Tuesday, January 9, 2018

DACA - A Fair Way to Deal With Dreamers

The ongoing "battle" as to what to do with the "dreamers" of DACA, President Trump and Congress only need to use their heads and do what is best for America, and not to be concerned with political power. There are lives and futures at stake here.

To that I would propose the following:

Any DACA recipient who has not, since DACA was instituted, managed to become a productive, self-supporting member of society, or has committed any crime, would be deported. Any other Dreamer who has worked hard to to contribute to society and the economy, and is self-supporting may be issued a permanent VISA. If the Dreamer who is issued a permanent VISA desires to become a citizen, he/she may APPLY, just like any other potential immigrant, and must from that point jump through all the same hoops as a new immigration applicant, thereby not "jumping to the front of the line". In other words, the only difference between a Dreamer with a VISA and a new immigartion applicant from Asia, for example, is that the Dreamer jumps through all the hoops while already residing and working in the U.S.

If, at any point prior to citizenship a Dreamer should screw up, or stop supporting himself for a period of more than 120 days or commits a crime, he would lose his VISA and be deported.
This, then, is a fair and sensible way of dealing with DACA.


Thursday, December 7, 2017

Going Over The Edge on Sexual Harrassment? (A True Story)

This is a true story.

In 1990, a woman whistled at me where I was staying (there's a first time for everything, I guess). She was 30, I was 45. A bit uncomfortable, I just hustled off. Two days later, she whistled at me again. Again I just sped off.

A few days later I was walking down Maple Street. The woman, who was with her boyfriend of sorts at the time, was about a hundred feet behind me. I noticed she started gaining on me, so I sped up, hoping to leave her in the dust, as I was wary of her motives. But the faster I walked, the faster she walked. She caught up to me. Was she stalking me?

I spoke briefly with her, and let her know I was not comfortable with her chasing me like that, and I turned and left.

According to the rules that feminists would have us live by today, this was clearly a case of harrassment and stalking, and I should have filed a complaint with the authorities. But in 1990, the world had not yet become that insane.

That evening, As I was eating in the cafeteria, she came and sat beside me. I was about to get up, really miffed, when she said, "Please, wait - I want to talk with you." I sat down, and she simply said, "I m sorry if I made you uncomfortable, but the first time I saw you I was attracted to you, and I really didn't know how to show it, or get your attention. I just wanted to get to know you better."

We began spending time together, and we grew close. About a month later, in that same cafeteria, SHE proposed to ME, as she did not think I'd ever get around to it.

We have now been married for 26 glorious, fun-filled blissful years. Still very much in love, and inseparable. We remarried on our 10th Anniversary, and on our 25th I showed up at her work and publicly, on bended knee, proposed to her. See? I DID get around to it!

If we had lived by the rules the feminists are putting forth today, we would never have gotten to know each other; we would never have married, and would have missed out on a perfect life that even Hollywood could not have scripted better. In fact, by those rules, Robin (my wife) would have probably gone to jail, or in the very least, lost her job.

CONCLUSION: The "Battle of the Sexes" is supposed to be a fun, yet challenging game, not a "take no prisoners" war. We all are fumbling our way through this thing we call life, and we all have our own ways of trying to attract members of the opposite sex (or same sex, as the case may be). And if we are to survive as a race, we need to be tolerant of the methods used by others, and speak up clearly when we inadvertently attract the wrong people. Otherwise, we end up with a world of misery, like the one we have now begun to create, as people are beginning to fear  the consequences of "the mating game".


Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Sexual Misconduct - Drawing Clear Lines

The "Battle of the Sexes" has been raging since the first man found himself facing the first woman. And from the very beginning it has fallen upon the man to make the first move - it was always considered un-lady like for a woman to chase the man. But that appears to be changing rapidly in this age of "feminism" and "political correctness", when the mere act of letting someone know you are interested can get you in trouble.

Here's the problem - if a man makes a pass at a woman, and she likes it, that can lead to a beautiful relationship. But if the woman does not like it, she can now call it an "unwanted advance" and the man loses his job, and his reputation. In short, "unwanted advance" and "inappropriate behavior" are subjective - what is unwanted or inappropriate to one person might well be wanted or appropriate to another.

Not long ago, a man making the "wolf whistle" at a woman was considered to be giving her a compliment. Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Bob Hope, Bing Crosby - yes, even Pat Boone - have all used the whistle to indicate they like what they see. But today, whistling at the wrong woman can be deemed harassment (even though it is not).

It seems the new rules in this Battle of the Sexes are, at the very least, confusing and only blur the lines. And the strange thing is, it is all so unnecessary.

There are only two real rules, and neither should be breached. If everone were to follow these two rules, there would be no issues, and we would easily be able to pick out the people who break them.

RULE #1: Every man has an OBLIGATION to pursue those he is attracted to, but with that obligation comes the OBLIGATION to stop when the other party makes it clear, in no uncertain terms, that he is to stop. He can make any pass, whistle or whatever, but if the other party says, "Stop - leave me alone", he must stop immediately. No harm, no foul.

RULE #2: When a man interacts with a woman in any personal sense, and that women wants him to stop at any point, she has an OBLIGATION to let the man know, in clear terms, that she wants him to stop. It is her obligation to inform him of the line or lines he may not cross.

If all persons were to adhere to these two simple rules, there would be no issues of harassment or sexual misconduct. ALL issues of harassment, sexual misconduct and even rape occur when a person violates one or both of those rules.

If a woman does not draw clear lines for the men she attracts, then the fault is hers if he goes too far. And if a woman draws clear lines, and a man crosses them, he is the one at fault. There is a responsibility on the part of both parties, and each must play by the rules if they are to prevent issues of misconduct.


Thursday, November 2, 2017

Sexual Harassment - What It Is, and Isn't

From various legal and dictionary definitions:

harassment - n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. To annoy persistently. Sexual harassment refers to persistent and unwanted sexual advances.  It is commonly understood as behavior that disturbs or upsets, and it is characteristically repetitive

For those with good English comprehension skills, the operative words are "persistent", "systematic", "continued" and "repetitive", all of which must be coupled with "unwanted".

That being said, harassment can only be claimed if the actions are unwanted, AND are of an ongoing, persistent or repetitive nature. Both parts - unwanted and repetitive - must be met in order for any act to be considered harassment.

But even that does not necessarily constitute harassment. In most instances, particularly for sexual harassment, in order for actions to constitute harassment, the harassed individual  has an obligation to make it known to the perpetrator that the actions are unwanted. Simply being unwanted is not enough - it must be communicated as being unwanted. In other words, if you do not inform the perpetrator that his or her actions are unwanted, then that person may fairly assume that their actions are not unwanted, and they may continue to act improperly. By not informing the perpetrator, you are giving permission by silent acceptance.

After all, if you expect someone to play by the rules, you have an obligation to inform him or her as to what those rules are. A man hitting on a woman in a persistent manner is normal, and not harassment, as long as she has not openly and clearly objected. Men have been taught for generations (by women, no less) that women are often taught to "play hard to get".

So, sexual harassment consists of three separate parts, each being a requirement:

  1.  repetive or systematic actions, coupled with
  2.  being unwanted actions and
  3.  the "victim" has made it clear to the perpetrator that such actions are unwanted
If any of these three parts are missing, there is no harassment.

All  too often, a person falsely believes that they can legitimately claim sexual harassment even though they never expressed their discomfort to the person harassing them. But if a person does not set the perp straight, then they have no complaint if the perp continues. He likely believes you are just playing hard to get.

This can be highlighted by the the bogus "sexual harassment" claim against Dustin Hoffman, where the complainant actually said she "liked it - until I didn't". In other words, she allowed it for awhile, and even liked it, implying consent, which would naturally result in such actions continuing. By "liking it" and not complaining, she gave permission. She later stopped "liking it" and claimed harassment. Nowhere does she claim to have told him his actions were no longer appreciated nor wanted, so he had no way of knowing. And if she had told him, and telling him resulted in him stopping, then there still is no harassment - he stopped when asked to do so. It is only sexual harassment when the perpetrator continues unwanted actions after being told to stop.

That accuser accepted sexually explicit conduct without complaint, and only later grew to dislike it. That is not harassment. That is simply a case of giving permission for advances, then changing your mind without bothering to tell the other party you've changed your mind.

We must also remain aware of human nature - I suspect that at least half of all claims of harassment are either a result of "sour grapes", or vengeance, or from not having stood up and telling the perpetrator to stop. We have all heard the stories about a woman who makes false claims against a man simply because she was scorned. Or because it will get them a huge settlement, or 15 minutes of fame. Certainly, not all claims are false. But many are, so we should not automatically assume they are true. Remember the hooker who claimed rape in the Duke University case? She was proved to be a liar and the boys - whose lives were ruined - were innocent.

The take-way: in order to be considered sexual harassment, first there must be solid evidence (the premise of innocent until proved guilty still applies), and second, the actions had to be repetitive, unwanted, and the perp was made aware the actions are unwanted. Any claim that does not meet this standard is bogus.

Ladies, if someone makes sexual overtures toward you and they are unwanted, document it as best as you can, if only by immediately telling everyone. And be sure to stand up for yourself - tell him you are not interested, will never be interested and to stop, or there will be unpleasant ramifications. Then if he persists, take legal action. In no case should you be too afraid to stand up for yourself at the time of the offense.


Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Las Vegas Massacre - Motive Found?

I smell something fishy about the Las Vegas massacre, and the possible reasons for it that the mainstream media is pushing. You may read this, and think "now, there's a conspiracy theory for ya", and you may be right. On the other hand, this theory does make more sense than most being floated.

Everyone knows that "Big & Rich" are a strongly conservative country group, with a strong, conservative following. The fact that the killer waited three days in a hotel to do his dirty deed, specifically against THESE people, indicates he had the ideology of those on the left. He did not simply want to kill people. He wanted to kill CONSERVATIVE people. Trump supporters. And driven by the anti-Trump hatred spewed by the media, Democrats and elitists.

But it may go even deeper than that.

That same ideology is strongly anti-gun. What if you were strongly anti-gun and strongly anti-conservative, and nearing the end of life and maybe crazy? What better way to go out in a blaze of glory than to kill a whole bunch of conservatives AND turn the country against guns to the point that Congress moves toward stricter gun controls. Pardon the pun, but you would be killing two birds with one stone.

Not sure? Think about this...

Anyone wanting to kill as many people as possible would not need 20 guns (and leave a bunch of them home). One rifle, with a lot of pre-loaded clips would do the job. So, why would he have a 23  rifles and literally thousands of rounds of ammo in his room when there was no possibility of using them all, and leaving 19 more at home? I'd say he was trying to make a statement.

The guy hated conservatives, and specifically targeted them, so he was a liberal. As such, he almost certainly was anti-gun, and would also want to get them banned.

The corrupt mainstream media would never mention these things, even if proved true. They are digging everywhere, trying hard to find ANY other motive, and coming up empty. All we hear is "No motive found".

Well, maybe they aren't looking at the obvious clues...


Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Do Voter I.D. Laws Disenfranchise the Poor & Minorities?

"Voter I.D. laws disenfranchise the poor and minorities." That's what people on the left, and activist judges, often claim. They strongly oppose any voter I.D. requirements simply because they want to make it possible for non-citizens to vote. To make their case, they cite phony statistics that show millions of citizens do not have photo I.D. But is that even possible in today's America?

Here are 27 things you cannot do without photo I.D. :

1. Buy Alcohol
2. Buy Cigarettes
3. Opening a bank account
4. Apply for food stamps
5. Apply for welfare
6. Apply for Medicaid/Social Security
7. Apply for unemployment or a job
8. Rent/buy a house, apply for a mortgage

9. Drive/buy/rent a car
10. Get on an airplane
11. Get married
12. Purchase a gun
13. Adopt a pet
14. Rent a hotel room
15. Apply for a hunting license
16. Apply for a fishing license
17. Buy a cell phone
18. Visit a casino
19. Pick up a prescription
20. Get permit Hold a rally or protest
21. Blood donations
22. Buy an "M" rated video game
23. Purchase nail polish at CVS
24. Purchase certain cold medicines
25. Buy a lighter at CVS
26. Cash a check
27. See an "R" rated movie

Now, here is my challenge - if anyone can produce any American citizen who has never done ANY of these things, then I will concede that perhaps that person does not have a photo I.D. But I have to say, if any American citizen has never done any of those things, they simply are not even in any condition to vote! How do you even live if you cannot get a job, collect benefits or cash a check?

I do understand that even the most ridiculous things are possible, and some citizens may not have photo I.D., such as the unfortunate souls who have extremely limited mental capacity and are cared for by others. But they would not vote, anyway. For anyone to claim there are "millions" of citizens who have the capacity to vote but cannot because they have no photo I.D. is nothing short of a blatant lie.

As of 2013, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there are 242,470,820 adults living in the United States. For there to be even ONE million without proper I.D. would mean one person in every 243. When you consider, however, that at least 8 million of those are illegal immigrants, that brings it down to one CITIZEN in every 235. And that is ludicrous.

In Texas, where the fight is still raging, there are just over 17,000,000 adult citizens. The people fighting the voter I.D. law are stating that their (phony) statistics show 600,000 have no photo I.D. THAT'S ONE IN EVERY 28 ADULT CITIZENS! They are claiming that 8.5% of the adult citizens in Texas have never done any of the 27 things listed above. That is not only absurd, but impossible.

The next time some liberal progressive tries to tell you that voter I.D. laws "disenfranchise" minorities and the poor, you can now rebut them with REAL facts, and disembowel their phony statistics.


Wednesday, September 6, 2017

The True Motive for Destroying Confederate Symbols

Far-left radicals, anarchists and Antifa, along with altogether too many willing politicians and the mainstream media are all chomping at the bit to tear down our history by destroying all vestiges of the Confederacy. They erroneously claim it is because "they were traitors", or "on the wrong side of history." But is that really true?

Is someone on the "wrong side of history" simply because they lost? What would the history be had they won? If the Confederacy had won, Lincoln, Grant and other Northern leaders would be seen as traitors. And if losing a war puts you on the "wrong side", then Native Americans were on the "wrong side".

As far as being "traitors" is concerned, think about it a moment. If Lee, Davis and other Confederates were traitors because they rebelled against their government, then so, too, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and ALL our founding fathers, and ALL the colonials fighting under them were traitors to their government - the British Crown. Do those radicals propose we tear down anything reminding us of the Founders? If so, it would not simply be renaming our capital, or tearing down statues or removing their images from our money. It would mean we would have to destroy what they created - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the United States, itself, as they were all created by traitors to the Crown, and therefore are not legitimate.

And I suspect that is what those radicals are really after, and they are using the "Overton Window" principle to bring it to fruition. Radicals win by pushing their radical agendas in small increments, an inch at a time. First they get you to accept that marijuana is no more dangerous than a beer. Once you accept that, it is easy to get us to decriminalize it. Check. Once decriminalized, and we get used to it, they push to actually legalize it for "medicinal" purposes. Check. Then, as we become even more accepting of that, they push to legalize for recreational purposes. Check. That's how the Overton Window works. And boy, how it works! By not nipping the erasure of our history in the bud, we are setting the stage for the next step in their radical agenda.

And the cowering morons who allow them to do it, and not put up any struggle, are accessories to such sedition and treason. Those radicals, and those who do not oppose them, become the new traitors, no better than the ones they are attempting to erase from history.

(Radicals do not limit their efforts to erasing our history and destroying the Republic. They use the same principle to push all of their radical agendas, including gender issues (in some places it has already progressed to the point you can be fined, or otherwise punished for using gender pronouns, like "he", "she" or "Ms"). They also use it to push God out of every facet of our lives, and to promote the stupidity of gender neutral bathrooms.)