The Nine Most Terrifying Words

I miss Reagan…

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.

Reagan says it best himself:

Video from:

This Is Concerning

Their True Agenda

Although, my comment probably was more applicable to her response:


“‘Dishonest NONSENSE’: EPIC thread uses actual data to DRAG gun-grabbers like Everytown for ‘inflating’ school shooting numbers to scare people”

This is worth a read. It does not mean we don’t have a gun violence issue. Instead, you should read it, because truth matters.

“Hillary Clinton Did It”

Most of the press will ignore this news, but the Russia-Trump narrative that Mrs. Clinton sanctioned did enormous harm to the country. It disgraced the FBI, humiliated the press, and sent the country on a three-year investigation to nowhere. Vladimir Putinnever came close to doing as much disinformation damage.

You should read the whole article. It’s short and to the point.

It’s God’s Pulpit

Interesting article in today’s NYT:

NYT article

Fellow ministers…and Christian churches in general…it’s not your pulpit, it’s God’s. We need to treat it with reverence. Not just the pulpit: any association that could be rightly considered blaspheming His name.

Final note: I am not commenting on the legitimacy of the 2020 election nor whether one should question it.

Impressed with the New York Times

If you’ve been reading my Nibble Ninja blog, you know I lean conservative. However, I really wanted a good home-delivered paper, and the Denver Post doesn’t fit the bill (and not because of its liberal slant).

So, I am trying out The New York Times. First issue came today, and I have to admit I am impressed. It’s too early to know if that’ll equate to me continuing to spend what it costs to have it on my doorstep, but credit where credit is due.

Having said that, being that I am more conservative than most of its writers, I suspect I am more aware of cases in it where they are providing opinion instead of factual journalism. Can you also spot it in this front page article?

“And remember that without the truth, we can be neither safe nor free.”

Once I respect a person, a form of loyalty kicks in, and it’s hard for me to give it up. Sadly, I am getting close to that with Mitt Romney. I grew to respect him during his presidential run, even attending his rally in Manchester, New Hampshire the night before he lost the election (if I remember correctly).

This tweet from yesterday isn’t the first thing he’s said or done that has disappointed me:

If I’m chatting with some guy at the local convenience store, I have no expectations his words will always be well thought out or well-informed. As for a tweet from someone as accomplished as Mr. Romney…those should reflect thorough consideration and accuracy.

Perhaps Tulsi Gabbard is incorrect. Perhaps part of that inaccuracy is Russian propaganda. But…

  • This country is not Russia, so we encourage free speech
  • Just because what you say is beneficial to your “enemy,” doesn’t make it wrong or verboten
  • Treason (“treasonous lies”) has very specific…extremely negative…connotations and Gabbard has not committed it

But, to be honest, that’s not why I am writing this post. After a very thorough rebuttal of Romney’s ill-advised tweet, Gabbard wrapped up with a line that needs to be repeated over-and-over:

Now, her suggestion that a politician should resign ‘cause he said something really stupid may not be reasonable (we’d have very few left if that was taken to heart), but…

”And remember that without the truth, we can neither be safe nor free” should be framed and put up on a wall.

Kudos former Congresswoman Gabbard!

P.S. Here are images of the exchange, in case any tweets disappear: Read More


This is one of my tweets from last night:

I think the final sentence is important. I always support the right to protest, even if I disagree wholeheartedly with your take. I do not support lawbreaking (with some exceptions: e.g. when laws themselves are clearly immoral).

So, during the summer of 2020 protests, I did not approve of the intentional, prolonged blocking of Interstates. I’m in line with Jazz Shaw (writing about a protest in New Zealand):

While I do not approve of blocking traffic as part of a protest, particularly when there is a risk of emergency response vehicles being isolated, there’s no question that the entire Freedom Convoy concept is rapidly turning into a movement and spreading around the world.

And, Freedom Convys are a movement that I support.

So, am I a hypocrite?

I think not, but maybe. Thoughts:

  1. I noted that I don’t approve everything they are doing. In the end, I have to decide if I support something overall. In this case, I do.
  2. New rules were established by the MSM, progressives/liberals, and governments in the summer of 2020. Heck, in Seattle they literally took over a section of the city, and the city treated it as a valid form of protest. Consistency (and morality) means you cannot approve a method of protest only based on the views of the protesters. So, I may disapprove of the tactic, but they should get the same “kids gloves” treatment the 2020 protesters got.
  3. The only prolific law-breaking the Freedom Convoy is doing is blocking traffic. That doesn’t mean it is okay, but…looking back at #2…you can’t say, “No way! It must stop!,” when you were explictly (or implicitly) approving protesters burning down buildings, looting businesses, beating and killing people, etc. during the protests riots of 2020.

Speaking of consistency, I have repeatedly said, since the beginning of the pandemic, that rights are for things are bad, not for when they are good. COVID-19 has been the excuse for totalitorian control, for why rights have to be “temporarily” given up, because it is such a huge emergency. It’s for our own good. To save grandma.

Although I do not discount the noble intentions of many involved, that’s not how rights work,  the path to hell is paved with good intentions, and…

Not to mention, it wasn’t all with good intentions.

Thanks you Canadian truckers!

Inconvenient Truth

Since I am poking the accepted narrative in the eye today :-), how about this about global warming?:

As I said in my post just before this one, we are not following the science.

Adding to it this time…

We are not following the science, we are following ideology.

COVID-19 Reaction Tide Turning?

As an overall summary statement of its present state, I agree with “it is a pandemic of bureaucracy”:

As Clay Travis’ embedded tweet notes, “The most impressive thing about Bari Weiss on last night’s Bill Maher is the wild applause after she finishes here.” It is liberal audience. They realize the corona virus totalitarian emperors have no clothes and are more willing to acknowledge it.

The video above is worth a watch, and his thread from Yossi Gestetner is worth a read:

In all this, I am reminded that politicians used to use “it’s for the children” as an excuse for whatever thing they wanted to do, even if the connection to children was as thin as a thread (or essentially non-existent).

I guess the kids no longer matter. We are damaging our children horrendously with our pandemic reaction…along with other untold devastation.

And “science” is an excuse. We aren’t following it.

Modern Judgment in Three Tweets

I am not linking to the article or tweets, because I don’t want to “pile on,” but this is a perfect example of how we judge events in the modern world:

Three tweets

If it isn’t obvious, the first and last tweet are from the same individual (I blurred the names and pictures).

P.S. I should note, I am trusting Patrick Ruffini’s screen shot, but looking at tweets, it looks legit. Credit to Ruffini and Twitchy for sharing the situation.

“What if Americans decided to love their political enemies?”

This article is well worth your time to read:

Love means refusing to reduce people to their one bad opinion. Love means being friends with people who deeply disagree with you. Love means respecting a person without affirming their beliefs.

I cannot do it justice without quoting beyond “fair use,” so please take the time to read it. It has a reasonable answer to its internal question, “So what does it look like to love your political enemies?”