Human beings have a problem. It is that we interfere in the natural order of things as a matter of the course of our everyday lives. Each time we attempt to act in any arena not governed by nature, we come into conflict with nature. We are denizens of a universe designed by competition; we are designed for competition trying to live as if competition can be discounted or even negated.

This universe exists only because of a ubiquitous competitive paradigm. It is competition between the sun and the [speed of the] planets that maintains the solar system. That same competitive schema exists at the atomic level in the push and pull of subatomic particles as well as on the macro level where we humans reside.

Speaking only on a cursory level, it is the competition between the employer's desire to keep his money and his need for help that establishes wage rates for a given job. Likewise, it is the availability of a person’s marketable sk**ls and the employers’ need for those sk**ls that determines who gets the job. Competition is at the core of a man's desire for a woman and her desire for a man that determines c**pling [speaking generally].

That competitive drive makes living together as equals impossible. The rise of warlords and kings among humans is no different than the ascension of the dominant male [or female among hyenas] in any social hierarchy in the animal world. We have created what we call government as a method of mediating our social conflicts and protecting us from the tyranny of the dominance system of the wilderness.

The theory of government is that we surrender some of our natural rights to the group and in return the group ensures a standard of personal security. There is a limit to what the group can demand for that security and that security must be absolute [which it never is] and beneficial [which it sometimes is].

Mandating how we live in our personal domain and how we interact publicly requires two very different scenarios. The power of the American social establishment, i.e. government, has always been successful because we have always drawn a clear line between the two. We all conform to the agreed social mandates and we are left alone to run our own lives.

That, unfortunately, means that there will be casualties from the competition we engage in, in the public arena. Some will get rich and others will not. Some will get sick and others will not. Some will win and some will lose. That is the natural state of public interaction. How restrictive the governing agency becomes depends in part on the accepted system of government and on the complexity of the society. Complexity is a function of size and expanse, therefore, of population and technology.

Competition rewards greed, bellicosity and prowess, all of which t***slate to power. Some people naturally resent that while some naturally abuse it and we assume that government can remedy the disparities and the abuses. That requires that the government interferes in the personal domain of its citizens and it is that interference in the personal affairs, the non-public life of the citizenry, that result in bloody revolutions... ultimately, 100% of the time... without fail, always have, and always will. Think of the slogan, ‘no taxation without representation’. If you demand a portion of my labor, I expect something in return.

America's strength has been its limitation of those governmental incursions into the personal orbit of the individual citizen. We have begun allowing the government of the United States to exceed the authority of the social grant of power it was given. Better stated, the government has begun presuming a greater authority than it has been granted by the Constitution. It has t***smuted the Constitution from a statement of limits on governance to a charter of control of the citizenry. That is a dangerous step with entirely predictable results.

If you understand this mechanism, competition, then you will understand why government can mandate homosexual unions but cannot call it marriage; can require a business to service to all members of the public but cannot demand personal service to any one; can set limits on a******n but cannot outlaw it; and why socialism never works, anywhere, at any time and cannot work.

Did you ever ask WHY there are so many scared cops? Poor training may be behind making poor decisions, but it doesn't cause the fear. Nor are cops afraid because there are law abiding citizens with guns. This has always been the case in America, and far more so deca.des ago than now.

It use to be that everyone but the criminals respected cops. And even hard core criminals were less likely to shoot cops than to run. Cop k**lers were the rare exception. Now-a-days there is open hatred of cops, and not just from criminals. Even our former president openly denigrated cops and by doing so, sows the seeds of hatred. This does not excuse the incidences like the ones in the article. But before a solution to a problem cam be found, you have to know what the cause of the problem is. Yes. Militarization of the police is a big factor. But why has it happened, and why are so many cops so afraid?

Making sure that the cops have the right info before they act is a definite must! But that alone will not change the charged atmosphere. Part of the solution needs to be re-establishing respect for the law and its officers. Make Law Enforcement Great Again!

Let me first start this post by supplying the link to an article with this title:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-06/real-reason-4-cops-got-shot-houston-last-week

I would ask you to read the article, and give me your opinion on the authors main premise.

1. Do you feel that he correctly points out a problem with the way many police now conduct SWAT style raids?

2. If you lived in a crime ridden neighborhood, and someone smashes down your door unannounced, shoots your dog, and barges into your home in force, what would you do?

3. Even if someone breaks down your door while yelling POLICE or SWAT, would you automatically believe them without first examining their ID, Shield, or verifying their claim?

4. Is the author correct in his assertion that unless someone is in immediate danger, these types of intrusive raids are dangerous, unnecessary, and prone to error, whether intentional or unintentional, and the alternatives he proposes are a better solution to this problem (i.e. they could serve warrants in a more controlled environment once the suspect leaves the home. They could announce themselves and have a trained negotiation talk the suspects into surrender. (Or better yet, they could stop policing crimes that have no victim.))

5. For any OPP'ers that were/are police officers, have you noticed or observed a change in the last 10-15 years in how these types of raids are conducted. Has this always been standard police practice, and if not, what and why has this practice changed?

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/02/04/the-average-workers-puts-in-more-hours-in-9-days-than-trump-did-in-3-months.html

Trump’s leaked private schedule revealed that Trump is supposed to be doing the most important job in the world, but he is working the same number of hours in three months that average US worker puts in in nine days.

Former Obama administration official Chris Lu made the stark comparison on MSNBC’s The Beat with Ari Melber, “Let me say this. The average U.S. Worker puts in about 44 hours on the job. In just nine days, the average worker spends more time on the job than the number of meetings, the time of meetings that this president has done over a three-month period of time. So now let me give you the context of President Obama. I worked for Obama for 11 years.

I saw his schedule when he was a senator, a President-Elect and a president. You’re right. He got in about 9:00 A.M. He worked continuously through the day until about 6:00 or 6:30. He went and had dinner with his wife and kids, and then he was back working late into the evening or early into the morning. He often had evening events. He had weekend events. We had weekend senior staff meetings. It doesn’t compare at all to what President Trump is doing.”

There’s lazy, and then there’s Trump

The White House did not want the American people to see these private schedules, because they destroy the last fragments of the illusion that Trump is putting any effort into the presidency. What Trump is doing is not normal. The reason why Trump is a failing president is that he has no interest in the job, and is putting in the most minimal of effort.
Trump is lazy, disinterested, and milking the presidency for all he can get while weakening and destroying the institution.

Trump can’t relate to average Americans because has no idea what it is like to work a real schedule.
The nation needs a real president, not a Fox News watching, tweeting deadbeat, who is mooching off the taxpayers while endangering national security.
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.