By now, we are all familiar with the bombing of the Boston Marathon.  Those of us on the right are also familiar with the Main Stream Media (MSM) blaming us for this event without any evidence whatsoever.  In fact, we were looking for them to do so.  We know all too well that blaming the right is their modus operandi.

The fact is, with one glaring exception—Tim McVeigh—there has not been a single right-wing committed, politically motivated tragedy worthy of national attention.  So, not only does the MSM blame the right without evidence, but they also do so without much historic precedent.  I would argue that this is injurious behavior toward all conservatives.  This is really a second injury that we must suffer.

When I see the stories of the Boston Marathon bombing, or other such tragedies, I am injured.  When I read about an eight year old boy who died while waiting for his Dad to cross the finish line, I think of my own two sons, and I hurt for that Dad.  When I hear that the boy’s mother and sister were also seriously injured, I think of my wife and daughter, and I hurt for that whole family.  Do I hurt as much as that Dad, or as much as that family?  Certainly not!  But I still feel their loss from thousands of miles away, and I do hurt for them.  I would be a horrific sociopath if I lacked the empathy to do so.  My injuries from this event are miniscule compared to those of the people directly involved, but they do exist.  This is the first injury that we suffer.

Then for the MSM to go out of their way to try to place the blame for these kinds of events on me and those who believe as I do is an unconscionable, belligerent, injurious act toward all conservatives.  If most such tragedies had occurred because of the actions of right-wingers, or if the MSM had any bit of evidence whatsoever for their claims, then this would not be true.  But the fact is, when such events have even just the least inkling of political motivation, the vast majority of them have historically been perpetrated by individuals who are left leaning.  And, as we conservatives are well aware, it usually only takes the MSM minutes from the time an event occurs until they are trying to blame right-wingers—certainly not enough time to have developed even a lead in the case, much less any evidence!

This time around was no different.  From CNN “experts” suggesting the Boston Marathon bombing to be a right-wing plot, to Chris Matthews on MSNBC making a similar suggestion, to various reporters tweeting like-minded thoughts, conservatives were being bashed by liberals in the MSM before all of the physically injured had even reached the hospital!  If you are a conservative in America today, you are always twice injured by any such national tragedy.

So how do conservatives respond?  A recent trend I have noticed is that after such events, conservatives and conservative groups start posting certain types of memes on social media.  (A meme is a picture and/or phrase that is intended to quickly get a point across, and is shared repeatedly by large numbers of individuals.)  The most common memes circulated by conservatives after these events tend to point out that the vast majority of mass shootings in American history have been perpetrated by left-leaning individuals.  They will usually have one or two sentences to support the idea that the perpetrator was left-leaning.  But by its very nature, a meme does not ever make a complete case, nor does it ever intend to prove the point, it just demonstrates the point.  Posting and/or sharing such memes is done by conservatives as an act of defense against the second injury they suffer in virtually every such national tragedy.

The day after the Boston Marathon bombing, long after the MSM had all but ignored the Saudi national who was a person of interest, as they bashed right-wingers at a fever pitch, I posted one such meme on a social media site.  A liberal friend of mine did what liberals do whenever someone disagrees with them, he attacked.  He started off with a seemingly benign, sarcastic comment:  “This is helping.”  Knowing where he was coming from, I responded with another meme that is circulating, and added an additional comment:  “As George Orwell said, ‘The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.’ Using truth to combat disinformation always helps, no matter how much you hate it!”  Perhaps I could have been a bit less confrontational, but after the injuries of the previous day, and having my beliefs relentlessly attacked by the MSM, with that attack continuing on into this day, I wasn’t going to take any guff from someone who clearly didn’t think I had a right to defend my beliefs.  So, he responded by accusing me of “drifting into partisan BS.”  I asked him to show me what part of the meme was untrue, and asked him to back his position up.  He then pointed out that three of the six items on the meme did not make a complete case and/or prove the point, therefore, he claimed, those three points were not true.  He did not prove the points to be false, he merely showed that a complete case to prove the points was not contained within the meme.

To make a long story short, he was not able to demonstrate any part of the meme to be false, but he descended into foul language as he attempted to order me to remove my original posting, claiming that I had no right to post it on this of all days.  Eventually, he said, “I tried to reason with you, show that the OP was factually wrong and in bad taste. What I got was an escalation.”  Actually, by using sarcasm, insults, foul language, and disinformation he was really trying to attack me for defending my beliefs which were already under very public attack.  Yes, he got escalation, but about nine-tenths of the escalation was coming from him.

Keep this in mind, conservatives.  The left does not know how to reason.  They do not know what constitutes proof/disproof.  They will not listen to your side of the issue.  They only attack.  Whether they are attacking with guns (mass shootings), bombs (Saul Alinsky et al.), disinformation (MSM), other words (social media), or by any other means, they will always try to injure you, and if they can’t do that, they will at least insult you.  Whenever there is a criminal national tragedy, conservatives will always be twice injured, and if you try to defend yourselves against such injury, the left will add insult to your double injury.  Perhaps we should stop assuming a defensive position and mount a strong offense against the left!

As a Holy Week or Passover exercise, consider Intercultural Communications instructor Deandre Poole’s mandate that students write the name JESUS on a piece of paper, place it on the floor and stomp on it. Highly religious student Ryan Rotela refused, and told the instructor he “was deeply offended by what you told me to do” saying “if you were to stomp on the word Jesus, it says the word has no value.” Rotela also complained to Poole’s supervisor.

Subsequently, Rotela’s college (Florida Atlantic University, Davie campus) said this class exercise was “insensitive and unacceptable.” After this formal apology, FAU brought separate charges against Rotela and denied him access to his classes. 

With that background consider a legal question.

Do Deandre Poole and FAU have a fiduciary relationship and duty to protect students, including Rotela? Here’s why the question is important.

 “A fiduciary relationship creates a duty of good faith, honesty, trust, and confidence between dominant and subservient parties when the subservient party voluntarily surrenders to the mind and will of the dominant party because of age, expertise, or mental capacity. [T]he dominant party has a duty to … avoid abusing the power differential.”

A fiduciary duty may exist between Rotela and both Poole and FAU, the two dominant parties. FAU’s words of apology seemingly admit an environment lacking “openness, tolerance, and civility,” as advocated by the American Council on Education. If the relationship exists and Poole or FAU violated their consequent duty to students, then Rotela (and any others similarly maltreated) may have a lawful complaint.

Colorado legal cases include seven figure judgments when fiduciary duties are violated, so this isn’t just legal gobbledygook.

FAU may escape fiduciary duty if it persuasively disclaims a duty to provide an open, tolerant and civil educational environment. It may, perhaps, be able to claim successfully that taking students’ tuition and establishing mandates for exactly how their educations shall proceed do not create a fiduciary relationship. (Poole’s Intercultural Communications class was a 75% mandate for communications majors by my read of major requirements.)

Gospel accounts of Jesus’ final days list the legal proceedings he endured, before the Sanhedrin, Herod and Pontius Pilate. Analyzing the accounts and known legal requirements for the three, all violated their established rules. Both Jewish and Christian traditions describe the consequences of rulers behaving unjustly.

We cannot judge Rotela’s guilt or innocence regarding violating student conduct rules. In a spirit of Christian forbearance, we should hope both that Rotela behaved properly and that FAU is not penalizing Rotela for his lawful actions. Colorado’s leaders, both political and educational, should behave in good faith and honesty – admitting they owe a quasi-fiduciary duty to all Coloradans and all students.

The Democrat candidate running against incumbent Ray Scott for for the Colorado State House District 55 seat was caught in another lie on Saturday at a Grand Junction candidate’s forum.  The local 2nd Amendment Committee held a forum for all candidates running in Western Slope political races, primarily those in Mesa County. The forum was held on Saturday, October 13, and provided an opportunity for candidates running for state and county offices to talk about their positions on state and Western Slope issues.

In a bizarre turn, Dan Robinson, a liberal Democrat attorney who once referred to Republicans in Mesa County as “a Southern, white party,” attempted to appeal to the Conservatives who were present. When pressed about his campaign coffers, Robinson claimed that he has received no money from the Democrat Party in Mesa County.  A quick check of the Secretary of State’s campaign contribution “tracer” report for D55 candidate Dan Robinson shows that, to the contrary, he has received $6,100 from the Mesa County Democrat Party.

Dan Robinson is gaining a reputation as a serial liar among the politically astute in Mesa County. Just last month during his Club 20 debate with Ray Scott, Robinson said that he had never given pro bono legal help to illegal aliens. Robinson chose to lie about his history of aiding illegal aliens despite the fact that those activities had been documented and reported by ColoradoPeakPolitics prior to the Club 20 debate in Grand Junction.

Dan Robinson isn’t known just for his proclivity for lying about his own activities and those of his opponent. His attack-dog style and accusations against opponents in the absence of evidence to support those accusations, are earning him a reputation as a disreputable and repugnant human being.

Rush Limbaugh, in a commentary about Joe Biden’s weird behavior and blatant dishonesty during the Vice Presidential debate, said that “this is what Democrats do.” In the case of Dan Robinson it certainly appears that blatant dishonesty and sometimes bizarre and offensive behavior, is what Dan Robinson does.

Upon first looking into Democrat candidate Dan Robinson, his resume reads picture perfect.  However upon closer examination of this local ambulance chaser attorney, the picture begins to read of a man creating victims in society by playing the Special Interest card!  From his LaRaza loving to the Gay & Lesbian affair in the school system to free legal services for illegal aliens and the so called poor, Dan quickly shows his true colors.  These colors represent a man who thinks only through Big Government ideas can Social Justice be played out.  These ideas come at a huge cost to society through higher taxes and more racial divide then we have ever seen because Social Justice can only happen if you create victims.

One of Dan’s biggest victim’s are illegal aliens.  Dan offers (denies the allegation) pro bono legal services to these individuals and even tells them how to speak to police if and when they encounter them.  It’s no wonder Dan denied he does this in front of the voters at the Club 20 debates because it is a Felony to Harbor illegal aliens.  Another interesting note is that Dan actually convinced a group of his illegal alien clients to share their concerns at the Mesa County courthouse. Here is the exact writings from the 2011 Colorado Access to Justice Commissionreport made by local defense attorney and JD21 ATJ representative Leslie Castro:

“Dan Robinson, local attorney who does a lot of pro bono work with undocumented immigrants, convinced a handful of his clients to come to the COURTHOUSE to talk to the ATJ group about the problems they face. (What do I do if I get pulled over? Etc.) This meeting was followed up with a meeting with local law enforcement to discuss these issues.”

Dan wanted added to a School District business meeting regarding illegal aliens and remember voters you pay for these services!

MINUTES APPROVAL

August 22, 2006, Business Meeting Adopted

Dan Robinson asked the minutes be amended to reflect a key-point from the discussion regarding services for immigrant children, by adding the following statement: The Mesa County Health Department encourages and invites anyone, regardless of their immigration status, to have immunizations for their children at the Health Department

Dan’s support for La Raza became public information from this school board meeting.

“Leslie Kiesler acknowledged this conference as very worthwhile for students, and noted that Dan Robinson is highly supportive of LaRaza and the staff who sponsor this annual conference.”

Dan in his run for County Commissioner back in 2008 gave this statement on Gun Control.

Dan Robinson, a candidate for county commissioner, suggested that technology circumscribes our rights. “Plastic guns cannot be identified in metal detectors and should be controlled,” he said. Setting aside the fact that no such gun exists, we wonder if Robinson would extend his argument about technology to the First Amendment. Should we restrict freedom of the press because we now have electricity and the internet?

Dan’s recent endorsement from One Colorado another progressive Special Interest group representing the Gay & Lesbian agenda!

Here is Dan stumping for Obama in 2008! Clearly shows Dan is a typical progressive with no new ideas, just old retreads of class warfare and victim hood!

Dan thinks Obamacare is a good law and wants to capitalize on Federal funding for Medicaid. Also wants to revisit TABOR and severance tax rates!  Visit his answers here the League of Women Voters Q & A.

The evidence is crystal clear on why Dan is NOT the man for CO HD55.  Dan is another leftist progressive liberal that will do everything in their power to bankrupt not only our local economy and State but circumvent the Constitution for his quest of a Social Justice Socialism Utopia!