<![CDATA[gekruckeberg.com - G.E.'s Blog]]>Thu, 21 Dec 2017 19:46:35 -0800Weebly<![CDATA[Why the whiteout]]>Wed, 10 Feb 2016 17:26:47 GMThttp://gekruckeberg.com/ges-blog/why-the-whiteoutd  I feel that I should apologize to y'all for the plathora of white space that dominated this site for the past two months.  This is what happened.  On 2 November Annie and I had just finished dinner in our penthouse apartment in Bucerias Mexico and Annie suggested we go take Nina our six year old chihuahua out for her final walk.  She meant her final walk of the day.  Neither of us could have imagined it would be the final walk of her life.  We'd barely gotten out of the compound and into the street when Annie complained  of bugs bi  ting her.  I wasn't being bitten but I was suddenly aware of a buzzing high over my head.  The next thing I know I was covered from head to toe with crawling, stinging bees. We bollted back inside the compound where I took my phone out of its holster and placed it on the apron of the swimming pool, then got  into the pool.
Annie tried to make it up to the apartment with the dog,but I could hear Nina squeeling in the stairwell as the bees continued to sting her, and I called for Annie to bring her back to the pool with her.  Nina hates water and doesn't like to swim so she paniced as soon as Annie got her in the pool. I took the dog under myright arm t0calm herThis was the  most frustrating moments of my life_listening to Nina squeeling in pain and knowing there was nothing I could do to help her. All I could do was spoon water over her with my left hand to ease her pain and to discourage any bees that were still on her.

Finally, the attack subsided to the point that we could stagger out of the pool and up three flights to the apartment, but  by time we got there, Nina was unresponsive.  We dashed back down the stairs and into the car and I drove to the vet who miraculously was still open.  (It was now well after sundown.) Annie and I waited in the lobby and hovered in the treatment room as two veternarians worked to save the life of the sweetest, smartest dog that ever lived.  But despite their best efforts at about 11:20 that night Nina went into cardiac arrest and passed out of our lives forever.

How contributory this event was I don't know, but the following day I had a stroke. I have no memory of the stroke.  Apparently I was talking to Vicente Torres in Canada on skype, and he said I suddenly got incoherent. Vicente called his brother Agustin who lives next to us in Bucerias.  Agustin came knocking on our door to tell us an ambulance was on the way.  They took me to a hospital in Puerto Vallarta, but thanks to the foresight and persistence of my lovely wife Annie, I purchased life flight insurance last year, and Annie
arranged to have me flown from PV to Houston Hobby Airport where we were met by an ambulance that took me to Memorial Herman Hospital.  I was transferred from there to a rehab hospital in Cypress, Texas and from there I went to a more aggressive rehab hospital in Katy, Texas.

After my release from t Katy, Rehab in January.  I am now home recouping.  With Annie's help I will keep this blog up to date from now on.  Thank you for your patience and Happy Bye Bye B.O. year.]]>
<![CDATA[Nina]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2015 14:47:03 GMThttp://gekruckeberg.com/ges-blog/nina
It is with great sadness that Annie and I must report the death of our beloved Niña. Annie and I took her out for her final  walk about 6:30 last night, and we were attacked by a swarm of bees.  We got in the pool to try to escape them, but they followed us.  By the time we got her upstairs, Niña was unresponsive.  We rushed her to the vet , but her stings were too extensive.  She went into cardiac arrest at about 11:20 last night.
G. E. and Annie
<![CDATA[More On Nonhumanity]]>Mon, 02 Nov 2015 11:52:55 GMThttp://gekruckeberg.com/ges-blog/more-on-nonhumanityPicture
I suggested yesterday that Democrats are nonhumans – by which I mean they are so immersed in impracticable ideologies that they have become oblivious to the realities of human nature.  A good example is the decision by the City Counsel of Seattle Washington to enforce a $15.00 an hour minimum wage within the city, to be phased in over three years.  The first phase of that fiat kicked in on 1 April 2015, with the minimum wage jumping to $11.00 an hour.

So how's that working out so far for the citizens of Seattle?  As of the end of September, 700 Seattle restaurant workers had lost their jobs.  And this is while the rest of the State of Washington (which is not subject to the Seattle suicide statute) added 5,800 new restaurant workers – and while the Seattle economy at large added 18,900 new jobs.

This result will come as a surprise only to the Democrats on the Seattle City Council and to like-minded nonhumans who seem to be incapable of comprehending the basic economic fact that if you raise the price of something, people will respond by using less of it.  You can ignore that obvious fact only by ignoring the basic nature of human beings.

Nonhumans think of people as fixed entities that will continue doing what they are doing now no matter what restrictions you impose on them.  "Hey, if we raise the minimum wage employers will pay it and employees will make more money."

What never ceases to amaze me is that nonhumans are always surprised when they get the opposite result.

Humans, of course, realize that people are not automatons.  They are humans, and like all humans, they will adapt to current conditions to maximize their own goals and dreams and abilities.  If you force them to pay more for labor, they will simply find a way to use less labor – or they will move to someplace where labor is less expensive.

This sort of nonhuman thinking by the UAW is what drove GM to Canada and Ford to Mexico.  And it was this same nonhuman thinking by decades of Democrat administrations that drove all the other White wealth producers out of the once booming motor city and reduced it to a ghost town of rusting factories, boarded-up apartment buildings, and abandoned supermarkets.

Nonhumans never seem to learn that they are dealing with a fluid, not a solid entity.  "Hey, we need more revenue.  Let's raise taxes."  When you point out to them that every time they've raised taxes in the past, revenue has dropped, they respond like global warming idiots with, "Oh, that was an anomaly."

But any human can tell you it's obvious that if you raise taxes, your revenue will go down – because more people will be motivated to find ways to avoid paying those high taxes.  And if you raise taxes in a city, like Detroit, or in a State, like California, the people who pay taxes will simply move to another city or another State.  And if you raise national taxes, they will respond by simply moving their taxable wealth production to another country.

Any human can also tell you that if you lower taxes, your revenue will go up – because the wealth producers in society will use that extra money to generate more taxable income!  Even if this weren't blatantly obvious, it has been demonstrated so many times that only a nonhuman could fail to have noticed it.

Nonhumans routinely display their inability to comprehend 
the instinctive human hatred of constraints by attempting to enforce their beliefs and views of propriety on their fellow humans.  Could it be that Democrats, like the pharaohs and the Caesars, have divorced themselves from the rest of humanity by deluding themselves that they are gods?

<![CDATA[Nonhumanity]]>Sun, 01 Nov 2015 11:27:56 GMThttp://gekruckeberg.com/ges-blog/nonhumanityPicture
One of the maledictions Democrats use to describe republicans is "inhuman," by which they mean "insensitive to the fabricated plight of the manufactured poor."  "Inhuman" in the Democrat lexicon, is a dysphemism for "critical and rational."  If you say, "Look, if you want money, get it the same way I get it 
work for it," you will be branded by the self-appointed sensitivity police as "inhuman."

And if you complain that your tax money is being used to fund rampant infanticide and to support the drug habits of welfare professionals and to augment the queer and Muslim infiltration of our schools, you will be attacked as "inhuman" by the Managed State Media and their Propaganda Compliant (PC) minions.

Without admitting – or even acknowledging – the ridiculous claim that republicans are inhuman, I should like to lodge a counter claim.

Democrats, I submit, are non-human.  I don't mean non-human in the Hollywood sense of being space aliens or zombies (although more than a few of them fall into the latter category intellectually).  I mean non-human in the sense that they have forgotten (if they ever knew) what it means to be human.

The Democrat dogma of welfare is a good example.  Democrats seem to assume that if you pay people to not work, they will jump up off their sofas, shut off their wide screen TVs, and rush out to find a job.  That's not the way humans work, people!  If you pay them to not work, they will TTMAR (Take The Money And Relax).  That's just the way humans are, Democrats.  Learn it and get used to it.

Democrats further show their ignorance of humankind by decrying  what they call "Capitalism" (by which they mean the financial sector of an economy) for its egregious abuses.  But the abuses do not, obviously, arise from the system.  They are the inevitable result of the fact that the system employs humans.  And humans are greedy and opportunistic animals.  Still, Democrats adamantly insist that the "Capitalistic" system itself is at fault.

This apparent inability to comprehend the nature of their fellow humans extends to the Democrat's concept of government.  Democrats seem to be totally incapable of understanding that governments are composed of humans, and that those humans are, like all humans, insatiable in their lust for wealth and power.  Wake up, Democrats.  The government's not your Mommy.  It is not a benevolent institution with the sole objective of seeing to your personal welfare and comfort.  It is a gaggle of squabbling egomaniacs who are held together by only one common objective – the theft of your wealth and freedom.

Nor are Democrats any more understanding of the humanity of those they choose to make their enemies.  They are completely oblivious to the feelings and sensitivities of republicans.  They treat them like bugs in an etymology class – specimens to be stuck squirming on a pin into a sheet of cork and dispensed with a drop of chloroform on their heads. 

In short, Democrats display a level of egocentricity that isolates them from their own kind.  "If you're not a Democrat, you're not human."

"If we can just get enough Democrats in government, the government will work for us, since everyone knows Democrats are altruistic."

"As Democrats, we've been told again and again that Capitalism is evil.  Therefore it must be true."

"We're Democrats.  If we decide that paying people to not work will induce them to work, then paying people to not work will induce them to work.  Period!  End of argument."

<![CDATA[Krugman's Fantasy]]>Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:05:35 GMThttp://gekruckeberg.com/ges-blog/krugmans-fantasyPicture
The New York Times is the penultimate liberal rag.  But one can hardly blame the Times.  Being situated in the middle of one of the nation's greatest Democrat disasters, it's only natural that they would play to their audience.  It may surprise some of you that I actually do read the New York Times.  But only for the comics, of course.  My favorites are Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman.

And speaking of the latter, his take on Wednesday night's Republican Roast was classic comedy.

Mr. Krugman starts out by suggesting that Ben Carson's denial of monetary involvement with Mannatech, a dietary supplement marketer, and the audience booing of Carl Quintanilla was evidence of Republican chicanery.  Of course, anyone who actually watched the roast knows that Mr. Quintanilla was booed only after the second time he persisted in calling Mr. Carson a liar on national television.

And what in thunder does Dr. Carson's preference in dietary supplements have to do with his ability to be President?  The presentation of that irrelevant and obviously baiting question should have been booed at the outset.  Was Mr. Quintanilla trying to revive the Reagan jellybean "scandal?"

Mr. Krugman goes on to accuse mild mannered and politically naive Ben Carson of trying to "brazen it out."  Really, Mr. Krugman?  You dare talk of "brazening it out" while Hitlary Clinton is desperately trying to brazen out her culpability in the Benghazi tragedy and her criminal destruction of incriminating emails, and while Barack "Obama" Davis is trying to brazen out his Obamacare debacle?

Mr. Krugman then attacks Marco Rubio, accusing him of being "engaged in a different, classier kind of scam," although Mr. Krugman declines to specify what that might be.  He closes his unsupported attack on Senator Rubio with, "and they are empowered in part by the way the grifters have defined respectability down" – whatever the hell that means.

Mr. Krugman then rambles thorough consecutive attacks on internet marketers, Glenn Beck, and Congressman Ron Paul – without offering any explanation of what these ancillary entities have to do with Wednesday night's attempted roast or with his original contention that Republicans are nothing but a bunch of charlatans.

"You might think," Mr. Krugman rants, "that such revelations" – (as his "revelation" that Goldline sponsors the Glenn Beck show?) – "would be politically devastating.  But the targets of such schemes know, just know, that the liberal mainstream media can’t be trusted, that when it reports negative stories about conservative heroes it’s just out to suppress people who are telling the real truth."

Well, Mr. Krugman, if Americans still had any doubts about the untrustworthiness of the Marxist-Socialist Media, their doubts were efficiently dispelled by Monday night's self-exposure of – to quote Texas Senator Ted Cruz – "the reason the American People don't trust the media."

If Mr. Krugman's intent in Friday morning's rant was to mollify the effect of Monday night's blatant display of media unprofessionalism, political activism, and outright hostility, he failed miserably – almost as miserably as John Harwood, Becky Quick, and Carl Quintanilla failed in their attempt to embarrass the forces of truth and right.

Semper Fi.

<![CDATA[The Day The Media Died]]>Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:36:34 GMThttp://gekruckeberg.com/ges-blog/the-day-the-media-diedPicture
Wednesday night's Republican debate was remarkable in its candor – not of the candidates, but of the moderators.  John Harwood, Becky Quick, and Carl Quintanilla did not even try to hide their contempt for the people on the stage.  They were like leering, slavering Dominican friars during the Spanish Inquisition, torturing their victims in the secure knowledge that they had already been found guilty of heresy.

But their intended victims were not 16th Century Spanish peasants.  They were (with one possible exception) intelligent, knowledgeable, and thinking republicans.  And they fought back.

When one of the moderators pursued Jeb Bush on the nonsense question of what he would do about fantasy football "gambling" if he were elected President, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie interjected, "Are we really talking about getting government involved in fantasy football?  Wait a second.  We have 19 trillion dollars in debt.  We have people out of work.  We have ISIS and al Quaeda attacking us.  And we're talking about fantasy football?  Can we stop?  Seriously?  How about this?  How about we get the government to do what they're supposed to be doing: secure our borders, protect our people, and support the American values and American families?  Enough on fantasy football.  Let people play.  Who cares?"

Marco Rubio got in a zinger when, following a Trump comment on super PACs, he ad libed, "The Democrats have the ultimate super PAC – the mainstream media."  Senator Rubio went on to cite as evidence supporting his remark the media's censorship of the Congressional investigation into Hitlery Clinton's complicity in the Benghazi tragedy.

Even the audience saw through the media travesty and got in the act.  When moderator Carl Quintanilla persisted in trying to accuse Ben Carson of a business relationship he had already denied twice, Quintanilla was loudly booed and jeered by the audience.

But the star of the night was Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who responded to a gotcha question from Carl Quintanilla by scolding the CNBC inquisitors with: "Let me say something at the outset.  The questions asked in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media.  This is not a cage match.  And you look at the questions –  Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain?  Ben Carson, can you do math?  John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?  Marco Rubio, why don't you resign?  Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?  How about talking about the substantive issues?"

After pausing for applause from the audience, Senator Cruz continued: "And Carl, I'm not finished yet. The contrast with the Democratic debate, where every thought and question from the media was, which of you is more handsome and why?"

"You have 30 seconds left to answer should you choose to do so," Quintanilla interrupted.

"Let me be clear," Cruz continued. "The men and women on this stage have more ideas, more experience, more common sense, than every participant in the Democratic debate.  That debate reflected a debate between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.  Nobody believes that the moderators have any intention of voting in a Republican primary.  The questions being asked shouldn't be trying to get people to tear into each other, it should be what are your substantive solutions to people at home?"

At this point, Quintanilla cut him off with, "I asked you about the debt limit and got no answer."

When the Senator tried to answer the original question, he was rebuffed by John Harwood, who said dismissively, "You used your time on something else."

For my money, Senator Cruz used his allotted time far more productively in laying bare the ugly truth of the bias of the Marxist-Socialist Media than he could have in responding to Mr. Quintanilla's insult thinly veiled as a question.

<![CDATA[Good Republican – Bad Republican]]>Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:50:21 GMThttp://gekruckeberg.com/ges-blog/good-republican-bad-republicanPicture
Democratists, such as Hitlery Clinton and Pretendent Barack "Obama" Davis are continually blaming their failures and their inadequacies on "republicans."  What they seem to be unable to understand, however, is that we are all republicans – because we are all citizens of a republic.  The only question is, "Are you a good republican?"

It's often been said that there are two kinds of people in the world, a statement invariably followed by the speaker's perception of some human dichotomy.  I should like to add my perception of what those two kinds of people are – good republicans and bad republicans.

Good republicans follow the precepts of a republic, the first of which is adherence to the law.  The law is the bedrock foundation of a republic.  It is the thing that defines the republic and the only thing that can assure the republic's continuation and its prosperity.  In America, the law is the Constitution of the United States.

Bad republicans, on the other hand, are deluded that they can override the law if they can manufacture a specious public opinion that the law ought to be overridden.  But that's not how a republic works.  In a republic, it makes absolutely no difference if you can bribe, blackmail, or propagandize 99.99% of the populace to agree with you that guns ought to be banned.  The law says you can't ban guns.  Period!

Good republicans recognize that the core strength of a republic is a critical and well informed citizenry.  A republic is a rare treasure, and there will always be those who are trying to steal it from us.  A republic, therefore, is a responsibility – a demanding responsibility upon every republican to be ever vigilant and aware of the threats to our republic, and to be ever ready to defend our republic against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Bad republicans are ill-informed, slip shod individuals who would rather just believe whatever someone tells them to believe than to expend the effort to find out for themselves.  As a result, they are easy prey to the forces that are intent on destroying our republic and stealing form us the liberties and opportunities that that republic affords us.  And when bad republicans do, on rare occasions, become cognizant enough of their surroundings to realize that their rights are being eroded, whom do they blame?  Good republicans.

Good republicans are of necessity pragmatists.  You can't run a republic on whims and wishful thinking.  A republic is a real, living, breathing, and evolving entity that exists in the real world of success and failure.  And good republicans know that in order to maintain a republic, you must live constantly in the real world of true and false – the world of possible and impossible.

Bad republicans think in fuzzy terms of "right" and "wrong."  They have no concept of whether the rigid laws of the universe would admit the imposition of what they think is "right."  As a consequence, they are continually running around promoting such impossible dreams as socialism, income distribution, and racial equality.  They seem to think that their ability to assemble a paid and deluded "majority" is enough to obviate the immutable laws of nature.

Good republicans and bad republicans will never be compatible.  Their base philosophies are too divergent to admit of intelligent discussion.  Good republicans are practical, objective, and independent, while bad republicans are idealistic, narcissistic, and desperately in need of someone to take care of them.  Fortunately for bad republicans, good republicans are also responsible, and like adults watching over petulant children, we protect bad republicans from harming themselves.

Good republicans know they have to work and fight to preserve and protect the republic for all republicans – good and bad.

<![CDATA[Gestapo Project In Fort Worth]]>Wed, 28 Oct 2015 14:24:20 GMThttp://gekruckeberg.com/ges-blog/gestapo-project-in-fort-worthPicture
Back in July 2009, President Obama said on national television that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly" in their handling of Henry Gates, a drunk and disorderly Black Harvard professor.  The President then added to his rant the following, "We (i.e. the federal government) should work with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques to eliminate bias.”

This was not an offhand remark.  It was the announcement of an agenda.

In August 2014, Michael Brown, a hopped up cheap hood fresh from a strong arm robbery of a convenience store, attacked Ferguson Missouri police officer Darren Wilson and was fatally shot.  Wilson is White.  This was the incident Obama had been waiting for.

Eric Holder's DOJ sent agents to Ferguson to incite rioting and create the illusion of police brutality.  The Managed State Media was shifted into overdrive to inundate the American public with a false narrative of racist White police officers preying on innocent Black youths.

The men who founded America were rightfully afraid of the threat posed to the republic by democracy.  Since democracy can't be made to work on a large scale, they were fearful that unscrupulous politicians (I know – that's redundant) would hijack the concept and use it to invoke the manufacture of bogus popular demands.  That's exactly what Obama did with Ferguson.

In December 2014, in the wake of the Ferguson riots, President Obama convened a "Task Force On 21st Century Policing."  The members of the task force included the Black mayor of Baltimore Maryland, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.  In March of 2015, the task force presented their findings – basically a recommendation to nationalize the country's State and local police.

In April 2015, a Black police informer, Freddie Gray, was beaten to death in the back of a Baltimore police van.  Although there is evidence to suggest that Gray was killed in retaliation for squealing to the police(see http://gekruckeberg.com/1/post/2015/05/who-killed-freddie-gray.html), Mayor Rawlins-Blake, fresh from her stint on Obama's committee to legitimize the nationalization of America's police, directed her DA, Marilyn Mosby, to file charges against six police officers.  She also, as the riots began, directed her police force to stand down and give the rioters "space to destroy."

While Baltimore added needed propaganda fuel to the nationalization fire, Obama was already moving ahead with his plot.  Armed with the preordained results of his task force, the President directed Eric holder in March to set up a nationalization "pilot program" involving six U.S. cities.  The six cities selected were Gary Indiana, Stockton California, Birmingham Alabama, Minneapolis Minnesota, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, and – are you ready for this? – Fort Worth Texas.

That's right.  Obama is sending federal goons into Fort Worth to infiltrate a Texas police department and turn it into a model for the imposition on the entire country of a national Gestapo.  And how did Fort Worth Police Chief Rhonda Robertson respond?  Upon learning about the project, we immediately realized the opportunity it would present to strengthen our existing community partnerships and to develop new relationships built upon trust within the community," she gushed.  Buzzword buzzword buzzword.  But not a word about the bribe – er, "grant" – of more than 4 million taxpayer dollars Fort Worth will be paid.

Fort Worth is a prosperous city with a population of 800,000.  It is only 18% Black, and it is 33% Hispanic.  Per capita income is $24,489, and unemployment is 3.8% (for the Dallas-Fort Worth Area).  Fort Worth is run by a Republican Mayor, Betsy Price.

In contrast, Gary Indiana is a city with 10,000 abandoned houses and 80,000 inhabitants located only 40 miles from the Chicago loop.  Gary is 85% Black, with the inevitable White flight, crumbling urban infrastructure, feckless police, and rampant crime that comes from
 a longstanding history of Democrat city rule.  The only effective law enforcement in the city is the Lake County Sheriff's Department.

Gary is a city that needs help, if even from the inept and corrupt Department of in-Justice.  But why inject federal Gestapo moles in Fort Worth?

Could it be because Fort Worth is in Texas?

<![CDATA[Madison]]>Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:49:49 GMThttp://gekruckeberg.com/ges-blog/madisonPicture
James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights and fourth President of the United States, is a bit of a shadowy figure in American folklore.  Washington and Jefferson, the first and second Presidents, are the ones whose pictures hang on elementary schoolroom walls.  John Adams, President number three, is barely mentioned in most U.S. history books.  And James Madison is relegated to the non-distinction of just another President.  His wife Dolly is remembered with more fondness than he, and few Americans (and even fewer New Yorkers) know or care for whom Madison Square Garden was named.

Yet Madison was one of the most influential architects of the republic that would become the United States of America.  James Madison was born in 1751 in Virginia, and he grew up on his father's tobacco plantation in Orange County Virginia.  He would inherit that plantation, Montpelier, not far from Jefferson's Monticello, and he would call it home until his death there in 1836.

Madison was instrumental in convening the constitutional convention of 1787.  He was among the first delegates to arrive in Philadelphia, and while waiting for the convention to begin, he drafted what became known as the Virginia Plan.  The Virginia Plan was introduced at the opening of the convention and served as the skeleton upon which the final Constitution eventually took shape.

With Thomas Jefferson and John Jay, Madison authored the Federalist Papers, urging the States to ratify the constitution of 1787.  As a member of Congress in 1789, Madison proposed a Bill of Rights restricting the powers of the federal government, which the Congress adopted and which was ratified by the thirteen States in 1791.

That same year,  Madison and Jefferson formed the Republican Party, and when Jefferson became the second President in 1801, he named James Madison as his Secretary of State.  It was Madison who negotiated and finalized the Louisiana Purchase, more than doubling the size of the nascent United States.

As President in his own right from 1809 to 1817, Madison oversaw the war of 1812.  Although the "Second War of Independence" saw Washington sacked and the White House and the unfinished Capitol Building burned, it also witnessed some of the most daring and laudable exploits of war in American history.

From Oliver Hazard Perry's battle of Lake Erie and William Henry Harrison's Battle of the Thames to Andrew Jackson's successful route of the British at the Battle of New Orleans, the War of 1812 established the United States as a nation to be reckoned with.  It also spawned our National Anthem, penned by Francis Scott Key during the successful defense of Fort McHenry at Baltimore.

James Madison left us a rich legacy of his keen insight into what it means to be an American.  "The essence of Government" he wrote, "is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."  He further warned us that, "All men having power ought to be mistrusted."

Madison was against democracy, which he saw as not only a threat to the republic, but as impracticable on a large scale.  "A pure democracy" he said, "is a society consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person."

He also lauded the primary requisite of a republic – an informed citizenry.  He said, "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."  He further admonished his countrymen that, "The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty."

Some of Madison's pronouncements seem prescient today.  He seemed to have foreseen Obama's misapplication of Nixon's FDA when he wrote, "What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed?"  And he seemed to predict the mis-administrations of Wilson and Roosevelt II when he wrote, "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

And he left us this exceedingly wise and oft-ignored advice: "We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties."

Semper Fi.

<![CDATA[Historical Parallels]]>Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:31:15 GMThttp://gekruckeberg.com/ges-blog/historical-parallelsPicture
In 1933, Adolph Hitler, the newly appointed Chancellor of Germany,  had his Nazi goons burn the Reichstag, the seat of the German Parliament.  Then he blamed it on the Communists.

Hitlery Clinton, in 2011, allowed her Muslim goons to burn the U.S. State Department compound in Benghazi Libya.  Then she blamed it on a video.

Hitler wrote an autobiography titled Mein Kampf (My Struggle)

Hitlery wrote an autobiography titled Hard Choices.

Hitler negotiated the annexation by Germany of the Sudentenland.

Hitlery negotiated the annexation by Russia of 1/5 of America's uranium deposits for 35 million dollars in contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

Hitler employed the Gestapo to eliminate his political enemies.

Hitlery employed Larry Nichols to eliminate her political enemies.

No one knows for sure how many people Hitler had killed.

Hitlery is believed to have had at least 47 people killed, including James McDougal, Vince Foster, Ron Brown (and the 34 other people who died on that airplane), Jerry Parks (following a burglary of his house that removed files damning to the Clintons), one of Bill's peccadilloes Suzanne Coleman (died of gunshot wound to the back of the head – ruled a suicide), and James Milan (found decapitated – death ruled "due to natural causes").

Hitler, in discussing the necessity of Polish genocide, said, "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Hitlery, in testifying on the deaths of four Americans at Benghazi, said, "At this point, what difference does it make?"

Hitler said, "National socialism is the determination to create a new man. There will no longer exist any individual arbitrary will, nor realms in which the individual belongs to himself. The time of happiness as a private matter is over."

Hitlery said, "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society," and "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good,” and "We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices ... Government has to make those choices for people," and "Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Hitler said, "We have to put a stop to the idea that it is a part of everybody's civil rights to say whatever he pleases."

Hitlery said, , “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

She further showed her disdain for free speech by stating, "Public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger someone who is less than stable."

Hitler said, "To conquer a country, you must first disarm its citizens."

Hitlery said, “We’ve got to go after this, and here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”  And at the same New York fundraiser, she said “I’m going to speak out, I’m going to do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence of the NRA and we’re going to do whatever we can.”  And again: “I was proud when my husband took them on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them.”

So, Hitler was anti-gun; Hitlery is anti-gun.  Hitler was anti-free speech; Hitlery is anti-free speech.  Hitler was a rabid Fascist; Hitlery is a rabid Fascist.  Hitler dismissed genocide as inconsequential; Hitlery dismissed the sacrifice of her State Department personnel – including an ambassador – as inconsequential.  Hitler killed people to attain power; Hitlery killed people to attain power.  Hitler was an autobiographical narcissist; Hitlery is an autobiographical narcissist.

Hitler and Hitlery could have been father and daughter.  And, philosophically, they are.