Internet immediacy makes it difficult to pose questions or information not already thought about and posted by others, so in many instances I can't take full credit for things I write here. Nevertheless, if I can break down and refine the "buzz" currently making the rounds, that's probably a good option.
I don't know where rational Democrats hide these days, apparently drowned out or afraid for their very political longevity as their party is hijacked by dangerous, if not fully straitjacket-style insane people bent upon national chaos. Every last presidential candidate on the left is selling nothing less than a socialist fantasy whose apparent bright spots will eventually lapse into the best current example of failure on the planet: Venezuela.
Once the prosperous jewel of South America, populated by happy, well-educated people, Venezuela, like America, was romanced, sexed up and promised hope and change by a seeming diverse segment of would-be U.S. presidential candidates.
But there always is one little detail high on the minds of leftist wannabees: Guns. Your guns. Your right to possess guns.
Guns? No problem. After Chavez and his thugs claimed Venezuela for their own -- their public status helped along by kind words and visits from Hollywood faves Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Oliver Stone and others, by the way -- trusting but unsuspecting Venezuelans across the land were "convinced" that in order to assure their ultimate safety firearms must be turned in. All firearms.
By 2019, two thug administrations later, Venezuela's wealth and spirit have been stolen, leaving its people starving, tattered -- and defenseless against brutal military rule. If only. . .yes, if only. But the people's guns, their last defense against an evil never anticipated, had been removed by a clever, malevolent gang.
We in the United States still have the right to keep guns. Yes, a plethora of especially state laws have perverted the "shall not be infringed" portion of the Second Amendment all to hell, but something akin to original intent still exists.
Unfortunately, as another mass shooting horrifies the nation, the usual voices and polls have gone on the attack against "gun violence," customarily blaming firearms before considering the people behind the triggers.
Aside from appearance and function, guns haven't changed much over the years. But people have, a lot. And there sits the dilemma.
It's easy to blame guns for violent acts, for unto themselves they are inanimate objects like trees and rocks. Firearms don't get up and walk away.
We, on the other hand, have become versatile in our rudeness, our concerted engagement with electronic devices and the realization -- in my opinion -- of what we are and our place in the universe. That is, human life is cheap individually and the "collective" is what counts, either as something to be ruled or something to be annihilated by corrupted minds.
So there's evidence today that many more Americans want the President to "do something" about gun violence. Yes, something must be done, and every time we ask government to "do something" about anything all of us are likely to be on the losing end.
To actually "do something" about guns and those who use them unwisely is an impossible task. Ultimately, to paraphrase from an old radio serial, who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Or women? Should we hire psychics to produce the appropriate Minority Report for people acting a tad different?
The trouble with the current pod of Democrat presidential hopefuls, aside from the fact that every one of them knowingly or unknowingly harbors a pathway to Venezuela within their map to socialism, is their dedication to "do something" about guns, just as they intend to "do something" about ridding us of basic rights, chip by chip, for our own good.
If socialism was a failure elsewhere, believes the new breed, perilously intent upon repeating the unworkable, that's just because those who failed simply didn't use it correctly. And on and on the tragedy goes.
Trump and Tariffs: While attack dogs from both parties condemn Trump for his plan to place tariffs on Mexico until it stops hordes of Central Americans from invading the USA, note that neither party offers an alternate solution. Meanwhile, the illegal immigrants advance, bringing epidemic-style diseases tailored by nature to threaten all Americans previously thought immune. Epidemic possibilities, of course, are owned by the do-nothing Democrats in every way.
UFOs and religion: As U.S. government objections to the release or discussion of UFO information appear to be loosening a bit, we wonder whether the tendency of some organized religions to be more accepting of UFO existence might be accommodating such maneuvers, though not intentionally. Decades ago, members of the clergy such as the Rev. Barry Downing and those affiliated with NICAP's board of directors, for example, expressed thoughtful belief about the phenomenon's reality, while others were quick to attribute UFO activity to demons or psychological illness. Blanket condemnations of both the enigma and the observer seem to have eased, as we watch "normal" society now taking another look at the UFO subject and its potential. Perhaps my observation here is as nebulous as other ideas I throw out, but I do see a change -- certainly evident in media reporting.
