Smart Cars–Do They Equal Agenda 21?

by Al Benson Jr.

Just yesterday or the day before, I watched a news clip on one of the alt.right sites that was talking about the auto show in Las Vegas, Nevada that is going on now.

Now I am not a mechanical person by any means. This kind of thing does not fascinate me. I can remember old Ford Model T’s (my dad had one during the Second World War because there was not anything being made but military vehicles). I remember double-winger planes. There were still some of them around when I was a kid, so I belong to the “old school” I guess. There were even a handful of characters from the Old Western days still alive when I was a kid. So modern I am not, and I am not sure, seeing some of what I see down the road, that I want to be. It seems that much of what is on the horizon will limit what you can do, where you can go, and regulate what you see and do and how far you travel.

I have written in the past about the United Nations’ Agenda 21 project that, supposedly promotes “sustainability” (population regulation) as the way to go. The UN would like to round up all of us rural or country dwellers and force us into little two-by-twice apartments with about 200 feet of living space in huge mega-cities. That way they would prevent us from doing any traveling, especially out in the country and possibly taking any trips to see anyone away from where we live that they might not approve of. They have been trying to get US cities and towns to buy into this UN concept of what amounts to a giant POW camp for the general population. Some places have seen the light and are opting out of this potential UN gulag. Let’s hope more begin to see where this is going.

Some of what the UN is promoting with Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 (the updated version) seems to be evident at this automotive show in Las Vegas. They have a new vehicle on display–a driverless auto that has no steering wheel or brakes. You don’t drive it–it drives you. It’s like a driverless taxi from what I can tell. If you have to go somewhere you call and this vehicle shows up and takes you to your destination and you pay for that with some kind of credit card of whatever, but apparently you don’t own it, you just pay when you need to use it. You can’t steer it, you can’t stop it, like I said, it drives you. As one who has traveled all over this country over the years and we went where we wanted to go, when we wanted to go, I ain’t sure I like this concept at all.

What is the idea behind this? is this supposed to start to curtail the private ownership of automobiles? It seems a step in that direction, along with the idea that people need to be herded into these UN-sponsored gulags and not allowed to go where they want to because going where they want to supposedly endangers the “sustainability” of the area you live in.

And who owns or controls these driverless cars? Some private company? The government? Whoever it is, they will have a record of where you go at all times, whether to the grocery store or to church, or to visit some friend that may have views the government does not approve of, hence you may be added to a list of “interesting” people to be watched.

I have often wondered just how much of the stuff promoted by the federal government anymore is a brainchild of the UN, with their Tower-of Babel delusions of One World government. We know that the UN is responsible for some programs that have been implanted in the public schools in this country. Do a Google search sometime and type in UNESCO and American Public Schools. You may not like what you find.

Even though Donald Trump is president, there are people in his administration that harbor a decided One World government worldview. That’s where they want to take us, whether we want to go there or not. The UN is NOT our friend–but it wants to be our keeper!

I’m not sure where these driverless cars fit into this, but they could be a major part of the program designed to keep us, not down on the farm, but rather out in the local gulag. Driverless cars is not an idea I would embrace and I hope the driving public takes a good look at this concept and gives it a huge thumbs down!

Advertisements

Happy New Year–We’re Not Updating Your InfoWars Connection!

by Al Benson Jr.

I just received, on 12/27. a New Year’s gift from Google. They decided not to update my InfoWars connection. All the other pages or email lists that I have listed seem to be getting updated daily except the InfoWars one. My first thought was “how petty!” But then I remembered that Google is one of those sources that had decided that the American public is better off if they only get one side of the story–the Deep State side. They don’t need to be aware of any of the rest of it–all that involves way too much thinking and decision making and our public school “educated” kids are just not up for that anymore, and unfortunately, neither are most of their parents (or grandparents).

I had read somewhere just recently that Google, Facebook, and one other Establishment outfit whose name escapes me at the moment, had all decided that they were going to start censoring what their readers got. Oh they don’t call it “censoring.” They have some fancy title for it that their executives were taught in school when the teacher had nothing better to do. But no matter what fancy handle you hang  on it, it all amounts to trying to keep as much information from their readership as possible in areas that make them queasy.

I don’t think this new omission is particularly aimed at me but it probably a policy aimed at anyone that has InfoWars listed as part of their daily reading. This forces me to go to another server to read the daily InfoWars updates, a minor inconvenience, but one I am willing to undertake, as InfoWars gives me information I seldom get from other sources and usually gives it to me ahead of what other sources do end up with it. So I will switch to the other server and keep up with the daily InfoWars commentary, and while I am there I will also check out updates for all the other pages I check daily, and there are a fair number of them.

Having two blog spots and publishing two newsletters puts me in the position of needing to keep up with current events as well as the historical material I write about. Just checking my email is good for about three hours a day, especially since the major uptick in anti-Confederate hysteria emerged a couple years ago.

So, if Google has decided that I (and many others) don’t need to be kept aware of what InfoWars publishes on a daily basis then all they do is force us onto other venues that are still willing to provide what we need.

The public today is not like the public in Nixon’s day, when all you had to get info on Watergate were the usual suspects–the three main media outlets–all controlled by the same people with the same statist worldview. Today you have the alt.right media and there is enough of that so the Establishment will never be able to shove Pandora back into the box again like they used to.

Today, the information is out there (just like “the truth is out there”) for those willing to look for it and there are sites like InfoWars, The Drudge Report, World Net Daily and a whole host of others putting out documentation that makes the Deep State absolutely cringe–and it’s about time!

So Google and Facebook and other Deep State outfits can withhold all they want, but eventually it’s going to get out there no matter what they do and they might as well get used to that.

Deo Vindice!

Chicago Needs To Think Twice Before Begging For UN “Peacekeeping” Troops

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

So the One World Government crowd in Chicago thinks they are doing the right thing by requesting United Nations “peacekeeping” troops to patrol their streets to root out crime and dispense with firearms? If you only had a clue as to what you are asking for–well, maybe some of you do and the idea doesn’t bother you. You feel you are taking an important step into the corridors of potential One World government and if only you show the way, others may follow your shining example.

Though others may try to follow your example, they will curse you for it in the end, once they wake up and find out what you have unleashed in this country.

“Huntin’ and peckin” around on the internet, I found an article by Declan Walsh Nicola Byrne on http://www.globalpolicy.org from way back in the ancient days of December of 2002. It was quietly titled UN Peacekeepers Criticized. Byrne started off the article with: “An Irish soldier  serving as a United Nations peacekeeper in Eritrea has been caught making pornographic videos of local women and is now serving a jail sentence in Ireland…the Eritrean government has condemned the activities of the Irish defense force and questioned its continued presence  in the war-scarred state in the Horn of Africa… Yesterday a government spokesman said ‘these people call themselves peacekeepers, when in fact all they want is a long holiday and a chance to fool around with our women. They do not respect our country, our culture, or our people’.” Later in the same article, it was noted that: “United Nations peacekeeping troops have been involved in a catalogue of crimes and scandals across the globe. During the UN peacekeeping mission in Somalia, it was claimed Canadian, Belgian, and Italian soldiers were involved in torture and murder. An inquiry by the Canadian government of a young Somali man in 1993,  found that he had been murdered by its troops and that a senior officer had lied  in an attempt to cover up the atrocity. Two soldiers were jailed.” This is not the only article I have read about this sort of thing. Could it be that the UN’s version of “peacekeeping” is somewhat different than ours?

Several instances are mentioned in a book I called attention to in my recent article on the UN. Author William Norman Grigg observed in his book Freedom On The Alter–The UN’s Crusade Against God & Family, on page 2, that “Survivors and witnesses of the UN’s 1961 ‘peacekeeping’ massacre in Katanga, a province of the former Belgian Congo, regard the ‘Blue Berets’ as something less than heroic.  Religious scholar Thomas Molnar, who has ample firsthand experience with UN ‘peacekeeping’ activities testified: ‘I have often walked in the footsteps of United Nations troops intervening for peace and seen the pillage, rape, and injustice. In the ex-Belgian Congo, Indian UN soldiers were feared like the plague’.”

And on page 3, Mr. Grigg observed that: “In 1994, UN ‘peacekeeping’ troops in Mozambique purchased sexual favors from impoverished children. In 1988, the director of the Belgian UNICEF committee was convicted of participation in a child sex and prostitution ring; the organization’s Brussels office was used to manufacture child pornography, much of it involving children of North African descent…Somalians will recall that during the UN’s ‘Operation Restore Hope,’ civilians were massacred  indiscriminately by Pakistani ‘peacekeepers’.”

Now I have to admit that reading about some of this stuff is pretty gruesome. I don’t particularly enjoy writing about it. There are other subjects I’d much rather deal with, but, people need to be aware of some of what has gone on under UN auspices in the name of “peace.” The United Nations gives you the same kind of “peace” you get from the Communists!

So, with the politicians in Chicago pandering for UN participation in their city, we have to ask, is this something we really want in this country? Even in Chicago??? The city council in Chicago needs to realize what they are asking for–if some of them don’t know already. Years ago someone said to me, and I never forgot it “Be careful what you ask for–you may get it.” I recall one instance in my  life where this came true and it drove the point home.

The UN may have a record of “peacekeeping. But, is it the kind of “peace” we want, and at what cost, and to who? The last thing you want in this country is United Nations “peacekeepers.” The “peace” you get from them may be the “peace” of the grave!

“Sovereign” States or Federal Satrapies?

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

There was an article on the Zero Hedge website back on last June 27th, written by Michael Snyder, which had originally appeared on the Economic Collapse blog. It was about how much land the federal government “owns” in our Western states. From the looks of the map that appeared with the article they “own” almost half ot it. The article noted that: “Today, the feds control approximately  640 million acres of land, and after decades of very poor management, many are calling on the states to take a larger role. This is particularly true in the 11 western states where the federal government collectively  owns 47 percent of all the land.”

Yep, you read that figure right–47 percent of it all. For instance, in Nevada, the feds “own” 84% of all the land in the state.  That leaves 16% of the state for ordinary folks. The feds “own” 64% of Utah, 61% of both Idaho and Alaska and 52% of Oregon. By the time you get to Wyoming the feds only “own” a measly 48% of the state. What a comedown from Nevada that must be for them!

I have to ask the question–does the public, ordinary folks, only owning 16% of the state they live in really constitute it being a “sovereign” state, or is it still really a federal territory that has been labeled a state for the sake of convenience (and electoral votes)?

Another pertinent question might be, which is more important–who “owns” it or who controls it? If the general public “owns” it  but can’t do much with it, then the federal government that controls  it is the actual de facto owner, isn’t it? It’s somewhat akin to the situation with the property tax that I have written about before on several occasions. You “own” your house and possess a deed with your name on it saying you own it. Yet, if you fail to pay the yearly governmental rent then some unit of government can come and take “your” property and do what they will with it. So, in the long run, who is the real owner–the man with his name on the deed–or the governmental agency that can take it away from him if he doesn’t pay their yearly “rent?” Mostly, we don’t want to think about this kind of thing. We should.

There was an article in the New York Times for August 25th of this year about Trump’a new Secretary of the Interior proposing shrinking of four national monuments in the West–so designated by King Barack the First (and hopefully the last). One of these was the Bears Ears, over west of Blanding, Utah. You can find it on your road atlas. Obama created a national monument there that was 1.35 million acres in size–land locked up so the public could do nothing with it.  Mr. Zinke, Trump’s Secretary of the Interior wants to reduce the Bears Ears monument to 160,000 acres. I hope he makes it, but even 160,000 acres is a lot for a monument with the Bears Ears as its centerpiece.  It’s pretty country there. We’ve been through some of it several times over the years, but it doesn’t rate another 160,000 closed-down acres for a national monument. Cutting it in half and designating half of it for a monument at the Bears Ears would be plenty, but then that wouldn’t give the feds control over all the 1.35 million acres–and control is what they really want. Control in the name of creating new “public’ monuments and “recreation areas” where you can only go if you follow their rules.

The owner of Land & Livestock international (look it up on the internet) has observed that “Transferring these lands to the States would be a great improvement, but would not necessarily be the best ultimate end…These lands need to be returned to their rightful owners (and/or their heirs and assigns)–the families who have 4 or 5 generations of sweat equity in the lands (or those who have rightfully purchased those property rights through  voluntary exchange). I am hopeful but I doubt seriously that we will ever see it happen.”

In the case of some of that “public” land near the Bundy Ranch in Nevada, one might be led to question just how much of this “public” land has been of use to Harry Reid and his son, or to Hillary with her Uranium One deal. Lots of big bucks being made there off some of that land that, we the public, supposedly own.

Too Many Cultures To Fit Into “One Indivisible Nation?”

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Back in the 1990s I picked up a book in a used book store in Delavan, Wisconsin called The Nine Nations of North America by Joel Garreau, published way back in 1981. Mr. Garreau’s contention was that “Whatever the political maps may say, our continent is not divided into 50 states and three countries. What we really are is: The Nine Nations of North America.” Whatever else you may think of Mr. Garreau’s worldview, on this question he does have a valid point.

Mr. Garreau went on to display a map of North America in the center of his book that displayed the “nine nations” of North America and their approximate boundaries and he then discussed the separate cultures of each of the nine areas.

One of the cultural areas he listed was (and still is) “Dixie.” And, for him, Dixie went as far north as Indianapolis, Indiana and as far west as Dallas, Texas. From Fort Worth all the way to Denver, Colorado was another cultural area he labeled as “The Breadbasket.” West of that, all the way to the Sierra Nevada mountains  was what he called “The Empty Quarter”–the Far West, except for the Left Coast which was and is a totally different cultural milieu from any of the rest. Again, I can’t disagree overly much with him here. I remember the first time I went west, many years ago now,  that as I crossed over from Arizona and Nevada into eastern California, it didn’t take me too long to realize that “this ain’t the West.” Geographically it was, but not culturally. And the difference between California and Nevada and Arizona increased the further west you went in California. The same principle applies pretty much to Washington and Oregon. The eastern part of those states has some really pretty high desert country, but when you get in proximity to the coast, it’s a whole other animal. Different cultures altogether.

I wrote about Garreau’s book in a couple articles years ago because his theory seemed to have some validity, and I think it still does. Just recently I came across information about another book along the same lines, written by Colin Woodard, called American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America. Mr. Woodard does the same thing Mr. Garreau did regarding North America only he breaks it down into eleven separate cultures instead of nine. Only I’m not sure that the cultures of Dixie and the Far West are really rivals. I think, in most instances, they compliment one another because they have the same problems with the same types of people (overweening government bureaucrats). Mr. Woodard’s book is reviewed on a site called http://www.theburningplatform.com for those who might want to check it out.

It’s interesting how similar his map of North America is to Mr. Garreau’s, and yet there are differences. In Woodard’s book what we call Dixie is divided into four parts; the traditional Deep South, and above that what he calls “Greater Appalachia.  Then there is Tidewater Virginia and North Carolina, and liberal South Louisiana. But he notes that, generally, the Deep South and Greater Appalachia  have pretty much similar traditions and views of politics and government. These folks, in both areas, just want to be left alone and want the government to butt out of their lives. Both areas have strong, vibrant, colorful cultures, which the Left and East Coasts are trying to destroy. Their cultures remain strong, even after the continued assaults by the shock troops of the Left, financed by socialist millionaires, which have sought to weaken their (our) culture, heritage and traditions. Dixie may not push back as loudly as we could wish sometimes against her adversaries, but she does push back.

In fact, with some of the cultural genocide that has been practiced on this part of the country it is obvious that Dixie’s culture is totally at odds with the culture of the Left Coast and the East Coast, as well as that of many major cities. And, considering the cultural clash between the two, you have to give serious consideration to the question of whether the two opposing cultures would be better off separated into two distinct “nations.” Should that be the case (and I would not argue against it) all the folks in the South would need to do is to chase the Leftists out of the South, back to their preferred areas of habitation, under their own rocks, and find some way to make them leave the South alone. Separate countries might help that situation to some extent.

How to do that might just be the “sixty-four dollar question” because it is a known fact that the Leftists want to make the rest of the country as miserable as they are and they are willing to work hard at that. All things said, cultural separation as well as geographical separation might be best for everyone. We’ll just have to see where all this goes, but one thing is evident–Dixie needs to fight to hang onto its culture, faith, history and traditions and not left the Leftists turn us into yet another Socialist Great Swamp.

“Confederaphobia–An American Epidemic”

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Anyone following my blogs knows this is a subject I have given considerable attention to over the years. I am glad someone has now written a book about this which goes into more detail than I can on my blog spots, and now concerned folks can begin to study this mental aberration in some detail.

Paul C. Graham has written a book, the title of which is the title I quoted for this article. It was only published this year by Shotwell Publishing  in Columbia, South Carolina. This is the publisher that is turning out many books that give you the knowledge to fight political correctness (cultural Marxism) with the truth. So few publishers today have the intestinal fortitude (guts) to publish books that deal with this form of cultural genocide that it is truly refreshing to find someone willing to take those people (cultural Marxists) on and print the truth about them–truth that will ultimately “make us free.”

Mr. Graham’s book is not a lengthy one, only 58 pages with three appendixes. The serious reader can get through it in a day, and it’s not written in high-flown language. It is for us ordinary folks, and, in most cases, we are the ones that need it. Mr. Graham deals  with this subject in some detail (he packs a lot in 58 pages) and he helps us to understand the mindset of those who hate all things Southern and Confederate.

He notes how the present round of this aberration began in June, 2015,  when that “useful idiot” Dylan Roof shot those black folks in their church in Charleston, South Carolina. It was almost as if this event was a (the) signal to the Governor of South Carolina, Nimrata Haley (she is of East Indian descent) to pull the Confederate flag down at the capitol. Mr. Graham notes: “Haley and her accomplices foolishly viewed their actions as a great victory against hatred and intolerance. They were not alone. It appears that some kind of miracle was expected to sweep the land once the flag in South Carolina was removed. There is now, ironically, (and sadly, quite predictably), more hate and more violence than there was before, only now it is unabashedly directed toward native Southerners, their ancestors, and anything associated with them.” After reflecting upon this situation for the past couple years, I have to conclude that this was the intention!  Mr. Graham continues: “In less than a week, the issue surrounding the Confederate Battle Flag displayed in Columbia went from a state and local issue to a national issue to an international issue.” Again–that was the intention!  The cultural Marxists and those who finance them used this event as a new springboard to wage war on the faith, culture and heritage of the South. Until this day they have never ceased.

Starting on page 15, Mr. Graham explains the phenomena of “Confederaphobia.” He states that it is “…characterized by an irrational and pathological hatred and fear of all things Confederate–flags, monuments, graves, portraits, trinkets, stickers, etc.–anything that could be associated, even tenuously, with the late Confederate States of America, including the region from which it sprang and those people and groups of people who are native or sympathetic to this region.” In other words, these Leftist wing-nuts hate us and our ancestors and everything they or we ever stood for. Mr. Graham continues: “Regardless of the shape it assumes, Confederaphobia has the characteristic of dehumanizing self-identified Southerners and seeks to deny them their humanity, their dignity and their right to exist as they are–both individually and collectively–in the public sphere.” This aggressive attitude ends up scaring many Southern folks into “hiding in the shadows” and talking softly for fear of being identified as Southerners. After all, it’s not politically correct to stand up for something that so many seem to hate and loathe, and so,  for fear of drawing attention to themselves, many Southern folks just shut up and try to stay out of the public eye (and the line of fire). This is exactly what they are being conditioned to do–shut up and just sit down! That way only one side of the debate gets heard and Southerners, in effect, give the cultural battlefield over to those sworn enemies who plan to destroy them.

He observes, correctly, that “…being Southern or sympathetic to Southern history, heritage and culture–including that of the Confederate era and symbols associated with it–is not  wrong.” He talks about people being moved by the sight of a Confederate flag or the playing of “Dixie” or revering Confederate ancestors, and he states that these things are not wrong.  I can identify with what he says. I am moved by the sight of a Confederate flag waving in the breeze or hearing “Dixie” played and I had a Confederate ancestor who lost most of one leg at Spotsylvania, so when you go out of your way to tell me what an evil cause he fought for, I take that personally. You are slapping me and my ancestor in the face and I don’t much appreciate that–and lots of others in my position don’t appreciate it either.

Mr. Graham notes that most Confederaphobes are really guilty of the same attitudes they seek to project onto Southerners. This is standard cultural Marxist procedure–condemn others for what you, yourself are guilty of. He says (and I agree with him) that “Hatred and fear, coupled with a superiority complex and institutional approval fuels the expression of the more odious forms of Confederaphobia.  In its more extreme expression Confederaphobia can lead to violence and/or murder.” He notes the part that social media plays in all this. He talks about something that many of us have noted recently–contextualization–in regard to monuments and other Southern displays. Supposedly the contemporary cultural Marxist insists on “contextualizing” Confederate monuments and displays so they can be explained to gullible folks as to what they “really mean.” This is nothing more than cultural Marxist propaganda and Mr. Graham noted that it is nothing more than “an attempt to explain away the most obvious meaning of the display.”

He plainly sees the place “educational” institutions in this country, “especially colleges and universities, but increasingly in K-12 public schools–which are permeated with strong ideological biases, have strictly implied rules or policies against any outward expression of one’s Southern identity or views that fall outside of the accepted narratives of the South as racist, treasonous, and that the ‘Civil War’ was all about slavery.”

It’s not that the things the Confederaphobe hates are really bad, but rather that he has been conditioned to think they are by institutions of “education,” the “news” media, and the entertainment industry–all working hand in glove with one another, whether they realize it or not (and I think many of them do).

As stated so well by Mr. Graham, our flags and monuments remind us that “…we are a unique and recognizable people that have the right to exist, a right to be who and what we are without molestation, apology, or shame.” However, it appears, in our current cultural situation that we are going to have to start contending for that right because the cultural Marxists and their elite financiers plan to deprive us of that right if they can. You need to read Mr. Graham’s book. It will help you to understand much of what you see going on around you.

Lots Of Questions About Las Vegas

by Al Benson Jr.

It seems as if there are more questions about the horrible terrorist attack in Las Vegas than there are answers. The Leftist politicians and media have again raised the howl for more gun control, as though that would have prevented this situation. It wouldn’t. Stop and do a little checking about some of the recent false flag events that have taken place in this country and see how many of the people that supposedly did the shooting (most of them dead now) obtained the weapons the supposedly used legally. The majority got them legally or someone else got them legally for them.

So the Leftist hue and cry for more gun control is nothing more than the usual Leftist attempt to gut the Second Amendment in any way they can and they are politicizing this event to promote their agenda. They should be thoroughly disgusted with themselves, but being cultural Marxists, they are not. The end justifies whatever means they use. I hope the president stands firm on the Second Amendment and does not emotionally cave in to their Leftist hysterics because, for them, it’s all an act, a sham, to promote taking down the Second Amendment. They all have bodyguards, with guns, but they don’t want ordinary, honest folks to have guns because they might actually shoot, in self defense, some of the Left’s Antifa or Black Lives Matter buddies and that would really be a tragedy, wouldn’t it? For them it is a tragedy if ordinary folks have the means to defend themselves. That’s a no no!

Lots of questions about this supposed shooter. Supposedly they found Antifa literature in his hotel room, along with an arsenal of firearms. You have to wonder how this man got all those guns up to his room on the 32nd floor. It must have been quite a chore–and no one saw him toting all this in. And we are talking about long guns here, not pistols that you might carry in a suitcase or a shoulder holster.

It is said he had cameras set up to film him shooting down at all those people and even had cameras set up in the hallway of the hotel so he could see if the cops were going to interrupt him. Did he have the expertise to set up all this equipment and make sure it worked? Or did he have help?

The shooter and his girlfriend seem to have Islamic connections and ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack. Of course you have to realize this is not Islamic terrorism. It reality it’s, well, it’s Islamic terrorism. Sort of like “when is an investigation not an investigation, but only a ‘matter’?” You know what I mean.

Here, if you follow all that is going on, you have a case of Muslim terrorists uniting with the Left in this country and elsewhere, and in this country, a main part of that agenda is the destruction of the Second Amendment. Please keep that in mind, because that is what a lot of this is all about. It’s a replay, on steroids, of many of the false flags that happened during the days of the Obama Regime where, after almost every shooting somewhere the scripted call for more and more gun control always seemed to emerge out of the chaos.

I watched an interesting video tonight (10/3) in which the action seemed to show that the shooting did not come from way up on the 32nd floor, where you could see no gun flashes coming from, but rather way down at almost ground level, where you could see gun flashes coming from and hear the weapons going off every time you saw the flashes. From the video, it looked like that might indicate more than one shooter. But, we are not supposed to talk about that, or even think about it–thought-crime, you know! Just forget I mentioned it.

Antifa has threatened civil war by November 4th this year. And considering this month is the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution they may try to celebrate that in this country with a 21st century version of Red October.

Just a little something to reflect on in your more serious moments.