Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Progressives in Rome c. 63BC / Washington DC Now!

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious.

But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
Marcus Tullius Cicero

The treachery of which Marcus spoke was a major factor in the fall of the mighty Roman Empire.

Are those same treacherous acts going to succeed in bringing down the United States of America?

Government has a hard enough time when it operates without dark agents who work to undermine it.

But just as Marcus Tullius Cicero describes above, dark forces have embedded agents into every major facet of America's government. 

They exist in the State Department, Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, NSA, BATFE, EPA, DHS, IRS, DOD, etc and probably in the White House itself.

These dark agents disrupt our government processes by internal acts and/or leaking lies or facts, whichever best serves the cause.  Their aim is to end our constitutionally guaranteed self-rule and bring about a Socialist/Communist form of government.

Progressives have spent the last 60 to 70 years getting the dark agents in place so it well take considerable effort and time to remove them.

Remove them we must or we too will go the way of the Roman Empire!

Comments are invited!!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog


Friday, October 6, 2017

Las Vegas Shootings And Gun-Laws

Whenever there is a crime involving firearms, anywhere in the U.S., the progressives start screaming for more gun control.  They don't really mean some mystical method of reducing death by gunfire, they really mean disarming the American citizens.

And so it is with Las Vegas.  As it turns out, the madman  (Stephen Paddock) broke neither Federal nor state gun laws

The progressives cry, "Oh, if we just required everyone to get a background check".   Federal law does require every gun purchaser to have a background check!  According to the BATFE, Mr. Paddock passed the background check in four different states for a total of 47 times. For the record, Gun Shows are not exempt from background checking.

 "If only mental heath was part of the background check".  That is a valid point.  However, it is not the NRA fighting this check, it is blocked by Federal HIPAA law.  However, the FBI has found no evidence that Paddock had any history of mental issues.

Twelve of the semiautomatic rifles used in the attack were equipped with a device called a 'bump stock'.   These devices do not turn the rifle into an automatic rifle and they do not increase the rate of fire.  In reality, they let an amateur shoot as fast as a expert.   Several reporters were aghast that the rifles might attain a rate of fire as high as 800 rounds per minute.  These rates of fire need to be put into context.   The magazine can be emptied at that rate for a 30 round magazine in 2.25 seconds.  Then a new magazine is needed.  An expert, under ideal conditions, can reach around 150 rounds per minute.

Automatic firearms were banned in 1934.  It would seem that the 'bump stock' does violate the intent of the 1934 ban and it is doubtful that there would be much opposition to banning the devices.  There are other devices that accomplish the same effect.  Any new regulation or law should be crafted to encompass all such devices. 

The number of firearms and rounds of ammunition in a home are not nearly as sinister as the media would have you believe.  This writer was a firearms and hunter safety instructor for 50 years.  During that time we often had as 50 or more firearms, often more than 10,000 rounds of ammunition, and perhaps 10 pounds of gunpowder.

A word on "silencers".  That well known expert, Hillary, claimed that if the Las Vegas shooter had a "silencer", the police would not have been able to detect him.  Contrary to what you have seen in the movies, suppressers ("silencer" is a Hollywood made-up name) do not make gun shot quiet.  They only lower the peak sound impulse.  The effect is very much like motorcycles with and without the baffle removed from the tailpipe.  The Suppresser Bill currently in Congress is a health bill intended to protect hearing.
Before we once again start screaming about a magic gun-law that does not exist, lets examine some facts:

In the U.S., there are 30,000 firearm related deaths per year.

On June 22, 2016, the U.S. population was 324,059,091. Do the math:  0.000000925% (slightly less than one in a million) of the population dies from gun related causes per year. 
Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! 

 Those 30,000 deaths.  Occur as follows:

  .       65%  of those deaths are by suicide (which no law would prevent)

   .      15%  are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified

   .       17%  are through criminal activity– gun violence

    .      3%  are accidental

Firearm deaths to "gun violence" are not 30,000 annually, but are actually 5,100 or 1/6 of the total.

Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

        480 homicides (9.4%) in Chicago 
             344  homicides (6.7%) in Baltimore
             333 homicides (6.5%) in Detroit
             119 homicides (2.3%) in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase)

Twenty-five percent (25%) of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. 
All 4 of those cities have very strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of laws.
All 4 of these cities are also Sanctuary Cities.

In a recent year, criminal firearm deaths by state ranged from 1 in Alabama to 1,169 in California.   The national average was about 75.

California (now a Sanctuary State) accounted for 31% of the total while at the same time, having the strictest gun-laws in the country.  Clearly, it is not a lack of gun-laws causing these deaths.

The Progressives (a.k.a. Democrats) make no secret of the fact that they want to end private ownership of all firearms.

The question is why?

The simple answer:Taking away guns gives "control" to governments.

The Founding Father knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule just as King George attempted to do by disarming the colonist.  It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a "controlled" populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs!

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.”

When it comes to "gun control," the important word is "control," not "gun.”

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog

Monday, October 2, 2017

Social Engineering Mandates Compromise Of Shipboard Readiness

By James A. Lyons, ADM, USN (Ret.) (9/6/2017) 
The U.S. Navy’s loss of two sophisticated, key anti-ballistic-missile-capable destroyers within a matter of several weeks is symptomatic of a much larger issue. The fact that these highly maneuverable ships were “steaming” independently and collided with two civilian merchant ships, which was clearly avoidable, demands drastic corrective action. A recent directive by the Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson calling for a top-to-bottom review by all levels of the Navy’s command structure is a step in the right direction.

Areas most likely to be reviewed include the current size of the Navy and an assessment of its impact on force deployments, operational tempo as well as lack of time for required maintenance. Certainly, current training procedures and how personnel are qualified to perform critical bridge watch-standing duties, as well as in the combat information center, must be examined. While these are key areas to review, the Navy has always had long deployments and overworked crews, neither of which affected fundamental seamanship on operating our ships. However, I am sure that eliminating of the Surface Warfare Officer School will be highlighted as a contributing factor.

In that sense, I never understood why a newly commissioned ensign from the U.S. Naval Academy or from a four-year NROTC program had to be sent to six months of additional training to learn to be a division officer before reporting to his first ship. What was he doing for four years of intense training at the U.S. Naval Academy?

One area that I have not heard would be examined is a “third rail” for the Navy as it deals with personnel-manning policies for its ships and aircraft squadrons: What impact has “diversity” policies had on a ship’s manning criteria? Implicit within this is examining what has been the impact of President Obama’s social engineering mandates that were forced on our military and their negative impact on our readiness and capabilities. His Executive Order 13583 declaring that “diversity” is a strategic imperative critical to mission readiness and accomplishment simply does not compute. This is faculty lounge logic. What the EO did, in effect, was to provide cover for the forced implementation of his social engineering programs. Many of these programs were a distraction with valuable time devoted to “sensitivity training” instead of, for example, learning the meaning of “code of conduct.” Due to political correctness, our military leaders failed to challenge the EO just as they failed to challenge the Restricted Rules of Engagement that cost so many lives.

Another distraction that needs to be reviewed is the opening of all combat roles to women. There are many viable roles for women in the military — combat is not one of them.

When I used to visit ship wardrooms, it was not unusual for me to find that the chief engineer was an MIT graduate, the anti-submarine officer was a graduate of Brown, the weapons officer was a Naval Academy graduate, the first lieutenant was from Princeton, and so on. You won’t find a wardroom today with such talent. This is due primarily to current shipboard-manning policies that preclude this type of talent from getting shipboard billets.

President Trump’s recent decision to ban transgender personnel from military service was clearly the right decision. No finer expert that Dr. Paul McHugh, former head psychologist at Johns Hopkins University Hospital, has stated that transgenderism is not a physical issue, it is a mental disorder that needs understanding and treatment. It is not a civil rights issue and should never be forced on the military. However, with the hijacking of the American Psychological Association (APA) by the left, there are now enough votes to classify a mental disorder (transgenderism) as perfectly “normal.” Clearly, the APA should be decertified and no longer used by the Department of Defense as the key reference.

Over the years, I have found that there are three elements aboard ship that are unacceptable for good order and discipline. One, you cannot have a thief; two, you cannot tolerate a drug user or drug pusher; and three, you cannot have a homosexual aboard. In fact, the entire LGBT agenda is clearly a distraction and impacts negatively on unit integrity, cohesiveness and the “will to win.” It should be pointed out that in the late 1800s, homosexuality was so rampant on Navy ships that mothers would not let their sons enlist until the Navy cleaned up its act.

The bottom line is that the military is an institution whose mission is to protect and defend the country against all enemies foreign or domestic. Anything that distracts from this mission must be rejected. It is the institution that sets the standards for enlistment. No one has a right to serve in the military unless they meet those standards. In that sense, Navy leadership can take the lead in rejecting the social engineering mandates that were forced on our military forces by the Obama administration.

I believe the current problems our ships are experiencing can be traced to these mandates. With the hundreds of millions of dollars that are expended to build today’s sophisticated warships, we must have the “best and brightest” to man those ships. Now is the time to take the lead by breaking the shackles of political correctness and put the Navy back on an even keel.

• James A. Lyons, a retired U.S. Navy admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Comments ar4e invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

He Fights

 by Evan Sayet
 My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent ‘#NeverTrumpers’) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum.  They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.”  

Here’s my answer:
We Right-thinking people have tried dignity.  There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.  We tried statesmanship.  Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain?  We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?  And the results were always the same.

This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party.  I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks.  I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent.  Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s.   To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale.  It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – tilltoday.

The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war.  While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety.

With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end.  Donald Trump is America’s first wartime president in the Culture War.  During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors.  Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming.  Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today.   Lincoln rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man.  He fights.

General George Patton was a vulgar-talking, son-of-a-bitch.  In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank.  But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum, then Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

Trump is fighting.  And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!”  That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics.

That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis.   It is a book of such pure evil that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do.

First, instead of going after “the fake media” – and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri – Trump isolated CNN.  He made it personal.  Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.”

Everyone gets that it’s not just CNN – in fact, in a world where Al Sharpton and Rachel Maddow, Paul Krugman and Nicholas Kristof are people of influence and whose “reporting” is in no way significantly different than CNN’s – CNN is just a piker.

Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position.  With Trump’s ability to go around them, they cannot simply stand pat.  They need to respond.  This leaves them with only two choices.

They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery.

The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve.  It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive.

Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s, church.

Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.

This makes “going high” a non-starter for CNN.  This leaves them no other option but to ratchet up the fake news, conjuring up the next “nothing burger” and devoting 24 hours a day to hysterical rants about how it’s “worse than Nixon.”

This, obviously, is what CNN has chosen to do.  The problem is that, as they become more and more hysterical, they become more and more obvious.  Each new effort at even faker news than before and faker “outrage” only makes that much more clear to any objective observer that Trump is and always has been right about the fake news media.

And, by causing their hysteria, Trump has forced them into numerous, highly embarrassing and discrediting mistakes.   Thus, in their desperation, they have lowered their standards even further and run with articles so clearly fake that, even with the liberal (lower case “l”) libel laws protecting the media, they’ve had to wholly retract and erase their stories repeatedly.

Their flailing at Trump has even seen them cross the line into criminality, with CNN using their vast corporate fortune to hunt down a private citizen for having made fun of them in an Internet meme.  This threat to “dox” – release of personal information to encourage co-ideologists to visit violence upon him and his family -- a political satirist was chilling in that it clearly wasn’t meant just for him.  If it were, there would have been no reason for CNN to have made their “deal” with him public.
Instead, CNN – playing by “Chicago Rules” – was sending a message to any and all: dissent will not be tolerated.

This heavy-handed and hysterical response to a joke on the Internet has backfired on CNN, giving rise to only more righteous ridicule.
So, to my friends on the Left – and the ‘#NeverTrumpers’ as well -- do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”?  Of course I do.   These aren’t those times.  This is war.  And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years.

So, say anything you want about this president – I get it, he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times.  I don’t care.  I can’t spare this man.  He fights.

Ed Note: Evan Sayet is the author of The KinderGarden of Eden: How The Modern Liberal Thinks.  His lecture to the Heritage Foundation on this same topic remains, some ten years later, by far the single most viewed lecture in their history.  Evan can be reached at

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog

Friday, August 25, 2017

The Sanctuary City Farce

The police leaders of the various “Sanctuary Cities” claim that if they hold known “illegal immigrant criminals” for ICE Agents, then “illegal immigrant victims” will not feel safe about reporting crime.

For the moment, let us assume that this hypothesis is accurate.

The city of Chicago prides itself as a ‘Sanctuary City’.  In 2016 they had 4,368 shootings with 789 shooting deaths.  2017 is on a pace that will exceed those numbers by a significant amount.  In addition, there were thousands of stabbings (many of which were fatal), rapes, arson And assaults.

The Chicago newspapers report that nearly all of these crimes are committed by MS-13 and other gangs consisting generally of “undocumented” aliens.

Based on these numbers, it would seem that “Sanctuary Cities” are willing to assure injuries and death to the law abiding public in order to protect the murders and rapist among the illegal immigrants in their cities.  It also seems that they relieve that the illegal immigrant population is too stupid to know the difference in how police treat them and violent criminals.

Several recent reports show that the hypothesis is totally inaccurate. 

Interviews of illegal immigrants in several cities indicate that these people do not report crimes because they fear retaliation from the gangs or even individuals.

One woman reported that one of her daughters had been raped and it was reported to the police.  In a matter of hours, the accused rapist was back on the street and he and his pals, gang raped the victims younger sister.
The reports contained stories of retaliations by beatings, robberies, arson, rape and even murder.

This writer would argue that the only "sanctuary" provided in a "sanctuary city" is for incompetent, worthless politicians and non-elected administrators.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog 

Mark Twain On The Evil Media.

Sunday, August 6, 2017

The Ten Commandments In Courthouses

Over the past several decades there have been a number of court cases involving efforts to remove the Ten Commandments from courthouses throughout the nation.

These cases are always a bit perplexing to me because the Ten Commandments are the bedrock of our entire legal system.  That being the case, why object to displaying them in the Courthouse?

Today, I received the answer from a friend (himself being a retired lawyer)

“Why can’t we display the Ten Commandments in our Courthouses?

Three of the commandments—

Create a hostile working environment for the
POLICIANS that work there.”

Now, it all makes perfect sense.

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog

Friday, July 21, 2017

Facts: The Paris Climate Accord

On June 1, 2017 President Donald J. Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord.
Immediately we heard from the media that we were all going to die because of ‘Global Warming’!
If you are interested in reading the “Paris Climate Accord” clickhere.  After you work your way through the ‘16 pages of legalese’, you will find that:
1.      Each nation decides its own goals and methods of achievement (if any).

2.      Only “developed” nations are expected to set and meet their goals.

3.      ‘Developed” nations (largely the U.S.) are expected to pay the cost for developing nation to meet their goals.

4.      The biggest global producer of ‘Greenhouse Gases’, China, has many years to start compliance with whatever goals that it decides it wants to meet.  
In reality, the vast majority of nations only agreed to sign on the condition that they receive large grants of money.  India for example expects to receive 100’s of millions of dollars.
The U.S was committed to contributing $3 billion to start and would have required to pay billions more.    
The scientists predict little or no impact on global temperatures.
In short, “The Paris Climate Accord” was intended to be nothing more than another Obama transfer of American wealth. 

 Comments are invited:
Send feedback to:    WatchDog

Sunday, July 16, 2017

Does Anyone Believe That Trump Was Putin's Choice For POTUS?

When you take a fair and open minded look at the facts, it is very hard to find a single reason that Putin would support Donald J. Trump over Hillary R. Clinton for the Presidency of the United States.

In 2013, After Assad, the President of Syria, used chemical weapons on his own citizens, Obama said there was redline that would be crossed if Assad use chemical weapons.  We soon learned that the line was drawn with disappearing ink. Russia supports the Assad regime and was very happy with the faded line.  Hillary promised to keep Obama’s Middle East policies.

When Russia invaded the Ukraine, Obama responded with a very strong “That was not very nice of you!”!  Hilary promised to carry on with the same policies.
When Russia shot down a commercial airliner flying over the Ukraine, Obama responded with a very strong “That was wrong! We certainly hope that you don’t do it again.”!  Hilary promised to carry on with the same policies.
 Obama sold out Israel and probably the entire Middle East, if not the world, with the phony nuclear agreement with Russian ally, Iran. Hillary promised to continue this very bad agreement.
Hillary promised on several occasions that she would continue to appoint Supreme Court judges, as well as other Federal judges that would undermine, and thereby destroy the U.S. Constitution.  Putin had to be happy with that.
We could go on with a long list of similar items, but let us close the major item.

While Hillary was Secretary of State; Russia wanted access to U.S. uranium reserves.  We don’t give this privilege to our closest allies!
Putin contributed $150 million to the Clinton Piggy Bank a.k.a. “The Clinton Foundation”.  They also paid $600,000/speech for Bill Clinton to make several speeches in Russia.  
For these bribes, Russia received control of 20% of the entire U.S.  Uranium Reserves and Putin had an American Politian that he knew he could buy!  Given these facts, how can anyone believe that Putin would want someone other than Hillary R. Clinton as POTUS?

Comments are invited:
Send feedback to:   WatchDog