United States Soccer Players Forget What It Means to Play for Something Greater than Themselves.

The U.S. Soccer Federation will no longer require players to stand for the national anthem. 71.34 percent of National Council members voted on Saturday 02/27/2021 to repeal a 2017 rule that had been put in place as a response to Megin Rapinoe’s kneeling for the anthem before a 2016 match against Thailand. The rule stated that, “All persons representing a Federation national team shall stand respectfully during the playing of national anthems at any event in which the Federation is represented.”

The USSF president Cindy Parlow made sure to clarify during the meeting that the repeal of this policy is not meant to disrespect the flag or the military. She stated, “This is about the athletes’ and our staff’s right to peacefully protest racial inequalities and police brutality…”

Is it supposed to be some sort of conciliation that the stated intention of the repeal is not in line with the effect of the action itself? I wonder if this same logic would satisfy Ms. Parlow if some mugger shouted back at her as he ran away, “I never meant to shatter your sense of safety or relieve you of what is yours!” Would she care at all, I wonder, about the stated intention of the mugger, or instead might she realize the overwhelming significance in the effect of his actions?

The mugger analogy may be extreme, but the logic is identical. If you are saying your intentions are “X” but your actions have the effect of “Y” then there are only a few possibilities. Perhaps you do not possess the faculties of logic and reason at all, in which case pity is appropriate. Or, more likely, you are hoping that the people you are trying to fool either do not have the courage to speak against you, or they are too stupid to see the blatant illogic of your position. To provide ample helpings of the benefit of doubt, I suppose we should allow for a fourth possibility, that you really do not understand that your actions have inherent meaning within them that no amount of disconnected intention can negate.

To kneel during the National Anthem is disrespectful. It is not that intention does not matter at all, but it certainly has no effect on whether the act of kneeling is or is not disrespectful. We know this because we have a practice already for how to properly respect the National Anthem that is known by everyone involved in this debate. There is no argument here. If what you mean to portray is respect, then you will stand with your hand over your heart. Here is another hot take for you while we are at it, if you do not mean to start a fight, do not disrespect a man’s mother just before last call at the local dive bar. We could go on and on with obvious statements of actions leading to their natural effects and outcomes. Still, somehow, silly people like Ms. Parlow are allowed to promulgate this idea of intention overriding effect and move on like they did not just say something insane.

Even though it is insane, we cannot overlook the specific excuse given by Ms. Parlow. She says that “…this is about the athletes and our staff…” No Madam President is it not about you, your staff, or your right to peacefully protest. When you put on the jersey that says “USA,” you and your fellow players are representing the nation for which you play. Your cause is greater than what it was before the fabric touched your skin. Your actions are laden with more meaning than they were before you stepped out onto the field. Your will, your efforts, everything you are is now joined with your teammates and ordered toward the glory of your team, your nation, and your God through honorable competition.

Perhaps this is the crux of the issue, that Parlow and others in the USSF have forgotten what it is they are doing on that field when they put on the jersey and display their God-given talents to the world. They lost their way and started to think that true glory, true happiness is in service to self, not to others. They are now of a mindset in which being a part of something greater than themselves, representing proudly the nation that is so free, so prosperous, and so “inclusive” that they can make a living playing soccer, now takes a backseat to their own need for attention. The “ME, ME, ME!!!” mentality of leftism claims another notch in its belt.

It should be noted that this author cannot even get through the utterance of the phrase “President of the United States Soccer Federation” without chuckling uncontrollably at the idea that such a thing even exists. So yes, one could say that a red-blooded, American conservative making a fuss about this recent decision by the USSF seems silly or unnecessary. This is precisely the point, however. This is the culture. This is the fight in which we must participate. If conservatives ever hope to stop the endless yielding of cultural ground to the left, then we must do just that, and stop yielding ground without a fight. Let us remind everyone that will listen of how incredibly full of meaning and worth they truly are, and therefore how powerful a statement they can make with their actions.

I’m From Silicon Valley and I’m Here to Protect You From Unorthodox Speech

This article was published by The Chicago Thinker, written by yours truly. Please check out their site and read more thought-provoking content!

YouTube recently banned the pro-life website LifeSiteNews and removed all their videos. The platform’s decision to annihilate LifeSiteNews’ channel was not surprising. It is only a matter of time before all the major platforms ban anyone who contradicts the rhetoric of the new leftist orthodox church, which esteems Biden as its Pope and Fauci as its Bishop of Health and Science; may peace be upon his magnificence.

YouTube says it took this action because LifeSiteNews purportedly violated the “COVID-19 misinformation policy, which prohibits content that promotes prevention methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.”

We could argue about the science behind masking, or about whether the level of government intervention in our lives is truly justified. I could explain and defend Dr. Hodkinson’s opinion of the politics and media hysteria surrounding COVID-19. Or, I could even discuss LifeSiteNews’ primary goal itself: to help end abortions. All of that would be missing the key issue here.

The issue is the lie, the “bait and switch,” the grand con pulled on all of us by YouTube and the rest of Big Tech, when they enticed us with the concept of an open forum where everyone could speak and share their ideas. In reality, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter spun a web of lies and we all gladly flew into it.

This oligarchy of data barons has no intention of providing a space for free, rigorous debate. Instead, they aim to wrap their web tightly about us in the name of “protection” and “safety.”

Will we Americans, inheritors of the nation that defeated the British Empire for the cause of liberty, descendants by our citizenship of Patrick Henry and George Washington, allow ourselves to be wrapped in this web of comfort, convenience, and so-called “safety”? Will we allow ourselves to be “protected” from “harmful” speech because it might offend the leftist dogmas that we have allowed to gain dominance in our culture? Or, is there still enough of that American spirit within us willing to sacrifice comfort for freedom?

As Americans, we should take offense to the fact that YouTube “justifies” its censorship with the same logic as a protective mother who puts her hand over a child’s eyes. The mother is correct in doing so because she is responsible for her young child’s growth and development, and what is happening in front of him contains something he is not yet prepared to comprehend. The child’s worldview need not be so violently shaken; instead, the mother possesses the duty to determine when her child is prepared to confront those challenging concepts, and to help him understand them properly.

The Big Tech oligarchs, however, are not our mothers. No matter how comforting it may be for our left-leaning peers to scroll through their social media feeds without seeing anything that challenges their worldview, grown adults should resent such censorship and forced orthodoxy.

At the crux of this conflict seem to be two primary belief systems at odds: a traditional conservative philosophy vs. an authoritarian belief in censorship by the elites. YouTube and other fans of this censorship by the elites seem to be operating under the idea that the way to find the truth of a matter—or, perhaps more accurately, the way to arrive at the “best outcome” (since many leftists cannot even agree with conservatives on the concept of truth itself)—is to silence opposing speech.

This begs the question: who decides what the “best outcome” is and who decides what speech to censor? Adherents to this philosophy might not say it out loud, but their answer is clear: “We leftist elites, of course! We have already arrived at the best ideas with the best outcomes and therefore anything that challenges those ideas must be silenced.”

On the other side of this conflict lies the more conservative philosophy. The best way to find the truth of a matter, or to know if a certain worldview is based on truth, is to allow ideas to be subject to scrutiny. If an idea really is true, then it will eventually win in the marketplace of ideas.

Conservatives believe that there is such a thing as objective truth. Certain ideas are indeed better than others. And we are proud of the conservative values and principles we defend. However, we are not God, and therefore we can be wrong. If, in our current understanding, we are improperly or less perfectly reflecting objective reality and truth, then we must allow for improvement to take place. We must embrace debate with others who also seek to improve their ideas by getting closer to objective truth.

YouTube and other big tech forums were supposed to be forums for this sort of debate. They were supposed to be places where ideas and views could be freely exchanged. That is what they sold to us. It was the product they offered in exchange for our immense quantities of valuable data. And as a result, these platforms now have more control over the world-wide freedom of speech than any authoritarian regime could have ever dreamed of having.

It would be directly in line with the true, good purpose of YouTube to allow sites like LifeSiteNews to share their ideas and arguments freely. After all, LifeSiteNews is simply a man speaking on the street corner, trying to engage in the free exchange of ideas. Google, YouTube, and Facebook obtained this street corner under false promises, and have now sicked their goons on this previously free man. To add insult to injury, they are doing it while pulling wool over our eyes and whispering in our ears that “this is for your own protection.” A great man once said that “[t]he most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” I disagree with President Ronald Reagan. The most terrifying words in our time are, “I’m from Silicon Valley and I’m here to protect you from unorthodox speech.”

We Need to Reclaim the Education of our Children.

Democrat Lawmakers Push Bill to Teach Children Difference Between Fake and Credible Media
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/02/09/democrat-lawmakers-push-bill-to-teach-children-difference-between-fake-and-credible-media/

McLachlan says, “lawmakers need to help school children identify fake news and disinformation, since many have access to Facebook, Twitter, and other sites where information is not always accurate.” McLachlan’s colleague Cutter elaborates to miss the point in an even more comically terrifying fashion saying, “We just want to give them the tools so they can figure it out and understand what makes a credible source and then they can form their own opinions about that information.” Lawmakers need to stay away from school children. I would argue strongly that we should homeschool and help each other fund tuition for private schools. Still, regarding public schools, even if we accept and understand that we are sending our kids to a government building to be educated by the government, those statements by McLachlan and Cutter are immensely flawed and miss the point.

Teachers and parents, through the education they provide to their children, should be arming them with everything they need to identify false information. By providing kids with a strong liberal arts education, they will understand history, philosophy, logic, and reason so that they can determine for themselves which information rings true and false. If kids are given a quality education, they will come out of it with that important instinct that all of us should have to stop and think for a moment, “hmm, I wonder if this is true in exactly the way it is being told to me?” We do not need big brother here (or big sisters as the case may be) to determine a “trustworthy index of sources” in typical leftist authoritarian, top-down fashion. We need a better liberal arts education.

The picture chosen for the article is heartbreaking enough. At the risk of sounding like I am “out of touch”, I see no reason why the kids in that picture, as young as they look, should have access to smart phones. No child that young should have a Facebook, Twitter, or online presence of any kind really. I and other 90’s kids can probably testify to the potential for damage, confusion and perhaps life-long struggles that arise from exposure to the Internet too early, and I did not have my first cell phone until age 15. Part of the problem with our society is that we have forgotten the dire need to protect children, to shelter them from the myriad terrible influences of society. This is not to say that they should be kept in a bubble. At the very least when they happen upon some crazy new thing they have never seen before that they do not understand and do not know how to reconcile with their current worldview, should not the parents be around to help with that process? Even if we cannot be everywhere with our children, could we at least try to limit their exposure to a bit less than the “fire hose method” of handing them a smart phone and sending them off to school?! This solution alone puts to bed the initial justification by McLachlan in the article. If they did not have access to the Internet via pocket-sized devices everywhere they went, big sister McLachlan would not be able to use that as a justification for increased top-down government influence on children.

We need to take back this culture folks. This need is shown most strongly in our schools. How can we expect to raise the next generation of Americans as a generation that will be able and willing to carry on the founding values of this nation if we are signing over that responsibility to politicians like McLachlan and Cutter? Take the pay cut, forgo the “benefits” of a dual-income household whenever possible, help each other financially to be able to do so, etc. so that our children can be brought up by their parents, not by the government. By banding together and forming groups at Churches and other local community centers we can reclaim this most important responsibility.

Let us Exorcise the NFL and BLM from America like the Racist Propaganda Demons They Are

Articles:

Super Bowl ratings 2021: Numbers for Buccaneers-Chiefs plummet from last year
https://nypost.com/2021/02/09/super-bowl-ratings-2021-numbers-plummet-from-last-year/
WATCH: Super Bowl LV Kicks Off with ‘Black National Anthem’
https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2021/02/07/watch-super-bowl-lv-kicks-off-black-national-anthem/

My Commentary:

Football became the new American pastime, because it was a glorious opportunity for every American to come together and watch our modern gladiators fight for dominance. It was an opportunity to leave aside all the disagreements of politics. The Super Bowl used to be one of the most patriotic events imaginable with huge American flags, a beautifully sung National Anthem, flyovers by our pilots, people drinking beer, eating hot dogs, and cheering together etc. Now, much of that still takes place, but with a sickly undertone of wokeness and racism (but I repeat myself).

The NFL betrayed America when it allowed players to kneel during our national anthem. Worse than that, the NFL commissioner came out in support of the Black Lives Matter narrative during the rioting of 2020. The league has also had the so-called “Black National Anthem” played at games, including this year’s Super Bowl.

Some might say “how hypocritical of you to support the patriotic messaging but be against the free speech of players when they want to put forward the Black Lives Matter messaging.” To that I have a simple response. One of those messages is good and true, while the other is false and insidious. Black lives do not matter. I will say it again, BLACK LIVES DO NOT MATTER. WHITE LIVES DO NOT MATTER either, because there is no such thing as a black or white life. The true conservative message cuts through the BLM lie like a super-heated steak knife through butter. We are all unique, beautiful creations made in God’s image with inherent dignity, worth and rights. To even say “black lives matter” is to make the horrible, offensive assumption that we did not already believe that our black American brothers and sisters are also made in God’s image. Of course, they are. To play a “black national anthem” is to tear asunder the fellowship and comradery that should come from a shared belief in true American, western Judeo-Christian values that built this nation and allowed these players to get paid millions of dollars to play a game. There is just one National Anthem and it is the anthem of black Americans, and Americans of every color and kind. To embrace the “cause” of BLM is to accuse every American who is not themselves fooled by the racism and fascism of wokeness as being racist themselves.

No one in America watched the video of George Floyd and thought “oh that’s fine, nothing to see there, nothing tragic about it at all.” If you want to fight against police brutality, then show me the individual instances of brutality by potentially bad cops and I will support you. What I will not do is accept your unfounded and unevidenced narrative that policing in general is racist, that black people are killed without cause all the time by cops who regard them as cattle, that police officers themselves are evil, or that it would somehow be a good societal change if we defunded police departments. The thinking that says that policing and police officers are evil and racist because there may be bad apples is the EXACT SAME logic used by the K.K.K. to conclude that an entire race of people is somehow inferior and deserves less rights and differential treatment.

The “fix” or the “cure” for this thinking, for this rift forming in our nation, is the same as it has always been. It is the same, consistent, conservative ideal that began the declaration of independence, and that has been progressively more perfectly realized by the nation that resulted from it. All men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. This is true no matter the color of someone’s skin or their ethnic background. A truly post-racial society, where each person is properly regarded and valued by their humanity, their merit, and their achievements, is the natural destination of this philosophy. That thinking, and that vision, is truly joyful, so much brighter than the revenge racism of BLM and leftism. Let us defeat this woke racism and the organizations that propagandize on its behalf by allowing the NFL to fail, and perhaps be replaced by something better.

Democrats Introduce Reforms to “Hold Big Tech Accountable” for the Wrong Sins

Senate Democrats propose Section 230 reform bill to hold Big Tech ‘accountable’ for content.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-democrats-section-230-reform-big-tech

For a split second this headline gives one hope, “Wait, the Democrats are trying to hold their free-speech hating buddies in big tech accountable? How could that be?” Immediately we see the catch. The Democrats do not want to hold Big Tech accountable for their stifling of free speech, no, they want to force down an increase to that anti-American practice by imposing subjective standards policing content. These leftist Democrats seem to be going with their instinct to reduce freedom and increase control from the top. This case is worse than the usual arrangement where both conservatives and leftists see a problem of some sort and then immediately part ways when it comes to solving it. Here either side is not even seeing the same issue.

The leftists see the riot in D.C. as an opportunity, an excuse to satiate their hunger for increased government control and power. They say “Look at all the violence that happens when you let people rile each other up online! Don’t you want big daddy government to protect you?” Within the press release about their proposed reforms, it has the line “allowing victims to seek court orders where misuse of a provider’s services is likely to cause irreparable harm…” as well as others just as Orwellian. There is no need to worry once this is passed, since Warner, Hirono and Klobuchar will be on the job deciding exactly which sorts of speech to which to apply that ridiculously subjective standard. Good thing we have the democrats in power, with their godlike ability to root out speech that is “harmful”.

The conservative position on this topic is based on the principles of free speech and liberty. The problem here is not that speech needs to be policed more heavily from the top down. The problem is that speech is being policed too heavily by non-governmental organizations having insane amounts of power, and in an unbalanced, inconsistent fashion with no transparency. It is already illegal for someone to make direct threats online, so no thank you, we mostly do not need big daddy government’s increased protection from mean words. We need the government to fulfill its purpose, which is to protect the God-given rights of its citizens.

The Big Tech platforms are the new public square. They are de-facto governments executing their own regulations and “laws” upon those subject to their influence. There has already been precedent for the actions that the government must take here, back in 1946 in the Supreme Court case Marsh v. Alabama. There was a town owned by a shipbuilding company and that company wanted to deny certain speech on its sidewalks. Today we have the modern public square itself owned and controlled by a few Big Tech oligarchs who seek to do the same with today’s “sidewalks”. I couldn’t possibly say this better, so let me leave you with the words of Justice Hugo Black, “To act as good citizens they must be informed. In order to enable them to be properly informed their information must be uncensored. … When we balance the constitutional rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy freedom of press and religion, as we must here, we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferential position.” (Source: RealClearPolitics).

Capital Punishment and Virginia’s Tragic Decision to Abolish It

Virginia Lawmakers Vote to Abolish Death Penalty
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/virginia-death-penalty-capital-punishment-democrats/2021/02/05/id/1008819/

Capital punishment is one of the most clear-cut, legitimate uses of the authority and power of the state that one can fathom. This decision by the State of Virginia is disappointing. Some might wonder how a Catholic conservative could so strongly defend capital punishment. Others might say “but you’re pro-life, aren’t you? How can you be pro-life and pro-death penalty?” Let us start with the article and go from there.

The first thing you notice about the decision in the Virginia legislature is that it was driven by Democrats and will be signed into law by a Democrat governor. The same people who enjoy facilitating the murder of innocent children within their mother’s womb (and after birth as one Democrat governor is famed to have once described on a radio show) also support the abolition of the death penalty. If I am inconsistent for being pro-life and pro-death penalty, then these Democrats are inconsistent in exactly the opposite fashion, no? Neither side is being inconsistent in this case but is rather following their philosophy to its logical endpoint.

Either we are moral beings with free will who can merit reward and punishment for our actions, or we are not. If the former is true, then law and punishment make sense. If the latter is true, then no one merits anything, let alone punishment for their actions. We can disagree about where the line is, for which the death penalty is appropriate, but if you agree that we have free will and can merit punishment then you must necessarily grant that there can be crimes for which the death penalty is the only proportionate punishment. Otherwise, you are left to an incoherent position where, for example, repeat violent offenders who did not kill or rape anyone somehow deserve the exact same punishment as the serial killer who rapes and murders his victims, life in prison. How is that just?

Leftists are being consistent when they seek to abolish the death penalty because their philosophy (or anti-philosophy) and its logical endpoints drive one to a position where human beings do not have inherent dignity and worth, nor do they truly merit proportionate punishment for their actions. Instead, we are all simply cogs in the machine, and if you put the right people in control of the machine, then you can somehow “fix” human nature and forcefully provide the most equitable good for the most identity groups. Why not murder a baby in the womb? It has no dignity. Why would we put to death a serial rapist and murderer? His victims had no dignity or worth and therefore they “merit” no retributive justice.

To be caught in the trap of believing that it is somehow merciful and just to abolish the death penalty is to give up the farm entirely. We cannot allow the left to trick us into accepting their premise that human beings cannot merit proportionate punishment for their actions. If we do, then we are also admitting that they cannot merit rewards and therefore everything the left says about how the government, not the individual or God, should decide their worth, their wages, their purpose, etc. goes with it.

Born for Greatness by Papa Roach – Song Review

This song is great! There is not much to it as far as lyrics, but the message could not be more relevant for our time right now. The lines that stick out and become the song’s message are:
“They always tried to shame us
But they don’t speak our language
No we’re not nameless, we’re not faceless
We were born for greatness”
“It doesn’t matter if the world has gone mad
If we just hold on, if we just hold on”
“One life, one chance, start living”

Originally, the song was meant to “showcase to the world that no matter your struggle and/or adversity, you are born for greatness” (songfacts.com). What a refreshingly true message from a modern song. Yes, we are indeed born for greatness, but not as defined by our twisted society. We are born to be loved and to love God, and there is nothing greater than to fulfill one’s purpose.

More specifically, this message speaks to our having been dealt a heavy blow culturally and politically by leftism and its adherents. They taste power and blood. What they perceive to be justified revenge on everyone who disagrees with them is finally at hand. They will do everything in their power to “shame us”, and now more than ever we see the dividing lines between the left and America. It is as if we do not even speak the same “language” anymore. When we say men and women are different, they say we are transphobes. When we say racism is a terrible sin, they say “Exactly, that’s why you must be an “anti-racist” and always treat people differently on account of their skin color!” When we say human beings have inherent dignity and worth, they shout their abortions, declaring that baby humans are nothing more than “nameless”, “faceless” clumps of cells.

In the end we already know who wins, and it is not the Devil and his instrument of destruction, Leftism. The world has gone mad, but we pray and persevere. Perhaps now is a good time to look about ourselves and remember just how precious this gift of life is, and how minuscule the efforts of these silly politicians are compared to God.
https://open.spotify.com/track/5cRPdqpWkaNmIbPi6wJDg2?si=vn5wEV4oQB-R9CJb135W9g

Today in the News – 02/05/2021

Student Group Pledges to Re-Up Yale Lawsuit Tossed by Biden DOJ
https://freebeacon.com/campus/student-group-pledges-to-re-up-yale-lawsuit-tossed-by-biden-doj/

This is of course an immoral and unjust decision by the Biden DOJ, but I would have been more surprised if they decided to continue this lawsuit. As Blum says “…[it] had exposed Yale’s illegal use of quotas to achieve racial and ethnic proportionality…” We know from some of Biden’s first words as President that he and his administration are big fans of racism. “We need to make the issue of racial equity not just an issue for any one department of government; it has to be the business of the whole of government…” So therefore, not only does Biden not care to prosecute what Yale is doing, he will probably give them more federal funding if they promise to increase their racial quota efforts.

What the left does with our language is immoral, but genius. Everyone inherently understands, to an extent, that “equality” is a principle of The United States. Because of the leftist massacre of language, however, “equality” and “equity” are sometimes used interchangeably, and both suffer from semantic overload, meaning that when you say them, we must ask you to clarify what YOU mean.
Conservatives would say that “equality under the law” is the ideal toward which we strive because we correctly hold that each individual human being is a unique creation with inherent dignity, worth and God-given rights. Those rights must be protected by law. Leftists say “equality of outcome” is more desirable because they believe we should be considered as merely cogs in a machine, members of an identity or victim group differentiated only by skin color, ethnicity, sexual preferences, etc. To them, it is the “outcome” for the broader group that matters, and the just treatment of the individual falls by the wayside.

Edward Blum and the Students for Fair Admissions do have a good legal argument, and I would say a good moral argument as well. The issue we face now, with the radical leftists in power, is not simply an executive branch that refuses to enforce laws that were written with the proper understanding of racism and its evil, but worse than that we have an executive branch that openly proclaims that its “business” IS racism and the furthering of racist ideology.

Today in the News – 02/03/2021

CNN Prime-Time Ratings Crash 44% In First Week Of Biden Era
https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2021/02/02/variety-cnn-prime-time-ratings-crash-44-first-week-biden-era/

Yes, this story is satisfying simply because of the headline, but there is more to this than meets the eye, more that conservatives especially need to take from this piece as a lesson.

Rage/outrage porn is a strong temptation. The CNN and MSNBC audience has lived off it for 4 years. Let us not fall for the same temptations now.
It is relieving, in a way, that we will play offense now against an evil ideology instead of constant defense of a just ideology being acted out by a flawed man. We must never forget our principles even in the heat of justified, provoked (rhetorical, peaceful) counterattack.

When I say we must avoid the outrage temptation, I am not saying we should not be angry. There is plenty already about which to have righteous anger regarding the Biden Presidency. He is sending our money over sees again to murder babies, he is deleting women’s sports by allowing men into them, Fauci is still on TV, etc. The CNN and MSNBC folks were so enraged for 4 years that they lost the ability to hear a piece of news and then simply to take a split second “step back” from the emotion and consider “hmmm, I wonder if that is 100% true in exactly the way in which it is being told to me?” We must never lose that instinct, no matter how much evil is perpetrated in front of our eyes by useful idiots and confused leftists.

We must never lose our Christian instinct to give those people the benefit of the doubt. Until they prove to us otherwise, we should regard them as misled, philosophically incorrect, and logically weak, but not evil. They are the ones who regard us as evil people with evil ideas at times, at least on their news stations. We are better than that. We know they are not inherently evil people but have been convinced of false ideas with incredibly evil logical endpoints and outcomes.

Run Hide Fight – Movie Review

Run Hide Fight was not just a movie. It was an experience, a “life event”, something I will remember and think on for years to come. It is rare that a movie leaves me so deeply in thought and awe that I let the credits run all the way through. Not only that, but this movie served as a slap in the face, a wake-up call to remember what truly matters, to really look at the people in my life who care about me and realize anew their beauty and worth. The movie did all of this without becoming a cheesy Sunday-school lesson like what certain folks might say about God’s Not Dead or some other movie in that genre. It is no wonder Hollywood’s critics hate this movie. Let us list the reasons why:

(SPOILERS!)

The antagonists prove through their evil the truth and necessity of Western, Judeo-Christian values and serve as a powerful critique of the leftism and secularism that is eating away at our society.
The story is “inclusive” in the true, conservative sense because it shows many varied and unique characters from all backgrounds, ethnicities, etc. coming together over their shared values and cause rather than being lumped together into a meaningless categorization by some diversity equity and inclusion “expert” who places them in the same victim category or identity group.
The heroine, Zoe, is gorgeous but takes no part in the stereotypical “girl power, watch a 100-pound woman knock a grown man across the room” trope. Instead, she wins the day through grit, determination, and plenty of help from the many heroes that rise to their own challenges throughout the story.
The idiocy of a “school security guard” that is expected to keep the entire school safe from harm without a gun is put on full, despicable display.
Etc. Essentially it just has too much truth in it for Hollywood to swallow.
The final moral question posed to the audience is profound. What does justice look like for someone who just committed such an atrocity? Even the anti-death penalty, “release the prisoners” crowd, after seeing everything they have just seen, must question their absolutist approach. On the other side, even the Conservatives question whether there could have been a more measured resolution involving law enforcement or even if the shot could have been placed differently, at least those are thoughts I found floating around in my head. Mostly though, I find myself wondering if I would have the balls to do the same in Zoe’s shoes. Would I see that young man for the rabid animal that he has allowed himself to become and have the courage to put him down?
This movie is amazing and deserves every award. It is more real and more effective at making the audience think and consider things that should be considered than anything I have seen in a long time, perhaps ever.

Watch it at The Daily Wire