It ain’t over, and you know it.


Th Benghazi Committee report came out, and there was nothing to  hold against Hillary, so the obvious thing to do is form yet another committee and try again.

There’s jut a few weeks before the DNC Convention,  and if thing go as predicted, but they might not, there will then be another few months until the election.

Certainly they can find something.

They took 8 years to go after Bill for what they claimed were illegal practices and finally had to settle for oral sex in the oval office with a consenting adult.

Perhaps, after all the investigative committee, they will find Hillary still has an old library book out.



Just because you are interested now, things did not just start to exist


There is a huge difference between attending a rally, showing up to a glitzy event, and going to the polls.

People naively judge the support of a candidate by the crowds they attract, but the depth of the true support is only measurable at the polls.

There is also a huge difference between being able to effectively make a change by learning history, as opposed actually obstructing progress by assuming none had ever been made, and actually cooperating with those who need to progress, but don’t, by making it convenient for them to move agonizingly slow, or not at all.

The current accepted erroneous and uninformed concept of the past is that no one actually did anything, and now it is up to the young to do what no one before them had attempted.

Many of the aspects of the Bernie revolution are no more than what was attempted in the past, but, with too many people sitting on their hands, met failure as those doing the work lacked back up from those who just waited for things to happen.

I have spoken to a number of “Young” people who will have been eligible to vote for up to 12 years with the coming election, but who only voted in 2008 and 2012 because those were big presidential elections, but ignored the mid terms during that same time because they did not see them as important.

Now that they are interested, they not only believe nothing was ever tried before, things that might have been possible if they had voted in midterms and helped give control of Congress to those who would have supported Obama’s agenda, but they get somewhat insulting to those who had tried to bring about change, but who, because the neophytes do not look at history are accused of having done nothing.

In England the majority of the voters supported leaving the European Union. The decision was supported by the older voters who would obviously be affected for a shorter period of time than the younger voters. However, as it turned out, the younger voters who are now complaining did not get out and vote. They assumed those who would vote would vote as they hoped they would to stay in the EU.

They were wrong and now are complaining about how the older people voted and seemingly ignore that they themselves neglected to.

They handed their future over to others when they could have controlled it.

Hopefully people in this country will learn from this.

You can’t bitch if you don’t vote, and you won’t know what is going on unless you talk to people outside your own group.

Look at the whole picture, especially if you are just getting involved for first time

Check your memes


I am not a fan of those memes on FaceBook that are of cats mispronouncing English while utilizing poor grammar.

You know, the cats who has cheeseburger.

Also not a fan of the ones with the rose that want you to repost if you love a dead relation, want to cure a disease, or have love for that animal that is all mangled in the picture.

And I am definitely not enamored of the ones that claim that the death of a person or the destruction of a city or country rests solely on whether or not I pass that meme on and give that responsibility to someone else.

But of all the ones I get, the ones I most dislike are those that are obviously re-posted because they bolster someone’s opinion, but, with a little research, can be shown to be based on no data whatsoever.

They lend substance to a person’s ill founded opinion just as a visible cloud has enough substance to support a heavy object. Oh, you can see it, it might be big, and it looks pretty solid and strong, but even a feather can pass through it.

I have many friends who are veterans working for veterans’ benefits, and I do what I can to help their cause with my blog and political activity, but every now and then I get what is supposed to be a pro-veteran post, but falls real short because what is in the meme is just not the truth. And while its purpose might be to rile veterans and those who support them to get us angry enough to work harder, their only real purpose is to get people all hot and bothered about a distraction so no one pays attention to the fact that those who should be are not addressing what actually needs to be done.

The same goes with political memes, or those who want me to accept that I am not as patriotic as the poster because I do not subscribe to the false quote attributed to some historic figure, especially a Founding Father, who never said what the meme claims he said.

I was once informed by someone, when I pointed out a George Washington quote in a meme was totally fictitious, that it is permissible to misquote someone as long as the sentiment is correct. He did not like my pointing out that the best way to represent someone’s sentiment is to quote them exactly especially when the misquote is completely opposite to what the actual quote had to say.

Then there are those who, after it being pointed out to them that the content of the meme they re-posted had not only been previously debunked, but is provably not what a person said or the details of the event it referred to, defend themselves by stating that they do not agree with the meme, but thought it worthy to pass on. They just don’t see that by passing it on, it adds legitimacy to something clearly illegitimate.

Every morning I read through FaceBook, emails, and various web news sites looking for stories that catch my attention, and some are really informative while others are just wild. Before I even consider an idea for a cartoon, I do some research to make sure that what I read was fact as opposed an article from a satire site, and occasionally I also read the “about” page on a web site to see if what is posted is influenced by a severe bias.

Rather than find yourself having to defend a meme until you recognize how much dancing you end up doing to defend the meme and your re-posting it, research the meme first.

I have seen too many people, who are otherwise reasonable people, reveal a very unattractive stupid side because they have put their faith in a meme they have passed on that they had received from a friend. They assumed their friend had not lied, and perhaps they didn’t, intentionally. But they relied on the faith borne of friendship to have what they posted accepted without question, and this betrayal of friendship has otherwise good and intelligent people adding to the ever growing level of stupidity we can certainly do without these days.

Not everything posted on the internet is true or things are and are not at the same time, and people have and have not done things.

Based on their firmly held religious beliefs

IMAG0390 So Donald Trump meets with Evangelicals who are leading the charge to ignore state and federal laws to be able to discriminate against American Citizens because to not be able to do so would violate their firmly held religious beliefs.

He tells them that his strong religious beliefs have led him in his life and religion made him the man he is today.

Apparently his religion led him to commit known acts of adultery with three women two of whom  he eventually married after having cheated with the new wife on her predecessor.

He announced on television that he found his daughter so hot, if she were not his daughter, he would have “done” her, even though at the time he announced this, she was a minor.

He has found ways not to pay fees to people who have done work for him. He robbed them of part of their livelihood.

He promotes gambling which goes against the Bible, as does the drinking he promoted through Trump Vodka.

Evangelicals like to point out that we are all sinners with a need to obtain God’s forgiveness. But Donald, in spite of the above, and perhaps much more, claims he has never sought God’s forgiveness as he has not done anything that would need him to.

And yet, in spite of this, he got the endorsement of Evangelicals.

Go figure.


Since the shooting in Orlando, one glaring contradiction has emerged.

On little evidence beyond one gun shop in Colorado and what would appear to be a bit of wishful thinking, a story has been promoted that Gay people are now arming themselves for their own protection.

Pink Pistols, a GLBT gun club that has existed for years is being talked about like it just started.

Being a member of the Gay community, what I have been reading in stories that have originated from within it ,the GLBT Community is angry enough at the inaction in Washington when it comes to stricter gun laws that would make it more difficult for people who shouldn’t have them to obtain guns that can kill a lot of people in a short time, the word is that GLBT organizations are going to work to slow down if not end the stranglehold the NRA has on D.C.

Obviously the false story about our arming ourselves will be used to first claim that Gay people are dangerous as they are now armed, and then that killing any can be justified as self defense.

But this is what I was alluding to earlier.

If you read the essays and transcripts of radio talk shows by religious leaders, they are the ones promoting arms purchases, and in their new found egalitarianism, they are including Gay people among those who should arm themselves.

These are the same religious people who will refuse a cake, or any other services to Gay people based on firmly held religious beliefs, but seem to have no problem selling them guns.

If you are Gay they will refuse to sell you a cupcake, but they will be more than happy to sell you a gun.

They claim that selling a cake makes them complicit in a marriage they cannot support because, unlike the Bible’s version of marriage, in Gay ones there are no rapists, goats, concubines, brother’s widows, or incest required as they are in the Bible, but even though there is that Fifth Commandment thing against murder, they are more than happy to sell you the instrument you can use to commit one, which would seem to go against their firmly held religious beliefs, but, somehow, doesn’t.

Go figure




The NRA’s childish argument.


No one wants to take away anyone’s guns.

Oh, that makes for a good scare tactic to get people to buy more guns and increase the profits of the gun manufacturers, but when we have heard for 71/2 years that Obama was salivating while waiting to do this, and we now hear that since he didn’t, Hillary not only wants to  take them, but she wants to remove the Second Amendment, any thinking person would see a flaw in the claim.

What people really want is to have gun policies in place that will not make it so easy for people to purchase weapons that can kill a large number of people at one time, especially if those people show signs they might just intend to do that.

While politicians push the war on terrorism, they seem intent on ensuring that the terrorists have the wherewithal to get that done.

I have many friends who hunt. One even goes out for wild boar.

But when my friends buy guns, they buy them to hunt animals, not shoot people.

And while some claim any restrictions on the type of guns that can be purchased is an attack on the Second Amendment as it attempts to put a restriction on ownership, they very clearly ignore that there is a restriction already contained in the Amendment. They ignore the “well regulated militia” part.

When 89% of Americans polled say they want responsible gun laws, with 92% being Republican and 97% being Democrat, and when over 75% of NRA members call for them too, it seems odd that not only do politicians pay attention to only 11% of the population but to an NRA which ignores its own members.



Say the magic words


Recently American forces blew up a building containing a lot of ISIS’s money.

Osama Bin Ladin is dead, and President Obama ordered strikes that have taken out seven potential candidates  slated to lead the terrorist network.

Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, the leader of the Taliban, has been killed in a U.S. airstrike on the de facto headquarters of the Afghan Taliban.

Abu Nabil, the senior leader in Libya was targeted in an air strike carried out by F-15 aircraft on a compound in the city of Derna.

A senior leader of al-Shabaab in Somalia has been killed.

U.S. forces killed the al Qaeda operative in charge of suicide bombings and operations involving explosives.

The leader of al Qaeda in Yemen and the perpetrator of the Benghazi attack are dead.

But none of this actually happened, apparently, because the only real effective way to have accomplished these and other anti-terrorism successes is to use the term “radical Islam”.

President Obama hasn’t used it, and the Republicans are demanding he does so that his successes will be legitimate.

President Barack Obama explained why he does not use that term.

It grants them a religious legitimacy they don’t deserve.

“They are not religious leaders; they are terrorists. We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”

ISIS wants to portray itself as a group of holy warriors defending Islam so that it can propagate the idea that Western countries are at war with Islam, which is how it recruits and radicalizes young people.

“We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie,” Obama said.

 “They no more represent Islam than any madman who kills in the name of Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism,” he said. “No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism.”

But for Republicans, that is not good enough.

They want magic while blocking  reality.

Will he, or won’t he



There is story floating around of the possibility that Justice Clarence Thomas may be stepping down after the presidential election. He has been considering retirement for a while and never planned to stay until he died.

According to the Washington Post:

“His retirement would have a substantial impact on control of the court. The next president is expected to immediately replace the seat opened by the death of conservative Justice AntoninScalia, providing a one-vote edge in the court that is currently divided 4-4.

Should Thomas leave, that slight majority would continue if Donald Trump becomes president. If it’s Hillary Clinton, then she would get the chance to flip two Republican seats, giving the liberals a 6-3 majority.”

But Thomas’s wife has posted:

For all those who are contacting me about the possibility of my husband retiring, I say — unsubscribe from those false news sources and carry on with your busy lives.

IT. IS. BOGUS! Paul Bedard (the reporter from the Washington Examiner who published a story on this)needs to find a phone in his life and unnamed sources are worth as much as their transparency is.

Considering that Justice Thomas went for at last 10 years without saying anything from the bench, and one of the only questions he asked during a case after that long silence was why people convicted of domestic violence should nor be allowed to own guns, following this with a request for any example of anyone convicted of a crime losing a Constitutional right, I guess it had to be his wife who spoke for him on this matter.





Sandy Hook meets Orlando


People were excited when it was decided after last week’s 15 hour filibuster to have a vote on some gun control measures, but realists knew there is a huge difference between the GOP allowing a vote and how the vote was going to go.

And it went pretty much as expected.

60 votes were needed to pass the amendments, and Democrats in the Senate do not cover that number. The NRA owned Republicans do, though.

The four amendments considered addressed background checks of prospective gun buyers and the sale of guns and explosives to people on terrorist watch lists.

But as even the dimmest wit could have predicted, the vote went along with the NRA’s wishes.

As the NRA executive director Chris Cox wrote,

“We all agree that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms. We should all agree that law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a secret government list should not be denied their constitutional right to due process. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. It is shocking that the safety of the American people is taking a backseat to political theatre.”

In a rare attendance count, all 100 senators voted for the first time this year.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, responded to the vote.

“Shame on every single senator who voted against these life-saving amendments and protected the rights of terrorists and other dangerous people to buy guns.”

One amendment would have blocked people on a terrorist watch list banned from flying while under investigation from buying a gun, and would have empowered the attorney general to prevent a gun purchase if there was “reasonable belief” the person could use the weapon for terrorism.

Republicans blocked a similar measure last year.

Another amendment would have allowed the attorney general to delay a gun purchase for up to 72 hours by a suspected terrorist or a person investigated for terrorism in the last five years, while a court order could also have been sought to prevent the sale.

Two other amendments meant to improve background checks for gun sales were similar to what was introduced after Sandy Hook, but which had failed.

When he held his filibuster last week, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut had said,

“I know at a deep personal level what Orlando is going through. For all of the scarring, psychological harm that comes with losing a loved one or a neighbor, more harm is piled on when you find out that the people you elected to run your country just don’t care. It hurts something awful when you lose someone, but it gets worse when your leaders are silent, are totally silent in the face of your personal horror.”

And it is really bad when the deaths of children cannot get a certain party to consider doing what must be done to make sure the same thing doesn’t happen to any other children.

The party that fights for the fetus turns its back on children after birth.

Senator Murphy’s amendment would have expanded the background check system, and mandated that sales at gun shows and over the internet be subject to closing the so-called “gun show loophole.” Also Federal agencies would have to certify that they submitted all records identifying individuals prohibited from buying a gun to the National Criminal Instant Background Check System and penalize states that failed to make data electronically available to the background check system.

But the amendment failed.

So we will have to wait and see where and when we have the next mass shooting, and whether the victims are worthy of action.

The trope that those who want better gun control are fighting to take away people’s Second Amendment rights appeals to people who do not check things out, as all they want is to make sure that guns that kill a lot of people at one time are not so easily accessible.

It’s almost as if the GOP wants people to be able to get guns and kill a bunch of people so they can condemn terrorists and claim that they, and only they, can effectively deal with the problem they allow.