This is Why Conservatives Reject Banning Guns

I think it is fair to say that Progressives favor big government and that most of today's Progressives are either 60s and 70s misfits or have been influenced by them. Further, they have embedded themselves in all levels of our government and bureaucracies.

I have often said, "Give them enough time and Progressives will tell you what they really think." The recent statement by the co-chairman of the Colorado ACLU, Loring Werbel, http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0TV06420151212 that suggests shooting Trump voters before Election Day proves my point. Now of course, Wirbel has said it was a joke and has stepped down.

Back when Obama pal, Bill Ayers, was in the Weather Underground, the FBI infiltrated the group. The undercover agent testified that if the group ever gained power, they planned to create re-education camps (where have we heard that before?) to deal with those who are uncooperative and they were completely comfortable with having to eliminate as much as 1/4 of the American population.

If people like this ever become "the government", who will protect us from "the government"? This is why the Framers insisted on the 2nd Amendment and today's patriots continue to support it. Could it also be why Progressives are so opposed to it? I don't know and I don't want to find out.

Trump Schools All on Negotiating

The hullabaloo surrounding Donald Trump's proposal to temporarily restrict all Muslim travel to the US shows Americans, in general, don't understand negotiating.

Example: If you want to buy a car listed at $15,000 but don't want to pay the sticker price, you need to start with a much lower offer. Of course, the seller acts offended by your unreasonable bid. You get a counter-offer and then you counter, etc until you arrive at some mutually acceptable price. Negotiating 101.

Trump is doing exactly that. He threw out a proposal that he knows full well isn't acceptable to anyone. He has already begun to walk it back a bit - without apologizing. Apologizing would give away the advantage. In the end, the deal that would result would be something more secure than the nothing measures currently in place but certainly far short of banning entry of all Muslims. My guess is it would be something more along the lines of a moratorium on all entry of those from high terrorism threat countries or those who had recently traveled to those areas regardless of what their nationality is.

Those losing their minds over Trump's statement clearly don't understand how this works. Those who continue to support Trump probably don't understand either but they instinctively feel that he would do something more effective then the current bunch of do nothings. It isn't racism or bigotry. It's "The Art of Deal".

ISIS vs ISIL

It has been suggested by some that the use of ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) by the president and his administration is somehow meant to be a poke in the eye to Israel. Maybe but I really don't see it. A much simpler explanation in my opinion is that it is just pretense. We have a very pretentious and professorial man in the White House. It is just his way of continuing the narrative of how smart he is. It is his way of saying, "Hey all you dummies. I know most of you are not smart enough or educated enough to understand the term "Levant". Why don't you look it up. Then maybe you will be smart like me." Another example of  Obama's pretense is the way he pronounces certain words with their foreign pronunciation. Hey just a suggestion but unless you are speaking in that foreign language a la the equally  pretentious, John Kerry, use the English pronunciation. And while you are at it, call the radical Islamists in that region what the rest of the world calls them either ISIS or maybe even DAESH. Drop the pretense for heaven sakes.

Don't Talk About Trump or Hillary Then!

Oscar Wilde once famously said, "The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about."

Since I think much of the support for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is based on name recognition rather than their ideas (except for Trump's anti-establishment rhetoric and Hillary's anti-rich rhetoric), the way to oppose them is to stop talking about them.

For those concerned about who gets the party nominations, I propose supporting someone else rather than expressing opposition to someone. Otherwise, you end up actually supporting who you oppose by reinforcing the name recognition by the low information voters of both parties. Rather than connecting an idea you oppose to a candidate and thereby reinforcing the name recognition, support an alternative idea and be sure to connect that idea to the candidate you like. This would help increase the name recognition of the other candidates.

Yeah, I know I've been just as guilty of this as the next guy.

Let's educate and offer alternatives. I promise to try and do my part!

Intellectual Inconsistency or Is It Just Me?

So there are some in this country, we all know who they are, that have no problem with violating everyone's 2nd Amendment rights when they advocate confiscating all guns but become apoplectic at the notion of "Stop and frisk" because it might violate the 4th Amendment rights of a few?

Is it me or does this seem to be intellectually inconsistent? What is especially troubling to me is mayors like Martin O'Mally and Mike DeBlazio ended the highly successful "Stop and frisk" programs in Baltimore and NewYork City which has resulted in a huge spike in homocides. It makes me wonder if stopping gun violence is actually the goal.

Why Doesn't Truth Matter To Some Anymore?

61% of potential voters say they associate Hillary Clinton with the words dishonest, liar, and untrustworthy. Why then is she still the Democrat primary front runner? Why are so many people willing to support her?

Could it be that we are arriving at a point in the U.S. where instead of truth leading to ideology that then results in policy, we are allowing some to use ideology to create "truth" and then implement policy.

This is a truly dangerous development indeed!

Ideological Blindness on Rise in America

Disease and injury are the typical causes of blindness but there is a new source of blindness on the rise in America - ideology.

Ideological blindness manifests itself in things like the following:

The president saying "These things just don't happen in other countries." when responding to the attack in San Bernardino. Apparently, it skipped Mr. Obama's mind that the French crowd before him had just suffered their own horrific attack that left ten times the number of dead and wounded than the U.S. attack; or

It taking American authorities nearly three days to be willing to call the attack terrorism despite clear evidence available early on such as huge ammunition stores, a dozen pipe bombs, numerous weapons, in the attackers home and the attacker arriving in full assault gear; or

It continuing to insist that climate change is a bigger threat than radical Islam; or

Citizens seeing suspicious activity but being afraid to say anything for fear of being accused of profiling as was the case with the neighbors of the attackers; or

The president calling for more common sense gun laws and citing the fact that current laws allow those on the terrorism "no fly" list to legally buy a firearm in the U.S.. Why would anyone rational person have any faith that the system that allowed this to happen in the first place is the same system that can fix it?

American needs to have the ideological scales plucked from its eyes before it is too late.