Net Neutrality … like Affordable Healthcare, Choice and Women’s Health — language twisted to the reverse

JustineBatemanNetNeutrality1The following #Statist drek is making the rounds again… someone famous (so they must be oh-so-clueful) wants you to hurry-up-and-act because something terrible-is-happening-right-now-and-we’re-the-only-ones-who-can-stop-it and well, here it is in total (though I’m not direct-linking because it’s a total fabrication):

==============
Justine Bateman‏ (Verified account @JustineBateman )

THREAD: You are about to lose access to the Internet. Are you going to be able to handle that? Your entertainment, your banking, your socializing, your work, your everything is through the Internet. #NetNeutrality means each packet of info is treated “neutrally”; All packets are let through w/ the same treatment. This is about to end. FCC chair is removing that #NetNeutrality protection & the ISPs (your internet service providers) are abut to turn the Internet into Cable TV. Tiered pricing, limited access to premium sites, slow connections for those who won’t/can’t pay, lack of access to sites some ISP disagrees with, etc. You have a message you want to get out online? You have a site w/ a certain agenda? Maybe it will not be accessible anymore. Who knows. It doesn’t matter if we wildy disagree on issues. We will both be screwed of we don’t have #NetNeutrality. Get on the phones and call your reps. Tell them under no circumstances will you allow this. 1-844-872-0234. #NetNeutrality Call @AjitPaiFCC and tell him he has no right to touch #NetNeutrality. 1-888-225-5322.
==============

BUT…

#NetNeutrality is one of those words that labels a thing which is actually the opposite of what you get. The ploy is that there is a fear of ISPs (like Comcast) blocking or throttling services (like Netflix for instance) that they feel competes with their ability to be evil capitalists. The problem is 1) This has never happened (a solution in search of a problem) and 2) the Federal Government would GAIN OVERSIGHT – REGULATING CONTENT on the internet … because that’s a good thing, right?

Statist/Left-leaning publications are fans, but no legitimate trade rags are. Only people in favor of more government control want Net Neutrality. That would put us in a position like the Chinese (so much for the 1st Amendment).

The PRO people want you to believe that ‘AGAINSTS’ include only the ISPs. That is a lie.

Justine Bateman us, by the way, an actor. Not a professional truth-teller. And pretty easily swayed by her buddies. She wants you to go tell the government that you fear Comcast — and want more government instead. Like you did for your healthcare.

LINK: On Forbes.com, Josh Steimle outlines the three basic reasons (“I Want More Competition”, “I Want More Privacy”, and “I Want More Freedom”) people who generally hate President Donald Trump also LOVE Net Neutrality:
Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality? (Forbes.com)

LINK: An article on BBC.com showing that ‘everyone’ is ‘for’ Net Neutrality (‘the science is settled!’) — except the evil cable companies, of course:
The coming battle over ‘net neutrality’ (BBC.com)

LINK: A surprising article explaining why this ignorance is pushing the OPPOSITE of what should be happening in the industry… from WIRED magazine itself, of all places:
What Everyone Gets Wrong in the Debate Over Net Neutrality (Wired.com)

NO ‘Net-Neutrality’ for me, thank you. I have been fighting against this propaganda war for over a decade — a deliberate promotion of ignorance to gain mindshare.

Think of the person you know with the slowest, most unreliable connection to the internet. That’s the Lowest Common Denominator. Now apply the Left’s version of ‘equal access for all’ to access as a public service; people and organizations who want to, and are able to, pay a little more can’t get a faster pipe — which sounds great until now, all schools are limited to the speed the vendor provides to all schools… at the lowest rate that can be charged — to accomodate the poorest school. What will that do to the ISP’s interest in improving their network over the years?

And that’s not just Comcast and Ameritech. Your phone… 4G LTE would not exist had this been the philosophy that drove the industry over the last 10 years. Because if not everybody can afford it, it would be #unfair to provide it to customers who can… and CHOOSE to.

Ten years ago, there wasn’t an ObamaCare to compare Net Neutrality to — so we couldn’t say “Net Neutrality is ObamaCare for the Internet”. Now we can.

LINK: Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality? (forbes.com)
LINK: The FCC’s net neutrality rules: 5 things you need to know (pcworld.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality—and Obama’s Scheme for the Internet—Are Lousy Ideas (reason.com)
LINK: Making the Internet a utility—what’s the worst that could happen? (arstechnica.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality Is Government Censorship (nationalreview.com)
LINK: 5 Arguments Against Net Neutrality (mashable.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality and the Rule of Law (fed-soc.org)
LINK: Net Neutrality Nixed: Why John Oliver Is Wrong (reason.com)
LINK: The Case Against Net Neutrality (thebalance.com)
LINK: Why Business Should Oppose Net Neutrality (hbr.org)
LINK: Worried about Net neutrality? Maybe it’s the FCC that should really concern you (cnet.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality Rules: Still a Threat to Internet Freedom (heritage.org)
LINK: The Inconvenient Truth Behind The Net Neutrality Movement (zerohedge.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet (theobjectivestandard.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality: Trump’s Next Big Target (americanthinker.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality? There’s No Such Thing. (nationalinterest.org)
LINK: A Third Way on Network Neutrality (thenewatlantis.com)
LINK: The Future of ‘Fair and Balanced’: The Fairness Doctrine, Net Neutrality, and the Internet (scholarship.law.duke.edu)
LINK: The Role of Innovation and Wealth in the Net Neutrality Debate: A Content Analysis of Human Values in Congressional and FCC Hearings (terpconnect.umd.edu)

Let’s talk about Privilege — but make sure it’s Profiling, because everybody loves Profiling

What is so upsetting is that the #Left has constructed an environment of #IdentityPolitics where I am #Profiled (though they SAY they hate that concept and only evil people would do that) because of my race and gender — that I must be represented on the left-hand column of this cartoon.

OnAPlateI support people who don’t want me in their lives because I was raised to believe in things they don’t … my concern for them ‘trumps’ our differences. And that paradigm is what will save this country — if it is to be saved at all. Those who build for the greater good and persevere for the sake of others must outlive those who divide and ridicule for personal gain.

Unfortunately, we have a whole generations of people now who believe that taking from someone is the only way to give to another. If I could believe in that, I would have left the state, and changed my identity to leave those who destroy to deal with the consequences of their actions on their own.

But I’m a white (‘privileged’) guy who breathes in and out, all day long, (figuratively) digging ditches in the rain because the priority of my family, and my country, and my God, is stronger than the wounds that I could, but don’t, claim victimhood from. It’s not helpful to make demands with an upward, clenched fist, and wait for others to bear my burdens.

There is an imbalance, to be sure — but to claim that ‘Richard’ and ‘Paula’ (the characters in the cartoon, above) will not see ‘fairness’ unless Richard’s life be reduced in an effort to cause a gain in Paula’s — well, that’s just a convenient way to say that the pie is finite; and that nothing new can be created without destruction. That is the basis for the First Lie — that one can’t be, achieve, or experience unless you choose to break what already exists. This is why the Left is never happy unless someone suffers — and why they can’t even grasp that those who believe differently can do otherwise.

FixedPie

When the Left feels that YOU shouldn’t have a firearm, so THEY take it…

Social Engineering isn’t very far removed from the mindset behind #GoodGuy vs. #BadGuy maneuvers… the ‘end justifies the means’ mentality gives them (in their mind) a ‘get out of jail free card’. Anything goes in order to pacify their outrage.

This is why Hillary gets away with so much… she has long admired the training provided to #SJW (social terrorists) types, beginning with his “Rules for Racicals” textbook, and reinforced by a Media and Political machine that succeeds by redefining ‘normal’, ‘criminal’, ‘outrage’, ‘unfair’, well… you get the idea — the whole of our language has been perverted over the last 20 years and whole generations of schoolkids steeped in this insanity are now running things.

So, off to the exercise of the day… an article about someone who was so enraged to discover that another man was carrying a concealed weapon (all guns are bad, all people with guns are bad, all things people do with guns are bad, etc.). Sooooooo… he took the weapon and decided to USE IT… which somehow wasn’t as bad as it remaining, INERT, in it’s holster.

This is why I relentlessly bang the drum that #LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder.

Rest assured, when I carry I do so with the understanding that I am responsible for what happens with that weapon… even if it is taken from my person. By extension, it is my responsibility to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to not lose the ability to govern that weapon.

What if someone disarms me and then uses it to kill five innocent people in the room? This is one of the arguments that the Left likes to throw around — we can’t have guns out there because Bad People will have access to them.

My question at this point is, why are the Bad People always the ones who the Left supports and protects? Assuming the worst of people, we are about to have a President known for killing people who are inconvenient to her… Ambassadors, her own associates, and babies.

Her opponent is being called WORSE than her (a murderer), because (it is accused) he grabbed a crotch.

Hmmm.

It should be assumed that if someone attacks you, they intend to follow through and kill you. Tactically, there is no such thing as a ‘light-duty’ assault. Understand that the people fighting most vigorously against legal and safe carry are those who, in their own minds, can’t fathom that normal people DON’T commit acts of violence simply because they are upset. These are the people who we should avoid handing society over to — and our firearms.

LINK: Charges filed after man shot in leg during disturbance in Overland Park (KansasCity.com)

LINK: Gun Control Supporter Steals Concealed Carrier’s Gun, Shoots Him (BearingArms.com)

Dear #BLM…

Dear #BLM: If you truly want to be treated EQUALLY, which black Americans are planning to step up and be killed by white people until the numbers are balanced? If you are still living with the prejudice of this engineered division, you are indeed carrying a burden — but it’s not the one you are believing in, shaking your fist in the air about, destroying property, hurting innocent people, or ‘educating’ others about. You Are Being Used.

Those of us who are awake want you to START ASKING WHY. WHO BENEFITS from racial strife in this country? WHO BENEFITS from broken families, children without fathers, communities without jobs? WHO BENEFITS from a broken society that has become so willing to take ANY help that they no longer care about what consequences come with the changes sold to them?

We are now at the point where people are blaming the country for how broken we are… but those ‘taking a knee’ are not fixing the problem… not offering a solution… they are only pointing a finger.

The Statists (people who believe that people are generally stupid and shouldn’t have the Right as individuals to govern themselves) tried to say that self-defense was a #RidiculousThing; why would anyone need a firearm? They FAILED at getting most of the country to give up that #CommonSense value of #SelfPreservation. Then they tried to get people to give up on their morals — and had a lot of success; but the #FundamentalTransformation wasn’t FAST ENOUGH for the Statists to seize enough power that it can’t be taken away from them in the next few elections.

So now they need a #CivilWar as an excuse to marshal enough power to #UnplugAmerica from all the tenets that have kept us free for centuries… #EqualProtectionUnderTheLaw, #IndividualFreedoms that overshadow the power of the government, #StatesRights that exist wherever powers haven’t already been defined as #FederalPowers in the #Constitution.

If you can’t see that these things are being TAKEN from you, the idea of rioting probably makes sense. But You’re Wrong. Don’t give up this country because you’re willing to let other people MAKE YOU THINK WHAT THEY TELL YOU TO THINK.

What does it mean to ‘Take God’s Name In Vain’? And why does God consider it as serious as Murder, Lying, and Thievery?

If you’re old enough, you may have been taught the Ten Commandments, as passed down in the Bible that most Christians aim to follow as their guidebook — or maybe you’re vaguely aware of them, but would find it difficult to pick them out of a hodgepodge of other old-fashion wisdom.

Let’s try a little quiz… pick out, from the following, the advice that comes from the Ten Commandments, and figure out which of the rest aren’t even from the Bible:

The-Ten-Commandments-600x310

  • Don’t kill.
  • Don’t murder.
  • Don’t lust after other people’s things.
  • Don’t take other people’s things.
  • Respect your parents.
  • Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
  • Don’t speak God’s name without reverence.
  • Go to church every Sunday.
  • Celebrate the birth of your Savior.
  • Sinning leads to everlasting torture.

How do you think you did?

Here are the answers:

  • Don’t kill: Nope. This bad translation is often held up by non-believers as a proof that the Bible is crap, what with all the God-commanded killing throughout the Old Testament. Try…
  • Don’t murder: YES… if you can’t understand the difference between killing and murder, you might be a vegetarian — or, if you realize that eating plants is also killing, you might actually have starved to death by now.
  • Don’t lust after other people’s things: YES, this is in the Ten Commandments.
  • Don’t take other people’s things: YES, this too, was one of the things God feels you shouldn’t do.
  • Respect your parents: YES, God wants us to understand that our elders are an important part of our identity, and our structure of behavior — as He has designed.
  • Do unto others as you would have them do unto you: Close, though this one is actually in the Bible (Matthew 7:12), it’s not part of the Ten Commandments.
  • Don’t speak God’s name without reverence: YES, this is just as important to God as not murdering, et al.
  • Go to church every Sunday: Nope. Though the Ten Commandments do say to ‘remember the Sabbath Day’, most scholars (even in the Catholic Church, who created the “Lord’s Day” on Sunday but admit that it’s totally on them) understand this to be Saturday — and further, the Bible records no command to ‘religiously’ attend church services on that day, or any day. We are taught to learn together, pray together, congregate with others of similar beliefs, and the Old Testament traditions record many rules about what is and is not appropriate on the Sabbath — but these two points are clearly not from the Ten Commandments, or anywhere in the Bible.
  • Celebrate the birth of your Savior: This is where things get a little sticky — not only is this not commanded, quite the opposite is true… the only time Christmas is even vaguely mentioned is in Jeremiah 10. The custom of celebrating birthdays itself is from pagan origins… one of the things that the Bible as a whole consistently deems opposite God’s wishes.
  • Sinning leads to everlasting torture: Breaking one or more of the Ten Commandments will … to this day … make our Creator sad, angry, jealous, and justified in toasting your carcass in any manner He sees fit. BUT… the Hell ‘known’ to modern Christianity is from Catholic mythology, not the Bible. The Catholics liked to borrow beliefs from other cultures as a way of assimilating people who they wanted to dominate — the fear inspired by the idea of torture throughout eternity was just too tempting for the Catholic priesthood to leave alone — what better way to scare people into obeying? The Bible, however, describes a fire that is everlasting — not an everlasting torture. God does get angry, but the worst He would do to you is to separate you from Him for all eternity (if you choose not to live His way)… Satan has done a very good job at perverting Christians’ view of the nature of God by twisting this understanding. It’s to the Devil’s advantage that Christians believe God is willing to torture you forever while ‘claiming’ to love you.

Now that you’ve waded through what many of you will deem ‘blasphemy’ (if it’s not what you know to be true, it must not be true), what was that thing about using God’s name improperly? What does it mean to use His name ‘in vain’?

Let’s pretend your name is ‘Bob’. And let’s pretend you have lots of children, whom you love dearly. But as they grow up, and their individual natures develop, you are dismayed to see that most everything that you have taught them they only make a token attempt at following — and take great pride in themselves when they get away with doing things opposite your teaching, without suffering any consequences.

After a while, they (and their friends) begin to get a little giddy that they’re so successful at avoiding your gaze, and your admonishment, and maybe even your punishment. Eventually, they even begin to mock you as young adults — at how you used to be important, but aren’t any more. You might say you’d feel a little upset… maybe even a little jealous of the respect that you should feel from them; but don’t.

Eventually, they take that mocking tone into their everyday language… they use your name as an expletive — like, “Wow, you really Bobbed that one!”. Or when injured, exclaim, “BOB THAT HURTS!”. The only time words leave their mouths that might be confused for respect are when they wish your anger would come down on someone they are upset at, “BOB DAMN YOU!”.

In no way are they actually talking about you, or to you, at this point. They’ve just reduced your name to one of the many dirty words they toss around in an effort to impress their friends that they follow no one’s standards — they obey no one’s rules.

Your name is no better than shit. Interchangeable, in many cases, with shit.

Is that the reverence that God deserves from His children? We can be sure that in the Old Testament, when the Ten Commandments were written in stone, this observed behavior was not new to Him. And no one spoke in surprise or confusion at this command — so the practice of abusing our Creator’s name was already a familiar behavior, thousands of years before we arrived to read it in the Bible.

So, we aren’t being ‘edgy’ when we misuse God’s name. In fact, it’s one of the earliest-recorded ways to hurt God’s feelings. Taking pride in this is a dismal, shameful, disrespectful tragedy of human frailty.

You probably weren’t thinking that you were showing off your frailty when you picked up this habit, were you? Using His name ‘in vain’, or for foolish, shallow reasons — was important enough that when God narrowed down ALL the things He could have chosen for His people to learn down to TEN ITEMS… this was among those few. Do you have a legitimate reason for putting it at a lower priority than He did?

One of these things is … distinctly different. And it caught your eye. And that’s Wonderful…


Attraction, whether by design or evolution, is an integral part of the continuity of life (not just human). To say that we should all evaluate everything around us equally is a notion without intellectual merit. (That’s me trying to say ‘stupid’ without insulting someone for their faulty ideology…)

We also used to praise someone by saying they had ‘discriminating tastes’… that word was not inherently negative. But now it’s more convenient to abuse language to force our will on others. Making everything the same, all the time, is not making anything better — it’s just making everything the same.

There was a Twilight Zone episode (or maybe it was The Outer Limits) where every person had exactly the same face… it was a Hell.

“One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other”

“Number 12 Looks Like You”

“The Eye of the Beholder “

The Left Can’t Get Rid Of Guns, So They’re Whittling Away Wherever They Can Get Mindshare

We’ve pointed it out often here, but legal firearm ownership keeps growing, and violent crime keeps going down. Now, every Leftist faced with those facts is quick to point out that correlation is not necessarily the same as causation… but it’s also true that:


  • When you make firearms more difficult to obtain, in those parts of the world where gun violence actually decreases, violent crime and death actually increasesthe bad guys just use knives, hammers, fists, fire, and strangulation more. And because people can’t defend themselves against larger, stronger, more immoral characters, their deaths are on the heads of those who disarmed them.

  • When there is less of a stigma to firearm ownership, training increases — which decreases accidental injuries and death.

  • When governments subjugate their populace, they begin by ensuring that there is little armed resistance. Saying that only happened hundreds of years ago only makes Leftists appear ignorant (we have the internet now, you know…).

  • Our culture used to be much more open about guns — people of all ages were less afraid of them because it was common to teach children how to behave around them (like any power tool). Though the Left claims that making drugs legal will bring it out of the shadows and decrease risky behavior, they don’t see the irony of their pretended ignorance when they see that they’re doing the opposite with firearms.

Long guns (anything that is bigger than a pistol) are not statistically relevant where mass shootings, violent crime, suicides, or accidental deaths are concerned. But the Left has found over the last 50 years that they can’t slow down Americans’ belief in self-determination, self-defense, and self-analysis.

So they work VERY hard at getting Americans to analyze OTHERS — division is their weapon of choice. And as they have with race-baiting, class warfare, and blame-redirection, they play a long game of half-truths, fear, and personality politics that gains lots of low-information (ignorant) people to their causes.

The latest in the engineered-fear campaign targeting AR-15 rifles:

When you choose #MobRule over #EqualProtectionUnderTheLaw, you get to yank the nation around as easily as you can yank the heartstrings of the most easily swayed majority you can drum up. Minorities are not protected by mobs — they are eaten. That’s why we are a nation of laws… not emotional appeals.

So when a long-standing opinion of an entire nation falls ‘out of fashion’, it cannot easily be destroyed just because an Activist generation of educators, media, politicians, and starlets chooses to ignore history and throw their voices behind ignorant rants and heavy-handed personality politics.

You have been warned for over 200 years that this is the behavior to expect when there isn’t a barrier to such destruction — but if you choose to believe that the Founding Fathers wrote and signed our Documents with no history of their own to draw upon, you MIGHT actually believe that is was them that were ignorant. But you wouldn’t just be wrong — you’d be an ‘enemy domestic’. Choose to support our Constitution, or leave. ‘Conquering’ it makes you an adversary who has no righteous place within our borders.

Answering Evil: Wresting the Conversation Away from Leftist Rage — Stand Your Ground vs. Duty to Flee

[Ed. Note: This was first published on 7/16/13; I’m bringing it forward to join a conversation about the Left’s ability to hijack our culture by perverting our language and distorting the truth…]

Imagine that you are somewhere (not at home) with your kids, and someone decides to do you harm. Maybe they thought you were the person who cut them off in traffic… maybe you WERE the person… and they have a lead pipe/knife/candlestick/rope/etc. and it’s CLEAR that you are in mortal danger.

So, you defend yourself with the firearm (that you are legally carrying) and the judge says sure, you have the right to defend yourself — but you first had a ‘duty to flee’… a choice that courts often considered to be a requirement before lethal force should be allowed.

Since you didn’t run away (leaving your children behind with the raging threat), you didn’t really have a right to defend yourself with lethal force. If you had, and he chased you, well then fine… but since you didn’t, you’re going to jail.

This actually happened… OFTEN… and is the reason most states now have so-called ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws. Eager and ruthless District Attorneys saw victims as potential notches on their belts, and treated them as criminals — until the laws were rewritten to prevent it. The rights of the attacker were seen as more socially relevant than the rights of your family members to be defended from his violent onslaught — fighting back made the victim ‘a bad guy too’.

But if you have EVER been the daily target of a schoolyard bully, and were told by any authority you complained to that it was your responsibility to ‘just stay away from them’ — you understand how ridiculous ‘duty to flee’ was.

China Meat Cleaver Attack

George Zimmerman, who was prosecuted by the Media in the public eye as having ‘abused’ ‘stand your ground’ when he shot the person who was bashing his head repeatedly on the concrete — was not in a position DECIDE whether to flee or fight… but the Media ran with this concept for months.

It would probably be a surprise to most people who know the names of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin to be informed that NEITHER THE DEFENSE, NOR THE PROSECUTION EVER CLAIMED OR CONSIDERED Stand Your Ground in their arguments — it was not offered to the jury as a reason for or against Zimmerman’s actions. Because he never had a choice to flee, beginning at the point where he realized he was in danger. His choices at that point included either to fight back or die. But the media wanted to use the death of Trayvon Martin to kill ‘Stand Your Ground’.

Why? You should be asking Why?

LINK: “Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law and Self-Defense” (BlakeDorstenLaw.com)
LINK: “Self-Defense Shooting and Disparate Force” (USACarry.com)
LINK: “The Three Headed Monster: Defending a Disparity of Force Shooting” [PDF] (OSTTI.com)
LINK: “You can legally defend yourself with a gun if the situation includes these 3 elements” (SecondCallDefense.org)
LINK: “Mayor Bloomberg: End ‘shoot-first’ laws” (Politico.com)
LINK: “Stevie Wonder Boycotting Florida Following Zimmerman Verdict: singer refuses to perform in the state until its Stand Your Ground law is ‘abolished'” (HollywoodReporter.com)
LINK: “What the prosecutors said about Florida’s Stand Your Ground law” (JohnrLott.blogspot.com)
LINK: “Media Matters, ‘Stand Your Ground’ and me” (FoxNews.com)

Answering Evil: Wresting the Conversation Away from Leftist Rage — Pence and Funerals

What makes politics so difficult for #TheRestOfUs, and easy for the #Elites that enjoy running everyone else’s lives (Politicians, Media, #ProfessionalActivists, #SocialEngineers) — is aggressive and amoral ‘messaging’.

I decided that one at a time, I’d grab one of the ‪#‎HorribleThings‬ that are ‘commonly known’ about an issue or politician, and go find out #WhatUsedToBeTrue before the propaganda.

So today, I’m starting with the headlines I’m seeing tweeted OVER AND OVER that Pence made mothers pay for the burial of their miscarried or aborted fetuses.

PenceFuneralsVOX

“State-Mandated Mourning for Aborted Fetuses” (theatlantic.com)

“Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a law this year that mandated funerals for fetuses” (Vox.com)

“Insulting New Abortion Law Forces Women to Pay for Fetus Funerals” (Vice.com)

“State-Mandated Mourning for Aborted Fetuses” (richarddawkins.net)

“Pence Signed a Law Requiring Burial or Cremation for Aborted Fetuses” (motherjones.com)

Sounds pretty heartless, doesn’t it? Well it only took me two minutes to find an article that wasn’t written by Pence-haters (though I had to wade past about two dozen parroting the same copy-and-pasted propaganda first), and here is #WhatActuallyHappened:

“The aborted fetal remains bill (SEA 329), establishes rules as to how abortion facilities must dispose of aborted babies and allows the pregnant woman to choose a different method at her own expense (i.e. burial). As testimony revealed, the Indianapolis Planned Parenthood facility was disposing of aborted babies down a drain into the sewer system, the Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) implemented emergency disposal rules on July 1.” http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/10/indiana-gov-mike-pence-signs-bill-mandating-aborted-babies-must-be-buried-or-cremated/

The CHANGE was not that the woman would now be required to pay for the disposal of her infant… it was that she now has the CHOICE to do so — by law. Until then, a murdered or lost child could be treated like leftover fried chicken by the medical ‘professionals’.

Here’s the description from the Indiana General Assembly web site:

“DIGEST
Disposition of aborted remains. Defines “fetus”. Establishes a right, beginning January 1, 2016, for a pregnant woman who has an abortion to determine the final disposition of the aborted fetus. Requires that a pregnant woman be informed orally and in writing before an abortion: (1) that the pregnant woman has a right to determine the final disposition of the remains of the aborted fetus; (2) of available options for disposition of the aborted fetus; and (3) of available counseling services. Requires the state department of health to: (1) adopt rules concerning the disposal methods to be used for aborted fetuses; and (2) develop the forms for certain information that is to be provided to the pregnant woman.” –https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/329

Does that sound like a woman was GIVEN A RIGHT TO CHOOSE, or does that sound like a woman is being ‘forced to pay for burial’ (as the news stories portrayed)?

So, now that you’ve heard a version of the story that was not #SculptedByTheLeft, is Pence the #Evil now, or was #PlannedParenthood? Regardless of your opinion on this heart-heavy and contentious subject — would you have preferred to know the facts, and then made your own decisions; or are you happy trusting the Media to drive ‘knowledge’ the way they do?

#KnowAlinsky

Kevin Jackson speaks on Dallas cop shooting

Kevin is a well-informed, level head. (Disclaimer: I’ve bought at least one of his books, so you could call me a fan…)

The point that people should be arriving at (why does it take so long?) is that the messaging is DESIGNED to ramp up rage and violence… not stem the tide. We should be asking WHY, and we should be turning away from those influences. Will we?

LINK: The Blacksphere (Facebook.com)
LINK: The Blacksphere (theblacksphere.net)
LINK: The Blacksphere (plus.google.com)
LINK: The Blacksphere (twitter.com)
LINK: The Blacksphere (YouTube.com)

You can dislike me. You can hate me. You don’t get to define me.

gopocalypse2016-07-07

Yeah, I saw that video the other day and a little cheer went up. Awesome message. But the post, and it’s title, above, I’ll say I found REALLY offensive (the author even admits he thinks and has written contrary to Cena’s message).

Why? Why is it necessary to completely sidestep what we know in our heads, with the rage that is in our hearts?

I know a lot of people will read this with the prejudices that are common about Conservatives (the real reason I got a little miffed even before clicking through) — why does the Left get to define what a Conservative is? Do Conservatives get to define what their ideological opponents are, or how they are motivated?

No. Not that we don’t try — as humans, it’s difficult not to play the game when so many people benefit from discord. But to lump in the #Conservative label with #Bigoted is an ideological leap… that is going to tear down, not build up, us as a nation.

I would really like to know what a #Liberal chooses to define themselves by — so far, all I have been able to find are arguments about why people on the Left disagree with their *perspective* of people on the Right. “I think [this] because I believe somebody else believes [that].” That is not a self-definition. Anyone?

For clarity, here is my best attempt at explaining what a modern American Conservative really is:

What We Believe – Bill Whittle

We are led, now, by people who have made a science out of discord, hate — even engineered rage. They are our university professors, our politicians, our news media, our Hollywood icons. Their amoral feasting upon the decimation of anything good serves them and them alone… yet we continue to refer to them as our ‘leaders’.

Why? Is it because we simply can’t find anyone else to be inspired by? That would indeed be a famine.

It’ time to stop being inspired by those who disrupt for fun and profit — and start looking to those who can, and do, build.

Paul Harvey – If I Were The Devil (How to Destroy America) (transcripted text)

Don’t like to be raped? Just tell them you don’t like it. -Our Leftist Betters

When I was in elementary school (and junior high), I was picked on a lot by other kids (I know, right?). Instead of fighting back (a skill and ideology that I did not adopt until near the end of high school), I dutifully went to my teachers to, well, beg for protection.

I got beat up a lot.

The teachers would just stand out there on the playground, smoke their cigarettes, and chat with each other as if we were a great big television show that they were not in charge of.

Their response? “Well if they’re bothering you then just stay away from them.” It took me a lot of years to process the disillusionment from having been so abandoned by those responsible for my safety. The point is, they actually thought that advice was ‘common sense‘.

The idea that a tormentor would FOLLOW A VICTIM was beyond their comprehension.

The same idiocy was adhered to in United States case law for decades, where if you were in physical danger and had the ability to move your feet, you were expected to ‘leave the area’ rather than defend yourself. Dozens of cases were tried in which victims ended up being prosecuted because they did not properly observe their ‘duty to flee’. In many of these cases, fleeing would have left others — like their own children — behind to be harmed — in most, the attackers would have had no reason not to pursue their victims no matter how much running away occurred. But Prosecutors abused this logic so much for so long that we now have Stand Your Ground laws… that make clear it is not the responsibility of the victim to surrender — but rather to survive.

The idea that a tormentor would FOLLOW A VICTIM was beyond their comprehension.

“What alternative outcome would the opponents of Stand-Your-Ground desire? That the defending victim of the aggressor be the one that was killed? Or perhaps merely maimed? Raped, Beaten down?” – Stand Your Ground: The ‘New’ Self-Defense Doctrine That’s 136 Years Young (legalinsurrection.com)

The Left mocks these Stand Your Ground laws in a (mostly successful) attempt to make the public ignorant of their function.

“You hear that sentiment expressed by the anti-Stand-Your-Ground folks today. Listen to the pro-thug faction talking about the Zimmerman case and you’ll soon hear someone lament that poor George should have exhausted his brains on the sidewalk before being justified to use deadly force to stop Martin’s vicious attack. After all, it was just an “ass-whuppin.'”

Now, we are seeing the same idiocy repeated to rape victims… they should run away, piss themselves, throw up, or announce that they have an STD.

The idea that a tormentor would IGNORE A VICTIM’S PROTESTS is beyond their comprehension.

According to our ‘betters’, no one should be allowed to believe that SHOOTING A RAPIST is a socially acceptable or morally justifiable action. But, it is.

MorallySuperior

“I didn’t need 45 rounds per minute…” #Journalism replaced by #Activism

So there’s this guy, who doesn’t mind throwing his name out there as a liar — who posted this ‘account’ of a recent visit to a gun store. So long as people like this find ‘messaging’ to be a better option than ‘truth’, those who are easily led by the nose are going to continue to be trained as future generations of hoplophobes. (I’m not linking to his post — would rather he not get the traffic. But I found the post on Google using just his name; so if you’re driven to go make friends, be my guest. But understand that going to harass this guy is not going to change his mind — he’s a typical Leftist who is only interested in bending minds to match his… facts and experience have no bearing on his agenda; and he already knows people dislike him… from other things he’s been involved in, I think he relishes the opportunity to piss people off, and counts it as a victory when people express their distaste for his views — so don’t feel the need to go stoke the fire.)

Buckley Jeppson
June 14 at 8:18pm · Portland, OR

Today I went to my local gun store (US Guns, 9063 SW Barbur Blvd.) to ask about AR-15 guns. I didn’t go in to berate, but to try to understand why a store would sell such weapons. The two young guys in the store were understandably jittery but tried to answer my questions.

ME: I’m trying to learn more about the AR-15 and why an ordinary citizen would want one. I already know that the AR does not stand for “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle” but for ArmaLite, the company that developed it.

CLERK at US Guns: Most people use them to shoot cans and stuff.

ME: You’d have to be a very bad shot to need that kind of gun to shoot cans. I did just fine with my BB gun and my dad’s 30-06 deer hunting rifle. I didn’t need 45 rounds per minute.

AmmoChartBUCKLEY
CLERK #2: They are good for shooting coyotes and ground hogs because those little suckers really move fast.

ME: It seems that the AR rifles are nearly all you have here, except for the hand guns.

CLERK: Yes, they are our most popular.

ME: But surely everyone isn’t buying them to hunt coyotes, ground hogs, and tin cans.

CLERK #2: They are good for wild pigs in Texas. They’re a real problem in some parts there.

ME: But we don’t have wild pigs in Portland. Why do people in Portland buy these types of guns?

CLERK: Well, some are for protecting their families and property.

ME: Protecting them from whom?

CLERK: I don’t know, that’s just what they say.

ME: Have you ever had someone you love killed by a gun, and I don’t mean while hunting rabbits?

CLERK: No

ME: I have. You are young, and the older you get the more likely you are to lose a loved one. Whether you think they are killed by a gun or a person you will discover they are dead. What would happen if you stopped selling AR rifles?

BOTH CLERKS: We’d be out of business.

ME: So it’s about the money.

CLERK: Yeah.

ME: I ask you to reconsider and to stop selling these guns. Thank you.

And I left. But wait, there’s more:

Part II
As I headed to my car I was approached by a guy who was in the store and followed me out.

GUY: They are lying. They sell the guns to people to protect themselves when “they” come?

ME: Who is “they,” zombies?

GUY: Yeah, that and all the others who might try to steal your food after an earthquake or take your guns or imprison your family members.

ME: Is that something that really concerns you?

GUY: Yeah, with the way the country has been going the last 7 years. . .

ME: You mean since we got a black president?

GUY: Well, not just that but look at all the Muslims and immigrants streaming across the border to get us. I have six ARs, and plenty of ammunition.

ME: But you can only shoot one gun at a time.

GUY: But I bet I feel lots safer than you do.

ME: No, I’m not afraid of hoards of zombies, Blacks, Mexicans, or Muslims coming after me and my family. I’m more afraid of going out dancing, or to church, or the movies, or school.

GUY: Nah, those are pretty safe places.

I drove away proud that I hadn’t screamed at anyone, but just asked questions, hoping I would learn something. I did, and it made me cry a bit as I drove home.

I thought of my friend John, a husband and father, who was depressed about school and couldn’t buy beer in Utah because it was Sunday, so he bought a gun and shot himself.

I thought of my daughter, who wanted to clean the carpets but was turned away because she was wasn’t old enough to rent a Rug Doctor. But she was old enough to have bought a gun if she wanted.

There is something very wrong here and the only way it will get fixed is if we all get off our butts and do something about it. Everyone start by finding your neighborhood gun store and go in and ask questions. Challenge them a bit to think about it and to come clean with the real reasons for these guns. It has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It has to do with the money they make from paranoid people, made even more paranoid by the NRA. We all have a gun story. Tell them your story and ask them to stop selling AR guns. They probably won’t, but you will have made them think about it.

And the rebuttal, from a polite, but righteously annoyed capitalist (whom I’m betting the poster above is banking on not having the same publishing reach for an effective rebuttal):

US Guns, LLC
June 17 at 6:00pm

Good Day to Everyone,

We are aware of the Facebook post put forth from Buckley Jeppson, that post has since now been removed but the spark of debate is has started has remained. Before we begin to cover our version of events we must implore everyone to not turn this into a forum used to attack or slander anyone’s political, religious, or ideological views we have to be above that kind of behavior.

Mr. Jeppson did visit our establishment on 06/14/2016 at approximately 12:38 PM he then left at 12:44pm. During his time in our establishment he did enquirer about the assault rifles on our wall. Our employees responded that by strict military definition we had no assault rifles. From there he asked what practical hunting use these firearms served, refusing to accept they might have one. Our employees gave numerous examples how they could fit within the parameters of his question whether varmint or modifying the system with a different barrel, caliber, and magazine capacity to comply with local fish and game regulations for a hunting purpose. Mr, Jeppsons response was the belief that people in Portland had no use of any firearm within that capacity.

Beyond these initial similarities Mr. Jeppson’s account of the situation is a fabrication. Both the employees working at the time are Veterans who served multiple deployments overseas and have both experienced the loss of a comrade due to gun fire. It is Mr. Jeppsons lie that our employees said we do not know this experience that offends us deeply. It is also an outright fabrication when Mr. Jeppson claimed the AR-15 is our best selling product and without that product we would go out of business, we sell much more than the AR-15 pattern rifle and it represents a small market share of our overall business.

One last point we feel the need to address is the customer who rushed out after Mr. Jeppson to engage him in conversation. While we have no definitive proof that this did not occur out in the parking lot, after review of our own security footage we can say that no customer stormed out from our store after Mr. Jeppson. Only one customer was in the establishment at the same time as Mr. Jeppson and left approximately 6-7 minutes after Mr. Jeppson’s departure. If such an exchange did in fact occur it was some other individual and not a customer from our establishment. We are working how to disseminate this footage.

We once again implore calm heads in this situation, do not rush to conclusions nor turn this into a personal attack.

US Guns, LLC.

UPDATE 06/17/2016 3:51 PM – We Have been informed the original post is back up.

When the First Amendment is no longer valued by those who don’t like the Second either…

Many people I have interacted with have trouble comprehending why a gun owner could even BE a gun owner — after having been inundated with anti-gun propaganda by their favorite media outlets for most of their lives. The answer is Experience and Education — not just about firearms and the Second Amendment … but very simply, what the tools of the propaganda artist (skilled liar) are and how to identify them.

The example I came across today that relates closely to conversations I have been having with intelligent, but unschooled, friends of mine all around the country, is this one found in the “N.Y. Daily News”:

‘What is it like to fire an AR-15? It’s horrifying, menacing and very very loud’ (NYDailyNews.com)

I want you to go read this article (which I call a horrible piece of work, and amoral at best, outright evil more likely), and then consider these critical-thinking questions that a 3rd-grader in my day would have jumped to — REGARDLESS of your point of view on firearms:

  • Why is the gun dealer in the article even in this business?

  • Why is it that I can’t find this (supposedly real) gun dealer on Google?

    (Oh, I mis-spoke; look what I found; a brand-new Facebook account that notes, among it’s less-than-half-a-dozen-posts: “Started Working at Franks Gun Shop Double Tap Shooting Range … Posted on May 14”. The Facebook account itself was created on May 14th as well — only one month previous to the date the article was purportedly published. Although, the gun shop itself has its own Facebook page that hasn’t been updated since 2015… the most recent post is littered with comments from angry Americans who can’t believe the ‘facts’ in the article came from a gun dealer… who would by necessity have better information that this … but Frank apparently doesn’t have an internet connection, because there is no response to the comments and queries so far.)

  • Why is this ‘former police officer’s opinion so very different from every other officer I have ever met? Oh, one of the Facebook comments clears that up: “The owner has no concept of the idea of gun laws, he is subjective as to who he sells to, and uses his “Europe Law Enforcement” career as the basis of him being a subject matter expert on guns and gun laws in America, after a scant 6 years here in the US.”

  • If the gun dealer “has difficulty explaining why law-abiding citizens need a gun that can empty a 40-round clip in less than five seconds”, where is this number coming from? Because, a semi-automatic rifle can only fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled — so the AR-15 would have to be in the hands of a super-human to be able to fire EIGHT BULLETS A SECOND. But this author expects that you will be to repulsed and terrified of this prospect that you won’t question it’s veracity.

Then, after having read how ‘terrifying’, ‘loud’, and how much the recoil bruised the writer’s shoulder, take a look at this big burly little girl firing the same rifle that the Media so-very-much needs you to be afraid of:

11 Year Old Girl Shooting AR 15 at 100 Yards

When you’ve finished watching this young lady, in a controlled environment, following safety guidelines that her parent chooses to administer (just like they would with any power tool in the garage), take a moment to consider what advice our Vice President provided, also in an attempt to get Americans to fear the AR-15:

Joe Biden’s Womens Self Defense Advice: Double Barrel Shotgun

‘Uncle Joe’ says, “You don’t need an AR-15; it’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use, and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds…” The following video show the difference between a shotgun, which DOES KICK HARD (counter to Joe’s kindly advice), and an AR-15, which little girls shoot with absolutely no problem (because they fire very small rounds and are designed to manage the recoil so well that the AR-15 has become Americans’ favorite rifle):

Buy a Shotgun Joe Biden Lying AR-15

The article notes,

“The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.”

It sure seems that this ‘reporter’ must be smaller than the little girl in the above video…

And,

“Even in semi-automatic mode, it is very simple to squeeze off two dozen rounds before you even know what has happened. In fully automatic mode, it doesn’t take any imagination to see dozens of bodies falling in front of your barrel.”

You see, an AR-15 ONLY has a ‘semi-automatic’ (one bullet per trigger pull) mode — if it has a ‘fully automatic’ mode (multiple bullets per trigger pull), it is not an AR-15, and is not legal for non-military use or sale … SO NO LAW WILL OUTLAW A MACHINE GUN THAT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL… that’s kind of like saying we need to make heroine illegal because the laws that make it illegal already aren’t working. The fact that this gun dealer can’t sell an automatic weapon to this reporter because it’s already against the law is NOT the message that he hopes you will get from his article.

Semiautomatic vs. Fully Automatic

The writer wants you to be afraid of people who own something that just isn’t scary enough — even in his own opinion — to frighten you off if he delivers only the truth.

By the way, it may not interest you to know that the rifle used in the horrific Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, Florida — was not even an AR-15. While it WAS a black semi-automatic rifle, I mention this little bit of trivia so that as you read articles written by supposedly ‘professional journalists’, you will notice that maybe if they swear up and down that it was an AR-15 — you will have a clue about how much effort they put into really researching the event before committing words to press, and applying their good name and reputation to their article. #RealJournalismIsDead