Update no.757

Update from the Heartland

No.757

13.6.16 – 19.6.16

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- The shooter in the Pulse attack last weekend [756] may have alleged affiliation with ISIL and Islamo-fascism, but such statements may have been lame justification for his internal rage, hatred and homophobia.  As we learn more, he gave seriously conflicted statements that strongly suggest he was not truly a jihadi, but rather an angry man looking for an excuse to ‘prove his manhood and worthiness (in his mind).’  The more we learn, the more this appears as a hate crime, rather than a dedicated Islamo-fascist attack.

            He successfully passed numerous background checks.  Yet, such background checks search for criminal records or activities, and terrorist activities.  They do not search for homophobia or hatred toward non-heterosexual citizens.

            Then, President Obama asked: “Why does this keep happening?”

Answer (should be): “Because Mister President, we ignore and will do nothing about mentally ill or violence-prone people in our midst.”

            I return to my suggestion of a service similar to what I call the social police – in between law enforcement and social service workers.  We need a system of mental health (violence behavior) triage that enables and allows progressively more comprehensive scrutiny and intervention short of our current threshold of law enforcement.  As we are learning, the FBI did not find anything verging on illegal (prosecutable) or worthy of protracted surveillance or investigation (probable cause).  I will argue there were plenty of clues that would prompt the “social police” to collect public information and at least open a file of intelligence collection and build a picture.  He apparently did not cross the threshold for prosecution (other than beat his wives, which he had absolutely no right to do), but there was certainly enough clues to build a picture of him as a disturbed man with potential for violence.  It was not sufficient to deny him weapons, but it should have been sufficient to make him aware his actions are being watched carefully.  In the weeks before the massacre, such a picture should have been sufficient to assign surveillance and dig deeper.

-- Egyptian officials announced the recovery of the EgyptAir Flight 804 (MS804)[753], Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR) from the sea floor.  Initial reports indicate the devices were damaged, but should be readable.  The next important step will be the determination of data retrieval and readability.  We might begin receiving information from the two devices any day, now, but such information may take several weeks or months, depending on what the investigators find.  With guarded optimism, I suspect they will sort this one out in comparatively short order, now that they have the FDR and CVR devices.

-- A recent Patriot Post image seemed quite appropriate given out current debate topic [756].

“If a gun ban would stop shootings . . .
then, wouldn’t a terrorism ban stop acts of terrorism?”

I could not have said it better.

            On Tuesday, the President and the presumptive nominees engaged in rather heated exchanges in the aftermath of the Pulse attack in Orlando.  I go directly to the point.  President Obama and Secretary Clinton were spot on the money.  The words of the Republican presumptive nominee were ill informed, emotionally charged, and other than that, they are categorically wrong.  Further, accusing or even implying the President of the United States supported or enabled the Orlando shooter is so far beyond the realm of outrageous to be indescribable.

            I note a very rare event in the assassination of Helen Joanne ‘Jo’ Cox, née Leadbeater, 42, Member of Parliament for Batley and Spen.  She was fatally shot and stabbed after a campaign event in the village of Birstall, West Yorkshire, England.  Cox was a rising star in the opposition Labour Party and a proponent for rejecting Brexit – the referendum vote scheduled for next week – Thursday, 23^rd of June – Britain’s exit from the European Union.  Police arrested Thomas A. ‘Tommy’ Mair, 52, of Birstall, reportedly a former psychiatric patient, with some indications of affiliation with an American white supremacy group – National Alliance – and a pro-apartheid group in South Africa.  At his arraignment on Saturday, Mair gave his name as “death to traitors, freedom for Britain.”  He appears to be one of the crazies that slipped through the cracks.  May God rest her immortal soul.

            Not that it matters a hoot what I think . . . if I was a British citizen, I would follow the wisdom of Sir Winston Churchill, who advocated for a United States of Europe beginning in 1946, with threads of his thoughts on the topic reaching back at least into his Wilderness Years.  I would vote against Brexit.  Good luck to our British cousins.  Vote well!

            News from the economic front:

-- The Federal Reserve decided to hold its benchmark-lending rate unchanged and lowered their forecast for expected increases to its short-term interest rates in the coming years.  They cited persistently slow economic growth and low inflation for forcing the central bank to back off its planned rate increases.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.756:

“You really should research ‘the rest of the story’ concerning the judge in the Trump University case, his family connections to Mexican interests, etc.  There is much more to Trump's attitude about this judge, who if the information I have heard is correct should have recused himself.  As a former trial judge, I am sensitive to the need for judges, even lifetime appointed federal judges, to recuse themselves when their own backgrounds and family activities might suggest bias or an appearance of impropriety.  Of course, justified attitude is one thing; I agree that Trump should not have said what he did the way he said it.  However, their is plenty of information to suggest that that judge should not be hearing the case.”

My reply:

            Re: “the rest of the story.”  That admonition can be leveled anytime you wish.  There is never enough time or capacity.  I am not a journalist or investigative reporter.  I am a simple citizen, doing the best I can, with a handful of competing projects.

            Re: the judge.  I suspect the accusations against the judge are bogus, but I cannot prove a negative.  Nonetheless, or should I say regardless, there is a judicial process that has been established law for decades, if not centuries, to deal with a biased judge.  The bottom line: I do not care whether or how compromised the judge may be; that is irrelevant in my opinion.  The Republican presumptive nominee was wrong on many levels and for a myriad of reasons, and then his grotesquely inflated ego drove him to double down with his “He’s Mexican.  I’m building a wall.”  [FYI: The judge is American, and he cannot build a border wall; only Congress can.]  What is more telling here, his own attorneys saw no reason to take pre-emptive action against the judge.  So, in this, we shall respectfully disagree.

            If your opinion is correct, why haven’t his attorneys filed the proper legal motions to remove the judge?

 . . . Round two:

“Good question!  There are some possible answers, but if you really have not heard of any of the reasons why Trump is concerned about this judge, I am very surprised.  As you note, of course, the important point for ‘Nevertrumpers’ is not the facts about the judge but Trump's comments, which bother me almost as much as you.

“As a matter of law, it is initially and always the primary responsibility of the judge to sense, note, and act upon appearances of impropriety and possible reasons for recusal, especially in a high profile case where the reputation of the Court (I don't mean the judge.) is at stake along with the interests of the parties and the potential for public outrage over perceived judicial bias.  Many lawyers are hesitant to suggest that a trial judge has not properly evaluated the facts relevant to recusal, for simple habitual fear of aggravating the judge and somehow prejudicing their client's chances.  Personally I was always open to motions for recusal, and only once was my refusal to recuse ever appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.  In that one case my decision was affirmed, but it bought more than a year of time for the lawyers.  In many other cases, motions to recuse are a delay tactic, used when lawyers are no longer concerned about offending because the problem really is that they are not confident in their case.

“There may be other reasons why Trump's lawyers have not moved for recusal.

“We certainly agree on the inappropriateness of Trump's remarks and the puzzling and foolish ‘out of context’ defense he raised when criticized, but at least you have to admit that he is consistent in his non-politician unguarded carelessness of speech!”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            I certainly respect your service as a judge.  Thank you for your experience and insight.

            Careless speech is one thing for you or me, as private citizens; it is something altogether different and orders of magnitude more dangerous and threatening for a presidential candidate.  The litigiousness of that man is disturbing, independent of everything else.  There are people far wealthier than him, who are rarely, if ever, involved in legal action.  His conduct, demeanor, character and actions are common to a bully; he uses the legal system (which is his right) to intimidate, bludgeon and marginalize anyone he disagrees with or dislikes.  That seems to be a fatal flaw for a commander-in-chief.

 . . . Round three:

“Hard to disagree with your evaluation of careless speech, except perhaps for the ‘fatal’ part of your well articulated opinion.

“I truly believe that another Clinton (Obama) 8 years will bring the end of our democratic republic which began accelerating in the past 20 years or so, primarily because of the gutless Repandercrats  in congress and Hillary's assured left wing Supreme Court for another generation.”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            Re: “fatal.”  My comparison in last week’s Update was the “fatal” reference . . . in that, many people will die to serve his ego, if he became commander-in-chief.

            Re: Clinton.  Her positives are barely greater than her negatives, but at least there is a positive net.  The inverse is true for the Republican presumptive nominee, except the margin to the negative is far greater.

Comment to the Blog:

“Senator Clinton is the presumptive and presumptuous Democratic nominee. The Clinton campaign’s history of premature celebration supports a reminder here that the FBI has not finished with her. If that nomination prevails, I and others are done with the Democrats. Theirs has been the most openly corrupt primary process I have ever seen. President Nixon’s Watergate transgressions are looking relatively minor in comparison.

“The Green Party’s nominee will almost certainly be Dr. Jill Stein. I was not aware of the Constitution Party. In how many states have they achieved ballot status?

“I will listen to the Libertarian Party’s nominee, assuming his history does not contradict his words. The Libertarians certainly have a different viewpoint from what remains of the Republicans, and what you stated about keeping the government out of people’s private lives resonates with me. However, I fear the Libertarians would allow corporate entities so much freedom as to further harm most Americans.

“I will note that you did not say whether your ‘items of counsel’ in alleged rape cases were provided to the accused, the accusers, or both. The accusers need to know that drunkenness or drug use does not excuse their actions.

“I tire of the description of any and all mass homicides as ‘terrorist’ attacks. The ease of acquiring and operating these weapons made the horror in Orlando possible, regardless of motivation. I will spare your readers the intent and wording of the Second Amendment because I am morally certain they don’t care, but at some point we must consider international relations. As long as we continue to prove daily how barbaric our nation has become, the rest of the world will see that. Who can respect a government that lets these multiple murders continue?”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: Democrats.  Well, with one major distinction . . . what Nixon did was felonious on multiple levels.  To my knowledge, Hillary has complied with the law . . . as it stands today.  So, if there is any wrong-doing, I would say Congress has failed to pass appropriate laws to avoid the alleged corruption.

            Re: Green Party.  I suspect you are correct, but their nominating process is far less publicized . . . thus my statement.  To my knowledge, the Green Party candidate will be listed in at least 36 states; FYI, Kansas is one of those states.

            Re: Libertarian candidate.  Gary Johnson is not a particularly articulate public speaker, but he does have a resonant message.

            Re: “items of counsel.”  Those items were provided at special disciplinary sessions and at new student orientation.  The alleged perpetrators (when identified) received a far more pointed counsel along the lines of we know what you did and we will be watching you.  All students were repeatedly informed that intoxication by any substance by any means for any reason will never be accepted as an excuse for bad behavior.

            Re: mass homicides.  Good point, actually.  In fact, I have already begun writing about the Orlando event in this week’s Update.  As more information becomes publicly available, it is looking progressively more like a hate crime rather than a terrorist event.  The ‘perp’s’ Islamo-fascist claims were contradictive and not particularly well informed . . . as if he cited his affiliation with ISIL as justification for his violence, rather than his true homophobic hatred.  His father’s post-events comments are quite telling to me.

            Re: “Who can respect a government that lets these multiple murders continue?”  Unless we are prepared to accept “Minority Report” thought-based, pre-emptive, governmental interdiction prior to crimes being committed, we will suffer these events.  Mateen passed multiple background checks.  It was not like he was an invisible unknown.  The authorities had recorded glimpses of his violence, but I suspect they were looking for the wrong form of hatred; they were looking for Islamo-fascist leanings or potential, and he appears to be far more homophobic than jihadi.  Also, the various governmental databases are not connected.

 . . . Round two:

“Well, no, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have made strong efforts to reform the campaign finance laws.  We have set the fox to ‘guard’ the henhouse, and it's not working. My opinion stands. After corruption need not be illegal when the corrupt gain power.

“I am quite aware of the Green Party's efforts to get on state ballots. You mentioned a Constitution Party with which I am not familiar. Have they achieved enough ballot access to have a chance at the Presidency? If so, where can I find further information?

“Thank you for clarifying the items of counsel.

“Regardless of your argument, the U.S. has lost a great deal of respect worldwide by allowing large numbers of mass murders to continue unchecked. Perhaps we could study the example of Australia, which is hardly the totalitarian nation that Fox News and others claim to fear becoming. They had a mass murder twenty years ago and promptly banned assault weapons. Their mass murders ended. In this context, it might be helpful if our government databases were connected, but there are problems with that idea. Why not do what has already worked in a fairly similar nation and situation?”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Re: campaign finance laws.  We are in complete agreement.  The obscene corruption of money in politics has got to stop.

            Re: Constitution Party (formerly U.S. Taxpayers Party).  Frankly, I would classify these folks as a fringe party.  My understanding is they will be on at least 26 state ballots, including Kansas (to my knowledge, no confirmation, yet).  It is not a party I find much (if any) affinity with for a host of reasons.

            You are welcome.

            Re: mass murders.  There are a variety of thoughts here.  Bottom line: we shall respectfully disagree.  As I have long argued, an inanimate object cannot fire itself; it takes a deranged person, who does not respect other human beings, to kill.  These weapons are NOT assault rifles; they look like assault rifles.  They are incapable of automatic fire – a requirement for an assault rifle.  Our emotional response to these horrific events are quite like the temperance movement of the 19th century, i.e., ban an activity for everyone because of the bad actions of a few.  I’m in favor of studying other countries like England, Australia, Japan, et cetera, but I would prefer we go far deeper than the symptoms, i.e., how do they treat mental illness, how do they triage mental illness, how do they find mentally ill or violence-prone people before they can act?  We must focus on the human beings who do these things . . . not some inanimate weapon.  Lastly, I share your apprehension regarding the linkage of governmental databases.  It is the logical thing to do, but the potential for abuse is enormous.  I could support such linkage as long as there is a transparent means of appeal and reconciliation.  To my understanding, it is easy to put someone on the list; it is not so easy to remove them in cases of wrongful identification.  Names are not sufficient . . . too many Smiths and Joneses.

 . . . Round three:

“Having considered the argument for trying to control ‘deranged’ persons versus a more general system of registration and exclusions for firearm ownership for the years we have been discussing this, we shall indeed continue to disagree. Reasonably reliable detection of the few potential homicidal mass murderers among the many mentally ill people (and the undetected mentally ill) has yet to become possible and may never happen. Certainly not here, where Congress frequently reduces funding for any mental illness cause. I doubt you will find that capability in England, Australia, Japan or elsewhere.

“However, other nations do regulate firearms and explosives, and they have far lower rates of death from those sources. The mass killer in Norway, Anders Breivik, went to the trouble of international travel seeking weapons and of starting a corporation to obtain the agricultural chemicals for his bomb. Everything he obtained for his particular rampage involved permits--some of which were refused--and at one point he was on a watch list for terrorists. (He was dropped because he was not a terrorist.) My point? It's far more difficult to commit mass homicide or any other firearm homicide in the rest of the developed world. Their homicide rates are far lower.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            As I have written, I could support a more aggressive and thorough background check process, if there is a concomitant process of appeal and reconciliation for erroneous, abusive or collateral usage of such information.  Without those safeguards in place before our privacy is compromised further, I suspect there will be broad resistance.  I do agree with Hillary, if you are considered unsafe to fly, then you are unsafe to own or buy a firearm of any kind.

Another contribution:

“We’re all appalled by yet another shooting in your ‘grand republic.’ When will your people bin the 2nd amendment- when will the gun lobby stop supporting this endless bloodlust and behave as the civilised nation that you are? I know it’s nothing to do with us on this side of the pond and I expect you might tell me so. But Cap it has to end. The innocent are suffering, not those who pose as the macho gun tooting individuals who roam your republic with killer weapons ready to use in ‘self-defence’. You’ve had a child killed playing in the car with his father’s pistol, you’ve had church and school shootings and you have ignored the pleas of your president to take the action required. Come on America get into the 21st century, you’re not at war, you do not have to defend your state, you have highly trained professionals to do that. You do not need a well-regulated militia- you do not have to defend your state.

“The U.S. people must learn to live without weapons of death at arm’s length. Both you and I have carried and been responsible for weapons of death and I shudder at the thought of carrying a loaded weapon without a reason or without an enemy. Do we think the same?”

My reply:

            Re: “Do we think the same?”  In this instance, no, we do not, I’m sorry to say, my friend.  The gun violence issue in the United States is a complex matter that goes back to the days even before the Revolution.  King George III had as much to do with the genesis of the Second Amendment to the Constitution as Native Americans did at the time.  More to follow.

            Re: “When will your people bin the 2^nd amendment?”  I cannot imagine that day.  The Second Amendment is so deeply interwoven into the tapestry that is this Grand Republic.  To be frank and candid, I hope and expect that day will never come.

            Re: “when will the gun lobby stop supporting this endless bloodlust and behave as the civilised nation that you are?”  To be direct, the gun lobby is not and does not support “endless bloodlust,” any more than a rifle or pistol can fire itself.  With events like Orlando, we need to be very careful not to ascribe criminal accusation to a broad population for the demented actions of an individual.  It is the same as what the Republican presumptive nominee is saying today in demonizing Muslims, because the shooter was an American citizen of Afghan (legal) immigrant parents and at least a nominal believer of Islam.

            Re: “you’re not at war.”  Well, actually, we are at war.  I have consistently argued that the War of Islamo-fascism has been on-going since . . . well . . . I could peg the date at 1968, 1972, 1979, 1988, 1993, 1998, or 2001 . . . or a myriad of other dates.  Your country was attacked by the same Islamo-fascists in 2005 and 2007.  The Security Service thwarted a major attack(s) by Islamo-fascists in 2006.  What does it take to be considered at war?

            Lastly, as I said at the outset, the firearm issue in this Grand Republic goes back to pre-Revolution days and involves many aspects and elements of history, society, culture and frankly emotions.  I wrote two relevant essays a few years back that might be useful.

“THOUGHTS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT” [2.August.2000] –
http://www.parlier.com/essay-3.html - second

“CHILDREN and GUNS” [17.May.2001] –
http://www.parlier.com/essay-6.html - guns

The vast majority of citizens in this Grand Republic do not carry firearms on the streets or even have them at arm’s length at home.  I have no idea how many citizens or households have firearms, which is part of the point.

            I certainly appreciate the culture in England.  Jeanne, the kids and I truly enjoyed our time in your fair country.  In an idealistic sense, I admire the paucity of violence and crime in your country.  Unfortunately, your history and ours are different.  This Grand Republic cannot and will not be defined by a few obscene acts by bad people or mentally disturbed individuals; we are far bigger than those horrendous events.  I am far more concerned with our abysmal triage and treatment of mental illness and our enforcement of existing laws.  I inherently seek the root cause and corrective action(s) against those causes – an inanimate firearm is NOT a root cause; it is at best a symptom.  Can our laws be improved, yes; however, our fundamental fear of government leads us to a “give them an inch, they’ll take a mile” mentality and distrust of government.

 . . . Round two:

“Indeed when I wrote my views I knew I was ‘stirring the pot’ somewhat. I also knew that my totally English opinions would clash somewhat. However the world, not just us English looks on with dismay and concern for what is seen as a love of killer weapons.

At war.-  I say you are not at - you maintain you are. My view of war is when your country is threatened with an enemy who proposes total domination of your society, I would not class the struggle against neo-fascism as ‘war’. Yes it is an evil that needs defeating and one that we must aggregate our efforts against.

“Cap, it’s like any temptation that you put in front of people, be it drugs, alcohol, sex, firearms, eventually someone, be they a child, a terrorist, or criminal will submit to that temptation. The only solution, and you will not like this is my friend, is that apart from licenced firing ranges to totally ban all firearms nationally.

However I appreciate your ‘historical’ points and I know how embedded in your society your constitutional 2^nd amendment is.

“These are my views Cap, probably, I would venture to suggest, the views of many others.

“I have long admired your President’s rejected efforts at some form of gun control and shudder to think what your Republican front runner might do should he succeed to power.

“‘We have exchanged views for some years and at last we have a dissimilarity of views-we should sit down with a pint of something and chew this one over.’”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            Many Americans agree with you, including many who read and participate in the Update.  While there are some who would qualify for “love of killer weapons,” I believe most Americans who own firearms do not have a love for those weapons; they view them as necessities, valuable tools, should the need arise.  The police cannot be everywhere, all the time.  And, let us never forget, the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible, peace-loving, respectful, law-abiding citizens, who have no intention of harming another soul.  We are talking about penalizing everyone for the malignant actions of a very few disturbed individuals.

            Even by your definition of war, I believe we are at war.  I am puzzled as to what reasoning leads you to believe we are not at war?

            Ownership of firearms is largely, if not totally, a private matter.  Where firearms enter the public domain, the government has a responsibility to regulate public conduct for the general welfare.  Prohibition of private affairs, be it “drugs, alcohol, sex, firearms,” et cetera, will never work in a free society, as such prohibition demands the government enter the private domain and thus compromise a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.  Again, government does have a responsibility to regulate public conduct, where private matters intersect the public domain, i.e., quality / dosage of psychotropic substances, health & protection of sex workers, use of firearms, et cetera.

            Thank you for offering your perspective.  These issues are never easy.  I wish the whole world was a peaceful, respectful, law-abiding community and thus firearms (or weapons) of any kind would not be necessary.  Unfortunately, there are bad men in this world who are neither peaceful, respectful nor abiding of any known law, including Islam Sharia.

 . . . Round three:

“Cap, good evening-we must stop meeting like this!

“Yes that’s where I have the problem-seeing a firearm as a necessity. I suppose because in our land anyone with a firearm needs authorisation a mile long with the final signature from the police. I know because I have certified the original application-it’s a mind blowing experience I assure you. This includes inspecting the secure case where the weapon will be stored. And that’s only for shot guns used for rat/rabbit hunting. I assume you must have a similar requirement.

“However, at war.

“Of course I understand where and why you are basing your thoughts. My experiences of ‘war’ include the end of the 2nd. World war, air raids  in my childhood home at Canterbury, air raid shelters, broken glass and relatives who we never saw again and the GIs driving their wagons of war to the south coast past our garden for D day landings. These early life experiences of course have been compounded by the utter unbelievable life devastation evidence of the graves where yours and our brave young soldiers and airman lie in Flanders fields. These experiences together with service visits to North Africa where so many of our soldiers died fighting Rommel’s army have communicated to me exactly what war is. And later my memories of loading weapons that even now I cannot talk about. This is ‘war’.

“Indeed my friend we wish the world was a totally peaceful place where our children could go peacefully about their business, but that is not the case. And then I see your point of view, they must be protected from the scum who lurk amongst us. I cannot call that war in the sense that I perceive it to be.”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            Re: firearm application.  I do not know about the application process in the UK, and I have not bought a firearm in quite some time now.  That said, I believe the difference in governmental oversight is, in UK the government decides if your reason to possess a firearm is worthy, whereas in the US, the government reviews if there is a reason not to approve the purchase.

            Re: war.  I understand and respect your experience with war.  What you did not answer was, why doesn’t the present war qualify as a war by your definition?

            Part of the problem in this Grand Republic rests upon our abysmal identification, triage, treatment and follow-up with mentally ill or violence-prone citizens.  The vast majority of these mass shooters are mentally ill, if not clinically certifiable, and we do NOTHING.  The Pulse shooter fits that profile; there were signs.  Perhaps the worst example is the Sandy Hook shooter.  His mother tried repeatedly to find help in treating her son, who she knew was deeply mentally ill; no help available.  We know the result.

 . . . Round four:

“Your question brings a great conundrum attached-when is war not war?

“Are we attaching this word to subjects that do not justify this word? For example so many subjects are described as ‘war’ here’s only a few- ‘war against child poverty’, war against ‘litter dropping’, war against almost any campaign dreamt up by those who believe they are doing right.

“Plainly these examples and others are not ‘war’ as I have suggested to you earlier. Do we need another English word that correctly describes these ‘crusades’. There’s a possibility for a start.”

 . . . my reply to round four:

            I trust it was a fitting tribute to your Burma Star veteran.  That was a particularly tough fight – very thin forces in an inhospitable environment, intimidating terrain, against a determined & fanatical enemy.

            Ahso, I think I understand the context of your resistance to the use of the word ‘war.’  My favorite topic example to fit your resistance is the “war on drugs.”  It might as well be war on wind or the sun; we have sacrificed enormously for nothing – absolutely nothing, other than abridgement of our freedom.  War implies mobilization to face a common foe.  Except in my instances of usage, we are talking about an enemy with a near fanatical commitment to killing our citizens, to imposing their beliefs, values, practices and way of life on everyone, and literally kill everyone who does not embrace their beliefs.  I see very little difference between Nazism, fascism and now Islamo-fascist groups like ISIL, al-Qa’ida, Taliban, et cetera; they all seek domination of everyone with their particular ideology.

            I am quite reticent to use the word ‘crusade’ in the current instance.  The Crusades in the classic sense involved our ancestors a millennium ago seeking to take and hold the holy land in Christian hands, to remove Muslims from Jerusalem and Palestine.  I am not aware of any motivation to take and hold any land, anywhere today.  I believe we are helping local Muslims, who seek peace, to rid themselves of a violent, oppressive faction among them, predominately because that faction has chosen to export their violence to our countries and our citizens.

One more contribution:

“Your insights and opinions are always appreciated (as are everyone's).  Your thoughtfulness too is of value.

“Congratulations on your upcoming new book!!!  I will look forward to purchasing it wherever available.

“As many as my good friends are into Donald Trump, I am not at all.  At times I found him entertaining and sort of liked how he was stirring the pot of the establishment politics (and fixtures), but you are pretty much spot-on with your comments on Trump.  He reminds me of a 'spoiler' to the Republicans, which could allow Hillary the shoe-in.  Ross Perot and that great "sucking sound" comes to mind.

“As mentioned before on Trump, I find his archetype dangerous and especially dangerous when compared to Putin, though the news media is reporting Putin seems to respect Trump more than Obama.

“On the shooting in Orlando, it was interesting that just the previous night, just miles away from the mass-shooting Sunday, a popular social-media and The Voice singer Christina Grimmie was executed in cold blood, as she signed autographs.  It appears it was a targeted killing, possibly because she was self-proclaimed as a strong Christian.  But I am not sure I buy that.  I tend to think as the investigation continues, we'll discover the gunman who took his own life after being tackled by the singer's brother, was another celebrity obsessed fan.

“On the shooting at the nightclub, a very tragic time for all those involved, and as well our nation.  I am though concerned as someone supportive of our U.S. Constitution, that many politicians will use the capital of the tragedy (and/or MEME), as a method to further their agenda on breaching the 2nd and 1st Amendments (ranked in the order I see the attacks on them [gun control then free speech]).  I also believe due to the for-public information that this was possibly an ISIS sympathizer or another radicalized rabid Muslim, the need for further surveillance and intrusion into the common person's privacy, is going to be further ramped-up.  One question we have is if the perp was twice interviewed by FBI for possible connections to terrorist networks, and possibly on a ‘watch list’, why was he purportedly still working for G4S (Formerly Wackenhut), in a security function, and then of course do our gun laws properly protect us if someone suspected of being terrorist sympathizers, get relatively easy access to guns like an AR-15?

“I also am concerned that if you look at France, they are still in a national emergency security state from their last attacks, and as such, has allowed France to squash protests unrelated to any terrorist attacks or true threat to government.  Will many of Western countries go into perpetual emergency states with no expected return to normalcy?  Just like the FOREVER WARS, are we approaching the FOREVER RED ALERT?  See this:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/24/france-new-emergency-powers-threaten-rights”

My response:

            I’ll have an announcement when the book is available.  Thank you for your interest.

            As more than a few supporters of the Republican presumptive nominee have stated, they are angry at the state of politics and the dysfunction of government, and they are so angry they are attracted to anyone who they believe will shake things up in Washington.  I’m angry, too.  I have been for quite some time.  I’m just not that angry to resort to a candidate with such enormous character flaws.

            Yeah, dictators tend to respect other dictators.

            Indeed, the Pulse event heavily overshadowed the Grimmie assassination.  We have heard a lot about the Pulse shooter, but virtually nothing about the Grimmie shooter.  I suspect the Grimmie shooter is probably similar to John Lennon’s assassin – mentally ill and fixated.

            I share your apprehension regarding the emotional response to the Pulse tragedy.  Frankly, I agree with Hillary; if you are not safe to fly, you are not safe to buy a firearm.  Linkage of governmental databases is a logical move, but before we take that step, I want to see a transparent appeals process in place to deal with erroneous or abusive entries, or inappropriate collateral usage.  Further, we need to understand the threshold criteria for entry.  If I visit a jihadi website for research, does that singular action put me on a watch list?  We must be VERY careful how we proceed.  At the bottom line, I cannot and will not support a blanket ban of weapons that look like assault rifles (BTW, they are NOT actually assault rifles – no automatic capability).

            Re: emergency powers.  We are in complete agreement.  My meter of disturbance moves closer to the peg with each day.  The potential for abuse is immeasurable.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                 :-)