One Citizen Speaking

DETERRANCE IS NOT ACHIEVED WITH PROPORTIONALITY

I am baffled as to the intent of the current Commander-in-Chief, President Donald J. Trump when it comes to responding to the deliberate provocations of Iran …

There is little or no doubt in my mind that the present progressive socialist democrats are representatives of the un-American fifth column, seeking to damage or destroy America from within – to the point of aiding and abetting our enemies and disadvantaging our allies. There is also no doubt that our enemies, both foreign and domestic, have infiltrated the government, the military, and the media. And, that Iran, in provoking even a low-level conflict is interfering in the 2020 presidential election by attempting to drive President Trump’s ratings down. It is clear that they much rather have a feckless Jimmy Carter or a weak-kneed partner like former President Obama than a strong-willed President like Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump. Or in 2020, a Joseph Biden or Elizabeth Warren -- both as feckless as Carter and Obama.

President Trump’s tweets make no sense unless Trump is refusing to be goaded into a strike that will serve as a casus belli for Iran attacking Americans in Iraq... (The subject of last week's intelligence reports.)

Proportionality?

Iran is directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths and maiming of thousands of American soldiers. The idea that 150 military personnel might be collateral damage to a strike on hostile radars, missiles, and command-and-control structures seems ludicrous and pretextual.

Bottom line… 

What happened to the self-proclaimed “counter-puncher” who will return a hit ten-fold? How does a proportional response produce deterrence and not a campaign of continuing low-level attacks? Military planners are fond of saying, “Even the enemy has a vote.” So why not let them choose whether or not their attacks will be met by overwhelming force – including severe collateral damage. These are people who have no regard for men, women, and children killed when they attack, so why should we bend over backward, like Israel, to minimize casualties to their military personnel?

As for certain members of Congress and the media who suggest that President Trump is responsible for any resultant response, or even war, these are un-American stooges who rather see Americans, rather than enemy combatants, killed on the battlefield.

Even with a hostile media, Ronald Reagan had no problem dealing with Iran. Here is hoping that President Trump follows the same course of action.

Let us not forget that it was a Democrat, former President Jimmy Carter, who gave us Islamo-fascists – and a Democrat, former President Barack Obama, who provided the regime with billions of dollars to wage war and spread conflict in the region – while helping to bring about a nuclear-capable Iran with ballistic missiles able to hit American assets.

The Iranians will do everything in their power to remove Trump from office and see a Biden or Warren elected to continue Obama's foolishness.

It appears that the Iranians wanted to goad President Trump into striking Iranian assets. And then using video of dead Iranians to strike Americans in Iraq with the goal of removing the U.S. from Iraq.

It also appears that they will try again to provoke Trump. Word is that private contractors are now leaving Iraq on chartered aircraft, perhaps in preparation for a more kinetic U.S. response to an Iranian strike against American forces in Iraq.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

THE ROBERTS' COURT CONTINUES ITS VIRTUE SIGNALING RATHER THAN RENDERING A JUST OPINION

It appears that the Robert’s Court, has ignored the facts of a heinous murder to find a procedural exception that shouts, “look how ‘woke’ we are!

The case…

-- Excerpts -- FLOWERS v. MISSISSIPPI CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No. 17–9572. Argued March 20, 2019—Decided June 21, 2019 Case background… Petitioner Curtis Flowers has been tried six separate times for the murder of four employees of a Mississippi furniture store. Flowers is black; three of the four victims were white. At the first two trials, the State used its peremptory strikes on all of the qualified black prospective jurors. In each case, the jury convicted Flowers and sentenced him to death, but the convictions were later reversed by the Mississippi Supreme Court based on prosecutorial misconduct. At the third trial, the State used all of its 15 peremptory strikes against black prospective jurors, and the jury convicted Flowers and sentenced him to death. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed again,this time concluding that the State exercised its peremptory strikes on the basis of race in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79. Flowers’ fourth and fifth trials ended in mistrials. At the fourth, the State exercised 11 peremptory strikes—all against black prospective jurors. No available racial information exists about the prospective jurors in the fifth trial. At the sixth trial, the State exercised six peremptory strikes—five against black prospective jurors, allowing one black juror to be seated. Flowers again raised a Batson claim, but the trial court concluded that the State had offered race-neutral reasons for each of the five peremptory strikes. The jury convicted Flowers and sentenced him to death. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. After this Court vacated that judgment and remanded in light of Foster v. Chatman, 578 U. S. ___, the Mississippi Supreme Court again upheld Flowers’ conviction in a divided 5-to-4 decision. Justice King dissented on the Batson issue and was joined by two other Justices.' Held: All of the relevant facts and circumstances taken together establish that the trial court at Flowers’ sixth trial committed clear error in concluding that the State’s peremptory strike of black prospective juror Carolyn Wright was not motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent. Pp. 7–31. Opinion of the Court In sum, the State’s pattern of striking black prospective jurors persisted from Flowers’ first trial through Flowers’ sixth trial. In the six trials combined, the State struck 41 of the 42 black prospective jurors it could have struck. At the sixth trial, the State struck five of six. At the sixth trial, moreover, the State engaged in dramatically disparate questioning of black and white prospective jurors. And it engaged in disparate treatment of black and white prospective jurors, in particular by striking black prospective juror Carolyn Wright. ' To reiterate, we need not and do not decide that any one of those four facts alone would require reversal. All that we need to decide, and all that we do decide, is that all of the relevant facts and circumstances taken together establish that the trial court at Flowers’ sixth trial committed clear error in concluding that the State’s peremptory strike of black prospective juror Carolyn Wright was not motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent. ' In reaching that conclusion, we break no new legal ground.We simply enforce and reinforce Batson by applying it to the extraordinary facts of this case.’ We reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, and we remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Excerpts from Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent… And now, the majority considers it a point of pride to “break no new legal ground,” ante, at 3, 31, and proceeds to second-guess the factual findings of two different courts on matters wholly collateral to the merits of the conviction. If nothing else, its effort proves the reason behind the rule that we do not take intensively fact-specific cases. Or perhaps the Court granted certiorari because the case has received a fair amount of media attention. But if so, the Court’s action only encourages the litigation and relitigation of criminal trials in the media, to the potential detriment of all parties—including defendants. The media often seeks “to titillate rather than to educate and inform.” The Court today does not dispute that the evidence was sufficient to convict Flowers or that he was tried by an impartial jury. Instead, the Court vacates Flowers’ convictions on the ground that the state courts clearly erred in finding that the State did not discriminate based on race when it struck Carolyn Wright from the jury. Yet the Court discovers “clear error” based on its own review of a near decade-old record. The majority apparently thinks that it is in a better position than the trial court to judge the tone of the questions and answers, the demeanor of the attorneys and jurors, the courtroom dynamic, and the culture of Winona, Mississippi. The only clear errors in this case are committed by today’s majority. Confirming that we never should have taken this case, the Court almost entirely ignores—and certainly does not refute—the race-neutral reasons given by the State for striking Wright and four other black prospective jurors. Two of these prospective jurors knew Flowers’ family and had been sued by Tardy Furniture—the family business of one of the victims and also of one of the trial witnesses. One refused to consider the death penalty and apparently lied about working side-by-side with Flowers’ sister. One was related to Flowers and lied about her opinion of the death penalty to try to get out of jury duty. And one said that because she worked with two of Flowers’ family members, she might favor him and would not consider only the evidence presented. The state courts’ findings that these strikes were not based on race are the opposite of clearly erroneous; they are clearly correct. The Court attempts to overcome the evident race neutrality of jury selection in this trial by pointing to a supposed history of race discrimination in previous trials.But 49 of the State’s 50 peremptory strikes in Flowers’ previous trials were race neutral. The remaining strike occurred 20 years ago in a trial involving only one of Flowers’ crimes and was never subject to appellate review; the majority offers no plausible connection between that strike and Wright’s. The majority’s opinion is so manifestly incorrect that I must proceed to the merits. Flowers presented no evidence whatsoever of purposeful race discrimination by the State in selecting the jury during the trial below. Each of the five challenged strikes was amply justified on race-neutral grounds timely offered by the State at the Batson hearing. None of the struck black jurors was remotely comparable to the seated white jurors. And nothing else about the State’s conduct at jury selection—whether trivial mistakes of fact or supposed disparate questioning—provides any evidence of purposeful discrimination based on race. The majority focuses its discussion on potential juror Carolyn Wright, but the State offered multiple race-neutral reasons for striking her. To begin, Wright lost a lawsuit to Tardy Furniture soon after the murders, and a garnishment order was issued against her.  At the time of the murders, Bertha Tardy owned Tardy Furniture. Following her murder, her daughter and son-in-law succeeded her as owners; they sued Wright, and the daughter testified at this trial. Indeed, a portion of the daughter’s testimony focused on obtaining judgments and garnishments against customers who did not pay off their accounts.  Given the multiple race-neutral reasons for the State’s strikes, evidence of racial discrimination would have to be overwhelming to show a Batson violation.  Given that there was no evidence of race discrimination in the trial here, the majority’s remaining explanation for its decision is conduct that took place before this trial. The majority builds its decision around the narrative that this case has a long history of race discrimination. This narrative might make for an entertaining melodrama, but it has no basis in the record. The history, such as it is, does not majority’s evidence falls woefully short. Much of the Court’s opinion is a paean to Batson v. Kentucky, which requires that a duly convicted criminal go free because a juror was arguably deprived of his right to serve on the jury. That rule was suspect when it was announced, and I am even less confident of it today. Batson has led the Court to disregard Article III’s limitations on standing by giving a windfall to a convicted criminal who, even under Batson’s logic, suffered no injury. It has forced equal protection principles onto a procedure designed to give parties absolute discretion in making individual strikes. And it has blinded the Court to the reality that racial prejudice exists and can affect the fairness of trials. If the Court’s opinion today has a redeeming quality, it is this: The State is perfectly free to convict Curtis Flowers again. Otherwise, the opinion distorts our legal standards, ignores the record, and reflects utter disrespect for the careful analysis of the Mississippi courts. Any competent prosecutor would have exercised the same strikes as the State did in this trial. And although the Court’s opinion might boost its self-esteem, it also needlessly prolongs the suffering of four victims’ families. I respectfully dissent. KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined as to Parts I, II, and III. To read more about the case, the concurring opinion written by Justice Alito and the dissent by Justice Thomas, the case is available on the Supreme Court’s site at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-9572_k536.pdf.

 

Bottom line…

Once again, we appear to have been snookered by GOP politicians explaining why our vote in was necessary to elect conservative and original textualists to the Supreme Court and warning of the danger in a progressive minority.

In this fact-based case, we find only one serious conservative and original textualist willing to dissent from a majority ruling that is little more than virtue signaling on a pretextual racial matter.

Proving, once again, we cannot trust our political leadership on either side of the aisle.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

-- steve

CAN YOU TRUST FACEBOOK WITH YOUR MONEY? HELL NO!

Facebook appears to be readying its announcement of their cryptocurrency product known Libra along with a consortium of venture capital, financial, and other firms that will govern the creation and management of a digital payments system.

But, as with anything associated with Facebook, the devil is always embedded in the details…

According to the Wall Street Journal, “Facebook won’t directly control the coin, nor will the individual members of the consortium—known as the Libra Association. Some of the members could serve as “nodes” along with the system that verifies transactions and maintains records of them, creating a brand-new payments network, according to people familiar with the setup.”

But can you trust Facebook?

Their version of bitcoin will likely be stored in a software or hardware-based “wallet” of some sort which may have hooks into their cryptosystem, and then there is the transfer mechanism that would allow you to access the individual wallets of others – or the collective wallets of companies and institutions. And let us not forget the regulatory agencies who might demand a back-door or decryption mechanism to allow them to monitor the funds flows of suspect individuals and organizations with, as we have recently seen, without a warrant.

(1)  Will there be one of Facebook’s unilateral agreements that absolves them of all responsibility for catastrophic system failure, even if it was caused by negligence, employee misconduct, or simply an error? Will there be safeguards against systemic defalcation?

(2)  Will there be a way to access Facebook’s customer service team – which in the past has been almost impossible to contact?

(3)  Will Facebook and its partners engage in progressive social engineering and dictate which types of firms can use the product or what kind of products can be sold? Individual banks already engage in social engineering.

(4)  Will Facebook attempt to monetize, in any manner, purchase information – even if the data has been anonymized?

(5)  Will this organization be qualified as a financial institution under the Dodd-Frank legislation that precludes government bail-outs, but allows an organization to use its customer’s money as a “bail-in” to save itself from financial catastrophe.

(6)  Will this payment system include speculative features like Bitcoin in which the value of the underlying Bitcoin can change dramatically.

Bottom line…

Two things come to mind. First, the Better Business Bureau’s sage advice, “Investigate BEFORE you invest.” And second, the question posed by Capital One, “What’s in your wallet?” My answer, nothing related to Facebook!

-- steve

HOW CAN BLACKS SUPPORT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY?

Coleman Hughes' testimony before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties on the matter of House Resolution H.R. 40 which proposes a commission to study the feasibility of reparations for historical slavery…

Coleman Hughes: ‘If we were to pay reparations today, we would only divide the country further’ It is an honor to testify on a topic as important as this one. Nothing I’m about to say is meant to minimize the horror and brutality of slavery and Jim Crow. Racism is a bloody stain on this country’s history and I consider our failure to pay reparations directly to freed slaves after the civil war to be one of the greatest injustices ever perpetrated by the US government. [OCS: It is a historical fact that slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and the anti-civil rights movement were official policies of the Democrat Party. And, that our nation fought a bloody civil war to do the right thing and end slavery. If anything is owed to the Black community, it was paid – in blood – during the Civil War.] But I worry that our desire to fix the past compromises our ability to fix the present. Think about what we’re doing today: we’re spending our time debating a bill that mentions slavery 25 times and incarceration only once, in an era with no black slaves but nearly a million black prisoners. A bill that doesn’t mention homicide once – at a time when the Center for Disease Control reports homicide as the number one cause of death for young black men. I’m not saying acknowledging history doesn’t matter. It does. [OCS: If one were to be intellectually honest, one might find that the majority of Black-related criminal activity and gun violence occurs in the inner cities with long-time governance by Democrats. In spite of some of the most stringent and restrictive gun control laws, these areas remain violent reminders of the type of lawlessness when perpetrators are considered victims of the system, real victims are often ignored, and law enforcement is universally denigrated and attacked, often physically. Considering that the taxpayer’s funds are not unlimited, one might theorize that handing out money without achieving some socially worthwhile goal does not solve problems but exacerbates them.] I’m saying there’s a difference between acknowledging history and allowing history to distract us from the problems we face today. [OCS: And it is a distraction, because the intent is to gain and maintain power for the Democrat Party by pandering to a segment of the American people in order to solidify their voting block.] In 2008 the House of Representatives formally apologized for slavery and Jim Crow. In 2009, the Senate did the same. Black people don’t need another apology. We need safer neighborhoods and better schools. We need a less punitive criminal justice system. We need affordable healthcare. And none of these things can be achieved through reparations for slavery. [OCS: But there is only so much that can be done by the government if the community continues to be lead by people who derive power, prestige, and profits from continuing to exploit racism for their own self-benefit. A community that accepts that status quo and refuses to enforce social norms when it comes to promiscuity and lack of responsibility which ensures one-parent households will only perpetuate economic suffering and social unrest. Safer neighborhoods are impossible where people spit at law enforcement and will not help members of law enforcement police their neighborhoods.] Nearly everyone close to me told me not to testify today. They told me that even though I’ve only ever voted for Democrats I would be perceived as a Republican and therefore hated by half the country. Others told me that by distancing myself from Republicans, I would end up angering the other half of the country. And the sad truth is that they were both right. That’s how suspicious we’ve become of one another. That’s how divided we are as a nation. [OCS: Consider that this is the same mentality where some Blacks oppress other Blacks if they excel at academics in school. If they even partially assimilate into the “white culture” of staying in school, dressing and using standardized English grammar, get a job, marry, have and support a family. The sad fact is that the Democrats are haters – despising anyone who speaks out against their political agenda, or even worse, speaks truth to Democrat power. The Democrats seem to accept political corruption on the theory that everything is OK – it’s our turn to loot the treasury.] If we were to pay reparations today, we would only divide the country further – making it harder to build the political coalitions required to solve the problems facing black people today. We would insult many black Americans by putting a price on the suffering of their ancestors, and turn the relationship between black Americans and white Americans from a coalition into a transaction, from a union between citizens into a lawsuit between plaintiffs and defendants. What we should do is pay reparations to black Americans who actually grew up under Jim Crow and were directly harmed by second-class citizenship, people like my grandparents. But paying reparations to all descendants of slaves is a mistake. [OCS: I hate to say this, but paying reparation to senior citizens may only endanger their health and make them prone to attacks from within their own family or from within their own neighborhood. This is simply a fact of life as we can see from those attacked over their Social Security payments.] Take me, for example. I was born three decades after the end of Jim Crow into a privileged household in the suburbs. I attend an Ivy League school. Yet I’m descended from slaves who worked on Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello plantation. Reparations for slavery would allocate federal resources to me but not to an American with the wrong ancestry, even if that person is living paycheck to paycheck and working multiple jobs to support a family. You might call that justice. I call it justice for the dead at the price of justice for the living. [OCS: Justice? You mean equal justice under the law that has been denied to qualified people who lost positions, promotions, and raises in order to pursue some form of “affirmative action?” I understand that reparations are about what people are owed regardless of how well they are doing. I understand that. But the people who are owed for slavery are no longer here, and we’re not entitled to collect on their debts. Reparations, by definition, are only given to victims. So the moment you give me reparations, you’ve made me into a victim without my consent. Not just that, you’ve made one-third of black Americans who poll against reparations into victims without their consent. And black Americans have fought too long for the right to define themselves to be spoken for in such a condescending manner. The question is not what America owes me by virtue of my ancestry. The question is what all Americans owe each other by virtue of being citizens of the same nation. And the obligation of citizenship is not transactional. It’s not contingent on ancestry. It never expires and it can’t be paid off. For all these reasons, bill HR-40 is a moral and political mistake. [OCS: We need to be Americans, not hyphenated-Americans. Unless the Black community chooses to assimilate into American life – keeping and celebrating their culture – we will be forever divided by the Democrat Party which uses such class warfare to gain and maintain political power. ] Thank you. Coleman Hughes is an undergraduate philosophy major at Columbia University and a columnist at Quillette, an online magazine with a primary focus on science, technology, news, culture, and politics

There were several disruptions during the proceeding, some causing the Chair, Steve Cohen, a white Democrat, to shout out, not Order! Order! – But Chill! Chill!. Pandering to racial stereotypes, you bet!

Questions…

How can any thinking and well-informed Black support a political party that supported and fought a bloody civil war to keep slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and anti-civil rights legislation? Has anyone else noticed that the Ku Klux Klan was the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party to keep Blacks and Republicans from opposing Democrat Party and its racist principles?

For those who believe that systemic or structural racism is omnipresent in the United States and is responsible for the disproportionate incarceration of Blacks, ask yourself, how is this possible in the areas of Democrat majorities and governance where Black Democrats form the leadership of the local government, including the police, prosecutors, judges, and juries?

What are reparations, other than a Marxist wealth redistribution scheme to divide Americans and to buy votes and political power? And how is the government running healthcare, dictating the services that must be provided and how much healthcare workers will receive, different from high-tech slavery?

Truth be told, it was the policies of the Democrat Party that destroyed the Black nuclear family, turned a blind-eye to promiscuity, and promoted population control in the form of abortion in Black areas. Where are the billions of dollars that were targeted specifically for improving the housing, employment, healthcare, and other infrastructure in the inner cities? Last time I checked, many of these states and municipalities feature areas of oppressive cesspools.

How is it that the Democrat Party promotes open borders and supports illegal aliens who destroy many of the safety nets, employment, and housing in formerly Black communities?

And how is it possible, under the leadership of former President Barack Hussein Obama, a Democrat, our country spiraled into economic and social despair – including some of the worst political scandals in the history of the United States?

Bottom line…

Who is being asked to pay these reparations? Who will be eligible to receive these reparations? And, what about those whose ancestors came after slavery, did not own slaves, and are not descendants of slaves? Once Americans accede to reparations, there will be no end to government misuse of the program in perpetuity.

But more importantly, how much of this money will be siphoned off by the government, the special interests, and politically-connected organizations and individuals? How much money will be used to promote awareness – media schemes featuring politicians taking credit for the programs they implement?

I have always found it interesting that many domestic Blacks wallow in conditions of poverty, relative illiteracy, crime, and disease, while Black immigrants from other parts of the world are prospering and thriving. If America is such a hateful, racist place, why aren’t American Blacks rushing to other predominantly Black countries to live in a land of freedom and opportunity? Oh, wait, there are no such countries.

We are being screwed by the Democrat Party – while the GOP stands by and does nothing. Not to mention a corrupt press who ignores or slants the news of our impending slide into the abyss of socialism.

-- steve

 

- steve

HOW SCARY IS AN AR-15?

Today’s post is courtesy of my friends at GunPros.com and is especially relevant here in California where the “looks” of a firearm is believed to be progressive shorthand for the potential lethality of the weapon. A crazy progressive socialist democrat viewpoint that ignores the fact that evil individuals will always find a way to manifest their evil intent and the criminals, crazies, and terrorists do not respect nor obey the law.

Unfortunately, most people have never handled a weapon, taken a safety course, or fired one on the range, a controlled environment predicated on teaching and enforcing safety principles as well as improving one’s marksmanship. Their knowledge of weaponry comes from the progressive Hollywood hypocrites who denounce violence, murder, mayhem, and guns while using those very themes to earn enormous amounts of money. And, these useful idiots would rather blame a “collective society” and systemic racism and victimhood rather than hold an individual responsible for their own actions.

How do you explain that Chicago, Illinois has some of the strictest anti-gun controls in the nation, and yet it is slaughter alley in the inner cities – all under the benevolent, watchful eye of the progressive socialist democrats who believe that socialism is the answer to all questions – even if it leads to totalitarianism?

Of the 19 people arrested in Chicago for gun violations over the Memorial Day weekend, 11 were back out on the street by Tuesday. Seven of them were previously convicted felons and six had prior gun charges. <Source>

Which brings us to the real reason the progressive politicians want to disarm the law-abiding population of gun owners. POWER! They know that law enforcement cannot respond to where they are needed when they are required, and at some point, citizens will respond to domestic criminality and terror with force – relying on their inalienable right of self-defense and the Second Amendment. They know that the Second Amendment had little to do with hunting, sport, or even individual self-defense, but as the final check and balance against a dictator and a tyrannical government.

I am not advocating that individuals be allowed to own fully-automatic weapons (precisely because they are inaccurate and hard to control in untrained hands), grenades, rockets, mortars, or nuclear “one and done” weapons. But to outlaw a weapon because it looks scary or like a weapon used in the military is absurd – but the progressive socialist democrats have to start somewhere.

Visit GunPros.com and learn the truth for yourself …

Demystifying the AR-15 Beloved by many, despised by many others, the AR-15 is the most controversial firearm in America. The gun’s notoriety primarily stems from its use in some of the deadliest mass shootings in United States history, including Parkland, Sandy Hook, and Las Vegas. Critics suggest that it is a military-grade killing machine that is too powerful for unrestricted civilian use, while the AR-15’s millions of owners suggest that its power is the exact reason why it is so valuable for self-defense and sport. The frequent media coverage and controversy over the AR-15 have made it a symbol of the debate over firearms in America. But many people who are not members of the firearms community still know relatively little about it. What is it about the AR-15 that makes it so special—and so deadly? The following article will give some background information about the AR-15, explain what makes it so effective, and point out some of the reasons why the gun has been wrongly vilified. Read the truth at www.gunpros.com.

Bottom line…

Common sense informs us that it is the individual and their intent that is dangerous, the actual weapon is simply a means to an end. Even if firearms were outlawed today, the progressive socialist democrats would allow those who perpetrate gun-related intimidation and violence to plea bargain the gun-charges to a lesser charge to continue pandering to minorities and other segments of the population with disproportionate crime rates.

The best defense against a criminal, crazy, or terrorist is a well-trained individual who is not afraid of the consequences of engaging. In capable hands, you have ten members of law enforcement a split-second away and who can save your life, your children’s lives, or the lives of your neighbors. Are you willing to allow politicians and billionaires, surrounded by armed guards and living in gated communities, to determine how you will respond to an existential threat?

We are so screwed.

-- steve

WHEN A CHICAGO PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT SAYS "GUN CONTROL" THEY DO NOT MEAN GUN CONTROL FOR CRIMINALS

Once again, Chicago, Illinois, the home of crime and progressive socialist democrat corruption, is in the news…

Chicago Tribune’s crime database, shows the distribution of the 1,043 people who have been shot this year in Chicago as of June 10. Those 1,043 shooting victims depicted on the map above, they were shot by people whose fear of the consequences was insufficient to deter them from carrying a gun and using it when they felt the urge. Opening the summer shooting season in true Chicago fashion, at least 43 people were shot in the city over the Memorial Day weekend, seven of them fatally. So far in June (as of this writing), 147 people have been shot, 16 of them fatally. [OCS: As we have repeatedly said, criminals, crazies, and terrorists do not respect nor follow the law. Chicago, with some of the toughest gun restrictions in America that progressive socialist democrats can devise short of nullifying the Constitution’s Second Amendment, is arguably the best example of what corrupt progressive politicians have done to the Black community.] When a cop notices someone whose behavior suggests he’s carrying a gun – the way he walks or the way he tugs at his clothing or any of a number of indicators a good cop can recognize – the cop knows if he gets out of his car to confront the person, he may have to chase him, fight with him, maybe even shoot him, all of which will be captured on the camera he wears, the one in his car, the ones that installed throughout every neighborhood, and the ones that are carried by nearly everyone on the street in the form of a cellphone. [OCS: If you were a police officer, would you risk your life, your job, your pension, and your reputation to circumvent a low-level crime or intervene in a dispute between two armed and dangerous drug-dealing gang members.] And the cop knows that even if his actions are unambiguously legal and perfectly justified, if those actions result in an injury to the suspect they will be criticized by his superiors, politicians, the media, and of course the “community,” some of whose members believe that an armed and resisting suspect has the absolute right to an injury-free arrest, a belief that is seldom if ever countered by those same superiors, politicians, and media. [OCS: Face facts, the majority of the Black community have been indoctrinated with the progressive socialist democrats to believe that they are oppressed victims of the system and are taught to fear and hate the very police that may keep them safe. Compounded by a media assault that views every white-on-black encounter as a civil rights violation – some worthy of “peaceful protests” that end in riots and the destruction of private and public property. The community will not aid in their own self-protection and in a majority of cases will not willingly volunteer information about the crime or the perpetrator(s).] Making matters worse in Chicago is the city’s enfeebled justice system under state’s attorney Kim Foxx, she of the Jussie Smollet disappearing charges debacle. Of the 19 people arrested in Chicago for gun violations over the Memorial Day weekend, 11 were back out on the street by Tuesday. Seven of them were previously convicted felons and six had prior gun charges. [OCS: It is more than ironic that the progressive socialist democrats want to impose strict gun control laws to disarm the law-abiding gun owners, the vast majority who have never committed a criminal act or pointed their weapons at another human being; in essence creating a larger pool of potential victims for the armed to prey upon. And, yet do nothing about those who are found to be illegally carrying guns. Often allowing the ambulance-chasing lawyers to plea bargain away gun-related crimes in favor of sure conviction – the metric by which prosecutor’s raises and promotions are graded. It appears that the progressive socialist democrats want to see that tough gun-related laws are used to prosecute those who simply want to exercise their inalienable right to life and self-protection of themselves, their families, and their neighbors.] <Source>

Bottom line…

Progressive socialist democrats cannot be trusted with the security and safety of their own communities, let alone the safety and security of the United States.

Perhaps the best observation comes from a prescient George Orwell, “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims… but accomplices.”

We are so screwed.

-- steve

THE FACE OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY: PURE UN-AMERICAN EVIL

It is one thing to attack a political party or politician, but to attack a now-private individual who has served their country as part of the administration is un-American and unconscionable…

Who is the organization who is behind this effort to destroy Sarah Sanders?

American Bridge is the largest research, video tracking, and rapid response organization in Democratic politics. We find what Republicans are hiding and make sure voters hear about it. In 2017, American Bridge created a new Trump War Room to keep Donald Trump and the Republican Party unpopular in order to lay the foundation for Democrats to retake power in 2018. Our research inundated Republicans with negative news stories – uncovering major scandals, keeping investigations into Trump at the top of mind for voters, and shining a harsh light on cronyism and incompetence in the Trump administration. In 2018, we were on the ground in over 30 states, around-the-clock researching, tracking, and responding in real-time. And the results showed: Our work resulted in over 50 million dollars in television coverage last cycle, and helped fuel over 50 victories in contested races up and down the ballot. In 2019 and 2020, American Bridge will be laser-focused on taking back all facets of our government. That means flipping state legislatures, protecting and expanding our majority in the House, winning governor’s mansions, taking back the Senate, and above all else, removing Donald Trump from the White House.<Source>

Who are the crap-weasels behind this scurrilous and un-American organization to denigrate and destroy the life of a now private citizen?

American Bridge 21st Century is a liberal super PAC that conducts opposition research to aid Democratic candidates and organizations. The group was founded in November 2010 by David Brock, a conservative-turned-liberal activist. After making a name for himself as a self-described “right-wing hit man,” Brock reinvented himself as a liberal crusader. In 2004, Brock founded Media Matters, a liberal website that monitors the media for “conservative misinformation.” Rodell Mollineau, a former staffer of Sen. Harry Reid, is the group’s president. Its chairwoman is Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, a former lieutenant governor of Maryland and the eldest child of Robert F. Kennedy.  <Source>

You cannot find a more dishonest, despicable, or corrupt political operative than the Soros-funded David Brock who has founded quite a few important-sounding and self-serving organizations to attack the Republicans and their candidates. As for Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, one need go not farther than to note she is the spawn of a corrupt family with an abundance of sexual predators, addicts, and an infamous murderer who is still lionized by the progressive socialist democrats.

Bottom line…

Perhaps American Bridge 21sr Century should lose any tax exemption that they may hold as there is something fundamentally un-American to allow tax-exempt funds to be used to target American citizens outside the realm of politics.

If something like this can be done to Sarah Sanders, it can be done to any American citizen.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

HONEST QUESTIONS TO ASK THE 2020 DEMOCRAT CANDIDATES

Can you explain why all of the oppressed minorities are not swarming the Mexican border to leave this horrible land of oppression and dystopia?

Everyone wants to live like an Instagram millionaire, but not necessarily exert the time, effort, money, and sacrifice to achieve their aspirational goals in a competitive society. Or become a virtue-signaling social justice warrior without ever understanding human nature and the equities and vagaries of the human condition.

Perhaps that is the reason that social justice and socialism resonate among specific segments of the population. It reduces everything to the lowest common denominator, including individual freedoms, choice, and the need to compete -- all in exchange for allowing politicians to direct your behavior and actions "for the common good."

There is little or no doubt in my mind that the downward spiral of social justice is little more than a tornado of destruction, wreaking havoc on American exceptionalism and individualism.

Does a promise have a race, color, gender, or sexual orientation? By any objective, the answer is a resounding NO! Affirmative action, class-based preferences, and the idea that crimes against certain people should be punished differently is not only immoral but unconstitutional.

My fundamental question for today is simple…

Why should we change ourselves and societal norms to make the dysfunctional, delusional, and disaffected among us feel better about themselves and promote a mythical socialist utopia that ends in death and misery for the majority of its intended recipients?

Or, perhaps stated a little differently, why are illegal aliens rushing our border gates only to be marginalized, mocked, oppressed, and exploited, presumptively by Donald Trump and the Republicans? And, why should they be encouraged to recreate the hell-hole they are leaving instead of becoming Americans and enjoying our magnificent nation and all of the opportunity it represents?

-- steve

REMEMBERING ALAN CARUBA

Today, I thought I would make mention of the passing of my friend and fellow-blogger Alan Caruba, journalist, author, conservative commentator, and humorist, who applied a common sense test to his observations and wrote without fear or favor. Alan passed away on June 15, 2015, at the age of 77. He had just survived a serious surgical operation and was happily recuperating at home when he suffered an in-home accident that cost him his life.

Anti-science…

Alan was a unique individual, a journalist, who served, among other things, as the public face of the pest control industry – noting that Rachel Caron’s book Silent Spring was little more than agenda-driven junk science and the resultant progressive activist furor cost the lives of many millions who were denied an effective means of controlling the disease-carrying pests.

Alan was not shy when it came to quoting Edward Abbey, widely considered to be one of the thought-leaders of the American environmental movement, who noted in 1971, “We humans swarm over the planet like a plague of locusts, multiplying and devouring. There is no justice, sense or decency in this mindless global breeding spree, this obscene anthropoid fecundity, this industrialized mass production of babies and bodies, ever more bodies and babies.” Caruba then pointing out the obvious ramifications in population control, de-growth, abortion, and the promotion of sexual conduct without conception.

Denier…

He wrote of the difference between short-term weather events and the century’s-long trends of climate, observing that many had lost their memory of cold winters and sweltering summers – and simply pointed to the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and the fraud that climate change was the responsible culprit. Labeled a “denier,” Alan pointed out that our climate was continually changing and the only argument was how progressive politicians were spinning nature’s variability to lend rationality to their subversive political agenda. He believed that many socialists and communists relabeled themselves as environmentalists to achieve respectability and to further their fundraising efforts. He used to joke about Earth Day, being commemorated on April 22nd each year, was also the birthday of that notorious mass murderer Vladimir Lenin, the Russian communist revolutionary and head of the Bolshevik Party.

Caruba drew the ire of the IPCC with an irrefutable and straightforward observation, “The primary claim made by the IPCC and other warmists was that there was a ‘consensus’ among the world’s scientists, but anyone familiar with science knows that it does not operate on consensus.”

Racist…

Many progressive had no trouble calling Alan a racist or white supremacist for suggesting that the progressives were using the Blacks under their governance as a test of their extreme theories. Unless someone provided him with a different scenario that explained why Blacks were encouraged to blame their social status on whites and assume the posture of victims, he was of the opinion that Blacks were being taught to eschew “white values” such as staying and excelling in school, getting a job, getting married, and raising a family. He pointed out that both Marx and Hegel promoted promiscuity and the dissolution of the nuclear family and familial allegiance, with allegiance being transferred to an all-powerful state. He questioned why people did not see the connection between Eugenics and the progressive promotion of abortion, with most of the so-called “women’s health clinics,” which he regarded as little more than abortion mills, located in areas that featured Black population concentrations.

Caruba was also skeptical of gun control, primarily because the areas with the strictest gun control laws, majorly governed by progressives, and in many cases, Black politicians, had staggering Black-on-Black crime rates. And, while it might seem racist, perhaps the most effective crime control measure would be to disarm Blacks in the inner cities with the most crime. 

Wing-nut…

Many progressives labeled Alan a “wing-nut,” in particular a right-wing-nut. But as Alan pointed out, wing-nuts are necessary to the system, to keep loose screws from creating a hole that often leads to catastrophic outcomes. Perhaps the most essential observation Caruba made about the pejorative labels accompanying his name was that they were all shorthand for “shut up and get with the progressive program.”

Bottom line…

Considering today’s political climate (pun intended), you are in a far better place. Rest in peace, my friend.

IMPEACH TRUMP?

The more I hear the progressive socialist democrats call for Trump’s impeachment on the grounds he obstructed justice during Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, the more I see House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shake and stammer…

It appears that previous grants of immunity by the Department of Justice or Congressional Committees are invalid and do not apply to impeachment trials. The trial might be the most extended period of silence from the activists in the history of man as they rush to plead the Fifth. Unfortunately, certain low-level participants might be granted immunity in exchange for their testimony.

Bottom line…

With the trial held in the GOP-controlled Senate, including Democrats fearful of the public’s reaction after significant testimony, it is likely that this might pose an existential crisis to the progressive socialist democrats and to the Democrat Party which they have infiltrated.

Perhaps impeachment would be the best thing for the country since Senator Joseph McCarthy revealed the extent of communist infiltration in our government, our media, and our educational institutions.

I have every reason to believe that the Democrats might have moved beyond collusion into treasonous collaboration.

We are so screwed.

-- steve