"South of the Border, Down Mexico Way"

"South of the border, down Mexico way.  That's where I fell in love where the stars above, came out to play."

Remember that song?  It was Number One on charts back in 1956 when one Mr. Frank Sinatra chose to record it.  Great song.  The country down there, however, has fallen on some very hard times since "The Chairman of the Board" chose to honor it.

Flash forward six decades...

So as we all know by now, The Donald moseyed on down to Meheeeeeko Citee a couple of days back to meet with their El Presidente.  

Yes, my friends, and you are my friends, Trump was issued what I believe to have been a perfunctory invitation to come and visit by their Prez, Enrique Pena Nieto. One was sent Hil(liar)y's way as well.  So much has been said about illegal immigration and drug cartels and building a wall that Nieto issued an invite to both to come visit.  

Only The Donald took him up on it.  And I'm pretty sure El Jefe Neito was surprised. And probably scared s**tless. There's no question in my mind that Nieto expected neither candidate to respond positively.  He's in such a mess down there I think he was doing anything he could to try and improve his tanking poll numbers.  But only one week ago Trump said "Yes," and they started scrambling to make the necessary arrangements for his visit.  Put simply, hating Trump as they do, his fellow countrymen were not pleased with his invitation.  Nor with The Trumpster's acceptance.

Anyway, whether at the behest of the Secret Service, or simply due to his desire to keep his ass attached to the rest of his body, The Donald decided to rent a nice new, stark white (isn't that racist?) Bizz jet to ferry him down Meheeeeeko Way.  No "Trump force One" this time.  I'm guessing he was concerned about becoming the bull's eye for a heat-seeking Sidewinder missile sent skyward by one of their ubiquitous drug cartels. Remember, you're not paranoid if they're really after you.

So The Donald and Prez Nieto held a press conference.  You might have noticed that, following diplomatic decorum, there was a Mexican Flag behind Nieto on that stage, but there was no American Flag behind The Donald.  I have a theory about that little "oversight," and here it is:

The Mexicans do not believe that there really is a United States of America.  And that's because 168 years ago they owned a good chunk of what would become America. It was call Astlan.  Or Alta (read "upper," or "high") California.  It stretched from way above what's now the Peoples' Republic of San Francisco, north across the top of Utah and Nevada, and dipped down through Oklahoma and on to encompass most of what is now Texas. They called it Tejas, as in "Tee-haas," by the way. The Mexicans owned vast rancheras (big-ass, multi-thousand acre ranches) here.  They raised their cattle here. They built missions here.  They lived here.  And then they began to screw with us and our people as we moved west. Bad move.

Their banditas, like Senor Pancho Villa and his boys, began stealing our cattle.  And stealing our women.  And robbing our trains and our banks. In short, they were causing mucho problemo, and we decided up with that we should no longer put (with apologies to Yoda). We declared war.  It was called the "Mexican-American War," catchy, right? Because, technically, they started it. But we ended it...

The War officially came to a close via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848.  It gave us all of Alta California. It could have given us much, much more.  In fact, it could have given us all of Meheeeeeko.  And there were many in D.C. at the time who felt it should have.  We could easily have annexed our neighbor to the south.  And maybe we should have.  Because we had them on the ropes, as they say. But the more circumspect in power back then felt that taking on Mexico, then, as now, a Third World Country (I'm sure they would disagree with that opinion), would have meant biting off way more than our young country could fiscally chew.  And maybe those who felt that way were right. But that decision has laid the foundation for the debate in which we now find ourselves...

In short, Mexicans don't believe they were treated fairly by that Treaty.  They don't believe that they should have lost the northern third of their country.  They don't even believe that the border that exists between our two countries is, in fact, a border!  If you pick up a map of Mexico, from Mexico, you'll note that the border between us, most generally the Rio Grande River, all 1,869 miles of it, is called "La Frontera." The Frontier.  They don't consider it a border.  They consider it a nothing more than a speed bump on the freeway between their people and a high-paying job in El Norte.  A hurdle over which they have to jump to get to where they ought to be able to go without impediment.  It's theirs!  So why should they feel guilty about breaking into our country, if they don't believe our country is our country?  In short, they don't!

Now, for purposes of background, those who follow this unassuming little blog will note that I have written on this subject before.  And I have related in-depth about Meheeeeeeko's draconian laws concerning illegal immigration.  But for those unfortunates who have never had the chance to inculcate those nuggets of information (maybe they were being held hostage by a band of roving Gypsies!), let me give you a short briefing on how our Southern Neighbors view this trendy little subject:

   -  If you break into Mexico, without permission, you get a two-year stint in one of their maximum security prisons. No passing "GO," no collecting 200 pesos.  Then you get deported.  If you're still alive, that is.  If you decide to come back (bad idea!), you get ten years, hard labor.  Not something one should want.  Most likely a death sentence.

   -  Whereas Senor Nieto seems to think exporting their poor to America, one-way, is a really good idea, they don't seem to feel the same way about their neighbors to the south. They've dug trenches all across their borders with Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua, and then filled them with uniformed soldiers and machine guns pointed toward potential border-jumpers.  They will judge with extreme prejudice those who try and do to them what they routinely do to us.  Think on that for awhile, my friends.

   -  Meheeeeeeko's Number One export is oil.  And oil prices are down.  Thus, Meheeeeeko's economy is down.  And so is Prez Nieto's popularity.  Number Two source of income is "remittances."  These are the $25 Billion Dollars or so in annual earnings that come back home from illegal workers who take "jobs Americans won't do," and then send the money they illegally earn back to momma in Guadalajara.  It has been opined that their economy would quickly tank if these remittances were to stop.

   -  If you decide to emigrate to Mexico, it will take you many months to gain approval from them to do so.  To get a visa you must prove you are financially stable and will not become a drag on their economy (!).  You must prove you are either independently wealthy, or that you are employed and your employer guarantees that they will support you during your entire stay, and oversee and pay for your repatriation back home should that prove necessary.

   -  Once there, it will take you at least six months to secure a driver's license.  You must take driver's lessons from an approved vendor.  Those lessons are expensive, costing at least $1,600, which is a fortune to a Mexican.  You must maintain insurance offering coverage at least double what Mexicans now maintain.  

   -  You may not own land within 50 miles of any body of water.  Oceans, lakes, rivers, streams, tributaries, no matter. If it's a body of water, you, Gringo, can't own land nearby. You may only purchase land through a third-party land broker who will hold that land in trust for you for what's usually a 50 to 98 year period.  It then reverts back to Meheeeeeeko. America's richest man, one Senor Carlos Slim, owns a big chunk of our country (newspapers, TV stations, cell phones companies, etc.) and is buying more every day.  We don't seem to share their view on foreign ownership of assets, so we?

   -  You may not join the armed forces.  You may not become a police officer.  You may not be permitted to learn to fly a plane, or pilot a ship, or engineer a train.  You may not run for public office.  You may be a member of the clergy.  You may not attempt to sway public opinion. You may not petition the Government.  You may not protest. You may not wave signs or placards. You have no freedom of speech.  Any Mexican citizen may arrest illegals at any time, and for any reason, or for no reason.  You are basically expected to work and earn and pay taxes and keep your miserable foreigner mouth shut.

   -  Once you finally get your visa, if you violate it, you're guilty of a felony and are subject to a six-year term in one of their better prisons.  Good luck with that.

   -  Mexicans are given preference in hiring over foreigners. Even legal ones. Period.  

   -  Member of both houses of Congress, and the President, and their Supreme Court must all be natural born Mexicans.  

   -  Although their constitution provides their citizens the right to own and keep firearms, a right virtually impossible to exercise, by the way, you, as an emigrant, have no such right.  You not only may not own a firearm, you may not own even a single bullet! In fact, being in possession of a spent brass cartridge, already fired, is considered a felony and it will give you a one-way ticket to one of their infamous Gray Bar Hotels for a multi-year sentence.   

   -  And finally, according to Meheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeko's immigration laws, and these are direct quotes, you will be barred entry or continued residency if your presence "...upsets the national demographics."  You cannot be granted legal residency unless you can prove that you and your dependents will be "...a useful element for the Country," that you will "...contribute to the national progress," and that you have "...the necessary funds for sustenance."

Whatever you think of The Donald, or Nieto, or Meheeeeeeko, or illegal immigration, or "the wall," or Hil(liar)y's promise to make legal all illegals within her first 100 days in office, you simply must embrace One Simple Fact:  What's good for the goose simply has to be good for the gander.  If Meheeeeeeko thinks its immigration system is so superior to our own, I suggest we simply adopt theirs. And then let them bitch and moan and complain about how unfair we are to their compadres...

Oh wait.  We can't.  The Democrats will not allow any such tightening of our immigration laws because that would deprive them of a never-ending supply of brand-spanking new voters.  And the Republicans will not allow any such tightening of our immigration laws because that would deprive them of a never-ending supply of cheap, reliable labor.  This, my friends, is how we got into this problem, and why we'll likely never get out of it.  

But it's sure entertaining to watch the back-and-forth on the campaign trail as the candidates tilt at these age-old windmills, and each other, isn't it?  

As for me, November 8th cannot come soon enough... 

"Anthony's Weiners"

Didja' hear about Anthony Weiner sending another of his infamous social media messages to some babe?  Yeah, this bozo really, REALLY likes to take selfies of his semi-erect trouser snake and send them to unsuspecting women who are unlucky enough to have an Instagram or Twitter account. 

He did so five years or so ago and wound up losing his Congressional House seat.  His wife, Huma Abadin, famous Muslim right-hand Tonto babe to Hil(liar)y Clinton, is, and soon it appears to be, was, Weiner's wife (say that five times really fast!).  She stuck with him through his first indiscretion, hoping, no doubt, that Anthony would find something else to do with himself.  Pun intended.

Then, a couple of years back, he again succumbed (heh, heh) to his unfortunate little predilection and sent off another shot of his turgid lap rocket to some unnamed babe. He did so under the pseudonym of "Carlos Danger," presuming, I would guess, that no one would recognize him.  

Let's see here. He was a Congressman in the most heavily populated place in the Nation and had his famous nose of, shall we say, gargantuan proportions, plastered all over the media for months and didn't think anyone would recognize him and his gigante burrito?  This boy is a special kind of dumbass!  

Anyway, caused all kinds of hell, it did.  Huma, possibly because Tony was then running for Mayor of New York City (really?), decided to once again brush off his hobby and stick around.  Tony lost his bid to get past the primaries and wound up on the ash heap of ex-Mayoral candidates.  No Gracie Mansion for him.  

And by the by, it's worth noting that the ultimate winner of that contest for Mayor was one Big Bill De Blasio.  Billy Boy, as you may know, is six foot-eight or -nine - or ten all-out proud communist who proved as much by honeymooning with his new Black, 4 foot-tall communist activist and poet wife Charlane in Cuba.  Oh, and yeah, be formally backed the Nicaraguan Sandinistas. At least he was consistent in his politics. Consistently wrong, I would opine.

And his primary platform position for Mayor was to eradicate "stop and frisk," which made the City safe after years of being the "murder capital," improving relations with the NYPD, at which he has failed miserably, and getting rid of all those nasty smelly horses who pull those delightful white hansom cab carriages around Central Park. Been a disaster as Mayor, has this bozo.  Crime is up, tourism is down, taxes are up, services are down...and the horses are still thrilling crowds around Central Park.  Cops hate this guy. Rightfully so.

Back to the main story... 

Oh, by the way.  By then Anthony's weiner had produced another little Weiner.  And so, he and Huma had a little boy to think about.  Maybe he should have thought about that little Weiner instead of the other weiner...

And now, five years, later, VOILA!  Anthony Weiner takes another selfie sitting on his bed, in his BVDs, with his little boy by his side, and his famous tan banana barely sheathed. And he sends the selfie off once again to some woman with whom he had been conducting an Internet back-and-forth for over 14 months.  Made the cover of the New York Daily Post yesterday, it did. Caused quite and uproar.  I don't know about you, but I would be kind of embarrassed by something like this. But then again, I wouldn't have done it.  Anthony's not beset by a big helping of common sense, it seems.

So, his wife, Huma, published a tearful twitter message (how does one get all tearful on twitter?) about how upsetting this all was and stated that she and Tony were separating. She immediately took off her wedding ring and got back to the main business at hand of getting infamous serial liar and socialist multi-millionaire Hil(liar)y Rodham Clinton elected to POTUS.  

So, ever on the lookout for a new business opportunity, I got to thinking.  How about some of us get together and buy a bunch of hot dog carts.  Maybe 15 or 20.  They cost maybe $5,000 each, so you do the math.  And we name them "Anthony's Weiners." Get it?  Heh, heh.  And under the sign with the name on it we put a picture of good ol' Tony in a Lone Ranger (Carlos Danger) mask with one of our new hot dogs in his, ahem, other hand, with the caption:  "Picture this!"  Like it?  I just new you would.

Of course, in addition to the $100,000 or so we'd need for the carts, we'd need, say, another $1 Million to grease the skids. You know, polish the palms of the Street Vendor Commission, and the Manhattan Burrough President, and the Mayor's office, and the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Food and Beverage Commission, and the Street Cleaners and Curb Polishers International, and the Union of Professional Graft Takers, etc., etc.,etc.  I mean, we know this works!  The Donald had to pay Hil(liar)y Clinton and hubby Billy Jeff "Blue Dress" $One Hundred Thousand Dollars to induce them to attend his daughter's wedding.  

Worked for him, and them.  Could work for us...

So, if you're interested, get in touch and we'll put a marketing plan to together and start raising the cash necessary to do business in the new Peoples' Republic of New York City.  I think we should start by sending off a substantial contribution to Billy "Big Bird" De Blasio's reelection campaign.

Whaddaya' think?

The "Email Female"

Do you believe the legs this Hil(liar)y Clinton email fiasco has grown?  I mean, it was 14 months ago when she called a press conference at the United Nations and told us, to our faces, that "she never sent, nor received, anything marked classified, from her email server."  And then we've been bathed in a quagmire of thousands and thousands of emails which keep rising from the fetid swamp of her infamous history sufficient to make us shake our heads in disbelief.

So let's take a walk back in time and look at this whole putrid mess, by-the-numbers:

Hillary Rodham Clinton took office as Secretary of State on January 21, 2009.  That would be the very next day after one Mr. B. Hussein Obama was immaculated.  And she installed her home-brew computer server in her basement that very same day!  

Why?  There can only be one reason: to keep whatever that server wound up serving sacrosanct from Freedom of Information Requests, or "FOIA's."  That would be, "away from you and me, the American public."

Her last day of service to you and I, the 'Murican people, was February 1, 2013.  Thus, she served a total of 1,359 days. Assuming that she "worked" 5 days a week, an assumption I'm not willing to make, and "worked" 16 hours a day, an assumption I'm certainly not willing to make, she would have "worked" a total of about 1,000 days.  And by the way, she was in the hospital recovering from a concussive fall and "unavailable" to testify before Congress for at least three months during the latter part of that period.

Now we know that during this period she visited 121 countries.  That makes her in my mind the Frequent Flyer-in-Chief.  What did she accomplish by visiting those countries? Hmmm. It would seem from my perspective almost nothing. And I'm crediting her with "almost" because I'm just naturally kind and nice and sweet. But you knew that already, right? 

Let's take a look and give her our grade for her work. Russia is on the march, obviously endeavoring to restore the former greatness of the Soviet Union (that "reset" didn't work so well, did it Hil(liar)y?).  Syria is in flames ("Red Line" crossed!).  Our victory in Iraq has been squandered.  ISIS, which didn't exist until Mr. Obama pulled our victorious troops out of Iraq without a "tripwire" Status of Forces Agreement," is now operating without limitation in 40 countries and on six continents.  Her decision to decapitate Lybia's "Strongman" Khadafi has been an all-out disaster.  She (and Barry) abandoned Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood, handing it over to our enemies.  Iran has grown from a sanctions-bedeviled, failing power to the leading sponsor of terrorism in the entire world. I can't think of a country that reveres us or our support now more than they did when she took office.  Maybe you can. Go ahead.  Try.  I'll wait...

And although she didn't seem to do much more than flit around the globe a lot on one of our Air Force 767's, during that same period we now know that she produced a seriously yuuuuge volume of emails!  When she refused to play along by handing them over when requested, an Associated Press lawsuit forced her to turn over 55,000 printed pages of emails to the State Department a full two years after she left office!  

In that infamous United Nations press conference she told us she had erased 30,000 more emails that dealt only with "yoga lessons, grandchildren and wedding plans." And although she told us that was all there were, the FBI found another 2,000+, many of them highly classified, when they "unwiped" her home-brew basement server.  And now, a whole bunch of time later, we've just learned that the State Department has uncovered - voila ~ another 15,000 or so of these little jewels!

Who knows if there will be more uncovered.  My guess is yes, there will be.  But even if there aren't, there were something like 100,000 emails sent and/or received by HRC during her tenure!

If one just does the math, ex-Secretary Clinton would have had to write and forward six-plus emails per hour, for every waking, work-day hour, for the entire 1,000 days of her tenure!  That's one every ten minutes, 16 hours-per-day, for every day she worked, including during meals, naps and bathroom breaks!  And that means between the time she pushed "send," she was either composing the very next one, or reading one just received and responding to it.  Did we pay this aging babe from the House of Clinton to do nothing but write emails?  It would certainly seem so...

I'm kind of hoping they find some more emails that she has guaranteed us she never sent nor received and surely do not exist.  If so it will skew these statistics even further. For me, I'm kind of astounded at what the facts have just produced. And I'm also quite dismayed that I chose another line of work besides "The Government," as having done so padded this couple's bank account to the tune of way more than $100 Million Dollars while she was working for us, you and me.

They don't dance.  They can't sing.  They didn't invent anything.  They didn't start a business.  They just got elected. And then reelected.  And then discovered they could rent out the Lincoln Bedroom.  And then it really started raining money!  Bushel baskets full of the stuff!

I mean, even Bernie Sanders, arguably the very least accomplished Senator and ardent socialist, a guy who didn't earn a regular weekly paycheck until the age of 40 when he was elected Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, just paid $600,000 in cash for his third home, one on the beach, doncha' know.  This of course proves that, no matter how insignificant you are as a legislator, and believe me, Bernie is really insignificant, having never, ever passed a single piece of legislation, you can amass a fortune while working for what you and I would call not-such-a-big-salary.   

Is America great, or what?

To "Snope," or not to "Snope?"

I'll bet that you've doubted something somebody sent you on emails or websites once or twice.  Or maybe even more than that. And if so, it's a good bet you've taken steps to check on the accuracy of that information by calling upon "Snopes.com." 

Snopes, as you probably know, holds itself out on its masthead to be...

"...The definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, rumors and misinformation."

And it's held that (dubious) distinction for more than two decades.  In fact, I would opine that most of America thinks it's a straight-shooter in terms of providing information without bias.

And if so, America would be wrong...

Snopes was, is and likely always will be a tool of the left-wing in this country.  Its founders, Barbara and David Mikkelson, are a married couple living in Southern California's San Fernando Valley.  They conjured up the idea for this website back in the days when Billy Jeff "Blue Dress" Clinton was doing his best to chase female interns around the White House and avoid impeachment.  They did their best to hide their far-left beliefs from the date of their 1995 beginning, and, for the most part, they've been successful.  But lately their charade has been unraveling at warp speed...

On August 6th Snopes' founders, the Mikkelsons, were arrested after an unrelated investigation of one their editors lead to a paper trail of corruption, bribery and fraud at the very heart of this supposed fact-checking organization.

It seems this editor was doing a little bit of flea market shopping.  A jukebox nearby started playing "Dixie" and this guy went nuts!  He started screaming that the song was racist, and demanded that it be silenced.  When no one rapidly acceded to his demands, he began throwing things at it.  The cops were called and this guy bolted. They managed to track him down by way of a purchase he had made just before going all medieval on the poor jukebox.

It had been suspected for some time by me and others that Snopes was accepting money and favors from left-leaning and pro-Islamic political groups and individuals for helping them to advance their causes by rigging public discourse with selective fact-finding and deliberate manipulation of public opinion.  What was lacking was proof.

While the editor in question was being arrested, the officers noticed him attempting to hide a sheaf of papers under a Persian rug in his home.  That caused the arresting officers to remove the rug and examine the papers.  One of those papers turned out to be a hand-written ledger containing the names of well-known individuals and organizations which have been paying Snopes to debunk stories over the years that cast them in a bad light, while validating damaging rumors and half-truths about their political opponents.  Juicy! Sounds like a bad screenplay for a TV comedy, doesn't it?

But then again, so does this 2016 General Election season.   

Once the Mikkelsons discovered that they could influence public discourse in the way noted, they began to market their particular brand of "truth."  It brought them literally millions of dollars from those on the left, including national media organizations and websites, such as MediaMatters and MoveOn.org.  It has been suspected for many years that international financier and money-laundering leftist felon and Nazi-collaborator George ("Darth Vader") Soros has had his fingerprints all over this.  In other words, a media arm would conjure up a completely fictitious story, one maybe created in the fetid mind of convicted currency-manipulator Soros, and then he'd pay Snopes to validate it to the detriment of the target of that negative assertion.  

The list of groups that bit of seized paper proved to have "paid to play" Snopes in this manner include foreign governments such as Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the Palestinian Authority (really?). No names have yet been released while the investigation is still ongoing, but a police source has indicated that, "...The shock waves will rock the world of the media and political establishment!"

It has long been suspected that Snopes.com was a corrupt organization with zero credibility.  It should not come as a surprise the lengths to which those with evil intent will go to control the way you and I think, or what we are urged to believe.  

If you feel the need to check on some tidbit of information or other, I'd suggest you visit "TruthorFiction.com" if you need to check on whether a rumor or urban legend is true or not. Unlike the crooked commie pinko leftist weenies at Snopes, these folks appear to have no political axe to grind...

(Update:  And if you check with these folks you'll learn that the arrest report for the "Snopes" gang was a work of fiction. The rest is true so far as we can determine.  See? You can't believe anything you read on line anymore, including that which comes from those who purport to tell you the truth about what's true on line...)

Could "Gun Control" Actually Work?

Our friends on the "Left" would have us believe that just a little bit more of that thing they call "gun control" would have a decidedly positive impact on reducing gun crimes here in America.  

That "Left" group, and the all-inclusive "they" that follows in this humble posting, would include Progressives, communists, socialists, Marxists, and members of the Oceans Foundation and the Sierra Club; most all who work at channels 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13, as well as CNN and MSNBC, plus PBS and NPR; Internet sites like MediaMatters, MoveOn.org, Snopes and Politico; all but a few journalists, especially those who ply their trade at the L.A. Times, the N.Y. Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post; over half of all politicians, especially semi-retired POTUS B. Hussein Obama and his sidekick Sheriff Joe "Plugs" Biden; nearly every single university and college professor, especially the tenured ones who can say and do whatever they want without fear of retribution; almost all those who reside in Hollywierd; and those who are, shall we charitably say, mentally challenged.

They tell us that there's just too too many guns around here. They tell us that they're too easy to come by.  Our erstwhile POTUS has even told us they're easier to buy than a book or a computer(!).  They tell us that implementation of a thing called "Universal Background Checks" would also keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, while continuing to permit us poor schlubs to hunt deer, just like the Founding Fathers intended, doncha' know.  And that's even though there's nothing in the 2nd Amendment about deer or any other animal, or hunting anything, for that matter, except maybe politicians who attempt to engage in a bit of executive overreach. 

They tell us that we do not "need" those scary, evil-looking black things they call "assault rifles," even though they cannot tell us what that term means exactly, and even though there's more than 10 million of them in circulation, and even though they are collectively the most popular "modern sporting rifles" here in America, and even though less than 3% of all gun deaths are caused by rifles of any description. Of course, if they know of that last statistic, which is easily discovered by just Googling a bit, they unfortunately tend to keep it to themselves.

Oh, and even though it's not up to those on the "Left" and the "They" to decide what we "need."  I would offer up that, as free, honest, honorable, God-fearing 'Muricans, operating under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment, it's what we "want," not "need," that matters, wouldn't you?

They tell us that fully 90% of everybody wants enhanced "Universal Background Checks," including, they tell us, even members of the National Rifle Association.  What they don't tell us, of course, is that the telephone survey that gave us that bit of polling effluvia was done more than 19 years ago, using only 234 registered - not even "likely" - voters, and is therefore statistically insignificant.  Yet, they dredge it up at every opportunity, without letting us know that it's totally and completely bogus and worthless and irrelevant.  They seem to have a pretty poor opinion of our intellect, don't they? Should they?

Oh, and it was also what's called a "push poll," which means the answer was solicited to be a certain way by virtue of the way the question was asked.  "They" also don't tell us that, by the way, do they?.

They tell us that guns kills more than 30,000 Americans each and every year, and that this is just waaaay too many.  Just completely unacceptable, doncha' know.  And that's true, they say, even though if we subtracted those who chose to commit suicide with a gun, and those who were murdered due to gang or other crimes of violence, the number done in accidentally via guns, about 500 per year on average, would be less than those who die as a result of slips and falls in the shower, and less than one-thirtieth the number who die in auto accidents. Kinda' looks a bit different if you view it that way, doesn't it?  

So, let's just take a look at what would happen if "they" got their wish and America was made "safe" by the implementation of their beloved "Universal Background Checks" and enhanced "gun control."  By that definition, Chicago is Ground Zero for gun control heaven.  Gun control, as they define it, has been in effect there for more than 50 years.  In fact, it is nearly impossible to buy and own a gun in Chicago. City ordinances there prohibit operating a gun store within 500 feet of a park, or a church, or a liquor store, or within 1,000 feet of a school.  Very creative in how they write those ordinances, those Chicagoans!

Those same ordinances eliminate 99.79% of all the land area within the city of Chicago or the 34 cities surrounding it in which a gun store might operate.  Want to know where the only gun store is in the entire city of Chicago?  The Main Police Station downtown, that's where!  And it's only open between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and Noon on alternate Thursdays.  Kind of intimidating to those who might want to buy a gun, right? Real convenient for those desirous of exercising their 2nd Amendment Right, right?  

Plus one must undergo 8 hours of classroom training, plus no less than 6 hours of actual live fire exercise under the supervision of a licensed professional at a gun range in order to qualify to be able to purchase a firearm.  Oh wait, there's no gun ranges in Chicago!  In fact, the closest gun range to the City of Chicago is more than 40 miles away!  Wow, those in charge in Chicago seem to be trying to make it really difficult to buy a gun, right?

Annnnnd, if you manage to actual acquire a gun legally somehow, with all the training and fees and such, which can take many months and run to more than $2,000, plus the gun, of course, the Chicago city fathers and mothers have some additional requirements for you as a gun owner. You may not loan or give your weapon to another (felony if you do!), or even permit them to hold it.  You may not remove the gun from your home of record, unless you are on your way to or from a gun range, and then it has to be secured and locked in the trunk of your car (violators are felons!). They are serious! You can't even take it into your garage! I guess a garage is not considered part of your house in Chicago. And, it must remain unloaded and locked in an approved safe at all times while in your home.  So much for being available to protect one from some nefarious dude who wishes to separate you from your stuff. 

Can't you just see it?  A burglar breaks in and you ask him to wait while you unlock your safe, load up your gun and then return to the scene of the crime.  By then the Bad Guy has either, (a) ran for his life, or (b) taken yours. 

Are you getting the idea that gun control is operating at full blast and on steroids in Chicago?  So, is it working?  You be the judge...

During the last week of July, 2016, Chicago achieved a milestone I'm pretty sure they would rather not have met. They just surpassed 2,600 shootings for the year!  Their total during all of 2015 was 2,988.  And they now have more than 500 killings due to guns in 2016.  That's running at about 20% more than 2015, and 2015 was an all-time record! There were 50 just this past weekend!  And they're averaging as 10 or 15 deaths each weekend!  There was 65 killings during July alone!  Think of it!  A town "without guns" is in the running for the most dangerous city in America for gun deaths! You stand a better chance of making it out alive in beautiful downtown Baghdad then you do in the Windy City!

Chicago is not alone in terms of big blue, anti-gun cities.  The gun crime rates in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Detroit, Newark, the District of Columbia and Oakland, for example, are almost as chilling. None of them make it easy to buy and own and use a gun.  All are owned and operated by Democrats.  And all are steeped in gang-style killings with guns.

But what of cities that are more friendly to guns?  When, I would ask, was the last time you heard of a shooting in Oklahoma City, or Nashville, or Topeka, or Dallas, or Salt Lake City? Ponder that for awhile, my friends.  

And while we're on the subject, when was the last time the Lap Dog Media told you an NRA member, veteran, husband, father, and law-abiding gun owner went off the rails and shot up someplace or other?  There's more than 5 million NRA members and more than 100 Million gun owners, so there's plenty of opportunity for Good Guys to act like Bad Guys if they really wanted to.  They just seemingly don't want to.  Go ahead, try and defend the Media. I'll wait...

So, what do our candidates for POTUS have to say about guns and gun control? Trump is a Life Member of the NRA and has had a concealed carry permit for decades. That's all we need to know about him.  

Hil(liar)y, on the other hand, makes no secret of her hatred of guns nor of her plans to basically gut the 2nd Amendment. She is open in her condemnation of the Supreme Court decision on "Heller v. District of Columbia." "Heller" established that we all have a basic, innate, fundamental Right to own firearms and keep them in our homes for self defense.  Clinton wants to have that decision revisited (read reversed).  And the way she intends to do that is to appoint left-wing commie pinko weenie justices to overturn it. Her more detailed plans call for implementing the aforementioned Universal Background Checks, so the Feds know who has the guns, limiting the number of guns you can buy, and then outlawing so-called "assault rifles" and semi-automatic weapons (one pull of the trigger, one bullet goes out the pointy end).  You should know that outlawing semi-automatics would eliminate fully 74% of all weapons available for sale!  So there. You don't really have to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  You just eliminate 3/4ths of the guns available for sale here in America.  Same thing.  And easier to accomplish.

Think of it:  A woman who has had scads of armed bodyguards protecting her rather well-upholstered bottom for decades wants to disarm you, the Great Unwashed. Ponder that also...

And helping Hitlery in her quest is Taxifornia's very own Lt. Governor Gavin Newsome (no wonder Kimberly Guilfoyle left him!).  He's decided that his best hope to replace Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown in the corner office in Sacramento is legislation to further screw us gun owners by forcing us to pay $50 for a background check each time we want to buy ammo, and then limit us to 100 rounds per month!  So a $5 box of .22s would now cost us $55.00!  

You see the trend here, folks?  Make guns harder to buy, harder to own, and harder and more expensive to use. Punishing law-abiding gun owners for the actions of the few seems to be how commie pinko dumbass liberal weenies intend to render us defenseless...

So, I ask this question:  However you feel about guns, whether you love them or hate them, do you really want someone to start nibbling around the edges of our Bill of Rights?  And even if you're okay with rewriting the 2nd Amendment, what comes next? The 1st?  The 4th?  The 5th?  The 10th?  It's a slippery slope, my friends.  

So, I started this unassuming little missive by asking the question, "Could gun control actually work?"  Well, based upon the hard facts presented herein, you be the judge. Could it?

EPILOG:  After pushing the "Publish" button on this, my latest little offering to my tens of rabid followers, I noticed an interesting article in today's Press-Enterprise.  

In spite of the fact that Meheeeeeko's Constitution guarantees its citizens th right to buy and own handguns and rifles for self-defense and sporting purposes, actually getting your hands on one proves to be far more difficult than here in the States.  Going Chicago one better, Meheeeeeeeeeeko has just one gun store in the entire country! And, it's located in a nondescript, unmarked industrial building deep in the suburbs of the Capitol.  It's staffed by uniformed soldiers as well.  You must surrender your cell phones and cameras to enter, and remove caps and all outer garments prior to passing through the metal detector.  The guns are all secured in glass cases and out of the reach of possible purchasers. The store manager states openly that he does his very best to dissuade those who might try to buy one of these beauties from actually doing so.  Seems they worry that guns, the same ones their citizens have the absolute right to own, the same ones that are thicker than fleas on a Blue Tick hound among the drug cartels, might actually fall into the hands of...their ordinary citizens.  No wonder they're trying to make their way north...

This article was very timely.  This is proof to those who might need it of just how far politicians can go to deprive us of our rights, without actually eliminating those rights altogether. Convinced yet?   

King County vs. Philadelphia

Let me take you back to the 2012 General Election, my friends.  

It was Romney vs. Obama.  We'd like to think that it was hard-fought, but it wasn't. Romney proved to have brought a knife to a gun fight.  He was a wuss.  He just wasn't willing to take the battle to Obama and his sycophants, presumably because he did not wish to be thought a racist.  Obama, you see, is half-white. Some call him half-black, but that's them.  

In fact, it's reported that the residents of Kenya, East Africa are now reporting that Mr. Obama is half-white, probably due to his abject failure as a President.  Actually, I just made that up.  But if they're paying attention to the news, it's surely possible a few of them think that, right?

As to the subject of this posting.  Those of us who make it a hobby to analyze politics and its effect on our lives, like me, enjoy looking for anomalies.  And one gigantic anomaly was what happened in King County, Texas back in November, 2008.  

King County, my friends, is the very largest county in all of America.  It is 913 square miles in area.  That's big.  Yet, it is the home of only 314 citizens, with no incorporated town.  It produces scads of oil, and is home to the very largest cattle ranch in the entire United States.  It is also the very most Republican county in America.  

In the 2012 election, 95.9% of King County's residents voted for Mitt Romney.  That means that 3.1%, or just 5, voted for Obama.  When an enterprising reporter later began a search to find and interview one or more of those five, he found no one willing to admit to having cast a vote for "that guy." Perhaps they were afraid of being shamed by their fellow residents.  

Now let's take a look at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  One of America's oldest and most historic cities, "Philly" boasts a total of 1,560,207 residents as of the 2010 census. And, predictably for an old, Eastern, "blue" city, which has been owned and operated for generations by the Democrat party machine, 78.5% of its residents vote Democrat. Only 9.4% of its citizens admit to being Republicans. And those likely live in the more affluent suburbs.  So, one could reasonably predict that approximately that same relative mix could be expected when the votes are counted. You know, like one out of every eight or so votes cast would be for the Republican? 

Absolutely not!

There were 59 districts in the City of Philadelphia during the 2012 General Election that recorded not a single vote for Mitt Romney!  Not a single vote!  3.1% of King County, the most Republican county in America, voted for Obama, but not a single citizen of Philly in 59 of its voting precincts voted for Romney!  

What do you figure the odds are against that?  I would think that there would have had to have been at least one drug-addled, wheelchair-bound, alcoholic, one-legged Viet Nam vet who would have pulled the handle for Mitt, if only by accident, wouldn't you?

But noooooooooooooooooooo!

In fact, there was an elderly Black woman in Philly back then who was nice enough to admit, on camera, that she voted for B. Hussein Obama 7 times!  She said she wanted to make sure her vote "counted."  It sure did.  Multiple times.  

In fact, there were a number of cities within larger metropolitan areas in Chicago, Baltimore and Newark, back then, for example, that reported that as many as 130% of the registered voters in their precincts had voted for Obama. That's pretty hard to do, I'm guessing, unless the guy who gets that percentage of the vote belongs to the "right" party.

Now, as every American should know, voting more than once is a felony.  And the woman in Philly was indicted, charged and convicted of voter fraud for her transgression.  But after serving a few months in the local Gray Bar Hotel, she had her conviction overturned by then (Black) Attorney General Eric Holder and released with much fanfare from prison. Seems that breaking the law in a way that's advantageous to the "preferred" regime isn't really breaking the law at all.

And aren't we seeing exactly that exact same scenario play out right about now with Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton?  FBI Director James Comey tells us that she is guilty of gross violations of law but somehow will not be indicted by Obama's Justice Department.  And her "charitable foundations" manage to pay out only 14% of all donations to the charities for which they were founded.  The remainder, 86%, goes to pay for her and her husband's travel, meals, vacations, clothing and leisure!  Really?  

And she just released her tax returns.  Seems they reported earning $10.4 Million last year.  That's pretty good for someone who never started a business or invented anything and can't sing or dance or hit a fastball.  It seems that what Hillary's really good at is selling influence, first to the Arkansas State House, then to the White House Lincoln Bedroom, and later to the U.S. State Department.  But hey, she gave $1 Million to charity!  That's good, right?  Right?

Oh yeah, the charity that received that donation was...wait for it...the Clinton Family Foundation.  So the Foundation give the Clintons money, and then they give it right back to the Foundation, and claim a tax deduction for so doing.  The fact that the Lap Dog Media doesn't blare out the hypocrisy of this obvious self-dealing is telling in and of itself.  And yet, they somehow get away with it.

So those who are concerned that the upcoming election may be rigged, with the outcome known to "insiders" in advance, have every right to be.  I'm just wondering when those 5 lonely Democrats in King County, Texas, will get the message and start voting more than once...

"Creating Jobs"

Like you, I probably heard politicians utter two words during the Primary Season and the political party conventions just finished (thank God!) more than any others:  

"Creating Jobs!"

Yes, my friends, politicians just luuuuv to talk about creating jobs.  And I find that strange, because with the exception of a very, very few of them, none have ever created a single job. In fact, it's' my opinion they wouldn't know how.  

That's because they do not know what they do not know.  We have a perfect example of the undeniable truth in that statement currently residing in the peoples' White House. We elected a man whose qualifications were serving as a community organizer (which means signing up poor Black folks on the south side of Chicago to vote Democrat in exchange for food stamps), and 153 days in the Senate.  In fact, He probably thinks He knows what He's doing.  He doesn't.  And that's why folks like Him have so little difficulty in talking about it.  

Yes, my friends, and you are my friends, politicians these days give a bad name to the very name itself.  Back in George Washington's day, politicians left the farm, or the general store, or the blacksmith shop and headed off to the new Federal Republic of the District of Columbia to spend two or three or four years doing the peoples' work. Making laws and trying to help craft our brand new nation is what they were there for. And they did a damn fine job.  And when they were through doing their duty, often at a high cost to their fortunes and families, they headed on back to the farm or the store or the shop to resume their previous careers. And that's why we loved - and love - them so.

Today?  Not so much.  

It's been said that a politician has two jobs: getting elected, and then getting reelected. Did you know that the average member of the House of Representatives needs to rake in more than $20,000 per day, every single day, in contributions to fund their reelection campaigns?  That takes a lot of time, effort and energy.  Time and energy that could have, and should have, been used to do what they were sent to Foggy Bottom to do. 

But most of the time they are successful in achieving that lofty goal.  The "return rate" of Congressweenies that decide to run for reelection, which is almost all of them, is better than 95%!  Today, being a lawmaker turns out to be more or less a lifetime job. One with some serious benefits in terms of income and influence and retirement perks. One, it seems, that a whole lot of 'Muricans crave.

However, unless the politician has had a business career prior to entering politics, he or she more than likely has never, ever created a single solitary job.  Most of them are lawyers, meaning the only thing they've ever created is reasonable doubt and very large invoices.  

But bizz guys and gals invent stuff and start companies and hire folks.  That's called "creating jobs." Jobs that wouldn't exist had they not taken a gamble and started a company.  

But, once again, the normal, everyday, average politician (read bloviating dissembling narcissistic insufferable weenie) doesn't know that.  They keep paying lip service to "creating jobs." And most Americans actually believe them.  That's because most Americans have never created jobs.  And that "most" includes the Lap Dog Media, who have never signed a check on its face, either.  So, we have a Perfect Storm; lying politicians, left-wing reporters and gullible voters. Sad.

Back to creating jobs.  You need to know only two things before we proceed:

1.  The Government has no money of its own.  In order to get some money, the Gummint first has to take that money from somebody who earned it.

2.  The only job Government ever created was a Government job.  

Got it?  Good.

Sooooo, here's the recap:  Government forcibly takes your dough (as if you had a choice!), and then redistributes it all willy nilly to whomever it thinks can be successfully bought, via the voting booth, benefiting only itself.  And in addition, the printing press at the Treasury Department is running 24/7, puking forth the extra cash that the Gummint thinks it needs that picking the publics' pocket doesn't produce in sufficient quantities.  

So here's what you need to know about Government and creating jobs:  

The only thing Government can do to influence job creation is to create an environment into which jobs are drawn.

And how does it do that?  Here, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, is The Chuckmeister's prescription for job creation:

1.  First, create a tax policy that rewards risk.  If you risk the time, effort, energy and money necessary to start a company or a service or a product and hire people, you should not be punished for so doing via a usurious tax rate.  America's income tax rate is 35+%.  That is the very highest in the world!  Ireland's, for example, is only 15%.  Any question, then, why our corporations are picking up and leaving our shores in droves for the Emerald Isle?

2.  And second, Government rules, regulations, guidelines, policies and procedures should be minimized, streamlined and smoothed out so as to make new business formation quick, easy and simple.  The 7,100 pages of onerous new rules and regulations that have been put in place since Obama rode in on a lightning bolt from Mount Kenyastan have gone a long way toward strangling new business formation.  

Closer to home (my home, that is), it takes more than a year and more than $1 Million dollars to gain approval from all levels of Gummint in the once-Golden State of Taxifornia to open a new fast food franchise restaurant.  It takes less than three months and less than $60,000 to gain approval in the Great State of Texas.  That's why the CEO of Carl's Jr. made the choice not to open another burger joint in CA, the state in which it was created, and move all its new restaurant formation chips to Texas.  In just the past two years more than 60 Carl's Jr.s have been opened in Texas. And Texas has no personal or corporate income taxes!  And that's just one example!  Thus, moving your business and your staff to Texas gains one an immediate increase in bottom-line income of as much as 13.9%, plus lower housing and living costs.  

Blow that shocking statistic up over the 9,000 corporations that have escaped CA and you have the makings of a genuine revolt!  In fact, while we're on the subject, did you know that more than 50% of all the new American jobs created since Barry O was immaculated were created in Texas?  That ought to be all the proof you need to know that a fairer tax rate and minimal Government interference will create the vacuum into which scads of jobs will be drawn. Food for thought... 

So, the next time some bloviating bozo in a suit tries to tell you that he or she can create jobs, run, don't walk, in the opposite direction.  You'll be doing yourself a favor...