February 17th, 2011
As reported early this morning by WYNS (1010 "WINS" AM Radio) in New York City, yesterday armed robbers entered a Bronx (New York City) jewelry store dressed as upscale potential clients. Upon allowing the would-be robbers entry into the store, the store owner soon had a gun placed next to his head during an attempted robbery. However, the store owner then brandished his own licensed pistol and began shooting at the robbers. The would-be robbers were then sent fleeing out of the store. The two robbers who entered the store got away but a third [look-out] accomplice was wounded in the leg and eventually arrested. The other two would-be robbers are presumed to be still on the loose and at-large in the New York City area with a possible unreported amount of stolen valuables.
Does anyone believe that the robbers would have fled the scene in such a fashion had the store owner not been armed? What do you think Mayor Bloomberg? What does your anti-gun/gun-control group think? Would the robbers have fled had the store owner not been armed with an adequate defensive weapon? I will take the liberty to answer for you, Mayor Bloomberg, and say, surely the robbers would not have fled the Bronx jewelry store as they did had the store owner not been armed. What’s more, it’s unlikely that any of the would-be robbers would have been caught, had the store owner not been armed.
Does anyone foolishly believe the jewelry store owner was not in mortal danger during this robbery and likely may have been killed during the course of this robbery – had he not been armed with an adequate defensive weapon? Given the circumstances of this would-be robbery, would anything other than the store owner’s licensed pistol have saved his life? What do you think Mayor Bloomberg? What does your anti-gun/gun-control group think? Again, I will take the liberty to answer for you, Mayor Bloomberg, and say this store owner just as likely would have been killed during the course of this robbery had he not been armed with his defensive weapon, his licensed pistol.
Well, Mayor Bloomberg, as you and I seem to be having an ‘unofficial debate’ on the subject of whether guns provide the only adequate defense to law-abiders (as I claim) or if all gun-owners should be criminals (as you seem to claim), it’s now your turn to move in response to my stated facts with this blog. Of course, during this ‘unofficial debate,’ I am merely armed with my words, my thoughts, my logic, my blog and my computer; you, on the other hand, additionally have your battery of billions of dollars, the entire workforce of a major urban city, and the minions in your anti-gun/gun-control group as well.
Since it’s your turn to respond, Mayor Bloomberg, what will you do this time? Will you ‘gruff-up’ your ‘agents’ and have them pose as would-be violent creeps and send them to buy guns in places such as Nevada, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Georgia, or maybe Delaware – as you did previously in Arizona about a month ago? I would hereby suggest that you spare any other state your assertions and implications that any other state may have some culpability regarding the amount of crime in New York City/Gotham City – for no other state has any responsibility for what happens in New York. Might I hereby suggest that you save us all the time and surely make one of my debate points for me – and possibly make one of you own points as well, and thereby send your ‘agents’ to any unnamed borough of Gotham City and have them buy illegal weapons there? Such would surely show, no matter what spin you were to put on it as to the original origin of any illegally purchased weapon in your city, that violent creeps will always be able to get guns should they have the desire to do so. The only proper response to such a reality is for law-abiders to also have adequate defensive weapons such as pistols to allow law-abiders to defend themselves against would-be robbers and violent creeps. Then again, maybe that is another of your points in that you do not desire the law-abiding citizenry to maintain the ability to defend themselves against would-be violent creeps?
Mayor Bloomberg, should you be willing to discuss or debate the matters herein in-person or via the telephone, I would be honored to hear from you and would relish the opportunity to debate you on these issues as well.
Adam Trotter / AVT
See:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/02/16/bronx-jewelry-store-owner-shoots-would-be-robber-in-leg/
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/home/home.shtml
See also:
http://adamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2011/02/mayor-bloomberg-sends-nyc-cops-to.html
http://adamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2011/01/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-calls-for-tougher.html
http://adamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2010/12/school-board-shooting-in-panama-city.html
http://avt777.blogspot.com/2010/03/stop-violence-on-our-streets-and-in-our.html
http://avt777.blogspot.com/2010/03/should-we-execute-violent-sex-offenders.html
http://avt777.blogspot.com/2010/03/fuck-stupid-drug-war-lets-start-war-on.html
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Behaving Poorly Typically Causes Others to Respond in Kind
See:
http://poetrybyadamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2011/02/behaving-poorly-typically-causes-others.html
AVT
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Yet Another Congressman/Politician Can’t Keep “It” in His Pants – Or, Apparently Was Hoping Not To. This Story Has Extra Irony Too.
February 12th, 2011
Yet another Congressman/politician has gone down in flames due to his seeking an extramarital affair. This time, Representative Christopher Lee of the Buffalo/Amherst, New York area, was exposed as a result of his own efforts of trolling the internet for prospective dates. Congressman Lee used his real name, normal email address, informed the woman that he worked on Capitol Hill, and forwarded pictures of himself to the prospective date, and additionally complained of dates that he had met in the past off-line of CraigsList (CraigsList.org). The woman searched his name and realized who he was and forwarded his shirtless picture to some other website that promptly posted the photo for the world to see.
But, I mean..., really…, the arrogance and stupidity shown by our would-be philandering politicians never ceases to boggle the mind. I may not really be one to judge and we all surely make mistakes, but to risk his career as well as his marriage and family just to ‘hook-up’ with a stranger on the internet would surely seem absurd – and, unfortunately, in keeping with so many other politicians that have gone down a similar road in the past.
Ironically, ex-Representative Lee had championed the Student Internet Safety Act and had previously “…warned kids of the dangers of the Internet… ‘Responding to what may seem like a friendly email …can have serious consequences,’ he wrote. ‘Private information and images can so easily be transmitted to friends and strangers alike;’” (according to the New York Post, Page 3, February 10, 2011).
Funny how we as humans can be so prophetic and quick to give good advice to others and yet, at the same time, we are just as quick to disregard and unable to apply the same good advice in our own dealings. (http://poetrybyadamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2011/02/on-giving-advice.html)
The bottom line is: If any politician is unwilling to honor any sacred vow to a spouse while they are in office, what other vows might they decide not to honor? Adding to any unseemly disregard of vows is the level of trust with which any politician has been instilled by his supporters and constituents, well… I think we – as Americans – often still seem to be electing the wrong types of people – at least if this case is any indicator. (http://poetrybyadamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2011/02/on-philanderingcheating-politicans.html)
At least ex-Rep. Lee had the decency to resign to spare us all the ensuing grief as well as sparing his constituents the humiliation – unlike many others of his lot of which I may or may not have blogged previously. I hope he is able to find peace with himself and his family in the years to come.
Adam Trotter / AVT
Amusing article that only hurts when you laugh about it:
Semi-Naked Came the Congressman
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/opinion/12collins.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
See also:
http://adamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2009/06/whats-with-our-politicians.html
Yet another Congressman/politician has gone down in flames due to his seeking an extramarital affair. This time, Representative Christopher Lee of the Buffalo/Amherst, New York area, was exposed as a result of his own efforts of trolling the internet for prospective dates. Congressman Lee used his real name, normal email address, informed the woman that he worked on Capitol Hill, and forwarded pictures of himself to the prospective date, and additionally complained of dates that he had met in the past off-line of CraigsList (CraigsList.org). The woman searched his name and realized who he was and forwarded his shirtless picture to some other website that promptly posted the photo for the world to see.
But, I mean..., really…, the arrogance and stupidity shown by our would-be philandering politicians never ceases to boggle the mind. I may not really be one to judge and we all surely make mistakes, but to risk his career as well as his marriage and family just to ‘hook-up’ with a stranger on the internet would surely seem absurd – and, unfortunately, in keeping with so many other politicians that have gone down a similar road in the past.
Ironically, ex-Representative Lee had championed the Student Internet Safety Act and had previously “…warned kids of the dangers of the Internet… ‘Responding to what may seem like a friendly email …can have serious consequences,’ he wrote. ‘Private information and images can so easily be transmitted to friends and strangers alike;’” (according to the New York Post, Page 3, February 10, 2011).
Funny how we as humans can be so prophetic and quick to give good advice to others and yet, at the same time, we are just as quick to disregard and unable to apply the same good advice in our own dealings. (http://poetrybyadamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2011/02/on-giving-advice.html)
The bottom line is: If any politician is unwilling to honor any sacred vow to a spouse while they are in office, what other vows might they decide not to honor? Adding to any unseemly disregard of vows is the level of trust with which any politician has been instilled by his supporters and constituents, well… I think we – as Americans – often still seem to be electing the wrong types of people – at least if this case is any indicator. (http://poetrybyadamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2011/02/on-philanderingcheating-politicans.html)
At least ex-Rep. Lee had the decency to resign to spare us all the ensuing grief as well as sparing his constituents the humiliation – unlike many others of his lot of which I may or may not have blogged previously. I hope he is able to find peace with himself and his family in the years to come.
Adam Trotter / AVT
Amusing article that only hurts when you laugh about it:
Semi-Naked Came the Congressman
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/opinion/12collins.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
See also:
http://adamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2009/06/whats-with-our-politicians.html
Saturday, February 12, 2011
REPEAL THE ELEVENTH (11TH) AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. FEDERAL CONSTITUTION!! Fix Our Dysfunctional Governments and Make Them Liable!
February 11th, 2011
On the eleventh (11th) day of the second month of the eleventh (11th) year of the second millennium, I have had a revelation: To repair the apparently dysfunctional and inept entities which seemingly comprise most of the governments across our Nation of the United States of America, it would seem WE merely need to repeal the Eleventh (11th) Amendment to the U.S. Federal Constitution!
And to clarify the matter for posterity, maybe a new Amendment should be ratified to clearly state something to the extent that governments have no sovereign immunity in the U.S. of A.
///
In response to the continuing colossal natural gas main explosions and water main breaks throughout our Nation – of which I have long discussed in another blog (see below), our governments and government-blessed monopolies WE all know as our utility companies seem essentially ineffectual at proactive efforts to stop the never ending supply of massive catastrophes. As such, I began to ponder how the American populace could get our governments to act to protect us from these continued disasters. To this end, today I had a revelation:
REPEAL THE ELEVENTH (11TH) AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. FEDERAL CONSTITUTION!!
The Eleventh (11th) Amendment is what is claimed to give immunity to the seemingly inept governments and government officials throughout our Nation. Given such immunity from suit, our governments often seem to have no culpability in their neglect of our crumbling infrastructure systems or any culpability in any other government negligence. To repeal this Amendment would then clear the way for any numbers of the populace to pursue legal action against the governments and government officials and entities for their negligence of our Nation’s infrastructure as well as any politicians' or government officials' neglect of their elected mandate or duty to their office or duty to the People. Though, with no doubt, the original Chief Justice Marshall ruled that individuals could - in fact - legally sue government entities (circa 1810/1820). However, since that time, his ruling has been all but ignored by the legal establishments and jurisdictions of our lands. Again, maybe a new Amendment should be ratified to clearly state something to the extent that governments have no sovereign immunity in the U.S. of A.
Any such proposed changes to our sacred Federal Constitution are not put forth in this blog in any light-hearted manner, btw. And, any such changes to the Amendments thereof are not intended to open any proverbial ‘can of worms’ to any potential money-grubbers and ambulance-chasing type attorneys amongst us either. Maybe to prevent any frivolous/capricious law suits from ensuing – once our inept governments were to become liable for their actions or in-actions by repealing the Eleventh (11th) Amendment, some sort of swift, just, and potentially severe financial penalties and court costs could be levied against any individuals who were to bring forth any subsequent trivial or frivolous law suits under any new revisions to the Federal Constitution – as proposed herein.
Adam Vernon Trotter / AVT
See:
http://engineeringandcommerce.blogspot.com/2011/02/massive-water-main-breaks-and-gas-main.html
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
On the eleventh (11th) day of the second month of the eleventh (11th) year of the second millennium, I have had a revelation: To repair the apparently dysfunctional and inept entities which seemingly comprise most of the governments across our Nation of the United States of America, it would seem WE merely need to repeal the Eleventh (11th) Amendment to the U.S. Federal Constitution!
And to clarify the matter for posterity, maybe a new Amendment should be ratified to clearly state something to the extent that governments have no sovereign immunity in the U.S. of A.
///
In response to the continuing colossal natural gas main explosions and water main breaks throughout our Nation – of which I have long discussed in another blog (see below), our governments and government-blessed monopolies WE all know as our utility companies seem essentially ineffectual at proactive efforts to stop the never ending supply of massive catastrophes. As such, I began to ponder how the American populace could get our governments to act to protect us from these continued disasters. To this end, today I had a revelation:
REPEAL THE ELEVENTH (11TH) AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. FEDERAL CONSTITUTION!!
The Eleventh (11th) Amendment is what is claimed to give immunity to the seemingly inept governments and government officials throughout our Nation. Given such immunity from suit, our governments often seem to have no culpability in their neglect of our crumbling infrastructure systems or any culpability in any other government negligence. To repeal this Amendment would then clear the way for any numbers of the populace to pursue legal action against the governments and government officials and entities for their negligence of our Nation’s infrastructure as well as any politicians' or government officials' neglect of their elected mandate or duty to their office or duty to the People. Though, with no doubt, the original Chief Justice Marshall ruled that individuals could - in fact - legally sue government entities (circa 1810/1820). However, since that time, his ruling has been all but ignored by the legal establishments and jurisdictions of our lands. Again, maybe a new Amendment should be ratified to clearly state something to the extent that governments have no sovereign immunity in the U.S. of A.
Any such proposed changes to our sacred Federal Constitution are not put forth in this blog in any light-hearted manner, btw. And, any such changes to the Amendments thereof are not intended to open any proverbial ‘can of worms’ to any potential money-grubbers and ambulance-chasing type attorneys amongst us either. Maybe to prevent any frivolous/capricious law suits from ensuing – once our inept governments were to become liable for their actions or in-actions by repealing the Eleventh (11th) Amendment, some sort of swift, just, and potentially severe financial penalties and court costs could be levied against any individuals who were to bring forth any subsequent trivial or frivolous law suits under any new revisions to the Federal Constitution – as proposed herein.
Adam Vernon Trotter / AVT
See:
http://engineeringandcommerce.blogspot.com/2011/02/massive-water-main-breaks-and-gas-main.html
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Follow-on post.
See also:
11-11-11 Day, Repeal the Eleventh Amendment, I say!
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Is London Calling? US to Provide British/UK Nuclear Secrets to Russia for Arms Treaty!?! Did Our Ally Agree to These Terms? (Reportedly WikiLeaks)
February 5, 2011
Last night during a talk show on Boston Radio (WBZ 1030 AM @ 2300 hours EST, approx.), the host was speaking about the latest round of information released from internet-based and tattle-tale group WikiLeaks. The following story/information was also reported by New York news radio this evening (WYNS, 1010 "WINS" AM Radio) – quoting another newspaper (London Telegraph, Author: Nile Gardiner) as its source. ( See: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100074846/the-obama-administration-betrays-britain-to-appease-the-russians-over-new-start/) According to these sources:
WikiLeaks is claming/reporting that the U.S. government has agreed to provide nuclear secrets of our long-time ally Great Britain/United Kingdom to Russia in exchange for the Russians ratification of the latest strategic arms limitation/reduction treaty (“New START” between the U.S.A. and the country of Russia). As the U.S. apparently produces missiles for the British nuclear arsenal, it is reported/claimed that the U.S. government would then also provide Russia with quantities and serial numbers of all missiles sold/provided to our British/U.K. allies. Assuming such an agreement has not been blessed by the British/U.K., to provide such information to the Russians would appear as nearly traitorous, in my opinion. The provision of British/U.K. nuclear secrets to the Russians is reported to be a condition of the proposed arms reduction treaty and the provision of such information was required by the Russians in order to agree to any nuclear arms reduction treaty.
Two main issues seem to be at hand. First, quite simply, why is the United States always the one to bend-over-backwards to accommodate and appease the seemingly disinterested Russians? If they don’t also want the treaty or see the treaty to be to their benefit: to hell with them! Then, let there be no treaty! Are our negotiators merely inept and therefore in keeping with the rest of our Federal government? Second, if such reports and claims are true: Regardless of the debatable topics of whether the U.S. has kissed the British backside for too long, regardless of whether the British [or U.K.] Government / crown / bankers have long deceived and possibly denigrated the free peoples of the world, regardless of whether the current U.S. Presidential Administration has a personal axe to grind or family vendetta against the British, and regardless of whether the U.S. wants access to the vast natural resources in Russia as part of this treaty effort, (assuming the U.K. has not blessed such a move to provide such information to the Russians,) to sell-out our long-time and staunch allies in the United Kingdom to effect an arms treaty with Russia seems preposterous and absurd!
The point of this blog, of course, is based on the assumption that the Brits/U.K. government has not approved this offer of information to the Russians to bring the Russians to the bargaining table. However, it would appear doubtful that the Brits/U.K. would bless such a release of nuclear weapons related information to the Russians, either. For if they had, simply, such a leaked story would then be of no real interest to WikiLeaks folks – if WikiLeaks knew one way or the other concerning such a blessing from the Brits.
I understand why the Russians would want information about the British/U.K. stockpile of nuclear weaponry when the Russians are considering agreeing to reductions. However, regarding the apparent sell-out of our long-time allies to our long-time adversaries, I must ask: has the simplistic U.S. government now lost all common sense? Barring British approval, do I really need to explain the apparent implications of selling-out our allies and throwing loyalty to the wind, irrespective of whether such a loyalty possibly has been given too much heed during recent decades? Nevertheless, unless the Brits have already agreed to such terms, to essentially turn on our long time ally would appear unethical, immoral, and surely would reflect a lack of integrity and also display the poor judgment of our American politicians and government agencies – regardless of any noble motivations. Anyone who would look to sell-out our allies and provide British nuclear secrets to the Russians would essentially appear traitorous to the cause of freedom and decency in the world, in my opinion. For example, what does the Russian government historically know or care of any Freedoms?
Furthermore, has the U.S. not always professed its willingness to execute any individual as treasonous for providing secret information to other nations, let alone if such nations were adversarial nations? Is this merely another instance of the U.S. government ‘leading by example’ (sarcasm) and saying “do as I say, not as I do?” As Americans, clearly we seem to be always having to wonder if our politicians and government officials even know the meaning of the words “truthful,” “loyalty,” and “decency” or if they simply don’t care about the meaning of these words (especially the Defense Department and the State Department). If this reportedly leaked story is true, it would appear WikiLeaks is the true hero and maybe we should have WikiLeaks members as our national politicians – at least they appear to be truthful regardless of all else, as WikiLeaks was created in response to an air of deceit continually proliferated by our governments*.
Of course, I have no personal knowledge of whether this story is actually true, or whether there is more to the story than what is currently known to the public or more than what has been surmised by AM Talk Radio personalities in the U.S. (such additional unknown information as the British Government agreeing to these terms and the release of information regarding its nuclear arsenal to the Russians)**. Again, this story is apparently based on the latest/upcoming round of information from internet-based WikiLeaks. If the story is true, thank you to WikiLeaks for providing the populace with truth concerning the actions of our government. If true, WikiLeaks appears to continually reveal the arrogance and simplistic nature of the U.S. government. Currently, I am inclined to believe any information WikiLeaks unearths. If such information is false or WikiLeaks has been intentionally untruthful, well . . ., time will tell.
At this point in time, the only thing I know for sure, and what appears to ring true, is we can’t count on the U.S. government to tell the truth about anything. Now, assuming this story is true, our government would again appear as not truthful to its own allies either. One has to wonder, how long will these same politicians be reelected to ruin everything that was once decent about our nation? If our government officials have unilaterally taken it upon themselves to sell-out our ally, I say, vote all these politicians out of office and dissolve any Federal agencies that would agree to these unilateral terms of screwing our allies – regardless of their motivations!!
Adam Trotter / AVT
* Surely it appears that WikiLeaks always would be advocates for Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, and Freedom of the Press and apparently would be bigger champions for these Rights and Causes than any/most national U.S. politicians of recent decades! WikiLeaks’s founder, in an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” last Sunday, professed that his only additional care was to be truthful. I believed him.
Our politicians, on the other hand, only appear as advocates for any cause when it suits their political need or when such advocacy appears to be of personal benefit to the politician. And, clearly, providing any truth to the American people typically and repeatedly appears as not warranted and inconsequential to our inept national leaders and arrogant government officials!
** Additionally, the majority [but not necessarily all] of the U.S. network broadcast media/press no longer seem to report anything of any real substance to the American people for fear that the American populace will change the television channel or turn off the television once the undesired news is broadcast. Such a mindset seems to reflect the true lack of integrity and arrogance [and/or political leanings] of much of our mainstream press/media: that is, they only really care about making money and do not care about informing the American public of any truth.
Regarding this latest WikiLeaks matter, either the majority of the mainstream American press/media doesn’t believe, doesn’t know, or doesn’t want to inform the populace that our government would apparently sell-out and turn on one of its closest allies.
See also:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-obama-sell-out-our-closest-ally-to-get-new-start/
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/state-department-disputes-report-that-u-s-revealed-british-nuclear-secrets/
Last night during a talk show on Boston Radio (WBZ 1030 AM @ 2300 hours EST, approx.), the host was speaking about the latest round of information released from internet-based and tattle-tale group WikiLeaks. The following story/information was also reported by New York news radio this evening (WYNS, 1010 "WINS" AM Radio) – quoting another newspaper (London Telegraph, Author: Nile Gardiner) as its source. ( See: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100074846/the-obama-administration-betrays-britain-to-appease-the-russians-over-new-start/) According to these sources:
WikiLeaks is claming/reporting that the U.S. government has agreed to provide nuclear secrets of our long-time ally Great Britain/United Kingdom to Russia in exchange for the Russians ratification of the latest strategic arms limitation/reduction treaty (“New START” between the U.S.A. and the country of Russia). As the U.S. apparently produces missiles for the British nuclear arsenal, it is reported/claimed that the U.S. government would then also provide Russia with quantities and serial numbers of all missiles sold/provided to our British/U.K. allies. Assuming such an agreement has not been blessed by the British/U.K., to provide such information to the Russians would appear as nearly traitorous, in my opinion. The provision of British/U.K. nuclear secrets to the Russians is reported to be a condition of the proposed arms reduction treaty and the provision of such information was required by the Russians in order to agree to any nuclear arms reduction treaty.
Two main issues seem to be at hand. First, quite simply, why is the United States always the one to bend-over-backwards to accommodate and appease the seemingly disinterested Russians? If they don’t also want the treaty or see the treaty to be to their benefit: to hell with them! Then, let there be no treaty! Are our negotiators merely inept and therefore in keeping with the rest of our Federal government? Second, if such reports and claims are true: Regardless of the debatable topics of whether the U.S. has kissed the British backside for too long, regardless of whether the British [or U.K.] Government / crown / bankers have long deceived and possibly denigrated the free peoples of the world, regardless of whether the current U.S. Presidential Administration has a personal axe to grind or family vendetta against the British, and regardless of whether the U.S. wants access to the vast natural resources in Russia as part of this treaty effort, (assuming the U.K. has not blessed such a move to provide such information to the Russians,) to sell-out our long-time and staunch allies in the United Kingdom to effect an arms treaty with Russia seems preposterous and absurd!
The point of this blog, of course, is based on the assumption that the Brits/U.K. government has not approved this offer of information to the Russians to bring the Russians to the bargaining table. However, it would appear doubtful that the Brits/U.K. would bless such a release of nuclear weapons related information to the Russians, either. For if they had, simply, such a leaked story would then be of no real interest to WikiLeaks folks – if WikiLeaks knew one way or the other concerning such a blessing from the Brits.
I understand why the Russians would want information about the British/U.K. stockpile of nuclear weaponry when the Russians are considering agreeing to reductions. However, regarding the apparent sell-out of our long-time allies to our long-time adversaries, I must ask: has the simplistic U.S. government now lost all common sense? Barring British approval, do I really need to explain the apparent implications of selling-out our allies and throwing loyalty to the wind, irrespective of whether such a loyalty possibly has been given too much heed during recent decades? Nevertheless, unless the Brits have already agreed to such terms, to essentially turn on our long time ally would appear unethical, immoral, and surely would reflect a lack of integrity and also display the poor judgment of our American politicians and government agencies – regardless of any noble motivations. Anyone who would look to sell-out our allies and provide British nuclear secrets to the Russians would essentially appear traitorous to the cause of freedom and decency in the world, in my opinion. For example, what does the Russian government historically know or care of any Freedoms?
Furthermore, has the U.S. not always professed its willingness to execute any individual as treasonous for providing secret information to other nations, let alone if such nations were adversarial nations? Is this merely another instance of the U.S. government ‘leading by example’ (sarcasm) and saying “do as I say, not as I do?” As Americans, clearly we seem to be always having to wonder if our politicians and government officials even know the meaning of the words “truthful,” “loyalty,” and “decency” or if they simply don’t care about the meaning of these words (especially the Defense Department and the State Department). If this reportedly leaked story is true, it would appear WikiLeaks is the true hero and maybe we should have WikiLeaks members as our national politicians – at least they appear to be truthful regardless of all else, as WikiLeaks was created in response to an air of deceit continually proliferated by our governments*.
Of course, I have no personal knowledge of whether this story is actually true, or whether there is more to the story than what is currently known to the public or more than what has been surmised by AM Talk Radio personalities in the U.S. (such additional unknown information as the British Government agreeing to these terms and the release of information regarding its nuclear arsenal to the Russians)**. Again, this story is apparently based on the latest/upcoming round of information from internet-based WikiLeaks. If the story is true, thank you to WikiLeaks for providing the populace with truth concerning the actions of our government. If true, WikiLeaks appears to continually reveal the arrogance and simplistic nature of the U.S. government. Currently, I am inclined to believe any information WikiLeaks unearths. If such information is false or WikiLeaks has been intentionally untruthful, well . . ., time will tell.
At this point in time, the only thing I know for sure, and what appears to ring true, is we can’t count on the U.S. government to tell the truth about anything. Now, assuming this story is true, our government would again appear as not truthful to its own allies either. One has to wonder, how long will these same politicians be reelected to ruin everything that was once decent about our nation? If our government officials have unilaterally taken it upon themselves to sell-out our ally, I say, vote all these politicians out of office and dissolve any Federal agencies that would agree to these unilateral terms of screwing our allies – regardless of their motivations!!
Adam Trotter / AVT
* Surely it appears that WikiLeaks always would be advocates for Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, and Freedom of the Press and apparently would be bigger champions for these Rights and Causes than any/most national U.S. politicians of recent decades! WikiLeaks’s founder, in an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” last Sunday, professed that his only additional care was to be truthful. I believed him.
Our politicians, on the other hand, only appear as advocates for any cause when it suits their political need or when such advocacy appears to be of personal benefit to the politician. And, clearly, providing any truth to the American people typically and repeatedly appears as not warranted and inconsequential to our inept national leaders and arrogant government officials!
** Additionally, the majority [but not necessarily all] of the U.S. network broadcast media/press no longer seem to report anything of any real substance to the American people for fear that the American populace will change the television channel or turn off the television once the undesired news is broadcast. Such a mindset seems to reflect the true lack of integrity and arrogance [and/or political leanings] of much of our mainstream press/media: that is, they only really care about making money and do not care about informing the American public of any truth.
Regarding this latest WikiLeaks matter, either the majority of the mainstream American press/media doesn’t believe, doesn’t know, or doesn’t want to inform the populace that our government would apparently sell-out and turn on one of its closest allies.
See also:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-obama-sell-out-our-closest-ally-to-get-new-start/
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/state-department-disputes-report-that-u-s-revealed-british-nuclear-secrets/
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Mayor Bloomberg sends NYC cops to easily buy guns in Phoenix, AZ. I respond with....
February 1, 2011
It has been widely reported today that Mayor Bloomberg sent NYC (?) agents/cops to easily buy guns at a private gun show in Phoenix, AZ. As no one wants to see mentally unbalanced/unstable or potentially violent individuals brandishing firearms, it appears that the Mayor raises a valid concern. However, to make it anymore difficult for law-abiding citizens to acquire/bear defensive weapons which they may require does not appear as the solution to end the proliferation of violent creeps attacking innocents in our society. Although, in the end, if these purchasers of the fire arms were in fact agents for Mayor Bloomberg, we likely can be sure that they were not mentally unbalanced/unstable or potentially violent individuals. For that matter, maybe the individual selling the items in question knew these individuals were acting for Bloomberg and wanted the sale nevertheless. I don’t know as I wasn’t there.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bloomberg/undercover-at-an-arizona_b_816381.html
“Undercover at an Arizona Gun Show,” by Michael R. Bloomberg, May of NYC
108th Mayor of the City of New York
Posted: January 31, 2011 12:47 PM
“...The investigation sought to answer two simple questions:
First, how easy is it to buy a gun without a background check?
It's easy. At the gun show, an investigator bought - with no background check - a Glock… Unfortunately, under current federal laws, that sale was legal.
The second question we ask was would private sellers sell guns to people who said they probably couldn't pass a background check?
Again, the answer was yes. An investigator bought two handguns from two different private sellers, even after they said they probably couldn't pass a background check.
This fits the pattern of illegal activity at gun shows that we uncovered in 2009 - and it's all the more frustrating that it's happening just a little more than a hundred miles away from Tucson. …
…As I said after our first investigation in 2009, the vast majority of gun buyers at gun shows are law abiding citizens. Requiring background checks on all gun sales will not detract from anyone's Second Amendment rights. What it will do is send the message that we're no longer going to make it easy for criminals to get around the law.”
////
I would merely respond with:
What would have surely ended with the beating of another citizen by violent creeps, had he not been armed:
Man, 72, fights back, shoots teens in home invasion
http://www.pnj.com/article/20110130/NEWS01/110130002/Man-72-fights-back-shoots-teens-in-home-invasion
Look..., to be sure..., I would not prefer “…criminals, the mentally ill, and drug abusers to buy guns…” either. In fact, I would prefer no one ever need to turn a gun against another human being. However, it doesn’t appear as though such an idealized world will ever come to fruition in our times. Criminals will always get guns if they so desire. I mean…, merely look at the ‘drug war’ as an example of making something illegal to keep it beyond the reach of the citizenry. We have seen how poorly that worked in end. Therefore, I say to make things more difficult for law-abiding citizens to acquire/bear defensive weapons does not sound like the solution to diminish the number/level of violent creeps/attacks in our society.
Also possibly worth noting:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
See also:
http://adamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2011/01/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-calls-for-tougher.html
It has been widely reported today that Mayor Bloomberg sent NYC (?) agents/cops to easily buy guns at a private gun show in Phoenix, AZ. As no one wants to see mentally unbalanced/unstable or potentially violent individuals brandishing firearms, it appears that the Mayor raises a valid concern. However, to make it anymore difficult for law-abiding citizens to acquire/bear defensive weapons which they may require does not appear as the solution to end the proliferation of violent creeps attacking innocents in our society. Although, in the end, if these purchasers of the fire arms were in fact agents for Mayor Bloomberg, we likely can be sure that they were not mentally unbalanced/unstable or potentially violent individuals. For that matter, maybe the individual selling the items in question knew these individuals were acting for Bloomberg and wanted the sale nevertheless. I don’t know as I wasn’t there.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bloomberg/undercover-at-an-arizona_b_816381.html
“Undercover at an Arizona Gun Show,” by Michael R. Bloomberg, May of NYC
108th Mayor of the City of New York
Posted: January 31, 2011 12:47 PM
“...The investigation sought to answer two simple questions:
First, how easy is it to buy a gun without a background check?
It's easy. At the gun show, an investigator bought - with no background check - a Glock… Unfortunately, under current federal laws, that sale was legal.
The second question we ask was would private sellers sell guns to people who said they probably couldn't pass a background check?
Again, the answer was yes. An investigator bought two handguns from two different private sellers, even after they said they probably couldn't pass a background check.
This fits the pattern of illegal activity at gun shows that we uncovered in 2009 - and it's all the more frustrating that it's happening just a little more than a hundred miles away from Tucson. …
…As I said after our first investigation in 2009, the vast majority of gun buyers at gun shows are law abiding citizens. Requiring background checks on all gun sales will not detract from anyone's Second Amendment rights. What it will do is send the message that we're no longer going to make it easy for criminals to get around the law.”
////
I would merely respond with:
What would have surely ended with the beating of another citizen by violent creeps, had he not been armed:
Man, 72, fights back, shoots teens in home invasion
http://www.pnj.com/article/20110130/NEWS01/110130002/Man-72-fights-back-shoots-teens-in-home-invasion
Look..., to be sure..., I would not prefer “…criminals, the mentally ill, and drug abusers to buy guns…” either. In fact, I would prefer no one ever need to turn a gun against another human being. However, it doesn’t appear as though such an idealized world will ever come to fruition in our times. Criminals will always get guns if they so desire. I mean…, merely look at the ‘drug war’ as an example of making something illegal to keep it beyond the reach of the citizenry. We have seen how poorly that worked in end. Therefore, I say to make things more difficult for law-abiding citizens to acquire/bear defensive weapons does not sound like the solution to diminish the number/level of violent creeps/attacks in our society.
Also possibly worth noting:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
See also:
http://adamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2011/01/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-calls-for-tougher.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)