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.

Lies of the left

Have you noticed how many leftists refer to the United States as a Democracy. I am going to point this out once again, not all leftists are democrats. The United States was founded as a Republic. The US has been called a Democracy so often that many believe that to be true. There is an old adage that goes something like this; Repeating a lie does not make it the truth. It has also been said that if you repeat a lie often enough people will take it for the truth.

When Benjamin Franklin was asked; What do we have? He responded; A Republic. He also added these few words as a part of that answer; If you can keep it. He answer seemed to imply that it would take some “work” to keep this a Republic and not let it become a Democracy.

At some point along the way the “ball” got dropped. The Pledge of Allegiance, is it still recited in school? The word Republic is in the pledge, the word Democracy is not. I thought I would include this video by Red Skelton.

And one by Johnny Wright.

Have we lost it? Is this Republic now on the verge of becoming a Democracy?

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.

Think about this

One of the twenty democrats on stage during the DNC debates, or one of the uninvited, will eventually be the democrat nominee. Any one of the the twenty debaters would be a disaster for this Republic as well as the others. More may well jump in.

Yep, I watched the debates, both of them. Now many, if not all, will be out doing damage control either for the answers they gave or for past actions, inaction or statements made. Some will even claim that they were misquoted or taken out of context, even though what they said was what they said. Some will claim they are or have been the victim of some sort of ism.

Each and everyone of them think and believe that more government control will cure all the ills in this country, on this the republicans are no different.

On healthcare most of them were trying to sell(pitch)Medicare for all, the basis for which is that the healthcare system is broken and one claimed the deductible was too high. Was not the Affordable Healthcare Act(ACA),aka Obamacare, supposed to fix the broken healthcare system? Could it be that they knew it would not, just a stepping stone to get to Medicare for all(single-payer)? The dream of every liberal politician.

I do feel they are at least a little dishonest in their Medicare for all plan, anybody over 65 will tell you Medicare A covers doctor visits, Medicare B covers hospital stays but only 80% of the total the remainder is covered by supplemental insurance(insurance you must purchase on your own)commonly called Medicare part C, then there is Medicare part D which covers prescription drugs. So just what are they really offering? By the way anybody that has Medicare part B will tell you that part B has a monthly premium. As to part D, all medications are not free sometimes there is a co-pay and some medications are not covered, which means those drugs are paid for “out-of-pocket”.

More than a few raised their hand when asked if they would end private insurance. If private insurance was eliminated how would a person pay the remaining 20%?

Is their plan to cover medical costs, all medical costs, from cradle to grave? If that is the plan how could it possibly be paid for? There is no way taxes could be increased enough to pay the bill.

There was only one person in the first debate that brought up this little tidbit. Hospitals could and would possibly go out of business if they were only reimbursed at Medicare rates. I wonder how many doctors would continue in practice if they were only reimbursed at Medicare rates.

Then again that could be the plan. Drive the hospitals and doctors out of business. Imagine living in a country where the hospitals are all government owned and operated, and all doctors are government employees.

By the way this Medicare for all, single payer or universal healthcare(or what ever it morphs into)will also cover those here illegally.

On education almost all have a plan to give away something. Many want to either forgive student loans or at a minimum help pay down the debt. As to forgiving the debt owed by university graduates, just how could that debt be forgiven? It is money owed, it must be repaid. The plan is to tax Wall Street to come up with the funding for this scheme. There was only one during the first debate that said it would not be right to have those who never attended college to pay off the loans of those who did.

There is also the issue of a free college education, even to four year university. Could a university remain open if all students could attend free? They can not be in earnest if they think this could all be paid for by taxing the rich, Wall Street and Corporations. Could a government owned and operated college and university system with all professors and staff being government employees be in our future? The government already controls the primary and secondary school system as it is. So why not expand the government education(indoctrination)system?

There was one with a plan for universal pre-k. The lady can not be in earnest. She has a plan for universal pre-k while supporting abortion. She supports the killing, in the womb, of those who would benefit from her proposal.

On gun control. They all have some sort of scheme to further encroach on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

This one is just stupid. One has a plan for a anyone who owns a firearm to obtain a gun license. They would have to apply for a firearm license at a local office that would be widely available in urban and rural areas. I have no idea which Constitution this man has read but according to the one I have we already have a firearm license, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment to that Constitution.

Read this carefully. “Keep your pistols, keep your rifles, keep your shotguns, but we can take the most dangerous weapons from the most dangerous people”. I would like to point out that this man is not earnest, how can he say on one hand keep your rifles when he plans to ban and confiscate a class of rifle. Remember back when someone said if you like your plan you can keep your plan? What is he saying? Does he consider the law-abiding American to be dangerous just because they choose to possess a certain type of rifle? Who or what are we a danger to?

That comes to us courtesy of the same Representative who got in an exchange concerning a mandatory buy-back plan(gun confiscation scheme)and starting a civil war and saying that it would be a short war the government has nukes. The same one that wants to ban and buy back every “assault weapon” in the United States and prosecute everyone who fails to comply. He seems to think that most all Americans would comply with this scheme.

Here is another one for you to read, and do read it carefully. “As somebody who trained on weapons of war, I can tell you that there are weapons that have absolutely no place in American cities or neighborhoods in peacetime. Ever. What is he saying? The words “in peacetime” caught my attention.

One claimed she liked the Representative’s plan but said congress was reluctant to act and she would give them 100 days to pull these plans into a bill she could sign. Should they fail at this she would take executive action.

One said “The gun manufacturers are the enemy”. The enemy of who or what? These are the same gun manufacturers that produce the firearms carried by his security detail.

I do wish that one, just one, of these moderators would have the “brass” to ask the following at one of these debates. By a show of hand, how many of you are for gun control. Every hand would go up. Now by a show of hand, how many of you would give your armed security? Do you think any hands would go up?

I am quite sure that security at the debates was many layers thick and armed to the teeth.

As I said above one of this cast of many is going to be the eventual nominee for the DNC. There are some in this cast of many that knew from the outset they did not stand a snowball’s chance in Hades of ever becoming the nominee. They are just there to gain enough support to influence the remainder of the field, pushing them farther left. As one after another bails out those remaining will be seeking their endorsement. I do wonder if the nominee has already been selected.

They spent considerable time bashing the usual big money donors. How do they expect to fund their campaigns without big money donors? Perhaps a wink and a nod, watch what we do not what we say.

If the eventual nominee wins the presidential election the people who were promised all this free stuff are going to demand all of that free stuff. In fact they will expect all of the promises made to be promises kept.

A few more items before I close.

They spoke of the corruption in D.C. Considering how long some have been there they are part of the problem, yet they try to convince the voters they can be the solution.

The subject of police involved shootings came up none of them could state the obvious, which is Stop doing stupid stuff that causes the police to shoot you.

The subject of incarceration came up and again none of them could state the obvious, which is Stop doing stupid stuff that gets your butt sent to prison.

It is not the fault of this nation that people trying to enter this country illegally die in the process. It could be the fault of the liberals for encouraging them to come here by offering freebies upon arrival.

Just wondering

With all or most of the democrat hopefuls signing onto the green new deal, I was just wondering if they will be taking the train to their campaign events. No why not? Aint one of the plans in this farce to do away with air travel? I mean after all the leader of this environmental cult said that we only have 12 years to save the planet. We must take radical steps now or it will be too late, she says. If it was all that important they should step up now, lead by example. Oh yeah leave your car behind, as another part of this is to get cars off the road. Ride the train, when you get to a passenger terminal get off the train and walk the rest of the way to your event. Show the rest of us how much you want to commit to stop using fossil fuels.

No these people are not going to take the train, they will instead continue to use jets to continue their campaigning. Nor will they give up travel by car. No they will instead keep using fossil fuels while preaching to the rest of us we must give up the use of fossil fuels. Sort of like the last group of environmental wackos preaching to us that we were destroying the planet, while going to their environmental summits in passenger jets or in some cases private jets. Yep, they too were preaching that we have to change our habits.

If you take the White House on the promise of this green new deal will you commit right now to getting rid of the fleet of Presidential Aircraft? Will you commit right now to getting rid of all the aircraft used by diplomats, agency heads and the rest right now if you win?

I did not think so.

So just when does this 12 year doomsday clock start ticking? 2020? 2032? Maybe never? They gave up on their 10 and 5 year clocks. Back when I was in elementary school(1960’s)they said that a new ice age was coming. The new ice age never arrived.

As for this high-speed rail system, it is over a one hour drive for me just to get to the nearest Amtrak station. If I even wanted to take a train, which I do not, I would have to walk for hours if not days if I were deprived of my truck. I might also point out that much of the land here in North Central Florida and indeed this Republic is not suitable for train tracks of any type let alone high-speed rail.

So you want everybody that wants a job to have a good paying government job. Looks like your plan blasts right through socialism and goes to full-blown communism. For every one to have a government job then the government would have to control everything, the means of production all the way to the means of distribution. You also want them to be union jobs. Why union jobs? Could that be a part of you plan because you green new deal will cost a lot of union jobs? Much of the auto manufacturing industry as well as the airline industry are good union dues paying members. You still must protect the unions.

Okay so you want to save the planet. Could you please tell me what providing a free college education to all has to do with saving the planet? Like wise could you tell me what free health care(Medicare for all)has to do with saving the planet? This guaranteed wage thing needs also to be explained.

Someone once said “Green is the new Red”. Some one also said “A communist is just an impatient socialist”.

Some, if not most, on your side claim that President Trump and the GOP are out of touch with the citizens of this nation and the values of this Republic. You, I dare say, are out of touch with reality.

Again I ask this, Is it too late for a divorce.

DEO VINDICE

The American tragedy

“As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects providence punishes national sins, by national calamities”. Colonel Mason.

The murder of the unborn, abortion(legalized murder). Day by day the leftist governors, law makers and indeed leftist states are trying to out do the other when it comes to the murder of the unborn. Some states are now at the point of sanctioning abortion up to and including the delivery date, some are even okay with this murder to the point of dilation. At what point will the leftists be okay with this continuing spree of murder including the point where the child was born alive and then murdered?

I might point out that those cheering on this murder spree were actually born. Absolute hypocrisy, but that is one thing the left is good at. Another thing they are good at is choosing the language of the argument.

They call it abortion, so we call it abortion. No it is murder, premeditated with malice in the heart. They divide the pregnancy into trimesters, we dutifully use their language in the argument. Their language does no more than to dehumanize a human being. And just why do we buy into words like viability when it comes to a child, already born or not. We need to change our language.

I have yet to ask and expectant mother how far along she is and have her to answer which trimester she is in, she will instead answer with how many weeks or months along she is. The same when I ask an expectant mother when her due date is she will answer in how many days, weeks or months, never have I had an expectant mother to answer when the third trimester is over.

They call it pro-choice, a woman’s right to choose. They say that a woman should have control over her reproductive organs. It has nothing to do with choice or control of reproductive organs it instead has everything to do with legalized murder. Murder sanctioned and allowed by government, performed by supposed health care professionals and in some cases sadly supported by the church(small c)

We need to call it what it is, it is pro-murder. If one does want to get pregnant then she should not engage in activities where she is likely to get pregnant. There is more than just the woman’s choice to consider, there is also the child’s choice, but the child is never asked or consulted in the matter.

The left is about providing safe spaces, where one can feel safe. The Good Lord provided the safest place possible, the mother’s womb. Yet it is in the womb where a child faces the greatest danger. Some have estimated that upwards of 60,000,000 children in America alone have been murdered in the womb. Do you realize that number is 6 times the number of murders the Third Reich reportedly committed?

It is this very same crowd that comes out with their gun control rhetoric when ever there is a mass shooting(murder), especially when it is a school shooting. What language do they use? They say these measures must be undertaken to protect the most vulnerable in our society. It appears to me that the most vulnerable in our society is the unborn. They have no place where they can hide, no closet to hide in, no door to get behind and lock. The unborn has nowhere to run to avoid the forceps coming to crush the life out of them, or what ever implement the murderer, abortion provider they call them, chooses to use in the murder. Does the mother or the murderer hear the child scream as the murder is taking place? Can the mother feel the child as he or she struggles to stay alive? Can the mother feel the life leaving her still unborn child? Can the women in the waiting rooms at the murder mills hear the screams of the children being murdered in the womb while they await their turn to go in and have their child murdered? Would a child in the womb, if he or she had the means, fight off the attack or the attacker? The current thinking lists the following actions when attacked, Run, Hide, Fight, the child in the womb can do none of these. You see the child in the womb really is the most vulnerable, they count on the mother to protect them. Little does the child know that the mother is part of a conspiracy to murder.

It is this very same crowd that seeks to eliminate the death penalty. I guess it is, in their minds, being too much of a hypocrite to take the life of one who did the same thing as they do. They are unwilling to carry out the sentence, death sentence, of one found guilty of a crime, a capital crime mind you. At the same time they invoke and carry out the death penalty on one which has committed no crime, capital or otherwise. Has being conceived now become a crime, a capital crime? They call the death penalty inhumane while at the same time consider abortion(murder)humane treatment of a child. They worry themselves that a criminal condemned to death may experience some pain or discomfort as the sentence is carried out, They do not consider the pain or discomfort the victim may have experienced. Nor do they consider the pain or discomfort of a child experiences while being murdered in the womb.

Now we have a democrat congressman claiming that the right to be safe trumps the right to bear arms. He claims that the new congress is putting the right to be safe over any other rights possessed by Americans. https://thedaleygator.com/2019/02/02/rep-eric-swalwell-d-marxifornia-your-marxist-moron-of-the-day/

I see no democrat proposing legislation guaranteeing the safety of a child still in womb, they instead focus on depriving citizens of their rights.

I do have to wonder which will be the first state to release those convicted of murder under the premise that they were only late-term abortion providers. The left trying to out left the left.

God help us.

DEO VINDICE