I saw the strength of America this past weekend, her will, her goodness, her compassion, her unity and her greatness.

It was in Payson – a small town in Arizona I’m sure most of you have never even heard of – when the residents of the area came together on a Saturday night to honor their veterans.

Farmers, cowboys, merchants, clerks, truck drivers and Americans of all professions, put aside their beliefs and political persuasions, their differences and banded together to pay homage to those who had put their lives on the line for the liberty of our beloved America.

When the color guard took the stage and the national anthem was sung before the show everybody rose, and silver haired old veterans stood ramrod straight at attention, paying homage to the flag, the nation and the ones who fought for her.

I have no doubt that those same grizzled old vets, proudly wearing battle ribbons and medals they’d won in combat in Korea, Vietnam et al. would gladly mount the ramparts again and defend America with their dying breath.

And I also have no doubt that the civilians who were there last night would do the same thing if it came down to protecting their families or their homes. They’re a hardy breed of folks, self-reliant, desert tough with calloused hands and sun-ripened faces.

I seriously doubt if any group of politically motivated radicals would fare very well if they came to their town to deface a monument or tear down a statue or walk down the street shouting anti police slogans.

These are people who believe in law and order, punishing crime, respect for authority and the vital importance of maintaining the strongest military on the planet.

Payson, Arizona is a microcosm of middle America, where the prevalent attitude of the people differs radically from the one American major media would have us accept. There are a thousand little towns and rural communities like it all over this nation, people who are ignored and forgotten by the bicoastal obsessed media, an attitude which got its fingers severely burned in the last election.

They pay their taxes and raise their children to respect people and property. They fight our wars, raise our food and build our infrastructure, and they’re sick and tired of the political correctness, disrespect for the law, the flag and the military.

Folks, no matter what agenda driven media and self-serving politicians would have you think, there’s still a patriotic America out here in the hinterlands, a place where a promise can be sealed by a handshake, where people still get up before the sun does and work all day, where neighbors still look out for each other, still stand for the anthem, salute the flag, still honor God.

I so much enjoyed our trip to Payson, Arizona, the concert we played and the people we met and the opportunity to be in the company of true patriots honoring our military past and present.

It makes me know that the America I envision is still alive and well and the underpinning is still solid and strong, and although you’d never know it by watching the evening news, that same feeling and patriotism exists in the big cities of this nation, it’s just not as evident as it does not present the kind of America liberal politicians and major media want to present to the world.

Last night, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, Catholics, Methodists, sinners, saints, veterans and civilians of many different backgrounds put aside their differences and came together under one common cause, to honor our nation, our flag and the brave men and women who had fought and died to keep America free.

The strength of America is the people of America. When they unite and band together under one banner dedicated to the proposition that, under the patina of politics, social division and our many differences, we are all Americans.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, our police and the peace of Jerusalem.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels


DACA Deception

Congress has been debating, among other things, the Obama-era Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and what to do with its 800,000 recipients who benefit from this constitutionally questionable executive action. The executive order issued by Obama shielded illegal aliens from deportation as long as they meet the criteria (i.e. no criminal record) and paid the $495 in application fees. DACA status had to be rented every two years. If accepted, DACA recipients had access to work permits. The program applied to illegal aliens that entered the U.S. as minors. What made immigration activists so jumpy is that these applicants gave very sensitive information about themselves and their whereabouts. They also had to admit they’re here illegally. The Daily Beast’s Betsy Woodruff reported on this back in September:

In deportation proceedings, the government must prove that the person they want deported is in the U.S. illegally. That can sometimes be tough. DACA recipients – nearly 800,000 of them – gave the Department of Homeland Security information proving they are undocumented so they could get relief from the threat of deportation. They also gave the government information about where they live, work, and go to school.  As soon as Donald Trump was elected, immigrants’ rights activists started asking what his administration would do with that information.

In a memo, the Department of Homeland Security answered this question. And its statement – full of wordy legalese – made clear that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will be able to use DACA recipients’ personal information to deport them.

“Information provided to USCIS in DACA requests will not be proactively provided to ICE and CBP for the purpose of immigration enforcement proceedings, unless the requestor meets the criteria for the issuance of a Notice To Appear or a referral to ICE under the criteria set forth in USCIS’ Notice to Appear guidance,” said the statement.

In other words, USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency which handles DACA) won’t proactively give immigration enforcement officers a list with the names and addresses of all DACA recipients. But if ICE officers ask for it, the agency will provide it.

The Trump administration signaled last month that they wouldn’t defend the law, as they didn’t see how they could legally. Democrats and members of the media have admitted that DACA is legally questionable, especially concerning separation of powers. Ever since it was enacted, the GOP has rightfully criticized DACA as executive overreach. Around a dozen Republican state attorneys general threatened to sue the Trump administration if they settle the DACA issue. The result was ending of the program with a six-month enforcement delay to afford Congress time to pass DACA-like legislation. It’s the only way to remove the constitutional questions surrounding the program, and there is enough GOP support to pass this. There was now a lingering question about enforcement. Senate Republicans, like Tom Cotton from Arkansas, sees this as a possible opportunity to get the RAISE Act passed, which overhauls our green card process to prioritize immigrants with high skills and adds a language provision. Any aspect of border security is anathema to Democrats. While Congress and the media debate this aspect of the immigration issue, the Border Patrol picked up two DACA recipients who were smuggling illegals across the border (Via DHS) [emphasis mine]:

LAREDO, Texas – On October 4, 2017, Border Patrol agents arrested a juvenile attempting to smuggle two illegal aliens. Agents at the Border Patrol Checkpoint on Interstate Highway 35 encountered a passenger vehicle at the primary inspection lane. The driver was questioned regarding his immigration status and was referred for further inspection after a Border Patrol canine alerted to the presence of concealed humans and/or narcotics. After further inspection, Border Patrol agents discovered two adult male subjects concealed in the trunk of the vehicle. An immigration inspection of the two subjects revealed that they were both from the country of Brazil. The driver, a juvenile, was identified as a National from the country of Guatemala and a recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2016. All subjects were processed for removal proceedings.

The second event took place on October 7, 2017, when Border Patrol agents arrested a juvenile attempting to smuggle one illegal alien. Agents at the Border Patrol Checkpoint on Interstate Highway 35 encountered a passenger vehicle at the primary inspection lane. After further inspection, Border Patrol agents discovered one adult male subject concealed in the trunk of the vehicle. An immigration inspection of the subject revealed that he was from the country of Mexico. driver, a juvenile, was identified as a National from the country of Mexico and a recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). All subjects were processed for removal proceedings.

As a result of their arrests, the juvenile drivers were processed for removal proceedings as a violation of the DACA conditions. (Matt Vespa)

Free Speech is Censorship

That is my new catch phrase. It also epitomizes the Narcissistic Left. He is great example of the Elitist Orwellian Mentality that thinks they are so superior to us mere Neanderthals…

Editorial from Princeton University student.

It seems that, nowadays, cries for “free speech” ring from campus to campus. The term has become quite famous and quite popular. Perhaps it owes its popularity to how vague it is. It generally comes from conservatives in response to some sort of censoring of ideas. In its own way, “free speech” has become conservatives’ rhetorical weapon of choice, defended by right-leaning groups and thinkers both on and off campus. Recently, Professor John Londregan and some of his fellows wrote a letter calling for an end to the “shared and pervasive reality of growing hostility to free expression on college campuses across the country and around the world.” But what exactly is free expression, or “free speech?”

Conservatives would have you believe that their insistence on free speech is related to a desire for intellectual diversity and openness of discussion. When conservatives appeal to “free speech,” it is actually a calculated political move, designed to open up avenues of political discourse while shaming others from moving in active political opposition. I argue that when conservatives resort to this move, they can be safely ignored, as they are appealing to a right that does not exist. In my belief, when conservative ideas are opposed, there is no right that is being infringed.

We must begin with a fact: speech is intensely political. Speech is biased, opinionated. Anything we say, anything we don’t say, has political content and weighs on the scale of politics. Be aware then, that a call for “free speech” is as political as all speech is, because it reflects an opinion of what speech ought to be. And opinions are politics. Because “free speech” is a cornerstone of our rights under the Constitution, it can appear that conservatives’ socially free speech has this constitutional tradition as its backbone. However, this speech is something much different. As seen with many conservative groups, such as the Princeton Open Campus Coalition, conservatives are interested in being able to propose their ideas without any political opposition to their right to speech. I am not arguing that conservatives do not expect intellectual opposition to their content; instead, I am arguing against their right to be heard and accepted. I should clarify that I use “conservative” broadly to mean both those politically opposed to progressive aims, but also in particular to refer to those who invoke “free speech” to defend their access to political debate and to forestall political opposition to their viewpoints.  Finally, I want to make clear that “opposition” in this case refers to political opposition, which includes disinvitations, protests, and boycotts.


Yet, that has never been a right in private, nor at a university. If one presents an idea, one must be prepared to receive some type of response. Agreement is a possibility as much as outrage is. When conservatives propose this idea, they are demanding a private political right vis-à-vis other citizens to declare their views without opposition. But, opposition is not only allowed, but morally required, whether by pen, by protest, by boycott, or by disinvitation. Speech is political, and it is therefore within the realm of politics to oppose speech by any acceptable political means. I am not condoning violence; violence is unacceptable. To speak politically and demand that your political opponents hold back, however — this is not a right that society provides.

Indeed, there is something insulting and condescending about conservative appeals to free speech, and appeals to “free speech” make conservative arguments sound weak. It is as if they think, “If only the poor children listened to our ideas! If they didn’t simply reject our ideas out of hand, they would be listened to! We are right!” This, of course, ignores an obvious possibility: that conservative ideas have been listened to, that they have been weighed, and that they have been rejected. If conservative arguments were strong, they would be convincing, and if they were convincing, they would not meet political opposition. If conservative arguments were strong, they would stand without desperate appeals to the idea of “free speech.” If the only justification conservatives can offer for their ideas is that they merely exist, then let me say as Trotsky did: “You are miserable bankrupts, your role is played out; go where you ought to go — into the dustbin of history!”

When dealing with ultra-conservative factions (those on the alternative right, such as Nazis or white supremacists), “free speech,” or speech without fierce and unrelenting opposition, must be rejected entirely. There is no need to hear the arguments of hate, to engage in a “dialogue,” or to “hear the other side.” These arguments have been heard, and they were smashed at Gettysburg, resisted at Charlottesville, undone at Normandy, condemned at Nuremburg, and laid to rest at Dachau. Anyone who enjoys living in a democracy or a republic or appreciates human rights should be in political opposition to the alternative right, Republicans and Democrats alike. Fascists cannot appeal to the very principles of freedom they aim to dismantle, and no human is under the obligation to listen to what has already been refuted.

For conservatives, I honestly believe they are better off evaluating and reshaping their arguments rather than resorting to the argument of “free speech.” They are better off without it. Many conservative ideas are still valuable in moderation or require their fair day in court. As I have argued before, plurality and diversity of opinion is useful and valuable. Nothing is more advantageous to an argument than resistance, and intellectual diversity is useful. But, some ideas will be opposed, whether they can be justifiably offered or not, and this opposition may come in the form of political opposition. But some ideas will already have been judged wanting. Conservatives ought to question why some ideas are so stringently opposed and then adapt their arguments, instead of begging for “free speech.”

Just like conservatives, liberals and progressives do owe it to themselves to think critically about what is said and to pay attention to their arguments, both within their factions and when appealing to conservatives. I should not be considered to be arguing for a type of political groupthink, or a type of rabid crusaderdom. The ability to think critically ought to be praised and ought to play a role in campus discourse and in any political group, internally and externally. As I have suggested, liberals should aim to reach out to conservatives and moderates by appealing to how they think, which can require a critical approach. Liberals do benefit from being able to engage conservatives, to bring them around to new opinions through an understanding of their views. Certainly this is a fine argument for intellectual free speech. But, it does not make intellectual free speech a moral necessity. It is merely a pragmatic aid, just like any other sort of thought exercise.

Conservatives are not heroes for calling for people to exercise their critical thinking, to entertain their arguments; I have no fear that in a country and a campus of intelligent and independent people, voices will be heard. A voice is a political thing, and to raise it is a political action that can be opposed by political means. There is no such thing as “social free speech,” where “free” refers to a right to speak free from obstinate opposition. And if conservatives disagree, they are welcome to it. I, and others, are happy to respond accordingly. Really, that’s the problem, what conservatives can’t stand, what they can’t imagine could be true: speech is free.

Ryan Born is a junior in Philosophy from Washington, Mich. He can be reached at


Isn’t a good thing that this elitist snob has no concept of the Constitution but is so arrogant he thinks he’s a scholar?

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”—George Orwell


Happy Halloween 2017


Source: Ohio State University

So are we clear that you’re likely racist?

Have fun, kids…. 🙂

GQ has some advice for you racists out there:

Commandment I

Don’t Change Your Skin Color to Any Shade Found in Humans

But be careful; just because someone is a cartoon does not mean that someone is not also a proud Latino-American. If you would like to dress up as, for instance, Dora the Explorer’s sidekick, Diego, please refer to Commandment I.

If you try to mimic a celebrity’s exact body characteristics, odds are high that you’ll veer quickly into demeaning objectification.

When it comes to costumes, the more specific your outfit is, the funnier it will be. Dressing up as “a black man” is a bad idea. Dressing up as “Barack Obama” is a mediocre idea. Dressing up as “Casual, Retired Obama” is a funny idea—and a great opportunity to eat frozen treats while wearing comfy clothes.


Oh and a note from

Día de los Muertos

Goddamn, people really love Mexican stuff when it comes to Halloween, and lately Día de los Muertos, or Day of the Dead, has been getting its turn being used in ways that are really not cool. A search on Instagram for the hashtag #Dayofthedead shows that there’s no shortage of people painting their faces like sugar skulls in order to celebrate Halloween. The thing is, Halloween and Día de los Muertos are two entirely different holidays that come from two separate traditions, so combining the two is strange at best and highly inappropriate at worst.

Part of the reason why dressing as a racist stereotype or misusing religious iconography is harmful is because of anti-Mexican attitudes that are prevalent in our country today.Donald Trump denigrated Mexicans when he announced his bid for the presidency, and I can’t think of any time in American history where Mexicans and Mexican Americans weren’t seen as a threat or as a disposable source of labor. To put it another way, it’s a problem when cultural symbols are okay, but the people who come from that culture are not.

Image result for sugar skull body paint
Naturally, I say go for it. Piss off the the snowflakes and the PC police. Give ’em Hell- Literally!

Cup of Destruction

The Tolerant Left Strikes again. The Diversity of Opinion. The Anti-Bullying Campaign.

The Compassion and Sensitivity of The Left on full display this past weekend in Tucson, AZ.

Cup It Up American Grill closed for good on Monday, three days after two of its owners posted a politically-charged statement on Facebook that prompted angry social media backlash and calls to boycott the University of Arizona area restaurant.

Cup It Up owners unleash a list of things they support, the top being standing for the national anthem, and reject, including “political correctness.”

The Facebook post showed the company’s stance on controversial topics such as repealing Obamacare, drug screening for welfare recipients, Antifa, global warming, and NFL players kneeling during the national anthem. The post was deleted a few hours afterward due to an extreme influx of negative feedback. The restaurant’s Facebook page was also removed.

They were “controversial” because they didn’t tow the Politically Correct Leftist Ideology. They dared to have an opinion that wasn’t PC.


Especially, in the country where Free Speech is Censorship!!

“the restaurant was the target of endless harassing and threatening phone calls” since their Facebook post.

“People threatened to burn down the restaurant with the owners in it. It’s a crazy world we’re in,” says Ron Sanchez whose grand daughter works at the restaurant.

Good thing Liberals are Tolerant and don’t believe in bullying… 🙂
They even trashed it on Trip Advisor and other sites.

Julian Alarcon, a former partner who was not involved in Friday’s Facebook post, said the restaurant at 760 N. Tyndall Ave. was the target of endless harassing and threatening phone calls throughout the weekend following Friday’s Facebook post. Two employees quit Saturday because of the calls and several more quit throughout the weekend, he said.

“It’s not worth it,” said Alarcon, the operating partner and chef who resigned Saturday morning in response to the Facebook post from his partners Christopher Smith and Jay Warren.


The pair’s post laid out their political beliefs that included support for President Trump, standing for the National Anthem and repealing Obamacare and opposition to fake news, kneeling during the National Anthem and global warming.  and opposition to political correctness . That post, which went up at noon Friday, also announced that they would not broadcast NFL games at the restaurant in light of players’ kneeling during the National Anthem. Within moments of going up just before noon on Friday, the post was met with a barrage of comments, most of them negative and including calls to boycott the restaurant.

The post was taken down three hours later and by Saturday the restaurant had removed itself from social media.

Neither Smith nor Warren returned calls for comment.


a 48% plurality believe that “hate speech” is not constitutionally protected. While liberal students were far more likely to support censorship than their conservative peers, though, conservative students reported a much greater degree of self-censorship on campus and in the classroom. (Foundation for individual rights in Education)

Gee I wonder why? 🙂

Ah, the future’s so bright…. 🙂

Moral Compass

As George Orwell said, “some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” Many stupid ideas originate with academics on college campuses. If they remained there and didn’t infect the rest of society, they might be a source of entertainment, much in the way a circus is. Let’s look at a few stupid ideas peddled by intellectuals.

During the Cold War, academic leftists made a moral equivalency between communist totalitarianism and democracy. Worse is the fact that they exempted communist leaders from the type of harsh criticism directed toward Adolf Hitler, even though communist crimes against humanity made Hitler’s slaughter of 11 million noncombatants appear almost amateurish. According to Professor R.J. Rummel’s research in “Death by Government,” from 1917 until its collapse, the Soviet Union murdered or caused the death of 61 million people, mostly its own citizens. From 1949 to 1976, Communist China’s Mao Zedong regime was responsible for the death of as many as 78 million of its own citizens.

On college campuses, the same sort of equivalency is made between capitalism and communism, but if one looks at the real world, there’s a stark difference. Just ask yourself: In which societies are the average citizen richer — societies toward the capitalist end of the economic spectrum or those toward the communist end? In which societies do ordinary citizens have their human rights protected the most — those toward the capitalist end or those toward the communist end? Finally, which societies do people around the world flee from — capitalist or communist? And where do they flee to — capitalist or communist societies?

Using logic on Liberals is pointless because they will not understand. Logic is a Thoughtcrime.

More recent nonsense taught on college campuses, under the name of multiculturalism, is that one culture is as good as another. Identity worship, diversity, and multiculturalism are currency and cause for celebration at just about any college. If one is black, brown, yellow or white, the prevailing thought is that he should take pride and celebrate that fact even though he had nothing to do with it. The multiculturalist and diversity crowd seems to suggest that race or sex is an achievement. That’s just plain nonsense. In my book, race or sex might be an achievement, worthy of considerable celebration, if a person were born a white male and through his effort and diligence became a black female.

Then there’s white privilege. Colleges have courses and seminars on “whiteness.” One college even has a course titled “Abolition of Whiteness.” According to academic intellectuals, whites enjoy advantages that nonwhites do not. They earn higher income and reside in better housing, and their children go to better schools and achieve more. Based on those socio-economic statistics, Japanese-Americans have more white privilege than white people. And, on a personal note, my daughter has experienced more white privilege than probably 95 percent of white Americans. She’s attended private schools, had ballet and music lessons, traveled the world, and lived in upper-income communities. Leftists should get rid of the concept of white privilege and just call it achievement.

But they can’t. Racial Division is in their ideology and they will not allow themselves to be wrong.


Then there’s the issue of campus rape and sexual assault. Before addressing that, let me ask you a question. Do I have a right to place my wallet on the roof of my car, go into my house, have lunch, take a nap and return to my car and find my wallet just where I placed it? I think I have every right to do so, but the real question is whether it would be a wise decision. Some college women get stoned, use foul language and dance suggestively. I think they have a right to behave that way and not be raped or sexually assaulted. But just as in the example of my placing my wallet on the roof of my car, I’d ask whether it is wise behavior.

But, again, logic is like garlic to a vampire, to liberals.

Many of our problems, both at our institutions of higher learning and in the nation at large, stem from the fact that we’ve lost our moral compasses and there’s not a lot of interest in reclaiming them. As a matter of fact, most people don’t see our major problems as having anything to do with morality. (Walter E Williams)

Because they think they have a superior morality and want to force everyone to adapt to it or else. They are Homo Superior Liberalis, after all, and you’re not. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Fruit of The Loons

– Earlier this month, 41-year-old Robert Pattison went to introduce himself to his fellow firefighters at Engine 55 at Joy and Southfield in Detroit. Second Battallion Chief Shawn McCarty calls it a tradition for firefighters.

“It’s not mandatory, it’s voluntary,” he says. “You come in bearing gifts. The usual gift is doughnuts, but you are allowed to bring whatever you want to bring in.”

And Pattison, a probationary firefighter, decided to bring a watermelon wrapped in a pink ribbon. We’re told some African-American firefighters were instantly offended, since 90 percent of the people who work at Engine 55 are black.


“When you get your first detail at a firehouse you pretty much know what you are getting yourself into,” says Patrick Trout. “So you would have to say it was probably a bad call.”

FOX 2: “Is it racially insensitive to bring a watermelon into a fire house?”

“To some people,” McCarty says.

FOX 2 spoke to Pattison by phone, who claims it was not a joke – and he did not mean to offend his fellow firefighters. But he clearly did. Fire Commissioner Eric Jones says the Fenton native was officially discharged.

In a statement Jones says: “There is zero tolerance for discriminatory behavior inside the Detroit Fire Department. On Saturday, Sept. 30, 2017, at Engine 55, a trial firefighter (probationary employee) engaged in unsatisfactory work behavior which was deemed offensive and racially insensitive to members of the Detroit Fire Department.

“After a thorough investigation, it was determined that the best course of action was to terminate the employment of this probationary employee.”

In a world where racial tensions run high, some tell me the trial firefighter should have known better. Trout doesn’t know if he meant anything by it – but feels it was a bad choice.

“For sure by far it was,”

The question is did DFD take it too far?

FOX 2: “Should he have lost his job over a watermelon?”

“I don’t think so,” McCarty says. “Between what he did and what was there are a few things that could have been done.”

And if he’d brought Fried Chicken with that they’d have to arrest him and hang him on the spot! 🙂