England, 1932, Aldous Huxley’s book, Brave New World, was first published, showing the world a future where freedom was a drug induced daydream, and humans little more than a science experiment. Engineered in laboratories, each caste was perfectly created for the job they would hold in society, from the Alphas who ran the offices and reported only to Controllers, to the Beta, Gamma and Epsilon castes, who never questioned why their lot in life was merely to serve those above them. In a reverse of Hitler’s dream of eugenics, humans were no longer terminated for defects, rather defects were carefully controlled, so as to keep the lower castes in their place. The traditional family unit demonized so far that the words Mother and Father were tantamount to the worst swear words known to mankind. After being decanted, the children were subjected to social conditioning to ensure they would not buck the system. Toddlers were shown beautiful flowers or colorful books, only to be shocked when they reached for them, reinforcing the idea that these things were evil and to be shunned. From the earliest age possible, lessons would be spoken to them as they slept, enforcing the idea that they loved their caste, that they would be miserable in a higher, or any other, caste, so as to ensure they would never try to break the mold, resulting in a world where, despite the tyrannical rule, people truly believed they were free, and were happy. Savages existed still, however, on reservations, where men and women would have children the traditional way, raising them as a family, teaching them morality and values from their religions, only to be shunned by the civilized people. Scotland, 1945, the second World War would end this year, and Animal Farm would show a vision from Orwell, of what might have been had the Axis powers not fallen. Farm animals, left by the farmer to fend for themselves, form a society and begin to take on roles they had never held before. At first, all worked, all were fed equally, all were housed and allowed to live equally, but it would not last. The pigs, representing the ruling elite, would soon come to author more and more rules, which on paper would hold all animals equal, but as seen in socialist and communist countries time and time again, they would not feel obligated to follow their own rules. By the end, the one rule stated All Animals are Equal, Some Animals are More Equal than Others, with the pigs ultimately facing the farmers on their return, both stunned, while the other animals languished and died under the tyrant rule of the pigs who took control in the vacuum. Scotland, 1949, George Orwell, in failing health, finished and published 1984, another cautionary tale, but on the opposite end of the spectrum. Rather than people controlled by drugs and endless distractions, Orwell’s future saw them controlled by a brutal tyrant regime. Slogans like War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, would reinforce that mankind was always meant to serve the powerful, either by choice or by subjugation. Children encouraged to inform on family if they broke even the slightest rule, police free to do as they pleased, regardless of any law or infraction, government officials free from all laws they passed to control the masses. Brutal rule to ensure society, and the status quo, continued without change, without those in power ever having to fear they would lose their power. Prior to any of these works being published, 1929 saw the crash of Wall Street, and the beginning of a depression the world had not seen the likes of. Having just taken office, Herbert Hoover would watch as men who had fought in World War I, and now were out of work only a short time later, would set up tent cities, or Hoovervilles, Americans left their homes to go west seeking work, some finding pay of a penny or less for a task, while their families held together as best they could. Movies such as The Grapes of Wrath showing children begging total strangers for even a spoonful of their evening meal, would tattoo on the mind and consciousness of Americans just how bad things were, and could be again without care being taken. 1933 saw the inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and would herald a change in the United States, moving toward the end of the days of hunger. Over the course of his first year in office, FDR would oversee the creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Civil Works Administration, banking regulation changes, and ultimately, the change in direction which would have the U.S. start back to where she was just after World War I. Men would find work paying far more than any job in the last 4 years, industry would start to return and revitalize cities, families no longer worried that they would not eat for more than a day, but at what cost. The expansion of government in that year saw control move to a level never seen in the U.S. before. Government, either Federal or State, would employ more people than ever before, some given menial tasks just to have a job, while others would provide services badly needed, such as building roads, or repairing other infrastructure. Just two years later, 1935 would witness the penultimate rise to power of Adolf Hitler in Germany, starting with Universal Firearms Registration. His regime would boast that health care was available to more people than ever before, habits like smoking were now illegal, education was growing, and towns were safer for his work. The world, having only two decades earlier fought a bloody war, watched as they saw the country they’d been fighting began to rally back, not seeing all of the signs that war would be at their door again very soon. Under FDR, the U.S. trundled along, happily watching as men went back to work, industries thought gone once again started to boom and, ultimately, they believed the world was on a path to peace and prosperity. The experiment with Prohibition showed the Government that the common man would not be overtly controlled so easily, but this showed them not only that they couldn’t seize total control, but rather that control needed to be stealthy and subtle to work. By 1939, Germany had left the League of Nations, treaties had been broken, new treaties signed, and on September 1, 1939, Germany invades Poland, their path through Belgium drawing Great Britain into the war. Roosevelt, knowing the American people were still very close to a bloody war, remained an isolationist, watching as Europe and Asia descended into the hell that is open warfare. By 1940, Roosevelt would send war goods to Britain, but remained steadfast in his stance that America would not fight in this war, holding that position until December 7, 1941, when Japan would attack Pearl Harbor, resulting in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and World War 2 officially starting for the United States. June 1944 saw the invasion of France on D-Day, with Utah and Omaha beaches the focal point of the world’s attention, and 1945 would see the end of fighting in Europe, with France liberated, and Germany once again, sanctioned for their part in a world war. Post War Europe, unlike after World War I, saw Germany divided into two nations, East Germany ruled by the Soviet Union, and West Germany, a mostly free state under mostly self rule, with the United Nations, the replacement for the League of Nations, watching both new nations very closely. Hitler, having worked as hard as he did to eliminate Europeans of Jewish descent, also saw something the world had not seen in some time, the Nation of Israel officially recognized in 1948, something which would cause strife for decades. The 1950’s saw the Korean War escalate, the 1960’s and early 1970’s the Vietnam Conflict, the 1980’s Grenada, the 1990’s Desert Storm, in 2001 the destruction of the World Trade Center would see war return to the Middle East, where it would continue to the current day as of this writing. Another change, though, was society at home during the 1950’s and 1960’s. During World War I, women took on new roles while men were drafted or volunteered for the Military, just as in World War II, only to return home to their families, or to other careers, when the war ended and the returning men re-entered the work force. The change, would begin here. Children born too early for World War II and some too late for Korea’s draft, were now able to watch in more detail, starting with photos in newspapers and magazines, then on Television in the latter part of the 1950’s and again in the 1960’s with Vietnam. War had been an abstract, only those who had a loved one return in a pine box, or grievously injured, knowing the true cost so many paid. December of 1955, in Montgomery Alabama, saw a woman refuse to move seats on a bus, because a white passenger wanted her seat. The powder keg of equal rights had been lit, by a woman who simply was tired of giving in. Americans watched as laws proclaiming separate but equal were proven lies, as men and women who, solely based on skin color, were seen as second class citizens, said enough was enough, and soon, the movement would shake the country’s idea of equality to it’s core. From Governor Wallace having to be moved by Federalized National Guardsmen, to allow a young black woman to enter a school, to protests led by the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior, to riots and protests resulting in use of force far beyond what had been seen before, Americans once again began to see the world in a new light. Movements for equality, for peace when a tyrant rises, for better treatment of certain people, are not new to the world, just as they weren’t new in the 1950’s and 1960’s. What was new in that time, was the media. Radio was still not an old device in this era, but it was dominated by people taught to just read the news, not to comment and theorize. The Who, What, When and Where, were all people got, the Why was for each listener to think on as an individual. Hollywood had, for the most part, been the place of fantasy, of spaghetti westerns, and people were happy as they could escape for a time without being preached to about this cause of that, but this would soon change. Other mediums were coming into their own, challenging the status quo, and setting the stage for a world unlike that which had been seen before. 1938, Action Comics launched something the world had never seen, a true super hero. Superman, a child from another world, sent to Earth to survive his home planet’s destruction, had powers unlike anyone else. Faster than a speeding bullet, stronger than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, the world saw a super hero rise to challenge evil in a way they never imagined. 1940 would se Captain Steven Rogers become Captain America, stepping onto the world stage to challenge Hitler, with his first cover in December 1940 showing him landing a blow to Hitler’s jaw, and side by side with Superman, launching young boys into the world of super heroes and daring do, where good would always triumph over evil, and justice would be served. By the 1970’s the world of Comic Book Heroes would have expanded so far that heroes no longer worked alone, but in groups, to tackle larger and larger issues. Villains and their henchmen were more dangerous, but again, good always won. Alongside the comic book heroes, TV introduced new ideals as well. Where the children of the 1950’s had Little Orphan Annie on the radio, Lassie or Flipper on TV, and a few comics, children in the 1970’s had the Dukes of Hazzard, professional wrestling, more soap operas than ever before, and something totally new to television, PBS, with offerings like Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers, or The Joy Of Painting, where you weren’t merely entertained, but educated as well. Schoolhouse Rock showed how a bill becomes a law, and other lessons, The Electric Company used new techniques for their graphics, and just like that, a generation of children would no longer be outside until their parents dragged them into get washed up for supper, but who would plan their playtime to coincide with their must watch programs. Mr. Rogers gave us a world of make believe, lessons taught in a gentle and kind way, even ensuring that a blind girl wouldn’t worry about his fish by making sure to say it was time to feed them each day. Sesame Street showed a very diverse world, with monsters, garbage dwelling grouches, birds, and other creatures living and learning along side children and adults from all backgrounds. So many new ideas brought into one medium that children were inundated with them by the time they started Kindergarten. This generation would eventually learn of the Civil Rights movement, but rarely thought twice about what color their neighbor was, or why they weren’t in another class. Rather, a new class of student to be segregated emerged, Special Education, those with learning disabilities on such a wide scale, were segregated, often taught so slowly that by the time they were to graduate High School, they might be at a middle school level of education. Education had begun changing in the 1970’s, with a generation of children growing up watching war as never seen before, watching Hollywood celebrities protest violence, while their movies and TV shows glorified vigilantes and criminals, even seeing them side with the very people the U.S. Military was fighting, entered the education field and began to teach history, literature, and other subjects in ways that not only distorted, but blatantly re-wrote history. The American Revolution was no longer a result of colonists wanting representation in how they were taxed, but because slave owning white men didn’t want to pay taxes, which of course ignores that the new nation taxed it’s new citizens. Slavery was purely an American issue, where white men didn’t want to give up their free labor, meaning the roots of slavery, those being African tribes selling their neighbors to both profit and take their land, Europeans being the buyers, and that nations to this day still allow slavery, were ignored. Students until this point had grown up with parents enforcing hard work pays off, removing privileges from students who were failing a subject so they had time to study, employers cutting hours when a student’s work began to flag, only to see a change happen, where teachers were encouraged by coaches and other extra-curricular sponsors to make sure students passed, so as not to hurt a source of income for the school. By the time this came to light and schools stopped the practice, parents no longer held the student responsible, but questioned the teacher as to why they were failing their child. Discipline had moved from a time when a disobedient student was paddled, only to have the parent repeat that punishment, to a time when the student was given time out, not only from their peers, but from the lessons. Manipulation became a way of life at an early age, with boys complaining the lady teacher didn’t like boys, white teachers didn’t like minorities, coaches cut people for frivolous reasons, until we moved into a time when everyone makes the team, those who win too often are excluded to give everyone a chance, and the world again began to change. In a move reminiscent of the 1940’s and 1950’s, books were removed for being too provocative, until books like To Kill A Mockingbird are removed for showing racism in the wrong way while books like Fifty Shades of Grey are sitting in public school libraries still. Students are no longer exposed to the darker side of humanity’s past, and thus, no longer shown how mankind will rise to defeat tyrants and despots, resulting in students believing the very people who stood against tyranny were themselves tyrants. Hollywood, naturally, began to change at this time as well. In the 1980’s, a movie like Blue Thunder, where a scene shows a woman’s bare breasts for a few seconds, were rated R, and only grudgingly as opposed to X, or just not made. Television programs which would discuss adult themes were closely regulated, news programs were careful in how they spoke of things, so as to ensure they were clean in the eyes of the FCC. Just a decade later, and the 1990’s saw prime time programs on major networks, where all but the act of intercourse was shown. Teenage characters were shown wearing less than most people would wear when swimming as every day attire, and romantically involved in relationships most adults remembered not knowing about until late in High School, or possibly college, and it only moved forward from there, to modern day entertainment, where sex sells, and people are shocked at how many of the celebrities they looked up to, who are now being shown to be predators that crowds would have formed mobs to hunt down only 20 or 30 years previously. 2016 will be remembered either as the year the world began to wake up to the programming we were all subject to for 40+ years, or the year the world fully took the blue pill, and stayed in Wonderland. The election of Donald Trump, something the mainstream media said point blank was impossible, will be remembered either as the year Americans retook their power as The People, or as the year the United States gave up all freedom to tyrants. Following this election, young people rioted in the streets, destroying property, because they could not force a country to undo an election and install someone who lost. Others wailed in the streets, returning a year later to do so again, to protest. States began enacting policies that only ten years ago would be so ludicrous as to oust all in power, protecting people who entered the country illegally, many who went on to commit heinous crimes. Monuments to history, albeit a dark time in our history, were torn down by mobs who went unpunished, cities raced to remove others, to prevent just that from happening again, while many people begged for common sense, for us to not hide our history, but keep it so we may learn from it. All of this leads directly to the situation facing the American People today. February 2018 saw an active shooter situation in Parkland Florida, where Sheriff’s Deputies were ordered not to enter an engage, where S.W.A.T. Officers who defied those orders were fired, and all but that night, students were deputized by the mainstream media to demand Americans disarm. Quotes like no one wants to face a shooter with an AR-15 were thrown around, while case after case from other parts of the country show people doing just that, and more. Law Enforcement agencies all over the country decried the cowardly actions of the Deputies in Parkland, sitting outside while a shooter was in a school, which 28 years previously was made a gun free zone by a bill sponsored by then Senator Joseph Biden. Suggestions that school districts allow those paying taxes to them to choose if teachers may choose to be armed are decried as forcing teachers who have no training to be armed, making things worse. Districts which already allowed this, and thus are far safer, are ignored, or ridiculed. The very people screaming about how evil the AR-15 is, who yell at Americans we don’t want to take your guns, are then seen marching demanding the repeal of the Second Amendment, carrying signs insulting gun owners, and others with signs blatantly saying they will pry them from your cold, dead hands. We are at a tipping point, books/movies like Ready Player One show a world where people’s lives are so horrible they spend all the time they can in virtual reality, only to go into so much debt they literally become slaves until they die. Where a corporation doesn’t flinch at killing hundreds to stop anyone from taking away their opportunity to lock in total control over society. Movies like Equilibrium show a world where people are drugged to remove all emotion, where from a very early age they are indoctrinated to fear emotion so much they willingly take the required drugs, and those who don’t are killed. Movie after movie after TV show after TV show shows us exactly what Huxley and Orwell warned us about all those decades ago, yet we seem to be pouring rocket fuel into our handcart, ready to fly full speed into a world where we are subjugated, and made to like it. Those speaking out, begging society to step back are beaten to a pulp and called nazi, by those using the very tactics the nazis used, because history is no longer taught. Those begging people not to dive head first into a world where they will be drugged into mental oblivion are berated for denying them the right to choose, only to them be demonized for not stopping someone from going to far. We are at the tipping point, where countries invite those who openly call for the destruction of all who do not bow and serve them, to do just that. We are watching the world burn, watching the tyrants start solidifying their power, so the question is very simple. Will you take the red pill or blue pill? Will you march to your destruction, going silently into the good night, or will you step back, will you realize that We The People have the true power? Will you rise up against those who would be your oppressors, or will you place your head on the chopping block? Only you can choose, I just hope it isn’t too late.
To listen to liberals, nothing is ever their fault, nothing is ever their responsibility, and they are the ultimate authority on everything. When Obama admitted that DACA was un-Constitutional, but that Congress wasn’t doing what he wanted, so he was going to do it anyway, liberals cheered and praised his action to open the floodgates of illegal immigrants coming into the country. When Trump said the same, that DACA was un-Constitutional, so he was ending it and telling Congress to do their job, liberals demanded he not do that, saying he wasn’t allowed to, ignoring that their messiah Obama said flat out that it was an un-Constitutional move.
Over the last week or so, the topic is gun control, although they will happily lecture you on how “since Obama issued the executive order on DACA, it must be allowed to stand” they’re demanding that “something be done” with hashtags like not one more, or never again. What they don’t do, ever, is tell you what should be done. They demand that “assault weapons” be banned, while admitting they can’t define “assault weapon” they demand that certain people be prevented from gaining firearms, and ignore that there are already laws on the books doing just that, just demanding that “something be done.” I have personally said “OK, let’s say there’s a law saying it’s a felony, punishable by jail time, for me to slap you” they nodded and I slapped him, lightly. Naturally, he screamed that it was illegal, then I just slapped him again while a friend said, he’s breaking the law, how do you stop him? He ranted and railed that I should be arrested, only to be told “no, just do something, pass a law” at which point he just stormed off.
Confronted with the lunacy of “just do something” he refused to continue the conversation, and later I found that he’d been lying to others, saying it’s legal to walk in and buy any gun you want, no paperwork needed, and screaming at people who told him he was wrong. I realize this nut job is an extreme case, but it shows the lunacy of the liberal argument. You can tell them the law is already in place, so we need to fix law enforcement, reporting, etc and you’re called an idiot. You can prove it and they’ll storm off and lie to others.
You will not win an argument with a liberal, nor will they even admit that you had anything good to say but stood and lied to them. So the question now is simple, while Trump is demanding the actual work needing done is done (fix reporting and enforcement,) how do we fix the issue of the lies being told other than by pointing out the lies when they were told?
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.
When I first found Texts From Superheroes it was just a goofy site to me, but as the election season ramped up last year, it became a bit prophetic. As with every election, the Hollywood “elite” began their “you must vote for so and so or you’re a racist/sexist/bigot/etc” schtick and I, as always, ignored it and voted as I felt I should. What changed last year though was the use of everything those not voting for socialism or Hillary said in a twisted sense to make us look like demons. The images below are an excellent illustration of that (pun intended.) You see, I’ve read Captain America and Punisher comics since I had money of my own to buy them, so it’s well over 30 years, so I feel I know the characters pretty well. Now, of course liberals hate Punisher because he uses guns, so they ignore him, but Cap is a different story.
This image is a perfect example of what would not be said. Yes, Captain America would be saddened to see neo-nazis marching in the street, but he would be standing between them and who they’re screaming (and who’s screaming at them) and helping arrest both when violence broke out. The problem is, though, that the left has decided that not agreeing with everything they say/want/demand is “nazi” or “fascist” behavior, and they are actively assaulting all who disagree, and now are using things like this stupid comic as “proof they are the real patriots.”
On a similar note, this one is calling for banning of those embracing Constitutional rights, based on mere political stance. Also misleading, the cowards in masks who call themselves antifa are the ones assaulting people in almost all cases, at least until arrested, at which point they cry and complain about “brutality.” But it’s the same point. Look at the super-heroes as they were depicted in the 80’s and 90’s, and you see general heroes, no politics save maybe from Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne as they are millionaires. Superman only was a government stooge in a post-apocalyptic world and it was Batman that woke him up, but now it’s all politics. Movies are all about showing how evil anyone who isn’t liberal is, while they scramble to hide the perversions we now know they’re guilty of. Comics insult a duly elected President, and more.
Yes, I realize this was a “geek rant” as I know not everyone is into comics, but it’s not just this, watch for the parts of pop culture you still enjoy that have changed. Check each one and I’ll bet you’ll see the “hero” is liberal, maybe even full bore socialist, and the “villain” is the one portrayed as a nazi for not wanting to silence people, or for not wanting to give away his salary, or the like. This is Pravda level propaganda, and being fed directly to children, and should scare all of us.
We’ve all seen things were we think of a painting, movie, or book, and we generally just say that life imitates art. Well, it’s not as uncommon any more, nor is it as easy to just say “huh” when we see it. It’s all well and good to joke that The Simpsons has predicted this or that, but what happens when we see far more dangerous aspects of a movie, book, or show happen in real life? The Hunger Games shows a bleak future where Americans rose up against the government, were roundly defeated, and now truly live only to serve the well off in the capital. While it’s a good read, and not horrible movie series, it’s not that impossible to think it may happen.
Look at Los Angeles in the 60’s/70’s and sporadically since then. From the riots in Watts, to Rodney King, and now UC Berkeley rioting and destroying the campus over a mere invitation, is it that crazy to think those are all that will happen? We’re seeing the cowards in masks known as antifa call for armed uprisings, although for now they end up crying as they’re arrested, just because they can’t demand the country ignore the Constitution and put their candidate in office. More recently, we saw a clear case of election fraud in Alabama, where people bragged about coming in from “all over the country” to vote for Doug Jones. Cities with populations of 1000 saw tens of thousands of votes cast, yet suggesting that the election be voided, and ID be required is treated as if you just bombed Disneyland.
A lesser known movie trilogy, the Cube trilogy, shows a more likely scenario though, rather than the future where the government wins a war against it’s people and then keeps them down, this one shows threats just disappear. In the prequel to Cube, Cube Zero, we see a political agitator captured and put in “the cube” where entering the wrong room means death. One of the workers learns this and goes in to help her, only to end up a prisoner by the end of the movie. We also see a soldier on the inside, although by the end he’s little more than a robot, as in this world, all soldiers have a microchip implanted in their head which allows a remote user to run them like a drone, eliminating all possibility of resistance to an illegal order, such as killing someone for their speech.
We’re inching ever closer to something like these every day, as liberals demand they be allowed to “speak” through violence and vandalism, while also demanding all dissent be silenced. Universities are actively censoring conservative groups out of fear of the liberals rioting, saying it’s for “security,” while the liberals cheer from their safe spaces, waiting for the next person to violate their demands so they can once again violently silence someone. Oddly enough, as it seems that religious freedom and freedom of speech isn’t held too dear, the UK has begun to take steps to stop Universities from stifling free speech, although it’s just fines for now, and I’ll not be surprised if some decide the fine is cheaper and easier than paying for security, or repairs after a riot.
I understand that some speech shouldn’t go unpunished, the old story about being free to say what you want, but also being free to be held accountable for the riot after yelling fire in a crowded theater, is a perfect parable. Yes, you can say what you want, you are just also accountable for it. The problem is, however, that when I state that I believe homosexuality is a choice, and a sin, is not equivalent to yelling fire in a theater and causing a riot. More extreme, is simply saying “I disagree” and getting death threats. Many people today firmly believe they have a “right to be right” or a “right to happiness” which are both patently false. If I had a “right to be right” I could demand you be arrested when I say 2+2=6 and you say I’m wrong, but there are people so assured of their perfection that they will demand you be arrested for daring to challenge them. I’ve been told I should be shot for denying someone’s “right to happiness” only to be told someone needs to shoot me in the head with my own gun when I pointed out there is no such right.
Sadly, it’s going to get worse, and can’t say if it will then get better or not. The cowards in masks tried their BS in Austin recently, and were roundly shut down by APD and other Tx law enforcement, but they’re now suing for “Police brutality” and other idiocy, and precedent has been made in other states which may seen some liberal judge agree and set them free. If that happens, Police will stop helping, or will react to everything with S.W.A.T. tactics, which will be the first step toward martial law, which the left thinks they want, but will not be good for anyone. So the only real question now is simple, how long before we get to the end game, and what happens after?
I will admit I have a shorter fuse than most people I meet, but lately it seems to be something everyone wants to test. From people in stores I’m shopping in, to drivers around me on the road, to online interactions, what I once called willful ignorance, has now become arrogant ignorance. Two examples should show what I mean, if not I’m not going on as I don’t want a headache. First, a story that I’ve lived many times and has come up in stories from retail workers the world over. I know I’ve told stories from my many different retail jobs, from people not accepting a product was sold out, to many other “no, you’re wrong and I’m right” attitudes, but the penultimate story is one told by people not working in retail. Before I worked at the big box grocer I worked for before the job I’m in now, I would be stopped and asked where something is, or if I could reach something for someone. Having worked retail many times, I generally try to help, and only if I can’t do I apologize and say I don’t work there. Well, just before my parents’ home was completed, I went into town for some things for lunch. I was pushing a cart, holding a list, and wearing jeans and a jacket most often seen on construction workers, when I was physically stopped (lady grabbed my arm,) then ordered to stop and come help her. I told her I was not an employee, and there was likely one near the bakery. She scowled, said “I’ll have you fired” and pulled, to which I said “go for it, I’m not an employee of this company, at any location.” A few minutes later she comes stomping up with a manager, screaming about horrible service, points at me and says she wants me fired. The manager says he doesn’t know me and that I don’t work there, and she screams, literally screams, that she wants me fired. I then tell her, “well, you can call the University I’m working part time for while I’m a student, and ask that I be fired from the temporary groundskeeping crew,” only to get a “you did not tell me you don’t work here,” and another scowl as I told her I did, twice, and then walked away. Normally before this, the “can you help me find….” was just not looking at my clothes or not seeing the absence of a uniform, but this lady took it to the “I’m right, so you’re an employee, help me or you’ll be fired” attitude. I told her twice and she still dragged a manager over to demand I be fired from a store I’ve never worked for. The sheer arrogance in that boggles the mind, I was dressed far from what employees wear, had a shopping list, groceries in my cart, and so on, yet she decided I was being paid to be there so I was now required to drop everything and obey her, then she still got angry when proven wrong.
The second example is actually happening to me, repeatedly, right now. I’ve found several things I no longer use which I think might make good Christmas gifts, so I posted them in the Facebook marketplace, only to get most responses as “I’m interested in this item.” I realize it’s a canned response and easy to send, but several of those I reply to with “Still available” ask me questions I answered in the post. For example, I’m selling a car that is either a parts car or project/rebuild, and I listed everything that makes it such, only to get one person who said they were interested, then they asked what’s wrong with it. I responded “I’m at work, but all details are in the post” only to be told “I don’t read the posts, what’s wrong with it.” Yes, the person actually said they never read the posts, they demand I send them a personalized version. I simply said, “No, read it or don’t, I’m at work and not able or willing to retype all of my post.” This person then actually reported me for “reneging on a sale agreement,” saying I’d agreed to their price (they never offered an amount) and date/place to meet, but I then said “I changed my mind, I’m not selling to you.” I found out after they were told off, as Facebook can see the message history, but I was still floored. I told someone they could read what I posted, they basically said “no, treat me special,” and when I said no, they lied in a report to get me banned. Again, not just willful, but arrogant, ignorance.
How in the world did we go from a world where if you asked something and were told “I don’t know” and you moved on, to a world where not knowing all, and treating people as if they were god himself, is a capital crime? As I said, I’ve worked retail many times, and been asked to help a customer in a store, and they would smile or laugh when I wasn’t able to because I didn’t work there, and now we have people demanding non-employees be fired because they couldn’t help. Or people, when told they can read an ad or not, then going so far as to lie to get someone banned, over not being treated special. I work tech support now, and I get those calls where someone just isn’t getting it, and then the upset customer when I show a screenshot of what they aren’t getting, as they then complain I was “rude” or the like, which is why I am glad I work via online chat, as when they complain I was “rude” for showing them what they aren’t getting, I have a transcript. But that’s still the same thing in a way. I’m asked for help, I give help, they don’t like the answer, so I’m now “rude” or “ignored them.” This is not a hard concept, if someone tells you they can’t help, don’t demand they magically find a way to, if someone tells you that an ad for a car is all you need to read, don’t demand they retype it for you or you’ll have them banned. If you ask how to do something and get the answer, don’t act like you weren’t. The people who we hear from every day telling these same stories have the same rights as everyone else, just because you weren’t treated like royalty doesn’t give you the right to ruin a life.
Starting in November 2016, there has been no end to the screaming from the left side of the aisle, from Russia to sexism to racism and more. But what they ignore is what is going to end up hurting them the most, that their own heroes are often the most guilty of the crimes. The latest in their arsenal of complaints is Net Neutrality, and how it’s repeal is going to “end the internet.” This is just par for the course, as ending only the mandate in the ACA will “kill millions,” lowering taxes will “bankrupt” various groups, and now this. At this point, I’m not going to be surprised to hear that enforcing the law “disenfranchises millions,” or some other idiotic claim.
Simply put, removing regulations does not “end anything,” rather it’s going to be a good thing. The internet has been around for 20+ years, and Net Neutrality only 2, but this is ignored because Net Neutrality allows the left to call anything offensive, or racist, or what have you, and with it being “wrong,” social media and other online services are running to ban and block so as not to be accused of being that. By removing regulations, there is no government presence waiting to hit a provider or online service with a fine or punishment for anything the left hates, meaning that they can’t scream “racist” at the drop of a hat and get someone banned, and they hate that.
There’s an old saying, “If you want more of something, make it illegal. If you want less, tax it.” This works here too, as if you want more innovation and creativity in an industry, get the government out of the way, while if you want less, regulate that industry. Internet access is not a human right, nor is having a cell phone, but those can be used to control a population, as it will become “oh, you don’t have the health care plan we approved, well that means you don’t get 4G speed this year.” Or, if you’re a “known agitator” (read, conservative) who they want to silence, your “crimes” go public and you’re not allowed to be online as much as those who tow the party line. It’s a simple process and couched in “neutrality” so as to not be recognized.
Simply put, Barack Obama appointed the man who just voted (along with another person) to end a massive government regulatory practice, so it’s all because of Trump. Barack Obama named the seven countries we are currently not accepting travel from, but because Trump signed the order, it’s a Muslim ban. Trump could follow Obama’s playbook to the letter, and because it’s not their savior doing it, all would be horrible. This is what we see every time government moves to lessen restrictions, taxes, etc. Because we now have less of big brother, the left loses their mind because they can’t control us. They know that the vast majority of Americans actually paying taxes aren’t liberal, so the “charitable” work they do (Planned Parenthood and other liberal organizations) will be lessened, and actual charitable work (soup kitchens, food pantries, etc) will go up, but those are “bad” because they’re run by Churches. You know, those evil organizations that teach you that your actions have consequences?
Look back to the 1980’s and Reaganomics. I was only 4 when he was first sworn in as President, but I do remember that gas was cheap, food was cheap, we didn’t want for much at all, and what I did “want for” were things my parents said no to, not due to money, but because they decided I didn’t need it. This, however, is the perfect example, as being told no is what liberals can’t stand. They are the eternal toddlers, screaming for ice cream for breakfast, then crying and throwing a fit when given anything else. They’ve grown up being told that conservatives are evil because they don’t “tolerate alternative lifestyles,” when in reality tolerate is the perfect word. I count myself a rather conservative person, and while I believe that homosexuality is a sin, and thus, without repentance and working to no longer choose that lifestyle, will result in the person spending eternity in hell, I don’t let that color my judgement when I look for people to hire, contractors to use, etc. I’ve worked and gone to school with people I know are gay, I’ve supervised them and been supervised by them, and never had any trouble, as them being gay never affected work.
What I have had happen is I’ve been propositioned by men, only to be told I’m homophobic because I said “I’m not gay” because I wasn’t willing to “try it.” I looked one in the eyes and said “I thought it wasn’t a choice? I thought you just are or aren’t, but you’re telling me I need to try it? Are you saying it is a choice?” When I threw the big argument back into his face, he hissed and almost attacked me, but eventually lied to try to get me fired, only to be fired himself because he’d been coming on to all guys in the store since his hiring. He then sued for “homophobia” and ranted when the evidence proved him wrong. His attitude is that the world must do all it can to make him happy and damn everyone else. When told no, he couldn’t accept it, and did all he could to force those telling him no to change their course.
This is the same with Net Neutrality, liberals got a golden ticket to report everything they hate as “hate speech,” or “offensive,” or “racist,” for two years, and now they can’t handle that the government is saying they can’t. They’re screaming that it’s the end of the internet, when in fact it’s a new beginning, as without it, sites like Gab can actually compete with Twitter (I know I didn’t link Twitter) rather than be choked by government regulations, meaning their safe haven is now in danger of being driven down by a competitor, and they can’t have that. Oddly, the very people driven away by their reports are the ones going to competitors, but that’s only bad because they don’t just want us gone, they want us completely silenced, and without big brother to help, they can’t.
So, the ultimate question here is simple, if you own a business of any kind, do you want more government intrusion or less?
We already know the Supreme Court has ruled that “hate speech” is not a thing, and as predicted, the snowflakes at UC Berkeley promptly kept assaulting people for daring to invite, or even consider inviting, speakers they don’t approve, to groups they aren’t members of. The UCB College Republicans are, finally, getting tired to it, and calling on the college to protect them as they protect the criminals assaulting them.
Well, I’ve recently started doing two things, if the left is doing something they demand others not do, I make sure they see me doing it as much as possible, just as anything they say no one can do, I do it. We are fighting for the future of our country, against people who won’t just change things a bit, but who will utterly destroy everything about it, replacing it with a communist nation where all who don’t bow to them are killed, those who do, but aren’t the right type of person are forced to work to pay for the “free” things they say are rights. We’ve seen that in the USSR and still see it in North Korea, and trust me, no one in their right mind would ever support that.
As they are showing their disdain for the law, by demanding “sanctuary cities,” by praising a verdict where an illegal immigrant who killed an American was not convicted, and where they assault people for speech while screaming about the Bill of Rights, and far more. Well, here’s my plan, and I personally see it scaring the hell out of anyone I use it on.
The next time I’m told, in person of course, that Trump is Hitler, or any of the other talking points, I’m going to immediately tell that person they’ve just used hate speech, or fighting words, to assault me and I’m just defending myself. Now, as I’m six foot one, about 240lbs, and don’t look “fat,” you can imagine the reaction. When they scream about their rights, I’ll ask about the rights of those being forcibly silenced. If the idiot is wearing or otherwise showing support for the antifa cowards, I’ll bring up UCB.
This crap has to stop, about 10 years ago, I was debating economic models, for an assignment in Economics, when an idiot called me racist. I told him to get lost, we were discussing a class assignment, and he grabbed me. I quickly had him in a “very uncomfortable” hold and told the Campus Police officer who came over that yes, I’d been assaulted. This was the start of the “you can’t say anything I don’t approve of” mindset, as he argued I was racist and assaulted him even after the video of him starting things, him grabbing me, and me using a very mild hold. You could show video of MS13 thanking Hillary for letting them in illegally as they go down a line of children shooting them, and the liberals would rant about the need to disarm the law abiding or the need for the “dreamers” to be made citizens so they can make something of themselves, ignoring all that proves them wrong.
So, who’s with me? Who thinks we can maybe convince a few of their idiocy, or at least get them to shut up, if we start using their tactics, or will they demand we be arrested for what they routinely say is their right?
Today the FCC voted 3 to 2 in favor of reversing regulations put in place just over 2 years ago. Just as with any attempt to repeal the ACA, the left is going overboard on their predictions for what will be next. This time, rather than MILLIONS WILL DIE, it’s THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT IS DEAD. Personally, I am a fan of as little government as possible, and this, so far, has proven to be the best course of action as long as I’ve watched. Health care existed long before the ACA, and will exist after it, just not funded by tax dollars. In the early 1970’s, my parents had my Sister, later I came along, then my Brother. I don’t remember ever hearing about my parents having to pay off their bills from the hospital from this, nor was it horrible if I chipped a tooth, got sick, one of us got hurt, we just went to the Dr/Dentist, our insurance covered a huge portion of the bill, and we paid the rest, normally out of pocket, not being billed. For example, I had to have my wisdom teeth removed around 2003, and while the procedure was very expensive, needing an oral surgeon and anesthesiologist, I paid under $100 for the entire thing, including the pain killer I was given for the first few days. Fast forward to 3 years ago, I needed 2 teeth extracted, no surgeon, but I was knocked out, and I was billed, after insurance, over $500. The only real change, the ACA passed in 2012, and as many predicted, costs went up for the consumer.
Now, look at 2015, when Net Neutrality was enacted. At the time, we didn’t have any option but a small cable company, but we paid about $30 a month to our ISP, now it’s almost $60. Regulations put a burden on the provider, and they will always pass costs onto the consumer. Yes, it’s possible that ISP’s may decide they don’t want to make it easy to watch Netflix, or that they don’t like certain websites, and I don’t agree with that practice, but the market should decide, not government, what a business may or may not do. What if the provider notices that between 5 and 8 at night, their speed is killed, and most customers are on Netflix. They see that they don’t have the ability to handle that traffic, so they limit speed to compensate, choosing to limit www.netflix.com so as to not burden those working, or doing other things. What if a college is their own ISP and chooses to limit Netflix so the library and other public terminals don’t see a slow down? In this case I’m for it. The common thread, their customers should be who decides what happens. In the first case, their customers complain, the company gives the equivalent of a shrug, their customers start switching to another provider. This ISP sees their actions losing them money, they either reverse the change, or they suffer and eventually go out of business. Think back to AOL. They censored e-mail messages critical of them, blocked some competitors’ sites/apps, and more. They are now gone, with only the holdouts with aol.com e-mail addresses as proof they once ruled the internet. Comcast decided they wanted to limit Netflix so users had to use their VOD service, now customers, instead of whining to the government and getting them to force Comcast to do what they want, will just need to switch. The advent of fiber and other technologies, simply put, means no more “we’re your only choice” for customers. The second option? The college says they are giving free internet access to help with course work, with Net Neutrality in place, the government tells them they aren’t allowed to block or limit sites even though they don’t charge, students force a college that gave them free connections to reverse a good practice. Without Net Neutrality, the college can say “we’re giving you free internet to use to study, you want Netflix, you can pay for the connection” and the students can whine and moan, but the college keeps a good practice.
Simply put, deregulation is a good thing in my mind. It always starts small, by the government simply getting out of businesses’ way, but look at the two industries most affected by past deregulation, telephone (not cell phones) and power. Growing up we had no choice but to use Southwestern Bell and TXU. Our bill could go up without notice, and they just grinned and said their costs went up. Deregulation happened, and now we have one company running the infrastructure and many running the service side. SBT, ATT, and others pay the line company, just as TXU, Reliant, and others do with Oncor in North Texas, and then sell that to consumers. As they have to compete, and the delivery company doesn’t have to worry about pricing and such, both sides benefit. TXU sells at a price low enough to entice people away from the other guys, just as SBT or ATT does, and they make some profit in the process.
Well, cable TV/Internet is the dinosaur in this scenario. Fiber is still very new on the scene, and DSL or other telephone delivery options are dying, as they should, as a technology. Sadly, only one cable provider is available in an area, for my area it’s a tiny company, while the majority of my county is Charter with a portion of it being Time Warner. As there is no competition other than Satellite/Internet for TV, they’re pretty safe. They lose my $40 or $50 a month TV plan, they still get my money for internet, which I need to watch my new TV provider. Google is working to come into new areas with Google Fiber, but having to install all the infrastructure, they’re putting out a lot of money, so they aren’t really competitive. They also are doing the same as cable companies, charging based on your speed. If Net Neutrality happens the way it’s cheerleaders want, they’ll all be told you can only charge one price, and have one package. Do you think they’ll choose the highest speed at the lowest cost? Of course not, they’ll find out the lowest speed they can get away with delivering, and charge as much as possible for it.
Yes, there will be growing pains, such as Congress having the ability to tell the FCC they can’t remove a regulatory and financial burden from companies, or those companies deciding to limit what is the most taxing on their servers, but rather than tell the government to “make it better,” why not look to the Elon Musk’s of the world and ask for a better option. In a climate so totally controlled and locked down by the government, ingenuity is stifled. Why come up with a better way to do things when you’ll not be able to afford to sell it? With this move, Musk is free to come up with a better option and sell it cheaper, which means the other guys start trying to beat that tech and sell it cheaper. The free market works people, it always has. Health care before the ACA was as cheap as possible, because Aetna knew if they didn’t treat me right, I’d switch to BCBS or another provider. ATT did me wrong on my cell plan, so I went to Sprint for 20 years, until they did too, and I moved to another provider.
Aside from wanting the government out of as much of my life as possible, I can also attest to the fact that it works not only socially, as I don’t like being told I must buy an approved health care plan, which is all but useless, but also the plans cost less, and have the needed amenities. Net Neutrality being gone means your provider must now earn your continued business, the crutch of “regulations require us to do this” is gone, and now they have to prove they’re going to do what the customer wants.
I’ve said it on every thread and story I see about health care or Net Neutrality, socialism fails every time, not because the idea is flawed, but because mankind is, and whenever you have anything socially controlled, someone at the top decides that because they’re running the show, they deserve more. Huxley warned us about dependence on technology, while Orwell warned of socialism and big brother. Sadly, both were right. We’re now so hooked on our devices for everything, that we believe the socialists when they tell us we have a “right” to be equal, so they regulate the crap out of an industry, while of course none of the rules apply to those running things. They don’t apply to the “leaders” because, simply, the “all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others” mantra has become entrenched into the minds of those in power.
We need to get a completely new group of Representatives and Senators, and keep them as short a time as possible, to avoid that mindset, and we need to tell those selling us our daily fix of entertainment that we can get along without them, showing them that if they want us to pay, they need to make it very enticing. I’m perfectly willing to go back to books and music for a year or so, to show the Comcasts of the world they aren’t entitled to my money, only to sell a product, and hope I buy it. I’m just sadly fighting an uphill battle where the stone slips every time against a population of people half my age, dead set that I’m wrong, and evil for not agreeing with them, in fact some days, trying to inject common sense and logic isn’t preferable to pushing that rock and failing every time.
We saw it with the ACA and now we see it with Net Neutrality, and even more telling in the push to rule the U.S. as tyrants is shown in Alabama as what the left wants is demanded at all costs.
Starting last November, as we saw in 2000, only louder, was an instant demand to do away with the Electoral College, which would allow NYC, LA and a few other cities to decide for the entire country every four years. When the GOP led House and Senate began introducing bills (that failed until recently) which would repeal the ACA, especially after the election which gave the GOP the House, Senate and White House, the screaming was intense that they “weren’t allowed” to do it.
Tuesday’s election in Alabama is rife with corruption, such as a city with barely 1000 people seeing 26,000 votes cast, yet any attempt to get the fraud out, and allow the people of Alabama to elect who they want is called “voter suppression” or “denying the voters who they wanted.” Videos are all over social media where people admit they came from out of state to vote, but as the left wants Jones, they scream that it’s over, get over it, let them have what they stole.
Move to Net Neutrality, which is NOT going to be the FCC doing anything than taking the reigns off, and they are already emailing out “the FCC voted, let’s overrule it.” That’s the exact subject of one I just received, blatantly saying “let’s change what they did legally to what we want.” I’ve said it many times, but I’m likely nowhere near done as people don’t listen when the message isn’t “here’s everything you want” so I’ll keep saying it. The internet was around before 2015 and no ISP banned sites or gouged on price based on what sites a customer visited, at least not in the U.S. What didn’t happen though, was what we’re seeing on sites like Twitter or Facebook, where conservatives are targeted and “shadow banned” or outright banned from the site, because liberals report them for “hate speech” while ignoring people actively calling for assaults and worse. With the regulations in place, Twitter is free to stop me saying I’m pro-life because some snowflake decides that’s “a violation of their first amendment rights” or some other idiocy. With the regulations gone, the FCC is not going to just say “good luck” and leave, but rather will do what they were created for, actually working to police censorship and abuse, which comes almost completely from the left side of the aisle.
But of course, any deviation from the liberal mantra is cause for your death. I have been with my company for 5 years, and in that time I’ve learned one thing, I don’t discuss much at all at work. I’m fairly sure that 99% of those I work with voted against President Trump, and are in complete agreement with all that the DNC says, as I’ve been hearing nothing but “now they’ll charge you more to use Netflix” and the like. Only one person has spoken in defense of the decision to shrink the government, and he was all but laughed out of the building. So, I’ll say it one more time before I end, ending “net neutrality” is NOT going to mean that your bill will be 10 times higher because you want to watch Netflix, you will not be censored for being a non-white non-male. This is not the end of the world, we had internet for years before this, now we’re just going back to it, which will be a good thing!
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.
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.
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?
Just 40 years ago, regardless of your stance on politics, race, money, or religion, people were generally able to exist alongside anyone. There were arguments, just as there are today, but they didn’t end with divorce, or calls for arrest for some imagined crime, they just ended with an agreement to disagree, and not revisit the topic. Even 25 years ago, this was still the case, as I can remember my parents and I having that experience with friends. We may have been upset and avoided the other person all we could for a time, but we generally didn’t dispose of someone for a simple disagreement. During my high school years, when these conversations happened, they were either short lived or lasted months or years, as both parties would go back and research then come back and keep working to bring the other person to their point of view. Many of those I call friends vehemently disagree with me on many topics, from healthcare to immigration and more, and we still call the other a friend, unlike so many today.
During the election of 2016, many people became incensed at others for not agreeing with them on who to vote for, candidates had people insulting and demeaning others over the simple fact that you will never find one candidate that everyone will agree with. From George Washington to Donald Trump, every President has had people who wanted someone else for the office, yet they all were chosen to fill the job for their time. Sadly, today we see violence happening in the name of “resisting a fascist regime” from a group that is using Nazi logos and names, and tactics straight from Mussolini’s or Hitler’s playbook. The simple statement that “when your argument requires you to assault those who disagree, it has no value in any sense” perfectly sums up all of the groups who have rioted to stop what they don’t want. However, if you look at eras in the past, you will rarely find the “I don’t like that, so you can’t do it” attitude, you may see protests, signs outside a business or school, and chants being repeated to bring people to one side or the other, but rarely will you see violence erupt over a mere invitation of a speaker, or not wanting a statue removed from a city park.
This attitude, sadly, has been growing for the last 20 to 25 years, and seems to be all but unstoppable now. From the 1990’s and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, to today’s demand that the military, and in fact, the federal government, “must” pay for all manner of things, society is at a tipping point. It is my hope that, over the course of this, I can highlight areas were simply walking away, or changing how a topic is approached, may help stop the flight toward anarchy or worse.
Just over two years ago (April 2015), a couple in Oregon sued a local baker for not making a cake for their wedding. The bakery in question is owned and run by a Christian couple who said that to do so would violate their faith. Rather than let the free market take over, and see who the public supports, the couple in question sued, eventually winning the day, and forcing the bakery to close. The argument that a business cannot deny service, else they are guilty of discrimination, is one that has been debated for decades, yet until 2015, people didn’t sue, they simply told their friends and family, and let the market decide if the business was guilty or not. If the community disagreed, the business would see sales decline until they either change their policy or close their doors for good. (1) That same year in Indiana, a pizza parlor was sued by a gay couple for not catering a wedding. Granted, this story produced a seemingly endless stream of humor over any couple wanting pizza for a wedding, but it shined a light on a new law in Indiana, which the restaurant owner said allowed a business to refuse service on religious grounds. In the Oregon case, the bakery was closed and a family’s ability to support themselves was stripped from them, over a simple matter of a cake, while in Indiana, the community rallied around the business and raised money for them to keep them open after being sued. (2)
On the opposite end of the spectrum from the examples above, just two years later (October 2017,) a coffee shop in Seattle, run by a gay man, saw a video go viral, as the owner went on a verbal tirade against Christians, as he kicked them out of his shop, and was very profane in doing so. Using the examples above, one might expect the damaged party (the customer) to sue and force the business owner to capitulate or close their doors, but this one saw nothing of the sort. The ACLU quickly got involved in the first two, proclaiming loudly in both cases that the First Amendment meant that a business could not say their religious freedom trumps anyone else’s, while in the case of this coffee shop, they were silent, and the community saw nothing more than customers treated as if they had urinated on the counter while their heads spun on their necks. (3)
The sad part of this is that a mere 20 years ago, many businesses had signs that they catered to a small group or didn’t serve others. Most were considered jokes, as they read “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason, with or without explanation.” This was often cause for laughter, or just a decision to not patronize a business, and again, the market decided which businesses succeeded or failed. Granted, this scenario is largely geographic as you will always find areas of any country that hold either very liberal or very conservative views, and the community rarely sees challenges to this, as those who disagree don’t stay long, if they visit at all. Taken as an example, Nashville and Los Angeles are almost on different planets, as in Nashville you find a generally conservative community, raised on Bar-B-Que and beer, and country music, while Los Angeles is so diverse in what you find it could almost be a country on it’s own. From international food, to different cultures, to different religions and lifestyles, when someone from either city visits the other, culture shock is almost too mild a term to use.
These example show two things very clearly, one segment of society demands that no one disagree with them, no one is allowed to run their lives according to anything but what they allow you do, while their polar opposite simply avoid a business that is not in line with their views. Chic-Fil-A has been the target of many tirades and more for their policy of closing on Sunday, despite the policy stating it is to allow employees to spend time as they see fit with their families. When the CEO, Dan Cathy, was interviewed and stated that his personal belief that marriage is a sacred union of a man and woman, the media proclaimed for the world to hear, that the business was homophobic, despite having the quote showing this was Mr. Cathy’s personal opinion. The Robertsons of Duck Dynasty fame faced the same, as the patriarch of the family, and the other members, said their personal belief is that marriage is for a man and woman, and saw the series almost cancelled, despite it always showing the family praying over their meal, and it being obvious that they are a deeply religious family.
All of examples of both sides of this argument point out a massive difference in how the two sides of this situation handle themselves when they are faced with those who disagree. There is a wonderful quote, although who said it first is something attributed to many, but there is a segment of society that says if something offends them, no one may do it, while their inverse simply says if something offends them, they will avoid it. This is perfectly shown in the fact that a baker and pizza parlor were sued, while a coffee shop was not, when they refused service to customers completely opposed to their views. There are very few examples of something so offensive it should not be in polite society, that being vulgar language, pornography, other nudity or graphic displays of affection, as very few people want to see any couple, gay or not, all but having sex in public, or someone dressed in so little a doctor could perform a full physical exam without needing them to disrobe. A prime example is something heard from both sides in the late 1990’s, and even parodied in South Park’s episode entitled Tolerance Camp.
I was sitting with friends just a short time after graduating high school, a few of them openly homosexual, when a story came on the TV about a Gay Pride parade that facing complaints and even threats of charges for public indecency. Knowing our friends, no one was shy about voicing their opinions, as the video showed men in lingerie few women would even want to try on outside of a closed room, and worse. Oddly enough, at least by current standards, the few gay people at the table were the most upset, as they said, it painted homosexuals as being perverse and horrible people, and I agreed with them completely. Those at my table were among the nicest and most amazing people I have known. I joke that, if you get a flat in Texas, don’t worry, in about ten minutes four guys in a truck with tools and beer will be by to help, and everyone at that table would agree we were “those guys” as we would all stop to help anyone who needed it. Aside from asking those few people for clothing advice when I didn’t want my mother or sister to know about a surprise party, they were people to me, just people with expertise in an area I didn’t have, as are the rest, we all find something interesting, and pursue it, and come to the others when needed. But, sadly, today, we’ve seen a movement from one extreme on the political scale to demonize all who don’t believe as they do, and those being demonized are so marginalized that any argument to defend themselves only adds fuel to the fire.
Today, however, we have students so assured of their “rights” that they claim discrimination for a failing grade when they didn’t show up, or demand “safe spaces” where they can ignore the world. and their parents are defending them. A cartoon published years ago shows two situations, both where the student had failed a test, where in one the parents ask the child to explain, and in the other, they angrily shout at the teacher to explain. Having gone to college to teach, as I love studying history and teaching, I first found that as I don’t coach any sport, I’m not able to find a teaching position, but also having substituted for several years, this attitude is slowly encroaching on even the most conservative of states and cities. I am thankful I never had to sit in on a conference where parents were told their child was failing, but I did hear students in the halls telling their friends how their parents would “make the teacher change the grade or they’d have them fired.” The attitude of your academic success is someone else’s responsibility teaches only that you need to complain to get your way, and leads to so many other problems in life that no one entering the workforce is able to handle.
I also remember in one class, where I only had one day and it was test-prep, students claiming their teacher allowed the use of iPods and the like when absent, but the teacher didn’t leave me anything stating this, so I told them no. I was accused of being a Draconian Tyrant, and explained that in actuality I was a Jeffersonian, in that I followed the rules unless they were amended by someone with that authority. The students actually began to question me about their test prep, it being an AP Government class, and I ended up getting a long term position from that teacher as a result. In this situation, thankfully, the students wanted to learn, and seeing that they had someone in the classroom who could help, jumped at the chance.
When I returned for my two weeks in the classroom, I lectured, answered questions and generally had a wonderful experience, as the students were bright, engaged, and eager to learn. In the down time, some asked me about various colleges, and other paths in life. I didn’t hold back, telling those who wanted to open an auto garage they should first go to trade school, then learn from a master while getting their business degree slowly, so they’d have little debt and gain experience and real world knowledge, and they were shocked that a teacher didn’t just say “go to college.” Others wanted careers where college was a must, and I told them about loans and such, and advised against debt where it could be avoided. A few of the other teachers cautioned me in this, saying that I could anger parents who wanted their child to attend college, but I will not lie to students and tell them a path that isn’t right for them is. A few parents complained that I was “advising their child that college was wrong,” and I explained that I actually had advised college would help, but that there was a path that would avoid much, if not all, of the normal debt, and was told “you’re lying to cover yourself.”
This shows the attitude so prevalent in the world today, that being “I’m right, don’t you dare say you didn’t do what I said, you’re wrong and must now suffer!” After that experience, I was ready to tell that school district not to call me, but a move negated that need, as well as entering my Junior year, where I was either waiting tables, delivering pizza, in class or asleep, so the situation was resolved, but I was saddened still that parents are so hell bent on their child going to college, regardless of the child’s desires, that they will attack anyone actually listening to the child and being honest.
The simple fact is, today we have people on all sides of every issue that firmly believe in their own infallibility and their right to not be challenged. When you suggest that the government should not force citizens to purchase a product provided by the government, you’re accused of wanting “millions to die.” When you point out that you simply want the mandate removed, not the products, you’re told you’re lying, that you want death and you will never change their mind. This is a large issue for sure, but this attitude goes much farther than just Health Care or other government programs. Stories have been told many times of a woman ranting at a man for holding the door as she “doesn’t need a man” to do that for her. Some have the man saying fine, then entering and not holding the door, only to then be berated for being rude. That event, ranting about holding the door and not holding the door, shows the attitude of “I’m always right, do as I say!” the clearest. How is anyone to know if someone wants a door held for them or not? A video online some ago shows a woman ranting at a couple as they simply share a chaste kiss for “having sex” in a restaurant. When the business refuses to kick them out, the woman then throws her food on the ground and demands a refund, after which it gets worse when she’s told no.
Opponents of unfettered immigration and open borders are accused of racism for wanting all immigration laws already on the books enforced. When those people ask what race an “illegal immigrant” is, they’re screamed at for “clouding the issue” and being racist. When illegal immigrants rape or kill an American, and are given little more than a slap on the wrist by a “sanctuary city” (5) opponents of illegal immigration use this to show why our laws must be enforced, while supporters of open borders say it’s a “random incident” and “shouldn’t be used to tar good people” but they can’t offer any statistics to show how it’s an isolated incident.
The cries of racism or sexism aren’t restricted to illegal immigration or opinionated people who believe they have a right to be right. Very few people today will argue in favor of Jim Crowe laws as we saw in the 1950’s and 1960’s, rather the opposite, as “separate but equal” never works. But, today, we have minority students demanding segregation, companies sued for not hiring a minority over a more qualified person, and even calls to change a character’s race or gender to be “inclusive.” One company, just over 15 years ago, had a policy that all applications were online and anyone including “anything that would give away the race or sex of the applicant” was disqualified. The first and second interviews were automated via phone, the third via phone with a live person, and the fourth was all but a job offer and the first time you were seen by anyone. This company was sued (although they won each time) for “policies that harmed minorities” and the argument was that minorities wouldn’t have access to the needed technology, despite public libraries not charging for internet time to apply for jobs, and phones being widely available and inexpensive.
The popular culture arguments are even more comical, as they are almost all made by those who would never watch the program they demand conform to their point of view. Two examples show how the policy works wonderfully, or could fail dramatically. The Flash, on the CW network, has the characters of Joe, Iris, and Wally West, played by African Americans, and being a long time fan of the comic myself, I noticed the change, but never cared, as these three are amazing in the role they play. This shows that if you hire for talent, it won’t matter who is playing the role, unless there is a reason to otherwise look for talent. Doctor Who, for years, has come under fire for not having a woman play The Doctor. Initially, the role of someone who fled their planet to avoid military conscription, and being the 1960’s, meant a man, but over time, we have seen women assume roles originally played by men, from Commanders on Gallifrey, to Missy taking over from The Master, and the new Doctor coming in late 2017 is a woman, but from all reports, will do amazingly, indicating that until now, the right woman for the role just wasn’t available. In a funny twist of fate, someone was outraged that Superman on the CW show Supergirl was to only be white, despite having a white man playing the role in the credits, while another was incensed that Rami Malek, a “white man,” was playing an Egyptian Pharaoh in the Night at the Museum movies, until Malek let them know he was born in Egypt, and thus, actually an Egyptian!
This argument also comes into play in many other situations, but it always comes down to the same basic tenet, hire based on race/sex to avoid being racist/sexist, and the irony of “you must be racist/sexist to not be racist/sexist” just brings about the response of “you’re too ignorant to understand.”
Agree with me or you’re a Nazi and to be killed
The secondary tactic today is to call everyone who doesn’t agree with and follow you without question a nazi. Being a student of history, and having already said this here, those using that accusation to silence dissent are actually using the nazi tactics and logic. After World War 1, Germany was demoralized and dejected, until a charismatic man named Adolf Hitler rose to power and gave the country a scapegoat and whipped them into a frenzy. This is a typical tactic, that being to paint your opponent as so evil that all around you will rally to your defense. Charlottesville, VA saw a violent clash between “nazis” and “antifa,” although many now claim to have seen these groups come in on the same busses, suggesting they are simply one group instigating violence to get their way.
My personal stance, and arguments, against this argument is simple, my Grandfather and Great Uncles fought in World War II against the actual Nazis, with one dying on D-Day and laying in Calais to this day. My Great Uncle Coleman, a tank commander on D-Day and in North Africa, rode into Paris when it was liberated, and told me about his time in the Army fighting a brutal regime that murdered millions for the “crimes” of being Jewish, or gay, or otherwise undesirable. Just under a century before that, my ancestors fought to free slaves in the south, but because I don’t support what these “enlightened” people do, I am now painted as nazi.
The clarion call, of course, is to disarm all who are legally armed after any event involving a firearm. A “white supremacist” killed African Americans after the election of President Trump and the call was for gun control, not killer control. Those crying for “common sense gun control” ignore the tool used when it’s a pressure cooker (Boston Marathon bomber,) a truck (NYC,) or a van full of fertilizer (OKC Federal building,) and look for how to fix mental health, but when someone uses a firearm, you’re a nazi for wanting to address the actual issue, not just ban a tool.
Looking at three specific events should show how making a tool illegal is going to do nothing, as Chicago and Detroit should prove on their own. Columbine High School saw a brutal massacre of students, by other students, using weapons stolen from their parents or others they knew. These were high school students, and thus, they should not have any legal way to purchase a firearm. The only exception is if they were already 18, they can legally buy a shotgun, but they used other weapons that they could not legally purchase, so if they acquired the weapons illegally, how would yet another law stop them. Sandy Hook Elementary was virtually identical, with the killer stealing the weapons to kill with them. Again, he acquired them illegally, but the call was to pass another law, not address how to stop the person. This one also showed media ignorance, as they showed a photo of an AR-15, when that was left in his car and not used. Finally, Sutherland Springs, TX, saw a Baptist Church targeted by an avowed atheist who hated Christians. While he did purchase his weapon, he should not have been allowed to, as had his Dishonorable Discharge and Domestic Violence charges been properly reported when they happened, the state of TX would have had him on record as a prohibited possessor, meaning legally, he shouldn’t have been allowed any weapons. But, in the aftermath, former Vice President Biden is on record saying the man who had his own AR-15, and stopped this murderer, should not have been allowed to have the weapon that stopped a killer and saved lives.
The simple fact is that if you argue against removing a statue, for a speaker to come to a private event, or for law abiding citizens to be armed as the law allows, you are labeled a “nazi” and will be attacked, in some cases, physically and to the point of death.
These are the people who stop in a driving rainstorm to change a stranger’s tire, who hear about a family in their community suffering a loss and rally to cook meals and help, and generally do all they can to help anyone in need. Those accusing them of all manner of horrible things are those who demand that you wait for the Police when a killer is standing over you. They scream that you want children dead for suggesting women arm themselves to prevent assault, while also screaming that we need to “teach men not to rape,” as if it’s a genetic thing, although they also tell you being a man isn’t genetic.
The arguments don’t make sense, as they tell you that rape culture is only fixable by “teaching men not to rape,” then tell you that you can’t assume someone’s gender. They ignore the actual culture of rape in Hollywood and the DNC, while harping on “locker room talk” from over a decade ago from a man who, until he ran for President, was never accused of racism or sexism. All of this, to me, proves that we don’t have a racism, sexism, or homophobia issue, we have an willful ignorance issue.
If someone broke into your home five times, each time doing damage to your property and family, would you welcome them back again, and then say they didn’t do anything wrong by their actions leading to the death of one of your family? No, you wouldn’t, although I also wouldn’t argue that a pistol round can ricochet and kill as was argued in this case, having read about it, but that is just what the jury in San Fransisco has said. If you were beaten to a pulp would you blame the bat, or the person swinging it? If you were fired for calling in sick when found to later be at a baseball game, would you blame racism for your being found out to be lying? This is the crux of the matter and what must change, as we have almost half of all Americans today blaming everyone but the person responsible. Zarate, after killing Kate Steinle, is acquitted despite multiple felony convictions and deportations, companies are accused of racism when a minority who is less qualified than a non-minority, doesn’t get the job they want, and men are accused of all manner of crimes for merely living their lives. The question here then becomes simple, when, if ever, will society finally stop this madness? If we don’t, we are headed for the end of the grand experiment that is the Shining City on the Hill that is the United States.
Remain civil and respectful of everyone’s right to their own opinion. You do have a right to think and believe as you do, but so do those you disagree with.
This is, by my design, an family friendly blog. Yes, I know that the topics I write about are not those children, or even teenagers, normally read about and discuss, but part of rule one, being civil, is not resorting to profanity.
If you resort to a base insult, you will immediately be ignored by me and all others who understand the rules of a debate. If I challenge your point and you call me racist, you are proven to be someone unworthy of my time and respect, and I will ignore you after that.
CITE! YOUR! SOURCES! I have cited my sources for the examples above, and if you have an example used where the source isn’t cited, you can assume it’s my own personal experience, but feel free to ask. If you are asked for source material, either admit you’re using something you can’t prove, or provide the source material.
Finally, and most importantly, I am never, by disagreeing with you, denying any right or insulting you, rather, I am embracing my own right to free speech, and questioning what I do not believe. If you are unable to convince me, that is not my “denying your right” to anything, it’s my refusal to embrace your point of view simply because you demand I do.
Addendum – I’ve fought the HTML and revised over ten times now and I cannot get a constant result of a SIMPLE CARRIAGE RETURN after the centered section headers. I know it looks bad, but sadly WordPress is apparently in a mood to undo all changes when I save a draft.
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.
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?