Firing squad death penalty

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I do believe the death penalty is over used in this nation. I also do believe it is necessary.

While should someone who is without any question a murder have a future when he denied a future to his victims?

Pie. With colors!

"Killing him ain't gonna make things right. Ain't gonna bring the dead person back. It's not a deterrent," someone will say.

No, no, no. Stick to the question. Change ye not the subject lest your scribe become annoyed and beat you to metaphorical death with your own refusal to stick to the subject.

And the replies pour in.

So comes this attorney who argues for the death penalty and wants to make it mean something. No naps here!


While I like the idea, there is a fallacy in the argument of the "blank" round unless some extraordinary measures are taken. A blank round is included in firing squads so the shooters
will always have some doubt in their mind as to who shot the blank and who delivered a copper-coated verdict.

Squirrel? I'm gonna kill the tree.

'Cept reality doesn't work that way.

It's called recoil. For you math geeks, here's your gibberish - I mean the recoil equation. Mr*Vr= Mb*Vb

Newton's laws of physics holds true with firearms. As the bullet exits the barrel, there is recoil, the gun moving back in counter balance of the gun moving forward. The gun doesn't move very far.

I'm not gonna 'splain the hows, the whys, wherefores and the rest.

I do say the above equation is not accurate. It does not take into consideration the weight of the gun and any recoil dampeners like a muzzle brake. This has a direct effect on recoil. I speak from personal experience shooting everything from a .22 short to 850 grain full metal jacket .50 BMG rounds.

Recoil matters. (This guy is an idiot) Recoil will be felt. An experienced shooter is going to know, absolutely, whether or not he fired a a projectile or was dropping a hammer on blanks, provided he's shooting an unmodified shoulder-fired rifle.

The idea that shoving a blank in one rifle is not going to be the psychological crutch people think it is. A real shooter will know if what he did.

This can be adjusted. Set up a bank of guns to be fired electronically. Mount the guns in something like the Lead Sled and use a .223 with 40 grain solids. Strap the barrel down and when the shooters flip the switch, they not only have no idea which rifle they fire, but have no idea if they shot a blank. For that matter, don't strap 'em down. Just make sure no gun fires until all the switches are flipped and then they all go off at once.

Regardless of your opinion on firing squads, if this comes about again, we should protect the executioners.

Damn the rules

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Tonight I needed my buddy Doc, not just for wisdom and the soul he has, but because he is Doc. If you know Doc, by the end of the post, you'll understand. If you don't know Doc, by the end of this, you'll still understand. Tonight, I was a rebel, again.

As I left prison, an announcement came over the intercom: "tell the preacher to wait."

"What'd I do?" I ask, out loud, immediately running over everything I'd done since setting foot inside gate 1.

Down the hall comes an officer with an inmate behind. The inmate is obviously in distress.

I think he wasn't in church. Couldn't have done anything to him.

Guard said something I didn't understand and asked me to speak to the young man, young enough to be my son.

Of course, I immediately agreed.

"Son," I said. "What's wrong?"

Through a flood of tears, he said his 8 YOA niece died this evening in a car wreck. Mom died not too long along.

I talked with him. Then, knowing the prison rules say don't do this, I grabbed him and held him tight as he cried on my shoulder. By the time he released me, we'd prayed and talked and I gave what comfort I could. He let go of me. I didn't let go of him.

My shoulder was wet as I left the prison. The tears shed there in the lobby were not all his either.

Her name is Ashley.

What broke him up more than anything is he cannot be with the rest of his family in this time of need.

Sometimes, we all need someone to hug us and not let go until we do. I can think of fewer situations more tragic than not being able to get that hug when you need it.

Sometimes rules are made to be broken. Damn the rules.

Do Doc and me a favor. Hug somebody who needs it.

A few things from a fevered mind on a Tuesday night

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
If this is more disjointed that usual, well, I dunno exactly what's ailing me, but I know my asthma is kicking my butt. May be a virus on top of that. Anyway

Didja see the headlines today?

What is most ominous to me is what happened in New York and London.

Al Jazeera, a state controlled media outlet for the Middle East is trying to launch a news network in the US. Meanwhile under the Queen in Great Britain, the police went into the offices of The Guardian and destroy harddrives in the basement which held information from Edward Snowden.

As The Guardian's editor said, there was little he could do. In his position, yes.

Al Jazeera, according to the people who work for the outfit in the ME, is the same. The Emir (dictator) of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa owns the outfit. While Al Jazeera earned some serious street cred in reporting in some places, when it got close to home, the plug was pulled along with Al Jazeera's rep.

The United States is rare - nope, unique, in that we have the First Amendment which allows us to say pretty much anything we want. I'm old enough to remember the British government telling its media that it could not report on a subject. I recall the Canadian government doing the same to the media up there. The media had no recourse. It could not report. Elsewhere around the world media toes the line or runs the risk of being bodyslammed into submission.

About here someone is going to say the US media writes what it is told and also toes the government line and is owned by corporations. Think about that statement. What do corporations want? Profit. How do corporations make a profit? By delivering what people are willing to pay for.

The most profitable media outlet today? ESPN (owned by Walt Disney). People want sports. The least profitable? Direct live coverage of Congress from CSPAN. People do not want government coverage. People want celebrity news because it's easy to digest. The fault in the US rests not with the media but with the consumers of media. Corporations will chase the dollar.

Having said that, didja see about the Australian college student shot as he jogged down the road? Didja see a nutjob was caught in Atlanta in a school with a rifle? Didja see the Aussie government is calling for a tourism boycott of the US because of our gun laws? Australia, by the way, puts some tight controls on the media compared to the US.

George would have packed this had it been available.

Back in January I joined a fraternity against my will, one which is rare in the US but counts members in just about every nation. My brothers and sisters in this fraternity share a bond. We've been physically attacked because of our reporting. At a journalism seminar in July, I was called upon to recount my experience.

I have also not stopped what I do.

As I look at the two assaults on people and the assaults on the media, I am reminded that our government is increasingly trying to evade media scrutiny of its activities. So much for "open government" as the president promised. His administration is actually quite terrible when it comes to open government.

As I sit typing this tonight, I worry. A lot. I can see the signs. Our government, which is presently spying on every American, is consolidating power. Only a government intent on silencing dissent goes to this extreme. OK, show me a government which has gone this far which was not a dictatorship and a totalitarian regime that shut down opposition. You can't.

Considering the history of abuse which our government has, dating back to just after the founding and the Revolutionary War, I am compelled to ask some people, "why do you trust government?"

So, I worry. The sheep do not worry. The goats worry. I hope the day never comes, but I fear it may.

I ask you, what protections do you have that government will not abuse you? The courts? Think again. The only protection you have, really is you. The litany of government abuses approved by the court system is massive. Slavery. Japanese internment camps. Within my lifetime, the Tuskegee STD experiment. There are so many more, I wonder how many have yet to be revealed.

I'm going to continue to support the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, using both to support the rest of the Constitution. In the meantime, I worry. I hope the day never comes, but if it does, well, Thomas Jefferson said the tree of liberty must be watered occasionally with the blood of patriots. Only a few of you will read that entire letter. So be it. I've done my job and it it comes down to it, I'll do the final job as well.

Consternation, then clarity

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Here's a situation to which I have no solutions.

A Louisiana man built a house in a flood zone (FZ).

Yanno what. Forget that first sentence. I have a solution now as I write this. This guy who built a home in a defined FZ is a moron. What he get, he deserves. Case closed.

But to the original point of this blog, said gent built a house in a FZ. As is the case pretty much everywhere in the US, he had to get building permits (which I object to) and had to build to government standards (I object yer honor.) Government said his house had to be built This High above the ground.

Thinking he was safe, he added two feet to the government requirement. Now, the government is changing its mind. No surprise there.

"... the new maps now tell him that 15 years ago he was wrong and he should have built six feet higher than what he actually built," states the reporter who talked to NPR.

Said gent was paying $633 a year in flood insurance. Now his flood insurance is headed to $28,000 a year. He can pay this, or raise his house another six feet.

My original thoughts for this blog was, this guy is in a world of hurt through no fault of his own and now what can he do? He did, at the time, more than was required. It's not his fault is the regs change. If he goes after the government, he's really going after you, me and himself.

Then, I got back to reality. See paragraph 3. But, I will run through my original thoughts.

There are a number of problems here, only one of which is being worked out properly. Having enumerated several problems already, I list the others.

• Flood insurance is mandatory for people who live in FZ if they have a mortgage, or so I'm told.

• People are allowed to build in FZ  if they follow government regulations, which can change at the whim of a legislative body. The north side of the Savannah river, in S. Carolina, was below the build-able FZ limit until the S. Carolina general assembly voted to declare it was above that limit. Really. I wrote a story on it some years ago.

• The National Flood Insurance Program (run by the federal government) is where a number of people get flood insurance.

• This insurance is subsidized by taxpayers. Why? Why should I pay for you to live in a place where your house is likely to be turned into a surfboard?


There is a house, in the city where I live, which has flooded several times. It's also been sold several times, typically right after it floods.

And lest you think that only rich people live in flood zones, I tell you in the wake of No Name Storm and some others in the spring of 1994, parts of Albany GA were flooded. I don't have firm figures on this, but a significant number of people who lost everything were poor folks, living in what they could afford to live in, or so they thought.

I say they thought that was where they had to live. When they lost their homes, they found out otherwise.
Yassee, you can't fix stupid, but you can kill it before it breeds. You just have to get to it in time or hope Mother Nature steps in a takes out the whole lot.

Anyway, the only fix in this situation is noted in the above flood insurance premium rising to $28K a year. Insurance companies are showing, thanks to several floods, hurricanes and excessively stupid people, that these giant premiums are the true cost to cover homes in flood zones.

I like it. S'called free market economy. Those who play, pay. Leave you and me out of it.

I fully support the right of the abovementioned guy to build a home in the flood zone. I also fully support the right of insurance companies to charge enough to provide him coverage. As long as I'm not involved and it doesn't affect me, party on.

Microcosms and Macrocosms

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
As an avid reader of Science Fiction, I've perused more "alien invasion" stories than I can count. Two series I am reading - Through the Looking Glass by John Ringo and Worldwar and the follow up series Colonization by Harry Turtledove.

I recommend both, but add the Turtledove series is far superior.

What stands out in both these novels (series) is not that Earth is invaded and attacked, but that despite this invasion, we humans are still quite busy trying to kill each other while being united in the face of a common enemy.

Lemme get this a lot more personal and a lot more local. If you have a brother or sister (or more than one), describe your relationship. If you are typical, you are your sibling fought with each other. A lot. However if an outsider stepped in, you two or more would unite against then foreign aggressor most of the time. Not always.

If you are now an adult and you've moved into the still typical relationship, you may still fight, but you'll still be there for your brothers and sisters if the fecal materials strike the oscillating air disturbance machine.

That is the microcosm.

Take a step back. We're not to the macrocosm yet; we've just taken that step back to gain a slightly wider perspective. Include close friends in your group. You may fight and argue, but you're still going to be there for each other and woe unto those who are outsiders with ill thoughts on their mind.

Shall we dance?

Let's take another step back.

In the city where I live, a street in town is a dividing line. This arbitrary division splits cousins against cousins. Really. People have been beaten badly for crossing this street.

One more step back.

At a local City Council meeting in my county this past week, an economic developer said he continues to be stunned by how the Norfolk-Southern railroad track divides a community. Like as not, your town is the same way, albeit the divider is not necessarily a railroad. Events on either side of this railroad attract people living on that side. Crossing over is incredibly rare.

And yet, outside attacks on our community rally everyone to defense.

I am now reminded of Afghanistan. No invader has ever conquered this country completely. The only thing that unites the warlords and the various tribes in Afghanistan is an outsider invading. Even that is not enough to make all the tribes set aside their difference as inter-group fighting continues.

Perspective matters

So, continue to step back until you can take in the macrocosm view. Admittedly, you might need to be standing on the moon. But see the whole world.

Now, lemme slap this on you.

"So (name withheld) had his first experience with racism this afternoon. He said a little girl was sitting with him and her sister said 'don't sit with the white kids.' How very very sad..." This was posted by my longtime friend and the little fella's mom. It happened at school.

This young fella is just starting school. He's now launched on a path that we all hope will lead him to success and happiness.

He encounters racism, a learned and a taught behavior. Make no mistake - little children recognize there are differences in children. They know some are boys, some are girls, some have better tans, etc etc etc. But, they don't care. They have to be taught that these genetic differences are important enough to make one person better than another.

I read comments like the above and my world crashes around me. Profanity-laden invective-driven interrogatives want to burst forth. In other words, I want to scream WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

And then, I read the gentle wisdom of the one our group calls MacT. Hope is restored. My faith may be tarnished, dented and have a few holes in it. But it's still there.

Aliens may indeed invade earth some day. If that happens, I do think it will unify humanity like never before, but even that is not going to be enough to make us set aside the arbitrary divisions we insist on creating.

Exit stage whatever comes next

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A very few people believe that if a living being is dying in a lot of pain, they should be left to die that way.

The vast majority of people would say if a living entity is in pain and is terminal, something should be done to alleviate that pain. Cancer patients and other terminally ill humans are routinely drugged into insensibility. Well, this done where such medications can be delivered.

In places where analgesics are not available, I suppose people die screaming.

Not the way I wanna go.

Quite a number of people, m'self included, support euthanasia. We believe it is our life, not yours. You have no right to regulate how I live and you have no right to regulate how I die.

A majority of us who own pets will opt to end our pet's life with a shot from a vet, or as some of us country folks do, a shot to the head with a .22,  if that animal is suffering from a terminal and painful disease. Yes. I have "put down" treasured family pets because they were suffering and the only end to it was death.

I was not happy about it. I cried in fact. If necessary, I'll do it again.

So lemme ask you, if you had the ability to prevent months of terminal suffering for some living creature, would you, could you take the step to end that suffering?

Doin' it the hard way. With spears.

This is why I support elephant hunting, albeit I doubt I ever get to shoot one. The only way I'd shoot one is if it was starving or was charging me or was rampaging and killing people.

But yeah. Elephants starve in the natural course of things.

"Elephants replace their teeth six times. At about 40 to 60 years of age, the elephant no longer has teeth and will likely die of starvation, a common cause of death."

For those of you who object to Wikipedia, "If this last molar doesn't last, the elephant won't be able to chew effectively and may starve," says bunnyhuggers. "May" starve. Consider this statement from the same article "They eat grasses, tree foliage, bark, bamboo, shrubs, roots and fruit. They also eat soil for its mineral content." This kind of diet requires molars because the food HAS to be shredded to aid digestion. HAS to be. So no molars = starvation. The bunnyhuggers say "may starve" in hopes of falsely casting doubt on the pain and suffering an old elephant goes through.

Yeah. If the old noble beast is suffering, bring it to an end quickly. That is honorable.

Predators hunt.

For those of you who say this is not honorable, I can only guess at the depths of sadism you are willing to plumb.

For those of you who say let nature take its course, I point you to the above image of an African tribal elephant hunt, a hunt which has gone on for thousands of years. Nature's way is that predators eat prey. Nature's way is that humans are the top predator.

If you eat meat, you don't have solid ground to complain about hunting. In the case of elephants and all African hunts, the animal is butchered and used to feed the autochthons of the area. No meat is wasted.


For those who say elephants are incredibly destructive, I agree.  Elephants do wreak havoc on the ecosystem. However, long term studies show this behavior is also self-regulating. In other words, elephants control their own populations as to not overburden their feeding grounds. Similar long term studies show that where elephants decimate trees, savannah takes over. Eventually trees return. This is a long term cycle and is natural.

http://molonlave2012.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-desperate-plight-of-starving-people.html

Those who like the idea of animal reserves, as I do, should consider this, which appears to fly in the face of the above observations. Oy. While you're busy looking at the game preserves, lemme ask you this - who funds these preserves?

Ah so. This is a good place to end this one as I'm about to get into the economics of hunting and that's not my intention today. Maybe tomorrow.

To close, lemme ad this: I could not be a natural photographer and documentary producer. I've seen the footage of starving wild animals and listened to the documentary producers say "this is nature's way." I could not do it. Shoot the poor beast and end its suffering. Humanity also means bringing a quick end to things.

In the meantime if you'd like to see what commentary has been generated so far, visit my Facebook page and see this thread.

Update: Second thread with the Wisdom of MacT. https://www.facebook.com/RedneckGenius/posts/10151561505936024

Can't see parity for the hood in the way

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Took Mom shopping over the weekend. While in one of those giant members-only galaxy-sized stores, I saw a lady - excuse me. I saw what I presumed to be a human female - walking around in a black burka. Possibly a niqab. Definitely not a hijab cause she was completely hidden except for her hands.

heh.

What immediately went through my mind was a spear of anger and not for the reasons you are thinking.

Wanna bet?

Here was a person (benefit of the doubt cause I've never seen an ape that tall or any other animal capable of what the entity in the burka was doing) walking around in a store covered head to toe with only a small slit around the eyes to provide limited vision. And now I find myself irked for yet another reason, which I'll detail in a moment.

There was no way to see the person's face. I upset.

Not that I cared what the person looked like. Had the person been horrifically scarred, I still would not care what he or she looked like. I do not judge people on unintentional physical appearance. Intentional appearance is another matter.

I don't care if the person was male or female. I don't care that the garment was full length.

So says the vast majority of people

Why was I mad? 'Cause of a double standard, and not the one you're thinking of.

Had I walked into the same store wearing a slightly different outfit with my face completely covered, I could have been arrested. Why?

You can point to the obvious difference. One full body outfit is of a religious nature. The other, you can argue, is not. Pick a side. I can just as easily argue the other is of a religious nature.

You can also argue that one is embedded in hate and violence and subjugation and terror. I can argue the same thing with an equal amount of historical records to back my side up. Again, pick your side.

In fact, I point you to this report from the Southern Poverty Law Center which argues the Georgia Supreme Court decision I point to above. The author states  "the court emphasized that (the people who hide their faces) had a long record of "harassment, intimidation and violence against racial and religious minorities." I deleted the exact words to parenthetically insert my own to make you think.

Lemme be very clear here. I offer an equal amount of support to both groups of people who hide themselves when in public. Feel free to twist that statement however you wish; it's not going to change what I say.

If it is illegal for one group to go about in public with their faces hidden, it should be illegal for another group to go about in public with their faces hidden. The reasons for hiding are irrelevant.

The law should be equally applied. Carving out exceptions because you like or don't like what one group does is a double standard of the worst kind.

If one is wrong, both are. If one is right, both are.

Now for the reason which irked me as I write this column. I presume - could be wrong but I did not see the person escorted by someone else - this person would get behind the wheel of a vehicle wearing this outfit. It blocks peripheral vision and severely limits a line of sight. In short, this is a major hazard to the driver any passengers and other motorists.

If this person was not driving, then I have no complaint about that.

Of parastic wasps, text messages, sweat, pictures and sadness

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is not about religion, but discusses religion.

I was awake, but just laying there, when I got a text message Sunday morning. Joseph Neese, pastor at Christ Foundation Assembly of God, sent me a message saying he hoped to see me at church Sunday morning.

First time that's ever happened.

I recently stay out from one service cause I was exhausted. Had I gone to church, I'd have fallen asleep. As I sit on the front row, that's bad form - sleeping during church.  That afternoon, I got a message from Joseph saying he missed seeing me.

That is the second time anyone has ever contacted me about missing church on the same day I wasn't there.

This Sunday after church, I hauled out to a church out in the county. I had a 1:30 p.m. appointment to take a group picture of the congregation for a 100th year anniversary celebration. As happens from time to time in a charismatic church, services went long.

I stood in the lobby for quite a while, not willing to open the door and interrupt services.

One man came out, shook my hand, and asked whom I needed to see. I explained I was there for the picture. He nodded, attended his business and went back inside.

A short while later a lady came in from the outside. She asked if services were "about over." I replied I did not know and I was there to take pictures. She walked in.

Tired of sweating inside, no AC in the lobby, I stepped outside to sweat. I checked the time, intending to give the folks inside until a certain time and I was gone. I had a 2 p.m. meeting to get to.

Then, movement on the ground caught my eye. A 1-inch parasitic wasp was carrying a caterpillar. Bear with me, I have a point.

Not my picture. You get the idea though.

I was immediately entranced. I've seen these critters before and seen them carry caterpillars. Never seen what happened. I decided I'd stay until I saw what the wasp would do. I watched the insect leave her booty, fly around, test dig a couple of spots, come back, leave again and etc. I recalled from a documentary I once saw, the wasp memorized the terrain so it could find it's place. Really.

The wasp zoomed away, landing next to the church. It walked around and came back to the caterpillar. It carried the caterpillar, which probably weighed several times more than the wasp, to the edge of the church entrance ramp. There, it carefully uncovered a hole and hauled the hapless 'pillar down the hole. It backed out and dropped pebbles down the hole. It covered the remainder of the hole with dirt. Brilliant. Amazing. Awesome. Etc. What happens to the caterpillar?

Me, standing there with a macro focus zoom lens on a camera, did I get pictures of all this?

Nooooooooooooooooooooo!

Wotta idiot. I was just too fascinated with the byplay of nature taking place in front of me.

I walked away. As I was getting in my ride to leave, someone came out of the church and called my name. Services were over. Could I take the picture?

"I'm already late, but I can be a bit more late," I replied.

As the congregation filed out, I shook hands with the pastor and a gent known to my community as Coach or Chief. No one else offered. As none of these people were lawyers or politicians, I did not force myself on them.

A few minutes later the picture was taken. I left for my other meeting.

Had I not seen the wasp, I would have left, church picture untaken. You can call this serendipity if you wish.

Here's the sadness. Three people shook my hand. No one invited me in to the church. As I stood in the lobby, I immediate thought about the apocryphal story of the pastor who dressed as a bum and sat outside his own church. As I write this, I am reminded of an actual instance of the same thing.

The hell of it is, I'm guilty of the same exact thing.

The important stuff

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Renee posted this to FB yesterday. Also yesterday I was handed Charles' last column for the newspaper. These two are linked in via my amazing ability to find a common thread in just about everything.

The final deadline.

Charles died this week. I did not know, but he'd penned this column over a year ago. He asked I run it after he was gone. Going to. Next week's paper.

The photo story Renee linked to shows children from around the world with their most prized possessions. The narrative in the story is gripping and echoes the observations I've made while living and traveling in the United States.

This immediately made me think, what are my most prized possessions?

That, for me anyway, is easy. I found that out Jan. 30 of this year. As the local police, sheriff and GBI crawled all over my yard and poked around in two rooms of the house to gather evidence in the shooting, I sent my family to stay with my mother in another community. I told them to take anything they could not live without.

Just to add a different perspective

Then, I applied the same to myself. What were my most prized possessions. As children do not count as a possession and they were already safe, I looked over the rest.

I grabbed my father's recurve bow which he called Bear and the American Flag which flew over the US Army Headquarters in Afghanistan in my honor. It is a gift from my distant cousin David Bass. It still affects me greatly when I think of war, our military,  David, the flag and everything the combination means to me.

Dad's bow is one of the very few things he left me in this life. His other possessions - no, not going there. I do add some of his tools, some of my grandfather's tools and a fishing lure and wood from the house my great-grandfather built were put together to make a chess set for my brother's wedding gift. That's the one thing Shag will take.

So back to Jan. 30, 2013. Everything else, as I left the house that night, I expected to never see again. Thousands of books, some first editions, important papers, an enormous hat collection, some trophies on the wall, pictures and plenty of other items were left without a backward glance. Some of this stuff couldn't be replaced. Some could.

So why the bow and flag? If you don't understand now, then nothing I can add is going to explain it.

Demanding a double standard

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Government can take your money, by force, and give it to whomever the government wishes. If you object, tough. Gonna happen anyway.

If you attempt to give money to these same people, you will be arrested.

Explain the logic behind that.

My request for enlightenment applies to Damnocrats, Reboobicans, Cantservatives and Liarberals because they all support this double standard system. Explain please.

Lemme take this in a more specific direction.

Under federal law, a candidate for president can draw taxpayer dollars to help fund a campaign for office. There is a voluntary checkoff on your tax return to contribute to this fund. But this voluntary fund has pretty much never generated the amount of money that goes out to candidates.

In other words, you subsidize campaigns for people running for president whether you like them or not.

In other words, a candidate for president can take your tax dollars and use it to run for office. There is a limit on how much he can take. But he can do it, whether you like it or not.

In the past, your tax dollars have gone to support racists, socialists, idiots, rightists, leftists, other idiots, peaceniks, war hawks, different idiots and maybe the candidate you supported.

These politicians tapping the taxpayer well do have a limit on what they can draw. That limit is well above what you can directly give a candidate.

In other words, a politician can legally take your tax dollars, at lot of 'em, to run for office. But, if you give that same politician your money and if you give too much you can be arrested.

Why?

It's your money. Should you should be able to give it to whomever you wish and in whatever amounts you wish when it comes to a political campaign? Should government have the right to tell you where to send and spend your money?

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court justly kicked a set of campaign contribution laws to the curb. Now another legal challenge is headed to the Supremes. This one aims to eliminate the contribution limits for a person and a politician. As Jeffery Toobin says, SCOTUS is likely to kick the law limiting contributions to the curb as well.

I certainly hope so.

You should be able to spend your money as you see fit when it comes to supporting a politician's bid to be elected.

Anyone who objects to that should be viewed with much suspicion. Ask them what they are hiding and what they are afraid of. Ask them why your tax dollars can be taken by force, but it's illegal for you to do the same thing.

Don't expect a cogent reply.