Last Week To Help Us and Our One Dollar Idea!

HUGE thanks to all the donors for pushing us to 70% funded. You guys are the best. We’re now within striking distance of our goal, and less $1,900 away from the 80% funded level where our project gets the green-light and we get to keep the funds we’ve raised!

Between the two real-world fundraising screenings of Pilgrim’s Progress that we’re doing over the next few days, a lot of we’ll easily be able to do that, and I really think we can make it all the way to our full $15,000 goal! So no matter what, our campaign is going to be a success.
.Unfortunately, the “follow” system is clunky and sending verification to incorrect email folders.

However, I’ve figured a pretty simple trick that completely circumvents this and actually makes it EASIER to follow our campaign: donating ONE dollar.

When you donate a dollar, you don’t need to verify your account or anything, you’re just automatically made a follower. And anyone can donate a dollar. So I’m going to be launching a big push to get people to donate just ONE dollar. We’re GOING to hit our goal and successfully fund our campaign. Now let’s see if we can’t get to 1,000+ followers as well!

If you know ANYONE who you could get to donate a dollar to a Christian film that doesn’t suck and is pro-gun, pro-family, and pro-liberty please reach out to them!

Here is the link to donate:



LIVESTREAM: The Need for Manly Pro-Father Films

My Husband and I did a livestream to discuss Some updates and answer questions on our upcoming movie! We also talk a bit about culture, family, guns, and faith. This was my first livestream EVER so have patience with the “likes” “umms” and incoherent sentences. We talk about “In The Shadow of The Valley”. We also talk faith, culture, family, and guns. We are reaching our last week of the fundraiser, so if you want to see this movie happen, Please donate soon! We thank you all for the support! .

Go to to learn more and donate to our campaign!


Failure to Take Initiative Leaves Women Wide Open To Predators.

Shanann Watts was telling a happy story on Facebook Live months before her murder. It was a brief explanation into how she and her husband met. She recalled she’d been at a rough point in her life when he reached out to her online after mutual friends suggested they meet. Despite her blowing him off more than once, he kept pursuing. Eventually they began dating and the rest is history.  Mere months after her video was posted, Shanann Watt’s husband of 8 years was charged with killing her and their two children. The same man she called “amazing” and referred to in the video as “the best thing to happen to her.”

It is one of the most common romantic tropes throughout history. A man finds a woman, (he usually doesn’t even know her at this point)…but anyway, he finds her “so desirable” that he pursues her despite initial objections. Until one day she realizes after he’s jumped  hurdles that he had been the man of her dreams all along!

“Play hard to get”

“Don’t let them know you’re interested”

“Never make the first move if you like someone”

“Stop looking. Sit back and one day the right man will come along and sweep you off your feet”

No. He won’t. 

This isn’t romantic,  In fact, why would anyone but a predator find a woman giving off zero romantic energy attractive?   Perhaps a few depressives, losers, and leaches can disregard a girl’s feelings and  continue to push despite rejection. But a stable desirable  “good catch” of a man wouldn’t waste time on someone who expresses disinterest, because hello! -A desirable guy is desirable! Meaning he has plenty of options and knows there are plenty of other women who’d be thrilled to go out with him (so why waste time on one who isnt?).   An inability (or unwillingness) to read social cues is a flaw stemming from a lack of awareness and empathy. It is no virtue or sign of courage. There is nothing to be gained from telling women the crucial life altering decision of who she spends the rest of her life, should be left up to “Whoever happens to approach you.”

Does society really think it’s good to teach young women to just sit around and hope by sheer “luck” her dream man will not only find her but select her? The most likely outcome  from such passivity is for a woman to either end up with no man at all or settling for the wrong one.  Thanks to this promotion of female passivity,  a woman is less likely to take initiative to select the man she wants – the one who sticks out from the herd  because he possesses virtues she admires.

Failing to select men, coupled with being taught to never take initiative upon identifying a great guy, can only result in more women interacting with a disproportionate number of predators; the kind of guys who hit on every girl. These are men who view women as interchangeable, see them as a commodity, and will try all the same dried up lines until (for whatever reason) they find a girl it works on.

It’s common sense that is becoming increasingly uncommon. Many women have suffered  through years of abuse. Others have lived their lives in loveless marriages, all because they weren’t taught to be an active participant in their own dating life.

Years of misery and trauma could be prevented by something as simple as a woman being willing to  start a conversation with the guy from church she has a crush on. After all, if a woman is busy dating great guys or already in a relationship with her dream man, she won’t even be available for the wrong guy to hit on.

These simple truths can prevent women not only from falling prey to a predator, but also from the tragic yet all too common possibility of  ending up with a life she wouldn’t have chosen.

Rule 1) NEVER date during a state of vulnerability. If you meet a man or get hit on by one during this time, remove yourself from the situation, and revisit the idea of dating once you are stable.

Whether it is a new move, a recent breakup, a family death, or a personal flaw you need to correct, it is imperative to deal with these issues prior to even thinking about dating. In Shanann’s case, she was dealing with a medical issue when her husband Chris made his move. This is not a coincidence. Predators can sense vulnerability, and they will go after a vulnerable target with everything they’ve got. Just from a personal standpoint,  I dealt with two predatory men during my dating years prior to marrying my husband, thankfully neither for that long, but even a few months with these people is enough to cause damage.. Compared to normal men, their shocking lack of empathy and disregard for the damage they inflict on others make them stick out like a sore thumb.   They remain unscathed while their exes (ie prey / victims) spend years in recovery and damage control mode.  Is it a coincidence BOTH these men happened to BOTH pursue me during times of extreme stress or trauma?

The first man (who I was initially uninterested in)  began to pursue me when I was living far away from family and friends. I didn’t know where I was moving next, I was in the middle of changing my career, facing homelessness from a housing shortage, my biological clock was ticking and almost no part of my life was stable.  The other predatory man I dated  began pursuing me shortly after 3 family deaths and not even a week after I ended an engagement!  DO NOT date during this time. You will be blind to red flags, you are more likely to excuse and more open to manipulation. If not for you, then do it for the fact that if this guy is really is your “dream man” he deserves to meet you when you are strong and can give him the best version of yourself.

Rule 2) As women WE are to be the selectors. Do not date a man you wouldn’t have chosen yourself. Only date a man if – given the power to choose the ideal mate – you’d still choose him. 

This is NOT suggesting a woman go up to a man and ask him on a date,. A woman should never be the primary one  initiating calls, texts, dates. The pursuit is something inherent in men. However, being the selector is inherent in us. It is uniquely female.

If you like a guy in your church, college math, or art class, whether it be a smile or a compliment,  do whatever it takes to very clearly let him know he won’t get rejected if he were to ask you out. Let’s say you are having a good conversation about art with someone you really like, you can very easily let him know you want him to ask you out by saying something  such as:  “That’s so cool you are into art too! We should hang out sometime, I’m dying to talk to someone about xyz art stuff, here’s my number!”

This isn’t saying a woman should be the one to set the actual date, ie (the one to set up a time/place/ specific day),  she merely needs to let a guy know that if he ever wanted to take her out on a date, she’d agree were he to ask her on one.  Once a guy is given affirmation  he will definitely ask you out soon after this interaction, he’ll call with a specific time and day to go out.  But the point is, when getting the exact guy you want is so simple, there is no reason for a woman to  ever deal with, let alone date men SHE did not/ would not personally select.  Most women aren’t going to be, and shouldn’t be the one leading the relationship. But a woman does have 100% say in what guys she gets into relationships with.

The women I see who are happily married, almost all tend to share a general commonality to their stories. That they expressed their interest to their spouse very early on in the dating process, and were very receptive.

3) You HAVE to have values. Do not even bother dating until you get them, because over time you will likely develop a worldview, deeply held beliefs, and a principle based perspective. If you start dating prior to realizing who you are, the values you develop later could end up being very incompatible with the person you are with and you’ll be screwed. Yes, you can just break up if you aren’t married, but you still will have wasted years of  each other’s time.  Also without values I don’t really see what you’d have to offer a man, beyond what anyone else could offer. This makes you very interchangeable within the context of a relationship.

Nothing a man says should be taken at face value (same goes for you). Upon realizing you’re very serious about something, a predator will say they are too. For example if you are very serious about your faith, he’ll suddenly mention he is a very devout christian. Really? Has he gone to church on Sunday for years? Did you meet him at a bible study that he was already going to before he knew you existed? Or is him being a “great christian guy” based only on things you’ve heard him say?  Because if that’s the case, you’ll find out once he’s got you trapped it was all b.s.

Be on guard for chameleons. If unaware of what to look for, your average person, given the choice,  is actually far more likely to go for a psycho than an actual good catch. Unlike a normal person, the psycho will agree with everything and appease  at every turn. Whereas the “good guy” is being his genuine self, disagreements and flaws and all.  Let’s say you are passionate about politics,  if a guy has worked on campaigns for 10 years and has a history of running a “libertarian blog” then he’s obviously not lying, when upon realizing you are a libertarian, he mentions he is as well.

It can go both ways. If a woman is a predator and a leach, and she’s trying to trap an outdoors man who loves backpacking, she may pretend to LOVE backpacking.  Despite there being no proof or history of such she’ll say things like: “I love hiking, no other joy like it! Backpacking is my favorite thing to do.” In comparison a genuine woman in his orbit will start to seem like a raw deal. A genuine person can’t compete with a girl who is actively pretending to have all his same passions to a T. Why mess with one who merely thinks his passion is fun, when another girl is claiming to love it as much as he does?

He will likely choose the well packaged train-wreck, and realize only later, once it is much too late that he would have been much better off had he chosen differently. Once the predatory woman has him trapped, he’ll find out she hates even going outside, and thinks backpacking sounds like torture. If you verify what someone says with past history, and believe only what you are shown, you can avoid these soulless life-suckers who believe and act however they need, to get what they want.  If you are actively taking initiative with admirable men who share your values,  you won’t be fooled or tempted when a phony comes along, pretending to be the real deal.  A dirty glass of water is only appealing to someone dying of thirst in a desert.



Help Us Make An Incredible Faith Based Film!

The Plot: Decades after the previous pastor committed a horrific crime, Mark Everest takes on the unenviable task of rebuilding a disgraced church. But when the town’s dark history resurfaces and evil forces threaten his family, Mark finds himself unraveling a conspiracy wilder than anything he ever imagined.

The Campaign: We just launched our crowdfunding video for the genre-bending thriller “In the Shadow of the Valley!” If you like what you see, head on over to our fundraising page at to learn more, donate, and follow our campaign!

We NEED to get at least 1,000 followers to qualify for the next level of the Hometown Heroes Contest that offers up to $50,000 in additional funding, So even if you can’t donate, just “following” the campaign will help us immensely! Go to and click the “follow” button on the site, you’ll then be prompted to register, the whole thing takes only a few seconds!




David West and Brian Josephson Gun Control Debate: Moderated By Talk Radio’s Bill Meyer

May 9th following the national interest in the topic of gun control, talk radio host Bill Meyer moderated a debate between March for Our Lives Coordinator and  presidential honor award recipient Brian Josephson, and Oregon filmmaker, and gun rights activist, David Kirk West (my husband). Brian was recently recognized as one of the top 160 students in the nation and David West is a christian, libertarian filmmaker and  the creator of many films advocating libertarianism and gun rights. He is also known for his confrontation with current national security adviser John Bolton on Fox’s John Stossell’s show and his ghost gun video breaking down the arguments of anti-gun California Senator Kevin De Leon.

Below is the live link of the debate, a full version with the audio of the audience questions will be up shortly and I will post it once it becomes available. In the meantime, here is the live link, we had about 4 thousand  folks watching online live as it happened last night, in addition to those in attendance.

Alex Jones, This Is What You Get For Supporting A Deranged Lunatic

Alex Jones is ASTONISHED that Trump betrayed the American people by attacking Syria on Friday, putting us at risk for world war 3.  How on earth could you be surprised by this?  Trump has acted like a deranged lunatic since day one, has surrounded himself with warmongers since day one, cheated on every wife he ever had, spent his life bullying anyone he could, openly bragged about “getting away” with countless business scams, and all this has been known SINCE DAY ONE.

Are you really that dense you are surprised this low life degenerate has no integrity? Wow, the fact people saw him as anything but the epitome of evil just goes to show how terrible and unchristian American’s values are. What were you expecting? Trump has supported an oppressive police state since day one, and rose to prominence by vilifying non violent immigrants and refugees fleeing certain death. You really all of a sudden expected him to have compassion for women and children in the middle east? HA!

Below is a clip of Alex Jones SOBBING after realizing Trump has been a con artist this entire time (DUH ALEX). And I hope you DO feel guilty. You played a crucial part in electing this monster, now millions of lives will be damaged because of your blind allegiance to a moral degenerate.

Not “A Few Bad Apples” America’s Corrupt Police

An argument I often hear as a way to dismiss valid concerns regarding police brutality  is that  “You cannot accuse all cops of being ‘bad cops’ simply because of a few ‘bad apples.'” This is not only dismissive, but false.  Sure, there are those exceptionally heinous instances of abuse that garner national attention. We may reference those cases as examples when trying to explain to someone the extreme negative consequences of an ever growing police state. But the actions of these rotten apples would not be possible were it not for the inherently immoral systematic structures and duties adhered by and agreed upon by every police officer by virtue of his job description.  We are right to blame the whole. Not because of a few bad apples, but because we are discussing a pile of rotten apples.  Yes, one could pick up an individual apple, cut around the rot and find some good parts to eat, maybe one could even find an apple consisting of mostly good parts, but none void of rot. None of these apples are good. 

To illustrate why the idea of a “good cop” is a logical impossibility, let’s look to another example of public servants who put their life on the line: firefighters. Firefighters are well trained, have access to equipment and resources that are incredibly effective at putting out fires (equipment that your average person would not have access to on their own). They’re brave – literally risking their lives to rush into a burning building everyone else is fleeing from. And, they respect their own safety. Doing what they can to wear flame retardant gear, protect their eyes with goggles, and avoid suffocating to death while trying to save others. Firefighters are good. While an immoral firefighter may exist, there is nothing inherently immoral about the job description, and a man doesn’t have to do anything immoral in order to become, or in order to stay a firefighter. As a result, who on earth has an issue with firefighters? Basically no one.  Are there protests in the streets vilifying those darned firefighters for having the gall to put out fires, save lives, and do their job? Likewise, do we see protests against the EMTs who go out each day and save lives? No, we don’t. 

Therefore basic logic tells us, if the only thing police did was save people from rapists, thieves, murderers, and other predators walking the streets, there wouldn’t be a problem. It shows willful ignorance and extremely limited reasoning to assume MILLIONS upon millions of people, and entire movements have formed because they hate the police for solving crimes, saving lives, and protecting society from rapists, murderers, and thieves. 

Police protecting us from predators is the one good thing they actually do. If that were all they did, police would be revered, respected, and loved. Saving us from predators and violence. should be the singular purpose and function of an officer, just as putting out fires is the singular dominant function of a firefighter.  Imagine if instead of coming to the rescue when called for help, firefighters instead patrolled towns with the purpose of preventing potential fires and eliminating fire hazards. Imagine they were incentivized and paid to ticket those in violation. Imagine if society outlawed individual use of fire because of its “potential to damage”? Imagine if firefighters randomly searched people on the streets looking for lighters and matches and either ticketed those in violation or caged them for years. Imagine if firefighters broke into homes and broke up parties with contraband such as candles on a birthday cake. Imagine how much harder it would make it to report a fire if one were to ever get out of control? Yes, the firefighters would put out the fire, but you or a member of your family would be jailed because the candle responsible for the fire, was illegal to own in the first place.    If firefighters spent their days harassing and fining every-day citizens for minor violations, and were responsible for caging millions of people, sometimes for years of their lives, – It wouldn’t matter how many fires they put out,  people would start to have a problem with firefighters. 

Yet patrolling, ticketing, confiscating substances, and property, looking for and creating trouble, is 80 percent of your AVERAGE police officer’s day to day functions

The nationwide outrage against America’s police has nothing to do with the fact they save lives and keep predators off the streets. It is not a sign someone is “morally degenerate” or in support of violence against the innocent merely because they take issue with the destruction and injustice caused by police. It would be impossible for a principled, empathetic, and morally consistent individual to not have a problem with them. Repeatedly defending police any time a blatant case of police brutality is brought into the national spotlight, proves Americans have a greater value for power and established institutions, than they do justice, morality and human life. 

Even if the job description itself were not immoral, good, well intended officers are not the norm, they are the exception. The argument that bad behavior and corruption are rare, and moral brave officers are the norm doesn’t stack up to reality. In fact officers who truly desire to protect and serve their community are the most likely to be singled out, harassed, and punished by fellow officers. The more respect an officer has for the community he “protects”, the more vulnerable he is to abuse from fellow officers.  

For instance Officer Cariol Horne of Buffalo, New York  was on a call with Officer Gregory Kwitakowski  when he started strangling a suspect who was already subdued, handcuffed and posed no threat.  Horne claims when she entered the home, the suspect, Neal Mack,  had already been handcuffed by Kwiatkowski.

‘He was handcuffed in the front and he was sideways and being punched in the face by Gregory Kwiatkowski,’ she told WKBW.

‘Gregory Kwiatkowski turned Neal Mack around and started choking him. So then I’m like, “Greg! You’re choking him,” because I thought whatever happened in the house he was still upset about so when he didn’t stop choking him I just grabbed his arm from around Neal Mack’s neck.

Horne simply and rightly attempted to stop the officer from choking Mack to death, by pulling his arm away from Neal Mack’s neck.  In response, Kwiatkowski then punched Horne in the face, breaking the bridge of her nose. After the incident, despite 19 years on the force, she was fired and charged with obstruction.  Horne was accused of  “putting another officer’s life in danger” and trying to “obstruct justice.”   Meanwhile, Kwiatkowski suffered no consequences for punching Horne in the face, or for nearly choking a man to death.

Let it sink in that the expectation was for Horne to sit back and cheer on her fellow officer as he choked a man to death..The officer who actively tried to kill someone and punched Horne in the face for trying to stop him, was commended for doing his job. Nothing about this is a “few bad apples.”  

Another officer Stephen Madder of West Virginia, was fired after opting to de-escalate a suicidal man instead of immediately shooting and killing him.  The police were called when those who cared about a distraught Ronald Williams wrongfully believed the police would protect Williams from hurting himself.  Stephen Madder was the first to arrive and had previously served in Afghanistan. He used his military training to determine Williams was not a threat to anyone but himself.

Just as Madder was getting Williams to open up and talk, two fellow officers came charging in behind Madder and immediately shot and killed Williams upon seeing he had a gun. Stephen Madder was proven right in his assessment that Williams was not a threat, as the gun he was holding, was unloaded. Afterward, a state investigation found the officer’s actions were justified, and the department fired Madder because of “failure to meet probationary standards of an officer” and “apparent difficulties in critical incident reasoning.”

In the world of police, using critical incident reasoning to correctly assess a non-threat, de-escalate a situation, and prevent a suicide is morally inferior to simply killing a depressed person. We are told the reason cops deserve respect is because they put themselves in harm’s way to protect and serve others. Yet here we see protocol is to put officer safety over everyone and everything else. That to kill someone because they pose a  0.01% threat to your safety, is preferable to putting yourself in even the slightest danger. Yet nearly all peaceful resolutions require risk on the part of officers. How could someone protect those in peril unless risk is present?  

To use a recent event for example. Five year old children aren’t afraid of a man holding a cellphone. Yet we’re expected to believe it is reasonable for adult officers responding to a routine, benign call about a broken car window to be terrified for their life by the sight of a black man minding his own business standing in his backyard holding his cellphone. Despite no evidence of being in an even remotely dangerous situation, we are expected to believe  it is reasonable to shoot a man 20 times until dead, based on the pathologically irrational and paranoid belief the cellphone in his hand *could be* a gun. Rather than put themselves in one spec of risk to take a second look, we are expected to believe it is reasonable for an officer to go ahead and just shoot everyone dead on the off chance their paranoia is right.

How is this different than a delusional homeless man stabbing someone to death, because he was convinced the guy standing at the crosswalk must have a bomb inside his suspicious looking headphones? He believes his only choice is to stab this guy to death or get blown up.

Again, a 5 year old wouldn’t be afraid of a dog standing next to their owner when they answer the front door. Yet we are expected to believe it is reasonable for officers to shoot and kill dogs, sometimes as small as Chihuahuas citing fear for their life as the justification? The off chance a dog might bite or jump up to say hi, has a grown man in “fear for his life” and these are the men we are told to call brave?

This is why even in situations such as the Parkland High school shooting in Florida, where we are depending on the police for protection, they fail us. How can you expect bravery in times of actual terror from men trained to be cowards in fear of their own shadow?

At best, an officer is a man who is able to regularly detach himself from feeling empathy for others. Be it arresting a clearly nonviolent criminal in need of therapy not a stay in prison, or writing someone a ticket for a minor traffic violation. Because he did not write the laws he enforces, or design the police training himself, he feels no guilt or sense of responsibility when following protocol or enforcing a law becomes immoral. This is what the Nazis said when soldiers were asked why they committed such atrocities. “I was just following orders.”

These men are guided more by enforcing established law than justice or morality. In certain region states, or cities, individual police forces or individual officers can come close to what one would call a good cop, as many would risk their lives to help those in their community. In smaller towns and communities, the officers are more likely to know, and therefore care and be invested in those who call for help. While the whole is not good, individual roles within a police force could be good, such as a homicide detective, whose focus is to find murderers.  Those with curiosity who question everything, would make the best detectives, yet a naturally curious individual who questions everything is probably the least likely type of person to be attracted to work in law enforcement. Most would only consider working as a detective if they could do so independent of the police. Private investigators are often far more competent in helping families with investigations. The lack of interest police investigators have in the cases assigned to them can be staggering. People are locked away for years of their life, executed, and die in prison because investigators failed to follow a lead, or examine evidence.

Rather than help, police officers are often attracted to their job because they desire to dominate others, be it through coercion, physical violence, or force. How can we expect a person with so little empathy,  they’d cage a man for 40 years because he owned an illegal plant to suddenly have such an overwhelming value for others that he would die for them?  A cop cannot be good. One could be a good person who just so happens to be a police officer. In theory an officer in a department lax enough for him to flat out refuse to arrest nonviolent offenders or enforce destructive laws could do a ton of good work for as long as he could get away with it. But as it stands, no man who swears an oath to enforce the unjust laws of the state can be considered a good apple.  









Glenn Beck, Redeem Yourself, KEEP Tomi’s Facebook!

Keep the facebook Glenn.

I would like to give a public “thank you”  directly to Glenn Beck

Despite what many people are telling you, you did the right thing in firing Tomi Lahren. You did NOT commit professional suicide, (if a lying  media whore is the only thing holding your network together, then it was already dead, and you are better off with a network that dies with dignity)

You did not ban someone for “having a different opinion”  You did not “screw her over” or wrongfully abandon someone. You took the first step toward getting any SEMBLANCE of credibility back to THE BLAZE and your own character. You made room to bring on someone principled, interesting, and thoughtful in place of cheap likes and regurgitated talking points.

You made way for more attention to be placed on the thoughtful principled contributors you already have like Matt Walsh. He is one of several who actually deserves the respect and attention he receives. As do other  contributors who “contribute” to the world by  providing a new perspective, thoughtful insight, and careful intelligent analysis of complex issues.

While the rest of the media is claiming you fired her for “having a different opinion” I actually believe you when you say, that wasn’t the reason.  And while there is no way you will probably ever publicly say this, I have a feeling you did this for the RIGHT reason. You fired her because she is a bad person.

And make no mistake, Tomi Lahren is a bad person.

You were wrong to hire her in the first place , you were weak to keep her on for as long as you did,  you did the first step to make things right when you fired her, and publicly corrected her. You need to follow through with making this right, by not further allowing her to use the platform you wrongfully gave her to spread mis-information, false narratives, and ignorance. You need to keep ownership of her facebook, change the name to something or someone else, and use it to undo the negativity you allowed to proliferate. Make this right Glenn. The facebook fans do not contractually belong to her. Do not give them to her. Use the platform to further the spread of truth, justice, and solid values. As such a voice is desperately needed amidst our current sea of misinformation and societal degeneration. If Tomi wants to go on spewing her ignorant garbage, she can do so by building a platform on her own. But at least  you can walk away knowing you weren’t the one who handed her the platform on a silver platter.

I believe you when you say, it’s not because she disagrees with you, because I’ve seen many of those hired by you, say things you disagree with, and it has never been a problem. Anyone who takes a closer look at this situation will see the same thing. And I know because, speaking for myself,  I do not despise her because of her political opinions either. I couldn’t possibly. At least 80% of my friends and family would probably agree with just about every one of her “political views”

While I myself,  am a conservative leaning libertarian and christian, most of my family and childhood friends would not consider themselves as fundamentally religious as I am. Most of them ascribe to virtually all the same Republican beliefs as Tomi, yet I love my family and friends to death. I meet people all the time who would agree with  her politically, and  I find those people delightful in many ways.

Because you are right Glenn,  this isn’t about a difference of opinion. This is about someone being exalted, being lifted up by our society, while shamelessly embodying the most destructive and vile of human characteristics.

She is, as you pointed out, deliberately intellectually dishonest.  She will speak to whatever she thinks will generate the most attention and cult following, and do so with no regard or care to the damage and destruction left in her wake. Because in the end, its all about her, because as we’ve established… she is a very bad person. And a very pathetic and transparent bad person at that.

Her attacks on feminism, a subject one could write multiple valid arguments against, just came off as shallow attempts to pander toward conservative guys. It served no purpose beyond positioning herself as one of the few the hot girls who “gets it”

Her segment on millennials came off as an attention grab from someone who recently saw several videos regurgitating the same four “Millennials are the Worst” talking points going viral, and decided to make one of her own to get in on the attention. Why did it come off that way? Because she was repeating the exact same talking points we’ve all heard a million times, adding nothing new to the conversation. Nothing that came out of her mouth served a purpose other than to get old people to tell her how “wise beyond her years” she is.

In one of her more egregious rants, she attacked Jessie Williams after he used his platform at the BET awards to shed light on flaws within our  justice system referencing specific instances of injustice and police brutality – A teen walking down the street after getting skittles,  a young boy playing in a park, and a man standing on a sidewalk, all of whom were murdered. Their family’s pain  was only magnified by the injustice as they watched  the men who murdered their loved ones walk free –  no justice, no consequences. Nothing.

Instead of having any compassion for grieving families and murder victims, she used a man giving voice to their pain, as a  self serving opportunity to  play on the ignorance, and bias of her audience. She compared murder victims, their grieving families, and activists for justice, to the KKK. She painted the murderers as heroes, and the victims as violent thugs. She intentionally ignored the fact Jesse Williams referenced a 12 year old boy who was murdered while playing in a park, (because innocent victims didn’t fit her narrative.) So instead, she implied anyone who has ever been shot or killed by police, from children to innocent bystanders, was a thug who had it coming! What was the point of saying something so disgusting?  Just to “stir things up?”  Just so all the racists and law enforcement worshipers could tell her how “brave she was”?  All to fulfill some sick  grandiose fantasy she plays out daily in her head, where saying the most despicable things imaginable, somehow makes her  “a voice crying out in the wilderness”

However, none of her idiotic rants came as a surprise to you, Glenn Beck. Let’s not forget Tomi first came into the public arena because of a “brave” video in which she stated what all of us already believed to be true, but were merely “too afraid to say out loud”  (We aren’t as brave as she is you know)

The video was a viral rant in which, she reasoned America must  light up and bomb the entire middle east.  She bravely explained how indiscriminately murdering millions upon millions of innocent men, women, and children,  was clearly the only reasonable and righteous response to four marines who were randomly murdered in Tennessee by one crazy person. Duh!

Remember? The inbreds,  military worshipers,, and xenophobes were the only ones wise enough to see her for the real life, brave, truth speaking, joan of arc she was!

Remember? ….All the moral, intelligent, reasonable people condemning the retarded blonde girl for promoting genocide were called “cowards, too conditioned by PC culture to admit life’s hard truths”  Then these two groups fought each other in the comment section every time her video was posted and the result was a viral sensation. Remember that? …. I do.

This is where you – Glenn Beck – need to realize you have a wrong you still need to make right.  You hired this woman after that rant. You knew she was dumb, you knew she was illogical, you knew she played on emotions, and bias, and fear, and everything else that destroys the very fabric of society. You knew she bragged about not being a reader, you knew her content was not based on principle or sound moral philosophy.

You hired her fully knowing she was hired straight out of college by the network you found her on. You knew she was their desperate and transparent attempt to “be sexy and appeal to young folks” by having a 20-something repeat the talking points of geriatric patients. You knew all this, and you still wanted her on The Blaze.

You found her because a network randomly decided to give a platform to the next reasonably attractive young girl to walk through the door, and that girl happened to be Tomi Lahren. The only qualification or character trait that mattered was the ability to deliver lines. Her only function was to be the new spokesperson for every elderly white man who missed the good old days of bombing foreigners, bankrupting future generations, blindly worshiping government authority, and oppressing black people.

The network  didn’t care if she embodied  moral character or personal responsibility, values a free society can not possibly thrive without.   It didn’t matter to them the substance of who that person was. Because they knew as long as they had a hot female package to give their message, their audience wouldn’t really care about anything else.

It is the same technique used by FOX news when they bring their token black commentators in to agree with everything:  “See! Here’s a black man who agrees black people are definitely the only thing to blame for any problem a black person ever faces! We were right all along! – Clearly!”

When they hired a then unknown Tomi Lahren, the network knew the wrapping was all that mattered, and they were right.  They knew the new package with the old message would generate a ton of attention and they were correct.  And you Glenn Beck, knew the only value she could possibly bring to The Blaze was an ability to generate views through deliberate mis-information, exaggeration, pandering to target demographics, and pointing out correlations that don’t exist.

For some reason this didn’t matter to you. For some reason you felt a network that creates false narratives, promotes injustice, breeds hatred, and exalts murder was better than no network at all.

And I will give you a bit of credit, when I say I think you came to regret what you did, and that you came to regret what you did for the right reasons.

You came to realize fame and attention don’t really matter that much, unless you actually believe in the message being spread. A lie just isn’t as satisfying, because no matter how much you gain from it,  it isn’t real.

I think you saw our country elect a man who was greedy, self interested, arrogant, mean, and destructive. I think it bothered you our nation exalted a man to the highest office who at his core is  a man you wouldn’t want your kids being friends with,  a man you’d never want your daughter to date.  A man of weak moral character.  A man who said whatever he needed to in order to get where and what he wanted. A man who is a coward. A man who mocks and ridicules easy targets, objectifies women, and vilifies the most vulnerable and powerless in society. The very people whose human dignity and human rights he should be defending.  Beyond all his political beliefs, Trump is just a bad person. A mean person, someone I don’t trust and who shouldn’t be trusted. I think you also felt he was not good for our country. I think you hated that millions of self labeled Christians, conservatives, and evangelicals fell for his obvious and blatant pandering. They justified over and over and over his big government policies, his immoral behavior, and damaging rhetoric.

Building a wall was more important than teaching our children the value of taking a principled stance. Building a wall was more important than the eternal damage caused by hailing Trump as a good representation for the values of Christian Americans. The charismatic packaging was so good. And he played on their fears and unspoken biases, and it mattered little that the man had  never cracked a bible in his life or that he embodied so much of everything Christ stood against. He just had to play on their fear of Hillary, and liberals, and Mexicans, long enough for everyone to forget the values they claimed to be willing to die for!

All these people were falling for a guy who was clearly just saying “whatever” to reach an end goal.  And it bothered you. I think you felt guilty, because you knew you were guilty of the same thing.

How could you condemn America for exalting a bad person to a high position of influence when they were most afraid? You are the same man who brought on a dumb woman, a mean woman,  who picks on easy targets, and says whatever she needs to get what she wants. You did so because your network was failing and suddenly the values and mission you  started with didn’t seem as important as keeping your network afloat.  You chose to bring someone on  who would damage the credibility of the very message your network was initially founded to spread.  And you came to realize with Tomi, just as America will realize with Trump, that the compromise wasn’t worth it.

You saw the same moral failings that allowed a woman to promote genocide against nations for no reason, also made her difficult to work with. The same cowardice that allowed her to vilify those most vulnerable and voiceless, allowed her to callously demean work colleagues. A woman whose shtick was levying cheap classless personal attacks on political figures, did the same to other members of The Blaze staff –  ones you actually liked.  Unlike Sean Hannity, or you, or Ann Coulter, or Matt Walsh or a countless number of other political pundits, Tomi Lahren reminds me mostly of Bill O’Reilly.

Why? Because he’s just a bad person. The same arrogance and hatred that allows him to push false narratives in such a ruthless and intentionally misleading way. Is what makes him verbally abusive toward his own family, it’s what allowed him to step on whoever he wanted just because he could. Its why his own children testified that over the course of a decade, they have almost never seen their own father. (this is the same man who blames the “absent black fathers” for all society’s ills by the way). It’s why his wife left him, its why he repeatedly stalked, harassed, and sexually assaulted women he worked with on set. Then vilified and smeared them if they dared to speak up or seek justice. In short, Bill O’ Reilly is an awful person.  In every way, and in all aspects of life. He does not deserve the platform he has and I am sure the people he has left behind in his path of destruction – those who know just how pathetic, and disgusting, and demented he is, are only further victimized by having to see his face everyday being held up as the main news guy on Fox news.

Likewise, I can not picture Tomi Lahren being a person anyone would enjoy spending significant time with.

She is the mean girl at school who bullies your daughter to make herself look cool.

She is your wife’s nasty work colleague who berates her daily to make herself feel more “powerful” – The person you wish would just leave your wife alone, as you kiss your wife goodbye in the morning and remind her to “just ignore it”

She is the best friend who sleeps with your boyfriend, because the validation that “she could have your man if she wanted him” is more valuable to her than loyalty, trust, or friendship.

You see Glenn Beck, you were correct when you said, the lack of personal responsibility and selfishness that would allow a person to end their unborn child’s life out of convenience, is no different than the lack of personal responsibility and selfishness that tells a person it is okay to steal from another person instead of work.

It is a fundamental understanding of action, consequence, human worth, justice, and responsibility,  – values no free society can survive or thrive without.  There is no separation between social values and economic values. Just as there is no separation between the moral character of the individual and a society’s ability to enjoy and preserve their own liberty.

Likewise, the mistreatment toward others, and disingenuous nature a TV host uses in order to fit everything into their own self promoting narrative, will be the same mean, selfish, arrogant nature they approach day to day life with.  You fired Tomi Lahren because she is a low rent woman, who is mean, selfish, and void of compassion and understanding. You fired her because she is a bad person. We have enough bad people being exalted in the world in 2017. You made a mistake, you hired her. Now do the right thing, and take the first steps toward using your powerful platform for good. Be part, even if it’s a small part, in making things a little more right in the world.

And thank you again Glenn Beck, for finally doing the right thing. I know she did bring in ratings, and your network likely did take a hit, and you are being painted as a tyrant who banishes anyone who disagrees with him. But someone willing to do the right thing, regardless of what people say or where the chips fall,  is what we need MORE of, not less of, in this world.