Sold down the river?

Ever since the American People elected Donald J. Trump as President, it seems that forces on the left who did not vote for him have been doing everything in their power to undermine our individual rights. It started with the extreme left groups screaming “Not my President” and the whole resist movement. The question in my mind was how they were going to resist freedom. Isn’t that kind of like trying to fight a cloud? But I guess they are trying to do it. Places like Berkeley are curtailing free speech, and no, the irony is not lost on me that the home of free speech is rioting to keep people from expressing themselves. As I said in previous blog posts, we have seen the liberal left, when they were running the government, violate the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendments. In other words, the rights of the People don’t matter to the liberal left.

However, I believe that the establishment politicians have stopped giving much of a tinker’s damn about the rights of the People. Witness the latest bit of legislation being pushed forward. Because of the shootings in Las Vegas, and after people like Sen. Dianne Feinstein stated clearly that no law currently on the books or that could be proposed could have stopped the shooting, Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) and his co-sponsor, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), have proposed a supposed “bump stock ban.” However, nowhere in the legislation is “bump stock” mentioned. Instead, the legislation bans “manufacture, possession, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle.” A semi-automatic weapon uses recycled gas from the current round to eject the brass and cycle the action to put the next round into the chamber. What this equates to is one shot per trigger pull, so any part of the rifle, from the gas block to the buffer springs to the trigger could be made illegal. Additionally, there is no grandfather clause (so current possession could also be outlawed), and the loose wording of the proposal gives the appearance they are trying to outlaw semi-automatic rifles, and by extension, semi-automatic pistols as well. Hey Republicans, I thought you had taken on the mantle of  guardians of the Constitution. Which part of “shall not be infringed” does not compute? This is clearly a power grab on the part of Washington.

The impression I got was that the former administration thought of themselves as royalty, and congress thought of themselves as the nobility, and that the People are nothing more than serfs to serve the government. (“Dennis, there is a lovely piece of filth over here!” — Monty Python and the Holy Grail) They expect us to throw our shekels into the machine, and shut up and let them get on with their agenda. And as time progresses, it seems like more and more establishment Republicans, such as McConnell, McCain, Graham, Murcowski, Collins, and others, have been slowly (or not so slowly) throwing in their lot with the radical left. These faux-Republicans, who don’t care about the rights of the People have done their damnedest to fight the repeal of the ACA, and are now trying (or threatening) to derail tax relief for the American people. These are the people who elected them to represent them. The only thing that they are representing, that I can see, are their own personal interests. What they are doing, and the liberal left as well, is a betrayal of the American people, the majority of them that voted for Trump.

Will the armchair action heroes *please* sit down???

In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, and to an extent, every other mass shooting event, so called experts come out of the woodwork on both the left and the right, people who have zero experience with firearms of any type, people whose vast body of knowledge about firearms consists of repeated viewings of the Die Hard, Rambo, every Arnold Schwartzenegger movie ever made, and the like. These people have likely never touched a gun, but use their publicity to spew hateful, emotion packed, factually inaccurate, anti-gun screeds.

First up, you have Kai Penn, some kind of actor, who tweeted,

Americans killed on 9/11: 2,996
Days it took Congress to authorize war:3
Americans killed by guns in 2017: 11,652
Days in 2017 so far: 275

Aaron Cowan responded to this ridiculous tweet by saying

Wait, so you want to declare war on guns? Because after 9/11, we didn’t declare war on airplanes, we declared war on terrorists…

Not only that, but Kai Penn’s disingenuous tweet omits a number of facts. First, suicides by gun make up nearly 2/3 of all gun deaths in this country. So now we are down to about 3884 non-suicide gun deaths, 513 of which has happened in Chicago, whose ultra liberal city government has already declared war on guns (and how is that going for them?) They want to declare war on guns. But they haven’t declared war on cars to combat drunk drivers, who accounted for nearly 26,000 fatalities, more than six times the number of non-suicide fatalities by gun. They are also not recommending a truck ban, even though those have been used in multiple terrorist attacks, nor are they advocating banning silverware to stave off obesity.

Then you have Jessica Chastain who piped up saying that people wait 6 months for an X-ray, but 5 minutes for an AR-15. Come on, Jessica, hyperbole much? There is a reason that your movie, Miss Sloane was such an epic failure (grossed $3M on a $13M budget). Because your “bonk-bonk on the head” gun control message was not well received. We go to the movies to be entertained, not to be preached down to, especially on a subject on which you show your ignorance every time you open your mouth. Your job is to memorize lines, pretend to be someone you’re not, and amuse us. Stop trying to conflate this role with anything having to do with the real world.

And now, icing on the cake, you have Nancy Sinatra saying that members of the NRA should be lined up and shot by firing squad. Kind of a harsh punishment to be suggested by an obviously anti-gunner. I guess their arms would get tired if they tried to behead us all?

Can’t have an event like this without politicians trying to force their opinions on the “little people.” Hillary Clinton piped up the day after the attack and said

The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.

Then she blamed legal gun owners for the mass shooting. Oh, but as Judge Janine said, them on the left say not to blame Muslims for the actions of a few, but it is perfectly fine for them to blame legal gun owners for the actions of these mass shooters. In fact, during the Pulse shooting, the former worst mass shooting in American history, the left, in the same breath, blamed gun owners for the shooting and said not to blame Muslims for the actions of the shooter. Then her former running mate, Tim Kaine, doubled down on the silencer rhetoric from Clinton. Then he went on to say that we have “lost our minds” on gun policies. Well, the original gun policy is

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Londo Mollari on Babylon 5 once said

Londo Mollari: But this – this, this, this is like – being nibbled to death by, uh – Pah! What are those Earth creatures called? Feathers, long bill, webbed feet, go “quack”.
Vir Cotto: Cats.
Londo Mollari: Cats! I’m being nibbled to death by cats.

The left, for about the last 80 years has been nibbling at the edges of the second amendment, trying to take a larger and larger slice out of the gun rights of the American people. Thus, I would have to agree with Kaine that the gun laws are out of control. But my view is 180 degrees out of sync with his. The second amendment, as written is good. Adding on legislation including

  • the National Firearms Act (1934)
  • the Gun Control Act (1968)
  • the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986)

is akin to being nibbled to death by cats. And, Tim, you are absolutely the wrong person to lecture us on guns. Wasn’t your son arrested as an Antifa terrorist? Sorry, Timmy, I’ll take my chances with a loaded gun, thank-you-very-much.

And both politicians called out “silencers.” It is not a silencer, it is a suppressor. Gunfire is approximately 150 dB in volume. That is the equivalent of being 25 meters from a jet taking off, and can rupture your eardrums. A suppressor, or “can” will reduce the sound pressure level by about 30 dB, or down to the sound level of a jack hammer, unlike the action hero silencer which changes the report of a supersonic round into a gentle “pfffft.”

And then you have various “experts” that are saying things like “former FBI agent” Manny Lopez, who said, on MSLSD, that “hunters use suppressors so that deer cannot hear the gunshot.” Really, Manny? What did you do at the FBI?

There is even misinformation on the right. Laura Ingraham, whose opinions I respect on things she knows about, said that “you can’t put a suppressor on an AR-15, it would melt the barrel.” While it is possible to destroy the barrel of an M-16, or any machine gun with automatic fire (most machine guns, which are designed for automatic fire, have quick-replace barrels, dating back to the German MG.42 from WWII), an AR-15/M-16 barrel would require nearly 1000 rounds to cause a catastrophic failure. Putting a can on an AR is possible. Rapid fire would tend to destroy the baffles, but not cause a premature failure of the barrel.

I ask all pundits to stop trying to appear as experts in areas in which you have zero knowledge, and to stop trying to emotionally load terms to get a knee-jerk response to push your agenda. If you want to learn about it, go to a range and see what it is all about. Hell, you might just find yourself enjoying it. And you will definitely see that firearms are about more than just being “killing machines.” And maybe, just maybe, you will be able to speak intelligently on the subject, or at least know when to keep your mouth shut.

Fatigue…

It has been several months since I blogged here. I have a case of, what can best be described as combat fatigue, as I watch the liberal socialist communists in this country (and the world) descending in a death spiral of insanity. In the past, I would blog on each new outrageous extreme of the left… The hypocrisy of their words and views… The insanity of their actions… Just too many to catalog. When I was first invited to blog here, every incident, every increasingly stupid thing would cause me to sit down at the computer and comment about it. Until at some point, it was too tiring to post, because the hammer blows of stupidity merged into a constant staccato tone that is the backdrop to America…Almost as if this constant cacophony is meant to desensitize the American people to the outright theft of their rights and the shift toward a socialist/communist dystopian American society. After all, the communist elements in our country say that they need to “start indoctrinating children in kindergarten.” I believe what we are seeing here was predicted by God through the prophet Isaiah:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. — Isaiah 5:20, (NIV)

The liberal left is steadily replacing those things that are good, such as the nuclear family, children, male and female, and freedom of speech with liberal darlings like gay marriage, abortion, transgenderism and only allowing speech that agrees with their opinion. Christians are being routinely persecuted. In 2016, 90,000 Christians were murdered worldwide, mostly in the middle east. ISIS is up to their usual shenanigans, from beheading adults to killing Christian children or using them as human shields to deter Allied bombings. But if you ask a liberal, it islamophobia is the largest problem in the world. But the liberals would rather protect Muslims from the evils of bacon sandwiches, than protecting Christians from being slaughtered in job lots. What we are seeing is spoken to in the first chapter of Romans:

 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.  They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. — Romans 1:28-32, (NIV)

For a fuller view, read Romans 1:18-32. I honestly believe that what we are seeing today is a concerted effort to distract us while people intent on destroying this country, attempting to cripple those people doing good, and furthering their agenda of evil.

For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.  Ephesians 6:12 (ESV)

So while it appears that we are fighting a bunch of masked goons, and a liberal socialist/communist movement, and the sexual immorality and abortion attendant with the downfall of society, it is representative of an unseen enemy behind the scenes. So as you watch society circling the drain, stop and think about who’s finger is on the flush handle.

The Constitution is not optional!

I can’t help shaking my head in disgust by the liberals’ abuses or ignoring of the Constitution. During the last administration,  the federal government itself seems to have declared war on every one of the amendments that have to do with personal or states’ freedoms. I can come up with cases where the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendments were violated in the last 8 years.

Even today, the so-called anti-fascist movement (who are the most fascist acting group I have seen since the cold-war Soviet Union) has done their dead level best to destroy free speech. UC Berkeley, the home of the free speech movement, is now a hotbed of violent riots in protest of conservative speakers. Their claim is that because these speakers don’t agree with the protesters, their words are so-called hate speech. Liberal commentators go a step further, saying that hate speech is not covered by the 1st Amendment. First of all, yes it is. The Constitution does not stop you from making an ass of yourself, as the liberals do on an almost daily basis. (see also, Chelsea Clinton’s twitter feed.) And these same liberals who get so offended by opposing views, are more than willing to use violence to force their opinions on the populace, create paintings of a beheaded President Trump, a college professor who calls for white genocide, and says a passenger on an airplane who gave his seat (which this professor didn’t pay for) to a soldier “made him want to throw up.” But saying that all people are created equal, and that LGBT or blacks or illegal aliens are not more equal than everyone else or that they support President Trump is hate speech and worthy of a beating.

Now, a blogger on the Huffington Post website believes that shooting someone in self-defense is illegal because it deprives violent criminals the right to a fair trial. Go back and read that sentence again. Yes, he really wrote that. In his own words:

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.

Now in my humble opinion, this is an occupational hazard of your chosen profession. Just like a lumberjack might have a body part cut off by a chainsaw, or a racecar driver could be horribly disfigured in a crash. A violent criminal has an occupational risk of choosing (poorly) an armed victim. And criminal law has proven that (except in deep blue liberal areas), that the right to self-defense is supported by law (and case law). Thus it is not illegal, and my (and my loved ones’) right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness more than trumps the rights of a violent criminal who hasn’t yet been arrested. And even if I were to be arrested for self defense, I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. However, the point of the matter is that it is not illegal to shoot someone in self-defense in most areas of the country.

The problem with the liberal left is either ignorance of what the laws and the Constitution actually say, or their selective understanding wherein they wildly misinterpret the law and twist it in their minds so only applies to their side of the argument, or they try to do away with the laws they don’t like. For instance, they try to apply the 14th amendment to illegals, while trying to steal the rights from the people to whom they actually apply.

This has got to stop.

Do they never learn?

I could go so many directions with this, but for now, I just have to ask. Are the Democrats really that far out of touch, and do they not know that things have a tendency to backfire?

I am referring to the legislation introduced by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). This bill, which was introduced during Congress’ April recess, empowers former presidents and former vice presidents, along with the currently sitting vice president, to be able to determine the suitability of the sitting president to hold office.

First off, this is so short-sighted. Currently, there are five living presidents. Three are Democrats, two are Republicans. So apparently, their Trump Derangement Syndrome is telling them that they can use this happy state of affairs to eliminate Trump, and that it will continue. However, just like the “nuclear option,” this too will come back to bite them in the ass. They will scream like gelded pigs the first time their ill-considered legislation is used against them, just like the rhetoric that the Democrats used after the nuclear option was used to confirm Justice Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

However, the most important question to my mind, is that We the People elected him through the due process that has been in place for 230 years. It is not your role to oppose the will of the People and “decide” for us that the President is not meeting your expectations and should be removed from office.

President Trump is doing nothing more than fulfilling the promises he made when running for the office. That it is undoing the ultra-radical, America-defeating “legacy” of his predecessor is popular with the folks who voted him in. Leave him alone and let him get on with his job. Remember, we didn’t propose such nonsensical legislation when his predecessor was in office, even though we didn’t agree with his agenda.

Curing the symptom

It seems to me that the liberal left’s solution to every problem is to try to cure the symptoms rather than the disease, and the further to the left they lean, the more kooky their solution. For instance, in the case of communists, their solution is to outlaw thoughts that don’t fit their ideals. People like Bill Nye think that others should be jailed, for example, for failing to believe in global warming. Or the so-called “antifascist” rioters, who believe they have the right to beat others because they look like they don’t agree.

So when an event happens, it appears to be the knee-jerk reaction of the left to want to eliminate not the cause of the problem, but rather the instrument.

For instance, the mass shootings that occurred during the last presidential administration. The former president would surround himself with the families of the victims of the shooting, like human shields, and demand more gun control. Hollywood liberals with their “Demand a Plan” video, while continuing to make violence (and gun violence) soaked movies. All the while, ignoring many of the root causes for the problem.

I have spoken with several police officers, and the vast majority of gun violence stems from only a few causes. One is the fact that it is politically incorrect to institutionalize those with mental issues. We have turned into a “Jetsons society,” where we are convinced that anything can be cured by a pill. Just watch television for an hour. You can get a miracle pill to cure the symptoms of obesity, ED, diabetes, whatever malady you may be suffering from. So instead of institutionalizing a mentally ill patient, they are given a handful of pills and sent on their way. It is up to them whether they take the pills or not. They can take them, then stop, which is what generally happens. This is reportedly what happened to the Sandy Hook shooter. Add to that the fact that most of these mass shootings occur in gun free zones, areas that already espouse the liberal ideal of “no guns, no how, no where.”

So instead of trying to work at fixing the underlying societal problems, the left blurs the lines, calling right wrong and wrong right, muddying the waters, trying to erase gender, race, and anything else that makes us unique. Not trying to help us get along better, but trying to say that men can identify as women and vice versa, regardless of their genes, or that a black woman can identify as a white man. A black “passing” as a white would have been lynched by these same Democrats 60 years in the past.

Meanwhile, they blame the instrument used to commit violence. First it was guns. Now, because “immigrants” are using vehicles to hurt/maim/kill innocent bystanders, a group of Swedish leftists want to ban cars in cities. They don’t want to vet immigrants coming into the country, they immediately blame the instrument that is used to perpetrate the violence. And then, almost worse than the attack itself, the liberals use the tragedy to push their leftist agenda. In the words of Chicago mayor, Rahm Emmanuel, “never let a tragedy go to waste.”

So what happens when this “ban it” mindset is carried to it’s logical conclusion? Basically, anything we can touch, grasp, hold, or use can be used as a weapon. Thus, they will have to be banned. Knives, rocks, sticks, you name it. Or we could work on the causes of the problem…A far more challenging way to go about things, but has a longer lasting effect on society than trying to band-aid the symptoms.

Just keep beating that dead horse…

Here we are, 68 days into Donald Trump’s presidency, and it seems as though the pace is moving very well. So, why then, do people try to live in the past?

I’m not talking about any specific party. I’m talking about people who continue to complain about Obama, those who post about Trump’s missteps during the campaign, the messages about the random celebrity who said this or that. All things that were reported on ad nauseam, either positively or negatively.

You still see birthers blathering on about Obama’s birth certificate. You still see meme’s about Will Smith saying that Trump supporters should leave the country. The list goes on and on. And why?

Well, since you’re still here reading this then you care what I think, so I’ll tell you what I believe. I believe that there are people who can’t handle being happy or content. There are people who love the misery of hatred. It’s these people who have no real argument or debate, so they just push their vitriol on others any chance they get.

These are the same people who tend to be uneducated, and speak in very small words while name calling in an effort to make themselves feel superior. They’re buzz words when trying to debate are “moron” and “stupid” and “idiot” and … The list goes on.

I used to waste my time trying to talk sensibly with them, only to find that it was a lesson in futility. I don’t do this any longer, which probably gives those individuals a sense of victory. A sense that they have stuck it to their enemy. It probably also reinforces their belief in whatever tired diatribe their spewing. Unfortunately, the negative effects of this aren’t enough for me to continue to put myself through the headache of trying to convey my position in an intuitive manner to someone who is incapable of logical or rational thought.

I am somewhat exhausted; I wonder how a battery feels when it pours electricity into a non-conductor?― Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure of the Dying Detective

It’s all about the checks and balances…

You know, the more that I study the Constitution, the more I know that the Founding Fathers were inspired by God. The Constitution has a system of checks and balances was an inspired move on their part.

Let me give a short Civics lesson. There are three branches of government — The Legislative branch, the Judicial branch, and the Executive branch. Each of these “checks” the other two branches, and keeps one branch from getting too powerful.

The Legislative branch (Congress) introduces a law, and votes on it. If the law passes both houses, then it is sent on to the President, who is the head of the Executive branch. The President, can then either sign the bill into law or veto it, at which point it returns to Congress. They can, if they have enough votes, override the veto, or they can modify the bill, vote on it again, and send it back to the President’s desk.

Once signed into law, the Judicial branch can review the new law and compare it with the laws already on the books, up to and including the Constitution. The law can be argued against precedents of current case law, and the losing side can appeal up to, and including the Supreme Court of the United States.

Well, in waltzes senator Kamala Harris, democrat from California. She say she cannot support Judge Neil Gorsuch’s appointment to the Supreme Court, because he follows the law. Wait, what? She said

Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, the civil rights hero who argued Brown and inspired my career, once bluntly defined his judicial philosophy, saying, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” In simple terms, Justice Marshall appreciated that the ultimate goal of the law was justice. By stark contrast, Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued narrow legalisms over real lives. I must do what’s right. I cannot support his nomination.

So a judge should ignore the law, and do what is “right”? What do you consider right, Senator? While I suspect that you would be fine with a judge legislating from the bench as long as he or she were legislating in the direction of your viewpoints, you and those of your ilk would howl, frothing at the mouth, your indignance, if judges started legislating with a conservative bent. Besides, are you not part of the Legislative branch? Are you so not willing to do your job that you are willing to abdicate your responsibilities to others? They why are you in the position?

I think Senator Chuck Grassley had the best analogy of the job of a judge, and specifically the gravity with which Judge Gorsuch does his job:

He’s a guy who I think comes to the court every day on the 10th circuit wearing a referee’s jersey – not trying to wear a Broncos versus a Packers jersey – and that’s what you need in a judge.

This is what we need on the Supreme Court. Not ideologues, not those who use the bench as a bully pulpit to force their agendas on the American people. We need referees, not the backup quarterback from one team, or the middle linebacker from the other. And IMHO, anyone in any member of the government who believes differently should be out of a job. Run the government the way the founding fathers intended and stop trying to get around the checks and balances.

Attention, purveyors of manufactured outrage

Over the past several years, but even moreso over the past few months, people, and so it seems to me, people on the left side of the aisle, have focused on manufacturing outrage. It seems that anything that doesn’t agree with their narrative is racist, sexist, islamophobuc, or whatever. I read an article the other day where a “transgender feminist” who said people  who are attracted to only one gender should be labeled as “transphobic.” In this person’s world view, if you are a straight male, who prefers “women without penises” then you are transphobic.

Okay, let me get this straight. First, women with penises? Last time I checked women don’t have penises. If they did, they would be called men. And if you insist on wearing women’s clothes, then you are what we called confused when I was younger… Second of all, who is this person to call me names because of my preference? We saw a similar occurrence a couple of weeks ago with the Pioneer Woman. She has a cooking show on the Food Network, and she said that her husband preferred hot wings to Asian wings, and the liberal left lost it’s mind and started calling her a racist. Because manufactured outrage.

Which is the entire point of my little missive today. The first point is something I want people to understand…You cannot give offense. Offense can only be taken. Think about it. If someone tries to offend you, and you choose not to be offended, then there is no offense. But if someone does something, regardless of how innocent (like mentioning that your husband’s tastebuds prefer heat to Asian flavors), and you feel insulted about it, then you pick up that mantle of offense. You take offense.

In other words, the choice to be offended is a choice that the recipient makes. Just like blacks will call each other n-word (I don’t want to garner offense) all the time, but they don’t take any offense to it, but if, for instance, a white police officer shoots a black perpetrator, it is clearly a case of racism. Liberal black people everywhere take offense. But then again, if it turns out that the officer was black (or if they encounter a narrative-breaking black conservative), then that person is not black enough.

Recently, a woman who has been flying a Blue Lives Matter flag for years in honor of her father, a police officer, was sent a letter by her homeowner’s association, requesting her to to take it down, because the flag was “racist, offensive and anti-Black Lives Matter.” This is exactly what I mean by manufactured outrage. Because I am doing something that doesn’t fit the left’s narrative, they feel perfectly justified to start name calling. And what does “anti-Black Lives Matter” mean? You can’t be pro police and pro black people? Not unlike the college dean that said “all lives matter” then was forced to recant it. Because if you think that all lives matter, then you are obviously a racist.

Another recent jewel from the liberal left is that milk is racist. Something about the USDA recommended daily allowance for calcium is for white kids, who have less calcium in their bones than black or Hispanic kids so the allowance is a result of white privilege…Or something. When I first heard it, I thought it was because milk is white and that is racist…But if you prefer chocolate milk,  then that is cultural appropriation, and that’s racist too. Man, I wish you could see the epic eye roll that resulted from reading that. You can’t make this stuff up, and I feel the need to wear an Ace bandage and a motorcycle helmet to keep my head from exploding sometimes.

And why is it that the left feels the need to stomp on my rights in order to feel better about themselves? They don’t want me having guns because it makes them feel uncomfortable. They don’t want me to be able to fly a flag because they label it as racist. They want to control what you say, what you do, how you think.

There is another aspect to manufactured outrage. The Urban Dictionary defines manufactured outrage as

A falsified righteous outrage at things that are basically unimportant and meaningless, frequently employed by politicians, political activists, or the media.

The emphasis is that they use manufactured outrage as a distraction from important matters. Like the way the former president surrounded himself with victims of Sandy Hook, using them, in effect, as human shields, while he and the liberal left tried to steal our Second Amendment rights.

I urge people not to give in to manufactured outrage. Keep your sights on the important things, and don’t be distracted by inconsequentials.

I believe you’re wrong, Mr. President…

As a quick follow-up to my previous post, I just watched the president’s statements surrounding the failure. I find it ridiculous to blame the democrats for the failure of the healthcare debacle. This is a failure of the GOP, entirely. There was more than one plan put forward that would have helped greatly, but instead the establishment representatives in the GOP backed the Ryan bill.

That bill, as stated previously, was a travesty. It was known for some time it wouldn’t pass. It’s worth saying again that congress is defunct, on both sides, and has been that way for some time. If nothing changes in short order, the GOP will see the same losses in 2018 that the democrats saw after passing the ACA.

I’m also hugely disappointed in Trump. I feel that he’s rolling over. I don’t care what he says about “letting it blow up”, it’s his job to work for the people and simply placing blame and moving on is the easy way out. That is not how a leader gets things done. It’s also not a “win” for the American people. Very disappointed indeed.