POLITICAL: A book on Wilson’s Colossal American Mistakes

Friday, April 28, 2017


A Fine Book Untangling Complexities Of World War I,
And The Related And Colossal American Mistakes
By Daryl Plunk April 22, 2017

*** begin quote ***

In 1916, Wilson loudly was proclaiming that the “Great War” between the “Allies” (led by London and Paris) and Germany did not threaten American interests and hence did not require US involvement. Through 1917, Wilson finessed an 180-degree pirouette and turned the nation toward war against Germany.

*** and ***

The Versailles Treaty imposed on Germany a humiliating unconditional surrender, and onerous political and economic burdens, that today widely are considered unfair and vengeful. Yet, Wilson allowed the US largely to be left out of the treaty negotiations, since the British and French snobbishly felt the US had not sacrificed enough blood and treasure to earn equal participant status in the peace talks. Wilson accepted this indignity, largely in return for Allied backing of his “League of Nations” concept and creation.

*** end quote ***

So here we have an avowed racist from Princeton, who truly lied the country into war (i.e., ran as a peace candidate and took us to war), that should be reviled, not revered, as an American President.

Then, he allowed an unfair peace to be imposed on Germany that sowed the seed for WW2.


And, the “League of Nations” was so lame that it eventually gave us the “United Nations”. Another disastrous contribution. 

And, folks wonder why he’s NUMBER TWO on my worst list?


# – # – # – # – # 

POLITICAL: South Burlington School District revolt

Monday, April 24, 2017


*** begin quote ***

A Mascot Mess 

When it comes to rebellious and cantankerous behavior, Vermonters go back a ways. They didn’t join the original 13 colonies in the Union until 1791, four years after the Constitution was signed. So in 1961, when education leaders in South Burlington decided that a newly built high school should be nicknamed the Rebels, nobody batted an eyelash. However, when the Board of School Directors decided the Rebels moniker had offensive connotations and needed to go, those Vermonters who didn’t agree reacted like, well, Vermonters. To protest the decision, opponents have twice helped vote down the nearly $50 million school district budget. The controversy heated up in 2015 when the Burlington Free Press newspaper dug up photos of cheerleaders and sports teams posing alongside Confederate flags. The school board has convened a new 40-member “South Burlington School District Mascot Selection Oversight Committee” to study the matter.

*** end quote ***

Hey, I don’t particularly care WHY they voted down the Gooferment Skrules budget. I think that’s it is ALWAYS GOOD when we starve the Gooferment Eddykation Complex.

# – # – # – # – # 

POLITICAL: “Voter Fraud” is a fact of political life

Sunday, April 16, 2017


Let’s Get Real About New Hampshire Voter Fraud

*** begin quote ***

NH1 News seems to be the only statewide media, other than bloggers, interested in the possible loss of a US Senate seat to voter fraud.

Finally, Secretary of State William Gardner is beginning to open the door to the possibility of voter fraud affecting statewide elections in NH. It is a breakthrough even though the numbers he uses are not what they seem.

*** and ***

Is anyone investigating the people who showed up to vote same-day with zero identification? That would be the ones who we take a picture and affidavit from? That wasn’t clear from Gardner’s interview.

I think if we used real numbers, instead of conveniently dodging the total amount of out-of-state voters, the number of people we need to investigate might be a bit higher than 458.

When this investigation is over it would be nice to see the names of the 480 ghost voters who might have swayed a US Senate race in NH.

Oh, but that public information is not public, nor is our taxpayer-payed-for statewide voter database, as they are in many other states – so how would anyone find out?

*** end quote ***


When I think of “voter fraud”, I think of Chicago, Philly, NYC, or LA. Not NH.

Maybe that’s a global issue.

What’s wrong with requiring voter registration in advance and a photo id requirement?

You can’t get on a plane nowadays without it.


# – # – # – # – # 

POLITICAL: Why do I identify with the underdog?

Thursday, March 9, 2017


What happened AFTER Rorke’s Drift: Remarkable untold story of an epic battle between British soldiers and an African tribe which brought a definitive end to the Zulu War is revealed 140 years after the conflict 

  • Little know (sic) battle between British and Bapedi tribe at Fighting Kopke was a definitive moment in the Zulu War
  • Despite being outnumbered more than three to one and having far less weapons, tribe fought to the very end 
  • Bapedi were finally defeated by Brits and their Swazi allies under the command of Sir Garnet Wolseley in 1879

By Keiligh Baker for MailOnline
PUBLISHED: 07:30 EST, 6 March 2017 | UPDATED: 09:43 EST, 6 March 2017 

*** begin quote ***

The remarkable story of an epic battle between British soldiers and a vastly outnumbered African tribe which brought a definitive end to the Zulu War has been revealed in a new book.

The little known Battle at Fighting Kopke was overshadowed by the story of the British defence of Rorke’s Drift which took place 11 months earlier and was later immortalised in the film Zulu.

Following the British annexation of land north of the Vaal River in South Africa in 1877, the native Bapedi tribe had been at loggerheads for two years with the British.

The conflict came to a head in a fierce four day battle at Fighting Kopke where the Bapedi were finally defeated by British troops and their Swazi allies under the command of Sir Garnet Wolseley in November 1879.

*** end quote ***

Tremendous casualties and everyone “loses”.

Hard to feel sympathy for the British and their Empire. Built over the bodies of their fellow human beings.

For some reason, I empathize with the underdog.

I wonder if someday, Americans will be fighting in their own homeland. Hopelessly against insurmountable odds?

It reminds me of: “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . .” — Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Hope I’m wrong, but it might be against our “own” Gooferment someday!

Can’t happen here!

Remember the Japanese internment, Waco, and Ruby Ridge?

# – # – # – # – # 

POLITICAL: What are the politicians and bureaucrats trying to hide

Saturday, March 4, 2017


California Supreme Court: No, you can’t hide public records on a private account
“Open access to government records is essential.”
CYRUS FARIVAR – 3/2/2017, 2:28 PM

*** begin quote ***

The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that state and local officials must disclose public records even if those “writings” are held on private devices or accounts. The City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara had argued that such records could be exempted from the California Public Records Act.

*** end quote ***

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

That’s why I wouldn’t make a good politician and bureaucrat. I’d put ll my email on the blockchain.


# – # – # – # – # 

POLITICAL: Peaceful “Secession” — an idea who’s time has come

Saturday, February 18, 2017


California Secession? How it Could Happen in Practice

*** begin quote ***

The following article was written by James R. Rogers and originally published on the Library of Law and Liberty website.

Rumblings of secession talk in California, as in Texas a few years back, raises the question of how, if ever, a state might secede from the Union without war.
The legal issue surrounding secession in the Civil War era concerned whether states might unilaterally secede from the Union under the Constitution. The answer, underscored by force of arms and the U.S. Supreme Court, was a definitive “no.”

That states may not unilaterally secede from the Union, however, does not mean there is no route by which a state might secede peacefully, and even legally. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has said there is, albeit, saying it in dictum. In holding in Texas v. White (1869) that Texas did not truly secede from the Union, Chief Justice Chase, writing for the majority, nonetheless identified two routes by which U.S. states could peacefully secede: “There was no place for reconsideration or revocation [of Texas’s entry in the Union], except through revolution or through consent of the States.”

*** and ***

Much of the commentary related to California’s budding secession movement suggests that a constitutional amendment would be necessary for the peaceful, lawful secession of a state from the union. I don’t think so. Chase’s dictum regarding the “consent of the states” does not suggest the need for constitutional amendment to authorize a state’s secession.

Rather, to implement this route for the legal secession of a state, Congress would need only to adopt enabling legislation spelling out the process by which consent of the states would be obtained. Congress could stipulate the states’ consent would be provided by some proportion of state legislatures – half of them, or two-thirds – adopting a “secession consent” resolution or something. Or Congress could authorize states to consent to a state’s request to secede through special state-level conventions or by direct vote in state-level referenda. Or perhaps Congress could provide state consent through a vote of the Senate, or a vote of the Senate and the House, or some combination of the above.

Whatever process Congress might adopt for secession need not be as onerous as the process required to adopt constitutional amendments: Adoption of enabling legislation need not require a supermajority vote in Congress (as constitutional amendments require). And, at congressional determination, the proportion of states sufficient to provide the “consent of the states” could be fewer than the three-fourths majority required to ratify constitutional amendments.

*** end quote ***

Very interesting.

Now that the Liberal Left in California has learned what “executive power” in the “wrong hands” means, they have become interested in secession.

I’m reminded of a quote: “Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man’s rights as easily as a king can.” Mel Gibson as the character Benjamin Martin in the movie The Patriot http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0187393/quotes

We’ve seen that the Congress has become corrupt and doesn’t faithfully execute its duties by creating the new Fourth Branch of Gooferment — the REGULATORS!

So perhaps, like the old Soviet Union it’s time to dissolve the Union and let partisans go their own way in peace. If the “blue states” want reform around welfare for all — fine. If the “red states” want to reform around “traditional values”— fine. California should be allowed to go its own way in peace.

Hopefully, it would NOT be like what happened in India and Pakistan initially, but things seem peaceful now. 

So too, can the RED USA and the BLUE USA live in peace together … …  finally.

Dona Nobis Pacem

# – # – # – # – # 

POLITICAL: Distrust all politicians; not just the ones you like

Saturday, January 28, 2017


Glenn Greenwald: Trump will have vast powers. He can thank Democrats for them.
Liberals liked executive authority as long as Obama wielded it. Now they’ve set a precedent.
By Glenn Greenwald November 11, 2016 Glenn Greenwald, co-founder of the Intercept, led the NSA reporting that won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for the Guardian.

*** begin quote ***

The problem such advocates encountered was the same one they’d faced during the Bush presidency when trying (and failing) to persuade putatively small-government conservatives to oppose these expansions of presidential power: namely, many people are perfectly content to have such authority vested in leaders they trust, and fear them only when a politician from the opposing party wields them.

*** end quote ***

What goes around comes around.


You’d think the R’s would have learned when they term-limited the Presidency to prevent FDR from getting a FIFTH term. And the first one so limited was the R Ike. Laugh!

So too, those that gave GWB43 a free hand, hated it when BHO44 had that “hand”.

Now the D’s, who gave BHO44 a more freer hand, now hate it when DJT45 get to wield it.

The Dead Old White Guys hated a powerful executive as much as they did the King and / or “democracy”.

“We, The Sheeple” should learn that lesson. All powerful executives is DISASTROUS to freedom and liberty.

Hopefully, everyone opposed to such — liberal, conservative, and libertarians — can reign in “the King”!


# – # – # – # – # 

%d bloggers like this: