Lies of the left

Have you noticed how many leftists refer to the United States as a Democracy. I am going to point this out once again, not all leftists are democrats. The United States was founded as a Republic. The US has been called a Democracy so often that many believe that to be true. There is an old adage that goes something like this; Repeating a lie does not make it the truth. It has also been said that if you repeat a lie often enough people will take it for the truth.

When Benjamin Franklin was asked; What do we have? He responded; A Republic. He also added these few words as a part of that answer; If you can keep it. He answer seemed to imply that it would take some “work” to keep this a Republic and not let it become a Democracy.

At some point along the way the “ball” got dropped. The Pledge of Allegiance, is it still recited in school? The word Republic is in the pledge, the word Democracy is not. I thought I would include this video by Red Skelton.

And one by Johnny Wright.

Have we lost it? Is this Republic now on the verge of becoming a Democracy?

Advertisements

A possible solution

There is some common ground on mass shootings, both sides want them to end. Unfortunately that is all the two sides have in common.

I have a possible solution, but it is going to take cooperation, a lot of cooperation, from both sides of the gun issue, and indeed their allies. Both sides will actually have to sit down and have a civil debate. I know this is asking a lot.

First, a little background on how I came up with this. As I was looking through my news feed I came across something that was a very bad idea, but it did open some interesting ideas for a solution. Actually solutions for many things.

I will sum up the article, you can find it on your own and read the whole thing.

The leader of a large labor union is threatening to boycott the largest retailer in the country, the boycott centers around two demands.
1. Stop selling guns.
2. Stop making political contributions to politicians who oppose gun control.
The union leader claims to have 1.7 million members. The “leader” also has a few other suggestions for the retailer in a letter written to the CEO, in this letter the “leader” calls on the company to do its part to help build a future with fewer guns and safer communities and also urges the retailer to fund buyback programs and for the CEO to create a summit with other CEOs to discuss ways corporate America can address rising gun violence.

My first thought as I was reading this article was here is yet another leftist threating to boycott a retailer because of what they sell, they sell guns and ammunition and just about everything a person could use or want. Worse using her position as the leader of a large labor union to do it, a loss or potential loss of 1.7 million customers could be catastrophic. But would the loss of 1.7 million out of perhaps 100 million be all that much of a loss? The retailer would just adjust for the loss of revenue by reducing the workforce. Then I reread the article and thought wait a minute this lady might be onto something and came up with many solutions for many problems.

Campaign contributions. The meat and potatoes of politicians, but a lot of that money is wasted as only one is going to win election or reelection. That means that the money given to and then used by the loser just goes up in smoke. The money left over(not spent/wasted)win or lose goes into their “war chest”. On a side note I watched all four of the democrat debates and many of them said that they needed to get the “dark” money out of politics. Here is a sure way that none of that money is wasted and has the side benefit of proving that you believe in your position.

For the gun control groups rather than wasting that money on politicians take that money and partner with law-enforcement and institute a voluntary buyback program. Actually buyback is impossible since they never bought it from you to begin with, it would be a turn in program, a turn in for cash. People could turn in(sell)magazines, parts, accessories and even complete firearms of their own free will. Do make sure that the people in your group can pass a background check before they take constructive possession of the firearms being turned in for cash, would not want any one to break the law. And please, please take a safety course for your safety and the safety of others.

For the pro gun groups do not waste that money on politicians(and possibly end up being disappointed)instead set up firearms safety courses, hunters safety courses, weapons training, open ranges and encourage shooting sports. Your services would be needed as the ones operating the turn in sites would need training and a safety class or two.

A little bonus in this section. For the labor unions that have taken a stance one way or the other on the issue of guns, stop wasting your money on politicians. Chip in with your dollars and support one of the above listed causes. Take away those labor union donations and you will see how much the politicians really care about you or your union. For the Hollywood types that have made millions on shoot’em up movies but are in the gun control camp, take the money you have made on those movies and put it, all of it, in the turn in pile. Stop being a hypocrite. For the politicians that support the buyback scheme put some of your fortune in that pile as well. I could go on with this but I reckon you get the picture.

If a politician wants to seek higher office he/she should pay their own way.

If you take away the donations to campaigns from the gun control and gun rights groups you would then find out the true position of your particular politician or political party when it comes to guns or any other issue. Some of you might be quite surprised.

You see this one act can bring about positive results.
First it will get all of the “dark” money out of politics. This may bring about other positives as well. If the politicians no longer receive special interest money they will have no need to subsidize those special interests. The lobbyists would leave town.
Second a “buyback” program that is not tax-payer funded.

Keeping firearms out of the wrong hands. By using the term “the wrong hands” I suppose they mean the criminal element. Again a simple solution. Congress could pass a law and send it to the president to sign. The law should simply say: Effective this very second, all gang leaders and members, drug dealers and convicted felons will surrender all fire arms to law-enforcement without compensation. Failure to comply with this law will result in legal penalty(prison and/or fine).

You can here them now, running to surrender their firearms.

Came across another article where a mental health professional of some importance in that article he noted “there is little correlation between mental illness and violent killings”. Study after study shows that this is not the case. More often the reverse is true, they are victims not perpetrators.

Also in the article is this; Racism, Hate and White Supremacy are not diagnosable mental illnesses.

Find the full article, read it.

Wait, Hold the phone, the latest reports are that the republicans are coming to the table to talk, talk gun control. Looks like there is an “appetite” for some of your schemes and demands but you will have to wait until September to find out how much appetite they have. You might even hook them like a hungry catfish.

The liberals in a nut shell

They are for the death penalty as long as the condemned is still in the womb. Other wise they are totally against putting a person to death. Kind of seems backwards to me, willing to condemn the innocent but protecting the life of the guilty.

They fight tooth and nail against voter ID laws, claiming it imposes undue hardships on the poor. I guess that the poor can not afford a picture ID. Yet they have never proposed legislation that would provide a photo ID at taxpayer expense for the poorest. I can not understand why they never propose such legislation especially when they believe that government is always the solution. I also wonder why the republicans never propose this.

They are for religious expression as long as Christianity is not the religion being expressed. They are for free speech as long as everyone is saying what they are saying or what they want to hear. If it goes against what they say, think or believe then they call it hate speech. They demand to be heard while demanding others be silent. They don’t really have to worry about the press, the press is in their corner. They would rather have the First Amendment repealed than have to contend with differing view points.

They support the Second Amendment as it pertains to hunting, except for those that have come right and said the Second Amendment should be repealed. Problem with that cupcake is that the Second Amendment was not written to allow hunting. You can read the Second Amendment forwards, backwards and even upside down and you will not find the words hunting, target practice or sports shooting. The Second Amendment was written for a specific purpose and reason.

They only want to ban scary looking rifles and high-capacity magazines. They even come up with new words, their new one is military grade. The old one was assault weapon. They say no one should be allowed to have military grade weapons but the military and law-enforcement. I believe the correct term would be Mil-Spec(Military Specification). But you could not call the AR-15 a Mil-Spec weapon could you? The AR-15 is not made to Military Specifications, it is a modern sporting rifle made for civilian use.

But then that is what you do you use words, more accurately use a play on words. You cant really come out and say you are pro-abortion, can you? That would equate to being pro-death. So you use the phrase pro-choice, by using the word choice it gives the impression that what happens was the choice of all. The truth of the matter is that the one directly effected by the “choice” had no “choice” in the matter. So lets look at some of your other plays on words.

When it comes to gun-control you use phrases like;
End gun-violence. Why do you never speak of ending violence? The U.K. banned guns and that did not end or stop crimes committed with a firearm, they still happen. They may have lees crimes committed with a firearm than here in the U.S., but for two straight months this year(Feb and Mar)the murder rate in London surpassed the murder rate in N.Y. City. The residents of London now have to contend with knife-crimes and acid-crimes(violent acts committed with a knife or acid). So the U.K. stopped the mass shootings, sort of, and now they face the possibility of mass stabbings and acid attacks. Now London lawmakers are having to come up with laws to control knives and acid. They now have to end knife-violence and acid-violence. Our northern neighbors had an act of violence that involved a man driving a van on a sidewalk and mowing down pedestrians, 10 dead and 15 injured. He used neither a gun, knife or acid his weapon of choice was a motor vehicle. A person intent on killing or maiming will use whatever tool is available. Neither the gun, the knife, the acid nor the motor vehicle is violent on its own in each case it takes a human to use those items in a violent manner. For you it is not about ending violence, it is about ending guns in the hands of the citizens(law-abiding citizens). If your gun-control measures worked the most violent cities in this land would be the safest, but it is the exact opposite.

We have to do it for the children. You really expect me to believe that you care about children when far more are murdered by abortion. Enough said on this one.

If it saves just one life it is worth it. My question is worth what? You and I both know that there is no way to prove that even one life was saved. This simply can not be measured. Besides some in your camp(cult)have come out and said that no legislation could have prevented______(fill in the blank).

And then there is everyone’s favorite. We just did not go far enough.

Now that the gun-control cult has been outed, your far enough in that matter is the repeal of the Second Amendment and banning all firearms from the public. You are okay with the military and law-enforcement having all of the guns, well all of them but what the criminals have. The criminals will still have guns. Maybe you should look back in history, not that far back either, and see what happens to the civilian population when they are deprived of the tools to defend themselves. There was a reason that the Founders and Framers included a Bill of Rights, in particular the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Read about Boston, Lexington Green and Concord. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read the Constitution, there was a reason the Founders and Framers did not want a full-time standing army, if they did not want a full-time army they certainly had no intention of giving them all of the guns. Since law-enforcement is part of the government local, state and federal they certainly never meant for government to have all of the guns either. They also never meant for the people to be deprived of arms, if they had they would have said so.

Speaking of the Constitution you use it to your advantage when it suits your agenda. Take the Electoral College for instance, when your guy wins the Electoral vote you shout to the world that the system works, you do not mention the popular vote unless you by chance get both. When your guy, or in this case gal, loses the Electoral vote but wins the popular vote you scream that the election was illegitimate the Electoral College is outdated and does not represent America. When it comes to the Second Amendment you say the Founding Fathers never intended for us to have _____(fill in the blank). You use the equal protection clause for every group but Christians and gun owners.

They want every person in this country to vote in the elections regardless of citizenship. I guess not enough legal citizens supported your candidate, you need some illegal support. Win any way you can, right? You really are an obstructionist when it comes to securing the border. Would you act the same if those coming here illegally were apt to vote republican? While on this subject, you are having a “kitten” over the citizenship question being talked about when the new census comes out. You want to count heads not citizens. Why? Seats in the house are based on population, the number of citizens not heads. You could stand to lose some House seats, reports have it that there has been an exodus of citizens from your liberal leftist states. Not to mention the money that flows to states is also based on population. If it was the way it was you would have to send money to D.C. based on the census, you would kick the illegals out so fast and hard they would bounce three times before coming to a rest on the other side of the border and build a wall a hundred feet tall and ten feet thick with a minefield to keep them out.

What is going to happen on your march to go far enough? This question sets up another post.

DEO VINDICE

The hypocrisy of the left

It seems that the “spokes mouth” for infringing on the Constitutional Rights of others has his panties in a wad over his Constitutional rights be infringed. The little fellow wants his rights protected. He seems to think that the requirement imposed to carry only clear back-packs(book bags)violates his First Amendment Rights as well as his right to privacy. I thought the “march for our lives” was about making a safer environment for students. Does he not understand that the requirement to have see-thru bags increases his safety, thus increasing his security. By making just that one little sacrifice of his rights to better his chances of security would be worth it, would it not. I mean if it saves only one life, it would be worth it. After all I am sure that no further restrictions will be placed on them, the students I mean and their possessions. The ones who made the decision to increase safety by requiring clear back-packs(book bags)would never make further intrusions like creating a maximum size limits or conducting random searches. They will most likely be satisfied with just the clear bag requirement, they wont do anything else and wont want anything else. Good grief what a hypocrite.

But then again the leftists excel at hypocrisy. The students should take a closer look at those adults who have offered all of this support to their effort, misguided as it is.

The politicians for instance, they come out after every tragedy and shout that more must be done to save the lives of the children, are in fact the same ones who support abortion. That’s right, they are for killing children as long as it is in the womb, by the millions. Would more gun control have saved the first life that was cut short by abortion. But even the pro-choice supporters, who are not supportive of choice they are instead supporters of abortion, are hypocrites of the worst type. Each is the product of a mother that choose life, life for them. It is the pro-life supporters that are attempting to save those millions of lives. I say attempting because their attempts are thwarted by the pro-abortion activists and judicial system.

The Hollywood(Hollyweird)types for instance they, the vast majority of them, have made their millions producing, directing or acting in movies that promote violence and most of them kill more people in the course of one movie that die in the mass-shootings they claim to be opposed too. If they really were in support of your march they would swear off making violent movies. But if they did they would not have made their millions and been able to give you just a pittance. And by the way just how many of them have an armed security detail, for their safety and protection. But just who is it that they need protection from. You their fans or just in case of one deranged fan, or is it both? Do they care about your safety or your money. By the way why do you go to see those violence filled movies anyway? Oh, and the music industry types. Kind of think they too just might have an armed security detail, you know for security and protection.

Your big money supporters they, the vast majority of them, have armed security details. They are not against guns at all they just want to control who has guns. Who is it that they need protection from? By the way most of them give considerable political campaign contributions to the pro-abortion candidates. If they really cared about the safety and security of children they would with hold those contributions.

You bitch and moan about the NRA and politicians who accept money and support from the NRA, while you remain silent about the politicians who accept money and support from the pro-abortion providers and supporters. You say the NRA and those supported by the NRA have blood on their hands, while ignoring the ones whose hands are truly bloody. The NRA itself has not taken the first life, pro-abortion has taken lives by the millions. Seems a bit hypocritical.

Your march(rally)and the associated protests were, in my opinion, a bit more than disingenuous. What you held was a gun control event. There have been proposals made that would enhance safety and security for schools, but you don’t like these proposals. You and you supporters proposed only gun-control. But let me point this out. None of you are against guns, you only want to have guns in the hands of a select few. Ask yourselves this, if your money people had to forfeit their armed security would they continue this rhetoric? I submit they would not. They do not personally provide for their security and protection, they outsource.

You have no idea of what spews forth from you mouth. You claim to be the school shooting generation, the generation that must endure active shooter drills. You want your school day to be free of distractions, hazards and interruptions. And to this you say “No more”, well good for you. However you are not the only generation that has had to endure distractions, hazards and interruptions during your school day.

Personal story segment. When I was in school right here in sunny Florida we never had to endure active shooter drills or worry about someone shooting up our school and killing classmates. We did however have to endure Civil Defense drills and all else that came with the Cold-War. We had to know what to do if the Soviets were to launch an ICBM. You should have been here during the times of the Cuban missile crisis. Imagine that, the Soviets were placing nuclear missile in Cuba, extremely short flight time. We were taught to dive under our desks if we were in class and the drill occurred. If on the playground we had to dive in low spots. Remember to close your eyes, don’t look directly at the flash. If you did see the flash count off the seconds to judge the distance. Remember that there would be a back-blast. Fall-out shelters were everywhere in town. Some more affluent families had their own constructed. When ever you were out you would look around for the symbol that identified the shelter, and know where every shelter was that you could get to, just in case. That was a lot for a kid to have to endure and still get an education, we managed.

You did learn about the Cuban missile crisis and the Cold-War in your American history classes didn’t you? Did you learn about Civil Defense? You know of “safe spaces”, but do you know of fall-out shelters?

I am going to interpret your way of thinking for just a moment. You obviously think that the whole ordeal of Civil Defense drills could have been avoided if America would have just destroyed all of its nuclear weapons. That would leave the Soviets with no one to launch nuclear weapons against because no one could launch one at them. There would be peace and security with no threat of a nuclear war.

Another personal story segment. I wrote a post recently concerning the fact that most of the boys in school carried a pocket knife. There was no way of knowing who had one and who did not, hell some of the girls probably had one as well. Yet we managed not to cut or stab each other. Mostly because we had no desire to cause that sort of harm to one another, that and we exercised self-control. We fought after school, a good old-fashioned fist fight and on the less dramatic occasions it was settled with a good old-fashioned arm wrestling contest, but never with knives. In hindsight there could have been another reason or two we never pulled a knife on each other. (1)The other guy might have one and(2)it might be bigger. Just those facts may have prevented some stupid acts. One acts stupid the other responds in kind, an understanding even if unspoken.

Back to the Soviets and nuclear weapons. First there was something called MAD(mutually assured destruction)if one nation were to launch nuclear weapons the other would respond in kind and possibly launch even more. You shoot we shoot back. Both would be destroyed. It was an understanding. Each knew the other would retaliate and keep doing so until all was destroyed. There have been talks to limit the size of the nuclear arsenal. Neither the US or Russia is willing to totally disarm, limit the number but never disarm. Why? If one or the other were to disarm the other would have total control and could do as it wished, the other would be powerless to stop aggression. MAD has prevented all out nuclear war and that idea still works today. Think about it, would you like to live in a world where only one person or country had the ultimate power to do as they wished? If the one with nuclear weapons decided to use them, with what could you deter them? More importantly how could or would you respond?

The turd that decided to come into your school had the advantage. First, having attended that school he “knew the lay of the land”. He knew when and how he could get in. He did not have to wonder if he could get in, he knew he could and he knew when. He knew the classroom layout. He, from what I understand, knew the SRO. He knew the schedule. Second, he knew there was no counter to his threat. He knew there would be no such thing as MAD. There is a reason that mass shootings never happen in “cop-shops”.

So I ask is the problem guns or the absence of guns?

There sure was a lot of security(guns)at your rally. Did you feel safe or unsafe? None of you looked the least bit uncomfortable. You did clean up behind yourselves didn’t you?

There have been other options brought forward to counter the school shootings. More armed security, more law enforcement, training and arming teachers and other school employees. But none of you have expressed any interest in those options. Why? It goes against your agenda of gun control. Which is the agenda to disarm the law-abiding public and leave firearms in the hands of a select few, the police and the military. Right? Wrong. There will be exceptions, there will always be an exception to the rule. Like I before E except after C.

Back to the first paragraph. You demand that your rights not be violated while demanding the rights of others be infringed. You cupcake are a hypocrite.

You claim that you should be able to carry a backpack(book bag)in the color of your choice, free speech. What would be your reaction is a student were to come to class sporting an NRA book bag or t-shirt? You support the First Amendment(free speech)when the person has the same view that you have. I could swear I heard someone at the town hall you all had where someone yelled “Burn her” when a spokeswoman for the NRA was speaking. You support the Second Amendment but only if the police or military are armed.

You might want to check your history about what happens when only the police and military have the guns, all of the guns.

As I recall, when I did stop by to check on your rally a couple of students made mention of being in a Holocaust history class when the shooting began. So I have to ask, were the victims armed or had they been disarmed?

DEO VINDICE

The big payoff?

The liberal leftist socialist progressives(LLSP)are perhaps now seeing their big payoff. The School shooting in Parkland, Florida and the aftermath are now providing for the LLSP proof positive that their plans and schemes are paying off and paying off in a big way. Years and years of attempts have passed but now…

First I must address the enlightened professor, the one who asked Where was your God? Well, professor it was the LLSP’s just like you that kicked the one true God out of School. Not only was the one true God kicked out of School, many false gods were brought(ushered)in to take His place. More on this later, plus an example.

Now to the pliable politician, the one who bends any which way, as consistent as water. This mainly concerns the republican politicians. This is to address the republican governor. The same governor who ran an unsuccessful campaign to become president. The same one who says congress must do something, even if that something results in their not being re-elected. This is the same governor who spent years in the very same congress he criticizes for not doing something that would cost them their political careers. Funny he has been pretty silent up until now. This would be the governor from Ohio, but he is not the only one. He is far from the only one, many more lie in wait. Waiting until the time is right to reveal his or her true selves. They will claim that they must act to protect the lives of children.

Now to the Public(government)Schools. They have been educating, indoctrinating if you prefer,(I prefer the latter to the former)the children of this Republic for generations. The indoctrination(education)provided to the children has been steadily drifting left for generations. Now you have created an almost entirely leftist generation, your goal is within reach. Those in High School now, at this moment are the next generation of Teachers, Doctors, Lawyers Judges and Politicians. What will your creation do to what is left of this Republic?

Now to the children that are speaking out, protesting and making demands. Now don’t get me wrong I do admire you, though I believe you are misguided based on your leftist leaning education(indoctrination) and you have some adult help and financial support. You are placing your trust and hopes on the wrong people who will provide you with the wrong solution to a problem, but this is what you have been taught. What is going on in Schools now would have never even been dreamed of, thought of or acted out in my time. Kids are kids and have always been kids, something has changed.

The children(students)are demanding that congress do something. This also goes back to the enlightened professor. Government has become your god and protector, just as intended. You are placing your trust and hopes on politicians and government to solve a problem. Had you received a proper and truthful education, not an indoctrination, you would have been taught that government creates problems so it then can come up with a solution. The problem with a government solution is that it creates a new problem.

You had a lie-in in D.C. on the road outside the White House. There is a march planned, I believe that it is called the “March for our Lives” on March 24th. Let me see if I get this right. You will march on and to D.C. to demand congress(the government)take action to do something about guns and have meaningful gun control reform that will save your lives and lessen the probability of another School shooting. You intend to shame lawmakers into doing something to save your lives. Do you not realize you seek protection from the same government that gives million to an abortion provider?

By the way, the god you think loves and protects you, the government, knew what about the intention of that young man and did nothing. You should be demanding answers and asking, Just where the hell were you? Did you buy the breakdown in protocol excuse?

Personal story segment. It has been many years since I graduated High School. We did not have school shootings in those days. Guns were as prevalent in society in those days, most of us had at least one, and yet we managed not to shoot each other. I dont recall any signage prohibiting firearms on school grounds either. Most the boys carried a pocket knife, yet we managed not to cut or stab each other. Maybe the difference between then and now is that we had a deep respect for life and each other. If we had a problem we worked it out, usually behind the field house, like men and gentlemen. A good old-fashioned fist fight, and when it was over it was over and settled. No retaliation for losing.

I believe you are looking for a solution for a gun problem when what you actually have is a people problem. Solve your people problem and the gun problem will go away by itself. But that is just my opinion. In the days left before your planned march, look at the people problem you have and who or what gave you the people problem you now endure.

Now to the big-time political campaign donors. At least one of you has threatened to not give one dime to any republican candidate who gets one dime from the NRA. This is no more than black-mail politics. You refuse to donate to a candidate based on his views of the Second Amendment. If he or she supports the Second Amendment you will give him or her no money. You will only donate if he or she is against the Second Amendment.

The something every LLSP wants is more and more gun control measures. Gun control is not the answer, your controls will only have an effect on the law-abiding gun owners. Law abiding gun owners are not the problem, we already have enough hoops to jump through, thank you very much.

The mantra of the LLSP is “We just did not go far enough”. Well, quit pussy-footing and get to it.

DEO VINDICE
God bless the State of Florida and her people

Well it’s out

The republican memo came out, now we wait and see. Given the level of apathy in this Republic today, it is a great possibility that only those of us who care will even give a hoot. The memo has been spreading around the blogs and that is a good thing, it being released was also a good thing. The problem with some of the blogs media outlets is that so many say “Here is what you need to know”. I say let the people who care decide what they need to know. Let them read it and come to their own conclusions. Many will come to different conclusions, people can see or hear the exact same thing and come to different conclusions.

For instance, during the State of the Union address when President Trump made the statement that Black and Hispanic unemployment was at record low-levels. The republicans heard good news and applauded, the democrats(sitting in the same chambers and hearing the same words)sat on their hands not applauding. The republicans heard good news and the democrats heard bad news. I know what you are saying, the democrats and republicans clap like trained seals when the president is from and representing their political party. But, record low unemployment levels is good news no matter which party has the presidency.

Let’s look at the timing. Released on a Friday, not just any Friday, but the Friday before the superbowl(small s in this case because I don’t see it as worthy of a big S). So let’s look at Monday and the discussions around the “water cooler”. Will they be talking the big game of the big memo? I suspect the game by a large margin.

Why, you ask. The answer is that, people are “fickle”. It was not all that long ago that many “diehard” sports fans were up in arms because some knucklehead pampered prima donna took a knee during the National Anthem. Swearing to never watch a football game again. Some will stand by their word, while others will don their favorite jersey and sit in front of the “boob tube” eating wings and drinking beer, never minding what they said not so long ago. Much the same as when the videos came out about the selling of baby body parts at the abortion clinic.

Maybe by Tuesday the masses will get around to reading the memo, or not. It will go back to the apathy problem, or a new shiny object to look at. Then there is the crowd of Jacobins that exist in society and government. The never Trump crowd and the Trump haters will not give of flying(almost said a bad word)about the memo. To them the ends justify the means. They want the president gone and to them there is no measure that goes to far. They will not care that it appears the at least on government agency and possibly one government department “weaponized” itself to influence an election because the candidate, later the president-elect and finally the president was not one they chose.

I read it several times and the best I can say is “Wow”. It appears to me that some high-level bureaucrats were attempting to use any means possible to derail a presidential campaign. It also appears to me that failing that they would settle for bringing down a sitting president. Wow, talk about collusion, conspiracy and trying to influence an election. It also appears to me that these same individuals did not give a flying(almost said that bad word again)about the future of this Republic, they instead were concerned in their futures. Those same bureaucrats cared not if their activities tarnished the reputation of the entire agencies and/or departments. One even wanted to hang on long enough to reach full retirement benefits. Not to mention the never-ending leaks.

Well raise your hands if you are shocked that a government agency would attempt to influence anything or be used to further a political agenda. It was not all that long ago that the BATFE was used to help the gun control crowd. You do remember fast and furious, don’t you? The gun-walking scheme to send guns across the southern border. That one got Brian Terry killed. Let me see, making guns available to criminals to see if the criminals would use those guns in crimes. The IRS was used against Tea Party conservative groups.

The democrats were to craft a response to the allegations or revelations made in the republican memo and they wanted it released as well. They wanted everything to remain a secret unless they to could expose something. Then the agency wanted to redact the memo if it were released, claiming national security. Many people in government are still up in arms over the release. Claiming this memo was politicized, maybe it was and maybe it wasn’t. I would like to see the democrat memo, just to compare the two. I would like them to offer some sort of justification for the alleged abuses, from their point of view. Perhaps that will come out down the road.

There are some who will read the memo and be taken aback, to say the least. There are others who will read the memo and think that nothing was wrong. There are others who will simply let the media interpret it for them, being to lazy to read it and decide for themselves. There are still others who could care less about the whole affair, the totally apathetic.

In my view there is another thing about the memo. All of this has come to light because Trump became president. It started out as a Russian collusion investigation. It appears that someone claims or thinks that the Russians influenced the outcome of the election. There has yet been a person to come forward and publicly state that the Russians had influenced the way they voted. Each country tries to influence the outcome of elections in other countries. The reason is that they want a friendly government. As to Russia, think about who they would view as a friendly government. Would they, The Russians, view a possible friend as one who had sold to them 20% of its Uranium(you know the stuff that is used in nuclear weapons)? Or would they, the Russians, view an unknown as a possible ally? Who do you think they wanted to be president HRC or DJT? Very few trust the unknown.

If HRC had won the election and became president it is highly unlikely that any of this would have been known much been released to the public. Trump would have lost and there would be no allegation of Russian influence. That alone should anger people as much as, if not more than, what has been revealed in the memo. That means that the bureaucrats and the agencies could have operated without impunity as weapons against the citizens. They could have their “insurance policies” against unwanted results in elections, and no one would be the wiser. The “secret society” remark has yet to be explained. When one “desperately” does not wish for one to become president, how far will his and/or her desperation drive them? Likewise when one desperately wants to be president, how far will his and/or her desperation drive them? How desperate were and are some people? How far were or are they willing to go?

I also understand that there are people in government and out of government who are more than willing to betray their country. I might point this out there are many ways in which one could betray their country. Most do it for financial gain, some do it to hide and cover-up things they have either done directly or been a willing participant in, sometimes both.

Looks like some people need to look up the definitions of Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity. All Americans have their own political basis, they support a political candidate, most do not let their bias interfere with their job. Unfortunately by what is in this memo their political bias became their job. I really want to see the democrat memo.

What is happening in and with government today is pretty close to if not exactly what Patrick Henry had warned about.

The best we can hope for at this point is a ripple effect. All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

As I recall there was a country in the 1930’s and 40’s that had used government against and to spy on its own people. Some sort of “secret society” or “secret police” as I recall. I wonder what the level of apathy was in that country.

On a side note. We have another government shutdown looming, yet the republicans managed to find time to go on a retreat, the democrats go on their retreat next. The drama of D.C. continues. A tough fight or a retreat and the politicians choose to retreat.

DEO VINDICE

Since when….?

This is the first part of a series.

Since when did doing the right thing become based on diminished public interest? What I am referring to here is reports of the current AG saying that he would not pursue based on diminished public interest referring to the Clinton e-mails and all that was associated with them. It is not just the e-mails but all of the wrongdoing in the previous administration.

While it may be true that public interest has diminished somewhat. It does not mean that the public is no longer interested in the matters the AG made reference to. Nor does it mean the level of frustration has lessened at the apparent incompetence with the AG and the DOJ, in this administration or the last. What the diminished public interest means is that people have passed away patiently waiting for someone to come along who would do the right thing and pursue the corrupt in government even if it went or goes all the way to the top. Not just pursue but prosecute.

It would appear that the current AG has taken a new view of polling, public opinion is based on polling. It seems that he believes the results of polling. If the majority says on thing then it must be true. The poll must be right. I remind him of the polls just last year that had HRC up by several points and in some cases by double digits. If the polling data was correct up until last November’s election HRC would be sitting in the White House and his ass would still be sitting in the Senate.

Doing the right thing should be a matter of conscience not at matter of public interest(polling), whether it has diminished or not. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

It seems that your reluctance to pursue these matters indicates that there is something to hide. We as citizens of this Republic have a right to know the truth about those in our government. You, Sir have an obligation to the citizens of this Republic.

Now is the time to embark on a Great Crusade, a crusade for truth.

DEO VINDICE