Getting what you deserve

Someone long ago said, “The government you have is exactly the government you deserve”. Wow, pretty harsh words. So, I ask you, Is the government you have the government you deserve?

In the interest of “fairness” and “equality” in this post when a masculine term is used it applies equally to the feminine as well. That seems fair, does it not?

These few words of wisdom come from a speech by Patrick Henry 07June1788. What this speech was about is quite different from what we are living through at this time, but it fits.
And, Sir, would not all the world, from the Eastern to the Western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad. Shew me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty? I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.

We have come far since the days of Patrick Henry. Or have we? We no longer hope to elect good men. In our day we just elect the lesser of the two evils. The lesser evil is still evil. The democrats call the republicans evil because they are in the pockets of the NRA and so forth. The republicans call the democrats evil because they are in the pockets of the Labor Unions and so forth. Our focus has shifted to electability, we vote for who is electable and damn the consequences. And about being in the pockets, do politicians deny being in somebody’s pockets?

Which one is good and which one is bad? How can one tell? Unfortunately there is no way to tell before hand. You will only realize good or bad after the fact. There is a sure fire way to know if you made the right choice or not by answering a simple question. How are your “rights” and “liberties” fairing at this point? If the answer is not so well, you got a bad one.

Before continuing, I may as well get this out of the way. Elections have consequences. Not voting(staying home, skipping the election, sitting this one out or whatever the excuse)also has consequences. If you did not exercise your “right” to vote you have exactly the government you deserve. As far as I am concerned you have no “right” to bitch and moan(petition the government for a redress of grievances)period.

Some citizens of some of the several States are protesting the policies and executive orders of Governors. One of those Governors said something to the effect of the protestors were wearing Trump hats. It was also said that Confederate Flags and Nazi paraphernalia were showing up at the protests. And gasp, some protestors were armed. Even went so far as to say that the protestors would cause the “stay at home orders” to be extended. In other words, if you resist you will get more(sit down and shut up).

Some of you are feeling quite oppressed and growing impatient with your elected leaders perhaps even wondering when or if the “oppression” will end. Again we will check in on Patrick Henry, from a speech given 05June1788. And again this speech was addressing a subject different than our current situation, but again the words fit.
Will the oppressor let go the oppressed? Was there ever an instance? Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example, where rulers overcharged with power, willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly?

But there is good news. States and Localities are beginning to reopen. The citizens in those areas are slowly getting their rights and liberty back. Are the rulers overcharged with power willing to let go the oppressed? Was Mr. Henry wrong?

And there is bad news. According to a news article I came across, States relax rules, but some could return to stay-at-home orders if coronavirus cases surge. No, it looks like Mr. Henry was spot on. What we are seeing could be described as the “old carrot and stick” routine. They dangle your liberty and your rights in front of you(the carrot)and then beat you with the stick, I know they pull the carrot back using the stick, I like my wording better.

Reversal of roles. Civil servants have become our lords and masters. Never let a crisis go to waste. This crisis, State of Emergency(Federal, State and Local), has certainly not been wasted by some tiny tyrants.

As bad as things have become they could certainly be a lot worse. Think about this for a minute. The democrats were wanting a national strategy for reopening. In other words they wanted the Federal government to be the one deciding when a State or the States could begin reopening instead of the Governors. The closest that came to fruition was the CDC guidelines for reopening. When they, the democrats, say they want a national strategy for reopening, they wanted a national strategy for both, the shutdown and the reopening. I would imagine there were more than a few republicans in favor of that as well. The Federal government would have been the sole decider. States Rights, what few the States still enjoy, would have become nonexistent. What Mr. Lincoln began they could have finished.

How different would things be now if the 2016 election had gone the other way?

I will end this for now and pick up on the next post.

Returning to Normal or adapting to a New Normal.

The future what will it look like? Will we at some point return to what we considered normal or will we find ourselves adapting to the new normal?

I seriously doubt we will ever return to what we considered normal, that would be the time before the Wuhan novel corona virus. I think we will find ourselves adapting to a new normal, that would be the time post Wuhan novel corona virus. I say this because we still find ourselves living in a post 9/11 America. Almost 19 years have passed and we have yet to return to the “normal” before 9/11 and we probably never will. Does anyone even remember the times before 9/11?

So what will this new normal look like? Came across an article from Business Insider that may shed some light on this subject. This article was written about a report that played out in three different scenarios. There was more, much more, in the article, but for now I will focus on the three scenarios. If you have not read the entire article you should.

Scenario 1. There would be a first peak followed by similar size waves over the next one to two years. Mitigation measures would be required periodically like lockdowns and travel bans.

Scenario 2. A second larger wave than what we have now would come in the Fall or Winter, and smaller waves would arrive in 2021. Mitigation measures would be reinstated in the Fall.

Scenario 3. Ongoing transmission and case occurrence caused by the virus after the first wave without dramatic peaks. Referred to as a slow burn, making it’s way through the population. Governments would not likely have to reinstitute mitigation measures.

In my opinion the word “not” should have never been used in the third scenario, it should read Government would likely have to reinstitute mitigation measures. Actually it should read, Governments would reinstitute mitigation measures. Why? Because government at all levels have found new power and will never relinquish that power. The power to decide what is and is not essential.

Did you notice the change in the narrative as it pertains to the Wuhan novel corona virus? It was all about “flattening the curve”. It has become “stop the spread”.

If the times we are now living in are to be considered as the new normal it is time to have a serious discussion.

You have all by now seen the video of the man that took his paddle board out into the ocean, by himself no one else around. Then came law-enforcement in boats to arrest the man. What was his crime? Was he putting others in danger or was he placed in danger? People being cited and fined for being in their cars watching the sunset. The list goes on and on. A bit heavy handed I would say.

Americans as a whole are not designed(wired)to be placed under “house arrest” for extended/indefinite periods of time or repeatedly. People can and will stay confined to their homes for only so long no matter how much “bread and circus” in thrown their way. Some will not be confined to their homes at all. People did and will continue to protest against the apparent heavy handedness of government, push back I believe it is called.

I do have to wonder what the next step will be for government if and/or when another shutdown and lockdown is ordered. As parts of the country begin to reopen more and more requirements are being forced on the people. Masks are being required in more places. It was not all that long ago we were told, “Seriously stop buying masks”.

Speaking of masks, in some areas masks are required at restaurants, you must wear the mask unless you are eating or drinking. How much thought went into that bit of “wisdom”? Do they really believe you could eat or drink while wearing a mask(face covering)or even try? Maybe they just figured that you were not intelligent(smart)enough to know that you could not eat or drink while wearing a mask on your own. Perhaps they were showing how much they care by allowing you to remove your mask, but only when they allow and only under certain circumstances and only for the length of time they allow.

Will a part of this “new normal” be the requirement to wear masks if social distancing is not possible? Or will it be simply you are required to wear a mask at all times outside of your home? Speaking of social distancing, will the new normal mean social distancing for eternity? Keeping 6 feet distance between individuals. Who is to say that the social distance will not be increased? Will forced quarantines be a part of the new normal? Sporadic lockdowns and shutdowns?

Many people cooperated this time and all they got for their trouble was to see their rights curtailed or outright denied, loss of their livelihood(job), unable to feed their family and could no longer pay their bills. There may not be as much cooperation the next time, in fact there could be little cooperation. Vast numbers of people may not comply some by choice, others out of necessity(they have to eat, feed their families, pay their bills, and so forth).

If the people refuse to comply will compliance be forced? We saw this time what happened, those who would not or could not comply found themselves running afoul of law-enforcement. Fines and arrests were commonplace. Will there be an escalation in force when people refuse to comply the next lockdown? Some law-enforcement agencies around the country have taken to using drones to seek out and disperse people gathering in large groups. Parks that have reopened have had a large presence of law-enforcement to enforce social distancing orders.

Here is a little bit from a Patrick Henry speech 05June1788.
You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.

It was 50 years ago this Month, the 4th to be exact, that the Kent State Massacre occurred. University students were shot, 4 killed 9 wounded, by members of the Ohio National Guard. It later came to light that authorities were authorized to disperse the crowd. Were they authorized to open fire on the students? The objective to disperse the crowd was accomplished. The heavy handed response was brought about because of antiwar protests at the university. I am quite amazed at the numbers of people who do not know about or even remember this event in American history. Research it for your self.

Elected officials have stated that things will not return to “normal” until there is a cure, some have said not until there is a vaccine.

I think I will end this post here and pick it up on the next one. Here is a catchy tune by Johnny Rivers.

Essential and Nonessential

There is no doubt that the current pandemic and the government’s actions(over reach)has done possibly irreversible harm to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a whole. Nowadays life and life’s activities are broken down into two categories, Essential and Non-essential. This breakdown is based on what? Just who gets to decide what is essential or non-essential? Government rode to the rescue to answer this question. They usurped this power, enormous power, power they will never relinquish. The rights of the citizens are being trampled while the rights of government are growing by leaps and bounds. The rights of the citizens as listed in the Bill of Rights are quickly becoming no more than privileges, privileges that can be denied on a whim.

Time for a side road, got to take a bit of time to really and hopefully tick off some people and if you see this post and you get ticked(pissed)then you will know this side road pertains to you. A lot of people that could be considered as being on the right have more than a few videos and posts railing against the left(democrats/socialists/Stalinists). They do this while ignoring the the overreach done by the right(republicans/socialists/Stalinists). Does it really matter if the boot on your neck is a left boot or a right boot? No, it matters that there is a boot on your neck.

Back on point. Essential and Nonessential.

Has there ever been a time when a person wanted to open a business that he/she was told that the business they wanted to open was a nonessential business and thus denied a business license? There may have been a zoning problem but they would have never been deemed a nonessential business. Even if there was a zoning problem they could have applied for a variance or a rezoning. Now all of a sudden the government has the power to declare a business nonessential and ordered them to close or face a fine and/or imprisonment. Each and every business is essential as they provide a product or service that someone deems essential to their way of life or standard of living.

It was rather slick the way they pulled this off. They never told these, now declared, nonessential businesses that the employees were nonessential. Why? The business owner decides who is essential and who is nonessential. Businesses do not have nonessential employees, each and every employee is essential to that business. Those essential employees found themselves unemployed because they worked at and for a now declared nonessential business.

Some states micromanaged this essential/nonessential garbage to the max. The government took it upon themselves to determine what you could and could not buy. Yep, they all of a sudden had the power to tell you what you were permitted to buy. You could only buy what the state deemed essential, you no longer could decide for yourself what was essential.

Our Rights listed in the Bill of Rights have also been classified as essential and nonessential. We found our Right to the Free Exercise of Religion deemed nonessential and our Churches closed. The government took it upon itself to decide how and where we could worship. We found our Right to Peacefully Assemble severely curtailed or outright banned. There was talk of banning protests against government over reach, imagine that. Denying the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Public lands became government lands. Public lands closed to the public. Beaches and the oceans themselves closed to the public.

Has government used this crisis to forge chains for us the citizens? At what point will government bind us with and rivet those chains on us? Will it be during this or the next crisis?

Not a dimes woth of difference

It has long been said that when it comes to republicans and democrats at the national level there is not a dimes worth of difference between the two. It would appear now that that is also true at the State level.

While all eyes were on Virginia some things have been happening here in Florida. In Virginia the democrats have control of the Legislative and Executive branches of government, and one would kind of expect that they would pursue an anti-gun, anti-liberty and anti-freedom agenda. Here in Florida the republicans have control of the Legislative and Executive branches of government and one would kind of expect them not to pursue an anti-gun, anti-liberty and anti-freedom agenda, but they have.

Our republican controlled State Senate is reportedly working on a series of gun control bills. It was also reported that there was a rather sizeable political contribution from a gun control group. Which brings me to wonder which a politician will respond to, a letter or phone call from a constituent or a sizeable contribution? I think the sizeable political contribution will win every time. Do you really think that you have the politicians ear?

Looks like Virginia has a problem with democrats and their gun control agenda, and Florida has a problem with republicans and their gun control agenda.

By the way, the last round of gun control legislation passed after the mass murder in Parkland here in Florida was with a republican Legislature and a republican Governor. And let us not forget, before all this impeachment nonsense kicked off the President said something about having an “appetite” for some gun control measures. Also some republicans had sided with democrats on gun control measures, and some republican Senators had “instantly” put together national “red flag” proposals with incentives for states that would enact their own red flag laws.

It would seem that the two parties are heading in the same direction when it come to the Second Amendment. The only difference between the two is the speed at which they move.

Living in interesting times

No surprise the democrats voted to impeach the President. Now on to the Senate, provided the Speaker sends the Articles of Impeachment forward.

This post is about another matter, Second Amendment sanctuaries. At last check 85 Counties, 10 Cities and 16 Towns in the Commonwealth of Virginia have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries. This is being done as some democrats in the soon to be democrat controlled government in Virginia have pre-filed some onerous gun control legislation that will come up for a vote once the democrats take control in January 2020. The democrats in Richmond have pretty much painted themselves into a corner with this gun control journey, much the same as the democrats in the US House did with impeachment, they once started could not turn back. Not to mention that a lot of money poured into Virginia from the gun control groups to help elect the democrats. These gun control groups fully expect a return on their expenditures. And just for the record, I do know that the pro-gun groups do the same things. There is a big difference between the two. The anti-gun groups are demanding that the right to keep and bear arms should be severely limited or outright eliminated while the pro-gun groups simply want the right to keep and bear arms left alone. There is another difference the anti-gun groups are more than willing to have the government use force to accomplish their agenda, the pro-gun groups are not demanding the government use force to maintain the right to keep and bear arms.

It would appear that many in Virginia are fed up and these brave citizens are pretty much telling the government in Virginia to “stick it”. The legal and lawful gun owners are sick and tired of being the “whipping boy”, being blamed for the actions of a minute few that do not and will not obey the laws already on the books.

What is the government and indeed the Governor of Virginia going to do? No matter what is done, America will be watching.

They could abandon this course they are planning to embark on. No, they will not do that, no turning back now. They feel as though they were elected on a gun control agenda and as much they believe the must follow through.

They could pass the legislation and sign it into law while knowing full well that that law would not be enforced in the vast majority of the Commonwealth. No they can not do that either. If a law is to be simply ignored and not enforced what good would it be to have laws?

Side road. The latest mantra of the democrats is, “No one is above the law”. How many times have we heard that one used against the President during the impeachment process. They also like to say, “We are a nation of laws” and “The rule of law”. They say this while allowing the recreational use of marijuana is lawful in some leftist sates while their is a federal prohibition against the possession and use of marijuana. Some jurisdictions even profit from the use and sale of marijuana by taxation. Imagine that, profiting and taxing an illegal activity. The left also offers sanctuary in some states and cities for persons in this country illegally. Some allow them to get a drivers license, allow them to vote in local elections, provide welfare and so on. Being in this country without authorization is against federal law, yet they defy federal law and shelter criminals. So much for being a nation of laws and the rule of law. You get no “moral high ground” in this case, even if there were any available which there ain’t.
Just to note, the Federal Government has not “fallen” on the States allowing the use of recreational marijuana and harboring illegal aliens using governmental force to bring them into compliance.

Back to the post. They could pass the legislation, sign it into law and fire(remove from office)any local government official who refused to comply with and enforce the law. Firing a government employee is one thing(though they would be forced to deal with the government employee unions), removing a duly and constitutionally elected government official is quite another. The residents of the counties, cities and towns effected might just get pissed off. Who would be installed in those vacant offices? Seems to me the criminals would be the biggest supporters of this move and benefit the most. I have heard of legislation coming that says refusal to enforce the gun control legislation would be effectively self-terminating from the office which they hold, quitting. They could withhold funds from the locales that refuse to comply. This move would bring about a whole series of calamities.

They could use the Virginia National Guard, as one suggested, to force compliance. How can they be sure that the men and women in the Guard would descend on their fellow Virginians? Are there enough Guardsmen to cover such a large area?

Are they actually contemplating using force, government force, to disarm the citizens of Virginia? Will Lexington and Concord be repeated?

January is closing in.

The Second Amendment sanctuary idea is catching on, perhaps it will spread across the land.

We are living in interesting times.

By choice or force?

The leftists are going all out with their plan to disarm the peaceful law-abiding citizens of this Republic. Quite sure by now everyone, not living under a rock, has seen the clip of the 2020 presidential hopeful saying “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15, your AK-47”. Some in his political party have tried to distance themselves from his statement. I do have to wonder if it is the message they are against or the delivery. Did he say openly what most leftists talk/dream about privately? They might not be able to get the toothpaste back in the tube.

When he used the word “We” he meant the government. So what he actually said was, “Hell yes, the government is going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.

The following comes from the Patrick Henry speech “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” 23March1775.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.

The following excerpt comes from The Declaration of Arms also known as the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, 06July1775
The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the General, their Governor, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants, having deposited their arms with their own magistrates, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honor, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the Governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire to leave their most valuable effects behind.

There is something to note from the excerpt above The word arms is used twice, the word muskets is nowhere to be found.

The citizens of Boston trusted that the General, their Governor, would honor his word(treaty). They were sadly mistaken. Once disarmed they had no means to resist what was coming.

They could have, I suppose, asked or even begged for the return of their arms so they could defend themselves or at least force the General, their Governor, to honor his word. Do you think that a population that had been disarmed would be rearmed?

What happened in Boston that day in April 1775 was perhaps the first recorded example of a voluntary buy-back scheme. The price the government would pay for the voluntary surrender of arms by the citizens was the freedom to depart Boston and with them take the remainder of their possessions.

They traded one thing to gain another and wound up with neither and nothing. Seems like Benjamin Franklin had a quote on that matter. He had another, “Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you”.

There was a quote attributed to Edmond Burke, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it”(the word doomed is sometimes used in place of destined). There is another old adage that fits, “History is a guide post not a hitching post”. History is chock full of examples of what has happened in countries where and when the population, the peaceful law-abiding population, is disarmed. Roundups and exterminations.

It was once said that one man with a gun can control one hundred without guns. If that is true then you just have to do simple math to figure out where this leads, if one can control one hundred, than ten can control a thousand, one hundred can control ten thousand and so on.

The gun control debate is just a part of the overall control issue. Gun control is not about the elimination of arms, it is about controlling who is armed.

Some in government and some wanting to be in government are more than willing to use the force of government to disarm the peaceful law-abiding citizens. Some politicians, the various gun control groups and their allies in the media tell us how much safer we will be if we disarm.

There are only two ways that an armed civilian population can be disarmed.
Choice.
Force.

Can peaceful law-abiding citizens(civilians)trust the government if only the government is armed.

History says no.

A possible solution

There is some common ground on mass shootings, both sides want them to end. Unfortunately that is all the two sides have in common.

I have a possible solution, but it is going to take cooperation, a lot of cooperation, from both sides of the gun issue, and indeed their allies. Both sides will actually have to sit down and have a civil debate. I know this is asking a lot.

First, a little background on how I came up with this. As I was looking through my news feed I came across something that was a very bad idea, but it did open some interesting ideas for a solution. Actually solutions for many things.

I will sum up the article, you can find it on your own and read the whole thing.

The leader of a large labor union is threatening to boycott the largest retailer in the country, the boycott centers around two demands.
1. Stop selling guns.
2. Stop making political contributions to politicians who oppose gun control.
The union leader claims to have 1.7 million members. The “leader” also has a few other suggestions for the retailer in a letter written to the CEO, in this letter the “leader” calls on the company to do its part to help build a future with fewer guns and safer communities and also urges the retailer to fund buyback programs and for the CEO to create a summit with other CEOs to discuss ways corporate America can address rising gun violence.

My first thought as I was reading this article was here is yet another leftist threating to boycott a retailer because of what they sell, they sell guns and ammunition and just about everything a person could use or want. Worse using her position as the leader of a large labor union to do it, a loss or potential loss of 1.7 million customers could be catastrophic. But would the loss of 1.7 million out of perhaps 100 million be all that much of a loss? The retailer would just adjust for the loss of revenue by reducing the workforce. Then I reread the article and thought wait a minute this lady might be onto something and came up with many solutions for many problems.

Campaign contributions. The meat and potatoes of politicians, but a lot of that money is wasted as only one is going to win election or reelection. That means that the money given to and then used by the loser just goes up in smoke. The money left over(not spent/wasted)win or lose goes into their “war chest”. On a side note I watched all four of the democrat debates and many of them said that they needed to get the “dark” money out of politics. Here is a sure way that none of that money is wasted and has the side benefit of proving that you believe in your position.

For the gun control groups rather than wasting that money on politicians take that money and partner with law-enforcement and institute a voluntary buyback program. Actually buyback is impossible since they never bought it from you to begin with, it would be a turn in program, a turn in for cash. People could turn in(sell)magazines, parts, accessories and even complete firearms of their own free will. Do make sure that the people in your group can pass a background check before they take constructive possession of the firearms being turned in for cash, would not want any one to break the law. And please, please take a safety course for your safety and the safety of others.

For the pro gun groups do not waste that money on politicians(and possibly end up being disappointed)instead set up firearms safety courses, hunters safety courses, weapons training, open ranges and encourage shooting sports. Your services would be needed as the ones operating the turn in sites would need training and a safety class or two.

A little bonus in this section. For the labor unions that have taken a stance one way or the other on the issue of guns, stop wasting your money on politicians. Chip in with your dollars and support one of the above listed causes. Take away those labor union donations and you will see how much the politicians really care about you or your union. For the Hollywood types that have made millions on shoot’em up movies but are in the gun control camp, take the money you have made on those movies and put it, all of it, in the turn in pile. Stop being a hypocrite. For the politicians that support the buyback scheme put some of your fortune in that pile as well. I could go on with this but I reckon you get the picture.

If a politician wants to seek higher office he/she should pay their own way.

If you take away the donations to campaigns from the gun control and gun rights groups you would then find out the true position of your particular politician or political party when it comes to guns or any other issue. Some of you might be quite surprised.

You see this one act can bring about positive results.
First it will get all of the “dark” money out of politics. This may bring about other positives as well. If the politicians no longer receive special interest money they will have no need to subsidize those special interests. The lobbyists would leave town.
Second a “buyback” program that is not tax-payer funded.

Keeping firearms out of the wrong hands. By using the term “the wrong hands” I suppose they mean the criminal element. Again a simple solution. Congress could pass a law and send it to the president to sign. The law should simply say: Effective this very second, all gang leaders and members, drug dealers and convicted felons will surrender all fire arms to law-enforcement without compensation. Failure to comply with this law will result in legal penalty(prison and/or fine).

You can here them now, running to surrender their firearms.

Came across another article where a mental health professional of some importance in that article he noted “there is little correlation between mental illness and violent killings”. Study after study shows that this is not the case. More often the reverse is true, they are victims not perpetrators.

Also in the article is this; Racism, Hate and White Supremacy are not diagnosable mental illnesses.

Find the full article, read it.

Wait, Hold the phone, the latest reports are that the republicans are coming to the table to talk, talk gun control. Looks like there is an “appetite” for some of your schemes and demands but you will have to wait until September to find out how much appetite they have. You might even hook them like a hungry catfish.