Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
There hasn't been much on the brouhaha going on with the widow of Charlie Kirk and one Candace Owens.
But there wasn't anything about Charlie Kirk here while he was still alive. Not on my radar. Not much on Owens either, but there are a few posts about her.
So I've stayed clear of this too. Actually, the whole thing doesn't make a helluva lot of sense. It is a tempest in a teapot.
One thing that I DID get. I went to Grokipedia, since I stopped going to Wikipedia, and took a look at some of what that site had to say about Erika Kirk.
One of my pet peeves came up about "far-right" politics, and that made me feel pretty bad about the state our country is in.
It is little wonder then, that the political left calls their opponents "fascists" since they (meaning the so-called "right") love to attach that terminology to themselves all the time.
Folks who claim to be on the right don't have a clue about what they're doing. That includes a whole lot of miscalled thought leaders. For if you do not know who you are, you have at best a 50-50 chance of winning any fight. That, according to Sun Tzu on the "Art of War".
Check out history, and if you do check anything at all, then any association with "right-wing" and conservatism in America should repulse you as much as it does myself.
If there's anyone in politics that emulates Nazism and Fascism, it is the leftists themselves. The last thing you'd be if you were a true conservative would be to embrace Fascism. It is the height of either ignorance or malevolence to believe otherwise.
People need to get a clue. You cannot win if you concede the fight before you even start. Erika Kirk a Nazi? Puhleeze...
Homan tries to make ICE's case, she interrupts him. Finally, she lets him speak. Afterwards,
she implies he's withholding information! But she wouldn't let him speak! When he does, she blames him because she
wouldn't shut her own trap long enough for him to speak.
The marriage of white liberals and black voters is one of convenience. It's been said before, and here it is again (not in
so many words, but it is there between the lines.)
Brother Newsom could’ve taken a humanistic approach! He could’ve said, “I’m just like you. I was born of a woman. I’ll face loss, pain, and death just like anyone else.” But instead, when he thinks of Black people, he brings up low SAT scores. That mindset sits at the core of… pic.twitter.com/cwRH6wEyKY
The Supreme Court has ruled against Trump on tariffs. Very bad news.
I am convinced that the system is now the problem. If you don't remove these people from power, you will
never get out from behind their control.
Absolutely ridiculously bad decision.
The court has no accountability. These kinds of things is why we cannot get accountability in our government. The court has
interfered in the political process.
The people wanted a change, but the Court just vetoed that. Think about that, will you? Pretty please??? With sugar on it???
Trump has engineered a major economic recovery, and the Court just gave him the finger. Well, thanks a lot, assholes.
After a lot of scrambling, I managed to get the post to show something useful. It's a dumb way to be for the people who are running that website, I tell you...
The content of the post is interesting in its own right, but what interested me more is the possibility of an embed. But they pretty much have it locked up so that you can't do that, or is too complicated for me to figure out at this time.
Write the experiment off as a joke. Something else to embed:
The Three Stooges: "Trapped like rats! Speak for yourself!"
Ronald Reagan liked to say "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem." Looks to me like that very thing has happened here. By the way, this report was about something that happened over a year ago. People have mostly forgotten about it. So did I. Just sayin'.
Still looks to me like what I said on that last update. Nothing new here, really. They are belaboring the obvious. The friggin' chopper was too high. So the report comes out when nobody remembers it anymore, and nothing is likely to be done about it.
4/28/25:
The report seems to be out. One rhetorical question here: Why does it take all this time to belabor the friggin' obvious?
It costs money for an investigation. All they can tell you now is what you already knew from the beginning. Whoop-de-doo.
2/18/25:
An update on the investigation. I watched 18 minutes of it. Discussion is mostly focused on the altitudes of the two craft involved in the crash. See video below.
2/4/25:
NTSB confirms helo was too high. Comment: Not a lot of info in this article. Apparently, that one little bit of info is all they ran the story on. But it is something. It means that the black boxes and the radar data with respect to the altitude, weren't that far off. There may have been some reason to think there may have been a discrepancy. However, even if there is a discrepancy, the fact remains that the chopper was out of its "lane", so to speak.
2/1/25, 11:33 AM::
Did the (army) helo leave the base without authorization? Reading through the comments brings that possibility into play. Base was said to be requesting helo to return. Shouldn't have left without one other person, and the take off may not have been authorized for this type of flight.
Video showing new angle of DC plane crash is crazy: ‘There’s no way’… https://t.co/SaFDoTlfcE --- The more you study this, the worse it looks
I took this video 6 days ago leaving Reagan International Airport and thought it was kind of crazy seeing these choppers right next to us. I wonder if it was something like this that caused the collision tonight. pic.twitter.com/0I2GGTM7hS
Like it or not, the choppers are allowed to do this near a busy airport, which seems crazy. Anyway, it has been a regular thing, and that alone is not a reason for why the crash happened. HOWEVER, the crashed chopper did appear to be TOO HIGH. These choppers are restricted to 200 ft and below, and must stay on the far bank of the Potomac. This chopper that crash was at 350-400 ft, and that's too high. Notice in the video here how low they are to the ground.
I agree with the tweet that this seems crazy to me. There's a lot of info out there, but all of the sudden, it has dried up. I'm trying to pick up on this investigation again, but it is proving to not be so easy. Incidentally, that's how I came across that info about regular chopper flights in this area. That was quite interesting bit of info to me, but now I can't find it again. But there's other stuff. This tweet is one.
Note: this post got a bit discombobulated, and I can't explain it. Two tweets got mixed up, and how does that happen? Anyway, the chopper appears to be in the wrong place. That's all I have on it now.---end @ 2:49 AM 1/31/25
9:29 AM:
There was one video in which an experienced pilot said that helo altitude could be kept as low as 100 ft, so if the collision was at 300-400 ft, the helo was in the wrong place. The black box will tell the tale of the altitude where the collision occurred. There's a report that the black box has been recovered.
There are other reports, but I will classify those as noise. You don't go into motivations as a possibility until you know exactly who is in the wrong.
Update: 2/1/25, 9:38 AM : This is why you don't report on everything you see out there. It's the Bongino Rule. I suspected that the rumors of transexuality were just that. You need confirmation of info like that, and to report it as soon as you see it could be a mistake. We still don't have all the info on the pilots, so you really can't say for certain if it has been completely debunked. The investigation is just getting started.
So many folks on the so-called right seem to want to claim Ronald Reagan as one of their own. That's just a thought right there, but not the thought I started with when I got the idea for the post. Maybe you can say that it is a symptom, but not the disease of the times. So what is this disease?
I wished I could put my finger on it exactly. But I will carry on, perhaps I will hit on it eventually.
It seems to begin with the acceptance of the Marxist Paradigm. There was a somewhat long essay in the Atlantic, that didn't seem to make the cut -- it was "archived" whatever that means.
It was written by a self-described former Republican who lamented that the GOP had a "Nazi Problem".
It has long been my assertion here that a true conservative should not be borrowing Marxist ideology as some sort of gold standard of their own. This thought pollution of Marxism is a big problem, and so the tendency ( and a very strong one at that) is to ape the leftists when anyone dares to disagree with them. They label those with whom they have a disagreement as "Nazis". What a revelation!
Somewhere within the bowels of the GOP is this festering desire to recreate the Third Reich. Or so they believe. But for commies, anybody, including those within the Party, are subject to being called Nazis. There's just no room for dissent in totalitarian ideologies.
When you someone who likes to join the other side as soon as they fail to gain traction, they love to do shit like this.
So the author of this Atlantic screed does it too, and identifies with the Bushes, McCains, and Romneys. You can add to the list as their modern equivalents, such as the Cheneys and the MTGs.
What's behind all this Marxist ideology? The belief in their dialectic? Reagan had one too. But Reagan's dialectic didn't divide people up into classes, as the Marxists like to do. His dialectic was about freedom versus the opposite. Dialectics is really a theory about opposites. The problem with Marxism "thought" is in the idea that Marxism and Nazism are OPPOSITES. But that's not the case in the Reagan dialectic. Freedom and tyranny truly are opposites. Marxism and Nazism aren't much different from each other.
So Reagan could condemn Marxism as well as Nazism.
By doing so, he won 49 states in 1984.
Also, by doing so, he could unite the factions of the GOP. But the Bushes did the reverse. George H.W. Bush took a united GOP and managed to divide it. In doing so, he opened to door to Slick Willy.
How do the Bushies divide the GOP? I think they do that by rejecting the Reagan dialectic, and embracing the Marxist one.
Any attempt to push for freedom is greeted with hostility from these people. If they're going to join with the Marxists, then
why be a part of the GOP in the first place?
So this is about as good as I can get it, I think. If the GOP cannot align itself as the party of freedom, it cannot unite, and stay that way. It failed after Reagan, and hasn't found itself since.
Reaganism isn't perfect, but doesn't have to be.
Bush didn't like Reagan really. But he latched on to his success and won in 1988 with it. But when he governed, he disavowed Reagan and divided the Party. I dunno, maybe it is for good. Trump hasn't been able to unite the party. If Trump continues long enough, a good part of this party will take their ball and go home. But they won't get the thing that they claim they want. So in that way, they are just like the Democrats. It is never about what they say it is about. So it isn't about "extremism". It isn't about Epstein. It's really just about themselves.
