Tag: politics

Another Day, Another Justin Trudeau Scandal

By Joshua Weigert
July 11th, 2020

Co-founders of WE Charity Craig (left) and Marc Kielburger introduce Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his wife Sophie Gregoire at a WE Day celebration in 2015. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

Throughout his five years in office, Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is no stranger to scandals and ethics violations. This past week, it was revealed that Trudeau was involved in another scandal. This time, it might be his worst violation yet.

On June 25th, Trudeau and his Liberal Party announced a $912 million program offering grants to college/university students in exchange for “supervised volunteer hours.” In other words, Trudeau was planning on paying students for their (mainly) leftist activism.

The government would not run the $912 million program, but instead, it was a contract sole-sourced to WE Charity (in other words, WE Charity will solely receive and divide the grants to students).

You may be somewhat familiar with WE Charity as they organize and run the “WE Day” events, which are stadium-sized youth empowerment events celebrating (mainly) leftist activism.

Trudeau had previous ties with the charity, as his wife, Sophie Trudeau, received $1,500 for participating in an event in 2012 before Justin became the Liberal leader and Prime Minister.

This alone caused plenty of eyebrows to be raised at Trudeaus June 25th announcement. How can Trudeau give a billion dollars to a charity he has ties with?

According to the CBC, “Trudeau admitted to reporters earlier this week that he did not recuse himself from cabinet discussions that led to the decision to award the contract to WE Charity” (1).

Then a bombshell dropped this past Thursday afternoon.
WE Charity came out on Thursday with a statement that they don’t pay their speakers any speaking or travel fees.

However, less than an hour later, it was revealed that BOTH Margaret Trudeau (Justin’s mother) and Alexandre Trudeau (Justin’s brother) received $250,000 and $32,000, respectively (2).

Graphic credit to the Post Millennial

Justin Trudeau awarded a charity that he has family ties with, who have paid his family members speaking fees, with almost a billion dollars of taxpayer money. This isn’t just some small-scale scandal, as there are 912 million reasons why this is serious. This type of scandal SHOULD bring down ANY leader and/or Prime Minister. However, Trudeau has survived two previous ethics violations during his reign as Prime Minister.

His first violation occurred a few months after winning his first election, where he and his family vacationed on Aga Khan’s private island. At the same time, Khan’s business was in contract talks with the Canadian Federal government (3).

His second violation was brought to light last summer, where he attempted to interfere and pressure the Attorney General to go soft on SNC-Lavalin, a construction firm located in Montreal who was found to be involved in a bribing scandal (4). You may not know that Justin Trudeau’s election district is in Montreal. Coincidence?

Trudeau also survived a black-face scandal where he painted his face black not once, not twice, but on AT LEAST three separate times (Trudeau admits he may have painted his face more than three times) (5).

If history is any indicator, I doubt this WE Charity scandal will destroy his political career. Had ANY Conservative (or any Republican in the US) been involved in Trudeau’s previous and current scandals, they would have had their political life tarnished. However, Trudeau has the Canadian leftist media in his pocket, and this scandal will be forgotten in a few weeks.

You can be corrupt and commit racist acts, but if you promulgate the leftist narrative, you will be forgiven. This is real injustice.


(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/margaret-justin-trudeau-we-charity-1.5643586?fbclid=IwAR10vqLjkPpecDSG0Keknp3Vkr7caETkGYCQNYASNAy-CE5WSJKW6cKpW-c
(2) https://www.canadalandshow.com/trudeau-family-paid-by-we-organization/
(3) https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/12/20/trudeau-violated-conflict-of-interest-rules-with-vacation-to-aga-khans-island-ethics-commissioner-says.html
(4) https://www.vox.com/2019/8/15/20806133/justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin-ethics-report-canada-elections
(5) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-votes-2019-trudeau-blackface-brownface-cbc-explains-1.5290664

The Myth of Black Lives Matter

By Joshua Weigert
July 7th, 2020

Since its conception, Black Lives Matter (BLM) has caused a severe division in the American political landscape for various reasons. BLM was founded in 2013 as a result of the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin. BLM viewed this verdict as injustice and demanded societal reforms. Subsequent high-profile black deaths in the years following led to more and more protesting by BLM.

Because of BLM’s media attention, this has led to certain confusions and myths pertaining to BLM to arise. Most of these confusions and myths relate to what BLM actually is. The most prevalent myth of them all is that BLM is just an innocent slogan fighting for black rights. Because of this, there is a significant pushback against BLM.

There seem to be two main objections to BLM. The grievances pertaining to BLM are as follows:

  1. The slogan “Black Lives Matter,”
  2. The organization BLM

First, I think it is essential to differentiate between the phrase “black lives matter” and the organization BLM, as they are very different. Yes, black lives matter. Are there large groups of people who think they don’t? The implication of a slogan saying “X matters”, implies that there is a counter-thought of “X doesn’t matter,” or a passive attitude of X isn’t important. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is a vile organization that has been rightly shunned and ostracized for decades. However, according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), it is estimated that the KKK comprises of about 3,000 individuals. Considering the population of the United States is about 330 million, this is an extremely tiny minority of people who make up the KKK. Is there any other community of people who oppose black lives? However, I am not too interested in the first objection to BLM as the main topic of this article pertains mostly to the second objection.

What are the purposes and objectives of BLM as an organization? It seems as though many are confused about their main goals and what they are actually fighting for or against. Take the below video clip as an example.

In the video clip, the CNN host Don Lemon argues with actor Terry Crews on BLM’s objectives. Lemon claims that BLM is an organization only interested in police injustice, while Crews explains that BLM goes beyond police injustice.

Who is right?

First, it’s hard to ignore Lemons’ pontification and belittlement of Crews. Who is Lemon to tell Crews to get tougher skin? If Lemon really wanted to hear about Crews’ views and arguments against BLM, he would have let him express them. Lemon didn’t allow Crews to do so, consistently cutting him off and talking down to him.

Lemon claims that BLM is not “all-encompassing”, and that the BLM movement “is about police brutality… not about what is happening in black neighborhoods”. Lastly, he then talks about how BLM is not about black on black crime.

Essentially, Lemon argues that “black lives matter” does not pertain to all black lives.

However, on BLM’s website, the organization talks about how we “must ensure we are building a movement that brings all of us to the front.” The site goes on to affirm the lives of “all Black lives along the gender spectrum.” Lastly, BLM promises to “work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people.”

This organization claims to be for ALL black injustices, including black on black violence. Sorry Lemon, but BLM has gone well beyond police injustices.

BLM expanding beyond police injustice is not inherently wrong. The issue with BLM is that it is a Marxist organization. In an interview with Jared Ball of the Real News Network, BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors said, “we actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia (another co-founder) in particular are trained organizers.” Cullors goes on to say, “we are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk.”

BLM has admitted they are trained Marxists. This is even more evident by the use of “comrade” throughout their website, and the general anti-capitalist/ pro-social and economic revolution mission statement.

BLM supports illegal immigrants, defunding the police, abortion, and a host of other issues from the leftist platform. BLM even plans to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.”

For these reasons, it is difficult for many Americans to get behind an organization that undermines America. It is a myth that BLM is just an innocent movement or slogan. BLM is more than that. BLM is a political ideology that is incompatible with American values and her way of life.





No, You Should Not Be Ashamed to Celebrate the 4th of July

By Joshua Weigert
July 3rd, 2020

For the past several days, there has been much talk about “canceling” the 4th of July. The idea behind canceling Independence Day is not a surprise: America is a terrible, awful, no good place. The reasons for this canceling are equally not surprising: Racism towards African-Americans, Native Indians, and general anti-LGBTQAAIIPEIEIOAT&T sentiments. 

Yes, the history of America was not always great and, at times, profoundly evil. Slavery and Jim Crow laws are examples of how systemic racism and bigotry were able to run rampant. However, this does not mean that America, the American Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, is rooted in racism and/or evil. Few more profound words have ever been written than “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 

THIS is what America was founded on. THIS is what America strives towards. THIS is also what leftists are trying to destroy. 

Earlier this week, the official Democrat Party twitter likened Mount Rushmore to a symbol of white supremacy. 

The tweet linked an article that parroted a view that the American monument was a symbol of racism. The tweet also lambasted the monument by claiming it was on land stolen from tribal communities. 

The mainstream media have echoed the Democrat Party and are pushing a narrative that America is genuinely and foundationally racist and evil. On the same day, the New York Times published an article with a tweet that read, “Mount Rushmore was built on land that belonged to the Lakota tribe and sculpted by a man who had strong bonds with the Ku Klux Klan. It features the faces of 2 U.S. presidents who were slaveholders.”

The Constitution grants both the Democrat Party and the New York Times the freedom to criticize America. The values and guarantees embedded in the Constitution create the fertile ground for the success of both organizations like the New York Times and the career politicians in the Democrat Party. 

Singer and songwriter Pharrell Williams also came out this week mildly criticizing the 4th of July. Pharrell Williams is roughly worth $150 million. All of Williams’ success and monetary worth is a result of America and the ideals that intertwine our great country. 

The radical left is rejecting the foundational principles of America. The extreme left only sees the disparity of outcomes of various groups and points to a flawed system as the culprit. Yes, all men are created equal. But, this does not mean that all men will have an identical outcome. This point is where the radical left is confused. Pharrell Williams and I are created equal. However, we do not have comparable singing skills. In this way, we do not have a similar outcome. Or, let’s take Lebron James’ jump shot and compare it with my own. We’re both created equally, but have unequal outcomes. 

This is the fundamental difference between conservatism and leftism. Conservatives look at America and see the possibilities and the freedoms it grants and allows. Leftism sees inequality of outcome and jumps to the conclusion that America should not be celebrated. 

Fredrick Douglass, one of the most famous abolitionists in history, was a former slave turned writer, speaker, and statesman. Contrary to many abolitionists in his day who saw the Constitution as a document supporting slavery, Douglass saw it as a “glorious liberty document.” Douglass understood the Declaration of Independence as a charter of “saving principles.” Douglass believed the Constitution enshrined the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence, where “all men are created equal” and born with “unalienable Rights.” Douglass went further and looked at the language used in the Constitution and said that “it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.”

Douglass recognized that the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution did not, at the time, apply to women and African-Americans. However, he knew that these documents could and should apply to these groups. He saw potential in the documents and found it to be beautiful. 

Today, America is the free-est most prosperous nation in the world. Americans have fought and died for freedom in Europe and around the world. Americans are the most charitable people in the world. There is no greater place for opportunity than the United States of America. This is all as a result of the principles and ideals set forward by the Founding Fathers in both the Declaration of Independence, where all men are created equal and the Constitution, which enriches our Rights as American citizens.

What did Fredrick Douglass see in the Founding Fathers, The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution that modern-day leftists can’t? How could a former African-American slave understand the potential and beauty in the founding of America, but the media and the Democrat Party can not? 

As I write this we see a push from leftists to re-segregate areas for “black safe spaces.” We see a push for monetary reparations to African-Americans who were not slaves, from white people who were not slave-owners. We see leftist groups like BLM and Antifa riot and use violence to intimidate. They claim that white people as a race need to repair and fix the damages done by their kin. These leftists rejecting the foundation of America, where all men are created equal, is not progression, its regression. 

In the words of the Spanish philosopher George Santayana, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Happy Independence Day, America!






Whites are Red, Blacks are Blue

“If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, you ain’t black.” – Joe Biden

If this was a joke, as the Washington Posts suggest, (1) Biden sure took his time to set up and deliver and an awful punchline that produced no chuckles.

But apparently, the black community is fine with being the butt of a joke as long as it comes from the right mouth.

If you need any clarification at all, this wasn’t a joke. This “gaff” was a freudian slip for how the Progressive Left views the black vote. (2)

Blacks only have themselves to blame – voting Left at a 90% clip and expecting largely nothing in return. (3)

State of the Union 2020

Democrat elected cities make it harder for them to find successful schools. (4) They run states making it harder to find good work or start their own business. (5) Their states do more to champion illegal aliens then black causes – and of course working ceaselessly to remove their ability to protect themselves against a government they still claim is racist. (6/7)

If this were merely a joke, it would not so clearly echo exactly the same attacks against those us who dared to escape Democrat’s ideological plantation. Attacks we’ve been on the receiving end for years now: (8)

  • “How can you vote for Republicans, they don’t care about your people.”
  • “You’re an oreo.”
  • “Uncle Tom.”
  • “You forget what color you are?”
  • “You’re in the sunken place.”
  • “Wigga”
  • “House nigga.”
  • “Sell out.”
  • “Race traitor.”

As a black Constitutional Conservative, I have been labeled all these things and more. The latter of which is unironically borrowed from the Nazis (Hello Godwin). (9)

What is ironic, however, is that most of these attacks against black conservatives and libertarians are from black enforcers.
Biden didn’t say anything new. (10) In some weird way, I pity him for the heat he has received on the issue.

When boiled down, Biden’s message is atrociously racist in that it assumes blacks cannot think for themselves. The suggestion that merely considering voting Republican meant losing your “blackness,” would never had made waves if a black man said the same thing.

In essence, Biden simply violated the same rules afforded to the “N” word. He uttered it while white. And thats why the Left in the main stream media have been so soft on their response to the issue.

Instead of outright condemnation of this statement, they choose to act as apologists.
Somehow, the Left understands that calling Obama “articulate” is underhanded racism but they shrug their shoulders at the suggestion that blacks will lose their identity by considering Trump. (11)

If this all sounds strange to you in the non-black community – just understand that having you blackness questioned is common tactic in the black community. It is a way in which the community at large disowns and disavows a person in their entirety.

It is similar to a hispanic being disowned by hispanics for not speaking Spanish. It is likened to an asian being disowned by their specific asian community for marrying outside their race. Or similar for a homosexual man being told he is less of a man for not preferring women. I am ignorant of such an equivalent in the caucasian community.

This is why Clarence Thomas, despite his status as a Supreme Court Justice, would not be mentioned inside the Black History Museum in DC had it not been curators devoting a portion to his black female accuser, Anita Hill.(12)

This is why Thomas Sowell is an unknown figure to the black community despite being a renowned economist and social commenter in Conservative-Libertarian circles. (13)

Some people call it, “being uninvited to the cookout.” I call it an extreme form of identity politics. I call it racism. (14)

Perhaps they’ll consider the words of Malcom X (or maybe they’ll suggest he wasn’t black enough).

Whatever they decide, they’ll be used by the Left to vote blue because they foolishly fear the Right will… “put ya’ll back in chains!” – Joe Biden (15)

– Signed, a black Constitutional Conservative, Ken Gulley

(1) WP – https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/22/come-bidens-you-aint-black-comment-was-clearly-joke/?outputType=amp (Leftis bias)
(2) Fox – https://www.foxnews.com/media/marc-lamont-hill-biden-black-voters (Right 
(3) Pew – https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/08/the-2018-midterm-vote-divisions-by-race-gender-education/ (Research)
(4) Cato – https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/2020-democrats-are-school-choice-hypocrites (Libertarian Bias)
(5) CFP – https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/opinion/freepress/story/2013/jul/28/liberal-policies-harm-black-americans/114341/
(6) SFT – http://www.sfltimes.com/opinion/democrats-blind-to-illegal-immigration-blacks-middle-class
(7) NYT – https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/09/opinion/sunday/gun-ownership-blacks.html (Left bias)
(8) Quora –https://www.quora.com/Why-are-black-conservatives-hated-in-the-black-community

(9) Rassenchade – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rassenschande
(10) Larry Elder – https://bit.ly/3daoCAk (Right bias)
(11) News One –https://newsone.com/3881474/joe-biden-obama-articulate-clean-context/ (left lean$
(12) TheHill –https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/353035-justice-delayed-black-history-museum-finally-recognizes-justice-clarence (Liberal bias)
(13) RCP –https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/08/10/the_shameful_blackout_of_thomas_sowell_and_williams_134711.html (Right bias)
(14) KYM –https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/invited-to-the-cookout

(15) CBS – https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-tells-african-american-audience-gop-ticket-would-put-them-back-in-chains/ (Liberal lean)

#MeToo for thee, but not for me

By Joshua Weigert
April 17, 2020

In a shocking turn of events, the Democrats and the mainstream media are largely ignoring or questioning Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden’s sexual assault accuser.

Unfortunately, if you’ve been paying attention to politics over the last number of years, this really isn’t shocking.

In an interview with podcast host Katie Halper, Tara Reade, a former Biden staffer in the 90s, described the sexual assault allegation. Reade claims that in 1993, Joe Biden pushed her against a wall and placed his fingers between her legs and penetrated her. She eventually pulled away and Biden allegedly told her that he thought she “liked” him (1).

Reade was one of several women who came forward publicly last year alleging Biden had kissed or touched them in uncomfortable ways. When asked why she waited a year to reveal her more serious allegation, she claimed it was because no one else witnessed the incident. She does claim that others saw Biden harass her on different occasions, though (1).

In January, Reade approached the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund looking for assistance. Reade was told that they were unable to provide assistance to her because Biden is a candidate for federal office and that pursuing a case could jeopardize their non-profit status (2).

Kate Bedingfield, Biden’s deputy campaign manager, said in a statement that “Women have a right to tell their story, and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims. We encourage them to do so, because these accusations are false” (1).

So, what happened to #BelieveAllWomen? What happened to #MeToo? What happened to #TimesUp?

Politics and Agendas. That’s what happened.

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post claimed in a tweet in September of 2018 that Brett Kavanaugh didn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt because the Supreme Court was on the line. Now, she seems to put the burden of proof on the woman’s allegation. Is the President not as serious of a job than a Supreme Court Justice? It’s likely the President will have to nominate a new justice within the next 4 years.

What about Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times? In her article in September of 2018, Christine Blasey Ford was a hero. The villains in the Ford article are the Republicans and Brett Kavanaugh. In Goldberg’s article of Reade, the villains are “bad faith” trolls who have the nerve to hold the #MeToo crowd to the same standards they had for Kavanaugh and conservative men.

Then we have Joan Walsh of the Nation. She had no problems writing deeply emotional articles about the plight of women when Ford was accusing Kavanaugh, but has a critical and skeptical take on Reade’s accusations against Joe Biden. She seems to only want women to tell stories that get conservative men in hot water.

When the New York Times finally decided to publish the story about Reade’s allegations against Biden, the headline of the article read “Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden”. Again, an odd headline in the era of #MeToo. It does get worse, though.

The New York Times tweeted that they found “no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable”. In other words, “we found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden, beyond the documented history of sexual misconduct”. The New York Times’ tweet is like if the police arrive at the scene of a suspected burglary and say “we found no pattern of burglary, beyond shattered windows, forced entry and expensive china and diamonds missing”. The tweet has since been deleted, but the line “we found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden” is still in the article (3).

In the same piece, the authors wrote (in regards to Reade filing a police report) “Ms. Reade said she filed the report to give herself an additional degree of safety from potential threats. Filing a false police report may be punishable by a fine and imprisonment” (3).

May be punishable by a fine and imprisonment? Have the New York Times ever written that while reporting on any other sexual assault allegation? If no one is accusing her of filling a false police report, why is this line even in the article, then? This is the disgusting way the mainstream media frames allegations against left-wing figures in a positive way towards the figure. The mainstream media knows what they’re doing.

The media’s cover and protection of their candidate, Joe Biden, isn’t just in the framing of their articles and stories, it’s even more evident by the lack of coverage in general.

What is the justification behind CNN not having a single article mentioning Tara Reade? What’s the rationale behind CNN host Brian Stelter, an apparent truth seeker, to tweet about Ford 44 times but completely ignore Reade’s story?

Are Reade’s allegations against Biden any less credible than Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh?

Ford did not tell a single person about her assault and no one was able to corroborate the story. Reade claims she told people about Biden’s assault and inappropriate touching and kissing.  

Ford remembers virtually nothing about when it happened or specific details of the assault. Reade remembers almost all the details pertaining to the incidents.

Ford accused a man who has no established history of inappropriate behaviours, besides a few beers during highschool. Reade is accusing a man with a recent history of inappropriate behaviour and who just recently had seven other women accuse him of inappropriate behavior. We can even see recent video footage of Biden smelling women’s hair and touching them in inappropriate ways. It isn’t enough for the mainstream media, however, as President Trump must be stopped at any cost.

Former President Barack Obama and former Democratic Presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have come out this past week to endorse Joe Biden. All three politicians have claimed to be supporters of the #MeToo movement and against the silencing of women who have experienced sexual assault.

Obama has always claimed to be a champion of women’s rights. In a speech in September of 2018, Barack Obama said “If you support the #MeToo movement, you’re outraged by stories of sexual harassment and assault, inspired by the women who have shared them, you’ve got to do more than retweet a hashtag” (4). He’s right, you have to do more than retweet a hashtag. I don’t think endorsing and trying to get the accused into the White House was what he had in mind, though.

What about Michelle Obama? She had strong words to say in 2018 in support of the #MeToo movement. What does she have to think about her pal Joe Biden being credibly accused of sexual assault?

In an interview with the Cut, Senator Elizabeth Warren said:

“the #MeToo movement is grassroots at its most powerful. It’s the reminder that we are stronger when we stand up for each other. The first women who spoke up in the #MeToo movement inspired a wave of women who spoke up, and they in turn inspired another wave and another wave and another wave until the world no longer looks the same.” (5)

Tell me, Warren, did you “stand up” for Reade? Did Reade inspire another wave of women? Or did victims become unmotivated to share their experiences because of the way they see the media and Democrats treating and ignoring Reade?

Bernie Sanders claims to be a champion of the people, fighting against the establishment and the 1%. Where is Bernie in championing for Reade? Instead of tweeting platitudes, why not take action? Bernie could take a stand against sexual harassment by condemning Biden. But instead, Bernie endorsed him knowing full well the allegations against him.

The mainstream media, the Democrats, they’re all hypocrites. They never supported women who’ve experienced sexual assault. They only supported those accusations against conservatives because it was politically convenient at the time.

These people don’t care about women. Don’t let them fool you.


(1) https://www.vox.com/2020/3/27/21195935/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation
(2) https://www.democracynow.org/2020/3/31/tara_reade_joe_biden_sexual_assault
(3) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html
(4) https://qz.com/work/1382861/obama-voting-can-make-workplaces-better-for-women/
(5) https://www.thecut.com/2018/06/elizabeth-warren-interview.html

The Next Battleground: The Voting Booth

By Ken Gulley

“Never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

Rahm Emmanuel

As Democrats, and some Republicans, quickly jump to flex their authoritarian muscles during this unprecedented pandemic and economic crisis; Democrats have also been quick to push forward the old idea of nationwide mail-in elections for state primaries and Federal elections. (1)

In the name of “public safety” of course.

It wouldn’t be the first time Democrats have sought to Federalize state elections – seeking to do so during the first Covid 19 Stimulus deal in March (2).

Image 1: Breitbart News

While mainstream media touting the Democratic message of easing mail-in ballots nationally, Breitbart, the notorious Right winged-based media source, broke a story suggesting that up to 16.4 Million vote ballots went missing (included in these numbers are ballots that were misdirected and/or undeliverable). (Image 1)

Whereas Democrats already refuse the validity of Voter ID laws, calling them racist or restrictive, some have even made moves to repeal Voter ID laws already in place, as Virginia Gov. Northam did today. (3)

With issues concerning mail-in ballots and suspicions regarding “ballot harvesting,” (4) it is safe to suggest that concerns over the Left’s desire to transform the election system are more than warranted.

Image 2: New York Times

One doesn’t need to reach back to 2016-2018 to see the concerns every American should have regarding mail-in ballots. Wisconsin is currently reeling from a smaller but considerable issue from early April. (Image 2)

While these incidents do not necessarily denote “voter fraud” – they also don’t necessarily refute the possibility that sometimes large sums of mail – or just ballots themselves – are conveniently lost (5). No matter how small of a scale, proven cases of Voter Fraud are in fact taking place in the United States (Image 3).

Image 3: Heritage Foundation

Democrats attempts to push-vote by-mail elections no doubt is tied to the push to bail out the USPS, which is losing millions every year. (6)

As President Trump stone walls Democrat attempts for the time being, you can rest assured that this issue will continue to be pushed forward even well beyond the time this crisis has passed. The reasoning for the necessity will simply change without any push back from mainstream media.

Mail-in ballots are a workaround to Voter ID laws and a boost to ballot harvesting methods championed by the Left. Full disclosure, I currently vote by mail but hand deliver the ballot to voting booths and/or deliver it directly to state approved referees to assure they are counted. (I’ll be repealing my mail-in ballot in the future in favor of in person voting.)

The election system is safe only when a man or woman arrives in person to cast their own ballot with proper identification insuring their proper Right to do so is secured with identification. There’s nothing racist about that. (Image 4)

Image 4: Nelson Mandela


> Image 1: B – Right bias https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/10/federal-data-16-4m-mail-in-ballots-went-missing-in-2016-2018-elections/

• Internal Source (from Breitbart Article):

– PILF – Conservative Bias: https://publicinterestlegal.org/

– USEAC – non-partisan entity

> Image 2: NYT – Liberal/ Left lean https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/us/politics/wisconsin-election-absentee-coronavirus.html

> Image 3: Heritage Foundation – https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud (Conservative lean)

> Image 4: Nelson Mandela – Voter ID

(1) https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/09/mccarthy-mail-in-voting-177540 (Politico – liberal lean)

(2) https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/23/nancy-pelosi-coronavirus-stimulus-package-socialis/ (WT – conservative bias)

(3) https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/virginia/gov-northam-signs-legislation-that-repeals-virginia-vote-id-law-makes-election-day-state-holiday/291-1c4ef0d1-1578-4646-b7b9-93350c29315a (local affiliate)

(4) https://web.archive.org/web/20191214123711/https://thehill.com/homenews/house/418880-ryan-casts-doubt-on-bizarre-california-election-results (TH – liberal lean)

(5) https://www.texastribune.org/2019/12/16/missing-midland-texas-ballot-box-could-throw-bond-election-question/ (Right lean)

(6) https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/11/post-office-bailout-trump/?outputType=amp (WP – leftist bias)

Are our freedoms and liberties being destroyed by COVID-19?

By Joshua Weigert
April 11, 2020


Yesterday, I was stunned to see a video of a man in Philadelphia being forcibly removed from a bus because he was not wearing a face mask. There is no actual law enforcing people wearing face masks, but that didn’t stop law enforcement from manhandling him off the bus. It was a totalitarian and authoritarian move. I then read and watched more and more videos and articles of governors and mayors enforcing strict decrees infringing on the rights of their constituents. It seems surreal. America, where freedom and liberty is absolutely paramount, is now a land where citizen’s rights are being chipped away all in the name of security.

Why was it necessary for ten police officers to remove a man because he wasn’t wearing a mask? Why didn’t the police just give the man a mask? If his crime was not protecting himself and others by not wearing a mask, why would then ten police officers come in close proximity to this man? This video looks eerily similar to videos coming out of Wuhan, China in January. Will we see more and more of these sorts of authoritarian acts? What if people refuse to take a COVID-19 vaccine? Will they be thrown off buses like this man? What if our cities partially reopen for commuting to and from work? If you’re caught going to a place you’re not “authorized” to go, will this happen to you?

Then you have Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear who, on one of the most holy weekends on the Christian calendar, will send law enforcement officers to churches and write down the license plates of the church goers to enforce a mandatory quarantine. Now, I do not think churches should have in person services during this pandemic, however, it’s hard to argue that this is not religious persecution. If we set the precedent that governors can force churches closed in the interest of public safety, then we will have some serious issues in the future if a true authoritarian does come to power.

In Arkansas, a twelve-year-old girl was playing basketball on a court near her home when law enforcement arrived and cut the hoop. They cut the hoop in order to enforce “social distancing”. The girl was playing basketball by herself. According to the girl’s mother, the court is never in use and is largely ignored by the city. The girls mother said they “used their own money to purchase a net for the basketball hoop, since it was missing. Her husband also dug a drainage canal to keep it from flooding, and regularly cleaned it of debris” (1).

Meanwhile in Michigan, Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who is being looked at as a potential Vice-Presidential Candidate for Joe Biden, has banned the sale of “non-essential” goods. Many baby goods, including baby car seats, are to be banned from sale. Even worse, vegetable and fruit seeds are banned from being sold as well. How is it possible for a governor to ban the sale of seeds to produce your own food? This is the type of authoritarianism that would make the Founding Fathers roll over in their graves.

Lastly, the mayor in Greenville, Mississippi banned all church services, even “drive-through” services. The police have been ticketing church-goers $500 for showing up to the services. These people are sitting in their cars. What possible issue can arise from this? Instead, police officers are forced to go car to car ticketing these people, literally creating the risk of spreading coronavirus.

It feels as though 200+ years of liberty and freedom is all being tossed out the window because of one pandemic. We have states where the liquor stores are open, and the churches are forced to close. We have states where you are even banned from being outside running by yourself on the beach/park, or even in your own car somewhere.

This is what the Founding Fathers feared. This is what many conservatives feared would happen if a crisis occurred. When do we say enough is enough? When do we start to not comply to these totalitarian measures?

We need to seriously consider how much more of this is acceptable.


(1) https://www.dailywire.com/news/young-girl-plays-basketball-alone-city-takes-hoop-as-part-of-social-distancing


You’ve probably come across it.

With Bernie Sanders seriously contending as the Democratic candidate for President in the past two elections seasons, champions of Socialism have crawled out of their parent’s basement to declare their love for all things Socialism. In doing so, they have declared that all things that glitter is obviously not capitalism.

But it’s “Democratic”

“If you’re against socialism, don’t drive on our roads. Don’t call the police.”

Unfortunately for the layman, a quick quip in return isn’t exactly going to drive the point home with much clarity. Some things are better explained with reasoned argument, which unfortunately is lost in a world of instant gratification.

Socialism isn’t everything that benefits society. That loose definition of socialism has plagued millennials and likely contributes to their erroneously positive outlook on the socio-political economic system that truly doesn’t work.

The best short defined explanation for how socialism operates is this:

“Socialism by definition involves community [read: “workers” – Marx] ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.”

Marx says hello you are all bourgeoisie.

If that sounds very close to communism, well there is no wonder Karl Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably.

Obviously, that isn’t taking place with American roads. Far from it. But how do we explain the nature of them?

We’ll, roads and other public programs are “socialistic” in nature, if we must use the term. They are communal goods, but not not attributed to socialism.

If it sounds like splitting hairs, it’s not. Consider the difference between Leftism and Liberalism.

As the explanation goes, In the US, “only one of those elements – “exchange” – is the function of the community or its government.” While the government acts as the “purchasing agent on on behalf of the public at large” non-profit and private organizations that own the means of the production “submit bids for projects…subject to oversight from [the public].”

It’s sort of an academic work around. Technical and wordy, it doesn’t deliver a quick punch like that of absurd statements about roads and emergency services.

After-all, the US governments had begun to establish a system of roads and infrastructure long before Marx came up with the very definitions that define socialism (and communism) today. So it would be anachronistic to suggest our roads are socialism.

If we must, we could also point to the 250,000 miles of roads built by the Romans in antiquity, surely Marx didn’t time travel and give them the idea of socialism.

So why the heck am I talking about this unfortunate misrepresentation of our tax dollars at work to begin with? Well for one thing, millions of young new voters are suggesting Socialism, even Democratic Socialism, is the new way forward all the while being unable to truly understand what the authoritarian system enacts.

$2 Trillion passed by the US Senate, and presumably to be followed by the US House. $2 Trillion American Dollars to bail out an ailing economy.

In figures, thats $2,000,000,000,000. A number so large it is difficult for the mind to fully understand. So here is a visualization of sorts:

The other issue of course is Covid-19. The Corona Virus. The Wuhan Flu. La Rona, if you will.

The word is, Americans and Capitalists have come running to Socialism to save the country. After all, raw money checks from Uncle Sam are being distributed to about 90% of the American people.

Yay, Socialism! Right!?


Especially considering why the move has been made to begin with. Dan Crenshaw puts it short and sweet:

You’ve probably seen the memes. A Republican wearing a MAGA hat and attempting to choose between two buttons, a check from the Federal Government or denouncing socialism.

But the memes (like most poorly made Liberal memes – that was redundant) have the advantage of being funny over being accurate. Since socialism isn’t in play here, the dichotomy is false.

But why wouldn’t this wealth sharing move be considered socialism? Well, not only does it fail to meet the definition above but the necessity for the action is artificial induced upon the market.

In other-words, the community (read: Government) imposed actions on the market that forced it to shutter up its goods and services. Therefore, the Government effectively used force to institute a market shutdown and is acting as a sort of insurance on behalf of the people (individuals and organizations).

We have already seen an example of this before Covid 19.

Consider the Trade War war with China. The trade war has harmed American farmworkers in a direct way, forcing them to lose millions in profit.

Since the government has forced this hardship, that same government has smartly interceded on their behalf – using tariffs imposed as a means to cover farm profit losses.

As an individual, you also go through a similar trade with the government when you file taxes. Whether you use a tax professional or pay for an online software, filing taxes costs. Since filing taxes is an imposed hardship placed by government, you have the opportunity include this expense in your taxes as a “write off.” Same goes for DMV registration.

The $1,200 (+$500 per child) one might receive is hardly going to make a dent for those dealing with a lost livelihood but it’s an attempt to help with an economic issue government forced to take place. That is hardly socialism but it is a welfare safety-net move that one can say is very much owed to the American people.

A people who may otherwise have simply pushed through the storm, rolled up their sleeves, and continued to work, like we always do.

After all, this $2 Trillion dollar “socialist” bail out would never be possible if it weren’t for Capitalists.

⁃ Ken Gulley


The Gun Debate


The topic of the week, and no doubt, the topic anytime we experience such heinous tragedies like the one that took place at a Parkland HS in Florida, is the issue of guns. No doubt, any loss of life is a tragedy, but losing 17 at once in a place where we Americans send our young ones is completely unacceptable.

Since that incident, new agencies have rolled out mountains of articles with lofty and emotional rhetoric but very little facts concerning the truth behind gun control’s success or lack there of. In fact much of the debate is centered around emotional responses as opposed to finding practical things that will truly work.

So far, more blame has been placed on the gun, specifically the AR-15 Rifle, than it has on the shooter. With that, many on the right have feared an emotional reactionary response by government officials to “fix” the problem. For them, a “fixing” of the problem is a restriction on their freedoms. Much of these emotional responses are not based in fact but ignorance.

I don’t blame the emotional responses. The events that triggered this latest hullabaloo around guns is undoubtedly an emotional one. What we cannot do, though, is allow emotions to supplant reason and logic.

I am a gun owning American. My job and my lifestyle require it. Even if they did not, I would still likely seek out ownership for the simple basis to practice a rare government protected right. While I sympathize with the emotional reactions from those on the left side of the aisle, I do not agree with their assessment on gun ownership in the USA. I am truly a gun skeptic and I believe there is great reason to be.

Below, we will challenge and address some common arguments from the left & anti-gun crowd, address common mistakes, note some peculiar inconsistencies, and offer my take on some Left & Right-winged solutions. I’ll try to be brief.

Common Mistakes

1. The AR-15 is an military grade assault rifle/weapon.

  • The AR-15 is not military grade nor is it an assault-rifle. The “AR” stands for Armalite Rifle, which is the name of the company. The AR-15 does not refer to any specific type of Rifle, thought it was originally created by Armalite, it’s become a common platform for rifles from various makers.
  • The AR is also not meant for military use. While the system was designed to be useful for the military, it was ultimately rejected as a weapon system that does not carry strong enough round (.223/5.56 caliber) among other issues. While the AR-15 has become a popular gun, and is growing in popularity for hunting, the system was not designed for hunting big game. Many hunting rifles have stronger and higher caliber ammunition, range and impact (aka more firepower) than the AR-15.

2. Automatic Weapons should be illegal/are illegal.

  • This one is a bit trickier. Technically, assault weapons are in fact illegal. The gun-lobby and gun owning Americans have accepted this concession and allowed the government to restrict the sale of automatic weapons to guns made prior to 1986.
  • Automatic weapons are effectively illegal under 3 certain conditions: 1) they require an extensive background and documentation which usually take 9-12 months of federal paperwork 2) the weapon cannot be made post-1986. All pre-1986 weapons are grandfathered and can be bought-sold with heavy restrictions 3) the documentation paperwork requires a $200 postage stamp (tax) and clean record. Due to the limitation and rarity of weapons, they often run in the high thousands.

3. Semi-automatic weapons vs. Automatic weapons.

  • The language surround guns, especially AR-15s, is often filled with adjectives meant to bring fear. “Military styled semi-automatic assault weapons.” The only accurate part of the quote is “semi-automatic.” Semi-automatic weapons are recoil powered engineering. The gun is only able to shoot one round, per pull of the trigger. Once the shell of a round is expelled from the chamber, another round is fed and locked in place for the next trigger pull. One squeeze, one round.
  • An automatic weapon is also recoil powered but mechanized in a way that allows multiple rounds to exit on one trigger pull. Often referred to as “machine guns,” like those found in The Godfather or Mission Impossible, automatic weapons are largely illegal in the USA outside above stated special licensing and/or governmental duty weapons (LEO, Military, etc).

4. AR-15s kill more people than any other gun.

  • The AR-15 is in fact a very uncommonly used weapon for gun related homicide. In fact, considering all types of rifles (beyond the AR-15), the vast majority are killed with handguns. Rifle related deaths are under 5% annually.

– NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html (Left lean)
– HP: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/assault-weapons-deaths_us_5763109de4b015db1bc8c123 (Left Lean)

5. The NRA controls the gun conversation and is the most powerful lobby in Washington DC.

  • The NRA is one of many lobbying organization that run around DC but in terms of power, it is the largest pro-gun lobby representing 5 million gun owners and approximately 1 in every 5 gun owners.
    When compared to other lobby organizations, the NRA is quite tiny:

“1998 and 2016, the NRA spent approximately $13 million on all candidates, parties, and leadership political action committees, according to the Left’s favorite fact-checker, Politifact. The NRA also spends money on “outside expenditures,” meaning ads they cut themselves, for example, in the amount of $144.3 million, plus another $45.9 million on lobbying. That’s a grand total of $203.2 million on political activities over 18 years, or approximately $22.6 million per 2-year election cycle. The NRA spends far more in presidential years than non-presidential years — according to OpenSecrets, the NRA spent some $54.4 million in 2016 on politics.”

“According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, labor unions spent $1.713 billion on political activities and lobbying for the 2016 election cycle alone. That’s not unusual: they also spent $2.2 billion on political activities in 2008 and 2010, and $1.69 billion in 2012.”

– DW: https://www.dailywire.com/news/27236/kimmel-media-say-nra-buys-politicians-heres-why-ben-shapiro (Conservative lean)
– OS: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s (Nuetral)

Common Arguments

1. Mass shootings don’t happen like this in other countries.

  • The left likes to point at Europe as the “civilized west” and supreme example of how a nation should be run. So while it’s easy to point to the world and prove that the US isn’t completely out of control, comparisons with the likes of Mexico or Brazil will win no one over. So what if we compared the USA with Europe?

“Here’s the list of the 18 countries with the top death rate per million people from mass public shootings from 2009 through 2015:

Norway: 1.888*
Serbia: 0.381
France: 0.347
Macedonia: 0.337
Albania: 0.206
Slovakia: 0.185
Switzerland: 0.142
Finland: 0.132
Belgium: 0.128
Czech Republic: 0.123
United States: 0.089
Austria: 0.068
The Netherlands: 0. 051
Canada: 0.032
England: 0.027
Germany: 0.023
Russia: 0.012
Italy: 0.009

– CR: https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/ (Nuetral)

* It should be noted, Norway’a high number is inflated by one major mass event resulting in 77 murders. America is a nation of 325+ million people so perspective is important.

2. The 1994 Assualt Weapon Ban continuation would prevent mass shootings.

  • According to statistics, the AWB of 1994 had little to no effect on crime, as most gun related homicides were committed with non-assault weapon handguns.
    Pre Assault Weapon Mass Murder Incidents resulted in 8.2 deaths per incident. 7.4 deaths per incident during the ban and 8.8 after the ban. This is within the margin of error. Also, the greatest issue at hand is actually the amount of mass incidents, not the type of weapon used or number of killed.

– NR: https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/06/assault-weapon-ban-no-orlando-shooting-guns/ (Conservative)

3. Australia’s gun buy-back program eliminated mass shootings, why can’t we follow suit?

  • The Biggest problem with this argument is that it completely ignores the 2nd Amendment which is based in the natural right to self defense and freedom from tyranny (we’ll come back to that soon). Australia does not have a Bill of Rights with a guaranteed protection of the legal ownership of arms (guns).
  • Furthermore, Australia had a very low amount of mass shooting events to being with. In fact, the mass shooting incident occurrences were so low, “zero” mass shootings fall within the margin of error for the total count prior to the ban, making the post-ban measurements fairly inconclusive.
  • Lastly, the gun by-back program has led to a rise in violent crimes. It’s fairly easy to find your prey when your victim is guaranteed to be unarmed.
    The gun confiscation also had no significant affect on murder rates and suicides.

– Univ of Melbourne: http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee%20and%20Suardi%202008.pdf
– Center for Crime: http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Baker%20and%20McPhedran%202007.pdf

4. The 2nd Amendment was written in the 18th Century when muskets were the gun of the day so it is therefor unfit for today.

  • First, repeat fire weapons, though rare, were around at the time of the American Revolution and were a growing technology the founders were aware of – as a number of the founders were engineers, scientists and inventors in their own right. (Daily Caller: Right lean http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/29/these-guns-dispel-the-notion-the-founding-fathers-could-never-have-imagined-modern-assault-rifles/)
  • Secondly, the 2nd Amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791 in the immediate aftermath of the Revolutionary War with Great Britain. The founders understood rifles and arms to be important tools to help toss off tyranny – not just good for hunting. In fact, “arms” can be easily noted to be the most advanced weapons of the day and included canon weaponry. While I am not clamoring for the average person to have jet planes or nukes, the pro-gun American has given up numerous concessions and rights concerning what they could own as a firearm.
  • California has even moved to ban magazines larger than 10 rounds, understanding that such is sort of a workaround toward ridding of weapons entirely.
  • Important to note, the amendment is not relegated to a “militia” solely but supports the existence of an individual right (meaning regular citizen ownership).

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.”- Noah Webster, Father of American Edu

– Vox – Left lean: https://www.vox.com/2016/8/22/12559364/second-amendment-tyranny-militia-constitution-founders
– NR – Conservative lean: https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/second-amendment-protects-individual-right-keep-bear-arms/

5. Guns murders top 30,000 per year therefore guns ownership is no longer justifiable.

  • One of the major issues with the Gun Statistics shown nationally is the lack of understanding behind the definition of Homicide. In fact, if you look up “homicide” on dictionary.com, you’ll be told that it is an “unlawful killing of another; murder.” This is not entirely accurate. Homicides, from a legal understanding, also include self defense, suicide, accidents and manslaughter.
  • You’ve probably read this before in some form but it’s worth noting: (note the most data from 2014/15 estimates unless otherwise shown)

The U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths (2015 est), to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws. Suicidal people will find a means to kill themselves without guns. Guns merely make the act quick and painless. Suicides are not a crime.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and largely justified (99% of the time).
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

Essentially, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, consider which states have the strictest gun laws, such as California, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That’s why they are criminals. It should be noted, the vast majority of these victims are minority men.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–(2017 number is now 50,000 from Heroin alone).
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
• 250,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital! (Note* these do not include troublesome prescription signing).

Some notes I added: 893,000 abortions conducted in 2016. Again, the vast majority of these victims are minorities.

  • Most Importantly are the statistics on how many lives are SAVED per-year because of firearms. Give the number of instances are difficult to measure, the low number of lives saved is still significant: 250,000. The high end of possible lives saved using guns is 3 million.

– FBI: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s
– Times – Left lean: http://time.com/5011599/gun-deaths-rate-america-cdc-data/

Peculiar Inconsistencies


  • I’m not sure if it’s extremely ironic or simply ignorant that the left has a general depiction of police and law enforcement as nominally corrupt, racist and otherwise cruel but also want government & Police to have the only right to bear arms.
  • Take it a step further and call it downright suicidal to believe President Trump is a fascist, or the reincarnation of Hitler, yet also desire for his government to eliminate the protections of the 2nd Amendment.
  • The left was quick to point out the failures of law enforcement deputies to enter into Thw HS and perform their duty to stop the killer – yet they still maintain the belief that we should not allow people to own various types of firearms (or all types of firearms) in an effort to defend themselves. Can we or can we not count on government to protect us?


  • Isn’t it a bit contradictory to believe federal government is terrible at conducting backgrounds for potential incoming refugees but its completely satisfactory and even overbearing for simple background checks for firearm purchases? Mind you there are major differences to note but this seems to fly in the face of “the central government is no good” idea presented by the right.
  • The right doesn’t trust public education at the collegiate and secondary school level as they believe children are becoming increasingly “indoctrinated” with Leftist worldview but definitely don’t mind giving the same people firearms in the classroom.
  • The right openly supports statistics showing the failures of gun control but also supports the suppression of research by the CDC.


Commonly Presented Solutions

Finding solutions to the problem at hand is not simple. Both sides are seeking very practical solutions that can be put into place immediately. Here are some I have commonly heard requested:


1. Require gun owner licensing, gun registration and liability insurance as with vehicles.

  • First and foremost, all legal firearms are registered, like vehicles. This is primarily to keep documentation for ownership and doubles by helping in criminal cases (serial numbers).
  • The obvious issue here is that vehicles are not constitutionally protected. Driving a vehicle is a privilege. Owning a firearms is a Right.
  • Since the Federal government determined firearms as a Right afforded to individuals, placing barriers in front of said Right (like requiring insurance or licensing) create significant problems.
  • Consider the right to vote. In the Jim Crow South, barriers were placed in front of minority voters by requiring tests or taxes at the voters poll. These restraints on firearm ownership would likely be translated in a similar way.

2. Ban AR-15s or semi-automatic rifles.

  • As explained above, banning either of the above mentioned weapons is problematic in that it will be considered a great incursion on gun rights. Furthermore, the argument for banning such weapons is extremely weak as noted earlier, rifle homicides account for less than 5% of all gun deaths in the United States.

3. Voluntary surrendering of high powered firearms.

  • I may sound like I am repeating myself but the left’s fascination of blaming the AR-15 is blinding their ability to see the real issue – and it’s not the gun – it’s the person behind the gun.
  • AR-15s account for a tiny percentage of gun crime. Even considering the last major mass shootings, the simple handgun (in its various caliber and types) out-kill rifles by over 95%. In fact, knives are responsible for more deaths than the AR-15, annually. (FBI: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12)
  • The recent viral videos showing law abiding gun owners surrendering, destroying and otherwise “quitting” their AR-15s is nothing short of stupid. Listen, if they do not feel they can be responsible for the weapon, then more power to them but their act is nothing less than “virtue signaling.” By that I mean, it acts as a “show of pompous morality” than anything actually effective. In one case, a man who had an AR-15 for over 30 years surrendered his weapon as if it would one day leave his home and commit a crime on its own. Why not keep the weapon and use it for good? The left wing media posts and praises these ideas and in doing so it willing to shame all those who maintain their weapon for their protection.


1. Armed Guards at schools.

  • While posting arm guards at schools would act as a “targeted hardening” tactic used by airports, sporting arenas and high value personnel (politicians), doing so may create nightmarish logistical and financial issues for many cash strapped states and local school districts. Where would the money come from? If the money is federal by what means, what training and who are the actors? The solution can work but would create other issues. Are those worthwhile?

2. Arming teachers:

  • President Trump stated he would be willing to create a system of bonuses for teachers who would be willing to carry arms in schools. While there is precedent for arming teachers (See: Israel), are we really asking underfunded teachers to spend money on guns, ammunition and training?
  • Another form of this idea to remove the “gun free zone” posting at schools and allowing teachers who are already trained to carry at their own will and giving tax credits to them for continuous training.
  • An acquaintance of mine challenged this position by suggesting the level of liability on teachers who shoot would be overwhelming. While this is certainly an issue, I asked if it would be worthwhile giving the students and staff a chance to live as opposed to waiting many more minutes for police response. He responded by saying they did not deserve said chance because the risk of liability and the possible proliferation of firearms is not worthwhile. Interesting.

3. Mental Health Reform

  • When the federal government shuttered mental health programs all over the US, treatment for people suffering from mental health issues were reprioritized to the bottom. Now, many suffering from such issues end up trapped in a revolving door of prescriptions, institutionalizations and confinement.The issues go unaddressed and often go overlook.
  • Many of the recent mass shooters are all shown to have some form of mental health problems. Increased prioritization of mental health issues may result and/or help remedy such mass events and/or decrease instances of suicide via firearm.

The issue surrounding guns is not one to be taken lightly. Neither is the conversation. Far too many people, on both sides, are simply unwilling to meet on middle ground and discuss the issues. The Left screams that the right is complicit in murdering children for it desire to maintain their rights, and the Right screams at the Left for being complicit and willing to surrender all of their freedoms to the Leviathan.

I do not have immediate solutions to the problem. I do believe America can bolster and encourage long standing dramatic cultural changes that can ultimately fix or at least help allege some of what we are experiencing. Our issues are a deep heart (or spiritual) problem. When you look deeper at the profile of such mass killers, you will find common issues like mental health and other less glaring but very important issues like the lack of a strong biological father figure in the home.

Am I seriously asking for more fathers to be men in hopes of helping curve violence like that scene in Las Vegas and Parkland? Absolutely. Consider the insanely powerful statistics for the “father effect” on a household and how there is a dramatic decrease in likelihood to use drugs, be incarcerated, experience mental health problems, become violent, become a criminal etc., if a father is in the home.

(Fatherly – liberal lean): https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/science-benefits-of-fatherhood-dads-father-effect/
(FOTF – conservative lean): https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-q-and-a/parenting/the-significance-of-a-fathers-influence

There are also other spiritual remedies for America. While we declare, “In God We Trust,” yet we have shunned and expelled God from schools, even pushing away common sense rules like the Ten Commandments (which most people both secular and spiritual would declare as a good list of rules). We can’t hold prayers in school or even discuss True morality, instead we have replaced it with relativist thought and Darwinism. Ironically, those who taught such ideologies picture themselves as the moral superior individual.

Finally, there is also one immediately applicable solution. Media and others must stop enticing more violence by “celebrating” and “memorializing” these mass shooters. When Dana Loesch of the NRA stated the media loves mass shootings, she did not say this out of anger but rather enlightenment. Media has always stated, “If it bleeds it leads.” Such stories circulate in our media for months and lead on every headline. Unfortunately,  publicizing these killers names and faces, actually encourage more people to seek out fame through similar means. So far, only one small but influential media organization the conservative oriented, Daily Wire ran by Chief Editor Ben Shapiro, has vowed to stop publicizing these killers names and faces. It’s a very practical move. If mass media would be willing to join the Daily Wire, then perhaps some of these potential killers would lose their desire to act. One could say, until they act, the mass media is far more liable than for the next mass shooting than any claim made against the NRA.

So lets continue to pray for this nation as we struggle through such tragic times. While the left may mock our prayers, we know their effectiveness in transforming the hearts and minds of both the prayer and those it’s directed toward. Action of course, is a part of any good plan.

– (LAT – left lean) http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-mass-shooters-fame-infamy-20151002-story.html
– (UA – left lean) https://www.as.ua.edu/2016/04/27/when-fame-breeds-infamy-shooters-who-want-attention-a-growing-phenomenon/

The Death of Terrence Crutcher & The Rush to Judgement


Here it is, and I will do my best to keep it short.

I don’t excuse bad policing or racist policing for that matter. As an officer, getting rid of those in our ranks who operate in such a manner is beneficial to the society and to good police officers alike. I also know from experience how important it is to put aside our bias or prejudice in favor of a clean slate. It’s taught in academies nationwide and its reinforced daily on each and every call for service. It’s something civilians also must be mindful in examining police actions. 

To the untrained eye and professional police officer alike, the video of the recent shooting taken from a police helicopter is truly disturbing. As in any case involving the loss of a human life, the event that occurred in Tulsa is truly tragic. A man, Terrence Crutcher, is dead. There is no changing that. That said, there are many questions that have yet to be answered about what took place. Some of those questions can be clearly answered by the recently released police video but even then more questions emerge. The following will discuss the facts and circumstances of the incident but I will refrain from making a judgement on the matter – there is simply not enough evidence, too many unanswered questions and too may “what ifs” to make a decision. That said, what happened?

The Incident Facts

Around 7:40 PM on September 16, 2016, police received a 9-1-1 call about an abandoned vehicle in the middle of 36th Street North of Lewis Avenue. According to one caller, Crutcher had run away saying his vehicle might explode.

When Police Officers arrived (4 seen on dashcam video), officers stated Crutcher was not following orders and had reached into his vehicle. Shortly after reaching, Officer Turnbough used a taser device on Crutcher and Officer Shelby fired her gun. Crutcher then fell to the ground and later dies from his wounds at a hospital. Crutcher did not have any weapons on his person or in his vehicle. 

The majority of the pertinent video released comes from a police helicopter on scene. Oddly enough, the helicopter pilot is married to the Officer who shot Crutcher, Officer Shelby. In the video, the helicopter pilots can be heard speaking with one another other and saying, “This guy’s still walking. He isn’t following commands.” “It’s time for a taser, I think.” “I’m kind of thinking that’s about to happen. That looks like a bad dude, too, maybe on something.”

The Department of Justice is currently investigating the matter.

The Unknowns

Unfortunately, as is with most cases involving law enforcement investigations and the media, we are not purvey to the entirety of the information at hand. This has lead some to believe racism or discrimination are the reason(s) why Crutcher was killed. Others have created the own theories. Unfortunately, the narrative has been dominated by the ideal that Crutcher died for one simple reason: because he was black.

This rush to judgement is not a start of a conversation (the dialogue Black Lives Matters wishes to have), instead it merely brings in the preconceived bias’ people have against policing or the entire criminal justice system. Carrying such biases clouds critical thinking and prevents people from making a clear judgement on the matter. 

“Thine Eye can only See and Ear can only Hear what Biases I have already claimed.”

This also goes for police officers viewing the images. We too have biases. But when it comes to matters like this that require a professional opinion, why are people so quick to write-off the voice of the police officer who knows more about the tactics, thoughts, actions and behind the decisions made? 

In the eyes of the trained observer, there are 10 important questions that need to be answered before we can make any type of judgement on the decisions made to shoot by Officer Shelby. So let’s consider them:

  1. When vehicles break down, it’s common place to find them in their own lane of traffic or pulled to the side of the road. In this case, Crutchers vehicle was partially blocking the oncoming lane of traffic. So why is the vehicle blocking 2 lanes of traffic with the engine running?
  2.  If the vehicle broke down and officers were simply responding to the call to assist the driver, why were the officers responding with lights and sirens? Most “light and siren” situations usually indicate: An immediate danger to one’s life or property, A Fire, and Critical infrastructure dangers. This leads me to believe this portion of the narrative is not accurate.
  3. Why does at least one of the callers describe erratic or unusual behavior from Terrence Crutcher?
  4. While standing within 10 feet in the middle of the road, what about Terrence’s behavior or statements lead the initial officer to place Terrence at gunpoint?
  5. Every cop knows that traffic stops or detentions in and around vehicles are where most violent police shootings take place. Knowing this, why would police “allow” (as it is assumed) Terrence to walk back to his vehicle if he is not actively ignoring orders?
  6. What commands were given by Officers on scene and who made said commands?
  7. While it’s not always the case, Helicopters usually assist in situations that sound dynamic or may require an alternate field of vision. What about the call made the helicopter pilots decide to assist? 
  8. Knowing police were actively giving him commands, what made Terrence drop his hands and reach into his vehicle?
  9. Why was a taser initially used followed quickly a gunshot? 
  10. Why does only one officer fire her gun?

The answer to these questions do not change the fact that Crutcher was killed. It also does not change the fact that Crutcher was unarmed. What they actually do is allow us to better understand why certain decision were made by Officers on scene.  Understanding such actions allow officers around the nation better prepare, or learn from the experience. It also helps the layman understand why police officer actions may not be completely unreasonable.

Jumping to Conclusion

“To me it looked like he did everything he was supposed to do.” From Donald Trump to Shaun King, the untrained eye has already made their decision about the incident. In fact, it could be said that the video release did more harm than good in allowing for an unbiased investigation. The release of the video is a tricky political decision. Withholding it suggest the department has something to hide. But showing it only allows bias viewers to create their own narrative regardless of what facts do or do not exist. Regardless of what training they may or may not have.  

Consider the recent terrorism attack in New York and New Jersey committed by Ahmad Rahami. President Obama, Governor Chris Christie and the media collectively chided people to refrain from “jumping to conclusions” regarding the incident and potential involvement of Islamic Terror. The media was quick to echo such statements of their own.

Now consider how the Tulsa shooting has been covered. Less facts and circumstances are known about what occurred in the Tulsa shooting yet media has been quick to condemn Officers and even quicker to blame the shooting on racist persecution. 

Now I ask this, will President Obama chide the media and the black community for their collective jump to a conclusion? Will he come out and speak against the rioters who attacked and injured police officers in North Carolina – no doubt fueled by the false narratives set earlier in the day that there is a “war” on the black community? I doubt it. At least, not in an election season. 

The rush to judgement by media, people and activist is truly immoral and has resulted in the literal harm of people and property. Consider one of the biggest “evidences” people are using to judge the police as bias – the helicopter pilots words. 
“Looks like a bad dude…may be on something.” There are a few responses I have to this so called evidence of Bias. (1) Police consider any suspect or any person not complying with lawful commands as a threat until proven otherwise. It’s not that he is black, but rather he is not complying and walking toward his vehicle. (2) How in any way do these verbal thoughts by the pilot contribute to what happens on the ground? Truth is they do not unless you consider the entirety of law-enforcement as racist. (3) Does the pilot see or recognize something of note that causes him to believe Crutcher was under the influence? If so, there is the difference in the trained eye versus the lay-man. As we discover later, Crutcher is in possession of PCP (which may explain the unusual actions and behavior observed by the initial caller.

Taking in a Terrorist but Killing a Black Man

Let me also address one comparison that has gone viral. It goes like this: 

“A man who is a suspect of terrorism against American civilians, and who attempted to murder police officers, is alive today while an unarmed man who had committed no crime at all is in a morgue awaiting an autopsy.” 

You have probably read it yourself. Me? I have read it one dozen times today and it’s an outrageous comparison. It is not only meant to be an appeal to emotion but it’s a completely failed and illogical argument that skirts the fallacy known as “False Equivalence.”

This statement (and articles created from it) base their opinion (and conclusion) on a fallacy. When it comes to it, leftism is truly void of thoughtful and logical arguments. Consider for a moment this False Equivalence. It suggests that somehow what happened between Tulsa PD and Terrence is comparable to what happened between NJ Police and the terrorist Rahmi?

The mere fact that Rahmi is even alive is purely a stroke of luck. There are videos and reports of a fierce gun battle that involves cover, concealment and multiple locations. It involves two officers being injured and our terror suspect being shot multiple times. Somehow,people who repeat this fallacy make the assumption that “this is how it was meant to be.” They therefore will not respect the nation or it’s anthem because of it. 
People who believe this comparison is worthy of reiteration have accepted the imaginary “Hollywood Marksman” belief that police, soldiers and all good guys with guns are able to simply wound or injure their opponent so they can take them in for information. This is not possible. They then jump to the conclusion that police are able and willing to do that against a terrorist gunmen but not an unarmed Blackman because police are that racist.
Give me a break.

Final Thoughts

As we now deal with a new onslaught of criticism, the police forces of America need to remain firm in their resolve. We are here to do good work. Our ranks are filled with a vast majority of decent and honorable people. Hesitation does nothing but endanger one’s on self when faced with a violent minority criminal. Do your job and do it well.

Police Officers of America are being falsely painted as “racist” and “prejudice” regardless of the actions they take. If it’s not the officer themselves, then blame is placed on “the system.” If Terrence Crutcher were killed by the taser alone (via induced cardiac arrest), would there still not be an outcry? Consider Charlotte, North Carolina: A black police officer shot and killed a black man who pointed a gun at him but the narrative carried by media is this: “A disabled black man is shot and killed by police while reading a book.”

So I ask these question to people sympathetic to the Black Lives Matter movement. (1) Do facts matter? (2) When, in your minds, can a police officer ever use his gun in a justifiable way? 

If the Alton Sterling incident taught us anything it is this: you can be a violent felon, a sex offender, a gang member actively committing several criminal felony offenses, fight with police officers while attempting to remove your loaded gun from your pocket but you will still be considered a martyr worth of protest.

While others may tout Colin Kaepernick’s protest and ask “where are the naysayers now?” I say this, wait for the facts. I am not obligated to stand beside a fellow officer who may have committed an unjustifiable killing. I am not obligated to defend her nor am I saying she is completely innocent. As it was, other officers on scene thought the situation did not require use of a deadly weapon. But do not mistake our silence as belief that Colin’s ignorant protest is correct. Our silence is merely the responsible action that we take every single day – to consider someone “innocent until proven guilty by the court of law.”