Category Archives: Republic

Oh, my word

Posted on by

Now we have “toxic masculinity”, good grief really. The Florida Democratic Party chairman has resigned(no date as of yet)because he “feels” like he is “creepy”, making women nervous in his presence. Creating a hostile and creepy work environment. So another male has jumped onto the “sword”, a self-sacrifice. Perhaps a better term would be self-castration. One female had said that he has a lot of “boob stuff” in his office, including “breast shaped” stress balls on his desk.

Given the fact that he is, soon to be was, a party official and many people, both men and women, may visit his office he should have exercised more or at least some discretion. Tacky to say the least. An office with public access should reflect a great amount of professionalism, the same amount of professionalism that one should display and act on in their public life. It would appear that many in politics fail to understand they have no private life, so they must be on their best behavior at all times. Sadly many in politics, both male and female think the rules, ethics and morality, do not apply to them. They are above all of that.

How one decorates his or her own personal office is their own business. If one chooses to decorate his or her own personal office in a bawdy manner do remember where you are when you get the urge to take a selfie. Under no circumstances should one ever take a selfie in their drawers, or in a negligee.

The rest of this post deals with the absurdity of this so-called “toxic masculinity”.

First off masculinity is not toxic to men or society as a whole. This world would be in a terrible state if it were not for masculinity.
Masculinity is defined as; 1a Male 1b having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man.
Toxic is defined as; 1 containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation.
Therefore if masculinity was toxic there would be no males.

If the following offends you, you need to get a grip and grow up.

I very seriously doubt that any female has ever screamed “toxic masculinity” when a Man(capital M)stepped to her aid to defend her or her honor. I used a capital M because sadly there are some males in our society that are men(little m). But then I am Southern bred and Southern raised. Masculine but not toxic Good manners and all.

A male looking at a female is not visual rape. Women, most but not all, go to great lengths to look their best. The ones that do they wear clothes that compliment their figure. Us men call the clothes they wear, “Look at me clothes”. Do I look? Hell yea. Will I apologize for looking? Hell naw. Will I gouge my eyes out for looking to prevent me from doing it again or taking a second look? Again, Hell naw.

Before I forget, we have something in the South called GRITS. No not grits, but GRITS, an acronym for Girls Raised In The South. Some drive trucks, some drive what some of us call; Look at me trucks”. They have look at me clothes and look at me trucks, you should see them. Do we look? Hell yea. Will we apologize for looking? Hell naw. Will we gouge our eyes out for looking to prevent us from doing it again or taking a second look? Again, Hell naw.

Now I ask you girls this. If you get all gussied up and no man(big M or little m)looks would you be offended. Keep this up and soon no one will look, no matter how loud you or your attire screams “Look At Me”.

Masculinity is not toxic. Wussification is toxic. The wussification of males will cause the death of manhood, it is a debilitating condition is left untreated.

No Damsel in distress was ever, nor will she ever be, rescued by a wuss.

DEO VINDICE
God Bless Florida

Is this where all of this leads?

Posted on by

Could it be this freaking simple? I am referring to the recent outing of males as sexual deviants.

The political landscape has long been dominated by males, as has the business and banking world. They still have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that their candidate for president lost. They most likely and probably never will come to grips with that fact. They have blamed everything under the sun for her loss but her. They have even claimed that she lost because males were not willing or ready to vote for a woman for president.

The allegations made against males and their sexual misconduct towards women is coming at a dizzying pace, seems like it will never stop. And it wont until all males are portrayed as sexual deviants. Sexual deviants who cant be trusted in the company of a woman. A sexual deviant who caint(can not and aint gonna)control himself. There have even been allegations leveled a males for attempting or attempting to have their way with underage(minor)boys and/or girls.

Are they trying to remake the political landscape of this Republic? Absolutely. But more than that they intend to remake the entire landscape of this Republic. The goal, perhaps is to remove all males from positions of power or authority based on the actions of a few.

Thus far the only allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior that has been exposed has been against males. To date and to the best of my recollection no females have been accused of such “indiscretions”. This is most likely due to the double standards when it comes to males and females.

Allow me to explain. When a male teacher is accused of having inappropriate relations with a student, whether the student female or male, there is outcry to lock him up and throw away the key. But if a female teacher is accused of having inappropriate relations with a student, especially if the student is a male, some say “where was she when I was in school”. So therefore I don’t expect any males will come out under the hashtag me too. Males exploits are put out for the world to see, while the females exploits remain virtually invisible.

There are some in both sexes, male and female, that will take advantage of their position or power for their own gains, whether it be for sexual(gratification)or financial(personal profit)reasons.

Now let me say this, there are males and females in society that are more than willing to be used, if their being used will get them to where they want to be. Those willing to be used are not victims.

By all means those that are victims should expose those that use others, whether male or female. Having power and/or authority don’t give anyone, male or female, the right to whatever or whoever they see or can get their hands on. Keep your hands to yourself and keep a civil tongue in your head.

In this post I have used the word “they” a lot. Now let me say who “they” are. They are the Social Justice Warriors from the Department of Fairness and Equality.

I have also used the words male and female. That is because that was the way we as mankind were created by God, man and woman.

This is what all of this boils down to, the Social Justice Warriors want a woman to be president. No matter the cost. No matter if she is qualified. No matter her morals or the apparent lack of her morals. I mean after all, women can be trusted, right? The only qualification she must possess is to not be a man and social justice would have prevailed, in their view.

I cant help but wonder if that woman were elected president would all of these allegations come about? Are the allegations a result of her loss? We will never know, because thankfully she was not elected. I suspect though that silence would have prevailed, if she had won the election.

DEO VINDICE
God Bless Florida

They judge themselves

Posted on by

Now what are they going to do? A sitting democrat Senator has had his behavior exposed, inappropriate to say the least. A sitting democrat Senator taking advantage of a female, at the time, co-worker. I would venture to say that this so-called comedian at that time, now a sitting democrat Senator was the first name on the marquis, the head-liner. If he was the senior member of the cast, he may have assumed what he did was his “right”. I dont know much about this former so-called comedian, I dont know if he a had a wife at the time or not. If he did, we had a term for this type of individual while I was in the Army. We called these types of individuals “Geographical Bachelors”, meaning that if he and his wife were in different zip codes he was a bachelor. Some people took that same stance if they and their spouse were in different area codes, sometimes in different buildings, or rooms within the same building. The clown had the attitude that all that was in his sight and everything within his grasp was his for the taking, he may still have the same attitude.

One would think that with all of the “righteous indignation” the establishment politicians have expressed over the allegations against the republican nominee in the Alabama senate race, demanding that he step aside they would take the same approach with this “clown”. But no, they will take a different approach. They do protect their own. They are going to refer the Senator to the Ethics Committee. They, other senators will decide if the clown’s behavior was ethical or not, he apparently cant. If he is found unethical in this they will name his punishment. Patrick Henry was right about this too. There really is no accountability in congress.

Speaking of Ethics Committees, how many of you need a committee to tell you if you have acted ethically or not? Most of us know the difference between ethical and unethical conduct without the benefit of a committee. Apparently this clown thought his behavior was acceptable.

Seems to me this clown was loud while condemning the actions of a Hollywood mogul. Bit dogs do holler first, and the loudest.

Now we have this, a congresswoman has come out under the hashtag me too. What she said in her testimony was to say the least startling. I believe she referred to congress as a “breeding ground” of sexual misconduct. I would say that they have the morals of an alley cat, but I would not want to condemn alley cats.

This kind of behavior did not just start yesterday. As a side note saying I am sorry or apologizing does not make it right. Using your position to make advances to take advantage of another is just bad manners, there is no excuse for bad manners. Now let me address your morals for just a minute, your morals are low. Just how low you ask? Your morals are lower than whale feces, and whale feces is on the bottom of the ocean.

So is this a failure of the individual to control him/her self or of congressional leadership? Well the answer is both, but it is the individuals responsibility to control him/her self. The reason I said both is because the current leaders were not always leaders they were at one time followers. But the leaders of today had to have seen what was going on then. Some of the members of congress have been around for years and years, some for decades.

So as a Senator says, “this is the first shoe to drop, more shoes will drop”. This I fear is going to grow and grow, the clown is not the only one, just the first one to be named.

So what is the answer? We the voters need to clean house. Repeal the 17th Amendment, let the States once again send their Senators.

DEO VINDICE

Where can this go wrong?

Posted on by

Perhaps a better question would be; How many ways can this go wrong? Has the Army lost its ever-loving mind?

USA Today and other outlets report that the Army lifts ban on recruits with mental health history. As reported according to documents obtained by USA Today, people with a history of “self-mutilation”(cutters), bipolar disorder, depression and drug and alcohol abuse can now seek waivers to join the Army under an unannounced policy enacted in August. Why was it unannounced and have any waivers been granted for these mental health issues? The fiscal year has long passed.

It appears that once again the Army is having a hard time meeting its recruiting goals. It seems that fewer and fewer qualified applicants are not volunteering to serve. So to counter that the Army is willing to accept sub-standard applicants. Lowering the standards to meet the objective, good freaking grief. Perhaps the focus should be on retention rather than recruiting.

I mean look at the list above that the Army is willing to give a waiver for, those are some pretty serious issues. The closer it gets to the end of the fiscal year the easier it will become to obtain those waivers, to meet recruiting goals. What effect will those mental health issues have on unit readiness? Units scheduled for deployment will take to the field under-strength, possibly severely under-strength while some of their members are receiving treatment. It would be difficult if not impossible to be undergoing counseling while performing ones duties. How about the medications required to offset the mental health issues?

On a side note, again looking at the list of mental health issues, how many of them would result in failing a background check when attempting to purchase a personal firearm?

So the Army is willing to accept sub-standard recruits. Sub-standard recruits will yield sub-standard soldiers. You reap what you sow. Was the murderous savage in Texas a sub-standard recruit? How about all of the other former members of the military who committed mass murders(Florida and D.C. come to mind), were they sub-standard recruits? Was the deserter who got at least 6 killed and several more severely wounded while looking for his sorry-ass, was he a sub-standard recruit? He certainly was a sub-standard soldier, if he could have even been called a soldier.

If these waivers are granted and as times go on we may find our military being led by sub-standard leaders, who were once sub-standard recruits. You reap what you sow. Decisions being made by leaders who require medication just to cope. What happens if they come off their medications? What about the one who must be gone for a minute to relieve tension?

Lets visit drug abuse for just a minute. Lets discuss the use of marijuana, illegal according to federal law, legalized in some states for recreational use. We have now come to an unintended consequence of recreational pot. It bars people from military service.

Now lets just say that waivers are granted and the individual enters the Army. He or she will be trained in the use of weapons, up to and including machine guns. Everybody in the Army is a “grunt”, not matter your military occupational specialty(MOS)you are a rifleman. Keep in mind most of these issues would be grounds to be denied the purchase of a personal firearm. Keep in mind also that the mental capacity of each murderous savage is the first thing questioned. If the individual has a history of mental health problems the question of the day becomes; How was this person able to buy firearms?

So I ask you this, why would the Army train persons who not only pose a possible menace to themselves but pose a possible menace to others? Our military members face enough danger already are they supposed to be subjected to even more. Who gets the blame when a member of our military “goes off the rails” while in combat, training or just hanging out back in garrison? What would be the outcome of an “unhinged” person “losing control”? A really well trained person?

So I leave you with this. The local and state law-enforcement agencies are facing shortages of qualified applicants just like the military. Will they too be forced to lower their standards just to meet recruiting goals? Think about it. The standard for tattoos is what now?

DEO VINDICE

I wonder if….

Posted on by

It would seem that nearly all of the congress critters and almost all of the talking-heads have already convicted Judge Roy Moore from the Great State of Alabama of sexual improprieties. Not only have they already convicted him they demand that he step aside in the Senate race. One of the enlightened clowns presently holding a seat in the senate has already said that “He has no place in the Senate”. At least one has said that Judge Moore must prove his innocence. Judge Moore has already been convicted in the court of opinion. Judge Moore has not, I repeat has not, been convicted in a court of law. They have even began a campaign to find a write-in candidate in the senate race. One would expect this from the other party. Judge Moore won the republican primary in Alabama and the afore-mentioned statements are coming from republicans. It seems to me that the republicans will torpedo their own, wanting and willing to lose the election and the seat. Or is it just they did not get the candidate they wanted? Seems to me the republicans are trying to put a monkey wrench into the works.

It has even been said by some Judge Moore should step aside and let the party select a nominee. They actually think the party machine is smarter than the voters who supported Judge Moore. Seems to me not all that long ago they wanted then candidate Trump, then nominee and now President Trump to step aside because of allegations of improprieties that were later proven false. Then as now they did not get the candidate they wanted.

Judge Moore as well as any other person accused of a crime should be and is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law. A matter of Fact not a matter of Opinion. This still is America is it not? Since when is it the defendants responsibility to prove his innocence?

So I wonder if allegations of improprieties(taking liberties)were leveled at a sitting member of Congress, would they step aside? Would they succumb to opinion? I doubt they would. But the republicans in Congress are guilty of taking liberties, they have abused the voters that supported them. Constituent abuse. They have lied to the voters. Come on, confess your improprieties and step aside.

I question the timing of these allegations. They did not surface during the primaries. Why now?

You were willing to have a democrat president just not to have a President Trump. Anybody but Trump you said. You are willing to have a democrat senator just not to have a Senator Moore. Anybody but Moore you are saying.

Choose wisely Alabama.

You the republicans are the Jacobins of today. The ends justify the means.

DEO VINDICE
God Bless Florida
God Bless Alabama

It is high time ….

Posted on by

It is high time to put things in their proper context. Thing needs to be placed in proper context, and if there is blame to assign proper context will make it clear as to who or what is at fault. This is the second part of a series.

What I am referring to is the latest terrorist attack, the one in New York. Good grief, in news story after news story the headline was “Terrorist truck attack”, this crap makes it appear that the truck was the terrorist and committed this heinous act. The truck was not the terrorist, and a truck being an inanimate object is not capable of committing an act of terrorism.

It seems that the selection of words and their placement were/are an attempt at “blame-shifting”. The rented truck was merely the tool of choice, the weapon, in this terrorist attack. The man behind the wheel was the terrorist. The man behind the wheel was a Muslim, a follower of Islam. Those that were killed and those that were injured we his victims, his intended victims. The Islamic terrorist drove the rented truck onto a bicycle/pedestrian path, intentionally. The Islamic terrorist then proceeded to run down/over as many people as possible, again intentionally.

Had the Islamic terrorist used a knife in his dastardly act, the headlines would have been a “terrorist knife attack”. The knife would have played a key role in terrorism the same as the truck did this time, at least in the minds of the apologists. They seem to confuse the what for the who.

A more fitting headline would have been “Islamic terrorist kills 8 and injures many more in New York City”. Time to quit candy-coating, blame-shifting and most of all get off the wagon, the politically correct wagon. Call it for what/who it is.

Now the politicians will try to come up with ways to stop these kinds of attacks. They will suggest some type of barriers to prevent motor vehicles from entering pedestrian/bicycle areas. They will come up with plans that cost millions. Let’s say they erect barricades between the sidewalks/paths and the streets, but what happens when an Islamic terrorist enters the sidewalk/path on foot or bicycle with a knife or axe and does what Islamic terrorists do? Now what? The answer is much simpler that erecting barricades and is free. No terrorists no terrorism.

Unfortunately there are already many terrorists already in this republic, thanks to many previous administrations. The latest terrorist attack was carried out by an Islamic terrorist who has lived among us for years. It has been reported that he has been here since 2010, and just now decided to wage Jihad. How many more are there? Are they just waiting for the right time to strike?

What is the answer? I dont know, but somebody better come up with something fast, and I mean something better than barricades. If not this Republic will soon find itself in the same sorry state as Europe. If something dont change Americans can soon resign themselves to the fact that terrorism is just part and parcel to life in the big city. Are you ready for that? Just waiting for the next attack.

Law enforcement will spent many hours searching for a motive as to why this attack was carried out. Maybe we as citizens should be searching for the motive as to why our lawmakers democrat and republican, are so lax in their immigration laws and policies. Why are they so much into diversification and multi-culturalism.

DEO VINDICE

Since when….?

Posted on by

This is the first part of a series.

Since when did doing the right thing become based on diminished public interest? What I am referring to here is reports of the current AG saying that he would not pursue based on diminished public interest referring to the Clinton e-mails and all that was associated with them. It is not just the e-mails but all of the wrongdoing in the previous administration.

While it may be true that public interest has diminished somewhat. It does not mean that the public is no longer interested in the matters the AG made reference to. Nor does it mean the level of frustration has lessened at the apparent incompetence with the AG and the DOJ, in this administration or the last. What the diminished public interest means is that people have passed away patiently waiting for someone to come along who would do the right thing and pursue the corrupt in government even if it went or goes all the way to the top. Not just pursue but prosecute.

It would appear that the current AG has taken a new view of polling, public opinion is based on polling. It seems that he believes the results of polling. If the majority says on thing then it must be true. The poll must be right. I remind him of the polls just last year that had HRC up by several points and in some cases by double digits. If the polling data was correct up until last November’s election HRC would be sitting in the White House and his ass would still be sitting in the Senate.

Doing the right thing should be a matter of conscience not at matter of public interest(polling), whether it has diminished or not. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

It seems that your reluctance to pursue these matters indicates that there is something to hide. We as citizens of this Republic have a right to know the truth about those in our government. You, Sir have an obligation to the citizens of this Republic.

Now is the time to embark on a Great Crusade, a crusade for truth.

DEO VINDICE

Falling apart at the seams

Posted on by

The political establishment may have at last met its match. At long last we may see the party of Lincoln on the ash heaps of history along with the Federalist, Whig and Free Soil parties. At current there are two republican Senators who will not seek re-election, hopefully many more will join them. One of them cites something akin to party disloyalty, disloyalty by the president, as his reason for not seeking re-election. I say good riddance and dont let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya on the way out and please take as many of your kind as possible with you. I doubt that the democrats will ever field a candidate that would turn the democrat party on its ear as President Trump has done with the republican party. More on the democrats later.

President Trump has done more to expose the corruption in D.C. than any president in recent history. President Trump has not hijacked the republican party, he has however exposed the party for what it is. The republican party is now what it has always been, the party of big, big government. They believe that for every problem there is a government solution, when in fact most problems are the fault of government interference and intervention.

In order not to paint with too broad of a brush, let me say this. There are people serving in Congress in both parties that want to do the right thing. There are two things stopping them, first are the establishment politicians and second is the political party machine. The problem is that those wanting to do the right thing are few and far between, scarce as hen’s teeth.

Let me take a side road for jest a minute. There are many that call themselves Constitutional Conservatives while at the same time saying how much they admire Abraham Lincoln. They talk out both sides of their mouths. No one can be a Constitutional Conservative and an admirer of Lincoln, impossible I say. Lincoln did more to destroy the Constitution and this Republic than any other President. He took it upon himself to appoint himself Caesar of America. Read your history and research this for yourselves, you may just be surprised at what you find out about Mr. Lincoln.

Let me continue on this side road. More Presidents than not have done their level best to find a way to get around the Constitution. Most have been very successful at circumventing the Constitution. Some have weaponized the government, using government agents against their political opponents. Some have used the government to reward their supporters. Some have done both. Just following in the foot steps of Lincoln. The damage they have done may be unrepairable at this late date.

Now to the democrats. It seems that the democrats will risk losing an election or two even three just to get what they want. The best and most recent example of this would be Obamacare. The democrats took a gamble, a gamble that has paid off and will continue. Let me explain.

When the democrats had control of the entire government, the House, the Senate and the Presidency. They introduced, passed and signed into law the ACA(aka Obamacare)the was no republican input or votes in support of the ACA. It was purely a democrat law. If it worked it would have been a huge victory for the democrats. But the ACA was not designed to work, it was intended to fail. This is best shown by the statement of the former democrat Speaker of the House, when she famously said, “You have to pass it to find what is in it”. Since most if not all of the democrats voted to pass the ill-fated law never read it, they did not care what was in it. Then it started, the republicans stating how bad it was. But how did they know it was so bad? It would seem that no one read the thing. The republicans began their campaign to repeal the ACA. The democrats had the republicans just where they wanted them and their gamble began to pay off.

The republicans gained control of the House, but the democrats still controlled the Senate and the Presidency. The republicans began their attempts at repealing the ACA. They knew it would go nowhere, it would never be passed in the Senate. Little more than political grandstanding. Next the republicans took control of the Senate. Legislation finally would reach the President. They full well knew two things. First they knew the president was never going to sign any legislation that repealed the ACA, the democrats still controlled the presidency. Second they knew that they could not find enough votes to override a presidential veto. More political grandstanding.

The republicans either fell into a carefully crafted trap or painted themselves into a corner. There is a third possibility that I will get into later. The republicans from 2010 ran on a campaign promise to repeal the ACA. Then the term repeal and replace was bandied about. Well they have been unable to do either. They cant even find enough support in their own ranks to even get legislation moving forward. The republicans control the House, the Senate and have the Presidency. Which brings us to the third possibility. The republicans only said what would get them elected, there never was a real intention to do away with the ACA. Now we have a bi-partisan effort to save the ACA. So the republicans were lying all the time. Oh, color me shocked. The reason that the ACA is still with us is because the party that crafted it and the party that supposedly opposed it are both big government political parties. At some point the ACA will morph into a single payer system at which time the government will have complete and total control over the entire health care system. I believe it is or will be called Medicare for all. One thing for sure we will never be subjected to the lie about repealing the ACA again.

Now lets visit Tax Reform. It looks like some will get a tax break, a lower percentage paid into the government. But hold on, the republicans are proposing a plan that lets individuals put less into their 401k. A 401k lets a person build up a personal retirement account, tax deferred. Meaning the government only gets their cut when withdrawals are made. The republicans want to lower that amount. Meaning two things, first people will put less into their 401k(having less when they retire, if they can), second they will be having more taxable income(more revenue for the government). The tax cuts are only an illusion. The government gets their cut sooner. Even with a lower rate the people will see their taxable income going up, and on the same pay. Go figure.

Lets go back to the democrats for just a bit. When the democrats are the majority they seem to be able to any thing they want, the republicans being the minority seem to be unable to stop them. When the republicans are the majority the democrats seem to be able to stymie them at will. It leaves one to wonder if the democrats are the perpetual majority no matter which party is the majority. So much for a two-party political system. The democrats took a gamble to pass the ACA, the republicans are unwilling to take a gamble on repealing the ACA. The republicans may just find themselves in the minority again, and possibly forever.

I said the democrats were willing to take a gamble, I did not say they were stupid. Though the speeches and remarks by some democrat congressional members would indicate otherwise. Back in 2010 the democrats had the “whole ball of wax”, the House, the Senate and the Presidency yet they made no attempt at gun control. They could have had their way in the arena of personal firearms and the republicans would have been powerless to stop them. Yet they did nothing even though they are anti-gun zealots. Funny thing about this is the fact that no gun control group has yet to chastise them for taking no meaningful action when it comes to guns. No going at that alone as a political party would be tantamount to political party suicide. Gun control is the only area that the democrats have any interest in bi-partisanship, they are willing to take some of the blame for that one but not all of it. The way the republicans cave it will not be long before they join the democrats on gun control.

Now let’s go on to debts, deficits and budgets. The Republicans have proposed a 4 trillion-dollar budget, but there is no indication as to where that money will appear from. Perhaps a money pit or a printing press. We have been told for so long that there exists a national debt, hell I have even repeated that. I have read that the amount is close to if not exceeding 20 trillion. Now I am beginning to wonder if there is a national debt. It seems that the government can always find money somehow somewhere. We basically have no idea how much money the Treasury has, time to time has not shown up yet. We have no idea how much money is spent, or what the money was spent on. Patrick henry was right about the definition of time to time. There is no audit and no accountability when it comes to the Treasury or the Federal Reserve and any efforts to do so are stymied. The national debt may be non-existent, but rumors of its existence serves as an effective scare tactic. Each political party blames the other for the national debt, but both parties spend money like drunken sailors(not meant to disparage drunken sailors). We are told that a national debt exists and we are also told how much each of us or household is responsible for. I have borrowed nothing I am responsible for zero dollars. The taxes that I pay should be sufficient to cover my share of the costs to fund the government, for the things the government is supposed to do according to the Constitution. The only way I could possibly owe more would be if the government is operating outside of the Constitution.

Back to the republican Senators not seeking re-election. You obviously dont have the guts to follow through on your obligations. You will be departing with your “war chest” stacked full of cash, not to mention the millions you have acquired and a nice fat pension. You are set for life while those of us who counted on you to be honorable are left down here just getting by. Don’t worry yourself too much over our fate, we will get by not because of what you have done but in spite of what you have done.

One last point. For those complaining about the slow progress in draining the swamp consider this. If you drain the swamp to fast you may just find yourself up to your ass in alligators.

DEO VINDICE
God Bless the State of Florida.

One down many more to go

Posted on by

It would appear that President Trump has ended one welfare program, actually it is two, two for the price of one. Ended is the cost sharing portion of Obamacare. That means that we hard-working citizens will no longer have to pay for others lifestyle. It also ends a corporate welfare scheme, the insurance companies will no longer be paid to overcharge for insurance products. Well done Mr. President.

Now here is the “fly in the ointment”. Congress can appropriate monies from the national treasury to fund these two welfare programs. My guess is that congress will appropriate monies from the national treasury. They will do this for two reasons. The first being is that they need campaign donations from the insurance industry. The second is that this welfare program is like all the rest a vote-buying scheme. The old back-scratching scheme, “You scratch my back and I will scratch yours”.

I am also of the opinion that the republican controlled congress has made no serious attempt to end Obamacare for the same two reasons. Doing so would have cost them both campaign contributions and votes. The insurance industry could have done much better with the monies donated to political campaigns, but then they would have not put corrupt politicians in their pocket.

So, lets discuss the insurance industry and the lobbyists for the insurance industry for just a moment and the possible correlation of insurance premiums. Insurance companies charge for their premiums to cover overhead. The insurance company employees have to be paid, whether it comes from the company directly or is included in the premiums, the employees will be paid. How much do you do you think it costs the insurance industry as a whole to have lobbyists? Millions or tens of millions? Who pays for the lobbyists? Where does the money going into political campaigns come from? Would premiums be lower if not for the lobbyists and campaign contributions? The insurance industry looks out for the industry and not those who buy policies. There is a reason that former politicians become current lobbyists. There is also a reason the former lobbyists become current politicians.

The same goes for the banking industry. The people receive a mere pittance in the form of interest on their savings, while the industry pays millions for lobbying efforts. What is the rate you receive on your savings? What is the rate on your mortgage or other loan? What is the dollar amount from the industry in the form of campaign contributions? What would your rate be if not for paying lobbyists and campaign contributions. The banking industry looks out for the interest of the industry not those who use the banks.

Politicians look out for their political careers not those they are supposed to represent. Or do they? If this is a representative republic just who do the congress critters represent? It sure aint me and you. They represent their moneyed interests.

Now that President Trump has brought this non-sense to an end the congress critters are screaming in agony. He has out-smarted them. They now claim that millions will lose their health care insurance, the premiums will be to high for them to afford. They make it sound like they care about the common man. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It was the politicians, the democrat politicians, who wrote, passed and implemented the health care law known as Obamacare. They wrote it knowing full well it was unaffordable, that is exactly why they included a subsidy program. They did not give a hoot about your health care or your ability to afford insurance, they wanted to ensure a steady flow of revenue for the insurance industry, which in turn ensured a steady flow of campaign contributions. Please wise up.

If the politicians really cared about your ability to afford or have health insurance they would lighten up on the regulations that curtail job growth and opportunity. You do not need subsidies to afford any thing. What you need is job then maybe, just maybe you could get insurance through an employer sponsored health care plan, a group plan. Do you want a job or a subsidy?

While I am on the subject of ending subsidies, all of them should be ended. Welfare included. I am of the opinion that “If you don’t work you don’t eat. I said dont not cant. There was a time in which the community and the associated Churches helped those that had fallen on hard times. There were even private charities that were equipped to help those that could not work long-term. The problem now is that government has caused such a demand for assistance that the Churches, communities and private charities can no longer keep up.

The child credit on the tax forms should be eliminated. I am personally tired of seeing and hearing from people that they got their “tax refund” check and it was more than they paid in in taxes. A tax refund is when you get a little bit back when the government took a bit too much. A “refund” is not when you get back more than the government took from you. What you received was a welfare check and nothing more. It was money they never earned, nor were entitled too. I have even heard some say that they did not deserve the “refund”. They did not return the money, they spent the money and in some cases on the damnedest things imaginable. They could afford the things they bought not by their own efforts, but because of the efforts of others. Before the government could give them anything it first had to be taken from another.

One more thing. Maybe those enlightened individuals in congress should read a short story. “It is not yours to give”.

I might as well end with this. I would like to see the day come when those that received money from the government they had neither earned or were entitled to send the money back. What the government calls “entitlements” are just welfare payments. You are entitled to what you earn and nothing more. If you feel that you are entitled to more, go earn it. Be independent not dependent. Mark those welfare checks return to sender, if you have the courage.

I have a hunch that Dixie, The Confederate States of America would not have become a welfare state.

DEO VINDICE
God Bless Dixie.
God Bless the South.
God bless the State of Florida.

What was right in 1776 was right in 1861 and is right today.

Knee-jerk reactions

Posted on by

Before getting started I wish to offer my condolences and sympathies to the victims of the Las Vegas shooting as well as their family members, friends and co-workers. I also wish to express my thanks to the first responders and to all of those at the concert who assisted the wounded and injured. You all are in my thoughts and prayers.

As with the previous posts this post will cover a lot of ground and the same still applies.

It did not take long for the usual cast of clowns to surface, as usual. All of a sudden every Tom, Dick and Harry is an expert on everything from mass-shootings to ballistics. We unfortunately live a world of instant gratification. Answers to questions are not being answered fast enough to some, so in the absence of fact they interject theory. As usual the media is there shoving their confounded microphones in the face of survivors and the family members of victims, seeking to be first with a story any story. The investigation is ongoing and may take some time. Be patient and wait for the facts and report on that. Give those who lost family members time to grieve and give the wounded and injured time to heal.

Emotions are running high after the shooting in Las Vegas, and that is exactly what the usual cast of clowns count on an emotional response. It is always the same after any tragedy or disaster occurs. That which can be politicized will be politicized, but they must strike while the iron is hot. The facts do not matter, what does matter is politicizing the event as soon as possible. That and capitalizing on emotions.

So let me address the anti-gun crowd, the ones that are usually identified as being on the left. They demand more stringent gun control laws, and their supporters cheer them own. They claim that gun violence must end, but guns themselves are not violent, they are an inanimate object. Guns are no more violent than a knife, a car, a hammer, an axe or any other inanimate object. But if a person who is hell-bent on doing harm can get his/her hands on any inanimate object he/she can use that object to bring about destruction and death, if he/she chooses too.

So let us talk about laws for a minute. It seems that the enlightened clowns that write legislation think that they can eventually pass a piece of legislation that a criminal will obey. There is already a law on the books against murder, but that law does not prevent murder. The prisons and jails are full of people who could not bring themselves to obey the laws already on the books. No law passed has yet to have the desired effect on the criminal element. Law-abiding people obey laws, law breakers do not.

I have to ask this. Why must the enlightened clowns further restrict the rights of the law-abiding citizen in a vain attempt to have an effect on criminal activity? Name me just one law that could have been enacted that would/could have prevented the carnage in Las Vegas. You cant can you? But your knee-jerk reaction is to think you can. You pass laws banning high-capacity magazines, the criminals still possess high-capacity magazines. You pass laws saying don’t do this or that and still the criminals do what they want.

God, Himself wrote the First Laws, the Ten Commandments, on tablets of stone and gave them to Moses and the people. God said “don’t murder” and still people murder. Those laws were set in stone. Does congress think they have more sway than God?

For arguments sake, let’s say that by some stroke of luck you are able to repeal the Second Amendment. What would that do for you? Nothing. Now let us say that you pass and enact legislation to ban all firearms, privately owned firearms that is. What does that do for you? Little to nothing. Now let us say you pass legislation that all privately owned firearms must be surrendered within so many days. What does that do for you? Again little to nothing. Sure some will surrender their firearms but most will/would not. Now you have created an even bigger problem for yourselves, sort of another unintended consequence. You really have no idea how many firearms are in this country. Do you? How will/would you know if all of them were surrendered? You would not would you? Not only do you not know for sure just how many firearms there are you also have no idea how much ammunition for those firearms there is. What you would have done in this instance would be to force the people to make a choice. A choice to remain law-abiding citizens or to become law-breaking citizens.

Let us now say that you did repeal the Second Amendment and pass the required legislation. How would you enforce that legislation? Even if the tidy sum of one million firearms were surrendered, you would have to assume that there were many more. What would you do about them? You only have two possible courses of action. Forget about the possibility that many more firearms were still in the hands of private owners. Or go to every home in America and kick-in the front door and search the residence for banned firearms. Some people are not going to take kindly to option two. You created yet another problem.

I might point out one other little item for you. There is the distinct possibility that some States will refuse to comply with a Federal action of this nature. They will simply say that that Federal Law does not apply in that particular State, simply ignoring federal law. Effectively Nullifying federal law within the boundaries of that State and there may be more than one. You will have no choice but to send in federal agents and forces to enforce your federal law. Now you have a really big problem.

No wait, you can not send in federal agents and forces to enforce federal law. You already have several states ignoring, Nullifying, federal law. You have several states that have passed laws allowing the recreational use of marijuana, which also allows for the possession of marijuana. You did not send in federal forces to force the states back into compliance with federal drug laws. Oh, and don’t forget about the states, counties and cities that are ignoring federal immigration laws by providing sanctuary to person illegally in this country. If the federal government took no action when several states ignored federal law and did what they wanted, how could the federal government justify going into a state to enforce one law while ignoring the nullification of others?

No, you will not repeal the Second Amendment, or pass/enact legislation to prohibit the private ownership of firearms, unless you want a repeat of 1860/1861. If you had any intention of doing so you would have done it when the democrats had the House, Senate and the White House, 2008-2010. Quit lying to the people. You only seek campaign donations. Pandering to your base, pretty much the same as the republicans.

What you will do is to pass more meaningless laws, and some of those laws have/had unintended consequences as well. You will likely propose legislation that bans the manufacture, sale and possibly the possession of stocks that reset the trigger of a semi-automatic rifle that allows for rapid fire. You may also ban the manufacture, sale and possession of certain other items that enhance the performance of semi-automatic weapons. You may also propose legislation that requires the registration of certain types of firearms or possibly all firearms. You will only have an effect on the law-abiding population. The criminal element will obey your new laws the same way they did the past gun control legislation.

Now let us address the above possibilities. You could, I suppose introduce legislation that prohibits the manufacture and sale of certain performance enhancement parts for firearms. But when it comes to possession of them you find yourselves in the same predicament you did about firearms and ammunition just don’t know how many there are and exactly who has possession of them. You once again find yourselves having to kick-in every front door in America, and again some people will not take to kindly to that. Now let us talk registration, just like when I addressed surrendering them some will comply most wont. You would have again made law-breakers out of those that are normally law-abiding. Then again you could/would be faced with the possibility that some States will not enforce your federal law. Again 1860/1861.

Now let us talk about the absurdity of the left. You seek to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens when it comes to private ownership of firearms, but nothing you do effects in the least the criminal element. You do this in the name of ending gun violence, not in the name of crime control or prevention. There are facts that prove that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens equals less crime. More guns equals less crime, well that goes against your agenda. Doesn’t it? You do this in the noble cause of protecting the public, which sounds fine to some, they actually believe you care. But at the same time you block attempts to protect the most vulnerable, the unborn. When a State attempts to restrict abortion, you throw a tantrum saying that the rights of the woman are being trampled. You seek to place controls and restrictions on legal and lawful citizens and the private ownership of firearms, while at the same time you seek to remove controls and restrictions on abortions. A person is no less dead from a gunshot as an abortion. Murder is murder. You get campaign donations from both groups, anti-gun and pro-abortion. Freaking hypocrites. You protect the rights of the woman, you ignore and deny rights of the unborn. You manufacture/protect non-existent rights of illegal immigrants, while trampling the rights, very much existent rights, of the legal and lawful.

Now let me for just a minute go to some on the right, normally seen as pro-gun. One, a radio talk show host, said something has to be done. Here are the suggestions offered by that individual. Place metal detectors in the lobbies of all motels. TSA screeners in every motel. The host even went so far as to call the shooter a “cracker”. You have got to be kidding me. This character in the name of security is willing to give away liberty, he may well get his wish. He removed his mask. You get groped to fly, you may soon get groped to stay in a motel. There may come a time when you and I will have no liberties at all, everything would have been traded for a little security, and will have neither. He is not the only reacting from emotion instead of logic. If I may I would like to make one more point. The carnage in Las Vegas would have continued on until the shooter ran out of ammunition had not good guys with guns arrived.

We may find out because of this latest tragedy that there is only one political party in America. The radical left and their allies past and present have been long in the process of destroying what remains of this Republic. They have but one plan and that is to turn this Republic into some kind of Socialist/Communist Utopia. They are the new Jacobins, the ends justify the means. They have no concern as to the cost to reach their goal. One of them may/will become the new Robespierre.

I dont have the answer as to why the shooter did what he did. I dont even have an idea of what to do to prevent it from happening again, most likely there is nothing that can be done. But, I do know exactly what not to do. Placing restrictions on the law-abiding citizens is not the answer and will not prevent future occurrences of this type.

When a wolf comes to the door I would like to have some wolf repellant. Calling animal control will not keep a wolf from your door, by the time animal control arrives the wolf would have done what wolves do and most likely be long gone. Animal control will bring with him/her exactly what I should have had.