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.

The question not asked

I am quite sure by now everyone has heard the Senate passed the $2 trillion economic stimulus package to “fight off” the economic crisis brought on by the Wuhan corona virus crisis. Complete bi-partisan support 96-0, no opposition. Shortly after the Senators got the heck out of town. The House, when they(some of them)return to town, has promised swift passage(voice vote), then off to the President to sign. Of course a roll call vote could be forced therefore requiring House members return to D.C. that would slow things down a bit or for quite some time.

Keep in mind that this is the third corona virus package and a fourth is in the works.

Given all of the debate, posturing and the rest that goes along with Congressional “negotiations” I noticed one thing missing that is a mainstay with normal non-crisis partisan debates and posturing.

The question not asked was, How is this going to be paid for?

When it is a partisan plan the other side and their talking heads without fail will ask , How will this be paid for? But this is a bi-partisan plan with no opposition no one cares about the cost or how to pay for it. Not a one has said, Wait a minute we can’t afford that.

Was not all that long ago that a current sitting member of Congress suggested that two $1 trillion coins be minted and placed on deposit with the Federal Reserve. Then I got to thinking, How can you deposit money that you do not have?

That brings me to this. We are told that we as a nation are in debt, a debt that exceeds our GDP. If we are that deep in debt you would think that those in charge of the “purse strings” would be very careful when money must be spent. But they are not, they spend and give away money hand over fist like there is no bottom. We have been told for years that there is a national debt.

Suppose for a minute that there is no national debt. Suppose we have been lied to about that. The recent first time buyers of firearms have been lied to forever and only realized the extent of the lies when they attempted to make their purchase. They say that repeating a lie often enough does not make it a truth, however if you repeat a lie often enough it can be taken for the truth.

We are told we are in debt and swallow that hook, line and sinker. Has anyone out side of government ever seen the balance sheet from the Treasury? Has anyone ever seen the receipts and expenditures from the Treasury?
This little tidbit comes from a speech given by Patrick Henry 07 June 1788. …Another beautiful feature of this Constitution is the publication from time to time of the receipts and expenditures of the public money. This expression, from time to time, is very indefinite and indeterminate. It may extend to a century….

I will add this. It may extend to forever.

While I am here I might as well get this out of the way. Has anyone outside the top echelon of the Federal Reserve ever seen the balance sheet?

Why now?

Checked in on the latest from the House impeachment inquiry, read a few news articles, caught a few video clips and listened to a few news and opinion personalities. Pretty much the same as I have done since this circus began. And each day the results are the same, democrats and their allies in the media claiming the most damning evidence has come to light and it is only a matter of time, republicans and their allies in the media saying their is no evidence and it is game over. They all hear and see the same thing and yet come up with different outcomes, amazing.

For three long years the democrats have been looking for a reason, any reason, to remove the president from office. Every path they have taken turned out to be a dead end. Now they have embarked on an impeachment inquiry and have gone down many a rabbit hole on this journey. They have gone past the point of no return, they can not turn back now and save face, nor can their allies in the media, they must push forward. About the only out they have is to claim they have the evidence but it would be pointless to proceed when it would be impossible to get the requisite number of Senators to vote to convict and remove. They could make this claim whether or not they have any evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, no one would be the wiser.

The “official” impeachment inquiry began with the 2020 election just over a year out and now here we are within a week of Thanksgiving. We are well into the democrat primary season with Iowa in February. I doubt that the House will wrap up this inquiry before Thanksgiving, dragging on until early or mid December. Then Christmas will be approaching, if the Senate takes as long as the House is taking this will drag on well into the new year. When the Senate convenes for this all other business stops and if true as reported the Senate will be in session 6 days a week.

The same question comes up, Why now? There could be many reasons.

Perhaps they began this inquiry knowing full well that it would drag on for sometime. Campaigns will be sidelined for those democrats in the primary contest who happen to be sitting Senators, they will be at work. The only campaigning done for them will be through their surrogates. This gives a decided advantage to those not in the Senate, they will be out campaigning everyday. I doubt very seriously that they will suspend their campaign to show solidarity with their opponents. Perhaps this road was taken knowing it would give a decided advantage to the candidate of their choice. No, the democrats would never interfere with their own primaries or show preference for any candidate.

Perhaps it is the timing. The democrats knew full well that the spending bills to fund the government would not get done in time. After all, when was the last time the Congress actually got the spending bills passed on time or ahead of time for that matter? Once again here we are with a stop gap measure, a continuing resolution, to keep the government open. The democrats could forward their articles of impeachment to the Senate with, let’s say, a week or two until this stop gap measure is set to expire. The Senate could inform the House that they will begin the trial portion after another stop gap measure is approved. The House could inform the Senate that you have ample time to do this and no consideration will be given to a stop gap measure until after the trial. The Senate would be forced into a quick trial and verdict to avoid a government shutdown. 2020 is an election year, if the government suffers it second shutdown in as many years that would be bad for the republicans. If the Senate holds a quick trial to avoid a shutdown the Democrats will blame the republican controlled Senate for not giving fair consideration for the evidence presented to them. Thus the Senate would be caught between a rock and a hard spot. No the democrats would never cause a crisis and blame someone else.

Perhaps it is the crowded primary field. The democrats know that there is not one candidate, in the crowded field that would become the nominee, could defeat the President in the 2020 election. Since they can not beat him they chose to continue their mission of removing him from office.

Perhaps to avoid something. Removing the President has been their goal since day one, the talk of impeachment began when the President was the President-elect. They could have went down this path at any time since January 3rd of this year, yet they waited. Prior to this inquiry, formal inquiry, the President, a republican president, was willing to enact gun control legislation there were several republican members of Congress willing to go along. Some republicans had already teamed with democrats on legislation proposals. The President and the republicans would be going against the dreaded NRA. They could have waited until the republicans had enacted gun control. There was no way the democrats were going to let this happen. They would have lost two of their most important talking and campaign points. They could no longer claim that the republicans were against enacting “common sense” gun control measures, also they could no longer say that the republicans were in the pocket of the NRA. If the President and the republicans in Congress had gotten on the “gun control train” they could have been heroes to the gun control cult. That could have cost the democrats some votes they could not have this happen. So instead of having some republican gun control measures they chose to move ahead with this inquiry. They knew this impeachment inquiry would derail any gun control legislation. Within the past few days some Senators(democrat and republican)were lamenting how this impeachment has derailed gun control talks with the President.

Well anyway the circus continues tomorrow.

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.

No Time

Before getting started I do sincerely hope that each and every one of you had a joyful and Merry Christmas. I also hope you found time to remember the “reason for the season” our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

On a side note I will get back to the series,How far will they go, hopefully before the democrats take control of the House.

Well here we are again, in the midst of, yet, another partial government shutdown. This one, like all of the previous shutdowns was totally preventable. All congress had to do was its job and send a budget funding the government to the president. But no, they had to drag this out again, keeping things humming along with a continuing resolution until a later date, well that later date has arrived. Seems as though they did not have enough time or they squandered the time away. One or the other happened you decide.

They, some of them(democrat and republican), had more than enough time to make total asses of themselves during the Supreme Court nominee hearings and confirmation vote.

They, all of them, had ample time to take their numerous vacations and attend their “retreats”.

They had time to “haul” individuals before their various committees to hold hearings. Did these hearings really amount to anything productive?

They had time to appear before the cameras of their favorite media outlets.

They, those who had primary challengers, had plenty of time for campaigning, meeting with their donors and holding those stupid town hall meetings.

They, those running for re-election, had plenty of time to go campaigning, meet with their donors and hold even more of those stupid town hall meetings.

Some found time to go “stumping” on the campaign trail for their preferred candidate.

More than a handful have found time to visit Iowa and New Hampshire in hopes of seeking a higher office, putting out “feelers” for possible donors and staffers.

They had plenty of time after the election to throw their victory parties and in some cases their pity parties for losing.

They had plenty of time to send billions upon billions of dollars to foreign lands funding foreign governments, yet they had no time to fully fund our government.

The new Congress will be sworn in on the 3rd of January, their re-election bid begins on the 4th of January. Who is minding the store?

In fact, they had plenty of time to do everything except to perform the job they were sent to D.C. to do.

Just how many days out of the year does congress actually spend doing the job they were sent to do? Out of those days just how many hours a day to they set about doing the needed business of this country. My guess is not many.

It should be apparent that the biggest problem is not who occupies the White House as that person is there for 8 years at the most. The biggest problem is indeed those who occupy the halls of Congress for decades or even multiples of decades.

Had Congress sent forward the spending bills, all of them, to fund the government for the full fiscal year, instead of yet another piecemeal approach we would not be at this point again. It sometimes makes me think they do this on purpose, just to play the part of the “drama queen”.

How about next time, after the dust settles, when Congress sends the government funding bills to the President to sign, he hand it right back to them unless the entire government is funded and only the government, no more playing “kick the can”. If the critters “tack on” some extras like funding for PPH, the President should ask if PPH is a part of the federal government. The same goes for subsidies to corn, sugar, electric autos and the rest, address those separately.

DEO VINDICE

How far will they go? Part one

For this part of this post I will use some parts of some historical speeches and yes I am going to cherry pick.
June 5th 1788, a speech by Patrick Henry…There are many on the other side, who, possibly may have been persuaded of the necessity of these measures, which I conceive to be dangerous to your liberty. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force you are inevitably ruined… The Honorable Gentleman who presides, told us, that to prevent abuses in our Government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, if it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves are gone; and have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in any nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? 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….

June 7th 1788 another speech by Patrick Henry… That Government is no more than a choice among evils, is acknowledged by the most intelligent among mankind, and has been a standing maxim for ages… It is on a supposition that our American Governors shall be honest, that all good qualities of this Government is founded: But its defective, and imperfect construction, puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men: 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….

It was not all that long ago that California Congress critter and another gentleman got into an “exchange” over a gun confiscation scheme. The congress critter implied that the people would simply obey the law, and the gentleman said there would be a civil war. I know you have heard seen or read about this, but again bear with me. The congress critter said it would be a short-lived war the U.S. has nukes. Things went wild around the internet over the implied use of nukes on Second Amendment supporters. I think the congress critters implication was that we would obey willingly or force would be used to bring us into compliance. Words have meaning and those were the words of a petty tyrant. The two things I took from the congress critters statement was:
1. The government under democrat control would contemplate or attempt a gun grabbing scheme, one like a voluntary buy-back program. Which is not meant to be voluntary by any means, you would participate(comply)or else.
2. The or else, is the use of government force and the infliction of penalties to make one wish they had “voluntarily” complied.

More recently there was yet another California congress critter that said he would like to limit speech, but the First Amendment prevented him from doing that. What he said is troubling to say the least, but I do admire his honesty. At least he did say that the Constitution did prevent him from doing this, However, I doubt seriously he would have the same mind-set about anything he could do to infringe on the Second Amendment, which is also a part of the Constitution. Again the words of a petty tyrant.

Which brings me to ask these questions. Is there a swearing-in ceremony for congress critters? If there is a swearing-in ceremony, do they swear(affirm)to protect and uphold the entire Constitution? Perhaps they only swear(affirm)to defend and uphold only the parts of the Constitution they, their party, their donors and their base supports. Perhaps they do not give a tinker’s damn about the Constitution and only mouth the words, you know with their fingers crossed.

this goes for women too, would not want to appear sexist

So why is it that this Republic is inching closer and closer to socialism? Hint, it aint changing demographics.

It was once said that if socialism/communism were ever to come to this land it would come by way of the ballot box. In this recent election how many socialists were running for office? How many socialists were elected? How many socialists were re-elected? Don’t get me wrong I do read and laugh my tail off when the memes are posted poking fun at the young woman, the self-declared democratic socialist, from New York who was elected to congress. But here is a news flash, she is going to congress where she and those like her will be legislating for the next two years, legislating over the entire country. In two more years will she and those like her be voted out of office? Will she and those like her be re-elected? Will even more like them be elected in 2020? Think about this, we will be and are paying socialists from the national treasury(tax dollars)to legislate over a free country.

The circus during and surrounding the Supreme Court Justice confirmation showed just how many clowns there are in congress. So now we are going to be governed by clowns as well as socialists. If Patrick Henry could see what our government has become, I believe he would say “I told you so”.

Not all leftists are in the democrat(socialist)party there is likely more than a handful or two in the republican party. It was once said that there is not a dimes worth of difference between a democrat and a republican when it comes to politicians. Think about this it makes news when a politician changes party affiliation and the party gaining welcomes them with open arms. If a republican switches to democrat does he/she abandon the principles they once stood for or said they stood for? The same goes for a democrat switching to a republican. Is it just a uni-party when it comes to politicians? It seems that assimilation is not a problem for a politician.

Without a doubt the democrats that will control the House of Representatives come Noon on the 3rd of January will continue to push their anti-gun agenda. They will seek to continue their push for their so-called “common sense” gun control measures. As I see it, there is with a high degree of probability that they will attach their schemes to “must pass” legislation, like funding bills. How many so-called republicans will join them, you know in a bi-partisan fashion?

I do have suspicions of any government that would want the citizenry disarmed. I also have suspicions of any government that would seek to limit(curtail)if not outright take away any of our Constitutional Rights.

So to answer the question, How far will they go? The leftists will go as far as they can possibly get away with, inching ever closer to socialism.

To answer the question, Why is this Republic inching closer to socialism. Oddly enough the answer lies in the 60’s and 70’s, possibly even before. The 60’s and 70’s did provide us with some great music. Even the protest songs of that by-gone era were and still are better than the noise they try to pass off as music these days. Still listen to and enjoy the music.

But like most things, there are two sides. The same goes for the music of the 60’s Hello Viet Nam, written by Tom T. Hall and performed by Johnny Wright. This song has some truth in the lyrics.

America has trouble to be stopped
We must stop Communism in that land
Or freedom will start slipping through our hands.

I hope and pray someday the world will learn
That fires we don’t put out will bigger burn
We must save freedom now, at any cost
Or someday, our own freedom will be lost.

I have nothing but the highest respect for all who served in Viet Nam, for each and every one of you I am forever grateful.

Back to the lyrics of Hello Viet Nam. Communism was not stopped in that land. Freedom is slipping through our hands. The world did not learn. The fires are burning bigger. Freedom was not saved. Someday our freedoms might be lost.

Back to the congress critter wanting to limit speech. Actually congress does not have to legislate laws to silence the opposition to the leftists, that messy business can be handled by the tech giants and the current gambit of social media platforms.

Back to the “exchange” concerning a civil war for just a moment. No on second thought I will save this for the next part.

DEO VINDICE

If…

criminals(men and women)will not obey the Law and Word of God, then what could ever possibly make anybody think that they will obey the law and word of mankind? God already said “Thou shall not murder. Another mass shooting(murder)and more calls and demands for gun-control.

The left as well as those who favor gun-control push what they call “common sense” measures. The problem is that those measures will only apply to law-abiding citizens, they will not apply to the criminal element in our midst.

Look at it this way, when permits to carry are denied to law-abiding citizens they simply do not carry. The criminal has no intention of applying for a carry permit, in fact the criminal will carry and would carry no matter what the law says or does. The only thing accomplished here is that a person who could have been “allowed” to have in possession a means to prevent himself from being a victim was instead “allowed” to be come a victim.

It is one thing to have the means and capability to defend oneself or another and choose to not exercise that option. It is quite another when one is denied the means to defend oneself or another leaving them no option.

At this point I am going to have to admit ignorance, I am at least partially ignorant of the laws particular to California as to where a person can carry or can not carry. As a matter of fact on that point I do not know all of the laws of the other 48 states or D.C. either. At this point in time there is no need for me to know the gun laws in or of the other 49 states or D.C. as there is no chance in the foreseeable future of me venturing out of the state of Florida, so I shall remain blissfully ignorant. Even if I were to leave the state of Florida there are some states I would avoid like the plague based on what little I do know of your gun laws.

What I do know are the gun laws that pertain to Florida as well as the Federal Laws. I know where I can carry and where I can not carry. When I do have to visit a place where I can not carry I conduct my business and depart. If a business I visit has a no gun policy, I simply turn and walk away never to revisit. He/she made their choice and I made mine. My point here is that I follow the law, and this is exactly what the criminal element counts on. They count on us to follow the law.

I would venture to say that the vast majority of these mass shootings(murders)are conducted in the shooters(murderers)home state, home town, nearby town or at the very least a state the murderer is very familiar with. If the murderer is in his/her home state then it is very likely that he/or she knows the laws for that state or at least some of them. The same is true if the murderer is in a state they are familiar with. Operating in familiar territory has advantages, for instance these mass murderers want “big numbers”. They will not achieve “big numbers” if they choose a target in which the intended victims have a means to fight back. There is a reason why these mass murders never happen at or are even attempted at a “cop shop”. They want a “soft” target they do not want a “hard” target, they do not even want a target of unknown softness or hardness. They will pass up hard, possibly hard, possibly soft just to focus on a “known soft” target.

The murderers use the law to their benefit(advantage)in racking up numbers. It is not the tool(gun)that gives them the advantage, what gives them the advantage is the lack of opposition.

Now is a good time to bring up few points.

First, the criminal element does not give one hoot about the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact they see the Second Amendment as a hinderance to their criminal enterprise. An armed populace is the last thing they want and what they fear most.

Second, the criminal element is probably and most likely among the gun-control cult. The more restrictions that can and will be placed on the law-abiding public means that there are fewer obstructions for the criminal element to overcome. The criminal element is probably the loudest voice in the gun-control cult.

Third, the common sense gun control measures they push benefit the criminal element while they only effect and burden the law-abiding citizens.

Fourth, the ones bank-rolling this cult do so with armed, heavily armed, security at their side or at least very near. You can bet that what restrictions they want placed on the public will not apply to them.

I do have to wonder about the motivation of any government at any level that would start legislating away the rights and liberties of the population. They promise more security if you give up a little liberty. A quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin goes something like this, “Any society that will give up a little liberty for little security will deserve neither and lose both”. But even with the promise of increased security they have admitted that nothing can stop all of these mass murders. Yet their favorite mantra is “We just did not go far enough”.

Let us look at some of their common sense measures.
A national registry of firearms. Historically speaking this had led to disaster for the population registering their personal firearms. Registration leads to confiscation, even if only of political opponents. It would be difficult to confiscate firearms unless one were to know where they were and who had them.
Universal background checks. Each time you buy a firearm from a FFL you must do the paperwork and pass a background check.
Close the gun show loophole. One can not close what does not exist. If you want a background check done on all firearm sales, including private(between individuals)just say it.
A ban on the AR and AK platforms, which will morph into a ban on all semi-automatic rifles, which will morph into a ban on a semi-automatic anything, which will morph into a ban on their next “demon” until we are left with nothing but sticks and rocks.
A gun violence tax. A per bullet tax. A gun buy-back. A background check to by ammunition. Limits on magazine capacity. Bans on bump-fire stocks. The list just goes on and on.

Please note that none of the above will affect the criminals in the least.

In the past they claimed they did not want to stop us from hunting, sport shooting or target practicing, well that was pretty generous of them considering. But it was not all that long ago they said they thought it was time to repeal the Second Amendment.

We now wait to see what laws are shoved down the throats of law-abiding gun owners in the states now in control and those that will be in the control of the anti-gun left.

We are living in interesting times.

DEO VINDICE

Well that is over

Election 2018 is over and in the history books, save for a few places. The republicans managed to lose the House but made some gains in the Senate. President Trump is still President Trump. Congratulations to Governor-elect DeSantis and Lt. Governor-elect Nunez. Still waiting on the Senate race to be settled.

Today the political strategists will be out trying to find out what went wrong so they can explain how they lost, especially those that thought the race was in or should have been in the bag.

Many a pundit and talking head had claimed this election would be a referendum on President Trump. They claimed his “rhetoric” was dividing the nation and he was himself a threat to the Constitution.

Last night was in all actuality a referendum on Congress. I would think that we conservatives know good and well why the republicans lost control of the House, and it aint President Trump or demographics. I personally was surprised by the gains in the Senate. I think the democrat senators sealed their fate during the circus that was the Supreme Court nominee confirmation hearing and votes. Some of their antics before, during and after the vote looks to have taken their toll.

The voters have chosen a left of center House and a right of center Senate, looks as though they are putting both parties on notice. It is much easier to change the House than it is to change the Senate. A wrong choice in the house can be fixed in two years. The country as a whole is not ready to go left, some states yes, the country no. As to both parties be put on “notice”, I believe the message they, those in Congress, should get from the results of this election is “it is time, past time, to get your feces together”.

So now we have a divided Congress, a democrat controlled House and a republican controlled Senate. What will come of that divided Congress? Both parties call for bi-partisanship, reaching across the aisle. Will we have bi-partisan cooperation or obstruction? We will know that answer in January.

The left of center House still has their own agenda to pursue, and pursue it they will. They will try to attach their agenda to must pass bills, after all Congress holds the purse strings. They will not give up on their gun control agenda, they could attach some of their so-called commonsense gun control measures to other legislation like funding for the wall. In order to get some funding for the wall some gun rights would have to be given up. They could attach citizenship guarantees for DACA to military funding. No citizenship no money. How many government shut-downs will we be threatened with, and how many will we have to endure? Will we be held hostage by our own government? How obstinate will they be before the new congress convenes?

You see my friends we aint out of the woods yet.

Actually it aint over, it is never over, it is just a lull. The campaigning will begin again in January, testing the waters began some time back. Future presidential hopefuls heading out to Iowa, New Hampshire and several other key states and events giving speeches. Hoping to become the next “rock star” of their party.

Well at least my mailbox will get a break.

DEO VINDICE