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.

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

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

Tugging at heartstrings

Again the left uses a tried and true scheme to influence public opinion, using emotion over logic. The latest outrage from the left comes courtesy of illegal immigration. It seems that children are separated, or were being, from their parents(mothers mainly)at the southern border. This happens when and because the “parents” cross the border illegally with children.

They even stoop to using a false(manufactured)picture on the cover of a liberal leftist “rag”, the one showing a crying child looking up at the President while the President looks down on the crying child. Again it is all about the children.

The left is once again “worried” about the children. They claim it is inhumane to separate children from their mothers. They claim that common sense gun reforms(restrictions placed on law-abiding citizens)will protect the children from murderers(non-law-abiding people). They care not about children whether inside or outside of the womb, what they do care about is their socialist/communist leftist agenda. They care not about children, private property rights or borders, if they did they would not be socialist/communist leftists.

The “children” crossing the southern border face unlimited/untold dangers(exposure to harsh elements, rape, human trafficking and such). If the leftists really cared about those “children” they would demand that a border wall be constructed. The children would not be placed in danger while making that long arduous journey, there would be no way in except through authorized entry points.

Look at some of the benefits at a wall along the southern border. It would cut down on illegal drugs entering this country. It would cut down on undesirables(gang members and other criminals)entering this country. It would benefit and protect the children they would face less dangers.

Entering/attempting to enter this country is an unlawful act, those who commit unlawful acts are usually detained. The illegals crossing the border illegally are placed in detention centers while they wait for disposition. Children are separated from adults at hose centers as a protection for the child. If one crosses illegally with a minor, the minor is separated from the adult as a precaution while things get sorted out, if the child is the offspring of the adult the separation is only temporary.

They even try tugging at the heartstrings of pro-life conservatives, they “worry” that the illegals that just happen to be pregnant are getting the pre-natal care they so desperately need. They have a “concern” for the unborn and the mother all the sudden. Since when did the leftists care one iota about the unborn.

Show that you really care about children. Build the wall. Protect the children, do not place expectant mothers in harm’s way. You have to do this for the children, As you say if it saves even one life it is worth it.

Prove you care. You do care don’t you? Come on leftists do it for the children you claim to want to protect.

DEO VINDICE

This is going to get ugly

The left is unhinged and is rapidly becoming totally unhinged. Where has the civility gone? The left has no idea of how to conduct themselves in a civilized manner. Many thought they were just “blowing off steam” after Donald J. Trump was elected President, and they would finally just accept that fact and move on. They are never going to accept that fact and they get can not get past the fact that HRC is not president. It is already ugly and is only going to get uglier.

A so-called comedienne who referred to the daughter of the president as a “feckless cunt”, many thought that funny. A washed-up actor referred to a female cabinet member as a “gash”, and again many thought that funny. In years past the democrats were claiming that the republicans were waging a “war against/on women”. I guess now we know who has the least amount of respect for women.

The President’s Press Secretary was denied service and asked to leave because the owner of the restaurant has differing political views. So now are we expected to believe it has become appropriate to deny service based on political views? The Secretary of DHS was forced to leave a restaurant because of protesters. Has it now become appropriate to protest a person trying to have a quite dinner with their family?

I might point out that both the Press Secretary and the Secretary of DHS are both women and it was the left that showed once again they can not be civil. Again tell me just who is against women.

One of the protesters at the eatery chosen by the Secretary of DHS was identified as a current employee of the DOJ. Are there no standards of conduct for government employees?

The antifascist left made their way to the scene after the election of President Trump, claiming the president to be a fascist. They set about rioting in the streets, destroying property and creating all sorts of mayhem. They claim to be antifascist yet they act in the most fascist manner. They have attacked both verbally and physically those who have a different political view. They have shut down many free speech events because of a differing view.

A political has-been(political hack)from a previous administration has come right and said that the Cabinet should turn against the President. He may as well have called for a mutiny against the President.

A leftist talking head(political hack)has come out and said that if the voters support President Trump, they are the problem, not Trump but his supporters. He as much as said that the ones who support and vote for President Trump are Nazis.

Yet another political has-been(political hack)from a previous administration came out with a tweet showing a picture of the entrance to a Nazi concentration camp. Saying something to the effect, there was another country that had separated children from their mothers. Again a comparison to Nazis.

A sitting member of Congress from the House of Representatives has come out in support of the events at the eateries above and says more like those need to be happening. From my interpretation of what she was saying she was actually encouraging these acts, even saying more like them should happen. Saying as much as when ever a member of the Trump administration is encountered they should be heckled and driven away from eateries, gas stations and where ever they are encountered. Some, if not most, on the left are going to see this as their “call to action”, their license if you will.

This will at some point get out of control.

We need not be wasting our time with challenges as to what would have happen if the right had acted like this towards the previous administration. We on the right manage to conduct ourselves in a civil manner, something they are incapable of doing. We do need to come to the realization that the left operates on hatred. They hate President Trump and will transfer that hatred to his supporters.

DEO VINDICE