If I hadn't been watching this for the last year, I wouldn't have believed this sort of infantile behaviour exists.

I have always believed that, because of living in the United States, I have a right to free speech, even as a woman. This despite knowing that women were not included as a class with rights in the original constitution, only white men of property, and despite knowing that a lot of things that women are now able to freely do only became law within the last 50 years (such as being able to serve on a jury or get a credit card in your own name). My position has always been that others do not have to agree with me, others do not have to read what I say, but I can speak my mind. That includes, in these United States, calling attention to what elected officials,  who have control over our tax money, say or do, and includes satirical political cartoons. No doubt there are those who egos are punctured, because they imagine themselves above any inspection, but that's not how our system works and it only looks like annoyance and fear from those who don't want a spotlight shone on them and childishly fight back.

I've seen deliberate attempts to suppress my speech by appealing to my husband to stop me, as if he should be able to *admonish* me not to speak my mind, pre-approve anything I say, as if I am not a full citizen in my own right. This is NOT completely a suppression of female speech issue, however, because one of the biggest whiners about me does not stop his wife from posting on social media without his pre-knowledge and permission. So if it's not entirely a "You're a Woman, You Need to Shut up and You Need to Do What Your Husband Says" as a mysogynistic and sexist issue what is it? 

It is a variation of a power game, called Shunning, which is being played by some in the Glen Rose community, most notably those involved with Somervell County's Glen Rose Medical Center. Essentially, the game requires that all, including elected officials, fit in with the ideas promulgated only by a few who have imagined power in their own minds (even when it is former power from positions they no longer have), and if they don't, those people will be harrassed, shunned, receive threat letters or otherwise be marked for intimidation tactics. The tactics include 

Filing a specious lawsuit against a legally elected person and complaining that it's because he ran on an agenda that spelled out his positions. AND YET GOT ELECTED ANYWAY, boo-hoo.  (Because, presumably, it would be better to pull marbles with names on them out of a jar rather than have citizens actually participate in an election to vote for who they want)  

Publicly saying that people that have an opinion different than one's own, which people knew when they elected him, should believe that is grounds to be sued, as well as issuing a warning to those that also might run on platform not approved by One Man, and without getting with the program. 

Orchestrate a group of people to attend a meeting, based on lies, and harrass elected officials, including unsavory, bigoted, and  hateful statements from supposedly religious people, without insisting on a level of respect.  

Harass people from the dais, ie elected officials harrassing other elected officials without a speck of decorum,  but whine if anyone calls it out for what it is 

Carry a slanderous threat letter to the son of one's husband, without telling the father, in order to try to suppress the free speech of the son. 

Call the cops, as the former county attorney did,  to sic them on someone who writes an opinion letter to the editor of a newspaper. 

It's interesting to me how many people are supportive behind the scenes, and do not agree with the above vile tactics. And yet some are reluctant to speak up publicly and take sides. And why should they? If a person has a business here locally,could mean that those that favor the above unethical and ugly tactics might deliberately work to boycott them. ( I know for a fact about 2 such attempts in the recent past; who wants to lose business that puts food on the plate for their families?) When the former county attorney who is kin to a lot of people in this county warns off others who may run for office with a different opinion than his, that they risk being sued, will the person who doesn't agree with him want to speak up? Or will it rather be the sycophants who, besides being in agreement, will be the only ones to run as the non-sycophants see the harrasing behavior and decide it's not for them. I, for one, have no problem for saying what I believe this is- small minded tactics by those who pretend they can do anything with taxpayer money without inspection or criticism. Might fly with some but not with me. 

I believe the shunning game is also an attempt at territorial power. Why? Because I have been witness to some who believe that, because of living here for a very long time, including possibly having ancestors from the Republican of Texas days, that makes them not only better but gatekeepers to who should even live in Somervell County. If you are a newbie in that scenario, you might pass as long as you publicly agree with the party line as espoused by those territorialists. Otherwise, even though you live in America, where presumably people can come and go as they please and, except in bigoted or racist situations, live where they can afford, if you don't agree with these self-appointed guardians of the community, you should just leave. It's laughably absurd and should be dismissed as the province of the ridiculous  when heard. 

Shunning isn't a recent development, rather probably well-honed from being used as a favorite tool to control people in a community. I've heard several stories from people who have lived here all their lives and have been shunned for various reasons, as well as from those here more recently that also came under the wrath of deviating from some *approved* way to be. If something childish likes this actually works on others, then those who can't seem to grow up and be adults treating others as having the ability to have an opinon as well will continue to be infantile. 

What's most disturbing to me is to watch those who tout their religiousity as christians, including their ego-stroking positions of power within given churches, while either doing or allowing some highly non-christian ideas to proliferate. I don't attend church and have no desire to, but if I did, it definitely wouldn't be the mega church, Stonewater Baptist, that exists around here, as it seems to attract some of the worst dregs of hypocritical men and women. 

If the idea of shunning is to make people get in line, first there has to be consensus that the people to get in line with are worthy of that effort. To me, they are not. I believe in decorum and respect at government meetings. I believe in the principles of free speech. I believe that if I don't agree with someone else, it's nonetheless still his or her right to voice that opinion. I believe a person writing a letter to the editor of the newspaper shouldn't be attacked using the police department simply because the public official (Ron Hankins)  being criticized has a thin skin. 

I have no issue with whether people want to read my blog site and the opinions of others on it. I am unabashedly socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. I definitely know that there are some, for example, who are completely against marriage by same sex couples and are unhappy about the recent SCOTUS decision. I consider people who want to impose their own religious standards, which 50 years ago included being against mixed race marriages, to be bigots.If those people don't want to read here or purposely avoid this site, it's certainly no skin off my nose.  In other words, if shunning is designed to try to make people "get with the program" and join others in their contempt for inclusive American principles, it doesn't work except for those who want desperately, for whatever reason, to be part of that crowd. I don't, I know plenty of people that live here in Somervell County who share a significant part of my views, and, even if they don't want to publicly talk about their views openly, it's abundantly clear that Glen Rose is not comprised simply of robotic conformists to only one point of view. So, those that attempt to do this make themselves, once again, look small and foolish.

I love America the way I love my family — I was born into it. And there's no escape out of it. But no definition of family that I've ever encountered or dealt with involves never having cross words with people, never having debate , never speaking directly. On the contrary, that's the very definition in my house, and the house that I grew up in, of what family is.

And that includes the *family* of those that I do like and appreciate here, and vice versa.