Misinformation

If you are reading this, you more than likely have a Facebook account or a Twitter account. Both are very useful tools for sharing information. Unfortunately, both are also very useful for spreading misinformation.

Occasionally, this misinformation can lead to instanced of localized hysteria. You've seen it. One friend posts some story they saw on someone else's wall and like a cancer, before too long, 10 of your friends have posted the same thing. Even if the story is debunked in the first comment, people will still post and comment as if it were true.

Social media is an increasingly powerful tool we have at our disposal, but it must be used responsibly. Sharing "bananas cure cancer" and "Abe Vigoda has died(for the 30th time)" without checking the facts, which are almost always readily available, makes you look bad, lose credibility and can sometimes cause more serious problems. It takes very little effort to determine the veracity of something you see on social media.

Don't you think if one third of Americans had indeed been "infected with cancer" from the polio vaccination, it would be a huge news story? If bananas were found to cure cancer, don't you think someone besides that guy you dated in high school would have the information? If Ted Cruz had announced he was running for President, don't you think his own social media pages and website would have information about it? Instead, they actually have detailed denials on the subject, right there, for anyone who cares to look for the facts.

When you post something on social media, without any comments regarding your position on the matter, what you are actually saying is, "I believe this to be true". When you speak to someone, face to face, it can be assumed that what you are saying is what you believe. Posts online are no different. You have the freedom to post or say whatever you desire to say(with limited exceptions). You also have a responsibility to not pass on misinformation. If you fail to act responibly, you may reap the negative rewards that go along with that, and you deserve to as well.

Sadly, most people won't learn the lesson they need to learn. Why not? Because there will be a line of people behind them eagerly waiting to pass on the misinformation. How can we stop this? You have to be someone who is willing to stand up and confront this garbage. You are more than able. Willing is the key.

I think most people will stand up for the truth if put in a position to do so. If the truth involves your reputation or that of your family, it is easy, right? If it is a truth that might affect you in a major way, financially for instance, it isn't hard to stand up for it. What if it were a truth that could affect the very heart of information technology?

People, en masse, tend to believe everything they see on news sources. Major news media has proven this over and over. More and more, television news is being replaced by online sources. It won't be too many years before the balance has completely shifted toward the internet. It already has for some demographics. If we can't trust what we read, what we read will become nothing but a tool for those who would have us to believe what they want to. This would be a disaster. I don't see the current state of information dissemination being too far removed from this reality. The ONLY way to combat this, short of some sort of horrible legislation that would ultimately do more harm than good, is for the common citizen to speak up every time they see garbage being spread.

You will be held up to be a trouble-maker. You will hear the arguments that the person spreading the lies are "well-intentioned", good people. You will hear that you are an agitator. You will lose friends. You will be flooded with garbage. You will have all the tools that those who spread misinformation have at their disposal thrown at you. For this reason, you must stand up to it.

It may seem like a small, innocuous thing to say something when you see some stupid internet meme being spread. In reality, it is a huge responsibility to do so. The truth is the truth. Whether we are talking about Abe Vigoda's health, the cure for cancer, or the coming of Jesus Christ, the truth is the truth! There are no shades of grey. Truth is a black and white issue. Stand up for it, no matter how small of a truth it seems to be.

Truth is worth preserving and if we don't do that, what do we have left? You can answer this question for yourself, If you don't stand up for truth, aren't you just as guilty as the one spreading the lie?

Happy Birthday

Ronald Reagan was born February 6, 1911. There is no shortage of information about his life, his work or his political career that can be found all over the place. On this, his birthday, I wanted to share some quotes that really point to who he was and what he believed.

"A troubled and afflicted mankind looks to us, pleading for us to keep our rendezvous with destiny; that we will uphold the principles of self-reliance, self-discipline, morality, and, above all, responsible liberty for every individual that we will become that shining city on a hill."

This portion of the speech he gave when he announced his candidacy for President in 1979 emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility in such a beautiful way. He spoke of the "city on a hill" often, but in this instance, he makes it clear, that it isn't just going to build itself. It is going to take the hard work and dedication of a nation of individuals who rely on and indeed, uphold these principles.

He emphasized the need for personal accountability for many years, as he did when speaking as Governor of California in 1968:

We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

Not only are people responsible for themselves, but he added the following in a different speech:

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

He held that people should be responsible, period.

He also had a great sense of humor, which occasionally was used to try to get him into trouble. Here are a few quotes that showed us that he actually enjoyed life and didn't take himself too seriously when he didn't have to.

Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.

I never drink coffee at lunch. I find it keeps me awake for the afternoon.

Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying.

No matter what time it is, wake me, even if it's in the middle of a Cabinet meeting.

He firmly believed in the value of human life, as can be drawn from the following:

I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life.

We have the duty to protect the life of an unborn child.

There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.

We can't help everyone, but everyone can help someone.

If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen.

I could go on and on because he said so much worth repeating. He spoke often about his faith in God. He spoke often of his love for his family, especially that of Nancy. He gave us so many choice words on the value of conservative ideals. He spoke often of governments true role and the value that we should place on the ideals and words of the founders. He was a true nature lover and spoke about the joy he derived from the outdoors and the ways we should responsibly protect it.

One of my favorite quotes of his is short, but so valuable, especially in the politically correct world we live in today. He simply said, "Don't be afraid to see what you see". Eight simple words that say so much. He saw what he saw and he lived his life to embrace the good and reject the bad.

I miss you Mr. President. Happy Birthday.

Deceptive Media

Thomas Jefferson said. " If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The people cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe." He also said, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government."



It used to be mostly true that those in the media would gather facts and report those facts in a clear, concise manner. This served the very useful purpose of presenting the public with news about events.  By having the information, generally speaking, people were able to make well-informed decisions about things. Being well-informed did not always mean they made good decisions, but that is another discussion. 

Among other things, the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of...  the press. This means that the press is free to print whatever they wish, with the exception of defamatory or indecent content. This is largely still upheld to be the case. Freedom of the Press in generally alive and well. 

I do not think freedom of the press is being attacked openly or overtly currently. I think most of the problem with what we are being disseminated comes directly from the free will of the press. The bias of the media is undeniable. Those who would deny it are either stupid or they are in on it. This is why it is so important for people to become educated. John Adams said "Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people". Our liberties are being assaulted, in part, because people are too ignorant to see that they are being lied to.

One common thing I notice in news stories is that the headline, all too often presents a thought that never gets addressed or backed up with facts in the story. I was reading up on Zerlina Maxwell, the lady that recently argued on national television that instead of women arming themselves for protection against violence, we should just tell men not to rape them in the first place. I only bring that story up to remind you about who the lady is. I don't have room here to address that nonsense.

 I came across an article she had written for EBONY online. I found the article because I was interested in a quote I read from her stating "black women are also among those groups more likely to be impacted by voter ID laws". This grabbed my attention because I fail to understand how requiring someone to show an ID could impact any group other than those who don't have IDs. This quote showed up in an article titled: VOTER SUPPRESSION:Why Black Women Are Under Attack.[1] 

Black women are under attack? Why, I wondered, as would anyone who read that headline. So, I read the article. I encourage you to do the same. I could find absolutely no evidence of black women being under attack in the realm of voter suppression(or any other realm). The article spoke at length about just the opposite actually. The main theme was how black women had the highest voter turnout of any group. How they are being registered to vote by organizations like the NCCP and the NAACP. How Michelle Obama urged them to register during her speech at a Black Caucus event. Nothing I could find short of the statement I quoted about voter ID and the following statement mentioned anything to back up the assertion that they were under attack. She also stated, "this year, like so many before it, they are on the front lines to protect and exercise their fundamental rights in the face of opposition."

I applaud black women(and all people) who are getting out there and voting, except maybe that poll worker in Cincinnati that voted six times[2]. I don't encourage that at all. But all who legally vote, that is a good thing. 

Ms. Maxwell, however, is irresponsible in her journalistic efforts. Most people aren't going to comb through stories and try to find facts, much less search out other sources to independently verify what they are reading or hearing. I don't have data, but I have read articles that lead me to believe my thinking is on track about headline skimming. People see the headline and little else, especially online. If there isn't a photo or video, there is a good chance that it gets ignored beyond the headline. When people use headlines that have almost no basis in fact, they are going a long way towards insuring those quotes by Jefferson and Adams will come true.

I believe that is the intent in many ways. Our freedoms are being directly assaulted by the dumbing down of Americans. If we don't take responsibility and educate those around us, we don't deserve to be trusted with our own liberty. Another great American, well, not really, he's a drummer in a Canadian rock band, said "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." What choice are we going to make? We have the responsibility not only to educate ourselves, but also those around us so that we can all take part in our God given liberty!

Speak Up and Shut Up!

When given the opportunity to talk, our legislators infrequently resist. Especially when they are talking about eroding liberties. There are countless examples of this. Instead of trying to list them here, which would probably well exceed any amount of bandwidth I could obtain, I'm just going to highlight two recent examples I've seen. 

Jan Schakowsky, U.S. Representative for Illinois 9th Congressional District, was recently speaking at the "One Billion Rising" rally in Washington DC on February 14th, when Jason Mattera[1] was able to have a brief conversation with her regarding gun control. Jason presented himself as someone who seemed to agree with her views and she was more than happy to talk to him. 

Among other things, she spoke of the proposed assault weapon ban being just the beginning. She mentioned background checks, according to the Brady Campaign, being one of the "most effective" tools to reduce gun violence. We know that "reduce gun violence" actually means "increase gun control". She went on to say, "we are going to push as hard as we can, as far as we can". She stated, "I mean, I'm against handguns(I know, big surprise there)". She then backed up her stance with the very factual sounding comment, "In Illinois, we have the Council Against Handgun... something". I'm guessing here, but I think she means The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV), "the oldest and largest statewide organization in the U.S. working to prevent the devastation caused by firearms, founded in 1975". 

I find it odd, that in support of her being against handguns, she couldn't remember the name of that organization, the oldest in the nation, based in her home state. You would think someone in her position would have been working hand-in-hand with an organization like that for years. It wouldn't seem so since she can't even remember the name of the group. The part she could remember was "council against handgun", that's the important part I guess. 

She goes on to talk about a possible way to be able to ban handguns being the rights of municipalities, communities and states. We can see how well this has worked in Chicago over the years. Some of the strictest gun laws in the nation has resulted in one of, if not the highest murder rate in the country. Meanwhile, the ICHV website states:

ICHV successfully advocates for policies designed to minimize the impact gun violence has on Illinois residents. As a result, Illinois has some of the most progressive gun laws in the country, and we are recognized as a model for other state based gun violence prevention groups. Over our long history working together with our dedicated members and coalition partners, not only have we defeated many of the gun lobby’s key measures, we have also made numerous other accomplishments...

Of the accomplishments they list, one is [c]ontributing to a 20% decrease in the number of Illinois residents killed by guns since 1995, and a nearly 60% decrease in the number of children and teens killed by guns during that time. That stat must not include Chicago's, roughly, 10,500 murders since 1995. Chicago apologists will tell you that crime has been on the decrease since the gun ban, and they are right, sort of. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower. Additionally, Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect. 

So, beyond this, the ICHV, which is so endeared by Schakowsky, has accomplished, according to its website, six other notable things, five of which are directly tied to gun control and the suppression of our liberties. The sixth is a poetry contest...

While Schakowsky is more than happy to talk to Mr. Mattera about taking away our rights, another Congressman, Jim Moran, during a townhall meeting recently, was less than eager to speak up[2]. He was asked by a participant in the audience why lawmakers are less than eager to support a woman's right to defend herself. His response was to ignore her question completely and move on to the next guy. When someone asked why he wouldn't answer, he responded, "I'm choosing to move to the next question". 

There is really no other way to describe his actions other than cowardly. He could have dodged her question in any number of ways. Don't they teach these guys how to avoid the tough questions in Liberal Logic 101? Instead, he basically told her to shut up.

A tale of two liberal positions. They speak up when the opportunity to quash freedom exists and they tell you to shut up when you dare ask a question that makes them uncomfortable. The bully pulpit is alive and well.

We need to continue to expose these people for who they are. They don't care about freedom. They don't care about people. They care about power. They care about progressive, statist agendas. They care about themselves, plain and simple. 

If we care about the future of our country, we better start speaking up about it. also, when we are told to shut up by bullies, we need to stand up to them. The only way to stop them is to fight back. 

Hunting Humans and the Advent of PTSD

Dianne Feinstein, who has stated her intent is to ban ALL guns [1], just came out and said that hunting humans is legal[2]. In the article referenced, she states the following:

 “The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices, those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. Limiting magazine capacity is critical because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down.”

Legal to hunt humans? I have scoured the Constitution, state, county and local city ordinances and I have yet to find any law that contends that to be true. Yes, I realize she was being dramatic. Yes, I realize she probably doesn't really believe that is factual. That isn't the point. She said it. She said it on a national stage. It was on TV and now it is the heads of the public. Just like that.

"Of course there's a war - I saw it on TV." --Robert De Niro, WAG THE DOG.

 Not only is it a lie, but it is peppered with factual sounding information to make it even more believable. Comparing it to duck hunting laws? Duck hunting, by the way, is legal. Murder is widely regarded as illegal. Maybe she was confusing real life with the Hunger Games. Maybe, she's becoming senile. Maybe, she's so hellbent on destroying the Second Amendment and the rest of our liberties that she's willing to say or do anything that furthers her stated agenda.

She went on to talk about the opportunity to take down a gunperson(don't want to offend any one's feminist sensitivities) when they are forced to reload because of a magazine capacity limit. I recently saw a video of a sheriff doing a field study of this concept[3]. As you may have guessed, the theory is not true. The time it takes to reload a modern weapon is negligible. Especially telling in the video is the portion where someone tests the limits of disarming someone in the midst of a reload. These are people in a controlled environment with no risk of being killed. They are not kindergarten teachers hiding in a closet in a gun free zone during a massacre. Also, you'll notice that they didn't explore the time it would take for an armed citizen to blow the killer's head off.

Feinstein went on to enlighten us about PTSD: 

 “The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.”

PTSD, a new phenomenon? It is statements like this that seriously draw her credibility on anything into question. PTSD dates back to the early 19th century and one doctor even suggests it was described by Shakespeare and Homer[4]. In any case, it has been formally recognized for over 30 years. The exact timeline is not as important as Feinstein's ignorance surrounding it. Again, by declaring what she did, she set two thoughts in motion. The idea that PTSD is a new thing and the idea that the Iraq war(which everyone knows was evil in and of itself) is the cause of it. She did not state that by mistake. It probably won't be long until someone makes the connection and declares that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is George Bush's fault.

Again, this garbage is being disseminated to the mainstream media consuming public en masse. Feinstein is using the First Amendment to destroy the Second Amendment. When, in fact, the Second Amendment is there to protect the First Amendment. She. along with all of us have the responsibility to use our freedoms wisely. Comments like the ones referenced here are doing anything but that. Lest ye think I'm picking on her, there are countless individuals that are doing the same thing in regards to this current gun control madness that is occurring. The only conclusion that I can draw from all of this is that our liberties are not important to these people. If they were, they would be focusing on real solutions, not feigned outrage and reactionary behavior.

Our constitution is being ignored, evaded, trampled on and outright assaulted on multiple fronts. We, as responsible patriots, have a duty to protect it. We, does not mean us versus them, we includes them. The only difference between "us" and "them", is that they took an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. It is up to them to do that. It is up to us to ensure that they do. It is our responsibility.

Speak Up For Liberty

It is very easy for us to feel intimidated about speaking out on the issues that we think matter. What if someone disagrees? What if someone makes me look stupid? What if someone is offended, heaven forbid? We tend to look for reason not to speak up rather than finding reasons not to stay silent. What better reason to speak up than to defend the right to be able to speak up?

Our liberties are being squelched, marginalized, tampered with and ultimately removed at a staggering pace. In the form of over-reaching regulations like some of our hate speech laws. In the form of bullying by telling us how offensive everything we say is. In the form of attacking the source of news rather than the content of the news. Ultimately, in the tyrannical form of absolutely silencing those who would speak out. Reputations are sullied and careers are ruined over this. Students are expelled, reporters are fired and networks are censored.

Some people, however, see the problem, understand the objective and fear the results. These people come from all walks of life. They are you and I. They are people who feel helpless because of there perceived stature on the social ladder. They are people feel empowered by that very same stature. There are reporters, journalists, law officers, business owners and lawmakers who are speaking out in defense of the constitution every day. If they don't, they are not being responsible with the liberties they have. We have a responsibility to use our freedom of speech. We have the duty to protect our freedom of speech. If we don't, we will lose it.

I attended the Day of Resistance rally in Sacramento in February. There were 700+ liberty loving, law abiding patriots there who came to exercise the basic right to assemble and speak up about the problems they see in our country. There were several speakers who stood behind the microphone and let their voices be heard on the issues. These people were mothers, veterans, media, business owners and aspiring political leaders. They spoke passionately about what they believed. They spoke with determination to make a difference. They spoke because it was important to be heard. They spoke because they were exercising their God given rights to do so. We need to speak because there are those who desire to supersede God and take away those unalienable right granted to us by our Creator, guaranteed in our constitution! 

There were 1400+ rallies just like this, most of them larger, that took place around the country that day. Conservative estimates place the number of attendees around 1 million. That's 1 million people who felt moved enough to get up on a Saturday morning and drive somewhere to stand around in the cold, rain, wind and in my case, glorious sunshine to exercise our liberties. That is encouraging. However, that puts the amount who were not there, in most cases by choice, at around 300 million. That is very discouraging. They sat in the relative safety of their homes instead of fighting for the liberties that they are losing, most without even knowing or caring. Benjamin Franklin said "[t]hose who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin was a smart man.

There are numerous examples of those who have entered into this fight in a much more risky manner than I have. I will gives some examples in an upcoming blog entry of some people that are risking careers and much more by speaking out. I thank God for them. I thank God that they have the desire to fight for what is important, not just to them, but for all of us, for the future of our country. If you are not a person of action for whatever reason, there are still important things you can do. If you are a person of faith, pray. Pray for those who are standing behind microphones. Pray for those who stand in opposition to our liberties. Pray for those who may be led to do something more. You can also show your support by visiting Facebook pages and clicking "like". Follow them on Twitter. Hit that "contact me" button on blogs and web pages and say thanks. 

You and I have a responsibility to our liberty. Freedom is never free. We owe a great deal to those who have come before us and fought and died for our liberty.  They can't speak anymore. Their actions spoke loud and clear where they stood on the issue of freedom. You have a responsibility. Be loud. Be clear. Be free!