The Ferguson Riots, Firearms and Progressives.

I've long maintained that progressivism (or modern liberalism) is really a loosely knit collection of incompatible ideas based on emotion and naivete.  Progressivism dictates that people be treated differently based on demographic information.  Periodically, I like to shine a light on this.

Recently there have been a series of protests against the actions of law enforcement.  The protests were met with a heavily armed and militarized police force to contain and shut down the protest.  Progressives in this country called for the protesters to be arrested and locked.  They called for law enforcement to arm up, go in, and if they needed to shoot the protesters.

I am of course talking about the stand off at the Bundy Ranch.

Months ago when a militarized BLM showed up at the Bundy Ranch, they were met with an armed populace.  Progressives were beside themselves.  Aside from calling for drone strikes against the Bundy Protesters, they reverted to a common refrain:  "Only the police and military should have guns."

Fast forward to today.  Progressives are lamenting a militarized police force in Ferguson, MO (as are libertarians, with conservatives split).  We could also talk about progressives being for animal rights and the wholesale slaughter of Bundy's cattle at the same time too.  If only there were a way for citizens to counteract the siege of their city...

Meanwhile, those of us who support the Second Amendment understand that's what it's there for.

Not just to protect against a tyrannical state, but the hordes of rioters and looters destroying Ferguson.

Unsurprisingly, rioters were not interested in this strip mall.  No one was hurt, not a shot was fired.  The don't call guns "peacemakers" for nothing.

What lessons will be learned from this?  None.  The Right already knew, and the Left will be back to disarming civilians and militarizing the police in no time.

Soooo, it looks like the USSR is on its way back.

Putin is apparently starting his rebuilding of the USSR with Crimea.  And NOW, his propagandists are crowing about Russia's nuclear weapons arsenal and turning the USA in to radioactive dust.  Of course it is going this route.

There are two things to consider:

1.  The Russian military is not spectacular by any stretch.  But they have nukes.

2.  Russia's economy is dependent on natural gas and oil exports.

As the Russians stated, they can turn the US in to ash.  As for Europe, well they are loving that cheap Russian gas and oil.  Any action by Europe against Russia will trigger an embargo.  Europe and Russia will play chicken to see who blinks first.

So how would one deal with this?  Wouldn't it be nice if there were some kind of counter measure against Russian ICBMs?  It would have to be some place strategically located in Europe.  Maybe, Finland, or I know!  Poland.  It would be a shield against missiles.  We could call it a "missile shield."  I seem to remember we were working on a program like that.  I wonder what happened to it?  Something about flexibility...

Then there's Russia's monopoly on oil and natural gas.  I'm pretty sure Russia would think twice if Europe to rally another source of natural resources.  If only they weren't the only game in town.  I hear that Canada and northern US states are pulling a lot of oil and natural gas these days.  If only there were some kind of pipeline to get it to a major US port...  I thought there was some kind of project called the Keystone pipeline that was going to do that.  I wonder what happened to that?