Social Justice Warriors, I don't know why, seem to lack a basic grasp of reality and observational powers. Combined with their recursive thinking that "if they want it badly enough, it will come true," if they can get their "inclusive" agenda, the result will be staggering numbers of dead and disabled people. This will also lead in directions that *I* see, but obviously they don't.

I speak specifically about this article, Making U.S. Fire Departments More Diverse and Inclusive by Corinne Bendersky.

She starts with the first paragraph:

Picture a typical firefighter. Who comes to mind? If you imagined a white man, that’s understandable: 96% of U.S. career firefighters are men, and 82% are white. This homogeneity is striking, especially when you compare it to the U.S. military, which is 85% men and 60% white, and local police forces, which are 88% men and 73% white.

To which my response is, "Aaannnnnnnnndd?" Because there are two distinct factors in play here, both conveniently ignored by the author. They are 1) the prospective firefighter must apply for the position (they must want to do it) and 2) there is a set of physical and mental standards that must be met to adequately and safely perform the job at hand. Those physical requirements, by the way, are written in blood. The blood of those who could not physically perform the job and those killed or disabled because the first person could not do the job.

In 2015, I wrote about the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force in my article, Women in Combat. Included in my post was the article Sergeant Major Speaks Out On Women In Combat.

Sergeant Major Justin Lehew, who was part of the GCEITF and wanted it to succeed, had this to say:

With our limited manpower we cannot afford to not train everyone to the best of their abilities. This was as stacked as a unit could get with the best Marines to give it a 100 percent success rate as we possibly could. End result? The best women in The GCEITF as a group in regard to infantry operations were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study. They are slower on all accounts in almost every technical and tactical aspect and physically weaker in every aspect across the range of military operations. [emphasis mine]

The report sent to the Secretary of the Navy had this to say, (page 79):

1. The female Marines integrated into the closed MOS units demonstrated that they are capable of performing the physically demanding tasks, but not necessarily at the same level as their male counterparts in terms of performance, fatigue, workload, or cohesion.
2. Integrated units, compared with all-male units, showed degradations in the time to complete tasks, move under load, and achieve timely effects on target. The size of the differences observed between units and tasks varied widely. The more telling aspect of the comparisons is the cumulative impacts. The pace, timing, and accuracy of any singular task is not necessarily important, but taken together, and in the context of actual combat operations, the cumulative differences can lead to substantial effects on the unit, and the unit’s ability to accomplish the mission.
3. Gender and MOS type are the best predictors of occupational injuries. In particular, we found that females are more likely to incur occupational injuries, resulting in reduced readiness compared to their male counterparts. Males, on the other hand, are more likely to incur non-occupational injuries. Additionally, Marines in vehicle MOSs tended to have lower injury rates than those in MOSs that march (i.e., foot mobile) or Artillery MOSs.

Let me spell this out for you: The best female Marine is outperformed by 19 of 20 male Marines. In combat, the slower unit will likely lose in a fight. Integrated units are slower than non-integrated units. This ends only one way: more flag-draped coffins than there should have been.

How does this apply here? I can't say this enough: In physically demanding jobs where lives are on the line, the physical standards to those jobs are written in the blood of those who didn't meet those standards. If a firefighter cannot haul a downed fellow firefighter (or policeman, oil rig worker, et.al.) to safety in time, both will die.

Just in case, if you're reading "women can't be firefighters/Marines/Whatever," you're stupid. If a woman can meet the physical standard (not the women's standard, the same standard as men) and wants to work in that job, I have no problem with it. My day job consists of me routinely loading 40 and 50 pound bulky equipment boxes into and out of my work van. Out of the 40 technicians in my group, 3-4 are female. They can do the job and I don't have a problem with it.

To force gender equality in jobs like this will end very badly. But here's a worse dimension.

About 1975, I read a book, This Perfect Day by Ira Levin. It's the story about a dystopian society, where the computer "Unicomp" (Universal Computer) made most of your life decisions for you. I remember this passage quite clearly, just not word for word. The scene was where Chip (his actual name was Li XE 4827143) was lamenting that Uni had decided that he was to be a molecular geneticist when he really wanted to be something else, I forget what.

"Chip," the counselor said, "You know Uni always makes the best decisions, right? Uni has read all of your test scores and your teachers' notes about you to select the best possible work for you. Can you imagine if everyone wanted to be an actor but no one wanted to work in a crematorium?"

I clearly see that, not too far into the future, if SJW's can force this "gender equality" into any job (not just the physically demanding ones) then not too long after that, you won't get a choice about what you do to earn a living. You will be told what to do and that's that. Think about this: If the job openings for a given job type are to "equally represent" all racial and gender groups, how is that fire department going to find a mixed race Black/Asian lesbian that wants to be a firefighter? Because, you know, if a position requires that specific racial/sexual demographic, how easily can that position be filled?

Forcing diversity, be it racial or gender, without regard to the physical and mental demands of a job will end in failure, the only question remains is, "how catastrophic?"

This may seem counter-intuitive, but the proper way to tackle the issue of “hate speech” is to have more speech, not to silence the speaker. I have to put that term into scare quotes because it is often invoked for any kind of contradictory speech. By the massive overuse of the term, it destroys any impact it would normally have. Overuse almost normalizes real racists, like Louis Farrakhan, who compared the Jewish people to termites, or Sarah Jeong, recently named to the New York Times Editorial Board, who has Tweeted things like:

• “Dumbass f***ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”
• [It’s] “kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men."
• “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically only being fit to live underground like groveling bilious goblins?”

You can find even more of her best Tweets in the article Racism, Revised.

Can you imagine the outrage if Jeong had said “Black” instead of “white”?

Please, spare me the “it can’t be racism if the race of the person has no power,” implying minorities can’t be racists. Which, of course, defies how Merriam-Webster defines it: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”

To defeat true hate speech, both factually and sociologically is to allow more speech to fight the hate speech. If we do not curtail the speech of these haters and we let them prattle on long enough, there's multiple things that are going to happen.

First of all we're going to see who they are. We won’t need to doxx them, they will proudly step out into the open and say who they are. This means social conformity pressure can be applied to them.

Second, left to their own devices they will eventually counter their own arguments just through ideological inconsistency. My favorite example of this is Leftists say, “we should remove soda and snack machines because teenagers can’t make good food and lifestyle choices by themselves.” Then they turn right around and say, “Pregnant teenagers should be able to abort their unborn baby without parental knowledge or consent because they should have the choice.” Any rational person will rightly think, “You can’t have this both ways. If teenagers aren’t mature enough to handle the decision on to buy a candy bar or soda or not, how can they be mature enough to decide about aborting a pregnancy on their own?”

Third, the longer we let them shout their hate, the more extreme they will inevitably become. They will instinctively get more and more radical, looking for how much they can get away with, just like a child who tests the limits and resolve of their parents. The good side of this is people who initially followed this person out because the ideas “sounded good” (or maybe a morbid “train wreck” curiosity) will leave in droves as this person becomes less and less rational.

Fourth, I will never condone any governmental control over speech other than the minimum. Right now these types of speech do not enjoy a Constitutional protection:

• Obscenity (Using SCOTUS’ Miller Test)
• Child Pornography
• Incitement for imminent lawless action
• False alarm (shouting “Fire!” when there is none)
• Libel/slander.

Those are all well-defined and socially unacceptable in any context.

Now, if a committee (A committee is a life form with eight or more legs and no brain) were appointed by the government to decide on what is hate speech or not, would not the opinions and decisions of that group change over time? If scrutinizing statements A and B to determine if they were hate speech, this year they might decide A is the hate speech and B is not. Yet next year B might become the hate speech and A is acceptable.

I only have to point to the recent “Net Neutrality” regulations as a clear example. The regulations were made official one day, then a few months later after the administration changed, the regulations were rescinded. Would you really want your freedom of speech Rights subject to such whims of men and government?

I will never call for the restriction of a persons’ free speech outside of the already declared terms above. If I were to call for the speech of any person to be curtailed, be they Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan or Sarah Jeong today, tomorrow I might be the one who is silenced. That will just not do at all.

I for one do not want to be the next Maximilien Robespierre, who orchestrated the French Reign of Terror, the march of thousands to the Guillotine during the French Revolution. Robespierre did that job so well he eventually made that march himself. We should all learn from that lesson before we lose our heads, both freedom-wise and literally.

Winston Churchill defined a fanatic as, “Someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.” If you get into an argument with a fanatic, be they Left, Right or Center, always remember that you most likely are not going to win them to your point of view. It would be easier to turn a Cleveland Browns fan into a Baltimore Ravens fan. You will not win despite your best reasoning and most persuasive arguments. I admit, while winning the fanatic to your side would be a wonderful thing, your real target and victory goal is convincing everyone who is watching the discussion and may not be decided on the subject.

Here’s the most important point. If we as a society silence anyone, we are all damaged. That silencing of someone, it doesn’t matter if you agreed or disagreed with what they said, that act will cause you to pause ever so slightly in what you have to say from then on.

Or as I saw on the Web a while back:

Q: How do all Soviet-era jokes begin?
A: By looking over your shoulder.

To silence any person, for whatever reason, puts us all on that path. Think on that very carefully.

If you don't detail read and analyze the MSM over a long period of time to catch the right snippets to understand what's going on, you have no idea why the postponement of Lt.Gen Michael Flynn, USA (Ret.) is such a big deal. Let's start off with the facts.

1. Flynn was part of the Obama Administration and was a vocal opponent of Obama's Iran Deal.

2. Obama advised Trump not to hire Flynn as his National Security Advisor. Trump told Obama to pound sand and hired him anyway.

3. In late December 2016, during the transition, Flynn went on vacation with his family to the Dominican Republic, where Flynn did not have access to secure phone services.

4. During this vacation time, Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats from the US, which prompted a call between Kislyak, the Russian Ambassador to the US and Flynn, as part of his role as the US National Security Advisor. Talks like this are part of the job. Flynn took the call because he would be the NSA in 3 weeks and the present NSA would be out of a job.

5. This call was recorded and transcribed by a US federal agency, I don't recall which one (NSA is internal to the US, CIA external). This could not have happened (recording of the call) if it had been on a secure (encrypted) line. This is why the expulsion happened when it did, when Flynn did not have access to those lines and could be monitored. The transcript was made available to the FBI before the next point.

6. On January 24th 2017, 4 days into the Trump Administration, two FBI agents interviewed Flynn in his White House office. Flynn was told "he didn't need a lawyer" and the White House Council was not informed of the interview. There are already a couple of violations of procedure here, namely the FBI not telling the White House (and the WH Council) that they were coming over to interview Flynn.

7. The 302's (FBI paperwork forms for reporting the interview and the particulars) indicated the FBI agents "detected no deception" from Flynn.

This is where things start to happen. Think about this: You're on vacation and trying to relax. You suddenly have to take an unscheduled high-level call mid-vacation and over an unsecure line. Truthfully, do you have the ability to take notes and would you remember every detail of what was discussed during that call? No, most people wouldn't.

Now, almost a month later, you are asked to provide exact details about a call you may only superficially remember, and the people asking the questions already have a transcript of what you said. There is also no lawyer telling you to "shut your pie hole." Wouldn't you call that an unfair advantage?

Because you don't have perfect recall of the conversation and you give an inexact recollection of the call, you are charged with "lying to federal investigators." And when I mean inexact, I mean something as minor as, "during the call, you spoke about the subjects of this, that and the other. In your statement just now, you said the sequence of the subjects were the other, that and this." Flynn was also threatened with being prosecuted under the Logan Act, a law passed in 1799, OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO and a law that no one has ever been prosecuted under. The Logan Act prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization. What FUCKING PLANET MUST YOU BE FROM to even conceive that the incoming National Security Advisor is unauthorized to speak with foreign governments????? That's his job.

Then, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller (I am invoking the "short bus" meaning of the word "special" for that title) promised to bankrupt Flynn by legal fees that will be run up defending himself from these charges, then prosecute and imprison Flynn and his son for this heinous act of not keeping his story straight... unless he "cooperated" with Mueller's investigation. Flynn was already bankrupted from legal fees by this time, because no private citizen has the resources to defend themselves from the unlimited resources and prosecutorial powers of the United States government.

So it comes out a couple days ago that the 302 used to charge Flynn for the process crime of "lying to federal investigators" was discovered to be dated August 2017. For an interview that happened in January? What sort of chicanery is this?

This certainly raises the specter that possibly this 302 is somehow different from the January 302.

Here is my take on today's events: Judge Emmet Sullivan understands the charges are totally bogus and is trying to help Flynn retain his integrity and honor by refusing to accept the guilty plea. The sentencing has been delayed until April 2019 to give Flynn's legal team the necessary time to fully uncover the truth about how a trap was set specifically for Flynn. This trap was set by people who want to destroy every aspect of Flynn's life. Personally, financially and professionally.

Here's the good news: The truth is already starting to come out. People know things and suspect more things. Otherwise Sullivan would not have postponed the sentencing. When (not if) the truth comes out, Mueller and his minions will be liable for a massive libel/slander lawsuit from Flynn and serious criminal misconduct charges from federal investigators. Like a couple orders of magnitude above what happened to Mike Nifong.

Stay tuned people. Things are going to get interesting....

Our major Social Media sites, for all intents and purposes, is committing a slow suicide. I am speaking specifically about Facebook, Twitter, Google and their various subsidiaries. Let me explain why.

There are laws out there that define and regulate “platform” and “publisher” differently. They have different purposes, different objectives and different liabilities.

A “platform” by its very nature has no agenda, no bias and on its’ own no regulation. Think of a stage in a park or the town square, where anyone can get on it and proclaim to all the world whatever they want to say. It is a true state of freedom-of-speech. You can say whatever you want to say and everyone in the area can pay attention or ignore you as it pleases them.

A “publisher,” however, is a totally different thing. A newspaper is a publisher. It provides a product that others can purchase. The owners of the newspaper, because they front the money for the printing press, the ink and the distribution, has the absolute right to control what goes into their product. It is within their power to publish or not publish anything they want. They have the legal ability to negotiate a contract with someone who wrote an article and obtain an “exclusive-right” license for that article, if the author agrees to that contract. “Exclusive-right” meaning only the publisher can use it, the author can no longer decide when and where it is published. If the publisher has that “exclusive-right” for that article, they can publish it in the newspaper… or never publish it, effectively silencing that author on that subject.

If the author were to take that article (or a similar one) to another publisher, then legal entanglements might abound over copyright, Intellectual Property and contract laws. You might want to read the story of “Famous Amos” and his cookies. Because of licensing issues, he cannot every use his name or likeness on any products he makes now.

In summary, platform == no control, publisher == total control.

Facebook, Twitter and others have repeatedly proclaimed “WE ARE A PLATFORM!” The facts, however, indicate otherwise.

Twitter has admitted that they “shadow ban” Conservatives, YouTube has curtailed Conservative channels, Facebook routinely not publishes and bans Conservative pages.

By performing these actions these Social Media sites have crossed that line from platform to publisher. Publishers do not enjoy the same the legal protections as platforms. When Social Media claims to be a platform but acts as a publisher, the end will not be beneficial to those companies.

There are bills in the House (H.R. 676) and Senate (S.1804), proposed by Democrats, under the banner of "Medicare for All." These bills, if passed would provide Medicare coverage to every "non-elderly" person (the elderly are covered under Medicaid) in the US, without regard to citizenship status. Let me put it into plain language why this would wreck 1) every citizen, 2) the federal government, 3) the healthcare industry and 4) the economy as a whole.

According the The Urban Institute (no right-wingers allowed there), they released a report, The Sanders Single-Payer Health Care Plan.

These are the highlights of their report:

Federal spending will increase about $3.6 Billion a year. This is Table 1 on page 4, "Increase in federal spending ($billions), 2017-2026, $32,003.5" That's $32 Trillion over ten years, or $3.2 Trillion a year.

The entire Federal budget right now is $4.1 Trillion to give you an idea how much the federal spending will increase.

The last bullet point on page 3 reads thusly:

Analysis by the Tax Policy Center indicates that Sanders’s revenue proposals, intended to finance all new health and nonhealth spending, would raise $15.3 trillion in revenue over 2017 to 2026. This amount is approximately $16.6 trillion less than the increased federal cost of his health care plan estimated here. The discrepancy suggests that to fully finance the Sanders approach, additional sources of revenue would have to be identified; that is, the proposed taxes are much too low to fully finance the plan.

Now, the "additional revenue" (that will only be about 45% of what is needed) is made up by:

From the top of page 6: ...[The Sanders Campaign] propose a 2.2 percent income-based premium on households, a 6.2 percent payroll tax imposed on employers, additional revenues from revisions to the estate tax, increases in taxes on capital gains and dividends, new limits on deductions for high-income taxpayers, and increases in income taxes that largely affect high-income people. They anticipate that low-income individuals would save because the amounts they would be required to pay in new taxes would be less than what they are required to pay today in premiums, cost sharing, and other tax payments.

Similarly, employers that now provide coverage would pay less because their obligations under the proposed approach would be limited to the 6.2 percent payroll tax paid by employers. In contrast, across all employers (i.e., including those who offer health insurance and those who do not), employer-paid premiums for health insurance benefits currently average 8.3 percent of total compensation. Higher-income individuals would be expected to pay considerably more toward health expenses than they do today. [Emphasis mine]

So, it's more "soak the rich," but what happens if the rich leave? Seriously, what happens if Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, The Koch Brothers and all the rest of "the rich" get tired of this crap and just take the cash they have in the bank, leave the country and live overseas?

This is a math issue. "Medicare for All" will almost double federal spending. The proposed tax increases will cover half of that. Our current federal government annual deficit is $800 Billion. That's how much we borrow on the "good faith and credit" on the United States, every year. If we were to start this, without any additional taxes or cuts, that annual deficit would jump to $2.4 Trillion a year. Not gonna happen, no way, no how. Our debtors would stop buying our bonds (that's how we borrow money) that day. The federal government would not be able to pay it's bills and it would collapse, likely bringing the entire US economy with it.

The only way I see this happening is we have to increase taxes more and cut payments to providers. That is the only way to bring this into balance.

Here's something you may not know, Medicare only pays between 60% to 75% of what private insurance pays. Let's say my disabled son (who is on Medicare) and I go to our PCP for an exam, get some blood work done, etc. If, between my co-pay and my private insurance pays the doctor $100 for my visit, the doctor only gets between $60 and $75, for the same services. In essence, my visit makes my son's visit profitable for him.

Serious question time: would you have an average of $85 per visit (($100 + $70)/2), or $70 since we would both be on Medicare?

That would be, assuming that the reimbursement rates would be the same. If the federal government was the only payer in town, what would you do if they decided to cut the rates? Go from $70 a visit to $40? If the doctor wanted to stay in business, he would take cash and not Medicare.

What will you do if you have no money because your taxes doubled to pay for Medicare, but your doctor won't accept Medicare? You die, killed by the Democrats.

I and others have said for years that the ACA was designed to be from the very beginning to be a clusterfrack of Biblical proportions. I remember real experts (not "government" experts) who repeatedly said, "regulating the healthcare insurers was the worst possible place to cut costs." If the full ACA had been implemented, the people would been begging for anything other than the ACA... Which is when the Democrats would have rolled out a real single-payer, nationalized health-care system.

Just so you know, because I knew this when the ACA was passed, the "individual shared mandate" in 2015 was $325. If Trump and the Republicans had not ended the mandate, on April 15th, 2017 (after Obama was out and Trump/Hillary in) would have been $695, about a 125% jump. the numbers are on the top of page two in this Congressional Research Service document.

Why do I bring this up? Because when government has control of health care, they have almost total control of you. They can do almost anything they want under the guide of "improving health outcomes." That can mean "sin taxes" on sugar, meat, eggs and caffeine, plus more sin taxes on alcohol, tobacco and anything else the government declares is "bad for you."

You think I'm joking? You think I'm being a conspiracy theorist? How about this. The UK, with its' NHS and nationalized health care system, is considering regulating food portions: Pizzas must shrink or lose their toppings under Government anti-obesity plan.

We are already on the way there. Have you noticed that every menu board, every printed restaurant menu has the calories for every item, "so you can make healthy food choices." And the government mandates the font, font size and font color of all of those calorie counts. It's not a big step to go from mandating calorie counts on menus, to the UK's plan to limit portion sizes.

Let's think this out for a minute. At McDonald's, a Big Mac and a large fry will run you 1,050 cal. Let's say for a moment the Big Mac and large fries are outlawed, what will you do? Probably get something like two Bacon McDoubles and a medium fry. This will cost you 10 cents less, the problem is the second choice has 1,240 calories, so anti-obesity-wise, it's heading in the wrong direction.

The next (Leftist) logical control step is to nationalize restaurants. That means McDonald's, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Chipotle, Subway and all of the other places will become a cafeteria system where you get your government-mandated three meals a day. The good news, all of the employees will become government workers, so they'll get $15/hour. The bad news is, you walk in, scan the RFID chip in your hand, the computer in the back of the store retrieves the diet portion of your EHR (Electronic Health Record) and you are served what you are supposed to have. You don't have to (or can) say anything. Oh, and no meal trading like elementary school. The police stationed there will see to that.

I probably won't see this, but unless this is stopped and now, my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will. Because when government takes control of part of your life, your ability to choose for yourself disappears.

There are some things that come free yet have too high a cost.

I am all for personal choice and personal responsibility. When it comes to the self-defense of yourself and your family, you should have access to the tools you deem necessary to perform said self-defense.

Because I do not support causes or people who do not believe I should be able to defend myself and family as I see fit, I make it a point to not purchase movies with actors who promote gun control. BTW, their definition of "gun control" is, "the government and our bodyguards have guns, you don't."

So, any movie where pro-gun control actors like Chris Evans, Matt Damon, or Liam Neeson appear in a movie where their character uses violence or a firearm, I will not buy the DVD, I will not rent it, I will not watch it in a theater and I will not stream it. They have the freedom to make their point, I have the right to not purchase their work product.

So I find it screamingly ironic that another gun-control advocate Jamie Lee Curtis, who is starring in the latest chapter in the Halloween movie franchise, makes my point for me against gun control. In the trailer for the film, viewers can hear Curtis' character mention the need to protect her family and they see her with numerous guns, including a revolver and a lever action rifle, the latter of which she fires multiple times.

A citizen always has the obligation to protect themselves and their family. Government has zero obligation to protect you. This is why 911 is also known as "Dial-A-Prayer" because when seconds matter, the police are minutes away if they come at all.

For those of you who haven't heard, after a long and terrible scorched-earth campaign to destroy Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his nomination for SCOTUS came to a screeching halt when he was confirmed by the Senate on a 50-48 vote. It was along party lines, with Manchin (D-WV) crossing the aisle to confirm, while Murkowski (R-AK) voted "Present" and Daines (R-MT) did not vote at all. Justice Kavanaugh was sworn in right after the vote.

This nomination will now forever cast a cloud over a man whom from what I have seen has led an exemplary life. Not a mistake-free life, however it seems like he has always tried to uplift and empower all who surrounded him. You can't raise a child who said, "Daddy, we should pray for the woman who is accusing you" and not be an upstanding man, husband, father and citizen. These unfounded accusations will now be forever shackled to him like a ball and chain.

The sad thing is, if the radical Leftists and the MSM had a shred of integrity, decency or respect for others, this could have gone totally different.

Let's warp into an alternate time-line where the Democrat party of today is like the one in the 1950's. Decorum, respect, non-radicalized, not prone to histrionics.

First of all, the Democrats talk about his voting record. They question him thoroughly on why he reached certain decisions. When Dr. Ford sends her confidential letter to Senator Feinstein in July, Dr. Ford is immediately contacted by Feinstein, who says, "Dr. Ford, I need your permission immediately so the Committee can investigate your allegation. If we cannot investigate, your allegation will not be investigated and your voice will not be heard." Senator Feinstein then forwards the letter with her response to the Committee Chairman. Dr. Ford gives her permission and Senator Grassley then orders a special investigation of the allegation. Judge Kavanaugh is informed of "a serious allegation" against him, but no details (since there are none at that point). The press can be told that an allegation is pending, but no details. Dr. Ford is questioned, her statement and list of possible witnesses recorded. Dr. Ford's background is also investigated because it can greatly enhance (or hurt) her credibility. Once the FBI has completed its' investigation and the entire Committee and Judge Kavanaugh has all of the new information, the allegation is made public, Dr. Ford testifies in early September presenting her allegations and any corroborating statements and evidence. Judge Kavanaugh then gets a day or two so he can formulate his response to the allegations.

Notice that my message has been consistent. Dr. Ford deserves to be heard, her statements and evidence to be given the benefit of the doubt. She is then asked questions by the Committee to clarify any points that are unclear. Judge Kavanaugh also deserves his opportunity to address the accusations against him and stand for the hard questions the Committee will undoubtedly have for him. The Committee then votes passing it's recommendation to the full Senate. Then the Senate votes, conferring or denying his nomination.

You see, this is how adults do things. That's the way it should have been done.

However the radical Leftists, driven into a rabies-like frenzy, let slip their attack dogs. Kavanaugh, killed (metaphorically, not actually) every one. He has a bite or two, he's going to have to undergo the treatment for rabies, but he's still standing and the other side isn't. Multiple House and Senate races that were easily predicted for the Democrats to hold or gain in the elections next month are now cast into serious doubt. This rabid, spittle-flying, screaming, nonsensical hate-filled diatribes from the Leftists have done this. They and their efforts have angered enough regular people that the Democrats just might snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

If the Democrats had stuck to the issues and avoided the politics of personal destruction, they would have had a chance to defeat Kavanaugh's nomination. There were many reasonable people and groups out there talking about his rulings and record. I have no problem with that. The bad news is, the reasonable people were drowned out by the crazies. This means every Democrat office holder will pay the price to some degree later.

I got into a "heated discussion" the other day on FB, one of the reasons why I deactivated my account. My whole point was that Ford needed to be heard, Ford should be offered the opportunity to speak and present her allegations and what she had to support her accusations. Kavanaugh also needed to be heard and either accept or deny her allegations. He chose to categorically deny any events she claimed happened with him. He never refuted she wasn't assaulted, just that he was not the one who did it.

This article says what I was trying to say very clearly: The Problem With #BelieveSurvivors.

This, I believe, is one of the most important and balanced points to be made:

Even as we must treat accusers with seriousness and dignity, we must hear out the accused fairly and respectfully, and recognize the potential lifetime consequences that such an allegation can bring. If believing the woman is the beginning and the end of a search for the truth, then we have left the realm of justice for religion.

Religion in this context does not leave room for the accused, except on the torture device deemed appropriate by the mob calling for the blood of the accused.

Here is another important truth:

The best reporting of the #MeToo movement has shown that when journalists examine all the possible holes in an accuser’s account, find corroborating witnesses and documentary evidence, and give the accused the opportunity to respond, they make the victim’s story more powerful. (Men can sexually assault men, women can sexually assault women, and women can sexually assault men. But the vast majority of these allegations are of males assaulting females.) [emphasis mine]

More powerful as in believable, more credible and most importantly, more likely to convict. Without any evidence on the side of the accused and hundreds of people saying "In my experience, the accused is the polar opposite of that the accuser is describing," meaning everything I know about this man is the opposite of what you describe. Face it, someone who does something heinous like sexual assault will more than likely not stop until caught and punished. And maybe not even after that. Bill Cosby was brought down because he sexually assaulted dozens of women over the years.

We are, after all, the land that holds as one of our cornerstones the presumption of innocence in the face of an accusation. The accuser must prove the accused did the deed, according to the standards of the venue. A criminal proceeding is "beyond a reasonable doubt." A civil proceeding is "the preponderance of the evidence" and so on. To have the accused prove innocence is to try to prove a negative, i.e. something didn't happen. Try to prove the sun rises in the east at noontime.

I have said this for years, "A right-wing dictatorship demands your physical obedience, you can think what you want. A left-wing dictatorship demands a unity of thought. You must think and behave as you are told."

One thing the old Soviet Union did, was to "unperson" certain people, a lot like George Orwell's 1984. If a person of power or close to the Premier "fell out of favor," he not only disappeared from public view, he was erased from all records. They were airbrushed from photographs, newspaper archives were reprinted. Don't believe me? Soviet Censorship of Images During Stalin's Regime.

The Leftists, in their normal behavior pattern, continue to eat any and all of their own who dare set one toe off the ideological reservation. In an effort to silence points of view the Left does not like, they now attack anyone who even slightly support the unpersons, or worse yet, give them a voice.

This comes from this article, Now #MeToo is coming for your thought crimes. This article talks about Jian Ghomeshi, who was accused and acquitted of sexual assault charges. But you see, the mob had decided he was guilty, evidence or lack thereof be damned. This spilled over onto Ian Buruma, editor of The New York Review of Books. What, exactly was Buruma's crime? Publishing an apology essay from Ghomeshi, Reflections from a Hashtag.

We have seen the recent unpersoning of Alex Jones from all social media platforms. Wil Weaton, was also recently unpersoned because his best friend Chris Hardwick was accused (not convicted) of sexual assault. Wil's tweet was:

I'm shocked, and I'm sure you'll understand that before I'm ready to make a public statement about my best friend to 3 million+ people, I need some time to process what's going on and put words to my thoughts. Thanks for listening and understanding.

— Wil 'this account mocks fascists' Wheaton (@wilw) June 15, 2018

I'm sorry, did he say anything other than "please give me time to properly express my thoughts?" And because Leftists are cannibals, (ideologically and metaphorically, I have no direct or indirect knowledge that any Leftist is actually a cannibal) for the sole reason that Wil did not denounce his best friend fast enough to please the mob, he was excoriated publicly. I don't follow him so I have no idea about how his social media presence has changed from this. I do know several friends who regularly attend the JoCoCruise (I have no idea what this is) have remarked about Wil attending in the past. I don't see him on this years cruise celebrity list. I have also heard my friends who go on this say "If Wil is on the cruise, I won't go."

All this leads to the post title, "How many degrees is safe?" It has been said that we are all connected by six degrees of separation. You can, through a chain of five "friend of a friend" connections, be connected to every other person on Earth. So when Chris Hardwick was unpersonned, and because Wil Wheaton didn't unperson Chris fast enough, how many of Wil's friends were unpersoned? and so on, and so on. It sounds like a pyramid scheme.

Language (written and spoken) is how we communicate. Words really do mean things and when we misuse a word, we destroy the meaning of that word as well as the use and meaning of the proper word. A terrorist is a person who uses violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. To call someone who assaulted and robbed you a terrorist is marginally correct (the criminal did probably induce terror in you) but to apply that term to him destroys the terminology to use and describe true terrorists.

The term "Traitor" is getting tossed around a lot lately. I thought I should take the time to inform you clearly of what a traitor is and how it is different from a turncoat, a more accurate but mostly unknown term. Just to be clear, a traitor is always a turncoat, but a turncoat is not always a traitor.

The term "turncoat" means someone who has switched allegiances, and comes from the time when the professional armies had distinct uniforms from other countries. This was how one side could tell who were friendlies vs. enemies, preventing what we today call "blue on blue" events, or friendly fire. If you were to remove your coat and turn it inside out then put it back on, your coat would probably be a different color (and harder to fasten with the buttons being on the inside). The function of this is you will mask who you are to someone at a distance. If a British Redcoat had switched to the side of the Colonists, he would turn his coat inside out, thus making him look less like a Redcoat and somewhat more like the Blue-clothed Colonials. A red coat in a sea of blue would stick out pretty dramatically and make an easy sniper target.

A traitor is a turncoat who has done so during a time of war. A traitor is someone who "gives aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war." This means, according to the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11), that Congress must declare that a state of war exists between the United States and another country. If there is no war, you cannot have a traitor. In modern times when we have fought two wars against non-state armed forces that intentionally wears no uniform so they can blend into the local population, there is no entity or country to declare war against. A grey area would be where a soldier deserts his post and seeks out the enemy to surrender himself to them In a combat zone. There was a soldier who did that in Afghanistan and I refuse to mention his name. That was a traitorous act. The traitor did not give any strategic, tactical or operational information to the enemy, but did give them a morale boost, especially when several of their compatriots were exchanged for this single traitor.

If you followed my Facebook link here because you are outraged that "The Governor of Oklahoma is forcing banks and insurance agencies to not do business with Planned Parenthood," Good. Let's see if your outrage is selective or not. Please replace "Oklahoma" with "New York", "Planned Parenthood" with "NRA" and read it again. If your outrage dissipated, or worse, turned into smug satisfaction, congratulations, you're a hypocrite! Why? Because the business shouldn't matter.

To set the record straight, New York Governor Cuomo is persecuting the National Rifle Association by pressuring banks and insurance agencies to not do business with the them. The clear intent of this is to force the NRA out of New York State or out of business entirely. Here's what's going on. Worse than taking away guns, New York threatens to take away NRA's insurance.

Just to be clear, here is the definition of persecuted:

1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religious or political beliefs, ethnic or racial origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
2. to annoy or trouble persistently.

This happened to many businesses and individuals deemed "marginal" by Obama's government under Operation Choke Point. I wrote about it here.

Because I'm ideologically consistent, I don't care what the business or organization does. I would be speaking out if this was the ACLU, Planned Parenthood or even the Southern Policy Law Center. As long as the good or service produced by a company or organization is legal, I will stand up for them.

This started with an insurance product offered by the National Rifle Association called Carry Guard, an insurance policy for those citizens who lawfully carry a firearm in public. If that armed citizen should ever have to (God forbid) use their weapon to protect themselves, the policy will pay the legal fees for their defense. Because the truth of the matter is, even if a self-defense shooting is ruled justifiable by the police and there is no criminal prosecution, the family of the criminal often sues. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has since decided to declare the selling of this legal product as illegal. Not the actual insurance, mind you, but Cuomo is using the pretext of "The NRA is selling it and they are not licensed to sell insurance." Which is absurd on it's face and anyone with a minimum level of intelligence (and no agenda) can easily see what's going on.

Now it has gone beyond that. It has been made clear to the Insurance and Banking industries (both heavily regulated by the State) in New York in no uncertain terms that "Things will be difficult for you if you offer services to the NRA." No large organization can operate today without liability insurance or the ability to process electronic payments or bank accounts, so this is hurting the NRA.

This is a clear case of persecution. This act defines the "weaponization of government," meaning the full regulatory force of the government (federal, state or local) is being brought to bear on an organization that is engaged in legal business that is compliant with the law, with the intent to cause it to fail. If you are neutral or even in favor of this persecution, then all I can say is KEEP YOUR PIEHOLE SHUT IF THIS HAPPENS TO AN ORGANIZATION YOU LIKE. You started this dance, you like it when this happens to the NRA, expect it to happen to a Leftist organization. If you don't want it to happen to Planned Parenthood, et.al., then don't let it happen to the NRA.

This is why I argue for a smaller and less-intrusive government so it can't do things like this. Government is a brute-force weapon, if it goes after something, expect collateral damage.

This came out last week, and I had to sit on it for a few days so I could temper my words.

The "Senior Administration Official" who wrote this unmitigated piece of horseshit is a moral and physical coward. He has no testicles, no guts, no spine, no moral conviction and most of all, no loyalty. And to all of my Leftist friends, if this had happened during Obama's (or Hillary's) presidency, I would have said the same thing.

Every person who works for another has a societal obligation to do their best for whomever they are working for. To not do your best or even interfere with that your boss/customer has told you to do is a betrayal of trust that goes beyond all forgiveness. It is the highest violation of trust you can visit upon another, and it does nothing but destroy your own word and integrity. The consequences of this one action should result in your being unemployable, let alone having any position of authority for the rest of your life. No one will ever trust you again. If you pass on to your reward homeless and broke, you got off lightly.

I fully understand that there is private "in-fighting" with any group of people. Behind closed doors there will be loud words, hurt feelings and sometimes even blood spilled (metaphorical, not actual). That being said, if you cannot present a public face totally supportive of your boss, then don't be there. .

I can say this because this is what I did.

You can read my prior posts under Masonry to get the full story. When the Grand Master of Masons in Tennessee suspended two brothers for the heinous crime of loving each other, I stood to be counted to abolish this rule. When working within the system failed, I spoke out publicly. I did not hide, everyone who needed to know who wrote the words I posted here and on Facebook knew without a doubt who I was. Those words earned me a private meeting with the next Grand Master, who gave me the options of shutting up, quitting the fraternity or being expelled, I chose to be expelled.

I have completed my thoughts on the insipid, milquetoast, craven, turncoat coward who wrote this. Now it's the New York Times' turn.

To the editor-in-chief and the editorial staff of the New York Times: Jane you ignorant slut.

I seriously have to ask, how many journalistic ethics boundaries did you ignore, break or bypass? To publish something of such a salacious, unverified, undignified and disturbing matter speaks volumes about your lack of integrity. The Press is supposed to have standards and integrity, that what they report is true, correct and complete. That the reporting of events are clearly separated from opinion. That we can discuss points of opinion with the author. The trust and integrity you build while doing this is why the customer decides to part with some of their money to purchase your product. If your customers can't trust what you say to be true, why should they purchase your product?

I'm sure your aim in publishing this bullshit was to hurt Trump. A man who was elected on the premise that Washington is hurting the rest of the country. A man who has made great strides in returning freedom and money to the American People. While you have increased the volume in your Leftist echo chamber, you have done nothing more than further alienate half of the country. In my eyes, the Weekly World News has more credibility than you do.

This is what happens when the laws are easy to change and there is racial animus. 

Starting in 1980, as soon as Zimbabwe became independent from the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Robert Mugabe who came into power at the end of White minority rule, started a program that seized commercial farms from White farmers. At the start of this unnecessary catastrophe, Zimbabwe was known as the "breadbasket of Africa." Today, at least 75% of the country ranks "High to Very High" in food insecurity. While Zimbabwe used to export food, they are one of the biggest importers of food and a large part of their population would die from starvation if those shipments stopped.

Then this story comes out last week, South Africa farm seizure: Terrified white farmers plot escape as crackdown looms.

From the article:

And ANC chairman Gwede Mantashe sparked panic last week when he said: “You shouldn’t own more than 25,000 acres of land.
“Therefore if you own more it should be taken without compensation.
“People who are privileged never give away privilege as a matter of a gift.
“And that is why we say, to give you the tools, revisit the constitution so that you have a legal tool to do it.”

This is the kind of governmental abuses that are visited upon the people of a country when the government can either rewrite their constitution any time they want, or those vested with the responsibility of following it, don't.

Those who study history without an agenda can clearly see what happened (and is still in progress) in Zimbabwe repeating in South Africa. And just like Socialists who believe, "Despite the historical, documented proof that Socialism has a 99% failure rate (the last 1% hasn't failed yet, but they're close). It will get done right this time because we'll be the ones' in charge," those committing this land grab will think everything will turn out wonderfully. Which, of course it won't and millions of people will starve to death like with the various Five-Year Plans of the USSR, China and other Socialist countries.

The operative lesson for everyone, Capitalists, Socialists, Communists alike is this: "If you take the means of production away from those who produce and give it to those who can't produce, don't be surprised if nothing will get produced."

Masterpiece Cake Shop recently beat the proverbial snot out of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission with a 7-2 SCOTUS victory, affirming the right of the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop to refuse to apply his talents to a custom-made cake celebrating things he finds morally and spiritually objectionable, in this case a wedding cake for a same-sex couple (He also won't do Halloween cakes, either, just so you know). He would sell them any standard cake in the shop, however he would not make them a custom cake. I wrote in detail on it here. This comes from the Huffington Post, Masterpiece Cakeshop Owner Sues Colorado After Refusing To Bake Trans Woman’s Cake.

So, what does radical Leftists do when they lose like this? Get furious, double down and work harder to destroy those who disagree with them.

A trans-woman went to Masterpiece Cake Shop, just a few days after the SCOTUS decision and wanted him to make a custom cake for her to celebrate her anniversary for coming out as a woman. This woman is either stupider than a bag of hammers (for not knowing about the SCOTUS decision), or she went there intentionally to pick a fight. I'm leaning toward the latter. When the owner, Jack Phillips, refused on the same moral grounds to make this custom cake, she sued and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has forced Phillips into mediation with this woman.

When the highest court in the country says, "The owner has the right to not be forced by the State to apply his work and talents to things he finds morally objectionable" those of us who live in the rational world would call that "A CLUE" and would advise against poking that particular sleeping bear.

This is what escapes me:

A spokesperson for the Anti-Violence Project said the denial of services to LGBTQ community members fuels disrespect and violence.

“This is a concerted effort by Phillips, in concert with designated hate group Alliance Defending Freedom, to push anti-LGBTQ discrimination under the guise of so-called religious freedom,” the spokesperson, Eliel Cruz, told HuffPost. “These continued infringements on LGBTQ people’s access to public goods and services cultivates a culture of violence against us by promoting a narrative that LGBTQ people are less than. Sexual orientation or gender identity should not prohibit anyone from being treated with dignity and respect at any establishment.”

Okay. She can buy a cake from this business, she just can't get a custom cake celebrating her transition, that she could easily get from any of at least another dozen bakers in the city. This woman is supposedly offended that Phillips refused her service. Does her demand to force Phillips not to offend her by refusing to accept her money trump Phillips being offended for being forced to do something morally reprehensible to him?

Being offended is how you choose to respond to a situation. There is no law, legal or social, that says you have the right to get your way if you're offended. If you don't like how you're treated at business A, walk out their door with your money and give that money to business B. That's the best message I can think of. It's part of this funny concept we in the United States have, it's called freedom. You may or may not have heard about it, and it goes both ways.

Because this woman picked a fight and the CCRC decided to poke this bear (again), this time the bear is showing his teeth. Phillips is fighting back against this persecution. He's suing the Colorado Governor, the Colorado Attorney General and every member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, individually and by name. I hope he sues for damages equal to 10 times each individuals net worth, to send a clear message to let some sleeping bears lie.

Oh, I almost forgot. In a previous post of mine, A New Level of Temper Tantrum, Governor John Hickenlooper, just to show what kind of classy guy he is, made a quite overt promise (threats are usually idle) that he would pardon a mass murderer if he wasn't re-elected in 2014. I hope Hickenlooper pays dearly enough for this lawsuit that he will have to rent the spare bedrooms in the Governor's mansion to help him pay for what he owes Mr. Phillips.

Something is happening with this whole "Trump/Russia collusion" thing. It's starting to unravel and George Papadopoulos might be that thread that pulls everything apart.

Papadopoulos pled guilty to lying to federal investigators in October 2017. Lying to federal investigators is a minor process crime. You can get charged with this if you give your story twice (or more) and reword any statements, or add/forget even minor details in the statement. The plea deal to this lower charge is to avoid "more serious charges." We don't know what those "more serious charges" are because in the federal system, dropping charges after a defendant is indicted is difficult at best. The "more serious charges" are not brought to a grand jury if the defendant agrees to plead guilty to lesser charges. So, we have no idea what charges Papadopoulos were threatened with.

Anyway, his sentencing hearing is scheduled for September 7th. From what I understand, right about the time that Peter Strzok was fired from the FBI, Papadopoulos' lawyers filed a motion of discovery to see the evidence the FBI has against their client. According to Rachael Maddow, the Mueller team asked for and was granted a protective order preventing the release of this evidence to Papadopoulos and his legal team. The statement reads in part:

"Entry of a protective order restricting the use, dissemination, and disposition of discovery materials is essential to permit the United States to provide certain discovery to the defendant, which the defendant has requested in advance of his sentencing proceeding..."

This is interesting because things have come out in the past several days. While this whole thing is very complex and with multiple players, I am going to concentrate only on the events that started this ball rolling.

In May of 2016, George Papadopoulos was in a London bar and just so happened to strike up a conversation with Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat. During this conversation, Papadopoulos stated (upon prompting by Downer) that he "heard the Russians have dirt on Hillary." In June 2016, Downer reported this contact to US authorities in late June, about 6 weeks after the meeting. This event has been declared as what started the whole investigation.

It came out a couple of months ago that in April of 2016 (a month before the meeting with Downer), George Papadopoulos had a conversation with Cambridge Professor Joseph Mifsud. Here is a quote from the charging document filed by the Mueller team against Papadopoulos:

On or about April 26, 2016, the defendant Papadopoulos met the Professor [Mifsud] for breakfast at a London hotel. During this meeting, the Professor told defendant Papadopoulos that he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian government officials. The Professor told defendant Papadopoulos that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on then-candidate Clinton. The Professor told defendant Papadopoulos, as defendant Papadopoulos later described to the FBI, that “They [the Russians] have dirt on her”; “the Russians had emails of Clinton”; “they have thousands of emails.” [Emphasis added]

Now, based on that information, you might reasonably conclude that Mifsud could be a Russian agent of some kind. You would be wrong. Don't feel bad, that's what most people who knew about this thought as well. Evidence has surfaced in the past week that indicates Mifsud is an agent of a Western, not Russian intelligence agency. Which one is still not clear, however things are leaning toward a British intelligence agency.

Let me put it to you this way. Let's say someone you have never met before strikes up a conversation with you one day, and tells you, "Hey, I heard about some guys who want to rob a bank. Would you like to help?" Of course, most people would say "no." Then, a couple weeks later, another person asks you, "Hey, have you heard anything about a bank robbery?" When you say offhandedly, "some guy I've never met before told me about one..." At this point you're arrested and charged with "Conspiracy to Commit Robbery." It turns out both people you had conversations with were undercover police or a confidential informant of the police. In legal terms this is called ENTRAPMENT. This is where the police (or their agent) entices a person who is not intending to commit a crime to commit one.

Mifsud, an alleged Western intelligence agent, planted this bug into Papadopoulos' ear. Downer, another agent (who has direct ties with the Clintons, but I digress) pulled that information out of Papadopoulos and that was used to start the whole Trump witch hunt. With this revelation, it seems to indicate that Papadopoulos is going to withdraw his guilty plea on September 7th. If this goes to trial, some rather embarrassing facts could come to light. Facts that do not work in favor with the Mueller team, the FBI, the Justice Department or the Obama administration.

I am just speculating here. If Mifsud "pushed" this information into Papadopoulos on the orders of Mifsud's handlers (whomever he works for), that would seriously damage the relationship between the US and that country, because a friendly country caused all of this pain and heartache to happen. Let's speculate even further. Let's say a US government official asked this foreign intelligence agency to push this information to someone in the Trump campaign, namely Papadopoulos. What do you think that could mean? A senior-level Obama administration official, asking a friendly foreign intelligence agency to run an entrapment operation on Papadopoulos and by extension the Trump campaign. I would consider that a very serious allegation, wouldn't you?

This is what happens when you keep calling the United States a Democracy: Think the Constitution Will Save Us? Think Again.

Okay folks, words matter. Words have distinct meanings and must mean the same thing to everybody. Except for Leftists and people fooled by Leftists. In their case, words mean what they want them to mean and the same word at the beginning of a sentence can have a different meaning by the end of it.

Let's go over this. One. More. Time.

THE UNITED STATES IS A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.

This country is called the United States and not the United People is because the Constitution was not written by or for the People, it was written by delegates from the thirteen State governments. The Constitution was not ratified by a popular vote, it was done so by the State governments.

Here's what those words mean:

1) FEDERAL - Pertaining to or of the nature of a union of states under a central government distinct from the individual governments of the separate states.

2) CONSTITUTIONAL - A system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed.

3) REPRESENTATIVE - Each declared district elects one person from their group to represent all of the citizens in that district in the body they are elected to.

4) REPUBLIC - A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

When I look up Democracy, I get this: 

Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

I know I live in a Republic and not a Democracy because of this simple fact: In Memphis, TN, 63% of the population identify as "Black or African-American" and a majority of City Council members, 7 of the 13 are Black. If this were a democracy (direct or indirect), a motion could be introduced to the people as a whole or to the City Council that would read, "Starting September 5th, 2018, any person who is a legal resident of Memphis, TN can bring the head of a White person to the courthouse steps, shall receive a bounty of $50 per head."

In a Democracy, if a majority of the people voted for this (either the citizens as a whole, or their elected representatives), that bounty would be law. There would be no court to overturn it because a Democracy is "the will of the people." And until the "will of the people" changes, it is the law. In a Republic, where the rule of law applies to all and is intentionally hard to change, this would probably never happen.

So when I read the article I posted at the top of this article, my head almost exploded, which is why this is filed under Duct Tape Alert. This is the first paragraph:

Consider a few facts: Donald Trump is in the White House, despite winning almost three million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. The Senate, the country’s most powerful legislative chamber, grants the same representation to Wyoming’s 579,315 residents as it does to 39,536,653 Californians. Key voting rights are denied to citizens in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and other United States territories. The American government is structured by an 18th-century text that is almost impossible to change.

The Congress is a bicameral legislative body balancing the interests of the People (House) and the States (Senate). In order for a law to pass, it must advance the well-being (supposedly) of both the States and the Citizens. The House I believe is the most powerful chamber, as it controls the money of government. To balance that great power, the Senate was given many lesser things that have to do with the government itself, internally and externally. These are in the interests of the States, not the People, which is why those powers are invested in the Senate. The Constitution gave equal power in the Senate to each State (two Senators) for the declared purpose of that the larger States could not force their agendas down the throats of the smaller States.

The irony is thick in the second paragraph. First of all, they quote from Federalist #10, The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection:

For James Madison, writing in Federalist No. 10, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention” incompatible with the rights of property owners.

I guess it's a normal and expected thing for the New York Times to misquote and take out of context people they don't agree with, especially Dead Rich White Males. Here's the whole sentence that Madison wrote and they misquoted and took out of context:

A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. [emphasis mine]

Democracies are the tyranny of the majority. Because the "rule of the people" is the only measure, there can be no stability. What is the law one day can be changed the next. Republics, through the rule of law and hard processes to change those laws, actually protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Even some liberals like Vox’s Matthew Yglesias rightly worry that the current system of governance is headed toward collapse.

I agree that the current system is headed towards collapse. However, it's through the ballooning federal government, the overspending and a whole lot more rather than the structure provided by the Constitution.

Yet whether or not the president knows it, the Constitution has long been venerated by conservative business elites like himself on the grounds that it hands them the power to fend off attempts to redistribute wealth and create new social guarantees in the interest of working people. There’s a reason we’re the only developed country without guarantees such as universal health care and paid maternity leave.

Yes, there is a reason why we don't have universal health care and paid maternity leave. It's called the #1 economy in the world at $20 Trillion GDP. This derives from  the freedom to choose to do what you want to do with your money, not the government. If we redistribute all of the money from "the rich" to the "not rich," (with the government taking "its' fare share", of course) then we will not have an economy. Because the people who own the businesses lose their money, they can't run companies. No companies, no jobs.

While preserving and expanding the Bill of Rights's incomplete safeguards of individual freedoms, we need to start working toward the establishment of a new political system that truly represents Americans.

There they go again. The Bill of Rights do not "give" Rights from the government to the People, they recognize that Man has these Rights by the nature of his Birth. Thus, the Bill of Rights clearly restrict the government from infringing on those Rights. You might want to read the Preamble for the Bill of Rights, because it says it in there.

So here's the payoff for the article, but only the intermediary objective:

Our ideal should be a strong federal government powered by a proportionally elected unicameral legislature. But intermediary steps toward that vision can be taken by abolishing the filibuster, establishing federal control over elections and developing a simpler way to amend the Constitution through national referendum.

So let's break this down:

• Strong federal government - More power for Washington, less power for States and Citizens.
• Proportionally elected unicameral legislature - One House, no Senate. A great way for the big bully States to force their agenda on smaller States.
• Abolishing the filibuster - A senate procedural rule. Filibusters are stopped by a Cloture vote. The number of votes to invoke Cloture started at 2/3's (67 votes), it's now down to 60 votes and several subjects are exempt from it, namely Supreme Court nominees. This rule protects the minority party, which the Democrats are right now.
• Federal control over elections - Elections are currently run and certified at the county level, all 3,133 of them. Yes, there are corrupt and mismanaged counties. Which would you prefer, several counties that might have "incorrect" vote tallies, or a federally run system where one person could switch a million votes to the candidate they support? Stalin is credited with saying, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
• Amend the Constitution through National Referendum - Something like California's Proposition process? Too bad the courts have overturned at least 9 of them in recent years. And remember, the Constitution was set up for the States, not the People.

This is what you need to consider. Our system is meant for long periods of deliberation, then a vote to set the direction for the next several years. when you allow for a shorter cycle subject to the transitory will of the People, nothing but chaos will result. Look at how quickly high-heeled Crocs came and went. Do you want a Constitutional Amendment that is the legal equivalent of that?

Of course, I said "intermediary objective" for a reason. I am sure that Leftists want to either abolish elections altogether, or render them moot. As a real world history lesson, if you belonged to the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, you were required to vote. If you didn't belong to the Party, you didn't vote. Each elected office had one person on the ballot you could vote for and no write-ins allowed. If that's the kind of electoral system you want, please go somewhere else.

The other day it came out that Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys had a "toe-the-line" policy that no Cowboy will kneel during the National Anthem. I fully support that. It's his team, he signs the paychecks and If a player doesn't like it, he can play somewhere else. It's a free country. Or is it?

When Dak Prescott, the Quarterback for the Cowboys released this statement, Liberals went berserk:

I’d never protest during anthem, and I don’t think that’s the time or the venue to do so. The game of football has always brought me such a peace, and I think it does the same for a lot of people – a lot of people playing the game, a lot of people watching the game, a lot of people that have any impact of the game. So when you bring such a controversy to the stadium, to the field, to the game, it takes away ... from that. It takes away from the joy and the love that football brings a lot of people. For me, I’m all about making a change and making a difference. I think this whole kneeling, and all of that, was all about just raising awareness, and the fact that we’re still talking about social injustice years later, I think we’ve gotten to that point. I think we’ve proved it. We know about social injustice. I’m up for taking a next step, whatever that step may be for action and not just kneeling.

I’ve always believed in standing up for what I believe in, and that’s what I’m going to continue to do.

I find this statement to be thoughtful, full of personal emotion, a respectful recognition of other viewpoints and a call to action.

How was this regarded by Carron J. Phillips (Facebook, Twitter)? I took a screen cap of his tweet:

I have no idea why Mr. Phillips pulled that particular punch. After all, Mr Phillips and Mr. Prescott are both African-Americans, so Mr. Phillips' would have been within his prerogative to use the term "house nigger," because Blacks can use that word with Blacks. If you are not familiar with this particular pejorative, the slaves who worked in the fields did not like the slaves that worked in the house and served the Masters, because the "house niggers" received better food, slept in better conditions and didn't have to work under the hot sun in the fields all day long.

After such a Tweet, was Mr. Phillips apologetic, perhaps slightly amenable to moderating his position? Umm, no. Recalcitrant as ever, this was the follow up Tweet:

Like we have "Moore's Law" and "Godwin's Law," I thought about naming this as "Carron's law," then I realized, every radical leftist does this. If you disagree with a radical leftist, even if the difference is by 0.0001%, you will be name-called everything in the book and they will seek to destroy you. Personally, professionally and ideologically.

Then we have this incident, Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA were having a quiet breakfast in public when they were without provocation attacked by about 50 Antifas. Kirk had water thrown on him. Let me make something perfectly clear, if I see someone approaching me with a glass containing a liquid and they seem intending on throwing it on me, I will ENGAGE WITH DEADLY FORCE BEFORE THEY CAN THROW IT. Why? Can you tell from 10 feet away the difference between a glass filled with water and a glass filled with hydrochloric acid? Here's a couple of pictures of the results when acid gets thrown on people. It's not pretty:

With this being a possible outcome having an unknown liquid splashed on you, would you want to wait until it's on you to find out what it was? I didn't think so. If you think that anybody deserves this for any reason, you are lower than an animal.

When a response to a differing opinion is extreme epithets, personal attacks, threats of violence or actual violence, then there can be no reasoned exchange of ideas. This threat of violence and "mock violence" will escalate and inevitably lead to someone getting seriously injured or dead. And let me tell you Leftists, those of us on the Right have more guns than the police and the military. If it comes down to shooting, which I hope to God it never does, we will run out of targets (i.e. Leftists/Antifa) before we run out of ammunition.

It's been case law since 1856 when SCOTUS ruled in South v. Maryland that Law Enforcement has no duty to protect individual citizens. You cannot sue the police for damages if you call them for help and they do not respond in time (or at all).

One of the more brutal examples of this is Warren V. District of Columbia.

The story of the plight of disarmed D.C. residents really begins on the night of March 16, 1975, when three women, sharing a townhouse, were awakened by the sound of their door being kicked in. This was no ordinary burglary or home invasion; this was a horrific, unspeakable crime.

 

Two of the three roommates had rooms upstairs. They were awakened by the screaming of their friend downstairs who was being beaten, raped and sodomized by two men.

 

Carolyn Warren called the police and was told help was on the way. She and her other upstairs roommate watched in horror as a police car passed their home, merely slowing down. They called the police a second time. This time, there was no response at all. After an hour, hearing no sounds from the floor below, they called down to their friend, but merely alerted the rapists to their presence.

 

After that, all three women were forced to endure 14 unspeakable hours of sexual torture.

In essence, the government, short of a "special duty" has zero obligation to come to your aid if you are in distress. This is why the importance of having the Right to use the tools you determine necessary to defend yourself (i.e., firearms) is absolutely critical. I also spoke on this in my article The 'Why' of the Second Amendment, Part 1.

Teachers (as government workers in the public school system) are under the same non-obligation. In June 2018, a Michigan judge ruled the state has no duty to provide literacy services to children. Judge says there's no fundamental right to learn to read and write. In the "'Why' of the 2nd Amendment" article, I stated that the deputy who waited outside of the school during the Parkland school shooting had no legal requirement to enter the building and engage the shooter. His obligation was to arrest the shooter and bring him to the prosecutors. The human thing to do would have been to charge in and engage the shooter, even at the risk of his own life.

The government has no obligation to educate you. I can't say that enough. George Carlin in a rare moment said (paraphrasing), "...[those in charge] want workers who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but lack the critical thinking skills to see how bad things suck." The bad news is, the government pretty much is in charge of the People.

The decision to be literate is made by the person. No other person can force them to learn to read and write. Quite frankly, children can be taught by the parents that they don't need to learn these things, which is why if you read the article, you would find that only 44% of Detroit third-graders can read and write at their grade level. This just boggles my mind. I don't know if the parents don't care, if the children have learned helplessness from the parents and don't try, or the teachers are incompetent. Probably all three to varying degrees.

The advancement and enhancement of society in general depends on each citizen knowing as much as possible about a few things and being somewhat knowledgeable on many things. In my daily job, over 80% of my service calls are due to end-users not understanding the basics. They try to use equipment that clearly says "NOT IN SERVICE," or the screen is dark. They put documents into the wrong ports, the access cards they have to insert look like a Pringles chip and so on. One time a piece of equipment was getting removed from a site to allow for the installation of a newer unit. It was on the truck and ready to be hauled away and an end-user climbs up on the truck to use the old model. It had to be explained to the end-user that the unit on the truck would not work because it was not hooked to electrical power.

Common sense, the ability to acquire knowledge, to logically reason based on that knowledge and the ability to defend yourself are have to come from within yourself, through your own active efforts. If you let government give them to you, don't be surprised to find them not there to help you, or to be there to hurt you.

I have spoken before about the Muller Probe making a show when in February 2018 they indicted 13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian companies, including Concord Management and Consulting, for interfering in the 2016 presidential election. Oh, this is delicious and I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

These indictments clearly shows that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. It turns out their case was so screwed up that one of the indicted entities was not even an incorporated entity (i.e., it did not exist) at the time of the alleged offenses. The fact of the matter is, these indictments were a media show to "prove" that Muller was "doing something," since the only things his team has uncovered to date were Flynn's and Papadopolous's lying to federal prosecutors, and Manafort's money laundering, which took place long before Trump was running for president. Of course, we don't have an extradition treaty with Russia, so Muller figured there is no chance that any Russians he charged would show up and his team would actually have to prosecute the case they supposedly had against them.

Then Concord Management actually showed up, demanded a speedy trial and demanded to immediately proceed to the discovery phase of the trial. In response to this, two things happened in a press conference by Rob Rosenstein on July 13th. The first was, the Mueller team has announced more indictments, this time of twelve Russian GRU (military intelligence) officers who will never show up in the US for any reason. Not only (again) do we not have an extradition treaty with Russia, the knowledge these men possess would be a security breach of the highest degree for the Russians. I am sure Putin would execute these men rather than have them set foot on US soil.

The second announcement at that press conference was that for the prosecution of Concord Management the Justice Department will now “transition responsibility for this case to our Department’s National Security Division while we await the apprehension of the defendants.” This means that this case will be buried in the Justice Department unit that deals with counterintelligence matters that do not result in public trials. So even if something does happen (which it won't), the results of that case will never see the light of day.

So now I have to ask an awkward question. If Muller and his team are there because the Justice Department can't or won't investigate, indict and prosecute crimes related to the Russian interference into the 2016 federal election, I have to ask why is he referring all of his indictments back to the Justice Department? If Mueller spent all of this time and resources to investigate and indict these people suspects, then referred the prosecution phase to the same people who wouldn't do the first two, why does he think they will execute the prosecution with enough vigor to earn a conviction?

Things that make you go "Hmmmmm....."

I believe tariffs are a bad thing. If you read Economics in One Lesson, you will learn that tariffs are a tax on incoming goods. While that was the way the government raised revenue in the 18th and 19th centuries (no income tax), from the late 19th century to today tariffs have been used to boost the cost (and thus the price to you) of foreign goods above the same goods produced domestically as a protectionist measure. This is a Bad Thing in today's global economy because we import from and export to just about every other country. There is almost no product you can purchase today where all of the components are manufactured in one country. Also, if we impose tariffs on incoming goods, there is nothing stopping the country we imported from to impose tariffs on things we ship them. In the end, no one wins because the company loses business and the consumer purchases less because the price is higher.

It's been all over the news since Trump took office about the tariffs he has imposed on the EU, China and other places. "TRADE WAR!!!!" is what all of our news outlets headlines have been.

Did you hear about this news? From CBS: Trump says U.S., EU working toward "zero" tariffs and NPR: Trump And EU Agree To Work Toward Zero Tariffs. It turns out that the EU had a tariffs on a variety of US goods.

If you had listened to Trump himself, rather than what the MSM talking heads are saying what Trump says, you would have heard Trump say he "wanted to negotiate better trade deals with other countries."

So in a trade relationship with the EU, they slapped tariffs on our goods, while we had few, if any tariffs on EU goods. So Trump equals and exceeds the tariffs on EU goods, the EU threatens to escalate their tariffs and back-and-forth several times. Then Trump meets with the EU and says, "These tariffs hurt both of us. Let's eliminate all of them. What do you think?" In a not-very-amazing move, the EU agreed. I say "not-very-amazing" because when you look at it from a global business point of view, tariffs are unquestionably A Bad Thing.

So, Trump has done a Very Good Thing. With EU tariffs on US goods gone, we should get more orders from Europe for our stuff. More orders == more demand == more jobs. Now all he has to do is rinse, wash, repeat for China.

The most terrible power of a Law Enforcement Officer, Federal, State or Local, is the power of arrest. When an LEO arrests you, this means to their belief and knowledge, you have violated a law and you need to be held to account for that crime. This simple act and the accompanying words, "You are under arrest for..." changes people's lives. Like the Dark Side of the Force, once you start down that path, it will dominate your future life. Guilty or innocent, your finances will be ruined, your family will be disgraced and your young children will not understand why this Bad Man is taking you away from them. That's all on top of any prison time you may have to serve. If you manage to get a "not guilty" decision from the jury, you are still out thousands, if not millions of dollars spent on your defense and there will always be whispers about you. In the words of former Department of Labor Secretary Raymond Donovan after his acquittal, “What office do I go to to get my reputation back?”

The following applies to ANY warrant, be it an arrest warrant, a surveillance warrant, whatever:

The integrity of an LEO has to be beyond question. His word when he appears before a judge to ask for a warrant has to be nothing less than impeccable. The LEO swears, "The information I am about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Every piece of information use to obtain a warrant must be true. Either the LEO can produce the physical evidence, or testify that they witnessed/heard the information, or can produce the witness who made the statement. One hundred percent, nothing less. The truthful information in a warrant can't be 51%, or 67%, or 95%, not even if 99 44/100% of the evidence is true, the warrant must not be signed. To have any amount of false information in a warrant and presented as the truth to the judge, the judge will make the incorrect decision.

The reason why the word of an LEO must be impeccable is this: If the LEO is caught lying/falsifying information in a case, for whatever reason, every other case he has been involved with, not matter how tangentially, is now cast doubt on. Every case this LEO has been involved with, every person who has been convicted because of information he gathered and his testimony can now be retried. If that LEO has put 1,000 people in jail in a 30 year career, every one of those convicts can now sue the LEO and the jurisdiction that tried them. For every case he testifies in going forward, the first question any good defense lawyer will ask will be, "You lied in [this case], how can we trust and believe you now?"

Now let's get to the meat of the matter. Here is the application for a surveillance warrant presented to the FISA court to monitor Carter Page, and it's three subsequent renewals.

The "TOP SECRET/NOFORN" at the top and bottom of every page declares that there is information in this document containing information that has been classified as Top Secret. The NOFORN means that this information is not to be shown to any non-US citizen, even if they possess a TS clearance. The (U), (S), (S/NF) and so on at the beginning of every paragraph declares if that bit of information is Unclassified, Confidential, Secret, Top Secret or NOFORN.

Let's start at page 15 of the original application, with the first piece of evidence supporting why this warrant should be signed:

First, according to information provided by an FBI confidential human source (Source #1), [REDACTED] reported that Page had a [REDACTED].

Source #1, who now owns a foreign business/financial intelligence firm, was approached by an identified U.S. person, who indicated to Source #1 that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1's ties to Russia (the identified U.S. person and source #1 have a long-standing business relationship). The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign.

Source #1 tasked his sub-source(s) to collect the requisite information. After Source #1 received information from the sub-source(s), described herein, Source #1 provided the information to the identified U.S. person who had hired Source #1 and to the FBI. [REDACTED]

Notwithstanding Source #1's reason for conducting the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia, based on Source #1's previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source #1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible. [REDACTED].

Just to make things clear, Candidate #1 is Trump, Source #1 is Christopher Steele, and the "identified U.S. person" is Daniel Jones. Who is he? A former staff person for Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Jones raised $50 Million to hire Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to generate this dossier. This same dossier which in January 2017 FBI Director James Comey briefed President-Elect Trump about, which was in Comey's words, "salacious and unverified."

Now, if this was an intelligence or counter-intelligence operation, indirect information given by a reliable source is considered acceptable and "actionable," meaning we can use this information to conduct the operation. Except this is a criminal investigation. For a court of law, a "dependable source" who vouches for the information they got from someone else won't cut it. Vicarious credibility (I trust Bob, who says this fact he got from someone else is true, so I believe the fact is true) does not exist in a court of law. Well, it does, but it's called hearsay and it's not admissible.

No criminal charges can be brought against anybody using any information that is discovered from Page's texts, emails or phone calls from this warrant. Because the basis of the warrant to gather that information was false, this corrupts everything derived from it. This is known as the "fruit from a poisoned tree."

Bottom line: On page 54 of the document, it reads, "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information regarding Carter W. Page is true and correct." Signed October [REDACTED} 2016, [REDACTED], Supervisory Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation. When we the people find out that the agent who signed this application, his name will be MUD.

By the nature of physics, a vehicle with the steering wheels in the back (relative to the direction the vehicle is moving) can cause the vehicle to turn sharper, in less distance and for less turning of the steering wheel. When done properly, this is a great enhancement to the control of the vehicle. Done improperly, a catastrophe can occur.

The other day, Tom Perez, who is chairman of the Democrat National Committee, said this on The Bill Press radio show:

"What's this tell you about where the Democratic Party is going today?" Press asked the DNC chair.

Perez said his daughters both texted him about their excitement over Ocasio-Cortez's win.

"Because, she really, she represents the future of our party," Perez said, complimenting the self-described Democratic socialist for running a "spirited campaign."

The future of our party. I hope that the context of Mr. Perez’s remark spoke of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez was, “young, female, minority” identity politics. While Conservatives are concerned about the ideological position of a person and what their plans are if they win office, Democrats generally look to checking off demographic points. If Mr. Perez was lauding Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’ political outlook as a “Democratic Socialist,” then they (and we as a result) are in deep trouble. Because she represents the amount of radicalization for the Democrats that has increased exponentially with every generation since the 60’s.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez in her campaign promoted a “Santa Claus” government, with free single-payer health care, federally guaranteed jobs, free college education, and the abolishment of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE).

If John F. Kennedy had been teleported from 1960 to 2016, he would, by his views not only been a Republican, he would have been to the Right of Trump. Think about that for a moment. The mainstream Democrat Presidential nominee in 1960, who was considered radical at the time because he was a Catholic, his views 56 years later would be considered a Right-Wing Hatemonger by the same party that they nominated to lead the country. This bellwether is why Conservatives use the term “run to the left” for Liberals and why Ronald Reagan (who was a Democrat in 1960) said in 1962, “I didn’t leave the Democrat party, the party left me.”

The radicals became radicalized in the early 2000’s, which led to the election of Obama in 2008 and his eight years in office. He was at least a borderline Socialist but never openly admitted it.

This radicalization continues its’ run to the Left today when Bernie Sanders (an openly admitted Socialist) became a viable candidate for the Democrats last bid for the White House. Of course, he never had a realistic chance going up against the Clinton Machine, but that’s beside the point. The fact-of-the-matter is, a significant number of Democrats “felt the Bern” and thought a Socialist as president was the best option for the country.

In statistics, one data point is nothing. Two data points can indicate a rough direction. With the primary win of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, and her likely election to the House (I don’t know if there is even a Republican running in that district), there will now be two Socialists in Congress. I am confident there will be three or four of them after the 2020 elections.

And then we have The New Republic, Bernie Sanders Is Not the Left.

This author makes no pretense about his views:

Sanders and his supporters have helped push the Democrats to the left, but the party has yet to truly embrace its left flank.

I suppose it’s a rhetorical question, but “why must the Democrats ‘embrace its left flank’?” If there were more than a minuscule few on the left flank, wouldn’t that then be the center? Why should the Democrats embrace the left flank and not the right flank?

A quote from the article:

…Sanders has never been a figurehead to everyone in the American left. His primary bid did draw the support of many leftists, but leftist voters in the United States aren’t spoiled for options—or at least they weren’t when Sanders launched his long-shot bid for president. That’s changing now, and it’s putting Sanders’s politics in perspective. He does not occupy the left-most band of the spectrum.

It’s certainly true that Sanders is to the left of most Democrats. But contrary to how he’s often portrayed in the media, he is not a doctrinaire leftist. His principal benefit to the left has been to mainstream certain beliefs—namely, that access to health care, education, and living wages are rights, not luxuries. But Sanders is not a revolutionary. His views aren’t even entirely consistent with democratic socialism, the political tradition he claims. It’s one thing to call for breaking up the big banks, and quite another to call for the nationalization of private industries. [emphasis mine]

When you couple the author’s call for the Democrats to “embrace their left wing,” then lament the only Socialist in the halls of DC power isn’t far enough to the left, then my statement of “radicalizing of radicals” rings true.

I can’t understand how anyone can look at the past 100 years of history and not see what has happened to the people under the rule of Socialist governments (100,000,000 dead by democide in the past century and rising every day) and say, “The Socialist system is sound, it’s just the right people weren’t in charge.”

I hate to tell these people, there never can be “the right people in charge” because a single person and especially a group of people will never have the pool of knowledge, the reasoning ability and the incorruptible character required to do the job properly. When the government owns and controls the means of production (which is the very definition of Socialism), the centralized control that is required to manage that system can never quickly enough or correctly allocate the resources at its’ disposal efficiently to meet the needs of the citizens.

We can also look at these Socialist governments and see that those in charge never truly wanted for anything. It was the poor schlubs at the bottom who starved to death eating mud pies while the ruling elite got fat.

Socialism has failed spectacularly 90% of the time it’s been tried. The other 10% are still in the process of eating themselves and haven’t gotten to the end stage yet. The Chinese are stubbornly trying to remain Communist, however since they took control of Hong Kong in 1997 and their involvement in global trade, they have been dragged kicking and screaming into a somewhat market-type economy.

Insisting Socialism works and not having a single successful example while saying all of the failed Socialist governments to date have failed because of “not the right people in charge” or “that wasn’t true Socialism” are exemplifying the adage, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.” A system where a few people are in charge of most everything while everyone else is forced to work against their own self-interest is going to fail, every time it’s tried.

I missed this yesterday. Listen to this. If this does not cause tears to come to your eyes, shivers to run up and down your body and a base anger against those who seek to oppress others, then please leave the United States for you do not belong here. This document and the words therein are truly timeless and speaks to every generation. If listening to this does not stir something within you, then you do not yearn to breathe free.

With the news of Justice Kennedy retiring, Liberals are having a shit fit because Kennedy is the infamous "swing vote" that almost sides with the more Liberal judges on social issues. President Trump has been appointing strict Constitutionalists to the lower courts and there is no reason to believe that he will not continue on that path with his pending SCOTUS appointment.

This means that there will be a solid four strict Constitutionalist votes and one part-time Constitutionalist in Mr. Roberts (whom long ago I said I can never use the title "justice" with him). With the two oldest Justices being "living" Constitutionalists (Ginsberg, 85 and Breyer, 79) If Trump is re-elected, it is entirely possible he could and would fill those seats with strict Constitutionalists as well.

This, of course, has Liberals in a full on seizure mode. Why? Simply put precedents like Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges will be in great jeopardy of being overturned.

The ancestors of Liberals (crusading "do-gooders" who want to impose their morality on everyone else) pushed through the Eighteenth Amendment, the Constitution's only foray into social issues. It proved to be such a [sarcasm]wonderful success[/sarcasm] that it was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment only fourteen years later, the only Amendment to have that "honor." So these "Social Justice Warriors" turned to the courts to impose their will on the People. The reason why Abortion and SSM (same-sex marriage) are hotly fought debates across this country is because We The People didn't settle these issues, nine people wearing black robes in Washington did.

As I said in A Legacy Built on Sand, precedents like this that can be easily overturned (in this instance, "easily" is a bit understated) because someone with a different political perspective holds the office now and can undo improperly done things.

I never have been and most likely never will be in favor of any kind of direct democracy. Our Founding Fathers hated the idea of mob rule, which is why they created this government as a Constitutional Republic. That being said, there are in rare instances of large and dividing social issues like these, each State should put these issues to an "up or down" vote and make it unreviewable by the Judiciary (aka California's "Proposition XX was overturned by judges today..."). That way, the citizens of the States can decide the issue for themselves. Some States will probably vote in favor of abortion and SSM, some States "yes" on one and "no" on the other, and still other States will vote "no" on both. And just to be clear, while I am using abortion and SSM together as examples, each example needs to be treated slightly differently.

The issue of abortion pertains to the legality of performing an abortion in that State. If Arkansas does not allow abortions but Missouri does, I would not be against Arkansas pro-choice "family clinics" offering transportation to abortion clinics in Missouri where a woman could get an abortion. Hawaii may support SSM, while Montana might not. There is nothing preventing a same-sex couple from traveling from Montana to Hawaii and getting married. Under Article 4 Section 1 of the Constitution, a valid marriage certificate issued by Hawaii must be accepted by Montana. It doesn't matter if the certificate is for Mary and Mike or Richard and Randy.

And just because I'm a flexible guy on this "direct democracy" thing, we could revisit these (and other social subjects) every, say 20 years. That way if social norms change and evolve, the laws specific to these social subjects could evolve as well.