Penalty For Disobeying Federal ‘Commands’ Should NOT Be Death

There he stood at a press conference. Big man. Federal employee. FBI Special Agent in Charge Greg Bretzing looked into the camera and said, “Actions have consequences.” As if that justified the killing of LaVoy Finicum at the hands of the Oregon State Police in a confrontation which the FBI orchestrated and could reasonably foresee would end the way it did.

If LaVoy Finicum had been a black teen in a hoodie, the media would be all over it.

Instead, he was a mature white Arizona rancher who—like many of us in the West—was tired of federal hegemony over our land and was willing to risk his life, his treasure and his sacred honor to do something about it.

You know, like those 56 angry white guys in 1776.

Maybe he was misguided. Maybe he wasn’t.

But, apparently, white rancher lives matter a lot less to the FBI and the Department of Justice than do black lives belonging to looters—or the Al Sharptons of the world.

Agent Bretzing appears to have no idea of the consequences the actions of his little band of shooters will have.

Causes need martyrs.

LaVoy Finicum just became one. In fact, he may well have become the perfect martyr. He told NBC on video before it happened that he had a good life and was unafraid to die for his cause.

He also was the father of 11, a foster father over the years to 50 troubled boys…in general not what you think of when you think of an “armed militia member.” Or, for that matter, someone who came to Ferguson, Missouri, to riot and loot.

He was just a tough old coot who believed that the Federal Government had vastly overreached in the West and needed to have its pervasive influence reduced. And, unlike Cliven Bundy—who was not a media poster boy for land rights—he had the appeal of someone with the ability to charm the media.

The truth about law enforcement is that much of it sees things in black and white.

If a person is violating a law—any law—then they are subject to the wrath of government-sanctioned guns at the complete discretion—or lack of it—of those wielding those guns.

Now, to some extent, law enforcement is important. Within reason, it is one of the few things we all agree that government is and actually should be responsible for.

We expect it to be there when mobsters are stealing us blind in New York and Chicago. We expect it to be there when gang-bangers are shooting up the streets of East Los Angeles or the Strip in Las Vegas.

We also expect there to be a proportionate response to, say, a traffic stop. Or an act of civil disobedience. We sort of learned proportionate response in Birmingham, Al., in the 60s from black and white films of Sheriff Bull Connor’s dogs attacking demonstrators.

Unfortunately, many times we get neither—but we do get a lot of rage from some quarters in law enforcement when they are criticized.

I’ll grant you that it is a difficult job, made more so by an “us vs. them” attitude cultivated by much of law enforcement over the years.

Actions do indeed have consequences. So do attitudes.

This nation does not—and cannot—depend solely on law enforcement to keep us safe. You cannot put a cop on every corner—or every Federal wildlife preserve. It takes voluntary compliance from a citizenry which has a basic respect for the law.

And, the occasional burst of civil disobedience to help put a bad law away.

That respect for the system has to be earned BY the system.

FBI Special Agent in Charge Greg Bretzing may well have set that respect back 30 years with his flip recital of what we all know to be true, which was clearly intended to minimize the consequences resulting from a complete mishandling of peaceful civil disobedience.

The idea that a government employee can shoot you dead because you do not follow his “commands” doesn’t sit well with us in the West, where we, also, carry guns.

It’s not like Finicum was knocking over a liquor store in East LA with a gun, or selling drugs in Chicago for the Sinaloa cartel.

He was protesting Federal hegemony over Western land.

And the sentence for that should probably not be death.

Despite Iowa, Trump Could Easily Be Next Reagan

If any one thing has become obvious in this past week, it is that Donald Trump most certainly can get elected president. He lost to Ted Cruz in Iowa by only a scant number of votes, and got seven delegates to Cruz’s eight. While the media is making huge hay, this should be a wake-up call to a giant. Let’s see what happens in New Hampshire.

Most certainly, he would do a better job representing the interests of the average guy (and gal) than anybody who has been there since Ronald Reagan.

Now the first thing that some of those establishment “conservatives” will howl is: how can you invoke the name Reagan in the same breath with the name Trump?

Apparently, those faux conservatives (National Review, Rich Lowry, I’m talking about you and your fellow clowns) don’t know or can’t read much history.

They like to think of Reagan coming out of his mother’s womb in Tampico, Illinois, as the perfect conservative.

It is doubtful that he thought those great thoughts when he was the President of the Screen Actors Guild and a Democrat. Which he was, for a great portion of his life.

So why can that transition happen to Reagan but not Trump?

Frankly, I think that the Republican establishment is much more interested in being important and being paid well for their “wisdom” than actually solving the problems created by eight years of liberals being enabled by establishment Republicans like themselves.

Let’s do this:

Instead of talking about the downside of a Donald Trump presidency, let’s imagine what he might do.

He can’t be bought, and he doesn’t need the job.

That means he is immune to the Wall Street lobby which convinced the establishment that they were too big and important to fail. My guess? If Goldman Sachs gets into the same situation they were in back during 2008, they will be in Chapter 11 and deservedly so. I could not imagine any truly independent businessman like Trump bailing out an insurer (AIG) which wrote bad insurance policies which were knowingly bought by investment banks to cover bets against an economy they created.

The Bush and Obama administrations never really understood what happened.

I can guarantee you that Trump did.

A lot of problems in government are created by bad hiring. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry as Secretaries of State come to mind. Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff. Have I made my point yet? If you are Barack Obama and you hire someone for an important job for whatever the reason, and it doesn’t work out, the taxpayers get healthcare.gov. Or Lois Lerner at the IRS. Or a dead Ambassador to Libya. Or the crazy ayatollahs in Iran with a nuclear weapon.

You don’t get to be worth $10 billion (with a B) by hiring stiffs like the ones I mentioned above. And Trump didn’t.

He understands how to hire top talent. And, as President, he would have his pick of the best.

You probably cannot run government—which is not supposed to make money—exactly like a business. But you can run it by using business-like principals. The way things are now, government doesn’t have any incentive to serve its customers well unless there is someone in charge who is not afraid to say, “You’re fired.” Trump has done that. Both on and off TV.

I’ve always said about Barack Obama that his politics were not the worst part of his administration.

It is his level of incompetence.

Competence is much more important in a leader than a particular political persuasion.

That said, it would be nice to have a leader who is not only competent but understands how the real world works.

Trump has been tested time and again in the real world and has passed those tests with flying colors. With very few exceptions, the rest of the people on the stage seeking the job are professionals at telling you what you want to hear and then doing as they please when they get elected.

The first time they fool us, shame on them. In most cases, that’s already happened.

But we now know what they will do. Why give them another chance to do it to us? At least at a time when we have a better choice?

It’s highly unlikely that Trump could do any worse than the professional politicians, and there is a pretty good chance he could be the next Ronald Reagan.

Given the situation our country is in, we need to hire the best guy for the job–and that would appear to be Trump.

Houston: The New San Francisco

I’ve been in the journalism business for almost my entire life.

I have never seen a travesty like the Harris County, Texas, grand jury’s indictment of the two people who made the undercover videos showing the baby killers at Planned Parenthood selling dead baby body parts on tape. I have to wonder if the result would have been the same had they been a crew from CBS doing a story on white cops shooting black kids.

They cleared Planned Parenthood, but indicted the undercover journalists on FELONY charges for 1) using fake California drivers’ licenses for ID, and 2) offering to buy the dead baby parts.

Even in Houston, Texas, the home of Enron, those charges are going nowhere. In fact, the Governor and the Attorney General are still investigating Planned Parenthood; and now, they can investigate the Harris County District Attorney. Who knew that Houston was auditioning to be the new San Francisco.

Reminds me of a line from a Doonesbury cartoon from a Texas courtroom.

“That’s two seeds.  He must be a dealer.”

Rambo, Liberal Dems Hate Middle Class Independence: First You Must Kiss Their…Rings

I was in a Chicago suburb last week, heading into our radio station, WCGO (1590 on your radio dial. How’s that for a shameless plug?), when I heard on a competitor that Rahm Emanuel (“never let a serious crisis go to waste…”) had declared war on Airbnb.

If you don’t travel a lot, Airbnb is a web site which matches travelers with people who want to rent rooms in their houses–or their whole house.

It’s a lot like Uber in that it pairs willing buyers with willing sellers and facilitates the transactions.

As luck would have it, I was staying in an Airbnb rental in Evanston because I had a sackful of a certain high-priced hotel with two trees in the logo in a nearby suburb and have no problem staying with a willing host for one third the price.

Rambo doesn’t like the idea of anybody making some money without his taxes and regulations in the middle. Or, to quote Ronald Wilson Reagan:

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

He said that at a White House conference on, get this, small business, almost 30 years ago.

Rambo and his ilk…read: Barack, Hillary and every other liberal member of the Democrat party who has ever pushed a government to the bring of bankruptcy…have no clue how regular people think because their American Express bills are paid by us, the taxpayers. WE are THEIR ATM.

But let some little guy try and make a few bucks with his or her hard-won real estate, and he wants more regulations and more money from them for the same reason a dog can lick his genitals…because he can.

While Rambo was doing this, he was also dealing with the fact that the Chicago Public School system is so broke that the State of Illinois—which is just as broke—is considering a hostile takeover, and the words “Chapter 9 bankruptcy” are being whispered in some quarters. He’s also busy dealing with the recently uncovered emails showing that it was his administration which played a large part in covering up the existence of a pretty damning video of a policeman murdering a teen in the street.

But, by God, he’s got time to go after some folks who want to make a little extra money renting out their properties to short-term visitors and taking the attendant risks involved in being in business.

It’s not enough that these folks pay real estate taxes.

It’s not enough that Airbnb clearly says on its own web site:

Guests who book Airbnb listings that are located in the State of Illinois will pay the following taxes as part of their reservation:

Illinois Hotel Operators Occupation Tax: 5.98-6.17% of the listing price including any cleaning fee for reservations 29 nights and shorter. For detailed information, visit tax.Illinois.gov.

Guests who book Airbnb listings that are located in Chicago, IL will pay the following taxes as part of their reservation:

Chicago Hotel Accommodation Tax: 4.5% of the listing price including any cleaning fee for reservations 29 nights and shorter. For detailed information, visitCityofChicago.org.

Other Taxes administered by the State of Illinois: 5.73% of the listing price including any cleaning fee for reservations 29 nights and shorter. For detailed information, visit tax.Illinois.gov.

No, you must first kiss Rambo’s ring or his butt, whichever you see first.

Why do you suppose that is?

Well, perhaps it would be wise for the United States Attorney in Chicago to ask about what might have motivated the city to invest $55-million of taxpayers’ resources in a new Marriott as part of the new DePaul University basketball arena complex. And how one of his top campaign donors, Kenneth Griffin, knew to have his hedge fund, Citadel Advisors, buy lots of Marriott stock in the year leading up to that decision.

It’s possible, of course, that is all purely a coincidence.

It’s also possible that winged pigs will be flying a shuttle between O’Hare airport and Reagan National in Washington. But not likely. Especially in view of the fact that a former top Citadel executive is now Chicago’s comptroller by Rambo’s grace.

No, this is clearly a shot over the bow of any competition for the hotel business in Chicago with which Rambo has a very cozy relationship.

It won’t work.

First of all, Richard J. Daley is no longer with us–and Rambo is no Richard J. Daley.

Secondly, trying to stop companies like Ebay, Uber, Airbnb and other market disrupters is the equivalent of trying to stop a locomotive by standing in front of it.

If those companies don’t run over him, the voters will.

Ask Donald Trump. Trump is where he is because the voters have had enough of the Rambos of the world.

Trump Will Beat Hillary Like Ali Beat Liston

I don’t know how to gently or subtly say what most thinking people have come around to believing, so I’ll just say it like we would in a locker room.

Hillary Clinton is a feckless, lying, incompetent hag and is also, perhaps, criminally liable for her actions as the Secretary of State, both in general and surrounding Benghazi.

How’s that for laying it out?

She seems to believe, somehow, that the Presidency is owed to her and that she is actually qualified to do the job because of her past experience.

The more we look at her tenure as our worst President’s international mouthpiece, the more it appears that she is woefully lacking in any real experience or leadership. She has always just been along for the ride.

In the past, we’ve always given her the benefit of the doubt, a pass if you will.

But as her secstate conduct comes out via her forced email dump, it is becoming obvious that she cares not one whit for the laws of this nation unless she can use them to her advantage, for the people of this nation unless she can use them to her advantage, or the government of this nation unless she can use it to her advantage.

In short, she’s just like the putz we have in that office now; and a first term for her would be, in essence, a third term for him.

The upside here is that she and her ilk actually think she will beat Donald Trump in a general election.

The reason Trump is ahead is that the average voter is livid at the performance of people like Hillary and other insiders who use our government and political system like an ATM.

If she gets the nomination, and Trump gets the GOP nod, the first debate will be better than the first Ali-Liston fight in 1965. For those of you who were not alive and/or are not fight fans, that was when Cassius Clay (who later became Muhammad Ali) danced all around the slow, plodding but hard-punching Sonny Liston until Liston quit in the seventh round.

All Trump will be lacking is Howard Cosell in the broadcast booth.

Hillary will stick to being the candy lady, giving away free stuff; and Trump will stick to the reason he’s the GOP choice. The fans…ummm, voters…will have a stark choice between someone who has never had an original idea in her life and someone who created a huge empire and did it by solving problems pragmatically. A contrast between someone who has adopted every politically correct shibboleth of every group of purported victims and someone who says exactly what he is thinking no matter who it might offend.

The moment which will take Hillary out of the fight will be when Trump reviews her record as Secretary of State and then asks, “Who do you want negotiating on your behalf? Her or me?”

And her secstate record is a killer.

It’s obvious that she was only too willing to join the Obamaite lie about a YouTube video being the cause of Benghazi as opposed to the truth, which was that she got her rather ample behind handed to her by radical Islam once again. At the expense of American lives which did NOT have to be lost.

All that because the narrative wouldn’t fit the Obama re-election narrative.

People like that don’t deserve to be elected to any office, much less the highest in the land.

They deserve to be prosecuted.

If we had a less feckless administration, she would be, just like others have been for far less serious transgressions.

It is my hope that Hillary gets the Democrat nomination so she can take the beating that Ali administered to Liston in 1965. She deserves nothing less.