WHAT HAPPENED TO DETROIT?

Or, Voting With Their Wallets

No news here for my regular readers, but on the off chance that other morbid curiosity types happen along, let your Ostrich Killer make the Detroit bankruptcy simple to understand.

In 1907 or so the Detroit population broke through the 700,000 mark.  It became the nation's 4th largest city.  In 1960 or thereabouts it had the highest per capita income of any major metropolitan area in the US.  Its population topped 1.8 million.  Life was good.

Public sector unions negotiated for and got bigger pensions, better free health care, and more employees.  The pensions were massive, and instead of putting actual money aside, Detroit put IOUs into those pensions.  They didn't have the cash.  Some took notice of this, and it troubled them.

Motor city unions - UAW and others - negotiated for and got similar, or better, contracts.  And IOUs into their pension plans.  

Taxes went up to try to find money to pay for public expenses, many of which were 'pet' projects.  Bonds (IOUs) were sold.  

Law enforcement became a target for expense-cutters.  So did surface infrastructure.  Unions continued to negotiate for, and get, ever better pension plans - or, more accurately, even more IOUs.  

Intelligent people and successful entrepreneurs of any type living there saw the hand writing on the wall, and left with their bank accounts and businesses.  

People with money saw the ever tightening grip Detroit was taking on their wallets, and they too left.

Today Detroit is below 700,000 population again.  A 911 call average response time nationwide is 8 minutes.  In Detroit it is 57 minutes.  40% of Detroit street lights don't work.  These stats are directly from the governor's endorsement of the bankruptcy filing.

1.1 million people fled with their wallets and businesses.

Oh - those IOUs? Probably will be redeemed for pennies on the dollar, if at all.

This is a tragedy, but it can all be traced back to liberal policies.  Tax x and spend 3x.  Give-away programs.  Unions and the cowardly businesses who refused to say NO to them.

Rush Limbaugh said it well: "the parasites outgrew their host."

Predictable.  Stay tuned for Chicago, California, and many other historically liberal bastion cities and states.  And when that happens, remember that your Ostrich Killer was not the first to predict it.  All those people who voted with their wallets also predicted it.

Where do you live?  Take a look around you.  Think about your wallet.  If you don't like what you see, then cast your eyes to states like those in the midwest.  Texas.  The Dakotas.  South Carolina too.  Other 'right to work' states.  It's your wallet.  Take care of it for your family's sake.

All You Need To Know About Trayvon

What's all the fuss about?

A common-variety street thug jumped the wrong guy and got justifiably capped for it.  End of story.

Except for two things:  he was black, and the guy he jumped wasn't.

What difference does that make, you logically and correctly ask? Well, apparently to the race-baiters like Sharpton and others, and many of the network so-called "news" anchors, the killing of a common-variety black street thug in self-defense is not news if the killer is also black.  It's only news if the killer is NOT black.

It also appears not to matter what sort of violent mischief the street thug was up to.  Far better, to these race-baiters, that Zimmerman had been killed instead.  He isn't black, after all.  Unless you're black, you simply can't kill a black, no matter what he was up to.

Let's leave aside the "quality of human being" issue for now, other than observing that the human race as a whole is better off that Zimmerman survived and Trayvon is now eligible for a Darwin award.  Let's ask the question:  why is it not news when a black kills a black or anyone else, but it's cause for riot when a non-black kills a black?

It's about money.  Networks sell more advertising by stirring up - or inciting - news.  It looks suspiciously like they'd like to see Zimmerman killed violently, because that would sell even more advertising for the necessary round-the-clock coverage.  Race-baiters like Sharpton raise more money from the black and wannabe black racist communities by fanning the flames of racial (black on non-black) hatred.

The corpse of Trayvon is being leveraged for cash flow.

And that's all you need to know.

But stay tuned to see what the black Attorney General and the black President try to do.  You can bet there'll be something. You've probably already seen headlines about "civil rights" investigations.  After all, you simply can't kill a black if you're not black.  Not and walk around freely.  No, sir.  Not in this country. Not on their watch.

Your color-blind but clear-seeing Ostrich Killer is now ready for another cup of coffee.

Left Brain, Right Brain

An Anecdote

The other day your favorite Ostrich Killer attended a small, intimate concert held in a local music store.  The musician played guitar and sang.  He was exactly one day younger than I.  You'd have thought we would have hit it off.

His presentation was a memoir of his own life (I can barely tolerate memoirs,) his mother, his nanny, his father to whom he referred with both disdain and charity, and Texans to whom he referred with less charity.  Then he decided to explain to the assembled listeners his thinking about politics, world hunger, religion, the nature of love, and left brain and right brain people after first making sure we all understood that he considered himself a right brainer.

Right brainers, he implied strongly, are artistic and left brainers are thinkers and therefore not artistic, are indeed the trouble with the world and the source of all mankind's strife and suffering.  We, the captive audience, sat there and, glancing around, I saw that most of us were smiling and nodding knowingly.  Apparently most of us were right brainers.

Left brainers, according to our right brained entertainer, have few significant artistic skills because they are naturally inclined to think about things, instead of expressing artistically.  A left brainer's thinking abilities are unsuited to learning art, even should a left brainer wish to.  Art and rationality are, it would appear, too different to coexist inside the same head.

On the way home this began to amuse me.  Here was a self-proclaimed right brainer telling us that left brainers - thinkers - were incapable of art because they think.  So, I thought (sorry, a left brainer sort thing), is a right brainer incapable of thinking because they do art?  If a thinker can't do art, what makes a right brainer decide he can think and figure things out?  And if a right brainer is as incapable of thinking as a left brainer is of art, why should any of us care what a right brainer has to say?

 The obvious answer is that we shouldn't.  A more subtle answer is that no two people have identical art / rationality mixes inside them, and that rationality is more likely an aid to artistic expression than a hindrance.  The inverse, though, especially to people like our concert entertainer who think in either/ors, is unlikely to be true.

As Barbara Streisand has been told many times, "Shut up and sing."  
  

A SPEECH YOU WON''T HEAR FROM OBAMA

My Fellow Americans,

The Benghazi fiasco happened on my watch.

The IRS targeting of conservative groups, pro-Life groups, global warming skeptics and others happened on my watch.

The Department of Justice has bugged the telephone and other communication lines of the Associated Press, and that happened on my watch.

One of my predecessors, Mr. Nixon, resigned when confronted with the Watergate affair, where some hotel and meeting rooms belonging to the Democratic party were bugged.  And then, when discovered, he attempted to cover it up.

That was a far lesser breach of the public trust than the three breaches I mentioned above.

I was tried, and found wanting.

Mr. Nixon recognized what a man of honor must do, and set the example that I now must follow.

Effective Monday I will resign as President of these United States.  The Vice President, Joe Biden, will be your president for the remainder of my term.

Good night, and Godspeed.

BENGHAZI

It Isn't Complicated

Skipping all the lead-up pleas for more security, let's just look at what went on, and why, once the embassy reported being under terrorist attack on September 11, 2012.

The State Department was notified.  So was Obama. A quick evaluation within Hillary's State Department made the obvious leap to the understanding that since Obama was campaigning on how he had Al Qaeda on the run, this wouldn't look good for him.  Worse, since embassies such as the one in Benghazi are an extension of the State Department, admitting that there was no security for the Benghazi embassy would look very bad for Hillary.

I can't prove it, but even a numbskull would have to realize Obama was told both of the above.  He is Commander in Chief, after all, and it's his job to be brought into the situation.  Only he could issue a 'Stand Down' order to the military, which had standing Rules of Engagement covering embassy protection.  Then he disappeared for seven hours.  No one has come forward to tell the world where he was.  Seven hours is enough time for a couple quick rounds of golf.  He is a 16 handicapper, after all.  In the meantime and in his absence the State Department concocted bogus talking points - not those provided by the CIA, which were professional and factual - and came up with the You Tube video story we've all heard about.  Which was also bogus.

The story they decided to stick to was that this was a spontaneous outrage protest over that video, instead of what it really was: an Al Qaeda attack of a US embassy on September 11.  The story was concocted as damage control for Obama's re-election effort, and to preserve Hillary's viability for a presidential run in 2016.  The military was not called in to help because that would be an admission that the situation was an actual attack, not just a protest.

It worked for Obama, but it probably won't work for Hillary.

That's all there is to it.  They went into spin and cover-up mode, instead of rescue the people mode.  Four died as a result.  Lies, in  other words, cost four American lives, and no one has stepped up and credibly claimed responsibility.  Plain and simple.  

Now, don't try holding your breath until Obama tells the world where he was in those missing 7 hours, and provides absolute proof.  He lay doggo so that no decision about the embassy could be traced back to him.  You may have noticed that this president never knows a thing about anything, that he hears about it on the news just like you do.

Look around you.  More than half of the people in your field of view voted for him.  Twice.  Some of them several times.  Is there any hope for this country? 

CLOSE TAX LOOPHOLES

A Good Idea, Right?

We hear it all the time: "Close Tax Loopholes!"  There's even an apparently anonymous campaign urging just that, right here in my own state.

Most people nod their heads in agreement with that sentiment.  After all, it would be only fair, right?

Not so fast.  Before we can close a tax loophole, we have to know what a loophole is.

Easy, some people think.  A loophole is any legal way to avoid paying taxes.

Okay, let's examine that.  Let's say that you own a home - or, more accurately, own a home mortgage.  You pay $$$$ every month on that mortgage.  Most of that money goes toward the interest you have to pay, and the rest against the principal of the loan.  Luckily, though, you get to deduct the interest you pay every year - or, to be exactly correct, you get to deduct your tax bracket's worth of that interest - when you file your taxes.

By our definition, that's a loophole.  Should we close it?

No?  Then we need to re-define the word 'loophole.'  Either that, or change our objective to something like "Close SOME tax loopholes."

Now that's something your Ostrich Killer can get behind.  I want to close all those loopholes that don't benefit me.  And there, o gentle reader, is the rub.  That's what EVERYONE who says 'Close Tax Loopholes' wants.

Which 'loopholes' benefit me?  Any loophole that drives down the cost of goods and services does.  For example, Big Oil gets exploration cost deductions.  If they didn't get those, the cost at the fuel pump would be higher.  Anything made of plastic would cost more.  Small businesses get to deduct much of their start-up costs.  If they didn't, many of them wouldn't start up.  If they didn't start up, their goods and services wouldn't be available to me. 

Here's a loophole I could close happily:  the dependent child deduction on personal income taxes.  All my children are grown, so I don't have that deduction available to me.  So you shouldn't either.  It would only be fair, after all.

Back to that campaign in my own state.  Those road-side signs also say "Put our families and kids first."  Not sure how closing loopholes helps families and kids, but I can guess that means removing loopholes from business taxes.  What happens if we do that?  The businesses will be faced with suddenly far less profit.  What do you think they'll do about that?  Pick one or more of the below:

1. Raise prices.
2. Reduce overhead and number of employees.
3. Go out of business.
4. Move to another state- Texas? - or country.

Will families and kids benefit from any of those outcomes?

The point to be taken is that loopholes are often necessary.  Think of them as tax incentives, meant to encourage certain kinds of fiscal behavior.  Without them, or at least some of them, that behavior would not be readily undertaken.  In most cases those tax incentives were written into law ON PURPOSE to encourage that sort of fiscal behavior.

So to put families and kids first, it would be prudent to think twice about closing tax loopholes.

This has been a public service announcement by your Ostrich Killer.  

You're welcome.  Now down to the boat.

Twentieth Century Biggest Killers

Name The Top 4, if you can.

Right about now you're thinking someone like Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson, or some other similarly deranged and disgusting sub-human.

But you'd be wrong.  You have to think bigger.  Much bigger.

Let's start the list with the biggest killer of all, according to accepted research, and work our way down.

1.  Mao tse Tung  -  China  -  70 million in various purges, exterminations, etc.
2.  Rachel Carson  -  America -  50 million, give or take a few tens of millions, through publishing a fantasy and false alarm.  Her fantasy is still killing millions, with no end in sight.
3.  Joseph Stalin  -  Soviet Union  -  30 million in various purges and exterminations.
4.  Adolph Hitler  -  Germany  -  10- 15 million through purges, exterminations, cleansings, etc.

Of the above 4 above, only one is still killing.  She's long dead, of course, but her work is still killing.

What else do the above have in common?  Christianity, or more properly the lack of it.  None of the above had any significant connection to any mainstream religion, much less Christianity.

Other things we can learn from Rachel Carson:
1.  Words kill.
2.  Governments won't act to correct an obvious wrong, out of fear of being thought badly of by envirowackos and other uninformed do-gooders.  Including, and especially, the United States government.  No matter the consequences of continuing that wrong.  PC, political expediency and faux science win over clarity of thought and action based on actual science.

All of us should be - there has to be a word stronger than 'ashamed' to express it.  Worse, most of us are unaware of what Rachel Carson has done - all with the best of intentions, of course - results don't matter, only intentions do if you're an envirowacko / progressive - and, in fact, most of us probably saw her name in the above list and immediately thought "Who?"

I need another cup of coffee.

Wargaming Global Warming

The Oceans will Rise.  So What?

The eco-alarmists among us would have us believe that global warming exists, and that it is caused by man burning stuff.  While your Ostrich Killer is agnostic about global warming, and a 'denyer' about man's activities being a significant contributor, let's pretend that those Chicken Littles are correct.  So what?

So what?  So what, you ask?  Won't the seas rise a couple feet over the next century or so as polar ice melts?  Won't millions of people living on the coasts flail about in the suddenly high water?  

No.  Oh, the seas would rise, all right.  But not over night.  They will rise minutely each year.  And each year, as coastal communities continue to build and evolve, those that build will build high enough away from the actual coastline that their structures are safe.  The sea will gradually reclaim the existing shorelines and create new ones.  The shapes of those new shorelines will be different than the existing shorelines.  So will the shapes of the coastal communities.  This rise in the oceans will be, for all intents and purposes, unnoticed and unfelt.

So no need to panic.  You don't need to wear a life preserver when you go to bed.

But even better news: we seem to be in a cooling period, not a warming period.  So if you lose sleep over the size of the arctic ice packs, you can sleep easy.  If you worry about the shape of the existing coastlines, you can sleep easy.  On the other hand, if you were hoping you wouldn't have to keep heating your home into the month of May, I'm afraid you're out of luck.

And now for some coffee.  

IF WE CAN SAVE EVEN ONE CHILD'S LIFE

Then We Should Do It

That's what Obama said when he gave is speech kicking off his assault on the Second Amendment.

Do you agree with him?

If so, then the below information might be helpful in focusing your attention on the Obamacure (the cure Obama would push, using his gun control logic.)

Annual Child Deaths in US by Cause (recent data rounded off to nearest 100, as reported):

Gun-related:  1500.  Two thirds are drug or suicide related.  ObamaCure: No guns.  Partial cure: no drugs.
Car crashes:  1500.  ObamaCure:  Make it illegal for kids to ride in motor vehicles.
Drownings:      900.  ObamaCure:  Make it illegal for children to be allowed near water of any sort.
Animal Attack:  30.  ObamaCure:   Round up all animals.
Horse Riding:    23.  Data from Alberta, BC.  Scale up for yourself.  ObamaCure: Confiscate horses.

The American KGB

It looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck . . .

First, let's make sure you know what the KGB was.  Back in the Soviet Union days, the KGB was the internal police ('Committee for State Security') for the Soviet Union.  They rounded up offensive people, tortured and executed them as needed.  They served the Soviet government as a stability tool.

In the United States, the military is prohibited from carrying out such actions by the 18th Amendment.

So we're safe, right?

The DHS (Department of Homeland Security) has acquired 2 billion rounds of military small arms ammo (about 30 years' worth for a Vietnam - level conflict) and ordered 2700 mine-resistant armored vehicles.  

What for?

The DHS 'agents' aren't bound by the 18th Amendment.  Thirteen years ago - well before the 9/11 attacks, which were used as an excuse to create the DHS - your Ostrich Killer wrote a prediction that such an agency would inevitably be formed.  I called it the Bureau of Internal Stability, but what's in a name?  It's the intent that matters.

Wait, you say.  The DHS is for anti-terrorism.  Yes, that may have been what we were all told at the time, but all that ammo, those armored vehicles - what terrorist threat are they arming themselves for?

Your Ostrich Killer will now go out on a limb and answer that the arms and equipment are for use against a revolutionary citizenry, since the Federal armed forces cannot be used for that purpose.  The DHS is an analog to the KGB: a tool to help maintain internal stability.  Simple as that.  It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck.  It's a duck, genus KGB. It may be a kinder and gentler KGB - that remains to be seen - but it's a duck nonetheless.

Our elected officials see a revolution coming.  They are preparing.  Are you?  Or are the blinders still firmly attached?

Farewell, Maggie

Adieu to a Heroine

The twentieth century saw Great Britain produce three prime ministers of note:  First, there was Neville Chamberlain, who eventually resigned in dishonor and disgrace, although he and his country both put a different face on it at the time.  His limp-wristed appeasements to the Nazis at the infamous Munich conference was a major encouragement to Hitler to assume Great Britain would not interfere with his plans of conquest.  That encouragement may have been the final necessary catalyst to kick off World War 2.

Next came Winston Churchill, who took over from Neville Chamberlain the disarray of both the office of Prime Minister and the English war effort.  History tells us that this man may have been the most inspired and doggedly persevering of all English leaders in the last four hundred years.  You'll find his name on any list of the Top Five leaders of the 20th Century.

Finally, there was Margaret Thatcher, or just plain Maggie.  Her accomplishments were massive and jaw-drop amazing.  She made decisions based on principle instead of politics, brought England back from the brink of abject socialism and economic ruin, and returned the Falkland Islands to the British after Argentina so stupidly captured them.  The Argentinans made the same mistake about her that the Nazis made about Churchill - they seriously underestimated resolve.  Now we see endless 'news' footage of the human debris of England carrying signs reading such hateful things as 'The witch is dead' and other disgusting symbols of their delight over her death.

Why are they rejoicing?  Because she made these scum choose starvation or work when she was Prime Minister.  This vermin preferred sitting on their asses and smoking dope to being productive in both personal and societal contexts.  They liked being paid to do nothing, much the same as the typical Obama voter does. Sadly, Maggie's efforts were magnificent only in the short run, as England is once more paying more and more people to do less and less.

She'll be missed by all of us who were there, watching and learning, as she kept Great Britain afloat and proud on her watch.

Will there ever be another team like Reagan and Thatcher?  One can only hope, but the prospects don't look good.

Farewell, Baroness Thatcher.

RE-PURPOSING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR GUN OWNERS

Or, the Goose / Gander Model

Never let it be said that your kinder, gentler Ostrich Killer is not interested in re-purposing to save money.

With that caveat in mind, let's explore (briefly) the concept of background checks for all gun buyers.  Ignoring the logistical and financial burdens of tens of millions of such checks, the setting of criteria of who is disqualified for gun ownership can also be applied to other disqualifications.

Voting, for example.

Citizen Jones fails a background check for gun ownership?  Then Jones' name is automatically removed from voter registration lists and 'flagged' to alert officials that re-registration is to be denied.

Background checks for gun buyers is supposed to make us all safer.

What could be deadlier than a mentally or criminally inferior voter population in the general electorate?  Look what they got us the last two elections.

Okay, okay.  I take that back.  I shouldn't have called all those voters mentally or criminally inferior.  My apologies to those voters, although none of them read this blog.  Most of those voters are just rationally challenged - either too uninformed or lazy to do the thinking necessary to cast a responsible vote. 

It's early yet.  Back to the coffee pot.

Trading Away Your Freedom is STUPID

Or, Welcome to the Gun Owner's Black Market

Yes, gentle readers, when the law is passed to require background checks on all gun purchases, there will be a de facto gun registry put in place.  Every gun purchased by a law-abiding citizen will be known about by your benevolent government.  All the information on those background checks will be placed into databases.  This, we are told, will prevent school shootings.

Does that mean that if there had been a background check that the Connecticut shooting wouldn't have taken place?

No.  It would have had no effect.  The gun owner was the perp's mother.  She had the guns legally.  He killed her, stole her guns, and took them to school.  No amount of background checks would have prevented this.

The proposed legislation isn't about safety.  Or preventing crime - after all, criminals won't submit themselves to such background checks.  For that matter, neither will American patriots.  To the left and their enablers of course, the terms American Patriot and criminal are synonyms.

Which brings us to the question: who has the most to fear from an armed and anonymous citizenry?

Your Ostrich Killer contends that your government does.  Which is why they want background checks - so that they will know where the guns are, so they can confiscate them before a revolution gets a good start.  The history of the 20th Century is rife with countries that have imposed such registration, only to then confiscate the guns and then decimate the citizen population afterward.  Twenty or more millions died because they were 'purged,' something that would have been more difficult for their executioners to accomplish had the citizenry been able to legally own guns.

So what can you do to stop this background check legislation?  Probably not a lot.  You've surely noticed a shortage of brains up on capitol hill, and that most of those with brains won't really listen to you.  But you have a civic duty to try.  So contact your representatives and senators, and tell them not to sign on to such legislation.

I doubt that will work, but you have to give it a try.  It's the right thing to do.  You could send a link to this blog to your rep, and let him / her know you agree with its general tone and will remember his / her vote on this issue come next election.

What's the right thing to do should such legislation pass?

An American will refuse to buy guns on the retail market, nor will they transfer them with the required paperwork.  They will do their gun trading on the black market.  The underground.  Cash or barter.  Your Ostrich Killer, should he wish to buy a gun after the passage of such legislation, will become a criminal under the proposed laws.  I don't worry a lot about that, as I will have the better part of 100,000,000 like-thinking patriots for company.  I don't think even the US has jail space for a small fraction of that number.

Will you be in that company of patriots?  Or are you content to prostrate yourself before your government and say to them 'do with me as you will, I trust you?'

Google this saying:  A people that will trade freedom for safety will wind up with neither.  That has been shown time and again throughout history to be absolutely true.  As you will discover, a lot of different people have said basically the same thing.  And they were all right.

". . . the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  That's a direct lift from the Second Amendment, written in pretty plain English.  Is a national background check and its associated databases an infringement?

You bet it is.  It requires government permission for you to exercise your Constitutional right.  When permission is required, it is no longer a right, it is a government - granted permit.  The Constitution exists to define our INDIVIDUAL rights, and SPECIFICALLY forbids government to interfere with them.

Did you know that?  If not, read the Constitution complete sometime.  It's pretty short, about one cup of coffee's length.

WHEN IS IT TIME FOR THE REVOLUTION?

Speaking hypothetically, of course

How will YOU know it's time to get involved in the next American Revolution?

It's coming.  Question is, when and what will be the catalyst for it.

What's YOUR catalyst?  Here are some possibilities:

1.  When you see that the Supreme Court has abandoned the Constitution.
2.  When the 'checks and balances' of a divided government fail to check and balance, and instead become enablers of an imperial presidency.
3.  When you, as a law-abiding citizen, are made into a criminal by Executive Order.
4.  When the country's security from foreign enemies is endangered by unilateral disarmament.
5.  When you can no longer travel even in the US without scrutiny and being tracked.  
6.  When foreign enemies have already attacked and occupied the US.
7.  When the government takes more of your money than you keep?

Any of the above important enough for you to put on your boots and get busy?  If not, what would it take?

Just wondering.  Aren't you?

Stock Market Price - Cause for Celebration?

The Dow Jones Price versus its Value

In October of 2007 the Dow Jones climbed above 14,000.  Since then it's been below that.  Except for today, when it again went above 14,000.  The Major Media had orgasms.  Proof of recovery, they all said.  Business on the rebound.  A triumph of Obamanomics.

Really?

A 2007 dollar is $1.14 today.  What that means is, for the Dow Jones to be of equal value to what it was in October of 2007, it would have to exceed 16,000.

Still a ways to go.  Don't hold your breath.  In the meantime, remember that price is not the same as value.  The value of a 14,000 DOW today is actually 12,281 in 2007 terms, even though its price is 14,000.  You're paying more for less, in other words.

Put that Champagne back in its bottle.  

IMPEACH OBAMA

For Crimes and Misdemeanors

A sitting president can only be impeached for committing crimes and / or misdemeanors.  Obama has stated he will not comply with a law requiring him to furnish his budget plan to Congress by a date certain.  Read more here.

Your ostrich killer thinks that refusing to comply with the law is a crime.  Ergo, Obama is about to commit a crime.

When he does, impeach him.  Rid the country of this oppressive, intrusive, destructive imperial ruler.

The Monitored Society

Your Privacy - NOT!

Do you have a cell phone? A tablet?  Any other app-running device?  If so, you have no privacy.  Here's how you can confirm that for yourself.

When you install a new app, one of the things it does is inform you what permissions and access the app uses on your device.  Some of the permissions and accesses I've seen include:
1. Access to your contacts list.
2. Permission to email / txt names on your contact list, using YOUR name.
3. Read the contents of your txt and email messages.
4. Listen to your voice conversations.
5. View and monitor your video chats.
6. View and copy your pictures.
7. Track your movements.
8. Turn on your device cameras at any time they choose.
9. Turn on your device microphone any time they choose.
10. The ability to modify, add to, copy or delete files from your personal storage.

And others.  Turning your device 'off' will not interfere with any of the above.  Only removing the device battery will prevent monitoring.  - - But Wait!  Have you ever tried to remove the battery from your tablet device?  Can you?

No problem, you say.  You'll just send sensitive messages through the US Mail.  Okay, that might be more secure than using a cell phone, but the US Postal Service has devices that read hand writing.  How do you suppose they sort all that mail, after all?  So each piece of mail is automatically scanned for destination and return addresses, and entered into a database.  Before long the US Postal service has your 'contact' list.  You can combat this by not using a return address.  That's still legal.  I think.

A couple paragraphs earlier you probably snorted and said something about the ostrich killer's paranoia.  That's just business, you say.  I ask you: are you so sure?  Did you know that Microsoft and the National Security Agency (NSA) coordinate with each other on the release of new Windows operating systems?  Don't be alarmed; this news is several versions of Windows old.  Bet you didn't know it, though.  Right?  Why do you suppose they coordinate with each other?

About twelve years ago a study revealed that Americans living in metropolitan areas were photographed an average of 18 times a day.  Since then traffic cams, mall cams, parking lot cams, sidewalk cams, etc. have proliferated.  There are television shows - multitiples of them - that use the pervasive presence of these cameras as part of their story lines.  Catching bad guys, usually.

Don't get me started on RFIDs.  They were a private venture to help shoppers, then government got their hands on them, and then - but don't get me started.

Does it comfort you to know you can't move around without being watched?  That when you pick your nose while waiting out the traffic light, you are being watched?  Do you like knowing you can be tracked down to about 13 feet accuracy?  Do you like knowing that after you check into your hotel room, your cell phone / tablet is recording voice and video?  Or looking over your shoulder as you order room service?  Next thing you know  your cell phone will notify authorities when you're speeding.  Big surprise in the morning's mail after that . . .

The Ostrich Killer leaves it to you to determine what nefarious purposes this information can be put should Big Brother decide he wants to.  You know who Big Brother is, right?  If not, read 1984.

You think the above is a bit of a joke?  Let me quote Will Rogers:  "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."

SECOND AMENDMENT MUSINGS

A Prepper's Guide to Guns and Ammo

A Scout's motto is 'Be Prepared.'  It should also be every citizen's motto.  Slaves don't need mottos; their governments tell them what to think.

Don't worry, Gentle Reader, we're not going to talk about slaves here today.  It's enough to say that if you've read 'Atlas Shrugged' then you know who the slaves are.

No, we're going to talk about guns and ammo from a Second Amendment perspective: what to acquire to help be better prepared for eventual revolution, should that be required.  Our forefathers thought it prudent to be prepared.  So should we, and for the same reasons.

First, ammo:  This is easy.  Go to any gun show and buy military surplus ammo for your existing weapon(s).  This ammo can be made in the USA, or Greece, or Norway, or any place else.  Making ammo isn't a high-tech industrial skill, so pretty much any governmental source will work fine.  The thing about military ammo is that its projectile is of a type called 'military ball,' also known as 'full metal jacket' or 'FMJ.'  It's very destructive and preferred for use by every military in the world.  You won't need a lot of this ammo.  You'll read why in a moment.

Next, guns:  This is also easy.  First choice is any that will use ordinary military ammo.  This, in a conflict situation, will aid resupply.  The top of this list would be any rifle chambered to handle the Standard NATO 7.62 x 51 round.  This round is also commonly known as .308 Winchester, and the two are interchangeable for our purposes.  It is the ammo fired by the M-60 machine gun, the M-14 rifle, and a variety of earlier generation European weapons.  This particular cartridge, shooting military ball, will penetrate light vehicles and of course softer material.  It is vastly superior in range, accuracy, penetration and stopping power to the lighter military calibers such as 5.56mm, used in the AR-15s and their clones.

There is no second choice for the Privately Owned Weapon (POW).  The AR-15 and its clones are not suitable for the use that a POW will properly be put to during a Second Amendment situation - and that is, to obtain a better weapon.  Yes, Gentle Reader, the only Second Amendment use your existing weapon will have is to help arm you better.  It will help you acquire the weapons your government doesn't want you to have.  Automatic weapons.  Rocket launchers.  Grenades.  Of course, since you'll be in a revolution anyway, maybe it won't matter much that your government disapproves.

Our Founding Fathers noticed that our revolution succeeded because the American citizen fighting the British was as well armed as the British.  So they wrote the Second Amendment to perpetuate that paradigm.  First order of business, then, is to become as well armed as the tyranny.

What about handguns?  Of the millions of handguns issued to US troops in all wars, they have probably not averaged shooting twice in anger each.  Statistically speaking, they simply don't matter.  So if you want one, carry the one you like.

Your Ostrich Killer has done his duty.  You're welcome.  Now, for that next cup of coffee . . .

WHY OBAMACARE MUST GO

And Any Other Federal Health Care Programs Too

  Okay, brace yourselves, o gentle reader.  You're about to read about the 'good old days.'

  In the Good Old Days (before, say, 1970) if one wanted health care, they paid for it.  If they couldn't afford it, they either did without or worked something out with the hospital / doctor.  This unenlightened approach - treating health care as a commodity (like a visit to your local barber shop or hair stylist) instead of a right - was the natural result of noticing that the US Constitution did not include 'health care' as a right anywhere within it.

  It still isn't in there.  And in those good old days, people seemed to get along pretty well, health-wise and longevity-wise.  Doctors did okay too.

  Then along came health insurance.  Actually, this started much earlier in our history.  Its purpose was simple and obvious: like all insurances, it was to provide a risk transfer mechanism for those who weren't sure they would be able to pay for a serious round of health care.  Like all risk transfer mechanisms, the customer was the sole decider of whether or not they needed it.  Then some large businesses started including health insurance as an employee recruiting and retention tool.  After all, it didn't cost much (in the Good Old Days.)

  Of course, they didn't tell their employees that the cost of that insurance was being offset by decrements to their paychecks . . . which meant, in simplest terms, that the employee was forced into buying company-provided health care, whether they wanted it or not.  Put even more simply, the employee would have larger paychecks if they were not REQUIRED to have the company - provided plan.

  Some enlightened companies understood this and offered their employees an option: a larger paycheck w/out health care, or health care with a smaller paycheck.  Correct me if I'm wrong about this, o gentle reader, but that employee option has been removed from all businesses, most likely due to legislation.

  It certainly hasn't escaped your notice that anything provided by the Feds costs at least twice as much as it would cost in a free market, through enterprise and entrepreneurship   It probably hasn't escaped your notice, either, that health care costs (meaning insurance) have risen sharply, much faster than the rate of inflation.  The Feds would have us believe this is a natural consequence of better medical technology.  The truth is that it's a natural result of layer upon layer of Federal oversight staffs, auditors, auditors of the auditors, insurance oversight, auditors of the auditors of the insurance industry, and so on.  All those people have to get paid.  They all have to work in buildings, in offices furnished w/ taxpayer-provided desks and other furniture and computers with which to oversee and audit and audit the auditors.

  Looking at this another way, Obamacare is a federal worker's jobs program.  Tens of thousands of IRS employees have been hired just to review tax returns for proof of health care coverage.  Look at all the tens of thousands of other employees . . . But we've already discussed that.

  We don't need a federal jobs program whose cost is a good seventh of our GDP - another way of saying a seventh of what you earn.  What we need is choices - which Obamacare denies - and a sense of personal responsibility for our own health.  Got the clap?  Go to the doctor and get a shot of penicillin.  Pay for it.  Walk out.  Guess what?  That won't be possible under Obamacare.  No, you'll have to have exhaustive diagnostics run (to help reduce the likelihood of a malpractice suit and indemnify the insurance company), samples taken, the data entered into the Medical Information Bureau's database and into the Social Disease (or whatever it's called these days) registry.  All this, of course, once you've shown your Obamacare proof of insurance.

  But that's no different than it is now, you're about to point out.  True.  Except for two things: the cost (far more than even the current punitive costs) and your choices.  You don't have a choice: you MUST have Obamacare.  You can't elect, because you're young and healthy, for example, doing without any form of health insurance except perhaps for catastrophic coverage.  Nope.  Everyone into the same pool.  The healthy pay for the sick.  The males pay for female contraception (a purely voluntary medical action) and even abortion ('reproductive rights,' we're told by NARAL and others, includes the right to have other people pay for your abortion.  I looked in the US Constitution and did not see such a right.) - never mind that your religion condemns abortion.  Non-smokers pay for smokers.

  It's ridiculous.  So your Ostrich Killer says Back to the Good Old Days.  Want health care?  Go get it.  Pay for it (it would be a LOT less expensive.)  Or do without, just like you'd do without a visit to the barbershop or hair stylist.  Seemed to work pretty well for a very long time.  Those uninsured people built this country into the greatest nation in the history of the Earth.  What have we, the nanny-state children, done?  And even more importantly, what are we doing?  More directly, what are YOU doing?

GUNS AND THE AMERICAN EXPERIMENT

Why Americans Are Armed and Dangerous

No, it isn't to allow us to hunt Bambi.  No, it isn't to allow us to shoot burglars.  We are armed so that should our government become a tyranny, we the citizens will have the means to revolt.

Remember the times in which the Constitution was written: we had just come out of a bloody revolutionary war against a tyrannical government - and we won because the average citizen was as well armed as the troops of the tyrannical government.  It was the clear intent of our founding fathers that the citizenry have the means and be able to undertake such a revolt again, should it be required.  That is why they wrote :". . . the right to keep and bear arms SHALL  NOT BE INFRINGED."

Think about what that means to you, the citizen.  And think about the threat such a concept means to those holding federal power - the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch.

You, dear reader, are a threat to them.  They, however, have the power to make you less of a threat.  They can pass laws that make you a criminal.  For example, let's suppose they pass a law that requires you, the citizen, to register your firearms.  I can predict that there will be a 100,000,000 increase in the criminal population of this country overnight - because very few citizens will comply.

Which raises the next question: what can the Federal Government do to identify gun owners?
1. Track ammo sales, or restrict them to gun owners who can show proof of registration.
2. Search your home on 'probable cause' (maybe a neighbor reported they saw you with a gun.)
3. Restrict hunting licenses and access to shooting ranges to those with proof of gun registration.

Our government is quite innovative when it comes to legislating means to control the population.

Why not register, you ask?  Because a registered firearm is one that can be confiscated.  This is the sole purpose of such a registry.  Do a check of the history of the 20th century and see if that is so.  Start w/ Czechoslovakia  before the Soviets invaded.

But, you point out, passing such laws would be an infringement . . . You're right.  But many such laws already exist.  And the Constitution is being trammeled daily, its laws ignored.  Where, for example, does the Constitution give the Federal Government the authority to collect money from Jack, who has money, and give it to Joe, who doesn't?  Isn't that robbery?  Two thirds of your taxes are used for that purpose.  I've talked about entitlement programs elsewhere in my blogs, so we'll drop that discussion for now.  Just understand that the Constitution is no barrier to bad legislation.  Even members of the supreme court cite 'international law' when ruling one way or another - yet they're supposed to be bound by the Constitution.

You have a responsibility to 'protect and defend' the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, just like any member of the military.  You can do so by arming your household and teaching your children responsible firearm safety and how to shoot straight.

Think about our society today, compared to 50 years ago: today our every move is monitored (cell phones, tablets, traffic cams, mall cams, store cams, cars with OnStar or GPS, drones, etc.) and our every conversation is monitored (cell phones, tablets, emails, blog postings like this one, etc.)  Our shopping habits are entered into databases - think about that little 'membership' card you use at your local food store.  So are our library book check outs. Any interaction with commerce involving a sale ring-up and a debit or charge card.  Our privacy is gone.  What is this data used for?  Profiling.  Think about how your web browser, your cell phone, your tablet device knows what ads to show you.  Now scale up that simple paradigm to the federal level and imagine how those in power who want to stay in power might use that capability. Imagine the laws they might try to pass.  Think about the laws already in place.

So don't go thinking that we'll never have another revolution, because at some point it's either revolt or become slaves either of our own government or some invading country's forces.  Today we have a chief executive in the White House whose personal thinking is that the private sector economy exists to fund the public (government) sector.  Doesn't that make the private sector slaves of the public sector?

You and I may not see the next revolution.  But it's inevitable.

One last thought: the price of living in a free and open society is that we are a target-rich environment for wackos.  Freedom isn't free, and it isn't necessarily 100% safe.  But, as Ben Franklin is often quoted as saying: "people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

Register your firearms if you're willing to be a slave in exchange for knowing only the police and the criminals will have firearms.  If you're not willing to register, let your representatives know.  Show this blog to others who think like you.