What Has Been Will Be Again

This may be an excellent likeness of someone you know...

Hysteria. Delirium. Panic. 

These words describe the mental and emotional state of nearly every lawmaker in the United States, from those in the US Congress to those at state and local levels. The only individuals not affected by these problems can generally be seen in two groups: Those who don't care about anything that doesn't directly affect their lives, and those who are not possessed by an irrational hatred of a particular president. 

The reader should take two things into account at this point. The first is that this problem has been seen before. It is not unique to our current President, nor is it unique to one political party. It has affected folks from every walk of life, from every ethnic background, from every educational level and from every career path. The second thing is that "irrational hatred" is here defined as an emotional state which compels words and deeds that would otherwise violate one's own ethical, moral and professional codes of conduct. Such a state might be an issue for readers of this article, but affected readers likely wouldn't have made it this far, so... 

Memoria Venellam *

Was he waving at the person on the phone?

During the Obama administration, many in Congress took issue with then-president Obama. Sometimes it was over serious things, such as his cavalier use of the executive order and national emergency declarations. Other times, it was over excessively petty things, like his use of prompt screens. Of those who were obsessed with petty problems, most were Republican; most lacked the ability to recognize anything good done by the President; and nearly all refused to work with him out of personal spite, as opposed to genuine principle. 

At the time, many of the Democrats in Congress couldn't figure out what the problem was. Many lamented the stubborn refusal to work with Obama on anything. Not only were Republicans refusing to work with the President, they were also refusing to pitch their own solutions. On top of that, they were proposing legislation that directly countered Obama's agenda, and were running time and money wasting investigations and hearings. 

Conservative talk show hosts were having a field day with every little thing they could dig up. Born in Kenya. Not an American citizen. Communist. Socialist. Corrupt. Friends with a terrorist. Pastor's a radical. Father's a Muslim. His middle name is Hussein. There's no college record. It went on and on. 

Ultra-conservative talk show hosts were having an even bigger conniption fit. There were connections being made every which way but up. He was a Manchurian candidate. He was being used by Iran. He was being used by Syria. He was being used by Libya. He was also reportedly covering up FEMA camps; Big Pharma human testing; gun running; drug smuggling; and the human trafficking of his enemies. They said that he was breaking the Constitution so that it would no longer work; that he was going to do away with elections; and that he was the Antichrist. 

Veritas Utrum

Many were cartoonish in their hysteria.

While some of what the pundits and talking heads and alarmist writers were putting out there was accurate, there really wasn't a lot of genuine and factual accounting. He may have been born in Kenya, but he was also legally granted a Hawaiian document of birth. His birth father may have been Muslim, but by most accounts he barely knew the man. His pastor may have said some crazy things from the pulpit, but so have a number of other big name preachers. None of this means that he is not responsible for some of the worst abuses of power our nation has ever seen; it just means that there was a whole lot of petty crud that didn't need a fraction of the attention it received. 

There were also the straight-out lies by which even this writer was taken. For instance, one of the earliest pseudo-facts was that Obama was a full-blown Muslim. The deception didn't last long, fortunately; yet the fact that it had managed to capture the attention and energy of intelligent and rational writers such as myself remains a source of consternation. Another lie: Obama was attempting to repeal the Constitution. A few of his executive orders were strung together, along with a few statements from his campaign, which gave the appearance of an all out assault on the supreme law of the land. This one didn't last as long; in fact, it was proven to be a fabrication while researching the story for the sake of an article on this very blog. 

So what has brought on this seeming nostalgia? 

Nothing New Under The Sun

Well, as the saying goes: "New boss same as the old boss." Or if preferred: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." There was also this saying from a young man who grew up in several African countries: "A cheetah may change his spots to stripes, but his heart remains set upon your life." 

In the eyes of this author, Obama was and continues to be a scumbag. That personal opinion does not change the fact that he did a few things which were beneficial. It simply means that in the process of weighing what was good and bad about his administration according to subjective judgment, the resulting conclusion puts Obama and most of those people he surrounded himself with firmly in the "scumbag" column. This may be painfully obvious to those who are long-time readers; however what ought to be just as obvious is the fact that not everyone feels this way. Those who are capable of rational thought and logic; and who have the enviable position of accounting for the historical impact of US Presidents; have suggested that apart from his actual election, Obama's notability and historical significance is negligible. 

In the same way, President Trump currently sits in the "Meh" category. He's not yet to be cheered, nor mocked. He's done a lot of good for the country, but this has been nullified by his negative speech. He's already written his name in the history books due to five different events which were halfheartedly reported by the mainstream media. At the same time, those events have not all been seen positively, so once more he's "Meh." 

Yet as in the days of Obama, so too is it now in the days of Trump. People are losing their minds. There are those who are so consumed by irrational fear and/or hatred that they are incapable of rational thought. There are those who are so stubborn that they have turned their backs on lifelong goals solely because Trump thinks those goals are worthwhile. There are insane accusations being made. There are lies being told. There are charges being filed, hearings being held and investigations being conducted - All of which are wasting time and money. CNN is to Trump what FOX was to Obama, in a manner of speaking. 

Basically, we've stepped through the looking glass, Alice- And to fracture more idioms- The grass may be greener on the other side, but it is always full of thorns when we cross the fence. Though the only constant is change, this applies solely to that which is superficial. The heart of humanity, without any form of external influence, remains hopelessly devoid of redeeming qualities; and this explains why the basket still rolls steadily towards Hell... Exempli gratia, Concessus abortus et educationem ordinatur optimum.

* It should be noted that the author is aware of his atrocious grasp of Latin and is using it regardless for the sake of adding a lighthearted touch to an otherwise heavy handed article.

Life Or The Party

There are things in this world that I do not understand. Most of the time, I am fine with this. When I am not fine with this is when a double standard is very obviously in effect. For example, a group supposedly standing for something in slogan that they refuse to stand for in action.

Take for example this latest act of insanity: A "Right To Life" group that will not support a pro-life candidate because he or she is not a member of either major political party. You read that correctly.

The slogan above should, perhaps, read: "Support Pro-Life Candidates (if they are major party members)!"

The current gubernatorial race in Oregon could best be described as a train-wreck for the Sanctity of Life Movement. The candidate the only Right To Life PAC in the state backed, Greg Wooldridge, lost... And miserably, based upon the numbers. Just over sixty-three thousand for the ORTL candidate, and more than one hundred forty-four thousand for the Primary winner, Knute Buehler. The ORTL lost its gamble by more than twenty percent.

I am not knocking the three-time leader of the Blue Angels Squadron, by any means; however it seems to me that the ORTL backed the wrong candidate. Allow me to elaborate. In every state in these United States, there is generally a mistrust of outsiders wishing to take public office. The hopeful could be a living saint, and still the natural-born residents would view them with a high degree of skepticism. It is not Captain Wooldridge's fault really. Trying to win in one's adoptive state is hard enough; trying to win in an adoptive home state that has historically elected a Democrat governor is far worse. Many hopefuls prior to the three-time Boss have found that to be true, and now so has he.

Now that the ORTL gubernatorial hopeful is out of the running; and the current GOP candidate is not pro-life; it seems natural that the PAC would reallocate funds to support the only other pro-life candidate on the ballot. However, this is not the case. Seemingly it has never been the case, and if the ORTL PAC's Political Director David Kilada is to be believed, it never will be.

Why?

Because in Kilada's own words: "Minor parties haven't demonstrated that they are capable of fielding winning candidates." This is taken from an email sent to a loyal reader of this blog, who passed it along in the hopes that we might be able to shed some light on what seems to be (pardon the expression) an abortion of justice and common sense. Elsewhere in the email, asserts that "The amount of resources we would need to carry a minor party candidate through statewide is astronomical.  We don't believe in throwing away endorsements." Later on, the Political Director rather curtly adds "Policies have implications.  That's why we are careful to follow them.  Our policies such as these are how pro-life voters know they can trust our process."

It may be asserted by the PAC that this article is taking statements out of context. Sadly this is not the case. At the end of this article, dear reader, you will find the full text of each email sent to this member of the Renegade family. Read and judge for yourself.

In any case, the stated purpose for the PAC's existence reads in part "[o]ur focus is on electing champions for protecting life from conception to natural death." This Mission Statement comes into question when there does exist a gubernatorial candidate that would champion this cause wholeheartedly: Oregon native and Constitution Party nominee Aaron Auer. It especially comes into question when the idea of them "work[ing] to identify and support pro-life candidates for office..." doesn't seem to line up with their actions.

The logic expressed by the PAC regarding third-party candidates seems to fall to pieces when

considering any number of relevant facts: The fact that Mr. Auer has done all his own campaigning and funding; the fact that on a far smaller and tighter budget than his competitors, he repeatedly brought in at least one percent of the vote, and all in general  election.

Aaron Auer is a circuit-riding preacher; he founded the ROAR (Restoring Oregon's Amazing Roots) organization, and regularly participates in events aimed at reminding people of the state's awe-inspiring history. He keeps the account of the Nez Perce tribe and their quest for the Book Of Heaven alive. He fights tirelessly to prevent the Circuit Rider monument from being removed from the State House grounds. He is galvanized, courageous and emboldened to champion righteous causes- And the Sanctity of Life issue is certainly a righteous cause.

In spite of all of this, an examination of the PAC's recommended candidates revealed no mention of the Constitution Party hopeful whatsoever. Why? He did the work to get himself on the ballot. He's putting in the effort to travel and meet people. He's drumming up support for himself by pounding pavement. Yet his name does not appear in the PAC's list of supportable candidates. (See image left)


Kilada maintains that "...endorsing minor party candidates would ...throw away elections by endorsing multiple candidates in races with pro-choice candidates." Yet in an earlier email he notes that "[w]e are focused on the dozens of legislative and local elections that are critical to the pro-life movement." Now wait just a moment, Mr. Kilada - Didn't you say that endorsing multiple candidates throws away elections?

The Political Director of the ORTL PAC also asserted that they "do not have favoritism in terms of parties." Yet a quick search of the names above show something interesting: Vineeta Lower - Republican. David Molina - Republican. Alexander Flores - Republican. Dorothy Merritt - Republican. Jack Zika - Republican. Brian Stout - Republican. Christine Drazan - Republican.

While it could be chalked up to the Democrat Party's inability to put forward a pro-life candidate, it certainly seems strange that there is no "favoritism in terms of parties," and yet the only candidates listed are GOP hopefuls. Additionally, about half of them are running against incumbent Democrats in districts that routinely elect Democrats. What was that about "throw[ing] away elections" and "throwing away endorsements?"

It is a wonder to me that, after seeing all of this malarkey and self-destructive adherence to a faulty policy, the ORTL PAC would invite people interested in running for office to contact them. What would they be told? That they must seek election as a Republican or a Democrat to be supported?

Suppose someone has the good will, support and backing of more voters than the GOP or DNC pro-life front-runner. This would virtually assure that well-liked candidate the electoral win. Would they be denied even an honorary mention simply because they were running under a third party?


As a pro-life family man considering a move to Oregon in the near future, I have been watching the electoral process fairly closely. I've paid attention to who has said what. I've researched the voting records, pet projects and desired goals of incumbents and hopefuls alike.

Nothing- And I repeat, nothing- Prepared me for seeing the sort of shocking lack of vision and foresight displayed by the Oregon Right To Life Political Action Committee. When someone with the title of Political Director can state over and over again that "our PAC policy has been and remains that we do not endorse minor party candidates" and "endorsing minor party candidates would ...throw away elections," there is something wrong.

These are not policy fueled processes that I, as a voter, could trust. To blatantly state that "[w]e are the only pro-life organization that works to support these candidates and it's critical that we get the word our[sic] to pro-life voters about these candidates" and then leave off any pro-life candidate is, in my view, a betrayal of trust. Regardless of policy. Regardless of donation. Regardless of party. A statement that "This is not our official candidate, but he is pro-life also" would be far better than an egregious display of willful ignorance.

Worse than a betrayal of trust, however, is the betrayal of that which the ORTL PAC adamantly claims to stand for:

Now, as promised, I will provide the emails I received. Read them, weigh them, and decide whether this PAC deserves support - Or if the candidate they have so casually thrown away as inconsequential might just be the message that they, and the state of Oregon, need to get loud and clear.

Incidentally, there has been no word if the reader has received anything back from Kilada. I will update this article if there are any new developments.

Email #1

Email #2

Email #3

Email #4

Email #5

Dropping the Act

...or, The Day the U.S. Government Ended the Facade

This article contains strong language, truth statements,
fact reminders, and uncensored free thought; this is the only
"trigger warning" anyone will get. Reader takes full
responsibility for hurt feelings, wounded pride, umbrage,
mental instability and all other ouchies. Reader agrees NOT
to email complaints, tirades, rants or any other form of
displeasure to the author, as he DOES NOT GIVE A SHIT,
and will likely respond with something that will further
damage warm fuzzy feelings.

I wish that I could say, emphatically and with conviction, that I believe the United States is the best country in the world.


I wish I could state with unequivocating firmness that our form of government is unique and without equal.


I wish that I could sing the praises of a nation that honors truth, justice, and personal responsibility. 


I wish that I could stand unmoving in a debate on why this country is great.


I also truly, genuinely, wish that I could say that I trust all police to do their jobs in accordance with the law; believe all politicians will speak with honesty; and watch every political campaign behave with integrity.


If you do not believe this, then you are more cynical than I used to be.

Before Barrack "I Hate You All" Obama.

Before the Benghazi "Didn't Have To Happen" Slaughter. 

Before Bernie "Socialist Is A Socialist" Sanders.

Before Hillary Clinton was let off the hook live on national television.


It may be hard to believe, but there was a time in this country when politicians were taken to task for their indiscretions, rather than being idolized for inappropriate actions within the Oval Office. There was a time when the words that politicians spoke were held against their own history. There was a time when a politician's actions against the laws of the land meant public disgrace, criminal proceedings, and certain prison time; the only question being whether that politician would get half a sentence, or the maximum allowed by law.

Sadly, this can no longer be said; and I pity the parents whose children watched a grown woman laugh off her treacherous and criminal behavior. "...But why do I have to be grounded? Hillary Clinton gets away with everything!" As ludicrous as that sounds, I can hear it echoing in politically savvy homes.

There are those who have stated that the FBI Director did what he could to preserve democracy in this country. If they had recommended she be charged, then Trump would have been the de facto winner before there was ever a vote, or so this theory states. I say bullshit. Mr. FBI did exactly what the Obama regime and HRC both wanted him to do: Become the object of hatred and spite for millions in the United States while they walk free.


If anyone thinks for a single iota of time that people were fooled into thinking she did nothing wrong, my response would immediately be "what sort of people?" 

I'm sure those sheeple too whipped into subservience to think for themselves believe that. I'm also just as certain that there is the regular idiot who has convinced him or herself that it's true, simply because they want it to be. Of course, there are also those who are generally too stupid to know when they're being taken for a ride; those too foolish to recognize manipulation; those too spaced out to know reality from fantasy; those insufferably arrogant libtards who will be voting with their party lines as quickly as they were snorting lines in the 60s and 70s; and the goosestepping militant feminist that actually thinks that "voting with their vagina" is a sound approach.

Fortunately, all of this has been too much for some sheeple and idiots, and these have begun to develop their own thought patterns. Some space cadets have returned to earth with the announcement, and there are feminists who recognize the sheer cretinism behind a move to vote based upon genitalia. Sadly, stupidity can only be fixed once, and it's generally illegal... Though I'll have to check with the FBI to see if that can be gotten away with also.


I fully expect an uptick of crime and general lawlessness if Benghazi Clinton is elected. Why? Well if the leader of the once "greatest-nation-on-earth" can get away with treason, sabotage, racketeering, insider trading, fraud, embezzlement, slander, perjury, and possibly even murder- Why shouldn't everyone? Moreover, those who up until that point had been law abiding citizens may just begin utilizing civil disobedience, and ultimately resort to more extreme methods in the face of being led by a traitor and a criminal.

I also fully expect to once more hear talk of secession. It would remain at just talk, because with Killary in office, military actions on our own soil would be damn near certainty. Not that she would even need to use the military due to her own private army of ATF, EPA, DHS and IRS agents- Don't be misled, they are now armed to the teeth and possess battlefield grade body armor -Which she could send to simply shut down a State from within. However, I see military being used if a State tried to opt out of the Union, mainly because her little stormtroopers will be too busy terrorizing everyone else who disagrees with her (And we are legion.)


We're being led by a group of individuals who have aged physically but who have never matured enough to behave as adults. We're being led by people who have degrees in many different fields but who cannot even begin to define common sense. The long and short of it is that we're being led by a group of retards- And if you don't like my using that word, perhaps look up the actual definition before attempting to give me shit.

Let me just really bring everything to the table, in the interest of transparency and full disclosure. If you vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are voting for a criminal. Don't give me the FBI line of "choose not to convict." The man spent the first half of the address enumerating her illegalities! A vote for her is a vote for a godless, God damned, cold and heartless bitch who is more worthy than any I have ever known to wear the label of "See You Next Tuesday." 


Oh- Dear limp-wristed, butt-hurt, automaton, social justice whiner type readers? Don't you dare tell me to calm down, take it easy, stop being so hostile, chill my rhetoric, or any of that bullshit that only applies to everyone but yourselves.

I've tiptoed around; I've tried to be civil; I've tried to be decent when it came to this current political climate- But fuck it. If the rule of law means nothing to this bloated and colorless sack of flesh, then frankly folks- I don't give a damn. What should really put the fear of man into this current government, however, is I am only one of millions who feel the same way.

You fail to enforce the law justly? You hide the truth? You cover up wrongdoing? You wink at criminal acts? You allow treason? Fine. Where you won't speak out, we will. Sadly, where you won't act, there are those who will. I hope and pray it never comes to that, and I will certainly condemn any who take the call to action as a call to violence. Nevertheless, I am calling it down the line, as I see it, and there has been enough shit from the federal government in the last year to fuel the rage of the few violently unhinged types for several lifetimes.

The future is far from bright, folks. Now that the government has dropped the facade of being "of the people, by the people and for the people," there is nothing to actually stop them- Except for roughly one hundred and fifty million plus exceedingly pissed off, disgusted and fired up citizens; a powder keg for which only the slightest relative failure, injustice and/or excessive use of power will cause an explosively catastrophic chain of events that history will trace back - To the Obama Regime, and Hillary Rodham Clinton's "get-out-of-jail-free" card.

So no thanks- I won't be ready for Hillary anytime soon. She does not belong anywhere but a prison cell. 

For that matter, I'm not feeling the Bern, nor do I think we can Trump the system. In all honesty, I'm preparing to weather a massive and potentially violent reset of the structure of this country, and I highly recommend doing the same.

Or, you could just vote for the psycho bitch.

Wake Up

I'm sorry, World, Nation, State, Town and Community. I can't tell you how it happened, but I can promise that I'm awake once more.

An alarm clock went off this past week. It wasn't mine, and like most people I hate those pesky and annoying alarms; however, regardless of the fact that I didn't set it and ignoring the fact that I didn't ask for it, the alarm blared away. It frustrated me to no end to have to deal with coming out of a rather decent dream to address the intrusive klaxon, but in the end, that is exactly what I had to do. And to deal with the relentless noise, I had to actually wake up.

It sucks to wake up. I don't get a lot of sleep; heck, I barely get enough sleep. Having to wake up from a dream of barbecues and baseball and family gatherings and church functions was the last thing I wanted to do. Sardonically, it seemed like hell at the time.

I have no problem telling you that I regret feeling that way. I also regret mumbling under my breath the various death threats we all tend to give our alarm clocks. How dare it intrude, why I oughtta... You get the picture. These regrets have rarely come up in the past; I much prefer to live without regret and that requires thinking about my words and actions and how I live today.

I don't get a lot of sleep; heck, I barely get enough sleep. Having to wake up from a dream of barbecues and baseball and family gatherings and church functions was the last thing I wanted to do....it seemed like hell at the time.

Nevertheless, the regrets became reality when I realized what had shocked me out of my pleasant dreams. I didn't realize it at the time, because I was too involved with self-pity to look at the news alert. I didn't hear about it as I got ready for church, because I was too concerned with hair that didn't seem to want to stay in place. No, it wasn't until I was actually in church and the pastor began speaking that I found out what it was that woke me up: 50 people dead in Orlando, Florida. Countless injured. Shooter likely a self-radicalized domestic terrorist. Possible ISIS ties.

I woke up Sunday; I woke up grouchy, cranky and pissed off. and to be honest, it hasn't gone away. I'm not talking about waking up from falling asleep Saturday night, but the fact that I woke up from a dream that had me genuinely fooled into a sense of complacency. It's been over a year since I last wrote, and there was a large gap before that. How did that happen? How did I become so apathetic that the world around me was able to almost literally dip into Hell without me noticing, let alone writing about the problem?

I'm sorry, World, Nation, State, Town and Community. I can't tell you how it happened, but I can promise that I'm awake once more.


There are some out there who have termed the Orlando shooter a coward, a lowlife, a bigot and a thug. I feel that while all of these monikers fit, none go far enough. The sheer loathsome, despicable nature of a mindless, senseless, gullible, malleable, and witless creature such as this boggles the mind and prevents me from assigning him any form, fashion or dignity otherwise granted to humanity.

Is it finally dawning on most of the United States population that regulations and restrictions do not ipso facto make people safer? ...I would like to say yes. ...Unfortunately, because I am awake, I cannot indulge that wish. It isn't true. It isn't fact. It isn't even close to accurate.

There are those out there who claim that this disgusting excuse for a human being was only able to carry out his attack because of loose gun regulations and restrictions. This is complete and total crap. Mateen passed every single stricture and regulatory measure to purchase his weapons. He purchased not only his gun, but his ammo completely in accordance with current law. Is it finally dawning on most of the United States population that regulations and restrictions do not ipso facto make people safer?

I would like to say yes. I would dearly love to make the firm statement that people are beginning to wake up from that little fantasy also. Unfortunately, because I am awake, I cannot indulge that wish. It isn't true. It isn't fact. It isn't even close to accurate.

No, people want more regulations for the parasitic brothers of this pitiful slime to weave  carefully through. They want more restrictions for other biological refuse piles to happily comply with. They actually believe that this will help them, when it actually just helps the scum of the Earth avoid detection longer. Oh- And this erroneous viewpoint is not helped by the spineless, feckless troglodytes in Congressional and Executive office. The next time the Democrats decide to stage a protest for gun control during a moment of silence/prayer, like they did for the victims of the Orlando shooting, I would personally like to volunteer to flog every single one of them. Go watch Mr. Smith Goes To Congress, you idiots, and figure out what you did wrong.


There is an article written by Daniel Hayes that recently hit social media. It is excellent, and it lays out the only solution to this problem of reigning in these mass shootings. I agree with him on a lot, and disagree on one or two points, but I am far more inclined to stand with him on this point than I perhaps ever was.

The notion that every other form of regulation and restriction being tossed around would lead to potential civil war is not merely alarmist claptrap. The majority in this nation do not like their freedom impeded; they do not appreciate their liberties being infringed; and they despise overuse of authority. They will revolt against a government attempting to remove their weapons, for instance. They will rebel against a government attempting to force psych evaluation for firearm ownership. Though still being in all other respects law abiding citizens, measures such as those being talked about would lead to private rebellion, public unrest, and ultimately open conflict when the feds show up to enforce any of these measures.

But Mr. Hayes has it right: The one, and in my view only, measure that will work is immediately banning the sale of high capacity magazines, and restricting AR-15's and similar weapons to magazines of 10 rounds only. I have previously argued against such steps, but I have changed my stance based upon the state of the world around us; if others cannot do the same, they need to wake up.

The notion that every other form of regulation and restriction being tossed around would lead to potential civil war is not merely alarmist claptrap. The majority in this nation do not like their freedom impeded; they do not appreciate their liberties being infringed... This administration doesn't know a good thing from a nightmare...

The Pompous-In-Chief Obama, and his lousy administration, would have us believe that more than this must be done; but their words do not line up with their own actions. This administration has promised (and delivered) weapons, money and training to groups of known terrorists in Africa.  This administration has denied prosecution of such creatures as Joseph Kony and his ilk. Yet, with this and more in their record, they would seek to convince the people that starting down the road to total disarmament is a good thing. This administration doesn't know a good thing from a nightmare, folks.

Here are some facts that the Obama administration is failing to mention when giving out their half-truths and twisted logic.

According to the administration, there are 30,000 gun related deaths in the United States annually. We can all agree that this is far too high a number; and if that was all there was to it, perhaps even I would be singing a different tune. However... When looking at the FBI and CDC statistics that gave them such a high number, things take on much different appearance.

Of those 30,000 deaths, 20,000 were suicides. Suddenly, we've dropped from the 30,000 deaths that the administration infers are the result of homicidal maniacs to 10,000. That is still too high a number; but there's more we are not being told.

About 5,000 of those are within the confines of gang-affiliated violence within the inner city. Another roughly 3,000 are justified shootings; in other words, where law enforcement has had no other choice than to take down a suspect. Only a little over 1,000 of these gun related deaths per year are the result of a maniac with a gun. That means, for those who are paying attention to the numbers, that the average American citizen who is not affiliated with a gang, planning a crime, or contemplating suicide has less than a one hundredth of a percent chance of being shot by a maniac... But apparently, we have a gun violence epidemic in the United States.


Listen- As I said in the beginning, I'm awake. I see where this world is at, and I see the need for change. However, being awake also means seeing what is not going to work. More importantly, it also means everything winds up being put in perspective, such as with the statistics above. If you want gun control measures that will be grudgingly, but largely accepted by the majority of the gun owning population, then limit magazines to 10 rounds. If you want to stop maniacs from doing what happened in Orlando, limit magazines to 10 rounds.

However, if you want to stop maniacs from killing any more than one or two people when they intend to kill far more... There's only one of two things to do. Either get used to disappointment, or loosen restrictions that only law-abiding citizens follow... Such as no-gun-zones for concert halls, theaters and clubs.

Two things are certain since the Orlando shooting: The first is that something must be done, and the only thing that will make any difference at all deals with magazine size; and the second is that if someone in that club actually had a gun legally present, Mateen would have brandished his firearm and gotten only one or two shots off before that legally carrying clubgoer nailed him between the eyes.

If you don't see that, then maybe it's time that you woke up.

Things I've Learned From Blogging

I've been blogging in one form or another since 2001- Perhaps earlier, now that I think about it.  In the time I've spent doing this, I've discovered some interesting facts about myself, blogging in general, and life on the whole.  Considering how long it's been since I last posted consistently, I thought it may be a good idea to write about the lessons I've learned.

Some of these are very recent lessons, and others are not.  I hope that you get a good laugh out of these, and possibly learn something as well.


-Do Not Announce A Series Unless It Is Already Written.

I would like to say that I am always so passionate about what I'm writting that I do not need to write a great deal in advance, but frankly, that is simply not the case.  I've started several series in my time blogging, and in most cases, I've fizzled out.  Much like a fire log, I start out slow, burn brightly, and then for some inexplicable reason...  I go out befire the fire actually starts.  Anyone who has ever used generic fire logs knows exactly what I'm talking about!
SO- This more recent lesson is quite simple: Write the series ahead of time, and then announce it.


-Do Not Write An Opinion Piece Without Supporting Facts.

It is absolutely without question that if one has any sort of readership, opinions will be questioned.  Unless one is an expert on a subject, one MUST ALWAYS have supporting facts at the ready.  Cookie Monster may write a blog on cookies, and no one will question his expertise in the matter- But if he writes about garbage, you know Oscar will come along shortly to question him.
Object Lesson?  I'm not Cookie Monster, so I'd better have my facts straight.  Even if there's a difference of opinion, the facts can concievably support mine.


-Do Not Write An Opinion Piece Without All The Facts.

Never have I been so humiliated than when posting a retraction.  Writing about a news article, current event or similar issue is fine, but make sure that all of the facts have been examined- Or at least all those which are available at the time.  It is not always possible to get every detail, and in these cases, it is best to say something like "at this time," as opposed to "I was wrong on this."
Moral of the story?  Contrary to popular belief, words can hurt you, and most often, those words are in the form of retraction!


-Write About What One Enjoys.

I have attempted to write on several sorts of subjects, and without fail, any piece I start that does not have my full interest falls to the wayside.  This is often because I start thinking "I can do this," and wind up falling asleep- The subject was simply too boring to keep me focused.
So with that said...  Write about what interests you most, and success will most often be yours.


-Make Use Of Search Words And Phrases.

I once wrote a blog about what happens when I deal with insomnia.  In it, I detailed the trouble of getting my brain to quite firing on all cylinders; and how these times of sleeplessness often led to seemingly random thought patterns which wound up being rather profound.  I titled the blog "Random Thought Generator."  That one blog has more views alone than the majority of my other articles combined.  Why?  Because for some reason, when people are searching for "name generator," or something similar, my entry comes up.
Lesson: Use search phrases- but use them wisely.  Stringing them together can get you blacklisted faster than Lady Gaga's meat dress at a vegan convention.


-Write About What You Believe.

I once knew a gentleman who used to state repeatedly that if something was worth believing, it was worth discussing.  This is very true of blogging.  The articles that are written for a blog are, in effect, your half of a conversation.  Written properly, the article will garner attention and comments; written poorly, (say, written about something one does not believe in), will cause the entry to simply sit there, taking up space on the internet.
What to learn from this: Belief changes everything.  Write about what one believes, and watch it become pure gold.  Write about what one does not believe, and watch it wax archaic faster than the term "world wide web."  (Which, ironically, is all that your piece will gather.)


-Be Careful What And Who You Write About.

I once wrote a piece on the political leanings and donations of one Mark Z. while I was on Facebook.  Within a month of that piece, my account was shut down.  I probably spent far too much time on it anyway, so they actually did me a favor.  With that said, however, it really made me realize just how far some folks will go to keep their activities secret and hidden.  Needless to say, I've begun to pay as much attention to the individual's past practices when dealing with opposition as I do the story itself.
The lesson here is simple: Write about a person no one knows, or write a favorable piece on a public figure, and no one will care.  Write a story on what you witnessed the Mob doing last Friday, and be prepared for cement shoes.


I hope that you've enjoyed this little piece as much as I did in writing it.  If you actually made it this far, even more kudos to you!

If you're still reading, allow me to make a suggestion: Go write a blog of your own.  You never know just what may come out of you!