“Believe women” is the new “obey me”

We’ve heard nothing else for weeks, just “believe women” from liberal after liberal, but when you bring up the woman who, 20 or so years ago, Cory Booker admitted groping, while drunk, after she pushed him away, or Bill Clinton, or Weinstein, you’re shouted down. Why must women who accuse some men “just be believed” while others could create time travel and show you the assault, and they would be silenced? The answer is, sadly, very simple, power and control.

The Democrats held power for so long, they firmly believe it’s now their right to control the country. They call tax cuts “theft of public resources,” they call border security racist, and they have nothing but lies and hate to back them up. Ford, through the entire hearing, gave no details, while everyone she said was there has no recollection of the party even happening, the house is even in question due to the layout being wrong, but we “just have to believe her.”

After the testimony, they cried and wailed about “needing” another FBI investigation, and had their sycophants threaten a Senator in an elevator until he agreed with them, but now that the FBI has stated they cannot find ANYTHING to corroborate Ford’s story, it was “rushed” or “rigged” or “too fast” or “too limited.” Every stall tactic, every accusation, every demand for obedience is just another step in their war to destroy the Constitution. They decry partisanship while praising a woman so partisan she should be the face of the DNC who has been on the court almost longer than I’ve been alive!

The answer is very simple, and like 1982, we are likely to see a paradigm shift in American politics. Reagan, despite the DNC starting the day he was elected to find something, anything, to impeach him for, he galvanized a country, put people he needed in Congress, won re-election by landslide, and went on to preside over an economy that we may see finally bested, and the DNC can’t stand that their politics of division, racism, sexism, and hate, aren’t able to just give them power back.

So, will you stand with the people demanding you bow to them and submit fully, or will you stand as a citizen and refuse to be their pawn? The people seen “protesting” are the same every time, they pay for large crowds, smiling when celebrities join them, but it’s still less than 1% of most city populations, let alone a state or the country. They crow over their numbers, and demand “see, so many want this, you must” while ignoring that real people can’t just drop everything and go to DC to protest for days on end. Make no mistake, the DNC hates anyone who doesn’t obey them, and will work, until kicked out of office, to crush those people under their boot, will you bow for them or stand freely?

The danger of setting a precedent without thought

The recent confirmation hearings and Senate testimony from Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford prove, once again, that the U.S. Congress needs a large dose of common sense re-introduced. The Democrats, with their attack dog protesters, are quickly trying to set a precedent that mere allegations, with or without proof, are enough to fully convict someone, while at the same time fighting against that very situation for Rep. Keith Ellison, who is accused of abusing his ex-girlfriend in MN. The differences in these situations couldn’t be more stark, as Ellison’s ex has a police report, hospital reports, and more, but because she cannot provide video proof that he beat her, Ellison is all but exhonerated and apologized to, while Kavanaugh has multiple people, named as witnesses by Dr. Ford, who refute her story and support him, but is still ordered to step down from the nomination, and just give in.

The U.S. Justice system, formed after watching for generations as Kings and Queens just demanded someone be imprisoned or killed, was founded on the presumption of innocence, or “Innocent until Proven Guilty,” which ensures that you can’t just accuse someone and ruin their lives, although that happens more often today than previous generations, as we seem to hear at least a few stories a year about man released from prison after the woman who accused him of rape/sexual assault, or some other heinous crime, is found to have lied, but even after release little changes and his life is still in ruins.

So the question is how do we stop this trend, and the answer is both very simple and very complicated. Matt Damon, who just portrayed Kavanaugh as a man not fit to sweep floors, once stated that today, due to social media, if someone accused him of something he did not do, especially near a movie release, he would “go scorched earth” and would spend “$10,000,000 and ten years in court” to defend himself, yet he demands Kavanaugh just give in and let the liberals win, because he wants a liberal/socialist on the bench.

In the short term we cannot give in when fought against, and must force the light of day to expose the people who demand that just being accused is enough, but we also must fight to ensure those on the liberal side of the fence, who are credibly accused of something, or in the case of Cory Booker, who admit it in print, are held to their own standards. Ellison, until proven guilty, is presumed innocent, yes, but the current DNC stand is that “credible accusations” mean you must step down and allow the investigation to finish, so Ellison should resign from the House and withdraw from the race in MN for AG. Booker, who has admitted he groped a girl in the 90’s, after she pushed him away, should resign from office and never run again.

Only when liberals are forcibly held to their own standards will we finally see their true “rules are for you, not me” attitude come out. The people who embraced “all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others” as something to work toward will fight you tooth and nail to stop you enforcing the laws they feel they are above, but as long as they’re fighting that, they’re exposing their disdain for the very country they serve, and give you more and more evidence and ammunition to use against them to free the country from the grip of would be tyrants.

To destroy a nation

We’ve heard for over 20 years how we “must believe” this or that person when they bring forth an accusation, only to then hear “they’re lying, there can be no doubt” about others. Look to Justice Clarence Thomas, accused by a very liberal activist, of horrible things, yet it was always just Anita Hill’s word against his, and we heard no end of “how can you demonize a woman who has been traumatized and assaulted” as if her merely saying something made it undeniable fact, but then when Paula Jones or Juanita Broaderick accused Bill Clinton of RAPE, they were dismissed as liars from the start, told to basically produce a time machine to go back and view the event live or admit they were lying, and forced into obscurity. Why “must” those accusing non-liberals “just be believed” while those accusing liberals, such as a woman who has copies of Police Reports regarding being assaulted more than once by Keith Ellison, be ignored unless they can actually force you to witness the assault as it happens?

Despite the media prevaricating endlessly about how horrible this or that person is for their “obvious guilt” or how horrible this or that person is for “obviously lying to tarnish a great leader” we see it’s all about power. When not in control, the Democrats resort to lies and more to stall until they can take power back. We’ve seen it since 2014 when the Republicans took the majority and again in 2016 when they added to the majority in both houses, and also won the White House. Almost within hours of Donald Trump being declared the winner, we had calls to “just do away with” the Electoral College, threats on electors, and calls to impeach before he was even sworn in! Prominent liberals tearfully called for Americans to “stand up and demand justice” or to “protect our democracy” by demanding the Constitution be violated.

When they couldn’t force their will on the country, we then had accusation after accusation, akin to throwing pasta against the wall and hoping it would stick. First it was Russia, then it was Stormy Daniels, then it was racism, then it was sexism, then it was not caring about the people of Puerto Rico, and it’s once again Russia. At this point, I expect the President to make all classified information public, proving Hillary and the other Democrats are all guilty, only to hear liberals cry over “using classified information to target Democrats” and ignoring the actual guilt. How much longer before we actually hear “Do not talk about anything done that isn’t exactly legal, we’re doing it for the greater good, but if they do it, they must be destroyed.” How long before “I DON’T CARE WHAT LAWS ARE BROKEN, I AM YOUR GOD YOU PEASANTS, OBEY ME OR DIE?”

We are, as so many say, at a crossroads, it’s only what our choices are that differ from the media’s description. We have the choice to retake our government, exercising the power given to We The People 230 years ago, or we can totally surrender and become slaves to an Orwellian state, or we die fighting the second path.

Until Congress is forced to admit we are their boss and they cannot order us to give up anything and everything they don’t want us having, we will have no peace or justice in this country. Visit us HERE or on Twitter as @COSProjectTX and @COSAction to join the push for an Article V Convention to impose term limits on Congress, require fiscal responsibility and require the Constitution only ever be “interpreted” as it is written.

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.

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.

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.

Roy, Reciprocity and Rosie

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

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


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


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


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

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

All for me, none for you

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

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

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

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

An open letter to Congress and the Supreme Court

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

Dear Sir/Ma’am,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this the beginning of the end?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 1st Amendment for liberals (dummies)

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

The full text reads as follow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smokey

An open letter to Kathy Griffin and Lisa Bloom

Ladies,

For a moment, think about the children in your lives, and how they would react to seeing a celebrity, staring into the camera with a serious expression, only to slowly raise, what appears to be, the severed head of their father, or mother, or aunt, or uncle. This, to the letter, is what Barron Trump saw when Ms. Griffin did exactly that earlier this week. Leaving aside that it’s a crime to threaten someone’s life, and in the case of a U.S. President, that crime is investigated by the Secret Service, you traumatized a child, and now you’re the victim? You didn’t mock or criticize the President, Kathy, you actively worked to depict a scene that no one should plan for anyone.

Five years ago, however, someone did poke a little fun at the President, and CNN was instrumental in not only that person losing his job, but far more. You see, the Missouri State Fair and Rodeo has a running gag they like to use, where one of their clowns wears a mask to look like a President, normally a former President, but the only mask they could find was an Obama mask. Naturally, someone was “sickened” by this, so they posted their outrage, and five years later, there is a man who McDonalds refused to hire because of the controversy. Ms. Bloom, will you be taking his case on? It would have to be Pro Bono of course, but he’s being bullied by an entire state, just for mocking the President. Will you demand CNN work to get him restored to his former life, and pay his salary until then? After all, he’s been bullied by one of the largest news organizations on the planet for mocking the President.

At this point, I’m sure there’s at least one person gearing up for a caps lock ridden tirade about how I just don’t understand comedy, and how the rodeo clown was so much worse than the mock beheading, well, educate me. Tell me how a rodeo clown wearing a mask and taunting a bull, and this is a highly skilled man at avoiding said animal, meaning all that happened was a man in an obvious mask running around for a while, is worse than someone staring coldly into a camera while slowing raising the apparent bloody and severed head of someone? I don’t remember anything about the Obama girls screaming when they saw the skit, although it’s doubtful two girls from Illinois, who live in DC at the time, would even know the MO state fair was happening, while Barrow Trump lives in either NY or DC, very news oriented towns, and this was on a major TV channel, viewed nationally!

Now, I will admit I hold little hope that a woman who feels mock decapitation is not only acceptable, but also a form of humor, or an attorney who takes that person as a client and then accuses the people who are having to comfort an eleven year old child who saw that of being bullies, but I can hope that at least some part of you will realize that you were completely in the wrong, Kathy, you need to apologize for real, not just to slow the Twitter storm aimed at you, and you Ms Bloom should be encouraging both of those actions. I guess time will tell as to how well the plan of defending someone who mocks the death of a parent, and that parent’s child sees it, and calling that family bullies goes, won’t we?

When 140 characters isn’t enough

So, I got into a twitter back and forth about the EPA earlier. To be clear, I am not supporting the destruction of the EPA, then doing nothing, rather, destroy what’s in place and build what we truly need. I cite one example, Alaska, for this premise. You see, it’s not just cold, but cold to the point of freezing to death in a matter of hours, in the winter there. What this means is that liquid or gas fuels freeze and become useless at those temperatures, leaving you with solid fuels. Coal is incredibly expensive for homes, as you’d use bags of the stuff in a night, so most people there burn wood, seeing as, you know, you just cut down trees, which Alaska has several of. Well, the EPA decided burning wood was ruining the air, and told Alaska residents to stop. Naturally, these folks chose staying alive over dying, and next the EPA fined them. Yes, the EPA fined Alaskan citizens for daring to choose to not die of hypothermia.

Well, this brings up the point of my conversation, the Paris Agreement and Kyoto Accords. Both of these target the US harshly, and in some cases, only. Tokyo and Bejing for example, have such bad air, that people have to wear a mask to go outside, but the U.S. was targeted with harsher restrictions. If you look at this list you’ll see another amazing thing, the U.S. isn’t on the list! When Macedonia makes the list but the U.S. doesn’t, that tells me we aren’t the horrible monster polluter the world is screaming that we are. Yes, pollution is bad, and yes, it should be addressed, but in a way that doesn’t look at a country’s GDP and target them over worse polluters, not in a way that tells people they fuel they have is bad and they’ll be fined, but ignores that fuel is the only option other than death.

We’ve been told for eight years that the U.S. is the most horrible country ever, that we’re racists for not blindly praising Obama, that we’re sexists for not praising the bitter diatribes of “feminists” calling for men to be killed, or we’re “homophobic” for suggesting that at a basic, biological level, homosexuality isn’t normal, simply because two men or two women cannot, on their own, create a child. I hold a degree in history, have heavily studied political science, and am certified to teach high school Social Studies (Government, Economics, History, Geography, etc) so I feel I know a thing or two about politics and such. In this instance, I argue that a government office, charged with protecting the environment, for the good of the people in the country that pays them, to tell citizens that they will be fined for using the only fuel that works, so they you know, don’t die over night, should be demolished and replaced. Much like the joke in Day After Tomorrow, when loading up books to burn to stay warm “Hey guys, there’s a whole section on tax law we can burn,” indicating a disdain for the IRS, any government agency that does not put the lives of U.S. citizens at the forefront of their thoughts when acting, should not be in place.

Yes, I want clean air and water, as I enjoy living and not having to stay inside, but I also want a government to be responsible and intelligent in how this is achieved. De Blasio saying that he’ll do all he can to ensure NYC stays compliant with the Paris Agreements is a political play, his way of saying “While Trump destroys the environment, I’m amazing and wonderful since I’m doing what he isn’t.” This is the crux of the matter, growing up and actually thinking, rather than just playing it up for the media. The Mayor of NYC should care more than my small town TX mayor about pollution, because it’s worse there, but if the Paris Agreement is the perfect fix, why is it that the list above isn’t the order in which countries are told to act? If the Kyoto Accords were so amazing, why did it focus so much on how much money the U.S. would end up paying out? It all comes back to attitudes and egos, no politician so far, who has presented any solution for air/water quality has done so for any reason other than to look good on the world stage. Now, with Trump in office, the world has decided his policy of America First is evil, because he’s actually putting America first, and not their countries. He’s calling on them to do the same thing though, to pay their NATO agreed amounts, which will help defend them, and to make their own countries better, he’s just not going to continue the policy of apologizing for America. His move on the EPA is the first step, but trust me, he’s not going to remove the EPA, then just say “Good luck staying alive now America,” there will be something that comes after, he’s just not saying what it will be, which is driving the media mad, because they can’t complain endlessly about his plans, but hey, lets keep focusing on non-existent collusion with Russia (there is absolutely no evidence of anything,) let’s ignore the DNC very likely having a man killed, and lets harp on minor things, rather than doing what Obama’s spokespeople said for 8 years “the election is over, it’s time we come together and work together for a better future.”

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

It seems that, as unlikely as I would have said it was, Trump Derangement Syndrome is so much worse than Bush Derangement Syndrome as to make 2001 to 2009 look like the left loved life and Bush was the second coming of any deity you can imagine. President Donald Trump has, in the last 4 months or so, fulfilled a good number of his promises, and has been insulted and accused of everything up to and including treason for it.

Looking at this administrations first days, there are three items that pop into my mind as to the height of TDS, the temporary halt on issuing Visas, the wall, and the latest accusation, that President Trump shared “highly classified” information with “the Russians.”

Starting with the immigration issue, this is not a “muslim ban,” or is it a “ban” of any kind, rather, it’s a temporary freeze on any immigration from a handful of countries where terrorist attacks are so high, that we cannot currently weed out anyone bent on hurting Americans should they pose as a refugee. We’ve heard, for years now, that the refugees are women and children, but if you look at France, the Netherlands, Germany and any other European country taking refugees as fast as they show up, you see a huge difference, the “refugees” are almost all men between 18 and 45, the perfect age to be used as troops. Where are the “women and children who just want to escape a horrible situation?” The answer is simple, they’re still there, left behind by those who already have them subjugated, and wouldn’t let them go no matter what. This leads to one end, the stories we see coming out of Europe daily, rape epidemics, attacks on people who aren’t muslim, entire swaths of European cities declared muslim only zones, and more. The latest news from France, the election of Macron as President, will only spell the end of our once greatest ally, France will fall.

Keeping with immigration as a topic, President Trump also promised to build a wall on the US/Mexican border, and was immediately attacked as being racist. For this to be true, though, it would have to mean that no other race has or will enter the U.S. illegally via the Mexican border and we already know that a great number of middle eastern men have done just that. Add to this the demands from Mexican citizens in the south of that country for a wall to block illegal immigration from Guatemala, and the question I’ve asked for years is only made more poignant, why is the U.S. the only country on the planet that is racist for wanting our immigration laws to be enforced? U.S. citizens going to Mexico on vacation (meaning to spend a good deal of money) are harassed and worse on a daily basis. One man was in the wrong lane and begged to be allowed to turn around as he tried to explain he could not legally cross the border into Mexico, but was made to do so and jailed immediately, while a woman was jailed over simple OTC medication, which she was offered back at her release. It’s abundantly clear that Mexico not only hates the U.S. for our prosperity, but also covets that very thing, and is doing all they can to send as many citizens north as possible, or they were until January when that number started to drop, simply due to the possibility of a wall. Cute commercials of a man getting building materials to make a door in the wall (destruction of federal property) or lying about the heritage of a man responsible for starting a major U.S. business (Anheiser Busch,) we need to stop the hype and screaming, and go back to where we were only 40 years ago, when our border laws were enforced and our people were so much safer.

Finally, the recent story about President Trump sharing “highly classified” information with “the Russians.” Just a few years ago, Barack Obama told Putin “I’ll have a lot more leeway after the election,” such an ambiguous statement that we never found out what leeway he gained, but when President Trump does what he is legally allowed to do, the world goes insane. The Washington Post has named only one source, and that person has called them liars for their story, but no one seems to care. WaPo runs with a story based on anonymous sources, the three men in the room all deny the story has any truth to it, but no one cares. President Trump has said on more than one occasion, that we need to work with Russia on many things, and stopping the spread of terror groups is something that everyone should agree on, but the left screams about “Russian collusion” and “hacking” as if that makes it true. A Lt. General who wrote the book on standing up to civilian leadership, who knows how to stand up for his own worth, has stated the WaPo story is false, and the media just twists his words to say “he’s saying this tiny bit is false, so he must mean the rest is true.” When someone says “it did not happen” that means “it” as in the whole thing!

The solution to this entire mess is both simple and so complex that I wonder if we’ll ever see it even attempted. The media needs to find the medium between 2009 to 2017, where they praised Obama as the world’s only hope, and now, where they vilify President Trump as someone Satan would run in fear from, and just report fairly and honestly. The left needs to grow up and do what they demanded the right do for 8 years, accept the loss from November. Conservatives have been targeted by the IRS under Obama, told to go to the “back of the bus” by his officials, and screamed at for being racist for everything said about wanting criminals to be punished for assaulting Police officers and the like. Much like 2009, the election from the previous year is over, Hillary is not President, and no amount of screaming will change that. For eight years, liberals have demanded “tolerance” from conservatives, so it’s time to practice what you preach. If a student group invites a speaker you don’t agree with to speak to them, you do not have any right to assault them or damage school property in response. More than one hundred people are learning that due to their actions on Inauguration Day, as they destroyed property and committed assault, and are now being charged with those crimes. Only when the people who resort to these methods are held accountable for their actions, and no screaming of “I have a right to protest” or “you’re censoring me” stops the arrest for the crime committed, will we even have a chance of moving in the right direction.

Society at the tipping point

Anyone who has worked in any form of retail or a service industry knows that you’re going to deal with the worst of people on an almost daily basis. From the people demanding you check the back even after you show them the “back” door is an exit, to people demanding to see the manager after an unreasonable request isn’t instantly granted, but there’s a common thread, selfishness. Growing up in the 1980’s, I don’t remember a single instance of someone screaming at a cashier over a wrong price, an expired coupon, or anything we’re seeing today, but now it’s almost so common place it’s expected. Granted, the image here is meant as a joke, as I really doubt a manager would fire a barista for not being able to put ice at the bottom of any liquid, but it’s not far off from some of the stories below it. The mindset of “instant payday” has become so pervasive though that companies are so scared of a lawsuit, they often jump to truly idiotic means to avoid it. The oddity about it though, is that it’s virtually all from one “side of the aisle,” in the “I’m going to sue” crowd. Recently, both Wendy’s and Whataburger in DFW, TX, have seen Police Officers refused service simply because they are Police Officers, and a Chili’s manager take a meal in a to go box from a man on Veteran’s day because he was told by another diner the man wasn’t a real veteran. In all cases, the company apologized (in the Chili’s case, the Pentagon called Chili’s to confirm the man’s status, yet the manager was just transferred,) but none of those three sued. Yes, social media lit up and all three companies had to move quickly to avoid a massive boycott, but that was it. Yet, when Under Armor not only refused to lash out at the new President’s administration, but was complimentary, those “on the left” acted as if he’d just killed their dog, and all but called for his execution. Ironically, when Nordstrom pulled all products in Ivanka Trump’s line, those very products because so popular they’re selling like made, and Nordstrom is seeing their sales go down, even if a small amount. Target is also seeing this, after they announced they would jump on the “use whichever restroom you want to” bandwagon, and now are cancelling expansion plans due to sales being down due to a boycott.

This is seen in other areas as well. Another social media meme about a lifeguard saving a toddler’s life, only for the Mother to berate the lifeguard and refuse to cooperate with the manager who, by law, has paperwork to fill out. Most of the comments state she knows she’d likely be reported to C.P.S. or otherwise proven to be at the very least, inattentive, and she doesn’t want that, but why berate the person who literally just saved your child’s life? The answer, again, is simply that people are so assured of their own superiority, that anything they don’t personally want done is obviously wrong and should be shunned. I can guarantee that had the child not been saved in time, not at all, or just come up crying, the lifeguard would be attacked for “not doing their job” or some such. We’re in a can’t win situation, and there’s very little chance of it changing any time soon.

A final example of this mindset is an MMA Fighter who was sued by a Ring Girl before the fight reported on, and can clearly be seen in the video almost running from the one in the ring this time. He is literally grabbed and pulled over, only to cross his hands and drop his head due to fear of any action he takes being seen as harassment of any kind. Yet, if he were to sue the organizers for mental trauma, or claim a disability, he’d be laughed at as “men cannot be victimized.” Sadly, it likely will take a lawsuit from a man like this fighter, claiming they are so afraid of being sued for simply making any physical contact with the ring girls that they cannot fight at all, and suing for the disability pay and so on, for the world to begin to realize that we’re now in a world where discrimination is a common issue, and done by those who scream that they’re discriminated against.



Moving forward, although still on this topic in a way, is the current topic screamed by “feminists” the world over, that being “rape culture.” We’ve seen women assert that a man “raped” them by looking at her, or in his mind, and try to sue, although so far, none of that has gone anywhere, but now we have the concept of reverse rape, that being when a woman wants to have sex with a man, but he says no. You didn’t misread that, it’s now apparently “rape” to refuse sex. This is the point where men are told to “shut up and do what we say to, and also, don’t complain when by doing what we tell you to, we later claim that you forced your way on us after we decide we didn’t really want what we said we wanted.” This will happen, as a woman will tell some man she’ll cry rape if he doesn’t sleep with her, then at a later point, she’ll still cry rape and ruin his life. Sadly, you could have video of her telling him “I’ll say you raped me” and some judge will rule you had no right to record her, and it will still be game over for the guy who was hamstrung from the off.


This is the point where we either slam on the brakes and demand logic and adult behavior be the norm again, not only from society, but from those in power. We must tell the judges we don’t want them doing whatever they want and changing laws here and there when they feel they should, we just want them to rule based on the law of the land as it’s written. We need to tell Congress we don’t want to be lectured about how racist or sexist we are because we oppose a bill we haven’t been allowed to read, or that we must allow a bill to be passed before we can read it. And finally, we must tell the President that we want someone who will work for Americans’ interests, not any other country. Yes, we have allies and we must stand beside them, but that never requires that the US economy be sacrificed, or American jobs be sent over seas just to prop up a foreign country. We are the only country today being ordered around by the U.N. while they happily take our money, mostly because the other member states fall in line, or are exempted from what they demand the U.S. do. It’s time to tell the U.N. we will not go along any more, and we will also not pay or house them. Once the world sees we’re embracing their philosophy of take care of home first, maybe, just maybe, they’ll wake up. The same may happen when “feminists” realize that calling every little thing that slightly irks them rape is going to land them in hot water, or threatening to sue no longer gets you free crap, maybe we’ll see people starting to act like adults again, but I’m not holding my breath.