Author: J.H. Holliday

I haven’t blogged for two years, but I have not been completely out of the game. Realizing that videos might be the better medium to reach a larger audience, I decided to launch a YouTube channel and have spent quite some time brainstorming and developing ideas for it. I will start writing blogs again, however they will mostly be shorter in length, and a heavier focus will be placed on creating video content.

Due to YouTube’s increasing practice of censorship, I created a Bitchute account as well. I will post videos to both accounts, which will run parallel to each other. If I should gather enough of a following on YouTube to attract the attention of the Tech Gestapo during one of their purges, my followers and I will have the Bitchute account to fall back on.

I have posted one video to both accounts already, and have two more ready to go. They will be posted in the next week, spaced roughly evenly apart. The fourth and fifth videos are currently in the works. The next video I post will be a short one (11 minutes) addressing Basic Economics; an issue most Americans are far too illiterate on. I hope to make this the first part of a longer series. The third video will be a rant regarding homelessness and bleeding-heart do-gooders.

To view the first video (basically an explanation of how the United States is the most kick-ass nation ever), click the Bitchute or YouTube links to the left or go directly to the video here:

More to follow,

~ AD

Share This:

The chaotic juggling of one despotic, corrupt, and/or inept leadership after another, combined with a consistent failure of any policy or conflict to reach any lasting or significant political or cultural change, is the nature of the sad events comprising post-colonial Mexican history.  It is challenging to think of a Mexican leader or administration that can be attributed with bringing about any net positive change for the average Mexican citizen.

Mexico is rich in natural resources.  It has a substantial working-age population.  For the past 150 years, it has had no foreign threats worth mentioning and has one of the lowest defense expenditures by percent of GDP in the world.  The potential for direct foreign investment is strong.  These are all considerable advantages.  Despite all this, Mexico still struggles as a developing nation. 

Corruption in Politics and Law Enforcement is systemic.  Decades of socialist policies have failed to address either economic disparity or mobility.  Economic mobility remains low, particularly among the poorer states in southern Mexico.  The Mexican economy is heavily reliant on the United States.  Though nine out of ten Mexican adults are literate, education beyond age 13 is uncommon.  Deaths from drug-trade related homicides have been in the tens of thousands.  Access to potable water is limited in many areas.  Television ownership ranges from two to three out of every ten Mexicans.

Mexico’s progression toward consensual government has been slow and fluctuating.  Whether autocratic or democratic, the leadership of Mexico has almost consistently involved itself in corruption, potentially including the administration of President Obrador.  For 200 years, the focus of the Mexican leadership has been almost entirely on economic distribution, rather than on economic mobility.  There is no evidence that the administration of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador will reverse this trend.

Interestingly, the U.S. has supported liberal governments within Mexico almost without fail since the end of the Mexican-American War.  Juarez and Madero were both fortunate to have the recognition and support of the U.S. government.  The French occupation of Mexico in the 1860’s was ended under pressure from the U.S.  A considerable amount of Mexico’s infrastructure was financed by U.S. companies during the Porfiriato.  The U.S. has provided billions of dollars in bailout money to stabilize the Mexican economy. 

Remittances from immigrants, both illegal and naturalized, amount to tens of billions of dollars a year.  This is income Mexico receives from workers they do not have to pay or provide any services for.  In fact, in 2015 the Mexican central bank reported more money was brought in from remittances than from oil revenue (in terms of foreign income).  Despite all benefits it receives from the United States, Mexico remains a quasi-third-world backwater almost completely dependent on U.S. economic stability. Historically, the most important resource a nation can develop in order to advance economically and socially is its own human capital.  Mexico has been markedly slow to do this.  Quality education is lacking.  Confidence in the judicial system is constantly waning.  Security from the violence of the drug trade is non-existent in many areas.  Furthermore, Mexico’s rich oil production allows for an emphasis on wealth redistribution rather than wealth creation.  Physical capital (oil and the monetary wealth it generates) is a vanishing commodity; human capital (in the form of an educated and motivated work force) is a commodity with the potential for infinite production.

~AD

Share This:

This blog was written with the purpose of making myself more familiar with the particulars of Mexican history; to order the most important events and post the results so others may also learn from my research.  I originally intended to produce a more streamlined product, however I wanted to add in details and facts I felt were lacking in my previous education regarding Mexican history.  Consequently, in the interest of both brevity and objectivity, the commentary I had planned to accompany this timeline will be posted separately, as a sort of addendum.  That said, here is a chronology of post-colonial Mexican history:

• Background
  • By 1810, Spain is in decline and its empire is falling apart.  Facing the dominance of Napoleonic France on the European continent, and the British Royal Navy on the seas, Spain begins losing control of its Latin American colonies.  Inspired by the successful revolution of the American Colonies, and subsequent establishment of the United States, revolutionary movements arise in Spanish colonies.  This is made possible when Napoleon Bonaparte deposes the Spanish king, Ferdinand VII, and places his brother Joseph Bonaparte as ruler of Spain in 1808.
• September 16, 1810
  • Mexican Independence Day: Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, a parish priest and revolutionary, issues a call for independence and redistribution of wealth. Hidalgo’s army is disorganized, unruly, and effectively comes to an end when Hidalgo and other revolutionary leaders are captured and executed in mid-1811.
• 1814
  • Napoleon is forced to withdraw his armies from Spain as the Allies reduce his rule to that of France alone. His withdrawal from Spain allows Ferdinand VII to return to the Spanish throne and divert troops and resources to quell revolutionary movements in New Spain (Mexico).
• 1820
  • A rebellion in Spain forces Ferdinand VII to reinstate the liberal Spanish Constitution of 1812, which he had nullified after returning to power six years earlier. This move is seen by both the ruling and revolutionary factions in New Spain as an opportunity for independence to be gained; under their own respective power.
• August 24, 1821
  • The Treaty of Cordoba is signed: under the leadership of Agustin de Iturbide and Vicente Guerrero, New Spain is officially renamed The Mexican Empire. Roman Catholicism is established as the official religion, and unity is encouraged between Mestizos and Amerindians.
• 1822
  • Iturbide proclaims himself Emperor Agustin I and rules as dictator.
• 1823
  • Mission San Francisco de Solano is established in northern Alta California to counter Russian colonizing efforts at Fort Ross and Bodega Bay.
• 1824
  • A revolt is led against Iturbide, Mexico is proclaimed a Federal Republic, and the Constitution of 1824 is written; establishing several democratic goals and organizing Mexico into 19 states, 4 territories, and a Federal District (Mexico City).  Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna is the most prominent leader arising from the revolt.
  • A political power struggle between Federalist and Centralist forces ensues. Guadalupe Victoria, a Federalist, is elected president.
  • Without Spanish tribute, Commanche raids increase in northern Mexico. The Mexican government encourages American settlers to migrate to the sparsely populated state of Coahuila y Tejas; in the hope of creating a buffer zone between the Commanches and Mexico.
  • The population of Mexico is approximately 6.3 Million.
• 1829
  • Federalists revolt and place Vicente Guerrero as president.
  • Slavery is outlawed in Mexico.
• 1830
  • Mexico closes its borders to immigration and begins imposing oppressive restrictions on Tejanos; contrary to the liberties granted by the Constitution of 1824.
• 1833
  • Political power has shifted multiple times between Federalists and Centralists. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna is elected president as a Federalist.  He gives his vice president, Valentin Farias, power to enact various reforms.  Farias directs multiple liberal reforms; weakening the power of the Catholic Church in particular.
• 1834
  • Mexico orders the secularization of missions in Alta California, against the wishes of the Territorial Governor Jose Figueroa.
  • American settlers outnumber Tejanos in Coahuila y Tejas nearly four to one.
• 1835
  • Santa Anna dissolves the Constitution of 1824, establishes a dictatorship, and centralizes the Mexican government. His tyrannical reforms result in the revolt of several Mexican states over the next five years.  Three republics are proclaimed from these revolts: The Republic of Texas (1836), the Republic of the Rio Grande (1839), and the Republic of Yucatan (1840).  Only Texas is successful in the long run.  Santa Anna is defeated by the Texan army under Sam Houston, taken prisoner, and forced to sign a treaty recognizing Texas independence May 14, 1836.  As victor, Texas declares the Rio Grande is the border with Mexico.  Mexico declares it is the Nueces River.
• 1838
  • France declares war on Mexico over a demand for economic reparations. Santa Anna defeats the French forces at Veracruz and a peace is brokered wherein Mexico owes France 600,000 Pesos.  Santa Anna rules as dictator until 1839.
• 1840
  • The period of the Great Commanche Raids begins. Over a the next several years, Commanche forces numbering in the hundreds penetrate far into Mexico.  Hundreds of captives and hundreds of thousands of livestock are taken by Commanches.
• 1841
  • After a brief respite, Santa Anna leads a revolt and resumes the presidency once again.
• 1845
  • Frustrations over Santa Anna’s centrist policies and tax increases cause him to relinquish power and go into exile.
  • Under President Tyler, The Republic of Texas is annexed by the United States as the 28^th state.
• 1846-1847
  • Intending to expand U.S. territory, President Polk sends a diplomat to Mexico; authorized to negotiate the southern boundary of Texas and offer up to $25 million for California. Mexico refuses to receive the diplomat and Polk sends the U.S. army under General Zachary Taylor into the disputed area between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande.  A Mexican Army enters the disputed territory as well, is defeated, and the U.S declares war on Mexico.
  • Santa Anna becomes president of Mexico again but is defeated in battle by U.S. forces.
  • U.S. forces gain control of Mexico and its territories. Despite frequent numerical superiority and the advantage of terrain, Mexican forces are unable to stop the U.S. Army under General Winfield Scott on its march from Vera Cruz to Mexico City.  Mexico City falls, and the Mexican government relocates to Hidalgo, north of Mexico City.
• 1848
  • The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is signed and by its terms:
    • Mexico cedes all claims to Texas and recognizes the Rio Grande as the U.S. southern border.
    • Mexico cedes California and New Mexico territories to the U.S. (amounting to approximately 55% of Mexican territory and containing about 1% of its population).
    • The U.S. pays Mexico $15 million and settles all claims (over $3 million worth) of U.S. Citizens against Mexico.
    • The inhabitants of California and New Mexico are offered U.S. Citizenship and their property rights are acknowledged by the U.S.
  • Santa Anna goes into exile in Jamaica.
• 1853
  • Conservative forces overthrow the weak Mexican government and Santa Anna becomes Mexican President again.
  • Gadsden Purchase: Mexico sells a 30,000 square mile region of what is now southern Arizona and New Mexico to the U.S. for $10 million, bringing the Mexico-U.S. border to its current position.
• 1855
  • Liberal forces under Juan Alvarez and Ignacio Comonfort overthrow Santa Anna and begin The Reform. The Reform includes stripping the Catholic Church and Mexican military of many privileges and establishing Mexico as a secular democracy.  Liberal leaders attempt to move Mexico from a Centrist to a Federal system, and universal male suffrage is established.
• 1858
  • The War of the Reform begins: civil war breaks out between liberal and conservative forces. The U.S. supports the Liberals while the Conservatives are supported by Frances, Britain, and Spain.
• 1861
  • Liberal forces take Mexico City and Benito Juarez is constitutionally elected as president. The Mexican government is bankrupt, and Juarez suspends interest payments on Mexico’s substantial foreign debts.
  • Britain, Spain, and France occupy Veracruz to protect their financial interests. Britain and Spain soon withdraw.  Napoleon III of France intends to incorporate Mexico into a larger empire and sends an army to Mexico City.  A brief Mexican victory over French troops at Puebla on May 5, 1862 is celebrated to this day as Cinco de Mayo.
• 1863
  • French troops occupy Mexico City and Napoleon III installs Maximillian as Emperor of Mexico. The Juarez government flees to northern Mexico and is diplomatically supported by the U.S.
• 1867
  • The American Civil War is over and the U.S. pressures France to withdraw from Mexico. After three years of rule, in which he is too liberal to appease the Mexican conservatives and too independent to appease the French, Maximillian is deposed.  Juarez returns to power and has Maximillian executed by firing squad.
  • Juarez is re-elected president. Over the next several years, he continues to secularize Mexico, expand infrastructure, and strengthen executive power.
• 1872
  • President Juarez dies after a close election in which former ally Porfirio Diaz runs against him. Sebastian Lerdo succeeds Juarez to the presidency in accordance with the Mexican constitution.
• 1876
  • Porfirio Diaz leads a successful revolt against the recently re-elected Lerdo.
  • The Porfiriato: Over most of the next 35 years, Diaz rules as a dictator with the aid of a small group of intellectuals. He expands the economy and infrastructure considerably; largely based on foreign investment.  The planning and development imposed on Mexico during this period leads to an overall reduction in liberty.  Mexico becomes stable but autocratic.
  • European and U.S. funds finance railways, ports, communications, and energy production. The Rurales, a federal law enforcement agency, reduces crime in the rural areas but corruption in the organization leads to violations of Mexican civil liberties.  Education remains low among most Mexicans.  Regional governors and mayordomos exercise local authority while being supervised by political chiefs, who report to Diaz himself.  Amerindians increasingly become virtual serfs on large haciendas.
• 1901
  • Oil production begins; heavily financed by the U.S. and Great Britain.
• 1910
  • Francisco Madero challenges Diaz for the presidency and is imprisoned.  He escapes to Texas, declares he is rightful president of Mexico, and calls for revolution against the Diaz government. Madero is backed by guerrilla leaders such as Pascual Orozco and Francisco “Pancho” Villa.
• 1911
  • Madero’s forces capture Ciudad Juarez and Diaz resigns the presidency. Madero is elected president but fails to consolidate power and is constantly challenged by widespread rebellions.
• 1913
  • Madero’s presidency is toppled by forces led by the military commander Victoriano Huerta. Madero is executed by Huerta’s forces and Huerta proclaims himself president of Mexico.  Fighting in Mexico City results in many civilian deaths.
• 1914
  • Huerta is overthrown and Venustiano Carranza becomes dictator, supported by Alvaro Obregon and opposed by Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata.
• 1917
  • A new constitution, based largely on the Constitution(s) of 1824 and 1857, is established under Carranza. It curbs the power of the Catholic Church and institutes universal suffrage.  It strongly increases the role of government and socializes labor, education, health, and property among other things.  It starts the process of taking possession of the petroleum industry from the American and British companies that had financed it for years.
  • Despite an attempt from Germany to enlist Mexico into the Central Powers, Mexico stays neutral during World War One.
  • By this time, approximately 900,000 Mexicans have emigrated to the U.S. to escape the Revolution since its beginning in 1910.
• 1920
  • Obregon take’s power from Carranza in a coup and Carranza is assassinated shortly afterward. Obregon expands the liberal agenda set forth in the constitution and establishes various bureaucracies to enforce it.  Multiple artists, including Diego Rivera, are commissioned to create public paintings and murals; especially those glorifying indigenous and revolutionary history.
• 1924
  • Obregon is succeeded as president by Plutarco Calles. Calles nationalizes the petroleum industry and aims to further weaken the Catholic Church.
• 1928
  • Obregon is re-elected as president and assassinated two weeks later.
• 1929
  • The National Revolutionary Party (precursor to the modern day Institutional Revolutionary Party or PRI) is established. Encouraged and overseen by Calles, it effectively becomes an oligarchy ruling over Mexico as a one-party state.  The Great Depression slows government programs such as education reform and redistribution of land.  Infrastructure sees limited expansion.
• 1934
  • Lazaro Cardenas is elected president. He continues the policy of land redistribution and nationalizing church property.
• 1938
  • The Mexican government expropriates the properties of British and American oil companies.
• 1944
  • Mexico diplomatically supports the Allies in World War Two. The war effort expands the economy and Mexico agrees to pay U.S. oil companies $24 million, plus interest, for properties expropriated in 1938.
• 1945
  • Mexico joins the United Nations.
• 1946
  • After almost thirty years of liberal programs and social reforms, the wealth gap continues to grow. The overall prestige and power of the military dwindles however, and a long succession of civilian presidents begins.
• 1958
  • Women begin to vote in Mexico.
• 1968
  • Protestors against Mexico’s one-party system use the Olympic Games in Mexico City as a stage to bring international attention to what is seen as an anti-democratic government. Government security forces clash with protestors, resulting in at least 100 dead.
• 1970
  • Mexico’s population is over 50 million and accelerating at a rate of three percent per year.
• 1976
  • Mexico’s oil industry expands. The government begins using oil money to fund welfare programs and industrial expansion; albeit in conjunction with borrowing massive amounts of foreign money at high interest rates.  Oil prices soon fall, and Mexico’s foreign debt is enormous.
• 1982
  • Mexico owes $800 billion to foreign investors and the government defaults on its debts.
• 1985
  • An earthquake hits Mexico City, resulting in 7,000-10,000 dead. The government’s limited ability to deal with victims contributes to the formation of a grassroots anti-PRI movement.
• 1988
  • By this time, the border with the U.S. is the main route for transport of marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs from Mexico and Columbia into the U.S. Over the next 30 years, Mexico and the U.S. will lose tens of thousands of lives, and billions of dollars combating the drug trade.
• 1994
  • The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed in 1992, goes into effect.
  • Revolt by Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) in Chiapas; demanding social justice for the Amerindian population. The Mexican military battles with the EZLN and its guerilla allies.
  • After the assassinations of multiple high-ranking PRI members, PRI candidate Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon is elected president.
  • The value of the Peso plummets and the U.S. provides a $20 billion bailout which stabilizes the currency.
• 2000
  • National Action Party (PAN) candidate Vicente Fox wins the presidential election, ending more than 70 years of single party rule under the PRI.
• 2006
  • A close and contested election sees Felipe Calderon gaining the presidency while Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) claims he is the rightful president. Massive protests occur over the controversial election.
• 2012
  • Enrique Peña Nieto is elected President under the PRI. AMLO is the runner up again and he demands a recount.  A recount of more than half of polling places reconfirms Nieto is president.
• 2017
  • Mexico’s homicide rate is the highest in recent history: over 29,000 homicides in one year.
• 2018
  • An election filled with coalition building results in AMLO’s election to the Presidency. AMLO’s objectives include expansion of leftist policies in Mexico.

Share This:

73 years ago today, the United States took one of the final steps to bring victory to the Allies in World War Two by dropping an Atomic bomb on the Empire of Japan.  Eleven days prior to this, the Allied powers of the United States, Great Britain, and China issue the Potsdam Declaration to Japan.  The declaration was an ultimatum that listed several Allied demands, which most importantly included “unconditional surrender” by Japan.  Japan had one alternative to surrender, and that was to accept “prompt and utter destruction.”  Japan responded by ignoring the ultimatum.  Ten days prior to the ultimatum, on July 16, 1945, the United States successfully detonated the first nuclear-fission bomb (nicknamed “Gadget”) at Alamogordo, New Mexico.

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped “Little Boy” (categorized as a uranium gun-type bomb) on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.  Despite the fact it was a military center, Hiroshima had previously been spared from the mass fire bombings other Japanese cities, such as Tokyo, had been subjected to.  “Little Boy” destroyed almost 70 percent of the city structures and, after several months, close to a third of the inhabitants (more than 100,000).

The bombing of Hiroshima was followed three days later, August 9, 1945, with the dropping of “Fat Man” (a plutonium implosion-type bomb) on the Japanese city of Nagasaki.  Though Nagasaki was a major ship building center, it too had previously been spared from mass bombing by the Allies.  Nagasaki, a smaller city than Hiroshima, suffered fewer losses altogether; though the casualty rate (40,000 plus) and damage to infrastructure was considerable.  With the realization that the Allies were willing and able to deliver on their promise of “prompt and utter destruction,” and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union the day after Hiroshima; the Empire of Japan began proceedings to negotiate a surrender on August 10th.  On August 14, 1945, (V-J Day), the Empire of Japan announced it’s surrender to the Allies; effectively ending the greatest war in Earth’s history.

Fast forward to modern times.  It is not uncommon to walk into a high school or college history class where snowflakes living comfortably, almost three-quarters of a century after these events, have the arrogance to debate the morality of the Atomic bombing of Japan in World War Two.  This in itself does not bother me as much as the fact no one bothers to debate the morality of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or the Rape of Nanking.  A considerable amount of college students can’t tell you anything about how Japan conducted the war.  Yet, they cannot wait to establish the fact the United States is (thus far) the only nation to have used the Atomic bomb in war; as if this fact alone is an adequate assessment of America as a whole.  Generally speaking, any attempt to measure morality during war time seems like an exercise in futility.  However, if one wishes to attempt to measure it as accurately as possible, one needs to measure it relative to the time and space in which the war occurred.  That’s a can of worms to open another time.

To have any realistic understanding of the situation, one has to know how the Japanese were fighting in the months leading up to the Atomic bombing.   The Battle of Okinawa is the best example of how costly the war with the Japanese was becoming (both to them and the Allies).  Over a period of about ten weeks, the Japanese killed more than 12,000 Americans while suffering more than 100,000 casualties themselves.  Moreover, some 100,000 civilians died; some in combat, others having been forced by the Japanese to kamikaze.  It was one of the bloodiest battles of the bloodiest war in history; indeed, certain days of the battle were the bloodiest days for the United States during the war.

The argument over whether the United States should have dropped the Atomic bombs is absurd.  Perhaps a more valid debate is whether the United State should have dropped the bombs sooner.  Or rather, whether the attack on Okinawa should have been postponed until after the successful detonation of “Gadget.”  Had the U.S. done so, the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives may have been prevented.  Having said that, far be it from me to criticize President Truman for his decision making during that complicated and tumultuous time (keeping in mind he had assumed the presidency about two weeks after the American attack on Okinawa).

We’ll never know how an invasion of the Japanese main islands would have turned out.  We can only estimate based on the events that unfolded prior.  The more the Japanese Empire crumbled, from Guadalcanal to Okinawa, the more intensely they fought.  It is reasonable to assume the Japanese would fight for their home islands with the equivalent suicidal ferocity with which they fought for comparatively trivial islands such as Tarawa and Iwo Jima.  Based on the conduct of Japanese forces as the conflict progressed, the defense of the Japanese main islands would have been savage and destructive on a proportionately larger scale.  This very likely would have led to casualties of an unprecedented scale (particularly on the Japanese side).

If one questions the morality of the Atomic bombing, why not also question the morality of the bombing of Tokyo? Is the morality of weapons of war only relative to the amount of death and destruction that can be caused within a certain amount of time?  If Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been bombed prior to an Okinawa invasion, Truman may have been able to save hundreds of thousands of lives.  It is important to remember this: the Allied bombing of Japan that took place between March and August of 1945 (mostly by American B-29 bombers) destroyed 75% of Japanese urban areas.

Regardless, the Japanese showed no signs of wanting to surrender.  Had the Atomic bomb not been a viable option, the Allies would likely have increased the bombing of Japan’s main islands with napalm and other heavy bombs.  A look at the number of B-29s the United States had in production in the last months of the war confirms this.  We cannot know how many deaths would have resulted from prolonged bombardment of Japan.  It is not unreasonable to guess the damage may have been more extensive than anything two Atomic bombs could have caused.

To those who judge America harshly simply for using the Atomic bomb: study your history, and question your professors!  Why not evaluate the morality of the attack on Nanking and the psychological ripple-effect of Chinese children having seen their mothers and sisters raped by Japanese Imperial Soldiers?  Why not evaluate the morality of a surprise attack on a U.S. naval base?  Why has our education system become so unevenly heavy-handed in judging the actions of their own country; actions that were made decades ago?

I know why: because preppy college students (and professors) sitting in air-conditioned classes with laptops and $5 Starbucks usually have no reasonable concept of war or what it’s like to have the existence of your nation, or it’s way of life, threatened with destruction.  For some sickening reason, it’s trendy for so-called intellectuals to impose their own moral compass on a nation which has brought more prosperity to Japan than it has inflicted any real lasting damage.  Western culture has become so advanced and comfortable, it has become common to measure it with regard to perfection; as opposed to acknowledging that war is Hell, and the sins of the United States are the sins of mankind.  Again, this is a topic for another day.

I pose to bleeding-heart Westerners that the use of the Atomic bomb stands the test of time very well, morally speaking.  Besides not using it prior to Okinawa, my only regret is that President Truman did not decide to use the Atomic bomb again in Korea.  One could easily make the argument that hundreds of thousands of American, Korean, and Chinese lives may have been saved if he had.  I won’t judge him for not using it; who knows what guilt he may have felt from using it twice prior.  Again, I am able to cast judgement from a point in the future; knowing what casualties resulted from the Korean War (and may yet still result).

Bottom line: war is Hell.  When all is said and done, the United States has a history of conducting itself relatively well during war time.  The Empire of Japan initiated a war it could not finish.  The United States fought it to finish it.  All things considered, Japan made out very well after the war.  They were allowed to keep their Emperor.  The United States gifted to them the 2^nd biggest economy in the world for decades following World War Two.  Furthermore, they have been allowed to teach younger generations of Japanese a revisionist history which precludes any responsibility on the part of Japan for bombing Pearl Harbor, or killing millions of Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Pacific Islanders etc.   Per capita, the Imperial Japanese Soldier was the most effective killing machine of all sides during World War Two.  The Japanese killed about seven times as many people as they lost; mostly civilians.  I don’t expect anyone to blame Japan for those transgressions now, anymore than I expect blame to be laid on the United States for using the Atomic bomb.  I simply expect for history to be taught factually and objectively.  When I see the amount of criticism the U.S. suffers at the hands of it’s young generations, I know that is not happening.

~ADShare This:

The above mailer (front and back shown) are being sent out to households in California.  They are deceptively printed to look like campaigning fliers from Republican gubernatorial candidate Travis Allen; effectively denouncing rival Republican candidate John Cox as a closet Liberal/Democrat.  Do not be fooled by this mailer.  When you look at the fine print, you see the mailer is funded by “Families & Teachers for Antonio Villaraigosa for Governor 2018, sponsored by California Charter Schools Association Advocates.”

Evidently, this pro-Villaraigosa group is attempting to reduce support for John Cox.  They must be under the impression John Cox could be a considerable challenger to Gavin Newsome and/or Antonio Villaraigosa.  Thusly, they are resorting to this deceptive, quasi-divide and conquer tactic, to split the Republican vote.  This kind of ruse is apparently legal in California.  Be aware California voters: do your own research on the candidates that interest you and read the fine print.Share This:

I was a registered non-partisan voter in the early months of the Republican Primaries in 2016.  I registered Republican with the primary goal of qualifying to vote for Donald Trump in my state’s Republican primary in mid-2016.  Personally, I am annoyed by party politics, which is why I was registered non-partisan for years.  Donald Trump ran on the Republican ticket and I primarily support his agenda, rather than the Republican Party (the GOP) as an institution.  I even donated a few bucks to his campaign; the first time I have financially contributed to a presidential campaign (or any political candidate for that matter).

Since registering Republican, I have received many letters (such as the one above) and phone calls from the Republican National Committee (RNC) on a regular basis regarding my “membership status” and “contributions.”  Like many other registered voters, I am getting tired of being solicited for funding.  If I felt like the GOP was truly supportive of President Trump, maybe it would not bother me as much.  However, I truly believe that if it were up to Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and even Vice President Mike Pence, President Trump would not be sitting in the Oval Office.

President Trump was elected by voters in a campaign which under spent the competition by millions of dollars ($398 Million compared to Hillary Clinton’s $768 million).  Both the Republican and Democratic parties are frightened by what President Trump stands for because he is a non-establishment outsider who threatens the power exercised by elitist politicians.  I do not trust the GOP to promote candidates who will support President Trump’s agenda.  So what do I do with all these requests from the RNC to fund the party?

Graham Ledger of One American News Network (OAN) gave me the following idea: respond to the RNC by telling them they will not get your money until there is visible and considerable support from the GOP for President Trump’s agenda.  Thusly, I have created several pre-typed responses to the RNC which I enclose in the return envelopes they provide with their solicitations.  Each of these responses took me only a few minutes to write and the postage is prepaid; it does not cost me anything.

Maybe the RNC throws my responses in the trash.  Most likely they are not received or read by anyone of significance.  Nevertheless, it costs me nothing, save a few minutes of my time and a few sheets of printer paper.  I want someone at the GOP to know I do not blindly toe the party line just because I registered Republican.  I support President Trump’s agenda.  If the RNC wants my money, they can start sending itemized receipts for contributions; demonstrating an effort to promote candidates and agendas which explicitly coincide with President Trump’s policies.

I’m writing this in the hopes other voters will also express their displeasure with a political party which does more to consolidate its own power than it does to serve the American people.  Our two major political parties get enough money from lobbyists and interested groups.  Why should they receive funding from hardworking citizens they largely ignore?  Don’t buy into the “other party will outspend us” scare tactic.  Don’t pay attention to their empty threats to downgrade your membership status from “member in good standing” to “lapsed.”

“Dear RNC, let my membership lapse.  My membership only seems to matter to you when you need money anyway. Don’t waste my time with surveys either.  President Trump’s agenda was clear to voters when they elected him.  The overwhelming support for him versus the elitists who ran against him is evidence of that.  Get to work!”

Perhaps if enough registered Republicans engage in this practice, the GOP will get the idea.  The cost to you is less than contributing to a party which does not value your ideas as much as your pocket change.  Maybe the day will come when our parties need middle class voter support more than they need cash.

~ADShare This:

 

For quite some time now, many Leftist do-gooders have been on a crusade to take down Confederate monuments throughout the Southern United States.  The conflict in Charlottesville definitely brings this issue to a head.  President Trump made several good points at the press conference on Tuesday in regards to this issue.  Among them was his questioning the removal of the statue of General Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, and the door it may open in regards to the potential removal of other American monuments.  Overall, this mission to remove Confederate monuments is pretty ridiculous.  Unfortunately, we are likely to see further violence over the issue so I think it is important to address.

Let me start by saying the Confederacy absolutely deserved to have it’s keister handed to itself in the Civil War.  As a Civil War buff, and firm believer in fighting war as it should be fought, I passionately believe pre-Civil War Southern culture needed to be put solidly in check and it most certainly was.  Having said this, it is a terrible disservice to our history and to those who suffered from the Civil War to reduce a person such as General Robert E. Lee to some sort of racist figurehead.

Of all people, Robert E. Lee was not adamantly supportive of secession from the Union; nor was he all that fond of the institution of slavery.  Like many Southerners, he was unfortunate enough to live in a time, place, and culture where he had to choose between his nation and his family/home.  Nevertheless, whatever his motives, General Lee was a traitor, technically speaking.  He made a conscious decision to choose the side of a secessionist movement over the nation which he was born into.  If the primary reason for removing his statue was purely motivated by the concept of him as a traitor, I might see a little more basis for this crusade.  This is not the case though.

The primary motive for removing this statue is the based in the mistaken belief that General Lee and other Confederate monuments are purely symbols of racism.  The equation put together by those who are leading this crusade goes something like this:

Confederacy stood for slavery + General X fought for the Confederacy = General X was a racist.

I’m not here to argue that slavery as it existed in the U.S.A. and C.S.A. was not a racist institution; clearly it was.  I also won’t deny that racist beliefs were held by various Confederate generals.  Nevertheless, to reduce any one Confederate soldier or general to a worthless racist is to judge that person solely based on a single flaw.  It may be an important flaw, but it does not define these men on the whole.  Robert E. Lee is not the shining star of White Supremacy he has been equated to by many on both the Far-Right and Far-Left.  General Lee and other Confederates would probably rather have found a peaceful solution to the slavery question if they could have.  However, it was simply not within their scope or power to change this cultural dynamic within the South.  Most Confederates cared more about fighting on the side of their home and family than they cared about fighting for slaveholders; even if that’s what their choice incidentally resulted in.

None of that addresses what I find most disturbing about the crusade against Confederate statues.  What is most worrisome about this crusade is the open-endedness of it.  President Trump brought up a great point about where it could lead to; the removal of statues and icons of our founding fathers.  If racism and slavery are the only gauge we use to judge these men, it is an awfully flawed meter.

It’s easy to judge these men centuries after their deaths in a culture which has evolved considerably in terms of acceptance and tolerance.  To stand in their shoes when they lived and judge them would be much more complex.  It is simply unrealistic and unfair to hold them to the moral and cultural standard of today.  Today we know slavery is something to abhor but it was simply a part of life in their time.

To diminish men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison to slave holding racists is to ignore the many great things they provided to our nation.  Let us not forget what a tolerant and culturally diverse nation the United States is; nor forget the men that laid the foundation for us to get where we are.  Surely, the system they helped to create has been aided and complimented by others along the way (Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King to name but a few).  Our founding fathers may have written a “bad check,” as Martin Luther King put it, but they still wrote the “check.”  In doing so, they paved the way for others to build on the foundation which they established for the United States to eventually become the most free, culturally diverse, artistically rich, technologically advanced, and all-around most tolerant nation this world has ever seen.

In addition, Confederate monuments are important historical symbols.  They are reminders of the price so many Americans paid to get where we are now.  Confederate soldiers may have been wrong in what they fought for but they were still Americans whose descendants walk among us today.  We should not denounce these ancestors but rather learn from their mistakes.  

Interestingly enough, I think it speaks to the unique tolerant and progressive nature of United States history that a statue of a man who fought against our Union still stands almost 150 years after his death.  Remember, part of the healing process after fighting a Civil War includes the reintegration of the losing faction into society.  It can be argued that Confederate monuments played an integral part in that.  You can’t force that reintegration overnight.

Ironically, progressives are actually regressing by making a big deal out of something that is otherwise a non-issue as far as race relations go.  The majority of Americans view Confederate monuments as historical icons of a very different time in our history.  Very few view Confederate monuments as symbols of White Supremacy and those few certainly should not dictate how we treat items that are otherwise of important historical significance.  Besides, most of these monuments were built to honor the men they portray; not specifically what they fought for.

When considering this issue remember the following important points:

• If you look back at history’s greatest leaders and expect moral perfection, you will be disappointed every time.  Likewise will you be disappointed when applying this standard to our future leaders.

 

• If you want to stamp out all symbols of America’s history with slavery, you will have to go beyond America’s borders.  Remember: for every European who traded in African flesh, there was an African counterpart who provided the product.  You had better start doing your research on which African tribal symbols and leaders to erase from history.

 

• One would be hard pressed to find a culture that did not have the institution of slavery at some point in its history.

 

• The United States was a very young nation when it fought its Civil War.  The seeds of future conflict between North and South were sewn not long after our establishment as a nation.  Our forefathers went to a lot of trouble to create a United States that would survive its early nationhood intact, but that survival was certainly not a given. To expect them to have tackled the issue of slavery, on top of everything else they faced, and still have created a strong/intact nation is preposterous.

 

• Tearing down Confederate monuments does not change anything about the history of the United States.  It does nothing to improve the lives of Black Americans in the past or present.  If you are relying on the removal of a statue to feel good about your country, you’re in for disappointment because the statue is not the problem.

 

• The United States is a comparatively young nation and has progressed very far and relatively fast.  We have an extensive history of overcoming conflicts and mistakes, and learning from them.  We are a great nation because of this history; not in spite of it.  

Share This:

 

Despite all the aggravation it causes me to watch it, I still keep tabs on the mainstream media, recently referred to by President Trump’s Senior Policy Advisor Steven Miller as the “ex-treme media.”  Extreme is absolutely right.  For two days after the violence in Charlottesville, I heard the Extreme Media do nothing but chastise two groups they believe share responsibility for the conflict that took place there last Saturday.  One group is President Trump and his supporters.  The other group is anyone at the event whose politics were not clearly left of center.  The bias against the right has always been evident in the media, and has reached an unacceptable level.  Left leaning politicians, celebrities, and the extreme media are on a crusade to erase American history and vilify those on the right.  There is so much wrong with how this situation has been interpreted and perceived it seems impossible to give it adequate attention. There’s a lot of muck to trudge through so let’s get messy.

Let me start with a personal rant: I lament the fact that I even feel the necessity to insert a statement here declaring, for the record, that I am not a White Supremacist.  Nothing in the following writing would indicate to any reasonable person that I condone racism or Nazism.  Like President Trump and many other Americans who support law enforcement, immigration reform, and the President’s policies, I am sick and tired of having to repeatedly convince others that I am not a racist or fascist.  Well guess what: I’m not providing the all too common “I’m not a racist” disclaimer here because I shouldn’t have to.  Anyone who would apply that overused and now almost meaningless label to this writing is probably beyond understanding anyway.

I applaud President Trump’s statements today holding both sides of the Charlottesville conflict accountable.  Most infuriating is this:  holding Antifa, Alt-Left, Anarchists equally responsible for the violence is being portrayed by many as the equivalent of supporting Alt-Right, Neo-Nazi, White Supremacists.  Clearly both sides at the conflict were not devoid of their share of intolerant dirtbags looking to pick a fight with the other side.  It is also a reasonable assumption that both sides also contained their share of peaceful demonstrators looking to exercise their First Amendment rights.  

The hijacking of what may have otherwise been a peaceful demonstration by extremists on both sides is what makes the event sensational.  Yet, through the hype and chaos of the event, it is nearly impossible to determine who started the violence.  Though the violence perpetrated by the wacko Far-Leftists at the conflict had just as much potential to result in a homicide, it just happens that the only death resulted from the actions of some nutjob on the Far-Right side.  This is something the Trump-hating Extreme Media in particular is thriving on and eating up like candy.  They are capitalizing on it because, to them and their supporters, it is validation of their claims that President Trump is Hitler, his supporters are Deplorables, and they are collectively leading America on a path to some White Supremacist, dystopian future.

The extreme media would have you believe the far-Right is fully responsible for the conflict because they showed up with torches and bats.  Nevermind the fact just as many far-Lefters showed up equally armed.  Never mind the fact those on the Right may have had reason to consider their safety prior to the event after witnessing the unprovoked attacks on Trump supporters by the Far-Left in San Jose, California (among other places).  Never mind the fact the Far-Right group went through proper legal channels to conduct their protest and exercise their First Amendment right (just as Milo Yiannopoulos had).  The frequent unprovoked violence committed by those on the extreme Left, like that seen at Yiannopoulos’ scheduled appearance at Berkeley, seems to be completely ignored by the Extreme Media.  

In fact, most of the people I see placing all the blame on the Right have considerably weak, emotionally-driven arguments for doing so.  Most of these arguments are based purely on the following logic: Nazi’s were evil people responsible for millions of deaths, and there were Neo-Nazis at the protest; ergo all those who stood right-of-center in the Charlottesville conflict are White Supremacists and automatically bear full responsibility for the violence.  This oversimplified view of the situation is dangerous.  I may think Nazis and KKK members are despicable human beings, but I am objective enough to evaluate the situation based on the facts we currently know and not just on my own intolerance for their wretched beliefs.

It’s easy to put blinders on and jump on the Nazis-are-evil bandwagon.  After all, no one can justify Nazism and White Supremacy, or argue against the totalitarian evil the Nazi’s stood for and perpetrated against millions.  Neither can one deny the presence of many White Supremacists at Saturday’s event; nor ignore the damage many of them undoubtedly caused.  But it takes real moxie to speak plainly as President Trump has, and not oversimplify the existing problem as so many other politicians have.  But then again, that is the difference between President Trump and other politicians.  He won’t ignore a problem or remain silent for the sake of retaining votes.  He is not afraid to be openly honest, even if it means publicly taking a potentially unpopular stance.  Yet, instead of this being recognized as an admirable trait, he is often demonized for it.

If you equate Trump’s statements with support for White Supremacy, shame on you!  President Trump’s statements are based completely on the facts and evidence currently available to him.  Anyone can clearly see there were extremists on both sides who came for a fight.  To say so is NOT the same thing as leaving the far-Right blameless, nor does it proximate sympathy for the cause of the far Right.  Furthermore, President Trump and his supporters cannot help it if that is how the KKK and Neo-Nazis interpret his words.  Who cares what the KKK or David Duke thinks anyway?  Consider the source.  This is the United States; we hold people equally accountable for their actions regardless of race, sex, religion, or political affiliation.  

The Leftist librocrits claim to be such tolerant and understanding people.  If this is the case, why do they put the Trump voter on the same social level as David Duke and the KKK? Is it because we share a common desire for a border wall to be built?  Why can’t these noble progressives distinguish between someone who wants reasonable border control, and someone who would prefer to eject all non-Whites from the United States?  Instead, most of them are ready to believe President Trump said that all immigrants are rapists and he supports White Supremacists.  The inability or unwillingness of these so called progressives to differentiate between two clearly dissimilar groups shows that they have more in common with the ignorant groupthink of Nazis than they realize.

I cannot finish this piece without mentioning my disgust over the unabashed criticism of the police in this matter.  I’ll keep this short and to the point.  The media, having repeatedly demonstrated their ignorance of police work, have no right to criticise, nor feign shock over, what they describe as police “inaction.”  Police Chiefs order their officers to stand down when they know they will not receive support from political leaders for taking appropriate action.  Had Charlottesville PD squashed the violence, videos of “fascist” and “militarized” police officers donning riot gear would have gone viral and Chief Al Thomas would be chastised for condoning rampant excessive force.  Political leaders, more concerned with their image and votes, would have joined in the condemning of police action.  We’ve seen it before on both sides of the political scale.

The second the protest turned violent, CPD should have been allowed to deploy tear gas, stinger grenades, rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, chemical agents, and baton strikes.  CPD’s “inaction” is a direct result of a culture which is overly critical and ignorant of police tactics and demonstrates overall lack of support for law enforcement with regard to use of force.  Police are doubly hit with criticism in this situation, receiving blame for letting casualties escalate on the sides of both the far-left and far-right; neither of which, by the way, are traditionally supportive of militarized law enforcement to begin with.  As is often the case with law enforcement agencies, it was a no-win situation for CPD; born out of a no-win culture for cops.

The most frustrating political difficulty President Trump and his supporters face is this: the overwhelming majority of us are not racists by any means and yet it seems as if we must constantly struggle to convince the Left our motives are just.  We know we are good people with valid concerns for our safety and the future of a nation we are proud to be part of.  Yet, for our values, we are reduced to a “basket of deplorables.”  We are fed up with it.  The frustration seen in President Trump today is completely understandable.  For his attempts to hold both sides of the Charlottesville conflict equally accountable (based on clear evidence), he is deemed to be a Nazi sympathizer. Absurd.

~AD

 Share This:

Considering this issue could potentially lead to the ultimate decimation of the United States, I figured the least I can do is jot a few words down regarding my thoughts.  The fact that I would even have to convince another American of the clear and present danger North Korea poses shows what a sad state our nation is in.

Let us bullet point the danger posed by North Korea (these are not in any particular order):

• North Korea has nuclear weapons capable of reaching American allies and military bases at the minimum, if not the western coast of the United States.  They have also successfully launched observation satellites.
• Kim Jong-un is an unpredictable megalomaniac.  To speculate on the propensity for him to demonstrate any logic or practicality in his behavior is a waste of time.
• The mere possibility of North Korea supplying terrorists, Jihadists, and/or other rogue nations with Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) should scare the Hell out of all Americans (and the rest of the West).

Let’s look at the first point.  The danger posed by Kim Jong-un possessing nuclear weapons should concern all Americans.  At this point I can’t help but think half of American’s are either oblivious of the threat or are so wrapped up in other concerns, they are too busy to be troubled with what they consider an exaggerated threat.  

The reality of the situation is our nation has been in a similar conundrum in the past.  However, it can be argued that at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, neither Khrushchev nor Castro were nearly as unstable as Kim Jong-un.  Despite the fact American’s are obviously faced with an enemy leader no less maniacal than Hitler or Stalin, many in power still contend Russian President Putin is the greater threat.

Regarding the second point: Kim Jong-un has demonstrated he is unpredictable at best and malicious at worst.  His mind is warped from decades of having been told that everything he ever did was great and all his people love him (despite all the suffering of the average North Korean; which he is either oblivious or insensitive to).  Granted, my expertise in psycho-analysis is limited.  Regardless, American leaders better regard Kim Jong-un as potentially the most unhinged leader in the world, if we are to adequately counter the threat he poses.

Third point: the likelihood of North Korea sending a nuclear strike against the United States is probably minor (though it should be regarded as probable for the sake of national security).  However, the prospect of Kim Jong-un providing WMD to Jihadists is more concerning.  I shouldn’t have to detail for you the disturbing thought of a group like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, or Hezbollah having even the most meager of nuclear weapons at their disposal.

Now let me bullet point some of the steps (and the attitude) the United States could and should take in neutralizing the North Korean threat.  The sequence of these can be flexible, depending on China and North Korea’s actions:

• Forget the United Nations: there’s a reason countless sanctions have been ineffective against North Korea and it is only half due to the fact China is on the Security Council.  If the U.N. wants to pass sanctions against the United States for taking action against North Korea, best of luck to them.
• Forget China: China is not likely to take military action against the United States.  They have too much to lose economically from such a prospect.  China is also not likely to take major economic action.  The United States is China’s biggest customer.  Approximately 18% of Chinese exports go to the U.S. (about 4.5% goes to South Korea).  If they cut us off, their economy crashes just as much as ours, and probably more so.  It’s unlikely they would be willing to risk World War 3 for a little pissant like Kim Jong-un.
• Destroy Kwangmyŏngsŏng 4, North Korea’s observation satellite.  North Korea cannot be trusted with such a device and any capability it may have in launching an EMP attack against the United States should be immediately negated.  The U.S. may even be able to make it look like an “accident” if it so chooses.
• Impose a naval blockade against North Korea.  The entire U.S. Pacific Fleet, consisting of the Third and Seventh Fleets, should be dispatched to the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan.  This will likely lead to war and so be it.
• Initiate focused cyber-attacks on North Korea’s missile systems and space program.
• Send an ultimatum to North Korea: 1) dismantle all nuclear and space programs and equipment, 2) allow U.S. inspectors into North Korea (U.N. inspectors can go pound sand), 3) (optional) force Kim Jong-un to forfeit all power.
• If Kim Jong-un fails to accept the terms of the ultimatum; the U.S. should consider a massive pre-emptive air strike, preceded/supported by naval launched cruise missiles, that would put Operation Focus to shame (“Focus” was the IAF’s 1967 air strike against the Arab air forces).  Primary targets should be missile launch sites, major air bases, and artillery in range of Seoul.

One only has to study the post World War 2 history of North Korea, and Kim Jong-un’s sabre-rattling, to understand the direction this situation is moving.  The problem has been repeatedly ignored by previous administrations.  Unfortunately, by ignoring the problem and placating China, North Korea is now in a position to potentially kill many Americans.  This is unacceptable.  The farce of the United Nations is palpable when you consider how many Americans (over 36,000)  and South Koreans (over half a million) died in the Korean War, yet 64 years later the North Korean leader technically has the power to start a nuclear war.

Why has the United States allowed this to happen?  The reason is a combination of fear and aloofness.  In the past few decades China has continually warned Japan, South Korea, and the U.S. not to interfere in North Korean activities (such as the launching of Kwangmyŏngsŏng 4).  All three have been all too willing to oblige.  The U.N. repeatedly writes nasty letters regarding North Korea’s rogue behaviour; which China and North Korea both laugh at.  Yet the feeling among the U.N. (and even popular within the U.S.) is that Western powers must not do anything to upset China or North Korea.  What do China and North Korea learn from this?… they can do whatever they want and the West will do nothing but send empty threats, condemnation, and vague critique.  The West seems unwilling to do anything that could potentially lead to war; even if that means putting itself at risk of being attacked.

For the first time in years the West may have a leader that is willing to send more than just ineffectual statements to North Korea.  President Trump has unfortunately inherited this problem from the past several administrations.  Maybe President Trump understands a concept previous presidents either failed to understand or plainly ignored; the U.S. should not put it’s own citizens at risk for the sake of appearing as a peace-loving nation.  Maybe he feels it’s wrong that so many proponents of nuclear disarmament, who vilify the U.S. for using atomic weapons in the Second World War, are the same people who seem to give North Korea a “pass” on this issue.

North Korea doesn’t just have the largest military institution in the world for the heck of it.  It does not have a nuclear and space program just for fun.  However, Kim Jong-un has done the U.S. one tremendous favor; he has not hidden his intentions.  If North Korea were to attack the United States or South Korea, Americans could not honestly claim to be surprised; as opposed to the surprise Americans felt on December 7th, 1941.  Nevertheless, the U.S. has chosen to pursue a RE-active stance to the problem, thus far.  It seems to be hedging it’s bets on the hopeful occurrence of some random event which will prevent this rogue nation from bringing war; perhaps a coup or the sudden death of Kim Jong-un and subsequent replacement by a much nicer North Korean leader.

Ask yourself these questions: Is this reactive stance what Americans really want?  Are Americans really willing to rely on China to control North Korea and hope that the latter doesn’t do anything that leads to American deaths?  Why all the resistance among so many Americans to be PRO-active?  Do people really believe it is acceptable for Americans, South Koreans, and/or Japanese to die first; out of some misplaced belief that the U.S. should not appear as an aggressor?  

It is obvious many Westerners are in denial over the fact that War is politics by other means.

The U.S. cannot rely on North Korean inaction based on the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).  MAD relies on a certain level of rational thinking on both sides of the conflict.  Kim Jong-un has not demonstrated a history of rational behavior, and simply hoping he is suddenly struck with rational thinking is not an acceptable strategy.  Moreover, MAD theory is undermined when one power is potentially reckless enough to share it’s WMD with terrorist groups.  

Let’s face it: casualties are coming sooner or later.  Would we rather have fewer casualties now, or a lot more later?  If only more Americans summoned the same enthusiasm to hate Kim Jong-un that they seem to feel for their own President.  It’s a sad state of affairs when so many Americans compare President Trump to Adolf Hitler while there is currently a living breathing version of Hitler leading the nation of North Korea and clearly threatening the United States.  We can only hope Americans will not pay for underestimating this threat.

~ADShare This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgme6mDXfUg

Last Friday, Minnesota Police Officer Jeronimo Yanez was acquitted of manslaughter in the shooting death of Philando Castile which occurred in July of last year.  This is a case that never should have been tried and the acquittal of Officer Yanez is a completely just and fair verdict.  Sickeningly, people like CNN’s Don Lemon are portraying it as an extrajudicial police shooting.  Choosing the path of emotion instead of logic, and based on complete ignorance of Law Enforcement methods, they are ignoring Mr. Castile’s culpability and instead focus on what they perceive as the fault of a racist Police Officer.

There is a lot more to this case than the liberal media would have us know, and there are important lessons to be learned; particularly with respect to the responsible handling of firearms and compliance with both the law and lawful directives from Law Enforcement.

You cannot have an honest discussion of Officer Yanez’ culpability in the situation without acknowledging Mr. Castile’s contribution toward creating an unstable situation.  When it comes right down to it, it was Mr. Castile’s failure to display overall compliant behavior that led to the shooting.  Instead of ignoring the evidence and Mr. Castile’s actions as Don Lemon and most of his panel did in their mostly one-sided “discussion,”  let’s examine the facts of the situation that unfortunately ended in Mr. Castile’s death.

The following are summaries of the key actions that Mr. Castile took which demonstrates his responsibility/culpability in creating an unstable and unsafe situation.

Mr. Castile was driving under the influence of marijuana

First of all, let’s not ignore the fact Mr. Castile is guilty of placing his fiance’, her daughter, and the general public in danger by driving under the influence.  Secondly, he is guilty of creating a situation in which it would be obvious to even the most oblivious of Police Officers that he was in clear violation of the law (the odor of marijuana in the car was reportedly apparent).  This is important because when a Police Officer recognizes a clear violation of the law, he/she also recognizes/anticipates the potential for a suspect to flee or resist arrest for that violation.  In a good Police Officer, this will heighten his/her sense of potential danger.  This further results in heightened awareness, either consciously or subconsciously, of an increased threat to his/her own mortality and the mortality of all those in the immediate area.  

It was Mr. Castile who chose to violate the law and drive under the influence; thereby contributing, whether he knew it or not, to unsafe circumstances.

Mr. Castile was carrying under the influence of marijuana

Per Minnesota state law, those who are licensed to carry firearms may not do so under the influence of marijuana.  We have to assume Mr. Castile went through at least minimal training in firearms as part of acquiring his license to carry; including the legal and responsible handling of firearms.  Whether he did or not, it is his responsibility to know and understand the seriousness of carrying a firearm and the laws pertaining to it.

Since the liberal media has (in regular fashion) done a disservice to their viewers and Law Enforcement by ignoring facts and logic, I will briefly explain to everyone why there are laws that prohibit/limit the carrying of firearms while under the influence of drugs/alcohol.  I really shouldn’t have to because it is pretty much the equivalent of explaining to somebody why they should not drive drunk.  But since it is key to understanding the instability of circumstances that led to Mr. Castile’s death, I will break it down for everyone:

Just as a vehicle can be, a firearm is a deadly weapon which should not be carried or operated while under the influence.  The reason: because your decision making ability is affected by drugs/alcohol.  Here is just one example: when an individual is stoned out of their mind, they are more likely to make unsafe decisions; such as reaching around in their pockets after telling a Police Officer they are carrying a deadly weapon.

Mr. Castile is unfortunately guilty of giving too little regard toward the responsible handling of firearms.  What he should have done after informing officers of his firearm was keep his hands absolutely visible and still; this important behavior is generally taught by instructors when acquiring licenses to carry firearms.  I will give Mr. Castile the benefit of the doubt by assuming his decision not to do so may very well have been influenced by the cannabis in his system.  By carrying a gun under the influence, he exposed everyone around him to potential danger.  Again, it was his decision to do so which led to unsafe circumstances.

Mr. Castile demonstrated an overall disregard for the law and lack of compliance with lawful directives

Aside from the infraction-level traffic violation, Mr. Castile broke at least two other important laws: driving under the influence and carrying under the influence.  The former was obvious to officers almost immediately and they became aware of the second soon after.  Mr. Castile began reaching around immediately after telling officers he had a firearm on him.  Though Mr. Castile’s intentions may have been innocent (possibly to hand officers his IDs and/or the firearm), there is no way officers on scene could have known that; they’re not mind readers.  All they knew was they were encountering someone who 1) was probably under the influence, 2) disregarded at least two laws relevant to public safety, 3) admitted he was carrying a deadly weapon, and 4) began reaching around immediately after being instructed not to reach for something.

Once again, it was Mr. Castile’s behavior that led to the overall instability of the situation.  Prior to the shooting, officers on scene had only approximately 40 seconds worth of familiarity with Mr. Castile with which to evaluate the situation.  They did not have time to tell Mr. Castile to make his hands visible before Mr. Castile began reaching.  For officers trying to evaluate such a rapidly evolving situation, Mr. Castile’s overall behavior was not entirely consistent with someone who fully complies with the law.  It had nothing to do his skin color, and everything to do with behavior.

---

That’s not to say that Officer Yanez’ reaction was not at least a little panicked.  Anyone watching either of two videos of the situation can see he was distressed.  But no Police Officer can reasonably say Officer Yanez had no reason to fear for his and/or his partner’s safety at that exact time and place.  After all, this is the standard Police Officers are generally held to; whether a reasonable officer in the same situation could have perceived a threat to life and limb at the time of the incident.

To those of us sitting comfortable watching the video at home in safety and security, it doesn’t seem that Mr. Castile had violent intentions.  We will never know.  What we have to realize is, if he did have bad intentions, he had the capability to kill Officer Yanez within a second.  Officer Yanez knew this and, based on his evaluation of the totality of the circumstances, reacted to what he reasonably believed could be a threat to him, his partner, and the public.

Does all this mean that Philando Castile deserved to die?  Of course not.  The whole situation is absolutely unfortunate.  It’s tragic for both Mr. Castile’s family and for Officer Yanez.  Anyone can see from Officer Yanez’ reaction he never imagined he would end up taking a life that day.  Unfortunately, The Castile family must live without their son and Officer Yanez must live the rest of his life with the fact that he took a life.  Officer Yanez may have been completely justified in his actions but that doesn’t mean he will not have extreme regrets over how the situation turned out.  Nobody here is saying Mr. Castile was a bad person.  People make mistakes and that is understandable.  Unfortunately, Mr. Castile’s mistakes contributed to a situation which resulted in his own death.  Officer Yanez’ actions could be viewed as a mistake also.  But if you are going to be understanding about Mr. Castile’s actions, you must also be objectively understanding of Officer Yanez’ response.

The issue never should have been brought to trial but it was for political reasons.  It is fortunate Officer Yanez was acquitted.  Unfortunate as the shooting was, it was nevertheless justifiable considering the totality of the circumstances. Officer Yanez was not guilty of manslaughter and clearly the jury, after examining the evidence, thought so as well.  Officer Yanez did not demonstrate culpable negligence and there was no evidence to suggest he would have acted differently if Mr. Castile had not been Black.  Mr. Castile mistakenly neglected to adhere to the responsible, safe handling of firearms.  Thankfully, nobody else was hurt.

The liberal media has been reckless in its politicization of this situation to fit their narrative of police brutality.  Consider this irony: the same liberals who are often equally critical of both law enforcement and gun owners, have left the gun owner blameless in this instance.  We have yet to hear from any of the liberal press about Mr. Castile’s unsafe and careless disregard for Minnesota’s gun laws.  Moreover, when it came to demonizing Officer Yanez and Law Enforcement, CNN (among others) was quick to play the “think of the children” card by showing Mr. Castile’s fiance’s daughter in the back of a patrol car.  Yet, they conveniently ignore the fact Mr. Castile placed that very same little girl in an unsafe situation by knowingly driving and carrying a firearm while smoking dope.  They ignored it because, in this instance, their anti-gun narrative did not fit in with with their anti-law enforcement narrative.  The liberal media is truly unprincipled, disgusting, and disgraceful.

~ADShare This: