THE SKY IS FALLING!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The not so new attitude about everything

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roy, Reciprocity and Rosie

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

Is this the beginning of the end?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 1st Amendment for liberals (dummies)

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

The full text reads as follow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smokey

Is it really still morning in America?

For many years, we’ve heard the loud protests from “gun control” advocates that they aren’t pushing for confiscation and forcibly disarming the American public, but Oregon’s Governor just signed bill which allows the confiscation of weapons from those “deemed to be an imminent threat to themselves or others. Here’s the problem, who decides that simply owning a weapon isn’t an “imminent threat?” Say you’re an outspoken critic of this Governor, and she just decides that since you constantly post about her in “less than complimentary terms,” that she “feels threatened” by you, so now you’re disarmed. What about people who are very public figures? Dana Loesch has had to move, again, because of threats to her and her family, because she is a very outspoken supporter of the Second Amendment and the NRA. She’s quick to let you know how she feels, but has never been a friend to the liberals crying over every death after someone who has a weapon on them, illegally, is killed. Say this law was federal, what’s to stop some liberal judge from declaring that anyone who supports the NRA is an “imminent threat” to themselves or those around them? This is the slippery slope that conservatives have talked about every time “common sense gun control” is brought up.

Another example of the idiocy we’re expected to ignore from our elected officials, this bill that supposedly would ban bump stocks/automatic weapons, but if you read it, it bans EVERYTHING that can “increase the rate of fire” of a semi-automatic weapon. Now, I made more than my fair share of jokes and comments about Shannon Watts saying that no rifle should fire 10 rounds a minute (yes, 1 every six seconds, which I can beat with a bolt action rifle where I have to load every shell,) but this bill is just moronic and why is very simple. Every human is born with a “rate increaser,” it’s your finger! The faster you pull the trigger, or if you don’t seat the rifle against your shoulder tightly enough, it will bump fire without a bump stock. Here’s the idiocy about this though, faster fire is actually far less accurate than slower fire. Notice in the movies though, the weapon doesn’t move much when the “machine gun” fires. This is false, the barrel is going to rise and move, so you’re not going to be able to just “mow down” your target. I’ve fired in competition for a few years, and I tend to use every second I’m given, ensuring my accuracy is the best it can be. But, as always, the “scary thing” is so evil it must be possessed by Beelzebub himself, so must be taken by force from all who have it.

With the Oregon law, and the low chance that any judge on the bench now other than those now being appointed by President Trump, would side with the Constitution, we must act and act fast. We have the 2018 mid-term elections in just over a year, and the primaries in half that time. Read your Constitution, and only vote for those who will honor their oath of office and stand up to bullies like Oregon who would declare anyone an “imminent threat” and disarm the with no hearing or charges. That’s a violation of not only the 2nd, but also the 4th Amendment, as it’s definitely unreasonable search and seizure. Stand up to idiots who would say they want to ban “machine guns” but then say that ANYTHING that can increase the rate of fire is illegal, as they know perfectly well that simply being semi-automatic means the simple trigger can do that, as they are working to disarm all Americans.

Make no mistake, they know that if they ever disarm the citizenry, the criminals will still be armed, and they want that, as they want a police state. They want total control over ALL ASPECTS of your daily life. First they’ll disarm and declare Martial Law “to protect us.” Next certain cars aren’t “environmentally sound” so they’re taken, then certain speech is “hateful” so banned. I’ve studied End Times Prophecy for over 25 years, and this is the world that will come to pass when Satan installs his puppet, and then rules. Which side are you on? Do you stand up for your own rights, or will you bow when told you have no rights?

An open letter to the American left

For almost a year, half of the country has been berated, insulted, and more, simply because they voted for the candidate they wanted to, rather than who those on the left demanded be elected. Hillary has been making the circuit bemoaning that it was “her turn,” questioning “what happened,” and in general, blaming everyone but herself for her failed White House run. Celebrities and business owners have berated and ostracized conservatives, and demanded that they get their way even though they lost the election.

This, sadly, has led to cowards in masks assaulting others based on beliefs, and nothing else. A UC Berkeley assaulted a student by striking him in the head with a bike lock, which could have killed him, because he wanted to have a speaker the mob didn’t like visit the campus. More recently, violence erupted in Charlottesville over a statue of a Civil War figure the liberals wanted torn down. They didn’t do the right thing, petition the city and let the people decide, they simply showed up and demanded to get their way, and when they weren’t given everything they demanded, they began assaulting those who were there to prevent their destruction of public property. After that, the President denounced everyone who resorted to violence, and instantly, the media and DNC began accusing him of supporting the “nazis” or “white supremacists” because he wouldn’t name them only. So, he named them, and the antifa group, so they said it wasn’t enough, and said he really didn’t mean it. Now? Now, the Democrats in office are denouncing antifa, or “all sides” and ignoring that they screamed at Trump for doing exactly what they are now doing.

So, now that the media and DNC are coming in line with the rest of the country, denouncing the violence coming from those they emboldened, we’re seeing a shift. Marcus Lemonis, who is on TV rather often telling people how to save their business, told those who voted for Trump not to shop at his chain of stores, which led to the loss of an almost $200,000 sale of an RV. Stephen King announced he was banning President Trump from seeing IT, his newest movie, which led to a response on Twitter from conservatives that they wouldn’t see it either. Jennifer Lawrence has also told all Trump supporters she “doesn’t want” them as fans, and told them not to see her movies.

While Lemonis’ remarks have seen people calling for a boycott of Camping World, and for people to shop at Academy, Cabela’s, or Bass Pro, Hollywood has seen their lowest summer season in a very long time, and now the NFL is seeing record low numbers for ticket sales and viewers, after Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the national anthem, then blamed racism for his inability to demand a starting position while analysts maintain he’s not good enough, regardless of his “protest.”

There’s only one way this can go, Hollywood, the NFL, and businesses like Camping World, where those running things tell people they’re racist for not accepting that a millionaire should be able to disrespect the flag, or that they’re not wanted based on their vote, will see their income dive to all time lows. After that, I can all but guarantee that Lemonis will be decrying the “little people” who work for him losing jobs, Lawrence will bemoan that conservatives are “punishing her” for speaking her mind, and the NFL will see idiots like Kaepernick continue to tell the world they’re racist for not supporting him in his demands that we do all he wants while he insults us. Sadly, this needs to happen, for one simple reason, so we can throw their words back at them. When Lemonis cries about layoffs, we show him his demand that people not spend money with him, when Lawrence can’t get a role, we show her where she told people not to see her movies, and when the NFL starts having to go PPV or another route due to people not spending money with them, we show them where they refused to tell the millionaires playing a game to entertain those paying to watch that insulting those people isn’t right.

All of this is going to be a required action, just as arresting and jailing the antifa cowards, and anyone else that resorts to violence to silence opposition, we need to make sure that we show those we pay that when they tell us we’re evil for not obeying their orders, we won’t spend our money to support them. Hollywood said they’d go on strike, maybe we should let them, there are thousands of young and struggling actors who would LOVE to get a role that Lawrence has, or that Streep got, and they’d work for a fraction of what the established celebs work for. They’d also see that they need to just act, and not rant about their fans not obeying them.

To be very clear, I am a conservative, politically and fiscally, and while I do speak my mind, I do not, and never will, insult someone for believing differently. I’ll happily debate all day long, and I’ll keep it civil, until you don’t, then I walk away. I don’t care if the people in a movie or show I’m watching are liberal, conservative, or other, I just won’t support them with my money when they insult and demean me, simply because I’m not marching lock step with their beliefs. I honestly don’t know where Chris Pratt stands politically, or for that matter, most of the Guardians of the Galaxy cast, and I don’t care. They aren’t on TV and social media insulting people for politics, they just make movies and entertain people, and do it well.

I do know where other stand, Lemonis won’t see a dime from me, Lawrence/King will see me not spend a cent on their movies (or books in King’s situation,) I’ll continue calling out those like Chris Evans, who plays Captain America, yet rants about politics as if he can force people to change, completely opposite the character so many (like me) grew up loving, and reading. Eastwood, Sorbo, Hart, will see me spend money on their projects, not because I agree with them politically, but because they’ve spoken about their beliefs, but not attacked or insulted those who don’t believe the same.

So, in a nutshell, liberal America, keep ordering me around, and keep watching as I do what you don’t want me to, as I spend my money where I want, and that won’t be on your stuff, and when that results in you losing income, don’t blame me, but remember it’s what you said for me to do. Simply put, be careful what you wish for, because in this case, you will get it, in spades.

“Do as I order you to or I’ll say you’re an evil bigot who supports killing puppies!”

The violence in Charlottesville over this last weekend is just the latest example of a society populated by people who refuse to recognize that something happened they cannot control. It started in Ferguson during the riots after a Grand Jury ruled that the officer had acted in defense of his life, and that the thug Brown was not murdered by an evil racist. I’ve had several people tell me that I’m wrong in condemning everyone involved, just as they say the President is, because I won’t call out only the KKK and neo-nazis, ignoring and not naming antifa. When I point out that there were three groups involved, and calling out only two excuses the third, I get “but they’re nazis” as if that means I’m to excuse those who were just as fascistly violent. The antifa, or anti-fascists, for example have begun using a logo that is literally a 180 degree rotation and translation of an actual National Socialist logo from Nazi Germany. They violently suppress anything they don’t like, from speech to assembly, and they will all but kill to get their way. Those are the exact actions of the National Socialist party in the run up to WWII. Consolidate power, intimidate those against you into following you or at least being silent, suppress all dissent by any means necessary, and all of that leads to Buchenwald, Auschwitz, and murdering millions.

The next argument is that the neo-nazis and KKK were heavily armed when they showed up in Charlottesville to protest the removal of a statue, as if that’s to say they came ready to kill anyone who disagreed, but the only death was due to an idiot in a car. Another point of view would be that looking at antifa’s history, where a professor at a state college swung a bike lock at a student’s head, simply because the student wanted a speaker the professor doesn’t like, to come speak, I’d say they showed up ready to intimidate the other side, legally by the way as no weapons were taken, into staying non-violent. Scream and yell all you want, you throw a rock at me, swing a chain at me, and I’m ready to defend my life. The “but they’re nazis” as an excuse for violence is so far gone, I can’t even begin to understand how anyone can claim to be for tolerance, chant “Love trumps hate,” and then jump to violence over differing thought. I know they’re going to instantly say that Hitler would be shot on sight if he were here today, but that’s not the way our country works. You cannot use a WWII situation to justify violence in our streets over a disagreement. My Great Uncle drove a tank into France, starting at Normandy on D-Day, drove into Paris at the end to liberate an oppressed country, all after war had been declared, and it was military vs military. He would not only be the one standing against removal of a historical marker, but also stopping violence from either side, likely by giving that “I’m very disappointed in all of you” look he mastered early in life.

If it’s as simple as “they’re part of _____” why can’t I punch BLM supporters, since BLM has never officially and totally denounced those using the name BLM to call for murdering police? Why can’t I punch antifa on sight as they’ve said they want me beaten to a pulp for voting for Trump? The answer is very simple, you do not get to punch people simply because of what they say/believe/stand for, you only resort to violence to stop violence (PHYSICAL VIOLENCE) directed at you or someone else. My saying I believe Hillary should go to jail for life and be in the cell next to Obama is NOT VIOLENCE DIRECTED AT YOU, it’s a statement. We have heard for years that “hate speech” must be stopped, but that’s not something that can or should be done. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no such thing as “hate speech,” which puts us back on the path of “you are free to speak your mind, but if you yell fire in a crowded room, and a panic/riot ensues, you’re responsible for the consequences of what you said.” My saying I believe antifa are a bunch of bigots, racists, sexists, and using tactics pioneered by the actual Nazi Party of Germany of the 30’s and 40’s, that is not “hate speech” that is my interpretation of their actions. If I invite Ann Coulter to campus having worked with a large group of fellow students to decide we want her to speak, and you then swing a bike lock at my head, that is assault with a deadly weapon. My speech is protected, your attempt to murder me is not.

People have asked me why I feel the need to be armed at all times, and it’s very simple. We now live in a world where my saying I’m a Christian sets of screams of rage that I would “dare” to believe in such hate, my stating that muslim terror groups have killed far more people than any other religious zealot group has sets of screams of islamaphobia, and my admitting I voted for Trump and would attend a speech by Milo or Coulter sets off, apparently, attempts to kill me to prevent me speaking my mind, while my attackers scream that they support free speech. I can guarantee that when they come to Texas and try this BS, and when a large number of my fellow Texans stop them, they will scream they were beaten bloody over protecting racist history. They will demand that everyone who stopped them destroying public property be arrested because they blocked them from breaking the law.

This is going to get worse, we will see people going to jail for things that the Obama administration ignored, and we will see the Trump administration accused of racism or sexism, for simply enforcing the law, and sadly, it’s what we need. 25-30 years ago, this wouldn’t have happened, as the Governor would’ve told the Mayor you have 1 hour, then I send in the National Guard, and it would have ended. Sadly, we now live in a world where people sue for everything, and we have “Judges” who will side against Police simply because they hate the current administration. I honestly wouldn’t have been surprised if the idiot who fired on the GOP softball practice had sued for discrimination and won from a liberal judge, simply because he would then claim that he was “forced into it because of how racist and sexist anyone with an R behind their name is.” At this point, I’m very thankful to live in TX and have lawyers ready to defend me, as I know it will come to a day where I’m threatened with death over simply believing as I do, and I will act to defend myself. If not that, we’ll have what’s happening in Europe happen, where “refugees” set up “muslim only” areas and attack those who dare try to actaully move about the country, and that won’t fly in the American south, and whoever is the first one told “you die for coming here,” who doesn’t accept it and acts to defend themselves will be accused of “going hunting” because the media and the American left are so bent on “we must be tolerant” they’ve now moved to “tolerant” meaning give in on everything, except when it comes to conservatives of course.

The long and short of this is very simple, and I’ve used this analogy before and it still fits. If I’m a teacher and I have three students fighting, two together against the third. I do not need to call out the team of two by their names, and ignore the lone student, that is excusing that third student. I do not need to name all three, as saying “all of you are in detention and I will be calling your parents” means just that ALL THREE ARE IN TROUBLE! For Trump to not specifically name only two of the three groups guilty of violence in Charlottesville is NOT siding with any group, and never will be. To call out only two of the three groups is to excuse the third, and the “but they’re all nazis or skinheads” is to say “I’m allowed to beat people up for believing different than me.” If you see a skinhead attacking someone, by all means, intervene and do all you must to protect that person, but YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ASSAULT SOMEONE BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE ALONE! Thought crime is Orwellian and a dangerous path. 1984 and Equilibrium are cautionary tales of allowing a government to have too much power, if we allow the “thought crimes” issue to become reality, how long before the government decides that suggesting that the First Amendment means you have free speech doesn’t mean that, and we see people killed over simple speech? How long before suggesting that wearing a shirt with a logo that “offends” someone is cause for death? How long before we’re drugged to remove all emotion and desire to resist control?

When they come for you, you will either go quietly, go screaming, or go down in a hail of bullets from government agents told to control you or kill you. Which will you choose, freedom, slavery or death? I know my choice, do you know yours, and will you stand up and refuse to give up your rights?

What happened in Charlottesville and what’s still happening?

We’ve heard the mantra from the left for years, that they want peace, love and tolerance. But, they are the most intolerant of all, as they will happily scream at you that you’re a hateful bigot for suggesting something isn’t right. From homosexuality, to politics, to immigration, they will make sure you’re told, repeatedly and at high volume, that you’re wrong, they’re right, and if you don’t agree, they will claim you just shot them.

Looking back at Charlottesville this last weekend, this is the same as we’ve seen in other places, just a different reason set things off. This time it was the left demanding all vestiges of the past, in this case Civil War memorials, that they don’t like be destroyed. To them, a state memorializing dead soldiers is the same as bringing back slavery. I’m very proud to be a Southerner, proud of my Texan roots, while also knowing Texas was a slave state. That does not mean I believe slavery was in any way not repugnant, it does not mean I want it back, it means I love my home, period. The monuments, however, are not there to glorify a horrible time in our history, they’re there to remind us of that time, so we never repeat it. Americans fought against, and killed, their fellow Americans, over something no sane person should ever defend, and all because of pride. We must remember that, we must teach our children that, so that when someone even considers suggesting a return to those ways, it’s shot down before it even leaves their lips.

But that’s the problem, the left doesn’t want to teach true history, just as they don’t want actual tolerance or diversity. You see, if they taught real history, they’d have to admit that the Democratic Party stood against abolition, that the NRA was instrumental in protecting the rights of the newly freed slaves to own firearms, that it was the Republican party that fought to give women and freed slaves the right to vote. True diversity would mean that they would have to allow those who disagree to speak and be heard. They wouldn’t be able to stop speech that offends them. They would have to stop insulting and accusing those who speak out against their pet projects of “crimes.” All of these things are what conservatives actually stand for, and what liberals stand against, because true tolerance and diversity means they can’t control the world around them, which is their true goal. As long as they control academia, they control the direction students go at graduation.

A mere 25 years ago this month, I was entering High School, and while there were bullies and cliques, it was a far cry from what we have today. Yes, I had bullies try to intimidate me, but they were all doing that because of their brutish size, not politics, and were easy to shut down. Even at 16, I was already very conservative, having grown up under Reagan’s administration, yet, when I met someone who was liberal, we didn’t hate each other. The most outwardly “flaming” homosexual I’ve ever met was only a year ahead of me and was one of the nicest and kindest people I’ve ever met. He knew my beliefs, and we still sat to lunch together, helped each other with assignments and so on. Every Thursday I was dressed either in Air Force blues or fatigues, and other than a few people sniggering at the “wannabe soldiers” all over campus, no one cared.

None of that would be possible today, because of the people who are responsible for what happened in Charlottesville. The very people screaming for tolerance demand you do as they do, and if you don’t, you’re attacked. Charlottesville’s Mayor and Virginia’s Governor are both Democrats, and one or both of them ordered the Police to stand down, just as Berkeley’s Mayor did when the riots over Milo being invited to speak happened. Regardless of who gave the order, the Mayor or Governor should have said NO to that, told the Police to stand their ground, then the Governor should have called in the National Guard to aid the Police. Who gave that order is only relevant as far as who is arrested for putting lives at risk.

Conservatives can joke that we love diversity, then say we have multiple weapons, or like different cuts of beef, but when it comes down to it, Conservatives are the only group actually working toward diversity, by fighting for everyone to actually be treated the same. So, the question is fairly simple, how much worse will it get before we finally act to stop the madness? Personally, I pray something happens very soon, as if it gets much worse, we’ll see martial law start happening, and no one wants that, no matter who’s in office.

Just another rant

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

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

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

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

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

On Bullies and Liberals, often the same thing

The last 8 months have been some of the most tense and violent that I’ve seen in a long time, likely ever. I remember 2000, when Gore ranted about the popular vote, dangling chads, and that the world would end because the country didn’t hand him the White House. 2001 when Bush began talking about responding to the attacks of 9/11, and so many other times, but it’s never been to the point of people destroying property on Inauguration Day, or college students and employees assaulting those who invite a speaker they don’t like to campus, and we’re there now. We’ve gone from the world of 2008 and 2012, where we were told “we won, you lost, get over it,” or “when they go low, we go high.” We’ve lived through hearing we could keep our plan, once the law passed so we can find out what’s in it, and now the country is tearing it’s self apart over an election, notably, the election of a Republican over a criminal, although the left will tell you, repeatedly at high volume, that Trump is the criminal, and Hillary is the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary, trust me there.

To understand the mindset, I actually need to go back over 20 years and show the earliest example of what I’m seeing now. I was in high school, and during my first month on campus, I had a bully lock in on me. As a sophomore (3 year High School,) I was 5 foot tall and a bit overweight. Before a month was out, as I was walking toward the door, this guy walks buy and punches me directly in the chest. He always had his gaggle of “friends” with him, so after a bit, I started to move around with my friends. He naturally didn’t like even odds, and called me out, and I got tired of it. In the cafeteria, I asked him how I was the coward when he only approached me when I was alone and he wasn’t, only when he could sucker punch me and walk away, and only when there wouldn’t be a staff witness. He tried to say it wasn’t true, so I simply said “If you’re not a coward, meet me, today, across the street, alone!” He never did, lied about it, and got madder and madder when no one believed him. A year after graduation (I’m now 6ft1 and 220+) he spotted me going to my car. I saw him coming up from behind me in the window reflection, so caught the punch, put him in a submission hold and called 911. He actually filed suit and complained the video of him trying to hit me from behind and my obvious defense was proof I attacked him.

This is the mindset today. Groups like “Moms Demand Action” tweet about how this group or that state are “making guns more accessible and putting women at risk” while ignoring the fact that domestic abusers, felons, etc., are barred from owning a firearm, period. When called out on this, they just block you, then tweet about you as if they’re the victim, and the media eats it up. Some of them, however, are powerful enough to do more than tweet. We’ve seen the multiple “mysterious” deaths of those investigating or otherwise in a position to oppose Hillary Clinton. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was in good health, not old, but still died “mysteriously,” and the Obama White House stepped in to ensure no autopsy. Seth Rich was shot in the back during a “robbery” where nothing was taken, survived and was in good condition at the hospital, according to doctors, until DCPD took custody of him.

Those who don’t have power just act as if they do. From blocking highways then suing anyone who actually manages to get past them, to swinging bike locks from behind a mask, the world is no longer a place where you can express your opinion without fear of someone being so “offended” they now feel they must attack you. When the uproar over Wonder Woman “fat shaming” women by being in great shape happened, I asked one person how else an Amazon Demi-Goddess should look, only to be told they were going to “find me and remove my ability to attack people.” I reported them to the social media site, and my local PD, and never heard more from them. But that’s the point, I presented a simple question, and rather than an answer, was told I should be killed! Another suggested that DC is racist because Wonder Woman looked too American. I pointed out that Gal Gadot is Israeli, Wonder Woman is from Themiscyra, which is normally in the Aegean Sea, meaning near Greece, so she’d be very tan and look pretty much like Gadot does all the time. The idiot told me I was just lying, so I sent him about 40 links to pictures from comic books and DC animated movies, after which I was blocked.

Finally, look at how they act when “offended,” it’s the simple bully mindset. If you look at any movie where a main character is in middle or high school, you’ll see it on screen. For this one, look at X-Men Apocalypse, where Cyclops is first feeling his powers come into being. He’s accused of winking at the bully’s girl, only for the bully to follow him to the bathroom, state he’s going to physically assault him, then beat on the door as if he has a right to go in and grab the other person. This is the same mindset of liberals today. They block or report anyone who disagrees with them, but if you tweet something they don’t like, they blow up the thread and then go nuclear when you don’t reply to every one of their comments, accuse you of “ignoring them to censor the issue,” and anything else they can use to make it look like you’re in the wrong and they’re in the right. Naturally, right now the Hillary issue or handgun questions are the hot button items. One tweeted a link out where they “make the case for Hillary to be President after Trump is removed, not Pence.” Many have commented about how every one of their 14 points are wrong, only to be told off, or ignored. Shannon Watts and Moms Demand will tweet out story after story showing how guns are the problem, not the criminals who already don’t follow laws, then either block or accuse those who point out the criminals don’t follow laws of sexism, racism, hating children, or some other BS, then block them.

The point here is a simple one, we’ve gone past the point of no return, but that’s not a hard point in space. The left is determined to no longer just make their point, but to silence by any means at their disposal, any who don’t follow them. I’m not saying we resort to their tactics, as I, unlike them, only use violence in self-defense or defense of others, but some of their rules need to be ours too. When they shout you down and won’t let you talk, hold up a sign “He/She is refusing to let me speak because he/she knows I have a point.” Make it clear you are being censored. When they make a grab for your sign, don’t let them have it, then when they try to grab you, defend yourself. As for the colleges and businesses who are trying to deny free speech to conservatives, don’t give them one red cent of your money. If you went to one of those schools, stop all donations, making it clear why you’re doing that. Boycott any business that panders to the left, and make it clear why you’re doing it. I told Denny’s over 3 years ago I was done when two on duty Police Officers were told to disarm or leave, I told Starbucks I was done when they came out in support of groups trying to end the nation of Israel, and I told Target I was done last year during the bathroom issue. I’ve stuck to these as well, and it’s not always easy, well in all but a single day, as I did buy my NES Classic at Target last year, but haven’t been back since, and won’t go back again. In the case of Denny’s, there are several items that are only available there that I love, Starbucks is great for studying, and Target has good quality items at good prices, but as long as they support groups adamantly against what I believe, I don’t spend a dime there. Until enough people do this (such as with Target and their needing to cancel expansion plans) it won’t be much good, but if enough people decide that disrespecting Police, or endangering children, or supporting terror, means a company doesn’t want our money, we will see change, either the company changes, or goes under, meaning that either they accept that customers are tired of being told we’re bigots while we spend our money there, or they’ll just be gone.

Along with this though, is the mental toughness to stick it out and stay standing for what you believe in. When you call out a bully, they will immediately start whining about you attacking them. Screenshot every tweet you use to call out bullies and throw their words back in their face. Senator Pelosi was recently on TV saying that everyone must read the GOP replacement for Obamacare, only for a lot of people to tweet or post on Facebook, with a link to her now famous “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it” line from years ago. When you make it known why you won’t patronize a business, people will call you bigoted for standing against their choice, so you make it clear you don’t deny them choice, but you can choose too. We must do both, stand against the tide of “do what I say, you’re still a bigot, but you must obey to survive” and make it clear why we’re not marching to our doom, lockstep with the safe space needing snowflakes. You will be attacked, you will be accused of everything under the sun, just keep standing. Don’t delete your posts and screenshot theirs, so you can show their words then ask them to do the same. Embrace the Covfefe line of thought, if you screw up a tweet, wear it like a crown to just cause them to wonder, if you are attacked, demand they explain themselves and cite sources. They’ll do the rest and prove themselves the bigots, meaning then you just need to wake up anyone around to the truth.

If you don’t like the evidence, ignore it and push forward

As many of us expected, Comey testified yesterday, confirming that not only did he tell President Trump he was not under investigation, that he was not ordered to drop the Flynn investigation, and that he leaked information to the press, he also confirmed that he purposely did not tell the public that the President was not under investigation. The media, of course, still has plenty of anonymously sourced information and will continue screaming about Russia, ignoring what they don’t like. Sadly, this is an extremely pervasive attitude and has been for a long time.

While Kathy Griffin screams and cries that she’s being bullied and it’s only because she’s a liberal, the media ignores that a man who wore an Obama mask at a state fair rodeo in Missouri in 2012 truly was bullied, as he lost his job, was banned for life from that state fair, and has been dragged in by the Secret Service for anything and everything, but that doesn’t fit the narrative that the GOP is the evil group, as it was a DNC President and far more innocent than Griffin’s “joke.” Before that, we had people screaming that vaccines cause autism, despite the only study that supports that being debunked and thousands of studies showing they don’t, and naturally, the screaming that the NRA wants to take us back to the wild west and the crocodile tears by paid shills at ever candlelight vigil after a shooting.

I’ve responded to several tweets lying about the NRA, as have many others, and the response is always the same. Accuse the person actually daring to defend the NRA of being a paid spokesperson, of lying, of being ignorant, lather, rinse, repeat. I got tired of that long ago, so I tried a new tactic, starting my replies to lies about the NRA, Trump, or anything really, with three simple words “CITE! YOUR! SOURCES!” – Naturally, none of the people lying about anything will, but it’s having an interesting effect. Several people have responded to me, asking if I can cite my sources, which I can. The NRA is not, for example, trying to remove all restrictions on firearm purchase, thus allowing felons and other violent offenders to once again legally purchase a weapon, in fact their stance against those who have proven to be the kind of person who would kill without hesitation is rather clear, they are a prohibited possessor. I have had someone ask, years ago, why the NRA says they want to enforce the Second Amendment, if they also support not allowing prohibited possessors to purchase weapons, and it’s pretty simple. The Second Amendment states “the right of The People,” notice the capitalization, meaning The People as in American Citizens, not an individual. Even before the Revolutionary War, there were criminals, and thus, people who had a right taken away as punishment. You steal, you lose your right to walk about freely for a time. You murder, you lose that right for a long time, along with others. That isn’t a violation of the Second Amendment, that is punishment for a crime, and not something the NRA wants. As with yesterday’s hearing, the facts of the case came out, and the media and the left went insane about everything. Comey admitted, under oath, that he was not investigating Trump, and told Trump that, but of course, that means he’s either lying, or lied to the President, or both. He said that the whole Russia situation was at least mostly false, but we still have the New York Times crying about it.

At this point, I doubt anything will convince anyone that Trump did not collude with Russia to win, that Hillary has committed many crimes, or even that Trump is actually human and just different from them. So, how do we proceed? It’s simple, don’t let up! Keep demanding proof, and picking anything provided apart, for all claims of racism, sexism, bigotry, crimes, and so on. If someone tweets about a racist incident where it seems fishy, pick the story apart! We’ve seen people forced to recant, and admit that no one so much as said boo to them, we’ve seen it proven that a black man painted a church with pro-Trump graffiti just to make the President look bad. This must continue! When you see a tweet about Russia, demand proof, and don’t accept any form of “It’s in the paper, just read it,” demand the actual source material, and ignore any “Sources Say” story. You’ll be attacked for “ignoring the evidence” and when you are, ask why they ignore that a massive number of hate crimes just after November were fake, why they ignore what Comey said, and watch their brain grind to a halt. We’ve had 8 years of “turn the other cheek” or “we need to be tolerant,” and it’s time to stop. Use their tactics against them, they scream that every form of proof that doesn’t vindicate them is a lie, do the same to these anonymous sources stories. When you get sent a source that is wrong, pick it apart and destroy it. When you get told to provide sources, provide only those that are true and honest, those are the only ones that count anyway, right?

Maybe, just maybe, four years of low taxes, low unemployment, increased security, and lies being shown in the light of day to be lies, well, I may be dreaming, but maybe all of those will help not only re-elect President Trump, but drive a nail into the heart of the “I’M SPECIAL, YOU HAVE TO LET ME HAVE MY WAY, GIVE ME FREE STUFF, GIVE ME MONEY, DON’T ARGUE OR YOU’RE RACIST” BS we’ve had crammed down our throats for too long.

An open letter to Kathy Griffin and Lisa Bloom

Ladies,

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

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

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

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