This is going to be a new series here since memes seem to be such a huge part of culture these days. You aren't always going to like what I have to say! This is me keeping myself and you humble and non-hypocritical. Some will be explanations of memes some may not understand. Some will be a reality check. Etc. You'll see what comes as the memes come in. If you'd like to see one included in this series, feel free to pass it on. 

So, let's start with one I posted for laughs on Instagram and started a huge and unexpected manure storm with.

Let me just say two things. 1. If you aren't 100% sure of what a meme means, don't try to explain to others 2. If you don't get the joke, I'm not going to explain it... most of the time. It loses the humor if I have to explain it, and frankly... if you don't get it, it wasn't meant for you. 

The crap storm came when someone decided they got it, explained it to others, and then got mad when he found out he was completely wrong. Because he was being a turd from the get go, I absolutely refused to explain it to him and he just got angrier and angrier until he finally told me that obviously no one else got it, either, since he had to "explain" it to two other people. I ended the conversation by pointing out that, at that moment, close to 400 people had gotten the joke. 

I suspect most of you get the joke. If you've spent any amount of time in a gun store or at gun shows, you have heard some variation of this joke. Basically, "Oh, I don't own any guns. I lost them all in a horrible boating accident." That's it. It's a joke based on the idea that second amendment supporters aren't going to register or turn in their weapons, choosing to instead claim their firearms vanished in a pretty much unproveable manner. They can't prove you didn't and you can't prove you did. It's not serious at all, it is just a light hearted inside joke that you only get if you are part of the gun scene and are completely outraged by if you aren't. Having worked in a gun store for seven years, I've heard tons of variants on this joke. 

Here's one you're not going to like! This meme rubs me the wrong way. Why? Obama. 

How many people posting this meme were disrespectful to Obama? No, I didn't like him, either. But the same people claiming this is treason when done to Trump did it to Obama. And they didn't "respect the office of the president" when he was in office. Granted, the same people who were screaming you should "respect the office of the president" under Obama are currently not doing so with Trump, but I digress. 

I remember the conservatives claiming he wasn't their president. I remember the name calling and calls to ignore laws they didn't like and all of that. The left does some pretty strange stuff when it comes to Trump. But the right had some Obama Derangement Syndrome, too. 

Bumper stickers with Obama's face on them saying things like, "Does this ass make my truck look big?" "Nope" instead of "Hope." And the birth certificate. All the way up until Trump's inauguration we heard about the birth certificate. And at least three different names Obama apparently had gone by, complete with IDs listed as "proof" that no one wanted to admit were really bad photoshop jobs. There's one still going around about Michelle Obama claiming her name was originally Michael with a short haired photo of her, and the photoshop job is so bad it is actually laughable. But people are passing it around like it's real! 

And yes, I heard people say flat out that they hoped Obama failed. Even Rush Limbaugh said it on his show. I didn't hope Obama failed. Why? Because if the president fails, the country fails, and I don't dislike any president enough to want to watch the country fall down around our ears just for the pleasure of watching that person fail. Blindly following, of course, is no better. 

The bottom line is this. Mocking the president is not treason. Treason is a serious allegation. And it has lost all meaning in the last 15 to 20 years. Conspiracy theories are not treason, either. Both sides have them. Russia collusion... they are sure it happened and it will be proven any day now. But the right had the birth certificate... which they were sure was real and would be proven any day now. Both sides think their conspiracy theory will lead to the removal of the president they don't like. 

​Every president since Washington had nay sayers, conspiracy theories, snowflakes, haters, etc. It's a great way to relieve stress when someone is in office that you don't like, doing things that you don't like. But it's not treason. Aside from that, all of these presidents - including Obama and Trump - had die hards that were convinced they could do no wrong and lashed out at anyone who had anything negative at all to say about their president. I know for certain that some of those people haven't made it this far. They've already gotten angry that I've said something that was not in high praise of Trump and have vowed to never return here. Sorry. I'm not a blind follower. I voted for Trump. He's done some good, he's done some bad. Just like Obama. Patriotism is being able to see that. 

This one started flying around when it was decided that the officer that cowered outside of Marjory Stoneman Douglas during the shooting didn't have the responsibility to protect the kids. 

The ruling was based on case law, and in this case, they based it off of the Supreme Court ruling that the police do not have the responsibility to protect the citizens. There's been a lot of debate since this officer was a school resource officer and he was hired to do just that. But... he wasn't. He should have tried. But he wasn't required to, and can't be held liable for not doing so. 

There's arguments all around, but logic comes into play in this case and the Supreme Court ruling. If these cases were not found this way, any time a person was robbed, raped, murdered, assaulted, etc., the victim or their family could sue the police for not being there to stop the crime. The cops can't be there if no one calls. But if the SCOTUS had found they did have the responsibility of protecting the citizens, victims would constantly be suing the cops because they were victims, and they'd win, causing our taxes to go sky high because the payouts have to come from somewhere. 

Let's take this school resource officer and break it down. Let's assume he wasn't a coward, and let's assume he was trying to stop the shooter. 

1. Let's say he was at the front entrance, trying to prevent people from coming in. The shooter knows this and comes in through a window or fire door at the other end of the building. He starts shooting. The school resource officer starts running towards the gunfire and arrives, shooting the killer dead. But before he got there, the shooter had already killed the students. If the court ruled he was responsible for their safety, the parents of those students could sue him, the school, and the police department. 

2. Let's say the school resource officer was doing his rounds inside the building and saw the shooter enter with a gun. He immediately tries to disarm the shooter, but the gun goes off in the scuffle and kills a student. The parents could sue him, the school, and the police department. 

3. Let's say the school resource officer was doing his rounds insides the building and saw the shooter enter with a gun. He immediately pulls his own pistol and begins shooting, but the killer runs down a side hall. While trying to hit a moving target, the cop shoots through a door and hits the teacher. While the killer is running, he starts randomly firing at all the doors he runs past while being chased, and manages to kill several students and teachers. The parents and families could sue him, the school, and the police department.

I could come up with a ton of scenarios here, but you get the point. The cops and the school resource officer can't be everywhere at once. It is physically impossible for them to protect everyone in every scenario. The ruling in both of these cases was actually necessary to prevent victims and families from suing the police department out of existence and raising taxes to astronomical levels to cover all the payouts. 

Your safety is your responsibility. Which is something those who are pro-second amendment grasp. It's part of the reason we are pro-second amendment. 

​So, the latest Hollywood vs. anyone not on the extreme left outrage is care of Law and Order: SVU. Apparently, there is a female right wing pundit - who people claim is very Ann Coulter like - who gets violently raped at a rally or something. Everyone is upset by this depiction, but I saw it in a different light.
​

1. They have to help her and solve the case.
2. It sort of highlights the violence of the left. While the female pundit is the one hurt, she was most likely hurt by people who hated her, or at least this is how this episode is being depicted (it hasn't aired yet, I don't believe. Maybe it has. I don't know. I'll never see it). The left loves to silence people by any means necessary, and this sadly is not an unlikely scenario. This episode forces you to see and recognize that.

​I haven't watched SVU in years, mostly because I decided to do away with a household TV. But the show has been on forever, and depicts rape. Rape of all kinds of people. I'm not as outraged by this scenario as a lot of other folks seem to be. They take topics that are big at the moment, and right now, the silencing of right wing political pundits is still big in the news, has been for a while. 

Yeah, I hate to say it, but those doing the silencing have proven that the use of violence, to them, is justified in silencing opinions they don't agree with. So this scenario, while gruesome, is not unlikely, and not only the women are threatened by it. We've already seen one female pro-gun pundit have to pick up her entire family and move quickly because a guy was sending her death threats that evolved into pictures of her kids at their school. The students practically burning down their own college to prevent Milo from speaking is old news, but news that will be burned into our minds for eternity. Even myself. I am, by no means, a force in the political world, I'm just some chick who likes to talk about current events and politics, and once in a while you folks come over to read it. But if you guys saw some of the messages I receive on an almost daily basis, you'd be shocked. A lot of them are graphic. 

So while a lot of people take this episode as an affront to right wing pundits, I see something else, and hope others see it, too. This is a dangerous game, and people will go to any lengths to silence you. It has happened before, and it is happening every single day. This episode forces you to not ignore that. I'm not saying this isn't inflammatory or that it isn't an attack on the right wing. I don't know if it is or not. But we can take more away from it than that. 

According to the Cato Institute, a majority of Americans believe political correctness is preventing us from having discussions we need to have, and a majority of Americans also don't feel comfortable sharing some of their political views. Out of those polled, it seems conservatives are more likely to feel they need to self censor. 

Why is that? I think, personally, that a lot of it at this time in history stems back to a lack in understanding of what free speech is. The poll aside, I have found it rather interesting in my own observations of people that we are greatly unwilling to hear people out, and one slight "infraction" will cause a lot of people to walk away. 

As some of you know, I run a YouTube channel, and my experience there has been very educational. This blog has been, as well, mostly in the original form. This blog has existed for years now, although this is the moved and improved version. I had people who read my blog daily, interacted on every post, etc., and then one post showed up that they didn't agree with and they vanished forever. 

YouTube has been a little more telling. Subscriber counts are right in your face all the time, and every single time I post a video, I can count on losing a bunch of subscribers and gaining a bunch more. Some people have even left me notes about why they decided to completely ignore me for the rest of my life because of one sentence. Not a video... a sentence. It was usually one they took out of context, but it didn't matter. 

We see articles online daily about people who refuse to be friends with people because they voted for whoever ran against their chosen candidate. Videos of people talking and someone literally just bouncing around them and screaming to drown them out. People giving an argument for a belief and the opposing person gives "you're a f------ white male!" as a comeback, as if that is a conversation ender. 

Now, to break down some of the things from the article itself. Let's have these discussions!

Define a Nazi. Right now, in this country, we have forgotten the age old adage that "the first person to bring up Nazis loses the argument." Everyone you disagree with is a Nazi. Therefore, groups like Antifa punch anyone who disagrees with them. All of that nonsense aside.  It isn't morally acceptable to assault others at random. If you find an actual Nazi who is beating or trying to kill someone, by all means, punch that person. But because they are talking? No. Words are not violence. Violence is violence. And you have my blessing to punch anyone who is physically endangering your physical health or life. 

I'm sorry, what? Look, I'm as big a flag waving patriot as anyone else, and I cheer when someone saves a flag from being burned. But stripping citizenship from anyone who burns the flag? Are you serious? I've defended flag burning plenty in my life. It is a form of free speech and free expression. It's a crappy act and I think the people who do it are fools who don't understand what that flag means or stands for because they've never once lifted a history book. But don't forget the men and women who have been brought home in a casket covered by that flag fought for your freedom and our Constitution. While you don't like it, and neither do I, it is protected under the Constitution.

I'm willing to use your pronouns if you aren't a complete jerk about it. I'm willing to use your pronouns as long as you don't assume I should have come into the conversation already knowing them. And you must assume a conversation with me is going to be very short if you have weird pronouns. If you use "they, them" as your pronouns, you need to grasp that it is going to stab me in the soul that you are referring to yourself in a plural form and I'm not going to be able to deal with that for very long. But I don't have an issue with using your pronouns. I know a lot of people do. If you are having a conversation with someone who refuses to use them, stop conversing with them. No, the government doesn't need to get involved. People should not be charged with a crime for refusing to use your pronouns. Everyone is suddenly "non-binary" because it's the trendy thing to do. No one should be jailed because they didn't give in to your desire for attention and to be part of the "it" crowd. 

I have covered this as well, and it was one of the most interesting videos to read responses to. This was the video that someone walked away from my channel because of a sentence in. They have the right to kneel. You have the right to stop throwing money at them. The NFL doesn't have to fire them if they are willing to take the consequences of people not attending games or watching on TV. People have acted accordingly and still they continue. They don't have to stop just because you don't like it. But you don't have to give them your hard earned money, either. 

No. Employers have the right to punish employees for Facebook posts that go against the beliefs of the company or damage the image of the company. We can't say "offensive" in this case, because offense is relative. What offends you may not offend anyone else. Should an employee get fired because they post a lot about cats, which offends you because you are allergic to cats? That's the sort of thing this leads to. 

Like it or not, your freedom of religion is also protected. If there is a demand for a mosque in an area, than building one makes sense. If there is a ton of terrorists coming out of the place, then monitoring it would be a good move. But to stop them from being built? Nope, sorry. Whether you like the religion or not, it's protected. And don't forget: in the current political climate, Christians are taking a beating. If something like this isn't stopped, nothing is stopping them from blocking the building of new churches, either.

It isn't hate speech. It has been defined as gender dysphoria, People claim this is no longer the case, that it is not a mental disorder, etc. And personally, in some cases, I don't believe it is. As I discussed above, there is an entire section of people who are following a trend. I don't think those people are mentally ill; I think they want attention and are lacking something in their lives. But people with actual gender dysphoria need psychiatric help, which most do receive. As far as the surgeries... it's your body and your money. It doesn't impact me at all. Do what you want. 

In case you haven't figured it out yet, I have a very small window of what I consider to be "hate speech." This is no exception. Calling the police racist is not hate speech. For one thing, police officer is not a segment of society; it's a profession. We call lawyers liars and politicians crooked all the time, and no one calls that hate speech. Calling the police racist is a belief, and people are entitled to that belief. I personally think it is painting people in the profession with a very broad brush and it isn't very informed or helpful. But it isn't hate speech. Killing cops is murder, it isn't a hate crime. Look, I've had bad experiences with cops in the past. Two, to be honest (before you start wondering what I'm into, one was recent and the other I was five years old). But I still understand that these cops are not all cops. 

It's as hateful as saying a murderer should do prison time for their crime. Illegal immigrants are in violation of the law. I don't care how hard they work, or how much they dream. They are in violation of our immigration laws. And, honestly, your screaming and whining about it is a slap in the face to the millions of immigrants who actually went through the process and did it legally, whether they became American citizens or are here on work or school visas. This usually opens a stream of how difficult it is and how they don't have options. Too bad! Doing it legally is always an option. And it's hard for a reason. You don't have a right to live here. It's a privilege. And it is one that can be denied. 

This is one of those things I always shake my head at. These people always use "every other country on Earth" when they want things like social programs that are paid for by the tax payers or changes to our Constitution. But when it comes to immigration laws? Every other country on Earth can accept or block whoever they want, but the USA is different!

Again, people are allowed to have an opinion, and in this case, especially those in the military who will be fighting alongside them. I, personally, don't have an issue with women in combat, as long as they don't dumb down the requirements to get into certain jobs and positions for the sake of equality. If you can't meet the requirements, you don't get in. Period. But if you can make it through, then why keep you out? But is it hateful to say women shouldn't be in combat? No, it isn't. 

Again, no, it isn't. It's a religious belief, and one that is held by many religions (no, lefties, it isn't just a Christian thing). Most people I've met who believe it is a sin are not cruel to homosexuals. They may not want to take part in their weddings or anything like that, but they stick to the thought of "hate the sin, not the sinner." When you physically or verbally abuse someone for being homosexual, that is a hate crime. If you aren't hiring people who are homosexual, that is discrimination. But the simple act of having a religious belief is not hateful.

I'm not sure what is so hard to grasp about this concept. Most of us here believe people should be allowed to say whatever they want. No matter how gross your beliefs are, you have a right to them and you have the right to speak of them. This is America. That doesn't mean we agree with you. It just means we don't think you should be punished by law for it. 

Some time back, I made a video about the list of demands for white people from BLM. The comments section on that video got very salty, and more comments come in daily. I have deleted a total of zero of those comments. I have reported zero of those comments to YouTube. I had a viewer report another commenter, and I defended the guy who got reported, even though he was a member of BLM who was saying some pretty vicious things. But the comments had a range of beliefs that would make your head spin. I admit, a few nights I just cracked open a beer and gave up for the night. Anti-semitic, racist, slur filled comments were becoming the norm. And while a good deal of the comments made me want to scream, I left them there. I even left comments people left saying horrible things to me directly. I left them alone. Because I am a firm believer in freedom of speech. I hate what these people said. But I believe they have the right to say it. And it won't be me that takes them down or reports them to the powers that be. Nope, I'll defend you instead. Even if you do suck at being a person.

Now, this article goes in to great detail from here, and I encourage you to read the whole thing. It breaks down micro-aggressions, beliefs held by Blacks, Hispanics, and other minority groups, college campuses, etc. 

I only covered what I did because we need to stop being afraid to say what we believe. That's a huge part of defending the 1st Amendment. Stop being afraid. Yes, you will catch backlash. Yes, people will try to scream over you. Yes, people who are "on your side" will jump ship because they only agree with you on 99.8% of the things you say and they settle for nothing less than 100%. Yes, you aren't going to agree with everyone on everything. You shouldn't agree with anyone on everything, if we're going to be real. Yes, people will call you all kinds of names instead of listening to what you have to say because they can't tolerate opposing views or free thought. But by not being afraid and by speaking out, you make all of those people irrelevant. 

Every time I post to this page or I post a video on YouTube, I know I am going to get nasty comments and people will walk away, never to return. Right wingers get upset to learn I'm not a far right winger,  left wingers get upset to learn I'm not a far left winger, and libertarians get upset to learn that I lean a little too far to the right to be a true libertarian. I can only believe what I believe and understand that some people will cheer and some people will scream, and that's just how it is. And you need to get there, too. We can't be afraid of being called names by the other side, or having those "on our side" walk away because you said one little thing they didn't agree with. Be you. Be vocal. Don't be afraid. This is how we defend our Constitution. 

​All quotes taken from Cato Institute. 

Back on inauguration day, I wrote an open letter to Trump and the American people. One of the things I said was that I would call him out when he was doing something wrong. And I have. But this one I need to speak on specifically, because this is beyond wrong if he ever acts on it. You don't get a pass just because I voted for you. 

Look. I am no fan of the mainstream media. Not by any stretch of the imagination. But I am a fan of the Constitution, so let's talk. 

The first group of tweets there are fine. I don't mind him ranting about the media, because in all honesty, they have been overly harsh towards him, and on several occasions they have reported information that was unsubstantiated or downright false. So I understand his ire towards them. The American people, for the most part, are starting to see that the media is, at the very least, very selective about what they report. Most of the good stuff he has done goes unreported. Bits of stories are left out because it doesn't fit their narrative. And they aren't even trying to hide that bias anymore. At one point they at least tried. That's long gone. That became obvious with the polling data about the last election.

However. I do not support a president calling for licensing to be revoked for any media outlet. I don't care who it is or what his reasoning for it is. I don't care if they are only reporting the bad things and none of the good things. I don't care that every so often the stories are misleading, baited, biased, or false even. The press has a right to exist, and the president does not have a right to tell them what to write about nor does he have a right to threaten them because he doesn't like what they write about. 

I do support the president writing his own op-eds from time to time to correct whatever he believes is wrong. He is followed by a lot of people on Twitter, correct the information there. Have a staffer who writes op-eds and sets the records straight. Have press conferences. Whatever you feel you need to do that does not infringe on the media functioning. 

Now, I know what a lot of folks are going to say about the media, and I already pointed all of those things out above. It doesn't matter. The media is protected under our Constitution. They are going to report what gets ratings, we know that. We understand that. Advertising leads all. It doesn't leave the White House hog tied. Trump and his staff have options. 

Leave the media to us. We'll take care of them. If the news is so slanted, change the channel. Bottom line is... if you really give a crap about what is going on, you won't get your news from one source. I don't want 100% of my news coming from Breitbart, but I don't want 100% of my news coming from CNN, either. Write in. Call in. Write your own op-eds. Get loud. Stop staying silent! 

There are an awful lot of media outlets out there that I don't like, both mainstream and small outlets. But I will never, ever push to have them shut down, unlicensed, or silenced. That isn't how the country works. 

And remember, everything done now will come back to you. If Trump starts revoking licenses for news agencies he doesn't like, you can count on the next democrat president pulling the licenses from the ones you do like. 

The first amendment has a lot going on. It isn't just about your right to say whatever you want. It isn't just about Milo Yiannopoulos and Ben Shapiro being allowed to give speeches. It grants you your freedom of religion, to protest, to petition the government, and it is freedom of the press. You don't have to like what they are saying or doing. You also don't have to watch or support their advertisers. You can contact their advertisers. You can take part in the media yourself. You're on the Internet, for God's sake! Anyone can be the press here! Take advantage of that! No, it won't be easy. But it is possible. 

​So no, I'm not happy about our president talking about revoking licenses for the press. I don't like him barring people from press conferences. I don't like only being force fed a liberal agenda, but I don't want it replaced with government sponsored conservatism, either. Use the press against itself, don't shut it down. 

Look, let's face it. These things play out the same way every time. Shooting happens. The gun grabbers start slinging words before the shooting is even over. Memes start flying like they're going to save us all. And everyone on both sides start yelling the same talking points back and forth. We all know the arguments and the come backs to them from both sides. So I'm not going to go into all of those and why gun control won't work and hasn't in the past. 

What I will say is this. If Trump is taking a page from Hillary, he needs to reconsider. She lost for a reason. And considering one of her major platforms was strong gun control, he really needs to look into that and think hard. 

The guns are already here. They exist. Bans won't change that. The border is not secure, and you can bet your ass the cartels and everyone else are cheering for American gun control because their black market over the border is going to surge. Gun grabbers who argue that Chicago is how it is because the rest of the country didn't fall into lockstep should recognize that. Yeah, the guns in Chicago may be coming from out of state. A gun ban in the USA will cause guns to come up from Mexico and other countries willing to use their border. And guess what? You can't trace those! 

I don't want anyone to be surprised if there is a shift here. The 2nd Amendment is a deal breaker for me. I have a few deal breaker issues and I abandoned my political party over one of them. 

Yes, I am going to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and hear him out, hoping he doesn't go Hillary on us. But Trump desperately wants to be Reagan. Reagan openly and enthusiastically supported the Brady Bill.

If Trump starts talking gun or magazine bans, his chances at re-election in 2020 are not good. And if people do vote for him at that point, shame on them. He should get primaried out, that would be the best way, because if he isn't, there will be a crazy dem in the White House in 2020. And it could spread further than that. So far there's no repeal of Obamacare, no wall, and possible gun control. Gee, it's like we elected Hillary. 

As I said, I'll hear him out since there was no specifics mentioned. But it isn't looking good. Gun control will cut my support for Trump. Just be aware, there will be a shift. I won't be able to support him anymore, and will treat him the way I treated Obama. And I will not vote for him in 2020. Period. If you can't handle that, I understand. But I must support my beliefs and my Constitution before any man or woman. I am not above writing my dog in for political office. I wrote her in for governor of my state in the last election. 

LIMBAUGH: The Ongoing Frustration of Trump’s Conservative Critics | Daily Wire

I wanted to share the above article because I personally thought it was a good read.

Trump is frustrating a lot of his nay-sayers on both sides of the isle. Look, I’ve said it before. Trump wasn’t my first choice. He wasn’t my second or third choice, either. He had run before without anyone even paying him any mind, and I really didn’t even think he was serious, let alone would actually become president. I didn’t vote for him in the primaries (let me add an addendum here: I voted on the Libertarian primary ballot, so I didn’t vote for a Republican candidate at all. I am officially registered in my state as a Libertarian).

I liked Ben Carson and Ted Cruz, if we’re going to be straight here. However, I don’t think Ben Carson would have held up against Hillary Clinton. So yeah, I was mostly a Cruz supporter on the Republican side. On the Dem side I liked Webb, but he didn’t last long. I don’t even know if most people remember he was running! And… I didn’t vote for Gary Johnson in the primaries, and after listening to him and his God awful choice for his running mate, I couldn’t support him, either.

However, I never embraced the Never Trump group, either.

The people decided they wanted Trump as their candidate. I wasn’t happy about it. But I decided to give him a chance and got behind him. Can’t say I trusted him – still don’t – but you’ll never catch me trusting any politician, so that isn’t news. I also will not pledge undying allegiance to any politician, either. I’m as critical about any politician as you can be. Heck, I’ve even got posts about Reagan here and why he wasn’t the shining beacon people make him out to be. At the end of the day, these people are politicians. And yes, Trump is a politician now, like it or not.

I stand behind Trump right now, but am not blinded by him (and yes, I did cast my ballot for him in the general election). I’m not a rabid fan, but I’m not a Never Trumper. I refuse to take my eye off of him just because he was chosen by the people. The people chose Obama, Bush, and Clinton, too. Yes, I laugh at most of his tweets, but I don’t think some of those tweets are helping him, either.

​Trump’s not perfect. No politician ever will be. He’s our president now, whether you like him or you don’t. He’s done good, and he’s done bad, just like all those before him. I certainly don’t want to see him fail, because if he fails, our country fails. I hope he succeeds. I hope he makes America great again. And at this point… we’re several months in to his presidency. He isn’t going anywhere. You don’t have to be a super fan of his, but it might be time to sit back and realize this is who the people wanted, he won the election, and now he’s the president. Don’t stop fighting for what you want to see in this country, but how about we let the man do his job? How about we give him the benefit of the doubt – while keeping our eye on him – and see what he can accomplish? Maybe it’s time for the dems to stop trying to block him at every turn and wasting precious time to get him removed from office. And maybe it’s time for the Never Trumpers to do the same. If you don’t like him, vote for someone else in 2020. That’s how we do things in this country. But right now… let the man do his job.

So apparently, the Republicans are eating their own now. I'm sorry, but I've been passively watching this since it began. I don't watch "The View," but any time a conservative, Republican, Libertarian, etc. is on, the articles from 1000 different sources flood my inbox. Normally, I just don't care. It's one of those shows that has less impact than it thinks it does, and I give it as much attention as I do the latest political spewings of some random Hollywood star.

If you don't know who Tomi Lahren is, she is the host of a show on Glenn Beck's "The Blaze" network, which I also don't watch. I occasionally catch episodes or clips from them of Tomi's show, and I can tell you... she's a fire storm. Her segments are a little practiced and obviously memorized, but that's alright.

This past week, she appeared on "The View," where she made the admission in the block quote that started this off. Again, I didn't pay it much mind and moved on with my life. But as the days have gone by, I noticed more and more people reacting to her in a negative way, tearing into her like she'd killed six people and three dogs.

Then, this afternoon, I found out that she'd been suspended from Beck's network, apparently for at least a week, but that normally means she's done on that network. And people are cheering the decision.

I don't normally touch the abortion topic for two reasons. 1. It is one of those topics that sparks tempers and anger and all kinds of stuff, and no matter what you say you are going to be wrong with a large portion of people, and I don't see it as worthy enough of an argument to get into when you literally can never be right and all the fighting impacts nothing. 2. I don't really know where I stand on abortion. I have been torn in two directions on the topic for as long as I can remember, and I don't feel comfortable labeling myself either pro-life or pro-choice.  I believe abortion is wrong. But I also don't want to see women going to back alley butchers again, and they will. It's similar to the 2nd Amendment argument - just because you outlaw it doesn't mean people won't get them. And while I wish people wouldn't, I know they will and would prefer they got it done safely instead of being killed horribly. So yeah, I'm torn on the subject.

Regardless of my opinion, what is happening to Tomi is what I refer to as eating our own. I've called the Democrats out on numerous occasions for doing this, and now I'm watching conservatives do it, too. People who, two weeks ago, agreed with 99% of what she said are now calling for her job because she doesn't agree with them on something.

Everyone has their own set of beliefs and values, and they are entitled to them. You are never going to agree with anyone 100% of the time, and vice versa. We scream when liberals try to silence conservative speakers and demand their right to free speech, but then when one of them holds an opinion we don't agree with... we do exactly the same thing.

Tomi has her own opinions. I don't agree with her all the time. It would be weird if I did. But like hell I'm going to try to silence her because she said something I don't like! I don't agree with 95% of the things Bill Maher says, and I won't try to silence him, either.

We need to stop eating our own. Tomi is on our side. Yes, she doesn't agree with one of the conservative platforms. That doesn't make her any less on our side.

A few weeks ago, Milo Yiannopoulos made comments on Bill Maher's show that gave the impression that he was a pedophile sympathizer (no, I don't think Milo is a pedo). His career has gone down the crapper since then and I believe he has left the USA. But conservatives seem to be getting behind him anyway, admitting they don't believe he is a pedophile or a pedophile sympathizer.  People are staunchly supporting him. And these are people who even looked past the fact that he's gay to support him.

Yet we're eating Tomi alive. I don't get it.

Folks, the time is now. Things have been hitting the fan for a while now, and we need to support those on our side... each other. We need to stand together. And we need to realize that we're not going to agree with each other 100% of the time. And sometimes, people are going to disagree with you on things you feel very strongly about. It's time to swallow our pride and our egos and support those who mostly support us. You can disagree. But let's stop trying to silence each other. We need all the voices we can get.