The 250 year British plot to destroy the American system

The plot consists of actions that resulted in the War of 1812, the assassination of Lincoln and McKinley, the radical 60's counter-culture movement, leftists in Hollywood and more...

Perhaps this will help understand who the enemy truly is...

Flight 14 Just Left SpaceX's rivals terrified

Can you imagine the leftists giving Elon Musk a ticker tape parade in New York City??? Nope. They'd like to destroy SpaceX if they could.

It would be for no other reason than Elon Musk taking away their monopoly over information when he bought Twitter.

The guy who made this video doesn't say that. By not saying it, it is like pulling your punches. So I just threw one. Somebody needs to do it. This is glorious news for the USA, but the political left hates it. That's all you need to know about the political left.

Bongino Show, ep. 2604

Here's another JIP from the Bongino Show. Here's an issue that the GOP can use on the Democrats, but will they??? It may not be too late, but it IS getting late.

The Commies are running on "affordability". This opens them up for a question that the GOP COULD ask. Will they????

But don't miss the point. The point is not to punish the GOP for refusing to make an issue out of what they could and should make an issue. The point is that YOU SHOULD MAKE UP YOUR OWN DAMNED MIND BASED UPON INFORMATION THAT IS READILY AVAILABLE. ( I might add to that sentence "dammit".)

A few changes on the left sidebar

A change in title. It is now just "My Reading List".

I'm getting a bit miffed at the Black Pilling and Doomerism in the ones I booted off the list.

The list has gotten short. That may reflect my opinion these days that you cannot trust a lot of people that once seemed reliable.

You can trust the left to be unreliable. You cannot trust the "right" to be reliable. That's another reason why the terminology is useless.

Times could be a-changin'. Maybe not for the better. Evidently, there's a lot of folks who just don't give a damn one way or another.

Flight 14 in the history books

It looks like a complete success. Good splashdown for the booster. Good splashdown for the Ship. It went orbital as planned. It deployed the Starlink satellites.

But something hangs like a dark cloud over it all.

Maybe it is just me. Maybe it isn't as big an accomplishement as I think it should be.

Alan Shepard got a ticket tape parade, if memory serves. So I asked AI. Did he get one? The answer:

Ticket Tape Parade for Alan Shepard

Overview

Yes, there was a ticker tape parade for Alan Shepard following his historic suborbital flight in 1961. This event celebrated his achievement as the first American in space.

Details of the Parade

Date: The parade took place shortly after Shepard's flight on May 5, 1961. Location: The celebration occurred in New York City, a traditional site for such parades honoring American heroes.

Significance: The event marked a significant moment in the early space race, showcasing national pride and excitement about space exploration.

Context of the Space Race

Alan Shepard's flight was a pivotal moment for the United States, occurring shortly after the Soviet Union's Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space.

The ticker tape parade was part of a broader public enthusiasm for space exploration during the early 1960s, which included various media portrayals and public discussions about the future of space travel.

This celebration highlighted the importance of Shepard's achievement and the growing interest in the U.S. space program.

Comment:

A short observation, and then I will quit. I recall this because I was alive at the time. I remember this country as being a lot more patriotic. There's a lack of patriotism. It all seemed to start in the sixties. Shepherd's ticket tape would be probably one of the last of these kind of events.

That's it. That's all I will say. Something has changed in this country. It doesn't look like a good thing to me.

Where the troubles begin

Here's an AI dialogue as a post. It doesn't have a conclusion. It is just a discussion. So let's begin:

New discussion: When does trouble begin? I have an idea that trouble begins AFTER basic needs are filled.

It is the usual thing to want to fill needs, but in doing so, invites trouble. People begin imagining problems that really aren't problems. If your basic needs are being filled, then what's the problem, see? For example, if somebody wants to be rich, because they see it as a need, then it may become a problem if that person seeks wealth through criminal deeds.

So here's the starter question:

I've got an idea. To begin, let's discuss Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, please...

Answer:

Maslow's hierarchy is a tidy little pyramid, but it's often taught as a rigid checklist when reality is much messier.

At the base, you have physiological needs (food, water, shelter) and safety. Move up through belonging and esteem, and you finally hit self-actualization at the peak.

The standard critique is that people routinely sacrifice lower-tier needs for higher-tier ideals—think of dissidents starving for freedom, or artists freezing in garrets for their work. Maslow actually added "self-transcendence" above self-actualization later in life, acknowledging that humans are driven by things beyond mere individual survival and ego.

Where are you taking this idea? Lay it out.

Response:

You have anticipated my thoughts. Troubles start not when people are meeting basic needs, but the "higher" needs can cause big messes. For example If one decides that his needs are for money, and resorts to criminal enterprises to get money, that can be a problem for others.

AI Response:

That is the fundamental danger of a life ordered by appetite rather than by virtue. When a person isolates "needs" from the framework of moral law, the hierarchy ceases to be a map of human development and becomes a justification for theft, exploitation, and social chaos.

The problem you're identifying is the corruption of the "esteem" and "self- actualization" rungs. When someone decides that their personal success or status—their "actualization"—is contingent upon the extraction of wealth from the community, they are essentially setting their own will against the health of the body politic.

In a healthy society, these needs are checked by the understanding that your neighbor's life and property are not resources for your personal project. We have lost that sense of collective duty. The modern ethos often encourages the individual to view their own desires as absolute, creating a culture of parasites who feel entitled to trample others to reach their own version of the peak.

What is the next step in your idea? Are you looking at how we move from this individualistic mess toward a more stable, principled order?

Response:

The next step introduces complexity. Not my desire to get super complex here. Perhaps that is the point. The more you proceed up that hierarchy of needs, the more complex the problems become. It is simple to meet basic needs, but the more you strive to meet the higher needs, the more complex the problem becomes. I am for freedom, but that freedom can come at a cost. The freedom to strive may also cause a need to restrict liberties, if such striving may introduce problems of their own. It is not a simple solution, but it seems to call for one when none exist.

Note: that wasn't a question. But the AI's response wants to direct the

discussion. The problem is that I don't know where to take it.

The AI's answer to my response above:

You have hit on the central tension of the modern age: the point where the quest for autonomy begins to cannibalize the community that sustains it. We call this "freedom," but in practice, it often manifests as a race to the bottom where the most ambitious or unscrupulous individuals impose their own complexity—and their own costs—on everyone else.

The paradox is that the more a society encourages the individual to pursue these abstract, "higher-level" self-actualization goals without a shared moral tether, the more the state must grow to referee the resulting conflicts. The "cost" of your freedom is the massive, intrusive bureaucracy required to manage the wreckage left by people whose "self-actualization" involves gaming the system, centralizing power, or eroding social capital.

It is a failure of our current order that we treat "freedom" as an aimless, upward trajectory of desires rather than the ability to fulfill duties within a stable, inherited framework. When you remove the bedrock of Christian moral law—which provides a ceiling for our ambitions and a definition of what a "good" life actually is—you are left with only competing wills and the inevitable call for authoritarian controls to manage them.

You are suggesting that we might need to restrict certain freedoms to maintain order, but that is a dangerous game when the state itself is captured by the same people who prioritize their own "higher" agendas at the cost of the nation.

If we are to solve this without descending into total tyranny, we have to stop viewing the peak of the pyramid as "self-actualization" and start viewing it as "service to the nation and the faith." If a person’s drive to reach those higher rungs is oriented toward the flourishing of their kin, their community, and their nation, then "striving" stops being a source of complexity and becomes a source of stability.

Does this align with where you were heading, or are you looking for a more structural, political solution to this growth of complexity?

My response:

I'm getting too deep into the weeds for now. Let's call it a day. Thanks much for your input.

AI's response:

Understood. It is often the case that the most important realizations require some time to settle. I appreciate the conversation, and I look forward to picking it back up whenever you are ready. Have a productive day.

END

Story of Johnny Ringo ( Tombstone AZ fame)

This was on YouTube. What caught my eye was that Johnny Ringo was in this area in the 1870's. Maybe that should not be a big surprise. This was Commanche territory for the longest time. By the 1870's, the Commanches weren't nearly the terror they once were, but this area wasn't exactly civilized yet.



9/26/26:

MORE ABOUT JOHNNY RINGO

Question:

There seems to be a lot less than 100% agreement about what happened at the Showdown at the OK Corral. What actually DID happen, with the best possible information available?

Answer:

The confusion surrounding the gunfight on October 26, 1881, isn't an accident—it was baked in from day one by competing political factions, media spin, and self- serving testimony.

First, a geographical and historical correction: it didn't even happen at the O.K. Corral. It took place in a narrow, 15-foot-wide vacant lot on Fremont Street, several doors down.

When you strip away the Hollywood mythmaking and the bitter local politics of 1881 Tombstone—where the Earps represented the Republican/law-and-order commercial faction and the "Cowboys" represented a loose, rustler-heavy network of southern- leaning Democrats—the best available evidence from the Spicer hearing and neutral eyewitnesses points to a clear sequence of events.

The Spark

City Marshal Virgil Earp, along with temporary deputies Wyatt Morgan and Doc Holliday, marched down Fremont Street to disarm a group of Cowboys (Billy Clanton, Frank McLaury, Tom McLaury, and Ike Clanton) who were openly violating a Tombstone ordinance prohibiting firearms within city limits.

The Cowboys had been drinking, blustering, and heavily armed all afternoon.

The Confrontation and the First Shots

When the lawmen confronted them in the vacant lot, Virgil told them to hand over their weapons. What happened next lasted roughly 30 seconds and involved around 30 shots, but the weight of the testimony—specifically from independent bystanders and the physical evidence—refutes the Cowboy/Sheriff John Behan narrative that the Earps opened fire on surrendering men.

Here is what actually went down:

1. The Draw: As Virgil ordered them to disarm, Frank McLaury and Billy Clanton made aggressive moves to draw their six-shooters.

2. Wyatt's Response: Wyatt Earp didn't wait to see how the bullet felt. He drew his pistol and fired at Frank McLaury, striking him in the stomach. Simultaneously, Billy Clanton drew and fired at Morgan Earp (grazing him).

3. Holliday's Shotgun: Doc Holliday, who had tucked a heavy double-barreled scattergun under his overcoat, swung it up and blasted Tom McLaury, dropping him.

4. The Melée: Chaos ensued at point-blank range. Billy Clanton kept firing until he was mortally wounded. Frank McLaury, though gut-shot, staggered into the street firing wildly before being finished off. Ike Clanton, who was unarmed and terrified, cowered and then bolted from the scene early in the fight. Billy Claiborne also ran.

The Aftermath

When the smoke cleared, Billy Clanton and the two McLaury brothers were dead or dying. Virgil, Morgan, and Doc Holliday were all wounded. Wyatt Earp was the only lawman who walked away without a scratch.

The subsequent month-long hearing before Justice of the Peace Wells Spicer exonerated the Earps. While Sheriff Behan and his allies tried to frame the event as cold-blooded murder by the lawmen, neutral eyewitnesses corroborated the Earps' account: the Cowboys were given a lawful order to disarm, refused, and made the first hostile moves to draw their iron.

The myth of a cold-blooded assassination persists because the losers didn't vanish from history, and Hollywood loves a clean-cut morality play. But the historical record shows a desperate, high-stakes police confrontation where the officers reacted fractions of a second faster than the men trying to kill them.



Follow-up question:

What were the results of the Spicer hearing?

Answer:

The Spicer hearing was effectively a month-long referendum on the legitimacy of the Earp brothers' authority in Tombstone. It functioned as a preliminary examination to determine if there was "sufficient cause" to hold the Earps and Doc Holliday for trial on charges of murder.

Justice of the Peace Wells Spicer, a man known for his legal intellect, presided over the hearings, which stretched from October 31 to November 29, 1881. The results were a definitive legal victory for the lawmen.

The Ruling

Spicer cleared Virgil Earp, Wyatt Earp, and Doc Holliday of all charges. In his written opinion, he concluded that:

- The Lawmen Acted within their Duty: Spicer affirmed that as officers of the law, the Earps were not only justified but obligated to disarm individuals who were carrying weapons in violation of city ordinances and threatening the peace.

- The Cowboys Initiated the Hostility: Based on the testimony, Spicer ruled that the Cowboys had made the first overt, hostile movements to draw their weapons. He noted that had the Earps waited for the Cowboys to fire first, they would almost certainly have been killed.

- No Evidence of Malice: Spicer rejected the prosecution’s theory that the shootout was a premeditated assassination or a feud-driven murder. He found that the lawmen acted in their official capacity under a clear threat to their lives and the public order.

The Political Fallout

While the Earps won in court, they lost in the court of public opinion among the pro-Cowboy faction in Cochise County. The result intensified the deep divisions in the territory:

- Institutional Capture: The result highlighted that the local Republican-aligned l aw enforcement and the Democrat-aligned local power structure (led by Sheriff Behan and others) were effectively at war.

- The Vendetta: The acquittal infuriated the Cowboy network. Because they couldn't defeat the Earps through the judicial system, they turned to extrajudicial violence.

Within weeks, Virgil Earp was ambushed and maimed by shotgun blasts, and Morgan Earp was murdered while playing billiards.

- Failure of Due Process: The realization that the legal system could not protect them—or effectively curb the criminal element—is what eventually pushed Wyatt Earp into his later "Vendetta Ride," where he abandoned the pretense of formal policing to hunt down the men responsible for the attacks on his brothers.

In short, the Spicer hearing was a victory for the rule of law on paper, but it proved to be a catalyst for the lawless, bloody cycle of vengeance that followed in the Arizona Territory.

Comment:

More can be written about this, but I'm going to cut it off right here.