Russian Collusion – Yes! No! Maybe!

Basically I’m just sitting back enjoying the shit show over the Barr report on the so called Russian collusion with Trump. Not that I particularly like Trump, but the fact that all the wack jobs and the MSM are whining and trying to spin things to justify their idiocy is endless entertainment. Really, the Russian Collusion conspiracy is as idiotic as the Obama birthers. Excuses made by wingnuts to explain away defeat instead of looking honestly at the failures of their own political campaigns, tactics, and agendas.

A bonus for me is once again seeing the manipulative, dishonest, arrogant MSM get their comeuppance (as if they haven’t had enough recently with the Convington school and Smollet faux!attack incidents). I’ll trust the MSM again when they stop trying to push whatever social agenda their corporate masters want to foist on America, when they go back to unbiased reporting the news instead of trying to make and shape the news or trying to tell viewers what to think and how to vote. Until then, they can suck it.

Interestingly, the moderate Democrats seem to be taking things well with a measured reaction while the more socialist branch is screaming about releasing the full report. Of course the report will be released, but only after any sensitive information or national security items are redacted (which of course the more rabid fringe will claim is proof of a coverup). Of course, much of the GOP is taking glee in poking the more ardent anti-Trump and MSM shills.

I’m sure this isn’t over, but if the Democrats try to carry this through the 2020 election it could haunt them. Most people I know on both sides of this issue are done with it and want to move on to real issues America is facing (employment, economic prosperity/disparity, healthcare/medicine/bigpharma, taxes, housing, education, immigration reform, energy, trade, etc).

2016 Presidential Election

First off, I offer my congratulations to President-Elect Donald Trump. As I did with Obama, I hope that Mr. Trump has a successful presidency that benefits the United States.

I don’t particularly like Mr. Trump, but then I rather disliked all the candidates of this election cycle. I did, however, pick Trump to win the election back in March 2016. I think he won largely due to those “long political shadows” I mentioned in that post (i.e. decades of declining middle class, Mrs. Clinton’s ongoing political and legal woes, associations with unpopular organizations, individuals, and legislation, Benghazi, etc., etc.) combined with the arrogance and dismissiveness of the Democratic Party, Clinton’s election machine, and the main stream media towards Middle America.

So naturally, the public (Middle America) decided to remind everyone that they were still a force to be reckoned with.

Don’t get me wrong. Clinton won the popular vote, but lost the far more important electoral college vote to Trump. Of course this has liberals gnashing their teeth and calling it unfair. Obviously, they failed their social studies classes or need a refresher. The electoral college system has worked (and continues) to work as it was intended: to prevent a small number of highly concentrated population centers from being able to dictate to the rest of the nation by simple majority rule style democracy.

Typically, the majority vote would coincide with the electoral counts, but as we have seen in the past occasionally that is not the case. And in those cases was ultimately a result of the arrogance of the losing party thinking they could ignore certain members of the citizenry in favor of others.

Hubris was Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic Party, and the so called political elite’s analysts and polls downfall this election cycle, and I admit I am smiling from ear to ear about their comeuppance. Don’t take that to mean I’m particularly giddy about Trump and the Republicans, but they played it smart this campaign cycle being notably less presumptive about victory when dealing with the American public.

Cecil the Lion Thoughts

It saddens me that such a magnificent animal was killed in such a terrible fashion.

Now before anyone flies off the handle, let me clear about some things. In general I support hunters and hunting, but I do so based on some principles hunters in my family have had for generations:

1. Hunt only what you need. Do not overhunt
2. You eat what you kill and not let go to waste the rest of the remains.
3. Respect the animal you hunt. Do not let an animal suffer.
4. Do not hunt endangered or near endangered animal species.
5. No trophy hunting.

The final two principles came about in more recent years as a result of endangered species populations and a general disgust for those who hunt solely for trophies. That said, we’ll move…

I know some question the outrage over a lion’s death. Even with my opposition to trophy hunting and the hunting of endangered species in general, I too would question the outrage over killing a lion. What makes this one different for many is  what information we have at this point: Cecil was apparently lured from the preserve, by all accounts made to suffer for 40 hours from a man obviously not skilled enough to track and kill a lion properly, and the fact the hunters then attempted to destroy the collar Cecil war as part of ongoing study.

In my opinion, the group of hunters actions before, during, and after the hunt and subsequent uproar are those of poachers, not legitimate hunters and guides. So I can understand the outrage quite plainly.

My hope is those involved are prosecuted by the Zimbabwean government and that this incident inspires more people to look into ways to end trophy hunting, protect and help repopulate endangered and near endangered species, and in general look for ways to preserve our planet’s wildlife and habitats for the enjoyment of all.

Foot In Mouth: Biden on voter ID laws

Vice President Joe Biden said Republican-controlled states like Wisconsin were leading an “assault” on voting rights designed to “repress minority voting” through their passage of laws that require people to present a photo ID to vote.

Too bad Vice President Biden has no idea what he is talking about when he trots out the leftist myth that voter id laws are used to repress minorities. The leftist case against voter IDs is further undermined by the federal 2002 law, the Help America Vote Act, and numerous court cases upholding rather strict identification laws in states like Indiana. In other words, more leftist scare tactics to try to cow and control the Democratic base and stir up potential supporters/voters.

It’s rather insulting when political parties think they need to instill fear in order to get support, but sadly it is too often effective. But that is another discussion entirely.

I, my brother, and several others in my voting district were victims of voter fraud several years ago during off-year elections (i.e. midterm elections) in which others posed and voted in our stead. This of course was only discovered because when we showed up to vote, we were listed as having already voted with some scribbled signatures next to our name. We were allowed to vote on temporary ballots, but everyone knows that those never get counted unless a race is extremely tight, which is a rare event. Additionally, in later years my name showed up on petitions (that were dismissed) I did not sign.

So in effect, I was potentially, If not outright, denied my vote by someone else because no one bothered to confirm who the people voting were. This blatant voter fraud did not happen in later elections at that particular polling place as they simply demanded everyone show their state voter registration card (which everyone at the time got for free and I believe still do) or picture identification. That’s not to say there weren’t any other questionable voting practices, only that such flagrant violations were addressed.

Obviously as a result of my personal experience I am a firm believer in requiring verifiable identification in order to be allowed in elections of any sort in the United States. I believe most Americans agree with this position as well.

Do I think there is rampant voter fraud in the United States. No. Rather I think there is rampant corruption with numerous groups across the political spectrum trying to sway and steal elections in ways both obvious (intimidation, defamation/slander, judicial activism) and subtle (gerrymandering, ethno-centrist pandering, legislative maneuvering, propagandist or politically slanted “news”) to steal the voice of the legitimate voting public.

World Cup 2014 Thoughts: US Men’s Team

I have to say that I think the U.S. Men’s National Team did decently this time around in the World Cup. They still had some moments of their past mediocrity but in general they acquitted themselves well in a very competitive group. It was called the Group of Death with good reason after all. At least I didn’t have a moment as I’ve in previous World Cups where I thought the Women’s National Team would make a better showing against the other nation’s men’s teams. (Don’t think the WNT is good? Check their record compared to the MNT.)

So while still scratching my head in puzzlement over the absence of Donovan from the roster and the unfortunate injuring of Altidore I think overall the USMNT is on its way to improving it’s international competiveness. For the team they have much to look forward to in qualifying for the 2018 World Cup in Russia (if it remains there, but that furball of a mess is another issue).

For now I shall go on to supporting the remaining teams I favor: Germany and Columbia.

Arizona Lottery Looks Into Identical Tickets

Arizona lottery looks into identical tickets

Two lottery tickets bought at the same time have the same exact numbers.

Interesting and sort of funny.

I would be somewhat suspicious myself, especially since it took an individual going to the media to get any response from Arizona Lottery officials. I doubt it was anything more than a malfunction with the machine or program running the random number generator but a little more transparency by official would have been better received by the public.

As an aside, congratulations to the winners of last night’s Mega Millions jackpot.

Mega Millions Mega Madness

Although admittedly the Mega Million madness doesn’t seem too bad around here since I haven’t seen long lines, or well, lines at all for that matter. Like millions of others I decided to give it shot and bought some tickets back on Wednesday. Why not? Sure the likelihood of winning is slim to none, but it’s also a rarely large sum up for grabs, so a couple bucks spent seems okay to me.

Whoever wins (whether now or a later drawing) will definitely be set for life, so long as they don’t fall into the trap of spending it wildly. I just hope whoever wins is someone (or several someones) who really need the money. I have nothing against the well to do and rich, but I admit it rubs me the wrong way when I see such people win large prizes. It seems greedy to me.

Whoever wins, it’ll be historic. Even more so if no one wins the prize given projections for next drawing in that circumstance.

So good luck to all partaking in the madness.

Commentary: SCOTUS Starts Review of ObamaCare

Today begins the first day of the Supreme Court’s review of the challenges to ObamaCare, specifically related to the individual mandate. Once, I would have implicitly trusted that Justices of the SCOTUS to make the correct decision with regard to Constitutional matters. Recent decisions by the court such as granting corporate personhood and stripping away property rights using eminent domain for business development to name but two issues make that impossible for me now. For me the challenge to ObamaCare is not just about the personal freedom of American citizens to choose to partake (or not) in commerce but whether the Court itself is still legitimate.

Anyone who’s read this blog knows I oppose ObamaCare on a number of grounds, namely those that infringe upon personal choices, taxes, and discriminatory policies, fees, and taxes in the law that have a detrimental impact toward the poor, those with long term medical conditions, the disabled, small businesses, the self employed and contractors, the elderly, and existing government entitlement programs. However, my greatest opposition comes from the so-called mandate that requires an individual to buy health insurance or face a penalty or prison time. This brings to mind some terrifying notions and a frightening image of the law’s creator’s mindset. One, the law if it were to stand, implies that the government in the future could require any American citizen to make a purchase of a product (whether needed/wanted or not) or face legal harassment and/or punishment. Given the United State’s poor history when the government has too much power we are led to a disturbing possibility: the law effectively re-establishes the horrific and reprehensible notion that people are in fact the property of the state and said state (the Federal Government) can dictate any aspect of the “property” as it sees fit.

Overstatement? Hysterical hyperbole? Hardly. Simply look back over the past one hundred years of history alone to see how dangerous it is to allow an overarching government too much say in people’s lives, let alone healthcare. Does anyone really want to see a return to the bad old days of discrimination and marginalization of whoever the government deems unworthy? Especially with a government that has a history of favoring certain classes above all others. Perhaps I’m too independent minded and my personal experiences have made me eternally skeptical and cynical towards the Federal Government’s motives especially when they start making claims about benefiting society.

My hope is the SCOTUS will partially redeem itself (at least to me) by striking down the mandate, but we’ll simply have to wait and see. While there is much laudable about ObamaCare, there is much that is harmful. If the mandate stands, individual freedom and liberty in America will have its death knell.

Atheist Billboard Problem (Again)

Just some thoughts on:

Atheists ‘Slaves Obey Your Masters’ Billboard Raises Tempers In Pennsylvania

A billboard erected in one of the city’s most racially diverse neighborhoods featured an African slave with the biblical quote, “Slaves, obey your masters.” It lasted less than a day before someone tore it down.

And Atheists wonder why main stream Americans dislike them so much. There’s no way the Atheists responsible for this billboard could claim they don’t deserve the anger and outrage aimed at them. Why?

1. The scripture quote is incomplete and therefor ignores the context in which it was intended. (Yes, the Bible said slavery was okay, a concept we consider abhorrent and no one endorses in the modern day United States.)
2. Using black slavery imagery was a blatant racist poke. This no other way around it. No one educated in the United States could claim to be unaware of how offensive that imagery is to all Americans, but especially blacks. I dare say most foreigners understand and find the imagery offensive as well.

So they rightly deserve the anger directed at them , though certainly not the death threats. You can not engage others in religious discussions by demeaning and insulting your target audience. Being upset over the legislature calling 2012 the year of the Bible or whatever is silly. Be more concerned about religiously affiliated politicians trying to pass regulations and laws based on religious dogma (like recent efforts by Christians against contraception, women’s health, and Sharia). Atheists who proselytize atheism are no better than those religious groups they target.

Besides, a real Atheist wouldn’t care about another person’s religion anyway. As an Agnostic, I don’t. When approached by those proselytizing I make it clear I’m not interested in converting (though I will discuss their beliefs with them if they remain civil) and walk away from those that can’t accept my refusal to convert.

An Atheist proselytizing Atheism is about as effective as a Creationist teaching Evolution.

Commentary: Pope Denounces Gay Marriage In US

Pope Benedict Denounces Gay Marriage Efforts In U.S.

He added that the traditional family and marriage had to be “defended from every possible misrepresentation of their true nature” because, he said, whatever injured families injured society.

The Pope is too late on “defending” traditional family and marriage when you look at it from a historical perspective. A modern “traditional” family is not the traditional family of a century ago, let alone five hundred years ago and certainly not the same as the traditional family of the time of Jesus. For example, during my grandmother’s time it was not unusual for multi-generational homes to exist in which the grandparents, parents, and children to live together (sometimes including aunts and uncles and their families as well). My mother’s generation saw the creation of the so-called nuclear family (parents and children) which also started a trend of divorces by those who realized they didn’t have to remain in horrible marriages. By my generation we’ve reached the modern family which includes the gamut of multi-generational homes to single parent households to gay couples. In other words, traditional is a meaningless term with respect to family.

As for the “true nature” of traditional marriage that’s simple: marriage was created as a means of enslaving women to men, of treating women as property by trading daughters off. Worse, being punished for not being “wifely” or forced into a marriage with their rapist as the Bible dictates. Do you honestly think independently minded women today would willingly walk back into being forced into arranged marriages and denied their equal rights? It’s only been a relatively new concept that marriage is a partnership between a man and woman, and really only the last one hundred years that women have started to achieve of semblance of equality to men in Western European, Christian based cultures. Even that appearance of equality is still lacking in many areas such as career opportunities, wages, politics, education, and so forth.

So the Pope’s argument against gay marriage is a weak position and one that likely would have never arisen if not for the bigotry of the religious community against their fellow human beings. I remember in my teens and you adult life homosexuals simply asked for civil unions so that homosexual couples could receive the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. When they were vehemently denied such equality under the law, that is when I first heard them start using the term marriage which has now inevitably led to this notion that gays somehow “threaten” heterosexual marriages and families.

One would think the Pope has better things to worry about than homosexuals, such as the pedophile priests and allegations of the rape of nuns, justifying the vast wealth of the Vatican when compared to the poor and impoverished of the Catholic masses, and championing Christians facing persecution around the world for their faith.