God's not up there...

“The thing is,” Meese said, “you don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That’s contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.”

-Ed Meese, White House counsel to President Ronald Reagan, and US Attorney General

To all those that think the current blight of  “guilty until proven innocent” is an invention of the campus activist and alt-left organizers.

Update (05.02.2019) This post is “re-dedicated” to those old-guard Republicans that defend the current president in light of his legal troubles. Karma’s a real bitch, aint it?

The ERA is not a women’s rights issue.  The ERA is a human rights issue.

Forty years after the ERA was sent to the states for adoption, it appears the US Constitution permits our government to punishment of a Jewish baker who refuses to cater a KKK rally.  Yet that same Constitution is SILENT if a women is fired from a job simply because she is a woman.  Yes, there are some federal laws that may protect such a woman.  Yet these laws, like the yearly federal budget, can be changed by 51% of Congress.  Is that good enough for you?  If not, it’s time you jumped on board and help push Missouri state legislators to pass the ERA.  Will history look back on you as one that opposed this legislation on logical, consistent reasoning?  Great, I disagree, but at least you aren’t hiding from your views.   Maybe the future will view you as part of the great silent majority…those too afraid of some theoretically possible FUTURE harm to put a stop to an undeniable real and PRESENT harm.  Or are you willing to act against a present injustice today, and have faith that whatever force is behind words like “justice”, “truth” and “good” will prevail tomorrow?

Go ahead….Google “ERA Missouri”.   And then act.  Inaction is not an option, nor will inaction be a defense.

When Trump is mentioned in conversation, keep a neutral face and don’t say a word.  Depending on how you are dressed that day, the left will assume your 2016 vote went to HRC because …

• she has a vast amount of experience inside government.
• it’s obvious that she’s awesome.
• it’s obvious he’s a disaster.
• you don’t seem misogynistic or paternalistic
• You value your freedoms.
• DT would abuse the office.
• you seem somewhat intelligent, ergo, you must have voted the same as they.

When HRC is mentioned in conversation, keep a neutral face and don’t say a word.  Depending on how you are dressed that day, the right will assume your 2016 vote went to Trump because …

• he has a vast amount of experience outside government.
• it’s obvious that he’s awesome.
• it’s obvious she’s a disaster.
• you don’t seem condescending or hypocritical.
• You value your freedoms.
• HRC would abuse the office.
• you seem somewhat intelligent, ergo, you must have voted the same as they.

When someone wants to talk to you about presidential politics, they are likely just looking to legitimize their vote rather than argue merit…so do yourself, and them, a favor:  smile and let them assume whatever makes them feel good to assume. It’s easier for us both.  If they insist on continuing the discussion, mention that you heard something on Rush Limbaugh and they’ll look surprised and change the subject.  If that doesn’t work, mention that you enjoy NPR.