This guy is Jon Mindaeo of the Goyem Defense League.
He’s essentially a Nazi who doesn’t call himself a Nazi.
The tough thing here is that nothing that he us doing is illegal.
There is not much that can be done from a law enforcement perspective as long as he’s not threatening people and is on public property.
I may not agree with what he says but I defend his right to say it.
Honestly, what I wish is that he were just a little bit more aggressive.
I know that sounds crazy but all I need is for him to step over the line enough to make caving in his skull or ventilating his internal organs legally justified.
I don’t think police in Orlando are going to be very concerned if a Nazi ends up bleeding out on the streets because he pushed a little old Jewish lady and her grandson decided to send him to hell to meet Hitler.
B.L.U.F. Lighter content. I’m busy with client work and really want to read up on the filings and testimony for Duncan v. Bonta
Pair banned from Enfield schools after sending letters to officials, town manager says
An Enfield man and Somers woman have been banned from Enfield school properties after…
A number of years ago I was having a discussion with my kids principal at the elementary school. I think the issue was that my kindergarten or first grader had drawn flowers on his name for some in class work. The teacher had marked him down.
The principal kept using some offensive words and in the end I said something like “When you say X it makes me want to jump down your throat.” We finished our conversation, she didn’t seem to have any issues. As I was leaving she asked me why I didn’t become a teacher because she thought I would be great teacher.
Later that day my son came home and had a letter saying I wasn’t allowed on school grounds because I had threatened the principal. It seems that they thought that “jump down your throat” was a threat of physical violence. It isn’t.
So I made an appointment and when I showed up to talk to her to figure out what was going on she brought in the only male teacher in the school and 3 other people, it was all intended to be very intimidating. I don’t intimidate very well.
I tried to show them the actual meaning of the phrase they were upset about. The refused to read it. I was accused of threatening her multiple times and when I asked “If you feel I had threatened you, why did you ask me to join the school as a teacher?”
She replied that she hadn’t said that.
All in all it was very accusatory.
I finally had had enough, turned to her and asked “to you have a bad memory or are you just lying?”
Everybody in that room responded in shock over my statement. “How rude!” My response of “But you all have been accusing me of making death threats which didn’t happen. Why are you allowed to insult me and I can’t ask why she is getting it so wrong?”
They didn’t see it. I was forced to leave with the threat of them calling the cops on me.
This is the way of the left. They attack us over and over again and at the point where we respond, we are the bad people. The number of videos of some white kid attacking a black kid are pretty extensive. Nobody seems to capture the tormenting that happens prior to their response. But they are always the bad ones.
Which takes us back to the report from Enfield, CT. From the headline I assumed that they had made some sort of threat against school officials.
Nope:
Two people have been banned from school property after they mailed letters to the homes of school officials, spewing “gibberish” and appearing to promote a global constitution…
This is a chilling effect. If you communicate with a school official and they decide that your communication was “gibberish” or they think you are promoting wrong think, you could be banned from school property.
I wonder how they would have reacted if the had received letters supporting BLM and promoting systemic racism? I wouldn’t be surprised if they were invited to be guest speakers.
The letters, which were received Wednesday, do not contain threats and neither person who signed them is accused of committing a crime, Zoppo-Sassu said. But police have told the Enfield man and Somers woman they are not permitted on school property, including school board offices, she said.
The reasons that they are banned is because “…we have zero tolerance for attempts to distract our elected and appointed officials from their jobs.”
Hagar has agreed to accept a chance to answer questions from you, our readers. This posting is in the feedback category so anybody can post comments. Questions should be in by Friday, Feb 24th.
The comment posting rule still stands, “Don’t be a dick”.
Hagar will answer every question you post of her. The answer my be a short “I don’t know” or “I won’t answer this question.” Those are answers.
I spend time each evening listening to TikTok videos. They’re short, and I follow a bunch of really funny people. They make me laugh, and are often a source of relaxation for me. Lately, though, I’ve had a spate of odd ones show up in my feed. Bear with me here.
The first one is a person who is … obviously trans, male to female. She’s in a red dress with ridiculous lipstick that I’d call “slut colored”. But whatever… some people have bad fashion sense (I’m one of them, just in a different direction). Then she proceeds to “explain” to “cis women” that “we have to talk”. Sorry for all the quotes, I need to be clear that it isn’t ME saying it. And that I’m expressing… dislike. In any case, this “lady” (in quotes because her attitude is not lady-like) then explains that we women need to stop calling ourselves women. We need to stop saying woman, and breastfeeding, and mother, and a bunch of other gendered words.
Most of the iterations of that particular video are what we call a “stitch”. It’s when you start showing someone’s video (in this case, the “lady in red”) and then break in and make your own commentary. Most of the commentary I’ve been seeing is from women. Angry women. And they’re women across the spectrum: left, right, white, black, old, young. More old than young, though, definitely. They’re all saying the same thing, however. They’re telling the “lady in red” to stuff it, all corners, in a variety of interesting and often both polite and educated ways.
I’ve found it fascinating, because the responses are SO across the divide. The only clear defining thing is that the older women are most vehement, I think because we spent so long fighting for equality in a bunch of different venues.
There are several replies that I found to be truly educational. These women were strong, and they put their responses in words that I wish I had thought up. Some of my favorites (all paraphrased, be aware):
When you go to Starbucks, do you order “coffee” or “caffeinated coffee”? You order “coffee”. Why? Because that’s the natural state of coffee: caffeinated. If you want decaffeinated coffee, you can order it. Some people will look askance at you, but it’s your right, you’re an adult, go right ahead and drink the dirty water like the heathen you are. 😉 But there’s nothing WRONG with asking for decaf. Just don’t expect it to be the default. The same is true with trans women. You want to be a trans woman, fine. BE ONE. But leave me and mine alone, because we *aren’t* trans women. We’re just women. Just like we like coffee. Not decaf coffee.
And…
I am a mother, a woman, and I breast fed my kids. They are labels and things that I simply AM. I will always be these things regardless of what someone else chooses. You can choose to be a trans woman, or chest feed. Go for it. That’s YOUR decision. But you trying to make ME change MY terms? That’s domination. There is a “baseline”, we can all agree on that, because otherwise, there would be nothing to transition from or to. Men are not being asked to change their words (penis, prostate, etc) to make people more comfortable. Just women. And they’re only being asked that by trans women… who used to be men, who have canalized men’s thinking. There’s nothing WRONG with them wanting to be trans women, but they have to stop acting like men and asking women to suppress their own womanhood to make the trans women feel more comfortable. This is internalized misogyny. Use whatever terms you like for yourself… but those are all alternatives to baseline terminology.
I will admit, I had not noticed that similar changes were not being asked of men in regards to trans men. I went and actually looked, because I wondered if it were true. It is. These demands for women to change their language, their own labels, their self-worth in many cases, are not coming from anyone who was, at any point, a biological woman. And they are not being lobbed at biological men by trans men. These are important things to note, because they indicate that it’s not a “trans problem”… it’s a man problem.
Now, before you go all gaga on me, understand, I like strong men. I like men with beards, who are covered in sawdust (man glitter), who can handle a shotgun and a gutting knife. Those men aren’t the problem. YOU men aren’t the problem (meaning those I’ve interacted with here on GFZ).
The problem appears to be ONLY with men who have decided to become women, but who are doing so to gain something outside of self-satisfaction.
You might ask why that’s important. Let me explain. I have a number of trans friends. Most, you’d never know. My friend Charlie, she looks like a girl (so so so like a girl… more than me LOL), talks like a girl, dresses like a girl, walks like a girl, talks like a girl. She sits down to pee. She’s a girl. If you met her in public, you’d assume she was a girl, as much as you’d assume I’m a girl (maybe more LOL). And you’d be right. She’s not the problem. She went through what she did to become a girl, having been born in a male body, because SHE’S A GIRL.
The problem (IMO of course) is those who have decided that their current discomfort in themselves, their lack of self-esteem, their inability to meet mates or make friends, comes because they have a penis. They’re not girls. I’m not even certain they’re boys, to be quite frank, but that’s a whole other conversation. There’s nothing about them that makes them female. They mistakenly believe that cutting off their offending appendage will suddenly make them likable, to everyone else and to themselves. And that is not the case.
Based solely upon my own observations (obviously biased), I would say that this is a new trend that comes about because the “incels” (to use the leftist term) are looking for yet another way to demand attention. I see true trans people as fitting in (aka “normal”), being comfortable in their new gender, because it is an external reflection of their internal selves. They tend to be well dressed, well spoken, well adjusted. These angry ex-men seem to be poorly dressed in outfits that often highlight the disparity between what they claim to be and what they are. They smear bright colored make-up across their faces, in almost a caricature of women.
When women across the field all call someone out for this kind of negative behavior, it can actually become a healing thing. We ladies need to remember that we can draw together. It’s part of “what we do”, often at a genetic level. It’s more than just women, though.
In observing this phenomenon, I have ended up populating my TikTok feed with a lot of stuff I normally wouldn’t. Suddenly, I’m seeing transTok, and I’m seeing people who are angry or upset about this whole thing. And they’re largely my age. It appears that the trans extremists have managed to irritate GenX to the point where we’ve been forced to stand up and do something. Damnit, get off my lawn!
Addendum several days after writing the base article:
So the people responding to this whole thing are not just women (I’m noting this here because this article was written over a period of two weeks while I actually went and looked things over). In fact, there are a number of people who are apparently trans who have been “passing” (meaning you can’t tell they used to be another gender) for 20 or more years, who are standing up. Why are they standing up? Because they want to make it crystal clear that the few people who are making these absurd claims are extremists. They’re not representative of the trans community. Well thank heavens for that. So now we have bio men and women AND trans men and women, speaking out against these … well, domestic terrorists is what they are, really.
I’ve talked a bit about media bias and how the media manipulates our viewpoints by feeding us things that they believe will sell to us. There are a grand total of four people who are behind this entire debacle. Four. This entire media storm has been brought about by LESS than a handful of people who are being ridiculous and borderline criminal (in my opinion). The only reason I’m not naming them is because I don’t want to give them anymore attention than they already have. If you go look it up, you’ll be flooded, I assure you.
I don’t care what you want to call yourself. If you want to be called JollyWhoopCat, I’ll do my best to remember that, and I’ll try not to giggle when I say it. But don’t expect me to change what I call myself. I believe we should be comfortable being individuals. I am who I am. I will use what terms I choose, for myself. I’ll try and be mindful of what other people want to call themselves. The ultimate in letting others live… but I expect the same in return.
The base issue with all of this, is that there are a few out there who want me to change myself, to make them more comfortable. The answer to that is quite simple: NO.
If you want to change yourself to be more comfortable (be that with piercings, tattoos, gender changes, dyed hair, whatever), I’ll hold your hand and support you. Go for it. I know people who find collecting firearms makes them more comfortable in their own skin. I’m good with that, too. Do not, however, be thinking you can change ME. Only I can do that, and in this case, I’m quite fine just as I am.
B.L.U.F a derailed train of thought regarding gun infringers. BORING.
The anti-gun battle is difficult to understand because it requires us to acknowledge that there are different classes of people out there advocating for gun infringements.
I was at a client’s office shortly after the Boston Bombing. The owner of the company and I were talking. I mentioned that the media was talking about how the suspects were heading towards New York, or Canada, or a dozen other places. What they didn’t mention was a concern that they might be heading into NH.
As my lady put it “The people of New Hampshire are out in their front yards in their lawn chairs with rifle at hand hoping to bag their limit of bombers.”
The owner went was very surprised at that statement. He didn’t know that just about anybody could get a license to carry in NH. NH is now a constitutional carry state.
He asked me “Do you think there have been any guns in our office?”
I replied with “Have we had customers in the office?”
“Yes….”
“Then it is likely we have had guns in the office.” I replied.
I didn’t bother to tell him that there was a pistol on my hip and another in my EDC bag.
“Oh… I don’t like guns. My brother was killed in a gun accident when we were kids.”
My client had a reason to be fearful of guns. He had never learned safe gun handling and his strongest memory of a gun was his brother dying from a gunshot. His children were like wise anti-gun people.
But they didn’t do anything about it. Guns were not part of their culture. They didn’t want to be around guns and they didn’t think it was safe have guns. They didn’t try and push their wants on others.
There is another type of anti-gun person. This is the person that firmly believes that certain firearms are just to much for you to own. They have bought into all of the anti-gun propaganda. They are true believers. What they believe is that we would all be better off if there were no more “bad” guns.
They don’t really know what a “bad” gun is. They just know it when they see it. This is the person that has no problems with a mini-14 but freaks at an AR-15. That thinks an AR-15 platform like rifle that shoots .22LR is horrible and should be banned but doesn’t think anything is wrong with an M1.
A person they believe that “weapons of war” and “military style” weapons should be banned but have no issues with people owning weapons that were actually carried in war being owned and wanting to ban rifles that have never been carried in war.
These people are obnoxious but can be reached. They just need one little bit of gunshine in order to understand that maybe they haven’t been told the truth.
For these people I’ve used the “Which round sound be banned?” while showing them all sorts of rounds. They pick things like 7.62x54r, 30-06, 7.62×51 NATO, 30-30 Win, .303 British, and other rounds of that style. They almost never pick 5.56×45.
With a little bit of verbal manipulation I’ve been able to get them to pick .45 Colt over 5.56×45. I’m looking forward to having them decide between 45-70 and 5.56×45.
I had a guest ask to see my firearms when visiting. I did a small show and tell. He was from LI, NY. We were going through different things when I handed him a loaded magazine.
He started to take it and I yanked it back. “You’re from New York. Your governor says that having a magazine with more than 8 rounds (I don’t remember what it was that year) will make you a killing mass murder.” I stripped off some rounds to bring it into “S.A.F.E.” standards and handed it back to him.
“There you go, it is now safe for you to handle.”
He looked at me like I had gone crazy. “What are you talking about?”
I explained to him what the law was in his state and how having one too many rounds in a magazine was a violation of law but having the “right” number of rounds was perfectly ok.
He got it. He didn’t turn into a gun person, he stopped being anti-gun.
Another friend of mine is what I call a “thinking leftist”. She leans so far left that she’d fall over if there was a strong wind. We were having lunch together, talking about compromises in gun laws. I told her that what she was calling a compromise was just me giving up less.
I then used as my counter “If they were to offer us national reperprocity, that would be a compromise.” After I explained what reperprocity meant she was shocked to learn that it wasn’t. Explaining that carrying a shell casing into Mass could get me arrested and charged with a felony was even more shocking to her.
She is no longer a slave to the media propaganda.
Then we have the gun infringing busy bodies. These are those that know that the best thing for society is to remove guns from your hands. They believe this so firmly that they will lie, cheat, and steal in order to bring this about.
These are the day to day drones that buzz around Everytown, Mom’s Demands, Giffards, and the like. They believe it is their duty to take your guns away from you.
They can attend events where their organization is paying for armed guards and think “that’s ok” because the armed guards are “better” than those gun nuts. These people believe all of the propaganda and work diligently to make society “safer” by removing guns from you.
I believe that my representatives and senators fall into this category. To attribute more to them would require they be sharper than they’ve shown themselves to be.
The next level is the liar and cheat. These are the people that are knowingly creating lies in order to modify society. These are the people that will intentionally conflate a suicide in a school parking lot by a 40yo man with a “school shooting”.
These are the liars that claim there have been more mass shootings this year than days. They actually claim there is more than one per day.
They get there by using bad data and bad definitions. They talk about the real mass shootings with lots of victims and then in the very next breath talk about a “mass shooting” where 10 gang bangers were exchanging fire with each other, no deaths and one injured.
Not the video I was looking for. The video in question shows an incident where gang members are running to cars to grab weapons. Lots and lots of rounds fired at each other. No signs that anybody was hit. When you hear the sirens start to approach they ditch guns in cars. Lock the cars and calmly walk away.
These people lie using statistics. “The ATF reports that there has been over a 1000% increase in ghost gun traces.”. They never tell us if these were home manufactured firearms or if they are firearms whose serial numbers have been removed. They also don’t tell us why a gun with no serial number is being sent to the ATF for a trace.
And finally, they don’t tell us that the reason for the vast increase in traces of ghost guns is that they are now asking law enforcement to send in trace requests for “ghost” guns. The intent to be to drive up the numbers.
So we don’t know if 1000% means that there was 10 traces in 2018 and there were 100 traces in 2022 or if there were 10,000 traces in 2018 and 100,000 in 2023. When people want to lie with statistics they use the method that gets the results they want.
If the numbers are small they will list percentages. Using percentages small changes in the absolute number make for large changes in percentages. If the percentage change is small but the number is large, they use the absolute number because people don’t have good feel for raw numbers.
The entire goal of this group of people is to create a narrative that paints gun owners and people that want to defend themselves as “evil” and bad.
At the top are the manipulators. I attribute true evil to them. They don’t want you to have guns for deeply personal reasons. Often they think it is an obstacle to their goals.
I talk about “polite police” from time to time. The less likely a populace is to be armed, the less polite the police are. The more likely the citizens are armed, the more likely the police will be polite.
I stopped in at the local cop shop the other day to speak with the chief. It took only a few minutes to get in to see him. I had my EDC on me. Did he see it? I don’t know. Did it matter?
No.
It didn’t matter because my ability to act didn’t mean I was going to act.
There is a joke about a game warden coming up on a woman and her young son fishing on the lake. She was sitting there reading a book while her son fished. There were a couple of poles in the boat but only the son was actually fishing. The warden asked to see their licenses.
The woman got out her son’s license and showed it to the game warden.
“Where’s yours?”
“I don’t have one. I don’t fish and I haven’t been fishing.”
“Well I see you have the equipment to fish so I’m going to write you up for fishing without a license.”
She argued a little bit but gave in at last.
“Just to let you know warden, when I get back to shore I’m going to file rape charges against you.”
“What!?!?!?”
“You have the equipment so you must have done it….”
The point being what we all know. It isn’t the equipment that does evil, it is the evil that lurks in the hearts of men.
The manipulators at the top are evil. These are the ones that are fighting not only to disarm us but to make self-defense and defense of others impossible.
These are the people that are fighting to change the meaning of our Constitution in order to remove the protections it guarantees to use.
These are the people that make the claim that the second only applies to Militias and holds that line in court for decades. When that is overturned they switch to “But we have a good and laudable reason for this infringement.” They convince the courts to balance our rights away.
These are the people that change rules, ordinances and laws in order to moot cases to keep them from the Supreme Court.
Today I read their words in court filings and my blood boils.
“Magazines aren’t arms” because why? The Supreme Court has already given their opinion that things like magazines, ammunition, reloading supplies and such are all “arms” within the scope of the Second Amendment.
“It doesn’t matter if it is in common use, it is unusually dangerous”. No, the Supreme Court has said that in order for an arm to be outside of the scope of the Second Amendment it has to be both unusually dangerous and uncommon.
“The laws of Merry Old England in the 1600’s are part of the history and tradition of the Second Amendment.” Again, no. The Supreme Court has stated that history and tradition around the founding. This is 1791 when the Second was ratified along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The end of the founding era is 1826 when the last of the founding fathers died. Laws from around the time of the ratification of the 14th amendment, 1868, can be used to support laws from 1791.
“A sensitive place is anywhere we say it is.” The Supreme Court has commented on this. After reading Bruen for the first time I read “sensitive place” and predicted that it would be come an attack vector. It has.
At every step of the way, these manipulators have used every trick they have. They have bent language to mean what it doesn’t mean. One they recently used in Duncan v. Bonta is that by analyzing the written documents of a time period they can assign a numerical value to the “normal” usage of a word.
In this they analyze “bear” and “to bear” in the context of arms. From the statistical analysis they claim that the term “to bear arms” is most commonly used in the context of the military. Since that is the most common usage that must be the one meant in the Second Amendment which means that you don’t have the right to bear arms, only the militia.
