Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Las Vegas Massacre - Motive Found?

I smell something fishy about the Las Vegas massacre, and the possible reasons for it that the mainstream media is pushing. You may read this, and think "now, there's a conspiracy theory for ya", and you may be right. On the other hand, this theory does make more sense than most being floated.

Everyone knows that "Big & Rich" are a strongly conservative country group, with a strong, conservative following. The fact that the killer waited three days in a hotel to do his dirty deed, specifically against THESE people, indicates he had the ideology of those on the left. He did not simply want to kill people. He wanted to kill CONSERVATIVE people. Trump supporters. And driven by the anti-Trump hatred spewed by the media, Democrats and elitists.

But it may go even deeper than that.

That same ideology is strongly anti-gun. What if you were strongly anti-gun and strongly anti-conservative, and nearing the end of life and maybe crazy? What better way to go out in a blaze of glory than to kill a whole bunch of conservatives AND turn the country against guns to the point that Congress moves toward stricter gun controls. Pardon the pun, but you would be killing two birds with one stone.

Not sure? Think about this...

Anyone wanting to kill as many people as possible would not need 20 guns (and leave a bunch of them home). One rifle, with a lot of pre-loaded clips would do the job. So, why would he have a 23  rifles and literally thousands of rounds of ammo in his room when there was no possibility of using them all, and leaving 19 more at home? I'd say he was trying to make a statement.

The guy hated conservatives, and specifically targeted them, so he was a liberal. As such, he almost certainly was anti-gun, and would also want to get them banned.

The corrupt mainstream media would never mention these things, even if proved true. They are digging everywhere, trying hard to find ANY other motive, and coming up empty. All we hear is "No motive found".

Well, maybe they aren't looking at the obvious clues...


Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Do Voter I.D. Laws Disenfranchise the Poor & Minorities?

"Voter I.D. laws disenfranchise the poor and minorities." That's what people on the left, and activist judges, often claim. They strongly oppose any voter I.D. requirements simply because they want to make it possible for non-citizens to vote. To make their case, they cite phony statistics that show millions of citizens do not have photo I.D. But is that even possible in today's America?

Here are 27 things you cannot do without photo I.D. :

1. Buy Alcohol
2. Buy Cigarettes
3. Opening a bank account
4. Apply for food stamps
5. Apply for welfare
6. Apply for Medicaid/Social Security
7. Apply for unemployment or a job
8. Rent/buy a house, apply for a mortgage

9. Drive/buy/rent a car
10. Get on an airplane
11. Get married
12. Purchase a gun
13. Adopt a pet
14. Rent a hotel room
15. Apply for a hunting license
16. Apply for a fishing license
17. Buy a cell phone
18. Visit a casino
19. Pick up a prescription
20. Get permit Hold a rally or protest
21. Blood donations
22. Buy an "M" rated video game
23. Purchase nail polish at CVS
24. Purchase certain cold medicines
25. Buy a lighter at CVS
26. Cash a check
27. See an "R" rated movie

Now, here is my challenge - if anyone can produce any American citizen who has never done ANY of these things, then I will concede that perhaps that person does not have a photo I.D. But I have to say, if any American citizen has never done any of those things, they simply are not even in any condition to vote! How do you even live if you cannot get a job, collect benefits or cash a check?

I do understand that even the most ridiculous things are possible, and some citizens may not have photo I.D., such as the unfortunate souls who have extremely limited mental capacity and are cared for by others. But they would not vote, anyway. For anyone to claim there are "millions" of citizens who have the capacity to vote but cannot because they have no photo I.D. is nothing short of a blatant lie.

As of 2013, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there are 242,470,820 adults living in the United States. For there to be even ONE million without proper I.D. would mean one person in every 243. When you consider, however, that at least 8 million of those are illegal immigrants, that brings it down to one CITIZEN in every 235. And that is ludicrous.

In Texas, where the fight is still raging, there are just over 17,000,000 adult citizens. The people fighting the voter I.D. law are stating that their (phony) statistics show 600,000 have no photo I.D. THAT'S ONE IN EVERY 28 ADULT CITIZENS! They are claiming that 8.5% of the adult citizens in Texas have never done any of the 27 things listed above. That is not only absurd, but impossible.

The next time some liberal progressive tries to tell you that voter I.D. laws "disenfranchise" minorities and the poor, you can now rebut them with REAL facts, and disembowel their phony statistics.


Wednesday, September 6, 2017

The True Motive for Destroying Confederate Symbols

Far-left radicals, anarchists and Antifa, along with altogether too many willing politicians and the mainstream media are all chomping at the bit to tear down our history by destroying all vestiges of the Confederacy. They erroneously claim it is because "they were traitors", or "on the wrong side of history." But is that really true?

Is someone on the "wrong side of history" simply because they lost? What would the history be had they won? If the Confederacy had won, Lincoln, Grant and other Northern leaders would be seen as traitors. And if losing a war puts you on the "wrong side", then Native Americans were on the "wrong side".

As far as being "traitors" is concerned, think about it a moment. If Lee, Davis and other Confederates were traitors because they rebelled against their government, then so, too, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and ALL our founding fathers, and ALL the colonials fighting under them were traitors to their government - the British Crown. Do those radicals propose we tear down anything reminding us of the Founders? If so, it would not simply be renaming our capital, or tearing down statues or removing their images from our money. It would mean we would have to destroy what they created - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the United States, itself, as they were all created by traitors to the Crown, and therefore are not legitimate.

And I suspect that is what those radicals are really after, and they are using the "Overton Window" principle to bring it to fruition. Radicals win by pushing their radical agendas in small increments, an inch at a time. First they get you to accept that marijuana is no more dangerous than a beer. Once you accept that, it is easy to get us to decriminalize it. Check. Once decriminalized, and we get used to it, they push to actually legalize it for "medicinal" purposes. Check. Then, as we become even more accepting of that, they push to legalize for recreational purposes. Check. That's how the Overton Window works. And boy, how it works! By not nipping the erasure of our history in the bud, we are setting the stage for the next step in their radical agenda.

And the cowering morons who allow them to do it, and not put up any struggle, are accessories to such sedition and treason. Those radicals, and those who do not oppose them, become the new traitors, no better than the ones they are attempting to erase from history.

(Radicals do not limit their efforts to erasing our history and destroying the Republic. They use the same principle to push all of their radical agendas, including gender issues (in some places it has already progressed to the point you can be fined, or otherwise punished for using gender pronouns, like "he", "she" or "Ms"). They also use it to push God out of every facet of our lives, and to promote the stupidity of gender neutral bathrooms.)

Sunday, September 3, 2017

How To Deal With North Korea

When it comes to North Korea, one thing is absolutely certain - they will not stop until they either destroy America, or get destroyed themselves. Therefore, we are equally certain of one other thing - the longer they are allowed to proceed, the more casualties there will be. Right now, they can kill a few hundred thousand people in South Korea. In a year, that could be millions of people in America.
Since there is no "good" end to the situation, one is certainly better than the other. And with that in mind, here is my humble suggestion:

VERY secretly, arm bombers based in Japan and Guam with whatever bombs are necessary, and prepare our warships and subs to point their missiles at ONE taget: Punggye-ri, where the nuclear facilities are located. This is in far northeastern North Korea, as far from Pyongyang as it could be, for safety. And when everything is in place for a rapid, precise strike, we give Kim Jung-Un ONE HOUR to make a decision - in one hour his nuclear facilities WILL be destroyed. Period. And he has one hour to decide if he will stop pursuing nuclear weapons, or bomb Seoul. If he choooses the latter, our next target will be PyongYang and Kim Jung-un, and any place he might choose to hide. So, his only choice is whether he wants to die today, detroying his country in the process, or die peacefully, of old age.

We should also warn China and any other bad actor that any interference from them will result in losing ALL access to American markets, money and products, and any money we may owe them will be forfeited as reparations.

It is highly unlikely that China or Russia will want to go to war with America over that little puke in North Korea. And Iran will also take note of our resolve to de-fang those who threaten America.


Saturday, August 12, 2017

Nuclear EMP - Death of a Continent?

Many people - even in Congress - are not fully aware of the consequences of an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) that occurs when a nuclear weapon is exploded high in the atmosphere. And the same effect occurs when we are hit with a large solar flare, as happened in 1989 when a not-so-large flare hit eastern Canada and knocked out their grid.

In July 1962, the US carried out the Starfish Prime test, exploding a small 1.44 megaton bomb 250 miles above the mid-Pacific Ocean. This demonstrated that the effects of a high-altitude nuclear explosion were much larger than had been previously calculated. The detonation caused electrical damage in Hawaii, 898 miles away from the detonation point, knocking out about streetlights, setting off burglar alarms and damaging a microwave link. A large device detonated at 250 to 312 miles over Kansas would affect all of the continental U.S.

It does not take much for any country with a nuke to end a lot of human life in America. Their missile need not be accurate - just get it over us and detonate it in the atmosphere. The EMP that ensues can knock out the electical grid, if not hardened (and most of it isn't). And it would not be a short-term power outtage. It could last for several years, as we would not have the means (the power) to rebuild everything, transport the materials to the sites and get things running again.

Worse still, the large transformers are only manufactured in China and Brazil. Even if those countries wanted to help, it could take 6 months to 5 years to rebuild the grid. How many people would die in that time? No food. No banking. No way to earn a living. No way to travel to stores, even if there were goods available.

Transformers would be blown, on a large scale. Even car batteries would be destroyed. No power, no communications, no internet. No transporting goods, such as groceries. No large scale farming.

But it gets worse - America would be so weakened, brought to its knees. Our enemies (and the world is full of them) could just walk in and take over. Anyone bringing in food, for example, would be treated as lords. And if you have food, but your neighbor's kids are literally dying of starvation, your "best bud" neighbor will kill you and your family to get food for his own. It's survival of the fittest. Believe it!

Experts have estimated that a large-scale destruction of our power grid would likely result in the deaths of anywhere from 50% to 90% of America's population.

And all it would take is one nuke detonated high in the atmosphere...

Friday, June 23, 2017

Are They Really After Equal Rights?

Feminism. Equal rights for this group or that. Special treatment for different classes of people. Unisex bathrooms.

It's getting crazy! And it is the intentional push by the mainstream media and the left to muddy the waters as much as possible, to cause so much confusion - and guilt - that it becomes easy for them to get their liberal agenda through, because confused people, riddled with the guilt imposed upon them, will throw their hands up and surrender.

The purpose of this post, however, is to make a single point that clears all the mud from the waters.

Let's start with the fact that feminists do not want equal rights - they want more rights. They want equal pay (fair enough) but refuse to accept that Daddy can get custody of the kids, and think women are entitled to special treatment, such as when they break the law and resist arrest, the police should not use physical force to subdue them, if necessary. And feminists do not want equality for all women - not one speaks out against the abuse that some nations impose on women, nor do they stand up for any conservative women. If the woman is not an American, and a liberal, feminists are not interested in protecting their rights. So, feminism is a farce - a creation by a far-left liberal to push a liberal agenda.

The same can be said for other groups that claim they only want "equal rights", when in fact, they want to be recognized and treated as special. Whether its "safe spaces", or a desire to erase history they do not like (i.e. taking down monuments, flags etc.) or stifling free speech that they disagree with, those groups are also pushing a false agenda. They want their free speech, but do not allow for it from others.

So here's a simple point: everyone, regardless of age, gender, religion, race - whatever - everyone should be treated equally. Not better. Not worse. If Martha Stewart goes to jail for lying, so should Hillary. If a Navy recruit goes to prison for a minor infraction of national security, then so should Eric Holder (Fast & Furious). If a man can be physically subdued for breaking the law, then the same should hold true for a woman. And if that is not acceptable, then NEITHER should be physically subdued for breaking the law. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Equality does not allow for exceptions.

Equality is not always nice - but it is always fair. It is why the statue of Justice wears a blindfold.

Each of us must make a choice - believe that either we are ALL equal, or none of us are. No special treatment due to your class, race, gender etc. Respect the rights of all people, or of none.

That said, equality is a figment of the imagination. It does not exist in nature, nor does fairness - any equality or fairness that exists must be imposed by the strong to protect the weak. Does anyone believe a child born deformed and mentally challenged could ever truly be equal with brainy, athletic people?

And one final point of fact - EQUAL is not synonymous with SAME. Males and females are not the same, and therefore can never be completely equal - at least not until men can experience child-birth, and women no longer have an extra rib. Ethnicities can be equal, but never the same.

Try not to miss the point - we are either equal or we are not. We can't have it both ways. Equality is not a part-time thing that applies over here, but not over there. If you think it is wrong to treat one person a certain way because of their gender, race, religion etc., then it is wrong to treat anyone that way. Always put the shoe on your own foot - would you like to be treated that way?

It's time we stopped letting the left muddy things up by telling us we all need to be not only equal, but the same. We only need to accept each other for who and what we are as individuals.


Thursday, March 16, 2017

How to Hold Activist Judges Accountable

There have been countless complaints about the current state of our judicial system, with so many activist judges illegally legislating from the bench. And it has been impossible to fix it because judges are appointed for life, and the Constitution allows only one method of removal - for lack of "good behavior".

And while it would appear that illegally legislating from the bench is bad behavior, the  courts have declared (again, illegally) that only "high crimes and misdemeanors"  can constitute bad behavior. Such a declaration by the court is a case of the fox guarding the hen house.

To remove a judge, the judge must be impeached by a simple majority of the House, and a two-thirds majority of the senate.

This entire debacle is easily fixed - Congress, the only body with the authority to do so - should pass a law that clarifies what constitutes bad behavior of judges, and should include "legislating from the bench" as an impeachable offense.

Today, the difficult part would be getting the law passed through the Senate, and getting 60 votes for any impeachment. But thanks to Harry Reid, the "nuclear option" could be used, and only a simple majority would be required in the senate.

The law should state that a judge shall be reprimanded for a first offense. A second offense within three years would result in impeachment.

While this would not fix all the issues with rogue judges, it would certainly provide the People with a method for protecting themselves from them.