Asking Some Questions

Most likely, you have heard the tragic news by now.  

This past Tuesday, nineteen children and two teachers were killed in a senseless attack at a Texas elementary school.  The killer was eighteen year old Salvador Ramos, a Uvalde Texas resident who has been described as a "loner" who had recently quit his job (1).  

Let's examine what we know concerning the timeline of events in this tragedy.  

On Tuesday morning (Central Standard Time) Ramos shot his grandmother at her Uvalde home, and began his murderous rampage.  He then took to Facebook, posting messages such as "I've shot my grandmother" and "I'm going to shoot an elementary school".  This happened about thirty minutes before the attack occurred (2).  

At approximately 11:28 AM local time, Ramos drove to Robb Elementary School, where he wrecked his vehicle in a ditch.  After doing so, he accessed the school's parking lot by climbing over a fence.  Ramos then approached the school, opening fire with his automatic weapon (see note) (3).

Subsequently, finding that a west entrance was unlocked, the gunman entered the school.  Still firing his weapon, he stepped into a fourth-grade classroom through that room's open doors, barricading himself inside it.  Local law enforcement responded to the situation, but did not enter the school to directly confront Ramos.  

An hour after Salvador Ramos entered Robb Elementary School, a tactical team of the US Border Patrol shot and killed him, bringing an end to the incident.  

Here's some other things we know about the attack.  

According to ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) records, from May 17-20, Ramos legally purchased two rifles of the AR-platform variety.  During this time, he also legally purchased approximately three hundred seventy-five rounds of ammunition.  

Also, any possible motive for this heinous act is yet unknown; investigators are trying to gather information regarding this.  

The gunman had "no known mental health history", and "no (prior) criminal history", according to Texas Governor Greg Abbott.  

Having studied the currently known facts, I have several questions concerning how this incident was handled.  

First off, I ask why Ramos' messages (stating that he intended to shoot up a school) apparently escaped notice.  Although remarks such as those that the gunman made are sometimes made in jest, we now know that the eighteen year old wasn't joking.  

In the past, similar statements have been taken seriously by law enforcement, as well as by the general community.  Why, in this instance, does it seem like this is not the case?  

Second, knowing that law enforcement officers are trained to engage and resolve violent threats, why did local police choose not to confront Ramos in the school? 

It seems to me that if the responding officers had rushed the school (as they are instructed to do in such situations), this horrible event could've ended with minimal loss of life.  Instead, emergency personnel elected to wait for nearby Border Patrol agents to take charge of the situation.  This was an act of cowardice; it likely cost many of the dead their lives (see also: Parkland, Florida).  

Finally, we come to what is possibly my biggest question of all.  It is this; the tragedy of Robb Elementary notwithstanding, could this perhaps have been a pre-planned "false flag" attack (see definition)?

In my humble opinion, law enforcement personnel missed many obvious "red flags".  That is, officials failed to recognize several clues that pointed to what eventually, and tragically, happened.  At face value, doing so is merely a terrible oversight, not a failure of management or dereliction of duty.  

However, when you consider that certain liberals have immediately politicized this incident, and shown terribly inconsiderate and disrespectful attitudes toward it, one begins to wonder if such responses are "kinda sus" (see definition).  

Certainly, the left has many other issues that they are criticized on; high gas prices, the abortion debate, and lack of needed medical supplies, just to name a few.  

Sadly, I cannot put it past the current administration to concoct an event that is designed to distract from their abject failures.  

Now, certain media outlets have addressed, and subsequently dismissed, rumors of this being a staged event.  I'm sure that minutes after I post this, somebody will come out of the woodwork, and compare me to noted Sandy Hook questioner Alex Jones.  

Well, some of us know better.  We understand that at times, "objects in the mirror may be closer than they (actually) appear".  And when things appear to be a little weird, we call those things out for what they are.  

To those concerned with this, I ask you; if this wasn't a false flag attack, then why have you been so quick to denounce those who consider that to be possible? "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain", you say; just continue to live in blissful ignorance, believing that "everything is fine.  Nothing to see here"!

Think what you will about these horrific events.  In my humble opinion, there could be more here than what initially meets the eye.  I'm not saying that there is; simply that it MIGHT be possible.  

To the "powers that be", remember this; "you can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time".  

And as for me, "mama didn't raise no fool"!  

Note: Reports indicate that there may have been an unarmed school resource officer present; nevertheless, Ramos was "unobstructed" in his approach to the school.  

WHAT Did They Say?

Looks like Connecticut's own "Ministry of Truth" is at it again. 

This time, Ned Lamont's allies at the Journal Inquirer (as well as the CT Mirror) want you to believe that the state's economy is in great shape.  In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.  

The Inquirer even goes so far as to praise the governor on this issue.  In a recent article, the publication stated that Lamont's first campaign ad "accurately portrays the state’s rapid turn from scary deficits to fat surpluses" (1).  

Um....excuse me? 

(Apologies for the crummy video quality) (2)

What in the blue blazes are they talking about? 

Allow me to break down the arguments at issue.  

Lamont supporters point to the passage of a six hundred and sixty dollar "aid package" as evidence of a surplus in state funds.  What they fail to realize is that this does not meet the definition of a "tax cut".  Rather, it's more like a relief package; the General Assembly is attempting to alleviate (see definitions) certain emergency conditions that the COVID pandemic caused (3).  

Certainly, this package intends to make things a bit easier for Connecticut residents, at least financially speaking.  Nevertheless, most of the monies included in the plan are federal funds; in this case, dollars that have been earmarked for disaster relief.  They come from Washington, not Hartford (4).   

Thus, the statement that Lamont has cut taxes is misleading at best.  

And what, exactly, is the definition of a "cut" in taxes? In this case, it is to remove or reduce a monetary charge or fee.  

Therefore, in order to have "cut taxes", Governor Lamont must have reduced or eliminated most state taxes.  Instead of doing this, the governor and the Democratic majority decided to add new fees, and raise many taxes from their already sky-high levels. 

Some of the new taxes passed in 2019-2020:

• An increase in sales tax, as applied to the purchase of meals.  

• A tax on digital downloads and internet usage.

• A two percent tax on capital gains.  

• A tax on the purchase of alcohol.  

• A tax on real estate services, as well as the services of agents and brokers.  

• A hotel occupancy tax.  

• A tax on dry cleaning and laundry services.

• Many more taxes not listed here (5).  

The praise of the mainstream press notwithstanding, Connecticut is in very bad shape financially.  Fiscally speaking, the health of our state's economy ranks fiftieth among all fifty states (6).  

Let me say that again.  

When it comes to economic conditions, Connecticut is absolute last; the worst state in the nation.  In this, we are an abject failure; no amount of Lamont spin can refute this fact. 

Now, I wouldn't assume that the staff of the Inquirer and Mirror believe this failure to be acceptable.  So why are they covering for the shoddy condition of the state's economy? And why are they being apologists for "King Ned"?

This whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Perhaps, in reply, someone from the publications could explain themselves.  

The Stakes We Face

Once upon a time, Connecticut was a great state; one of the most free and prosperous states in America.  We had thriving businesses, towns with a sense of community and New England charm, and an educational system that was the envy of the nation. 

Then, something happened.  We began to lose sight of what it means to be free and prosperous; we were fooled into believing the lies that our adversaries have told about us for so long.

Today, Connecticut is a shell of its former self; along with California, we are the laughingstock of the country. 

We are no longer home to the world’s most successful companies, such as General Electric and Stanley Works.  Those companies have long since moved on to greener pastures in other states.  Instead, we are a state where businesses go to die. 

Our communities, once rich with small town charm and civic involvement, have become hotbeds of crime, distrust, and disrespect (not to mention urban sprawl on an insane level).

And our schools, once bastions of free speech and free inquiry, have become places where any dissent makes you persona non grata (see definition) (1). Changes that would protect free speech? School officials don't want to hear about them.

Way back in 1961, a man named Ronald Reagan warned us of the exact situation we are facing now.  He told us that if we chose division over unity, suffering over prosperity, and a collective form of slavery over liberty, we would “spend our twilight years telling our children what it once was like in America, where men were free” (2). 

And that’s what life is like in Connecticut these days.  We have gone from being great to being a joke, and a bad one at that. 

As it happens, this year we have another gubernatorial election, and another big decision to make. We can choose to continue the status quo, and the downward spiral that this state has been on.

Or, we can plot a different course; a course that puts us back on the path of prosperity, freedom, and respectability. Those are the two choices that are in front of us.

If you would rather see the former occur, then by all means, vote for the current majority and governor.

If on the contrary, you would rather see Connecticut start to work her way back to greatness and a better future, vote Republican.

What is at stake?

Not just our lives as we know them, but our history, our future, and our children's futures.

The stakes could not be any higher. Choose wisely.

"Kinda Sus"?

It's been a pretty noteworthy weekend in conservative circles, as the Dinesh D'Souza film "2000 Mules" had its big online premiere on Saturday.  This movie purports to show "damning evidence" concerning allegations that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.  I have no doubt that it will prove to be a groundbreaking production (1, 2). 

Nevertheless, I find myself questioning the motives behind the making of this film.  As today's kids often say, there's something about it that I find as being "kinda sus".  That's the fact that the movie cannot now be accessed without the payment of a "subscription fee".  The cost of the associated subscription is about twenty to thirty dollars (2).  

To this effect, it's my unfortunate duty to call out Mr. D'Souza.  

First off, you apparently assume that people have the money to pay for this; that's not always the case.  For many Americans, money is quite tight at the moment.  Thanks to Mr. Biden, there have been higher prices on everything "from soup to nuts" lately.  And don't get me started on the sky-high taxes that certain state governments seem to love (hello Ned Lamont!).  

Consequently, some of us "average Americans" don't have extra cash to spend on things like online movies.  It's difficult enough just to make ends meet.  

Now, if your film was distributed through traditional movie theatres, perhaps I would better understand your motives and reasoning.  Nevertheless, your picture isn't available in this form, at least not any longer.  

It is an unfortunate truth that in this world, some people do things out of a desire to make a profit, or to avenge something that was done to them.  Keeping this (as well as some of your personal history) in mind, I wonder whether your "damning evidence" might not be so "damning" after all.  

The hard facts of the matter aside, could it be that you have released your movie simply for the purpose of "cashing in" on controversy? And if the evidence is indeed indisputable, why wouldn't you want it to be accessible to as many people as possible? 

If "the truth is out there", then every American has the right to see it.  Hopefully, that is something that we both agree upon.  

My concerns having been explained, I strongly urge Mr. D'Souza to make "2000 Mules" available to everyone.  That is, unless he's just trying to make a buck or two.   

More Random Thoughts (And A Word To Fellow CT Republicans)

First off, did anyone else happen to catch an opinion posted in the Fairfield Patch this morning? RTM member Elizabeth Zezima says that, regarding the recently passed town budget, Fairfield Democrats “fought for our children” and delivered “sound fiscal policy” (1).  

I guess she’s right, if you define “sound fiscal policy” as a mammoth increase in spending, as well as raising taxes again.  Republicans proposed amendments that would’ve saved taxpayers money; the Democratic majority wasn’t interested in them (2).

Anywho, I digress from my main point.

If you haven't noticed, the state political landscape is beginning to look very interesting.  This is a major election year, and with conditions being quite less than desirable statewide, my fellow Republicans have what could be our best chance in years to “take back Connecticut”. 

Nevertheless, I find it necessary to caution my colleagues and friends from possibly losing focus.

You see, in this year's elections, the left's only chance is to once again run the "distract, deflect, and deny" playbook. They are attempting to make the season about Johnny Depp v Amber Heard, Disney, and Roe v Wade.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that they are doing at least a decent job of this.

For about a week, nobody's been mentioning the high cost of gas, the new "Ministry of Truth" in Washington, or Ned Lamont's shifty accounting practices. All people have been talking about is "did you see what Amber Heard's lawyer said?"

This is an example of the "divide and conquer" strategy. Through distracting us, the Democrats sow division. And through division, the left maintains its power and control, which are the only two things that they really care about.

History tells us that this game plan has been quite effective for them. We can't let that strategy succeed again this year. The stakes that are involved are way too high for that.

In every contest, there are tactics that will win the game (so to speak) and tactics that will lose it. It is now incumbent on fellow Republicans to execute a strategy that will lead to victory. That is, we stay on topic, stay on message, and explain our message to anyone that has ears to listen.

This is how we win, and how they lose.

And it is only through a November victory that the status quo in this state will change, and the "Connecticut Comeback" begin.

Let Me Explain

I've seen a lot of explanations (for lack of a better term) regarding why people support abortion lately. To quote Samuel L. Jackson, "allow me to retort".

I’m not anti-woman, or anti-choice.  

I’m against ending the life of a helpless being, before that being ever has a chance to develop. 
 
I’m against seventy-four point nine percent of Floridian woman getting an abortion for “no reason”. 

I’m against the murder of almost one million humans per year (over sixty-three million since 1973’s Roe v Wade decision; around fifty two million more people than were killed in the Holocaust) (1) (2) (3)

I’m against forty-four percent of women who get an abortion doing so because they’re either “not ready for a child” or “done having children”. 

I’m against women dying as the result of botched abortions. 

I’m against minors having abortions without first obtaining parental consent/notification.

I’m against the usage of taxpayer monies to fund abortion procedures.  

And I’m for honoring the fifth of the Ten Commandments; ”thou shalt not kill”. 

You can argue, and say that I’m anti-woman all you want. The truth is:

Yes, I am pro-life, and proud of it. Your attempts to shame me will not work; not now, not ever.

For if you are "pro-choice", it is you who should be ashamed.

Los Angeles, 1992

Yesterday, I spent part of my night watching an episode of the Smithsonian Channel's "The Lost Tapes" (1).  

On this occasion, the topic of discussion was an event that occurred thirty years ago, in the city of Los Angeles.  Let's rewind our tape a bit, and go back to 1992.  

In the "city of angels", racial tensions were running high.  A year earlier, in the course of a traffic stop, African-American Rodney King had been mercilessly beaten by officers of the Los Angeles Police Department.  The assault had been captured on videotape; its footage was seen on television stations from coast to coast.  

Subsequently, criminal charges (regarding excessive use of force) were filed against LAPD personnel involved in the incident.  Many people expected that the case would end in guilty verdicts towards the officers.  

Nevertheless, on April 29 1992, all four officers were found not guilty of the charges filed against them.  This sparked anger and rage in black communities, beginning a chain of events that would result in the largest and most destructive riot in modern American history (2).  

Surprisingly, this kind of destruction had happened previously in Los Angeles.  

Twenty-seven years before, in a similar situation, 21-year old Marquette Frye (a black man) was assaulted and beaten by white police officers.  The result was the Watts Riots, and the burning of many parts of the city (3).  

Now back to 1992.  

Law enforcement was overwhelmed; the LAPD found itself unable to deal with a rapidly escalating situation.  As such, governor Pete Wilson called the California National Guard into service, ordering them to assist police and fire personnel.  Meanwhile in Washington, President George HW Bush invoked the Insurrection Act (4), calling the provisions of such law into effect for the first time since 1968.  

When the riot finally ended five days later, sixty-three people were dead, and approximately two thousand four hundred others injured.  A countless number of business lay in ruins, and many Los Angeles neighborhoods had been burned to the ground (5).  

And what have we learned from the violence and destruction associated with this event? Apparently, not too much.  

You would think that people would reflect on this terrible history, and resolve not to let such a tragedy happen again.  Unfortunately, this has not been the case.  Just two years ago, Los Angeles was again engulfed in riots; looting and violence raged in response to the death of George Floyd (6).  

Today, racial tensions in America remain very high, perhaps worse than they ever have been.

So what do we do concerning the issue of race relations in America? 

I believe that we desperately need to educate our citizens regarding this subject, especially our children.  Not only do people need to be taught not to hate someone of a different color, they need to learn of the history behind race.  

Speaking of history, it has a way of repeating itself if it is not studied.  It is only by reflecting on the mistakes of the past that humans can understand, and learn from, such errors.  

Let us remember what happened in Los Angeles thirty years ago.  That's the only way that this fire will ever be put out.  

"What these people did, they lit the fuse to a bomb" -- Filmmaker John Singleton (1968-2019) (2)