A failure of Democracy

So what do you call it when a democratically elected leader is forced out of office through violence? Yup, it’s called a “coup” from the “coup d’etat” which is evidently French for “stroke of the state” which like the “coup de grace” is cutting off the head of the beast.

So, can we all agree that a coup is a failure of Democracy? Yes? Good.

Democrats absolutely love Democracy right? It’s right there in their party title, right? Strangely enough, liberals (aka Democrats) talking about a coup has become rather common lately.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/3-ways-to-get-rid-of-president-trump-before-2020-impeach-25th-amendment-coup/

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/what-would-happen-in-the-minutes-and-hours-after-a-coup-in-america

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/will-donald-trump-be-assassinated-ousted-in-a-coup-or-just-impeached/

And insanely enough, a liberal saying that it is Trump who is getting ready to pull a coup (which is a bit insane, because he isn’t going to replace himself through force) https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.t640tpey2

So….why do people who supposedly love democracy have lots of wishful thinking about a coup going on right now?

“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?” Animal Farm, chapter 9, by George Orwell

Well, here we are. The “Comrade Napoleons” of the world have decided that we have decided wrong, and are now publicly fantasizing about removing the “wrong decision” from power by force. I’m not sure if this is one of the “Five Stages of Grief” or not, but so far it looks like the Ctrl-Left is simply talking through their power fantasies as a way to forestall getting to “acceptance.”

On the other hand, should any of those nitwits be serious about a coup…well I guess they’ll just have to destroy Democracy to save it. Although the Ctrl-Left didn’t like the idea of “having to burn the village to save it” in Vietnam, and made that a cultural touchpoint to show exactly how evil those vile military people were.

It’s a good thing Liberals suck at tactics. If they were serious about this they wouldn’t be talking in an open forum. Kinda like those all the “Threepers” who never seem to be in the right place and time to disobey any un-Constitutional orders. People who are talking, generally aren’t shooting. And I think that’s a good thing.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

The Superpower Tango

One of the more persistent techniques used by Russian Information Operations is to have government officials release contradictory statements.

“Russia will not stand for this NATO aggression!” Says minor party member.
“The presence of even an additional brigade along Russia’s borders is meaningless, purely symbolic.” Says different minor party member.

In both cases, Russia needs both statements to be absolutely true, because at some point in the future the Russian leader can say, “We’ve always said that these NATO exercises were pointless and ineffective” OR “We’ve put up with too much NATO aggression and now the west must accept the consequences of their own actions!”

The point is that the “truth” that Russia wants in the future needs to be supported by the statements in the press now, and Russia is more than happy to take both sides on any issue to ensure future flexibility.

With that in mind, Secretary of Defense Mattis made his first official phone call as SecDef to the head of NATO and reassured NATO that America still stood with NATO. This is even at the same time that President Trump has never rescinded his statement that America wouldn’t automatically come to the aid of an ally that “wasn’t paying it’s fair share.”

This schizophrenic policy duet is probably the best possible response to Russia’s current situation, being aggressive towards neighbors and losing money due to the international sanctions. At some point the current “status quo” must either break into a “thaw” or into “war.” Russia going broke and having a huge internal upheaval is an extremely distant third option.

So at some point in the future Trump can say, “I and my administration have always offered an olive branch to Russia.” or they can say “We supported our NATO obligations to their fullest in the fact of immanent Russian invasion.” By owning both sides of the issue SecDef Mattis and President Trump have diplomatic wiggle room for the future.

This is totally at odds with Obama’s policy which was much more defined, and therefore much easier to manipulate.

At the nation state level, relations between the US and Russia is best understood as a dance where both are trying to lead. The struggle is to keep dancing rather than stop dancing. Throughout the Cold War this “tango” between US and Russian leadership took on great subtlety and years would pass between changes in the beat, key, or tempo.

Now…whether Russia responds well to a dose of it’s own IO tactics remains to be seen. Russia has always had longer serving leadership than the US, so Russia can afford to play a longer game. Possibly the best outcome from the Trump administration is just to kick the can four more years into the future.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Addition to the blogroll, Home Hardening

It’s a new blog, but the author is good (a transplant from a much longer running personal blog) and the content is relevant to anyone who owns a home.

https://homehardening.wordpress.com/

Remember, security is just a measure of time and effort that an attacker must spend in order to gain access. So every time you can do something inexpensive but effective for security, you should.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Marines look longingly to Army tank procurement, back off Jarheads.

Not to poke fun at my amphibious brethren, but the entire USMC is a microcosm of the train wreck that the F-35 has done to the DOD as a whole. The USMC tank force is dwindling, and with it the USMCs ability to take ground in the face of a mechanized enemy resistance. I don’t care what the air power advocates say, a tank in your formation NOW beats an aircraft on call.

There is another lesson to be learned here, and I’ll get to it. All quotes from : https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2017/02/marine-armor-2050

The solution to the issues of contemporary enemy armor, modern ATGMs proliferation, and the continued requirement for high-speed survivable lift is to develop FOVs from the ACV and to influence the Army when they develop a new main battle tank. An ACV FOV gives the Marine Corps options to accomplish the mission. As the Nation’s scalable middle-weight force, the Marine Corps needs armor options that can accomplish the mission at hand.

The sad part here is that the “Light Tank” that the US Army needs is going to not be the same light tank that the USMC needs.

The heavy armor option will remain the M1A1 MBT for the Marine Corps. The M1A1 life cycle has been extended to the year 2050. In the meantime, the Marine Corps needs to continue upgrading its tank ammo; fire control system; lighten its logistical footprint; and its sights, survivability, and communications suite to remain relevant on the modern battlefield. The U.S. Army leadership is discussing the possibly of developing a light tank to exponentially increase the effectiveness of infantry formations.

BG Scott McKean, USA, Chief of Armor/Commandant, stated, The Army should also innovate with direct energy, a new infantry fighting vehicle, and a future tank with autonomous capabilities … I saw firsthand the impact a light tank brings to an infantry force and how it exponentially increases the formation’s effectiveness …

It is essential that the Marine Corps begin to influence and show interest in investing in the development of such a tank.

Well…the writing is on the wall for the USMC. The Corps desperately needs a tank that is truly expeditionary, which is something that the M1A1 is not. It needs a 500 gallon tanker truck to keep one M1A1 going per day, and anyone who has ever looked at the load out of what a Marine Expeditionary Force looks like understands that there isn’t any “extra” to go around servicing something that sucks jet fuel, well like a jet.

So the USMC wants to get their hands in the “Light Tank” business.

Not just “no” but “fuck no, hell no, don’t ruin this for us the way you ruined the Joint Strike Fighter program.”

The only thing I can think of worse than a “Joint Strike Fighter” for three services is a “Joint Expeditionary Tank” program. You want another “Joint Light Tactical Vehicle” that meets EVERY SINGLE REQUIREMENT set forth just so you can bitch about how it’s “too big (wah) and takes up too much valuable space on our boats (wah wah)!”

Seriously Marines, I’m all for jointness. But I’ve also seen the USMC develop its own programs and then not buy them because “it costs too much and might set back the F-35 program! (waaah!)” I’ve seen the Army cancel both the XM8 Buford (the Armored Gun System) and RAH-66 Comanche because the programs weren’t delivering and the threat environment didn’t emerge.

The USMC only needs a few hundred tanks at most for training and to put on the boats. The Army has a need for thousands of tanks, but the “light tank” numbers are also only a few hundred, possibly up to a thousand. This is a “small potatoes” purchase in the grand scheme of things.

But…here is where the “joint” part would kill it.

The Army needs the “Light Tank” to be air drop capable, but will settle for C-130 transportable to a forward landing strip.
The USMC needs the “Light Tank” to swim over the horizon to the shore, but will settle for taking a ride on a ship to shore connector.
The Army and USMC need the “Light Tank” to be IED protected (which kills air drop and amphibious capabilities).

The USMC would be better off taking another look at the M60A3 upgrade path http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/raytheon-can-turn-old-american-made-m60a3-tanks-killing-16142 Because even though it doesn’t give them swim capabilities, it cuts the weight on the ship and fuel consumption on the shore. The additional 25mm cannon on the tank would really add to the infantry support options. And they would be cheaper to operate and maintain, the only thing the USMC wouldn’t get is a swim capability, but that’s what upgrading the LAV-25s to a LAV-III Amphib with 30mm or larger would give them. So more boom, less fuel.

The Army is playing “just the tip” with industry on the “light tank” or “mobile protected firepower” specifications. LTG McMasters (ARCIC) and MG Piatt of the Army Rapid Capabilities Office (ARCO) are not really looking at fielding a light tank or “mobile protected firepower” anytime soon, other than the 30mm “Dragoon Variant” Stryker.

And the 30mm Stryker may in fact end up being the “Light Infantry” support package of the future, if the next generation beyond the Dragoon variant can meet the other requirements. A 30mm cannon with airburst munitions is a damn fine support weapon, and the “CROWS-J” variant (common remote operated weapons station, javelin) gives any vehicle with a CROWS system an anti-tank capability.

I think that the Army and USMC should really look at not doing the “joint” thing this time around.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Links to things worth reading

Sorry for the lack of original content… it’s been a roller coaster of a week or so and I’m struggling to find my give a damn. So here’s content from others that I think should be shared.

The best explanation for the shift in American politics I’ve read, and why the Liberal tears are so delicious this time around: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/368084.php

Why due process and real investigative work is important, and how “sex crimes” don’t deserve their own special rules that do away with due process:  http://saveourheroesproject.org/soldiers-story-survival-falsely-accused-sexual-assault-u-s-army/

Crytpocurrency, getting better and better for the people who want a monetary option outside of government control: https://www.wired.com/2017/01/monero-drug-dealers-cryptocurrency-choice-fire/?mbid=social_fb

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Russian Influence

Much has been said about “Russia hacked the election!” by Hillary Clinton supporters who would rather blame a foreign power for her loss rather than admit that she was essentially unelectable even to her own party which is why they had to rig the primaries.

Here is how influence operations work. A secret peek behind the curtain if you will.

In any population, you have people who are firmly on “Side A” and people who are firmly on “Side C” and you have some people between those two that are not firmly decided on A or C.

If you want to influence people to side A or to side C, who do you spend your time and effort to influence? The people NOT firmly A or C. Because those people have already made up their minds, and will not be influenced by you. You must focus your efforts on the people who have not made up their minds yet, who by definition are able to be influenced.

So… ask yourself this simple question, “Going into the election last November, how large was the undecided population? Was it big enough to sway the election one way or the other?”

If you sit down and do a rational analysis of who voted, and how they voted, it is very hard to come to the conclusion that any foreign power was able to influence the election.

Do you really want to know who set the conditions for Donald Trump to win the election? The DNC and the RNC. They put together the absolute worst pair of presidential candidates in living memory and ensured that third party candidates would get more press than every before as the people who weren’t firmly D and weren’t firmly R looked for any way to save out of that horrible binary choice.

Stein and Johnson soaked up plenty of votes in the states where they were on the ballot. And in some states Trump won over Hillary by less than the amount of votes cast for Stein and Johnson. If we assume that all Stein voters would have gone Hillary, and all Johnson voters would have gone Trump, the election outcome wouldn’t have changed. Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, North Carolina and Florida all went to Trump by fewer votes than Johnson and Stein received.

Does this mean that third parties cost Trump the election? No, not really, what it did was set the stage for Trump to walk away with a plurality of votes the way Bill Clinton did in 92. Had the DNC and RNC not played such games of chicanery during the primaries they wouldn’t have alienated the undecided middle ground.

As of right now, it looks like a gamble the RNC won. But I predict it will be a Pyrrhic victory as Trump will prove uncontrollable by the party, and Republicans in Congress are stuck dealing with the blowback because for better or worse he ran as a Republican.

So, in the light of how influence works, it should be very clear that Russia did not in fact “hack the election” as there simply wasn’t an undecided ground that was able to be influenced. If there was, the third party votes would have been less than 2% of the popular vote instead of 4.9% of the popular vote. Almost one in twenty voters said, “I hate Clinton, I hate Trump, I’m going to waste my vote and save my conscience.”

But all the polls going in were for Hillary right? Well yeah, if you’ve been on social media at all you’ll know that it is a pretty unpopular time to be a Trump supporter. But “Dewey Beats Truman!” is a historical event, not just an internet meme.

I’m positive that Russia did their best to influence voters through their national information operations goals, but that is essentially all above board and legal. It certainly isn’t “casus beli” unless we also want to set the legal precedent that “Voice of America” is now an act of war. I’m also positive that Russia saw Trump as someone more in line with their national interests, especially after attempting to work with Hillary when she was SecState. However, that Trump won? Well, that surprised a lot of people.

Comments are open.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Compare and Contrast lessons learned from the 20th Century

The advice of a “Yale professor”  http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/how-to-defend-our-democracy-from-fascism-20170113

Americans are no wiser than the Europeans who saw democracy yield to fascism, Nazism, or communism. Our one advantage is that we might learn from their experience. Now is a good time to do so. Here are 20 lessons from the 20th century, adapted to the circumstances of today.

1. Do not obey in advance.

Much of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then start to do it without being asked. You’ve already done this, haven’t you? Stop. Anticipatory obedience teaches authorities what is possible and accelerates unfreedom.

2. Defend an institution.

Follow the courts or the media, or a court or a newspaper. Do not speak of “our institutions” unless you are making them yours by acting on their behalf. Institutions don’t protect themselves. They go down like dominoes unless each is defended from the beginning.

3. Recall professional ethics.

When the leaders of state set a negative example, professional commitments to just practice become much more important. It is hard to break a rule-of-law state without lawyers, and it is hard to have show trials without judges.

4. When listening to politicians, distinguish certain words.

Look out for the expansive use of “terrorism” and “extremism.” Be alive to the fatal notions of “exception” and “emergency.” Be angry about the treacherous use of patriotic vocabulary.

5. Be calm when the unthinkable arrives.

When the terrorist attack comes, remember that all authoritarians at all times either await or plan such events in order to consolidate power. Think of the Reichstag fire. The sudden disaster that requires the end of the balance of power, the end of opposition parties, and so on, is the oldest trick in the Hitlerian book. Don’t fall for it.

6. Be kind to our language.

Avoid pronouncing the phrases everyone else does. Think up your own way of speaking, even if only to convey that thing you think everyone is saying. (Don’t use the internet before bed. Charge your gadgets away from your bedroom. Read.) What to read? Perhaps The Power of the Powerless by Václav Havel, 1984 by George Orwell, The Captive Mind by Czesław Milosz, The Rebel by Albert Camus, The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt, or Nothing is True and Everything is Possible by Peter Pomerantsev.

7. Stand out. Someone has to.

It is easy, in words and deeds, to follow along. It can feel strange to do or say something different. But without that unease, there is no freedom. And the moment you set an example, the spell of the status quo is broken, and others will follow.

8. Believe in truth.

To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.

9. Investigate.

Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on your screen is there to harm you. Learn about sites that investigate foreign propaganda pushes.

10. Practice corporeal politics.

Power wants your body softening in your chair and your emotions dissipating on the screen. Get outside. Put your body in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar people. Make new friends and march with them.

11. Make eye contact and small talk.

This is not just polite. It is a way to stay in touch with your surroundings, break down unnecessary social barriers, and come to understand whom you should and should not trust. If we enter a culture of denunciation, you will want to know the psychological landscape of your daily life.

12. Take responsibility for the face of the world.

Notice the swastikas and the other signs of hate. Do not look away and do not get used to them. Remove them yourself and set an example for others to do so.

13. Hinder the one-party state.

The parties that took over states were once something else. They exploited a historical moment to make political life impossible for their rivals. Vote in local and state elections while you can.

14. Give regularly to good causes, if you can.

Pick a charity and set up autopay. Then you will know that you have made a free choice that is supporting civil society helping others doing something good.

15. Establish a private life.

Nastier rulers will use what they know about you to push you around. Scrub your computer of malware. Remember that email is skywriting. Consider using alternative forms of the internet, or simply using it less. Have personal exchanges in person. For the same reason, resolve any legal trouble. Authoritarianism works as a blackmail state, looking for the hook on which to hang you. Try not to have too many hooks.

16. Learn from others in other countries.

Keep up your friendships abroad or make new friends abroad. The present difficulties here are an element of a general trend. And no country is going to find a solution by itself. Make sure you and your family have passports.

17. Watch out for the paramilitaries.

When the men with guns who have always claimed to be against the system start wearing uniforms and marching around with torches and pictures of a leader, the end is nigh. When the pro-leader paramilitary and the official police and military intermingle, the game is over.

18. Be reflective if you must be armed.

If you carry a weapon in public service, God bless you and keep you. But know that evils of the past involved policemen and soldiers finding themselves, one day, doing irregular things. Be ready to say no. (If you do not know what this means, contact the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and ask about training in professional ethics.)

19. Be as courageous as you can.

If none of us is prepared to die for freedom, then all of us will die in unfreedom.

20. Be a patriot.

The incoming president is not. Set a good example of what America means for the generations to come. They will need it.

With the Advice of Mike Vanderbough:

What I Have Learned From the Twentieth Century

With thanks to Schoolmasters Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot

From the Liberty Pole
June, 1999
by Mike Vanderboegh

As an amateur historian of this sad century whose time is almost up, I would like to reflect upon six lessons I have learned in my studies. Folks who wish to live free and prosperous in the next century would do well to understand the failures of the past.

LESSON NO. 1: If a bureaucrat, or a soldier sent by a bureaucrat, comes to knock down your door and take you someplace you do not want to go because of who you are or what you think — kill him. If you can, kill the politician who sent him. You will likely die anyway, and you will be saving someone else the same fate. For it is a universal truth that the intended victims always far outnumber the tyrant’s executioners. Any nation which practices this lesson will quickly run out of executioners and tyrants, or they will run out of it.

LESSON NO. 2: If a bureaucrat, or a soldier sent by a bureaucrat, comes to knock down your door and confiscate your firearms — kill him. The disarmament of law-abiding citizens is the required precursor to genocide.

LESSON NO. 3: If a bureaucrat tells you that he must know if you have a firearm so he can put your name on a list for the common good, or wants to issue you an identity card so that you be more easily identified — tell him to go to hell. Registration of people and firearms is the required precursor to the tyranny which permits genocide. Bureaucrats cannot send soldiers to doors that are not on their list.

LESSON NO. 4: Believe actions, not words. Tyrants are consummate liars. Just because a tyrant is “democratically elected” does not mean he believes in democracy. Reference Adolf Hitler, 1932.

And just because a would-be tyrant mouths words of reverence to law and justice, or takes a solemn oath to uphold a constitution, does not mean be believes such concepts apply to him. Reference Bill Clinton, among others.

The language of the lie is just another tool of killers. A sign saying “Arbeit Macht Frei” (Work Makes You Free) posted above an execution camp gate does not mean that anybody gets out of there alive, and a room labeled “Showers” does not necessarily make you clean. Bill Clinton notwithstanding, the meaning of “is” is plain when such perverted language gets you killed. While all tyrants are liars, it is true that not all political liars are would-be tyrants — but they bear close watching. And keep your rifle handy.

LESSON NO. 5: Our constitutional republic as crafted by the Founders is the worst form of government in the world, except when compared to all the others. Capitalism, as well, is a terrible way to run an economy, except when compared to all other economic systems. Unrestrained democracy is best expressed as three wolves and a sheep sitting down to vote on what to have for dinner. The horrors of collectivism in all its forms — socialism, communism, national socialism, fascism — have been demonstrated beyond dispute by considerable wasteful trial and bloody error. Leaders such as Bill Clinton who view the Constitution as inconvenient and ignorable are harbingers of tyranny.

LESSON NO. 6: While nations do not always get the leaders they deserve, they always get the leaders they tolerate. And anyone who tells you that “It Can’t Happen Here” is whistling past the graveyard of history. There is no “house rule” that bars tyranny coming to America. History is replete with republics whose people grew complacent and descended into imperial butchery and chaos. Dictators count on the assistance of people who are complacent, fearful, envious, lazy and corrupt. While there is no “Collective guilt” to the crimes of a regime (all such crimes being committed by specific criminal individuals), there is certainly “collective responsibility” — especially for those who watch the criminals at work without objecting or interfering.

A French journalist of the last century wrote: “I must speak out, for I will not be an accomplice.” Evil tyrants require, indeed they depend upon, willing and unwilling accomplices — good people who would never think of harming a soul themselves. Lenin called such people “useful idiots.”

De Tocqueville observed that “America is great because America is good. When America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” As related in the Old Testament, God judged nations based upon the immorality and criminality of their leaders. Entire peoples were scourged because of their failure to remove corrupt leaders.

As we move from the Twentieth Century into the Twenty-First, we should take care to remember the ancient story of Sodom and Gommorrah. If we wish to avoid the butchery of the Twentieth Century and the righteous judgment of the God of our antiquity, we would do well to keep our Bibles, our Constitution and our firearms close at hand.

Let me just say first off that Item 13 “Hinder the One Party State” from the Yale Professors list is just pure hypocrisy from the “Reality has a Liberal slant” crowd. However just because someone is a hypocrite doesn’t mean they are automatically wrong. In this case, every time a single party controls Congress and the White House they piss off America through crappy governance. In fact, the longest stretch of single party rule in the last four decades was under GWBush from 2001 to 2006. Clinton enjoyed a Dem majority from 92 to 94, and Obama a Dem majority from 2008 to 2010. We’ll see just how long President Trump can make a Republican majority last, and my prediction is “until 2018.”

Compare, both lists are inherently calling on Americans to first and foremost be GOOD people. Both lists are about empowering an individual to resist an unjust and immoral government.

Contrast. The Yale professor is much more touchy feely, and offers no practical advice on the use of force. Government is force, and like fire sometimes you must fight fire with fire. You’ll lose more often than not, but sometimes there are no good options.

Biggest contrast, Mike conveniently told you who to kill. Unfortunately he didn’t tell you how to do it. Reading Mike’s list makes it sound like some idjit will come alone instead of with overwhelming numbers in order to force your compliance.

That being said, there is plenty of public debate from the left and right about the potential utility, or lack thereof, on an armed populace being able to prevent “tyranny.”

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/is-the-u-s-government-so-powerful-that-the-second-amendment-is-pointless/

https://www.armedwithreason.com/militia-myths-why-armed-populations-dont-prevent-tyranny-but-often-lead-to-it/

https://www.popehat.com/2015/12/07/you-are-not-going-to-resist-the-government-with-your-guns/

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/22/12559364/second-amendment-tyranny-militia-constitution-founders

Here’s old Roland’s thoughts on the matter. I don’t need a gun. I can blow up a water tower, or electrical substation, or bridge, or internet exchange point, or dam, just fine with some home made explosives. Every “insurgency” isn’t about winning on the field of battle, it’s about making the government irrelevant. I don’t need guns to do that, no one does anymore. Sure guns are useful tools, and would make shooting up a substation much easier http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304851104579359141941621778 but  some cheap RC cars or quadcopters loaded with explosives would have done the job just as good.

The problem with preventing tyranny isn’t in having access to guns. Nor is it in having good intentions and being a good and moral person (although that has a whole bunch of different benefits). The problem with preventing tyranny is that the fracking idiots on the Left and Right are so interested in pointing out the leaders on the opposite side as “Tyrants” that anyone who can spot an actual tyrant is drowned out of the conversation.

Donald Trump is no more a tyrant than Bill Clinton. Or GWBush. Or the iWon himself President Barack Obama. In fact, of all of them, the only one in the bunch that I wouldn’t mind sharing a beer with would be the one that spent his entire career being mocked by the Mainstream Media, GWBush. He wasn’t a good president, but he was a good man, and the same can be said for Jimmy Carter. Carter was a horrible president, but a decent human being.

And there lies the rub, people who are “good presidents” like Reagan or Clinton (or Nixon and Kennedy before them), are often really horrible human beings. I have no doubt that Donald Trump is an absolutely abysmal human being, you don’t have three marriages to trophy wives by being a loving husband.

So, do you know who WOULD have been a much higher risk to become a Tyrant? Hillary Clinton. She had the undying and unyielding support of the media. She had the approval of her own conscience to make the world a better place. She was convinced that she needed to be a strong leader to give the girls of America a strong female leadership figure. Literally all tyrants start out as populists with massive public support through the mainstream media. Before anyone brings up Pinochet, he was a Dictator, and he gave up power, and no one saw him coming.

So there you have it, a bunch of leftists all concerned now that Trump is set to take office, who would have continued to run with the “why won’t you cousin humping rednecks in flyover country just get a clue and let us do what we know is best for you?” liberal program are utterly shocked to find that “resistance to tyranny” might have some uses after all.

In other news, people who focus on the gun are artificially limiting their options for opposing actual tyranny.

Comments are open, speak your mind.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment