Looming shut-down of the American Federal Government. Where else in the world would a minor­i­ty of the minor­i­ty par­ty be able to shut down the oper­a­tions of the Government? Anyway you don’t need to answer that.

My last Article asked just how much wealth is enough. Well clear­ly the peo­ple behind the Tea-Party move­ment have decid­ed that it can nev­er be enough. Tea Party Republican House mem­bers sup­port­ed by Jim Demint’s Heritage Foundation and Dick Armey’s Freedom Works and a pletho­ra of Right-wing groups have decid­ed to do seri­ous dam­age to the still strug­gling American econ­o­my, and by exten­sion the World’s economy.

Mark Meadows.

Newly ger­ry­man­dered Congressional dis­tricts makes this kind of hostage pol­i­tics pos­si­ble. Mark Meadows, is a new­ly elect­ed con­gres­sion­al rep­re­sen­ta­tive and one of the most stri­dent Tea-Party plants in the US House of Representatives. Meadows rep­re­sents the 11 th District in the west­ern part of North Carolina.

Most of the far right ide­o­log­i­cal zealots in the US House of Representatives are white men. Many of them are from the South. These guys are all about States rights, why you ask ? At the state lev­el they are able to manip­u­late and mis­treat racial minori­ties. They nev­er liked the Federal Government which came out of the Civil war. Jefferson Davis the Confederate leader is hailed by them despite his trai­tor­ous war against his own country.

These peo­ple who make up the Tea-Party and those who back them do not want a Federal Government which func­tions effec­tive­ly, they are there to ensure it does exact­ly the oppo­site. In all of this there is none more pathet­ic than the Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner. Boehner is not from the South, he is from hum­ble begin­nings. John Boehner could end this non­sense if he was a man. Boehner could end this utter­ly counter-pro­duc­tive exer­cise by going over to the Leader of the Minority in the House Nancy Pelosi and strike a deal. Those Republicans who want to dis­rupt the econ­o­my could vote no. There would be enough Democratic votes to pass a clean Bill which funds the Government with­out none of the non­sense to defund the afford­able Care Act.

This exer­cise is about tak­ing down Obama and his sig­na­ture domes­tic accom­plish­ment. No mat­ter how many times House Republicans send this spend­ing Bill back to the Senate with lan­guage to defund the Affordable Care act it can­not become law. There sim­ply isn’t 67 votes in the Senate to allow pas­sage. Even if it did the President of the United States would veto it. It is there­fore about dis­rupt­ing the econ­o­my, irre­spec­tive of the dam­age they cause, so they may win the Senate in 2014. A Florida Congress man acknowl­edged this recently.

There was always an under­stand­ing between the two polit­i­cal par­ties in the United States. When there is a National Security cri­sis both par­ties speak with one voice, they coa­lesce around the President. Democrats did it after the September 11^th attacks. Also when the President is on a for­eign trip, crit­i­cism of him ceas­es until he returns. This was so even if the oppo­si­tion par­ty dis­agreed with the trip or the details of said trip. Of course this degree of deco­rum, respect and decen­cy was all before Barack Obama became President.

It is now clear that the Republican Party wants noth­ing to do with Black and Brown peo­ple in this coun­try. This is evi­dent from the seques­tra­tion. Their refusal to pass com­pre­hen­sive Immigration Reform. Their assault on the poor, through demo­niza­tion of food-stamp ben­e­fits . Persistently wast­ing time with over 40 attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, (Obama care). An all out assault on the vot­ing Rights Act. Mass incar­cer­a­tion of men of col­or. The pas­sage of dan­ger­ous laws which dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly allows gun owners(usually white) to kill minori­ties with­out con­se­quence. Blanket Obstructionists tac­tics against the Nation’s first Black President, coun­try be damned.

Ted Cruz:

Now one of the so-called ris­ing stars of the Republican Party Ted Cruz, believes that for­mer North Carolina Racist Jesse Helms, was a man to be admired. In fact Cruz wish­es there were a hun­dred Jesse Helms in the United States Senate. Ted Cruz told a group of con­ser­v­a­tives Wednesday that the Senate needs more peo­ple will­ing to say the “crazy things” that the late-Sen. Jesse Helms used to say. “We need 100 more like Jesse Helms in the U.S. Senate.”

Helms won his 1990 reelec­tion cam­paign with one of the most racist polit­i­cal ads in recent mem­o­ry — accus­ing his African-American chal­lenger, then-Charlotte may­or Harvey Gantt, of tak­ing jobs from whites to give to blacks — and devot­ed his time to insti­tu­tion­al­iz­ing homo­pho­bia, with attacks on gays and assaults on AIDS fund­ing. To Helms, LGBT Americans were “weak, moral­ly sick wretch­es,” and AIDS edu­ca­tion was “obscene” and “revolt­ing.“http://​www​.thedai​ly​beast​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​2​0​1​3​/​0​9​/​1​2​/​t​h​e​-​c​r​a​z​y​-​t​e​d​-​c​r​u​z​-​j​e​s​s​e​-​h​e​l​m​s​-​c​o​n​n​e​c​t​i​o​n​.​h​tml.

With stan­dard bear­ers like Ted Cruz, how does the Republican Party intend to have broad appeal going for­ward. Are we to believe that like their denial of cli­mate change and every­thing sci­en­tif­ic, they are also clos­ing their eyes to their shrink­ing white-male base? Or is the Republican Party con­tent to rel­e­gate itself to the side­lines of his­to­ry like those still await­ing the rise of the South.

Russian President Vladimir Putin:

We knew they all hat­ed Obama , but what make me want to vom­it is that Republicans would active­ly side with Russian President Vladimir Putin who wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times warn­ing against an American attack on Syria.

Putin begins: Recent events sur­round­ing Syria have prompt­ed me to speak direct­ly to the American peo­ple and their polit­i­cal lead­ers. It is impor­tant to do so at a time of insuf­fi­cient com­mu­ni­ca­tion between our soci­eties. Relations between us have passed through dif­fer­ent stages. We stood against each oth­er dur­ing the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeat­ed the Nazis togeth­er. The uni­ver­sal inter­na­tion­al orga­ni­za­tion — the United Nations — was then estab­lished to pre­vent such dev­as­ta­tion from ever hap­pen­ing again.http://​www​.wash​ing​ton​post​.com/​b​l​o​g​s​/​w​o​r​l​d​v​i​e​w​s​/​w​p​/​2​0​1​3​/​0​9​/​1​2​/​v​l​a​d​i​m​i​r​-​p​u​t​i​n​s​-​n​e​w​-​y​o​r​k​-​t​i​m​e​s​-​o​p​-​e​d​-​a​n​n​o​t​a​t​e​d​-​a​n​d​-​f​a​c​t​-​c​h​e​c​k​ed/

Putin went on: It is alarm­ing that mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion in inter­nal con­flicts in for­eign coun­tries has become com­mon­place for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term inter­est? I doubt it. Millions around the world increas­ing­ly see America not as a mod­el of democ­ra­cy but as rely­ing sole­ly on brute force, cob­bling coali­tions togeth­er under the slo­gan “you’re either with us or against us.” But force has proved inef­fec­tive and point­less. Afghanistan is reel­ing, and no one can say what will hap­pen after inter­na­tion­al forces with­draw. Libya is divid­ed into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civ­il war con­tin­ues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an anal­o­gy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their gov­ern­ment would want to repeat recent mis­takes. No mat­ter how tar­get­ed the strikes or how sophis­ti­cat­ed the weapons, civil­ian casu­al­ties are inevitable, includ­ing the elder­ly and chil­dren, whom the strikes are meant to pro­tect.

Suffice to say Putin was direct­ly refer­ring to the last Republican President, George W Bush in the above para­graph. What is nau­se­at­ing is that Republicans are falling over them­selves to agree with Vladimir Putin over their own President. This is the most dis­gust­ing­ly unpa­tri­ot­ic dis­play of racial ani­mus imag­in­able. Even as the Op-Ed direct­ly crit­i­cizes the cow-boy atti­tude of Bush,they sided with him than their own President. That in my mind is dan­ger­ous, and counter pro­duc­tive. America’s ene­mies will exploit dif­fer­ences and weak­ness­es. America is strong not because of racist white men, it is so because of the great cor­nu­copia of cul­tures rep­re­sent­ed in this fab­u­lous mosa­ic. The hatred some whites have for Blacks is rep­re­sen­ta­tive of their own short-com­ings. They should get used to the fact that blacks and Native Americans were here long before Christopher Columbus ever set foot on these shores. There is no sham­ing these racists with­in the Republican Party. In fact the entire par­ty is now a safe haven for the most vile despi­ca­ble human life forms. Whether they are from Alaska to Alabama , from Alabama to Texas these cretins have sure­ly show them­selves over the last four years. Their smell has become a real nui­sance now.

As the rhetoric sur­round­ing what the United States should do about Syria inten­si­fies, I won­der what the President of the United States real­ly thinks? Some have argued the President’s red-line com­ment awhile back is the rea­son the United States is now embroiled in this debate about war and peace. The fact is that as the President said, it was nev­er his red line to begin with. The use of Chemical weapons have long been banned by the International community.

The mod­ern use of chem­i­cal weapons began with World War I, when both sides to the con­flict used poi­so­nous gas to inflict ago­niz­ing suf­fer­ing and to cause sig­nif­i­cant bat­tle­field casu­al­ties. Such weapons basi­cal­ly con­sist­ed of well-known com­mer­cial chem­i­cals put into stan­dard muni­tions such as grenades and artillery shells. Chlorine, phos­gene (a chok­ing agent) and mus­tard gas (which inflicts painful burns on the skin) were among the chem­i­cals used. The results were indis­crim­i­nate and often dev­as­tat­ing. Nearly 100,000 deaths result­ed. Since World War I, chem­i­cal weapons have caused more than one mil­lion casu­al­ties globally.

As a result of pub­lic out­rage, the Geneva Protocol, which pro­hib­it­ed the use of chem­i­cal weapons in war­fare, was signed in 1925. While a wel­come step, the Protocol had a num­ber of sig­nif­i­cant short­com­ings, includ­ing the fact that it did not pro­hib­it the devel­op­ment, pro­duc­tion or stock­pil­ing of chem­i­cal weapons. Also prob­lem­at­ic was the fact that many States that rat­i­fied the Protocol reserved the right to use pro­hib­it­ed weapons against States that were not par­ty to the Protocol or as retal­i­a­tion in kind if chem­i­cal weapons were used against them. Poison gasses were used dur­ing World War II in Nazi con­cen­tra­tion camps and in Asia, although chem­i­cal weapons were not used on European bat­tle­fields.http://​www​.un​.org/​d​i​s​a​r​m​a​m​e​n​t​/​W​M​D​/​C​h​e​m​i​c​al/

Syria has nev­er signed a glob­al treaty ban­ning the stor­age of chem­i­cal weapons and is believed to have large stocks of sarin, mus­tard gas and VX nerve agents. VX nerve agents. http://​www​.jpost​.com/​M​i​d​d​l​e​-​E​a​s​t​/​D​i​s​m​a​n​t​l​i​n​g​-​S​y​r​i​a​-​c​h​e​m​i​c​a​l​-​w​e​a​p​o​n​s​-​a​r​s​e​n​a​l​-​w​o​u​l​d​-​b​e​-​t​o​u​g​h​-​t​a​s​k​-​3​2​5​692.

This President is nobody’s fool, he is a smart deep think­ing man. Like many pres­i­dents before him this pres­i­dent does not want to cede an inch of pow­er to the Congress. Some would argue this is true because they like the pow­er. I tend to lean toward the fact that Congress usu­al­ly stand in the way of a President’s agen­da. One of the many crit­i­cisms of President Obama is that he is not deeply engaged with Congress. I fail to grasp why he would, in light of the blan­ket obstruc­tion­ist tac­tics of this Republican caucus.

Why then would President Obama punt the issue of Syria’s alleged use of Chemical weapons to this no-pro­duc­tive con­gress? I pre­sume this President wants to make sure that there can be no legit­i­mate argu­ment made that he did noth­ing. At the same time he wants the brain-dead right-wing nut jobs to duke it out and share in the con­se­quences of inac­tion. Already there are more than enough rea­sons to believe that the reg­u­lar obstruc­tion­ists are not going to sup­port any mil­i­tary action by this President against Syria. Remember these are the very same idiots who gave George Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq on fraud­u­lent, trumped-up alle­ga­tions of weapons pos­ses­sion , not clear usage of banned Chemical weapons, what hypocrites!

Obama was elect­ed because he was opposed to war. That oppo­si­tion sep­a­rat­ed him from Hillary Clinton who was far more hawk­ish in her rhetoric and with her vote as a mem­ber of the Senate. Since then Obama as end­ed the Iraq war and sig­nif­i­cant­ly reduced America’s foot-prints in Afghanistan. Is it log­i­cal to believe Obama does not want war? Is it out of the realm of pos­si­bil­i­ties he does­n’t want to be the guy who watched and did noth­ing as Syria used chem­i­cal weapons on its own pop­u­la­tion? Is it log­i­cal to assume no America President want to cede any author­i­ty to the leg­isla­tive branch?

If the above is true , can we then con­clude that Obama bril­liant­ly punt­ed the Syria hot pota­to to the do noth­ing Congress? Can we assume Obama want­ed to expose the dys­func­tion­al Congress , while he wages a par­al­lel cam­paign for action, using Kerry and Hagel? I don’t know about you but I say bril­liant and inge­nious, once again the moron­ic Republicans are left look­ing as stu­pid as they have always been. Whether you sup­port America’s mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion into yet anoth­er Middle east­ern nation is impor­tant to debate. What is bla­tant­ly obvi­ous is the hypocrisy of the Right in this coun­try when it comes to America’s vital inter­est. Politics and race trumps everything.

President Barack Obama.

President Barack Obama has decid­ed to place the ball square­ly the Court of the Congress on whether to strike Syria for alleged use of chem­i­cal weapons on his own peo­ple. Cable TV is abuzz with talk­ing heads com­ing to their own con­clu­sions on how that is per­ceived not just in America but all over the World. Experts are mak­ing the case that the President cer­tain­ly has the pow­er to strike at Syria with­out Congressional approval . In fact the President as Commander-in-Chief does have Authority to approve Drone strikes and oth­er Military action with­out Congressional approval. They argue he has the pow­er to autho­rize a strike on Syria with­out con­fer­ring with Congress.

I am will­ing to bet that the President, a Constitutional Lawyer, and Nobel Peace Prize recip­i­ent knows exact­ly what his author­i­ty is . Congress for it’s part is urg­ing the President to con­fer with them before tak­ing action. But is the House of Representative of the United States ask­ing the President to con­sult with them for the right rea­son? Is the Congress and the Republican House in Particular ask­ing the President to con­sult as a way to neuter the pres­i­dent? Why is the Congress with approval num­bers bare­ly out of the sin­gle dig­its, now wants in on deci­sions of Foreign Policy?

House Speaker Re. John Boehner:

Is Obama doing the right thing by essen­tial­ly abdi­cat­ing his respon­si­bil­i­ty as far as NY Republican Peter King is con­cerned? Is the President set­ting a bad President for future Presidents? Will future Presidents have the same racial con­straints of Barack Obama. Have the deci­sion of the British Parliament played a part in the deci­sion of mis­ter Obama? Retired General Barry Mcaffery of the first Iraq war, said on MSNBC, he is pleased with the President’s deci­sion to go to the Congress , yet it will be inter­est­ing to see how Democrats in that body vote to autho­rize war, and Republicans vote for any­thing Obama.

We will have to see how these ques­tions gets answered in the days and weeks ahead. I am will­ing to bet that the mem­bers of the Republican Congress can­not be trust­ed to put pol­i­tics aside ever, for a demo­c­ra­t­ic President and cer­tain­ly not for this one this one. Whatever the deci­sion of the Congress, I am sure Obama has thought through the pos­si­bil­i­ties, he was sur­prised by the vote in the British Parliament, it is dif­fi­cult for an American President to go to war when it’s staunchest ally say we don’t want any part of it. Obama saves some face in his red-line threat to Syria . Now he gets to say the Congress tied my hands. Republicans in Congress wants to gov­ern, now they have a chance to.

The peri­od begin­ning 1989 to 2011 saw the Jamaica Labor Party (JLP) win­ning One National Election to the People’s National Party’s five.

Winning per­cent­age.

♦1989 PNP wins 45 seats to the JLP’s 15 — 75%— —-25% .

♦1993 PNP wins 52 seats to the JLP’s 8 — - ‑86.7% — 13.3%.

♦1997 PNP wins 50 seats to the JLP’s 10 — – 83.3%— 16.7 %.

♦2002 PNP wins 34 seats to the JLP’s 26 — – 51.6% —46.9%.

♦2007 JLP wins 32 seats to the PNP’s 28 — - 49.98% — - 49.35% .

♦2011 PNP wins 42 seats to the JLP’s 21 — –53.28%– 46.61%.

A com­pa­ny doing this bad­ly would have fold­ed a long time ago. It may also be fair to say if the JLP do not know how to win Elections , maybe they won’t know how to Govern. After they lost the last nation­al elec­tions in 2011, I wrote this about the JLP.

JLP MUST SNATCH VICTORY FROM THE ASHES OF DEFEAThttps://​mike​beck​les​.com/​m​y​w​p​b​l​o​g​/​?​p​=​2​196.

This was a chal­lenge to Andrew Holness. It was a chance for him to solid­i­fy him­self as the true leader of the Party with strong grass roots sup­port. I have no evi­dence whether Holness ever saw that piece of advice. Whether he saw it or not, that should have been Holness’ strat­e­gy any­way. Andrew Holness was hur­ried­ly annoint­ed to take over the reigns of the Party after the implo­sion and sub­se­quent res­ig­na­tion of Orett Bruce Golding. At the time it appeared that Holness the 39 year-old Minister with Education port­fo­lio, rep­re­sent­ed a new direc­tion and the best foot for­ward for the Labor Party. Had Holness stepped into the vac­u­um cre­at­ed by Golding’s exit with a plan it is fair to assume those with ideas of lead­er­ship would have fall­en in line like the PNP fell in line behind Portia. Whatever the short-com­ings of Jamaica’s Prime Minister ‚no one can rea­son­ably accuse her of not con­nect­ing with peo­ple at the grass roots.

Recent talk, and what now seem to be an inevitable chal­lenge to Holness by Audley Shaw for the lead­er­ship of the Party may well have been avert­ed, had Holness pressed some flesh him­self. Many now argue that this chal­lenge is good for the Party . They argue it is good to sort out these dif­fer­ences now, so the par­ty may solid­i­fy and be ready for the next National poll con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly due by December 29^th 2016, I dis­agree. As the Party which offers the best way for­ward for the coun­try , what bet­ter way to solid­i­fy your lead­er­ship cre­den­tials that to be affirmed by the peo­ple themselves?

Part of being a polit­i­cal leader is being able to ana­lyze and see poten­tial prob­lems before they mate­ri­al­ize. That includes being able to shore up your own base of sup­port with your col­leagues. It includes being able to sway oth­ers to your side. Maybe the forces arrayed against Holness smelled blood in the water. Just maybe they real­ize that Holness was anoint­ed by Golding who does not have that much sway in the Party any­more. Maybe, just maybe, Holness is vul­ner­a­ble and wound­ed. Time will tell if his blus­ter is enough. I sin­cere­ly hope they do not destroy the par­ty in the process.

The United States Constitution states in Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civ­il Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or oth­er high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The framers incor­po­rat­ed this safe­guard into the US Constitution to make sure that the coun­try’s lead­ers were hon­est peo­ple. Is there a dan­ger that this very safe­guard could cor­rupt­ly be turned around and be an instru­ment by cer­tain mem­bers of the Congress to get a sit­ting President at all cost?

Thus far in the his­to­ry of the United States there been three Presidential impeach­ment pro­ceed­ings — in 1868 against President Andrew Johnson for his removal of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in vio­la­tion of the Tenure of Office Act — 1974 against President Richard Nixon for the Watergate cov­er-up (106 years after Johnson) — 1998 – 99 against President Bill Clinton for con­ceal­ing an extra­mar­i­tal affair (24 years after Nixon).

Why have ele­ments with­in the Republican Party been call­ing for the impeach­ment of President Obama? So far they have said they have no evi­dence of any crimes or mis­de­meanor , how then is the call justified?

At a town hall in Oklahoma, Sen. Tom Coburn (R‑OK) called the Obama admin­is­tra­tion law­less and warned that the pres­i­dent is get­ting, “per­ilous­ly close to impeach­ment.”http://​www​.politi​cususa​.com/​2​0​1​3​/​0​8​/​2​2​/​r​e​p​u​b​l​i​c​a​n​-​s​e​n​a​t​o​r​-​o​b​a​m​a​-​p​e​r​i​l​o​u​s​l​y​-​c​l​o​s​e​-​i​m​p​e​a​c​h​m​e​n​t​.​h​tml.

It is not unusu­al to hear this kind of kook-talk from the racial ele­ments on AM talk radio, or on Fox. That’s under­stand­able that those kooks need to release steam at the per­il of implo­sion. After all there is a black man in the White House. But why would a United States Senator who calls the pres­i­dent a friend debase him­self and the office he holds by giv­ing cred­i­bil­i­ty to this kind of non­sense. Should Tom Coburn be impeached?

The elec­toral process did not pro­duce the result Republicans want­ed over the last two elec­toral cycles. Since then there has been a sys­tem­at­ic attempt to dimin­ish and nul­li­fy the Black and Latino vote almost nation-wide. Systematic attempts to cast the President as not from the United States(which would dis­qual­i­fy him from hold­ing the office of pres­i­dent). There has been numer­ous attempts in the Republican con­trolled House of Representatives to repeal the President’s sig­na­ture Affordable Care Act (Obama care). There has been sus­tained and blan­ket obstruc­tion­ists tac­tics employed against the President’s agen­da. That Obstructionism includes whole­sale oppo­si­tion to pol­i­cy sug­ges­tions, they and affil­i­ate groups pre­vi­ous­ly supported.

So we ask, when the total­i­ty of the evi­dence is con­sid­ered ‚is there a case made, that Republicans want to nul­li­fy Barack Obama’s Presidency? If the answer is in the affir­ma­tive, what is the rea­son for it? Is this just anoth­er attempt to antag­o­nize a Democratic President, or is this about Race?

In the ensu­ing years since September 11^th, 2001 the changes to our lives have been dra­mat­ic, in terms of what we per­ceived our rights to be. There has been dra­mat­ic changes in how we board or trav­el on air­planes what we take on a flight, or even what we say whilst on a plane. Unfortunately since then we have also seen the Patriot Act draft­ed and passed under the Bush Administration. There are now secret courts set up to rub­ber stamp any actions the gov­ern­ment see fit. This my friends is not Democracy, People are actu­al­ly now afraid of the Government. The left laugh at those on the right who make this argu­ment, even as the gov­ern­ment take more and more of our rights daily.

There are rev­e­la­tions of the (NSA) National Security Council , farm­ing emails and lis­ten­ing to the con­ver­sa­tions of Americans. There are even dis­cus­sions about the gov­ern­men­t’s right to kill Americans sus­pect­ed of ter­ror­ism, on American soil , using unmanned aer­i­al vehicles(drones). We are required to pro­duce ID’s to pur­chase reg­u­lar over- the-counter-med­i­cines, as well as sim­ply to enter cer­tain buildings.

Police Departments are now Para-mil­i­tary Agencies. At every turn there is evi­dence that life as we knew it is no more. So who won this so-called war on ter­ror? Was the Killing Of Osama Bin Laden a vic­to­ry? Or was it just an accel­er­ant to con­tin­ue this war that can have no end? How will the com­bat­ants know when they have won. Where will cit­i­zens of America be 5 or 10 years down the road if they con­tin­ue to nod and smile as the Government takes more and more lib­er­ty away from them under the guise of pro­tect­ing them?

Retired Marine Col. Pete Martino: “Is Everybody Blind?” The US “Is Building a Domestic Army!”

Retired Marine Col. Pete Martino voiced his con­cerns about the United States “build­ing a domes­tic Army” dur­ing a local city coun­cil meet­ing in Concord, New Hampshire. Col. Marino believes that the cur­rent mil­i­ta­riza­tion of police forces is a real threat to Americans.http://​dcclothes​line​.com/​2​0​1​3​/​0​8​/​1​8​/​r​e​t​i​r​e​d​-​m​a​r​i​n​e​-​c​o​l​-​p​e​t​e​-​m​a​r​t​i​n​o​-​i​s​-​e​v​e​r​y​b​o​d​y​-​b​l​i​n​d​-​t​h​e​-​u​s​-​i​s​-​b​u​i​l​d​i​n​g​-​a​-​d​o​m​e​s​t​i​c​-​a​r​my/

An entire gen­er­a­tion has come of age since September 11^th 2001, this gen­er­a­tion have no con­cept of what a free soci­ety looked like. As such it appears that this gen­er­a­tion is much more like­ly to smile and shrug as more and more of their rights are abro­gat­ed. The old­er peo­ple are more inclined to buy into the argu­ment that Government needs to take more rights to pro­tect them.

Not to be out­done many com­pa­nies are get­ting in on this mass hys­te­ria prop­a­gat­ed and pro­mul­gat­ed by those with an axe to grind. They are Capitalizing on the notion that there is an Existential threat to America from peo­ple who want to take their way of life away. Of course when it comes down to it these com­pa­nies are in it sole­ly for the money.

The National Football League (NFL) has just decid­ed to take away a lit­tle more of their fans rights by man­dat­ing the size of pock­et books and bags which are allowed into their sta­di­ums, start­ing this upcom­ing sea­son. This new rule will obvi­ous­ly affect women more than it does men. They have how­ev­er offered clear plas­tic totes to women of course for a price? What woman wants the con­tents of her pock­et-book to be vis­i­ble to every­one? My wife car­ries a mid-sized pock­et-book. I can depend on her for some lotions when my elbows and knuck­les are ashy. She oblig­es me with a handy pain reliev­er if I need one. There have been instances when I was able to source some well need­ed nuts and even drink­ing water from her pocket-book.

The NFL now report­ed­ly has a fan base which is 44% female, so they decid­ed to sock it to the women in the name of Security. How about hir­ing com­pe­tent peo­ple to ensure prop­er secu­ri­ty? The NFL is a very rich Organization, how about putting in prop­er screen­ing appa­ra­tus which would pre­vent ter­ror­ists bring­ing explo­sives and weapons into stadiums?

That would actu­al­ly make sense, , just not dol­lars and cents. Women and the men who love them, should send the NFL a very strong mes­sage by stay­ing away from their games. The NFL would receive the mes­sage loud and clear when it’s Teams play to emp­ty sta­di­ums. However if cur­rents trends are a barom­e­ter of peo­ple’s behav­ior, Stadiums will be over­flow­ing with vocif­er­ous yet obliv­i­ous fans. Women will be there with small­er clear bags sold to them by the very National Football League. So the long march con­tin­ues toward total Government dom­i­na­tion and con­trol of every­thing we do yet there is no out­cry. The gov­ern­ment at every lev­el is aware of this and there are active prepa­ra­tions at very lev­el to mil­i­ta­rize every police depart­ment so that by the time the pop­u­la­tion opens it’s eyes to whats hap­pen­ing to it, it will be pow­er­less to stop it.