Tuesday, August 15, 2017

More Statues To Be Removed? Where Does It End?

John Breckinridge Castleman is an unfamiliar name to most. I certainly didn't know the name when it was brought to my attention this morning.

John Castleman was a soldier from Lexington, Kentucky. He studied law at Transylvania University in Lexington before joining the Army of the Confederacy when the Civil War broke out. He achieved the rank of Major during the war. Castleman was arrested in Missouri for attempting to destroy supply boats and was sentenced to death. He was pardoned by Abraham Lincoln.

Following the war Castleman was exiled from the United States and spent time in France studying medicine. He was pardoned by then President Andrew Johnson and returned to Kentucky in 1866 where he revived his old army unit and commanded the new First Kentucky Volunteers unit, fighting for the United States of America in the Spanish-American war. He was promoted to Colonel during that time.

Castleman was part of the invasion of Puerto Rico and after the war ended he was promoted to Brigadier General. He served as one of the military governors in Puerto Rico before returning to Kentucky, where he became the Adjutant General of Kentucky and served 25 years as the Commissioner of the Board of Parks.

John Breckenridge Castleman is becoming more well known in Kentucky these days, particularly in the citiy of Louisville. Activists in Louisville want a statue of Castleman on public to be removed because he fought for the South.

Apparently returning to the United States after exile and serving these great United States in the Spanish-American war isn't enough to forgive Castleman's transgression of being a Confederate for a few years. In my book his service to the United States should outweigh his service to the Confederacy. He put himself in harm's way for the United States.

Some Americans in 2017 can't find it in their hearts to care about his service to the United States. The Castleman statue in Louisville was vandalized over the weekend and activists are demanding it be removed.

In Lexington, Kentucky, there is a statue of John Castleman's distant cousin, John Cabell Breckenridge, who was the 14th and youngest Vice President of the United States from 1857 to 1861, when the Civil War began. He encouraged his fellow Southern politicians to maintain the union but when that failed to happen he went home to Kentucky to fight for the Confederacy.

Following the war Breckenridge had to flee the country. He returned to Kentucky after President Andrew Johnson granted amnesty to all Confederate soldiers. Yes, he was a Confederate. But removing his statue from it's current resting place is not going to change history.

The assault on historic monuments continues. In Durham, North Carolina yesterday citizens pulled down a bronze statue of a Confederate soldier and destroyed it. The bronze statue became misshapen on impact with the ground and the protesters began kicking it. (Watching them kick it was actually rather humorous. I would bet more than a couple of them are limping today.)

The statue was entitled “Remembering The Boys Who Wore Gray.” It wasn't an officer. It was a foot soldier put there in memory of all of America's Southern sons who were lost in the war. Now it's trash and I hope the people responsible for destroying it face criminal charges. It wasn't their place to destroy it.

Barack Obama promised to “fundamentally change America.” And in many ways he kept his promise. The entitlement generation who believe they have an absolute right not to be offended by anyone or anything is mostly a product of the last 8 years.

Safe spaces, hot chocolate, coloring books and puppies for college kids heartbroken over the election might comfort them today but it's not going to teach them how to survive in the real world. Ripping down statues because you don't like them is stupid. And I would bet very few of them know anything about the Civil War. I doubt they teach the truth about it anymore.

I'm curious and a little frightened to see where all of this ends. Who knows how far people are willing to go to correct their perceived wrong...?

Monday, August 14, 2017

Confederate Statues... Let The People Decide

Here is my idea for a solution to the removal of Confederate statues from public view in these United States. This will be short.
Rather than a mayor, a governor, a city council or whoever making the decision to remove a statue, why not put it to the people of the community for a vote? Remove or not remove; let the majority rule. Ensure all voters are legal residents of the community (I know, I know.... that's racist and hateful) so outsiders do not get a voice. We saw in Charlottesville what happens when outsiders crash the party.
A simple vote. If the majority of the citizens say leave the statues alone then leave the statues alone. If the majority says they want the statues gone - so be it. I'd be fine with that because it's fair to all.
Richmond, Virginia, was the capitol of the Confederate States of America. Accordingly, there are four statues of famous Confederate leaders on what is called Monument Avenue. The statues include Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, Robert E. Lee, commanding General of the Confederate Army, General Andrew "Stonewall" Jackson, and General J.E.B. Stuart. These men were a huge part of the Confederacy and having their statues in Richmond is fitting and proper in my book. They were an integral part of the history of Richmond and the South.
There are people talking now who want to remove these statues. Where does it end?
History should not be removed from public view simply because some people don't like that history. The saying "Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" doesn't quite apply in this case. I'm pretty sure we won't have to worry about the slavery of black Americans returning to the United States. (Sex slavery seems to be alive and well, however.) But let the people decide the issue.
We live in a Constitutional Republic rather than a Democracy. That means that our rights are protected by the Constitution and cannot be taken away by a majority, as is the case in a Democracy. But this issue could be settled by a majority vote. Let common sense prevail rather than emotion. Decisions made on emotion don't always work out well. Let the people decide.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

White Nationalist vs BLM... Are They The Same?

I have been thinking about what I was going to say about white nationalist rally today in Charlottesville, Virginia. They wanted to call their final event "Unite the Right" but I can tell you that their version of the right is a far cry from mine. My version of the right doesn't hate people for their political views, their lifestyle, their race or skin color, their religion, or any of the other things that cause people to hate each other. We may disagree with you on things but hatred is not involved, regardless of what some may say.
Those marching in the white nationalist parade (if that's what it was) were showing their ignorance and hatred of people of color. That's just a fact. They're the first to decry the Black Lives Matter movement yet their marches are no different, except BLM often spews hatred of police as well as disdain for whites in general.
Now one person is dead and a couple dozen more are injured and we don't know which side caused it. Was it the white nationalists - many of whom showed up in camouflage carrying their AR-15s, as if that somehow made them impressive? Or was it a member of Antifa - the far left radical group that shows up to attack people in packs then runs away?
It's amazing to me that in 2017, civil discourse is worse than it was in the 60s. Hatred abounds in these United States and at least part of it began with the prior administration's failure to properly address hatred, racism and the consequences of each. Being the first African-American President, Barack Obama was the perfect person in the perfect position to address these issues and bring people together. I believe that's one of the reasons so many white Americans voted for him. They believed he could do what no other President could do for race relations. He failed miserably.
Instead of being the Great Uniter, President Obama began his first term by dividing Americans over an incident involving someone he knew, saying that even though he didn't have all the facts of the Professor Gates incident, "the police acted stupidly." It was absolutely the wrong thing to say.
He tried to make up for it with the infamous "beer summit" at the White House but the first blow had been struck. The Trayvon Martin incident didn't help him much after he said "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon." Once again he didn't have all the facts but waded into the controversy anyway. George Zimmerman, stupid as he was, was found not guilty of murder because he was defending himself - even after Attorney General Eric Holder opened a hot line for people to call and give him any information that might incriminate Zimmerman.
Fast forward to Ferguson, Missouri, where President Obama sent Holder with a group of FBI agents to find a reason to prosecute Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting of Michael Brown. As it turned out, Brown more than earned his fate after physically assaulting Officer Wilson and trying to take his gun, then charging him in a last ditch effort to subdue him. Brown died because he assaulted a police officer. President Obama not only sent Holder but sent a three person delegation to his funeral - even though Brown was proved to be the aggressor and responsible for his own demise.
Things like this divided the country along racial lines. President Obama, the one who could have changed everything for the better, changed them for the worse because of his statements and actions. He even met with the Black Lives Matter organizers and encouraged them. And take a look at where we are today.
As much as I dislike the white nationalist movement, or the "Alt Right," as it has been tagged, is it any different than the Black Lives Matter movement? Both are extremist groups that breed hatred. And thanks to our Constitution, both have the same right to march publicly in support of their cause. So why is there a group of angry, masked and armed people opposing the white nationalists but noticeably absent from the BLM marches?
With all of the BLM activity in the last couple of years is it surprising that a white nationalist group would want to march publicly? They have done it in the past and they always get resistance but this time the resistance went a bit overboard.
I'm reading this morning that the people injured by the driver yesterday were left-wing counter protesters. So the guy behind the wheel was apparently one of the white nationalists, or at least empathised with them. This is speculation only at this point; nothing official has been publicized.
Hate filled protests solve nothing. They don't encourage positive dialogue but instead promote more hatred and division - regardless of which side you're on.
The purpose of the march yesterday is said to have been a protest of the proposed removal of a statue of General Robert E. Lee from a park in Charlottesville. And while I disagree with the racist hatred demonstrated by most white nationalist groups, I do agree that removing historic monuments from public view is not only wrong but ridiculous. Regardless of what some may say - statues do not hurt anyone. Removing them from public view is pandering to the minority. But that's what we do in the United States. We make sure the various minorities are appeased instead of telling them to suck it up and act like educated adults.
I hope that the end of the Obama administration will bring healing to this nation - that we can move beyond the division and unite again as Americans. Unfortunately, I don't believe that's going to happen because of the rabid hatred that the left (and many on the right) has for the new President. Donald Trump may not be the best person to lead this nation right now. Or perhaps he is. Either way, he is the President right now and he is getting things done despite opposition from the left and right. Time will tell.
One thing is certain... we still live in historic times. Barack Obama was a historic first - the first African-American President. Donald Trump is a first as well - the first outsider elected President. Being an outsider draws worse resistance than being black. But that's because it's the left that is resisting. Progressives are more prone to violent protests than those on the right. Don't believe me? Take a good look at the protests of Obama's Presidency vs the protests of Trump's Presidency. It's not hard to figure out.

Saturday, August 5, 2017

Can The NFL Dictate Law To States?

It seems that everyday life offers a lot of controversial topics for me to write about. This one is no different. The root of the topic is one of the most controversial things in the United States today. And the suggested solution, to me, is ridiculous.

I heard an advertisement on a local radio station about the “bathroom bill” working its way through the legislature. The woman speaking says (paraphrasing) “The NFL is bringing this year's draft to Dallas. Dallas also wants to host Super Bowls in the future. But if the bathroom bill is signed into law the NFL will pull the draft from Dallas and we'll never get to host another Super Bowl. Everyone needs to call their representatives and tell them to vote no on this bill, which doesn't keep anyone safer, and ensure that the NFL continues to do business here in Dallas.”

The advertisement is sponsored by some group of businesses.

So we have an advertisement that basically says the NFL will boycott Dallas if they don't like a particular law here in Texas, the same as they threatened to do in North Carolina over their bathroom bill. The governor of North Carolina backed off under pressure. Greg Abbott is not one to back off.

The woman says the bill “doesn't make anyone safer.” I would disagree with that. The bill says requires that people use public restroom facilities that coincide with their anatomy. If they have male genitalia they use the men's room. If they have female genitalia they use the ladies' room. Pretty simple and straight forward. It keeps some man from going into the ladies' room just because he says he identifies as a woman. In my humble opinion that keeps my granddaughter from having some male pervert in the bathroom with her one day in the future.

And here's the clincher... if you're a man and you dress like a woman and live as a woman and you go into the ladies' room and act like a woman no one is going to come and check your anatomy. It's likely no one will care. But if you're a man and you dress like a man and live like a man and go into the ladies' room saying you identify as a woman people are going to be suspicious and probably frightened. And rightly so. (Standing up to pee in the ladies' room would be a big giveaway...)

I have a difficult time believing that if one lives his life as a male for years before deciding he really should be a female he is suddenly uncomfortable in the men's room. Unhappy, perhaps – but uncomfortable? I doubt it.

My point to all of this is simple. Are we here in Texas going to allow the NFL to tell us what laws we can and cannot have? The NFL is supposed to be about entertainment, not politics. Personally I don't care one way or the other if the NFL boycotts Texas because of a law with which they disagree. I don't watch football anyway. But even if I did I wouldn't change my mind on a political issue or social issue because of what the NFL thinks or does.

I can't help but wonder what the NFL will do about the Dallas Cowboys if the bill is signed into law. Will they forbid other NFL teams from coming to Texas to play? Will they pressure the Cowboys' owner to move to another state if they want to continue as an NFL team? And if the owner refuses will they simply kick the Cowboys to the curb and dismiss them from the league? I don't think that will happen but it will be interesting to see what happens if the bill becomes law.

The NFL should stay out of politics, period. They need to stick to what they do best... entertain their fans and make mega bucks. And if the Cowboys want to leave Texas because the NFL is coercing them over a Texas law so be it. I won't miss them at all.

Friday, August 4, 2017

The Truth About "The New Colossus"

What is The New Colossus, you wonder? It's a poem on a plaque that is mounted inside the base of the Statue of Liberty. But those words on the infamous plaque:

“Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shores -
Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door,”

were not an original part of the Statue of Liberty and were put there as an afterthought because they seemed to fit in with the idea of liberty for all. The poem wasn't written as an inscription for the statue. It was written and donated to an auction of arts and literature to raise money to build a base for the statue.

When France decided to give us the statue in 1886 it was only a statue. The agreement was that America would choose where to put it and build a base for it. Donations weren't going well and Joseph Pulitzer led the drive to raise money for the base.

Emma Lazarus wrote “The New Colossus” and donated it to the cause. Her donation was solicited by one of the fund raising chairmen. She initially refused but another writer convinced her to try.

Her poem was the first one read at the “Art Loan Fund Exhibition in Aid of the Bartholdi Pedestal Fund for the Statue of Liberty” on November 2, 1883, the day the Exhibition opened. It played no further role in the mounting of the statue on the base and was not a part of the dedication ceremony in 1886.

In 1901, a friend of Lazarus who thought the poem and Lazarus should both be immortalized succeeded in getting her poem mounted inside the base of the statue on a bronze plaque in 1903. The poem began to take on the meaning of welcoming immigrants as time went by.

Journalist and historian John T. Cunningham wrote "The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch and the shining face, heading toward Ellis Island. However, it was Lazarus's poem that permanently stamped on Miss Liberty the role of unofficial greeter of incoming immigrants."

So while the last part of the poem is a perfect narrative for immigration, that was not its original purpose and has only become so as the country progressed.

As for the words:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shores -
Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door...”

the United States has lived up to those words for two centuries – sometimes to the detriment of the country.

My last comment will irritate some and please others.

President Trump's proposal for immigration reform is common sense. There is nothing wrong with controlling immigration, limiting numbers of immigrants, vetting each one that comes here and ensuring they will be able to support themselves once they arrive. There is nothing wrong with insuring that immigrants will benefit our country instead of being a drain on our society. Other countries do it.

We've got enough huddled masses, wretched refuse and homeless. We don't need to be importing more.

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

The Three Most Misused Words For 2017

There are three words in the English language that I would like to see removed from conversation, at least here in the United States. If removal is not possible, people should be required to use them in proper context or not at all. Those three words? Homophobic, Islamophobic, and xenophobic.

People toss the words around when trying to make a point against someone who has issues with homosexuality, Islam and/or immigrants. They don't realize that in nine out of ten instances they are likely using the wrong verbiage. Or perhaps they know and use it anyway.

Webster's Dictionary defines a phobia as “an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.”

Other dictionaries define it as an irrational fear. So let's put the definitions in context with the words above.

Disagreeing that homosexuality is a “normal lifestyle” or an acceptable practice, in most cases, does not involve fear of homosexuals. Most people who object to it can very clearly state their reasons why they object so it's not inexplicable. Neither is that objection exaggerated unless that person takes extreme action against the LGBT community. I don't really know anyone who has a fear of homosexuals. So the word homophobic is not accurate to describe someone who disagrees with the lifestyle.

Islamophobic is a word that has gained popularity since 9/11. And it is also substantially misused in today's society. Most people who speak out against Islam do not speak out in fear. They speak out in anger at the Islamic terrorists who are wreaking havoc all over the world. And since there is no foolproof way to properly vet Muslims entering the country as tourists and immigrants, to ensure they are not connected with a terrorist organization, they want to limit immigration of Muslims until such time a proper vetting can be accomplished. That's sound immigration management.

Is it fear and, if so, is it inexplicable?

I'd say if it's fear of a growing terrorist threat here in the United States it's certainly not inexplicable. Terrorism carried out by Muslims is real. A look back at Orlando and San Bernardino proves that very easily. So a fear of terrorism by Muslims here I the United States is not irrational – unless you lock yourself in a bunker and refuse to come out because of that fear.

The bottom line is that most people who label someone as Islamophobic are doing so incorrectly.

Xenophobia is defined as “intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.”

This word is hurled at people who disapprove of illegal immigration or who support the travel ban issued by President Trump. That's because those who use the word are projecting their own beliefs onto those they label.

In the United States of America we have immigration laws. Within those laws are wording that forbids people from crossing our borders illegally and sneaking into our country. There is nothing irrational about wanting those laws enforced and wanting people to enter our country legally. To believe otherwise is ridiculous.

Many say our immigration policy is broken. I submit that the main thing broken about it is enforcement. If law enforcement and politicians would join together to ensure our immigration laws were enforced we wouldn't have eleven or twelve million (estimated) people in the country illegally.

Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to several million illegal aliens in 1986 with a promise from Congress that they would take action to secure our borders. Congress agreed... but apparently had their fingers crossed behind their backs. Illegal entry into the country has only increased since then with the worst incident happening in 2014, when unaccompanied children from Central and South America flooded over our Southern border.

President Obama pretended that he had “deported more illegal immigrants than any other President.” Except that wasn't quite true. Obama manipulated the numbers by counting those turned around at the border as deported – even though they hadn't actually entered the country.

Being a supporter of legal immigration does not make one xenophobic any more than opposing Islamic terrorism and supporting proper vetting makes one Islamophobic. And disagreeing with the LGBT community based on sound logic and yes, even science, does not make one homophobic.

If you're one of those who likes to use these labels please think about what you're saying and whether or not you're using the word(s) correctly. When anti-Trump fanatics go on a diatribe about him they put all these labels on him, along with misogynist, racist and sexist. It gets old.

Words are important. Misusing them to attack someone doesn't make the attacker look intelligent. The misuse of the words makes them look ignorant.

Sunday, July 23, 2017

I Don't Have All The Facts But...

The shooting of the Australian woman in Minneapolis last week and the aftermath of hate that has been posted on the internet has me wondering what happened to the Christian America we are supposed to be.

I'm going to irritate some people with my opinion today but that's OK. It won't be the first or the last time.

The police officer in question is a legal immigrant from Somalia. He is also a Muslim. But while there has been no evidence made public that shows Islam was the reason for the shooting, it's all some right-wing web pages and right-wing citizens are talking about. Some have called for him to be executed for the shooting of Justine Damond without knowing all of the facts of the case.

I had a conversation with one such person on Friday. He said the officer, Mohamed Noor, should be shot for his actions. I asked him what evidence he had that would support Noor's execution. He said “I have all the evidence I need.”

Article after article since the shooting describes the “Somali Muslim police officer shooting the white woman in her pajamas.” For me that description, while accurate, is prejudicial against the officer whose statement has not even been released yet.

Did his nationality have anything to do with the shooting? How about his skin color? Were his Islamic beliefs the cause of it?

See, that's the problem. We don't know. He is exercising his 5th Amendment right to silence (thanks to our Constitution) and apparently hasn't made any statements to authorities about why he shot Ms. Damond. Should we deny his 5th Amendment rights? After all, he's from Somalia...

The hatred I've seen spewed on the internet in the last week for this man is appalling. If Mohamed Noor was a white, native born American people on the right would be saying “Let's wait for the evidence. The shooting could have been justified.” Yet because he's a Muslim who immigrated from Somalia he has been pronounced guilty without a trial; even without evidence.

I remember in July of 2009, just a day after Professor Henry Gates was arrested by the Cambridge, Massachusetts, police, President Obama went on national television and said “I don't have all the facts but the police acted stupidly.” Republicans and conservatives across the nation went crazy, saying (accurately) that it was inappropriate for the President to form an opinion of the Cambridge police without “all the facts.”

But that's exactly what is going on in the Noor/Damond case. People are jumping to conclusions about Noor's guilt, motive, even his feelings about living in the United States without having all of the facts.

The only thing we know for sure is that Ms. Damond was unarmed, Noor pulled the trigger, and Ms. Damond died. So far there is no official explanation of why the trigger was pulled – only the rants of hate filled people who believe that Noor's nationality and/or religious beliefs are the reason and that's all they need to convict.

What happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? That's the scary part about all of this. Because Noor is a Somali immigrant and a Muslim people are over anxious to dismiss his constitutional rights and the legal process we so greatly cherish in this nation and pronounce him guilty.

Before someone gets the wrong idea – I'm not saying in any way that Noor's actions were justified. I'm not saying they were not justified. I'm saying we simply don't know yet and the hatred being professed by some of my fellow Americans for this man is astounding given the fact that they have no idea why the shooting took place. It's scary and sad at the same time.

Everyone has the right and deserves due process in this country. Yet so many are willing to simply deny it so Mohamed Noor because of who he is.

So who do I blame for the reaction to this shooting? Islam. The worldwide terrorism carried out in the name of Islam combined with the great lack of denouncement of said terrorism by the majority of Muslims who do not take part in it but remain silent about it are the reasons that many Americans are hostile when it comes to Islam. Right or wrong it is understandable to a point.

I don't know if Noor's Muslim beliefs had anything to do with the shooting of Ms. Damond. I know many people believe that to be the case. And if it turns out to be true then Noor should face several charges, including murder and a hate crime. But please people... wait for the evidence.

I've been told that I need to shut up and allow people to have their own opinion on this issue. I'm not sure why because I haven't told anyone they can't have their own opinion. All I've said is that we don't have any evidence to prove anything right now. And that's a fact. So if that's taken as me telling someone not to have an opinion on it perhaps that person should re-evaluate their opinion based on the facts they actually have.

This is only my opinion. I could be wrong.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Di Blasio Pulls An Obama... Pays For It At Home

New York City mayor, Bill Di Blasio, pulled off his own version of a controversial Obama move that gave the world its impression that Obama didn't really care about American citizens.

Remember when James Foley was beheaded by ISIS a few years ago? Then President, Barack Obama, made a brief remark then hit the first tee at the golf course. The gruesome beheading of an American citizen wasn't enough to interfere with the President's golf game.

Fast forward to last week when an officer in the New York City police department was executed while sitting in her squad car. New York Mayor Bill Di Blasio made a couple of brief remarks before heading to the airport to fly to Germany to be the key note speaker at a rally held by the anarchist protesters.

Let that sink in. The mayor of the largest and most influential city in America flew to Germany to participate in the protest against the G20 Summit. An American elected official joining the anarchists against the government.

He did end up paying for it, albeit in a small way. Yesterday, during the funeral of the fallen officer, the majority of the police officers present turned their backs on him as he spoke at the funeral. It's not the first time it has happened.

Two years ago, at the funeral of Officer Wenjian Liu, officers turned their backs on him because of his support for the Black Lives Matter movement and comments he made prior to the funeral. The officers felt that Di Blasio had let them down. Yesterday they showed him that he had done it again.

Of course, Comrade Di Blasio probably didn't even notice. His lack of concern for the safety and well being of his police officers likely extends to their disrespect of him. I'm sure he simply doesn't care – even though his security detail is made up of some of those same officers. I wonder what would happen to him if they turned their backs on him as well....?

Bill Di Blasio is a disgrace. His participation in anarchy is a slap in the face to every law abiding citizen of the United States and I, for one, will be more than pleased to see him eventually voted out of office so he can disappear. Maybe he'll join Obama on his “I Wish I Was Still In Office” tour....

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

A Travesty Of Justice...

In February of 2013, Jessie Con-Ui murdered a federal correctional officer in cold blood by stabbing him at least 200 times. Officer Eric Williams never had a chance. It is reported that Con-Ui broke his homemade knife in the middle of the attack, retrieved another one and continued stabbing Officer Williams.

Last week Con-Ui was convicted in federal court of First Degree Murder. The jury was tasked with deciding whether Con-Ui's sentence would be the death penalty or life in prison. Con-Ui was already serving a life sentence for murder. Any sensible person should understand that sentencing a murderer to prison for life does not automatically prevent that person from killing again.

Inmates cannot be routinely isolated and/or prevented from being in general population with other inmates. Weapons can be made from nearly anything, including plastic wrap, paper, a plastic spoon handle, even a pencil or ball point pen.

After deliberating for 5 hours the jury returned and recommended a sentence of life in prison for Con-Ui. He will serve at least the first three years in isolation at the Administrative Maximum Security prison in Florence, Colorado. But after three years of good behavior he will automatically be reviewed for return to general population. Only severe and documented circumstances will allow him to be kept there indefinitely. Killing a staff member may be enough – or it may not.

After the sentencing was completed one juror spoke out about the decision. He said that eleven of the jurors voted for the death penalty while one, the jury foreman, was against it. For the death penalty to be imposed the jury must vote unanimously for it. The lone juror held out and the jury had to recommend a life sentence.

Federal law allows for the death penalty for the murder of a federal law enforcement officer. It has been applied in the past and has been carried out. If anyone deserved the death penalty it was Con-Ui, a double murderer who will one day have the chance to kill again. Yet one juror could not allow herself to approve it.

As it turns out, that lone juror has a son who is serving time behind bars. She could not vote for the death penalty because she would not want that to happen to her son. But what if her son was the correctional officer? Of what if her son was murdered by another inmate while serving time? Would she feel the same way?

This woman essentially gave Con-Ui a slap on the hand for murdering Eric Williams. He lost nothing, with the exception of his period of isolation that may or may not be permanent.

Officer Williams' family and friends are devastated. Correctional workers around the country are dismayed and angry, saying that this sentence opens up the field for more violence against correctional staff. If an inmate is confident he won't receive the death penalty for murdering a staff member (or another inmate) that increases the possibilities of it happening.

If Jessie Con-Ui ever kills again while in prison it will fall directly on that one juror who just couldn't make herself vote the right way.

It will also fall on the Assistant U.S. Attorney who either failed to discover that the woman had a son doing time or discounted it as unimportant. Inmate families as a rule feel differently about things like this than people who are not acquainted with the correctional system.

There was no justice for Eric Williams this week. His murderer went without punishment and his legacy will be that of being denied just punishment for his killer. At least his fellow staff members will remember him always. That's how it works. We remember and mourn him as our brother in arms. Because that's what he was.

Friday, June 16, 2017

Those Terrorists Aren't Islamic.... (Unless You Try To Ban Them From Entering The Country, That Is)

Did you ever notice that when you talk about the violence that is inherent in Islam, when you see the killings of innocents at the hands of violent Muslim extremists, when you see the reports of unspeakable horrors committed by ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas, etc., the Muslim community, politically correct politicians, and the left in general begin screaming “That's not Islam. Those people committing those acts, even if they do quote the Quran and scream “Alahu Ackbar”, they're not Islamic. Islam is a religion of peace. Don't lump all of Islam into the same category with these groups.”

And yet, when the President of the United States issues a travel ban from six countries known worldwide to harbor and promote Islamic terrorism; a means of preventing at least some members of these violent groups from entering the United States without an extreme vetting process in place to protect American citizens from the dangers that terrorists will bring into the country, suddenly all of those same people stand in solidarity and say “You are trying to ban all Muslims from entering the country!”

According to what I've read, there are about 100 Muslim majority countries in the world today. (In 2010 there were only 62.) That leaves 94 Muslim countries from which travel to the United States will still be allowed. So for my left-leaning friends who call it a Muslim ban, could you try to explain how 6% actually equals 100%? Perhaps it's Common Core math but I'd really like to understand.

Wednesday was the one year anniversary of the Pulse Night Club shooting in Orlando, Florida, by an apparently radicalized Muslim named Omar Mateen. There is no mention in any of the news articles I've read about the incident, not even Fox, that says anything about Mateen other than he was the shooter. It's as if his statements, his ties to Islam, his visits to radical Muslim web pages on the internet, no longer exist. Today he is but “the gunman.”

Political correctness under the Obama administration has caused many Americans to simply overlook the Muslim connection when it comes to terrorism. Whether or not Obama believes radical Islam to be Islamic, the terrorists believe it. And they use it to justify the senseless and brutal murders of tens of thousands of innocent people a year. (The growth of ISIS has greatly raised that number.)

We have Muslim clerics going on international television calling for the overthrow of the Western world. There are places in Europe that have become “No Go” areas – places within cities that police do not enter because of Islam and Sharia control of the areas. And Dearborn, Michigan, is close to having one of those.

Thank God we finally have a President who refuses to coddle Islam, refuses to bow to political correctness, and refuses to bow to the will of the left - who calls Muslim terrorism what it is.

There is a story in the “Clarion Project” that says one of the perpetrators of the recent bridge attack in London was radicalized by listening to the hate filled, radical rants of Ahmad Musa Jibril, a Muslim cleric right here in the good ol' USA. Jibril lives and preaches in Michigan but puts his radical ideas online. Radicalized mosques in the United States, once identified, should be closed.

Political correctness will be the death of the United States of America. If one takes a good, hard look at Europe with open eyes they will see what will one day happen here if we continue to coddle Islam in the name of political correctness.

Democrats Remorseful Following Wednesday's Shooting.... Not

When Jared Loughner shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords at a public event in Tucson several years ago the left-wing media, Democrats, President Obama, and the left in general blamed right-wing rhetoric, even singling out Sarah Palin for her comment about reloading instead of retreating if things got tough. Obama addressed the nation and said we needed to "tone down the rhetoric," meaning the shooting was the fault of the Republicans because of their statements.

Fast forward to 2016. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate said during the campaign that Democrats need to "fight Republicans in the streets." So far in 2017 we've had a 'comedian' pretend to behead President Trump,  a rap  star pretending to shoot the President, a play in New York showing Trump being killed by his own staff, and countless celebrities denouncing Trump - some saying he should be taken out and one saying she wanted to "blow up the White House."

So on Wednesday, when a crazed Democrat, armed with a rifle and looking for Republican House members, went on a Republican shooting spree it was nice to see the leadership on the left take responsibility and tell their constituents to tone down their rhetoric that could be fueling the violent acts being committed.

Yeah right... in a perfect world. In reality, leaders on the left blame Donald Trump and the Republicans for the violence the left is wreaking on the right. Nancy Pelosi is apparently outraged by the fact that Republicans are, in part, blaming Democrats for the violent rhetoric coming from the left that certainly could be a factor for the shooter on Wednesday.

So when a Democrat gets shot (by a registered Democrat) the left blames "right-wing violent rhetoric." And when a Republican gets shot by a Democrat, who has voiced his hatred for Trump and the Republican Party very clearly, the Democrats blame Trump and Republicans for the left-wing violent rhetoric.

Sure, that makes sense, right?

Yesterday, CBS anchor Scott Pelley blamed Donald Trump's tweets about the main stream media for the violence. Pelley cited one tweet in particular.

"The FAKE NEWS media (failing , , , , ) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!"

How Pelley decided that this tweet made a crazed Bernie supporter want to shoot Republicans is beyond my grasp.

Disgraced former South Carolina governor turned U.S. Representative, Mark Sanford, also blamed Trump. He cited a statement by Trump during his campaign when Trump said he'd like to punch a protester in the face. Sanford, who suffered through a rocky governorship when it was discovered he had a mistress, also said Trump's statement about paying a supporter's legal bills if one of them punched the protester in the face. Again - how did that influence the shooter in any way?

More likely the shooter was influenced by the rhetoric from the left and by some of the internet groups he followed.

James Hodgkinson's choice of Facebook Groups are telling. He followed:

The Road To Hell Is Paved With Republicans
Join The Resistance Worldwide!!
Rachel Maddow For President 2020
The Democrats

He was also a member of the group "Terminate The Republican Party" and "I Hate Donald Trump."

I'd say that's enough reason to believe he was influenced by his own kind rather than the Republicans.

Twitter erupted with left-wing hatred following the shooting, with many liberals not only supporting Hodgkins' actions but praising him and voicing their wishes that he could have wounded or killed more Republicans. Tweets such as these below went on throughout the day.

The Only Good Fascist is a Dead One.”

“That’s a Shame but babies blown to bits at Sandy Hook was worse and Scalise takes money from the @NRA”

“If the shooter has a serious health condition then is taking potshots at the GOP leadership considered self defense?”

“If KKK support Steve Scalise dies, the shooter deserves a holiday, true leadership. Now the trumps, kush, & miller need to be transitioned.”

One Republican representative has even received death threats via letter.

Hey liberals... hate much?

It seems the Democrats in Washington have backed off of the rhetoric for now. But I have yet to see them call for their constituents nationwide to do the same. They just don't have it in them to say "The violent rhetoric on our side may have influenced the shootings on Wednesday and we need to stop it and return to civility. We are all Americans."

Not going to hold my breath for that...

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Big Brother Is Watching In Canada

Ontario Province in Canada recently passed a law that gives the state the authority to remove a child from the household if parents refuse to acknowledge and/or accommodate the child's gender identity or gender expression.

Let that sink in. If a 2 year old boy decides he wants to wear his sister's clothing and act like a girl, parents in Ontario must allow and encourage it or the child can be taken from them by the government.

The Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act of 2017, also know as Bill 89, was passed in Ontario by a vote of 63 to 23, The Christian Times reported.

“I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently” said Minister of Child and Family Services Michael Coteau. Coteau introduced the bill.

“If it’s abuse, and if it’s within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops.”

If you're a parent in Ontario and your child says he or she identifies as the opposite gender, you can't even consult a mental health professional since that would be showing disagreement and lack of support for your child's expression. I wonder if mental health professionals are now bound to report any parents who present their child for mental health evaluation following an expression of different gender...? It seems logical that the state would go that far if they passed this law.

Under the old law parents were encouraged to “direct the child’s education and religious upbringing.”
The new law greatly restricts the actions of parents as it emphasizes a “child’s identity and allows parents only to “direct the child or young person’s education and upbringing, in accordance with the child’s or young person’s creed, community identity and cultural identity.”

In other words, the child now gets to tell the parents how they will raise him/her.

Not everyone agrees.

“With the passage of Bill 89, we’ve entered an era of totalitarian power by the state, such as never witnessed before in Canada’s history, says Jack Fonseca, political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition. “Make no mistake - Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption.”

And talk about Big Brother. In April, child services in Ontario, Canada, got made headlines when they removed to young girls from their foster home because the Christian foster parents refused to lie to the girls and tell them that the Easter Bunny was real.

Derek Baars, one of the foster parents, said they were told by the agency that they must lie to the girls, ages three and four, because the Easter Bunny is part of Canadian culture. When the Baars refused to comply the girls were removed from the home.

I'm guessing it's only a matter of time before these types of things happen here. It won't happen under the current administration but if liberals ever take control of the government it's inevitable. After all –it's Hillary Clinton who believes it takes a village to raise a child.


Thursday, May 18, 2017

Sologamy... What If It Doesn't Work Out?

I may lose friends over this, or perhaps they'll simply allow me my opinion and either agree or disagree. Either way – I feel compelled to say something about the latest ridiculous trend in the US (and the world?).

That new “trend,” as they call it, is called Sologamy. That's a manufactured term for a manufactured situation in which a person marries.... himself or herself.

How stupid is that, you ask? I can't begin to describe it.

The United States of America (and the world in general) has become a place where self-pleasure and self-gratification have become the objective of the majority of people. We are so rapidly moving away from Biblical principles, morals and decency that it's difficult to remember how different things were just 40 years ago.

Mental illness is embraced today. Embraced and encouraged. Allowing preschool children to decide their gender and encouraging them in their grossly immature and irrational choices is parental mental illness. Gender dysphoria, once treated as a mental disorder, has now been declared by some as a normal medical issue – to the point where the government has stepped in to say you can be whatever gender you wish to be at any given time. And we have psychologists saying that pedophilia is a sexual orientation rather than a mental illness and a crime.

So now we come back to marrying oneself. One person recently in the news said she married herself because she got tired of people asking her why she was still single. I've got news for her. No matter what ceremony she had or whether or not she donned a wedding ring – she's still single!

The acceptance of sologamy as normal is just one more example of people living out a mental illness. Sure, this one is probably harmless – at least to others. But the harm one inflicts on themselves when they believe something to be real that is not can be devastating in the future.

I don't have a psychology degree. I don't know the innermost workings of the human psyche – although I do have experience working with the mentally ill. But I do know enough to know that pedophilia is sick behavior and enough to know that if you decide to marry yourself and think that's really marriage you're missing a few screws.

The definition of marriage has been changed by the liberal progressives of the world but even today the accepted definition of the term is: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife. : a similar relationship between people of the same sex. : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other.

Either definition involves two people. If you walk down the aisle to express your vows and you are the only one standing there to hear them, and giving yourself a ring, you're not meeting even the latest, most liberal definition of marriage. And whether or not you're happy being alone, it's truly sad that you believe you must participate in a “marriage” ceremony to secure that for you.

If you love yourself for who you are, why do you need a wedding ceremony to prove it? Get over yourself. You've resigned yourself to be alone. Why do you need to make it official?

I am curious about the concept of self-marriage. If you one day meet that special someone and decide you want to marry an actual partner will you need to get a legal divorce from yourself first? Suppose you get angry at yourself and decide you no longer want to be married. Who has to move out and who gets custody of the personal property and/or any children produced by the marriage? And what happens to life insurance policies and/or pensions following the divorce? Just things to think about before entering into this unholy agreement....

Trump Obstructs Justice? Comey's Memo Says Otherwise...

For those Trump haters who are chomping at the bit to see President Trump impeached for “obstruction of Justice,” here is something you might want consider a little more closely.

According to all sources I've seen, including the New York Times and Washington Post, what Comey alleges the President said to him was "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."

I don't have a law degree. I don't even have a college degree. But I worked in law enforcement long enough to know that language, wording and comprehension matter.

Expressing a hope that something happens does not add up to telling someone to stop an investigation. “I hope you can let this go” is not the same as “I hope you can let this go or your job is on the line,” or “I need you to let this go,” or “I want you to let this go,” or even “Let this Flynn investigation go.” It's that simple. Saying “I hope” is a wish, not an order.

If someone says “I hope you die,” that's not a threat. It might be crude, or perhaps evil, but it's not a threat. Not legally.

If Trump did express his hope that the Flynn investigation could be dropped it's just that – a hope... unless, of course, Comey can prove that he was threatened or felt threatened by the words “I hope.” Feelings are subjective. But if the Director of the FBI felt threatened by the words “I hope” then he really didn't need to remain in his position. And since Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe has said no investigations have been stopped or even interrupted by events that have occurred (Comey's firing) there is no case for obstruction of justice.

As I said – I'm no lawyer or judge and I may one day be proven wrong. But in this day where every word people say is under scrutiny, the word hope is just that – hope, which is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the feeling of wanting something to happen and thinking that it could happen.”

I hope Hillary Clinton never runs for public office again. That's a desire that I cannot control. And it's not illegal. And neither was Trump's alleged statement. Of course, only Trump and Comey know what was really said that evening... unless Trump has a recording...

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Cultural Worse Than Academic Failure?

This article was written by my father-in-law. I thought I'd share.

The total of one’s experience is education, especially the part that is remembered.

It is general knowledge that American students lag at least 30 other of the most ‘advanced’ nations in academic achievement, while ahead of all others in self-esteem (we like ourselves dumb?). I would caution all, that academics is not necessarily education’s greatest failure. America once had cultural and institutional teaching of patriotism, morality, honor, self-reliance, personal accountability, economics and the total meaning of our founding documents (Declaration of Independence and the Constitution). In addition, boys were taught how to be men and girls were taught how to be women. We had an admirable American culture.

If you find any of our children today who exhibit proficiency in the above subjects, it is because their parents took the place of all other previous sources, bent over backwards, and jammed it into their heads. Schools, churches and (wholesome) entertainment no longer are getting the job done. Most homes are also failing.

This is not another attempt to finger black culture: read Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960 – 2010” to decide how far downhill we’ve come.

In the 60’s, 86% of married women polled believed that it was wrong to have sexual relations with one’s fiancĂ©. Today, comparative numbers of white people under age 50 that are no longer living in former marriages has more than doubled to 27%.

The ‘greatest generation’ grew up storming Normandy Beach and fighting the Japanese across the Pacific, while today’s millennials of the same age feel “unsafe” if someone they disagree with speaks at an event they don’t have to attend on their campus. There went freedom of speech and the ordinary tolerance of it, especially in seats of education.

We formerly declared and taught that an act was absolutely either right or wrong, good or evil, moral or immoral, either based upon the nature and result of the action, and/or based upon a stated code of behavior as a moral order. This required judgment on the part of the individual. This presented a challenge to the contemporary politics that depend upon those who would prefer not to be told that their choices are bad and that their lives are not virtuous.

How can millennials not lean to the left when liberalism is constantly shoved down their throats by their schools, their favorite musicians, (rappers are not singers, but are entertainers) and Hollywood? We should not be surprised that at least 51% of them (millennials) do not support capitalism when their professors are known to be communists extolling socialist gutters like Cuba and Venezuela? Everything liberals teach to our kids is backward from reality.

Liberalism punishes the good or virtuous accused of some unfair advantage while rewarding the evil and/or lazy who claim to be victims of forces out of their control. Instead of trying to build rocket ships and going to the moon, their professors have them trying to figure out their gender and which bathroom they should be using. The victimhood snowflakes think they are entitled to whatever they want for the gratitude we should have for their very existence.

Conservatives must challenge the victim mentality liberals push onto our kids. Never feel sorry for yourself, or seek pity or play the victim. The wait for someone else to solve your problem will always be too long; and if you do get help, you won’t like it, because it will be on the terms of the helper. Cut off funding to institutions that discriminate against conservatism; Support all action for freedom of speech and the first ten Constitutional amendments; Support capitalism, patriotism and morality; these built America and the original American culture.


Wednesday, March 29, 2017

White Girls Told Wearing Hoop Earrings Is "Cultural Appropriation"

White female students at Pitzer College in Los Angeles have been told by women of color (African-American and Latinas) to stop wearing hoop earrings because to do so is cultural appropriation. According to a Latina group on campus, white girls wearing hoop earrings exploits black and brown cultures. Really.

When questioned about [the art work above] by one confused student, Alegria Martinez, Jacquelyn Aguilera, and Stefania Gallo-Gonzalez addressed the school in emails explaining the problem.

“The black and brown bodies who typically wear hooped earrings, (and other accessories like winged eyeliner, gold name plate necklaces, etc) are typically viewed as ghetto, and are not taken seriously by others in their daily lives, Martinez wrote. White people have actually exploited the culture and made it into fashion,” she added.

Martinez, who is a member of Latinx Student Union, sent an email to the entire student body of Pitzer College explaining why she feels only women of color should be allowed to wear hoop earrings.

“The art (photo above) was created by myself and a few other women of color after being tired and annoyed with the reoccurring theme of white women appropriating styles...that belong to the black and brown folks who created the culture.

“The culture actually comes from a historical background of oppression and exclusion.

“The black and brown bodies who typically wear hooped earrings, (and other accessories like winged eyeliner, gold name plate necklaces, etc) are typically viewed as ghetto, and are not taken seriously by others in their daily lives.

Because of this, I see our winged eyeliner, lined lips, and big hoop earrings serving as symbols as an everyday act of resistance, especially here at the Claremont Colleges.

“Meanwhile we wonder, why should white girls be able to take part in this culture (wearing hoop earrings just being one case of it) and be seen as cute/aesthetic/ethnic.

“White people have actually exploited the culture and made it into fashion,” she explained.

I guess it makes sense to her.

One cannot help but wonder if Martinez and her fellow activists wear jeans to school. Perhaps that's a practice that she should cease since their creator, Jacob Davis, and his partner, Levi Strauss, were white guys. Or is cultural appropriation another of those things only white people can do?

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

NYC Council Woman Compares Enforcement of Immigration Laws To Ethnic Cleansing

In a statement that shows not only her far-left disillusionment but also her ignorance, New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito recently compared the enforcement of immigration laws to ethnic cleansing.

“I think you said something that’s very powerful here about ethnic cleansing,” Mark-Viverito said at a recent hearing. “I think in the last couple of weeks we’ve seen very, very, very clearly what the ultimate goal is of this administration. There clearly is a sense of purging… of implementing policies to purge certain groups of people from this country.”

Asked about the use of the very strong phrase “ethnic cleansing” Mark-Viverito defended her position.

“When we’re looking at the policies and what’s clearly being verbalized and articulated by this administration unapologetically.. there seems to be a real clear intent that certain types of people are being focused on with the express intent of getting them and removing them from this country,” she told reporters.

“It’s very very strong language, but really there is clear intent in what it is that they’re trying to do,” Mark-Viverito added. “And we’re going to push back against that.”

She is correct that there are certain types of people who are being targeted for removal from the country. They would be people who are here illegally, in violation of our decades old immigration laws. I'm not sure what part of that would be considered ethnic cleansing since there is no particular ethnicity mentioned in the immigration laws as written nor in the recently renewed enforcement of them.

What she doesn't seem to understand is that the Trump administration has written no new immigration laws. They are merely allowing ICE and the Border Patrol to effectively enforce current laws. Does she really believe our current immigration laws are tantamount to “ethnic cleansing?” Really?

I'm thinking not. She's making a bold public (albeit ignorant) statement to gain attention. New York has declared itself a sanctuary city and left-wing politicians are going nuts because Trump simply doesn't care what they say. He's enforcing immigration laws anyway – even in The Big Apple.

People like this woman are grossly exaggerating statements in an effort to force federal authorities to stop enforcing the law as written. The problem with immigration is not the laws themselves but the fact that for decades our government has refused to enforce them stringently. And now that a particular President is doing just that, a Republican President that is, the left is unable to deal with it. Their attitude of “Let anyone in and let everyone stay” is one of the things that will eventually destroy this great nation. And they hate it that Trump and the Republicans are fighting them on it.

The logic (or lack thereof) of some elected officials is baffling. Even more baffling, however, is the fact that they keep getting re-elected.

Monday, March 6, 2017

Columbia Professors: Student Suicides Increase Because Of Trump

Two professors at Columbia University recently penned a letter to the university president saying that faculty and students are “chronically and deeply depressed” over Donald Trump's election and his election is the cause of the recent rise in student suicides.

Really. They said that.

“We know no one at Columbia who is not upset, chronically and deeply, since the election. We know this is true of the administration,” professors Robert Pollack and Letty Moss-Salentijn wrote. “We know this true of the students, and the cluster of suicides this month can have no other meaning."

“But what of ourselves, and what of our colleagues; that is, what of the faculty? So, Mr. President, we are asking you how we, the faculty, may embody what the university values, with a sense of full obligation and with the assurance of full recognition.

Faculty do not have places, times, or administrative permission to acknowledge our own fears to each other,” the letter laments, noting that “venues for such quiet, difficult conversations are very hard to find on our campus.”

The letter goes on...

“Bradbury's 'Fahrenheit 451 comes close to where we are today. In this vision of the near future, firemen and state agents are ordered to set fires, ordered to burn remaining caches of hidden books wherever they are found.”

I can't help but wonder if they understand the irony of what that last paragraph says...?

Here's my letter to the damaged professors and their depressed student body.

Dear “Depressed,”

I can't help but wonder if at some point in your lives you were told that you should never have to be disappointed and you will always get your way.

That seems to be the only valid explanation for your “chronic and deep” depression over the recent Presidential election. And while the learned professors have no real evidence to support their claim of increased student suicides because of Trump's election, if their claim is true it means your parents and your teachers have failed you.

They have failed to teach you that life is always going to have setbacks and disappointments and that you simply overcome them and move on.

They have failed to teach you that you have absolutely no right to not be disappointed, offended, hurt, or ridiculed.

They have failed to teach you that you cannot and will not be protected from life. Sometimes life is great. Sometimes it sucks but then it gets better. Apparently you didn't learn that.

They have failed to teach you that taking your own life is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

In other words, they have failed to teach you to be adults, ready for the real world.
The real world doesn't have safe spaces to protect your precious feelings. The real world doesn't offer you free counseling, hot chocolate, crayons and puppies when you're disappointed and your feelings get hurt. Honestly – the real world doesn't care. We expect you to pull yourselves up by your bootstraps and forge ahead.

Life doesn't stop because you're unhappy.

The real world doesn't play a scoreless game lest one side feel badly about themselves. The real world doesn't hand out participation trophies. You're either going to win or lose – the choice is yours. But nobody (except perhaps the government) is going to hand you everything you want just so you don't feel badly about yourselves.

It' real life. Get over it and grow up.


Grownups everywhere

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Disgraceful: Grieving Military Widow Slammed By The Left

Carryn Owens, the wife of Navy SEAL Ryan Owens, who was killed in a raid in Yemen, is being vilified by the left. She is being called a pawn of President Trump because of her presence at his address last night. President Trump praised her husband and his sacrifice, as well has hers.
To those attacking her - has it ever occurred to you that the grieving widow would actually be happy that her husband's service and sacrifice for his country is being publicly honored by the President of the United States and most of the elected officials in attendance? Has it occurred to you that in the pain of her grief, she has been given something by the President that she and her children will remember forever?
You want to pretend that Ryan Owens shouldn't have died because the raid never should have taken place. Do you know anything about Navy SEALS? They do what they're told and they volunteer for special missions. They live for them. They put themselves in harm's way intentionally. It's something inside them that is part of them and part of the way they live their lives.
And unless you have inside information into the mission, its purpose, and all of the intelligence that led to it, you who are saying it shouldn't have happened are speaking out of ignorance.
Before you criticise the President and the military for things they do you should at least have some knowledge of which you speak. Your opinion is irrelevant.
Before you criticise a grieving military widow for the choices her husband made try a little of that compassion and tolerance you're always preaching about. Carryn Owens was the wife of a Navy SEAL. She knew the risks. She knew her husband was going to be in danger on a regular basis and she knew he volunteered for it. You don't see her slamming the President, do you?
Wake up.