Bushmaster was shut down over the courts allowing people to sue gun manufacturers which became apparent when I stripped the extractor in my Bushmaster.

I had to find another quality brand and someone told me to give Anderson a shot. I did and its been 4 months now and I have yet to be disappointed with Anderson. Anderson brand is made in Kentucky and reasonably priced, especially considering every part comes with a life-time warranty.

Of course, I did go all out getting a Sig Sauer Romeo RTS Red Dot optic, Sig Sauer 3x Flip-out Maginifier, Sig Sauer laser/light system, with every other part either being Anderson or Magpul. The stock/buffer, mags, foregrip, backup sights, and handle are all Magpul brand.

This has resulted in a very epic weapon system that shoots very smoothly even 1,000 rounds later, and she’s deadly accurate.

As far as a name goes, the jury is out. However, I did pick up a sidearm, Sig Sauer P290 RS with the Corona Stimulus – which I have named “Corona”.

The post New AR Platform appeared first on The Blog of Michael Wells.

What is Sharia Law?

Sharia Law is a composite of laws that were composed by Muhammed in order to control the population during Muhammed’s time and force compliance with his teachings. That needs to be said once more for emphasis, to force compliance. Sharia, in Arabic, means “The Only Way“.

Sharia law includes many barbaric punishments for simple and minor crimes. Theft for instance is punishable by amputation of the hands. Lying is punishable by amputation of the tongue.

Sharia Law and the United States are intrinsically incompatible. It goes without saying that the fraction of punishments I just listed are certainly considered “Cruel and Unusual” punishments in direct contradiction to our 8th Amendment in the Bill of Rights, but women are considered to be subhuman and does not possess the same rights as males. In fact, she must provide multiple witnesses if she claims to have been raped and if she makes this claim and has one of the witnesses recant, she is subject to be stoned to death for infidelity.

Sharia Law does not mandate due process, therefore anyone can enforce it, such as a jealous brother, vengeful father, or a coveting neighbor. There is no justice in Sharia Law, only vengeance which is what our constitution specifically prohibits.

Therefor, it is a good thing the state of North Carolina has outright banned Sharia Law. Perhaps it should be done at the Federal level as well.

The post NC Bans Sharia Law appeared first on The Blog of Michael Wells.

I’ll never forget my professor of my first class after I got off of work, Doctor Stanley Wilkes, a professor of Institutional Socioeconomics.   I learned a lot about economies and how they differ.  But it was our second quarter that a soldier, Specialist Trent, asked, “Professor, we haven’t studied much socialism or communism.  What is the difference between those two?”

Doctor Wilkes smiled back at him and replied, “I held the best for last.  For the next three weeks, you will receive 3 tests on Friday.   Most everything will be a review but the tests will be long and monotonous.  I will be grading these tests differently.  I will average all of the grades and everyone will receive the class average.

Many students rejoiced, others weren’t as happy.  One student argued, “Professor, I’m liable to ruin my strait-A average!”

The Doctor Wilkes shouted, “Foust, sit down and stop being so greedy!”

The students that were rejoicing were now cheering.  I thought to myself, “There is no way I’m getting an A, all those cheering are those barely passing.”

The first test came around.  Sure enough, those that were cheering didn’t even show up.  I was a straight-A student (in College – hand to God).  I arrived and sat down and did my test which lasted the entire 3 hours.  My fingers were numb from holding the pen and my arm felt like I had just done thousands of 4-counts of windmills.

The next Monday the grade came in.  It was a D.  My test was given back to me and it was a 100.  Those that were complaining scored between 95 and 100.  Almost no one else showed up for the test, especially those cheering the professor when he announced this new grading system.

The next Friday, I said, “fuck it!”

I didn’t show up, neither did any of the other A-Students as it turns out.  That Monday we returned to his class and he remarked to the class, “Congratulations, you are all receiving an F.  No one showed for the test.  Welcome to socialism.”

He then remarked, “But we can’t have that.  I can’t have a failing class. So, I’m passing out these wrist bands.  These wrist bands will allow me to track your whereabouts so if you don’t show for class I can have the MP’s pick you up and forcefully bring you to the class.  I can also dispatch them to pick you up and put you in jail.  This wrist band will also keep you up at night ensuring that you are doing your home work.”

I speak up and shout, “Professor, with all due respect, this is inhumane.  The US Army isn’t that bad in basic combat training.”

The professor then looks at me and smiles, then replies, “Welcome to communism.”

This provoked a lot of thought from everyone in the class that day.  The professor passed us with the scores we had before his new rules, but we still thought about that quarter.  The one thing that struck me was how quick I was to give up when I’m not rewarded with the fruits of my labor and risk.   Some of the students even remarked, “But this is a classroom.”

I was very quick to speak back up and reply, “But our scores are currency, the test was our labor, and the professor’s review is the class GDP.  The GDP was not sustainable, and therefor he had to impose communism to force us to turn in our work.   The point of this was obviously to show us that socialism leads to only two possible paths – communism or revolution.”

That is how socialism works.  It is a one-way street.  If a citizenry isn’t capable of fighting, then there is communism.  If they are, there is a revolution and generally a republic is established — if they win.  If not, welcome to China.

“But Democratic Socialism is different!”

Besides the word “Democratic” it is not.  It still has a hierarchy, it still distributes the wealth equally (except to that hierarchy and high echelon which is why Hollywood stars love to promote socialism — they would be exempt) giving hard working individuals willing to take risks in the economy no incentives to continue their efforts.  Eventually, it will devolve to communism or a revolution.

No matter how many words you put in front of “Socialism” to dress it up, it’s still socialism with the same paths.  It is the suicide note of a nation.

The post Socialism and Communism: How Different Are They? appeared first on The Blog of Michael Wells.

Before I even start I want to make a few things clear.  First of all, I do not believe that any conservative or libertarian sent these bombs.  Usually, when a conservative sets out to do something, he or she does it.  Likewise, a libertarian is more likely to walk up and make it known what he or she is doing.

There are several things that lead me to believe this.  First of all, there were no post marks on the package which means the stamps were not voided.  This is very uncharacteristic of the US Post Offices.  Packages are postmarked at the office in which they are sent from.  Without this post mark, no other post office will relay the mail.  But even at that, the stamps don’t add up.  Aside for them being different sizes, they’re not accurate for the apparent weight of a pipe bomb.

Also, just today an astute twitter user found something interesting about one of the images CNN posted of the bomb.  It contains the ISIS flag.

But what if a conservative or Trump supporter did this?  Are they wrong?  Well, yes, but no.  Let’s sit down and think for a moment what conservatives have endured for the past two years:

• Beatings Antifa – Check
• Rape from BLM – Check
• Murder from both – Check

The fact is, conservatives and Trump supporters are persecuted in this county by the very violent left.  What’s worse, is main stream news doesn’t want to report this violence and if they do, it’s downplayed.  Instead of riots being called riots, they are called “protests” as if they were peaceful at any point in time.  For example, The Berkeley Riot was called a “protest” by almost every main stream news outlet, yet one of the “protesters” killed a a Milo fan by stabbing them to death.  Just four days ago a black male was shot to death because he joked about voting for Trump.  That bears repeating, he was murdered in cold blood because the attacker thought he was serious when he said he voted for Trump.

This is the first time in modern US history that a political party had to fear death for voting for a president.   The last time this happened, there was a war to free slaves.   Just like the last time, it was the Democrats perpetuating the violence.

So what if this is “as-is”?  What if a conservative or libertarian sent the bombs?  Well, the first thing we have to keep in mind is that not a single one detonated and the bombs were most obviously missing the trigger mechanisms (intentionally).

This is where I step in and remark, violence begets violence.  If conservatives and libertarians are actually pushing back, I salute them.   The moment an organized party, under orders from leaders (ie. “when they go low, kick them” or “there will be no civility”) to be violent to subvert the voting process or to persecute political dissidents, they have identified themselves as enemy combatants of the United States Constitution.  As a US Army Veteran, I’m compelled to state, for fact, that it is our duty to do exactly this.

The post The Serial Bomber and My Opinion appeared first on The Blog of Michael Wells.

I have sat down with people on the left and right and had discussions about our constitution. No matter what you might think, every word of our constitution carries significant meaning. But it is not only the words you should look toward, sometimes further meaning can be found when you understand the context.

Just like “Black Lives Matter” can be seen as taken out of context, the constitution is no exception. Allow me to preface this with the actual text of the second amendment:

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

I’ll admit, I typed that from memory having learned the entire constitution up to the 10th amendment, so it may contain reasonable human error.

But I will not bore you any more with intrigue and get right to the point. Some people are arguing that the second amendment grants only militias the right to keep and bear arms. Others will argue that the constitution only grants the right for people to carry hunting rifles. And then, there are others that believes that the second amendment gives EVERY law abiding citizen the right to keep and bear arms. Admittedly, the latter is closer to the truth, but still not even close.

Actually, they are all quite false. In fact, it is an outright lie perpetuated by some very sinister people that I will talk about later in this post.

To understand the lie you have to understand politics of the late 1700’s. We have to start by learning that big names which signed our Declaration of Independence and ratified the Articles of Confederation BOYCOTTED the ratification of the Constitution in favor of keeping the Articles of Confederation place. Some of these names include, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin – just to name a small fraction.

Surprised? Don’t be. John Hancock said specifically:

“I smell a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy.”

Woah! Being as they just fought off that very monarchy, that’s a really powerful accusation. Would you not agree?

But what did Thomas Jefferson have to say?

Thomas Jefferson called the Constitutional Convention an, “assembly of demigods.”

Why were these framers so passionately against our Constitution? You must understand that at this very moment in our nations history, nothing, and I mean nothing, limited the power of government over there people. For many of our framers that just clawed their way from underneath the boot of a tyranny, they were terrified and rightfully so.

But you say, “If that’s the case, why are some of their signatures on the ratification?”

Good question. You see, the delegation knew they couldn’t ratify this document without at least some of the support of the origional framers and therefor they asked some of our framers, “What is it you would like to see changed?”

James Madison, influenced by both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin responded by submitting the Bill of Rights. Only after it was added to the constitution was the new Constitution ratified. Allow me to say that again because people are under the popular belief that the bill of rights were amendments add AFTER ratification — NO! The Constitution was ratified WITH the Bill of Rights INCLUDED. That makes these first ten amendments the “Amendments in Stone”. You can no more repeal these amendments as you could repeal article 1, article 2, article 3, article 4 or article 5.

But my point lies inside of those amendments — or more specifically, what they do. Take the First Amendment for example, it starts with, “Congress shall make no law-”

But I’ll not take that out of context and give you the entire amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Again, nothing here says we can do anything. It only tells us what congress cannot do. Telling Congress what they cannot do is not a right, that is a limitation. Strange, right? I mean, it’s called the “Bill of Rights”, yet it doesn’t really say “The people have the right to free speech.”

Nope, no such statement exists anywhere in the first ten amendments. But to understand why, the smoking gun (no pun intended) lies within the second amendment.

” – the right of the people to keep and bear arms – “

Notice something odd about that? It does not say anyone has been granted a right — no. It says, very specifically, that the right already exists. And, it does already exist. The right to keep and bear arms is considered an inalienable right, a right bestowed by our creator at birth. But where is this right talked about, specifically, if anywhere?

It is in our declaration of independence where our framers spoke of three inalienable rights. The right to life. The right to liberty. And the right to pursue happiness. You might ask, those rights didn’t include any rights from the Bill of Rights. You would be horribly mistaken.

Now, lets go ahead and demystify a few rumors of what that might mean. The statement does not say that you cannot be killed, obviously there is nothing the founders could do to prevent death. Nor does not say that government cannot take your rights away. It most certainly does not say or suggest that you will be happy under the government. It simply declares that these rights are bestowed upon you by your creator. But they knew that a government could take these rights away.

Therefor, the right to keep and bear arms was as much as an understood right as procreating with your significant other. In fact, any tool necessary to secure any of the three rights were seen as inclusive and intrinsically bound to the three inalienable rights. If you cannot speak freely, then you lack liberty. If the government intrudes upon your privacy, then you lack liberty. If you cannot defend your liberty, then you lose liberty. Nothing says it is the government’s job to protect your liberty, likewise it is very clear that it is OUR responsibility to protect our liberty. Each of the first five amendments are safeguards to protect an already existing and bound inalienable right that must exist to protect the three named inalienable rights. This is why the first ten amendments do not grant you a right at all, they already existed before the constitution was written. The bill of rights only exists to limit the government’s power to infringe upon the inalienable rights that is your sovereign birthright.

So, if the government were to erase the first amendment, there would be tyranny — the antithesis of liberty. If they erased the third amendment, there would be tyranny — the antithesis of liberty. If they erased the fourth or fifth amendments, allowing the unjustified seizure of property and forcing you to testify against yourself, there would be tyranny — the antithesis of liberty. And, alas, if you have no way to secure your liberty by keeping those at bey that have the power to remove it — there is tyranny. The Bill of Rights have never given us a single right because they ALL have ALWAYS been inalienable — not granted to us by any document but bestowed by God, himself.

So, when I hear that the second amendment only gives militias the right to bear arms — the willful ignorance infuriates me, especially as a United States Army Veteran. None of the amendments grant rights — it simply limits the government’s power to take an existing right away.

To better understand what it is the second amendment limits, it is wise to know what the Webster Comma is. The comma can serve two purposes: to articulate a breath, and to divide a sentence into multiple statements. Well, our framers wrote the constitution with a quill, which took longer than a few hours to write (weeks, actually). Being as articulate commas are ‘optional’ it is only logical to suppose that the commas are for division. So lets break this down into two easily digestible chunks.

We will start the first chunk of two statements called the “cause for action” — this means that the statements suggest the necessity for the amendment. Finding words like “necessary” within the statement itself will absolutely prove my statement is true. So lets start.

“A well-regulated militia, being NECESSARY to the security of a free state, -“

And there is the word I was looking for. Before we examine this, lets construct a similar statement using the exact grammar:

“The stadium lights, being necessary to see, -“

As you can see, the stadium lights, being the subject for the cause for action, you can identify the actual cause with the word necessary. Then after, in the third segment you can see what I did, which is called the caused action. But I want to point out one quite remarkable observation. This statement does not limit the necessity to see just to stadium lights, it simply describes the tools readily available. Suppose the sun was up, are the stadium lights still necessary to see? No.

What does the cause for action then mean, exactly? Well, I could tell you what it is by describing the meaning, but I don’t want you merely learning my interpretations. To avoid sloppy a interpretation, lets examine the text of someone that influenced the Bill of Rights.

“When a people fear the government, there is tyranny. But when a government fears the people, there is liberty.”
~ Benjamin Franklin

There is that word again from the Declaration of Independence, Liberty — as in the inalienable right. But what does that mean, exactly? Mr Franklin seems to be suggesting that we need something in our possession to make the government fear us in order to maintain our liberty and avoid a tyrannical government

But what did did the other that influenced the Bill of Rights have to say? Let’s examine the words of Thomas Jefferson:

“Sometimes the tree of liberty must be wet from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Well, there is that word again. Liberty — that inalienable right seems to be just popping up all over the place! But what does that mean, exactly? Well, the Tree of Liberty is obviously a metaphor. I know some people are laughing and asking themselves, “Mike, you really have to explain that?”

I reply, “Yes. Yes I do, because some people just don’t get it.”

But it is a metaphor which represents the foundations that our framers have laid for us to ensure that we remain a free nation — free from tyranny. So what is this blood stuff he speaks up? I’ll admit, that’s a little gory. Well, he’s not talking about our Army dying, that’s called soldiers. Even in Jefferson’s time, they called their standing armies, soldiers — not patriots. The term patriot was reserved for a normal citizen that had responded to his national sense of duty by taking up arms to combat tyranny and to defend liberty. So what he is saying here: In order to ensure the Tree of Liberty survives, normal people who take up arms against tyrants will have to die. Surely he didn’t mean for them to die with bows and arrows while the offending armies carried muskets and cannons.

It is true, you can argue that this means a threat from abroad, but someone else makes things a little clearer, the actual author of the Bill of Rights, James Madison:

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”

And now we have a crystal clear painting of what the cause for action is, it is to take up arms against our OWN government. So now you can walk away from this little educational piece with full understanding to what “free state” means. But what about the militia? Does the militia clause mean that the Second Amendment only protects the militia’s right to keep and bear arms? Let’s find out.

Thomas Jefferson gives us a hint to what the clause defines as a militia by first of all letting us know that we already had a standing army at the time and secondly, telling us who it was that owned firearms when he writes a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni on June 8, 1778:

“This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.”

That’s a strange term for a militia — Infancy. Obviously we’ve never had infants in our militias, so what in the hell is he talking about?

George Madison tells us exactly what he is talking about in his address to congress:

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”

Now that’s a very direct and clear statement. The whole people seems to suggest he’s not talking about militias, an army, or government officials, but instead, everyone NOT of the government. That seems to suggest that ‘militia’ doesn’t even mean ‘militia’ any more. That happened when he carefully crafted his speech to include the word “now” suggesting the present definition carries a different meaning than a previous definition. But why? Likely because a standing army had just been hired. But what, if anything, can lend further evidence that the term, ‘militia’ had changed to mean the whole people? Well, we need to know what was going through our framer’s heads at the time of the writing of the second amendment and the hiring of our standing army. And for that, we need look no further than the famed Federalist Papers.

“If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

This is the words of Alexander Hamilton, the legal father of our United States Army stating that we should NOT form a standing army unless every citizen has the power to keep that Army in check. That is exactly what he just said:

“This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

So, how does a people keep a military in check? Hmmm… Let me take a stab in the dark. A well-regulated militia — is me. A well-regulated militia is you. It is every citizen in this country who understands and respects the constitution and would use firearms for good, keeping our government at bey.

Alas, I’ve saved the best for last, though. Nothing tells us more what the second amendment actually does than the second part where all glorious details are revealed to us in splendid clarity and without any need for explanation. Now that you know what the cause for action is, let’s now examine the caused action.

“the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

Take note, once again this amendment refers to a right as if it already exists and merely limits the government’s power by saying, “shall not be infringed.”

Let’s summarize with a simple few statements. Our founding fathers were absolutely terrified that our government would become a tyranny. The evidence is everywhere in our constitution, it is on every document they wrote (it seems). So what was their answer? The second amendment was the answer. It is the final check to our system of checks and balances. It is entirely possible that our second amendment has prevented such tyranny that our founding fathers feared, by means of threat alone, for over two hundred years. And we have idiots that want to see it disappear. It is hard for me to imagine why.

So, I submit, a question. What part of the second amendment is it the politicians all fail to understand? What part of the second amendment is it the media fails to understand? It doesn’t really matter.

No matter what happens, no matter what plans our politicians or media puts into action, no matter what great threat befalls our nation and legal system; every law abiding citizen of this nation has the right to keep and bear arms and that shall not be infringed. I’m not talking about muskets and pistols I’m talking about the kind that keeps our government in check. It is very true that our government can remove that right, but any such removal would be only superficial and temporary until the next revolution, which would likely follow as swift as the last when the first shots of the American Revolution was fired at the Old North Bridge when the crown tried to confiscate the colonists’ firearms.

Oh, you thought it was started over a three-cent tea tax? Wrong again. Of course that pissed a few people off, but no shots were fired until the British Soldiers told the colonists to disarm. Imagine what would happen today with the statistics saying there are ten firearms per American. It would be the biggest war in World History. That’s enough fire-power, that if focused on one single point, would equate to energy release of nineteen atomic bombs. The part the scares me is the uncertainty that these new patriots will know where to draw the line. Will they simply overthrow the government, or will they go after all the political dissidents who supported and made it happen like we did in Germany? It wasn’t until Eisenhower saw what was going on did he stop our troops from torturing and executing Germans for their transgressions. I fear what could happen to our far left without the leadership of someone like Eisenhower.

While our politicians and media colludes with each other to peel back our rights like the layers of an onion, by trying to convince the masses they are not safe while guns exist, one singular statement gives me solace. It is a simple Latin statement written by Thomas Jefferson that almost seems like a cry through time itself to to tell us very specifically that our freedom is worth the risk of death itself.

“Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem”, he said.

Which translates to:

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”

I agree, or I would not be a US Army Veteran.

Remember these facts the next time the media, a politician, or a political parrot finger-wags that you shouldn’t need a military-grade weapon or tries to convince you that those kinds of weapons are solely reserved for government entities. Remember what James Madison, the author of the Second Amendment said about reminding our rulers of our intent to resist THEM, so shall we have guns!

And for the love of God, the next time you hear a hand-full of children or adults have been killed in a mass shooting, God forbid — stop and ask yourself how many survived that very mass shooting because of a GUN in the right hands. But most importantly ask yourself why it is that no one ever speaks about the massive amounts of children and adults that guns save. Go on, ask the question unless you’re too afraid. You might discover the narratives are constructs to deceive the masses and affect a sinister plan of action which end-goals includes turning every man, woman, and child into the unfathomable: livestock.

Those that want to to remove firearms don’t merely have an eraser on the second amendment. It’s on ALL of the amendments.

The same people that are after the second amendment are the ones that use Political Correctness to control your speech. They use words like “homophobia” and “Islamophobia” to control your religious beliefs. They use words like “hate” to insure you include them in every facet of your life. They use terrorism as an excuse to spy on your phone calls with warrants from secret courts where your interests aren’t represented. And, they use the IRS to stop your petitions of grievances.

These people aren’t just poised to strike at the second amendment. They want control! In order to make us livestock, they must have control. And the only thing that sits between them and what they want is the Bill of Rights. And what stands between them and the Bill of Rights? The second amendment. Your ability to fight back is what keeps control in WE, THE PEOPLE’s hands. A wolf isn’t very scary without his teeth, is he? It is black or white: if our government does not fear us, then we fear our government and according to Benjamin Franklin, THAT SPELLS TYRANNY.

I have argued these points before with those that are politically galvanized against the ownership and carrying of military weapons. I’ve heard every argument fathomable and I’ve defeated every one, and as I do the argument then begins to devolve into arguing from fallacies. Just to name a few:

1) The Second Amendment means Muskets and Cannons, not assault weapons.
– My response is to demonstrate the insanity of their logic: Then the First Amendment only means quill, parchment, and Christianity, not cell phones, television, and Atheism.

2) The Second Amendment is antiquated because it allows for death on a massive scale.
– My response demonstrates that the legislation can’t even compare with some other legislation that is directly responsible for death on massive scales: Does that mean Roe v Wade is also antiquated because that decision has taken more life from his Earth than all modern wars, combined.
– If it is really life that you want to protect, then my argument cannot be ignored and must be taken seriously. But it seldom is, because the wordsmiths of the narratives being parroted to me do not care about life or death.

3) We only want better gun control, a restriction of age, or a restriction of mental condition, or —
– Oh yeah, that list keeps going on and on, but my reply again simply shows the insanity of their argument: And I only want better controls on the first amendment so you can’t trash the second.
– To which they always reply, “But that violates my right to free speech.”
– To which I reply, “Amazing how it does that, right?”

Almost always the argument ends on one final argument:

THE CONSTITUTION IS AN OLD, ANTIQUATED DOCUMENT THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO OUR DAY AND AGE.

I give you, the lie and this is where my point really begins.

To those people I have debated, they have been mere parrots, they did not know why they thought the constitution was antiquated but that was their narrative non-the-less. Just like I started by showing you who influenced the Bill of Rights, we need to go back to those who influenced those I debated. We’re led to the Political Left Elite, and at the very top is Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Senator Warren. In fact, I can cite on several accounts where they have all stated that our constitution gets in the way of progress — but I believe this is common knowledge.

What progress does the constitution interfere with? Equality? A better life? More Liberty (I might tend to agree with this one — if we trimmed back regulation), or the opportunity for happiness?

None, as it turns out. To understand that, you have to understand what their version of progress means. As it turns out, they want to limit your rights to free speech. Why? So you can’t exclude them in any way, so you can’t speak out against them in any way and if you do, you are evil, bigoted, racist, which they want made — illegal –.

There is a reason why bigotry and racism isn’t illegal, and it’s not because it’s wrong — it is, but it is simply that the author gets to write the definition. Anyone can be accused of racism, a white male that walks through a dark night club that steps on a black woman’s foot can be called both racist and sexist, and the left would have it that the white male be arrested and jailed for stepping on the foot of someone he couldn’t even see.

Now, that’s racism and sexism. To hold any person to a different standard because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is bigotry, plain and simple, and when a white male is treated differently in a society because of perceived ‘white privilege’ or ‘male privilege’, there truly is a systemic problem in America. I’m a white male with Cuban heritage, I’ve never seen this ‘privilege’. I grew up in lower-middle class America on a farm where my father was a mechanic, and my mother was a programmer. We didn’t have better access to education or anything else. If anything, we had less access to help when my parents needed it because were white.

For college, I enlisted into the United States Army and used the discounts colleges provided for that along with the Montgomery GI Bill which is available to all people of the military regardless of race, gender – etc. In fact of the 1.2 million service members, which is a significant portion of America, we ALL had equal access to everything.

But that gave me privilege, right? Veteran status is something that really helps with getting jobs, right?

Wrong. When I first got out of the US Army, I couldn’t figure out for the life of me why I could never hold a job for longer than three months. I worked at Inttek – 3 months. Then Execom – 3 months. TradeMark Media Group – 3 months. And a few other places all lasting three months. Why? Was I flawed? Did I go psycho batshit crazy on them at precisely the 3-month mark with over 9 different employers? No. I didn’t know it at the time, but the government does ‘try’ to help veterans. What they do is offer a huge tax credit to business that hire veterans for at least THREE MONTHS. After the three month mark, the tax credit is no longer beneficial.

So, what really happens is these little software firms sit you down while the government gives them $20,000 and they give you $10,000 and they have you create software that is then the company’s property, which usually completes at the 2-3 month mark. They get free software and money, you hunt for a new job. You get the point.

I decided to open my own business, because working for others was obviously not working. Starting with just $200.00 for the formation paperwork which I filled myself, and depositing $50.00 into a business bank account, I have built a small business that has made my life quite comfortable.

I have never experienced white privilege in my entire life nor has any of the 3/4 of the 1.2 million US Armed Forces members. But I fixed it myself. I took a huge risk. I took almost an entire paycheck and instead of buying decent food for my wife and four kids, I paid government fees to start a business. For the next three weeks, my family lived on Top Ramen — I became sick of it. But little did I know, I tapped into a market that was undeserved at the time. Within my first three months, I had 270 subscribers paying between $200 and $700 per year. The next few months I had over 750 subscribers, and by the end of the year, I had over 2,000 subscribers, 4 full-time employees, and 2 contractors. I started with $250.00 and an upset stomach and wife for 3 weeks.

That is the American Dream. To understand what the really means you have to understand that America is the only country that gives you a sheet of paper defined by our laws, and a pen of opportunity where you can write the pages of YOU. If you are lazy then you write no words and the page remains blank or half-asses. If you are hard working, willing to take some risks, it can be a masterpiece. Essentially, the american dream is EARNED, only the opportunity, the PURSUIT thereof is a right — or the right to pursue happiness. You have no right to ‘take’ it or have the government ‘take’ it from someone else. But regulations constantly trim the edges of that paper making it smaller over time, and social movements constantly remove ink from that pen and erase entire segments of what you have written.

“You didn’t build that, someone else made that happen.”
~ Barrack Obama

“Your workers were educated by the schools that our tax dollars built. Your factories are safe from the police that our tax dollars pay. Your trucks travel down the roads that our tax dollars pay for.”
~ Elizabeth Warren

Is that really true? As it turns out, I pay about $22,000 more taxes than most Americans, which is about 212% higher than what the average american pays. Do my kids get 212% more education? Do the police arrive at my office 212% faster? Do my cars get to travel 212% faster on the roads? Of course not. In fact, if it weren’t for me and many other small business owners that pay MORE into taxes, these public services could not exist today.

That is what progress wants to stop, the American Dream. Today, children aren’t taught the most important lesson of life — defeat. Without knowing defeat, you can’t hope to win. To fully know what is available to you, you must understand the bottom and the top. But that is not what our children are taught. Every child is handed trophies by merely participating. The trophies aren’t smaller, they aren’t less shiny, and they bare similar significance. Oddly enough, everyone still receives a personal grade. But imagine for a moment that wasn’t the case and you are in high-school again and your teacher runs an experiment.

“Share the wealth”
~ Barrack Obama

For the remainder of the year, all individual scores are to be averaged by the class in effort for everyone to share that grade. What would happen? I would show up and do my best, would you? Some of you would, some of you would be like, “Yes! I can sleep in class and still get a high grade!”

You’re actually not wrong, at least for a while. After the first semester everyone gets their report card and everyone gets a B! Well, for some of us, that’s great, but what about those who tried extra hard for an A and should have earned that A? They don’t matter, right? They do. Because now that they understand they can no longer earn an A, they now think to themselves, “What’s the use?” So they begin to sleep in class. The next semester returns the scores and it is a C! Still, it’s not too bad of a grade, everyone is still passing, but what about those who were trying for a B? Now they too have joined the sleeping crowd. The next semester, the class average is an F and everyone fails.

What lessons can we draw from this thought experiment, if any? Well, let’s supposed those scores are money which represents a nation’s GDP. If the average must be a B to pay the interest on our debt, what happens when we fall to a C? The system in which I just described is called socialism which people generally confused with communism but with good reason. Because, what happens next, IS communism.

So that the teacher won’t be fired, the teacher has to do something, quick. There are only two options: Be fired or FORCE the children to do their work by means of harsh punishments. Just like a school of children, that is what would befall our nation. Our leaders would have to force the A’s and B’s to work which Francis Tocqueville said in his book, “Democracy in America”, forced labor produces poor results. This forced labor for a shared average is communism and communism is a tyranny.

Progress, as it would seem is not progress at all. It is merely the name of a path that loops back upon itself to a distant past that many across the world are still trying to escape from in places like China and Russia. The name, ‘progress’, is deceitful. It is but part of many lies, such as Social Justice, which isn’t justice at all, nor is it social, it is merely a means of limiting one’s thought and speech. Just like “gun control” — nothing that has been submitted seeks to control guns — it limits a people’s right to have them. Perhaps it is a great idea that the constitution stands in the way of these ‘lies’.

The political parrots that chirp the comments of progress today are perpetuating these lies – but in their defense, the culmination of these lies is a really good master lie that would make Hitler proud.

“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”
~ Barrack Obama

And it is difficult to stop lying, once you have started.

In this document, you should have learned a few truths:

1) The primary articles of our Constitution did not serve to limit the power of government.

2) The Bill of Rights balanced the primary articles by not by granting rights, but protecting them.

3) The rights that we enjoy today are endowed by our creators, not our government.

4) The Second Amendment isn’t for mere home defense or hunting, it is the final check to our Checks and Balances. To allow the government remove it would be the same as removing the supreme court, or congress, or both.

5) Last, but certainly not least you should more than anything else take away from this document that progressive isn’t progressive by any stretch of the American imagination nor is it amiable to the basic inalienable rights. The only progress it serves is to erase the inalienable right to liberty by the systematic removal or nullification of the Bill of Rights. This is the great lie that has been fed to America. People were tricked into thinking they have been moving forward, when in reality, they have been observing ‘progress’ through a mirror and moving backward, the mirror being the fallacies and lies used to construct the lie.

If you believe this wall of text can help get the word out to educate a friend, relative, or acquaintance, I would love if you shared it. My purpose is to set the record straight, so the more people we can educate through sharing, the better.

From this information, you and anyone else that has read it should be able to read the second amendment and know that this statement is the modern equivalent in simple English:

Being an armed population is necessary to maintain a nation of liberty, every citizen’s inalienable right to keep and bear military arms shall not be diminished by legislation, executive order, or by legislating from the bench.

After all, this is the ONLY amendment that cries out to our government and says, “DO NOT TOUCH ME”.

And now, you know why. Our forefathers saw how England stripped them of their rights and they knew, eventually it would happen again – and it is happening. Our second amendment has already been thoroughly molested.

President Reagan once said:

“Ours, is the only nation on Earth whose national anthem ends with a question. It is every generation’s responsibility to answer that question.”

Are we the land of the free? Are we the home of the brave? It is time for an answer. What say you?

The post Setting It Straight: The 2nd Amendment appeared first on The Blog of Michael Wells.

We were relentlessly DDOSed for weeks.  The attacker contacted me several times during this time through alternative communications and even telephone.  All mediums used anonomyzers to hide his identity.  This was a game-changer for me.  Being Signal Corps in the US Army, combating network intrusions was my forte and I was over-confident in my company’s network security.  The servers and network was hardened very well, meaning that our client’s data was safe.  I had never anticipated that the network infrastructure available to my state was a single-point-of-failure or that a law would cripple my ability to defend against such an attack.

What is a DDOS attack?  DDOS stands for “Distributed Denial of Service” and is the big brother of the DOS attack or “Denial of Service”.  It’s important to first understand what DOS means before we get into what a DDOS is.  DOS’s are attacks from a single point which causes an information system to be unable to service other users while being inundated with requests made by the attacker.   These are easy to stop, you simply block the incoming IP address and you have successfully stopped the attack.   The ‘distributed’ part of DDOS means that the attack comes from several sources.  This makes the attack more difficult to stop because there are multiple origins.  The problem compounds itself when several thousand information systems work in tandem in botnets to focus an attack on just a handful of servers.  If it couldn’t get any worse, it does.  The attackers have found ways to disguise their junk packets meant to clog a network as legitimate DNS traffic by hijacking vulnerable DNS servers.

https://goldsborowebdevelopment.com/2018/05/network-improvements-net-neutrality/

The type of DDOS we experienced was DNS Amplification, for which our own Government states there is no way to mitigate without coordinated effort.  But what does that mean?  A coordinated effort means that the person that is being attacked must coordinate with their upstream providers (the ISP) to block the traffic from flooding the network.  There was just one little problem with that:  Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality was a law passed in February 26th, 2015 and said that upstream providers could not discriminate against internet traffic regardless of its origins.  What this means is, our upstream provider could not legally help us to stop the incoming DDOS attacks.  I consulted our company attorney, Mr Harry Lorello in Goldsboro, North Carolina.  He characterized the law as “short-sighted, knee jerk reaction to corporatism” and stated the law needed changing.  Fortunately for me, his good friend George Holding was on his speed dial.  Within a few weeks I was in Congressman’s Holding’s office explaining exactly what happened to my company and how it inured such a high cost to my company and other companies associated with us and our network.  Congressman Holding created a coalition, he talked to other congressmen about my issue and within a few weeks they had introduced a bill to fully repeal Net Neutrality.  I might brag a little and even mention that it was rather awesome hearing the congressman on CSPAN mention my name and company name, but all-in-all, I wish it never happened.

We hear a lot of complaints from large corporations with large networks that Net Neutrality is bad and evil. But why?  These companies would have to better police their networks now that Net Neutrality is gone.  With the law out-of-the-way, ISP’s such as Level3 and AT&T can prioritize internet traffic based on the reputation of the network.  For instance, if Facebook allows its users to spam someone Facebook could gain a poor reputation and therefore all of Facebook’s servers could be given low priority for several back-bone ISP’s.  This is simply avoided by hiring staff to make sure people aren’t abusing your services.  Small businesses that rent networks have to do that already, why not the mega corporations?  The problem is, the cost analysis has never added up.  If a single network attacks my company, we could lose $700,000 which is about a quarter of our annual income.  That’s not a lot.  After payroll and taxes, I might see $70,000 of that which I can either spend on bills or reinvest into the company.  For Google to hire the staff to ensure their network doesn’t attack my company, it would cost them only 0.021% of their annual income.  Again, the cost analysis doesn’t add up.

While it didn’t help immediately, Net Neutrality was repealed just at the end of last year on December 14, 2017, about a month after the attacks stopped.  Even if it is unpopular, it does give me a sense of pride to put my name on the repeal of that law even if people have sour attitudes about it and scowl at me when I walk into board meetings in other companies.  But if we’re going to assign blame to it’s repeal, it is not my fault – this could have never happened without our friendly neighborhood script kiddy that resorted to DDOSing our network. I call the hacker a script kiddy because once someone resorts to using a free web application to take down a website, they obviously lack the aptitude to crack it, and that’s a fact.

In hindsight, I learned a lot from the experience.  I’ve been told that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, and I’m starting to believe that is true.  Today our servers are backed by 800Gbps DDOS protection.  While it is possible for our servers to be taken offline through another DNS Amplification DDOS attack, it would have to break world records and exceed the attacks on Sony and PlayStation.  Also, for our own office network, we have now two providers in which are actively filtering our traffic upstream since Net Neutrality was repealed.  I’ve also been assured that if we were DDOSed in the future, we likely wouldn’t even notice it because of the packet prioritization that is run at the peer exchange.

So, the next time someone tells  you how bad the repeal of Net Neutrality was, direct them to this story.

The post How One Hacker Repeals Net Neutrality appeared first on The Blog of Michael Wells.

The post Obama’s Wiretapping: The Evidence appeared first on The Blog of Michael Wells.

No one can deny that there was some crazy shit in the Old Testament, God instructing people to kill people, commit adultery, and even steal.  But that can’t be right because of the Ten Commandments, right? No, it is.  You see, the priests of this time could take liberties with the Bible and they would often change or make exceptions to certain rules when it became convenient for them. But then something super-human really did happen.  This guy, with a huge following of people documenting his life, came in, uncorrupted and gave the real teachings of God.  He taught us to love our neighbors, turn the other cheek, forgive, and use violence only as a last resort for survival.

In contrast, Muhammed taught entirely the opposite.  He preached that anyone who believed differently than his followers were to be executed.  He taught that you were to seek vengeance and retribution for transgressions and even taught his followers to preempt certain actions and to lie, cheat, and steal where necessary to promote Islam.  This is the crossroads at which two fundamentally similar religions became such fundamental enemies.

While Islam is inherently a vile system of beliefs; you must remember that it is still partially based on Christianity.

The post We ARE Partially to Blame for Islam appeared first on The Blog of Michael Wells.

I’m a veteran, of the US Army Expeditionary Signal variety which means I know my computers, communications, and had to sometimes operate on one or all of the above while shit was flying over my head and having to run back and forth to cover after “incoming” was yelled.

Naturally, when I got out of the US Army the first thing I did was applied at a few companies. I couldn’t cut it. The reason I was discharged was because of an unavoidable injury sustained in the line of duty which barred me from running or doing situps which were 2 of the 3 requirements to meet the physical fitness standards (you could get a waiver for 1, but not 2). Imagine telling an employer, “Yeah, I can’t bend down to pick that off of the floor”. Yeah, that usually didn’t fly very well. Plus, I found that many employers loved the “hire a vet for 6 months, get $10,000 tax deduction for the year”. That happened twice.

Well, I decided I was tired of hopping from job to job and I was going to do something I was somewhat good at and something that had little to no overhead or startup costs: Web Development.

In 2006 I founded my web development firm (and incorporated it in 2012) that has grown and is supported by over 270 clients ranging from politicians, lawyers, schools, municipalities, realtors, construction companies, and small startup companies.

I’m not “rich”, but I can comfortably support my wife (who goes to school full-time in pursuit of masters in forensic accounting and works full-time as well as a security guard). We learned early on that credit and credit cards are dangerous, very dangerous and for the past TEN years, we have avoided any kind of credit except for a home loan we’re looking into in order to move from a rented house. I paid for our vehicles in cash for the past 8 or more years.

I’m not bragging, I’m letting you know that I had a series of events that were very fortunate but they could have been much less so, and I could have entered a funk after the US Army that I would never leave. That did not happen.

I started my company against the advice of both my mother and father. I knew my circumstance at the time and I knew that even attempting to work for a company with just military training and college credits for this and that, wouldn’t help in any real career. I know two people I served with in my unit that are not so fortunate. One committed suicide about four years ago, the other is currently living out of his car which has no valid tags somewhere in Kentucky. Because that car hasn’t had valid tags or insurance since somewhere in 2011, he has in the ballpark of 8 warrants against him for arrest because he was unable to pay the citations.

This is not some isolated incident.

[button id=”d840044e498597edaa4355b41f0a1c3b” text=”See What I Mean…” url=”http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/fact-sheet-veteran-homelessness” target=”_self” alignment=”left” alignment_mobile=”default” image=”” icon=”” icon_alignment=”left” style=”1″ size=”medium” radius=”0″ border_size=”2″ shadow=”none” full=”false” tale=”none” margin=”0px 0px 15px 0px” text_color=”#ffffff” text_hover_color=”” background_color=”#3f3f3f” background_hover_color=”” border_color=”” border_hover_color=”” animation=”none” animation_speed=”2″ animation_delay=”0″ __fw_editor_shortcodes_id=”25ec93a0bb991757516892d5d9f68bb7″ _fw_coder=”aggressive”][/button]

There are about 40,000 homeless veterans in the United States right this very moment.

And what are we debating? How can we house them? How can we feed them? No, we’re debating how we can import more terrorists that these vets FOUGHT against, and how we can feed and clothe those terrorists.

What kind of sick son of a bitch can sit here and lecture anyone how we should take on more Refugees or Immigrants when we have our own folks and veterans who are out in the streets, starving, freezing, and no place to call “home”? It is sick. It is disgusting. It is the epitome of what it means to be narcissitic and ungrateful. These veterans made a committment to this country and this country made a committment to them that it fails every day at keeping and then turns and invites the same twatsickles they had to fight into their back yards as the ultimate insult.

If you liberals hate veterans so much, why don’t you just put on your big-boy pants and fucking say it it our faces?

The post Closing Argument on Refugees appeared first on The Blog of Michael Wells.

I was reading through facebook and ran across a friend’s post about a female who had been battered by her boyfriend. I looked her up and found something familiar. Her boyfriend was a “thug” and just 12 months ago she posted, “My man’s a badass no one wanna fuck wid him!”

So then she gets pregnant, he bails and she goes after him for child support and he cleans her clock leaving her with two black eyes.

Now you know the full story and now here is my commentary.

Firstly, men: If you hit a woman, you’re a twatsickle douchebag that doesn’t deserve to share the air with me. The sooner you off yourself the better.

But on to the main event here. I can’t — I can’t feel sorry for her as a battered woman. At some point, the receptors and neurons in my brain begin to stop feeling sorry for the overpowering Darwinism part of my brain goes, “Fucking retard, what in the hell did you THINK would happen?”

Sure, it burns me up to see a battered woman, it also lets me know whoever her “baby’s daddy” was is an easy fight and I could manipulate him pretty quick because he has zero self-control (or maybe zero respect for women). But what burns me up even more than that, is women who follow their hormones and urges for “bad-boy type men”.

I’ve seen way too many gentlemen that I KNOW would never hit a female bet passed over and even called names (like Geek, Nerd, Pleb, etc) because they weren’t “bad-boy” enough for their tastes. Well, when you go after one of these guys, where his lawless nature sexually appeals to you, what do you think will happen when you piss him off? Do you think he will abide by the law or follow social morae? Of course not, because that’s what sexually appealed to you.

So you post your video of the bruises and black eyes on Facebook for what reason? Oh, yes. A pity party. Sorry, I don’t pity you. I tried, I really did, but I just can’t.

I write this not because I’m some heartless wife-beater (In fact, I’ve NEVER **INTENTIONALLY** hit my wife — I say intentionally because she will most certainly bring up my sleeping habits and how my elbow has on occasion found her eye). I write this because women need to wake up and think ahead. I write this as a father with two girls that I NEVER want to have to deal with a “baby daddy” who beat the shit out of them, because I would be in prison for murder 1. And I’ve told everyone here, just as I told both of my girls: Go after one of those bad-boys if you want, but when he beats the shit out of you, you better not tell me.

To everyone else, it’s time to accept responsibility. Sure blaming the victim is never a good hand to play, but nevertheless, it doesn’t mean the victim was entirely faultless. A guy sleeping in the same bedroom as Lorena Bobbit and expecting his shit to be attached the next morning is expecting something he can’t have and being unrealistic just like dating a bad-boy and expecting him not to beat the shit out of you at some point is an unrealistic expectation. In both cases, the victims are wrong as well as the perp.

The post The Divide: Women vs Men appeared first on The Blog of Michael Wells.