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.

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?

That is over

President Trump was acquitted in the Senate yesterday. Pretty much along party lines, one republican sided with the democrats on article 1, party line votes on article 2.

So round 2 is in the books, and the democrats lose again in their effort to undermine the President. Round 1 was the Russian collusion investigation. That episode proved nothing except that no American had colluded with the Russians to influence or change the outcome of the 2016 election. On a side note to this, there has never been any proof brought forward that even one vote of one person was influenced one way or another by the actions of the Russians.

For three long years America has been suffering the wrath of the disgruntled democrats. Impeachment murmurings began after the 2016 election and never abated. He was called an illegitimate President. According to the democrats and some republicans he was unfit to serve as President. It is clear that they hate President Trump, perhaps now more than ever. The only question is do they hate him more than they hate the ones who elected him? I mean after all, he is only President because he was elected.

I am quite sure that the democrats are working on their third attempt. They will not stop. Was it not said, The investigations will continue? Was it also not said “He is impeached forever”? They have yet to accept the results of the 2016 election and will not accept the finding of not guilty.

In my opinion the only thing the democrats have done is to assure the re-election of President Trump this coming November. His support is solid, nothing they have done up to this point has chased away any support, not for lack of trying. While they have been on their quest to bring down the President their Presidential candidates have been bringing down their entire political party with their far left(socialist)agenda.

Before we take an early victory lap there is something that must be addressed. The President will not be re-elected if you don’t vote.

I don’t know how many times I have encountered people that bitch, moan and complain about how things are going that did not even bother to vote. I only know that they did not vote because I asked them. Not only do they not vote, they are not even registered to vote. Again I know this because I asked them. Many of them say that they have not registered to vote because they may get selected for Jury Duty. I know because I ask.

Get off your butt and register to vote, yes even if it means you might get selected for Jury Duty. Then go vote.

Elections have consequences. Not voting also has consequences.

Not a dimes woth of difference

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

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

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

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

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

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

Living in interesting times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January is closing in.

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

We are living in interesting times.

How soon they forget

A Senator from the great State of Georgia is vacating the Senate seat he currently occupies, he is resigning from the Senate. Some would say that he is vacating his seat, nothing could be further from the truth. The Senate seat he is vacating belongs to the State of Georgia, not to him or any other person. Those that say he is resigning from his Senate seat are the same ones that say America is a democracy, wrong on both counts. It is not his seat and America is no democracy.

Now the Governor of Georgia is going to name a temporary replacement, I say temporary because next November a special election will be held to fill that seat. Even then it will still be temporary because whoever wins that special election will have to run again in 2022. It has been reported(if the news media can be trusted anymore)that the Governor has made his choice and his choice has not made the GOP happy.

Here are some of their reasons.

Concerns were raised pointing to her never running for elected office before and may not be “seasoned” enough to receive the nod.

I might point this out to the GOP and the President. When candidate Trump was running in the primaries he had no political experience outside of making donations to politicians. He had never ran for elected office before announcing he was entering the republican primaries, in other words he was not “seasoned”. He positioned himself as a “political outsider”. He won the primaries and became the nominee. Why? The voters finally had a choice in something other than a “seasoned” politician. When it came to the presidential election of 2016 he won that also with no real political experience. The voters were willing to take a chance. Why? The status quo was not working. So, lay off.

She is not an original backer of President Trump and the 2016 campaign.

You have got to be kidding me, you think that this is a reason. There are many Trump supporters, that are Trump supporters now that were not then. They came to support him in spite of his lack of “seasoning”. Got a news flash for you, there are many now not supporting of the president that did support him in 2016.

She lacks conservative credentials.

Please tell me what conservative credentials President Trump brought to the primaries or the presidential election. For that matter, I would like to see the conservative credentials on the republicans in the Senate or even the House. Some, I fear would be sadly lacking in those “conservative credentials”.

It could lead to a messy electoral fight.

Where do I start with this one. Tell me what electoral fight is not messy. I think what was really meant here was if the wrong person is appointed it will lead to a messy primary next year. If that is the case then if the right person was appointed he would not face a primary challenge.

The Governor of the State of Georgia is the one that must name the temporary replacement, it is his responsibility or duty, however you wish to call it. This rests directly on the Governor’s shoulders. It does not rest with the President and most certainly not with a Representative from the State of Florida. The Governor will pick whomever he picks on his judgement and for his reasons.

In closing I would just say that you would better serve by acting your age and not your shoe size. Twitter wars are just a little infantile, juvenile at best.

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.

What do they have in common?

Red Flag Laws and the current Impeachment Inquiry, what do they have in common? Some would say secrecy and no due process.

Secrecy.

There really is and was no secrecy in the impeachment inquiry unless you count the fact that it began behind closed doors. Even with that the “witnesses” were paraded about in the open. The media seemed to know what they would or might say even before the opening statements were made or questions were asked. Seems like some testimony may have “leaked” out.

It was no secret that the House had launched an impeachment inquiry. It is no secret as to who have been called to testify. Now the impeachment inquiry has moved to the public phase. The whole spectacle is televised and broken up into videos and recordings are made and broken up into soundbites with those on both sides playing the snippets or soundbites that aid their side. The media is right there to tell the public all they “need” to know, “unbiased” of course.

Are red flag cases handled in the same manner? I kind of suspect that the whole process is conducted in secrecy. Witnesses are not paraded about in public. What happens there does not leak out.

The President knew this was coming, it has been in the forefront since the democrats took control of the House. He also knew who testified and knows who will testify. He can watch the spectacle or have others watch it and brief him on what was said or just catch the snippets and sound bites.

Does the person in a red flag case have any idea what is coming his or her way? Can that person watch the proceedings or have others watch it for him or her? Are there any snippets or soundbites? I kind of suspect that the person has no idea what is coming.

Due process.

Is the President right now at this moment getting due process at this stage of the impeachment inquiry? Yes and no.
He does not have his attorney representing him or his interests at the moment, that covers the no part.
He does, however, have the republican members of the House asking questions of the witnesses and there is a staff lawyer, that covers the yes part.

Does the person caught up in a red flag case get due process? The answer is no. He or she is not present at the proceedings, nor is there an attorney present to represent to him or her. In fact only the opposition is present, kind of a one sided trial. The Judge makes the final decision.

While this inquiry is going on the President and his team are preparing themselves.

The person in the red flag case has no way of preparing.

Now moving along to the outcome.
If the House decides to not proceed, that will be televised. The same will be true if the House brings the articles of impeachment up for a vote. The same will be true if the House passes the articles of impeachment and sends them forward to the Senate. The President will immediately know.

The person caught up in a red flag case will only know if the Judge issues an order to seize the persons firearms, and will know very soon. Most likely at a most inconvenient time. If the Judge is not convinced and does not issue the order the person will never know. If the Judge does issue the order, the firearms are seized. He or she gets due process after not before. The person then must go to court in an effort to get his property back. Failing to convince the Judge that he is or she is not a danger to themselves or others will mean that the person will never get their property back, never. By the way the person just lost his or her Second Amendment rights, even though they never committed a crime or had any intention to do so.

By now some of you may be wondering just why I am writing this. Glad you asked.

If you go back to last February and check you will find the President making these two statements or proposals among others.
First. In reference to the school shooting at Parkland and the perpetrator and his interactions with law-enforcement and the perpetrators firearms “Take them away if you have the right or not”.
Second. “Take the guns first then due process”.

So you will pardon me if I do not shed a tear for someone complaining about not getting due process when just last February he was proposing doing away with due process for all legal and lawful gun owners.

They have nothing in common, but they would have something in common if.

Now I could see complaining about no due process if the House held all the hearings in secrecy. Passed the articles in secrecy and passed those articles to the Senate. The Senate did their part in absolute secrecy and convicted the President in secrecy and removed the President. No due process at all. Now the President would have to present himself and plead his case to be restored as President. By the way, he would be pleading to be restored to the same people that had just kicked him out in secrecy. I know that the Office of the President is not anyone’s property, this is just to illustrate a danger of red flag laws.

Is the President going to get a fair shake? I would have to say, NO! Especially when one member of Congress said shortly after getting elected “Now we impeach the mother****er”. How do you think she would vote regardless of the evidence. Not when so many in Congress have already made up their minds and there minds will not be changed regardless of the evidence or the lack of evidence. Not when the media has already convicted him and is doing it’s best to convict him in the court of public opinion.

What if? Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By choice or force?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History says no.