Smoking gun

It’s all about context. A smoking gun could be smoking after legitimate use such as target practice. The GOP keeps looking for a smoking gun to justify impeachment of President Obama. Just remember the GOP slogan, “You provide the gun and we’ll supply the smoke. If you don’t have a gun, our friends in the NRA can help.”

Too uppity

If you were to visit many anti-Obama websites as I have, you would often find lists of 10, 25, 100, or even 1000 reasons why Barack Obama is the worst president ever. Those lists are filled with nonsense, but are cited as justification for the hatred and contempt expressed by contributors to the blog. Why is that? In my opinion, it is because President Obama is “too uppity,” he does not express enough humility and deference to his betters. In America’s past, insufficient humility by blacks was the cause of many lynchings. Today lynchings are a thing of the past, but white anger and resentment of a black president continue to fuel the politics of the Right.

Maintaining peace

In order to maintain peace and tranquility, we humans often resort to the use of weapons that kill or main each other. Why must we kill each other to maintain order? Probably because our civility is only a thin layer on top of our basic killer instincts. Isn’t it time to settle disputes between individuals and between nations in a less than lethal manner?

Could we not equip our armies with tasers or paint ball guns to settle international disputes? In the past, armies were sometimes represented by single champions who fought to decide outcomes. Could we not require our leaders to face each other in combat (hopefully not to the death) to settle issues not solvable by negotiation? The leaders of Israel and Hamas in single combat using swords, pistols or drones? Sounds outlandish, but it would be a vast improvement over the death and destruction of current warfare.

In his day, Teddy Roosevelt believed that war was a healthy phenomenon, making the strong stronger and killing off the weak. Britain disproved that theory during and after WW1, when the cream of British manhood died in the trenches, leaving the Empire to the survivors, the ill and the weak. Since Teddy’s day, only a few advocate war as way of life, and they do so only for others, not for themselves and their loved ones. Teddy, on the other hand, sent all his sons to war, and wanted to fight himself. Wilson would not let him, since Wilson feared Roosevelt as a potential rival in 1920.


Nullification is the doctrine that a state can declare a federal law null and void and not obey it. The American Civil War was fought over states’ rights, nullification and slavery. The South lost and slavery died. States’ rights and nullification advocates are still with us.

During the Civil War, the Union was defended by the Republicans and states’ rights, nullification and slavery were defended by the Democrats. After the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the two parties switched sides. Now the Union is defended by the Democrats and states’ rights, nullification and the former slave-states of the South are represented by the Republican Party.

The Republican Party at this time has embraced nullification. They are attempting to nullify the results of the 2008 and 2012 elections in which the voters elected and then re-elected President Obama. The doctrine of nullification was on the losing side in the Civil War. We must not let it be victorious now. The election in November, 2014, is all about nullification.