Tag Archives: News

The Serious Ongoing Issues From This Campaign

That this has been a tempestuous campaign season is the one thing all agree upon. On the democratic side we have an avowed socialist with some pretty outlandish ideas about how this country should move forward. Just give everybody what they want and worry about paying for it at some later time. And then there is the now presumptive democrat nominee. The recently released report from Gowdy’s committee investigating the Benghazi Terrorist attack virtually accuses both Hillary Clinton and B. Obama of being complicit in the murder of four men in that town in Libya including the United States Ambassador. She has been shown to be a consistent, no make that constant, liar. Not even her lies are consistent. The democratic presumptive nominee has stated many things that show her contempt for the constitution. She s a self proclaimed “progressive” and denies being a liberal. The progressives believe that only professional politicians should have a voice in how we run our government. The people should vote and then shut up and let them handle everything. The vote is viewed as being a mandate to do so.

On the other side of the fence we have a rich business man that says what ever comes to mind at the moment then, likely as not reverses himself the next day that has become the Republican presumptive nominee. This man has never puled more than roughly 35% of the vote in his primaries. If all of the primaries had been awarding delegates on a proportional basis instead of the all or nothing rule of so many, he would not even be that. And now we have many that have decided to attempt to nullify even the primaries decision.

Carroll Boston “Beau” Correll, a district-level delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the 49 Republican district delegates as well as the 110 Democrat delegates of Virginia. Correll firmly believes that Donald Trump is “unfit to serve” as President of the United States, and cannot bring himself to vote for Trump on the first ballot, or any subsequent ballots.  Correll filed the lawsuit in order to gain protection from any criminal charges since by not voting for Trump he will be in violation of Virginia state law, Section 545(D). Should this suit prevale, it would effectively nullify the Virginia primary results and give us 49 unbound delegates. That would also allow any other state’s delegates to file the same suit and prevail due to precedent law. Now there is a can of worms I am not sure we want to open.

Next we look at the divisiveness of the campaigns themselves. We had many factions at work this time. There were the populists supporting Trump- the constitutional conservatives supporting Cruz- the republican establishment supporting first Bush then Rubio- libertarians supporting Paul- a fraction of the conservatives behind Kasich- Social democrats following Sanders- the mainstream democrats pushing the Clinton campaign.

It has been a divisive and dirty campaign from day one. It has gotten even more so now that we have these “presumptive” winners. There was only one person that did not engage in the mud slinging- Senator Cruz. Even he got a little harsh when they attacked his wife. I, personally, can’t blame him for that.

Hillary has said so much that is simply and provably erroneous that she has lost much support due to that duplicity. Trump keeps changing his position on almost everything he has said The latest seems to be his backtracking on the exclusion of Muslim immigration. It now appears that he really didn’t mean ALL Muslims, just those that cannot be properly “vetted”. Who makes the call on what that word means he has not indicated. He has insulted Women, native Americans, blacks, Chinese, English and of course Muslims. OH. And anybody that disagrees with him. Going so far as to ask followers to “punch” one protester, offering to pay all legal fees for anyone that did.

OK you get the point. This campaign season has actually created a very large chasm in the body politic of our nation. It has gone a long way toward dividing our house against itself. Is there a solution that would work and is feasible? Many have been offered, but if you take a close look at them they each push a personal agenda also except for the “Can’t we all just get along?” crowd. Remember that word feasible? We have the “lets just follow the constitution” people. Probably the best one, yet it will never resonate with the “progressives”. They simply will not do that.

I do not have the answer. The only one that will work, I guess, is the Convention of States idea that terrifies the left so badly. The left calls it a “con-con. A Constitutional Convention to rewrite the constitution. It is not and never could be. Who actually believes that any state legislature would send commissioners to such a convention that would violate many laws passed by those same legislatures stating plainly that proposing amendments contrary to the topic of the convention would be a criminal or civil act and could land them in jail at worst, simply recalled and fired with prejudice at best. The main reason so many on the left fear this one is it proposes term limits which would fire all of the professionals in Government. Of Course there is also those amendments that would limit federal spending and limit the power of the federal government.

If you have a better solution to closing this chasm, please comment.

Advertisements

How Media Bias Works

How Does Media Bias Work?

Do you think the media bias has any real effect on the voting public? Remember we are talking about a nation of citizens fifty percent of whom are politically ignorant and apathetic. They may see news blurbs on rare occasions, but they certainly don’t actually have any curiosity nor use any intelligence in what they read. They are headline readers. Now consider the headlines in the news on line, in the newspapers, and at the head of the hour on broadcasts. Consider these two headlines: “House harasses Hillary on the time she knew about the attacks. She asks ‘What difference does it make?’” And this one: Hillary screams ‘What difference does is make?’ when asked about Bengazi deaths. Which one is liberal and which is conservative news? Yeah. How about simple coverage? The point here is what makes them biased? The adjectives attached to a news story. They express an opinion and are not facts. Nor are they news. I watched the hearing that day. What I saw and heard was a Legislator questioning a probable hostile witness. He did not harass that witness; however he did ask pointed questions that were germane to the topic. Her answer was not screamed, it was stated in what may well have been dripping with sarcasm, in my opinion, 🙂 but her voice was only slightly increased in volume. Definitely not ‘screamed’. So both sides practiced their own form of ‘biased reporting’. Oh, for the good old days when reporters reported the news.

Another form of ‘bias’ is demonstrated by the simple act of censorship. If you don’t report a story, no one can form an opinion. By the same token, if you don’t report the full story, you lead people to form an erroneous picture of events. Example? OK. Let’s look at the alleged terrorist Ahmed Abu Khattala, self proclaimed ‘Mastermind’ of the Benghazi Attack. The bias on the left reported that the federal government “…finally found …” the man. Great work, right? Hmmm there is one point that should be made here. Both Fox news and CNN interviewed him weeks before the government ‘found’ him. OK. Right wing Fox and the slowly moderating CNN did report that fact. (How many of you caught the bias in that last statement?) It still, to my knowledge, has not been mentioned by any other media outlet. If you don’t report it, your demographic won’t know about it. Remember those first impressions I mentioned?

These examples could go on forever. I hope you are starting to get a feel for how you are manipulated on a daily basis. The only cure I know of is a liberal dose of each side and the ability to think. Of course that presupposes that you do want to know the facts. I keep remembering the standby line from that old TV show, Dragnet, “Just the facts, Mam.” I do not deny the right and even the value of editorializing. When and where appropriate, I just disagree that a NEWS outlet should be doing it. It belongs on a show like the “View” or “Hannity” or even “Rush”. Not in the NEWS!

Comments or questions?

 

The American Gestapo

The American Gestapo is already here!

  The American Gestapo is already here and it was built with your permission and your tax dollars!  Yep, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Created after the 9-11 attacks in 2001 the DHS was created  and charged with the primary responsibilities of protecting the United States of America and U.S. territories (including Protectorates) from and responding to terrorist attacks, man-made accidents, and natural disasters.

Back during Obummer’s first run for the White House while making a speech in Denver,  Then Senator Obama stated that he wanted to see a governmental police force as well equipped and armed as all of our armed forces combined.  For some reason he has never spoken of that again.  It is rumored that his advisors jumped all over him for making it in the first place.

Now consider the following facts:  There are DHS offices in every state in the Union; There are DHS offices in over 125 counties in those states; Obummer has begun firing any top ranking general that won’t pledge to fire on American citizens if ordered to do so.  He has already “retired” three of them:  The budget announced for DHS is in the $100,000,000,000 range or one hundred billion dollars of your money each year. The 2010 fiscal year budget was $98,800,000,000 I have never heard of any budget decreasing for any department of the government with the exception of the Military budget of course.

One more example of why we should never trust our government and grant them a blank check without VERY specific instructions.

They took that check and, among other things did a few things that are unconstitutional.  Let’s take a look at one of them before I move on to today’s topic.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution, reads – “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”  Would you believe that your DHS has decided that amendment does not pertain within 100 miles of any border in the good old USA?  That means if you live in almost anywhere in the state of Florida you can be searched and your private property seized on the whim of an agent of your DHS.  (You might want to check on the history of the Gestapo at this point) How about NYNY or all of Rhode Island; all of the upper peninsula and more of Michigan; there is even a special proviso that takes in almost the entire states of Pennsylvania. Texas and New Mexico. Just go around the US map and wherever the US stops mark off 100 miles and you are no longer protected by the fourth amendment by DHS fiat.

Now let’s add in a few more facts just to clear things up a little more.  Non-military departments of your government have already purchased enough ammunition to wage a war similar to the one in Iraq for SEVEN YEARS.  Do as I did and look up the number of rounds of ammunition used per month in Iraq by our soldiers and do the math.  Oh , I forgot to mention the reason they espouse for the purchase:” To maintain the qualification with various weapons their agents are required to qualify on each year.  In other words, target practice.  Literally billions of rounds of ammunition already purchased for target practice.  This doesn’t even begin to talk about all of the new military style weapons purchased.  You know the ones I mean.  Those listed in Feinstein’s bill plus many of the fully automatic ones manufactred.

DHS IS your new secret police.  Aren’t you proud?

Are Gun Laws Effective????

I must admit this is copied, but it is so appropriate I just had to post it on my blog.

 

During the late ’70s, President Jimmy Carter and his inner circle determined to push through comprehensive new federal gun-control legislation.    They decided the best way to grease the congressional skids would be to have a massive scientific study conducted which, in the end, would proclaim that gun-control laws were effective in reducing crime.

So the Carter folks handed out a major gun-control research grant to University of Massachusetts sociology professor James D. Wright and his colleagues Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly.    They spent four years and lots of tax dollars to produce what would be the most comprehensive, critical study of gun control ever undertaken.    In 1981, they published the results of their research – an exhaustive, three-volume work titled “Under the Gun.”

There was only one problem.

Their findings, summarized starkly by co-author Wright, were that “Gun control laws do not reduce crime.”

“When Wright, Rossi and Daly produced their report for the National Institute of Justice, they delivered a document quite different from the one they had expected to write,” explained David Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute and co-author of the law school textbook, “Firearms Law and the Second Amendment.”    “Carefully reviewing all existing research to date, the three scholars found no persuasive scholarly evidence that America’s 20,000 gun-control laws had reduced criminal violence.”

Among their many findings:

      The landmark federal Gun Control Act of 1968, banning most interstate gun sales, had no discernible impact on the criminal acquisition of guns from other states.
Detroit’s law providing mandatory sentences for felonies committed with a gun was found to have no effect on gun-crime patterns.
Washington, D.C.’s 1977 ban on the ownership of handguns (except those already registered in the District) was not linked to any reduction in gun crime in the nation’s capital.
Polls claiming to show that a large majority of the population favored “more gun control” were debunked as being the product of biased questions, and of the fact that most people have no idea how strict gun laws already are.

“As the scholars frankly admitted, they had started out their research as gun-control advocates,” said Kopel, “and had been forced to change their minds by a careful review of the evidence.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/how-obamas-gun-order-will-backfire/#9316jt1e2iZIPc3l.99