Sunday, September 29, 2019


Why would we automatically bestow the mantle of saint on the person who dons the mantle of whistle blower?

When somebody betrays the trust placed on them by their employer without quitting that employer in disgust, what makes their activity unchallengeable?

When somebody passes on information they overheard to the whistleblower in the interest of defaming the one who was overheard, why is that not espionage?

Why should they not be sought ought and terminated?
Their employment, that is.

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Thursday, September 19, 2019

Biden Gaffes and Team Trump's Response

So here's this ad by the Trump campaign mocking Joe Biden's gaffes and suitability.

My question is: "Why is the Trump Campaign out to sink Joe Biden so early?".

Do they believe that he is the best candidate to beat Trump?

It would seem so from their efforts.

He has said recently that maybe he attacked Lizzy Warren too early.

Is she his choice of of opponent?

What do you think?

Sunday, September 15, 2019

Common Sense Gun Control Fair to All Sides.

There have been some horrific crimes causing multiple deaths in this country involving "guns".

Unfortunately, there is a group of people who want to disarm all Americans because they want to disarm all Americans.

They are using these horrific shootings (which are statistically negligible when compared to deaths from alcohol, vehicles, and medical malpractice, particularly when you remove gun death and violence from large urban centers that already practice onerous and arguably unconstitutional gun control) in their efforts to disarm all Americans.

Let's ignore those people for right now. They are bad actors. mountebanks and disingenuous frauds with questionable motives, most presumably to subject the citizenry to a greater level of control than only guns. They are quite fond of "population control" of the re-education camp variety.

Let's assume we are talking to rational people who are trying to limit gun death for compassionate reasons, people who do not want to limit the rights of innocent citizens.
People who support "red-flag" laws and "universal background checks".
Seemingly rational reactions to a problem that are actually part of a slippery slope to the ends of the first group: disarmament of the population.

Let's posit that universal background checks should obviate the need for "red flag" laws.
Now we've eliminated the problem of  subjective complaints leading to unfair confiscations and denials of constitutional rights.
How often would these background checks be performed so that a person who passed a check does not pose a threat later should they decline in capacity below the acceptable limit?
Annually? Is that reasonable? Every gun owner facing an annual mental health checkup?

Now, how do we keep universal background checks from becoming a gun registry that could lead to the aims of the first group again? One that doesn't discriminate against a large portion of the population?

Since there are people who engage in homicide not involving guns, but vehicles, knives, hatchets, bombs (already regulated heavily), and martial arts, would it not be less discriminatory if we were to subject everyone to annual background checks?

It's the logical conclusion that cannot be escaped. This would catch people before they commit crimes, which it seems is the goal of the those proposing background checks.

But what do we do with someone we determine could, and I emphasize "could" hurt someone else?

We should lock them up for the safety of the rest of the citizenry. All of them.

It's common sense gun control.

And if you want some informative analysis, listen to The Drift Radio Show.
I'm biased, but people tell me it's good.

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Consistent Stupidity

Democrats want you to give up
* Your soda straws
* Beef
* Inexpensive Fuels
* Air Travel
* Freedom to say what they don't agree with
* Your guns.
Why is the last any less ridiculous than the others?

Saturday, August 24, 2019

War By Other Means

I've been reading an article in the Atlantic.
by Joseph W. Sullivan
Former Staff Economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers

I don't remember World War Two.
I wasn't alive then.
I have seen enough newsreels, movies and read enough history to know that America knew it faced a threat.
The threat was on two fronts.
The Pacific and the Atlantic.
Japan provoked the war by attacking the U.S. at Pearl Harbor.
Did they do this because they were just a bunch of belligerent meanies spoiling for a fight?
The Japanese were a militant society that felt that they were entitled to control the Pacific Economic and Political sphere.
They wanted to control all the trade in that sphere.
This put them at odds with the United States who had a large economic presence in the Pacific and didn't want that infringed upon.
The Philippines were an American territory and in our sphere of influence, but the Japanese felt entitled to that action.
There was a conflict in trade interests between us and Japan.
They were putting pressure on us and we reciprocated.
This is simplistic but a valid summary.
Eventually, we demanded that they pull out of China, which they had invaded.
China had been one of our markets, and in the Depression of the 30's, you didn't want to lose market share.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor at that.
That's how wars start.
Hitler (and Mussolini) only screwed up by honoring their treaties with Japan, otherwise we not have gone to war with them.

Well, as they say, history may not repeat itself, but it rhymes.
We are in a trade war with China.
That word "war" is not a light one.
China has a huge military capacity and is growing it (like Japan was) and ours is not as strong as we need it to be.
Our Navy (our military projection in the Pacific) is ill-prepared for war.
Our ships in the Pacific are becoming more prominent for colliding into other ships and making costly mistakes in critical situations.

No mistaking it, we are pushing the Chinese, hard.
Elbows out.
Just like in the 30s.
Yet should "something" happen, I doubt we'd be fighting a two front war this time.

However, as you may have noticed, China is a dictatorship.
They are under stress on their home front, but they don't have elections of the voting sort.
They can enact policy that may impact the home front, but they expect their people to suck it up and bear it. For the motherland.

In WW2, we had a national unity against the threat.
Scrap drives, rations, patriotic fervor, national resolve.

Today, we have political factions questioning the wisdom of not caving into Chinese demands.
Willing to continue the game of cashing in now, neglecting the threat on the horizon.

Should a Joe Biden replace Trump, make no mistake, it's back to placating the Chinese.
Hell, the Clintons were giving them our secrets, whether as president or Secretary of State.
Hillary's emails were (no exaggeration) being forwarded to China!

So, are the Chinese manipulating our upcoming national election by escalating the Tariff War?

Can we convince the American People of the long term threat to our nation (our economy, sovereignty, well-being) or will they cave?

I talked about this topic on The Drift Radio Show Saturday.