Posts Tagged ‘news’

The Treason of the Anointed

Saturday, April 14th, 2018

silent_coup_ftIf you’re an American, or if you’re a British subject, or if you’re a citizen of a European country now subsumed into the catastrophe called the European Union, you should know that your nations are in the process of being stolen from you.  There is not a single government among them that is eligible to remain, and every one of those governments is infected with the virus of treason. The United States, of the most central interest to this blog, is now in the throes of its present death, not by some armed foreign invader, but by an infectious agent deposited among our alleged “elite” political establishment.  These people are a disease unto themselves.  They have sold their country out to the world’s thugs, and the time has come to pay up.   Donald Trump was elected president under the rules of our constitution, but he will not be permitted to exercise that office in any but the most superficial way.  Every long-time visitor to this blog knows I had been no particular fan of Donald Trump, the man, or Donald Trump, the candidate.  Quite to the contrary, I have been very critical of many of his positions and pronouncements, and I doubt very seriously that this is likely to change.  One of my most thoroughgoing criticisms of Donald Trump has been(and remains) that he exhibits no particular devotion to any specific, or self-consistent body of principles.  That criticism and all of the lesser complaints that fall out of it are easy enough to understand, but what may cause some confusion is what I will say next:  If we are to save this republic, if that is our actual goal, we must preserve and rescue the presidency of Donald J. Trump, warts and all, even from itself, lest we lose our nation forever.

This seems a rather obnoxious claim, and on its surface, I would generally dismiss such claims as radical hyperbole.  Let me attempt to support that claim, or reference others who have done a masterful job in so doing.  Let me begin by making the following assertion:  Donald Trump was elected President of the United States through a process during which he took no steps that would ordinarily be considered illegal or even quite unfair under the political system in operation since our founding.   In fact, it might well be said truthfully that Donald Trump had managed to overwhelm a system that had been unfairly rigged against him.  Does anybody seriously wish to contend that the outcome of the 2016 primary season had been reduced to another Bush-Clinton showdown until Donald Trump came down that escalator in June 2015?  Do you know who are the Never-Trumpers still in existence at this late date?  They are the people furious with Donald Trump for interrupting this precise outcome.  “By what right?”  “He’s not even really a Republican!”  You can hear their shrill contempt still echoing in establishment media, and through the halls of Congress.  If in the primaries of 2016, you voted for Donald Trump, you put your finger in the eye of this establishment.  I  must here note that I did not vote for Donald Trump in the primary in 2016.  Let me also confess that had I known two years ago all I have learned since, I would have done so enthusiastically.  It is not that I believe Donald Trump is a great president, or that my opinion of Donald Trump as an unprincipled man has changed, but that I now see the true enemy more clearly than ever I had seen it before.  The real enemy is far more frightening than Donald Trump could ever be, because Donald Trump does not hate this country.  Our real enemy is out to destroy the USA, and is well along that path.  Donald Trump is the final possible obstruction.  Will Donald Trump save the republic?  I don’t know.  I only know that his will likely be the last opportunity to do so in our lifetimes, and perhaps ever.

The entire “Russian Collusion” narrative was cooked up to confound and demolish the Trump presidency.  I want you to know that any sophist who approaches you with another argument about it is either a knowing participant in the treasonous conspiracy, not merely against Trump, but against our republic, or is a willing political tool of those conspirators, believing themselves to be on the same “team.”  Think of the latter(and more numerous) group as our contemporary version of Stalin’s “useful idiots.”  This includes the more innocent “NeverTrumpers” out and about in the conservative movement, who believe their principled opposition to Trump ought now lead them to participate in the “resistance.”  These must come to understand the truth:  Trump is the duly elected President, and all efforts to interfere with his authority as such are born of the real collusion between the two parties’ DC establishments in an ongoing treason against the whole body of the American people, and the republic to which they were born.

There are a great many people attempting to chronicle the truth about what is going on, but I think if I had to credit one person in media for making it more understandable and aggregating all the bits of this monstrous situation into  a single, cogent narrative, I would have to credit Dan Bongino.  Bongino has a daily podcast, and since episode 628, he’s done more to put this story together in one coherent story that the average person can easily understand, without appealing to a single “conspiracy theory.” In fact, everything Bongino has put together is backed up by public news reports, in much the same way Mark Levin had done a little more than thirteen months ago, when he made the public accusation that FISA warrants had been used by actors within the Obama administration to conduct surveillance on the Trump campaign and administration under color of law.   For his part in bringing this to light, and for his continuing efforts to expose this, we mustn’t forget that Mark Levin has done more to lay the groundwork than any other person in media.

Before we go further, I am going to ask you something extraordinary.  Please go listen to Dan Bongino’s Episode 698. Read his show notes for that episode.  Here’s the episode, posted on YouTube:

How many of you know or remember these names:

  • Kathryn Ruemmler
  • Robert Bauer
  • Greg Craig

If you want to know who is orchestrating the theft of your country, you’d better learn these names and the deeds associated with them. Bongino has been unmasking this plot against the American people since episode 628 of his daily podcast, back on January 8th of 2018.  It just happened to be the case that I first stumbled into Bongino’s podcast for the first time on the very next day, and it happened to be part 2 of that same story.

If you want to save the Republic, let me tell you how that can be accomplished at this very late date:  Robert Mueller must be fired.  Rod Rosenstein must be fired.  The Republicans threatening to impeach President Trump should he fire Robert Mueller must be exposed.  They are part of the plot.  They are the Republican co-conspirators who are participants in stealing your country.   There are more than these vocal Republicans, a list that includes scum like my own Senator, John Cornyn, and others  like Lindsey Graham.  Trump must fire Mueller now, and he must assemble a team empowered to take down the conspirators.  You will be shocked by the breadth and depth of the conspiracy, but you must know it all if you are going to rescue your nation.  Robert Mueller must be fired to have any chance to save this republic.  The whole DC Uni-Party knows it. What remains is for you to recognize it, rise up in indignant rejection of it, and to reclaim your country.  Whether you’re a fan of Donald Trump, or perhaps instead held your nose and voted for him rather than see the epic criminal shrew win instead, or even if you didn’t vote for him at all, unwilling to “hold your nose,” it’s time to recognize that he is the president, and he is now the only person of significant governmental power standing between our Republic and the abyss.  Act accordingly.

 

Editor’s Note: On a more personal note, I realize now that many of you had hoped my previous string of posts signaled my re-emergence. Obviously, that wasn’t the case, but I do believe that day will come before this year elapses.  Between health concerns, the various burdens of my personal and professional life, it will be some time yet.  It just so  happens to be the case that occasionally, a story or bit of information comes to light that I believe must not be missed, and this is one such story.  I remain fiercely committed to our constitution and the form of government it had established, but the ugly truth of what has been done must be widely known if we are to defend and preserve it.  Forces much more violently aggressive to our liberties are afoot, and they are striking back at us now for the impertinence of electing an unapproved President. These self-anointed “elites” are nothing more than modern-day brigands hijacking a nation, or a whole collection of them.  Even now, the rats, having eaten numerous holes in the hull of our ship of state, are fleeing our capital in an orderly fashion to prevent a panic or questions. These are the conspirators who now believe too much has leaked, and too much is out  in the light for them to evade criminal culpability if they remain in Washington DC.  The ones who remain are on the hook, and there’s no way out of it for them, so they are staying to fight this all the way to the bitter end, whichever way it goes. They have nothing to lose, but everything to gain, including avoiding the noose.  Yes, this conspiracy is as serious as that, and it’s why Obama and his circle of conspirators remain in Washington DC: Should all this be revealed to any substantial degree, they’re all going to prison at the very least.  This is why we must insist that President Trump fire Robert Mueller.  Mueller is the key to this operation, and this is why people like Trey Gowdy are not to be trusted.  Ever.   

Note Two: Ever Since Facebook locked my Mark America account(last post there in June 2016) during the primary season in 2018, I’ve only had access to post to my MarkAmerica Fan Page on Facebook via a friend who has administrative rights to that page.  Instead, look for my posts on minds.com, here:

https://www.minds.com/MarkAmerica

Also, stop by and seemy friend Mr.L’s most recent video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvFrF8Ag1lY

Check this out:

The Left Doesn’t Mind Dead Children

Tuesday, February 27th, 2018

grim_reaper_ftI’ve listened to the usual suspects in politics and the media telling Americans how those who support the Second Amendment want dead children.  I know a large number of fervent Second Amendment advocates, and I’ve yet to find one among them who wants to see dead children.  This scurrilous sort of claim from the left should be familiar to you by now, because we see it in virtually every issue.  When the issue is healthcare, we’re told we don’t care about people, and want to see Americans die for lack of “affordable healthcare.” Then, as if written in the script, the left institutes a huge government healthcare boondoggle that drives up the cost of healthcare for Americans in the range of four-thousand dollars per year.  Sure, everybody has a healthcare plan, but nobody can afford to use it due to the extraordinary deductibles that have accompanied “universal healthcare.” This is the thing you learn about leftists if you watch them long enough, and see what they actually do.  Every time they accuse their opponents of some evil, you can be sure that not only is it a lie, but that in fact, it is they who seek to enact the very evils they decry.  It’s so predictable that it’s become nauseating, so now I’m going to tell you the truth about the school safety issue:  The left says the NRA and the Republicans want dead children, but I’m going to prove to you that they don’t mind dead children at all, so long as it is they who kills them.

I could stop right there and walk away, task complete, but some would not be convinced by the mere assertion.  They will need some evidence of my accusation, and I am obliged to offer it here.  For decades, all my life really, I have heard the statist left accuse Republicans and Libertarians alike of wanting dead children because those groups will not support gun control.  In the first place, Republicans support all sorts of gun control, and sadly always have. It was Ronald Reagan who signed the 1986 act of Congress that banned the further sale of automatic weapons to civilians.  From that point forward, only those automatic already in civilian hands were to be permitted to exist, and they would be heavily taxed and regulated, and due to the incredibly small number, their prices are so absurdly high that most people could not begin to afford one.  That was enacted by a Republican.  Ronald Reagan?  Remember him?  It was one of the three things he did in the entirety of his presidency about which I still have real heartburn.  (Amnesty, and pulling the troops from Beirut after the barracks bombing and the death of 241 US Marines, for the record.)  Surely, that is gun control, and surely, President Reagan was a Republican. Is he off the hook for his alleged desire to “see children dead?”  No, of course not.

Of course, if we’re interested in the question of dead children, as my friend Mr. L has pointed out recently, they had no problem with more than fifty-million dead children killed in utero by Planned Parenthood. They never miss an opportunity to see as many abortions performed as is possible.  It’s not, as they argue, about the availability of “safe” abortions, but instead, about seeing to it that as many are performed as necessary.  They claim to care about the women too, and accuse opponents of abortion as condemning women to unsafe, back-alley, coat-hanger abortions, but the truth as we have seen is that these clinics are dirty, their doctors don’t have hospital privileges, and women die due to the unsafe, unsanitary conditions, as well as the utter incompetence of the sort of hacks who tend to perform abortions in these human slaughterhouses.

The leftists who run the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association profess to us the undying love and devotion for the children of the teachers they represent, and while I have no doubt about the love many teachers have for their students, I doubt very seriously that either the AFT or the NEA have the first thing to do with it.  I have no doubt but that Coach Feis, who placed himself in the line of fire between the gunman and children, had a deep sense of devotion to the students, but I point out that while the AFT and the NEA are opposed to teachers being armed, Coach Feis was reportedly a concealed carry permit holder, but did not carry at school because it would have violated the law.  I believe the AFT and the NEA prefer dead students and teachers to the alternative of armed teachers.  So much for the AFT’s or NEA’s alleged love of their members, never mind the children.

Then there’s this: These people tell us that they don’t wish to take away our guns, but only make us safer, more like Australia!  Well, in fact, in Australia, they took away guns.  The evidence has shown that crime has increased since.  Imagine what happens to we Texans down here on or near the border when the drug cartels needn’t even worry about being repelled by ranchers with rifles?  It’s astonishing.  In Chicago, daily, they have nearly as man people shot as in the incident in Parkland, Florida, but Chicago has the strictest gun control in the country. In a month, the body county in Chicago rivals or exceeds the casualty count in the notorious Mandalay Bay shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada, and many of the dead are children, most of them young black and hispanic males.  They tell us what love they have for people of color, but what the truth reveals is that they have no problem stacking up their bodies like kindling for their socialist funeral pyre.

Even in less lethal circumstances, they always falsely accuse others of what they’ve already done.  Consider Trump. They tell you “he colluded with the Russians to swing the election,” but what we now know is that they worked with Russians and other foreign agents to concoct a story about Trump so they could justify their spying on the Trump campaign throughout the 2016 election season.  They’re even willing to undertake treason, which is the very crime of which they’ve frequently and vociferously accused others.

Now I’m going to let you in on the deadliest of their secret. As they tell you they don’t want full communism, and that that Trump and other Republicans or conservatives are “dictators” or “tyrants,” to date the only evidence of that is when they were inclined to go along with the statist left on issues like gun control. Remembering, as we must, that they accuse others of what they actually intend, consider this: They accuse Republicans of wanting to enslave others, or to kill them outright, so what then must we conclude about the left’s actual intentions?  They say they are not tyrannical, and don’t wish to take our guns, but all the evidence is contrary to that postulate, and all of recent history shows they’re actually inclined to commit the crimes of which they accuse others.  This means, taken to its logical conclusion, that the statist left intends to turn us into North Korea, or some ghastly approximation of it.

When one examines the results of the “Promise” program exposed in Parkland, Florida, whereby the criminal activities of students were concealed and obscured in order to get more federal dollars for the school district, one cannot help but notice the result: A future killer was left to roam the streets, when in fact, Nikolas Cruz should have been jailed and/or institutionalized long before.  The problem is that this wouldn’t have served their purposes at the time, so that now you know that this kid was a known danger all along, and that they left him free to eventually wreak havoc, like they knew he would.  They’re fine with havoc, so long as it advances their agenda.  They’re always willing to break a few eggs.  In for a penny, in for a pound.  The statist left doesn’t mind deaths that serve their purposes.  The money these greedy leftist school administrators took from the feds is simple blood-money to get the local stooges to happily, perhaps unwittingly play their assigned parts. The longer-term result of suppressing freedoms they hope to abolish is the primary goal of the monsters who provided the federal cash.

Ladies and gentlemen, don’t take my word for it.  Trust your own eyes and ears, and the history you know, and the facts you have discerned. If any political organization in the United States wants the death of children, it is the anti-American, statist left.  They profit from dead children, but the profit they seek is not mere money, but total dominion over your lives.  They want you and your children dead, but only on their schedule, once you’ve served whatever use they have in mind for the remainder of the miserable existence they will permit you to endure.  If Donald Trump gives them an inch, there will be even more dead children because they will have learned where is his weakness, and how to get to him.  President Trump had better catch on fast, or he will have played right into their hands.

 

 

President Trump Threatening to Violate Constitution

Monday, February 26th, 2018

trump_bumps_bump_stocks_ft

I’ve made no secret of the fact that while I admire certain aspects of the way Donald Trump conducts himself, I also have a few problems with his historical behaviors and a number of his policy positions.  I have also noted when President Trump does the right thing with respect to policy, and I’ve also defended him against the outrageous and phony “Russian Collusion” hoax because I value the truth, and I revere justice.  Fighting off the dishonest leftist hordes is a common aim of this blog, but now, I’m faced with the predicament that I feared most about a Donald Trump presidency:  I’m going to have to fight against this president’s moments of foolishness, and his own attacks on the constitution.  In this case, President Trump has decided and announced to a gathering of the nation’s governors that he intends to ban bump-stocks without Congress. Let me apologize in advance for the poor video quality, but in the interests of haste, sometimes you take what you can get:

My response to this is simple: Mr. President, making or amending laws is not your role under our constitution. Also, your technical ignorance is not sufficient excuse to simply strip Americans of their property rights.  In order to carry out such a thing, Donald Trump will need to ignore the fact that all legislative powers of the United States are vested in a bicameral Congress. Article I of the constitution is explicit on this point:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

This could neither be more plain nor more definitive.

At the same time, hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of Americans own bump-stocks.  This being the case, even if Congress wanted to ban these items, they cannot simply do so without considering the dicta of the Fifth Amendment:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Most of these “bump-stocks” range in price from around one-hundred dollars to upwards of five-hundred dollars. More, some companies exist that manufacture these devices, and such legislation would effectively put them out of business.  Where is the “just compensation” Mr. President?

This is the sort of thing that will lead to people walking away from Mr. Trump in 2020.  If he goes forward with such a thing, I will not only fight him, but I will vote for his opponent, or a third-party alternative in 2020.  I’m sorry, but if Mr. Trump can’t respect the limits and bounds of the Constitution, then I have no more respect for him than for previous autocrats who have recently occupied the Oval Office.  This is not acceptable, Mr. President.

 

Why Mass Shootings Continue

Monday, February 26th, 2018

school_shooter_ft

In the wake of the Parkland, Florida shooting of February 14th, many people have offered their own assessments of why these sorts of incidents continue to happen.  They appear in media to tell us that “something must be done,” or that “something has to change.”  Few of them offer any but superficial remedies, but sadly, many people fall for this nonsense, uncritically believing their passion rather than questioning either the concrete concepts involved,  or because they conceptually don’t bother and just wish the human suffering they’ve witnessed to end.  In part, this is understandable, and I could forgive the general lack of detailed understanding, but because this blind spot is exploited to strip law-abiding Americans of their liberty, I simply won’t tolerate these senseless exclamations to go unanswered any longer. On this site, I’ve gone to great pains to explain the technical aspects of the firearms, and the philosophical aspects of the foundations of our law, including what constitutes a right.  I realize this site is not the most highly trafficked destination on the Internet, but for all the howling lunatics who insist that we can “fix this” by banning guns, or by background checks, or by any other simple solution, let me state it succinctly: We will never eliminate the phenomenon of mass shooting entirely, but neither will we significantly reduce it if we ignore the question: “Whose job is it to protect our children?”

Let us start with a few facts that most people seem to disregard on their way to blaming all the wrong things, and permitting all the wrong things to continue.  Let’s focus on the shooting of Parkland, Florida as the exemplar of this type of event.  In the lead-up to this event, the FBI had at least two leads, one called in by a bail-bondsman, that was a little less specific, but also somebody closer to the shooter called in a solid tip on this shooter in January, contending he was going to “explode.”  A PDF of the full transcript of this call was posted by the NYTimes.  It’s astonishing how specific the information was, and more astonishing that the FBI didn’t act.

Local police had dealt with him in at least thirty-nine documented calls for service(mostly 9-1-1 calls.) The school had continuously wrestled with this kid in an ever-escalating series of incidents including assaults, fights, and terroristic threats, culminating in his eventual expulsion.  There were countless “red flags” about this wayward soul.  His classmates even half-joked about him becoming a school shooter, and ironically, they may have even unintentionally implanted in him the idea.  It should have been clear by the time he entered high school that he did not belong in the mainstream school population, but today’s education fads make it difficult to remove a troubled youngster.  All of the aggregated incompetence of individuals in the system, and the oppressive bureaucracy itself could not avoid producing the result of February 14th.  It’s baked into the cake.

Given all the failures in advance of the event, it was almost inevitable that this event was going to happen.  All that could now change would be the number of dead, and the result was dominated again by the incompetence of individuals as well as the bureaucracies involved.  Let us start with Deputy Scot Peterson, the sole School Resource Officer on the campus at the time the shooting commenced.  Peterson had been with the Broward Sheriffs Office going back to 1985, and thirty-three years later, and apart from the shooter himself, he would come to be the person most instrumental in the final body count.  He arrived outside the building less than a minute after the shooting had commenced, and there he waited, effectively seeking cover, but taking no remedial actions of any kind.  Even as he was joined by additional deputies, Peterson did not rally them to make entry and confront the shooter.  They simply waited for the shooting to stop. How many were shot and killed or bled out for lack of medical attention or simple first aid while Deputy Peterson did nothing?  A time-syncronized analysis of the various surveillance tapes might provide that answer, or at least a reasonable approximation of it, but Sheriff Scott Israel, the highly political head of the Broward Sheriffs Office, will likely do all in his power to prevent the disclosure or obfuscate any analysis that may ever be done.  You can’t be permitted to know, but most importantly, the people who lost loved-ones in this shooting must never be permitted to know lest there erupt some sort of popular lynching of the Sheriff and his deputies.  While the word “disgrace” doesn’t cover it, it is nevertheless disgraceful. The bulk of the media is covering for him, of course, and this is why the underlying dereliction was mostly covered-up until the end of the week and the gun control narrative had been thoroughly seeded. Imagine the complete arrogance it takes to make the statement Sheriff Israel offers in the video clip below:

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/967811615419707394

In for a penny, in for a pound.

It is at this point that something of an outrage erupts over the conduct of Deputy Peterson and his fellow officers, as well as the attempt to cover this up by Sheriff Israel, including his public attempts to deflect criticism onto the NRA.  The problem is that when all the outrage dies down, Israel and his deputies will have gotten away with it, as will the incompetent school, the incompetent FBI.  Their defenses will be their incompetence.  You can already hear it from their shills. “We’re too few, we have too little money, we have to few people, we didn’t know, and it’s the guns!”  What they won’t highlight, but I’m going to tell you, is the thing they don’t dare say in plain language to the ears of a listening world:

“It isn’t our job!”

Indeed, Sheriff Israel tells us that it’s his job to hire, train, and arm his deputies, but once they’re in the field, it isn’t his responsibility with respect to what they do as individuals.

Technically, they’re right: It isn’t their job to protect anybody.  It isn’t the school’s job, and it isn’t the job of police. It isn’t the job of the FBI or social workers or any other person even tangentially-related to this even, except: All the adults who were themselves the victims, or whose children were victims.

I know I will immediately face the angry roar of the crowd for having said this, but let me assure you that it is one-hundred percent accurate.  In more cases than can be listed here, time after time, courts have held that the only person with an affirmative duty to protect any person from harm is that person.  This duty cannot ultimately be delegated for a myriad of logical reasons. I learned this lesson the hard way back in the 1990s, when our own daughter entered Middle School.  It has always been my admonishment to her that she must never threaten violence, nor enact any, except in direct and immediate response to a physical attack upon her person.  On that point, I further explained that she had a duty to defend herself if she were ever to come under attack.  It goes almost without saying that she eventually crossed paths with a bully, older, and much larger, who attacked her in the hallway of the school, and when she rose in her own defense, perhaps feebly to scale of the task before her, by the rules of the school, which had adopted a “Zero Tolerance Policy” on school violence, she was as guilty as her attacker, and issued the same suspension. This is done by school districts so as to indemnify themselves against civil claims, but it provides no effective protection to anybody.

After several arguments, often heated, with faculty and administrators of the school and the district, we withdrew our daughter from that school in order to home-school her, because the school would not admit that she had a right to defend herself against physical attack, and because they would not assume liability for any future attacks.  In essence, they said that protecting our child against physical violence “isn’t our job.”  The question they refused to answer in light of that assertion was: “Who is liable to protect my child from physical violence?”  No affirmative answer, but only: “Not us.

One might read that and think that perhaps the school isn’t liable in any legal or financial sense, but that they must have some moral obligation to protect our children.  The courts are concerned solely with the law.  The subjective notions of morality we may hold are not their affair.  The same is true of the police.  Yes, they are supposed to stop criminals, detain and arrest criminals, thereby preventing them from committing further crimes.  What they do not have is a duty to protect you. On this matter, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held this to be the case.  Logically, it makes sense on even the most simplified basis: In order to carry out a theoretical duty to protect all people at all times, there would need to be a policeman standing guard over each of us twenty-four hours per day.  The most economical way to do this would be a prison, for all of us, including the police, who would need guards of their own.  The point is that there can be no affirmative duty to protect you or your children against every or even any conceivable harm.  It’s not possible.  This is why we withdrew our daughter from school.  We ultimately moved out of that district to a home in a vastly different district where we felt the level of risk, while still higher than we would like, was much reduced.  The school still could not (and would not) guarantee to protect our child, but the general environment was more conducive to her average condition of safety.

What does this have to do with Parkland, Florida?  Nearly every parent knows this, but pretends not to know it.  Ask any parent “whose job is to protect your children?” You would think the answer to the question would be self-evident and immediately proclaimed, but it isn’t. This same thing is true when you ask parents: “Who is responsible to educate your child?”  Or: “Whose has a duty to feed(or cloth or house or treat) your child?” Ask these questions and watch the expression on parents’ faces as they try to explain how somebody other than themselves is obligated to do all of these things.  Only honest parents will answer in all these cases: “It’s my job.”  That’s right, and it’s the only answer to any such question.

The truth is that only parents have the responsibility to protect their children against all comers. The schools know this.  The police know it.  Every department of government knows it.  The well-worn motto “…to protect and serve…” is merely a public relations pitch.  Once you understand that only you have responsibility to protect yourself and your children, we can begin to think about these mass shootings in a different light, and it immediately calls into question the whole notion of “gun free zones.”

In a “gun free zone,” under punishment of law, you are forbidden from bearing arms for any reason.  Put in other terms, what this really means is that in a “gun free zone,” you are prohibited from effective self-defense.  Much like my daughter in the school with a “zero tolerance policy,” to provide for your own defense is a crime.  When you deposit your child into one of these “gun free zones,” you have sent them into an environment where only the predators will be armed, because the predators do not regard the law as any obstruction, and they view the obstruction to law-abiding folks as an invitation to the mayhem they intend.

One of the reasons we have such large schools is for the apparent economies of scale, but such concentrations of people are inviting targets for the sort who intend massive carnage. This has always concerned me with respect to our schools, because any madman, intent on devastation, could exploit this large aggregation of our children, who we profess to be the most valuable extensions of our lives.  The truth is that the only way to stop people with guns is to confront them with guns.  All of the rest is nonsense, and as I have explained, the next school shooter is already out there.

The most pressing reason we won’t likely stop the next mass shooter is because we refuse to assign blame.  Everybody is happy to point at the killer, but people generally look for some larger reason.  The scale of the tragedy and the enormity of the human loss and suffering begs us to empathize with the victims and their loved-ones, and well we should, but we must not lose sight of the totality of this problem, requiring of us a clear-eyed assessments to come to the truth.  Let’s list them:

Let’s think of all the ways in which this shooting might have been avoided:

  • The FBI might have followed up on one or both of the tips they received
  • The school might have sought to press charges on Cruz when he committed previous acts of violence on their campus
  • The local Law Enforcement might have sought to press charges

Let’s be plain-spoken about this: If any of these entities had acted appropriately, Cruz would have been charged with felonies on multiple previous occasions, including assault with a deadly weapon(or whatever equivalent charge exists in Florida) and this would have prohibited him from purchasing a weapon.  The NICS system doesn’t magically know that some people shouldn’t have weapons.  That information has to be placed into the database.  As we saw with the shooter at Sutherland Springs, Texas church shooter, the Air Force failed to put information into the system about the shooter, permitting him to purchase firearms.  In the Parkland, Florida case, neither the school nor the law enforcement agencies ever created the paper trail that would have been entered into the database to prohibit Cruz from obtaining firearms.

This leads us to a very uncomfortable place, which is the reason guns are being blamed and the National Rifle Association is being blamed.  You see, all of the institutions named above have made quite sure they cannot be blamed, and that none among them will be held culpable, in any respect whatever.  We might become angry and claim they had “a moral responsibility to…” act or intervene or otherwise mitigated this circumstance, but the truth is that our outrage doesn’t constitute an enforceable legal claim.

I’m going to say the thing that will be most unpopular, and will cause many to heap disdain upon me, but it’s nevertheless true:  Every parent of every child enrolled in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (and indeed in every public school anywhere) knew or ought to have known all the facts outlined above long before the attack of February 14th. If they found these facts unacceptable, (and I certainly would have,) they had a responsibility to get their children out of that environment.  You might say that they had no choice but to enroll their kids in that school.  While I understand the practical arguments, I thoroughly disagree in an absolute sense, inasmuch as they are the parents, and they could move to another district, act to change that district, home-school their children, or enroll their children in other schools at their own expense.  Contextually, the tax-payers of any school district are held at gun-point to pay for that school system and in this case, for that worthless Sheriffs Office, and that is as much an indictment of our entire system as anything else.  It is said that we “get the government we deserve,” and this is equally true of schools and sheriffs.

What I would say to parents who truly wish to protect their children is to familiarize themselves with the facts variously described above.  They should inform themselves of the policies at their schools, and make their choices accordingly.  What I can say without reservation on this date is that I am unaware of a single public school in any jurisdiction, anywhere in the country, to which I would entrust the safety of my children.  To my knowledge, none of them can be trusted to provide for student safety, and none of them really want that responsibility.  You will naturally find a number of teachers who would accept that responsibility, but they are hamstrung by worthless bureaucracies, foolish unions and professional associations, and in many jurisdictions, the law.

If a teacher tells you that they are unwilling to be armed in defense of their students, what they are really saying to you is that they are not to be trusted with your children, because they don’t wish to take on the responsibility of protecting the lives of your children.

Period. End. Fin!

Everything they might say after that is merely a load of excuse-making, and largely ideologically driven.  Besides, apart from contraindicating physical disabilities, how competent is any adult who cannot(or will not) be trained to proficiency with a concealable firearm?  Should any person lacking that basic competence be permitted access to your children for any purpose?  I say “No.”

Where do we start?  We need people to answer honestly the simple question: “Who is responsible for the safety of my children?” Once you reduce that question to its irreducible constituents, the answer is all too plain.  “Something must change!”  Indeed, and what that something is must be that parents must reassert their responsibility for the lives and safety of their children.  When they do that, nearly all the school shootings will cease, and even when they do occur, there will be provisions in place to effectively defend against them.

 

 

 

 

 

Dereliction of Duty

Saturday, February 24th, 2018

broward_pussy_ft

In successive days of late afternoon disclosures, what has become clear from the tragic shooting in Parkland, Florida is a serious problem with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office.  It’s also increasingly clear that the highly political Sheriff, who on Wednesday evening during CNN’s pant-hoot-howl-disguised-as-townhall, lashed out at NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch (@dloesch on Twitter,) had more than a few pressing reasons to deflect criticism and turn the attention of both the audience and media toward guns and the National Rifle Association.  On Thursday, we learned that there was a Broward Sheriff’s Deputy who had been assigned as a School Resource Officer on the Parkland campus who failed to enter the building to confront the shooter, for more than four minutes of the slightly more than five minutes the shooter was active in the building.  On Friday, this catastrophic dereliction was discovered to have been far worse: There were at least three more officers who arrived and likewise refrained from entering the building, even after police officers responding from Coral Springs arrived and independently entered the premises. There are no words to describe this betrayal.  There is no excuse Sheriff Scott Israel can offer.  It’s time for him to surrender his badge and gun, but also for Florida Attorney General Pam Bondy, to begin an investigation of the conduct of the Broward Sheriffs Office.

People are shrieking that the School Resource Officer, 33=year veteran of the Sheriffs Office, Deputy Scot Peterson, should be charged.  After all, during the period he stood holding his gun outside the building while the shooting continued inside, it is likely that most of the deaths occurred.  He was there in perhaps less than one minute after the shooting commenced, but never entered.  Modern(post Columbine) active shooter doctrine directs officers to enter the premises immediately, backup or not, body armor or not, and to engage the shooter or shooters as quickly as possible because it is opposition that almost always stops these killers, either by being killed, or by killing themselves.  Deputy Peterson, apparently milking the taxpayer in his last years before retirement, obviously wasn’t interested in putting himself or his pension at risk to save school kids and teachers about which he seems not to have been even slightly concerned.

Friday’s revelation only makes it worse, as it appears at least three more Broward deputies arrived soon after, while the shooting was still in progress, and together with Peterson, none of them attempted entry into the building.  The shooter, Nikolas Cruz, was able to walk out unscathed and unchallenged.

I know there are plenty of fine officers, including the heroes from Coral Springs, who arrived and entered immediately as all current active-shooter doctrines demand, and this is not a general impeachment of all law enforcement, but it is an impeachment of Sheriff Israel’s leadership, or more properly, the lack thereof.  To have a department responsible for such a populous jurisdiction, but unwilling even to enter into lethal combat with an active shooter speaks volumes about how little worth Sheriff Israel has brought to his community, unless you value political patronage campaigns, in which he apparently enjoyed great success.

israel_clinton

         Rather than being “With Her,” Sheriff Israel should have been training his deputies

Perhaps Sheriff Israel should have spent more of his career training his deputies, insisting on superior performance and adherence to departmental policies.  Perhaps rather than assigning an officer ready for retirement to patrol the school campus, he might have considered sending an experienced and courageous officer to protect the most precious resource in his county.  Instead, he appears to have assigned a deputy to the school who was much closer to the end of his career than its beginning, and seemed not to be very interested in getting inside to face the shooter and protect the children and faculty.

This is sickening.  It’s bad enough that the FBI had every opportunity to have prevented this tragedy.  It’s bad enough that over the last few years, Nikolas Cruz had repeated encounters with the police and with the school, but he was permitted to go on until this disaster. None of it is excusable in any respect, but what is simply intolerable, and what must not be accepted, is a pattern of malingering and dereliction on the part of multiple officers, suggesting a mindset that is part of the corporate culture of Sheriff Israel’s department.  This sort of thing is always the result of poor leadership.  It’s always the result of bad management and a tendency in government to keep the ineffectual around long after they should have been terminated.  Instead, they’re permitted to linger on the tax-payer’s back, squandering a payroll that could have been spent on more effective public servants.

I am always loathe to second-guess the actions of officers on the scene, because there can always be factors of which a distant observer like myself might quite naturally be wholly unaware. I have family in law enforcement, and I know a laege number of courageous officers who protect the community in which I live. I know too many good men and women who take seriously their oaths to haphazardly malign peace officers. I know most of our officers, the great body of them, would not have hesitated to run headlong into that school in an attempt to neutralize the shooter, even at obvious risk to life and limb.  Sadly, this was not the case with the first four Deputies to respond to that school in Parkland, and it apparently isn’t part of the normal culture of Sheriff Israel’s department.  On the other hand, I’m sure when he was kissing-up to Hillary Clinton, as pictured above, it was his best officers who were present to provide additional security to augment the needs of whatever Secret Service protection Clinton may have enjoyed at the time.  The school gets the ROAD Deputy(Retired On Active Duty,) while more courageous officers are sent to protect much less precious things than our children.

It’s time for Sheriff Israel to resign.  It would have been bad enough to simply know the truth of this, but that it took Scott Israel more than a week to disclose this information suggests he had been hoping to cover it up or justify it so as to reduce the public relations black-eye he almost certainly will now be called upon to endure. Sheriff Israel should be ashamed, as he seemed to be when first detailing the inaction of Deputy Peterson on Thursday, but now, it has become quite evident that this shame is more thoroughly institutional within his department, and it’s time for Israel to acknowledge his shame by resigning from his office. Platitudes about “taking responsibility” will no longer suffice.  Sheriff Israel must go, just as FBI director Christopher Wray must go in the wake of the FBI’s disastrous contribution to this catastrophe.

People have asked me if the officers could be charged.  I am not entirely familiar with Florida statutes, but I do know that in a number of broadly applicable court rulings, officers have no affirmative duty to protect anybody. For that reason alone, I doubt that any of the malingerers who were derelict in the performance of their duties will face any legal ramifications. Yes, they might lose their jobs, but that says nothing of actual criminal or civil liability.

I hope the people of Broward County will seek out a new Sheriff who engenders more courage in his or her officers than Scot Peterson, who seems to have been sub-par even in comparison with Paul Blart. “Shameful” doesn’t begin to cover it.

Lastly, I wonder how long it will be before some enterprising journalist(therefore nobody from CNN) will ask for a count of shots and/or victims hit when the surveillance videos are all synchronized such that an analysis of that sort can be made. How many of the students and faculty members died while their would-be rescuers stood around outside in a defensive posture?  If I were the parents and surviving students and faculty of Parkland, that’s what I’d be demanding to know, and it’s an answer for which Sheriff Israel must be held accountable.

 

The Infantilization of America

Wednesday, February 21st, 2018

adulthood_deferred_ft

President Trump wants the sale of firearms curtailed to people between eighteen and twenty years of age.  It’s bad enough that he’s apparently decided to go along with the gun-grabbers in various ways, but now he wishes to further infantilize young adults.  Some of what I will say may ruffle some feathers, and it may be erroneously construed as an attack on the young, but frankly, I don’t give a damn.  We don’t permit 18-20 year-olds to drink.  We do permit them to vote.  We permit them to remain on their parents’ health insurance through their twenty-sixth birthday.  We didn’t permit them to purchase handguns, and now it seems we will deny them any guns of any description.  What has remained unchanged for many generations is that we permit them to serve in our military as early as seventeen.  If you wonder who is to blame for the crass irresponsibility of so many among our young, look no further than the ways in which we diminish them.  Since this seems to be the cultural trend, I think it’s time to amend our constitution to comport with our cultural and legal machinations.  Let’s make the new age of majority twenty-six, and return all those younger to a state of pre-emancipated infantilization.

Some of you will think I’m joking.  Some of you will believe that I couldn’t possibly be serious.  I am completely serious.  Let us revoke adulthood from all those under twenty-five.  Here’s how that would apply:

  • No vote
  • No military service
  • No booze
  • No marijuana even in states where it has been legalized
  • No contracts of any kind
  • No firearms of any sort
  • No “right to privacy”of any kind
  • No marriage
  • No driving

If we want to infantilize our young, let’s at least do it thoroughly and consistently. Let us return them to a state of pre-emancipated minor, subject to all forms of parental intervention, and supervision.  Understand that I don’t want this, but if we’re going to begin stripping rights from them, we must strip them as a set.  Adulthood is an all-or-nothing affair, and I think it’s time we recognize this in law.  Since the previous administration thought twenty-five year-olds should remain on their parents’ health policies, and since the current administration thinks they shouldn’t be able to buy an AR-15, then there’s no point in them being adult in any part.  Any.

I had an M16 thrust into my hands for the first time at age seventeen.  I was a big kid, so it was assumed I would also make a good candidate to drag around an M60 machine gun, with the M16 cross-slung on my back.  They seemed to think I was able to bear up under the load, and so I was, amazingly.  There’s a lesson in there, but of course, it’s lost on a President who thinks 18-20 year-olds shouldn’t have AR-15s.  My question is:  When will President Trump order Secretary Mattis to discharge all servicemembers under the age of 21?   The weapons with which they are routinely entrusted are far more lethal than anything you can pick up in your local gun shop.

Or will the President recognize that just as there is variability in young adults with respect to their fitness for military service, there’s just as much variability among the young adults and their capacity to safely own firearms?  It seems the Commander-in-Chief is confused.  He’s certainly confusing me.  He’s causing me to ask why, if he will not stand up for the rights of all Americans, including young adults, I should endeavor to defend him against the “Russian Collusion” hoax.  Truth is truth.

Meanwhile, in Florida, our children, who haven’t the good sense to defer to their parents on politics, are being exploited by the anti-gun phalanx.  They’re kids, after all, and we already know that they don’t use logic until their brains are more fully developed, as late as twenty-five?  Why do we think car insurance drops in price for people obtaining the age of twenty-five?  It’s because they make better decisions on average, because we’ve known for years that their brains aren’t fully developed until then. Of course, some people remain dominated by emotionalism in their decision-making into their seventies, apparently.

What I really believe is that all the rights and privileges and responsibilities of adulthood go together as a set.  When we define the age of adulthood, that’s the end of the argument.  It’s always been abominable to me that at seventeen, they shoved an M16 in my hands, but I was forbidden a beer or a handgun.  Now it seems the President wishes to add rifles to the round-up of things young adults cannot possess.  I think it’s horrible policy, but if we’re going to do this, then let us pick the age of adulthood and let it stand in all circumstances, in every case, everywhere and at once.

Like all such reflexive measures taken in the aftermath of a tragedy, this is another horrible mass abolition of rights for law-abiding people because in our society, we have a handful of lunatics.  I’m tired of losing my rights due to criminals.  I’m tired of losing my rights to the pleas of hyper-emotional, arrested development children. Let us at least be consistent in defining what are adults.

 

 

 

The Next School Shooter

Thursday, February 15th, 2018

parkland_florida_shooting_ft

It’s coming.  You know it, and I know it.  Every rational person knows it.  Somewhere in our nation, one or more people are preparing to go on a shooting rampage, and one of them may intend your child as a target.  That shooter-in-waiting is already armed, already possesses the means to carry out the intended attack.  It’s too late to talk about banning guns, bullets, gas masks or backpacks.  The thug is already primed, and all that is now needed is for the fuse to be lit.  Perhaps the death of a relative will be the trigger. Maybe it will be something in our highly polarized political environment that will ignite this rampage.  There’s no way to know where the shooter will appear, but there’s no doubt that the shooter is waiting, and while we bicker about banning guns or ammunition or anything else, and while we talk about “mental health issues,” we are failing our children in a sickeningly fundamental way:  We’ve shirked our first responsibility as parents to defend our children by leaving them defenseless in the face of monsters.  We cannot pretend that we can intercept these shooters by banning their implements, and we must face the fact that the only way to protect our children is to rise in their defense.

When you deliver your child to the school in the morning, or watch them load onto the school bus, you’ve effectively discharged your responsibility; everything the school does with your child is a matter of the authority with which you vested them when you placed the school in loco parentis.  You’ve effectively given the school temporary custody, presumably for the purposes of education.  At the same time, our federal government has so thoroughly nationalized our schools that we have largely prohibited the faculty and administration of our schools from participating in the defense of our children.  Except for licensed law enforcement officers, there’s nobody who can legally possess a gun on our schools’ grounds.  When it is suggested that we ought to increase security at our schools, and that the faculty and administration of our schools ought to be included in that defense, it is said that teachers cannot be armed because they cannot be trusted to refrain from a shooting rampage of their own should a child or children get out of hand.  In essence, we are told that teachers are a psychologically unbalanced lot, not to be trusted with guns.

This notion is always baffling to me, particularly when uttered by actual parents of minor children.  Are we to understand that teachers and coaches and principals may not be entrusted with a firearm, but that they are to be trusted to act in loco parentis? We trust them to shape the minds of our children, but we cannot trust them to defend our kids?  If an actual parent believes this, then there are only two rational options: 1.) Immediately withdraw your children from that dangerous school, or 2.) Reconsider your qualifications as a suitable parent for your children.  It is self-evident that if a teacher or administrator is insufficiently trustworthy to possess and carry a firearm, they have no business whatever acting in place of me with respect to my child(ren.)   If I can’t trust somebody with a gun, I certainly won’t trust them to instruct or oversee my kid(s.)

Bear all of this in mind when presented with the litany of excuses as to why we can’t or mustn’t arm non-police officers in our schools.  Remember that the thug is already out there, waiting for the timer to go off, or otherwise be “triggered” on his way.  The shooter is already armed.  The shooter already has ammunition.  You can ban guns and think you’ll discover him by psychological intervention, but you’re only kidding yourself, or permitting yourself to be misled.  The only place you can approximately guarantee the safety of your child(ren) is at home, but even there, it’s not guaranteed.  That said, you are in a position to defend your child(ren) in a way that is not possible in a conventional school environment.

It’s impossible to stress this point too thoroughly.  We must defend our children, but it must be an active defense, rather than an exercise in apprehension of villains and recovery of bodies.  Our teachers, administrators, coaches, and security must be armed and able to repel attackers.  They must be trained.  If we have teachers who cannot be trusted with a firearm, they should not be trusted with our children.  That next school shooter is out there.  It’s not possible to stop the shooter by banning anything.  The shooter is likely already armed.  The question parents must answer is this:  If you know the shooter is out there, though you can’t know his location, identity, or motive in advance, how do you defend your children?  Why are you sending your children to be safeguarded by people who are unable and/or unwilling to protect them?  Why are you putting your children in the midst of people with whom you would would not trust a gun?  The answer is an active defense.  It must be.

There will always be killers among us.  We can’t stop them all, and we can’t always intervene before they’re able to inflict casualties, but the only way we might is to present an unambiguous, active defensive curtain around our children, with trained, rational adults empowered to provide that defense.  Everything else is political cowardice.  It’s time, with all the evidence before us, for parents to insist that there be an active defense, or to withdraw their children from these schools.  What do you have that you value more?  On which political issue are your efforts better spent?  It’s simple: We must insist that our schools be empowered to mount an active defense against violent assailants.  If you sincerely wish to protect your children from the next school shooter, it’s too late to talk about bans.  That shooter is already armed, perhaps casing the target, or merely awaiting a psychological trigger; your child(ren.)  Only an active defense offers any hope.

 

Editor’s Note: It’s despicable that while the Parkland Florida shooter was preparing to commit his crime, the FBI, which had been notified of a youtuber of the same name threatening to be a professional school shooter, did only a cursory investigation, apparently too busy chasing phantom “Trump-Russian Collusion,” as directed by their senior leadership in Washington DC.  If only the FBI field agents had been able to conduct a more thorough investigation, perhaps the outcome would have been different.

The Scandal the Memo Didn’t Reveal

Monday, February 5th, 2018

memo_p1_ftNow that the country has had seventy-two hours to digest the memo released by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, it’s time to consider what the memo tells us, and to decide what we ought to do with this information.  In this examination, we must first ignore all of the shrill dismissals and whispered urgency that has characterized this release in the media all week.  On the one hand, we have hyperventilating leftists telling us that the Republicans have produced a “nothing-burger” that undermines national security and/or the rule of law.  On the other, we now have a DC establishment that’s interested in protecting Robert Mueller’s investigation, as though they’re under his thumb.  What’s never admitted by the latter, and what is completely obscured through the huffing and puffing of the former is what really happened, and what this memorandum really means, or where it should lead us.  What does the memo really say?  Is it really a “partisan nothing-burger that is intended to undermine national security?” Is it really “unrelated to Mueller and the Russia investigation?”  Let’s find out if there’s something hidden in plain sight.

The first thing to note is the subject of the memo:

Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations

For those of you who may or may not be aware, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act(FISA) is a law that governs the way surveillance is conducted on US citizens and legal residents in the foreign arena or with foreign actors.  It sets up a secret court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court(FISC,) the purpose of which is to allow warrants to be granted in a secret process not open to the public, and not ordinarily subject to public scrutiny, all on the basis that such surveillance may be necessary from time to time for the purposes of national security, and that the rights of Americans must be protected even in this context.

What happened specifically in this case is muddied, but what we do know from this disclosure is that:

  • FISA Warrants were sought and granted in the matter of US citizen Carter Page
  • Carter Page was a low-level adviser with the Trump Campaign
  • The primary basis for the granting of the warrant was the “Steele Dossier”
  • The “Steele Dossier” was generated by former British agent Christopher Steele working with Fusion GPS
  • Fusion GPS was at the time being paid by the DNC
  • The DNC was under the functional control of the Hillary Rodham Clinton Campaign
  • The information provided to the FISC was known by those seeking the warrants to be of dubious providence
  • After Steele was let go by the FBI as a source, the FBI and DOJ continued to use Fusion GPS as a source because they hired Ohr’s wife

I might add another point, though it’s under dispute at this time:

  • The entire “Russia Collusion” narrative is based on fabricated information largely derived from the Steele Dossier

On its face, this seems pretty damning, but there’s something not made clear by this memo, something to be found between the lines, or to be understood contextually if you prefer, that intimates something deeply disturbing and devious.  To understand this context, we have to view this in the time in which it occurred.  This was done in order to conduct surveillance on the Trump Campaign.  All of the rationalizations being offered now, after the fact, are cover stories being propagated by the actors and their ideological brethren.  The real order of events looks more like this:

  • FISA Warrants are sought in order to permit extensive spying on the Trump campaign for political motives
  • A justification is needed to have cover for doing the surveillance – enter “Russian Collusion”
  • Internal polling showed Clinton was not invincible
  • Trump wins the election, leaving the actors in a potentially ‘outed’ position
  • The “Russian Collusion” narrative is furthered to justify the previous political activities of the Obama administration and executive departments
  • Mueller is appointed as Special Counsel because somebody must be guilty to preserve that narrative
  • The entire narrative becomes the basis for Democrat obstructionism in order to undermine and oppose the new president
  • James Comey apparently perjured himself multiple times in testimony to Congress
  • Barack Obama knew or ought to have known what was being done
  • The entire Democrat-Media complex is now engaging in a coverup to protect the Mueller probe to give him time to find something

Ladies and gentlemen, when you boil it down, this document is damning, but it’s most damning in terms of what it does not explicitly state.  I don’t know if it constitutes “one-hundred times worse than Watergate,” but it is substantially worse than Watergate, and there are some critical reasons why this is true.

Watergate was about actions taken to hide or cover-up embarrassing actions by unofficial political actors. President Nixon covered-up, or attempted to cover-up embarrassing criminal actions of some political henchmen who acted without his foreknowledge, endorsement, authorization, or collusion.  That’s all about the conduct of a President using his office to conceal ugly criminal actions of political allies and underlings acting on his behalf, without his knowledge.

This case, for which there is strangely no agreed-upon catchy name(like “Watergate” for example,) is much worse because it involves the following elements:

  • A President’s administration seems to have been complicit in conspiring to commit criminal actions under color of their official offices
  • Actors within the various departments seem to have colluded with a political candidate in order to attack another political candidate
  • The FISC seems to have gone along with this because it did not seek to validate the providence of the documents
  • Much of the so-called “mainstream media” was complicit and acted as agents for this conspiracy
  • The conspirators remain at large to propagate their defense from the shadows and from official offices
  • Conspirators include a presidential candidate, at least one former President, his “kitchen cabinet,” and appointees, who remain in place in the government

Ladies and gentlemen, this is “the swamp.” This explains a good deal, because while the memo doesn’t go beyond the facts of the FISA abuses, it’s what those facts tell us about the overall corruption in Washington DC, how our government operates, and the extent to which abuses of power are the norm in the daily operation of government.  It also shows why we must from time to time clean out the Federal bureaucracy.  Too much power, too long-enjoyed by a like-minded group of people, perhaps operating from a shared ideological base, or from a common political organization, tends toward grotesque abuses of power.

This is just the first stone being overturned.  There are much worse abuses directly implied by the facts disclosed in this memo. For instance, was Peter Strzok the person who built the FISA application(s)? If so, aren’t the applications’ omissions of facts regarding the providence of the Steele Dossier essentially a defrauding of the FISC?  And if this is so, what happens to every case in which Strzok is or has been involved? Strzok interviewed Michael Flynn, for instance.  Is this the reason that Mueller requested a delay in the sentencing of Flynn last Thursday?

One of the things that we know, historically, is that when testimony from an officer or investigator is shown to be tainted in some way, and particularly when that witness is found to have known his testimony was false, there are generally sanctions from the court, but more, all other cases involving the witness are thrown into question.  When it is shown that a police officer lied in testimony to a court in obtaining a search warrant, not only is that warrant thrown out, but there is a high probability that every instance of testimony in any case in which that officer had been a witness is thrown into question. It essentially ends the officer’s career, as nothing he says from that date forward is given any veracity.  No prosecutor will use his testimony, and no judge will thereafter consider his warrant applications.  In other words, Strzok and every case in which he has been involved will be thrown into question.  Every case.  Strzok helped write the Clinton email exoneration.  Strzok interviewed Flynn.  There’s no end to the possibilities, and Strzok has been moved out of Mueller’s team, and out of field investigations, to the Human Resources department.  That’s because he’s of no use whatever as an investigator of any sort.  His career as a field agent is and should be over.  He may face civil and/or criminal sanctions if he lied to a court, either directly or by omission.

Who signed off on these applications at the DOJ and the FBI?  The memo makes that plain:

  • James Comey
  • Sally Yates
  • Rod Rosenstein
  • Andrew McCabe

Comey and Yates have been fired, Rosenstein is still in place, and McCabe was placed on administrative leave by FBI director Christopher Wray on Monday, after he read the memo on Sunday. These people may all face civil or criminal sanctions on the same basis.  Rosenstein is being left in place to protect Mueller, and on Sunday, we had the spectacle of Trey Gowdy claiming that this memo has nothing to do with “Russia” or Mueller.  This is a preposterous assertion, as Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch made clear in a video briefing, and during an interview on Friday, when he was asked about Speaker Ryan’s claims to the same effect.  Here’s Fitton on Fox:

Now, compare this with what Trey Gowdy, (R-SC) had to say about it, Sunday, on [de]Face the Nation:

These two views are irreconcilable.  Either Fitton is correct, or Gowdy is correct. I don’t see room for any middle ground. Gowdy claims:

  • The Steele Dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower
  • The Steele Dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica
  • The Steele Dossier has nothing to do with the meeting with George Papadopoulos in Great Britain
  • The Steele Dossier has nothing to do with “obstruction of justice”

On their face, all but the fourth of these claims seem true, except for one significant problem: The first three are certainly independent events, unrelated in terms of the specific actors, however, they are related by virtue of a timeline.  These are independent events, each in a vacuum, but they are events that add up to something illegitimate once taken together in a timeline with other things like the Steele Dossier.  To analogize, let us imagine that conspirators had agreed to take their independent parts in a plot to ensure that I would slip on a banana peel in front of cameras on my birthday. (I could see my siblings setting something like this up.) One brother buys a banana, eats the fruit, and carries the peel to the appointed place. Another brother arranges for the cameras to be present at the appointed place and time. My sister finds me, and asks me to accompany her to look at something.  Upon my arrival, my sister on my arm, another sibling distracts me and gets me to look left, as from the right, the brother with the banana peel tosses it into my path and my sister nudges me over it.  I land on my backside, and all have a great laugh at my expense. If I’m gullible, I might believe that the brother with the banana peel innocently discarded it into my path.  I might believe another brother just happened to have arranged for the cameras to be right there at that moment to record it for posterity, and I might believe my sister hadn’t been complicit in walking me into it while another brother took my attention off the path immediately in front of me.  I might be that gullible.  Is Trey Gowdy that gullible?  Is speaker Ryan?

As for the “obstruction” nonsense, just in the last week, we’ve learned how Andrew McCabe tried to set up Reince Priebus, and this is another example of a Republican being walked onto a banana peel by a duplicitous Democrat, the whole point of which was to create the impression that the Trump administration was trying to improperly influence Mueller’s fiasco of an investigation.

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked congressman Chris Stewart(R-UT) if House Republicans are “more concerned with protecting us from the Russians or protecting us from the FBI?” Here’s the video:

That’s disgraceful. You can watch the entire Fox News Sunday show if you like, but any time Chris Wallace is involved, it’s going to have a leftist slant.

This isn’t over, because the DC establishment intends to rid themselves of Trump.  As readers will know, I’m not a Trump fan, but I am a fan of the rule of law and the US Constitution.  The forces arrayed against Trump here are formidable, but the question remains: Will President Trump rise to the challenge?  Will he find a way to empower his Attorney General, who has been neutered almost from the outset?  By the way, I think what should happen at this point is that AG Sessions should fire Rosenstein, then rescind his recusal on the “Russian Collusion” matter, and appoint another Special Counsel to investigate corruption within the executive branch departments, including the FBI and the DOJ, and also the State Department.  Apparently, I’m not alone in believing this, as Rep Paul Gosar, (R-AZ) wants to see some criminal prosecutions. At the same time, Rep. Louis Gohmert(R-TX) is pressing to see the transcripts of the FISC hearings that adjudicated these warrant applications.

 

Note: All of this made me curious to see if I could find out a bit more about Fitton’s view on things, and so I went looking around, finding this, which was interesting:

 

The Silent Coup d’état

Thursday, January 25th, 2018

silent_coup_detat_ft

It’s become pretty clear that the permanent government in Washington DC is corrupt beyond repair.  Tuesday, it was reported that a “Secret Society” was formed at the Federal Bureau of Investigations in order to stop Donald Trump from winning the 2016 election in the first instance, but having failed that, in the second instance to see him removed from office.  The most damnable aspect of this is that the latter is still ongoing.   Before losing perspective, remember that I’m not a particular fan of President Trump, and certainly no apologist for him, but in this instance, it’s certain that the forces arrayed against him are acting outside the bounds of the Constitution of the United States, and they’re showing no signs of relenting.  Worse, because the Attorney General of the United States has recused himself from the “Russian Collusion” investigation, there’s nobody who can put a stop to this madness.  What we have is an open-ended coup d’état in progress against the current President of the United States, putting the entire nation at risk.  Left unchecked, this silent executive branch revolt threatens to demolish our constitutional republic, and every legitimate officer of the United States federal government has taken an oath to prevent this.  I really don’t care about the political differences I may have with President Trump from time to time in this context, because my loyalty is reserved to the republic, and I renew my pledge each and every day: “…and to the Republic for which it stands…”  Attorney General Sessions had ought to review his own oath.  Members of Congress had better review their oaths.  It is time to fulfill them, and Americans are right to demand it.  Mark Levin has been right to call this a “Silent Coup,” and heads must roll.

Naturally, it’s worse than just the text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.  That’s merely the point at which we enter into this issue.  When it became public knowledge last week that there was a classified memo by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, headed by Devin Nunes, there erupted a call for the document to be released to the public by various House members and also people in the media, such as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham on their respective shows on FoxNews.  This memo purportedly gives some indication of just how corrupt the permanent ruling class in Washington DC has become in administering the Federal Government.   On Facebook and  Twitter, the phrases “ReleaseTheMemo” and “ReleaseTheDocument” became explosively popular hashtags.  On Tuesday, the ranking member of Nunes’ committee, Adam Schiff(D-CA,) together with fellow Californian Senator Dianne Feinstein(D-CA,) sent a letter to Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, CEOs of Facebook and Twitter, respectively, requesting that they investigate the allegation that “Russian Bots” were driving the meme on those two platforms.

Download the entire Feinstein & Schiff_letter in PDF format

 If you read the letter carefully, you will notice that already, Feinstein and Schiff are trying to distribute their own characterization of the memo, by way of defaming it.  Also, a question arises as to how Senator Feinstein has access to the memo to the extent she can comment about the character of its contents, since the memo is supposed to be classified and reserved at this point only to House members.  So why is a Senator commenting on the character of the memo?  It implies directly that she’s seen it.  Did Schiff disclose a classified document improperly to a colleague in the Senate?  More, when did members of Congress get the authority to make requests that sound more like demands of corporations?  These people certainly appear to be desperate to stop the disclosure of the memo in question to the public, and the reason for this is clear:  It will demolish the entire Democrat Party.  On Tuesday evening, both Schiff’s and Feinstein’s offices were hanging up on a deluge of callers letting the two Democrat hacks know that they were not “Russian Bots.”

There seems little impetus in Washington DC to release the memo, despite all the obvious evidence that the government is completely out of control.  Many Republicans seem more intent on fighting with President Trump than in pursuing the reckless, treasonous cabal that has sought and continues to seek to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States.  I cannot stress this point nearly enough: These people are traitors, and they have committed treason, and if they are not brought to justice, the United States Constitution is dead. If these conspirators are permitted to evade the full measure of justice, and if their masters are likewise able to escape detection and prosecution, our constitution is dead.  The country over.  In such a circumstance, there is no longer any moral law to restrain any person of integrity.  This must be an instance in which the great multitude of the American people must proclaim: “No justice, No Peace!”

Your country is being stolen from you.  At this moment, they are conspiring to steal the law from you.  They are conspiring to steal a duly elected President from you.  You may not like Donald Trump so well, but if you now stubbornly cling to #NeverTrump in spite of the current circumstance, you are forsaking your country.  Even if you are not a Trump fan, you must know what is at stake.  This is the sort of occasion for which sincere pledges of allegiance and oaths to protect and defend the constitution were made.  The last time this nation faced such a thorough mortal threat to its very existence from within, the year was 1861, Lincoln had been inaugurated, and the Civil War had commenced. I do not mean to say that Donald Trump is equivalent to, or even like Abraham Lincoln, as it is all too plain that he is not, but just like Abraham Lincoln, he is the duly elected President of the United States, and the conspiracy against him is no less broad or deep than the conspiracy that resulted in Lincoln’s assassination in 1865.  In fact, it is fair to say that while these conspirators have not yet resorted to violent means, it is certainly true that the conspiracy is wider in scope, and worse, it is secreted within the government of the United States.

None have yet asserted it, but it is possible that Robert Mueller is a party to this conspiracy.  Attorney General Sessions must immediately step in and put an end to Mueller’s bogus investigation.  He must dispatch the US Marshals to secure all pertinent evidence in the Department of Justice, including at the FBI, and within the NSA and CIA, and any other agencies in which there were participants in this attack on the United States.  Make no mistake about it: This was(and remains) a serious attack on the integrity of a US Presidential election, not by Russians, but by agents of our own government, perhaps in coordination with members and officials of the political party in power over the executive branch at the time.  More, there is now evidence that at least two of the conspirators were involved in getting the Mueller investigation going, and getting Mueller appointed by another person who may either be another conspirator, or may have been incompetent in acting as their puppet.  This entire ordeal stinks of wretched, skulking treason, and Robert Mueller is tainted with its stench.  It is time for Attorney General Sessions to formally rescind his recusal, and to appoint a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this conspiracy, and setting to right all those instances in which justice was thwarted or obstructed, and to bring to justice those who had any part in it.  This must include any members of previous administration(s) who were even tangentially connected, and it must bring charges against all the participants, no matter how highly they had been placed in former regimes. It may be that there are members of Congress, judges, and elected or appointed officials of the executive branch who will be rounded-up under this mandate, but this must be ended, and ended with swift and unyielding reverence for our constitution.

Editor’s Note: As I finished typing up this posting, Mark Levin‘s broadcast of Wednesday evening had begun.  His first hour focused on this subject, and it was Levin who coined the term “Silent Coup” in this context, so he should be credited with that.  I’d urge you to listen to that first hour, as it covers most of the facts we now know, and in truth, it had been Levin who first began piecing together this story of treachery and treason nearly one year ago. You can listen to Levin’s audio rewind in the player below:

Stealth Attempt to Ban Your Guns In Progress

Sunday, January 21st, 2018

2nd_amendment_ftIn Washington DC, as law-abiding Americans go about their days minding their business, the machinery of state has found a new approach to attack their right to defend themselves with modern firearms.  No longer content to accept the fact that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms, and no longer willing to accept venerable definitions even of inanimate objects, the administrative state will now redefine terms in order to further restrict your liberties, and ultimately, to strip you of them entirely.  It will be incremental, and as usual, the method will be to attack at those points where the defenders are less certain, or less committed.  The immediate object will be items like “bump-fire” stocks and “echo triggers,” but the ultimate aim is the banning of all “semi-automatic” or “auto-loading” weapons.  Those of you who think your shotguns or pistols are safe had better think again.  Those of you who think even your revolvers will be exempt had ought to reconsider.  Naturally, the military, police, and other official entities will be exempt, and you will be left defenseless, ultimately, because you will not be permitted the means to resist.  You might think you can live without bump-stocks or echo triggers, and you might be right if that’s where it would stop, but it won’t.  It never does. For that reason, I wish to arm you with the knowledge you need to make a choice, and commit to it in the face of this lunacy, and to provide you the information you need to stop this now.  The BATFE has drafted new rules, and you need to comment and oppose them.  To make your argument, you’ll need to understand how they’re attacking your liberties.

Let us begin by understanding what they want to ban.  In the end, they are intent on depriving you even of lever actions and even more primitive weapons. They will reduce you to blunderbusses used only in ceremonies and re-enactments.  To do this, they took the first step by regulating machine guns, so-called “fully automatic” weapons under the National Firearms Act of 1934. In 1986, the Hughes Amendment prohibited the production of new “automatic weapons” for the civilian market.  Now, they’re prepared to take the next step.  The “problem” they wish to “solve” is that you would be able to fire one round immediately after the previous with an additional squeeze of the trigger.  That’s what an auto-loader or “semi-automatic” does.  Discharging the round currently loaded in the chamber causes the firearm to load the next round into the chamber, ready to be discharged when the trigger is again depressed. This is accomplished by some combination of spent gas and mechanical operation, the former powering the latter. The long-held definition of a semi-automatic has been that some additional human interaction is required to cause the next cycle, ordinarily another trigger squeeze. A device like a bump-stock merely helps the operator speed up this process.  The human operator still depresses the trigger to initiate each additional discharge.  What’s different is that the human is merely taking advantage of the natural recoil of the firearm at higher speed.  The cost is that the accuracy is sacrificed.  The method is to use the slop of the added mechanism to create a circumstance whereby the weapon’s natural recoil and a sloppy hold on the weapon create a moment when the weapon is recoiling, and then quickly returns to it’s firing position, meeting the finger which is positioned to again depress the trigger.  The weapon is still a semi-automatic, but human guile has made it approximate the rate of fire of an automatic.

The truth the BATFE’s rule will not now address is that no device beyond the firearm itself is actually needed to accomplish this.  Human guile, a bit of practice, and a little time accomplish the same thing.  This truth will be “discovered” at some future date, and when it is, the BATFE will move to ban semi-automatics on the exact same basis: That they can be manipulated in such a way as to behave, to the uneducated observer, like an automatic.  At present, they are basing it on the idea of “rate increasing devices,” but that’s a hoax.  None of these devices increase the rate of fire, but the human inducing it to operate are the instrument of the increase.  Since they can’t very well ban humans, at least not yet, or ban fingers, or ban loose or sloppy holds on weapons, they will instead ban the weapons.

I encourage each reader to go view a few videos on youtube.  These videos each show a person operating a semi-automatic in such a way as to approximate the rate of fire of an automatic.  Here’s an AR-15:

 

Here’s a Glock pistol:

Here’s a shotgun: Bump-firing a Mossberg 930.  I think you get the point. There is no form of semi-automatic that can’t be “bump-fired,” and to be perfectly blunt about it, the fact that owners of any semi-automatic weapons of any description would support a ban on “bump-stocks” or any other alleged “rate-limiting device” is merely an act of ignorance or cowardice.

The only “rate-increasing device” is a human.  The only salient fact is that your rights are under attack by the BATFE, perhaps at the direction, or at least under control of President Trump.  Congress is certainly complicit, as Republicans in Congress wish to simply make the issue go away, and making BATFE the heavy in an election year is the most expedient way.  Republicans can get their ban of bump-stocks without being seen by their pro-gun voters to participate in a vote to ban them.  This nifty abrogation of their responsibility is also an shirking of their constitutional role.  Permitting them to ban “bump-stocks” or “echo triggers” will next lead to the banning of any trigger modification, including reduced trigger pull weight.  Do you enjoy that improved trigger on your Glock?  Is that trigger on your custom AR-15 really smooth and light? What about the trigger on your Benelli shotgun?  Making them lighter or smoother also makes them easier to bump-fire.  Before long, anything that can be bump-fired by any methodology will be banned, factory-standard or not.  This will be the end of your semi-automatics.  Then it will be double-action revolvers, which in principle, could also be bump-fired.  Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that permitting the BATFE to redefine the terms will permit them to ultimately ban all semi-automatic firearms, and a few more besides.

There isn’t any question about it:  This rule must be stopped, and the NRA is doing nothing about it, at least to date, but they’re not likely to do so, because they want the issue to go away too.  To my knowledge, only the Gun Owners of America is taking any action, at least to date.  You can help, and you should, even if you don’t own any of these types of weapons, because things may change and the day may come when you decide you want or need one.  Banning these items on the basis that they “increase the rate of fire” is astonishingly dishonest, since the only true “rate-increasing device” is human ingenuity.  Please visit GOA’s website for more details, and to help by making official comments with the BATFE during the current comment period.

There is one more reason to stop this rule, and it’s a constitutional problem unrelated to the Second Amendment. People have spent millions and millions of dollars on their bump-fire stocks and their echo triggers and so on.  A rule that would now effectively make the possession or use of these items constitutes a “taking.”  In effect, the rule proposes to steal the value of these items without compensation.  Now it is true that I would oppose this even if the government promised to make the owners whole, but the simple fact is that as many as a million of these various devices, perhaps more, are in circulation, and most of them cost hundreds of dollars.  It’s hard to say with an exact number, but the amount of value this would steal from the aggregate of their owners is probably in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition of uncompensated takings:

…private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.

That seems pretty straight-forward, and it’s an objection we should all raise.

People with an anti-American point of view favor these gun bans, and bans on “rate-increasing devices.”  The problem is that they’re frauds, using each unfortunate attack or mass shooting as an opportunity to steal our liberties.  Note that these same devious liars did not call for the ban of Home Depot rentals after one of those trucks was used by a terrorist.  Why not?  Because too many Americans would reject it.  That’s why your voice is needed now: The government, even under President Trump, needs to know that a large number of the American people reject it.  Don’t fail to speak out in defense of your liberties, and in the name of reason and fact.

For a video discussion of this regulation, including a former BATFE employee explaining how this is being done, see the Military Arms Channel video on youtube.

The Conspiracy to Murder Kate Steinle

Friday, December 1st, 2017

kate_steinle_ft

They conspired to kill her in the open.  They gave their hired assassin a gun and the opportunity to kill her.  They might just as well have pulled the trigger themselves, and it’s clear that they had no interest in protecting an unarmed, innocent American citizen from criminal aliens.  This conspiracy has been in place for years, and it reaches far and wide across the State of California, and indeed, across the whole of the country. The conspiracy includes the governor, past governors, former presidents, former presidential candidates, and all manner of office holders up and down the ballot.  It also includes the people who selected these from among the choices on the ballot.  They have created a monstrous situation in which felons who have been repeatedly deported from our nation are permitted to return, and are not held for federal authorities when apprehended.  This is a despicable circumstance, and it’s one that every right-thinking American should not only condemn, but for which they must demand an immediate remedy.  It is time for Congress to ask, and for the amnesty-hounds in Congress to stop using as a bargaining chip.  It’s disgusting in every conceivable way, and yet the conspirators remain, free, uncharged, and unrepentant.  They stand committed to the prospect that the legal fiction of “sanctuary cities” is permissible and that these policies create new victims.  Their entire argument is a lie, and it’s time to face the fact that these conspirators constitute enemies of the United States, and both the Congress and the President of the United States must act to pursue them.  The people of the United States must demand it.

Kate Steinle shouldn’t be dead.  The man who pulled the trigger, claiming that the gun in his hand had fired spontaneously, has been found not guilty of murder by a jury.  I do not like to criticize juries in general, but based on what we know to date, the jury in question apparently believed the defense argument that the shooting had been accidental, and this means they are ignorant buffoons.  It cannot be that any of the jurors know very much about firearms.  The gun in question, a Sig Sauer P320, a .40 S&W pistol of substantially good performance and reliability, was alleged by Jose Ines Garcia Zarate’s defense to have discharged itself.  The seven-time felon, and five-time deportee claimed that he found it and it went off on its own while in his hand.  Let me state clearly: Any juror who believes this is a despicable fool.  FOOL.  I have handle and fired the model pistol in question, and like most modern firearms, it is not some cheap piece that malfunctions routinely.  If, as Zarate claims, he found the pistol under the bench, if it could discharge spontaneously without his muscular involvement, my first question is: “Why didn’t it discharge itself at some point before he picked it up?” We are asked to believe, by both Zarate and his defense team, that the gun “just went off by itself.”  This is impossible.  If it were possible, why would it lay there for some substantial period of time before he retrieved it from the ground, wrapped in some sort of rag as it was claimed, never discharging until it was in Zarate’s hand?  It’s a lie.  It’s a lie so obvious that only a jury of perfectly ignorant dolts could possibly believe it.

Of course, as foolish as the jury may have been, and as dishonest as the public defender may have been, there’s hardly a thing that could match the incompetence of a prosecutor who was clearly in the tank for the City of San Francisco.  Facing a lawsuit from Steinle’s family, the city would find it much easier to fight a lawsuit without a clear guilty verdict.  You see, and let’s be very careful to understand the logical chain, if Zarate is not responsible, then the City of San Francisco cannot possibly be guilty by virtue of their Sanctuary City policy.  This is the logic the lawyers for Kate’s parents will have trouble overcoming in their lawsuit.  If Zarate had been found guilty, the City’s Sanctuary City policy would clearly be on the hook, because they ignored the Federal Immigration detainer, and let him loose.  If he’d been found guilty, the city would be directly culpable.  Now, the City of San Francisco will claim: “Sure, we turned him loose, but he was found “Not Guilty” and not held criminally liable for Steinle’s death, therefore, our turning him loose didn’t result in Steinle’s death.”

Watch.  This will be their argument.  Bank on it.  I suspect malingering on the part of the Assistant District Attorney Alex Bastian.  He works for the City of San Francisco, after all, so with a lawsuit pending against the city, it wouldn’t be in his interest, having been hired by the DA more than one year after the murder.  Why wasn’t a more experienced prosecutor put on this high profile case?  Usually, they queue up to fight over who gets these sorts of cases.  Not here.  A new hire ADA was given this case?  Why?  He wasn’t supposed to win.  Do I have evidence?  No, of course not, but I’ve been around long enough to spot a set-up when I see one.

All of this is beside the point.  The truth is that in many ways, this case is repeated over and over again, not just in California, but all over our nation.  The left is so intent upon finding new votes that they will abet any criminality committed by those who they seek as new voters.  Many establishment Republicans also turn a blind eye toward this despicable situation, because they’re in the pocket of the US Chamber of Cronyism.  Americans cannot find justice, and Kate Steinle is just the most notable recent victim of this conspiracy.  In short, they don’t care at all for you.  They’ll sacrifice as many Americans as may be necessary to fulfill their dreams of power.  They’ll do anything to aid the criminals because their war against us is incomplete.  Justice will be denied yet again, and an illegal alien killer will be let go, or in this case, simply deported.

He’ll be back.  Maybe San Francisco will pick him up for another crime.  He’ll be let go, the City ignoring the ICE detainer.  He’ll be free to kill another American daughter, or son, maybe this time, yours, or mine.  We won’t protest. We won’t chant “No Justice, No Peace!”  We won’t call Congress to raise an unholy furor.  California will continue its slide, with the balance of America not far behind.  These people are wrecking our country.  They’re parties to the murder of our fellow citizens.  Their conspiracy against us is prevailing, out in the open, right before our eyes.

Bumping Down the Slippery Slope

Thursday, October 12th, 2017

 

bump-stock_ft

In the wake of the horrific shooting in Las Vegas, various parties have latched onto bump-stocks as the means to launch a new round of gun-control, and foolish Republicans, eager to avoid any negative press, have seemingly surrendered the ground. Legislation has been introduced that will retroactively(!) ban bump-stocks, and due to its wording, potentially criminalize simple improved triggers. Given the over-broad wording, this legislation could be taken to ban all sorts of things.  This should terrify every gun owner, as we see the NRA going wobbly on the issue, and as leftists pounce like hyenas to finish the job. We can always rely on leftists to be insanely, obsessively intent upon exploiting any mass shooting to serve their political aims, but the truth is that it is the people on our side who need the most thorough kick in the pants.  Listening to the parade of Republican politicians who are willing to ban an item the existence of which they were blissfully unaware less than two weeks ago is worse than disheartening, as it speaks to the tendency of politicians to surrender in fear an any issue in which they are unsure.  All of this is bad enough, but as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi(D-CA) made plain on the Thursday following the shooting, a ban on bump-stocks is not the end-game, and will only be used as an opening gambit in a larger grab of gun rights. She wants this to become the slippery slope, as some alleged ‘conservatives’ join with Democrats in desiring an end to the Second Amendment.  Cooler, rational heads must prevail and stop this whole process in its tracks.

Before discussing the politics of bump-stocks, it would seem practical to dispense with some of the disinformation about them. Listening to some of the nonsense going on in the media, and having heard such lunacy as ammunition described as “automatic” over the past week, I think it’s time for some education. My readers are likely aware of these matters, but I think I ought to cover the subject for the sake of those who may go in search of the answer to the questions: “What is a bump-stock” or “What is bump-fire?” To answer these questions, let’s first be sure that we understand some firearms basics, because if I hear one more stupid, ignorant, never-held-a-gun-in-my-life ignoramus-posing-as-journalist misreport this information, my head may well explode.

Since the AR-15 family of weapons is in question in the Las Vegas incident, let us restrain ourselves to that family of weapons, although the basic concepts extend to many other families of weapons, such as the AK-47 and so on.  Automatic weapons are those that permit the firer to depress/squeeze the trigger, hold it in that depressed/squeezed position, and continuously discharge the weapon. In short, “one squeeze, many bullets.” In stark contrast, a semi-automatic weapon requires the firer to squeeze the trigger for each round to be discharged.  In short, “one squeeze, one bullet.” Military rifles like the M16A1, a weapon with which I first became intimately familiar in 1983, have select fire, meaning you can rotate a selector lever from safe to semi to auto.  This permits the firer to decide for the sake of the mission or the exigencies of the moment to fire one round at a time, or many rounds at a time. In training doctrine, we were repeatedly instructed that even on automatic, we should only ever squeeze off “3-5 round bursts” in order to control our fire and to limit overheating associated with firing a member of this family of rifles at cyclic rate. (The “cyclic rate” is an optimistic rate of fire stating the maximum theoretical number of rounds that can be discharged assuming you could feed it enough ammunition continuously, and that the weapon weren’t suffering from overheating. The cyclic rate quoted to we basic trainees back in 1983 was 700 rounds per minute.) The M16 was theoretically capable of emptying an entire 30-round magazine in something around 2.5 seconds.  That’s extraordinarily fast, and if you attempted to sustain that rate of fire, for instance with drum magazines holding 100 rounds, you’d quickly overheat and damage your barrel, and you’d likely wind up with a misfire and jam at some point. All of this addresses the M16, a weapon that was designed and able to select automatic fire from the factory floor.

It is a felony offense to convert a standard semi-automatic AR-15 to select fire or automatic fire.  By the letter of the law, this means that any modification to the weapon that permits the firer to squeeze the trigger and hold it squeezed resulting in multiple rounds being fire is an offense that can and will land you in serious legal jeopardy.  We’re talking federal prison, folks, and not the resort style facility for you, should you do this.  There are many cases of people accidentally causing a material change in the operation of their AR-15 that caused it to fire multiple rounds on a single trigger squeeze that have resulted in successful prosecutions.  In short, the BATFE has no patience for excuses and claims of “I didn’t mean to…” They want people to understand that this is a serious offense and that they will hammer you for transgressions, and they want the broader public to be aware that such violations, even allegedly innocent ones, will be pursued with the full prosecutorial force of the federal government.  This is why it’s always best to leave weapons customization to professionals except for perhaps purely superficial aspects of the weapon in question.

A bump stock does not, I repeat, **DOES NOT** convert a semi-automatic rifle to fully automatic or select fire capability.

This cannot be stated often enough, loudly enough, or with enough vigor.  Under the definition outlined above, the bump stock does not materially change the fact that one squeeze of the trigger results in the discharge of a single bullet.  What a bump stock does do is to permit the user, with a little practice and coordination, to effectively depress the trigger much faster than normal.  This is because a forward force is applied to the handguard/forearm of the rifle in continuous fashion.  Essentially, what is happening is that the weapon is being pulled continuously forward so that the trigger is bumped(thus the term “bump-fire”) by the finger(or thumb) and you can effectively depress the trigger much more rapidly this way than by repeated squeezing in the standard fashion.  Watch this video for a primer on the technique. Note that no special device or parts are needed or employed.  The bump stock works to facilitate this, making it somewhat easier to accomplish because the pistol grip and butt-stock of the rifle are sliding and thus can move back and forth.  In NO WAY does it change the mechanical function of the rifle or its action. However, as the linked video clearly shows, you do not need a bump-fire stock to accomplish this. Bump-firing has been going on for many years before the widespread sale of the various brands of bump-fire stocks. It’s actually very simple to accomplish as the novice shooter in this video shows, in this case using her belt-loop to turn her semi-automatic rifle into an exercise in “spray and pray.” Here‘s the most popular model of a bump-stock.

Understanding all of this, you may now understand my bafflement at the stupidity going on in media and among politicians.  It also makes plain the reason I have advocated ditching the ban on fully automatic weapons all along: If one is willing to forgo any accuracy, any shooter equipped with a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun can produce similar results WITHOUT BUYING ANYTHING.  In fact, it can be accomplished with a semi-automatic handgun too. (See video of a standard Glock 26 being bump-fired here.)

Knowing this, you could immediately ask the rather obvious question: Does bump-firing have drawbacks? The answer is a decisive and emphatic “YES!” You see, one of the problems with bump-firing is that in order to make it work, you have to have some lack of control.  In the case of the bump-stocks like the ones sold by Slide-Fire or FosTech you accept a certain amount of slop in the firing of the weapon.  Also, a semi-automatic weapon fired at this rate becomes terribly inaccurate. As you will notice when you watch any of the videos linked above, there’s not a great deal of control. More, this is wasteful of ammunition. Most of the rounds fired this way won’t strike an intended target as this video demonstrates, and while bump-fire stocks do improve this somewhat, one has to admit that it takes a fair amount of practice to gain much control even at short ranges. Striking point targets consistently at a distance is terribly difficult, if not strictly “impossible.” (Of course, if you’re aiming at a distant area target, like a crowd, or what we in the military would have called a “gaggle,” that’s another matter, but more about that shortly.) Lastly, any time you cycle a weapon this rapidly, even a purpose-built fully automatic machine gun, you invite two troubles, and they are jamming/misfire, and [over]heating. The killer in Las Vegas apparently knew this, which is why he had nearly two dozen weapons in the hotel.  He knew in advance that he’d only be able to fire a limited number of rounds in this fashion per gun, because as the barrel heats up(and this happens amazingly quickly,) the weapons would become less and less useful, accurate, and simultaneously, would become more prone to failures and jams of various descriptions.  Under certain circumstances, this could even lead to catastrophic failure of the weapon resulting in injury to the firer.

One might ask what this all means, particularly with respect to the various gun-control advocates and the advocates of the Second Amendment.  To be perfectly unambiguous, and to remove all doubt from the situation, let me state categorically that there is no way to avoid this as a consequence of the function of semi-automatic firearms.  Semi-automatic firearms are inherently able to produce the “bump-fire” results with or without any particular parts or attachments to facilitate it.  The choice is clear, and you should understand it: If you accept that there’s nothing wrong with semi-automatic weapons, then you accept bump-firing as a consequence.  Period.  Don’t let any politician or advocacy group tell you otherwise. You might ask what my opinion is on this matter, and again, I’ll be only too happy to explain my position: The Second Amendment says(from memory):

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn’t say “lever action.” It doesn’t say “firearms.” It says “arms.” The current bans on automatic weapons, accepted and enforced by the courts, are actually entirely unconstitutional in any strict constructionist’s view of the Second Amendment. There is no set-aside for this one or that one.  The Second Amendment says “arms.”

In truth, if honestly applied, the Second Amendment does not permit the Federal Government to restrict any type of “arms,” neither “small arms,” nor even “nuclear arms.” You can expect to hear some howls on this basis, but a clear and concise reading of the Second Amendment leaves the Federal Government no such authority with respect to US citizens. What individual states may do is another matter, although since the courts adopted the [fraudulent]theory of incorporation with rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, one could argue that the statists have screwed themselves.  After all, it was big government types who insisted that the rights protected in the Federal Bill of Rights be taken to extend to the state and local level.  It’s always been a matter of curiosity(actually, simple hypocrisy) that while statists hate the concept of federalism in virtually all other instances, they have long advocated the notion of federalism when it comes to the Second Amendment as they attempt to apply local or state gun control ordinances and statutes.  Then, and only then, federalism is a good thing!  This philosophical inconsistency reveals the absolute hypocrisy of the statists, and reveals that what they really desire is whatever they may desire from time to time, and that should serve as full justification from prohibiting to them any power of any sort.  In short, they want what they want when they want it, logic and reason be damned, and with them, your liberties and rights be damned.

With respect to the situation in Las Vegas, let us discuss the specifics of this case.  Here you had a madman of some sort, whether politically motivated, or simply crazy beyond all repair, who decided for whatever reasons or none at all that he ought to kill as many people as possible.  Let’s look at this closely, to discover what makes this situation somewhat unique.  First, he was in a fixed position.  Essentially, he created for himself a veritable sniper’s nest on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort.  He didn’t need to move, and he didn’t need to seek additional cover.  He was going to be virtually untouchable for some number of minutes, because the concrete platform that comprises each floor of the hotel meant that returning fire at him from anywhere on or near ground level was going to be ineffective, and perhaps dangerous inasmuch as people in rooms in the vicinity would likewise have been endangered.  The angles were all on his side, at least for the initial portion of his attack.  As time went on, and better information was derived about his precise whereabouts, and as forced marshaled to confront him, his long-term odds of escape began to rapidly diminish.  He had almost no chance of hitting a particular target. If his intention had been to kill a particular person, his chances of success while employing a bump-stock at that range were vanishingly small, but since his aim was clearly mass murder, he had no particular target, so that indiscriminate killing was the object but not a detriment to his plan.  These factors made his attack very easy to carry out. There was nothing particularly skilled or clever about this attack.  The most skillful part of his operation was clearly his ability to prepare for the attack, transporting his arsenal of arms and ammunition to the site, and keeping his motives hidden until he pulled the trigger.  In short, he doesn’t seem to have involved others, claims of ISIS notwithstanding, and to date, it hasn’t been shown that any other person had any foreknowledge of the coming attack, apart from reports of a woman at the concert screaming to attendees that they were “all going to die,” and this has not been reliably linked to the attack as of this writing, although there’s something somewhat eerily disciplined that tells me there’s more involved than has so far met the eye.  He was not a military veteran, and as of this writing, there is no indication that he had any military/paramilitary training of any sort, but he had clearly acquainted himself with the performance parameters of the weapons he intended to use.  He knew that he would need multiple weapons for this attack, since no single weapon was likely to remain effective for long at the intended rate of fire.  He apparently understood that he would have a limited time in which to do damage.  There has been speculation that he had an escape plan, but I’m not convinced of that.  From the moment he broke out the windows and commenced fire, his timer was running, and he must have known that his options would come down to:

  1. Attempt to escape
  2. Fight a standoff with SWAT team(s) and/or counter-snipers
  3. Suicide
  4. Surrender

Virtually none of these rotten dirtbags ever surrender, so you can knock #4 off the list.  He had to know that he was likely to face a miserable death if he opted to stick it out and try to hold off or combat a SWAT team.  They would have ended his miserable existence almost as quickly as he did, but his odds of suffering for a time with grievous wounds increased, as did the possibility of his apprehension, which, for all intents and purposes equates to #4, and that outcome was to be avoided at any cost.   Escape was not likely the moment the security guard identified his exact location only 7-8 minutes into the event.  Egress would be virtually impossible.  It’s been noted that he had explosives in his vehicle, and perhaps he intended something more.  The explosives may have been intended for some diversionary purpose, to help make his escape.  That’s all possible, but the truth is that this was likely to end with him dead with a bullet through his brain, one way or another, on the 32nd floor of the hotel.  He must have known this, and whether it ended by SWAT or by his own hand, the probability was that the moment he broke those windows, his life was forfeit.  Even if he had changed his mind about attacking the concert, those broken windows would have resulted in a security response at some point.  It might have resulted in a shoot-out with security at that point, but the moment he broke those windows, there was almost no way for him to go back.  More, he did nothing to conceal his identity, and so even if he had changed his mind and simply run out of the room, hoping to be miles away by the time security discovered his sniper’s nest, they were going to discover it, and then the pursuit would be on.  No, he knew that once he broke those windows, there was no longer an out, and no longer much chance that he would survive the night, apart from immediate surrender, which, as I’ve mentioned, these madmen nearly never do. In a sense, it’s like the 9/11 hijackers: The moment they stood up, box-cutters in hand, and began to attack the crew, making themselves and their intentions known, there was virtually no way to stop it. For this reason, the last moment to stop would have been prior to breaking the windows.  After that, this attack was inevitable, and in fact, should mark its beginning.

The concert goers had no warning, and no chance.  It was merely a matter of where he turned his weapon at any particular moment.  This makes it all the harder for the victims, but also the survivors who emerged essentially unscathed in a physical sense, because many will experience survivors’ guilt.  We should all grieve for the fallen, lend comfort and assistance to the wounded and injured, as well as the families of those struck down, and we must also bear in mind that those who survived this shooting will need us to listen, and need us to remain steadfast in our support of them.

Mass killings are a result of our wretched moral decay.  By this, I mean the propagating view of the lives and liberties of one’s fellow man as a disposable quantity.  This brings me to the current political uproar ongoing in Washington DC and in the media at large, with renewed vociferous demands to dispose of our liberties.  It is asserted by some that what is needed is to immediately ban bump-stocks.  As the linked videos above should make perfectly plain, that’s not going to change anything in any material way. The truth is what Nancy Pelosi has already revealed: They want bump-stocks to be the vehicle used as the barrier-buster by which they will attack ownership of every form of semi-automatic weapon, and ultimately now, fake ‘conservatives’ are seemingly happy to go along with a repeal of the Second Amendment.

What makes this all the more sickening is the position stated on Thursday by the NRA. Apparently, Wayne LaPierre thinks “regulating” bump-stocks is a fine idea.  Wayne had better pull his head out of his duffel-bag.  If the left succeeds in banning bump-fire stocks, how long do you suppose it will be before they make the following argument: “Well, but you can still bump-fire virtually any semi-automatic with or without the bump-fire stock, so let’s ban semi-automatics!” From the videos to which I’ve linked above, you know that argument to be true inasmuch as the bump-stock is largely irrelevant.  The nature of semi-automatic weapons is such that given just a bit of practice, they can be made to approximate the rate of fire of a fully automatic weapon.  With this known, you’re now faced with asking yourself whether you’re ready to surrender all your semi-automatic weapons, the possession of which, by the way, the leftists are only to happy to relieve you.

The truth of this and every previous gun-control debate is the same it has always been: They don’t believe in your basic human right to protect yourself, your liberties, and your families against all comers.  Now we see that the Republicans in Washington DC seem willing to drop your liberties like a hot rock too, and unsurprisingly to some, it appears that President Trump may be poised to side with the gun-grabbers.  Those of you who value the Second Amendment had better prepare for one of the greatest onslaughts of gun control fever in a generation.  The last time politicians in Washington DC had this much impetus in the direction of gun control was with the last foolish “assault weapons” ban. In this country is that 65% of gun deaths are suicides, and of the remainder, once you remove self-defense shootings and police shootings, the vast bulk are committed by young men killing one another in just a handful of our largest and most violent cities.  More, only a tiny fraction are accomplished with anything other than a handgun.  The “assault weapons” ban did nothing to curb killings, because killings with so-called “assault weapons” were never a significant portion of the gun deaths in this country anyway.

There can be no simple ban of “bump-stocks,” because it wouldn’t be anything beyond symbolic in any event, as I’ve explained ad nauseum above. As the article in Reason makes plain, the proposed legislation is monstrously generalized, and as they conclude rightly, will only serve to ensnare otherwise law-abiding Americans. Make no mistake: This is a all-out attack on the Second Amendment disguised as something more innocuous. This is about confiscation of all weapons, starting with semi-automatics, with bump-stocks as the first step. The problem starts with the concession that there is something inherently wrong with the higher rate of fire, and once that’s established, given the fact that nearly all semi-automatics are capable of some form of this manipulation, how long before they simply demand the surrender of them?  What’s coming is not merely the nose of the camel under the tent-flap, but the whole bloody herd, and they have blood in their eyes… Yours.

ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

Donald Trump Finally Gets With Program: Repeal Now, Replace Later

Friday, June 30th, 2017

 

repealnowreplacelater_ftAt long last, I think President Trump may finally be getting the message clearly from the American people, because his latest tweet on the matter makes it clear that he wants something done, and soon. “…immediately REPEAL, and REPLACE at a later date!” That’s what I’ve said since the outset.  Two years ago, the House and Senate each passed a basically clean repeal bill, and sent it to Obama, who naturally vetoed it.  One doesn’t need to be a cynic to suspect that many of the Republicans who passed that bill did so because they knew Obama would veto it.  Now that they have a President who might actually sign it into law, they’ve come up with all these permutations of a replacement law that effectively do nothing to rid us of Obama-care.

Now that “show votes” won’t cut the mustard, and they’re actually going to need to produce something, a large contingent of the Republican majorities in the House and Senate have suddenly gone soft on Obama-care.  It’s time to hold these rotten, lying scoundrels to account.  For years, in cycle after cycle, beginning with the elections of 2010, they have promised us that they would strip Obama-care out of the law, bit by bloody bit, but now that it’s time to deliver, we find the sickening truth: Many of the House and Senate Republicans had been using this as a mere rallying cry for re/election to office, but had no intentions to actually repeal the horrible, freedom-stripping monstrosity that is Obama-care.

President Trump had talked a good deal about “repeal and replace,” both during the campaign and since, and it was one of the reasons my support for Mr. Trump has remained less than whole-hearted.  If he can manage to completely rid us of Obama-care, he will manage to gain the more active support of some reluctant conservatives. After all, this is one of the most devastating pieces of legislation in generations, and it has done more to kill jobs and people than any legislation in my lifetime.  The tax burdens and redistribution of wealth explicit in Obama-care are killing the country.  The law, formally known as the Affordable Care Act, is simply a Trojan horse for the worst predatory actions of a centralized government run amok in the history of our country.  It is fitting then, as we enter the Independence Day weekend, that we begin to address one of the worst attacks on American independence in the history of the nation.

It’s time to repeal Obama-care, outright, and without replacement.  If it’s to be replaced with something to address concerns at some future date, that’s fine, and we can have those arguments then, but no more of this holding Obama-care over our heads as they try to get something only slightly less obnoxious to our liberties through the Congress.  Repeal NOW, and replace later!  That’s what should have been this President’s intention from the outset, and while I’m disappointed that it’s taken this long for him to see it, I believe in this case that it’s a case of “better late than never.”

One of the things that surfaced this week is the sad story, heart-rending, and insanely outrageous story of a little baby, Charlie Gard, who will be left to die by virtue of the National Health Service in the UK, and the Human Rights Panel of the European Union.  The child has a rare, almost always lethal condition that is killing him, and his parents raised more than $1.4 million to finance an experimental treatment in the US, but the EU’s Human Rights Commission(a.k.a. “Death Panel”) has determined that they may not take their child to the US for this treatment.

All of my life, I have heard the complaint of various leftists advocating on behalf of government-run healthcare that conservatives and libertarians who wish to rely upon the free market are cruel and heartless, but what could be more cruel than a government entity essentially sentencing your baby to death when you had raised the money to try one last thing to save his or her young life?  What is more hideous is that under Obama-care, and soon, if the leftists succeed in moving us to a single-payer system, this is what we’ll have here in America as well:  An unsustainable health financing system that kills off the most vulnerable among us, whether or not one has the ability to pay.

This is the ugly secret of all Marxist healthcare systems, anywhere on the globe, including Obama-care: They promise free healthcare for all, but in truth, nothing is free, and all people wind up dependent upon and enslaved by the system.   All choice and discretion is removed.  Out-of-program health expenditures are forbidden.  New treatments and drugs are aborted in order to fund current demands.  In the end, what you get is a “free healthcare” system that is neither free nor “healthcare.”

This is why Obama-care must be repealed, fully, and at once.  I’m contacting all my members of the Congress, and those in leadership in both houses, to Repeal NOW and worry about replacement later.  I’m glad President Trump is finally seeing it this way.  We must demand our members support the same legislation that was vetoed by Obama in 2015, and we must demand it at once!

 

 

The War on America

Wednesday, June 21st, 2017

america_burning_ft

There have been a number of considerable turning points in American history, and I believe we have reached another.  After 9/11, one of the conclusions of the Commission set up to investigate the attack concluded, among other things, that one of the reasons the attackers had been successful is that while through the 1990s, al-Qaeda had been in an openly-declared war against the United States, for the most part, our government had conducted itself as though no war existed, taking little action against al-Qaeda despite a ratcheting escalation against our nation, with attacks at the Kobar Towers, The USS Cole, the embassies that came under attack in Africa, and numerous other less infamous attacks.  The critique of the 9/11 Commission on this point was correct, and in many ways, it should have served as a warning that history provides a nation for its future remembrance and consideration, but it seems the lesson is lost on our people and our politicians.  As bad as al-Qaeda or ISIS may be, and as mortifying as their campaign of terrorism and murderous intentions may be, I believe we now face a more virulent threat, one that threatens to destroy not only people and planes and buildings, but America itself.  Here, I do not mean “the United States,” but instead the very idea that is and has been “America,” writ large across history’s pages.  Most frightening of all, it seems too many Americans are blissfully unaware, but what we now face is an irrational enemy that rivals al-Qaeda in their evil intentions, and possesses one significant advantage in its war against us:  They are of us. They are among us.  They are everywhere around you, and their hatred of America is no less sincere, and no less vengeful.  Ladies and gentlemen, we are in a war undeclared in words, but a war nevertheless affirmed by their actions, and it is a war on everything we love. We must adopt the appropriate mindset.

I have cited here before the amazing and simultaneously terrifying similarities between the radical left and militant Islam.  In terms of the peculiarities of their respective grievances with America, it would seem at least superficially distinct, but upon closer examination, one begins to note that in truth, there are very few differences that amount to much.  One might argue, for instance, that the radical left supports extended special rights and protections for homosexuals, whereas militant Islam seems to be most comfortable when heaving homosexuals from rooftops, such that one would never think that the two groups could have much in common, but I beg you reconsider.  For the radical left, homosexuals are just another pressure group in their endless war of identity politics. The “LGBTQ community” is merely another vehicle for the advance of their deepest socio-political ambitions, which care not in the least for the actual people one whose behalf they claim to advocate.  Note instead that in a choice between supporting militant Islam and conservative Americans, the left gleefully chooses the former, since the latter is their true enemy.

In the same way, militant Islamists would seem to share no particular affinity for leftists, until you consider their ruling philosophy.  It is true that while the left is generally secularist in its thinking, and militant Islam is thoroughly religious on its face, both seek the same basic union: Leftists desire the aggregation of all power and law under a secular government, removing all individual discretion of any kind, including thought or expression, while Islamists seek to remove all obstacles to a theocracy that likewise eschews any notion of the individual human being.  Both claim the supremacy of their respective goals;  to carry out either ultimate plans requires the forceful subsumption of all human discretion under their immediate martial control.  In theory, this distinction between the secular and religious would seem a broad difference, but in practice, it requires the same ultimate series of oppressive undertakings, requiring the absolute suppression of the individual in any personal dimension.

We have arrived in a state of our culture in which the more committed radical leftists now take up arms to carry out their own sort of Jihad against Republican legislators.  What makes this different from the parade of political assassins of the left in times gone by is that here, the Jihadist didn’t care so much about a particular target, but was instead motivated by extraordinary hatred against the core ideas of America.  He shot Congressman Scalise, but Scalise wasn’t a specific target, except inasmuch as he happened to be a Republican.  What signals to me the onset of the open war against America is not merely the attack waged by this leftist goon, but instead the disgusting, despicable reaction of the whole leftist media and political establishment that immediately set out to justify and rationalize the attack, turning to blaming the victims of the attack, intimating that Scalise(and all Republicans) deserve what they get.

At the same time, the radical left, which is now nearly the whole body and appendages of the mainstream media and the government bureaucracy are now aligned to destroy President Donald Trump.  As you will have known, I am not Trump’s greatest advocate, but he is after all the duly elected President of the United States, is qualified to hold that office, and he seems to be setting about fulfilling his duties despite my sometimes significant disagreements with his policy preferences.  This circumstance is wholly unacceptable to the virulent radical left.  They will remove him from office, one way or the other, and indeed, any Republican who would follow him, not because he is all that far from the more moderate folk in their political party, but because he is of the opposition, and that he might manage a mildly conservative thing or two, and reverse some parts of the drive toward their ultimate goal: The complete subjugation of any remaining philosophically American people, and the unrelenting demolition of the underlying idea that had been Americanism.

The war being conducted against Trump is spawned of the radical left’s stranglehold on the mass media(not merely the news media,) and the stranglehold they have on the bureaucracy that is the deep state.  They are coordinating to destroy him, as evidenced and typified by Comey’s leak to his friend, and by the official state as made plain by the unmasking of Michael Flynn and unknown (as yet) others in and around the Trump campaign and administration.  None of this is accidental, and it all has the same underlying purpose: De-legitimize Trump in preparation for removing him from office, legally if possible, forcefully if they can provoke it among one of their more violent lunatics, or by political destruction in 2020 if nothing else succeeds.  They have the whole of the mass media, the news, and the entire extended welfare state and security bureaucracy of the government at their immediate disposal, and while Trump clearly knows he’s under attack, I don’t think he’s quite yet grasped how thorough his challenges are, or how even to begin fighting for his own survival.

This sickening, depraved assault on the Trump presidency is really just an extension of the radical left’s war on us.  He’s actually a proxy for the obstacle we present the left in their war on America and Americanism.  What Trump must now do, and I hope someone close to him will prevail upon him to recognize it, is to defend himself and the country with all the power of the presidency, by every available means.  Trump could be creative and intelligent in this respect, but he must find the right sort of strategic and tactical thinkers to carry it out. The executive branch is gigantic, and most agencies and departments of the US Federal Government fall under the President’s direct control.  If Trump wishes to win this war, he must begin where his power is strongest under our constitutional system, and that means making an all-out war against the bureaucracy and its innumerable hangers-on.

Hiring freezes are nice, but that’s barely a pimple on the behemoth’s backside.  His watchwords should be: “Reorganize and restructure.” At present, the bureaucracy of the whole Federal Government is structured in a manner optimal to its growth and further aggregation of power.  It is staffed with people who are most frequently hostile to the idea that is America, and the people throughout the country who still cling stubbornly to those ideals.  More, Trump is in a position to use the bureaucracy’s own arguments to demolish it.  Trump can do something none have ever dared to do before, and sweep out so much of the Federal leviathan.  You might ask how Trump could accomplish this. Here are just a few ideas:

  • Move whole departments and their headquarters of the Federal Government out of Washington DC and its immediate surrounds, justifying it as an example of trying to get all the nation’s most critical eggs out of the same vulnerable basket
  • Eliminate whole sections and sub-departments of various agencies on the basis of a “green” movement, trying to make the federal government more environmentally friendly by reducing its size and carbon footprint.
  • Instruct the bureaucracy to release Obama era working papers, various and sundry studies, and all manner of leftist undertaking all in the name of open, honest, and transparent government.  Consider even a campaign of declassifying information where it has no further relevance to national security
  • Replace every bureaucrat above the rank of janitor, driving them off with new policies justified in various ways, and removing perquisites where they exist.  Take away government-issued vehicles and issue bicycles. Take away work-owned cellular phones from all but the absolutely most critical personnel as a cost-saving measure.
  • Similarly, eliminate Internet access as both a security measure and a cost-saving measure except for those whose jobs absolutely require it.

Obviously, this is far from an exhaustive list, but you can let your imagination run away a little bit with these sorts of approaches. There’s no end to the ways in which the bureaucracy can be brought to heel, but it’s time, finally, for Trump to begin that job in earnest, if not as a purely utilitarian approach to government reform, then at least as a matter of his(and our) defense.

Donald Trump needs to recognize that the radical left is at war with America every bit as zealously as are al-Qaeda and ISIS.  Even now, their more virulently maniacal members are being motivated to real attacks and real violence against Americans and Americanism.  For precisely the same reason they help to cover up militant Islamists’ attacks in the media, and with the same undeniable political agenda, their intention is to conceal this war against America and Americans as long as possible.  The time is coming when this war may enter a new and more dangerous phase, when the violence will become increasingly routine and more accepted in the mass media, and if you watch what is happening in Europe with militant Islam, you begin to grasp what is afoot for America, now under attack by radical leftists.  Trump is the only person in a position in our government to openly oppose all of this, and while he may be active on Twitter, it’s time for him to become more activist in his defense and defense of the Republic.  After eight long years of a president openly hostile to America and Americans, and a media all too willing to redefine even what those words mean on his behalf, it’s time for President Trump to live up to his “America First” proclamation.  He’ll need our support if he’s to succeed, but first, it’s time for him to strike back, and the power of the presidency is a very nearly unlimited weapon in the fight against the colossus that is the Federal bureaucracy.

One might ask how going after the bureaucracy will stanch the radical left’s war on America, but the truth is that initially, it will cause them to react somewhat more reflexively and perhaps violently to the change, but if they are permitted to fester longer, it strengthens them, and it offers them comfort. The Federal government is their “safe space,” and it’s time to pull that particular rug from beneath them. Every time the deep state launches an attack on Trump or his administration, and each time some mad-cap leftist carries out an attack against peaceful Republicans, the virulent left is heartened. To win this war, Trump is going to need to break their spirit, and hearten the actual Americans who remain among us.  Taking on the bureaucracy is entirely within his constitutional scope.  Delaying this a moment longer is merely to yield more ground to an unrelenting, irrational evil.   When Trump pointed out that the news media are effectively an enemy of the people, he was right, and perhaps much more so than simplistic evaluations of his more bombastic proclamations reveal, but also, I fear, more than he knew at the time.  It isn’t just the media, however.  Specifically, it’s the radical leftist media, a near hegemony that is in league with the deep state, and indeed, the entire Washington DC establishment.

President Trump doesn’t need to openly declare war against the left, at least initially.  What this war against America requires is a substantive response, and that response should come in the form of a complete demolition of the deep state bureaucracy, shamelessly and tirelessly using the full palette of presidential powers contemplated by our constitution as the chief executive presiding over the executive branch. He won’t need to declare it, because the leftists will scream at the tops of their shrill little voices, and the remnant of America will understand the source of the noise, and be heartened.  It’s a war, and we ought to have such lesser skirmishes while it’s still possible in order to preclude the many deeper tragedies the left will beget if unopposed.  There is still time to save America, and it’s time for President Trump to launch the counteroffensive, as only the President has the authority to do.  If the left is not stopped soon, the disasters that will be visited upon the shrinking remnant of America will be more thorough than those that either al-Qaeda or ISIS can begin to realize. The radical left is every bit as dangerous as the militant element of Islam, and it’s time to do something about it.

 

 

 

Congratulations to Donald Trump!

Wednesday, November 9th, 2016

trump_wins_ftAnalysts will study this election for years to come.  Donald Trump overcame a media and political establishment that had dismissed him from the outset of his campaign.  There’s no doubt that they believed Trump would become a footnote in political history books, and that much like they were able to politically defame and largely demolish the Tea Party, they expected to put his supporters out of their minds and simply dismiss them in the same way.  IF you remember back in 2009, and 2010, Barack Obama was dismissive of the Tea Party movement that was just erupting, and he wouldn’t even acknowledge them, instead leaving DC when they arranged for their huge march.  The left thought they would apply the same tactics to Donald Trump and his supporters, and that would do the trick for them again. Marginalized, defamed, and categorized as “racist, sexist nut-jobs,” they expected to run right over the army of Trump supporters with equal indifference.  Donald Trump was of another mind, and that certainly played a remarkable role, but having examined the election returns, I’m prepared to say what I think made the difference.  Analysts will study and fret, trying to discover some secret key to what made them lose, or miss the analysis, but they’re all missing the point.  It’s really much simpler than all of the nuance and rationalization that’s been going on in the last twelve hours.  It really isn’t rocket science, and a cursory examination of the results will bear this out: Donald Trump won the election in 2016 because too many Americans have been desperate for change for much too long, and because the current president and his administration(but also much of the Congress) have been entirely indifferent to the suffering they’ve inflicted.

Leftists never consider the impact of their policies on individuals.  Their rationalizations are always constructed under the skewed microscope of the collectivized “good” as they conceive it.  If imposing a healthcare program on the entirety of the nation results in a driving-up of costs for average Americans, while only covering a small number of additional Americans, they don’t care.  If they evaluate their program at all, their conclusion will inevitably be that they must tax more and impose larger penalties for those who refuse to participate.  Never do they hesitate to consider that for most Americans, even those not formally a part of the Obama-care program, the net effect for most Americans of the mere existence of this law has been to drive up out-of-pocket costs for every person who is a net payer, and by some dramatic proportions in many instances.  The statists simply do not care about these impacts, and won’t even consider them in their political calculus.  It is this baked-in tone-deafness of the left that makes for the sort of shock they experienced in the wee hours of this morning when they realized Donald Trump would become president.

Leftists only talk to one another.  The entire media establishment is so thoroughly rife with leftists that they cannot see any point of view but their own.  Disagreement is not tolerated, and other points of view are summarily dismissed, mocked, and otherwise defamed.  Worst of all, perhaps, they seem to exist within a sort of echo-chamber that leads them to believe things that simply aren’t so, and this blinds them to reality, again, setting them up for the sort of massive failure they experienced on Election Day 2016.

In this election, what they failed to perceive is something rather simple, and it’s been right there before them since 2009, but they’ve stubbornly ignored it, as if by ignoring it, it would simply not exist.  This ostrich-like behavior meant they would not hear the desperation in the voices of average Americans, with whom they have very little contact, and who are, in their view, simply the insignificant people of “flyover country.”

This is where Donald Trump won, but let’s be more explicit about who it was that dragged him across the finish line to victory:  In the last week of the campaign, in horror over the looming possibility of a Clinton presidency, Republicans began to “come home” as Vice Presidential nominee Mike Pence had implored, but with them, a broad range of people who are largely middle, middle-class, white, and of lower educational credentials.  Contrary to the beliefs of the fools in Washington DC, and in the media generally, credentials do not alone describe one’s intelligence or lack thereof.  Credentials make no difference whatsoever to people who are starving in sight of a bounty, denied access to it only by the aggression of government.

The knot-heads in colleges and universities who believe their credentials give them some special insight, and are of the sort who have attached too much importance to their own stations in life, and too little of the situations of their fellow Americans.  This is magnified by those in the media, and those in Washington DC, all of whom have seemed to believe they are the smartest people in any room, perpetually.  Donald Trump is to be credited for recognizing it.  The challenge for Donald Trump is to avoid “blowing it” by forgetting this lesson.  The people who elected Donald Trump are largely those who have been demolished by the giant regulatory and welfare state.  They’ve lost homes and businesses, or simply now work a ridiculous number of hours simply to keep the lights on, and they’ve seen their personal aspirations and their hopes for their children squandered by government that does not care for the dreams of individual people.  This is the lesson the left would learn, if they were not so tone-deaf, and if they did not wear blinders in the presence of “inconvenient truths.”  It’s also the lesson Donald Trump must not forget, lest he squander the very awesome opportunity he’s been granted by the American people, albeit with some significant skepticism.

In simplest terms, what won this election for Donald Trump is the absolute desperation of the American people.  What put him over the top is simply a desperate appeal to the fates by those who realized, even entering the polling places, that Hillary Clinton’s America would offer them no hope, and no chance at recovery, and perhaps worst of all, no sympathy even from those who imposed this decline.  It was a last, plaintive act of self-defense for a people who have watched their lives diminished, their very liberties under constant threat of summary debasement, and their hopes for their children and grandchildren’s future foreclosed.  These are the people who have funded the welfare state, under the ever more punishing blows of government’s whips, while they’ve gone without meals and fell behind on bills and been unable to fund their kids’ education while they’ve paid for the educations of others. These are the folk who eat Macaroni and Cheese or Ramen noodles three or four times weekly, while in line at the grocery store, they stand in fuming and  smoldering, in ever more indignant anger behind the throngs of EBT card users who enjoy surf-and-turf  paid for by the folk eating bare subsistence rations. These are the people who struggle to make mortgage payments, only to find the value of their homes in steep decline as the statists in Washington DC use public housing benefits to place entitled peoples into their formerly nice neighborhoods, new but unappreciative residents who frequently make a wreckage of the nice dwellings they’ve been provided.

Imagine the veteran, who has done his duty and wishes merely to make a living and enjoy his life, but finds his rights are under constant assault by the statists.  He might have a gun or two, and he might like to hunt, or simply shoot at paper targets, only to find that he’s been lumped-together with terrorists by the likes of Hillary Clinton, who live under a shield of heavily-armed security forces, but who do not trust law-abiding citizens who arm themselves for sport, for hunting, and for self-defense.  To know that at any moment, under the auspices of some arbitrary law, one may find his guns outlawed, and his rights turned into the claim of a criminal is to know the terror of too many Americans who have become too accustomed to being ruled by a President who boast of having “a pen and a phone.”

For too long, too many Americans have watched their standard of living in sharp decline, while working harder, and taking on more difficult but also more poorly-compensated jobs, knowing that the society around them is filled with people who don’t work at all, ever, but who also manage to live at least as well as the poor slobs who work sixty, seventy, and eighty hours per week.  These are people interested in justice, who want to see hard work rewarded, and slothfulness and incompetence punished, as nature would dictate.  These are people who follow the law, no matter how much it may be to their detriment, never willing to give an excuse to those who govern them to further deprive them of liberty.  They look around and see that the system of law and justice serves only the corrupt and the criminal, while they must live in perpetual fear of the next new law in violation of which they might act, in simple ignorance. It has been long-declared and well-established that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” except that there are now so many laws that none can possibly know all that apply to their lives and endeavors.  Government bureaucrats have no sympathy for that reality, and the statists care not for the plights of individual men and women.

It is the mother who works many hours, who may or may not have a husband to help pull that wagon, and who have finally discovered that their lives and labors and their love of their children is under unflagging attack.  They live in terror of the next electric bill, an inflated grocery bill, and they don’t understand why they must pay not only for themselves and their families but the families of others whose exertions are minimal.

It is a family who sees their values and moral standards under continuous attack.  They find that they must de-propagandize their children daily upon their arrival from the public schools, that teach no values except as collectivized notions, and who most often stand at odds with the interests of the family, its children, and its parents.

All of these people and many more like them are the reasons Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016.  They were desperate.  They need relief.  They need a respite from the never-ending assaults on their lives, liberties, and wallets.  They need somebody, somewhere, to finally understand that the grand ideas conceived in Washington DC most often result in disasters for the people who live in “flyover country.”  In a final desperate act of self-defense, they decided to take a chance on Donald Trump, knowing that Hillary Clinton offered only more of the same, and perhaps represented the final nail in their individual coffins.

Donald Trump has a fantastic opportunity, and I for one wish him well, and I sincerely hope he will not squander it.  Too many politicians make a mockery of the people who’ve elected them, forgetting their promises, or remembering them while conveniently finding ways to avoid carrying them out.  Donald Trump can win re-election easily in four years if he will only do the following:

  • Secure the nation, build the wall and enforce the nation’s existing immigration law. Mexico needn’t pay for it, but it must be built
  • Re-institute justice for all, including particularly the rich and powerful
  • Cut taxes on those who work for a living – and if he really wants the favor of the working stiff, make only the first forty hours of labor taxable
  • Repeal Obamacare (but don’t replace it with some other mandatory, equally tyrannical program)
  • Get control of the exploding welfare state, from the cost side, but also from the point of view of sheer extravagance and enticement to dependency
  • Make America a place great for business again, so that people can work and prosper by their own efforts
  • Rescind Obama’s lengthy list of Executive Orders
  • Take care of our veterans and make sparing use of a rebuilt and revitalized military relieve of silly but dangerous social engineering
  • Appoint judges who will follow the explicit mandates of the US Constitution
  • Never forget the individual aspirations and dreams of individual Americans in signing(or vetoing) laws and issuing executive orders

If Donald Trump will merely do these things, I suspect he will get a forty-state(or better) win for re-election in four years, if he wants it.  This is the truth of how Donald Trump won.  He won because for too many Americans, the situation has become far too dire.  I expect that he will have a short honeymoon period with the vast bulk of the American people.  If he can make strides to substantially carry out the important parts of the agenda he’s outlined, and can merely make a credible stab at fulfilling the short but difficult list above, he will succeed like no President since at least Ronald Reagan.  He has that chance.  He has every reason to do it.  The question now remains: Will he?

Like a large number of Americans who closed the gap and pushed him over the top, I have nothing but well-wishes and the best hopes for Donald Trump’s presidency. It was a last, desperate act of self-defense for so many Americans who determined that he was an imperfect vessel, but at least there’s a chance he won’t be nearly so foul and depraved as Hillary Clinton, whatever he may have done in the past.  We voted for Donald Trump because we knew Hillary would only worsen things, and at least with Donald Trump, there’s some inkling that he might drag the country in the correct direction for a change.  It’s become as desperate as that for too many Americans.  I hope he will recognize this, if he hasn’t already, and act accordingly to secure their continuing support. He has referred to them as the “forgotten Americans.”  In his remarks after Hillary Clinton’s concession phone call, he offered a glimmer that their  hope is justified.

Congratulations and good luck to Donald Trump and Mike Pence, along with all those who supported him from the beginning.  May their fortunes rise and fall in accordance with their fidelity to the people and to the Constitution of the United States.  Therein lies the cause of Hillary’s defeat and the repudiation of Obama’s legacy.

 

 

 

 

 

“Death Fell From the Sky”

Monday, May 30th, 2016
Death Fell From the Sky

Death Fell From the Sky

It is the terror of not being able to do anything but fall on your stomach and hope the bomb won’t land on you. It’s the helplessness and terror of sudden visions of a ripping sensation in your back, shrapnel coursing through your chest, total blackness, maybe death.

In the morgue, the bodies were laid on slabs in the grotesque positions in which they had died. Fear contorted their faces. Their clothes were blue-black from incendiary bombs. One little girl in a red sweater, barefoot, still clutched a piece of jump-rope in her hand.

These statements are from the reporting of Elizabeth McIntosh, from an article she penned in December 1941, though it wasn’t published until seventy-one years later, as editors thought the account too graphic and morbid for publication at the time.

On Friday, our arrogantly ignorant, anti-American president spoke in Hiroshima, Japan, calling the dropping of the atomic bomb an unjustified act. The full text of his speech may be found here.  This article is my response to the Traitor-in-Chief, whose treacherous anti-Americanism, immoral collaboration with America’s enemies, and his continuing contempt for facts, history, justice, and reason, must be refuted.

On December 7th, 1941, the United States came under attack by the forces of Imperial Japan at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.  Somehow, the President of the United States, himself a native of Hawaii, apparently managed to grow up for some part of his childhood without bothering to learn the history immediately available to him.  Somehow, he managed instead to adopt an alien sense of justice and moral standard that are in direct conflict with the facts, and the historical record.  I am ashamed that this man is and has remained president for the last seven-and-one-half years.  I am disgusted by his moral equivocation.  I am not going to permit his lies, delivered in Hiroshima, to go on unanswered.  Barack Obama is a treacherous arrogant enemy of the United States.  He ought to be removed from his office for his high crimes and misdemeanors, and if our government was not populated by malingering charlatans, if not before, certainly after his remarks in Hiroshima, his removal would be under way.

When the B-29 bomber opened its bay doors high over Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, its pilot Paul Tibbets at the controls, releasing its revolutionary and deadly payload on an unsuspecting city below, it was not an act of even questionable morality, never mind evil, but instead, the unmistakable response to an act of cowardice and evil that has provoked it less than four years before.  It was an act in the name of morality, the morality of the most generous people on the planet, who had been attacked, watched their countrymen killed, and who finally responded with the ultimate weapon mankind had yet produced.  That moment, when the searing flash of the first atomic weapon deployed in combat exploded over the city of Hiroshima, Japan, was the instant at which America fully realized its creed of defending the unalienable rights of mankind, beginning with those of her own citizens.

By the accounting of my moral standards, it is never justifiable to initiate the use of coercive force or to levy its threat unless and until the credible threat or enactment of same is introduced against you.  For this reason, the American doctrine has always been imbued with the notion of self-defense.  By tradition and the philosophy that guides it, Americans do not go out into the world looking for fights in which to engage, instead generally waiting until somebody initiates a fight with us.  This doctrine is thoroughly represented in our criminal code, our military doctrine, and our history as a nation.  It is not to say that America has ever been a perfectly faithful practitioner of that position, but it is to say that it remains the dominating idea in our culture and our government, despite many attempts to reverse or to change it. On August the 6th, and again on August the 9th of 1945, America applied the moral exclamation point to this ethical premise.

Barack Obama has attacked America’s moral foundation with the assertion that the dropping of the atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of those who he deems to have simply rationalized the violence of nuclear weapons.

How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause.

The cause of justice is a higher cause.  The purpose of defense of one’s life, one’s property, one’s family and neighbors, along with one’s country is a higher cause. To suggest that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was less than fully, morally justified is to proclaim that a United States President ought to unnecessarily prolong wars and make wasteful use of the lives of the men and women of the Armed Services.  Had they been ready sooner, we’d have been equally justified in using them on Germany as well.

There are several facts that Obama and other anti-Americans ignore in their shrill contempt for the use of the atomic bombs. One is that estimates suggested that an actual invasion of Japan would cost America the lives of more than a million additional service-members, and that the cost in total deaths to the Japanese people, their soldiers, sailors, airmen, and civilians, may have been as many as ten times that number.  Ending the war rather more quickly actually saved millions of lives.

As a practical matter, the United States Government had produced exactly three bombs, one of which was tested at the Trinity site in New Mexico, of the implosion type that was eventually used on Nagasaki. The “Little Boy,” dropped on Hiroshima was of the simpler “gun type” device, basically propelling a plug of Uranium-235 down a short gun barrel into a sphere of Uranium-235, the two combining to achieve a super-critical mass and thus cause the nuclear fission chain-reaction. Little Boy contained almost all of the U-235 we had managed to produce by that point at the Oak Ridge facility.  The “Fat Man” device dropped on Nagasaki, and its test-twin at Alamogordo, New Mexico, was a Plutonium 239 device, and it was tested because it was a highly complex device using shaped explosive charges to compress a collection of Plutonium wedges inward toward a central point, where the Plutonium would likewise achieve super-critical mass to begin the chain-reaction resulting in the detonation.  In short, it was not as though we had manufactured a stockpile of these weapons at the time, because it was very difficult to refine the Uranium in sufficient quantities to provide enough for a gun-type device.  Plutonium was easier to produce, although production of the substance still took time, and was still being ramped-up.  After “Fat Man” fell on Nagasaki, it would be a month or more before the United States would be able to employ another, had it become necessary.  Thankfully, Japan finally surrendered after realizing they could not prevail against such an awesome weapon.

There are other facts often overlooked or ignored by modern historians and folks with a political agenda to their appraisals of our use of the atomic bombs.  These mustn’t be left out, because out of context, the atomic bombings are not so easy to understand.  The question is often asked, for instance, “Why did we not bomb Tokyo rather than Hiroshima, since Tokyo is the capital city, from which leaders directed the war effort, and where Emperor Hirohito had his seat of power?”  The answer to this question ought to be obvious, but apparently, our education system does a poor job of making such things understood: If we destroyed Japan’s leadership and hierarchy of command, who would surrender?  Who would be in charge?  Who would effectively “turn off” the war from their side? Instead of an orderly surrender, we might have faced instead the prospect of uncontrolled, disorganized resistance that would go on for years or even decades.  By permitting the command structure of Japan to survive, we preserved the ability to have their own hierarchy issuing the orders to surrender to all the forces and ordinary citizenry of Japan.

Another fact ignored by political propagandists is that Japan had conducted atrocities far in excess of anything ever done to Japan by American forces. Millions of people, primarily Chinese, were butchered under the auspices of the Japanese high command. To suggest that the atomic bombings had been “inhumane” demands that we ignore the incredible cruelty inflicted upon millions of people by the Japanese.

Another sickening premise argued by ludicrous leftists like President Obama, and indeed touched upon in his Hiroshima speech, and it is the idea that all civilians are “innocents” in war.  This is nonsense.  Civilians are not innocent if they support the activities of a cruel, despotic, war-making government.  If those civilians feed the machine of unjust war, they are parties to the injustice.  Civilians who are actively opposing the evil regime in question are as close as one gets to “innocents in war.”  For instance, if during WWII, we bombed a site in France, in the process killing inadvertently a number of members of the French Resistance, that would be the unfortunate killing of innocents.  On the other hand, when our bombers dropped thousands upon thousands of bombs upon Germany, hitting their factories, but in the process killing a number of civilians, those civilians were not “innocents” because they were active participants in the operations of the oppressive regime.  “Innocents” in a country being commanded by brutal dictators, irrational thugs, and other forms of human vermin have a responsibility as humans to participate in their own salvation and their moral responsibility for making war upon the regime is manifest.

Naturally, the leftists currently running the United States are interested in defaming the long-standing American concepts of morality with their own broken standard.  Obama’s assault in Hiroshima on the philosophy that has under-girded American foreign and defense policies for centuries is a clue and a key to the bankruptcy of leftists generally.  Indeed, our entire society had been framed by these moral concepts, so that when Obama and his surrogates in media undertake to demolish them, it is fundamentally an attack on the United States of an ideological as well as philosophical character.

As the nation marks Memorial Day, remembering our dead, let us go forth in solemn remembrance and embrace the moral underpinnings of our nation that had made it the greatest and most free in the history of man, knowing and fully understanding the moral superiority of Western values, and knowing with certainty that we had been right, logically and morally, in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan to hasten the end of a war that claimed many millions of lives around the globe, and many at the hands of the cruel Imperial Japanese leadership, who had no problem whatever with starving and torturing prisoners, marching them into oblivion, skewering babies like sausages with their bayonets, and murdering civilians in conquered territories as they pleased.

Most importantly with respect to the United States, the Japanese launched a sneak attack against us at Pearl Harbor, killing thousands of Americans, sending large portions of a battle fleet to the bottom, like the USS Arizona, that is still visible beneath the waves if you visit the Memorial bearing its name.  From that moment, when Japanese strike aircraft and fighters appeared over Hawaii that morning, the morality of what the United States would ultimately do in August of 1945 had been answered and endorsed, by the ignominious Japanese who had precipitated it.  Responsibility for the deaths of those at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and indeed everywhere anyone else died in combat with Imperial Japan rests solely and forever with that regime, and those who empowered it. Death indeed “fell from the sky,” and when it first fell was on American territory, on December 7th, 1941.  Everything that followed was the rightful answer to that day.

As we remember the fallen, it is appropriate that we likewise remember the nature and circumstance in which they perished: They died in defense of a moral premise, observed uniquely in America among all other nations, that Justice must prevail, and that the evils which attack it must be opposed by all those worthy of its standard.  May we remember them, and remember that ours is a nation founded upon a moral premise unlike any before it, that we may preserve that moral standard long into an uncertain future.

Voter Ignorance Driving “Controversy”

Sunday, April 24th, 2016

ignorance_no_excuse_ftIn most presidential primary seasons, and indeed, most presidential elections, the actual process is invisible to most voters.  Most don’t know many details, and in most years, it doesn’t really matter much. In 2016, it’s different, and the reason it’s different is because the Republican Party is deeply divided.  Most primary cycles conclude with one candidate or another attaining the crucial majority of delegates between mid-March and mid-April.  This year, that’s not the case, and because of it, the true process has become illuminated more than usual, such that many voters, either having never participated before, or having been clueless participants in cycles of the past, now see something that’s always been there, but react to it as though it’s alien to them, the country, or the party in question.  The process isn’t alien, abnormal, or otherwise different in any substantive way, but for those who’ve been drive-thru participants in the past, they’re very shocked by the existence of a process that’s been normal for nearly two centuries, though they’re just learning of it now.  I wonder how many of these people paid any attention in civics class in high school.  I wonder how many civics class teachers failed even to mention it.  Whatever the case, as the old saying goes, “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” but rephrased for this election process, it’s not just the law of which voters have claimed ignorance, but of the entire underlying process by which the Republican Party selects its nominees.  My aim here is to alleviate that ignorance, primarily because I’m tired of this phony “controversy.”

As the first order of business, let’s establish some facts, whether we like them or not, so we can work our way through from there:

  • Political parties are private organizations.  They have their own rules, bylaws, and procedures. Their internal processes are theirs and theirs alone. The candidate the party selects is the party’s choice, but not truly the choice of voters
  • Our nation IS NOT a democracy, never has been, and had never been intended to be. Neither are the political parties (a much earlier article that covers this subject in full is here)
  • The Republican Party at the national level does not have full control of the Republican Party in each state, though it exercises some control via the national convention and the rules committee.
  • Most delegates for most states’ parties are bound in some number of national convention ballots, varying by state, but this doesn’t always mean what people think it means

These concepts have been true and available to inspection for every person who is alive today in the United States for their whole lifetime, and generations before. There are rules changes periodically, but the underlying process has not changed much since at least the nomination of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. What our contemporary electorate needs to understand is that in our system of government, their votes for President are a recommendation to the Electoral College, but not a mandate.  Their votes in primaries serve as a recommendation to the parties, but these votes are not fully binding on the parties.  This may surprise a drive-thru participant in public affairs.  If one has educated him/herself, one ought to have known better all along.  This list of bullet-points may seem like a negative thing to one who is ignorant, but if one understood the intentions of our constitution’s framers, one will understand it also because one understood it all along, having bothered to inform his/herself.

Before new readers have a walleyed hissy-fit because it seems that I’m calling so many voters “ignorant,”I want you to understand that there’s a qualitative difference between “ignorance” and “stupidity.” Ignorance is simply not having the requisite information.  Stupidity is the failure to seek to alleviate one’s ignorance due to a lack of intelligence.  Foolish mischief and prideful stubbornness result in the failure to seek to alleviate one’s ignorance for the sake of maintaining one’s internally contradictory opinion.  Ignorance can be alleviated with a modicum of effort.  Before we recoil at the “discovery” of this “hidden process,” perhaps we should actually seek to know and understand it.  In any event, the level of ignorance among registered Democrats is several magnitudes worse.  Most of them haven’t bothered even to read the Constitution.

Since the beginning of the Republican Party, it has always decided who its nominee for the Presidential election would be through a series of states’ conventions with a delegate process that has always, always varied from state to state.  The truth is, as a Republican, there’s only one state about which you really need to care: Yours!  If you want to be an elections analyst, or you’re merely very curious and hold an intense interest in public affairs,  you might want to know all the others, but it requires a lot of study. Since the various states change their rules from time to time, and since new state statutes and constitutional amendments in those states affect those rules from time to time, it is always in flux.  It is always evolving.  It always has.  It always will.  That is part of the dynamic condition of the sort of constitutional, representative republic our framers had designed.  If it ever ceases to evolve, you will know that the party has failed entirely, and probably the country as well.

All the state parties, to maintain their charters as recognized constituents of the RNC, must abide by some general rules, and agree to the rules set by the national party.  Those rules can cause the state parties to adjust their own rules so they can maintain compliance.  An example of this was Colorado, which in August 2015, changed its rules in order to protect its interests in the national convention.  Let’s see if we can get this straight, shall we?  In 2012, Colorado’s GOP held a “straw poll” to seek the recommendation of the voters at large.  That state-wide straw poll had never been binding before, but because of the RNC’s rule changes, it would have to be binding if they wanted to hold a straw poll.  In other words, delegates selected by the state party would be forced by RNC rules to go to the candidates according to the results of the straw poll, effectively converting the state from a Caucus system, to a primary election system.  The Colorado Republican Party didn’t want to be constrained in that fashion, because they feared being stuck with delegates bound to a candidate no longer in the race.  Just as now, there are delegates bound to Rubio and others who are no longer in the race, and they will be obliged to vote for those candidates on the first ballot at the convention.  Colorado didn’t want its delegates constrained in that fashion, so they changed their rules, as they are entitled.  They did so last August such that every campaign had time to know the rules and adjust accordingly. Some did, but some didn’t.

Speaking of ballots at the National Republican Convention in July, I suppose I need to cover this briefly, since it seems there is a good deal of confusion.  The way the national party, the RNC, selects the candidate who will be the party’s nominee is through a system of ballots.  (Votes, if you prefer.)  There are a total of 2,472 delegates in the Republican Party.  Half of that number is 1,236.  Add one(1,) and what you have is 1,237, also known as a “majority.” For those who are confused about this, it is important to remember that a “majority” does not mean “the most.” It means “one more than half.” A “plurality” is equal to “the most.” If the rule specified a “plurality” instead of a majority, then all a candidate would need to obtain is “the most” delegates.  (The highest total.)  The rules state, and have always, always stated, that a majority is required.  This is not something new to 2016, but it has become an issue of popular concern because there now exists a better than even chance that no candidate will make the 1,237 delegate mark.

Now, in the electoral college, in the actual general election on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November, the candidate who obtains a plurality of electoral college votes is the winner, but here’s the bonus prize:  The electoral college doesn’t actually meet until December.  It is there that the new President of the United States is actually selected.  It is most often a rubber-stamp of what the electorate has recommended, because most states bind their electors to do so.  Nevertheless, it is possible, in some circumstances, for some elector or other to raise objections and to derail the rubber-stamping.  It’s not happened in American history yet, but it is possible for the Electoral College to discard the “will of the people” and select somebody else, strictly speaking.  It’s very, very unlikely. It is, however, possible. (For the record, this year’s presidential election falls on Tuesday the 8th of November, meaning this is one of those rare years in which the 1st of November falls on a Tuesday, such that the election gets bumped back to the second Tuesday of the month, because the Monday before the first Tuesday is the 31st of October.)

Returning to the national convention, let’s imagine one in which no candidate has obtained 1,237 bound delegates prior to the first ballot. It is still possible to win on that first ballot because there are usually some number of unbound delegates.  It simply depends upon how clever a negotiator one is, with respect to the unbound delegates, and how large a shortfall one has.  If nobody has obtained at least so many that with the addition of unbound delegates, they’re able to close the gap, what you now have is officially a “contested convention.”  Of course, it should also be stated again that something else is true: It is possible to have 1,237 or more bound delegates going into the convention, and still lose.  How can that happen?  Easy!  All it takes is that a candidate with 1,237 delegates has even one delegate abstain from the first ballot.  In other words, ultimately, nobody can actually be nominated with certainty until the convention. This is where the term “presumptive nominee” arises.  A presumptive nominee is a candidate who has obtained 1,237 bound delegates, but who hasn’t yet officially received the party’s nomination when the delegates cast their votes.   Even if you had all 2,472 delegates bound to you prior to the convention, if 1,236 of them abstain from the first ballot, what you have is a “contested convention.”  While highly, highly unlikely, even if a candidate somehow managed to have 2,000 or more delegates bound for the first ballot, it is strictly possible for that candidate to be defeated.  So you see, those who say that the “party chooses the nominee” are exactly, technically correct, and if the party is absolutely dead-set against a candidate, they have the ultimate ability to turn that candidate away.  That said, the party is not so likely to go this far to prevent the nomination of a candidate because it’s suicidal in an electoral sense.

One might wonder why a party would do so, or what justification there would be for denying a candidate the nomination.  One reason might be that some substantial proportion of the party finds the proposed nominee unacceptable for some reason, perhaps electability, or that the candidate’s long-term impact on the party might be substantially damaging to its ends. Whatever the case, it is possible, and has happened that the candidate who had “the most” delegates going into the convention wound up without the nomination.  This was true in 1860, when Abraham Lincoln actually went into the convention with the third highest delegate count.  If you wonder why John Kasich sticks around, here is your answer, (although Abe Lincoln, John Kasich clearly is not…) Of course, Kasich has another hurdle to clear as the rules now stand: He hasn’t won a majority of delegates in at least eight states. This is a requirement that was put in place four years ago. At present, Kasich has only won a majority of delegates in his home state, Ohio, and it’s likely the only state in which he will have won a majority of delegates by the time we get to the national convention in Cleveland, this July. Unless there is a change to rules, he won’t be eligible for nomination.

Yesterday evening, I read a story about a lawsuit against the GOP by Larry Klayman, of Freedom Watch, who you’ll probably remember/know from Judicial Watch lawsuits fame.  Klayman is an unabashed Trump supporter. His lawsuit against the GOP is over the fact that apparently, Florida delegates are bound for three(3) ballots.(In many states, it’s just one ballot, two in others, and none in states that don’t bind delegates at all.)  Freedom Watch is claiming that the delegates ought to be perpetually bound to Trump, but this is utter madness for a very obvious reason.  Let me explain Klyaman’s foolishness by way of an example:

Imagine arriving at the July convention with no candidate having obtained 1,237 bound delegates.  Further imagine that all states perpetually bound their candidates, so that no matter how many ballots they cast, they would always, always be compelled to vote for the same candidate.  How would the party ever obtain a nominee?  It couldn’t!  Think about this for a moment, and then you will realize that Freedom Watch’s foolish lawsuit is truly a nuisance lawsuit that belongs in the category of “frivolous” if ever a lawsuit belonged in that category.  His excuse, the “tort”(or “harm”) he cites in his suit, is that the people of Florida(of which he is one, thus alleging standing,) are being defrauded by the Florida and National GOP because they “held forth” that delegates will be bound.  In other words, he’s saying that because voters may not have informed themselves of the Party’s rules, they’re being defrauded.  Ladies and gentlemen, this is a toxic bit of political grand-standing, if ever there was one.  Any decent judge, of sound mind and judicial temperament, would bounce this case out of his/her courtroom faster than one can say “build a wall!” Is Klayman really alleging that he didn’t know the delegate rules for his state, and was therefore harmed?  That’s nearly the most preposterous thing I think I’ve read lately, but as I’m certain most readers will have observed, there’s no shortage of absurdity in this election cycle.

Having meandered through this whole topic a bit, I suppose I ought to conclude. My conclusion is as follows: The party selects its nominee – not the electorate – but the party tends to listen to the recommendations in various forms it has received from the electorate, where applicable.  All of this has been true for every election in my lifetime, the lifetime of my parents, and for many generations before. If a person older than, let’s be charitable and say twenty-six years of age, doesn’t know these facts and rules, it’s only possible because they have chosen never to engage themselves in discovering them.  I chose twenty-six because by then, a person should have participated in at least two presidential election cycles.  I don’t know if I knew all of this by the time I was twenty-six, but I am fairly certain I’ve known most of it since at least the age of thirty years.

It is amazing to me that people who are in their forties, fifties, and sixties now complain about this as though it’s all news to them.  The Internet has been around as a commonly accessible research tool for more than twenty years.  Most states and most state parties have had websites devoted to this information for most or all of that time.  To claim ignorance at this late date is to openly proclaim one’s complete lack of diligence.  If one can surf the web over to Ebay or Amazon, to make purchases, and so on, I don’t see how it’s possible that somebody who wanted to know this information was somehow denied access to it.  The election laws governing the states’ parties are generally available through each state’s Secretary of State website, where they may also provide links to the various parties operating in their state.  I encourage all Americans of voting age, or even younger, to learn and know at least the laws relevant in their particular states, and certainly the rules applicable to the party with which they choose to associate, if any.

The United States was established so that citizens could, through the various levels of government and attending political processes, participate fully in their own governance.  In short, being a citizen is supposed to be an active lifetime engagement for the people to determine the course of the nation.  in order to fully realize that participation, citizens should become familiar and remain up-to-date on the laws and rules applicable to their particular political interests and participation.  For most of my readers, most of this will not be news, although for perhaps some of the younger readers, it may be enlightening, but with all the, dare I say “trumped-up” controversy, I thought it critically necessary to clear the air on this issue.  Factually, this is the process.  You might not like it as is, but you have the ability to work to change it. If you think the existing parties cannot be reformed, you are also free in America to form your own and if you’re very successful, in a decade or two, you might be able to have grown it enough to have viable national candidates.  What is not true is that some giant magic “easy button” exists to  “fix things” instantaneously. Being an active citizen is something too few citizens actually do, and this is to the detriment of the country as a whole, and certainly to the parties in particular.  Ignorance of these facts leave too many Americans easy prey for demagogues, and it’s instructive to watch how, with the circumstance of the GOP nomination fight, so many Americans are easily led astray.  I dearly hope this will be a lesson for many, providing them the impetus to engage in the true blessing of self-governance in a thorough fashion they had never contemplated before.

Lastly, I would like to address the complaints of those who argue that it’s “too hard” or “too difficult” or that there is some situational constraint on one’s participation in the full political process.  I grant that at various times in our lives, it can be more and less difficult to find the time to fully participate, but I also know this: If most of us really wanted to do so, most of us could find a way.  What I’ve seen is that for many, complaining and stomping around is a good deal easier, and it satisfies the temporary emotional need.  That sort of laziness will never lead to change, however, and it’s high time that having informed oneself, each goes on to a full and unrelenting participation.

Editor’s Note: This article should not be seen as an endorsement of all aspects of the Republican Party’s rules or procedures, but instead a simple statement about the simpler fact that some form of these rules, with some variation, have been in place since the beginning of the party.  It’s also intended as a way to further that historical perspective and to alleviate some of the ignorance made plain by the reactions to this information by some people.  My intent is not to criticize the electorate at large, but to make them aware of these historical facts so that even should they fail in this election cycle to obtain their desired result, they will have no excuse for not being ready to fully participate in the next cycle, and to fight for those changes they believe are necessary. 

 

 

 

 

Four Years Later: Mitt Romney Still Despicable

Saturday, March 19th, 2016

mitt_mobile_ftIt was bad enough that this jerk managed to blow an election he should have won.  It was thoroughly embarrassing that he let Candy Crowley “punk” him in a nationally televised debate. All that should have been the end of Mitt Romney’s appearances in our national life, but I wonder if what Mitt Romney fears most about Donald Trump might be that Trump will actually fight, get down in the muddy ditch with Hillary, and knock the Hell out of her, politically speaking, of course.  Friday, he posted another anti-Trump screed on Facebook, and this time, he said that in Utah, he’s going to be voting for Ted Cruz.  He says he’s not voting for Cruz for any reason but to cause a contested convention, but how is anybody going to take this clown seriously?  If he were able to somehow rig the nomination of a candidate other than one of the two currently plausible nominees, I’m afraid many people would have radically strong reactions against the GOP.  For instance, some of us might be inclined to exercise what I’ve termed “Trump’s Nuclear Option.”  I know I would.

Nothing is more despicable than an establishment has-been leaping onto the stage as if he has some sort of credibility with the Republican rank-and-file voters. Here’s the statement this jackass made on Facebook on Friday:

This week, in the Utah nominating caucus, I will vote for Senator Ted Cruz.

Today, there is a contest between Trumpism and Republicanism. Through the calculated statements of its leader, Trumpism has become associated with racism, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, vulgarity and, most recently, threats and violence. I am repulsed by each and every one of these.

The only path that remains to nominate a Republican rather than Mr. Trump is to have an open convention. At this stage, the only way we can reach an open convention is for Senator Cruz to be successful in as many of the remaining nominating elections as possible.

I like Governor John Kasich. I have campaigned with him. He has a solid record as governor. I would have voted for him in Ohio. But a vote for Governor Kasich in future contests makes it extremely likely that Trumpism would prevail.

I will vote for Senator Cruz and I encourage others to do so as well, so that we can have an open convention and nominate a Republican.

How very nice of this jerk! Why didn’t he endorse Cruz?  Why did he have to say such a thing?  All this will do is to infuriate Republican voters, causing them to react in opposition to his foolish plotting.  It’s baffling that this man thinks he has even the slightest shred of credibility remaining with the Republican base.

My message in opposition to Mitt Romney’s stupid, detestable, despicable statement is here:

In the coming weeks, the GOP will continue the process of permitting the voters to express their preference as to who should be the party’s nominee for President.

Today, a past party nominee has decided to continue and further his attacks on the current putative “front-runner” for that nomination. I have compiled, therefore,  a list of questions for the 2012 Republican nominee:

Mr. President Private Citizen Romney, what makes you believe you have the moral authority to prescribe to any Republican the disposition of his or her vote?  You’ve shown no ability whatever to obtain an electoral majority in the United States.  On what basis do you now offer your advice to Republican voters, knowing you’ve been a colossal failure in your previous attempts to attain the highest office in the land?  When Candy Crowley basically let her refusal to support your assertion stand as an accusation of lying on your part, why did you not respond? (Hint: this is likely the same reason you lost to Barack Obama.)  Would you be willing to ride in a Vari-Kennel on the roof of my car? Do you think anybody actually cares if or how you answer any of the foregoing?

Mitt Romney, you are a worthless political has-been who retains no credibility among the broadest base of the Republican Party, the conservative movement, or almost anybody anywhere.  Go away now.  Shut up.  Yes, you have free speech, but what you must learn is that because you can do a thing doesn’t mean you should.

Four year later, Willard, you’ve learned nothing and you’re still despicable.

In 2012, much against my preferences, and my own political leanings, I went to the polls in November and supported Mitt Romney as the nominee of the Republican Party. I did so knowing that Mitt Romney was in no way representative of my conservative views.  I knew he had, while serving as governor of Massachusetts, implemented policies I found to be despicable in a free nation, particularly by a person elected as a Republican.  Still, I dutifully did as millions of other voters summoned the discipline to do despite many, many misgivings about Mitt. I went to the polling place and select Romney for President, and with millions of others, knew he would go down to miserable defeat.  He failed to make the arguments. He never really believed in conservatism, and still doesn’t. My last question for Mr. Romney is one I think every Republican who voted for him in 2012 despite a myriad of disagreements with his record and his campaign should have every right to ask, and have answered:

We supported a nominee in the general who we had not supported in the primary, a man who had not been our first, second, or even third choice. We supported the Party’s nominee.  Having done this on behalf of the party, and as I am again prepared to do in the election this November despite serious misgivings over all of the candidates now campaigning, I now ask you sir: Why will you not support the nominee of the Republican party despite your misgivings, just as I set aside my more sincere and severe misgivings with you in 2012? Is party loyalty only good for the base, but irrelevant for the elites?

Mr. Romney would doubtless excuse himself with some tortured, indignant statement about the various failings of Trump, but what he would not do is to answer the question.  He can’t, because he’s a despicable fraud, and it’s one of the key reasons so many of us had so many thorough doubts about him four years ago.  Go home Mitt. Go home and stay there.

GOP Says “FU”

Friday, March 18th, 2016

its-our-party-we-can-do-do-what-we-want_ftThe GOP establishment isn’t going quietly. In fact, they’re building their booby trap for those who would oust them from dominance in the upcoming elections, and those who have to date deprived them of viable candidates in the Republican primary season.  I have here stated that I’m not a big fan of Donald Trump, and that I have serious misgivings about all of the Republican candidates.  What you should know is that as much as I may not like Donald Trump’s behavior and antics, I vastly prefer him to the crooked DC UniParty that includes both Democrat and Republican establishments.  What we’ve learned today is that in order to interrupt the natural, normal primary process as the GOP establishment had already rigged it, they will use the continuing candidacy of a mail carrier’s son to foist on the party a nominee like Paul Ryan, or another establishment Republican, through the contested convention process, should neither Trump nor Cruz obtain the necessary 1,237 delegates.  If that doesn’t disgust you quite enough, and it isn’t clear enough to you how, as a voter for any candidate in the GOP primary, you’re being screwed, there’s this bit of news:  Orin Hatch(R-UT) is already aboard with the Obama nomination of  leftist radical Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court of the United States.   Perpetual sell-outs Jeff Flake, Kelly Ayotte, and Susan Collins have already expressed interest in meeting with Garland.  You need to understand how you’re being betrayed by the GOP establishment.

This is their parting gift.  If they can’t win in the regular primary process, they’re going to make your votes meaningless.  If that still doesn’t permit them to maintain power, and if they’re unable to stop Trump directly, they will support Hillary.  Assuming somehow that doesn’t materialize, and Trump has such a groundswell of support in the Fall that they’re unable to sufficiently damage him in order to elect Hillary, they are setting up their parting gift: If they believe they’re about to be ousted anyway, they are going to shove a leftist Supreme Court justice down our throats to wreck the country for decades, if not forever.  One way or another, they’re going to have their revenge, like the petulant children of Bill Clinton’s administration who stole all the “W” keys from keyboards throughout the executive departments of our government, the difference being that this will be substantially more damaging, and it will be done with far more malice.  Speaking of malice for Republican voters, watch the following video (H/T Sundance @ the ConservativeTreehouse), and listen closely just beyond the three minute mark:

That’s right, it’s THEIR party, and they’ll nominate who they damned well please.  For those who don’t quite understand this, let me explain it this way: Delegates select the nominee. Voters participate in a process by which delegates are selected, but this is where the voter’s legal say in the process ends. As a practical matter, it is true that the party selects the nominee through its delegates.  If no candidate obtains 1,237 delegates(one more than half) then the delegates who are required to support the candidate to whom they were originally allocated in the first vote become unbound in any successive votes, meaning they can cross over and vote for another candidate.  This is essentially a “contested convention” by party rules, and at present, unless something shifts wildly, it’s going to be very difficult for any of the candidates to get to the 1,237 delegates required.  What Curly Haugland is explaining in this video is that which we already know: It’s THEIR party.  They make the rules, and they determine the process, which means that they alone really possess the ability to select the party’s nominee.  They can make changes to the rules almost at will.

Haugland isn’t lying. Haugland is simply stating the facts. What voters must now realize is what many people have been explaining for decades, but that nobody seems willing to acknowledge: The whole primary process is a farce.  In the Democrat party, it is dominated by “Super Delegates” who basically are able to obviate the will of the voters at their whim.  Witness how Bernie Sanders can win the popular vote in a given state, but always loses in the delegate count. In the 1970s, the Democrats created the “Super Delegates” in the wake of George McGovern’s candidacy, because they never wanted such an apparent leftist to be the nominee of their party again. It’s the Democrat establishment’s version of “Screw-the-vote,” and it’s in clear evidence in 2016 in the race between Clinton and Sanders.

On the Republican side, a different methodology is used to obtain the same kind of result.  A myriad of candidates are inserted into the campaign to split and shape the results.  As they lose their utility in shaping the race, they’re withdrawn from the process.  This is why John Kasich remains in this race today, because he’s going to effectively siphon-off just enough delegates to make sure neither of the other two can obtain 1,237 delegates.  This will put the GOP establishment in the position of being able to negotiate with the candidates at the convention, probably even throughout the period between the last primary in early June, and the convention’s start in July.  By then, the delegate counts will be firmly known, and the deal-making will begin in earnest.  We will eventually discover who had been the better deal-maker, or if a deal had been reached at all, once the voting begins at the convention.  I would not be surprised to see a Trump-Kasich ticket emerge, with Kasich being the establishment’s lever in the supposed presidency of Donald Trump.

Whatever the case, you can bet that the GOP establishment will use a “contested convention” to set their hooks deeply into Donald Trump’s backside if he is to become the nominee.  The same is true if they were to instead broker a deal with Ted Cruz.  The basic idea here is that they will obtain certain policy concessions for the DC UniParty that will undermine whomever they ultimately decide to support in this process.  You can bet that this is where some form of “amnesty” will sneak in over the threshold, and you can expect to be thoroughly betrayed on this issue.  Whether it’s some sort of “touch-back amnesty” as Trump has previously suggested, or a “legalize-in-place-without-path-to-citizenship” as Cruz has previously advocated, you can bet the hooks will be set firmly.

The party establishments are firmly in control of their parties, and I detest the misleading comments of those who will tell you now that the “GOP establishment is dead.”  Nothing could be further from the truth, and they will never yield power in their party.  At best, they’re in hiding.  Should voters become so incensed at the process that they decide to form a new party, abandoning the GOP altogether, the GOP establishment will simply switch and work to co-opt the new party.  There is a vast political class of consultants, analysts, propagandists, public-relations pushers, and pollsters who cannot live without this process.  They’d be out of a job.  They are the folks most threatened by the two remaining Republican candidates, because either is likely to wipe out a good deal of this nonsense if they are able to obtain the nomination and win the presidency.

The Republican Party’s establishment is able to say “FU” to the voters and make it stick, certainly for now, and probably for as long as the Republican Party remains in existence. They control far too much of the process to ever be truly defeated on their own home turf.  Even Ronald Reagan discovered this as he found through the course of his presidency that he was being consistently opposed and undermined not just by Democrats like Ted Kennedy, but also from within his own administration through the establishment cronies tied to his Vice President.  If either Trump or Cruz manages to make a deal to get the nomination at a “contested convention,” you should know that exactly the same sort of thing will be in the offing, because the establishment isn’t giving up their power without a serious knock-down, drag-out fight.  We should be realistic about the betrayals that will attend any deal-making, and it’s why we must never forget that when they assert that it’s THEIR party, they aren’t lying.  It’s just that in most cases, they’re just as soon not point it out.  We should be prepared to exert our influence, to the degree we have any, with the candidate who they ultimately nominate, because the deal-making of the DC establishment is never in our favor. Never.

We Need More Gridlock!

Friday, March 18th, 2016

dc_gridlock2_ftI’ve watched most of the GOP debates, and I’ve watched a fair number of the Republican candidates’ press conferences and campaign events, and one of the things I hear Donald Trump saying is that “we need to end gridlock.” His general notion is apparently that in Washington DC, they don’t “get deals done,” or “they make terrible deals,” and the result is gridlock.  Let me be clear about my position on this, Trump’s notions notwithstanding: Our government spends more than $4 Trillion per year, and without such “gridlock” as we have, we would undoubtedly spend more.  Mr. Trump would do much better with conservatives if he finally recognized this and integrated it into his views.  Our problem isn’t gridlock, but a terrible lack of it.

For the last several years, it has been a cooperation between Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, working in concert with the Presidents Bush and Obama, to expand the government and to bail out the various entities, and to print money at an unsustainable rate.  It’s easy enough to look at the mess in Washington DC, see that conservative policies never make it into the resulting legislation, and conclude the problem had been “gridlock.” There are many Trump supporters, along with Trump himself, who view this as a failure of conservatism.  In one respect, they’re right, but where they are wrong is in a belief that conservative principles are the problem, or that the relief from “gridlock” will cure the issue.

One can apply this to almost any particular topic, or subject of legislation.  Let us consider the conservative view of taxation.  We’ve certainly had some gridlock on that issue, if your particular preference is to cut taxes.  On the other hand, if you prefer increased taxation, you will note that in various forms, the total taxation by the Federal Government has increased markedly in the era of Obama.  If you’re for significant tax reform, for instance, a “flat tax,” you will believe there is gridlock on this issue.  On the overall issue of taxation, however, there’s been no gridlock: We’re being taxed to death.  This is the problem with the term “gridlock,” and this is the reason it’s such a poor term. It describes a generic sense of inaction in Washington DC, but one can scarcely conclude, looking solely at the expenditures by government, that “gridlock” may exist on issues dealing with reform, but it cannot actually exist when the printing press for government checks is concerned, or where the printing(or digitizing) of new money is under review.

To show the other side of the misuse of “gridlock” in rhetorical flourishes, there are those advocates of an “amnesty” of some sort for the tens of millions of illegal aliens in this country who will insist that we have had “gridlock” on “immigration reform.” Let me state emphatically that with respect to the laws, I will fight fervently to see to it that “gridlock” prevails on this issue, because until we begin to enforce the laws that already exist, and until the “gridlock” in the executive branch is alleviated through an effort at enforcement of existing laws, I’m all for “gridlock” in the matter of “immigration reform.”  The truth is that we do not so much need “immigration reform” as we need “immigration enforcement.”  Listen, however, to the legalization and amnesty crowd, and what you learn is that when they talk about “gridlock,” they mean that they haven’t yet succeeded in legalizing that which had been formerly(and currently) illegal.

These and many more examples like them make plain that “gridlock” is not a problem.  The real problem is that in specific policy terms, our government uses the term “gridlock” to represent inaction on concrete policies that they favor, but the American people do not.  People should be skeptical when politicians talk about a generic “gridlock” without defining the specifics of the stoppage about which they’re concerned.  Too often, politicians have seized upon general sentiments against “gridlock” as the means by which to advance agenda items their voters and supporters would not support.  A great example of that would be Marco Rubio, who ran for his current seat in the Senate, opposing Charlie Crist on the issue of “amnesty,” but who talked about “gridlock” on “immigration reform.”  In his first few years in office, he spent much of his time and energies on the issue of “immigration reform,” attempting to alleviate “gridlock” on the issue, but little had his supporters expected that his proposals would ultimately be tantamount to a full reversal on the issue that had in part propelled him into office.  Of course, Rubio claimed all along that he was working to overcome “gridlock” on the issue. What becomes obvious, however, is that “gridlock” is a matter of perspective, and where one stands regarding an issue dominates whether one will view it in a positive or negative light.

The question isn’t whether we have too much gridlock, but whether it exists in the consideration of the right policies.  When the Republicans, then in the minority in both houses, fought to stop the passage of Obama-care, this was “Gridlock” writ large on the legislative stage, and I don’t know a single person now supporting Trump who wished there hadn’t been more “gridlock” on that issue.  In point of fact, more often than not, most of the people of the United States would be better served by a form of “gridlock” that causes stoppages in the legislative and regulatory processes of our government than by letting them go on in an unrestricted fashion.  Think about all of the stupid laws and regulations streaming out of Washington DC, but imagine there had been sufficient gridlock to stop them. This is the secret that most politicians don’t want you to know about “gridlock:” The constitution is itself a device of gridlock. It’s intended that way, and precisely for all of the reasons I’ve outlined.  The framers had the wisdom to know that “gridlock” impedes sudden and ill-considered change.

Knowing that, I’m in favor of “gridlock” generally, because I know that politicians promoting precipitous change have led us into a quagmire from which we will not easily emerge.  When Washington DC is gridlocked, I know my liberties are still safe, but when the gridlock breaks, my liberties are generally at risk.  The electorate at large has been conditioned to see gridlock as an ill of Washington DC, but the people should learn that gridlock often serves to protect us from the ills of excessive, bloated government, contrary to the impressions that media outlets and DC politicians often create.  If we’re going to talk about alleviating the log-jam in DC, let us be careful to use enough specificity to focus our energies, because otherwise, opportunistic politicians will run with the theme of “gridlock as the enemy” in order to foist all sorts of infamy upon us.  That’s why I rejoice when I see gridlock in Washington DC.  May we have more of it, that we may enjoy its innumerable blessings.

 

The Marginalization of American Conservatism

Wednesday, March 16th, 2016

conservatism_the_real_thing_ftThis is an issue that should concern all those who are fervent conservatives, and it’s one we must now confront as we near the end of the primary season of 2016.  In this election cycle, the predictable outcome seems more inevitable than ever, but one can’t ignore how the current GOP front-runner has at times scorned conservatism.  Much like the long-established practice of the blue-blood Republicans, what has happened in this election is that conservatism has become increasingly isolated from the remainder of the Republican party, and from the electorate at large.  This isn’t a pleasant reality for conservatives, but it is nevertheless true.  So long as we permit this to occur, we will never see the sort of electoral outcomes we would prefer, never mind the the realization of  substantive policy results for which we’ve been fierce advocates.  We have some terrible choices before us, but in advance of us making them, we must come to understand how we’ve arrived in our current predicament.  If we’re ever to return this nation to a constitutional path, we must do first by adhering to it ourselves, and we must be willing to accept our own role in our political misfortunes.  The truth is somewhat difficult to accept, but there it lies, nevertheless, awaiting the summoning our courage to confront it.  Conservatism is increasingly marginalized precisely because we have permitted its dilution and diminution through the acceptance of too many compromises of principles, and too many instances in which we were willing to form an ideological “big tent.”  There’s nothing wrong with building temporary alliances with others, but if conservatism doesn’t stake out its ideological limits, and defend its ideological boundaries, it will continue to be marginalized within the broader general electorate.

When George W. Bush ran for the office of President of the United States in 2000, not a few Texans had significant concerns.  Many who had observed his performance here in Texas took the time to try to warn the party at large that he was not really a conservative.  Bush tried to ply conservatives with a new formulation, calling himself a “compassionate conservative.”  There were a few problems with this that some of us at the time recognized, and one of them was in the implicit denigration of conservatism generally:  Conservatism is compassionate.  We need no such adjectives.  We need no such descriptors.  We need no such modifiers on what conservatism offers to its adherents.  Conservatism is the most compassionate ideology in existence, but by accepting the adjective offered by George W. Bush, we made what was tantamount to an admission that conservatism wasn’t inherently compassionate.

What conservatives across the nation soon discovered was the fact that “compassionate conservatism” meant “big-government Republican.” On issue after issue, from defense, to security, to education, to Medicare, or bank bail-outs, there was no issue in which the answer of George W. Bush would be anything other than the expansion of government and the increase of our national debt at the expense of generations as yet unborn.  It is true that Obama has essentially doubled the national debt, but we must in all honesty admit that the same can be said of George W. Bush.  The Bush “compassion” came at the expense of conservatism, and at the expense of our generations of Americans as yet unborn.  Nevertheless, we permitted Bush to fly the flag of a highly adulterated “conservatism” without respect to what the long-run affects on our movement would be.  Most of the conservative media spent much of the eight years of the Bush presidency, and much time well beyond their end, defending the ludicrous policies and positions of a conservative who wasn’t.

We’re seeing some of the same thing in the current election year.  Donald Trump talks about “common-sense” conservatism. I have exactly as many problems with this adjective tacked as a prefix to conservatism as I did to the term “compassionate.”  In fact, over time, there are or have been “Tea Party conservatives,” “reform conservatives,” “constitutional conservatives,” and “moderate conservatives,” but I think all these adjectives placed in series with “conservatism” simply dilute the meaning.  These modifiers also act as a disguise for that which is not conservatism.  Herein lies the problem for we conservatives, because I believe conservatism is inherently compassionate, wholly common-sense in its construction, and entirely committed to constitutional principles.  In other words, to attach any prefix to “conservatism” is to dilute and pollute the concept, or strictly to permit the purveyor to pose as a conservative while not adhering to all or part of the broader concept of conservatism.

The other effect of these bastardized versions of “conservatism” is that when people traveling under those phony banners continue to assert their hyphenated-conservatism, the natural result is that conservatism takes the blame for all the failures of those folk who are not conservative. For an example, consider again the “compassionate conservatism” of George W. Bush, this time in the context of the creation of the Transportation Security Administration(TSA,) and how he created a huge bureaucracy that increased the costs of government, but now, one-and-one-half decades later, we have another costly bureaucracy that fails to meet the security testing thrown at it just as badly or in many cases in worse fashion than the airlines-owned or airport-owned security that the TSA replaced. Again, another big-government solution that has failed, cost untold billions of dollars, and conservatives and conservatism are now permanently saddled with the blame, in large measure because a putative “conservative” enacted it.

This is the problem with letting others define “conservatism,” or letting non-conservatives decide who is or who isn’t a conservative.  “Conservatism” has become so generic and muddied at this point that it’s nearly impossible for us to in the first instance, exclude those who are not actual conservatives, and in the second instance, disclaim ownership of statist programs and policies enacted in the name of conservatism.  This is a gargantuan problem we face, and it helps explain why Donald Trump can make the point that “conservatives haven’t accomplished anything,” or that “conservatives are part of the problem.”  I think it’s time to heed the warning made explicit by this entire fiasco: We must make distinct our principles from the tawdry mix of self-contradictory, expediency-based lack of principle in the broader Republican party.

I don’t pretend to know the solution in this matter, but it’s one we conservatives must address. We’re being marginalized by virtue of a popular media meme, one that gains through our own passive associations with big-government Republicans, permitting them to shelter among us, gain our support, or in some cases, enjoy our defense of conservatism when they undertake less-than-conservative policies and programs.  This happens at all levels of government, but nowhere is it more damning and punishing than at the federal level.  Let us review briefly: In the aftermath of the 1998 mid-terms, the anti-Newt forces prevailed and essentially pushed him out of leadership.  Since that date, the Republican party, in various times controlling the House, the Senate, or the Presidency(and for some period, all three) have accomplished virtually nothing, but have frequently contributed to the statist cause.  The litany of issues and instances in which the Republican party has effectively aided and abetted Democrats in ruining our republic is gargantuan both in number and in consequence. We can no longer, not even once more, permit this to happen in the name of, or under the cover of another misappropriation of the title “conservatism.”

We Know Who Staged Chicago

Saturday, March 12th, 2016

lefty_thug_ftThe problem isn’t knowing who staged the “riot” at Trump’s UIC rally that was canceled.  That’s easy. The harder part would be to prove it.  What Americans need now to do is to put on their thinking caps.  It’s time to consider the real demons at work here, and what it is that they wished to accomplish with this debacle of Friday night.  Honestly, we all should have seen this coming.  Like seeing the foreshadowing in a movie or novel, but not quite recognizing it as a “tell,” we watched the whole week long as the media led us around by the nose, increasingly pushing the meme about Trump and the violence at his rallies.  We should have realized, in light of other inconvenient truths, that something big was coming.  When the GOP establishment cronies met at Sea Island last weekend to talk about how to stop Trump, we should have known it’s because they’ve become desperate.  Where did their desperation lead them?  What was the result?  Last night’s episode was a manufactured spectacle intended to push you, and you shouldn’t permit them to do this to you.  It’s your country, and you should be offended, and incensed, when the people running Washington DC try to manipulate you, your feelings, and your votes. We should ask, all of us, what Tammy Bruce asked in the wake of the events of last night, in a tweet:

Tammy has been a Cruz supporter throughout this campaign. For her to say this is not so odd, however, because she has experience as part of the leftist mobs.  She knows how these things work, because for a large part of her life, she was part of all of that. Later, she had an awakening, and it looks like she’s now recognized what so many of the rest of us have noticed: The GOP is behind this set-up, and there’s no way to un-notice it once you’ve seen it. Try this:

Re-play the last week of media coverage in your mind.  Looking back, wasn’t it obvious where this would go?  By the time we arrived at Thursday’s debate on CNN, with the moderators pushing the theme that Trump was inciting violence, shouldn’t we have known what to expect Friday evening?  The question remains: Who is behind this?  On the first level, it’s obvious as the day is long that this was a rent-a-mob cobbled together by the likes of Moveon.org and affiliated Occu-pests, Black Lives Matter, and all the other ugly little anarchistic groups of the rabid left, but that part is easy.  You don’t need to be a mystic to understand that much.  What’s more important is reading the signs of a coordinated attack that was contrived not by some organic left-wing movement, but one that was generated deep within the bowels of the DC UniParty, for a specific purpose.  What was the purpose?  I think I’ve covered that much, but if you’re not tracking just yet, think about how you were driven this week, “played” if you will, and coaxed and prodded in the direction of a singular impression: Trump incites violence.  Even if he says no word, his mere presence incites violence.  His simple existence promotes and provokes violence.  This is the seed they spent the whole week planting.  They wanted an impression created in your mind, a linkage if you prefer, that where Trump goes, trouble of the worst sort soon follows.

Who did this?  That’s easy too.  Look at the GOP establishment.  Admit what you’ve always known about the GOP establishment, when you’ve watched them coalesce with the Democrat establishment and the media organs that support one or the other, and frequently both.  They are a UniParty, and they’ve always been.  They’re the same globalist dirtbags, whether they happen to wear a “D” or an “R,” proudly displaying their Donkeys and Elephants for your deception.  Moveon.org is closely tied to George Soros and Hillary Clinton, but you already knew that.  What you may not have realized is that Hillary and those in the Democrat establishment are kissing cousins with the Republican establishment.  Yes, go find the stories on Jeb Bush and his awarding Hillary Clinton, and go find all the dirt that ties these people together.  Remember how curious it was what fast friends George HW Bush and Bill Clinton had become?  These people aren’t two distinct groups.  They’re one.  They are the DC UniParty that rules over us, and commits crimes against we, the American people.  Neither is this a “conspiracy theory.” It’s right out in the open, and if you will merely look, you can see it. You can know.

We are so thoroughly conditioned to see a “left” and a “right” and to think of them as warring parties that we assume the Democrat and Republican establishments are at war too.  Are they?  They agree on every policy. They form “GangsOf” six or eight or whatever might be needed to get their legislative agenda pushed through.  They use exactly the same tactics, and they espouse the same putrid ideas.  One wears the mask of the donkey in public, to control the grass-roots of the Democrat party, while the other wears the mask of the elephant in the open, to control the conservative base of the Republican party.  Cast aside everything you thought you knew about American politics for a moment, and re-order it all under this structure in your thinking about political machinations, past and present, and the scale of it all becomes quite clear.  With that clarity, apply it now to what you’ve seen recently, and suddenly, there isn’t a doubt in your mind about who is the establishment, or who comprises the DC UniParty.

With that new view of things in mind, and mindful of the meeting about stopping Trump in Sea Island, and the Thursday meetings between Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich, you should realize the scale of the coordination of all you’ve seen since.  That’s right, folks, they’re all in on it. Did you notice in the coverage of last night’s events, that one right after the next, Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich along with the UniParty’s media organs all said exactly the same thing?  They wanted you to know: If you choose Trump, this is what it’s going to be like, permanently.  They are driving you with your fear of chaos.  They’re using the chaos of last night in Chicago to drive you like bleating sheep, if only you will let them.

Every one of the three establishment candidates, and that’s what they are, if you hadn’t known it already, were in various ways trotted out before the viewers to express their sadness at the events in Chicago, but also to blame the victim, Donald Trump and his supporters, for creating an “atmosphere” or “environment” of violence.  If you can’t see this, please, please, if you’ve never considered seriously another thing I have written, realize that their manipulation of media was designed to create a singular impression, and that they may have at least temporarily succeeded with you.  Again, step back from what you think you have known, and look at it again in light of the idea of a DC UniParty with two heads but only one body.  Then consider again the events of Friday night, and know what it is you are facing.  Apply it.  Look at the events of even the last dozen years, things that had made no sense to you in the traditional left-right, Democrat-Republican, liberal-conservative paradigm you had accepted, and look again.

Do you wonder why they’re in favor of immigration reform that permits amnesty and legalization of the millions of illegals?  The Donkey-face tells the leftists “Hey, this is new voters for us.”  The Elephant-face says to its uncertain folk: “Hey, this is cheap labor.” Both implore their followers: “We’re a nation of immigrants…”  On social issues, isn’t it curious how the Elephant-face sells out conservatism?  On almost any issue, the Donkey-face urges its followers to accept “incrementalism.” Hasn’t it bothered you that a party that claims to be on the side “of the little guy” is every bit as much in bed, and in some cases more, with the powerful interests of Wall Street and K Street?  Both are willing to use our military as a force for the good they advocate, but not for the good of our country.  Is it odd to you that the Establishment Republicans on Capitol Hill have seemed less than fully serious in getting to the bottom of Benghazi, or the IRS’ Tea Party abuses?  Does it seem strange to you that both McCain and Romney virtually handed their respective elections to Obama, both with acts of despicable self-sabotage?  The truth is that they weren’t opponents to Obama at all.  These people are all on the same team.  Once you see that, there’s no unseeing it.  You can’t ignore it.  Spend a week or a month viewing things through this adjusted lens, and you will never again look at the world in the same way.

In truth, that’s been part of my own struggle.  I fall easily into the comfortable, well-worn path of the false dichotomy between the Democrats and Republicans.  After all, for all of my life, that’s the impression they’ve built, and quite successfully.  I have to stop myself on occasion, because I find myself wishing it weren’t true.  I find myself longing for a political environment that was in some way genuine.  It’s not. You should know why.  Our Federal Government spends over $4 Trillion annually now, and that’s a motive for any sort of murder and mayhem you might wish to imagine.  If you think that the control of such spoils couldn’t possibly lead to the establishment of such a cabal, ask yourself how many thugs are only too happy to kill you for your wallet.  What happens when more “civilized” thugs are presented with the temptations of billions or trillions of dollars?  What more motivation is needed?  Do you really believe these people are involved for love of country?  Do you think Mitch McConnell gives a damn about you or your liberty?  Do you think Harry Reid is doing what he does out of an abundance of concern for the future of the country? Do you think any of that is true?

Don’t look away in terror.  Confront it.  Know it.  If ever we are going to take our country back, it is from the DC UniParty’s grip that we must wrest it.  Friday night’s events in Chicago had been their doing, and for once, we ought to recognize it and finally disclaim it.

 

The UniParty’s Trumped-up Riot

Friday, March 11th, 2016

thuglandOn Friday evening, Donald Trump was scheduled to appear at a rally in Chicago.  As the crowds gathered, so did the protesters, but there was an odd aspect to the protesters: There was no consistent aim of the protesters. It was more of an amalgam of mostly left-wing groups, from representatives of Black Lives Matter to various other ethnic groups, and anarchistic groups that look more or less like the Occu-pests of 2011-12 vintage.  La Raza and Moveon.org are involved, as are all of the other usual leftist suspects.  I’ve got news for you if you think this had been an “organic” incident, however, even as the Trump event was canceled.  Even now, Megyn Kelly is pontificating on the way Trump somehow incited, or invited it all.  Yes, there you have the proof that there’s more to this than just an organic bit of chaos.  The rent-a-mobs were ginned-up for a single purpose, and it wasn’t to confront Trump’s supporters, or even Trump himself. It was all to feed an impression that Donald Trump is unfit for the presidency, and that if he’s elected, the American people can look forward to many iterations of this same sort of scenario.  They were leading with this line of attack in the CNN debate last night, and I knew it was coming.  Why? Because the DC UniParty comprised of the Democrat and Republican parties’ establishments are trying to leave a bad taste in peoples’ mouths, and fear too, about what Donald Trump’s nomination, candidacy, and potential presidency would mean.  They’re pushing fear.  This is a manipulation.  How do I know? The protestors have admitted in interviews that they weren’t really sure why they were protesting. When you observe mindless protests, you must know that somebody, somewhere is driving them.  If this was only the leftists, it wouldn’t happen until after Trump secured the nomination.  The fact that it’s happening now is the key.  The Democrats have no interest in stopping Trump unless they’re worried they can’t beat him.  The GOP, on the other hand, has been conducting a campaign to defeat him.

You’d better become accustomed to the idea that the DC UniParty doesn’t want anybody selecting an unapproved candidate, Donald Trump or otherwise.  The whole purpose of tonight’s “riot” was to generate as much negative media around the name “Trump” as possible.  Yes folks, this is a psychological operation(a “Psy-Op”,) intended to give the other GOP candidates a chance to espouse their indignant disgust, and to attach blame to Trump while not explicitly blaming him.  Statements like “Trump isn’t to blame, of course, but he has helped create an environment…”

If you can’t see through all of this, I don’t know what to tell you. We conservatives have had some terrible games played against us, but this is one of the worst in recent memory.

Now, all of the conversation will turn to the liability that Trump bears in this whole affair.  The problem is that the GOP establishment, now fully unified with the Democrat establishment, are interested only in stopping Trump.  Twice in thirty minutes, I’ve heard mention of the Michelle Fields incident, and it’s couched in terms of Breitbart as a “pro-Trump” media outlet.  The problem with that is this:  Breitbart is owned by Robert Mercer.  He’s one of the largest single contributors to… drum roll please… a Ted Cruz SuperPac.  Mercer gave at least $10 million dollars so far this cycle.  One must therefore wonder how “pro-Trump” Breitbart will ultimately be.

Never mind that, let me be blunt about all of this:  Anybody who provokes the GOP establishment to show its true colors to this extent may or may not get my vote, but will certainly have my support in making his or her opinions known.  I’ve made no secret of the fact that I don’t appreciate Trump’s vulgar language, and I don’t like some of his stunts and rhetoric, but this is a concerted effort to shut him down, to interfere with the political advocacy of Americans, and to run a Psy-Op against the American people.  The idea here is to defame Trump by association with this “riot,” and that’s all I need to know to understand that the DC UniParty, comprised of establishment Democrats and Republicans, set this whole thing in motion to provide a chance to attack him and to try to drive people away from him.  As conservatives, we should never accept this, and we should never let our silence serve as tacit support of this infamy.  Most of all, we should recognize that this is an attempt to drive us. Who benefits?  Who is doing the driving?  Real people were undoubtedly injured in some fashion tonight, but they are the eggs being broken to make the UniParty’s omelet.  What I believe we must reject is this attempt to interfere in the open political process.  I didn’t wear my country’s uniform to come home and submit to the extortion of these leftist mobs, funded by the globalists and their cabal of DC UniParty bosses who contrived all of this.  Enough is enough.  This sort of thing is terrorism of the mildest sort, but left unopposed, it generally results in worse.

A Moment of Pause Regarding Trump’s Supporters

Monday, March 7th, 2016

trump_crowd_ftOne of the things that’s become increasingly annoying to me throughout the course of this campaign, and a thing to which I may have inadvertently contributed on an occasion or two, is the meme that’s been spread like a virus through the DC Beltway echo-chamber: “Trump’s supporters are…angry…stupid…racist…thoughtless…mean…ignorant…Kool-Aid-drinkers…” After watching the race unfold on the battlegrounds of Twitter, Facebook, and in the media at large, and having watched their portrayal in the establishment media, I am prepared to state unequivocally that this is nonsense.  The vast majority of his supporters are no more than one of those things, but more, I’d urge conservatives to ignore these media portrayals for one very important reason they may not have considered: Until recently, it had been we conservatives who had been attacked with these same portrayals.  I want you to stop and think about all the election campaigns in which the media, and the GOP establishment portrayed conservatives and Tea Party folk in the very same light.  We conservatives have a responsibility first to the truth, and the truth is that whatever we may think about Donald Trump, his supporters are now being painted with the same broad brush of infamy, and in the same broad strokes, by exactly the same people.

I know a fair number of Trump supporters, both in my circle of friends and associates, and also in my extended on-line family.  None of them fit the meme described above, except in one dimension, but it is the same dimension that has aptly described conservatives for most of a generation: They, as we, are angry with Washington and the seeming one-party establishment that is comprised of an elite media, elite Democrats, and elite Republicans who all hold any opposition in complete contempt.  I think this explains another phenomenon that is genuine, though less visible due to the media’s one-sided coverage: There are a number of Bernie Sanders’ supporters whose second choice is not Hillary Clinton, but amazingly, Donald Trump.  Why would this be?  Most of us have become so jaded about the dirty tricks in campaigns these days that it would be easy to dismiss this as more Democrat trickery.  Oddly, I don’t believe that’s actually the case here.  I believe it represents something much more fundamental, and infinitely more organic: Those who support Bernie Sanders are being undercut by the same Washington DC establishment uni-party, and they see in Trump somebody who has joined the fight against a common enemy.  When I talk to the rare Sanders supporter in my broadened local circle, what I find is that Sanders’ supporter share every bit as much of the same contempt for Hillary as conservatives feel for Mitt Romney, for instance.  This common ground with Trump supporters is an interesting, but I believe wholly organic outgrowth of an overwhelming sense of disgust in the nation with Washington DC and the two parties that together rule over us.

We conservatives have been led to believe by popular media that Trump’s support is a wholly-contrived exposition of Democrat tinkering, but while I’ve seen some evidence that this has been the case in pockets, the truth is that most Trump supporters I’ve had the chance to meet are perfectly sane, rational people who have decided something more compelling than the argument that their conservative principles ought to drive their choice.  It is their general argument that Trump represents a true outsider movement, in terms of the DC Beltway uni-party establishment.  They are prepared to temporarily lay aside their deeper convictions about the particulars of various issues in order to oust the uni-party crowd.  Despite my attachment to conservative principles, I know they have a very powerful point, and in truth, we might consider it thoroughly before rejecting it outright.

Here, I think they make an argument that is difficult to contest: As long as the DC-beltway crowd remains in singular, oligopolistic control of the narrative, the law, and the whole of our national machinery of governance, we will never reverse the direction of the country, and no conservative principles will ever be adopted in the halls of power in our nation’s capital.  Their argument is that in an emergency, you might well temporarily suspend your strictest adherence to your long-held principles in order that your principles be preserved at all.  In essence, they’re applying the legal concept of the “rule of necessity” to popular politics and political philosophy. Their argument therefore rests on the plausibility of the claim that we are in some sort of national emergency.  The question we must ask is “Are we?”

Our country is now twenty trillion dollars in operating debt.  We have unfunded liabilities of two-hundred trillion dollars.  We have a monetary system that has been corrupted to fund big government and big money on Wall Street with a cheap-money bubble that cannot and will not be sustained much longer.  Our borders are porous and present no serious impediment to criminals, terrorists, or any illegal entrants.  Our national security infrastructure is in a severe state of disrepair and neglect.  Our political elites continue to enjoy fabulous wealth largely on the basis of cronyism.  Average Americans are out of work, underemployed, or simply destitute as the people who run the DC uni-party continue to enjoy record profits on the backs of the rest of the country.  The crisis is surely real, and it is clear that their position is justified.

If their position is justified, so is their inflexible support of Donald Trump.  Their basic argument is that nobody who has been a part of the Beltway Bubble ought to be trusted in this critical moment for the Republic.  You might point to Ted Cruz as an outsider, as I have done, but let’s be blunt: Ted Cruz was a part of the team that argued on behalf of George W. Bush in the 2000 election.  Ted Cruz was a clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist. Ted Cruz may be disliked by parts or even the entire parcel of the uni-party establishment, but the case can certainly be made in earnest that he is one of them, or has long operated among them.  The argument of Trump supporters is that none who have been a part of the DC Bubble ought to be president now, and that it’s too great an emergency in terms of our national future to permit any chance that we will, at this late date, be betrayed once again.

That’s a highly patriotic position to take, among people who are quite diverse in an ideological sense, and many of them have adopted it as the basis of a movement’s justification for accepting a candidate who many of them will readily admit is an imperfect vessel for their particular views.  One of the things that Trump’s supporters fervently believe is something that is quite attractive to many voters, including this conservative: Donald Trump is the only candidate on the ballot who can explode the DC establishment. He’s the only person among all the candidates with a clear-cut motive to unmask the uni-party establishment, to expose their serial crimes, and to prosecute them.  I think this is where much of the pro-Trump fervor originates, and I also believe it is where the GOP establishment’s shrill denouncements of Trump originate.  They are terrified of him, not merely because he would wrest control from them, but that he would be in a position to unmask their deals and extensive profiteering from government operations, and then prosecute them.

That’s a powerful motivation I would concede makes a very strong argument in favor of their position.  We conservatives have known for many years that the GOP’s establishment operates in general coordination with establishment Democrats and the media, and they’ve used that coordination against us in a myriad of situations over the last three decades.  Rather than joining the DC uni-party in decrying Trump’s supporters, we might reconsider and try to see them as allies, even if we believe their chosen candidate is less than perfect as the platform for our ideas, because many of them come from among our own number, but have merely decided that defeating the DC establishment is the only way we can ever win.  On that basis, if I’ve been dismissive of Trump supporters, I’d offer an earnest apology. I had believed the general meme of the DC establishment about your character, but having come to know some of your number, or having discovered some of your number among my friends, I’ve come to understand your earnest motives.

The problem with 2016’s primary season is that it has threatened to splinter the GOP’s broadest coalition forevermore, but in truth, if I am asked whether I would prefer that conservatives keep company with Trump’s supporters or those who cleave to the GOP’s establishment in Washington DC, it’s really a no-brainer: I prefer the broad coalition of Trumpsters to the snooty, elitist Bill Kristols of the world, and I make no bones about my own enmity for the uni-party establishment in Washington DC.  The Trumpsters make a compelling argument about the importance of truly rooting out cronyism and corruption in both parties in Washington DC, long before we can ever actually implement our principled stance on any particular issue. It’s true. We conservatives should pay first respect to the truth, and we should note that the same people who have defamed conservatives in one election after the other, or masqueraded as conservatives in one election after another, are the people who are now defaming Trump’s supporters, and it should give us pause.