Not deregulation, simply keeping government coercion out of the equation

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2019/05/americans-paid-for-internet-we-deserve.html

Males pretending to be females are ruining girls'/women's sports. Here's one answer.

Many of us have read about this already. The high school girls in this blog post - http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-deliberate-destruction-of-womens.html - are disconsolate, as are women in college sports, as well as state and national competitions. I haven't heard anyone come up with an answer for this, but I don't get out much, so I may have simply missed it.

I believe I have an answer, though, and if you agree, why not share it with family and friends? It's simple, really. Picture this: six women and two males pretending to be females, get into their starting blocks, for the 440. The starter pistol cracks, and they're off! While the two males take off running, the six women walk off the field, together. The males will look like the cheating fools that they are (probably two guys who would come in last if they ran in an all-male event), and the women will head for the locker room.

If the real females would do this in every competition where males pretending to be women are interloping, this crap would end fast, I'm sure. The faux females would (as they should) be embarrassed,  not because they were trying to cheat, but because winning a two-person race is ridiculous, plus one of them will be the loser. Even the winner will be a loser.

As I've said, that should stop this nonsense, tout de suite. Or, as we are talking about women's sports, "lickety split".

A good question: Who is pushing to normalize transgenderism?

I ran across this article by a lady who argues reasonably, logically, that the transgender movement is brought to us by the efforts of a surprising number of people, billionaires who have figured out how to profit mightily from this movement. This lady, Jennifer Bilek, has researched this question extensively, and presents her findings in a very believable fashion. This definitely is not "conspiracy theory", although I have no doubt the Left will try to devalue this information by claiming it is.

At the start of her article, she says:

"As an environmental activist who was deplatformed from a speaking venue by transactivists, in 2013 I developed curiosity about the power of this group to force this development. A year later, when Time magazine announced a transgender tipping point on its cover, I had already begun to examine the money behind the transgender project.

I have watched as all-women’s safe spaces, universities, and sports opened their doors to any man who chose to identify as a woman. Whereas men who identify as transwomen are at the forefront of this project, women who identify as transmen seem silent and invisible. I was astonished that such a huge cultural change as the opening of sex-protected spaces was happening at such a meteoric pace and without consideration for women and girls’ safety, deliberation, or public debate.

Concurrent with these rapid changes, I witnessed an overhaul in the English language with new pronouns and a near-tyrannical assault on those who did not use them. Laws mandating new speech were passed. Laws overriding biological sex with the amorphous concept of gender identity are being instituted now. People who speak openly about these changes can find themselves, their families, and their livelihoods threatened.

These elements, along with media saturation of the issue, had me wondering: Is this really a civil rights issue for a tiny part of the population with body dysphoria, or is there a bigger agenda with moneyed interests that we are not seeing? This article can only begin to graze the surface of this question, but considering transgenderism has basically exploded in the middle of capitalism, which is notorious for subsuming social justice movements, there is value in beginning this examination."

Give a look at this article, and I think you will find yourself not only agreeing with her, but with a better understanding of some of the occurrences we have seen recently that we were not able to explain before reading her study.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/#disqus_thread

How the Left works: When things don't go your way, change the game. Change the definitions.

Bump stocks. Silly name, isn't it? Sort of makes you think of "bump and grind", if your thought processes are as weird as mine. But for those of you who own firerams, it is really important that you understand the issue of whether or not bump stocks should be legal _really doesn't matter_. The big issue isn't bump stocks themselves, but what the new rule (a rule with the force of law) means. Please bear with me here.

While bump stocks are just toys, owned by very few of us in the gun culture, the new ruling made by BATFE - the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (formerly just BATF or ATF) - changes a very important definition. Now, anything that can be used to make a gun fire more than one bullet from a single press of the trigger is no longer the definition of a "machine gun". That means not just the gun itself, but anything that can be attached, a gun part or an accessory that can increase the RATE of fire of any firearm.  No longer is the number of bullets fired by a single pull of the trigger - a definition established back in 1934 in the National Firearms Act - the definition of "machine gun".

This is very, very important, people. The BATFE has changed their ruling - a ruling that was made and approved while Obama was the President - that bump stocks were not to be classed as "machine guns". After the Left, and President Trump, learned that (supposedly, although the FBI and Las Vegas Police Department have _not_ released all of the facts concerning the mass shooting of people attending a concert in that city) one or more rifles discovered in the room had bump stocks installed (no photos supporting such weapons in the room have been shown), the Democrats immediately jumped on that claim. They claimed those bump stocks made the rifles shoot just like a machine gun, a fully-automatic rifle. That isn't true, but is beside the point.

President Trump agreed. Not because he is against guns or the Second Amendment, but because he was misled to think that the bump stocks could do something that they cannot do. He was misled to believe they made a rifle equipped with one the same as a machine gun. That is not true.

BATFE _knew_ it wasn't true. They knew that if they made that claim, it could be proven wrong - because it _was_ wrong. So the Democrats and BATFE sat down and worked out what had to be done to make the bump stock the same as a machine gun. They CHANGED THE DEFINITION of what constitutes a machine gun. No longer was it a gun, or a part or accessory, that could cause more than one round to be fired with a single pull of a trigger. NOW they claim it is any part or accessory which can change the _rate of fire_ beyond what is possible without that part or accessory. 

The way the new rule is phrased makes it sound like the bump stock can allow you to fire more than one round without using your finger more than once, but it is a lie. Your finger operated the trigger each and every time a round is fired, every time a bullet goes down the barrel. Pull your finger away, and the shooting stops - right now. Firing the gun again _requires_ another pull of the trigger. BATF claims your finger isn't "pulling" the trigger after the first pull, but that is a lie. Your finger pulls the trigger every time, but you don't have to "crook" your finger and move it backwards. The stock forces your finger against the trigger every time you want to fire a round. Just like with any semi-automatic rifle, the gun won't fire if you do not choose to make it fire, each and every time.

Strictly speaking, that could make your _finger_ a machine gun, since you can certainly pull the trigger faster if you wanted to (although it would make aiming a bit more difficult, just like with a bump stock). Suffice it to say that any part or accessory that could increase the rate of fire beyond what is possible without adding such a part or accessory is what they deem to be a machine gun.

Did you know that at one time in the recent past, the BATFE said a shoelace could be considered a machine gun? There is a way, on certain semi-automatic rifles, to get the gun to fire more than one round if a shoelace was attached in a certain way. It would then keep firing so long as you kept your finger on the trigger. That _did_ meet the original definition of a machine gun, but since it was pretty ridiculous (and unConstitutional) to put people in prison for years if they had a shoelace in their possession (like a kid on a football team who carried extra shoelaces in case one broke during a game), that idea was scrapped.

Now we have a new definition. Remember - this device, this bump stock - was completely legal during the Obama administration. NOW, however, it no longer will be legal. President Trump could have stopped this from happening, but he was misinformed into thinking that making it illegal would stop it from happening. Most of us understand that bad guys don't obey the law. That is part of what makes them bad guys. Bump stocks are easy to make by putting together a few items yourself. Any criminals wishing to do so can do it in a matter of minutes, once he has the right parts in hand, all of which are completely legal to buy or make yourself.

The Democrats/Left and the people at BATFE don't care about that. What they DO care about is that this new definition will make it easier to get semi-automatic rifles outlawed, made illegal, a little further down this road. That is why this rule is important to them, and that is why this rule is important to US. We do not want to lose the right to own any semi-automatic rifle we choose to own. Many of us have several of them, one for a husband and spouse, one for a father and one for his son or daughter (yes, a lot of women and girls like to shoot, too). 

The bottom line here is this: the Second Amendment is at great risk if the government (especially the BATFE) is allowed to go changing definitions whenever it pleases them. Remember the "Assault Weapons Ban"?  All of a sudden, firearms that had been legal for many years were ruled illegal. At the time, you could still keep it, but it had to be registered. Did you know that in every country that ever forced the registration of guns, they went on to confiscate them, to forcibly take them from their people? Did you know that in almost every country where guns were confiscated, ruled illegal to possess, the government went on to kill millions of their own people? Not in wars, just within their own country, by their own government.

A man named Rummel, if I remember correctly, is the author of a web site where he tracks and numbers this killing of people by their own government. He calls it "Democide". Turkey was one of the first, back in the early 1900s. They killed or starved to death well over a million Armenians. Germany was a big killer (over 20 million, 6 million of which were Jews), before and during WWII (none of those during WWII are counted from those actually fighting the war). Russia killed even more, over 70 million, 7 million or so intentionally starved to death, men women and children. China is the _big_ winner, having killed over 100 million of their own people through political killing of dissenters, starvation, and (it is believed) the use of actual biological agents. Pol Pot in Cambodia killed well over a million of his people, and millions have died in Africa in Rwanda, Darfur, and other parts of the continent.

So, during the 20th century, somewhere in the neighborhood of over 200 million people were killed by their own governments, not counting any war in which they might have been involved. None of those people were allowed to own firearms. Guns had been registered, then confiscated, and not long afterwards, they were killed - helpless to defend themselves and their loved ones, helpless to protect the innocent, their children. 

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

Is this "conspiracy theory", or actually possible? You decide. WHY CLINTON LOST THE ELECTION.

[This has been edited, as it was poorly written late at night, and needed to be corrected.]

The puppetmasters wanted someone they could control. Clinton has never been driven by ideology - at least not since Alinsky stopped popping her for convenience, whenever he happened to be in town and didn't have a phone number for someone easier on the eyes. She is driven by two things, only: money and the ability to screw with - or kill - the people who displease her in any fashion. It could be her hairdresser, one of her staffers, a random person wearing a MAGA hat, or a whole group - such as The Deplorables™. They couldn't trust her to accomplish the goals they would set for her.

The individuals who own and operate the Left - Soros is on the fringe, held out as a visible target, still working for his masters, as he did when he aided the Nazis in rounding up Jews for the camps and the killing - simply didn't want her to win.
The _real_ movers and shakers, who remain anonymous to us in the cheap seats, knew they could control Trump by surrounding him with true believers/Obama hold-overs like McMaster, Tillerson, and Cohn. The puppetmasters know they must allow Trump to win a round or two, to satisfy the people who think they voted him into office, to quiet the plebes. So he gets to appoint Gorsuch, or wins a Supreme Court case which will seem to give him the ability to stop some of the jihadis who have been sneaking into America with the "refugees" (who are merely jihadis who haven't come out of the closet, yet), while the majority of the muslim fifth column is openly assisted in immigrating thanks to our own government and the groups getting rich by "re-settling" muslims all over our country.

As a separate issue, many of us on the conservative (not necessarily Republican) Right have noticed something interesting about where these muslims are being placed. Many are being inserted not just into Red states, but into conservative counties where they are expected to return the favor by voting Democrat. There is the additional "benefit" of them being in good position to go full-jihadi on us when the time for playing "Moderate™ muslim" is over.

So, Hillary was allowed to play her games with the primaries, shutting Sanders out, since she (illegally) was able to arrange for complete control of all the money available to the DNC. However, I contend that it is possible the puppetmasters of the Left arranged for Trump to win, because he could be controlled. But even if they failed to control him, they could place so many stumbling blocks in his way that he would do far less harm to their agenda than Hillary might do with her greed and sociopathic personality.

How should America respond to North Korea?

Personally, IMHO, I believe we have to ask ourselves: how do you respond to a dictator, a tyrant who lives in luxury while so many of his people actually starve to death, who has exhibited mental issues but is in control of weapons of mass destruction and has threatened to use them against us?

If a man is holding a gun - not yet pointed directly at you - and threatens to shoot you, do you stand there and wait for him to actually shoot before you defend yourself? What if you know for a fact that he has had numerous people killed (or has allowed them to die by depriving them and their families of enough food to survive)? Knowing he has no respect for life, even of his own people?

Certainly in such a case you would be justified in defending yourself, in shooting at him in an attempt to stop him from possibly killing you. Some people would still wait for him to actually fire first, saying they could not know for certain that he would actually shoot. Some would refuse to shoot even then, as they refuse to take a life themselves, even at the cost of their own.

What if he is aiming the gun at your family? At your friends? At people you love and respect? At people you are responsible for protecting (as with a police officer, or a soldier)?

Here, just yesterday, a deranged man killed twenty-four innocent people while in church, in a small town in Texas. If you saw a man armed with a gun going toward a church - or a school, or any place where a large number of people were congregated - would you attempt to stop him, even shoot him if he wouldn't stop? You would certainly would be justified in such an incident.

So, let's get to the meat of this thing. If the mentally unbalanced dictator of a country who has no problem at all causing the deaths of large numbers of his own people threatens to kill millions - perhaps even 90% (288,000,000) of the people living in America, do you take him seriously? Since it _might_ be impossible to stop his weapons from killing Americans by the hundreds of millions, do you wait until he launches?

This creature did NOT say that he would launch his weapons if attacked. He threatened to launch them because he _claims_ we threatened to attack him first, which obviously isn't true. He then proved he is capable of doing so, by virtue of nuclear weapon tests he has already accomplished, and by publishing technical information (“The EMP Might Of Nuclear Weapons”) which indicates his scientists know exactly how to do what he is threatening to do - launch "Super-EMP" (Electro Magnetic Pulse) weapons at our country.

I'm not going to go into why such an attack would be so devastating, so deadly that it could end of killing up to 90% of us here in America. You can "google" information about these weapons and their effects, or - if you would rather read some excellent fiction, a story about what might happen, you can check out Matt Bracken's tale, "Alas, Brave New Babylon", in his book,  The Bracken Anthology, available for $2.99 at Kindle.

"It was procrastination, I know . . . "

Well, it has been more than a day or two. Anyone (thanks, Irish) who read my last post who checked back for a couple of days is probably saying, "Yeah, right. Wrote one post and it'll be another eleven months before we see anything else." Can't blame you - all two or three of you, if that.

Anyone who has been paying any attention to world events knows that Lil' Kimmie of North Korea has been threatening to use one or more of his nukes on us here in America. The feeling is that, if he is at all smart - or is willing to take good advice from his advisors - he would use one or two EMP or "Super-EMP" weapons instead of wasting ammo targeting cities.

Let me digress here for a moment. It has occurred to me, as it must have to others who are brighter than I, that so far, other than a plane into the Pentagon, no one has targeted Washington D.C. That's not to say that Russia doesn't have one or two MIRVs or Tsar bombs with D.C.'s name on it, but consider this: don't you think there are people in power, or their advisors, in other countries who have considered hitting D.C. with either a nuke or a dirty bomb, or terrorism on a massive scale, much bigger than Mumbai?

I believe that anyone who is the least bit intelligent would do their damnedest to see that D.C. remains intact. Think about it, folks. What would the result be to the rest of the country if D.C. was destroyed, and we were fortunate enough that Congress was in session, the President (no, I don't wish Trump or Melania were there, especially Melania - not because she is beautiful, but because I get the impression she is a truly nice and decent person), Vice-President, Speaker of the House (damn, could you imagine Ryan as President without throwing up?), President Pro-Tempore of the Senate (Orin Hatch), the Secretary of State (Tillerson, another vomit-inducer), Secretary of the Treasury (Mnuchin - I don't have a read on him), Secretary of Defense (Mattis - a possibly decent result), or the Attorney General (Sessions would have to recuse himself again ;-) were all there, and no one was left alive to take over?

If all of the states were spared, and only D.C. was destroyed, what would be the damage to the states? How would it interfere with normal, everyday business, life for the rest of us? Wiping out D.C. would be a blessing to the rest of the country - except the progressives, who love being able to force others to do what they want them to do.

D.C. doesn't make anything - other than laws and regulations, which _aren't_ useful, usually are damaging. They don't do anything useful to the rest of us. The EPA is no help. The FDA usually interferes with the production and availability of new meds - and yet has approved medications which have later been determined to be harmful. DOJ - nyet. DOE - nope. IRS - give me a break. Do you see where I am going with this?

Oh, I imagine someone will come up with an agency or section of government which would inconvenience us by its loss, but certainly not seriously impede our daily lives, or the businesses that we need to keep our economy going smoothly. Probably everything would run much _more_ smoothly without the roadblocks, the thousands of regulations, the controlling and damaging legislation that spews forth from D.C. like bloody pus from a lanced boil.

Even the loss of the Pentagon would likely be a plus for us, although I imagine there might still be one or two warriors (out of the thousands who "work" there) forced to "do time" there who we would miss, along with some innocent civilian staffers.

So, anyone wishing us harm _might_ be smart enough to avoid hurting D.C. in the slightest way.

BUT - since an EMP event over the East Coast would cause the shutting down of our financial centers, Wall Street, etc. and the entire eastern seaboard along with much of the Midwest (we won't miss Chicago or Detroit), it could throw the economy into a tailspin. The loss of D.C. along with the rest wouldn't help us. The - what, about 200 million? - people who would die if all commerce shut down, food stopped being delivered, EBT cards didn't work throughout the country (do states fund any of those, or are they all federal? I should know, but I don't) might impact the rest of the country, even if their electricity could be restored when the Eastern/Midwestern grid was destroyed.

There would certainly be a mass exodus of people from the cities and suburbs, hell everywhere there was no power. No way to exchange money for food - even with real currency, let alone digital sources  like banks/ATMs/etc. Folks who own physical silver and gold might be able to buy the necessities they desire, but not for long. Gangs, welfare families, even the otherwise normal and law-abiding would end up looting, stripping stores empty. Don't you think _you_ would, to feed your children? The moderately intelligent would hit the food stores first, then go on to the rest. Some might be smart enough to acquire enough fuel that they could get out of the affected areas (if any of the country remained intact, thanks to local coal/gas/hydroelectric power plants, etc.)

Can you imagine watching the usual suspects running into Best Buy and running out with huge flat screen TVs? TVs that won't work because there is no power? It would happen, I guarantee you. Some, because they are incapable of logic, but some in the expectation that their sugar-daddy, Uncle Sam, would be restoring power in a few days.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but here in the Northwest there are coal power stations that sit on their own coal mines, and enough coal mining elsewhere available to provide power to quite a few other power plants. Although there would probably be some disruption due to being connected to the national power grid, - if we were not also hit with an EMP device (high altitude burst from a missile, or from one of NKs satellites) - I believe that local power companies would be able to repair whatever damage might occur from that connection, and continue to power most of their current area of responsibility. I could be wrong about that, but I don't think so.

Now, in the aftermath of such an event, with the East and possibly also the Midwest having lost all power, plus many vehicles including semi-trucks used for moving absolutely essential commodities such as food and fuel, put out of commission, the Southwest, West Coast, and the Northwest would face the issue of those who survived and fled from the affected areas. That would probably include inner-city gangs, MS-13, and other undesirables. It would require the National Guard, as well as state and local law enforcement to deal with that. They would also have to deal with the loss of necessary fuels that they might have normally acquired from the damaged zones. I'm sure there are many commodities that would become unavailable, or be in short supply.

However, there are a quite a few refineries that might still be able to operate. There are six in Wyoming, five in Washington State, five in Utah, four in Montana, two in New Mexico, and one each in North Dakota and in Colorado. There are a bunch in California, but they would likely refuse to assist any other states. They might even secede in such a scenario (good riddance). Texas probably would still be up and running if the western half of the country remained viable, and they have a _bunch_ of refineries (at least twenty three), with a huge capacity.

Bottom line? The dictatorship of "Democratic" North Korea might well be crazy enough to pop a Super-EMP over part - or all - of America. China is wily enough to consider doing so in a way that would implicate North Korea. So, as the man said in "Under Siege", "The threat is real. I repeat, the threat is real."

The full text of the paper on Unrestricted Warfare is available here: https://fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/unresw1.htm