What do they have in common?

Red Flag Laws and the current Impeachment Inquiry, what do they have in common? Some would say secrecy and no due process.

Secrecy.

There really is and was no secrecy in the impeachment inquiry unless you count the fact that it began behind closed doors. Even with that the “witnesses” were paraded about in the open. The media seemed to know what they would or might say even before the opening statements were made or questions were asked. Seems like some testimony may have “leaked” out.

It was no secret that the House had launched an impeachment inquiry. It is no secret as to who have been called to testify. Now the impeachment inquiry has moved to the public phase. The whole spectacle is televised and broken up into videos and recordings are made and broken up into soundbites with those on both sides playing the snippets or soundbites that aid their side. The media is right there to tell the public all they “need” to know, “unbiased” of course.

Are red flag cases handled in the same manner? I kind of suspect that the whole process is conducted in secrecy. Witnesses are not paraded about in public. What happens there does not leak out.

The President knew this was coming, it has been in the forefront since the democrats took control of the House. He also knew who testified and knows who will testify. He can watch the spectacle or have others watch it and brief him on what was said or just catch the snippets and sound bites.

Does the person in a red flag case have any idea what is coming his or her way? Can that person watch the proceedings or have others watch it for him or her? Are there any snippets or soundbites? I kind of suspect that the person has no idea what is coming.

Due process.

Is the President right now at this moment getting due process at this stage of the impeachment inquiry? Yes and no.
He does not have his attorney representing him or his interests at the moment, that covers the no part.
He does, however, have the republican members of the House asking questions of the witnesses and there is a staff lawyer, that covers the yes part.

Does the person caught up in a red flag case get due process? The answer is no. He or she is not present at the proceedings, nor is there an attorney present to represent to him or her. In fact only the opposition is present, kind of a one sided trial. The Judge makes the final decision.

While this inquiry is going on the President and his team are preparing themselves.

The person in the red flag case has no way of preparing.

Now moving along to the outcome.
If the House decides to not proceed, that will be televised. The same will be true if the House brings the articles of impeachment up for a vote. The same will be true if the House passes the articles of impeachment and sends them forward to the Senate. The President will immediately know.

The person caught up in a red flag case will only know if the Judge issues an order to seize the persons firearms, and will know very soon. Most likely at a most inconvenient time. If the Judge is not convinced and does not issue the order the person will never know. If the Judge does issue the order, the firearms are seized. He or she gets due process after not before. The person then must go to court in an effort to get his property back. Failing to convince the Judge that he is or she is not a danger to themselves or others will mean that the person will never get their property back, never. By the way the person just lost his or her Second Amendment rights, even though they never committed a crime or had any intention to do so.

By now some of you may be wondering just why I am writing this. Glad you asked.

If you go back to last February and check you will find the President making these two statements or proposals among others.
First. In reference to the school shooting at Parkland and the perpetrator and his interactions with law-enforcement and the perpetrators firearms “Take them away if you have the right or not”.
Second. “Take the guns first then due process”.

So you will pardon me if I do not shed a tear for someone complaining about not getting due process when just last February he was proposing doing away with due process for all legal and lawful gun owners.

They have nothing in common, but they would have something in common if.

Now I could see complaining about no due process if the House held all the hearings in secrecy. Passed the articles in secrecy and passed those articles to the Senate. The Senate did their part in absolute secrecy and convicted the President in secrecy and removed the President. No due process at all. Now the President would have to present himself and plead his case to be restored as President. By the way, he would be pleading to be restored to the same people that had just kicked him out in secrecy. I know that the Office of the President is not anyone’s property, this is just to illustrate a danger of red flag laws.

Is the President going to get a fair shake? I would have to say, NO! Especially when one member of Congress said shortly after getting elected “Now we impeach the mother****er”. How do you think she would vote regardless of the evidence. Not when so many in Congress have already made up their minds and there minds will not be changed regardless of the evidence or the lack of evidence. Not when the media has already convicted him and is doing it’s best to convict him in the court of public opinion.

What if? Part 2

Some talking-heads and pundits on the right are spending a lot of time, energy and ink discussing the possibility of a civil war happening in America and what would be the cause or causes. They seem to think there would be two triggering events. This post will cover the second cause they addressed. It will be based around and about the second amendment.

The major topic today is the banning of so-called assault weapons(ARs, AKs and their variants). Unlike the assault weapons ban of 1994 which grandfathered those firearms already in possession, the new ban would also include those already in possession. The schemes run the entire gambit from a mandatory buy-back to licensing and registration and each democrat candidate in the primaries has a plan.

The lawful gun owners are not the problem. The lawful gun owners in the States that have enacted the most onerous gun control laws have not violently descended on their State Capitols. I have heard of no lawful gun owners resorting to violence when a fellow lawful gun owner has fallen a victim to a red flag law.

As a matter of fact, the lawful gun owners have not caused a problem at the State or Federal level, save for a few misguided individuals in some sort of attempt to make a statement or show support for the Second Amendment. We too have some idiots.

Here is the reason I do not think the lawful gun owners will be the instigators of a civil war. You only have to read this in the Declaration of Independence.
… Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light or transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. …
It would appear that the lawful gun owners are the descendants of some very wise men. The lawful gun owners wait for the next election and hope and pray that wiser choices are made in electing those that would govern.

I again believe the talking-heads and pundits spouting off about a civil war coming about by the right have it exactly backwards.

What if gun control does not become a reality for the left?

If you have read part one you know where I am headed.

If a civil war were break out it would be because the President is not impeached and gun control, the most onerous gun control, measures are not put into law. In that instance the pundits and talking-heads could be correct it would be about impeachment and the Second Amendment?

The end of this post is by no means the end of this series, how ever the title will change.

What if? Part 1

Some talking-heads and pundits on the right are spending a lot of time, energy and ink discussing the possibility of a civil war happening in America and what would be the cause or causes. They seem to think there would be two triggering events. One of the reasons would be the impeachment of the president. I suppose by impeachment they mean a guilty finding and removal from office.

The democrats and their allies in the media have been beating the impeachment drum for a considerable length of time. Some have been beating this drum since election night 2016. The democrat leadership would not venture into these waters until public opinion showed support for impeachment. According to the polls the pendulum swung in favor of impeachment. We now have an impeachment inquiry in the House. A word about polls and polling data. I fail to understand why politicians from either party still trust and rely on polls, given that most all polls had the democrat nominee handily winning the 2016 presidential election. Yet they still site poll results.

The democrats in Congress have pretty much painted themselves into a corner over impeachment of the President. Even if they at some point conclude that they have made a poor choice there is no way they can not bring the articles of impeachment and still manage to save face. They have already crossed the Rubicon on this.

At this point most on the right think and indeed believe that there is no way the Senate will vote to remove the President. You will notice that I said most on the right. I personally do not place that much confidence or trust in the republicans in the Senate. More than one of them wanted to be President and some may be harboring a grudge, after all some unkind words were exchanged during the republican primaries and since. Jealousy and revenge have driven many to extremes.

There is also this to note. The democrat leadership in the House did not go forward until the polls had shown that the pendulum had swung in favor of impeachment. Why the wait? Some democrats believe they already have enough evidence to have the vote. The word ironclad came up the other day, the House would not proceed until there was an ironclad case. So I pulled out Webster’s and looked up the word ironclad, having no obvious weakness. I think they now wait for enough republican support in the Senate to remove the President, there may also be one or two democrat hold-outs.

Let’s say the House charges and the Senate convicts. The President is removed. Will this trigger the civil war predicted by the talking-heads and pundits? Think about it. How often and how many times have the republicans in Congress(House and Senate)disappointed the voters? A provision in the Constitution would have been followed. I do not think this would trigger a civil war, however some isolated violence could possibly break out. It would however guarantee one thing, there would never be another republican elected to a national office, which would lead to total democrat control which would lead to a socialist state.

What if the talking-heads and pundits from the first paragraph have it exactly backwards? Would the President not being impeached lead to civil war, started by the left.

Let’s say that the House, for whatever reason, does not introduce and vote on the articles of impeachment. Many if not most on the left fully expect the House to follow through on impeachment. They will at the very minimum be severely ticked off if the democrat controlled House fails them. How will they react?

The House could charge and the Senate could acquit. Again the leftists will be mightily ticked. How will the leftists react?

It was not the right that were rioting, burning and breaking things. From what I have seen the right, with very few exceptions, has been remarkably restrained for years. The left not so much.

At any rate I am glad I am not in a planning and operations section in any government agency. They should be already deep in the planning of a response.

By choice or force?

The leftists are going all out with their plan to disarm the peaceful law-abiding citizens of this Republic. Quite sure by now everyone, not living under a rock, has seen the clip of the 2020 presidential hopeful saying “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15, your AK-47”. Some in his political party have tried to distance themselves from his statement. I do have to wonder if it is the message they are against or the delivery. Did he say openly what most leftists talk/dream about privately? They might not be able to get the toothpaste back in the tube.

When he used the word “We” he meant the government. So what he actually said was, “Hell yes, the government is going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.

The following comes from the Patrick Henry speech “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” 23March1775.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.

The following excerpt comes from The Declaration of Arms also known as the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, 06July1775
The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the General, their Governor, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants, having deposited their arms with their own magistrates, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honor, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the Governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire to leave their most valuable effects behind.

There is something to note from the excerpt above The word arms is used twice, the word muskets is nowhere to be found.

The citizens of Boston trusted that the General, their Governor, would honor his word(treaty). They were sadly mistaken. Once disarmed they had no means to resist what was coming.

They could have, I suppose, asked or even begged for the return of their arms so they could defend themselves or at least force the General, their Governor, to honor his word. Do you think that a population that had been disarmed would be rearmed?

What happened in Boston that day in April 1775 was perhaps the first recorded example of a voluntary buy-back scheme. The price the government would pay for the voluntary surrender of arms by the citizens was the freedom to depart Boston and with them take the remainder of their possessions.

They traded one thing to gain another and wound up with neither and nothing. Seems like Benjamin Franklin had a quote on that matter. He had another, “Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you”.

There was a quote attributed to Edmond Burke, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it”(the word doomed is sometimes used in place of destined). There is another old adage that fits, “History is a guide post not a hitching post”. History is chock full of examples of what has happened in countries where and when the population, the peaceful law-abiding population, is disarmed. Roundups and exterminations.

It was once said that one man with a gun can control one hundred without guns. If that is true then you just have to do simple math to figure out where this leads, if one can control one hundred, than ten can control a thousand, one hundred can control ten thousand and so on.

The gun control debate is just a part of the overall control issue. Gun control is not about the elimination of arms, it is about controlling who is armed.

Some in government and some wanting to be in government are more than willing to use the force of government to disarm the peaceful law-abiding citizens. Some politicians, the various gun control groups and their allies in the media tell us how much safer we will be if we disarm.

There are only two ways that an armed civilian population can be disarmed.
Choice.
Force.

Can peaceful law-abiding citizens(civilians)trust the government if only the government is armed.

History says no.

Republicans are going to the table with their newfound appetite

Yep, the republicans are going to the democrat gun control table with their newfound appetite for passing gun control laws. It seems odd that the republicans never ask the democrats to come to the liberty table to talk. Ever ask yourself, why? Perhaps the republicans have no appetite for liberty.

Think about it with this. Since the 2010 midterm elections the republicans were claiming to want to repeal the ACA. The electorate put the House in republican hands. They made it appear that the Senate stood in their way. The 2012 general elections came around and the electorate put the Senate in republican hands, they again made it appear that they were still trying to repeal the ACA. The White House stood in their way. the 2016 elections came around and lo and behold the electorate put the White House in republican hands. The objective suddenly changed, it now became “repeal and replace”. They could not even get that done, not enough of their own would back the republican plan. The plan I guess at that time was to repeal the democrat plan and put in place a republican plan. Either way health care would have remained under government control. The way I see it the republicans never had any intention of repealing the ACA.

Now the republicans are going to sit down at the gun control table of the democrats. The democrats will bring with them a list of demands and the republicans will bring with them a list of concessions they are willing to make in the name of cooperation and acting in a bipartisan fashion. The democrats call it negotiating, what it is, is one party making demands and the other party making concessions(appeasement). I seem to remember that was done in history with tragic results. It boiled down to one party surrendering to another party what was not his to surrender.

So what are some of the demands the democrats will be bringing to the table?
1. Bans of a certain class of firearms, reinstituting the assault weapons ban. Making it permanent this time.
2. Bans on “high capacity” magazines. No one has yet come up with the definition of a “high capacity” magazine they will come up with an arbitrary number, probably 10 rounds more or less.
3. Bans on certain types of ammunition.
4. Universal background checks. A background check required for all firearm sales, even between private citizens.
5. A national firearms registry. Registering every firearm in the country.
6. A firearms license to purchase or own firearms.
7. Some type of insurance for firearms owners.
8. A national red flag law.
9. raising the minimum age to buy a firearm to 21.
10. A gun buy back scheme.
I am sure that this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the list demands that the democrats will bring to the table.

So what are some of the concessions the republicans will bring to the table?
1. Background checks, this is a given as was said “we will have meaningful background checks”.
2. A national red flag law.
This too, most likely, is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to republican concessions as “one in the know” said, “other things are possible as long as it does not alienate too many republicans”. By that I suppose he was considering the republican senators, I do not think he was giving any consideration as to how many republican voters were alienated.

Just what is fueling this newfound republican appetite for gun control legislation?

Could it be the never ending polls? It could be, but if anyone has reason to doubt the accuracy of polls it should be the republicans. If the polls would have been accurate in 2016 HRC would be president.

It could be the State of Florida and what happened here after the shooting in Parkland. In the aftermath of Parkland the Legislature and the Governor felt that they had to do something. The legislature and the Governorship of Florida were firmly in republican hands. The legislature passed gun control legislation instituting a red flag law, raising the minimum age to buy firearms to 21 among other things. The Governor signed that legislation into law. Then came the elections of 2018. The State Legislature is still in republican hands, A republican was elected Governor. The same Governor who signed the gun control legislation into law won his election to become a US Senator, defeating an incumbent democrat. Florida was once known as a gun friendly state with the republicans in control of the state government, now Florida is known as a gun control state with republicans in control of the state government. It would appear to some that Florida took on a gun control stance and the republicans who drafted and enacted the gun control legislation did not suffer the wrath of the voters. One thing I would like to point out is that those republican victories for the Governor and US Senator came with a razor thin margin.

Then it could be that the republicans have always had an appetite for gun control. Two things probably stopped them from moving forward.
First. The wrath of the voters. They now because of the events in Florida think that it could be possible to push forward on gun control and not suffer politically.
Second. They could rely on campaign contributions and political support from gun rights groups. Now the larger of the groups is having a “bit of trouble”, the money might not flow in their direction. However there are a lot of gun control groups with a lot of money that will send political contributions to anti-gun candidates and politicians.

The democrats are right now along with some republicans planning the “menu” for the table. The table is set for September. That leaves only two questions.

How big is the republican appetite?

Who is going to pick up the check?

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.

Think about this

One of the twenty democrats on stage during the DNC debates, or one of the uninvited, will eventually be the democrat nominee. Any one of the the twenty debaters would be a disaster for this Republic as well as the others. More may well jump in.

Yep, I watched the debates, both of them. Now many, if not all, will be out doing damage control either for the answers they gave or for past actions, inaction or statements made. Some will even claim that they were misquoted or taken out of context, even though what they said was what they said. Some will claim they are or have been the victim of some sort of ism.

Each and everyone of them think and believe that more government control will cure all the ills in this country, on this the republicans are no different.

On healthcare most of them were trying to sell(pitch)Medicare for all, the basis for which is that the healthcare system is broken and one claimed the deductible was too high. Was not the Affordable Healthcare Act(ACA),aka Obamacare, supposed to fix the broken healthcare system? Could it be that they knew it would not, just a stepping stone to get to Medicare for all(single-payer)? The dream of every liberal politician.

I do feel they are at least a little dishonest in their Medicare for all plan, anybody over 65 will tell you Medicare A covers doctor visits, Medicare B covers hospital stays but only 80% of the total the remainder is covered by supplemental insurance(insurance you must purchase on your own)commonly called Medicare part C, then there is Medicare part D which covers prescription drugs. So just what are they really offering? By the way anybody that has Medicare part B will tell you that part B has a monthly premium. As to part D, all medications are not free sometimes there is a co-pay and some medications are not covered, which means those drugs are paid for “out-of-pocket”.

More than a few raised their hand when asked if they would end private insurance. If private insurance was eliminated how would a person pay the remaining 20%?

Is their plan to cover medical costs, all medical costs, from cradle to grave? If that is the plan how could it possibly be paid for? There is no way taxes could be increased enough to pay the bill.

There was only one person in the first debate that brought up this little tidbit. Hospitals could and would possibly go out of business if they were only reimbursed at Medicare rates. I wonder how many doctors would continue in practice if they were only reimbursed at Medicare rates.

Then again that could be the plan. Drive the hospitals and doctors out of business. Imagine living in a country where the hospitals are all government owned and operated, and all doctors are government employees.

By the way this Medicare for all, single payer or universal healthcare(or what ever it morphs into)will also cover those here illegally.

On education almost all have a plan to give away something. Many want to either forgive student loans or at a minimum help pay down the debt. As to forgiving the debt owed by university graduates, just how could that debt be forgiven? It is money owed, it must be repaid. The plan is to tax Wall Street to come up with the funding for this scheme. There was only one during the first debate that said it would not be right to have those who never attended college to pay off the loans of those who did.

There is also the issue of a free college education, even to four year university. Could a university remain open if all students could attend free? They can not be in earnest if they think this could all be paid for by taxing the rich, Wall Street and Corporations. Could a government owned and operated college and university system with all professors and staff being government employees be in our future? The government already controls the primary and secondary school system as it is. So why not expand the government education(indoctrination)system?

There was one with a plan for universal pre-k. The lady can not be in earnest. She has a plan for universal pre-k while supporting abortion. She supports the killing, in the womb, of those who would benefit from her proposal.

On gun control. They all have some sort of scheme to further encroach on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

This one is just stupid. One has a plan for a anyone who owns a firearm to obtain a gun license. They would have to apply for a firearm license at a local office that would be widely available in urban and rural areas. I have no idea which Constitution this man has read but according to the one I have we already have a firearm license, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment to that Constitution.

Read this carefully. “Keep your pistols, keep your rifles, keep your shotguns, but we can take the most dangerous weapons from the most dangerous people”. I would like to point out that this man is not earnest, how can he say on one hand keep your rifles when he plans to ban and confiscate a class of rifle. Remember back when someone said if you like your plan you can keep your plan? What is he saying? Does he consider the law-abiding American to be dangerous just because they choose to possess a certain type of rifle? Who or what are we a danger to?

That comes to us courtesy of the same Representative who got in an exchange concerning a mandatory buy-back plan(gun confiscation scheme)and starting a civil war and saying that it would be a short war the government has nukes. The same one that wants to ban and buy back every “assault weapon” in the United States and prosecute everyone who fails to comply. He seems to think that most all Americans would comply with this scheme.

Here is another one for you to read, and do read it carefully. “As somebody who trained on weapons of war, I can tell you that there are weapons that have absolutely no place in American cities or neighborhoods in peacetime. Ever. What is he saying? The words “in peacetime” caught my attention.

One claimed she liked the Representative’s plan but said congress was reluctant to act and she would give them 100 days to pull these plans into a bill she could sign. Should they fail at this she would take executive action.

One said “The gun manufacturers are the enemy”. The enemy of who or what? These are the same gun manufacturers that produce the firearms carried by his security detail.

I do wish that one, just one, of these moderators would have the “brass” to ask the following at one of these debates. By a show of hand, how many of you are for gun control. Every hand would go up. Now by a show of hand, how many of you would give your armed security? Do you think any hands would go up?

I am quite sure that security at the debates was many layers thick and armed to the teeth.

As I said above one of this cast of many is going to be the eventual nominee for the DNC. There are some in this cast of many that knew from the outset they did not stand a snowball’s chance in Hades of ever becoming the nominee. They are just there to gain enough support to influence the remainder of the field, pushing them farther left. As one after another bails out those remaining will be seeking their endorsement. I do wonder if the nominee has already been selected.

They spent considerable time bashing the usual big money donors. How do they expect to fund their campaigns without big money donors? Perhaps a wink and a nod, watch what we do not what we say.

If the eventual nominee wins the presidential election the people who were promised all this free stuff are going to demand all of that free stuff. In fact they will expect all of the promises made to be promises kept.

A few more items before I close.

They spoke of the corruption in D.C. Considering how long some have been there they are part of the problem, yet they try to convince the voters they can be the solution.

The subject of police involved shootings came up none of them could state the obvious, which is Stop doing stupid stuff that causes the police to shoot you.

The subject of incarceration came up and again none of them could state the obvious, which is Stop doing stupid stuff that gets your butt sent to prison.

It is not the fault of this nation that people trying to enter this country illegally die in the process. It could be the fault of the liberals for encouraging them to come here by offering freebies upon arrival.