Light Listening

I guarantee that this will not end well for the human race and it would be wise to stop this immediately.

I will continue to use “squaw” because, despite what is being said, squaw is not a racial and/or sexual slur. And no matter how hard they try I will not use the word “Latinx” because it is a made up word that holds no benefit to our great country. This is cultural revolution 101, use language to fundamentally change the culture of a people, transforming that culture to align with a particular worldview in spite of the will of the people. I refuse to use grammatically incorrect pronouns, (and no it is not respectful to cater to foolishness). I will continue to use “illegal alien” because if one enters into our country illegally, then that is what they have chosen to become. I will continue to call a man “sir” and a woman “miss”, in acknowledgment of the only two genders present within our species. The truth is I’m not homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, anti-semitic, racists, misogynistic, sexist, a white supremacist sympathizer or a domestic terrorist. These are all weapons of a cultural revolutionary agenda meant to shut me out and compel me to genuflect at the alter of their new religion in order to regain entry. I will play no part in this revisioned language and revisionist history designed to rip our united states into tiny unrecognizable pieces and oppress any diversity, equity, and inclusiveness that contradicts their new age cult.

The California Healthy Youth Act (CHYA) is sold to California parents as a required curriculum designed to protect the health of California students. However when you take a closer look what you discover is that the curriculum is less about general health and more about instilling moral standards, deemed acceptable by the government, into our children, regardless if those moral standards align with the beliefs shared in the home. 

I encourage all of my fellow American citizens to take 30 to 60 minutes out of their day to gather the necessary information required to make an informed decision with regards to electing government leadership and/or approving policy measures that will affect the prosperity of our country. 

I question the morality of any adult that purposely creates content aimed at children that have nothing to do with the best interest of the child and everything to do with the best interest of the adult. When I was growing up we called that strategy “GROOMING”! 

Created for lower elementary students (6 to 9 years old)

Her ethnic origin is not the issue. The issue is her recent job performance, her past job performance, her proposed policies, and her willingness to capitalize off the color of her skin and her gender, instead of the merits of her ability, to further her career. 

There is a concerted effort within our public school system to expose children of all ages to confusing, sexualized, unscientific, and sometimes pornographic literature and images under the umbrella of diversity and inclusion. In order to protect our children we must remain informed about the priorities of our educational institutions. As parents we are the first and last line of defense our children rely upon to ensure the safe development of their bodies, spirit, and young minds. 

I admit it, I’m confused. Can you answer this simple question and relieve me of my ignorance? Do women’s rights only matter when defending a women’s right to choose? The reason why I ask is because the advocates for women’s right to choose don’t show up to protect women under any other circumstance. This story here is a prime example of the Left’s lack of consistent conviction. A self identifying transgender nonbinary 1500 meter runner who goes by they/them pronouns just earned a spot on the women’s Olympic track team heading to Paris. This is a man competing against women who will now take the spot of a woman who will be sitting at home watching a man run in her place on the women’s team. It would seem that a man pretending to be a women has more rights than the gender he’s pretending to be. That is unless, of course, it’s the right to murder your own children, then the Leftist Progressives are all about the rights of women. Maybe if men had wombs the progressives would do away with women entirely, but I digress. 

I wonder if environmental activist consider humanity a part of the environment. It would seem, from their proposed solutions, that they view humanity on this planet as one would view a virus within the human body. The less of us there are, the better for the environment right? Any mitigation strategy that costs human lives is not pro-environment, it’s anti-human. 

The Democratic Party and their allies have been so thoroughly immersed in lies for so long that they were completely unprepared for the reality that punched them in the gut during last night’s presidential debate. One would have to be completely detached from reality at this point to be surprised at Biden’s performance yesterday. You’d have to wonder what the Democrat’s expectations were. Maybe they believed all of that “Cheap Fake” nonsense. In spite of his last 50 appearances, did they believe that the long pauses, the incoherent gibberish, the uncontrollable vocal volume, the constant need for handling, the tripping, and the obvious confusion, were just a temporary passing phase? Seriously, where have they been all this time? I’ll tell you where they’ve been, trapped in a web of lies that now dictate their reality. Now sit back and watch what happens when their false reality is shattered and the pieces they try to fit back together no longer fit.

Where is the wisdom in reducing a nonrenewable necessity to mitigate a potential issue that will be rendered moot if everyone starves to death? 

I’d like you to ask yourself two questions: one - who has the power to create, allow, and distribute this content nationally? And two - what purpose would they have or doing so?

Leftist progressives and Neo-liberals only like children when they can sexualize them, abort them, or use them to ignite emotional volatility as a weapon to further their goals toward the destruction of liberty under the facade of peace. In this case they’re using the lives of our children to make an unsubstantiated claim that allowing educators who choose to take on the responsibility of becoming the first line of defense against the criminally insane is not only less effective than learning to cower, run, and hide, but will somehow increase the occurrence of gun violence on campuses statewide. They, of course, never explain exactly how. The inference is that the law abiding educator in spite of undergoing 40 hours of training, background checks, and a mental health assessment, will automatically become a threat on par with a psychopath simply because they are now armed. They, of course, never explain exactly how. The truth is most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones because if you want to kill as many people as possible the last thing you want is to get shot before you even have a chance to begin the carnage. The truth is only good people with guns stop bad people with guns. The truth is the desire to protect without the most effective means to do so, is in fact, no protection at all. 

First, I ask that all of you watch this segment so that you can see with your own eyes what it is they are actually celebrating in Arizona. Then, ask yourself if what you witnessed can be classified as a “reproductive right”. If your answer is yes, then I invite you to explain how a cause resulting in the death of a human child is righteous in any way and if the answer is no, then I challenge you to join the fight for innocent life. 

This Time article attempts to blame falling U.S. birth rates on the economic instability of wealthier countries, the pandemic, lack of paid family leave, healthcare cost, childcare cost, student loans, political polarization, work instability, healthcare access, global conflicts, unstable working hours, and even climate change. The irony is the article’s proposed solution is more government when it is that very same government that is the root cause of every single problem listed above. The economic instability of wealthier countries is caused by nonsensical policies and regulations imposed by the government. The non-scientific response to the pandemic destroyed the middle class, small business, supply chains and education; to name a few. If the private sector was less regulated they’d fiscally be able to accommodate longer paid leave for families. Healthcare costs and access would increase if the medical industrial complex was a true free-market. Global conflicts would not be a factor domestically if we made our own bed before trying to clean someone else’s room. If our governmental body hadn’t steered the culture away from single income households, work stability and childcare wouldn’t have become a potential hindrance. Finally, “climate change”, really?! Climate alarmism was created and is perpetuated by our government despite the scientific contradictions as a system of control and distraction. The real problem is big government and our only way out of this predicament is to prioritize the nuclear family, encourage our youth to marry as soon as possible, restructure our economy to support young families, deregulate in favor of free-markets, bring back Judeo-Christian objective moral standards, enforce our constitution as it is written, bring trades back to high school, put patriotism back in schools, put education back in school, enforce legal immigration, and finally, we the people need to elect leaders that serve the people instead in place of themselves.  

This debate is clearly black and white, or rather, one side is good and the other side is not. There is no clearer indication of this fact than realizing that when the pro-choice side gets their way the result is the premeditated murder of innocent life, (which is why I call this side the pro-death side), and when their opponents get their way the resulting outcome is the protected preservation of innocent life. One side acknowledges the rights of one while removing the rights of the other sighting level of development, inconvenience and personal desire. While the other side recognizes the sovereign right to human life for all those possessing life no matter their level of development or the personal whims of others. The fact that there are even two sides is a stark illustration of the progressive societal collapse we now find gnawing at the neck of a nation that used to prioritize an objective moral compass. Certainly, historically, we fell short, but at least we were asking the question, “is this moral?” That prevailing question led to the abolition of slavery, which is, if nothing else, morally reprehensible. Look how far we’ve descended. Not only have some abandoned the question all together, these morally corrupt individuals believe that asking the question itself is immoral. Let me put this in perspective for you, in 2023 alone there was an estimated 1,026,700 abortions. And in spite of the fears of the pro-choice advocates following Roe v. Wade, that’s the highest annual number reached in over a decade. It is said that heart disease is the number one killer of Americans taking 928,741 in 2020. This is a false equivalent. Mathematically speaking, it is abortion not heart disease that is the number one killer - the only difference being that one is a medical morbidity while the other is mass murder.       

How helpful is it to tell someone that is clearly in mental distress, believing they were born into the wrong body, that they are right? How is it compassionate to tell them that they are a mistake and the only way to fix that mistake is to surgically and pharmaceutically alter their appearance to fit their delusion while at the same time punishing any and everyone who is reluctant and confused by the mandate to acquiesce to this altered theatrical presentation? The truth is, everybody loses and that was the goal from the start. 

Freedom of speech acknowledges the sovereignty of one’s own mind. Without it, you cannot be free. When you are told what you can say and what you can’t, you are essentially being forced to live at another’s whim other than your own. Those who are freedom’s adversaries will convolute the issue as if it were a nuanced grey area worthy of further discussion. This cannot be further from the truth. It isn’t difficult to distinguish where unlawful behavior begins and where freedom of speech ends. Those who claim otherwise, subjectively criticize speech based on how it makes them feel regardless of its authenticity and/or lawfulness. Any weapon that is utilized to extinguish a piece of freedom, will be the same weapon used to extinguish the remaining whole.   

Generally speaking, when one lies, it is for their benefit at the expense of everyone else. It is essentially, ‘THEIR TRUTH’, which could also be interpreted as a lie for you. Of course I’m not referring to an individual conveying their own lived experience, but when you call that lived experience truth, it is by definition not objective. Since it is impossible to guarantee that people will not lie to you, the best you can do is protect yourself with objectivity. In order to do that you have to value and prioritize the truth no matter how it makes you or anyone else feel. You also must implement an information verification procedure undergird by objective reality. If you can do this, not only will you be able to protect your mind and heart from the enemies at the gates, you will also become a shining example to others that they too can break free from this cycle of self destructive propaganda. You cannot build a better world on a foundation of lies. It’s been tried before and it’s being tried right now. Is this world better yet? Oh! I know - we are just one lie away from that utopian society, right?

Let me begin by saying this in hopes that you understand me clearly, “no matter what they say their goal is not to keep you safe.” As the great Thomas Sowell says and I’m paraphrasing, “the best society can achieve are trade-offs.” Meaning, perfection, or a utopian society is out of reach to imperfect people. We must always strive to ensure that the trade-offs produce the greatest good for our populace as a whole; a net positive if you will. Our first and second amendments are excellent examples of a net positive trade-off. But to illustrate this point better let me show you how removing either of these amendments would present a net negative trade-off as this trade-off would produce the same result. Let’s say you don’t like what another citizen has to say so you empower a government body to punish that citizen if they continue to speak in a way you deem offensive. Now let’s say that you notice your neighbor owns a firearm and even though he has done nothing wrong to you, him being in possession of a firearm makes you feel uncomfortable. Because of this uneasiness you vote to empower that same government body to come to his home and remove any and all firearms, by force if necessary, so that you can alleviate your fears. In both of these scenarios the trade-off was liberty for safety. Unfortunately for you, historically speaking, this trade-off has always produced a net negative result; it’s always been a matter of time. In striving for your own subjective safe space, you’ve given power, to an institution outside of yourself, to silence speech and disarm law abiding citizens. Sure, this time, they did it for you, but what’s to stop them from doing it for themselves now that you’ve given them the power to do so? The irony is the two things that would have kept them in check, speaking your mind freely no matter who’s offended and possessing the most effective tool for self defense, were the very things you traded to feel safer. Our forefathers, having liberated themselves from the heel of tyranny, knew this and in their wisdom crafted our constitution fully aware that individual liberty can never be compromised for any reason, period. Guided by divine providence, they took it a step further, inscribing that no government has the power to remove what God has given. Being the land of free you are not guaranteed safety which is why this is also the home of the brave - because it takes courage to live free.  

At some point we are all faced with a choice, of which there are only two: have the courage to seek truth no matter the outcome or live in fear of the truth and continue to hide in a subjective reality that offers us the illusion of justice. One choice will unify while the other will divide and conquer. One choice will empower individual sovereignty while the other will leave you a hollowed out slave to the whims of the influential. One choice will assure a prosperous future through the trials and tribulations of life, while the other will only lead to extinction. 

Wednesday’s tragic mass casualty event on going in Maine is not an argument for increased gun control, as the second amendment abolitionist would have you believe, but instead stand as a clear indication for the necessity of effective personal protection, not just from a tyrannical government, but from any mad man hell bent on taking human life using firearms. Last count, at the time of this writing, stands at 22 maliciously taken from us and since I have yet to see any reports or eyewitness accounts stating that the suspect had to contend with return fire, the probability is high that no one present at Schemengees Bar or Sparetime Recreation (bowling alley) were armed. If this is the case, then once again anti-gun anti-2A propaganda has succeeded in convincing American citizens to turn themselves into soft targets whose only recourse when faced with a bad guy with a gun is to run, hide, and hope not to be slaughtered. Fact: no current gun law no matter the state would have prevented this tragedy. Fact: no firearm, as it is an inanimate object, has ever taken a life. Fact: any “common sense gun-law” that leaves American nationals unable to defend themselves when it truly counts, is not common sense at all. Fact: every evil person with a firearm is ultimately stopped by a firearm. Fact: no gun-law has ever prevented a criminal, who by definition don’t follow laws, from doing anything they want to do. Fact: gun-laws only hinder the law abiding from protecting themselves, their family, and their property. Fact: if our leaders genuinely cared about stopping the massacre of American citizens, then they would focus their efforts on mental health, harsher consequences for these unlawful acts, and finally, they would do everything in their power to help steer our country back towards a culture that prioritizes the traditional family unit. 

According to the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Autopsy Report George Floyd’s time of death was recorded 5-25-2020 at 9:25pm and his autopsy was performed 5-26-2020 at 9:25am. I know this because I acquired the autopsy report on 6-3-2020, because in spite of the prevailing narrative, I didn’t believe that Mr. Floyd was murdered. I did however believe that the officers on scene, recognizing that Mr. Floyd was experiencing a medical episode, should have gotten him medical attention far sooner and as such were negligent in their duty to protect and serve. That is of course unless there were extenuating circumstances that may have hindered their priority to get EMS on the scene expediently; such as, I don’t know, an increasingly hostile crowd. The reason why this is relevant today is because the autopsy report that was completed on May 26th has been brought to the forefront because of a conversation between the Medical Examiner and a Hennepin County Prosecutor who is currently in litigation on unrelated accusations. “Why is this so important”, you may ask? It is important because the report that was completed in May, the report that I quite easily acquired in June, is also a report that states at the top of page two, and I quote, “NO LIFE-THREATENING INJURIES IDENTIFIED”. In addition to this, it also states, under Blood Drug and Novel Psychoactive Substances Screen, that he had a total of 7 substances present including 11 ng/mL of Fentanyl and 19 ng/mL of Methamphetamine. A medical examination that finds murder was not the cause of death would seem to me to be crucial evidence needed in a murder trial. If this report, dated May 26, 2020 is accurate, then how could anyone be convicted of murder? Why, after so many years, is evidence that I easily procured in June of 2020 now being thrust back into the public square as if it’s a new discovery? Maybe feeding the mob their pound of flesh was more important than the truth. Maybe social justice was more important than actual JUSTICE. Maybe inciting riots was more important to MSM than journalistic integrity as they released an edited video removing context in order to create an emotional frenzy. Maybe BLM was more important than all lives mattering. Maybe reelection became more important to Trump than protecting American citizens from local governments who were willfully refusing to do so. Maybe ideology became more important than reality itself. Either way the result was the same. Justice was lost and when justice is lost for one it becomes increasingly hard to find for us all. 

This isn’t a complicated question, “do you condemn the actions of Hamas?” Not only is it not a complicated question, but if you are pro-Palestine, you can still be anti-Hamas. Why then, are so many, unwilling to condemn the actions that raped, killed, kidnapped, burned and beheaded innocent people without hesitation? Why did our MSM reject the actions of Hamas until Israel, rightfully so, responded to the slaughter of their citizens with a declaration of war? Once Israel engaged in a counteroffensive, the mainstream media’s characterization of Israel shifted from victim to oppressor, why? In addition to the shift in narrative, the mainstream media has either lied about ,or at the very least, not contradicted the lies about the historical conflict, in favor of Palestine. Why has the MSM clearly chosen a side and why is it the side that celebrates the decapitation of infants? That to me would seem to be the wrong side to be on, right?    Who does this narrative serve? What does the MSM gain from this? Do they own substantial shares in Lockheed? I’ve already answered these questions for myself, my challenge to you, is that you do the same. And once you have those answers keep it going by challenging others to question as well. This is how we fight the darkness; turning on the lights.