Gary Johnson Will Not Be President!

distress flag

 

Neither will John Kasich, Bernie Sanders, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, nor the Green Party’s Jill Stein. That’s just a fact of life, and we’d all better get used to it.

In the 2008 election pitting McCain against Obama, I voted for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate. I also quit my lifelong membership in the GOP and re-registered as “Decline To State”, this state’s version of Independent. That was because I saw McCain as only very slightly less “progressive” than Obama, a view I still hold to this very day.

There was also the potential benefit in a McCain loss that the GOP – which had already meandered to the Left over the post-Reagan years – would learn a valuable lesson from such a defeat and mend their errant ways.

Well, that clearly didn’t happen, as the Establishment GOP kept to their chosen path, the result of which has finally been a populist uprising resulting in the nomination of outsider Donald Trump as their nominee. Good, bad, or indifferent, that’s the way it is.

I wish I could go into that polling booth in November and cast my ballot for someone else, but I can’t if I want my vote to have any actual relevance, and wishing I could won’t change anything. If wishes were horses, beggars would be riding instead of walking.

The further reality is that even if Trump hadn’t thrown his hat into the ring I’m not sure I would have been able to vote for a real conservative anyway. Over the last decade plus, the Establishment GOP has constantly crept ever-further leftward, scorning the true conservatives in their ranks. How else to explain the nominations of John McCain and Mitt Romney? That, too, is a fact, and further proof that the Establishment GOP is not just stuck on stupid, but super-glued in place. The GOP is in reality the PSP – the Perpetually Stupid Party.

So where does that leave us?

The two major parties have named their candidates, and one thing we know for certain: come January either Clinton or Trump WILL be taking the oath of office as President.

In Trump we have an unknown. A guy who CLAIMS to be conservative, yet has a record of backing leftist causes and policies. An unmitigated blowhard. Someone not familiar with the details and minutiae of policy. Absolutely no record when it comes to elective experience or voting history.

Basically, he’s a pig in a poke. We don’t really know what we’d be getting. He could end up being great; he could end up being an absolute disaster. His presidency could fall somewhere in between. Who knows?

His choice of Mike Pence as his running mate gives me a sound basis for the hope that he’ll follow through on his vow to select solid conservatives as his appointees, both judicial and otherwise. And judicial appointments, particularly to the Supreme Court, are a huge but neglected issue this election.

no hillaryThen there’s Clinton, certainly not an unknown. In fact, we know FOR CERTAIN what we’d be getting with her, and frankly, it’s an outright disaster for this country. An unindicted federal criminal with a pathological bent for lying. A scandal-ridden crone married to a convicted perjurer and accused serial rapist who’d be re-occupying the White House. A corruptocrat whose policy decisions can seemingly be bought with large “donations” to her sham “foundation”. A woman who can’t point to a single policy success in her term as Secretary of State, and whose big claim to qualification for the office is that she has a uterus. A leftist ideologue who’s vowed to continue, and even expand upon, the disastrous policies of Obama. A die-hard anti-gun fanatic. A woman who will, with absolutely no doubt, appoint the most leftist jurists she can find to nominate to the Supreme Court, changing the dynamic of that institution for decades to come.

For me the defining moment came while I watched FBI Director Comey spend 14 minutes detailing Clinton’s criminal actions, then spend about 1 minute declaring that the FBI would recommend that she NOT be prosecuted for those actions. I was absolutely stunned. As far as I was concerned, that moment defined the depth of the corruption of the Dem/socialist party, and the Obama/Clinton cabal in particular. It’s an outright and blatant corruptocracy.

So there you have it. A summary of two candidates, one of whom WILL be the next President of these United States. It’s certainly clear, at least to me, that no matter how bad a President Trump MAY turn out to be, Clinton would DEFINITELY be orders of magnitude worse.

We conservatives pride ourselves on voting our conscience and our principles. But I think there’s one overriding principle that overshadows all others: the ultimate future of our country. I believe this is the single most important presidential election at least in my lifetime.

I’ve made my decision. In spite of everything I’ve written over the last year, in light of the issues I’ve outlined here I’ve decided to cast my vote for Trump.

What about you?

 

 

©Brian Baker 2016

 

(Also published today in my local newspaper, The Signal )

Comey In The Tank For Clinton

 

Newest fledgling member of the Obama/Clinton corruptocracy

Corruption 2

 

Part 1 – Corruption

I just watched FBI Director James Comey make his announcement that his agency is NOT recommending that charges be filed against Hillary Clinton for her blatant “mishandling” of classified information on her home-brew email setup.

He confirmed that there were hundreds of such emails on her jerry-rig setup, with classifications ranging all the way up to Top Secret SAP (Special Access Program); that any and all people cleared for access to classified data are presumed knowledgeable about the requirements for how such data must be handled; that even unintentional security breaches can be considered criminal offenses; that she forwarded emails containing such information to people outside government employment; that she used her wireless devices while in venues and countries where they were extremely vulnerable to being hacked; that the feds had no idea if they were even able to review all the appropriate emails because of the “cleansing” to the hard drives done by her legal team before turning the drives over to the feds; yet he claimed that her political status had nothing to do with the decision not to recommend prosecution.

To quote Comey: “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”

Gee… I wonder what former General David Petraeus thinks about that last claim. I guess he must think it’s a real bummer he wasn’t a Clinton when HIS case was being considered…

Translated into the plain English normal people use, Comey’s saying that Clintons don’t have to obey the same laws as the rest of us mere mortals.

corruptionComey also claims there was “no political influence” on his decision. Um… yeah, right. Bill Clinton boards Attorney-General Janet Lynch’s airplane at Phoenix Sky Harbor airport and has a completely private “conversation” with her for 30 minutes, and we’re supposed to believe that was mere meaningless coincidence. At the exact same time that Comey’s making his announcement Her Royal Arrogance Hillary is on an airplane WITH OBAMA on a pre-announced campaign jaunt, and we’re supposed to believe that it’s not meant to be interpreted by Comey and his minions as a clear signal that he should leave her alone.

“Nothing to see here, folks. Move along”. Or, for fans of The Wizard of Oz, “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”.

Take your pick.

Part 2 – Criminal Intent

As a person who held a Top Secret clearance, let me explain the requirements for how classified material MUST be handled by law, and the issue of “intent” Comey glossed over.

All classified material must be either in a person’s personal possession, and/or secured in an approved container or facility. It may not be taken from its normal facility except in certain instances, and then only with prior authorization. Period.

classified filing cabAny time you’re not actually using a classified document, it must be secured. That means returned to the safe or lockable file cabinet in which it’s normally stored, or in the case of certain types of documents, returned to the secure storage room.

Let’s say it’s the end of your work day and you’re going home. You forget to return a document to the secure safe and leave it on your desk. Guess what? You just committed a security violation, and you’re gonna be cited for it. I’ve known of people who lost their clearances just for doing that, and that’s CLEARLY unintentional, a mistake.

It’s the end of the workday, and you decide to throw that document in your briefcase and take it home to work on it there. That’s a HUGE no-no, and not only will you be cited and lose your clearance, but you’ll probably be criminally charged, too. And since you INTENDED to take it home, that was clear “intent” to circumvent the law.

Note that there was no “intent” to commit espionage by trying to give it to another entity. There was merely “intent” to circumvent the rules on how to handle documents.

Petreaus was criminally charged under circumstances similar to that last example. But Clinton did EXACTLY the same thing, INTENTIONALLY circumventing the rules on document storage and handling. It was her INTENT to ignore those laws. It wasn’t an “accident” that she had an unsecured server at an unsecured location; it was done ON PURPOSE. Whether or not she “intended” to give the data to other unauthorized people is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

That, friends, is the law on handling classified information and documents.

Those servers didn’t just accidentally fall out of the sky and set themselves up in her bathroom.

 

 

 

©Brian Baker 2016

 

Are Unicorns Real?

I’m feelin’ the Bern…!

 

Everyone who knows me, or my writings, knows I’m about as conservative as it gets. When I became eligible to vote in 1970, I immediately registered as a Republican. Between then and now, though I’ve on occasion voted for “third-party” candidates, I’ve never voted for a Dem/socialist. In fact, in the entire panoply of Democrat politicians, I’ve only ever been aware of two I’d have considered actually voting for prior to today: Zell Miller and Jim Webb.

Going one step further, when the GOP nominated John McCain as their candidate in 2008, I was so disgusted with that result that I quit the GOP and re-registered as “Decline To State” (DTS), California’s equivalent of “Independent”. I even resigned my Life Membership in the NRA over their decision to endorse McCain. That’s how strongly I feel about actual traditional American conservative values and principles; McCain was certainly NO conservative.

So in light of all of that, what’s happened to make me cast my vote today for “the Bern”, Bernie Sanders, self-avowed socialist candidate for the Democrat presidential nomination?

A unique and unlikely confluence of events.

First, California’s goofy and Byzantine election laws permit DTS voters to simply choose at the polling place whether or not they want to vote in any particular party’s presidential primary, and those laws leave it up to the parties to determine for themselves whether or not they’ll allow DTS voters to vote in their primary. This year, the Democrats have chosen to allow DTSers to do so, and the Republicans have chosen not to do so.

Further, as of now that’s actually pretty irrelevant as to the GOP, since Donald Trump has already won enough primary victories to secure the GOP nod, and his opponents have withdrawn from the race. That’s a done deal. So even if it were possible to vote in the GOP primary, why would I even bother?

IMAG0126

My hand doing the formerly unthinkable

However, there’s much to be gained by participating in the Democrat primary!

If the Bern were to somehow, magically, secure the Democrat nomination, that would almost certainly guarantee a November defeat for that repugnant party. And, of course, there’s that “other” candidate, Her Royal Arrogance Hillary Clinton. I so thoroughly despise her that it’s almost impossible to pass up the opportunity to throw a few banana peels in the path of her haughty march to the Dem convention in Philly in July. Maybe one of those banana peels could be a Sanders win in California. How could I possibly pass that up?

And so… I did it. I actually cast a vote for a self-avowed socialist Democrat. It didn’t feel as weird as I thought it would, and the hand I used to cast my vote didn’t fall off my wrist or develop blisters, much to my surprise.unicorns

So consider this: if I could cast this vote, is it really out of the realm of possibility to think that someplace on this big planet there is actually a herd of unicorns prancing around?

 

 

 

©Brian Baker 2016

(Also published today in my local newspaper, The Signal: http://www.signalscv.com/section/33/article/153159/)

Homo sapiens democratus horribilis

My knowledge and experience as an eminent bio-political socio-anthropologist has enabled me to identify, and name, a previously unrecognized sub-species of human beings (Homo sapiens). I have named this sub-species Homo sapiens democratus horribilis.

This sub-species can be identified by the presence of several distinctive traits:

1.  The inability to apply logic, reason, and/or common sense to practical political problems and issues.

2.  The inability to consider the actual historical record.

3.  The inability to acknowledge the reality of human nature, and consider its effect while seeking real solutions to problems.

4.  The propensity to apply wishful thinking to the task of problem-solving while ignoring real-world practical solutions.

Democratus horribilis have an extreme tendency toward self-destruction, particularly as applied to any social institution in which they find themselves that may have well-established social mores, customs, and traditions. Once recognized, they should be quickly removed from any position which may empower them to have influence over such institutions, or control over individual members of that society.

This has been a public service announcement.

PSA

 

©Brian Baker 2016

 

 

We Need A “Deus Ex Machina”, Stat!

 

In the literature of Ancient Greek tragedy, the playwrights would often plot their characters into a corner, an irresolvable situation in which doom was the inevitable deus ex machinaoutcome until lo and behold! A god or other supernatural character would descend to the stage in a chariot and resolve the problem, saving the hero from disaster. That plot device was called deus ex machina, which translates literally into “god from the machine”, the “machine” being the chariot. Today we call it a “chariot of the gods”.

As a result of the Indiana primary election, both of Donald Trump’s GOP opponents, Cruz and Kasich, have “suspended” their campaigns. That means that Trump is now unopposed in his quest for the nomination and barring some unforeseen event of epic proportion, he’s going to be the GOP presidential nominee in November.

On the Dem/socialist front Hillary Clinton’s lead over her sole opponent, self-avowed socialist Bernie Sanders, is virtually insurmountable barring her indictment for federal charges stemming from her criminal misuse of classified information on her illegal web server.

So, as an independent conservative, this November I’m going to be faced with an absolutely appalling choice. I can vote for a man I despise, who has absolutely no record of trump clintonconservatism (in fact, quite the opposite) and no experience in public service; a loud-mouthed egotistical buffoon; a charmless amateur driven by self-aggrandizement and megalomania… Trump.

Or I can vote for a scheming, lying, corrupt woman who is the worst kind of Big Government leftist and has committed federal crimes affecting national security… Clinton.

Or I can vote for neither of them.

If ever the political stage of this country needed a deus ex machina, now is that time, more than ever before.

 

 

 

©Brian Baker 2016

(Also published today in my local newspaper, The Signal: http://www.signalscv.com/section/35/article/151770/)

 

 

 

Hey, “Climate Change” Nazis! Here I Am. Arrest Me.

climate change hysteria

You may or may not have read that recently sixteen state attorneys-general, including Commiefornia’s own Kamala Harris, as well as US Attorney-General Loretta Lynch, have threatened to prosecute those who “deny” the “climate change” hysteria that’s become gospel to the radical Left.

Well, let me make it perfectly clear: I absolutely reject the “climate change” hysteria and dogma that these fanatics are trying to foist on the entire planet. This planet’s been around for about 4.5 billion years; the climate’s been “changing” for every one of those years; and absolutely nothing that mankind can do will stop that from continuing… ever!

In fact, if the climate ever WERE to stop changing, life on the planet would never evolve. That change is the driver of evolution; it’s one of the reasons why dinosaurs aren’t the prevalent life forms here, and why we’re not dodging woolly mammoths and saber-toothed cats on our daily commute (though most likely we’d have never even developed). As I’ve written before, 10,000 years ago, a blink of the eye in geological time, the North American continent was completely covered with permanent pack ice over a thousand feet thick all the way down to what is now Central California.

On top of all that, even if it were possible to “stop” the climate from changing, which it’s not, why would that necessarily be a GOOD thing? Who’s to say that NOW is the “perfect” climate? Why wouldn’t the changed climate a few hundred years from now be even better, if that were to happen? Do those hysterics have some kind of crystal ball or something? So exactly who are the REAL “deniers” on this subject?

So there. That’s my “denial”. Come on and arrest me. I dare you.

But here’s the most disturbing aspect of this whole initiative. Unable to enact their radical marching commiesBig Government agenda legitimately in this country, these jack-booted thugs want to ignore the First Amendment and criminalize free speech and legitimate dissent by prosecuting those who disagree with them under RICO and various other statutes.

This reminds me of the fate of Galileo. In the late 16th Century, the “official” science of the time, as promulgated by the Catholic Church, held that the Earth was the center of the Universe. However, Galileo published works promoting the Copernican view that this planet revolved around the Sun. Ultimately, for promoting what turned out to be the correct scientific fact of the matter, Galileo was tried by the Church and convicted of heresy.

Sound familiar?

Now here we are, in the 21st Century, and history is repeating itself. As Yogi Berra noted, it’s like déjà vu all over again.

This is beyond outrageous. It’s beyond being un-American. This is flat-out tyranny.

green nazisT

 

©Brian Baker 2016

(This column was also published today in my local newspaper: http://www.signalscv.com/section/35/article/151491/)

 

Scalia’s Replacement and the Election

supreme court

Of course, the big news this past week or so is the very sad passing of a legal giant, Antonin Scalia, Justice on the Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

There’s a political knife fight brewing over replacing him, with Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell at this point vowing to block any Obama nomination because he has so little time left in office, while Obama and his minions – including a sycophantic mainstream media – are clamoring that to do so is to subvert the intent expressed in the Advise and Consent Clause of the Constitution.

Indisputably, the Republicans have the authority by virtue of their control of the Senate to proceed however they wish, including blocking Obama’s nominees from confirmation. It’s borkalso indisputable that the Dem/socialists’ ginned up “outrage” is laughably hypocritical. After all,  when Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork to SCOTUS, his confirmation was blocked on purely political grounds by a Senate Dem/socialist lynch mob led by Ted Kennedy, and they thought that was just perfectly fine. In fact, they took great pride in it.

Even more hypocritical is that when Bush 2 nominated Sam Alito to SCOTUS back in 2006, a little known Senator from Illinois, one Barrack Hussein Obama, participated in a filibuster attempt to block the nomination. It sure seems to me that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

At issue is the fact that SCOTUS has been pretty evenly divided ideologically for quite some time, with many cases being decided by a 5 – 4 vote, Kennedy being a “wobbler” who vacillates between originalist (“conservative”) and living constitutionalist (“liberal”) positions. Scalia has always been a fervent originalist. In his absence the Court is evenly divided between the two camps (always with the caveat that Kennedy’s something of a wild card, and there’s the occasional Roberts hiccup, too).

So, the argument goes, in a year in which the presidential election is so contentious, particularly on divisive fundamental philosophy, and we’re so close to the actual election, any SCOTUS appointment should be delayed until the newly-elected President can make his or her own choice.

I think there’s merit to that argument, but frankly I don’t really care about it. As far as I’m concerned, the Constitution gives the approval power to the Senate, the GOP controls thecongress control Senate, and they don’t need any rationalization to block Obama’s appointments if that’s what they want to do. There’s plenty of precedent, as I’ve already pointed out, and there’s no way such a rabid leftist zealot as Obama is going to make any nomination that’s going to be any good for this country. Period.

But there’s another aspect I don’t hear anyone talking about when considering the upcoming election and SCOTUS nominations.

Scalia was 79 when he died. But Ginsburg, a hard-Left zealot, is 82. For that matter Breyer, another doctrinaire Leftist, is 77. It’s quite conceivable that either or both could retire or die during the first term of the next President. At 79, Kennedy could very well be in play, too.

That means, assuming that Obama can’t successfully replace Scalia, that the next President could very well be able to appoint four SCOTUS Justices. So let’s do some math and see how this could play out.

Let’s assume that over the next President’s first term three more SCOTUS seats open up, for a total of four. The current ideological split, in Scalia’s absence, is essentially 4 – 4. If the Dem/socialists win, they can appoint 4 leftists, giving them a 6 – 3 (Roberts, Thomas, and Alito) majority. If the GOP wins, they might also get to appoint 4 conservatives, giving them a 7 – 2 (Kagan and Sotomayor) majority.

Anybody have any questions about how important this election is? It’s way past time for the GOP to get its act together, stop screwing around, and – for once – get it right.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2016

(Published in my local newspaper, The Signal, on 2/26/2016: http://www.signalscv.com/section/33/article/149114/)

 

 

I Believe Hillary Clinton Is An Unindicted Felon… (For Now)

Way back in the Stone Age, when I was in the Army, I worked in Military Intelligence and had a Top Secret security clearance. Unless in the intervening decades the rules regarding the safeguarding of classified materials have become incredibly relaxed, there’s no doubttop secret in my mind that Hillary Clinton is unquestionably guilty of violating the applicable laws regarding the handling of such materials.

But I’m not interested in focusing in on that particular aspect of the matter. The news coverage has made much of the fact that the FBI and other investigative entities (inspectors-general, etc.) have been carrying out their own inquiries into these matters, and that the results may be referred to various prosecutorial bodies for criminal indictment and prosecution.

All of this has led to speculation of what would happen if the FBI (or another agency) made a criminal referral – meaning a submittal of the evidence with a recommendation that criminal prosecution take place – to the Justice Department (the appropriate agency as this is a federal matter), which is currently run by an Obama appointee, Attorney-General Loretta Lynch.

Clinton herself – a lawyer, it must be noted – has put forth two excuses for her actions. The first is that none of the material was “marked” with a classification when she illegally handled it through her private email server. This is legalese for saying “yes, I actually did it, but pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”, because in reality the law itself doesn’t make any such distinction. If material is even POTENTIALLY classifiable it must be treated as if it IS classified until the matter is clarified and ultimately determined.

vast right wing conspiracyHer second excuse is the hoary time-worn Bill Clinton Era “vast right-wing conspiracy” nonsense. According to her, unnamed conspirators are ginning this entire controversy up to derail her presidential aspirations. The problem for her again, just as it was when her husband was President, is that it’s simply an absolutely ridiculous claim that would require completely unrelated – and beyond improbable – groups of people to coordinate their efforts, all while operating sub rosa, none of whom actually know each other, involving the press, government officials, elected officials, the FBI and all the hundreds of agents THERE working on the case, to coordinate their efforts while making sure that there’s not one single leak about the existence of such a conspiracy. Not to mention that such a conspiracy would have to include such conservative bastions as the New York Times, LA Times, CNN, and USA Today.

And, oh yeah… Fox News.

Now that we can leave Fantasy Land behind, let’s take a quick look at what these investigations mean in the REAL world.

If, as I expect, the FBI refers the case to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution, Obama and his minions will be faced with three possible courses of action.

1.  Submit the case to a Federal Grand Jury to secure an indictment, and prosecute Clinton on the charges. Perhaps appoint a special prosecutor to handle the case to avoid any appearance of impropriety. This would be the proper course to take, and regardless of thegrand jury outcome Obama would immunize himself from accusations of favoritism or corruption. As Clinton herself stated during her January 17th debate with Bernie Sanders, no one is “too big to jail”. Certainly David Petraeus can attest to that fact, and his offenses were far less egregious.

2.  Quash or ignore the criminal referral. Try to bury it. Exercise “prosecutorial discretion” and refuse to act on it. There are several problems for Obama and Lynch with this course of action. The most obvious is that it would rightly be seen as an act of pure politics, overtly corrupt in nature, and both Obama’s and Lynch’s reputations and legacies would be permanently tarred by such an act.

Had this scandal simply faded away over time, that tactic could have worked. As with other scandals in this administration, it would have become “old news” not worth pursuing, and it was “time for everyone to move on”. But that hasn’t happened, and at the rate the revelations just keep on dribbling out, I don’t think it ever will until some kind of action takes place as a result.

Further, there are a lot of people in the FBI, people of real principle, who won’t let the matter drop if the Obama people refuse to act on a legitimate criminal referral. I have no doubt that under those circumstances details would “leak” to the press and various congressmen. All of which would result in the sliming of Obama’s name along the lines of Nixon’s Watergate episode. Frankly, I don’t see an egotist like Obama allowing the actions of Clinton to affect his own perceived “legacy” in such a negative manner.

3.  Obama could issue a blanket pardon. This action comes attached with all the negativePardon 2 implications for Obama of the previous option, with no upside for him. I think that it could still allow Clinton to legally continue her run for office, but I can’t imagine her actually getting anywhere as a pardoned felon, or even misdemeanant. As outrageously ambitious as she is, I think even she would withdraw from the race at that point. Even for Dem/socialists there are some things impossible to overlook or ignore, and a blanket presidential pardon for crimes of this nature is one of them. Her dream of becoming President would be dead.

In my estimation the fundamental underlying issue that’s going to determine how this matter proceeds is Obama’s own overarching self-interest and egotism in preserving his goal of being viewed favorably by history. Far from being a man who takes responsibility for the failures of those in his administration, he’s known for being quick to throw anyone under the bus if their actions reflect badly on him. I fully expect a prosecution to move forward.

This doesn’t bode at all well for Clinton’s political ambitions, but for once – in this instance – Obama’s ego actually could work to the benefit of the country as a whole. Even if it’s in spite of himself.

 

©Brian Baker 2016

Sacrificed On The Altar of Political Demagoguery

Last week saw the worst Islamic terrorist attack on US soil since the Twin Towers went down on 9/11, and it creates a confluence of political issues of immense proportions: the national gun control debate and Obama’s foreign policy failures.

San Berdoo terrsTwo Islamic jihadists stormed a social services center in San Bernardino, California, at which the employees were throwing a holiday party, and opened fire with a variety of guns, both long guns and handguns, killing 14 people and wounding 21 others. They were also armed with pipe bombs, and when the police finally searched their house they found many more pipe bombs as well as a “pipe bomb factory”. The pair had acquired their guns legally; the long guns had been illegally altered.

Syed Rizwan Farook, the male, was a native-born citizen of the US of Pakistani extraction, and a Muslim. He had visited Saudi Arabia several times, as late as 2013. His wife, Tashfeen Malik, was a Pakistani citizen, in the country on a fiancée visa, and also a Muslim, with ties to terrorist organizations. Her visa application to enter this country listed a non-existent Pakistan address.

Those are the facts. Now to the issues.

Gun Control

Literally before the bodies had even cooled Obama was swooping down on this event, like some deranged vulture, to exploit it for political purposes, in this case to advance his agenda for further restrictive gun control laws. He was immediately and enthusiastically joined by his Dem/socialist comrades in Congress, as well here in California by the Dem/socialists who run the state legislature.  It’s been a morbid and disgusting display of cynical political manipulation, an attempt to exploit the nation’s natural revulsion to this horrific event in the hope of severely restricting gun rights.

But the policies Obama & Company have proposed – such as expanded background checks – are already in place in California where this event took place; in fact, California has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and is often held up by Dem/socialists as the example to which the nation as a whole should aspire.

pipe bombOn top of that, Farook and Malik were also using pipe bombs, which are completely banned under Federal law.

So how would any new restrictions have prevented an attack like this? The plain and simple fact is they won’t, just as logic and common sense tells us, and just as this attack proves, as it took place in the state that has enacted the Dem/socialists’ wish list of gun restrictions, and included destructive devices already completely banned under Federal law.

This event simply proved the old maxim that criminals, by definition, don’t obey laws. Therefore further restrictive gun laws are only going to affect law-abiding citizens. Have drug laws kept drugs out of the hands of illicit users, or immigration laws kept illegal aliens out of the country? Of course not. Why would anyone with an ounce of sense think things would be any different with guns?

There’s another maxim that applies: the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

But laws that deprive the good guys of the tools they need to stop the bad guys are obviously only going to make the situation even worse. I know that if I’m at a party and some nut comes in shooting, I’d sure like something in my hand more suitable for defending myself than a Dixie cup full of beer.

There’s one law that would be effective in addressing the dangers of these attacks: a law that makes it mandatory that any law-abiding citizen who applies for a permit to carry a concealed weapon be issued that permit.

The plain fact of the matter is that the police aren’t bodyguards. Theychalk outline respond to crimes after they’ve already taken place. It’s up to each of us as individuals to protect and defend ourselves as well as we can until the cops show up. The cops are the ones who draw the chalk lines around the bodies; it’s up to us to determine whether it’s us or the other guy who gets outlined.

Will an armed citizenry absolutely prevent these occurrences in the future? Probably not all of them, but have you noticed that these things always take place in venues at which everyone is unarmed? Have you ever heard of a mass shooting at a gun range, or gun shop, where a lot of people are armed? Of course not.

And even if such an event does take place, I’m sure we could anticipate much lower body counts; fewer casualties. If only one or two of the people in San Bernardino had been carrying guns, and able to deploy them, the rampage would have been very quickly curtailed, either by the shooters’ retreat or deaths.

Foreign Policy and “Refugees”

From the Arab Spring to Benghazi to the rise of ISIS, Obama’s foreign policy in the Middle East has been an unmitigated disaster. He seems to have absolutely no grasp of the issues or players involved, nor understand the consequences of his actions, or failures to act when appropriate.

He’s declared al Qaida as being “on the run”, and just recently characterized ISIS as the “JV team”. The reality is far different.

ISIS territoryNot only are both still active, but there are many splinter groups of both scattered around the world. ISIS alone has captured and consolidated enough geographical territory to qualify as a minor nation-state, though a rogue one. They’ve developed an economic infrastructure that revolves around oil exports as well as agricultural production. Contrary to Obama’s blind assurances, they’re developing into a regional power able to export their terrorism to the world stage.

For years there’s been a steady emigration from the region, primarily into Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, and Europe. But the recent intensification of the conflict with ISIS, primarily in Syria and Iraq, has led to sudden surge in the number of people—again primarily from Syria – seeking to relocate, and has been labeled by the media as a “refugee crisis”. There’s no estimated number of how many people are seeking to relocate, as it’s an ongoing situation. Several countries have pledged to take in varied numbers of these refugees, and interestingly enough several countries in the region have decided not to take in any: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, and Oman.

Obama has pledged to import 85,000 of these refugees, with 10,000 of them to be admitted this fiscal year. In all his grand pomposity, he’s lashed out at those opposing his scheme, using terms such as “offensive” and “hysterical”. The problem for Obama is that there’s plenty to oppose in bringing those people into this country, particularly in such large numbers, and so quickly.

First, the usual screening time for approval of an entry visa is anywhere from 18 to 24 months, on an individual basis. And as we can see from Malik’s successful entry into the country, even then it’s not a foolproof system (to say the least). But what happens when the system is suddenly jammed up with tens of thousands of applicants from the same region all being entered into the system at the same time?

Gridlock, that’s what. Even the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has admitted that this is going to be very problematic. And I think we can easily assume that if these “refugees” are being rushed through the system in order to meet Obama’s political agenda, that screening will be haphazard at best.

Further, the myth that radical Muslims are a very small minority is just that: a myth. Sources vary, but the percentage of Muslims who support radical Islam is anywhere from 10% to 80% depending on locale, with the worldwide average estimated as 10% – 15%: (Breitbart) and (Answers.com).

Using an even more conservative figure of 2% to represent those who would actively participate in, or actively provide support to, terrorist acts at some point, means that for every 10,000 “refugees” we let into the country, we’re also importing 200 jihadists. Obama’s complete plan for importing 85,000 of them means we’ll be bringing in 1,700 jihadists and spreading them all around the country, a very bad idea. It strikes me as being akin to playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded revolver.

There are those, starting right at the top with Obama, who call keeping those people out of the country “inhumane” and “racist” and “xenophobic”. Do those terms also apply to the six countries – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, and Oman – that are in the region and of the same religion that are also keeping them out? Or do they know something that Obama et al are simply failing to acknowledge?

Further, our legal immigration system has always used one primary guideline as the basis for admittance into this country: the prospective immigrant has to be able to positively contribute to our society. In whatCAIR way will these “refugees” do that? Since when did this country become a dumping ground for the planet’s dispossessed? Don’t we have enough balkanization at home already, with CAIR and #BlackLivesMatter and MALDEF other special interest groups raising a ruckus all the time at the drop of a hat? And what about the United Nations, that idol of the Left? Why aren’t they setting up some kind of “safe zone” for those people over there, in the region? Yet more proof of why they’ve earned the sobriquet “Useless Nations”.

Further, we as a country have to stop denying that Muslims as a group present a potential for violent activity unprecedented in our history. We have to face reality, and adapt to that reality. Muslims who are already in this country enjoy constitutional protections, and rightly so. Even then, as illustrated by the actions of Farook specifically, we already have a problem on our hands. The writing has been on the wall for quite a while; all one had to do was look at what was happening in Europe to see what was in store for us.

But why import even more in a large group that’s virtually impossible to screen properly? Does that make any sense whatsoever? Because once we let them into our country, they, too, enjoy constitutional protections. Better to keep them out as a preventive measure.

In Conclusion

It’s clear to me that the safety and security of this country and its people are under a concerted two-pronged attack by Obama and the Dem/socialist establishment. Whether it’s intentional or the result of sheer, willful blindness to reality I’ll leave for others to determine.

But for this country to be importing tens of thousands of people, among whom, without doubt, there will be Islamic fanatics intent on doing harm to us and our country, while at the same time crippling our ability to adequately defend ourselves, is a national disgrace.

 

©Brian Baker 2015