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.

Hat tip to Adam Carolla for coming up with the term as it applies in this context.

Crate Training is where you train a dog to willingly enter a cage on command and stay there. The animal behaviorists say that the dog feels safe in the crate since it simulates the enclosed or underground den when they lived in the wild. The reason behind crate training is the human doesn’t trust the dog to not take a dump in the house. The dog craps in the house because the humans are neglectful and he isn’t taken out enough to do his necessary business.

Looking at the whole thing, we have a pet who isn’t trusted. The pet is then conditioned to consider the crate to be a safe space and to enter it on command. A toy or two is kept in the crate/safe space to keep the pet entertained while in there. The owner then lets the dog out to “do his business” every now-and-then, but on the owner’s schedule. Otherwise, the dog is ignored while in the crate.

My point? You, my mask wearing Liberal reader, have been trained to consider any space outside your house as dangerous (and by implication your house/crate is a safe space). You are trained to go there and stay on command. You get to play with your Internet, your GrubHub and Amazon while in your crate.
And you actually have it better than your crated pet. You have a bathroom in your crate, they don’t.

ICYMI, this past week the FBI has admitted that the Steele Dossier which was used as the centerpiece for the investigation of President Trump and his "Russia Collusion," is in fact, a collection claims which remain unverified or have been proven false. Which means, in non-politician speak, lies and false rumors. I know this is true because it's in the New York Times: Secret Sharers: The Hidden Ties Between Private Spies and Journalists.

I've known this to be true from the start. I've known that the FBI ignored their own verification process, known as the "Woods Procedures," and lied to a FISA judge to get the warrants to conduct monitoring against Trump and his organization, telling the judge the information in the Steele Dossier was true, when they knew it wasn't.

We also have a tidbit of indirect verification, namely a diary. Part of that diary relates that the author's father sexually molested her as a child. There are claims that the owner and author of this diary is Ashley Biden, President Biden's daughter. Images of the pages of the diary are online, and some people are claiming they have verified that Ashley Biden is the author.

The biggest and most obvious confirmation is the FBI has raided Project Veritas, who is the last known possessor of the diary. Why does this raid verify the truthfulness of who's diary it is and the truthfulness of the statements in it? Because if it was false, Jen "Circle Back" Psaki would say so, and people friendly to Biden who can access it physically or its' images could prove that it's false. But to exert this much effort to obtain it, says the government is wanting to avoid any independent confirmation. So the FBI finds this diary to make it disappear. Then Pravda lets it fall out of the news cycle. POOF! It's gone like it never existed.

I commend Project Veritas, who did not publish images of or the text in the diary, as their strict journalistic standards could not verify it is Ashley Biden's diary. If only Pravda put their own journalistic integrity ahead of sensationalism or their agenda.

Those four words are inscribed on the West Pediment, above the front entrance of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. Those words also separate a Republic from a lawless or autocratic State. I am sad we have gone from the former to the latter.

I promised that I discuss this link from an earlier post, so here it is: 43 members of Congress have violated a law designed to stop insider trading and prevent conflicts-of-interest. The article then describes 27 Republicans and 16 Democrats who are alleged to have violated this law. As a legal point, you have to be convicted of violating a law (thus "proving the fact") in order to unconditionally say you broke the law. Until then words like "alleged" and "accused" have to be used.

First of all, this is a law written by Congress that affects Congress, so it's milquetoast at best as far as penalties go. You can read the law here.

My only point is to show the difference between the Left and the Right. A Leftist will minimize, excuse, justify and deny any culpability for the Democrats on this list, while simultaneously calling for the maximum penalty for every Republican on the list.

How do I know this? Let's take a look at the last three presidential impeachments. MoveOn.org was founded on the concept that President Clinton should be censored, not impeached. They also kind of ignore the facts of the matter, because Clinton was impeached for lying under oath during a deposition, not giving a facial to an intern in the Oval Office.

The first Trump impeachment was made, even when their main piece of evidence, the Mueller Report, specifically says:

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. [emphasis mine]

The second Trump impeachment was about a quid pro quo with Ukraine, which didn't happen. It's kind of hard to pressure someone to do something when they don't realize they're being pressured. Whereas President Biden (then Vice-President) did engage in a quid pro quo ("we give you military aid, you fire that prosecutor") and openly admits and jokes about it. Afterwards we found out his son Hunter was one of the indirect targets of this prosecutor. You don't have to believe me, here's Joe telling the story himself:

Again, if there is a law that is alleged to have been broken, I am all for equal application to all, and party or any other criteria is not a factor in the decision to investigate, prosecute or in the levying of penalties upon conviction. I take that back. I want a higher standard applied to those who represent us. They assumed that mantle of public office, and with great power comes great responsibility. I realize Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Dan Crenshaw and more are on that list. If they are proven guilty, I want the appropriate penalty assessed. I also want to see every Democrat held to the same standard and receive the appropriate penalty.

That's the difference between us and them.

The United States and Norway have a lot of distinct differences. Racial and social demographics, work ethic, the role of government in people's lives and more. Because there is virtually zero strife of any kind in Norway, it makes the world news when a man takes a perfectly legal-to-own bow and arrows and starts killing other people with it.

Which only proves the point that every pro-gun advocate has made for decades: The heart of the killer caused this to happen, not the tool.

Think of it this way: If you believe that "guns are evil," then the rifle used to kill JFK, or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is especially evil, because they were used to bring about the untimely demise of men who were making a distinct positive change in the world.

Now, let's say I obtained one of those rifles and took it back in time to Germany 1923, before Hitler could carry out his "Beer Hall Putsch" that started his rise within the NAZI party ranks.

As an aside, you don't want to kill "baby Adolf," because the Universe would just put someone else on the track to run the NAZI's when he was there. It's best to disrupt it when you know he's the one.

If you kill Hitler in 1923, you stand a chance that WWII never happens. So, you have just saved the lives of over 100 million people who would have died if Hitler had come to power. So is that rifle still evil, or is it somehow good now, because it saved millions of lives?

My answer is, NEITHER. It is a tool, with no ability to operate on its' own. It has no consciousness or ability to reason so intent can be formed. A tool can only perform the function its' designed to do. For that function to be applied for good or evil depends on the wielder of the tool.

If you insist on taking away the power of men to perform evil, as a consequence you also destroy their power to perform good as well. When that ability, that choice, is destroyed, you remove the je ne sais quoi that separates men from ants.

Back to the story. Because this place is so peaceful, even the police weren't armed. In response to this horrific event, the police get to arm themselves with guns. The citizens don't. But whose asses are on the line until the police get there? You guessed it. The police won't be there until minutes after they're called, if they're called and if they decide to respond at all. Put yourself in that position, you're being attacked, people are dying around you. You manage to call 911 and the dispatcher says, "No police for you!" What are you going to do other than bleed and die? Having the proper tools to defend yourself and end the threat sounds pretty good in that case, don't they?

I am now fully and officially tired of this shit. Time for things to change. Grab the torches and pitchforks people.

We no longer have government officials who "were trying to do the right thing" and "somehow went astray" and betrayed the public trust. We have government officials who believe they are sovereigns of their territory and they can do damn well what they please, and all of us peasants can Eff the Eff off.

So in the last post, with the embroilment of the Loudoun County Schools, angry parents are demanding the resignation of the superintendent and the entire school board.

I SAY THEE NAY! (that's old style for "No.")

In early America, whenever a miscreant or ne'er-do-well started causing trouble in a town, the other townsfolk would ban together and "escort" the offending person(s) to the edge of the area and told him to never return. This is where the term "ridden out of town on a rail" comes from. And when I say "rail," I don't mean a railroad (those were still 100 years+ in the future), rather a fence rail. Fence rails were made by splitting a log (Abraham Lincoln did this as a job when he was young) into quarters. End on, it looked like this:

Imagine having to straddle this, naked. Your intimate parts are at the apex of that roughly split trunk. So we start off with "sharp" and "splinters" in the nether regions. And it's not a smooth ride. This log you're sitting on is being held up on the shoulders of two men. Add "rough and jolting ride" to the above.

I almost forgot the most fun part, tarring and feathering. Pitch (pine tar, used to seal the bottom of ships and boats) is spread all over your body, then a sack of feathers is dumped upon you. You are covered in a layer of pitch and feathers that would be hard to remove today, let alone back then before bathing became widespread.

.

The pain and splinters were meant to serve as a lesson that you should not repeat your errors. The tar and feathers was to warn people who might encounter you that you are trouble and are to be avoided at all costs. A truly non-fatal way to communicate and drive home the importance of maintaining proper social behavior.

In the United States today, officials who have violated the public's trust are "allowed to resign." The origin of this comes from warfare. When a general sees they will be defeated, they ask their opponents for the opportunity to "resign from the field," with their remaining troops alive and intact under the condition that they cease armed conflict. These "leaders" are allowed to "resign from the field," and move on with their lives with minimal disgrace or punishment.

Betrayal of the public trust is an extremely egregious transgression second only to treason itself. It must be dealt with harshly, with absolute certainty and maximum visibility in order to provide enough incentive to these people to discourage bad behavior.

Politicians, high appointed public officials, talking heads of the media and more, all in visible positions of authority should be drummed out of their station and profession to great proclamation and ceremony. No apologies will be accepted, no waffling "SorryNotSorry" excuses. Their boss holds a press conference and they stand there, publicly humiliated as they are summarily relieved of their position, its responsibilities and benefits, while being barred from any future work in that profession. If we are talking about a government official, then they are deemed ineligible for any government position, or interacting with any government official, elected, appointed or hired. Then all applicable criminal charges are filed and the civil lawsuits may commence. Oh, and they are personally liable, the government they worked for will not pay for the lawyers or the penalties, because all that does is raise the taxes on all of us.

We have all seen over the past couple of decades where every high government official has a lot of other fellow officials cover them for any transgressions, who expect that favor to be returned when the moment comes. So any investigation should come from outside, from a randomly chosen state-level investigator, who has had no contact with anybody in or associated with "the swamp." I can't stand to see another "We have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing."

Lt. Col Jeff Cooper said (paraphrased), "Criminals do not fear the police, nor the judge and jury. They must be taught to fear their victims." I think "Politicians" could replace "Criminals" in the quote above quite nicely, don't you agree?

Speaking of which, this will get it's own article in a couple of days.

"Justice," as in the concept of "the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals" is now officially dead, and we have undoubtedly entered the realm of a Totalitarian State.

How can I say that? What makes me thing that? This picture, of a man being arrested and his being called "The face of domestic terrorism":

This story starts way before this photo.

The Loudoun County Virginia School Board decided to institute a policy that allows students who wish to transition their gender into bathrooms that conform with their new gender. One of these "trans girls," who is a functional male (all equipment intact and functional), and wears a dress, cornered this mans' 14-year-old daughter in a bathroom and sexually molested her.

When Mr. Smith (the subject of the image above) found out about this, he went to the school to find out what happened. He became angry that the school was handling it "in-house," which means no police and no formal charges. Some unkind words were said, the police were called.

Let me make this clear: The police were called, not because a student was raped, but because her father showed up and was making a scene, being loud, angry and (rightfully) disrespectful to the school administrators.

The school then released a statement concerning "student safety" and said,

"...There was an incident in the main office area today that required the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office to dispatch deputies to Stone Bridge. The incident was confined to the main office and the entrance area to the school. There was no threat to the safety of the student body. The incident was witnessed by a small number of students who were meeting with staff adjacent to the main office..."

The statement then concluded,

"...The safety of our students and staff is the top priority of Loudoun County Public Schools.”

I find that last sentence to be the definition of irony. To institute policies that contributed directly to the rape of a young woman, then to cover it up by trying to handle it "in-house" is beyond all rational comprehension. Unless you are trying to advance an agenda that no rational person wants and you don't care about the body count you accumulate along the way.

Mr. Smith managed to avoid arrest at that moment, and got his daughter to the hospital where a rape kit was used and evidence recovered.

Fast forward a few days, to the Loudoun County School Board public meeting. Mr. Smith went there to voice his dissent to this policy that led to his daughter being raped. At the meeting, Scott Ziegler, the school superintendent, denied that any student sexual misconduct had happened in a Loudoun County school. To quote Mr. Ziegler:

“…the predator transgender student or person simply does not exist,” Ziegler said.  To his knowledge, he added, “we don’t have any record of assaults occurring in our restrooms.”

Let me be even-handed here. The school board has no reason to know about incidents like this. Their purpose is to develop and set policy, not to be "read in" on incidents like this. The superintendent, though, would have known about this. That's part of his job. And even if he didn't know, it would have been because his staff purposely didn't tell him. And I have no idea if "plausible deniability" was in effect here or not. That being said, like the captain of a ship, he is responsible for everything that happens in his area of responsibility, no matter if he knew about it or not.

At the meeting, while Mr. Smith was speaking, a woman stated, "I don't believe your daughter" (whatever happened to #BelieveAllWomen?). This woman is claimed to have said to Mr. Smith, "Oh… I’m going to ruin your business on social media," This led to heated words between Mr. Smith and this woman. A deputy tried to get Mr. Smith away from the encounter, however Mr. Smith threw the deputy's hand off his arm and started to go back for another round of yelling at this idiot woman, when he was tackled and dragged off. Mr. Smith was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Since I started writing this article, I discovered the punk who raped Smith's daughter was quietly transferred to another school, where he cornered a second female student in an empty classroom and raped her. Sounds like a serial rapist to me. Evidence has also surfaced that the Mr. Ziegler's office has not complied with state and federal laws in reporting sexual assaults on school property for several years. And on October 15th 2021, now five months after the rape of Ms. Smith (and after everything is coming to light, including his own lies) Mr. Ziegler issues this mealy-mouthed #SorryNotSorry "apology":

Still, it doesn't end there. Our "esteemed" Attorney General Merrick Garland has gotten involved, stating that FBI would now investigate and prosecute any parent who it deems to be 'threatening' towards school staff. Garland said:

"Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation's core values. Those who dedicate their time and energy to ensuring that our children receive a proper education in a safe environment deserve to be able to do their work without fear for their safety."

And at this point Justice dies. The FBI has no legal authority or power to do this. The FBI investigates crimes involving federal workers, crimes that occurred on federal property, or a crime that crossed state lines. The FBI could not pursue John Dillinger (the FBI's "Public Enemy #1") until he crossed from Indiana into Illinois with a stolen police car and a kidnapped chief of police with him. Banks were not under federal authority in 1933 and 1934 when Dillinger and his gang robbed a dozen of them. Unless the Patriot Act or some other totalitarian-advancing law makes holding local officials accountable for their bad actions a federal issue, the FBI has no jurisdiction here. 

Back to the point. We have a girl, raped by a boy who says he's a girl. We have The victims' father, a man who takes the charge of protecting his child seriously. When he turns to and demands answers from the people who are supposed to protect his child while she is in their custody, they rebuff him, several times. The local government obfuscates and lies about the matter, covering their own asses. And when his and his daughters integrity is attacked, he lashes out as any good father has done since the dawn of humanity. His efforts have gotten him two local misdemeanor charges. It also seems the (allegedly George Soros funded her election to DA) local DA is escalating things by attempting to "throw the book" at Mr. Smith by asking for jail time well above the seriousness of the "crime" as well.

I cannot stress enough that Mr. Smith is far from alone here. Millions of fathers share the same anger, indignation and righteous fury he is experiencing. To know your child has been repeatedly brutalized because the school set the stage for this to happen, tries to cover it up, denies it happened, then throws him in jail for having the temerity and unmitigated gall for daring to speak out against his overlords.

The end result is this young woman is traumatized. I pray she defeats it. The policy that enabled this tragedy will remain in place. And, the Eye of Sauron weight of the federal government will now be brought to bear (illegally, I will add) on Mr. Smith and any other parent that dares question the authority of their Government Overlords.

Loudoun Country is not an isolated case either. School Board Deploys Police to Block Parents from Entering Meeting, Arrests Threatened. When the people cannot express their anger verbally and peacefully, they will express it in other, more unpleasant, ways.

That is why Justice is dead.

Taking up the mantle of calling out Leftists on social media has led me to take on the phrase, "Always Insulted, Never Refuted." Here's why I subject myself to the slings and arrows of Leftists. Not just because they're really Lilliputians, but I fight for the real prize, our Third Person.

Believe it or not, We the People have become polarized, thanks to our government and the Pravdas. Despite what the Pravdas want you to believe, it's actually a very small minority that's the "loud extreme" that the Pravdas give voice to. They want you to think the majority of Americans are these ultra-radicalized super-woke activists.

I'm here to tell you, they're not.

Looking at the entire body politic of America, their actual size in numbers is very small. They have an influence way more than they should because they are lauded and we are demonized by Pravda. In reality, they are like Salacious B. Crumb, the little cackling pet of Jabba the Hut.

Don't fall for the Pravda hype. And this isn't new. The Bolshevik Party was a minority offshoot of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. The RSDLP actually forced the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. There were two groups that split from the RSDLP, The Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks being the smallest of the three numbers-wise. Just so you know, "Bolshevik" in Russian translates to "Majority" in English. They weren't the majority, they just called themselves the majority.  And because they called themselves the majority and acted like they were the majority, everyone else just went along with it. And the the third group, larger than the Bolsheviks, accommodated the Bolsheviks and called themselves the Mensheviks ("Minority"). [Edit: I removed the sentence here because I was factually wrong.]

This is why I'm talking about "The Third Person." In such discussions, no matter if it's in person or social media, there is the shrill, puffed up Leftist, you, the informed, reasonable "Defender of All That Is Good and Proper" ;-) ...and the spectator, our Third Person. This third person might be "going along" with our fictional majority just because they don't want to be noticed, called out and cancelled. When you show up and steadfastly bring reason, facts, logic and second-order thinking to refute the Leftist nonsensical and no-substance talking points, you stand a very good chance of Redpilling the Third Person. Maybe not right then, rather they just start their journey to be fully Redpilled.

How do I know this? The Asch Conformity Experiment. Here we have one test subject and seven confederates to the test in a room and were asked which of three lines was the longest, which the lengths were blatantly obvious. While the correct answer was that "A" is the longest line, the confederates insisted "B" (the middle-length line) was longer than A, and berated the test subject when he said A. In about 35% of the subjects, the subject gives into the social pressure and agrees with everyone that the "B" line is longer than "A."

Part two of this experiment was to have one of the confederates agree with the test subject and stand with him against the group. In this case, the instance of the subject bending to social pressure dropped to 5%.

THIS RIGHT HERE is why you stand up to the Leftists. You provide the validation to the Third Person that they aren't crazy, or wrong, or alone. You won't convince the Leftist under any circumstance, they've drank gallons of the Kool-Aid. But you're not trying to. You're looking to win over the Third Person.

Put this in the pile of "Sounds good" idea pile, rather than the "Good, Sound" idea pile.

What? You didn't hear about this? If you pay attention to the news, you did hear about it, he just didn't use those exact words. Biden is proposing a massive corporate tax hike. That's what he said, what he meant is a tax hike on you. Let me explain.

A business, be it a mom-and-pop shop, or a multi-national corporate conglomeration, has revenue and expenses. A profitable business has more revenue than expenses. The difference between the two is called profit. If expenses are greater than revenue, the business will sooner rather than later go out of business. If expenses exceed income, the company will try to cut expenses and/or raise prices. The net profit is almost never cut, because if there is no net profit, why even have the business?

Here's my point. Taxes are an expense to the business. Just like office supplies or building rent, taxes deduct from the revenue of the company. True, taxes are paid first, payroll second and everything else third, but taxes are at the end of the day just an expense that counts against revenue. This is different from "pass-through" taxes where businesses collect things like the sales taxes you're charged at the register. The business counts that as income, but not revenue. Yes, there is a difference.

So, the only thing a corporate tax hike does is raise prices of what you buy. The business sees its' expenses increase because "they" are paying taxes, and in the end, they add all the expenses together, add their net profit on top of that, and adjust their prices to you on top of that.

This is on top of prices already increasing because Biden's out-of-control federal spending is giving us inflation on a scale we haven't seen since Jimmy Carter.

20 years ago today, we were collectively glued to our televisions or radios, listening and watching the horrors of that day again and again. The images of that day and the days after made us one America. One French newspaper declared, "We Are All Americans Today." We came together and as one vowed to make those who made that terrible event possible pay.

And we did.

Now, that war is over. But we must all remember that day. We must teach to our children what it felt like, not only the fear and uncertainty of that day, but the slow-burn anger and the resolve afterwards. Much as my parents told me about how they felt when their radios announced the attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941.

We all talk about the heroes that went down on Flight 93. The reason why they fought back was because they knew about the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. They knew what their fate was, and as Americans one and all, took that resolve passed down to them from the men at the Concord Green and did something about it. I sincerely believe if the other flights had known their fate, they all would have fought back.

We've all seen images of the buildings burning, or in the process of coming down. Today, I give you this single image. This man is known but to God, and is referred to simply as "The Falling Man." He had a choice no one should have to make. Stay with the building and die in the fire or collapse, or leap to his death. Put yourself in his place and imagine the thoughts that were going through his mind in the too few seconds it took him to fall to the concrete below.

Never forget. Keep this memory alive. Not only the horrors, but the unity in the days after. Let's Roll.

.

I'm putting this one under "Duct Tape Alert" because I suggest you wrap your head in duct tape before going any further. That way when your head explodes you can find all of the pieces.

Think about it. A law is a government-defined rule that declares specific acts to be against the best interests of the people within the jurisdiction, with a penalty attached. It doesn't matter what the act is, you're told "Don't do this. If you do, we will punish you in this manner." 

All that being said, just because a law is passed by using the approved methods does not make that law proper or good, or advances the interests of the people. After all, it used to be legal for one person to own and control another person. Or incarcerate people based on their ethnicity.

We've all seen the hashtag #DefundThePolice. If you have blindly agreed with and followed along with this idea, I will now explain, clearly and as simply as I can why this is a terrible idea. and why it won't address the underlying problem that manifested the situations to create this response.

Police (and Sheriffs, Marshalls, Special Agents and the rest of them) are known collectively as Law Enforcement Officers. That's because their job is to enforce the laws on the books. Police are not part of the process to make the laws, nor do they have the power to choose on a large scale what laws are or are not enforced. They are supposed to enforce every law equally. Upon complaint by someone or they themselves witness a possible criminal act, the police investigate to see if a crime has been committed and arrest who they suspect committed said crime. At that point, the police hand the suspect and gathered evidence over to the prosecutors (part of the Executive branch, you'll see in a moment), who determines what (or if) charges are filed and the suspect prosecuted.

Now, this is where some second-order thinking is necessary. Where did these laws that police enforce come from? Do you know? The legislative branch! Be it your local city council, the state legislature or Congress, they are the men and women who create the laws of this country. And by the number of laws they pass, you'd think they're on commission, getting paid by the number of laws they create. And there are a lot of stupid and inane laws, like in Arkansas, Men are not allowed to ask women to dance during the month of July.

Now let's do even more second-order thinking and ask, "Who do the police work for?" The very concept of law enforcement is the purpose of the Executive branch of government. The Legislature passes the laws, the Executive enforces them. The executive branch is headed by the mayor, governor or president, depending on the level of government.  This person can and does direct their LEO's to provide maximum or minimum enforcement against individuals and groups. Then we have the prosecutors, who work for the Mayor/governor/president who exercise their own "prosecutorial discretion," which simply put, if the attorneys who prosecute people doesn't think the case is provable, or the department doesn't have the resources, or sometimes the prosecutor is sympathetic to the criminal or their cause, no charges are filed or any filed charges are dropped.

Right now there are so many laws on the books that it's impossible for you to go through your daily lives without committing at least Three Felonies a Day. The only reason we're not all in prison is it doesn't serve the interests of government. Unless you have earned the ire of the government. Then our lives and actions will be monitored and examined through a microscope until they find something they can use to make your life hell. Like Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was accused of violating the Logan Act (the last time someone was charged under this law was 1852). Too bad the facts showed he didn't. Then Flynn was charged with "lying to federal investigators" (a catch-all crime, kind of like Article 134 of the UCMJ) and threatened with 1) his son getting charged with crimes, and 2) dragging the investigation out until Flynn's attorney fees from defending himself would bankrupt him.

Let's take a step back here to look at this in total. First, you have a group that pass laws like a drunken sailor spends money (apologies to my shipmates), an Executive branch full of bureaucrats that makes more regulations with the force of law, coupled with mayors/prosecutors who routinely make go/no go decisions to prosecute based on politics rather than law, that right there is a bad situation. This is how tyranny comes to our door.

To make things worse, the good and professional police officers who have positive ethics and morals, who possess the spine to not enforce illegal laws, end up leaving for other professions. The police you have remaining are basically bullies who do what they are told and don't think about such moral quandaries because their paycheck depends on them not thinking about if they are doing the right thing or not.

For the empirical evidence on how successful #DefundThePolice experiment went, every city that drastically cut funding to their police departments experienced the same result, tragically verifying the outcome of the experiment over and over again. Every city that defunded the police experienced massive spikes of crime. Why? Because the Bad People who hurt, rob and kill other people knew their chances of facing the consequences of such acts dropped to almost zero. And as I wrote in the prior post just below, San Francisco will start paying criminals to not commit crimes. Talk about rewarding bad behavior.

How to fix this? It's simple, just not easy. And these would be the first steps, there's more once we get these done.

Cut the number of laws. I am not saying eliminate all laws. I am saying every law or regulation on the books that has a penalty attached should be reviewed by a Citizen board, and discarded if it unnecessarily or unconstitutionally interferes with the freedom of Citizens.

Reform the police and government. No one likes law enforcement when they are on the receiving end of it. Much like no one likes to be on the receiving end of an angry Pit Bull. It is a necessary fact of life that in order to have a safe and orderly society, we must either have a good and moral population, or we have to have police. Considering the former is rapidly disappearing, we must choose the latter. By only putting and keeping laws that advance society in place, and clearly defining police actions and authority can we strike the proper balance between freedom and law. Pay officers better and quickly weed out the bullies and corrupt ones.

To reform the government itself, that's a simple answer. Don't ever re-elect a politician. I don't care how outstanding a job they're doing. One term and you're out. Our Founding Fathers did not see political office as a career choice. He (or she) can go through the process when the next election cycle comes around. Make them live off their own efforts, not just our taxes.

Weaken Qualified Immunity. If you are unaware of the term "Qualified Immunity," it means a police officer cannot be held personally liable for bad acts they made while acting as an LEO. I think this should be weakened, not eliminated. If an officer commits gross negligence, exceeding their authority and things like that, those actions should expose them to legal and civil liabilities.

Like I said, these are small but foundational steps towards a better police force, a better government in general, and a safer community.