(Yes, I know I am way behind. Been on an unplanned adventure last week and still recovering.)

On Monday August 2^nd, 2022, the Citizens of Kansas voted on a referendum on abortion. In the wake of the Dobbs decision by SCOTUS that let each State determine its’ own laws on the subject, Kansas did just that.

My concern is not over the ballot issue, how it might have been confusing, or even if it passed or not. My point is, the State government presented the issue to the People and the People decided. This is how it's supposed to be. The government determines most of the laws, however on large and ideologically charged subjects, the Legislature should step aside and let the People make the choice.  California has this process of direct democracy, however most of the time the losing side finds a judge that throws out the will of the People.

I am purposely not acquainting myself with the particulars, if it was a win for babies in the womb or for women to kill their unborn children. My being happy or upset with it will not alter the outcome one whit, Nor can I do anything about it as I don't live in Kansas. So I am not going to spend my time and mental energy that could be spent better on things more important to me.

Again, SCOTUS said “let the People decide” and that’s exactly what Kansas did. This is what should have happened in 1973 by SCOTUS returning the issue to the States, making it clear that Abortion is not the purview of the federal government. It's not in the Constitution, directly (find the word "Abortion" in the Constitution, I have $1,000 cash for you right now), nor is it in there indirectly (no branch of the government under the Constitution has the authority to regulate medical care).

This goes for both the Left and the Right: If the state you live in votes differently that what you wanted on abortion or any other issue that’s important to you, the only thing I can suggest is figure out which state has the laws you like the most and move your sorry ass over there and stay there.

We are fifty independent countries, bound together in common cause under a federal government, not subservient provinces of Washington DC. Each State has its’ own personality and its’ own way of doing things. The Garden State, the Empire State, the Volunteer State, the Aloha State and so on. Use the Corsale method to figure out the best place for you and then go to where you’d be happiest.

It is scary amazing what comes out of my brain sometimes…

This started when I got into a discussion with a former acquaintance who went trans. She stated “Trump was a transphobe” and I asked for evidence. I’m willing to look at anything and if she had made her point, I would have altered my support for Trump, and not for the better. She ultimately gave me a video of Trump lamenting the win by Lia Thomas, who is a transwoman and who smoked the race to win. The acquaintance became quite hysterical when I pointed out the fact that he didn’t say anything transphobic, other than making the observation that performance-wise, Lia was just as strong and fast as when she was a man (not supposed to deadname).

But this got me thinking, and finally a coherent thought (I know, I know) popped out of my head on the best way to end this whole argument. Instead of having Men’s sports and Women’s sports, let’s combine them together. Men, women and trans, all in the same place.

Now, hear me out. For every sport, figure out 2-3 physical tests that is a crucial skill to the sport. For anyone who wants to participate, you perform these tests to determine the “Tier” you’d compete in. Someone smarter than me can figure out a better name. These would be set criteria, not adjusted by gender, age, whatever.

You would have 6-10 Tiers or whatever you’d call them. Once placed in a Tier, you would compete at that level, regardless of the male/female/trans mix. After a sanctioned competition, the first and second place winners of that competition would be promoted up to the next Tier. The two lowest players would be demoted to the next lower Tier.

This way we would have players stratified by ability, rather than gender. This way, if a female player could match or beat male players, they should compete against male players.

This would actually solve the issue (that only Conservatives seem to see) where a mediocre male athlete could announce they are transitioning genders and once on the women’s side of things, totally dominate the field. It would solve the issue because if we ignore the persons’ gender status, their physical abilities would determine the level of competition, not which pronouns they use.

One last thing. All records are now team only. No more “fastest female swimmer” or whatever. Each athlete is measured against their prior performances. Hey, no system is perfect.

Warning: I have an alcohol level in excess of 0.2% Barriers are down, spicy content is ahead. You have been warned.

Bifurcation, as in "the point or area at which something divides into two branches or parts."

Growing up, I was a voracious consumer of Sci-Fi fiction. The Big Three of Asimov, Bradbury, Clark, certainly. E.E "Doc" Smith, Pohl, LeGuin, Crichton, frequently. Series such as I, Robot, Lensman, Venus Equatorial, Foundation, Dragonriders of Pern, you betcha. Not so much once I became an adult, but as a teenager, it was rare to see my full face, as it was usually buried in those books.

I am also an avid player of a miniature wargame known as Battletech. Not going to go into the particulars of the game, because it's not germane to this article. One of the most prolific writers of the lore of the universe for this game is Blaine Lee Pardoe. He is a major contributor to the lore of the Battletech universe (every time you say "fluff" a kitten dies) and is responsible for a large part of the "lore bible" (a book for writers who want to write stories for this universe that details fixed events, major characters and their personalities/habits to provide a consistent world to the reader across multiple authors). As long as there has been lore about Battletech, Blaine (BLP for short) has been there. I personally don't read any fiction anymore, so I know next-to-nothing about BLP.

The other day, BLP spouted off against a poor review about his latest book. All I can figure was he caught BLP just right between what the guy said and where BLP was at the time, and everything in the world BLP was (might be) angry at became focused on this hapless creature, much like a magnifying glass on an ant during a sunny day. BLP took the reviewer to the woodshed and verbally beat him like the proverbial red-headed step-child. It seems the "reviewer" had an issue with which military unit was used in a given situation. In the grand scheme of things, this "issue" was about as important or earth-shaking as a bear shitting in Alaska north of the Artic Circle.

UPDATE: After delving deeper into this issue, I learned that this "reviewer" had been stalking BLP for a long time, and had made physical threats against him. The company attempted to mollify this angry person, which did not apparently succeed. It then progressed to "several people" to complain (sock-puppet accounts are hard to verify) to the company, and as an attempt to make the whole matter go away, simply ended their relationship with BLP. I am not blaming anyone (other than the stalker), however I need to point out that any attempt to mollify screeching banshees like this (the stalker, not BLP) only embolden them. You give an inch, they take a league.

Let me be clear, I am an apologist to nobody. I am only explaining from my perspective and insight non-evident thoughts and feelings about these or other events. My opinion and $7.85 will get you a cup of hot flavored water at a Seattle-Based caffeine dealer.  Was this a good and proper response by BLP? I doubt it. Was it appropriate? In a personal setting, maybe. as a professional, no. Was it cathartic for BLP? I'm sure it was, I can feel the anger dissipation from here. If it had been me, let's just say the only thing that would have been left by this idiot would have been a smear of something like tomato paste. The fallout from this was entirely predictable because it's been replicated ad nauseum too many times in the past few years.

And due to the squealing and whining of less than five people, the owners of the Battletech IP have decided to part ways with BLP. The numerous works of BLP has entertained thousands of young adults and "adult" adults since the 1980's with his writing. Not to mention earning the owners of Battletech bucket loads of money through building that following.

As such, we have the latest example of the bifurcation of the US economy. Half of the country gets pissed off about something that happened (or didn't happen) and have decided to go off on their own. And because many of the largest tech companies are sympathetic to Leftist causes (Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, et.al.), it has taken many brave souls to break out the saw and bifurcate themselves from the Leftist corporations. Thanks to Facebook and Twitter going Woke, we now have platforms such as Locals, Parler, Rumble, ThinkSpot, TrueSocial and so on. We have The Daily Wire getting into producing movies in direct competition of Hollywood. We have news websites such as 1440, Bongino Report, The Daily Wire, Not The Bee, and more trying to provide Conservative (or at least balanced) reporting of the news.

This is the interesting part, and a major difference between Leftists and Conservatives: Leftists get all outraged and angry, march with signs and protest. A couple of months later, the anger dissipates and they tend to go right back to the offender. Conservatives don't "hate" (dislike) quick, but when they do, they "hate" hard. Once they make the change away from a company, it will be a long time, if at all, before the come back. Conservatives vote with their wallet. They don't complain, they don't raise a ruckus, Conservatives just stop buying from whatever Woke Company and they find an alternative and not come back.

A good example is Disney. Here's the stock value history I just grabbed from Business Insider:

Since Going Woke, they have been going Broke. This is a good example why its a bad idea for businesses to involve themselves in social or political issues. Their purpose is to provide a wanted good or service at a price point the desired consumers can afford.

I am terrible at predicting the future. While many Battletech players are heavily into the "gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes" over this issue at the moment, they are basically stuck, as no other game system is as good (IMO). That being said, they will be most likely purchasing less Battletech lore from now on. BLP gets the last laugh. Blane has diversified his writings into several avenues that are all returning money. He will still get royalties from what he has written. The assholes who told him to bug off will still have to cut a check to him every month for a long time to come. No better payback than that. As a sign of support, I just bought his techno-thriller, Blue Dawn. I bought it cold, just to support him. I haven't read a techno-thriller since Clancy. When I get to reading it, I will give you an honest review.

The event last month that put Uvalde, Texas on the map was horrific in more ways than one. While Uvalde will join names like Columbine, Parkland and Sandy Hook, it will stand on its own for what I’m going to discuss, and I sincerely hope the failings there will outlast the terror and heal the pain caused by those events.

I try to be consistent in my moral application of events, and this is no different. I explained this in a previous article, “The Why of the 2nd Amendment Part 1”,

“…what is the extent of their [Broward County Deputies] moral, ethical and human duties to those in the school? Undoubtedly to rush in, singly or as a team, find, engage and stop the shooter, even at the expense of their own lives. Those duties apply to LEO and legally armed citizen alike.”

The fact that the police waited an hour to charge in and engage the shooter is not what I’m wanting to talk about. The officers met their legal obligation and secured the scene to prevent the killer from leaving the scene. The officers failed in their human duty, and that’s still not what I’m talking about.

What I do want to talk about is the legal aftermath. While the police are immune from prosecution for not going into the school to engage the shooter in a timely manner, they may be open to civil and criminal prosecution for preventing private citizens from trying to rescue their children from said shooter. I’m no legal eagle, however I have heard this aspect talked about from a couple different sources. Again, I’m not a lawyer, I don’t play one on TV and I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I don’t know the validity of such a claim either way. The fact that at least one of those parents is being harassed by the police seems to lend credence to this position: Police Are Harassing Mom Who Pulled Kids From Uvalde School Shooting, Lawyer Says.

What I do know is every officer involved in that debacle, from the chief to the officers on the scene doesn’t deserve to ever wear a badge again, even if it’s from a box of cereal. There must exist a certain level of trust from the citizens toward the police, in order for the police to perform their duties effectively. I see that trust has evaporated for that community.

Now we come to the title of this article. This happened on June 13th, 2022: Police in Texas kill a man who fired his weapon inside a gym hosting a children's summer camp. I’m going to guess this was a “gun-free zone” as no staff returned fire. That being said, the police were on scene in two minutes and ended the threat. There’s really nothing more to say about that, which is why when everything goes right, it’s a short local story that never goes national.

I am not saying “this is how it should be” either. Someone somewhere should pay attention to events like these, investigate into the “why” it happened, then figure out how they might be prevented from happening at all, so these people don’t start rampaging in the first place. The mechanism for that is way above my pay grade however. I’m smart enough to know I don’t know how to go about it, only that it needs to be done.

The other day, we were greeted with the terrible news that the Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, was assassinated. This shows several glaring truths, which I will discuss in detail with you.

First, knowledge cannot be “un-invented.” Tools, be they screwdrivers, firearms or nuclear weapons, cannot be just “gotten rid of.” The fact that the concept exists, means any reasonably intelligent person can reverse-engineer the actual tool, or something similar. The concept leads to the physical tool.

An example would be the Manhattan Project, which developed the first nuclear devices. It took over $2 Billion ($36 Billion in 2022 dollars), four years and the construction of a couple of cities to make it happen. The greatest physicists alive at the time had to develop the physics and mathematics to understand and control its use. They then had to design and build the machines to process the fissile material, then machine it and so on. Today, someone with a Masters in Physics could lay the theoretical work necessary, and the processing equipment can be procured on the open market. The only hard part is obtaining enough of the proper fissile material that can be refined into “weapons grade.”

So this man, armed only with a basic knowledge of firearms, built a double-barreled black-powder shotgun out of what is available at any hardware store. Pipe, wood, duct tape, charcoal, saltpeter, sulfur, screws/washers (the projectiles) and a device to create an electronic spark to set off the powder. Building a “pipe shotgun” in the US is way easier because we have access to actual shotgun shells.

The second point is evil, as in the intent to hurt other people. This is a horribly mangled quote, I’ll update it when I find it:

“Evil can never be defeated. It is merely driven back, where it changes form and waits to strike again.”

Evil will always be with us. It cannot be legislated, willed away or defeated. It is just as much a part of us as our heart. Evil is just as essential as well. Why you ask? If things were all good all the time, how would you know that’s a “good” thing? It is by the contrast of Evil that we can understand the real beauty of love, happiness, joy and so on.

My third point is about time. Evil acts occur only when it’s the best circumstances for it. Good is almost always caught flat-footed when Evil acts. This is why Good has to conceptualize how Evil can manifest itself, devise how to act against the threat, then train and practice to do just that. Evil can plan and take its’ time until they have everything they need and the conditions are just right, Good must go with what it has then and there.

All this leads to point #2,419 that we cannot create Utopia. We cannot reach that, and it is dangerous to even try.

June of 2022 has shown the true legacy of Donald Trump. The three Justices he was able to seat on the Supreme Court have drastically altered the legal landscape of this nation. The rulings they sent down on the First and Second Amendments, the limitation of federalism and the bureaucratic state are figurative and almost literal ideological earthquakes.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District That a man may pray and give thanks to his Creator on his own during a public event, without suffering drastic negative results, was and is a bedrock of the ideals this country was founded upon.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen That a right of a citizen to defend themselves and their families in the face of a sudden and violent act be unfettered, be it in methods, tools or places and to loudly proclaim “this is not a second-class right.”

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization That the rights of each of the fifty states exist, that they may set laws as they see fit for their own citizens, without a federal mandate rending them provinces, rather than independent countries.

West Virginia v. EPA That reduces the ability of the Executive Branch to write regulations as they see fit, to fulfill their political agenda based upon indistinct and poorly-written laws passed by the Legislature. The Legislature passes such laws so they are “not responsible” that such laws are interpreted for the benefit of an agenda and not to advance the interests of the people.

All of these decisions, and the philosophical basis used to reach these decisions will have rippling effects on our laws for decades to come.

The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones. - Shakespeare (Julius Caesar)

I am glad to see the reverse happen for once.

One of my Markisms is by Barry Goldwater,

"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

In 1973, for the case Roe v. Wade, the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) in a 7-2 decision found the (small "r") right for women to have an abortion in the Constitution. I, however have not been able to likewise find it. And I've tried several times to find any rights relating to health care, or abortion, or any other Leftist talking points in the Constitution.

Five of those seven Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents, two by Eisenhower (Brennan and Stewart) and three by Nixon (Blackmum, Burger, and Powell).

What this ruling did was take away the authority of the states to set abortion laws within their borders. Up until then, the states set the rules for themselves. Because, you know, the Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

You need to remember, a federal government is meant to be a "government for governments." The ordinary citizen was meant to have zero to very little day-to-day interaction with the federal government. If you actually read the Constitution, all eight Articles and at least the Bill of Rights, these described the structure of the federal government and its’ declared powers. If the power isn't in the Constitution, the government does not have the authority to do it. Like the authority to transfer trillions of dollars to individual citizens. The hook they hang their hat on for those is, "promote the general Welfare" is in the mission statement, not a declared power. The federal government is meant to regulate the interactions between states, and protect the country as a whole. Other than limiting the federal governments’ ability to infringe on the individual citizen, we’re not in the Constitution.

Because SCOTUS made up a "right" out of whole cloth, all it took was another SCOTUS (last week's in this case) to state that this "right" does not, in fact, exist. And I blame the Democrats for this. They had 50 years to pass a bill or Constitutional Amendment codifying abortion into law, however they decided not to. Because of that, all it took was a Conservative, Strict Constitutionalist SCOTUS and the right case to undo everything. Which is exactly what happened. I will admit, they made a half-hearted attempt to do that after the draft decision was leaked, which failed spectacularly, since the Democrats have razor-thin margins in both houses and it didn't take a lot of effort on the part of the Republicans to kill it.

And because Leftists don’t think or reason beyond their assigned talking points, there is no true understanding of the particulars of this issue. All this ruling did was return the power and authority on how to regulate abortion to each state. And because Leftists don’t understand, this is what happened: Abortion rights activists continue protests across Los Angeles on Sunday. I hate to tell them this, but the abortion rights in California didn’t change, and if they do change, it will only get better for them, as the California State government no longer has to worry about the federal government interfering.

Now, some states like Mississippi, Texas, and Missouri with very restrictive laws on the books, things will change. If you live in these states, I’m sure California will start offering “abortion holiday packages” soon, where you fly to California, get an abortion, then spend a week or two on vacation before heading home.

I’ll admit right up front that I have not seen What is a Woman? By Matt Walsh in its entirety. I have seen clips. I’m sure it would be cringey and entertaining at the appropriate parts, however in essence, it’s a MOTS (Man On The Street) documentary. A very classy and dignified MOTS, but still a MOTS.

A MOTS is where the interviewer and crew occupy a street corner and ask people to talk with them on camera, then ask them questions on the subject the interviewer is assigned to cover. In an hour or two they might interview twenty to thirty people. When the video gets edited, there’s one smart person who’s very knowledgeable on the subject, and 3-5 people whose knowledge of the subject is best represented in negative numbers that make the cut to be in the video, thus “proving the point” the interviewer was trying to make from the start.

I am moderately sure that Matt interviewed more people than appeared in his video, and he chose the most extreme examples of the Leftists he interviewed. This is not praise or criticism, it is an observation based on prior personal experience. And if I were commenting on a Leftist who had made a similar documentary, the comments and points I just made would be identical. That’s how Conservatives roll.

Personally, in the current political climate and “gotcha journalism,” agreeing to participate in something that is the polar opposite to your beliefs is always a bad choice. To believe that you will beat them, convince them or otherwise win, well Londo Molari from Babylon 5 said it best:

Now let’s get on with the content itself.

Matt, in each interview that I saw, metaphorically dropped a coil of rope between himself and the interviewee, then instructed the person on how to fashion a hangman’s noose, suspend it from the ceiling and hang themselves. Matt didn’t have to coerce, threaten or anything. These Leftists literally hung themselves by their own words, not only willingly, but gleefully. The look in the eyes of these people, going from smug, to confused, to the “awshit” moment when they realize what kind of situation they were in, then fear, and finally a transition to total panic is priceless.

Here’s my main point about Leftists in this video and Leftists in general. They hear a “sound good” idea (as opposed to a “good, sound” idea) and not only agree, believe and proselytize it, they accept it into themselves like it’s an additional vital organ that they can’t live without. These talking points become an integral part of themselves, and to admit the idea is factually wrong, counterproductive, and destructive to their psyche and so on, is to deny themselves. Which is why when forced to see and admit to irrefutable evidence where they are patently, factually and totally wrong, they have a mental (and sometimes physical) grand-mal-like seizure.

The fact that it must be this way with zero variance is another hallmark of Leftists. An action or event assigned to Trump generates a split-flinging apoplectic tantrum, yet the same exact story with “Biden” instead of “Trump” doesn’t even elicit a “so what” response. Their reaction is based on the name or the party, not the act itself.

It also makes perfect sense that when a person has incorporated such blatantly stupid ideas into themselves, any challenge to these beliefs can only be seen as an existential threat against themselves, which warrants the visceral hatred and physically aggressive responses we have come to expect.

This has also brought me to the realization that Leftists are children, emotionally speaking. They latch onto the idea of their choice, much like a six-year-old believes in Santa. And has pretty much the same temper-tantrum reaction as that child who runs to the tree on Christmas morning, only to find no presents and Mom and Dad telling them Santa is not real.

Leftists have nothing outside themselves to measure against. What feels good, right and proper at this moment is accepted as fact, without the foresight that will not necessarily be so in a week or a month.

What I am looking for now is a method to deprogram the knee-jerk reaction and restart an unbiased thought process in my Left-leaning friends and acquaintances. This is a good start.

Part one is here.

After finding this video, I consider myself as dead on in my assessment. This gentleman took the county election results, ran a hidden program and altered all of the votes in the county. Without setting off any alarms, without anyone noticing. The only way to discover this change would be to go to every polling location's master tabulation and recount the votes.

Just like I said:

So, if you wanted to hack a machine, which would it be? How about the one that combines all of the precincts?

You were saying?

I get a lot of “windshield time” in my job, which means I usually drive 1-2 hours between calls. It is during this time I think. For most of my articles here, their first draft is in a speech-to-text app on my phone.

One of the thoughts I mulled over in one of my many 100+ mile trips, was, “What would I do to straighten everything out in this country,” kind of like the 4th book Executive of the Piers Anthony series “Bio of a Space Tyrant.”

I got pretty deep into it, like the abolishment of the 17th Amendment, elimination of most of the bureaucracy, permanently banning all current members of the House and Senate from serving in public office, Freezing the federal budget, etc.

And then I stopped cold.

I have repeatedly said, “The only way to end mass shootings is to change the heart of people doing them.” Well, it hit me, cutting the cancer out of a patient only buys time if you don’t get the whole thing. It will regrow and present the same threat, or even worse.

The problem you see is US, you and I. We did it. We let things slide, content in our lives. The cultural turn was imperceptible at first, very slight. Because no one of any importance raised the alarm, the course change became greater, and the rate we were turning increased. Which leads us to where we are today.

As V in the Movie V for Vendetta said,

“…And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there?
Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.”

No one man, even with the total and enthusiastic power of our federal government, can change the hearts or the minds of the half of this country who have surrendered most of their cognitive abilities to the group. To inexorably tie their ego and identity to ideals that sound good at first glance, but evaporate like the morning dew under any examination, let alone intense scrutiny. And because these people have incorporated these ideals so deeply into their psyche, to deny what they have been told is the truth is like denying their own existence. Not gonna happen.

This is why Trump failed. This is why anybody in that position would fail. He held that mirror up to their faces and the shame and realization was so great they couldn’t gaze into their own eyes and admit it. So anyone who couldn't face themselves, attacked the one trying to help them.

No governmental power can change a person’s mind or heart. No government should have that kind of power in the first place. And even if they did, it would take just as long to get things right as it took to get here. Pray whoever has the helm then doesn’t oversteer and we go off the deep end in the other direction.

I know I don’t have all of the answers. Hell, I don’t even have most of the questions. I do know this: each of us must at least try to wake (not “woke”) these people up, one at a time.

If we fail, we don’t lose just the United States. We will lose America, which is the ideal that all men are free by default.

With the recent events in Buffalo, NY and Uvalde, TX, we have people on both side of the gun-control issue lining up for their moment in front of the microphone to shout their outrage and cry for their solution to be enacted. And, like the true politicians they are, it’s a “vote for me and I’ll fix this” kind of thing, but it never does get fixed, they just get reelected.

I will say this plainly, NO GOVERNMENT CAN FIX THIS. There is evil in this world and all each of us can do is be ready to meet it head on when it surfaces. No law can stop evil, it can only punish the actor after the fact. We are the only ones who can stop evil. We do something about it when we see it.

For you IDIOTS who think "If we take away the guns, this won't happen," I have two words (since I don't mention the killers' names), "Oklahoma City."

Here’s my suggestions.

1. Deny the shooter their fame. I understand a mass killing is news. I am saying don’t show their picture, don’t say their name. Don’t interview their mother or family member about how they were “a good, sweet kid.” The president says nothing at all or names the victims.

2. End gun free zones. All they do is become magnets for events like this. Every active shooter rampage is stopped when they meet resistance. Either the police/armed citizen shoots them right then and there, or cause the shooter to retreat and end their own life. Allow parents with CCWs “known to the school staff” on campus. Allow staff who have a CCW to also carry on campus.

3. Harden soft targets. These will slow or stop the shooter, giving time for the staff and police to react and counter the shooter, trading speed for time. Make “airlocks” for schools. You get buzzed through one door, then after you’re in there, a second door must be buzzed to get you all the way in, or back out. Keep classroom doors closed and locked while occupied. No child has died in a school shooting if they were on the other side of a locked door from the shooter. We have kids practice fire drills, we need to have them practice active shooter drills.

4. Bring back the nuclear family. That means a mother and father in the home. Kids with adult males in their lives as positive role models, especially the biological dad, do way better in every measurable aspect of their lives than those without dads.

5. Return morals to kids’ lives. In church, in school, I don’t care. Instill the last six of the Ten Commandments into them. Honor your elders, don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t murder and the rest. Give them guard rails when they’re young. Think the gutter bumpers we use at a bowling alley for young kids that are put away when they’re older.

No one thing will fix this. Well, changing the heart of the shooter so they don't want to kill innocents is the one thing that will end all shootings, however we haven't figured out how to so that yet. Until then, we need to do the five things above.

A “Policy Wonk” is a government official/consultant who is “very knowledgeable” on a single subject. I refuse to use the term “expert” because that title is usually-self-declared.

Before I get into this, I need to clarify the difference between "Authority" and "Responsibility," which the Navy pounded into me every day. Authority can be delegated, responsibility cannot. The Captain of a ship can delegate the authority to helm the ship as the Officer of the Deck to an Ensign. It is the job of the captain  to make sure the Ensign has the knowledge, skills, wisdom and judgement to safely steer the ship and stay within the rules of navigation and the Captain's general orders. If the Ensign runs the ship aground (or into another ship, etc.), the Captain pays the price for the act. The Ensign will get yelled at by the Captain, but will not get yelled at by the Admirals. Back to the subject at hand.

I am reminded of an episode of The West Wing, where President Bartlett was facing the looming probability of a recession. He spends the episode talking with a multitude of his policy wonks on how to avoid this recession. Their answers were unanimous, “The last guy you talked to is an idiot. His ‘solution’ will cause long-term problems here, here and here, making things worse. What I suggest is you hammer hard on the one aspect of the economy I am an expert on and that will fix the problem." President Bartlett, as all good leaders do, said, “Maybe the answer is not to hit one part hard, but to hit all of them gently and at the same time.”

Trump screwed up big time when he let a single medical policy wonk dictate economic policy. I can see the furrowed brows from here. Making people stay home and not go to work when a new infectious disease we "know nothing about" *cough*BULLSHIT*cough* might be a reasonable medical policy, but it carries grave economic consequences that Fauci does not have the training or knowledge to consider fully. That being said, there's the "superpower" called "common sense" that should have entered into Fauci's calculations. Obviously Fauci lacks that superpower. And because any economists Trump may have consulted deferred to Fauci, rather than provide Trump the context and ramifications on a possible course of action. Or, it is possible Trump ignored the economists or never even consulted them.

MAKING POLICY AND DECISIONS IS WHAT POLITICIANS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. THAT'S THEIR JOB. Politicians are elected to office because a majority of the people believe this person to be the best candidate out of those provided to make good and proper decisions in a timely manner. While the politician should consult with a multitude of advisors before making any decision, the decision must ultimately be made by the politician.

The job of the wonk is to advise, then follow the directives of the politician, for good or bad. To tell a single wonk “Take care of this as you see fit” is the worst decision the politician can make. Because the wonk, pounding on one thing, will make so many other things go bad, and the politician gets all the blame when things go sideways.

I've had some time to think on this, plus the recent developments in Florida to expand on my thoughts of Killing Butterflies in the wake of the push of school officials to “help” children transgender, let me offer this:

“Grooming” is one of those words where you need to apply context in order to determine if the act has positive or negative aspects. You can be groomed for a political office, groomed to be promoted in your job, or groomed to be abused. Grooming is more than training or teaching. I can train you how to do something, say some kind of management position. Or I can groom you for that position, which means extra work for me to make sure the person being groomed knows exactly what to do (and not to do), along with specific knowledge or skills.

Now let’s put it to the test. Remember when you were 6 years old. You had no experience, no moral compass, and every day you learned something new. You were a sponge, absorbing everything the authority figures in your life (parents, family, teachers, etc.) told you. You absorbed it without too much cogent consideration (remember, you’re still six years away from your pre-frontal cortex really beginning to develop) and took it at face value. “An adult said it, it must be true.”

Every day held new challenges. As you grew, you always felt unbalanced, too small or too big, constantly unsure about everything in your life, especially who you are.

I do oversimplify, and there are always exceptions to the rule here. That being said, trusting good adults is how children grow up and mature into adults who do good things.

Now let me introduce our groomer. The groomer has an agenda, or a personal belief held so deeply no amount of facts will shake their belief.

When a person decides to go on a quest to “help transgender children,” that quest will never end. They will look until they find one (or more) and sometimes what appears to be a borderline case is “close enough.” The appropriateness of this quest will never be questioned, for (as C.S. Lewis put it) "[F]or they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Children and young adults as part of their nature question and try almost everything. Why else would a two-year-olds’ third word (after momma and da-da) is “NO!”? Because they try everything without any concept of it will hurt them or not. We, as the adults have to guide them properly.

When a groomer exploits a child’s questioning about themselves, the unsureness they have about who they are, this is when the groomer swoops in to steer the child to what the groomer wants.

I remember an episode of Diff’rent Strokes (Season 5, “The Bicycle Man” in two parts) where they showed exactly how a child molester works.

The methods for a child molester and a “transgender advocate” are exactly the same. Get the kid interested in something, get them to trust you. Then slowly push the kid further and further in the direction you want them to go until they get there.

When I put it like that, the concept is terrifying, is it not?

I have said this many times, let me say it again. "I do not unilaterally condemn or condone a person based on their political party positions." If I can work with someone in a limited way on one issue, I do, as long as they can work with me. Even if we disagree on 20 other issues.

I have a couple of Conservative jokes that I haven't posted yet, here's one to set the context of this post:

I ran into a couple I am acquaintances with and their young daughter the other day. The couple is rather Liberal and I don't see them very often. Their daughter was an infant the last time I saw her, and now she's graduating elementary school.

"What do you want to be when you grow up?" I asked her.

"I want to be President!" she happily exclaimed. Her parents beamed.

"That's great!" I replied. "What are you going to do as President?"

"I'm going to help the homeless!" she again, enthusiastically replied.

"That's great" I said again. "But you don't have to be president to help homeless people." She looked at me quizzically. "You know Charlie the homeless guy who asks for change in front of the supermarket? You can help him today. If you come over to my house, mow the lawn and edge my driveway, I'll pay you $50 for your efforts. I'll then take you over to the supermarket and you can give Charlie that money so he can eat and get a room for a couple of days."

The young lady furrowed her brow as she thought about this. After a minute, she said, "Why doesn't Charlie mow your lawn for you and you could pay him?"

I said, "Welcome to being a Conservative." Her parents haven't spoken to me since.

I related that story because David Hogg, the pretty-boy survivor of the Parkland school shooting who became an anti-gun mouthpiece, much like Scoldilocks Greta Thunberg did for climate change, posted the following Tweet the other day:

In other words, he is lamenting the fact that government bureaucracy is overbearing, capricious, frustrating, and another seventeen synonyms. He is griping about something I have been complaining about since before his parents met. I wrote an article about bureaucracy, and how Liberals and Leftists love to use the bureaucracy to stymie and deter people they don't like. The process is the punishment.

I don't know or really care what business Mr. Hogg is trying to start. As long as it provides a legal product and doesn't infringe on my liberties I'm genuinely happy for him. And once he gets it off the ground and has to start worrying about repaying investors, corporate taxes, payroll, profit margins and even more bureaucracy, I hope these experiences can lead him to the point where I can say to him with a smile and an extended hand, "Welcome to being a Conservative."

If you didn’t know it by now, my day job is fixing things, which I am very good at my job. I’ve been taking things apart since I was 12. It took me a while to learn how to put them back together with no leftover parts though. 

I like to see how things work, and how I can break or exploit them. So, I’m going to show how someone (MIGHT HAVE) altered the election enough for Biden to win.

I have no direct or circumstantial evidence on the “who” or “how,” only how I would have done it if someone paid me to fix an election.

First of all, Pravda likes to throw out the term “Widespread voter fraud,” and all I can say is, there was no “widespread” about it. I can tell you exactly where it (could) have happened. I possess nothing but open public records, I have no proof of anything. I only have my reasoning ability and enough things to make you go “Hmm… that’s strange…” Which is how most discoveries happen.

The people who (might have) done this had four years to plan and set this in motion. They would have had years to move people and things into position, then activate them at the planned moment.

ATTACKING THE MACHINES

I had a friend (he passed last year) who worked for the County election Commission where we live for a couple of elections. He explained the system to me as best he could.

“Each polling location is its’ own network, not connected to anything. The computers used to verify voters, the voting machines themselves, and the server recording everything was a closed network. After the polls closed and the data downloaded, a data module was removed from the server, and along with the box containing the paper votes and two poll workers hopped into a police car, who ran with lights and sirens to the Election Commission offices, where everything was counted and then reported to the State.”

I related this to show hacking individual machines (what the Pravda always talks about) is useless. You can’t hack a machine except for those few minutes IF they are updated from the manufacturer well before the election. Usually these would be updated via thumb drive or closed and air-gapped network after the updates were downloaded and verified. If you did hack “A” machine, you can’t substantially affect its numbers. If one machine at a polling station shows substantially (100+) more votes than the other machines, that would be a red flag.

So, if you wanted to hack a machine, which would it be? How about the one that combines all of the precincts? I’ll explain “what they might have done” later. I would have also used a variety of methods that are easily penetrable and lacking of point-to point control, like mail-in ballots. However I am discussing here the method with the lowest risk/highest reward criteria. This gets WAY easier if the voting machine company is “on your side” politically, because compromising the system (and the necessary risks entailed) would not be necessary. They would put the “secret features” you need into the code itself. This way the user machines would do it and be totally undetectable.

ATTACKING THE SYSTEM

A voting system is useless without people. That being said, it’s easier to hack people than it is systems. You could blackmail someone into compromising the system, but that takes a terrible risk of malicious compliance, which would lead to discovery. You run the risk of the person in question being immune to blackmail, or someone with even a bit of morals to regret doing the work and going to the authorities. No, the people you need are active, willing and even aggressive confederates. What you want to do is get a solid believer of your goal into the positions where they could carry out the plan quietly, and any overwatch of their actions would also be “in on the plan.” That being said, these different people must not know that each other is in on the plan. That would lead to compromise in multiple different ways.

WHERE TO ATTACK

Okay, we have the “What to attack” and “Who will attack” but we need where to best apply this attack. Now a concept: If you had only one index finger to push someone over, where would you use it, the forehead or the small of their back? The forehead, because the person’s feet can’t help keep them up, not to mention the leverage of 6 feet, rather than 3 feet.

Another thought: You want to hide a needle, where would you hide it? In a haystack, or in a warehouse full of needles?

There would not be a single state to do this. I would pick the 5-8 states where the Trump –Clinton results were the closest, even though only 3 larger “battleground” states would be all that is needed. You want extra states because redundancy and overlap is critical if the efforts fail in 1-2 states.

I have looked at four states that had a lot of controversy in the 2020 election. I’m going to use Wisconsin as the example, however Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania it appears all got “the same treatment.”

THE DIRTY DEED ITSELF

Votes, like money is “Fungible.” once they are tallied together, you can’t point into the pool and say “that’s my vote right there, #12,382.”

Here’s a table showing the reported 2020 state-wide results and the Dane County results:

.

Now, we do a “What if…?” and through a minor “computer glitch” 14,000 Trump votes out of the 339,006 cast across the County, a measly 4.1% of the Dane County votes tallied for Trump suddenly came up Biden:

Notice between the two tables the state-wide and Dane County total votes are the same, and notice how Dane county vote tally still stomped Trump to elect Joe. But back on the state-level, Trump went from losing by 20,682 to winning by 7,318.

Again, I do not know what system they use, I don’t know what safeguards that county election commission has in place. Considering that it was designed and run by fallible humans, this would not be an insurmountable task to plan for over the span of three years.

Let’s go over this one more time.

• You select 5-8 states where the election will be close.
• You pick a county that is heavily Democrat
• You get “true believers” into key positions of the county election commission who will a) compromise the necessary systems and b) not raise alarms if something looks off while the malware does what it’s supposed to do.
• You compromise the 8-10 tally machines (not the hundreds of voting machines you and I interact with) with malicious software that will “flip” a certain number of votes from Trump to Biden, then cleanly remove itself so as not to be discovered by later audits. 

Don’t forget, a flipped vote counts as two votes because it takes away from the other guy while adding it to “your guy.” So you only have to do half the work with less exposure than ballot stuffing.

Now, I came up with this with a total of about 6 hours of thinking and research... Imagine what I could do if given a couple of years, access to the machines and systems, along with a budget to make it “worth my time.”

Don't tell me this "Just doesn't happen." Here's a Tweet about Dara Lindenbaum, Biden's nominee to head the Federal Election Commission on April 6th of this year. The Tweet has video, so you can't say I'm misquoting her.

Sen. Ted Cruz: "As an officer of the court, you were willing to put your name on a legal pleading alleging that the machines used in Georgia in 2018 were switching votes illegally from one candidate to another. Is that correct?"

Dara Lindenbaum: "Yes"

This means it has happened. It was caught, I don't know how or why. Knowing that (given the time and resources) I could circumvent stuff like that.

Last point, I can make the same argument for Wayne County in Michigan, Delaware County in Pennsylvania, and Fulton County in Georgia. All of these counties voted massively for both Clinton and Biden, so how’s a few votes being switched from Trump to Biden really going to show itself? And the 69 Electoral College votes from these four states alone would have kept Trump President.

Yeah, shit like this keeps me awake at night.

So I found this article by The Guardian, What happens when a group of Fox News viewers watch CNN for a month? and had to say something on it.

According to The Guardian, this was,

A study that paid viewers of the rightwing cable network to switch shed light on the media’s influence on people’s views.

According to dictionary.com, the 2nd definition of "study" when used as a "verb with an object" reads, "to examine or investigate carefully and in detail."

This is not a study, it's a chilling propaganda piece. First of all, here's the actual study the article references. The bias of the "researchers" who ran this study is blatant and appalling.

The basis of the study was to pay people who normally watch FOX News to watch CNN. There was a control group who remained watching FOX, and at the end of the study, the participants were questioned, including questions that you had to be watching CNN to properly answer. The results found that the views of the people who switched to CNN had changed significantly.

All this proves is CNN has great marketing and delivery of their "version" of the news. Much like in a Coke/Pepsi blind taste test, more people go with Pepsi, but still buy and drink Coke. I think there should have been a study the other way as well, Have a group of CNN viewers (if you can find any with their viewership being down 90%) and pay them to watch Fox and see what those results would be.

Now, here's the two things that should chill you to your spine, no matter your political views. First, the assumption by the researchers and The Guardian that FOX News is wrong and CNN is correct in all things. Second, that no matter who, facts and opinion are blended together and you can no longer separate them.

When I was growing up, my Dad watched Walter Cronkite almost exclusively. Rarely the Huntly-Brinkley Report. I still remember watching Walter Cronkite on January 22nd, 1973. They came back from a commercial break and Walter was on the phone, something I had never seen before. He remained silent, occasionally giving sideways glances at the camera, but mostly downwards and to his left, probably taking notes. After a couple of minutes (it seemed like an hour), he hung up the phone, looked at the camera and reported the passing of former President Johnson. The thing of it is, you never knew the personal politics of Cronkite, Huntly, Brinkley, Jennings or any of them. They reported the news and let you decide for yourself.

Today, you are given your opinion if you like it or not, and that goes for most every news outlet. Which is why I get my news from The Babylon Bee. Just kidding. I read multiple sites on both sides, go directly to the source when I can and link to mostly Left-leaning sites to perform Political Judo on them, using their own words against them.

And CNN can't catch a break, even on their home court...

Here's another simple question by Senator Ted Cruz that a Leftist cannot give a simple, straightforward, human answer:

"Judge Kato, is racial discrimination wrong?" 

This is what happens when a persons political agenda takes precedence over their morality. The human and obvious answer should be, "Senator Cruz, racial discrimination is wrong. Morally, ethically and legally." And in six-and-a-half minutes, she can't say that for any of them. She hems and haws about the legality and case law, but can't come out and say, "It's wrong."

This reminds me of President Clinton, "It depends on the what the definition of 'is' is."

I was told many, many, (many) years ago, “opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.” However, it’s the kind of opinion is what matters.

I found this a while back. Twitter @sgrstk 4/8/40:

A fact is information minus emotion. An opinion is information plus experience. Ignorance is an opinion lacking information. And, stupidity is an opinion that ignores a fact.

There are different levels of opinions.

First is the “echoing mind chamber” level, where the only important facts on the subject in question is your “thoughts on the matter.” Which translates to, “I have zero data, zero observations, and zero facts that support my position, but because I think it is so, it must be so.” This level makes you look like an idiot the second someone brings a fact to the discussion.

Next we have the “Somewhat-informed level”, where you have collected data/facts/etc. that only supports your position. Any data/facts that don’t agree with yours are “irrelevant/fake/made-up” and thus don’t count and are summarily ignored. When you achieve this level, you can hold your own until facts that disagree with yours are presented.

The highest level is the “fully-informed” level. This is where you have researched and documented the facts and opinions of both sides of the issue. You have thoroughly cogitated through the entire subject. You came down on the side you did according to the facts plus your morals, beliefs and character. By being fully informed this makes you able to adequately argue for both sides of the discussion. This gives you the edge in the discussion in the fact that you probably know their arguments better than they do. By knowing what their points are going to be, you can have your facts to refute anything they have to present on hand and ready to go. I call this the “Ben Shapiro level” because he can shoot down your opinion and facts with better facts before you can get your opinion/facts all the way out of your mouth.

Here’s the most important point: In doing all of this research, you may learn something you didn’t know before. Something that may modify or even change your whole view and position on the subject. Which is what happens when you let facts and firmly-rooted morals determine your opinion. That’s a whole lot better than letting your emotions of the moment shape your opinion.

So I found this Tweet the other day. The full video on this is here but I don't have an exact time index where it is for you. It's over two hours long.

Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked a very simple, straightforward question of Jill Sanborn, who is the Executive Assistant Director of the FBI.

Cruz asked,

"Did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participate in the events of January 6th?"

Before I give her answer, let me say Senator Cruz asked specifically about "active participation." I have no doubt there were undercover agents or confidential informants among the people, that's a given. That's also not what was asked. "Observe and report" is one thing, "actively participate" is a entirely different matter.

Ms. Sanborn answered: "I can't answer that." My view here is any answer short of an unequivocal "NO" answers Senator Cruz's question as a "YES."

Senator Cruz then modified his question to "Did any FBI agents or confidential informants commit any crimes of violence in the events of January 6th?", then asked again, "Did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively encourage and incite crimes of violence on January 6th?" Both of these questions received the same response: "I can't answer that."

When you consider events like the plot to kidnap Governor Whitmore of Michigan seems to have had FBI agents or CI's help with the planning of the plot, you have to ask yourself what side of the line that constitutes entrapment the FBI is on. Actually, that's a rhetorical question, as the answer provided in this short exchange. Agent Sanborn's non-answer answer clearly indicates the FBI, directly through actual federal agents or CI's, contributed to a protest becoming a riot, which Democrats then turned a molehill into a mountain, calling it an "insurrection."

In the words of Senator Mark Rubio,

"...you're not going to convince most normal and sane people that our government last year was almost overthrown by a guy wearing a Viking hat and speedos."

So there you have it. If you are part of a group, especially groups with "radical" ideas, you must act as you have been infiltrated by a federal agent or one of your members has been turned by said agents. The FBI is sounding more and more like the secret police.

FBI no longer means "Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity." I don't know and don't want to know what they stand for now.

ICYMI, the start of the new year saw a new government for the City of New York assumed the reigns of power. The new District Attorney for Manhattan is Alvin Bragg. Yes, the job Adam Schiff, Nora Levin, Arthur Branch and Jack McCoy held on Law and Order. Mr. Bragg ran on some sort of a "compassion for criminals" platform. His "Day One" policy memo to his ADA's had the following points: 

-Robbers wielding guns or other deadly weapons to steal from stores and businesses will be prosecuted only for petty larceny - a misdemeanor - provided no victims were injured and there is no 'genuine risk of physical harm.'

-Convicts who are caught with weapons other than guns will have their charges downgraded to misdemeanors, as long as they are not also charged with more serious offenses. The felony would normally see crooks jailed for seven years.

-Burglars who loot residential storage areas, parts of homes that are not 'accessible to a living area' and businesses located in mixed-use buildings, will be prosecuted for a minor class D felony, where they would normally face class B and class C charges punishable by up to 25 and 15 years in prison respectively.

-Drug dealers suspected of 'acting as a low-level agent of a seller' will only be charged with misdemeanor possession.

-Offenses like marijuana misdemeanors, prostitution, resisting arrest and fare dodging will no longer be prosecuted.

Let's step back for a moment and look at how things are supposed to work. The legislative branch (State Assembly, City Council, etc.) pass laws that define unacceptable social conduct. The executive branch is supposed to zealously enforce those laws uniformly by using the police to investigate complaints, gather evidence, arrest suspects and present the suspects and evidence to the District Attorney's office to be prosecuted.

The District Attorney does have some "prosecutorial discretion" to decline to prosecute where the DA believes the case is not winnable, or there are insufficient resources able to be devoted to get a conviction, things like that. All that being said, for a DA to blanket downgrade or ignore laws is an usurpation of power, and is basically telling the legislative branch to eff off.

Mr. Bragg is also indirectly telling criminals to terrorize the city as they see fit. This is not an unforeseeable result of the "defund the police" movement. Mr. Bragg has also indirectly told the good people of New York he doesn't give a shit about you. Citizens and businesses are now expected to let bad people take their money and possessions, then meekly say, "Thank you sir, would you like some more?"

How do I know what will happen? Up until 1993 or so, New York was a shithole. Citizens were not safe, crime was rampant. You carried two wallets, one with your ID, cards and cash, then a second wallet with $40-50 in it to give up when (not if) you were robbed. When Rudy Giuliani took over as Mayor, he instituted a "broken windows" model of policing. This means if a police officer saw you do a minor crime (breaking a window, jumping a turnstile), you were arrested. Not ignored or detained and given a warning. You see, a turnstile jumper didn't just steal the subway fare, he most likely assaulted and robbed several people while riding the trains to where they were going, which probably was to something like rob a bodega or do a drug deal. If he's arrested and taken to the police station for jumping the turnstile, the other bad stuff he would have done didn't happen because the guy was in a cell instead of continuing to run loose. With this type of policing, crime of all types plummeted and the city became safe to walk the streets.

As Giuliani's successors (Bloomberg, De Blasio. and now Adams) have each progressively departed from Giuliani's methods, NY is once again a shit hole. With policies like this now in place, A-B testing has clearly indicated that the skids to accelerate for the inevitable downhill slide are now thoroughly greased.

To explain the wording for the title, Mr. Bragg openly campaigned that he was going to do this, and he still got 83.7% of the vote. Now, are the people who voted for Mr. Bragg in agreement with him and okay with his policies, or did they just pull the "D" lever, I don't know. The only thing I do know is it's nigh impossible to get a U-Haul or moving truck to go from NY to anywhere else, just like California, and other "deep red" states. 2020 Migration Report by North American Van Lines. So we know that the people who are fed up with the crime, high taxes and high cost of living are moving to where those issues aren't.

So for everyone who voted for this DA, your permission slip to act shocked (SHOCKED! I say!) is hereby revoked. You made this bed, now sleep in it.

The thing about having hard, declared personal moral standards is sometimes they conflict with what you want or think. If you're truly committed to your moral standards, you have to change what you want or think when there's a conflict between the two sides. Morals are like Amendments to the Constitution. Yes, you can change or modify them, but it's a hard and long process and it's meant to be that way. Morals that can be easily created, modified or deleted are not morals at all.

Since I've had an opinion on abortion, it's been "pro-choice." I have always held the belief that life started at conception, however I also believed it was the woman's body. A few years ago, I started really looking into the standards and particulars on this subject. That being said, I'm not here to sell you, either way. I'm here to describe why I'm now 100% pro-life.

Take a through physical survey of yourself right now, at this moment. Look carefully at what (not "who") you are. Now, think about what you were an hour ago. With the exception of a catastrophic event (trauma, dismemberment, heart attack, etc.), You are 99.999% of the person you were an hour ago. Your weight might be a pound heavier or lighter if you have just eaten a meal or had a waste dump, but again for all intents and purposes, you're basically the same person and the two "you's" are indistinguishable.

Now continue that trend. Compare the you of one hour ago vs. you of two hours ago. Continue that process all the way up until you were 30 minutes old. During this whole time you are a considered a person. Now, go back one more hour to 30 minutes before you were born. According to the law at that minute, you are not a person. But is that really true? Like every hour span you've studied up until this point, the only significant difference is where you are, i.e. you're inside or outside your mother.

Now go all the way back, to that moment when you were 8 cells, or 4, or 2 or just one cell. Go back ten more seconds, when there was an egg and a sperm nearby trying to get into the egg. That moment, when the egg receives the DNA from the sperm and now has the ability to start growing. That moment, that second, when the egg and the sperm combined then divided, that is when you were born. This is that hour where there is a big difference between the start and end of that hour. From that moment until you left your mother's womb is just paperwork. Those who are heavily invested in abortion-on-demand would say, "It's not a baby, it's just a clump of cells." And, semantically, I have to agree with them. But every baby started this way. And like Ben Shapiro says, "Aren't we all, right now, just a clump of cells?" 

Yes, we can't make the connection between the "us" now and the "us" at two cells. It's too big of a leap. I am saying it is us, you just have to look at it in that shorter time frame.

Looking throughout recorded history, the most heinous atrocities that mankind has committed has been the killing of babies and pregnant women. Killing men was no significant thing, killing women was worse, but still not very bad. But if you really, really wanted to piss off a tribe of people, kill an infant or pregnant woman. Destroy that promise of life.

So now I ask, why is abortion not just normalized, considered no big deal, even celebrated today? Remember, when Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, she was a racist and eugenicist. When the pro-abortion people use the phrase "For the health of the mother," uninformed people take that (reasonably) to mean, "the mother and/or baby will die if the baby is carried to term." What I found out is the term "health" encompasses physical, mental, financial and relationship health.

Think I'm blowing smoke? From Newsweek, Abortion: What the 'Health' Exemption Really Means. Quoting from the article:

...[I]n Doe v. Bolton, a companion case issued the same day as Roe, the court provided further guidance on what preserving the "health of the mother" entailed. "Medical judgment may be exercised in light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age--relevant to the wellbeing of the patient," the court wrote. "All these factors may relate to health." [emphasis mine]

So if a woman goes to an abortion clinic and tells them, "I can't have this baby. I'm trying to get my career started and I don't have the time or income to raise a child," that is enough reason for the doctor to proceed with an abortion to kill that baby. And ICYMI, the legal definition of "baby" is anyone before their twenty-first birthday, i.e., an adult. So, just in case it becomes legal to kill babies after birth, remember that.

Despite it being near Christmas, this isn't about that star. A while back, I wrote about a hat store that had earned the ire of the SJW's because they had a yellow Star of David like the German Jews had to wear in 1940's Germany. This one, though, had "Unvaccinated" rather than "Jude" (German for "Jew").

I just came across this article, German call to ban 'Jewish star' at Covid demos. From the article:

"Anti-lockdown protesters argue that the ruling liberal establishment is violating their personal freedom and exaggerating the Covid health risks. However, the head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Josef Schuster, said last year it was "unspeakable" that Germans were comparing restrictions on their lives with the abuses of the Third Reich."

I can see their point. Just because the Australian government is forcing the non-vaccinated into concentration COVID camps, and New York State is setting up "Quarantine Camps", I just know the German government would never follow suit. (That's sarcasm if you missed it)

Every day, we all move a little closer to a world Totalitarianism. Resist. Fight back. Do not comply. This is the hill to die on, because a lot more will be crushed if we don't.

I was told many, many, (many) years ago, “opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.” However, it’s the kind of opinion is what matters.

I found this a while back. Twitter @sgrstk 4/8/40:

A fact is information minus emotion. An opinion is information plus experience. Ignorance is an opinion lacking information. And, stupidity is an opinion that ignores a fact.

There are different levels of opinions.

First is the “echoing mind chamber” level, where the only important facts on the subject in question is your “thoughts on the matter.” Which translates to, “I have zero data, zero observations, and zero facts that support my position, but because I think it is so, it must be so.” This level makes you look like an idiot the second someone brings a fact to the discussion. You won't feel that way, since your thoughts on the matter trump any facts presented.

Next we have the “Somewhat-informed level”, where you have collected data/facts/etc. that only supports your position. Any data/facts that don’t agree with yours are “irrelevant/fake/made-up” and thus don’t count and are summarily ignored. When you achieve this level, you can hold your own until facts that disagree with yours are presented.

The highest level is the “fully-informed” level. This is where you have researched and documented the facts and opinions of both sides of the issue. You have thoroughly cogitated through the entire subject. You came down on the side you did according to the facts plus your morals, beliefs and character. By being fully informed this makes you able to adequately argue for both sides of the discussion. This gives you the edge in the discussion in the fact that you probably know their points better than they do. By knowing what their points are going to be, you can have your facts to counter those points on hand and ready to go. I call this the “Ben Shapiro level” because he can shoot down your opinion and facts with better facts before you can get your opinion/facts all the way out of your mouth.

Here’s the most important point: In doing all of this research, you may learn something you didn’t know before. Something that may modify or even change your whole view and position on the subject. Which is what happens when you let facts and firmly-rooted morals determine your opinion. That’s a whole lot better than letting your emotions of the moment shape your opinion.

(I meant to post this last week, real life got in the way)

In a week's time, Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty and the men involved with the death of Ahmund Arbery were found guilty.

Kyle did everything legally proper and prudent to fulfill his self-defense case. He had a right to be where he was, he was legally armed, he didn't escalate and tried to deescalate the situation. Kyle was retreating when he fell, and shot only when the deadly threat against him was imminent and unavoidable.

Ahmund's killers were not under imminent threat by him, the killers pursued Ahmund when he attempted to break contact. Ahmund only attacked when he was no longer able to retreat, he perceived the threat against him was deadly and immediate and he was dead either way.

Our founding Fathers were wise when they codified that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a panel of fellow citizens that the accused is guilty. It doesn't work all the time. In these two incidents, they did.

I wrote this article as a supplement to this: Self-defense is a Right.

I’ve been to Kenosha. The C&NW (Chicago & Northwestern) commuter rail line ran past the Great Lakes Navy Base from Chicago and all the way up to Kenosha. When I was there in 1980, Kenosha saw a lot of Sailors because at that time, in Illinois you had to be 21 to drink alcohol, but 18 was the legal age in Wisconsin. Kenosha is a working-class town, middle-class and below. Nothing flashy or special about it.

If you haven’t heard, Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on November 19^th of all charges against him for shooting three people, two of whom succumbed to their injuries.

There are no winners here. Two men are dead, leaving grieving friends and family. One is missing an arm. Kyle himself will live with that fact for the rest of his life that he did that. The circumstances or level of justification do not matter, ending the life of another person changes you. I pray for everyone involved to heal and get past this.

This was not a criminal trial. This was a political trial. It was political because all of the Pravdas and the Leftists actively encouraged and supported the riots like the one in Kenosha. Since Kyle stood up to the riots by saying “Not in my community” he had to be excoriated to discourage anyone else from trying this ever again. Kyle had to be demonized, ridiculed, and destroyed.

To objectively look at this through the lens of the law, Kyle should have never been forced to fight for his future in the courtroom because of this. He obeyed the law and acted appropriately all the way through it.

He had a legal right to be there (he worked and had family in Kenosha), and was legally armed (17-year-olds can carry a rifle in public in WI). He was there with a first-aid kit to help wounded people, rioters, civilians and police alike, he was cleaning up the damages and graffiti from the riots, and was protecting property by standing guard.

When it came to the actual shooting, Kyle attempted to deescalate (shouting “Friendly! Friendly! Friendly!”), and retreated until he fell. The people he shot were attacking him and from every indicator, an immediate and a grave threat to Kyle’s life.

But you never heard about any of that from the Pravdas.

Why was Kyle protecting property? Let Nelle Bowles tell you from Bari Weiss’s Substack:

A note on Kenosha in light of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Until quite recently, the mainstream liberal argument was that burning down businesses for racial justice was both good and healthy. Burnings allowed for the expression of righteous rage, and the businesses all had insurance to rebuild. 

When I was at the New York Times, I went to Kenosha to see about this, and it turned out to be not true. The part of Kenosha that people burned in the riots was the poor, multi-racial commercial district, full of small, underinsured cell phone shops and car lots. It was very sad to see and to hear from people who had suffered. Beyond the financial loss, small storefronts are quite meaningful to their owners and communities, which continuously baffles the Zoom-class.

[…]

If you lived in those neighborhoods on fire, you were not supposed to get an extinguisher. The proper response — the only acceptable response — was to see the brick and mortar torn down, to watch the fires burn and to say: thank you.

Read this to learn the true aftermath of the riots: Skyrocketing demolition costs for riot-damaged Minneapolis, St. Paul properties delay rebuilding.

One day after rioters destroyed the Sports Dome retail complex in St. Paul, a construction crew hired by the city knocked the building down because it was dangerously unstable.

Then the city presented the property owners with a $140,000 bill for what it would cost to haul away the debris.

“We were really upset about that,” said property owner Jay Kim, whose insurance policy covers a maximum of $25,000 in demolition costs. “We thought that was high. But we didn’t know how much demolition would cost at the time.”

Of course, after the rubble was removed, a new building would have to be built, furniture would have to be purchased, installed and stocked. And there was no money to do so. And these stories are repeated every time a Leftist-controlled city burns. If you want to know why inner cities look like warzones, answer this question: “Why would anyone want to invest their life’s savings into a small business that’s in an area likely to be burned to the ground if there’s a riot?” The answer should be pretty clear.

Back to Kyle. The DA must have been pressured to press these charges, because they should have never been filed in the first place. I can’t tell you if the prosecuting attorney is inept beyond all relief or intentionally threw this case. The defense had no reason to present their side of things, as the prosecution never met the burden of proof and actually validated the defense’s claims of self-defense. The prosecution committed every possible strategic and tactical blunder you can commit in a courtroom. From asking questions of their own witnesses they didn’t know the answer to, charging Kyle with offenses that they should never have (failing to measure the rifle to determine if it’s a “short-barreled rifle” before charging him with having a SBR), to berating Kyle to dare to exert his Fifth Amendment Right to not self-incriminate. Then you have the “hiding and distorting of exculpatory evidence” thing, by texting a critical exculpatory (proving innocence) video rather than hand-delivery of the video on a USB drive or DVD, thereby destroying the quality of the video and destroying its’ value to the defense. And there’s more, a lot more. This case will end up in a book for potential lawyers, “Egregious Courtroom Fuck-ups: What Not To Do as a Prosecuting Attorney.”

Despite Leftist fears of armed people showing up to counter-protest and mow the protesters down under the pretext of “self-defense,” That’s not what this means.

What this does mean is we have been inspired by a 17-year-old man, who had the testicles to wade into a volatile situation, a rifle in one hand and a medical kit in the other, who was not content to let those who sought to destroy lives and his town not get away with it. He was there to help and prepared for the worst. May we all have the moral character he has.

Kyle will also never have to work a day in his life again. After all of the Pravdas and President Biden viciously maligned Kyle and maliciously distorted the facts to fit the agenda, there will be many multi-million dollar settlements coming shortly. The Covington Kid should team up with the Kenosha Kid to start or fund a news agency that actually upholds journalistic standards, that doesn’t write opinion and present it as hard news, that upholds truth and accuracy over “breaking news” and an agenda.