More Political Thoughts

More Political Thoughts

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are official papers, socialism and democracy, the wrong question, and a credibility test.

Official Papers

Our ancestors who fought the National Socialists (Nazis) and the Fascists in World War II would be proud of what has happened to the United States. They fought the National Socialists and Fascists to rid the world of their despotism and tyranny. Thus, they would be overwhelmed with the joy of knowing that people need officially governmentally issued papers called Read ID to travel within the United States — as the National Socialists and Fascists required official papers to travel. So, why did our ancestors fight the National Socialists and Fascists?

In other words, propagandists inculcate us with the notion that their ancestors fought the National Socialists and Fascists to keep us free. They did such a great job of keeping us free that we are now free to be required to have governmentally issued papers, Real Id, to travel — just as the people in National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy needed official papers to travel. So much for freedom.

President Bush said that the terrorists attacked the United States because they hated our freedom. Then, he proceeded to suppress the few remaining freedoms that Americans had. President Obama extended Bush’s police state of suppressing freedom, and President Trump did nothing to end and reverse this police state. Since Americans have lost their freedoms, the terrorists have won. So, why are the United States still fighting a war that has been lost? Why not admit defeat and bring the troops home and repeal all the police state and antiterrorist laws?

Socialism and Democracy

Socialism is economic democracy. Democracy is political socialism. Under democracy, each person, in theory, has an equal say in society’s political affairs.  Under socialism, each person, in theory, has an equal say in society’s economic affairs. In both socialism and democracy, each person has an equal say.

Wrong Question

Paul Harvey said, “They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?” This is a good question, but it is the wrong question.

The question should be: Why are not progressives, liberals, and socialists moving to Cuba? Cuba is already offering what they want: gun control, universal healthcare, and much more. Certainly, Cuba would welcome them with open arms — especially if they bring their wealth with them.

The reason that progressives, liberals, and socialists do not move to Cuba is that they are Puritans. They have seen the light and are compelled to force their utopia on everyone — especially on those who know that their utopia is really a dystopia.

Credibility Test

A three-step test can be given to find out if a person has credibility. (1) Does he believe or claim to believe the official governmental conspiracy theory of 9-11? (2) Does he believe or claim to believe that the Democrats and their supporters, promoters, and owners did not steal the 2020-presidential election? (3) Does he believe or claim to believe the official explanation of the Kennedy assassination? If he answers one or more of these questions “yes,” then he has no credibility.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Russia Versus Ukraine

Russia Versus Ukraine

Thomas Allen

The following are some of my observations about the Russian-Ukraine conflict. Most of these observations are aimed at the hypocrisy of the United States government and its warmongering supporters.

One should not believe known liars until their story is verified by independent sources. “Our” governmental officials and the presstitutes are known liars and everything that they say is highly suspected. Also, whatever the governments of Europe, Ukraine, and Russia say is suspect although Putin has been more forthright in his plans than the others involved in this war.

Moreover, far too many Americans are addicted to war. These Americans hate peace. A few months without war is more than they can bear. That is why they are pushing for war with Russia, which means nuclear war. 

Except those who have condemned America’s wars since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Americans who condemn Russia for invading Ukraine are hypocrites. Since World War II, no country has been as many wars as the United States. Also, since World War II, no country has invaded as many countries as have the United States. Moreover, the countries that the United States invaded or attacked were not a threat to the United States.

Furthermore, many liberals and most other left-wingers thought that the Soviet Union was the greatest country on the planet and could do no wrong. Now nearly all liberals and left-wingers believe that Russia is the evilest country to ever exist and that Putin is viler than Satan.

Additionally, one thing that I have noticed is that AM conservative talk shows place most of the blame on Putin while shortwave conservative talk shows place most of the blame on Biden.

There is one thing that I find interesting, amusing, puzzling, and hypocritical about the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Until a few weeks ago, most conservative and right-wing commentators believed that Biden and his administration and the presstitutes were a gang of crooks and lied about everything. Now, unless Trump is blamed, many of these same commentators believe that just about everything that Biden and his administration and the presstitutes say about Russia and especially about Putin is the unadulterated truth. Concerning Russia and Putin, Biden and the presstitutes have the integrity and honesty of Jesus. 

Moreover, many conservatives and right-wingers who do disagree with Biden and his administration on the Russia-Ukraine conflict do so because Biden is not belligerent enough. They seem impatient with Biden for not militarily attacking Russia. Also, they demand that Biden cut off all Russian energy supplies to Europe and, by that, destroy the European economy and greatly damage the US economy.

Who has brought us the highest inflation since the 1970s? Putin or Biden. Who has greatly retarded America’s energy independence? Putin or Biden. Who has left the borders of the United States unprotected? Putin or Biden. Who is destroying America with wokeism and perversions? Putin or Biden. Who is causing the federal government to become ever more intrusive in the lives of the American people? Putin or Biden. The answer is obvious: Putin is the blame. He is the blame because Trump made him do it — at least that is what any good Democrat and never-Trump Republican would assert.

Furthermore, the saber-rattling with Russia is to distract the stupid sheeple not only from COVID issues, but also from inflation, shortages, the disappearing US borders, and other Biden and Democratic party disasters. To incinerate the world in a nuclear war is better than to lose an election in a landslide. A nuclear war will destroy many voting stations and contaminate most of the remainders.

Is the reason that Biden is trying to start a war with Russia is to prevent a rout of the Democrats in the upcoming election? Never fear, the RINOS will fill the void left by defeated Democrats to ensure that Democratic policies remain in place. The GOP (or the Stupid Party as Sam Francis called it) does not know how (or want) to win. (Francis called the Democratic Party, the Evil Party.)

Biden values Ukraine while he hates the United States. He wants to protect the borders of Ukraine but not the borders of the United States.

Immigration is like poverty. Too many people are getting rich from immigration for immigration to ever go away.

Additionally, “our” generals have reached the point where if given the choice between one female who has transgendered to a male or a thousand Rambos, they would choose the transgender because he, she, it, or whatever pronoun is superior to a million Rambos. “Our” military leaders place more importance on wokeism than on military tactics. A woke military can defeat all.

Also, Lindsey Graham says that “we” should assassinate Putin as “we” have other world leaders. Graham needs to put his body where his mouth is and challenge Putin to a duel. If broadcast on live TV, it would slaughter the previous viewership record. 

Moreover, the United States objects to Putin's increasing his political power over Europe because it decreases the United States’ control over Europe. Germany is still a US occupied-country although World War II ended more than 75 years ago.

The United States want Ukraine to join NATO and to put missile bases in Ukraine. How would the United States react if Russia were seeking to put missile bases in Cuba?

A primary cause of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is that he does not want Ukraine to join NATO. When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, Bush the Elder promised Gorbachev that the European countries formerly allied with the Soviet Union would not become part of NATO. A few years later, this promise was broken. This war would never have happened if the United States and NATO had abided by the agreement that Bush made with Gorbachev when the Soviet Union collapsed. 

 The United States should leave NATO to prevent some third-rate country from dragging the world into a nuclear war — like Poland dragged the world into World War II. Great Britain guaranteed Poland that if Poland went to war with Germany, Great Britain would also go to war with Germany. We see how well that agreement turned out.

Moreover, why would Russia want to invade countries that remain outside NATO? Russia's primary reason for invading Ukraine is to keep it out of NATO. (At least that is the stated primary purpose. Other stated reasons are to get Ukraine to recognize the plebiscite in Crimea in favor of rejoining Russia and the recognition of the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk.)

Two ways of addressing the secession of Donetsk and Luhansk are the Wilsonian and Lincolnian. According to the Wilsonian principle, all nations capable of maintaining an independent country should have their own country. (A nation or nationality is a people who have a common genetic ancestry, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country.) Since the people of Donetsk and Luhansk are capable of maintaining their own countries, they should have their own independent countries, which they have done with Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic.

According to the Lincolnian principle, once a region is part of a country, it can never secede and form an independent country unless it wins that right with war. Thus, being part of Ukraine, the two oblasts of Donbas can never be independent countries unless they defeat Ukraine in war. Furthermore, under the Lincolnian principle, Russia has the right to annex Ukraine because Ukraine seceded from Russia and did so without defeating Russia in war. Under the Wilsonian principle, the Ukrainian people deserve their own independent country less the other nations now in Ukraine, who deserve their own independent countries.

According to many, Putin is going out of his way to kill civilians. Other sources claim that Putin is going out of his way to keep civilian casualties low. If Putin did not care about civilian casualties, he could have conquered Ukraine in several days. At least, Putin has done the world a favor by knocking out or causing the Ukrainians to destroy US bio-weapons laboratories in Ukraine. (These laboratories violate the UN Biological Weapons Convention. Thus, Americans involved with these laboratories are war criminals subject to the death penalty.)

If Putin had approached his war with Ukraine as the United States would have done with its Sherman tactic of warring against civilians, the war would have been over by now. Instead, he has sought to minimize civilian causalities. On the other hand, Ukraine has sought to maximize civilian causalities by refusing to let them leave areas of combat, placing their big guns in residual areas, and mining civilian escape routes. (Unfortunately, Ukrainian resistance may lead Putin to adopt the American approach to war by bombarding cities.)

Nevertheless, Putin is more justified in invading Ukraine, which is on Russia’s border and will be a real threat to Russia if Ukraine, i.e., the United States, installs missile bases, than Bush the Elder was in invading Iraq, Bush the Younger was in invading Iraq and Afghanistan, Clinton was in bombing Serbia to distract from his sexual escapades, and Obama was in attacking Syria and Libya. The United States are still occupying Iraq although the Iraqi government has asked the United States to leave. (The United States are still occupying Germany, and World War II ended 75 years ago.) All these third-rate countries that the United States have attacked were on the other side of the world and were no real threat to the United States.

Also, Putin is being accused of committing all sorts of war crimes. How many war crimes has the United States committed since 1990? Is the United States the only country that has the right to invade other countries with immunity? Before Putin is tried for war crimes, Clinton, Bush the Younger, Obama, Trump, and Biden need to be tried for war crimes.

When are Americans going to open their eyes and see that their real enemy resides in Washington and not in Moscow?

Furthermore, the war between Russia and Ukraine could have been prevented without loss to anyone. First, the United States had to promise an enforceable agreement not to make Ukraine a member of NATO. Second, Ukraine had to keep its agreement to make Donetsk and Luhansk autonomous oblasts within the Ukraine boundaries. Third, all parties needed to recognize the plebiscite in Crimea in favor of rejoining Russia. When Russia asked the United States and NATO countries to negotiate on these issues, they spat in Russia’s face. 

Unfortunately for the world, mental infants in adult bodies govern America. In the hand of these idiots rests the fate of the world. Not since the Cuban missile crisis has the world been so close to nuclear war. At least then, the world was fortunate to have adults in charge. If a nuclear war happens, the United States and most of its inhabitants will die. Much of Russia’s population will survive because Russia cares enough about its people to provide them with well-stocked shelters. However, Americans only care about their masters because the US government only provides them with shelters for a nuclear war.

The more Biden insists that America will not get involved militarily with Ukraine and denies that nuclear war will occur, the more certain that the United States will get involved militarily and will precipitate a nuclear war. If war between Russia and the United States occurs and if God takes sides, Russia will defeat the United States because Christianity is growing in Russia and dying in the United States.

In closing, how many American lives is Ukraine worth? Pick a number between 0 and 330,000,000. My answer is all the warmongers at their own expense and without any taxpayers’ support.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Gun Control

Gun Control

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: This article was written in 1988.]

    Gun controllers are out to disarm the country. They use many false arguments to support their untenable position. They seek to disarm private citizens and leave them at the mercy of criminals and omnipotent government, which is the ultimate criminal.
    Most gun controllers are liberals, and nearly all liberals are gun controllers. All gun controllers are statist, and most are political, social, and economic egalitarians, who abhor the physical equality that guns bring.
    Gun controllers display their hypocrisy by advocating harsh laws against law-abiding gun owners while cuddling criminals. They have a lax attitude toward real crime. They persist in putting dangerous criminals back on the streets as quickly as possible. Then they propose to disarm the law-abiding citizens, who are threatened by these thugs. (The American Civil Liberties Union shows the perverse hypocritical mind of a good liberal. It has advocated registering firearms and licensing owners, yet it is ready to go to court to prevent school officials from checking student lockers for illegal weapons.) Their objective appears to be to use criminals to frighten a disarmed populace into demanding more oppressive laws and a stronger police state.
    Gun controllers plan to disarm the population piecemeal until all handguns and long guns are removed from the general population. If they were to try to ban all guns at once, their opposition would be too great; and they would be trounced and routed.
    Gun controllers usually take the approach of advocating banning “Saturday night specials” (whatever that is) in the name of fighting crime. (Is it not amusing that these worshipers of the “poor” want to disarm the poor, who are victimized by criminals more than the well-to-do, by outlawing cheap guns?) Eliminating this class of firearm will not reduce crime. Then the gun controllers will push for abolishing all handguns in the name of reducing crime. Even this ban will not reduce crime — as will be shown below. Next, the gun controllers will go after rifles and shotguns. He can now achieve his goal of banning all privately owned guns, but crime will still not be reduced.
    If everyone, except the police and military, were completely disarmed, the government (police and military) would possess a monopoly of legal firepower. The disarmed civilians would stand naked before the government and would become, like the Chinese peasants, defenseless victims of whatever the government wishes to do with or to them. To have a defenseless populace is the gun controllers’ goal. Only when the people lack the means to resist effectively oppressive government will the liberals feel secure in remaking mankind in their own image. (A government that cannot trust an independently heavily armed citizenry is a government that cannot be trusted and is in need of replacement.) Even if criminals were initially disarmed along with the law-abiding, they would soon rearm themselves by stealing weapons from the police and military. The disarmed population would be easy prey for them.
    Great Britain has very stringent gun laws. Private ownership of a gun is allowed only under the most extraordinary circumstances. Carrying a gun is illegal. Since Great Britain abolished the death penalty in the late 1960's, the use of firearms in the commission of crimes has risen dramatically: thus evidencing the deterrent effect of capital punishment.
    Great Britain also depicts the path followed by gun controllers. Handguns were banned to curb violent crime. Naturally, this ban proved a failure. So the government did what governments are prone to do; instead of admitting that it was wrong and repealing its bad laws, it extended controls to long guns. There is much greater use of guns in crimes today with stringent gun control laws than there was before 1920 when there were no gun control laws.
    To conceal their real reason for disarming private citizens, gun controllers resort to a number of sophisms.
    Gun controllers often claim that much of today’s crime problem arises from a heritage of frontier violence and lawlessness. This myth is debunked by a study done by Roger McGrath, a professor of history at UCLA.
    McGrath’s study shows that shootings generally occurred among roughnecks, badmen, hoodlums, and other similar characters. The law-abiding citizens, the young, the old, and women (except prostitutes) were seldom involved in shootings. These people have now become the principal victims of many of today’s shootings.
    His study also shows that the crimes that are most common today — robbery, theft, burglary, and rape — were of no great significance in the old west. Rape was almost nonexistent. A principal reason for the lack of these crimes was the widespread ownership of firearms. This widespread ownership of firearms and the willingness to use them contributed greatly to the relative safety of the average citizen.
    Highwaymen hesitated to rob stagecoaches with armed guards. Instead, they held up unguarded coaches. Then they usually limited their theft to the express box. They feared taking money and valuables from passengers, for they knew such action would put an angry posse of citizens ready to turn to vigilantism on their trail. Fear of swift and sure penalty deterred their greed.
    Banks were seldom robbed because employees were armed. Individuals were seldom robbed because most were armed and willing to fight. Most victims of robbery were staggering drunk. Again fear of swift and sure penalty deterred the thief's greed.
    McGrath’s study shows that instead of encouraging crime and violence, the widespread private ownership of guns discourages them. The law-abiding citizen is more secure armed than he is disarmed.
    Gun controllers claim that guns need to be controlled to prevent accidental death by shooting. They claim that accidental death by gunshot is at or near the top of the list of accidental deaths. On the contrary, accidental death by shooting is near the bottom. Less than 2 percent of all accidental deaths are caused by firearms. Almost 27 times as many people die of automobile accidents as from accidental shootings. More than six times as many die of falls; and three times as many, from drowning. If the objective is to reduce accidental death, causes other than firearms need to be emphasized.
    Gun controllers claim that registration and licensing will reduce death by shooting as well as the number of violent deaths in general. Unfortunately, this claim is false. Two deadly objects exist in the United States in approximately the same number. One object is registered, and its users are licensed while the other object is seldom registered and its users are seldom licensed. Which object is involved in the greater number of deaths? The gun controllers would claim that the unregistered object with unlicensed users would cause a greater number of deaths. They would be wrong. More people in the United States die by automobiles than by firearms. There are about as many privately owned firearms in the United States as automobiles. Most firearms are unregistered and most of their users are unlicensed. Automobiles are registered, and their users are licensed. Yet the automobile is involved in more deaths. Almost 40 percent more people die of automobile accidents than from gunshots, including murder and suicide. Registration and licensing do not deter death.
    Registration is often more of a hindrance to police than a help. Criminals steal most guns used in crime. Registration does not lead police to the criminal but to the unfortunate person whose gun has been stolen and who must now prove his innocence.
    Cuba and Germany offer examples as to why the registration of firearms needs to be opposed. In Cuba Batista, who ruled Cuba before Castro, required gun owners to be licensed and to register their guns. The police records contained a description of the weapon along with its owner’s picture and fingerprints. When Castro overthrew Batista, he confiscated all the guns in Cuba: A task that Batista’s registration system made very easy.
    In Germany, Hitler enacted a law that required a person to have a permit to buy a gun and another permit to own a gun. Of course, Jews and other undesirables, those in the greatest need of weapons to protect themselves from Hitler’s oppression, were denied permits. The permits left a paper trail that made the confiscation of guns very easy. Hitler was, however, thoughtful enough to exempt high-ranking governmental officials, the police (regular and secret), and certain other governmental agents from his gun control law. Thus, he disarmed the victims of his oppression while arming their oppressors.
    Gun controllers claim that homeowners are safer if they offer no resistance to burglars and that homeowners are more likely to be injured if they resist with a gun. Gun controllers often claim that a person who uses a gun for protection is more likely to be injured than someone who offers no resistance. They also claim that private ownership of guns does not deter crime. A study by Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University refutes these claims.
    He estimates that firearms are used defensively by private citizens about one million times per year in the United States. In more than 60 percent of these incidents, handguns are used. He has found that guns are used more often defensively than criminally. Most of the time the weapon is not fired and the criminal is not injured. Less than 2 percent of the time is anyone killed or wounded. Between 1500 and 2800 criminals are killed annually by private citizens using firearms in self-defense. This is about two and a half to seven times as many as are killed by police.
    Kleck’s study shows that victims of robbery or assault who use guns for protection are less likely to be attacked or injured than are victims who respond otherwise, including not resisting at all. There is a much greater chance of being hurt during an assault (two and a half times as great) or robbery (one and a half times as great) by not resisting at all than by using a gun for protection. In a majority of cases where a person who uses a gun for protection is injured, the injury preceded the use of the gun to resist. Also, those who use guns against would-be robbers are less likely to lose their property than those who use other means of resistance or who do nothing.
    The chances of a burglar or other violent criminal encountering a private citizen who will use a gun against him is as great as being arrested. Of course, the potential victim wielding a gun is much more of a deterrent than the future threat of an arrest because the consequence is immediate and potentially more severe than any punishment offered by the legal system.
    In the United States where many households are armed, burglars tend to avoid occupied dwellings. In countries where private gun ownership is much less than in the United States, burglars are much more likely to enter occupied houses. Burglars fear facing an armed homeowner. This fear reduces confrontations between burglars and victims. The result is fewer deaths and injuries. Thus, firearms reduce death and injury.
    The armed homeowner and storekeeper offer a much greater deterrent to crime than do the police and court system. The police and court system are not designed to prevent crime, but to apprehend and punish after a crime has been committed. The armed homeowner and storekeeper offer a quick, sure, and severe penalty that is directly and immediately related to the crime. This action is a much greater deterrent to crime than the police and court system where arrest and conviction are lengthy and uncertain.
    Kleck’s study also shows that where gun ownership and training are highly publicized, crime tends to decline. His study clearly demonstrates that laws that reduce the ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens would benefit the criminals of society. Widespread ownership of guns by the law-abiding reduces crimes and their concomitant injuries and deaths.
    Gun control laws make self-defense a crime. Perhaps the most notable case is the Bernhard Goetz case. Goetz shot four men in self-defense on a New York subway. The jury found him innocent of all charges brought against him except violating New York’s gun law. For violating that law he was sentenced to six months in prison, fined $5000, and directed to undergo psychiatric treatment (shades of the Soviet Union) plus other penalties. There are other examples of people being punished for using a gun in self-defense. A man in the District of Columbia holds three burglars with his pistol until the police arrive to take them into custody. The three thieves are set free while the man is charged with possessing an improperly registered handgun. In Massachusetts, a man shoots and kills another man who is trying to knife him. The jury acquits him of all charges, but the judge sentences him to the mandatory one-year imprisonment for failing to obtain a license for his handgun. In Oak Park, Illinois a filling station operator is arrested for possessing a handgun (private ownership of handguns is prohibited in Oak Park) when he used it to shoot at some robbers that held him at gunpoint. The result of gun control laws is to penalize an otherwise law-abiding citizen.
    Firearms are the “great equalizer.” They enable a small weak person to stand on equal footing with a larger, stronger adversary. Is it not odd that the same egalitarians who constantly aver the political equality of democracy, economic equality of socialism, and social equality of integration object so strongly to the greatest physical egalitarian invention of man, the gun? They oppose private ownership of guns because they realize that their mad dreams of equality can only be achieved by oppression. If the victims of their egalitarian nightmare are armed, then the victims are on more equal footing with the government and are more capable of successfully resisting oppression.
    In the present union, which Yankeedom controls, law-abiding Southerners must always fear having their guns confiscated and, thereby, being placed at the mercy of criminals and despotic government. The time has come to alleviate this fear. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States in which law-abiding Southerners may possess guns without fear of molestation and may use them to protect themselves from criminals and despotic government.

Copyright © 1988 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.