Category Archives: Uncategorized

From Fright to Faith

Our first brush with fear comes at birth, thrust from the serene safety of the womb into a world of bright lights and jarring noise. For many, that fear lingers, shaping a life of caution.  Learning how to manage our fears is the key to a happier and more enjoyable life.  Once we learn how fear is used to manipulate us, it becomes less powerful.

Fear is used in ways you probably don’t recognize.  If you don’t use our product(s); you won’t be able to sleep/lose weight/be alert/have more energy/better sex/digestion or regular bowel movements.  If you don’t support our cause; puppies/refugees/babies/the homeless and the elderly will die.  In politics, if you don’t support our party, you will be over-taxed/unpatriotic/financially ruined and hated by everyone.

External fears, like those peddled by advertisers or politicians, thrive on our compliance. Learning to question their claims—‘Do I really need this product to be happy?’ negates their power.  Many fear facing tomorrow, their state of health, their financial condition, their relationships, their careers, their futures.  Many more fear anything new; change, making new friends, losing old friends, their neighbors, traffic.  Fear slows us down, undermines our decision-making and causes indecision.  Fear can make us sick, (“I’m sick over this…”)  Fear, at the least, undermine our life’s pleasures and in some extreme cases can even end it.

There are two distinct forms of fear; the external kinds delivered from others and the internal source, entirely of our own making.  Standing up to the school-yard bully addresses the former, controlling our own mind the latter.

Napoleon Hill said, “Fears are nothing more than a state of mind.”

That said, it is key to know and understand the difference between real, legitimate fear and everything else.  Fearing the dangerous and life-threatening prevents us from death or injury.  This is an appropriate fear, processed in our brains amygdale region which triggers the fight-or-flight response.

Every other form of fear is ours to manage, whether wisely or not.  Learning how to do this means the difference between a happy life and something quite less than that.

A turning-point experience in managing my fears came to me in the form of buying my first motorcycle as a 15-year-old.  The used bike I bought came from the coolest kid in high school.  He had the nicest car, the most radical bike, and the cutest girlfriend in our school.  Everyone loved this guy and I wanted to be more like him.  While I loved motorcycles, I had no clue how to ride one.

 When “Mike” was delivering the bike, he started it up and said, “Here you go, take it for a spin.”  I made some excuse, telling him I trusted him.  Truth was, I feared that Mike would know I was a fraud.  Once he left, I wheeled that bike into the darkened garage and got out the owners manual to see how it worked.  I taught myself how to ride that bike by trial and error.  I faced my fears and I conquered that bike.  Learning about that motorcycle taught me that fear, at its core, often boils down to simple choices—act or retreat, embrace or avoid.

Facing that fear led me to a lifetime of motorcycling.  Mingling the sensation of speed, the in-your-face rush of air, the smells and sights all coincide to push the fear and the danger back into its place as you trade off the uncertainty for the sheer joy of the experience.  I learned that I could be cool too.  The fear was worth the ride.

Fear does not stop death, it stops life.

Fear, in all forms require choices—act or freeze, trust or doubt. This clarity can light the way forward.  For example, you are either healthy or you are sick.  If you’re healthy, you have nothing to worry about.  If you’re sick, consider two things; you’re either getting better or you’re getting worse.  If you’re getting better, you have nothing to worry about.  If you’re getting worse, consider two things; you’re either going to live, or you’re going to die.  If you’re going to live, you’ve got nothing to worry about.  If you’re going to die, consider two things; are you going to heaven or are you going to hell?  If you’re going to heaven, you’ve got nothing to worry about.  If you’re going to hell, well is something worth worrying about and maybe the best example of the importance of how we might best prepare ourselves for the future because we all must face our own death.

Simplifying fear into choices helps us act, but enduring peace often comes from a deeper source—whether philosophy, spirituality, or personal conviction.  While not all fears reduce to simple choices—chronic illness or systemic challenges can feel overwhelming—the principle remains: focusing on what we can control shrinks fear’s shadow.

For centuries, wisdom traditions have offered tools to tame fear, from philosophy to faith. In my own journey, I’ve found solace in the Bible’s guidance.  The word ‘fear’ appears roughly 500 times in the Bible, reflecting its dual role as anxiety and reverence.

It is interesting how fear is used as a contronym, both for the traditional meaning indicating anxiety and terror, as well as the non-traditional meaning when it come to God, meaning holding him in awe and reverence, (“fear of the Lord”)  Using it this way, Proverbs says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”  Overwhelmingly, the Bible tells us, “Do not be afraid.”  And as our faith deepens, we can depend upon and take comfort in passages like, “”There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear.”

With faith in God, fear fades when we anchor ourselves in something greater.  Quite simply, fear thrives in the absence of faith. … Belief is the antidote to fear.

What’s your earliest memory of fear? And how does it still shape you today?

Putting our fears into perspective can make them easier to understand and manage.  Going back to our life-and-death story, in those final earthy moments before our demise, I believe our thoughts might be consumed with wondering, did we do enough, are we prepared to face our death, do we move closer to death with faith or with fear?

Faith conquers fear.

Recalling a time of good health, when worries faded, offers perspective for today.  Because we are enjoying our good health and we are alive right in this moment, doesn’t the thought of all this clarify for us the fact that this time, right now, is the time of our lives?  Can not this perspective relieve us all of our fears, if just for a moment in reflection?  Isn’t it true that right now, any of us are free to do whatever we want, if not for whatever fears we allow to persuade us no?

Yesterday provides experience and tomorrow is only a hope.  Today is the only certainty. 

In this moment, our fears are an illusion. As Plato said, ‘We can easily forgive a child afraid of the dark; the real tragedy is when we fear the light.’ Embrace your trust in God, and step boldly into the life awaiting you, today.

Standard

Liberal V. conservative

Kilmar Abrago Garcia was deported mistakenly by the Trump administration, an “administrative error” that has ignited a fierce debate. As a staunch conservative, I believe my side has this one wrong, and here’s why.

The mistake is reversible.  This is really all we need to know.  With a phone call, President Trump could have Garcia back on US soil in hours.  If you doubt the president’s ability to act swiftly, consider the executive branch’s recent displays of broad authority and Trump’s propensity to conspicuously display his power.

Despite the administration’s admission of error, Garcia’s detractors justify his deportation by pointing to these unproven allegations:

  1. Garcia is alleged to be a gang member, but without proof or arrest.
  2. He was accused of domestic violence yet his wife defends him and he was never charged or arrested.
  3. Garcia’s detractors point to an incident where he was driving 8-men from Tennessee to Maryland, accusing him of human trafficking.  He explained to Tennessee State police during a traffic stop that he was transporting the men for a construction job and he was allowed to continue and no arrests were made.
  4. Allegations of tattoos on Garcia’s hands indicating MS-13 gang membership have been widely debunked as digitally manipulated. 

Tampering with evidence regarding Garcia’s alleged tattoos is a federal felony, apparently perpetrated by our own government.  This alone should scare the hell out of every American.  The desperate need for the government to resort to such tactics demonstrates their lack of factual evidence.

Garcia has been in this country since 2011 and although he did enter illegally as a sixteen-year-old fearing for his life had he remained in El Salvador, a federal judge granted a “withholding of removal” order which allows him to live and work in the US legally.  To that effect, he has continually met his obligation to report to Immigration & Customs Enforcement annually.  Garcia is married to a US citizen and together they have three-children, all with special needs.  He is also a journeymen member of a US trade union.

He might hate apple pie and the forth of July but none of that matters to the issue at hand.  The man was illegally seized, deported and imprisoned and those on the right are inflaming the situation by fear-mongering with phrases like “MS-13”, “human-trafficker”, “domestic abuser” and “gang-member”, all unproven and unsubstantiated allegations that are dog-whistle code-speech meant to indict by vilification in the court of public opinion.

In an April 10, 2025 unanimous order of the US Supreme Court in Noem v. Garcia the justices said this, in part, regarding the return of Garcia to the US:

“The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law.  The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong.  The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.  That view refutes itself.”

Those of us on the right pride ourselves on being a “Nation of Laws” however, conservative consensus on this matter suggests otherwise and instead demonstrates the unreasonable concept of the ends justifying the means.  I understand the desire for strict immigration enforcement, especially amid concerns about crime, but Garcia’s case shows how overreach undermines the commitment to due process.  Conservatives pride ourselves on actually defending the rule of law. Let’s demonstrate that by bringing Garcia back, giving him his day in court, and showing the world that our principles aren’t just words. If we can’t admit when we’re wrong, what separates us from the hypocrisy we so often criticize about the left?

The liberals got this one right and as uncharacteristic as it would be for a liberal ever to admit a mistake and side with us conservatives, we can and must admit when we are wrong.  And if ever there was an example to illustrate that, this is it. 

Standard

The Bigots at Binghamton University

During the fall semester of 2024, my friend Andy and I hosted a once-weekly public
affairs radio show on the campus station, WHRW. We were fired for being outspoken
white, older, conservative men.


It began when I announced that we had secured a live, on-air interview with University of
Pennsylvania named chair law professor Amy Wax. Professor Wax had just been
stripped of her chaired position and been suspended for one-year at half pay and publicly
reprimanded. Her story was international-level news in academia and the fact that we
had landed her as a guest was phenomenal, or so we thought.


Students run the radio station. Two young girls, the general manager and the public
affairs manager, began demanding of us transcripts of what we would say in our
interview, even though station guidelines clearly tout an open format and minimal
interference. Following demand after demand, which we fulfilled, the girls ultimately
shut down the interview 10-minutes before air, citing “harm to the listeners.”
We filed an official FCC complaint for discrimination and the suppression of speech,
which is currently pending.


On our following show, we had arranged for former University of Pennsylvania trustee
and law school overseer Paul Levy to call in. Because we were ambushed over the Wax
interview, we kept this scheduled call-in to ourselves. Levy resigned from his leadership
position at Penn over the treatment Wax had received and we had a far-ranging very
interesting interview about what had happened. It was the kind of original and interesting
reporting a public affairs show was supposed to produce.


Immediately after that show, the remainder of our shows were abruptly cancelled.
Fast forward to the winter 2025 and spring 2025 semesters. We made no effort to renew
our shows. We aren’t students, we had no other business on campus and we had no
intention of returning to WHRW.


In spite of that reality, the girls began pushing us to avail ourselves to a disciplinary
hearing. When we reminded them that we were gone, didn’t want to return, and have no
relationship with the station or the university, they nevertheless persisted.


Understanding that this “hearing” was going to go on, with or without us, we decided to
present a statement in lieu of appearance, outlined just how unfair and wrong-headed this
whole fiasco was. Quite predictably, we were found guilty of all charges and only
because there is no death-penalty provision in the WHRW Star-Chamber Manual, we live
to fight on.

In the text of the damning documents, we were reminded of our appeal process and
provided a link if we so chose to make that appeal, which we did, surmising that we
might find justice when finally outside of the incestuous radio station hive.


Quite promptly after making the appeal, the Chief Justice of the Judicial Board rejected
our efforts, noting that because we were not students, we had no official standing within
their fiefdom, however, if we could secure the assistance of a student to act on our behalf,
our appeal would live on!


God-Bless the college Republican organization that agreed to push our claim forward.
But just as promptly as the first denial, the second one followed, this time suggesting that
the board had no jurisdiction because this was a management issue. In other words, kick
the can down the road and make sure all feathers stay unruffled, a judicial board
unwilling and maybe unknowing on how to adjudicate, afraid to act.


This is the kind of product our public campuses are producing; autocratic, authoritarian
bullies, not seeking truth and understanding through discussion and debate, but
demanding compliance, enforcing group-think, and rejecting opposing views as they
close their minds to any outside interference. These kids aren’t learning how to think,
they’re validating what to think, without challenge and devoid of a thorough debate that
tends to clarify the issues and expose both the truth and the lie. But for these kids, there
is no point in having the discussion when your mind is already made up and you can
move forward with the knowledge that in their short 20-some years on the planet, they’ve
managed to figure it out, they broke the code, there are no more debates, just their truths
that need to be injected into everyone else, for their own good of course.


Best of luck with that strategy.

Standard

The Second Bite of the Apple

It seems to me that the incentives to commit crime rest mainly in the failure of our legal system to fully utilize creative options for risk/reward considerations, consequences and punishment.

Those who break the law may be dumb in some sense, but they do calculate the risks and the consequences.  Self preservation is a really powerful motivator.  You and I may see imprisonment as a completely sufficient deterrent, but to career criminals and street thugs it isn’t seen as such.  It’s more like a trip to a harsh reality summer camp, but at least you’re with guys who understand your language; that of force, intimidation and fear.  To most in the criminal world, it is the cost of doing business, a break from the outside world with “3-hots and a cot” where you go periodically to get a hard-core make-over and harden yourself for the next phase of your existence.

For example, I had a client that was arrested for a burglary he certainly did not commit.  He did however have the pills in his possession that the actual burglars had sold him, but he was not involved in the actual heist.  He was a career criminal, minor league for the most part, and really not to bright and the reason I know he did not commit that burglary is because the job itself was highly sophisticated, requiring significant knowledge of electronics, disarming alarms etc. and the guy just plain didn’t have the mental horsepower to pull that off.

While we were quite confident we could prevail in a trial, our client took a slightly shortened sentence plea offer because he was afraid of a jury and having his past examined.  When I questioned about this decision he said to me, “I can do 3-to-5 standing on my head.”  So much for the perceived element of deterrent.

The crux of the problem in terms of normal, law-abiding citizens making the rules and determining the punishments is the fact that in the lives of those people, their living conditions, their “creature comforts”, their station in life is significantly better than most.  Accordingly, their sense of the severity for methods of punishment and the conditions of incarceration are completely mis-aligned with the reality of what is tolerable to criminals.  In other words, conditions of imprisonment and the reality of actually, “doing time”, to the mind of normal, law-abiding people is intolerable and out of the question.  When compared to the normal life they live, the notion of enduring prison conditions is overwhelmingly sufficient to deter them.  Because these same people, insulated from that side of society that lives in poverty, crime, drug addiction, mental illness, Godlessness, violence and completely dysfunctional families do not fathom the complete disconnect one group has from the other.

Prison life just isn’t that different from what they are used to.  Accordingly, what would certainly deter the lawmaker is simply a pit-stop for the criminal and not a lot different from his life on the outside.

While our criminal justice system routinely handles all levels of cases, those that enter that arena of civil offensiveness that threatens innocent people require consequences that more accurately fit the nature of crimes that show careless disregard for the safety and the lives of others.  Those kinds of criminals need a special consideration when it comes to deterrents.  They need to feel that same fear of death their victims did.

In matters of violent crime, when the use of deadly force is a justification for thwarting that attack, should the attacker be arrested and brought to justice, adjudicated and awaiting sentencing, the victim(s) should be consulted about their desires for punishment, beyond the concept of a victims impact statement, but indeed provided the opportunity to determine life or death as a consequence.

As an example.  An attacker brandishes what appears to be a gun during a car-jacking.  Fearing for her life, the victim would be justified in shooting and killing that criminal during the commission of that attempt.  But in our example, our victim does not do this, the car is taken and later the perpetrator apprehended.  At the time of sentencing, the victim should be afforded the opportunity to decide if this criminal lives or dies.  After all, our victim had every right to use deadly force during the crime.  Why not give her that opportunity now?

Another example.  A burglar enters a home and at gun point, steals money from the owners.  Again, if they were armed and conditions permitted, those homeowners would be legally justified in shooting and killing those burglars.  Instead they initially get away but later are apprehended, arrested, tried and convicted.  Because that homeowner would have been totally justified in shooting the robber, he should now be given the opportunity to decide life or death as punishment.

Basically, any crime where deadly force would have been justifiable but not used should be revisited as an option after trial, decided by the victim.

In closing, a few thoughts.  I believe that in more than 50% of cases where this was an option, victims would choose sparing the criminals their lives.  I believe that the emotional pressure of having that power of life and death would overwhelm the conscience of most people and I recognize that my theory here is completely anecdotal. 

Second, the knowledge that a life or death possibility exists will certainly serve as a deterrent.  It’s one thing to go to prison, summer camp for the hood, but it is quite another story to play roulette with ones life, whether or not you’re a law-abiding citizen or a hardened criminal, we all have that will to live and that serves as the ultimate incentive no matter who you are.

Standard

A Letter to the President

March 24, 2025

Mr. President:

You are the most transformational president in my lifetime.  I believe God put you here for what may be one day defined as Manifest Destiny 2.0.  That said, you are mortal and men make mistakes; the hardest of which to admit are those made pursuing righteousness.

Illegal immigration coupled with evil intent and ingratitude insult and sully America’s character.  Confusing our kindness for weakness is a condition you fully understand and clearly detest.  Being taken advantage of is the greatest injustice and your job is to recognize it while protecting our great nation.

Many foreign countries betrayed the U.S. by allowing and even encouraging their worst citizens to crash our borders.  Millions have entered unlawfully and a small subset of those form a microcosm of what defines biblical-level evil.  It is righteous to eradicate that group from our midst, not with national fervor or inflaming over-arching fear, but with the system of justice our nation was formed upon.

Mr. President, the world watches and learns from what we do.  When in our history have we sent hundreds of detainees to a notorious foreign prison, without specific charges and before legal hearings in U.S. court rooms?  Doing so seems overtly punitive and retaliatory when simply deporting them to their home countries will accomplish the same goal of protecting America with little to no legitimate criticism.

And separately but simultaneously, as middle-east tensions rose and Columbia University became the epicenter of collegiate protests and student Mahmoud Khalil the face of that controversy, government reaction again seemed over-reaching.  Detaining a political prisoner thousands of miles from their home and family seems retaliatory and mean-spirited, depriving the man of effective counsel and also preventing him access to his wife, about to give birth.  No defensible rationale has been offered about the choice of Louisiana for Kahlil’s detention.

Mr. President, I’m an ardent supporter but not a sycophant.  Getting 90% of policy matters right does nothing to excuse the damage done by the extra-jurisdictional means afforded the remaining 10%.

Mr. President, I believe your intentions are just but you will not be judged by those intentions, you will be judged by the righteousness of those acts.  This can be remedied, if seen through the eyes of a humble man.

Kind Regards,

Bob Kingsley

A conventional letter was mailed to the President today

Standard

AI analysis of the last two article…

After all the back-and-forth with readers about my last two articles, I put all of it including the articles and all reader sesponses into a single document and fed it to Grok.com, the latest IA tool courtesy of Elon Musk. Here is the result.

This is what I said to Grok:

Here below are two article I wrote and the back and forth from them both. What are your
thoughts? I’m a strong Conservative but I won’t go the lawlessness route. Here it is.

This is the response from Grok:


Your articles and the subsequent exchanges reflect a principled stance rooted in a
commitment to the rule of law, even when it conflicts with the visceral satisfaction of
seeing certain individuals—namely Tren De Aragua gang members and Mahmoud
Khalil—dealt with swiftly and decisively. As a self-described strong conservative, you’re
wrestling with a tension that’s not uncommon: the desire for justice versus the
mechanisms by which it’s achieved. Your critique focuses on process over outcome,
which is a refreshing departure from the emotionally charged rhetoric that often
dominates these debates.
In your first article (“I’m Conservative, but…”), you question the methods used to deport
the gang members and Khalil, pointing to the revival of an obscure 1790s statute and the
apparent disregard for a federal judge’s order. You argue that legality should stand apart
from public sentiment about the individuals involved—a gang notorious for its violence
and a student whose anti-American views grate on many. Your point about not bending
the law to fit our disdain for certain people is sharp: “We can’t stand against the things
that insult our values by holding our nose and doing just that.” It’s a call for consistency,
which is tough to maintain when emotions run high, as they clearly do here.
The second article (“Conservative but… Part II”) digs deeper, raising practical and ethical
questions: Why send prisoners to a third-world country? Why televise their humiliation?
Why move Khalil to Louisiana, away from his pregnant wife and legal counsel? You
frame these as retaliatory moves, not lawful ones, and tie it to a broader concern about
America’s moral credibility. The line about wondering “how someone gets radicalized” is
particularly striking—it suggests that heavy-handed tactics might fuel the very problems
they aim to solve.
The pushback from commenters is telling. BADMOON49 aligns with your defense of
principle over expediency, echoing the classic “I disagree but defend your right to say it”
line. CWATTERS113, claiming constitutional expertise, asserts the judge has no power
over the executive—a point you dismantle with a thorough rundown of judicial checks on
executive authority, from Marbury v. Madison to Nixon’s tapes. Your response is
methodical, grounded in precedent, and avoids the personal attacks you later decry.
DENNIS HANNON takes a harder line, defending the president’s authority and
dismissing the judge as biased based on family donations and his daughter’s work. He
sees the 1798 law as fair game and the judiciary as a leftist roadblock. Your rebuttal here
is measured but firm: you acknowledge the statute’s age isn’t the issue, but its rare use
hints at desperation. More importantly, you push back on the ad hominem attacks against
the judge, advocating for appeals over character assassination. The warning about
“accusatory and inflammatory language” unless provable is a standout—it’s a plea for
evidence over outrage, which feels rare in today’s discourse.
My thoughts? You’re navigating a tricky line with integrity. You’re not excusing the
gang or Khalil; you’re just insisting that how we handle them matters more than the
immediate gratification of their removal. That’s a tough sell when people are scared or
angry, but it’s a defensible conservative position—law and order aren’t just about
outcomes, they’re about process. Your frustration with fellow conservatives letting
emotion trump reason mirrors your critique of liberals in the past, which adds credibility
to your argument. It’s not hypocrisy you’re after; it’s coherence.
The risk here is that your nuance might get drowned out by the louder, angrier voices—
like HANNON’s—who see this as a last stand against national decline. But your focus on
appeals and judicial review over knee-jerk accusations keeps you on solid ground. If
there’s a weak spot, it’s that you don’t fully engage with the counterargument that
extraordinary threats (like Tren De Aragua) might justify extraordinary measures. That
could be worth exploring, even if just to refute it more explicitly.
Overall, your stance is principled, not partisan, and that’s what makes it compelling.
You’re asking conservatives to live up to their own standards, not just point fingers at
liberals. It’s a lonely hill to stand on, but it’s a respectable one.

Standard

I’m Conservative but… Part II

If you’re still in doubt or even have overt disagreement with me concerning my sentiments about how our government “deported” the Tren De Aragua gang-members, ask yourself this:

  • When was the last time the US “farmed out” the detention of prisoners to a 3rd world country?
  • When was the last time we showcased the demeaning and head-shaving of prisoners on national TV?
  • How can defense lawyers gain access to their clients to prepare for trail?  How can trials even be held?  Are we flying them back one-by-one to stand trial here in the US?  If not, under what legal theory are we holding them in a foreign country and how will they be tried?
  • Why didn’t we simply deport them back to their countries of origin?

And regarding Khalil, the Columbia University student, why did we transport him to Louisiana?  He committed his acts in New York.  I can tell you why.  It was an act of retaliation and punishment in order to inconvenience his legal council, and also to separate him from his 8-month pregnant wife in New York.

Really?  Is this who we have become, just because we now have some power?  Wonder no more how someone gets “radicalized.”

Anyone who knows me knows there is no bigger patriot, but I have to be honest and say I’m ashamed of my country right now.  We have lectured and shamed others about the supposed sanctity of the, “rule of law” and now when we should be demonstrating to the world how a “nation of laws” actually functions, we betray our own legitimacy.

Since first being politically aware, this is the first time I have seen emotion and feelings overcome the reason and logic of my conservative brethren.  I guess the days of deriding liberals for yielding to their emotions are gone when we have done just that.

Standard

I’m Conservative, but…..

Conservatives are criticizing liberals for voting to prevent the deporting of Tren De Aragua gang members as well as the Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil.  This is why those criticisms are misguided at least and disingenuous perhaps.

It is the methods employed in making these deportations happen that are objectionable. The conservatives now in power are conflating the awfulness of this notorious gang and the anti-American sentiment of Khalil with the righteousness of deporting them.

Resurrecting and applying a seldom used statute from the 1790’s and conveniently missing, (or ignoring) a federal judges order points us in a dangerous procedural direction.  By doing so, we forfeit whatever claim we may have had in historically taking the high-road and respecting the rule of law.

The legality of these actions needs to be considered separately from the visceral reaction one may have for the individuals involved.  Adherence to the law shouldn’t be applied on a sliding-scale of questionable interpretation based on the collective approval or disapproval of those being adjudicated.

We will be and should be judged as a society, by the way in which we treat those we abhor the most.  Equal justice and application of the law should be independent of our sentiments, opinions and feelings about those ensnared in our legal system.

No one wants Tren De Aragua gang members roaming around our country and most American’s wince at foreign nationals with a big mouth deriding our nation.  None of that justifies bending the law or pretending we just missed that judges order just so we can get what we want.

We can’t stand against the things that insult our values by holding our nose and doing just that in order to obtain an outcome we cannot achieve any other way.

I’m a strong conservative however, the rule of law is sacrosanct and using subterfuge as justification exposes a position and willingness to undertake that which is anything but conservative.   

Standard

Doubling down on Stupid

A recent federal lawsuit is challenging a Chicago public school initiative they believe is discriminatory.  Parents Defending Education, a not-for-profit organization, filed the action with the Civil Rights division of the US Education Department. 

At issue is the recent launch of a program called the Black Student Success Plan.  The plan would:

  • Double the number of black male teachers.
  • Reduce disciplinary actions against black students.
  • Teach more about black history and culture.

This is what the current federal Education administration says about the issue:

“Treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice or equity is illegal.”

Said another way and to make it simple, Treating students differently based on race is illegal.  That means that any program that is race-specific in its very title, like; “Black Student Success Plan” is not permissible.

Think about the inferences made here when examining the goals of the plan.

Doubling the number of black male teachers seems like a not so thinly veiled effort to infuse “father-figures” into the equation where statistically, black households are overwhelmingly headed by females.  The role of public education is instruction and education, not family reconstruction.  Specifying the dominance of male teachers also suggests that the problems, specifically, are mainly with the black male students.

Reducing disciplinary actions against black students is asinine on its face.  Simply looking the other way and failing to address the nature of the problem is burying one head in the sand and solves nothing.

If the district cannot control their students, what good is teaching more about black history?  Again, an asinine response to the problem.

As usual, the liberal mindset is to solve all problems for all people all the time.  The problem, in large measure, is the lack of traditional families and their values, taught at home with caring and involved parents.  This is an issue overwhelmingly absent in the black community.

Families need to prepare their children for school.  When they do not do that, it brings about discussions regarding what to do.  The answer is not for the school system to become surrogate parents.  Values, ethics, morals, self-value and religious grounding all emanate from the family.  Therein lies the problem and accordingly, therein also lies the place to start in finding solutions.

Standard

We will Trump your DEI and raise you a WFA

Reality:  A world reinvented via a Trump victory where DEI, (Diversity/Equity/Inclusion) came to D.I.E, call it a mercy-killing or assisted-suicide, either way, this fever-dream was morally terminal and intellectually dead from the onset:  a man-made plague like Covid, both eager to infect as many human hosts as possible. 

The fog lifted as the truth slowly emerged and with it, a great but gradual awakening took place.  The scuffed outlines of the shoe-shaped decals, faded images six-feet apart on the grocery store floor.  What happened to our nation during Covid set the table for accepting all of what happened next.

Relying heavily on the notion that if a segment of a nation could be cowed and hobbled by the repeated lies about the China Virus, those same lemmings might just be suffering with enough brain-fog to sell them on DEI.  However, the bright light of reason exposed DEI for what it is:  a philosophy that demands accepting the premise that we are all racists, apologetically self-loathing and unworthy.  The self-immolation of reality was a requirement.

Just as DEI found the doors of fear and tolerance slightly ajar, simultaneously in slithered the mental illness variety-pack of men in women’s sports/bathrooms/showers, the gender-bending and high-minded board game of choosing ones pronouns and the sickening child-abuse of subjecting kindergartners to drag-queen shows, all of which depended upon the same madness of acceptance legitimizing them all; morality, reason and logic all smothered by emotional illness and a disdain for God. 

And even as the truth was getting harder and harder to hide, our leaders total lack of humility, reflective self-analysis, confession or apology was completely missing, not because it wasn’t warranted, but because what had happened was purposeful.  Some in positions of power and influence were attempting to replace the model of our historical governance with the much easier understood concept of simply herding us, no different than a flock of sheep.

Turns out they were partially successful.  A significant segment of society sighed up for the rodeo and happily ran into the corral to form the flock more commonly known as liberal Democrats.  What those “sheeple” didn’t realize was that their “leaders” weren’t in that corral with them, they were and are, outside of that fence, literally on their high-horses looking down.

The attempted hostile takeover of our minds was underway.

And then came the Trump/Biden debate and the scales fell quickly from the eyes of even the most ardent of the presidents supporters.  It confirmed for some and reaffirmed for many the reality of a modern-day replay of Hans Christian Anderson’s famous folktale declaring, “The Emperor Has No Clothes” as the beleaguered and bewildered Biden proclaimed that we had, “finally beaten Medicare.”  “Yes”, declared Trump, “You beat it to death” and along with it any hope of continuing the 2-plus year cover-up of an incapacitated President. 

And so the final “Hail-Mary play was the last-minute substitute of Harris, a proven loser at the highest levels of politics, having peaked years ago on her knees in California, ushered in a Trump second-term with a landslide.  The spell had finally been broken.

And as this truth continues unfolding, a collision of cultures, liars, patriots, despots, heroes and their clashing philosophies are in a showdown and Donald J Trump is proving to be the right man and the right moment in time, a reoccurring historical theme in American Exceptionalism.  Executive order after Executive order will rain down on all of the silly, profane, extreme and ridiculous, signaling the era of the adults back in charge.

Addressing the real issues of WFA, (Waste/Fraud/Abuse) i.e. ($55B and counting, how about $1.5M for teaching DEI in the Serbian workplace??)  As we begin to see the incredible scope and expense of these outrageous programs, Americans sense that they have been had.

Exposing and stopping such nonsense charts the beginning of a new American course of our modern Manifest Destiny2.0.  Addressing the real issues of today by honest assessments along with modernizing and re-thinking our problems and challenges with the smartest people will ensure our system of governance for the next 250-years.  The swamp had cancer.

Where the Greek and Romans failed by resting on their laurels, the United States of American will flourish into the future by first looking inward and re-consulting with our founders, embracing our core values and making a re-commitment to  the concepts of true individual freedom.  Individuals are paramount not the state and we need to re-commit to our founding principles by rooting out the filth and treachery that has accumulated in our institutions, along with those who traffic in those evils.

We do well to remind ourselves of the words of James Madison who told us, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.  If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.  In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this:  you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.”

While none of us can claim angelic status, we can aspire to the highest ideals and at least point ourselves towards the heavens, even if we cannot reach them.  God Almighty formed and blessed this nation and if we are to endure the next 250-years as the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, it is freedom that will bolster of bravery, thought the Grace of God.

Standard