History Calling

Art by Andrew James Unlimited

Hello? Hello? Hello!

Hi! Glad to finally connect with you! So I know we never really met in school, but I saw you an awful lot in passing. Never really saw you in the halls, but sometimes I saw you in the classroom and every now and again I saw you in the library.

I guess I should introduce myself. My name's American History, and I guess the reason I wanted to have a chat with you today is really to kind of clear the air.

You know, there have been a lot of things said about me over the years. A lot of people have been really cruel in the way they've dealt with me, and yeah, I could sing songs about the troubles I've gone through. But I thought that instead of making a big scene, I'd just try and have a conversation with you. Like adults.

The first thing I want you to know is that I don't blame you at all. I was already being done wrong by your teachers long before you grew up. You're not the problem; you're the solution. I'll tell you what I mean in a moment.

You should also know that I'm not in nearly as bad of shape as a lot of people have said. Sure, I've seen my share of bad times, but so has everyone. For example, you've been told that I'm a mess and that I need to get clean. Well truth be told, there's very little about me that isn't pretty straight forward. I don't need to be clean, because the things I've seen were not clean.

Oh! No, I'm not talking about being on drugs! Sorry to have given you that impression. I just mean that facts are facts. What happened in the past can't be changed by reinterpretation, retelling or ignorance. No matter how many times someone tries to change the story, the reality of past events stays the same.

I guess I should tell you that I understand how confused you and a lot of your peers are right now. Your parents are good with celebrating national holidays like Columbus Day and Presidents Day, but you're not sure you can because of issues like slavery and human rights. Your parents are concerned with young politicians wanting socialism in the United States, and all you can see is how bad things are getting around you. I understand that things like socialism and open borders and world peace are appealing. In fact, you and your folks probably argue about it from time to time.

I have to be honest with you about this. Socialism has never worked on a national scale. My family can tell you that first hand. Ask Russian, or Polish, or German. They'll all tell you that every time its been tried, something's gone wrong. The people in power then had to figure out how to fix what went wrong, and sooner or later it became war or oppression. That's not to say there aren't some good things socialism tries to do. The United Kingdom has some socialist elements and they work. Public transportation, for instance. But they can support the programs they have put into place, and not simply because the government printed new money. Does that make sense?

World peace would certainly be nice also. I would love it if I never saw another war. But until that happens, open borders don't make sense because there will always be enemies. They don't disappear simply because you decide there shouldn't be war. The same goes for slavery. What happened prior to the American Civil War was horrific, and that war was even worse. But look around. Slavery didn't disappear, it just became less obvious. There are still slaves, right here in the United States. Why isn't that more important than a politician's haircut?

Look, I'm not trying to argue with you. I just want you to know that these days, you can't really trust what a lot of people are saying. You really do have to look into things for yourself. Search engines and internet encyclopedias are great, but they can't substitute personal research.

Why?

Well, because when you are the one doing the research for yourself, the opinions you draw are formed organically. They grow and change naturally. When you listen to the news, the anchor tells you a story based upon the network's opinion. Online resources are often written from someone else's point of view also. So when you rely on those and don't do any digging of your own, you don't have an opinion of your own. You become a clone of someone else.

I'm not trying to be insulting. I will admit that when it comes right down to it, I really don't have a lot of tact or diplomacy. I've never really had the ability to be concerned with feelings. I don't understand emotions so I don't really understand why there's more value placed on them than on facts. I'm also more of an introvert so I don't generally reach out to people. I figure if they want to know something, they'll ask.

But I can promise you that I'll always tell you the truth. Just keep digging. Keep asking. I've got nothing to gain by leaning to any direction. That's how you're the solution.

So, anyway. I guess that's all for now. I hope we'll meet again.

Killing Children

This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." The bill, sponsored by Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, is intended to provide protection for those infants who, in spite of abortive measures, are born alive. It protects the now born alive infant from further action to terminate its life.

This, the protection of human life, should be without question something which our lawmakers agree on. Regardless of political affiliation. Regardless of what they think of our current President. Regardless of all other views held on foreign policy, immigration, the United States Constitution, traffic laws or whether the sky is pink - Our lawmakers should desire above all else to protect human life. They all say that they do on the campaign trail. They choose to demonstrate that they do in various ways, at least during election cycles.

So with all of this said, I am naturally here to give you the rare "good news" story. The story that happens once or twice a year where politicians put aside their partisan differences for the sake of something that truly matters on a grand scale. I am here to tell you that achieved cloture on the bill, which is a fancy way of saying that they agreed there was nothing to debate and the bill must be voted on.

Ah, as the fictional narrator of a popular children's series might say, how I wish I could tell you that this is exactly what happened. How I wish I could write that the sun shone bright on the United States Senate, as it were, and that the Senators joined hands across the aisles to stand as one. I would like nothing more, in fact, to pen a sonnet about the day when a human being's right to live after drawing air for the first time was codified and made law. Perhaps one day I will do just that, but alas, today is not that day.

I cannot write these things, for at 5:42 yesterday evening, as the sun set on the Eastern seaboard of the United States of America, it set also on the hopes and dreams and battles of any newborn survivors of abortion attempts. And as the sun set on these things, so too did it set on these very lives; lives of infants who, against all odds and circumstance and technology and oppression, had fought hard enough to take that first breath... Only to have it stolen. The ember of their lives quenched without mercy or care or concern or goodness or any other human decency.

The human race, at least that which calls the United States home, denied the very promise of the nation that it so hypocritically fights for on the part of any other human. If the human is a rapist, they deserve mercy. If the human is a trafficker, they deserve leniency. If the human is a murderer, they still deserve their life.

But if the human is mere seconds old; if the human has drawn its first or perhaps its second breath; if that human has survived a saline wash, or an acid bath, or a toxic shock, or a drug overdose, or repeated stabbings, or anything else of that sort; survived these things and fought through to come into the land of the living? Well, that human is not worthy of being called a human. Apparently. Born innocent, that human is still guilty of the most heinous of crimes: Inconveniencing a society set on that humans death.

I am not being alarmist. I am not exaggerating facts, nor am I conflating any issues. I fully understand that there are women out there who are faced with horrors that should never be wished upon a human being. I realize that there are consequences for these horrors, and that one of those is pregnancy. I do not suggest that a woman in such a position be not only forced to carry such a pregnancy to term but also care for that child as well. My personal beliefs are not a part of this article, and to the best of my abilities I am trying to remain as civil as possible. I am also attempting to remain as non-judgmental as possible. If it strikes you differently, dear reader, I beg your forgiveness.

To that end, I have called several hospitals around the nation. Seventy-eight, to be exact. I have called them to inquire about specific policy completely unrelated to the abortion issue. Only six returned my calls or deigned to speak to me, and all requested anonymity. From this small sampling, I can say that at least with these hospitals, the policy for an unwanted live birth is to turn that child over for care by the state or by private organizations. In all cases, the mother's name is left off of the public record, and in many cases she is given a pseudonym. The mother need not be concerned with being tracked down in later years to be asked uncomfortable questions.

Yet it seems that many people are under the impression that a woman who chooses not to have an abortion; or a woman who has had a failed abortion; will be forced to care for the child. It seems that the going understanding is that she will be made, whether by coercion or some other means, to raise it and be reminded every hour of every day of a failing or of a horror.

This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." One Senator who voted against this bill decried its language as impeding a woman's right to choose. Please read the text. There is no such language.

Another Senator who voted against human life stated that it would send women to prison for exercising their rights to choose. This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." There is no such language; in fact, steps were taken within it to assure the exact opposite.

Still another Senator suggested that it would completely reverse the right for women to obtain an abortion. There is no such language. This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." Read it for yourself, and tell me if I am wrong.

I have said before that I don't care for the way in which our current President speaks. He is brash. He is rash. He is impulsive and contrary and seemingly set on making enemies wherever he goes. He was also one hundred percent right on this observation, and I leave it with you as an apt summary of my feelings on the injustice which every Democrat hoping for the presidency embarked upon last night.

Considering Erick Erickson's Reconsideration

AUTHOR'S NOTE: After having published this article, a friend was observant enough to draw my attention to a few issues. I have edited these changes in, but for the sake of being able to see how it may have read prior to those changes; and thus why said changes absolutely had to be made; they will be made in this type. Thanks again to all who have read and responded, and by all means, keep it coming!

Recently a good friend shared an article via social media written by one Erick Erickson. It is a good article, and it is worthwhile reading as I agreed with many of the points and issues he brings up. However, I also found it necessary to take issue with some of what he said.

Below are those which I take issue with and my reasons as for why. I have also included a few of the points I agree with for the sake of balance.

"I believe the founders of this country recognized individual liberty as negative liberty." ~ Erick Erickson

Individual liberty IS what the Constitution has laid out; it is NOT what has been lately defined. Individual liberty is the individual being free (reasonably) free of government restriction, invasion and micro-rule. I interject "reasonably" because there is a need for law- Just not on the level that we see today. There is a need for enough stricture to convict criminals and safeguard life and liberty; what we have now is too much stricture, meant to protect wealthy and elite criminals and rob the average citizen of precisely what law is meant to protect.

Mr. Erickson goes on to clarify what he means by this statement, writing the following:

"It was not what individuals could do if government helped them that made this country great. Rather, it was what individuals could do if government left them alone."

It is strange to me that in an article which begins by examining compromise, the author seems to compromise on the language and tone of the article. Just my personal take on how this section's communication was constructed; you get it free of charge.

What I believe Mr. Erickson may have originally been going for is that the founders of this country recognized government mandated liberty as negative liberty; that is certainly what was going on in the British Empire under King George, and precisely what said king was attempting to accomplish within the American Colonies. I firmly believe in clear communication, but I also believe in factual communication. Even when factual communication requires more writing, it is far better to be accurate than to propagate a false dichotomy, pretense or idea.

"I am under no delusions. With Clinton as President, the church in this country will be in for a difficult time, besieged from the outside. The forces of Mordor will be fully on the march." ~Erick Erickson

First, let me just award 100 points to Mr. Erickson for the Lord of the Rings reference. Well done sir, and a terrific analogy. I do not disagree with this statement, but I do believe that it does not go far enough. The problem with this statement is that Mr. Erickson seems to believe that the church would only be besieged from without, yet due to Ms. Clinton's self-affiliation with the Methodist Church, there is grave danger of Christianity being besieged from within.

On August 8, 2016, Snopes published a fact checking article debunking a rumor that Ms. Clinton stated Christians must deny their faith in a speech to the Women in the World Summit in New York City. Yet, though Snopes was correct in debunking this as a direct quote, the fact remains that Hillary Clinton did in fact suggest that traditional Christian values, morals and ethical codes of conduct must be changed to fit the world today. The pertinent quote is below, and I have taken pains not to emphasize or leave out any aspect of this statement:

"Yes, we've nearly closed the global gender gap in primary school, but secondary school remains out of reach for so many girls around the world. Yes, we've increased the number of countries prohibiting domestic violence, but still more than half the nations in the world have no such laws on the books, and an estimated one in three women still experience violence. Yes, we've cut the mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth.
"All the laws we've passed don't count for much if they're not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.
"As I have said, and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the twenty-first century, and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States." ~Hillary Clinton 

Please note that though the forum of this speech implied global context, she finishes this quote by saying "and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States." Note also what she believes must be done to ensure the closure of gender gaps, the end of domestic violence, mortality rates and proper reproductive health care: "Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

Snopes and other political fact checking sites can dismiss this as not being a direct attack on Christianity because from an outside viewpoint, it is not such an attack. From an outsider's vantage point, this is an observation on the state of women's rights and what must be done to achieve equality. Furthermore, liberals of all stripes can argue that this is not an attack because their worldview would have them believe that Jesus Himself would be at the forefront of this movement; indeed, I have heard liberal Christians make this very argument.

However, conservative Christians view this as an attack because of the very sections of the quote I point out: The call for cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases to change "not just in far away countries but... in the United States." Liberals and fact checking sites do not understand how and why this constitutes an attack, but those of us who recognize that the Scripture does not change to fit societal demands also recognize this as a call to delegitimize the Bible itself. This, readers, is the very definition of an attack on genuine Christianity.

Now why would I bring up the Methodist Church as being something of note when examining Ms. Clinton's impact upon Christianity?

During her time as First Lady, Ms. Clinton attended Foundry United Methodist Church, a body which in their own words rejects aspects of the United Methodist Church's Book of Discipline: Specifically when it comes to views on homosexuality. The Methodist Church she is currently listed as being a congregant with is also reported as being "liberal, forward-moving and freethinking." I will add a caveat here: As that church's website is nothing more than a blank page as of this writing, I cannot verify the statement- Take with a grain of salt.

The church in which she spent much of her adult life in Arkansas would also be described as liberal; for example, it supports interfaith meetings claiming "we are more alike than different." Finally, the church in which she spent much of her earlier life also embraces homosexuality in opposition to the UMC's Book of Discipline.

Finally, in an address to the United Methodist Women's Assembly in Louisville, Kentucky, Ms. Clinton stated that her love of the UMC is due in part to its promotion of "social gospel." So what is this "social gospel?" Social gospel in a traditional sense was a movement to awaken the Church to the plight of the destitute, the widows and orphans and others to whom the Lord Jesus showed deference and kindness. Today, the original meaning of the phrase has been co-opted to include gay rights, reproductive rights, and other such things that the Bible specifically speaks to as sin, iniquity and abomination. It is this form of social gospel that Ms. Clinton supports, evidenced by her own actions, deeds and stated agenda. (You can read more about social gospel here.)

This is why I believe that Mr. Erickson is remiss in his assessment of Ms. Clinton's total impact upon the Christian Church within the United States.

"...I see the election of Hillary Clinton as the antithesis of all my values and ideas on what fosters sound civil society in this country. Further, she should be in jail." ~Erick Erickson

I heartily agree with this statement, and would reference anyone who wishes to argue the point to simply look at every documented instance of her lies, misrepresentations, and outright attempts at deception. They are many, they are evident, and they are very much accessible to anyone with the ability to access Google.

I urge everyone to keep this one, vital fact in mind regardless of their faith: Ms. Clinton is a pathological liar, and voting for her is very much an ethical crime for all but the most ethically and morally corrupt.

"A Clinton Administration may see the church besieged from the outside, but a Trump Administration will see the church poisoned from within. ...I do recall God choosing Abraham, Samson, and David and all of them repenting of their sins. That repentance stands in studied contrast to Donald Trump who has three times said he never had to ask for forgiveness and only recently said his advance of the church, if he is elected, might be the only thing that gets him into Heaven." ~Erick Erickson (emphasis E.E.)

I understand where Mr. Erickson is coming from on this point. It is a terrible choice being offered those who do not feel that a third party candidate has any chance to attain the White House. In fact, those who do vote third party are likely to do so in full knowledge that if either of the two major candidates succeed, they will be blamed by family and friends. This is not an enviable position for any of us to be in, nor is it one that any of us would willing choose if we felt that we did indeed have a choice.

With this being said, it is a flawed example that is being used here in my estimation; both for and against. While Mr. Erickson does an excellent job of showing why such arguments for Mr. Trump are flawed, he fails to see why his argument using the same examples is equally invalid.

Mr. Erickson seems to forget that while these men did indeed seek forgiveness and repent, they continued sinning. While I am not suggesting that he intended to suggest that the examples were perfect upon seeking forgiveness, I find it frustrating that so many, not just Mr. Erickson, turn to such biblical examples as to why or why we should not support a specific candidate.

Abraham was the father of a nation, and yet his sins continued until the day he died. Sampson was a judge of Israel, yet his sins not only caused his downfall but also brought on his death; the consequences of his sin were felt even as the pillars toppled, in spite of his repentance. David was a king of Israel, and yet his sins so stained his entire life that God refused to allow him to build the temple.

I would remind Mr. Erickson, and all who would utilize such examples, that we do not live in a Theocracy, as did Israel during the time of the Judges. We do not live in a Monarchy, as Israel was during David. We live in a nation originally conceived as a Democratic Republic; a nation wherein the popular vote elected officials, while the Constitution ruled the land.
It is not in error that Mr. Erickson later states:

"And, in truth, I... have concluded we are already past the point of redemption... The seriousness and virtue of the voter is in the grave already and my Christian brethren for Trump yearn for an idolized past that never existed in a future that is not theirs, but God’s, to shape." ~Erick Erickson

I have stated this many times, and I will continue to make this statement: This nation only came into existence through the concerted efforts of Christians, Deists, and Atheists who worked in unison to birth a nation wherein freedoms unseen in much of the world existed without the government's approval. Today, we live in a nation wherein the government is slowly removing those freedoms; so it was in the early 1800's, when the Danbury Baptist Association wrote to the newly elected Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, of their concerns regarding religious freedom and the agendas of those within the government he now led.
Jefferson, a man who denied the deity of Christ; the possibility of divine power on display through the Holy Spirit; and stated that he viewed much of the Bible as little more than folklore; also reassured the DBA and history shows that he worked to ensure religious freedom in his presidency. Indeed, it was during his tenure that many Supreme Court decisions were made which are still referenced today. Many of the protections that local churches enjoy today are the direct result of Jefferson and his peers; yet he was a man of sin, of vile wickedness, and of questionable moral and ethical character.

In short, I do not agree that Mr. Trump is poisoning the Church from within based upon the examples given by Mr. Erickson, though his observations do serve as a warning to all Christians to keep their eyes upon the Lord. These same arguments were made for and against President Obama; for and against Bill Clinton; for and against George W. Bush; and on back. They are arguments that are old, tired and worn out, simply given new life for yet another election cycle. I am not suggesting apathy, by any means; rather I am simply pointing out fact. To reiterate, I believe that the points which Mr. Erickson brings up are worthy warnings to the Church.

So, my question then is why people believe that the whole of the choice becomes this: Do we vote for a candidate that will uphold the law of the land and seek to rein back the federal government's encroachment? Or do we vote for a candidate that will expand the government's reach, strengthen its grip, and further reduce the sum total of freedoms?

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Erickson when he writes:

"Christians looking for a strong man to protect the church instead of the strongest man who conquered death is a terrible thing to see. ...They seemingly argue that if the nation falls, the church falls and for the church to rise the country must rise. But Christ has already risen so the true church is in no danger of falling." ~Erick Erickson

With that agreement being voiced, I wish to point out to him and all who agree with him: If this statement is true, neither candidate poses a threat to the Church. If you, dear reader, hold this statement to be true, then you have no reason to fear either candidate. I personally hold this statement to be true and thus fear no candidate; instead, all I attempt to do in my writing is to shine a light on the practical effects of each candidate's agenda.

"Scripture tells me (and you) that believers should have nothing to do with any person who holds himself out as a Christian and is unrepentant." ~Erick Erickson

It Scripture does tell us that we are to shun an unrepentant believer (2 Thessalonians 3:6) and 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 tells us to avoid the company of one named a brother. This last passage also tells us that we are not to operate the same way with those outside of the Church, because God judges them Himself. So if Scripture tells us this, as Mr. Erickson correctly states, then how are some people still supporting Mr. Trump while also claiming Christianity?

They do so in much the same way that others claiming to be Christian support Ms. Clinton: They find loopholes. In the case of Ms. Clinton, I can find no justifiable loophole. In the case of Mr. Trump, I can find only one justifiable; and even that is a stretch. Yet this loophole is one which I have heard referenced time and again. (Allow me to reiterate for clarity: I do not support the idea of loopholes. This is an argument which I have heard many times before, and in which I find an understandable plausibility for Christians who support Mr. Trump. However, I do not subscribe to the notion.)

The basic premise of the "Trump Loophole" is that the context of this passage from 1 Corinthians is for those who have been upstanding members of the Body of Christ who have fallen into unrepentant iniquity. If Mr. Trump had been such a person, then Mr. Erickson would have a valid point; yet if the "Trump Loophole" is accurate, then Mr. Erickson has invalidated his own argument by previously suggesting that Mr. Trump has never been such a person.

One might ask at this point if I am arguing for or against Mr. Trump; I am doing neither, as I do not believe him to be any better or worse for this country and the Church than his opponent. Their impact upon both would simply take different forms.

"All Christendom should be ashamed we are putting our needs in this temporary place ahead of saving a soul bound for eternity." ~Erick Erickson

This is perhaps the most accurate statement ever made for this election cycle, and yet it is applied in the strangest manner: It is directed as supporters of but one candidate, when supporters of both are as worthy of this criticism.

"God did not tell the Jews to throw open the gates of Jerusalemn (sic) for Nebuchadnezzar. God did that himself." ~Erick Erickson

Yes he did, Mr. Erickson. It's found in Jeremiah 38:17, and before anyone says that God did not specifically state that Jerusalem should open its gates, first one must know what surrender at that time entailed. A rather brief time of research will reveal that in order to surrender, King Zedekiah would first need to send a messenger, then open the gates of the city, receive the Babylonian envoy, and hand over his crown before the people. So yes, God did in fact tell them to open the gates to Nebuchadnezzar.

I am not saying this to pick at the man, but as Mr. Erickson has stated, "This is the inerrant word of God..." If one makes a statement based upon the Word of God, then it must be accurate. (Some have suggested that this is nothing more than a distraction and a low-blow; comments from two different sources. I do not believe it is. I believe that an article calling out misrepresentation of Christianity and the Word of God should in no way misrepresent the Bible itself- That is why I correct the Jerusalem argument. If I were simply being petty I would have gleefully pointed out another mistake; which I did not do then, and will not do now.)


The final word I have on this matter is well said by Mr. Erickson, and I believe it is a fitting end to this article. Bearing in mind that I believe all Christians must do as the Holy Spirit leads:

"If God wants Trump in the White House, he does not need my vote or a violation of my conscience to get Trump there."

As always, I welcome your thoughts, comments and questions. Feel free to share this across social media also. God bless!


AUTHOR'S NOTE:
Some have requested that I distill my opinion for easier consumption. They pointed out that when they initially read this, they were coming off of a double shift and coming out of a three day bout with insomnia, respectively. So for the sake of tired minds and bodies everywhere, it all seems to boil down to this for me personally.

Mr.Trump is not a Christian, no more than is President Obama. Thus, in my view he cannot be held to the same standards. With that being said, everything said in Mr. Erickson's article for why Mr. Trump should not be supported actually applies more aptly to Ms. Clinton; I am not saying that because I dislike her, but because she is a professing Christian; has attended a local body of believers her entire life; and supports these individual churches financially. She should not be supported for the reasons in this article; Mr. Trump should not be supported for the simple fact that he is a textbook functional sociopath. 

For me personally, it truly is a moral and ethical issue; it seems that my reasons and logic are simply different from those of others. Hillary Clinton is a "No Vote" because of every reason in Mr. Erickson's article. Mr. Trump is a "No Vote" because he embodies everything the Lord hates. Trampling the poor and the widow, despising the orphan- Just a few examples of this. 

So what is the choice? Many states allow a write-in, and I personally may utilize that option for my preferred candidate. Others have third-party candidates on ballot; perhaps I will place a vote for one of these. Regardless of what I personally will do, I urge all who read this to vote- Simply do so in such a way that does not violate conscience or the leading of the Holy Spirit.

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.

Grand Jury Reform

Grand Jury Reform: Basics

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015, Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson introduced to Congress the Grand Jury Reform Act. Citing the cases of Eric Garner and Michael Brown among others, Johnson declared that it was apparent that the criminal justice system was broken. He stated that the American people have lost faith in the courts, and pinpointed the Grand Jury process as the reason. His exact words are below:

"People demand an end to what is perceived as unequal justice, and that those who are responsible for the use of excessive force be brought to justice. They do not trust a secret grand jury system that is so clearly broken. My bill will help restore that trust.  No longer will communities have to rely on the secret and biased grand jury process."

The issue at the heart of this action is one which nearly everyone across the nation (and yes, even around the world) have voiced an opinion on: The use of excessive force by overzealous, or overworked, police officers. It is most certainly a major issue that must be addressed, but the question remains "Is this the right approach?"

Grand Jury Reform: The Writer 

Forget that Johnson is the same character who was concerned over Guam capsizing; the issue here is very much real, and very much something that needs to be examined. He's not wrong about the need to look at the Grand Jury system, but he very well may be missing the larger picture. We're not imagining a world without balloons- We're attempting to imagine a world wherein a police officer that uses excessive force is removed from duty; investigated thoroughly by an independent prosecutor; brought up on whatever charges are fitting and appropriate; indicted by a Grand Jury; and tried before a judge and a jury of his or her peers. That is what many of us are seeking... At the very least, what many of us are hoping for, even if we do not have the courage to publicly support such a measure.

There are those who dismiss Congressman Hank Johnson far too quickly. Because he has a unique voice; because of his concern about Guam tipping over; because he wanted us to imagine a world without balloons; and even because he is a Democrat from Georgia. There is a broad assortment of reasons to dismiss him, if one wishes to get petty and foolish. The truth of the matter, however, is that he remains the 18th most effective Representative on Capitol Hill. He may not be the greatest mover and shaker in Congress, but he is by far the least worthy of dismissal.

The largest concern that this writer can see when it comes to the current offering by Rep. Johnson is this: It doesn't go far enough. Given where Johnson is from, I can understand that he would immediate gravitate towards the "...unjustified killings of ...countless... African-American men and boys..." However, there are far more examples of police using excessive force than those that cross ethnic lines; moreover, in this writer's opinion, such reform should not be done in the name of ethnicity, but rather justice for all.

Grand Jury Reform: Ineffective

Let us for a moment consider the possibilities should Congressman Hank Johnson's measure become law. Yes, there would be a special prosecutor appointed by the Governor of the state in which the killing took place. Yes, all initial proceedings would be open to the public where they had been closed in the past. Finally, yes, all of this would put the onus on those within the Grand Jury to return a fair indictment. However...
The measure leaves judges completely untouched. In fact, whether any of this actually happens is entirely dependent upon the presiding judge. This doesn't make it harder for a corrupt brotherhood of cops to get their cohort off with a stern look, it makes it that much easier. Bully the prosecutor, grease the judge, and possibly buy off the Grand Jury- That is the system now. But under this measure, all that would be needed was an understanding with a a willing judge.

The measure also specifically credits cases that have a potent and toxic cross ethnic scenario. I'm sure nearly everyone reading this will remember some of the following names: Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Oscar Grant, Nate Sanders, Timothy Russell, Malissa Williams, Kendrec McDade, Kenneth Harding and Stanley Gibson. Cases like these are the ones mentioned by Johnson as being reasons for this reform. However, Johnson clearly forgot more than a few, far more recent incidents:

• John T. Williams, a Nitinaht wood carver with partial hearing loss and cognitive disabilities. Crossing the road one night with a carving knife in one hand and a piece of wood in the other, he was gunned down after failing to respond to police officers. 
• Officer James Davies, a Lakewood police officer investigating a disturbance. In the course of his investigation, Davies was shot and killed by fellow officer Devaney Braley.
• John Loxas, a 50-year-old grandfather from Arizona who was babysitting his 9-month-old grandson. After an ill-advised run-in with a neighbor, police responded to Loxas' home with the purpose of investigating his neighbor's claim. He answered the door with a black object in one hand and his grandson in the other, and was promptly shot in the head with a rifle by Officer James Peters from a distance of six yards.
• James Boyd, a 36-year-old homeless man camping in the foothills of Albuquerque, New Mexico. After being reported to police as being mentally ill and homeless, Boyd was approached by a group of armed officers accompanied by a police dog. After talking for a short time, Boyd proceeded to pick up his bag appearing to decide to move on- He was then shot three times in the back and arm, shot several more times with beanbag rounds after collapsing on the ground, assaulted by the police dog, and finally handcuffed. He died the next day as a result of his injuries.
• Mary Hawks, a troubled 19-year-old suspected of car jacking. After an on foot chase, officers say she turned on the pursuing police officers with a handgun, and was subsequently shot. Witnesses say there was no shouting, no verbal orders; just silence and sounds of running, followed by gunshots.
• Christopher Torres, a 27-year-old schizophrenic from Albuquerque, New Mexico. He was badly beat before being shot to death in his own backyard in 2011. While the first detective involved claims they were serving a warrant and that Torres started the conflict, the second detective stated that there was no attempt to serve a warrant, nor was there an attempt to use the appointed intermediary.

None of the above cases involve men or women of the African-American persuasion, and none of them are referenced. For there to be genuine reform, there must be equal cause. That equality of cause exists, but it is not getting the attention it needs.

Grand Jury Reform: What True Reform Looks Like

While Congressman Hank Johnson seems to feel that it is strictly the Grand Jury portion of the criminal justice system that needs overhaul, it is the entire system that needs to be reformed. These reforms would touch on not only the jury selection and process, but every other aspect as well. Were I able to suggest a bill for the Congressman to champion, it would touch on these points:

Law. The basic foundation of the legal system needs to be addressed first and foremost. There are multiple laws that cover the same infractions, yet due to their slightly different wording, a person charged under these laws could either escape due to multiple loopholes, or be damned beyond hope due to the lack of ability to prove innocence. Rather than creating new laws to address new aspects, old laws should be amended. The system should not require the sheer volume of work it takes simply to interpret the law before being applied.

Consequence. The required punishments of law should be clearly stated, with a specified range of degree to allow for judge applied leniency if any is justified. One highly controversial example is that of convicted sex offenders. A person convicted of indecent public exposure is placed on the same list as the serial rapist, and as a result, is treated by law enforcement and the general public in the same manner. If someone who is brought up on criminal charges for relieving him or herself in a less than secluded spot must be placed on some sort of registry, it should not be the same one as that person convicted of rape. People must be given a chance commensurate with the level of their crime to live life and hopefully move beyond their crime. The consequence of their actions must be dealt, but that consequence cannot prevent them from living a full life where such is possible.

Enforcement. Once the law is simplified and clarified, the enforcement of that law must then be very concisely executed. Peace officers are such in name only throughout the country, be they genuinely upholding the current system or criminals themselves. Obviously, this needs to change. Officers themselves must undergo strenuous training, but under the oversight of an independent committee tasked with the sole purpose of verifying that all courses are up to standard, and that all graduates have met or exceeded those standards. As a secondary aspect of Law Enforcement Reform, all unions must either be entirely dissolved, or severely limited in power. This writer would rather see an independent council for Law Enforcement rights than a union that is constantly and consistently finding itself involved with defending members and brutalizing citizens speaking against corruption. Too much financial capital is spent on the growth and well-being of the union itself, and too little goes to caring for the officers themselves.

Judicial. From the Supreme Court of the United States down to the municipal courts, there must be a complete shake-up. First, there must be term limits imposed upon all judicial positions, whether appointed or elected. Secondly, all prospective judges must show evidence of education in the law which they intend to interpret, as well as a complete lack of activism for a period no shorter than fifteen years. Thirdly, all decisions issued from the bench must quote from the law in question, except in criminal trials, where the law or laws broken must be referenced. Where decisions are issued from the bench of the Supreme Court, all must reference the law in question, and how the decision applies to the Constitution of the United States; should the Constitution have no bearing on the case, the Supreme Court must then adhere to the Constitution and send the case back to the state for review and decision. No court may decline from ruling except where such a ruling would result in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Finally, the use of case law shall not, in no wise, replace the reference of legislated law; nor shall case law ever be given in place of constitutional reference.

Prosecution. No prosecutor should ever be involved with a case wherein even the slightest possibility of conflict of interest rests. In all cases, where such peril resides, an independent prosecutor must always be called upon. In cases involving government officials, law enforcement officers, and other public servants, an independent prosecutor must always be appointed.

Jury. All potential jury members must be peers only in general age. None should be disregarded for lack of affluence, gender, or ethnicity. Any sharing criminal record similarities would be prevented from selection. All selections would be reviewed by an independent panel prior to final placement.

Grand Jury Reform: Final Thoughts

Congressman Hank Johnson is also passing around a petition in addition to his proposed bill that calls upon Congress to pass the measure. It says in part:

"...the secretive grand jury process will be manipulated by prosecutors to protect and favor the police officers who they work closely with every day. As a result, the public has lost confidence in the criminal justice system. This loss of confidence erodes public respect for the rule of law, and undermines public trust for the integrity of our judicial system."

In truth, it is the total package; the entire system itself; that has caused the American public to lose confidence in its ability to properly address breaches of law. Thus, the whole system must be reformed- It is far from an easy thing, but it is the only thing that will actually work.

The system is broken, but let us not forget that the brokenness of the system, or lack thereof, does not excuse anyone of their duty as citizens. In other words, no court decision is justifiable cause to punish your neighbors, your fellow residents, or your merchants. Rioting accomplishes nothing; it garners attention, but only negativity rises from such scrutiny. Nor does a broken system justify verbal or physical assaults on police. I firmly believe that those police who do their jobs as decently and humbly as possible deserve our praise and support- They are the reason this system of justice has held up for so long.

In closing, if the esteemed Congressman Hank Johnson is reading this at any time; or if any of our duly elected leaders see this post; allow me just to say: Reform! Reform! Reform! ...But do so with wisdom, intelligence and humility. Address the whole problem, not just a part. Block all possible loopholes, not just a few. Reform to benefit the citizens of this nation, not yourselves.

Do this, Congressman Hank Johnson, and the system will find new life, and greater trust.

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!