A nation in decline

A downward spiral as it were.

Immigration. Immigration in times past was a matter of national interest and the nation benefited. Over time immigration became a matter of political interest and the nation suffered.

Legislation. In times past legislation was a national interest. Over time legislation began to be introduced and it was written as a political issue and again the nation suffered.

Laws. There was a time in which legislation became law if not vetoed. Over time opinions became law, opinions made by the unelected, and unaccountable. Also, agencies and departments began to make rule changes, these too are unelected and unaccountable.

Bread and Circus. It no longer matters that the most qualified gets the job. It now matters what is, is not, might be, or was between a person’s legs and the melanin content of the skin. They say the idea is inclusion. Seems to me there is a lot of exclusion going on. Pro-life laws are seen as being cruel to women, yet the ease of abortion is not seen as cruel to the unborn. The criminal is now portrayed as the victim. Punishing the law abiding for the actions of the law breakers.

Some might think the above was written about America. I would ask them if they have ever read the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. If you have and if this were written about America, which chapter would we be in?

One would think

It does boggle the mind that some people just do not or will not learn from mistakes. Refusing to learn from the mistakes of others is one thing but refusing to learn from your own mistakes is quite another.

It was once said, Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is the height of insanity.

We have a couple of “enlightened” individuals, one a sitting member of Congress the other a media personality, openly calling for the assassination of the Russian president. This I guess is what is known as regime change. Well history teaches that regime changes by assassination have a few unknowns. The first is the replacement. Will he be the same, worse, or better? The second is what could be the unintended consequences? The intended consequence was to rid the world of that person. Will it stop there?

Seems as though I remember not too long ago that an administration thought the world would be better off without the Libyan strong man. Some remark was made, we came, we saw, he died. Well, how did that work out for Libya? Seems like that administration had a bad habit of regime change or attempted regime change. It was not just that administration many before it engaged in Regime Change.

I also recall a World War erupting because of an assassination. That was World War 1.

If the fantasy or fetish of these two “enlightened” individuals comes to fruition, are they ready for the possible unintended consequences? Is the world?

Nothing new under the sun

Starting a new project or series. Have yet to decide the frequency. May get around to changing the title of the Blog, haven’t decided. This is the idea, I will read (dig) through my library and find things written in the past that were relevant then and are just as relevant today. I will however not disclose the author, date, or subject. If you choose to find who, when and why you will have to do a little digging as well.

Cancel Culture is not new.

“The name of the man who but lisps a sentiment in objection to it, is to be handed to the printer, by the printer to the public, and by the public he is to be led to execution.

Since when?

Some are quite unhappy with the emergency stay issued by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halting the vaccine mandate.

Came across an article by the AP just a while ago. Read it and could not believe my eyes as to what one individual said. Found the article on different so-called news sites and found that part was not included in the article.

Anyway, here is what he said. “It was troubling that a federal appeals court would stop or delay safety rules in a health crisis, saying no one has a right to go into a workplace “unmasked, unvaxxed and untested.”

While I am here this fellow also said this. “Unelected judges that have no scientific experience shouldn’t be second-guessing health and safety professionals at OSHA.”

Now I did not link to this article. I did however tell you where to find it. Find and read the article for yourself. You will notice this fellow has a lengthy and unimpressive title. These liberal elitists are out there and to them government power should be unlimited during a crisis. If that were true, then government would declare everything a crisis and therefore their power would be limitless.

Anyway, as stated a the beginning this emergency stay issued by the 5th Circuit is only temporary. The final decision will be issued after both parties have responded.

Other States also have filed lawsuits in other District Courts of Appeal. We wait for a decision.

This will go to the Supreme Court no matter which way the ruling comes down. The same is true no matter the outcome of the other lawsuits.

One would hope that the government would back down and withdraw this mandate. But that is not going to happen. They are too deep into this to just quit.

When this gets before the Supreme Court Justices they will be deciding if we, this Republic has a Government with Limited and Enumerated powers or if the Government is Limitless in its Power.

I will close with a question. What else have some in the bureaucratic health departments tried to and have indeed labeled a “public health crisis”?

Oh, before I go if you have time go to You Tube and watch Atlas Shrugged. It is three parts.

Who is John Galt?

Tell me if this makes any sense to you

Suppose there are two groups of people, out of those two groups there is only one group that you speak(talk)with. The group that you do not speak(talk)with, you do not speak to them because of their ideology or some other reason. Now let us say that a fight erupts between these two groups, as with any two(or more)groups that take to fighting one is the aggressor and the other is or has been attacked. Now, let us suppose that the one not spoken with is the aggressor and the one that is spoken with is responding to the attack. In other words one is acting and the other is reacting, or put this way, one wants to fight and the other is forced to fight. Now , you come to a point where you want to say something, problem is that you only talk with the one who is under attack. So what do you say? You tell the one under attack that you want to see a significant de-escalation today. You have got to be kidding me, How can the one reacting provide you with a reduction in violence?

Telling the one being attacked that you want to see a significant de-escalation today make as much sense to me as standing behind the podium giving a speech to an auditorium full of only women and saying this. I want to see a reduction in the number of rapes. Moron, you are addressing the wrong audience.

And that makes as much sense as this. Standing behind the same podium in the same auditorium but this time the audience is law abiding gun owning citizens. What is it you say to them? You say you want to end “gun violence”, but to end gun violence you must curb or eliminate the right for them to own, possess or carry firearms. Again moron, you are addressing the wrong audience.

You may find at times in life the person you least want to speak(talk)with is in fact the person you should be speaking too.

If you really want a de-escalation of the violence going on in the Middle-East then address the aggressor in clear terms. You can make yourself clear, can’t you?

As they say

Improvise Adapt Overcome. There is much talk these days of censorship on the “social media” platforms, across the internet and by the “so-called” news media.

In the grand scheme of things the internet has not been with us all that long. The “social media” platforms have been with us for an even shorter period of time. Believe it or not we have not always had cell phones. And let’s face it the news media, even though it has been with us for a long time, is not what it once was.

So, I guess this post is directed to those on what is called the political right. You say your twitter account has been suspended. I guess your account was suspended for violating what they call their “community standards”. Well I would have never known about your suspension had it not made the “news” whether by you or in the case it made national, even world, news. You see, I do not have a twitter account, nor do I intend to ever have one. So if you were trying to communicate your ideas to me via twitter I never heard a word you were typing. Had a facebook account for a while, lost interest closed it. Never had a snap chat, instagram or any of the rest. This is about as close as I have to a social media account. Oops, I do have some on Tumblr. You may find it hard to believe but I am not the only one that has little or nothing to do with social media, there are many, many who do not.

Look at it this way, this is a land with a population of some 237 million and you have, let’s say, 1 million followers or friends. That means 236 million people never hear a word you type. Sure some that got your tweet or whatever sent it to their followers or friends that are not a part of your million. But even with that did you ever consider the fact that many do not participate?

By the way, I have heard some of you closed your social media accounts in protest of another person being suspended or outright banned from a particular platform. Childish, don’t you think? You basically silenced yourself.

So, if you are a politician that has found yourself silenced and now you find yourself at the point of having to Improvise, Adapt and Overcome. If you have no experience with either of these three “You are going to have a tough row to hoe”. Quit whining and get busy.

Perhaps in the next few posts I can give you some tips.

Just wondering when

I am just wondering when the push back will start. I, for one, am getting more and more skeptical by the day. No, I am not talking about the election and the results. I am talking about this whole Wuhan novel corona virus ordeal and the petty tyrants it has spawned.

Everyday I read where Governors and other elected officials around the country are planning a new series of crackdowns because of the continual rise of infections, hospitalizations and deaths due to the virus.

Which brings me to these questions. If this virus is so deadly then why the hell are they planning more crackdowns in the future and not implementing those measures immediately? Why are gatherings being limited to a certain number and not just outright forbidden? Why is there such a variance in the ages of children when they must wear a mask? Some states decree age two while others decree age five. Instead of listing all of my questions as you read along you may come up with your own questions.

Thanksgiving is just two days away and some of you will be having your Thanksgiving alone as you are forbidden to gather in groups of varying size, some of you will be forced outdoors, and some of you will have only an allotted time to celebrate with family or friends and you will be mandated to wear a mask. Some of you have been threatened with rather hefty fines and even jail time if you fail to comply with these decrees.. All this brought about by petty tyrants, mad on power.

Took a little time this evening to check the Covid19 numbers and to check the several States decrees, in force and those planned. I checked the list of States with a mask mandate and also checked the number of infections and deaths. I also checked the States without a mask mandate number of infections and deaths. I then had to wonder why people in states with mask mandates were still experiencing high infection rates.

We will never be told the truth about how many became infected even though they wore the mask, practiced social distancing, and did frequent hand washing. After all they never told us the truth about mask wearing in the beginning. Or did they? They did say that wearing a mask was not necessary. I seem to remember someone saying, “Seriously stop buying masks”.

Then I remembered something from long ago. “If the disease doesn’t kill you the cure might”. Remember back to the grand and glorious plan to flatten the curve. Talk began about shutting down the economy. The choice of words was purely political, it was more than shutting down the economy it was shutting down the country. It was not a national shutdown, it came from the State and Local level. The result was the same. Someone mentioned that the cure could be worse than the disease.

Then something more recent came to me. There was a gentleman testifying before Congress about the effectiveness of masks. He said, something to the effect of, masks were the most important tool in stopping the spread of the virus, even more effective than a vaccine. In the video this gentleman could not even wear a mask properly and he is a doctor. Then I went back to the old, If the disease doesn’t kill you the cure might”.

This brought me to those damned masks. Could the masks be the reason people are still getting infected and hospitalized? The only way we would ever know that answer would be if somebody had the courage to step forward and tell us and not be censored.

Now comes this. The same organization the gentleman testifying before Congress that could not even wear the mask correctly has now changed their story on how long one should quarantine. They now say instead of 14 days one should quarantine for 7 to 10 days. Well which is it 7 or 10? Pick one, obviously 14 was wrong. Read the whole article. It also explains whose fault it is that the 14 day quarantine was ineffective.

Perhaps these so-called experts have been wrong about everything all along.

If the current legal challenges over the election fall short we will get a new president in January. Will the new administration decree a national mask mandate? Probably not. They will instead use the old tried and proven route. Coercion. The administration or some agency in the administration will make a strong suggestion to the Governors of the remaining States without a mask mandate to implement one. You know how this works. I ( the federal government) cant make you but I (the federal government) can make you wish you did. Federal funding.

Now I have to wonder which of the remaining States will be the last to be forced into issuing a mask mandate. I think it will be either Florida or South Dakota, my money is on my Home State of Florida. If you do not think the federal government would stoop so low then you do not know history. Historically speaking Rhode Island wanted no part of joining the Union. Find out why and how they were forced to join a “voluntary” union.

When they, the federal government, finally has everyone wearing a mask, what some have taken to calling a face diaper, people will find out that the incoming administration has no plan to deal with this virus.

What you will find is this. The rate of infections will suddenly drop. As will hospitalizations from the virus. As well as deaths from the virus. Citizens of this country will once again die from heart attacks, cancer, complications from diabetes, strokes and all the things they had died from before. It will be a miracle. They will claim it is because everybody is wearing a mask.

Is it really about a virus with a 94% chance of survival? Or is it about control of the population through behavior modification?

We really should question everything.

And yes, so you will not be surprised. You will still see elected officials and bureaucrats violating their own edicts. When caught they will still offer some excuse about what they should have done or blame someone for ambushing them. Bad optics, they call it. But then again their edicts are for you and me, not them as they are the privileged elite.

Who is John Galt?

DEO VINDICE

How will they pay for it?

A question often asked and seldom if ever answered when it comes to government spending.

They may however have revealed how they plan to finance this next shutdown, and yes another is coming. Hide and Watch.

Below are two links for your reading enjoyment and perhaps provide a little enlightenment. I encourage you to read these two articles.

What I write about them is my interpretation of the contents. You may come to a different conclusion than I do, and that is perfectly fine.

I will focus on just one paragraph in the first linked article, that will be the second paragraph. The paragraph will be broken into two parts. The “plan” will be in italics my interpretation will be in standard block letters.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-covid-19-adviser-floats-plan-to-pay-for-national-lockdown-lasting-up-to-six-weeks/ar-BB1aWSHt?ocid=msedgntp

When you look at the personal savings rate in this country, it’s now gone from about 8 percent to over 22 percent. We have a big pool of money out there that we could borrow.

Good grief. If my interpretation is correct the “plan” is to make the citizens, you and me, pay for this shutdown. Not with the tax dollars taken from us but with the savings we have accumulated. You will notice the use of the words personal savings indicates that this is only about the citizens, you and me.

And oh, are they drooling. You can do a quick search and find the estimated amount in personal savings held in America. You can almost see the drool coming down his chin as he says “We have a big pool of money out there we could borrow”. The word borrow was used. One can only borrow something from another if they are willing to lend it. There is no intention to borrow the money, there is only the intention for them to take it.

The historic low interest rates by the federal government, we could pay for a package right now to cover all of the wages, lost wages for individual workers, for our losses to small companies to medium sized companies, for city, states, county governments. We could do all of that.

The above part of this article is absolutely fascinating and covers quite a lot. First. If they do only intend to borrow the money, they the borrower get to determine the interest rate they will pay. He says the interest rates are at a historic low. So I have to ask since when did the borrower set the interest rate and not the lender? Second, and I find this to be a hoot. Pay all of the wages, lost wages for individual workers. Under this plan, it seems to me that, you will get a paycheck just as you had been receiving but you will be being paid with money they had “borrowed” from you. What you get for a paycheck was already your money. Is your normal paycheck taxed? The money being paid to you by you will be taxed by the government just the same as it always was. Third, and you will have to stick with me on this one. I have to wonder just what is meant when he uses the word “our” when he says “our losses to small companies to medium sized companies”. Would “our” losses have anything to do with the government, the federal government, not getting their taxes. Oh, wait a minute that question is answered in the next sentence in the article. A prolonged shutdown would have an effect on cash flowing into the city, county and state governments. They too will get some of that “borrowed” money. You can sure bet that you and me are not part of that “our” in our losses.

Now to the second linked article. And again the “plan” will be in italics and my part will be block letters. I will focus on the last three sentences.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/biden-covid-advisor-says-u-s-lockdown-of-4-to-6-weeks-could-control-pandemic-and-revive-economy/ar-BB1aVgKx?ocid=msedgntp

We need FDR moments right now. We need fireside chats. We need somebody to tell America, “this is what in the hell is going to happen.”

If you will do the research on FDR, the New Deal and what was done to those holding “significant” amounts of gold coinage you will find that the last thing the American citizens need is another FDR moment.

If your savings are indeed “borrowed” you will never be repaid. It will just be added to the national debt, and we will be told to the penny how much of that debt we the citizens are responsible for.

After the saving are borrowed and spent what will they come for next? You know, for the public good and just to get us through this crisis.

Those with nothing to lose will cheer for this plan. The “polling numbers” will show how popular this “plan” is, the numbers will show that. The rest of us will end up in the “poor house” right along with them. Misery does love company.

If I am wrong in my interpretation it will be like a friend says of me when he says, “You tend to overthink things.”

If I am right in my interpretation, God help us.

So, I will close with this. Who is John Galt?

What if? Part 1

Some talking-heads and pundits on the right are spending a lot of time, energy and ink discussing the possibility of a civil war happening in America and what would be the cause or causes. They seem to think there would be two triggering events. One of the reasons would be the impeachment of the president. I suppose by impeachment they mean a guilty finding and removal from office.

The democrats and their allies in the media have been beating the impeachment drum for a considerable length of time. Some have been beating this drum since election night 2016. The democrat leadership would not venture into these waters until public opinion showed support for impeachment. According to the polls the pendulum swung in favor of impeachment. We now have an impeachment inquiry in the House. A word about polls and polling data. I fail to understand why politicians from either party still trust and rely on polls, given that most all polls had the democrat nominee handily winning the 2016 presidential election. Yet they still site poll results.

The democrats in Congress have pretty much painted themselves into a corner over impeachment of the President. Even if they at some point conclude that they have made a poor choice there is no way they can not bring the articles of impeachment and still manage to save face. They have already crossed the Rubicon on this.

At this point most on the right think and indeed believe that there is no way the Senate will vote to remove the President. You will notice that I said most on the right. I personally do not place that much confidence or trust in the republicans in the Senate. More than one of them wanted to be President and some may be harboring a grudge, after all some unkind words were exchanged during the republican primaries and since. Jealousy and revenge have driven many to extremes.

There is also this to note. The democrat leadership in the House did not go forward until the polls had shown that the pendulum had swung in favor of impeachment. Why the wait? Some democrats believe they already have enough evidence to have the vote. The word ironclad came up the other day, the House would not proceed until there was an ironclad case. So I pulled out Webster’s and looked up the word ironclad, having no obvious weakness. I think they now wait for enough republican support in the Senate to remove the President, there may also be one or two democrat hold-outs.

Let’s say the House charges and the Senate convicts. The President is removed. Will this trigger the civil war predicted by the talking-heads and pundits? Think about it. How often and how many times have the republicans in Congress(House and Senate)disappointed the voters? A provision in the Constitution would have been followed. I do not think this would trigger a civil war, however some isolated violence could possibly break out. It would however guarantee one thing, there would never be another republican elected to a national office, which would lead to total democrat control which would lead to a socialist state.

What if the talking-heads and pundits from the first paragraph have it exactly backwards? Would the President not being impeached lead to civil war, started by the left.

Let’s say that the House, for whatever reason, does not introduce and vote on the articles of impeachment. Many if not most on the left fully expect the House to follow through on impeachment. They will at the very minimum be severely ticked off if the democrat controlled House fails them. How will they react?

The House could charge and the Senate could acquit. Again the leftists will be mightily ticked. How will the leftists react?

It was not the right that were rioting, burning and breaking things. From what I have seen the right, with very few exceptions, has been remarkably restrained for years. The left not so much.

At any rate I am glad I am not in a planning and operations section in any government agency. They should be already deep in the planning of a response.

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.