The Gross National Debt

Thursday, October 18, 2018

Teen brains and other folks' mental instability

"Raising the age to purchase from 18 to 21 to match our rules for handguns just makes sense. Studies show that people 18 to 21 years of age commit a disproportionate number of firearm homicides in the United States. We know from research that the brain does not fully mature until a later age, especially the part of the brain responsible for decision making, risk assessment, and impulse control."

This is from a gun grabber group in Washington State. Pay special attention to that last sentence.

Teens and younger people don't have the same brain as someone older.

The laws of this nation are even set up with this in mind. The US Supreme Court has handed down ruling after ruling using this as the basis. For instance.

And yet, so many people are screaming, demanding and even reacting with violence to insist teens be treated exactly the same as a mentally competent adult of 25+ years of age. Except of course when it comes to other things.

I'm good with either course.

No, I'm not. Teenagers, as proven by SCIENCE!, do not have the developed brain of an older adult. Treating them as such is flat wrong and flies in the face of the SCIENCE! so many see as their god.

What I am good with is picking a direction. Either SCIENCE! is correct in this - in which case S.T.F.U. about holding teens to the exact same level of accountability across the board - or hold teens to the exact same level of accountability across the board, period.

Trying to have it both ways is cognitive dissonance, not that it will matter to people who are hypocrites on this issue.

Stick to the issue if you wanna debate. Opinions welcome, preferably backed up with SCIENCE! and laws. I've booted people in the past 14 days for personal insults, attacks and ad hominem. I don't like doing it, but I will do it again.

One of these things is exactly like the other

Why does government have any right to things I have and earn? Socialists and those otherwise on the left and most of those on the right as well come up with all kinds of excuses.

Me bud Paul makes the most concise case for this. The Social Contract. says it is "an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects."

In other words, we as a society opted to do this. Don't like it? Three choices:


• Be beaten into submission


On the far fringes is the other side that calls for anarchy. No rules. Somalia then? No, these people say, that is a failed state. Me? I ain't able to find a difference between anarchy and the "failed state" of Somalia, but that's another blawg.


The Social Contract is just another way of saying the people with the most physical power make the rules. Don't believe me? Cool. Show me an instance where the people with less physical power made significant changes. For every one you give me, I will give you 10 or more instances where the powerless were crushed, often literally. Maybe even 100:1.


So let's apply this "social contract" conventions in ways that will horrify people on the right and the left. I'll even use real life examples.

1) Women cannot drive. Yeah this is changing. Why? Canya say "superior power?" I knew you could. World opinion is against the Saudi idea that women should not be able to drive. That's enough physical force to mandate a change.

2) People are property. No? Don't pay your taxes. The IRS has the ability to arrest you, take you to court and throw your non-taxpaying butt in jail where you become a ward of the state and you are told where you can be, when you must be there, what you can wear, when you have to wear it, what you can eat, when you can eat it and so on.

3) Women are property. Aghast much? Under the "social contract" of the 1%ers, this is reality. Some women want out of this kind of life, but cannot get free. Murder is illegal, but it still happens. In much of the 1%er life, a man may make the beast with two backs with any woman he chooses, including the "old lady" of another biker brother with his permission. The lady has no say in this. S'called a social contract. This is also a reality in another subculture in "western" civilization. In some cases, men are also property, literal slaves, but this is much less common than owning a woman.


These three examples of literally thousands illustrate the problem with the "social contract" and anarchy for that matter. The people with the power make the rules.

If the "social contract" suddenly declares raping women is OK, how many of you will go along with that?

Can't happen? Proof that it can, does and will is just above. I could give you plenty more instances of the "social contract" calling for things that will give you a splodey head. If you are willing to think about this rationally, you have enough on your mental plate.


This next is really gonna cause splodey heads. Before you judge me, make sure you have a full understanding of who I am, what I have been through and how I survived. Else, you are making unwarranted assumptions, AKA likes. I am one who says taxation is theft. It is economic rape. It takes something a person is not willing to give for the satisfaction of someone else. One of these things is exactly like another.

The "social contract" may say it is proper and appropriate. Tell that to the person who objects.

Friday, October 5, 2018

Zebony & Faith

If Zebony Davis is any indication of the about-to-graduate generation, this world is in good shape.

The crown that was supposed to go to her instead went to her friend Faith Hobbs. Faith has Down syndrome. Faith walked the football field at Turner County High School in South Georgia this year, as a senior, escorted by Zebony and Zebony’s escort Quevan Lawson. They were on the field for the annual Homecoming event, something we Southerners take just about as seriously as our football.

When Tim Hunt announced the queen, Zebony and her family were naturally very excited. When it came time to receive the crown…

– Excuse me. Allergy attack. Lemme clear my eyes. –

… Zebony said “Give it to her.” The crown went to Faith. Zebony accepted the roses, banner and the cape for being elected Homecoming Queen.

Faith got the crown.

– Will someone PLEASE stop cutting up onions in here. Thank you.–

Plenty of tears rolling down faces in Alan Hobby Stadium on Friday night after that happened.

Pictures were taken. Zebony, Quevan and Faith together.

They started off the field. Faith complained her shoes were hurting her.

Dressed in a homecoming gown …

–Y’all, I ain’t cried this much writing a column since I wrote the story of my son Jesse being born. Jesse also has Down syndrome. He and Faith were classmates for years. He called her “My Doodblebug.”–

… in that most elegant gown, Zebony knelt down in front of stadium of people and helped take Faith’s shoes off. They walked off the field hand in hand, Zebony carrying the shoes.

Waterworks again.

The photo by Deborah Priest, Faith's teacher, is well on its way to being a viral sensation, as it should be.

We’re all in this together. People like Miss Zebony Davis live it.

Zebony Davis, words are not adequate to express the thanks from so many families. It is what we have.

May we all learn from your example. You are an inspiration. You are a true leader. You are what the people of this world should be.

May your future be as bright as you shined on Friday night.

October is National Down Syndrome Awareness Month.

Sunday, September 30, 2018

The biggest problem I see with cantservatives and liarberals is they are both willing to kill anyone who will not do as they demand. And, do as they demand. Death awaits no matter the choice made.

I'd appreciate someone proving me wrong, but it can't happen. (sigh).


In the war on guns (ar har har!) the biggest offender is rarely discussed. How about taking guns away from a group of people who killed 54 million in about seven years? Not unborn babies, but people already born.

In case you wonder, the decision to kill people was unanimous many times and an overwhelming majority the rest of the time.

More recent? Ok. Only one member of Congress voted AGAINST military action against Afghanistan. De Juri, this is was not a war. De Facto, eh well, that's why so many lawyers are in Congress.

Iraq? Again the "left" and the "right" saw fit to kill people.


Vietnam draft. Again, L & R united to kill people. While the reasons for this war are a varied as the people who talk about it ... never mind.

If you served in Vietnam, thank you for your service. If you served or served in the military, thank you for your service. You deserve better than this country provides.

Waco. Which included children dying.

Ruby Ridge. A woman who was NOT wanted on any criminal charges was killed.

All the police shootings people are so excited about these days.

I could go on and on, but shan't.


We are also hearing a metric s-ton about sexual assault. Once again, the L and the R unite to make sure if you do not do as they say, you run the very real risk of being physically raped. Don't pay income taxes? You stand an excellent chance of getting raped. Don't show up for court for a speeding ticket? Run the risk of being raped.

This situation can be handled but the L & R are happy with the current state of affairs. If they were not, things would change.

The sad truth is, the L & R crowd (and they are one in the same) are CAVE people with extreme NIMBY tendencies.


The US Constitution prohibits cruel & unusual punishment. This is a moving standard in the US. What was not C&U 150 years ago is today. We don't legally hang horse theives any more.

However, an insulated judiciary and out-of-touch legislative and executive branch decide what C&U are these days. Again, on this issue the L &  R in power are of one accord. For that matter. most of the plebes are in lockstep.

If you are an L or an R, I invite you to prove me wrong. Prove. Not just espouse opinions. Give me hard data and hard facts.

I am not interested in potential reasons for these deaths, assaults and so on. I am not interested in justifications. Excuses will be ridiculed. Besides which, once you start down that path, then "the end justifies the means" applies to everything. Speak to me of reality, cold hard facts.

If the truth hurts, then beat me up if you think you can. You can't.

Proof also requires a statement of who you voted to put into office.  Because, yanno, actions speak louder than words. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Michael Jackson got it right

I'm starting with the man in the mirror

I'm asking him to change his waysAnd no message could have been any clearerIf you want to make the world a better placeTake a look at yourself, and then make a change
Much truth packed into those words.

Which is the first introduction to today's dose of what we all hope is coherent.

Intro 2

Me brother in ink John LeViness asked on FB what are the two most life-changing events in your life except for getting married and a having a child.

I replied:

Accepting a faith



For me, accepting the Christian theology is not a matter of just belief. It is acceptance of what I see as truth.

I rewrote this several times. The 2 sentences above are as close as I've gotten to getting it right.


I've written on this before. Won't belabor the point again.

I add this - Forgiving does not mean forgetting. It means remembering without hate.

I have a LONG way to go on this one.

Thursday, September 20, 2018

In search of less hostility

If you lurk my FB feed, you mighta noticed something.

Lot less politics. Lot less divisive stuff. Lot more jokes, fun stuff and things to make people smile. If you did not notice this, you have now. Still gonna be a political post now & then. I am a political animal.

This is intentional.

I am tired of the hate. I am tired of the invective. So I made a change. I changed the way I post.

I look for good stuff to share. I want to see good stuff.


Yassee, I'm of the opinion we ought to hate everybody equally.

That is a sentence 80 percent or more people who read it will misunderstand.

Semantically, it means exactly the same as "we ought to love everybody equally."

Yes, it does. Parse the words. The only qualifiers are "everybody" and "equally."

I'm also gonna continue to post things to try to make people think.


I do not tolerate ad hominem on my pages. Someone does that. SEE YA! Dropped, block & banned.

When someone attacks me on another page, the boot is swift there as well.

I do not attack people who comment in threads on my page or others' pages. I realize this may be a novel concept.

I will try to explain. I will do my best to understand the other person's POV. I do really enjoy that. Had other people tell me the same.


I've been blocked by others because they don't want to hear my reasoned comments. Scary thoughts are enough to make the most courageous adult pull the covers over his head and start chanting a security mantra.

I feel sorry for them. Sometimes. I'm bastard enough to laugh at them too, especially when things do not go according to their perception of reality.


In closed, I have Fluff Busting Purity overlaid on FB. This is far more effective than Ad Blocked at killing ads on FB. It also has custom filters, that allow me to block posts with certain words. Bye Felicia!

Current blocks?

Roseanne Barr
Colin Kaepernick

Is one other on the list, but you don't need to know that 'cause it is personal.

The list changes with the current news and Rage du Jour. Does it catch all of 'em? Nope. Better'n 80 percent though. I'll live with that.

Meantime, supper is about done and I'm hungry.

Friday, September 14, 2018

The mill doth grind

How many times have you heard something about yourself that was not true?

Did it make you mad? Did you want to go adjust someone's attitude?

Think about the last malicious gossip you heard about yourself.

Don't you WISH people would just come to you and get the truth?

Now that I have you riled up and bent in several directions...

How many times have you spread rumors about someone?

Ooooo. That sound I just heard musta been your toes breaking as I stepped all over 'em.

Rather than spread rumors, why doncha do one of two things?

1) Keep yo damfool mouf shut.

2) Keep yo damfool mouf shut.

If you cannot keep your piehole closed, then do everyone a favor. Go to the person you are gossiping about. Ask that person to tell you the truth. Then, see options 1 and 2 above.

You already admitted you want people to stop gossiping about you. You already admitted you want people to come and ask you about the truth.

Do the right thing. As we learned in Kindergarten, "do unto others as you want them to do to you."

Meantime, let the liars say what they will. You won't stop them. The mill doth grind.

The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones. William Shakespeare

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Disposable memories

Just cannot do it.

Can't, I tell you, can't.

Need to. Really need to.

But, but, but...

These old computers at the office need to have space cleared up. I need to trash files. Need to get rid of old stuff

I  tried. I really did.

But I made the mistake of opening one of the old files, a picture file.

Pictures. Oy.

Ever looked at pictures of your great-grandparents? Ever look at old Polaroid pictures of yourself (if you are that old)?

Love them pix, right?


Years ago, we had more than a bushel of old print photographs at the office. We opened the box to the public. People came in left and right to look through the pix for images of themselves, family and so on.

David Baldwin took the remainders and tried to get them to people who'd appreciate the pictures.

Pictures matter. They take us back. They remind us how far we've come. They tell us stories.


I have image files in this computer I write from that are 20 years old. I open them every now and then and resave them.

Why? To make sure the format is current, Make sure the computer can still open the image. Make sure the software is a recent version.

This is important. I have electronic files that I can still open. The most modern version of the creating software will not open the original files.

Our pictures are disposable memories these days. Snap one. Post it to social media and forget about by tomorrow. Change phones, lose phones, clear out old pictures to make space for new ones. Disposable.


It was not always so.

In the course of a year, I probably take 10,000 pictures or more. Digital. That is 10,000 instances frozen in time. That is 10,000 points of time recorded for .. all eternity? No. A few minutes? No. A few months? Getting closer. A year or three? Yeah. That's it.

When we still used film, if I shot 40 pictures in a week, that was HUGE.

Hours in the darkroom. Chemicals that could peel the hide off. Develop. Stop. Fix. Dry. When everything was done, clip the negatives and file 'em.

We saved the past.

Not any more.

Shoot, dump, pick, edit and trash the rest.

Gone forever, unless it makes it into an archive.

Many people have said once it gets online, it is there forever. It only seems like it. Websites come and go. Images get lost; they really do.

How many pictures have you lost over the years to system upgrades, computer crashes, lost or replaced phones, dead SIM cards?


Disposable memories.

So, I just can't dump these old files. These pictures mean something to someone.

I wish I knew how to get these pictures to the people who will appreciate them enough to save them for future generations.

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Self defense in your house

Me bud Mike Moore came by recently and we talked about self-defense in the home.

We were 100 percent agreed a shotgun is the best weapon. We mostly agreed on why. We had a difference of opinion of one item regarding the shotgun. That in a moment.

Why is the shotgun the best?

1) Loud. When you pull the trigger, everyone knows.

2) Easy to use. A shotgun has the quickest learning curve of any firearm.

3) Max damage.

More critically, a shotgun blast delivers significantly more damage than any other home-defense sized weapon per shot. I can't find it - dammitall - but I read a piece about the "stopping" power of various handguns from a .22 through a .44 mag in police and self-defense firing situations. Surprisingly, the little .380 was a top performing round.

Not surprisingly at all, the 12-gauge in home-defense distances blew (pun intended) everything else away.

With Federal Flitecontrol 8-shot 00 buckshot (THE recommended round for home defense), one shot is all that's needed. Get the 8 shot. Do not use the 9 shot. In 9-shot, one of the lead balls turns into a flier because of the way the projs are placed in the shot cup. 8-shot, all stay on target.


Look at this way.

In a handgun (or rifle for home defense if you have no sense), with each pull of the trigger you deliver 1 bullet.

In a shotgun with buckshot, you deliver a BUNCH of bullets per shot.

Someone now is going to talk about hydrostatic shock.

Yep. 1 .44 mag round delivers far more hydrostatic shock than a single buckshot. Every time.

But 8 buckshot at home defense range covers an entry area from a softball to a small plate. Each shot creates a separate wound channel and a separate shock channel. The total area affected is much larger with the 12-gauge than the .44 mag.

You can shoot someone 8 times with a 9mm in a 4-inch group. You can shoot once with a 12-gauge and accomplish the same thing.

4) If you get the Law Enforcement or low recoil buckshot, your chances of over penetration drop dramatically as compared to big-bore handguns or even mid-bore handguns with hot loads. If you use a rifle for home defense, please make sure you live several miles from me.

Also, high penetration rounds, like FMJ or solid brass are NOT SUITABLE for home defense. You do not want your bullets flying through several walls. The good stuff starts around 2:30 -

5) Do not get one of the shotguns with a 10-round magazine tube. Why? Too f'danged heavy. 3 shots are enough for home defense. Get a short barrel too.

So what did Mike & disagree about?


Sez me - When I rack that gun, I have done several things. I alerted the perp in the house that I am armed. I have told said perp he has 2 choices, leave or die. If the perp leaves, situation solved for me. If he keeps coming, I am committed to killing him.

Sez Mike - By racking the gun, you tell the perp where you are. By running him off, you have not solved the problem so much as you pushed it off probably on someone else.

Mike is correct. However, on the position issue, it's my house. I know the layout. The perp does not. I have the advantage there. I do not like the idea of having the thug run away to possibly harm or kill someone else. But if he runs away, I also eliminate the risk of me and my family being harmed.

The paperwork is a lot less too.


In the words of Mike, "Shotguns are not drop safe. People get shot every year from a loaded shotgun falling from a corner in the house/propped against the truck/leaned up somewhere. Your scattergat is not safe with a round in the pipe, and propped next to the bed. IMO, if you want to be safe, you have to rack the slide and put one in the pipe, in the event of an intrusion. Thus, making the 'to rack or not to rack' a moot point."

Monday, August 27, 2018

Of rights, wrongs and buying cat food

In one of the threads where I lurk, the question was asked:

Is academic writing ethical?

Down in the thread, the question was expanded. Is it ethical to write school papers for students? The great and vast majority of the writers chiming in said no. Two offered a bit of wit in their reply which could go either way to yes or to no, depending interpretations.

Me? I sezed:

Ethics and morals are pretty much the same in one sense. What is ethical and moral for you is not for someone else and vice versa.
You must live with yourself. 
If you do not try to force your ethics and morals on me, I shall do the same to you.
I have no issues with writing academic papers for students. 

So far no one has assailed me as the newest spawn of Satan, but I am certain several of the commentators thought that way.

One commentator said it is unethical and could get a student expelled.

Yes, that could happen. If so, that's a risk the student totally accepted in hiring someone to write a paper for him.

The ethics of the situation remain a personal matter.

In case you don't wonder, students have hired people to write papers for them since the first instructor demanded a student turn in a "research" paper. University professors in particularly hate it, which amuses me immensely. That's a subject for another post.


Those of a libertarian mindset like to say "No victim, no crime." A victim must be a living, breathing entity. A victim cannot be "the state," or "government" or a corporation, etc. Another way of putting it is: "Show me on this doll where you were harmed." Property damage is a crime.

Injury must be tangible. "Feelings" are not tangible. The L-crowd says no one is responsible for your feelings except you.

So who was harmed?

The school? No. The building and infrastructure remain intact.

The teacher? How? If anything, when a student hires someone to write a paper, that reflects on the teacher's ability to reach the student in question and instill a desire to learn about the subject. 

The taxpayers footing the bill for the student's education? Again, how. Can you prove economic damages?

The student? The student hired someone to perform a task. Provided the task was done to specs, how was anyone harmed? You say the student did not learn anything.

Au contraire! The student learned an extremely valuable lesson, far more valuable than learning about poor plotting and deus ex machina in the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs (a term paper I actually did write for myself thankyouverymuchforasking).

The student learned capitalism beats socialism unless socialism is backed up by a gun.


Not backed up by a gun you say? Maybe not a physical gun in this case but certainly government-endorsed violence. A kinder, gentler machine gun in the hands of a kind person kills just as thoroughly as the same gun in the hands of a psychopath.

As one of the thread commentators says, "As an educator, a university sponsored (sic) help center will have strict ethical guidelines of what they can and cannot do. If a student hires a private individual to edit, write, etc, in their stead, it is both unethical and grounds for expulsion."

Violence. Officially endorsed violence. Expulsion is an action against a student that has provable economic harm. Is this OK because it is endorsed, encoded and legal violence?



This writing for hire COULD be a violation of a contract. Did the student agree to write his own paper? Did the student agree that hiring someone to write the paper is grounds for expulsion?

If so, this is a contract violation and the student is subject to the penalties of the contract. Again, this is a far more valuable lesson than having to research whatever the teacher wants examined. Again, the student learned about capitalism in a very direct and personal way.

Violence, yes, but violence explicitly agreed to beforehand. Not violence foisted on the student by the dictates of others.

If the student gets away with it, as most do, another valuable lesson is learned.

Money talks. Period. Even in a socialist society, capitalism will exist. It may be on the black market, but it's gonna be there and will not be stopped. The student learns to navigate the shady side of the economy. That is certainly a more important lesson than explaining what a dirty loaf of bread in Chaucer signifies. (Shoot me a message and I'll tell ya what it means).


Sooner or later someone has to buy cat food, 'cause Kitty gotta eat. Last time I checked, stores that sell cat food insist on some form of cash. Students who choose to hire someone to write their papers have a choice. They could do the work and buy cat food or they could hire someone and not buy cat food.

Is this kind of write-for-hire unethical? Might be. Might not be. Ethics are a personal matter.

Ethics are wonderful, great and a needed stabilizing force in the world. Ethics don't pay rent, insurance premiums or the light bill. Money does.

Gotta find a balance in there.

Kitty gotta eat.


If you are a student looking for someone to write a paper for you, shoot me a message. I know someone, not me, who does it. Whether or not it is ethical is up to you.

Friday, August 17, 2018

Part the next - Gettin' what yas asked for but...


If you bothered to wade through the URL or clicked it, you know what is up. If you did not...

Satanic statue unveiled in Arkansas for capitol.

This is what you get when you demand religious displays be placed on taxpayer-owned property, everybody gets to participate.

You get what you asked for.

Yes. It. Is.

I could be wrong in the above and what follows. If so, please explain.

The First Amendment, aka 1A, reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The 14th Amemdment makes the Constutition, particularly the Amendments, apply to the states.

What does this mean? Our government cannot endorse or promote any specific religion.

Placing religious items on taxpayer-owned property is endorsing and promoting a religion.

Under the tenets of the Constitution, if one religion is allowed, all must be allowed.

Correct me if I am wrong.


Look at this more particularly and focus on a 1A phrase often pushed aside. “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

That means you can worship as you please without government interference. It does have some limits. You cannot sacrifice people anymore. Depending on how it is done, animal sacrifice is OK. Has to be quick and humane.

You eat meat? Then do not complain about animal sacrifice.

It means if you get to have a religious display on taxpayer-owned property, so do the other guys.

Yes. It. Does.

Correct me if I am wrong.


Lemme rock your world a lil bit.

Jesus never said government had to do anything. Jesus never protested government. Jesus never demanded government do anything.

Jesus submitted to an unjust and corrupt government.

If I am wrong, correct me.

Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.” John 18:36

Jesus lived under Roman occupation. The Romans had a motel full of various gods. The Bible and the Apocrypha NEVER speak to the government endorsement of those gods. Except as commands to the Jewish people to not have anything to do with other gods and get rid of them from their property. This applied when the Jews had their own government and were not subject to an outside government. When Israel was conquered by outside forces, the rule changed. The Bible even says so.

Yes, the Bible does speak in many places about worshipping other gods, but that is a command to the people, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

Correct me if I am wrong.


Here’s a passage you won’t hear in church very often. Lamar Lee used it regularly, but he’s the only preacher (cept me) I’ve ever heard talk about from the pulpit.

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” Romans 13:1

What does this mean? Fortunately, we have PLENTY of context in the Bible to explain this one.

Jesus never ordered the Roman occupying government to take down their temples and cease worship of those gods. Never. DId not happen.

Lemme rephrase for the hard-of-understanding.


He did point out people NOT THE GOVERNMENT should worship His Father.

If he did not object, then why do you?

Correct me if I am wrong.


Well yes, we have a different government than in Jesus’ time. We get to elect people to make our laws. Only true Roman citizens, back then, got to vote and the Jews were not allowed to vote. A lot like how people who have served all their sentence for crimes are not allowed to vote today, but that’s another blog.

The government, says the Bible, is ordained of God. If you believe the Bible, then it follows you believe that. if you believe that, again running this trail of logic, then you must believe God is allowing the Satanic statue.

Do you speak for God? Can you explain the dictates to obey government and yet protest against it at the same time? If the Bible is superior to the Constitution, then the Constitutional right to protest is subordinate to the Biblical command to obey.

Under the Bible, you do not complain about government. Under the Bible you do have the right to vote to change government.

Under the Bible you have the right to refuse to do what government orders, if it contradicts the Bible. Refuse, not fight against. Refuse, no matter the penalty to you. Meshach, Shadrach and Abednego anyone? What did Jesus do? What did the Apostles do? The jail doors popped open, but they stayed put.

What you gonna do, eh?

Again, I may be wrong. If so, correct me.

Under the Bible and the Constitution, you do not have to look at, regard, consider or even like the satanic statue.

Under both, you can't do anything about it, short of massively changing the government by voting or by running for office.

In case you do not wonder, the ReDamnoboobicraticans support the statue, at least in private. In public is another matter. If they did not support it, they would actually work to change the laws to prevent it.

Correct me if I am wrong.


Two actually. Telling the truth, like this, is a big reason people both hate me and attack me. This too is Biblical. It's also a reason most churches want nothing to do with me.

If the truth hurts, yer living wrong.

And in closing:

Monday, August 13, 2018

Gettin' what yas asked for but...

... Not what yas wanted.

The following post sparked plenty of comment, mostly people saying they did not know about. That's a blog for another day.

For those who say the Bible and religion cannot be taught in schools:
Since 2014, TCCLC ( Turner County Christian Learning Center) has provided off-campus Bible teaching for public and home-school students; giving them the opportunity to embrace the Gospel, to grow in Christian maturity, and to apply Biblical principles in the many choices they face daily in life.
TCCLC currently has Middle School classes which meet at an off-campus location during school hours. Students receive credit for these classes.
Lemme restate that for you
Speak ye not regarding matters ye wot not.


Anyone else see a BEEG BEEG BEEG, like a Brachiosaurus-in-the-parking lot issue, here?

Not the idea of public money being spent to teach these chillun about Christianity. Ain't happening, at least in this case. The TCCLC is privately funded. Classes are not held on school property. The teacher is not paid with school system funds. Etc. etc etc.

So if you are one who thinks to whine about taxpayer dollars being used to indoctrinate chilluns, go away. At least where this particular class is concerned. 

Since some of you are still having toe cramps about this:
SCOTUS has ruled. Now hush.


Didja think of that? Which religion may be taught offsite for classroom credit? The SCOTUS decision does not, and under the Constitution CANNOT specify which religion may be taught.

Islam? Yes.

Buddhism? Yes.

Hinduism? Yes.

Sikh? Yes.

Mormonism? Yep.

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If it is ever granted official status as a recognized religion, yes.

Jedi? Yes.

Zoroastrianism? Yes.

Voodoun? Yes.


Being given to "stirring things up" as some people say or as I say "tryna make a body think for a moment," lemme poke this dragon a bit further.

I do not believe anyone will come to my community and try to start a class for another religion. Said person would be run out of town, literally. Well, maybe not. Steve Laughlin did a comparative religion study class for adults a while back and it was well attended. If I had time to teach such a class, I would. In fact, if enough people will sign up for one, I will teach it.

[even the crickets are quiet]

If someone DID try another religious class in school here then:

1) The Board of Education, under the US Constitution, has to allow it. No choice. See 1A and freedom of religious expression.

2) I'd support it. Were my two chillun in school, yes I'd let them attend the class.


The problem with asking for something without thinking it through is that you get what you asked for and quite often you get whacked with it. A bit too late do anything then.

As my brother says, don't complain about the sandwich when you opened the can of worms.

Monday, August 6, 2018

Russian meddling in the election? Not really

I have yet to see proof Russia meddled in US elections. I see a very few allegations. I see LOTS of accused tampering with non-election computers and such.

if someone can please explain HOW Russia meddled in the election, I will appreciate it. On wid de blawg.

The points below come from a CNN report -

Full disclosure. I do not trust CNN. I do not trust Fox news. Fox, at least, is open about its agenda which I like. CNN is not. Both have no problem with "anonymous sources" or "sources close to" whatever. In other words, they are saying "We may be making stuff up. You have no idea."

One mo thang - If we are to hold Russians accountable for spreading lies during the election, then we must also hold millions of people, Americans, accountable for the same action. Or, be hypocrites.

I already know which way that tree fell.


Meddle- to interfere with something that is none of your business. To touch things without permission.

Given the global reach of the United States, I say Russia does have a reason to be concerned about who gets elected.

Based on the CNN report, Russia compromised 1 email and attacks computers at a voting machine company. This was not done during the election. I concede it could be an attempt to see if comps could be hacked during the election.

“Some states reported attempts to infiltrate their computer systems.” This goes on daily by hackers from around the world. Was it Russians? Could be.

“Although vote-counting systems were not impacted…”

So the election remained secure, if we are to believe CNN and the government.

No. Meddling.


Please note here an NSA memo was leaked and a person charged with a criminal offense for doing so. An NSA memo is not the election.

The DNC is is not an election nor are their computers part of the election process. Same for the RNC. Tampering, hacking, etc for computers that are NOT part of the US election system is not meddling in the election.

It does appear DNC and RNC computers were meddled with. This is not meddling with the election. This is not tampering with the election. None of those computers are part of the election system. Those computers are privately purchased, privately managed and not connected to election machines.

I hit some of the CNN news report points below until I got tired of repeating myself.

Nov. ’15 - Further “DNC management later says that IT technicians failed to pass along the message that the system had been breached.” If there is fault here, it sits squarely with the DNC. 

This is not election meddling. Its monkeying with the computers belonging to a non governmental agency.

“The staffer replies with a typo - instead of typing "This is an illegitimate email," the staffer types "This is a legitimate email." Podesta follows the instructions and types a new password, allowing hackers to access his emails.” 

March ’16 - Mr. Podesta is not a government employee nor does he have anything to do with the election, aside from his own vote. His computers are not part of the election system.

June ’16 - Clinton emails are not part of the election system.

June ’16 - DNC computers are not the election system.

July ’16 - DNC emails are not the election system.

July ’16 - Clinton’s private server is not part of the election system. 

Aug ’16 - Elected Democratics’ personal information and campaign committee personal info is not part of the election system.

Sept. ’16 - “ultimately the hackers revealed important information for voters.” Revealing information is not meddling. Reporters have done this for centuries.

Sept. ’16 - “they believe that Russian intelligence agencies are carrying out a plan to interfere with the election.” Aha. Now we are getting somewhere, except this is merely an accusation of something that may happen. 

Proof? Did it happen? I can point you to plenty of people who believe the world is flat. I can also point you to people who thought the world was going to end on a specific date.


Oct-Nov ’16 - Revealed emails from people outside the election system is not meddling with the election. Reporters have been revealing emails since it was created. 

The Nixon Administration was brought down by revealing information people wanted to keep secret. I supposed by the standards of all the above, this is meddling too.

Oct. ’16 - Again, revealing emails from non-election system employees or election computers is not meddling.

Nov 16 - “Russia's purpose for meddling in the election was to sway voters.”

To sway voters is a Constitutional right. Does the Constitution apply to Russians?

“Even a quarter-century later, however, just what that decision actually means about extraterritorial reach for the Constitution remains a matter of considerable debate. The main opinion said that constitutional rights do not apply outside the country to an individual who had no voluntary links to the United States. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy supplied a necessary fifth vote to make a majority in that case, and his separate opinion suggested that he thought that the specific context of each case might actually make the difference in the analysis.”

Can US law apply outside the US? Yes.
“ In 1988, Noriega was indicted by federal grand juries in Miami and Tampa on charges of racketeering, drug smuggling, and money laundering. “

“July 13, 2018 - The Justice Department announces indictments against 12 members of the Russian intelligence agency”

If US law can apply outside the US to non US citizens, then they must also be afforded protections of the Constitution, which includes the right to free speech. Free speech being something the US strongly advocates across the planet, at least until it goes against the US government-directed narrative. To attempt to sway voters is absolutely Constitutional.

Dec. ’16 - “Meanwhile, media critics question the Post's reliance on anonymous sources for the CIA report and advise readers to be wary of claims in the article due to the lack of publicly available evidence to support the spy agency's conclusions.” 

In other words, the Post could be making stuff up. It happens regularly, frequently and often. No, I do not trust them.

Dec. ’16 - Hacking into RNC computers is not election meddling. RNC computers, as with the DNC computers, have nothing to do with the actual election.

And so on.

You can't say that here

InfoWars, the major conspiracy website on the net and a hard right wing website is banned from Facebook, YouTube and Apple.

Founder Alex Jones, as you expect, is not taking this well. He is calling it censorship.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That second, luddites and geraniums, is the 1st Amendment. It says gummint cannot stop you from saying things. Yes, there are limits. You can't yell "MOVIE!" in a crowded... hang on. No. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater.

Well, yes you can. And if you get caught, you will face criminal charges. You have to actually do it to be prosecuted.


The flip side to the 1st is:

You have the right to keep yo' damfool mouf shut. No one can force you speak against your will. If they do, they face criminal charges.

No private company has to provide you space to mouth off.

Lemme repeat for the kids in the back row. You don't get to use someone else's space/place/bandwidth to shout your opinion.

Facebook, Apple and YouTube have the right to boot Mr. Jones off their websites.

I repeat for those expressing disbelief - Those three outfits have the right to tell Mr. Jones to stuff it.

I am TOTALLY Ok with Mr. Jones being hurled off the metaphorical cliff. If the policy is applied equally and across the board. That ain't being done.

(Side note, YouTube parent company Google is a building a censored search engine for China's use. I realize the real parent company is named Alphabet, but we all call it Google).


Mr. Jones is a conspiracy theorist to be sure. His conservative politics are as much a reason for him being booted as his nonsense.

You want proof.

FB, Apple and YouTube are also full of hard left wingers who spout similar nonsense, pack their words with hate and generally carry on in the same manner as Mr. Jones. In the search bar of any these Internet giants, type in the words "kill white people." There's your proof.


Louis Farrakhan. Hate-packed music videos on YouTube. This'n probably slipped under your radar.

The most egregious example of far left wing hate is the hiring of Sarah Jeong at the New York Times.

Could provide plenty more, but I do not see the need to help spread hate.

Change the names in the spewed rhetoric and the message is exactly the same. Exactly. The. Same.

What is wrong in this? Those three outlets will let the far left maintain their social media presence. You won't hear a peep about the left wingers and their nonsense.

That is a double-standard and that is flat wrong.

Hate is hate.

We are all in this together and we need to start acting like it. Reject the hate from all corners and all comers.

Help somebody instead of criticizing them.

Sunday, August 5, 2018

The more they change, the more they are the same

Heavily left wing communities are telling the heavily right wing federal government, "no."

There is pretty much no difference between this and the standoff out west with the Bundy Bunch.

Someone will now start screaming, "YES IT IS DIFFERENT!"

How? The someone above says, "The Portland protest was about treating people right."

As was the Bundy Bunch protest. They crew felt they were not getting a fair shake from the federal government.

It is exactly the same. The oil pipeline protest - exactly the same. The "Occupy Wall Street" protest - exactly the same.

With one major, glaring exception. See if you can tell which protest is which:

1) Charles Williams, a 62-year-old man who lives across the street, said someone threatened to stab him with an “AIDS-infected needle.” From his balcony, he saw the “thugs” begin masked street patrols. Others brandished sticks. Lisa Leonard, a 53-year-old disabled resident, said occupiers hit her on her head, disabled her electric wheelchair, and lifted her in the air when she complained about loud drumming.

2) The militants began to vandalize the property, which local community leaders characterized as an attempt to provoke violent confrontation.

3) Investigators found "significant amounts of human feces" at "two large trenches and an improvised road on or adjacent to grounds.

4)  But there is one undeniable--if temporary--legacy that the recently evacuated partisans ... have bequeathed: 30 tons of trash.

5) Cleanup crews have removed 48 million pounds of trash so far from the ... protest camp — and they’re not finished yet.

6) Protesters set a dozen fires near the bridge, police said.

Change the names. The story is the same. The truth is the oligarchy loves this kind of stuff. Divide. Conquer. The story line is eons old.

The sole difference is one claims to want less government, but actually screams for more. One wants more government, but screams when more government shows up. Cognitive disconnection, thy name is human.

What we are seeing is community, grass-roots reactions to an increasingly overbearing federal government. The nation tried this once before, for the wrong reason. Unless something fundamental changes, it won't work this time.

Those on the front lines would rather fight each other than fight the real enemy.

The reality is both wings are attached to the same bird and the bird tells the wings what to do.