the one who was pushed is going to recover, albeit slowly and painfully, was to hold the pusher accountable for her actions. What many did not expect, although I did to some degree, was the sheer volume of the “it was just a prank” side of the argument. I worked for several years as a Volunteer Firefighter, in a very small community which often meant we were first on scene of medical only calls, so I know a thing or two about injuries, and this is one of those lucky to be alive situations. A fall, uncontrolled and likely flailing wildly, from that height into standing water, would feel like hitting concrete at impact, it just then lets you sink under rather than just lying there bleeding.

The core of the situation though, is the attitude from so many people, that the pusher should not even be talked to harshly, but should just be allowed to go on about her life, which is wrong. When you were a child, if you pushed someone down while at recess and they just got a bit dirty, you were talked to sternly and told not to do that again. When a teen if you drove too fast, or otherwise were reckless, you were told in no uncertain terms how dangerous that was. The problem today, simply, is we have a generation now entering the adult work, and another behind them, who have been taught by participation trophies, not being cut from teams, and so much more, that no matter what, they aren’t ever wrong, and that has now almost led to a death. Had this girl died at impact or from her injuries, the young woman who pushed her would be facing at least involuntary manslaughter charges, which would ruin her entire life and likely end with her in jail.

The issue goes deeper though, and has wider reaching effects than most know. Not long ago, people were running around Central Park, wearing scary clown masks, and swinging very real looking weapons, to scare people. If I remember correctly, at least once this resulted in one of them being punched to stop the perceived attack, and I know I remember an off duty Police Officer drawing his sidearm and in both cases, the response was “IT WAS A PRANK, DON’T BE A JERK” or something to that effect. The people who, moments before, were running at others with what appeared to be a very deadly weapon, now cry and scream about people reacting any way other than abject fear or running. They could not understand at all that people would defend their lives with violence when faced with violence, and still can’t.

Fast forward to 2018, and we have an explosion of “I have a right to…..” with that group also saying no one has a right to stop them or even say they can’t do something. Former VP Candidate Tim Kaine’s son has a criminal record for assaults associated with the group antifa, and other members of that group are outraged that their photos are now public record after their arrest for assaulting people who were no danger to them. This last weekend in Charlottesville, Police Officers were assaulted for simply being Police Officers, yet we still hear from the media only that these are “protesters” who are “anti-fascist” even as they employ fascist tactics right out of the darkest parts of history. What will happen then, when one of these antifa rallies attacks the wrong person, and fearing for their life, they draw and fire a weapon, killing their attacker?

The simple answer is chilling, but I can all but guarantee it is right, the victim of the attack, who was fearful they would be killed, will be charged with murder, and likely convicted. We already have groups that regularly find and publicize private information to dox those they don’t like being able to speak against them crying when they aren’t allowed to hide behind a mask. How long will it be until we hear, in a court of law, “I did not authorize any recording of me, so that surveillance tape is not valid as evidence” when a video is showing of one of these “protesters” almost killing someone? How long until we hear “I don’t authorize you to show that” in challenge to evidence of guilt, and it working? We live in a world where people regularly commit heinous crimes and are let go with a slap on the wrist, so now they believe they have rights no other person has. College students try to have professors who won’t just give them a better grade fired for “harassing them,” others scream to drown out speech they disagree with, and still others brutally assault others over mere disagreements, when will we wake up and begin working to stop all of this?

The simple answer is, unfortunately, when we go over the edge of sanity and are forced to claw our way back. The longer answer is, unfortunately, when someone is gravely injured or worse. The riot in Charlottesville in 2017 saw someone killed when a vehicle that was fleeing those trying to harm the driver struck them. Naturally, the rioters took that as their cue to become more violent. Police have been ordered to stand down, people actually protesting peacefully have been told to leave or have been arrested because their peaceful presence somehow caused the intolerance in those bent on subjugating all to their will. We’re nearing the end game, we will see these mental midgets try to overthrow the government, fail, and the media cry about the “political persecution” of not letting them have their way, we will see one of them try to murder someone at a riot and their intended victim will be armed and fight back, and we will see the media cry about a “murderer going free.”

This is no different than 2000, 1992 or 1980. Congress worked to obstruct and remove Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush, as they can’t stand not having 100% backing to do all they want. Definitions are changed, documents re-interpreted, and history edited to fit their agenda. The goal is the same as with every government in history, cement their power and control, and prevent anything that threatens the loss of their iron grip on their country. Thankfully, we live in a country where the founding documents give We, The People, the right to circumvent those trying to control us. Article V of the Constitution lays out how our Constitution may be amended, and gives two paths. Congress may present an amendment if two thirds of them agree to it, then three quarters of the states must ratify it. But, if Congress proves to be useless, two thirds of the States may, in their own legislatures, call for a convention of states, where amendments may be presented, and if ratified by three quarters of states, they are accepted. We can limit Congress to very few terms, we can require a balanced budget, and we can even point blank say that what the Constitution says is what it means.

We will face opposition, people like Robert Reich, spread lies and whips people into fearful mobs about how a Convention of States could accidentally destroy the entire Constitution. He cries about “rogue conventions” and works to silence all dissent to the left, demanding submission and subservience to the benevolent masters who simply want to make everyone equal, except for themselves, who will be more equal than those they rule. We must stand up and say NO MORE LIES AND HATE! We must demand the Police arrest the “protesters” who destroy property and assault all who do not praise them for ruling over us. We must demand Congress do their job instead of demanding others do it for them. We must stand up to the lies being spread and tell the likes of Reich that just because he doesn’t like the idea of the States working where Congress won’t, doesn’t mean he can order the country not to do anything.

We, The People, truly hold the power in this country, but if we don’t use the power we have, it will be taken from us in the not so distant future. So, the question is very simple, are you going to be led silently into the box cars as the left continue to add to the list of what you aren’t allowed to do or say? Or, will you stand tall, look them in the eyes, and say you will no longer be subjugated to those who are scared of words? It’s your choice, and while common sense and common courtesy are super powers today, they aren’t totally gone from the planet, yet.

Join us today at https://conventionofstates.com/?ref=29238 and let your state legislature know you support calling an Article V Convention of States. Together is the only way to go forward.

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.

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.

Business as usual

To listen to liberals, nothing is ever their fault, nothing is ever their responsibility, and they are the ultimate authority on everything. When Obama admitted that DACA was un-Constitutional, but that Congress wasn’t doing what he wanted, so he was going to do it anyway, liberals cheered and praised his action to open the floodgates of illegal immigrants coming into the country. When Trump said the same, that DACA was un-Constitutional, so he was ending it and telling Congress to do their job, liberals demanded he not do that, saying he wasn’t allowed to, ignoring that their messiah Obama said flat out that it was an un-Constitutional move.

Over the last week or so, the topic is gun control, although they will happily lecture you on how “since Obama issued the executive order on DACA, it must be allowed to stand” they’re demanding that “something be done” with hashtags like not one more, or never again. What they don’t do, ever, is tell you what should be done. They demand that “assault weapons” be banned, while admitting they can’t define “assault weapon” they demand that certain people be prevented from gaining firearms, and ignore that there are already laws on the books doing just that, just demanding that “something be done.” I have personally said “OK, let’s say there’s a law saying it’s a felony, punishable by jail time, for me to slap you” they nodded and I slapped him, lightly. Naturally, he screamed that it was illegal, then I just slapped him again while a friend said, he’s breaking the law, how do you stop him? He ranted and railed that I should be arrested, only to be told “no, just do something, pass a law” at which point he just stormed off.

Confronted with the lunacy of “just do something” he refused to continue the conversation, and later I found that he’d been lying to others, saying it’s legal to walk in and buy any gun you want, no paperwork needed, and screaming at people who told him he was wrong. I realize this nut job is an extreme case, but it shows the lunacy of the liberal argument. You can tell them the law is already in place, so we need to fix law enforcement, reporting, etc and you’re called an idiot. You can prove it and they’ll storm off and lie to others.

You will not win an argument with a liberal, nor will they even admit that you had anything good to say but stood and lied to them. So the question now is simple, while Trump is demanding the actual work needing done is done (fix reporting and enforcement,) how do we fix the issue of the lies being told other than by pointing out the lies when they were told?

Just what is “common sense” reform?

Valentine’s Day 2018 was, as we can all agree, visited by tragedy in Florida, showing the best and worst of humanity. From a JROTC Cadet who died helping students get into a room, two other JROTC Cadets who saw a way to protect others and took it, to a Coach who sacrificed his life for his students. As happens after any tragedy, well most of them, the liberals in Congress and the media jumped on the gun control wagon, with their gunsense hashtag and demands to “regulate assault weapons.” There’s one glaring problem with that goal, the definition of “assault weapon.” A new twist though, is that yes, the term “assault weapon” was used in marketing many years ago, but not for any of the modern firearms that the rabid liberals want all but melted to slag.

Yes, marketing executives used that term to sell rifles, and yes, they stopped when the first “assault weapons ban” was introduced, but there is no standard of what liberals call an assault weapon is today, and worse, the glaring holes in their knowledge is staggering, and I’m not just referring to calling a magazine a clip, or a rifled barrel firearm a gun. We’ve had many press conferences from liberals referring to “ghost guns” and “barrel shrouds” and those are the least of the idiotic things said. When Shannon Watts became the public face of Everytown and Moms Demand Action, the lies and unintelligent drivel was instantly on public display. From claiming that “many of their members are gun owners” to her claim that no one needs a gun that fires ten rounds a minute. The tweet that got her to ban me was when I told her I can walk outside at any time, find and throw ten rocks, one at a time, in under a minute, should my arms be banned?

When confronted with a well reasoned and logical argument, there is also the standby tactic of either calling the person who shuts a liberal down a nazi, bigot, racist, or “literally Hitler.” I have a dubious honor though, as I actually fought that line with historical knowledge I worked years for in my undergraduate studies, to the point where the idiot actually laid hands on me, prompting me to use a simple hold until the cop in the common area took it over, but that’s a story for another day.

You see, I hold a Bachelor’s Degree in History, and specifically, military history since the American Revolution. My Great Uncles and Grandfather inspired that, as they fought in World War II, with my Great Uncle Coleman landing at Normandy and going on to fight Rommel in North Africa, while another died in the failed air drop on D-Day. You see, I know Hitler and the tactics he used well, and those very tactics are being emulated today, just not by those the screaming snowflakes claim. You see, “anti-fascist” was a group in the Nazi regime, used to fight anyone standing up to them. Before that was formed though, Hitler knew he had to garner national support, so health care, education, and such were first. By claiming to “have the best of plans” the people rallied to him, and he was among the most charismatic people to have wreaked havoc on the planet. Once he had them in the palm of his hand, he then moved to disarming the public, playing on the old standby that the Police and Military were there to protect them, they should be trusted. Once that was done, we all know what happened, from Krystalnacht in 1939, to Auschwitz and Buchenwald, and the millions killed before 1945.

Moving back to 14 February 2018, Cruz committed multiple crimes before he even left for his attack. You see, the federal background check requires disclosing many things, which had he been honest, would have meant no sale of any firearm. He threatened his ex’s new boyfriend, and even said he would be a “professional school shooter” in a YouTube comment, and his profile there was under his legal name. Police were called out to his home so many times one wonders why he wasn’t either in jail or a psychological institution well before his attack. So the question isn’t about gun control, it’s about mental health. When an actual professional says that Cruz displays classic signs of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, why wasn’t he already known for his crimes?

Now, being a student of History, I cannot sit idle while disinformation and blatant lies are spread, as I can counter them all. When people go on and on about how the AR-15 is the “weapon of choice” for criminals like Cruz, I point out that Oswald and Whitman used bolt action rifles, and in Whitman’s case, a sawed off shotgun. The only reason that Dallas in 62 wasn’t a mass shooting is that Oswald was only interested in Kennedy, but Whitman’s shooting lasted so long because he found excellent cover and with long range not an option, the Police had to get to him, which prompted the creation of the S.W.A.T Programs virtually every city has today. I’ve brought this up many times, and thus far, only one person has actually remained logical and civil in their conversation, and has now agreed it’s about the person, not the tool used.

To explain that last sentence, let’s look at the AR platform. The most common caliber for the AR-15, is .223/.556, which to be honest, isn’t that large a round. In fact, most hunters prefer either .30 .30 or .30 .06, or even larger. I’ve fired a 308 Winchester and a 300 Blackout rifle, and trust me, they are more powerful than my AR ever will be. To be honest, I bought my AR because I want to add a new competition to my belt. I’m already likely in the top 25% of pistol shooters, I’ve not been beaten at Skeet in 20+ years, so now I’m moving to rifles. The AR platform allows me to quickly change optics for short or long range, to add a flashlight if I’m in a room clearing stage, or to add a bipod for lane shooting. Even were I hunter, and I prefer to hunt with my debit card at HEB for my meat, although for chicken I’ll soon have a pen full of them, I wouldn’t use an AR to hunt.

Let’s look at this logically though, which requires looking at the Mini 14, which aside from the look, is just an AR-15 made of wood, as it fires the same caliber as most AR’s and can use a 30 round magazine as well. You see, the argument against the AR-15 is not about it’s capabilities, it’s all down to the look. The desire for an “Army Gun” likely started in the late 1960’s with Vietnam, as we now had live reports on the war, and saw the Soldiers using the M4 and M16, so the manufacturers came up with ideas to mimic it, just not completely. You see, the M4 and M16 can be Select Fire, or in some cases, Fully Automatic. Select Fire means you pull the trigger once and three rounds are released, while of course, Full Auto is where you “spray and pray.” An AR-15 is Semi Automatic only, as when you pull the trigger once, one round is released. This is true for a high percentage of firearms today, from pistols to rifles to even shotguns. Only bolt-action, pump, and single action revolvers are not Semi-Auto, meaning you must manually chamber a round, or cock the hammer, to fire again.

So, with the massive evidence, complete with legislation from the 1980’s which means only the “ultra rich” can buy a true machine gun legally, the question has to be, what true common sense reform can be done. It’s ultimately a simple answer though, and one those screaming don’t want to hear, it’s not about guns, but the users. Cruz, Lanza, Whitman, Oswald, all were mentally unwell, and honestly, should have been under treatment for a good while, possibly their entire life, but the focus on the failures of an industry that makes so much money they can literally buy legislators, isn’t one that is wanted. Cruz was on psychotropic drugs, but HIPPA means that it’s very rare when Doctors report this, at least to the level required to flag a background check. The Sutherland Springs shooter received a Dishonorable Discharge from the USAF, and had a domestic violence charge, but neither were reported in time to stop his purchase. So, as the background check already addresses both situations, they had to lie to get their weapons, and only the lack of reporting and lack of regulations allowing Doctors to legally break Doctor/Patient confidentiality failed here, not the laws in place.

To wrap up, we don’t need to regulate the tools used, but the users. President Trump has undone an act that simply said if you received Social Security Disability, you’re a prohibited possessor, as that could mean if I lose a leg and can no longer work, I’m now disarmed, while if you’re in a psych ward, you also lose that right. This is of course, touted by liberals as “President Trump made it easier for criminals to get guns” which is a bald faced lie. We have the laws needed to ensure you cannot purchase a weapon if you are a felon, domestic abuser, or the like, so we need to look at how those things are reported. When these things are not reported correctly, the person who was to report them should be charged as an accessory, even lightly, to any crimes committed. Doctors should be able to, confidentially and only to law enforcement, report those they feel are not mentally stable to own even a staple gun, perhaps via an office that will include medical experts who can help determine when it should go to law enforcement. I’m not an expert on public policy, or writing laws, although were laws written in layman’s terms, I’m sure I could craft a good many that would help the world. The final step is twofold, dumping most, if not all of the career politicians in Congress today, and enacting term limits and possibly even a mandatory retirement age for the House and Senate (and definitely a retirement age or allowing Doctors to force retirement on SCOTUS, as Ginsberg isn’t able to stay awake now) so that we have turnover to keep new blood and new perspectives among those we elect to lead.

So, my question to you is, what would you do other than jumping on the gun control, ban this or that, bandwagon? Oh, an keep in mind I hold a degree in history, am a politics/history buff, and will find any and all source material to destroy anything that I can, even if I end up destroying my own argument when pushed to start research.

Art imitates life, again

When I first found Texts From Superheroes it was just a goofy site to me, but as the election season ramped up last year, it became a bit prophetic. As with every election, the Hollywood “elite” began their “you must vote for so and so or you’re a racist/sexist/bigot/etc” schtick and I, as always, ignored it and voted as I felt I should. What changed last year though was the use of everything those not voting for socialism or Hillary said in a twisted sense to make us look like demons. The images below are an excellent illustration of that (pun intended.) You see, I’ve read Captain America and Punisher comics since I had money of my own to buy them, so it’s well over 30 years, so I feel I know the characters pretty well. Now, of course liberals hate Punisher because he uses guns, so they ignore him, but Cap is a different story.

This image is a perfect example of what would not be said. Yes, Captain America would be saddened to see neo-nazis marching in the street, but he would be standing between them and who they’re screaming (and who’s screaming at them) and helping arrest both when violence broke out. The problem is, though, that the left has decided that not agreeing with everything they say/want/demand is “nazi” or “fascist” behavior, and they are actively assaulting all who disagree, and now are using things like this stupid comic as “proof they are the real patriots.”

On a similar note, this one is calling for banning of those embracing Constitutional rights, based on mere political stance. Also misleading, the cowards in masks who call themselves antifa are the ones assaulting people in almost all cases, at least until arrested, at which point they cry and complain about “brutality.” But it’s the same point. Look at the super-heroes as they were depicted in the 80’s and 90’s, and you see general heroes, no politics save maybe from Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne as they are millionaires. Superman only was a government stooge in a post-apocalyptic world and it was Batman that woke him up, but now it’s all politics. Movies are all about showing how evil anyone who isn’t liberal is, while they scramble to hide the perversions we now know they’re guilty of. Comics insult a duly elected President, and more.

Yes, I realize this was a “geek rant” as I know not everyone is into comics, but it’s not just this, watch for the parts of pop culture you still enjoy that have changed. Check each one and I’ll bet you’ll see the “hero” is liberal, maybe even full bore socialist, and the “villain” is the one portrayed as a nazi for not wanting to silence people, or for not wanting to give away his salary, or the like. This is Pravda level propaganda, and being fed directly to children, and should scare all of us.

The myopia of the left, and how it hurts everyone

Starting in November 2016, there has been no end to the screaming from the left side of the aisle, from Russia to sexism to racism and more. But what they ignore is what is going to end up hurting them the most, that their own heroes are often the most guilty of the crimes. The latest in their arsenal of complaints is Net Neutrality, and how it’s repeal is going to “end the internet.” This is just par for the course, as ending only the mandate in the ACA will “kill millions,” lowering taxes will “bankrupt” various groups, and now this. At this point, I’m not going to be surprised to hear that enforcing the law “disenfranchises millions,” or some other idiotic claim.

Simply put, removing regulations does not “end anything,” rather it’s going to be a good thing. The internet has been around for 20+ years, and Net Neutrality only 2, but this is ignored because Net Neutrality allows the left to call anything offensive, or racist, or what have you, and with it being “wrong,” social media and other online services are running to ban and block so as not to be accused of being that. By removing regulations, there is no government presence waiting to hit a provider or online service with a fine or punishment for anything the left hates, meaning that they can’t scream “racist” at the drop of a hat and get someone banned, and they hate that.

There’s an old saying, “If you want more of something, make it illegal. If you want less, tax it.” This works here too, as if you want more innovation and creativity in an industry, get the government out of the way, while if you want less, regulate that industry. Internet access is not a human right, nor is having a cell phone, but those can be used to control a population, as it will become “oh, you don’t have the health care plan we approved, well that means you don’t get 4G speed this year.” Or, if you’re a “known agitator” (read, conservative) who they want to silence, your “crimes” go public and you’re not allowed to be online as much as those who tow the party line. It’s a simple process and couched in “neutrality” so as to not be recognized.

Simply put, Barack Obama appointed the man who just voted (along with another person) to end a massive government regulatory practice, so it’s all because of Trump. Barack Obama named the seven countries we are currently not accepting travel from, but because Trump signed the order, it’s a Muslim ban. Trump could follow Obama’s playbook to the letter, and because it’s not their savior doing it, all would be horrible. This is what we see every time government moves to lessen restrictions, taxes, etc. Because we now have less of big brother, the left loses their mind because they can’t control us. They know that the vast majority of Americans actually paying taxes aren’t liberal, so the “charitable” work they do (Planned Parenthood and other liberal organizations) will be lessened, and actual charitable work (soup kitchens, food pantries, etc) will go up, but those are “bad” because they’re run by Churches. You know, those evil organizations that teach you that your actions have consequences?

Look back to the 1980’s and Reaganomics. I was only 4 when he was first sworn in as President, but I do remember that gas was cheap, food was cheap, we didn’t want for much at all, and what I did “want for” were things my parents said no to, not due to money, but because they decided I didn’t need it. This, however, is the perfect example, as being told no is what liberals can’t stand. They are the eternal toddlers, screaming for ice cream for breakfast, then crying and throwing a fit when given anything else. They’ve grown up being told that conservatives are evil because they don’t “tolerate alternative lifestyles,” when in reality tolerate is the perfect word. I count myself a rather conservative person, and while I believe that homosexuality is a sin, and thus, without repentance and working to no longer choose that lifestyle, will result in the person spending eternity in hell, I don’t let that color my judgement when I look for people to hire, contractors to use, etc. I’ve worked and gone to school with people I know are gay, I’ve supervised them and been supervised by them, and never had any trouble, as them being gay never affected work.

What I have had happen is I’ve been propositioned by men, only to be told I’m homophobic because I said “I’m not gay” because I wasn’t willing to “try it.” I looked one in the eyes and said “I thought it wasn’t a choice? I thought you just are or aren’t, but you’re telling me I need to try it? Are you saying it is a choice?” When I threw the big argument back into his face, he hissed and almost attacked me, but eventually lied to try to get me fired, only to be fired himself because he’d been coming on to all guys in the store since his hiring. He then sued for “homophobia” and ranted when the evidence proved him wrong. His attitude is that the world must do all it can to make him happy and damn everyone else. When told no, he couldn’t accept it, and did all he could to force those telling him no to change their course.

This is the same with Net Neutrality, liberals got a golden ticket to report everything they hate as “hate speech,” or “offensive,” or “racist,” for two years, and now they can’t handle that the government is saying they can’t. They’re screaming that it’s the end of the internet, when in fact it’s a new beginning, as without it, sites like Gab can actually compete with Twitter (I know I didn’t link Twitter) rather than be choked by government regulations, meaning their safe haven is now in danger of being driven down by a competitor, and they can’t have that. Oddly, the very people driven away by their reports are the ones going to competitors, but that’s only bad because they don’t just want us gone, they want us completely silenced, and without big brother to help, they can’t.

So, the ultimate question here is simple, if you own a business of any kind, do you want more government intrusion or less?

THE SKY IS FALLING!

Today the FCC voted 3 to 2 in favor of reversing regulations put in place just over 2 years ago. Just as with any attempt to repeal the ACA, the left is going overboard on their predictions for what will be next. This time, rather than MILLIONS WILL DIE, it’s THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT IS DEAD. Personally, I am a fan of as little government as possible, and this, so far, has proven to be the best course of action as long as I’ve watched. Health care existed long before the ACA, and will exist after it, just not funded by tax dollars. In the early 1970’s, my parents had my Sister, later I came along, then my Brother. I don’t remember ever hearing about my parents having to pay off their bills from the hospital from this, nor was it horrible if I chipped a tooth, got sick, one of us got hurt, we just went to the Dr/Dentist, our insurance covered a huge portion of the bill, and we paid the rest, normally out of pocket, not being billed. For example, I had to have my wisdom teeth removed around 2003, and while the procedure was very expensive, needing an oral surgeon and anesthesiologist, I paid under $100 for the entire thing, including the pain killer I was given for the first few days. Fast forward to 3 years ago, I needed 2 teeth extracted, no surgeon, but I was knocked out, and I was billed, after insurance, over $500. The only real change, the ACA passed in 2012, and as many predicted, costs went up for the consumer.

Now, look at 2015, when Net Neutrality was enacted. At the time, we didn’t have any option but a small cable company, but we paid about $30 a month to our ISP, now it’s almost $60. Regulations put a burden on the provider, and they will always pass costs onto the consumer. Yes, it’s possible that ISP’s may decide they don’t want to make it easy to watch Netflix, or that they don’t like certain websites, and I don’t agree with that practice, but the market should decide, not government, what a business may or may not do. What if the provider notices that between 5 and 8 at night, their speed is killed, and most customers are on Netflix. They see that they don’t have the ability to handle that traffic, so they limit speed to compensate, choosing to limit www.netflix.com so as to not burden those working, or doing other things. What if a college is their own ISP and chooses to limit Netflix so the library and other public terminals don’t see a slow down? In this case I’m for it. The common thread, their customers should be who decides what happens. In the first case, their customers complain, the company gives the equivalent of a shrug, their customers start switching to another provider. This ISP sees their actions losing them money, they either reverse the change, or they suffer and eventually go out of business. Think back to AOL. They censored e-mail messages critical of them, blocked some competitors’ sites/apps, and more. They are now gone, with only the holdouts with aol.com e-mail addresses as proof they once ruled the internet. Comcast decided they wanted to limit Netflix so users had to use their VOD service, now customers, instead of whining to the government and getting them to force Comcast to do what they want, will just need to switch. The advent of fiber and other technologies, simply put, means no more “we’re your only choice” for customers. The second option? The college says they are giving free internet access to help with course work, with Net Neutrality in place, the government tells them they aren’t allowed to block or limit sites even though they don’t charge, students force a college that gave them free connections to reverse a good practice. Without Net Neutrality, the college can say “we’re giving you free internet to use to study, you want Netflix, you can pay for the connection” and the students can whine and moan, but the college keeps a good practice.

Simply put, deregulation is a good thing in my mind. It always starts small, by the government simply getting out of businesses’ way, but look at the two industries most affected by past deregulation, telephone (not cell phones) and power. Growing up we had no choice but to use Southwestern Bell and TXU. Our bill could go up without notice, and they just grinned and said their costs went up. Deregulation happened, and now we have one company running the infrastructure and many running the service side. SBT, ATT, and others pay the line company, just as TXU, Reliant, and others do with Oncor in North Texas, and then sell that to consumers. As they have to compete, and the delivery company doesn’t have to worry about pricing and such, both sides benefit. TXU sells at a price low enough to entice people away from the other guys, just as SBT or ATT does, and they make some profit in the process.

Well, cable TV/Internet is the dinosaur in this scenario. Fiber is still very new on the scene, and DSL or other telephone delivery options are dying, as they should, as a technology. Sadly, only one cable provider is available in an area, for my area it’s a tiny company, while the majority of my county is Charter with a portion of it being Time Warner. As there is no competition other than Satellite/Internet for TV, they’re pretty safe. They lose my $40 or $50 a month TV plan, they still get my money for internet, which I need to watch my new TV provider. Google is working to come into new areas with Google Fiber, but having to install all the infrastructure, they’re putting out a lot of money, so they aren’t really competitive. They also are doing the same as cable companies, charging based on your speed. If Net Neutrality happens the way it’s cheerleaders want, they’ll all be told you can only charge one price, and have one package. Do you think they’ll choose the highest speed at the lowest cost? Of course not, they’ll find out the lowest speed they can get away with delivering, and charge as much as possible for it.

Yes, there will be growing pains, such as Congress having the ability to tell the FCC they can’t remove a regulatory and financial burden from companies, or those companies deciding to limit what is the most taxing on their servers, but rather than tell the government to “make it better,” why not look to the Elon Musk’s of the world and ask for a better option. In a climate so totally controlled and locked down by the government, ingenuity is stifled. Why come up with a better way to do things when you’ll not be able to afford to sell it? With this move, Musk is free to come up with a better option and sell it cheaper, which means the other guys start trying to beat that tech and sell it cheaper. The free market works people, it always has. Health care before the ACA was as cheap as possible, because Aetna knew if they didn’t treat me right, I’d switch to BCBS or another provider. ATT did me wrong on my cell plan, so I went to Sprint for 20 years, until they did too, and I moved to another provider.

Aside from wanting the government out of as much of my life as possible, I can also attest to the fact that it works not only socially, as I don’t like being told I must buy an approved health care plan, which is all but useless, but also the plans cost less, and have the needed amenities. Net Neutrality being gone means your provider must now earn your continued business, the crutch of “regulations require us to do this” is gone, and now they have to prove they’re going to do what the customer wants.

I’ve said it on every thread and story I see about health care or Net Neutrality, socialism fails every time, not because the idea is flawed, but because mankind is, and whenever you have anything socially controlled, someone at the top decides that because they’re running the show, they deserve more. Huxley warned us about dependence on technology, while Orwell warned of socialism and big brother. Sadly, both were right. We’re now so hooked on our devices for everything, that we believe the socialists when they tell us we have a “right” to be equal, so they regulate the crap out of an industry, while of course none of the rules apply to those running things. They don’t apply to the “leaders” because, simply, the “all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others” mantra has become entrenched into the minds of those in power.

We need to get a completely new group of Representatives and Senators, and keep them as short a time as possible, to avoid that mindset, and we need to tell those selling us our daily fix of entertainment that we can get along without them, showing them that if they want us to pay, they need to make it very enticing. I’m perfectly willing to go back to books and music for a year or so, to show the Comcasts of the world they aren’t entitled to my money, only to sell a product, and hope I buy it. I’m just sadly fighting an uphill battle where the stone slips every time against a population of people half my age, dead set that I’m wrong, and evil for not agreeing with them, in fact some days, trying to inject common sense and logic isn’t preferable to pushing that rock and failing every time.

And yet again, the reaction to everything is…..

We saw it with the ACA and now we see it with Net Neutrality, and even more telling in the push to rule the U.S. as tyrants is shown in Alabama as what the left wants is demanded at all costs.

Starting last November, as we saw in 2000, only louder, was an instant demand to do away with the Electoral College, which would allow NYC, LA and a few other cities to decide for the entire country every four years. When the GOP led House and Senate began introducing bills (that failed until recently) which would repeal the ACA, especially after the election which gave the GOP the House, Senate and White House, the screaming was intense that they “weren’t allowed” to do it.

Tuesday’s election in Alabama is rife with corruption, such as a city with barely 1000 people seeing 26,000 votes cast, yet any attempt to get the fraud out, and allow the people of Alabama to elect who they want is called “voter suppression” or “denying the voters who they wanted.” Videos are all over social media where people admit they came from out of state to vote, but as the left wants Jones, they scream that it’s over, get over it, let them have what they stole.

Move to Net Neutrality, which is NOT going to be the FCC doing anything than taking the reigns off, and they are already emailing out “the FCC voted, let’s overrule it.” That’s the exact subject of one I just received, blatantly saying “let’s change what they did legally to what we want.” I’ve said it many times, but I’m likely nowhere near done as people don’t listen when the message isn’t “here’s everything you want” so I’ll keep saying it. The internet was around before 2015 and no ISP banned sites or gouged on price based on what sites a customer visited, at least not in the U.S. What didn’t happen though, was what we’re seeing on sites like Twitter or Facebook, where conservatives are targeted and “shadow banned” or outright banned from the site, because liberals report them for “hate speech” while ignoring people actively calling for assaults and worse. With the regulations in place, Twitter is free to stop me saying I’m pro-life because some snowflake decides that’s “a violation of their first amendment rights” or some other idiocy. With the regulations gone, the FCC is not going to just say “good luck” and leave, but rather will do what they were created for, actually working to police censorship and abuse, which comes almost completely from the left side of the aisle.

But of course, any deviation from the liberal mantra is cause for your death. I have been with my company for 5 years, and in that time I’ve learned one thing, I don’t discuss much at all at work. I’m fairly sure that 99% of those I work with voted against President Trump, and are in complete agreement with all that the DNC says, as I’ve been hearing nothing but “now they’ll charge you more to use Netflix” and the like. Only one person has spoken in defense of the decision to shrink the government, and he was all but laughed out of the building. So, I’ll say it one more time before I end, ending “net neutrality” is NOT going to mean that your bill will be 10 times higher because you want to watch Netflix, you will not be censored for being a non-white non-male. This is not the end of the world, we had internet for years before this, now we’re just going back to it, which will be a good thing!

The not so new attitude about everything

It’s been over a year since millions of people collectively demanded that America not follow the Constitution, and just hand the Presidency to the person they wanted. When that didn’t happen, we began to see a massive uptick in acts of violence and charges of bigotry, racism, sexism, and other name-calling, in an effort to get their way. Sadly, we saw a prime example of what they’re willing to do to get their way just days ago, when, funded by the mega rich Democrat donors, Doug Jones won the Alabama senate seat. Even before Tuesday, many were already talking about voter fraud, as there was a lot of chatter about “volunteers” being brought in from out of state, yet there is little chance to prove it after a court order requiring digital records to be kept was stayed, allowing those records to be destroyed. This, of course, is just more that is being used to argue for voter fraud as the left screams about their “victory.”

From net neutrality, sexual harassment/assault claims, health care, and elections, we’ve seen mountains of proof that the left is no longer content to simply call those who don’t agree with them names, they are now actively working to force the world to do as they want, and damn anyone who dares suggest that as they’re the minority, they should not get to demand that. What is being ignored, or worse, actively censored, is what we need to discuss, that the left is stealing elections, forcing government bloat, and more. Two simple items that are happening in DC will show this, with a very simple argument.

The ACA mandate repeal, part of the tax bill recently passed, is being heralded as Republicans “taking away healthcare” while others wail that “millions will die” or that “Republicans want the poor to die.” And of course the standard “this is a tax cut for the rich” argument. But none of those are true, as always. If I had a product that I required you to purchase, that would be wrong, which is what the ACA did. The government created “health care plans” that the government then sold, and required all American citizens to purchase, from them. Aside from the lies that I could keep my plan or Dr. if I liked them (I did, and I didn’t get to keep them,) or the fact that I personally know someone who was told they were not eligible for a waiver, and the only Dr. who would take them on an ACA plan was 100 MILES AWAY, the ACA was and always will be a horrible thing. Why else do you think we “had to pass it to find out what’s in it?” Well, the Republicans finally got together and passed the tax cut, and included a repeal of the ACA mandate. Note, they are NOT repealing the ACA, as much as many people want them to, they simply removed the mandate, meaning if you choose not to have health insurance, you are no longer fined (taxed.) I pointed this out in many social media threads only to be told I’m “ignorant of the facts.” Many of these threads I simply said “hey, you’re pro-choice, so you should be happy I get to choose,” only to be blocked or insulted, or in some cases, threatened. But one did seem intelligent, so I posted a screenshot of the actual verbiage, showing it’s only the mandate being repealed, and just like that, the intelligent argument died and I was a “horrible racist bigot who wants millions to die just to give the rich a tax cut.” And people wonder why I weep for the future.

Net “neutrality:” Just over two years ago, the FCC implemented a group of regulations to ensure “net neutrality,” and now that they are considering undoing that, the world is losing it’s collective mind of the “end of freedom.” I don’t even try to argue in those threads, as no one there will even tolerate my “ignorance” when I point out that there is no way for “all data to be equal” and that regulations increase costs, and thus, what we pay for a product. Simply put though, why should all data be equal? Not all sites are of equal importance, or take as much resources to display. Let’s take a few for example, Netflix/Hulu, e-mail, Twitter, and any software used by schools. Netflix/Hulu and other video streaming services take MUCH more bandwidth as they are transmitting much more data, while e-mail and Twitter require FAR LESS, so you don’t want those to be equal, as that means slowing down the bigger services, not speeding up the little ones. If you look at the last one, when compared to video streaming, e-mail, or social media, you can easily argue they are more important than entertainment. Why do you want what your child’s school (or yours if you are in college) to be equal to entertainment? I don’t, I want the options that require high bandwidth to get it, and those that don’t to get what they need.

Of course the argument always returns to “you just want to limit people,” which I don’t. We had health insurance before 2012, what happened was that many plans were deemed “bad” so they went away, and of course, costs went up. We heard screaming of “they want people to die” just as we always hear about “forcing women into back alley abortions” when any attempt is made to remove funding for planned parenthood. This is no different, we had internet before 2015, and honestly it was better than before net neutrality, as Netflix, YouTube, Hulu and so on could be prioritized, not forced to be equal to all other items. No ISP is going to decide they don’t like Netflix and block it, as they will lose customers right and left and go out of business. ISP’s will also not decide that you must pay $100 for a certain website, as the same will happen. Regulations, while not always bad, do cause costs to go up, so removing them isn’t always the death blow that is predicted.

Finally the “tax cut for the rich” argument, as it’s really it’s own thing. Sarah Sanders, who is either adored or despised, dropped the mic on the press corps when asked about this by talking about 10 reporters who always go out for drinks together, and pay based on their income, until the bartender gives them a cut in prices, based on what they pay. The top payers get the biggest cut, monetarily, and those who pay little or nothing, get less or nothing, because X% of a small number is a small number, and X% of nothing is nothing. So, tired of being vilified, those paying the most decide to drink at home, and suddenly, the remaining people can’t cover the bill at all. The tax cuts being passed (hopefully) will result in people like Bill Gates, who pay MASSIVE taxes, to see a larger savings when it comes to dollars and cents, because they pay more, as opposed to me, because I don’t pay what they do. The argument is flawed because other than socialism, there is not a way to pass tax cuts and exclude “the rich,” although ironically the Democrats harping on the “rich” getting more are themselves in the bracket to benefit most, although many also don’t pay their taxes. The last time this happened, I made one comment, and of course was castigated horribly for my ignorance, but I’ll say it again here. When you do your taxes the first time after the tax cuts are passed, if you don’t pay less, tell me, and I’ll happily change my mind and join you in demanding the cuts be reversed. You won’t see a single person who takes the challenge win, as they will see their taxes go down, unless of course they pay nothing, because of course 100% of zero is zero, but I tend to ignore them on any tax argument on principle.

So, to summarize, no millions upon millions will not die because I am no longer forced to pay for insurance I can’t even use. No, Verizon will not suddenly block all entertainment sites unless you pay $1000 more a month, and no, the tax cuts are not just for the rich. The Democrats depend on hyperbole and media frenzy, because simply put, their arguments are flawed and false, and they can’t stand people not obeying them.

All for me, none for you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

An open letter to Congress and the Supreme Court

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

Dear Sir/Ma’am,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this the beginning of the end?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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