America's Anne Frank

The murder of this 20 year old girl is the result of the same process that let Anne Frank be murdered.

Blame a group of "others" for every problem you can think of.  It sure saves the trouble of doing any work to really solve such problems.

Demonize those "others".  They are responsible for all bad, they are dirty, they spread disease, they cause crime, they are dangerous, their ways are not ours!  That makes them less than human.

When your soldiers and police start to kill them, it is not "murder" but "self-defense".  Because resisting being sent to the Warsaw Ghetto is an "attack" just like entering a country to find work is an "invasion".  Thus shooting such in the head is "self-defense".

If the populace can put up with that for awhile, and even be told that to criticize it makes on less of a "good German" or "patriotic American", then you can start with the round ups.

After the round ups, well, you have to keep them somewhere, right?

Sadly, we've already got so far as the "round ups" and the keeping them "somewhere". 

Only one step left.  Will we even now back away from it?  Or must we fear our brothers and sisters seeking freedom and opportunity so much that they must all die?

The AR-15 versus a 100 year old six shooter

"Oh, my goodness, the AR-15 MILITARY ASSAULT CARNAGE DEATH MACHINE can shoot thirty rounds in 15 seconds!  How can anyone 'need' such a weapon of death?"

While no weapon should be banned, the wrong one is being sought for ban here.  In all the cases that people are getting upset about, the firing is going on in close quarters, like a school.

A six shooter - a plain old six shooter, like a poor man might have carried back in the 1800s - can do as much damage as that AR-15.  It wholly depends on the shooter, not the particular weapon.  This should be obvious - it's like how you can go to Lowes and buy the cheapest to the fanciest hammer, and the only real difference will be what the guy hammering brings to the table.

If a carpenter is using the cheap hammer, he's going to do better than me using the fancy one.  And if two novices are using a fancy and a cheap hammer, their performances will still be comparable - for crap.

But what does being "limited" to a six shooter mean when compared to an AR-15?

Well, it means that you can get all the way up to the school without being detected, handguns being easy to conceal, AR-15s not so much.

It means you can draw and aim it faster, as it is lighter and less bulky than that dreaded AR-15.

It means that it will NEVER jam, no matter what, a claim that no AR-15 or M-16 could have made for it.

It means you can aim just as well, as everything in your target environment is going to be within fifty yards, unless your "rampage" is being conducted in the middle of an empty football field.

It means you can shoot just as many.  Oh, of course dropping a thirty round clip and slamming in another one is quicker, but we're speaking in terms of "seconds" not "minutes".

Major Nidal Hasan, the shooter at Ft. Hood

Killed 13, Wounded 30.  With a handgun.

You could fire six shots with a six shooter, drop the shells, slam in a reloader, and be back firing in, just off the cuff, two seconds.  Sure, with practice.  Which means that while the AR-15 guy is firing off a round per second, taking thirty seconds to go empty, the six shooter guy needed an extra 8 seconds to fire off the same number!

Now, I know that most of you only know about shooting from movies, but believe me, in any real combat environment in which accuracy is being sought, no one is firing one a second anyway.  They acquire the target, they fire, the pause, the acquire another target, they fire - so 8 seconds is making no difference in ultimate "kill counts" for the times these shooters are "active".

And if any wish to pipe up about how "What if they aren't acquiring targets, but just shooting indiscriminately into a crowd?"  Then those few reload seconds still aren't making much of a difference, especially as the odds are is that most will be wounded, as opposed to killed.

See, the reasons why real soldiers don't spray bullets indiscriminately is because that doesn't work very well for killing.  It's why the "full auto" feature of the military's M-16 is really rarely used.  In fact, I'd almost say "never" used.

So please don't comment back that "Well, hur dur, 8 more seconds, someone could kill a few more kids!"  Bullets aren't magic, and you can't have it both ways.

Either the guy is an expert marksman, in which case he can take out a high number of kids no matter what weapon he is using - making a ban of any pointless.  Or he's not a marksman - making a ban of any pointless.

Modern Conservatism is Racist

Did you know that many years - decades even - that Conservatives used to be in favor of small and limited government, and an upholding of the Constitution?

I know that's hard to believe for any born after the Carter Administration, but it's true.

In the old days, like the fifties and sixties, the Conservatives were against the practices of Totalitarianistic Communist regimes.  They despised Universal IDs, travel permits from place to place, suspension of civil liberties, Iron Curtains, all the things that made such places rightless hell-holes.

Our government was in a quandary.  What was a fascism-loving government to do when so many of the producers and workers of the nation were all conservative like that?

Well, they figured they'd scare the conservatives out of those views.

Conservative:  Only the Soviets require State IDs!
Government:  But hey, you know who is voting illegally?  Brown people! 
Conservative:  Okay, we need State IDs!

This worked for everything.

Conservative:  I'm not showing any papers!  And you ain't searching me!  This ain't Communist Russia!
Government:  But Brown people did 9/11!
Conservative:  Okay, the TSA and 100 mile Constitution free zones are fine!

Conservative:  It was Reagan that made them there Commies take down that Wall!  Because, Freedom!
Government:  You know who comes here, steals jobs, steals welfare and dates your daughter - er, spreads diseases?  Brown people!
Conservative:  We need to build a Wall!

So here we are.  A strange inversion took place in the last fifty plus years.  Now the hippy dippies of the sixties who were all pro-Socialism are the ones screaming about protecting the Constitution and not turning our nation into a Totalitarianistic hell-hole.  And the conservatives are the ones agitating for everything that made the Soviet Union the Soviet Union!

Oh, don't get me wrong, the Left is hardly perfect, and hardly is blameless.  But at least when they give up rights, they give them up for some noble sounding ideal or the other, not because they're told that some Brown person is out to get them!

Now I know, I know - some conservatives are saying, "We are not racists!", and I do know many conservatives who are NOT racist at all.

But you know, in speaking of the bulk of the conservatives that you hear of online, in the news, and such, well, they all look and act pretty racist. 

Yeah, yeah, I get it - the remarkable love of the Confederate Battle Flag is due to the conservative's deep and abiding love of history, so long as it's a very specific four year period of history involving Brown people in chains.  Not so much do they know or care about other times in history.  I mean, have you ever seen a good ol' boy with the flag that was carried up San Juan Hill during the liberation of an island of Brown people displayed on the back of his pick up truck?

No, not the big one.  That red and white one at the far right.
That's heritage.  Unknown to any conservative you're likely to have met.

And yeah, yeah, I get that any opposition to Affirmative Action is due to the incredible love of exact fairness that burns within the conservative heart.  So long as it's the fairness that keeps others (Brown others) from getting an extra boost, but not the type that keeps the conservative from inheriting tax free, benefiting from gerrymanders and getting legacy bumps for their kids.

And yeah, I get that this is all over their over-riding love of pure Laissez-faire Capitalism.  So long as there can still be fascistic bailouts, quantitative easings, tax breaks and other dodges for their boys, but none of this "minority preference" stuff for others.  Brown others. 

And I get that a lot of this is their sadness - and righteous anger - over the many plunderings for our welfare state - well, the welfare that goes to others.  Brown others.  The welfare for veterans, police, their own grandparents, themselves, that kind of stuff is fine, and not even "real" welfare.  They earned it.  No one else apparently ever did.

And I get that even on stuff like statues, that it's that same love of history and heritage - if we mean that same four year period involving slavery, and the statues are to those who betrayed our nation and fought for the State's rights to enslave Brown people.  I never hear them speak in support of having statues of Hirohito or Tojo or Fidel or Saddam.  Or Sitting Bull.  Or Malcolm X. 

What does that all mean?  Well, yeah, it still means that I know conservatives who aren't racist.  But I think even they should fairly admit that on the whole, taking the broad view, an outsider from Mars, or another country here on Earth, or even just "outsiders to the system" like anarchic old me, could be forgiven for seeing a smidge of racism coloring the whole Modern Conservative Movement.

I mean, how else is it that on every issue that comes up, the bulk of conservatives - always for the noblest of reasons, of course - are on the side of that which hurts Brown people?  Always on the side of that which annoys Brown people?  Always on the side of that which tends to demean, distress or be destructive of Brown people?

Admitting that the Left never saw a policeman do a thing that they didn't find to be wrong - are the Modern Conservatives any nobler for never having seen a policeman ever do a thing that they couldn't justify?  Yeah, I'm speaking of the previously unmentioned tendency of conservatives to - while claiming that they need to be armed in case the government ever turns on them - endorse and support the police no matter how outrageous any of their actions look on video tape.

Conservative:  We have to have guns to stay free, if only the police have guns, that there is a police state!
Government:  Brown people are running wild in the streets, we must do something!
Conservative:  Give unlimited power to a militarized police, with no meaningful oversight or accountability! 

See?  Again, sure, it's not about racism, the conservative is only worried about "inappropriate protests".  Or "criminals" who won't instantly obey the police.  True, they didn't mind Cliven "Whitey McWhite" Bundy illegally occupying Federal land and holding off the police with guns...somehow that was okay.  But Brown people taking a knee at a football game...wow, how angry they were at how disrespectful that was to their beloved "boys in blue".  Brown people blocking traffic?  Remember the calls for them to be run over and killed?

But there's no racism? 

I'm crying foul. 

Yes, yes, I still know individual conservatives who are not racist.  But the movement as a whole, this "Modern Conservatism", is by any reasonable standard overlaid with racism.  Overlaid, infused, stuffed with, drizzled with, baked in.  This may not be the individual "non-racist conservative's" fault, but it sure is not the fault of the liberals, either. 

It is, in fact, the conservative's fault as a whole.  It is on they as a whole, and each one individually to fight to get rid of the racism inherent in the views that are being displayed to the world.  The individual non-racist conservative needs to take back his own movement and get conservatism back to it's Goldwater Glory days of minimalistic government and iron clad Constitutions.

Frankly, I see far more of old-school conservatism (the good kind) in the Libertarian Party, and to be more frank, most non-racist conservatives I know would do themselves a favor by leaving the now thoroughly disgraced Republican Party and entering the Libertarian Party.

Likewise, though for a whole batch of different reasons, I'd say your average Liberal/Democrat would do better to leave the Democratic Party and join the Green Party. 

But back to the conservatives, please, do something.  Leave the party for a cleaner one, or stay and reform, but whichever you do, please understand and accept how it all looks.  It is not on any liberal, no matter how goofy they are.  And it sure isn't on me the anarchist. 

It's the conservative's movement.  It's on them how it looks.  And it looks racist and terrible.  Each individual thing could be - and will be - argued.  Plausible sounding reasons can - and are - trotted out for each odd racist looking thing.  But past a certain point...past a certain point...past a certain point long since past...the whole looks racist, and realistically, pretty much is racist.

There's just too many examples.  It's like the guy late for work each day.  Sure, each individual reason he has is great, and may even be true.  But golly gee, by the 23rd time, no one is going to care any more, are they?  If they care even that long?

And no one cares, past the two dozenth "explanation" from Modern Conservatives about how even though more terrorists come from White Canada, it's Brown Mexico that we need a Wall with, because something or other, blah blah, some of their best friends, blah blah.  It looks racist.  It sounds racist.  It has the effect of being racist.  Past the many examples displayed for the world, only some of which I listed here, we all just throw up our hands and declare that it is racist.

Not on you, if you're a conservative reading this.  Just your movement.  It's only on you what YOU choose to now do about it.  Excuse it the more, step away, or step up.

You donate more than Trump

According to an article from the New Yorker, back in September of 2016, "the public records indicate that over the past quarter of a century, he (Donald Trump) has given away less than $5 million of his own money.  According to his own estimate, he is worth in excess of $10 billion.  If we take him at his word, that means his charitable contributions come to about 0.05 per cent of his fortune, or five cents for every $100."

Had Donald become more generous since then?  To listen to his press secretary, one would think so.

Trump has recently donated his quarterly Presidential paycheck of $100,000 to charity.  He has so far donated all his Presidential quarterly paychecks to charity.  Yay, Trump.  His press secretary said this was due to his "compassion" and "patriotism".  And certainly $400,000 per year sounds like a lot of compassion and patriotism. 

But, well, how much compassion and patriotism does that work out to?  You know, compared to your average Joe Citizen?

First, we must determine how much $400,000 is to Donald.  Not easy, but doable.  We know that he has claimed to be worth $10,000,000,000. 

As to the "income" off of that we can only guess.  Donald isn't as forthcoming as other Presidents, and won't disclose his taxes.  But we can guess.  The average interest rate on a savings account is six percent.  So that's at least $600,000,000 that Donald is receiving in income per year.

I say "at least" as most businessmen have their money invested in ways that give them a substantially higher rate of return than just the average interest rate.  They sure aren't bringing in less, or they'd just give their assets to the bank and make that six percent!

To then find the percent of giving Donald is doing, we have to take the $400,000 of annual giving and divide that by the $600,000,000 of annual income.  This does not work out to ten percent, like some churches encourage.  It does not work out to 1%.

It works out to .00016, or 16/100ths of 1%.  Less than the previously cited .05, or instead of a nickel per $100, 1.6 pennies per $100.

So how much would Poory McMinimumwage have to give to feel as much of a pinch as Donald does?

A minimum wage worker is going to bring in $15,000 per year - well, before taxes and withholding, but let us go with that.  If we do the math, the man making minimum wage would have to give $2.50 per quarter, for a whopping $10 in a whole year, if he wanted to feel as much pain in giving as Donald does.

Yes, really.  I'm suspecting then that there is an awful lot of "compassion" and "patriotism" among the least of these are brethren.  A minimum wage man flipping a single quarter into the offering plate each week at church would be giving MORE of his time and effort than our President is.

An alcoholic bum, showing up at an AA meeting once per month and putting in the buck for coffee each time, is giving MORE of his time and effort than our President is.
 
Looked at another way, the minimum wage worker would have to work one hour and fifteen minutes to match Donald's generosity.  Same with you.  So take your annual income, divide it by 50 weeks in a working year, and divide that by 40 hours in a working week, and that's your "hourly".  Multiply that by 1.25, and that's how much you have to give to match our President's "compassion" and "patriotism".

And if we assume that no one reading this earns more than $250,000 a year, then so long as you donated at least $156.26 then you've out donated our President.  And I know many, including myself, who while not earning a quarter of a million per year, donate more than $156.26 per month. 

Let's admit it then.

Our President is - as has been said before by many - the stingiest and least giving billionaire in American history.  And if his donations are to measure - as his press secretary said - his "compassion" and "patriotism", well then...

...I'm sure that press secretary is correct. 

Another Four Star Poser

Four Star General Troy Nehls - more often referred to as "Sheriff" - is in the news for how he posted on facebook a threat to arrest a woman for expressing a political opinion that the General found offensive.

In making this threat to kidnap and hold a random citizen against her will, the General lied and pretended that the District Attorney had backed his desire to do this. Fortunately for the 1st amendment, and that nameless citizen, the DA denied having backed General Nehls.

Unfortunately for her, she had a warrant for something else, and so he picked her up on that.

This makes sense, if each star represents one inch.

But as always in these matters, my issue is not so much the idiocy and tyranny of America's Sheriffs, which is already so well documented by so many others, but with the aspect of police militarization that gets the least attention.

Yes, we all know about how the police think they are soldiers, because of their idiotic habit of referring to their fellow citizens as "civilians". Yes, we all know about how the Department of Defense sells these wannabe soldiers a variety of military vehicles, weapons and gear so that they can play that they're soldiers and use tanks against student protesting with a sit in. Yes, we all know how police love to wear camouflage or black so that they can look like they're invading Germany, or being invaders from Germany.

But my focus is on the practice of a Sheriff or Police Chief compensating for whatever inadequacies he has by self-awarding himself the fantastical rank of "General". And not just General, but invariably "Four Star General".

For those who have not served, which sadly is many of those self-promoted "Generals", it only takes one star to be a General. Technically, that is a "Brigadier General", but they are addressed as "General". After that, two stars is "Major General", three stars is "Lieutenant General" and finally, four stars is simply "General". All are addressed as "General", though.

It is true that there are ranks above even four stars. But let's focus on the "four star" rank, which is for most all matters the highest rank you'll ever see or hear of. It is a very, very high rank. So high, in fact, that many famous Generals in history never even made it to that rank.

Like three star General Lee, who fought against the United States. Or three star General Grant who defeated him. General Grant was General of the entirety of the Armies of the United States at the time, and managed to do so without that fourth star.

You know who else never lived to get to that fourth star? Some three star General named "Washington". But he never had the awesome responsibility of keeping the peace in Fort Bend County. Or making sure that naughty women didn't write sassy comments about those in power. No, three star General George Washington only founded our entire nation!

Here's a fun fact. By law, the number of Generals that may exist in the military is limited to 80 for the Marines, and a bit over 200 a piece for the Army and Air Force. And of those Generals, only 25% of the of them can be higher than two stars.

But as to Counties and Cities? Oh, my. Literally thousands of "Generals" abound, and not a ONE of them has anything less than FOUR STARS and some of them have even gone "Full Five", which is so absurd that I do not even have the means of adequately describing it. I mean, they could declare themselves Sith Lord of Podunk County and it would be no more or less ridiculous.

Not that four stars isn't as ridiculous as a Sith Lord. I mean, when you self-award yourself more stars than the guy who founded the nation that your toy county is in, yeah, it's gone too far.

I've said this before, but let us all attend carefully here. In the old days, when men were men, and had physical endowments that did not require fancy compensatory titles, a Colonel was the top rank a civilian could self-award. And only under very strict conditions. Not easy to fulfill conditions.

You had to be able to recruit 500 citizens and provide for each of them. Horse, rifle, uniform, the works. If one could do that, then one could be regarded as a Colonel of an irregular Militia. And in those less formal days, that could be glided over to an actual rank of Colonel in the regular Militia - the Army. Though not any more.

Sheriffs are NOT Colonels, not even of an "irregular Militia", as they most assuredly do not provide for the men under them, nor do they usually have as many as 500, nor can they even support themselves. They are supported by taxpayers, who pay for their salaries and the salaries of the men under them. All of them, from the Sheriff to the Deputy to the third assistant paper pusher are CIVILIANS and any semblance of military rank is a courtesy only, and not to be took to meant they are soldiers.

Soldiers are men trained for combat to defend against enemies of the State. Police are civilians tasked with arresting people for misdemeanors and issuing traffic citations. Because - surprise - ALL citizens of the United States over 18 have the right to arrest for felonies. Yeah, really. The only extra thing cops have that you don't is the ability to lawfully detain a person for a misdemeanor or ordinance violation.

There is NOTHING about that job that in any way equates to military service. Ranks like "Sergeant" and "Lieutenant" and "Commander" are fine as far as they go, as these are lower down ranks for those who are performing jobs that bear a vague similarity to the military tasks of small unit leadership and coordination between various sub-groups.

Thus a "Sergeant" may be leading a group of "Police Officers" or "Deputies" that would roughly compare to a Squad of Privates and/or Corporals in the Military. A "Lieutenant" would oversee several such Squads, though in some cases, it may mean only that the man is now a Detective, with direct command of none.

"Commanders" derive far more from the "Watch Commanders" of old, literally men who coordinated the guards of the city gates and city walls of walled cities of the Middle Ages and ancient times! They commanded the guys who make sure Visigoths don't storm the gates and sack and burn the town! Or nowadays, they supervise those who patrol to make sure that no one is driving with mean words on the back of a pick up truck in Texas, where - sensitive Conservative Snowflakes that Texans are - words really, REALLY hurt!

Especially words on a pick up truck drove by a liberal woman. That's darn scary. Bet she wears shoes and votes, too.

And THAT is what FOUR STAR GENERAL Troy Nehls is doing with his time that he laughably imagines to earn him a rank GREATER than that of our Founding Father!

My point is that if you want to start de-militarizing the police, start not with tough things like breaking up a sweetheart deal between defense contractors, the DoD and the police departments/Sheriff departments of 3,500 counties and tens of thousands of cities.

No, start instead on stripping these overgrown boys of their falsely assumed rank that they amazingly figure they've somehow "earned". Because no matter how much some reading this may LOVE law enforcement and "LEOs", there is NO cop or deputy in all of history that has out earned GEORGE WASHINGTON!

I doubt that we can get any laws passed on this - yet - but if we can all at least be aware of this then maybe with laughter and contempt we can shame all these "four star Generals" out of this nonsense!

Worth a try!

An Easy Question

Clive Bundy using guns to take over Federal property is an acceptable form of protest in conservative world.

But an unarmed black man kneeling is just waaayyyy out of line.

At least we ain't disrespectin' the sanctity of the football field.

I'm glad to hear that it's not about race - but I'm suspecting why some might see that kind of difference in reaction and suspect that it is.

I would enjoy hearing one day what kind of protest is acceptable

to conservatives. I know that if it's a protest for a conservative cause, then it's "all the usual".

But what is the acceptable form of protest if a black were to think that we need to have a national discussion on police brutality?

No, no, I'm not asking what they should NOT do in their protests, heaven knows we've heard plenty about the inappropriateness in them being in parks like the Tea Party or on streets like Martin Luther King did or in public in general like any other protest either.

And the inappropriateness of them waving their arms or waving signs or yelling loud or swearing or chanting. We know no traffic is to be blocked, like the patriots did in the Boston Massacre, or violence used, like in the Boston Tea Party.

We know it should not disrespect the flag, the nation, the military, the veterans, the police, the President, or the government in general. It should not disrespect anything that any conservative respects.

It should not be while at work or on the clock or if too much money is earned or if their salary is too high or if it's a game or just a private event in general.

I mean, great, we're all good now on the "don'ts".

Just need to know now how and where they can. Any suggestions would be appreciated. If they'd not be laughably ineffective or fall far short as to what whites get to do, that'd be even better.

But come on. It's not about race, right? So this should be an easy question.

Quit it.

Every time the blacks protest - by marching in a street or standing on the corner or sitting in the park or kneeling at a ball game - I hear the same thing.

"They need to protest differently!" is what all the comments boil down to.  The complaints are that they are blocking traffic, or that they are too rough in having their faces dent the riot batons of police, or they are interfering with those who wanted to get to work in 12 minutes instead of 17, or when they avoid all that and instead just kneel, that they are disrespecting the flag and our veterans.

This last makes me say, "Quit it".

First off, let me re-iterate the absurdity of claiming that your problem with black protestors is their "method" of protesting.  I've yet to hear of any method of a black person protesting that doesn't have some conservative - non-racist, of course - telling me why that way of protesting is bad.

Apparently, to protest appropriately, a black person needs to remain at home, preferably under his bed, duct tape over his mouth, quietly thinking - well, thinking good thoughts, that in no way would disrespect anything.

Second off, I'm tired of this whole, "We stand because of this" thing, where they then drag in a photo of a dead veteran.  Really?  Really?

So the flag of any nation must always be stood for?  Never protested?  Nazi flag, Soviet flag, North Korean flag?  There is never any freedom for any in those nations to refuse to honor those flags, because to do so would dishonor the soldiers who fought under those flags?

But let us leave aside the flag for the moment - which is but a piece of cloth, and cannot be "disrespected" - and focus on the soldiers.

Can we examine - without laughing - the absurdity of claiming that soldiers who in theory fought for freedom are somehow upset with blacks exercising freedom?  Can we also examine the absurdity - and disrespect - of millions of non-veteran sports watchers claiming to take offense on behalf of the soldiers dead and alive?

I have two words for all non-veterans who attempt to silence black people out of "respect" for me:

Quit it.

I didn't serve so you could sit through the National Anthem at home while complaining about a black guy not standing.  I didn't serve so you could tell me what I served for.  I didn't serve for the "freedom" to shut up and never offend you.  I didn't serve so that black people could be killed by the police and the rest of us make excuses.

And I didn't serve so you could go on and on about your great love of a flag you never bothered to fight for, or even offer to fight for.  Don't tell me what you'd do in a "Red Dawn" situation, I can clearly see what each of you non-veterans did when you were 18 and had every chance to show that fire, that fierceness and that fondness of the flag.

Jack crap.

And as for my fellow veterans - well, I know you know better.  There was never a platoon or squad yet that ever was unified in political views, nor was it even about that.  We served - and some fought - so that we could all be as wrong and as dumb as we cared to be back home.

So if you care to - I'd be the last to insist - why not lay off those guys who kneel?  I personally think that we all served and fought to defend corporate interests and make rich bastards richer, but if you truly came away from your term of enlistment thinking that it was all for freedom, then here's a novel idea - let those guys have their freedom to kneel.

You'll find that your body, your mind and your soul are made of sterner stuff, and they kneeling will do no lasting damage to you.

Finally, quit pretending - veterans and non-veterans - that this is over some employment contract or how they are "on the clock".  There's not a one of you that doesn't spout off your dumb political opinions - and everyone else's opinions on politics are always dumb - every break, every lunch, and oft times every hour.

If you can stand at a water cooler and blather about why Hillary sucks - and yes, we all know she does - then some guy pre-game can kneel during a song.

Police are killing minorities in disproportionate numbers.  Your kids are going to remember you being upset by that - or being upset at how a black person displays grief over that.

Leave me out of it either way.

Since you ask...

As a veteran, I think the usual line is that we were fighting for freedom. And to uphold the Constitution. I'm not as sure of that at 48 as I was at 18, but let's go with that.

Apparently the President, and some of my friends, are now imagining that what I was really serving for was to make sure that our nation was safe for conformity, and to make sure that sportsmen would be forced to stand and honor the flag against their will.

Um, no. That wasn't what I was serving for. Sorry for the confusion. I was serving because I honestly believed back then that we had freedom, and that it was worth preserving.

"Freedom" meaning that it was okay for people to think or worship or vote or speak or sit or stand differently than I or others.

Let us pause and consider something - how often do we hear criticism of BLM or Antifa for their "violent" protests? And justly so, if and when they are violent, as violence is not a freedom.

But here are some few ball players simply kneeling in peace. Is our democracy too fragile to withstand that? If it is, then golly, we've already lost and have no further use for that flag anyway. Call up Rocketman, we give up.

I also would sharply question - as a veteran - how many complaining actually stand at attention in their living room giving the civilian salute to the flag during that anthem. We used to do that.

I doubt most complaining on facebook do that any more, if they've ever done it a day in their lives.

Let's also remember the story in the Book of Daniel, where King Nebuchadnezzar tried to force everyone to give honor and respect to the image he erected. That - like a flag - was a symbol not of God, but of the Nation-State.

Daniel and his friends were correct to resist being forced to acknowledge State authority then, and Colin and his friends are correct to resist being forced to acknowledge State authority now.

It doesn't matter if you agree with them - heck, I'm not even saying whether I agree with them. But it is their right.

Who do you have to kill to get a statue around here?

Hey, folks, it's Nidal Hasan pictured here, the United States officer who betrayed his oath to the Constitution he had sworn to defend against  all enemies, foreign and domestic, and turning traitor, treasonously killed 13 fellow American soldiers at Ft. Hood!

He's upset with Robert E. Lee, the United States officer who betrayed his oath to the Constitution he had sworn to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and turning traitor, treasonously killed 600,000 fellow American soldiers.

Why is he upset?

Because Lee gets all these statues, and Hasan only gets a prison cell.

"But...but...Amicable Anarchist, Nidal Hasan was fighting for the cause of Islamo-fascism!"

Yeah.  So no statue for him.  Because now all of a sudden you don't mind there being no statues, you figure that history and heritage can get by without monuments when it's an Islamic guy.

But Lee was fighting for the cause of chattel slavery, so how was that better?  And before you cry out "State's rights", yeah, he was fighting for State's rights.

The State's right to legal slavery.

And no, this is not about the "slippery slope" of us getting rid of $20 bills because a slave owner is on them.  Andrew Jackson was known for other things, the "slave owning" was an incidental.  He's on there for being a President, not a slave owner.

Robert E. Lee is LITERALLY in the position of Nidal Hasan.  He is not truly known for anything but his treason against the United States and his facility in killing far more U.S. soldiers than even Hitler managed to.  It's not like he invented corn, but oh yeah, then had some slaves.  Nope.

Nor is Nidal Hasan known for anything but his treason against the United States and his facility in killing 13 soldiers.

Both did so for reasons of "conscience", as if they wrestling with their pwecious-wecious consciences excuses them from their honor and their oath and the law!  Both did so for causes clearly unpopular at the time.  Both did so for causes that were at war with the United States of America.

So why Lee?  Why him and not Hasan?  Is it because Lee killed 599,987 more young men?  Is it because he married into his money and bungled his father-in-law's estate?  Is it for his not freeing his father-in-law's slaves and when some tried to run off, capturing them, jailing them, then selling them to a slave trader that would "have them do their duty" with "firmness" for his financial benefit?

Is it for how prettily he spoke, no doubt with a tear in his manly eye, about how his "honor" compelled him to slaughter so many American teens upon the alter of that supposed "honor"?  An "honor" defined by oath breaking and treason, mayhem and murder?

Ahh, what a darling little martyr Lee was!  How thickly did he lay it on with a war torn nation that would swallow anything for peace!  The slave-owner who opposed slavery, the man of honor who had none, the loyal patriot who betrayed his oath, the lover of his countrymen who killed more of them than any in history!

Does someone wish to pipe up - after a hasty google search - with some over-inflated account of him having participated in our interminable skirmishes and wars with Mexico?  99% of you not knowing of any of those at this moment?  Good luck.  Apologists in vain try to make him of some note before the war, when in truth he was of no such note.

The key difference in the men boils down to two.  Lee killed FAR more men for his "honor" than Nidal Hasan did.  Lee's cause was that of blacks being slaves, Hasan wanted all to be slaves to Allah.

Which then are we giving Lee the statues for?  That he killed more poor American teens, or that owning blacks is moral?

Or are we, after all, going to be told that it was for his great triumph in marching from Veracruz or mapping parts of Florida?

Trump and the 1st Amendment

President Donald Trump has blocked a woman on his Twitter account.  I don't think she is the first, but who knows.  I know that just him blocking one person is enough to bring up a valid issue.

No, not that he has thinner skin and is more easily offended and triggered than the most delicate of liberal snowflakes, though that is patently true.  Conservatives who love to think of their leader as "tough" should do some serious re-evaluating on that one, though of course they will not.

And it's not even the issue about how immature and childish he is in general, both in what he tweets on twitter and how he responds when it's ever dished back.

No, it's a Constitutional issue and a real one.  It's about his violation of the 1st amendment rights of various citizens, of which this model who hurt his wittle itty-bitty feelings was just the latest to be so deprived of her inalienable rights.

What violation?  What right?  Deprived of what?

Oh, my dear conservatives, you who are so able and willing to quote the 2nd amendment in full (and I'm pro-2nd amendment, so don't go there!) don't remember the 1st amendment?

Here you go:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I would draw your particular attention to the "or of the press" and the "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

You see, just like the 2nd amendment is not a right to a musket, but to whatever gun exists nowadays, so the right to a free press and to petition your government is not speaking of a quill and ink on parchment, or the ability to hitch up your wagon to a mule and visit the White House.

If a President - say Barack Obama - had set a policy that said that any of the press could see his press releases, but not Rush Limbaugh, you'd have been furious.  And if a President - say Barack Obama, still y'all's favorite boogeyman - had said that any could call up the White House and petition him for a redress of grievances, except Glenn Beck, you'd have been furious again!

And if any one said, "But hey, Rush can just learn of what the President is saying second hand, so no biggie!" you'd justly be against that, and cry out the louder!  And if anyone said, "Well, Glenn can't call, but he can still email, so he's still okay!" you'd be whining your bottoms off about discrimination and undue burden!

Well, conservatives, it works both ways.  The Whiner-in-Chief has shut out a citizen of the United States from reading of his pronouncements.  Everyone else - save a select few others that frighten him and wound his wittle feelings - can see what he tweets each day at three or four in the morning, but these ones cannot.

And everyone who wants can tweet a complaint against the President and have at least there be some chance of him seeing it, but not this model.  Nor any of those in general that triggered or offended the Donald.

And that not only is unfair, that not only is childish, but it is a bona-fide violation of the First amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

And it needs to stop.

The President of the United States needs to learn what the least Mayor of the least village already learned.  That if you're going for public office, if you're then holding public office, you must be there for the public.  ALL the public, not just those who praise your name to the skies, but those who dislike you, your policies and any and all that you might stand for.

That's the deal, that's the rule, and it's been in place since Democritus and Republicus duked it out for who'd be Mayor of Athens back in whatever century BC!  You're elected by the majority of the people, but you serve the totality of the people.  That obvious fact is obvious.

So.  Our President now needs to use his tiny hands to wipe away his wittle tears and unblock those citizens who wounded him in his buttocks.  If there are some from other nations, he may Constitutionally leave them blocked, though maturity would dictate otherwise.

Or he may resign to the private sector, where you're allowed to ignore others who say things that frighten or upset you.  Yeah.  Really.  And I doubt I'm the only person to have this occur to them, I fully expect some legal scholars to write on this at some point.