Obama and Hillary Clinton; Conman/ Con- Woman, Incompetent and Fascists

The following is a response to pair of liberal letters to the editor, this one from the elitists;
 The first;  A revelation from the current election campaign has been generally overlooked. For a democracy to succeed, its citizens have to be well educated, and in particular develop the ability of critical thinking, distinguishing facts from fiction. The fact that millions of our citizens can be deceived by a presidential candidate who is a con artist underscores the failure of our educational system.

The definition of a conman is someone that promises one thing and delivers either something else, something inferior or nothing. Considering Obama failed to follow through with any of his campaign promises and knowingly lied to the American People about his now failing government control of medical care in the US, Obama is certainly one of the biggest conman that has ever been. With Hillary being a congenital liar and ready to continue the Obama juggernaut, in she wins the presidency we will be replacing a conman for a con-woman. While Trump has tweeted some questionable facts, if he did not live up to his agreements, he would not have been so successful; this is what happens in the real world. If you are not dependable you will fail. In politics, being undependable to the people is sometimes a prerequisite, where lies are called having misspoke, or as Hillary said when called on not being a victim of sniper fire, "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement". WHAT? Being undependable is especially important when you are a Democrat promising more than one can ever deliver. With all his faults, Trump is not a politician and actually knows that the people want, rather than the likes of the Democrats telling the people they are too stupid for self government, so the government must ignore the will of the people, as Americans need to be coerced to give up their indivual rights, their culture, their love of country, their borders, their sovereignty and their right to self government, all in the name of globalism, as we bow to world governance. To paraphrase Harry Truman, Trump may be a son of a bit@h, but he's the peoples son of a bit@h, and not part of the political elite that wants to put an end to American exceptionalism.

The second is a liberal ignoring his own progressive embrace fascism, while falsely accusing him of the same, as he also demonizes Trump for his lack of political correctness;  If Trump represents anything it is Fascism, misogyny, sexism, triteness, immaturity and a total lack of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US and the effect US policy has on the world. If that is what half of the US voters support then we are like Germany in the early 1930's and will suffer the consequences of our ignorance.

If any politician represents, "fascism, misogyny, sexism, triteness, immaturity and a total lack of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US and the effect US policy has on the world", it is the Obama, the Democrats and Hillary Clinton. By all measures Hillary is an elitist, who not only "lack(s) of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US", the evidence is she really doesn't care. The world is a much more dangerous place than it was 8 years ago, the result of Obama's incompetence. But his incompetence is a globalist agenda driven, while Hillary's incompetence continues to be driven corruption, with her seemingly unending need for wealth and power. It's interesting to note that Hillary rarely runs on her record as a senator and Sec. Of State, but rather demonizes Trump lack of political correctness, calling out his supposed xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, and Islamophobia.

Most toss the word "fascism" around without really knowing what it means; it is not Nazism. Fascism is a close relationship between the government and the means of production. Benito Mussolini, considered one of the great socialist writers, saw fascism as a method to give an economic generator to socialism (nationalization of the means of production usually failed to produce national wealth, becasue the government had taken over as was trying to run the means of production ie manufacturing, even though they had no expertise or experience in production. Fascism allows the original non-government entities with expertise to remain running the means of production, but maintains control through regulations). We already see that Hillary has accepted millions from the corporate America, and there is little doubt their "donations" will be returned 10 fold.

Fascism also needs a strike force to respond to those that threaten the government and/or their control of the means of production. Prior to Obama the US did not have a civilian national security force, but now we do with the huge expanse of Homeland Security; "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." - Barack Obama So Obama has laid down the framework with back office deals and numerous regulations, both designed to remove impediments to production while maintaining control of the economy.

The question is not will US voters vote to support an oppressive government, instead the question is will US voters continue to allow the growth of oppression that has been but in overdrive by Obama and will no doubt be continued by Hillary Clinton.

When the People Ignore the Law

A ban on the future sale of Semi-Automatic Mag Fed Rifles (SAMFR), would have no affect on public safety; even if it actually stopped the citizenry from accruing these rifles, and a terrorist was locked into using only a SAMFR, there would still be 3-4 million SAMFR available to buy, beg, borrow or steal. Further thousands of these rifles are bought by law enforcement every year, and as we have seen in Salinas, stealing weapons from the police continues to be a big problem; and of course the elephant in the room is the 2nd Amendment. If we want to stop the violence we need to concentrate on the criminals and terrorists, not guns. As mention France has strict assault rifle possession bands, but that didn't stop the massacres on French soil. The Administration needs to get serious about protecting the us from Islamic Terrorism. Instead DHS has orders not to concentrate on Muslims and a prohibition of investigating mosques, unless a member ask them to. The result is the the US did a good job of identifying suspected terrorist, but were stopped from maintaining their investigation becasue of political correctness.

But there is a larger issue; and that is current owners of SAMFR and magazines that carry more than 10 rounds have simply decided not to comply with these anti-gun laws. Connecticut instituted mandatory registration for SAMFR, compliance was less than 5% and it was also discovered law enforcement officers were the main culprit. Los Angeles and Colorado instituted a law that forbid hi-capacity magazine ownership, compliance in Colorado was less than 5 % and in Los Angeles it was 0%. In a Democracy, the vast majority of the people need to voluntarily comply with the laws (punishment is only meant for the less 1% that are sociopaths). If not, a large section of the population will ignore the law, the result of which is devastating to a representative government.
So what are we fighting for? Let our country's investigative agencies do their job! Don't tie their hands with rules of engagement based on political correctness! The anti-gun zealots tell us he have a gun violence epidemic, when gun violence has been on a decline since the 1970 (50%). The fact that SAMFR continue to be the least used firearm in criminal activity should be a clue that those calling for their ban are not doing so to increase public safety.