Censor, Indict, Execute

Tucker Carlson, in his December 18, 2023, podcast, talked with Seth Dillion, head of The Babylon Bee, a parody news site, with a subtitle, "Fake News You Can Trust." I love The Bee. They’re not only funny; they’re also, sometimes accidentally, more accurate than the mainstream news. It’s especially funny when they get fact checked, as though the story were real—because reality is so bizarre, it’s hard to exaggerate enough to satirize it.

The Babylon Bee's front-page headlines online today (January 18, 2024)

The Bee got taken down from Twitter, shortly before Elon Musk bought the company. They had responded to the real news of biological male Rachel Levine being named the Time Magazine Woman of the Year, by naming this biological male the “Man of the Year.” This was considered hate speech, and a violation of community standards by Twitter. It was, in fact, an incentive for Elon Musk to make the purchase and make an effort to restore freedom of speech.

The Babylon Bee's tweet image, found here

In their discussion, Dillon and Carlson were talking about who you’re allowed to criticize or mock, and who you’re not. Dillon was mainly talking about comedy, and then speakers on college campuses. And then Tucker got a little more serious.

SD: It has nothing to do with being offended. This whole thing, you know, the hypersensitive, the people getting up in comedians’ faces, or charging the stage to slap them in the face if they make a joke they don’t like, the, you know, “Don’t bring your speaker to our campus, because we need a safe space here, and this will offend people.” They’re not— It’s all fake outrage. Because they’ve learned that fake outrage can be used as a tool to bludgeon you into silence and submission.

TC: That’s exactly right. If they would censor you, they would kill you. Period. You don’t censor a peer, another citizen, another human being. You censor your slaves. You censor someone you consider less than human. So, if censorship doesn’t work, they’d indict you. If that doesn’t work, they would kill you. It’s just a very obvious continuum.

Tucker makes a strong point here. They think of you as lesser, not worth respecting. And if you are interfering with their agenda in some way, they think they are justified in eliminating the interference.

We’ve seen it before.

I recently reread a youth novel, Echo, by Pam Muñoz Ryan (in preparation for my private book club with my grandson). The story is divided into three distinct segments. The first takes place in pre-WWII Germany. A boy, Friedrich, lives with his father, who is taken by the Nazis to a hard labor camp, because he has the wrong ideas. He is a musician and has invited longtime musician friends to form a chamber string ensemble. One is a Jew. Another is a Nazi, it turns out. He refuses to play until the Jew is expelled. Friedrich’s father tries to point out that music is their shared interest; can’t they let their differences go? But the Nazi refuses, and turns in Friedrich’s father as a Jew lover. That is enough to get one “cancelled” in that culture.

Friedrich has an older sister, who had been away at nursing school. During that absence, she has become totally loyal to the state. It’s hard to determine if those are her deeply held beliefs, or beliefs she has adapted out of expediency and necessity to advance in her career. But it becomes impossible for the family to speak or write anything to her that might show their former disagreement. She does take some risk later to help rescue her father (with a bribe), so maybe she wasn’t totally brainwashed.

While the book is fiction, it is based on a real time and place. The threats of silencing, indicting (using the law to incarcerate), and even execution were very real.

 

Seth Dillon, of The Babylon Bee, talks with Tucker Carlson
screenshot from here

Tucker and Dillon spend some time talking about the direction of power. The silencing of someone for hate speech is presented as someone bullying the marginalized, or with less power. You’re only allowed to punch up. Punching down is not fair, or moral. So those in power use this assumption against people; it’s their way of wielding power. We’re supposed to think of someone like Rachel Levine, who went through private schooling and a privileged life, who holds one of the highest positions of power in the government as US Assistant Secretary for Health, as someone downtrodden and marginalized. That’s hard to stomach. Such a person—with all that power—does something that is supposed to make all the difference: present themselves as the gender they biologically are not. And if we object, or even laugh, that power hammers down on us.

As Tucker and Dillon point out in their conversation, someone who can have someone cancelled for making a joke about them or criticizing them in any way is the person with the power.

Here is an off-the-top-of-my-head list (likely incomplete) of the groups, people, or ideas that you’re not allowed to mock or criticize:

·        Trans people (people who present as a gender not aligned with their biology)

·        Homosexuals

·        Blacks

·        Marxists (for example, Black Lives Matter)

·        Elites (by education, money, fame, or government authority)

·        Muslims

·        Palestinians

·        Obamas

·        Bidens

·        Clintons

·        Feminists

·        Pro-Abortionists

·        Medical experts aligned with Big Pharma

The elites deciding on this list and cancelling people for not aligning with their agenda are not the marginalized; they are the power-mongering tyrants.

Here’s the list of people they give permission to marginalize:

·        Christians (particularly Catholics and Latter-day Saints, who believe they have divine authority)

·        Jews

·        Conservatives

·        Constitutionalists

·        Trump and Trump voters/supporters

·        Whites

·        Males

·        Asians

·        Large families (probably 3+ children)

·        Stay-at-home mothers

·        Parents who speak up at school board meetings

·        Pro-lifers

·        COVID skeptics

·        Vaccine hesitant

·        Election Integrity concerned

You get the idea.

Back in 2015 I wrote about the many ways the Obama administration had labeled people like me as domestic extremists. Apparently being a good citizen is extreme. I think the label now is not just extremist, but domestic terrorist, thus the many SWAT raids on harmless citizens. 

Seth Dillon admits that, truthfully, he would prefer Twitter prison to real prison any day. But they did make a sacrifice as a company. They could have deleted the Tweet and been reinstated. But Dillon said he didn’t think they should have to. It was an admission that they had been hateful and in violation—when a great many haters and evil people are allowed to stay on the platform. It was wrong to give in. But it was, clearly, not a good business decision. Twitter had been a source for a lot of their traffic, and that was lost.

They have soldiered on, which I appreciate. I get them in my inbox, and never spent much time on Twitter (pretty much only to find Tucker Carlson), so I actually see more of them than ever. Add to that their sister publication, Not the Bee, which shares news so ludicrous you can’t believe it’s not satire.

We need to stand up and speak truth. The hope is, if enough of us stand up to the censorious tyrants, they will not be able to silence us all. If we can defeat them at the censoring stage—before they move on more than they already have to the indicting/imprisoning stage—then maybe we can altogether prevent the execution stage.

Don’t Mistake Rioters for Protesters, Part II

Yesterday, there was this news: “This is the greatest 50-day rally in the history of the S&P 500.” You didn’t hear that? Hmm. 

It was good news. When there’s a sudden drop, you can expect a sudden recovery—unless interference keeps the bounce back from happening.

Some people don’t want a bounce back.

That’s why you’re not hearing about it. And maybe that’s why you are hearing about what is in the news.

In Part I we started talking about the difference between the protesters and the rioters. Let’s cover three related things today.

·       Your house is not on fire (unless the rioters have gotten to you).

·       Riots are not a reaction to racism; they are a reaction against freedom, free markets, and civilization.

·       Chaos, like other forms of tyranny, brings oppression, poverty, and savagery.

Your House Is Not on Fire

cartoon frame, by chainsawsuit.com
found on Facebook

There was a cartoon meme going around, attempting to describe what people mean when they say “black lives matter” and won’t accept “all lives matter” as a response. There are two people, each with a house behind them. The first one’s house is burning down. The second guy is holding a hose, spraying his own house, because “all houses matter.” He seems unaware of how useless that statement is when clearly his neighbor’s house is on fire and could use the hose.

The metaphor works only if there’s a house on fire. In this case the fire is purported to be “systemic racism.” Not just an occasional isolated incident among 325 million people, but a problem so pervasive that the house is burning down.

What is wrong with the metaphor? The house isn’t really on fire. There’s as much “fire” as you might have from lighting the occasional birthday candle in the house; you can easily blow it out and get along with living in the house in complete safety and comfort.

The counter to the metaphor is two people in front of two houses. One is screaming that his house is on fire, and the other one, who has looked, examined, checked inside, and verified that the house is not actually on fire, tries to calm the neighbor. Yes, all of our houses matter; we would not want a fire in anyone’s house.

To which the first screams again, in agony and frustration, “You don’t understand. My house is on fire!”

But it isn’t.

The narrative—the house-on-fire story—is that blacks, particularly black men, are in danger of being killed by racist police every time they leave their homes. Their mothers worry for them. Some people even call it a genocide happening right before our eyes.

If this were happening, we would all be alarmed—the way we would be if our neighbor’s house actually were burning. We’d call for the fire department and use our water hoses to help in the meantime.

But where do you spray if there’s no fire?

Yesterday, Tucker Carlson on Fox News, went through the entire list of deaths of unarmed blacks in the US in 2019—data maintained since 2015 by The Washington Post. In 2019 there were ten: nine men and one woman. By Carlson’s count, in five of those cases, the suspect attacked an officer just before the shooting. In one, the discharge of the black police officer’s weapon was accidental during grappling with the suspect, and the officer was not charged.

That leaves four. In two of these cases, officers were not charged, because circumstances showed they had reason to believe they were being threatened. In two cases the officers were charged. One was of the female black woman. One was a case in which the officer claimed he had seen a gun pointed at him during a car chase; a gun was later found in the car. The officer was nevertheless charged.

By my count, that is one killing of an “unarmed” black man—who had a gun—and the police officer was charged. The case of the woman was a clear fatal error by the police officer, who was charged.

The black population in the US is 13%, roughly 42,250,000. Of these, 6% are male: 2,535,000. Even if you counted all nine of the unarmed black males killed in 2019, that’s 0.000355%. Not a genocide by any definition of that word. It is certainly not evidence that police are “hunting” black men, as Joy Reid recently claimed on MSNBC.

In fact, police officers of any race are less likely to shoot a black suspect than a white suspect, even though blacks are more likely to be committing crimes. Why? Most likely because of fear of being called racist. That fear is great enough to discourage officers from being willing to patrol predominantly black neighborhoods.

Killings by police continue on a downward trend for all races.

As for police officers, Carlson said,

At the same time, this country remains a dangerous place for police officers; 48 of them were murdered in 2019, according to FBI data. That’s more than the number of unarmed suspects killed of all races.

When the house-is-on-fire crowd are asked to give evidence, it’s usually anecdotal. Typically they refer to a traffic stop in which the person claims they were targeted because of their race—even though traffic stops mostly happen before the police officer knows the race of the driver. In other words, in our analogy, the smoke detector was set too sensitive and went off when the toast got slightly brown. We do not help by buying in to something that simply isn't true; we do better service by helping the panicked person see that there's no fire.

However, in 2018, the last year of complete data, killings of blacks by someone else happened about 7400 times more often than killing of blacks by a police officer. Most often this is black-on-black crime. If this were the house-on-fire, maybe we could talk. Maybe it’s a foundation problem—maybe it’s fatherless homes.

Riots Are Not a Reaction to Racism

Shop owners have been hurt and confused as they put up signs that say, “Black Store Owner,” or “We’re on your side,” to try to persuade the destroying rioters to pass them by. The rioters go right ahead and attack. It might even be that most of the looted businesses have had minority owners. These are people who were struggling to stay afloat during the coronavirus shutdown, and then this happens. Five minutes of rioting may have destroyed their entire life’s work and investment. Why would protesters do that? 

Trevon Ellis, barbershop owner in Minneapolis, lost all when rioters burned
down his shop. Image by Laylah Amatullah Barrayn for NPR, found here.

Because they’re not protesters getting carried away in the anger over the unjust killing of George Floyd. They are domestic terrorists using that moment as an opportunity for their own purposes. Those purposes are to destroy civil society. That is not an exaggeration; that is essentially what they say is their mission. They want to create so much chaos that business can’t be conducted—because they want to stop business exchanges of any sort.

You store owners—you are their enemy. They don’t care what color you are; they hate that you are making money in a free-market economy.

A Washington Examiner editorial put it this way: 

The senseless and callous police killing of George Floyd inspired peaceful protests at first, but now, it has become an excuse for a troupe of professional revolutionaries and marauders. They use these incidents in order to flex their muscle and test how far their impressionable recruits are willing to go in breaking the law.

An Antifa rally in Manhattan last year.
Image by J.C. Rice, found here

I doubt you could say these revolting terrorists are deep thinkers. Have they thought through to the logical end how tearing down civil society will mess up their lives as well as ours?

It might be that they have in mind some imaginary fantasy utopia that they can create from scratch—once everyone is reduced to eking out their survival in some post-apocalyptic wasteland. Picture New York City as imagined in the movie Escape from New York. Or maybe like in Mad Max. Or possibly a more widespread 9/11. It doesn’t look like people comfortably housed and fed and enjoying the internet and their cell phones.

How do societies really look after their demise? Do they rise, Phoenix-like from the burning cinders? No. Archaeologists look for them where they rotted and got overgrown by trees, if they were in that kind of climate. Or beneath blowing dust or sand, if they were in that kind of climate.

The closest you might see, historically, is Europe following the Black Plague. Such a large percentage of the population was wiped out that many areas were faced with starting over—without the brainpower or resources that they’d recently had. It took centuries to build back up to the Renaissance. But even they didn’t have to start completely from scratch. There were still governments and property ownership, and people buying and selling their goods.

The bad guys always assume all will go better with them in charge? Why? Because they’re prideful enough to believe they’re so much more brilliant and advanced than any others who have tried it. And what is the evidence of this brilliance and goodness?

They’re delusional, and they’re power hungry. They’re not attempting to wipe out civilization so that a brilliant Thomas Jefferson can combine with a golden-hearted George Washington. They’re not even going to be looking for such minds and hearts. Nor would they submit to them if they arose. These are power mongers.

Someone is organizing them. I think we’ll be learning more about that in coming days—if there are any news media that do their job, but I wouldn’t expect to learn anything from the New York Times (a former newpaper[i]), CNN, or MSNBC, none of which have been seen seeking truth for a very long time.

There are likely to be multiple shadowy figures, George Soros types (possibly including him personally). It looks like a James Bond story. There’s a big bad guy, who plans to destroy the world for reasons that have meaning only to himself, but will, he thinks, result in his ultimate control of everyone and everything. And he’s surrounded by minions. So many minions that it keeps all the Hollywood wannabes employed for the filming of the climactic scene.

Did you ever think, “Why would somebody choose that life? Out on some obscure island, away from family and comforts of home, to work for this madman, who has no regard for them? They get paid, we assume. But enough for that? Do they all buy into the madman’s mission, thinking, “Once he’s in charge, he’ll put people like me in an important position”?

Those real life minions are out on the streets throwing bricks at Mom and Pop stores, and anything else with a window—playing their role in some evil villain’s master plan that includes destroying everything you value: your beliefs, life, liberty, property, family, and truth.

In the movies, James Bond or some other hero comes to the rescue and foils the plans. But, without a scriptwriter, we need that hero to be the rest of us: police officers, national guard troops, civic leaders, and ordinary everyday truth-telling citizens.

Chaos, Like Other Forms of Tyranny, Brings Oppression, Poverty, and Savagery

If you’ve got a civic leader saying, “We need to give them our sympathy, because their anger is justified,” that’s not a leader willing to use government for its proper role: protecting life, liberty, and property. They're telling you they don’t want you to enjoy freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

They're telling you they think violent damage to people and property is OK, if the perpetrator just claims to be angry about the accepted narrative. And that accepted narrative is that America is racist—and always has been; America is irredeemable.   

Ben Shapiro asked (and answered) the question on his show yesterday: What is the logical next step of someone with the belief that America is irredeemably racist and evil? That America must be torn down, totally destroyed. You can’t have something that you claim is rotten to the core and always has been, and then say, “But it will all be better if we just elect a Democrat as president again.” You can’t claim that systemic evil will be cured by a bit of tweaking.

You either have to be in favor of conserving, preserving, restoring our Constitution and the civilization it has nurtured; or you are in favor of overthrowing America and oppressing its people with some form of tyranny, with its attendant poverty and savagery.

What did Barack Obama mean by “fundamentally changing America”? He meant that the constitutional republic should be destroyed—and something else, something Marxist, should be put in its place.

What did Maxine Waters mean recently when she said, “I don’t want to see these establishments opened back up”? Why not? 

The Political Sphere of the Spherical Model

We know what it takes to move up north, on the Spherical Model, to Freedom, Prosperity, and Civilization. 

Killing, looting, pillaging, destroying, hating, taking, controlling—those are all behaviors of tyrants, who bring oppression, poverty, and savagery, located far down south on the sphere.

These people are telling you what they intend. They want to take away your freedom, your earnings, and your civilization, and replace these with oppressive tyranny, enslavement and poverty, and the savagery left to humans without civilization.

Maybe it’s time to stop believing the false house-is-burning narrative and start believing those who say they are determined to burn down all our houses.

---

[i] Andrew Klavan has made it his personal policy, every time he refers to the New York Times, to add “a former newspaper.” I agree with him that that is appropriate.

Being Extreme

It’s Martin Luther King, Jr., Day. It looks like a good way to celebrate—or educate yourself on the story of the man—is the movie just out called Selma, which focuses on that Alabama city during the civil rights struggle which he led. The previews look good. It got nearly passed over for Academy Award nominations. Some cry racism. But I’m pretty sure that’s not it (refer to 12 Years a Slave last year and The Help from a couple of years back). Glenn Beck surmises that it’s because the hero of the socialist war on poverty, LBJ, is characterized unpleasantly (which historically is probably accurate, even if the actual conversations in the movie are fictionalized).

That's me, standing with MLK

So, enough said for the holiday. I’m going to talk about something else. It’s confession time. I am an extremist. This is news to me, since what I really am is pretty normal except for my willingness to put time and effort into a blog that isn’t on homemaking skills.

Last week I came across a piece listing the various ways the Obama administration has officially warned about domestic terrorism. So I thought I’d helpfully go through the list. (And so there is no mistake, this is to illustrate the absurdity—or frightening intrusiveness into free thought—of this list, rather than to let anyone suppose I have anything but civilized intentions.) I’ll go through the list in order; it’s long, and redundant—not my fault. So you have permission to skim as needed (or take plenty of time and follow all the links). We’ll find out as we go just how many ways the administration deems me, the grandmother/author of The Spherical Model blog, extreme:

1.      √I talk about “individual liberties.” Yes. Yes I do. So does the Constitution.

2.      √I advocate for states’ rights. Yes. I do that too—as is spelled out in the 10^th Amendment, for example.

3.      I do “want to make the world a better place,” but I might not qualify as extreme here. It’s just a general principle, like when you go camping, leave things better than you found them. More suspicious here would be journalism students, who almost unanimously list wanting to make the world a better place as their reason for choosing that field—rather than gathering and sharing truth, which would be a better motive. (Admission: there was a bit of snobbery among English majors toward journalism majors, who would be inferior writers and also less in touch with the themes affecting humanity. Not meant toward individuals, just the overall sense of team superiority.)

4.      √I do believe the colonists mainly came here to “free themselves from British rule.” I think historical documentation from their journals backs that up.

5.      √I’m interested in “defeating Communism.” As an ideology that destroys civilization, and practically defines tyranny, poverty, and savagery, yes, I’d say Communism should be defeated. By word wherever possible. By defensive war where necessary.

6.      √We're considered extreme if we believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations.” Um. Obviously. Until we have the whole world choosing freedom, prosperity, and civilization—and living by the rules that bring about those positive things, we do our best to get those things locally, statewide, and nationally.

7.      Finally we have one where I don’t qualify: I don’t hold a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful, or undesirable” per se; I only believe the state/government has a proper role that is limited for good reason. Within the limits, government at its various levels should be both necessary and helpful.

8.      Again, I don’t possess an “intolerance toward other religions.” In my faith, we say, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” (Articles of Faith11)

9.      I do not “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals.” I don’t put metal in trees so that loggers will be harmed or killed during tree harvests. I don’t throw paint on people wearing fur coats or leather. I even agree that those people are wacko extremists. I believe in being a good steward over the earth and the abundance God gave us here, not in attacking people who don't see things my way.

10.  I am not “anti-Gay.” I am, however, pro-traditional marriage, so sometimes people like me get unfairly labeled. Oh well. Marriage is worth standing up for.

11.  I am not “anti-immigrant.” I am, however, pro-border enforcement and pro-LEGAL-immigration. Sometimes people like me get unfairly labeled. No me importa.

12.  I am not “anti-Muslim.” I am, however, very much against what appears to be purposeful misinterpretation of that religion for the sake of murder for power.  I think we should call that Islamist Extremism, and not mislabel it or ignore the obvious.

13.  I don’t know what the administration means by “the patriot movement,” but I am a patriot. I am patriotic. I love my country. I think that’s normal, not extreme.

14.  √“Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians” is on the list. As in #10, I’m for equal rights for all Americans. I believe those with same-sex attraction should be allowed to marry any person of the opposite sex who is not married to someone else, who is of age to make the choice freely, and who is not too close a relative—just like the rest of us. I do not think we should change the millennia-old definition of marriage to make a small subset of the population “feel” more included.

15.  I’m not a “member” of the Family Research Council. But I think they’re one of many newsletters I get for my research and information.

16.  I’m not familiar with the American Family Association, but the name sounds appealing.

17.  I do not believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union.’” And someone pushing for that strikes me as extreme too. But that doesn’t mean they sound like probable terrorists.

18.  I am not a member of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol. I’m not sure if this refers to actual law-enforcement officials or volunteer groups. But, since the federal government has failed to protect our borders, someone has to do it. Texas as a state is putting big budget toward border protection, as needed.

19.  I am not a member of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or the inappropriate acronym FAIR, which seems to me more pro-illegal-immigration than pro-American.

20.  I am not a member of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition. I don’t know what it is, and this list is too long for me to spend time finding out right now.

21.  I am not a member of the Christian Action Network. I don’t know what it is, but it doesn’t sound threatening to “truth, justice, and the American way.”

22.  √I am opposed to the New World Order—if that means some kind of world government or controlling entity that is intended to surpass our national sovereignty. Seems like being “for” such a thing might qualify as extreme, though.

23.  I don’t engage in “conspiracy theorizing.” I spend some energy debunking conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, there probably are some conspiring people, and we ought to be constantly vigilant.

24.  √I oppose Agenda 21. I wrote about it in February 2013.

25.  I’m not “concerned about FEMA camps,” but I hope there isn’t reason to be concerned. FEMA wasn’t exactly stellar during the hurricane aftermaths that I have lived through.

26.  √I would resist any “impending gun control or weapons confiscations.” But I live in Texas, so I’m not particularly fearful of that happening.

27.  I’m not part of a “militia movement.” I am in favor of armed citizens, for both hunting and self-protection.

28.  I’m not part of the “sovereign citizen” movement; I don’t know what they mean by that. But I may understand sovereignty and individual rights better than the fretful makers of this list.

29.  I pay taxes, and think we should lawfully do so. I also think the government should return to something like the maximum 7% promised when the income tax was instituted. Or something else more fair.

30.  √I do complain about bias. The extreme socialist “mainstream” media is clearly biased. The evidence is overwhelming. The Eric Holder Justice Department has been clearly biased as well. Being in favor of truth, rather than bias, is a good thing.

31.  I don’t believe in “government conspiracies to the point of paranoia.” Although I am also aware some paranoiacs are being followed.

32.  I don’t know what is meant by “frustrated with mainstream ideologies.” I’m not at all frustrated with Constitutionally limited government, allowing for freedom, prosperity, and civilization; I just think those long-standing ideas should be tried. If by “mainstream” they mean “socialist” or “progressive,” then, yes, I’m fed up with those failing ideologies.

33.  √Do I visit “extremist websites/blogs”? By whose definition? Since this one just got unjustly defined as “extremist,” then, yes. I even venture out to Townhall.com and TheBlaze.com. Oh my!

34.  √And just to rub it in, yes, I have established this blog. Not to establish extremist ideas, but to express truth as best I can. But, by their cockamamie definition….

35.  √I’m not really an attender of “extremist rallies,” but I regularly attend Tea Party meetings and occasional larger rallies, and GOP conventions. (You’re aware terrorists plotted against a GOP convention but were fortunately ratted out? It wasn’t the Republicans who were terrorizing.)

36.  I don’t exhibit extreme religious intolerance. Does this have to make the list in addition to #8?

37.  Am I “personally connected with a grievance”? Don’t think so. That sounds like just about anyone involved in certain aspects of most lawsuits. Right now the answer is no.

38.  What is meant by “suddenly acquires weapons”? If you buy your first gun, for any sporting or safety reason, suddenly you have a gun. If you buy another, maybe a year or two later, suddenly you have acquired another. If they mean suddenly stockpiling trailer-loads of rifles with ammunition, that might qualify—and they should say so, so there’s no misinterpretation damaging to regular law-abiding citizens.

39.  √I’m not planning on organizing a protest; I’m not a “community organizer.”

40.  I’m extreme if I support “militia” or “unorganized militia,” but I already answered #27.

41.  I’m not a “general right-wing extremist.” I’m not even willing to define “right-wing” the way the government does. I think they mean the Nazi version of socialist tyranny, rather than the communist version of socialist tyranny, which would be left-wing. But I’m against tyranny altogether. [See The Spherical Model.]

42.  I don’t have bumper stickers that are “patriotic” or “anti-UN.” I don’t have any bumper stickers, except the one that says “proud parent of a soldier.”

43.  √I do occasionally refer to “army of God,” mainly when we sing the hymn “Onward Christian Soldiers.” But the government has nothing to fear from that. It’s about fighting evil—unless the government does have something to fear from our willingness to fight evil.

44.  I am not “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation).” I believe in using the appropriate viewpoint for any situation—which always means the most local at which an issue can be handled. But who know what they mean?

45.  Nor am I “anti-global”—see #44.

46.  √I am “suspicious” of centralized federal authority—because that’s necessary when the federal government has drastically overreached it’s proper role.

47.  √I am “reverent of individual liberty.” I think that’s a lovely way to put it. And not extreme.

48.  I don’t believe in untrue “conspiracy theories.” See #23, #31. (Are they unnecessarily lengthening this ridiculously long list—which doesn’t even mention “believing in Islamic terrorist jihad?”)

49.  √Do I believe my “personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”? Yes. Obamacare, for starters.

50.  √I try to be prepared. We have food storage. We have camping equipment. My Church has been preaching preparedness for about a century. It helps us during all kinds of disasters, and helps us have resources to help others following disasters. Am I poised for paramilitary response? No.

51.  Am I a fundamentalist religionist who would impose religious laws on society? I don’t think so. I’m against Sharia; I’m for the Ten Commandments as guidelines for our laws.

52.  Am I one who would “insert religion into the political sphere”? They interrelate. That’s what The Spherical Model is about. But I believe we need to decide our laws as locally as possible, based on the choices of those in the community, and based on principles that bring about civilization (again, start with the Ten Commandments.) I don’t think we should prohibit the mention of religious beliefs in public. And a politician without religion is pretty much just a power monger.

53.  Nor do I want to politicize religion. Big no.

54.  √I don’t know what is meant by “supported political movements for autonomy.” I think I would have favored the American Revolution, to gain independence from Britain.

55.  √I am anti-abortion. As are a majority of civilized mainstream Americans, including a growing percentage of young people. The list makers are worried about people who want to protect the innocent unborn, but they’re not worried about baby killers? Really?

56.  I am not anti-Catholic. But, according to #55, the government is against Catholic anti-abortion beliefs, so…

57.  I am not anti-nuclear. I’d be in favor of greater use of nuclear energy. It’s the government that halted permits for building nuclear plants for 30 years. Does that put the government on the domestic terror watch list, then?

58.  I’m not a “right-wing extremist.” I reject the right/left model in favor of the Spherical Model. And I am against all forms of southern hemisphere tyranny. See #41.

59.  I am not a returning veteran. I have a son deployed overseas in the Army. When he returns, I expect he’ll be safe, patriotic, and pro-American. (Although I couldn’t speak to his possible loss of respect for the current commander-in-chief; I know I lack respect for that person.)

60.  √I am concerned about “illegal immigration.” I live in Texas. And the federal government has failed in its basic role of border security. I would like to see legal immigration improved, less bureaucratic, less onerous to those willing to come legally and become true Americans.

61.  √I believe in the right to bear arms. It’s one of those God-given rights that went without saying, but that got put into the Bill of Rights, just in case there came a time when power seekers tried to rule over this free people.

62.  No, I don’t think I have what would qualify as an ammunition stockpile.

63.  √I don’t know what “exhibits fear of Communist regimes” looks like. I don’t think I “exhibit” such fears. But I think communist and any other type of tyranny is dangerous and to be resisted.

64.  I’m anti-abortion; I don’t think I qualify as an “activist.” I already answered #55.

65.  √Again, I’m against “illegal immigration”—because it’s illegal. I already answered #60.

66.  √If I were to talk about the “New World Order,” it would be in a derogatory manner. Because there’s nothing good there. I prefer American Constitutional freedom to succumbing to world domination. Until the Second Coming when Christ reigns personally upon the earth; I trust Him as my just ruler.

67.  √I have a negative view of the United Nations. I think it’s a perverse joke. (Extremist Charles Krauthammer agrees, and wrote why way back in 2003.)

68.  I’m not opposed to the collection of federal income taxes. But, like I said, they should be much much much less than they are. I already answered #29.

69.  Apparently I’d be dangerous if I had supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, or Bob Barr. I like a lot about Ron Paul on economic issues and for discussions about the Constitution, but we disagree on foreign policy. I don’t know who Chuck Baldwin is. But Bob Barr I believe was the Libertarian Party candidate in 2008 (maybe other times). Considering your choices were Barack Obama or John McCain, Bob Barr might have been a reasonable alternative—especially someplace like Arizona, where it would count as a protest vote without helping Obama. Lots of mainstream Americans look at things that way, without veering toward terrorism.

70.  I don’t actually display the “Gadsden flag,” “Don’t Tread on Me.” But it’s historical, part of the American Revolutionary War. I wouldn’t be ashamed to display it. It was reinterpreted into a little flag used for campaigning by now-Governor Greg Abbott some years back, which I kept as a souvenir of that year’s state GOP convention.

71.  √I do believe in “end times prophecies.” I don’t happen to know when the end is coming. So for me, living a good life every day seems like a good plan, so I can see it as a “great” rather than “dreadful” day (Malachi 4:5.

72.  I’m not an Evangelical Christian. I’m a Mormon. Some Evangelicals try to define me as not even Christian, but they’re wrong. But for the most part, I think they’re good, mainstream family-oriented Americans, and not worthy of the terrorist label.

So, it’s hard to tally. I make the watch list at least 28 times. Roughly 39% of the possibilities for domestic terrorism. Even though I’m about as non-violent as they come, and as in favor of peace, freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

What I am is a mainstream American thinker. I pay more attention than many, and therefore have more reason to complain about what we see the federal government doing, beyond its proper role.

There is no end of irony to a government which would come up with a list that totally fails to include the source of 99% of terrorism in the world today. The enemy cannot be mentioned, but we’re labeled as enemies of the state—for having opinions in line with our beautiful founding documents.