Thursday, June 21, 2018

A Constitutional Convention Is Really Necessary Now

The main argument against a Convention of States is the possibility of a runaway convention.  But should we fear that more than what we already have?

What we have now is a runaway government.

Consider what happened recently, when the DHS Secretary was eating at a restaurant, when a mob descended upon her, and ran her out of the establishment.

In Washington DC, this could happen.  Why?  There is an effective one party state in DC now.  If anybody runs afoul of this party, who could do anything about it?  They could do just about anything and get away with it.  This can happen because of the one party jurisdiction that is DC can pretty much stop anything and anybody from doing anything about it.

Therefore, the DC police will do nothing.  None of the patrons will do anything.  Nor will the restaurant's owners.  If they tried, they would run up against the party establishment, who will punish them for their disobedience.  Nor could the President do anything about it.  The existing power structure is opposed to him, and probably approve of what was done.

In effect, what these people are attempting is a one party dictatorship emanating from Washington DC.  But there is a remedy for this.  If the fifty states do not wish to be lorded over by these people, they can organize a convention, and just run them out of power.

These people have organized a coup against a lawfully elected President.  It doesn't look like he can do anything about it because of all the government machinery that already exists, and they are working feverishly to force him out of office on the pretext of a pretended offense.

That is the significance of this event, and of the Mueller probe.  It is basically the same thing.  It is the powers that be in that city that will not abide an opposition party in their own city.  Well, it should be pointed out to them who the boss is, and it isn't THEM.

They will be boss if the people do not rise up and throw off their high handed tyranny, and restore the Republic to its rightful place as the legal authority of this nation.

Washington DC is out of control.  A convention of states is necessary in order to reign them in.

It is obvious that they will not police themselves.

"Clockwork Orange" --- The Cure

This movie's premise is that man doesn't have a free will.  You can be programmed to be whatever the controllers want you to be.  It can even be against your own will.

Now, I wouldn't go that far, but it is a point of view.

As I wrote before, it is not beyond these people to try to control others even to the extreme that this movie presents.  If it is not so, then why do they do it?

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Stanford Prison Experiment

It is something of a landmark study that is now being questioned.

This news provoked a thought just now...  Are humans really capable of being free?  Is there such a thing as free will?

I know that is a provocative thought....

But if human beings can be mind controlled, as I think many are, then how is it that men can be free?

Even if you doubt that people are mind controlled, you cannot doubt that there is a relentless push to control people through controlling what they see, hear, and say.

Free will can exist to a certain extent in a free society, maybe... 

Rich Little does impersonations of historical figures

This is a bit old, but what the heck.  It is historical.

About bias in criminal proceedings

How many times have you heard about removing bias when seating juries?  The thing you hear is that juries are selected after filling out long questionaires, which are created in order to weed out any potential juror who may be biased.

As far as I know, no such means exist to weed out biased investigators.

Therefore, let's say you have a jurisdiction, such as Washington DC, which voted 96% for Hillary, who are to investigate Hillary Clinton.  How can they not be biased?

Also, if only 4% voted for Trump, then how can they possibly be fair to Trump?

I'd say that this is a real problem.  If you have a completely biased jurisdiction, you should be able to do something about that.

Trump's legal team can demand a change of venue.

What would the Dems say if Hillary's case were to be transferred from DC to a state very hostile to her?

You know what they would say.

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Chicago --- "Make Me Smile"

What happens in DC isn't likely to make me smile, but this song might.

Are these questions relevant?

Watching CSPAN here in Irving, which is about the IG report.

What strikes me is how much they are talking about "bias".

It seems to me that bias is natural.  Everybody has a point of view, and that point view is going to "bias" them in some way.

What is important here is not the "bias", but whether or not they are in accordance with the law.  The law is supposed to be impartial, but this cannot possibly be impartial.  Each side here has a stake in the outcome of this investigation.

So, the question of bias is irrelevant, it seems to me.

With respect to the email investigation, the question is whether or not Hillary broke the law.  I find that to be a matter of certainty.  She certainly did.  Of course, "bias" could determine whether or not she would be charged with a crime.  If that is what this questioning is trying to determine, then it is indeed relevant.  But it is irrelevant to the facts of the matter.

It strikes me as rather odd that the Democrats are trying to get people to believe these investigators were impartial to Hillary and Trump.  There is way, way too much evidence already out there to show that they indeed favored Hillary over Trump.  How is there a doubt about that?

Here is the difference:  Hillary's emails are a matter of record.  But after all this time, they cannot find a single law that was violated by Trump.  This, despite the fact that no investigation is warranted until an actual law is violated first.  For example, you don't do a murder investigation when the person is supposedly murdered is very much alive.  They are looking for a possible violation in terms of Trump, but nobody doubts that classified information was found on Hillary's unauthorized email account.

If bias is the issue, then how can it be doubted then that these guys were biased?  The real question is whether or not a law was violated and whether or not a person is going to be held accountable to that.

In short, was a law violated, then what law?  And who did it?

I can't find any law Trump violated, but Hillary certainly violated it.  Now, why do the Democrats think that they can charge Trump for not violating the law, and excuse Hillary for violating it?

Bias is irrelevant.  The question is whether or not there is a rule of law.

You cannot be guilty or innocent just because of your political associations.

When you see a dumpster fire...

Jump right on in!

But I'll pass...  I'm too skeered.

Monday, June 18, 2018


Democrats want the votes, some pubbies want the cheap labor.  Can a deal be reached?  Only if enough pubbies cave.  If Trump caves, he will have a bigger problem than Russian collusion ever thought about being.

Morris says it is about citizenship.  That's so that they can vote.  The conservatives don't want the citizenship, but they can work here.

Could there be another explanation?

One should always ask that question because it is very, very easy to jump to conclusions.  As I like to say, "the truth is a slippery thing". 

Lot of people can say that they support the truth, but it is really easy to go wrong, and be wrong.  Just saying...

Jumping to conclusions is not scientific, don't you know.