If you remember, in 2007, Hugo Chavez, as President of Venezuela announced “All that was privatized, let it be nationalized.” Chavez was talking about nationalizing (government control) companies in the telecommunications and electricity industries. Of course, the major oil company was nationalized soon after.

If you were taught factual history instead of the whitewashed bullshit, you would have seen this is where Venezuela started declining. The bottom dropped out of their economy when the oil prices fell and the bureaucrats didn't know what to do. It started getting bad when Venezuela couldn't pump and refine enough oil for domestic use, let alone to the rest of the world.

You should know the rest of the story. In 2016-2017, Venezuelans lost an average of 19 pounds because they were starving. Bakers forced to make bread at gunpoint because they wanted to make pastries. Hyperinflation, worthless currency, massive refugee crisis and all that.

The other day, Bloomberg reported that Venezuela has given up on their "Socialist Utopia" and started privatizing businesses and industries again.

What this means is another example of failure to heap upon the dumpster fire known as "Socialism."

This is way late, I started it at the end of 2020, but I didn't get it to where I liked it until now. Better late than never...

In 2016, as a response to Trump's win, there were cries of "RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!!" The Pravdas (Pravda, a Russian word meaning "truth," was the major news paper of the Soviet Union, along with Izvestia, and my new term for the US Mainstream Media) breathlessly exclaimed every night for almost two years, "Evidence proving Trump stole the election will break soon!" My Leftist friends repeatedly told me, "The evidence that Trump is guilty is in the Mueller report!" but couldn't show me when I asked for page and paragraph.

Especially after I quoted the Executive Summary of the Mueller Report, pp.1-2:

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. [emphasis mine]

So then we come to November 2020, the first "It doesn't matter" election. I mean that in the "Now that the technology is in place and the methodology has been refined, in any close race the victor will invariably be the Democrat candidate" context. In the words of Joseph Stalin, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." The graph below is of the January 5th 2021 Georgia Senate races, total vote count per hour. Notice the two Democrat candidates were trailing until about 11:15pm, then in the space of a few minutes, they jumped from far behind to just ahead. We can surmise that something fishy (i.e., it doesn't pass the smell test) to have both Democrat candidates each have 150,000 votes tallied and almost zero Republican votes in the same time span, which was about seven minutes.

When we look at the chart to see how fast the ballots are being counted, I see an average of about 18,166 votes total (all four candidates together) per minute. So, to have a sudden seven-minute surge of over 42,800 votes per minute, 99% Democrat and equally for both Democrats, if you don't go "hmmm. that's strange...", then you're a delusional Democrat to "see nothing wrong here."

Occam's Razor would indicate that "those who do the counting" saw the trends in votes per hour and issued an "adjustment" to put the Democrat candidates on top. Any investigation or recount would yield little difference, because, you know, the whole "We have investigated ourselves and have found that nomistakes were made" kind of result.

The point I want to bring up is that Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and other states all experienced similar jumps in vote tallies between Trump and Biden. While Pravda kept reporting "NO WIDESPREAD FRAUD FOUND!!!", you have to be cognizant of two things: Their choice of words and the fact that the Pravdas didn't look. In fact, Pravda either ignored the claims or actively explained them away.

The term "widespread" is a worthless word without a context. If we're talking across all 50 states, I'm sure no "widespread" fraud would be found. If we look at just Michigan, the answer would likely be "No" as well. Wayne County Michigan, which has Detroit? Now we could probably get some traction on that word.

Imagine this election as a Jenga tower. If you kick a log out one way, it falls in one direction. Tap on the one next to it and it falls the opposite direction. Those people who caused this alleged fraud to occur only had to target 8-10 counties out of the 2,000 counties in the country. They concentrated on inflating the vote count (which can be done in a variety of methods) in a deep Blue city in a battleground state to "bump up" the vote count so Biden won.

Along with the Georgia machine that counted some Trump votes as Biden votes. Then there was the "signature verification of mail-in ballots will not be conducted," and the "We will accept mail-in ballots up to three days after the law says we must stop accepting" issues in Pennsylvania, and a few other "minor incidents" like those. Kind of like the "mostly peaceful" rioters kind of thing.

What really separates 2020 from 2016 is the people. For the 2020 election, hundreds of people gave sworn depositions of their own free will of many "irregularities" that viewed individually seemed insignificant, but viewed in the aggregate pointed in a very specific direction. The 2016 election didn't have individuals voluntarily coming out to give sworn statements (that have a 5-10 year penalty of perjury if the statements are found to be lies) standing on their own pointing out irregularities, but 2020 did. Don't for a moment dismiss them out-of-hand either. Even if these people are never charged or face trial for Perjury (the penalty for lying under oath, which is what a sworn deposition is), their personal lives were wrecked. Disowned by their families, fired from their jobs, excoriated on social media, these people faced a severe price for speaking out.

Then we have what are known as the "Bellweather Counties." These are 20 counties scattered across the US, that have all been 100% accurate in voting for the winning president since 1980. In other words, these twenty counties all voted for the winning president, regardless of party, ten times in a row, from 1980 to 2016. Vigo County in Indiana has flubbed it twice since 1888, in 1908 and 1952. That's thirty-one correct, and two wrong, and the last sixteen presidential elections have been perfect, until 2020. Well, this time 19 of 20 got it wrong by voting for Trump. Given this record of two hundred correct choices with zero mistakes, I can understand changing demographics, or any of a dozen other reasons, for up to about half of them. To have 95% of these counties simultaneously screw this one election up is statistically improbable to several decimal places. Kind of like the "being struck by lightning, then getting hit by a meteor, only to have your body obliterated a minute later by an aircraft that crashed on top of you" odds.

And the Democrats are doubling down on this travesty by the House rolling out HR 1, the very misnamed "For the People Act of 2021." If I can drive a tractor trailer through the holes of the 2020 mail-in balloting, cruise ships will get though the holes in this "plan," and I mean that in the context of "Custer had a plan."

"This was the most secure election in US history!!!" Oh, pish posh.

Back when I was in Elementary school many, many years ago, the worst insult one child could throw at another on the playground was the term “Indian giver.” It was a serious accusation, not a term quickly or commonly bandied about like “Racist” and Nazi” are today. It was a literal “top of the mountain” insult and if proven, stuck with you for a while. This meant the other kid promised you something but then broke the promise. It was a real Scarlet Letter for an eight-year-old.

In case you missed it, on January 8th, Twitter banned Trump from their platform. This resulted in a lot of people “jumping ship” to Parler, where you weren’t banned merely for having a different opinion than the corporate staff. As a result, on January 9th, Parler became the most downloaded app in both the Apple’s AppStore and GooglePlay.

Then, within a few hours, both Apple and Google banned that app from their respective stores. At 11:59pm on January 10th, Amazon Web Services (AWS) stopped hosting the website and service entirely.

Parler has been down hard ever since. There’s a “placeholder” website back on the web to show you it’s there but there’s no user functionality for it. The bad news is the website code was specifically designed for AWS and is not easily copied over to another hosting service.

Now that I’ve set the table, let’s get into the meat of things.

First, in discussions I’ve had on this, my argument of “businesses can refuse service” (e.g., Masterpiece Cake Shop) was tossed in my face. To refresh you there, the man who owned MCS refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple. They were free to buy a standard cake, but the owner would not, under his personal religious morals, use his skills for them. Just to show he doesn’t selectively apply it, he also won’t do stuff like Halloween cakes either. I firmly believe MCS had the option to refuse to serve this couple’s request. He offered his cakes without his talents and referred them to other bakeries who would have been happy to serve them with customized cakes.

But there’s a big difference between MCS and AWS: a contract. AWS was under contract with Parler to provide web services.

The important parts are:

1. If AWS tells Parler that there’s “offensive content” that AWS doesn’t like on Parler, which started a 30-day clock for Parler to remove the stipulated content. The contract can be cancelled if the contested content is not modified or removed after 30 days.
2. If AWS cancels the contract for whatever reason, Parler has 30 days from that moment to move their website to another hosting service.

AWS notified Parler on January 8th and 9th of “offensive content violations,” on Parler. These were deleted within hours of Parler receiving the notification. By doing so, Parler held up its’ end of the contract. By removing the “bad” content, this act in contract terms “healed” the issue. So AWS had no viable complaints against Parler.

With no active issues, let alone any that had gone unresolved for 30 days, AWS still gave Parler only a thirty hour (not day) notice to get off AWS.

So this is where I start calling AWS an “Indian giver” because AWS promised a 30 day notice if they were going to cancel the contract and they broke that promise. What’s worse, there were no active grievances, only AWS’s animus over healed issues.

There are a lot of other issues and facets of this particular case that are not important to my point (namely the Sherman Antitrust act) and I’m not going to cover. As long as Justice is blind, Parler will most likely win and AWS will owe Parler lots of money for loss of income, reputational damage, penalties for breaking their contract and so on.

THIS is my point: By AWS making this a political/ideological decision instead of a profit/loss business decision, who from this point forward will want to do business with a company that breaks their contracts? Amazon got to where it is because they made win/win contracts with other companies. That built a solid reputation. From now on, many companies will look very hard at doing future business with AWS and Amazon overall because these companies will worry that they’ll get “Parlered” if AWS/Amazon takes a dislike to them.

Here’s the video that caught me up to speed on this:

I don't know how this is going to turn out. While I would prefer Trump to win, my goal is every legal ballot be counted a single time and no illegal or questionable ballots be counted. There is too much happening out of my view to guess which way it will turn out. But I can see that no matter who is sworn in on 1/20/2021, there will be a lot of bodies (metaphorical, hopefully not actual) strewn about in the aftermath.

It's beyond obvious that there has been a coordinated effort to alter the outcome of the presidential election. If you don't at least agree that something was going on, you are either totally uninformed, willfully uninformed or straight up delusional. Too many people (Democrats and Republicans) have made sworn statements (which carries a 5+ prison term for perjury if they lied in their statements) to dismiss this out of hand.

Here comes the fun part: Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell (both former federal prosecutors) have been in front of the press letting us know what's going on... without actually telling us anything. This is where it gets evil fun: The Pravdas (my new term for the US MSM). Have been demanding the "evidence" that these brilliant legal minds have, and dismissing them out-of-hand when the "evidence" is not forthcoming. Rudy is smart, because if this evidence is released to the press, the lawyers on the other side of legal battle will know what to expect and can work out how to minimize or even discredit the evidence used by Rudy.

If you never saw the TV series Perry Mason, it was a 50's and 60's courtroom drama about a lawyer. His client had been caught involved in a murder or other serious crime dead to rights. In court, the evidence all confirmed the guilt of Perry's client... Until Perry put someone on the stand and through brilliant legal maneuvering, got the person on the stand (to the sound of astonished gasps and the clutching of pearls) to confess in open court to have committed the crime. As long as the judge isn't in on the fix, I'm reasonably sure something like this will happen, within the boundaries of actual legal procedure.

There are a couple of ways for Trump to win:

1. Electoral College victory: The current EC count from states that have certified their elections as I write this is Trump 232 to Biden's 227. If Trump can get enough states to get him over 270, he wins. His electors can either come from the popular vote, or if the election cannot be certified in a state, the Legislature would select the EC voters.

2. Punt to the House: If neither Trump or Biden can get 270 votes (a side-effect of a state not certifying and the state legislature cannot/will not send their selected Electors), then, according to Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 (modified slightly by the 12th Amendment), the House will vote, with each State getting one vote and the Senate breaking a tie. In case you haven't looked at the map, there are more Red states than Blue States and the Senate is Republican controlled.

The EC vote (and the House vote if necessary) will happen on December 14th. That date cannot be postponed except maybe in case of a nuclear exchange, and I'm not even sure that would cause a postponement.

If Trump proves a coordinated effort by Democrats to rig the election, I sincerely hope that federal prosecutors will be very busy for the next few years putting people in prison for vote tampering.

No matter what happens, the Leftists will rip this country apart. If Trump wins, the riots and destruction we saw from "Summer of COVID" will pale in comparison. If Biden wins, he will be eased out by Easter through the 25th Amendment and Kamala will wreak vengeance on every Conservative, then by Executive action she will destroy as many freedoms as she can, the RKBA especially.

Most of you aren't programmers, so in basic terms the "!=" means "not equal," as in "Projected is not equal to Won."

To have heard so many people over the past four years lament about how the presidential election was "stolen" on 2016 (and in 2000, don't forget Bush v. Gore). that with the vote manipulation, ballot box stuffing and entire graveyards voting that nary a peep has been heard from the Left on this issue.

Here's one of many stories: "Election Watchdog Finds 350,000 Dead Registrants on Voter Rolls In 42 States." The question is, "How many votes were cast under these names?" We will likely never find out, as election monitors associated with Trump are prevented from any checking or verification of any votes.

Then you have Pennsylvania. Last year, the state legislature passed the "PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS Act of Oct. 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77" which amended the Pennsylvania Election Code (P.L.1333, No.320).

Section 1302.1 (8) of the Pennsylvania code is amended as follows:

(8)  No absentee ballot under this subsection shall be counted which is received in the office of the county board of elections later than [eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election] the deadline for its receipt as provided in section 1308(g).

Going to the "PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE" Act of Jun. 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, No. 320, we find in section 1308(g) (ii):

(ii)  An absentee ballot cast by any absentee elector as defined in section 1301(i), (j), (k), (l), (m) and (n), an absentee ballot under section 1302(a.3) or a mail-in ballot cast by a mail-in elector shall be canvassed in accordance with this subsection if the absentee ballot or mail-in ballot is received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.

There was a bit of an uproar when the PA Supreme Court said "Friday after the election is good enough." There's a challenge to that in the hands of SCOTUS right now, and "supposedly" the ballots received are being held separate from the ballots that did make it in time. There is a hard choice to be made here. Because there is no severability clause in this law, the clear choice before SCOTUS is between "not counting the ballots received past the deadline" or "invalidate the entire law, and thusly all mail-in ballots." The PA Supreme Court has no authority to rule on this, especially the way they did. Look up Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution about who sets the laws for elections (and it's not the Judiciary).

Then there was the kerfuffle over Mail-in ballots. To be secure, there's two envelopes securing the ballot. the outer one is used by the USPS for delivery. The inner one is first scanned and the signature is verified electronically to validate the ballot. Except in PA. There, a ballot received is a vote cast, they don't care who signed it. Don't believe me? Pa. Supreme Court rules mail-in ballots will count even if signatures don't match. Don't blame the Court, this was a failing in the law as written, so I believe the Court ruled correctly.

Then we have stories like this: UPDATED: Analysis: Five Milwaukee wards report 89% turnout in 2020 presidential vote; Biden nets 146K votes in city. Since I was a teenager, voter participation in elections have been in the 30-55% participation range. To have 300+ districts reporting voter participation of 60% and 120 districts reporting 80% or higher is statistically improbable to an absurd degree. Not impossible, but there's a better chance that someone gets hit by a meteor and lightning at the same time than any district reporting 80% participation, let alone 120 of them. The one district that reported 125% had a total of five votes. That means one voter more than the number of registered voters. I'll let that one slide.

Between everything above, plus things like inaccurate voter rolls that have thousands of deceased people still listed as on the voter rolls, there is enough smoke to suggest a through review of the entire election process in ALL states.

Personally, the simpleist way to minimize voter fraud is everyone shows up on election day, where they show acceptable Identification, and before they vote they dip their finger in an inkwell. It visibly stains their finger and is not easily removed in the few hours the polls are open. It will wear off in a couple of days with no ill effects. No databases to hack, no double (triple, etc.) voting and so on. You can show twelve ID's with different names all you want, that ink on your finger says you voted.

.

.

No, this isn't a law firm, they are three Liberal journalists with some very rare commodities: integrity and journalistic standards.

Up until recently, journalists were supposed to be (but not always) neutral observers of events, who would journal their observations, then report them to an audience who was educated about government and the affairs of the world. The journalists presented their observations and let the reader/viewer make up their own minds about the subject. When I was growing up, we had three TV networks. I don't remember who was on ABC (Dad never watched ABC), but NBC had Huntley and Brinkley, while CBS had Walter Cronkite. These were men of integrity and had journalistic standards, which included never letting their own political views shade or distort the news they reported on.

Today, "journalists" have the mindset of "we have the responsibility to shape the public to our opinions, not tell them the facts." Sadly, they are very effective in that task. Trump's achievements include (but are not limited to) setting governmental policies that resulted in a 50+-year-low minority unemployment, negotiates multiple deals bringing peace to the Middle East that 70 years of "diplomats" have failed to do, helped the United States become a net exporter of energy instead of the biggest importer, and got fellow NATO allies to share the cost of defense instead of letting the US spend the vast majority of resources to do so. If the press has reported on any of these at all, it's in the vein of "No Social Distancing During Signing of Peace Accord Between Israel, Bahrain."

I am glad to report that there are Liberal journalists out there who have upheld that foregone thought of "journalistic integrity," namely Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss and Matt Taibbi. Glenn recently resigned from The Intercept, a news source that he co-founded. As part of his contract, he had a "no editorial oversight" and an "absolute right to publish." The "no editorial oversight" means that no editor (the gatekeepers who decide what gets and doesn't get published) could "spike" Matt's articles and keep them from being published. The "right to publish" means that the news outlet the reporter works for owns everything the reporter writes on their time. So, the reporter can't write an article written on News Corp A's time that was spiked and sell it to News Corp B and have B publish it.

Glenn had written a story on the recent Biden scandal, and his own company, The Intercept, refused to publish it despite the stipulations in his contract. In response, Glenn did the only thing open to a man with integrity, he quit and started his own news site (again).

Bari Weiss was brought on to The New York Times in 2016 to help diversify the points of view and reporting at the paper due to they got the 2016 election so wrong. She quit last year, citing in part:

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else. [emphasis mine]

She was harassed, browbeaten, ostracized and ignored. Like Glenn, Bari kept her integrity and resigned with her self-respect and journalistic standards intact.

Matt Taibbi is a honey badger, he just don't give a shit. When I used to listen to my local morning DJ's Drake and Zeke on my way to work in the morning, they often interviewed Taibbi on various articles or books he wrote. While he hasn't quit in a blaze of glory like Greenwald or Weiss, he has integrity. His politics does not limit the direction he points his pen, a real journalistic flamethrower.

So, a sincere kudos to all of them, you have my respect and admiration. We need journalists who put their ethics and integrity ahead of their politics, not the other way around. Check them out, I added Greenwald and Taibbi's sites to by link roll, Bari is only writing books now.

In the next day or so, President Trump will nominate someone to take the seat on the SCOTUS vacated by Ruth Bader-Ginsburg on her death. There will be no hearings to vet the nominee, it will likely go straight to a floor vote and enough Senators have already expressed support to make sure the nominee is confirmed.

And this is all the Democrats fault. Let me retrace the steps so it makes sense.

Cloture is a procedural term used by the Senate to force the end of discussion on a bill. It's covered in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." Cloture is not a vote on the bill, just a vote to end the debate and send it to the final vote. It is used to prevent or end a filibuster. Since the Senate was first constituted, cloture was set at a supermajority of 2/3rds or 67 votes. This was to force both parties to work together to accomplish the objective.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a contentious piece of legislation. Southern Democrats held a filibuster that lasted sixty days. It lasted that long because it was difficult to get enough votes to force Cloture. Due to that bill, in 1974 the Senate voted to change the Cloture votes from a 2/3rds majority to a 3/5ths majority, or from 67 votes to 60. There was also an amendment for a "Two-track" system, meaning that a filibustered bill would not bring the entire Senate to a halt.

In the late 1990's and early 2000's the Democrats (who almost always vote as a monolithic block, very few "rebels") started taking advantage of the narrow Republican majority by threatening a filibuster on anything the Democrats didn't like. Since the Republicans didn't have the votes to invoke Cloture (and they wouldn't get any Democrat support), it was either hold firm and let the bill die, or the Republicans had to negotiate with the Democrats to change the bill until both sides could agree on it. Frankly, this is how it should be to prevent the "Tyranny of the majority" as referenced by our Founding Fathers. It is also the polite way of doing things.

Well, that came to an end in 2013, when a Democrat-controlled Senate decided to eliminate Cloture for Cabinet appointees and non-SCOTUS judgeships. A simple Democrat majority could now enact the "tyranny of the majority" and ram those nominations through and Republicans couldn't do a thing about it. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, "You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think." When Republicans got control of the Senate again a few years later, they changed the rules, eliminating Cloture for SCOTUS nominations.

Then came Kavanaugh. A man of impeccable character and unquestioned reputation. Who was accused by a woman who appeared out of nowhere and accused Kavanaugh of a crime thirty years prior when he was a teenager. She never filed a police report and remained silent as the Senate vetted and confirmed him for lower federal judgeships. The people she listed as witnesses to this act publicly stated that they don't remember the party in question where this assault allegedly occurred. Kavanaugh had over fifty female staffers and clerks who had worked with him over the years publicly state that there wasn't even a hint of impropriety from him.

Kavanaugh could never have been convicted in a court of law for the crime he was accused of, but he was accused, tried, found guilty and executed in the court of public opinion based on one fact: he was nominated by Donald Trump.

In the end, thanks to crybaby Democrats who throw a temper tantrum every time they get told "No," from now on it will be likely that any such votes will be held, up or down, by the majority party without giving the minority party a say at all.

Think of this as a street fight. Both sides initially agree to "Marquess of Queensberry" rules, but then one guy pulls out a pipe instead of his fists and whacks the other guy. Later on in the fight, when the pipe guy is knocked down, he drops the pipe and says, "can we go back to the original rules?" What do YOU think would be the prudent course of action? Drop the issue, be sporting and continue to go by the rules, or take that pipe and beat the cheater with it hard enough that the cheater will never think about cheating again?

We must not have beat them enough yet. Senator Chuck Schumer has publicly stated that if the Democrats gain power of all three branches of government, they will a) grant statehood to Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia and maybe even create the State of Jefferson (splitting Oregon into two states). This will give the Senate six more Democrat Senators, as all of the named areas are deep Blue territory. Once they have done that, they will "pack the court," which means increasing the size of SCOTUS from nine Justices to at least fifteen, then appoint hard Leftist Justices that would have made RVG blush to make sure that any strict Constitutionalist Justices are in the minority for at least the next century.

Until Democrats show contrition, apologize and reinstate the 3/5ths Cloture rule while they are the majority, the Republicans will play by the Democrats rules, which is to say there are no rules.

When I worked in the healthcare field, I worked with (and even for) a lot of organizations that had a pretty Liberal mindset for the director and the staffs. They did wonderful work, no "but" involved. Okay, so there is a "but," that's related to the symptom vs. the disease (in a general, not a medical way). The director and senior staff of these organizations spent a lot of time fundraising. Organizing and holding events, getting donations from corporations, philanthropists, etc.

So I'm watching an interview of Kim Klacik (Republican running for US House MD7 covering Baltimore) and she started talking about having a non-profit to help young girls who had a plan to go to college or to work and not pop out babies and live off Welfare. Klacik's organization got these young ladies prom dresses so they could celebrate Prom. She managed to acquire a bunch of donated prom dresses, and the girls said, "Eww. 1982 wants their prom dresses back!"

At this point, most Liberally-minded organizations would have pretty much said, "Pick one or get your own." What Kim did was sell those dresses on-line. That raised not only enough for the young ladies to get dresses they liked, but there was enough left over to get a whole makeover.

But wait, there's more! Kim was talking with one of the mothers of these ladies, who said, "I want to go back to work, but I don't know how." It turns out that the young lady was regularly doing homework by candlelight because her mom couldn't afford the utilities. As a result, Kim's organization pivoted and helped women fresh from incarceration, rehabilitation and homelessness get proper clothes and makeovers for job interviews for women referred to her by non-profits working in these areas. She finished off with, "We've helped over 200 women become gainfully employed and over 30% have obtained financial independence."

Why this is critically important is simple. If the single mom is barely surviving on public assistance, she can't afford to send the daughter to prom, or many other things. But to help the mom, that's another issue entirely! An employed mom through budgeting and saving CAN afford prom, utilities, better clothes and all of the other things that moves their lives from "surviving" to "thriving."

Compared to my experiences with the Liberal non-profits, Kim's direction and shift is inconceivable. Again proving the adage, "Liberals count how many people are on their assistance, Conservatives count how many people no longer need their assistance."

BTW, here's her campaign ad:

In the TV series Babylon 5, the character Londo Molari once said, “Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in one package. How efficient of you.”

I got turned on to this video over the weekend. It’s Reggie Cannon, a Soccer player for the FC Dallas team. He was “disgusted” at the fans reaction to him, both teams and the officials kneeling during the National Anthem before the game. “You got fans booing at you for taking a stand for what they believe in.”

So Mr. Cannon let me explain this to you in simple terms.

You are an employee of the soccer team. You are paid to kick a ball around a field. The soccer team has the money to pay you because fans buy tickets so they can sit in the stadium and watch you play in-person. Your team also gets income from commercials sold during the game and the sale of merchandise with the team logo. You personally get cash for every purchase of your team jersey.

In case you didn’t know, the first rule of business is don’t anger your customers, especially if the customers spends discretionary cash for your services. Why shouldn’t you anger your customers? Because, silly boy, they stop attending your games. The stop watching your games on TV. They stop buying team merchandise. No customers == no income == Billy boy is unemployed.

You have the right to protest for or against any ideal, organization, whatever. That’s your right and government cannot interfere in that exercise. I’ve consistently said that since Kapernick started taking a knee. If you want to go out into the streets, attend rallies and so on to advance your cause, go for it! I have no problem with you doing that.

However, when you introduce politics into the one thing in my life where I don’t want politics, I’m not going to watch you. I used to watch sports to get away from politics. Now that baseball, football, basketball and now soccer has decided that the players can throw politics into my face, I no longer watch sports. At all. I wouldn’t watch a game of anything even if you paid me $1,000 an hour.

So, Mr. Cannon, I suggest you SHUT YOUR EFFING PIEHOLE AND LISTEN TO WHAT YOUR CUSTOMERS ARE TELLING YOU, before you don’t have any customers to listen to. Grow some humility and respect for others while you’re at it.

Let me start off and separate "Absentee balloting" from "Mail-in balloting." Much like the legal/illegal immigration issue, the differences between these are critical.

I want to talk about a "chain of custody" first, so you understand what it is and why this chain is critical. Many important things, when sent from Point A to Point B, require a chain of custody. When a police officer picks up a piece of evidence from a crime scene, they drop it into a bag and a piece of paper describing all of the particulars of the evidence and their name and they sign it. "Glock 19, Serial VG253US, 12:35pm, 8/16/2020 Officer John Doe." When the officer hands that bag off to someone, they make sure the person taking possession signs that chain of custody. By both of their signatures testifying the hand off, the receiving person agrees the evidence they are receiving is what the officer giving it to them says it is.

If that chain of custody is broken, that evidence can no longer be used. Why you ask? Because it might have been tampered with, or replaced and thus renders it useless as evidence. If the chain is unbroken and the evidence is altered, then there is a list of suspects. Case in point, The St. Louis McClusky's who defended their property against trespassers with an AR-15 and a pistol, Her pistol was intentionally rendered inoperative by the McCluskys' long before that incident. They reversed a part that rendered the firearm unable to function. Well, a lab technician took the pistol apart for inspection, assembled it together correctly, then test fired it and didn't document that it was received in an inoperable condition. You see the problem here?

Police evidence, samples for medical testing, certified mail and more are all subject to a chain of custody, because the consequences of a broken chain are too terrible to contemplate. Wrongful conviction, someone unnecessarily undergoes chemotherapy, a person loses their home because they didn't get the notice, that's what I can think of just off the top of my head.

So, onto voting.

Voting is the most important duty a citizen has. It's your chance to tell the government what to do. If you don't vote, you have no leg to stand on when you bitch about how things are. To accurately gauge the will of the people, on a set day we all go to our respective polling places, verify we are who we say we are and make our voice heard. I remember when the first free elections were held in Iraq after Saddam was removed from power, you had to stick your right index finger into a pot of ink to hand your ballot in. This prevented a person from voting multiple times because you had a temporary sign that you couldn't hide to show you had voted. You couldn't scrub it off that day, but it wore off naturally in a week or two.

An absentee ballot must be specifically requested by the voter, and a substantial reason must be attached. You are going to be out of the state/country, you are an invalid and cannot travel, something like that. You can't get an absentee ballot if you're going to be at home and able to travel to your polling district on election day or during early voting. Absentee ballots also account for less than 5% of ballots.

Our current voting system looks like this:

In the days before an election, the voting machines are scanned for viruses and malware, then certified by the Election Commissions IT Department, and sealed to detect tampering. They are kept under custody until they are set up at the respective polling places. The polling workers keep custody of the machines until the end of the polling time.

When the voter arrives, their valid ID is checked against the voter rolls. If unverified, they can still cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted if or when the person's eligibility to vote is verified.

After the polls have closed, two people break the seals on the voting machines, recover the cartridge that has recorded the votes and place them into a sealed box. The custody of the box is then passed to the police, who run with lights flashing and sirens blaring to the election commission, who pass the custody of the box of cartridges to the election commission and the cartridges are downloaded and the votes counted. A similar process is used for paper ballots. The serial numbers are logged and a chain of custody for those ballots are maintained until they are counted at the election commission HQ. At no time is there an undetectable opportunity to alter the recorded votes. The veracity and security of the machines and whose who use them are unquestioned. Fake ID's not withstanding. But that's a subject for another post.

This mail-in voting is something completely different. Under this concept, the county governments will send out a ballot based on their list of voters at that moment, accuracy be damned. The reports of voter rolls being years out of date are too numerous to mention. The county mails all of these ballots out, people fill them out, sign them, send them back and they're counted. What's the big deal?

We have already seen multiple instances with this year's mail-in voting where dozens of ballots sent to people in apartment complexes are found on the ground or in the trash. Does this sound secure? A person in an apartment gets multiple ballots, for themselves and the last five years of tenants. Do you think there is the possibility of voter fraud?

Then there's the other side of that coin: Disenfranchisement. If the USPS delayed the transport of the ballot to the voter or back, or lost the ballot entirely, that persons vote won't be counted. If the vote gets to the election commission too late by either USPS delay or the sender mailing it too late, their vote is lost.

I am reflexively sarcastic and hyperbolic a lot of the time. My next sentence, I assure you, is deadly serious and worries me to no end. I have a reasonable fear, if there is a nation-wide requirement to perform mail-in voting, that there will be 67 million write-in votes for Hillary Clinton.

Seriously, people are seriously talking about blindly sending out millions of ballots, in the hope they reach their addressee. Then the person who the ballot is meant for properly fills out the ballot and sends it back. And that the USPS delivers that ballot in time to be counted. Each of these leaps of faith, if they were to be done physically, I'm thinking Seven-League Boots kind of level here.

This goes well beyond wishful thinking. This goes way beyond delusion. This will not be successful by any metric a reasonable person would use. My paranoid side is telling me that if Trump wins, it will provide a context for Leftists to continue their chant of "Illegitimate President!" because of all of the holes and doubt in the accuracy of the votes cast in the light of mail-in voting. If either Hillary or Kamala get into the Oval office (it could be both, you vote for President and Vice-President separately), the United states will have achieved three firsts.

• First woman president
• First President for Life
• First American Dictator

Don't doubt me.

A couple of core tenets of Conservatives have been to keep government as small as possible and the laws few and simple. We as a group do not want a powerful government with extensive power and numerous laws it can use to persecute (and prosecute) “unliked people.” We realize that if we draft such powers and laws, they will eventually be used against us.

But the Leftists have pushed and championed “hate crime” laws, which tack extra penalties upon the offender if there is a difference between the offender and victim in skin color, gender, sexual preference or almost anything else.

The differences are (not all of these are applicable in all states):

• Age
• Ancestry
• Creed
• Disability
• Ethnicity
• Gender identity
• Marital status
• Membership in the armed forces
• Membership in civil rights organizations
• National origin
• Perceived gender
• Race
• Religion
• Sex
• Sexual orientation
• Skin color

Mind you, in some cases you don’t have to be convicted of a crime first. And all that happens is having it labeled as a hate crime just makes the punishment more severe. All the prosecutors has to prove that the crime was motivated by one of the sixteen disparities listed above. Most states restrict these hate crimes to violent felonies, but in 1987 California made all violations of the law potential hate crimes. So I guess trespassing by walking across someone’s yard can get it labeled as a hate crime if the proper conditions are met.

Let me say it again, hate crimes only increase the punishment. The crime was committed, but just punishing them for that isn’t enough. You have to look into the heart and mind of the person to see why they did it just to add a few more years of prison time.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Georgia just passed House Bill 838, which was spawned off the hate crime bill 426, laws passed in the wake of the death of Ahmaud Arbery.

838, which goes into effect 1/1/21, will make it a hate crime to intimidate any first responder.

Chapter 8 of Title 35 of the GCA (Georgia Code, Annotated) will now read:

35-8-7.3. A peace officer shall have the right to bring a civil suit against any person, group of persons, organization, or corporation, or the head of an organization or corporation, for damages, either pecuniary or otherwise, suffered during the officer's performance of official duties, for abridgment of the officer's civil rights arising out of the officer's performance of official duties, or for filing a complaint against the officer which the person knew was false when it was filed.

[…]

35-8-7.4 (b) A person commits the offense of bias motivated intimidation when such person maliciously and with the specific intent to intimidate, harass, or terrorize another person because of that person's actual or perceived employment as a first responder: (1) Causes death or serious bodily harm to another person; or (2) Causes damage to or destroys any real or personal property of a person because of actual or perceived employment as a first responder without permission and the amount of the damage exceeds $500.00 or the value of the property destroyed exceeds $500.00.

(c) Any person that violates subsection (b) of this Code section shall be guilty of the offense of bias motivated intimidation and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one nor more than five years, a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

(d) Each violation of this Code section shall constitute a separate offense and shall not merge with any other crime.

(e) A sentence imposed under this Code section shall run consecutively to any sentence for any other offense related to the act or acts establishing an offense under this Code section.

(f) Charges of violating subsection (b) of this Code section shall not be prosecuted by way of an accusation but only by indictment or special presentment by a grand jury."

So let me spell this out to for you.

1. You physically hurt a first responder, even make him feel bad about his job, or even file a false complaint against him, the first responder can sue you in civil court. That’s going to be expensive right there, defending yourself, then comes the payment of damages. You’ll need to sell your house, car, wife and the kids to raise the cash you’ll need for this, win or lose.

2. You’re convicted on return of a “true bill” by the Grand Jury. No trial, no defense. Here’s an extra 1-5 years and a fine of up to $5,000. I might be reading it wrong, but I’m not seeing a stipulation for conviction of the base crime. You could get acquitted by a jury for the base crime, but you’ll still do time just because the grand jury thinks you’re a bad person.

If you do get convicted of the base crime, “consecutively” means that once you would’ve been released from custody for the base crime, you stay incarcerated and the clock on the hate crime starts. Normally, most multiple sentences run “concurrently,” or at the same time. You serve time for the longest sentence.

If this doesn’t scare you, you’re not paying attention. And all of you Leftist rioters out there, go ahead and shine that hand-held industrial laser into the eyes of a police officer and blind him. You’ll get a garnishment on every source of income you will ever have, including your Social Security.

You Leftists started this, you Leftists championed it, advocated, cajoled and pushed for hate crimes legislation. And now Karma will bite you in the ass for it. Because the laws meant to punish “racist haters” has now been turned on you. Enjoy.

One of my Markisms is “Always vote. There may not be anyone you want to vote for, but there is always someone you want to vote against.”

I have been politically aware for a bit over 25 years. I knew there were Democrats and Republicans and elections and all that, but I never gave it too much mind.

I became acutely aware because I started noticing the hyperbolic rhetoric by the Democrat leadership. “Republicans want to poison the air and water!” “Republicans want to cut Social Security!!” “Republicans want to shove grandma and her wheelchair over a cliff!!!” You get the point.

Every election cycle, this bullshit got a little bit worse. “Racist” started making it into the anti-Republican rhetoric. “Homophobic,” “Misogynist,” “Islamophobe” and recently “Transphobe” over the years also became common terms used by Democrats to describe Republicans. In the last Presidential election cycle, Hillary started calling anyone who dared oppose her ascension to the Presidency “Deplorables.”

Now, as individuals, you, me and the other 320 million Americans, how many times have we seen a genuine change of heart from a person who was verbally bullied and degraded by another person? Cowed into silence, perhaps even submission, but an honest change of heart?

I’m pretty sure a tally of such anecdotal stories from all of us would precisely equate to zero. We all individually know that you can browbeat a person to do something, but not change their heart.

So why is it done on a national level? Why do mass numbers of Leftists believe verbally harassing and browbeating half the country will lead to victory? In every venue, in every conversation, in every encounter where anything remotely political, when a person expresses an opinion that’s even 0.000001% different from another, they are verbally and sometimes physically beaten?

This is why Donald Trump was elected. Because half of this country just got sick-and-tired of being called unpleasant names. Of being mislabeled, browbeaten and lied about. Republicans didn’t elect Trump, the hatred of Democrats drove them to vote Trump. Personally, I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016. I will in November because the thought of a Leftist in the Oval Office terrifies me.
And today, just how many Democrats have done the #WalkAway and left the Democrat party? They probably didn’t become Conservatives or Republicans, but thousands and thousands of now-former Democrats will no longer vote that side of the ticket because of the hate. These “WalkAwayers” are also discovering that for as much Leftists hate Conservatives, those who left the Democrats are getting much worse, by their now former friends.
And Trump has done something no other Republican has done since Reagan. Trump has been his normal self (“a Queens guy”¹) and has sent every last bit of guff and snarky comments made to and about him right back in the faces of the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) with interest. Trump would abandon Twitter in a heartbeat if the Democrats and the media didn’t go into seizures every time he Tweeted something. Trump’s using Twitter as a Leftist cattle prod to great effect.

I believe this is Trump’s election to lose. Short of a major catastrophe on his part, Trump should win. But that still means that every person on the Right has to still get out and vote. And bring a few friends with you. You need to vote Republican, from Trump to the dog-catcher. If we do this, many of us will be surprised to find out that many Democrat friends and acquaintances voted the same way.

Why would Democrats cross the aisle you ask? To answer that question, I only have to point to the Draconian policies of Democrat governors, mayors, city councils and just about every elected Democrat.

From Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer “you can’t go out and buy seeds”, to District Attorney Kim Gardner prosecuting the McCloskey’s for defending their private property and even altering evidence. (Patricia’s gun was inoperable and the McCloskey’s knew it. The DA’s office assembled it so it would work). The Minneapolis City Council is violating their own charter by abolishing the police, and if you didn’t hear about it, there have been riots, fires and vandalism every night for the past two months in Seattle. The Mayor joined the rioters and has done nothing to quell the violence. Crime has been spiking by 200+% in these cities because the bad guys know there’s no police to stop them.

New York, Minneapolis, Detroit, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, they all share one common trait (beyond the recent riots and burning): They have been run by Democrat Mayors and City Councils for decades.

All of the Democrat-voting residents of those cities have hopefully come to the realization that they have backed the wrong donkey. Their presumptive presidential candidate is undeniably deep into dementia (I am sorry to hear this. My mother and grandmother suffered from that at the end of their lives. I wish that fate on no one.). The short list of Democrat Vice-Presidential candidates are all ultra-hard-Leftists. And that’s depending on Biden even getting the nomination. One of these VP candidates will likely end up with the nomination if Biden can’t take it. This has got to give some intellectual pause to every reasonable person who counts themselves as a Democrat.

So while they may say “Biden all the way” in conversation with their friends, when they get to that voting booth, their finger will only pause over Biden before moving on and selecting Trump.

¹ I don’t know many people from New York, but it was explained to me that “Queens guys” have a big chip on their shoulder. Brooklyn guys are tougher, and Manhattan guys are richer, which leaves the Queens guys like the dorky kid always picked last for sandlot baseball. Queens guys will get in your face at the drop of a hat, which explains a lot about Trump.

If you never studied American History, you probably don’t know at the time of the founding of this country, German was almost made our official language.
So, I am going to discuss some German words that were first used 80+ years ago and how they are especially important today.

Sturmabteilung – “Storm Detachment“ (SA) in English, was a paramilitary group that was the official name of Hitler’s goon squad. Known more universally as the Brownshirts, this nickname came from the WWI military surplus shirts they wore as a uniform.

It was the job of the SA to disrupt the meetings of any political organizations that the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or the National Socialist Workers‘ Party (We call them Nazi's) didn’t like. They would fill up the meeting halls, preventing those who wanted to hear the speaker from attending. They would also block access of people to the meeting. During the meeting the Brownshirts would disrupt the proceedings by shouting political slogans to prevent the speaker from being heard. And just for fun, they would beat people up before, during and after the meetings. Not to mention other random occasions.

I seriously cannot tell any difference between the actions and tactics of Sturmabteilung and Antifa.

Kristallnacht – “Crystal Night” or "Night of the Broken Glass,” was a pogrom (violent riot aimed at the expulsion or extermination of particular ethnic or religious group, particularly Jews) that took place in November of 1938. This destruction was carried out by our friends the Sturmabteilung. and earned that name from all of the broken windows of Jewish businesses.

Now the recent events in Minneapolis, Seattle, Detroit, Baltimore, New York and other cities. The unrest in these cities are not pogroms, but I cannot over stress the property damage, the deaths, the destroyed small businesses and the fear of those regular people caught in the middle of it. All of it caused by a very small minority of people who have no problem terrorizing people and destroying property to get their way.

I bring these points up because those who are controlling and financing the Leftists Useful Idiot Foot Troops like BLM, Antifa and others are at odds with each other. While the nominal objective of these groups is to disrupt the system enough for Trump to be defeated in November, I’m sure there are others that are pushing to escalate the violence to make sure Trump is reelected.

If Trump is reelected, he provides a reason (and a target) for the continuation of these violent radical groups and Leftist Rage in general. They will continue to try and assail Trump, like the ocean waves against an ocean cliff. With probably as much effectiveness. If Trump is defeated, the foot troops will have no target for their violence, and like a rabid attack dog on the loose, will eventually end up turning on their masters.

Which bring me to my next German words:

Nacht der langen Messer – “Night of the Long Knives.” In June and July 1934, About eighteen months after Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the Bundestag, Hitler ordered the Schutzstaffel (SS) and the Gestapo (secret police) to execute the leadership of the Sturmabteilung, which had dared to start voicing opinions of their own. Hitler did this to consolidate his power because the SA would be a threat to him if they acted under their own authority.

The radical Leftists have been trained for the past few years to basically be like an attack dog to attack the government. If the Democrats win the White House, Antifa/BLM/NFAC won't stop attacking the government. They've been trained and conditioned to attack and won't understand the change. Much like when Leftist-indoctrinated children accosted Diane Feinstein in her office about not "doing enough" on climate change. Except the children weren't armed with frozen water bottles, Molotov cocktails and lasers.

So here is my dilemma:

Do I vote for Trump and hope he wins, meaning four more years of Antifa/BLM/NFAC protests, riots and property damage,

-or-

Vote Democrat and watch the Democrat president announce that “The full weight of the federal government will be brought to bear on these ‘terrorist groups’ to eliminate their threat to the people and the government,” sending the various Alphabet Agencies to round up and disappear all of these radical Leftist people. Which is what eventually happens to the useful idiots. The 60's are replete with examples of Democrat State and Local governments who didn't hesitate to "quell uprisings," why should the "Burning 20's" be any different? It is not in dispute the Obama Administration used the "full force and authority" of the Justice Department to unlawfully investigate and wire tap members of the Trump campaign. Why not send out the "Jack-booted thugs" against some "disorganized rabble-rousers"?

This, my dear readers, would bring about the last German word I wanted to introduce to you, Schadenfreude. This means, “Joy derived from the suffering of others.”

It would induce in me great joy to see not only the violent rioters of the past few months duckwalked into court, convicted and given lengthy prison terms, but also those who actively fought to depose Trump since 2016, culminating in his Impeachment.

The Smithsonian put this rather racist “infographic” up the other day (and pulled it down just as quickly) and I just had to say something about it. So, let’s take this apart, section by section. Before I begin, some historical context.

When Mankind transitioned out of the “hunter-gatherer” stage about 12,000 years ago, we had eight major “groupings” of people. North and South America, East and West Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the Asia and Australia. 12,000 years ago, the climate changed. It stopped raining and dried up. In four places (South America, Northern India, Syria and Egypt) Man developed the plow and learned to farm. That was the beginning of civilization. Being able to grow more food than you needed led to pottery to store the food, writing to mark whose food it was and all the rest.

Egypt and Syria are close enough to Greece for the Grecians to learn about this. Surplus food meant you could have people who weren’t farmers. This brought about philosophy and government.

Next, let’s jump ahead to 1492 and Columbus “discovering” the Americas (he never actually set foot on the continent until his third voyage, and even then it was South America). Let’s look at the world as a whole at that point.

The Americas, Africa and Australia were still in the “Stone Age” of technological advancement when White Europeans got to them. India and Asia had made technological advances (China had gunpowder and the printing press centuries before Europe) but didn’t do anything with them. They reached a certain tech level and stopped.

Before you start spouting Leftist tropes about how the Native Americans, et. al., were “living in harmony with the land,” let’s mention the downsides of that lifestyle. High infant mortality, human sacrifice, slavery, cannibalism, any wound could kill due to no medicine beyond a salve or two, shall I go on?

Rugged Individualism:

Until the founding of the United States, you mostly had Nobles and Everybody Else. Serfs were slaves, beholden to their Lord for a safe place in the walls of the castle when trouble roamed the land. It was the Greeks that came up with this idea of individualism. Their thinking about things like that has led to our concepts of this today.

Family Structure:

Most of this comes out of the 50’s, and is more of a straw man than anything else. The nuclear family (male and female parents protecting and raising their children) is a concept that just simply works. It has worked since we started keeping records of things like that, for multiple thousands of years. For the case “against” the nuclear family, I point to the Great Society. For the past 50 years, that has been a sociological experiment within the Black community where the nuclear family was purposefully destroyed. Just look at the results as of today and tell me the results are good or even acceptable. And broader studies across all racial lines have shown children from single parent homes do poorer than children raised in nuclear families.

Emphasis on Scientific Method:

The “scientific method” is the process to develop a theory, develop a model and a method to measure and test it, then test it to see if it works, correct errors, test again, and keep doing that until you prove or disprove the theory (or come up with a new one).

That method has led to the computers you’re reading my words on, the car you drive, literally everything in your world right now down to the fork and spoon in your silverware drawer. And this is a “bad thing” because it was developed by ‘White people’ how? Would have these things be “better” if they had been developed by non-Whites? Or are they just tools without intent or care if they are used correctly or incorrectly?

History:

Napoleon Bonaparte is quoted as saying “History is a set of agreed-upon lies.” There is no definitive source for the phrase “history is written by the victors.” But that is also true. History comes from the words “his” and “story.” Go ahead and call it sexist, it doesn’t bother me.

As far as giving women the right to vote and things like that, the experiment is still ongoing and I’m doubtful for a positive outcome on this experiment (that’s SARCASM).

Protestant Work Ethic:

Let’s turn these points backwards:

• Easy/no work is better than hard work
• Play before work
• You can meet your goals without working hard.

Can anyone realistically accept and promote those points? I thought not.

Religion:

Yes, in the United States, Christianity is the religion of the majority of people here. Non-Judeo-Christian religions are foreign (the word itself means “from somewhere else”), that’s a fact no matter what you say about it. In fact, Judeo-Christian is itself “foreign” to the Americas itself since it came about from somewhere else.

“No tolerance for deviation from single God concept.” In the comments below, please provide news articles where Christians firebombed or destroyed any polytheistic (that means more than one God) churches. I’ll wait but I’m not holding my breath.

Status, Power & Authority:

These points are male-related and I will not deny that. It’s how men keep score and since we’ve walked upright, it’s always been a “mine is bigger than yours” kind of competition.

Future Orientation:

Really? Really?? Do you want to make sure you’re around tomorrow? If you die, your children won’t want? That when you get too old to work you can live off your savings?

Time:

Time is a limited commodity, no matter how much you deny it. You spend the first third of your life learning just to be self-sufficient and how to interact nicely with other people. If you squander that time, you will perpetually suffer after that.

In conclusion:

A good portion of the bullet points (oh, gosh! Did I trigger someone with that gun-related microaggression of “bullet points”? Isn’t the term “triggered” also a gun microaggression? Get a life and get over it) of this “infographic” are sophistic strawmen, but in each case, I suggest you reverse each bullet point and ask yourself, “is that the kind of world I want to live in?”

If you’re tired of living in this world of “Whiteness,” no one is stopping you from divesting yourselves of all clothing and technology and going off to live in the wilds. Please do as a matter of fact.

History is brutal, only Big Brother types will deny that. There is war, hate, racism, genocide, slavery and so on. But there is also Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy,” AC/DC’s“Thunderstruck,” the works of John Coltrane, C.S Lewis, W. E. B. DuBois, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and way more.

In order for Man to do great things of good, he must also be equally capable of evil things.

Just on the off chance you haven’t read George Orwell’s Animal Farm, please do so, especially for the line “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

The other day I came across California’s ACA5, and I shit you not, this is serious, this has passed the State Assembly and the State Legislature and I don’t have any reason why the Governor won’t sign it into law.

Here is the abstract of the Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5. All emphasis is mine.

The California Constitution, pursuant to provisions enacted by the initiative Proposition 209 in 1996, prohibits the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. The California Constitution defines the state for these purposes to include the state, any city, county, public university system, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of, or within, the state.

 

This measure would repeal these provisions. The measure would also make a statement of legislative findings in this regard.

I really can’t make this stuff up. Leftists have always sought to segregate minorities. From the Antebellum Jim Crow laws, to Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), more recently segregating college dorms, graduations and more by race and even gardens in CHAZ/CHOP.

Sure, they say “It’s to create safe spaces where minorities can gather together without being microaggressively and systematically oppressed by Whites,” but it sounds to me like those White Leftists are really saying, “We don’t feel safe unless they’re over there and we’re over here.”

We also have the tired old trope of the Bigotry of Low Expectations, “Minorities can’t succeed unless they are helped because they can’t do it on their own.”

Which leads to the very first “WHEREAS” of the bill (emphasis mine):

WHEREAS, Equal opportunity is deeply rooted in the American ideals of fairness, justice, and equality. Programs to meet the goals of equal opportunity seek to realize these basic values. Equal opportunity not only helps individuals, but also helps communities in need and benefits our larger society. California’s equal opportunity program was upended by the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996; and

Now go back and read the abstract of ACA5 above, especially the part I underlined. Never mind these Leftists are overriding the will of the people to grant preferences to whatever group is deemed “worthy” to receive special treatment. And when one group is “more equal” than another, than those “not more equal” groups are actually “less equal.”

“Preferential treatment” to any group or individual is a pretty term that still means “discrimination,” just to someone else who isn’t “more equal.”
Think about it like this:

Democrats, from the founding of the party, have fought and worked for a separation of the races. The Blacks are to be “kept in their place.” Again, I mention Jim Crow and Plessy v. Ferguson. The KKK is and was nothing more than a group of cowardly rabble-rousers who have to hide their faces, lest they die of embarrassment because they were and are nothing but bullies.

In the 60’s, they saw terrorism and lynching becoming passé. So, in the infamous words of Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson, “I’ll have those N****** voting Democrat for a hundred years.” So they switched tactics to a “compassion model.”

Use federal government programs to drop the quality of the public schools to the point most Blacks are barely literate. Use Welfare to cut the father figure out of the family. Encourage the woman to have many babies by different men. Then, they concentrate all the poor Blacks into “the Projects.”

It’s been proven that a person attains the level of their five closest friends. That works both up and down. What better way to “keep the Black man down” than to use other Blacks?

Then we have the “Black Leaders,” who are nothing more than third-rate hucksters. They take the simmering anger and desperation of a Black person’s daily life and use an event like Michael Brown, or George Floyd and whip up the people until there are riots, looting and burnt out buildings by the score. Then, the “Black Leaders” extort “donations” from corporations and cities “so your property doesn’t burn.”

We had a dozen cities burn, millions of dollars in property damage and I don’t know how many killed over bad police procedure that killed a man with a felony conviction record, yet not a peep from anybody about the death of Breonna Taylor. This was a lady who was doing it right. She was a first responder and a productive member of society. Breonna was killed in an epic-level botched and unnecessary raid a month before Floyd. I would have a lot more empathy if those cities had burned due to Taylor’s murder than Floyd’s murder.
Then you have the Washington Post trying to debunk President Trump’s statement:

“You hear about certain places like Chicago and you hear about what’s going on in Detroit and other — other cities, all Democrat run,” he said. “Every one of them is Democrat run. Twenty out of 20. The 20 worst, the 20 most dangerous are Democrat run.”

And you know what? The WaPo is technically, but not realistically correct. 85% (17 of 20) of the overall most violent cities are Democrat run. Two Independent-run cities (#11 and 12) are on the list and one Republican-run (#17). I would call 85% “the vast majority.” Adjusted for population, an Independent-run city comes in at #5, the other 19 cities are Democrat-run.

Let’s list the active Democrat parts of the platform that leads to segregation:

Poor quality inner-city public schools that have dropout rates of 30% and higher, with most teachers who do care, but administrators who don’t and largely disinterested parents.

Democrats and teachers unions fight school vouchers at every opportunity, a chance for those kids to escape and learn in better environments.

Active dissolution of the nuclear family in lower economic levels, with a perpetual cycle of “help” that doesn’t solve the problem, which is to escape that class.
Forced congregation of lower economic class people together and thus in their daily lives don’t have anyone to look up to. From having a father as a child to a mentor as a teenager and young-adult.

Affirmative action. While this was sold as a “go with the minority when the two are equal,” in practice it translates out to “putting minorities into positions that they are not prepared to handle.” Admitting someone to a college with low test scores and academic record, regardless of race, astronomically increases their chances of failure. And failure here means no degree, no good job prospects and a huge student debt load with no hope of paying it off.

Again, “separate but equal” facilities in higher education.

But don’t worry, California will solve the problem. With the elimination of Prop 209, California eliminates meritocracy in by using a person’s skin color as the major point for selecting, rather than considering a person’s level of knowledge and skills.

To misquote Thomas Sowell:

Liberalism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.

I love free speech. The unfettered freedom to say what is in your heart and soul. This is why I will support any organization to broadcast their beliefs, no matter how hateful I or anybody else believes their words to be. Because if they have the confidence to spew their hate openly, we can find them if or when the time comes.
I, like many other Americans, support the concept that Black Lives matter. A Black person’s value as a human being is totally equal to the value of a person of any other color. Not any less, nor any more.

The organization Black Lives Matter, is another matter entirely. I was turned onto this Tweet from Davis Reaboi the other day. I went and found the source, a July 2015 interview by Jared Ball interviewing Patrisse Cullors, a co-founder of BLM the organization.

Mind you, this interview happened ten days after George Zimmerman was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges in the death of Trayvon Martin.

Some of the first words out of Ms. Cullor’s mouth at the 2:00 mark shows her only interest in the truth is hiding it. She can’t mention Mr. Zimmerman’s true Hispanic heritage, since in the Leftist world Hispanics are victims, just like Blacks. And it’s “bad for the optics” if someone from one victim group victimized someone from another victim group. The clear answer to solve the problem is to pretend the killer isn’t part of their victim group. Which is why she referred to Mr. Zimmerman as a “light-skinned, White passing man.” She also did not mention the fact that when Trayvon was shot, Trayvon was on top of Mr. Zimmerman and Trayvon was in the process of beating Mr. Zimmermans’ head into the sidewalk. But hey, facts don’t matter when you’re pushing an agenda.

The point to pay attention to is at the 7:00 mark when Ms. Cullor says,

“We actually do have an ideological frame. Myself, and Alicia [Garza, another co-founder] in particular, are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists.”

Take that for what you will.

If you were wondering why Mr. Ball was offering up softball questions, it’s because Mr. Ball is a hard-core Leftist as well. To prove that point, I found this video where at the 2:30 point he says “unicorns, democracy and freedom” are myths, but the most important part is at 7:00, when Mr. Ball invokes Marx and Engles in a positive context.

Mr. Ball is a man of many talents, from a college professor, experience with Mixtapes (no comment, I know nothing about what those are) and a published author, namely of The Myth and Propaganda of Black Buying Power.

So, here we have two people, in non-confrontational situations and free to assert what they truly believe in a safe environment. And through the magic of media, we can see them and hear their words and understand their intent. Which should scare the crap out of most people.

Some people will always be attracted to any idea or position, under the guise of “it’s an idea that sounds good” rather than a “good, sound” idea. I can’t change that, nor would I want to.

I want these people to be heard, because eventually enough will come out that they will, like Maximilien Robespierre, come to an untimely end from the mob they created.

Free speech rocks.

The death of George Floyd was an entirely avoidable death. The officer who knelt on his neck will be held criminally and likely civilly liable as well. The chaos from that tragedy has been massive, horrible and planned.

The other day in Atlanta, a couple of officers were called to a Wendy’s because a man fell asleep in his car in the drive-thru. After 40 minutes of the police calmly talking with him (the entire video is at the end of this article), the person, Rayshard Brooks attacked and knocked down two officers, grabbed the Taser from one of the officers and started to run off. One officer tried to Taser Mr. Brooks as he ran off. Mr. Brooks then turned around and pointed the Taser at an officer. Mr. Brooks was promptly shot dead for his efforts.

Let me explain why Mr. Brooks was given the treatment he received. Yes, a Taser is a “less-than-lethal” weapon. It is meant to incapacitate the target. It can be lethal if the person being Tased has a pacemaker or heart condition and the electricity from the Taser disrupts the heart or pacemaker.

It has come out (that’s why I delay my commenting on things like this) that Mr. Brooks had multiple felonies on his record and he was on parole at the time of his death. This article has footage of the actual moment Mr. Brooks was shot just in case you’re still clinging onto the fantasy that Mr. Brooks was innocent and undeserving of being shot. Mr. Brooks started to fight when he was told he was being arrested, which meant he was going back to jail, being on parole and all. That’s why he resisted. And just in case you didn't hear about it, both officers rendered first aid immediately to try and keep Mr. Brooks alive.

Consider this possible evolution of events: Mr. Brooks shoots an officer with the Taser, incapacitating him. Mr. Brooks then relieves the helpless officer of his (lethal) firearm and kills one or both officers. Any human being, officer or civilian, in such a situation, must act under the premise that this is Mr. Brooks intent. To act like Mr. Brooks would not do something like that is stupid and the probable result is a dead officer. This was a justified shooting, six ways from Sunday. The officer acted appropriately to defend his life and the lives of others.

For any of you who thinks what I just described is BS, read this: Man who shot trooper on Route 33 gets up to 110 years in prison, because the same thing happened. Two police attempted to arrest this man. When the critical moment arrived, the officers hesitated using lethal force and Daniel Clary shot both officers with one seriously wounded.

This one happened in West Memphis, AR, about 20 minutes from my house. Two dead officers that went horribly wrong in the space of about 30 seconds.

Back to the point at hand. In the wake of officers defending their lives and the lives of others, what does the Mayor of Atlanta do? Fires the officer who killed Mr. Brooks and called it “murder” before the Georgia Bureau of Investigation has even completed their investigation. The police chief also resigned, the circumstances and reasoning around that are unclear.

This event and the nationwide calls by Leftists to “defund/disband the police” has sent a clear message to every police officer in every department across our nation: Leave or stop doing your job.

Baltimore has already had a taste of that. After the riots over the death of Freddie Gray and the Mayor sided with the rioters over the police, well, this USA Today story explains it:

Just before a wave of violence turned Baltimore into the nation’s deadliest big city, a curious thing happened to its police force: officers suddenly seemed to stop noticing crime.

Police officers reported seeing fewer drug dealers on street corners. They encountered fewer people who had open arrest warrants.

Police questioned fewer people on the street. They stopped fewer cars.

In the space of just a few days in spring 2015 – as Baltimore faced a wave of rioting after Freddie Gray, a black man, died from injuries he suffered in the back of a police van – officers in nearly every part of the city appeared to turn a blind eye to everyday violations. They still answered calls for help. But the number of potential violations they reported seeing themselves dropped by nearly half. It has largely stayed that way ever since.

“What officers are doing is they’re just driving looking forward. They’ve got horse blinders on,” says Kevin Forrester, a retired Baltimore detective.

I will make clear they still responded to 911 calls, but the officer-initiated contacts dropped, as it says below, by 70 percent.

Millions of police records show officers in Baltimore respond to calls as quickly as ever. But they now begin far fewer encounters themselves. From 2014 to 2017, dispatch records show the number of suspected narcotics offenses police reported themselves dropped 30 percent; the number of people they reported seeing with outstanding warrants dropped by half. The number of field interviews – instances in which the police approach someone for questioning – dropped 70 percent.

And because of that, murders, felony crimes and drug-dealing skyrocketed. We are now seeing similar results of Baltimore. Crimes are skyrocketing in Seattle, Minneapolis, D.C. and New York, everywhere there are strong calls to “defund the police.”

Now that this mindset has spread nationwide, police officers are either resigning from the job or not doing their job. They know which side of their bread is buttered. Their jobs just went from hazardous to dangerous, from both the people they contact on the streets and their management structure. A clear message has been sent out that police are not wanted, their city will not have their back and there is literally no reason to have a job like that anymore. We’re talking about a job that has a high risk of death or major disability, for not a lot of pay, and now they’re about as welcome as a turd in the swimming pool.

So my advice to you my dear readers, is if you can, to acquire a Concealed Carry Weapon permit and start carrying a weapon to protect yourself and your family. Very soon there could be no more “Thin Blue Line” as we currently know it that separates people from the two-legged animals.

I’m not going to advocate to you for a specific weapon, a type of weapon or a caliber. All I ask is you get a weapon you are comfortable with. One that you can quickly bring to bear and accurately use. I suggest you rent several from your local range or shoot with your friends until you find the weapon that works best for you. Practice regularly with it. Practice on a static range and a practical range. The static range for accuracy, the practical range to practice accuracy, speed, target recognition and on-the-fly problem solving under stress.

A self-defense firearm is not like a fire extinguisher where you can put it in your cabinet and forget about it, then have the time to read the instructions on how to use it before fighting the fire.

You might want to get a shirt like this to remind you of the responsibility carrying a weapon entails; Teespring.

Raw video of entire encounter:

In the wake of the protests and rioting over the death of George Floyd, I thought I would provide some context and perspective.

First of all, the death of George Floyd and everyone on the list I have acquired are tragedies, individually and collectively. The police officers who were criminally liable should not have been shielded by “qualified immunity.”

The data I am working off of is from The Washington Post which compiled the fatalities data, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics from which I derived the estimated number of annual police-civilian encounters. Before I get into this, I wish to note that George Floyd is not on this list. I searched by name, by city and date. He is not in here, but 40 people who died after him are.

So on to the data. According to the WaPo data, between 1/2/2015 and 6/8/2020, over a span of 1,984 days, 5,401 people died in police encounters. That’s an average of 2.72 people a day. Out of that 5,401, 352 were unarmed, 162 were “undetermined” and another 227 had no information at all, the field was blank. If I wanted to be strict with the data, I would have stayed with the declared unarmed. However, I am including all three of the categories, to make the case against the police as strong as possible. Of those 741, a total of 261 were listed as Black or no race given. Again, I am including the “no race given” to maximize the case against the police.

I also want to lay out up front that Blacks are on this list in every metric I looked at were at least double than their percentage of the general population. Overall, 24% of the deaths were Black, and 34% of those killed had a gun. And 73% of the “unarmed” deaths were Black.

According to BJS, in 2011 there were 62,936,500 police-civilian encounters, where the civilian was 16 or older. That works out to be about 172,429 every day. Over the 5 ½ years of this data, that daily average works out to be 342,098,674 total encounters. Say this aloud to yourself: “Five thousand four hundred deaths out of three hundred forty-two million encounters.”
Percentage chance:
Total Encounters 342,098,674

Black or no race given

* Unarmed/Undetermined/Blank

Let’s put these numbers into context. Let’s say I ask you to walk into a room, with the prize being you get to go home afterwards. If I told you that you have a 99.99843% of coming out alive, would you walk in? Because that’s what the 0.00157% means. If you have a 0.00157% chance of dying, you have a 99.99843% chance of surviving the experience.
In order to reduce all numbers to the same unit, that 261 works out to an average of 47 people a year. Please tell me, as far as the entire nation goes, how can the deaths of these 47 people a year be in any way construed as a “systematic extermination of Blacks”?

Let me put it this way. With a limited pool of resources (time, money, public sentiment, etc.), which group would benefit the most to get a 50% reduction in deaths? Which group do we save first?

47 unarmed Blacks die at the hands of the police every year
-OR-
2,600 Blacks die at the hand of other Blacks every year. Source

WHICH ONE WOULD YOU THINK IS A MORE PRESSING PROBLEM?

WHICH ONE CAUSES MASS PROTESTS?

Which way does our priorities lie? Which one of those numbers seems to be more important to us?

In summary, every person who died in police custody died unnecessarily. Each and every officer responsible should and must be held liable, criminally and civilly, for their actions. Abolish the qualified immunity. Abolish the police unions that protect the overly aggressive bullies. Quickly fire officers that have justified overaggressive complaints against them. Don’t hire officers from other departments with proven complaints against them. Arm them with bodycams, for the protection of the officer and the citizen. PAY THEM MORE so quality applicants can be attracted.

If, IF we do all of these things and a couple more, then the deaths will drop and maybe the people can start trusting the police again.

…of Authoritarianism is about to expire. Unless you opt-out now, your trial of Authoritarianism will activate automatically and no cancellation or opt-out will be possible for a minimum of 50 years.

The past couple of months have been right out of Robot Overlords. People are forced to stay indoors and forced to have contact tracing. Those that dare to go outside without permission are dealt with harshly.

Then we have an incident that causes mass protests. Ironically, George Floyd was in Minneapolis because his job in Texas was declared “non-essential.” Anarchists use the cover of the protestors to riot, causing massive property damage and looting businesses. This violent activity is considered to be “acceptable” by the feckless Overlords, while the peaceful protestors are kept off balance by the random behavior of law enforcement. The LEO’s either lead with their batons, let the protestors (and rioters) do what they want or surrender to the protestors. The proper thing to do would be to constrain and respect the protesters, and baton the rioters and looters six ways from Sunday.

Over the past couple days, the spineless government of Minneapolis has decided to copy The Purge by “defunding” their police department. While I can imagine the chaos and property damage that will ensue, I don’t want it to happen. Maybe those newly armed liberals (6 million firearms have been sold since our “free trial” started, most to first-time gun owners) will take to the streets and protect each other. Or, maybe, the gangs will start openly selling “protection services.”

And it is in times like these when all people want is some stability in their lives. Women want safety to make sure their children survive. And this is the exact moment when government offers to all of us the promise of “safety”… at the cost of freedom.

Don’t take it, it’s a sucker’s bet. Government cannot ever deliver on the promise of “safety.” There are too many things that they offer to protect you from but cannot deliver. But they always collect the price.

So what have we here? Authoritarians demanding your confinement until “a vaccine is found.” Considering the aspects of COVID-19, the absolutely best we can hope for is an annual shot like for the flu, which is hit-or-miss (and more miss than hit). Of course, this is for “your safety.”

The government also offers to “pay you” because they said they have a power they don’t and forced businesses to close without cause.

At the start of this crisis, our national debt was about $24 Trillion. To put that into perspective, imagine stacks of fresh, new $100 bills. If we stacked all of those bills 30 feet tall, we would cover approximately 7 acres, or about 28 average-sized urban home lots. That’s an entire subdivision, stacked 30 feet tall, of nothing but fresh $100 bills. The federal government added, in the last 90 days, another five lots of 30 foot tall stacks of $100’s. We went from 28 lots to 33 lots in three months. Over the last few years, we’ve been adding about a third of a lot a year. We’ve added five lots in 90 days. And we’re fixing to do it again.

To be perfectly clear, I don’t want government to have this kind of power. I don’t care who’s in charge unless it’s Christ Himself, no. Governments who have this level of power and control over the people do not willingly surrender it.

So let’s review our movie similes.

For the past 20 years, we’ve pretty much been flipping back and forth between Brazil and Nineteen Eighty-Four. Covid-19 brought us Robot Overlords and over the weekend we’ve degenerated in some places into The Purge. If We The People don’t so something quickly, we’ll end up with the government from V for Vendetta. If we let that happen, we’ll have to do something between V for Vendetta or Red Dawn to get back to where we’re supposed to be. A limited and minimal government that maximizes individual freedom and personal accountability.

This video sheds some interesting perspective on things as well:

The Founding Fathers had a very clear vision of the country they founded. This country was founded on the concept that the Citizen is Sovereign (not those nonsensical "sovereign citizens") and the government serves the people, not the people serve the government. The concept that the citizen receives their Rights and authority from God (or the Universe) and delegates some of their authority to the government to handle issues that are larger than themselves. Those Founding Fathers also had the mindset of "the laws should be as few as possible and able to be understood while running."

The United States Constitution (and the state Constitutions) were written in such a way as to clearly declare what the Citizens allow the government to do, and no more. The Bill of Rights were additional constraints upon the government. There are twenty-five clear and separate points in those ten Amendments. They don't grant these Rights to the Citizens, they recognize that the Citizens have them already and the government is not to constrain them. "Congress shall make no law...", "The Right of the People... shall not be infringed." "...[B]ut in a manner to be prescribed by law." The phrase "The Right of the People" appear in the First, Second and Fourth, while the mention of "The People" are in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Here are the direct and attributable quotes from our Founding Fathers:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” – James Madison, Federalist 45, 1788

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition.” – Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, 1791
Limited Government

“[T]he general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14, 1787

“It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” – James Madison, Federalist 48, 1788

“I own I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.” – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, 1787

“The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 33, 1788

I brought all of this up because every law, every regulation, every statute, rule and ordinance that affects the Citizen and has a penalty attached for non-compliance, is ultimately enforced at the point of a gun. It doesn't matter if the crime is first-degree murder or failure to stop during a right-hand turn. A refusal to accept or perform restitution ultimately leads to a law enforcement officer pointing a weapon at you.

I need to explain this, because you probably don't understand this. LEO's do not carry weapons to enforce the law. Their badge and authority do that. The weapons are to protect themselves and others. An LEO must not lose an altercation with a citizen. To do so would damage or destroy any respect for their authority. Let's take that traffic stop. Normally, you're pulled over, you're issued a citation and you're released to go on about your day. For just a minor traffic violation, the LEO can only detain you until you have received and accept the citation. If I refuse to sign and accept the citation, the officer now has the authority to arrest me. If I refuse to comply with his demands to submit to arrest, he has a "Scale of Force" that dictates the level of force they are allowed to use. When an LEO has decided by your refusal of his commands that you need to be arrested because you have disobeyed his lawful orders, you're going to the local lockup. Once this starts, the officer cannot back down and "forget the whole thing" without direct orders from their superiors. At this point the officer will start up that "scale of force" to obtain your compliance. If you resist hard and violently enough that he believes his life or the lives of others are in grave danger, at that point he is justified in pulling his weapon and shooting you until you die or are rendered unable to resist his actions to arrest you.

That's a power you should be scared of, and why the laws should be as few as possible. George Washington is incorrectly attributed to saying this, but the words ring true no matter who said them:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence,—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

And in the midst of this COVID Crisis, we see exactly this. James Madison said this:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

To paraphrase Madison, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which grants the ability to the federal or various state governments  the power to close businesses nor confine the people to their homes without just and specific cause." There is no "in case of [whatever] clause" that I can find. There is a very good reason for that, as

Show me where the federal, state or local governments can force a business to suspend operations because that business is "non-essential." Non-essential to WHOM? That business is certainly essential to putting food on the table for the families of the business owner and employees. I understand and accept closures of a specific business based on "nuisance" or "health and safety" violations, but not whole industries because a bureaucrat thinks it's not critical for the economy.

Maybe I should put it this way because when I get into discussions about this, the "other side" misses this very important point: I have zero problem with government informing the public of the hazards of this disease and asking citizens to socially distance, restricting the number of people that can be in a building at any given time, wear masks, wash their hands, glove up and all of those things. We cross into "Police State" territory when the government authorizes the police to arrest and punish people for leaving their homes or operating their businesses.

When dealing with artwork, there is a concept known as "Provenance," which is a documented trail of ownership of the art in question. This "chain of custody"  proves that this work of art is the real artwork. Think of a  "Certificate of Authenticity." What I am meaning is when a mayor, governor or president issues the Executive Order, proclamation, memo, whatever, it (should) quote the applicable law that is being invoked. The provenance of that law (and thus the EO) needs to be derived, ultimately, from the Constitution, either the state or federal. If it can't be, then it's not a proper law.

In the end, if the government has the power to do things like this (and we let them get away with it), like "declare an emergency" to deny us our liberties, with the definition and declaration of "emergency" left up to the bureaucrats, then anything and everything can be an emergency.

That should scare the crap out of you.

I realize we will never really know exactly how COVID-19 crossed from animal to human. Between the paranoid level of secrecy and “saving face” of the CCP and the lack of information about its’ first start on humans, anyone who really knows will ever tell.

It is my suspicion, like many others out there, that some bungling maintenance tech didn’t repair some of the clean room equipment properly, leading to a worker getting exposed and the worker unknowingly carried it home to spread to the rest of us. If the CCP had weaponized it and wanted to unleash it on the world, I would have done it the 12 Monkeys way. Get vials with the virus onto multiple long international flights at the same time, making it impossible to pin down the “patient zero” and the origin of the virus.

Something like this COVID-19 outbreak concerns me, but it doesn’t scare me.

What scares me is there are groups of people out there, with access to the keys of power that were waiting for a crisis of this scale to trigger their contingency plans.

Hang with me on this. Think about what we’ve been through in the last couple of weeks.

• The federal and state governments ordered private businesses to cease operations. I don’t see that power granted to the government in the Constitution.
• The debt of the federal government jumped over 8% in just the past few days. It’s now over $25 Trillion.
• The shutdown has thrown more people out of work than we had out of work in the Great Depression.
• The US economy will drop at least 10-15% before it has a chance the economy can recover. This will not be a “V”-shaped recovery. It’s more like a fully-loaded semi- going from 70 to zero by locking up the brakes. Before it can get rolling again, you have to get the truck straightened out, check the load for shifting and start rolling again. It takes more effort and a lot longer to go from 0 to 70 than 70 to 0.
• Between the drop in the economy and the boost in the federal debt, our debt ratio now over 105%. We owe more than we can generate.

Now, when a country owes more than it’s worth, well, just plug the word “hyperinflation” into your favorite search engine, with words like “Weimar Republic,” “Zimbabwe,” “Venezuela” and “Greece.”

We have also seen absurd levels of restrictions placed on the American People. From being arrested for kayaking in the ocean alone, to not being able to buy things like vegetable seeds, to a woman who was arrested and jailed for making a choice of opening her nail salon so she could earn money to feed her hungry children, and then the judge demands an apology from her, this shit has got to stop.

Logic and common sense reasoning demands the conclusion that there are individuals and groups with ill intent towards the United States and the American people out there. We see people every day actively working towards tearing this country down to the bedrock and rebuilding it in their twisted image. From those who developed Common Core Math, the Affordable Care Act, to those at the highest levels of the federal government now exposed as actively trying to pull off a silent coup through lies, misinformation and more.

I’m not saying these groups are coordinated. I actually kind of wish they were. It would be easier to stop this madness by finding one spot or several places where the proper application of force could bring the whole plan crashing down. But there’s no coordination or unifying plan. It’s like 40 six-year-old children running amok in the classroom with one teacher trying to regain order. There are children coloring on the walls, taking a crap in the teacher’s desk drawers, smoking weed in the corner, setting the curtains on fire, destroying furniture and more.

The difference between a conspiracy theory and a real conspiracy is, if you can tie up all of the loose ends into one nice, neat package, it’s a conspiracy theory. Real conspiracies are just like freedom and a healthy economy. Everyone is acting in their own best interests and on their own agenda. There are loose ends all over the place like you just flung an entire pot of spaghetti all over the kitchen.

I don’t know how or even if it can be stopped. All I can hope for is the Americans of today bring forth the spirit of their forefathers. To have a natural skepticism and suspicion of the government. To look at what’s going on and knowing the difference between the government asking for social distancing, wash your hands and all the rest, versus the government deciding what businesses get to remain open, then using the police enforce those decisions. To have the backbone for when the government tries to go too far, the citizens say “NO” and have the firepower to make it stick.

What I am seeing right now is a test run. Tests to see how far government can push, how much the people will take and if we can be psychologically manipulated into acting against our own best interests to comply with government mandates.

Here’s what should keep you awake at night. Right now there are people taking notes on everything that worked and didn’t work. When we get out of this, those “bad actors” are going to go back to their think tanks and revise what they have and run some trial tests here and there to see if they can work out the bugs for the next time.

And mark my words, there will be a next time.

I have had too many things to say about the current events, and have been too busy surviving to codify them. This guy has. Read and heed.

There will come an incident, as there have been before, when good people will have to stand up against the overreach and oppression of a government gone bad, as they have had to do in the past.

At the center of that incident will be a man, or a woman, or a group of people. They will, naturally, be on the “wrong side of the law,” because the laws are now used to enforce political power, and not to protect liberty.

The people at the center of this incident will not be perfect. They will say wrong things, they will hold opinions you will find reprehensible. This has all happened before. The militia on the green at Concord who stood against the Redcoats were on the wrong side of the law, and many of them held opinions you would disagree with. The men who held the Alamo for ten days against Santa Ana and the Mexicans were wrong on the law, and were no doubt mostly racists who spoke poorly and were unenlightened. But they were right to stand against governments that have become wrong.

Like them, at the center of the next incident, there will be people who will not be personally likeable. There will be people who are, in a very real sense, criminals. They will be people who should have done things a different way. But the time will have come – and you will recognize it – when all lovers of liberty will need to stand together to tell their government that it has gone too far, that it must back down, that it must surrender its illegitimate power, and return to its proper boundaries or else face the bloody constraint imposed on it by a free people.

If we let this moment pass because the people at the center offend us somehow, because we mistakenly think that the people at the center of the incident must be wholly right for the government to be at all wrong, if we adopt the notion that for any of us to be free, we must first all be perfectly virtuous, then we risk losing our last opportunity to make our government respect its own lawful boundaries and return to its proper place in our lives.

When that time has passed, we’ll recognize that, too.

-Paul Mitchell

Don't let that moment pass. You'll be scared, unsure and more. But don't let that pass by. As Ronald Reagan said,

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth."

So, the other day a friend tagged me on FB with this article and explained “This is why I left the GOP during the Reagan years.” I understand and sympathize with him, that's when I started becoming politically aware but stayed politically quiet for the same reasons. I don’t know if he followed my suggestion to read my thoughts on Trickle-down economics, but here it is again anyway. The Ultimate Strawman.

Let’s get right to the article in question, What don't most conservatives realize?

First of all, I commend Mr. Kruger for coming to his own conclusions, despite being raised in such a uni-polar household and community. I disagree with his assessments on a core level. Let me explain.

In the 80’s, the Conservatives made a large and fundamental error that has since been corrected. They attached their religious philosophy to their political ideology. This was a case of "I believe in God, therefore everything I think and say is good and proper.” And thus was born the Moral Majority. That backfired on Conservatives, just as the rabid beliefs of Liberals concerning global cooling warming cooling climate change, transgenderism, guns or Trump are alienating huge sections of the American populace from having calm and rational discussions on those subjects and more.

Today, Conservatives on the personal level are returning (unknowingly) to William F. Buckley, Milton Friedman and others. I agree with Mr. Kruger and the philosophy of Buckley, “Let’s take our time and think through all the ways any proposal could backfire.” I think any change to a new (or return to an old) way of doing things should be discussed openly, frankly and sincerely. I am totally against instances where one side hurls epithets to the other or exercises the “Heckler’s Veto” when opposing voices want to speak. Once a method is clear, try it with the intent of doing it more when it works, abandoning it if it doesn’t work. And it shows your bias if you say, “It didn’t work because we didn’t have enough funding or didn’t try hard enough.”

Let’s get on with the point-by-point:

Before I begin, I just want to note that I believe a large part of Mr. Kruger’s anger and resentment might flow from his disdain of his brother-in-law, who’s evidently a Ben Shapiro fan. The BIL has a Shapiro “Liberal Tears” travel mug.

1. You’ve redefined conservatism to mean “reactionary.”

I haven’t seen an original, forward thinking idea out of conservative circles since I was a kid.

Obviously, he hasn’t been reading my blog. ;-)

They don’t see the concept of conservatism as tapping the brakes on the wide-eyed and sometimes overly idealistic utopianism of liberals. They see it as their mission to undo it all. To say not only no, but to actively undermine and dismantle anything done by liberals because it was done by liberals.

“Tapping the brakes” won’t do the job when we’re ready to launch off a cliff like Thelma and Louise. From Common Core math, to mandating Americans purchase overpriced and inadequate government healthcare (and pay for it even if they don’t want it), to out-and-out abolishment of the Second and Fourth Amendments, the list goes on-and-on. These major changes came almost overnight, forced by government and without discussion or heeding the will of the People. You don’t think stopping anything that occurs like that is worth stopping? If a Republican administration started using the power of the Executive branch to mandate the actions of the Press, or a Republican Congress made laws for “reasonable restrictions” on news organizations, I would oppose that just as actively as I oppose what I mentioned earlier.

And the bit about Alan Alda’s “tax cuts” from The West Wing, seriously, do you believe that was anything approaching reality? That was a caricature of a straw man, written and produced by people with openly liberal views, which was performed by an actor who also holds liberal views. Another caricature of a straw man was when in season 5, President Bartlet’s daughter Zoey was kidnapped and he stepped down via the 25th Amendment, leaving the Speaker of the House (John Goodman) as Acting President. His first comment as President? “Let’s blow some shit up.” Bad examples that only proves my point, not his.

I am not for “undoing the 20th Century.” Women’s suffrage, the Civil Rights Acts, the continued elimination of discrimination (not just racial) are all good things. I stand against any act of government, or social more that I believe, when sifted through my core principles, hinders the individual unnecessarily or without justification.

2. You have a nostalgia for that which never really was.

Conservatives love to wax poetic to me about the great halcyon days when America was the shining city on a hill. When the markets and the men were free and liberty flowed in every stream. When the families were nuclear and divorce was rare and people had morals by gum.

[…]

It’s bullshit. It was always bullshit.

Then comes the (semi-rhetorical) question

First and foremost, freedom and prosperity for whom?

Human beings, as part of our physical and mental composition are imperfect. We never get it right the first time, and rarely even through the 25th time we try. There was still racial discrimination, and sexism, and a whole lot more back then. Then we came to a point where things like that became unacceptable and they changed. It doesn’t matter where the first push for change came from, it only matters it happened.

Freedom is a zero-sum game… to the Left. In the past 20 years, they have been systematically expunging any non-Liberal belief from universities across the country. Liberals (the big “L” kind) are acting like they believe that any position on any subject that does not coincide to six decimal points to the Groupthink must be destroyed, even if it’s a fellow Liberal. Just ask Rebecca Tuvel. It’s especially important to take heed of the quote at the end of the article.

Could you lose your job at a higher education institution for saying the conservative thing? Yeah, you could. Guess what? For most of U.S. history, that’s what it was like being a black guy saying something about racial injustice. It’s funny how conservatives didn’t seem to have a problem back then and were enshrining that lack of a freedom into law.

For this, Mr. Kruger is correct. From the 1950’s and before, any Black man who became angry and voiced his displeasure over his treatment would be branded an “Uppity N*****” and have the crap beaten out of him and/or lynched. It started changing in the 60’s and we don’t see that any more, do we, Mr. Kruger?

Today we have college groups like the Young Republicans and the Young America’s Foundation who invite speakers like Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klaven, Allen West, Dinesh D’Souza and more to a campus. The more Leftist campus organizations would hold protests with physical disruption (blocking halls, taking up auditorium seats, yelling during the event, etc.) at a minimum. The more extreme end is the threat of or actual violence, making the damage or security costs prohibitive and the event gets cancelled.

Now I call on anybody to show where this was done by Conservatives against a Liberal speaker. Not just on a university campus, but anywhere.

To get on to his next point:

Ah, all those regulations, you say? You’re mad because you wanted to drain that wet patch on the back 40 for a few extra acres and some gubbmit stooge came around and fined you over it. It’s your property, right?

Yes, it is my property. That’s one of the cornerstones of the United States. I should be able to do with my property as I please. In this case, you have a patch that floods occasionally and you want to build drainage in so you can use it. Then an EPA (who has SWAT teams by the way) inspector declares that occasionally wet patch as “protected migratory bird wetlands” and now you can’t get near it.

I do a lot of work with administrative law. Every regulation is written in blood. They all exist because someone decided to be an asshole and caused damage saying, “Well, it wasn’t illegal!”

I hate to tell Mr. Kruger this, but every regulation is not “written in blood.” I could write a 4,000 word treatise about federal regulations and their unconstitutional impact on citizens, but this article is not that time or place. Here’s one rule not “written in blood.” In the 80’s, The BATF just made up a regulation that “Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant” (APCP for short) was a “low explosive” and they had the power to regulate it. APCP deflagrates, but does not explode. This compound is used as solid rocket fuel and was used in the Space Shuttle’s two SRB’s. It’s the only solid propellant that is “man-rated,” meaning it’s safe enough for people be launched into space on it. BATF didn’t even follow their own rules to determine if this was a Low Explosive or not. This meant citizens interested in high power rocketry had to have licenses, special containers to store and transport APCP, were subject to inspections and more. It took over 20 years and millions of dollars in legal fees to slog through the federal court system to get a judge to vacate that regulation.

I will agree that every safety regulation is written in blood, I’ll give him that. I am naturally distrustful of unelected bureaucrats who write regulations that have criminal penalties attached to them. I don’t care if Congress passes a skeleton bill which includes an “All federal agencies tasked with regulation and enforcement of this law may pass, as they deem necessary, additional regulations.” My elected officials are accountable to me for their actions every so often. If they have angered myself and my fellow citizens enough he's out of a job. I have no such authority over a bureaucrat. So by default, I don't want him to have such power over my life.

The very Framers that conservatives so often revere to me believed in ordered liberty. Not just the famous Jefferson quote about your right to swing your fist ends at my face. They generally agreed that all liberty came with responsibility, and I’ll happily point you towards the writings of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau that they were directly influenced by regarding that.

The Founding Fathers believed in maximum personal freedom and minimal government interference. They also believed that the laws should be written in such a way as to be understandable while running. I can’t comprehend most bills passed by Congress today sitting down and with six weeks uninterrupted reading time. Open up any volume of the Federal Register and you will quickly understand.

Responsibility is an internal thing. A person who has the moral code to “do the right thing” has that responsibility within himself, to be imposed on him by himself alone. Accountability is the term used to describe the result of the government imposing penalties on a person for violating a law or regulation.

3. You are a lot more racist than you really understand, and your tolerance of open racism in your coalition makes you complicit.

First point here: If I see discrimination of any kind, imposed on any person, I promise you I will be in the asshole’s face like R. Lee Ermey. I’m pretty sure I speak for most Conservatives as well.

On the liberal side of things, we have the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” How condescending do you have to be to believe things like “These Black people can’t do it on their own. They need our help” while actively engaging in malfeasance. Just to be clear, misfeasance is when you see a disabled person in a wheelchair tumble out of it and fall to the ground, and you walk by without helping. Malfeasance is when you give them a swift kick to the head or break their chair while they’re down.

The biggest malfeasance done to Black society was committed by just the simple rule of denying Welfare to a married couple, but giving it to an unmarried mother, the more kids the better. This more than anything (but public schools are a close 2nd) has led to most of the racial divide today. Blacks in the 1940’s had an illegitimacy rate of 14 percent. Today it’s 75%.

4. You have just as much a problem with “identity politics” and “virtue signaling” as liberals, if not more.

Before I get in on this section, Mr. Kruger’s examples are all virtue signaling, no identity politics. I don’t have a problem with virtue signaling, as that falls under the whole “freedom of expression” thing. As far as identity politics goes I do have a problem with that, because when a political party does that, because it means a voter’s skin color or any other externally measurable demographic is more important than the actual thoughts, beliefs or needs of the individual.

Pre-COVID, Trump boasted “the lowest unemployment numbers for Blacks since the numbers were kept.” I don’t see that as identity politics because the unemployment numbers were at historic lows for everybody, not just Blacks or minorities in general. Trump didn’t work to lower just the unemployment for Blacks, he did it for everybody. Contrasted with the Democrat message to Blacks and the elderly, “VOTE FOR US OR ELSE THE REPUBLICANS WILL CUT YOUR BENEFITS!!!!!”

I’ve been told by prominent conservatives on Quora over and over again that they don’t like liberals because of the “identity politics” and “virtue signaling.” The implication of this is that conservatism is purely merit-based and doesn’t play identity politics at all.

This is bullshit. This has all the self-awareness of a dog licking its balls in public.

Conservatives openly complain that the United States should be a theocracy based on Christianity.

Um, not that I’ve heard of since Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. Get with the times, dude.

The ones that are more subtle about it talk about “religious freedom,” but when it’s time to protect religious freedom for Muslims, they’re dead silent or pushing resolutions to ban Muslims from holding party leadership. (This was an actual caucus proposal at a Republican caucus in Minnesota and it almost passed.) [Note from Mark, this happened in 2018]

Two points on this: First, it DIDN’T pass, so a majority of Republicans involved didn’t like that idea. Second, I’ve looked at several news stories on it. It was introduced at the precinct caucus level (Coon Rapids-Brooklyn Park, find it without Google, I dare you) out of the 4,000+ precincts in Minnesota. So 0.00025% of precincts has a person who liked this idea. If it passed the district caucus, from there it would have had to go through a Congressional district caucus before making it to the state caucus. I can’t find where it was voted down.

Now with any large group (Left and Right) there will be some fringe people. When a supporter of Bernie Sanders shot up the GOP Congressional softball team, I don’t know of any Conservative who blamed anyone other than the shooter for the tragedy. No Conservative tried to say “Bernie told him to do it!” So don’t blame all Minnesota Republicans for the bad actions of a few.

(Just as an aside, Liberals love to blame the NRA for mass shootings, even though none of those mass shooters were NRA members. I’m moderately sure most of the armed citizens who stopped mass shooters mid-rampage are NRA members)

5. You seriously have a problem with corruption and skirting the law.

Really. I am all for equal application of the law. I don’t check for political affiliation at all when it comes to bad actors. The difference between “skirting” and “breaking” the law are just like tax avoidance and tax evasion. In both cases, the former is legal and the latter isn’t.

Tell me, how many major news reports have you seen concerning Tara Reade? If you haven’t seen it, Ms. Reade has accused then-Senator Joe Biden of sexually assaulting her in 1993. Just as a comparison, how many reports did you see about a teenage Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulting a girl in the early 80’s? Don’t you think that such a serious accusation against a presidential candidate should get as much, if not more investigative reporting and coverage than a Supreme Court candidate?

As far as two GOP Senators who sold stocks after a meeting and before the market dropped from COVID (Richard Burr, Kelly Loeffler), Burr has asked for an Ethics investigation into his actions and they are presumed innocent until proven guilty (that’s another cornerstone of the United States, just in case you haven’t heard of it).

Then you bring up case after case of Republicans who violated the law, were tried and convicted, removed from their office and sent to prison. Other than a slight mention of the “Caucus Scandal in the early 2000’s,” you don’t bring up any Democrats walking the line.

In fact, you say this:

Over the last 30 years, a stunningly high number of conservative Republicans have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar and ended up with prison sentences compared to their liberal counterparts. If you want to complain that liberals do it just as much, then you have to at least tacitly admit that conservatives are just that much more incompetent at hiding it. [Bold is me]

So you’re tacitly admitting Dems do break the law, but for whatever reason don’t face prosecution. You’re putting better criminals into office than we are. Is that really a boast you want to be proud of?

The first step to solving any problem is to admit you have one. Conservatives, you have a hell of a problem with your own ranks when it comes to law and order.

Yes, we do. We admit it, confront it and send the guilty away. We don't cover it up like a cat does his business in the litter box. Mainstream Republicans disavow racists like the KKK and other groups. Democrats can’t seem to disavow violent Leftist groups like Antifa, Black Lives Matter and more. You might want to start admitting to those problems on your side.

6. Your demonization of intellectuals and science is going to get us all killed.

I’m not demonizing scientists. I can get behind the demonizing of agenda-driven intellectuals who distort and mischaracterize falsehoods meant to goad regular people into advocating for a position based on “sound good” soundbites, rather than “good, sound” facts. Like the whole “97% of climate scientists…” line. Invariably, it’s con jobs like that (big problem, need to act now, no time to think) which result in more power for government and less power for people.

I also have a problem with the NOAA guessing for massive amounts of climate data, or ships at sea being used to collect ocean temperature data (the ships are hot, so they distort the data. That’s kinda important to know), or “proving” global warming using data from a weather station that wasn’t even built at the time.
The rest of it is all poorly-made strawmen. I don’t want polluted air or water for my descendants, nor do I know of anybody that does. The United States is getting cleaner, because we’ve found ways to minimize or reuse byproducts that used to be just dumped. When was the last time you heard of a river catching fire? I also realize that renewable energy technology is not to a technological level that can replace our current infrastructure. I fully support renewable energy that does not negatively impact the environment. It’s just not economically feasible right now. To totally stop or vastly curtail the use of fossil fuels will kill billions from starvation, because the trucks that bring food, medicine and other goods from farm and factory to table will stop running. Forcing the current renewable technology to replace fossil fuels will likewise crash the economy, again leading to mass starvation.

For Conservatives banned from speaking on college campuses, here’s some articles on it. 1 2 3 4 5. Just as a note, when The New Republic and Washington Compost notices and says something about it, it’s probably pretty bad.

And for the record, here’s a video of Ben Shapiro being an asshole as he’s turned away from speaking on campus.

Of course, Mr. Kruger ends his rant with a disclaimer. “You, you’re okay. It’s all of the other assholes saying they’re Conservative that is why I’m ranting over this.”

Mr. Kruger is entitled to his opinion. I’m just showing up with facts.

If you'll recall, In January 2020, a new Virginia Legislature was seated, with both Houses of the legislature and the governorship firmly in Democrat control. One of their first legislative actions was to introduce a massive anti-gun agenda. Just in the transition period after election day, because those Democrats were so loud in their anti-gun campaigns, eighty-six out of 95 counties in Virginia (90%) along with over one hundred municipalities declared themselves as "Second Amendment Sanctuaries." Thousands of protesters showed up (armed) to the state capitol on January 20th to protest these laws. In February, the Legislature passed most of them and on April 10th Governor Northam signed these points of that agenda into law:

• Requiring background checks on all gun sales in Virginia
• Re-instituting a limit on handgun sales to one a month
• Increasing penalties for recklessly leaving firearms near children or failing to report a lost or stolen firearm within two days
• Allowing localities to set their own rules on the presence of firearms in public
• Prohibiting those subject to a protective order from possessing firearms
• Creating a "red flag" law that allows law enforcement to temporarily seize a gun from a person deemed to pose a danger to themselves or others

Now let's break these out:

Background checks. Federal law requires Federal Firearm License (FFL) holders, which are gun stores, pawn shops, gunsmiths and individuals who buy and sell 20+ weapons a month, to perform a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) using the information a buyer/seller writes on a BATF Form 4473. Private sales did not require any kind of state or federal involvement in the firearm transfer. Now, private sales must also be done at a gun store, et.al., because citizens do not have access to NICS, only entities like law enforcement and FFL holders.

One-a-month: One of the ways I illustrate how stupid or hypocritical something is is to switch gender roles or the item in question. So if you replace "handgun" with "roll of toilet paper," it sounds beyond ludicrous, right? There you go.

Penalties for being reckless. I have to ask, who would define "reckless"? The government. If I left an (unloaded) firearm near an infant, or near a teenager who is mature about the handling of firearms, I could fall under that "reckless" definition if the prosecutor wanted me in prison. This is also one of those "after the fact" kind of penalties, like where a drunk driver who mows down a group of people is given a speeding ticket, on top of the DUI and counts of vehicular manslaughter.

Reporting stolen firearms. Let's say I'm out of town for a month and my residence is unoccupied during that time. During the second week, someone breaks in, steals my firearms and the next day kills someone with at least one of them. I'm not going to report my guns as stolen until I return in a couple of weeks because I don't know they're gone until I get home. I would be guilty of that "crime" because I didn't report it fast enough. Frankly, if I did report it in their (arbitrary) time frame, that wouldn't have stopped any of the crimes committed with my firearms, so what's the sense of this?

Local control of laws. The state government controls the issuance of things like concealed carry permits, even if they are done on the county level. This is a very stupid idea because if I have a STATE carry permit and I travel from Town A to Town B through Town C and the Town C police arrest me because they have more restrictive laws than A, B or the state, that's just not right.

Protective orders and red-flag laws. This is a total abandonment of due process of law and the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and the level of abuse will be (and has been) epic. Swatting is similar. If I didn't like someone I knew that owned a firearm, I could take out a restraining order on them, or just called the police and say "Bob is standing outside in his front lawn, naked, with a beer in one hand and a rifle in the other, screaming at the moon." Under this law, the police would come and confiscate Bob's firearms and hold onto them until Bob proves a negative (he wasn't doing what I claimed).

And what's coming will be even worse. This, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, is exactly what an overbearing government looks like and the exact reason why the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment to prevent government from doing garbage like this. And now because of COVID-19 and the heightened potential for a general breakdown of civilized society when the supply chain is disrupted or runs dry, the need for citizens to have the ability to defend themselves has never been greater. The best possible tool a person can have in a situation like this is a firearm and the will to use it.

A firearm (and the mental will to use it) is the only effective way a person can defend themselves in SHTF situations. Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee might be able to take on three gang-bangers armed with 2x4's, but I promise without a firearm you can't, especially if you're protecting children or other innocents.

Please, if you have, or intend on acquiring a firearm with the intent of self-defense, please get the training necessary to quickly and accurately operate that weapon, and you know in the deepest parts of your soul that you could kill another person. If you know you can't "drop the hammer," to defend yourself or others, don't buy it. You will not shoot at that critical second, you'll end up dead and the bad guys will have another weapon.

I am hearing about suppositions of "Trump delaying the election" and I thought I would add to the pile.

Any delay of elections for any reason will always be a "never nope" for me. That's not a "slippery slope," that's a cliff that would lead to the Banana Republic "President for Life" kind of crap, I don't care who is in the office. This could have been 1987 in the waning days of Reagan's second term and I would still give an unequivocal "no." However, many of the Leftist Media, who have accused Trump of powers that a) Obama had already usurped and b) powers they now are clamoring he use, are inducing panic by putting forth the supposition that "under what circumstances could Trump delay or suspend the election in November?"

The funniest one I could find said, "the Presidential line of succession would kick in, as Trump and Pence's term expires on 1/20/2021, possibly putting Nancy Pelosi (or another Democrat if they keep the House) as President. Sorry, if there's no presidential election in November, there's no House election either. No election, the entire House leaves office on January 3rd, because that's when their term expires. Now, 35 Senators (33 + 2 mid-term appointments) would also leave office and that would leave 31 D's, 2 Independent's and 30 R's in the Senate (and a Quorum), so there's a chance that a Dem would be the Senate President Pro Tempore on 1/20/2021. But there will be zero to do, as all spending must start in the House, which will be empty.

The second part of this that I'm going to emphatically "Nope Out" of is everyone voting from home, either by mail or over the Internet. Both of these have a 104% of massive fraud. And I would question the validity of the election no matter who won. Trump, Biden, Sanders, even Tom Hanks. I believe and have repeatedly stated there needs to be some effort made by the individual to be able to express their vote at the ballot box. The chances of catching COVID-19 from going through the effort of going to your polling place and voting are almost zero if you take the proper precautions.

I believe the risk is worth it to keep alive a tradition that we have been doing for over 230 years now, which is the peaceful transfer of power every four years as chosen by the people. It is traditions like this that make the term "American" special. The concept that the power flows from the people to the government, not the government to the people is unique in the American State and always has been. I don't what that to change and I will violently oppose any intent to change that.