Total Pageviews

Thursday, May 17, 2018

Mueller Looking for the Exit


This whole charade has just about played itself out.

The leaks, the guessing games, the subpoenas, the depositions, the indictments and the rampant speculation is nearing it's end for special council Robert Mueller.

It's been one whole year and he's still got nothing.

The admission that Mr. Mueller cannot indict a sitting president is not a revelation. The revelation is that he said it at all. His purpose as a special council is finally rendered moot as the walls have already begun to close in.

What Mueller needs now is a graceful exit. 

Mueller's angle was probably never to indict the president in the first place. His job was to just hang out there as a major distraction to either slow or, by some investigative miracle, find something substantial on presidential candidate Trump.

But that wasn't possible was it since Donald Trump's campaign had been under FBI surveillance the whole time, his phone's tapped and an FBI mole planted in his campaign. The Anti-Trump Deep State already knew there was nothing going on with the Russians or they would have sprung that trap prior to the election.

No, no, they knew right from the beginning that they had nothing because their people on the inside and outside told them already so Mueller's job was to just hang out there and disrupt the Trump presidency and try to slow his agenda.

But now that is unraveling faster than Curley Q. Link in a Mummy costume.

And it's all thanks to the Russians!

So the Russian groups Mueller was granted indictments for have shown up in court with lawyers wanting to see what he's got for evidence and SURPRISE, Mueller is not ready!

How can this be?

How did he get an indictment in the first place? You have to show some kind of evidence to have a court of law issue an indictment, yes? Well where did it go? He had to have told the court that he had a case against these people, that he had evidence to prove that they had done something illegal, right?

So when the accused show up in court, Mr. Mueller's team is now "not ready".

Well isn't that just DANDY!?

This is actually a pretty big deal. This alone proves that the Mueller investigation was all a show.

Prior to trial there is a 'discovery" process where the Prosecutor, that would be Robert Mueller's office, would turn over the evidence that they have to the Defense so that they can prepare their case against it. This is the law in the United States. This evidence should already exist since the Prosecution would have had to present this evidence to the Judge to get the indictment issued in the first place.

So where is it and why could they not produce it at a court hearing?

Speculation has it that Mr. Mueller needed SOMETHING WITH RUSSIANS IN IT to keep the illusion alive that Russians were over running the U.S. election process in 2016 and because of this collusion by the Trump campaign with nefarious Russian oligarchs, poor Hillary lost the election.

So Mueller issues indictments for some Russian groups we've never heard of but he wasn't prepared for them to actually come back at him. This is hilarious in it's assumptive ineptitude.

Coming on the heels of this obvious embarrassment and with increasing calls for him to show what information he has gathered, Mr. Mueller seems to have decided to cut bait and declare he cannot prosecute President Trump. Can his declaration that he is ending his investigation not be far behind?

To issue an indictment means he would have to show his evidence which so far hasn't been working out too well. If he instead concludes his "investigation' and just issues in his final report that he "could have" indicted the President, there could only be a rebuttal from the White House and no trial to provide vindication. Mueller would get to keep his shadowy evidence in the shadows and the National Public Radio crowd screaming for blood the next two years while he heads out of town to go fishing.

In a real pond this time.

Friday, May 11, 2018

Confederate Statues Should Come Down


First of all, losers don't get statues in the United States. Nor should they. We've got plenty of winners who haven't ever gotten a statue so why did we put up these Confederate monuments? What did these guys ever win? Certainly not the war they fought in or the cause they fought it for.

There are Confederate monuments in 31 states and Washington DC. There were only 11 Southern states who seceded from the Union and fought in our War Between the States from 1860 to 1865.

What's up with that?

Then there is the timing. Although they were erected over a longer period of time, the majority of these statues went up during what is considered in U.S. history as the nadir of race relations; 1900 to 1920 a heightened period of backlash to Reconstruction in the Southern States.

The presidents at that time were Teddy Roosevelt (New York), William Howard Taft (Ohio) and that racist bastard, Woodrow Wilson (Virginia). It was Wilson who banned black people from working for the federal government, was a big fan of the Ku Klux Klan and set back race relations in this country decades. It was said that Jackie Robinson wasn't the first black man to play professional baseball but the first black man to come BACK to professional baseball. There were previously integrated professional baseball teams prior to the national banishment. Certainly another black eye in American history.

So it is an open secret that these monuments to the "Principles of the South" were only put up to remind newly free Black Americans fighting for equality in this nation that "Whitey still ruled da house!" plane and simple and this should not stand in these United States 153 years after the end of the Civil War.

For example, there is Robert E. Lee. This guy blew the war! Against Mr. Timid, Northern General George B. McClellan, who was reluctant to fight, General Lee built his reputation as a brilliant tactician. But he was wasteful of his limited resources and never tried to conserve them. He wasted his men in battle charges and then his ego finally got the better of him. He lost the war for the South at Gettysburg and drove a nail into its coffin by ordering the legendary Picket's Charge.

For this Robert E. Lee gets a statue? And not just one in his home town, he gets a lot of statues all over the place.

There are a few of these I have seen that literally dwarf the statue of George Washington in Boston's Public Garden which commemorates his Excellency's ride into the city to take command of the revolutionary forces there. And all he ever did was win the Revolutionary War and become the first President of the United States! Washington, in reality, was everything Lee was not. He was a winner.

It's time we stopped treating black people like they don't belong here and can't compete with the rest of the peoples of this nation. They have fought in all our wars and have longer lineage in this country than most of the people living here today. We should not expect less from them than anybody else and we certainly shouldn't be assisting them over others also. What we owe people in this country is a level playing field. The State can't make you equal. It's a mindset.

And as part of this mindset of equality, these Monuments to Racism should be done away with. They are a sham and we know it. The people trying to keep them also know it. That's not the point is it? "No group of Darkies is going to tell US to take these statues down!"

That's the point.

Yes, we still have a long way to go but this is an important step in the right direction. It's just another battle in a long war, like holding onto our founding liberties, they are never decisively won but fought for daily. This is something all people have in common.

But the momentum is growing and the way is clear. It will be hard for the defenders of these 700 insults across the nation to defend them.

Take them all down since after all,

they're Losers.

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Does Mexico Even Have a Government?


Just who do the people claiming to run the country actually deal with to get something done? Who do they order to do what? Just what does the president of Mexico do? What does Mexico's Congress of the Union actually legislate? How do they enforce the laws they pass? Do they even pass laws? What do these people in the tailored suits do all day besides standing around looking like they are in charge?

Since the future of a country can be found in its history, it is fitting I think, to take a quick look at the colorful political history of Mexico:

We begin with the overthrow of Emperor Montezuma and the brutal Aztec empire in 1520 by Hernan Cortez and his band of either the bravest adventurers to ever have walked this Earth or the greediest. Montezuma is executed by his own people who felt he had enabled Cortez.

After 304 years of indigenous suppression, exploitation and slavery, Spanish rule collapses in 1824, Mexico's first constitution is established and in 1828 the arguably first president of Mexico, Vincente Guerrero, is elected...kind of.

The next year Guerrero is overthrown in a coup by vice president Anastasio Bustamente who is then overthrown by forces loyal to Manuel Gomez Pedraza who was apparently overthrown earlier in 1828. After a series of bloody battles, Pedraza is again president, Bustamente goes into exile and Guerrero is executed.

General Antonia Lopez de Santa Anna takes over in 1833 and holds onto power off and on for the next 21 years.

After much turmoil, the tenacious Santa Anna is overthrown for the final time in 1854 and sent into exile, A new Constitution follows in 1857 and the civil War of Reform is waged to defend it. France then intervenes in 1861 to establish Maximilian I as King of Mexico.  

In 1867 France abandons the unfortunate Maximilian and he is executed. Anti-Maximilian revolutionary Benito Juarez rules during the Restored Republic era but his administration is marred by corruption and political reprisals and then he drops dead of a heart attack in 1872.

Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada succeeds Juarez but is overthrown and exiled in 1876 by General Porfirio Diaz. General Diaz is exiled too in 1911 when the Mexican Revolution takes place between 1910 and 1920, touched off when the 80 year old Diaz was “re-elected” to another term as president.

Former revolutionary Francisco I Madero succeeds Diaz in an actual election but is assassinated along with his brother and Vice President Pino Suarez in 1913 by the forces of General Victoriano Huerta. This plunges Mexico into revolt and General Huerta flees the country in 1914.

The death toll during the Mexican Revolution has been estimated as one tenth of the total population and where names of famous peasant revolutionary leaders like Emilano Zapata and Pancho Villa become known to the world. They are both later assassinated.

Venustiano Carranza becomes president in 1917 and manages to serve a full 3 year term but in the following election tries to put a surrogate up for the presidency and as a result is assassinated. A new Constitution follows.

In 1928, president elect Alvaro Obregon is assassinated. A political party system is then instituted as a measure to provide continuity in the event of future assassinations. This turns out to be a good idea.

Mexico makes out well economically during WWI and WWII with the emergence of state-run industries. Since 1945, the governing of Mexico has stabilized between the two major political parties; Partido Revolucionario Institucional or “PRI” and the Partido Accion’ Nacional or “PAN”. 

But since that relative "Golden Era" the Mexican government, chiefly the PRI which held power for 71 years until finally unseated in 2000, has been glaringly ineffectual in growing the Mexican economy, providing jobs, education or even attempting to stop the flow of drugs, people and death from that nation. And in fact, Mexico has become one of the most dangerous places in the world. 

With Presidential and Congressional elections to be held on July 1, 2018 incumbent Enrique Pena Nieto is ineligible under Mexico’s Constitution from running for a second term. There are also elections in 30 of the 32 states.  A new president will therefore be elected to again try and fail to do what all his predecessors had tried and failed to do.

Only now the death toll in Mexico is reaching the most absurd proportions to the point where the numbers are almost beyond belief for a nation right next door to our own. And of course, we see the carnage spilling onto the streets of these United States. Living near our boarder with Mexico must be filled with anxiety and dread. 

I see these guys in nice tailored suits saying they're going to do this or that to "combat the drug problem" living lives of luxury while a large portion of the Mexican citizenry has to worry about holding onto their lives. What passes for a government appears powerless against Mexico's organized crime families. 

Or is it that they are one and the same? 

With Mexico's Interior Ministry reporting 29,168 murders in 2017 which is totally meaningless and one could guess that it's probably double that number since this figure is only for tracked investigations. That doesn't count disappearances, unreported homicides, unidentified (headless) bodies in the streets and who-knows-where mass graves. But even in doubling that figure, it still doesn't approach what is going on in Venezuela. Can you imagine?

Then there are the caravans of people from other South American Hell Holes streaming through the country on the way to the United States. Nothing seems to get in their way as they march straight to the U.S. boarder. Mexico doesn't care. let 'em through as long as they aren't staying. What is it to them? It's not their problem.It isn't like they are Allies of the United States or anything.

And then they have the nerve to stand there with straight faces and say that WE, the people of the United States, should be taking care of these people, the ones they've ignored for generations. What balls! They should be ashamed to even show their faces.

What is going on in Mexico isn't a Democracy. It's a Dictatorship where the heads of state and seats of Congress are shuffled between the same Gang of Landed Elites. They may be in charge of the government but they aren't in control of the country. Even to the casual observer, Mexico appears to be in a state of chaos.

And the seat of government holed up in Mexico City is fine with that. They don't care if you have a job, they don't care if you have a school to go to, if you have enough food, a roof over your head, they don't care if you leave, they don't care if you stay and they don't care if people are shooting at you.

That's Mexico.

The government of Mexico has long ago thrown in with the Drug Cartels and therefore have negotiated themselves out of the line of fire. Anything they claim they are doing to "combat the Cartels' is merely just a show. They are partners in this crime against the people of Mexico. And ultimately they expect the United States to take care of the fallout of their corruption while they live well.

Very well.

Sunday, April 22, 2018

When Watch Dogs Fail to Bark


We've seen this repeatedly now.

From Columbine High School shooting where the police failed to enter the building to confront the two shooters and actually didn't go in until the next morning practically insuring any wounded would bleed to death to the Marjory Stoneman high school in Florida and now the Tennessee Waffle House shooting where the shooters were either known to police or the police were in a position to intervene and instead the police did nothing.

And it's the guns we blame.

Under these circumstances we could have another hundred gun laws on the books and they wouldn't amount to a hill of beans since nobody is out there enforcing them. My mom used to say about an issue, " Just pass a law!" which was her way of mocking the whole "There aughta be a law against this.." crowd. A law is only words on a piece of paper. Just like the Bill of Rights, and if nobody steps up to defend either of them, they are worthless. Nobody is going to get saved.

And this particular shooting breaks my heart.

Upon seeing aspiring youth struck down truly saddens me. And what saddens me further is the political exploitation of their deaths before their family and friends even have a chance to grieve.

Especially when we all know that nothing is going to change until we start having our public servants do their jobs. The jobs we pay them a princely sum to perform and yet they time and time again fail to follow through on their duties as the public protectors. How can we debate taking guns away from the public when there appears to be no other alternative but to arm ourselves against such random acts of domestic terrorism? Are the police going to protect us?

I'm waiting for the answer.

We appear to be heading to the same issue the country went through in the 1970s were the State won't protect you but also you weren't allowed to protect yourself. A no-win situation. People were arrested every day for trying to keep from getting killed by criminals. We are going to bring this crime back, are we?

Even if someone in the Waffle House had a gun, I don't see a different result. The guy just walked up and started shooting. If you don't see it coming, how are you going to defend against it?

But to know, and we will know more, that the shooter was in the hands of law enforcement for acting crazy and here he is, shooting up a place. Again.

Perhaps the answer is really to bring back the Nut Houses.

We used to have several State run mental health facilities in this area of Massachusetts before Governor Michael Dukakis closed them. They were big places too, one in Foxboro, MA not far from Patriot's Stadium and the other in nearby Wrentham but both were shuttered. Now only two remain, Medfield State Hospital and the Bridgewater Facility for the Criminally Insane. Only Medfield is accessible to regular folk since Bridgewater is actually a prison.

The state has since found no replacement for such facilities and hence has no place to send people determined a danger to themselves and others. If law enforcement had a place to take these people when they come across them then perhaps they would do just that and document and identify them.

The argument to close these facilities was that this form of incarceration was a violation of the human rights of the people remanded to them. But it was really about the money.

And now society is paying a higher price for not having them.

Thursday, April 19, 2018

Cuba Vows to Remain Impoverished


With the appointment of new supreme leader Miguel Diaz-Canal by the unelected Cuban National Assembly this week the last last gasp of the second longest reigning Communist nation can be heard.

Comrade Diaz-Canal, described lovingly in the Huffington Post article I read as "A consensus builder" and as "an approachable, efficient manager".  As if anyone is going to disagree with this new Cuban "President" when he is predictably "elected" during a national election I believe we won't need to send former U.S. President Jimmy Carter over to the island to see if the vote is legitimate or not.

And as if any Socialist system is efficient. Because we know from mountains of history that it isn't and can't be. There is no efficiency in having nothing. I suppose you don't have much trash in such a situation since if you have nothing, you also have nothing to waste.

Cuba has nothing to waste most certainly.

And it looks like that trend will continue. The decorative reforms that have been carefully marketed to the rest of the world have amounted to nothing at all since, heaven forbid, anybody gets anything for their efforts. That just wouldn't be sporting. Gain is only for the Dictatorship, nobody else ever gets too much.

I heard on the radio that el Presedente elect Diaz-Canal will exert his efforts on "Perfecting Communism". Stop me if you've heard that one before. All the American Socialists have been saying that for decades now. "Just wait, one of these days we'll get it right, you'll see!" they declare but they never do. They can't. It's not possible with the State calling all the shots. We have a Stock Market in this country that's built on people investing their own money into products and enterprises they think will bring them a handsome return on their investment and there are loads and loads of very smart people who have gone bust thinking they knew what direction the Market was going. So how the hell is a bunch of uneducated revolutionaries going to figure it out?

Answer:They won't!

Year after dreadful year the Cuban central planners have made the decision of where best to put the country's resources, what crops to grow and what products to produce. And they haven't even accidentally got it right. All those 1956 Chevrolet automobiles the Cuban people are still driving around in aren't going to get an upgrade any time soon.

Cuba has a whole lot of nothing and the people who have the least know the most about what it would take to bring prosperity to this nation of pure Want. They don't believe anything will change with the continuation of Fidel Castro's "Plenty of Nothing for You" brand of government. They don't expect anything and to a world watching from the outside, it's a shame that they won't be pleasantly surprised. They won't EVER be pleasantly surprised. Not as long as these Commies run the place.

"We don't need no stinkin' Capitalism" declares the soon-to-be elected Cuban President, "We'll show everybody how much the Cuban people can suffer! You think people suffered under 74 years of Russian Communism? Just wait, we'll beat that and then some!"

Don't expect too much applause.




Saturday, April 14, 2018

Trump Becomes G.W. Bush



Sorry, we don't need another "War President' like G.W. Bush. Granted he originally had war thrust upon him but he then turned it into a Raison D'etre and decided to keep war going as a political platform and to keep money flowing to his friends war enterprises. First President Trump signs a massive spending bill and next thing you know he's attacking Syria. Yep, he's G.W. Bush alright.

I really don't know what happens to these guys once they get in office. Bill Clinton intervened in the Bosnian conflict and messed that up and then the last president, what's his name, received a Nobel Peace Prize and then proceeded to intervene in conflicts we had no business being in. But in true fashion that a broken clock is right twice a day, he got Syria right. He stayed out of it.

Not so Donald Trump. The president who campaigned on getting us out of the Middle East keeps turning around and jumping right back in with both feet and no good reason what-so-ever.

It's France and England which covet Syria. They have their imperial plans, you know, the model they used in the previous two centuries to take over these countries and try to exploit their natural resources for their country's benefit. And in the case of Syria, it's the location they want.

So we are pretending to be the "World Police" again, this time really fabricating a very thin story line that nobody really believes just so the U.S. can lead the charge "For Duty and Humanity".

Yep, that's just what we do. Somebody else's dirty work.

This action of accusing Syria of gas attacks, and this is the third time the EU has tried this, also casts doubt on the so called "poisoning" of a former Russia secret agent and his daughter which is said to have happened on British soil. The Syrian attack is such a big lie then it stands to reason that the poisoning too is a fabrication. After all, what do we really know about any of these people? It wouldn't be out of the realm of imagination to believe that they'd go along with the gag. If they want to stay in the country and not get deported back to Russia anyway.

It's all a plot to intervene in Syria plane and simple. I had NPR on the radio and they reported that a "similar" attack had occurred last year and it was determined that gas was used. What they left out was that it was also determined that they don't know WHO actually used the gas since the "rebel freedom fighters' who oppose Assad were also in possession of a good deal of chemical weapons since they had originally taken over two thirds of the country and had ransacked Assad's armories years ago.

So the Political Left is on board, the GOP is on board and now President Trump is on board with the plan. But it's still none of their business. It amounts to an old-fashioned land grab.

This truly disgusts me. Nothing has changed in my lifetime. We still have Imperialism emanating from old Europe and they will say anything and tread on anybody they think can be had to get what they desire.

Not that I wasn't ever thinking this couldn't happen either. We can back a candidate because we feel he thinks like we do and will act like we would like them to act when they get into office. That doesn't always happen to say the least but we go along because this person still embodies most of our vision of where we want this country to go.

With me that stops at U.S. Wars of Conquest and Intervention. If Donald Trump wants to drink the intoxicating waters of the War Well then let him at it but we have no reason to be there and no right to intervene. It's a sham.

So I don't really care what happens to him anymore

Addendum:

Ok, the aftermath of the "strikes" which looked more like a choreographed BALLET, an expensive ballet, seems to have served as nothing more than a demonstration of U.S. precision arms. I'm no less pissed off at this bullshit but there has got to be something more to this politically beyond the feigned outrage and so I'm not ready to mail my "Trump 2016" refrigerator magnet back to Washington just yet.

But do not misconstrue, Syria is for the Syrian government to fight for. If France and England want in, let them take overt action, declare war on Syria, fight and PAY FOR their own battles. AND take responsibility for the consequences.

The United States has no business there. 

Sunday, April 8, 2018

Is U.S. Behind Latest "Gas Attack" in Syria?


What a coincidence! Just when Donald Trump announces that the United States is finally going to leave Syria, a new gas attack has suddenly been perpetrated by the dastardly Assad and his Russian and Iranian henchmen.

Yes, it's been reported that pictures of dead families foaming at the mouth are circulating around the world but where are they? There is one picture in the New York Post of two wet kids with ventilation masks and an old picture of blown up buildings from...somewhere on the New York Times. Where are these foaming mouthed dead people?

Yes, these pictures are circulating but somehow these two world-class news organizations can't seem to get their hands on ONE of them.

The timing is perfect too. If I was Assad, I would certainly pick this very moment when the United States has one foot out the door to gas people since I secretly want them to stay in my country unwanted and intervene, again, in the victory I should have had years ago.

And we call what Russia does "Propaganda". At least they're less transparent at it. This is an obvious swindle.

But any excuse will serve a Tyrant. And here we go again.

And just who got to President Trump to make him act like this has actually happened? The military industrial complex I suppose. The "War is Good Business" people who never met a conflict around the world they couldn't profit from. Or it could be the right-wing GOP with the Eisenhower complex that still practice the "Domino Theory" of foreign affairs. Who knows?  The only thing I know is that this is a lie, the last "attack" was a lie and as far as we know sitting here at home is that it's all a lie.

But the U.S. War Machine wishes to roll on so it will roll on.

Until I see live streaming video of people writhing in their foaming death throws, I'm not going to believe it since we've been lied to so much on so many occasions that I refuse to swallow any more of this Bullshit until I see some real tangible evidence.

It's not real, it never happened and President Donald Trump and his military plunderers are behind this whole charade.

Next we will be hearing from Senator John McCain saying that Donald Trump is doing the right thing by staying in Syria and knocking off Assad because of these poor freedom loving rebels, who can't afford a good marketing department, are suffering at the hands of the person who is wrongfully preventing them from establishing their own Muslim Caliphate in Syria.

Great, just great.

Instead of blaming the last president...er, what's-his-name, for the attack, President Trump is moving to stamp his ownership of our Intervention in Syria  and should now be held totally accountable for prolonging the suffering of the people there. This conflict was none of our business in the first place and by pretending to be outraged enough to turn the Syrian civil war into a global conflict at a time when we are trying to sustain an economic upturn just doesn't make any sense.

Yes, if this laugher of a pretense is allowed to stand and the U.S. does rush troops back into the region even though the war, by all informed observation, is pretty much over and won by Assad, then the only person to blame for what results will be Donald Trump.

After all he is the President.


Tuesday, March 27, 2018

You'll Have No Rights without 2nd Amendment


It is the very linchpin of American Democracy.

Do you think you would have the right of assembly? Or the right of being safe in your home and among your effects? The right to really say what you want?

You see, no other country does.

France? Nope! Great Britain? Nope! Canada? No! China? Hahahahaha! I make joke!

These governments have a right to walk into your home, tell you that you can't rally or tell them to go to HELL without consequence. And sometimes dire consequence.

Europe even brands speech as "Hateful"!

Can you imagine? And they call us in the U.S. "Uncouth".

The early British invaders of the North American continent took over the place because they had guns and the Indians, for the most part, did not. Now it is said that this still might not have been enough had it not been for European diseases that the indigenous population had no defense against but one has to believe that having guns helped a great deal.

Guns also helped win the United State's independence from Great Britain. The significant part about this was that the British had flintlock smooth-bore muskets and the new Americans had...flintlock smooth-bore muskets. The British had cannon, lots and lots of cannon. The Americans had cannon too although not nearly as many but the SAME KIND of cannon and many of an equal size.

The armaments that both sides possessed at that time were, allowing for the disparity of economies and quantity, were essentially of equal technology.

And in this crucible of rebellion the reason for the 2nd Amendment was forged.

To insure that there isn't a disparity of arms of the people in contrast to the government.

Now lets face it, back in the days of the very crude flintlock non-rifled musket, it wasn't all that easy a thing to shoot someone. To avoid a flint splinter in the eye, soldiers often aimed and then turned their head to fire. Also, without "rifling", the spiral grooves gun makers later cut into the inside of a rifle barrel to make to bullet go straight, the bullet could go lots of places other than it's intended target. My theory on why the young George Washington wasn't killed at the opening of the French and Indian war at Fort Necessity, where he was a sitting duck, is that the French were probably AIMING at him.

Now here we are today with the most accurate armaments time has yet to bestow. Guns are now capable of killing a number of people quickly. But the disparity between what the citizen has access to vs what the military has at their disposal has widened considerably. 

But that gap hasn't widened to the tipping point as long as we still have access to semi-automatic weapons.

So it isn't a surprise that these are declared enemy number one even though they've been around since 1885. Yes, it's a part of our history but it's not SETTLED history. The fight to keep the right to bear arms is the fight of the people vs the government itself. Not for armed revolution, but to always have the option.

The U.S. Constitution would not have been ratified by the people without the inclusion of these rights since suspicion of a federal government was high. And knowing what we know and seeing what we've seen...

There's still plenty of reason to be distrustful. 


Sunday, March 25, 2018

Young Autobots March on Washington


For these young activists, there is no alternative; guns have to go. But not all guns, just the "bad" ones and in this pursuit they have been given valuable access to national media channels.

Ignoring all facts connected to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, the missed opportunities of law enforcement to arrest the shooter and have him evaluated, the cowardice of the people who have taken a vow to serve and protect and so are paid a princely sum to do just that and the failure of people who failed to act, these people still blame the gun for the crime of the man behind it and the failure of the people put in charge to stop it.

So there must be more to this.

The Political Left's agenda is not to arm teachers so the kids don't want to arm teachers. The Political Left's agenda is to ban "Automatic" and "Assault" weapons so the kids want to ban these too. Never mind that they don't know what an assault weapon really is. Most rifles and 95% of all pistols sold are "Automatic" which is really Semi-Automatic. So most everything out on the market can be technically considered an "Assault Weapon".

Of course, what's in a name, right? You could just as easily call them "Defense Weapons" since plenty of people use them for that also. I guess that name won't stick for the media's political purposes.

So the demands by these young people are rigid, just like the Mentors who are advising and directing this latest campaign to take guns away from the law abiding citizenry.

Yes, we're sick of the shootings and the carnage but trying, again, to take the guns away isn't going to solve the problem so resisting the idea of having SOMEBODY who is armed in the school to protect the students should be approached with an open mind. It's the way things are moving and only requires legislation at the local level. Trying to get Congress to pass a restriction of any sort would come in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment.

The real practical approach would be to bring back mental health facilities that were closed down in the 1980s. That was money well spent in light of having to deal with the aftermath of the mentally ill getting their hands on a gun.

Also it is apparent that we must re-impress upon our law enforcement establishment just what their job really is. It's not to put 40 rounds into an unarmed man in his grandmother's back yard. It's to protect us from bad people. When people are more concerned with police shooting them than a mentally deranged killer, things have gotten a bit out of hand.

So mass shooting training for all schools and place an armed person in the schools, either a volunteer teacher or armed guard. You'd think teachers would want to carry a gun given the chance since it's their neck on the line in the event of a shooting also. Who actually desires to be a human shield?  Grab a gun and make the other guy a human shield for Christ's sake.

Let's face the facts; despite the "Never Again" signs, this is going to happen again so it's best to be prepared for it the best you can and carping on yet another gun ban that has failed repeatedly in the past isn't the best way to do so.

President Trump hasn't said much other than banning the ridiculous bump stocks and thats fine. That is not a restriction to access. I also don't think Congress has the focus or the time to be trifling with an unsustainable ban that would foster only a strong counter-reaction that would shift focus away from the economy and put it squarely on the fight to overturn the law.

And there will certainly be a fight. Although this issue is never ultimately settled, the last definitive ruling was in 2008 when the Supreme Court re-affirmed that people have the right to posses a gun for personal protection.  We will just end up re-living the whole episode over again with more money and time being wasted.

People can try to muddy the water by knocking around what a "Militia" really is but since the Federal government pays to support the National Guard in each state and can order them to war regardless of that the governor of that state thinks, one cannot seriously conclude that they are really the "citizen soldiers" the 2nd Amendment refers to. They are regular army.

Nope, nope, nope, the people are the militia and they have a right to own a gun. And not a pop-gun either, they have the right to own a gun that chambers a bullet that our very own government uses.

So here we are.

What we are witnessing is a guided display made to convince us that these students and the nation is fed up and now all of one mind on gun-control when that certainly isn't the case. This will always be one of our great internal battle in these United States.

For what freedoms we have to remain, we too must remain ever vigilant.


Wednesday, March 14, 2018

No Such Thing as Hate Speech, Mayor Khan


The term "Hate Speech" is just a veneer the Stateists hide behind when they encounter bad press.

Witness the latest call by an elected official who doesn't like what he's reading. The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has an issue with people not saying nice things about him. Of course in Great Britain there is no right to free speech so it's not a stretch for a Londoner to want to stop such open discourse. It's just not...proper.

Well this BOOK BURNER, Mayor Khan, has a problem. The people who are saying terrible things about him are beyond his reach on Facebook. So he wants to have the government pass laws governing what speech is allowable.

This is all under the guise of "protecting people". You see, if they hear something bad about Mr. Khan or themselves on the Internet, this could damage their delicate self esteem.

Yes, it's all for the CHILDREN! Can't you see how sincere Mr. Khan is?

You see, the Mayor of London just can't stand the THOUGHT of such things. In fact, it's these THOUGHTS he is hoping to stop from manifesting. We should all just be nice and keep our stupid opinions to ourselves on the Internet. If we should have hateful thoughts about the Mayor or about other stupid politicians like him then we should be restricted from expressing these thoughts and that nobody should be allowed to read them.

So Mr. Khan wants something to be done to detect and report "Hate Speech" on line. Which brings to mind a question:

Who will be the one to determine what "Hate Speech" really is?

It's easy really, Hate Speech is something YOU don't like.

Perhaps we could get a nice socialist mayor of a big city to be the judge.

Problem solved!

I think Mr. Khan will gladly become the arbiter of all things Hateful. HE will be the one to determine what should be said on the Internet. Can you blame him considering his background?

Although I see a big problem since here in the United States, we do have a written Constitution and a Bill of Rights that, first and foremost, guarantees the right to say what you want to say. Oh, there are a few limits but I would hardly equate sending hate notes to Mayor Khan, an outspoken lightning rod of a public figure by the way, to yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

I'm sure this egomaniac Mayor Khan would disagree.

And imagine the outrage if someone were to tell the honorable mayor that if he would only watch what HE was saying, perhaps he wouldn't trigger so much "Hate Speech".

But the right to say what one wants must only apply to him. YOU don't get the same opportunity because YOU don't count for BEANS in Mayor Khan's book and only your speech should be restricted. Such things do not apply to a man of his high stature.

Gee, I guess Mr. Khan is British after all! He does seem to possess that arrogant regal swagger of self-importance that emanates from that island nation. Britain did ban American talk radio host Michael Savage from entering the country even though he had no intention of ever going there.

I get a kick out of people who go on about having a right not to be searched. Or they have a right not to incriminate themselves. In fact I hear many people go on daily about their rights. Yet these same people have no qualms about restricting the same for others. They're all for the police kicking down doors or searching motor vehicles at random stops to get "criminals" but scream bloody murder when it's their door that is booted in or their car tossed for no visible reason. Go figure.

There is plenty of evidence that its the British government itself that has no problem with such issues as written laws protecting speech, privacy and to be secure in your personal effects and property. It was THEY who tapped into international communications lines, the British spy agency, the GCHQ, and collected personal data on American Citizens and then gave the information, literally data on millions of unsuspecting people, to our own NSA. All without the pesky problems of a warrant or reasonable cause. So who really are the criminals in all this?

Do you want the government, ANY government, to tell you what you should be seeing and hearing?

Give up the right to own a gun and you will.

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Misunderstanding the 2nd Amendment


The founding fathers of the United States of America didn't fight a long and bloody war with the mighty British Empire so that we are all guaranteed the right to own a hunting rifle. That's just not it at all.

It was so that the citizenry, that's you and me, had a right to bear the same arms that could be brought to bear against us should the government determine that it should march against the people in order to subjugate them to their might.

As someone once put it, the people who started our government and framed the U.S. Constitution and it's linchpin, the Bill of Rights, were not powder-wigged fools. They foresaw that someday in the future that there could possibly be a time where people of the nation would need to use such arms to either defend themselves or to drive out those who may wish to take over the government either from within or without. And to do that, a hunting rifle just isn't going to cut it.

The Teeth in the Bill of Rights

Does anybody believe that any of the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights would be worth a hill of beans without the 2nd Amendment?

Freedom of Speech? The United States is the only country in the world where the right of the people to speak and say what they want, including talking down the President and it's ministers, that has written an absolute guarantee to it's people. We see the difference in this way of thinking all over the world. Canada doesn't guarantee it's citizens a right to free speech, nor France or Great Britain, not Australia or Sweden. Great Britain doesn't even have a written constitution. I guess your rights there are whatever Parliament says they are. No right to privacy, no right to free speech.

There is no equivalent anywhere in the world to our 1st Amendment. Some say it's our weakness but they'd be wrong. Like what you hear or hate it, people have a right to say it. And if, say, the government were to attempt to smash the people's right to protest and speak out, what mechanism could there be to impress upon government that the people wish to maintain this freedom?

That's where the 2nd Amendment comes in.

So perhaps one could say that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the 1st.

How about the 3rd Amendment? Could soldiers possibly be taking over homes in modern times? Would you call that impossible? Well it is since it is specifically outlawed in the 3rd Amendment. So, say, if troops were deployed to a disaster area here in the U.S. and needed a place to stay and told you that they were staying and you had to go...well, that's where the 2nd Amendment comes in.

How about something like China's new "President" for life? I like how our government likes to refer to Dictators of counties we trade heavily with as "President". But take Mr. Xi Jinping and his desire never to leave office. If this happened in the United States, what do you suppose might happen?

China has no such right of the citizen to own a fire arm and it shows.

The 2nd Amendment upholds the entire Bill of Rights. It is a complete and most perfect document made strong by the right of the people to bear arms. It is unique to the world and because it is so, the 2nd Amendment is the most maligned and attacked amendment. It just goes to prove the adage that for the American citizen, freedom is fought for every day. And so we fight on for those who don't understand the full meaning of why it's there.

Lexington, Massachusetts

If anybody bothers to look at my profile picture, you'll see that I'm standing on the bridge at Lexington, MA. This is the spot where our first citizens stood and traded fire with the troops of the British Empire. No small feat this. This was the day of the "Shot Heard Around the World" and where later in the day practically all the armed citizen militia answered the call and the British, by the end of the day, got their asses shot off.

Why did the British come out of their Boston stronghold that day? What was their purpose? To get the guns. They knew rifles and gunpowder were being stored in Lexington. That's what they came for and there is a larger than you are lead to believe group of people in this country that thinks that the next entitled government entity will try the same thing if they aren't paying attention. That's just the way has been ever since that day, April 18, 1775. It's going to take more than the latest media parade to knock them off of this belief.

Gun Sales will Rise

Anyone who thinks that these school shootings has reduced by one iota the public's desire to defend themselves with a firearm is living under a mistaken belief system. People will again flock to buy a gun based upon the media's inflammatory rhetoric which has very much sought to exploit the tragedy in the hopes of getting out in front of their anti-gun campaign before the real story of the failure of law enforcement, both local and federal, to act to stop a very preventable shooting.

What's an Adult? 

Even if I lived in my mother's basement playing video games at the age of 18, I'm still considered an adult, although not quite a responsible one. But even so, the law says that at the age of 18 I can be tried as an adult in the court of law and sign binding contracts.

Raising the age of buying a semi-automatic rifle or weapon, and they're ALL semi-automatic these days, to 21 represents a clear infringement on the rights of an adult to own a firearm and will not stand. They can pass the law but it won't hold up in court. You can carry a fully automatic weapon in Afghanistan for the U.S. government but you can't carry a semi-automatic when you get back? That's bullshit.

Bill Clinton Tried it

The Clinton Administration passed the so called "Assault Weapons Ban" back in 1994 which only served to drive ownership of such labeled weapons underground. Who knew how many were out there. The state of California imposed an assault weapons registry which nobody paid any attention to. So that's your precedent.

Rights Under Assault

Our rights are violated daily. The National Security Agency, the NSA, has been outed as spying on U.S. citizens in violation of the 4th Amendment that guarantees protections from unlawful search and seizures of property. The 1st Amendment is under assault from the Political Left for which has been mounting a sustained campaign against what kind of speech is actually protected, branding speech as "racist" or "hateful" or partitioning speech with the bogus "Free Speech Zones" when, of course, all speech is free anywhere you want to speak it. The U.S. court system is constantly working on the 5th Amendment going so far as punishing people for failure to incriminate themselves.

We have giant U.S. corporations making deals with foreign Dictators while simultaneously voluntarily allowing our own government free access to their communications systems for "monitoring" of U.S. citizens. There is no privacy any more and the collusion between multi-national corporations and government to know everything about everybody should be a major cause of concern for every thinking American.

And you think people are going to just give up the right to own a gun?
  

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Give Teachers Right to Carry


Nikolas Cruz, the boy who killed 17 people at the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, whom everyone who knows him stated is mentally ill, seems to have never been clinically diagnosed as such and therefore would never have shown up on a “do not sell a gun to this person” list.

In order to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, they first have to be identified and certified. Given the shameful and woeful state of public mental health facilities in the United States since the 1980s, expecting this to happen is an unrealistic expectation. Bringing back these facilities would, in my opinion, be public money well spent but even if that were to come about, it will take decades to re-establish such facilities.

As we now know, with so many people who were positions to do something who didn't, it makes no sense to pass more laws since people didn't pay any attention to the one's already in place. A law isn't going to protect you.

And as we have seen, neither are the police. 

The glaring fact of the matter is that Nikolas Cruz was perfectly legal to buy a semi-automatic rifle anywhere in the state of Florida. 

And people think this is a gun issue.

School Security Guard

Mr. Aaron Feis, the MSDHS football coach who selflessly made the ultimate sacrifice and took the bullets intended for his students, was also referred to as the school's security guard. It is evident that he was an “unarmed” security guard.  

If Mr. Feis was armed and trained to use a firearm, this situation MAY have played out differently. I don’t know how much warning Aaron Feis had about the location of Nikolas Cruz but instead of only being able to resort to throwing his body in front of the students, he could have also been ready to take down an armed student with his own firearm. 

This scenario does raise more questions than it answers like if Cruz knew that Feis was armed and if that in itself did not deter him, he could have just made it a point to seek him out and shoot him first and then continue with his shooting spree. We will never know. 

What it Will Take

When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

If there were people who were armed, either a school teacher or paid detail or guard, would this still have happened like it did? If he knew that there were armed people at the school, would Nikolas Cruz still have gone in?

So say Aaron Feis, armed and aware of Mr. Cruz coming down the hallway, shoots him and ends the conflict right there?

Or he doesn't even have to hit him, just keep Cruz at bay until help arrived.The headlines change: “Brave Teacher Halts Student Killer”. There’s no predicting such a result but we know what did happen. It’s now history.

As we have seen over and over again that our law enforcement forces cannot stop an armed assault on a soft target like a school, a bike path, a public mall or any place that people gather.

Leftists Don't Want to Hear it

The Young Leftists who are now campaigning to outlaw guns don't want to hear an alternative to taking away the guaranteed right of gun ownership. Perhaps due to their standard, sub-standard public school education, they know nothing and care nothing about the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, a delicately balanced document that guarantees the rights they enjoy in this country and to say anything they want. And the linchpin in the Bill of Rights is the 2nd Amendment, without which none of the other amendments, including the 1st, are worth a penny.

I’m so sorry these bright young kids with an expectation of safety have had to take in a harsh reality of life so soon and seeing people they know gunned down and killed. But there was plenty that could have been done in their community to have at least given them a chance at avoiding such a catastrophe and was not done.

We can go on about passing more laws prohibiting access to guns but how will that stop a person without an arrest record or mental illness diagnosis? They're going to clear a background check. The information has to be IN the computer for it to be effective. 

The Leftists cling to a failed ideology; That guns are bad and that they should just go away. "Just ban them" they say. Like they are going to magically go away if people aren't allowed to have them. The Muslim Terrorists have guns and they aren't supposed to either. Go tell them they aren't allowed to have them and find out what they have to say about that. 

Blaming Gun Manufactures 

This door swings both way. You want to hold gun manufactures "accountable" when someone abuses one of their weapons but make no mention when someone uses a similar weapon to successfully defend themselves and other. That's right, people can and do defend themselves in this country way more often than you hear about. There's a reason for that. The media won't champion such a thing since it works against their anti-gun narrative.

Devin Kelley, the guy who shot up the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Spring, TX was stopped by an armed citizen. 

Allow Teachers to Carry

I think you will get more teachers volunteering to carry a gun today than you would have last month. Fighting back is loads better than only being able to use your body as a shield. Anybody with a brain is going to realize that there's no future in that.

Schools are the ultimate soft target and until we change that, scenes like Columbine and Stoneman Douglas are likely to continue. Guns aren't going away so the wisest choice is to be prepared.

So be prepared.