Transphobia (Be Careful How you Use That!)

Transphobia is a word that gets thrown around a lot these days. News stories, social media posts, and people on the street have no problem using the word transphobia whenever someone shows even the slightest aversion to a transsexual person competing in a traditional single-gender sporting event or when the topic of gender reassignment for minors is brought up. The problem is, though, that word is being used incorrectly. Here's why I say that, and why people getting a blanket label of "transphobic" need to start pushing back.

Let's start with the Merriam-Webster definition of phobia:

an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation

Very straightforward, right? A fear of an object or situation that is otherwise illogical or can't be explained.

Now if we add trans to phobia, you would think that would mean fear of transsexual people or situations. Merriam-Webster's definition of transphobia takes it one step further though:

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against transgender people

Notice how the definition now it includes discrimination?  By making the phobia more narrowly defined, discrimination becomes part of the definition. This holds true not only for the published definition of transphobia, but for homophobia and heterophobia as well.

I'm not sure that I'm buying that, though. I'm trying to work out in my own mind where fear becomes tied to discrimination, because you can have one without the other. This almost smells like some gaslighting by the Merriam-Webster folks. But, let's continue.

There were two news stories today that got me thinking about this situation. The first story is regarding the front man for the rock group Twisted Sister, who is taking heat because he's not in favor of allowing minors to be the subject of "gender reassignment" surgery. He still claims to be supportive of LGBTQIA+ rights, but he feels that minors are not really in a place to be making major life-changing decision like gender assignment surgery. Of course, the LGBTQIA+ folks are immediately calling him "transphobic" for failing to totally support their agenda.

Which is absolutely incorrect.

He's doesn't have an "illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation." Nor is he presenting an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against transgender people." He's rather plainly and simply stating that he believes that minors are not in a proper place to make such life changing decisions; and furthermore, parents need to take a deep breath and a step back before pushing their kid into something like that. Nowhere in that whole description is there anything even remotely close to the definition of "transphobia."

Rightly so, he's pushing back hard. He's very publicly rebutting all attempts to label him as transphobic simply because he differs in opinion from the mainstream LGBTQIA+ crowd. Good for him, and he certainly deserves support for taking a stand.

The second story is regarding a situation across the border in Canada. Up in British Columbia, a grade school was having a track meet. It seems the sex of a participant in the girls division was in question. One grandparent took extreme exception to the fact that it was possibly a boy participating against girls, and he made quite the scene about it. And of course, he's now labeled as "transphobic" simply because he questioned the eligibility of a participant in a gender-segregated grade-school activity.

I do not agree with him making a scene while the activity was taking place, as this did nothing but embarrass the participants. However, while I don't condone his method, I certainly understand his message. And I strongly disagree that he's rightly considered "transphobic" now.

Like it or not, genetics dictate that those born with an XY chromosome pair and a penis are male. That confers with it generally stronger muscles and higher bone density than those born with an XX chromosome pair and a vagina. Neither are inferior to the other as human beings! Rather, there are certain things that males can do better than females, and vice-versa. Males are generally more adept at physical activities. Yes, some females can certainly hold their own against males in some sports. But for the most part, keeping males and females segregated in sporting events ensures that males do not dominate events that are designed for female participants.

It has NOTHING to do with "transphobia!" It's simply genetics and honestly, a little common sense. Females have a hard enough time competing with males in many sports, which is why there is segregation. To take a "female" who is really a male and allow that person to compete against other true females is completely unfair to the entire field of participants. The "feelings" of one person who incorrectly believes that he should be competing against females simply because he believes himself to be a female (or led to that belief in the case of a minor child's parents) should not be taken over the fairness and feelings of all of the rest who are participating.

Does this make everyone who seeks a fair competition transphobic? Of course not. It means that a fair competition is desired. It has nothing to do with the fear of transsexual people.

I do not fear transsexual, homosexual, asexual, or any other "flavor" that is not heterosexual. By the same token, those sexual preferences are also not my choice. I am heterosexual. Does it make me a transphobe because I want physical sports to be held in a fair and competitive manner? Does it make me a transphobe because I believe that minors should wait until they are of legal age to make potentially life-changing surgery to "affirm" the gender to which they associate? Does it make me a homophobe because I choose to have sex with a female as opposed to a male?

I would answer NO to all of those questions. Furthermore, I would support anyone else who answers no as well.

We are losing grip on common sense. We are being forced into agreeing with those who shove agendas down our throats and call us names because we dare to disagree with their dogma. We don't want to "offend" people because we are afraid of being shamed or having a stigma attached to us simply because we choose to disagree with common sense.

We better start standing up for OUR rights, or before long, there will be nothing left to stand for.

 ABORTION AND THE 10TH AMENDMENT

In another much anticipated ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the long-standing Roe v. Wade ruling is unconstitutional. As much as the liberal citizenry of our Democratic Republic might disagree, this was in fact a good decision. They need to look no further than Amendment X of our Constitution. To refresh everyone's memory, this amendment states:

"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."

When the Constitution was being ratified, dozens of proposed amendments were considered. All 13 States were able to submit their proposed amendments for debate and ultimate inclusion. In most cases, an amendment ensuring a limited Federal government was the number one amendment proposed by the states. This amendment was considered to be of utmost importance. Inclusion of this amendment would ensure that the Federal government could not overstep their reach into powers that would normally be reserved for the states by using what Patrick Henry called the "sweeping clauses" contained in the Constitution. These clauses included:

• The Supremacy Clause
• The General Welfare Clause
• The Necessary and Proper Clause

The bottom line here: Amendment X exists for one reason only. It ensures that the States maintain their power and sovereignty and it keeps the Federal government in check.

The "right" to have an abortion exists nowhere in the Constitution. Therefore, by the strict reading of Amendment X, that is something that must be delegated to the States to decide. Today's ruling does exactly that. The ability to have an abortion is no longer regulated by the Federal government, which is exactly how it's supposed to work. States are now free to set the regulation of abortion on their own, pursuant to the wishes of their residents.

If a woman wants to have an abortion and her state makes it illegal to do so, she now has two choices: work to change the state's law, or go somewhere else. The only thing that's changed is the (unconstitutional) Federal protection that some fell back on to force states to allow abortion.

This is totally different that the rights of free speech, free press, free religion, or freedom to keep and bear arms. Those rights are expressly enumerated (and protected, not provided) in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, they are the law of the land. There exists no such protection for "freedom to abort a fetus." So, each State is free to set their own standard.

This really isn't hard to understand, yet the gaslighting and emotional responses by the liberals muddy the water. That's very unfortunate. We were never supposed to be the United States. Rather, we were supposed to be the united States. A very subtle but significant difference. Each state was supposed to be sovereign, with a limited Federal government. Unfortunately, that has been bastardized over time, and we've allowed the Federal government to continually grow and become more powerful. Perhaps this is a great first step in reversing that trend.

DEFENDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States gave me one heck of a birthday present. On that day, the famous "Heller" case was decided, granting a huge victory for those who choose to believe that Amendment II to the Constitution of the United States really means what it says. Unfortunately, while it was a huge decision, it wasn't enough. It took 14 more years before the Supreme Court followed up that decision with the case that was decided today - June 23, 2022. Three days short of being another birthday present, but close enough.

Today, the case of NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. vs. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL. was decided. And as with the Heller and McDonald (2010) cases before it, once again, a citizen's right to self-defense was affirmed.

Of course, the anti-gun activists are not happy at all. 

Since the announcement of the decision, anti-gun (anti-liberty) "pundits" are certainly getting their opinions spread around the internet. And as usual, I was willing to sit back and watch them work themselves into a lather. But by the end of the day, this old curmudgeon decided enough was enough. It's easy to see how one can turn into a grumpy old main the older he gets.

I think what tipped me over the edge was this little tidbit from a newsletter published by the People for the American Way. I always find the name of that group to be amusing, because nothing they promote has any resemblance to the America our founders put forth nearly 250 years ago. The snippet from their newsletter reads:

"With today’s ruling, the far-right majority decided to embrace a perverse view of the Second Amendment that not only ignores the text of the amendment itself, but elevates “gun rights” over the rights of Americans to live their lives without the fear of being shot at school, at their neighborhood grocery, or at their place of worship."

Gaslighting at its finest. PFAW certainly knows how to "work it."

Let's start with their assertion that the ruling "ignores the text of the Amendment itself." They are referring to a "well regulated militia." (In fact, the title of their newsletter was "What part of “well regulated” do they not understand?") Unfortunately for PFAW (and everyone else that chooses to ignore the true meaning behind that phrase), the militia was intended to be every able-bodied male able to bear arms. As for the "well regulated" part, that varied from state to state, but generally, it meant well supplied and provided with training by the state.

What it did NOT mean, however, was that the right to keep and bear arms was predicated on there being a well regulated militia. On the contrary. A well-regulated militia was "necessary to the security of a free State." A lack of said well-regulated militia would lead to insecurity. And, in order to help ensure that all able-bodied men (the militia) were able to participate in securing a free State, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Of course, PFAW and their followers want you to believe that "gun rights" is the topic at hand. Guns don't have rights. People have rights. And, we the people certainly do have a right to live in peace. We also have a right to live without government interference. That's called Liberty. It's a word printed on our coins. However, what we do NOT have is a right to live our lives without danger. Without fear. A free society cannot be balanced one the back of a perfectly safe society.

We cannot live as a society without the fear of being shot at school, at the supermarket, or at a place of worship. Unless we are willing to live with armed guards at every one of those locations, along with searches of citizens as they enter those locations (think: scanners and the TSA at every airport), that kind of Utopian society is wishful thinking. Furthermore, there is simply no right of the people to live in that kind of society. It is not enumerated in the body of The Constitution, nor in any amendment.

I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So do you. I do not have the right to live that life in perfect peace, free from any situation or attack that could otherwise injure or kill me in the process. Neither do you. Bad people and bad situations have existed for as long as humans have inhabited the earth. They will continue to exist for as long as we continue to exist. Therefore, those who believe that they are responsible for protecting themselves and their families must be allowed to use those tools that they consider best suited for that task.

What today's ruling did not do is force anyone to carry a firearm. Nor did it remove any prohibition on carrying a firearm in "sensitive" places. Someone who is simply not comfortable with owning or carrying a firearm is not required to do so. Many types of "sensitive" locations are still considered off-limits for firearms. Private property owners also still have the right to enact restrictions on carrying firearms on their premises. (In some localities, if firearms are banned, the property owners are responsible for providing adequate security instead.) 

Today's ruling does not stop criminals from obtaining or carry firearms illegally. They do that now. Even in the states where carrying firearms is highly regulated, criminals still find ways to overcome those laws and use firearms to terrorize their victims. Chicago, New York City, Washington, Baltimore, Los Angeles... none of these cities allow a citizen to easily carry a firearm for self-protection. But the criminals don't seem to mind those rules.

Today's ruling does not force states to alter or abandon any permit process currently in place.

What today's ruling DID do, though, is affirm the right of a law-abiding private citizen to carry a firearm outside of the home for no reason other than self-protection. If  a citizen applies for a permit to carry a firearm outside of the home (something that less than half of the states in this country still require), a state cannot deny that request "just because." There must be a solid, verifiable, bona fide threat to the public before a permit application is denied.

You can be sure that a few states will make the permitting process so onerous that few people will bother to pay the money and jump through the regulatory hoops to actually get a permit. The states that do that should be careful of what they wish for. It may take several years, but playing games like that could easily end up generating another court battle that ends up at the Supreme Court level.

In the meantime, we should not be crying about the loss of our "right to not be shot." Instead, we should be celebrating that we, as a populace, have had our right to defend ourselves and our families affirmed. THAT is the American Way.

Our Firearms Freedoms and Society

In my black & white world, our freedoms are absolute. Of course, even though our freedoms are absolute, we must also remember that others have the freedom to disagree. We also must remember that there can be consequences for exercising our freedoms (i.e., yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. You have the freedom to do that. You will also suffer the legal consequences of creating a panic situation).

Gun rights are no different. We have the right to keep and bear arms. Although there are many who will disagree with that and fall back on the "militia" part of that amendment (and those folks should really read up on what was considered the militia in the late 18th Century), the right still exists. And must not be infringed upon.

Many will say that we don't need firearms to protect ourselves from an oppressive government, because we are too "educated" and "advanced" for such a thing to occur.

Mule fritters.

Such a thing can (and if history has anything to say about it, will) occur.

Remember this: If our government fears us, there is liberty. But if we fear our government, there is tyranny. I ask each of you to pause for a moment and consider those words.

In that vein, I'm sharing with you today an essay posted by a friend who is very much on the side of curbing our God-given right to self-defense. I generally ignore these things, but frankly, I've had enough. The Black & White Curmudgeon has had just about all he can take of these people spreading the "Just do something!" narrative without fully considering what doing "something" means.

The very concept that founded this country almost 250 years ago - liberty - is in grave danger.

That's for another post at another time. Today, I'd like to address my friend's essay, point by point, and give a rebuttal to his thoughts on disarming America.

Some of you may agree, some of you may disagree. Comments are always welcome, provided they are constructive and do not denigrate into name calling, ridicule, or any other non-constructive format. My comments in [red] below.

Gun Psyche

Born in the late 1950s, I have lived in an evolving society that has embraces guns in all aspects of life.  As a young boy of kindergarten age, we played Cowboys and Indians, Cops and Robbers, and Army – acting out the war scenes we had watched on movies about WWII and, disturbingly, the nightly news clips of the Vietnam War.  Most of the make-believe games involved guns – used to kill the bad guys and save the day.  Dudley Do-Right had nothing on us.  Good guys wore white hats and had guns.  Bad guys wore black hats and had guns.  Guns were a central theme.

 [No, guns were not the central theme. Guns were the tools used to carry out the central theme, which was good overcomes bad. Guns cannot be a theme unless you’re producing a show about how guns are made, how guns are sold, how guns are used in crimes, etc. You are selling a flawed idea right from the start.]

While guns have been in movies forever, guns became a main character in movies and television starting in the 1970s.  Clint Eastwood embraced the 44 magnum – “the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off”.  While the actual impact of gunshots continued to be downplayed, the violence they inflicted was well represented.  Lynard Skynard’s song “Saturday Night Special”, released in 1975, brought the handgun front-and-center in popular culture.

[You are projecting far too much “personality” on the tool used by actors as “main characters.” It is very true that the guns used and sung about could produce horrible and deadly injuries. That fact is not up for a debate. For the most part, however, guns were not a “main character” in a movie or a song. ("Saturday Night Special" being one of the exceptions.) The guns used in shows and movies never got listed in the credits. Clint Eastwood’s movies were not about a gun. They were about a man who chose to use a particular firearm to ply his trade. Yes, the use of the gun  was made to look “macho” and “badass.” You wanted to be Dirty Harry. You wanted to have his swagger, his grit, his machismo. And Hollywood did a great job of selling that.

The very same Hollywood made up of actors who today scream for Congress to “do something” to combat gun violence, while still sensationalizing it to put people in seats. Do we see the hypocrisy here yet? In other words, it was not American culture that embraced handguns in these movies and shows. It was Hollywood’s desire to make bigger profits. Perhaps that’s where we need to start, and where we need to lay blame.]

Over time, as the public has desensitized, the intensity and frequency of gore and violence inflicted by firearms has increased at an increasing rate.  Movies such as Dog Day Afternoon, Glory, Terminator, Die Hard, Rambo, The Sopranos, Saving Private Ryan, The Godfather, Apocalypse Now – and a plethora of film and video promotes, fantasizes and encourages violence and murder while normalizing gun violence and civil unrest.

[We agree completely here. A firearm is a tool that does its job very well. So well, in fact, that it needs to be the tool of last resort. But when its time to use that tool, it needs to be a tool that CAN be used. Gore and violence, at the expense of making profits, should never have been normalized. The death of human beings by senseless violence has been interwoven into our society, especially our younger generations. Now we are reaping what we have sown.]

The fantasy of being a bad-ass with a gun has fueled ongoing gun sales.

[I would argue that there are SOME sales made to people who want to be “bad-ass.” However, I would just as quickly argue that most guns sales have probably been made to people who are not trying to be “bad-asses.” I don’t have the actual figures to support either side, so I’m not going to sound definitive about it. If you are going to make a statement like you did, you should have some facts to back it up, or at least present it as something you only surmise.]

You can’t be a tough guy unless you are packing heat.

[A completely untrue statement. Some people probably feel that way. However, those with any amount of common sense understand that you can be a “tough guy” even without a firearm.]

Society now embraces the mindset that extreme behavior, including murder, violence and reckless gun use, is somehow expected when escalation occurs on the street, in the home, everywhere.

[Again, patently untrue. Some people in society believe this. Not all. In fact, responsible gun owners (which make up the vast majority of gun owners) understand that a firearm is a tool of last resort. It is the last step on the Use of Force Continuum. There are other de-escalation steps to be taken first.

Make no mistake, though. There are times when use of force goes from nothing to full-on use of a firearm in the blink of an eye. When that happens, one should not be barred from having that tool available.]

This mindset, shared by many in our society (including many political representatives) think that metal detectors and armed guards in schools are somehow OK;

[They’re OK for airports, courthouses, legislative halls, concerts, NASCAR races, etc… why would schools, that have our most precious resources inside its walls, be any different?]

 …likewise, the more people that have guns will somehow magically reduce gun violence.

[If you were going to attack someone or some location with deadly force, would it make you more or less likely to do so if you knew you were likely to be met with deadly force in return? That’s the premise of those who believe that more guns will “magically reduce gun violence.” 

It doesn't matter if it's a home, business, or even a school. Would you rather do so knowing the occupants were totally disarmed, or would you rather do so knowing the occupants had firearms readily available?

And carrying these questions a bit further, if you were a potential victim in these scenarios, would you or would you not want a tool that could meet the attacking force head on? Or would you be content to do nothing?

I would ask for honest answers from those who wish to disarm citizens (or seriously restrict access to firearms).]

These individuals continue to embrace the fantasy of the gun.  The gun can do no harm.  

[Patently false. You are making a generalization that cannot be proven.]

Guns are the single element that ties together all gun violence; gun proponents  lay the blame at everything but the gun.

[Guns are the single TOOL used by the majority of those who wish to carry out acts of violence. There are no examples of “gun violence” that can be shown. Guns do not create violent acts. People with no regard for human life create violent acts, and they choose to use a firearm to carry out their actions. How can you blame a firearm for the actions of a person? Can you blame a vehicle for someone driving the vehicle into a crowd of people because the person was drunk or intent on killing others? If you cannot, then the same line of reasoning must exist for a firearm.]

Truth be told, the ready access to firearms by virtually anyone, at any time, is what differentiates the USA from all other countries.

[It is a factor, but not the only factor. Furthermore, it is a gross generalization (and a false statement) that firearms are readily accessible “by virtually anyone, at any time.” I challenge you, or anyone else who makes that assertion, to prove it. Show how easy it is in states like California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois to legally purchase and access a firearm.

I say legally, because your natural response would be that criminals can access firearms easily, and the vast number of firearms in circulation make it easy for firearms to be illegally obtained. Unfortunately, there is some truth to that. The answer, however, is not to totally outlaw firearms. Many classes of drugs have been outlawed for many years, but the drug problem has not gone away. How would that work any differently with firearms?

Perhaps the answer would be to severely punish those who choose to use a firearm illegally and hold them accountable for their actions. They don’t get off on a technicality, and they don’t get off for “good behavior.” We have turned into a society that seems to be happy with going easy on criminals and compensating for that by making it harder for the law-abiding to live their lives.]

While there are numerous factors that influence gun violence – mental health, racism, paranoia, social unrest, and numerous other elements, the only element that exists across all gun violence events, is the gun.

[“… the only element that exists across all violent events where a gun is used, is the gun.” I fixed your statement. Again, there is no such thing as gun violence. Guns cannot commit violence. Violent people can choose to use a gun to commit their acts. Furthermore, those people typically suffer from mental health issues; racist, sexist, or class/political divisive unrest; or simple revenge for actual or perceived wrongs.

It is a truth that firearms present a tool that can be easily brought to bear as they carry out their actions. Sometimes they get their firearms legally. Sometimes they get them illegally, or they get them legally but should have been flagged and barred from making a purchase. But trying to outlaw firearms, or even a class of firearms, simply cannot and will not work. There are far too many of them in circulation, and a prohibition doesn’t work. (See alcohol and drugs.)]

That individuals value the protection of guns above human life is a sad commentary of our country.

[A very broad generalization, and very close to being a straw-man argument. Nobody that I know values “protection of guns” over “human life.” Rather, we DO value human life. The ability to have access to the one tool that levels the playing field and presents us with the easiest and most effective tool that protects the human life of ourselves, our family, and close friends must be protected.]

Ultimately, gun violence ends when there is no gun.

[No – violent acts where firearms are used will end when people no longer choose to carry out violent acts against their fellow man. You are supposing that firearms can be removed from circulation. That simply cannot happen.]

While this is likely many years in the future, we can work together to reduce the potential for gun violence.  Actions that include outlawing magazines with a capacity of more than four cartridges,

[How does this reduce the impact of a violent act? A gunman locked in a school classroom can kill equally as many children with one magazine as several magazines when the gunman is not effectively challenged by someone who can counter that threat (or if the gunman isn’t stopped by detection methods prior to entry). And, what happens to a revolver that holds 5, 6, or 8 rounds?]

outlawing assault weapons

[What is the definition of an “assault weapon?”]

require lifetime firearm registration

[Registration is not negotiable. Once the government has a list of where all resources are located, they can then be collected. You may say that “we not here to take your guns.” Those of us who believe in the right to own firearms know that once firearms are registered, collection and confiscation becomes much easier.]

make it a Class A felony to possess a firearm that is not registered to you

[See the above statement on registration. HOWEVER – what you could do is make it a mandatory felony, without possibility of reduction, for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime.]

safe storage

[This is already in place in some states. How do you enforce this? Door-to-door inspections?]

firearm liability insurance

[For what purpose? If I use one of my firearms in a reckless or illegal manner, I’m already committing a crime. I can be punished in both criminal and civil court. Law-abiding firearms owners already know they can get liability insurance for their firearms (or use thereof). Criminals will not bother to get this insurance. So ultimately, you are putting a burden on the legal firearms owners, while not making any difference to a criminal.]

classifying all semi-automatic weapons as Class III NFA weapons.

[A revolver can fire rounds as quickly as a semi-automatic pistol. Does that make them a Class III NFA weapon as well?]

Tax ammunition, gun powder, bullets, primers, casings and reloading equipment at a level that generates revenue needed to offset the societal costs of firearms.

[What is the “societal cost?” How do you quantify it? And, doesn’t it make those who cannot afford your new taxes simply more willing to take extreme or illegal measures to obtain those items, despite your high taxes?]

ENOUGH.  END GUN VIOLENCE.  VOTE OUT EVERY REPRESENTATIVE THAT FAILS TO SUPPORT HUMAN LIFE OVER THEIR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANY PRO-GUN ENTITY.

[Perhaps it is time to question WHY we have become a society so willing to accept the taking of another human life as just another day in America. More people are killed daily in inter-city killings than in any school shooting. Why is that? Why is this not highlighted in news stories? How many of those killings involve legally vs. illegally owned or obtained firearms? How many involved in those killings were already arrested for other crimes, but then turned back out into the streets as not being a threat to society? How many victims might wish they had a firearm to defend themselves from the predator who took their lives?

The point is, there is no easy solution to this problem. You, and everyone else on your side of the argument, can argue for a total abolition of firearms, high taxes, or whatever “feel good” suggestion might come to mind. The bottom line, though, is that as a society, we have lost our moral compass. We raise children from broken homes, hooked on violent video games, entertained by violence in the media. This is not a “gun problem.” This is a “societal problem.” One that cannot be solved by simply outlawing a class of items.]

 

The Sleeping Giant

It's been a little while since I've made a blog post. OK, it's been a LONG while. In fact, I didn't realize how long it had been until I logged in and looked at my past articles.

I suppose I've been suppressing the urge to write an article because there's a part of me that feels like, for the most part, people today are so set in their ways and polarized that nothing one person says will make a difference. In fact, it's easier sometimes to just shake your head, grumble and grouse internally, and keep your thoughts bottled up. You just don't want to "upset" someone or "hurt their feelings" - or worse yet, be the recipient of someone coming completely unhinged and yelling and screaming at you. If you're someone who believes in the Republic, the Constitution, and the concepts of freedom and liberty - especially as our founding fathers envisioned these concepts - then you understand what I'm saying.

In the book "Thirteen Tactics for Realistic Radicals: from Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky, this sage piece of advice is given:

Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

It is with this in mind that I read with great interest today's email update published by the organization People for the American Way. Like many other liberal-leaning outlets, PFAW was astonished that Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges brought before him. Here is some of the information they posted in their update:

Here are the facts: Kyle Rittenhouse crossed state lines and used an illegally purchased assault rifle to confront racial justice protesters who had been demonized and made out to be a threat by far-right politicians, commentators, and media outlets.

Yes, Kyle did cross the state line with his AR-15 rifle. It was not modified to fire in automatic mode, so it was not technically an "assault rifle," but that is a distinction that most anti-gun groups fail to recognize. I do not know the specifics of the purchase, so I cannot comment on that. I did find it very amusing that Kyle was confronting "racial justice protesters who had been demonized and made out to be a threat by far-right politicians, commentators, and media outlets."

REALLY?

Now why would protesters who are brazenly acting in an unruly manner, destroying property, defying law enforcement officers, and assaulting other people be demonized? Can you think of any reasons? I surely can, and it's nothing more than the left's attempt to ridicule conservatives for their viewpoints on law and order.

It's also interesting to note (even though PFAW fails to do so) that Kyle, like many others that evening, was there to protect property from the "peaceful protesters". Had these "peaceful protesters" done exactly that - protested peacefully - the deceased protesters would probably still be alive today. But we cannot confuse hype and drama with facts.

The protest that Rittenhouse felt compelled to confront was over the shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man shot multiple times by police outside of a family function. The “threat” perceived by Rittenhouse and the other armed white vigilantes who took to the streets of Kenosha – many of whom were associated with the militia movement – was people speaking out against structural white supremacy and the disregard for Black lives.

The verdict in this case further enables that white supremacy and will be seen as tacit encouragement by our criminal justice system for racially-inspired white mob violence – unless we do something about it.

It's interesting to note that "mob violence" is abhorrent when conservatives are the perpetrators; but it is "saving our democracy" when liberals are the perpetrators.  Again, they are taking a page straight out of the Alinsky playbook: ridicule the opposition. The liberal left is very good at this. Those of us on the conservative (or even libertarian) side tend to shy away from doing that because we tend to take the "moral high ground."

That’s why we’re calling on the Department of Justice to initiate an investigation of Rittenhouse’s actions. There must be accountability for white vigilantism aimed at suppressing peaceful racial justice protests.

This is gaslighting at its finest. The more the liberal left portray the protests as peaceful and the citizens who bothered to protect their property when law enforcement failed to do so, the more the masses will start to believe it. Those who truly care about the American Republic cannot allow themselves to fall into this trap.

The facts of this case were clear. But the political climate fostered by the Trump administration and its white supremacist adherents poisoned the justice system’s ability to do its job. And the consequences could be devastating.

The facts in the case were indeed clear, and as provided by our legal system, Kyle was tried by a jury of his peers and acquitted. A kangaroo court was not held. One person did not act as judge, jury, and executioner. The system worked just as it was supposed to. The accused was brought to trial, the evidence was presented, and a verdict was delivered.

Our legal system is not perfect! But if it is indeed so bad, why do people die trying to come to this country to find protection under our system of governance?

I also find it amusing that it's been over a year since the elections of 2020, and Former President Trump is still living rent-free in the minds of many liberals. They just cannot let him go!

We’re an incredibly divided nation, heading into a major national election, and this verdict gives the appearance of condoning political violence. It can’t be the end of the story.

This is probably the first thing PFAW got completely right in this update: "We're an incredibly divided nation."

We are.

We are divided because of the non-stop attacks on the former President, fomented by one-sided reporting of the majority of the media. We are divided because one group of people claim to be inclusive, loving, caring, and all about acceptance... provided you follow their beliefs and teaching.

You must accept the LGBTQ+ lifestyle.

You must accept that anyone who is not a Caucasian American is underprivileged and unable to progress in society on their own power, without handouts, grants, or other government/social assistance.

You must accept that, despite the fact (and the science) that all humans are born in exactly one of two ways (with either XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes), there are more than two sexes. (And then there's the whole discussion of sex vs. gender.)

You must accept, if you are a Caucasian male, that your masculinity is what has caused many of the problems in this country.

You must accept that any and all police-involved shootings, where the officer is a Caucasian male and the suspect is not, is racially motivated and a travesty of justice. In fact, this has trickled down into less violent situations. For example, Philadelphia, PA has instructed officers to no longer conduct basic traffic stops because they impact and target minorities at a rate that exceeds non-minorites.

You must accept that as a Caucasian American, you are a racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, white supremacist, Neanderthal.

You must accept that those who want to change your point of view (because your viewpoints are toxic) will be allowed to essentially say, write, and do whatever they wish to effect that change, because theirs is the cause of justice. Theirs is the proper way of thinking. You are no longer allowed to harbor beliefs that do not comport to theirs.

Those who truly care about this Republic and the values under which it was built CANNOT allow themselves to fall prey to their siren song. It is a long and difficult fight, but it must be done. They do not play by the rules of a civilized populace, and they gaslight and ridicule those who would stand up to them.

People for the American Way? Only if that's a Socialist Amerika. They confuse "democracy" for a "democratic republic." There is a difference. And if you are someone who believes in freedom, liberty, and saving our great Republic, you must be strong. You must be willing to stand up to those who would threaten the very fabric of what has made this country great for over 240 years.

You can no longer sit silently by and give them no rebuttal.

It is time to awaken the sleeping giant.

Buy it first, then figure out how to pay for it!

As I perused the morning news today, I noticed an article in Fox News that reflected one of the things wrong with our out of control government spending. The article is titled:

Cynthia Nixon on getting single-payer health care in New York: 'Pass it and then figure out how to fund it'

This is an interesting way to achieve fiscal responsibility. By using this logic, simply because the government believes a program is needed is all the justification that is needed to bring it into existence. No consideration needs to be made on how exactly the program will be funded. We can cross that bridge later, after the "mandate" is already in place to start the program.

Fiscal responsibility is something most of us have to deal with as adults. We cannot live beyond our means, unless we want to maintain constant contact with debt collectors. And yet that same type of responsibility ceases to exist once our elected officials get involved. "Pass the program, put it in place, and then we'll figure out what we need to do to keep it afloat (read: how much we need to raise taxes)." Because there will certainly be no other reduction in government services, programs, or staffing to offset a new program.

Is health care in this country broken? With spiraling costs and zero competition between companies that would help lower costs, it could certainly stand some re-tooling. But throwing a new program in place with no regard for the overall cost to the public, and no plan for funding the program is totally irresponsible.

But this is something that elected officials on both sides of the aisle do on a regular basis, and the American public seems to have become totally desensitized to the issue. We do not hold our representatives accountable to out of control spending; but worse yet, due to the games that are played with the Federal budget, it's hard to even know what is the truth and what is fairy tale finances. We blindly put our trust into politicians who tell us to "trust them" and that "they know what they are doing." Indeed, they do know what they are doing - fleecing the public and ensuring their own interests are served, without truly representing the people who elected them.

And even when we do see efforts to "reduce spending," do we even understand the size of the problem? When someone says they've been able to cut $10 million dollars from the budget, we're supposed to jump up and down and cheer that something great has been accomplished. (And indeed, $10 million is a lot of money.) But when held in comparison to the overall US budget, which in 2017 was $4 trillion in expenditures and $3.3 trillion in revenue (meaning $700 billion in shortfall), that $10 million is a pittance. Count the zeros with me:

$700,000,000,000 - revenue short fall
$10,000,000 - savings by eliminating some program

See the difference? Let's make it even easier and take away eight zeros so it's more like a family budget:

$7,000 - revenue short fall
$0.10 - savings by eliminating some program

See the problem now? So you'll excuse me if I find it infuriating that another politician (or in this case, a wanna-be politician) sees fit to push for the creation of a program before funding is even in place. Spending is already out of control. Programs and entitlements are already spending money that isn't there. Putting something else in place before figuring out how to pay for it is not going to solve anything for the people. It will, however, steal more money from our paychecks in the form of higher taxes, and in the end, make us even more enslaved to the government.

Remember, government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem. And it is like a cancer that just keeps metastasizing.

 

The Face of Tyranny

Take a good look at this picture:

It is the face of tyranny.  It is the face of a woman who believes that there is enough evil in this world that she be protected by armed bodyguards.  It is the face of a woman who once said:

As a supervisor, I had no protection so I got a gun permit and learned to shoot at the Police Academy. When I became mayor, I succeeded in passing a measure banning handguns in San Francisco, and we instituted a 90--day grace period for pistol owners to turn in their handguns without incurring penalties. At that time, I turned in my pistol. That pistol and 14 others were melted down and sculpted into a cross, which I presented to Pope John Paul II during a trip to Rome later that year. The point is, I know where guns work for protection, and I know where they don't. I've lived a life that has been impacted by weapons, so this is not an esoteric, academic exercise for me. Nor is it a political exercise. I come to this issue because of real life experience.

It is the face of a woman who, despite the anti-guns and anti-rights rhetoric, continues to enjoy the “luxury” of an unrestricted concealed weapons permit in the State ofCalifornia.

It is the face of a woman who should be arrested and tried for treason against the United States, as she continues to push for “common sense gun laws” that remove the rights of citizens to protect themselves from the very form of government that she believes in, while allowing herself to maintain the status quo and operate above the law.

It is interesting to note that she “got a gun permit” when she was a supervisor and had no protection.  How many citizens subjects does she (supposedly) represent that have no protection?  How many of those citizens subjects cannot afford the armed bodyguards that she is provided?  How many of those citizens subjects have a life that is worth any less than her own?

The line in the sand has been drawn.  It is now up to the citizens of this country to decide how solid that line will remain.  If Senator Comrade Feinstein has her way, the Second Amendment will be gutted and we will be one step closer to total government domination with no recourse and no means of self-defense.

This matter does not reside with the government.  It does not reside with the military or local law enforcement.  It resides with YOU, reading this post, deciding how much of your liberty you are willing to give up.  Some may say that Comrade Feinstein’s bill is dead on arrival, and it has no chance of passage.  That does not preclude actions that could or would be taken by the Comrade-in-Chief through an Executive Order – which would be tantamount to a declaration of war on the citizenry and the Constitution.

Perhaps that’s exactly what the Obama administration is looking for – all out insurrection.  If that happens, they would be able to unleash their DHS and TSA minions throughout the country, federalizing everything from the food supply to transportation, electricity to gasoline, phone service to the Internet… everything and anything they can possibly think to control would come under their auspices in the name of the “public good.”

The battle is not coming.  The battle is already here, and the enemy can be easily seen.  Will you answer the call if or when it comes?