In my previous post I wrote about how the teachers' unions in Rhode Island are blocking a proposed law that would make it a crime for school personnel to have "intimate relations" with a student over the age of consent but still not a legal adult. I am neither for or against a law like this, I am upset because this is enough of a problem that a law has to be considered to address the issue.

When I shared the link to the article on my FB page, I paraphrased Darth Vader by saying, "I find their lack of morality disturbing." Several times in my life, I have said something off the cuff that did not make sense until later. This has been bothering me all week and I finally was able to articulate it. Here it is:

A person who is in a position of authority, of leadership, a professional in their field, is burdened with the responsibility of a certain code of ethics. The finer points of the ethics differ from profession to profession, but the major shared points are these:

• An obligation to do what your employer tells you to do, within legal boundaries and ones own morality.
• An obligation to your customer, to give them the best good or service you can for the price.
• To do no harm to those in your charge, be they employees you supervise or those you mentor.

What these teachers are doing violates all three of the above core ethics. These "teachers" destroy the trust of the customers (the parents) in their employer (the school system) and the teacher themselves, by having a "teacher's pet" the quality of services to all of the students suffers. The "pet" will have certain benefits and attention, while the others will not. The "do no harm" is the worst of all. This will give the "pet" the impression that if they sleep with whoever is in charge of them, they will have an easier time in life, plus it will provide encouragement to those struggling to try that path to improve their lot in life. I promise you, that never ends well for anybody involved.

In the context of a professional field, a union who wishes to maintain the air of professionalism needs to have a severe form of self-policing. Many other professions already have these mechanisms in place. One story like this puts a negative light on every other member of that profession unless the board of ethics deals swiftly and fairly with the matter. If a violation has been found, then the offender should be disbarred from the profession, no matter where they go. Right now if a teacher is terminated for such an event, they lose their job and their state license to teach. This "teacher" can then move to another state, obtain that state's teaching certificate and be back in front of students.

To know the unions will not uphold a minimum level of ethics and morality in their members, or worse yet actively run interference for their immoral ways, makes me want to never deal professionally with anyone in that profession again.

I have several other articles that I want to get out, however I feel this is the most important of the set.

I came across an article about Rhode Island House Bill 5817. An Act Relating to Criminal Offenses -- Sexual Assaults. This is a bill to make it a Third-Degree Sexual Assault felony to a school employee who engages in sexual relations with an under-18 year-old student. Because under current law, a teacher can legally "get it on" with a 16 or 17 year-old student, due to the legal age of consent for sex in RI is 16.

This is what caused the uproar: James Parisi of the Rhode Island United Federation of Teachers and Patrick Crowley of the Rhode Island National Educators Association registered to testify AGAINST the bill.

Let me say that again. The two biggest unions that represent teachers and other educators in Rhode Island testified their opposition to a potential law that would criminalize a teacher having sex with minor students who have achieved the age of consent (16 years-old).

But don't take my word for it:

Just to check up on the status of the bill, I went to the Rhode Island Legislature's bill tracking website (you have to manually enter "5817" in the Bills field) to check the status of the bill. It is currently set at "Committee recommended measure be held for further study." Which, in Robert's Rules of Order terminology, is to "Table the bill," or put it into a suspended state for reconsideration at an unspecified future meeting. If the bill is not brought back up before the end of the legislative term, it dies a quiet death. In other words, many bills that are tabled die in committee, never to be heard from again.

Teachers unions notoriously donate large sums of money to Democrat legislators. Perhaps a marker or two that accompanied the donations was called in? Just something to think about. This kind of law should be a slam-dunk. What sensible adult would be against the criminalization of an act that a person who has at least a modicum of morals would find abhorrent? To have a person of authority over a minor engage in intimate acts with that minor, no matter how willing the minor is or is not, is a level of depravity that does not sit well with me at all.

I’ve been sitting on this for a few days, just to make sure one more thing didn’t pop up.

Mr. Jussie Smallett is a clear example of Leftist Privilege. I will explain.

Just in case you haven’t heard, Jussie Smallett, a cast member on the TV show Empire, for whatever reason, mailed to himself two threatening letters, then paid two Ethiopian brothers, one of which has a minor role in the same show, to dress up in whiteface, wear MAGA hats and “assault” him, putting a noose around his neck and shouting “This is Trump Country!”

The police took this hate crime seriously, and once the facts came out, Jussie was charged with 16 felonies.

Police Commissioner Eddie Johnson, in a press conference, laid out the case against Mr. Smallett point by point when charges were filed, kind of like when James Comey laid out the case against Hillary on July 5th, 2016. Except Commissioner Johnson did not hamstring the prosecution like Comey did.

Then, last week, Kim Foxx, the State attorney “in charge” of the case, drops all charges against Mr. Smallett. Both Police Commissioner Johnson and Mayor Rahm Emanuel were not told about the dismissal. They saw it on the news. So, Commissioner Johnson and Mayor Rahm Emanuel held a joint press conference, and both were plainly upset about this turn of events. Mayor Emanuel stating that Mr. Smallett should reimburse the city for all of the costs of the investigation.

Then we find out Ms. Foxx had an ex parte conversation with Smallett’s family. Then we also find out that Ms. Foxx also received a phone call from Tina Tchen, the former Chief of Staff for Michelle Obama about the case. Because of this, Ms. Foxx recused herself from the case due to an appearance of impropriety. Except that she didn’t really recuse herself, because she’s the one who made the decision to drop the charges.

I want to be clear, there is no evidence of this, this is the wandering of my own mind. Why would Ms. Tchen contact Ms. Foxx, if not at the behest of Ms. Obama? This does not pass the smell test.

All-in-all, what we have here is a clear case of Leftist Privilege. Because Mr. Smallett faked a hate crime that blamed Trump supporters, gets a pass on sixteen felonies. Depending on how many he would have been convicted on and how they were stacked, Mr. Smallett could have spent up to 64 years in jail. In reality, it probably would have been a total of 18-24 months.

One last twist, the other day, Mayor Emanuel totally reversed his position, now blaming the election of President Trump as being a motivating factor in Mr. Smallett perpetuating this “hate crime” upon himself.

The good news is, this is a long way from being over.

First of all, remember the threating letters Mr. Smallett mailed to himself? Yeah, sending threats through the U.S. Mail is a federal offense, not under the control of Ms. Foxx. Also, Ms. Foxx is now in her own vat of hot water, the Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association issued an extended statement slamming Ms. Foxx for her actions.

Prosecutors must be held to the highest standard of legal ethics in the pursuit of justice. The actions of the Cook County State’s Attorney have fallen woefully short of this expectation. Through the repeated misleading and deceptive statements to the public on Illinois law and circumstances surrounding the Smollett dismissal, the State’s Attorney has failed in her most fundamental ethical obligations to the public. The IPBA condemns these actions.

My take on all this? If the state charges had gone through, the federal charges would probably not been pressed. Now they most likely will, and upon conviction, the maximum penalty of 5 years will be applied. Ms. Foxx will likely never appear in a courtroom again, except as a defendant. She should be disbarred from the legal profession entirely.

This is what happens when you don’t do the right thing. You get your ass barbecued by the dragon before he eats you alive.

Okay folks, the Leftist groupthink is out of hand even more than usual. Leftists are now arguing about skin color. Will Smith catches backlash for colorism after being cast as Venus and Serena Williams' father.

First of all, Will Smith was offered and accepted a job. The Producers of this film thought he is the best "bang-for-the-buck." So if you want to accuse someone of "colorism" you might want to look at the director, producers and casting staff first.

Second, does this fall under the banner of "Black enough?" Seriously, you inbred nimrods are openly discriminating against a man, not for his politics, not for his character, not for his race but the shade of his skin. At least you can pick on something he has some control over.

Not too long ago, there was fan talk about Idris Elba being the next James Bond when Daniel Craig steps away from the role. Even though Ian Fleming described (and drew) Bond as a White man of Scottish descent, l I personally have no issue with it. If the producers think Elba would bring in more revenue than their second pick. However, recent events have shown that a "drastic recasting" of hit films does not translate into profits *cough*Ghostbusters* *cough*Oceans Eight*.

How can we move past racism (which the Leftists demand we do) when those same Leftists demanding equality are discriminating against a man over the shade of his skin? This is beyond the pale. Even my loquacious vocabulary lacks the words to adequately describe the idiocy going on here.

As opposed to the writing on the wall...

Before I get into this, I want to point out and make very clear, this is the kind of crap that happens when government has too much power. When an administrator or committee gets it into their head about something, a citizen, either inadvertently or on purpose, becomes a target of the government. The government, with its' unlimited resources, can perpetually persecute a citizen until that citizen either capitulates or is destroyed.

If you ever think for a second that Mr. Phillips "had this coming," I pray that you never find out what it's like to have the forces of the government aimed at you, because I promise you will not be so enthusiastic about unlimited governmental power when you are its' target.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, might be nearing the end of his journey, with a modestly happy ending. I have written about this before, link 1, link 2, link 3.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has abandoned the second lawsuit against Mr. Phillips, now that information of exactly how hostile some of the members of the Commission were towards Mr. Phillips.

In this transcript of a hearing for the CCRC, Diann Rice said this (Page 11, line 25 to Page 12 line 10),

I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be -- I mean, we -- we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to -- to use their religion to hurt others. So that's just my personal point of view.

I cannot disagree that religion has been the vehicle for people with prejudices to force others to do things they didn't want to do. But freedom of religion? I always thought that freedom of religion meant religions (or the lack thereof) could exist side-by-side without warring against each other. I don't know about Ms. Rice, but my history books talk about the Holocaust as the efforts of a secular leader (and a Socialist) of a country trying to exterminate a particular religion? By the way, this was uttered after SCOTUS' 7-2 ruling in favor of Mr. Phillips.

So, Colorado has surrendered on their effort to destroy Mr. Phillips. In return, Mr. Phillips has ceased his lawsuit against every member of the CCRC, the Attorney General and the Governor. Mr. Phillips comes out on the short end of the stick here, as each side will pay their own legal fees. This means Mr. Phillips has to contend with lower sales because of the persecution by the government and he now likely has tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees he must pay off.

Just in case you never read the facts about this, Mr. Phillips refused to create a custom cake for a same-sex couple for their wedding and a transgender woman celebrating the anniversary of her change. Mr. Phillips offered to sell them cakes that were in stock and offered the names of other bakeries that would be more amenable to their needs concerning custom cakes. Mr. Phillips also doesn't do Halloween cakes and a few others, just in case you weren't clear that all of those things, in his opinion, go against his religious beliefs.

I've been hearing a lot of PSA's from a website known as End Family Fire [https://endfamilyfire.org/] and I went to take a look at it the other day. The radio PSA’s are a (simulated?) 911 call where the parent is screaming about “the gun was loaded.” I am sure this is meant to stimulate a parent’s worst fears, that of their child being seriously injured or dead. Looking at the site, I am amazed by several things, first of all it actually sounds reasonable. But if you excuse the pun that's a little disarming and that's probably intentional. They have three main points.

Their points are,

• Eight children are wounded or killed every day in unintentional shootings.
• You should lock your firearm with a trigger or breach lock, keeping the ammunition separate from the weapon, and;
• Talk to your children about gun safety.

I will now address these point by point.

Eight Children a Day.

My stats, provided by WISQARS (from the CDC) shows in 2017, the last year for data, for the 0-17 age range (because 18 and 19 year-old people are ADULTS and not children) there were 6,634 injuries by “Unintentional BB/Pellet or gunshot” (0.1% of all unintentional injuries and #20 on the list) and 69 deaths, (1.6% of all deaths and #10 on the list).

According to my math, this works out to 18.3 per day. To cut it to the 8 a day, they would have to only count 2,851 of those non-fatal injuries. To put that into perspective, for every child which received a non-fatal shooting injury, there’s 9 who were injured in an “unintentional pedestrian” event, or 41 for getting hurt on a bicycle.

I will stipulate their stats are accurate because I could not separate the BB gun and firearm injuries. Are they preventable? I can agree to that. My problem with them, as detailed below, actually goes to fixing the problem, not a nebulous “raising awareness.”

Storing the weapon.

Let me specify that I am talking only about weapons meant for immediate use in a home invasion or other such event. Most weapons in the home will be stored unloaded. Ammunition may or may not be near by. The military term for immediate use is “Ready Five,” meaning an aircraft sits on the tarmac (or carrier deck) fully fueled, armed, with crew nearby and can launch in five minutes or less from the order to launch.

In 99% of the cases and reasons for having a loaded firearm easily accessible in the first place is to return fire in case of a home invasion. For as long as I have been a member of the NRA (30 years now) every month I got a magazine (until I went digital) and one page was called The Armed Citizen. The page had about a dozen synopsis' of local news stories where people used their firearm to defend friends and family from Bad People. That means I've been sent about 4,300 of these news articles. The chance of you having your home broken into while you're home is going to be very small. If it does happen, there is a very high chance of serious injury or death happening to you.

End Family Fire suggests that you store your firearm and your ammunition separately. The weapon should also have a trigger or breech lock. For those who are interested in home self-defense this seriously hampers the ability of the homeowner to quickly respond. It would take a significant amount of time (1-2 minutes) to bring the weapon to a usable condition when you only have 10-15 seconds to grab the weapon and engage the invaders. In situations like this, seconds literally do count and 1-2 minutes is too long. You’re dead.

Now, a pin-coded safe I would consider to be superior to a trigger/breech lock, as the weapon could be stored in Condition Two (loaded magazine in the weapon, no round in the chamber), quickly retrieved, brought to ready and used. Not to mention that in a stressful situation, the first thing to go is fine motor skills. Locating and inserting the correct key in a lock, or spinning small tumblers to the correct combination would be a lot harder and time consuming.

Talk with your kids.

This is where End Family Fire totally fails. Okay, “talk with the kids.” What should you say? I’m sure this kind of talk would be up there with “the birds and the bees” discussion. It would have been great if there was a tip sheet with points for the parent to consider, research and discuss with their kids. But there’s nothing to be found.

When my son was a preschooler, he would come and visit me in the garage when I was re-loading ammunition or maintaining my weapons. I had printed a sign that was at his eye level and these were the first words he learned to read. Those words were the four firearm safety laws. He had to recite them every time he came out to see me.

• A firearm is always loaded.
• Never point a firearm at something that you do not want to destroy.
• Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
• Always be sure of your target and what is behind it.

The only materials End Family Fire has are PSA’s and brochures that “raise awareness” but do nothing to address the issue.

If you really want to stop incidents like this, there are two simple and easy things to do. Defang the serpent and teach them age appropriate things to do when they find a firearm.

Defang the serpent.

This one requires some of your time. During your talk with your kids, let them know you will tell them anything they want to know about firearms, within their ability to comprehend of course. If they can inspect (unloaded) firearms under your direct supervision, pretty much any time they want, those firearms lose their allure and the kids lose their curiosity about them.

Age appropriate training.

The Eddie Eagle program, developed by the NRA 30 years ago teaches pre-school and elementary kids four simple steps on what to do when they find a firearm.

• STOP!
• DON’T TOUCH!
• LEAVE THE AREA!
• TELL AN ADULT!

It doesn’t confuse kids about firearms being “bad,” or they might “go off” or anything like that. Don’t touch it, get away from it (and the person holding it) and tell an adult. This program gives children clear and simple actions that they can easily remember, articulate and perform. It really can’t be any simpler than that. This is what you should talk about with your kids.

As I alluded to in the title of this post, the Liberal way to address this issue is to “raise awareness” among adults by inducing panic and fear, then abandon the parents after telling them they need to "talk with their kids," but not knowing what to say or cover. Which, unfortunately, will most likely be the wrong thing.

The Conservative way to address this issue is to defang the serpent by satisfying the kid’s curiosity so they don’t go behind your back to find and handle the firearms unsupervised, then give them clear and simple actions to do if they find a gun, like when playing at a friend’s house who then pulls out their parents gun.

Instill fear and panic in parents, or teach the children to almost eliminate the problem in the first place. Which do you think you would (or should) choose?

I realize that I have this under "Dumb Laws," however the law it self isn't dumb, it's this ruling.

So the latest monstrosity of absurdity has come to pass: Judge tosses North Carolina mandatory voter ID amendment citing gerrymandering.

Let me break this down so it somewhat is understandable. To be clear, this is nowhere near the four corners of the law.

1. Judge rules that a voter ID law is invalid.

2. The reason why the constitutional amendment (which was voted for overwhelmingly by the people of NC) is invalid is because the General Assembly is "illegally constituted."

3. The General Assembly is illegal because "[The] General Assembly does not represent the people of North Carolina and is therefore not empowered to pass legislation that would amend the state’s constitution."

To show I am not making this crap up, here is the court's ruling.

From my understanding, the Republican district drawings were based on equal population and did not consider race. To me, this is how it should be done. Put a pin in the map where every household resides, with a number on the pin to show how many people the census says live there. Then draw districts that are compact and have no "bulges" or noticeably protruding sections. Below is the US Congressional districts for NC. I have several issues with this map, notably the "intrusions" from 3 into 1, 13 into 6 and 10 into 11. District 4 seems custom made for the Democrat that currently holds that seat.

The State House and Senate districts also some some of the same characteristics as the above map. You can see them all here.

But you see, if this judges ruling is not overturned, I have to ask this question:

"If the General Assembly is illegally constituted to the point that it cannot propose amendments to the state constitution, does it not also follow that it cannot make any laws?"

A legislature is like a pregnancy: You are either pregnant, or you are not, there is no middle ground. Ask Schrödinger. If you are illegally constituted enough that you cannot carry out that part of their duties, (propose amendments to the state constitution) then they cannot carry out ANY of their duties under the state constitution.

This is the kind of consequences that happen when judges step outside of the four corners of the law. Properly done, the lawsuit should have tried to overturn the amendment based on the process that put it into place. Did the General Assembly vote to propose the amendment in accordance with state law and the methods of the respective houses? Yes. Did the voters approve of the amendment in accordance with the laws in place at the time of the referendum? Yes. In which case, the amendment is legal and the Plaintiffs are barking up the wrong tree. The legality of the representation of the districts and their makeups are another issue entirely and must be addressed separately from the first question.

A few years ago, the Panera Bread Company thought they would try a socialist experiment in a capitalist environment. Panera CEO Ron Shaich seems to have coined a new phrase for Socialism, namely "Conscious capitalism." He created Panera Cares, basically a Panera store that operated off of the Marxist phrase, ”From each according to their means, to each according to their needs.” The idea was the menu had suggested prices. If you could pay more, you were asked to. If you couldn’t afford to pay, you were asked to pay what you could. The experiment failed with the closing of the last store on February 15th.

What Panera (and Marx) failed to consider was the “enlightened self-interest” of people. It is a cornerstone of the human condition to pay as little as possible for anything, be it time, energy or financial resources.

When you have a set price for a good or service, people decide to buy on their judgement of, “is what I am getting worth what I am paying for it?” If a customer decides that the product isn’t worth what they have to pay for it, they don’t buy it. If you have no set price, I would be surprised if anyone paid anywhere close to the “suggested” price, let alone more. Most people would pay something, just out of social guilt or wanting to be fair. I would be very surprised if more than 5% of the customers paid more than the suggested price.

The problems with this concept were easily predictable and numerous, right from the start. The stores needed people with additional means to pay for those who didn’t have the means to normally eat there. So you have someone who is well dressed and groomed, while at the next table is a homeless person who was more concerned with making it to the next sunrise than hygiene. This made both people uncomfortable. One person didn’t want to eat sitting next to someone who smelled like a dumpster in the Summertime, while said smelly person didn’t want their odor (and things) intruding on the other person. Then you had drug use in the bathrooms, or people who didn’t want to use the toilet, so they did their business on the floor and so on.

By the time the last one closed, the homeless were prohibited from eating there more than a “couple times a week” and the only ones attending were starving college students. The revenue of these stores never got above about 70% of the expenses, so they were big money holes.

Again, the basic flaw in the plan should have been easily predictable to anyone who has a faint idea of how humans operate.

Socialism inevitably comes down to the muzzle of a gun because only the most naïve will willingly surrender the fruits of their labor to those who will not likewise produce. The major Communist states (Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea and more) had to convince its citizens on a daily basis that they were living in a “workers paradise.” And if you didn’t believe them, they either shot you or starved you to death.

Socialism will never work for any length of time on its own accord. It must be constantly pushed forward by those forced to live under the system, with the muzzle of a gun in their back to “inspire” them to keep pushing.

With two notable major media stories going south (for the MSM) it only shows their lack of integrity and willingness to sacrifice any ideal (or person) on the altar of "DESTROY TRUMP."

First, we have the Nicholas Sandmann incident, where he and his fellow Covington High School classmates were wearing MAGA hats after a pro-life rally. Sandmann calmly stood his ground as he was approached and berated. The media, taking out-of-context video segments from a larger and continuous video that did show the context, vilified Sandmann and his classmates as the instigators and aggressors in the incident, when the opposite is true when you see the interaction in context. The MSM's insistent efforts to provide a distorted attack on this young man, and Trump by extension, has showed me their disgust on anyone who is even remotely a Trump supporter.

This has now come to bite them in the ass.

Through legal representation, Sandmann is currently in the process of suing the Washington Post (I like G. Gordon Libby's term for them, the Washington COM-Post) for $250 Million in damages. I hope he wins, because hopefully it will scare the MSM away from the "being first to break the news," to "let's take a day or two to get it right" kind of journalism.

The second story encompasses the phony "hate crimes," the most recent of which involves Jussie Smollett. It starts off bad, with someone allegedly at Jussie's direction committing a federal felony (sending threats through the US mail is a federal crime under 18 U.S. Code § 876), then Jussie paying two men to "attack" him, then lying about it to the police. For his efforts, Jussie has been charged with "disorderly conduct for filing a false police report," a Class-4 felony (maximum 18 months in a state facility), As soon as the FBI gets through with their investigation, Jussie may face to to 10 years in the federal system.

All the way up 5 minutes before the Chicago DA announced the charges against Jussie, the MSM was adamant that he was "a victim of a vicious and heinous hate crime."

Compared to the "hate crime" hoaxes, the true crimes where stereotypical hate is involved are invisible. Has there been any real, documented assaults where the victims racial or sexual preferences played a significant reason for the attack? I can think of none. If you know of any, please comment them below and I will update this post with them.

When I say hate in the context of the title of this article, I am not being hyperbolic, nor am I exaggerating. Let me explain why.

An adage I follow is "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer." When Air America was on the air, I listened to it. In small doses, mind you, but I did regularly tune into that radio station. A couple of weeks ago, I added The Young Turks into my podcast list. I listened for an hour for three consecutive days, and I haven't activated my podcast app since, I was so revolted by the hate, the ignorance, the distorted mindset and the vitriol that spewed from my speakers. Two "events" came to mind as I was thinking about this post.

The first was one of TYT called Mitch McConnell "evil." I don't know about you, but "evil" implies a lot of things. When Harry Reid was the Senate Majority Leader of the Senate, I can hardly think of a subject or stance I could find common ground with him. I think Reid was a devious, underhanded, unscrupulous, kind of guy, but I would stop well before I would use the term "evil" with Senator Reid. But TYT had no problem using it. By applying that label to someone who only has a political or philosophical difference with you, that cheapens the value of the word. I'm sure that we can all agree that people like Adolph Hitler, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and a few others really are "evil." When you throw Mitch McConnell into that group, you actually make the others sound 'not so bad.'

This is the second one. I actually found a video of it:

It should be understood that Aero Mexico wouldn't show someone who said no, because that would undercut their ad. In fact, there were 4 individuals and one couple asked at the beginning. The two people that expressed interest, one wasn't asked if they would go to Mexico. He didn't explicitly say "yes," it was an implied "yes" because he asked if his wife could go. The second person to imply a yes put a condition on it, "if there were Taco Bell's on street corners down there." I don't know if this gentleman knows there is very little in common with real Mexican food and what's on a Taco Bell menu. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he knows there are no Taco Bells south of the border. To say what he said, knowing there are none down there I can only interpret as a big "screw you" to anyone who believed he would go there.

I am more concerned with how Mark Thompson, Helen Hong and Brett Erlich (L to R, as they sat facing the camera) spoke of and judged these people. Mark said, "These people don't have passports, they're not going to the next state over where Bubba lives." While Helen said, "Those people live within a 20 mile radius from where they were born." Later on, she mocks them (in a forced Southern accent), "The only thing I love more than my racism is discounts." I couldn't take it after, "I've been to Mexico and the best thing about Mexico is those people are not there."

This is not funny, this is not political commentary, this is an intentional and repeated mocking of people who live in "flyover country" and who don't agree with the talking heads.

Quite frankly, it's this attitude and mindset that sickens me. This is what I fight against, the belief that these elitists know better for other people, even better than the people know themselves. I am all for personal choice and personal responsibility of accepting the consequences of their choices. Why Leftists can't accept that, I guess I will never know.

To paraphrase Darth Vader, "The idiocy is strong in this one."

The Hawaii State Legislature is considering H.B. 1509, introduced by three legislators, to increase the minimum age required to legally buy cigarettes, until you have to be at least 100 years old. I did not mistype that. One hundred years old. IF enacted (and it's a pretty big IF), the legal age to buy cigarettes would jump to 30 on 1/1/2020, then every subsequent year it would jump to 40, 50, 60 years, then all the way to 100.

Now let me explain to you the Aircraft Carrier-sized holes in this law:

• This only affects the sales of cigarettes from stores.
• It does not regulate possession.
• It only restricts cigarettes, not pipes, cigars and so on.

So, I can see 60 year old people profiteering (because the only state law on profiteering relates to gasoline; I checked) by buying cartons of cigarettes and selling to their family and friends. I can see vacationers flying in with multiple cartons to sell. I can see family and friends on the Mainland Fedexing cartons. Then you have all of the people just switching over to the other forms of tobacco usage to keep their nicotine levels up.

Then we will also have the black-market running a healthy profit. My wife's grandfather was a stevedore and she has told me some stories about him. In-line with this, I found the Hawaiian Libertarian, and specifically this post: The Illusionary Rule of Law.

The long-term effects of this are numerous. Another law that will have a drastic negative effect primarily on small businesses, a big boost in sales (and profits) for the already rampant black market, an exploding gray market, a drastic fall off in state revenues from the "sin tax" on cigarettes, a further disregard for the rule of law by the people, do I really need to go on?

This clearly illustrates the point of "Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. Just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong."

Last week, Governor Mario Cuomo signed into law a bill from the New York State Legislature implementing what he calls "a full Roe v. Wade". I find this admiring and reprehensible at the same time I find this admirable because I believe that this is about how the issue of abortion should be settled. I mean this should be a state level issue that is voted upon by either the representatives of the people in that states legislature or by a referendum of the people directly.

I find this method far preferable to the method of how we arrived at Roe v. Wade. Just in case you don’t know, Roe v. Wade is the 1973 landmark Supreme Court case that legalized abortion on demand throughout the United States. It was a decision for one case of one woman who wanted an abortion and couldn't get it because the laws in her state made the practice illegal. The matter was decided by nine judges who were not elected by the people and “by precedent” forced upon all 50 states.

I support New York's action to do this legislatively because I think each state should, either through the legislature or by popular referendum, decide as a state on passionate issues like this. So while New York may pass something like this, Nebraska may not and it should be perfectly fine either way. I support this because this is an ideology consistent with my position that the states are actual independent countries and need to decide internal issues such as this on their own and not have the federal government, which is supposed to regulate the states and not the actions of the people in the states. So I applaud New York for taking such a step.

I personally find the the action of aborting a child to be reprehensible, spiritually, morally  and ethically. I can and do moderate my position because I do not have the power and I do not want the power to regulate a woman's body or any aspect of any other person’s life. I will always advocate for the woman to deliver the child, however in the end, that decision (and the karmic debt) is hers to bear alone.

When you look at the New York abortion bill, the particulars of it are a total abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy for any reason. Which means that pretty much as long as the baby is not in the process of coming out on their own (i.e. the mother is in labor), the mother can decide to destroy the child.

There are three general exceptions under which most people agree that abortion is acceptable. They are:

• In cases of rape or incest;
• For the life of the mother;
• The child would be malformed (a known severe mental, developmental or physical birth defect)

According to Gallup, public support is in the majority for an abortion in the first trimester if one of those conditions are met. Down Syndrome is at 49% (and within the margin of error), but “for any reason” is at 45%.

In the same poll, the people were asked the same questions about the third trimester, respondents still gave a majority support for life of the mother and rape or incest. Everything else dropped under 50%, with “for any reason” at the bottom at 20%.

While a proper full term white pregnancy is 40 weeks, medical technology today deliver a baby as young as 25 weeks with a 50% chance of survival. That baby will have many lifelong medical conditions because it is not fully developed. A child can be delivered at 27 weeks (which is seven months, the beginning of the third trimester) with a 90% chance of survival and very little if any medical intervention or life-long medical issues.

The current dividing line between “fetus” and “child” is, “The child is ‘completely expelled’ from the mother” and one of these conditions are met:

• Breathes;
• Has a heartbeat;
• Pulsation of the umbilical cord;
• Voluntary muscle movement.

Which leads us to the “late term” or “partial-birth” abortions. I'm sorry to be gruesome here, but in a partial birth abortion, the doctor induces labor and brings the baby out feet first, leaving the head still inside the vaginal canal (so “it” still meets the first condition above and is legally a fetus and not a child). While the head is still within the mother the doctor pierces the back of the “fetuses” skull to scramble and destroy the brain, then removes the brains through a suction tube.

As of this moment, in the state of New York, that is perfectly legal, all the way up to the second before the child wants to come out on their own.

I now have a question, very serious question, because this has happened at least once that I can find. If, during the initial stages of a partial-birth abortion, the “fetus” pops out all the way, be it through its’ own random movements or the doctor flubbing it, could the procedure continue and the “clump of cells,” now a child is terminated? I guess in New York State, the answer is “yes.” Now, do the people of New York agree with this law? I don't know. I do know we will find out during the next state election cycle when the legislators who voted for it are either ejected from, or returned to office

Writing this article wounded my soul. My soul cries out against the action while my mind praises the process it was arrived at. This has been one of the hardest articles I have ever had to write and I’m angry and sorry it had to be written in the first place.

No one is blameless in this matter. I blame the feckless Republicans of the 115th Congress that couldn't carry out their Constitutional duty to create an annual budget, I blame the 116th House for being stubborn and obstructionist because Trump is breathing, and I blame Trump for trying to uphold the duties of his office and protecting our national security.

Now that the shutdown has entered its' 31st day, unless you read past the headlines of "TRUMP REFUSES TO SIGN BUDGET," you won't see that Trump has extended multiple compromises to Nancy Pelosi, all of which have been refused. He has offered to reduce the amount of funding he has asked for, as well as temporary protections for DREAMers (which was an Unconstitutional program by Obama, BTW).

So now I have to ask, "Who are the real obstructionists here?" Trump is asking for physical barriers along "high priority sections" of the border, and what he is asking for is, compared to the totality of the federal budget, a "rounding error." Look at it this way: $5 Billion is 0.5% of the deficit, and 0.12% of the total budget.

I respect both President Trump and Obstructionist Pelosi (I'm using that title from now on instead of "Speaker") for making their respective stands for what they think is right and important. They are also teaching most every American exactly how much they "need" the federal government. Yes, many families are affected (including my own and those close to me) by the restriction of federal government operations. The good news is, many will learn just how much they (don't) need the government. In reality, the longer this shutdown goes on, more and more Democrat voters will realize they can get along just fine and maybe better without government assistance. When those people discover this, they have a good chance of leaving the Democrats.

I also found out while writing this post that after 30 days (which was yesterday), the government can permanently lay off furloughed workers through a Reduction In Force (RIF) program. Why is this critical? Because the bureaucrats who are interfering with President Trump from advancing his agenda aren't in the office screwing things up.

This article from The Daily Caller from a "Senior Trump official" says the following:

Process is what we serve, process keeps us safe, process is our core value. It takes a lot of people to maintain the process. Process provides jobs. In fact, there are process experts and certified process managers who protect the process. Then there are the 5 percent with moxie (career managers). At any given time they can change, clarify or add to the process — even to distort or block policy counsel for the president.

Saboteurs peddling opinion as research, tasking their staff on pet projects or pitching wasteful grants to their friends. Most of my career colleagues actively work against the president’s agenda. This means I typically spend about 15 percent of my time on the president’s agenda and 85 percent of my time trying to stop sabotage, and we have no power to get rid of them. Until the shutdown.

Due to the lack of funding, many federal agencies are now operating more effectively from the top down on a fraction of their workforce, with only select essential personnel serving national security tasks. One might think this is how government should function, but bureaucracies operate from the bottom up — a collective of self-generated ideas. Ideas become initiatives, formalize into offices, they seek funds from Congress and become bureaus or sub-agencies, and maybe one day grow to be their own independent agency, like ours. The nature of a big administrative bureaucracy is to grow to serve itself. I watch it and fight it daily. [Emphasis mine]

In other words, the vast majority of "the swamp" that have interfered with Trumps agenda has been out of the office for the past month. And thanks to Obstructionist Pelosi, most of them are now gone permanently. Pelosi has just drained the swamp for Trump by being stupid and goadable.

In the long term, "Obstructionist Pelosi" is hurting her own power base and her desire of the expanding power of government more than helping it. So, keep holding out Nancy, you'll only destroy any chance the House will remain Democrat or win the White House in 2020.

Well, that didn't take long.

On the first day after being sworn in to office, the House of Representatives for the 116th Congress has already spewed forth as how Shakespeare said it in Macbeth, "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." I say that because with a Republican controlled Senate, even if the House passes these bills, they will go to the Senate and be ignored. Kind of like when Harry Reid sat on 420 bills passed by the House.

So, here we go:

"For the People Act", a mishmash of House procedural rules and moves to "protect" the Mueller investigation and the ACA.

Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA), who has been elected in three different Congressional districts (not at the same time, of course, but you never know) sponsored H.Res. 13, Articles of Impeachment on President Trump. The heinous crime? Firing Comey, and thus "Obstruction of Justice."

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) (an admitted Socialist to the Left of Bernie and Trotsky) wants to introduce a "Green New Deal" that would wreak havoc on our economy, and finance it through a doubling of the income tax on our highest wage earners. Which, if you look at things like the Laffer Curve or even history, where you see high tax rates actually curtail government tax income.

My own Congresscritter, Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN) submitted bill H.J.Res.7 to eliminate the Electoral College. This truly would introduce the Tyranny of the Majority because almost half of the population are concentrated in cities, most of which are Democratically controlled.

I will be consistent and support Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) on her stance when she refused to take her oath on a Bible. She is the only person in the Senate to not identify as a member of a religion. Instead, she took her oath of office on a copy of the Constitution. I can support that. Taking an oath on a book you don't believe the teachings of is not an oath. It would be like taking an oath on the Yellow Pages. When you do take an oath on a book, for that oath to be binding, you need to respect and try to live by the words in the book.

I do have an issue with her doing that while tacitly supporting violent groups with a "wink-and-a-nod." Here is a 2002 email from her "community organizing" days:

“When AAPJ [Arizona Alliance for Peaceful Justice] attended May Day (sponsored by the Phoenix Anarchist Coalition), we knew that their guidelines differ from ours,” Sinema emailed a fellow protester. “They are okay with weapons and property destruction in some instances, and so those of us who chose to attend the event knew that it would be inappropriate to ask someone to not destroy property or to carry a weapon.” [Square brackets mine]

Knowingly letting people who have no problem with carrying weapons and causing property damage to "a peaceful protest" is kind of counter productive, don't you think? Unless you secretly agree with their methods and/or objectives. Like I said, "a-wink-and-a-nod." Peaceful and passive protestors can be ignored. Protesters willing to break property and bust a few heads aren't so easy to ignore.

And there you have it. A Sanitarium truly run by the Inmates.

I am beginning to think that the major problem is not excessive government, rather SJW-led corporations. We already know about Facebook, Twitter, et.al., banning people whose political views don't agree with management. And in ideas developed through Operation Choke Point, the financial strangling of people who have jobs or businesses deemed "undesireable" by the government. The latest effort to silence "undesireables" has resulted in accounts for Carl “Sargon of Akkad” Benjamin, James Allsup, and Milo Yiannopoulos being banned from Patreon.

The result of this is Dave Rubin and Jordan B. Peterson leaving Patreon (where they both derive a substantial portion of their income) and starting their own payment service. This, I believe could be the start of something that's been looming on the horizon, namely a "Conservative economy."

In 1986, Rupert Murdoch founded Fox Broadcasting Company. Murdoch did this because he saw the "Big Four" (ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN) being unabashedly Liberal in their reporting and views. So, Fox has made a serious effort to present both sides of an issue. They are clearly Conservative, however they do have real Liberals on their panels and they are allowed to voice their opinion. If there are any non-Leftists on panels on the other four, they are milquetoast centrists who couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag and are frequently shouted down. Fox became very popular very quickly because of a simple advertising strategy: "We're Not Them." By being a voice different from the Big Four, FOX attracted almost half of the country because up until then, the needs of that half of the country were not being met.

Now we are starting to see alternative platforms crop up. I discovered MeWe a couple weeks ago. It's a Facebook competitor who openly states they don't collect your information to "provide you with targeted ads." We anxiously await the Ruben/Peterson alliance (whatever it's name will be), and there are other websites and services who tell you, "We're Not Them."

I like the idea of platforms being platforms and not arbiters of what is good and proper speech.

Social Justice Warriors, I don't know why, seem to lack a basic grasp of reality and observational powers. Combined with their recursive thinking that "if they want it badly enough, it will come true," if they can get their "inclusive" agenda, the result will be staggering numbers of dead and disabled people. This will also lead in directions that *I* see, but obviously they don't.

I speak specifically about this article, Making U.S. Fire Departments More Diverse and Inclusive by Corinne Bendersky.

She starts with the first paragraph:

Picture a typical firefighter. Who comes to mind? If you imagined a white man, that’s understandable: 96% of U.S. career firefighters are men, and 82% are white. This homogeneity is striking, especially when you compare it to the U.S. military, which is 85% men and 60% white, and local police forces, which are 88% men and 73% white.

To which my response is, "Aaannnnnnnnndd?" Because there are two distinct factors in play here, both conveniently ignored by the author. They are 1) the prospective firefighter must apply for the position (they must want to do it) and 2) there is a set of physical and mental standards that must be met to adequately and safely perform the job at hand. Those physical requirements, by the way, are written in blood. The blood of those who could not physically perform the job and those killed or disabled because the first person could not do the job.

In 2015, I wrote about the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force in my article, Women in Combat. Included in my post was the article Sergeant Major Speaks Out On Women In Combat.

Sergeant Major Justin Lehew, who was part of the GCEITF and wanted it to succeed, had this to say:

With our limited manpower we cannot afford to not train everyone to the best of their abilities. This was as stacked as a unit could get with the best Marines to give it a 100 percent success rate as we possibly could. End result? The best women in The GCEITF as a group in regard to infantry operations were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study. They are slower on all accounts in almost every technical and tactical aspect and physically weaker in every aspect across the range of military operations. [emphasis mine]

The report sent to the Secretary of the Navy had this to say, (page 79):

1. The female Marines integrated into the closed MOS units demonstrated that they are capable of performing the physically demanding tasks, but not necessarily at the same level as their male counterparts in terms of performance, fatigue, workload, or cohesion.
2. Integrated units, compared with all-male units, showed degradations in the time to complete tasks, move under load, and achieve timely effects on target. The size of the differences observed between units and tasks varied widely. The more telling aspect of the comparisons is the cumulative impacts. The pace, timing, and accuracy of any singular task is not necessarily important, but taken together, and in the context of actual combat operations, the cumulative differences can lead to substantial effects on the unit, and the unit’s ability to accomplish the mission.
3. Gender and MOS type are the best predictors of occupational injuries. In particular, we found that females are more likely to incur occupational injuries, resulting in reduced readiness compared to their male counterparts. Males, on the other hand, are more likely to incur non-occupational injuries. Additionally, Marines in vehicle MOSs tended to have lower injury rates than those in MOSs that march (i.e., foot mobile) or Artillery MOSs.

Let me spell this out for you: The best female Marine is outperformed by 19 of 20 male Marines. In combat, the slower unit will likely lose in a fight. Integrated units are slower than non-integrated units. This ends only one way: more flag-draped coffins than there should have been.

How does this apply here? I can't say this enough: In physically demanding jobs where lives are on the line, the physical standards to those jobs are written in the blood of those who didn't meet those standards. If a firefighter cannot haul a downed fellow firefighter (or policeman, oil rig worker, et.al.) to safety in time, both will die.

Just in case, if you're reading "women can't be firefighters/Marines/Whatever," you're stupid. If a woman can meet the physical standard (not the women's standard, the same standard as men) and wants to work in that job, I have no problem with it. My day job consists of me routinely loading 40 and 50 pound bulky equipment boxes into and out of my work van. Out of the 40 technicians in my group, 3-4 are female. They can do the job and I don't have a problem with it.

To force gender equality in jobs like this will end very badly. But here's a worse dimension.

About 1975, I read a book, This Perfect Day by Ira Levin. It's the story about a dystopian society, where the computer "Unicomp" (Universal Computer) made most of your life decisions for you. I remember this passage quite clearly, just not word for word. The scene was where Chip (his actual name was Li XE 4827143) was lamenting that Uni had decided that he was to be a molecular geneticist when he really wanted to be something else, I forget what.

"Chip," the counselor said, "You know Uni always makes the best decisions, right? Uni has read all of your test scores and your teachers' notes about you to select the best possible work for you. Can you imagine if everyone wanted to be an actor but no one wanted to work in a crematorium?"

I clearly see that, not too far into the future, if SJW's can force this "gender equality" into any job (not just the physically demanding ones) then not too long after that, you won't get a choice about what you do to earn a living. You will be told what to do and that's that. Think about this: If the job openings for a given job type are to "equally represent" all racial and gender groups, how is that fire department going to find a mixed race Black/Asian lesbian that wants to be a firefighter? Because, you know, if a position requires that specific racial/sexual demographic, how easily can that position be filled?

Forcing diversity, be it racial or gender, without regard to the physical and mental demands of a job will end in failure, the only question remains is, "how catastrophic?"

This may seem counter-intuitive, but the proper way to tackle the issue of “hate speech” is to have more speech, not to silence the speaker. I have to put that term into scare quotes because it is often invoked for any kind of contradictory speech. By the massive overuse of the term, it destroys any impact it would normally have. Overuse almost normalizes real racists, like Louis Farrakhan, who compared the Jewish people to termites, or Sarah Jeong, recently named to the New York Times Editorial Board, who has Tweeted things like:

• “Dumbass f***ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”
• [It’s] “kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men."
• “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically only being fit to live underground like groveling bilious goblins?”

You can find even more of her best Tweets in the article Racism, Revised.

Can you imagine the outrage if Jeong had said “Black” instead of “white”?

Please, spare me the “it can’t be racism if the race of the person has no power,” implying minorities can’t be racists. Which, of course, defies how Merriam-Webster defines it: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”

To defeat true hate speech, both factually and sociologically is to allow more speech to fight the hate speech. If we do not curtail the speech of these haters and we let them prattle on long enough, there's multiple things that are going to happen.

First of all we're going to see who they are. We won’t need to doxx them, they will proudly step out into the open and say who they are. This means social conformity pressure can be applied to them.

Second, left to their own devices they will eventually counter their own arguments just through ideological inconsistency. My favorite example of this is Leftists say, “we should remove soda and snack machines because teenagers can’t make good food and lifestyle choices by themselves.” Then they turn right around and say, “Pregnant teenagers should be able to abort their unborn baby without parental knowledge or consent because they should have the choice.” Any rational person will rightly think, “You can’t have this both ways. If teenagers aren’t mature enough to handle the decision on to buy a candy bar or soda or not, how can they be mature enough to decide about aborting a pregnancy on their own?”

Third, the longer we let them shout their hate, the more extreme they will inevitably become. They will instinctively get more and more radical, looking for how much they can get away with, just like a child who tests the limits and resolve of their parents. The good side of this is people who initially followed this person out because the ideas “sounded good” (or maybe a morbid “train wreck” curiosity) will leave in droves as this person becomes less and less rational.

Fourth, I will never condone any governmental control over speech other than the minimum. Right now these types of speech do not enjoy a Constitutional protection:

• Obscenity (Using SCOTUS’ Miller Test)
• Child Pornography
• Incitement for imminent lawless action
• False alarm (shouting “Fire!” when there is none)
• Libel/slander.

Those are all well-defined and socially unacceptable in any context.

Now, if a committee (A committee is a life form with eight or more legs and no brain) were appointed by the government to decide on what is hate speech or not, would not the opinions and decisions of that group change over time? If scrutinizing statements A and B to determine if they were hate speech, this year they might decide A is the hate speech and B is not. Yet next year B might become the hate speech and A is acceptable.

I only have to point to the recent “Net Neutrality” regulations as a clear example. The regulations were made official one day, then a few months later after the administration changed, the regulations were rescinded. Would you really want your freedom of speech Rights subject to such whims of men and government?

I will never call for the restriction of a persons’ free speech outside of the already declared terms above. If I were to call for the speech of any person to be curtailed, be they Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan or Sarah Jeong today, tomorrow I might be the one who is silenced. That will just not do at all.

I for one do not want to be the next Maximilien Robespierre, who orchestrated the French Reign of Terror, the march of thousands to the Guillotine during the French Revolution. Robespierre did that job so well he eventually made that march himself. We should all learn from that lesson before we lose our heads, both freedom-wise and literally.

Winston Churchill defined a fanatic as, “Someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.” If you get into an argument with a fanatic, be they Left, Right or Center, always remember that you most likely are not going to win them to your point of view. It would be easier to turn a Cleveland Browns fan into a Baltimore Ravens fan. You will not win despite your best reasoning and most persuasive arguments. I admit, while winning the fanatic to your side would be a wonderful thing, your real target and victory goal is convincing everyone who is watching the discussion and may not be decided on the subject.

Here’s the most important point. If we as a society silence anyone, we are all damaged. That silencing of someone, it doesn’t matter if you agreed or disagreed with what they said, that act will cause you to pause ever so slightly in what you have to say from then on.

Or as I saw on the Web a while back:

Q: How do all Soviet-era jokes begin?
A: By looking over your shoulder.

To silence any person, for whatever reason, puts us all on that path. Think on that very carefully.

If you don't detail read and analyze the MSM over a long period of time to catch the right snippets to understand what's going on, you have no idea why the postponement of Lt.Gen Michael Flynn, USA (Ret.) is such a big deal. Let's start off with the facts.

1. Flynn was part of the Obama Administration and was a vocal opponent of Obama's Iran Deal.

2. Obama advised Trump not to hire Flynn as his National Security Advisor. Trump told Obama to pound sand and hired him anyway.

3. In late December 2016, during the transition, Flynn went on vacation with his family to the Dominican Republic, where Flynn did not have access to secure phone services.

4. During this vacation time, Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats from the US, which prompted a call between Kislyak, the Russian Ambassador to the US and Flynn, as part of his role as the US National Security Advisor. Talks like this are part of the job. Flynn took the call because he would be the NSA in 3 weeks and the present NSA would be out of a job.

5. This call was recorded and transcribed by a US federal agency, I don't recall which one (NSA is internal to the US, CIA external). This could not have happened (recording of the call) if it had been on a secure (encrypted) line. This is why the expulsion happened when it did, when Flynn did not have access to those lines and could be monitored. The transcript was made available to the FBI before the next point.

6. On January 24th 2017, 4 days into the Trump Administration, two FBI agents interviewed Flynn in his White House office. Flynn was told "he didn't need a lawyer" and the White House Council was not informed of the interview. There are already a couple of violations of procedure here, namely the FBI not telling the White House (and the WH Council) that they were coming over to interview Flynn.

7. The 302's (FBI paperwork forms for reporting the interview and the particulars) indicated the FBI agents "detected no deception" from Flynn.

This is where things start to happen. Think about this: You're on vacation and trying to relax. You suddenly have to take an unscheduled high-level call mid-vacation and over an unsecure line. Truthfully, do you have the ability to take notes and would you remember every detail of what was discussed during that call? No, most people wouldn't.

Now, almost a month later, you are asked to provide exact details about a call you may only superficially remember, and the people asking the questions already have a transcript of what you said. There is also no lawyer telling you to "shut your pie hole." Wouldn't you call that an unfair advantage?

Because you don't have perfect recall of the conversation and you give an inexact recollection of the call, you are charged with "lying to federal investigators." And when I mean inexact, I mean something as minor as, "during the call, you spoke about the subjects of this, that and the other. In your statement just now, you said the sequence of the subjects were the other, that and this." Flynn was also threatened with being prosecuted under the Logan Act, a law passed in 1799, OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO and a law that no one has ever been prosecuted under. The Logan Act prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization. What FUCKING PLANET MUST YOU BE FROM to even conceive that the incoming National Security Advisor is unauthorized to speak with foreign governments????? That's his job.

Then, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller (I am invoking the "short bus" meaning of the word "special" for that title) promised to bankrupt Flynn by legal fees that will be run up defending himself from these charges, then prosecute and imprison Flynn and his son for this heinous act of not keeping his story straight... unless he "cooperated" with Mueller's investigation. Flynn was already bankrupted from legal fees by this time, because no private citizen has the resources to defend themselves from the unlimited resources and prosecutorial powers of the United States government.

So it comes out a couple days ago that the 302 used to charge Flynn for the process crime of "lying to federal investigators" was discovered to be dated August 2017. For an interview that happened in January? What sort of chicanery is this?

This certainly raises the specter that possibly this 302 is somehow different from the January 302.

Here is my take on today's events: Judge Emmet Sullivan understands the charges are totally bogus and is trying to help Flynn retain his integrity and honor by refusing to accept the guilty plea. The sentencing has been delayed until April 2019 to give Flynn's legal team the necessary time to fully uncover the truth about how a trap was set specifically for Flynn. This trap was set by people who want to destroy every aspect of Flynn's life. Personally, financially and professionally.

Here's the good news: The truth is already starting to come out. People know things and suspect more things. Otherwise Sullivan would not have postponed the sentencing. When (not if) the truth comes out, Mueller and his minions will be liable for a massive libel/slander lawsuit from Flynn and serious criminal misconduct charges from federal investigators. Like a couple orders of magnitude above what happened to Mike Nifong.

Stay tuned people. Things are going to get interesting....

Our major Social Media sites, for all intents and purposes, is committing a slow suicide. I am speaking specifically about Facebook, Twitter, Google and their various subsidiaries. Let me explain why.

There are laws out there that define and regulate “platform” and “publisher” differently. They have different purposes, different objectives and different liabilities.

A “platform” by its very nature has no agenda, no bias and on its’ own no regulation. Think of a stage in a park or the town square, where anyone can get on it and proclaim to all the world whatever they want to say. It is a true state of freedom-of-speech. You can say whatever you want to say and everyone in the area can pay attention or ignore you as it pleases them.

A “publisher,” however, is a totally different thing. A newspaper is a publisher. It provides a product that others can purchase. The owners of the newspaper, because they front the money for the printing press, the ink and the distribution, has the absolute right to control what goes into their product. It is within their power to publish or not publish anything they want. They have the legal ability to negotiate a contract with someone who wrote an article and obtain an “exclusive-right” license for that article, if the author agrees to that contract. “Exclusive-right” meaning only the publisher can use it, the author can no longer decide when and where it is published. If the publisher has that “exclusive-right” for that article, they can publish it in the newspaper… or never publish it, effectively silencing that author on that subject.

If the author were to take that article (or a similar one) to another publisher, then legal entanglements might abound over copyright, Intellectual Property and contract laws. You might want to read the story of “Famous Amos” and his cookies. Because of licensing issues, he cannot every use his name or likeness on any products he makes now.

In summary, platform == no control, publisher == total control.

Facebook, Twitter and others have repeatedly proclaimed “WE ARE A PLATFORM!” The facts, however, indicate otherwise.

Twitter has admitted that they “shadow ban” Conservatives, YouTube has curtailed Conservative channels, Facebook routinely not publishes and bans Conservative pages.

By performing these actions these Social Media sites have crossed that line from platform to publisher. Publishers do not enjoy the same the legal protections as platforms. When Social Media claims to be a platform but acts as a publisher, the end will not be beneficial to those companies.

There are bills in the House (H.R. 676) and Senate (S.1804), proposed by Democrats, under the banner of "Medicare for All." These bills, if passed would provide Medicare coverage to every "non-elderly" person (the elderly are covered under Medicaid) in the US, without regard to citizenship status. Let me put it into plain language why this would wreck 1) every citizen, 2) the federal government, 3) the healthcare industry and 4) the economy as a whole.

According the The Urban Institute (no right-wingers allowed there), they released a report, The Sanders Single-Payer Health Care Plan.

These are the highlights of their report:

Federal spending will increase about $3.6 Billion a year. This is Table 1 on page 4, "Increase in federal spending ($billions), 2017-2026, $32,003.5" That's $32 Trillion over ten years, or $3.2 Trillion a year.

The entire Federal budget right now is $4.1 Trillion to give you an idea how much the federal spending will increase.

The last bullet point on page 3 reads thusly:

Analysis by the Tax Policy Center indicates that Sanders’s revenue proposals, intended to finance all new health and nonhealth spending, would raise $15.3 trillion in revenue over 2017 to 2026. This amount is approximately $16.6 trillion less than the increased federal cost of his health care plan estimated here. The discrepancy suggests that to fully finance the Sanders approach, additional sources of revenue would have to be identified; that is, the proposed taxes are much too low to fully finance the plan.

Now, the "additional revenue" (that will only be about 45% of what is needed) is made up by:

From the top of page 6: ...[The Sanders Campaign] propose a 2.2 percent income-based premium on households, a 6.2 percent payroll tax imposed on employers, additional revenues from revisions to the estate tax, increases in taxes on capital gains and dividends, new limits on deductions for high-income taxpayers, and increases in income taxes that largely affect high-income people. They anticipate that low-income individuals would save because the amounts they would be required to pay in new taxes would be less than what they are required to pay today in premiums, cost sharing, and other tax payments.

Similarly, employers that now provide coverage would pay less because their obligations under the proposed approach would be limited to the 6.2 percent payroll tax paid by employers. In contrast, across all employers (i.e., including those who offer health insurance and those who do not), employer-paid premiums for health insurance benefits currently average 8.3 percent of total compensation. Higher-income individuals would be expected to pay considerably more toward health expenses than they do today. [Emphasis mine]

So, it's more "soak the rich," but what happens if the rich leave? Seriously, what happens if Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, The Koch Brothers and all the rest of "the rich" get tired of this crap and just take the cash they have in the bank, leave the country and live overseas?

This is a math issue. "Medicare for All" will almost double federal spending. The proposed tax increases will cover half of that. Our current federal government annual deficit is $800 Billion. That's how much we borrow on the "good faith and credit" on the United States, every year. If we were to start this, without any additional taxes or cuts, that annual deficit would jump to $2.4 Trillion a year. Not gonna happen, no way, no how. Our debtors would stop buying our bonds (that's how we borrow money) that day. The federal government would not be able to pay it's bills and it would collapse, likely bringing the entire US economy with it.

The only way I see this happening is we have to increase taxes more and cut payments to providers. That is the only way to bring this into balance.

Here's something you may not know, Medicare only pays between 60% to 75% of what private insurance pays. Let's say my disabled son (who is on Medicare) and I go to our PCP for an exam, get some blood work done, etc. If, between my co-pay and my private insurance pays the doctor $100 for my visit, the doctor only gets between $60 and $75, for the same services. In essence, my visit makes my son's visit profitable for him.

Serious question time: would you have an average of $85 per visit (($100 + $70)/2), or $70 since we would both be on Medicare?

That would be, assuming that the reimbursement rates would be the same. If the federal government was the only payer in town, what would you do if they decided to cut the rates? Go from $70 a visit to $40? If the doctor wanted to stay in business, he would take cash and not Medicare.

What will you do if you have no money because your taxes doubled to pay for Medicare, but your doctor won't accept Medicare? You die, killed by the Democrats.

I and others have said for years that the ACA was designed to be from the very beginning to be a clusterfrack of Biblical proportions. I remember real experts (not "government" experts) who repeatedly said, "regulating the healthcare insurers was the worst possible place to cut costs." If the full ACA had been implemented, the people would been begging for anything other than the ACA... Which is when the Democrats would have rolled out a real single-payer, nationalized health-care system.

Just so you know, because I knew this when the ACA was passed, the "individual shared mandate" in 2015 was $325. If Trump and the Republicans had not ended the mandate, on April 15th, 2017 (after Obama was out and Trump/Hillary in) would have been $695, about a 125% jump. the numbers are on the top of page two in this Congressional Research Service document.

Why do I bring this up? Because when government has control of health care, they have almost total control of you. They can do almost anything they want under the guide of "improving health outcomes." That can mean "sin taxes" on sugar, meat, eggs and caffeine, plus more sin taxes on alcohol, tobacco and anything else the government declares is "bad for you."

You think I'm joking? You think I'm being a conspiracy theorist? How about this. The UK, with its' NHS and nationalized health care system, is considering regulating food portions: Pizzas must shrink or lose their toppings under Government anti-obesity plan.

We are already on the way there. Have you noticed that every menu board, every printed restaurant menu has the calories for every item, "so you can make healthy food choices." And the government mandates the font, font size and font color of all of those calorie counts. It's not a big step to go from mandating calorie counts on menus, to the UK's plan to limit portion sizes.

Let's think this out for a minute. At McDonald's, a Big Mac and a large fry will run you 1,050 cal. Let's say for a moment the Big Mac and large fries are outlawed, what will you do? Probably get something like two Bacon McDoubles and a medium fry. This will cost you 10 cents less, the problem is the second choice has 1,240 calories, so anti-obesity-wise, it's heading in the wrong direction.

The next (Leftist) logical control step is to nationalize restaurants. That means McDonald's, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Chipotle, Subway and all of the other places will become a cafeteria system where you get your government-mandated three meals a day. The good news, all of the employees will become government workers, so they'll get $15/hour. The bad news is, you walk in, scan the RFID chip in your hand, the computer in the back of the store retrieves the diet portion of your EHR (Electronic Health Record) and you are served what you are supposed to have. You don't have to (or can) say anything. Oh, and no meal trading like elementary school. The police stationed there will see to that.

I probably won't see this, but unless this is stopped and now, my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will. Because when government takes control of part of your life, your ability to choose for yourself disappears.

There are some things that come free yet have too high a cost.

I am all for personal choice and personal responsibility. When it comes to the self-defense of yourself and your family, you should have access to the tools you deem necessary to perform said self-defense.

Because I do not support causes or people who do not believe I should be able to defend myself and family as I see fit, I make it a point to not purchase movies with actors who promote gun control. BTW, their definition of "gun control" is, "the government and our bodyguards have guns, you don't."

So, any movie where pro-gun control actors like Chris Evans, Matt Damon, or Liam Neeson appear in a movie where their character uses violence or a firearm, I will not buy the DVD, I will not rent it, I will not watch it in a theater and I will not stream it. They have the freedom to make their point, I have the right to not purchase their work product.

So I find it screamingly ironic that another gun-control advocate Jamie Lee Curtis, who is starring in the latest chapter in the Halloween movie franchise, makes my point for me against gun control. In the trailer for the film, viewers can hear Curtis' character mention the need to protect her family and they see her with numerous guns, including a revolver and a lever action rifle, the latter of which she fires multiple times.

A citizen always has the obligation to protect themselves and their family. Government has zero obligation to protect you. This is why 911 is also known as "Dial-A-Prayer" because when seconds matter, the police are minutes away if they come at all.

For those of you who haven't heard, after a long and terrible scorched-earth campaign to destroy Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his nomination for SCOTUS came to a screeching halt when he was confirmed by the Senate on a 50-48 vote. It was along party lines, with Manchin (D-WV) crossing the aisle to confirm, while Murkowski (R-AK) voted "Present" and Daines (R-MT) did not vote at all. Justice Kavanaugh was sworn in right after the vote.

This nomination will now forever cast a cloud over a man whom from what I have seen has led an exemplary life. Not a mistake-free life, however it seems like he has always tried to uplift and empower all who surrounded him. You can't raise a child who said, "Daddy, we should pray for the woman who is accusing you" and not be an upstanding man, husband, father and citizen. These unfounded accusations will now be forever shackled to him like a ball and chain.

The sad thing is, if the radical Leftists and the MSM had a shred of integrity, decency or respect for others, this could have gone totally different.

Let's warp into an alternate time-line where the Democrat party of today is like the one in the 1950's. Decorum, respect, non-radicalized, not prone to histrionics.

First of all, the Democrats talk about his voting record. They question him thoroughly on why he reached certain decisions. When Dr. Ford sends her confidential letter to Senator Feinstein in July, Dr. Ford is immediately contacted by Feinstein, who says, "Dr. Ford, I need your permission immediately so the Committee can investigate your allegation. If we cannot investigate, your allegation will not be investigated and your voice will not be heard." Senator Feinstein then forwards the letter with her response to the Committee Chairman. Dr. Ford gives her permission and Senator Grassley then orders a special investigation of the allegation. Judge Kavanaugh is informed of "a serious allegation" against him, but no details (since there are none at that point). The press can be told that an allegation is pending, but no details. Dr. Ford is questioned, her statement and list of possible witnesses recorded. Dr. Ford's background is also investigated because it can greatly enhance (or hurt) her credibility. Once the FBI has completed its' investigation and the entire Committee and Judge Kavanaugh has all of the new information, the allegation is made public, Dr. Ford testifies in early September presenting her allegations and any corroborating statements and evidence. Judge Kavanaugh then gets a day or two so he can formulate his response to the allegations.

Notice that my message has been consistent. Dr. Ford deserves to be heard, her statements and evidence to be given the benefit of the doubt. She is then asked questions by the Committee to clarify any points that are unclear. Judge Kavanaugh also deserves his opportunity to address the accusations against him and stand for the hard questions the Committee will undoubtedly have for him. The Committee then votes passing it's recommendation to the full Senate. Then the Senate votes, conferring or denying his nomination.

You see, this is how adults do things. That's the way it should have been done.

However the radical Leftists, driven into a rabies-like frenzy, let slip their attack dogs. Kavanaugh, killed (metaphorically, not actually) every one. He has a bite or two, he's going to have to undergo the treatment for rabies, but he's still standing and the other side isn't. Multiple House and Senate races that were easily predicted for the Democrats to hold or gain in the elections next month are now cast into serious doubt. This rabid, spittle-flying, screaming, nonsensical hate-filled diatribes from the Leftists have done this. They and their efforts have angered enough regular people that the Democrats just might snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

If the Democrats had stuck to the issues and avoided the politics of personal destruction, they would have had a chance to defeat Kavanaugh's nomination. There were many reasonable people and groups out there talking about his rulings and record. I have no problem with that. The bad news is, the reasonable people were drowned out by the crazies. This means every Democrat office holder will pay the price to some degree later.

I got into a "heated discussion" the other day on FB, one of the reasons why I deactivated my account. My whole point was that Ford needed to be heard, Ford should be offered the opportunity to speak and present her allegations and what she had to support her accusations. Kavanaugh also needed to be heard and either accept or deny her allegations. He chose to categorically deny any events she claimed happened with him. He never refuted she wasn't assaulted, just that he was not the one who did it.

This article says what I was trying to say very clearly: The Problem With #BelieveSurvivors.

This, I believe, is one of the most important and balanced points to be made:

Even as we must treat accusers with seriousness and dignity, we must hear out the accused fairly and respectfully, and recognize the potential lifetime consequences that such an allegation can bring. If believing the woman is the beginning and the end of a search for the truth, then we have left the realm of justice for religion.

Religion in this context does not leave room for the accused, except on the torture device deemed appropriate by the mob calling for the blood of the accused.

Here is another important truth:

The best reporting of the #MeToo movement has shown that when journalists examine all the possible holes in an accuser’s account, find corroborating witnesses and documentary evidence, and give the accused the opportunity to respond, they make the victim’s story more powerful. (Men can sexually assault men, women can sexually assault women, and women can sexually assault men. But the vast majority of these allegations are of males assaulting females.) [emphasis mine]

More powerful as in believable, more credible and most importantly, more likely to convict. Without any evidence on the side of the accused and hundreds of people saying "In my experience, the accused is the polar opposite of that the accuser is describing," meaning everything I know about this man is the opposite of what you describe. Face it, someone who does something heinous like sexual assault will more than likely not stop until caught and punished. And maybe not even after that. Bill Cosby was brought down because he sexually assaulted dozens of women over the years.

We are, after all, the land that holds as one of our cornerstones the presumption of innocence in the face of an accusation. The accuser must prove the accused did the deed, according to the standards of the venue. A criminal proceeding is "beyond a reasonable doubt." A civil proceeding is "the preponderance of the evidence" and so on. To have the accused prove innocence is to try to prove a negative, i.e. something didn't happen. Try to prove the sun rises in the east at noontime.

I have said this for years, "A right-wing dictatorship demands your physical obedience, you can think what you want. A left-wing dictatorship demands a unity of thought. You must think and behave as you are told."

One thing the old Soviet Union did, was to "unperson" certain people, a lot like George Orwell's 1984. If a person of power or close to the Premier "fell out of favor," he not only disappeared from public view, he was erased from all records. They were airbrushed from photographs, newspaper archives were reprinted. Don't believe me? Soviet Censorship of Images During Stalin's Regime.

The Leftists, in their normal behavior pattern, continue to eat any and all of their own who dare set one toe off the ideological reservation. In an effort to silence points of view the Left does not like, they now attack anyone who even slightly support the unpersons, or worse yet, give them a voice.

This comes from this article, Now #MeToo is coming for your thought crimes. This article talks about Jian Ghomeshi, who was accused and acquitted of sexual assault charges. But you see, the mob had decided he was guilty, evidence or lack thereof be damned. This spilled over onto Ian Buruma, editor of The New York Review of Books. What, exactly was Buruma's crime? Publishing an apology essay from Ghomeshi, Reflections from a Hashtag.

We have seen the recent unpersoning of Alex Jones from all social media platforms. Wil Weaton, was also recently unpersoned because his best friend Chris Hardwick was accused (not convicted) of sexual assault. Wil's tweet was:

I'm shocked, and I'm sure you'll understand that before I'm ready to make a public statement about my best friend to 3 million+ people, I need some time to process what's going on and put words to my thoughts. Thanks for listening and understanding.

— Wil 'this account mocks fascists' Wheaton (@wilw) June 15, 2018

I'm sorry, did he say anything other than "please give me time to properly express my thoughts?" And because Leftists are cannibals, (ideologically and metaphorically, I have no direct or indirect knowledge that any Leftist is actually a cannibal) for the sole reason that Wil did not denounce his best friend fast enough to please the mob, he was excoriated publicly. I don't follow him so I have no idea about how his social media presence has changed from this. I do know several friends who regularly attend the JoCoCruise (I have no idea what this is) have remarked about Wil attending in the past. I don't see him on this years cruise celebrity list. I have also heard my friends who go on this say "If Wil is on the cruise, I won't go."

All this leads to the post title, "How many degrees is safe?" It has been said that we are all connected by six degrees of separation. You can, through a chain of five "friend of a friend" connections, be connected to every other person on Earth. So when Chris Hardwick was unpersonned, and because Wil Wheaton didn't unperson Chris fast enough, how many of Wil's friends were unpersoned? and so on, and so on. It sounds like a pyramid scheme.