Why America's Gun Violence Will NEVER END!

Why America's Gun Violence Will NEVER END!

I hate to write this but we had enough of Mass shootings . They don't seem to go away , what country has the most gun violence ? IT'S AMERICA . Our nation is a kinda wild wild west , with huge profits of gun sales . Statistics shows About 22.8 million firearms were sold in 2020, compared with 13.9 million the previous year, according to estimates by the Small Arms Analytics & Forecasting, an independent research firm. In 2020, the FBI conducted more firearm background checks than any year on record—more than 39.6 million, data from the agency shows. NO TO TRAMPLE ON (1)>>SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS .  (1.2)>>BUT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN OUR NATION ? I think it is absolute madness. Why you cannot enact simple and logical reforms to limit access to firearms while working on the deeper mental health and societal problems that like drive a lot of this is something I do not understand?  The latest shooting in San Jose Ca at the VTA station is one too many . The suspects are always have been under the radar of the law where red flags somehow get ignored. Given that something like 70% of gun homicides occur in about dozen of the poorest urban areas in the country, like Detroit, and these places typically vote Democratic, I would suppose that most would occur in Democratic counties. One of the problems with gun control is that rural white folk account for, like, 15% of gun homicides but own the majority of guns, so any restriction tends to hit them despite them largely being responsible gun owners.Most shootings and gun homicide occur in cities and districts that vote heavily left.  (2)>>Chicago and Detroit come to mind. Since the 1990's mass shootings , gun violence among gangs have been increasing for the last decades . As far as mass shootings, there's credible sources stating that after almost every "mass shooting" (FBI defines as 4 or more people) is covered heavily by the media, there's a 13 day contagion period where it's actually contagious and a shooting will most likely happen in the next 13 days. Shooters are usually inspired by other shooters. Several have "given credit" or flat out said they were "inspired by" a past shooter. I'm not saying that reducing media coverage and not naming the shooter would eliminate all mass shootings, but it's definitely not helping.The biggest reason the media covers these things like they do is because of ratings. People relentlessly watch the coverage. The news media is no longer about informing people, the news media is there for entertainment first and foremost. Once people stop watching mass shooting coverage like they do, the media will stop reporting on them like they do. The government is completely powerless to stop places like CNN from doing 24/7 "breaking news" of mass shootings since the US Constitution grants the press freedom from government regulation. I don't get why the Democratic establishment is trying to use this to push bans on AR-style "assault weapons," nation-wide red flag laws, and high-capacity magazine bans, banning "ghost guns" ... when none of these things would've prevented this incident. He committed his crimes with (3)>>California-compliant handguns that were not "ghost guns". Why don't we keep things simple and just work on the laws that we already have? People with domestic violence charges aren't allowed to get firearms federally, yet obviously this guy got around it in the most gun-control-strict state. And he apparently talked about killing his co-workers yet no one used California's red flag laws to stop him. This happens more and more often until the next mass shooting happens . WILL MASS SHOOTINGS EVER END? Even President Joe Biden calls mass shootings “a national embarrassment.” But Biden’s double-negative defense — “I’ve never not prioritized this” — isn’t quite the same as making it his top priority.Since Columbine, mass shootings have become increasingly common in America. In 2017, it was said the U.S. makes up less than 5 percent of the world's population but has 31 percent of the world's mass shooters, according to Business Insider.In 2021, there has been a recorded number of 147 mass shootings, according to CNN. However, the concept of mass shootings isn’t new to American culture. So there , they are not likely to end at all . Mostly we probably have another ,another and another with no end .

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

 

(1)>>SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS . Gun control takes firearms out of EVERYONES hands to include the sane honest people who use them in self defense. What are the statistics on the people who have stopped or prevent horrific acts because they are armed and used their weapon for good? I would be curious to know.I also know many folks who literally feed their families because they hunt for their meat. For them, hunting is cheaper than buying meat in a store and they get by because they can do this.The second amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The right refers to a firearm that one could operate by themselves and be used for some conceivable lawful purpose. Militia's would not have been arming themselves with a broadsword when called, they would have came with firearms from their own homes. The historical background of early America and the function of the militia in that context is important for understanding the distinction. People now interpret it to be more conducive of the common man. The right to bear arms in a militia is quite a testy subject these days. Anything that is classified as a weapon, could fall under 2nd amendment rights because it does not specify what "arms" are. However modern laws consider things that our Forefathers never conceived possible. GPS guided bombs, Howitzers, and tanks, weapons of mass casualty were never thought of due to their concepts being foreign to those who wrote the law. The notion that the Second Amendment guarantees the unfettered private ownership of all weapons is a bogus interpretation, and a fairly recent one (in the mainstream) at that. Up until about the 70s or so, all bona fide Constitutional scholars agreed the purpose of the 2nd was precisely what it says, to guarantee the right to well-regulated militias, and thus, it was something of an antique, much like the 6th, which prohibits quartering of troops in private homes in peacetime. The SCOTUS also held this view, as in US v Miller, 1938, which upheld the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (which made most automatic weapons, bazookas, etc illegal). Prior to the NFA, private ownership of things like fully-automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, and so on, was not controlled. The 1938 ruling, as well as the NFA, still stands. It was really only the real lunatic fringe who held that the amendment guaranteed the unfettered private ownership of weapons. Further, the NRA at that time was an organization for gun owners, mainly hunters. They actively fought for stricter gun control on several occasions. Conservative demigod Ronald Reagan signed some of the strictest gun control legislation in the country when he was governor of California(1)>>BUT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN OUR NATION ? Yes but when people think about "Mass Shootings" they also think about Columbine or whatever else. That's why people act a bit contentious with this, because such a broad definition includes specific crimes such as murdering your own family, or gang fights, or other such acts of violence. But if you just say it like it's being said, it becomes a rash of uncontrollable and random violence by random, unbalanced nutjobs!!!! And to go even further with your point, why stop at just people shot in that case? If you actually think about it, most shooters don't even manage to just hit the amount of people they wanted to, let alone kill them. So you're still giving them a pass for things like bad aim. Believe we have exceeded 300 murders this year in Baltimore. The overwhelming majority involved drugs and/or gang activity. The number shot by police is under a tenth of a percent. It's not Cletus out in the woods with a healthy gun collection that likes hunting and fishing that is committing the majority of the crime. Its little gang bangers with stolen guns that "wanna be gangsta". (2)>>Chicago and Detroit come to mind. Detroit is far more deadly than Chicago. The Murder Rates being 20.2 and 12.1 per 100,000 people.Detroit gun laws are almost as onerous as Chicago, Gun Control Facts: Detroit Crime Rate is the Result Of Gun Control, however Chicago became more publicly known due to the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case that the city lost. McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia In either case both are generally good examples of the facts that gun laws do not prevent crime.Laws were intended in our country to give society a legal way to punish those who broke societal norms. They were never intended to prevent crime and those who believe they do are simple or simply mislead or lying. I think the example that people often give of a particular area (“Baltimore has strict gun laws and they have a lot of homicides”) are poor examples. All violent crime is not the same. All homicides are not the same. Actions that work in one city will be less effective in another. For instance, if you look at the crack epidemic from the 80’s, it hit LA and DC very hard. Both saw major increases in homicide rates. But the strategies that worked in each urban area were very different. In LA, the effective strategies focused more on gangs (infiltrating gangs, gang prevention. But in DC, there were no counterparts to the Bloods and the Crips (and their respective alliances). There were hundreds of open-air crack markets in DC each run by 3–5 people who were buddies (not a gang). Infiltrating them was near impossible. The way that DC reduced their homicides was to focus on guns and then vice issues (to try and get people off of crack and reduce the market).Second, the challenge with looking at cities is that their laws are so easily circumvented by local communities. For instance, Indiana makes gun purchases very easy and that’s just 45 minutes from Chicago.Third, the concept of “strict gun laws” is a joke. You can have a city like Chicago that has strong regulation against long guns and weapons like an AR-15 but still allow handgun purchases. Chicago doesn’t ban handguns and doesn’t make it particularly hard to get them. And the challenge with having a locality with stronger laws (say…a background check) is that it’s only as good as the information going in to the system. So if other states don’t consistently put in information in to a national database or the US military doesn’t put in information about individuals with domestic violence charges than when a city does a background check, someone shows up as clean. That’s the big fallacy of assuming this is a state and local problem. (3)>>California-compliant handguns that were not "ghost guns".  With limited exceptions, California prohibits anyone from possessing an assault weapon (as defined by state law), unless they lawfully possessed the firearm prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon and registered the firearm with the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) within the timeframes established by state law.1  "Five months later, California enacted the country’s first ban on assault weapons. " To be sure, California has not been alone in fighting back, or at least trying to. Amid the fierce Congressional gun-control deadlock that followed the Columbine High School shootings. So HOW DID THE SAN JOSE VTA shooter get his AKA's ? ACCORDING TO  The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office said investigators discovered multiple cans of gasoline, suspected Molotov cocktails, a dozen firearms and about 22,000 rounds of ammunition after a search of the gunman’s house. It appears the Cassidy also “coordinated the destruction” of his home, the Sheriff’s Office said. Based on the evidence, “it is clear that this was a planned event and the suspect was prepared to use his firearms to take as many lives as he possibly could,” the Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. Investigators also searched the VTA rail yard and found no explosives.   The new law also makes it a crime to manufacture, import, sell or give away any magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. BUT , the Democrat states have strong laws and more likely for mass shooting? Twenty five years ago, when Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Congress passed the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — commonly called the assault weapons ban.It prohibited the manufacture or sale for civilian use of certain semi-automatic weapons. The act also banned magazines that could accommodate 10 rounds or more. So the law failed to protect public safety ? 

American Derangement Syndrome.

American Derangement Syndrome  .  

WAY BACK in January 2017 the  (1)>>Trump Derangement syndrome kicked in . Nation wide people who could not fathom Hillary Clinton losing  started to protest " this is not my President" . There were women's marches, The Metoo movement , the Pink's .Thousands of anti-Trump protesters in New York chanted "Fuck Trump!" and "Donald Trump, Go away!" as they rallied around the Trump International Tower building near 60th St. and Columbus Circle. The group was followed by dozens of NYPD officers who lined the streets with metal barricades and blocked the protesters path as they tried to cross busy intersections. After violence broke out, police pepper-sprayed the crowd, whom police refused to let cross the street.During a simultaneous protest, protesters blocked a highway leading to Trump's Fountain Hills, Arizona rally, leading to many arrests. The hatred of Trump pretty much revealed something about our American culture that being vary frank,  to be honest started to deteriorate with Obama , the first Black American to win the office of the President. There were protests against Obama from the far right . With Trump we had protesters from the unhinged far left that exploded in the streets last year all over the country. Disillusionment played a role in the last presidential election. Indifference, too. Trump and Hillary Clinton were historically unpopular candidates. Trump’s election was a shock in part because pre-election day polls and models were on shakier ground than in years past, thanks to the high number of undecided voters (you can read Nate Silver in depth on the phenomenon here), and a whole lot of people Democrats depended on to elect Barack Obama ended up staying home that November.  (2)>>There’s nothing to say that the 2020 election was the same thing again. Disillusionment came with the Joe Biden . Well this country can't come to the center to deal with anything .  It’s not hard to believe that a generation of people is becoming cynical of the entire process, of the freedoms that America purports to stand for; when their progressive agenda is scoffed at, ridiculed and the target of repeated attempts at legislation to make it, and them, obsolete, it’s hard not to grow weary and dejected. What we got were two political parties diverging further and further apart; what we got was the bifurcation of a nation, an “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality.  (3)>>The United States has been pitted against one another; we are no longer one nation, but a series of fractures.  The Left and Right of politics has now turned nasty . Thank both Obama and Trump for shaping the radicalization of the two party system . Those people on both sides would be in some kind of "civil war"soon enough how they attack each other in public beating up on each other . I think the PEOPLE AT THE CENTER should go and create a second Revolution .  (4)>>A new Party . The United States was born of revolution , it was a tax revolt that started it, with the implicit promise that another one would never be necessary. HOWEVER a lot has changed . LAST YEAR we saw the BLM riot's nation wide , On January 6th, 2021  the Capital Hill was stormed by people disputing the election. Our institutions would protect us from the need to take to the streets to overthrow a tyrannical government, because we could always vote out corrupt governors and legislators. That promise slowly expanded to include women and people of color, although the ideal of government “by the people” has never been really perfect. (5)>>The OLD ELITES with their ties to Wall Street have controlled the nation for a long time, their hold on the American People is now starting to crack because of the Corona Virus lock downs . Of course, every revolution is unique and comparisons between them do not always yield useful insights. But there are a few criteria we identify in hindsight that are usually present in revolutionary explosions.First, there’s tremendous economic inequality. Second, there’s a deep conviction that the ruling classes serve only themselves at the expense of everyone else, undermining the belief that these inequalities will ever be addressed by the political elite.Third, and somewhat in response to these, there is the rise of political alternatives that were barely acceptable in the margins of society before.Revolutions begin when some group realizes it is powerless or fears it is powerless. The American Revolution, for instance, began when the colonists realized they were powerless in the British Empire.

 WHY we need a Second Revolution .

 

But today, wanting to "take back our country from our government" has become the new definition of a patriot. Our system of government was designed in the 18th century when political information traveled on paper by horseback messenger. George Washington only had to rule 4 million people who resided in 13 loosely knit, somewhat autonomous states.  (6)>>It's time we design a system of government for the 21st century, and we probably should include a clause that every 100 years the system is re-designed starting from scratch. According to some surveys that were done, a majority of American citizens are dissatisfied with the two-party system, with many believing that the Democrats and the Republicans care more for gaining control of the government than actually trying to solve the problems America is facing at the moment. Back during the 2016 elections, both Clinton and Trump have low approval rates, with a lot of Americans only voting for one because they don't want to other to win. America is lagging behind other first-world countries in Education, Healthcare, and quality of life. And it is beginning to seem like the true rulers of America is not the people, but the Rich corporations that cares only for profit. People are beginning to get sick of the corruption that is plaguing our government, and it seems like we can't just solve this problem through democratic means.  (7)>>As time goes on America begins to become less of a democracy of more of a oligarchy which is not what the founding fathers had in mind. And with the Covid-19 crisis going on the problems seem to have gotten only worse. Which brings me to the question i'm going to ask, could America undergo a second revolution soon, perhaps this decade? Are the American citizens going to finally decide to fight to overthrow the corrupt government and regain their freedom? So if there's anything better than the current system, then perhaps it would be a selection of representatives pulled out of the current population of residents. Basically those put up for election would be chosen randomly like jury duty, and people would be voting for that. That means even your number could be coming up, and perhaps you'd be up for a decision on being a representative. Thus you'd have a true representation of the average people instead of a self-selecting group of wealthy lawyers, businessmen, and career politicians. Sure you may not always get the best people for the job, but why you have stuff like term limits and multiple representatives to balance things out when it comes to broader decisions of governance . But after years of teaching on protests, uprisings and revolutions, it seems to me the U.S. is currently showing all the signs political scientists and historians would identify in retrospect as conducive to a revolutionary uprising. People in our country just are not invested in their political leaders. Voting in this country is a pain in the ass these days, it is no longer a hard fought victory that is to be cherished as your most important duty as a citizen. With this level of apathy there is nothing that could motivate anyone to do anything that could remotely be referred to as a revolution. i.e take a look at the housing and economic turmoil we are in right now - everyone knows who and what caused such monetary devastation to our country but the most powerful reaction to it is occupy wall-street which though moderately impressive in its scale especially for an american protest, really has and i think will continue to accomplish literally no changes in governmental policy or action of any kind. So we're not ready for a revolution. We don't need one yet. We have freedoms, we live in safety, and although we have serious problems with government authority, if we were oppressed there would not even be a dialogue to be had, the government would be right and it'd be over. Maybe I'm naive, and I'm definitely idealistic, but the system isn't broken yet. It isn't in great working order, but the system works, and until we are totally hut out of it, until the pain of living in the US becomes more unbearable than the thought of dying, nobody is going to revolt. It's a last ditch option to be chosen when nothing else is available. When no discourse will help, when no support can be had, its not something to leap to because the system is a bit damaged.

NOTES AND COMMENTS: 

(1)>>Trump Derangement syndrome kicked in . The Trump Derangement Syndrome, however, is deeper and broader than any of the previous viruses.This supposed psychosis allegedly renders many Trump critics incapable of rational thoughts and prudent judgments. It is ostensibly so distorting that sufferers take downright dangerous positions. Trump trips every alarm the left has. Their TDS distorts reality for them. You know what I think is scary? That so many Americans choose to simply be led what to think, as opposed to exercising their own freewill of thought, reason and critical thinking. Is it just laziness, or are they just so darn gullible that the left wing media can pull the wool over their eyes without them realizing what's happening?  The main stream media, along with the Democratic party in office are constantly spreading misleading information about the President and his policies. Most liberals who hear this constant barrage believe it and if it were true, it would be hard to support the President. This fake-news is being put forth based on political bias with the intent on changing public opinion and putting democrats back in power. I just keep telling anyone who will listen to dig deeper into the news, get information from multiple sources, and look at things with an objective eye. The most important thing is to remain calm and respectful, even when the others are not able to - maybe in the long term they will realize they have been lied to. (2)>>There’s nothing to say that the 2020 election was the same thing again. Disillusionment came with the Joe Biden . When Joe Biden was selected to be the Democratic nominee in November’s presidential election, a similar feeling of disillusionment clouded the minds of many young voters, some of whom find themselves backed into a corner with the party’s choice.  Joe Biden's instinct for moderation, his nostalgia for a bygone era and a record they perceived as too corporate-friendly and out of touch with his changing party.But nearly 100 days into his term, some are happy to admit, they may be wrong.I think Democrats (and this is probably an overgeneralization) simply wanted someone who could beat Trump, and they didn't really care about what policies he advocated. As a whole, I think Dems thought that nominating a progressive like Bernie would have been too much of a risk.  WHEN Europeans rejoiced at Joe Biden’s victory in the November US presidential election, they do not think he can help America make a comeback as the pre-eminent global leader. This is the key finding of a pan-European survey of more than 15,000 people in 11 countries commissioned by the European Council on Foreign Relations, and conducted in November and December by Datapraxis and YouGov.  Liberal news outlets are reporting with smug satisfaction that President Joe Biden is earning rave reviews. A recent headline from NBC News is typical: "Polls show Biden reaping solid approval ratings with popular policies."   (3)>>The United States has been pitted against one another. Any sensible evaluation of the political social fabric of our nation today must determine that things are dangerous and precarious and we that are at a boiling point.In her 244-year history, the U.S. has endured deep divisions between its political parties, and over industrialization, the Civil War, immigration in the late 1800s, women’s suffrage, whether to enter the first and second world wars, civil rights and anti-war protests in the 1960s, gay rights, abortion rights and numerous other battles. Throughout this century so far, America has been a “49 percent nation.” Both parties enjoy support that is tantalizingly close to a majority, but never congeals into stable control for long. The fact that victory always seems near at hand for the other side helps explain the vicious politics of our time. Politics today is clannish. It has always been negative, but for a full quarter-century, warnings that the other side was corrupt or dangerous or radical or a threat to American values have been constants. Because Washington can’t put together a consensus on much of anything, lots of the big decisions are moving to the states. The states, in turn, are moving increasingly in opposite directions. That has fueled growing differences between the states, to the point that the government we get depends on where we live.It's much worse when the federal government imposes its will on people who don't agree. Then those people have no option other than to capitulate or to leave the country entirely (a much bigger undertaking than moving to a different state) The problem is that we've OVER-CENTRALIZED government power, far beyond what Madison envisioned in a Constitution designed to LIMIT centralized power. It's not Madison's vision at all, anymore. The Constitution is barely relevant.Instead, if we had "little laboratories of democracy" at city, county, and state levels, people would have the LIBERTY of CHOICE and influence in their government that doesn't exist now. Things could be tried and we'd see the outcomes without committing everyone to it nationwide. And you could move if you didn't like it. If government has far less power over your life, you don't care as much what it does -- or even how corrupt it gets. Less polarizing.  (4)>>A new Party . The problems of U.S. politics are deeper than the results of a single presidential election. They reflect a binary party system that has divided the country into two irreconcilable teams: one that sees itself as representing the multicultural values of cosmopolitan cities and the other that sees itself as representing the Christian values of the traditionalist countryside. Both believe they are the true America. The many individuals and groups that don’t slot neatly into one of these two teams have no other place to go. A divided two-party system makes effective governing difficult under any political system, but almost impossible given U.S. governing institutions, by sacrificing the flexibility of officials to party discipline. But while the Founding Fathers thought and worried a lot about divisive partisanship (as John Adams warned, “a Division of the Republick into two great Parties … is to be dreaded as the greatest political Evil”). Every Western democracy has a center-right political party -- except the United States. By international standards, American voters have a choice between a center-left Democratic Party and a Republican Party that's further to the rigging the system . So there’s no mention of political parties in the Constitution and no guidance on what happens when different parties control the White House and Congress, as they do now. We skated around this question for a couple of centuries because the two parties were broad and overlapping—partly because the Civil War cemented allegiance to the Democrats in the rural South for a long time after the party embraced urban, Catholic and labor-union voters. But now that Americans have “sorted” themselves into one or the other party of roughly equal size, we’re getting more situations like legislative gridlock, government shutdowns, a presidential elections decided by a court order and presidential nominations stalled in the U.S. Senate. Names under consideration for a new party include the Integrity Party and the Center Right Party. If it is decided instead to form a faction, one name under discussion is the Center Right Republicans.(5)>>The OLD ELITES with their ties to Wall Street .  The financial-services industry donated $1.96 billion to House, Senate, and presidential candidates seeking election in the 2019-20 election cycle, and spent $932.9 million on lobbying across 2019 and 2020, per the report. Of nearly $800 million donated to politicians by securities firms, banks, real estate companies and their employees by June 30, slightly more than half went to Democrats.That hardly ever happens. While Wall Street went big for Barack Obama in 2008, it switched back to the GOP following the passage of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul bill and has been reliably Republican ever since. The violence at the Capitol prompted dozens of corporations to announce they were re-evaluating how they make political donations. The halt fell into two broad categories: companies that put a hold on all giving and others that stopped contributing to the 147 GOP lawmakers who objected on the day of the riot to at least one state’s certification of Biden’s Electoral College victory. Many lawmakers weren’t pleased. Democrats complained they were being punished for the other party’s sins, while a number of Republicans argued that they were being singled out for what they said was taking a stand against voter fraud. At least 20 influential members of Congress have created unconventional fund-raising operations that offer a legal way to avoid the limits on donations and the reporting requirements of post-Watergate campaign finance laws, according to lawyers, lobbyists and congressional aides. Still, the money can be used for a variety of political activities, including contributions to state and local campaigns, and to pay for political travel, consultants and polling. And in a number of instances, politicians do not have to report the source of their contributions at all. WALL STREET , Of the $1.9 billion, 47% went to Republicans and 53% went to Democrats. In fact, this report notes that more than $250 million from those working in the FIRE sector went toward supporting Biden, the most out of all the contenders for president. Those contributions were a mix of donations to his campaign and outside groups supporting him. MONEY WALKS obviously ! (6)>>It's time we design a system of government for the 21st century. Maybe eventually, but not in the near future. See, revolutions don't just happen because something is wrong with the government or system. Whatever is wrong has to be so horrible or unbearable that people are willing to lay down their lives so that other people won't have to suffer as they have. And you know what? things aren't that bad in the United States.Sure, we have huge problems: wealth inequality, racism embedded within large parts of our culture, an unstable economy which rests on the shoulders of a few large corporations, a vanishing middle class, and a culture seeming to grow around distraction and novelty. But you know what? Those aren't revolution worthy. Not yet. Citizens are not being taken from their homes for speaking out against the government, there are reputable journalists and news sources that still keep an unbiased eye on the events of the country, and there are people who watch and take note. Opinions change and they are free to change, no martial law, no real censorship, no government-mandated "right way to do things." Rarely can a citizen be forced to do something, receive something, or BELIEVE something against their will by the U.S. government, not for no reason or by threat of violence. If there are, the backlash is often immediate, because the U.S. citizen loves the underdog and disadvantaged in conflicts.(7)>>As time goes on America begins to become less of a democracy of more of a oligarchy.    America is ruled by the rich  So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.  Eric Zuess, writing in Counterpunch, isn't surprised by the survey's results.  "American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media)," he writes. "The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious 'electoral' 'democratic' countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now."

A FEW THOUGHTS ON THINGS ....

I.

Thoughts on Israel and Palestine renewed Conflict .

The "Promised Land"
of Conflict .

People accomplish more working together than against each other. Harmony accomplishes more than conflict. Peace has more power to advance humanity than war. Peace is a sign of health, war a sign of sickness. I think this debate has been approached by overwhelming amounts of facts from propaganda and unreliable sources. I believe this should be more of a philosophical debate. How do we define ownership of land? What is justified in a time of war? Is war ever justified? Etc. Israel is wrong for using disproportionate force in retaliatory strikes,imposing collective punishment on innocent civilians, expanding illegal settlements, treating Palestinians as a second class, and violating international law.Israel is smart to use violence in self defense.Palestinians are wrong for imposing collective punishment on innocent civilians and violating international law.Palestinians are smart to use violence in self defense.The refs should have blown the whistle on this fight, but they all have conflicting vested interests in the outcome. Israel was created naively by western forces, in a place they did not understand. Israel, however, is responsible for its own sins... It's true. If you look at the map over time, you'll see that they've become a tyrant of their own. It's tragic that we still lie and deceive the US people about the conflict.Propaganda or no propaganda, the United States pays Israel billions of dollars a year that is used to fuel that war. Americans have more important things to support than two groups of Arabs fighting over a pile of bricks in the middle of the desert. That conflict would be over except for one thing: the western world is making war in the middle east profitable by use of an elaborate kickback scheme where we give Israel $6 Billion dollars a year and they in turn funnel it back to American companies in the military industrial complex. If they want to fight, we should stay out of it and not fund their wars. The U.S. owes nothing to Israel. The people that have lived for thousands of years in Palestine have always been called Palestinians. One can actually etymologically kinda see this in the resemblance the name Philistines have with Palestinians, and as far as I know, other Arabs (ie. non-Palestinians) still call them Philistines (or the equivalent in Arabic obviously).The real answer to your question though is pretty interesting: In 1984 a writer by the name Joan Peters published a book called From Time Immemorial, and in that book she claims that Palestinians or the Arabs living in Palestine aren't indigenous. The book went on to become a huge success in The US and was praised in a lot of American Press, but was quickly deemed a 'fraud' and such things by actual historians who were knowledgeable in this area. These responses were not widely reported in the American Press though, and that might be an explanation to why your question even arises. It has become part of the background-tableau or mythos that surrounds Palestinians and seems to be generally accepted, or at least widely accepted in many Americans. According to data published by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), some 5,600 Palestinians died between 2008 and 2020 while nearly 115,000 were injured. During the same period, around 250 Israelis have died while approximately 5,600 were injured. On the one hand, we say that Israel is a sovereign state and has all the rights that are granted to a state, but on the other we say that they cannot control the area because the Palestinians have rights there, too. This is the root of the problem. These people cannot BOTH have rights to this land. These people have proven that they cannot live together in peace, because both are dedicated to the destruction of the other. I understand that we try to make this compromise because the Palestinians are getting shafted here, but this piecemeal disintegration of their community is not just either. Neither one is going to give up, ever, until they have total control of this land.The Israelis have instituted a system of apartheid. One more draconian than anything seen in S. Africa. The Palestinians are an impoverished minority group within Israel. They are treated like shit by the government and confined to ghettos. Ironically, what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians is exactly what the Nazis did to Jews before WWII. While I empathize with both sides, I feel like the attitude "fight fire with fire" is completely wrongheaded. You don't fight fire with fire, you fight fire with water, or else you contain it and let it burn itself out. What we have in isreal is a blazing inferno. Every military effort merely inflames the situation. It doesn't matter how many terrorists you kill, because the act of killing terrorists creates more terrorists. Each side believes that they can prevail against the other by fighting, and that the harder the enemy strikes, the harder you strike back. This conflict cannot be solved by the Israelis or the Palestinians. They are set in there ways. Logically, they will keep killing each other until they change their philosophy. In pre-civilised times, the stronger one would simply mow over the weaker one, but now that the world has changed to a more humane philosophy, that is simply unacceptable. We must step in as peacekeepers. When two people you love are duking it out, you step between them and break it up, and that is what we must do. We must force peace upon them, with every trick up our sleeves from the carrot to the stick, because the ones who want peace from within the region are outgunned by militaristic brutes. If we are unable to force peace on them, then we must do everything we can to make the conflict harm the lowest number of civilians. People in the military are willing to die, so while their deaths matter, their deaths are not as much a violation of their right to life. They yielded their right to life, after all. Protect the ones who do not desire the death of others, for they contribute the most to our world society.

II.

Colonial Pipeline "hacking" 😂

WE all heard it that it was the "Russians" somehow hacked into Colonial Pipeline system . If another group is involved it probably helps with denying they were involved. It’s just a conspiracy theory though, so nothing to take seriously until there is more information released. How about saying it was a inside job, not the Russians . Blaming Russia is getting kind old right now . The US issued emergency legislation on  after was hit by a ransomware cyber-attack. The pipeline carries 2.5 million barrels a day - 45% of the East Coast's supply of diesel, petrol and jet fuel. President Biden  said there’s “no evidence” that the Russian government is behind the Colonial Pipeline ransomware hack. That's the point of destroying or locking out a huge infrastructure like the Colonial Pipeline. There were reporters already out the next day asking Biden when and how fast should we be focused on the clean and renewable energy-sources. Could be coincidence or could not be, who knows with the US nowadays. The oil company could have just said "we got hacked!" And raised the price of oil. There would be little evidence to lead them to any faction capable... They can just say "hackers" and the public would just accept it blindly and pay their increased prices. Do we know that it was a Russian government based attack and not a couple of Americans that offered a very lucrative deal so fuel prices increase? I could definitely see papa orange hiring them so he has an offensive strategy in 2024, and I could definitely see executives in the industry planning this for their own profit. However it’s also very easy to say it’s just Russian interference, which makes this situation very interesting to follow if it ever turns out not to be them. Addressing the hack on , Biden tried to ease millions of Americans’ concerns over gas shortages and rising prices even as the pipeline company restarted its operations. ‘Don’t panic, number one,’ Biden said from the White House. ‘I know seeing lines at the pumps or gas stations with no gas can be extremely stressful, but this is a temporary situation. Panic buying will only slow the process.’ The president continued: ‘I also want to say to gas stations – do not, do not try to take advantage of customers during this time.’ Most electrical grids aren't "hack able". Or at least in the US anyways. Trust me they hold that shit together with hot glue and twigs, you think they would pay to add features to it? It happens more often than people think. Oil pipelines have and infrastructure have been shut down before. One time, a company replaced thousands of hard drives in PCs because of an attack. It resulted in a global shortage of oil and hard drives. or maybe an employee wanted to drive oil prices up to hit it big in the stock market so he slipped this in there.  Which likely means that someone downloaded something they shouldn't have and some critical part of the system was infected.A whole lot of Ransomware on enterprise environments aren't the direct result of someone downloading the individual file accidentally.Its usually an actor gaining access, spreading through a whole network, gaining access to as many systems as possible then selling the access to the ransomware group.This was the case for a lot of the third parties I have seen hit, the actor had been in their networks for months.Getting a very successful attack usually requires a lot of hands on keyboard work otherwise you might only take out a couple devices.

III.

THE LAB LEAK Hypothesis. 

 Why do you say that's never been a hypothesis? This article from New York magazine argues that we should consider a lab origin a plausible hypothesis alongside the hypothesis of a natural origin, and notes that there has been plenty of experimentation with taking natural viruses and engineering them to be more infectious for the purposes of preparedness. t’s a hell of a coincidence that the first outbreak was so close to the lab. Of course, it might also make sense that being so close to the lab led to it being identified. This shit could have been floating around the world for a long time prior to its discovery in Wuhan. It’s anecdotal for sure, but I know multiple people who had a kick ass flu several months prior. Once dismissed as a conspiracy theory, the idea that the COVID virus escaped from a Chinese lab is gaining high-profile attention again . As it does, reputations of renowned scientists are at risk — and so is their personal safety.At the center of the storm is Peter Daszak, whose EcoHealth Alliance has worked directly with Chinese coronavirus scientists for years. The scientist has been pilloried by Republicans and lost National Institutes of Health funding for his work. He gets floods of threats, including hate mail with suspicious powders. In a rare interview, he conceded that he can’t disprove that the deadly COVID-19 virus resulted from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology — though he doesn’t believe it.“It’s a good conspiracy theory,” Daszak told KHN. “Foreigners designing a virus in a mysterious lab, a nefarious activity, and then the cloak of secrecy around China.” IF the Covid virus was created in the Wuhan lab & escaped, the fact the research was funded by US taxpayer grants is an important consideration, which should definitely not be swept under the carpet. This stinks of a cover-up by responsible persons in the DC swamp. The various strands of evidence outlined in the article, when pulled together, are compelling support for the pandemic having originated from a virus modified by researchers in the Wuhan lab. Anthony Fauci on  clashed with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) over the role of the Wuhan, China, virology lab in the origins of COVID-19. During a Senate hearing on the pandemic response, Paul alleged that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had been sending funding to the Wuhan lab, which then "juiced up" a virus that was originally found in bats to create a supervirus that can infect human cells. White House press secretary Jen Psaki refused to say whether the White House had seen evidence that would disprove the Republicans' point."Has the White House seen any circumstantial evidence that it did not originate in the lab?" Fox News’ Peter Doocy asked Psaki.Psaki did not answer directly but called for transparency from the Chinese government.

Additional Note :      I postulated that the theory of a lab leak might involve two laboratories rather than the focus on on the China Wuhan lab alone  . I present my conclusion  that there were two virus leaks , the first one may have begun in the US in 2019 , it was un noticed , misidentified as the vaping illness . Remember this as I say again the US may have been the "epicenter - ground zero" of the virus spreading. The statistics point to this . EXAMPLE ,  United States had recorded 198,589 COVID-19–related deaths, for a death rate of 0.06%, higher than countries with low and moderate coronavirus death rates but similar to those with high death rates. For example, the death rate in Australia, considered a low-mortality country, was 0.003%, while Canada, a moderate-mortality country, had a 0.02% death rate. "Compared with other countries, the US experienced high COVID-19–associated mortality and excess all-cause mortality into September 2020," the authors wrote. "After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality. This may have been a result of several factors, including weak public health infrastructure and a decentralized, inconsistent US response to the pandemic."  PLEASE READ THIS     👉👉    {  https://theun-politics.blogspot.com/2021/02/a-tale-of-two-laboratories-and-one-virus.html} 

IV.

THE BIG UFO PENTAGON DISCLOSED IN JUNE HEARINGS ON CAPITAL HILL. 

We will know more when the Pentagon’s report on unidentified aerial phenomena comes out in June, but now that the government is starting to take UFOs seriously, it’s high time that more academics and industry leaders step up to do the same.Remarkably, in what sounds like the opening crawl of an unimaginative sci-fi film, the report must also include an analysis as to whether or not UFOs pose a threat to national security (perhaps, one day, our puny, primitive weapons will be used to “bring democracy” to a space-faring civilization).As the deadline inches closer, public interest in UFOs has started to spike. Attached to the 5,593-page coronavirus👉👉 relief bill the president  TRUMP signed  LAST YEAR  is an unexpected proposition: a request for the Pentagon to brief Congress on all it knows about unidentified flying objects within 180 days.  I hope we are all around to see it! 180 days seems pretty far. SO TIMES UP IN JUNE . It likely is. My reasoning:For starters, nobody tests experimental aircraft over enemy air space. Unless we're talking about stealth tech such as the SR-71 over the Soviet union but even that was well into the program. This thing has a clear IR signature and I'm sure a missile can lock onto it.Second, say that this originated from a foreign nation, theres only 2 nations besides the US that can develop something like this discretely: Russia and China. Neither of which have the necessary force projection capabilities to test aircraft over a nation on the western hemisphere, let alone the US mainland. The US leads the planet by a long shot in terms of drone tech, stealth tech, force projection and military funding... yet some nation launches a drone, flies it to the other side of the planet without refueling, and just appears above the US of all places? Either it's a US black project screwing with the Navy or someone in China has some big balls lmao. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sure, these videos are weird. The pilot's reports are pretty credible. In some cases there was more than one observer. But we have little hard evidence beyond these videos, and nothing that absolutely proves we've got little green men taking joyrides in our atmosphere. And think of the enormous harm this whole "release" has done. Whether the UFO sightings are the result of advanced technology from foreign adversaries or if they have more bizarre, otherworldly origins, government officials need to have the facts.   This will give a lot of traction to all the "even the government acknowledges aliens" quackery, and most people will absolutely never look into it, but will say "it's a fact" no matter what. Well, another addition to the chasm between critical thinkers and "believers" of any sort.

Cracking UP for Caitlyn.

Caitlyn Jenner interview on FOX
Sean  Hannity was a bomb .

 (1)>>Caitlyn Jenner made it official: She’s running for governor of California.According to the Axios news site, Ms Jenner has put together a team that includes some of former President Donald Trump's advisers."Californians want better and deserve better from the governor," a statement from Ms Jenner said, confirming the news on her Twitter account As such, Jenner plans to be one of the candidates on the ballot to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, should the effort to recall him qualify for the ballot. For starters, she has shown little interest in one of the most basic duties of democracy — voting. I feel like stunned by Jenner's stupidity every time she opens her mouth. I feel like someone sat down and invented this character, and made it say the most vapid things possible. The Sean Hannity interview was just plain silly . Jenner's body moves and semi masculine voice was creepy. I laughed so hard when Caitlyn said she didn't support gay marriage because, and I quote, "I'm an old fashioned girl." 🤣😂😅😢 So much of it was right out a comedy show . Jenner goes on to say "We've never even had a woman governor." And if she gets elected, (1.2)California will STILL never have had a woman governor. She wants to be a compassionate leader “My friends are leaving, because the can’t take seeing homeless people on the way to their jets”. She literally referenced her private jet/hangar THREE separate times in one interview. Out of touch doesn’t even begin to describe it Yeah... that’s compassion. 🤪 I cannot stand her!    Politico’s Carla Marinucci broke a story this past week about how Jenner sat out two-thirds of the elections she could have voted in since 2000. When Newsom won the governor’s seat by a landslide in 2018, Jenner did not bother to vote. Nor did she take part in the 2003 recall election of then-Gov. Gray Davis and the man who replaced him,  (2)>>Arnold Schwarzenegger. The title says it all, how can i put on a wig, use makeup and call myself a woman and be given multiple awards?OK, i get its not that simple, but my point is that millions of people died fighting for their country, millions of people have died saving people in fires and for a celebrity to take all the attention away from the real heroes, whilst police are being shitted on by the media? Can someone please explain to me why he deserves to be called a hero? I believe Caitlin can do whatever he wants, but to be awarded things like Woman Of The Year, just for coming out is a bit odd. Caitlyn Jenner needs to not be governor. Lets explain why ...Not because she’s trans. I’ve heard shes tried to educate herself more on trans issues and politics. Which great, she’s no longer a right wing nut job telling other women what they can’t do with their body’s But because she murdered someone with her car by texting and literally had no repercussions...yes it would be amazing to have trans representation on the political front. But being trans doesn’t negate what she’s done, said about women’s rights, and being a piss poor human.Jenner is a Republican, and she would join two other high-profile Republicans who attempted statewide office despite not voting much themselves — former eBay CEO Meg Whitman who ran for governor in 2010, and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who ran for the U.S. Senate that year. Neither was successful.  What gets you elected is money, recognizable, media coverage, and only after all of that does your actual political philosophy and opinions come into play. ESPECIALLY at state or county wide elections. For fucks sakes, the Kardashians already have political access to Trump and Republican officials through Kanye: Is that the most ridiculous sentence I have ever written as a political scholar and aspiring historian? Yes, but the thing that is absolutely undeniable and funny is that it’s absolutely fucking true.Donald Trump literally became president because he was in home alone 2 and was on a reality tv show, and created a brand of himself as being a rich and successful guy. You’re kidding yourself if you think you need anything more than that, seriously. You need to lose faith in our political system, and fast. While Jenner is a historic candidate, as a transgender woman running for the governorship of one of the largest states in the country, the majority of responses show that the much-ranted-about concept of "identity politics" is largely so overblown. After searching and searching, I found virtually no explicit support for Jenner on social media. She has not garnered the support of the broader LGBTQ+ community (in fact, California's largest LGBTQ+ civil rights organization literally said, "hard pass") and it's difficult to imagine a party that is currently pushing anti-trans legislation in states across the country rallying behind a transgender candidate.

NOTES AND COMMENTS: 

(1)>>Caitlyn Jenner. Then there is the question of whether Jenner is qualified to lead the state. She’s not held elected office nor managed a major business.A former Olympic gold medal winner, Jenner is more famous for being a reality TV star and a transgender advocate. Trump had a lot more political influence than you are giving him credit for. Youre literally making the same mistake the media did in his election run "oh haha he had that show The Apprentice" he also was a billionaire who also owned a lot of property and had numerous political connections.Caitlyn Jenner has nothing in comparison to that. Most of the money belongs to the Kardashians as it always has and as soon as it becomes financially unfavorable (wont be long) Jenner will announce dropping out. There's  also the factor of it being a recall election which basically means political nobodys get to have the spotlight for juuust a bit longer than usual.Faith in the system has nothing to do with it. Are you not insinuating that she has a chance to win and would be democratically voted in which would mean the system is working? Im also not so stupid to believe that someone whos running as a Republican in California whos also transgender is going to sway a heavy democrat state.  (1.2)California will STILL never have had a woman governor. For the MOST PROGRESSIVE STATE California has never elected a Woman Governor . How is that ???? All told, more than half of all states have had at least one female governor, and 24 have elected them.But California? See if you can spot the pattern.In 1990, Dianne Feinstein ran for governor against Republican U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson. She lost, the political analysts at the time said, because of low name recognition and an “unfocused” campaign. But the fact remains that every time a woman has made it to the top of the ticket in a gubernatorial race, she has lost. If nothing else, it’s a startling contradiction. California is supposed to be the vanguard of social change. (2)>>Arnold Schwarzenegger. Californians also shouldn’t forget the numerous amounts of issues Schwarzenegger had as Governor during his term. He came into his position strong and filled with many promises. Towards the end, he had flopped on his promises, putting California in even more debt while garnering a 22% public approval rating. He was considered more as a partisan rather than a politician, and flipped between sides based on what would make him look most like a hero. Despite Schwarzenegger having some political background, his celebrity-status still held more of a priority.