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.

Not a dimes woth of difference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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