Weather or Not

Severe Outflow by R. Edwards

Example of Leftist Anti-Freedom Tactics

by Leave a Comment

The First Amendment does not say “except” or “unless”. In fact it exists specifically to protect peaceful assembly and controversial and offensive speech from governmental intrusion.

After school, on a public (key word there, public) sidewalk next to the Downington STEM Academy in PA, Christian teen siblings Lauren and Connor Haines held signs protesting abortion, including one with a picture of a dead aborted baby, while peacefully discussing the issue with passersby. Their assistant principal Dr. Zach Ruff came out harassing, threatening and cussing them, while using his large girth to stand in front and impede viewing of their message.

The school authority’s message: “You can go to hell where they are, too. They’re not children. They’re cells. … I’m as gay as the day is long and twice as sunny. I don’t give a f*** what Jesus tells me about what I should and should not be doing. … You do not have my permission to speak and engage. You are harassing public school students, and I will call the police if you don’t shut up.”

Full 18-minute video:

During his assault on the First Amendment, the self-described “twice as sunny” principal (under PA law) assaulted Connor too, by getting within inches of his face and trying to rip a sign from him. That’s not all. Following the assistant principal’s pathetic example of bullying and threats, other students and parents (!) engaged in mob-scale harassment by sending Connor, Lauren and their families hundreds of messages, some profane.

These are the tactics of oppressors and anti-freedom mobs, folks: herd-mentality threats, intimidation, and authoritarian bullying.

Fortunately, this time, by eliciting legal aid from legal-defense nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom (one I am proud to support tangibly), the good guys courageously prevailed over hateful authoritarian bullies. Ultimately the school had to apologize and acknowledge the violated First Amendment freedoms of Lauren and Connor, the vice principal was suspended, then resigned, and Lauren and Connor are free as they should be to exercise their free-expressive rights on public property.

Unfortunately it doesn’t end there. This is but a microcosm of public-school and college incidents of First Amendment violation all across the nation, hundreds of them and adding up yearly. With his PhD and “educational” background, Ruff very well could get a job elsewhere around students, where the same bigoted anti-Christian bullying can begin anew. And he’s far, far, far from the only one with that mentality. Protectors of freedom must be vigilant and call out the destroyers of freedom at every turn in this era of hate and intolerance of peaceful dissent.

You see, freedom is our greatest earthly gift and is God-ordained. Support and protect it, even when people freely express things that bother or offend you. No question, I wholly endorse and approve of Connor and Lauren’s message, and defend their right to say it. Even as an open and unapologetic social and fiscal conservative, I also am a governmental libertarian to the core, and defend the right of those peacefully expressing messages I don’t approve, to do so in the public arena…yes, even left-wing messages! Freedom is for all, not just liberals, conservatives or “moderates” (whatever that is…seems everybody from far left to far right thinks he/she is a moderate). This includes artistic freedom from the vicious viceroys of political correctness.

I fully am using my freedom of expression to post this…and folks, it has been happening for decades and is not going to stop. I have my ideals, opinions, and biases as well. I absolutely do preferentially post instances of left-wing violations of freedom, in large part to counter the intense bias of most mass media against the right, and against Christians. So be it. As long as I breathe, and as long as the left violates others’ rights (anymore, a given) there’s plenty more where this came from. Deal with it.

Don’t like my expressions of free speech, or others’? Ignore it, or argue non-violently. Don’t weaponize authority to squash others’ God-given and Constitutionally codified right to free expression! If you do, expect a well-earned backlash in support of freedom, and expect to lose — ideologically for starters, and in court if necessary.

Want to fight ideas you disapprove? Use facts, reason, logic, and levelheaded, rational counter-argument. Never threats, intimidation, bullying, or violence! And yes, that applies from the President (hardly a role model here) right on down to some spiteful vice principal, and ultimately, you and me.

Not with My Wife in There!

by Leave a Comment

Let me explain some basic genetic science chromosomally:


XX = female (homogametic)
XY = male (heterogametic)

There’s your gender. Anything else is science denial. Regardless of what one wants to be, or pretends to be, that fundamental, biological truth is inescapable. [I’m not interested in entertaining minuscule-fraction XX/XY genetic syndromes either; that’s beside the point here, a tangential straw-man, not at all relevant to the argument.]

Genetically, you are as you popped out of the womb, no matter your act, no matter your appearance, no matter your presentation. The XX or XY with which one is born stays in every single cell regardless of any cosmetics, desires or pretending to the contrary. Thus, since trying to be something you’re not is fundamentally dishonest, pretending womanhood when you’re male (or vice versa) is a big, fat charade–a lie. Yes, lie…which makes every “transgender” (get ready for it)…a liar, a pretender, a poser, inauthentic as a $3 bill. That completely inverts and falsifies their claims to being “true to oneself”, and is a foundational self-contradiction.

To really be true to oneself, go into your own private bathroom, undress, look between your legs, take careful note of what’s there…and act like it. If you want to pretend to be something you’re not, do it at home, an acting stage, or a drag-queen parade…not in a bathroom with my wife.

    “Two men say they’re Jesus, one of ’em must be wrong.”

      Dire Straits

I love that line, because it fundamentally calls out fakers for who and what they are. On some days I may wish I were a ghost, invisible! That doesn’t make me one. When I was a kid I wished I were a flying superhero. That didn’t happen, no matter what costume I wore and how much I yelled about saving the world. I put on a football uniform and threw passes really far for a little street-rat punk; that didn’t make me Roger Staubach no matter how much I pretended to be him. Perhaps I wish I were a holy man, a prophet, a savior to the world. Some people are delusional enough to think they are; but there was, is, and will be only one Jesus the Christ.

Wishing or behaving or dressing as a woman wouldn’t make me one, period. Nor does it anyone else on earth. And if “gender” is just an “identity” and not physical, why bother with the ‘nard-carving, the hormones and the makeup? Therein lies another basic self-contradiction in the whole deal.

Still, does that mean one can’t carve up one’s gonads surgically and pretend to be something they’re not? No. I don’t understand that mentality; it’s bizarre and twisted, but in the libertarian sense, one has the right to do with one’s own body as one chooses. [This, of course, excludes abortion, where the life of another complete genetic human being within the body is at stake in a potential homicide situation.] One even has the right, under the same document I cite below, to play-act like they’re a dudette when they were born a dude, at that drag parade.

Invert your organs, shave your legs, put on dresses, wear heels, splash on the Eau de Fakerie Parfum, whatever. You have that right and I will not deny it. I also have the right to criticize it, to call it a forgery, a delusion, a lie. I will continue to do so, and there’s nothing anyone can or will do about it. Why? It’s something the purveyors of perversion might not know about called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That’s the supreme law of the land. Freedom of speech, folks: learn it, live it, love it.

Nevertheless, let’s now assume for argument’s sake that no surgical or wanna-be “transgender” person ever did anything wrong in a bathroom, anywhere. Let’s consider the other posers: those pretending to “identify”. It is their very existence, above all else, that nullifies any and all arguments for “gender-neutral” bathrooms.

Yet under “identity” rules and laws spreading nationally like a contagious mental disease, anybody can decide he is a woman (or a girl, if in K-12) for the day, and stroll unquestioned into the women’s latrine or locker room. Postal-poster perverts and pedophiles the nation over are foaming at the possibilities. Genderless bathrooms elsewhere already have encouraged voyeurism. Peeping Toms now only need to “identify” as tomboys to succeed at peeping. Just call oneself “transgender” or “I identify as…”, and you’ve got license to leer. How far into the toilet have we gone, as a society, to allow lecherous leeches to have lawful access to their targets by means of “identifying” as something they’re not? All of that is batshit insane! What about the rights of the women and girls in that restroom?

If you’re a dude, and my wife, daughter or sister are in a public restroom, you’re not going in there, period. No man is going to be exposing himself around the ladies I love, if I can see it coming. I don’t care if you think you’re a woman at that time. I don’t care if you think you’re a dog and start barking on all fours. I don’t care if you “identify as” Mork the Alien and start chanting “Nanu Nanu”. It doesn’t matter what delusion of otherness you have. It’s not happening.

If “the law” says you can go in there, that’s a bad law; I’m still keeping you out until my loved ones are done. Like Rosa Parks on the “colored section” of that bus, I’m not morally obligated to follow an immoral law, an inverted Jim Crow statute that allows anyone to access any restroom if they feel like it. The safety and well-being of those I love matters more than somebody’s delusional “identity”.

Further reading, from a woman who has been raped:
A Rape Survivor Speaks Out about “Transgender” Bathrooms

Academic Freedom: Where’s the Line?

by Leave a Comment

What are the limits of academic freedom?

Thirty-six year veteran epidemiology professor James Enstrom at UCLA is finding out, after publishing studies that went against conventional thinking regarding tobacco smoke an diesel soot.

Of course, one legitimately could ask the same question about Ward Churchill at Colorado, who was pushed out for academic-misconduct reasons after referring to the occupants of the WTC who died in 9/11 as “Little Eichmanns”, among other things (including apparently false statements about his own tribal heritage).

And how can we forget another recent case (of effective demotion instead of dismissal) closer to home — specifically involving David Deming at OU?

Each of these cases raises big questions about precisely where the threshold lies for universities to get rid of or demote faculty, under what guises, and how equitably that threshold is applied. In all cases, the threshold seemed to be vague, unknown to the professor until it was applied, and wasn’t specified to the media (i.e., the public) afterward. Whether true or not, each case (at first) smacks of arbitrary and capricious action, with legitimate constitutional issues revolving mainly around freedom of speech.

I say the threshold resides in making patently false, fraudulent and/or factually incorrect claims to get hired or promoted, being convicted of a felony, or engaging in certifiable and provable scientific or academic misconduct (as opposed to mere allegations). Based on that, Ward Churchill doesn’t pass the test, given on his false statements about his heritage, not on his lunatic but freely expressed opinions. The Deming case was so muddy, it’s hard to evaluate independently without a lot of inside knowledge that’s being kept under wraps (under wraps…wait a minute, OU is a public university, right?). But given what is known, it sure seems like a case of institutional vindictiveness and retaliation to me. It’s too early to say about Enstrom; UCLA needs to prove he has done something wrong.

As UCLA, CU and OU are PUBLIC universities, funded by PUBLIC tax dollars, freedom of speech and “innocent until proven guilty” apply. Public universities should make the lines for dismissal or demotion crystal-clear, sharply defined, unambiguous, universally and equally applicable, and readily available to those who provide their tax dollars.

Private schools, of course, are a different matter. Faculty at those should be smart enough to know what they’re getting into before they sign on, that there is a risk of their academic freedom being restricted, and not to join to begin with if they don’t agree. As such, some private schools can become safe havens from intellectual challenge for the like-minded, or for quiet and compliant types who are content never to make waves or question authority.